Remarks on Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel, Index
The INDEX.
Chap. I. HIS groſs Miſtake in ſtating the Controverſie. How it ought to be ſtated, Page 1, 2.
Chap. II. What only was inferred from the Goſpels being called a Law in Scripture. From the word Law its ſignifying a Doctrine, not proved that it ſignifies nothing but a ſpeculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires neither Faith nor Repentance. The contrary proved from Iſa. 2.3. Acts 16.31. from Buxtorf, and partly from his own conceſſion, p. 3, 4. From the Goſpel Covenants requiring Faith and Obedience, and obliging to Duty, it follows not that it will be a law of Works, and that Man will be juſtified by Works. His Argument retorted. The Popiſh, Socinian and Arminian ſenſe of the Goſpels being a law diſclaimed p. 5, 6.
Chap. III. He grants that no great weight can be laid on an Argument from an Etymology. Proved not to be the Error of the Galatians that they held the Goſpel to be a new Law in the ſenſe we hold it ſo to be p. 7.
Chap. IV. That he miſtakes my deſign in appealing to the Fathers, which was only to prove matter of fact. His quotations out of the Fathers are impertinent, and partly ridiculous, p. 8. to 11.
Chap. V. His whole Fifth Chapter one intire impertinency p. 11, 12, 13.
Chap. VI.
Sect. 1. Of ſeveral things carefully to be attended unto for the right underſtanding of our old Proteſtant Writers, and the clearing up of the true ſenſe of the paſſages cited out of them p. 14, 15, 16, 17.
Sect. 2. Mr. G. first ſet of Teſtimonies clearly anſwered p. 17, to 32.
Sect. 3. His ſecond ſet of Teſtimonies Anſwered alſo, p. 32, to 34. That we do not confound the Notions of things intirely diſtinct in their Natures and Ideas. In what ſenſe we do really hold the Goſpel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duty, p. 34, 35. That the Goſpel hath Threatnings of its own, p. 35, to 38. Pſal. 19.8, 9. and Rom. 3.27. cleared and thence ſhewed that the Goſpel requires Faith and Obedience p. 38, 39.
Chap. VII.
Sect. 1. His groſs Miſtakes ſhewed. The ridiculous demonſtration he would father upon me, proved to be a ridiculous figment of his own Brain p. 39, 40.
Sect. 2. How the Moral Natural Law doth, and doth not oblige to all manner of Duties; and of its perfection, p. 44 to 46. That the ſame Duty in different reſpects, and under different formal Notions may be required by two diſtinct Laws, p. 46. Proved that juſtifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance are commanded and required by the Goſpel-Law, p. 46 to 62. How Obedience is required both by Law and Goſpel. And that the Goſpel-Covenant hath Precepts which require ſincere Obedience, proved by Scripture, and by many Teſtimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines p. 62 to 94.
Sect. 3. Five Objections anſwered. Several Directions given, and Miſtakes diſcovered, p. 94 to 107.
Sect. 4. Goſpel-Threatnings further proved by Scripture, and Conſentaneous Teſtimonies of many Proteſtant Divines; and Objections anſwered, p. 107 to 118. Shewed that the Office of a Judge doth belong to the Mediator; and that Chriſt the Mediator, was, is, and will be Judge p. 112, 113, 114, 115, 116.
Sect. 5. The Goſpel hath Conditional Promiſes. Seven Objections anſwered. Mr. Bradſhaws Expoſition of 2 Theſſ. 1.8. p. 119 to 155.
Chap. VIII.
Sect. 1. The Texts of Scripture, Rom. 3.27. Gal. 6.2. Iſa. 42.4. Luke 19.27. ſhewed to be pertinently cited, and Rom. 3.27. more largely vindicated. Proved that we give the ſame ſenſe of it which Beza gave p. 155 to 162.
Sect. 2. Juſtin Martyrs Teſtimony cleared; proved that he was very pertinently cited, and that he believed the Goſpel to be a New Law which hath Precepts, p. 162 to 170. Cyprian, Auguſtine and Salvian their Teſtimonies; ſhewed to have been pertinently cited, p. 170 to 172. Teſtimonies of Modern Divines vindicated, p. 172. to 175. His way of viſiting the Sick p. 175.
Chap. IX. The Popiſh, Socinian and Arminian Opinion again rejected, p. 176. The Doctrine of Merit not included in our Hypotheſis. His Popiſh Argument anſwered, p. 176, 177, 178. Anſwer to his Advice, p. 178, 179. The whole concluded with Tertullians Rule of Faith, p. 180.