The entrance into an answer to Mr G.’s arguments against the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance — His sixth argument about the usefulness of the doctrine under consideration to the work of the ministry proposed — His proof of the minor proposition considered and answered — Many pretenders to promote godliness by false doctrines — Mr G.’s common interest in this argument — His proofs of the usefulness of his doctrine unto the promotion of godliness considered and answered — The consequence of his arguing discovered — The doctrine by him opposed mistaken, ignorantly or wilfully — Objections proposed by Mr G. to himself to he answered — The objection as proposed disowned — Certainty of the love of God, in what sense a motive to obedience — The doctrine of apostasy denies the unchangeableness of God’s love to believers placeth qualifications in the room of persons — How the doctrine of perseverance promiseth the continuance of the love of God to believers — Certainty of reward encouraging to regular action — Promises made to persons qualified, not suspended upon those qualifications — Means appointed of God for the accomplishment of a determined end certain — Means not always conditions — Mr G.’s strange inference concerning the Scripture considered — The word of God by him undervalued and subjected to the judgment of vain men as to its truth and authority — The pretended reason of the former proceeding discussed — The Scripture the sole judge of what is to be ascribed to God, and believed concerning him — The doctrine of the saints’ perseverance falsely imposed on, and vindicated — Mr G.’s next objection made to himself against his doctrine — Its unseasonableness as to the argument in hand demonstrated — No assurance of the love of God, nor peace left the saints, by the doctrine of apostasy — The ground of peace and assurance by it taken away — Ground of Paul’s consolation, 1 Cor. ix. 27 — The meaning of the word ἀδόκιμος — Another plea against the doctrine attempted to be proved by Mr G. — That attempt considered — Not the weakness of the flesh naturally, but the strength of lust spiritually pretended — The cause of sin in the saints farther discussed — The power ascribed by Mr G. to men for the strengthening and making willing the Spirit in them considered — The aptness of the saints to perform, what and whence — The opposition they have in them thereunto — Gospel obedience, how easy — The conclusion — Answer to chap. xiii. of his book proposed.
The argument wherein Mr Goodwin exposeth the doctrine under contest to the trial concerning its usefulness as to the promotion of godliness in the hearts and ways of them by whom it is received, he thus proposeth, chap. xiii. sect. 32, p. 333, “That doctrine which is according to godliness, and whose natural and proper tendency is to promote godliness in the hearts and lives of men, is evangelical, and of unquestionable comportance with the truth; such is the doctrine which teacheth the possibility of the saints’ declining, both totally and finally: ergo.”
Of this argument he goeth about to establish the respective propositions, so as to make them serviceable to the enforcement of the conclusion he sinneth at, for the exaltation of the Helena whereof he is enamoured; and as for the major proposition (about which, rightly understood, we are remote from contesting with him or any else, and will willingly and cheerfully at any time drive the cause in difference to issue upon the singular testimony of the truth wrapped up in it), he thus confirmeth it:—
“The reason of the major proposition, though the truth of it needed no light but its own to be seen by, is, because the gospel itself is a doctrine which is according unto godliness, a mystery of godliness, — is a doctrine, truth, and mystery, calculated, contrived, and framed by God with a singular aptness and choiceness of ingredients for the advancement of godliness in the world. Therefore, what particular doctrine is of the same spirit, tendency, and import, must needs be a natural branch thereof, and hath perfect accord with it. This proposition, then, is unquestionable.”
Ans. According to the principles formerly laid down, I have something to say, though not to the proposition itself, as in the terms it lieth, but only as to the fixedness and staidness of it, that it may not be a nose of wax, to be turned to and fro at every one’s pleasure, to serve their turns; for what sort of men is there in the world, professing the name of Christ, that do not lay claim to an interest in this proposition for the confirmation of their opinions? It is but as a common exordium in rhetoric, a useless flourish: “The doctrine which is according to godliness,” — that is, which the Scripture teacheth to be true, and to serve for the promotion of godliness (not what doctrine soever any dark, brain-sick creature doth apprehend so to do), in the state and condition wherein the saints of God walk with him, — “is a branch of the gospel.” I add, “In the state and condition wherein we walk with God;” for in the state of innocency, the doctrine of the law, as a covenant of life, was of singular aptness and usefulness to promote obedience, which yet is not therefore any branch or part of the gospel, but opposite to it and destructive of it. All the advantage, then, Mr Goodwin can expect, from this argument to his cause dependeth upon the proof of the minor proposition, which also must be effected in answerable proportion to the restrictions and qualifications given to the major, or the whole will be void and of none effect; that is, he must prove it by the testimony of God to be “according to godliness,” and not give us in (by a pure begging of the thing in question) that it is so in his apprehension, and according to the principles whereon he doth proceed in the teaching and asserting of godliness. Mr Goodwin knows that there is no less difference between him and us about the nature and causes of godliness than there is about the perseverance of the saints; and therefore his asserting any doctrine to be suited to the promotion of godliness, that assertion being proportioned to his other hypothesis of his own, wherein we accord not with him, and in particular to his notions of the causes and nature of godliness, with which conceptions of his we have no communion, it cannot be of any weight with us unless he prove his affirmation according to the limitations before expressed. Now, this he attempteth in the words following:—