8. What virtue soever there may be in this truth for the furtherance and promotion of holiness in the world, our doctrine layeth as clear claim to it as yours ; that is, there is not any thing in the least in it inconsistent therewithal. We grant God threateneth the ven- geance of hell-fire unto those that turn aside from their profession of holiness into profaneness, the gospel itself becoming thereby unto them " a savour of death unto death," the Lord thereby proclaiming to all the world that "the wages of sin" and infidelity "is death," and that "he that believeth not shall be damned;" but that any thing can hence be inferred for the apostasy of true believers, or how this assertion cometh to be appropriated to that doctrine, we see not.
The latter part of this discourse, whereby its author aimeth to ex- clude the doctrine hitherto asserted by us from any claim laid to usefulness for the promotion of godliness, is either a mistake of it, through ignorance of the opinion he hath undertaken to oppose, or a wailful perverting of it, contrary to his own science and conscience. Is that the doctrine you oppose? Is it so proposed by those who, through grace, have laboured to explain and vindicate it? Doth not the main weight of the doctrine turn on this hinge, that God hath promised to his saints, true believers, such supplies of the Spirit and grace as that they shall never degenerate into such loose and pro- fane courses as are destructive to godliness? Doubtless that doc- trine is of a most spotless, untainted innocency, which its adversaries dare not venture to strangle before they have violently and treacher- ously defloured it.
And thus Mr Goodwin leaveth his arguments in the dust, like the ostrich's eggs, under the feet of men, to be trampled on with ease.
The residue of this discourse, onwards to the next argument, being spent in the answering of pretended objections, put in against him-
410 DOCTRINE OF THE saints' rKRSEVERANCE. [ciIAP.
self in tlie behalf of tho doctrine of perseverance, not at all called out by the import of his present arguments and discourses, I might pass them over; but inasmuch as that which is spoken thereunto tendeth to the farther clearing of what formerly hath been evidenced concerning the suitableness of the doctrine contended for unto the promotion of holiness, I shall farther consider what he draweth forth on this occasion. Sect. 83, he giveth us an objection, and a four- fold answer thereunto, pp. 833-335. That which he calleth an ob- jection he layeth down in these words: —
"If it be objected and said, 'Yea, but assurance of the unchange- ableness of God's love towards him that is godly is both a more effectual and persuading motive unto godliness, and more encourag- ing to a persevering in godliness, than a doubtfulness or uncer- tainty whether God will be constant in his affection to such a man or no; certainty of reward is more encouraging unto action than uncertainty.^"
Ans. If any one hath been so weak as to make use of this plea in behalf of that doctrine it seemeth to defend (which I scarcely be- lieve), it will, I doubt not, be an easy task to undertake that he shall be no more admitted or entertained as an advocate in this cause. The assurance of the unchangeableness of God's love to them that are godly is but one part of the doctrine in hand, and that such as may perhaps be common to it with that which is brought into competition with it. It is the assurance of the luichangeable- ness of God's love to a man, to keep him up to godliness, to pre- serve him in that state and condition of holiness to the end, and of the certainty of the continuance of the love of God unto him on that account and in that Avay, that is that great gospel motive to obedience wherein, as its peculiar, our doctrine glorieth, as hath formerly been manifested. Perhaps Mr Goodwin doth not think that any man is bound to lay more blocks in his own way than he judgeth himself well able to remove; and therefore he framed that objection, so that he might be sure to return at least a specious an- swer thereunto, and this he attempteth accordingly, and telleth us in his first paragraph tlu-ee things : — •
1. " That the doctrine teaching the saints' defection doth also maintain the unchangeableness of the love of God to them that are godly."
Ans. But what love, I pray you, is that which, Avhen it might prevent it, will yet suffer those godly ones to become such ungodly villains and wretclies as that it shall be utterly impossible for the Lord to continue his love to them ? Is the love you mention indeed a love to their persons, or only an approbation of their duties and qualifications? If the first, wlience is it that God ceaseth at p-c time to love them ? Doth he chansre and alter his love like the *? of
XI.] ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE CONSIDERED. 411
of men? "Why, they change, therefore he changeth also." That God changeth not, and therefore we, who are subject to change, are yet preserved from bemg consumed, we have heard; but that, upon the change that is in men, God also should change, we are yet to be in- structed ; and the immutability of God hath taken greater hold upon our understandings and in our hearts than that we should easily receive any thing so diametrically opposite thereunto. If the love mentioned be only an approbation of the qualifications that are in them, and of the duties that they do perform, then is it no more a love to them or to their persons than it is to the persons of the most profligate wretches that live. The object is duty solely, where- ever it may be found, and not any person at all ; for it is an act of God's approving, not purjyosing or determining, will. This is not our sense of the continuance of the love of God to them that are godly. So that there is no comparison betwixt the doctrines under contest, as to the asserting of the love of God to believers, or to them that are godly. Wherefore he saith, —