Free Grace AND a Free Gospel. VII

VII: Is preaching the necessity of a holy life, in order to the obtaining of eternal happiness, of a dangerous consequence to the doctrine of free grace?
The Marrowmen carefully considered this query. "We cordially and sincerely own a holy life, or good works, necessary, as an acknowledgement of God's sovereignty, and in obedience to His command... For glorifying God before the world... As being the end of our election... As expressions of gratitude to our great benefactor... To testify our thanksgiving to our Lord Redeemer and Ransomer... for evidencing and confirming our faith..." and so on. That was how far they were from denying the necessity of good works. But at the same time they believed that it was extremely dangerous to speak of holiness without also speaking of salvation at the same time. That is to say that the Marrowmen preached Evangelical obedience, that the believer obeys out of thankfulness for salvation received.

VIII. Is the knowledge, belief, and persuasion, that Christ died for me, and that he is mine, and whatever he did and suffered, he did and suffered for me, the direct act of faith, whereby a sinner is united to Christ, interested in him, instated in God's covenant of grace? Or, is that knowledge a persuasion included in the very essence of that justifying act of faith?
The Marrowmen carefully stated that they believed this to be a true statement of the act of justifying faith. We believe the promises of the gospel, fixing on the Word as our warrant to believe.

IX. What is that act of faith by which a sinner appropriates Christ and his saving benefits to himself?
The Marrowmen just referred back to their answer to the previous query.

X. Whether the revelation of the divine will in the word, affording a warrant to offer Christ unto all, and a warrant to all to receive him, can be said to be the Father's making a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all mankind? Is this grant to all mankind by sovereign grace? And whether it is absolute or conditional?
The Marrowmen explained that God offers Christ to everyone in the gospels. The free offer of the gospel is, they said, based upon the fact that Christ is offered to all in the Bible (John 3.16). They quote Rutherford: "reprobates have as fair warrant to believe as the elect have." The grant is made to lost mankind in general. Yet this is not to be confused with the doctrine that Christ died for all. But the gospel promises are made to men, not as elect, but as lost sinners.

XI. Is the division of the law, as explained and applied in the Marrow, to be justified, and which cannot be rejected without burying several gospel truths?
The tripartite division of the law, they replied, is certainly to be defended (that is, into the moral, civil and ceremonial law). Yet the Marrow's distinction of the law as the law of works and as the law of Christ (that is, as a covenant and as a rule of life for believers) is extremely important. Unless this distinction is made, believers may fall into either antinomianism or legalism.

XII. Is the hope of heaven and the fear of hell to be excluded from the motives of the believer's confidence? And if not, how can the Marrow be defended, that expressly excludes them, though it should allow of other motives?
So long as heaven is properly represented as "a state of endless felicity in the enjoyment of God in Christ", then of course desire of heaven is a motive of obedience. But a freedom from the fear of hell is, "one of the special branches of that glorious liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free." Fear of God is a worthy motive of obedience for believers, but not fear of hell.

So the Marrowmen replied to their critics, hoping that such an explanation would persuade the Assembly to withdraw their condemnation of the Marrow. Next time (God willing) we shall see what the Assembly said in reply.