Johannes Maccovius, Theological Distinctions III.
James Dodson
Chapter III
Of the Gospel
I. “Gospel” is taken in Scripture in two ways: either broadly, for the doctrine of the Gospel as it is opposed to the Law; or strictly, for the evangelical doctrine concerning Christ already exhibited, and in this way at Romans 1:6.
II. The Gospel is the ministry of the Spirit; the Law is the ministry of death.
[p. 33]
The distinction is found in 2 Corinthians 3. But why is it called the ministry of the Spirit? Response. Because in the doctrine of the Gospel the Holy Spirit comforts all penitent sinners. And the Law is therefore called the ministry of death because it pronounces all men accursed. Deuteronomy 27:26.
III. The Gospel teaches repentance; the Law does not.
The Law has nothing concerning repentance; but this is the doctrine of the Gospel: that it teaches the sinner to repent, if he wishes to live. Yet the Law obliges to repentance, although it does not teach it.
IV. The Gospel does not teach concerning sin, but the Law does.
We have a controversy with the Lutherans concerning this distinction. For they think that the Gospel teaches concerning sin. But this belongs to the Law, because by the Law is the knowledge of sin, Romans 3. Nevertheless, the Gospel receives this principle from the Law and uses it in humbling the miserable sinner: that the Law indeed convicts you of sin, and that no hope of escape arises except through Christ. Therefore you must come to Christ if you desire to be saved.
V. The use and end of the Gospel is one thing—
[p. 34]
—in itself, another from the intention of its author.
The end of the Gospel in itself is nothing other than illumination. But with respect to Him who is the author of the Gospel, it can be rather, with respect to certain persons, a blinding; for therefore Christ often wills the doctrine of the Gospel to be preached, that the blind may become more blind. John 12. Elsewhere this is commonly distinguished as the end of the work and the end of the worker.
VI. There are no works of the Gospel, but all works are works of the Law.
The Arminians, who think that we are justified by works, when we bring forward places of Scripture which deny this, say that Scripture speaks of the works of the Law, not of the Gospel. They say that the works of the Gospel are faith and the use of the sacraments. But it must be known that the works of the Law must be distinguished. For the Law teaches and commands certain things, such as those which are in the Decalogue; it commands, but does not teach, certain other things, such as those which are in the doctrine of the Gospel, namely faith and repentance.
VII. The command concerning believing the Gospel is universal, but the promises are particular.
There is a very great dispute between us and the Lutherans. For they teach that to whom the command belongs, to them also the promise belongs. But this is false. For the command belonged to all—
[p. 35]
—Israelites, but the promise did not likewise belong to all; as in Romans 9:8, certain persons are said to be children of the promise.
VIII. The doctrine of the Gospel is for the sake of the doctrine of the Law.
And the Law is for the sake of the Gospel, and the Gospel for the sake of the Law. The Law is for the sake of the Gospel because it leads to Christ; the Gospel is for the sake of the Law because our justification is on account of the holiness of Christ, which the Law demanded from us.
IX. The doctrine of the Gospel stood differently in the Old Testament than it does in the New.
First, in the Old Testament it had many ceremonies and sacrifices joined to it, from which we are free in the New. Second, in the Old Testament it sounded more obscurely; in the New, more clearly: there it spoke of Christ to be exhibited; here, of Christ exhibited. Third, the doctrine of the Gospel in the Old Testament commonly and ordinarily belonged only to the Jews, Psalm 147:19–20; in the New, to all nations. It is said to have commonly and ordinarily belonged only to the Jews because outside the Jews there were also proselytes, which was extraordinary.
X. Although the Gospel belongs to all nations, it does not therefore belong to every single person.
[p. 36]
The promises of the Gospel are universal with respect to promulgation or preaching, Matthew 28; but not with respect to application, which falls to the elect alone.
XI. One covenant is common; another is special.
The common covenant is that which theologians are accustomed to call “mediate,” because by means of man it was contracted with all. Genesis 9:11, concerning the rainbow.
XII. The special covenant is either legal or evangelical.
XIII. The legal covenant, according to the twofold state of men, is twofold: either in the state of integrity, or in the state of fall.
In the state of integrity there was a covenant sanctioned between God and men, so that man should obey the Law. God had promised eternal life to obedient man, and had established this by the sign of the tree of life. After the fall, the legal covenant was that in which God demands obedience and promises eternal life, but this covenant is established by no sign.
XIV. The evangelical covenant is either old or new.
The old is that which God struck with Abraham and with those born from him. The new is with all nations.
[p. 37]
XV. The evangelical covenant does not belong to all, but to certain persons from all nations.
This is proved from the Epistle to the Romans 9, where the children of the promise, or of the covenant, are distinguished from the rest; which would by no means stand if all and each belonged to the covenant.
XVI. Only those in covenant are the lawful possessors of the world; the rest are usurpers.
This is proved from Romans 4:13. And from this that statement in 1 Corinthians 3:21 is now understood, namely, that all things belong to believers, because they have right in every thing.
XVII. One must not depart from the propriety of words without necessity.
This rule is against those who wish all things to be taken improperly, such as the Socinians. But when they do this, a reason must be demanded from them why they depart from the proper sense.
XVIII. The more customary word is to be preferred to the less customary, unless there is a certain reason to the contrary.
The necessity of this rule is the same as that of the preceding.
XIX. Scripture, when it commands wickedness—
[p. 38]
—or forbids virtue, must be understood figuratively.
Thus when it commands one to pluck out his eye, cut off his foot, etc.