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
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
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-Law to all Men believe and you shall live There will naturally Spring this Consequence that God by the said 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
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
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
Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christs Blood Hence in the same Book he saith (p) Vitam nobis morte acquisivit Christus morte superatâ nulla igitur spes alia consequendae immortalitatis Homini datur nisi crediderit in eum illam crucem portandam patiendamque susceperit Lactant. Divin Institut lib. 4. cap. 19. Christ by his Death hath purchased Life for us having overcome Death therefore Man hath no other ground of hope given him of obtaining Immortality unless he believe in him and take up and patiently bear that Cross to wit of Christ Julius Firmicus also writeth thus (q) Misericordia Dei dives est libenter ignoscit Relictis nonaginta novem ovibus amissam quaerit unam reverso Pater prodigo Filio vestem reddit parat coenam Nulla vos desperare faciat criminum multitudo Deus summus per Filium suum Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum volentes liberat poenitentibus libenter ignoscit nec multa exigit ut ignoscat Fide tantùm poenitentiâ potestis redimere quicquid sceleratis Diaboli persuasionibus perdidistis Julius Firmicus Maternus lib. de errore profan Relig. pag. 11. Edit Oxon. 1678. God 's Mercy is rich he willingly forgives Having left the ninety and nine sheep he seeks the one which was lost And the Father bestows a Garment upon and prepares a Supper for the Prodigal Son when he returns Let not any multitude of your Sins cause you to despair the most high God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord delivers or redeems those that are willing and willingly forgives the penitent nor doth he require of us many things that he may forgive By Faith and Repentance only ye may recover whatever ye have lest by the wicked perswasions of the Devil The word redimere is not here used by this Antient Authour in a strict and proper but in a large improper sense and signifies to recover as I have translated it And so the word to save is taken largely and improperly in Holy Scripture when Men are said by Christ or his Apostles to save themselves Luke 7.50 Thy faith hath saved thee Acts 2.40 Save your selves from this untoward generation 1 Tim. 4.16 In doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And that I have rightly Translated the foresaid word used by Julius Firmicus Maternus will evidently appear to any that shall be at the pains to read in the same Book Page 61. Line 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 c. And again Page 65 66. for by his own words there first to the Heathens and then to the Emperours it doth plainly appear that he was sound and orthodox in the point of our Redemption by the Obediential Sufferings of Christ God-Man and Mediatour between God and Men. But though it be thus that he maintained we are properly redeemed by Christ only and that none could ever obtain Life but by the Merit of his Obedience and Death yet it is withal most certain that he held not only Faith in Christ Jesus but also Repentance towards God to be necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order to the obtaining pardon of Sin For these are his express words (r) Quaere potius spem salutis quaere exordium lucis quaere quod te summo Deo aut commendet aut reddat Et cum veram viam salutis inveneris gaude tunc erectâ Sermonis libertate proclama 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum ab his calamitatibus post poenitentiam tuam summi Dei fueris indulgentiâ liberatus Ibid. pag. 6 7. Seek rather the hope of Salvation seek the beginning or rising of the Light seek that which may either commend thee or restore thee to God and when thou hast found the true way of Salvation rejoyce and then with an uplifted or loud freedom or boldness of speech proclaim it saying as the Heathens used to do in the Worship of Isis when they had found the Body of Osiris We have found it rejoyce we together when by the mercy of the most high God thou shalt be delivered from these calamities after thy Repentance And as the Apostles and Fathers after them as is shewn more largely in the Apology taught that the Gospel requires Evangelical Repentance in order to pardon of Sin so did our first Reformers and Protestant Divines since the Reformation As for our first Reformers abroad let the Augustan Confession which they all subscribed bear witness what their Judgment in that matter was I have spoken to this before and shewed from the express words of the Augustan Confession quoted at large in the Apology Pag. 88. That the Gospel requires Repentance in order to pardon of Sin and at the same time offers Remission of Sins freely for Christs sake to all that are truly penitent Melancthen who drew up that Confession and wrote an Apology for it is so clear in the case that it is matter of wonder to me that any should be so immodest as to deny so plain and certain a matter of fact For after he had said in his common places That the Particle gratis freely in Rom. 3.24 doth not exclude Faith but excludes the condition of our own worthiness and transfers the cause of the benefit from us unto Christ and moreover having said that the Particle freely doth neither exclude our own Obedience but only transfers the cause of the benefit from the worth of our Obedience unto Christ that the benefit may be sure Finally having said that the Gospel preaches Repentance but that our reconciliation may be iure it teaches that our Sins are pardoned and that we please God not for the dignity or merit of our Repentance or newness of Heart and Life but for Christs sake only and that this consolation is necessary to pious Consciences From the premisses he makes his inference in these words following (s) Atque hinc judicari potest quomodo haec consentiant quòd diximus Evangelium concionari de poenitentiâ tamen gratis promittere reconciliationem Definit itaque Christus Evangelium Luc. ultimo plane ut artifex cum jubet docere poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum in nomine suo Est igitur Evangelium praedicatio poenitentiae promissio quam ratio non tenet naturaliter c. Melancth loc com loco de Evang pag. 398. And hence it may be judged how these things agree that we said the Gospel preaches concerning Repentance and yet it freely promises Reconciliation Christ therefore in the last of Luke chap. 24. ver 47. defines the Gospel plainly or altogether as an Artist when he commands to teach Repentance and Remission of Sins in his Name The Gospel then is a preaching of Repentance and a Promise which Reason doth not naturally attain unto c. Thus Melancthon and I could quote more out of his Writings to this purpose but this is enough He who cannot see by this little that Melancthon believed the
necessary simply necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining pardon of Sin His Arguments are distributed into three Classes Some of them prove its necessity others prove its antecedency All together strongly prove that it 's antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Pardon This is to be seen in pag. 249 250. 3. He enquires whether Repentance may be called a Condition as well as Faith And Answers that it may not be called a Condition in the same Sense as Faith is called one For Faith is the only Condition whereby we close with the Covenant and whereby we close with receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Covenant-Promise But then he says That in a large Sense it may be called and it is a Condition necessary with Faith concomitantly in the same subject to qualifie and dispose it in a congruous suitable way to receive Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christ alone This is to be seen in pag. 253 254 255 256. And this is the same thing which we believe and have openly professed to the World in our Apology So that there is not an hairs breadth of difference between his judgment and mine except it be in the wording of it And this manifestly appears from our calling Repentance the Condition or Means which only qualifies and disposes the Subject for receiving Pardon by Faith alone whereas we call Faith the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we receive and apply the Object to wit the Promise and Christ with his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Promise for Justification and Salvation This is sufficient to show that Mr. Durham is of the same Judgment with us as to this matter and that therefore we justly bring him in to Witness for us I would have quoted his own words but they are so many and would swell my Discourse to such a Bulk that I choose rather to refer the Reader to the Book and Pages where he will see if he be in any doubt that I have faithfully given his Sense in few words Our Fourth Witness shall be the Famous Confession of Faith Composed by the most Learned of the Reformed Divines of Poland Lithuania and the Provinces thereon depending together with Divines from Germany and which they gave in at Torn in the Year 1645 unto the Lutheran and Popish Doctors all Assembled there to Confer about Religion for several Moneths together Their words are these (x) Non controvertitur hîc an ad remissionem peccatorum requiratur conversio mentis ad Deum interna peccatorum dum dolore detestatio asserimuus enim talem poenitentiam ut perpetuam conditionem ad peccatorum remissionem requisitam fuisse in utroque Testamento qua peccator non quidem eam meretur hoc enim efficit solum meritum satisfactio Christi cum eam nobis fide viva applicamus sed per eam praerequisita conditio impletur quâ aptus fit at Divinam misericordiam consequendam Confession Doctrinae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniae maguo Ducatu Lithuaniae annexisque Regni Provinciis in Colloquio Thoruniensi exhibit D. 1. Septembris A. D. 1645. Cap. 6. De Sacramentis Sect. De Poenitentiâ 1. It is not Controverted here whether the Conversion of the Mind to God and the inward Detestation of Sins with Sorrow be required unto the Remission of Sins for we assert that as a perpetual Condition unto the Remission of Sins such a Repentance was required under both Testaments whereby a Sinner doth not indeed merit it for the alone Merit and Satisfaction of Christ doth that when we apply it to our selves by a lively Faith but by it the pre-required Condition is performed whereby he is made fit and disposed to obtain the Divine Mercy Thus that Confession of Faith and those many Learned Judicious Divines who drew it up bear witness to the Truth with us That Repentance is pre-required and always was pre-required as a necessary Condition whereby a Sinner is qualified and made meet to receive the Pardon of his Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood I could bring more Testimonies both from the Word of God and the Writings of Holy Sound and Orthodox Ministers of Christ for the Confirmation and Elucidation of this Truth but I have been too large already upon this Point and therefore this may super abundantly suffice to show That though the Natural Moral Law oblige all Mankind in all parts of the World to one sort of Faith and Repentance yet there is another sort of them there is an Evangelical Faith and Repentance unto which the Evangelical Law of the New Covenant doth only by it self immediately oblige us And the Moral Natural Law obliges us to them but mediately only and by consequence in as much as it obliges us to observe all God's Positive Laws which it pleaseth him at any time to Enact for us Consider Eighthly That under the Gospel God hath made sincere Obedience to his Moral Natural Law and to all his Positive Laws which are in Force and not Abrogated one of the Articles of the New Covenant taken in its Latitude He hath made our performance of such sincere Obedience to his Laws a Condition necessary to qualifie and prepare us for obtaining full possession of Eternal Life and Happiness in Heavenly Glory for the sake of Christ and his Meritorious Righteousness only 1. For clearing of this It is to be observed that in the first federal Law of Works given and prescribed unto Man before the Fall there are Three things to be distinguished 1. There is the preceptive part of it 2. The Minatory Sanction 3. The Promissory Sanction 1. There is the Preceptive part which obligeth to Duty and except the Positive Precepts of Sanctisying or keeping Holy to God the Seventh day precisely in order from the Creation and of not eating the Forbidden Fruit All the rest of the Preceptive part of that Law of Works is in force still and obliges Mankind to an Ever Sinless Obedience de futuro 2. There is the Minatory Sanction or Threatning which binds over Transgressors to suffer the Punishment threatned And this is still in force with respect to all Impenttent Unbelievers They are all whil'st they continue in that State under the Curse of the first broken Law and Covenant and are lyable to a further degree of the same Punishment for every Sin which they shall commit in this World Yet by the Gospel there is a Door of Hope to get out of this State opened through Christ unto those to whom God sends it 3. There is the Promissory Sanction or the Promise of Life unto those who keep the Precepts without any Sin whatsoever Now this is not in force since the fall so as that any Man should be obliged ex intentione Dei to believe or hope that he shall obtain Eternal Life by his keeping the Preceptive part of the first Covenant or
also the meaning of the words besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb is as if it had been said beside that entring into or striking of Covenant And then he adds for further clearing of the matter The Covenant was but one in substance but various in the time and manner of its dispensation The Dutch Annotations go the same way and very clearly assign the reason of its being said that the Covenant was made with Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant made with them in Horeb Their words are It was indeed one and the same Covenant but Renewed Repeated and Published here in the Fields of Moab unto many other Persons in another place and in another manner than at Mount Horeb or Sinai And with these agree the Assemblies Annotations on the place Their words are The same in substance but not altogether the same c. I know very well that there are some Learned Men who in this differ from those before-mentioned and from Deut. 29. ver 1. would prove that the Covenant a◠Horeb was the Covenant of Works and that this in the Land of Moab was the Gospel-Covenant of Grace I am not indeed altogether of their mind for I have already shewed that the Covenant in Exod 24. which was made with Israel at Horeb was not the Original Covenant of Works but the Gospel Covenant of Grace in Type and Figure But though they and I differ in that yet we both agree in this which is the main thing and sufficient for my purpose That the Covenant made with all Israel in the Land of Moab was really the Gospel Covenant of Grace So the Learned Alsted saith (y) Foedus in terrâ Moabitarum est Faedus Evangelii seu Fidei quod Redempvionis gratiae appellatur Quod Deus ibi promulgavit ut Populo poneret ob oculos ingens illud beneficium quo illud quod legi erat impossibile per Christum reddidit possibile Confer Deut. 29. 30. Cap. cum Rom. 10.6 c. Johan Henric. Alsted in Turri Babel destructâ pag. 532. The Covenant in the Land of Moab is the Covenant of the Gospel or Faith which is also called the Covenant of Redemption and Grace which God there promulgated that he might set before the Peoples Eyes that great benefit whereby that which was impossible to the Law is made possible by Christ Compare Deut. 29 and 30. Chapters with Rom. 10. ver 6 c. Now if it be the Gospel Covenant or Covenant of Grace then it is certa in and evident that the Gospel-Covenant or the Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires some Duties of us For the Text saith ver 9. Keep the words of this Covenant and do them And ver 10 11 12. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord the God and into his Oath c. These express words of the Text plainly show that this Covenant hath Precepts and requires Dutyes And that this Covenant which hath Precepts and requires Dutyes is the Gospel Covenant of Grace is yet more manifest from Deut. 30. where Moses speaking still of the same Covenant at the same time he told the People That though they should break it by sin yet they might be received into Grace and Favour again upon their sincere Repentance ver 1 2 3 4 5. Ruthersord of the Covenant of Life opened Part 1. pag. 189. which proves that this could not be the Covenant of Works because as Rutherford well observes The Covenant of Works once broken ceaseth to be a Covenant of Life for ever because the Nature of it is to admit of no Repentance at all 2 Moses speaking still of the same Covenant he says one of the Promises of it is That the Lord will circumcise the Heart of his People and the heart of their Seed to love the Lord their God with all their Heart and Soul that they may live ver 6. But so it is That the Promise of Heart Circumcision is certainly a Promise of the Gospel Covenant of Grace 3 Moses speaking still of the same matter and at the same time he saith as it is written in ver 11 12 13 14 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far off It is not in Heaven that thou should say Who shall go up for us to Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it Neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldest say Who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it By which words he plainly teaches us That the Covenant and Commandment of which he there writes is neither impossible nor hard to be understood nor yet is it impossible nor hard to be kept and observed but that through Grace circumcising the heart to love God it is both easie to be known and also easie to be kept and observed Now this cannot be truely said of the Covenant of Works For as Mr. Shepard of New England well observes The Coudition of Works is impossible to be wrought in us by the Spirit And let not any Man think this strange and uncouth to say Theses Sabbathae pag 95. That the Spirit of Grace cannot now work in us the Condition of the first Covenant the Covenant of Works for the Condition and Duty of that Covenant was That Man should be without all Sin in Habit or Act and that he should be sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life and continue so to be But that is now impossible because it implyes a Contradiction for any meer Man since Adam broke the first Covenant and we in him to be always without all Sin in Habit or Act and to be always Sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life For all Men are already guilty of Sin and the People of Israel were all Sinners and had broken the Covenant of Works before Moses spoke and when he spoke the foresaid words unto them And it implyes a contradiction that by any Power whatsoever a thing which hath been already should be made not to have been at all or that a thing which exists at present should not exist at present whil'st it doth exist It will signifie nothing here to say That yet the Spirit can make us sinlesly Holy de futuro if he please for though that be very true absolutely speaking the Spirit can make a Man sinlesly Holy in Heart and Life for time to come though he hath been a Sinner in times part for that implyes no contradiction And the Spirit of Grace hath de facto done the thing in and upon the Spirits of Just Men made perfect in Heaven yet it is nothing to the purpose here because that is not the Condition and Duty of the Covenant
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
indisciplinatis condignam tradens Legem liberis autem side justificatis congruentia dans Praecepta Filiis adaperiens suam haereditatem Iren. advers haeres lib 4. c. 21. The Lord is the Master of the Family who rules all his Fathers house giving indeed to the Servants and those who are yet undisciplined a Law fit for them but to them who are free and justified by Faith he gives suitable Precepts and to the Children makes known their Inheritance Here Irenaeus distinguishes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand and the converted justified and adopted and the Precepts they are under on the other And gives to understand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works which rigorously exacts Duty and Service of them and condemns them for every Sin they commit but that the converted justified and adopted are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works but they are under the Law of Grace they are actually in a Covenant of Reconciliation with God which doth indeed prescribe Duty to them but not to be justified by and for their Duties of Obedience for they are justified by Faith in Christ but to be the way for them to walk in and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of the Inheritance which by their Justification and Adoption they have a right unto and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Preceptive part of the Covenant he assures them of by the Promises of the Gospel That this is his meaning appears from his words aforesaid and from what follows in the same Chapter concerning the two Covenants Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand and to the Christians with their New Law of Grace on the other Again in another Chapter of the same Book he writes thus (f) Consummatae Vitae Praecepta in utroque Testamento cum sunt eadem eundem ostenderunt Deum qui particularia quidem Pracepta apta utrisque Proeceptis sed eminentiora summa sine quibus salvari non potest in utroque eadem suasit Iren. advers haereses lib. 4. cap. 22. Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the same in both Testaments they show that the same God is the Author of both the Testaments who hath indeed prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants but the more eminent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be saved are the same in both Testaments or Covenants Here are several things to be observed for understanding this passage of Irenaeus which though in the Translation which we have it be not elegantly expressed yet it bears a good and useful sense 1. Then observe That according to Irenaeus the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants the Old and the New 2. That he calls the two Testaments or Covenants Precepts and therefore I translate particularia praecepta apta utrisque Praeceptis particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants and to translate them otherwise would render them unintelligible Now there can be no Reason given why he calls the two Covenants Precepts but because they both have Precepts and require Duties 3. Observe that he sayes God prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both Covenants and these can be no other than Gods positive Laws which pertained to the Legal Administration of the Covenant and are now abrogated and the positive institutions of the Gospel which pertain to the Evangelical Administration of the Covenant and are now in force Observe 4. that according to him without the observance of the more eminent and principal Precepts that is the Precepts of Faith and Repentance and of the Moral Natural Law a Man cannot be saved 〈◊〉 Which is true of Men at age for according to their Time and Talents after their Conversion and Justification it is necessary that they perform sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining possession of Eternal Salvation For without holiness no man shall see the Lord Heb. 12.14 Hence in another Chapter of the same Book he says (g) Non indigebat Deus dilectione Hominis deerat autem Homini Gloria Dei quam nullo modo poterat percipere nisi per eam obsequentiam quae est erga Deum Idem ibid. lib. 4. cap. 31. God needed not Mans love but Man wanted the Glory which is from God which he could no way attain unto but by that Obedience which is towards God He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven but by Obedience Evangelical not as the procuring meriting cause of Glory but only as the means to be used on our part and the condition to be performed by us to qualifie us for Glory to be given us according to promise freely for Christs sake and as a testimony of our gratitude to God in Christ for our Redemption and Salvation See lib. 3. c. 20. This is manifest from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the same 4th Book and in the 47th Chapter where he says expresly that the (h) Mors Domini est Salvatio eorum qui credunt in eum Iren. lib. 4. cap. 47. Lords Death is the Salvation of those that believe in him and yet both there and elsewhere he maintains that we are obliged to observe the Precepts of Christ in the Gospel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he says that now under the Gospel Covenant (i) Necesse fuit superextendi decreta libertatis augeri subjectionem quae est erg◠regem ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberaverit Iren. l. 4. c. 27. It was necessary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption should be superextended i. e. should be enlarged above what they were before and that the subjection which is to the King should be increased that Man by resisting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of and unthankful to him who redeemed him In a word Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Gospels having Precepts that require Duty than I am willing to follow him so certain it is that he held that the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties and that it is not a meer absolute promise or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this absurd Opinion except the vile Gnosticks whose practice was very agreeable to such a Principle that the Gospel requires no Duty and for the Law it can do a Man no hurt if he be once a true Believer how loosely soever he live as Libertines think My third Witness is Cyprian who says (k) Vt de co ad vitalia Praecepta instrui possent discerent quae docerent per Orbem vsro
thee for ever And as for thee do thou walk before me and be thou perfect or sincere And these are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement By this also we see that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which prescribe to us Conditions and require Duties of us Now what shall one think or say of those men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact and some of them are not ashamed to say that Christ hath helped them to write such falshoods I am almost weary in transcribing Testimonies against such unchristian asserting of Falshoods in matter of Fact and therefore lest I should quite tire both my self and the Reader I will bring but a few more tho I could bring very many My 6th Witness then shall be that holy and faithful Minister of Christ Mr. Shephard of New England whose words are †Mr. Shephard's Theses Sabbaticae Thes 110. pag. 78. edit Lond. 1649. The Gospel under which believers now are requires no doing say they for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requireth conditions but the Gospel say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law But says Mr. Shephard the Gospel and Law are taken two ways 1. Largely the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospel for the whole Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege Operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospel pro lege fidei i.e. For the Law of Faith The Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God and Eternal Life upon condition of doing or of perfect Obedience The Law of Faith strictly taken is that Doctrine which reveals remission of sins and reconciliation with God by Christ's Righteousness only apprehended by Faith Now the Gospel in this latter Sense excludes all works and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remission of sins before God but only believing But take the Gospel largely for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so it is an Act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his Throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives Tit. 2 14. And for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions is a sudden Dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines c. Thus Mr. Shephard where it is observable 1. That according to him the Gospel even strictly taken as it respects Justification only requires the Duty and Condition of believing And therein I agree with him that it requires Faith and only Faith as that whereby we apprehend Christ's Righteousness for to do that is the Office of Faith alone and of no other Grace or Duty 2. It is observable that according to him the Gospel taken largely not for all the books of the New Testament but for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace so it requires doing of Justified Persons and it requires not only the Duty of believing but it also requires that we serve God in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives This is plain and so plain that I hope no honest man who fears God and loves truth will ever dare to deny it For my own part I must profess to the world that I am perswaded it is my Duty to lose my life rather than impudently deny so plain a matter of Fact 3. It is to be observed that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Repentance in order to remission of sins yet afterwards in p. 94. of the same book he doth expresly mention it as well as Faith tho it have not the same use and office which Faith hath in Justification His words are Is not this preaching of the Gospel the iustrument and means of working that Faith in us which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end were not those 3000 brought unto Chrïst by Faith by Peter 's promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing Acts 10.43 c. This was written against one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that person hath possessed any others in our day I will not say let them who are concerned look to that This Testimony of Mr. Shephard I conclude with what he says in p. 79. As do and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of Works so believe and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of Grace until now of late this wild Age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Now observe here that in this believe and live which Mr. Shephard says in former times used to be accounted good Gospel there is 1. A Precept Believe for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood which commands and requires the Duty of believing 2. There is a Promise to those who obey the Precept and perform the Duty through Grace That through Christ they shall live But Mr. Goodwin will have the Gospel to be an Absolute Promise without any Precept at all Therefore this is no good Gospel in his Account Whether then he be one of those who have found a New Gospel that Paul and the Apostles did never dteam of let him look to that I hope if he see his mistake he will rectisie it Nullus pudor ad meliora transire My 7th Witness is the Edinburgh Catechism published for the use of the Colledg and Schools in that City in the year 1627. In the Section concerning Christ's Office the words of the Catechism are these * Q. In quem finem constitutus est Rex R. Ut ferret nobis Legem Regiam fidei vitae regulam Jac. 2.8 4.12 Rom. 3 27. Mat. 28.20 ut corda nostra in Legis suae obsequium flecteret Heb. 10.16 Act. 16.14 c. Method Relig. Chrift Catechet in usum Academ Jac. Regis Schol. Edinburgensium a Joanne Adamsono Acad. moderatore primario Edinb A. 1627. For what end was Christ made a King Ans That he might enact a Royal Law for us to be the Rule of our Faith and Life Jam. 2.8 and 4.12 Rom. 3.27 Mat. 28.20 that he might bow and incline our hearts to observe his Law Heb. 10.16 Acts 16.14 that he might invincibly protect and defend us Deut. 33.29 Ps 119.114
the same Christ being God and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circumstance tho a deplorable one of our own persons This is another great mistake for the object of faith in God before the fall is not altogether the same with the object of Justifying faith in Christ the Mediator since the fall And the object not being the same the Act of faith is not the same but is different in proportion to the difference of the object Moreover as the objective cause so the efficient cause is different for the Medicinal Grace of Christ which is the efficient cause of Justifying faith since the fall is of a different nature from that Grace of God as the Author of innocent nature thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the * See Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened p. 49. lin 16 17. fall And seeing Justifying faith in Christ since the fall hath both a different efficient cause and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object it seems to be specifically distinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall For the different specification of Acts ariseth from the difference of the efficient cause and object of the said Acts and from the different way of their being conversant about their respective Objects It is not a meer different Circumstance of our Case since the Fall that causeth the difference of our Justifying Faith now from the Faith of Adam then before the Fall But it is 1. The Difference of the Efficient Cause or of that spiritual influence of Grace which causeth our Justifying Faith in Christ the Redeemer 2. It is the difference of the Object which is not now God formally and simply considered as God the Creator and Preserver and Ruler of innocent Nature but nextly and immediately it is Christ considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men and ultimatly it is God Justifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. It is the difference of our Faith its Habitude and Relation from such a different Cause to such a different Object These Three differences are sufficient to make a different faith but it doth by no Logick follow from hence that every difference of Circumstance in the same state of lapsed Nature since the first Apostacy would make our Faith in Christ to be of a different Nature and Kind Now our Justifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall it may very well and it really doth fall under a different positive Precept such as that Acts 16.31 And yet I never denied but that the first Commandment of the moral natural Law doth also require this Faith but it doth not require it after the same manner as the positive Precept of the Gospel requires it 4. Fourthly Whereas from page 48 to 54. he endeavours to prove That because the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance therefore it doth also of it self immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance and that this it doth so as that there is no Positive Precept of the Gospel which requires of Christians and obliges them unto the said Evangelical Repentance In all his Discourse there he grosly mistakes in drawing his Consequence which doth not come naturally but is forcibly drawn against the clear Evidence of Scripture as I have proved before And therefore I utterly deny his Consequence and affirm on the contrary That over and besides the moral natural Law there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant or Law of Grace which requires of us an Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal Notion as arising from the perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent and as a means to prepare and dispose us for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ To such a Repentance thus considered the moral natural Law doth not by it self immediately oblige us and yet it was never denied by us but that mediately it doth oblige us to it in as much as it obliges us to obey the Positive Precepts of the Gospel which require such a Repentance of men to whom the Gospel is Preached 5. Fifthly Whereas he says in page 51. That the moral natural Law not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance but also moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it That is a very gross and dangerous mistake For it is a great sin for unregenerate men or indeed any men whatsoever to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance surely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it otherwise it should move them to sin which is false and borders upon Blasphemy The Truth is The Law of God doth not move men to any such Thing it rather moves sinners to despair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance or any thing they do or can do And since as Mr. G. says p. 51. The Gospel instructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteousness alone Where the Light of the Gospel iâ— superadded to that of the Law there the Law is a School-Master to bring men to Christ and Objectively moves them not to seek nor hope for Justification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themselves but rather to seek and hope for life and salvation only in Christ and on the alone account of his Righteousness and Death Thus I have refuted his first grand Assertion which he takes so much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter That the Gospel hath no precepts and requires no obedience I have shew'd that it hath precepts and requires duty and obedience of all those unto whom it is Preached and have answered his objections against the truth revealed in the sacred Scriptures and believed by the faithful Orthodox Ministers and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church SECT IV. His second assertion is that the Gospel hath no threatnings This I have refuted before in my remarks on his sixth Chap. but as I said there I must make some further Animadversions on it here in its proper place For the clearing up of the truth in this matter consider then that the Gospel-Govenant hath some threatnings against the unbelievers and unregenerate to whom it is preached and other threatnings against regenerate believers First the Gospel-Covenant hath some threatnings against unregenerate unbelievers to whom the Gospel is Preached and the design and use of such threatnings is to bring Men off from their unbelief and to move them to believe in Christ and to give themselves up to him in Covenant that by him they may be saved both from the punishment threatned in the Law and Covenant of works and also from that further degree of punishment threatned in the Gospel against all that neglect and refuse to accept and make use of the Soveraign and saving remedy provided by God and offered in
G's Confirmation or Illustration of his fourth objection by a comparison taken from An Earthly Physitian who threatens his patient with Death if he do not take the prescribed Physick And yet the threatning is no part of the medicine nor doth the Physitian design to murder his patient by the said threatning It is like all the rest of no force at all against the Gospel's having threatnings of its own For the just Consequence can be no other but this That just so tho the Gospel threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death if he do not by a true Faith receive Christ and his Righteousness offered to him in the new Covenant or Law of Grace yet the threatning is no part of Christ and his Righteousness which is to be received as the spiritual Physick of the Soul nor doth the Gospel design by the said threatning to damn the unbeliever but rather it designs to take him off from his unbelief and to induce him thereby to believe in Christ and by believing to receive and apply the Spiritual Physick offered him to preserve his Soul from Eternal Death This now is the just Consequence and it is so far from militating against my principle that it rather makes for it and is an Illustration of it For these two things I willingly grant 1. That tho the Gospel Covenant do threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death and the threatning is a secondary subservient part of the said Gospel-Covenant yet the threatning is no part of the Spiritual Physick it self to wit of Christ and his Righteousness revealed and offered in the Gospel-Covenant to be received by faith that by the Spiritual Physick so received the Soul may be saved from Eternal Death 2. I grant that the Gospel doth not design by its threatning to damn the Soul of the unbeliever but rather it designs to preserve him from Damnation by taking him off from his unbelief and by perswading him to believe in Christ that through him he may have Eternal Life And here I desire it may be remembred That I do not speak of the design of any person but of the design of the Gospel-threatning and I say that the designed use of it is not to damn the unbeliever but rather to bring him off from his unbelief and so to preserve him from Damnation According to that of Paul 2. Cor. 5.11 Knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade Men. And that of Jude Others save with fear pulling them out of the fire Judes Epistle v. 23. And this way of endeavouring to save Souls by Gosper-threatnings was according to the Commission for Preaching the Gospel which the Apostles received from Christ As was shewed before from Mark 16.15 16. I conclude this with the words of the Judicious Mr. Hutcheson * Hutcheson on John 3. v. 17. pag. 39.40 Christ did nothing at his first coming to procure Condemnation to any but on the contrary he offered Salvation to lost Man tho accident ally by reason of Man's Corruption and not making use of him his coming did heighten Mens Condemnation as John 3. v. 18.19 And again in Doctr. 6. he saith Albeit Christ may be eventually for the falling of many and his coming will afford sad matter of ditty against them yet all the blame of this lyeth upon themselves who stumble at the Rock they should build themselves upon who reject their own mercy by offer and by opposition thereunto do harden and blind themselves so much also do these words teach being understood of the nature of his work and carriage as is above explained SECT V. His Third assertion is p. 42.56 That the Gospel hath no conditional promises He grants that the Gospel hath promises which look like conditional promises but denies that they are really conditional and affirms that they are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace p. 42. His discourse he calls his poor Writing p. 59. Which is very true for a poor Writing it appears to be and in this part of it especially it seems to be both poor and blind yet the Author of it may be rich and sharp-sighted tho the discourse be poor and blind and if he be so indeed the more he is to be blamed for writing on this subject in such a poor and blind manner For he knows well enough that many Sound and Learned Divines have solidly proved the Conditionality of some promises of the Gospel and that generally they profess to believe their conditionality Many instances of this were given in the Apology And I do not think that Mr. G. will be so immodest or will have so little regard to Truth and honesty as to deny so plain a matter of fact I could add very many more witnesses of this matter of fact unto those produced in the Apology but I shall only Name one in this place and that is the â—ell-known Mr. Th. Shepherd of New England who says in these formal express words For any to think the Gospel requires no Conditions is a sudden Dream against a hundred of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines * Shepherd's Theses Sabbaticae p. 78. And as to what Mr. Goodwin saith here That the Gospel promises which seem to be conditional are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace I Answer that it was clearly proved in The Apology p. 45 50 57 58 59. That the Gospel hath Promises really conditional and being conditional there must be a Connexion and they must declare that Connexion between the Condition and the Subsequent Blessings of Grace promised on Condition but then it is and must be a Conditional Connexion such as I shewed it to be by Scripture and Reason And in page 114. I shewed this to have been the Judgment of the Synod of Dort and set that whole matter in a clear Light which I received from the Collegiate Suffrage of the British Divines in that Synod And so long as I have Scripture and Reason with the most Judicious of our Divines even the Synod of Dort for the Truth that I defend I do not in the least fear any hurt that Mr. G's poor writing as he calls it can do to our Just and Righteous Cause which in the Lord's Strength I stand for and through Grace am resolved so to do But though his writing can do no hurt to me nor to the Truth of God which I defend yet it may do hurt to the Souls of poor ignorant people and therefore for their sakes I will briefly answer his Objections against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises And Obj 1. First He argues thus p. 56. If any promises of the Gospel were conditional they would not differ in kind but only in degree from the promises of the Law for both would be made to obedience with this only difference that the promises of the Law are made to obedience in the highest degree of
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.
he saith that promises are as properly made to professors within the visible Church Act. 2.39 As Commands and threatnings exhortations invitations and Gospel-requests are made to them But tho the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and Benefits Covenanted The promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not c. And pag. 94. of the same book his formal express words are as followeth It is not inconvenient that the reprobate in the visible Church be so under the Covenant of Grace as some promises are made to them and some mercies promised to them conditionally and some reserved special promises of a new bea rt and of perseverance belong not to them For all the promises belong not the same way to the parties visibly and externally and to the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God So the Lord promiseth Life and Forgiveness shall be given to these who are Externally in the Covenant providing they believe but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these that are only Externally in Covenant And he promiseth both to the Elect. Thus Mr. Rutherford Zanchy whom my R. brother doth highly Commend was certainly of the same Judgment witness his own express words †Respondeo deum vocare etiam reprobos et mandare ut ad se veniant Salutemque illis promittere si velint in Christum credere manifestum est omnes enim vocat per verbum et omnibus vitam promittit aeternam modo in Christum velint credere atque haec est voluntas conditionalis reprobos vero non illudi cum a domino vocantur manifestum tiam ost c. Zanch. depuls calumn de predest not 16. T. 7. pag. 254. I Answer saith Zanchy that God calls even the Reprobate and Commands them to come unto him and promises them salvation if they will believe in Christ it is manifest For he calls all by the word promises unto all Eternal Life provided that they will believe in Christ and this is his conditional will It is manifest also that the reprobates are not mocked nor deluded when they are called by the Lord c. I should never have done if I should quote all our Protestant Divines who are of this Judgment I must therefore forbear to cite any more of them at present and refer to the Apology especially in pag. 114. Having thus frankly and faithfully declared my Judgment in this matter and shewed it not to be singular I will now for the further clearing up of the truth personate my R. brother and for him argue against my self and then Answer the Arguments Obj. God did not decree to save all Men even the non-elect in the visible Church therefore he doth not promise salvation to any upon condition of Faith in Christ The reason of the Consequence is because every conditional promise of God's word presupposes an answerable decree and purpose of God's will for God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart I Answer 1. By denying the Consequence for tho God did not decree to save all even the non-elect in the visible Church yet he promiseth to save some even all the elect in the visible Church on condition of Faith in Christ For he hath decreed to save them all he hath absolutely decreed their salvation on condition of Faith in Christ The decree of their salvation is absolute in respect of God decreeing but the object of the decree is conditional in respect of the salvation decreed That is God by his absolute will hath made faith the condition of their salvation and hath suspended the giving of salvation unto them upon the condition of their believing or till they perform the condition of believing in Christ 2. I Answer by denying the Consequence also with respect to the non-elect for tho God did not decree to save the non-elect in the visible Church as he decreed to save the elect yet he promiseth to save the non-elect in the visible Church conditionally that is provided that they believe in Christ as they are commanded to do And to the reason of the Consequence that every conditional promise of God's word presupposeth an Answerable decree of God's will because none of God's words contradict his will I Answer that in this case the decree of God's will which Answers the conditional promise to the non-elect is not a decree of Gods will to save the non-elect as he hath decreed to save the elect but it is the decree to make the conditional promise of salvation to the non-elect in the visible Church Whatever God doth in time that he decreed to do from Eternity But in time he promiseth salvation conditionally to the non-elect in the visible Church therefore from Eternity he decreed to promise them salvation on condition that they believe in Christ We must distinguish between God's decretory will strictly so called as it hath respect to the infallible salvation of the elect and his promissory will as it hath respect to the conditional promise of salvation to all elect and non-elect in the visible Church constituting a conditional connection between salvation as the benefit promised and faith in Christ as the condition required of all Now to apply this distinction every conditional promise of God's word doth not necessarily presuppose the foresaid decretory will but it sufficeth unto the verification of the conditional promise of salvation as such that there be in God the foresaid promissory will constituting a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required The conditional promise it self is not properly God's will but it is a sign of his promissory will And it is certain that the promise of God's word is a true sign of his will but in this case it is not a true sign of his foresaid decretory will therefore it must be a true sign of his promissory will and it gives us an infallible assurance that there is a conditional connexion between salvation as the benefit promised and Faith in Christ as the condition required of all so that whosoever performeth the condition he shall have the benefit promised whosoever believeth in Christ shall certainly be saved And therefore it may be truly said to such an one as Cain if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted Gen. 4.7 And the Spirit by the word saith to every Man in the visible Church that reads and understands the 10th of the Romans if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved Rom. 10.9 3. Thirdly Mr. G. must admit of this Answer as good and satisfactory or he must find out a better for the objection is certainly sophistical and he is as much concerned to Answer it as I am And I doubt not to make him
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
the Scriptures which are generally thought to contain conditional promises such as Mark 16.16 Act. 10.43 Luk. 13.5 Rom. 10.9 c. He saith Dis pag. 58. Is to assert that the import of them is no more but this that there is an unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indissolubly fastened with Pardon Justification and Eternal Life in the same person or that God justifies and saves no Man of ripe years but whom at his own due appointed time he makes a believer brings him to Repentance and Sanctifies his Nature To which I Answer 1. That here indeed part of the truth is granted but not the whole truth and with the truth which is granted there is intermixed this great falsehood that all such Scriptures import no more than the foresaid unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel For they do really import more 1. They import that the Connexion is not only indissoluble but that it is also conditional For instance that of the Apostle Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved imports manifestly that the Connexion between Faith and Salvation is not only indissoluble but that it is likewise conditional As was clearly proved in the Apol. pag. 50.57 58 59. 2. Such places of Scripture not only import an indissoluble unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel but they moreover import such a Connexion between the duties of the Gospel and the blessings of it Between its antecedent duties and subsequent blessings For instance Faith is not only a blessing of the Gospel but it is also a commanded duty of the Gospel As it is written Act. 16.31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Here Faith is commanded as a necessary duty which is to be performed by us antecedently to our obtaining of salvation and our obtaining of salvation is suspended till we perform that duty so as that if we perform it we shall be saved Rom. 10.9 Act. 16.31 But if we perform it not we shall not be saved John 3.36 And John 8.24 And the Lord having thus Commanded Faith in the Gospel and promised us salvation upon our believing and suspended his giving us salvation untill we through grace have performed the Commanded duty of Faith there wants nothing to make our actual Faith to be a condition and the Connexion between the Duty of Faith and the blessing of salvation to be a conditional Connexion 2dly Tho I do not say that Mr. G. is an Autinomian by his principle yet I must say that what he asserts to be the full import and meaning of the foresaid Scriptures doth not seem sufficient to secure Men from real Antinomianism because a Man may possibly assert all this which he here asserts and yet may not only be like an Antinomian but may be a most real Antinomian To make this appear Consider 1. That it is possible and implies no contradiction For a Man to be so Drunk with error as to perswade himself that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indeed blessings which God gives to Men but that they are no duties required of Men. Mr. Goodwin would make him believe that they are no duties required by the Gospel and he may by the help of the Devil make himself believe that as they are not duties required by the Gospel so they are no duties required of him by the Law and he may ground his false perswasion upon a false Interpretation of Rom. 6.14 Ye are not under the Law but under Grace Consider 2. That the Man is certainly a most real Antinomian if he be once of this perswasion that he is not bound either by Law or Gospel to believe in Christ to repent of his Sins and to lead a Holy Life but that without Transgressing any precept of the Law under which he fancies he is not being elected and justified from Eternity he may be an impenitent unbeliever and an unholy liver And as for the Gospel Mr. Goodwin hath taught him that it hath no precept and requires no duty of him at all I hope my R. B. will not deny but that such a Man is not only like to the Antinomian Monster but that he really is an Antinomian Monster Consider 3. That this Antinomian in consistency with his Antinomian Principle may assert this which Mr. G. saith is the full import of all the foresaid Scriptures which most Divines affirm but Mr. Goodwin denies to contain any conditional promises For 1. It is the opinion of this Antinomian that as salvation is a blessing of the Gospel so Faith Repentance and Holiness are blessings of the Gospel which God gives to the elect tho they be no duties which he requires 2. This Antinomian may believe that tho Faith Repentance and Holiness be no duties required yet being blessings of the Gospel Which God gives to his elect he justifies and saves no Man but whom at his own due appointed time he makes a believer brings him to Repentance and sanctifies his nature 3. Upon this the Antinomian may assert that there is an unchangeable Connexion between Faith Repentance Holyness and Salvation as blessings of the Gospel and that Faith Repentance and Holyness are indissolubly fasten'd with Pardon Justification and Eternal Life in the same person All this the Man may assert and yet be an Antinomian still for he may still hold that Faith Repentance and Holiness are blessings but no duties and that he is not obliged to them either by Law or Gospel From all which it appears not to be necessarily true which Mr. G. saith to wit that whosoever asserts this Connexion of blessings Is no Antinomian nor so much as like to such an execrable Monster For I have shewed plainly that a Man may assert this and yet be a most real Antinomian and hold that he is obliged to no duty either by Law or Gospel But saith Mr. Goodain What! Is Holyness the condition of obtaining the beatifical vision No tho it doth naturally dispose the Soul and make it meet for and capable of this blissful enjoyment I Answer and is that so strange and wonderful a thing to hear of Holyness its being called a condition required on our part in order to our obtaining Eternal Life which consists in the beatifical vision Is not such a manner of speech ordinary among our Protestant Divines But I distinguish Holyness is not a Meritorious condition of the beatifical vision of our right to it or of the obtaining of it and yet it is a dispositive condition required of us in order to our obtaining the beatifical vision for the alone Meritorious Righteousness of Christ Ay but says Mr. G. Holyness naturally disposes the Soul and makes it meet for that Blissful Enjoyment Answer and as it disposes the Soul for that blessedness from the very nature of the thing
as we said in the Apol. p. 39. So we say again that To affirm that we agree with Papists Arminians or Socinians in this or any other opinion that lays a Foundation for the merit of works and is an effectual Engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ is as false as any thing that ever came out of the mouth of the Father of lies Since then we never hold the Gospel to be a New-Law in the sense that Papists Arminians and Socinians hold it to be a New-Law to wit which lays a Foundation for the merit of works and is an Engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ His many citations out of Popish-School-men and some out of Socinus and Episcopius are utterly impertinent to prove our agreement with them in their Erroneous Doctrines I advise therefore my R. brother to forbear asserting or insinuating such things for the future He thereby doth himself more hurt than he can possibly do unto us for those that know both him and us will never believe any such thing of us upon his Testimony concerning us He blames me for being so liberal in bestowing Titles of dishonour upon those who differ from me as to call them Antinomians But Reverend Sir where do I in the Apol. call any that differ from me Antinomians but such as are Antinimians and most of them were so called by sound Protestants before I was born or was capable of understanding any thing of these matters As for the Congregational brethren I am sure that in the Apol. I was so far from calling them Antinomians that I declared I did not so much as suspect them to be Antinomians and highly commended many of them for their zealous and vigorous opposing of Antinomianism If any of the perswasion of our Reverend Brethren have fallen into Antinomianism that is no dishonour to them from whose Principles these Men are fallen so long as they themselves continue stedfast and indeavour to reclaim such as at any time fall into any Antinomian error My R. brother knows well enough that it was his good Friend the Informer and Accuser who necessitated us in our own just vindication to mention those Names of distinction and without that necessity put upon us he should never have heard of such Names from me And for his declaring that he will brand me with none of those hated Names Disc p. 74. I thank him for doing me justice since he cannot charge me with any erroneous opinion either of Papists Arminians or Socininians without doing me a manifest injury And yet within the compass of six lines after he had declared that he did not so much as think me to be on the side either of Papists Arminians or Socinians he undertakes Disc p. 74. to prove that the merit of works which I disclaim Is really included in my Hypothesis And his Argument to prove it we have in these following words What is merit but when the reward is due to some work done Now if the Gospel be in that respect a Law that it requires duties as conditions of having a claim to its blessings and promises them to the performance of those conditions then to them performed tho of never so little consideration the blessings must be given not as the fruits of meer Grace but as the result of a just debt This is his Argument whereby he would prove that the Doctrine of merit is included in my Hypothesis It may be he learned this Argument from the Papists when he was at Rome but whether that be so or not yet certain it is that it is one of their poor Arguments for the Merit of Works which they use against us and our Protestant Divines have so often Answered it and Baffled it that Mr. G. might have been ashamed to bring it again upon the Stage Alsted many years ago brought in the Papists urging this Argument for Merit of Works against Protestants and he gave it a clear Answer His Words are * Vita aeterna promittitur bonis operibus Matth. 19.17.29 1 Tim. 4.8 Jac. 1 1◠at promissio facta cum conditione operis facit ut qui opus impleverit meruisse rem promissam eamque ut mercedem jure suo exigere posse dicatur R. 1. Non recte hoc dicitur quia quod redditur ex promisso non redditur ex merito aliud enim est si dicam debes hoc mihi quia promisisti et aliud debes hoc mihi quia dedi tibi seu feci hoc tibi 3. Promissione◠illae quibus vita aeterna promittitur bonis operibus non jus sed possessionem vitae aeternae promittunt Itaque bona opera non sunt conditiones antecedentes causales meritoriae sed conse quentes respectu Juris ad vitam aeternam praeparatoriae quantum ad ejus possessionem Nam vita aeterna nobis debetur jure haereditatis seu adoptionis filiorum Dei in Christo quibus convenit ut vi vant vitam filiis dignam Joh. Henr. Alstedius in Turr. Babel destructa p 248. Eternal Life is prmised to good Works Matth. 19.17.29 1 Tim. 4.8 Jac. 1.12 But a Promise made with a Condition of a Work makes that it may be said That he who hath done the work hath Merited the thing promised and may justly demand it as a due Reward Answ 1. This is not rightly said because what is given only on the account of a Promise is not given on the account of Merit For it is one thing to say thou owest me this because thou hast promised it and it is another thing to say thou owest me this because I have given unto thee or done for thee that which is equivalent to it in worth and value 3. Those Promises whereby Eternal Life is promised to good works do not promise the right unto but the Possession of Eternal Life Therefore good works are not conditions antecedent causal and meritorious but consequent in respect of the right to Eternal Life and preparatory in order to the possession thereof For Eternal Life is due to us by right of Inheritance or Adoption of the Sons of God in Christ whom it becomes to lead a life suitable to Sons And Essenius thus Answers the self-same Objection of Bellarmin in these following words †Qui benè promisit promissis stare debet ratione fidelitatis quae in justitiâ universali continetur non tamen semper ratione justitiae particularis neque promissio hoc efficit necessario ut qui adjectam conditionem praestiterit tem promissam tanquam mercedem ex debito jure suo exigere posse dicatur Quid si enim pauperi promiserim me ei daturum eleemosynam ubi me domi meae compellaverit certè propter istam promissionem non desinet esse eleemosyna neque fiet actus Justitiae particularis aut retributio mercedis ex debito Essen Gonipond Dogmat. cap. 15. de Justific Thes 16. p. 563. He that hath rightly
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
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
promiseth unto his Elect and perfecteth in them the prescribed Condition of Faith and Repentance These are Gomarus his own words truly Translated which together with his 30th Position that next follows in order do sufficiently refute Mr G' s Gloss and may make him Blush for so grosly abusing that Great Man and most Zealous Anti-Arminian Fourthly Mr. G. having passed over the Testimony of Dr. Andrews the learned Bishop of Winchester comes in the last place to Dr. Twiss and pretends by a short Answer to take off his Testimony and to shew that it is nothing to the purpose And his short Answer is That all which can be concluded from the words of Dr Twiss is only this That God hath appointed a set and stated order in our Salvation according to which He proceeds I reply That this Answer is short indeed and that is no fault at all but the fault of it is that it is most false as doth most evidently appear by Dr. Twiss his own express and formal words quoted at large in the Apology I appeal to any Man of common sense that can read and understand English if withall he be a Man of Common Honesty and Ingenuity whether 1. Dr. Twiss doth not say that in the very Gospel there is a Positive Law according to which God proceeds in his dealings with Men. 2. That the said positive law is not only a Law to God himself but that it is a positive law to us appointing unto us a set and stated order of walking and prescribing a condition to be performed by us through Grace that we may obtain Salvation for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness only 3. That the said order is by necessary consequence a conditional order with respect to us and that it is required of us to observe the Conditional Order and to perform the condition in order to obtain the blessing and benefit promised conditionally in the Gospel These three things are so evident by the words of Dr Twiss that it is needless to use further reasoning to make them more evident and therefore I shall forbear doing it at present and only refer the matter to the judgment of every understanding conscientious Reader who shall be at the pains to peruse my Citations out of Twiss Thus I have clearly vindicated all the Citations that Mr. Goodwin hath excepted against and endeavoured to elude and have shewed that they stand in full force and do very pertinently prove the matter for the proof whereof they were brought in the Apology and that his Exceptions are so poor and mean yea false and foul that he had done more prudently and had better consulted his own credit and reputation as an Ingenuous Man and a Schollar if he had done by all my Witnesses as he did by Dr. Andrews passed them all over and said nothing to them at all But before he make an end of his Eighth Chapter he undertakes in P. 68. to instruct Ministers how to deal with a poor dying Sinner and 1. when a Minister comes to visit a Sinner on his Death-bed that hath lived in Lewdness to that time of his Sickness Mr. G. would not have him to advise and exhort and in the Lord's Name to command and beseech such a sinner to do any thing in order to his obtaining Salvation through the Mercy of the Father the Meritorious Righteousness of the Son and the Grace of the Spirit no though the Minister know that the Man hath lived to that day in Unbelief and Impenitence and in the practice of all manner of wickedness yet he must have a care that he do not exhort him to Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God he must not tell him that Faith and Repentance are both duties indispensably necessary to Salvation and required of him by the Gospel-Covenant and therefore that if now he do not believe in Christ with all his heart and if now he do not repent unfeignedly of all his sins and pray to God through Christ for Grace to enable him so to do he will be undone for ever But that on the other hand if he now cry to God mightily for Grace to help him in time of need and through Grace now at last believe and repent and turn to the Lord in heart and affection his many and great sins shall be pardoned and his Soul shall be saved through Christ according to the Tenour of the New Covenant or law of Grace This must not the Minister do because this would fright the wicked man and make him think that the Minister were sending him to Hell Well but what must the Minister do then why that Mr. G. tells us in the second place and the sum of his Advice you may take thus Poor Sinner by the Covenant of life and salvation God requires neither Faith nor Repentance of thee he requires no Duty of thee at all by the Gospel for that is all Promise absolute Promise but if God hath Decreed to save thee he hath Blessings in store for thee and all Blessings of the Covenant are inseparably linked together and thou shalt have one and all of them never trouble thy head then about Believing in Christ and Repenting of thy Sins for these are Duties which the Gospel requires not of thee But look thou on Faith and Repentance as Blessings given not as Duties required by the Gospel and laying thy hand on thy heart if thou findest the Blessings of Faith and Repentance there then all is well and thou mayest be assured of thy Interest in all other blessings This it seems is his way of visiting the Sick and thus he would Instruct other Ministers to Visit them and if we may believe himself he hath by this sufficiently answered that part of our Apology in Page 32 33. which relates to this matter But whether this be a sufficient Answer I am content without adding one word more of Reply to refer it unto the Judgment of the Intelligent and Godly Reader Remarks on his 9th Chapter MR. Goodwin's Design in this his last Chapter is to make simple unlearned People believe That our Opinion of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of grace which hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings doth too much agree with the Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion concerning the New Law And it appears to be very dangerous to agree with them in that Opinion First because as he says The Papists do in that opinion lay the surest foundation for that dear Article of their Faith the merit of works Secondly because the Arminians and Socinians do zealously espouse it as a most effectual engine to overthrow Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ Whether this be altogether true or not is not my present business to enquire if they really do what Mr. G. charges them with they certainly do a very ill thing And we are fo far from agreeing with them therein that we utterly detest and abhor it And