that 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. Vnder what condition is that promise made to us Ans Vnder 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 †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 â—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
it may be Mr. G. will say that tho these were Protestants yet they were not right Protestants For the word right seems to be put in on purpose that he may have an evasion when pressed with the Authority and Testimony of Protestant Divines who are for our Interpretatation and against his But if he should say that the Divines I have named are not right Protestants yet I hope he will not say that Beza was not a right Protestant since he himself appeals to Beza p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Writes thus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per quam legem i. e. qua Doctrina sicut interdum Hebraeis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah in genere est doctrina quae aliquid praescribit qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae salutem proponit sub conditione si credideris quam et ipsam deus dat nobis ut praestare possimus oppositam doctrinae quae justitiam et salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris quam unus Christus in sese pro nobis et implere potuit et implevit c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27. By what law that is by what Doctrine As sometimes among the Jews the word Torah Law signifies in general a Doctrine which prescribes any thing Accordingly the Apostle calls the Gospel the aw of Faith i. e. a Doctrine which proposes salvation on condition if thou believest which very condition God also gives us power to perform and this is opposed to the Doctrine to wit of the Law which proposes Righteousness and Salvation with the condition if thou shalt do all which Christ alone â—n himself could and did perform for us Thus Beza In whose words the world may see plainly That 1. He says the word Law among the Jews signifies indeed a Doctrine but a Doctrine that prescribes something 2. That the Law of works is a Doctrine that prescribes works of perfect obedience as the condition of life 3. That the Law of Faith or Gospel is a Doctrine which prescribes Faith as the condition and which proposes salvation upon condition of believing 4. That the condition of the Law of Works none but Christ hath performed or could performed 5. That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Gospel or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to justification And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith obâ—igeth us to believe in order to Justification is evident also by what follows where he saith that it doth flagitare require Faith of us and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteousness which Christ hath purchased for us and freely gives unto us for our Justification And altho he hold that the Law of Faith obligeth us to believe in Christ for Justification yet he shews how it excludes all boasting Now this is the very sense which we give of the Law of Faith that it is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law â—nd obliges us to believe and proposes and promises to us the great blessing of free Justification by Christs imputed Righteousness upon condition if we believe which condition God gives us power to perform This being as clear as the light with what Conscience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him against us and that Beza gives the same sense of Rom. 3.27 Which he gives And of this he gives no other reason but this that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith because in the very same place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine likewise And yet it is confest by all that the Law of works commands works Here again the poverty of Mr. G's discourse appears and not only that but its nakedness too in so much that it wants a covering to hide its shame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to see what credit is to be given to him who thus shamefully abuseth Beza by clipping his Tongue and not suffering him to speak the truth but fathering upon him an opinion which is most evidently contrary unto his words 2. Here likewise I desire it may be observed that in the old Geneva Translation of our English Bibles which is of an hundred years standing at least there is this short note on Rom. 3.27 By what Doctrine Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it if thou dost and the Doctrine of Faith hath this condition if thou believest Altho then of old our forefathers by Law of Faith understood a Doctrine of Faith yet they held it to be such a Doctrine as prescribes the duty and requires the condition of believing and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law just as we hold it to be What he talks in pag. 60.61 62. Of all the Popish Commentators on Rom. 3.27 And of Estins the Jesuit c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae and is partly impertinent and partly ridiculous 2. Secondly He saith That Gal. 6.2 refuses to serve my design But I answer It 's plain from the Apology page 22. line 16 17. that my whole design in quoting Gal. 6.2 was to show that the Scripture calls the Gospel-covenant a Law and so it may be called there notwithstanding of what Mr. G. says to the contrary For though the words Law of Christ do not import the whole of the Gospel-covenant yet they import a part of it to wit the preceptive part For certainly he that loves his Neighbour as Christ loved him doth believe in Christ with a Faith working by love and he that so believes in Christ doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Gospel-Govenant and by Consequence he that loves his Neighbours as Christ loved him doth fulfill the condition of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which is the Law of Christ As to what Mr. G. objects That Estins on the place affirms that Christ is given to men as a Legislator whom they may obey I answer That Dr. Owen affirms the same thing as is evident by his express formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter It is true he doth not there prove Christ to be a Legislator from Gal. 6.2 but that is no matter he affirms that he is a Legislator and then he hath an Evangelical law And this being a Truth I for my part do like it never the worse because an Adversary believes it I wish our Adversaries both Papists and Arminians did with us receive not only that but all other Truths If Mr. G. say that the word Gospel or Gospel-Covenant is not expressed in Gal. 6.2 I answer Nor did I say that it is But there is expresly the word Law and I thought that sufficient to the purpose for which I quoted that Text. And though I should pass
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
pag. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings It is also against Gomarus who as he is quoted in the same page 27 saith expresly That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and the Law of God by way of Excellency Isa 2.3 from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it But let it be against them or against all Mortals yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned I should confess he doth his work effectually were it not for this one thing on which the stress of his Cause lyes and which he begs but proves not nor can prove to wit That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles is nothing but an Absolute Promise or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do that it hath neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother as I told him before That that is not the sense wherein I take it when I say it is a Law of Grace and I have shewed in the Apology that it ought not to be so taken nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines when the word Gospel is used to signifie the whole Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator Thus in few words it may appear that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel which certainly signifies more things than one and particularly it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace as according to his fancy requires nothing of us at all And 1. First He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs are not any parts of it self but are borrowed from the Law and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion Before I give particular Answers to his reasons I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes SECT II. AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel Let it be considered 1. How the Gospel if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law and then employ them in its own Service For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept and then employs it As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this much good may the Notion do them But to me it is altogether useless because it is unintelligible 2. Consider That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them And it was needless to prove this against me for I never denyed it but alwayes believed it and oft times openly professed it And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against he cannot but know that my R Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology page 200 and 201. 3. Consider Thirdly That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law it s Obligative Power and its Actual Obligation And it is not to be denyed but that it hath its Obligative Power even then when for want of a particular Object or necessary Circumstances it doth not put forth its Power into Act and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject For instance In the state of Innocency The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto for want of a proper Object as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none and to Educate their Children Religiously when as yet they had none 4. Consider Fourthly That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present or upon supposition and for the future which distinction differs not much from the former Thus in the State of Innocency the Law obliged Man absolutely and for that present time not to hate but to love God But it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future when there should be and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World 5 Consider Fifthly That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Duties immediately and by it self but to others only mediately and by reason of some other thing intervening Thus in the State of Innocency by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate but to love and reverence God But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit only mediately and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death For it is certain and evident That without that positive Law forbidding it the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Positive Laws for us but when they are Enacted by God and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them it then obliges us to the observance of them This it did before and still doth since the fall of our First Parents For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind 6. Consider Sixthly That God's Enacting some Positive Laws after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection and with Gods Infinite Wisdom is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law and to Blaspheme God's Majesty For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evidently true that after the first giving unto Man and concreating with him and in him the Moral Natural Law God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before
is because the Gospel consists mostly in Promises though it be not without but partly consist in Precepts also This I have shewed in the Apology that there are not only Promises in the Gospel to those who observe its Precepts but that there are in it Promises of Grace to his People to fit them for and to assist them in the observance of its Precepts and therefore it is fitly called not simply a Law but a Law of Grace So I call it and believe it to be and so it was called and believed to be by other Orthodox Divines before I was born But though I believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duties to be performed by the Grace of the Spirit and accepted through the Mediation of Christ yet I never said nor believed that it is a Law which requires Duties by and for which we are Justified and Saved So far am I from saying or believing any such thing that I have published the contrary to the World in several parts of the Apology and particularly in Page 38 39 40.54 Indeed it is my professed belief that Faith it self is not any the least part of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified before God 2. The Second thing to be carefully attended unto is that by the Gospel or Law of Grace I do not understand the Books of the New Testament but the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ as it is Recorded in the Scriptures both of Old and New Testament 3. The Third thing to be attended unto is that I always acknowledged that the First Commandment of the Moral Law obligeth to believe all the Supernatural Revelations and obey all the Positive Precepts of the Gospel from which Principle it is so far from following that the Gospel hath no Precepts of its own that on the contrary it plainly follows that it hath Precepts of its own otherwise the Moral Natural Law would never oblige us to obey them 4. The Fourth thing to be attended unto is That since the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath Precepts of its own those Precepts must of themselves immediately oblige us to the performance of certain Duties and by means of them the Natural Moral Law obliges us to the same Duties tho not to be Justified and Saved for the sake of those Duties but in order to other Gospel ends and purposes If these Four things be carefully attended unto they will preserve People through the Blessing of God from being imposed upon by the false Representation which Mr. G. gives of our Doctrine which Wrong I freely forgive him and heartily pray God both to give him Repentance and Forgiveness 2. The Second and last thing I am here to do is to shew my Reverend Brother some more of his Mistakes in this part of his Seventh Chapter concerning the Precepts of the Gospel 1. And First whereas he says in Page 44. That the obedience of a Believer is not called Evangelical because it is obedience to the Gospel but because of the Principles of Faith and Love from which it flows and in respect of the Evangelical Motives which animate and encourage it This I take to be a mistake if he excludes the Gospel Covenants requiring such Obedience from being one of the said Motives and my reason is because the Gospel's requiring it in order to Gospel-ends and purposes is the principal reason wherefore we call it Evangelical Obedience For it is the Gospel that of it self directly and immediately requires us to obey the Moral Law in such an Evangelical way to wit sincerely with a renewed heart from Principles of Faith in and Love to Christ the Mediator and God as our Redeemer and Saviour by Christ And further as the Authority and Veracity of God revealing Truths to be believed is the formal reason of our Faith which makes and denominates it a Divine Faith so the Authority and Will of God commanding Duties to be done is the formal reason of our obedience which gives it the Denomination of Divine Obedience or obedience to God And if this be true of obedience to God in general that it is called a Divine legal obedience because it is obedience to God's Authority and Will Commanding it by his Law then by Parity of Reason it is true of that special sort of obedience to wit Evangelical Obedience that it is called Evangelical because it is obedience to Gods Authority and Will Commanding and requiring it by his Gospel It were very strange if the Formal Reason of Obedience did contribute nothing to the giving it its Name as well as its Nature 2. Secondly Whereas in Page 45. he says That in John 14.1 Christ himself told his Disciples that they should act faith on him because they were obliged to it by the same Command which required them to believe in God This is another Mistake and the mistake is the grosser for this Reason because by this mistake Mr. G. imposes upon our Saviour and makes him to say that which he did not say nor is it implyed in nor necessarily consequent from his words Our Lord Christ doth not say Believe in me because ye are obliged to it by the same Command which requires you to believe in God This is Mr. G's Fancy or Fiction which he should not have Fathered upon Christ Who saith no such thing in John 14.1 But only saith there let not your heart be troubled Ye believe in God believe also in me Or as the words might be rendred ye believe in God and ye believe in me Now I appeal both to common sense and to common honesty and natural Conscience whether to say ye believe in God believe also in me be all one and the same thing as to say ye should believe on me because ye are obliged to believe on me by the same command and by no other which requires you to believe in God For suppose the Disciples had been obliged to believe in Christ by another Command or both by the same and also by another Command yet Christ might well have used the same words and have said ye believe in God believe also in me I do therefore put Mr. G. to prove that because our Lord Christ said ye believe in God believe also in me Therefore he told his Disciples that they should believe on him not because they were obliged to it by any positive precept of the Gospel but only because they were obliged to it by the same Command of the Moral natural Law which required them to believe in God Mr G. must not dictate to us his own fancies but must prove to us the foresaid Consequence if he would have us to believe what he there says For he ought not to think that we will believe it upon his bare word 3. Thirdly whereas he says in p. 47. That the act and object of faith to wit faith in God before the fall and faith in Christ after the fall Is
they are proper to the Gospel and distinct from all the threatnings of the Law The Law knows no more of Gospel-threatnings than of Gospel-promises The threatnings of the Law lye against sinners for sins Committed the threatnings of the Gospel are against Sinners for refusing the remedy provided and tendred unto them They are superadded unto those of the Law and in them doth the Gospel when rejected become Death unto Death 2 Cor. 2.16 By the addition of that punishment contained in its threatnings unto that which was contained in the threatnings of the Law Thus Dr. Owen let any that desire further satisfaction in this matter read there what goes before and follows after this which I have here quoted and they may find it in that large discourse of the Learned Doctor I could bring more witnesses to give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings and to shew that it is no new notion of mine no singular opinion of my inventing but I need no more These are sufficient to shew that it was the common faith of Christ's Church before I was born that it is so at this day and I trust it will be so after I am dead and gathered to my Fathers Having thus established the truth in the next place we must consider what Mr. G. objects aginst it and for the proof of his Negative that the Gospel hath no threatnings Obj. 1. He first cites John 3.17 p. 54. For God sent not his Son into the World to Condemn the World but that the world through him might be saved Very true what then Why then saith Mr. G. What could Christ have said more to assure us that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise salvation to Sinners whom the Law menaced and who were Condemned by its sentence Answer here is a piece of Confidence that I do not remember I have ever met with the like Doth this brother think that he can draw Men to his opinion by confident talk and big words without so much as a shadow of right reason For in this Argument there is not the least appearance of reason Christ tells us that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved Therefore he could have said no more to assure us that the Gospel hath no threatnings or that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise life to Sinners This Consequence is such as Mr. G. may be fond of as being like enough to his way of reasoning in other parts of his discourse but I do not think that any Scholar who knows the rules of right reasoning will ever admire it or be convinced by it For my part I must say that I have not known a Learned Man to have reasoned so loosely and incoherently in a serious matter of such importance as this If one should seriously reason thus in the Schools of Cambridge or Oxford c. I doubt not but he would be lâ—â—â—ed at And if he be not serious but only writes thus to shew his wit which I cannot prove and therefore will not affirm I am sorry that I should have any thing to do with him But supposing that he is himself mistaken and did not meerly design to act a part and right or wrong to draw away Disciples after him I owe him that service of Love as to show him his mistake and direct him into the way of truth which is that we all profess to Love and seek after And it is no hard matter to do that for in order thereunto there is no more needful but to tell Mr. G. that if our Lord Christ had said That God sent not his Son into the world to threaten the world with death in any sense but only to make an absolute promise of Life to the world Then he had said a great deal more than he doth in John 3.17 To assure us that the Gospel hath no threatnings or that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise Life to Sinners For so the thing had been undeniably evident to wit that the Gospel is nothing but an absolute promise and that it hath neither threatning nor conditional promise Whereas having said no more in John 3.17 But that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved We can have no assurance at all from those words that the Gospel hath no threatnings For the Gospel's having Conditional threatnings that if Men do not believe and repent they shall be Condemned is so far from being inconsistent with Christ's not coming to Condemn but to save the world that on the contrary the said conditional threatnings are one means to secure the world from Condemnation and to bring them unto salvation It seems Mr. Goodwin thinks that if once the Gospel threaten an unbeliever by saying to him if thou do not believe in Christ thou wilt be Condemned the Man is undone for ever he is Irrecoverably lost and cannot possibly be saved But that is a very gross mistake and such a Consequence is so far from being true that on the contrary such a conditional threatning may through the Grace of God be an useful means to fetch the Man off from his unbelief and to bring him unto faith in Christ and through faith unto salvation Hence Mr. Hutcheson on John 12.47 Saith p. 256. that not only rich promises and gracious offers but even sharp threatnings are a means appointed of God to stir up Men to embrace the Gospel And this is not only true of the sharp threatnings of the Law but it is true also of the threatnings of the Gospel Hence Julius Firmicus many hundred years ago said * Misericordia Dei errantes homines corrigere frequenti comminatione Festinat Jul. Firmic Matern de Errore Profan Religionum Pag. 80. Edit Oxon. 1678. The mercy of God makes hast to correct or reclaim erring Men by frequent threatnings And our Saviour no doubt was of this mind when he gave Commission to his Apostles and bids them go into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying Mar. 16.15 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be Damned 2. 2dly p. 54. He objects that John 12.47 Our Saviour saith if any Man hear my words and believe not I Judge him not For I came not to Judge the world but to save the world And from these words he infers That Christ doth not threaten much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever I Answer that Mr. G. here draws two inferences from Christ's words John 12.47 1. That he doth not threaten an unbeliever now because he did not come to Judge but to save the world then 2. That he doth much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever now because he did not come to Judge