The True Nature of the Gospel, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
That this Opinion of the Goſpel's being a New Law, too much agrees with the Popiſh and Arminian Doctrines, proved by ſeveral Inſtances out of their Authors.
SINCE Popery and Arminianiſm, under various Names, and in purſuit of different Ends, make the ſame ſtated Oppoſition to the Deſign of the Goſpel; every Opinion which agrees with their Errors, deſerves to be ſuſpiciouſly regarded, and is unworthy of any favourable reception. If it then doth appear that this Doctrine of the Goſpel's being a new Law, hath been ſtrongly maintain'd by the Romiſh Church in ſeveral Ages, as that which lays the ſureſt Foundation for that dear Article of their Faith, the Merit of Works; and hath all been zealouſly eſpouſed by the Arminians and Socinians, as a moſt effectual Engine to overthrow Juſtification by the imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt: Then all who love Jeſus the Redeemer, or are careful of their own Salvation by him, will be very wary of giving a welcome Entertainment to this new Law. That the Doctors of the Romiſh Church have all along aſſerted the Goſpel to be a new Law, will be evident from a few Inſtances.
Petrus Lombardus, the Maſter of the Sentences, who flouriſh'd An. Dom. 1141. explaining the Difference between the Old Law, and the New Law the Goſpel. aPraecepta etiam diverſa quantum ad Ceremonialia: Nam quantum ad moralia ſunt eadem, ſed plenius in Evangelio continentur. Petrus Lombard. lib. 3. Sentent. Diſt. 4. pag. 681. Edit. in 8o. Mogunt. 1632.The Precepts of them (ſays he) are different as to Ceremonials: For as to Morals they are the ſame, but are more fully contain'd in the Goſpel.
Alexander Alenſis who liv'd Anno Dom. 1230. reſolving that Queſtion, Whether the Obſervance of the Old or New Law be the moſt burdenſome? ſays,bTametſi Evangelii praecepta ſimpliciter difficiliora ſint, majoriſ que oneris praeceptis Moſaicae Legis, &c. Alex. Alenſ. Sum. Theol. par. 3. Quaeſt. 28. Memb. 4. Art. 1. pag. 193. Col. Agr. 1622. That the Precepts of the Goſpel, ſimply and abſolutely, are more difficult, and of a greater Burden than the Precepts of the Moſaical Law.
Gulielmus Altiſſiodorenſis, who flouriſh'd Anno Dom. 1240. reſolves the ſame Queſtion, with this Diſtinction;cDuplex eſt difficultas five gravitas, una carnalis, alia ſpiritualis: Quantum ad carnalem gravitatem gravior erat Lex vetus quam Evangelium, ſed quantum ad difficultatem ſpiritualem Lex nova difficilior. Guil. Altiſſiod. Sum. in Sentent. lib. 4. Fol. 243. pag. 2 Pariſ. 1500. The Difficulty or Weight is twofold, one Carnal, the other Spiritual. As to the Carnal Burdenſomneſs, the old Law was heavier than the Goſpel; but as to the Spiritual Difficulty, the new Law is more difficult.
Albertus Magnus, who lived Anno Dom. 1260. clearing, how tho the Letter of the Law kills, yet the Spirit makes alive.dSpiritus eſt gratia ſpiritus, in quâ datur ſpiritus ſanctus: & haec datur in Legiſlatione novâ, non veteri. Albert. Magn. Com. in lib. 3. Sentent. Diſt. 4. Art. 4. pag. 419. Tom. 15. oper. Ed à Jammy, Lugd. 1651. The Spirit (ſays he) is the Grace of the Spirit, in which the Holy Ghoſt is given; and this is given in the making of the new Law, not in that of the Old.
Thomas Aquinas, who lived Anno Dom. 1265. in reſolving that Queſtion, Whether the new Law can juſtify a Man? poſitively affirms, ThateLex Evangelica, cum ſit ipſa ſpiritus ſancti gratia, neceſſariò hominem juſtificat. Aquin. Sum. prim. ſecund. Qu. 106. Art. 2. pag. 199. Col. Agr. 1622. the Evangelical Law, ſince it is the Grace it ſelf of the Holy Spirit, doth neceſſarily juſtify a Man.
Joannes Dunſcotus, who flouriſh'd Anno Dom. 1300. explaining how the new Law is eaſier to be obey'd than the old One, tho it hath all the Moral Precepts of that with the ſuperaddition of new Ones:fEx parte autem Legis novae plus alleviat multitudo, & efficacia auxiliorum, &c. Scotus in lib. 3. Sentent. Diſt. 40. But (ſays he) on the Part of the new Law, the Multitude and Efficacy of the Aids doth more alleviate the Difficulty of its Moral Precepts.
Raynerius de Piſis, who alſo flouriſh'd Anno Dom. 1300. diſcourſeth largely about this new Law, and its Excellence and eminent Prerogative above the old One:gQuae quidem Lex nova quatuor notabiles & excellentes conditiones habet. Eſt enim Lex Charitatis, Libertatis, Facilitatis, Neceſſitatis. Rayner. de Piſis Pantheol. Tom. 2. Cap. 109. de Lege pag. 116. Edit. in 4o. Brixiae, 1580. Which new Law (ſays he) hath four notable and excellent Conditions; for it is a Law of Charity, of Liberty, Facility, and Neceſſity; and with a tedious prolixneſs he inſiſts on all thoſe Particulars.
The Cardinal, Petrus Aureolus, who flouriſh'd Anno Dom. 1317. gives eight Differences between the new Law and the Old; and among the reſt aſſigns this, ThathAntiqua (viz. Lex) imperabat, ſed auxilium non praebebat, attendebat literam, quae occidit: Nova ſpiritum, & gratiam, quae vivificat. Aureolus in lib. 3. Sentent. Diſt. 40. Quaeſt. ult. pag. 451. Tom. 2. Romae, 1605. the old Law commanded, but afforded no Aid, it was intent on the Letter which kills; but the New gives Spirit and Grace, which quickens.
iQuod Lex nova liberat ab oneribus veteris Legis verum eſt, tum quia imponit onera pauciora, tum etiam leviora, & quae pertinent ad curationem morbi peccati, & ad conſervationem ſanitatis ſpiritualis. Durand. in Sent. lib. 4. Diſt. 1. Qu. 2. pag. 646. Lugd. 1587.That the new Law frees us from the Burdens of the old Law, is true, (ſays Durandus à S. Porciano, who liv'd Anno Dom. 1320.) both becauſe it impoſeth on us fewer Burdens, and alſo lighter, and which belong to the Cure of the Diſeaſe of Sin, and to the preſervation of Spiritual Health.
kDuae nam que ſunt partes Legis Divinae tam vetuſtae, quam novae, videlicet teſtimonia, & praecepta. Teſtimonia pertinent ad credenda, Praecepta ad operanda. Dionyſ. Carthuſ. in lib. 3. Sentent. Diſt. 40. Qu. 2. pag. 330. Venet. 1584.There are two Parts of the Divine Law, both the Old and the New, (ſays Dionyſius Carthuſianus, who lived Anno Dom. 1450.) viz. Teſtimonies and Precepts; Teſtimonies concern things to be believ'd, Precepts thoſe which are to be done.
Dominicus Soto, who was Father Confeſſor to the French King Francis I. Anno Dom. 1535. diſputes largely about the New Law, or the Evangelical Law; and among other things he tells us, ThatlLex Evangelica Chriſtianorum eſt propria, Lex vero invita univerſis communiter intionibus pater.—Lex haec ipſiſſimum eſt Evangelium. Domin. Soto de Juſtic. & Jure, lib. 2. Quaeſt. 7. Art. 1. Fol. 61. pag. 1. Lugd. 1582. it is a Law proper to Chriſtians, when the Moral Law, written on the Hearts of Men, belongs to all Nations. That this Law is the Goſpel it ſelf.
And then determining that Queſtion, Whether this new Evangelical Law hath the Virtue of juſtifying a Man? he decides it in theſe two Propoſitions; mPrime concluſio eſt: Lex Evangelica, ſi pura documenta & mandata, at que opetum ſubſtantiam conſideres, non magis per ſe juſtificat, quam vetus, vel Lex ipſa naturae.—Secunda concluſio: Lex Evangelica, ſi internam ejus virtutem mediteris, hominem juſtificat. Id. Ibid. Quaeſt. 7. Art. 2. Fol. 61. pag. 2.1. The Evangelical Law, if its pure Inſtructions and Commands, and Subſtance of its Works be conſidered, doth no more in it ſelf juſtify than the old Law, or the Law of Nature it ſelf. 2. The Evangelical Law, if its internal Virtue is conſider'd, juſtifies a Man.
Albertus Pighius, who lived at the ſame Time, ſpeaking of the Cup in the Sacrament:nNon veteris illius, & tunc continuò evacuandi, ſed novi & aeterai Teſtamenti, novae Legis, novo more promulgatae. Alb. Pighius, de Hierarch Eccleſiaſt. lib. 1. cap. 2. Fol. 7. pag. 1. Col. Agr. 1558. This is the Cup, (ſays he) not of that old Teſtament, which was then preſently to be diſannull'd, but of the New and Eternal Covenant, of the new Law promulgated in a new manner.
If we go to the more Modern Doctors of the Church of Rome, who liv'd in this preſent Age, we ſhall find that they all write in the ſame Strain. oLex autem gratiâ comitata, cujuſmodi intelligitur Lex nova, non tantum quid ſit agendum, oſtendit, verum etiam ſpiritum & virtutem ſubminiſtrat, quâ quod praecipitur, impleatur. Eſtius, in lib. 3. Sentent. Diſt. 40. §. 4. pag. 159. Tom. 1. Duac. 1616.But the Law, ſays Eſtius, (ſhewing the Difference between the two Laws) accompanied with Grace, ſuch as the new Law is underſtood to be, doth not only ſhew what is to be done, but doth adminiſter Spirit and Virtue, by which what is given in Precept may be fulfill'd.
Suarez, who for ſtrength of Mind, and clearneſs of Thought, is the beſt of all the Schoolmen, ſpends the whole tenth Book of his large Volume about Laws, to explain the Nature of this new Evangelical Law. He at the very firſt lays down theſe two Aſſertions.pDicendum verò primò eſt Chriſtum dominum non ſolum ſuiſſe redemptorem, ſed etiam fuiſſe verum, & proprium Legis latorem.—Dico ſecundo Lex Chriſti ſeu Lex nova, eſt vera ac propriiſſima Lex praeceptiva. Suarez. de Legibus, lib. 10. cap. 2. pag. 696, 697. Mogunt. 1619. 1. That Chriſt was not only a Redeemer but a true and proper Legiſlator. 2. That the Law of Chriſt, or the new Law, is a true and moſt proper preceptive Law.
And then afterward aſſoiling that Difficulty, How this his new Law can juſtify, ſince it conſiſts in Precepts as well as the Old, and ſo could have no more juſtifying Virtue in it than that:qAd diffitultatem eſt Reſponſio communis; gratiam convenire Legi novae quaſi per ſe, & ex propris; antiquioribus vero Legibus non ex vi illarum, ſeu per ſe fuiſſe conjunctam, ſed per reſpectum ad Legem gratiae. Et ideo Legi gratiae ſimpliciter tribui juſtificationem non verò ſuperioribus Legibus.—Ob hanc ergo rationem ſpiritus gratiae dicitur eſſe proprius Legis novae quia data eſt eo tempore, in quo jam Author gratiae advenit, & redemptionem hominum conſummavit, gratiam que omnibus meruit. Imo idem ipſe eſt Author hujus regis, & gratiae. Idem. Ibid. cap. 5. pag. 712. But to this Difficulty (ſays he) there is alſo a common Anſwer, That Grace doth agree to the new Law in it ſelf, and as proper to it: but it was not join'd to the old preceding Laws from their own force and Virtue, and as proper to them, but with reſpect to the Law of Grace: And therefore Juſtification is ſimply attributed to the Law of Grace, but not to the former Laws.—For this Reaſon therefore the Spirit of Grace is ſaid to be proper to the new Law, becauſe this new Law was given in which the Author of Grace was now come, and conſummated the Redemption of Men, and merited Grace for all. Yes, he himſelf is the Author, both of this Law and of Grace.
I will name one more, the Cardinal Bellarmine, who as he fiercely oppos'd the Doctrine of Grace, reviv'd by the firſt Reformers, he earneſtly ſat himſelf to aſſert the Goſpel to be a new Law. And as he knew very well, that he could not maintain the Merit of Works and Juſtification by them, without this Aſſertion of the Goſpel's being a new Law, he begins his fourth Book of Juſtification which is concerning the Righteouſneſs of Works, with eager Endeavours to vindicate this Aſſertion againſt the Proteſtants. Among other things, too long here to relate, he tells us; ThatrEt quidem ſi loquamur de Gratiâ Novi Teſtamenti, non diſtinguitur Lex ab Evangelio: Quod Lex requirat opera, Evangelium non requirat opera; ſed quod Lex doceat quid ſit faciendum, Evangelium praebeat vires ad faciendum. Bellarm. de Juſtif. lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 1011. In Tom. 4. Controv. Colon. Agrip. 1619. indeed if we ſpeak of the Grace of the New Teſtament, the Law is not diſtinguiſh'd from the Goſpel in this, that the Law requires Works, but the Goſpel doth not require Works: But in that the Law teacheth what is to be done, the Goſpel affords Strength to do it. So that according to him, the new Law tho requiring Works, is yet a Law of Grace, becauſe accompanied with Grace.
Thus it is evident, that for many paſt Ages down to our own, this Opinion of the Goſpel's being a new Law was the conſtant Doctrine of the Anti-chriſtian Church, and eagerly maintain'd to ſupport the Merit of Works. The Socinians and Arminians, as they join'd with the Church of Rome in denying the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, ſo they readily embrac'd this Figment of the new Law; under the covert of which, they introduc'd an Evangelical Righteouſneſs of our own in conformity to it, by which we are to be juſtified. I ſhall not be large in proſecuting this Buſineſs, becauſe my Revernd and Learned Brother, Mr. Stephen Lobb, will do it ſufficiently. I will only offer two fair Evidences; the one of Socinus himſelf, the other of Epiſcopius. sQuamvis Chriſtus ſuam Legem habeat, eum que Dei nomine mundo tulerit, non tamen ſimpliciter Legiſlator dicitur, cum ejus Lex nihil aliud fuerit quam complementum ac perfectio Moſaicae Legis; nec ſanè ob id praecipuè in Mundum venit, ut Legem ferret, noſterve Legiſlator eſſet, ſed ut nos ſervaret, in quem etiam finem nobis ſuam Legem dedit. Socin. ad Artic. Cuteni, Theſ. 10. pag. 454. tom. 2. oper. 1656.Tho Chriſt (ſaith Socinus) hath his Law, and promulgated it in the Name of God to the World; yet is he not call'd ſimply a Law-giver, ſince his Law was nothing elſe but a Complement, and Perfection of the Moſaical Law: nor indeed did he chiefly come into the World for that End, that he might make Laws, and be our Legiſlator; but that he might ſave us, for which End alſo he gave to us his Law.tFatentur Remonſtrantes delectari ſe iſtâ Loquendi ratione, [viz. quod Chriſtus ſit novus quidam Legiſlator] non quia hunc aut illum autorem ſapit, nedum quia eam à Socino mutuati, ſed quia Dei & Scripturae Phraſis, & quia Religionis totius corculum, ac Medulla eſt. Nihil ae que neceſſarium eſſe credunt, quam ut credatur novae Legis latorem eſſe. Epiſcopius, Apolog. Remonſtrant. cap. 24. pag. 237. part. 2. tom. 1. oper. Rot. 1665. The Remonſtrants confeſs (ſays Epiſcopius) that they are delighted with that Manner of Speaking, [viz. that Chriſt is a certain new Law-giver] not becauſe it ſavours of this or that Author, much leſs becauſe they borrowed it from Socinus; but becauſe it is the Phraſe of God, and of Scripture, and becauſe it is the Heart and Marrow of all Religion; and they believe nothing to be more neceſſary, than that it ſhould be believ'd that Chriſt is the Maker of a new Law.
It is plain then that this Aſſertion of the Goſpel's being a new Law, is a Popiſh, and Socinian, and Arminian Doctrine. What then ſhall I brand my Reverend Brother with any of theſe hated Names? No, I am ſo far from doing it, that I do not ſo much as think him to be on the Side of any of the three Parties, tho he is ſo liberal in beſtowing Titles of Diſhonour upon thoſe who differ from him, as to call them Antinomians; and ſo by virtue of an hard Word, to name them the greateſt Villains which can live upon Earth.
I know very well that the Papiſts, together with aſſerting the Goſpel to be a Law, aſſert the Merit of Works; which is diſclaim'd by my Brother, and yet is really included in his Hypotheſis: For what is Merit, but when the Reward is due to ſome Work done? And now if the Goſpel be in that reſpect a Law, that it requires Duties as Conditions of having a Claim to its Bleſſings, and promiſes them to the Performance of thoſe Conditions, then to them perform'd, tho of never ſo little Conſideration, the Bleſſings muſt be given not as the Fruits of meer Grace, but as the Reſults of a juſt Debt. However, tho the Opinion is not profeſſedly ſo rank as Popery, and Arminianiſm; yet in the leaſt Nearneſs to thoſe deſtructive Errors there is Danger, and within the very Confines dwell Plagues and Death. The People cannot then with too much Zeal, be warned of the hazardous Approaches which lead them on to be betray'd into the Enemies Camp. They underſtand not the Niceties of Controverſy, and of Errors ſo refin'd that they eſcape their diſcerning they are not afraid, and yet all the while the Venom works more deſperately for being ſubtiliz'd, and the inviſible Spirits of it mortally ſeize their Brains, when they ſtartled at the ſight of the Poiſon offer'd in its groſſer Bulk. I hope then my Reverend Brother, and all others, will pardon me if my Love to the Truth hath ſtirr'd me with ſome juſt Indignation againſt the Opinions, which favour thoſe dangerous Errors concerning Juſtification by Works, and if I have been moved to repreſent them in their own exact Shape and natural Colours. For tho I will not avow theſe newly advanc'd Doctrines to be rank Popery, and Arminianiſm; yet I muſt ſay, that they want but little of taking that Degree, and that even in this reſpect they are the more hurtful. For when a groſs Error is wire-drawn to a ſlender Thred, it is the more miſchievous in being not eaſily diſcernable, ſince ſo it ſlides inſenſibly into the Minds of the Unwary. What tho the Merit of good Works is diſclaim'd; what tho the Socinian and Arminian Inferences from the Goſpel's being a new Law, are diſown'd; yet would it not be better for the Preſervation of the Truth in its Purity, and for the Safety of the Souls of the People, to forbear ſuch Phraſes and Modes of Speech, which by the Enemies of the Goſpel are made uſe of to very ill Purpoſes? Let all of us be ſway'd by the Words of a Man, whoſe Memory we all love and revere: It is the admirable Beza; who writing againſt Claudius de Xaintes, conteſts with him that the Goſpel was not a new Law, nor ought ſo to be named;uPaulum fateor uno loco Legis fidei meminiſſe, quam opponat Legi operum; ſed praeterquam quod additum fidei nomen omnem amphiboliam tollit, dico ne ſic quidem illum Locum tibi patrocinari. Lego apud eundem Legem Chriſti, ſed pro mutuae dilectionis mandato à Chriſto renovato; cui opponitur externa Legis obſervatio, ac praeſertim Phariſaica. Legem perfectam Libertatis (cujus meminit Jacobus) nego ad iſtam novae Legis appellationem pertinere. Calvinum autem uti memini uno Loco veſtrâ illâ formulâ, ſed additâ interpretatione, & idcirco tantum, ut quid in vobis redargueret, omnes intelligerent: Ne me vero exiſtimes de nihilo contendere, quum veteres nonnulli, veluti Auguſtinus (quod tamen rariſſimè fecit) Legis, & quidem novae, ſeu ſecundae, nomen aliquando novo Foederi, ſive Evangelio tribuerit, facit exitialis ille & plane deteſtabilis Error veſter, quo Legis & Evangelii praecipuum diſcrimen tollitis, ut hanc formulam ſcripturis inuſitatam prorſus ex Eccleſiâ exturbandam exiſtimem. Bezae Apolog. 2. ad Cl. de. Xaintes reſponſ. pag. 364. tom. 2. oper. Genevae 1573. I confeſs (ſays he) that Paul makes mention in one place of the Law of Faith, which he oppoſeth to the Law of Works; but beſides that the Name of Faith added takes away all Ambiguity, I ſay that neither ſo indeed doth that Place favour thee. I read in the ſame Apoſtle, the Law of Chriſt expreſs'd, but meant for the Command of mutual Love renewed by Chriſt, to which is oppos'd the external, and eſpecially the Phariſaical Obſervation of the Law. I deny that the perfect Law of Liberty, which James mentions, belongs to this naming of a new Law. But I remember that Calvin in one place uſes your Phraſe, but with an Interpretation added; and that too only, that all might underſtand what he would diſprove in you. But do not think that I contend with you about a Triffle, tho ſome of the Antient Fathers, as Auguſtine (which yet he did very rarely) attributed ſometimes the Name of a Law, and indeed of a new, or ſecond Law, to the New Teſtament or Goſpel. That pernicious, and plainly deteſtable Error of your's, by which you take away the chief Difference of the Law and Goſpel, makes me to judg that this Phraſe, viz. [a new Law] unuſual in the Scriptures, ought wholly to be thruſt out of the Church.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
Page 69. Line 14. for all read alſo.
End of the text · Thomas Goodwin, The True Nature of the Gospel (1695)