Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 5
Remarks on the Fifth Chapter.
THIS Chapter is one intire Impertinency grounded upon the beforementioned Miſtake, That I framed an Argument from the ſound of the Word Law, to prove the Goſpel to be a Real Law that obliges to Duty. For, (1.) All that I argued from the Goſpels being called a Law in Scripture, was that the Brethren ſhould not be offended with us for calling it by that Name, ſince the Lord himſelf in Scripture had ſo called it. (2.) From its being called a Law both by the Fathers, and Orthodox Proteſtant Divines, I argued that it is not a new word of an old, but ill meaning. And in both reſpects my arguing was cloſe and conſequential. But for its being a Law that preſcribes to us, and obliges us to ſome Duties in order to Goſpel-ends and purpoſes, That, I ſaid plainly enough, See Apol. p. 22.33.depends on the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, (for I affirmed it to be the conditional part of the Covenant) and I proved the Covenant to be Conditional with reſpect to its ſubſequent Bleſſings and Benefits. So that this Controverſie, whether the Goſpel be a Law of Grace or not, reſolves it ſelf into the queſtion, Whether the Covenant of Grace be Conditional, and whether it requires of us any Duty, with reſpect to its ſubſequent Bleſſing and Benefits. And my Reverend Brother will never do any thing to purpoſe againſt me in this Controverſie, unleſs he ſolidly and effectually prove (what is impoſſible to be proved,) That the Covenant of Grace is not at all Conditional and that it doth not require any Duty of us at all, in the foreſaid reſpect. And if he do that, he doth his Work indeed; but till that be done, he doth nothing to any purpoſe, and all his labour is loſt. And particularly his Labour is loſt in quoting Roman Authours, to wit, Iſodore, Paulus Merula, Briſonius, Juvenal, Ovid, Cicero, Papinian and Juſtinian, to prove that the word [Lex, Law.] hath various ſignifications, For this is proving what was not at all denyed in the Apology; nor was any other thing concluded from the bare Word its being found in Scripture, and in Ancient Authours, but that we may uſe the Word without juſt cauſe of offence, and that it is not a New Word of an old, but ill meaning.
To as little purpoſe doth he quote Cyprian, and Auguſtin, to ſhew, that by the word Law, they frequently mean no more than a Doctrine. For (1.) Suppoſe it were true that frequently they mean no more than a Doctrine in my Reverend Brothers Senſe, yet if they do ſometimes mean more by it, and particularly, If they mean more by 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.