The Doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance

Ans. According to the principles formerly laid down, I have something to say (though not to the proposition it self,¹ as in the terms it lieth, but) only as to the fixedness, and staidness of it, that it may not be a nose of max, to be turned to and fro at every ones 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 brainsick 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, then 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.

Ans. According to the principles formerly laid downe, I have something to say (though not to the proposition it selfe,¹