Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 4
Remarks on the Fourth Chapter.
IN this Chapter, at the very beginning, he miſtakes my purpoſe and deſign in appealing to the Fathers in this Controverſie, which was not, by them as Judges to prove any matter of right (as he pretends) but only by them as Witneſſes, to prove matter of Fact, to wit, That they called the Goſpel a Law in a good ſenſe, See Apol. p. 24.and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning, as our Accuſer had affirmed it to be, and doth Mr. G. refute this? No, he is ſo far from refuting it, that he confirms the Truth of what I ſaid, and with me, proves the Accuſer of the Brethren to have aſſerted a notorious falſhood in matter of Fact, in the face of a Learned Age.
Then he quotes Clemens Alexandrinus, Euſebius, Chryſoſtom, Origen, Theodoret with Photius, to ſhew that by foreign, Law, they ſignified a Doctrine. But theſe quotations ſerve only ad Pompam, non ad Pugnam, for they are every one of them impertinently alledged againſt me, and do not prove any thing that I deny, except two words out of Clemens Alexandrinus, of which, by and by. For (1.) I grant that the Law of the New Covenant (as Euſebius appoſitely calls it) is a Doctrine, and a Doctrine of Grace, of the greateſt Grace that ever was, (as we told the World in the Apology, p 28. out of Biſhop Andrews,) yea, I grant and believe that it is a pure Doctrine of Grace, becauſe it both preſcribes and requires Purity, and likewiſe is a means through the influence of the Spirit of Grace, of effecting and working Purity in the Souls of Men: And moreover▪ becauſe the Bleſſings and Benefits which it promiſes, are firſt promiſed of pure Grace,, and afterwards according to promiſe, are of pure free Grace given unto Men through Jeſus Chriſt. This I aſſerted in the Apology, pag. 22. and paſſim (2.) Neither there, not any where elſe did I ever ſay or think (that I know of) that foreign, Law, doth always ſignifie a Syſtem of Precepts and Commands, and ſo Origen's Teſtimony makes nothing againſt me. (3.) I aſſent likewiſe to every thing he hath quoted out of Theoderet on Iſa. 2. And (4.) To all cited out of Chryſoſtom, on Pſal 49. And (5.) As for the Teſtimony of Photius, it is as the reſt impertinently alledged, and I am ſo for from oppoſing it, that on the contrary I have my ſelf upon the matter ſaid the ſame thing in the Apology, pag. 201, and there ſhewed plainly in what ſenſe the Law is vacated to a Believer, without being perfectly diſſolved; and ceaſeth without being diſannulled; and how Chriſt by fulfilling and performing it, hath entirely removed it, ſo that it cannot poſſibly condemn a Penitent Believer, who walks not after the Fleſh, but after the Spirit. Whereunto I now add that Photius there ſeems plainly to underſtand by Law, not the firſt Covenant of Works made with Man before, and broken by the fall of our Firſt Parents; but the Old Moſaical Covenant, or the Legal dark Diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace under the Levitical Prieſthood▪ And ſo the words of Photius do very fitly expreſs the Lords aboliſhing that legal dark way, and introducing the Evangelical clear way of Adminiſtring the ſame Covenant of Grace, which how it ſhould make againſt the Goſpels being a New Law of Grace, I do not comprehend: See Heb. 8.6.For to me it ſeems plainly to inſinuate the contrary, to wit, That the Goſpel Covenant now in its New Chriſtian Conſtitution, and more gracious form of Adminiſtration, is indeed the new Law of Grace. (6ly, and Laſtly,) We come to Clemens Alexandrinus out of whoſe Writings, Mr. Goodwin quotes two ſhort Sentences. As firſt, That according to Clemens, the Law is the Light of our way. Anſw. And what then, doth that militate againſt my Principle? Nothing leſs. For that I firmly believe, not becauſe Clemens ſaith ſo, but becauſe the Holy Ghoſt ſaith ſo, as it is written, Prov. 6.23. The Commandment is a Lamp, and the Law is Light. It is confeſt then that the Law is the Light of our way, and ſo is the Goſpel too; yea, and the Goſpel is the greater Light of the two. And what can any reaſonable Man make of this to prove that the Goſpel is not a Law of Grace which hath its own Precepts? If the Goſpel hath its own Precepts will that hinder it from being the Light of our way? I think that in all reaſon, the contrary will follow, to wit, that if the Precepts and Commandments of the Law be a Light of our way, as the Scripture ſays they are; that then the Precepts of the Goſpel (if it have any) are and muſt be alſo a Light of our way that directs and inſtructs us how we ought to walk now under the Chriſtian form of adminiſtring the Covenant of Grace. (2.) He quotes Clemens ſaying. Diſc. p. 22.That a Law is a true and good opinion of a thing. And this he calls Clemens his definition of a Law▪ And he affirms that this Clementin definition may be applyed to any Doctrine of Truth and Goodneſs. [Whereby (ſaith he) any Doctrine of Truth and Goodneſs may be ſignifyed]. But the Goſpel is a Doctrine of Truth and Goodneſs, therefore this Clementin definition of a Law may be applyed to the Goſpel, and it may be ſaid of the Goſpel, that it is a true and good Opinion. Anſw. This Reverend Brother, by ſeveral paſſages in his Diſcourſe, and by this amongſt the reſt, ſeems to be much in love with definitions, and who can blame him, ſince Ariſtotle ſaid of old, That (a)foreign. Ari…or. 2. Metaphyſ. Cap. 3.we know all things by their definitions▪ And here in Clemens Alexandrinus, meeting with two or three pretty words, they ſo pleaſed his fancy, that he preſently imagined them to be the thing which he is ſo much in love with, to wit, a definition. A definition then they ſhall be; and having thus got a definition of a Law, he is ſure thereby to know the Nature of a Law; for according to Ariſtotle, a Definition (b)foreign. Ariſtot. 2 poſt. Cap. 8.ſhews us the very Eſſence of a thing. Now this being the definition of a Law according to Mr. Goodwin, That it is a true and good Opinion of a thing, I demand of him, whether this be the definition of Gods Law, or of Mans Law? If he ſay that it is the definition of Mans Law, then he knows that it is utterly Impertinent▪ For our Controverſie is not about Mans Law, but Gods Law. And I hope he will not ſay that the definition of Mans Law, is the definition of Gods Law. (2.) If he ſay that it is the definition of God's Law; then according to Mr. Goodwin, Gods true and good opinion of a thing, is his Law: For the definition of a thing, and the thing defined are really and objectively the ſame; and differ only in the manner and form of expreſſion. Upon this I could move many queſtions that would puzzle my Reverend Brother to anſwer, and yet they are ſuch as ought to be anſwered and reſolved, upon ſuppoſition that Gods true and good opinion of a thing is his Law; but I will ſpare him, and only ask him this queſtion, Whether he holds that God is an Opinator, that he hath an Opinion of things, and knows them opinatively? If he deny, then how can Gods Opinion be his Law, if he have no Opinion and be no Opinator? If he affirm that God is an Opinator, that he hath an Opinion of things, and knows them opinatively? Then it will follow that Gods knowledge of things, at leaſt of the things which are the ſubject matter of his Laws, is founded upon probable Grounds and Motives, that it is accompanyed with a Fear of the contraryes being true; and that it's poſſible for him to be deceived. For theſe are the Natural Properties of an Opinion. (1.) It is founded upon a probable ground and motive. (2.) It is accompanyed with a fear of the contraries being true. (3.) Ei poteſt ſubeſſe falſom, though it be true, yet it is but contingently true, and ſo it might have been falſe, or may yet be falfe for any thing that can be certainly known to the contrary, from the probable Motive and Ground on which it is founded. And then the conſequence of this would be, that God is not infinitely Wiſe, Ommſcient and Infallible: And ſo upon Mr. G—'s own Principle of Gods being an Opinator, as well as upon the Arminians Principle; God might poſſibly be ſurprized (if not at the Arrival of new Colonies in Heaven, as his Expreſſion is in p. 1. of the Epiſtle to the Reader, yet) at many things which are done here upon Earth. But I hope my R. Brother meant well, though his kind love to definitions, hath dazled his ſight, and cauſed him to embrace a Phantoſme inſtead of his Beloved; I mean, cauſed him to take that for a definition of Gods Law, which is no definition at all; no, not a good deſcription of it. I inſiſt not therefore on this, but ſuppoſing his thoughts to have been ſound, I ſhall only adviſe him Linguam corrigere, to mend his Words, and not to be ſo fond of definitions for the future: And ſo I return to Clemens, concerning whom I ſay (1.) That he doth not ſay that a true and good Opinion of a thing is the definition of Gods Law, nor doth he there ſo much as ſay that it is a definition of Mans Law, or that it is a definition at all. (2.) What he ſaid of a Law in the general, he did not apply to the Goſpel, nor is it applicable to the Goſpel of Chriſt. If Mr. G— will needs be applying it, let him apply it to ſome other Goſpel, if he knows of any other; but he ſhall never have my conſent to apply it unto Chriſt's Goſpel, and thereby to make the Goſpel an Opinion. (3.) I adviſe my Reverend Brother to read but two or three lines further there in Clemens Alexandrinus, and he will find that he affirms a Law (in the judgment of ſome) (c)foreign. Clem. Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. pag. 256, 257. op. Lugd. Batav. 1616.to be right reaſon, or a right word, commanding things which ought to be done, and forbidding things which ought not to be done. And from thence he concludes that it was rightly and congruouſly ſaid that the Law was given by Moſes to be the rule of Juſt and Ʋnjuſt. Thus Clemens. And I am content that this be applyed unto the preceptive part of the Goſpel-Covenant or Law of Grace; to wit, that it commands ſome things to be done, and forbids others, and that it is a Rule of Juſt and Unjuſt: But I cannot comprehend how from any thing here in Clemens, M. G.— can prove with any colour of reaſon that the ſaid Clemens was of his Opinion, That the Goſpel is ſuch a Law and Doctrine of Grace, as hath no Precept, and requires nothing of us at all. I need ſay no more in anſwer to his Impertinent Chapter, but that in his Concluſion he harps upon the ſame ſtring again, and as before, abuſively calls the Evangelical Law (according to our ſenſe of it) a new Law of Works; for as hath been ſaid, It is no Law of Works, new or old, according to the Scripture uſe of the Words, Law of Works; but it is really, a New Law of Grace: And ſo in direct oppoſition to my Reverend Brother, I conclude, that according to Scripture, This New Law of Grace is the Everlaſting Goſpel; and by the Teſtimonies of the Fathers cited in the Apology and others which I have ready to produce, it appears that this Name Law and New Law, whereby the Goſpel is called, is venerable for Age. For that the Goſpel-Covenant is a New Law of Grace, it is a Doctrine which was well known and believed in the firſt Ages of Chriſt's Church, and which had its Original before the Birth of Antichriſt, and I am very well aſſured, will continue in Chriſt's Church, after the Period of that Man of Sin.