Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Chapter 7 · Section 1
SECTION I.
1. THis Chapter begins with a manifeſt Falſhood, to wit, That my Arguments and Citations are all eſtabliſhed meerly upon the ambiguities of the word, Law. The contradictory of that falſe Propoſition is true, That not one of my Arguments and Citations is eſtabliſhed meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law
2. He inſinuates that I endeavour to prove the Goſpel to be a Rule of Duty, fortified with a ſanction, becauſe we find it to be named a Law, both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings. This Aſſertion is as falſe as the former; and the contrary is rather true, that I endeavour to prove the Goſpel to be a Law, See Dr. Owen on Heb. 8.6. pag. 221.becauſe I find it is in effect ſaid to be a Rule of Duty, fortified with a Sanction, both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings. And yet even this of the Goſpels being ſaid to be a Rule of Duty, fortified with a Sanction, muſt be rightly underſtood; for I never ſaid, wrote nor thought, that the Goſpel is a Rule of Duty; by and for which Duty we are juſtified and ſaved: Or that it is fortified with a Sanction promiſing Juſtification or Salvation, for the performance of our Duty. I hold the contradictory of this to be true; to wit, The Goſpel is not a Rule of Duty in ſuch a ſenſe, nor fortified with ſuch a Sanction. The preceptive part of the Goſpel-Covenant is indeed a Rule of Duty, but in order to quite other ends than to be juſtified or ſaved for the ſake of that Duty performed: It is alſo fortified with a Sanction, but with a Sanction that promiſeth Juſtification and Salvation, not for the Duties ſake, but for Chriſts ſake only.
Now both his Propoſitions being falſe, no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous, inſignificant, and of no force at all againſt me; for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reaſoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath ſeveral ſignifications But that was not, nor is it my way of arguing. And this being the caſe, as I have truly repreſented it, and as manifeſtly appears from the Apology it ſelf; the ridiculous demonſtration, (to wit, a Law is a Law, the Goſpel is a Law, therefore the Goſpel is a Law). I ſay this ridiculous demonſtration, which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door, returns home to himſelf, and calls him its true Father; and juſtly it may, for aſſuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding; and for that reaſon he ſeems to be very fond of it, calling it a pretty way of arguing and ſaying, without doubt it is unanſwerable. And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue, as the Image of his Brain that begat it, and if we ſtrip the Baby of its identick dreſs, or fools coat, it is very eaſily anſwered. For being formed according to the tenour of his Diſcourſe concerning the various ſignifications of the word Law, it amounts to no more than this; A meer nominal Law that requires nothing, is a real proper Law that requires ſomething; but the Goſpel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing, therefore the Goſpel is a real proper Law that requires ſomething. The Propoſition is that which (I ſuppoſe) he would father upon me, but I juſtly diſown it as none of mine; and ſo I do by the other identical Propoſition [a Law is a Law]: Let this Brother prove, if he can, by any good conſequence, that there is any ſuch thing expreſſed or implyed in any part of the Apology. I am ſo well aſſured that there is no ſuch thing there, that I defy him, or any Man, to prove the affirmative that there it is. And by and by we ſhall find himſelf clearing me of that imputation, and blaming me for proving the Goſpel to be a Law, becauſe it hath Precepts requiring Duty, fortified with a ſanction of Promiſes and Threatnings: Which is a demonſtration that either this Brother aſſerts that which he knows to be falſe, or elſe that he contradicts himſelf, and writes he knows not what.
The Propoſition then, or Major, is the birth of his own Brain, and whether it was begotten againſt his Conſcience, as Baſtards uſe to be, let him look to it; I aſſert nothing pro, or con, in that matter.
As for the Aſſumption or ſecond Propoſition, he will not, he cannot deny it to be his own, (to wit. That the Goſpel is a Law, a meer nominal Law, which requires no Duty of us at all), for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book. Now it appearing thus, that the Argument is his own, much good may it do him and his Cauſe, which the World may know to be a very good one, by this token, that it is ſupported by ſuch pretty honeſt Devices.
And thus the pretty unanſwerable Argument is eaſily anſwered, when ſtript of its Identical dreſs. For both Propoſitions are falſe. The Major Propoſition is ſelf evidently falſe, when ſtript of its Identical dreſs: And if he will not ſuffer his Baby to be ſtript of its Fools coat, my Anſwer is, That it is his own, and he may do with his own what he pleaſes. The Minor I have proved to be falſe, and ſhall further prove it to be falſe, before we have done. And therefore though the concluſion as to the matter concluded be very true, (according to the Logick Rule, ex falſis verum), yet it is not therefore formally true, as it is concluded, and becauſe it is concluded and inferred from ſuch falſe premiſſes. But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy againſt this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various ſignification, by clearing the ſenſe of the word Law, which he ſays, he has largely done. But cui bono, to what good purpoſe was all that waſte of Time, Paper and Ink? ſince it doth not reach me at all; for I defy him to ſhew me, where, in the Apology, I did ever ſo much as once endeavour to prove the Goſpel to be a proper Law, from the meer ſound of the word Law, which is of a various ſignification. But though I did not ſo argue, yet my R. B. hath aſſumed to himſelf the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Goſpel, almoſt throughout his whole Diſcourſe, to prove that the Goſpel is ſo a Doctrine of Grace, as to require no Duty of us at all. Turpe est igitur doctori, quum culpa redarguit ipſum. I think it had been more to the purpoſe, to have cleared the ſenſe of the ambiguous word Goſpel, ſo as to have ſhewed that in Holy Scripture, or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines, it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Chriſt the Mediator, including the conditional part of it, but always and every where for a meer abſolute Promiſe or Promiſes, which require no Duty of us at all. If my Reverend Brother had done this, he had done his work, and had anſwered me effectually, and had made me his Proſelite too. But I do not blame him for not doing this, becauſe it is plainly impoſſible to be done.
But what if my purpoſe and deſign in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology (which he pretends to anſwer) was not ſo much to argue and prove the Goſpel to be a Law: As,
(1.) To inſtruct our Accuſer who ſeemed not to know our Principles, and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace.
(2) To rebuke him for ſaying ignorantly, that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning, and to prove by Teſtimonies of credible Witneſſes Antient and Modern, that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old, but ill meaning; but that he in ſaying ſo, againſt us the Subſcribers, was a falſe Witneſs againſt his Brethren? And to ſhow that this was my purpoſe and deſign, there needs no more but to read the Apology, Page 20, 21, 22, 24.
(3.) Further: What if for the Inſtruction and Information of our Accuſer, I told him and the World plainly, (1.) That God moſt freely made the Covenant, and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jeſus Chriſt. (2.) That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties; and alſo by the Promiſes of it obliges himſelf to juſtifie and glorifie us for Chriſts ſake, if we perform the Duties preſcribed, and comply with the terms injoyned. (3.) What if I plainly declared, that by new Law of Grace, I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace; and only ſaid, that this Goſpel-Covenant might be called a Law, without just cauſe of offence to the Brethren, becauſe the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law. Now if I did all this in the Apology, Page 21, 22, 23, 27. as I certainly did, and God, Angels and Men know it to be true; then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People, and make them believe, that I introduce a new Law of Works to be juſtified and ſaved by and for them; and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained: All which is utterly falſe. I confeſs indeed what is true, that though my purpoſe and deſign was not to prove, but to explain and declare what we meant, yet en paſſant, on the by, and to ſhew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture, I dropped four paſſages of Scripture, and referred to more in the Margent, which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for. But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day, that my Proof from the ſaid four paſſages of Scripture in the Line, and from the other referred to on the Margent, is not in the leaſt eſtabliſhed upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law, but upon the plain ſenſe and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged: Nor could an Argument from thoſe Scriptures there quoted or referred to, be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law, becauſe the word Law is not to be ſound in any of them. Let any Man read them all over, and he ſhall find what I ſay to be true; to wit, that the word Law is not in any of them.
I acknowledge likewiſe that a few Lines after, in the ſame 22th Page, I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is; but then it is again as clear as the Light, that I quoted thoſe three Scriptures to prove nothing but this, That our Brethren ſhould not diſlike our calling the Goſpel-Covenant a Law, becauſe the Scriptures of Truth call it ſo expreſly. And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me, that it is ſo called in two of the places, to wit, Iſa. 42.4. and Rom. 3.27. and in ſeveral others which he hath quoted.
As for my other Argument from Humane Authority, neither is that eſtabliſhed on the ambiguity of the word Law, but on the word it ſelf, its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born. From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new, but old. And if the Teſtimonies of my Witneſſes prove more, (as they really do) even that the Goſpel-Covenant was not onelyonly of old called a Law, but that it really is a Law of Grace, which requires ſome Duty of us, that was beſide my deſign and purpoſe, which was only to prove matter of fact; as appears from the expreſs words of the Apology, pag. 24. lin. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
If any object that in the Preface, and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter, it is ſaid expreſly that we have proved the Goſpel to be a new law of Grace, by the Word of God, or Scripture, and by the Teſtimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines. I Anſwer, It is true, it is ſaid ſo. But then conſider, that the ſaid Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finiſhed, and Printed; though in the Book they are both put before it; as it is the cuſtom to write Prefaces and Indexes laſt, and yet place them firſt in Books. Now when I wrote the Preface and Index, taking a review of all that was ſaid on that head in the Apology, I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I deſigned. (1.) I deſigned only to explain our meaning; and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line, and others in the Margent, to ſhow that our explication was agreeable to Scripture. (2.) By alledging the Teſtimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church, I deſigned only to prove matter of fact; to wit, that new law of Grace was no new word, but old. This was what I deſigned in writing that part of the Apology. But by looking it over after it was Printed, I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to, and the Teſtimonies of Doctors there alledged, do really prove that the Goſpel-Covenant made with the Church, through Chriſt the Mediatour, is a new Law of Grace which requires ſome Duties of us, and which promiſes to juſtifie and glorifie us for Chriſts ſake only, if we through Grace perform the ſaid Duties. And for this reaſon it was that in the Preface and Index, I ſaid, that we had proved the Goſpel in the ſenſe there given, to be a new Law of Grace, both by Scripture, and by the Teſtimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines.
If any do further object, That Humane Teſtimony can only prove matter of fact, I anſwer, It's true Humane Teſtimony ſimply as ſuch, can ſolidly prove no more, nor did I bring Humane Teſtimonies to prove any thing, but that the Goſpel Covenant was in their time called a New Law, and a New Law of Grace, and that they believed it to be ſuch a Law; which is nothing but matter of Fact. Yet Men by giving Teſtimony to Matter of Fact, may at the ſame time, and in the ſame Teſtimony bring ſuch Arguments from Scripture or Reaſon, as ſhall likewiſe prove matter of right And this my Witneſſes did, (eſpecially Juſtin Martyr, Cyprian, Auſtin, the Profeſſors of Leyden, Gomtrus, Dr. Andrews, and Dr. Twiſs) they both called the Goſpel-Covenant, a Law, a New Law; a New Law of Grace, which proves the matter of fact; and moreover in their Teſtimonies to the matter of Fact, they alledged ſuch places of Scripture, or gave ſuch reaſons as do prove the matter of Right, to wit, That the Goſp…l Covenant is a New Law of Grace, and may and ought to be ſo accounted.
Now having firſt told the World how eaſily he could anſwer my Arguments, and wipe off all my Citations, upon a ſuppoſition which is of his own feigning, and notoriouſly falſe, as I have proved; he next comes to anſwer my Arguments, that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture; for in effect there is no more but one, and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words, Goſpel Covenant, or Law of Grace, and to ſhew that what we mean by thoſe words, is conſonant to the Scriptures of Truth; as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology. Well, But be it Argument or Arguments, he undertakes to give us a clear Anſwer to it; and in order thereunto he propoſes to do three things.
(1.) To ſhew that the Goſpel hath no Precepts or Commandments. (2.) That it hath no Threatnings. (3.) That it hath no Conditional Promiſes. This is directly againſt the Profeſſors of Leyden, who, in their Synopſis of purer Divinity, ſay expreſly (as their words are quoted in the Apology, pag. 27.) that the Goſpel is ſometimes called a Law, becauſe it alſo hath its own Commandments, and its own Promiſes and Threatnings.
It is alſo againſt Gomarus, who, as he is quoted in the ſame page 27, ſaith expreſly, That the Goſpel is called the Law of Faith, (Rom. 3.27.) and the Law of God by way of Excellency, (Iſa. 2.3.) from the preſcription or appointment of the Condition, and Duty contained in it. But let it be againſt them, or againſt all Mortals, yet if he did well and ſolidly prove theſe three things mentioned, I ſhould confeſs he doth his work effectually; were it not for this one thing, (on which the ſtreſs of his Cauſe lyes, and) which he begs, but proves not, nor can prove; to wit, That the Goſpel Covenant made with the Church through Chriſt the Mediator, and that adequately or intirely conſidered in all its Articles, is nothing but an Abſolute Promiſe, or a Bundle of Abſolute Promiſes which require nothing of us at all. For take the Goſpel in this narrow Senſe, and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do, that it hath neither Precept, nor Threatning, nor Conditional Promiſe properly and eſſentially belonging to it. But now I muſt again tell my Reverend Brother, as I told him before, That that is not the ſenſe wherein I take it, when I ſay it is a Law of Grace, and I have ſhewed in the Apology, that it ought not to be ſo taken, nor is it ſo taken by our Proteſtant Divines, when the word Goſpel, is uſed to ſignifie the whole Covenant of Grace, which God hath made with us through Chriſt the Mediator. Thus in few words it may appear, that the main ſtrength of his Cauſe lyes in the ambiguity of the word Goſpel, which certainly ſignifies more things than one, and particularly, it ſignifies more things than ſuch a Doctrine of Grace, as (according to his fancy) requires nothing of us at all. And,
(1.) Firſt, He aſſerts page 42. That the Precepts which the Goſpel employs, are not any parts of it ſelf, but are borrowed from the Law, and then gives his goodly reaſons for his aſſertion. Before I give particular Anſwers to his reaſons, I will in the following Section premiſe ſome things that may give ſome light to help People to ſee on whoſe ſide the Truth lyes.