Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 2
Remarks on the Second Chapter.
IN this Chapter he diſcourſeth of the various ſignification of the word Law, and affirms that the word Law in the Old Teſtament uſed for the Goſpel, ſignifies no more than a Doctrine,: To which I Anſwer, (1.) That I freely grant, and never yet denyed, that the word Law is capable of a various meaning, nor did I in the Apology from the bare ſound of the Word, abſtractly conſidered, ſo much as ſeem to argue for one particular determinate Senſe, excluſive of all others. I only ſay, p. 22. that our Brethren ſhould not diſlike our calling the Goſpel-Covenant, a Law, becauſe the Scriptures of Truth call it ſo expreſly. And this Mr. Goodwin doth now confeſs to be true. Likewiſe p. 24. from the Apoſtles calling it, the Law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. and ſaying that it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, Rom. 4.16. I argue that he hath in effect, and by implication called it the Law of Grace. And that therefore we are no Innovators in calling it ſo after him. (2.) Mr. G. can never prove that becauſe the word Law is of a various ſignification, and ſometimes ſignifies a Doctrine, that therefore when it is uſed for the Goſpel, it ſignifies nothing but a Speculative Doctrine or Narrative requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. (3.) What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons, to prove that the Hebrew word foreign Torah, which is rendred Law, ſignifies any inſtruction given us, not only by the Precepts, but the Promiſes of God, is wholly impertinent, and makes nothing againſt me. For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace, is inſtructive both by Precept and Promiſe. Hence I ſay in the Apology, p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law, which makes rich offers of Grace, of Juſtifying and Glorifying Grace, &c. And again a little after, that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace; it is that part of the Covenant of Grace, which reſpects the way of God's diſpenſing to us the ſubſequent Bleſſings and Benefits of the Covenant, ſuch as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation. —Briefly, As it is a Law of Grace to us: it is that part of the Covenant which preſcribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part; and which promiſes us Pardon and Life for Chriſt's ſake alone, when we through Grace perform the Condition; and therefore it muſt needs be very inſtructive both by Precept and Promiſe. (4.) What Mr. G. often ſays that the Goſpels being called a Law, ſignifies no more but that it is a Doctrine; I utterly deny it in his ſenſe of the word Doctrine; nor doth foreign, Torah, its being derived from foreign Horah, prove any ſuch thing. Buxtorf, who underſtood the Hebrew as well as any Man in theſe latter Ages, tells us in his Lexicon, pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called foreign a Law [quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos, & noſtro officio erga Deum & proximum noſtrum doceat & erudiat.] Becauſe it inſtructs us, and teaches us Gods Will towards us, and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour. Thus Buxtorf. Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reaſon, then the Goſpel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God, is called a Law for the ſame reaſon, to wit, becauſe it teacheth us Gods Will towards us, and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour. Accordingly it is freely granted that the Goſpel Govenant is a Doctrine, and a Doctrine of Grace; but withal, it is to be alwayes remembred, that it is a Doctrine which not only promiſes gracious Benefits and Bleſſings on Gods part. but alſo requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part. Hence the Evangelical Prophet, Iſa. 2.3. ſaith, he [the Lord] will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. And proves what he had ſaid, by this reaſon, for out of Sion ſhall go forth the Law, &c.
Mr. G. confeſſes that by Law, here is meant the Goſpel; and then it follows that the Goſpel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways, not only the ways wherein he walks with us; but alſo the ways and paths wherein we walk with him. Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Goſpel, to be only the ways which the Lord himſelf walks in: He would have them to denote only the order which God hath conſtituted for himſelf to obſerve in juſtifying Sinners. But certainly that Interpretation is too ſhort, for the ways which God hath preſcribed unto us, to walk in; are called Gods ways in Scripture, (Gen. 18.19.) and he is alſo ſaid to teach them his People (Pſal. 86.11. and 119. ver. 32, 33 &c. John 6.45.) and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Chriſt for Juſtification and Salvation. And as Chriſt is the way unto the Father, ſo Faith is the way unto Chriſt. This the Goſpel Law, the Law of Faith teacheth us, this Faith, it preſcribes to us, and requires of us. (Acts 16.31.); and conſequently the Goſpel in being ſaid to be a Law, it is ſaid to be ſuch a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in ſuch a Doctrine as preſcribes to us ſome Means to be uſed and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace, that we may through Chriſt his Righteouſneſs and Interceſſion obtain the promiſed Bleſſings of Juſtification and Glorification. And this my Reverend Brother ſometimes hath Light to diſcern, and Freedom to confeſs in part, as in pag. 15. where he ſays, That according to the uſual Language of Gods word, to walk in Gods ways, is to obſerve his orders and appointments; the expreſſion here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him, and ſeek to be juſtifyed no otherwiſe than by Chriſt's Blood and Righteouſneſs, as the Law or Doctrine of the Goſpel preſcribes. Thus he. Now (1.) Concerning this ſeeking to be juſtifyed by Chriſt's Blood and Righteouſneſs only, which the Law or Doctrine of the Goſpel preſcribes, I demand of Mr. Goodwin, whether it be ſomething or nothing? If he ſay that it is nothing, Then (1.) The Law or Doctrine of the Goſpel preſcribes to us ſeeking, that is, it preſcribes nothing. And that is an odd way of preſcribing, to preſcribe, and yet to preſcribe nothing. (2) It is as odd a way of ſeeking, for to ſeek by doing nothing. But if to avoid this abſurdity, he ſay that ſeeking is ſomething; then I affirm that that ſomething, muſt be ſome Work or Act of the Soul: And if ſo, then we have what we deſire, to wit that the Goſpel is a Law. For he ſays that the Law or Doctrine of the Goſpel preſcribes ſeeking, and ſeeking is ſome Work or Act; therefore the Goſpel preſcribes ſome Work or Act. And what it preſcribes to us, unto that it obliges us, and ſo by neceſſary conſequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act, and by that means to ſeek Juſtification by Chriſt's Blood and Righteouſneſs only. (2ly.) It is further to be obſerved, That the ſeeking which the Goſpel Law preſcribes, is very comprehenſive, as the word (ſeeking) is uſed in the Scriptures of Truth. It is a word that ſignifies the diligent uſe of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing ſought. But ſo it is, that (as is proved in the Apology) the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be uſed on our part, for obtaining Juſtification by Chriſt's Blood and Righteouſneſs only. [Repentance is the means or condition diſpoſitive of the Subject (Man,) that he may be pardoned and juſtified by Faith in Chriſt's Blood, and Righteouſneſs only. And Faith is the only means inſtrumental, or Condition receptive and applicative of the object (Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs by and for which Object alone, Man is juſtified and pardoned.] And therefore the Goſpel-Law by preſcribing the foreſaid ſeeking, which ſignifies the diligent uſe of all appointed means to the end before mentioned, it preſcribes the exerciſe of Faith and Repentance: And ſo the Goſpel is a Law in a very true and good ſenſe, and that ſenſe the ſame which we affirmed it to be in our Apology. Whence it appears that my Reverend Brother has here yielded the cauſe, and is come over to our Camp, and if he would be conſiſtent with himſelf, here might be an end of the Controverſie about the Goſpels being a Law with reſpect to Juſtification. For aſſuredly, we mean no more than that it preſcribes ſeeking by Faith and Repentance, and chiefly by Faith as aforeſaid. And this is the commonly received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, as I proved in the Apology, and ſhall yet further prove it, if need be.
But he objects up and down his book, that if the Goſpel Covenant did preſcribe or require any work or works whatſoever, and did oblige us to any Duty, then it would be another Law of Works, and we ſhould ſtill be juſtified by Works. I Anſwer, By denying the Conſequence. Indeed it is true, That if the Goſpel require a Work or Duty, it requires a Work or Duty, for that is an Identical Propoſition, and no reaſonable Man hath ſo little Wit as to deny the Truth of it. But it is utterly falſe, that if the Goſpel require any Works then it is another Law of Works, in the Scripture-Senſe of the Word. For by Law of Works, the Scripture always means ſuch a Law, or Covenant of Works as would juſtifie a Man by and for his Works, if he had them, as he ought to have had them. But though the Goſpel require of us ſome works, yet it is no Law of Works; for it doth not require any Works, that we may be juſtifyed either in whole or in part by, and for thoſe Works as ſuch. Nor are we for them in the leaſt juſtityed at the Bar of God. They are not any of them, the leaſt part of that Rigateouſneſs by and for which we are juſtifyed. This we have declared and explained to fully and clearly in our Apology, that we cannot but wonder that any Chriſtian that is endued with Common Honeſty, and hath read and underſtood our ſaid Apology, ſhould perſiſt in accuſing us of holding Juſtification by Works▪ or in aſſerting confidently that it follows by good conſequence from our Principles. That conſequence, my Reverend Brother can never prove: For though Repentance be a Work yet is it not (according to our Principles) required by the Evangelical Law, as a Work to Juſtifie us, or as a Work for which we are to be juſtifyed in the leaſt degree, but only as a means or condition in the Subject (Man) to diſpoſe and prepare him for Juſtification by Faith only in Chriſt's Blood and Righteouſneſs. And again, Though Faith be a Work in it ſelf, yet doth not the Evangelical Law require it as a Work to be a part of that Righteouſneſs by and for which we are juſtifyed; but it requires Faith only as the Inſtrumental Means, or Condition by which we receive and apply to our ſelves▪ and alſo truſt to Chriſt and his ſatisfactory meritorius Righteouſneſs, as that by, and for which alone we are Juſtifyed before Gods Tribunal. Let Mr. G. try when he will, he ſhall find it impoſſible to prove from my Principles, as I have here truely and ſincerely ſet them down, that the Goſpel would be another Law of Works▪ and that we would be Justifyed by Works, if the Goſpel required Faith and Repentance as aforeſaid. I might with more appearance of reaſon prove from my R. B. Principle, That if Faith be required only by the Natural Moral Law, and if we be Juſtifyed by Faith, (as we certainly are,) and if Faith be a Work (as in its own Nature it certainly is;) then we are juſtifyed by a Work of the Natural Moral Law, and ſo are in tantum juſtifyed by the Law of Works; and look how he can anſwer this Argument drawn from his Principle; with as much facility (if not more) ſhall I anſwer his Sophiſme drawn from my Principle, That the Goſpel is a Law of Grace.
I need ſay no more to anſwer all he brings in his Second Chapter, but to declare, that as he ſays pag. 12. That all but Papiſts, Socinians, and Arminians harmoniouſly agree in explaining ſuch places (as call the Goſpel a Law) after ſuch a manner, as may not give the leaſt colour to the Opinion of the Goſpels being a Law, in the ſenſe of the three mentioned Parties; ſo I do entirely agree with them in that manner of explaining them, and do with them utterly reject the Popiſh, Socinian, and Arminian Senſe of the Goſpels being a New Law. But then it follows not, that the Goſpel is no New Law in any Senſe, becauſe it is not one in the Popiſh, Socinian, and Arminian Senſe. Our Authour in pag. 10. ſays the Goſpel is called a Law, but no otherwiſe than as it is a comfortable inſtruction to poor convinced Sinners what riches of Mercy there are in ſtore, and as it teacheth them how they may truſt and hope in the God of all Grace. But this is not true in his Excluſive Senſe, for beſides that, it is a Law as it teacheth how ſuch Sinners ſhould (ex officio) in point of Duty, truſtand hope in the God of all Grace through Jeſus Chriſt. In fine, Though in pag. 14. he mincingly ſay, That the word Judge, in Micah 4.3. may very well import no more, than that Chriſt will judge what courſe of Salvation is beſt for us to take, that he will determine the caſe; and it is better for us to acquieſce in the Deciſion of his Ʋnerring Judgment, which cannot be deceived, nor will ever miſlead us, than to purſue our own miſtaken apprehenſions, which bewilder us continually: Yet even this will ſufficiently evince that the Supernatural Goſpel-Revelation of that Judgment and Determination of Chriſt our Lord and Saviour, is a Law to us; for as ſoon as it comes to our knowledge, it doth of it ſelf immediately oblige us to acquieſce in his Judgment and Determination, and to take that courſe for Salvation, which he hath judged beſt for us to take. So that let Mr. G. ſhuffle never ſo much, he will never be able to avoid his being obliged by the Doctrine of the Goſpel immediately to believe in Chriſt, Matth. 17.5. and to take that courſe which he hath preſcribed in order to Salvation, Acts 16.31. I ſhall conclude my Animadverſions on this Second Chapter, with the Judgment of the Learned and Judicious Mr. Pool (who was neither Papiſt, Socinian, nor Arminian) as it is expreſſed in his Annotation on Iſa. 2.3. Out of Zion ſhall go forth the Law. [The New Law, the Doctrine of the Goſpel, which is frequently called a Law, becauſe it hath the Nature and Power of a Law, obliging us no leſs to the Belief and Practice of it, than the Old Law did.]