Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 9
Remarks on his 9th Chapter.
MR. Goodwin's Deſign in this his laſt Chapter, is to make ſimple unlearned People believe, That our Opinion of the Goſpel's being a New Covenant, or Law of grace, which hath its own Commandments, and its own Promiſes and Threatnings, doth too much agree with the Popiſh, Socinian, and Arminian Opinion concerning the New Law. And it appears to be very dangerous to agree with them in that Opinion, Firſt, becauſe, as he ſays, The Papiſts do in that opinion, lay the ſureſt foundation for that dear Article of their Faith, the merit of works. Secondly, becauſe, the Arminians and Socinians do zealouſly eſpouſe it, as a moſt effectual engine to overthrow Juſtification by the imputed righteouſneſs of Chriſt. Whether this be altogether true or not is not my preſent buſineſs to enquire; if they really do what Mr. G. charges them with, they certainly do a very ill thing: And we are fo far from agreeing with them therein, that we utterly deteſt and abhor it. And as we ſaid in the Apol. p. 39. So we ſay again, that To affirm that we agree with Papiſts, Arminians, or Socinians in this or any other opinion, that lays a Foundation for the merit of works, and is an effectual Engine to overthrow Juſtification by the imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. is as falſe, as any thing that ever came out of the mouth of the Father of lies. Since then we never hold the Goſpel to be a New-Law, in the ſenſe that Papiſts, Arminians, and Socinians, hold it to be a New-Law, to wit which lays a Foundation for the merit of works, and is an Engine to overthrow Juſtification by the imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; His many citations out of Popiſh-Schoolmen, and ſome out of Socinus and Epiſcopius, are utterly impertinent to prove our agreement with them in their Erroneous Doctrines.
I adviſe therefore my R. brother to forbear aſſerting, or inſinuating ſuch things for the future. He thereby doth himſelf more hurt, than he can poſſibly do unto us; for thoſe that know both him and us, will never believe any ſuch thing of us, upon his Teſtimony concerning us. He blames me for being ſo liberal in beſtowing Titles of diſhonour upon thoſe who differ from me, as to call them Antinomians. But Reverend Sir, where do I in the Apol. call any that differ from me, Antinomians, but ſuch as are Antinimians, and moſt of them were ſo called by ſound Proteſtants, before I was born, or was capable of underſtanding any thing of theſe matters? As for the Congregational brethren, I am ſure that in the Apol. I was ſo far from calling them Antinomians, that I declared I did not ſo much as ſuſpect them to be Antinomians, and highly commended many of them for their zealous and vigorous oppoſing of Antinomianiſm. If any of the perſwaſion of our Reverend Brethren have fallen into Antinomianiſm, that is no diſhonour to them from whoſe Principles theſe Men are fallen, ſo long as they themſelves continue ſtedfaſt, and indeavour to reclaim ſuch as at any time fall into any Antinomian error. My R. brother knows well enough, that it was his good Friend the Informer and Accuſer, who neceſſitated us, in our own juſt vindication to mention thoſe Names of diſtinction, and without that neceſſity put upon us, he ſhould never have heard of ſuch Names from me. And for his declaring that he will brand me, with none of thoſe hated Names, Diſc. p. 74. I thank him for doing me juſtice, ſince he cannot charge me with any erroneous opinion either of Papiſts, Arminians, or Socininians, without doing me a manifeſt injury. And yet within the compaſs of ſix lines (after he had declared that he did not ſo much as think me to be on the ſide either of Papiſts, Arminians or Socinians) he undertakes Diſc. p. 74. to prove that the merit of works which I diſclaim, Is really included in my Hypotheſis. And his Argument to prove it, we have in theſe following words. [What is merit, but when the reward is due to ſome work done? Now if the Goſpel be in that reſpect a Law, that it requires duties as conditions of having a claim to its bleſſings, and promiſes them to the performance of thoſe conditions, then to them performed, tho of never ſo little conſideration, the bleſſings muſt be given, not as the fruits of meer Grace, but as the reſult of a juſt debt.] This is his Argument whereby he would, prove that the Doctrine of merit, is included in my Hypotheſis: It may be he learned this Argument from the Papiſts, when he was at Rome: but whether that be ſo or not, yet certain it is, that it is one of their poor Arguments for the Merit of Works, which they uſe againſt us; and our Proteſtant Divines have ſo often Anſwered it, and Baffled it, that Mr. G. might have been aſhamed to bring it again upon the Stage.
Alſted many years ago, brought in the Papiſts urging this Argument for Merit of Works, againſt Proteſtants, and he gave it a clear Anſwer. His Words are, *Vita aeterna promittitur bonis operibus, Matth. 19.17.29. 1 Tim. 4.8. Jac. 1.1…. at promiſſio facta cum conditione operis, facit ut qui opus impleverit, meruiſſe rem promiſſam, eamque ut mercedem jure ſuo exigere poſſe dicatur. R. (1.) Non recte hoc dicitur, quia quod redditur ex promiſſo, non redditur ex merito. aliud enim eſt, ſi dicam, debes hoc mihi, quia promiſiſti, et aliud, debes hoc mihi, quia dedi tibi, ſeu feci hoc tibi. — (3.) Promiſſione… illae quibus vita aeterna promittitur bonis operibus, non jus ſed poſſeſſionem vitae aeternae promittunt. Itaque bona opera non ſunt conditiones antecedentes cauſales & meritoriae ſed conſe quentes reſpectu Juris ad vitam aeternam, & praeparatoriae quantum ad ejus poſſeſſionem. Nam vita aeterna nobis debetur jure haereditatis, ſeu adoptionis filiorum Dei in Chriſto, quibus convenit ut vi vant vitam filiis dignam: Joh. Henr. Alſtedius in Turr. Babel deſtructa, p 248.Eternal Life is prmiſed to good Works, Matth. 19.17.29. 1 Tim. 4.8. Jac. 1.12. But a Promiſe made with a Condition of a Work, makes, that it may be ſaid, That he who hath done the work, hath Merited the thing promiſed, and may juſtly demand it as a due Reward.
Anſw. 1. This is not rightly ſaid, becauſe what is given only on the account of a Promiſe, is not given on the account of Merit: For, it is one thing to ſay, thou oweſt me this, becauſe thou haſt promiſed it; and it is another thing to ſay, thou oweſt me this, becauſe I have given unto thee, or done for thee that which is equivalent to it in worth and value—(3.) Thoſe Promiſes, whereby Eternal Life is promiſed to good works, do not promiſe the right unto, but the Poſſeſſion of Eternal Life. Therefore good works are not conditions antecedent, cauſal, and meritorious; but conſequent, in reſpect of the right to Eternal Life; and preparatory, in order to the poſſeſſion thereof. For Eternal Life is due to us by right of Inheritance, or Adoption of the Sons of God in Chriſt;whom it becomes to lead a life ſuitable to Sons.
And Eſſenius thus Anſwers the ſelf-ſame Objection of Bellarmin, in theſe following words: †Qui benè promiſit, promiſsis ſtare debet ratione fidelitatis, quae in juſtitiâ univerſali continetur: non tamen ſemper ratione juſtitiae particularis; neque promiſsio hoc efficit neceſſario, ut qui adjectam conditionem praeſtiterit, tem promiſſam tanquam mercedem ex debito, jure ſuo exigere poſſe dicatur. Quid ſi enim pauperi promiſerim, me ei daturum eleemoſynam, ubi me domi meae compellaverit; certè propter iſtam promiſſionem non deſinet eſſe eleemoſyna, neque fiet actus Juſtitiae particularis, aut retributio mercedis ex debito. Eſſen. Gonipond. Dogmat. cap. 15. de Juſtific. Theſ. 16. p. 563.He that hath rightly promiſed, ought to perform his Promiſe, in point of faithfulneſs, which is comprehended in univerſal Justice▪ but he is not always bound ſo to do, in regard of particular Juſtice. Nor is this the neceſſary effect of a Promiſe, that he who hath performed the condition annexed to the Promiſe, may be ſaid to have right to demand the thing Promiſed, as a reward due to him on the account of Juſtice. For what if I ſhould promiſe a poor Man that I will give him an Alms if he will come and call on me at my Houſe; ſurely that Promiſe will not make it ceaſe to be an Alms, nor will it, by reaſon of that Promiſe, become an act of particular Juſtice, or a Retribution of a Reward, as of due debt.] Thus Eſſenius Anſwered that Argument of Bellarmin for the Merit of Works; and Mr. G's Argument being in effect the very ſame, there need… no other Anſwer to be given unto it. And before he had ſo publickly made uſe of this poor Popiſh Argument, he ſhould have conſider'd the import of the Fifth Article of the 16th Chapter of our own Confeſſion of Faith, where it is ſaid expreſly, that [We cannot by our beſt works Merit Pardon of Sin, or Eternal Life at the hand of God, by reaſon of the great diſproportion that is between them, and the Glory to come, and the infinite diſtance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor ſatisfie for the debt of our former ſins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable ſervants; and becauſe as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with ſo much weakneſs, and imperfection, that they cannot endure the Severity of God's Judgment.] If my R. Brother had conſider'd, underſtood, and believed this part of the Confeſſion of Faith; he would never have taken it for granted, that Merit is nothing but the dueneſs of a reward to ſome work done. For, our Confeſſion of Faith teaches us, that many things are neceſſary to make a work Meritorious, beſides the Reward's being due to it. (1.) It is neceſſary that there be a proportion between the work done, and the bleſſing or reward promiſed. (2.) That there be not an infinite diſtance between Man the Worker, and God the Rewarder. (3.) That the Work done be profitable unto God for whom it is done. (4.) That before our Works can Merit the pardon of Sin, they muſt be able to ſatisfie God's Juſtice for the Debt of Sin. (5.) That our Works be not due to God, by vertue of his Command requiring them. (6.) That the Works be our own, done by our own ſtrength. (7.) That they be moſt perfect, and done as well as they ought to be. Theſe are the Conditions neceſſary to make a work Meritorious of pardon of ſin and Eternal Life. And if theſe things be ſo, What deſerves Mr. G's Queſtion (What is Merit, but when the reward is due to ſome work done?) but to be hiſſed at? And yet for his information, that he may hereafter know my Principles better than he ſeems to do, I tell him, that in my Judgment, to ſpeak ſtrictly, the Reward is not due to the VVork, nor to the VVorker for the VVork's ſake: and yet I hold the Reward to be due; But to whom, and for whom? I Anſwer, The Reward, to wit, of Eternal Life, it is due to the Penitent Believer, in whoſe heart Chriſt dwells by Faith, and it is due to him by the Promiſe of God, who is faithful and cannot lie; and it is due to him for the ſake of Chriſt, who, as he hath ſatisfied the Juſtice of God for all our ſins, ſo he hath Merited for us all the Bleſſings and Benefits of the New Covenant from firſt to laſt. Now this being my Hypotheſis, founded upon the VVord of God, and agreeable to our Confeſsion of Faith, as I have fully and clearly proved in the foreſaid Remarks on my Reverend Brother's Diſcourſe of the Goſpel, I refer it to all Men of Underſtanding, Sobriety, and Conſcience, to Judge whether this be true which he ſayes, That the Merit of VVorks is really included in my Hypotheſis. At laſt, being conſcious to himſelf that he can never prove that our Principle agrees with the Popiſh, Arminian, and Socinian Doctrines, as he had aſſerted in the Contents of his 9th Chapter; he gives over his Accuſing us Falſly, and concludes with Counſel and Advice to forbear ſuch Phraſes and Modes of Speech, as by the Enemies of the Goſpel are made uſe of to very ill purpoſes; and that is, to lay aſide the uſe of the words New Law. VVhereunto I Anſwer, That I am very willing to be Counſelled and Adviſed by thoſe that are wiſer than my ſelf; and though I remember ſomething of the Fox in the Apologue, yet I will agree with my Reverend Brother, that for my own part, I will forbear calling the Goſpel-Covenant, abſolutely and ſimply a New Law, without any Explicatory addition, provided (1.) That he, and his Friend, for whom he VVrites, will confeſs the Truth of that which I have proved, to wit, that it is a Notorious Falſhood in matter of Fact, that New Law of Grace, is a New VVord of an old Ill-meaning. Provided (2.) That as I ſhall not uſe the Adjective, New, when I call the Goſpel Covenant a Law, or, a Law of Grace; ſo he will himſelf uſe the word Law, and call the Goſpel by that Name, as the Scripture doth; and not be offended with us, for calling it a Law, and a Law of Grace, and for believing, with Mr. Pool, on Iſa. 2.3. that it is frequently called a Law, becauſe it hath the Nature and Power of a Law, &c. and with the Profeſſors of Leyden, that it is ſometimes called a Law, becauſe it hath alſo its own Commandments, and its own Promiſes and Threatnings. Provided alſo that he will, with us, believe the Goſpel to be a Law in the ſame ſenſe, as the Profeſſors of Leyden, and Mr. Pool held it to be a Law. (3.) Provided, that my agreeing not to uſe the Adjective New, when I call the Goſpel a Law, and a Law of Grace, ſhall not be conſtrued to ſuch a ſenſe, as if I thereby ſignified, that I account it unlawful to call the Goſpel a New Law, for I do not ſo account it; but on the contrary, I hold it very lawful to call the Goſpel a New Law, in the ſame ſenſe we call it a New Covenant. The Reaſons why I hold it lawful to call the Goſpel a New Law, are theſe; (1.) Becauſe tho the Phraſe be not wholly and Verbatim found in Scripture, yet it is not contrary to Scripture; yea, the one halfe of it, the No…n Subſtantive, Law, is expreſly in Scripture; and the other halfe is agreeable to Scripture, as joined to to the word Law, and is expreſly in Scripture as joyned with the equivalent word COVENANT. (2.) Becauſe the Ancient Fathers, in the beſt and pureſt times of the Church after the Apoſtles, do expreſly call the Goſpel-Covenant by the Name of the New Law. (3.) Becauſe many or our Reformed Divines, ſince the Reformation, have called the Goſpel a New Law. The Synod of Dort did ſo call it, with Approbation, as I have read in the Acts of the Synod. See Act. Synod. Dordrect. part. 2. p. 104. and Part 3. p. 124. and 139. and 208. —That excellent Perſon Mr. Hugh Binning, called the Goſpel a New Law, in his Sinners Sanctuary, on Rom. 8.2. p. 72. And Mr. Durham expreſly called it, The Law of Grace. Durham on the Revelation, Firſt Edit. p. 259. For theſe Reaſons I hold it very lawful to call the Goſpel a New Law. And yet if my Reverend Brother pleaſe, I will agree with him upon the termes, and with the proviſo's aforeſaid; to lay aſide the word New, and will content my ſelf with calling the Goſpel a Law, and a Law of Grace. But if he will not agree to the Termes and Conditions before-mentioned, then be it known to all Men whom it may concern, that it is no fault of mine that we are not agreed as to this matter; for I have offer'd to deny my ſelf the uſe of my juſt liberty for Peace ſake: and more I cannot do with a good Conſcience, and therefore through Grace will not do it. The Scriptures of truth often call the Goſpel a Law, and I have proved from Scripture, that it is a Law of Grace, therefore I believe it to be a Law, and a Law of Grace, a Law of Grace, that hath its own Commandments, and its own Promiſes and Treatnings; and as I believe, ſo I Speak and Write. I impoſe on no Man's Conſcience, and I hope no Proteſtant will ſeek to impoſe upon mine. I will not deny my inward beliefe of the Goſpel's being a New Covenant, or Law of Grace, but intend, through Grace, to live and die in the profeſsion of that Faith. But as for the uſe of the words New Law, ſimply, and without any addition of ſomething that may explain their meaning, I am content on the termes aforeſaid, to forbear it, as Beza deſired. But if my R. Brother do not agree to the Termes ment…oned, then I am at liberty, and will endeavour to uſe my liberty as Prudence and Charity ſhall direct, in calling, or not calling the Goſpel a New Law for though I can forbear calling it by that Name, yet I cannot believe nor ſay, that it is unlawful ſo to call it. I ſhall Conclude with the Teſtimony of Tertullian, who, in his Book of Preſcription againſt Hereticks, tells us, That in his Time (i. e. near Fifteen hundred years ago, and before the Roman Anti-Chriſt was born) It was a part of the Rule of Faith, or Creed, univerſally believed by all Orthodox Chriſtians, That Chriſt Preached the New Law and Promiſe of the Kingdom of Heaven; whereby Tertullian meant, the New Covenant of Grace, as that which requires Duty, and preſcribes Conditions unto Men; and promiſes Bleſsings and Benefits, for Chriſt's ſake, unto thoſe, who, through the Grace of the Spirit, perform the Duties and Conditions preſcribed, whereof the main and principal is Faith in Chriſt. This is evident, by what he Writes in his Book againſt the Jews, Chap. 1. p. 122. and Chap. 2. p. 125. and Chap. 6. p. 131. And in his Fourth and Fifth Books againſt Marcion, &c. Lib. 5. c. 3.
His words in his Book of Preſcription againſt Hereticks are as followeth: *Regula eſt autem fidei, ut jam—hinc quid defendamus profiteamur, illa ſcilicet qua creditur, unum omnino Deum eſſe, nec alium praeter mundi conditorem, qui univerſa ex nihilo produxerit per Verbum ſuum primo omnium emiſſum: id verbum Filius ejus appellatum in nomine dei varie viſum Patriarchis, in Prophetis ſemper auditum, poſtremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus, et ex ea natum hominem, et eſſe Jeſum Chriſtum: exinde praedicaſſe novam legem, et novam promiſsionem regni coelorum, virtutes feciſſe, fixum Cruci, tertia die reſurrexiſſe: in caeles ereptum ſediſſe ad dextram patris: miſiſſe vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat. venturum cum claritate ad ſumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae et promiſſorum coeleſtium fructum, et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriuſque partis reſuſcitatione cum carnis reſtitutione. Haec regul… a Chriſto ut probabitur inſtituta, nulla habet a pud nos quaeſtiones, niſi quas Haereſes inferun…, et quae Haereticos faciunt. Tertull. lib. de praeſcript. Adverſus Haereticos, p. 100. Edit. Baſil. 1550.But the Rule of Faith (that we may now hereby profeſs what we defend) is, that, to wit, whereby we believe that there is but one God, and that he is no other than the Creator of the World, who produced all things of nothing by his WORD, who firſt before all Creatures proceeded from him [or was begotten by him;] that that WORD called His Son, variouſly appeared to the Patriachs in God's Name, was always heard in the Prophets; and at laſt by the Spirit and Power of God, came upon the Virgin Mary, was made Fleſh in her Womb, and of her was Born a Man, and is Jeſus Chriſt: That afterwards he Preached the New Law, and New Promiſe of the Kingdom of Heaven, wrought Miracles, was Crucified, Roſe again from the Dead the third Day, and being taken up into Heaven, ſits at the Right-hand of God: That he ſent the Vicarious Power of the Holy Spirit, who might Influence and Guide thoſe who Believe; That he will come again in Glory to take up the Saints into the Poſſeſsion or Enjoyment of Eternal Life, and of the Heavenly Bleſſedneſs promiſed, and to Judge and Condemn the Prophane unto Eternal Fire, after he hath Raiſed up both Parties [to wit the Juſt and the Unjuſt] having reſtored their Fleſh or Bodies to them. This Rule being Inſtituted by Chriſt, as ſhall be proved, it admits of no Controverſies amongſt us Chriſtians, but thoſe which Hereſies Introduce, and which make Men Hereticks.]
FINIS.
End of the text · William Lorimer, Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel (1696)