pag. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings It is also against Gomarus who as he is quoted in the same page 27 saith expresly That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and the Law of God by way of Excellency Isa 2.3 from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it But let it be against them or against all Mortals yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned I should confess he doth his work effectually were it not for this one thing on which the stress of his Cause lyes and which he begs but proves not nor can prove to wit That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles is nothing but an Absolute Promise or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do that it hath neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother as I told him before That that is not the sense wherein I take it when I say it is a Law of Grace and I have shewed in the Apology that it ought not to be so taken nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines when the word Gospel is used to signifie the whole Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator Thus in few words it may appear that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel which certainly signifies more things than one and particularly it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace as according to his fancy requires nothing of us at all And 1. First He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs are not any parts of it self but are borrowed from the Law and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion Before I give particular Answers to his reasons I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes SECT II. AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel Let it be considered 1. How the Gospel if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law and then employ them in its own Service For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept and then employs it As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this much good may the Notion do them But to me it is altogether useless because it is unintelligible 2. Consider That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them And it was needless to prove this against me for I never denyed it but alwayes believed it and oft times openly professed it And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against he cannot but know that my R Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology page 200 and 201. 3. Consider Thirdly That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law it s Obligative Power and its Actual Obligation And it is not to be denyed but that it hath its Obligative Power even then when for want of a particular Object or necessary Circumstances it doth not put forth its Power into Act and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject For instance In the state of Innocency The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto for want of a proper Object as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none and to Educate their Children Religiously when as yet they had none 4. Consider Fourthly That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present or upon supposition and for the future which distinction differs not much from the former Thus in the State of Innocency the Law obliged Man absolutely and for that present time not to hate but to love God But it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future when there should be and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World 5 Consider Fifthly That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Duties immediately and by it self but to others only mediately and by reason of some other thing intervening Thus in the State of Innocency by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate but to love and reverence God But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit only mediately and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death For it is certain and evident That without that positive Law forbidding it the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Positive Laws for us but when they are Enacted by God and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them it then obliges us to the observance of them This it did before and still doth since the fall of our First Parents For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind 6. Consider Sixthly That God's Enacting some Positive Laws after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection and with Gods Infinite Wisdom is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law and to Blaspheme God's Majesty For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evidently true that after the first giving unto Man and concreating with him and in him the Moral Natural Law God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before
said duty From all which I may safely conclude that Justin believed the Christian constitution of the Gospel to be not only a New Testament but a New-Covenant also and a New-Law of Grace and this he affirmed that all Men might know it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the powerful Grace of God which followed or Accompanied it By what hath been said it may evidently appear not only to the Subscribers but to all other intelligent Readers that Justin Martyr was very pertinently cited in the Apology and that both the R. brethrens exceptions against his Testimony are of no force at all and have but given me an occasion to set the truth in a clearer light As for Mr. C. His wishing that I had not attempted to prove the New-Law out of the Fathers since Daille who was better acquainted with them says it is in vain to make them Judges in many of the controversies between us and the Papists and yet the late question concerning the New-Law is a more nice point I Answer that I freely confess my self to be nothing if compared with the great Daille in that or any other part of Learning yet I have a desire to Learn of Daille and he teaches me that tho we are not to make them Judges in the controversies between us and the Papists yet we may make very good use of them as he instances in his Treatise of the right use of the Fathers English Translation pag. 183. 184 185 186 187. And at the end of pag. 187. He saith There sometimes arise such troublesome Spirits as will needs broach Doctrines devised of their own heads which are not at all grounded upon any principle of the Christian Religion I say therefore that the Authority of the Ancients may very properly and seasonably be made use of against the impudence of these Men By shewing that the Fathers were utterly ignorant of any such fancies as these Men propose to the world and if this can be proved we ought then certainly to conclude that no such Doctrine was ever Preached to mankind either by our Saviour Christ or by his Apostles For what probability is there that those Holy Doctors of former ages from whose hands Christianity hath been derived down to us should be ignorant of any of those things which had been revealed and recommended by our Saviour as important and necessary to salvation Thus Daille 2. I Answer that my R. brother quite mistakes the matter for the Apology did not alledge those Fathers As Judges in matter of right but as witnesses in matter of fact So it is expressly declared pag. 24. Of the Apology in those following words to prove this it being matter of fact there needs no more but to shew from the Testimony of credible Witnesses who lived many hundred years ago that the words to wit New-Law of Grace are not new but were used in the Christian Church in a good sense and meaning long before we were born This was the thing for the proof whereof we alledged the Testimony of those few Ancient Fathers And we are still perswaded upon good grounds that they speak home to the point in question and do prove the accuser to have asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying confidently in Print that New Law of Grace is a new word of an old but ill meaning 3. Ans We think it was very seasonable and highly incumbent upon us to bring forth the Testimonies of Fathers and other Orthodox Divines who lived and died in the true Faith long before we had a being when we were publickly accused in Print either through ignorance or malice both of using new words and of Preaching a New and Heretical Gospel and thereby if possible to convince our Brethren that they were quite out and that we were no such persons as they proclaimed us to be that we used no other words nor Preached any other Doctrine than what had been used and Preached by Ancient Fathers and Modern Orthodox Divines who lived and died in the true Faith of Christ many years before us without being suspected or accused of Preaching a New-Gospel And so much for Vindication of the pertinency of the Citations out of Justin Martyr In the next place Mr. Goodwin undertakes to shew that my citations out of Cyprian are not to the purpose For 1. Tho saith he Cyprian in his 11th Epistle Speaks frequently of the Law of the Gospel yet he thereby means only that due Discipline which ought to be observed in all the Churches of Christ I Answer it is true that Cyprian there by the Law of the Gospel means Christ's Law of Discipline instituted in the Gospel but then it is as true that the said Law of Discipline is a part of the Gospel-Law for it is an adjunct or Appendix of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration Hence Dr. Ames saith that Holy Discipline instituted by Christ is a part of the Gospel His words are * Sicut autem est pars regni Christi sic etiam eadem ratione est pars evangelii neque igitur totum christi regnum neque totum evangelium recipiunt qui rejiciunt disciplinam Ames Medul Theolog. lib. 1. Chap. 37. Thes 12. But as it is a part of the Kingdom of Christ so also in the same respect it is a part of the Gospel therefore they who reject Discipline do neither receive the whole Kingdom of Christ nor the whole Gospel Thus Dr. Ames and the late Reverend Mr. Gale who was Mr. Goodwin's Master saith in his Idea Theologiae Chap. 8. Sect. 3. pag. 175. That by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the Gospel-Laws which Christ hath given to his Church c. 2. His exception against my other Citations out of Cyprian's first book to Quirinus where in his 10th and 13th Chapters he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and a New-Yoke Is that he meant no more by the New-Law than what Justin Martyr did that is a New-Doctrine and Institution of Grace Ans 1. Here Mr. G. confesses that by New-Law Cyprian meant as much as Justin Martyr and no more But I have clearly proved from Justin Martyr's own words that by New-Law he meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts as well as promises and by its precepts obliges us to duty Therefore Cyprian by New-Law meant the New-Covenant-Law which hath precepts as well as promises and by its precepts obliges us to duty 2. I Answer that this is as clear as the light at noon from those three Texts of Holy Scripture whereby Cyprian proves that a New-Law of Grace was to be given For two of them to wit Isa 2.3 and Mic. 4.2 expressly call the Gospel a Law as Mr. Goodwin himself confesseth and the 3d Text to wit Mat. 17.5 Contains in it one of the principal precepts of the Evangelical New-Law of Grace For the words are This is my beloved Son in whom I am
Grounds and Motives that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true and that it 's possible for him to be deceived For these are the Natural Properties of an Opinion 1. It is founded upon a probable ground and motive 2. It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true 3. Ei potest subesse falsom though it be true yet it is but contingently true and so it might have been false or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded And then the consequence of this would be that God is not infinitely Wise Ommscient and Infallible And so upon Mr. G 's own Principle of Gods being an Opinator as well as upon the Arminians Principle God might possibly be surprized if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven as his Expression is in p. 1. of the Epistle to the Reader yet at many things which are done here upon Earth But I hope my R. Brother meant well though his kind love to definitions hath dazled his sight and caused him to embrace a Phantosme instead of his Beloved I mean caused him to take that for a definition of Gods Law which is no definition at all no not a good description of it I insist not therefore on this but supposing his thoughts to have been sound I shall only advise him Linguam corrigere to mend his Words and not to be so fond of definitions for the future And so I return to Clemens concerning whom I say 1. That he doth not say that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law nor doth he there so much as say that it is a definition of Mans Law or that it is a definition at all 2. What he said of a Law in the general he did not apply to the Gospel nor is it applicable to the Gospel of Christ If Mr. G will needs be applying it let him apply it to some other Gospel if he knows of any other but he shall never have my consent to apply it unto Christ's Gospel and thereby to make the Gospel an Opinion 3. I advise my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus and he will find that he affirms a Law in the judgment of some (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256 257. op Lugd. Batav 1616. to be right reason or a right word commanding things which ought to be done and forbidding things which ought not to be done And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruously said that the Law was given by Moses to be the rule of Just and Vnjust Thus Clemens And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace to wit that it commands some things to be done and forbids others and that it is a Rule of Just and Unjust But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens M. G. can prove with any colour of reason that the said Clemens was of his Opinion That the Gospel is such a Law and Doctrine of Grace as hath no Precept and requires nothing of us at all I need say no more in answer to his Impertinent Chapter but that in his Conclusion he harps upon the same string again and as before abusively calls the Evangelical Law according to our sense of it a new Law of Works for as hath been said It is no Law of Works new or old according to the Scripture use of the Words Law of Works but it is really a New Law of Grace And so in direct opposition to my Reverend Brother I conclude that according to Scripture This New Law of Grace is the Everlasting Gospel and by the Testimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce it appears that this Name Law and New Law whereby the Gospel is called is venerable for Age. For that the Gospel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the first Ages of Christ's Church and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichrist and I am very well assured will continue in Christ's Church after the Period of that Man of Sin Remarks on the Fifth Chapter THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the before-mentioned Mistake That I framed an Argument from the sound of the Word Law to prove the Gospel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty For 1. All that I argued from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture was that the Brethren should not be offended with us for calling it by that Name since the Lord himself in Scripture had so called it 2. From its being called a Law both by the Fathers and Orthodox Protestant Divines I argued that it is not a new word of an old but ill meaning And in both respects my arguing was close and consequential But for its being a Law that prescribes to us and obliges us to some Duties in order to Gospel-ends and purposes That I said plainly enough See Apol. p. 22.33 depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with respect to its subsequent Blessings and Benefits So that this Controversie whether the Gospel be a Law of Grace or not resolves it self into the question Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional and whether it requires of us any Duty with respect to its subsequent Blessing and Benefits And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpose against me in this Controversie unless he solidly and effectually prove what is impossible to be proved That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all in the foresaid respect And if he do that he doth his Work indeed but till that be done he doth nothing to any purpose and all his labour is lost And particularly his Labour is lost in quoting Roman Authours to wit Isodore Paulus Merula Brisonius Juvenal Ovid Cicero Papinian and Justinian to prove that the word Lex Law hath various significations For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture and in Ancient Authours but that we may use the Word without just cause of offence and that it is not a New Word of an old but ill meaning To as little purpose doth he quote Cyprian and Augustin to shew that by the word Law they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine For 1. Suppose it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Sense yet if they do sometimes mean more by it and particularly If they mean more by
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises together with the prescription of the Condition to the performers of which the Conditional Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace is a Law of Grace It is a Law as it prescribes the Condition and obliges us to compliance therewith and it is a Law of Grace as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Benefits and Blessings and likewise as it promises to the Elect Special Effectual and Victorious Grace whereby they do most freely and yet most certainly Believe and Repent And that in this sense the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to be also a Law of Grace that requires something to be done by us through Grace is evident from the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. where it says expresly That in the Covenant of Grace the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme where to the question How is the Grace of God manifested in the Second Covenant It answers That the Grace of God is manifested in the Second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to Interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit c. Likewise the Confession of Faith Chap. 3. Art 8. saith That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise Reverence and Admiration of God and of Humility Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men to whom the Word is Preached do not obey the Gospel and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it In Rom. 10.16 the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief as the Effect from the Cause See also 2 Thess 1.7 8 9. 1 Pet. 4.17 from all which it is evident that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace to the People of God And I hope my R Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also Secondly It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing which doth indeed contain whatever is essential to the thing defined and a Popular Description of a thing which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition but then it is acknowledged to be definitio imperfecta oratorum propria An imperfect definition and such as is proper for Orators to make use of and accordingly my R Brother pag. 28. lin 8. hath these numerical words as signifying the same thing when they professedly define or describe the Gospel Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described Thirdly It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion may be and indeed ought to be defined or described one way but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As for instance For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator it may be and indeed ought to be defined or described another way so that what is not Essential to it taken in a limited restrained Sense yet may be and is Essential to it taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense Fourthly It is to be well considered and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law as they frequently do It is in the Popish Socinian or Arminian Sense and it is mostly in the Popish Sense for it was with the Papists for the most part that they had to do when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law For instance Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists de Christo gratis Justificante denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense as we also do and yet as was shewed in the Apology pag. 96.128 he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified which is sufficient to show That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense Fifthly It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word a Law of Works is a Law the observance and keeping of which is a mans Justifying Righteousness it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice But a Law of Grace is not such our Obedience to the Law of Grace is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice either in part or in whole It is only either 1. That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only such as is Evangelical Repentance Or 2. It is that whereby we receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice such as is true Faith only Or. 3. It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness which we received a Right unto before in our Justification and which immediately after this Life is given to us in the full possession as to the Soul for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience as means in order to the ends aforesaid yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works nor doth it follow from our Principles Sixthly It is to be considered that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law and meer positive Laws Now it is granted by us all That the Lord after his Incarnation did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law neither did he enlarge the obligation of it so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament In this sense Papists Socinians and Arminians hold Christ to have been a New Law giver but this Opinion we
requires nothing but Faith as that by which we apprehend receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves for Justification and Salvation Yet 3. He here saith That True Faith in Christ cannot be without Repentance and Evangelical Obedience And before in the same Book pag. 100. Sect. 5. He had said that the Gospel requires of us not only Faith in Jesus Christ but likewise Repentance towards God and an Endeavour to observe all that Christ hath Commanded See this fully and clearly proved by his own express words cited in the Apology p. 98 99. All this with much more that I could cite out of Zanchy plainly shews That according to him the Gospel is a Law not of Works but of Grace which obligeth us to do several things in order to our obtaining Justification and Salvation by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ And so that Zanchy is really for us and not against us as Mr. G falsely pretends By this Instance amongst others it may appear what credit is to be given unto his Citations of Authours Ninthly He appeals to Nine Reformed Divines whom he refers to without quoting their words and pretends that they all earnestly maintained that the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it Disc p. 33. is no other than a Systeme of Promises Answ 1. What doth Mr. G mean by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it If he mean nothing but a bundle of Absolute Promises which require no Duty of us at all I do freely grant that the Gospel taken in that restrained and limited Sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises and those Promises absolute too And that this is Mr. G 's meaning appears by his whole Book But if he shall say that by the Gospel in the peculiar Nature of it he means the intire Covenant of Grace in its Evangelical Christian Form of Administration Then I deny that the Gospel in that sense is no other than a Systeme of Promises so as to have no Precepts of its own at all Answ 2. If any of the Nine Authours referred to do any where say That the Gospel in its peculiar Nature i. e. taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is no other than a Systeme of Promises It is like that by Systeme of Promises they mean a Systeme of Promises which are partly Absolute and partly Conditional and then in the Conditional Promises they imply and include the Precepts and Threatnings For 1. The Conditional Promise of God to Man implyes Gods Precept obliging Man to perform the Condition 2. The Word of God which promises to Man a benefit only if he perform a certain Condition doth necessarily imply the Threatning of not having the said benefit if he do not perform the Condition And in this sense it is possible that some of our Orthodox Divines have sometimes said that the Gospel is no other than a Systeme of Promises and yet they meant that the Conditional Promises do imply and include both Precepts and Threatnings Answ 3. Though I have not all those Nine Authours by me at present and so cannot now examine the several passages referred to yet I am sure Mr. G doth wrong to several of them in in giving out that they are of his Opinion for by what I remember to have read in them and have quoted out of them in the Apology and in my Remarks on the 7th Chapter I know as certainly that what Mr. Goodwin saith of them is false in his sense as I know it to be true that ever there were such Men and such Books in the World And particularly I know what he says to be false with respect to Pareus Rivet Gerard Walleus c. I say it is false that they earnestly maintained That the Gospel taken for the intire Covenant of Grace is a System of meer absolute Promises which hath neither Conditional Promise nor Precept Tenthly He brings Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus to witness against us That the Gospel is nothing but a Declaration and Narrative of Grace that requires nothing to be done by us Answ 1. Dr. Whitaker is there defending what Luther had written And though it is well known and confest by Lutherans themselves that Luther was not alwayes so cautious and exact in expressing his sense of things as other Divines use to be yet Whitaker thought that what he had written was capable of a good Sence to wit That since according to Luther the word Gospel signified nothing else but the Preaching and Publishing of the Grace and Mercy of God merited and purchased for us by Christ's Death The Apostle Paul might be accounted the best Evangelist and his Epistles with John's Gospel might be preferred before the Gosels of Matthew Mark and Luke because Paul did most of all Preach and Publish the Grace and Mercy of God through Christ both by Word and Writ And therefore Whitaker undertook the defence of Luther in this matter First against Campian and afterwards against Duroeus Now Luthers definition of the Gospel on which he founded his Argument which the Jesuits found fault with affirming that he had cast a Bone among the Four Evangelists and had preferred Paul's Epistles before the Three first Evangelists seems plainly to be taken from the signification of the Original Word For Gospel or good Tydings and so it is rather definitio nominis quà m rei a definition of the word Gospel than of the intire thing signifyed by the word Or admitting it to be a definition of the thing yet it is but an imperfect definition commonly called a Description which doth not necessarily contain all the Essentials of the thing defined or rather described And this way of defining that is describing things being ordinarily allowed to Orators as such Dr. Whitaker being a great Orator and using his Rhetorick very much as his Adversaries also did though in Controversial Writings he might well think it allowable to defend in Luther and likewise in his own Writings to use such a definition or description of the Gospel And yet not intend to tell the World as Mr. Goodwin would have it That in his Judgment the Gospel is a Declaration of Grace and Mercy in such a sence as to exclude all Duty and to require nothing of us at all no not so much as Faith in Christ That this could not be either Luther or Whitakers meaning in so defining or describing the Gospel is hence evident That they both maintain the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in that sense wherein Paul in his Epistles asserted it to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ But as I shall clearly prove in my Remarks on the next Chapter Paul in his Epistles never asserted the Gospel to be a Declaration of God's Mercy and Grace purchased by Christ in such a sense as excludes all Duty and requires nothing at all no not so much as Faith in Christ Answ 2. It is most
G quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza concerning the Papists confounding Law and Gospel its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church is impertinently alledged against us for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel as Papists do that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural or Popish sense of that word And in our Apology we plainly stated the difference between the Law and Gospel and the Righteousness of the one and the other in so much that whoever reads understands believes and observes what we there wrote on that subject is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation that it is plainly impossible for him to embrace any of them without first renouncing some of those great Truths which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer and of the Accuser of the Brethren So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies relating to the definition or description of the Gospel SECT III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines is to prove as he says pag. 36. by their express words that when they call the Gospel a Law they intend no more by it but a pure Doctrine of Grace To which I Answer 1. In general That in a sound sense I grant the Gospel Law is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace as was said before But in his sense I deny that they held the Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace so as not to require any thing of us no not so much as Faith in Christ I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th Article of the Augustan Confession which Luther and Calvin both subscribed Secondly I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges And 1. As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Commentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai 2. His First Testimony as to the first part of it concerns us not at all for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think say or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran 2. As to the Second part of his first Testimony That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ that he forgives Sins gives Grace Justifies and saves Sinners It is very true but is not the whole Truth for over and besides that it is also a Preaching concerning Christ that requires Faith in Christ According to the Augustan Confession and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty and which is far more according to the Scriptures of Truth 3. As to the third part of his Testimony That the Precepts found in the Gospel are not the Gospel but Expositions of the Law and Appendixes of the Gospel It is to be rightly understood As 1 They are not the whole Gospel Nor 2. Are they the principal part of the Gospel from which it chiefly hath its Denomination For the Promises are that part 3. It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testament which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration but they belong to the first Law of Works or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace yet there are other Precepts for instance that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment as we have proved belongs to the Gospel And it is indeed one Article of the Gospel-Covenant that we believe in Christ Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.8 9 10. The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai 2. is impertinently alledged and proves nothing but what we firmly believe that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification but a Law or Doctrine of Faith even a new Doctrine as Luthers expression is or Law of Grace 2. In the second place he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commentary on Isai 2.3 which as Mr. G alledges it is impertinent For it proves nothing against us We grant also to our R Brother that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent And I assure him it is not my way of arguing to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine or Law of Works at all in the Scripture sense of that word i. e. a Doctrine of Works by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after 3. Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me And it is notorious that he was for the conditionality of the Covenant as we are 4. Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words as if he had said That the Law of Faith doth not require Faith But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G 5. The Passage quoted out of Vrsin on Isai 2.3 makes rather for us than against us and therefore it was impertinently alledged And it is well known that Vrsin was not against but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant And in my Remarks on the next Chapter I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance 6. Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contradict my Principles but it rather confirms them And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel See his common places in Folio pag. 219. 7. And lastly For Wittichius his Testimony the first part of it doth not so much as seem to be against me for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours neither Repentance nor yet Faith are or can be the cause of our Justification as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works if he had never broken it But for the second part of his Testimony if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justification by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Judgment of our more
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.
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another law-Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof As if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will Which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are That it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended with all and against whom you Rebel In despising that Gospel we teach unto you Know you also that in your obedience and subjection to that Gospel which we Preach unto you you are not subject and obedient unto us but except you be reprobates unto your own Lord and Saviour who requireth onely this obedience at your hands tying the everlasting salvation of your Souls and the Merits of his passion thereunto To conclude this point then seeing that Christ will come in flaming fire to be avenged of them that shall not obey his Gospel let the terror of that fire make us run through water and fire rather than disobey the same Thus Bradshaw that Learned and Faithful Minister of Christ I wish that Mr. Goodwin and I may both of us believe and Live and Preach according to the import of that Text of Paul and this exposition of it by Mr. Bradshaw then shall we acknowledge the Gospel to be a Covenant or Law of Grace which hath precepts threatnings and conditional promises Which is the thing that I have proved and defended against the objections of some Brethren who tho they deny the Gospel to be a Law of Grace yet I hope do not live in disobedience to its precepts for tho the principles of many in the visible Church are better than their practice yet I must Charitably believe that the practice of these Brethren is better than their Principle Remarks and Animadversions on his 8th Chapter The eight Chapter of his Discourse is divided into two parts In the 1st he pretends to Answer the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apology And in the 2d to Answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Writers And accordingly I shall assign two Sections to my reply SECT I. IN the Contents of his eight Chapter he says in a Parenthesis that in the Apology I urged some Texts of Scripture As expresly giving the Name of a New Law to the Gospel This is a notorious falsehood And I challenge and defy him to shew any passage in the whole Apol. from beginning to end In which I say that any one Text of Scripture doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel I knew very well that there is not one Text of Scripture which doth expresly give the Name of New Law to the Gospel and therefore I never urged one Text to that purpose I said indeed in pag. 22. lin 16.17 That the Scriptures expressly call the Gospel-Covenant of Grace a Law but never said nor thought that the Scriptures do expressly call it a New-Law What I said of the Gospel's being called a New-Law was this that our Brethren should not be displeased with us because we call the Gospel a New-Law since they know if it be not their own fault Apol. p. 22. l. 41.42 43 44. That we call it the New-Law in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant From which words it is evident that I do not call the Gospel a New-Law because I think the Scripture calls it so expresly for I did not think any such thing but because I take the Gospel-Law for the Covenant of Grace which is expressly called the New-Covenant And I think that without offence we may call the Gospel-Law by the Name of a New-Law in the same and in no other sense than as we call the Covenant of Grace the New-Covenant For since in our Judgment the Gospel-Law and the Gospel-Covenant are the same thing and the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant what just cause of offence can there be in calling the Gospel-Law the New-Law in the same sense that we call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Covenant And we are the more confirmed in this by finding that the most Ancient Fathers held the New-Law and the New-Covenant to be one and the same thing And they therefore called the Gospel-Law a New-Law because they found that the Scripture expressly calls the Gospel-Covenant a New-Covenant No Man can fairly and honestly deny this who reads and understands the Writings of Justin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian and Cyprian c. Who do all call the Gospel in its last fullest and clearest edition since the coming of Christ the New-Covenant and the New-Law as by two Names of the same Signification Yea it seems there was an old tradition even amongst the Jews that in the time of the Messias the Lord would make a New-Covenant with his People that is a New-Law I say it seems there was such a tradition amongst the Jews if we may believe what Paulus Fagius quotes out of their Writers For after he had cited their exposition of Canticles the 2d Chap. v. 10.11 12. Referring it to the time of the Messias he adds their descant on the words of the 12th verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render the time of the singing of Birds is come but they render the time of pruning is come The words are * Advenit enim tempus ut redimatur Israel Advenit tempus ut amputetur praeputium de quo dictum est Deut. 30. Chap. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et circumcidet dominus deus tuus cor tuum et cor seminis ad diligendum dominum deum tuum et lex convertetur ad novitatem et renovabitur Israel Sicut dictum est Hierem. 31. et scindam cum domo Israel et cum domo Juda pactum novum hactenus Traditio Paul Fagius in Annot in Caput 10. v. 16. Paraphrascos chald Onkeli in Deuteronomium For the time is come that Israel should be redeemed The time is come that the foreskin should be out off Concerning which it is written in Deut. 30. And the Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God And the Law shall be changed into newness and Israel shall be renewed As it is said in Jerem. 31. And I will make with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah a New-Covenant That is a Now-Law Thus far the tradition And it had been well if they had never had a worse tradition My design in this is only to shew that since 1. The Scripture doth expressly call the Gospel a Law as is now confessed 2. Since the Gospel-Law is the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ 3. Since the Gospel-Covenant is expressly called the New-Covenant in Scripture It follows in the 4th place by good Consequence that without any just cause of offence we may very well call the Gospel-Covenant the New-Law in the same sense that we find it called in Scripture the New-Covenant even altho it be Not in Scripture expresly called the New-Law As it
from that Text to please my Reverend Brother yet the other Texts do abundantly answer my whole design and prove that the Gospel is expresly called 〈◊〉 Law in Scripture 3. And therefore it is not true which he says in the 3d place That Isa 42.4 is not effectual to prove my Assertion for my Assertion there is That the Scripture expresly calls the Gospel a law which it really doth in that very place as Mr. G. himself confesseth in Page 63. and I desire no more to prove my Assertion which only was concerning the word Law its being there used of the Gospel but not at all concerning what sense it is used in I meddled not with the sense of the word Law there and then and all that I shall do now shall be to desire the Reader to take the sense not from me but from Mr. Pool in these words The 〈◊〉 shall wait for his Law i. e. shall gladly receive his Doctriue Pool's Annotations on Isa 42.4 and Commands from time to time Mr. G. seems to be afraid that the receiving of Commands from Christ will undo men but Mr. Pool thought that the converted Isles would gladly receive Christ's Doctrine and Commands And it seems the Apostle John thought so too and therefore said 1 John 5.3 That his Commandments are not grievous 4. There is one Text more to wit Luke 19.27 which he says I urged to prove That the Gospel is a new Law with Promises and Threatnings But that is another mistake for I did not urge it to prove that but I quoted it to prove That Christ will account them his Enemies and punish them as such who do not like his Gospel because it is a Law of Grace which obligeth men to duty with a promise of blessing to the performers and with a threatning of misery and punishment to the neglecters refusers and despisers This is as clear as the light to any that reads and understands the Apology Pag. 22 line 19 20 21 22 23. As for Rom. 11.26 which he quotes I have spoken to it before and shewed how he wrests that Scripture Lastly For his wondering at my saying That the Law or Covenant of Grace is both new and old in different respects I regard it not if he had not been resolved to cavil at my words and to wrest them from their genuine obvious sense he would have found in them no cause of wondering Let any man of common Sense and Honesty read the Apology Page 22. at the end and Page 23. at the beginning and then let him judge whether there be any thing in that part of it but words of Truth and Soberness So much for answer to the first part of his Eighth Chapter concerning Texts of Scripture SECT II. In the second part of his Eighth Chapter he pretends to answer the Testimonies of Fathers and Protestant Divines which I alledged in the Apology to prove that new law of grace are not new words of an old ill meaning To all that he writes on this Head one general answer might suffice to wit That he impertinently gives his own sense of their words whereas that was not the Original Question In what sense the Fathers and Protestant Divines have heretofore called the Gospel a law a law of grace aed sometimes a new law but whether they did ever so call it all whether they did ever use those words or whether they did not use them and so whether the words be old or but new and of an old ill meaning This was the State of the controversie as manifestly appears by the Apology Page 24. line 15 16 17 c. And Mr. G. is so far from denying this matter of Fact that he plainly confesses it and moreover brings some other Testimonies to prove That the Gospel was called a Law by the Ancients and by some modern Writers as we have seen before Now this was all that I designed to prove by the Humane Testimonies which I cited in the Apology I might therefore stop here since my Testimonies remain in full force with respect to the matter of Fact for the Proof whereof they were alledged by me But since Mr. G. hath endeavoured to pervert the sense of my witnesses I will ex super abundanti consider what he hath said to wrest their words from their genuin sense And I begin with Justin Martyr Mr. G. first confesseth that Justin called the Gospel a Law and if he had been so ingenuous to confess likewise that he called it a New-law as he certainly did and as I proved by his express words then he had confessed also That I did very pertinently quote Justin and that his Testimony clearly proved the matter of fact for the proof whereof it was alledged to wit That new law is not a new word of an old ill meaning but it seems we must not expect that Mr. G. will be so ingenuous as to confess the whole Truth Secondly He saith That by law Justin meant no more than a new Doctrine of Grace to wit a Doctrine that requires no Duty of us at all And this he pretends to prove by the Design which Justin had in answering Trypho the Jew whereunto I answer That Justin did not mean by calling the Gospel a new law that it is no more but a Doctriue of grace more excellent than the Jewish law and its ceremonies which requires no duty of us at all Nor doth any such thing appear by the words and Design of Justin Now to clear this I will shew the True Occasion of Justin's mentioning the new law or Covenant and his real design in so doing which my R. B. hath not faithfully done The True Occasion then was this Trypho the Jew in the foregoing Page 227. had confessed that there were Precepts in the Gospel so great and wonderful that he doubted whether it was possible for any man to keep them but withal he affirmed That he did wonder also that the Christians who made so great profession of being of the True Religion and of excelling all other men and yet kept not the law of Moses observed not the Solemn Feasts and Sabbaths were not circumcised and moreover trusted in a crucified man did nevertheless hope to obtain any mercy from God since they did not keep his law Hast thou not read said Trypho That the man who was not circumcised the Eighth Day should be cut off from his People and that this was ordained alike with respect to Strangers and those who were bought with money This Covenant saith the Jew you Christians despise and regard not the Precepts of it and yet ye would perswade your selves That you know God though you do none of those things which they do that fear God If thou hast any thing to say in thine own defence against these things and canst shew what ground you have to hope for mercy from God tho you do not keep his Law we shall most willingly hear thee Thus argued the Jew And hence
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
to the end before mentioned it prescribes the exercise of Faith and Repentance And so the Gospel is a Law in a very true and good sense and that sense the same which we affirmed it to be in our Apology Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cause and is come over to our Camp and if he would be consistent with himself here might be an end of the Controversie about the Gospels being a Law with respect to Justification For assuredly we mean no more than that it prescribes seeking by Faith and Repentance and chiefly by Faith as aforesaid And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches as I proved in the Apology and shall yet further prove it if need be But he objects up and down his book that if the Gospel Covenant did prescribe or require any work or works whatsoever and did oblige us to any Duty then it would be another Law of Works and we should still be justified by Works I Answer By denying the Consequence Indeed it is true That if the Gospel require a Work or Duty it requires a Work or Duty for that is an Identical Proposition and no reasonable Man hath so little Wit as to deny the Truth of it But it is utterly false that if the Gospel require any Works then it is another Law of Works in the scripture-Scripture-Sense of the Word For by Law of Works the Scripture always means such a Law or Covenant of Works as would justifie a Man by and for his Works if he had them as he ought to have had them But though the Gospel require of us some works yet it is no Law of Works for it doth not require any Works that we may be justifyed either in whole or in part by and for those Works as such Nor are we for them in the least justityed at the Bar of God They are not any of them the least part of that Rigateousness by and for which we are justifyed This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology that we cannot but wonder that any Christian that is endued with Common Honesty and hath read and understood our said Apology should persist in accusing us of holding Justification by Works or in asserting confidently that it follows by good consequence from our Principles That consequence my Reverend Brother can never prove For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not according to our Principles required by the Evangelical Law as a Work to Justifie us or as a Work for which we are to be justifyed in the least degree but only as a means or condition in the Subject Man to dispose and prepare him for Justification by Faith only in Christ's Blood and Righteousness And again Though Faith be a Work in it self yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteousness by and for which we are justifyed but it requires Faith only as the Instrumental Means or Condition by which we receive and apply to our selves and also trust to Christ and his satisfactory meritorius Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal Let Mr. G. try when he will he shall find it impossible to prove from my Principles as I have here truely and sincerely set them down that the Gospel would be another Law of Works and that we would be Justifyed by Works if the Gospel required Faith and Repentance as aforesaid I might with more appearance of reason prove from my R. B. Principle That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law and if we be Justifyed by Faith as we certainly are and if Faith be a Work as in its own Nature it certainly is then we are justifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law and so are in tantum justifyed by the Law of Works and look how he can answer this Argument drawn from his Principle with as much facility if not more shall I answer his Sophisme drawn from my Principle That the Gospel is a Law of Grace I need say no more to answer all he brings in his Second Chapter but to declare that as he says pag. 12. That all but Papists Socinians and Arminians harmoniously agree in explaining such places as call the Gospel a Law after such a manner as may not give the least colour to the Opinion of the Gospels being a Law in the sense of the three mentioned Parties so I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them and do with them utterly reject the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense of the Gospels being a New Law But then it follows not that the Gospel is no New Law in any Sense because it is not one in the Popish Socinian and Arminian Sense Our Authour in pag. 10. says the Gospel is called a Law but no otherwise than as it is a comfortable instruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in store and as it teacheth them how they may trust and hope in the God of all Grace But this is not true in his Exclusive Sense for besides that it is a Law as it teacheth how such Sinners should ex officio in point of Duty trustand hope in the God of all Grace through Jesus Christ In fine Though in pag. 14. he mincingly say That the word Judge in Micah 4.3 may very well import no more than that Christ will judge what course of Salvation is best for us to take that he will determine the case and it is better for us to acquiesce in the Decision of his Vnerring Judgment which cannot be deceived nor will ever mislead us than to pursue our own mistaken apprehensions which bewilder us continually Yet even this will sufficiently evince that the Supernatural Gospel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Christ our Lord and Saviour is a Law to us for as soon as it comes to our knowledge it doth of it self immediately oblige us to acquiesce in his Judgment and Determination and to take that course for Salvation which he hath judged best for us to take So that let Mr. G. shuffle never so much he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Gospel immediately to believe in Christ Matth. 17.5 and to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Acts 16.31 I shall conclude my Animadversions on this Second Chapter with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool who was neither Papist Socinian nor Arminian as it is expressed in his Annotation on Isa 2.3 Out of Zion shall go forth the Law The New Law the Doctrine of the Gospel which is frequently called a Law because it hath the Nature and Power of a Law obliging us no less to the Belief and Practice of it than the Old Law did Remarks on the Third Chapter IN the beginning of this Chapter he doth me a manifest wrong in saying That
I concluded but with no certainty from the Gospels being called a Law in the New Testament that it is a Rule of Works c. It is utterly false that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that from the Gospels being called a Law He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology All that I concluded from the Gospels being called a Law either in the New or Old Testament was that our Brethren should not be offended with us for calling the Gospel a Law since the Scripture calls it by that name Apol. p 22. Next Against some Body who from the Etymology of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law had inferred that by it is signifyed a Rule of Duty enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence he says That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology And if he knows this why did he against his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah and in his second Chapter from the Derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah which signifies he teacheth conclude with confidence that Torah Law when used for the Gospel signifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all 2 Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter p. 17. conclude that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Gospel is named by it signifies no more but such a Doctrine as aforesaid because the Septuagint render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as most fitting to express such a sense Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah and consequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty by his own Confession But it seems that same way of arguing which is of no force against our Brethren must be esteemed to be of great force against us because so is the Will and Pleasure of this Reverend Brother All the rest of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Sense of Gal. 2.19 which he had from Luther and I do not doubt to make it appear before we have done that as Luther held the Gospel to be a Law so he held that the Gospel-Law requires of us Faith in Christ and Evangelical Repentance And I am sure that both Jerome and Primasius Two Ancient Fathers who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul I through the Law am dead to the Law as if he had said I through the Evangelical Law am dead to the Old Law I say I am sure that both of them by the Evangelical Law understood such a Gospel-Law as hath not only Promises but also hath its own Precepts and Threatnings as manifeâ—â—ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13 And having briefly hinted this That Jerome Primasius and Luther who all Three go one way and there think to have found the Evangelical Law yet did not by the Evangelical Law understand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all neither Faith nor Repentance I might very well pass over Mr. G's fine flourish upon the Words of the Apostle as not worth my taking any further notice of had not he dropped several gross falsehoods in giving his Sense of that Text. As 1. That the Error of the Galathians against which Paul wrote was that they held the Gospel to be a New Law Disc p. 18. in the same Sense that we hold it so to be This I say is a gross falsehood for it is manifest that those Galathians were Judaizing Christians whose Error was That Men cannot be Justifyed and Saved unless over and besides their believing in Christ and repenting of their Sins they be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses See Acts 15.1 compared with Gal. 2.4 Gal. 4. ver 9 10 21. and 5 ver 1.2 3 4 5 6. If then those Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness yet it is plain They thought that Christ's Imputed Righteousness received by Faith was not alone sufficient for Juâ—tification but thaâ— Men muâ—â— joyn to it their own Mosaical Ceremonial and Moral Righteousness as a part of their Justifying Righteousness before God Now can our Reverend Brother with a good Conscience say that I or any of my Brethren are for such a way of Justification by the Righteousness of Moses his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteousness of Christ as that by and for which we are Justified and Live 2. In Page 19 20 21 he all along insinuates plainly That we hold we are Justifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Gospel Law and that the defect of Christ's Righteousness is made up by the super-addition of our own Righteousness to his so that we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Christ's Imputed Righteousness but also in part by and for our own Works and Righteousness This is another falsehood so gross that I wonder my Reverend Brother should ever be guilty of it if he hath read and understood our Apology pag 38 39 40 45 80 89 90 91 193 196 200 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us we have in our Apology rejected and do now here again reject it with abhorrency And therefore it any do hereafter persist to charge us with this Error which we abhor let them look to it that they do not force us in our own just defence to proclaim them to the World to be Men possess'st with a caluminating lying Spirit But I hope I shall never be forced upon the doing of that which is so much against my Christian temper which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren than to discover them and proclaim them to the World I do sincerely desire and through Grace shall endeavour if it be possible and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men Rom. 12.18 And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren giving them all due respect and being ever ready to serve them in the Lord. Remarks on the Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter at the very beginning he mistakes my purpose and design in appealing to the Fathers in this Controversie which was not by them as Judges to prove any matter of right as he pretends but only by them as Witnesses to prove matter of Fact to wit That they called the Gospel a Law in a good sense See Apol. p. 24. and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning as our Accuser had affirmed it to be and doth Mr. G. refute this No he is so far from refuting it that he confirms the Truth of what I said and with me proves the Accuser of the Brethren to have asserted a notorious falshood in matter of Fact in the face of a Learned Age. Then he quotes
Justification and Salvation calling them the Precepts of the Church when they are nothing less For a free Christian will say thus I will fast I will Pray I will do this and that which is Commanded by Men not that I need to do it for Justification or Salvation but that in doing it I may obey the Pope the Bishop such a Community and such a Magistrate or that I may give my Neighbour a good Example c. Thus Luther Now whether my R Brother have any occasion for this Doctrine he knows best himself it may be of some use to him the next time he Travels to Rome But for my self I declare I have no occasion for it nor do I ever intend to make use of it Mr Goodwin did well to tell the World that Luther wrote that Book before he had declared War against the Pope but then he might have been more sparing in his Praises of it and in urging Luther's Testimony therein against me and my Reverend Brethren since he was but newly crept out of the Monastery and had received but a small measure of Light when he wrote that Treatise And yet what is quoted out of it against me doth not advantage my R. Brother nor yet prejudice me and the Cause which I defend Though Luther was not without his failings as no Man is more or less yet he was really a great and good Man and I heartily bless God for the good that was in him and done by him and his testimony shall be alwayes respectfully received by me so far as I find it consonant to the Scriptures of Truth and to the Established Doctrine of our own better Reformed Church 4. In the fourth place Mr G. quotes the Excellent Melancthon again but to no purpose for I assent to all that Melancthon there writes Set aside the glosses of Mr. G and Melancthons own words do not prejudice my Cause at all And elsewhere Melancthon is clearly for me and holds as I do That the Gospel properly taken requires of us Faith and Repentance and promises Grace to enable us to believe and repent c. And I desire no more to prove the Gospel to be a Law of Grace in our sense of the word This I shall if the Lord will clearly prove from Melancthons own words in my Animadversions on Mr. G 's Seventh Chapter and then it will plainly appear that he doth but abuse Melancthon and the People too in thus indeavouring to make them believe that Melancthon was of his absurd Opinion 5. His next Witness against me is the famous Calvin but I fear no harm from him for I take him to be an honester Man than to contradict himself in Witness-bearing And I am sure he hath already borne Witness for us in the Apology and declared that he believed as we do that the Gospel-Covenant is Conditional and requires of Men both Faith and Repentance in order to the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls See Apol. pag. 51.92 93 94 which is sufficient to prove that he held the Gospel to be a Law of Grace as we do And in the place which my R. Brother refers to and in the words which he quotes there is nothing but what is well consistent with what I most truely and faithfully cited both out of his Institutions and Commentaries And indeed what is here quoted by Mr. G. is very impertinently alledged against me For I do sincerely confess that to invest Christ with a new Legislative Power and to dignifie the Gospel with the title of a New Law in the Popish Sense of the Word is indeed a mere fiction and that those who go the Popish way have feigned Christ to be the Maker of an Evangelical Law which should have supplyed the defect even of the Moral Law given unto Israel by the hand of Moses But notwithstanding this it is as clear as the Light That Calvin did not believe the Gospel-Covenant to be nothing but a bundle of mere absolute Promises of Grace For besides what was quoted in the Apology Calvin in his Commentary on the Third of Jonah saith as followeth (h) Quoties veniam proponit Deus peccatoribus simul additur haec conditio ut resipiscant nec tamen sequitur poenitentiam esse causam impetrandae gratiae gratis enim se Deus offert neque aliunde inducitur quà m suâ liberalitate sed quia non vult homines abuti suâ indulgentia facilitate ideo legem illam apponit ut scilicet poeniteat ipsos vitae prioris in melius mutentur Calvin Comment in 3 Cap. Jonae As often as God proposeth or promiseth Pardon to Sinners together with the Proposal or Promise this Condition is added that they repent yet it doth not follow that Repentance is the cause of obtaining the Grace of Pardon for God offers himself freely nor is he induced thereunto by any other thing than his own liberality But because he will not have Men to abuse his Indulgence and readiness to forgive therefore he joyns that Law to his Promise to wit that Sinners repent of their former ill Life and be changed to the better Thus Calvin And this Repentance he affirms to be a part of the Sumof the Gospel Instit Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 19. as was shewed in the Apology pag. 95. Therefore my R B doth but abuse Calvin and wrest his words to a Sense he never meant notwithstanding the Commendation which he gives of him 6. Beza is brought to Witness against us but to as little purpose for I demonstrated from Beza his own express words in the Apology that he believed there is a Conditional Gospel-Covenant that Faith in Christ is the only receptive applicative Condition and yet that true Repentance is required as indispensably necessary in grown Persons in order to pardon of Sin And here I must rectifie what I said in the Apology pag. 95. That it may be and it would seem that Beza had some peculiar conceit That all Repentance of what kind soever is properly from the Law and but improperly from the Gospel because he said in his 20th Epistle That Contrition did not proporly proceed from the Gospel Now I confess that in so understanding Beza there I mistook his true meaning to my own disadvantage and my mistake arose from the word Contrition by which Beza meant nothing but what the Papists ordinarily call by the name of Attritio and that is a Legal Repentance which as Beza rightly observed proceeds not properly from the Gospel but from the Law But I thought that by the word Contrition he had meant what we commonly call Contrition from Psal 51.17 and which is a true Evangelical Repentance enjoyned by the Gospel But since I have learned from his other Writings that by the word Contrition he meant not an Evangelical but a Legal Repentance when in the latter part of that Epistle he said that Contrition is not properly from the Gospel but from the Law and by
thus rightly understanding Beza that first he spoke of an Evangelical Repentance and afterwards of a Legal I reconcile him to his Elder Brother Calvin and confirm my Argument from his said 20th Epistle and so recover the advantage which I seemed to have lost by mistaking his sense of the word Contrition This is the only mistake that after many serious repeated thoughts I can find that I committed in citing and explaining the words of Authours and I did not do it as many do to make the Authour seem to speak for me but rather to make him seem to be in that against me By which the World may see my Honesty and Ingenuity in citing Authours But this on the by I return to what my Reverend Brother cites out of Beza against me His 1st Testimony out of Beza's Book concerning the Punishing of Hereticks That the Sum of the Gospel which is the Power of God to Salvation unto every Believer is this Disc p. 30 31. that it teacheth us to lay hold on Christ as made to us of God Wisdom Righteousness Sanctification and Redemption I own to be true and to make for me rather than for Mr. G For 1. Here it is plainly enough expressed that the Gospel requires Faith of us as that by which we apprehend and lay hold on Christ And elsewhere as was shewed in the Apology Beza saith expresly That Faith is the Condition and I also have several times said expresly that in my Judgment Faith is the only Condition i. e. the only receptive applicative Condition of the Gospel-Covenant and of Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the said Covenant 2. Though in this short Sum of the Gospel Beza do not expresly mention Evangelical Repentance yet he doth not exclude it but rather includes and implyes it in that he says that Christ is made Wisdom and Sanctification unto his People which he is partly in requiring Repentance as a means necessary in order to pardon of Sin and partly in giving them Grace and inclining their hearts to repent Luke 24.47 Acts 5.31 and 11.18 And elsewhere as in his 20th Epistle Beza expresly asserts and proves that Evangelical Repentance is required in the Gospel as antecedently in order of Nature necessary to pardon of Sin Beza's second Testimony quoted out of his Antithesis Papatus Christianismi of the Papacy and Christianity makes nothing against me for I joyn with Beza in rejecting that Popish Opinion concerning the Evangelical Doctrine nihil aliud esse quam legem quandam perfectiorem Mosaicâ that it is nothing else but a certain Law more perfect than that of Moses The Third Testimony out of his Book of Predestination against Castellio is most impertinently alledged against me For I never thought otherwise than that in the Law strictly taken for the Covenant of Works as Beza takes it there is no mention of Gods gracious Purposes to save us by Christ the Redeemer and therefore that the Declaration of that Gracious Will of God belongs to the Gospel and to Beza's Words I add that it belongs only to the Gospel 7. H. Bullinger is next brought as a Witness against me I Answer That I admit what Bullinger saith as cited by my Reverend Brother to be a true definition or description of the Gospel but I deny it to be an accurate perfect definition because it doth not express all the Essential parts of the Gospel For instance it doth not express the promise of taking away the Heart of Stone and giving an Heart of Flesh and writing the Law in the Heart etc. Which is an Essential of the Gospel Covenant adequately considered I grant Bullinger supposes and implyes it but supposing and implying in a definition all the Essentials of the thing defined is not sufficient to make it an accurate full definition Otherwise if a Man in defining a thing express but one of its Essentials he might be said to have accurately and fully defined it because the other Essentials are supposed and implyed in that one they being all inseparably connected in the thing defined And yet all Men of any measure of Learning know that it is very absurd to say that a thing is accurately and perfectly defined by mentioning only one of its Essential Parts I do not say this to reflect upon Bullinger at all that be far from me But to shew that by that which he called a definition of the Gospel he did not mean an accurate perfect definition of it in respect of all its Essential parts but a description of it in respect of some of its Essential parts Disc p 32. in which the rest are supposed and implyed And even in this passage of his Sermon under consideration it is plainly implyed that the Gospel-Covenant is conditional and that Faith is the condition of it And in another passage of the same Sermon he says That God hath proposed Christ a Propitiation to wit that he might be our reconciliation for whose sake being pacified towards us he adopts us to he the Children of God Verùm non aliâ ratione quà m per sidem in ejus Sanguinem id est Si credamus c. But no other way or upon no other terms than by Faith in his Blood that is if we believe c. And in his Commentary on Heb. 8. he expresly affirms the Covenant of Grace to be Conditional As shall be shown by his own express words in my Remarks on the following Chapter And I wish Mr. G would seriously consider what the same Bullinger writes at large in his Commentary on 1 Tim. 2.4 By what I have read of that Learned and Holy Mans Writings I am sure that his Judgment in this matter and my Reverend Brothers do not agree and that he wrongs him in labouring to draw him to his Party 8. Next the Learned H. Zanchius is suborned to bear Witness against us I confess that Zanchy well deserves the high Commendation which Mr. G. gives him but I am heartily sorry that my R. B. should so abuse that Worthy Divine as to indeavour to make him contradict himself in Witness-bearing For if ever our Reverend Brother read and considered our Apology which he writes against he cannot but know that we appealed to Zanchy in pag. 99. and from his own express formal words proved that there are Tria Evangelii capita quae a nobis exiguntur ut praestemus poenitentia in Deum c. Three Heads or Principal parts of the Gospel which we are required to do Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a Studious care to observe whatsoever Christ hath Commanded Now these being Zanchy's own express words it was very ill done by my Reverend Brother to endeavour to make the World believe that this same Zanchy held That the Gospel requires nothing of us at all And this he endeavours to do by alledging Three Short Sentences out of his Miscellanies whereof the first Two only say That the Gospel
is a Doctrine which Declares and Proclaims that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith and by Faith only See Disc p. 32. All which is very true but nothing at all to the purpose For the Gospel doth that and more too It declares that Salvation is to be had freely in Christ by Faith alone because it is Faith alone which receives apprehends and applyes Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation This we hold as Zanchy did but withal Zanchy held and we after him do hold also That the Gospel requires of us Repentance towards God Faith in Jesus Christ and a studious Care to observe whatsoever Christ hath commanded To which add what Zanchy believed as well as we That the Gospel promiseth Grace to enable us to believe repent and obey the Gospel and when through Grace we do so it further promises us Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life for Christ's sake alone And nothing more is necessary to make the Gospel a Law of Grace according to our declared known sense of that word His Third Testimony out of Zanchy is yet more Impertinent to wit See Disc p. 33. That the Gospel is the joyful Preaching of that Eternal and Free Love of God this is Eternal Election towards us in his Beloved Son Christ For I would fain know what Mr. G can justly infer from this Sentence of Zanchy to his purpose against us This we grant to be true as was said in our first preliminary Consideration that the Revelation of Gods Eternal Decree to save through Christ a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind is Gospel because it is good and glad tydings to the Church But what then Dare Mr. G infer that because it is Gospel therefore no other thing is Gospel Then it seems by his Logick one may prove that one part of a thing is the whole thing and that the whole thing is but one part of it But I forbear to expose such weak arguing If therefore the Joyful Preaching of God's Free Election through Christ be not the whole but a part of the Gospel then though this part do not require Faith and Repentance yet another part of it may and really doth require them in the Judgment of Zanchy as was clearly proved in the Apology by his express formal words quoted out of his Book of Christian Religion 3d. Vol. of his Works p. 509. And since it comes in my way to make mention of this Book of the Learned Zanchy I will here give the World a further account of it and of his Faith out of it The Book is Entitled Jerom Zanchy his Faith concerning the Christian Religion It contains a full Confession of his Faith which he wrote in the Seventieth year of his Age and in his own Name and in the Name of his Family he Published it and Dedicated it to Count Vlysses Martinengus It is an Excellent Judicious Confession of Faith I have seen it in Quarto and Octavo and in Folio with his other Works and now I have it by me in Octavo Printed at Newstad 1585. with Annotations of his own Writing upon it for further clearing of matters in it I have diligently read it and having quoted some passages out of it in the Apology I will now quote some more out of it both to make Mr. G. ashamed if possible and so to bring him to Repenâ—ance for abusing the Authority of Zanchy to the deceiving of the People and also to confirm what I quoted out of him in the Apology Thus then Zanchy writes in Chap. 13. Pag. 101. Sect. 6. Edition in Octavo (i) Evangelium haec tria tantùm requirit primùm ut serio dolore c. Zanch de Relig. Christ Cap. 13. p. 101. Sect. 6. The Gospel requires only these three things First That being touched with a serious grief c. as quoted in the Apology p. 99. And in the next Page to wit 102. he adds (k) Ad tria autem omnia Christi mandata referuntur nimirum ut abnegatâ impietate saecularibus desideriis sobrie quoad nos juste quoad proximum piè quoad Deum vivamus in hoc saeculo expectantes bonam spem adventum Gloriae Magni Dei. Hanc credimus summam esse corum quae a nobis exigit Christus suâ Evangelicâ doctrinâ Eòque illos esse verè Evangelicos verèque Christianos qui in horum studium serio incumbunt Idem ibid. But all the Commands of Christ are referred to three to wit That having denyed or renounced Vngodliness and Worldly Lusts we should live soberly with respect to our selves justly with respect to our Neighbour and Godly with respect to God in this present World looking for the Blessed Hope and the Glorious Coming of the Great God This we believe to be the sum of those things which Christ requires of us by his Evangelical Doctrine And that therefore they are truely Evangelick and truely Christian who seriously apply themselves to the Study and practice of those things Again in pag. 103. sect 7. (l) Credimus non parvum discrimen esse inter Legem Evangelium 1. Quia Legis materia tantùm sunt mandata additis irrevocabilibus maledictionibus si vel minimâ in parte ea violentur Habet quidem promissiones non solùm terrenarum verùm etiam aeternarum benedictionum Sed omnes cum conditione perfectissimae obedientiae nullas autem gratuitas At verò Evangelium propriè felix ost nuncium Christum redemptorem peccata gratis remittentem servantem gratis etiam proponens Nihilque a nobis exigens ad salutem consequendam nisi veram in Christo fidem quae sine poenitentiâ sineque studio faciendae Divinae voluntatis i.e. Vivendi sobriè justè piè ut supra explicatum est esse non potest idem ibid. We believe that there is no small difference between the Law and the Gospel First Because the matter of the Law are only Commandments whereunto are added Irrevocable Curses if they be in the least part violated It hath indeed Promises also and that not only of Earthly but of Eternal Blessings But all with the Condition of most perfect Obedience but it hath no Gracious or Merciful Promises at all But now the Gospel is properly happy and glad Tydings proposing Christ the Redeemer as forgiving sins freely and as freely likewise saving Sinners and requiring nothing of us in order to the obtaining of Salvation but a true Faith in Christ which cannot be without Repentance and without an endeavour to do the Will of God that is to live Soberly Justly and Godly as was explained before Now here observe 1. That Zanchy saith That the Gospel taken in its proper sense requires Faith of us and obliges us to believe in Christ for Salvation 2. That though he say it requires nothing but Faith yet he doth no more contradict me than he doth contradict himself For as he saith so I say That it
manifestly false that Dr. Whitaker held the Gospel to be such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no Duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ For in his Answer to Campians Reasons Translated into English by Richard Stock and Printed at London 1606. In Pages 252 253. he writes thus Now you Campian add The Decalogue belongeth not to Christians God doth not care for our Works Touching the Decalogue and Works Gal. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 this Answer I Whitaker make you briefly In the Law the Old Covenant is contained Do this and live Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them The Law promiseth Life to them which obey the Law in all things They that offend in anything to them it threatneth Death and Damnation an hard Condition and which no Man can ever satisfie Christ doth propose to us another Condition much easier Believe and thou shalt be saved Mark 16.16 By this New Covenant the Old is abrogated so as whosoever believeth the Gospel is freed from the Condition of the Law For they that believe are not under the Law but under Grace Rom. 6.14 and Gal. 5.18 What needs many words Christians are delivered from the Curse of the Law but not from the Obedience of it Thus Whitaker Whereby it is plain that he believed a Conditional Gospel and that it requires of us the performance of its Conditoon in order to our being freed from the Condition and delivered from the Curse of the Law And here it may not be amiss to let the World know that under Queen Elizabeth whilst Dr. Whitaker was Regius Professor in Cambridge there was one Dr. Peter Baro a Frenchman who was for some time Margarets Professor and having Preached and afterwards Printed a Latine Sermon on Rom. 3.28 And having therein affirmed as Mr. Goodwin doth That Men are obliged to believe in Christ by the Moral Law and not by the Gospel as his Words were interpreted he was thereupon and on the account of some other prelections also supposed to be an Innovator and he fell under suspicion of inclining to those Doctrines afterwards called Arminian and for that reason under the displeasure of Dr. Whitaker who was a strict Calvinist Whereupon he resigned his place and removed to London But they did not leave him so For there was a Book written against his Latine Sermon aforesaid by E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and Printed in the Year 1592. wherein the Anonymous Authour treats him very rudely much at the rate as some of late have treated their Brethren amongst us But that which is to my purpose is That the Zealous E. H. in his little Book which I have de fide ejusque ortu naturâ maintains against Baro That Justifying Faith is not Commanded by the Old Moral Law but by the New Law of Grace to wit the Gospel To one of Baro's Arguments he answers thus (m) O miseram caecam consequentiam Quasi verò non aliam jam inde ab initio temporum praeter hanc perfectissimam Decalogi nec minus perfectam promissionis scilicet vitae legem tulerit quâ populum suum in se credere sibique omnem fidem habere jusserit E. H. De fide ejusque ortu naturâ Pag. 44 45. Lond. 1592. O miserable and blind consequence As if forsooth God had not from the beginning given another Law besides that most perfect Law of the Ten Commandments no less perfect than it to wit the Law of the Promise and Life whereby he Commanded his People to believe in him and to repose all their Trust and Confidence in him And after he had in pag. 52 53 54. discoursed at large of this Law of Promise and Life and had both shewed it to be distinct from the Law of the Ten Commandments and called it the Law of Grace he adds these words Ecce tibi Baro Legem quâ fides praecipitur Behold here Baro Thou hast a Law a Law of Grace whereby Faith is Commanded Now by these words of E. H. one of Dr. Whitakers Party and by the Doctors own words it plainly appears That he and the other Orthodox Divines of Cambridge under Q. Elizabeth were so far from thinking that the Gospel was nothing but such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires nothing of us no not Faith in Christ as Mr. G. would make the World believe that they rather some of them at least as for instance Mr. Perkins and this E. H. went the quite contrary way and held that Faith in Christ is Commanded only by the Gospel-Covenant And Baro who as was thought held as my Reverend Brother doth that it is Commanded only by the Natural Moral Law was cryed down as an Innovator and unsound Divine and at last constrained to resign his place and leave the University To all this I shall add That Dr. Nowel Dean of Pauls who was Dr. Whitaker's Uncle and Prolocutor in the Convocation 1562. Where the Articles of Religion which we have subscribed were Ratified and Confirmed wrote a Latine Catechisme which by Publick Order was commonly taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England And in that Catechisme it s expresly affirmed that Evangelium requirit sidem The Gospel requires Faith Christ. Piet. prima institutio ad usum Scholarum Latine Scripta Cantab. 1626. pag. 3. Now this was the Catechisme which in all probability Whitaker Learned when he was a Boy at School and it is not very likely that when he was afterwards Regius Professor in Cambridge he had so far forgotten his Catechisme as to Publish to the World in Print That the Gospel is such a Narrative and Declaration of Grace as requires no duty at all not so much as Faith in Christ Eleventhly Mr. G suborns Gomarus to bear false Witness against me but certainly of all Men in the World Gomarus was the unfittest to be brought in to Witness against me because as was shewed from his own formal express words quoted in the Apology pag. 27. he hath spoken my Sence so clearly that after I had set down his Words and Reasons why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace yea the Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I immediately added these words And truly this was excellently said by Gomarus No Man we think can give a better account why the Gospel is called the Law of Grace Whence it manifestly appears that I hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace no otherwise than as Gomarus held it to be such before I was born And then Gomarus his own express words shew Gom. Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 30. that he held the Gospel to be a Law from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it and to be a Law of Grace because of the Benefit promised in it Both which he proved by Scripture-Testimonies Now to make People believe that Gomarus
did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
Orthodox Divines But I suppose Wittichius means only that saving Faith and Repentance are not required as antecedently necessary in order of time but that we are justifyed assoon as we believe and repent And so I agree with him Or it may be he meant that Faith is not necessarium justificationis praerequisitum ut simpliciter opus a necessary praerequisite unto Justification considered simply as a work And so I likewise agree with him For though Faith be really an inward Heart work and though it be pre required as necessary unto Justification yet it is neither praerequired nor required unto Justification simply and precisely as a work and under that formal consideration But only as the receptive applicative Condition or as the Instrumental means appointed by God for receiving applying and trusting Christ and his Righteousness alone unto Justification Thus I have examined and answered Mr. G 's second set of Testimonies and shewed that not one of them rightly understood makes against me What he writes in the close of this Sixth Chapter hath in effect and upon the matter Diso p. 41. been answered before And 1. It is not true that we confound the Notions of things which are entirely distinct in their Natures and Idea's For if one take the Gospel in his sense for a bundle of meer absolute promises of what God in Christ will do without requiring any thing at all to be done by us we freely grant that it is no Law at all to us in any proper sense But now the World knows very well or may know by our Apology that that is not the thing which we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace But in truth the thing which we have declared we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace is no other but the Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ which comprehends not only Absolute but Conditional Promises also and which prescribes to us the performance of the Condition and tells us we must through Grace perform it or we shall not have the benefits promised In this true proper comprehensive sense the Gospel is indeed a Law to us a Law of Grace but not a Law of Works For as hath been said though it require Duties of us which are indeed Works yet the Gospel Covenant doth not require them of us under that formal Notion as Works to be justifyed and glorifyed by and for them But 1. It requires Evangelical Repentance not as a Work to be Justified by and for either in whole or in part but as a Condition in the Subject or Person to be Justifyed necessary to dispose and qualifie him for Justification by and for Christ's Righteousness only 2. It requires true Faith in Christ not as a work to be justified for it in whole or in part but as the only condition or instrumental means whereby we apprehend receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteonsness as the only Righteousness whereby and for which alone we are justifyed at the Bar of Gods Justice 3 It requires Obedience flowing from Faith Obedience I say to the whole revealed Will of God not simply as Obedience or Works for which we are glorifyed but as Evangelically sincere and growing up to perfection as a testimony of our thankfulness for our Redemption and Justification as a means of glorifying God of Crediting our Holy Religion of Edifying our Neighbour and of evidencing the sincerity of our Faith and finally as a Condition necessary by the Constitution of God to prepare and qualifie us for obtaining Possession of Eternal Glory for the alone meritorious Righteousness of Christ our Lord and Saviour So that the Gospel thus requiring these things is not a Law of Works but of Grace especially considering that it is by Grace that we do these things required and that the Grace whereby we do them is promised in the Gospel and by the Spirit given according to the promise And that when through Grace we have done them then God of his rich Mercy and Free Grace gives us for Christs sake the blessings and benefits promised to those who do the Duties required Secondly As to what my Reverend Brother saith That the Gospel hath no minatory sanction that no Threatning doth properly belong to it I answer 1. That if one take the Gospel as he doth for a bundle of meer absolute Promises then it is very true that in that sense it hath no minatory sanction no threatning doth properly belong to it and for my part I declare that I never said nor thought nor could deliberately think that a Threatning was any part of it either properly or improperly as taken in that too narrow limited sense for meer absolute Promises of what God in Christ will do for us without requiring any thing to be done by us But 2. Take the Gospel in that sense in which I take it for the intire Gospel-Covenant which God hath not only declared to but made with his Church through the Mediator Jesus Christ then my Answer is That though the Gospel taken oven in this comprehensive sense for the whole of the new Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ should have no Threatning properly belonging to it yet that would not hinder it from being a Law of Grace For it is properly enough a Law of Grace to us 1. As it prescribes to us its condition to be performed by us 2. As it promises Grace to enable us to perform its condition 3. As it promises to us great and gratuitous benefits upon our performing its condition through Grace 3. I answer That over and besides the Threatning of the first Covenant and Law of Works which Mr. G. fancies that the Gospel promise doth borrow and employ in its own service the Gospel-Covenant hath as plainly appears to me its own additional Threatning which I think is thus to be understood that though a Threatning doth not belong to the Gospel-Covenant as a Gospel-Covenant primarily and principally yet it belongs to it secondarily and less principally to wit as it is a Covenant made with Sinners to restrain them from Sin and to bring them unto Faith and Repentance The primary design of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed to promise gratuitous benefits to Sinners complying with its terms required and it is but its secondary design to threaten punishment in case of non-complyance And then further even this threatning of punishment in respect of its primary design is not to bring the punishment on the Sinner but it is to restrain from Sin and so preserve from Punishment And that the Punishment threatned is actually inflicted upon any who are called and commanded to comply with the terms of the Covenant but do not it comes to pass through their unbelief and impenitence as it were by accident in respect of the primary design of the Evangelical-Covenant as such And that this is true to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath its
fortified with a Sanction but with a Sanction that promiseth Justification and Salvation not for the Duties sake but for Christs sake only Now both his Propositions being false no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous insignificant and of no force at all against me for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not nor is it my way of arguing And this being the case as I have truly represented it and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self the ridiculous demonstration to wit a Law is a Law the Gospel is a Law therefore the Gospel is a Law I say this ridiculous demonstration which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door returns home to himself and calls him its true Father and justly it may for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying without doubt it is unanswerable And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue as the Image of his Brain that begat it and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress or fools coat it is very easily answered For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse concerning the various significations of the word Law it amounts to no more than this A meer nominal Law that requires nothing is a real proper Law that requires something but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something The Proposition is that which I suppose he would father upon me but I justly disown it as none of mine and so I do by the other identical Proposition a Law is a Law Let this Brother prove if he can by any good consequence that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology I am so well assured that there is no such thing there that I defy him or any Man to prove the affirmative that there it is And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law because it hath Precepts requiring Duty fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false or else that he contradicts himself and writes he knows not what The Proposition then or Major is the birth of his own Brain and whether it was begotten against his Conscience as Bastards use to be let him look to it I assert nothing pro or con in that matter As for the Assumption or second Proposition he will not he cannot deny it to be his own to wit That the Gospel is a Law a meer nominal Law which requires no Duty of us at all for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book Now it appearing thus that the Argument is his own much good may it do him and his Cause which the World may know to be a very good one by this token that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered when stript of its Identical dress For both Propositions are false The Major Proposition is self evidently false when stript of its Identical dress And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat my Answer is That it is his own and he may do with his own what he pleases The Minor I have proved to be false and shall further prove it to be false before we have done And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true according to the Logick Rule ex falsis verum yet it is not therefore formally true as it is concluded and because it is concluded and inferred from such false premisses But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various signification by clearing the sense of the word Law which he says he has largely done But cui bono to what good purpose was all that waste of Time Paper and Ink since it doth not reach me at all for I defy him to shew me where in the Apology I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law from the meer sound of the word Law which is of a various signification But though I did not so argue yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel almost throughout his whole Discourse to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to require no Duty of us at all Turpe est igitur doctori quum culpa redarguit ipsum I think it had been more to the purpose to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator including the conditional part of it but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises which require no Duty of us at all If my Reverend Brother had done this he had done his work and had answered me effectually and had made me his Proselite too But I do not blame him for not doing this because it is plainly impossible to be done But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology which he pretends to answer was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law As 1. To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace 2 To rebuke him for saying ignorantly that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning and to prove by Testimonies of credible Witnesses Antient and Modern that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old but ill meaning but that he in saying so against us the Subscribers was a false Witness against his Brethren And to show that this was my purpose and design there needs no more but to read the Apology Page 20 21 22 24. 3. Further What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser I told him and the World plainly 1. That God most freely made the Covenant and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ 2. That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake if we perform the Duties prescribed and comply with the terms injoyned 3. What if I plainly declared that by new Law of Grace
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
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
Sanctification begun or continued evidently belongs to the Gospel Which he there proves by Four Arguments The same Learned Authour a little before in the same Book page 750 751. by distinguishing the several Senses in which the Word Gospel is taken answers all that Mr. Goodwin hath written in his whole Book only he did not think that any Body but a Flacian Sectary would be so absurd as to say that the Gospel strictly and properly taken is a Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all and therefore he affirms that the Gospel strictly taken requires Faith and that Evangelium quocunque modo acceptum habet promissiones conditionales Take the Gospel which way soever one will it hath Conditional Promises This is another of the Systems of Divinity that hath been used in the Schools of the Reformed and even by the Presbyterians in Scotland But we will leave the Germans and come to our own Countrey Men and see what their Judgment hath been of this matter And I will begin with Mr. Caryl whose Judgment I hope will be something regarded by the Brethren He gives it plainly and fully on Job 42.6 last Vol. in Quarto pag. 842 where that Evangelical Repentance as a means of obtaining Pardon and Life is not required by the Law but by the Gospel he proves 1. By Scripture Matth. 3.2 11. and 4.17 and Mark 6.12 Acts 2.38 Acts 20.21 2. He says It is through the Gospel only that Repentance is possible and this appears two ways 1. Because we have not a liberty to repent or we are not admitted to repent but by the Gospel we find no place for Repentance in the Law strictly taken or as opposed to the Gospel The Law speaks thus Cursed is every one that continueth not c. Gal. 3.10 Where we see 1. The Law requires Personal Obedience every one must do for himself 2. The Law requires perpetual Obedience every one that continueth not doing 3. The Law requires Universal Obedience every one that continueth not in all things The Law doth not say If a Man continue not to do all let him repent that admits no second Thoughts but claps the Curse presently upon the Offender If Adam as soon as he had eaten of the forbidden Tree had bewailed his Sin and said I repent no Favour could have been shewed him while under the Law c. Thus the Reverend Mr. Caryl whereby it plainly appears that he believed the Law by it self immediately doth not oblige us to Repentance as it is a means by God's Ordination disposing us to obtain Pardon of Sin and acceptance with God through Faith in Christ for he plainly says That the Law doth not admit us to repent in order to such an end And then surely it doth not Command us to repent in order to such an end On the other hand he proves by Scripture that the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to the foresaid end And therefore he is plainly on our side against my Reverend Brother So are the Reverend Authours of the Assemblyes Annotations Annotation on Mark 1.15 Repent ye Faith and Repentance say they are the sum of the Gospel The same Annotators in their Annotation on Acts 17.30 But now he Commandeth all Men every where to repent they say now he causeth the Gospel to be preached to all Nations to draw them from their horrible Sins And now if they refuse to do the known Will of their Master they must expect more severe Judgments Hence it is manifest that in the Judgment of those Divines the Command to repent in order to obtain Pardon of Sin is a part of the Gospel otherwise their Annotation had been impertinent yea it had been a wresting of Holy Scripture and a perverting of the true meaning of the Text which they designed to explain But some may demand whether our Protestant Divines use to say that True Repentance is a Condition required of us as necessary yea and as antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining Pardon of Sin I Answer Yea they do use to say so and some of them prove it too Witness the same Assemblies Annotations on Mark 1. ver 4. John did Preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins On these words they have this Note Repentance is not the Cause but the Inseparable Condition of Sins Remission And on Acts 5.31 where Christ is said to give Repentance c. their Note is This Christ giveth by the Spirit of Regeneration and hereunto is Remission of Sins most certainly annexed And Pool's Annotations on Christ's words Matth. 9.13 but I am come to call Sinners to Repentance They have this Note but sensible Sinners to Repentance First to Repentance then to the receiving Remission of Sins c Witness also 2. Dr Rivet and Mr. Anthony Burgess both at once For thus Burgess quotes Rivet with approbation We have other Orthodox Writers speaking more consonantly to Truth denying that future Sins are forgiven Burgesses's True Doctrine of Justification Asserted c. in 30. Lectures pag. 244. before committed and repented of When Grotius had objected that the Protestants Doctrine was Peccata condonari antequam fiant That Sins were forgiven before they were Committed Rivet in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 467. replyeth Imo id nos absurdissimum credimus c. Yea We think such a Doctrine most absurd and the imputation of it to us most unjust Those that know God hath Decreed from Eternity to pardon Sin upon the Condition of Repentance those that know God hath not decreed the End without the Means will never ascribe to themselves Pardon of Sin without these exercises of Repentance Mr. Burgess goes on with Rivet and saith Thus the same Authour in the same Book pag. 533. Absurdum est credere c. It is absurd saith he to believe a Remission of Sins which are not yet committed for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remission Decreed without Repentance preceding Remission Again The same Burgess in the same Book pag. 270. gives us his own Judgment by it self in these following words There is in Scripture a two-fold Repentance or Humiliation for Sin the one antecedent and going before Pardon and this the Scripture requireth as a necessary Condition without which Forgiveness of Sin cannot be obtained Of this Repentance the Scripture for the most part speaks Ezek 18.30 Matth. 3.2 Mark 6.12 Luke 13.3 Acts 3.19 and generally in most places of Scripture c. By this now it appears that both Rivet and Burgess held that True Repentance is required as a Condition or Means antecedently in order of Nature necessary to the Pardon of Sin Our Third Witness is the Learned Prudent Pious and Peaceable Mr. Durham who in his Commentary on the Revelation hath a large Discourse concerning Repentance where 1. He distinguishes and shews what Repentance it is which he holds to be necessary to pardon of Sin 2. He proves it to be
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
of Works that Man should sin no more for the future but its Condition and Duty is that Man should never once sin at all either in time past present or to come And assoon as he hath once sinned he hath ipso facto so broken that Covenant that from that very moment it ceases to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever as we heard before out of Rutherford because it admits of no Repentance with a Promise of Pardon and Life The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now simply impossible to sinful Men it cannot be said with any colour of Truth that it is easie to be performed through Grace it cannot be said of the Covenant of Works as Moses hath it ver 14. The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it The quite contrary is true with respect to the First Covenant the Covenant of Works the performing of its Duty and Condition is so far off from sinful Men such as the Israelites were that it is impossible to be brought near unto them till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one and the same thing be made to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect And as it cannot be truely said to be very nigh so it cannot be truely said to be in the Mouth and Heart of sinful Men that they may do it That were to say that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction and is impossible to be done But on the other hand it may be truely said of the Gospel or New Covenant and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumcising the Heart to love God The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it Thus the Blessed Apostle Paul understood this Passage and quoted the Sense and Substance and partly the very words of Moses and applyed them unto and affirmed them of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace as distinct from and opposite unto the Law and Covenant of Works For in Rom. 10.5 The Apostle first shews out of Levit. 18.5 in what Form of words Moses described the Law and Covenant of Works and its Righteonsness That the Man which doth those things shall live by them Secondly In vor 6 7. c he doth himself out of Moses Deut. 30. ver 11 12 13 14. describe and explain the nature of the Gospel Covenant and its Righteousness He calls it the Righteousness of Faith and shews how we obtain it by Christ's Purchasing it for us and giving it unto us we receiving it by Faith and shewing our Faith and Thankfulness for it by confessing him who purchased it which implyes a steadfast cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart against all temptations to the contrary For these Reasons I do believe that the Covenant in Deut. 29. and 30. Chapter is not the First Covenant or Law of Works but the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace And consequently that the Gospel Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty And this is no New Opinion of my inventing but is the real Truth as I have proved from the words of Moses and a Truth also now commonly received by the Orthodox I know that there are some Learned Men of a different Judgment the Arminians are of that sort and particularly Episcopius as appears from his Paraphrase and Observations on Rom 10. ver 5 6 8. which Exposition of his seems to be founded upon that Opinion of theirs That the Covenant of which Moses speaks there or elsewhere in the Books of the Law did not promise Eternal Life but only a Temporal Prosperous Life in the Land of Canaan to them who sincerely indeavoured to keep the Laws given them by Moses See Mat. 19.16 17. Joh. 5.39 which I think is contrary to Gal. 3.11 12. for the Life which the Apostle denyes to be possible to be obtained by the Law because all Men have broken it seems to be of the same kind with that Life which he affirms to be obtained by Faith But it is Spiritual and Eternal Life which is obtained by Faith therefore it is Spiritual and Eternal Life likewise which he denyes to be obtainable by the Works of the Law And the reason why it was not so obtainable was because no Man did or could keep the Law so as not to fall under its curse even such a curse as Christ redeems from Gal. 3.10 and 13. compared The Apostle sayes ver 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law He doth not any where say that the Law could not give Eternal Life because it had no promise of Eternal Life But elsewhere to wit in Rom. 8.3 he assigns the true reason why the Law of Works could not give life Eternal Life even becauseâ— it was weak through the flesh It was the Sin of Man that disabled the Law of Works that it could not give that Eternal Life which after the Fall it promised only oeconomically that is it proposed and set Eternal Life before Mens Eyes in a form of words which before the Fall was really promissory of Eternal Life upon a possible condition but after the Fall did but serve to remind us what Man once was and what he should still have been what he might have done and what he might have attained unto by doing but that having broken that Covenant we are all lyable to Eternal Death and can never obtain Eternal Life by it and therefore that it behoves us to seek Eternal Life and Salvation by Christ only upon the terms of the Gospel and New Law or Covenant of Grace as was more fully explained before This only I briefly hint on the by I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee from me into the Arminian Camp and from thence come out against me clad with their Goliaâ—s Armour for it will not well become Mr. Goodwin though he could dexterously serve himself with it which yet is very questionable But let him do in that matter as best pleaseth him I am resolved to abide where I am in the Camp of the Orthodox and thence I oppose the Authority and Reasons of Fr. Junius in his Parallels Second Book and Sixteenth Parallel where he explains Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. by comparing it with Leviticus the 18th and Deuteronomy the 30th Of the same Judgment with Junius is the Learned Professour of Saumur Stephanus de Brais as appears by his Paraphrase and Notes at the end of his Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans pag. 336 337. Rutherford was also of that mind as is evident by these his words This Covenant to wit of Grace hath the promise of a circumcised heart Deut. 30.6 and of the word of faith that is near in the mouth and of the Righteousness of Faith clearly differenced
it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant And then the Gospel is preached in part by saying Fear God and give glory to him c. This is the plain obvious sense of the words and they must be violently wrested to put another sense upon them The Dutch Annotators therefore faithfully gave the meaning of the words when in their Annotation on Rev. 14.7 they said in these words This is the first part of the Gospels voice whereby the worshippers of the Beast are warned and exhorted to honour fear and serve God only in Christ I might cite many other passages out of the New Testament and Old too to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts and requires Duty of us but these are sufficient And I am perswaded that every sincere lover and seeker of Truth will or may easily find by the Divine Testimonies aforesaid taken out of the New Testament that the Gospe-Covenant in its new and most Evangelical form of administration is not a meer absolute promise without any Precept but that as it hath Promises so it hath Precepts belonging to it which require Duties of us and of all to whom it is preached Thus having finished my first Proof from Divine Testimony I pass to my second Proof from Humane Testimony And before I proceed any further I desire it may be remembered that I do not argue from Humane Testimony to confirm and strengthen my Argument from Divine Testimony or to prove any other thing than matter of fact to wit that I and my Reverend Brethren are not Innovators nor singular in our interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in our belief that according to the Scripture the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duty since long before we were born other Holy Men and Eminent Ministers of Christ and bright shining Lights in Christs Church have interpreted the Scripture as to this matter just as we do and have believed according to Scripture what we believe at this day That the Gospel hath Precepts and doth oblige us to Duties This being premised to prevent misunderstanding of us I come to produce my Humane Witnesses which I divide into two ranks or classes The 1. of Antient Doctors of the Church The 2 of Modern Divines And I begin with Antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church Testimonies of Antient Fathers and because I would be brief I shall cite but few and yet I shall bring as many of them as may suffice to prove the matter of fact in question My first Witness is Justin Martyr who in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew calls the New Testament or Covenant as we Christians have it in its last and excellentest form of administration (c) Justin Martyr Dialog cum Tryphone Edit Paris 1633. p. 292. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Commandment whereby he plainly declares that he believed the New Covenant hath Precepts and that it is not a meer absolute Promise which requireth nothing of us at all Again afterwards in the same Dialogue he calls the New Testament or Gospel-Covenant (c) Justin Martyr ibid. p. 351. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Mandate or Precept for the same Reason because it hath Precepts that require Duty And then two pages after he saith that we are called and we are the true Children of God (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who keep the Commandments of Christ I suppose it will be objected that Justin Martyr in pag. 351. sayes that Christ is the Testament or Covenant of God And in pag. 228. he sayes That Christ is given the eternal and last Law unto us and the sure Testament or Covenant after which there is neither Law nor Precept nor Commandment I answer It is true he doth say so but then it is as true that his speech is not and cannot be proper but figurative It is only by a Figure of Speech that Justin calls Christ by the name of Covenant or Testament and therein he doth but follow the Prophet Isaiah Justin ibid. p. 351. and also quotes the 42.6 and 49.8 of Isaiah where it is written I the Lord will give thee Christ for a Covenant of the people Look then how the words of Isaiah are to be understood and the same way are the words of Justin to be understood Now for understanding the words of Isaiah let them who please consult the Dutch Annotations on Isa 42.6 And I will give thee for a covenant of the people that is for a Mediatour of the Covenant c. And Pools Annotations on Isa 42.6 I will give thee for a covenant of the people To be the Angel of the Covenant as Christ is called Mal. 3.1 or the Mediatour in and by whom my Covenant of Grace is made and confirmed with mankind And the same Pool on Isa 49.8 sayes that to be given for a Covenant of the people is To be the Mediatour and Surety of that Covenant which is made between God and them as Christ is called Heb. 7.22 and 8.6 to renew and confirm the Covenant which the Messiah is said to do Dan. 9.27 by his own Blood by which God and Men are reconciled and united one to another and therefore he may well be called the Covenant by a known Metonymy which is very usual in such cases Thus the Learned Pool And by this we may learn how to understand Justin when he calls Christ the New Law and Covenant to wit that by a Metonymy he calls him the New Law and Covenant because he is the Mediatour and Surety of it he is the Ratifier and Confirmer of it he is the Angel or Messenger of it He is not the Covenant then in propriety of speech that is a figment as ridiculous and contradictious as Transubstantiation but he is the Covenant by a Figure called Metonymy And that Justin so meant is plain because when he speaks properly without a Figure he calls Christ (c) Justin ibid pag. 229 231. passim the New Lawgiver as was shewed in the Apology pag. 24. and calls the Covenant his Law and Covenant and so manifestly distinguishes the Law and Covenant from him It is therefore the New Covenant it self which Justin properly calls the New Law the Mandate the Precept and says that (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Mart. ibid. pag. 228. after the said Covenant there is no Law nor Precept nor Commandment By which words he gives us plainly to understand that the Gospel-Covenant or Testament is the last Law Precept and Commandment after which God gives no other to the Sons of Men. Much more I could alledge out of Justin Martyr to prove that he believed that the New Covenant or Law of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duties But that may be done another time as I see occasion At present I need not desire any more of my first Witness My second Witness is Irenaeus who saith (e) Pater familias Dominus est qui universae domni Paternae dominatur servis quidem adhuc
Old and so could not then belong to the Old Law or Covenant of Works Therefore since the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath now some Positive Precepts different from the Precepts of the first Old Covenant and Law of Works it follows necessarily That the Obedience required by the Precepts of the Gospel must be partly also different from the Obedience required by the first Covenant and Old Law of Works But now if we consider the Obediences required by the said Two Covenants as the Two Conditions of their respective Covenants so they differ formally in Kind and not meerly in Degree for they proceed from different Principles they have different formal Motives and serve to different ends and purposes The most perfect legal obedience required as the Condition of the first Covenant and Law of works was The very Righteousness by and for which Man was to have been justified and to have lived by that Covenant if he had kept it But now the sincere Evangelical obedience required as a Condition on our part of the new Covenant promise of Glorification and Consummate salvation is not any the least part of that meritorious Righteousness for which alone we obtain possession of Eternal Glory and Consummate salvation And as for the promises themselves of the two Covenants they also are specifically different because they have different impulsive and moving causes of their first making and are performed for different and formal fundamental Reasons In the Covenant of Works it was indeed of God's free goodness and gracious condescention that he promised a Reward to our first Parents on condition of perfect Obedience But in the Second and New Covenant of Grace it is of his Rich Mercy in Christ that he promised us Eternal Life and Glory on condition of our sincere Evangelical Obedience and Perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the End So that they have different impulsive Causes of their first making And being so made they are at last performed for different formal Motives and Reasons If the first Covenant of Works had been kept the Promise of â—â—â—e would have been performed and made good to man for his own personal Obedience as his Righteousness his only Righteousness in the sight of God But now the Gospel or New Covenant-Promise of Eternal Life and Glory is performed and made good to the People of God not for their own personal sincere Obedience but only for the most perfect Righteousness of Christ imputed to them So that as the impulsive causes of making in like manner the formal Motives and Fundamental reasons of performing the said several promises of the two Covenants do greatly differ and therefore the promises themselves differ in kind Now it is in Christ that all the promises of God are yea and it is in Christ that they are Amen unto the Glory of God 2 Cor. 1.20 Thus I have Answered his first Argument at large And hence it manifestly appears that his Consequence is inconsequent and will not hold to wit that upon our principle the Covenant of grace would be a Covenant of works for I have shewed that the two Covenants differ specifically and in kind and that tho both require obedience and works yet they are much different from one another and in order to far different ends and purposes The works required by the first and old Covenant were legal works that were to be the only Righteousness by and for which Man was to be justified and to live but the works required by the second new and Gospel-Covenant are Evangelical works which are no part of the Righteousness by and for which we are justified and pardoned saved and glorified Thus it is manifest that we do not absurdly confound the two Covenants of Law and Gospel but he draws silly Consequences from our Principles which he seems not to understand and builds Castles in the Air which tumble down for want of a solid Foundation And the worst of it is that he wrests the Holy Scripture which ought carefully to be avoided as that which may be the occasion of some other's destruction if not of our own The place of Scripture which he wrests both in p. 56. and 63. Is that in Rom. 14.6 Where to make it serve his purpose he supposes 1. That in the words Then is it no more of works by the relative it must necessarily be meant the Covenant of Grace 2. He supposes that by the said words then is it no more of works must needs be meant Then the Covenant of grace requires no sort of obedience nor any kind of works in order to any Gospel end and purpose 3. He supposes that the works there excluded by the Apostle are not only meritorious works but any sort of Commanded duties tho no way Meritorious nor conceived so to be And then from the words of St. Paul thus perverted he infers his Conclusion that it would be a flat Contradiction to Rom. 11.16 If the Covenant of Grace had any conditional promises and if it required any duty and obedience or any sort of work at all I freely grant that this Consequence is good from the foresaid three suppositions But I utterly deny all the three suppositions and I know my R. B. cannot prove them to Eternity If he thinks he can let him try his Skill for I put him to it But withal I advise him to take heed what he doth God will not be mocked nor suffer his word to be abused without controll If he shall say that he doth not suppose the three things aforesaid I Answer that he doth and must suppose them or else he grossly abuses the words of the Apostle by wresting and wringing out of them a sense that was never in them For understand the Apostle's words as he meant them and they make nothing for his purpose at all nor will they bear the inference that he deduces from them To make this appear consider 1. That the thing which the Apostle assirms there to be of Grace and denies to be of works is not the Covenant of Grace of which he doth not there speak but it is either the Election or the reserving of the Remnant of which he speaks in the foregoing verse 2 Consider that by saying it is of grace and not of works he means that grace and not works was the impulsive moving cause of the said Election or of the rescrving of a Remnant at that time But he doth not at all mean that because the Covenant is of Grace therefore it requires no works no obedience nor duties at all 3. Consider that the works whish he excludes are only Meritorious works because they are such works as are utterly inconsistent with and Destructive of Grace Now my Judgment is that the Particle it in our Translation of v. 6. Refers to the word Election in v. 5. And then the sense is as the Dutch Annotators on Rom. 11.6 Give it us thus And if it be by grace Namely that those are Elected to
entitatively considered so as to be dependent and hang in suspence No such matter nor doth any such thing follow from God's making Conditional Promises It is only Conditional respectively terminatively and objectively and that is all which follows from God's making Conditional Promises and willing the things promised Conditionally The Lord our God with an absolute independent Will doth Will that if Men truly Believe and Repent they shall be Pardoned and Saved whosoever they be but not Pardoned and Saved if they do not Believe and Repent 2. We apply the same distinction to the minor or second Proposition of the Objection and grant that there cannot be a Conditional Will in God that is a Will in it self and subjectively or entitatively Conditional and so as to be in it self dependent and to hang in suspence But then we utterly deny that the Will of God which is absolute independent and determinate it it self cannot be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional in the Sence before explained This distinction was approved and used by Dr. Ames as I shewed in the Apology p. 105 106. and by our Brittish Divines in the Synod of Dort as from their Collegiate Suffrage I proved in the Apology p. 114. So did Dr. Twiss approve it witness what he writes against Corvinus His words are * Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scilicet neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit c. In Corvin Defens Arminii contra Tilen p. 355. For neither do we deny but that the Decrees of God may be called Conditional in respect of the things Willed to wit as neither eternal Life is to be given but upon Condition of Faith c. The like he hath in his English Books both against Hoard and other Arminians and also against Mr. Cotton And as this distinction is approved by those great Divines so is it by all other Learned Men that I know who rightly understand these Matters See Ainsworth's Censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. p. 10. where he saith God 's Will always lays no such necessity seeing he Willeth some things Conditionally which are not effected unless the Condition be observed as he would a Sinner's Life not Death Conditionally if he return to God he would the destruction of Niniveh but Conditionally except they Repented other things God Willeth absolutely and those must needs come to pass For none resist or hinder his absolute Will Isa 46.10 11. Job 23.13 Psal 33.10 11. So much sufficeth for Answer to the fourth grand Objection Object 5. p. 58. Fifthly Mr. G. objects That if the Conditional Promise be to all in the visible Church that if they Believe they shall be Saved then by the same rule we must say That the Conditional Threatning is to all that if they Believe not they shall be Eternally Damned I Answer And what Absurdity is in this that all in the visible Church who do not yet Believe are Threatned with Eternal Damnation if they live and die in Unbelief For understand the Conditional Threatning in the same Sence as I have shewed the Conditional Promise ought to be understood and it is a certain Truth That as the Conditional Promise is to all in the same Sence the Conditional Threatning is to all in general and to every one in particular John 3.36 and 8.24 Mark 16.15 16. But Mr. Goodwin says no The Conditional Threatning is not to all nor yet to any if they do not Believe And I pray why so To this he says That the Reason why none are Threatned with Death if they do not Believe is because the Threatning is not denounced against Men for not Believing in Christ but for not perfectly obeying the Law of Works as he hath proved before VVhereunto I reply that I have also answered him before and have proved the contrary And here I must advise him to take better heed what he writes for the future and not to contradict the Scripture in express terms The Holy Scripture saith John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed Mr. G. saith No it is not so But he that Believeth not is Condemned because he hath not perfectly obeyed the Law of VVorks Now choose you Whether you will Believe the Scripture contradicting him or Believe him contradicting the Scripture Obj. 6. Sixthly Out of what he writes in Pag. 57. this Argument may be formed against God's making Conditional Promises to the Non-Elect in the visible Church If God promise them Pardon on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers deprived as they are without his All-Conquering Grace he acts in a way Repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness for he knows it to be impossible for them to Believe by their meer Natural Powers without his All-Conquering Grace and to Promise them Pardon upon such a Condition as he knows to be impossible for them to perform would be an illuding and mocking of them * Mr. G's Discourse p. 57. As if a Man should offer Food to a wretch who hath not a Limb whole starving in a Dungeon on condition that he would come up and receive it and yet should refuse to put forth a Finger to give him the least lift in such a case that merciless Man would but mock and make a sport of the Misery of the poor wretch â—ust so if God should Promise Pardon to the Non-Elect in the visible Church on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers which they cannot do and should withall refuse to put forth his Finger to help them he should but mock them and make a sport of their Misery which to do is repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness And therefore God by the Gospel makes no Conditional Promise to the non-elect in the visible Church I Answer this objection shews that Mr. Goodwin is better at declairning than at fair arguing and close reasoning and seems to intimate him to be of the Man's mind who said flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo For this Argument if it may be called an Argument is fetched from Hell and borrowed from the Devil that is from the Arminians who if Mr. G. have not wronged them in his Epistle to the Reader must needs be Incarnate Devils For he says Their opinions tear the Volume of Gods word to pieces and un-God God himself They pull him out of his Throne and strike the Scepter out of his Hands and snatch the Crown from his Head This is certainly more than all the Devils in Hell can do but if Mr. Goodwin say true and do not slander the Arminians they have done it they have un-Godded God himself And yet for all this he goes down to that Arminian Hell to borrow an Argument from those worst of Devils to defend and secure the Wisdom and Goodness of the God of Heaven from being impeached by the Calvinian Doctrine of conditional
is expressly called the New-Covenant I desire that this may be remembered and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes against the Gospel's being a New-Law is in truth against the Gospel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty with conditional promises and threatnings For as we have declared often we mean by the Gospel's being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties with promises to encourage us to the performance of them and threatnings to restrain us from the neglect of them And principally we mean by its being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promise and that the threatning is but the secondary less principal part which is subservient to the principal This being premised let us see how he Answers the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apol. And 1st he begins with Rom. 3.27 And says in the Contents of the Chapter That he hath recovered it to its right sense Now who that reads this would not think that in the Apol. I had interpreted this place of Scripture and had put a wrong sense upon it since writing against me he saith that he hath recovered it to its right sense And yet in this controversy about the Gospel's being a Law or not a Law I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture nor give any sense of it right or wrong It is true I quoted it twice to wit in p. 22. and 24. But all that I said of it was that from Rom. 3.27 It appears that the Gospel is Called a Law it s called the Law of Faith expresly Was this to interpret iâ— and to put a wrong sense on it from which Mr. Goodwin must recover it Doth not he himself acknowledge this to be true Has not he confessed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Gospel is called a Law and doth he not here confess with me that the Gospel is called the Law of Faith in Rom. 3.27 How is it possible then that he should recover it to its right sense from which I had wrested it Since I did not give any sense of it but only quoted it to shew that in the Holy Scripture the Gospel-Covenant is called a Law the Law of Faith and that the brethren ought not to be displeased with us for calling the Gospel a Law because the Holy Scripture expressly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 Here Disc p. 59. it is where he calls his book a poor Writing and if this Chapter together with the rest do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked I am much mistaken But because I am a fallible Man and liable to mistake as other Men are I will now affirm no such thing of his discourse but will hear and consider what he saith for recovering Scripture to its Right sense from which I did not wrest it first then p. 59. he says that by the words Law of Faith In Rom. 3.27 The Apostle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which by Faith he receiveth But now what if a body should deny that the Apostle means no more and should affirm that he also means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith as the receptive condition or instrumental means of Justification by the Mediator's Righteousness Might he not prove what he had affirmed by an Argument taken from this Text where the Law of Faith is expressly opposed to the Law of works where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law Of works Nay but by the Law of Faith Thus the Law of works is the Lâ—â— or Doctrine which requires works that we may be justified by the Righteousness of our own works which doth not exclude boasting Therefore the Law of Faith is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith that we may be Justified only by and for Christ the Mediators Righteousness which doth exclude boasting And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Testimony of our Confession of Faith which Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace i. e. the Law of Faith freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved But Mr. G. opposes two things to this 1. He saith this Interpretation doth not exclude boasting 2. It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have commented on the Epistle to the Romans First he saith p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boasting but rather greatly promotes it For why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of obedience to this New-Law i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith which by its statute makes his Justification to depend on this his performance I Answer I do not know the tempers of all Men nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know that he or some other of like temper doth really think that he might justly boast of and Glory in his Faith if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being justified by and for Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness But I would ask such a Man a few questions And 1. What is a Man's believing that he may be justified Gal. 2.16 Is that believing a doing nothing or a doing something I hope Sir you will not say that it is a doing nothing For if it were a doing nothing then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16 Would be this we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ that is We have done nothing in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by doing nothing of Jesus Christ Which if it be not an abominable wresting of the Apostles words and a turning them into non-sense let all Men Judge that have the sober use of their reason But if you say that believing in Christ is a doing something I ask again is that doing something the doing of some good thing or some evil thing I hope you dare not say that it is a doing of some evil thing And therefore you must say that it is a doing of some good thing And then I ask again is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God or is it not at all commanded If you say that it is not at all Commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God Then I say 1. That it is not Morally good but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden is perfectly indifferent and neither Morally good nor evil 2. Then it follows necessarily that you are not at all bound to believe and that you do not sin tho you never believe in Christ 3. Then it follows that to be justified by Faith
brethren had asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of fact in saying that New-Law of Grace was a new-New-word of an old but ill meaning To convince him of falsehood in this matter of fact as I expressly declare in pag. 24. lin 16.17 18 19. c. Was what I mainly intended in quoting Justin Martyr with others who expressly mention the words New-Law and New-Law of Grace in a good sense and meaning long before we were born And I am sure the words I cited out of Justin with the words of my other Witnesses do clearly and effectually prove what I alledged them for And if my Reverend brother be willing to be Judged as he says he is by any of the Subscribers after they have read the place whether he did not say true that Justin was not pertinently alledged in the Apology I now tell him plainly that he will certainly be Condemned by them as to this matter for assuredly several of the Subscribers have read the place in Justin and do Judge that it was cited very pertinently to the before-mentioned purpose And Mr. C. himself doth not deny but confess that Justin called the Gospel a New-Law for the Covenant in its Christian constitution is the Gospel and he confesses that that was the thing which Justin called a New-Law But Mr. C. Obj. 1. Justin says that this New-Law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologist's New-Law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Ans 1. What he calls the Apologist's New-Law is not the Apologist's it is not a Law of the Apologists own invention but it is the Lords own New-Law or Covenant of Grace This brother by this passage brings to my mind what I cited before out of Mr. Bradshaw on the 2d Thessal his words are When the Gospel requireth any thing at your hands which shall any ways cross your corrupt desires you are presently offended and incensed against us that are the poor Ministers thereof as if it were our own Gospel and the Law of our own will which we propound unto you But know you this whosoever you are that it is Christ Jesus our Saviour that in our persons you are offended withal c. See the rest before 2. I Answer it is not true that according to the Apology this New-Law or Covenant of Grace as we Christians have it and we have it in its Christian constitution hath been ever since the Fall of Adam The Apology saith no such thing but the quite contrary For there in the Apology I distinguish and say that this Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant is both New and Old in different respects and I affirm expressly in so many formal words that the Law of Grace As we Christians have it is called new because we have the newest and clearest and last edition of it pag. 22. lin 48.49 And again in pag. 23. lin 5.6 That it will continue in its newest and excellentest form unto the end of the world Whence it manifestly appears that the Apology doth not say that the New Law of Grace in its last and clearest edition and in its newest and excellentest form of Administration as we Christians have it and as it is to continue unto the end of world Has ever been since the Fall of Adam and that it was before the Law of Moses On the contrary any Man who is not blind may see that we hold with Justin that the New-Law thus considered is indeed the New-Gospel-Covenant in its Christian constitution and that it is Posterior to the Law of Moses and preferable to it But now tho in this respect the Evangelical-Law of Grace as we have it in its last and excellentest form of Administration be newer than the Law of Moses yet 1. It follo vs not by any true Logick that therefore it is a new device of the Apologists Nor 2. Doth it follow that the substance of the same New-Law or Covenant of Grace hath not been in the Church ever since the first promise of Grace made to our first parents after the fall as in the Apology pag. 23. l. 1.2 3. I asserted it to have been and so to have been old in that respect tho it be also New in respect of the form of Administration In which Christans have had it since Christs time and will continue to have it till his second coming again I hope Mr. C. will not deny but that the essence and substance of the Gospel-Covenant hath always since the Fall of Adam had a being in the Church of God tho it hath been under several forms of Administration and we have it now under its last newest and excellentest form and therefore as such it hath been usually called the New-Law by Christian Writers even by the purest and ancientest of them since the Apostles If my R. B. think that the Gospel-Covenant as to the substance of it hath not been always in the Church since the Fall of Adam tho in respect of its Christian form of Administration it be posterior to the Law of Moses let him speak out and see what will be the issue Obj. 2. But Justin says Mr. C. calls Christ the New-Law therefore he took not Law in a strict sense Ans Indeed it is true that when Justin called Christ the New-Law he did not speak in a strict and proper sense but in a figurative and metonymical sense as was shewed before But what then I beseech you will any sober Man say that because Justin sometimes wrote figuratively therefore he always did so and never at all properly Or that because he wrote figuratively When he said Christ is the New-Law therefore he wrote figuratively when he said not that Christ is the New-Law but said expressly as he is truly quoted in the Apol. pag. 24. That Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the New-Law-giver Obj. 3. But Justin says Mr. C. calls this Law a Testament 8 times in that page and 97 Times in that Dialogue and seldom I think not above 4 times a Law without the explicatory word Testament added Ans 1. I do not know certainly how often Justin calls the Gospel a Testament and how seldom a Law throughout that whole Dialogue for I have not had time nor indeed thought it worth the while to take the Poll but this I am sure of that Mr. C. is out in his reckoning for Justin doth not in that Page 228 call this Law Eight times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament Justin hath the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant but Seven times in that Page And as for the Translator he hath the Latin nown Testamentum Testament not Eight times only but Nine times But the Translator was not Justin himself but Johannes Langus Here then we find that Mr. C. is certainly out in his Reckoning and if he hath mistaken in Numbering how often the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant is to be found in one single Page What reason have we to
believe that he is not much more mistaken in numbering how often it is to be found throughout the whole Book He that mistakes in reckoning Eight sure is not to be trusted in reckoning 97 nay since he puts the 8 into the 97 to make up his full number he must be mistaken in that number 97 as he is in the number 8. And for ought I know he may be much more mistaken in the making up of his whole number but it is not worth the while to insist upon this any longer And then for the other how seldom Justin calls the Gospel a Law whether more than four times I will not insist upon that neither though therein he is mistaken also But I Answer 2. That suppose it were true which he saith as it is not true nay suppose Justin had called the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament not only Ninety seven times but Ninety seven hundred times and had but twice called it a new-Law yet that would make nothing against us but would make for us and would fully answer the main end for which we cited the Testimony of Justin which was to prove against our Accuser that New-Law is not a new Word of an old ill meaning For here we see that above Fifteen hundred years agoe Justin used the word and called it a New-Law in a good sense and our other Witnesses add that it is of Grace a Law of Grace which was the thing to be proved 3. Ans What doth Mr. C. mean by saying That Justin calls it so often a Testament and but seldom a Law without the Explicatory word Testament added Would he make simple people believe that Justin Martyr wrote in English and used the English word Testament so often I hope he did not design any such thing VVhy what then is the Mystery VVhy thus it is Justin wrote in Greek and the word he so often used is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now it seems Mr. C. would make the VVorld believe that the Noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifies a Testament an absolute Testament or Promise without any Condition but that it never signifies a Covenant a Conditional Covenant or Promise of a benefit to them that shall perform the Condition prescribed in the Covenant But be it known to all whom it may concern that if this was his design it was no good one For the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie a Testament in his sense but it really signifies both a Testament and a Covenant and therefore to obviate such Cavilling in the Apology p. 24. l. 37 38. In Translating the First Testimony out of Justin Martyr I did twice render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Testament or Covenant whereby the VVorld may see I used no little Tricks of Art but down-right Honesty in Citing and Translating Justin whereas it seems my Reverend Brother would have the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Translated Testament only and not Covenant at all and this makes some suspect that there may be Persons in the VVorld who care as little for the word Covenant as for the word Law and it may be would be glad if people were brought to believe that New-Covenant of Grace is a new word of an ill-meaning as well as New Law of Grace But I demand of Mr. C. whether it was not a Covenant a Conditional Covenant which God made with Israel in the day when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt If he grant that it was as I think it will not be denyed and if any should deny it it might be easily proved then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Conditional Covenant and not an absolute Testament only For in Heb. 8. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word that is used by the Apostle to signifie that Mosaical Covenant And then in v. 10. the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no other is used also to signifie the New and Better Covenant in its last Edition which God hath made with the Gospel-Church through Christ Incarnat In like manner the same Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith is used in Jeremich 31. v. 32. to signifie the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant And in v. 31 33. it is used to signifie the said new and better Covenant in its last and most excellent form of Administration But so it is that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was a Conditional Covenant otherwise how did the people break it Jer. 31. v. 32. therefore both the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a Conditional Covenant a Covenant which prescribes a duty and condition and promises a benefit to them who perform the prescribed Condition And consequently from the bare signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it can no more be proved that the Gospel-Covenant is an absolute Testament without any Condition than it can be proved from the bare signification of the same word that the Mosaical Sinai-Covenant was an absolute Testament without any condition for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both the Covenants Now then if the said Mosaical Covenant was a Conditional Covenant to the Israelites though it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament VVhy may not the Evangelical New Covenant be a Conditional Covenant or Law of Grace to us Christians though it be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies both a Covenant and a Testament And since such is the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am willing to be informed by my Reverend Brother how Justin Martyr can reasonably be thought to have added the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Testament as Explicatory of the word Law to Trypho the Jew and to teach him that by Law he meant nothing but an absolute Testament whenas by what I have said it plainly appears that Justin and Trypho both believed That both the words Hebrew and Greek signified a conditional Covenant which is the same thing with a Federal-Law And that Justin believed this is evident both by his quoting Jer. 31. v. 31 32. in that very Page against the Jew and also by his using the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the same thing For as he is Quoted in the Apology p. 24. he sayes that all Men whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God must now keep this Covenant or Testament which is of the greatest Authority of all If all Men must keep it under the penalty of not obtaining possession of the Inheritance of God because it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most excellent and of the greatest Authority of all then it is plain that it is a Law which prescribes some Duty to Christians so that their obtaining of the Promised Benefit is suspended till they through Grace perform the
well pleased hear ye him And if there be not a precept obliging to duty there never was a precept either in Law or Gospel With what conscience then Mr. G. who knew this could endeavour to make the world believe that Cyprian by New-Law meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace that requires no duty of Men at all I know not let him look to that But this I know that if I my self should put such a sense upon the foresaid words of Cyprian I should by so doing not only put away a good Conscience but I should also put off all sense of shame All the excuse that I can make for my Reverend brother is that it may be he was in too much haste and did not take time to consider and weigh Cyprian's proofs particularly his proof from Mat. 17.5 That the Gospel is a Law which hath not only promise but precept 3. I Answer that Cyprian says that the Gospel is a New-Yoke and proves it by Psal 2. v. 1.2 3. and Mat. 11.28 29 30. But Christ's Yoke signifies not only the promises to be believed but also the precepts of the Gospel to be obeyed as was shewed before And therefore Cyprian held the Gospel-Law and Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace which hath both promises to be believed and also precepts to be obeyed But Mr. G. objects that by Cyprian's words as I my self have quoted them it is evident that he meant not that the Gospel is a Law which requires any duty at all For he says That it is another Administration and that by it the old Yoke should be made null and void Ans A wonderful profound Argument this is to prove that in Cyprian's Judgment the Gospel is not a Law of Grace that hath any precept because it is an Administration or a Disposition as the word in Cyprian is lib. 1. ad Quirinum cap. 11. And as it is cited Apol. pag. 25. But I pray Sir why may there not be an Administration or Disposition of a Precept as well as of a promise And why may there not be an Administration or Disposition both of precept and promise Was there not plainly both precept and promise in the Law of Moses And yet it is written Acts 7.53 That the People of Israel received the Law by the Disposition of Angels but did not keep it But says Mr. G. according to Cyprian by the New-Law of Grace the old intollerable Yoke of Ceremonial legal observances was removed Ergo it hath no precent obliging to duty Wonderful acuteness But however I will venture to deny the Consequence and put Mr. G. to prove it For I want Faith to believe whatever he saith meerly because he saith it And here I cannot believe him because with blessed Cyprian I believe God the Father himself saying This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him So much for vindication of the Citations out of Cyprian In the 3d place he comes to Holy Augustin Disc p. 65. And says that I force him to be a Witness for the Gospel-Covenant's being a New-Law Ans Dear Sir by your own imprudent meddling with things that you seem not to have throughly studied nor to understand you force me contrary to my inclination often to contradict you and to tell you that it is not true which you say And in this place particularly I am forced by you to tell you that it is most untrue that I force the words of Holy Augustin For I cited him to prove that the words New-Law were not new words but of Ancient usage in the Christian-Church above 12 hundred years ago And the Testimony which I quoted out of his book of Grace and free will Chap. 18. Doth as clearly prove this as ever matter of Fact was or can be proved by humane Testimony For he expressly calls the Gospel a New-Law and he proves it to be a New-Law of Grace And moreover he testifies more than I cited him for I cited him only to testify that the Gospel was in old times called a New-Law and he over and above testifies that it is a New-Law by which precepts are given unto Men. This his words testify without the least force or violence offered to them But it is Mr. G. who would force Augustin's words to make them say what he never meant yea to make him deny what he expressly affirms First he forces Augustins words to make them say what he never meant For whereas Augustin says that precepts are given unto Men by the New-Law he would force him to say only that precepts are given in the books of the New Testament Disc p. 66. l. 1. 2 3. That this is a force put on his words seems very evident by this that Augustin by the New-Law did not mean the books of the New Testament in which one may find both the Old and New-Law But he certainly meant the Gospel it self or the New-Covenant of Grace in its Christian constitution or form of Administration just as by the Old-Law he did not mean only the books of the Old Testament in which according to him the Old-Law was openly revealed and the New-Law or Gospel lay hidden and vailed but he meant by the Old-Law the Old-Covenant or the Covenant in its old constitution and legal form of Administration 2. He forces Augustine's words to make him deny what he expressly affirms For holy Augustin expressly affirms that even the Old-Law had promises His words quoted by me Apol. pag. 25. Are that The Grace which is come in the New-Law was promised in the Old-Law But Mr. Goodwin in his discourse p. 65. l. 31. 32 33. Forces him to deny that the Old-Law had any promises for saith he That great light of his Age makes the difference between the New and Old-Law to be that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands c. Now he that holds that the Old-Law consisted wholly in precepts and commands doth ipso facto hold that the Old-Law had no promise By this I know assuredly that Mr. G. doth not understand the Principles of Augustin and writes of he knows not well what As to what he says at the end of the Paragraph of his having rescued Rom. 3.27 From it s perverted meaning I need say no more than I have said before for the clearing of that Text. I leave it to the intelligent Reader to Judge between him and me and to Determine according to evidence which of us hath perverted that Text. He that dare pervert the meaning of God's holy word I wonder not tho he endeavour to pervert tho shamefully enough every humane word and Testimony that is brought against him 4thly Mr. G. excepts against the Testomony of Salvian as not making for me because saith he it proves no more than that the Christian-Law or the Doctrine of Grace was dishonoured by some Mens abusing it to Licentiousness I Answer that Salvian's Testimony proves all that it was brought for and that was
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
it was that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew which Answer he thus begins There never was O Trypho nor ever will be another God besides him who created the whole world and we have no other God than you none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt Nor do we trust in any other for there is no other but in him in whom you trust also to wit the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And we trust in him and hope to be saved not by Moses nor by the Law to wit of Moses But I have read O Trypho that there should be a latter or after-Law and a Testament or Covenant c. As these words and what follows them are cited in the Apol. p. 24. This New-Law or Covenant Justin saith all Men must keep That would be saved Then alluding to Isa 42.6 He saith Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us and a sure Covenant after which there is neither Law nor precept nor Commandment How that passage of Justin is to be understood I have shewed before Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come and that through him God would make this New and last Law or Covenant with his Church consisting Jews and Gentiles And since God was to do thus he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus and from their Holiness of Life and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come and that this was the New-Law and Covenant which the Christians lived under and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on For saith Justin we are the true Spiritual Israel the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham who in his uncircumcision by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4 5. Then tells them this very Law ye Jews disgrace and vilify his New and Holy Covenant where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself neither do ye to this day receive it nor repent of your evil deeds The Legislator is come and present and you see him not The poor receive the Gospel and the blind see but you do not understand Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing That God was not like them pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies but that now by the New Law and Covenant he called them to true Evangelical Repentance and Faith in the Blood of Christ which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it To prove this he cites those Scriptures mentioned by Mr. G. he stops not there but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites Washings and Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood Spirit and word of Christ Wherefore he exhorts Trypho and his Company to Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the New-Covenant And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works but the New Law or Covenant of Grace which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 231. This is that very thing which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you From the premisses it is manifest that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require nothing of us at all for there and through the whole Dialogue he shews that Faith and Repentance and Evangelical obedience are required by the Gospel-Law and Covenant and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Thus he Answered the Jew's objection and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins and salvation of their Souls through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection and his Answer to it which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263 323 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr His words in pag. 35. Are these I shall saith Mr. C. only instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it if Justin intends any thing more than the recommending the Christian Constitution and proving it preferable to the Mosaical for he says This new law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further I answer then thus That Justin intended the recommending of the Christian Constitution of the Covenant af Grace and proving it preferable to the Mosaical was never denied by me tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense for I did and do most firmly believe That that was part of his Design and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew That the New Law or Covenant of Grace was now to be kept as it is in its Christian Constitution and that the keeping of it as such was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation and that the keeping of it in its Mosaical Constitution or form of Administration was not now necessary as Trypho pretended But then good Sir consider that in prosecution of that design he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all which all Men now must keep whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason if withal they have but common honesty whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose which was to prove that the accuser of the