Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 7 · Section 3

Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel · Chapter 7 · Section 3

p. 94SECT. III.

And firſt he argues from the nature and uſe of precepts. They are deſigned (ſays he) pag. 42. As the Rule of our Actions, they inſtruct us what to do; they draw the lines of our Duty, and ſet the limits of our obedience. But all this is the proper office of the Moral Law, which it compleatly diſcharges, without any aſiſtance. I Anſwer. (1.) It is not true, that the Moral natural Law without the aſſiſtance of any poſitive Law, doth by it ſelf immediately inſtruct us in, and oblige us to all the particulars of our Duty. For as at the firſt Creation when the Moral natural Law, was perfectly and clearly written in Man's heart, it did not by it ſelf immediately in the firſt inſtant after his Creation, oblige him not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, till God had given him another poſitive Law and Precept not to Eat of it, and then by means of the poſitive Law, the Moral natural Law obliged him not to eat of it; So now the ſame Moral Law would never by it ſelf immediately oblige us to ſeveral duties, if there were not a poſitive Law and Precept p. 95of Chriſt which did firſt make them to be duties, and oblige us to the doing of them. Of this ſort is Baptiſm with water in the Name of Father, Son and Holy-Ghoſt. The Moral, Natural Law would never by it ſelf immediately oblige men to be ſo Baptized, if the Lord Chriſt, as King and Head of his Church, had not by a new Act of his Royal Authority made a poſitive Law, and given a poſitive Precept, obliging men to be baptized as aforeſaid; which being done, the moral natural Law doth alſo oblige us to be baptized, but it is only mediately, and by conſequence. It is mediante lege poſitiva, ſed non perſe, immediate. So it is the Goſpel-Law, or Covenant of Grace, which by it ſelf immediately obliges us to Juſtifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance in the Senſe before-mentioned and proved; and then the moral natural Law does alſo mediately, and by neceſſary conſequence oblige us to the ſame Duties.

(2.) I anſwer, That ſince the making of the Goſpel-Covenant with fallen man, the moral natural Law hath ſo belonged to it, that the requiring ſincere Obedience to the moral Law, hath been one Article of the Goſpel-Covenant. The ſaid moral Law then not only as ſeparated from the Goſpel covenant, but even as included in it, (in the ſenſe before explained) doth inſtruct us what to do, draw the Lines of our Duty, and ſet the limits of our Obedience upon Goſpel-grounds, and to Goſpel-ends and purpoſes, as hath been fully and clearly proved by Teſtimonies of God and Men. See Tit. 2.11, 12.— If he now Object and ſay that this proves that the Precepts are no parts of the Goſpel, but borrowed from the Law. I anſwer, It proves no ſuch thing; and what he talks of borrowing Precepts from the Law, is falſe and unintelligible; For I demand, who it is that borrows Precepts from the Law? Either it muſt be the Goſpel, or God: But it can be neither. And (1.) It is not the Goſpel that borrows Precepts from the Law, for borrowing is a Perſonal Act, but the Goſpel is no Perſon, therefore it cannot Borrow. Again, the Goſpel, according to this Brother, is nothing but an Abſolute Promiſe, or bundle of Abſolute Promiſes; let him then prove, if he can, that an abſolute Promiſe borrows a Precept; and ſhew how it doth ſo borrow; for we neither do, nor can believe it upon his bare word. (2.) It is not God who borrows Precepts from the Law. For (1.) He that borrows a thing, doth want and need that thing, before he borrow it, and he borrows it to ſupply his want. But God never wanted and needed the precepts of the Law. (2.) (The thing which one borrows, is not his own before he borrows it, but belongs to another Perſon; but the Law and its Precepts were always Gods own, and therefore he could never borrow the Precepts of the Law from another, to whom they belonged. The Truth is, God is the Author and Owner both of the Law, and of the Goſpel; and he firſt made the Law, and Subjected man unto it, and obliged him to keep it perfectly; but Man having tranſgreſſed it, God made the Goſpel-Covenant, and propoſed it to Man, and therein offered him a Remedy againſt the Sin and Miſery he had brought on himſelf and his Poſterity, by the breach of the Law: He commanded Man alſo, by Faith, to accept of the Remedy offered in the Goſpel-Covenant, and for the future, to perform ſincere obedience to the Law which he had formerly Tranſgreſſed. Here is no borrowing Precepts from the Law, but after the Law was broken, and thereby Man Ruined, God of his Soveraign Free-grace ſo made, and Propoſed to Man the Goſpel-covenant (or which is the ſame, the New Law of Grace) as thereby, (1.) To oblige him to believe in Chriſt, and by Faith to receive the Remedy offered: And (2.) For the future to give ſincere Obedience to the Moral Law, in order to his obtaining full poſſeſſion of the Happineſs purchaſed by Chriſt the Mediator, and p. 96promiſed in the Goſpel-covenant, whereof Chriſt is Mediator. And thus it was that the Moral Law came to belong to the Goſpel, not by the Goſpel's, nor by God's borrowing the precepts of the Law (which to imagine is Ridiculous) but by God's making ſincere obedience to his own Moral Law, to be one of the Terms of his Goſpel Covenant; and by his ſo framing the Goſpel-Covenant as by it to require of Man, ſincere obedience to the Moral Law. According to that, Gen. 17.1. I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect, upright or ſincere. And Tit. 2.11, 12. 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 Godlily in this preſent world: Looking for that bleſſed hope, &c.

Obj. 2. Secondly, my R. B. indeavours to prove that the Goſpel can have no precepts, becauſe if it had any precepts, God would not be infinitely wiſe and unchangeable, and his Moral natural Law, which he firſt gave to Man at his Creation would not be perfect. This Conſequence he labours to prove in pag. 43. And I freely grant that the Goſpel could have no precepts, if from its having precepts, it did follow by good and neceſſary Conſequence that God would not (on that ſuppoſition) be infinitely wiſe and abſolutely unchangeable, and that his Moral natural Law would not be perfect. For certainly God is infinitely wiſe and abſolutely unchangeable, this is as ſure and evident, as it is that there is a God at all. It is certain alſo, and I have always believed it, and here before aſſerted it, that the Moral natural Law is moſt perfect in its kind, and obliges to the moſt perfect, i. e. ſinleſsly perfect performance of the ſeveral duties which belong to it, In that way which the Lord God intended, It ſhould oblige to the performance of them. If my R. B. believe this as firmly as I do, then we are agreed as to this matter of the infinite wiſdom, and unchangeableneſs of God, and the perfection of his Moral natural Law in its kind. But tho we be agreed in this, yet we do differ, and ſhall differ about the Conſequence; for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and neceſſary Conſequence, that God would not be infinitely wiſe and unchangeable, and his Moral Law perfect in its kind; if the Goſpel have any precepts, and if God have ever given to Man any new poſitive Law, ſince he firſt created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart. And it is not without good reaſon, that I deny Mr. Goodwins Conſequence as utterly falſe and blaſphemous. For (1) according to his own Principle, Gods making unto Man a new promiſe, doth not impeach his infinite wiſdom and abſolute unchangeableneſs; for in pag. 49. He ſaith, that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made; and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him, or any purpoſes of grace in that firſt promiſe of the Seed of the Woman, breaking the Serpents head. In theſe words he plainly acknowledges that when God firſt created Man, and gave him the Moral Law, he had not then made him any promiſe of Goſpel grace and mercy; but the firſt promiſe of that nature, was made to Man after the fall: And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare ſay, that Gods making that New promiſe to Man, did impeach his wiſdom as defective, or infer any change in his nature or will. And if a new promiſe did not, then I ſay that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wiſdom as defective, or infer any change in his nature or will. For there is nothing can be ſaid againſt a new precept as inconſiſtent with the infinity of Gods wiſdom, and his unchangeableneſs, but the like may be ſaid againſt a new promiſe: And if I durſt give my ſelf leave to prat boldly and blaſphemouſly againſt a new Goſpel promiſe, p. 97I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. ſays againſt a New Goſpel Precept, and with the varying of a few words, apply it to a New Goſpel-Promiſe; and I thereby prove, That it's not conſiſtent with the Wiſdom and Immutability of God, to make a New Goſpel-Promiſe, juſt as he proves, That it is inconſiſtent with his Wiſdom and Unchangeableneſs to give a New Goſpel-Precept. For my part, I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reaſoning here; but there want not Infidels, too many, who by his way of diſproving a New Goſpel Precept, will endeavour to diſprove a New Goſpel-Promiſe, and will not ſtick to ſay, after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Goſpel-Promiſe, after the firſt Legal Covenant of Works, and the Legal Promiſe implied in it, would argue, That his Wiſdom was deficient, as not knowing at firſt all that was good for man, and neceſſary to be promiſed to him, and believed by him, &c. (2.) God gave a new precept to Man before the fall, which was really different from the Moral natural Law. For inſtance, the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, &c. Gen. 2.17. was ſuch a precept. This is ſo clear that Mr. G. has in effect confeſſed it, pag. 47. For there he ſaith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit, as a thing indifferent; and that indeed it was a thing indifferent, before the prohibition; To wit, by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law, and therefore muſt needs be really diſtinct from it. There he confeſſes, (1.) That the Moral natural Law did not at firſt, and by it ſelf immediately forbid the Act of eating the foreſaid Fruit. (2.) That therefore it remained ſtill a thing indifferent to eat, or not to eat of that Fruit, till the new precept was given. (3.) That it was the new precept, Gen. 2.17. Which firſt, by it ſelf, immediately prohibited the eating of it, and obliged Man not to eat it; and that without this, it would have ſtill remainded indifferent, notwithſtanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could ſay. Now if before the fall, God gave Man a new poſitive precept, which first obliged him to a certain duty, and forbad the Commiſſion of the contrary ſin; and if this new poſitive precept, requiring duty and forbidding Sin, was then very well conſiſtent both with the wiſdom and unchangeableneſs of God, and alſo with the perfection of his Moral natural Law; tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things really diſtinct: I ſay, if it was ſo then before the fall, I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall, it was inconſiſtent with Gods infinite wiſdom and immutability, and with the perfection of his moral Law, to give unto man any New Goſpel-Precept, which ſhould oblige him to Duty, whereunto the moral natural Law did not, by it ſelf immediately oblige him before. If Mr. G. continue to affirm this, he muſt prove it; for I utterly deny that God's giving a new Goſpel Precept, is inconſiſtent with his VViſdom and Immutability, and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law: and I am perſwaded that he can never prove that inconſiſtency, no more then he can prove it inconſiſtent with Gods wiſdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection, to give unto Adam before the Fall, the new poſitive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg, after he had written the ſaid Moral Natural Law in his heart, at his firſt Creation. If he ſay, as in effect he doth, That the moral natural Law obliged Adam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, becauſe it commanded him to obey God in whatever he ſhould require. And ſo God's requiring Adam by a New poſitive Precept, to abſtain from eating the ſaid Fruit, is well conſiſtent with his wiſdom, and with his moral Laws Perfection. I anſwer, That my R. B. may ſee, if he will open his Eyes, that this makes againſt him, and for me. For,

(1.) He muſt, and he doth grant, That the abſtaining from eating of that Fruit, was firſt required by a new poſitive Precept, in Order of Nature, before p. 98the moral natural Law commanded any ſuch Abſtinence; ſo that it commanded the ſaid Abſtinence only mediately, and by conſequence, after that it was firſt immediately commanded by the New poſitive Precept, ſuperadded to the Law of Nature. (2.) He knows well enough, that it is our profeſſed belief that in like manner, tho the Moral Natural Law, the general Law of our Creation, doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Goſpel Precept; yet doth God firſt in order of Nature require our obedience to the Goſpel by the New Goſpel-Precept immediately; and then by means of that ſpecial new Goſpel-Precept, the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conſcience with reſpect thereunto, and obliges us to obey God therein: So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the ſame thing, but in different ways: Firſt, There is the ſpecial New-Goſpel-Precept, which by it ſelf, immediately obliges us to ſuch a ſpecial Act of Goſpel Obedience. Secondly, There is the general old Law of our Creation, or the Natural Precept which obliges us to yeild obedience unto the ſpecial New Goſpel-Precept; and ſo it is with reſpect to all the new poſitive Laws which ever God gave unto his People, either under the Old or New Teſtament. The Law of nature did not, and could not enact thoſe new Laws for the Church; But after that God had once enacted them by a new Exertion of his Legiſlative Authority, then the natural Law, the general Law of Creation, obliged the Church and People of God to the Obſervance of thoſe new and ſpecial poſitive Laws. (3.) The reaſon why I deny, that the giving of new poſitive Goſpel-Precepts unto man, after the firſt giving of the natural Law to him, doth any way impeach the infinite wiſdom and immutability of God; It is, becauſe it was not for want of foreſight of what man would afterwards need, and what his ſad Circumſtances would require, that ever God gave him any new Goſpel-Precept (or Promiſe,) as Mr. G. would inſinuate: But on the contrary, it was, becauſe God by his infinite wiſdom did foreſee that Man would after the fall want, and his ſad Circumſtances would need both new Goſpel promiſes and precepts; and becauſe he had unchangeably purpoſed from Eternity to give him after the fall, ſuch Goſpel promiſes and precepts, as would be ſuitable to his ſad Circumſtances, and through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, would be an excellent uſeful means to recover him out of that ſad ſtate of ſin and miſery, into which he had plunged himſelf by his own folly and wickedneſs. (4.) The reaſon why I deny Mr. G's. Conſequence, that the giving unto Man any new Goſpel precept, would impeach the wiſdom and unchangeableneſs of God, is becauſe that his way of Arguing againſt any new Goſpel Precept, is upon the matter the very ſame way that the infidels of old, Diſputed againſt the truth of the Chriſtian Religion, and endeavoured to prove that either God could not be infinitely wiſe and unchangeable; or if he was ſuch, that then the Chriſtian Religion could not poſſibly be of God, becauſe there are new precepts in the Goſpel, and a new way of worſhipping God preſcribed by the Chriſtian Religion, different in ſeveral particulars, from that which was before preſcribed by God himſelf, both before and under the Law of Moſes. That thus the Infidels diſputed againſt the truth of the Chriſtian Religion, is evident by what is to be ſeen in Marcellinus, his Epiſtle to Auguſtin, and by Auguſtin's anſwer to it; and it is to be noted that **Oper. Auguſt. Tom. 2. Epiſt. 4. & 5.Auſtin in his Anſwer, neither did, nor could truly deny that ever God gave any new precepts to his People. So far was he from that way of Anſwering the Infidels, that on the contrary he confeſſed p. 99that God had indeed at different times, given to his Church new precepts different from former precepts; but with all he ſhewed, that this did no ways impeach either the wiſdom, or immutability of God. His excellent and Learned anſwer begins thus. **Aliud praecepit quod huic tempori aptum eſſet, qui multo magis quam homo novit, quid cui que tempori accommodate adhibeatur, &c. Aug. Marcellino, Epiſt. 5.God who knows much better than Man, what precepts are ſuitable to every time, hath given other precepts which might be fit and proper for this time, to wit, of the Goſpel.

The ſame is evident, alſo by what Auſtin in his Epiſtle to Deogratias, writes in anſwer to an objection made by an Heathen againſt the Chriſtian Religion; where he ſhews that the Goſpel and true Religion, hath been always the ſame in ſubſtance, tho at different times God hath given ſome different precepts, and preſcribed different ways of worſhip unto his Church. In that anſwer of his to the Heathen, theſe words are Remarkable. But (ſays ††Quid autem qnando fiat quod ad unam eandem que fidelium & piorum liberationem pertineat, comilium Deo tribuamus, nobis obedientiam teneamus. Aug. Deo gratias, Epiſt. 49.Auſtin) as to what is to be done, and when every thing is to be done, that pertains or conduces unto one and the ſame ſalvation of Faithful and Godly men, let us aſcribe Counſel unto God, and take obedience to our ſelves. i. e. Let us leave it to God to Determine that matter by his wiſe Counſel; and let us know that it is our duty to obey his orders and to obſerve his precepts; as he gives them out unto us. And without going upon this ground with the Learned and Holy Auſtin, we ſhall never be able to give a ſolid ſatisfactory anſwer, to the foreſaid objection of Infidels againſt the truth of our Chriſtian Religion. And there is no cauſe at all to fear, that our granting now different precepts, to have been given to the Church at different times, will any wiſe impeach the wiſdom and unchangeableneſs of God: Becauſe as the Ancient Author of the Queſtions and Anſwers to the Greeks, (which are amongſt the works of Juſtin Martyr) **foreign Quaeſt. & Reſponſ. ad Graecos inter Opera, Juſt. Maryr. edit. Pariſ. 1636. pag. 205.ſays excellently well in another (what is applicable to this) caſe. [God will reſtore the Creation, and bring it into a better ſtate by renewing it,—that he may purge it from all that abſurdity which hath befallen it, through the ſluggiſhneſs of rational beings. Not that by judicious Conſideration and looking further into things, he doth afterwards find out that which is better than what he did at firſt; but becauſe long before, and even before the Creation of the World, he had decreed to do it. For it is not poſſible that afterwards any thing can be added either to the knowledge or power of God, which he had not before. So much for Anſwer to his Second main objection.

(3.) His 3d Objection is in pag. 44. where he argues thus. Chriſt obeyed the Law, and therein fulfilled all Righteouſneſs, therefore the Law was perfect, ſince it was the rule of the moſt perfect obedience that ever was, and which excelled that of Angels. Anſw. Whom doth this Brother diſpute againſt here? For my part, I do not know any of us that oppoſeth this. I am ſure if he underſtands the Apology which he writes againſt, he cannot but p. 100know that it is not denied but affirmed there, that the Law is perfect, and requires moſt perfect ſinleſsly perfect obedience, and that under pain of Death Eternal. See pag. 200. 201. of the Apology.

(4.) His 4th objection is, Ibid. pag. 44. That if the Law be perfect, then it wants no precepts, but it enjoyns every duty under the ſevereſt penalties. I Anſwer, that as the Law is moſt perfect in its kind, ſo indeed it wants not any one precept that belongs to it. But becauſe it wants not one precept that belongs to it, will Common ſenſe ſuffer a Man to infer that therefore it hath in it all precepts, that do not belong to it. Mr. G. ſpeaks here of the Law that Chriſt was under, and of the Law as it was, when Chriſt was under it in his State of Humiliation. Now I will name one precept which the Law that Chriſt obeyed and fulfilled, had not then in it, and that was the precept recorded in Gen. 2.17. Of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Our bleſſed Lord moſt perfectly obeyed the Law that he was under. And yet he did not obey that particular precept of not eating the ſaid Fruit. If it be ſaid, that he did not diſobey that precept, therefore he obeyed it. I deny the Conſequence; obeying and diſobeying are not Contradictories, but contraries, and there is a medium or mean between them: And the mean was this, that our Lord Chriſt did neither obey nor diſobey that precept, of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge: Becauſe as it may be, there was no ſuch Tree or Fruit then in the World, ſo it is certain there was then no ſuch precept forbidding Chriſt, or any Man elſe to eat of the Fruit of that Tree; it was at firſt but a Temporary precept, and its obligation had ceaſed, and was utterly gone, long before the Son of God was made of a woman, made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. Now where ſuch a precept doth not at all oblige, there is no place either for obedience or diſobedience to the ſaid precept. I grant it to be a moſt certain truth that our Lord Chriſt ſuffered Death, the penalty threatned againſt Man for diſobeying that, and the other precepts; but it doth not at all follow from thence, that Chriſt either obeyed or diſobeyed that poſitive Temporary precept. He moſt perfectly obeyed every precept of any Law that he was under, and ſo fulfilled all Righteouſneſs: His Obedience alſo was equivalent, yea in reſpect of its worth ariſing from the infinite Dignity of his Perſon, it was more than equivalent to all the Obedience which Mankind ſhould have performed to that and all other precepts; and yet for all that, it doth not follow that Chriſt in humane nature obeyed that precept, which was not then in rerum natura, ſo as to oblige any Man to obedience. The perfect Law then which Chriſt moſt perfectly obeyed, wanted the foreſaid precept, and yet it was perfect, becauſe it had all the precepts that belonged to it, and wanted only that which did not belong to it. Further, ſince my R. B. Speaks here of the Moral Law, it is freely granted and always was believed by me that it wants none of its own precepts, and that by its own precepts it enjoyns every duty, In that way which God intended it ſhould enjoyn every duty. Thoſe duties which fall under its precepts without any ſupernatural Revelation intervening, and without any poſitive precept ſuperadded to the Law of Nature, it enjoyns and Commands by it ſelf immediately: But there are other duties which do not fall under its precepts, without a ſupernatural Revelation, and alſo without ſome poſitive precepts ſuperadded to the Law of Nature; and ſuch duties, it doth not enjoyn and Command by it ſelf immediately; but only mediately and by means of the ſaid poſitive precepts, which do firſt in order of nature enjoyn and command the ſaid duties; and then the Moral Law enjoyns alſo and commands p. 101the ſame duties, by obliging us to obey the poſitive precepts which firſt in order of nature, require and enjoyn them. Thus, as hath been ſhewed, the Moral natural Law enjoyns and commands Faith in Chriſt, the Mediator, for Juſtification by his Righteouſneſs only; and Evangelical Repentance as a means to diſpoſe and quality us for obtaining the pardon of our ſins through Faith in Chriſts blood. It doth not by it ſelf immediately, require ſuch Faith and Repentance of all, without exception, that are under it: For then it would have required them alſo of Chriſt, who was made under the Law, Gal. 4.4. It would have obliged the Mediator Chriſt Jeſus, to have believed in Chriſt for Juſtification; and to have repented Evangelically for obtaining the pardon of his ſins, through Faith in his own Blood: Which is abſurd and blaſphemous to aſſert: But it (ro wit the Moral Law) requires Faith and Repentance of all that are under it, mediately only, by means of the poſitive precepts of the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace, as hath been before explained and proved. But now ſo it is that the poſitive precepts of the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace, which require Faith in Chriſt the Mediator for Juſtification, and Evangelical Repentance as a means to diſpoſe and prepare us, for obtaining pardon of ſin; were not given unto Chriſt himſelf, to oblige him thereby to believe in himſelf for Juſtification, and Evangelically to repent for pardon of ſin. And therefore the natural Moral Law which he was under, and perfectly obeyed, did not oblige him unto Juſtifying Faith, and Evangelical Repentance, as duties incumbent upon him, and to be performed by him in his own perſon. Thus we give (upon our principles) a clear account how our Lord Chriſt perfectly obeyed the Law, and yet was under no obligation at all to believe in himſelf for Juſtification, nor to repent for pardon of ſin; whereas it ſeems Mr. G. on his Principles, muſt either hold that Chriſt ſo believed in himſelf and repented; or elſe that he tranſgreſſed the perfect Law of God, by not ſo believing and repenting: Neither of which can be granted without the greateſt abſurdity Imaginable. If he ſhould here ſay, That I my ſelf have granted that the moral natural Law obliges all that are under it to a Legal Repentance. But Chriſt himſelf was under it; and then it will follow, That he was obliged to a Legal Repentance; which is as bad as to hold, That he was obliged to an Evangelical Repentance. I could eaſily anſwer him, That he quite miſtakes the matter. I never ſaid, That the Law of Nature doth abſolutely and actually oblige all that are under it to a Legal Repentance; but only that it ſo obliges all mankind that are ſinners, and upon ſuppoſition that they be ſinners. But now, our moſt holy Lord Jeſus was no ſinner, nor is it poſſible that he could be a ſinner; Therefore he neither was, nor could poſſibly be obliged to a Legal Repentance of his ſins. My R. B. will not own himſelf to be an Antinomian, and therefore I do not ſay that he holds with ſome of that Sect, that Christ believed for us with a Juſtifying faith, and repented for us, with an Evangelical Repentance, in that he perfectly kept the Moral Law, which by it ſelf immediately requires ſuch Faith and Repentance of all that are under it: Only I deſire him to guard againſt that Conſequence; and look well to it that it be not the natural off-ſpring of his beloved Opinion. If any man ſhould be ſo weak as to queſtion, How we can obtain pardon of the ſinful Defects of our Juſtifying Faith, and Evangelical Repentance, if Christ did not ſo believe and repent for us? I anſwer very eaſily, That we obtain pardon of the ſinful Defects of our Faith and Repentance, in conſideration of Chriſts meritorious and ſatisfactory Obedience unto death, even the death of the Croſs.

p. 102His 5th Objection is, ibid. p. 44. That the Moral Law, by its firſt Precept, commands us to believe in God, but Chriſt is God. This Argument he ſeems to lay great ſtreſs on, and yet it may be eaſily anſwered. For making this appear, we muſt diſtinguiſh between what the firſt Precept of the Moral Law, by it ſelf immediately, commands us to do, and what it commands us to do only by vertue of a ſupernatural Revelation intervening, and by means of a poſitive Goſpel-Precept, ſuperadded to the Law of Nature. This Diſtinction applied, clears the Matter, and anſwers the Argument; Thus: The firſt Precept of the Moral Law, by it ſelf immediately commands us to believe in God only. The major Propoſition, in this ſenſe, is true, but then the minor Propoſition is falſe. It is falſe, That Chriſt is God only; For he is not only God, but Man alſo. He is God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men, 1 Tim. 2.5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Chriſt Jeſus. And then the Concluſion is falſe, taken (as it ought to be) in the ſame ſenſe, in which the Major propoſition is true. It is falſe that the firſt Precept of the Moral Law by it ſelf immediately, without the Intervention of a Supernatural Revelation, and the ſuperadition of a poſitive Goſpel precept, Commands us to believe in Chriſt the Mediator, for Juſtification by his Righteouſneſs imputed to us. It is one thing to believe in God conſidered ſimply as God, and only God; and it is another thing to believe in Chriſt for Juſtification, conſidered not ſimply as God, or only as God; but conſidered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men. The firſt Command by it ſelf immediately requires faith in God, ſimply conſidered as God, and only God, and Chriſt being really and truly God, I have granted and do grant, that the firſt Commandment by it ſelf immediately doth require faith in him, conſidered only as God; which yet is not a Juſtifying faith as ſuch. But then Chriſt being not only God, but Man alſo; he being God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men, I deny that the firſt Commandment by it ſelf immediately requires faith in him, as ſuch▪ i. e. as God-Man for Juſtification; and I affirm that its only mediately, that it requires Juſtifying faith in him as God-Man. So that as I have often ſaid it is the ſupernatural Revelation with the poſitive precept of the Goſpel-Covenant, that immediately and first in order of nature obliges us to believe with a Juſtifying faith in Chriſt, God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men. According to that, Exod. 23.20, 21. Behold, I ſend an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provo…e him not; for he will not pardon your tranſgreſſions; for my Name is in him. See Deut. 18.15.18, 19. and Mat. 17.5. Behold a voice out of the Cloud, which ſaid, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed; hear ye him. In theſe Scriptures we have both a ſupernatural Revelation of the Eternal word and Son of God, Deſigned to be Mediator, and Actually mediating between God and Men; and alſo a poſitive Goſpel precept to believe in him; and it is by means of the ſaid Supernatural revelation and poſitive precept, that the firſt Commandment of the Moral natural Law obliges us to believe in Chriſt the Mediator with a Juſtifying faith: And the granting that the Moral Law doth thus require faith in Chriſt the Mediator, in as much as it obliges us to believe all ſupernatural Revelations which God makes known unto us, and to obey all poſitive Commands which he at any time lays upon us; is ſo far from making againſt the Goſpels having any poſitive precepts belonging to it; that on the contrary it plainly makes for the Goſpels having ſuch precepts, ſince it is by means of ſuch precepts, or precept that the Moral natural Law doth oblige Men to believe in Chriſt with a Juſtifying faith. And p. 103the ſame I have ſaid and do ſtill ſay, of Evangelical Repentance, as a means of qualifying and diſpoſing Sinners for obtaining the pardon of their ſins by Faith in Chriſt. And here I may ſtop, and need not to go one ſtep further, in anſwering what he further Writes in his Seventh Chapter, to prove that the Moral Natural Law commands Faith and Repentance: for what I have ſaid already, doth ſufficiently anſwer whatever in it doth really militate againſt me. Moſt of it is altogether impertinent, as where he ſtrenuouſly proves what is not denyed, but was plainly owned and aſſerted in the Apology, that the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God, and a legal Repentance, of all the ſinful Race of Mankind, that have the uſe of their Reaſon, and can diſcern between Good and Evil, The reſt of it contains a meer non ſequitur, and is nothing but a drawing of conſequences violently againſt the hair, as that becauſe the Moral Natural Law, of it ſelf, requires a Legal Faith and truſt in God, and a Legal Repentance for Sin; therefore it ſo requires a Juſtifying Faith in Chriſt the Mediator, and an Evangelical Repentance for pardon of ſin; which doth not at all follow, as I have ſhewed and proved at large, and have no obligation on me to do it over again. I am ſenſible that my following him to lay open his Impertinences and Inconſequent Reaſonings, hath already neceſſitated me to repeat too often the ſame things. I muſt therefore reſtrain my ſelf from purſuing him any further as I have done, and endeavour to come unto a ſpeedy cloſe of what is neceſſary to be ſaid on this Head, concerning the Precepts that belong to the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace: And, in order to this, there is no more needful to be done, but that (1.) I deſire the Reader carefully to attend unto a few things, which will be uſeful to preſerve him from being impoſed upon. (2.) That I put my R. B. in mind of ſome of his Miſtakes.

Firſt then, I deſire the Reader, that he may not be impoſed upon, to attend carefully to theſe few things. (1.) Whereas Mr. G. perpetually Talks of a New Law, and induſtriouſly labours to make People believe, that I hold the Goſpel to be a New Law of Duties, by and for which we are to be Juſtified and Saved: I declare that this is a groſs miſtake (to ſay no worſe of it) for I do not ſay that the Goſpel is ſimply a New Law, but with this mollifying reſtriction, that it is a Law of Grace, or a New Law of Grace: So I ſay often in the Apology. And the reaſon of my ſaying ſo, 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 p. 104the 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 p. 105his 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 the ſame, (Chriſt being God) and all the difference is only made by that which is the Circumſtance (tho a deplorable one) of our own perſons. This is another great miſtake, for the object of faith in God before the fall, is not altogether the ſame, with the object of Juſtifying faith in Chriſt the Mediator, ſince the fall. And the object not being the ſame, the Act of faith is not the ſame, but is different in proportion to the difference of the object. Moreover as the objective cauſe, ſo the efficient cauſe is different; for the Medicinal Grace of Chriſt, which is the efficient cauſe of Juſtifying faith ſince the fall, is of a different nature from that Grace of God, as the Author of innocent nature, thereby Man was enabled to believe in God before the **See Rutherford's Covenant of Life opened, p. 49. lin. 16, 17.fall. And ſeeing Juſtifying faith in Chriſt, ſince the fall, hath both a different efficient cauſe, and a different object together with a different habitude unto its object; it ſeems to be ſpecifically diſtinct from the faith which Adam had in God before the fall: For the different ſpecification of Acts ariſeth from the difference of the efficient cauſe, and object of the ſaid Acts, and from the different way of their being converſant about their reſpective Objects. It is not a meer different Circumſtance of our Caſe ſince the Fall, that cauſeth the difference of our Juſtifying Faith now, from the Faith of Adam then, before the Fall: But it is, (1.) The Difference of the Efficient Cauſe, or of that ſpiritual influence of Grace which cauſeth our Juſtifying Faith in Chriſt the Redeemer. (2.) It is the difference of the Object, which is not now God formally and ſimply conſidered as God the Creator and Preſerver and Ruler of innocent Nature; but nextly and immediately it is Chriſt conſidered as God-Man, and Mediator between God and Men, and ultimatly, it is God Juſtifying penitent believers by and for the alone Righteouſneſs of Chriſt.

(3.) It is the difference of our Faith, its Habitude and Relation from ſuch a different Cauſe to ſuch a different Object. Theſe Three differences are ſufficient p. 106to make a different faith; but it doth by no Logick follow from hence, that every difference of Circumſtance, in the ſame ſtate of lapſed Nature, ſince the firſt Apoſtacy, would make our Faith in Chriſt to be of a different Nature and Kind. Now our Juſtifying Faith being thus different from the Faith of Adam before the Fall, it may very well, and it really doth fall under a different poſitive Precept, ſuch as that, Acts 16.31. And yet I never denied but that the firſt Commandment of the moral natural Law, doth alſo require this Faith, but it doth not require it after the ſame manner, as the poſitive Precept of the Goſpel requires it.

(4.) Fourthly, Whereas from page 48, to 54. he endeavours to prove, That becauſe the natural Moral Law obliges all men to a natural Legal Repentance, therefore it doth alſo of it ſelf immediately oblige them to an Evangelical Repentance; and that this it doth ſo as that there is no Poſitive Precept of the Goſpel which requires of Chriſtians, and obliges them unto the ſaid Evangelical Repentance. In all his Diſcourſe there, he groſly miſtakes in drawing his Conſequence, which doth not come naturally, but is forcibly drawn againſt the clear Evidence of Scripture, as I have proved before; And therefore I utterly deny his Conſequence; and affirm on the contrary, That over and beſides the moral natural Law, there are Evangelical Precepts belonging to the New Covenant, or Law of Grace, which requires of us an Evangelical Repentance, conſidered under this formal Notion, as ariſing from the perſwaſion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truly penitent, and as a means to prepare and diſpoſe us for pardon, and as having pardon enſured to it by Promiſe through Chriſt. To ſuch a Repentance thus conſidered, the moral natural Law doth not by it ſelf immediately oblige us; and yet it was never denied by us, but that mediately it doth oblige us to it, in as much as it obliges us to obey the Poſitive Precepts of the Goſpel, which require ſuch a Repentance of men to whom the Goſpel is Preached.

(5.) Fifthly, Whereas he ſays in page 51. That the moral natural Law, not only urgeth the unregenerate to Repentance, but alſo moveth them to build their hopes of Life upon it. That is a very groſs and dangerous miſtake. For it is a great ſin for unregenerate men (or indeed any men whatſoever) to build their hopes of life upon their Repentance; ſurely then the holy Law of God doth not move them to it, otherwiſe it ſhould move them to ſin; which is falſe, and borders upon Blaſphemy. The Truth is, The Law of God doth not move men to any ſuch Thing, it rather moves ſinners to deſpair of ever obtaining life by and for their Repentance, or any thing they do, or can do: And ſince, as Mr. G. ſays, p. 51. The Goſpel inſtructs us to put our whole and entire confidence in Christ and his Righteouſneſs alone]. Where the Light of the Goſpel i… ſuperadded to that of the Law, there the Law is a School-Maſter to bring men to Chriſt; and Objectively moves them not to ſeek nor hope for Juſtification and Salvation on the Account of any thing done by Themſelves; but rather to ſeek and hope for life and ſalvation only in Chriſt, and on the alone account of his Righteouſneſs and Death.

Thus I have refuted his firſt grand Aſſertion, which he takes ſo much pains to prove in his Seventh Chapter, That the Goſpel hath no precepts, and requires no obedience. I have ſhew'd that it hath precepts, and requires duty and obedience of all thoſe unto whom it is Preached, and have anſwered his objections againſt the truth revealed in the ſacred Scriptures, and believed by the faithful Orthodox Miniſters, and People of the Lord in all the Ages of the Church.