Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 3
Remarks on the Third Chapter.
IN the beginning of this Chapter, he doth me a manifeſt wrong, in ſaying, That I concluded, (but with no certainty) from the Goſpels being called a Law in the New Teſtament, that it is a Rule of Works, &c.) It is utterly falſe that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that, from the Goſpels being called a Law. He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology. All that I concluded from the Goſpels being called a Law either in the New or Old Teſtament, was that our Brethren ſhould not be offended with us, for calling the Goſpel a Law, ſince the Scripture calls it by that name. Apol. p 22.
Next, Againſt ſome Body, who from the Etymology of the Greek word foreign, a Law, had inferred that by it, is ſignifyed a Rule of Duty, enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence; he ſays, That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology. And if he knows this, why did he againſt his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of (foreign) Torah, and in his ſecond Chapter from the Derivation of (foreign) Torah from (foreign) Horah, which ſignifies, he teacheth, conclude with confidence that Torah, Law, when uſed for the Goſpel, ſignifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all. (2) Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter, p. 17. conclude that the Greek word foreign (when the Goſpel is named by it) ſignifies no more but ſuch a Doctrine as aforeſaid, becauſe the Septuagint render the word foreign, Torah, by foreign, as moſt fitting to expreſs ſuch a ſenſe. Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah, and conſequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty, by his own Confeſſion. But it ſeems that ſame way of arguing, which is of no force againſt our Brethren, muſt be eſteemed to be of great force againſt us, becauſe ſo is the Will and Pleaſure of this Reverend Brother. All the reſt of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Senſe of Gal. 2.19. which he had from Luther, and I do not doubt to make it appear, before we have done, that as Luther held the Goſpel to be a Law, ſo he held that the Goſpel-Law requires of us Faith in Chriſt, and Evangelical Repentance. And I am ſure that both Jerome and Primaſius, Two Ancient Fathers, who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul, I through the Law, am dead to the Law; as if he had ſaid, I through the Evangelical Law, am dead to the Old Law; I ſay I am ſure that both of them by the Evangelical Law, underſtood ſuch a Goſpel-Law as hath not only Promiſes, but alſo hath its own Precepts and Threatnings; as manife…ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13.
And having briefly hinted this, (That Jerome, Primaſius, and Luther, who all Three go one way, and there think to have found the Evangelical Law, yet did not by the Evangelical Law underſtand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all, neither Faith nor Repentance,) I might very well paſs over Mr. G's. fine flouriſh upon the Words of the Apoſtle, as not worth my taking any further notice of, had not he dropped ſeveral groſs falſehoods in giving his Senſe of that Text. As (1.) That the Error of the Galathians, againſt which Paul wrote, was that they held the Goſpel to be a New Law, Diſc. p. 18.in the ſame Senſe that we hold it ſo to be. This, I ſay, is a groſs falſehood, for it is manifeſt that thoſe Galathians were Judaizing Chriſtians, whoſe Error was, That Men cannot be Juſtifyed and Saved, unleſs over and beſides their believing in Chriſt, and repenting of their Sins; they be Circumciſed, and keep the Law of Moſes. See Acts 15.1. compared with Gal. 2.4. Gal. 4. ver. 9, 10, 21. and 5 ver. 1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
If then thoſe Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Juſtification by Chriſt's Imputed Righteouſneſs, yet it is plain, They thought that Chriſt's Imputed Righteouſneſs received by Faith, was not alone ſufficient, for Ju…tification, but tha… Men mu… joyn to it, their own Moſaical, Ceremonial and Moral Righteouſneſs as a part of their Juſtifying Righteouſneſs before God. Now can our Reverend. Brother, with a good Conſcience, ſay that I, or any of my Brethren are for ſuch a way of Juſtification by the Righteouſneſs of Moſes his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as that by and for which we are Juſtified and Live?
(2.) In Page 19, 20, 21, he all along inſinuates plainly, That we hold we are Juſtifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Goſpel Law, and that the defect of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is made up by the ſuper-addition of our own Righteouſneſs to his; ſo that we are Juſtifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Chriſt's Imputed Righteouſneſs, but alſo in part by and for our own Works and Righteouſneſs. This is another falſehood ſo groſs, that I wonder my Reverend Brother ſhould ever be guilty of it, if he hath read and underſtood our Apology, pag, 38, 39, 40, 45, 80, 89, 90, 91, 193, 196, 200, 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us, we have in our Apology rejected, and do now here again reject it with abhorrency. And therefore it any do hereafter perſiſt to charge us with this Error which we abhor, let them look to it that they do not force us in our own juſt defence, to proclaim them to the World to be Men poſſeſs'ſt with a caluminating lying Spirit. But I hope I ſhall never be forced upon the doing of that which is ſo much againſt my Chriſtian temper, which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren, than to diſcover them, and proclaim them to the World: I do ſincerely deſire, and through Grace ſhall endeavour, if it be poſſible, and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men: Rom. 12.18. And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren, giving them all due reſpect, and being ever ready to ſerve them in the Lord.