of God's Will to Men. In Deuteronomy he left it thus written And the Lord said unto me I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like unto thee and I will put my Word in his Mouth and he shall speak unto them those things which I shall command him And whosoever shall not hear those things which that Prophet shall speak in my Name I will punish him for it God declared even by the Law giver himself that he would send his own Son that is a Living and Present Law and would abrogate that Old Law given by a Mortal Man that he might by him who should be Eternal again Confirm and Ratifie the Eternal Law Thus he and whoever is acquainted with the Writings of Lactantius may I think easily perceive that by the Eternal Law he meant the Everlasting Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace which the Eternal Christ hath Confirmed and Ratified by his Blood shedding and Death This may appear yet clearer to some Persons from Matth. 17.5 And behold a Voice out of the Cloud which said This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Where again We have 1. A Supernatural Revelation of Christ as the Son of God 2. We have a positive Command of God to hear him that is to believe on him and obey him as the word hear signifies according to the Hebrew idiom Now this Voice out of the Cloud was not the Voice of the Law of Nature but of the Father as such speaking by supernatural Revelation nor was this a Command of the Law of Nature but it was a positive Command of God as the Authour of Grace which positive Command recorded in Scripture is to us Christians a positive Law whatever it be to Unbelievers It is a positive Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ by the Evidence of Supernatural Revelation applying the Veracity and Authority of God to our Consciences Such it was to Melancthon one of our first Reformers who often hath recourse to it as a Command of the Gospel distinct from the Natural Moral Law Particularly he hath recourse to it twice in his Answer to the 22th Article of the Bavarian Inquisition And as the foresaid Supernatural Revelations carryed in them a Positive Command expresly so the first obscurer Revelation of that kind that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents Head Gen. 3.15 implyed the like Positive Command to believe in Christ to come though it be not so express in the first Written Record as it is conveyed down to us We have no ground to believe that God said not one word more to our First Parents after the Fall than what we find expresly written in the Third of Genesis And suppose he did not say one word more as on the other hand no Man can prove that he did Yet there is a Promise of Mercy to be shewed unto Fallen Man by means of the Seed of the Woman as is confest Now Melancthon has told us as he was quoted before That (m) Quoties igitur de misericordiâ dicitur intelligendum est fidem requiri Melanct. Apol. og pro Aug. Confess p. 116. As often as there is mention made of Mercy to wit saving Mercy by Christ we must understand that Faith is required But I insist not on that It is sufficient to our purpose that we now have a Supernatural clear Revelation of Christ See Acts 16.31 with a clear express positive Command to believe on him and that distinct from the Natural Moral Law And this express positive Command Hear ye him believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved is to us an Evangelical Law which hath more Power over our Consciences than Ten Thousand such little Sophismes set off with a Rhetorical Flourish of Words as are offered us to prove That we are not obliged to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation by the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace but only by the Natural Moral Law Thirdly As the Opinion under Consideration is not true because contrary to plain Scripture so it is of worse consequence to Religion than my Reverend Brother seems to be aware of For if there be no Positive Law in the Gospel distinct from the Natural Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ because if there were then the Natural Moral Law would not be perfect and prescribe all Duty nor would God be Infinitely Wise it follows by the same reason that there is no positive Law at all which obligeth us to any other Duty and indeed by this Flacian Opinion he plainly overthrows all Positive Laws and therewith all Instituted Worship And he is mistaken if he think to prevent and remedy this by reducing all to the Natural Moral Law For 1. If there be no Positive Law at all then it can never be reduced to the Natural Moral Law For a thing that is not at all cannot be reduced to a thing that really is 2. The Natural Moral Law would never oblige us to any the least part of Positive Instituted Worship if we were not first in order of Nature obliged to it by the positive Will of God instituting it and by the Institution it self immediately obliging us to the observance of it Once take away the Obligation that arises immediately from the positive Institution and the Law of Nature the Moral Natural Law will never take hold of our Consciences to oblige us thereunto For it is by means of the Special Positive Law that the General Natural Law obliges to such and such particular kind of things which fall not under the Commands of the general Natural Law Is it not very evident that though Adam before he sinned had the Moral Natural Law in its full perfection yet it would never have obliged his Conscience to forbear Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil more than any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden If to the General Natural Law God had not super-added a particular positive Law forbidding him under pain of Death to eat of the Fruit of that Tree So that it was this New Positive Law which first obliged him not to eat of it and then by Vertue of that The Moral Natural Law strictly obliged him likewise not to eat of it And this holds Universally with respect to every thing that depends on the Arbitrary Will of God to make it our Duty or not It is his Positive Law signifying his Will and Pleasure that first obliges us and then by vertue thereof God's General Natural Law obliges us also and not otherwise So that upon this absurd Principle if it should prevail amongst us we must all turn Seventh day-Men and Quakers for we shall never be able to prove by any or all of the Ten Commandments without a Positive Law expresly or implicitly instituting them and still in force That the First Day of the Week is the Christian Sabbath That we ought to be Baptized
to love Mercy and to walk humbly with thy God And now let us hear what Mr. Danson saith upon this Danson's Synopsis of Quakerisme p. 49. His Words are these Because God designs to take away glorying in Justification Faith in God through the Messias is called a walking humbly with God Micah 6.8 That it does relate to the Law of Faith and but only by consequence if at all not directly to the Law of Providence or submission to afflictions I am induced to believe upon these two grounds 1. Because otherwise God returns no Answer which he seems plainly to design to the Query what the Lord will be pleased with or what satisfaction shall be given him for Israels Sin which is the Sum of the Questions ver 7. Will the Lord be pleased c. But understanding it thus there is a plain Answer viz. I do not expect any Righteousness of thy Gift but of thy Acceptance or thus I shall not be pleased with any Righteousness which thou bringest unless it be what I have first bestowed on thee by Faith 2. The Pride of Mans Heart makes him as loath to accept of a Righteousness freely offered him as to accept of the Punishment of his Iniquity justly inflicted It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant as he that hath set up for himself sometime is to turn an Apprentice And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility to accept of Gods Righteousness as of Chastisements for Sin Thus he In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works but the Gospel of Grace to the Israelites who desired to be informed by what means they might obtain God's favour And particularly this is the Voice of the Gospel and Law of Faith The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God And surely that is a Precept requiring a Duty if ever there was a Precept in the World Now if one part of the Prophets answer be the Gospel of Grace who that is afraid to wrest God's word to his own destruction dare say the other part of it is the Law of Works Since the whole answer to the Question is short and both parts of it pronounced with one breath By what certain mark may we know which part is Law and which is Gospel if both be not Gospel Nay if one part of the Answer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works that by complying with its Terms they may find Grace and Favour with God Doth not the Prophet seem to seduce them from the only righâ— way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour to wit by Faith in the Messias his Righteousness and to teach them to trust in and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works and to seek Peace and Reconciliation with God in part at least by their own Works of Righteousness or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works If the Prophets answer to their question What they should do to be Reconciled unto God Tell them that they must comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works and of the Gospel of Grace He doth in effect teach them to seek for Justification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal and by the New Gospel-Covenant that is both by their own Righteousness and also by anothers Righteousness to wit Christ's And then who could well blame them if they took his Advice and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord For avoiding of this inconvenience I for my part do think that if part then the whole Answer of the Prophet in ver 8. was Gospel and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Gospel-Covenant to be done on their part that they might obtain Justification and Salvation to wit first though it be last mentioned that by Faith they should walk humbly with their God for obtaining Justification and Reconcilation 2. That from a Principle of Faith they should do justly and love Mercy that they might declare their Thankfulness to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Christ and also that they might be fitted qualified and prepared to receive more Grace even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness and Sacrifice of the Messias Thus I have proved by Divine Testimony out of the Old Testament That the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Administration had Precepts belonging to it and required Duty of the Confederate People of God But it may be some will say That though that be true yet the case is altered and now the Gospel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Administration hath not one Precept and requires no Duty at all My Answer is 1. That that cannot be for though the Gospel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Administration yet it retains still and can never change its Essential Form and that is that it requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification and sincere Obedience to all God's Commandments which are in force and not Abrogated in order to Glorification and Consummate Salvation 2 I Answer That it 's Clear as the Light from the New Testament That the Gospel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts and requires Duty of Christians which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Testimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Testament And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28 29.30 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest Testimonies out the New Testament Take my Yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your Souls For my Yoke easie and my Burden is light In which words there is not only a Command that all Distressed Souls believe and by Faith come unto Christ the Son unto whom the Father hath delivered all things and an Encouraging Promise of Rest to all that come to all that sincerely believe in Christ But 2. There is a Command laid upon Believers to take upon them Christ's Yoke and to learn Meekness and Humility of him and what else is the meaning of that but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example By Christ's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing but what includes his Precepts and Commandments Now Christ's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden cannot possibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as such that is Precepts requiring Perpetual Personal Sinless Obedience as the Indispensable Means and Condition of Life and Happyness For 1. Christ here speaks not simply as God but as the Son of God Incarnate and as the Mediator between God and Men the Mediator of the New Covenant and as such
to be corrupted but to dissipate the Darkness that hath been cast upon it 2 Cor. 2 1â— and to set the Truth of it in a clear Light But with what success I have done this in the following Writing it is not expedient for me to declare Let others now judge of that matter as they may be concerned and as they will answer to God and their own Conscience The INDEX Chap. I. HIS gross Mistake in stating the Controversie How it ought to be stated Page 1 2. Chap. II. What only was inferred from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture From the word Law its signifying a Doctrine not proved that it signifies nothing but a speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires neither Faith nor Repentance The contrary proved from Isa 2.3 Acts 16.31 from Buxtorf and partly from his own concession p. 3 4. From the Gospel Covenants requiring Faith and Obedience and obliging to Duty it follows not that it will be a law of Works and that Man will be justified by Works His Argument retorted The Popish Socinian and Arminian sense of the Gospels being a law disclaimed p. 5 6. Chap. III. He grants that no great weight can be laid on an Argument from an Etymology Proved not to be the Error of the Galatians that they held the Gospel to be a new Law in the sense we hold it so to be p. 7. Chap. IV. That he mistakes my design in appealing to the Fathers which was only to prove matter of fact His quotations out of the Fathers are impertinent and partly ridiculous p. 8. to 11. Chap. V. His whole Fifth Chapter one intire impertinency p. 11 12 13. Chap. VI. Sect. 1. Of several things carefully to be attended unto for the right understanding of our old Protestant Writers and the clearing up of the true sense of the passages cited out of them p. 14 15 16 17. Sect. 2. Mr. G. first set of Testimonies clearly answered p. 17 to 32. Sect. 3. His second set of Testimonies Answered also p. 32 to 34. That we do not confound the Notions of things intirely distinct in their Natures and Ideas In what sense we do really hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duty p. 34 35. That the Gospel hath Threatnings of its own p. 35 to 38. Psal 19.8 9. and Rom. 3.27 cleared and thence shewed that the Gospel requires Faith and Obedience p. 38 39. Chap. VII Sect. 1. His gross Mistakes shewed The ridiculous demonstration he would father upon me proved to be a ridiculous figment of his own Brain p. 39 40. Sect. 2. How the Moral Natural Law doth and doth not oblige to all manner of Duties and of its perfection p. 44 to 46. That the same Duty in different respects and under different formal Notions may be required by two distinct Laws p. 46. Proved that justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance are commanded and required by the Gospel-Law p. 46 to 62. How Obedience is required both by Law and Gospel And that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which require sincere Obedience proved by Scripture and by many Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines p. 62 to 94. Sect. 3. Five Objections answered Several Directions given and Mistakes discovered p. 94 to 107. Sect. 4. Gospel-Threatnings further proved by Scripture and Consentaneous Testimonies of many Protestant Divines and Objections answered p. 107 to 118. Shewed that the Office of a Judge doth belong to the Mediator and that Christ the Mediator was is and will be Judge p. 112 113 114 115 116. Sect. 5. The Gospel hath Conditional Promises Seven Objections answered Mr. Bradshaws Exposition of 2 Thess 1.8 p. 119 to 155. Chap. VIII Sect. 1. The Texts of Scripture Rom. 3.27 Gal. 6.2 Isa 42.4 Luke 19.27 shewed to be pertinently cited and Rom. 3.27 more largely vindicated Proved that we give the same sense of it which Beza gave p. 155 to 162. Sect. 2. Justin Martyrs Testimony cleared proved that he was very pertinently cited and that he believed the Gospel to be a New Law which hath Precepts p. 162 to 170. Cyprian Augustine and Salvian their Testimonies shewed to have been pertinently cited p. 170 to 172. Testimonies of Modern Divines vindicated p. 172. to 175. His way of visiting the Sick p. 175. Chap. IX The Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion again rejected p. 176. The Doctrine of Merit not included in our Hypothesis His Popish Argument answered p. 176 177 178. Answer to his Advice p. 178 179. The whole concluded with Tertullians Rule of Faith p. 180. Remarks on the First Chapter of Mr. Thomas Goodwin's Discourse of the Gospel THIS Reverend Brother in his First Chapter Pages 4 5. States the Controversie and in so doing First saith That if by the Gospels being a New Law is meant a Doctrine of Grace newly revealed after the Covenant of Works was broken wherein God hath declared in what order and manner he will save guilty condemned Sinners it is presently granted and the Controversie is at end To which I Answer That if he will grant that God in the Gospel hath not only declared the Order and Manner of his own acting in saving Sinners but also that he hath declared and prescribed to us the Order and Manner of our acting in subordination to his Grace for obtaining our own Salvation through Christ and likewise that the Order prescribed to us is a Conditional Order with respect to the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant then we declare here as we did declare before in our Apology that we mean no more by the Gospels being a new Law of Grace But he denyes that the Lord in the Gospel hath prescribed any Conditional Order to be observed by us And therefore saith Secondly What is denyed is this That the Gospel is a Law commanding new Precepts as Conditions of obtaining its Blessings and Established with a Sanction promising Life and Happiness to the observance of them and threatning the neglect Answer I know no Man that ever affirmed what this Reverend Brother here denyes A Law commanding New Precepts is a Phrase peculiar to Mr. Goodwin and with my consent he shall have the honour of being the first Inventer and Authour of it For my part though I have heard of a Law commanding new Duties yet do I not remember that I have heard before of a Law commanding new Precepts for Precept and Commandment being all one a Law commanding new Precepts is a Law commanding new Commandments I thought the Commandments themselves had not been the Object or if you will the subject matter of the Commandments themselves but that the Duties Commanded had been the Object or Subject matter of the Commandments But we let that pass the thing which is most material is that he imagines his Adversaries do hold that the Precepts of the Gospel Law are the conditions of obtaining its Blessings Now this is such a wild fancy that I doubt whether ever it came into a Mans head that
requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah its being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Chrysostom Origen Theodoret with Photius to shew that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law they signified a Doctrine But these quotations serve only ad Pompam non ad Pugnam for they are every one of them impertinently alledged against me and do not prove any thing that I deny except two words out of Clemens Alexandrinus of which by and by For 1. I grant that the Law of the New Covenant as Eusebius appositely calls it is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace of the greatest Grace that ever was as we told the World in the Apology p 28. out of Bishop Andrews yea I grant and believe that it is a pure Doctrine of Grace because it both prescribes and requires Purity and likewise is a means through the influence of the Spirit of Grace of effecting and working Purity in the Souls of Men And moreover because the Blessings and Benefits which it promises are first promised of pure Grace and afterwards according to promise are of pure free Grace given unto Men through Jesus Christ This I asserted in the Apology pag. 22. and passim 2. Neither there not any where else did I ever say or think that I know of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law doth always signifie a System of Precepts and Commands and so Origen's Testimony makes nothing against me 3. I assent likewise to every thing he hath quoted out of Theoderet on Isa 2. And 4. To all cited out of Chrysostom on Psal 49. And 5. As for the Testimony of Photius it is as the rest impertinently alledged and I am so for from opposing it that on the contrary I have my self upon the matter said the same thing in the Apology pag. 201 and there shewed plainly in what sense the Law is vacated to a Believer without being perfectly dissolved and ceaseth without being disannulled and how Christ by fulfilling and performing it hath entirely removed it so that it cannot possibly condemn a Penitent Believer who walks not after the Flesh but after the Spirit Whereunto I now add that Photius there seems plainly to understand by Law not the first Covenant of Works made with Man before and broken by the fall of our First Parents but the Old Mosaical Covenant or the Legal dark Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace under the Levitical Priesthood And so the words of Photius do very fitly express the Lords abolishing that legal dark way and introducing the Evangelical clear way of Administring the same Covenant of Grace which how it should make against the Gospels being a New Law of Grace I do not comprehend See Heb. 8.6 For to me it seems plainly to insinuate the contrary to wit That the Gospel Covenant now in its New Christian Constitution and more gracious form of Administration is indeed the new Law of Grace 6ly and Lastly We come to Clemens Alexandrinus out of whose Writings Mr. Goodwin quotes two short Sentences As first That according to Clemens the Law is the Light of our way Answ And what then doth that militate against my Principle Nothing less For that I firmly believe not because Clemens saith so but because the Holy Ghost saith so as it is written Prov. 6.23 The Commandment is a Lamp and the Law is Light It is confest then that the Law is the Light of our way and so is the Gospel too yea and the Gospel is the greater Light of the two And what can any reasonable Man make of this to prove that the Gospel is not a Law of Grace which hath its own Precepts If the Gospel hath its own Precepts will that hinder it from being the Light of our way I think that in all reason the contrary will follow to wit that if the Precepts and Commandments of the Law be a Light of our way as the Scripture says they are that then the Precepts of the Gospel if it have any are and must be also a Light of our way that directs and instructs us how we ought to walk now under the Christian form of administring the Covenant of Grace 2. He quotes Clemens saying Disc p. 22. That a Law is a true and good opinion of a thing And this he calls Clemens his definition of a Law And he affirms that this Clementin definition may be applyed to any Doctrine of Truth and Goodness Whereby saith he any Doctrine of Truth and Goodness may be signifyed But the Gospel is a Doctrine of Truth and Goodness therefore this Clementin definition of a Law may be applyed to the Gospel and it may be said of the Gospel that it is a true and good Opinion Answ This Reverend Brother by several passages in his Discourse and by this amongst the rest seems to be much in love with definitions and who can blame him since Aristotle said of old That (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ariâ—â—or 2. Metaphys Cap. 3. we know all things by their definitions And here in Clemens Alexandrinus meeting with two or three pretty words they so pleased his fancy that he presently imagined them to be the thing which he is so much in love with to wit a definition A definition then they shall be and having thus got a definition of a Law he is sure thereby to know the Nature of a Law for according to Aristotle a Definition (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristot 2 post Cap. 8. shews us the very Essence of a thing Now this being the definition of a Law according to Mr. Goodwin That it is a true and good Opinion of a thing I demand of him whether this be the definition of Gods Law or of Mans Law If he say that it is the definition of Mans Law then he knows that it is utterly Impertinent For our Controversie is not about Mans Law but Gods Law And I hope he will not say that the definition of Mans Law is the definition of Gods Law 2. If he say that it is the definition of God's Law then according to Mr. Goodwin Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law For the definition of a thing and the thing defined are really and objectively the same and differ only in the manner and form of expression Upon this I could move many questions that would puzzle my Reverend Brother to answer and yet they are such as ought to be answered and resolved upon supposition that Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law but I will spare him and only ask him this question Whether he holds that God is an Opinator that he hath an Opinion of things and knows them opinatively If he deny then how can Gods Opinion be his Law if he have no Opinion and be no Opinator If he affirm that God is an Opinator that he hath an Opinion of things and knows them opinatively Then it will follow that Gods knowledge of things at least of the things which are the subject matter of his Laws is founded upon probable
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
Justification and Salvation calling them the Precepts of the Church when they are nothing less For a free Christian will say thus I will fast I will Pray I will do this and that which is Commanded by Men not that I need to do it for Justification or Salvation but that in doing it I may obey the Pope the Bishop such a Community and such a Magistrate or that I may give my Neighbour a good Example c. Thus Luther Now whether my R Brother have any occasion for this Doctrine he knows best himself it may be of some use to him the next time he Travels to Rome But for my self I declare I have no occasion for it nor do I ever intend to make use of it Mr Goodwin did well to tell the World that Luther wrote that Book before he had declared War against the Pope but then he might have been more sparing in his Praises of it and in urging Luther's Testimony therein against me and my Reverend Brethren since he was but newly crept out of the Monastery and had received but a small measure of Light when he wrote that Treatise And yet what is quoted out of it against me doth not advantage my R. Brother nor yet prejudice me and the Cause which I defend Though Luther was not without his failings as no Man is more or less yet he was really a great and good Man and I heartily bless God for the good that was in him and done by him and his testimony shall be alwayes respectfully received by me so far as I find it consonant to the Scriptures of Truth and to the Established Doctrine of our own better Reformed Church 4. In the fourth place Mr G. quotes the Excellent Melancthon again but to no purpose for I assent to all that Melancthon there writes Set aside the glosses of Mr. G and Melancthons own words do not prejudice my Cause at all And elsewhere Melancthon is clearly for me and holds as I do That the Gospel properly taken requires of us Faith and Repentance and promises Grace to enable us to believe and repent c. And I desire no more to prove the Gospel to be a Law of Grace in our sense of the word This I shall if the Lord will clearly prove from Melancthons own words in my Animadversions on Mr. G 's Seventh Chapter and then it will plainly appear that he doth but abuse Melancthon and the People too in thus indeavouring to make them believe that Melancthon was of his absurd Opinion 5. His next Witness against me is the famous Calvin but I fear no harm from him for I take him to be an honester Man than to contradict himself in Witness-bearing And I am sure he hath already borne Witness for us in the Apology and declared that he believed as we do that the Gospel-Covenant is Conditional and requires of Men both Faith and Repentance in order to the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls See Apol. pag. 51.92 93 94 which is sufficient to prove that he held the Gospel to be a Law of Grace as we do And in the place which my R. Brother refers to and in the words which he quotes there is nothing but what is well consistent with what I most truely and faithfully cited both out of his Institutions and Commentaries And indeed what is here quoted by Mr. G. is very impertinently alledged against me For I do sincerely confess that to invest Christ with a new Legislative Power and to dignifie the Gospel with the title of a New Law in the Popish Sense of the Word is indeed a mere fiction and that those who go the Popish way have feigned Christ to be the Maker of an Evangelical Law which should have supplyed the defect even of the Moral Law given unto Israel by the hand of Moses But notwithstanding this it is as clear as the Light That Calvin did not believe the Gospel-Covenant to be nothing but a bundle of mere absolute Promises of Grace For besides what was quoted in the Apology Calvin in his Commentary on the Third of Jonah saith as followeth (h) Quoties veniam proponit Deus peccatoribus simul additur haec conditio ut resipiscant nec tamen sequitur poenitentiam esse causam impetrandae gratiae gratis enim se Deus offert neque aliunde inducitur quà m suâ liberalitate sed quia non vult homines abuti suâ indulgentia facilitate ideo legem illam apponit ut scilicet poeniteat ipsos vitae prioris in melius mutentur Calvin Comment in 3 Cap. Jonae As often as God proposeth or promiseth Pardon to Sinners together with the Proposal or Promise this Condition is added that they repent yet it doth not follow that Repentance is the cause of obtaining the Grace of Pardon for God offers himself freely nor is he induced thereunto by any other thing than his own liberality But because he will not have Men to abuse his Indulgence and readiness to forgive therefore he joyns that Law to his Promise to wit that Sinners repent of their former ill Life and be changed to the better Thus Calvin And this Repentance he affirms to be a part of the Sumof the Gospel Instit Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 19. as was shewed in the Apology pag. 95. Therefore my R B doth but abuse Calvin and wrest his words to a Sense he never meant notwithstanding the Commendation which he gives of him 6. Beza is brought to Witness against us but to as little purpose for I demonstrated from Beza his own express words in the Apology that he believed there is a Conditional Gospel-Covenant that Faith in Christ is the only receptive applicative Condition and yet that true Repentance is required as indispensably necessary in grown Persons in order to pardon of Sin And here I must rectifie what I said in the Apology pag. 95. That it may be and it would seem that Beza had some peculiar conceit That all Repentance of what kind soever is properly from the Law and but improperly from the Gospel because he said in his 20th Epistle That Contrition did not proporly proceed from the Gospel Now I confess that in so understanding Beza there I mistook his true meaning to my own disadvantage and my mistake arose from the word Contrition by which Beza meant nothing but what the Papists ordinarily call by the name of Attritio and that is a Legal Repentance which as Beza rightly observed proceeds not properly from the Gospel but from the Law But I thought that by the word Contrition he had meant what we commonly call Contrition from Psal 51.17 and which is a true Evangelical Repentance enjoyned by the Gospel But since I have learned from his other Writings that by the word Contrition he meant not an Evangelical but a Legal Repentance when in the latter part of that Epistle he said that Contrition is not properly from the Gospel but from the Law and by
G quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza concerning the Papists confounding Law and Gospel its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church is impertinently alledged against us for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel as Papists do that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural or Popish sense of that word And in our Apology we plainly stated the difference between the Law and Gospel and the Righteousness of the one and the other in so much that whoever reads understands believes and observes what we there wrote on that subject is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation that it is plainly impossible for him to embrace any of them without first renouncing some of those great Truths which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer and of the Accuser of the Brethren So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies relating to the definition or description of the Gospel SECT III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines is to prove as he says pag. 36. by their express words that when they call the Gospel a Law they intend no more by it but a pure Doctrine of Grace To which I Answer 1. In general That in a sound sense I grant the Gospel Law is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace as was said before But in his sense I deny that they held the gospel-Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace so as not to require any thing of us no not so much as Faith in Christ I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th Article of the Augustan Confession which Luther and Calvin both subscribed Secondly I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges And 1. As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Commentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai 2. His First Testimony as to the first part of it concerns us not at all for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think say or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran 2. As to the Second part of his first Testimony That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ that he forgives Sins gives Grace Justifies and saves Sinners It is very true but is not the whole Truth for over and besides that it is also a Preaching concerning Christ that requires Faith in Christ According to the Augustan Confession and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty and which is far more according to the Scriptures of Truth 3. As to the third part of his Testimony That the Precepts found in the Gospel are not the Gospel but Expositions of the Law and Appendixes of the Gospel It is to be rightly understood As 1 They are not the whole Gospel Nor 2. Are they the principal part of the Gospel from which it chiefly hath its Denomination For the Promises are that part 3. It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testament which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration but they belong to the first Law of Works or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace yet there are other Precepts for instance that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment as we have proved belongs to the Gospel And it is indeed one Article of the Gospel-Covenant that we believe in Christ Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.8 9 10. The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai 2. is impertinently alledged and proves nothing but what we firmly believe that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification but a Law or Doctrine of Faith even a new Doctrine as Luthers expression is or Law of Grace 2. In the second place he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commentary on Isai 2.3 which as Mr. G alledges it is impertinent For it proves nothing against us We grant also to our R Brother that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent And I assure him it is not my way of arguing to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine or Law of Works at all in the Scripture sense of that word i. e. a Doctrine of Works by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after 3. Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me And it is notorious that he was for the conditionality of the Covenant as we are 4. Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words as if he had said That the Law of Faith doth not require Faith But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G 5. The Passage quoted out of Vrsin on Isai 2.3 makes rather for us than against us and therefore it was impertinently alledged And it is well known that Vrsin was not against but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant And in my Remarks on the next Chapter I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance 6. Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contradict my Principles but it rather confirms them And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel See his common places in Folio pag. 219. 7. And lastly For Wittichius his Testimony the first part of it doth not so much as seem to be against me for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours neither Repentance nor yet Faith are or can be the cause of our Justification as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works if he had never broken it But for the second part of his Testimony if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justification by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Judgment of our more
own additional Threatning in the sense aforesaid seems very evident to me 1. Because the conditional promise of the Gospel being made to the Believer exclusively to him and to no other John 3.16 17. John 8.24 it cannot but virtually imply that the Unbeliever shall not have the benefit promised and that is a Threatning 2. Because the Scripture is express in the case for over and besides the Threatning for formerly breaking the Law the Gospel threatens for not sincerely repenting and believing the Gospel John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already And why so Why certainly not only because he hath not perfectly kept the Law of Works but likewise as it follows immediately because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then in ver 19. our Saviour saith this is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World and Men loved Darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil See also for this the Commission it self which our Blessed Lord gave to his Apostles and in them to all his Gospel-Ministers who succeed them in preaching the Gospel Mark 16.15 16. Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned From which words it appears 1. That it is the primary design of the Gospel that Men to whom it is Preached should believe and be Baptized and that if they do so they should be saved according to the true import of the Conditional Promise But 2. If they neglect or refuse to believe and by believing to use the Saving Remedy offered them in the Gospel against the Curse and Condemnation of the Law they shall be damned And this is the secondary design of the Gospel to threaten Men with Condemnation if they believe not that the threatning may be a means to deter them from the Sin of Unbelief and to preserve them from being damned According to this Gospel Men to whom it hath been Preached will be judged at the last day As it is written Rom. 2.16 God shall judge the Secrets of Men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel Now in judging Men who have lived under the Preaching of the Gospel the Lord will justifie the true Penitent Believer and condemn the Unbeliever and that according to the Gospel whence it follows by good consequence that the Gospel hath Threatnings as well as Promises and that as the Believer shall then be justified according to the Promises so the Unbeliever shall be Condemned according to the Threatnings of the Gospel But if the Gospel have neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise as Mr. Goodwin affirms that it hath not I do not see how any Unbeliever could be judged and condemned according to the Gospel It cannot with any colour of reason be said that he may be judged according to the absolute Promise of the Gospel For the Absolute Promise of the Gospel was never made to such an Unbeliever as lives and dyes in Unbelief My R. B. will not admit that ever there was any Conditional Promise of the Gospel made to such an Unbeliever and if not a Conditional Promise much less was there ever an Absolute Gospel-Promise made to him If it be objected That though the Believer cannot be both Judged and Justifyed by the Law yet the Unbeliever may be both Judged and Condemned by the Law I answer It is true Every Unbeliever is Judged and Condemned by the Law that he was under and Transgressed But besides that it is true That some Vnbelievers are likewise Judged and Condemned by the Gospel and according to the Gospel And therefore we said in the Apology pag 200. That professed Christians who live and dye in Impenitence and Unbelief will be doubly condemned both by Law and Gospel By the Law for breaking it And by the Gospel for not believing in Christ and not using and applying by Faith the Remedy offered them in the Gospel against the Condemnation of the Law The same saith the Reverend Learned and Judicious Hutcheson on John on the 18th verse of the Third of John these are his words Christ goeth on to Clear and Illustrate the Certainty of the Salvation of Believers in him by shewing on the contrary the Condemnation of Unbelievers whom he declareth to be under a double Condemnation one by the Law and another by the Gospel And a little after albeit the Sentence of the Law be sufficient to Condemn Mankind and will Condemn all them who have not heard of Christ yet under the Gospel Unbelief and not receiving of Christ is the great Condemning Sin for as no Sin will condemn the Man who fleeth to Christ the Remedy so when the Remedy is not Embraced the Sentence of the Law is Ratified in the Gospel and Court of Mercy For he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed The Sentence is declared Just and confirmed by a new Sentence since he will not take help And thus Unbelief is the great unpardonable Sin Mark 16.16 Whereas other Sins that against the Holy Ghost excepted because it is joyned with final Impenitence would be pardoned if Men would believe And on ver 19. Doct. 5. Where Christ offering himself in the Gospel is not received in Love but contemned it bringeth sadder Condemnation than the breaking of the Law as being a sinning against the Remedy and that with an high hand an undervaluing of him and doing of what they can to make void his pains For this is the Condemnation that Light hath come c. Thus Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18 19. agrees with us That Unbelievers shall be Judged and condemned by the Gospel And it is something strange that a Minister of the Gospel should be at this day so far under the power of Unbelief as to doubt of or deny this since Christ himself saith expresly John 12.48 That the word which he hath spoken shall judge the Unbeliever in the last day And from the Context it appears that the said Word which shall judge the Unbeliever is the Word of the Gospel For it is the Word which Christ Preached and which the Unbeliever received not And I think that is the Word of the Gospel Nor am I singular in so thinking For Calvin was of the same mind as is evident from what he writes in his Commentary on John 12.48 Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quà m dum illi judicii potestas defertur conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit That is The Authority of the Gospel could not be more highly praised nor a more glorious Elogy given unto it than in ascribing to it the Power of judging Men. Christ himself shall indeed ascend the Judgment Seat but he affirms that he will pass the Sentence according to the Word which is now Preached The
Divines of the Westminster Assembly follow Calvin for thus they write in their Annotations on John 12.48 The word that I have spoken The Doctrine of Christ the Gospel which the Wicked now so securely Contemn shall once rise in Judgment against them and Condemn them See Mark 16.16 John 3.18 by so much the more heavily by how much greater means of Salvation they have neglected And Hutcheson follows the Assembly Men for thus he writes on John 12. ver 48. Doctr. 7. Albeit in the day of Judgment Wicked Men will be called to account for all their Sins against the Law yet their Contempt of the Gospel will be their saddest ditty For he that rejecteth me the word that I have spoken shall judge him That is The word of the Gospel Many other places of Holy Scripture evince this Truth that even the Gospel hath its Threatnings But I forbear to add any more in this place because I must speak to this matter again in my Animadversions on his next Chapter Thirdly and Lastly What Mr. G saith in pag. 40. that in Psal 19.8 9. and Rom 3 27. the Gospel is called a Law and what he there alledgeth to prove that it is so called not because it is a Doctrine of Works but a Doctrine of pure Grace doth really prove no more than that it is not a Law of Works by and for which a Man is justified and saved but only that it is a Law of Grace as I hold it to be Yet from its being only a Doctrine and Law of Grace to infer that it requires no Duty of us at all is plainly contrary to the words and meaning both of holy David and Paul For even in that 19th Psaâ—m the Law of the Lord. which Mr. Goodwin affirms to be the Gospel is by David expresly said to be the Commandment of the Lord. ver 8. And dare Mr. Goodwin say That the Commandment of the Lord doth not command any thing at all See Disc p. 9.10 nor lay any obligation to Duty upon his Conscience If he dare say so he is such a Man as it is not fit for me to have any thing more to do with but I ought to leave him to dispute that matter with the Lord God himself And as for blessed Paul did not he say to the Goaler Acts 16.31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe is of the Imperative Mood and therefore I hope it will not be denyed but that here is a command to believe on Christ Now I demand whether this was not pure Gospel If it was as I hope no Christian will deny and I am sure Mr. Goodwins Friend the accuser of the Brethren and informer Mr. Trail cannot honestly and fairly deny then I demand further Whether the Gospel doth not require and command Faith in Christ And if the Gospel require and command Faith in Christ then the Law of Faith which by Mr. Goodwins own confession signifies the Doctrine of the Gospel is a Law of Grace that requires and commands Duty to wit the Duty of Faith and not such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing at all That it is a Doctrine of Grace I never denyed in all my Life but this consequence I do utterly deny that because the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it doth not require nor command Faith in Christ in order to Justification And I am not alone in this There are many others of good esteem in the Church for Orthodoxy who grant with me That Law of Faith signifies a Doctrine and yet maintain as I do that that same Doctrine prescribes and commands Faith in order to Justification At present I give three instances of this As 1 The Dutch Annotations on Rom 3.27 By the Law of Faith that is the prescript or the doctrine of Faith c By which words they declare that the Law of Faith is at once a Doctrine of Faith and a Prescript of Faith And who is so weak as not to know that for the Gospel to proscribe Faith to us is all one as to require and command it 2. The Assemblies Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Law of Faith that is the Precept or Doctrine of Faith which according to the Hebrew manner of speaking is called a Law Isa 2.3 or by that new order or Covenant of God which doth strip Man of all Worth and Righteousness of his own and cloath him by Grace with that of Christ 3. The last Annotations commonly called by the name of Pool on Rom. 3.27 Nay but by the law of faith i. e. The Gospel law which requires faith by which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and attained by us c. Thus the Reverend and Learned Authors of the several Annotations aforesaid do all acknowledge the Law of Faith to be a Doctrine of Faith and yet maintain that it prescribes commands and requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification By this we may see that these Protestant Divines wanted Mr. G. to tutour them and to teach them that a Doctrine of Grace hath no Precept and requires no Duty But because we shall hereafter meet again with this Logick That the Gospel is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it hath no Precept of its own and requires no Duty I will say no more of it here but pass to the next Chapter Animadversions on the Seventh Chapter SECTION I. 1. THis Chapter begins with a manifest Falshood to wit That my Arguments and Citations are all established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law The contradictory of that false Proposition is true That not one of my Arguments and Citations is established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law 2. He insinuates that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a sanction because we find it to be named a Law both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings This Assertion is as false as the former and the contrary is rather true that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Law See Dr. Owen on Heb. 8.6 pag. 221. because I find it is in effect said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings And yet even this of the Gospels being said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction must be rightly understood for I never said wrote nor thought that the Gospel is a Rule of Duty by and for which Duty we are justified and saved Or that it is fortified with a Sanction promising Justification or Salvation for the performance of our Duty I hold the contradictory of this to be true to wit The Gospel is not a Rule of Duty in such a sense nor fortified with such a Sanction The preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed a Rule of Duty but in order to quite other ends than to be justified or saved for the sake of that Duty performed It is also
with Water in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and to Eat and Drink the Blessed Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come To this I shall subjoyn the Testimony of the Late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen and then pass on From Deut. 18. ver 18 19. he infers that Christ was to be a Law giver His words are (n) Dr. Owens 1st Vol. on the Epist to the Hebrews exercitat 17. pag. 224. The Prophet here foretold was to be like unto him Moses wherein he was peculiar and exempted from comparison with all other Prophets which were to build on his Foundation without adding any thing to the Rule of Faith and Worship which he had Revealed or changing any thing therein In that is the Prophet here promised to be like unto him that is he was to be a Law-giver to the House of God as our Apostle proves and declares Chap. 3. ver 1 2 3 4 5. Moses was the great Law giver by whom God revealed his Mind and Will as to his whole Worship whilst the Church-State Instituted by him was to continue Such a Prophet was the Messias to be a Law-giver so as to Abolish the Old and to Institute New Rites of Worship This raising up of a Prophet like unto Moses declares That the Whole Will of God as to his Worship and the Churches Obedience was not yet Revealed Had it so been there would have been no need of a Prophet like unto Moses to lay New Foundations as he had done Thus the Doctor Now as I have distinguished of Faith so I distinguish of Repentance As there is a Faith in God which most certainly is commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately so there is a Repentance towards God which is also Commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately This I never denyed but always believed and in our Apology pag. 200. we plainly enough professed this our belief in these words Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an Objective Revelation of it they living and dying without Repentance and Faith in the True God under the guilt of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature will be Condemned by the Law but not by the Gospel which they could not know Rom 2.12 These words plainly show that our Judgment is That Heathens are guilty of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature in that they do not believe in the True God nor repent of their Sins although they have not the Gospel and so no Gospel-Promise to assure them of Pardon and that they shall be Condemned by the Law of Nature for their Unbelief and Impenitency against the Law of Nature together with their other Sins against the same Law And from this it appears That a great part of my Reverend Brothers Seventh Chapter is altogether Impertinent and that I am not at all concerned in it Mr. Goodwin here fights against a Man of Straw of his own making and setting up and valiantly runs him down again and I do not in the least envy him the Glory of such a Victory But though the Natural Moral Law doth oblige all Mankind of ripe years to a Natural Legal Repentance that is 1. To be heartily sorry for having offended God their Creator and Preserver by breaking his Law which they are under and outwardly also to express the inward sorrow of their Hearts 2 To hate their Sin as a great Evil in it self and the procuring Cause of Evil unto Men. 3. Not to act their Sin over again but to abstain from Sin and to keep God's Natural Moral Law for the future Yet there is another kind of Repentance which the Natural Moral Law doth not by it self immediately oblige all Mankind unto in all parts of the World and that is an Evangelical Repentance which ariseth from an apprehension and perswasion of God's Mercy in Christ to all such as are truely Penitent and to our selves if we do or shall truely Repent This is a Repentance towards God considered not meerly as our Creator Preserver and Ruler but as in Christ reconciling the World unto himself and as Ruling Graciously and Mercifully by Christ So that it hath a formal Object different from that of the other Natural Legal Repentance and it hath likewise a different Habitude and Relation unto God and is carryed out unto him after a different manner which is sufficient to give it another Form and to make it formally to differ from the foresaid Natural Legal Repentance Moreover it hath another Office and Use assigned to it for it is constituted and Ordained by God through Christ to be a Condition Dispositive of the Subject to be pardoned or a means to prepare and qualifie us for Receiving the Pardon of our Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood and for his Righteousness only apprehended applyed and trusted to by Faith Now such a Repentance as this a True Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal notion as arising from the foresaid perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truely Penitent and as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ I say Repentance of this kind and considered under this Notion is Commanded and Required by the Gospel-Law or Covenant firstly directly and immediately and then by the Natural Moral Law mediately and by consequence As the Gospel Commands us to believe that God is upon terms of Saving Pardoning Mercy to the truely Penitent so the Gospel or God by the Gospel makes True Repentance to be one of the Terms to be a Condition or Means to dispose and qualifie us for pardoning Mercy and makes Pardon sure to us by Promise through Christ upon our Repentance As also It is the Gospel and God by Gospel that requires the said dispositive Condition that Commands us to Repent that we may certainly obtain the Promised Pardon through Faith in Christ's Blood That God by the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to obtain the Pardon of our Sins is as Clear as the Light at Noon to all that are not blind through Unbelief For doth not the Evangelical Prophet say Isai 55.7 Let the Wicked forsake his Way and the Vnrighteous Man his Thoughts and let him Return unto the Lord and he will have Mercy upon him and to our God for he will abundantly Pardon Or He will multiply to Pardon It cannot be said That this is the Voice of the first Covenant and Law of Works For that Covenant is so far from requiring Repentance as a means to obtain Pardon of Sin that it doth not so much as admit of Repentance as any means to such an end as we shall hear by and by from Mr. Caryll And if it be not the Voice of the Old Covenant and Law of Works it must be the Voice of the New Covenant and Law of Grace for there is no Medium no Third that can have any place here
all the Nations from Peru to Japan on condition they Obey the Command of the Gospel and Believe and Repent I Answer That consequence is false No such thing doth follow from the aforesaid Antecedent unless God Promulgate the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all those People and Nations without exception as he hath Promulgated it to us in these parts of the World For the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace being a positive Constitution of God and having the force of a positive Law not knowable by the meer Light of Nature it doth not oblige any Man to Believe it and to be Subject and Obedient unto it unless it be sufficiently Promulgated to him Either then prove that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which are the same is sufficiently Promulgated to all the before-mentioned People and Nations or else you must let go that consequence as utterly inconsequent This you seem to be sensible of and therefore you undertake to prove that God hath Promulgated the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to all Men in the world without exception a bold undertaking Now let us hear the proof why thus it is If God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said universally to Angels and Men do this and you shall live by the same rule if the Gospel is a New Law God speaks generally to all Men Believe and you shall live Here is my R. Brother's Argument but I heartily wish for his own Credit he had suppressed it and never suffered it to see the light For I think such a ridiculous weak Argument is not to be met with in any learned Author and to make the weakness of it appear I Answer 1. That his Supposition from whence he infers his Position is not true if it be understood of the Moral-Natural-Law only materially considered before God put it into the form of a Covenant by adding to it the conditional Promise If ye do this ye shall live In that case by giving unto Man the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law without the Promise of Life God had said unto him Do this which those Precepts require but he had not said unto him Thou shalt live if thou do this My R. Brother may remember that he himself in Pag. 50. affirms That Adam as soon as he had Existence was presently bound to Obey God in all that he would Command him though he had made no Promise to him of any Reward And if Adam was bound to obey God in all that he would Command him then cerrainly he was bound to obey him in all that he did Command him though he had made no Promise to him of any Reward But I hope Mr. G. will not say that Adam was bound also to believe actually that he should live for any determinate time without a conditional Promise of Life to him if he continued in his Obedience For if God would he might have Annihilated Adam again even after he had been perfectly Obedient for a time and before he had committed any the least Sin I say God might have done this by his Absolute Soveraignty if he had not engaged himself not to do it by the Promise of Life to Adam For God's giving of Life with the Precepts of the Natural Law to Adam did not of it self without the Promise of Life necessarily oblige him not to Annihilate him Before and without the Promise of Life God by his Absolute Power and Soveraign Free-Will might have Annihilated or not Annihilated Adam And therefore in giving the Moral Law to Adam without the Premise of Life God did not say to him Do this and thou shalt live He said indeed to him Do this but he did not thereby say to him Thou shalt live if thou do this And without God's saying to him by Promise Thou shalt live if thou do this Adam could have no Infallible Assurance that God would not use his Power and Soveraign Free-Will in Annihilating him He could not by all that God had done for him in Creating him and Concreating in him the Principles and Precepts of the Law of Nature have any Infallible Assurance that he would continue to him the happy Life he had given him and that he would afterwards prefer him to a better that is to an Heavenly and Eternal Life The doing of this depended on God's Free-Will and therefore Adam's Assurance that it should be done depended upon the Revelation of God's Will and the Promise of God to Man That if he never Sinned he should never Die but live happily sorever And this was not only possible but it seems to have been so De facto For in Creating Man after his own Image God gave him the Principles and Precepts of the Moral Law but it can never be proved that God gave him the Promise of Life till some time after that he said unto him as it is written Gen. 2.16 17. In the day that thou catest thereof thou shalt surely die In which words the contrary promise is implied But 2dly If Mr. G. say That by God's giving unto man the moral Law he means God's giving him the moral Law formally as a Covenant with its federal Sanction of Threatning and Promise then indeed I grant That by giving unto Adam the moral Law as a federal Law God said unto him Do this and thou shalt live but if thou do it not thou shalt die But then tho God said this to Adam by giving him that federal Law yet it is not so clear that he saith the same thing at this day to all Adam's Posterity even to the most barbarous Heathens by giving unto them the moral natural Law I do grant That together with the humane Nature God gives the first Principles and Precepts of the moral natural Law unto all mankind that have the use of Reason even to the most Barbarous Heathens yea that he gives also the Principles of the Natural Law to their Infants I say he gives them in Power but not in Act but that God gives unto every one of the most barbarous Nations the same promise which he gave at first unto Adam and that he says unto every one of them Do this and thou shalt live Keep the Precepts of the Law of Nature and thou shalt live Eternally Let him prove this at his leisure It will not suffice to say that God virtually and constructively made the said promise to every one of them as they were seminally and federally in Adam for tho that be very true and we know it by the written word or we should never have known it in an ordinary way yet it is nothing to our present purpose For now all the question is about the truth of Mr. G's words which suppose that God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said Universally to Men do this and you shall Live Now did God ever say this Universally to all mankind even to the most Barbarous Nations And doth he say so at this day And
doth he say it so clearly as that they can understand that promise of Life and are bound to believe it without a Supernatural Revelation Let my Reverend Brother prove this and I am satisfied as to that matter But 2. I Answer that his position which he infers from the foresaid supposition to wit that ergo God in giving the Gospel Law to some Men speaks generally to all Men without exception of the most Barbarous Heathens believe and you shall Live Is not only notoriously false as considered absolutely in it self but likewise if it be considered relatively as having respect unto and as inferred from the said supposition it is so visibly Inconsequential and Illogical that I admire my R. Brother did not perceive it For what Man of any competent measure of Learning is so void of reason as deliberately to think and say that because the Moral Law which as to its principles and precepts is natural and by nature's light known to all even to the Heathens Rom. 2.14 15. Is sufficiently promulgated to all mankind even to the most Barbarous Nations Therefore by parity of reason the positive Gospel-Law of Grace Believe in Christ Crucified and thou shalt Live Which is supernatural and cannot possibly be known but by Supernatural Revelation Rom. 10.14 Is likewise sufficiently promulgated to all mankind without exception even to the most Barbarous Nations who have not and who never had that Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known For my part I cannot but think that that Man is forsaken of common sense and reason who deliberately and seriously thinks and says that there is a parity of reason between the promulgation of the foresaid two Laws of nature and of Grace and that because the one to wit the Law of nature is and must be sufficiently promulgated to all Men without exception therefore the other to wit the Supernatural Law of Grace is and must be likewise sufflciently promulgated to all Men without exception even to the most Barbarous Nations who never had the foresaid Supernatural Revelation by which alone it can be known And since it is palpably evident that there is no parity of reason between the two cases and that there is no Consequential arguing from the Universal promulgation of the natural Law to prove the Universal promulgation of the Supernatural Law of Grace Mr. G. may be ashamed to assirm that the Two amazing absurdities which he mentions will naturally Spring from hence For it is plainly ridiculous to say as he doth that they both naturally Spring from his foresaid Argument or that they naturally Spring from God's speaking generally to all Men believe and you shall Live Now that this may clearly appear I will set down my R. Brother's own words pag. 57. l. 9.10 c. From this saith he two amazing absurdities will naturally Spring the one is that God should by this his new Law promise pardon and Life on condition they believe on his Son to people who never heard that there is such a thing as the Christian Religion in the world nor such a person as Christ and to whose Ears not so much as the sound of his Name ever arrived These are his own express words and in them is contained the first amazing absurdity And I ingenuously confess with my mouth what I believe in my heart that what he speaks of is an amazing absurdity to wit that God should promise pardon and life on condition of Faith in Christ to people who never heard of Christ at all i. e. To whom Christ was never supernaturally revealed at all But with all I must say that I am amazed to find Mr. G. affirming that the said amazing absurdity doth naturally Spring from this That God by the Gospel or Law of Grace speaks generally to all Men believe and you shall live And if he will prove what he here affirms he will amaze me yet more The thing then he hath to prove is that which he affirms to wit That from God's speaking generally upon supposition that he doth speak generally by the gospel-new-Gospel-new-Law to all Men believe and you shall live There will naturally Spring this Consequence that God by the said gospel-new-Gospel-new-Law promises life on condition of believing in Christ to people who never heard of Christ and Christian Religion That is in fewer words but of the same sense and meaning From God's speaking generally by the Gospel to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Christ and Life through him it follows naturally that God doth not by the Gospel speak generally to all Men in the world concerning Faith in Christ and Life through him I do my R. B. no wrong by fixing upon him a consequence of my feigning I do abhor to do such a thing assuredly it is not of my feigning but it was framed in his own head and is Printed with his Name prefixed to it I appeal to his own words for the truth of this Now if this be not an amazing absurdity let him prove the truth of the Consequence And then we shall be all amazed at his Acumen as of one who can Conjure quià libet ex quolibet and Demonstrate by a natural Consequence that because God hath generally promulgated the Gospel to all Men therefore he hath not generally promulgated the Cospel to all Men. But Reverend Sir I hope upon second thoughts you will see how you run your self into the Briers by misrepresenting the truth and by indeavouring to render it odious to your ignorant followers And I wish you may be so ingenuous as to confess for the undeceiving of the people that our Principles are not such as some take them to be and that no such absurdity as is pretended doth naturally Spring from them For my part I never said nor thought that God by the Gospel Speaks generally to all Men without exception believe and you shall live I published the contrary to the world in that very book which this brother now writes against See Apol. pag. 200. But if I were of that Opinion I should from it infer the quite contrary to that which you infer and should say Now from this Opinion if it be true there will naturally spring this other Truth that all Men generally without exception have heard the Gospel and that there is such a Person as Christ and such a Religion as that called Christian In short you know well enough that in my Judgment God hath not Promulgated the Gospel to all Men in the World even to the most barbarous Nations by speaking universally to them all and saying that if they do all Believe in Christ they shall be saved And that therefore many are invincibly and inculpably ignorant of Christ and of the Gospel because God hath no ways Revealed Christ and his Gospel to them unto this day nor doth he either by Precept Command them or by Promise Encourage them to Believe in Christ This is commonly called a Negative Infidelity which is no Sin
in the Barbarous Nations which are most invincibly ignorant of Christ and are under no obligation to Believe in him because the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which can only be known by Supernatural Revelation is not at all Revealed and made known to them but they are guilty of gross Idolatry and other enormous Sins against the Light and Law of Nature for which they are justly Condemned Rom. 2.12 And this shews that my R. Brothers second amazing absurdity doth not concern me for whether it do or do not naturally spring from God's speaking generally to all Men without exception and saying Believe in Christ and you shall Live It doth not touch me and the Cause which I maintain for these two plain Reasons First Because I do utterly deny the Antecedent from which it is said naturally to spring I deny that God by the Gospel speaks generally to all the Men in the World without exception of the most barbarous Nations and Commands them all to Believe in Christ with a Promise of Life if they do Believe in him Secondly For the consequent which is said to spring naturally from the said Antecedent I disown it also to wit That God contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness promises Pardon to all Men upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers I am so far from saying this that on the contrary I say there may be many Millions of Men in the World who cannot Believe in Christ by their meer Natural Powers to whom God doth not Promise Pardon of Sin upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers And hence it plainly appears that by my Principle I am under no obligation either on the one hand to join with my R. Brother in denying that the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace hath any Conditional Promises or on the other hand to joyn with the Arminians in affirming that there is an universal sufficient Grace i. e. as Mr. G. expresses it That all Men have sufficient means afforded them to Believe in Christ and that God gives help enough to enable them to Believe if they will and whenever themselves please I thank God I can by my Principle walk safely in the middle way between these two Extreams and not incidere in Scyllam cupiens virare Charybdin And I think it had become Mr. G. to have been more modest than to have past such a Censure upon our most able and judicious Divines who have maintained that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises as that they could not defend the Truth against the Arminians but upon their Principle that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises they ought all to have turned Arminians For this is in effect to say That Whitaker Ames Twiss our British Divines of the Synod of Dort Rutherford Rivet Spanhem Turretin Isaac Junius Triglandius Pool and innumerable more who held that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises were all blind and did not see the mischievous Consequence of their opinions which Consequence if they had followed they themselves must all have turned Arminians and therefore neither did nor could rightly confute the Arminian errors but young Mr. Goodwin is the Man that is above them all inlightned to see that the Gospel hath no conditional promises and by that means he is qualified to be our Champion against those Hereticks who were too hard for the Synod of Dort for Ames Twiss Rutherford Spanhem Durham c. Because these old weak Men were fond of one Arminian opinion to wit that the Gospel hath conditional promises which hath an inseperable Connexion with the whole Arminian System Disc pag. 58. Obj. 3. Thirdly he argues thus against the Gospel's having conditional promises The Scriptures urged by my Reverend Brother do not signify that God passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved For God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart but he never decreed either absolutely or conditionally that all Men should be Eternally saved I Answer that my R. Brother's objection as here set down in his own express words doth not at all reach me nor make against the truth which I defend For I never said that God hath passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved I am so far from saying this that in effect I have plainly said the contrary in the Apol. pag. 200. l. 21.22 23 24 25. There my express formal words are that there are Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an objective Revelation of it Now by these words I certainly meant and do still mean to signify to the world that God hath not passed his word to all Men even to the most Barbarous Nations by a new Law of Grace i. e. by the Gospel established among them That if they obey the Gospel and believe in Christ they shall assuredly be saved This objection then I might dismiss as impertinent and not militating against me who am not such an Vniversalist as Mr. G. would make people believe that I am tho I have declared the contrary and any body would think that I should know mine own mind better than another Man especially Man who knows not my principles but by my book unless he suffers himself to be imposed upon by believing the false reports of his good Friend I hope that for the future my R. B. will be so just as to take the measure of my principles from my Printed Books and not from the reports of the Accuser But it may be my R. brother will say that tho I be no such an Universalist yet it is certain that I hold that the Gospel hath conditional promises and that the conditional promises are to the whole visible Church even to the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached To which I say again that it is true and most certain that such is my Judgment and I am not singular in it for as I shewed in the Apology it is the Common Doctrine of the reformed Churches and Divines Mr. Rutherford saith If the former sense be intended as how can it be denied The word of the Covenant is Preached to you an offer of Christ is made in the Preached Gospel to you * Covenant of Life opened part 1. Chap. 13. pag. 87.88 Then it cannot be denied but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the visible Church whether they believe or not for Christ is Preached and promises of the Covenant are Preached to Simon Magus to Judas and all the Hypocrites who stumble at the word to all the Pharisees as is clear Mat. 13.20 21 22 23. Act. 13.44 45 46. Act. 18.5 6. Mat. 21.43 1 Pet. 2.7 8. And again a little after in the same book pag. 90.
from that Text to please my Reverend Brother yet the other Texts do abundantly answer my whole design and prove that the Gospel is expresly called 〈◊〉 Law in Scripture 3. And therefore it is not true which he says in the 3d place That Isa 42.4 is not effectual to prove my Assertion for my Assertion there is That the Scripture expresly calls the Gospel a law which it really doth in that very place as Mr. G. himself confesseth in Page 63. and I desire no more to prove my Assertion which only was concerning the word Law its being there used of the Gospel but not at all concerning what sense it is used in I meddled not with the sense of the word Law there and then and all that I shall do now shall be to desire the Reader to take the sense not from me but from Mr. Pool in these words The 〈◊〉 shall wait for his Law i. e. shall gladly receive his Doctriue Pool's Annotations on Isa 42.4 and Commands from time to time Mr. G. seems to be afraid that the receiving of Commands from Christ will undo men but Mr. Pool thought that the converted Isles would gladly receive Christ's Doctrine and Commands And it seems the Apostle John thought so too and therefore said 1 John 5.3 That his Commandments are not grievous 4. There is one Text more to wit Luke 19.27 which he says I urged to prove That the Gospel is a new Law with Promises and Threatnings But that is another mistake for I did not urge it to prove that but I quoted it to prove That Christ will account them his Enemies and punish them as such who do not like his Gospel because it is a Law of Grace which obligeth men to duty with a promise of blessing to the performers and with a threatning of misery and punishment to the neglecters refusers and despisers This is as clear as the light to any that reads and understands the Apology Pag. 22 line 19 20 21 22 23. As for Rom. 11.26 which he quotes I have spoken to it before and shewed how he wrests that Scripture Lastly For his wondering at my saying That the Law or Covenant of Grace is both new and old in different respects I regard it not if he had not been resolved to cavil at my words and to wrest them from their genuine obvious sense he would have found in them no cause of wondering Let any man of common Sense and Honesty read the Apology Page 22. at the end and Page 23. at the beginning and then let him judge whether there be any thing in that part of it but words of Truth and Soberness So much for answer to the first part of his Eighth Chapter concerning Texts of Scripture SECT II. In the second part of his Eighth Chapter he pretends to answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Divines which I alledged in the Apology to prove that new law of grace are not new words of an old ill meaning To all that he writes on this Head one general answer might suffice to wit That he impertinently gives his own sense of their words whereas that was not the Original Question In what sense the Fathers and Protestant Divines have heretofore called the Gospel a law a law of grace aed sometimes a new law but whether they did ever so call it all whether they did ever use those words or whether they did not use them and so whether the words be old or but new and of an old ill meaning This was the State of the controversie as manifestly appears by the Apology Page 24. line 15 16 17 c. And Mr. G. is so far from denying this matter of Fact that he plainly confesses it and moreover brings some other Testimonies to prove That the Gospel was called a Law by the Ancients and by some modern Writers as we have seen before Now this was all that I designed to prove by the Humane Testimonies which I cited in the Apology I might therefore stop here since my Testimonies remain in full force with respect to the matter of Fact for the Proof whereof they were alledged by me But since Mr. G. hath endeavoured to pervert the sense of my witnesses I will ex super abundanti consider what he hath said to wrest their words from their genuin sense And I begin with Justin Martyr Mr. G. first confesseth that Justin called the Gospel a Law and if he had been so ingenuous to confess likewise that he called it a new-New-law as he certainly did and as I proved by his express words then he had confessed also That I did very pertinently quote Justin and that his Testimony clearly proved the matter of fact for the proof whereof it was alledged to wit That new law is not a new word of an old ill meaning but it seems we must not expect that Mr. G. will be so ingenuous as to confess the whole Truth Secondly He saith That by law Justin meant no more than a new Doctrine of Grace to wit a Doctrine that requires no Duty of us at all And this he pretends to prove by the Design which Justin had in answering Trypho the Jew whereunto I answer That Justin did not mean by calling the Gospel a new law that it is no more but a Doctriue of grace more excellent than the Jewish law and its ceremonies which requires no duty of us at all Nor doth any such thing appear by the words and Design of Justin Now to clear this I will shew the True Occasion of Justin's mentioning the new law or Covenant and his real design in so doing which my R. B. hath not faithfully done The True Occasion then was this Trypho the Jew in the foregoing Page 227. had confessed that there were Precepts in the Gospel so great and wonderful that he doubted whether it was possible for any man to keep them but withal he affirmed That he did wonder also that the Christians who made so great profession of being of the True Religion and of excelling all other men and yet kept not the law of Moses observed not the Solemn Feasts and Sabbaths were not circumcised and moreover trusted in a crucified man did nevertheless hope to obtain any mercy from God since they did not keep his law Hast thou not read said Trypho That the man who was not circumcised the Eighth Day should be cut off from his People and that this was ordained alike with respect to Strangers and those who were bought with money This Covenant saith the Jew you Christians despise and regard not the Precepts of it and yet ye would perswade your selves That you know God though you do none of those things which they do that fear God If thou hast any thing to say in thine own defence against these things and canst shew what ground you have to hope for mercy from God tho you do not keep his Law we shall most willingly hear thee Thus argued the Jew And hence
brethren had asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying that new-New-Law of Grace was a new-New-word of an old but ill meaning To convince him of falsehood in this matter of fact as I expressly declare in pag. 24. lin 16.17 18 19. c. Was what I mainly intended in quoting Justin Martyr with others who expressly mention the words new-New-Law and new-New-Law of Grace in a good sense and meaning long before we were born And I am sure the words I cited out of Justin with the words of my other Witnesses do clearly and effectually prove what I alledged them for And if my Reverend brother be willing to be Judged as he says he is by any of the Subscribers after they have read the place whether he did not say true that Justin was not pertinently alledged in the Apology I now tell him plainly that he will certainly be Condemned by them as to this matter for assuredly several of the Subscribers have read the place in Justin and do Judge that it was cited very pertinently to the before-mentioned purpose And Mr. C. himself doth not deny but confess that Justin called the Gospel a New-Law for the Covenant in its Christian constitution is the Gospel and he confesses that that was the thing which Justin called a New-Law But Mr. C. Obj. 1. Justin says that this New-Law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologist's New-Law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Ans 1. What he calls the Apologist's new-New-Law is not the Apologist's it is not a Law of the Apologists own invention but it is the Lords own new-New-Law or Covenant of Grace This brother by this passage brings to my mind what I cited before out of Mr. Bradshaw on the 2d Thessal his words are When the Gospel requireth any thing at your hands which shall any ways cross your corrupt desires you are presently offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof as if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are that it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended withal c. See the rest before 2. I Answer it is not true that according to the Apology this New-Law or Covenant of Grace as we Christians have it and we have it in its Christian constitution hath been ever since the Fall of Adam The Apology saith no such thing but the quite contrary For there in the Apology I distinguish and say that this Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant is both New and Old in different respects and I affirm expressly in so many formal words that the Law of Grace As we Christians have it is called new because we have the newest and clearest and last edition of it pag. 22. lin 48.49 And again in pag. 23. lin 5.6 That it will continue in its newest and excellentest form unto the end of the world Whence it manifestly appears that the Apology doth not say that the New Law of Grace in its last and clearest edition and in its newest and excellentest form of Administration as we Christians have it and as it is to continue unto the end of world Has ever been since the Fall of Adam and that it was before the Law of Moses On the contrary any Man who is not blind may see that we hold with Justin that the New-Law thus considered is indeed the New-Gospel-Covenant in its Christian constitution and that it is Posterior to the Law of Moses and preferable to it But now tho in this respect the Evangelical-Law of Grace as we have it in its last and excellentest form of Administration be newer than the Law of Moses yet 1. It follo vs not by any true Logick that therefore it is a new device of the Apologists Nor 2. Doth it follow that the substance of the same New-Law or Covenant of Grace hath not been in the Church ever since the first promise of Grace made to our first parents after the fall as in the Apology pag. 23. l. 1.2 3. I asserted it to have been and so to have been old in that respect tho it be also New in respect of the form of Administration In which Christans have had it since Christs time and will continue to have it till his second coming again I hope Mr. C. will not deny but that the essence and substance of the Gospel-Covenant hath always since the Fall of Adam had a being in the Church of God tho it hath been under several forms of Administration and we have it now under its last newest and excellentest form and therefore as such it hath been usually called the New-Law by Christian Writers even by the purest and ancientest of them since the Apostles If my R. B. think that the Gospel-Covenant as to the substance of it hath not been always in the Church since the Fall of Adam tho in respect of its Christian form of Administration it be posterior to the Law of Moses let him speak out and see what will be the issue Obj. 2. But Justin says Mr. C. calls Christ the New-Law therefore he took not Law in a strict sense Ans Indeed it is true that when Justin called Christ the New-Law he did not speak in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative and metonymical sense as was shewed before But what then I beseech you will any sober Man say that because Justin sometimes wrote figuratively therefore he always did so and never at all properly Or that because he wrote figuratively When he said Christ is the New-Law therefore he wrote figuratively when he said not that Christ is the New-Law but said expressly as he is truly quoted in the Apol. pag. 24. That Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the New-Law-giver Obj. 3. But Justin says Mr. C. calls this Law a Testament 8 times in that page and 97 Times in that Dialogue and seldom I think not above 4 times a Law without the explicatory word Testament added Ans 1. I do not know certainly how often Justin calls the Gospel a Testament and how seldom a Law throughout that whole Dialogue for I have not had time nor indeed thought it worth the while to take the Poll but this I am sure of that Mr. C. is out in his reckoning for Justin doth not in that Page 228 call this Law Eight times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament Justin hath the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant but Seven times in that Page And as for the Translator he hath the Latin nown Testamentum Testament not Eight times only but Nine times But the Translator was not Justin himself but Johannes Langus Here then we find that Mr. C. is certainly out in his Reckoning and if he hath mistaken in Numbering how often the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant is to be found in one single Page What reason have we to
well pleased hear ye him And if there be not a precept obliging to duty there never was a precept either in Law or Gospel With what conscience then Mr. G. who knew this could endeavour to make the world believe that Cyprian by new-New-Law meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace that requires no duty of Men at all I know not let him look to that But this I know that if I my self should put such a sense upon the foresaid words of Cyprian I should by so doing not only put away a good Conscience but I should also put off all sense of shame All the excuse that I can make for my Reverend brother is that it may be he was in too much haste and did not take time to consider and weigh Cyprian's proofs particularly his proof from Mat. 17.5 That the Gospel is a Law which hath not only promise but precept 3. I Answer that Cyprian says that the Gospel is a New-Yoke and proves it by Psal 2. v. 1.2 3. and Mat. 11.28 29 30. But Christ's Yoke signifies not only the promises to be believed but also the precepts of the Gospel to be obeyed as was shewed before And therefore Cyprian held the gospel-Gospel-Law and Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace which hath both promises to be believed and also precepts to be obeyed But Mr. G. objects that by Cyprian's words as I my self have quoted them it is evident that he meant not that the Gospel is a Law which requires any duty at all For he says That it is another Administration and that by it the old Yoke should be made null and void Ans A wonderful profound Argument this is to prove that in Cyprian's Judgment the Gospel is not a Law of Grace that hath any precept because it is an Administration or a Disposition as the word in Cyprian is lib. 1. ad Quirinum cap. 11. And as it is cited Apol. pag. 25. But I pray Sir why may there not be an Administration or Disposition of a Precept as well as of a promise And why may there not be an Administration or Disposition both of precept and promise Was there not plainly both precept and promise in the Law of Moses And yet it is written Acts 7.53 That the People of Israel received the Law by the Disposition of Angels but did not keep it But says Mr. G. according to Cyprian by the New-Law of Grace the old intollerable Yoke of Ceremonial legal observances was removed Ergo it hath no precent obliging to duty Wonderful acuteness But however I will venture to deny the Consequence and put Mr. G. to prove it For I want Faith to believe whatever he saith meerly because he saith it And here I cannot believe him because with blessed Cyprian I believe God the Father himself saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him So much for vindication of the Citations out of Cyprian In the 3d place he comes to Holy Augustin Disc p. 65. And says that I force him to be a Witness for the Gospel-Covenant's being a new-New-Law Ans Dear Sir by your own imprudent meddling with things that you seem not to have throughly studied nor to understand you force me contrary to my inclination often to contradict you and to tell you that it is not true which you say And in this place particularly I am forced by you to tell you that it is most untrue that I force the words of Holy Augustin For I cited him to prove that the words new-New-Law were not new words but of Ancient usage in the Christian-Church above 12 hundred years ago And the Testimony which I quoted out of his book of Grace and free will Chap. 18. Doth as clearly prove this as ever matter of Fact was or can be proved by humane Testimony For he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and he proves it to be a new-New-Law of Grace And moreover he testifies more than I cited him for I cited him only to testify that the Gospel was in old times called a new-New-Law and he over and above testifies that it is a new-New-Law by which precepts are given unto Men. This his words testify without the least force or violence offered to them But it is Mr. G. who would force Augustin's words to make them say what he never meant yea to make him deny what he expressly affirms First he forces Augustins words to make them say what he never meant For whereas Augustin says that precepts are given unto Men by the new-New-Law he would force him to say only that precepts are given in the books of the New Testament Disc p. 66. l. 1. 2 3. That this is a force put on his words seems very evident by this that Augustin by the New-Law did not mean the books of the New Testament in which one may find both the Old and New-Law But he certainly meant the Gospel it self or the New-Covenant of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration just as by the Old-Law he did not mean only the books of the Old Testament in which according to him the old-Old-Law was openly revealed and the new-New-Law or Gospel lay hidden and vailed but he meant by the old-Old-Law the Old-Covenant or the Covenant in its old constitution and legal form of Administration 2. He forces Augustine's words to make him deny what he expressly affirms For holy Augustin expressly affirms that even the old-Old-Law had promises His words quoted by me Apol. pag. 25. Are that The Grace which is come in the New-Law was promised in the Old-Law But Mr. Goodwin in his discourse p. 65. l. 31. 32 33. Forces him to deny that the Old-Law had any promises for saith he That great light of his Age makes the difference between the New and Old-Law to be that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands c. Now he that holds that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands doth ipso facto hold that the Old-Law had no promise By this I know assuredly that Mr. G. doth not understand the Principles of Augustin and writes of he knows not well what As to what he says at the end of the Paragraph of his having rescued Rom. 3.27 From it s perverted meaning I need say no more than I have said before for the clearing of that Text. I leave it to the intelligent Reader to Judge between him and me and to Determine according to evidence which of us hath perverted that Text. He that dare pervert the meaning of God's holy word I wonder not tho he endeavour to pervert tho shamefully enough every humane word and Testimony that is brought against him 4thly Mr. G. excepts against the Testomony of Salvian as not making for me because saith he it proves no more than that the Christian-Law or the Doctrine of Grace was dishonoured by some Mens abusing it to Licentiousness I Answer that Salvian's Testimony proves all that it was brought for and that was
of the Church after the Apostles do expresly call the Gospel-Covenant by the Name of the New Law 3. Because many or our Reformed Divines since the Reformation have called the Gospel a New Law The Synod of Dort did so call it with Approbation as I have read in the Acts of the Synod See Act. Synod Dordrect part 2. p. 104. and Part 3. p. 124. and 139. and 208. That excellent Person Mr. Hugh Binning called the Gospel a New Law in his Sinners Sanctuary on Rom. 8.2 p. 72. And Mr. Durham expresly called it The Law of Grace Durham on the Revelation First Edit p. 259. For these Reasons I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law And yet if my Reverend Brother please I will agree with him upon the termes and with the proviso's aforesaid to lay aside the word New and will content my self with calling the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace But if he will not agree to the Termes and Conditions before-mentioned then be it known to all Men whom it may concern that it is no fault of mine that we are not agreed as to this matter for I have offer'd to deny my self the use of my just liberty for Peace sake and more I cannot do with a good Conscience and therefore through Grace will not do it The Scriptures of truth often call the Gospel a Law and I have proved from Scripture that it is a Law of Grace therefore I believe it to be a Law and a Law of Grace a Law of Grace that hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Treatnings and as I believe so I Speak and Write I impose on no Man's Conscience and I hope no Protestant will seek to impose upon mine I will not deny my inward beliefe of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of Grace but intend through Grace to live and die in the profession of that Faith But as for the use of the words New Law simply and without any addition of something that may explain their meaning I am content on the termes aforesaid to forbear it as Beza desired But if my R. Brother do not agree to the Termes mentâ—oned then I am at liberty and will endeavour to use my liberty as Prudence and Charity shall direct in calling or not calling the Gospel a New Law for though I can forbear calling it by that Name yet I cannot believe nor say that it is unlawful so to call it I shall Conclude with the Testimony of Tertullian who in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks tells us That in his Time i. e. near Fifteen hundred years ago and before the Roman Anti-Christ was born It was a part of the Rule of Faith or Creed universally believed by all Orthodox Christians That Christ Preached the New Law and Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby Tertullian meant the New Covenant of Grace as that which requires Duty and prescribes Conditions unto Men and promises Blessings and Benefits for Christ's sake unto those who through the Grace of the Spirit perform the Duties and Conditions prescribed whereof the main and principal is Faith in Christ This is evident by what he Writes in his Book against the Jews Chap. 1. p. 122. and Chap. 2. p. 125. and Chap. 6. p. 131. And in his Fourth and Fifth Books against Marcion c. Lib. 5. c. 3. His words in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks are as followeth * Regula est autem fidei ut jam hinc quid defendamus profiteamur illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse nec alium praeter mundi conditorem qui universa ex nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium emissum id verbum Filius ejus appellatum in nomine dei varie visum Patriarchis in Prophetis semper auditum postremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam carnem factum in utero ejus et ex ea natum hominem et esse Jesum Christum exinde praedicasse novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum virtutes fecisse fixum Cruci tertia die resurrexisse in caeles ereptum sedisse ad dextram patris misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat venturum cum claritate ad sumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissorum coelestium fructum et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione Haec regulâ— a Christo ut probabitur instituta nulla habet a pud nos quaestiones nisi quas Haereses inferunâ— et quae Haereticos faciunt Tertull. lib. de praescript Adversus Haereticos p. 100. Edit Basil 1550. But the Rule of Faith that we may now hereby profess what we defend is that to wit whereby we believe that there is but one God and that he is no other than the Creator of the World who produced all things of nothing by his WORD who first before all Creatures proceeded from him or was begotten by him that that WORD called His Son variously appeared to the Patriachs in God's Name was always heard in the Prophets and at last by the Spirit and Power of God came upon the Virgin Mary was made Flesh in her Womb and of her was Born a Man and is Jesus Christ That afterwards he Preached the New Law and New Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven wrought Miracles was Crucified Rose again from the Dead the third Day and being taken up into Heaven sits at the Right-hand of God That he sent the Vicarious Power of the Holy Spirit who might Influence and Guide those who Believe That he will come again in Glory to take up the Saints into the Possession or Enjoyment of Eternal Life and of the Heavenly Blessedness promised and to Judge and Condemn the Prophane unto Eternal Fire after he hath Raised up both Parties to wit the Just and the Unjust having restored their Flesh or Bodies to them This Rule being Instituted by Christ as shall be proved it admits of no Controversies amongst us Christians but those which Heresies Introduce and which make Men Hereticks FINIS
was awake and in the free exercise of his Reason How then it comes to be in this Reverend Brothers Book and that in the very stating of the Controversie I do not understand But sure I am that I nor any of my Reverend Brethren that I know do not hold the Gospel to be a Law in that sense We do with all our hearts joyn with Mr. Goodwin in denying that the Precepts of the Gospel are Conditions of obtaining its Blessings What we say is That God hath made the performing of the Duties required by the Precepts of the Gospel Law to be the Condition of obtaining its Subsequent Blessings and that not for the sake of the performance or of the Duties performed but for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness according to the promise Thirdly In stating the Controversie he denies that the Gospel Law of Grace or Covenant of Grace has any Sanction either promissory of Life and Happiness unto those who perform the condition or minatory of punishment to those who neglect it Now here I must differ from him and affirm what he denyes But 1. I affirm it with this difference between the promissory and minatory Sanction That the Gospel primarily and principally promiseth its subsequent Blessings and Benefits to those who perform its Condition and doth but secondarily threaten Punishments against those who neglect to perform it designing thereby to restrain Men from the sin of not performing the Condition and to bind them over to punishment only on supposition that they do not performe the condition 2. I affirm that though the Gospel promise Life and Happiness unto those who perform its Condition yet it doth not promise it precisely for the performance sake but only for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness as it threatens punishment unto those who neglect to perform the Condition and that for the very neglect of performing it Heb. 2.3 Ephes 5.6 Col. 3.6 Some I am afraid will be apt to think that Mr. Goodwins stumbling on the Threshold at his first setting out and mistating the Controversie is a bad Omen for him Then in passing from his First to his Second Chapter he promises first to shew that it was little to my purpose to catch eagerly at the Word law whereever I could meet with it in the Scripture or in the Writings of Men. Answ By this it is plain he did not consider nor understand what my purpose was For it is as clear as the light at Noon day that my purpose was to shew that the Accuser of the Brethren who charged us with Novelty in calling the Gospel Covenant a new Law of Grace was grosly mistaken and that in confidently affirming against us that New Law of Grace is a New Word but of an Old and Ill meaning he bore false Witness against his Brethren and asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of Fact This was my purpose and design as manifestly appears from the Apology p. 24. And it being so I appeal to all Men of common sense and reason if they have but common honesty also whether it was not very much to my purpose to prove by Scripture and by Testimonies of Ancient Orthodox Christians and Modern Protestant Divines that Law and New Law of Grace applyed to and affirmed of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace were not new words of an old and ill meaning And yet I needed not eagerly to catch at the word Law for it occurs so frequently in Ancient Writings that a Man who reads them cannot avoid meeting with it it offers it self to him almost at every turn And now Mr. G. joyns with us against our Accuser and doth further prove him to have been grosly mistaken by shewing that New Law of Grace is not a new word but of an old ill meaning On the contrary he demonstrates it to be an old word but pretends that now amongst us it hath a new and ill meaning By this the People may see if they will but open their Eyes how well the Testimonies of our two Brethren against us do agree The first saith that New Law of Grace is a New Word of an old but ill meaning The Second who comes to defend him and enforce his Charge against us saith that New Law of Grace is an Old Word of a New but Ill meaning But it seems however contrary to one another their Testimonies are yet they must be both believed to be true against us For neither of these Brethren will confess that they were miâ—taken and have done us wrong No they are both in the right tho' the one say That New Law of Grace is a New word of an old meaning and the other saith That it is an Old Word of a new meaning But it may be some will reply That they both agree at least that it is a word of an ill-meaning Answ True But 1. For all that agreement they yet refute one another For the first Accuser saith that the old meaning is ill but Reverend Mr. Goodwin maintains that the old meaning of the Word is good and pretends that the new only is ill 2. If these two Brethren do not agree about the word it self whether it be old or new but the one saith it is new and the other saith it is old and therefore one of them must needs be mistaken we have more reason to believe that they are mistaken about the meaning of the word and in saying that is a word of an ill meaning because it is much more difficult to know what is the true or false right or wrong meaning of a word then to know the word it self whether it be lately invented or hath been of very ancient usage in the Christian Church Remarks on the Second Chapter IN this Chapter he discourseth of the various signification of the word Law and affirms that the word Law in the Old Testament used for the Gospel signifies no more than a Doctrine To which I Answer 1. That I freely grant and never yet denyed that the word Law is capable of a various meaning nor did I in the Apology from the bare sound of the Word abstractly considered so much as seem to argue for one particular determinate Sense exclusive of all others I only say p. 22. that our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And this Mr. Goodwin doth now confess to be true Likewise p. 24. from the Apostles calling it the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and saying that it is of Faith that it might be by Grace Rom. 4.16 I argue that he hath in effect and by implication called it the Law of Grace And that therefore we are no Innovators in calling it so after him 2. Mr. G. can never prove that because the word Law is of a various signification and sometimes signifies a Doctrine that therefore when it is used for the Gospel it signifies nothing but a Speculative Doctrine or Narrative
to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
I concluded but with no certainty from the Gospels being called a Law in the New Testament that it is a Rule of Works c. It is utterly false that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that from the Gospels being called a Law He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology All that I concluded from the Gospels being called a Law either in the New or Old Testament was that our Brethren should not be offended with us for calling the Gospel a Law since the Scripture calls it by that name Apol. p 22. Next Against some Body who from the Etymology of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law had inferred that by it is signifyed a Rule of Duty enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence he says That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology And if he knows this why did he against his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah and in his second Chapter from the Derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah which signifies he teacheth conclude with confidence that Torah Law when used for the Gospel signifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all 2 Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter p. 17. conclude that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Gospel is named by it signifies no more but such a Doctrine as aforesaid because the Septuagint render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as most fitting to express such a sense Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah and consequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty by his own Confession But it seems that same way of arguing which is of no force against our Brethren must be esteemed to be of great force against us because so is the Will and Pleasure of this Reverend Brother All the rest of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Sense of Gal. 2.19 which he had from Luther and I do not doubt to make it appear before we have done that as Luther held the Gospel to be a Law so he held that the gospel-Gospel-Law requires of us Faith in Christ and Evangelical Repentance And I am sure that both Jerome and Primasius Two Ancient Fathers who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul I through the Law am dead to the Law as if he had said I through the Evangelical Law am dead to the Old Law I say I am sure that both of them by the Evangelical Law understood such a Gospel-Law as hath not only Promises but also hath its own Precepts and Threatnings as manifeâ—â—ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13 And having briefly hinted this That Jerome Primasius and Luther who all Three go one way and there think to have found the Evangelical Law yet did not by the Evangelical Law understand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all neither Faith nor Repentance I might very well pass over Mr. G's fine flourish upon the Words of the Apostle as not worth my taking any further notice of had not he dropped several gross falsehoods in giving his Sense of that Text. As 1. That the Error of the Galathians against which Paul wrote was that they held the Gospel to be a New Law Disc p. 18. in the same Sense that we hold it so to be This I say is a gross falsehood for it is manifest that those Galathians were Judaizing Christians whose Error was That Men cannot be Justifyed and Saved unless over and besides their believing in Christ and repenting of their Sins they be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses See Acts 15.1 compared with Gal. 2.4 Gal. 4. ver 9 10 21. and 5 ver 1.2 3 4 5 6. If then those Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness yet it is plain They thought that Christ's Imputed Righteousness received by Faith was not alone sufficient for Juâ—tification but thaâ— Men muâ—â— joyn to it their own Mosaical Ceremonial and Moral Righteousness as a part of their Justifying Righteousness before God Now can our Reverend Brother with a good Conscience say that I or any of my Brethren are for such a way of Justification by the Righteousness of Moses his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteousness of Christ as that by and for which we are Justified and Live 2. In Page 19 20 21 he all along insinuates plainly That we hold we are Justifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Gospel Law and that the defect of Christ's Righteousness is made up by the super-addition of our own Righteousness to his so that we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Christ's Imputed Righteousness but also in part by and for our own Works and Righteousness This is another falsehood so gross that I wonder my Reverend Brother should ever be guilty of it if he hath read and understood our Apology pag 38 39 40 45 80 89 90 91 193 196 200 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us we have in our Apology rejected and do now here again reject it with abhorrency And therefore it any do hereafter persist to charge us with this Error which we abhor let them look to it that they do not force us in our own just defence to proclaim them to the World to be Men possess'st with a caluminating lying Spirit But I hope I shall never be forced upon the doing of that which is so much against my Christian temper which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren than to discover them and proclaim them to the World I do sincerely desire and through Grace shall endeavour if it be possible and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men Rom. 12.18 And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren giving them all due respect and being ever ready to serve them in the Lord. Remarks on the Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter at the very beginning he mistakes my purpose and design in appealing to the Fathers in this Controversie which was not by them as Judges to prove any matter of right as he pretends but only by them as Witnesses to prove matter of Fact to wit That they called the Gospel a Law in a good sense See Apol. p. 24. and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning as our Accuser had affirmed it to be and doth Mr. G. refute this No he is so far from refuting it that he confirms the Truth of what I said and with me proves the Accuser of the Brethren to have asserted a notorious falshood in matter of Fact in the face of a Learned Age. Then he quotes
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises together with the prescription of the Condition to the performers of which the Conditional Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace is a Law of Grace It is a Law as it prescribes the Condition and obliges us to compliance therewith and it is a Law of Grace as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Benefits and Blessings and likewise as it promises to the Elect Special Effectual and Victorious Grace whereby they do most freely and yet most certainly Believe and Repent And that in this sense the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to be also a Law of Grace that requires something to be done by us through Grace is evident from the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. where it says expresly That in the Covenant of Grace the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme where to the question How is the Grace of God manifested in the Second Covenant It answers That the Grace of God is manifested in the Second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to Interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit c. Likewise the Confession of Faith Chap. 3. Art 8. saith That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise Reverence and Admiration of God and of Humility Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men to whom the Word is Preached do not obey the Gospel and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it In Rom. 10.16 the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief as the Effect from the Cause See also 2 Thess 1.7 8 9. 1 Pet. 4.17 from all which it is evident that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace to the People of God And I hope my R Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also Secondly It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing which doth indeed contain whatever is essential to the thing defined and a Popular Description of a thing which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition but then it is acknowledged to be definitio imperfecta oratorum propria An imperfect definition and such as is proper for Orators to make use of and accordingly my R Brother pag. 28. lin 8. hath these numerical words as signifying the same thing when they professedly define or describe the Gospel Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described Thirdly It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion may be and indeed ought to be defined or described one way but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As for instance For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator it may be and indeed ought to be defined or described another way so that what is not Essential to it taken in a limited restrained Sense yet may be and is Essential to it taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense Fourthly It is to be well considered and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law as they frequently do It is in the Popish Socinian or Arminian Sense and it is mostly in the Popish Sense for it was with the Papists for the most part that they had to do when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law For instance Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists de Christo gratis Justificante denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense as we also do and yet as was shewed in the Apology pag. 96.128 he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified which is sufficient to show That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense Fifthly It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word a Law of Works is a Law the observance and keeping of which is a mans Justifying Righteousness it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice But a Law of Grace is not such our Obedience to the Law of Grace is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice either in part or in whole It is only either 1. That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only such as is Evangelical Repentance Or 2. It is that whereby we receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice such as is true Faith only Or. 3. It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness which we received a Right unto before in our Justification and which immediately after this Life is given to us in the full possession as to the Soul for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience as means in order to the ends aforesaid yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works nor doth it follow from our Principles Sixthly It is to be considered that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law and meer positive Laws Now it is granted by us all That the Lord after his Incarnation did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law neither did he enlarge the obligation of it so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament In this sense Papists Socinians and Arminians hold Christ to have been a New Law giver but this Opinion we
is not also a Law of Grace which requires of us Faith and Repentance and sincere Obedience See Tit. 2.11 12. 2. I come to particular Testimonies which I shall briefly examine and give them particular Answers And 1st Whereas my R. Brother gives the Sum of the Gospel in the words of the Augustan Confession to be this That God not for our merits but on the account of Christ justifyes those who believe that they are received into favour for Christ's sake I Answer 1. That this is so far from beng a perfect definition that it is no accurate Description of the Gospel For here is no mention of the promise to give a New Heart and to work Faith and Repentance in the Elect which is an essential part of the Gospel Witness Ezek 36.26 27. John 6.45 Acts 5.31 Heb. 8.10 Nor is here any mention of the promise of Eternal Life which is another Essential part of the Gospel 1 John 2.25 2. I Answer That to take this Testimony barely as it is cited by Mr. Goodwin it must be rightly understood otherwise it will be found to contradict our own Confession of Faith Chap. 18. Art 3. where it is expresly denyed that assurance doth so belong to the essence of Faith c. Yea I fear it will be found to contradict Melancthon himself who was the Principal Composer of that Augustan Confession For in his Common places he so defines justifying Faith as to make such assurance to be but the immediate consequent effect of it whereas he places the essence of it in a firm certain assent to the general Promise a Cordial receiving of Christ and trusting in him for Justification according to the Promise His own words are (d) Sit igitur haec definitio Fides est assentiri universo verbo Dei nobis proposito quidem promissioni gratuitae reconciliationis donatae propter Christum mediatorem Estque fiducia misericordiae Dei promissae propter Christum Mediatorem nam fiducia est motus in voluntate necessario respondens assensioni Estque fides virtus apprehendens applicans promissiones quietans corda Melanct. in loc Commun loco de vocabulo fidei Let this then be the definition Faith is to assent unto the whole word of God proposed unto us and particularly to the promise of Reconciliation or Justification freely given for the sake of Christ the Mediator And it is a Trust in the Mercy of God promised for Christ the Mediators sake For trust is a motion in the Will necessarily answering unto assent Faith also is a Vertue apprehending and applying the Promises and quieting hearts Here we see Melancthon held the Faith by which we are Justifyed to be an actual and not meerly an habitual or seminal Faith and he judiciously ascribes three acts to it as also doth our own Confession of Faith wherein he comprehends the whole Nature of Actual Faith 1. An Act whereby we assent unto the whole Word of God especially to the Gospel-promise of free Justification through Christ 2. An Act whereby we receive and apply the Promise and God's Mercy through Christ therein 3 An Act whereby we trust to the Promise and to Gods Mercy through Christ therein And then the effect of all is that thereby it quiets our hearts Whence I infer that to make this definition of Faith consistent with the Augustan Confession by the believing aforesaid that they are received into favour for Christ's sake must be understood a believing that there is no other way to be received into favour but for Christ's sake and therefore that Christ is to be received and trusted in only for that end Without this favourable interpretation that Aushurgh Confession as cited by my R. Brother will be found to contradict our own Confession of Faith which is more exact and perfect And even to contradict Melancthon himself who was the first Compiler of the said Ausburgh Confession 3. If my R. Brother had duely considered what in the Apology pag. 88 89. I quoted at large out of the 20th Article of that Ausburgh Confession which was certainly subscribed both by Luther and Calvin and I think by most of our first Reformers beyond the Seas he might have been ashamed to have quoted that Confession against me in this Controversie For there it says expresly 1. That the Gospel requires Repentance 2. That the Promise of Grace is Vniversal as the preaching of Repentance is Universal And 3. That the Gospel Commands all to believe and receive the benefit of Christ c. Now here my Reverend Brothers whole Book is confuted by the Augustan Confession 2. In the second place he quotes Melancthons Apology for the said Confession and makes him describe the Gospel to be properly the promise of pardon of sins and of Justification on Christs account To which I answer that this is a very lame imperfect description of the Gospel It is indeed properly a part but it is far from being the whole of the Gospel The promise of taking away the heart of Stone and giving an heart of Flesh with the gift of Faith and Repentance and the Promises of other things also are proper parts of the Gospel 3. In the third place he quotes Luthers little Treatise of Christian Liberty Disc p. 29. and tells us that there Luther divides the whole Word of God into two parts to wit into Precepts and Promises and the Precepts he entitles purely to the Law but defines the Gospel to be the other part of Gods word and so to be only a complete Systeme of Gracious Promises And then he cites the express words of Luther which are as followeth Therefore the Promises of God belong to the New Testament yes and are the New Testament I Answer 1. That if Luther as Mr. G. saith did there divide the whole word of God into two parts to wit Precepts and Promises and entitled all the Precepts purely to the Law and referred all Promises to the Gospel then it is as clear as the Light at Noon day that he was mistaken and that his division of the whole Word of God into those two parts was very lame and defective for in the word of God besides Precepts and Promises there are 1. Histories 2. Prophecies 3. Mysterious Doctrines 4. Threatnings which as such are neither Precepts nor Promises 5. Besides Evangelical Promises there are in the Word of God meer Legal Promises which must belong to the Law and cannot properly belong to the Gospel And my R. Brother doth himself in the same page 29. cite Melancthon distinguishing between gratuitous Promises or Promises of Grace and Promises that are not gratuitous or of Grace Now if there be in the Word of God Promises that are not of Grace surely they must belong to the Law and not to the Gospel if as Mr. G. holds the Gospel be nothing but a pure Doctrine and meer Promise or Promises of Grace 2dly I Answer That though Luther doth indeed say that the
Promises of God belong to the New Testament yea are the New Testament Yet it is observable that 1. He doth not say that all the Promises of God belong to the New Testament 2. He doth not say that the Promises are the whole of the New Testament I freely grant that the Evangelical Promises are the New Testament that is They are the New Testament in part And they are a Principal part of it too But what then Ergo they are the whole New Testament I utterly deny that consequence and I know Mr. G. cannot prove it to Eternity nor doth Luther affirm it So far was Luther from affirming it there That in the same place a little before the words quoted by Mr. Goodwin he says expresly as followeth (e) Hic altera pars Scripturae adest promissa Dei quae annunciant gloriam Dei dicunt Si vis legem implere non concupiscere sicut Lex exigit En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia justititia pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Lutherus de libertate Christ ubi citatur a D.G. Here is the other part of the Scripture the Promises of God which declare the Glory of God And say If thou wilt fulfil the Law and not Covet as the Law requires Behold here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all things if thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Thus Luther In which Testimony of his we have these things observable 1. That the part of Gods Word which here he speaks of is that which contains the Promises of Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all and so it is the Gospel 2. This part of God's word that is the Gospel saith unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ Now that is certainly a Precept or Command if there be any such thing as a Precept or Command in the whole Word of God 3. This part of God's Word that is the Gospel saith Si credis habebis if thou believest thou shalt have them to wit Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all Now that is as certainly a conditional Promise 4. This part of Gods Word that is the Gospel saith Si non credis carebis If thou do not believe thou shalt want them that is thou shalt want Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all And is not this a Conditional Threatning Mr. Goodwin may with as much Truth and Modesty deny that it is Light at Noon day as to deny that this is a Conditional Threatning to wit if a Man to whom the Gospel is Preached do not believe he shall want Grace Righteousness Peace Liberty and all Here then we see clearly by the words of Luther That the Gospel hath both Precept Promise and Threatning which is the same thing that I believe and from whence I conclude it to be a Law of Grace And that the Gospel is not without all Precepts is evident by many other Passages in Luthers little Treatise of Christian Liberty I Instance only in one at present and it is not far from the beginning of that small Tract His words are So (f) Sic Christus Johan 6.29 Cum Judaei interregarent quid facerent ut operaxentur opera Dei operum multitudine quâ illos videbat turgere repulsâ unum eis praescribit dicens Hoc est opus Dei ut credatis in eum quem misit ille hunc enim Pater signavit Deus Lutherus ubi supra Christ in John 6.29 When the Jews asked what they should do that they might work the works of God having rejected the multitude of Works with the Opinion whereof he saw them swoln or puft up he prescribes them one saying This is the Work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent for him hath God the Father Sealed But you may say How did Luther come to say that the Promises are the Gospel if the Gospel hath Precepts as well as Promises I Answer Luther said so because in his Judgment the Gospel hath not only absolute but Conditional Promises and the conditional promise of God in the Gospel alwayes implyes a Precept which prescribes the Condition Besides That the Promises absolute and conditional are the principal part of the Gospel and he might well enough give it its Denomination from the principal part especially when at the same time he so expressed his Sense as to shew that he intended not to exclude all Precepts and Threatnings from belonging to the Gospel Covenant Thus the Learned and Pious Rutherford Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened Part 1. Chap. 26. p. 21.5 The Covenant of Grace saith he Though it want not Precepts especially it is his Command that we believe in the Son of God yet stands most by Promises and this Covenant gets the Name of a Promise or the Promise Acts 2.39 Rom. 9.8 compared with Acts 3.25 Gen. 12.3 This may suffice for answer to what my R Brother quotes out of that small Tract of Luther concerning Christian Liberty which though Mr. Goodwin doth most highly commend and praise yet I hope he would not have us to practice the Liberty there allowed in its full latitude For assuredly that little Book if we should follow its advice would set us beyond Canterbury and teach us how we might be the Popes Humble Servants without any danger to our Souls provided we be as we most certainly are fully perswaded in our own minds that our Obedience to the almost Infinite Commands of the Pope and his Bishops is not necessary to our Justification and Salvation That this is true there needs no plainer proof than that which Luther there gives us in the following words (g) Si quis ergo hanc Scientiam haberet facile se posset gerere citra periculum in infinitis illis mandatis praeceptis Papae Episcoporum Monasteriorum Ecclesiarum Principum Magistratuum quae aliqui Stulti Pastores sic urgent quasi ad Justitiam salutem sint necessaria appellantes praecepta Eoclesiae cum sint nihil minus Christianus Liber sic dicet ego jejimabo orabo hoc hoc faciam quod per homines mandatumest non quod mihi illo sit opus ad justitiam aut salutem sed quod in hoc morem geram papae Episcopo Communitati illi illi magistratui aut proximo ad exemplum faciam c. Lutherus ibid. de libertate Christ ultra medium non procul a fine Videat etiam Eruditus Lector Lutheri Expositionem Verborum Apostoli 2. ad Phil. v. 6 7 8. sibi caveat ibid. paulo supra If then any Man had this knowledge he might easily behave himself so as to avoid danger in those infinite Mandates and Precepts of the Pope Bishops Monasteries Churches Princes and Magistrates which some foolish Pastors so urge and press as if they were necessary to
thus rightly understanding Beza that first he spoke of an Evangelical Repentance and afterwards of a Legal I reconcile him to his Elder Brother Calvin and confirm my Argument from his said 20th Epistle and so recover the advantage which I seemed to have lost by mistaking his sense of the word Contrition This is the only mistake that after many serious repeated thoughts I can find that I committed in citing and explaining the words of Authours and I did not do it as many do to make the Authour seem to speak for me but rather to make him seem to be in that against me By which the World may see my Honesty and Ingenuity in citing Authours But this on the by I return to what my Reverend Brother cites out of Beza against me His 1st Testimony out of Beza's Book concerning the Punishing of Hereticks That the Sum of the Gospel which is the Power of God to Salvation unto every Believer is this Disc p. 30 31. that it teacheth us to lay hold on Christ as made to us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption I own to be true and to make for me rather than for Mr. G For 1. Here it is plainly enough expressed that the Gospel requires Faith of us as that by which we apprehend and lay hold on Christ And elsewhere as was shewed in the Apology Beza saith expresly That Faith is the Condition and I also have several times said expresly that in my Judgment Faith is the only Condition i. e. the only receptive applicative Condition of the Gospel-Covenant and of Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the said Covenant 2. Though in this short Sum of the Gospel Beza do not expresly mention Evangelical Repentance yet he doth not exclude it but rather includes and implyes it in that he says that Christ is made Wisdom and Sanctification unto his People which he is partly in requiring Repentance as a means necessary in order to pardon of Sin and partly in giving them Grace and inclining their hearts to repent Luke 24.47 Acts 5.31 and 11.18 And elsewhere as in his 20th Epistle Beza expresly asserts and proves that Evangelical Repentance is required in the Gospel as antecedently in order of Nature necessary to pardon of Sin Beza's second Testimony quoted out of his Antithesis Papatus Christianismi of the Papacy and Christianity makes nothing against me for I joyn with Beza in rejecting that Popish Opinion concerning the Evangelical Doctrine nihil aliud esse quam legem quandam perfectiorem Mosaicâ that it is nothing else but a certain Law more perfect than that of Moses The Third Testimony out of his Book of Predestination against Castellio is most impertinently alledged against me For I never thought otherwise than that in the Law strictly taken for the Covenant of Works as Beza takes it there is no mention of Gods gracious Purposes to save us by Christ the Redeemer and therefore that the Declaration of that Gracious Will of God belongs to the Gospel and to Beza's Words I add that it belongs only to the Gospel 7. H. Bullinger is next brought as a Witness against me I Answer That I admit what Bullinger saith as cited by my Reverend Brother to be a true definition or description of the Gospel but I deny it to be an accurate perfect definition because it doth not express all the Essential parts of the Gospel For instance it doth not express the promise of taking away the Heart of Stone and giving an Heart of Flesh and writing the Law in the Heart etc. Which is an Essential of the Gospel Covenant adequately considered I grant Bullinger supposes and implyes it but supposing and implying in a definition all the Essentials of the thing defined is not sufficient to make it an accurate full definition Otherwise if a Man in defining a thing express but one of its Essentials he might be said to have accurately and fully defined it because the other Essentials are supposed and implyed in that one they being all inseparably connected in the thing defined And yet all Men of any measure of Learning know that it is very absurd to say that a thing is accurately and perfectly defined by mentioning only one of its Essential Parts I do not say this to reflect upon Bullinger at all that be far from me But to shew that by that which he called a definition of the Gospel he did not mean an accurate perfect definition of it in respect of all its Essential parts but a description of it in respect of some of its Essential parts Disc p 32. in which the rest are supposed and implyed And even in this passage of his Sermon under consideration it is plainly implyed that the Gospel-Covenant is conditional and that Faith is the condition of it And in another passage of the same Sermon he says That God hath proposed Christ a Propitiation to wit that he might be our reconciliation for whose sake being pacified towards us he adopts us to he the Children of God Verùm non aliâ ratione quà m per sidem in ejus Sanguinem id est Si credamus c. But no other way or upon no other terms than by Faith in his Blood that is if we believe c. And in his Commentary on Heb. 8. he expresly affirms the Covenant of Grace to be Conditional As shall be shown by his own express words in my Remarks on the following Chapter And I wish Mr. G would seriously consider what the same Bullinger writes at large in his Commentary on 1 Tim. 2.4 By what I have read of that Learned and Holy Mans Writings I am sure that his Judgment in this matter and my Reverend Brothers do not agree and that he wrongs him in labouring to draw him to his Party 8. Next the Learned H. Zanchius is suborned to bear Witness against us I confess that Zanchy well deserves the high Commendation which Mr. G. gives him but I am heartily sorry that my R. B. should so abuse that Worthy Divine as to indeavour to make him contradict himself in Witness-bearing For if ever our Reverend Brother read and considered our Apology which he writes against he cannot but know that we appealed to Zanchy in pag. 99. and from his own express formal words proved that there are Tria Evangelii capita quae a nobis exiguntur ut praestemus poenitentia in Deum c. Three Heads or Principal parts of the Gospel which we are required to do Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a Studious care to observe whatsoever Christ hath Commanded Now these being Zanchy's own express words it was very ill done by my Reverend Brother to endeavour to make the World believe that this same Zanchy held That the Gospel requires nothing of us at all And this he endeavours to do by alledging Three Short Sentences out of his Miscellanies whereof the first Two only say That the Gospel
is a Doctrine which Declares and Proclaims that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith and by Faith only See Disc p. 32. All which is very true but nothing at all to the purpose For the Gospel doth that and more too It declares that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith alone because it is Faith alone which receives apprehends and applyes Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation This we hold as Zanchy did but withal Zanchy held and we after him do hold also That the Gospel requires of us Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a studious Care to observe whatsoever Christ hath commanded To which add what Zanchy believed as well as we That the Gospel promiseth Grace to enable us to believe repent and obey the Gospel and when through Grace we do so it further promises us Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life for Christ's sake alone And nothing more is necessary to make the Gospel a Law of Grace according to our declared known sense of that word His Third Testimony out of Zanchy is yet more Impertinent to wit See Disc p. 33. That the Gospel is the joyful Preaching of that Eternal and Free Love of God this is Eternal Election towards us in his Beloved Son Christ For I would fain know what Mr. G can justly infer from this Sentence of Zanchy to his purpose against us This we grant to be true as was said in our first preliminary Consideration that the Revelation of Gods Eternal Decree to save through Christ a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind is Gospel because it is good and glad tydings to the Church But what then Dare Mr. G infer that because it is Gospel therefore no other thing is Gospel Then it seems by his Logick one may prove that one part of a thing is the whole thing and that the whole thing is but one part of it But I forbear to expose such weak arguing If therefore the Joyful Preaching of God's Free Election through Christ be not the whole but a part of the Gospel then though this part do not require Faith and Repentance yet another part of it may and really doth require them in the Judgment of Zanchy as was clearly proved in the Apology by his express formal words quoted out of his Book of Christian Religion 3d. Vol. of his Works p. 509. And since it comes in my way to make mention of this Book of the Learned Zanchy I will here give the World a further account of it and of his Faith out of it The Book is Entitled Jerom Zanchy his Faith concerning the Christian Religion It contains a full Confession of his Faith which he wrote in the Seventieth year of his Age and in his own Name and in the Name of his Family he Published it and Dedicated it to Count Vlysses Martinengus It is an Excellent Judicious Confession of Faith I have seen it in Quarto and Octavo and in Folio with his other Works and now I have it by me in Octavo Printed at Newstad 1585. with Annotations of his own Writing upon it for further clearing of matters in it I have diligently read it and having quoted some passages out of it in the Apology I will now quote some more out of it both to make Mr. G. ashamed if possible and so to bring him to Repenâ—ance for abusing the Authority of Zanchy to the deceiving of the People and also to confirm what I quoted out of him in the Apology Thus then Zanchy writes in Chap. 13. Pag. 101. Sect. 6. Edition in Octavo (i) Evangelium haec tria tantùm requirit primùm ut serio dolore c. Zanch de Relig. Christ Cap. 13. p. 101. Sect. 6. The Gospel requires only these three things First That being touched with a serious grief c. as quoted in the Apology p. 99. And in the next Page to wit 102. he adds (k) Ad tria autem omnia Christi mandata referuntur nimirum ut abnegatâ impietate saecularibus desideriis sobrie quoad nos juste quoad proximum piè quoad Deum vivamus in hoc saeculo expectantes bonam spem adventum Gloriae Magni Dei. Hanc credimus summam esse corum quae a nobis exigit Christus suâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ Eòque illos esse verè Evangelicos verèque Christianos qui in horum studium serio incumbunt Idem ibid. But all the Commands of Christ are referred to three to wit That having denyed or renounced Vngodliness and Worldly Lusts we should live soberly with respect to our selves justly with respect to our Neighbour and Godly with respect to God in this present World looking for the Blessed Hope and the Glorious Coming of the Great God This we believe to be the sum of those things which Christ requires of us by his Evangelical Doctrine And that therefore they are truely Evangelick and truely Christian who seriously apply themselves to the Study and practice of those things Again in pag. 103. sect 7. (l) Credimus non parvum discrimen esse inter Legem Evangelium 1. Quia Legis materia tantùm sunt mandata additis irrevocabilibus maledictionibus si vel minimâ in parte ea violentur Habet quidem promissiones non solùm terrenarum verùm etiam aeternarum benedictionum Sed omnes cum conditione perfectissimae obedientiae nullas autem gratuitas At verò Evangelium propriè felix ost nuncium Christum redemptorem peccata gratis remittentem servantem gratis etiam proponens Nihilque a nobis exigens ad salutem consequendam nisi veram in Christo fidem quae sine poenitentiâ sineque studio faciendae Divinae voluntatis i.e. Vivendi sobriè justè piè ut supra explicatum est esse non potest idem ibid. We believe that there is no small difference between the Law and the Gospel First Because the matter of the Law are only Commandments whereunto are added Irrevocable Curses if they be in the least part violated It hath indeed Promises also and that not only of Earthly but of Eternal Blessings But all with the Condition of most perfect Obedience but it hath no Gracious or Merciful Promises at all But now the Gospel is properly happy and glad Tydings proposing Christ the Redeemer as forgiving sins freely and as freely likewise saving Sinners and requiring nothing of us in order to the obtaining of Salvation but a true Faith in Christ which cannot be without Repentance and without an endeavour to do the Will of God that is to live Soberly Justly and Godly as was explained before Now here observe 1. That Zanchy saith That the Gospel taken in its proper sense requires Faith of us and obliges us to believe in Christ for Salvation 2. That though he say it requires nothing but Faith yet he doth no more contradict me than he doth contradict himself For as he saith so I say That it
manifestly false that Dr. Whitaker held the Gospel to be such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no Duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ For in his Answer to Campians Reasons Translated into English by Richard Stock and Printed at London 1606. In Pages 252 253. he writes thus Now you Campian add The Decalogue belongeth not to Christians God doth not care for our Works Touching the Decalogue and Works Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 this Answer I Whitaker make you briefly In the Law the Old Covenant is contained Do this and live Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them The Law promiseth Life to them which obey the Law in all things They that offend in anything to them it threatneth Death and Damnation an hard Condition and which no Man can ever satisfie Christ doth propose to us another Condition much easier Believe and thou shalt be saved Mark 16.16 By this New Covenant the Old is abrogated so as whosoever believeth the Gospel is freed from the Condition of the Law For they that believe are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.14 and Gal. 5.18 What needs many words Christians are delivered from the Curse of the Law but not from the Obedience of it Thus Whitaker Whereby it is plain that he believed a Conditional Gospel and that it requires of us the performance of its Conditoon in order to our being freed from the Condition and delivered from the Curse of the Law And here it may not be amiss to let the World know that under Queen Elizabeth whilst Dr. Whitaker was Regius Professor in Cambridge there was one Dr. Peter Baro a Frenchman who was for some time Margarets Professor and having Preached and afterwards Printed a Latine Sermon on Rom. 3.28 And having therein affirmed as Mr. Goodwin doth That Men are obliged to believe in Christ by the Moral Law and not by the Gospel as his Words were interpreted he was thereupon and on the account of some other prelections also supposed to be an Innovator and he fell under suspicion of inclining to those Doctrines afterwards called Arminian and for that reason under the displeasure of Dr. Whitaker who was a strict Calvinist Whereupon he resigned his place and removed to London But they did not leave him so For there was a Book written against his Latine Sermon aforesaid by E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and Printed in the Year 1592. wherein the Anonymous Authour treats him very rudely much at the rate as some of late have treated their Brethren amongst us But that which is to my purpose is That the Zealous E. H. in his little Book which I have de fide ejusque ortu naturâ maintains against Baro That Justifying Faith is not Commanded by the Old Moral Law but by the New Law of Grace to wit the Gospel To one of Baro's Arguments he answers thus (m) O miseram caecam consequentiam Quasi verò non aliam jam inde ab initio temporum praeter hanc perfectissimam Decalogi nec minus perfectam promissionis scilicet vitae legem tulerit quâ populum suum in se credere sibique omnem fidem habere jusserit E. H. De fide ejusque ortu naturâ Pag. 44 45. Lond. 1592. O miserable and blind consequence As if forsooth God had not from the beginning given another Law besides that most perfect Law of the Ten Commandments no less perfect than it to wit the Law of the Promise and Life whereby he Commanded his People to believe in him and to repose all their Trust and Confidence in him And after he had in pag. 52 53 54. discoursed at large of this Law of Promise and Life and had both shewed it to be distinct from the Law of the Ten Commandments and called it the Law of Grace he adds these words Ecce tibi Baro Legem quâ fides praecipitur Behold here Baro Thou hast a Law a Law of Grace whereby Faith is Commanded Now by these words of E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and by the Doctors own words it plainly appears That he and the other Orthodox Divines of Cambridge under Q. Elizabeth were so far from thinking that the Gospel was nothing but such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires nothing of us no not Faith in Christ as Mr. G. would make the World believe that they rather some of them at least as for instance Mr. Perkins and this E. H. went the quite contrary way and held that Faith in Christ is Commanded only by the Gospel-Covenant And Baro who as was thought held as my Reverend Brother doth that it is Commanded only by the Natural Moral Law was cryed down as an Innovator and unsound Divine and at last constrained to resign his place and leave the University To all this I shall add That Dr. Nowel Dean of Pauls who was Dr. Whitaker's Uncle and Prolocutor in the Convocation 1562. Where the Articles of Religion which we have subscribed were Ratified and Confirmed wrote a Latine Catechisme which by Publick Order was commonly taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England And in that Catechisme it s expresly affirmed that Evangelium requirit sidem The Gospel requires Faith Christ. Piet. prima institutio ad usum Scholarum Latine Scripta Cantab. 1626. pag. 3. Now this was the Catechisme which in all probability Whitaker Learned when he was a Boy at School and it is not very likely that when he was afterwards Regius Professor in Cambridge he had so far forgotten his Catechisme as to Publish to the World in Print That the Gospel is such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ Eleventhly Mr. G suborns Gomarus to bear false Witness against me but certainly of all Men in the World Gomarus was the unfittest to be brought in to Witness against me because as was shewed from his own formal express words quoted in the Apology pag. 27. he hath spoken my Sence so clearly that after I had set down his Words and Reasons why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace yea the Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I immediately added these words And truly this was excellently said by Gomarus No Man we think can give a better account why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace Whence it manifestly appears that I hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace no otherwise than as Gomarus held it to be such before I was born And then Gomarus his own express words shew Gom. Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 30. that he held the Gospel to be a Law from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it and to be a Law of Grace because of the Benefit promised in it Both which he proved by Scripture-Testimonies Now to make People believe that Gomarus
did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
fortified with a Sanction but with a Sanction that promiseth Justification and Salvation not for the Duties sake but for Christs sake only Now both his Propositions being false no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous insignificant and of no force at all against me for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not nor is it my way of arguing And this being the case as I have truly represented it and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self the ridiculous demonstration to wit a Law is a Law the Gospel is a Law therefore the Gospel is a Law I say this ridiculous demonstration which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door returns home to himself and calls him its true Father and justly it may for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying without doubt it is unanswerable And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue as the Image of his Brain that begat it and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress or fools coat it is very easily answered For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse concerning the various significations of the word Law it amounts to no more than this A meer nominal Law that requires nothing is a real proper Law that requires something but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something The Proposition is that which I suppose he would father upon me but I justly disown it as none of mine and so I do by the other identical Proposition a Law is a Law Let this Brother prove if he can by any good consequence that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology I am so well assured that there is no such thing there that I defy him or any Man to prove the affirmative that there it is And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law because it hath Precepts requiring Duty fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false or else that he contradicts himself and writes he knows not what The Proposition then or Major is the birth of his own Brain and whether it was begotten against his Conscience as Bastards use to be let him look to it I assert nothing pro or con in that matter As for the Assumption or second Proposition he will not he cannot deny it to be his own to wit That the Gospel is a Law a meer nominal Law which requires no Duty of us at all for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book Now it appearing thus that the Argument is his own much good may it do him and his Cause which the World may know to be a very good one by this token that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered when stript of its Identical dress For both Propositions are false The Major Proposition is self evidently false when stript of its Identical dress And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat my Answer is That it is his own and he may do with his own what he pleases The Minor I have proved to be false and shall further prove it to be false before we have done And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true according to the Logick Rule ex falsis verum yet it is not therefore formally true as it is concluded and because it is concluded and inferred from such false premisses But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various signification by clearing the sense of the word Law which he says he has largely done But cui bono to what good purpose was all that waste of Time Paper and Ink since it doth not reach me at all for I defy him to shew me where in the Apology I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law from the meer sound of the word Law which is of a various signification But though I did not so argue yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel almost throughout his whole Discourse to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to require no Duty of us at all Turpe est igitur doctori quum culpa redarguit ipsum I think it had been more to the purpose to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator including the conditional part of it but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises which require no Duty of us at all If my Reverend Brother had done this he had done his work and had answered me effectually and had made me his Proselite too But I do not blame him for not doing this because it is plainly impossible to be done But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology which he pretends to answer was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law As 1. To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace 2 To rebuke him for saying ignorantly that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning and to prove by Testimonies of credible Witnesses Antient and Modern that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old but ill meaning but that he in saying so against us the Subscribers was a false Witness against his Brethren And to show that this was my purpose and design there needs no more but to read the Apology Page 20 21 22 24. 3. Further What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser I told him and the World plainly 1. That God most freely made the Covenant and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ 2. That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake if we perform the Duties prescribed and comply with the terms injoyned 3. What if I plainly declared that by new Law of Grace
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
pag. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings It is also against Gomarus who as he is quoted in the same page 27 saith expresly That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and the Law of God by way of Excellency Isa 2.3 from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it But let it be against them or against all Mortals yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned I should confess he doth his work effectually were it not for this one thing on which the stress of his Cause lyes and which he begs but proves not nor can prove to wit That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles is nothing but an Absolute Promise or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do that it hath neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother as I told him before That that is not the sense wherein I take it when I say it is a Law of Grace and I have shewed in the Apology that it ought not to be so taken nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines when the word Gospel is used to signifie the whole Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator Thus in few words it may appear that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel which certainly signifies more things than one and particularly it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace as according to his fancy requires nothing of us at all And 1. First He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs are not any parts of it self but are borrowed from the Law and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion Before I give particular Answers to his reasons I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes SECT II. AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel Let it be considered 1. How the Gospel if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law and then employ them in its own Service For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept and then employs it As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this much good may the Notion do them But to me it is altogether useless because it is unintelligible 2. Consider That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them And it was needless to prove this against me for I never denyed it but alwayes believed it and oft times openly professed it And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against he cannot but know that my R Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology page 200 and 201. 3. Consider Thirdly That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law it s Obligative Power and its Actual Obligation And it is not to be denyed but that it hath its Obligative Power even then when for want of a particular Object or necessary Circumstances it doth not put forth its Power into Act and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject For instance In the state of Innocency The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto for want of a proper Object as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none and to Educate their Children Religiously when as yet they had none 4. Consider Fourthly That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present or upon supposition and for the future which distinction differs not much from the former Thus in the State of Innocency the Law obliged Man absolutely and for that present time not to hate but to love God But it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future when there should be and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World 5 Consider Fifthly That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Duties immediately and by it self but to others only mediately and by reason of some other thing intervening Thus in the State of Innocency by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate but to love and reverence God But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit only mediately and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death For it is certain and evident That without that positive Law forbidding it the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Positive Laws for us but when they are Enacted by God and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them it then obliges us to the observance of them This it did before and still doth since the fall of our First Parents For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind 6. Consider Sixthly That God's Enacting some Positive Laws after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection and with Gods Infinite Wisdom is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law and to Blaspheme God's Majesty For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evidently true that after the first giving unto Man and concreating with him and in him the Moral Natural Law God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before
Chemnitius also in his common places not only confesses that the Gospel is called a Law Isa 2.3 Mic. 4.2 and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 but though he purposely sets himself to please the rigid Lutherans he likewise sayes that (d) Affirmativa de fiducia gratuitae misericordiae propter Christum non est vox Legis sicut Paulus clare dicit Gal. 3.12 Lex non est ex fide c. Chemnit loc com p. 219. The affirmative part concerning the Faith or confident trust of Free Mercy for Christs sake is not the voice of the Law as Paul clearly sayes Gal. 3.12 The law is not of faith Observe here that justifying Faith in Chemnitius's Opinion is not required by the Moral Natural Law but by the Gospel and that because Paul clearly saith that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3.12 i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Justification See our last Annotations Pools on Gal. 3.12 The Law saith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept yet Faith in Christ is not commanded in the Law as that by which the Soul shall iive c. Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran and Disciple of Melancthon saith (e) Fidem omnes unanimiter ad Evangelium referunt Tract de gratia salutari Edit Hafniae 1591. loco de poenitentia All Divines unanimously refer Faith in Christ to the Gospel And he had reason to say so for before the Flacians I do not know that ever any Protestant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Gospel but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation I am sure Luther was not of that mind for in his Book of Christian Liberty a little before the passage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it he brings in the very Gospel or God in and by the Gospel speaking unto Men and saying (f) En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia Justitia Pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Luther de libert Christ Lo here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Justice Peace Liberty and all If thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Here it is observable as was said before 1. That Luther speaks of the Gospel as distinguished from and opposed to the Law 2. He says That the Language of the Gospel so considered is crede in Christum c. believe in Christ And if that be not a Command how shall we know that ever there was such a Command in the World 3. Tho. Luther calls the Gospel there Promissa Dei the Promises of God yet it is most evident he did not think them to be all absolute Promises for he expresly mentions a Conditional Promise saying Si credis habebis If thou believest thou shalt have all those benefits that are promised in and through Christ 4. That the Conditional Promise of the Gospel the promise of great Blessings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Christ doth carry in it a Gospel Command to believe in Christ Otherwise it is not imaginable how Luther could make the very Gospel and the Promises of God as opposed to the Law to say unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ for that is a Precept if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God and being a Precept it must according to Luther be implyed in the Conditional Promise of the Gospel Whence we may learn this useful Lesson that in every Conditional Promise of the Gospel there are two things to be considered by us 1. The Promise it self of some gratuitous Benefit 2. The Gospel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is promised The truth of this Observation was well understood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker and therefore he saith (g) Whitak praelect de Sacram. cap 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. The Promise of Grace is Conditional for it requires Faith c. And Dr. Nowell in his foresaid Latine Catechism taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England speaking of the Gospel as distinct from the Law he saith (h) Verae Religionis partes sunt Obedientia quam Lex imperat fides quam Evangelium requirit A. Nowelli Christianae Pietatis prima Instit pag. 3. Edit Cantab. 1626. The Gospel requires Faith In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Gospel as distinct from the Law requires Faith and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up is the Error of the Flacians (i) Errant Flaciani qui in Evangelio nullum praeceptum esse volunt cum manifeste praecipiatur ut credamus poenitentiam agamus fides autem est tantùm ex Evangelio ut poenitentia quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur Sharpii Curs Theolog. Sect. de Evangelio pag. 692. The Flacians saith he err who would have no Precept to be in the Gospel seeing it is manifestly commanded that we should believe and repent But Faith is only from the Gospel as is also that Repentance which in Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With Sharpius agrees Dickson on Rom. 3.27 28. his words are these Argum. 10. Because by the Law of Faith or the Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Mans boasting in himself is excluded and not by the Law of Works or the Covenant of Works which exacts perfect Obedience and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteousness Therefore saith he we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law Thus Dickson Of the same Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn Principal of the New Colledge and Rector of the University of S. Andrews For in his Harmony of the Evangelists he writes thus (k) Pâ—â—cairn Harmon Evang. p. 274. Quisquis justificatur per Legem Christi hoo est per Evangelicam Christi Legem fidem praescribentem absolvitur Whosoever is justified he is absolved by the Law of Christ that is by the Evangelical Law of Christ which prescribes Faith And as was observed before the Assemblies Confession of Faith in the Seventh Chapter of Gods Covenant with Man Art 3. saith expresly That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace requires of Men Faith in Jesus Christ that they may be saved I might bring many more Testimonies to this purpose but these are sufficient to show that it hath been and is the common belief of our Protestant Divines except some raving bawling Flacians in Germany and the Cocceians in Holland that the Gospel commands and requires us to believe in Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation The Case then is plainly thus That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God simply considered as God and Jesus Christ being God by Nature One God
with the Father and Spirit it requires Faith in him also considered simply under that formal Notion as God But the Law doth not by it self immediately require Faith in Christ the Mediatour as the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteousness for Justification It is the Gospel-Covenant which first by it self immediately constitutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Christ Jesus to be the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation and which likewise requires it of us as such and under that Notion Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the positive Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant ordained to such an use and required of us for that purpose then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to observe the positive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to such an use and required it in order to such an end and so mediante Lege Evangelicâ positivâ by means of the positive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant the Natural Law the Law of our Creation obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediatour to receive him and his Righteousness as aforesaid and to trust to be justified and saved by and for him and his Righteousness only So that justifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us first directly and immediately by the Gospel Covenant only but secondarily mediately and by consequence it is also required by the Moral Natural Law This to me is very evident For 1. The Natural Moral Law cannot of it self immediately oblige us to believe in Christ the Mediatour unless he be otherwise discovered to us by Supernatural Revelation This I think none will deny for the Apostle saith Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard It is simply impossible for a Man to believe in Christ the Mediatour before he be revealed to him and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law without Supernatural Revelation therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Christ the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately without a Supernatural Revelation because that just and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a simple and absolute impossibility Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object without a Supernatural Revelation 2. The Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour to us doth of it self immediately oblige us to believe It doth not only discover Christ the Object but it doth likewise per se immediatè by it self immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed so that all Natural Moral Law set aside and abstracting from any such Law the Supernatural Revelation of Christ would by it self immediately oblige us to believe And that 1. Because it is Gods own Supernatural Testimony which of it self hath an immediate Authority over our Conscience and obliges us to believe with a Faith of assent The true formal reason and objective moving cause of our obligation to believe a Mysterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us is the Divine Testimony it self or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing If any Man say No it is not that but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God I Answer That such a Man seems to be pecking towards the Socinians and does but discover his ignorance of those matters John says 1 John 5.10 he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son See for this Essen compend dogmat cap. 9. pag. 284. Thes 34. arg 3. 2. The said Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour as God hath given it forth unto Man carries in it and with it a positive Command to believe on Christ This is so clear in Scripture that a Man must be blind that doth not see it if he do but read understand and consider Let Deut. 18.15 16 17 18 19. be consulted and there we shall find a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour and a Prophetical Promise to send him into the World The people were afraid to converse immediately with God after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb therefore they desired that Moses would be Mediatour between God and them This motion and desire of the people God approved of v. 16 17. and withal made them a promise by Moses that he would send them the true Mediatour Christ whom Moses in that did but typifie and adumbrate And at the same time by the same Moses God gave a Command to hearken unto Christ when he should come and backed his Command with a Threatning to punish them severely in case they did not hearken unto him Compare this with Acts 3.22 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things and that hearing him in all things includes believing on him John 8.24 and 14.1 and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning against every Soul which will not hear him and believe on him Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command included in it immediately oblige us to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this And it not only doth oblige us but it would oblige us suppose that which is impossible that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World We have then a positive Law which immediately obliges our Conscience to believe in Christ the Mediatour besides the Natural Moral Law And thus was this matter understood above Twelve Hundred Years ago Witness that of Lactantius (l) Ipse Moses per quem sibi datam legem dum pertinaciter tuentur Judaei exciderunt a Deo Deum non Agnoverunt praedixerat fore ut Propheta maximus mittatur a Deo qui sit supra Legem qui voluntatem Dei ad homines perferat In Deuteronomio ità scriptum reliquit dixit Dominus ad me Prophetam excitabo eis de Fratribus corum sicut te dabo verbum meum in os ejus Et loquetur ad cos ea quae praecepero ei quisquis non audierit ea quae loquetur Propheta ille in nomine meo ego vindicabo in eum Denunciavit scilicet Deus per ipsum legiferum quòd Filium suum id est vivam praesentemque legem missurus esset illam veterem per mortalem datam soluturus ut Deus per eum qui esset aeternus legem sanciret aeternam Lactant. Divin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 17. Moses himself by whom the Law was given and which the Jews obstinately defending are fallen from God and have lost the knowledge of God foretold that it should come to pass that God would send a most Great Prophet who should be above the Law and should bring the Notice
of Works that Man should sin no more for the future but its Condition and Duty is that Man should never once sin at all either in time past present or to come And assoon as he hath once sinned he hath ipso facto so broken that Covenant that from that very moment it ceases to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever as we heard before out of Rutherford because it admits of no Repentance with a Promise of Pardon and Life The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now simply impossible to sinful Men it cannot be said with any colour of Truth that it is easie to be performed through Grace it cannot be said of the Covenant of Works as Moses hath it ver 14. The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it The quite contrary is true with respect to the First Covenant the Covenant of Works the performing of its Duty and Condition is so far off from sinful Men such as the Israelites were that it is impossible to be brought near unto them till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one and the same thing be made to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect And as it cannot be truely said to be very nigh so it cannot be truely said to be in the Mouth and Heart of sinful Men that they may do it That were to say that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction and is impossible to be done But on the other hand it may be truely said of the Gospel or New Covenant and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumcising the Heart to love God The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it Thus the Blessed Apostle Paul understood this Passage and quoted the Sense and Substance and partly the very words of Moses and applyed them unto and affirmed them of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace as distinct from and opposite unto the Law and Covenant of Works For in Rom. 10.5 The Apostle first shews out of Levit. 18.5 in what Form of words Moses described the Law and Covenant of Works and its Righteonsness That the Man which doth those things shall live by them Secondly In vor 6 7. c he doth himself out of Moses Deut. 30. ver 11 12 13 14. describe and explain the nature of the Gospel Covenant and its Righteousness He calls it the Righteousness of Faith and shews how we obtain it by Christ's Purchasing it for us and giving it unto us we receiving it by Faith and shewing our Faith and Thankfulness for it by confessing him who purchased it which implyes a steadfast cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart against all temptations to the contrary For these Reasons I do believe that the Covenant in Deut. 29. and 30. Chapter is not the First Covenant or Law of Works but the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace And consequently that the Gospel Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty And this is no New Opinion of my inventing but is the real Truth as I have proved from the words of Moses and a Truth also now commonly received by the Orthodox I know that there are some Learned Men of a different Judgment the Arminians are of that sort and particularly Episcopius as appears from his Paraphrase and Observations on Rom 10. ver 5 6 8. which Exposition of his seems to be founded upon that Opinion of theirs That the Covenant of which Moses speaks there or elsewhere in the Books of the Law did not promise Eternal Life but only a Temporal Prosperous Life in the Land of Canaan to them who sincerely indeavoured to keep the Laws given them by Moses See Mat. 19.16 17. Joh. 5.39 which I think is contrary to Gal. 3.11 12. for the Life which the Apostle denyes to be possible to be obtained by the Law because all Men have broken it seems to be of the same kind with that Life which he affirms to be obtained by Faith But it is Spiritual and Eternal Life which is obtained by Faith therefore it is Spiritual and Eternal Life likewise which he denyes to be obtainable by the Works of the Law And the reason why it was not so obtainable was because no Man did or could keep the Law so as not to fall under its curse even such a curse as Christ redeems from Gal. 3.10 and 13. compared The Apostle sayes ver 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law He doth not any where say that the Law could not give Eternal Life because it had no promise of Eternal Life But elsewhere to wit in Rom. 8.3 he assigns the true reason why the Law of Works could not give life Eternal Life even becauseâ— it was weak through the flesh It was the Sin of Man that disabled the Law of Works that it could not give that Eternal Life which after the Fall it promised only oeconomically that is it proposed and set Eternal Life before Mens Eyes in a form of words which before the Fall was really promissory of Eternal Life upon a possible condition but after the Fall did but serve to remind us what Man once was and what he should still have been what he might have done and what he might have attained unto by doing but that having broken that Covenant we are all lyable to Eternal Death and can never obtain Eternal Life by it and therefore that it behoves us to seek Eternal Life and Salvation by Christ only upon the terms of the Gospel and New Law or Covenant of Grace as was more fully explained before This only I briefly hint on the by I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee from me into the Arminian Camp and from thence come out against me clad with their Goliaâ—s Armour for it will not well become Mr. Goodwin though he could dexterously serve himself with it which yet is very questionable But let him do in that matter as best pleaseth him I am resolved to abide where I am in the Camp of the Orthodox and thence I oppose the Authority and Reasons of Fr. Junius in his Parallels Second Book and Sixteenth Parallel where he explains Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. by comparing it with Leviticus the 18th and Deuteronomy the 30th Of the same Judgment with Junius is the Learned Professour of Saumur Stephanus de Brais as appears by his Paraphrase and Notes at the end of his Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans pag. 336 337. Rutherford was also of that mind as is evident by these his words This Covenant to wit of Grace hath the promise of a circumcised heart Deut. 30.6 and of the word of faith that is near in the mouth and of the Righteousness of Faith clearly differenced
it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant And then the Gospel is preached in part by saying Fear God and give glory to him c. This is the plain obvious sense of the words and they must be violently wrested to put another sense upon them The Dutch Annotators therefore faithfully gave the meaning of the words when in their Annotation on Rev. 14.7 they said in these words This is the first part of the Gospels voice whereby the worshippers of the Beast are warned and exhorted to honour fear and serve God only in Christ I might cite many other passages out of the New Testament and Old too to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts and requires Duty of us but these are sufficient And I am perswaded that every sincere lover and seeker of Truth will or may easily find by the Divine Testimonies aforesaid taken out of the New Testament that the Gospe-Covenant in its new and most Evangelical form of administration is not a meer absolute promise without any Precept but that as it hath Promises so it hath Precepts belonging to it which require Duties of us and of all to whom it is preached Thus having finished my first Proof from Divine Testimony I pass to my second Proof from Humane Testimony And before I proceed any further I desire it may be remembered that I do not argue from Humane Testimony to confirm and strengthen my Argument from Divine Testimony or to prove any other thing than matter of fact to wit that I and my Reverend Brethren are not Innovators nor singular in our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in our belief that according to the Scripture the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duty since long before we were born other Holy Men and Eminent Ministers of Christ and bright shining Lights in Christs Church have interpreted the Scripture as to this matter just as we do and have believed according to Scripture what we believe at this day That the Gospel hath Precepts and doth oblige us to Duties This being premised to prevent misunderstanding of us I come to produce my Humane Witnesses which I divide into two ranks or classes The 1. of Antient Doctors of the Church The 2 of Modern Divines And I begin with Antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church Testimonies of Antient Fathers and because I would be brief I shall cite but few and yet I shall bring as many of them as may suffice to prove the matter of fact in question My first Witness is Justin Martyr who in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew calls the New Testament or Covenant as we Christians have it in its last and excellentest form of administration (c) Justin Martyr Dialog cum Tryphone Edit Paris 1633. p. 292. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Commandment whereby he plainly declares that he believed the New Covenant hath Precepts and that it is not a meer absolute Promise which requireth nothing of us at all Again afterwards in the same Dialogue he calls the New Testament or Gospel-Covenant (c) Justin Martyr ibid. p. 351. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mandate or Precept for the same Reason because it hath Precepts that require Duty And then two pages after he saith that we are called and we are the true Children of God (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keep the Commandments of Christ I suppose it will be objected that Justin Martyr in pag. 351. sayes that Christ is the Testament or Covenant of God And in pag. 228. he sayes That Christ is given the eternal and last Law unto us and the sure Testament or Covenant after which there is neither Law nor Precept nor Commandment I answer It is true he doth say so but then it is as true that his speech is not and cannot be proper but figurative It is only by a Figure of Speech that Justin calls Christ by the name of Covenant or Testament and therein he doth but follow the Prophet Isaiah Justin ibid. p. 351. and also quotes the 42.6 and 49.8 of Isaiah where it is written I the Lord will give thee Christ for a Covenant of the people Look then how the words of Isaiah are to be understood and the same way are the words of Justin to be understood Now for understanding the words of Isaiah let them who please consult the Dutch Annotations on Isa 42.6 And I will give thee for a covenant of the people that is for a Mediatour of the Covenant c. And Pools Annotations on Isa 42.6 I will give thee for a covenant of the people To be the Angel of the Covenant as Christ is called Mal. 3.1 or the Mediatour in and by whom my Covenant of Grace is made and confirmed with mankind And the same Pool on Isa 49.8 sayes that to be given for a Covenant of the people is To be the Mediatour and Surety of that Covenant which is made between God and them as Christ is called Heb. 7.22 and 8.6 to renew and confirm the Covenant which the Messiah is said to do Dan. 9.27 by his own Blood by which God and Men are reconciled and united one to another and therefore he may well be called the Covenant by a known Metonymy which is very usual in such cases Thus the Learned Pool And by this we may learn how to understand Justin when he calls Christ the New Law and Covenant to wit that by a Metonymy he calls him the New Law and Covenant because he is the Mediatour and Surety of it he is the Ratifier and Confirmer of it he is the Angel or Messenger of it He is not the Covenant then in propriety of speech that is a figment as ridiculous and contradictious as Transubstantiation but he is the Covenant by a Figure called Metonymy And that Justin so meant is plain because when he speaks properly without a Figure he calls Christ (c) Justin ibid pag. 229 231. passim the New Lawgiver as was shewed in the Apology pag. 24. and calls the Covenant his Law and Covenant and so manifestly distinguishes the Law and Covenant from him It is therefore the New Covenant it self which Justin properly calls the New Law the Mandate the Precept and says that (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. ibid. pag. 228. after the said Covenant there is no Law nor Precept nor Commandment By which words he gives us plainly to understand that the Gospel-Covenant or Testament is the last Law Precept and Commandment after which God gives no other to the Sons of Men. Much more I could alledge out of Justin Martyr to prove that he believed that the New Covenant or Law of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duties But that may be done another time as I see occasion At present I need not desire any more of my first Witness My second Witness is Irenaeus who saith (e) Pater familias Dominus est qui universae domni Paternae dominatur servis quidem adhuc
Homilies on Matthew can fairly or I think will deny it It is adviseable that we all consider well what we do either in affirming or denying plain matters of Fact My Sixth Witness is the Famous Augustin the great Defender of the Freeness of God's Grace in Mans Justification and Salvation against all Merit-Mongers who in one of his Epistles writes thus (p) Itaque ab Exordio generis humani quicunque in eum crediderunt eumque utcunque intellexerunt secundum ejus praecepta piè justè vixerunt quando libet ubilibet fuerint per eum procul dubio Salvi factisunt August Epist 49 Deo gratias Oper. Tom. 2. Therefore from the beginning of Mankind whosoever believed in Christ and did in some measure know him and lived Piously and Justly according to his Precepts whensoever and wheresoever they lived without all doubt they were saved by him Here Augustin speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediator of the Gospel-Covenant and so his Precepts which they who believed in him observed and were saved must be the Precepts of that Covenant of which he is the Mediator and Surety for they could not be formally the Precepts of the first Legal Covenant of Works And that this was Augustins mind doth yet more clearly appear by what he writes elsewhere (q) Cum verò etiam Evangelica praecepta homo praevaricatur velut quatriduanus mortuus putet Nec de illo tamen desperandum est propter ejus gratiam qui non lentè dixit sed magnâ voce clamavit Lazare veni forâs August Epist 89. Hilario Oper. Tom. 3. But when a Man prevaricates also against the Precepts of the Gospel he stinks like one who hath been four days dead yet must we not despair of him because of the Graco of Christ who cryed with a loud voice and said Lazarus come forth In these words as they refer to what went before he manifestly shows that in his judgment the Gospel hath its Precepts For he had spoken of the Law given to Adam in Paradice of the Natural Law of Reason in all Mankind and of the Law of Moses given to the People of Israel and then in the words here quoted he speaks of the Precepts of the Gospel as formally distinct from the Precepts of the former Laws And this is consentaneous to what he writes in his Book of Faith and Works (r) Hoc est Evangelizare Christum non tantùm dicere quae credenda funt de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad Compagem Corporis Christi August de Fide Operibus Cap. 9. Oper. Tom. 4. This saith he is to preach the Gospel of Christ not only to tell People what things are to be believed concerning Christ but also what things are to be observed and done by him who becomes a Member of and enters into Vnion and Communion with the Body of Christ My Seventh Witness is Jerome who at once testifyes that in his Judgment the Gospel hath both Precepts and Threatnings His words are (r) Quomodo Christus Jesus ex maledicto nos legis liberavit factus pro nobis maledictum Ita de maledicto quoque Evangelii quod statutum est super eos qui ejus praecepta non fecerint eruit nos Factus pro nobis ipse maledictum Hieronyinus lib. 2. Comment in Epist ad Gal. cap. 3. v. 13. As Christ Jesus redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us So he hath also delivered us from the Curse of the Gospel which is decreed or oppointed for those who do not observe its Precepts Having been himself made a Curse for us Thus Jerome by which words it is most manifest that he holds that the Gospel as distinct from and opposite to the Law hath both its own proper Precepts and also it s own proper threatnings My Eighth and last Witness is Primasius a Learned Father of the Sixth Century and a Disciple of Augustins in Africa (r) Quaeritur utrum non sit maledictus qui Evangelica praecepta non servat Eos qui Evangelii praecepta contemnunt maledictos esse Salvator edocuit dicens discedite à me maledicti in ignem aeternum Primasius Uticensis Comment in Epist ad Gal. Cap. 3. v. 13. It is demanded whether he be not Cursed who heaps not the Precepts of the Gospel Even our Saviour himself hath taught that they are Cursed who despise the Precepts of the Gospel Saying Depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting Fire Thus Primasius And he also speaks of the Gospel as distinct from the Law and yet affirms that the Gospel so considered hath Precepts and that they are Cursedwho despise its Precepts I might bring many others of the Ancients to Witness for us that the Gospel hath Precepts and is not a mere Absolute Promise which requires nothing of us at all But these shall suffice at present And so from the Ancient Doctors I pass to the Modern Divines who flourished since the Reformation Testimonies of Modern Divines And I shall begin with Theodore Bibliander Famous among the Reformed Divines in Swizzerland and one of the Authours or the Tigurin Translation of the Bible Thus then he writes (s) Theodor. Bibliand in Relatime Fideli ad omnium Ordinum Reipublicae Christianae Principes viros populumque Christ c. Basiliae An. 1545. pag. 185 186. Whatsoever Democracy Aristocracy or Monarchy is obedient to Christ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and is governed by his most Holy Laws shall justly be accounted a Christian Politie or Commonwealth but that which rejects the Laws of Christ whether it bear the Name of a Christian Polity or openly oppose the Name of Christ we shall account it to be Antichristian That Commonwealth shall be Christian and dear to God and therefore happy and blest whose Magistrates duely obey the Laws of Christ and whose People order their Lives according to the Prescript of the Christian Doctrine and with a ready mind obey the Magistrate not as serving Men but Christ in all things which are not contrary to the Laws of Christ And that he speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatour between God and Man and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant and consequently that he speaks also of his Laws not meerly as Laws of God but Laws of the Lord Mediator and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant is evidentby what follows (t) Ibid. 196 197. Christ is the faithful Eliakim Esa 22. whom God the Father hath trusted with and on his Shoulder hath laid the Key of the House of David and hath fastned him in a sure place that he may be for a Glorious Throne to his Fathers House The same Christ is the Supreme Judge unto whom the Father hath given all Power and all Judgment so that he himself judges no Man Whose Law the Isles expected and have received what they expected Concerning whose Laws it will not be alien from
our purpose to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret which he Entitled Concerning the curing of the Affections and Prejudices of the Greeks or Heathens For thus that most Learned Bishop writes Those our Fishermen and Publicans and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul 〈◊〉 simus 20. Capita sive Articuli ejus duo sunt unum ex parte Dei Alterum ex nostra parte 21. Ex parte Dei est gratuita promissio qua Deus nobis pollicetur se Deum nostrum sore c. 28. Alterum caput foederis est ex nostra parte obligatio qua Deus nos sibi obstrinxit ut ipsi populus simus 29. Dei populum esse est ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1 seu vivere sub oculis Dei ut bonos liberos decet 30. Quod fit viva in Deum side obedientiâ legis c. Amand. Polan Syllog Thes Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum homines Thes 19 20 21 28 29 30. pag. 174 175 176. The Covenant of Grace is that wherein God promiseth to us that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake And we again are obliged to be his People The Heads or Articles of it are two One on Gods part the other on our part On God's part it is a Free Promise whereby God promiseth to us to be our God c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People To be the People of God is to walk before God with Integrity Gen. 17.1 Or to live under the Eyes of God as becometh good Children which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law Thus Polanus whereby it manifestly appears that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty My fourth Witness is Melancthon who long before Polanus taught this Doctrine that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant His words are (x) Vt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium sunt propositae Sic mirifica est amiciria in naturâ quasi mutuum â—edus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas 〈◊〉 accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore â—referenâ—es Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum â—choatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath â—om 4. declam 210. As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images or representations of great things so there is a wonderful friendship in nature and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree it not only remains safe and lives but it also receives new strength and brings forth both Grapes and Olives or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives It is an illustrious or clear image and representation The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree that is into the Gospel it becomes milder For so it is that then Obedience is begun and pleaseth God when it is ingrafted into the Gospel Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Gospel-Covenant whereby it is otherwise modified than it was as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works and comes under a new form and sanction by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law is accepted as pleasing to God through Christ if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this I will quote a few of his words (y) Lex per se nihil novit vel de merito vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei de beneficiis Spiritus sancti qui essunditur in corda credentium per Christum Nihil igitur expresse docet de Auxilio quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera Deinde semper immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus sine discrimine renatis non renatis damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam
at Evangelium non modo auxilium nobis promittit sed quantum ad renatos pertinet hanc etiam dulcissimam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhibet quod sicut persona gratis recipitur propter Christum sic Obedientia inchoata quanquam imperfecta contaminata placeat in reconciliatis fide propter Mediatorem Haec doctrina Evangelii nisi addatur Praeceptis legalibus quae repetuntur enarrantur atque etiam sanciuntur necessario immutabiliter in Concionibus Evangelicis erit doctrina bonorum operum non modo manca mu ila sed etiam iâ—utilis c. Quart par objectionum resp Theolog. quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii Edit Neapoli Nem. An. 1582. p. 167 168. The Law of it self knows nothing either of the merit or efficacy of the Son of God and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit which by Christ is poured out into the hearts of Believers Nothing therefore doth it expresly teach of the help by which and of the way how good works are wrought in us Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without discrimination regenerate and unregenerate and of it self immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience But the Gospel not only promiseth us help but as for the regenerate with respect to them it mitigates the severity of the Law with this sweet temper and moderation that as the person is freely received into favour for Christs sake so the begun Obedience though imperfect and polluted yet is pleasing to God in persons reconciled through Faith for the Mediators sake This Doctrine of the Gospel unless it be added to the Legal Precepts which are both repeated and preached and also are brought under a sanction and confirmed necessarily and immutably in Gospel Sermons the doctrine of good Works will not only be lame and maimed but it will also be unprofitable c. Thus Pezelius shews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the sanction of the first Law of Works and the same Precepts as they are brought under a new sanction and have put on a new form in the Gospel In this last sense the Precepts of the Moral Law belong to the New Covenant and are Precepts of the Gospel Yea the same Pezelius in the same Book hath demonstrated at large against the Flacians that over and beside the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized the Gospel hath some Precepts which are proper to it self and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance which the Moral Law by it self immediately doth not require at all Some of his words are (z) At nihil cum hoc somnio commune habet dicere in Evangelio mandatum peculiare esse non patefactum in lege viz. de side in Christum cum qua pugnat incredulitas in Filium Mediatorem In lege fidei i.e. doctrinâ Evangelii non tantùm est promissio gratuita misericordiae Dei propter Filium Mediatorem sed etiam mandatum quod praecipit ut agnoscamus Mediatorem credamus illi promissioni Hoc praeceptum toto genere differt a praeceptis legalibus quae concionantur de Morali Obedientiâ Ac ut Puerile esset ex eo quod Lex Promissiones habet inferre quia Evangelium a lege differat non esse ullam Promissionem assignandam Evangelio sic ingens stupor est sic argumentari Lex habet Mandata ergo nullum peculiare Mandatum assignandum est Evangelio ne videatur introduci Lex nova seu Lex Evangelica c. Idem in codem libro pag. 152 153. But it hath nothing common with this Popish dream concerning a new Law in their sense to say that in the Gospel there is a peculiar Precept not revealed in the Law to wit concerning Faith in Christ to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator In the Law of Faith that is in the Doctrine of the Gospel there is not only a gracious promise of the mercy of God for the sake of the Son the Mediator but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator and believe that promise This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience And as it would be Childish from this that the Law hath Promises to infer that since the Law differs from the Gospel therefore there is no Promise to be assigned to the Gospel so it is great stupidity to argue thus The Law hath Precepts therefore no peculiar Precept is to be assigned unto the Gospel lest a new Law or an Evangelical Law should seem to be introduced c. See what follows there especially consult what he writes in Pag. 100 101 102 109 110 111 112 113 114 126 127 128 129 135 136 149 150 151. And in Pag. 82 83 84 85 86 87 where he invincibly proves against Flacius that the Gospel hath Precepts that besides the Precepts which in respect of the matter of them are common both to the Law of Works and Gospel of Grace there are Precepts which by themselves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance and that these Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Gospel Thus we see that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongst us that the Gospel hath no Precepts which require Duty and that there are no Sins against the Gospel is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party which they broached in opposition to the Learned Pious and Prudent Melancthon and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago My 5th Withess is Henry Bullinger who tho he be suborned to be a false Witness against me yet is he a true Witness that is as much for me in this Cause as my heart can desire For thus he writes on those words of the Apostle Heb. 8.8 for finding fault with them he saith Behold the days come c. * Quod vero hunc attinet locum Testamentum hoc foedus illud Dei pactum est quo Deus voluntatem suam erga nos testatus est prorsusque nobiscum certis convenit conditionibus Coeterum cas conditiones patribus nostris Abrahae imprimis sic praescripsit Ero Deus tuus illa rerum omnisufficientia ero inquam Deus tuus seminis tui post te in fempiternum Tu vero ambula coram me esto integer haec scederis sive pacti conditiones sunt Henr. Bullinger Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos cap. 8. v. 8. pag. 533. edit Tigur 1582. As to what concerns this place The Testament is the Covenant and that compact of God whereby God hath testified his Will towards us and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions and those conditions he hath thus prescribed unto our Fathers and in the first place unto Abraham saying I will be thy God that All-sufficieucy of all things I say I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed after
is because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises though it be not without but partly consist in Precepts also This I have shewed in the Apology that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People to fit them for and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law but a Law of Grace So I call it and believe it to be and so it was called and believed to be by other Orthodox Divines before I was born But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit and accepted through the Mediation of Christ yet I never said nor believed that it is a Law which requires Duties by and for which we are Justified and Saved So far am I from saying or believing any such thing that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology and particularly in Page 38 39 40.54 Indeed it is my professed belief that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified before God 2. The Second thing to be carefully attended unto is that by the Gospel or Law of Grace I do not understand the Books of the New Testament but the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ as it is Recorded in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament 3. The Third thing to be attended unto is that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Supernatural Revelations and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel from which Principle it is so far from following that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own that on the contrary it plainly follows that it hath Precepts of its own otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them 4. The Fourth thing to be attended unto is That since the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes If these Four things be carefully attended unto they will preserve People through the Blessing of God from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine which Wrong I freely forgive him and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness 2. The Second and last thing I am here to do is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes in this part of his Seventh Chapter concerning the Precepts of the Gospel 1. And First whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Believer is not called Evangelical because it is obedience to the Gospel but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows and in respect of the Evangelical Motives which animate and encourage it This I take to be a mistake if he excludes the Gospel Covenants requiring such Obedience from being one of the said Motives and my reason is because the Gospel's requiring it in order to Gospel-ends and purposes is the principal reason wherefore we call it Evangelical Obedience For it is the Gospel that of it self directly and immediately requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way to wit sincerely with a renewed heart from Principles of Faith in and Love to Christ the Mediator and God as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ And further as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believed is the formal reason of our Faith which makes and denominates it a Divine Faith so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done is the formal reason of our obedience which gives it the Denomination of Divine Obedience or obedience to God And if this be true of obedience to God in general that it is called a Divine legal obedience because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will Commanding it by his Law then by Parity of Reason it is true of that special sort of obedience to wit Evangelical Obedience that it is called Evangelical because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel It were very strange if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name as well as its Nature 2. Secondly Whereas in Page 45. he says That in John 14.1 Christ himself told his Disciples that they should act faith on him because they were obliged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God This is another Mistake and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason because by this mistake Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour and makes him to say that which he did not say nor is it implyed in nor necessarily consequent from his words Our Lord Christ doth not say Believe in me because ye are obliged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God This is Mr. G's Fancy or Fiction which he should not have Fathered upon Christ Who saith no such thing in John 14.1 But only saith there let not your heart be troubled Ye believe in God believe also in me Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God and ye believe in me Now I appeal both to common sense and to common honesty and natural Conscience whether to say ye believe in God believe also in me be all one and the same thing as to say ye should believe on me because ye are obliged to believe on me by the same command and by no other which requires you to believe in God For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ by another Command or both by the same and also by another Command yet Christ might well have used the same words and have said ye believe in God believe also in me I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove that because our Lord Christ said ye believe in God believe also in me Therefore he told his Disciples that they should believe on him not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel but only because they were obliged to it by the same Command of the Moral natural Law which required them to believe in God Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies but must prove to us the foresaid Consequence if he would have us to believe what he there says For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word 3. Thirdly whereas he says in p. 47. That the act and object of faith to wit faith in God before the fall and faith in Christ after the fall Is
threatnings For as this is the voice of the Gospel He that believes and is Baptized shall be saved so the Antithesis or contrary proposition immediately added doth likewise pertain to the Gospel He that believeth not shall be damned The like Antitheses are also in these sayings He that believeth in the Son bath eternal Life he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him In like manner He that believeth on the Son is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already It is not to be doubted but that these are the most proper voices or words of the Gospel and yet they not only contain most sweet Promises concerning the Grace and Favour of God and Righteousness before God and concerning Eternal Life to all that by Faith embrace the Mediator revealed in the Gospel But they likewise contain most severe Threatnings reproving and condemning this sin which is a disbelieving the Son of God the Mediator and leaving under this eternal Condemnation all that believe not in his Son Thus Pezelius who there also shews that Flacius did abuse the Authority of Luther and wrest his words to make People believe that the Gospel hath no Threatnings of its own but that it only borrows the Threatnings of the Law as Mr. G. says after his Master Flacius 2. 2dly The whole Synod of Dort and that is the Delegates from all the best reformed Churches bear witness to this Truth That the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as is to be seen in their 14th Canon concerning the fifth head of Doctrine to wit Perseverance * Quemadmodum autem Deo placuit opus hoc suum gratiae per praedicationem Evangelii in nobis inchoare ita per ejusdem auditum lectionem meditationem adhortationes minas promissa nec non per usum Sacramentorum illud conservat continuat perficit Act. Synod Dordrac Part. 1. Pag. 313. But as it pleased God to begin in us this work of Grace by the Preaching of the Gospel so he preserves continues and perfects it by the hearing reading and meditating by the Exhortations Threatnings and Promises of the same Gospel and also by the use of the Sacraments These are the words of the foresaid 14th Canon which was subscribed by the whole Synod without exception Now this is such a Testimony for the Truth which I defend that the Gospel hath its own Threatnings as I think should be of more weight with true Protestants than the Testimony of that erroneous Person Flacius Illyricus and the few Disciples that he may have in the world at this day 3. 3dly The Reverend and Learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations bear Testimony to this Truth witness their Annotation on Rom. 2.6 Who shall recompence every Man according to his works This say they may well be applyed also to the recompencing according to the promises and threatnings of the Gospel c. This is a most clear irrefragable Testimony for in these words compared with what goes before concerning recompencing even Heathens according to the promises and threatnings of the Law they plainly acknowledge that the Gospel as distinct from and as opposed to the Law hath its own promises and threatnings According to which Christians shall be Recompenced 4. 4thly The Learned and Judicious Pool in his Annotations on Deut. 29. doth in a Remarkable instance bear witness to this truth for he saith that the wicked person of whom it is there written v. 19. That when he heareth the words of the curse he blesses himself in his heart saying I shall have peace tho I walk in the Imagination of my heart to add Drunkenness to Thirst Was one of those who think that the Gospel hath no threatnings See Pool's Annotation on the 21 verse of the 29th of Deutronomy where upon these words The Lord shall separate him to evil According to all the curses of the Covenant he says expresly that He to wit the Lord Intimates that the Covenant of grace which God made with them hath not only blessings belonging to it as this foolish person imagined but curses also to the Transgressors of it Here Mr. Pool says That that foolish person imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only blessings belonging to it and this is in effect the same thing as if he had said that the foolish Man imagined that the Covenant of Grace had only promises oâ— blessings but no threatnings of curses belonging to it 5. 5thly The Judicious Hutcheson in his exposition on John's Gospel gives express Testimony to this truth Witness those formal words of his on the 47. verse of the 12th Chapter of John's Gospel p. 256. Albeit the Gospel be glad tydings of joy and contain Cordials and remedies against all curses and threatnings of the Law yet it contains also threatnings against despisers as terrible as any threatning of the Law These words do so plainly shew that he believed the Gospel hath threatnings of its own distinct from the threatnings of the Law that I need not say any thing to prove that to be their meaning For it is self-evident that they have that meaning and can have no other 6. 6thly Mr. Rutherford is again express in his Covenant of Life opened for the same truth that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath threatnings Witness his own formal words Part 1. Page 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real Obligation upon such as are only externally in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the promise of the Covenant imposes an Engagement and Obligation upon such to believe the Promise Now if there are Threatnings of the Covenent of Grace then are there Threatnings of the Gospel also For the Gospel and the Covenant of Grace is all one See in the Second Volume of Pool's Annotations the Note on Heb. 12.29 together with the Explication of 2 Thes 1.8 9. 7. 7thly And lastly the Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen above all others doth fully and clearly give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings distinct from the threatnings of the Law his words are as follows As the sum of all promises to wit of the Gospel is enwrapped in these words he that believeth shall be saved * Dr. Owen on Heb. 4 v. 1 2. Pag. 180. Vol. 2. Mark 16.16 So that of all these threatnings i. e. the sum of all these threatnings of the Gospel is in those that follow he that believeth not shall be damned And a like summary of Gospel-promises and threatnings we have John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And threatnings of this nature are frequently scattered up and down in the New Testament See Rom. 2.8 9. 2 Thes 1.6 7 8 9 10. 1 Pet. 4.17 18. And these threatnings may be so far called Evangelical in as much as
they are proper to the Gospel and distinct from all the threatnings of the Law The Law knows no more of Gospel-threatnings than of Gospel-promises The threatnings of the Law lye against sinners for sins Committed the threatnings of the Gospel are against Sinners for refusing the remedy provided and tendred unto them They are superadded unto those of the Law and in them doth the Gospel when rejected become Death unto Death 2 Cor. 2.16 By the addition of that punishment contained in its threatnings unto that which was contained in the threatnings of the Law Thus Dr. Owen let any that desire further satisfaction in this matter read there what goes before and follows after this which I have here quoted and they may find it in that large discourse of the Learned Doctor I could bring more witnesses to give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings and to shew that it is no new notion of mine no singular opinion of my inventing but I need no more These are sufficient to shew that it was the common faith of Christ's Church before I was born that it is so at this day and I trust it will be so after I am dead and gathered to my Fathers Having thus established the truth in the next place we must consider what Mr. G. objects aginst it and for the proof of his Negative that the Gospel hath no threatnings Obj. 1. He first cites John 3.17 p. 54. For God sent not his Son into the World to Condemn the World but that the world through him might be saved Very true what then Why then saith Mr. G. What could Christ have said more to assure us that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise salvation to Sinners whom the Law menaced and who were Condemned by its sentence Answer here is a piece of Confidence that I do not remember I have ever met with the like Doth this brother think that he can draw Men to his opinion by confident talk and big words without so much as a shadow of right reason For in this Argument there is not the least appearance of reason Christ tells us that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved Therefore he could have said no more to assure us that the Gospel hath no threatnings or that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise life to Sinners This Consequence is such as Mr. G. may be fond of as being like enough to his way of reasoning in other parts of his discourse but I do not think that any Scholar who knows the rules of right reasoning will ever admire it or be convinced by it For my part I must say that I have not known a Learned Man to have reasoned so loosely and incoherently in a serious matter of such importance as this If one should seriously reason thus in the Schools of Cambridge or Oxford c. I doubt not but he would be lâ—â—â—ed at And if he be not serious but only writes thus to shew his wit which I cannot prove and therefore will not affirm I am sorry that I should have any thing to do with him But supposing that he is himself mistaken and did not meerly design to act a part and right or wrong to draw away Disciples after him I owe him that service of Love as to show him his mistake and direct him into the way of truth which is that we all profess to Love and seek after And it is no hard matter to do that for in order thereunto there is no more needful but to tell Mr. G. that if our Lord Christ had said That God sent not his Son into the world to threaten the world with death in any sense but only to make an absolute promise of Life to the world Then he had said a great deal more than he doth in John 3.17 To assure us that the Gospel hath no threatnings or that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise Life to Sinners For so the thing had been undeniably evident to wit that the Gospel is nothing but an absolute promise and that it hath neither threatning nor conditional promise Whereas having said no more in John 3.17 But that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved We can have no assurance at all from those words that the Gospel hath no threatnings For the Gospel's having Conditional threatnings that if Men do not believe and repent they shall be Condemned is so far from being inconsistent with Christ's not coming to Condemn but to save the world that on the contrary the said conditional threatnings are one means to secure the world from Condemnation and to bring them unto salvation It seems Mr. Goodwin thinks that if once the Gospel threaten an unbeliever by saying to him if thou do not believe in Christ thou wilt be Condemned the Man is undone for ever he is Irrecoverably lost and cannot possibly be saved But that is a very gross mistake and such a Consequence is so far from being true that on the contrary such a conditional threatning may through the Grace of God be an useful means to fetch the Man off from his unbelief and to bring him unto faith in Christ and through faith unto salvation Hence Mr. Hutcheson on John 12.47 Saith p. 256. that not only rich promises and gracious offers but even sharp threatnings are a means appointed of God to stir up Men to embrace the Gospel And this is not only true of the sharp threatnings of the Law but it is true also of the threatnings of the Gospel Hence Julius Firmicus many hundred years ago said * Misericordia Dei errantes homines corrigere frequenti comminatione Festinat Jul. Firmic Matern de Errore Profan Religionum Pag. 80. Edit Oxon. 1678. The mercy of God makes hast to correct or reclaim erring Men by frequent threatnings And our Saviour no doubt was of this mind when he gave Commission to his Apostles and bids them go into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying Mar. 16.15 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be Damned 2. 2dly p. 54. He objects that John 12.47 Our Saviour saith if any Man hear my words and believe not I Judge him not For I came not to Judge the world but to save the world And from these words he infers That Christ doth not threaten much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever I Answer that Mr. G. here draws two inferences from Christ's words John 12.47 1. That he doth not threaten an unbeliever now because he did not come to Judge but to save the world then 2. That he doth much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever now because he did not come to Judge
before where he thus writes †Aâ—que hâ—ec universa in una Persona Christi unici Mediatoris Dei Hominum ita continentur nodo indissolubili juncta connexa sunt ut qui couatur unum ex illis Christo adimere conetur Christum solvere quam esse notam certissimam spiritus Antichristi Johannes Apostolus dilectus Discipulus Domini Docet in prima sua Catholica â—pistâ—a coque crimine Antichristianismi summi sacrilegii tenentur omnes haeresiarchae eorum sectatores pertinaces qui Schismate impio imprimis Christum divellere conati sunt quod nullo mo so potest fieri Bibliander ubi supra Pag. 198 199. And all these things are so contained and joyned and connected together by an undissoluble Knot in the one Person of Christ the only Mediator between God and Men that whosoever endeavours to take one of them from Christ he endeavours to Destroy Christ which to be a most certain mark of the Spirit of Antichrist the Apostle John and beloved Disciple of the Lord teaches us in his first general Epistle And of this Crime of Antichristianism and of the highest Sacriledg are guilty all Authors or inventers of Heresies and their obstinate Followers who by an ungodly Schism do principally indeavour to divide Christ which can no way be done Thus the Learned and pious Bibliander I hope therefore my Reverend brother will joyn with us and for the future acknowledge that the office of a Lord and Judge too doth belong to Christ the Mediator and that eo nomine because he is Mediator and as he is Mediator For as the Dutch Annotators have it on 1 Cor. 15.25 He must Reign as King That is Accomplish his Kingly office as Mediator c. In short as I hope we shall so I wish we may all agree in that of Salvian an Ancient and Zealous writer of the fifth century * Nos ita judicandum humanum genus a Christo dicimus ut tamen etiam nunc omnia Deum prout rationabile putat regere ac dispensare credamus ita in futuro judicio judicaturum affirmemus ut tamen semper etiam in hoc saeculo judicasse doceamus Dum enim semper gubernat Deus semper judicat quia Guberuatio ipsa est judicium Salvian Lib. 1. de Gubernatione Dei Pag. 15. Vid. etiam Lib. 2. Pag. 55. ubi haec habet unde tu qui ad solatium arbitror peccatorum tuorum considerari actus nostros a Deo non putas ex hoc ipso aspici te a Christo semper intellige puniendum forsitan propediem esse cognosce We so say that Mankind will be Judged by Christ as that yet we believe also that God now at present doth rule and dispence all things as he things reasonable or sit and let us so affirm that Christ will Judge at the Day of Judgment which is to come hereafter as notwithstanding to teach also that he hath always judged in this world For whilst God doth always govern he doth always Judge also because the very Governing Act it self of God and so of Christ the Mediatorial King is Judgment Thus Salvian And I think this may suffice for Answer to Mr. G's Third Objection 4. Obj. Lastly He appeals to the express words of Christ himself in John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And says page 55. He is confident we will have regard to these words Answer Indeed his Confidence in this is well grounded for we really have as we ought a very great regard to these and all the other words of our most blessed and glorious Lord and they have a Commanding power over us to induce us to receive them with faith and love But what then must we therefore have regard to Mr. G's Consequence which he draws from them by force and violence That doth not at all follow And for my own part I declare that I reject his Consequence which is that the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath no threanings since he that believeth not is Condemned already Because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God And whereas he says that the unbeliever is already Condemned by the old Law of works and therefore there is no need that he be Condemned again by the Gospel and a new Law of Grace I Answer that a Man who lives under the Preaching of the Gospel and yet remains still in unbelief is already Condemned both by Law and Gospel by the old Covenant and also by the New so long as he continues in his unbelief as I shewed before And it doth not become us to say unto God that he needs not to do the same thing twice when we know that he hath twice done it especially when we may plainly see that tho the same person be twice over Condemned yet it is in different respects and for two different causes First he is Condemned by the old Law of works for not keeping it perfectly and personally so as never to break it either by original or actual sin And thus all Unbelievers in the world are condemned even Heathens that never heard the joyful sound of the Gospel and never had a Gospel-Offer of Mercy upon the Terms of the New Covenant and Law of Grace Secondly He is condemned also by the Gospel or New Covenant Law of Grace for not accepting the Gospel-Offer of Mercy for not receiving and applying to himself the Remedy tendred to him in the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace Here this Unbeliever is guilty of a sin which the foresaid Heathens who have only the Law of Nature are not guilty of he is guilty of a sin which is directly and immediately against the saving Remedy mercifully provided and offered him in the Gospel and therefore there is sufficient Reason for condemning him again by the Gospel-Covenant I say for condemning him to a greater Degree of Punishment than that of meer Heathens who are guilty only of sins against the Law of Nature but are guilty of no sin against the Gospel of Christ are not at all guilty of any sin in neglecting or refusing to receive Christ by Faith and the Salvation offered through him in the Gospel-Covenant Our Saviour says in this very Text That the Unbeliever who is guilty of Positive Unbelief against the Gospel is condemned already not only and meerly because he hath broken God's natural moral Law but because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then as it were to obviate Mr. G's Objection he adds immediately This is the Condemnation that light is come into the world and Men loved Darkness rather than Light Because their deeds were Evil. See what was quoted before in the remarks on Mr. G's sixth Chapter out of Mr. Hutcheson's Exposition on John 3. v. 18.19 As for Mr.
confess that it is so that it is a meer Sophism or else to make him eat his own words For mark I pray that in his discourse of the Gospel he says pag. 57. lin 6.7 8. 1. That God in giving his Moral Law to all reasonable Creatures said universally to Men do this and you shall Live 2. He must own that do this and you shall live or if you do this you shall live is a conditional promise of the Law or Covenant of works because a little before in the same book and Chapter he says pag. 56. lin 18.19 That The promises of the Law were made to Men on condition that its precepts were obeyed These are his own express words From which two passages it manifestly appears that according to his Judgment God's Law or Covenant of works had a conditional promise of Life Life was promised in the Law and Covenant of works to Adam and all his posterity on condition that they personally perpetually and perfectly kept its precepts This is Mr. G' s own Doctrine which he hath published to the world Now let his Argument against conditional promises of the Gospel be applied to the conditional promises of the Law and it will as strongly and effectually disprove all conditional promises of the Law which he owns as it will disprove all conditsonal promises of the Gospel which he denies Thus then I form the Argument and turn it against Mr. Goodwin himself and the conditional promises of the Law which he maintains God did not either absolutely or conditionally decree to give Life Eternal Life to Adam or any of his posterity by the Law and Covenant of works or on condition of keeping the Law and Covenant of works for if he had so decreed it he would have taken effectual care that Adam and his posterity should never have died but should have had Eternal Life on that condition and by keeping that Law and Covenant of works since the intents of his mind and will always obtain infallibly their desir'd effect Therefore God never promised Life to Adam and his posterity on condition of their keeping the Law and Covenant of works The reason of the Consequence is because God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart Or which is the same thing because every conditional promise of God's word presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will Here is his own Argument turned against himself and thereby the conditional promise of the Law which he maintains is as strongly and effectually disproved as is the conditional promise of the Gospel which we defend It is plain then that since his Argument militates as strongly against himself as against us he is as much concerned to Answer it as we are And if he can Answer it as it militates against himself he can by the same means Answer it as it militates against us One Answer will serve us both If therefore he do not like our Answer let him find out a better And it will serve our turn as well as his I hope this may be a means to open his eyes and to convince him that his Argument against the conditional promises of the Gospel is a putid Sophism For it is a certain evidence that an Argument is Sophistical and proves nothing when if it prove any thing it proves too much even more than we would have it to prove or than we can with a safe Conscience admit This may suffice for an Answer to the foresaid objection But for clearing the truth and for our edification I will urge an other Argument which seems to have more strength than the former Obj. 4. I will suppose then that some ingenious brother may demand if this be true that God hath promised in the Gospel pardon and salvation unto the nonâ—elect who hear the glad tydings of the Gospel upon condition of Faith and Repentance will it not hence clearly follow that there is a conditional will in God that God's will depends on something without it self in the Creature and that it hangs in suspence untill the condition be performed or not performed The reason of the Consequence is because every conditional Promise signifies and testifies that the Promiser doth will and purpose to give the Benefit promised if the Condition required be performed otherwise the Promise would be false deceitful and delusive which the Promise of the God of Truth cannot possibly be But there cannot be a Conditional Will in God nor can his Will depend upon any thing nor hang in suspence at all Therefore it seems God cannot make any conditional Promise unto the Non-Elect who hear the glad Tidings of the Gospel that they shall be Pardoned and Saved if they Believe and Repent This is the Argument whereunto I Answer 1. That whoever looks narrowly into this Argument may easily and plainly see that it must needs be Sophistical and Fallacious because as was said before either it proves nothing or it proves too muth to wit that God could not in the first Covenant or Law of Works promise the continuance of Life unto Adam and in him to his Posterity in the State of Innocency upon Condition of Personal perfect and ever Sinless Obedience But that is certainly false and contrary to the Judgment of all Divines even of Mr. G. himself for they all hold as well as I that the first Covenant was Conditional and that God before the Fall promised unto Adam Immunity from Death and Eternal Life on condition of perfect and ever Sinless Obedience We are then all alike concerned to answer the aforesaid Sophism taken from the Inconditionality and Independenâ—y of God's Will 2. I Answer That it is great weakness and a degree of Infidelity to disbelieve and deny that which God hath clearly Revealed in his Holy Word because do not clearly perceive the way and manner how God Wills one thing to be upon condition of another thing 's being What though we should never know the way and manner how God conditionally Wills the things which he hath Conditionally Promised Is it a wise course think ye to disbelieve and deny the Being of Conditional Promises and God's willing the things Promised conditionally both which he hath clearly Revealed because he hath not Revealed and therefore we do not know the way and manner of his willing things conditionally It were easily to prove that to disbelieve and deny things clearly Revealed because we do not clearly understand God's modus volendi way and manner of willing which is not Revealed is the ready way to make all the world turn Infidels or Deists To prevent which let us all follow the Wise Counsel of Calvin which he gives in these following Words * Saepe in scriptis meis admoneo nihil hic melius esse docta ignorantia quia Phreneticorum instar delirant qui plus sibi permittunt sapere quam parsit Jam vides ut mihi certa sit illa Dei voluntas
priority is enough for that pag. 33. To which I Answer 1. That I never wrote nor thought that the condition of the Gospel-Covenant is not in our power in any sense but only that it is not in our meer natural power with which it is very well consistent that it be in our Supernatural Power which we receive from the Spirit of God and with his assistance freely use in performing the said condition of the Covenant For the truth of this I appeal to the common sense and reason of all honest Men who will be at the pains to read and consider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Last Paragraph and pag. 47. at the end And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Testimonies of Augustin and Bradwardin I expresly shew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God and that we have a subordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Lastly in pag. 67. I shew from Dr. Twiss that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition but that at the same time when we produce it we have a Power a natural Power not to produce it Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us See our confession of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this whether I do absolutely deny the condition to be in our Power Nay tho I deny it in one sense to be in our Power yet in another sense I do most clearly affirm it to be in our power As for the condition it s not being uncertain nor Meritorious it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with respect to God and the event nor is it in the least truly and properly Meritorious but I deny the Consequence that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical And whereas in the 4th place he says that I deny it to be a legal condition it is true I have denied and shall deny it to be a Legal condition in the sense explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not so a legal condition as to have the same place and Office in the New-Covenant and Law of Grace which perfect and personal sinless obedience was to have had in the first Old Covenant and Law of works c. But to infer from hence that because I deny it to be a legal condition in this sense therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every sense whatsoever is a poor fallacious way of arguing And how can this R. B. seriously think that I should ever deny it to be a legal condition in any sense at all when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace I cannot chuse but believe it to be a federal condition and so if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace I cannot chuse but in some sense believe it to be a legal condition But you may say in what sense do I believe it to be a legal condition Why I Answer look in what sense the Gospel-Covenant is a Law in the same sense Faith for instance is the legal condition of it and so I believe it to be Now we do not say that the Gospel-Covenant is meerly and simply a Law but that it is a Law of Grace properly a Law of Grace And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and simply legal as the condition of the old Law of works was but it is a condition graciously legal because it is the condition of the Law of Grace and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace This that Brother might have easily perceived by our words to be our meaning if he had sought the Truth sincerely when he read our Apology But tho he stile himself a seeker p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parenthesis p. 33. l. 29.30 31. That he sought some other thing than the truth for there he brings me in saying That the Gospel is a Law and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant or Gospel and yet it is not a legal condition But where do I say so That the Law is the condition of the Covenant I defy any Man living to find those words or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become to write after this manner The Gospel or the Covenant is a Law and that Law is the condition of the Covenant And so the same thing is the condition of it self For shame give over such little tricke and have regard to truth and honesty But now was there nothing in the Apoâ— that gave occasion to fasten upon us such a notorious falsehood I Answer I profess sincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end that could give any just occasion or so much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Gospel is a Law or Covenant and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant We have said indeed in the explication of our sense of the Law of Grace pag. 22. l. 35.36 That this Law of Grace is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace But to be the conditional part of the Covenant is quite another thing than the condition of the Covenant for the conditional part of the Covenant is that which Prescribes and Commands the condition and which promises a blessing and benefit to the person who performs it And therefore must be quite another thing than the condition it self Here then some body has discovered his ignorance and writes he knows not what or if not that He has discovered somewhat worse and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name Because he might say that it is bitter Language to tell him his fault in plain terms It is sweet unto some Men publickly to mis-represent their brethren to the People for such ends as they know best but it is bitter to them for to find themselves publickly reproved for it We desire all whom it may concern to learn to understand our Apol. before they take upon them to dispute against it and censure it And they may easily understand it if they will for it is purposely written in a plain stile that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant See pag. 68. from lin 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly distinguish between the absolute and conditional part of it and shew what the one and the other is as we had also done so largely before that none can mistake our meaning unless they have very weak heads or which is worse wilfully shut their Eyes that they
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof As if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will Which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are That it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended with all and against whom you Rebel In despising that Gospel we teach unto you Know you also that in your obedience and subjection to that Gospel which we Preach unto you you are not subject and obedient unto us but except you be reprobates unto your own Lord and Saviour who requireth onely this obedience at your hands tying the everlasting salvation of your Souls and the Merits of his passion thereunto To conclude this point then seeing that Christ will come in flaming fire to be avenged of them that shall not obey his Gospel let the terror of that fire make us run through water and fire rather than disobey the same Thus Bradshaw that Learned and Faithful Minister of Christ I wish that Mr. Goodwin and I may both of us believe and Live and Preach according to the import of that Text of Paul and this exposition of it by Mr. Bradshaw then shall we acknowledge the Gospel to be a Covenant or Law of Grace which hath precepts threatnings and conditional promises Which is the thing that I have proved and defended against the objections of some Brethren who tho they deny the Gospel to be a Law of Grace yet I hope do not live in disobedience to its precepts for tho the principles of many in the visible Church are better than their practice yet I must Charitably believe that the practice of these Brethren is better than their Principle Remarks and Animadversions on his 8th Chapter The eight Chapter of his Discourse is divided into two parts In the 1st he pretends to Answer the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apology And in the 2d to Answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Writers And accordingly I shall assign two Sections to my reply SECT I. IN the Contents of his eight Chapter he says in a Parenthesis that in the Apology I urged some Texts of Scripture As expresly giving the Name of a New Law to the Gospel This is a notorious falsehood And I challenge and defy him to shew any passage in the whole Apol. from beginning to end In which I say that any one Text of Scripture doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel I knew very well that there is not one Text of Scripture which doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel and therefore I never urged one Text to that purpose I said indeed in pag. 22. lin 16.17 That the Scriptures expressly call the Gospel-Covenant of Grace a Law but never said nor thought that the Scriptures do expressly call it a New-Law What I said of the Gospel's being called a New-Law was this that our Brethren should not be displeased with us because we call the Gospel a new-New-Law since they know if it be not their own fault Apol. p. 22. l. 41.42 43 44. That we call it the new-New-Law in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant From which words it is evident that I do not call the Gospel a New-Law because I think the Scripture calls it so expresly for I did not think any such thing but because I take the Gospel-Law for the Covenant of Grace which is expressly called the New-Covenant And I think that without offence we may call the Gospel-Law by the Name of a New-Law in the same and in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant For since in our Judgment the Gospel-Law and the Gospel-Covenant are the same thing and the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant what just cause of offence can there be in calling the Gospel-Law the New-Law in the same sense that we call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Covenant And we are the more confirmed in this by finding that the most Ancient Fathers held the New-Law and the New-Covenant to be one and the same thing And they therefore called the Gospel-Law a New-Law because they found that the Scripture expressly calls the Gospel-Covenant a New-Covenant No Man can fairly and honestly deny this who reads and understands the Writings of Justin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian c. Who do all call the Gospel in its last fullest and clearest edition since the coming of Christ the New-Covenant and the New-Law as by two Names of the same Signification Yea it seems there was an old tradition even amongst the Jews that in the time of the Messias the Lord would make a New-Covenant with his People that is a New-Law I say it seems there was such a tradition amongst the Jews if we may believe what Paulus Fagius quotes out of their Writers For after he had cited their exposition of Canticles the 2d Chap. v. 10.11 12. Referring it to the time of the Messias he adds their descant on the words of the 12th verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render the time of the singing of Birds is come but they render the time of pruning is come The words are * Advenit enim tempus ut redimatur Israel Advenit tempus ut amputetur praeputium de quo dictum est Deut. 30. Chap. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et circumcidet dominus deus tuus cor tuum et cor seminis ad diligendum dominum deum tuum et lex convertetur ad novitatem et renovabitur Israel Sicut dictum est Hierem. 31. et scindam cum domo Israel et cum domo Juda pactum novum hactenus Traditio Paul Fagius in Annot in Caput 10. v. 16. Paraphrascos chald Onkeli in Deuteronomium For the time is come that Israel should be redeemed The time is come that the foreskin should be out off Concerning which it is written in Deut. 30. And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God And the Law shall be changed into newness and Israel shall be renewed As it is said in Jerem. 31. And I will make with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah a New-Covenant That is a Now-Law Thus far the tradition And it had been well if they had never had a worse tradition My design in this is only to shew that since 1. The Scripture doth expressly call the Gospel a Law as is now confessed 2. Since the Gospel-Law is the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ 3. Since the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant in Scripture It follows in the 4th place by good Consequence that without any just cause of offence we may very well call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Law in the same sense that we find it called in Scripture the New-Covenant even altho it be Not in Scripture expresly called the New-Law As it
is expressly called the New-Covenant I desire that this may be remembered and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes against the Gospel's being a New-Law is in truth against the Gospel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty with conditional promises and threatnings For as we have declared often we mean by the Gospel's being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties with promises to encourage us to the performance of them and threatnings to restrain us from the neglect of them And principally we mean by its being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promise and that the threatning is but the secondary less principal part which is subservient to the principal This being premised let us see how he Answers the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apol. And 1st he begins with Rom. 3.27 And says in the Contents of the Chapter That he hath recovered it to its right sense Now who that reads this would not think that in the Apol. I had interpreted this place of Scripture and had put a wrong sense upon it since writing against me he saith that he hath recovered it to its right sense And yet in this controversy about the Gospel's being a Law or not a Law I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture nor give any sense of it right or wrong It is true I quoted it twice to wit in p. 22. and 24. But all that I said of it was that from Rom. 3.27 It appears that the Gospel is Called a Law it s called the Law of Faith expresly Was this to interpret iâ— and to put a wrong sense on it from which Mr. Goodwin must recover it Doth not he himself acknowledge this to be true Has not he confessed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Gospel is called a Law and doth he not here confess with me that the Gospel is called the Law of Faith in Rom. 3.27 How is it possible then that he should recover it to its right sense from which I had wrested it Since I did not give any sense of it but only quoted it to shew that in the Holy Scripture the Gospel-Covenant is called a Law the Law of Faith and that the brethren ought not to be displeased with us for calling the Gospel a Law because the Holy Scripture expressly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 Here Disc p. 59. it is where he calls his book a poor Writing and if this Chapter together with the rest do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked I am much mistaken But because I am a fallible Man and liable to mistake as other Men are I will now affirm no such thing of his discourse but will hear and consider what he saith for recovering Scripture to its Right sense from which I did not wrest it first then p. 59. he says that by the words Law of Faith In Rom. 3.27 The Apostle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which by Faith he receiveth But now what if a body should deny that the Apostle means no more and should affirm that he also means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith as the receptive condition or instrumental means of Justification by the Mediator's Righteousness Might he not prove what he had affirmed by an Argument taken from this Text where the Law of Faith is expressly opposed to the Law of works where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law Of works Nay but by the Law of Faith Thus the Law of works is the Lâ—â— or Doctrine which requires works that we may be justified by the Righteousness of our own works which doth not exclude boasting Therefore the Law of Faith is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith that we may be Justified only by and for Christ the Mediators Righteousness which doth exclude boasting And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Testimony of our Confession of Faith which Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace i. e. the Law of Faith freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved But Mr. G. opposes two things to this 1. He saith this Interpretation doth not exclude boasting 2. It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have commented on the Epistle to the Romans First he saith p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boasting but rather greatly promotes it For why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of obedience to this New-Law i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith which by its statute makes his Justification to depend on this his performance I Answer I do not know the tempers of all Men nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know that he or some other of like temper doth really think that he might justly boast of and Glory in his Faith if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being justified by and for Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness But I would ask such a Man a few questions And 1. What is a Man's believing that he may be justified Gal. 2.16 Is that believing a doing nothing or a doing something I hope Sir you will not say that it is a doing nothing For if it were a doing nothing then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16 Would be this we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ that is We have done nothing in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by doing nothing of Jesus Christ Which if it be not an abominable wresting of the Apostles words and a turning them into non-sense let all Men Judge that have the sober use of their reason But if you say that believing in Christ is a doing something I ask again is that doing something the doing of some good thing or some evil thing I hope you dare not say that it is a doing of some evil thing And therefore you must say that it is a doing of some good thing And then I ask again is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God or is it not at all commanded If you say that it is not at all Commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God Then I say 1. That it is not Morally good but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden is perfectly indifferent and neither Morally good nor evil 2. Then it follows necessarily that you are not at all bound to believe and that you do not sin tho you never believe in Christ 3. Then it follows that to be justified by Faith
it may be Mr. G. will say that tho these were Protestants yet they were not right Protestants For the word right seems to be put in on purpose that he may have an evasion when pressed with the Authority and Testimony of Protestant Divines who are for our Interpretatation and against his But if he should say that the Divines I have named are not right Protestants yet I hope he will not say that Beza was not a right Protestant since he himself appeals to Beza p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Writes thus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per quam legem i. e. qua Doctrina sicut interdum Hebraeis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah in genere est doctrina quae aliquid praescribit qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae salutem proponit sub conditione si credideris quam et ipsam deus dat nobis ut praestare possimus oppositam doctrinae quae justitiam et salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris quam unus Christus in sese pro nobis et implere potuit et implevit c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27. By what law that is by what Doctrine As sometimes among the Jews the word Torah Law signifies in general a Doctrine which prescribes any thing Accordingly the Apostle calls the Gospel the aw of Faith i. e. a Doctrine which proposes salvation on condition if thou believest which very condition God also gives us power to perform and this is opposed to the Doctrine to wit of the Law which proposes Righteousness and Salvation with the condition if thou shalt do all which Christ alone â—n himself could and did perform for us Thus Beza In whose words the world may see plainly That 1. He says the word Law among the Jews signifies indeed a Doctrine but a Doctrine that prescribes something 2. That the Law of works is a Doctrine that prescribes works of perfect obedience as the condition of life 3. That the Law of Faith or Gospel is a Doctrine which prescribes Faith as the condition and which proposes salvation upon condition of believing 4. That the condition of the Law of Works none but Christ hath performed or could performed 5. That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Gospel or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to justification And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith obâ—igeth us to believe in order to Justification is evident also by what follows where he saith that it doth flagitare require Faith of us and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteousness which Christ hath purchased for us and freely gives unto us for our Justification And altho he hold that the Law of Faith obligeth us to believe in Christ for Justification yet he shews how it excludes all boasting Now this is the very sense which we give of the Law of Faith that it is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law â—nd obliges us to believe and proposes and promises to us the great blessing of free Justification by Christs imputed Righteousness upon condition if we believe which condition God gives us power to perform This being as clear as the light with what Conscience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him against us and that Beza gives the same sense of Rom. 3.27 Which he gives And of this he gives no other reason but this that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith because in the very same place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine likewise And yet it is confest by all that the Law of works commands works Here again the poverty of Mr. G's discourse appears and not only that but its nakedness too in so much that it wants a covering to hide its shame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to see what credit is to be given to him who thus shamefully abuseth Beza by clipping his Tongue and not suffering him to speak the truth but fathering upon him an opinion which is most evidently contrary unto his words 2. Here likewise I desire it may be observed that in the old Geneva Translation of our English Bibles which is of an hundred years standing at least there is this short note on Rom. 3.27 By what Doctrine Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it if thou dost and the Doctrine of Faith hath this condition if thou believest Altho then of old our forefathers by Law of Faith understood a Doctrine of Faith yet they held it to be such a Doctrine as prescribes the duty and requires the condition of believing and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law just as we hold it to be What he talks in pag. 60.61 62. Of all the Popish Commentators on Rom. 3.27 And of Estins the Jesuit c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae and is partly impertinent and partly ridiculous 2. Secondly He saith That Gal. 6.2 refuses to serve my design But I answer It 's plain from the Apology page 22. line 16 17. that my whole design in quoting Gal. 6.2 was to show that the Scripture calls the Gospel-covenant a Law and so it may be called there notwithstanding of what Mr. G. says to the contrary For though the words Law of Christ do not import the whole of the Gospel-covenant yet they import a part of it to wit the preceptive part For certainly he that loves his Neighbour as Christ loved him doth believe in Christ with a Faith working by love and he that so believes in Christ doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Gospel-Govenant and by Consequence he that loves his Neighbours as Christ loved him doth fulfill the condition of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which is the Law of Christ As to what Mr. G. objects That Estins on the place affirms that Christ is given to men as a Legislator whom they may obey I answer That Dr. Owen affirms the same thing as is evident by his express formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter It is true he doth not there prove Christ to be a Legislator from Gal. 6.2 but that is no matter he affirms that he is a Legislator and then he hath an Evangelical law And this being a Truth I for my part do like it never the worse because an Adversary believes it I wish our Adversaries both Papists and Arminians did with us receive not only that but all other Truths If Mr. G. say that the word Gospel or Gospel-Covenant is not expressed in Gal. 6.2 I answer Nor did I say that it is But there is expresly the word Law and I thought that sufficient to the purpose for which I quoted that Text. And though I should pass
it was that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew which Answer he thus begins There never was O Trypho nor ever will be another God besides him who created the whole world and we have no other God than you none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt Nor do we trust in any other for there is no other but in him in whom you trust also to wit the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And we trust in him and hope to be saved not by Moses nor by the Law to wit of Moses But I have read O Trypho that there should be a latter or after-after-Law and a Testament or Covenant c. As these words and what follows them are cited in the Apol. p. 24. This New-Law or Covenant Justin saith all Men must keep That would be saved Then alluding to Isa 42.6 He saith Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us and a sure Covenant after which there is neither Law nor precept nor Commandment How that passage of Justin is to be understood I have shewed before Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come and that through him God would make this New and last Law or Covenant with his Church consisting Jews and Gentiles And since God was to do thus he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus and from their Holiness of Life and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come and that this was the New-Law and Covenant which the Christians lived under and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on For saith Justin we are the true Spiritual Israel the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham who in his uncircumcision by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4 5. Then tells them this very Law ye Jews disgrace and vilify his New and Holy Covenant where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself neither do ye to this day receive it nor repent of your evil deeds The Legislator is come and present and you see him not The poor receive the Gospel and the blind see but you do not understand Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing That God was not like them pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies but that now by the New Law and Covenant he called them to true Evangelical Repentance and Faith in the Blood of Christ which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it To prove this he cites those Scriptures mentioned by Mr. G. he stops not there but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites Washings and Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood Spirit and word of Christ Wherefore he exhorts Trypho and his Company to Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the New-Covenant And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works but the New Law or Covenant of Grace which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 231. This is that very thing which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you From the premisses it is manifest that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require nothing of us at all for there and through the whole Dialogue he shews that Faith and Repentance and Evangelical obedience are required by the Gospel-Law and Covenant and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Thus he Answered the Jew's objection and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins and salvation of their Souls through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection and his Answer to it which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263 323 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr His words in pag. 35. Are these I shall saith Mr. C. only instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it if Justin intends any thing more than the recommending the Christian Constitution and proving it preferable to the Mosaical for he says This new law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further I answer then thus That Justin intended the recommending of the Christian Constitution of the Covenant af Grace and proving it preferable to the Mosaical was never denied by me tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense for I did and do most firmly believe That that was part of his Design and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew That the New Law or Covenant of Grace was now to be kept as it is in its Christian Constitution and that the keeping of it as such was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation and that the keeping of it in its Mosaical Constitution or form of Administration was not now necessary as Trypho pretended But then good Sir consider that in prosecution of that design he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all which all Men now must keep whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason if withal they have but common honesty whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose which was to prove that the accuser of the
believe that he is not much more mistaken in numbering how often it is to be found throughout the whole Book He that mistakes in reckoning Eight sure is not to be trusted in reckoning 97 nay since he puts the 8 into the 97 to make up his full number he must be mistaken in that number 97 as he is in the number 8. And for ought I know he may be much more mistaken in the making up of his whole number but it is not worth the while to insist upon this any longer And then for the other how seldom Justin calls the Gospel a Law whether more than four times I will not insist upon that neither though therein he is mistaken also But I Answer 2. That suppose it were true which he saith as it is not true nay suppose Justin had called the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament not only Ninety seven times but Ninety seven hundred times and had but twice called it a new-new-Law yet that would make nothing against us but would make for us and would fully answer the main end for which we cited the Testimony of Justin which was to prove against our Accuser that new-New-Law is not a new Word of an old ill meaning For here we see that above Fifteen hundred years agoe Justin used the word and called it a New-Law in a good sense and our other Witnesses add that it is of Grace a Law of Grace which was the thing to be proved 3. Ans What doth Mr. C. mean by saying That Justin calls it so often a Testament and but seldom a Law without the Explicatory word Testament added Would he make simple people believe that Justin Martyr wrote in English and used the English word Testament so often I hope he did not design any such thing VVhy what then is the Mystery VVhy thus it is Justin wrote in Greek and the word he so often used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now it seems Mr. C. would make the VVorld believe that the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifies a Testament an absolute Testament or Promise without any Condition but that it never signifies a Covenant a Conditional Covenant or Promise of a benefit to them that shall perform the Condition prescribed in the Covenant But be it known to all whom it may concern that if this was his design it was no good one For the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie a Testament in his sense but it really signifies both a Testament and a Covenant and therefore to obviate such Cavilling in the Apology p. 24. l. 37 38. In Translating the First Testimony out of Justin Martyr I did twice render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant whereby the VVorld may see I used no little Tricks of Art but down-right Honesty in Citing and Translating Justin whereas it seems my Reverend Brother would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Translated Testament only and not Covenant at all and this makes some suspect that there may be Persons in the VVorld who care as little for the word Covenant as for the word Law and it may be would be glad if people were brought to believe that New-Covenant of Grace is a new word of an ill-meaning as well as New Law of Grace But I demand of Mr. C. whether it was not a Covenant a Conditional Covenant which God made with Israel in the day when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt If he grant that it was as I think it will not be denyed and if any should deny it it might be easily proved then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Conditional Covenant and not an absolute Testament only For in Heb. 8. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word that is used by the Apostle to signifie that Mosaical Covenant And then in v. 10. the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no other is used also to signifie the New and Better Covenant in its last Edition which God hath made with the Gospel-Church through Christ Incarnat In like manner the same Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith is used in Jeremich 31. v. 32. to signifie the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant And in v. 31 33. it is used to signifie the said new and better Covenant in its last and most excellent form of Administration But so it is that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was a Conditional Covenant otherwise how did the people break it Jer. 31. v. 32. therefore both the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Conditional Covenant a Covenant which prescribes a duty and condition and promises a benefit to them who perform the prescribed Condition And consequently from the bare signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it can no more be proved that the Gospel-Covenant is an absolute Testament without any Condition than it can be proved from the bare signification of the same word that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was an absolute Testament without any condition for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both the Covenants Now then if the said Mosaical Covenant was a Conditional Covenant to the Israelites though it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament VVhy may not the Evangelical New Covenant be a Conditional Covenant or Law of Grace to us Christians though it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament And since such is the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am willing to be informed by my Reverend Brother how Justin Martyr can reasonably be thought to have added the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Testament as Explicatory of the word Law to Trypho the Jew and to teach him that by Law he meant nothing but an absolute Testament whenas by what I have said it plainly appears that Justin and Trypho both believed That both the words Hebrew and Greek signified a conditional Covenant which is the same thing with a federal-Federal-Law And that Justin believed this is evident both by his quoting Jer. 31. v. 31 32. in that very Page against the Jew and also by his using the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the same thing For as he is Quoted in the Apology p. 24. he sayes that all Men whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God must now keep this Covenant or Testament which is of the greatest Authority of all If all Men must keep it under the penalty of not obtaining possession of the Inheritance of God because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most excellent and of the greatest Authority of all then it is plain that it is a Law which prescribes some Duty to Christians so that their obtaining of the Promised Benefit is suspended till they through Grace perform the
said duty From all which I may safely conclude that Justin believed the Christian constitution of the Gospel to be not only a New Testament but a New-Covenant also and a New-Law of Grace and this he affirmed that all Men might know it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the powerful Grace of God which followed or Accompanied it By what hath been said it may evidently appear not only to the Subscribers but to all other intelligent Readers that Justin Martyr was very pertinently cited in the Apology and that both the R. brethrens exceptions against his Testimony are of no force at all and have but given me an occasion to set the truth in a clearer light As for Mr. C. His wishing that I had not attempted to prove the New-Law out of the Fathers since Daille who was better acquainted with them says it is in vain to make them Judges in many of the controversies between us and the Papists and yet the late question concerning the New-Law is a more nice point I Answer that I freely confess my self to be nothing if compared with the great Daille in that or any other part of Learning yet I have a desire to Learn of Daille and he teaches me that tho we are not to make them Judges in the controversies between us and the Papists yet we may make very good use of them as he instances in his Treatise of the right use of the Fathers English Translation pag. 183. 184 185 186 187. And at the end of pag. 187. He saith There sometimes arise such troublesome Spirits as will needs broach Doctrines devised of their own heads which are not at all grounded upon any principle of the Christian Religion I say therefore that the Authority of the Ancients may very properly and seasonably be made use of against the impudence of these Men By shewing that the Fathers were utterly ignorant of any such fancies as these Men propose to the world and if this can be proved we ought then certainly to conclude that no such Doctrine was ever Preached to mankind either by our Saviour Christ or by his Apostles For what probability is there that those Holy Doctors of former ages from whose hands Christianity hath been derived down to us should be ignorant of any of those things which had been revealed and recommended by our Saviour as important and necessary to salvation Thus Daille 2. I Answer that my R. brother quite mistakes the matter for the Apology did not alledge those Fathers As Judges in matter of right but as witnesses in matter of fact So it is expressly declared pag. 24. Of the Apology in those following words to prove this it being matter of fact there needs no more but to shew from the Testimony of credible Witnesses who lived many hundred years ago that the words to wit New-Law of Grace are not new but were used in the Christian Church in a good sense and meaning long before we were born This was the thing for the proof whereof we alledged the Testimony of those few Ancient Fathers And we are still perswaded upon good grounds that they speak home to the point in question and do prove the accuser to have asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying confidently in Print that New Law of Grace is a new word of an old but ill meaning 3. Ans We think it was very seasonable and highly incumbent upon us to bring forth the Testimonies of Fathers and other Orthodox Divines who lived and died in the true Faith long before we had a being when we were publickly accused in Print either through ignorance or malice both of using new words and of Preaching a New and Heretical Gospel and thereby if possible to convince our Brethren that they were quite out and that we were no such persons as they proclaimed us to be that we used no other words nor Preached any other Doctrine than what had been used and Preached by Ancient Fathers and Modern Orthodox Divines who lived and died in the true Faith of Christ many years before us without being suspected or accused of Preaching a New-Gospel And so much for Vindication of the pertinency of the Citations out of Justin Martyr In the next place Mr. Goodwin undertakes to shew that my citations out of Cyprian are not to the purpose For 1. Tho saith he Cyprian in his 11th Epistle Speaks frequently of the Law of the Gospel yet he thereby means only that due Discipline which ought to be observed in all the Churches of Christ I Answer it is true that Cyprian there by the Law of the Gospel means Christ's Law of Discipline instituted in the Gospel but then it is as true that the said Law of Discipline is a part of the gospel-Gospel-Law for it is an adjunct or Appendix of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration Hence Dr. Ames saith that Holy Discipline instituted by Christ is a part of the Gospel His words are * Sicut autem est pars regni Christi sic etiam eadem ratione est pars evangelii neque igitur totum christi regnum neque totum evangelium recipiunt qui rejiciunt disciplinam Ames Medul Theolog. lib. 1. Chap. 37. Thes 12. But as it is a part of the Kingdom of Christ so also in the same respect it is a part of the Gospel therefore they who reject Discipline do neither receive the whole Kingdom of Christ nor the whole Gospel Thus Dr. Ames and the late Reverend Mr. Gale who was Mr. Goodwin's Master saith in his Idea Theologiae Chap. 8. Sect. 3. pag. 175. That by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Gospel-Laws which Christ hath given to his Church c. 2. His exception against my other Citations out of Cyprian's first book to Quirinus where in his 10th and 13th Chapters he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and a New-Yoke Is that he meant no more by the new-New-Law than what Justin Martyr did that is a New-Doctrine and Institution of Grace Ans 1. Here Mr. G. confesses that by new-New-Law Cyprian meant as much as Justin Martyr and no more But I have clearly proved from Justin Martyr's own words that by New-Law he meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts as well as promises and by its precepts obliges us to duty Therefore Cyprian by New-Law meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts as well as promises and by its precepts obliges us to duty 2. I Answer that this is as clear as the light at noon from those three Texts of Holy Scripture whereby Cyprian proves that a New-Law of Grace was to be given For two of them to wit Isa 2.3 and Mic. 4.2 expressly call the Gospel a Law as Mr. Goodwin himself confesseth and the 3d Text to wit Mat. 17.5 Contains in it one of the principal precepts of the Evangelical new-New-Law of Grace For the words are This is my beloved Son in whom I am
only to prove that in the 5th Century the Gospel-Covenant was called a Law the Christian-Law This Mr. G. doth not deny but insinuates that by Christian-Law Salvian meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace which hath no precepts and requires no duty of us at all But if my R. B. once read over all Salvian and understand what he reads I hope he will never be so shameless as to deny plain matter of fact For if I be put to it I shall if the Lord will prove by his express words that he called the Gospel not only the Christian-Law but the New-Law and that it is a New-Law which hath precepts that oblige to duty Thus I have justified my citations out of the four Fathers Justin Martyr Cyprian Augustin and Salvian and have confirmed and strengthened their Testimonies by shewing that they prove what they were cited for and more too Now we must see what exceptions Mr. G. brings against my Modern Witnesses And 1. He excepts against Bradwardin because he was a Papist I Answer behold here the Justice and fair dealing of those Men with whom we have to do They bring Bradwardin to witness for them against us and then he is a good witness tho he be a Papist But when we bring him to witness for us against them then he is no good witness and his Testimony signifies nothing because he is a Papist The truth is we had not mentioned Bradwardin in this cause if he had not been first publickly Summoned by Mr. G's good Friend our Accuser to witness against us And if they will confess that they did foolishly in first mentioning him against us they shall hear no more of him from us as a witness against them For I declare I do not at all value his Testimony meerly as it is his Testimony And I think that in the Apol. I have shewed sufficient reason why no true Christian should value his Testimony meerly because it is his Testimony And that with a non obstante notwithstanding that high esteem which Mr. G. saith he hath obtained among Men. And yet because it is in my Judgment unlawful to belye either the Pope or Devil I must forbear saying either that Bradwardin asserted works done by Grace to be strictly and properly meritorious or that with incomparable strength and closeness of reason he refuted the Pelagian Heresies in all Points till Mr. Goodwin hath clearly proved both these matters of Fact for I have some reason to doubt whether they be both true and as to one of them I gave one reason of my doubting in the Apology p. 164. and another in p. 133. 2dly He endeavours to elude the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden by saying That they only mean that the Gospel in a large and improper sense may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatings in the Books of the New Testament Answ Ah poor Writing I would I had wherewithal to cover thy Nakedness but that is out of my power for the Leyden Professors give no such Reason why the Gospel may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament But they say expressly as cited in the Apology p. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its Own Commandments and its Own Promises and Threatnings Mark ye 1. They do not say it may be improperly called a Law but that it is called a Law 2. They do not say that it is called a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament but because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings that is plainly That as the old Covenant of Works had its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings so also the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings 3dly As the Promises of the Gospel are its own so are the Commandments and Threatnings of it its own but the Promises are its own because they properly belong to it then also are the Commandments and Threatnings its own for the same reason because they properly belong to it For the worthy and Learned Professors make no difference but say that Commandments Promises and Threatnings are all its own Now this is the very true reason why I according to Scripture call the Gospel a Law As for what Mr. G. Disc p. 67. cites out of Polyander there it makes nothing against what he says here in the passage now under consideration but at the most shews that Gospel is a word of various signification which I have freely granted and fully spoken to before And as Polyander renounced the Popish Socinian and Arminian opinion concerning the New Law so do I and my Brethren renounce the self-same Opinion And yet in the sence of the Orthodox Ancient and Modern Divines we believe the Gospel to be a New Law of Grace and which is the same thing in other words a New Covenant of Grace which hath Commands Promises and Threatnings of its own 3dly He endeavours to put by the Testimony of Gomarus by saying That he understood the Gospel in its larger acceptation when he called it a Law in the place cited by me and pretends to have made this out in the 34th Page of his Discourse to which he refers his Reader Answ In my Remarks and Animadversions on his Sixth Chapter I have clearly and fully refuted that part of his Discourse and shewed how grosly he abuses Gomarus by wresting his words to an absurd sense which they are no ways capable of to wit that there the word Gospel is not taken by Gomarus for God's Covenant of Grace only but for all the second part of the Bible that is all the Books of the New Testament I proved from Gomarus his own words that by the word Gospel he neither did nor could understand there all the Books of the New Testament but that really he there understood by the Gospel the very Covenant of Grace it self both discover'd to and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of Old and New Testament and likewise that there he called the same Covenant of Grace God's Law because of the duty required in it and the condition prescribed by it To which I shall only add now that in the Apology p. 100. I cited the 29th Position which Gomarus lays down next before the 30th that here is under consideration and in that 29th Position he saith That the Gospel is called God's Covenant because it promulgates the mutual Obligation of God and Men concerning the giving them Eternal Life upon their performing a certain Condition and that it is called the Covenant concerning free Salvation by Christ because God in the Gospel of mere Grace publishes and offereth unto all Men whatsoever on condition of true Faith not only Christ and perfect Righteousness in him for Reconciliation and Eternal Life but also he
promised ought to perform his Promise in point of faithfulness which is comprehended in universal Justice but he is not always bound so to do in regard of particular Justice Nor is this the necessary effect of a Promise that he who hath performed the condition annexed to the Promise may be said to have right to demand the thing Promised as a reward due to him on the account of Justice For what if I should promise a poor Man that I will give him an Alms if he will come and call on me at my House surely that Promise will not make it cease to be an Alms nor will it by reason of that Promise become an act of particular Justice or a Retribution of a Reward as of due debt Thus Essenius Answered that Argument of Bellarmin for the Merit of Works and Mr. G's Argument being in effect the very same there needâ— no other Answer to be given unto it And before he had so publickly made use of this poor Popish Argument he should have consider'd the import of the Fifth Article of the 16th Chapter of our own Confession of Faith where it is said expresly that We cannot by our best works Merit Pardon of Sin or Eternal Life at the hand of God by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the Glory to come and the infinite distance that is between us and God whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfie for the debt of our former sins but when we have done all we can we have done but our duty and are unprofitable servants and because as they are good they proceed from his Spirit and as they are wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the Severity of God's Judgment If my R. Brother had consider'd understood and believed this part of the Confession of Faith he would never have taken it for granted that Merit is nothing but the dueness of a reward to some work done For our Confession of Faith teaches us that many things are necessary to make a work Meritorious besides the Reward 's being due to it 1. It is necessary that there be a proportion between the work done and the blessing or reward promised 2. That there be not an infinite distance between Man the Worker and God the Rewarder 3. That the Work done be profitable unto God for whom it is done 4. That before our Works can Merit the pardon of Sin they must be able to satisfie God's Justice for the Debt of Sin 5. That our Works be not due to God by vertue of his Command requiring them 6. That the Works be our own done by our own strength 7. That they be most perfect and done as well as they ought to be These are the Conditions necessary to make a work Meritorious of pardon of sin and Eternal Life And if these things be so What deserves Mr. G's Question What is Merit but when the reward is due to some work done but to be hissed at And yet for his information that he may hereafter know my Principles better than he seems to do I tell him that in my Judgment to speak strictly the Reward is not due to the VVork nor to the VVorker for the VVork's sake and yet I hold the Reward to be due But to whom and for whom I Answer The Reward to wit of Eternal Life it is due to the Penitent Believer in whose heart Christ dwells by Faith and it is due to him by the Promise of God who is faithful and cannot lie and it is due to him for the sake of Christ who as he hath satisfied the Justice of God for all our sins so he hath Merited for us all the Blessings and Benefits of the New Covenant from first to last Now this being my Hypothesis founded upon the VVord of God and agreeable to our Confession of Faith as I have fully and clearly proved in the foresaid Remarks on my Reverend Brother's Discourse of the Gospel I refer it to all Men of Understanding Sobriety and Conscience to Judge whether this be true which he sayes That the Merit of VVorks is really included in my Hypothesis At last being conscious to himself that he can never prove that our Principle agrees with the Popish Arminian and Socinian Doctrines as he had asserted in the Contents of his 9th Chapter he gives over his Accusing us Falsly and concludes with Counsel and Advice to forbear such Phrases and Modes of Speech as by the Enemies of the Gospel are made use of to very ill purposes and that is to lay aside the use of the words New Law VVhereunto I Answer That I am very willing to be Counselled and Advised by those that are wiser than my self and though I remember something of the Fox in the Apologue yet I will agree with my Reverend Brother that for my own part I will forbear calling the Gospel-Covenant absolutely and simply a New Law without any Explicatory addition provided 1. That he and his Friend for whom he VVrites will confess the Truth of that which I have proved to wit that it is a Notorious Falshood in matter of Fact that New Law of Grace is a New VVord of an old Ill-meaning Provided 2. That as I shall not use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel Covenant a Law or a Law of Grace so he will himself use the word Law and call the Gospel by that Name as the Scripture doth and not be offended with us for calling it a Law and a Law of Grace and for believing with Mr. Pool on Isa 2.3 that it is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law c. and with the Professors of Leyden that it is sometimes called a Law because it hath also its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings Provided also that he will with us believe the Gospel to be a Law in the same sense as the Professors of Leyden and Mr. Pool held it to be a Law 3. Provided that my agreeing not to use the Adjective New when I call the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace shall not be construed to such a sense as if I thereby signified that I account it unlawful to call the Gospel a New Law for I do not so account it but on the contrary I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law in the same sense we call it a New Covenant The Reasons why I hold it lawful to call the Gospel a New Law are these 1. Because tho the Phrase be not wholly and Verbatim found in Scripture yet it is not contrary to Scripture yea the one halfe of it the Noâ—n Substantive Law is expresly in Scripture and the other halfe is agreeable to Scripture as joined to to the word Law and is expresly in Scripture as joyned with the equivalent word COVENANT 2. Because the Ancient Fathers in the best and purest times
is to be justified by doing a thing indifferent 4. Then it follows that justifying Faith is of a contradictious nature for it is good and not good It is good as is now supposed and it is not good because it is not commanded by any Law of God But if you choose the other Member of the disjunction and say that Faith in order to Justification is required and commanded by some Law of God then since that Law of God is not his positive Evangelical Law of the New-Co-venant for that you have now denied it to be for fear of promoting boasting it remains that it must needs be the Moral natural Law only which requires and commands Faith in Christ as indispensably necessary to Justification in persons of riper years But now Sir by your own Argument p. 59. I prove that the Moral-natural-Law doth not require and command Faith as indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification For if a Man's justifying Faith were An Act of Obedience to God's Moral-natural-Law boasting would not be excluded But rather a great occasion would be given to promote it For Why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of Obedience to the Moral-natural-Law which hath made it indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification He may then plead that he hath done what was required and so he may as well claim pardon and a right to life on the account of having done all that this Moral-natural-Law hath under the Gospel made necessary to his receiving Christ's Righteousness for his Justification As Adam if he had continued in his Primitive State might have formed a Plea of his Right to life for having discharged all that Duty which the Law of Works commanded and proposed as the condition of his being eternally blessed Thus Mr. Goodwin is caught in his own Net and he is held in it so fast that upon his Principles laid down in his Discourse he can never get out of it Mr. C. indeed strives to avoid this by maintaining That we are justified by the Habit of Faith and not by any Act of Faith required of us and done by us and though by this he contradicts the Apostle Rom. 4.24 and 10.9 10. Gal. 2.16 and Confession of Faith and Catechism and all Protestant Divines that I know yet that is nothing so long as it serves a Turn But for Mr. G. I am apt to think he will not take that course to extricate himself for he hath strenuously asserted in his Discourse of the Gospel That Justifying Faith is a Duty commanded by the moral law and so did Mr. C. before him and here in this very Chapter under consideration he affirms That Justifying Faith receives Christ's Righteousness for Justification But the Habit of Faith is it self received and doth not by it self without the Act receive any thing at all But it may be some will say Though this be a sufficient Answer to your brother Mr. G. yet what if an Enemy to our Religion should assault us with the same Argument how would you answer it To such I say 1. That he would be a very contemptible Enemy that should use such a Poor Argument against our Religion 2. I would tell him That though our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith yet we ought not to boast of it and that for this very reason amongst others because it is an Act of Obedience and Duty Luke 17.9 10. Doth he thank that Servant because he did the things which were commanded him to do I trow not Saith our Saviour So likewise ye when ye shall have done c. 3. I would tell him That we ought not to be proud and to boast of our Faith because it is by the special discriminating Grace of God that we are enabled to believe and that we actually believe in Christ for Justification 1 Cor. 4.7 Who maketh thee to differ and what hast thou that thou didst not receive and if thou didst receive it why dost thouglory as if thou didst not receive it 4. I would tell him That though our Justifying Faith be really an Act of Obedience to the Evangelical Law of Faith yet we cannot glory that we are justified by it as it is an Act of Obedience For it is not true That we are Justified by it under that formal consideration as it is an Act of Obedience but we are Justified by it as it is graciously appointed by God to be the Condition of the New-Covenant or to be the Receptive Applicative Condition and Instrumental Means whereby we embrace Christ and his Righteousness and trust to be justified and saved by him and for his righteousness only 5. I would tell him That tho our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith yet we cannot plead That we should be justified for our Faith and our Obedience therein to the law of Faith as Adam if he had persevered in his Innoceccy might have pleaded That he should have been justified for his perfect Obedience to the law and Covenant of VVorks because Adam's Personal Perfect Obedience to the law of VVorks was to have been his intire justifying Righteousness for which he should have been justified and lived whereas our Faith and Obedience therein to the law of Faith is not any the least part of that justifying righteousness for which we are pardoned and have a right to eternal life but it is only the special Condition or Mean appointed by God whereby we receive and trust to the Mediator's Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justified and Saved And by this it plainly appears That though Faith be required by the law of Faith yet that same law of Faith excludes boasting But in the 2d place Mr. G. saith This Interpretation is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have Commented on the Epistle to the Romans I Answer That I have shewed before that this is the very Interpretation of Rom. 3.27 Given by the Authors of the Dutch Annotations and of the assemblie's Annotations and by Mr. Mayo in the second Volume of Pool's Annotations And with them agrees Mr. Dickson whose words on Rom. 3. v. 27.28 Arg. 10. Are as followeth Because by the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Man's boasting in himself is excluded c. And the learned Stephanus De-Brais in his Paraphrastical Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans on Rom. 3. v. 27. Having shewed that the Law of works doth not exclude boasting He adds * Restat ergo lex Evangelica clamans Crede et Salvaberis quae Justificationis nostrae norma fit c. Scphan De-Brais Epist ad Romanos Analys Cap. 3. p. 58. There remains therefore the gospel-Gospel-Law crying believe and thou shalt be saved which may be the rule of our Justification c. I could add many to these but