Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 1
Remarks on the First Chapter of Mr. Thomas Goodwin's Diſcourſe of the Goſpel.
THIS Reverend Brother in his Firſt Chapter, Pages 4, 5. States the Controverſie, and in ſo doing; Firſt ſaith, That if by the Goſpels being a New Law, is meant a Doctrine of Grace newly revealed after the Covenant of Works was broken, wherein God hath declared in what order and manner he will ſave guilty condemned Sinners, it is preſently granted, and the Controverſie is at end.
To which I Anſwer, That if he will grant, that God in the Goſpel hath not only declared the Order and Manner of his own acting in ſaving Sinners; but alſo that he hath declared and preſcribed to us, the Order and Manner of our acting, in ſubordination to his Grace, for obtaining our own Salvation through Chriſt; and likewiſe that the Order preſcribed to us, is a Conditional Order, with reſpect to the ſubſequent Bleſſings of the Covenant; then we declare here, as we did declare before in our Apology, that we mean no more by the Goſpels being a new Law of Grace. But he denyes that the Lord in the Goſpel hath preſcribed any Conditional Order to be obſerved by us. And therefore ſaith; (Secondly,) What is denyed is this, That the Goſpel is a Law commanding new Precepts as Conditions of obtaining its Bleſſings, and Eſtabliſhed with a Sanction, promiſing Life and Happineſs to the obſervance of them, and threatning the neglect. Anſwer, I know no Man that ever affirmed what this Reverend Brother here denyes. A Law commanding New Precepts, is a Phraſe peculiar to Mr. Goodwin, and with my conſent, he ſhall have the honour of being the firſt Inventer and Authour of it. For my part, though I have heard of a Law commanding new Duties, yet do I not remember that I have heard before of a Law commanding new Precepts; for Precept and Commandment being all one, a Law commanding new Precepts, is a Law commanding new Commandments. I thought the Commandments themſelves had not been the Object, or if you will, the ſubject matter of the Commandments themſelves; but that the Duties Commanded had been the Object or Subject matter of the Commandments. But we let that paſs, the thing which is moſt material, is that he imagines his Adverſaries do hold that the Precepts of the Goſpel Law, are the conditions of obtaining its Bleſſings. Now this is ſuch a wild fancy, that I doubt whether ever it came into a Mans head that was awake, and in the free exerciſe of his Reaſon; How then it comes to be in this Reverend Brothers Book, and that in the very ſtating of the Controverſie, I do not underſtand: But ſure I am, that I, nor any of my Reverend Brethren that I know, do not hold the Goſpel to be a Law in that ſenſe. We do with all our hearts joyn with Mr. Goodwin, in denying, that the Precepts of the Goſpel are Conditions of obtaining its Bleſſings. What we ſay is, That God hath made the performing of the Duties required by the Precepts of the Goſpel Law, to be the Condition of obtaining its Subſequent Bleſſings; and that not for the ſake of the performance, or of the Duties performed, but for the ſake of Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs according to the promiſe. Thirdly, In ſtating the Controverſie he denies that the Goſpel Law of Grace, or Covenant of Grace has any Sanction either promiſſory of Life and Happineſs unto thoſe who perform the condition, or minatory of puniſhment to thoſe who neglect it. Now here I muſt differ from him, and affirm what he denyes; But (1.) I affirm it with this difference between the promiſſory and minatory Sanction, That the Goſpel primarily and principally promiſeth its ſubſequent Bleſſings and Benefits to thoſe who perform its Condition; and doth but ſecondarily threaten Puniſhments againſt thoſe who neglect to perform it; deſigning thereby to reſtrain Men from the ſin of not performing the Condition, and to bind them over to puniſhment only on ſuppoſition that they do not performe the condition. (2.) I affirm that though the Goſpel promiſe Life and Happineſs unto thoſe who perform its Condition, yet it doth not promiſe it preciſely for the performance ſake, but only for the ſake of Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs; as it threatens puniſhment unto thoſe who neglect to perform the Condition; and that for the very neglect of performing it. Heb. 2.3. Epheſ. 5.6. Col. 3.6.
Some, I am afraid, will be apt to think that Mr. Goodwins ſtumbling on the Threſhold at his firſt ſetting out, and miſtating the Controverſie, is a bad Omen for him.
Then in paſſing from his Firſt to his Second Chapter; he promiſes firſt to ſhew that it was little to my purpoſe to catch eagerly at the Word law, whereever I could meet with it in the Scripture, or in the Writings of Men. Anſw. By this it is plain he did not conſider nor underſtand what my purpoſe was. For it is as clear as the light at Noon day, that my purpoſe was to ſhew that the Accuſer of the Brethren, who charged us with Novelty in calling the Goſpel Covenant, a new Law of Grace was groſly miſtaken, and that in confidently affirming againſt us, that [New Law of Grace is a New Word, but of an Old and Ill meaning, he bore falſe Witneſs againſt his Brethren, and aſſerted a notorious falſehood in matter of Fact. This was my purpoſe and deſign, as manifeſtly appears from the Apology. p. 24. And it being ſo, I appeal to all Men of common ſenſe and reaſon, if they have but common honeſty alſo, whether it was not very much to my purpoſe, to prove by Scripture, and by Teſtimonies of Ancient Orthodox Chriſtians, and Modern Proteſtant Divines, that Law, and New Law of Grace, applyed to, and affirmed of the Goſpel or Covenant of Grace, were not new words of an old and ill meaning. And yet I needed not eagerly to catch at the word Law, for it occurs ſo frequently in Ancient Writings, that a Man who reads them cannot avoid meeting with it; it offers it ſelf to him almoſt at every turn. And now Mr. G. joyns with us againſt our Accuſer, and doth further prove him to have been groſly miſtaken, by ſhewing that New Law of Grace, is not a new word, but of an old ill meaning: On the contrary he demonſtrates it to be an old word, but pretends that now amongſt us, it hath a new and ill meaning. By this the People may ſee (if they will but open their Eyes) how well the Teſtimonies of our two Brethren againſt us, do agree; The firſt ſaith, that New Law of Grace, is a New Word, of an old, but ill meaning; The Second who comes to defend him and enforce his Charge againſt us, ſaith that New Law of Grace is an Old Word of a New but Ill meaning. But it ſeems however contrary to one another their Teſtimonies are, yet they muſt be both believed to be true againſt us: For neither of theſe Brethren will confeſs that they were mi…taken, and have done us wrong. No, they are both in the right; tho' the one ſay, That New Law of Grace, is a New word of an old meaning; and the other ſaith, That it is an Old Word of a new meaning. But it may be, ſome will reply, That they both agree at leaſt that it is a word of an ill-meaning. Anſw. True, But (1.) For all that agreement, they yet refute one another. For the firſt Accuſer ſaith that the old meaning is ill; but Reverend Mr. Goodwin maintains that the old meaning of the Word is good, and pretends that the new only is ill. (2.) If theſe two Brethren do not agree about the word it ſelf, whether it be old or new; but the one ſaith, it is new, and the other ſaith it is old, and therefore one of them muſt needs be miſtaken; we have more reaſon to believe that they are miſtaken about the meaning of the word, and in ſaying, that is a word of an ill meaning; becauſe it is much more difficult to know what is the true or falſe, right or wrong meaning of a word, then to know the word it ſelf, whether it be lately invented, or hath been of very ancient uſage in the Chriſtian Church.