Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 7 · Section 2 (2 of 2)

Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel · Chapter 7 · Section 2 (2 of 2)

p. 70For 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.Matt 19:16Matt 19:17John 5:39which 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 p. 71Law. 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 becauſe… 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 Golia…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 from the Righteouſneſs of the Law by doing; for ſo Paul, Covenant of Life opened, Part. 1. pag. 61.Rom. 10.5, 6, 7. &c. expounds Moſes, Deut. 30 11, 12, 13, 14.] Thus Rutherford. I might bring many others agreeing with theſe; but I ſhall content my ſelf with a ſew: As,

Friedlibius, who though a Lutheran, yet in Anſwer to an Objection of Bellarmins from Deut 30.11, 12, ſayes, (z)(z)Loquitur Moſes non de doctrinâ Legis, ſed Evangelii, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. cui per gratiam Divinam in hâc vitâ facilè obedientia praeſtari poteſt. P. H. Friedlib. Theolog. exegeticae Tom. 1. in vet. T. edit. 2. An. 1660. p. 301, 302.Rom 10:6Rom 10:7Rom 10:8[Moſes ſpeaks not of the Doctrine of the Law, but of the Goſpel, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. which by the Grace of God may be eaſily obeyed in this Life]

And in like manner the New England Elders, by the Covenant in Deut… 29. and p. 7230. chap. underſtood the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace. For thus they write; The Synod of Elders and Meſſengers of the Churches in Maſſachuſe…s Colony, &c. in their Propoſitions concerning the Subject of Baptiſm and Conſociation of Churches; Printed at Cambridge in New-England, 1662. pa. 4.[They that according to Scripture are Members of the viſible Church, they are in Covenant: For it is the Covenant that conſtituteth the Church, Duet. 29.12, 13. They muſt enter into Covenant that they might be eſtabliſhed the People or Church of God] Whence I obſerve that the Synod believed that the Covenant mentioned in Deut. 29.12, 13. was the Covenant of Grace, as then in its Legal Adminiſtration. Again, [That confederation (ſay they) i e Covenanting explicit or implicit (the latter preſerveth the eſſence of confederation, the former is Duty, and moſt deſirable) is neceſſary to make a Member of the viſible Church, Ibid. pa. 5, 6.appears (1.) Becauſe the Church is conſtituted by Covenant; for there is between Chriſt and the Church the mutual engagement and relation of King and Sabjects, Husband and Spouſe; this cannot be but by Covenant (internal if you ſpeak of the inviſible Church, external of the viſible). A Church is a company that can ſay, God is our God, and we are his People; this is from the Covenant between God and them, Deut. 29.12, 13. Ezek. 16.8. (2) The Church of the Old Teſtament was the Church of God by Covenant, Gen. 17. Deut. 29. and was reformed ſtill by renewing of the Covenant, 2 Chron. 15.12. and 23.16. and 34.31, 32. Neh. 9. 38. Now the Churches of the Gentiles under the New Teſtament ſtand upon the ſame Baſis or Root with the Church of the Old Teſtament, and therefore are conſtituted by Covenant as that was, Rom. 11.17, 18. Eph. 2.11, 12, 19. and 3.6. Heb. 8.10.] Again, [Deut. 30.6. The Grace ſignified by Circumciſion, is (ſay they) there promiſed to Parents and Children, Ibid. pag. 8.importing the Covenant to both, with Circumciſion ſealed, Gen 17. and that is a Goſpel Promiſe, as the Apoſtle citing part of that Context, as the voice of the Goſpel, ſhews Rom. 10.6, 8. compared with Deut. 30.11, 14. and it reacheth to the Jews in the latter days, ver. 1, 5.]

This laſt clauſe reminds me of the words of Paulus Fagius, one of our Reformers, who ſayes, (a)(a)Diligenter obſervandum eſt, ex conſenſu Hebraeorum, caput hoc ad Regnum Chriſti pertinere: Ʋnde etiam Bechai dicit, hoc loco promiſſionem eſſe, quod rege Meſſiab, omnibus qui de foedere ſunt, circumciſio cordis contingat, citans Joelem, cap. 2. Paulus Fagius in Annot. ad onkeli paraphraſin. Chald. cap. 30. Deut.[It is diligently to be obſerved, that by the conſent of the Jews, that 30th Chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the Ringdom of Chriſt: Whence alſo Rabbi Bechai ſaith that here is a promiſe that under the Reign of the Meſſiah, all that are of the Covenant ſhall be circumciſed in heart, quoting to that purpoſe the ſecond Chapter of Joel.]

I ſhall ſhut up this with the Annotation of Mr. Pool on Deut. 30.11. For this commandment which I command thee, &c. [He doth not here ſpeak of the Law ſimply, or as it is in it ſelf, but as it is mollified and accompanied with the Grace of the Goſpel, whereby God circumciſeth Mens Hearts to do this, as is expreſſed, ver. 6. The meaning is, that although the practice of Gods Law ſtrictly and ſeverely, be now far from us and above our ſtrength, yet conſidering the advantage of Goſpel Grace, whereby God enables us in ſome meaſure to our Duty, and accepts of our ſincere indeavours inſtead of perfection, and imputes Chriſts perfect Righteouſneſs to us that believe, now it is near and p. 73eaſie to us. And ſo this place well agrees with Rom. 10.6, &c. where S. Paul expounds or applys this place to the Righteouſneſs of Faith, by which alone the Law is ſuch as it is here deſcribed.] Thus Pool, with whom agrees the Annotation on Rom. 10. ver. 6, 7, 8, 9. in the Second Vol. of Pool's Annotations From all which it plainly appears to me, that Moſes in Deut. 30. ſpeaks not of the Old Covenant of Works, but of the Goſpel, or New Covenant of Grace; and what he ſays of the Law, is to be underſtood of the Law, as taken into the Goſpel, and as ſincere Obedience to the Law, is made a Duty and Condition of the Goſpel Covenant of Grace. And thus I have proved by a Third Divine Teſtimony, that the Goſpel-Covenant, or Law of Grace, hath Precepts, and requires of us ſome Duty. I might alſo prove this, from the 19. and 119. Pſalms, which Mr. Goodwin acknowledges to contain a Deſcription of the Goſpel, under the Name of the Law of the Lord. For if that be true, it is clear as the Light, that the Goſpel hath Precepts, and requires Duty. See his Diſcourſe, pag. 8, 9, 10.Let any Man of ordinary Senſe and Reaſon but read thoſe Two Pſalms, and I appeal to his own Conſcience, whether he doth not there meet with Precepts requiring Duty. Mr. Goodwin I am ſure did there meet with Precepts, even where the Goſpel, in his Judgment, is deſcribed: Witneſs his Diſcourſe, pag. 9. lin. 39, 40, 41. And he that will ſay that he cannot ſee Precepts there, may as well ſay, That he cannot ſee the Wood for Trees, Indeed ſuch a Man may ſay any thing, nor is any thing he ſays to be regarded, becauſe he ſaith it; for he muſt have loſt his Senſes.

A Fourth Divine Teſtimony for this Truth out of the Old Teſtament, we may find in Micah the 6. ver. 8. even as it was Expounded by the late Reverend Mr. Danſon, who before he took his leave, taught my R — Brother that wholeſom Leſſon which he hath learned exactly, that the Goſpel hath no Precepts, and that there are no ſins againſt the Goſpel. Conſider we then, what the Prophet Micah ſaith, ver. 8. He hath ſhewed thee, O Man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do Juſtly and to love Mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. And now let us hear what Mr. Danſon ſaith upon this. Danſon's Synopſis of Quakeriſme. p. 49.His Words are theſe, [Becauſe God deſigns to take away glorying in Juſtification, Faith in God through the Meſſias is called a walking humbly with God, Micah 6.8. That it does relate to the Law of Faith, and but only by conſequence, (if at all), not directly to the Law of Providence, or ſubmiſſion to afflictions, I am induced to believe upon theſe two grounds. (1.) Becauſe otherwiſe God returns no Anſwer (which he ſeems plainly to deſign) to the Query, what the Lord will be pleaſed with, or what ſatisfaction ſhall be given him for Iſraels Sin, which is the Sum of the Queſtions, ver. 7. Will the Lord be pleaſed, &c. But underſtanding it thus, there is a plain Anſwer, viz. I do not expect any Righteouſneſs of thy Gift, but of thy Acceptance, or thus, I ſhall not be pleaſed with any Righteouſneſs which thou bringeſt, unleſs it be what I have firſt beſtowed on thee by Faith. (2.) The Pride of Mans Heart, makes him as loath to accept of a Righteouſneſs freely offered him, as to accept of the Puniſhment of his Iniquity juſtly inflicted. It makes him as loath to part with the Priviledges he had in the Old Covenant, as he that hath ſet up for himſelf ſometime, is to turn an Apprentice: And therefore it is as true an Act of Humility, to accept of Gods Righteouſneſs, as of Chaſtiſements for Sin.] Thus he. In which words he plainly acknowledges and endeavours to prove that the Prophet Micah preached not the Law of Works, but the Goſpel of Grace to the Iſraelites, who deſired to be informed by what means they might obtain God's favour. And particularly this p. 74is the Voice of the Goſpel and Law of Faith, The Lord requires thee to walk humbly with thy God. And ſurely that is a Precept requiring a Duty, if ever there was a Precept in the World. Now if one part of the Prophets anſwer, be the Goſpel of Grace; who that is afraid to wreſt God's word to his own deſtruction, dare ſay, the other part of it, is the Law of Works? Since the whole anſwer to the Queſtion, is ſhort, and both parts of it, pronounced with one breath. By what certain mark may we know which part is Law, and which is Goſpel, if both be not Goſpel? Nay, if one part of the Anſwer direct them to the Law of Works and Old Covenant of Works, that by complying with its Terms, they may find Grace and Favour with God; Doth not the Prophet ſeem to ſeduce them from the only righ… way and means of obtaining God's Grace and Favour, to wit, by Faith in the Meſſias his Righteouſneſs; and to teach them to truſt in, and not part with the Priviledges they had in the Old Covenant of Works; and to ſeek Peace and Reconciliation with God, in part at leaſt, by their own Works of Righteouſneſs, or by complying with the Terms of the Law of Works? If the Prophets anſwer to their queſtion. What they ſhould do to be Reconciled unto God? Tell them, that they muſt comply with the Terms both of the Law of Works, and of the Goſpel of Grace: He doth in effect teach them to ſeek for Juſtification and Reconciliation both by the Old Legal, and by the New Goſpel-Covenant; that is, both by their own Righteouſneſs, and alſo by anothers Righteouſneſs, to wit, Chriſt's. And then who could well blame them, if they took his Advice, and followed his Direction which he gave them in the Name of the Lord? For avoiding of this inconvenience, I for my part do think that if part, then the whole Anſwer of the Prophet, in ver. 8. was Goſpel, and that he did but tell them what the Lord required of them by the Goſpel-Covenant to be done on their part, that they might obtain Juſtification and Salvation; to wit, firſt, (though it be laſt mentioned) that by Faith they ſhould walk humbly with their God, for obtaining Juſtification and Reconcilation. (2.) That from a Principle of Faith they ſhould do juſtly, and love Mercy, that they might declare their Thankfulneſs to God for his Grace and Favour to them through Chriſt, and alſo that they might be fitted, qualified, and prepared to receive more Grace, even the Grace of Eternal Life and Salvation for the only Satisfactory Meritorious Righteouſneſs and Sacrifice of the Meſſias. Thus I have proved by Divine Teſtimony out of the Old Teſtament. That the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace in its old way of Adminiſtration had Precepts belonging to it, and required Duty of the Confederate People of God. But it may be, ſome will ſay, That though that be true, yet the caſe is altered, and now the Goſpel-Covenant in its Evangelical form of Adminiſtration, hath not one Precept, and requires no Duty at all. My Anſwer is, (1.) That that cannot be; for though the Goſpel-Covenant hath changed and put off its accidental Form of Adminiſtration; yet it retains ſtill, and can never change its Eſſential Form, and that is, that it requires Faith in Chriſt in order to Juſtification, and ſincere Obedience to all God's Commandments (which are in force, and not Abrogated) in order to Glorification, and Conſummate Salvation (2) I Anſwer, That it's Clear as the Light from the New Teſtament, That the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace now at this day hath Precepts, and requires Duty of Chriſtians, which is the thing that I am next to prove by Divine Teſtimony taken out of the Scriptures of the New Teſtament. And I begin with Matth. 11. v. 28, 29.30. Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you reſt. Teſtimonies out the New Teſtament.Take my Yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye ſhall find reſt unto your Souls. For my Yoke eaſie, and my Burden is light. In which words there is not only p. 75a Command that all Diſtreſſed Souls believe, and by Faith come unto Chriſt the Son, unto whom the Father hath delivered all things; and an Encouraging Promiſe of Reſt to all that come, to all that ſincerely believe in Chriſt. But (2.) There is a Command laid upon Believers, to take upon them Chriſt's Yoke, and to learn Meekneſs and Humility of him; and what elſe is the meaning of that, but that the Lord will have Believers to obey his Precepts and imitate his Example? By Chriſt's Yoke and Burden cannot be meant any thing, but what includes his Precepts and Commandments. Now Chriſt's Precepts which are called his Yoke and his Burden, cannot poſſibly be the Precepts of the Law and Covenant of Works as ſuch, that is, Precepts requiring Perpetual, Perſonal, Sinleſs Obedience, as the Indiſpenſable Means and Condition of Life and Happyneſs. For (1.) Chriſt here ſpeaks not ſimply as God, but as the Son of God Incarnate, and as the Mediator between God and Men, the Mediator of the New Covenant; and as ſuch under that formal Conſideration, he lays upon no Man the Yoke and Burden of Perſonal, Perpetual, Sinleſs Obedience to the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works, as the indiſpenſably neceſſary Means and Condition of Life and Happyneſs. (2) The Yoke and Burden of Perſonal, perpetually Sinleſs Obedience to the Law of Works as the Condition of Life, is ſo far from being Light and Eaſie, that ever ſince the Fall of Man, it hath been intollerably heavy and impoſſible to be born by any of the ordinary Sons of Adam, by any meer Man. (3.) Chriſt here promiſes to all that come unto him, and take his Eaſie Yoke and Light Burden upon them, that he will give them Reſt, even Reſt to their Souls; which promiſe (amongſt other things which it ſingifies) doubtleſs implyes, That he will give their Souls Reſt and Eaſe from the moſt heavy galling Yoke and inſupportable Burden of Perſonal and ever-ſinleſs Obedience to the Precepts of the Law of Works, as the Condition of Life. Chriſt here promiſes unto Believers Reſt and Eaſe from the Condemning Power, and Rigorous Exaction of the Law of Works; and therefore he ſpeaks not here of that Foederal Law and its Precepts, as ſuch; but of the Goſpel and its Precepts. His Eaſie Yoke and Light Burden, are the Precepts of the Goſpel-Covenant; that is, the Precepts of the Moral Law, as ſtript of their Old Covenant Legal Form, and taken into the Goſpel or New Covenant, and cloathed with its New Goſpel Form; the Precepts of the Moral Law thus Evangelized together with the few poſitive Inſtitutions and Ordinances of the Goſpel, are Chriſt's Yoke and Burden; and a light Burden and eaſie Yoke they certainly are to True Believers. and ſincere Lovers of the Lord Jeſus: They are ſo light and eaſie through Grace, that the Saints love them, and delight in them. As David ſaid, Pſal. 119.35. make me to go in the Path of thy Commandments; for therein do I delight. And ver. 47. I will deligh: my ſelf in thy Commandments, which I have loved. The Goſpel then hath Precepts and Chriſt by the Goſpel-Covenant Commands Believers to take upon them his Eaſie Yoke and Light Burden, and to all that do ſo, he promiſes Reſt, even Reſt to their Souls. When Salvian of old had quoted this Text, he immediately ſubjoyned theſe words. (b)(b)Non ergo nos ad laborem vocat Dominus ſed ad refectionem, quid namque a nobis exigit, quid praeſtari ſib… a nobis jubet; niſi ſolam tantummodo fidem, caſtitatem, humilitatem ſobrietatem miſericordiam, Sanctitatem; quae utique omnia non onerant nos, ſed ornant. Nec ſolùm hoc, ſed adeo vitam praeſentem ornant, ut fu…uram plus ornare poſſint. O bonum, O pium, O Ineſtimabilis Miſericordiae Dominum …qui ad hoc nobis in praeſenti Religionis munera tribuit, ut ipſa in nobis poſtea quae nunc dat munera muneretur. Salvian de Gubern. Dei. lib. 7. p. 234, 235. Edit. Oxon. 1633.The Lord then doth not call us to labour, but to Refreſhment for p. 76what doth he require of us, what doth be Command to be done unto him or for him, but only Faith alone, Chaſtity, Humility, Sobriety, Mercy, Sanctity: All which do not burden, but beautifie and adorn us. And not only that, but they ſo much adorn the preſent Life, that they may the more Adorn the Life to come. O how good is the Lord, how gracious, how incſtemably merciful! Who to this end now in this preſent Life gives unto us the gifts of Religion, that hereafter in the Life to come, he may reward in us theſe very gifts which now he confers upon us.] Thus that Ancient Father. Whereby it plainly appears that it was his Judgment that this Scripture ſpeaks of the Precepts of the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace, and not of the Precepts of the Law or Covenant of Works, as ſuch.

And the Aſſemblies Annotations on Matth. 11.29. Take my Yoke upon you] obeying my Commandments. And on ver. 30. my Yoke is eaſie] that which I command you, is good for you and eaſie. In like manner the Dutch Annotations, on Matth. 11.29. Take my Yoke upon you. [that is, My Doctrine conſiſting as well in Commands as Promiſes. See them on ver. 30. where they ſay that Chriſt's Burden is Light, becauſe Chriſt makes it Light. Rom. 8.26. 1 John 5.3, 4. and that it is ſaid to be Light, in oppoſition to the Importable Yoke of the Law, Acts. 15.10 &c. And our laſt Engliſh Annotations on Matth. 11.29. Take my Yoke upon you, [Our Lord by this Precept lets us know, there can be no True Faith, without Obedience to the Commands of Chriſt. —And the reſt in the Text is not promiſed to either of them ſeverally, but to both joyntly]

A Second Teſtimony to prove this, is that of our Saviour, John 13.17. If ye know theſe things, happy are ye if you do them. In which words Chriſt Preached not the Law of Works, but the Goſpel of Grace to his Diſciples: For the Promiſe of Happyneſs is not made to Believers and ſinful Mens doing the Law of Works, but to their Evangelical Obedience unto the Precepts of the Goſpel or New Covenant. For, (1.) Conſider Chriſt here ſpeaks to ſinful Men, though Believers. (2.) He requires of them, the doing of thoſe things which he had taught them by his own Example As Love, Humility, Mutual Serviceableneſs. For here is a Conditional Promiſe, and in every Conditional Promiſe of God to Men, there is implyed a Precept to perform the Condition.

(3.) He promiſes them Happineſs if they do theſe things, although they were not without all Sin; which ſhews plainly, that it is not a Legal, but a Goſpel Promiſe. It is a Goſpel-Promiſe implying a Precept that requires Duty, and expreſly ſignifying the Lord's Will to give the Reward of happineſs to them who perform the Duty.

The like Promiſe we have before in John 8.51. Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, if a Man keep my ſaying, He ſhall never ſee Death. This is not a Legal Promiſe, like that of the Firſt Covenant of Works, Repeated Occonemocally after the fall, [If thou keep the Law, thou ſhalt live;] But it is a Goſpel Promiſe which being Conditional, doth plainly imply a Precept requiring the Condition and Duty of keeping Chriſt's ſaying; upon which it is expreſly promiſed, that a Man ſhall never ſee Death, that is, ſhall never be puniſhed with Eternal Death. Indeed the Conditional Form of Words in which the Old Covenant of Works is repeated and propoſed to Sinful Men after the Fall, being Oeconomical in the Senſe before explained, it doth not imply a Precept of God intentionally obliging Men now to have no Sin at all, as the Duty and Condition of that Covenant; for they were Sinners already before that repetition of the form of the Old Covenant; and what hath been, implyes now a contradiction not to have been; and the Infinitely Wiſe, Juſt and Good God, never Commands any Man to do a thing which is impoſſible to be done by any power whatſoever, which is even impoſſible to be done by the help of his Spirit and Grace. But the Conditional Promiſe p. 77of our Saviour in John 8.51. is of another Nature; it is not merely oeconomical, but real and intentional, really requiring the condition, and obliging Men to keep his ſaying, and intentionally promiſing unto all who do or ſhall keep his ſaying, that they ſhall never ſee Death. This plainly appears from the double aſſeveration wherewith our Saviour ſpoke the foreſaid Promiſe, ſaying, Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, if a man keep my ſaying, be ſhall never ſee doath. Whence I conclude that the Goſpel is not without all Precepts; for here is implyed a Precept to keep Chriſts ſaying.

A Third Tellimony we have in Rom. 10.8, 9, 10. That is the Word of Faith which we preach, that if thou ſhalt confeſs with thy Mouth the Lord Jeſus, and ſhalt believe in thy Heart that God hath raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved; for with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteouſneſs, and with the Mouth confeſſion is made unto Salvation. Obſerve here,

(1) That by the Word of Faith is meant the Goſpel; which according to the Dutch Annotations on the place, is ſo called, becauſe by it we are exhorted and brought to Faith.

(2.) Obſerve that beſides Faith in the Heart, which is required unto Righteouſneſs and Juſtification, there is here required Confeſſion with the Mouth as neceſſary to the obtaining of conſummate Salvation. And by Confeſſion with the Mouth, is meant an outward Profeſſion of the inward Faith of the Heart, and living ſuirable to our holy Profeſſion. Hence Mr. Ma…o in the laſt Engliſh Annotatiens on Rom. 10.9. ſaith, [There are but theſe two things which the Goſpel principally requires in order to our Salvation. The one is the Confeſſion of Chriſt with our Mouths, and that in ſpight of all Perſecution and Danger, to own him for our Lord, and for our Jeſus; and to declare that we are and will be ruled and ſaved by him, and by him only. The other is to believe in our Hearts that God hath raiſod him from the Dead] Whence I conclude again, that the Goſpel is not without all Precepts; for it hath beſides the Precept of believing on Chriſt with the Heart, another Principal Precept of confeſſing him with the Mouth, that is, of living ſuitably to our Faith

A Fourth Teſtimony to prove that the Goſpel hath Precepts, we have in thoſe places of the New Teſtament, where ſome are commended for their obeying and being ſubject to the Goſpel; and others are blamed and threatned for their diſobeying the Goſpel.

(1.) We find that ſome are commended for obeying the Goſpel and being ſubject to it. Thus the believing Romans are commended for obeying the Goſpel; Rom. 6.17. God be thanked that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. This form of Doctrine is the Goſpel, as the Dutch Annotation on the place tells us, ſaying expreſly that the Goſpel is a Doctrine of Godlineſs and Righteouſineſs. And Paul gave God thanks for this, that the believing Romans had from the Heart obeyed it: Which they could never have done, if the Goſpel Doctrine had had no Precept requiring their Obedience. For (ſpeaking of a Doctrine) Precept and Obedience are relative, one to another; ſo that take away the Precept of a Doctrine, and you take away the poſſibility of Obedience to that Doctrine which hath no Precept. On the other hand, if we once grant that there is ſuch a thing as Obedience to the Doctrine of the Goſpel, we muſt by conſequence grant alſo that the Doctrine of the Goſpel hath ſome Precept which requires that Obedience, otherwiſe it can be no Obedience to that Doctrine. Again in 2 Cor. 9.13. we read that the Saints glorified God for the believing Corinthians their profeſſed ſubjection unto the Goſpel of Chriſt. Now it is unconceivable how they could be ſubject to the Goſpel, if it had no preceptive, p. 78commanding Authority over their Conſciences. For Subjection is relative unto and preſuppoſes a ſuperiour commanding Authority in that whereunto there is Subjection. This common ſenſe teaches us. But ſo it is that the Corinthians were ſubject to the Goſpel; and therefore the Goſpel is not without all Precepts, but it had a preceptive commanding Authority over them, to which they were ſubject.

(2.) We find that others are blamed and threatned for not obeying the Goſpel. Rom. 10.16. They have not all obeyed the goſpel. 1 Pet. 4.17. What ſhall the end be of them that obey not the Goſpel of God? And 2 Theſſ. 1.7, 8. The Lord ſhall take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the Goſpel of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. But now according to the principle of the Flacian Sectaries, that the Goſpel hath no Precept, there could be no ſuch thing as diſobedience to the Goſpel: For where there is no Goſpel Law or Precept, there can be no Tranſgreſſion againſt the Goſpel. This one of the Brethren who was for that way, plainly ſaw, and granting the conſequence, declared it to the World in Print, Danſons Confer. p. 18.that he and his Party knew no Sins againſt the Goſpel. And indeed if the Goſpel had no Precept, there could be no Sin againſt it. But the Apoſtles, Paul and Peter, tell us expreſly, that there is ſuch a thing as not obeying the Goſpel; and that perſons who obey it not, ſhall be ſeverely puniſhed for their diſobedience. And if ſo, then ſurely their diſobeying the Goſpel is a Sin againſt the Goſpel; whence it follows by neceſſary conſequence that the Goſpel hath ſome Precept, which was to be demonſtrated. And if it be ſaid, that the Moral Law commands Obedience to the Goſpel; I anſwer, be it ſo, that is ſo far from weakening that it rather ſtrengthens the Argument: For if it command Obedience to the Goſpel, then it commands Obedience to the Precept of the Goſpel; for without the Goſpels having ſome Precept, there might indeed be Obedience to the Law in other things; but there could be no Obedience to the Goſpel at all, nor could there be Obedience to the Law in that matter, becauſe upon that falſe ſuppoſition, the Law ſhould command a Chimerical impoſſibility; which is abſurd to affirm of the Juſt Law of the infinitely Wiſe God. Therefore from the Moral Law, its obliging us to obey the Goſpel, it neceſſarily follows that the Goſpel hath ſome Precept to be obeyed.

A Fifth Teſtimony we have in Tit. 2.11, 12. where it is written that, The grace of God that bringeth ſalvation, hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that denying ungodlineſs and worldly luſts, we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly in this preſent world. In this Scripture we are to obſerve two things: (1.) What is meant by the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation, and which hath appeared unto all Men, or which bringeth Salvation unto all Men, and hath appeared? And it is generally confeſſed to be objective Grace, or the doctrine of Grace, that is, the Goſpel. (2.) What is this Grace, this Doctrine of Grace, of Goſpel, ſaid to do? And that the expreſs words of the 12 verſe, tell us plainly to be this, that it teacheth us, That d…nying ungodlineſs and worldly lucts, we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly in this preſent World. Now if the Goſpel teach us, that we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly, then it hath ſome Precept which makes it our Duty ſo to live: For to teach us that we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly, is plainly to lay an obligation on our Conſcience, and to make it our Duty ſo to live: eſpecially conſidering that this Goſpel is the Goſpel of God, and it is God who is infinitely ſuperiour to us, and hath a ſoveraign authority over us, who by the Goſpel teacheth us that we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly. Gods teaching us that we ſhould do a thing, certainly obliges to do it; and therefore Gods teaching us by the Goſpel, that we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly p. 79and godly, obliges us by the Goſpel ſo to live; and conſequently the Goſpel hath ſome Precept whereby God obligeth us to live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly in this preſent World.

Thus the Learned Divines who were Authorized by their Superiours in Holland to write the Dutch Annotations on the Bible, underſtood this Scripture, as appears from their Annotation on Tit. 1.1. The truth which is according to godlineſs, [That is, which is ſuch that it muſt not only be known, but alſo by exerciſing of true Godlineſs be put in practice, and which preſcribes and requires true Godlineſs, and ſtirs up and brings men thereunto. 1 Tim 6 3.] compared with Annotation on Tit. 2.11. The grace of God which bringeth ſalvation; that is, ſay they, [The Doctrine of the Grace of god ſhewn us by Chriſt, and contained in the Goſpel.] And then in their Annotation on the 12th Verſe, they tell us, [That the ſaid Doctrine of Grace inſtructeth us that we ſhould live ſoberly, in reſpect of our ſelves, and justly, in reſpect of our Neighbour, and godly in reſpect of God. And if any yet doubt whether thoſe Learned Annotators held that the Goſpel hath Precepts obliging us to Duty, let ſuch read their Annotation on Rom. 10.6. where they expreſly mention the Command of Faith, as a Command of the Goſpel, contradiſtinguiſhed from the Commands of the Law. And again a little after, they ſay, [If Moſes ſaid this of the Commandments of the Law, much more may the ſame be ſaid of the Promiſes and Commands of the Goſpel, which are not only eaſie to be underſtood, as the Law is, but alſo are eaſie to obſerve by the power of Gods Spirit, &c.] See alſo the laſt (called Pools) Annotations on Tit. 2.11, 12. where they tell us, That by the Grace of God, which brings Salvation, is meant the Goſpel of our Lord Jeſus, and that where it cometh, it directs all Men their Duties in their ſeveral ſtations, and teaches us that we ſhould live with reſpect to our ſelves, in a juſt government of our Affections and Paſſions; and with reſpect to others, giving to every one their due; and with reſpect to God, piouſly diſcharging the Duties, and paying the homage we owe unto him, ſo long as we live in this World, where we have Temptations to the contrary. Now if the Goſpel, as it is a Doctrine of Grace, direct us to our ſeveral Duties, and teach us that we ſhould live as aforeſaid, then undoubtedly it hath Precepts as well as Promiſes; for without ſome Precepts it cannot direct our Duties, and teach us that we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly in this preſent World. I hope the R. Brother, with whom I have to do, will not flee to the Popiſh diſtinction between Precepts and Counſels, and then ſay, that the Goſpel teacheth us that we ſhould live, as is ſaid, not by Precept but by Counſel: For he hath himſelf ſtopt that paſſage into the Popiſh Camp, by what he hath publiſhed to the World in his Sermon on the Death of the Late Queen, where he thus writes; [The greatneſs of God gives Authority to his Counſel. Mr. Goodwins Sermon on the Death of the Queen, pa. 7, 8.We readily hearken to thoſe who are above us; and every word which they ſpeak carries a weight in it, and is forcibly impreſſed on our minds. If a Friend adviſeth us to what we apprehend may be an advantage, we chearfully receive and follow his Counſel; but the direction of a Superiour is a Command, and adds the obligation of Duty to the conſideration of our own benefit. God then who is the greateſt above all, may very well guide all by his Counſel; and it is not more a Duty than a Priviledge, to obſerve the meaſures of his conduct. Thus he. And by this he hath left no room for the diſtinction between the Lords Advioe and Counſel on the one hand, and his Precept and Command on the other. So that if the Lords Goſpel direct and teach us our Duty by Advice and Counſel, it doth it alſo by Precept and Command; ſince the Lords Advice and Counſel ought to be unto us a Precept and Command.

p. 80The Sixth and laſt Teſtimony out of the New Teſtament, which I ſhall alledge to this purpoſe at preſent, is in Rev. 14.6, 7. where it is written, [I ſaw another Angel fly in the midſt of Heaven having the Everlaſting Goſpel to preach unto them who dwell on the Earth, —ſaying with a loud voice, fear God and give glory to him, —and worſhip him that made Heaven and Earth, and the Sea, and the Fountains of Waters.] This Scripture I quoted in the Apology, on the Margent pag. 23. but the Anſwerer paſſed it over; but for all that it ſtands ſtill in the Bible, as a Witneſs againſt thoſe who ſay that the Goſpel hath no Precept: For it is evident from the words of the Text, that the Moral Law, the Firſt Commandment of it, and by conſequence the other Commandments of the Moral Law are taken into the Goſpel, ſo as that ſincere Evangelical Obedience to them is made one Article of the Goſpel Covenant, or Law of Grace, with reſpect to the obtaining poſſeſſion of Salvation conſummate in Heavenly Glory: For the Firſt Commandment of the Moral Law, obliges us to fear God and give glory to him; and to worſhip him who made the World; if then this firſt Command be not taken into the Goſpel-Covenant, and ſincere Obedience to it made one Article thereof, none could preach the Everlaſting Goſpel to the Inhabitants of the Earth; by ſaying, Fear God and give glory to him, and worſhip him that made the heavens and the earth, &c. But ſo it is that the Angel was repreſented in the Viſion to John, preaching the Everlaſting Goſpel, and ſaying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him, &c. Therefore that Command to fear God, and give glory to him, &c. is taken into the Goſpel, ſo as that ſincere Obedience to 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. p. 81The (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)(c)Juſtin. Martyr, Dialog cum Tryphone, Edit. Paris 1633. p. 292.foreign, 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)(c)Juſtin. Martyr, ibid. p. 351.foreign. 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)(c)foreignwho 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)(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)(d)foreign. 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 p. 82Teſtament 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)(e)Pater familias Dominus eſt, qui univerſae domni Paternae dominatur, ſervis quidem & adhuc indiſciplinatis condignam tradens Legem; liberis autem & ſide juſtificatis, congruentia dans Praecepta Filiis adaperiens ſuam haereditatem. Iren. adverſ haereſ. lib 4. c. 21.[The Lord is the Maſter of the Family, who rules all his Fathers houſe, giving indeed to the Servants, and thoſe who are yet undiſciplined, a Law fit for them; but to them who are free and juſtified by Faith, he gives ſuitable Precepts, and to the Children makes known their Inheritance.] Here Irenaeus diſtinguiſhes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand; and the converted, juſtified and adopted, and the Precepts they are under on the other: And gives to underſtand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works, which rigorouſly exacts Duty and Service of them, and condemns them for every Sin they commit; but that the converted, juſtified and adopted, are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works, but they are under the Law of Grace, they are actually in a Covenant of Reconciliation with God, which doth indeed preſcribe Duty to them, but not to be juſtified by and for their Duties of Obedience, (for they are juſtified by Faith in Chriſt,) but to be the way for them to walk in, and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the poſſeſſion of the Inheritance which by their Juſtification and Adoption they have a right unto, and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Preceptive part of the Covenant, he aſſures them of by the Promiſes of the Goſpel. That this is his meaning appears from his words aforeſaid, and from what follows in the ſame Chapter concerning the two Covenants. Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand, and to the Chriſtians with their New Law of Grace on the other. Again in another Chapter of the ſame Book, he writes thus; (f)(f)Conſummatae Vitae Praecepta in utroque Teſtamento, cum ſunt eadem, eundem oſtenderunt Deum. qui particularia quidem Pracepta, apta utriſ que Proeceptis, ſed eminentiora & ſumma, ſine quibus ſalvari non poteſt, in utroque eadem ſuaſit. Iren. adverſ. haereſes, lib. 4. cap. 22.[Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the ſame in both Teſtaments, they ſhow that the ſame God [is the Author of both the Teſtaments], who hath indeed preſcribed particular Precepts, ſuitable to both the Covenants; but the more eminent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be ſaved are the ſame in both Teſtaments or Covenants] Here are ſeveral things to be obſerved for underſtanding this paſſage of Irenaeus, which though in the Tranſlation which we have, it be not elegantly expreſſed, yet it bears a good and uſeful ſenſe. (1.) Then obſerve, That according to Irenaeus, the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants, the Old and the New. (2.) That he calls the two Teſtaments or Covenants, Precepts, and therefore I tranſlate, [particularia praecepta apta utriſque Praeceptis] particular Precepts ſuitable to both the Covenants; and to tranſlate them otherwiſe would render them unintelligible. Now there can be no Reaſon given why he calls the two Covenants, Precepts, but becauſe they both have Precepts and require Duties. (3.) Obſerve that he ſayes, God preſcribed particular Precepts ſuitable to both Covenants, and theſe can be no other than Gods poſitive Laws which pertained to the Legal Adminiſtration of the Covenant, and are now abrogated; and the poſitive inſtitutions of the Goſpel, which pertain to the Evangelical Adminiſtration of the Covenant, and are now in force. Obſerve (4.) that according to him, without the obſervance of the more eminent and principal Precepts, that is, the Precepts of Faith and Repentance, and of the p. 83Moral Natural Law, a Man cannot be ſaved …, Which is true of Men at age; for according to their Time and Talents, after their Converſion and Juſtification, it is neceſſary that they perform ſincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining poſſeſſion of Eternal Salvation: For without holineſs no man ſhall ſee the Lord, Heb. 12.14. Hence in another Chapter of the ſame Book, he ſays, (g)(g)Non indigebat Deus dilectione Hominis, deerat autem Homini Gloria Dei, quam nullo modo poterat percipere, niſi per eam obſequentiam quae eſt erga Deum. Idem ibid. lib. 4. cap. 31.[God needed not Mans love, but Man wanted the Glory which is from God, which he could no way attain unto, but by that Obedience which is towards God.] He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven, but by Obedience Evangelical, not as the procuring meriting cauſe of Glory, but only as the means to be uſed on our part, and the condition to be performed by us, to qualifie us for Glory, to be given us according to promiſe freely for Chriſts ſake; and as a teſtimony of our gratitude to God in Chriſt for our Redemption and Salvation. See lib. 3. c. 20.This is manifeſt from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the ſame 4th Book; and in the 47th Chapter, where he ſays expreſly that the (h)(h)Mors Domini eſt Salvatio eorum qui credunt in eum. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 47.Lords Death is the Salvation of thoſe that believe in him; and yet both there and elſewhere he maintains that we are obliged to obſerve the Precepts of Chriſt in the Goſpel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation. Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he ſays that now under the Goſpel Covenant, (i)(i)Neceſſe fuit ſuperextendi decreta libertatis, & augeri ſubjectionem quae eſt erg… regem ut non retrorſus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui ſe liberaverit. Iren. l. 4. c. 27.[It was neceſſary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty, (i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption), ſhould be ſuperextended, (i. e. ſhould be enlarged above what they were before) and that the ſubjection which is to the King ſhould be increaſed, that Man by reſiſting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of, and unthankful to him who redeemed him] In a word, Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Goſpels having Precepts that require Duty, than I am willing to follow him; ſo certain it is, that he held that the Goſpel hath Precepts which require Duties; and that it is not a meer abſolute promiſe, or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all. I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this abſurd Opinion, except the vile Gnoſticks, whoſe practice was very agreeable to ſuch a Principle, that the Goſpel requires no Duty; and for the Law, it can do a Man no hurt, if he be once a true Believer, how looſely ſoever he live, as Libertines think.

My third Witneſs is Cyprian, who ſays, (k)(k)Ʋt de co ad vitalia Praecepta inſtrui poſſent, & diſcerent quae docerent.—per Orbem vsro Diſcipuli, non Magiſtro, ſed Deo monente diffuſi, Praecepta in ſalutem dare, &c Cyprian. lib. de Idolorum vanitate, Edit. Oxon cum Minutii Felicis Octavio, An. 1678.[That Chriſt appeared, and made himſelf known to his Apoſtles after his Reſurrection, and ſtay'd with them Forty days, that they might be inſtructed by him, and learn of him Vital Precepts which they might teach —and that the Diſciples being diſperſed throughout the World, by the order not of a [meer] Maſter, but of God, they gave forth Precepts unto Men for their Salvation: Thus Cyprian Now by thoſe Vital Precepts (of which he ſpeaks,) which lead Men to Salvation, cannot be meant the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works, as ſuch, for they are not Vital, but rather Mortal to Sinful Men: It is indeed through Mens own fault, that they are not Vital, but Mortal to them; but however, yet it is true that they are Mortal and not Vital: They are a killing Letter, 2 Cor. 3.6. They muſt then be the Precepts of the Goſpel and Law of Grace; which though for the moſt part, they are materially the ſame with, yet they formally differ from the Precepts of the Old Covenant and Law of Works; for as they are the p. 84Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace, they come under a New Form and Sanction, and become Vital and Saving both by the Ordination of God in Chriſt, and alſo by the Grace of the Spirit promiſed in the New Law or Covenant of Grace.

My Fourth Witneſs is Ambroſe, who on the 119. Pſal. ver. 156. ſaith, (l)(l)Evangelium non ſolum fidei Doctrina, ſed etiam eſt morum Magisterium & ſpeculum juſtae converſationis. Amb. Serm. 20. in Pſ. 118. alias 119. Edit. Pariſ. 1614. Col. 1068.Ps 118[The Goſpel is not only a Doctrine of Faith, but it is alſo an Authoritative Inſtruction or Law of Manners, and a glaſs of juſt Converſation.] And again, in the Commentary on the Epiſtle to the Romans chap 3. ver. laſt, he, or Hil. Diac. writes thus, (m)(m)Et quia lege Moyſi ceſſante, meliora praecepta daturus erat Deus, Jeremiah Propheta cecinit dicens, ecce dies venient, dicit Dominus, & conſummabo Domini Iſrael, &c. His utique qui venientem Chriſtum ex promiſſione receperunt, &c. Idem. Ambroſ. vel potius Hil. Diaconus Comment. in Epiſt. ad Rom. ad verſum ult. cap. 3.And becauſe the Law of Moſes ceaſing, God was to give better Precepts, Jeremiah the Prophet ſung, ſaying, Behold the days ſhall come, ſaith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the Houſe of Iſrael, &c. that is with thoſe who received Chriſt when he came, according to promiſe. Now theſe better Precepts which Ambroſe or Hilary ſaith God was to give, when the Levitical Law was to be Abrogated, were no other in his Opinion, than the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace, as manifeſtly appears by his proving his Aſſertion, out of Jerem. 31.31. where the Lord foretold his making of a New Covenant with the Houſe of Iſrael, &c. And that Authour might well call them better Precepts, both in reſpect of their perſpicuity, as more fully and clearly explained by Chriſt, and alſo in reſpect of their Efficacy, as accompanyed with a greater meaſure of the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Jer. 31.33. with Heb. 8.9, 10. He might likewiſe ſo call them with reſpect to the poſitive Inſtitutions of the Goſpel.

My Fifth Witneſs is Chryſoſtom, who ſaith that (n)(n)foreign. Chryſoſt. Homil. 1. in Cap. 1. Matth. ex Edit. Commel. An. 1617.[One of the Capital Fundamental Points of our Religion, in which our Life conſiſts, and which comprehend the Sum of our Preaching, —is that Chriſt gave to his Church ſaving Precepts] He is diſcourſing there of the Harmony of the Four Evangeliſts, and after what he had ſaid of that matter, he ſubjoyns a Requeſt, that we would diligently conſider and obſerve that in the Capital Points of our Chriſtian Religion, wherein the Life of our Souls conſiſts, and which comprehend the Sum of Miniſters Preaching, there is not the leaſt diſagreement amongſt the four Evangeliſts: And then to the queſtion, Which are thoſe Capital, Eſſential Points of our Religion? He Anſwers, That they are theſe following; to wit, That God was Incarnate, that he wrought Miracles, that he was Crucified, that he was Buryed, that he roſe again from the Dead, that he aſcended into Heaven, that he will judge the World, that he gave Saving Precepts, that he did not introduce a Law contrary to the Old Teſtament, That he is the Son, that he is the only begotten Son, that he is the true genuine Son, that he is of the ſame Eſſence with the Father, and as many points as there are of the like nature; and then he aſſerts that in all theſe Points there is the greateſt Harmony and Agreement of the Four Evangeliſts. By this we ſee that Chryſoſtom held it to be a Capital Fundamental Article of the Chriſtian Religion that Chriſt hath given Saving Precepts to his Church, and conſequently that the Goſpel-Covenant hath Precepts. For the Precepts of the Firſt Old Covenant and Law of Works as ſuch, cannot now be ſaving to Sinners, ſuch as all Men are; therefore the Precepts which are now ſaving to Mens Souls muſt be the Precepts of the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace, which as we Chriſtians have it, is not contrary to it ſelf p. 85as it obtained in the Church, before the coming of Chriſt; for it always had Saving Precepts, and as we heard before out of Ireneus, the Principal Precepts were the ſame under the Old Legal which they are now under the New Evangelical Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Life: And yet we muſt not think that the Precepts of the Goſpel are ſaving, becauſe we are Juſtifyed by and for Obedience to them, for as Chryſoſtom obſerves, on Rom. 3.27, 28. The Lord Juſtifies Men; (o)(o)Chryſoſt. Homil. 7. in Cap. 3. Epiſt. ad Romanos. foreign.not at all needing Works, but requiring Faith only. The Lords Goſpel-Precept then requires Faith, and only Faith as the Inſtrumental means or Receptive Applicative Condition of our Juſtification; But our obſervance of the other Goſpel-Precepts is required to other Goſpel-ends and purpoſes; and the Precepts themſelves are Saving as they are taken into the Goſpel Covenant, and as Sincere Obedience to them through Grace, prepares and diſpoſes us for the full enjoyment of Eternal Life and Glory according to the Promiſes of the Goſpel. I might be large in demonſtrating that Chryſoſtom is for Goſpel Precepts, and a New Law of Grace which hath both Precepts and Promiſes: And indeed he ſometimes carryes the matter further, than I can approve of But however, he is Orthodox in the thing under preſent conſideration, that the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Saving Precepts: This is ſo certain and evident, that no ſincere honeſt Man, who reads and underſtands but his Homilies on Matthew, can fairly, or I think, will deny it. It is adviſeable that we all conſider well what we do, either in affirming or denying plain matters of Fact.

My Sixth Witneſs is the Famous Auguſtin, the great Defender of the Freeneſs of God's Grace in Mans Juſtification and Salvation, againſt all Merit-Mongers, who in one of his Epiſtles writes thus, (p)(p)Itaque ab Exordio generis humani, quicunque in eum crediderunt, eumque utcunque intellexerunt, & ſecundum ejus praecepta piè & juſtè vixerunt, quando libet & ubilibet fuerint, per eum procul dubio Salvi factiſunt. Auguſt. Epiſt. 49 Deo gratias. Oper. Tom. 2.Therefore from the beginning of Mankind whoſoever believed in Chriſt, and did in ſome meaſure know him, and lived Piouſly and Juſtly according to his Precepts, whenſoever, and whereſoever they lived, without all doubt they were ſaved by him. Here Auguſtin ſpeaks of Chriſt not ſimply as God, but as Mediator of the Goſpel-Covenant, and ſo his Precepts which they who believed in him, obſerved and were ſaved, muſt be the Precepts of that Covenant of which he is the Mediator and Surety; for they could not be formally the Precepts of the firſt Legal Covenant of Works. And that this was Auguſtins mind doth yet more clearly appear by what he writes elſewhere. (q)(q)Cum verò etiam Evangelica praecepta homo praevaricatur, velut quatriduanus mortuus putet: Nec de illo tamen deſperandum eſt propter ejus gratiam, qui non lentè dixit, ſed magnâ voce clamavit. Lazare veni forâs. Auguſt. Epiſt. 89. Hilario. Oper. Tom. 3.But when a Man prevaricates alſo againſt the Precepts of the Goſpel, he ſtinks like one who hath been four days dead; yet muſt we not deſpair of him, becauſe of the Graco of Chriſt, who cryed with a loud voice, and ſaid, Lazarus come forth.] In theſe words as they refer to what went before, he manifeſtly ſhows that in his judgment, the Goſpel hath its Precepts. For he had ſpoken of the Law given to Adam in Paradice, of the Natural Law of Reaſon in all Mankind, and of the Law of Moſes given to the People of Iſrael; and then in the words here quoted, he ſpeaks of the Precepts of the Goſpel as formally diſtinct from the Precepts of the former Laws. And this is conſentaneous to what he writes in his Book of Faith and Works. (r)(r)Hoc eſt Evangelizare Chriſtum, non tantùm dicere quae credenda funt de Chriſto, ſed etiam quae obſervanda ei, qui accedit ad Compagem Corporis Chriſti. Auguſt. de Fide & Operibus, Cap. 9. Oper. Tom. 4.[This (ſaith he) is to preach the Goſpel of Chriſt, not only to tell People what things are to be believed concerning Chriſt; but alſo what things are to be obſerved and done by him who becomes a Member of, and enters into Ʋnion and Communion with the Body of Chriſt.

My Seventh Witneſs is Jerome, who at once teſtifyes that in his Judgment the Goſpel hath p. 86both Precepts and Threatnings. His words are (r)(r)Quomodo Chriſtus Jeſus ex maledicto nos legis liberavit, factus pro nobis maledictum: Ita de maledicto quoque Evangelii, quod ſtatutum eſt ſuper eos, qui ejus praecepta non fecerint, eruit nos: Factus pro nobis ipſe maledictum. Hieronyinus lib. 2. Comment in Epiſt. ad Gal. cap. 3. v. 13.Gal 3:13As Chriſt Jeſus redeemed us from the Curſe of the Law, being made a Curſe for us. So he hath alſo delivered us from the Curſe of the Goſpel, which is decreed or oppointed for thoſe, who do not obſerve its Precepts: Having been himſelf made a Curſe for us.] Thus Jerome, by which words, it is moſt manifeſt that he holds that the Goſpel as diſtinct from, and oppoſite to the Law, hath both its own proper Precepts, and alſo its own proper threatnings.

My Eighth and laſt Witneſs is Primaſius, a Learned Father, of the Sixth Century, and a Diſciple of Auguſtins in Africa. [ (r)(r)Quaeritur utrum non ſit maledictus, qui Evangelica praecepta non ſervat? Eos qui Evangelii praecepta contemnunt, maledictos eſſe, & Salvator edocuit dicens, diſcedite à me maledicti in ignem aeternum. Primaſius Uticenſis Comment. in Epiſt. ad Gal. Cap. 3. v. 13.It is demanded whether he be not Curſed, who heaps not the Precepts of the Goſpel? Even our Saviour himſelf hath taught that they are Curſed who deſpiſe the Precepts of the Goſpel. Saying, Depart from me ye Curſed into Everlaſting Fire.] Thus Primaſius. And he alſo ſpeaks of the Goſpel as diſtinct from the Law, and yet affirms that the Goſpel ſo conſidered hath Precepts, and that they are Curſedwho deſpiſe its Precepts. I might bring many others of the Ancients to Witneſs for us that the Goſpel hath Precepts, and is not a mere Abſolute Promiſe, which requires nothing of us at all: But theſe ſhall ſuffice at preſent. And ſo from the Ancient Doctors, I paſs to the Modern Divines, who flouriſhed ſince the Reformation. Teſtimonies of Modern Divines.And I ſhall begin with Theodore Bibliander, Famous among the Reformed Divines in Swizzerland, and one of the Authours or the Tigurin Tranſlation of the Bible. Thus then he writes, [ (s)(s)Theodor. Bibliand. in Relatime Fideli ad omnium Ordinum Reipublicae Chriſtianae Principes viros populumque Chriſt. &c. Baſiliae. An. 1545. pag. 185, 186.Whatſoever Democracy, Ariſtocracy, or Monarchy is obedient to Chriſt the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and is governed by his moſt Holy Laws, ſhall juſtly be accounted a Chriſtian Politie or Commonwealth, but that which rejects the Laws of Chriſt, whether it bear the Name of a Chriſtian Polity, or openly oppoſe the Name of Chriſt, we ſhall account it to be Antichriſtian That Commonwealth ſhall be Chriſtian, and dear to God, and therefore happy and bleſt whoſe Magiſtrates duely obey the Laws of Chriſt, and whoſe People order their Lives according to the Preſcript of the Chriſtian Doctrine, and with a ready mind obey the Magiſtrate, not as ſerving Men but Chriſt, in all things which are not contrary to the Laws of Chriſt. And that he ſpeaks of Chriſt not ſimply as God, but as Mediatour between God and Man, and Surety of the Goſpel-Covenant, and conſequently that he ſpeaks alſo of his Laws, not meerly as Laws of God, but Laws of the Lord Mediator, and Surety of the Goſpel-Covenant is evidentby what follows. (t)(t)Ibid. 196, 197.Chriſt is the faithful Eliakim, (Eſa. 22.) whom God the Father hath truſted with, and on his Shoulder hath laid, the Key of the Houſe of David, and hath faſtned him in a ſure place, that he may be for a Glorious Throne to his Fathers Houſe. The ſame Chriſt is the Supreme Judge, unto whom the Father hath given all Power and all Judgment, ſo that he himſelf judges no Man. Whoſe Law the Iſles expected, and have received what they expected. Concerning whoſe Laws it will not be alien from our purpoſe, to tranſcribe here ſome things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret, which he Entitled, Concerning the curing of the Affections [and Prejudices] of the Greeks or Heathens. For thus that moſt Learned Biſhop writes— [Thoſe our Fiſhermen and Publicans, and that our Tent-Maker brought the Goſpel-Law into all Nations, &c.] By this and more which he hath there to this purpoſe, it is moſt evident, that Bibliander there ſpeaks of Chriſt not ſimply as God, but as Mediatorial King and Judge, and as ſuch a King and Judge, giving and executing Laws; which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Goſpel; and ſo Theodoret calls them.

My Second Witneſs is the Famous and Learned Zach. Urſin's Sum of Chriſtian Religion in Engliſh, Printed at London, An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125, 127.Ʋrſinus mentioned before. His words are, [The Law promiſeth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience, the Goſpel promiſeth the ſame Life on condition of our ſtedſaſt Faith in Chriſt, and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God.] Again, [The Old and New Covenant, (i.e. the ſame Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Adminiſtration) agree in this, that in both, God requires of Men Faith and Obedience. Walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1. And repent and believe the Goſpel, Mark 1.15.] And again They differ (7.) In their Bond or manner of Binding; The Old Covenant bound them to the p. 87(ſincere) Obedience of the whole Moſaical Law, Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil: The New bindeth us only to the Moral, or Spiritual Law, and to the uſe of the Sacraments. And a little after he ſaith, [The New Teſtament or Covenant is for the moſt part, taken for the Geſpel.] This is one of the Reſormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes againſt me: But let any Man read and conſider what I have quoted here out of Ʋrſin, and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted ſome part before; and I dare refer it to his own Conſcience (if he have any) whether Ʋrſin be of that Opinion, that the Goſpel hath no Precepts, but is a meer Abſolute Promiſe, or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all? Nay I appeal to the Conſcience of my Brethren, whether Ʋrſin was not ſo far from being of that Opinion, that on the contrary he ſays, it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealouſly refutes, as is manifeſt from what I cited out of him before, and from what he ſays more, ibid. p. 131.in the ſame place.

My Third Witneſs is Polanus, who writes thus, [ (u)(u)Foedus gratiae, eſt in quo Deus nobis promittit ſe fore Deum noſtrum gratis propter Chriſtum: Nos vero viciſſim obligati ſumus, ut Dei popul … ſimus. (20.) Capita (ſive Articuli) ejus duo ſunt; unum ex parte Dei: Alterum, ex noſtra parte. (21.) Ex parte Dei eſt gratuita promiſſio qua Deus nobis pollicetur, ſe Deum noſtrum ſore, &c. —(28.) Alterum caput foederis eſt ex noſtra parte obligatio, qua Deus nos ſibi obſtrinxit, ut ipſi populus ſimus. (29.) Dei populum eſſe, eſt ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1. ſeu vivere ſub oculis Dei, ut bonos liberos decet. (30.) Quod fit viva in Deum ſide & obedientiâ legis, &c. —Amand. Polan. Syllog. Theſ. Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum & homines. Theſ. 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30. pag. 174, 175, 176.Gen 17:1The Covenant of Grace is that, wherein God promiſeth to us, that he will be our God freely for Chriſt's ſake: And we again are obliged to be his People. The Heads or Articles of it, are two: One on Gods part, the other on our part. On God's part it is a Free Promiſe, whereby God promiſeth to us to be our God, &c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part, whereby God hath bound us to himſelf to be his People. To be the People of God, is to walk before God with Integrity, Gen. 17.1. Or to live under the Eyes of God, as becometh good Children, which is done by a lively Faith in God and obſervance of his Law.] Thus Polanus, whereby it manifeſtly appears that he believed, as we do, that the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts, and requires Duty.

My fourth Witneſs is Melancthon, who long before Polanus, taught this Doctrine, that the Moral Law is ſo grafted into the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace, that ſincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Goſpel Covenant. His words are, (x)(x)Ʋt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium ſunt propoſitae: Sic mirifica eſt amiciria in naturâ, & quaſi mutuum …edus inter oleam & vitem. Non ſolum incolumis manet vitis, ſi inſeratur oleae, ſed etiam novas … accipir, & tum uvas, tum olivas gignit, ſeu uvas, pariter uvarum & olivarum japore …referen…es. Imago illuſtris eſt. Oleae, id eſt, Evangelio inſita Legis doctrina fit mitior: Sic enin. demum & …choatur obedientia, & placet Deo cum Evangelio inſita eſt. Phil. Melanct. in orat. de ſympath. …om. 4. declam. 210.[As in many parts of nature there are propoſed admirable images, or repreſentations of great things; ſo there is a wonderful friendſhip in nature, and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree, it not only remains ſafe and lives, but it alſo receives new ſtrength, and brings forth both Grapes and Olives, or Grapes which have the ſavour and taſte both of Grapes and Olives. It is an illuſtrious or clear image and repreſentation. The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree, that is into the Goſpel, it becomes milder: For ſo it is that then Obedience is begun, and pleaſeth God, when it is ingrafted into the Goſpel. Thus Melancthon ſhews by an elegant ſimilitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Goſpel-Covenant, whereby it is otherwiſe modified than it was, as it pertained to the firſt Covenant of Works, and comes under a new form and ſanction; by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law, is accepted as pleaſing to God through Chriſt, if it be ſincere tho' it be imperfect. Let thoſe who have the Book ſee what Chriſtopher Pezelius ſaith upon this. I will quote a few of his words; (y)(y)Lex per ſe nihil novit, vel de merito, vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei, & de beneficiis Spiritus ſancti, qui eſſunditur in corda credentium, per Chriſtum. Nihil igitur expreſse docet de Auxilio, quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera. Deinde ſemper & immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus ſine diſcrimine, renatis & non renatis, & damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam, at Evangelium non modo auxilium nobis promittit, ſed quantum ad renatos pertinet, hanc etiam dulciſſimam foreign adhibet, quod ſicut perſona gratis recipitur propter Chriſtum, ſic & Obedientia inchoata, quanquam imperfecta & contaminata placeat in reconciliatis fide propter Mediatorem. Haec doctrina Evangelii niſi addatur Praeceptis legalibus, quae & repetuntur & enarrantur, atque etiam ſanciuntur, neceſſario & immutabiliter in Concionibus Evangelicis, erit doctrina bonorum operum non modo manca & mu ila, ſed etiam i…utilis, &c. Quart. par. objectionum & reſp. Theolog. quae ſunt collectae ex ſcriptis Melanct. opera Chriſtoph. Pezelii. Edit. Neapoli Nem. An. 1582. p. 167, 168.[The Law of it ſelf knows nothing either of the merit, or efficacy of the Son of God, and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit, which by Chriſt is poured out into the hearts of Believers. Nothing therefore doth it expreſly teach of the help by which, and of the way how good works are wrought in us. Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without diſcrimination, regenerate and unregenerate, and [of it ſelf] immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience. But the Goſpel not only promiſeth us help, but as for the regenerate, with reſpect to them, p. 88it mitigates the ſeverity of the Law with this ſweet temper and moderation, that as the perſon is freely received into favour for Chriſts ſake, ſo the begun Obedience, though imperfect and polluted, yet is pleaſing to God in perſons reconciled through Faith, for the Mediators ſake. This Doctrine of the Goſpel, unleſs it be added to the Legal Precepts, which are both repeated, and preached, and alſo are brought under a ſanction, and confirmed, neceſſarily and immutably in Goſpel Sermons, the doctrine of good Works, will not only be lame and maimed, but it will alſo be unprofitable, &c.] Thus Pezelius ſhews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the ſanction of the firſt Law of Works, and the ſame Precepts as they are brought under a new ſanction, and have put on a new form in the Goſpel: In this laſt ſenſe the Precepts of the Moral Law belong to the New Covenant, and are Precepts of the Goſpel. Yea the ſame Pezelius in the ſame Book hath demonſtrated at large againſt the Flacians, that over and beſide the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized, the Goſpel hath ſome Precepts which are proper to it ſelf, and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance, which the Moral Law by it ſelf immediately doth not require at all. Some of his words are, (z)(z)At nihil cum hoc ſomnio commune habet, dicere in Evangelio mandatum peculiare eſſe, non patefactum in lege, viz. de ſide in Chriſtum, cum qua pugnat incredulitas in Filium Mediatorem,—In lege fidei, i.e. doctrinâ Evangelii non tantùm eſt promiſſio gratuita miſericordiae Dei, propter Filium Mediatorem, ſed etiam mandatum, quod praecipit ut agnoſcamus Mediatorem, & credamus illi promiſſioni. Hoc praeceptum toto genere differt a praeceptis legalibus quae concionantur de Morali Obedientiâ. Ac ut Puerile eſſet, ex eo quod Lex Promiſſiones habet, inferre, quia Evangelium a lege differat, non eſſe ullam Promiſſionem aſſignandam Evangelio, ſic ingens ſtupor eſt ſic argumentari: Lex habet Mandata, ergo nullum peculiare Mandatum aſſignandum eſt Evangelio, ne videatur introduci Lex nova, ſeu Lex Evangelica, &c. Idem in codem libro, pag. 152, 153.[But it hath nothing common with this Popiſh dream [concerning a new Law in their ſenſe], to ſay that in the Goſpel there is a peculiar Precept, not revealed in the Law, to wit, concerning Faith in Chriſt, to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator. —In the Law of Faith, that is, in the Doctrine of the Goſpel, there is not only a gracious promiſe of the mercy of God for the ſake of the Son the Mediator, but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator, and believe that promiſe. This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience. And as it would be Childiſh, from this, that the Law hath Promiſes, to infer that ſince the Law differs from the Goſpel, therefore there is no Promiſe to be aſſigned to the Goſpel; ſo it is great ſtupidity to argue thus: The Law hath Precepts, therefore no peculiar Precept is to be aſſigned unto the Goſpel, leſt a new Law, or an Evangelical Law, ſhould ſeem to be introduced, &c.] See what follows there; eſpecially conſult what he writes in Pag. 100, 101, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 126, 127, 128, 129, 135, 136, 149, 150, 151. And in Pag. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, where he invincibly proves againſt Flacius, that the Goſpel hath Precepts; that beſides the Precepts, which in reſpect of the matter of them, are common both to the Law of Works and Goſpel of Grace, there are Precepts which by themſelves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance, and that theſe Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Goſpel. Thus we ſee, that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongſt us, that the Goſpel hath no Precepts which require Duty, and that there are no Sins againſt the Goſpel, is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party, which they broached in oppoſition to the Learned, Pious and Prudent Melancthon; and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago.

p. 89My 5th Witheſs is Henry Bullinger, who, tho he be ſuborned to be a falſe Witneſs againſt me, yet is he a true Witneſs, that is, as much for me in this Cauſe as my heart can deſire. For thus he writes on thoſe words of the Apoſtle, Heb. 8.8. for finding fault with them; he ſaith, Behold the days come, &c.

**Quod vero hunc attinet locum, Teſtamentum hoc, foedus & illud Dei pactum eſt, quo Deus voluntatem ſuam erga nos teſtatus eſt, prorſuſ que nobiſcum certis convenit conditionibus. Coeterum cas conditiones patribus noſtris, Abrahae imprimis, ſic praeſcripſit. Ero Deus tuus, illa rerum omniſufficientia, ero, inquam, Deus tuus, & ſeminis tui poſt te, in fempiternum. Tu vero ambula coram me, & eſto integer; & haec ſcederis, ſive pacti conditiones ſunt, Henr. Bullinger. Comment. in Epiſt. ad Hebraeos, cap. 8. v. 8. pag. 533. edit. Tigur. 1582.As to what concerns this place, The Teſtament is the Covenant, and that compact of God, whereby God hath teſtified his Will towards us, and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions; and thoſe conditions he hath thus preſcribed unto our Fathers, and in the firſt place, unto Abraham, ſaying, I will be thy God, that All-ſufficieucy of all things; I ſay I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed after thee, for ever. And as for thee, do thou walk before me, and be thou perfect or ſincere. And theſe are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement.

By this alſo we ſee, that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland, to wit, That the Goſpel-Covenant hath Precepts which preſcribe to us Conditions, and require Duties of us. Now what ſhall one think or ſay of thoſe men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact, and ſome of them are not aſhamed to ſay, that Chriſt hath helped them to write ſuch falſhoods. I am almoſt weary in tranſcribing Teſtimonies againſt ſuch unchriſtian aſſerting of Falſhoods in matter of Fact: and therefore, leſt I ſhould quite tire both my ſelf and the Reader, I will bring but a few more, tho I could bring very many.

My 6th Witneſs then ſhall be that holy and faithful Miniſter of Chriſt, Mr. Shephard of New England, whoſe words are, ††Mr. Shephard's Theſes Sabbaticae Theſ. 110. pag. 78. edit. Lond. 1649.[The Goſpel under which believers now are, requires no doing (ſay they), for doing is proper to the Law, the Law promiſeth life, and requireth conditions, but the Goſpel (ſay they) promiſeth to work the condition, but requires none; and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law. But (ſays Mr. Shephard) the Goſpel and Law are taken two ways. (1.) Largely, the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Teſtament, and the Goſpel for the whole Doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles contained in the New Teſtament. (2.) Strictly, the Law pro lege Operum (as Chamier diſtinguiſheth), and the Goſpel pro lege fidei. i.e. For the Law of Faith: The Law of works ſtrictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God, and Eternal Life, upon condition of doing, or of perfect Obedience. The Law of Faith ſtrictly taken, is that Doctrine which reveals remiſſion of ſins, and reconciliation with God by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs only apprehended by Faith. Now the Goſpel in this latter Senſe, excludes all works, and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remiſſion of ſins before God, but only believing: But take the Goſpel largely, for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace, and ſo the Goſpel requires doing; for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to juſtifie a man without calling for any works thereunto, ſo it is an Act of the ſame free grace, to require works of a perſon juſtified, and that ſuch poor ſinners ſhould stand before the Son of God on his Throne, to miniſter unto him, and ſerve him in righteouſneſs and holineſs all the days of our lives, Tit. 2:14. And for any to think that the Goſpel requires no conditions, is a ſudden Dream againſt hundreds of Scriptures, which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promiſes, and againſt the Judgment p. 90of the moſt Judicious of our Divines, &c.] Thus Mr. Shephard; where it is obſervable, (1.) That according to him, the Goſpel even ſtrictly taken, as it reſpects Juſtification only, requires the Duty and Condition of believing. And therein I agree with him, that it requires Faith, and only Faith, as that whereby we apprehend Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; for to do that, is the Office of Faith alone, and of no other Grace or Duty. (2.) It is obſervable, that according to him, the Goſpel taken largely (not for all the books of the New Teſtament, but) for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace, ſo it requires doing of Juſtified Perſons, and it requires not only the Duty of believing, but it alſo requires that we ſerve God in righteouſneſs and holineſs all the days of our lives. This is plain, and ſo plain, that I hope no honeſt man, who fears God, and loves truth, will ever dare to deny it: For my own part, I muſt profeſs to the world, that I am perſwaded it is my Duty to loſe my life, rather than impudently deny ſo plain a matter of Fact. (3.) It is to be obſerved, that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Repentance in order to remiſſion of ſins, yet afterwards in p. 94. of the ſame book, he doth expreſly mention it, as well as Faith, tho it have not the ſame uſe and office which Faith hath in Juſtification. His words are, [Is not this preaching of the Goſpel the iuſtrument and means of working that Faith in us, which the Lord requires of us in the Goſpel? And muſt not Jeſus Chriſt uſe the means for the end? were not thoſe 3000 brought unto Chrïſt by Faith, by Peter's promiſe of remiſſion of ſins, upon, their Repentance? Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghoſt when they heard this Goſpel thus preached upon condition of believing? Acts 10.43, &c.] This was written againſt one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that perſon hath poſſeſſed any others in our day, I will not ſay, let them who are concerned look to that. This Teſtimony of Mr. Shephard, I conclude with what he ſays in p. 79. [As do and live hath been accounted good Law, or the Covenant of Works, ſo believe and live, hath been in former times accounted good Goſpel, or the Covenant of Grace, until now, of late, this wild Age hath found out new Goſpels that Paul and the Apoſtles did never dream of.

Now obſerve here, that in this [believe and live] which Mr. Shephard ſays in former times uſed to be accounted good Goſpel, there is, (1.) A Precept, Believe; for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood, which commands and requires the Duty of believing. (2.) There is a Promiſe to thoſe who obey the Precept and perform the Duty through Grace, That through Christ they ſhall live. But Mr. Goodwin will have the Goſpel to be an Abſolute Promiſe, without any Precept at all. Therefore this is no good Goſpel in his Account. Whether then he be one of thoſe who have found a New Goſpel that Paul and the Apoſtles did never dteam of, let him look to that. I hope, if he ſee his miſtake, he will rectiſie it. Nullus pudor ad meliora tranſire.

My 7th Witneſs is the Edinburgh Catechiſm, publiſhed for the uſe of the Colledg and Schools in that City, in the year 1627.

In the Section concerning Chriſt's Office, the words of the Catechiſm are theſe: **Q. In quem finem conſtitutus eſt Rex? R. Ut ferret nobis Legem Regiam, fidei & vitae regulam (Jac. 2.8. & 4.12. Rom. 3 27. Mat. 28.20.) ut corda noſtra in Legis ſuae obſequium flecteret (Heb. 10.16. Act. 16.14, &c. Method. Relig. Chrift. Catechet. in uſum Academ. Jac. Regis & Schol. Edinburgenſium, a Joanne Adamſono, Acad. moderatore primario, Edinb. A. 1627.Jas 2:8Jas 4:12Rom 3:27Matt 28:20Heb 10:16Acts 16:14For what end was Chriſt made a King? Anſ. That he might enact a Royal Law for us, to be the Rule of our Faith and Life, Jam. 2.8. and 4.12. Rom. 3.27. Mat. 28.20. that he might bow and incline our hearts to obſerve his Law, Heb. 10.16. Acts 16.14. that he might invincibly protect and defend us, (Deut. 33.29. Pſ. 119.114.) p. 91that he might provide for the happineſs of, and might bountifully reward us his Subjects, (2 Tim. 4.8. Joh. 10, 28.) and that he might deſtroy all his Ensmies, being brought down and made his Footſtool, (Pſ. 110.1.)?

And afterwards, in the Section concerning the Covenant of God, there are theſe Queſtions and Anſwers.

**Q. Quid nobis promiſſum eſt in ſcedere gratiae? R. Remiſſio peccatorum, nova Juſtitia, & vita aeterna. Q. Qua conditione haec facta nobis eſt promiſſio? R Sub conditione fidei. & obedientiae ex fide.[Q. What is promiſed to us in the Covenant of Grace? Anſ. Remiſſion of Sins, a new Righteouſneſs, and Eternal Life.

Q. Ʋnder what condition is that promiſe made to us? Anſ. Ʋnder the condition of Faith, and Obedience of Faith, John 3.16. and 13.17. Gal. 6.16. Rom. 1.5.] Thus the Edenburgh-Catechiſm, written for the uſe of the Colledg and Schools there, by Mr. John Adamſon, Principal, who was afterwards a Member of the General Aſſembly at Glaſgow, in the year 1638. if I be not miſinform'd; and his Name I ſaw at St. Andrews, in the Liſt of the Names of the Members of that Synod. But that which is material is this, That the Catechiſm ſaith, Christ was made a King, that he might give us a Royal Law, to be the Rule of our Faith and Life? This in ſuch a way he could not do as Mediatorial King, unleſs the Goſpel-Covenant, whereof he is Mediator, had Precepts, and required Duty. But that the Goſpel-Covenant hath Precepts, and requires Duty, according to that Catechiſm, is evident from this, That it aſſerts the ſubſequent Bleſſings of the Covenant of Grace, are promiſed to us under the condition of Faith, and the Obedience of Faith, and proves its aſſertion by John 3.16. and 13 17. Gal. 6.16. and Rom. 1.5.

My 8th Witneſs is the Famous Mr. Durham before mentioned. His words in p. 238. are, [The Covenant of Grace (ſaith he) is compared to free Adoption, or a man's entitling of a Stranger to his Inheritance, upon condition of his receiving that, and to marriage betwixt Man and Wife (which is frequent in Scripture), not becauſe the Covenant of Grace requireth not holineſs and works, but becauſe it doth not require them actually to precede a Perſon's Title to all the priviledges covenanted, and doth freely entitle him to the ſame, upon his entry therein, as a Wife is entitled to what is the Husband's, upon her Marriage with him, altho afterwards ſhe be to perform the duties of that Relation, rather as Duties called for by it, than as Conditions of it. Hence we may call the Covenant of Works a Servile Covenant, and the Covenant of Grace a Filial or Conjugal Covenant; and therefore, altho holy Duties be required in both, yet there is difference, and the one is of Works, and the other of Grace.] Thus that learned and good man. Where it is as clear as the Sun, that he was for the Goſpel-Covenant its having Precepts, and requiring Duty.

My 9th Witneſs is the Learned and Holy Mr. Rutherford, who ſpeaks fully to the Point under conſideration: For thus he writes, [Faith in God, and the Moral Law (that is, Obedience to the moral Law) in an Evangelick way are commanded in the Covenant of Grace; and alſo ſome Duties touching the Seals are therein contained.

Again, Ibid. p. 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon ſuch as are only externaly in Covenant, either to obey or ſuffer, ſo the Promiſe of the Covenant impoſes an ingagement and obligation upon ſuch to believe the Promiſe.

p. 92††Rutherford's Treatiſe of the Coveuant of Grace, ed. Edinb. An. 1655. p. 20.Again, ibid. p. 154. Law-Obedience (ſays he) doth much differ from Goſpel Obedience, as Law-Commands from Goſpel-Commands.

Again, Ibid. p. 189. Obj. Does not the Law Command the Sinner offending God, to mourn, and be humbled and confeſs? Anſ. It doth: But it injoyns not Repentance as a way of Life, with a Promiſe of Life to the Repenter— Nor does the Law, as a Covenant of Works, command Juſtifying Faith and Reliance upon God-Redeemer or Immanuel; but rather as the Law of Nature, or as the Law of Thankfulneſs to a Ranſoming, Redeeming God, the Law doth this; tho in a ſpecial Covenant way, the Goſpel Commands Faith in Christ.

Again, ibid. p. 191. This I grant (which I deſire the Reader carefully to obſerve) the Law and the Covenant of Grace do not one and the ſame way Command Faith, and forbid unbelief. I ſpeak now of the Covenant of Works, and of the Covenant of Grace, as they are two Covenants ſpecifically and formally different.

Again he puts the Queſtion. ib. p. 192. 103. Whether doth the Lord Mediator, as Mediator, command the ſame good Works in the Covenant of Grace, which are Commanded in the Covenant of Works?

And then Anſwers, According to tht matter of the thing Commanded, quoad rem mandatam, He Commands the ſame, and charges upon all and every one the Moral Duty, even as Mediator; but ſimply they are not the ſame, Quoad modum mandandi. It ſhall not be needful to diſpute whether they be Commands differing in Nature; for not only doth the Mediator Command Obedience upon his interpoſed Authority as Law-giver, and Creator, but alſo as Lord Redeemer upon the Motive of Goſpel-Conſtraining-Love; in which notion he calls Love the keeping of his Commandments (if they Love him, John 14.) the New Commandment of Love.

Finally, ib. p. 198, 199. he ſays, The Obedience of Faith, or Goſpel-Obedience hath leſs of the Nature of Obedience, than that of Adam, or of the Elect Angels, or that of Chriſt. It's true, we are called Obedient Children, and they are called the Commandments of Christ, and Christ hath taken the Moral Law, and made uſe of it in an Evangelick way; yet we are more (as it were) patients …in obeying Goſpel-Commands, not that we are meer patients, as Libertines Teach, for Grace makes us Willing; but we have both Supernatural Habits, and influence of Grace Furniſhed to us from the Grace of Chriſt, who hath Merited both to us, and ſo in Goſpel Obedience, we offer more of the Lords own, and leſs of our own, becauſe he both Commands, and gives us grace to Obey.

By all this and more that I could quote out of Mr. Rutherford's Writings, it's manifeſt that he believed as we do, that the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts, and requires Duty, and that it is not a meer abſolute promiſe that requires no duty or us at all.

My 10th Witneſs is the late Reverend and Learned Doctor Owen, whoſe memory I honour, tho it be ſaid that I beſtowed ſome Diſadvantageous remarks upon him; but it is not true, for to tell the World that he retracted what he had before confidently Written, when it pleaſed the Lord to give him further Light, as he apprehended; is ſo far from being to his diſadvantage, that it is on the contrary very much for his Honour; and plainly ſhews that tho he was a fallible man (as we all are) yet he was in that, an humble Man, and a ſincere lover of Truth: And I wiſh Mr. G. may follow his Example, for aſſuredly it will be more for his Reputation and Honour, than obſtinately to perſiſt in the Flacian Error, which ſome (it ſeems) have drawn him into. And ſince he profeſſeth to have ſo great an eſteem for Dr. Owen, I p. 93deſire him, and all that are concerned, to conſider what I ſhall Cite out of the Doctor's Vindication of the Goſpel, in his Anſwer to Biddle's Socinian Catechiſm. His words are, Take the word [Law] ſtrictly, in reference to a Covenant end, that he who performs it, ſhall be Juſtified by his performance thereof; ſo we may ſay, **Dr. Owen's Anſwer to Biddle's Catechiſm, pag. 384.he (to wit, Chriſt) gave the Law Originally as God, but as Mediator, he gave no ſuch Law, or no Law in that Senſe, but revealed fully and clearly our Juſtification with God upon another account.

Again, [If they (the Socinians) ſhall ſay, That Chriſt may be ſaid to reveal the Ten Commandments, becauſe he promulged them a-new, with new Motives, Reaſons and Encouragements; I hope he will give us leave to ſay alſo, That what he calls a New Commandment, is not ſo termed in reſpect of the matter of it, but its new Enforcement by Chriſt. We grant ††Ibid. p. 3…8.Chriſt revealed that Law by Moſes, with its New Covenant-Ends, as he was the great Prophet of his Church, by his Spirit, from the Foundation of the World? but this Smalcius denies.]

Again, [That there are Precepts and Promiſes attending the New Covenant, is granted; but that it conſiſts in any addition of Precepts to the Moſaical Law, carried on in the ſame Tenour with it, with other Promiſes, is a Figment directly deſtructive of the whole Goſpel, and the Mediation of the Son of God, ibid. page 393. And in the next page he ſays, [That Moſes was a Mediator of a Covenant of Works, properly and formally ſo called; and that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of Works, is a no leſs pernicious Figment than the Former. The Covenant of Works was, Do this and live; On perfect Obedience you ſhall have Life. Mercy and Pardon of Sins, were utter ſtrangers to that Covenant; and therefore by it, the Holy Ghoſt tells us, That no man could be ſaved, The Church of old had, The Promiſes of Chriſt, (Rom. 9.5. Gen. 3.15. and 12.3.) were Juſtified by Faith, Ger. 15.6. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Obtained Mercy for their Sins, and were Juſtified in the Lord, Iſa. 42.24. Had the Spirit for Converſion, Regeneration, and Sanctification, Ezek. 11.9. and 36.26. expected and obtained Salvation by Jeſus Chriſt: Things as remote from the Covenant of Works as the Eaſt from the Weſt. It's true, the Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace, which they lived under, was dark, legal and low, in compariſon of that which we now are admitted unto, ſince the coming of Chriſt in the fleſh; but the Covenant wherein they walked with God, and that wherein we find acceptance, is the ſame; and the Juſtification of Abraham their Father, the pattern of ours, Rom. 4.4, 5. And afterwards in the ſame book, chap. 33. p. 652. the Doctor ſays, [N. 3. Nor doth Biddle inform us what he intends by keeping the Commands of God, Whether an exact, perfect, and every way compleat keeping of them up to the higheſt Degree of all things, in all things; circumſtances and concernments of them: Or whether the keeping of them in an univerſal ſincerity, accepted before God, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace, be intended. Ner, 4. What Commandments they are which he chiefly reſpects, and under what conſideration; Whether all the Commandments of the Law of God, as ſuch; Or whether the Goſpel-Gommands of Faith and Love, which the places (1 John 5.3. and Mat. 11.30.) from whence he anſwers, do reſpect.

And in the following page Doctorr Owen's 5th Anſwer is, [That to keep the Commandments of God, not as the Tenour of the Covenant of Works nor in an abſolute perfection of Obedience and Correſpondency to the Law, but ſincerely and p. 94uprightly unto acceptation, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace, and the Obedience it requires, through the aſſiſtance of the Spirit and Grace of God, is not only a thing poſſible, but eaſy, pleaſant and delightful. Thus we ſay, That a perſon regenerate, by the aſſiſtance of the Spirit and Grace of God, may keep the Commandments of God, in yielding to him in anſwer to them, that ſincere Obedience which in Jeſus Chriſt, according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace is required: Yea, it is to him an eaſy and pleaſant thing ſo to do. This is ſufficient to ſhow that Dr. Owen was far from thinking that the Goſpel Covenant hath no precepts, but is a meer abſolute promiſe or Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all. He ſays, the quite contrary as appears by his words, to wit that it hath precepts, as well as promiſes, and that it requires of us ſincere obedience, in order to our obtaining poſſeſſion of Eternal ſalvation in Heavenly Glory. I could bring many more, very many worthy and Orthodox, Modern Divines, to bear Teſtimony to the point under conſideration, that the Goſpel hath precepts and requires Duties, but theſe are enough; at preſent therefore I ſhall forbear mentioning any more, except the late Reverend and Ingenious Mr. Gilbert, who in his ſhort diſcourſe concerning the guilt of ſin, and pardon of it, &c. In the ſecond page grants expreſly that there are both Goſpel-precepts, and Goſpel-ſins, and tells us. (1.) That Goſpel precepts, are mainly the ſame for ſubſtance with thoſe of the Law, but not exacting their obſervance with the ſame Rigour, Namely for Juſtification. And I add, nor yet for ſalvation. (2.) That Goſpel-ſins are the Tranſgreſſion of ſuch Goſpel-precepts. Thus I have proved both by many clear Teſtimonies of God, and alſo of good Men Ancient and Modern, that the Goſpel-Covenant is not without all precepts, it is not ſuch a Doctrine of grace, as requires nothing of us at all; but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to Duty, and requires of us ſincere obedience to its Evangelical precepts, in an Evangelical way, for our due keeping of Covenant with God in Chriſt, and in order to our obtaining the Conſummate Life and happineſs through Chriſt promiſed in the Covenant.

Now from the foreſaid Conſiderations, and Teſtimonies of God and good Men, it will not be difficult to gather a ſhort and clear anſwer to my Reverend Brother's Reaſons and Arguments which he brings to prove that the Goſpel is ſuch a Doctrine of Grace as hath no precepts, and requires no duty at all.