Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed, Chapter 2 · Section 1
SECTION I. Of his Firſt Errour, That there is no New Law of Grace.
THE Firſt Error againſt our Chriſtian Faith, which we find in the Letter, is that there is no new Law of Grace, according to which the Lord diſpenſeth unto his People the Benefits and Bleſſings of Juſtification and Eternal Savlation. That we do not wrong him in charging him with this erroneous Opinion, is evident from his Letter, pag. 9, 18, 29. and pag. 30, 31. Where he ſaith, that Justification, upon the terms of the new Law of Grace, doth not agree with the ſound Words of the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter; and that the new Law of Grace is a new word, but of an old and ill meaning. Thus he. And this the people muſt believe, upon his bare word, without any proof.
Now to refute this, we need do no more, but refer them, that deſire to know who is in the right, as to this matter, unto Mr. Williams defence of Goſpel truth, from pag. 18, to 34. where it is ſufficiently proved by Scripture, by reaſon grounded on Scripture, and by the Teſtimony of Divines of the Reformed Churches, That there is a new Law of Grace, that the Goſpel is that Law of Grace, and that it is a new Law of Grace in the ſame ſenſe that the Covenant of the Goſpel is a new Covenant of Grace. This Error then (that there is no new Law of Grace) being refuted to our hand, we might well paſs it, and proceed to another. Yet becauſe the Authour diſcovers ſo much ignorance and boldneſs in what he ſays to the People, upon this point, we judge it expedient to inſiſ… a little upon it, both to inſtruct: and alſo to rebuke him.
And becauſe he would make the people believe (whether he believe it of us, himſelf; God and his own Conſcience know) that we conſider God only as a Rector, ruling by a preſcribed Law, in all his Purpoſes concerning and Dealings with the Children of Men, That he may not go on deceiving and being deceived; We declare to the World, that we never thought, ſpoke, or wrote any ſuch thing, as he would faſten upon us, that he may the better miſrepreſent us to the people, pag. 9. at the beginning, to wit, that God is only to be conſidered under the notion of a Rector and Judge, as aforeſaid. Where by the way, we cannot but take notice, how honeſtly he deals by our Reverend Brother Mr. Williams, in drawing this inference from a pretended Scheme of his Doctrine, [Thus (ſaith our Authour) they antedate the Laſt Day, and hold forth Chriſt as a Judge, rather than a Saviour.] Here the World ſees what Doctrine he fixes upon Mr. Williams. Next, Let them turn to pag. 56. of Goſpel Truth ſtated, &c. and there they will find theſe expreſs words of Mr. Williams, [He (Chriſt) treats with men as his Subjects, whom he will now Rule, and hereafter Judge:] Now cannot Chriſt be our Saviour, but by ceaſing to be our Ruler, and cannot we be ſaved by him, but by ceaſing to be ſubject to him? Where is that Man's Brains, who cannot ſee, if he will, that theſe two things do very well conſiſt, that Chriſt is both our Saviour and Ruler, at the ſame time? But this only on the by.
We declare therefore again, that we never thought, ſpoke, or wrote, that God is to be conſidered only under the notion of a Rector, or Judge in all his Purpoſes concerning and Dealings with the Race of Man-kind. On the contrary we believe, that,
Firſt, God, as an abſolute Soveraign Lord, of his own moſt Free and Gracious Will and Pleaſure, purpoſed to give, and accordingly gave his only begotten Son to be the Redeemer, and Saviour of ſinful Men, but not of fallen Angels.
Secondly, That God as an abſolute Soveraign Lord, of his own good pleaſure, and according to the Counſel of his own will, did before the foundation of the World, chooſe ſome, and not others, of the lapſed, and loſt Race of Man-kind, unto the participation of Special, Effectual, Victorious Grace, and Eternal Glory, through Chriſt Jeſus.
Thirdly, That in the firſt making of the Covenant, and enacting of the Law of Grace with us, through Chriſt Jeſus, God did not act as a Governour Ruling us according to an external Law, which he had before made for us, but as a Soveraign, and gracious Lord, who had freely purpoſed to ſave us in ſuch a way by Jeſus Chriſt.
Fourthly, That in giving the foreſaid Special, Effectual, Victorious Grace to the Elect, rather than to others, God doth not act as a Rector, or Governour, according to a ſtated Law preſcribed to us, and known by us; but according to the counſel of his own. Will, and his hidden Purpoſes and Tranſactions with Chriſt concerning us.
Fifthly, But yet, in good conſiſtency with what we have ſaid, we do firmly believe, that God hath enacted; and conſtituted a Law of Grace, for beſtowing upon us the ſubſequent Bleſſings and Benefits of the Covenant, ſuch as Juſtification and Glorification.
This Law God hath revealed to us in the Scriptures of Truth, by this Law he 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 injoined. It is with reſpect to thoſe ſubſequent Bleſſings and Benefits of the Covenant, that we ſay, the Lord deals with us as a Rector, and Governour, Ruling us by a Law of Grace.
This Law is expreſſed in Holy Scripture, in ſeveral Forms of Words, as that, See alſo Pſ 103.17, 18. Pr. 28.13. Iſa. 1.16, 17, 18. & 55.7. Jer. 36.3. Acts 2.38. & ….19. & 16.31. & 26.18. Heb. 5.9. & 12.14. Revel. 2.10. & 3.21. & 22.14. John 8.51.Ho who believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, but he that believeth not, ſhall be damned, Mark 16.16. And, If thou ſhalt confeſs with thy mouth, the Lord Jeſus, and ſhalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raiſed him from the Dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved, Rom. 10.9. Whoſoever believeth in Christ, ſhall receive Remiſſion of Sins, Acts 10.43. Except ye repent, ye ſhall all likewiſe periſh, Luke 13.5.
This is that which we mean by the Law of Grace, and our meaning is ſo plain, that any Man endued with common ſenſe, and reaſon, may underſtand it. But our Brethren do not like the thing it ſelf. And why, we pray, do not they like it?
1. Is it becauſe it is called a Law? Why the Scriptures of Truth call it ſo expreſly, Rom. 3.27. the law of faith. Gal. 6.2. the law of Chriſt. The Meſſiah's Law; The Iſles ſhall wait for his Law, Iſa. 42.4. Or,
2. Is it becauſe it obligeth to duty with a promiſe of bleſſing to the Performers, and with a threatening of miſery and puniſhment to the Neglecters, Refuſers and Deſpiſers? If this be the reaſon wherefore they like it not, then let them receive an Anſwer from the Lords own Mouth; Luke 19.27. Thoſe mine enemies, which would not that I ſhould reign over them, bring them hither, and ſlay them before me. But we have better hopes of our Brethren. Or,
3. Is it becauſe we call it a Law of Grace? Why we call it a Law of Grace, becauſe it really is ſo, it is a gracious Law: For it is a Federal, or Covenant-Law, that makes rich Offers of Grace, of Juſtifying and Glorifying Grace; and it is a means alſo whereby the Lord conveys unto his People regenerating and ſanctifying Grace, it is a means which the Lord hath ordained to bring his People to Faith, Repentance, and Goſpel-obedience: Therefore it may well be called a Law of Grace. And we think none ſhould, and eſpecially our Angry Brethren, ſhould not like it the worſe, becauſe we call it, and it really is a Law of Grace: They do not like the Covenant of the Goſpel the worſe, becauſe it is called the Covenant of Grace; and why then ſhould they like this Law of Chriſt, the worſe, becauſe we call it the Law of Grace? eſpecially when we tell them, 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. And doth not the Apoſtle, Rom. 4.16. ſay expreſly, that it is of faith, that it might be by grace. Or,
4. And Laſtly, Is it becauſe we call it a new Law? If that be it that diſpleaſeth, why ſhould our Brethren be diſpleaſed on that account, ſince they know (if it be not their own fault) that we call it the new Law in no other ſenſe, than as we call the Covenant of Grace, the new Covenant?
This Law of Grace we ſpeak of, is both new and old in different reſpects; It is new in reſpect of the Covenant of Works made with Man in his ſtate of innocency: For that Covenant of Works was before this Law of Grace which came after, and therefore is comparatively new. Again, as we Chriſtians have it, it is called new, becauſe we have the neweſt, and cleareſt and laſt edition of it. And as in theſe reſpects it is new, ſo in other reſpects it is old; It is old as the ſubſtance of it hath had an exiſtence in the Church of God, ever ſince the firſt promiſe of Grace made to our firſt Parents after the fall. It is the everlaſting Goſpel, Rev. 14.7. Heb. 12.26, 27, 28, 29.which hath been in the Church under various forms of adminiſtration, and will continue, in us neweſt and excellenteſt form unto the end of the World. We hear it is ſaid by ſome, that the Command to believe and repent, with the promiſe of pardon to the penitent Believer; and the threatening of puniſhment to the impenitent Unbeliever, cannot be an Evangelical Law, becauſe God doth not give unto all, ſpecial grace to enable them to believe and repent in obedience to that Command. We anſwer,
1. If that be it that hinders it from being a Law, then notwithſtanding that reaſon, it is a Law to all Gods Elect, for to them he gives, through Chriſt, the ſaid ſpecial Grace.
2. We deny the Conſequence, God gives not ſpecial Grace to the Non-elect therefore the Command to believe and repent, with the annexed conditional promiſe of pardon, and threatening of puniſhment, cannot be a Law to them. It may be, and is a Law to them, though the ſaid ſpecial Grace is not given them. And whereas it is objected, that without ſuch ſpecial Grace the Non-elect cannot obey that Law. We Anſwer,
1. That their cannot, their Impotence is not phyſical, but moral, they cannot be cauſe they will not.
2. The Non-elect, to whom the Evangelical Law is promulgated together with it receive more Common-Grace, more light and power from the Lord, in order to their obeying his revealed Will, than they make a good uſe of. Hence the Profeſſors of Leyden, in their Synopſis of purer Divinity, write thus concerning this matter, Diligenter notandum eſt, &c. Diſp. 24. Theſ. 54, 55. p. 290, 291.It is diligently to be noted, that this Non-election doth not take away, or deny; all Grace in the Non-elect, but only that Grace which is peculiar to the Elect. But that Grace which in various meaſures, is diſpenſed unto …on by the adminiſtration of common Providence, whether under the Law of Nature, or under the Evangelical Grace, is not taken away by this act of Preterition, or Non-election; but is rather preſuppoſed: becauſe the Non elect are left under that common government of Divine Providence, and the exerciſe of their own free-will. But this adminiſtration of common providence, always hath conjoined with it that communication of Benefits external and internal; which in perfect of innocent nature was indeed ſufficient to Salvation, as it is manifeſt in the reprobate Angels, and in all mankind, conſidered in our firſt Parents before the Fall; But in corrupt Nature ſo much remains, or is ſuperadded to nature under the Goſpel, that they are bereft and deprived of all pretence of excuſe before the Divine Judgment, as the Apoſtle teſtifies, Acts 14.17. Rom. 1.20. & 2.1. John 15.22.— and elſe-where. Thus the Profeſſors of Leyden.
And Dr. Owen in his Diſcourſe concerning the Holy Spirit, Page 198. ſayes, That where ſpecial Grace and real Converſion is not attained (to wit by means of common Grace, of which he is there writing,) it is always from the interpoſition of an act of wilfulneſs, and ſtubbornneſs, in thoſe enlightened and convicted. They do not ſincerely improve what they have received, and faint not mierly for want of ſtrength to proceed, but by a free act of their own Wills, they refuſe the Grace which is further tendered unto them in the Goſpel. So much briefly, in anſwer to the foreſaid Objection; which was caſt into our way; and it being removed, we go on with our Author, who in Pag. 30. ſaith, That [New Law of Grace is a new Word, but of an old and ill meaning:] Very well! Here is a pretty Jingle of Words, and it may be he, or ſome that he knows, are much pleaſed with ſuch Trifles; and if ſo, here they are fitted. For our parts, we cannot ſee what ſhould move him to ſay, that the new Law of Grace is a new Word, of an old and ill meaning, but that either he himſelf was much pleaſed with the Jingle, or elſe (which we rather think) he intended to pleaſe ſome of his Conſorts, and to make them remember the thing for the ſake of the little wit he had ſhewed in expreſſing it. And if that was his intended end, it is pity he ſhould fail of obtaining it, and that People ſhould not remember it for ever, for that reaſon (which will for ever hold true) that there was little wit in it. But you will ſay, How doth that appear? Why very plainly thus, There is little Wit, and leſs Grace, in boldly aſſerting a notorious Falſehood, in matter of Fact, in the Face of a learned Age. But this the Author of the Letter hath done, in aſſerting, that new Law of Grace is a new Word of an old, but ill meaning. 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 agoe, that the Words are not new, but were uſed in the Chriſtian Church in a good ſenſe and meaning long before we were born. Without doubt we might bring Multitudes of Witneſſes, from among the Antient Writers of the Church, to prove this matter of Fact, if it were needful; but we ſhall content our ſelves with a few, whereof ſome are ſuch as our Authour cannot in reaſon except againſt, becauſe he himſelf hath ſuborned them to bear witneſs (and that falſe witneſs too) for him, againſt us.
We have ſhewed already that the Apoſtle Paul expreſly calls it, the law of faith, Rom. 3.27. And ſays that it is of faith, that it might be by grace, Rom. 4.16. And that is as much as if he had ſaid, both together in one place, that it is the Law of Grace.
We will paſs the Teſtimony of Ignatius, though in his Epiſtle to the Magneſians he expreſly mentions the Law of Chriſt; becauſe it is diſputed that his Epiſtles, even thoſe of beſt credit, have been much interpolated and corrupted: And our cauſe needs not the Teſtimony of ſuſpected Witneſſes. Therefore after Bleſſed Paul, Paris Edit. An. 1636. p. 228.we begin with Juſtin the Martyr, as our firſt Witneſs. That bleſſed Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, writes thus, foreign, &c. But now,— for I have read, O Trypho, that there ſhall be a latter or after-law, and a Teſtament, or Govenant, of the greateſt, or moſt excellent Authority of all, which Teſtament, or Covenant, now all men muſt keep, whoſoever they be, that would obtain poſſeſſion of the inheritance of God. For the Law that was given in Horeb, is now old, and concerns you Jews only; but this after law concerns all men, abſolutely and univerſally. And when one Law is ſet against another Law, the latter diſanuls the former. Again, in the ſame Page, Justin ſaith, foreign, &c. by the workes, (or gracious effects) and the power which follows, or accompanies it, All may understand, Pag. 231. Pag. 251.that this is the New Law. Afterwards he calls Chriſt the New Law giver. And he ſayes, Ye Jews deceive your ſelves by equivocal Words or Speeches, for where the Law of the Lord is ſaid, to be faultleſs, ye expound it not, of that Law which was to come after, but of the Law given by Moſes, foreign. God lowdly ſaying, that he would make a new Law, and a new Covenant. Thus did Juſtin aſſert a new Law above fifteen hundred Years agoe, for he wrote his Apology for the Chriſtians, and Chriſtian Religion, to Antoninus P… the Emperour, in the Year 150, and about the Year 163, he ſealed the Truth of the Goſpel with his Blood.
Our next Witneſs is Cyprian, Operum Cypriani Tomo 1. E…iſt 11 ma. Edit. Pamel. Anno 1617.who alſo ſealed the Truth with his Blood, about the middle of the Third Century, that is above Fourteen Hundred Years agoe.
This Holy Martyr, in his 11th. Epiſtle to the Martyrs and Confeſſors, ſeveral times calls it, Evangelii Lex, The Law of the Goſpel.
Again, In the firſt of his Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews, to Quirinus. His 10th. Chapter is, Quod Lex nova dari haberet, that a new Law was to be given; Ibid. Tom. 2. pag. 201.202.which he proves by theſe Teſtimonies of Holy Scripture, Mic. 4.2. Iſa. 2.3. Matth. 17.5. His 11th. Chapter is, Quod diſpoſitio alia & Testamentum novum dari haberet; that another administration, and a new Testament, or Covenant, was to be given; which he proves from Jer. 31.31, 32, 33, 34.
His 13th. Chapter is, Quod jugum vetus evacuaretur, & jugum novum daretur, that the old yoke ſhould be made null and void, and that a new yoke ſhould be given; which he proves from Pſal. 2.1, 2, 3. Matth. 11.28, 29, 30, &c. Theſe Paſſages, cited out of Cyprian's Works, manifeſtly ſhew, that as he expreſly called the Goſpel a Law, and a new Law, ſo he held it to be a Law of Grace: For he ſays, that though it be a new yoke laid upon us, yet it is a light yoke, and an eaſie burden.
After Cyprian, his Countrey-man Auguſtin, that famous Light of the Chriſtian Church in Africa, ſhall appear to give in his Teſtimony to the foreſaid matter of Fact.
Thus then he writes in the 18th. Chapter of his Book, concerning Grace and Free-will, Haec praecepta charitatis inaniter darentur hominibus, Lib. de Grat. & Lib. Arbit. cap. 18.non habentibus liberum arbitrium: Sed quia per legem dantur & veterem & novam, &c. Theſe Commandements of Love (ſaith Auguſtin) would be given in vain to Men, if they had not free will: But becauſe they are given both by the old and new Law, (although the Grace is come in the new, which was promiſed in the old, but the Law without Grace is a killing Letter, whereas in (or with) Grace, it is a quickening ſpirit) whence is in men the love of God and our Neighbour, but from God himſelf? This paſſage out of Augustin we have faithfully tranſcribed, and truly tranſlated. Now it is well known, that Augustin lived, and dyed, above Twelve Hundred Years agoe; and he ſaith expreſly, that the Law of Chriſt, which we are under, is the New Law, and he proves this new Law to be a Law of Grace. So that New Law of Grace, is ſo far from being a new Word of an old, but ill meaning, that it is a conſiderable time above 1200 hundred Years agoe, ſince the Learned and Holy Auguſtin uſed the Word in a very good ſence, and meaning. Again, the ſame Father, in his Book to Marcellinus, de Spiritu & Litera, Cap. 14. ſaith, De Spiritu & Lit. cap. 14.The Letter of the Law forbidding Sin, doth not justifie any Man, but rather kills him by increaſing Concupiſcence, and accumulating Iniquity through prevarication: (Niſi liberet Gratia per legem fidei, quae est in Christo Jeſu) Ʋnleſt Grace deliver him, or ſet him free by the Law of Faith, which is in Christ Jeſus. Here again. Augustin ſaith, that we are freed from death by a Law, that that Law is the Law of Faith; that that Law of Faith is a Law of Grace, for by that Law, Grace frees us from death: And he likewiſe gives us plainly to underſtand; that that gracious Law, is a new Law, for he ſays it is the Law of Faith, which is in Chriſt Jeſus. Now it is clear, that the Law of Faith in Chriſt already exhibited in the Fleſh, crucified, dead and buried, raiſed from the Dead; Glorified, and appointed to be Lord of all, and Judge of Quick and Dead; made perfect, and become the Authour of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him: muſt needs be a New Law, if we compare it with any Law that went before it. For before the coming of Chriſt, no Man was or could be, obliged to believe in him, as already Incarnate, Crucified and Glorified; otherwiſe Men had been obliged to believe a falſehood.
In the ſame Fifth Century Salvian of Marſeilles wrote his Eight Books of the Government of God, where he calls the Goſpel the Chriſtian Law: Book 4th pag. 140. Edit. Ox. 1633.In nobis Christus p…itur opprobrium, in …nobis patitur, lex Christiana maledictum: Saith he, Christ ſuffers reproach, by reaſon of us wicked Chriſtians, the Christian Law is evil ſpoken of by reaſon of us.
We might bring others of the Fathers for Witneſſes in this cauſe, but for the preſent we will content, our ſelves with theſe, eſpecially the firſt three, Justin the Martyr, Cyprian end Augustin, who all call the Goſpel a New Law.
Our next Witneſs is Bradwardin, who though he be none of the Fathers, yet he lived above three hundred years agoe, and our Authour cannot in reaſon except againſt him, becauſe he ſays in the 13th. Page of the Letter, that he was a bleſſing to England; and he would make the World believe, that he is for him againſt us. Let us hear what he ſaies in this cauſe.
Deus dedit hominibus talem legem, De causâ Dei contra Pelagiam, cap. 1. Pag. 29.& quam legem, ſi non legem ſanctiſſimam Christianam? God gave unto men ſuch a Law, and what Law, but the most Holy Chriſtian Law?
Again, He thus argues, Si ſola Lex Naturae ſufficeret Homini, &c. If the Law of Nature alone were ſufficient for a Man unto all things whatſoever, Ibid p. 63, 64.wherefore hath God, who doth nothing in vain, even by your own confeſſion, given another Law, yea other Laws, the old and the new, as what w… ſaid: before, doth testify, eſpecially ſince both theſe Laws, (to wit old and new, of Moſes, and of Chriſt,) are more difficult to know, and hard to keep (than the Law of Nature?) For who that is wiſe doth any thing by more means, which may be ſufficiently done by fewer, as natural reaſon, and all Philoſophers unanimouſly testifie? Ʋnleſs perhaps it may be done more decently or neatly, more profitably, and better by many means, than by few; which if it be true of poſitive Laws, and eſpecially of the Christian Law, why do you not receive it, and hold it? Here Bradwardin expreſly calls our Chriſtian Law, a poſitive New Law, as diſtinct both from the Law of Nature and Moſes. And in the ſame Page 64. he maintains that it is a Law with a Sanction of the greateſt Reward, and Puniſhment imaginable. Sic & Deus Summus Oeconomus in maxima domo ſua, &c. So alſo God is the highest Ruler in his most great Houſe, the highest Prince in his most great Principality, and the highest King of Kings in his moſt great Kingdome; wherefore then cannot he enact or ordain, that whoſoever ſhall keep the Chriſtian Law, ſhall receive Eternal Glory, and that they who ſhall not keep, but contemn it, ſhall be deprived of Glory, and ſhall inour eternal damnation; Surely he could do it, and he hath done it, as is manifeſt by what hath been ſaid before.
By this Paſſage it is as clear as the light, that Bradwardin held, that the Goſpel of Chriſt is a Law, with a Sanction of Reward and Puniſhment; and yet notwithſtanding its Sanction of Puniſhment, as well as Reward, he held it to be a Law of Grace; as Auguſtin did before him, and as manifeſtly appears from the main ſcope of his Book Of the Cauſe of God againſt the Pelagians; and therefore we forbear to quote any more out of it at preſent.
From the premiſſes it is clear, that above 300 Years agoe, the profound Doctor Bradwardin expreſly affirmed the Law of Chriſt to be a poſitive new Law, with a Sanction of Reward and Puniſhment; and the Scope of his Book is to prove it to be a Law of Grace. And by all this, we think the World may now ſee, that the Authour of the Letter told a great untruth, when he affirmed, that The new Law of Grace, is a new Word, but of an old, and ill meaning; and hence alſo People may learn what credit to give unto the Word of that Man.
From Fathers, and Antient Writers, we will come lower down, and ſee what ſome of our Modern Divines, ſince the Reformation, have ſaid in this cauſe; and firſt, when we look abroad, we find that the Profeſſors of Leyden, in their Synopſis of purer Divinity, ſay expreſly, Diſp. 22. Theſi. 32.That Evangelium aliquando legis titulo inſignitur, &c. The Goſpel is ſometimes called a Law, becauſe it alſo hath its own Commandments, and its own Promiſes and Threatenings.
We find alſo, that the learned Gomarus, not only allows the Goſpel to be called the Law of Grace, but likewiſe gives the reaſon why it is ſo called, in theſe Words, — Beneficii ratione, Evangelium, Gomari Operum par. 3. Diſp. 14. Theſi. 30.&c. — with reſpect unto, and becauſe of the benefit promiſed in it, the Goſpel in Holy Scripture is called The Word of the Lords Grace, (Acts. 14.3.) the Goſpel of the Grace of God, (Acts 20.24.) the Goſpel of Peace, (Eph. 6.15. Iſa. 52.7. Rom. 10.15.) and the Teſtament or Covenant, (2 Cor. 3.6.) And from the preſcription, Evang. eſt lex Dei foreign.or appointment of the condition, and duty contained in it, it is called the Law of Faith, (Rom. 3.27.) and the Law of God by way of eminency, or excellency. Iſa. 2.3. And truly this was excellently ſaid by Gomatus: No Man (we think) can give a better account, why the Goſpel is called the Law of Grace.
And next when we look homewards again, and caſt our eyes upon our own Brittiſh Divines, we find the greateſt of them clearly of the ſame mind, that the Goſpel is a Law, in the ſenſe before explained, it is the New Law of Grace. We will inſtance in two only at preſent. The firſt is Biſhop Andrews, no Popiſh Biſhop, (ſuch as Bradwardin was, whom our Authour quotes with ſuch an Elogium, againſt us) but a Proteſtant Biſhop, and a zealous Proteſtant, who held Rome to be Myſtical Babylon, and the Pope to be Antichriſt, as appears from what he wrote in Tortura Torti. pag. 183, 184, 185, 186, 187.
Now this zealous Proteſtant, in his 17th. Sermon of the Nativity, on Pſal. 2.7. writes thus, [We had well hoped Chriſt would have preached no Law; all Goſpel, he. Bp. Andrews Volume of Sermons. pag. 161.That he would have preached down the old Law, but not have preached up any new. We ſee it is otherwiſe. A Law he hath to preach, and preach it he will: He ſaith himſelf, Praedicabo Legem. So if we will be his Auditors, he tells us plainly we muſt receive a Law from his mouth. If we love not to hear of a Law; we muſt go to ſome other Church: For in Chriſts Church (there) a Law is preached. Chriſt began, we muſt follow, and ſay, every one of us, (as he ſaith,) Praedicabo Legem. Chriſt will preach a Law, and they that are not for the Law, are not for Chriſt. It was their quarrel above, (at the 3d. verſe) they would none of Chriſt, for this very cauſe, that Chriſt comes preaching a Law, and they would live lawleſs: They would endure no Yoke, that were the Sons of Belial. Belial (that is) No Yoke. But what agreement hath Chriſt with Belial? 2 Cor. 6.15. —The very Goſpel hath her Law. A Law Evangelical there is, which Chriſt preached: And as he did, we to do the like. — look but into the grand Commiſſion (by which we all preach.) which Chriſt gave at his going out of the World. Goe (ſaith he, Mar. 28.19.) preach the Goſpel to all Nations, teaching them, what? to obſerve the things that I have commanded you. Lo, here is commanding, and here is obſerving. Page 162.So the Goſpel conſiſts not only of certain Articles to be believed, but of certain Commandments, and they to be obſerved. Now (I know not how) but we are fallen clean from the term (Law;) nay we are even fallen out with it: Nothing but Goſpel now. The name of Law we look ſtrangely at: we ſhun it in our common talk. To this it is come, while men ſeek to live as they liſt. Preach them Goſpel as much as ye will: but (hear ye) no Law to be preached, to hold or keep them in. And we have Goſpelled it ſo long, that the Chriſtian Law is clean gone with us. —I ſpeak it to this end, to have the one term retained as well as the other, to have neither term aboliſhed; but with equal regard both kept on foot. They are not ſo well adviſed, that ſeek to ſuppreſs either name. If the name once be loſt, the thing it ſelf will not long ſtay, but go after it, and be loſt too. — The Chriſtian Religion, in the very beſt times of it, was called Chriſtiana Lex, the Chriſtian Law; — And all the Antient Fathers liked the term well; and took it upon them. To conclude, Goſpel it how you will, if the Goſpel have not the Legalia of it acknowledged, allowed, and preſerved to it; if once it loſe the force and vigour of a Law: it is a ſign it declines, it grows weak and unprofitable, and that is a ſign it will not long laſt.
And Page 165. he ſaith, (1.) There is the benefit of this Law, what he doth for us. (2.) And then what we are to do for him, our duty out of this Law. The benefit is the Goſpel of this Law, the duty is the Law of this Goſpel. And Page 166, They ſpeak of Laws of Grace; this is indeed a Law of Grace; nay it is the Law of Grace: not only as it is oppoſite to the Law of Nature, but even becauſe it offereth Grace, the greateſt Grace that ever was.
This was Printed and Publiſhed in the Year 1624. and that vvas before moſt of us vvere born. And yet even then the Goſpel vvas expreſly called, the Nevv Lavv of Grace, by Biſhop Andrews; and therefore it is no nevv Word, vvhichwhich we have lately invented. And not onelyonly Biſhop Andrews, vvho vvas every vvhit as expert as our Authour can be, in making a jingling noiſe vvith Words, vvhichwhich vvas more in faſhion then, than it is novv; but the famous Dr. Twiſs, vvho vvas uſed to a Scholaſtick cloſe way of reaſoning, both ſays, and proves that the Goſpel is a Lavv.
Therefore he ſhall be our laſt Witneſs in this Cauſe. Novv in his Anſvver to an Arminian Book called The Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to practice, he plainly aſſerts, as we do, that God deals with Men not meerly as an abſolute Soveraign arbitrary Lord, but as a Ruler and Governour, according to a known Law in giving unto them, or with-holding from them, the ſubſequent bleſſings and benefits, of the new Covenant. His Words are theſe [Now like as the act of God's decree, Pag. 40.41, 42.is of the meer pleaſure of God, no temporal thing being fit to be the cauſe of the eternal decree of God; in like ſort the giving of Faith and Repentance proceeds meerly of the good pleaſure of God. According to that, God hath mercy on whom he will, Rom. 9.18. And to obtain mercy at the hand of God, is to obtain faith, Rom. 11.30. But as for Glory and Salvation, we do not ſay that God in conferring it, proceeds according to the meer pleaſure of his will; but according to a Law, which is this (whoſoever believeth ſhall be ſaved;) which Law, we willingly profeſs, he made according to the meer pleaſure of his will, but having made ſuch a Law, he proceeds according to it. No ſuch Law hath he made, according whereunto to proceed in the diſpenſation of the grace of Faith and Repentance.
In like manner the Dr. there diſtinguiſhes between the denyal of Special Grace, of Faith, and Repentance, and the denyal of Glory. As for the firſt, the denyal of Special Grace to ſome, when God gives it to others, the Doctor ſays, that God proceeds therein according to the meer pleaſure of his Will; but as to the ſecond, his own Words are theſe, [As touching the denyal of Glory, and inflicting damnation, God doth not proceed according to the meer pleaſure of his will, but according to a Law, which is this, (Whoſoever believeth not; ſhall be damned.) And albeit God made that Law, according to the meer pleaſure of his will; yet no wiſe man will ſay, that he denies glory, and inflicts damnation on men according to the meer pleaſure of his will: The caſe being clear, that God denies the one, and inflicts the other, meerly for their ſins, who are thus dealt withal. — And in the next Page [Like as God inflicts not damnation, but by way of puniſhment, ſo he doth not beſtow Salvation, on any of ripe Years, but by way of reward. Yet here alſo is a difference, for damnation is inflicted by way of puniſhment for the evil works ſake which are committed, but Salvation is not conferred by way of Reward, for the good works ſake, which are performed, but meerly for Chriſts ſake. Thus the Doctor in that Book.
And that you may ſee, that this Paſſage did not drop inconſiderately from his Pen, we will ſhew from another Book, which he wrote afterwards, that this was his ſettled judgment, and that he was firmly, and fully perſwaded of this great Goſpel-truth. It is Dr. Twiſs his Anſwer to Mr. Hoard's Book, called God's Love to Mankind. Pag. 37.38.[As touching the conferring of Glory, God doth not beſtow this on whom he will, finding men equal without any moving cauſe thereunto, even in man; for though there be no moving cauſe thereunto in man, of its own nature; yet there is to be found a moving cauſe in man, by conſtitution Divine, whereby God is, as it were, moved to beſtow Salvation on ſome, and not on others. For God hath made a gracious promiſe, that whoſoever believeth and repenteth, and continueth in Faith and repentance unto death; ſhall be ſaved; and whoſoever believeth not, and repenteth not, ſhall be damned. So then, though Men are equal in original ſin, and in natural corruption, and God beſtows faith and repentance on whom of them he will, curing their corruption in whom he will; yet when he comes to the conferring of Glory, men are not found equal in moral condition; and accordingly God cannot be ſaid in like manner, to beſtow Glory and Salvation on whom he will. For he hath tyed himſelf by his own conſtitution to beſtow Salvation on none, but ſuch as dye in the state of Grace. Yet I confeſs, ſome ſay that God bestows Salvation on whom he will, inaſmuch as he is the Authour of their faith and repentance, and beſtows theſe graces on whom he will: Yet certainly there is a different manner in the uſe of this Phraſe of beſtowing this, or that, on whom he will. For when God bestows Faith and Repentance, he finds them on whom he will bestow it, no better than others: but when he comes to the beſtowing of Glory, he finds them, on whom he beſtows that, far better than others. —And a little after, [Albeit (ſaith he) God hardneth whom he will, by denying unto them, the grace of Faith and Repentance; yet notwithſtanding, like as it is juſt with God, to inflict damnasion upon them, for that ſin, whether original or actual, wherein he finds them when the miniſtry of the Word is offered them: So likewiſe it cannot be denyed to be juſt with God, to leave their infidelity and impenitence wherein he finds them, uncured. But yet becauſe God hath not made any ſuch conſtitution, namely, that whoſoever is found in infidelity and impenitence, ſhall be ſo left and abandoned by him: Therefore he is properly ſaid, as to cure it in whom he will, ſo to leave it unoured in whom he will, finding them all equal in original Sin, and conſequently lying equally in this their natural infidelity and impenitence. So we may juſtly ſay, there is no cauſe at all, in man of this difference, to wit, why God cures infidelity and impenitency in one, and not in another, but it is the meer pleaſure of God, that is the cauſe of this difference. — But (2.) as touching the denyal of Glory, and inflicting of damnation, which is the ſecond thing decreed in reprobation, there is always found a cauſe motive, yea and meritorious hereof, to wit, both of the denyal of the one, and inflicting of the other: And God doth not proceed herein according to the meer pleaſure of his will, and that by reaſon of his own conſtitution, having ordained that whoſoever continueth finally in infidelity, in profane courſes, and impenitency, ſhall be damned. And albeit on the other ſide it may be ſaid, in ſome ſenſe, (as I formerly ſhewed) that God ſaves whom he will, in as much as he is the Authour of Faith, which he beſtows on whom he will; yet in no congruous ſenſe can he be ſaid to damn whom he will, for as much as he is not the Authour of ſin, as he is the Authour of Faith. For every good thing he works, but ſin and the evil thereof, he only permits, not cauſeth. And laſtly, as God doth not damn whom he will, but thoſe onelyonly whom he finds finally to have perſevered in ſin without repentance: So neither did he decree to damn, or reprobate to damnation whom he will, but onelyonly thoſe who ſhould be found finally to perſevere in ſin without repentance.
Again in the ſame Book, pag. 106. But I (ſaith Twiſs) ſhall tell you the chief Flouriſh whereupon this Authour (and uſually the Arminians) doth inſiſt in this his looſe Argumentation, I conceive it to be this; they hope their credulous Readers, unexpert in diſtinguiſhing between God's eternal decree, and the temporal execution thereof, will be apt hereupon to conceit, that we maintain that God doth not onelyonly of meer pleaſure decree whatſoever he decreeth; but alſo that he doth decree, of meer pleaſure to damn men: Which yet is utterly contrary (if I be not deceived) to the Tenet of all our Divines: All concurring in this, that God in the execution of the decree of damnation proceeds according to a Law, and not in the execution of reprobation onelyonly, but alſo in the execution of election; and the Law is this, Whoſoever believes ſhall be ſaved, whoſoever believes not ſhall be damned; and like as he inflicteth not damnation, but by way of puniſhment, ſo he confers not ſalvation but by way of Reward.
Again, pag. 184. [God hath not wiſhed, but ordained, and made it a poſitive Law; that whoſoever believeth ſhall be ſaved, and here hence it followeth that if all, and every Man, from the beginning of the World to the end, ſhall believe in Chriſt, all and every one of them, ſhall be ſaved]
And Pag. 229. [As for Salvation, that is appointed to be beſtowed, only by way of Reward of foregoing Faith, Repentance, and good works. — And a little after in the ſame Page, [Indeed our profeſſion is, that Gods purpoſe is to beſtow Salvation by way of Reward of Faith, Repentance and good works: And accordingly there is No other aſſurance of election, than by Faith and Holineſs, … Theſſ. 1.3, 4 Remembring the work of your Faith, the labour of your love, and the patience of your hope, knowing, beloved brethren, that ye are elect of God. And St. Peter exhorts Chriſtians to make their election and vocation ſure, by joining vertue with their faith, and with vertue knowledge, and with knowledge temperance, and with temperance patience, and with patience Godlineſs, and with Godlineſs brotherly kindneſs, and with brotherly kindneſs love, 2 P…t. 1.5, 6, 7, 10.] Thus Dr. Twiſs ſpeaks our ſence according to our Hearts deſire; and maintains the Goſpel to be a Law, as much as we do.
But now, it may be, our Authour will object that in all this, Dr. Twiſs ſpeaks only of a Law according to which God proceeds in beſtowing, or not beſtowing eternal life and glory upon Men, but not of a Law, according to which he juſtifies and pardons men. We Anſwer,
1. The reaſon of that was, becauſe the Doctor's Adverſaries gave him occaſion to ſpeak there of God's Law, according to which he glorifies, or damns men eternally, and not of the Goſpel-law, according to which he either juſtifies, or not juſtifies Men. But,
2. We ſay, that the Doctor's Judgment was the ſame as to both, to wit, as to Juſtification, as well as to Glorification, and that,
1. Becauſe in his Anſwer to the foreſaid Arminian Book, called The Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to Practice, Pag. 16. theſe are his expreſs Words, [We ſay that Pardon of Sin, and Salvation, of Souls, are benefits purchaſed by the death of Chriſt, to be enjoyed by men, but how? not abſolutely, but conditionally, to wit, in caſe, and onelyonly in caſe, they believe.] And Pag. 28. [Men are called upon to believe, and promiſed that upon their Faith, they ſhall obtain the grace of remiſſion of ſins and Salvation; and theſe graces may be ſaid to be offered unto all upon condition of Faith.] And Pag. 189. The Promiſes aſſured by Baptiſm, according to the Rule of Gods word, I find to be of two ſorts: Some are of benefits procured unto us by Chriſt, which are to be conferred on us conditionally; — they of this firſt ſort are Juſtification and Salvation. And Pag. 190. Juſtification and Salvation is promiſed in the Word, and aſſured in the Sacraments upon performance of a condition on mans part. Now the condition of Juſtification and Salvation, we all acknowledge to be Faith.
And in his other Book againſt Hoard, [Some Benefits (ſaith the Doctor) are beſtowed upon man only conditionally (though for Chriſts ſake,) and they are the pardon of ſin, and ſalvation of the Soul, Twiſs againſt Hoard. p. 154.and theſe God doth conferr onelyonly upon the condition of Faith and Repentance.] All theſe are the Doctor's own expreſs Words, by which it plainly appears, that his Judgment was the ſame, with reſpect both to Juſtification, and Glorification; and that he held, that God diſpenſeth to us both theſe benefits for Chriſts ſake, according to a Law.
2. We ſay, that the Doctor's Judgment was the ſame as to both, becauſe there is the like reaſon for both, and the Doctor's own Argument holds for the Law of Juſtification, as ſtrongly as for the Law of Glorification; ſince God hath as much conſtituted, and ordained, that all penitent Believers, and none (of ripe years) but penitent. Believers ſhall be juſtified, as that all penitent, perſevering Believers, and no others, ſhall be glorified. As it is written, John 3.18. He that believeth on Chriſt the Son of God, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, Acts 3.19. & 26.18.becauſe he hath not believed in the name of the onelyonly begotten Son of God. Luke 13.3, 5. Except ye repent, ye ſhall all likewiſe periſh. Acts 2.38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſins. Acts 10.43. To him give all the Prophets witneſs, that through his name whoſoever believeth in him ſhall receive remiſſion of ſins. Acts 13.39. By him all that believe are juſtified, &c. Rom. 3.25. God hath ſet him forth to be a propitation through faith in his Blood. Rom. 4.24. It ſhall be imputed to us, if we believe.
Theſe Teſtimonies of Holy Writ do as certainly, and evidently ſhew, that God proceeds according to a ſtated Rule, and ſtanding Law of his own making, in Juſtifying, or not Juſtifying Men: as any other Teſtimonies do ſhew, that he proceeds according to a ſtated Rule, and ſtanding Law, in Glorifying, or not Glorifying Men.
3. We Anſwer, that our wiſe Accuſer, in the end of the 18th. and beginning of the 19th. Pages of his Letter, ſeems plainly to be as much againſt God's proceeding according to a Law, in Glorifying Men, or not Glorifying them at death; as he is againſt God's proceeding according to a Law, in Juſtifying them, or not Juſtifying them before death: Otherwiſe we would fain know what he means by ſaying, [that the Doctrine of Conditions, Qualifications, and Rectoral Government, and the diſtribution of Rewards and Puniſhments, according to the new Law of Grace, will make but an uneaſie Bed to a dying Man's Conſcience, and will leave him in a very bad condition at preſent, and in dread of worſe, when he is feeling in his laſt Agonies, that the wages of ſin is death, if he cannot by faith add, the Gift of God is eternal life, through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord.] We profeſs we cannot ſee what our Authour ſhould deſign by this paſſage; but to reflect upon us as Subverters of the true Grounds of Chriſtian Comfort, and as driving People to deſpair by our Doctrine of God's being a Governour and Judge, who diſtributes eternal Rewards and Puniſhments unto Men, See Rev. 11.18.who live in the viſible Church, according to the Rule of the Evangelical Law, and as he finds them to be qualified through Grace, or not qualified; to have performed the Condition, or not to have performed the Condition; to have complyed with the terms of the Evangelical Law, or not to have complyed with them: We ſay, we cannot ſee what other deſign he ſhould have therein, but thus to reflect upon us. And if this was really his deſign, then he denies that God proceeds according to a Law, as well in Glorifying, or not glorifying; as in Juſtifying, or not Juſtifying Men: And therein he oppoſes Dr. Twiſs, and all our other Divines that he knevv of, as well as us.
And further upon that Principle, that there is no ſuch stated Rule, and known ſtanding Law, according to vvhichwhich, God hath aſſured us, that he vvill either give eternal life through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord; or inflict eternal death: We chalenge our Authour to ſhevv us, hovv in an ordinary vvay, vvithout a Miracle, the dying diſconſolate Man can be aſſured by Faith that God, for Chriſts ſake, will give eternal life to him in particular, and not inflict upon him eternal death for his Sins. For if God have not revealed in his vvritten Word, to Men, that through Chriſt he vvill give eternal life unto all penitent Believers, and conſequently to that dying Man in particular, if he be really a true penitent Believer: We ſay, if God hath not revealed this in his vvritten Word, but kept it ſecret vvithin himſelf, as a thing vvhichwhich he vvill give arbitrarily as he pleaſeth, without regard to any ſtated Rule, or knovvn Lavv; hovv is it poſſible for the poor dying Man, vvithout an immediate extraordinary Revelation, to knovv but that eternal death, vvhichwhich he knovvs he hath deſerved, and not eternal life, vvhichwhich he cannot poſſibly deſerve, ſhall be his everlaſting portion? What depends upon the meer arbitrary will and pleaſure of God, can never be knovvn by Man, unleſs God reveal it, either by his vvritten Word alone, or by his Word and Spirit conjunct, or by his Spirit immediately vvithout the Word. But the poor diſconſolate Man can have no hopes that God will reveal it to him by his Written Word alone, or by his Written Word and Spirit together; becauſe according to the Principle aforeſaid, the Written Word is ſuppoſed to ſay nothing at all of that matter: Therefore if ever it be Revealed to the Man, (and ſo if ever he be comforted) in this World, it muſt be by the Spirit without the Word: And then all the poor diſconſolate Mans ground of Comfort muſt be reduced to this, That God will reveal it to him by his Spirit immediately without the Written Word. But then we demand how our Authour will be able to aſſure the poor diſconſolate dying Man, that God will really do ſo, that God will reveal it to him by his Spirit immediately without the Written Word. For that immediate extraordinary Revelation being a thing that depends alſo upon Gods Arbitrary Free Will, he may do it or not do it as he pleaſeth; and if God may freely not do it, how can our Authour ever aſſure the Man, that he will do it? That is, that he will by his Spirit immediately and extraordinarily reveal to him without the Written Word, that he ſhall have Eternal Life and not Eternal Death for his Portion?
But now if our Authour ſhould ſay that God hath given unto Man a Promiſe in his Written Word to ground his Faith upon, though he hath not given a ſtated Rule, and ſtanding poſitive Law according to which he will proceed with Man at Death and Judgment. We would readily reply thus, Either the Promiſe in the Written Word, made to the dying diſconſolate Man, is an abſolute Promiſe, that God for Chriſt's ſake will give him Eternal Life, however it be with him, whether he be converted or unconverted, penitent or impenitent, believer, or unbeliever? And we are ſure there is no ſuch promiſe in the Bible, and to tell him of ſuch a Promiſe, would be at once to belie God, and to delude the poor Man. Or,
(2.) It is a conditional Promiſe, That God for Chriſt's ſake will give him Eternal Life; If through Grace he unfeignedly repent of all his ſins, and believe on Chriſt with a lively effectual Faith, a Faith working by Love; which he is bound to do under the pain of Eternal Death? If this be the Promiſe that the poor dying Man muſt ground his Faith upon, that God for Chriſt's ſake will give him Eternal Life, then this is the very thing which Dr. Twiſſe, and we after him, call the Law according to which God proceeds in diſpenſing to his People the ſubſequent Bleſſings of the Covenant, ſuch as Juſtification and Glorification are: And ſo our Authour comes over into our Camp, which he muſt do at laſt, and confeſs, if not to us, at leaſt to God, that he hath groſly miſrepreſented and falſly accuſed Chriſt's faithful Miniſters, and hath endeavoured to delude the People, and to render the Miniſters odious to the People, and thereby to hinder the ſucceſs of their Miniſtry: And he muſt ſincerely repent of having done ſo. But if he will yet go on in the way of his own heart, we ſhall be ſorry for him, and not ceaſe to pray the Lord (if it be his will) to have Mercy on him, and to give him repentance for the ſcandalous ſin which he hath committed in publickly ſlandring Chriſts Miniſters, and in boldly aſſerting a notorious falſehood in matter of fact, ſaying, That the new Law of Grace, is a new Word, of an old, but ill meaning. And that he hath really done ſo, we have not only ſaid, but proved by the plain teſtimonies of credible Witneſſes, whereof two Sealed the Truth of the Goſpel with their Blood, above fourteen hundred years ago.