WHEN I first cast mine eyes upon this Treatise, and the Title of it, which presen­teth us with the Pagans debt and dowry. I wondred that the match should be so soone struck up betwixt Christ and his Pagan Spouse; especially considering, that he had entailed his conjugal affection to his Church which he loveth, and presenteth as his only glorious Bride unto his Father. And I should stil have continued wondering, but that I found under it the Name of Mr. John Goodwin, whom I perceive to be a man wel underlayed with a stock of boldnesse, urged on with the stress of Judgement, led on by the hand of leisure proportionable to such at­tempts as these; (viz.) to estate dowries upon aliens, entitle to the most intimate mercies of Christ, those whom the Scripture be­speaketh to be without him, to fasten saving grace upon, and to reduce them, in seriem salvandorum, whom the Scripture saith, Ephes. 2.12. are without hope; And upon this account, I could wel have passed by it: But the moment of the question being such, and so neerly concerned in that Controversie, in which I have already publikely engaged, I was provoked to a more narrow and serious examination of those things which he no lesse confidently, then singularly thrusts upon his over credu­lous reader.

In the pursuance of which, the occasion and matter of this Treatise, are chiefly enquirable.

I need not insist upon the manner of his writings, which in this as in [Page 2] all others, is with so much groundlesse confidence, tart scurrility, smooth expressions, yet swelling words, which may make us collect, that doctrines of divels never want Angels voices, which serve as garnished sepulchres, to cover rotten bones, and as so much grain to allure the simple bird into the snare; but the Lord wil discover the Prophet who is the snare of the fowler in all his wayes.

The occasion of this Treatise, as many others of the like nature, I find suggested by himself to be in the pursuance of that now much ventilated Article of Universal Redemption. For in his 60 pag. I find this Enthymem,

All men without exception are bound to beleeve in Christ. Ergo, Christ died for all without exception.

In which Argument, the Major is to be supplyed to complete a syllo­gism, thus,

If all men be bound to beleeve in Christ, then Christ dyed for all. But all men are bound to believe in Christ: Ergo, Christ dyed for all.

Which Argument he would have the world believe to be his own, when not only in this short Treatise, but in that Chaos, Redemption Redeemed, a large Treatise of his, if every bird should take his own feather, he would be left like Aesop's Crow; the Argument is both formed and confirmed to his hand by Corvin. in Molin. in the Acta Synodal. in the conference at the Hague; yet he may know, they never intended to take so high a flight, Chap. 29. §. 14.16. pag. 337 p. 133. Arg. 5. as to prove that all men without exception are ei­ther bound to believe, or have sufficient means to believe in Jesus Christ; but only thus farre, that all to whom the Gospel cometh, viz. both E­lect, and Reprobate; as appears both by the illustrations and various formations of the Argument, in this manner, when they propound the Argument thus,

Act. Synod. 337. Whosoever are bound to believe in Jesus Christ, for them Christ died.

But, all and every one, both Elect (as they call them) and Reprobate, are bound to believe. Ergo, Christ died for all and every man.

The Minor of which Syllogism, they illustrate and explain thus. [ Fides hac con­cipi non potest, nisi suppositâ prius objecti ve­ritate in se, ne­que enim aut dei voluntate aut nostrâ fide im­mutatur obje­ctum, sed propo­nitur et appre­henditur quale est in se. Act. Synod, 337. This faith cannot be conceived, unlesse the truth of the object be first suppo­sed; neither is this object changed, either by the wil of God, or our faith, but it is propounded and apprehended as it is in it selfe. Now the raciocination herein, is obvious and clear, viz. until there be (obje­ctum) and (objectum propositum) an object propounded, there is no place for faith; for true it is, revealed things belong to us, both in [cre­dendis] and [faciendis]. So that that phrase in the Major (Qui in Je­sum credere tenentur,) is thus to be interpreted, (qui habent Christum tanquam fidei objectum propositum;) Those that are bound to beleeve, are no other then such as have Christ propounded as the real existent object of faith: and that they intend thus to interpret the phrase, I am induced to think, because this very Argument which runneth thus in their Act. Synod. in the Collation at the Hague runneth in an other ex­pression, thus, [Quos ad salutem partam vocat, pro iis Christus mortuns.] And thus, [Quibus Deus pracipit u [...] credant, pro iis Christus morium est] [Page 3] and is not hence conclusive, that they bespeak none other bound to be­lieve, then those to whom he gives a command to believe, or else cals to the salvation purchased, which is all one with having the letter of the Gospel: and further they rest satisfied with that rule [Lex non lata nec intellecta, cum intelligi non potest, non obligat,] a law not given nor understood, when it can not be understood, bindeth not; yet I think they have car­ryed on the main [...] of universal Redemption, with as tender an eye to its neerest interest, as Mr. Goodwin can doe.

Besides, it is evident that all the discourses about universal grace are but a meere Countermine to that Argument which is formed by us a­gainst Universal Redemption: thus,

If Christ died for all, then he would certainly make such discoveries of this purchase to all, that they may have this salvation purchased, applyed, and that without exception. But be doth not the latter, therefore not the for­mer.

And here are all these intricate and winding disputes about universal Grace hatched. Therefore the subject of this Treatise of Mr. Goodwins, is to prove that all the heathens have such discoveries of Jesus by the light of nature, without the letter of the Gospel, as that they are bound to believe in Christ, and have means sufficient thereunto. And indeed, so naturally consequential is it, (according to our Argument) that if such a purchase was so universally made, it would be as universally discove­red, without which there is no ordinary way of having that purchased in­heritance applyed; this Argument of ours is founded upon such equitable principles, that the assertors of Universal Redemption, have all of them, some more lightly, others more sollicitously beaten out an universal grace, sufficient, and saving, afforded to all men without exception. And that such discoveries however made, if wel improved, would bring a stock of more grace til they come to be saved. And this is the subject of Mr. Goodwins whole treatise, and he sweats much in the ventilating there­of; which demonstratively cleareth the evidence of our Consequence or major proposition, which runneth thus:

If Jesus Christ died for every man without exception, then he makes to every man without exception such discoveries of himself, that all men by them might come to believe in him.

But when they come to the assumptive part, and to make out this u­niversal call, and general tender of grace; to cleere that such discoveries are made to all men without exception, no men more divided in their sentences, lost in their own uncertainties (every man contradicting him­self and one another, then these men) as shall appear in these following instances.

First how uncertain and wavering are they in the formation of their assertion, how unsatisfied are they about the terms of it, to make it to appear to be universal?

The Remonstrants in their Synodical writings, give the Argument thus, ‘Whoever are bound to believe in Christ, for them Christ died.’

But all and every man as wel the Elect as Reprobate, are bound to [Page 4] believe in Christ; Act. Synod. Art 20. p. 337 Ergo, he dyed for all and every man. Wherein the All contended for who are bound to believe, is only Elect and Reprobate; but these two notions do not take in or involve all and every person without exception, and this appears thus: Those that are Elect, are considered as believers; and those that are Reprobated, are considered as unbelievers; but there are many that are neither believers, nor yet unbelievers, as Surdi, A­mentes, Infantes, Indi, deaf, madmen, infants, Indians; being such as to whom God neither doth dispense, nor is ready to dispense his Divine grace; they come not under either of those notions. And this is evi­dent from their own method of arguing.

Act. Synod. Art 10. p. 6. But the Collocutors at Hague, propound it with an other face. Those whom God commands to believe in Jesus Christ, for them Christ dyed, Collat. Hag. p. 133. but God commands not only the Elect, but other men to believe in Christ, Ergo, Christ died not for the Elect, but for other men also.

Which is a farre different conclusion from the former. For the first way expressed both Elect and Reprobate, Corvin. in Mol. cap. 29. §. 14. 16. but this doth not; for if upon their owne principles, some, yea many, as dease, mad men, Indians, be neither believers nor unbelievers, and so neither Elect no Reprobate; then these two phrases Elect and Other men, do not involve reprobates, and so he may die for Elect and Other men, yet not for all.

But Corvinus presents us with it in an other different forme, thus; Whom God commands to believe in Christ, for them Christ is dead; But God commands all men to believe in Christ, and all are bound thereto, Ergo, Christ died for all.

Now if they cannot more distinctly determine then thus, about the expression of the persons on whom this universaltie and obligation to believe is laid; we have reason little enough to expect more positive and setled judgments in the rest. The first urgeth, that Elect and Reprobate, the second that Elect and other men, the third saith that All men are bound to believe: and where should we fix our thoughts to oppose, if they be so un­resolved to assert? But to let this passe, and to examine whether they be lesse uncertain in the next thing considerable, Arminius, when he undertaketh, Mr. Perkins, saith thus, Omnes homi­nes aliquā voca­tione vocantur, Arm. Antiperk 259. All men are called with some call. And there is nothing more intimate to all their writings, then this; that God calls to himself all men without exception, yet the Collocutors at the conference at the Hague, seem to be of an other mind, whiles they say thus, Omnes irre­geniti non sunt ejusdem ordinis, quidam tanquam extra omnem vo­cationem positi, ambulantes in vanitate mentis, non intelligen­tes viam, verita­tis: alii sunt vocati &c. Collat. Hag. Art 3. p 288. Unregenerate men are not all in one order and place; some there are as being put without all manner of Cal, walking in the vanity of their mind, not at all understanding the way of truth; others are called, &c. And not only in this, whether all men be called or no, but also in the title or name whereby they should cal, or denominate this cal, they are thus unresolved.

When there was a ful Jury of them empannelled at the Synod of Dors, they gave this as their definitive sentence at that time. Thus, Communi vo­catione omne; e­vocat ad se Deus Act. Synod. 327 All men are called to God by himself in that general Cal; but what must we cal this general Gal, whether nature alone, or grace alone, or grace and nature mixt? and this is requisite to be known, because they contend for an universal Grace. Arminius he saith it is natural light, thus, Isto loco, Ha­benti dabitur, Deus spondet se spirituali gratiâ illuminaturum e­um qui naturali lumine bene uti­tur, aut saltem mi­nus male Arm. A [...]po [...]k, 218 In that Text (To him that hath shal be given) God bindeth himself to give super­natural [Page 5] grace to him that shall use natural light wel, or at least lesse ill But the Remonstrance in their Synodical writings, thinking this notion a little too short to expresse, and denotate an universal Grace; they thus say, Communi re­ca [...]ione vocat om­nes, non quod se­cundum stius vo­cationis [...]enorem et generatio [...] is gratiae mensuram v [...]tam instituen­tes immediate serventur, sed ut disponentur [...] de­vangelicae praedi­cationis id [...]neo [...] reddantur an i o­res in qua sal [...] offenur Act Sy­nodal 327 Thus by this general [...]al, be calleth all men to him; not that according to the tenour of this common cal, or measure of this more general Grace, they should be immediately saved; but by this general grace they might be dispo­sed and made fit hearers of the Gospel, in which Christ and salvation is offe­red. So that herein they relinquish the truth of this outward Cal, for­merly given by Arminius, and upon better thoughts call it General Grace, and not The light of nature.

But Corvinus not satisfied in either alone, when he is pressed by Molin his adversary, with making grace and nature to be of equal extent and latitude, and so to run ere he is aware, too far into the tents of the Pelagians, he thus answers, Esto, modo e­nim naturam ite à gratia disting­namus, ut intelli­gamus gratiam naturae superad­ditam, hoc s [...]ficit nos a Pelagio se­perandos. Corvin in Mol cap 38 Section 8 Let it be so, so that we distinguish them so far, as to understand grace superadded to nature; this is enough to sepa­rate us from Pelagius. Some wil have this Cal to be the natural light imprest in our minds naturally, others to be called general Grace, others Grace superadded to nature.

Further, when they come to examine the Minor of our Argument, which is, That such a discovery of Christ is not made to all men without exception; and so to strengthen their own assertion, diametrally opposite to it, viz. that such a discoverie is made, and therefore all bound to believe in Christ, what reverst and intricate motions have, we to admiration?

First the Collocutors of the Hague Confer. roundly say, Proposit [...]oni isti prou [...] à fratri­bus concepta est, non omnibus, scil, praedicari Sermo­nem reconciliati­tionis manifestè in Scripturis con­tradictur ratione temporis novi Te­stamenti Acts 17.30 Romans 10 18 Collat. Hag pag 180 That Pro­position as it is produced by our brethren, viz. that the word of reconciliation is not preached to all, is contradicted by clear Scriptures; as Act. 17.30. He commands all men to repent. Rom. 10.18 Their sound is gone throughout all the earth. This in respect of the new Testament, &c. So that there they roundly, and without any Hasitation pronounce the Gospel, and the words of the Apostles to be dispensed to all men without exception. And what can they more desire for the strengthening of their cause? Here is testimony cleer enough if they durst but stand to the award of thes Scriptures, but fearing the issue, they begin to make some cautelous provisoes against a storme; for lest we should presse them with all the times before Christ, which contains three Periods of the world; the time of the Gospel since Christ, is but one, and called The last dayes; and in these last dayes the experience that many live and die, and never hear of the Gospel, as if they could not but contradict and involve themselves with the same breath, they thus grant and say, Quod item ad populos quosdam attinet qui pro [...] ­sus ignorant il­lud verbum re­conciliationis, re­spondemus, Desi ab initio mundi &c. toti mundo sermonem recon­ciliationis evolu­isse & jussisse à generationem propagati. R [...]g. Col. 180 As for those many people, who are altogether ignorant of this word of Reconciliation, we answer, God from the beginning of the world, and in the posterity of Noah, and by his Apo­stles, did wil and command that the Gospel should be preached from genera­tion to generation wherein not daring to subscribe to the award of those quoted Scriptures, they retract from their full mo [...]th'd assertions, and now doe grant that there are many people that are altogether ignorant of the word of Reconciliation: Here let all the world judge of these unstable disputers, they prove that the Gospel is preached to every in­dividual, and thence conclude, that Christ dyed for every individuall, [Page 6] and yet many are altogether ignorant of that word of reconciliati­on; and now they salve it by that which is nothing at all to the purpose. And Arminius himself thus; Primam causam cur Deus non omnibus et sin­gulis hominibus Christum revelat hanc esse, quòd parentes illorum verbum Evange­lii repu [...]iavere. Antiper [...]. 258 The cause why Christ is not revealed to all and every man, is because their forefathers have rejected the Gospel; for thus I urge it, If he give the cause why Christ is not revealed to all, surely then they do give it us for granted that Christ is not revealed to all

Come we 'then to consider the cause, and upon examen thereof we shal find, they are as much involved into uncertainties in this as in the thing it self. Corvinus gives the cause to be in the men themselves, thus, Quia su [...]s pec­catis se istâ gra­tiâ i [...]dignos se­cerunt, in Molin. cap. 28 Sect. 8 Because they have made themselves unworthy of that grace by their sins. But the Remonstrants in their Antidotum, refer it to Gods prascience, thus, Deus non cu­rat istud annun­ciari ii quos prae­f [...]actos et contu­maces sutu [...]os vi [...]et Antidot 79 God doth not take care to reveal Christ to them, because be foresees them to be incorrigible and contumacious. The Collocutors at the Conference at Hague, give the cause to be in the preachers of the Gospel, thus, Culpa transcri­benda sit partim ad negligentiam praedicantium qui operam suam satis fideliter non con­tu [...]ereune Col. Hag. 18 [...] The fault is to be ascr [...]bed partly to the negligence of the preachers of the Gospel, who do not faithfully their duty. Arminius ascribes the cause to their forefathers, thus, Causa est, quòd parentes corum Evangel um re­pudiavere, Anti­perk. 258 The cause why God revealeth not Christ to all and every man, is because their forefathers have formerly rejected the Gospel. And now they have removed their foot, they know not where to stay it, and seeing they have granted that the Gospel is not preached to all, yet they wil not suffer the minor of cur argument to passe without correction: and sometimes they say, Praedicari debet, it ought to be preached; some­times, Praedicare potest, it may be preached; sometimes, In quantum in se est praedicare paratus est, God is ready in as much as in him lieth, to preach it; and this last they much use in all their works, and think they make all things look upon them with a propitious face; when they say, Deus aut facit, aut paratus est facere gratiam omnibus et singulis, God either doth or is ready to dispense his Divine Grace; but they snatch the benefit of such a lenitive out of their own mouths; for in their Synodical writings upon the Article of election, confining election to be'ievers as the ob­ject of it, and reprebation to unbeleevers as the object of it, they say, Eos tantum in­tel [...]gi posse et ce­bere quibus gra­tia Dei aut facta est, aut paratus est facer [...], ne nol is infantium, surd [...] ­rum, rabrosorum, Indorum aliorum­que exempla quis alleget. Lex non lata nec intelle­cta, non obligat. J [...] 15.22. Act. Synod pag 7 Those are to be understood to whom God either hath, or was ready to dispense Divine Grace, lest any one alledg against us the example of Infants, deafe, mad men, Indians; for the law that is not given, and so not understood, doth not bind, John 15.22. Now from these words of theirs, it more then seems to appear, that they grant that deafe, mad men, Infants, In­dians are such as to whom God hath not, nor yet is ready to dispense his grace: if this be not their meaning, Eorum verba sale carent, their words want salt; if it be, their own tenent of universal grace is fallen, and indeed how miserably is that Babel of theirs fallen? as it arose out of smoak, so it vanisheth into it. But what must such confident asser­tours, and such a clear cause do in such a Chasme as this is? They have yet two shifts, the one is that of Corvin, with an ingenuous confession, to acknowledge they are at a losse, thus, Non dissimula­vimusnos exactam iflius dispensatio­nis rationem da­re non posse, et causam à n [...]bis datam non esse precisam et ade­quatam, sed tan­tum sufficientem, in Molin, cap. 28 We have not dissembled that we could not give an exact reason of his dispensations in this kind, or that the cause alledged by us why the Gospel is not preached to some, is an exact or ad­equate cause, but only a sufficient. That is not the exact cause why he [Page 7] doth, but the sufficient cause why he may deny the gospel to some; and we accept of this confession: but left this should too much reflect upon their daring adventures, every where extant from their pens, the Gollo­cutors at the conferrence at Hague, as puzled naturalists resolve their uncertainties into occult qualities, so do these, not knowing how to assert their general tender of grace, either by the Scripture or reason, thus at last say, Fieri etiam posse ut extra or­dinem, alio ali­quo modo utatur ad suae voluntatis manifestationem Col. Hag 181 It may also be, that God may use some other extraordinary way to manifest his wil unto them. A very rational Epilogue, but no whit be­coming such men; to suppose, That he may, but no man knowes when; Use some means, but none knowes how. They do not consider that hereby they do divest the preaching of the Gospel of that title and dignity of being the ordinary means to salvation; for that is the ordi­nary means which is afforded to the generality of them that come to know the wil of God in Christ: But that which is afforded to them that heare not of the gospel, is afforded to the generality and the most; therefore that extraordinary way, what ever it is, and not the Gospel, must be ac­counted ordinary.

But it may be thought, that I have too long forsaken Mr. Goodwin. I wil therefore examine whether he be built upon a more plausible foun­dation of resolution then his ancestors. Not to commit him and his forefathers together (as I might instance in innumerable instances where they run crosse, and contradicting each other) the remonstrants in all their writings, by all that (Call,) whether it be nature alone, or grace, or grace superadded to nature; this is all that they contend for, that all are called to God, and that they are afforded some means to arise to the knowledg of God; not that they are enabled by any common grace to come to the knowledg of, and faith in Christ; but that by such know­ledg of God, they might be successively disposed to heare the Gospel wherein Christ is tendred. But to let this passe, and all of the like nature, I shal examine how consistent he is with himself.

In the frontispiece of his treatise, he promiseth to prove that those that never heard of the letter of the Gospel, are yet bound to believe in Jesus Christ; but how many words doth he produce, until he proceede to the 29 page of his Book, that tended to that purpose? How un­resolved is Mr. Goodwin, what to prove or what to assert?

Doth not Mr. Goodwin in the first part of his Treatise, contend for an immediate sufficiency in the Heathen to believe in Christ, and to draw out the most intimate conclusions of the Gospel, and that by the light of nature, by the works of providence, and by raine, and fruitful sea­sons, that there is such a light darted from these that men have a sufficien­cie of believing? But here Mr. Goodwin wavereth; Sometimes it is to-believe in Christ, as in the frontispiece of his book, wherein he un­dertakes to prove, that men that never heard of the letter of the Gospel, are yet bound to believe in Christ, as also pag. 9.

Sometimes it is to believe only this, as he saith, pag. 10. That there hath been some mediation or some attonement or other made and accepted by God for the sins of men. And this is much different from the former; for [Page 8] though God useth this way of attonement by Christ, yet he was not tyed by any natural necessity to it; so that though the light of nature might discover an attonement yet it wil not hence follow, that by it men may believe on a Christ, that is, an attonement made by that person, and that way.

Sometimes it is neither of these, but a third, farre different from both, Pag. 13 as he saith, They have means of believing; I mean, of believing, 1. That God is. 2. That he is a rewarder of them that seek him All which doth no where lead to, or discover a Christ, as I shal afterwards clearly show.

But doth he not again, as not daring to trust all in this vessel, relin­quish his immediate sufficiency, and pleads for a mediate sufficiencie in pag. 15. to this effect? Not that they can by the light of nature discover a Christ, pag. 1 [...]. but they may by nature do those things, and so please God, that he wil not faile to reveale his son Christ; and this he proves from the parable of the Talents; wherein it is expedient for him to resolve what those Talents are, which are given, upon the improvement of which, Christ is revealed: but when he is resolved himselfe, he wil re­solve u [...]. For in pag. 20. he saith thus, The Talents cannot signifie any thing but natural gifts and abilities. Yet in pag. 21. he saith, These Ta­lents or abilities given to men to improve, are more commonly then properly called natural.

Againe, doth he not seat his controversie (not in any sufficiency either immediate or mediate, as he pretendeth, but) pag. 23. in a remote capacity, which is far different from the former two; and in this sense that they are capable of it, ( viz. the Gospel) as any Nation is capa­ble of the Commodities that are exportable out of another Nation, by equitable adresses to it. Yea sometimes thus, that the Gospel is preacht to all the world (just the assertion of his brethren, and in him we may see their fluctuations) In pag. 23, 24, 25, 26. he earnestly con­tends that the Gospel is actually preacht to the world: But in pag. 34. he contendeth not for an Actual, but a Virtual and constructive preach­ing, in this sense; The Gospel is preached in some eminent places of the world, and its interpreted and constructively preached all the world over. For upon Rom. 10.18, he saith, How can this assertion stand, but in the strength of this supposition, that the Apostles publishing of it in the places where they had opportunity to come, was virtually and constructively a preaching through the world. But lest this should fail, he is content with a potential preach­ing at last, that it may be preached. And this he doth pag. 23. in this sense, It is preacht in some place of the world, and the rest of the world may addresse themselves to that place, and so come to hear of it, As the Queene of Sheba came from the South to heare the wisdome of Solo­mon.

And are not these fit men to be encountred with reason, whose reason is not yet so much resolved, as to give a setled ground of dispute? It is the desire of my heart, and my taske, to grapple with the first borne of Mr. Goodwins strength. But I have this disadvantage that Reuben like, it is as unstable as water, I have not hitherto annexed any answer to Mr. [Page 9] Goodwins or the remonstrants, because my task hath been historicall, not disputative; to show the rise and progresse of this doctrine of universal saving grace: and hitherto it appears to have had its rise out of a mist, not the cleare Sun-light; a mist of uncertainties and conjectures, not out of the Sun-light of a setled and well grounded truth. And as to Mr. Goodwin, I say, (Quorsum hae erroris latebra?) what means these starting holes which truth never seeketh? which are demonstrative, not of a desire to vindicate the truth, but an unwillingnesse to relinquish an errour; these are but the doubles and the retropasses of the subtle fox to foile the sent, meerely to retard the pursuer. And as their labouring to prove an universal grace is demonstrative of the validity of the propo­sition, so their dark and unresolved progresse in proving of it, gives much credit and strength to the assumption of our argument, and lets me see that their invented method for such an universal grace is not able to a­bide the light, or to give satisfaction to any rational scrutiny.

And I am now come to examine Mr. Goodwins assertion and proba­tion thereof, all along his whole treatise.

That which he asserteth is; that every heathen man to whom the let­ter of the Gospel never came, is yet bound to believe in Christ, and that upon this ground: because they have sufficient meanes by the creatures, and light of nature, to discover Christ and the summe of the Gospel, as he saith, almost as often as he hath pages: an attempt that none of his predecessors durst ever so roundly and professedly make.

In the Examen of which, I must propound a few things by way of stating & right understāding of the question in difference betwixt us.

First, when he saith, those that never hear of the letter of the Gospel, are yet bound to beleive in Jesus Christ; I suppose by the letter of the Gospel he understandeth the commands as well as the promises of the Gospel, the one is Gospel as well as the other. Hence wee find in the Scripture, obedience to the Gospel, as well as faith of the Gospel: 2 Thes. 1.8 and indeed the commands of the Gospel are good newes as well as any other part thereof, they being evidences to us that God will again take us in­to his service, and give us further work to doe, when wee deserve to be banished from his face for ever. Then the question will arise to this, whether those that never heard the letter of the Gospel, (viz.) neither the commands, nor promises, nor any other part of that which wee cal the Gospel, are yet bound to believe in Christ.

Secondly, he must not think that we confine the discovery of Christ and salvation by him to the oral preaching of men, or that the question betwixt us turneth upon this hinge. I leave to the Almighty his liber­ty to use what meanes he pleaseth to discover his holy will to men, I will thus far comply with Mr. Goodwin, that whether men come to know God in Christ by reading any part of the written word, or by hearing of it preached, or by immediate revelation of the spirit of God, or by an an­gel, as to the shepherds, or by a voyce from heaven, as to Paul, these wayes may all lay an obligation upon us to believe; but then in all these they enjoy the letter of the Gospel. The matter betwixt us in [Page 10] controversie is, whether those heathen who have onely the light of na­ture and the creature, and the works of common providence to direct them, have such discoveries of Christ as that they become bound to be­lieve in him. This is the purport of Mr. Goodwins whole treatise, as I shal cleare in some few instances. Pag. 10. In one place he saith thus, [The Scripture intimateth that all men by the light of nature, by such a rational discourse can draw out this Evangelical conclusion, that an attonement is made.] And in another place thus, [That hearing by which faith comes, or which is suffi­cient to produce it, is the hearing of the found, and those words which the heavens, Ibid. and the day, and night speake. And the constant course of provi­dence speaks in the ears of all nations the words of eternal life, as well as those words of Christ himselfe when he was upon earth.] And in another page thus, [The heathen who onely have the benefit of the light of nature, together with those impressions of good and evil which accompany it, are and have been in such a capacity of having the Gospel.] Wherein it plainely appeareth that whatever be the praedicate, yet the subject about which all his whole discourse proceeds is, A man having only the light of nature: and it needs must be so, because otherwise what he saith will not reach every man without exception: so that now the controversie appears thus: Whether those stand bound to believe on Jesus Christ who have no fur­ther discovery of Jesus Christ, then the light of nature, works of provi­dence, the book of the creatures, fruitful seasons afford unto them? or whether these do make such a discovery of Christ to all men, as that by it they are and stand bound to believe in Christ? Mr. Goodwin affirmes in both, I deny in both. I therfore address my self to examine his proofs.

It seemes he was provoked to this treatise by a discourse written to him by a Gentleman of worth and learning, so that several pages are spent in complements and anti-complements, in which for me to trace him would be both irksome and useless. That which first occurreth wor­thy to bee taken notice of in reference to the question, wee find in the seventh and eighth pages of his treatise, where in the close I find these words, Pag. 8. ‘[When God commandeth men to repent, certainely he doth in the same command them to believe, in as much as that repentance which he com­mands is Evangelical.]’ Which words seeme to carry in them the force of an Argument. But herein, as all along, I am put to a double task, both to form his Arguments and answer them: but I am not unwilling to do it, the argument therfore if syllogistically propounded, must run thus,

The proposition is grounded upon this, that no Evangelical repentance can be without faith in Christ, as he contends. pag. 7.

The assumption is proved by Act. 17.30. And thus is he safely de­livered of the first-borne of his strength.

Before I answer distinctly to this uncouth and impertinent Argu­ment, I must premise a few things, that I may be rightly understood con­cerning Pagans repentance. There is in every rational creature origi­nally [Page 11] imprinted the love of his maker, and thereupon the light of na­ture obligeth to love God, which love will shew it selfe in obedience to his commands, and in case of a fall into sin, this love calls for sorrow for that delinquency, and a displicancy with our selves that we should of­fend our Creator, and incur his wrath; and this I deny not to bee a part of the eternal law of God and nature, lying on all men, both li­ving on earth, and lying in torments, yea, upon the divels in their de­sperate condition, seeing that it is a duty required of every offending creature as such, and if any shall call this repentance, I will grant that there is an obligation lyes upon all Pagans by the light of nature to re­pent; but this is not Evangelical in order to life and salvation, which the Gospel so frequently calleth for, and in that cited text, Act. 17. gi­ven by M. Goodwin, of which saving repentance and Evangelical, Mr. Goodwin directly and all along speaketh: and this is that repentance which I treat of, otherwise I should not be pertinent to Mr. Goodwins assertions: and I desire to be understood as speaking of this Evangeli­cal repentance in order to life and salvation. And in this sense I deny that Pagans are obliged to repent by the light of nature, and Mr. Good­wins quoted text proves it not, for that text includeth not Pagans, but those to whom the Gospel cometh, as I afterwards shew, neither doth it speak of the light of nature, onely an Evangelical command: and if Mr. Goodwin would but learne to conclude with the question, and make his conclusion thus, as it should, [therefore all Pagans are bound to believe by the light of nature,] or make his minor to run thus, [But God commandeth all men to repent by the light of nature] his Argu­ment would not be a birth but a miscarriage: and though orthodox and good, yet impertinent and uselesse in his businesse. For to answer more distinctly, I say,

Answ. First, What is all this if granted to him? is yet Mr. Goodwin to seek in the rudiments of dispute, one of which is to conclude with the questi­on? which is not, whether all men be commanded to believe. But whether those that never heard of the letter of the gospel be bound to believe? The very conclusion of his Argument expressing a command to repent and believe, supposeth the enjoyment of the letter of the gospel except he will say that the commands of the Gospel, are not the letter of he Gos­pel.

Secondly, to the assumption I answer, it is deniable in that sense, which he must receive, if it doe him any good. That is, that God commands all & every man without exception, yea, those that have on­ly the light of nature and not the letter of the Gospel dispensed at all, further then by the creatures; but this is false, and that text, Act. 17.30. speaketh not any thing to this purpose. And therefore Mr. Goodwin might with credit enough have suffered his Antagonist in that Adage, Quid hoc ad Iphicli loves? w ^th out that scurrilous retortion of Balaams asse in exchange; but consider how hard a thing it is for one of Mr. Good­wins spirit not to be at once both tart and impertinent: but in this it gives us a taste of what we are to expect in the remains of his works.

[Page 12]3. To his Proposition, I have nothing upon mine owne interest, but their principles beget a scruple not easily satisfied, and wee may doubt the conclusive validity of it, it becometh not those of his way to explode a repentance which is without faith in Jesus Christ; and this I prove many wayes.

1 There is nothing more frequent with men of his way then this, to ascribe to man certaine preparatives to faith and regeneration, which will be found to come little short of repentance; or however, can no more be granted as truth, then repentance it selfe. Corvinus saith thus, those that are prest under the burthen of sin, and are weary, and thirst after Christ, and the saving grace by him, are disposed to those benefits that the Lord conferreth on us by the Gospel. And hee being urged by his Antago­nist that the desires of salvation, the groanes of a breathing conscience under the weight of sin, are parts of regeneration, hee thus reply­eth, Hoc est [...] sunt effecta spiritus, sed non regene­rantis, at ad rege­nerantionē praepa­rantis. Ibidem. That is the question: they are the effects of the spirit, but not of the spirit regenerating, but preparing to regeneration. Now taking this for granted, as that which the joynt suffrage of the Remonstrants declareth, thus, Statuimus è contra, audire ver­hum, doleri pro peccato commis­so, gratiam salu­tarem pettere, sūt necessaria ad fi­dem et regenera­tionem obtinen­dam. act. Syn. pag. 1 We also determine, that to hear the word, grieve and sorrow for sin, to desire saving grace, are necessary to the obtaining of faith and regenerati­on. If these may be without faith and before it, why then may not repen­tance, especially looking upon that definition which Arminius gives of re­pentance? thus; It is a griefe for sins acknowledged, and sorrow for the debt of death and servitude contracted by them, with a desire of being freed. Which definition of repentance hath no more in it then those concessions give us roundly to be found in men before, and therefore without faith.

2 It is ordinary with men of Mr. Goodwins way to affirme; that men may please God by their works and improvements, before either Christ be propounded, or they come to believe in Christ, as in the example of Cornelius, Poenitentia est dolor pro pecca­tis agnitis, pro debito mortis & servitutis inde contracto, cū de­siderio liberatio­nis. Armin. d [...]sp. priv. Thes. 43 Act. 10. and many other. And Mr. Goodwin himselfe Pag. 15. affirmes that a heathen man (before he have Christ revealed, and so necessarily before he believe in Christ) may please God by his regular improvements of natural abilities. But can Mr. Goodwin prove that God is pleased with any man before repentance? If hee did abo­minate the sacrifices of his people because their hands were full of the blood of their sins, with whom shall hee bee pleased for any improve­ments whatsoever without repentance? So that if they may please with­out faith, and yet not without repentance; then repentance doth not in­clude in it faith in Jesus Christ.

3 It is very usual with them to deny, that faith in Jesus Christ was ever commanded to the fathers under the old Testament. Armin. resp. ad Art. 31 And this is no inconsiderable pillar of their doctrine, onely faith in God was re­quired, by which they were carried on in all acts of religion and obe­dience towards God. Art. 11. And not the Remonstrants onely, but Mr. Good­win himselfe doth not onely assert, but prove too, that the Jewes of old believed on God onely, not explicitely on Jesus Christ, interpretatively onely; thus [...]e, pag. 37, 38. and he proves it also from John 14.1. ye be­lieve [Page 13] in God, believe also in me; whence he makes it inconsistent with the text, to think that they in times past did believe in Christ, except virtu­ally, that is as he must understand it, as he is one with that God in whom they believed; but explicitely as a mediatour they did not be­lieve in him. Now if we consider the Jewes not believing on Christ as mediatour, and yet repenting by expresse command, yea, and the Re­monstrants are angry if wee say that Ahab did not truly repent, thus, Nullâ ratione probari possit, Achab [...]m Hypocriticè resi­puisse, sed ex ani­mo, quia Deus magno munere remuneravit cum. Act. Synod. art. 3. p. 1 [...]5 No reason can be given to prove that Ahab did repent in hypocrisie, but rather from his heart because God rewarded him; until Mr. Goodwin can give us some competent intelligence of Ahabs believing in Christ, their owne principles give us occasion enough to scruple the consequence of his proposition, (viz) if God command all men to repent, he com­mandeth them to believe in Christ. Thus have I taken a survey of this first piece of his reason, and I am sorry that a man of such professes and credit in the world, should assault us with such an argument at the first dash, whose proposition cannot stand with his owne principles, whose assumption is inconsistent with truth, whose conclusion is nothing to the question, and therefore I leave M. Goodwin to satisfie himselfe, whether repentance be a work of the law, or of the Gospel, or of a third covenant. I am not at all interested into these intergatories, pag. 7. it is sufficient for me that it is not a work of the law of nature, & to prove it, I accept Mr, Goodwins owne grant, which is this, It cannot be the work of the law, for the law knoweth no repentance, the tenour of the law is more di­strict and inexorable, Gal. 3.10. Cursed is every one that continueth not. Very Orthodox and right; but how this serves his turn, will appeare when he gives satisfaction to us in this demand. If the positive law of God doe not know or admit of such a thing as repentance, Omnium homi­num cordibus in­sculpsit Deus ali­quam sui cogniti­onem, & aliquam legem ad obedi­endam perswasi­ones, poenarum metum et prae­miorum spem. art. Synod. art. 20, p. 327 how can the law of nature bind us to repentance, there being no substantiall diffe­rence betwixt the law of nature and the lawes of God, save onely in the manner of discovery. The positive law is a law outwardly given and commanded, the law of nature is the same law inwardly written and imprinted in the heart. Now if the one be enexorable and admits not repentance, why should the other discover and command it? Suppose we admit the placita of the Remonstrants in their latitude, thus, God hath inscribed in the hearts of men some knowledge of himselfe and a certain law, and perswasions to obedience, and hope of reward, and feare of punish­ments, All which they produce as the product of the light and law of nature, yet all these arise not so high as to command repentance; for the positive law of God to Adam in integrity propounded all these, and all these might agree with Adam then in his best condition; but then there was no obligation lay upon him to repent, nor after, till he received the promise as Mr. Goodwin himselfe in so many words professeth in his Postscript: which here (before we passe from this argument) falleth under examination, and I find something in it that will make this case more cleare. It seemes that the Gentleman who wrote to Mr. Goodwin had affirmed, that Adam during the interval, betwixt his fall and the promise, was under an obligation to repent; but who ever it was, I hope [Page 14] he will not take it ill, if I leave it for him to prove. I am so farre confe­derate with Mr. Goodwin, as to think it a mistake. And here comes in Mr. Goodwins postscript, wherein he earnestly contendeth by stresse of Argument, that during that time he was under no obligation either of the natural law or positive: I might well passe all this by as not apper­taining any thing at all to my selfe, yet I shall improve what hee here affirmeth to my owne advantage in clearing the truth; That hee was not bound by the law of nature, he proves thus: If by the law of nature, then was it required in order to his salvation, then there was a principle vested by God in the nature of man to recover and save himselfe, and this principle to be carryed over unmaymed from the estate of integrity to the estate of sin, in­to which he plunged himselfe, and then also to remaine in the same vigour in his posterity, & so every person of mankind to be in a capacity of salvation; & if so, then Christ must have dyed for all without exception. His intentions in these reasonings I cannot well divine, but what ever it be, I retort up­on him thus; if they be to overthrow the position of his adversary, as by so many monstruous absurdities, he must know they are all his own; if otherwise he intend hereby to gaine upon his adversary in these de­ductions, and draw him by degrees into his owne tent by the ducture of these his owne positions, then I thus argue, Either all these are the genuine and legitimate inferences from his positions, or not: if not, then he beateth the ayre, and must cast about for another postscript; if they be, then I demand an account why Mr. Goodwin ownes the infe­rences, and yet disclaimes the Position from whence they genuinely flow; when any one may easily see it to be more congruous to the whole purport of his treatise to affirm it, then to deny it. Seeing it is his task to prove that every man by the law of nature onely is bound to believe & repent, which is utterly out irrecoverably lost, if Adam in that interval was not bound to believe or repent, in which he had the light of nature as much as ever after. I might here propound an Argument of some considerable strength against his main position, thus, If Adam was not ty­ed by the law of nature to repent, then his posterity is not. But hee was not, Ergo, his posterity is not: But I shall pursue this more pertinently when I answer his argument, whereby he proves that the law of na­ture bindeth every man to repent and believe.

Thus having propounded his first Argument, in which he hath done nothing in relation to the controversie in hand, because he hath not in it proved, that God ever gave a command, or laid an obligation upon any such man or men to repent, to whom the letter of the Gospel never came, either in the commands or the promises of it. He yet can (before he begin handsomely to combat) triumph as he doth, Pag. 8, 9. pag. 8. 9. where he concludeth thus: From the premises it further appeareth, that the Gentiles to whom the letter, the written letter of the Gospel never came, and amongst whom the name of Jesus Christ (haply) was never named, yet in sufficient propriety of speech, and largenesse enough of truth, may be sayd to have the Gospel preached to them, though not in that critical formality of the signification of the word ( [...]) and (praedicare) a dialect which the Holy Ghost commonly neglecteth.

[Page 15]I wonder Mr. Goodwin doth not blush that the world should see so much weaknesse, falshood and boldnesse come from him in one line.

1. What cause hath he to say, that this he hath now uttered, plain­ly appeares from the premises? was there ever mention made of the Gentiles who never heard of the letter of the Gospel, or of the name of Christ, or of the preaching of the Gospel to such? Let him, if he think good, form those premises and this conclusion into an Argument, and I believe it will be of smal strength.

2. What is it that doth by the premises appear? I fea [...] it is some such thing as that not onely, not by the premises, but not by all that Mr. Goodwin can say, will yet appear. It is this, that they that never had the letter, the written letter of the Gospel, or the name of Christ named, may yet properly be said to have had the Gospel preached. But,

1. How cau [...]elous is he? (the letter, the written letter) surely he doth intend to play with this terme (letter of the Gospel) as if we held that none are tyed to believe but they to whom the written letter comes, or as if it were his task to prove that; more are tyed to believe then they to whom the written letter is come. I say again, it matters not how the discovery be made, by reading, hearing a voice from heaven, an Angel from heaven, or any, which way God shall chuse, so that it be but be­yond what nature discovereth, it confirmeth us, and overthroweth him.

2. How miserably doth he praevaricate and change the face of the question? that which he is to prove, is, that they are bound to believe, to whom the letter of the Gospel never cometh: but he now deceitfully shaffles in an Heterogenius expression, if he himselfe divine right, viz. [Or the Name of Christ ever named:] Betwixt which and the former there is a wide difference; so much, as that the one may be without the other, as he saith, pag. 9. The Gospel was preached to the ancient Jews, yet the name of Christ was not named amongst them. Hereby he hath this advantage, that we should think it his task to prove, that they that have not the name of Christ named, are bound to believe; when his assertion looks quite with another face: this is nothing inge­nuous.

3. Whereas he saith, ( they may be said in propriety of speech and large­nesse of truth enough, to have had the Gospel preached I demand by what? and if Mr. Goodwin should do to me as he did to Mr. Simpson in their conference, affirme a sufficient meanes of believing; but think it be­sides the question to state it what those means were, he might make me seek the preacher: but he is a little more ingenuous, and tells us, Pag. 10.11. that the heavens, the day, and the night, and the providence of God, rain, and fruit­full seasons. These are M [...]. Goodwins preachers, and that these are pro­perly said to preach the Gospel he affirmeth; wherein hee excuseth a heap of falsities under the shelter of one intimated and implyed truth. For anatomize his assertion into these axiomes; 1. The heavens preach. 2. They preach in propriety of speech. 3. They preach the Gospel. 4. They preach the Gospel in propriety of speech. One alone is true, and the rest very false. The first I will easily grant, that the heavens [Page 16] are said to preach. For as the word [...] which signifieth (enerravit,) and is properly attributed to animate, and rational creatures, as Psal. 2. [...] I will declare the decree of God; Psal. 2. yet I find that it is also extended to the heavens. [...] the heavens declare the glory of God So I grant that the word [...] which signifi­eth to Cry, from whence cometh the word [...], and [...] the verb, which signifieth to preach, may also be extended to inanimate creatures, (though examples of it be very rare:) yet will Mr. Goodwin say, that it is in propriety of speech? This would crosse both reason and interpre­ters: it is rather by the figure, called Prosopopeia, as he well enough knowes, wherein God in Scripture often produceth inanimate creatures as personating animate and rational; as when God is said to heare the heavens, Hos. 2 Adhibet proso­popeia, fictionem personae, et ita lo­quitur quasi coeli etter [...]a fuerant a­nima [...]a. Ribera in locum. which intimates that the heavens call to God. Yet we have this Comment upon the words, the Lord useth a Prosopopeia, (viz.) a fiction of the person whereby he speaketh, as if the heavens and the earth were ani­mate creatures. And Cornel. de Lapid, Although he be of Mr. Goodwins side, yet he doth not help him in this, for though he say they preach the Gospel, yet he would have it to be no otherwise then allegorically and symbolically. And if Junius be of any credit with him, he will read the 4 ^th verse of the nineteenth Psalm which we ordinarily read, Cornel. à Lapid. in Rom. 10.18 there is no voice nor language where their voice is not heard: he reads it thus; Non est vox nec est sermo, sine his tamen intel­ligitur vox corū, Iun. in Psal. 19.4 they have no speech, no words, yet without these their voice is heard and understood. And let Mr. Goodwin examine his reading by the original text, and he gives us a further account of this his reading in his annotations, thus; Prosopopeia e­mollit superiorē, et nobis docet e­jus intelligentiā; non loquuntur quidem ut homi­nes, sed velut lo­quentes à nobis intelliguntur, ibid he allay­eth the forenamed Prosopopeia, and teacheth us to understand it, they speak not as men, yet they are to be understood by us as if they could speak. Thus the propriety of Mr. Goodwins language vanisheth into smoak; and it is well he couples those two so handsomely together, (viz.) propriety of speech, and largenesse of truth, for indeed they are both of one size, there is no more largenesse of truth in this, That the heavens preach the Gospel; then propriety of speech in this, That the heavens preach.

4. Whereas he saith, the Holy Ghost neglecteth such a critical forma­lity of the word [...], and praedicare. I say again, that the word [...] being used at large, may formatively be applyed to inanimate creatures; but when it is strictly taken, for [...], to preach the Gospel, until Mr. Goodwin produce one example wher­in the Holy Ghost doth not confine it to those animate and rational in­struments whom he chuseth for this purpose, and that beyond what the heavens declare, I shall judge him guilty of grosse forgery against the Holy spirit of God.

But because this disrelishing pill will not downe without a due prepa­rative, he gives us something more in the next words to facilitate our beliefe of the former, in this manner.

The Gospel is said to have been preached to the antient Jewes, Heb. 4.26. Heb. 4, 2, 6 yet Christ was not by name preached unto them, nor knowne amongst them. And as the rock out of which Moses, or God by Moses gave them water to drink, is said to have been Christ, (viz.) in type [Page 17] and representation, and spiritually. In like manner, yea with much more pregnancy of signification and revelation, the patience and goodnesse of God vouchsafed to the heathen, may he termed Christ.] In all which he seems to me to be deserting his first argument, yea, & his first subject too, which was to prove, that all men are bound to beliave in Christ; and now he is inclining to prove a sufficiency of meanes af­forded to all to believe: and this he seemed to assert in his expresses immediately foregoing, wherein he told us, that every heathen man, though he had not the letter of the Gospel, yet he might in propriety of language be sayd to have the Gospel preached to him. Now these expressions are to make good this propriety of speech. But then,

2. His ingenuity is blemished, in that he doth so notoriously abuse his readers in this so palpable a delusion, in that he alters the state of the question to a quite different notion: at the first he propounded it thus, that those that never had the letter of the Gospel were bound to believe. Afterwards he adjoyned an expression of a different nature, and then it was thus; those that never had the letter of the Gospel, nor yet had the name of Christ named. And now he hath utterly left out his o [...]iginal ex­pression, and we have it onely thus; they who never had the name of Christ among them named. This is not tollerable in any method of true argumentation, every line to bestow upon the question, or assertion that is to be proved, a new face, especially seeing there is such wide diffe­rence betwixt the having of the (letter of the Gospel) and having the (naming of the name of Christ) as he himselfe grants, the one may be without the other: Had he dealt ingenuously and fairely, he should have exprest it thus; the Jews, who neither had the letter of the Gospel prea­ched, nor yet the name of Christ so much as named amongst them, yet they had the Gospel preached to them. For otherwise, if both these expressions be not taken in, how can they be pertinent to this purpose? viz. to illustrate and cleare, that the heathen who neither have the letter of the Gospel, nor yet Christ named, may yet properly be sayd to have the Gospel preached? But the one of these, and that which was most pertinent to the question in hand, he fraudulently leaves out, because he knew his conscience otherwise would charge him with much falshood, and that from his owne text, where it is said, the gospel was preached to us, as it was to them; that is, to both, in the letter and oral administration therof. Heb. 4.2

3. His Divinity is blemished more.

1. In affirming that the Jewes had not the name of Christ named amongst them. And if Mr. Goodwin expect to carry it with such preg­nancy of reason, that because the Jews had not the name of Christ na­med, and yet were said to have the Gospel preached to them, therefore these heathen that have neither Christ named, nor yet the letter of the gospel, may be said to have the gospel preached, why may not I make claime to this consequence, that seeing they were said to have the gospel preached to them, and also to have the letter of it, and Christ by name knowne amongst them, therefore it is more proba­ble that those, that either have the name of Christ, or the letter of the [Page 18] gospel, are onely said properly to have the gospel preached? there­fore I say, in opposition to Mr. Goodwin, that the antient Jewes in having the gospel preached, they had Christ by name preached unto them. And the more am I provoked to a word or two in this particular, because it will be useful to us in the point of faith in Jesus, under the old Te­stament. Now I say, they had the name of Christ in the due latitude and acceptation of the word (Name.) Mr. Goodwin, I hope, seeth a wide difference betwixt preaching the name (Christ) and preaching Christ (by name:) as it is in one thing to preach or speak the name (God) and another thing to preach God by name, for hee hath many names.

2. I premise this also, the question betwixt us will not be whether they were well acquainted with the discoveries of Christ by his names; probably they might not, and yet it be true that he was preached by name. As it was true that God was preached to the Jews by name when he bad Moses say, (I am hath sent thee,) although they did not so well know him by that name: which being premised, I thus proceed. As that is a mans name wherby he is knowne and distinguished: ( nomen quasi no­scimen, or notamen) so is Gods name, not only the words (God) (Lord,) but the tearms, (Almighty) (Jehovah) (I am) are Gods names. So of Christ, we must not confine the name of Christ to the words (Christ) or (Jesus,) but Counsellour, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Wonderful, Isai. 9.6, 7 Zech. 6.12 Isai. 11.1 Branch. And all these, the Scripture expressely saith are the names of Christ, as we may see in Isai. 9.6, 7. Zech. 6.12. His name is Wonderful, Counsellour, &c. Which last name, Branch, the prophet I­saiah expresseth by the rod coming forth out of the root of Ishai. Isai. 11.1. Now in that his name is the Branch, wee may conclude by the rule of proportion, that whatever expresseth his original is his name. So in that Counsellour is his name, we may conclude any thing that expres­seth any of his perfections is his name; in that Christ, and Jesus, are his names, wee may conclude that such expression as denote any of his offices of mediation, are his names also; so that by this we may clear­ly prove that the antient Jews had his name preached upon all occasions, as Gen. 3.17. Gen. 3.17 The seed of the woman, &c. Why may not this passe for the name of Christ as well as the branch out of the root of Ishai? seeing it is retained in Gods promise to Abraham and Sarah, in thy seed shall all nations be blessed. Gal. 3.16 Deut. 18.15 And the Apostle retaineth this name, and ap­plyeth it to Christ, Gal. 3.16. to thy seed, which is Christ. So Deut. 18.15. prophetically Christ is there called by the name of the prophet, and that prophet. Rev. 5.5 Gen. 49.8, 9 And why is not this Christs name as well as Coun­sellour? we read in Rev. 5.5. Christ is called the Lyon of the tribe of Ju­dah; And was not this name discovered unto the ancient Jews? Gen. 49.8, 9. prophetically? Gen. 49.10 Christ to come out of Judah, is set out to them thus, Judah is a Lyons whelp. And in Gen. 49.10. We find that the Scepter shall not depart from Judah, untill Shiloh come. Let Mr. Good­win tell me whose name is that? doe not interpreters say, it is Christs? [Page 19] Whether we deduce the word from Shalah, paciferum esse, [...] to be peace­ble, or (peace maker,) it is his name as well as that of Isai, [...] the prince of peace; or as others would have it from the word Shil, which signi­fies a son; and the suffix, vau: and so to signifie his son, it may passe for the name of Christ, and is so, Heb. 1.4, 5. Heb. 1.4, 5 He hath obtained a more excellent name, and this name is but this, thou art my Son only. Yet further, Rev. 22.16. Christ is there called the bright morning star, Rev. 22, 16 Numb. 24.27 and was not this preach't to the Jews by Balaam prophetically? Num. 24 27. And if these serve not, I further say, that not onely Christ by name, but the very name Christ was preached to them of old by David. Psal. 2. 2. They assemble themselves against the Lord, vegnal meshicho, [...] which we read properly, against his Christ. Now Mr. Goodwin affirmes and proves too, pag 44. that this Psalme is spoken of Christ, and he must confesse that here his name is preached. For Mashach in the Hebrew, [...]. whence comes Messias, signifies to annoint, as well as the word [...] in the greek, whence comes Christ, and these two words are both the same. John 1.41. This is Messias, which is by interpretation Christ, John 1.41 Matth. 1.23 Isai. 7.14 and the time when the holy Psalmist preacht this name was but four hundred yeares after Moses: againe, is not Christ called Emmanuel? Matth. 1. And is he not so called by name? Isai. 7.14. And this above a thou­sand years before Christ was born? all this Mr. Goodwin had either not the divinity to know, or not the candor and ingenuity to acknowledge, although it be so cleare from the words of the gospel, that those ancient words did directly and clearly lead to Christ. As Peter applyes the name of the Prophet to him, out of Deut. 18.15. in Acts 3.22, and Philip to Nathanael thus spake, We have found him of whom Moses and the Prophets do write. John 1.45. Even Jesus of Nazareth. And Christ himselfe, had ye beleived Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.

But had Mr. Goodwin carryed it at this turne, so as to prove that the an­cient Jewes had neither the letter of the gospel, nor the name of Christ preached, and yet could produce such a peremptory evidence upon re­cord against us, from Heb. 2.4. that the gospel was preached to them, what a plausible way had he found out to make good that in the proprie­ty of language, those heathen might have the Gospel preached some way or other, although they neither had Christ by name, nor yet the letter of the gospel preached to them? But he miserably faileth in all; yet let the e­vidence of the parallel prove how it will, he at a venture, concludeth, that; As the rock is said in type and representation to have been Christ, in like man­ner, yea, and with much more pregnancy, and neerenesse of signification is the goodness, and patience, and bounty of God vouchsafed to the heathen to be termed Christ.

But why should Mr. Goodwin or any man usurp that licentious way of glossing upon the oracles of God, that when the Scripture expressely saith, the rock was Christ; but no where saith that the bounty and pa­tience of God is Christ, yet we shall say that the patience of God is to be called Christ in more pregnant neerenesse of signification then the [Page 20] Rock. Doe we not in these methods of ours irreverently chastise the holy spirit of God, in that he doth not call that Christ, which indeed is so in a greater neernesse of signification, then that which yet he ex­pressely calleth Christ?

2. When he saith, (in like manner) can any rational man divine what he meaneth, that the patience and bounty of God is in like man­ner to be called Christ? it must be as the rock was Christ, i e. in type and representation. That is, the rock was a type and representation of Christ, but is the patience of God so? I hope Mr. Goodwin shall never see that time wherein these types of Christ, (viz.) the Patience and bounty of God shall be abolished. How that can be called Christ in type and representation, which is for the Churches sake to continue to the end of the world, that all should come to repentance, I leave to him by his new lights to discover to the world.

Post legem, tem­poraria & extra­ordinaria Sacra­menta fuerunt transitus per ma­re rubrum um­braculum nubis, manna descen­dens è coelo aqua è rupe profluens, quorum priora duo baptismo, posterio a duo coenae dominicae, respondent, teste Apostolo. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4 Tylen. Syntag. 864 1. Cor. 10, 1. &c.3. Suppose we should grant that the patience of God did signally discover to us that attonement which is wrought out by Christ; yet will it not follow that it may be termed Christ, with a more pregnant signi­ficancy then the rock, because the rock, with several other things of the like nature, were sacramental to the Jews, and so they not onely were signes, as bare types, but seals to the covenant of grace in Christ, as Tylenus telleth us, The temporary and extraordinary sacraments after the giving of the law, were passage through the red sea, being under the cloud, Mannah comming from heaven, and the water issuing out of a rock, the two former answering to Baptisme, the two latter to the Lords Sup­per. And what more cleare from the Apostle then this? who reduceth the red sea, and the cloud, and baptisme, and Supper of the Lord unto the same in substance; and the red sea and the rock, to answer to our baptisme and the Supper of the Lord, in that he saith, our Fathers were baptized in the sea. So that what baptisme and the Lords Supper are to us, the red sea and the water at the rock was to them, (viz.) Sacraments, and so not onely to sign, but to seale the things promised in his cove­nant. Now is it according to the method of Mr. Goodwins divinity, that the Patience of God, which hath neither natural, nor any instituted relation or tendency to signifie Christ, should be called Christ in more neernesse of signification then those things that were instituted Sacra­ments to the Jewes; and that in direct reference to Christ?

4. That which he saith here, viz. The patience afforded to the heathen may in a greater neernesse of signification be termed Christ then the rock, is no more but what he elsewhere uttereth, and to this effect; that the heathen have more pregnant meanes for the believing in Christ, then the Jewes, and it is cleare from his constant reasoning; for hee holds that [all that the Jews had afforded them led them but hither, to believe in God, and not in Jesus Christ, except implicitely and interpretatively, as he doth pag. 37.38. But the heathen have such meanes, (viz.) the patience of God, the light of nature, workes of the creation.] They have now sufficient meanes of beleiving in Christ, and to draw out thence the very summe and substance of the gospel, as he doth 10, 11, 12, pages of his treatise assert. But will this passe for currant in his divi­nity, [Page 21] that God hath nurtured up the heathen, who are w ^thout God and ali­ens, without Christ, and hope, Heb. 2.12. with as pregnant discoveries of his son, & the substance of the gospel, as as he did the Jewish church who were a peculiar people to himselfe? Let henceforth all their priviledges of the circumcision, mentioned Romanes 9.1, 2, 3. vanish into smoak.

But to pardon Mr. Goodwin this slip, and to look upon his words as not making any comparison at all with the Jewes, but onely simply and absolutely thus, that the patience of God, may be termed Christ. I ex­pect that he proves how the patience of God without the concurrence of the word to informe us of all things concerning it, can discover Christ so far as that it may be called Christ. He attempts to prove it by Rom. 2.4. Because it is there said, the patience of God leads us to repentance; but because this Text is produced afterward as a master proofe of the marrow of his discourse soon after produced. I say onely thus much now; the patience of God there spoken of, implyeth a concurrent word, and so all wayes whereby it may bee known to bee patience; and without which, it cannot discover Christ; which word it is praesupposed by the termes of the question in hand, the heathen have not: But let all go, Yet

Lastly, his reason is much blemished in arguing thus, the Jewes were sayd to have the gospel preached, therefore the heathen may; seeing that the Jews had the letter of the gospel, and Christ preached by name, but the Gentiles had not. Therefore let that propriety be granted to the Jews but denyed to the Gentiles, and the heathen whilst they remain so, and he will doe his judgement and reason a great deale of right.

Thus having toyled himselfe in proving that it may be sayd in pro­priety of language, the heathen have the gospel preached, although they have not the letter of the gospel preached, he now is sitting downe to reap the fruit of those labours, and now shews how the heathen come to draw out such Evangelical conclusions concerning Christ, and salvation by him, without the letter of the gospel; and indeed, having before bro­ken the bone, here giveth us the marrow of his whole discourse, thus; God being by the light of nature known, or at least knowable to be in­finitely just, and bent in hatred against sin, when notwithstanding hee shall expresse himselfe in goodnesse, and patience, and long suffering towards those that know themselves to be sinners: Hereby he declares sufficiently that his justice and severity against sin, have been (and this must be in reason sup­posed to have been in a way proportionably to so glorious an effect) satisfied, and that he hath so far accepted an attonement for them, that in case they repent of their sins, and persevere in it unto the end, they shall escape punish­ment, and so be saved; and what is this but (being interpreted) to have [...], the effect of the gospel written in their hearts.

A very mercifull ordinary for a heathen man! hee cryes legit, when God knoweth he cannot spel one syllable. Here is a method cut out by a thred, wherein Mr. Goodwin is in the right in two things. This [Page 22] is by interpretation the summe of the gospel; and by this discourse, and regular progresse, (if they could make it) they may come to draw out the substance of the gospel, but if it be his meaning that a heathen man by the light of nature onely, can make this regular discourse, and discover all these particulars. I fear it will need probation more then interpretation, and that the world may take a little better notice of it, they shall have a second view of it thus: Men may know by the light of nature onely, that God is just, and that it is just for him to punish sin severely, then they may read themselves in the heavens to be sinners, and Gods suspension of wrath to be patience and forbearance, and so read in the heavens that his justice is satisfied; and that in such and such a way, and yet by such a satisfa­ction that admits something to be done on our part ere we can enjoy salvati­on, and then (ex multis possibilibus) out of the endlesse numbers of possibles which God might out of his liberty have chosen to be mans duty. The light of nature can presently fasten upon this duty of repentance, and cull it out from all the rest, and that in the heavens is so legibly engraven the doctrine of perseverance, that it must be also upon perseverance to the end. A very fair progresse, if it had but halfe so much truth as colour; but I shall present­ly shew that no man can discover any one of those by the light of nature onely: this being the foundation of the whole, I shall with the greater intention bend my selfe to the work, and take them all into examinati­on in order as they lye.

First he saith, God is knowable by the light of nature to be infinitely just, and infinitely bent against sin. But we find no such thing from any e­vidence of Scripture: that something of God is to be knowne by the light of nature, the Apostle alloweth; but what that is, or how farre this is known by the creation, Rom. 1.20 I desire Mr. Goodwin to suspend his vote till we have heard the Apostle speak: he telleth us Rom. 1.20. that the in­visible things of God are seen by the creation, viz. his eternal power and Godhead, he goes no further; not that I think that no more of God is seen then the Apostle mentions; for his wisdom and goodnesse, I conceive, is also pregnantly seen; yet he mentioneth enough to preserve men from idolatry, and therefore contents himselfe with so much as is sufficient to his intended purpose; yet we must observe also what kind of attributes be mentioneth, namely, such as will naturally, and without any other medium be concluded from the creation, by resolving all causes and ef­fects into their originals, as from creation we may presently resolve all into power, that can bring a world out of nothing; into wisedome to make all in such a stupendious order; and goodnesse in giving to every creature some rayes of that goodnesse which is in himselfe. Wee come now in the state of corruption to gaine the knowledge what God is, by the use of medium's, and they must be pertinent ones also, as those things declare his power in which his power is shown. But as for justice, where is that shown in the creation? Justice, and mercy, and long suffe­ring are such relative attributes that they are not manifested or exerci­sed in or upon man, except he be in a further capacity then as meerly created. We see God but in vestigiis, in his footsteps in the creatures; now [Page 23] we cannot make so much as a conjecture of him where he hath not al­ready set his foot: we may see his power in the creation, because in the creation he hath troden in the path of his power: But how shall we by the creation or light of nature see his justice, when creation it selfe cannot appear, to be an act of justice? If Gods justice, and mer­cy; and longsuffering were knowable by the light of nature, why did not God refer him to that when Moses desired God to shew him his glory? or, why needed Moses to ask that boon? We find that his mercy, Exod. 33.19.34.6, 7 longsuffe­ring, as punishing iniquity, as pardoning sin, was not knowable by Moses (a man well versed in the creation, as a Historian,) un­til it was discovered and revealed by a higher dictator then nature. Justitia Dei est virtus Dei quâ omnia rectè jux­ta eo quod ipso convenire dic­tat sayientia ejus administrat. Arm. disp. Priv. Thes. 21. Equitas est secū ­dum quam à Deo omnia fiunt jux­ta non ā et prae­scriptum sap en­tiae ejus. Episcop. Part. 2. Disp. 9

2. Suppose that a heathen man could know by the light of nature that God is just, (tanquam in actu primo) yet how can he know that his justice consists in being infinitely bent in hatred and severity against sin? Let Mr. Goodwin (who hath greater advantages then the light of nature) shew us what natural or necessary rule of justice there is that tyes God to be infinitely bent in severity against sin. It is so general­ly received, that I may affirme it; his wisdome is the rule of his justice: Arminius himselfe being judg, will over rule this case, and he saith, The justice of God, is the vertue of God, by which he administers all things rightly, according as his wisedome thinks convenient. And Episcopius (his second) will adjudge the same way, that which Arminius called general justice, he calleth equity, and thus saith, The equity of God is that whereby all things are done according to the rule, counsel, prescript of his owne wise­dome. So that what in his wisedome he prescribeth to himselfe to doe, and in his word declareth, that he will doe it according. Hic videmus ju­stitiam Dei retri­buentem ex ora­tiosa promissione Dei, & ex justa comminatione primum locum habere. His justice binds him to do that, and that is just, and no other thing. So that the justice of God which we call retribuent, which directly falleth in with the case in hand; retribuent I say, either of mercy upon obedience, or punishment upon disobedience, taketh place upon his declarations of those wayes and methods which his wisedome hath presented concern­ing the sons of men, that is, either his gracious promises or severe com­minations. And this Arminius himselfe will award for us, for he saith expressely thus; Here we see the retribuent justice of God, first to take place from the gracious promises and just comminations of himself. Rom. 1.17 And this is no more then what we are forced to by the very dint of Scripture, the apostle telleth us, Ro. 1.17. That the righteousnes of God was revealed in the gos­pel, and the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, that is, as the Apostle there taketh it, a reward of mercy for faith, and a punishment of severity for sin and sinners, yet both these are justice. God having prescribed this way to himselfe, and declared it to us in the gospel, that he will so re­ward the faith of believers, Rom. 3.26 and severely punish the obstinacy of impeni­tents. So that to justifie believers is an act of divine justice. Rom. 3.26. that he might be just, and the justifier of them that believe. So also to pu­nish sin is divine justice, hence it is called the just recompence of re­ward. Heb, 2.2. Heb. 2.2 The justice of God looks not all one way upon sin­ners; his justice binds him as well to punish as to pardon sinners ac­cording [Page 24] to his owne prescribed rule; that is, to pardon penitent sinners as well as to punish obstinate sinners, Hence John saith, Epist. 1.1.9. If we confesse, he is just to forgive; These premises I would improve thus far.

1. To discover Mr. Goodwins improvident expressions in making Gods justice, and his being bent upon severity against sin to be termes equipollent, when his being bent against severity, is equally his ju­stice, if his wisedome prescribe, and to so many as he is pleased to doe it.

2. To prove, that, seeing the justice of God takes place from the pre­scriptions of his wisedome, and declarations of the same, I say, that till such prescriptions and declarations be known, we cannot divine what is just or unjust for him to doe: Therefore until Mr Goodwin can prove that the heathen which never had the letter of the gospel doe yet know those prescriptions and declarations of the Almighty, whereby he prescribes himselfe to be bent in severity against sin, I shall conclude, they cannot by the meere light of nature come to know God to be either just, or bent in severity against sin. And that they are not so intimately acquainted with Gods secrets by the light of nature, I am enduced to conclude, because the Apostle telleth us, that his righteousnesse is revea­led in the gospel, his wrath against sinners is revealed from heaven; but I am taught to think that the spirit of God was never found so to daily with his owne Oracles, as to say, that that which is discovered by the light of nature, is either revealed in the gospel, or from hea­ven.

Rom. 2.15.2. The second parcel of this his rational discourse, is this, they know themselves to be sinners: I shall not make much stir about this, because in general sense it may be granted, and that from Rom. 2.15, their con­sciences excusing or accusing one another: now accusing consciences, imply a guilt and acknowledgement of some delinquency against the law of God. But yet the businesse will be something more difficult as to this pretended discourse of a heathen man; for it is not enough for him to know, that he is a sinner against the law of nature, but against some positive law of God, which was attended with such a severe penalty, as dy­ing the death. He must know that this law was so broken by him as that he becomes guilty of eternal death, and lyeth now concluded under an irrecoverable curse without a Saviour, and a forfeiture of all that he can call good, which can never by himselfe be regained; otherwise how shall Gods providences appear to him under the notion of patience, Rom. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so the Heathen man must be distinctly acquainted with the history of Adams integrity, fall, and ruin, Gods law, mans sin, and mans curse, and is this to be done meerly by the light of nature? Certainely then the Apostle took too much paines to convince them, that both Jewes and Gentiles were under sin. In the first part of his Epistle to the Romanes, how he beateth the ayre to read such superfluous Lectures to them, as he doth in the 5th Chapter, that by one man sin entered, and by sin death, in whom we all have sinned: when all this and much more is [Page 25] knowne by the meer light of nature and common providences. Againe certainely, then the words of the Apostle want weight, when he saith, Rom. 3.19 What the law saith, (that is the positive) it saith to them that are under the law, that all mouths may be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God, Rom. 3.19. if that all mens mouths may be stopped, & they be found guilty before God by the dictate and light of nature.

3. The third parcel of this discourse, They see him expresse himselfe in patience, goodnesse and bounty. I suppose still he intends this by the light of nature: but then I wonder why he thus fallaciously shuffles in termes of a Heterogenious nature; that may well be admitted in his sense, un­derhand to gaine credence to that which cannot upon the interest of truth be received; goodnesse and bounty he sheweth in the creation; Praedestinatio non tantum fa­cta est ex bonita­te simpliciter cō ­siderata, cujus est seipsū cōmunicate cum creaturis, sed ex modo mi­sericordiae in mi­seros, & patientiae & longanimita­tis erga reluctan­tes ex eadem bo­nitate prodcuntis Armin. examen Perkin pag. 16 and by the creation it selfe onely we may come to see his bounty and good­nesse in communicating himselfe unto the creatures: but patience and longsuffering are gifts of another nature. Goodnesse simply conside­dered was reached out to Adam in innocency, but patience is not ex­tended to any but to sinners: this Arminius granteth, when hee trea­teth upon predestination, saying thus: Predestination is not made out of meer goodnesse absolutely considered, which is a communicating of himselfe to the creatures; but it is after the manner of mercy issuing from compassion towards men in misery; and of patience and longanimity towards them that hang back and hearken not to his call. So that goodnesse and patience are distinguishable in their owne judgement; therefore it will not follow, that because they may discover goodnesse, therefore they may discover patience and forbearance by the light of nature. This hath such a dependence upon the former, that I say onely thus much here, that except an heathen man can see himselfe a sinner, and so con­cluded under the weight of such a cursed death, he cannot see any act of God to be Patience.

4. The fourth step in his pretended rational discourse, is this; This testifieth and delareth that his justice and severity against sin hath been sa­tisfied, and that he hath received an attonement. But I say, on the other side, that let him take all the forementioned particulars for granted: yet how do they rationally declare a satisfaction or an attonement? There is no smal difference between these two; though patience did argue an at­tonement, yet it doth not, satisfaction: but I say it doth neither. First, not attonement, execution is sometimes deferd, not because the malefa­ctour is pardoned, but only reprieved. A provoked master is long ere he take an accompt, and smite; not because he hath remitted the crime, but rather because he would have the rounder score, and give the greater stroak. I contractial into this one argument w ^ch I prove by one scripture.

The proposition is ground thus; if patience doth of it selfe infer an attonement, then it must by the rules of reason follow, that he hath at­tonement for all those sins and obliquities, in reference to which he is said to be patient. Rom. 9, 22. The minor I prove by Rom. 9.22. where the Apostle saith, Vasa irae non sunt omnes pro­miscuè peccato­res, sed ex mii prae caeteros pec­catores, qui in omnibus pecca­tis iram sibi the saurizant acindè interitui proximi sunt. Corv. in Mal. Cap, 14 Sect. 11. what if God willing to shew his wrath, and make his power known, endureth the vessels of wrath sitted for destruction with much patience? More then intimating, that God beareth with patience ves­sels of wrath, When yet he is willing to make his wrath and power knowne. Nay, the text seemes to incline to something more, (viz.) that he endures them with the more patience, that he might make his wrath and power the more remarkeable. Which Text I confesse is the seat of much controversie, but I intend not after that manner to pursue it; I shall onely take it as our adversaries would, and improve their gloss to my intended purpose; Vasa irae sunt qui conditionem transgrediuntur, noc transgredi desisterent. Arm. exam, Perk. 29 4. Tum vasa irae à Deo tolerati di­cuntur qusi statuit & velit iram suam potenter in cos effundere. Corv. in Mol. cap. 14. Se. 11. Armin. antiper. 5 [...] and the rather, because their testimony is something convincing, to that be it so as they would have it, that these vessels of wrath are, as Corvinus saith, not sinners barely, but such as are in sinning beyond the rest, and by their enormous courses treasure up wrath a­gainst themselves. Or as Arminius, not onely such as transgresse, but transgressing persist. Nay, let them be what they will, who are here called vessels of wrath, the business: will not stick here: but let us consider fur­ther; that he then endures with much patience. When; Let Corvinus him­selfe speak; Then doth God beare with much patience the vessels of wrath, when he at the same time willeth to powre out his wrath mightily upon them. Now this is clear both by testimony of the Scriptures and our adversaries, that God affordeth much patience to the vessels of wrath, then when he willeth to powre out his wrath mightily. I demand, to what end is that patience afforded? Arminius will gratifie us with what we desired. In excusability is rather the event then the end of patience and ad­monitions, except it be to the obstinate and refractory. So that he grants that to the obstinate and vessels of wrath, his end is to make them the more inexcusable, To conclude then, doth God will to powre forth his wrath mightily at the same time, and upon the same person, when, and for whom he hath received an attonement? Indeed this often passeth for one of Mr. Goodwins Oracles, but never for an Oracle of Gods. A re­ceiving the attonement, and a will to powre forth his wrath mightily, are inconsistent, but patience and that will to powre forth his wrath may feed and lye downe together. By this I prove that patience doth no waies infer an attonement.

But suppose it could infer an attonement, yet could not discover a satis­faction; there are many wayes for God to be attoned to man, and not to exact or receive satisfaction, as it is strictly taken for receiving the ri­gour of the law, either of the surety or of the principal. It is strange to me that the dimme light of nature should so presently discover that God could not be attoned to man without mans satisfaction, especially con­sidering that this question, viz. (Whether God could pardon sin and [Page 27] save the sinner without respect had to the satisfaction of Christ,) hath ex­ercised the choicest heads in the Church of God. And those of Mr. Goodwins own side have given this for granted, that if the right power of saving be considered absolutely in God, then God could save a sinner with­out the satisfaction of Christ. And I desire Mr. Goodwin, who hath more then natural light, so far to patronize his heathen clyents, as to educe some of those evidences by which the patience of God inferreth satisfa­ction. Nay, so far is it on the other side, that it cannot appeare consi­stent with reason, that any person should have received satisfaction and yet be properly sayd to be patient; if any man have received so much as justice and equity can require, Hee cannot bee sayd to exer­cise patience: this is a mystery into which Mr. Goodwins doctrine doth necessarily involve him, which I expect he should unfold without plow­ing with the heifer of the Gospel.

5. The fifth step to this pretended rational discourse is this, they may know that he hath so far accepted an attonement for him, that if they re­pent of their former sins, and in repentance persevere unto the end, they shall escape punishment, and so be saved. The progresse is very high, not only to attonement and satisfaction themselves, but to their several modi­fications and restrictions. Most stupendious riddles that deserve ra­ther to be hissed at then either to be believed or solicitously refuted. For,

1. Put the case they could discover a satisfaction, yet by what natu­ral medium could they prove that something is to be done on our part to come to salvation? Is there any natural import in the terme (satis­faction) that may present a heathen man with his further duty? nay, doth it not rather seeme to exclude it?

2. But give him this, that something is to be done on our part, yet how doth it naturally appear that this duty must needs be repentance? there is no natural cognation betwixt satisfaction and repentance. Nay, the command of this macerating duty of repentance affords some ( Mr. Goodwin knows wel whom) an occasion to attribute an incomplete sa­tisfaction to Christ in his owne person: there is nothing but the free constitution & appointment of God that can lead to such a duty as re­pentance; and this the Remonstrants gives us without any difficul­ty, thus; Pro liberti [...] luo arbitram ex multis possibili­bus unam cerra [...] rationem statuit, secundùm quam servare velit nul­lamque aliam causam habuit, praeter purā pu­tam Dei volu [...] ­tatem, cut caux seligire ex eo a­liarum rerum ordine, volucrit. Script, Synod. 556 Out of his most free choice from amongst many possibles he hath pitched upon one certaine way, according to which he will save men, and for which there can be no other cause given but the pure freedome of his will. But that is new divinity, that the light of nature, and the heavens with the rest of the creatures are become the declarers of the arbitrary and free constitutions of the Almighty. God may say in this case, as in Isa. 44.7. (who as I shall call and declare it, and set in order for me the things that are to come to passe.) but to come to a close, I shall in a line or two ingage him with two Arguments only, to prove that the light of nature cannot discover to the heathen life upon the duty of repentance

The proposition is grounded upon his owne words in his postscript, thus; I see no difference in this case betwixt Adam and his posterity.

The minor or assumption is also his owne; he saith in his postscript, that there was no command to repent, nor any thing of that import until the promise, and therefore he was not obliged to repent. And if the premises be both his, the conclusion must be his.

Arg. 2 What the Apostle could not discover, who had the advantage both of the light of nature, and the letter of the Gospel; the light of nature one­ly cannot discover to the heathen.

But the Apostles by the light of nature, and letter of the Gospel, could not discover life for the Gentiles upon repentance.

Therefore the light of nature cannot discover life upon the duty of repen­tance to the heathen.

The proposition is grounded upon this principle, what a double ad­vantage cannot do, a single one cannot do alone.

The minor is cleare from Acts 11.18. indeed in all the tenth and eleventh Chapters wholly.

Thus have I touched upon every parcel of his pretended rational discourse, that a heathen may (as he saith) make by the light of nature, and after examination it appears that without his officious suggestion, hee could not read one syllable of it. I have been the shorter, because I expect the provocation of his reply, and I have sayd so much, because it is the foundation of his whole Trea­tise.

But because Mr. Goodwin knoweth that it matters not what negotia­ting and busiy heads assert, but how they prove, he gives us a text or two, or some few to prove all this, which he seemes to pretend a serious exa­mination of; I shall do the like, and thereby be enabled to survey both his understanding and ingenuity at once. Now this I observe in the superficial survey of them all, that they are all of them impertinent to this businesse; for any that hath but an indifferent exercise of his rea­son, may see that all those Scriptures which are produced as proofes for his assertion, must expressly point at the want of the letter of the gospel, and also at the cleare tye and obligation particularly to these duties, (viz.) to believe and repent. But all his Scriptures produced by him fail in one of these two, either clearly implying the letter of the gospel, or else not arising so high as believing and repenting, as shall presently ap­pear.

Rom. 10.18The first text by which he proves his assertion is, Rom. 10.18, but I demand, have they not heard? yes verily, their sound is gone through all the world. By which he proves, that a heathen man without the letter of the gospel may be enabled to discover an attonement; and a very futilous and absurd consequence we have at the first entrance. The text saith, have they not heard? and yet this is produced as a proof, that those that never heard of the letter of the gospel are yet bound to believe in Jesus Christ. But I suppose this businesse will stick here betwixt us, whether [Page 29] this hearing, mentioned in this chapter, be meant of hearing by the oral administration of the word, or hearing the voice of the heavens and the creatures? We are for the former, he is strong for the latter, in these words. Pag. 10.

The Apostle shews by what hearing Faith comes, or at least what is sufficient to produce Faith, it is the hearing of that sound, and those words which the heavens, the day, and the night speak, as appeareth by those words taken out of Psalme 19.4. And the Apostle further saith, that that sound, and those words uttered by the heavens, are the words of eternal life as well as those words which our Saviour himselfe spake on earth, onely not so clearely and plainely spoken. In all which, we have first his interpretation. S [...]condly, his illustrative confirmation. Thirdly, his ground and reason. His interpretation is thus; the hearing, mentioned in Rom. 10. is the hearing of the sound of the heavens, the day, and the night. His conformation is this; those words and sound of the heavens, are the words of eternal life as well as those words that Christ spake on earth. His ground and reason is, because (the Apostle useth the expressions of the Psalmist, Psal. 19.4.) where that text relates to the sound of the heavens. His interpretation I challenge with insolent forgery. Secondly, his illustration with impious blasphemy. Thirdly, his reason with weak and fond absurditie, all these charges I shall make good against him in their order.

1. His interpretation is an insolent forgery against a cleare text, and this I prove. First, by the current of Interpreters. Secondly, by the testimony of the best of his owne side. Thirdly, by the expresses that drop from his own pen. Fourthly, by the opening of the text and chapter all along.

1. It appeares a forgery against a cleare text, if we reflect upon the unanimous suffrage of interpreters against him. It would seeme a pro­digy in any but Mr. Goodwin, to obtrude upon a text such an interpreta­tion, to which upon the least colour of reason we are not lead by the least syllable, and neglect another to which every word almost doth safe­ly lead us. What one expression in the whole chapter gives the least in­couragement to this interpretation? as the heavens, the day, or the night, Reprehendit Iu­d [...]orum incredu­litatem, et publi­cationem evan­geclii amplific [...]t per coelorom so­num. Pet. Martyr in loc. or any thing to that purpose mentioned in all that subject about which the Apostle treateth, but of the letter of the Gospel in many verses, par­ticularly in verses 15, 16, upon which this immediately followeth, faith cometh by hearing, and this question, have they not heard?

Now it may help much in this difficulty (if there be any in it) to consider the persons of whom this question proceedeth, whether of the Jewes, or Gentiles, or both jointly. Mr. Goodwin knoweth well that interpreters are very much divided, and that to dissatisfaction herein, Junius. Beza. Deodato. Galvin. Paraeus. Cornel. à Lapid. Some are for the Jewes, as Peter Martyr, who saith, he reprehendeth the infidelity of the Jewes, and amplifieth the publication of the Gospel by the sound of the heavens; and many are of his judgement, as Iunius in his Parallels, Beza, the learned Deodate. Others are for the second, viz. for the Gentiles. Calvin is very expresse, and Paraeus leaves it only in doubt, A third sort are for all promiscuously, Jew and Gentile, as [Page 30] Cornel. de Lapid. and those that are of his minde. But for my part, I shall not solicitously contend to extricate my selfe out of this diffi­culty, for whether it be meant of the Jews alone, or particularly of the Gentiles, or both mixt; to me the case seemeth to returne to the same issues: for if the Gentiles be taken in either junction or division, it must be understood de Gentibus vocatis, of the Gentiles that were called, that is, by the letter of the Gospel orally preached, and effectually moving them to believe, as appeareth Rom. 9.24, wherein he opens a faire way to what he afterwards in cap. 10, uttereth in these words, even us whom he hath called, not of the Iewes onely, but of the Gentiles; and of such Gen­tiles he speaketh, verse 30, who had obtained the righteousnesse of faith, which righteousnesse of faith comes by the word of faith preached by the Apostles. Romanes 10.8. Now if it appeare, that it be spo­ken of either, the Jews, or those Gentiles that were called by the Gospel, then will it be a very impertinent proofe to fortifie his assertion, which is, that those that never had the letter of the Gospel are yet bound to be­leive. And by the ducture of the method of the Apostle I affirme. First, that that hearing by which he saith faith cometh, is not the hea­ring of the sound of the heavens, but of the Gospel orally preached. And secondly, Laus ministe­ritrepetitur, lo­quitur Paulus non de interno auditu, sed de exteerna praedi­catione ad quam apostoli mussi e­rant. Pet. Martyr. in loc. that the question, have they not heard? meaneth not the sound of the heavens, and the creatures, but the sound of the letter of the gospel. Mr. Goodwin affirmeth the contrary in both, I examine whether his judgement or mine hath the best countenance from interpreters; I fear he hath but smal, for I wonder that Mr. Goodwin, who is so prodigal of his quotations in matters that no whit at all concerneth him, should not produce one in this, which if hee could carry on with strength and authority, be might presume to build his whole fabrick upon it as upon a sure foundation. Let him consult with Galvin, & though he be his great­est Patron in that his exposition, yet hee shall find him confuting him sufficiently, Est notabilis locus de efficacia traedicationis, no tandum enim est Dei doctrim â fidē fandari, non ex qualibet doctrinâ fidem otiri, sed nominatim restringit ad Dei verbum. Haec omnia non obstāt quin Deus per hominis vocem efficit ut in nobis fidem creet. Calvin, in loc. Faith comes by hearing, this is a notable place of the efficacy of preaching, and it is to be noted that faith doth not arise out of every do­ctrine, but by name he restraineth it to the word of God. And by this he meaneth the word orally preached, as appears by his adjoyning words; These hinder not, but that God doth efficaciously work by the voyce of a man, that he might create faith in us.

Peter Martyr is expresse against him, the prayse of the ministery is here repeated, and Paul speaketh not of the internal word or hearing, but of the external preaching to which the Apostles were called.

Beza in his annotations is against him thus; faith comes by hearing, that is, as in Isaiah 57.19. faith is the fruit of the lips. And that he mea­neth by it oral preaching, appeareth by his after word Fides est ex auditu, hoc est, quod dicitur Isa. 57 19. fidem esse f [...]uctum labiorū. Auditus est ex verbo, ie, ex man­dato Dei â qun mittuntur i [...] qui illud praedicant Beza in Annot. in loc., thus; hearing by the word, that is, by the command of God by which they are commanded that preach the Gospel.

Bullinger in his comment, saith thus; Fides est ex au­diturjam quia illū per prophetas a­bundè habu stis, non habetis quo peccato vestro praetexatis. Bulling. in loc. faith comes by hearing, that is, because ye have had this abundantly by the Prophets, ye have no cloak for your sin.

Deodate expressely referreth his interpretation as if he had pur­posely [Page 31] met with it, who in his annotations saith, Faith is by hearing, not resolved into natural principles, or discourse of reason, but onely by the declaration that is made thereof to men.

Cornel. è Lapid. though one of his owne side, giveth his testimony full against him: Inde sequitur quod fides quâ credimus Christo & evangelio esse exauditu, pura per praedicationem apostolorum cui m [...]ssi [...]e [...]ant ad praedicandum. Cornel è Lapid in loc. therefore it followeth, that this faith by which we believe in Christ and the Gospel is by hearing, namely, by the Apostles who were sent to preach as his Ambassadors,

Rivet amongst the rest, in his Comment on Psal. 19.4. citing this text of Paul, Rom. 10.18. though he think it meant of the heavens, yet he saith, the Apostle by it proves that they had the Gospel, because Amplificatio gratiae Dei per coelos amplio. i evangelicae doctrinae praeludisi. Rivet. in loc. the patefaction of the glory of God by the heavens was but praelude to the more ample knowledge of the Gospel. What should I produce more evidences upon such an unequal ballance? when he shall prove his interpretation but by the mouth of two sufficient witnesses, which is as little as can be in a businesse of so great importance, I shall say more; but hither­to it doth not appeare that that hearing, by which the Apostle saith, faith comes, is the hearing of the sound of the heavens, but of the oral preach­ing of the Gospel.

And as for that other question, have they not heard? Interpreters give it of the letter of the gospel: as for the words, that follow ( yea verily, their sound is gone out through the world, Some, as Calvin and Pareus, with some others, would have them to relate only to the heavens, and the volume of the creatures; yet in such a sense as will not serve Mr. Good­win at all; for those latter words they say are as an argument to prove, that God had and would dispense the Gospel to those Gentiles to whom he had from the beginning given means of the knowledge of himselfe by the creatures, so that the latter clause is brought to prove that they had certainly heard the letter of the gospel, which is the thing which the former question seemes to demand, yea, and vehemently to affirm. Have they not heard? It is as much as (yes verily) they have heard, and that the gospel orally preached, and thus interpreters generally give it.

Paraeus thus, Vbsque terratū praeconio aposto­lotum nunciatum est evangel [...]um. Paraeus in loc. [ ‘the gospel is preached by the Apostles all the world over.’]

Piscator thus, Apostelus reci­tat per allusi [...]nē verba Psalmi, quae propriè de coelis loquuntur, sed Paulus de a­postolis usurpat, & evangelii prae­dicationem, & sensus est, non minus son [...]sse per totum orbem quam coeli praeco­nes. Piscat. in loc. [ ‘the Apostle reciteth by way of allusion the words of the Psalmist, which are properly spoken of the heavens, but the Apo­stle speaketh of the preachers of the Gospel, that they have sounded through the world.’]

Peter Martyr thus, Paulus volens amplificare pub­licationem evan­gelii, alt, nonne audiverunt Dei praecones qu [...] sunt instar coelorum? hic habemus, nec allegoriam, sed metaphoram Peter Martyr in loc. [ ‘ Paul willing to amplifie the publication of the gospel, saith, have they not heard the preachers of God, which are as the heavens, and so we have not an allusion, nor an allegory, but a metaphor.’]

Tossanus thus, Simpliciter ai [...] in omnem terra [...] ̄ exivit sonus eo­rum, i e. evangeli­zantium pacem in montibus de quibus supra egerit, cesensus est, non minus evangelii quam coelorum sonum sonuisse Tossanus in loc. [ ‘he saith simply, the sound of (them) is gone out through all the earth, that is, of those that bring the glad tidings of peace, of whom hee had spoken before, and the sense this; the [Page 32] found of the Gospel is no lesse diffused then the sound of the hea­vens’]

Millet in his Hexapla, thus; [ ‘The Psalmist speaks litterally of the heavens, but prophetically of the Apostles, and Paul useth those words as denoting the accomplishment, and though this place bee meant of the Gentiles, yet it is also meant of the sound of the gospel.’]

Deodate speakes thus; ["Is it because they have not heard? No, "for like the Sun, the Gospel runneth all over the world.

Junius in his parallels thus; Verbum ipsum De et doctrinā evangelii fuisse propositum Iu­daeis, non in angu lo, sed in publico in toto mundo & per apostolorum ministerium. Junius Paral. par. 19. [ ‘The word of God, and doctrine of the gospel was propounded to the Jewes not in a corner, but in pub­lick as before the sun, through the whole world, and that by the mini­stry of the Apostles.’]

Cornel. à Lapid. thus; [ ‘ Nonne de facto auditum habe­rent? nonnt evan­gelium audiverut omnes gentes? i­mò audiverunt. Cornel. à Lapid. in loc,Have they not heard indeed? have not all "nations heard of the Gospel? yea, they have heard.’] And if Mr. Goodwin will undertake to use authority in this, let him addresse him­selfe to it, hee shall be followed: [...]; onely I desire him to quote the words themselves, that I may examine their testimonies. And till he bring more to assert his cause, then I have done to overthrow it; I must conclude his interpretation a meere forgery against a cleare text, and so adjudged by consent of interpreters.

2. His interpretation appears to be a forgery against a clear text, so adjudged by the Remonstrants, and the best of his own fide. The Collo­cutors at the conferenc at the Hague, in answer to our 5 ^th argument, an­swer thus; Propositio ista ut à fratribus cō ­cepta est (scilicet) evangelium non omnibus praedi­cari, apertis scrip­turis contradici­tur. Rom. 10, 18. vocem Apostolo­rum per totum mundum ivisse. Collat. Hag. 180. [ ‘That proposition as it is formed by our brethren, viz. the gospel was not preached to all men without exception, is contradicted by clear Scriptures, Rom. 10.18. the voice of the Apostles is gone out through the world.’] In which text they doe confesse that this word (them) in the text, (the voice of them) is to be understood of the Apo­stles, and therefore they read it not the voice of (them,) but the voice of the Apostles. Now whether they did use this word as the text, or as the Comment, let Mr. Goodwin examine, or whether of the two be, it is sufficient against him. Corvinus upon the same argument saith thus; [ ‘How the Apostles are said to preach the gospel to every creature, as in Col. 1.24. Rom. 10.18. Mark. 16.21. it is necessary for us to en­quire, though the words be cleare.’] Wherein he granteth, that it is cleare, that the sound of the Apostles went through all the world, and that from this very text, Rom. 10.18. Therefore certainely this text is not meant of the sound of the heavens, but of the gospel, and that as preached by the Apostles.

3. And is not his owne judgement as cleare? if we may gather his judgement out of his writings, and it will appeare a meer forgery against a cleare text adjudged by the expressions that come from his owne pen. To this purpose I desire Mr. Goodwin to consult the 32, 33, 34. pages of his treatise, pag. 32, 33, 34. where he takes occasion to handle this very text, but very unhandsomely for his purpose, in which pages hee makes an abrupt transision from his propounded businesse in page 31. pag. 31. to the oral preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, and his intention is to prove [Page 33] that their preaching of it in some eminent places is virtually and con­structively the preaching of it to the whole world, as he saith pag. 34. Now to this purpose he models those demands, Ro. 10.16. How shal they believe on him in whom they have not heard? How shall they hear with­out a preacher? Mr Goodwin saith, that the import of those interogatories, is this; That they were not like to hear of God, or of Jesus Christ in the gospel, had there not been some one or more to have preached & published it to the world. Thus in pag 33. and when in pag. the thirty fourth, pag. 33 he asserts that the Apostles had orally preached the Gospel virtually and constru­ctively through the whole world, he proves it by this very text, Rom. 10.18. verily their sound is gone out through the world. But certainely if this text, pag. 34. clearely signifies the constructive oral preaching to the whole world by the Apostles, it is very weakly produced in the 10. pag. to prove that the hearing there mentioned is the hearing of the sound of the heavens. And if he say in one place, that the text is meant of the Apostles preaching; I wonder he is of such an untamed fore­head to forge such a sense against the text, as to say that by hearing, is meant the hearing of the sound of the heavens, and the day, and the night.

4. His interpretation is a meer forgery against a cleare text, if we look onely to the genius of the whole chapter, which undoubtedly pro­ceeds of the oral preaching of the gospel, as ver. 8. this is the word of faith which we preach; and ver. 11 it is the scripture, not the heavens that speak: and thus till it come to ver. 14. to those interogatories, how shal they believe on him in whom they have not heard? how shall they heare without a preacher? And that all these interogatories are understood of the oral preaching of the gospel, if Mr. Goodwin did not acknowledge it pag. 31, 32. I should easily prove it. Some I confesse may be so perverse, but none so blind as to think that those words, (preaching,) (hearing,) (word,) (gospel,) (believing,) so often repeated in this chapter, are not understood, and relate to the oral preaching of the Gospel, and in the letter of it. And thus till he produce further proofe on all hands, we shall conclude his interpretation a meer forgery against a clear text, and so adjudged against him by the current of interpreters, the judge­ment of the best of his owne side, his own expresses, and the cleare geni­us of the whole chapter.

2. Having examined his interpretation, I proceed to the confirma­tion and illustration of his interpretation: He would establish it by affir­ming that the voice of the heavens, and the night, and the day, and the words which they speak, are the words of eternal life, as well as those which Christ himselfe spake when he was upon earth: which I charged with impious blasphemy, and proceed thus to make it good. If to affirme any thing from Christ that derogateth either from the dignity of his person or office, be truely to be termed blasphemy, then they may be termed so; for herein he doth both advance the creatures into the Chaire of Christ, and reduce Christ into the ranke of the crea­tures.

[Page 34]Christ hath received an universal charter and patent to bee the pub­lisher of the Gospel, and that out of his mouth should proceed the words of eternal life, according to that text Luke 4.18. the spirit of the Lord is upon me, to preach, &c. We find a dicotomy in Heb. 2:2. of Gods speaking by the prophets, and speaking by his Son; but of his speaking the things of the gospel by the heavens, no where. Had such a pregnant suggester stood at Peters elbow when he asked this question; ["Whither shall we goe Lord? thou hast the words of eternal life, Ioh. "6.68.] he would have told him, that he was not a well tutoured scholler in the schoole of Christ. And as the wiseman sends the sluggard to the ant, so he would have sent Peter to the heavens, the Moon, and the Sun, and Stars, to hear them preach the words of eternal life. What futi­lousnesse and vanity doth this assertion of his introduce into the words of the Apostle? 2 Tim. 1.10. [ ‘But is made appear by the appearing of Jesus Christ, who hath brought immortality and life to light through the gospel.’] And this gospel is that which Paul was appointed to preach in the next verse; what need the Apostle wrap up all in expressions at such a distance, as to say, (Now) it is manifest, and that by the coming of (Christ:) and that (Hee) hath brought immortality and life to light; And that in that (Gospel) which Paul was sent to preach; if that life and immortality, and the saving grace of God be clearely discovered by the creatures? Nay, I intreat Mr. Goodwin to consider whether he doth not by this introduce a needlesnesse and uselesnesse of Christ coming to discover the mysteries of the gospel to the Gentiles, or of any oral preaching thereof, either to Jew or Gentile, if that in the heavens and the creatures there be so much seen of the Gospel, as to make men wise unto salvation. And so good old Simeon must stand charged rather with dotage then devotion, in waiting for Christ to be the light of the Gen­tiles. How doth he in this utterly make voyd the dignity and prehemi­nence of the Scriptures, which are said to make men wise to salvation? 2 Tim. 3.15. and to be the words of eternal life? Ioh. 5.39. If that both these may be as truly recorded of the book of the creatures, as of the book of the Scriptures. Lastly, let Mr. Goodwin upon better thoughts consider, whether the creatures, and the motions of the heavens be truly and properly said to carry in them the words of eternal life at all.

1. We find the Scriptures, the words which Christ and his Apostles orally preached to the world, to be called the word of Life. Phil. 2.16. so Ioh. 6.63. ["the words which I speak unto you are life.] And the words of eternal life, in many texts. But I intreat Mr Goodwin to pro­duce one text, that either expressely, or by intimation calls the sound of the heavens so. Me thinks his reason should bespeak it too great presumption for any man to make the words of Christ to bee no more the words of eternal life, then the sound of the heavens, which never in Scripture are honoured with that dignifying title.

2. The words of eternal life must discover not only God, but Christ, without the knowledg of both, no salvation, Iohn 17.3. ["This is life eter­nal "to know God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.] But how long [Page 35] long will it be ere he prove that the creatures can give the knowledge of Christ. I expect that Mr. Goodwin give me some pertinent Scriptures to prove it. Psal. 19.1, 2, 3, 4. Rom. 1.20 Act. 17.27. go no further then the glorie of God, the invisible things of God, and that they might seek after God: but that the creatures of themselves discover a Christ, the Scriptures say no where.

3. The words of eternal life are the charter and magna charta of the Church. Hence he knowes it is a rule, extra ecclesiam nulla salus: and also that of the Apostle, Act. 2.47. ["The Lord added to the "Church such as should be saved.] To be brought into the Church, was to be brought (in seriem salvandorum) and both by the word of eter­nal life. Then if the heavens declare the words of eternal life, either that distinction betwixt the church of Christ and them that are without, falls to the ground, or else the word of eternal life is given, as the ordi­nary means to bring men to faith in Jesus Christ, to others, besides the Church of God. And then what transcendent love is there in Christ to­wards the Church, in washing of it with water by the word? Eph, 5.25, 26

4. The words of eternal life must convert the soule, open the eyes, make wise the simple, otherwise they are not to bee called the words of eternal life. But if Mr. Goodwin say that the creatures and voice of the heavens doe convert the soule, &c. then let him consider whether hee doth not overthrow that plaine distinction of the Psalmist, Ps. 19.4. 6, 7, 8. where he saith, the heavens declare the glory of God, and the law converteth the soule. He speaketh not of converting the soule, til he passeth by the heavens, and speaketh of the law of God.

5. The word of eternal life is the ordinary meanes which God hath appointed to bring men to life. But if Mr. Goodwin say, that the heavens and the creatures are the ordinary way to bring men to salvation, then he must prove where God hath so appointed them, and also cleare it to us, that we are brought to heaven and life by the creatures as well as by the Gospel orally dispensed. Till these things be cleared, I cannot but judge that the creatures cannot afford of themselves the words of eternal life. And then for Mr. Goodwin to say that the voyce of the hea­vens are the words of eternal life; as well as those that Christ himselfe spake, is in effect, to say that the words that Christ spake are not the words of eternal life at all; which how blasphemous it is against Jesus Christ the Prophet of his Church, let the world judge.

Thirdly, I charged his reason with weaknesse and absurdity; it is this, He meaneth the voice of the heavens, because the Apostle useth this text, Ps. 19.4. which words by the Psalmist are spoken of the heavens. It is very strange to me that a man of such a searching judgement as Mr. Goodwin, should be driven upon such a rock by this inconsiderable gust, and if there be (with him) so much weight in those words, as to weigh downe all interpreters, the judgement of his owne side, his owne first-born, the natural genius of the text, hee may by his prejudice cast the scale; but I am confident he cannot give good weight, especially con­sidering there are so many plausible wayes to avoid any such inference.

[Page 36] Calvin and Rivet, who come the nearest his minde, and think that the latter clause of verse 15, is meant of the heavens; yet that those words are produced by the Apostle onely to prove, that it is no strange thing that the Gentiles should have the gospel, because he had done so much for them in the creatures; and they are so far from excluding the heavens of the letter of the gospel, that they urge it to be cleare that this questi­on, Have they not heard? is to be understood of the letter of the gos­pel.

Others there are that are no whit of his mind, and think that the A­postle doth onely allude to those words, and adapt them to his owne purpose. All supposing this to be the drift of the apostle, to prove that the gentiles had the letter of the gospel; the drift also of the Apostle in these words, Oratorio utitur, & evocat testem ex ipsorum lege. Soto domin. in loc. their voice is gone out, is to confirme it, and then he u­seth the Psalmists words, not as meaning the heavens, or their words, but he speaketh of the gospel in these expressions, that hee might convince the Jewes the better, as by a testimony out of their owne law; As Soto the Dominican in his Commentary. Willet in hex­apl. in loc. Others will tell him, that the A­postle used these words, although he be treating of the gospel in the let­ter of it, to let them see that in Psalme 19.4. it was the prophecy, but in Rom. 10.18. the accomplishment. Thus Willet in his Hexapla.

Paraus and Soto tell us, that though he be treating of the gospel yet he useth these words of the Psalmist. either Pari velocitate quâ sol totum or­bem permeavit, tuba etiam evan­gelica per totum orbem praelustra­vit. Soto & Paraus in loc. à pari, from the like, that is, With the like swiftnesse that the Sun runs his course, doth the trumpet of the gospel run through the world; or else à minori ad majus, from the lesse to the greater, thus, if he gave them the voice of the heavens, he would give them the gospel. And most interpreters part their thoughts into an allusion, or allegory, or metaphor, as Peter Martyr gives us a hint; any of which sheweth the invalidity of Mr, Goodwins infe­rence.

But if these doe not satisfie, in the next place, I say it is a hard thing for him to prove that the Apostle citeth purposely these words as the text of the Psalmist, and not rather onely asserts his owne businesse in the Psalmists expressions. He saith indeed, the sound of them, but of whom? here is the question; but Mr. Goodwin saith, the sound of the heavens, but it is with no colour of reason; there had not one word pas­sed of the heavens, and therefore it is against reason to refer the rela­tive to an unknowne anticedent, when there is one visible. Tossanus, if Mr. Goodwin will accept of reasonable satisfaction, saith something to this purpose; Ait simpliciter sonus eorum ivit. i. e. evangelizan­rum pacem super montibus, de qui­bus supra egerit, Tossanus in loc. Hag. Col. in Arg. 5. in Col. He saith simply and onely, the sound of them is gone forth, that is of those that bring glad tidings of peace, of whom he had before spo­ken. He doth not say, (as it is written) or thus (the Scripture saith,) as if he intended to cite the words of the Psalmist for his own purpose, but speaks them as his own expresses, the sound of them, that is the Apo­stles that bring the glad tidings of peace: thus the Remonstrants them­selves give it us; they consent to read the words roundly thus, in stead of eorum sonus, they read it Apostolorum sonus; not the sound of them, but the sound of the Apostles: and why they do so, let him examine at his leisure.

[Page 37]And if all this doe not satisfie, let him examine whether his divi­nity doth not serve him at this turn, to see that the Apostle useth the expressions of the Prophets; not to prove and assert that in which they were originally concerned; but that which he is to carry on a new: as speaking of almes, and contributions for the Saints, 2 Cor. 85.1. he saith hee would have all things carryed on by an equality, that the abundance of the one might be the supply of the other, as it is written, He that gathered much bad nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack. Will Mr. Goodwin make this inference, that the Apostle in verse 14. speaketh of gathering and distributing Manna to the Saints, because he useth these expresses of Moses in the 15, verse, which were originally spoken in re­lation to the Mannah? Is it not cleare, that those words which Moses u­seth concerning Manna, the Apostle adapts them to his owne businesse of almes.

That which David spake of the outward prosperity and affluence of his enemies in Psalme 69.22. Let their table become a snare: Psal. 69.22 Rom. 11.8, 9 The A­postle adapts them to prove, that the gospel, their spiritual food, was be­come a snare to the Jew, Ro. 11.8, 9. The many thousands that did not bow their knee to Baal in the dayes of Elijah, the Apostle useth to prove the reserve that God had in the Apostles times amongst the Jewes that were not carried downe the general deluge of infidelity, Rom. 11.4 Rom. 11.4. Those words that were originally spoken of the righteousnesse of the law, Deut. 30.12. Paul applyed to the righteousnesse of faith, Deut. 30.12 Rom. 10.6, 7, 8 Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. That which was originally spoken of them that brought the glad tidings of Israels returne from Babylon, Isai, 52.7. Isai. 52.7 The Apostle ap­plyes it to the apostles that brought the tidings of Christ in the gospel. Rom. 10.15 Rom. 10.14. And if so many instances appeare near these words in dif­ference betwixt us, let Mr, Goodwin give us some solid reason why these words that were originally spoken of the sound of the heavens, may not be by the Apostles adapted and fitted to expresse the sound of the gospel in the letter of it. Thus have I spent much time, and put the reader to much trouble, because I would detect the forgery, blas­phemy, & absurdity that lye hid in this interpretation of Mr. Goodwin, and that it might appeare how weakly and praeposterously this text, that clearely importeth and affirmeth that the gentiles had the letter of the gospel, is produced to prove that they are bound to believe in Christ, that never had the letter of the gospel.

The second text he produced to prove his assertion, is in Acts 14.16, 17. "He left them not without witnesse, in that he did them good, "gave them raine from heaven, and fruitful seasons. In which, if he had been pleased to reduce his thoughts to any argumentative form, they would more clearely have discovered themselves: but hee puts his reader to a double task, both to find out his argument, and then to an­swer it. It seemeth to be but a wild inference, He gave them rain and fruitful seasons, and left not himselfe without witnesse, Therfore they are bound to believe in Christ that have not the letter of the gospel. True indeed, but it is chiefly inquirable, which are the witnesses of God, [Page 38] and what it was that they witnessed concerning him; if Mr. Goodwin can prove that those witnesses there spoken of did witnesse a Christ, and a mediatour, and an attonement made by him, then Mr. Goodwin may carry the cause: but if not, this place is very vainly produced to prove that they are bound to believe in Christ that have nothing but these wit­nesses: To clear the businesse, he produceth two things under the no­tion of doubtlesse; but both very obnoxious to scruples, not easily satisfied; the first, runneth thus.

[ ‘Doubtlesse he doth not speak here of his Godhead, nor power, nor wisedome, as if God left not himselfe without witnesse of these; the works of creation distinct from providence, are sufficient witnesses of these, according to the tenour of Rom. 1.20.’] But here is nothing lesse out of doubt then this: and to the due understanding of it, it is re­quisite, First, to consider the occasion of these words, which wil make a fair way to the discovering the meaning of them.

The occasion of them was the idolatry of the men of Lystra, who at­tempted to worship the Apostles under the notion of Gods; upon this occasion he doth two things; First, lets them see that they ought not to worship them, which he doth in the 15. verse by two pregnant argu­ments, 1. The Apostles were men of like passions with them. 2. They were but the instruments of God to turne them to the li­ving God. Secondly, his task is to prove that they should worship the true and the living God; now if this be his design, to prove God to be the true God whom they ought to worship, then all those things there mentioned, must reasonably be understood of such things as the scrip­tures give us to evince his deity, and so by them to prove that he is to be worshipped: And I conceive, that nothing but that which treateth of, and manifesteth his Godhead is a fit medium for any to use to take off ido­laters from their vanity, to the true God. Besides, will Mr, Goodwin per­sist in this, that the Apostle doubtlesse doth not here treat of his Godhead? What one word is there in the three verses alledged, 15, 16, 17. which may not be called a fit medium to prove his di­ety?

1. Doth he not say in general, that he is (living God?) 2. Doth he not say, (which made the heavens and the earth?) and are not these words an expresse of his power? 3. Doth he not say, that he suffered all na­tions? and are not these an expresse of his soveraignty and power over the creatures, without which he could not properly be sayd to suffer them? And 4, Doth he not say, he did them good, and gave them fruit­ful seasons? and are not these an expresse of his goodnesse, and that he is, principium et fons omnis boni, the principle and Fountaine of all good? which clearly evinceth his diety. And seeing the apostle produceth nothing but what is very apt and fit to prove the diety and godhead of the Almighty; it is a strong [...]nducement to me to think that he produced all those particulars for that every end and purpose. And doth he not herein keep a just parallel to [...]mselfe in Rom. 1.20. and in Acts 17.23, 24, 25. In all the three pl [...]hi the occasion is the same, [Page 39] namely, idolatry; the end the same, to preserve them from idolatry; that which he presseth is the same, namely, God making the earth and all things therein; the end is the same: Rom. 1.20. saith, that they might be inexcusable when they turned the truth of God into a lye. Acts 14, saith, that he left not himselfe without witnesse. And Act 17.23, 24. saith, that by groping after him they might find him; now all these three come to one & the same issue; when men by groping after him, find him in his works, then he hath his witnesses; and when he hath his witnes­ses, idolaters are without excuse; and then what can be more probable then this, that all three places tend to evince the the same thing, that is, the Godhead and diety of the true God? And I intreate Mr. Goodwin to consider the Apostle in. Act. 7.23, 24. and tel me whether he do not purposely in those expressions evince the diety. In the 23. verse he saith, that God which yee ignorantly worship, him doe I declare to you. And in the close in verse 30. that they might not think the godhead was like unto gold and silver, or stones graven by mans device; are not these pregnant proofes that the apostle doth purposely and pertinently e­vince the godhead and diety? But by what arguments doth he doe it? not onely by his power in making all things, as in ver. 24, but in this, that he giveth to all life and breath (and all things.) And what is this lesse then his giving them raine and fruitful seasons? and if it appeare that his giving all things be brought to prove a diety in the 17. chapter, upon what accompt of reason is it doubtlesse, that his giving fruitful seasons is not urged in chap. 14. and to evince the very same thing?

The second (doubtlesse) that Mr. Goodwin presumeth is this; doubtless the thing that God intended should be witnessed on his behalfe, was something more secret and out of the way of mens common thoughts and apprehensions; and particularly it was that gracious and good affection that he beareth to men in Christ, his inclinations to peace with them upon their repentance. That it was something out of the way of mens commen thoughts and apprehensions, I wil easily grant him? but wil it be any thing further off from proving it to be only his deity and godhead? Gods not need­ing of any thing, receiving of nothing, but communicating all things to the creature, and so being the author and fountain of all good, these are as pregnant proofes of a deity and godhead as any, and given by the Apostle, Acts 17.25. And these also are beyond the common thoughts of man; for if Israel, who had the clear manifestations of God in his word, did not yet know that God gave her corne, and wine, and oyle, but that they came from her lovers; Hos, 2.5, 7, 8. how much more may it be beyond the common thoughts of the heathen; that their fruitful seasons come from God, rather then from their idols, and so to be more obfirmed in their idolatry? So that it doth not appear that it is not the Godhead, because it is out of the way of mens common thoughts.

2. He saith, It was particularly the good affection which he beareth to men in Christ Jesus, his inclinations to peace upon repentance. But what one expression in all that Text that necessarily inferreth this? Let [Page 40] him shew it, and I have done; he useth indeed two reasons to prove it.

His first reason is, because such witnesses are onely proper to testifie grace and love, and the desire of the good of those to whom they are given, in him that giveth them. But

1. Will not his understanding serve him to see them as pregnant testimonies of his deity, and the Godhead? doe not raine and fruitfull seasons, and works of providence as clearly hold forth the eternal pow­er and wisedome of God as any other thing? Let him consult with Job 38.25, 26. Where God expostulateth with Job about those parcels of the creation and providence, and presseth both, as arguments both of his power and of his wisedome, in the water courses of heavens, in causing it to raine, and by it the tender bud to bring forth; in that he was a father to the rain, & begot the drops of dew; and found a womb of the ice, and bindeth the influences of the Pleiades, and guides Arctu­rus with his sons, and hath so set the ordinances of heaven in their con­stant course: is there not both power and wisedome seen in that circu­lar providence? Hos. 2 last. I wil heare the heavens, and they shal heare the earth, &c. Let him consider the Prophet Jeremiah, cap. 14. v. 22. where he saith, are there any of the vanities of the nations that can give raine? Art not thou he? therefore we wil wait upon thee. What will Mr. Goodwin say to this? are not showres and raine fit and proper testimo­nies of Gods power, and of his deity, and so pertinent to call them off from idols to the living God? Why doth he reassume that impious licence to charge the Scriptures, and holy pen-men thereof, with im­pertinent and improper evidences? they frequently produce raine, showres and fruitfull seasons, as evidences of power and wisedome; but Mr. Goodwin saith that they are not proper Testimonies there­of.

2. It plainely appeares they alwayes prove his power and wisedom, but where doth he once prove that they are proper to testifie grace and love in Jesus Christ? Let him take the wiseman along with him, and he will tell him, that no man can know either love or hatred, so neither thoughts of good or hurt by these outward things. Eccles. 9.1, 2. Hee causeth them all to fall upon all without exception. Nay, if any dif­ference, most on those to whom he hath the least thoughts of good in Christ Jesus. Psal. 17.14. Men of the world, whose belly thou fillest with thy hidden treasures. To use no more but this, those who are obstinate and incorrigible in sin, and so by God are given up to a reprobate sense, and by his consequent will are for that obstinacy destined to de­struction, so that God now hateth them; yet do these, so long as they live upon earth, enjoy raine and fruitful seasons. But will Mr. Goodwin say that they are proper evidences of Gods love, and desire of their good, and inclinations to peace upon repentance? But now I am by a faire occasion cast upon a point of some concernement in the controversie betwixt Mr. Goodwin and us; and that is, the sufficiency in the crea­tures alone to bring men to believe in Christ. Mr. Goodwin in his con­ference with Mr, Simpson was very assertive of this, that the heathen [Page 41] had sufficient means to bring to faith in Jesus Christ; but he was very unwilling to discover what that sufficient means of faith is, and I blame him not; but he is something more daring in this treatise, and affirmes that the raine and fruitful seasons can discover the Saviour Je­sus Christ, and bring men to faith in him, they being proper onely to testifie a reconcilement and attonement in Christ; but I find not Mr. Goodwin in one syllable inclining to prove it by good demonstrative reason. I shall therefore addresse to accoast him with an Argument or two, to prove that raine and fruitful seasons are no proper testimonies of the mercy of God in Christ, or an attonement and satisfaction made by him. Some shall be probable, others more coercive, and that, both ad hominem, and ad rem, and so I shall prove that this cited text con­taines not sufficient means of faith in Christ.

Argum. 1 ‘If the Apostle speak as much in all respects elsewhere, and yet not for that end, or expecting that improvment, that men should discover a Saviour and a Mediator, Then it is probable that in this text Act. 14. he doth not expect such an improvement as to discover a media­tor, and so by consequence those things here mentioned, are not fit and proper testimonies thereof.’

But the former is true. Therefore the latter is true.

Certainely the Apostle would have that in his eye as the end, and ex­pect the highest improvement to which those meanes afforded are pro­per and adapted. Now let us see in Acts 17.24, 25, 26, 27. when Paul met with the idolatry of them at Athens, he takes occasion to preach the same sermon as to them, at Lystra; onely the place is different, all things else alike; the occasion the same, their idolatry; the end the same, to restraine them from it, to turne them from their vanities to the li­ving God; the Sermon the same, in both he preached the power of God in the creation; in both he preached the power of God in the works of providence. Nay, in this text Act. 17.24, 25. hee goeth something further in expressions of providence then in Acts 14. for herein he saith only, [he giveth raine and fruitfull seasons, and filleth the hearts of men with food & gladnesse.] But Act. 17.24, 25. saith, [he giveth all things;] but what is the improvement that the Apostle aims at, or any man can rationally expect from these things! The Apostle tells us, ["That they might seek the Lord, [...].] to seek the Lord, and by a gr [...]ping after him to find him. Now Mr. Good­win laying the prejudice of his opinion aside, may consider with me, 1. That the person that these are propounded to discover, is not Jesus Christ the mediator, but the Lord God the party offended; it was not to discover an attonement or satisfaction, but a deity; not to bring men in to believe in Christ, or repent of their idolatry, but onely to restraine them further persistence in idolatry. 2. Consider, that it is not clearely to see God, and roundly to draw out the most intimate con­clusions concerning him, but onely, [...], levi tactu pertractare, or palpare, as it is rendred, to grope as blind men. Now if this text urge as much every way, as Act. 14.16. and yet ariseth no [Page 42] higher then the groping after God in his works, as blinde men, and by it attaining some kind of knowledge of him to keep from worshipping stocks and stones; then it is probable that that text Acts 14.16, 17. speaketh not of showres and fruitful seasons as fit and pro­per testimonies to discover a Christ and a Saviour, and to enable men to draw out very roundly the substance of the Gospel.

Let not M [...]. Goodwin seek this subterfuge to evade the validity of the proposition, by distinguishing betwixt the Gospel and the sound of the heavens; for he makes the Gospel to carry such a latitude, as that it con­teineth in it the sound of the heavens, and to heare it by the creatures, is in his sense to heare it in the Gospel, as he himselfe affirmeth thus; [ ‘I grant the preaching of the Gospel is the onely sufficient mean [...]s of faith in Christ; Dispute with Mr. Simpson. p. 65. but then I add, that raine and fruitfull seasons doe preach the Gospel.’] And so in his own judgement to hear of Christ any way, is to heare of him in the Gospel, and it is but consonant to reason, because the very hearing of Christ is Gospel. Now upon this foundation I build my Argument; for, if this be true that men cannot heare of this Gospel, or of Christ in the Gospel, except one or more doth discover it and be sent for that purpose; then it must follow that the fruitfull showres and seasons do not preach the Gospel. For, these are not they that Mr. Goodwin would have to be sent to preach in Rom. 10.14. Rom. 10.14 But the Minor is Mr. Goodwins own, speaking of that text Rom. 10.14. How shal they heare without a preacher? saith thus; [ ‘That it is not likely that any man should heare of Christ in the Gospel, Pagans debt. pag. 33 if some or more had not been sent by God to publish it in the world.’

Argum. 3 ‘If that text Act. 14.16, ( ‘who suffered the nations to walk in their own ways’) speaketh thus much to us, that God did not deal with men as under the Gospel, but onely give them meanes to restraine them from their evil wayes; then those fruitful seasons did not preach Christ, nor doth that text enforce any such thing.’

"But the former is true, therefore the latter is true also.

The proposition is grounded upon this truth. When God discovers Christ any way, and a mediator and attonement by him, and enableth a man to draw out the most intimate conclusions of the Gospel, he doth deale with them as with men under the Gospel. And the Mi­nor or assumption is Mr. Goodwins own, who in answer to that text Act. 14.16, Dispute Mr. Simpson. p. 63. saith thus; Although he suffered those nations to walk in their own wayes, that is, did not deale with them as with men under the Gospel; yet he gave them such meanes as would have restrained them from their evil wayes had they been vigilant. How Mr. Goodwin digladiates with him­selfe sometimes that text is produced by him to prove that God deales with men as under the Gospel, even the heathen, and the nations whom [Page 43] he suffered to walk in their owne wayes, and that the showes and fruitful seasons preach Christ, and enable men to draw out the substance of the Gospel; and yet other sometimes it is produced to no other end but to grant that God dealeth not with the nations (whom he so suffers) as with men under the Gospel, and all the meanes that he affordeth to such, tends but hitherto to restrain them from their evil wayes, and that but upon this proviso, if they had been diligent. These do not well con­sist together.

The strength of this Argument lyeth in this, for any man to have the Gospel discovered any way. Christ preached, and life upon repen­tance brought to light, is means sufficient to bring men to salvation. Yea, and Mr. Goodwin himselfe affirmes, pag. [...]5. that God giveth faith to no man but in giving these meanes to beget faith, in his conference with Mr. Simpson; and in this treatise of his, affirmeth, that a heathen man may quit himselfe to such a degree of wel-pleasing to God, so as that he will not fayle to reveale Christ to him in some degree or other which shall be saving. Let Mr Goodwin, if here hee doe not grant that to have Christ revealed any way, be sufficient meanes of believing in Christ, Say what is

The Minor of the Syllogisme is Mr. Goodwins owne: in expresse words, he saith thus; I doe not meane that the Gentiles, Dispute with Mr. Simpson. pag. 79. or any man what­soever, hath an immediate sufficiency to believe in Christ originally given them of God, but onely a remote, that is so much as by the use of it they may possesse themselves of further means, by which they shal have an immediate sufficient meanes to believe. I doe earnestly desire that Mr. Goodwin had so much divinity as to reduce himselfe out of this labyrinth into which he hath improvidently brought himselfe; for if no heathen man hath on­ly more then a remote sufficiency to believe, which he affirmes in one Treatise; And that remote sufficiency to arise no higher then so much, upon the use whereof they should not fayle of having Christ revealed some way or other, which he affirmeth in another Treatise; then how can this be near the truth, that every heathen man hath such a cleare discovery of Christ, and satisfaction by him by the creatures and fruitful showres and seasons, as is a sufficient meanes to bring them to faith? which is the subject of this his Treatise. His immediate sufficiency implyeth the discovery of Christ, his mediate or remote sufficiency excludes it as actually done; yet both he contendeth for to be the in­heritance of every heathen man. Is not Mr. Goodwin a fit man to have his mouth opened against his brethren, for speaking at such a rate of contradictions and inconsistences as hee doth in his dispute with Mr. Simpson, in the close of it? First let him take the beame out of his owne [Page 44] eye, and consider whether that assertion which denies any revelation of Christ to the heathen in any kind or degree, until they use well that which is originally given them of God. And that assertion which affirms, That every heathen man in that which is originally given to him, may with out any further improvement discover Christ, and draw out the summe of the Gospel, Bee not contradictions at a sufficient rate.

Argum. 5 If the Gentiles, til such time as the partition wal was broken downe, were without Christ, aliens from the promises, and without hope; then the rayne and fruitful seasons did not preach Christ and life upon repentance, neither were they fit or sufficient meanes of faith in Christ.

But the former is true, therefore the latter is true also.

The force of this Argument lyeth in this, To have the gospel preach­ed, and life upon repentance discovered, and so, as men are enabled to draw out the most intimate conclusions and sum of the gospel, it can­not be rationally concluded that such are without Christ, and without promise, and without hope: to be without Christ is, as interpreters give it us, ( Sine Christo, i. e. sine cogniti­one, lege, gratia, vita Christi. Cornel. à Lapid in loc.) to be without the knowledge, law, grace, life of Christ. How those that have the gospel preached, can be sayd to be without Christ, and those that by the showres and fruitful seasons, and the sound of the heavens have the words of eternal life, can be said to be without the pro­mises; and those that by these forenamed means are enabled to draw out the summe of the gospel, and to discover life upon repentance, can be sayd to be without hope, I shall be an expectant of some of Mr. Goodwins reason to unfold. It is not the evasion of Corvinus that will serve his turne, who being by his adversary prest with this Text, expounds it thus; ( Gentes fuerunt sine Christo, quia Christum sibi non sperabant; & spem non habu­isse dicuntur, quia non spera­verunt in promis­siones Judris fa­ctas. Corvin. in Mol. cap. 39. §. 4.) The nations were without Christ, in that they did not hope in Christ; and they were without hope, in that they did not hope in those promises that were made to the Jews: but this comes farre short of satisfaction. For first, these words, in that they did not hope in Christ for themselves, are no rational interpretation of his phrase, being without Christ. For their being without Christ, did distinguish the Gentiles from the Jewes; but it was not the want of the act of hope in Christ that distinguished the gentiles from the Jews; because in this they were alike: many among the Jews did not actually hope in Christ, which was the cause of their final rejection, but that which differenced them was their being (sine fundamento spei) without the foundation of hope, that is, the discovery of Christ in the promises, And this will be more e­vident, if we consider what it was that made them one, and tooke away this difference betwixt the Jew and the Gentile; not the hope of the Gentiles in the promises that were peculiar to the Jewes, this was not pertinent to them as Gentiles, but as Proselites; but their hope in the promises made to themselves, as appeares in the 13. and 17. verses, where the Apostle affirms that those that were a farre off are made nigh, yea, and made one with them▪ but that was by having the gospel preached to them that were a farre off, as to them that were nigh. Now if their [Page 45] onenesse with the Jew lay in this, that they had the same promises of Christ in the gospel, and so the same foundation of hope, (same, spe­cifically, I mean, not numerically) it will follow that their difference lay in this, that the Jewes had the foundation of hope in the promises, but the Gentiles none, so without Christ and without hope: without Christ, because without the knowledge of Christ; without hope, because with­out the foundation and ground of hope. But how can those that have Christ preached, and life upon repentance, and the summe of the gospel discovered, any ways be sayd in this sense to be either without Christ, or without hope? Neither secondly, is this enough to render them in ge­neral without hope, because they did not hope in the promises made to the Jewes. What if they did not? yet if they had discoveryes of Christ and life upon repentance, and the summe of the Gospel preached some other way, especially in a saving way, it is enough to bespeak them not without hope; which untill I receive further satisfaction, must prevaile with me to think that the heathen have not such discoveries by the fruitful seasons, because they are said to be without hope.

Argum. 5 If the word of faith, and the doctrine of Christ crucified, and the summe and effect of the gospel be to the Greeks foolishnesse; then a na­tural man cannot by the help of the raine and fruitful seasons arise to any such rational discourse as to draw the intimate conclusions of the gospel thence.

But the former is true, therefore the latter is true also.

The proposition of this Syllogisme I conceive is beyond Mr. Good­wins scruple, because the same thing, in respect of the same person and time cannot be both a rational discourse, and yet foolishnesse; cannot be clearely seene, and yet not seen at all. F [...]r so the Criticks in that language observe [...], from [...], both [...], à non videndo, quasi non omnino visum.

The minor I conceive is beyond his scruple, from the Apostles ex­presse, 1 Cor. 1.23. 1 Cor. 1.23 we preach Christ crucified to the Jewes a stumb­ling block, and to the Greekes foolishnesse; and thus it is till they come to be called by the sanctifying and enlightning spirit of God. I might levy up more Scriptures as distinct arguments, but I shall refer them hither, which I entreate Mr. Goodwins thoughts upon, as 1 Cor. 2.6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 2, 6, 7, 8. wherein the Apostle preached the summe of the gospel to them, he sayd, he did not preach the wisedome of the world, but the wise­dome of God in a mystery, the hidden wisedome of God, which none of the Princes of the world knew. Now I hope that (whatever it be) that is seen and discovered by the light of nature, and by every one that hath but reason and understanding, (as Mr. Goodwin saith, that the sum of the gospel and Christ is) cannot extend it selfe far beyond the wisdom of this world, nay it is the very same. And how that Christ, or that gos­pel that is made manifest by the rain and fruitful seasons to every hea­then man, can be truly called the hidden wisdom of God, yea, to be hid­den from Ages and Generations, Col, 1.26. I see nor, Col. 1.26. These and in­finite [Page 46] more, do ex diametro oppose Mr. Goodwins fond glosse upon this text, Act. 14.16.

Argum. 7 If every heathen man by the raine and fruitful seasons, and workes of providence have a sufficient meanes of believing in Christ, and to salvation. Then all the Evangelical dispensations in the oral preaching of the gospel by his Son, is no way requisite to faith and salvation.

But his latter is impious and absurd, therefore the former is so al­so.

The proposition of this Syllogisme is thus grounded, upon the true import of the tearme sufficiency, which conteineth in it all requisites to that thing, in reference to which there is a sufficiency. As to in­stance; here is no sufficiency to faith, except all requisites to faith be present; so to Salvation it selfe, and this the Remonstrants upon the p [...]inciples of reason roundly give us; for speaking of sufficient means to conversion; Acta Synod. Art. 4 ^o pag. 91 they say thus; Sufficiens gratia nihil aliud est quam ea gratia qua ad conversionem efficiendam ita adhibet quae sunt necessaria, ut quod ad actus praestationem necessarium nihil ultra requiratur. Gratia sufficiens adhibet omnia necessaria; tolle aliquid quod necessarium sit, et non e­rit gratia sufficiens. Wherein they grant that nothing can be called sufficient in any respect, but that which puts forth all requisites and necessaries; then it must follow, that if the raine and fruitfull seasons be sufficient meanes for faith, there needs no more. And therefore the Scriptures are not to come under the notion of requisites to faith and salvation, and so by consequence to be uselesse to those ends and purposes. The Scriptures and all Evangelical dispensations tend but hitherto to make men wise to salvation, and to be but sufficient means to lead men to faith in Jesus Christ, and by that to Salvation. But what need any thing to this purpose, seeing every heathen man hath sufficient meanes of believing, and so of being saved, even by the raine and fruitful seasons; and stand in no need of the Scriptures to make him wise to salvation, because the sound of the heavens, are the words of eternal life, as well as those that Christ spake, and are suffi­cient to beget faith in us, and so to save us? But how would this over­turn the whole series of gospel discoveries, and cal the wisdom of the Almighty to the test of humane presumption? What will Mr. Goodwin say to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1.21 1 Cor. 1.21. After that the world by wisedome knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishnesse of preaching to save them that believe? Why was all this waste? why did God use this method and way of foolish preaching? was there no need of it? Let us heare the Apostle speak, The world by wisedome knew not God. verse 20. Christ crucified to the Greeks was foolishnesse. v. 23. It was the hid­den wisedome of God, which none of the Princes of this world ever knew. cap. 2 v 7, 8. Such words as mans wisedome never teacheth. v. 13 Such things as the natural man cannot receive, therefore by the foolishnesse of preaching he saveth them that believe. Let not Mr. Goodwin then say that the raine and fruitful seasons are sufficient [Page 47] meanes of faith in Jesus, least he at unawares bespeak this ordinance of preaching foolishnesse indeed. But Mr. Goodwin (I feare) hath gi­ven much occasion to the world to think, that he esteems it but a light thing to prostitute the authority, necessity, weight of the holy Scrip­tures to the credit of his own opinion.

Argum. 8 Those things that have no cognation or kinred with, or relation at all to a Saviour and Mediator, cannot by their owne natural import dis­cover Christ, or life upon repentance.

But the raine and fruitful seasons have no natural kinred to Christ as Mediator, or any relation to him.

Therefore they cannot by their natural import preach Christ, or be sufficient meanes of faith in Christ.

The proposition of this argument is thus strengthned; there is no­thing can naturally and rationally discover any thing that is not natu­rally and rationally contained in it, that by a rational resolution of causes and effects into their natural principles, we may be led by the one to the other in a rational processe.

But there is no such natural relation or kindred betwixt the raine and fruitful seasons and Christ. Thus I prove it.

But the former is true of rain and fruitful seasons.

Therefore the latter is true of them also.

Adam was set to till the ground, and after the first creation, Gen. 2.5 the fruits of the earth were to be propagated by the help of the influences of heaven as well as mans industry, as appeareth by the text; A mist went up from the earth to water the face of the ground. Gen. 2.6. True it is, they are continued to us by vertue of the merits of Christ, but this is not natural and from their first original. Fruitful seasons are not peculiar to man as fallen, nor yet to man restored; but were also in common with Adam standing: Now I demand whether rain or fruit­ful seasons had discovered such a person as Christ? Such a work as satisfaction, life upon such a condition as repentance, in his integrity, in which condition I know Mr. Goodwin will say, he was not capable either of the work or discovery of a Mediatour. If they did not, then, I demand what alteration is there in their faces now? or how can men make a rational deduction of Christ from them now, more then in his integrity? I say, by their own natural import, without the help of further meanes to acquaint us with all the transactions betwixt God and fallen man.

Thus I have by a few arguments labour'd to prove that raine & fruit­ful seasons do not, cannot preach Christ, discover life upon repentance; and by these I conceive I have refelled his first reason wherby he would prove that the Apostle in Acts 14.16. affirmes that God by those fruitful seasons did not leave himselfe without witnesse of his good [Page 48] affection in Jesus Christ to the world. His reason is, because such things as showres and fruitful seasons are fit and proper onely to te­stifie Christ and mercy in him.

His second reason by which he would prove that the raine and fruitful seasons Act. 14.16 preach Christ and the gospel, and the good will of God to men in Christ Jesus, is this as followeth:

[ ‘The Apostle being to preach the gospel unto the Gentiles, preached no other doctrine to them at Lystra but this; we cannot think that hee preached only metaphysical and philosophical sermons concerning the essence and properties of God, but that which was evangelical and savouring of the gospel. Now the holy Ghost reporteth nothing evan­gelical, if this be not.] But this reason discovers as much of Mr. Good­win as any that went before, For,’

1. Take notice how he doth secretly asperse the Theological and divine Sermons of the Apostle, concerning the essence, and properties, and providence of God, with the detracting titles of metaphysical and philosophical Sermons. Will not Mr. Goodwins knowledge serve him to discerne a difference betwixt Theology and Philosophy? God being supra omnes Ens, and extra omne praedicamentum, above all Entities, and without all praedicaments. The discourses of his nature, essence, and properties, are very weakly and absurdly called metaphysical, which considers ens, quatenus ens, for its object; Metaphisicks consider God no otherwise then it considers all other beings, as unum, bonum & verum, that is, as having onely an entitive unity, goodnesse and truth: but to consider God as a Creatour and Preserver; as the fountaine of all good, these are above metaphysical notions and Sermons. Hence it is a rule, Metaphysica parit scientiam tantum, sed Theologia fidem, that is, Metaphysicks beget a knowledge onely, but Theology or Divinity be­getteth faith. I would advise Mr. Goodwin to retract these notions, lest his Church, who are much led by an implicite faith, should think that the divine discoveries of Gods nature, and properties, and providence, comes under the notion of vaine philosophy.

2. Suppose they were metaphysical Sermons truly so called, yet in the next place Mr. Goodwin supposeth that the Apostle must not preach such, he being to preach the Gospel at Lystra; as if the preaching of the gospel, and the precahing of the nature, essence, and proprieties of God, were not consistent: But upon what colour of reason, I pray you? may not such discoveries dispose and prepare them to receive the most intimate conclusions of the gospel? Nay, are not such discoveries ne­cessary to this believing in Christ? and are not such preparations and dispositions to receive the gospel, the foundation of this doctrine of u­niversal grace, which the Remonstrants so much contend for? True indeed, had the Apostle come to preach the gospel to the Jewes, who were well instructed in the knowledge of the true God, there had been no such necessity; but coming to the Gentiles, who were generally lead away to dumb idols, as the Apostle testifieth, and did not know the true God; it is now requisite that he begin here to make them to know [Page 49] him. For the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ doth suppose a pre­vening knowledge of the true God, as in Jo. 17.3. John 17.3 it is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. And in that text so much used in vaine by Mr. Goodwin, Heb. 11.6. Heb. 11.6 he that co­meth to God must first believe that God is. But let Mr. Goodwin consi­der, whether those discourses which treat of the nature, essence, and pro­perties of God, be not pertinent notions to make men believe that God is; and that is no more then we must conclude, if our understandings doe but goe hand in hand with the Scriptures: for to believe in Christ, is no more then to believe that God is reconciled to us in Christ, Gods justice satisfied in Christ, and that God will blesse us with all spiritual blessings in Christ, which naturally importeth that there is a God, who is reconciled, whose justice is satisfied, who was offended, and who is a rewarder of them that seek him. Hence Divines will tell him, that Christ is but objectum mediatum et secundarium fidei, Ames. med. Theol. pag. 7. the mediate and se­cundary object of saving faith, and God himselfe the primary object of faith, as the Apostle telleth us, 1 Pet. 1.21. we believe by him, in God that raysed him from the dead. 2 Cor. 3.4. This trust have wee in God through Christ; so that it appeares to me in vaine to preach Christ by whom attonement is made, before we teach the true God, who is offen­ded, and therefore stand in need of having an attonement made; and also, that these sermons of the nature, properties, and essence of God are necessary to the discoverie of Christ, and may reductively and dispositive be called the preaching of the gospel. Why then should Mr. Goodwin thus weakly argue, that the Apostle did not preach the pro­perties and essence of God, because his task was to preach the gospel? The Argument would avail è contra.

3. Suppose I grant him these, yet he will be found too light in the ballance, for he saith, that this must needs be gospel, because if this be not gospel, he is not found to preach the gospel at all at Lystra, the holy Ghost doth not discover to us any other gospel preach't at Lystra. I know not how to blemish his understanding so much, as to say he cannot discover so much in the text as may confute him; neither would I be censorious as to judge him too too willing to deceive both himselfe and his reader: but I leave it to the world to judge. He cannot but know there were many intervening degrees betwixt these words of the Apostle, and the gos­pel which he preached at Lystra. These words in controversie were spoken upon the occasion of the peoples idolatry; this idolatry was upon the occasion of Apostles healing the criple: and this miracle was occasioned by the Apostles seeing that the criple had faith to be healed, and that faith was wrought by the gospel which the Apostle preached, as the text expressely saith, verse 7. by which he converted some to the faith, although others were yet given to idolatry. Now put the case that the words in question be not the gospel; yet may we pre­sume to say that they preached the gospel at Lystra, because the holy Ghost saith that they did preach the gospel there, and therefore that which he produceth as a reason, seemes to be of the same validity with [Page 50] all the rest, which is this; the Apostles preached no other gospel, because it is not recorded. And may we not say by the same rule in ver. 20.21. that Paul preached no gospel at Derbe, because what Paul preached there, is not recorded? and would not this reasoning help us to give the holy Ghost the lye? who saith in both, that they preached the gos­pel both at Dorbe, and at Lystra. By this time any rational man may see what is become of Mr. Goodwins double doubtlesse, and I cannot but professe it a tedious task to be tyed to trace him through all his extrava­gances, and impertinent allegations. And it is strange to me that he that undertakes to produce such arguments that neither men on earth, nor angels in heaven, can answer, as he saith of himself in his dispute with Mr. Simpson, I need not cite the page, it is so notorious: that he (I say) should thus delitate in a matter of so great concernement, and that not one allegation, nor any particular in any Allegation should have the least conclusive validity in it, Certainely must produce some more weighty reasons to prove that the raine and fruitfull seasons are fit testimonies of a Saviour and attonement by him, and the summe of the Gospel, otherwise he is not of that credit with me as to take his bare word for it, and he hath no reason to fasten any blame upon us for not believing his assertions herein, because wee finde him declining his own heights very much; for after all these his impertinent notions we find him giving the sum of all that went before in this impertinent conclusion, thus; so that it is cleare from this Scripture, that all the world, even those that are most strait­ned and scanted in this kind, those that have not the letter of the gospel, have yet the sufficient meanes of believing, 1. That God is. 2. That he is a rewarder of all that seek him, Heb. 11.6. which the Apostle makes to be all the faith absolutely necessary to bring us into favour with him. How is he suddenly sunk into a degenerous conclusion, that do [...]not at all suit with his intended purpose, which was to prove that all heathen men are suffi­ciently enabled to believe in Christ, and to draw out the sum and sub­stance of the gospel? and he proves it by a text which he saith proves no more, then that men may believe, First, that God is. Secondly, that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. Is not Mr. Goodwin able to see a wide distance betwixt these two, to believe on Christ, and to believe that God is? Although every one that believes in Christ must believe in God, yet it followeth not è contra, that all those that believe that God is, Secundum et primò succedaneū praeceptum est fi­dei in Christum non generalis il­lius fideiqae ante ipsum oenitentiae actum, et quam­libet legalem obedientiam prae­requiritur, quâ credimus Deum esse, et praem [...]is cultoribus suis largiri, sed specialis fidei in Christum. Episcop. Disp. 24. Thes. 1. doe believe in Jesus Christ.

Adam in his integrity did believe that God was, and that he was a rewarder of them that seek him; but I hope Mr. Goodwin will say, that to believe in Jesus Christ is no act proper and suitable for the conditi­on of Adams integrity, therefore he had neither a sufficiency, nor yet an obligation to believe, Again, the Jewes under the old Testament did believe that God was, and that he was a rewarder of all them that seek him, as is expressed Heb. 11.6. But Mr. Goodwin himselfe con­tends for this, that they did not believe expressely in Christ, and it is a [Page 51] pillar of the Arminian doctrine, that faith in Jesus Christ was neither observed nor yet commanded. To believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, is a general faith that is requisite to every legal obedience, even there where Christ hath no place or consi­deration, as Episcopius one of the prolocutors of his side clearely spea­keth. Nay, yet further, let Mr. Goodwin consider whether the devils in hell doe not believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder as well of them that seek him, as of them that disobey him; but these are neither in a sufficiency or obligation, nor yet in a capacity of belie­ving in Christ; the faith of the former comes far short of the faith in the latter. Although Mr. Goodwin is pleased to say in a second place, thus; Which the Apostle makes to be all the faith absolutely necessary to bring men into favour with him. But what ground in the text doth hee discerne for this his assertion? the text saith indeed that without faith it is impossible to please God; and Mr. Goodwin himselfe, that an evangelical faith is faith in Christ; and the text further saith, that he that cometh to God, must first believe that God is; but it doth not say that believing that God is, is all that is necessary to believing in Christ, or bringing men into favour with him; he that saith, he that ascendeth to the top of the ladder must climbe up the first step, doth not say, that to climbe up the first step is sufficient, and onely necessary to the reaching to the top of the ladder. It may helpe to illustrate the case in hand.

And if Mr. Goodwin will have no more as probable from this text in Acts 14.16. then this, that the raine and fruitful seasons are meanes sufficient of knowing and believing that God is, and that he is a rewar­der of them that seek him, he shal quietly rest with his desire, although it be a non probatum. But then I must admonish him, that if no more can be forced from this text, not to put any more the word of God upon the rack to stretch it to his owne heights, to make it speak thus much, that raine and fruitfull seasons are sufficient meanes to bring men to faith in Je­sus Christ, and to draw out the summe of the gospel. And how imperti­nent this text is to prove his assertion, let all the world judge, seeing it doth not arise so high as faith in Jesus Christ, or the summe of the gos­pel, but onely thus far by his owne confession, that God is, &c.

The third text by which he proveth his assertion, is from Rom. 2.4. Rom. 2.4. Not knowing that the patience of God leadeth thee to repentance, which he urgeth thus; that the patience of God leadeth thee to repentance, because it doth by way of a rational progresse, and cleare interpretation discover a rea­dinesse to receive such unto grace and favour who repent unfeinedly. The e­vidence of which reason looks upon us with the same face of dissatisfa­ction with all that went before. Suppose I grant all; yet how will Mr. Goodwin prove that it is either called patience and longsuffering, however knowne by that name, without the advantage of the written word, wherein are contained admonitions to repent, and so sayd to lead to repentance? and this he must prove before he shall carry the cause by the force of this text To decide this difficulty, let us consider, first, the scope of the Apostle in the former part of this Epistle, viz. [Page 52] to conclude both Jew and Gentile under him; the Gentiles he doth in the first chapter, Reprehendit Iu­daeos, quòd ex le­ge sibi datum Gentiles quasi peccatores con­demnabant, et ip­si eadem patra­tent. Cornel. à lapid in loc. the Jewes in this second chapter; and that the second chapter relateth to the Jewes, Interpreters generally conclude, as Cor­nelius à lapide saith, [ ‘He reprehends the Jews, because by their law they would condemne the Gentiles as sinners, when they conmitted the same things.’] But that the patience of God afforded to the Jew was without the word, I think Mr. Goodwin will not affirme, which is the cause why the Apostle concludes the Jew under a greater inexcusa­bility, because the ministry of the word superadded to the light of na­ture became not efficacious to restraine them from sin: and from this very argument he argues against the Jew, verse 17, 18. still supposing that those persons enjoying the patience of God, had the Jetter of the gospel; which induceth me to think that the letter of the gospel is one ingredient into this patience that thus leades to repentance.

2 I intreate Mr. Goodwin to examine whether or no in Scripture this terme patience, and forbearance, and hard and impenitent heart, and trea­suring up wrath, doe not imply the letter of the Gospel enjoyed, and a­bused, wherein God calls, inviteth, perswadeth, admonisheth, wayteth to be gracious, hearkeneth and heareth if men will turne; and thus men continuing obstinate, God is patient, longsuffering, and men are guilty of hard and impenitent hearts, and treasure up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath. To give a taste of these various ex­pressions First, for the terme longsuffering, we find it in 1 Pet. 3.20. The longsuffering of God waited upon the old world: but we read not of this till the preaching of Noah, that preacher of righteousnesse So also 2 Pet. 3.9. The Lord is longsuffering, which in its very notion im­plyeth a word, and the letter of the gospel, as appeares by the words which follow; not willing that any should perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth. Let him consult Beza in his Annotations, who saith thus; [...] ducit evangelio, scil. ipsis prophanis, tunc demum pa­relacto et Iudaeis exhib to, quo re­spicit particula [...] [...]bsque Chri­sti verbo benig­nitas dei po [...]st producere homi nes ad peccati sē sū, non ad veram rescipiscentiam. Beza annot. in loc. [ ‘That leadeth, that is by the gospel, at length discovered to the Jews, and to those prophane Gentiles: without the word, the benignity of God may lead to the sense of sin, but not to the true repentance for sin.’] Let him consult with Arminius, and he will tel him thus; [ Praedestinatio non est ex boni­cate simpliciter confiderata, sed ex modo miserio cordiae, et gratiae, et patientiae, & longanimitatis, ex eadem bonita­te prodeunt [...]s erga aliquamdiu reluctantes, et vocationi stutim non parentes, ad sustin [...]ndam moram conversi­onis. Armin. antiperk. pag. 16. ‘Prede­stination is not from goodnesse simply considered, but from mercy, and grace in Christ, and patience and longsuffering issuing out of that goodnesse towards those that draw back, and doe not presently o­bey their call, that so he might beare with their delay of conversion.’] Wherein he clearely giveth us, that patience and longsuffering have no place until men have the call of God to repentance, and men deny and resist, and so God sustaine and beare the delay of conversion. So likewise for the term of a hard and impenitent heart, and treasuring up wrath. Let Mr. Goodwin shew me, if he can, where they are used, & do not clearly intimate the letter of the gospel enjoyed and abused. A heart that cannot repent, God never layeth it to the charge of any man until he hath used all means to bring men to repentance, which he is never said to do until he give them his word to admonish them to repent. It is true indeed, they may be non punjtentes, but not impoenitentes, that is negative, but not [Page 53] privative impenitents. Men are not said to be incapable of being renew­ed by repentance before they have had a taste of the good word of God, Heb. 6.5, 6. And true it is, that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousnesse; and they that sin without law, shall perish without law; but to treasure up wrath, to be vessels of wrath fitted for de­struction in whom wrath is treasured up, which is all one with the finding the day of judgment more intollerable then Sodom, I know the Remon­strants themselves wil not admit without the word. All the works either of the common or extraordinary providence cannot draw men to re­pentance, if we may believe the joynt suffrage of the Remonstrants themselves, who say thus; Quomodo fieri posse ut rescipi­scerent aut resci­puissent si virtu­tes et virtutes tantum conside­rantur: virtutes qud t [...]les rescipi­scentiam non sua­dent: verum ali­quod necesse est quo rescipiscen­tia mandetur aut suadeatur saltem, nam sine verbo ne fictam quisdem re [...] ipiscentiam. cificere possent virtutes. Scrip. Synod. Art. 4 ^o. p. 125. How can it be that they should repent, or be said to have repented? if miracles be considered only as miracles without the word, miracles cannot perswade to repentance; it is necessary that the word be added, by which repentance is commanded, or at least men invited to it, for without the word men cannot put forth so much as a feigned repentance. And the judgement of the best of his own side will bee a good argument against him; for if miracles and the works of extraordinary providence cannot lead to repentance without the word, how then can the works of common providence do it without the word? Now if this text and all the expres­ses in it do import a mixture of the word with all the lenity and forbea­rance of God, then any man may see how impertinently it is produced as a proof for his assertion, which is, that the heathen are bound to re­pent and believe in Christ, even those that never had the word or letter of the gospel. And thus we have taken a survey of his clear Scriptures, which he saith he hath well examined, and also of the conclusive validity of them for his purpose. Having discovered all his strength in divine testimonies, he makes a transision to humane, pretending to the world, he hath both God & man on his side, but as he doth with the one; so he doth with the other, abuseth them both sufficiently. As he produceth a threefold divine, so he produceth a threefold humane testimony in the fourteenth page of this book, the one is out of Calvin, the second out of Musculus, the third out of the British divines in the Synod of Dort: but by what colour he calleth them to the favour of this cause, I am not able to divine: the dint of their testimony lyeth in this, that he calleth on all men to repent and believe in Christ without exception. B [...]t had he either discove­red or considered what call they mean, I perswade my selfe he would have waved their testimony. He would make us believe that they affirm that God calls all to repentance by such a call as is without the letter of the gospel: otherwise what is their testimony to his cause? But in so do­ing he is guilty of manifest subornation, for as for Calvin, he witnes­seth no such thing, and that I cleare thus;

1. He is so far from testifying to Mr Goodwins assertion, that he saith that no man is sufficiently enabled to the knowledge of the Crea­tour without the familiar ducture of the Scriptures; it is the adequate subject of the sixt chapter of the first book of his Institutions; and if he say that man cannot come to the saving knowledge of his creator with­out the help of the written word, we cannot rationally conceive that he whom Mr, Goodwin calleth one of the best of the Protestant Divines, [Page 54] should also say, that a heathen man can come to the knowledge of his redeemer without the help of the written word; or if he doe, his testimo­ny doth not agree with it selfe, and so I shall lay it aside as not to bee taken in so weighty a cause.

2. A second reason is this, because I find him sometimes treating of that call whereby he saith God calls all without exception; but in a sense far different from Mr. Goodwins dreames; for in his discourse upon that text, Many called, but few chosen he saith thu [...]; Nothing is ambiguous if we hold that there is a double kind of calling, Nihil erit ambi­guum si teneamus duplicem esse vo­cationis speciem; un versalis una, quâ [...]mnes pari­ter ad se invitat deus perexternam verbi praedicatio­nem, et am qui­bus eam in mortis odo em propo­nit. Ca [...]v. institut. lib. 3 ^o. c. 24. § 8 there is an universal call by which he calleth all alike to him in the external preaching of his word, even them to whom it becomes the savour of death, and the matter of more se­vere condemnation. Now this is clearely Calvins meaning in his general cal, so much relyed upon by Mr. Goodwin, viz. by the express preaching of the gospel orally; n [...]t at all any such universal cal by the creatures, without the letter of the Gospel: and until he can produce one place in all the workes of Calvin, wherein he mentioneth any other call to Jesus Christ then by the letter of the gospel, he must with me lye under the censure of a wil [...]ull and shamelesse pervertour of mens words for his owne pur­pose: and if he thus meane by his general call, then what strength this testimony contributeth to Mr. Goodwins cause, let any judg, who holds that all have a sufficiency for faith in Christ without the letter of the gospel. And at the same rate runneth the testimony of Musculus. As for the suffrage of the British divines at the Synod of Dort, I can­not conceive that any who had his vote in the suffrage of that Synod a­bout the five controverted points, can produce any pertinent testimony for him; my reason is, because I find them thus speaking point blank a­gainst him. Cap. 4 ^o. of con­version. Sect. 4. In man there are some remainders of the light of nature, whereby he retaineth some principles of God, &c. But so far is he from be­ing enabled by this inbred light to come to the saving knowledge of God, and to turne himselfe unto him, that he doth not make use of it in natural things. And againe, in that chapter of conversion, one of the errors concerning that article which they rej [...]ct is, as followeth, that man can so use the common grace, (the light of nature) that by it he may receive evange­lical grace; and that God hath for his part shewne himselfe ready to reveale Christ to all men, seeing he doth sufficiently afford to every man ne­cessary meanes for the making of Christ knowne, and for faith and repen­tance. Now if they reject that as an errour, which is the adequate subject of Mr. Goodwins assertion, certainely these are no probable or likely men to add any strength to his cause; and I expect in his next that he produce the words and place where any of these men speake of a faith grounded onely upon the sound of the heavens, or that the heathen are enabled by the light of nature to believe in Christ; or else to judge himselfe whether it be not an unchristian course to force such a sense of mens writings contrary to the stresse and current of their judgement, that so he may have the more plausible way for his causeless calumny of inconsistencies and contradictions; and when he hath so barbarously broken their heads, so childishly to give them a plaister, by anking them in the number of the best Protestant Divines, [Page 55] because he thinks they speake of his side.

Thus have I examined all his proofes both divine and humane, and I cannot but adjudg them far short of proving his tenent; and therfore I advise him either to send out new, or to take a review of these in a se­cond and better examination, for they are all impertinent to the que­stion first propounded; some of them necessarily inferring the letter of the gospel, the rest not inferring at all either repentance or faith in Je­sus Christ, therefore no proper testimony for this doctrine, that all men without exception are bound to believe in Christ, though they never heard the letter of the gospel And thus I have indeavoured to satisfie his owne desires, and have taken the weapons out of his hands, pag. 6. by which he thus unhandsomely digladiates against the truth: and I shall conclude I have done it, until I see in his next how hee doth reassume them, or else surrender up to me this his first hold, to which I finde him something inclined, because as suspecting the strength of that which he hath all this while spoken, he retreateth to a second, which hath no cohe­rence at all with this, which I shal examine:

In the 15. Page of his Treatise we find him thus speaking;

[ ‘Suppose we grant, for Arguments sake, that the heathen to whom the gospel was never orally preached, were not in an immediate capa­city of believing it, in those terms of believing lately expressed; yet this proves not but that they may be in a remote capacity of believing, such a capacity I meane, which by a regular and conscientious exercise of those worthy abilities which God hath conferd upon them, might by the ordinary blessing, and by the standing course of providence of God, in such cases, have risen up to an immediate capacity in this kind, so that a heathen man who never heard of Jesus Christ may yet by the effect of the law written in their heart, quit himselfe to such a degree of well pleasing to God, that he will not fayl to reveale his son Christ to him after some such manner and degree as will become sa­ving to him as Christ saith, habenti dabitur, to him that hath shall be given.’] He grants it onely for argumentation sake, that the heathen are not in an immediate capacity of believing; it seemeth then that he hath been hitherto proving that the heathen are in an immediate capa­city of believing, as indeed the whole surface of his discourse tendeth this way. I say, (capacity) as he here expresseth it, because I hope he hath no piece of deceit in his eye, when he for sufficiency puts capacity. Now M [...], Goodwin hath not been alwayes of this mind, that the heathen are in an immediate capacity, or have an immediate sufficiency of be­lieving in Christ, for in his dispute with Mr. Simpson I find him thus, pag. 79. up­on the distinction and application of sufficiency mediate, and immedi­ate. [ ‘My sense is of the question in hand, thus: I doe not meane that the Gentiles or any other man hath a present or immediate suf­ficiency of meanes to believe originally given them of God, but a re­mote sufficiency; that is, such as by the use of it they may possess them­selves of further meanes by which they may be enabled to believe.’] As Mr. Goodwin is a man that professeth religion and earnest contenti­on [Page 56] for the truth, I am sorry; for him, but as he is a scholler, and re­ceived by all as a man of eminent parts, I am ashamed of him, that the world should see such pregnant symptomes of an imposture upon him; that when he is forced to say that no man hath an immediate sufficiency originally given him of God to believe, he should now say, that he only supposeth for arguments sake, that the heathen have not an immediate capacity of believing. Mr. Goodwin knowes well, what kind of men they are that stand in need of good memories, and let him make this one of his first retractations, and let the world know that it is not the wantonnesse, but necessity of his genius, that extorts this supposition from him: for had he not this hold to fly to, there would be no more occasion left for dispute, the matter is so cleare against him, both by the evidence of reason and his own concessions. But to let this passe, I shall examine that which he here in the second place urgeth, although it be utterly impertinent to the maine businesse which he undertooke to prove; and the rather, because in this he being one spirit with the Re­monstrants, I have the fairer plea to examine also that which is the fairest plea for an universal sufficient grace, as it is most plausibly layd downe by the best of Mr. Goodwins way, and that he and the Armini­ans are of one opinion in this, I shall make appear by these following instances. The Remonstrants in their solemne convention before the Synod of Dort make out universal grace thus; Omnibus ho­minum cordibus insculpsit aliquā saicognitionem, itaque communi vocatione omnes ad se vocat deus, non eo quidem fine ut secundùm istius communis vocationis teno­rem gratiae (que) ge­neraliotis men­suram vitam in­stitueates imme­diatè serventur, sed ut per eam disponantur ut e­vangelicae praedi­cationis quâ ipsa salus offertur; & concionis de vitâ [...]ternâ rescipi­scentiae, et fidei, deque Christi gratia, et justitia quâ vita aeterna per fidem obtinenda et impetrata est, idonei reddantur auditores. Act. Synod. art. 2. p. 327. God hath inscribed in the hearts of all men some knowledge of himselfe, &c. and so by this common call he calls all to himself, not to that end that those that live according to the tenour of this common call or rule of this more general grace should immedi­ately be saved; but that by this call they may be disposed and rendred hea­rers of that gospel wherein salvation is offered, and that a doore may be ope­ned to that sermon of eternal life, wherein the doctrine of repentance, faith, and spiritual obedience; and the grace and righteousnesse of Christ, whereby eternal life is impetrated and to be obtained by faith. And Arminius also in his examen of Mr. Perkins saith to the same purpose thus; [ ‘ Dum Christi cognitione destituuntur, tamen se Deus sine testimonio non reliquit, et in illo tempore aliquam veritatem de potentia et bonitate sua illis pati fecit, Legem quo (que) ment [...]bus insculptam conservverit, quibus bonis si rectè usi fuissent, saltem ex conscientia, majorem etiam gratiam ipse etiam conces­surus fuisset, Secundùm illud (habenti dabitur.) Arm. anteperk. pag. 259. Even whilst they are destitute of the knowledge of Christ, yet God leaveth not himselfe without witnesse; and at the same time maketh knowne to them the truth of his power and goodnesse, and doth conserve a law written in their minds; which good things if they use well, or at the least conscienciously, God is ready to grant to them according to that text, [to him that hath shal be given.’] And further in the same page he saith thus; [ Omnes homines aliqua vocatione vocantur, nempè per istam testificationem de quâ adduci possunt ut palpando eum invenient. &c. haec autem vo. a [...]o quanquā salu a [...]s no nest, utp [...]e, per eam salus immediat [...] obtinenda est, sed praecedanea po­test dici salutari, quâ Christus of­fertur, q [...]ae i [...]sam rectè usur patam ex Dei milericor­dia, sequutura est. ibid. ‘God calls all men with some kind of call, to wit, by that testification of God, by which they may be brought to grope after God, and so to find him, &c. which call, although it be not saving,’ so that salvation shall be immediately obteined by it, yet [Page 57] it may be said to be precedaneous to that which is saving, wherein Christ himself is offered; which last out of the mercy of God is ready to follow the good use of the former.] And are not all these devised methods, one and the same with this which Mr. Goodwin excudeth? and do they not lay their foundation of Universal grace very low, even in the Bowels of nature it self? and in all, as well in them, as in Mr. Good­win, it amounteth to this, that God gives to all some natural abilities, with assisting grace, which if they improve well, God will reveal Christ, and so give more grace till they come to be saved; according to that text, To him that hath shall be given; the lowest stone of which foundation, I shall indeavour to raise, and to Anatomize this intricate method of Univer­sal grace: To effect which, I shall make a little digression not at all from the question; yet from Mr. Goodwin, that I may exchange a word or two with the Remonstrants in the examination of the said two things. 1. How they prove that which is given to all to be grace. 2. How they prove it to be sufficient. The rest I shall examine when I return to Mr. Goodwin.

It is well known that the Doctrine of Universal sufficient grace, is the standing Pillar of their Doctrine in the second Article, and hence is it that all that hold universal redemption, do also hold universal suf­fici [...]nt grace, and their mouths and pens do every where savour of this Doctrine. Let us therefore see in the first place how they prove that God gives that to all men without exception, which may truly be called grace And any that are exercised in them, may see that they do professe this very roundly without hesitation. True indeed, in their Synodical writings in the forementioned place they give it the name of More general Grace, but Arminius a little more laxely; in the descripti­on of their general call before mentioned▪ he saith thus quibus bonis si recte usi fuissent, Deus ulteriorem gratiā ill [...]s con­cessurus est. Arm. antiperk. 259. All men have some knowledge of the power and goodnesse of God, and such gifts, which if they use well, God is ready to give further grace; where we have it called grace onely by intimation, not expressely; he saith God would give more grace, which phrase More Grace, implies some preceding grace: yet in another place he saith more largely thus Vide mihi. annon isto dicto (Habenti d [...]bi­tur) promissio ista contineatur quâ spondet De­us e superna­turali g [...]at [...]â il­lumm [...]turum qui lu rine natu­rali rectè utitar, aut saltem minùs malè. Antiperk. 218. Consider with me whether or no in that saying (To him that hath shall be given) that promise is not herein contained, whereby God binds himself to give supernatural light to them, that use the light of nature well, or at least lesse evilly. So that now hee makes the Talents that are to be used to be natural light, and the increase to be supernatural grace; when if he had spoken home to the point of Universal grace; he should have made the Talents as wel as the increase, that which is originally given to improve, as well as that which is given by way of reward, to be supernatural grace; for the argument is good against him out of his own words; for thus we may argue, if supernatural grace be not conferred, but upon the right use and improvement of natural abilities, then all men have not supernatural grace; and the reason is clear, because they do not use the light of na­ture well, which expresses of Arminius when Molineus undertaketh to Anatomize, and urgeth against Arminius, thus, God in Scripture is no where said to bind himself to give increase of grace to them▪ that use the [Page 58] light of nature well. Corvinus, who defendeth him, saith thus by way of reply: 1. Non ab Ar­minio dici simpli­citer à Deo dari incrementa gra­tiae lumine natu­rali rectè utenti, sed luce illâ recte utenti per ad jutotium gratiae. (2) Nec dici ab illo Deum teneri incrementa dare; sed tantum quod Deus vult sine ullâ obligatione. 1. It is not said by Arminius simply thus, that God gives increase of grace to him that useth the light of nature well, but to him that useth na­ture well by the help of grace. 2. Neither is it said by him, that God is bound to give the increase of grace, but onely that God will do it without any obligation: But here Corvinus doth not defend, but chastise his Master; & good reason if he do not expresse himself in such a fundamen­tal point, (modo decenti) in such a manner as becometh it; and I must tell also Corvinus, that both th [...]se replies are far from truth. For clear it is;

1 That he affirms simply that God gives increase of supernaturall grace to him that useth the light of nature well, without any mention of the least syllable of assisting grace, as any may judge that revieweth the forementioned quotation our of him; if any for Corvinus, can ex­tract out of that text, the least syllable leading to assisting grace, I shall then say that Corvinus defends; but if not, he sheweth not what he doth say, but what he should have said. Now if any shall say to this, that Arminius is so to be understood, becuse sometimes he expresseth himself to the su [...]l; I find him indeed thus in other places speaking. Anne natura prorsus destituta gratiā & Spiritu Dei, instructa est notitia veritatis? &c. non Arbitror ista dona naturae sine gratiâ & spi­ritu Dei tribui posse citra injuri­am gratiae divinae. Arm. resp. ad A. Art. 31. Artic. 15. [But can nature altogether destitute of the grace and spirit of God, be instructed with the knowledge of God, &c. I do not think that such natu [...]al gifts, without the grace and spirit of God can be granted, with­out manifest injury to the grace of God:] But this doth not at all re­duce him to any clear discovery of the truth, but rather detect his fraud; for they may have the Spirit of God, and gifts of it, originally, and yet no supernatural grace given them, de novo, to use the gifts of nature well; because according to their own principles, every man hath (Reli­quias vitae Spiritualis) the Reliques of spiritual life; whereby they know something of God, and are enabled to do the things contained in the law; which yet the Apostle saith, the Heathen do by nature; and this not onely Arminius, but Corvinus himself saith, as I shall shew presently: so that seeing his clearest words are liable to this charge of aequivocation, it savours of too much levity and inconstancy to treat or the use of natural light, in so many places, without the least hint of a­ny new principle of assisting grace; and I cannot but judge thus, that because they cannot make good their Doctrine of Universal grace, without this pretended assisting grace, he therefore sometimes scat­ters such expressions carrying a covert intimation thereof; but because they find the proof of it from Scripture to be but slender, they most fre­quently let that passe untouched. But however, if the question turn up­on this hinge, it is very improvidently done of them, to let the whole credit of their cause hang upon their bare assertions; for they do not produce one Scripture in all their writings, to prove that God gives di­vine assisting grace to inable men to use the light of nature well: and here the question concerning universal grace sticks betwixt us; They affirm that God gives to all men assisting grace to use the light of na­ture well: We, on the other side deny it, and provoke them to produce one place of Scripture to prove it, and they have not produced it yet to [Page 59] his day. When Molineus in his Anatomy of Arminianisme, Quod dicis fal­sum est. chap. 39. sec. 2. chargeth them thus; God it no where said to give to all men supernatural grace, to use the light of nature well: Corvinus onely answers thus, That which thou saiest is false, when it had been more becoming him to produce Scrip­tures, where it is said, that that which is given to every man is called grace: But he produceth something that pretendeth towards reason, and therefore I must leave Arminius, and speak in a word or two to Cor­vinus. And in the first place, to tell him that it is much prejudicial to their cause to wave Scripture, and from reason onely to seek for stabi­liment in their own obscure deductions, which are very obnoxious to scruple: which in the next place I shall examine. 1. He saith, Ibidem Neminem relin­qui sine testimo­nio. none are left without witnesse; but it is as obscure for us to know what testimony or witnesse he meaneth: I suppose he understandeth that witnesse mention­ed, Acts 14.16. wherein God is said not to leave himself without wit­nesse, which text is so much insisted upon by them; but then could not Corvinus his acute reason tell him, that this is no satisfaction to Molineus charge, except he had also proved that this testimony is super­natural grace: the testimony there spoken of, is by those fruitfull sea­sons, showres, and filling their hearts with gladnesse; but this is far short of that supernatu [...]al grace pretended by them. Those that are given over to a reprobate sense, and so natural as that they are without all knowledge of God, and so certainly without all assisting grace; yet they had that testimony of the Deity, in showres and fruitfull sea­sons.

2. He saith Secondly, some Talents are given to all men: Omnibus aliqua talenta dari. ibidem. And what then? will it therefore follow that assisting grace is given? I think not. Assisting grace is none of the Talents that God gives so generally, but rather that natural light, and ( reliquiae and scintillae luminis) the Law written in their heart. Dantur incre­menta gratiae rectè utenti la­mine naturali peradjutorium gratiae, [...], The grace of God is not by themselves said to be a Talent, but (principium quo utuntur talenta) that principle by which the Talents are used. as Corvinus saith. God gives increase of grace to him that useth the light of nature well, by the grace of God as­sisting him. now if the assisting grace of God be not one of those Ta­lents, it is no plausible argument to urge, assisting grace is given to all, because Talents are given to all; except he say, that where God gives natural gifts, he alwaies gives assisting grace to enable them to use them well, which is not to prove the question in hand, but to beg it. Ista gratia quae data est ad hoc ut Deum [...]olamus non potest non esse supernatura­lis, ibid.

3. That which is most plausible is this, That grace of God which is given to that end that we may worship him, cannot be lesse then supernatural, This is true, but nothing to the businesse in hand, because the question is not this, Whether that grace given by God, to that end that men may worship him, be supernatural: but whether that grace be given or no to all men without exception; this we demand a proof of in all the Scrip­ture: true indeed, the light of nature and works of providence discover that there is a God, and that he is to be worshipped; thus far men by groping after God may come to know; but this is far short of this (ut Deum colamus) for the actual worship of God cannot be without a rule, by the help of which we may worship him according to his own will: and [Page 58] this is the height of the Doctrine of Universal grace, They dare not call nature grace, lest they should come too near the Doctrine of Pelagius; and that God gives principles of assisting grace, they have not yet pro­ved, but onely by these few infirm arguments, and all the world may yet take notice, that the proof yet remaineth to be made on their parts; and till they give us some Scriptures wherein that which God gives to every man without exception, is honoured with the name of grace; we shal judge them more abundant in assertions then in proofs, And besides the want of proof, which lies as a ponderous stone in the way against that Doctrine. There is also the validity of an argument or two to take away, before they can pass for plausible Defenders of that faith: I shall therefore addresse my self to urge them with some few arguments to prove, that that which God giveth to every man cannot be called grace; neither doth God give to every man that assisting grace, whereby they may, and to that end that they might, use the light of nature well.

Arg. 1 If God to many in the world be but (paratus faccre gratiam) ready to give divine grace, then he doth not actually give assisting grace to every man in the world without exception: but it is as frequent as their pages to use this expression (Deus aut gratiam facit, aut facere paratus est) God doth either give grace, or is ready to do it; which Salvo they need not so cautelously to provide, if they can prove that God giveth to every man divine assisting grace, to that end that they might use the light of nature well.

Arg. 2 All grace given to man since the fall, in tendency to his recovery, comes to us through Christ, and is called the grace of Christ.

But the grace of Christ is not exhibited to all men without ex­ception.

Therefore no Supernatural grace.

All grace comes to us by Christ, therefore it is called the grace of Christ, Eph. 1.3. John 1.16. and we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, Eph. 1.3 and we are said to receive grace for grace from him, John 1.16. But that the grace of Christ is not exhibited to every man without exception, I need not produce Scriptures to prove; for the Remonstrants will sur­render it up to us without any hostile progresse: for speaking of the na­tural law inscribed in the heart of all men, they say thus, as I have formerly quo [...]ed from them, Not to that end that by that onely they should be immediately saved, but that by that they should be rendred fit hearers of the Gospel, wherein there is the Sermon of the grace of Christ. Whence I conclude, that the grace of Christ hath no place, till that natural light be actually improved, and that so high, as that thereby they make themselves fit hearers of the Gospel, and so to receive the grace of Christ: now if any may receive the grace of Christ, to that end that they may use nature well, and so by consequence before they do use it well, then the words of these great disputers want weight to ballast them. Cornel. à lapid. in loc. Besides, let them consult with the interpreters of their own side, who thus ex­pound this text, Eph. 2.12. wherein it is said, the Gentiles were without Christ; one saith thus, without Christ, that is, without the knowledge of Christ, the law, the grace, the life of Christ: These two are arguments ad hominem.

Arg. 3 [Page 61]If God suffered the Nations to walk in their own waies, then he did not give the principle of his assisting Grace to that end, that they might use the light of nature well.

But God suffered the Nations to walk in their own waies, Acts 14.16. Therefore he doth not the latter. This Argument I humbly con­ceive hath so much weight in it, that it will deservedly challenge their most intimate consideration, and it is grounded upon this foundation: For God to suffer them to walk in their own waies, which the word of God affirmeth, and yet to do what in him lieth to hinder them from so doing, which this method of the Remonstrants must needs import, are in themselves very contradictious and inconsistent, and that upon the principle of Arminius himself, which is, that Permissio est cessat [...]o ab omni impediendi actu. Anteperk 2. p. 21 impedition and per­mission cannot stand together, permission is the cessation from all acts of impedition; for clear it is, that he that doth any thing to hinder an act, cannot be properly said to permit it, although the thing it self be done.

Now let us proceed to the businesse upon Arminius's grounds, that Per­mission is the suspension of all efficiency, whereby the action of men may be rationally hindred; and that God hinders an act two waies, ei­ther giving a law whereby men are not left to their own liberty, but they are so confined, that they cannot do it but sin: as also by putting to any impediment, whereby the action may be hindred; both these then must be wanting if there be a permission; and so by consequence, where there is permission, there is neither of these, so that by the help of this, we may come to conclude what consonance the Doctrine of uni­versal grace hath with the Scriptures or Reason. Will they think it ra­tional for us to say, that that father which gives to his son a great estate, or it may be a lesser portion, to negotiate and trade with, and also by his counsel and direction, yea and his labour and pains, is ready to assist him; that he should be said to leave him to himself, and to suffer him to walk in his own waies? So in this case, they say that God gives all the heathen a law to circumscribe them, and by that their conscien­ces will accuse them, and condemn them if they walk not according to that law, and this God gives them as a full stock and measure of Ta­lents, to negotiate and drive on an heavenly trade, and with that in­tent, that they may thrive in a spiritual estate towards heaven; and not onely so, but by the motion of his holy Spirit, assist, direct, and move, and perswade to restrain them from abusing those Talents, and to the end they may use them well. If so, then what truth can there be in that Scripture, that saith, God suffered them to walk in their evill waies? or if there be truth in those Scriptures, what truth then in those frequent assertions of theirs, that contein such administrations of grace to them, to hinder them from walking in their own waies? seeing per­mission and impedition cannot stand together; no nor your permission and the putting forth such means, as either they suppose may, or in­tend should hinder such actions, can consist and stand together.

And as a further illustration of this argument, I demand Cui fini? to what end is this principle of assisting grace given to all men. I [...] is true, I know, they tell us in general that it is to assist them that they may [Page 62] use the light of nature well: Specialem modū operationis, non necesse est nobis exponere. Corvin in Mol. c. 43. S. 5. Etsi dici à nobis actum per meras scastones [...]n nobis effici probare non pussi [...]; lubenter canon concedi­mus cam non effici fine suasio­nibus, Ib. see 7 Ponitur Impedi mentum volan tati duplici mo do; vel per mo­dum naturae, vel per madū liber [...]a [...]s Prima est physicci [...]pellen­do. Secunda est moral [...]e [...] sua­dendo; in prima voluntas necessariò, in secan a certò impeditur. Armin. Anti­perk p 150. but this doth not satisfie. I demand fur­ther, what is the work, or the manner of working in this case? how doth this spirit assist the heathen to use nature wel? They deny any infused ha­bites, but it must be in a way that sutes well with the liberty of mans free will, which is by moral suasion, as they say in all their writings: yet if we charge them with this, they deny it, and that upon good ground: for if they say it is by a Physical efficiency onely, it destroies their ve­ry foundation; and if by a moral suasion onely, they cannot prove it; we may well therefore demand how? but we cannot receive satisfaction from them in this, for they answer us thus, The special and particular manner by which the spirit works, it is not necessary for us to explain. How do these assertors of universal grace delight to lurk in obscurities, and upon every occasion decline the open profession of the truth? and it will be too much digressive from the point, for me to ingage in this dispute (de modo operationis gratiae) but to take it as we find it grant­ed by them, thus: Although thou canst not prove that we say the grace of God acts by mere suasion, yet we grant willingly it acts not without suasi­on; or to [...]ake the words of Arminius, who treating of permission which he maketh to be a suspension of all impediment, saith thus, Impedi­ments are put before the will of man two waies, either by acting according to the manner of nature, or acting according to the manner of free choice; the former is by Physical impulse, the second by moral suasion; in the first the will is necessarily, in the second certainly hindred. By all which we may conclude, that where the grace of God is given by way of an as­sisting principle, it must be either by a Physical efficiency, necessarily acting the will, or by a moral perswasion, certainly perswading the will, or both join [...]ly; and so on the contrary we may say, that to them whom he neither Physically moves, nor morally perswades, to such the assisting grace of God is not given to hinder them from walking in sin­full waies, or to enable them to use the light of nature well; by this we may conclude, that this assisting grace is not given to the Heathen nations, because he suffred them to walk in their waies; which per­mission excludes both Physical efficiency and moral suasion, and that this is firm reason, I shall present to the world their own grants. Fi [...]st Arminius gives it as the ground work, thus Perm [...]ssio i­gitur quà Deus perm [...]tat creatu­ram ra [...]ionalem perpetrate a­ctum, est suspensio impedimentorum om [...]um quibus volantas persua denda erat. Arm, in Perk. p. 153. Permission by which God permitteth a rational creature to commit any act, is the suspension of all impediments, by which the will is to be moved and perswaded. Now I thus urge, that if permission be the suspension of all impediments by which the wi [...]l is to be perswaded; then I say, the will is neither to be Physical­ly acted, nor morally perswaded; where either of these is, there is no permission, and this Arminius himself granteth, thus: Impedimen­tum quo pecca­tum quà tale im­peditur, est vel voluntatis divi­nae [...] velatio, vel suasio voluntatis ad obre [...]nperan­dum voluntati divinae; unde con­stat, permissionem peccati esse sus­pensionem istius revelationis, vel suasionis, vel utriusque. pag. 157. The impedi­ments by which sin as sin is hindred, are the revelation of the divine will, and suasions to move the will to obey that divine will. Whence it is clear, that Gods permission to commit sin, is the suspension of that Revelation, or of that suasion, or of both joint [...]y. And as a further testimony in this case, he saith in another place thus; Nam utunum argumentum impedire po­test voluntatem ne velit quod Deus vult impeditum; ita necesse est ut nullo argumentorum istorum persuadeatur vo­luntas ad nolen­dum, secus non est permissio. p. 153. For as one argument may hinder the [Page 63] will from willing that which God would have hindred, so it is necessary that he use no argument to perswade the will to be unwilling, otherwise there is no permission.

What can be made more clear then this, that where God permits, he useth no means either Physically to act, or morally to perswade the will? Now to draw to a conclusion in this Argument, thus I summe up the strength of it, God permitteth the Nations to walk in their own waies, according to the Scriptures, Acts 14.16, 17. and because he permitteth, therefore we must not say, that either he Physically acts, or morally perswades the will to use the light of nature well, according to the Remonstrants own concessions; and then I conclude, that ei­ther the assisting spirit and grace of God is not given at all, or else to be idle, or to no use, not to assist them to use the light of nature well; Let them take which of these they please, and till any for them can prove, that Gods assisting grace and spirit, and permission or suffer­ing them to walk in their evil waies can stand together, without being at a very high rate contradictious, I shall conclude that they do but u­surp the title of Universal Grace.

Arg. 4 If there be no need of the assisting principle of Divine grace to enable men to do those things that are contained in the Law, then God gi­veth not to every man his assisting grace to do those things conteined in the Law.

But there is no need of Gods assisting grace to that end: Therefore there is no such principle given. Corvin. in Mol. cap. 11. sect. 4.

We challenge (and that but in equity) that liberty of arguing which they take unto themselves: When we urge that Adam in integrity had that grace, which if we had now unmaimed and not impaired, we might be as able to beleeve in Christ, as Adam was to do that which was commanded him; and so by consequence that grace which Adam had was (principium potestativum credendi in Christum) the potesta­tive principle of beleeving in Christ, if his condition had required it. To this they say, God did not give such power to beleeve to Adam in his integrity, because then there was no need of it: and that upon this ground, it is against the wisdom of the Almighty to give grace to do that, of which there is no need, or to give grace where there is no need And may not we likewise say, that it is not suitable to the wisedome of God, to give his special assisting grace to enable them to use the light of na­ture well, when they are enabled without that grace to do the things conteined in the Law? Now in this Argument I shall proceed onely upon their principles, and I clear it thus. When we urge that all men are dead in sin, and so improve this as an argument for the power of Gods grace, because men are dead, and so cannot further their own conversion, or prepare themselves to receive regenerating grace, as Molin presseth Arminius; Corvinus, who is the defender of the Armini­an faith, replieth thus Addo quidem cum habere reli­quias vitae spiri­tualis (& expli­co me) in intel­lectu [...] aliquam Dei cognitionem; & in affectu defi­derium ad bonū cognitum: ideo (que) licet id quod ve­re bonum est age e non possit, potest tamen per illud bonum ali­quid agere, intel­ligare Deum, esse bonum & justum, facere caquae sunt legis, pagnare cum de­fideriis licet non vincere, locomo­tivum regere, quae talia sunt quae Deu requirit ab eo quem intendit regenerare. Cor. in Ma [...]. 32. se. 2. Man hath the reliques of spiritual life; that is, in his understanding some knowledge of God, in his affections some desire of good being known: so that although he cannot do that which is truly good, yet he can by it do some good, understand God to be good and just, do the [Page 64] things conteined in the Law, fight with his own desires, although not over­come them; and to govern his locomotion, which things God requireth in those whom he will regenerate. Now if man by nature have such reliques of spiritual life in him as to know God, desire good, do the things con­teined in the Law, fight with their desires; govern their locomotion, and all this by vertue of the reliques of spiritual life; then what need of a principle of assisting grace, de novo, to enable them to do the things conteined in the Law? for that which is performed by the reliques of spiritual life, need not any assisting principle of grace anew. Again, the Collocutors at the conference at Hague, upon this very argument, say thus, In spirituali morte non separantur propriè dona spiritualia ab hominis vo­luntate, quia nun­quam illa fuerunt et insita. Sed li­bertas duntaxat agendi bene aut malè, quae liber­tas quamvis vites suas non exerere possit in homine peccato [...]e prop­ter tenebras intellectus, & de­pravationem af­fectuum, mansit tamen pars crea­tae naturae. Col. Hag. 279. In spiritual death, spiritual gifts are not properly separated from the will, because they were never in it; for in the will there is onely that liberty of doing good or evil, which liberty although it cannot put forth its strength in fallen man because of the blindnesse of his understanding, and depravation of his affections, yet it remaineth as part of a created nature. And many of such like expressions passe in that argument, by all which they affirm death to be onely in the understanding and affections, not in the will; but that in the depth of spiritual death, the will according to its natural freedome, can act as the understanding dictateth, and the affections move; all which are very contradictious to themselves in o­ther places, and the holy Scriptures every where: yet upon this ground I proceed against them with their own sword, The will needs no life to be infused anew, it is enough if the understanding and the affections be rectified; but as for the understanding that hath the knowledge of God, and the truth naturally, which Arminius calleth (Lumen naturale) natural light, and Corvinus Scinitilla luminis, sparks of light, which light is called the law of Nature, and so often by the Arminians and Mr. Goodwin called natural light: and in the affections there is a desire of good, fighting with inordinate desires, and by both they come to do the things conteined in the Law, and that by nature; what need then of a principle of assisting grace conferred anew, to enable them to do any of these? True indeed, the Remonstrants often use the word grace as Pe­lagius did, Gratiae vocabu­lo invidiam fran­gens, & offensio­nem declinans. of whom it was said (by the word grace he indeavoured to break the cloud of envy, and avoid offences) so these, meerly to serve them at this turn, and to carry on their own interest, are strong sticklers for the grace of God, to assist man in doing the least thing towards grace and salvation.

When they would prove man not to be wholly dead, they urge some Reliques of life, whereby he is able to know God, desire good, fight a­gainst his lusts, govern his locomotion, do the things conteined in the Law, Textus non dicit eos dispositos esse à Deo. Coll. Hag. 109. and so to dispose themselves to grace and eternal life: for thus they say when they speak of, or rather pervert that text, Acts 13.48. (As many as were ordained to eternal life beleeved) they say that (or­dained) in the text, is no more then disposed to eternal life; and that the text saith not they are disposed by God to eternal life. Now not to be disposed by God, is not to be disposed by the grace of God; for by that we say men are disposed to eternal life: but it seemeth they say men are disposed to eternal life, and yet not by God or his grace, and what [Page 65] can this be but by nature, and the natural powers of man, and so of themselves without any new principle of assisting grace? And yet when they come to make out a general and universal grace, then no man must be disposed to do any thing, or know any thing, but by a principle of assisting grace, without which, nature is wholly blind; and are now become as absolute patrons of the grace of God as may bee. Oh the fraud and jugling of these supporters of the doctrine of universal grace! I urge these two things to them; First, when they urge that man by the relicks of life hath abilities to all those things before mentioned, and this to prove man not to be wholly dead. I demand whether they understand man to have those abilities by the reliques of life, with the assisting grace of God or without it: if they meane with it; then it is very impertinent to prove man not to be wholly dead; for no man is so simple to plead man to be so dead by sinne, that hee cannot do anything, being excited and assisted by the grace of God; and if they meane the reliques of life without that grace, then I have what I desire, that all men have not grace; so uni­versal grace falleth. Secondly, I urge, if those words in Act. 13.48. [...], which text according to their own glosse is to be read thus [as many as were disposed to eternal life;] if those words (I say) disposed to eternal life, doe not necessarily import thus much, that men are disposed by God to eternal life; Then what ground have they to say that no man is able to do the things contained in the law, or any thing whereby hee is disposed to faith and regeneration, but as he is assisted by the grace of God de novo? How necessarily is this doctrine inevitably involved? When they would prove man not to be wholly dead, then we have it only thus, [they do by nature the things contained in the law;] but when they come to prove universal grace, we have it with a comment thus; [they do the things contained in the law by nature, as it is helped and assisted by grace] let them adhere either to the one or other: either, that man hath no such reliques of life by which he is able to dispose himselfe to faith; or else that a new principle of assisting grace is not needful, nor gi­ven to every man. The one wil help in the point of the manner of work­ing of Gods grace in mans conversion; the other in the point of univer­sal grace. And until they can reconcile those reliques of life in every man, wherby they are enabled to do those things contained in the law, & to prepare themselvs for faith; and the necessity of the assisting principle of Gods grace to be imparted to man anew, for those ends & purposes; I shal conclude, that they do but usurp the name & title of universal grace.

Thus I have endeavoured to prove that that which they pretend is gi­ven to everie man, cannot be called Grace. In the next place I shal exa­mine whether that which is given to every man (although it be granted to be grace) be truly said to be sufficient. Now this must be proved as wel as the former, if they wil carry up to the height an universal suffici­ent grace.

Now that this business may be perspicuously decided, it is requisite that we first consider the nature and definition of sufficiencie, in general, and then apply it to particular cases.

[Page 66]The Remonstrants give us a general definition of suffiencie, tending to this result, Sufficiencie is a position of things necessary and requi­site to that thing, in respect of which it is said to be sufficient; and this I willingly receive as rationall.

Upon that text, Isa. 5.1, 2.3. They say thus.

Sufficiens gra­tia nihil aliud est quam ea gratia quae omnia necessaria ad rege­nerationem ad­hibet, ut quod ad actum praestatio­nem necessarium nihil ult a requiratur. Definitio gratiae s [...]ffie ent [...]s hoc habet, ut o­mnia necessaria adh [...]bet; Tolle aliquid necessari­um, no [...] erit gra­tia sufficiens; po­ne omnia neces­saria, & erit gra­tia sufficiens. Act. Synod. acr. 4. pag 9. Sufficient grace is nothing else but that grace which affordeth all requisites and necessaries to the effecting of regeneration, so that to the per­formance of the act, nothing can be beyond it required as necessary; the very definition of sufficient grace containeth this in it, that it afford all necessaries: take away any one necessary requisite, and we take away suffici­ent grace, grant all, and wee grant sufficient grace. And true it is, that sufficiency in general, is wel exprest in other words, thus [Positis omnibus requisitis.] But wee must not stay in generals, if wee un­dertake to clear the truth of this point to satisfaction. But consider the various ends and purposes, in tendency to which, this or that mea­sure of grace is said to be sufficient. The Remonstrants do not af­firme that assisting grace given to every man to be sufficient to all ends and purposes, [...]amely to worke faith in Jesus, to effect reg [...]nera­tion, or sufficient to bring men to eternal life; as Mr. Goodwin fondly dreameth. Corvinus saith thus, Omnibus aliqua m [...]dia ad [...]i­bentur ad salu­tem; quae licet non semper suf­ficiunt ad fidem ingenerandam immediatè, tamē ad actiones ali­quas suffic [...]unt, quibus Deus vult homines ad fi­dem praeparari. Corv. in Molin. cap. 39. Sec. 1. Some means in tendency to sal­vation are given to all, which although they be not sufficient to worke faith immediately, yet they are sufficient to those works by which God will have men prepared to faith and regeneration. And againe the same Author thus, Quantum ad athnicos pertinet ad quo [...] Christi nomen non per­vent, eos taligra­t [...]â absol tè ad sal [...]tem et fidem sufficiente prae­ditos non esse, saepe suprà diximus; quare po suimas [...], radum suffic [...]en [...]iae ac men uram diver­sam [...]alem quae fit pro mensura vo­cationis, c 37 s. 11 Act. Synod. art. 2. p. 237. So much as appertaineth to the heathen to whom the name of Christ never came, wee have oftentimes said that they are not endued with a grace sufficient, absolutely, either to faith or regeneration; therfore wee have put divers degrees and measures of sufficiency, according to the mea­sure of their call. So that we have clearly discovered negatively, what the general and common grace is not sufficient to effect, namely not sufficient to salvation, not yet to faith in Christ: but affirmatively, to what it is sufficient, something more dubiously. Sometimes we have it thus, It is sufficient to those actions by which men are disposed to faith and regeneration. Other sometimes we have it thus, that by it men may be disposed to become apt and fit hearers of the Gospel, as the Remon­strants in a forementioned place: which must be things very diffe­rent. Now here we must look for the height of the doctrine of Uni­versal Grace, thus, God gives common grace to all, by which they are sufficiently enabled to do such acts or workes by which they are dispo­sed and prepared for the hearing of the Gospel, and for faith and re­generating grace. The next thing enquirable is, what those works or actions are by which they are disposed to faith and regenerating grace, and to which they have sufficient grace? and these cannot b [...]e otherwise then confusedly taken up from the pens of the Remonstrants. In that chapter which by Corvinus is set apart to treat of this verie sub­ject, viz. of that grace that prepares men for faith, we may find various actions mentioned: as first. Quae legis sunt faciunt; ista opera, licet talia non sint qualia iam regeniti prae­stant, sed valdè exigua, tamen ea Deus requirit in eo quem intendit regenerate, & iis utitur ad hominē regenerandum. Corv. in Molin. cap. 34. sect 2. The doing the things contained in the law, Rom. 2.14. of these he saith, that they are such as God re­quireth of those whom hee intendeth to regenerate, and useth them in ten­dency [Page 67] to it. Againe in the next Sermon we find another, viz. thir­sting after Christ, and a desire of grace, and this he urgeth from Isa. 55.1. and expresly saith thus, Cupiditas salutaris gratiae, & gemitus con­scientiae anhelan­tis sub pondere peccatorum sunt effecta Spiritus; sed non regene­rantis, sed ad re­generationem praeparantis, s. 3. The desire of saving grace, and the groans of a conscience breathing under the weight of sinne are effects, not of the regenerating spirit, but of the spirit preparing to regeneration. In ano­ther place we find thus, Homo in peccatis mortuus, habet in intelle­ctu Dei cognitio­nem, & in affe­ctu ad bonum cognitum aliquod desideriū, quibus sacere potest ea quae sunt legis, pugnare cum de­sideriis, & loco­motivum regere, quae talia sunt ut ea exigat Deus ab eo quem in­tendit regenerare Cir. in Mol. c. 32. se. 24. A man that is dead in sinnes, hath the know­ledge of God in his understanding, the desire of that knowne good in his affections, by which he can doe the things contained in the Law, fight and strive with his desires, governe his locomotion; all which are required of those whom God willeth to regenerate. So that by these wee may gather up a catalogue of those actions to which man hath sufficient meanes, and by which he is disposed to faith and regeneration; namely, knowledge of God, desires after God and saving grace, groaning un­der the burthen of sinne, fighting with inordinate desires, go­vernment of the locomotion. These and such like are those actions they mean of. Now I must examine these two things. First, whether these actions bee dispositive to regeneration, or that men be therby properly said to be prepared to conversion. Secondly, whether (though this be granted) all men may be truly said to be sufficiently enabled for such actions.

For the first of these, I urge two wayes. First to examine whether these actions be truly said to be the effects of regeneration, or the pre­parations to it. It is the grand question betwixt Molincus and Corvi­nus. Molineus affirmes them to be effects; Corvinus contends for this, that they are but preparations to it, and may be where conversion is not. I shall not use any elaborate discourse in this businesse, on­ly to put them, or any for them to consider, whether to grieve for sin, and groan under the burthen of sinne, and to fight with inordinate lusts and desires, and from those to desire and thirst after the saving grace of God, bee not parts of conversion: Is there not a change in the affections when we desire good, and the saving grace of God, and are so farre estranged from sin, as to groan under the bur­then of them; and from that change in affections wee come to fight a­gainst inordinate desires? which phrase intimateth a reluctance, or aver­sation in the mind from sin, contrary to that condition wherin our minds are set upon evil works; Col. 1. In conversion there is a double terme, A quo, and Ad quem, from which, to which we are converted; in these actions there is both from sin, to God and his grace, and that both in desires, affections, and execution: and is it not yet conversion with the Remonstrants? We may wonder by what colour of reason they can imagine, In Actis dicitur [...]e plaritus, qui ante ipsam con­versionem Deum timuerunt, & re­ligiosi fuere, ut de Judaes, co [...]ne­lio, Lydia Corvin. in Mol. cap. 34. sect. 5. that when men are so farre turned from sin as to grieve for it, groane under the burden of it, and so to strive and fight against it; and so farre turned to God as to desire and hunger and thirst after his grace, they should not yet be partakers of conversion; shal we see a piece of their reason? wee have it in Corvinus, who saith thus, It is said in the Acts of the Apostles, that many before they were converted, were religious, and feared God, as Act. 2 5. & 10.2. & 16.14. of the Jews, Cornelius and Lydia. And it wil be an excellent proofe, when they prove that these mentioned in these Scriptures were not converted be­fore [Page 68] the preaching of the Apostles, which I believe wil be ad Gracas Calendas, Let any Arminian tell me what one syllable in those texts, import that those there spoken of, were then unconverted: or where do we find any footsteps of their conversion afterwards, or that the Apostle was sent for to convert Cornelius; and where hee did it? til this be done, I shall conclude their proofe very infirm and weake. For the Apostle did not goe to Cornelius to convert him to God, but to instruct him in a more particular and distinct knowledge of Christ; which I hope they will grant many had not in those daies, and before that yet were converted to God.

A second piece of their reason, wee have from the same Author, and in the same place, from this, that the feare of God is said to be before the revelation of the divine wills and his Argument is this; Ille timor convenit nondum credentibus, qui praecedit revela­tionem divinae voluntatis; talis est timor de quo sermo est, Psal. 15.12, 14. Ibid. That fear agreeth well to those that yet believe not in Christ, which goeth before the revelation of the divine will: But such a feare is that spoken of, Psal. 25.12, 14. Ergo. But when this argument is reduced to a right and legitimate formation, it wil appear to be of the same size with the former.

First, for that phrase, believeth not in Christ, he should have inserted, are not converted; now it is ill confounding these two, because ac­cording to them, many before Christ (of whom this text is spoken) were converted to God, and yet did not believe in Christ: so that the proposition should have run thus, [That fear agreeth wel to men un­converted, which goeth before the revelation of Gods wil.]

Secondly, That phrase, Revelation of the divine will, must be di­stinguished, and we must know whether he meaneth, all the discove­ries of Gods will, or only a further confirmation or increase of know­ledge of his wil. If they understand it in this last sense, I deny the Proposition; if in the former, the Assumption: for the fear there spo­ken of doth not precede all knowledg of the divine will. God may well be said to shew his covenant, and to teach in the way that he shall chuse, and to tell his secrets to them that are already converted, and have had some discoveries of his will; otherwise David so often as hee prayes to God in Psal. 119. to teach him his word, his wil, his waies, his statutes, so often he should bespeake himself without the knowledge of Gods will, and yet unconverted. And by such arguments as those they attempt to prove that those actions are but preparative to conver­sion and regeneration. I shall only come against them with their own sword in one Argument, thus: they grant us in expresse terms, that Homo in sta­tu peccati nihil boni ex se & à se potest aut facere aut velle, aut cogitare; sed ne cesse est ut in in­tellectu, volun­tate, affectibus, & omnibus viri­bus renovetur. Script. Synod. Art. 3. p. 1. Man in the state of sinne, can do no good, nor think good, nor desire good of himself; but to these it is necessary that he be renewed in his under­standing, will, affections, and all his powers. Now upon this ground they will be reduced to this dilemma, either these actions are not good, or else they are not done as preparative to, but as effects, or as parts (as some would expresse it) of regeneration. Now to examine which of these two they take: Wee find Corvinus thus salving the businesse: speaking of those re [...]icks of life in man, he saith thus, Ideoque licèt illud quod verè honum est agere non possit, potest tamen per illud bonum aliquid agere. In Molin. cap. 32. Sect. 24. Al­though by this he cannot do that which is truly good, yet by this good he is able to do somthing. A very learned decision, and well becoming such a man. [Page 69] Who ever yet feigned to himself man so destitute of power that he could do nothing? But with him it seems man hath such a sufficiency of grace, that he can do something. But I hope this is not the height of the do­ctrine of universal sufficient grace; he should have shown what it is that they can do, whether bonum, or malum, or nec bonum, nec mulum; that is, whether good, or evil, or indifferent; Good he denies, Indifferent he doth not say, and Evil he cannot prove. Neither is that any clearer satisfaction which we find in another place, though upon the same subject; who be­ing pressed with this, Whether those works that men did as dispositive to regeneration, were good, or no? he answers thus, Si verè bona ea intelligantur quae habent quic­quid secundùm evangelium ad essentiam boni operis pertiner, non sunt verè bo­na: sed si verum opponitur ficto ac apparenti, c [...]tra substantiam, suo modo etiam verè bona dici possunt quâ in illis est sinceritas & in­tegritas. c. 34. s. 7 If truly good be under­stood of that which hath those things which according to the Gospel apper­tain to the essence of a good work, so they are not truly good: but as truly good is opposed to feigned and appearing, without substance, so they are truly good, because there is in them integrity and sincerity. But hee that can reduce this elaborate distinction to right reason, hee shall be with mee great Apollo. How willing, and yet unwilling is Corvinus to affirme these actions truly good, and that because pressing inconveniences attend him on either hand? And therefore he will speake at a high rate of inconsistency, but hee will reconcile the businesse, and affirme them good, and truly good, as they have the substance of good; but not truly good, as they have not the essence of good; as if the substance of good can be present, and yet the essence of good be absent: as if when the question was put concerning this or that thing, whether it be a true man or no, wee should say, as (true man) is taken for that which hath the essence of a man, so it is not a true man: but as the phrase true man is taken for that which is a man, not in ap­pearance, but in substance, so it is a true man; would not this be exploded as very ridiculous? the termes are so coincident, that one cannot be without the other; for it cannot be truly said to be a man quoad substantiam, unlesse it hath the essence of a man. Quicquid est homo habet essentiam hominis. Yet this is the best satisfaction that wee receive from these great assertours of universal grace, and in this di­stinction they have a double disadvantage. The members thereof are coincident, and so no legitimate members of a distinction; and also the last member, which he granteth, serveth our turne; for then those actions which they produce, which all men have sufficient grace to performe, (as they say) are by Corvinus his owne confession such as have the substance of good, and are not feignedly but truly good: then how can such things be done before regeneration as pre-disposi­tions therunto, seeing they are truly good? and because they are so, according to their own concessions, they cannot be done by any man untill he be regenerated in all his p [...]wers: how are they in their last refuge implicated and involved?

Secondly I urge. Suppose they he proved to be antecedents to rege­neration, yet how will they prove they are true and proper disposi­tives thereunto? I demand some ground, either from Scripture or rea­son to prove that by these, man is disposed to conversion. What place in Scripture intimateth either these or any other things as dispo­sitions [Page 70] to conversion, or how in all their writings do they cleer these expressions to satisfaction? Those words by which they most declare their minds in this point, I find in Corvinus, who saith thus, Mens nostra est, Hominem communiori istâ gratiâ rectè uten­tem, ideo esse ap­tum & idoneum ad credendum E­vangelio; quia tal bus evange­lium [...]um fi [...]ctu revelat, & ut e­vangelio credant in talibus efficit, Corvin. in Mol. c. 33. §. 11. Our mind is, that man using common grace well, is therefore apt and fit to be­lieve the Gospel, because God doth reveale the Gospel to such with fruit, and doth worke faith in such. And in another place speaking of these verie actions, saith thus, God requireth them of him whom he wil rege­nerate. And many more to this purpose; whereby they in stead of proofe from Scriptures, being deductions of their owne, which are very obnoxious to scruple; and their reasoning is this, they deduct mens aptnesse and fitnesse to be converted by such acts, from Gods dispensations, and his actual converting of those in whom are seen those acts. And may not I retort this Argument with as great strength thus? Man using common grace well, is not disposed to converting grace, Ea praeexi, it Leus ab eo quem intendit regene­rare. c. 32. Sec. 14. because God doth not alwaies give converting grace to such, and doth often give it to others that do not use the light of nature wel; or at least as Armanius saith, minus malè: And the Argument is of some strength; if there be no unbended method for Gods dispensing converting grace, then what wil become of their dispositions to con­version? Many of the Corinthians are recorded to be Idolaters, Adulterers, buggerers, theeves, and what not? they did not use the light of nature well, and yet they were blessed with the Gospel, and did partake of the regenerating grace of God; but let any man shew me the dispositions to this grace, by which they were fitted to receive it. Paul was a persecuter, blasphemer, injurious, abusing not only the Gospel, but the light of nature also; which (if Mr. Goodwin divine right) teacheth men to search out and yeild to the best discoveries of Gods will and pleasure; and so was without all dispositions to receive converting grace, and yet he found mercy in the height of his obsti­nacie, which is recorded as a demonstration of the power of Gods grace to reduce him, when there were no probable apparent dispositions to receive converting grace; but Tyre and Sydon, who were so well dis­posed and fitted to receive further grace, and had used the light of na­ture well, as that Christ saith of them, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, if they had enjoyed that word, and these mira­cles; and yet to them God gave neither the outward meanes of the Gospel, nor yet converting grace: but what need I cast about to produce proofe? The Remonstrants owne concessions are enough to confirme us against themselves, who upon the same point thus say.

Novimus e­nim Deum saepe evangelicae prae­ditationis grati­am iis facere qui nihil minus curae habuerunt quam ut communion vo [...]ation respon­d [...]ant, & qaum tal [...]bus eam facit, eandem non facit ii [...] qui nihilo sunt pejores; & si ul­terius considere­tur mediorum ad salutem dispensa­tio, agnoscimus Deum omnis boni largitorem tali u­t [...] libertate, ut pa­ribus impa [...]em, imparibus parem gratiam confe­rendo, minus malos non vocan­do, pejores vo­cando, ut ex usu vel abusu dono­rum generaliorū exactam ejus ra­tionem red [...]i non posse, libenter a [...]noscimus. Act. Synod. Art. 2. p. 528. For wee know very wel, that God hath given evangelical grace to them that take care for nothing lesse then to use common grace well; and also doth not give it to others that are nothing worse then they: and if his dispensations of the means of salvation be truly considered; wee ac­knowledge, that God who is the giver of all good, useth such a liberty in giving unequal grace to equal men, and equal grace to unequal men; in rejecting those that are lesse evil, and calling worse; and that he makes such a various administration of his grace, that wee willingly acknowledge [Page 71] there can be no exact account given thereof by the use or abuse of general grace. And what more clear then this, to cause all that doctrine of dis­positions to conversion, which God requires in all them to whom he intendeth to give converting grace, to vanish into smoak? There are no such congruities in men, or dispositions to determine the will of God to give them converting grace, but according to their owne judg­ment he useth such a liberty, that as Jacob, he layeth his right hand upon the youngest son, and reserves his left for his eldest, which makes us oftentimes to admire the depth of the power and the wisdom of God. Now if any shal demand of me, what I have gained in all these allegations? I answer, thus much, that those actions which they pre­tend all may do, are no way dispositions to converting grace or rege­neration, and therefore they have no colour of reason to pretend men are sufficiently enabled to do them, and that in reference to salvation; making all to ha [...]g in this method, All men have grace to enable them to use nature well, and do things contained in the law, &c. which are dispositions to conversion and faith, and those to eternal life. Hence they inferre, that that common grace is mediately saving; but I herein break the chaine, and have proved, that they are not disposi­tions to regeneration, but many of them effects of regeneration, to which they themselves grant all men have not sufficient grace; and therefore not to those invented actions, and so by consequence to no­thing.

Secondly, I shall further examine, whether (if we granted that such works were dispositions to converting g [...]) they can prove, that all men have a sufficiency of means to do a [...]l those particulars mentioned, viz. to know God, d [...]sire good, thirst after saving grace, grieve for sinne, strive against in [...]r [...]inate desires, &c. Whether have all men sufficient mea [...]s to do [...]hes [...]? And this is most directly pertinent to our purpose: They must affirm it, I may deny it; and to clear it I thus proceede. Corvinus treating about sufficient grace, thus saith, Monemus iterum qu [...]cquid de suffic [...]entia di­cimus, assisten­tiae Sp [...]ritus tribui à n [...]bis. C. 8. sect. 2. This I give as a Caution, that alwayes when we speak of sufficiency, we intend it to be attributed to the assistance of the Spirit of God. Out of which words I can draw out no other meaning but this that they doe n [...]t hold any sufficiency, where there is not the actual assistance of the Spirit of God. Then I p [...]sse to another expression of his in the same Ch [...]ter, [...]hus, Non statui­mus, Gratiam ha­bitualem omni­bus communem; sed ac [...]udem [...]pi­ritus assistentiam ad singulos actus; quae licè omni­bus praestò sic, quaterus ag [...]t se­cundum rationem pri [...]pii praeve­nientis; pe [...]ialis tamen est cum in actu adjuvat & co­operat. Ibid. sect, 8. Wee hold no habitual grace common to all, but only the assisting grace of God to every act, which although it be common to all, as it is prevenient; yet it is but special as it is adjutant and coope­rant with them in doing. In al which I will not inculcate the palpable implications of that accurate Remonstrant; whereby hee must grant the same grace both common to all, and yet special to some; common to all because sufficient, and yet special, because assisting: Wee must note also, that assisting grace is (in agendo) in doing. Sufficient is (ad agendum) to the doing any act; and (adjuvant) and (Cooperant) and (assistant) I take to be termes equipollent. Therfore to let the mplication die, by the helpe of these two places of Corvinus, I thus ar­ue, which wil bring mee to a fair issue in this point. My Argument this.

The Proposition of this syllogism is grounded upon Corvinus his first expression. What-ever wee speak of sufficiency, we ascribe it to the assi­stance of Gods Spirit.

The minor proposition is grounded upon his second, Which grace is common to all, as it is prevenient; but special as it is adjuvant and coope­rant, which are all one with assistant. But I further prove the minor thus:

The Proposition of this argument is grounded upon this truth, The assisting spirit of God is only had in doing; God then assists, and helpes, and cooperateth, when wee actually doe: assisting is properly only in doing. Improperly (ad agendum) to the doing.

The minor is clear by experience, and many Scriptures. Now I have waded so farre in this Argument, because it so fairly leads mee to a businesse of very great concernment, touching the nature of suf­ficiency; and that is, whether any thing can be truly said to be sufficient to the working of any good in man, but what is efficient. And see­ing wee are so fairly led by the hand of their owne concession, I shall assume that liberty at this time to deny it, and to say, that no grace is sufficient to conversion, or to work any good but what is efficient, and doth actually work it. And to prove it, I shall in the first place make use of their definition of sufficiency in general; which was, that it is a position of all things that are requisite and necessary to that action to which a sufficiencie is granted.

Secondly, I must also adapt the Question to the particular state and condition of man, as he is now corrupt and fallen; and by reason of that corruption many impediments and hinderances lie in the way to his conversion, or doing any thing that may be called good; which I hope (all will grant) must bee removed before hee can bee said to be sufficiently enabled to be converted, or to do any good; as the woman in the Gospel could not be said to be sufficiently enabled to en­ter the sepulchre, till the stone was rolled away from the doore.

Thirdly, I must premise also, that amongst other impediments, the depravation and aversation in the wil of man, John 5.40. 2 Pet. 3.5. Weems in Por­traiture of I­mage of God in man. p. 98. Act. Synod. Art. 30. p. 1. to convert or doe any good, is one of the main, as Christ said to the Jewes, I would have gathered you, but yee would not: and againe, Yee will not come to mee that yee might have life. And the Apostle, Your minds are set upon evil works; which wil of man hath such a reflexive influence upon the understanding, that it is kept off thereby from giving in a true dicta­men; and as the Apostle saith, for the most part men are willingly ig­norant: and this the Remonstrants grant, when they say, That no man can do any good until the wil be regenerate as well as other facul­ties.

[Page 73]Fourthly, I must also premise this, that when the will is regene­rate, and men of unwilling are made willing, (whether it be a physicall efficiency of Gods spirit, or by moral suasion only) it mattereth nor, then is the grace of God truly said to be efficient; for velle convertere est converti, velle credere est credere; this is my method by which I use to prove that there is no sufficient grace, but that which is efficient; and it is so plausible, that it hath some assertours besides my self. Singularis illa gratia quâ reipsa salvos & justos efficit, promiscuè dari omnibus ne­gatur. quae quia sola eatenus ef­ficax est, quate­nus hominem in peccato immer­sum non modo e­vocat, sed exci­tat; solâ etiam respectu eventus, & hominis jam corru ti dici pos­sit. Conrad. Vorst. Antibellarm. pag. 555. Con­radus Vorstius gives his judgment thus, That singular and special grace by which he indeed makes men just, and saveth them, is so farre efficacious as it not only calls, but also excites man drowned in sinne; so also in re­spect of the event, and of man now vitiated and corrupted, it only can be called sufficient. True indeed, I acknowledge there are very elaborate disputes about this very distinction of sufficient and effectu­all grace. And the Remonstrants thus bound either, Sufficient grace they say is such as is able to produce the effect; and effi­cient is that which doth actually produce the effect; and this distin­ction is good, if taken in the general: but as it is applyed to man in his corrupt estate, it will not passe; and that upon the forementi­oned ground.

Learned Mr. Perkins urgeth this also, That no grace is sufficient, but what is efficient, and then proves it; hee first asserteth it, but Arminius he denies it, and maintaineth the distinction of sufficient and efficient grace, and holds that grace may be said to be sufficient that is not efficient: and he attempts to illustrate the businesse thus, Deus sufficit multis mundis creandis; sed ta­men efficaciter non fecit: Chri­stus sufficit ad omnes homines salvandos, sed efficaciter non fecit. Antiper. p. 245. God was sufficient to have made many worlds, but hee did not make them effectually; Christ was sufficient to save all men, but he doth not effect it. Which Instances satisfie not for several rea­sons.

1.) Because there is no due Analogie betwixt creation and con­version in this particular. In creation there are no impediments to hinder this worke; the Chaos riseth not up against the plasticall power of the Creator; but in man, and that according to their owne principles, there is a strong resisting power, and so as to make the the work of God altogether null and void, as to the act of conversion; no impediments in the one, but such in the other that can not be remo­ved without being efficient.

2) His arguing is fallacious, for when wee treat of sufficient means, wee presuppose them to be actually put forth and administred; and hence the definition of sufficiency is the Position or adhibition of all requisites; nothing can be said to be sufficient to produce any act ex­cept it be applyed, and put forth. And I may say (I suppose) with a holy reverence, no not the divine power, except it by his holy will be put forth to create; so that the divine power may be considered ei­ther as put forth and set on worke by the counsel of his will, or not; if not, then I see not (I speak with submission) how it can bee called sufficient. His omnipotency we are taught thus to conceive of, it is that by which hee doth whatsoever he will; and if that power bee by his wil put forth, it is efficient, and so the cause returneth to us a­gain.

[Page 74]But Mr. Perkins doth not only assert, but prove also, that now in mans corruption nothing is sufficient to conversion, but what is efficient, and that by an argument which I shal follow a little, and it is this,

This argument is grounded upon this method. Sufficiency imply­eth a position of all necessaries. Now if all those be necessarie, then all must concurre to make a sufficient grace to conversion; and if all concurre, that grace is efficient; then what is more connatural then this, that no grace is sufficient but what is efficient? And Mr. Per­kins proceeds only upon Arminius his owne concessions; yet Arminius answers thus,

Consequentia i­sta nulla est, di­cere, nulla datur sufficiens gratia, quia null illorū sola s [...]fficiat. Antiper. p. 246 The consequence is not good, to say, there is no sufficient grace because none of these five alone is sufficient; but this is a meere trifling and misallegation of his adversary. Perkins did not say that there was no sufficient grace; but no sufficient but what was efficient, because none alone except a [...]l concurred could be called sufficient; and if al did, then it was efficient: and is not the consequence good? I conceive un­deniable. If all be granted to conversion, before a man can be said to have sufficient grace to the working of regeneration; then sufficiency and efficiency must needs meet in one; for where all are, there they are certainly efficient; the cooperant grace of God alwaies implying efficiency. But Arminius answers further, Omnes illae gratiae, praeveni­ens nempe et prae­parans, aut suffi­entes sunt, aut ef­ficaces; Deus praevenit suffici­enter & efficaci­ter, praeparat suf­ficienter & effi­caciter, & quaeri possit an non sic de reliquis. Armin. Anti­perk. ibid. All those graces, namely, the prevenient, and preparant, are either sufficient or efficient; God pre­veneth sufficiently and effectually, he prepareth sufficiently and effectually; and it may be enquired into whether it holdeth not in the two last graces But what rational answer these expresses are to the Argument in hand, I am not able to divine, nor the congruity of them with themselves; The making those graces in one clause to be either sufficient or effe­ctuall; in the second clause to be both: couplatives and disjunc­tives, do not wel in the same sentence, referred to the same thing, in the same respect. Besides, here is a grosse mis-understanding of his ad­versary: he did not say, there was not a sufficiencie in any of those gra­ces alone to their proper ends and actions; as that there was not a suf­ficiencie in the prevening grace alone to prevent, so not in preparing grace alone to prepare: But he said, not in any alone to convert. If hee understand him otherwise, he thinks amisse: and if he judge of his adversary aright, his answer is very impertinent.

But further then this, Arminius is his owne greatest enemie. Ar­minius contendeth for a sufficient and efficient grace distinct; so that he should have produced a sufficient grace that had not beene effectual, then it had beene to his purpose; but this is no probable way to make both sufficiencie and efficiency to concurre in every grace. And I conceive it is an undeniable argument against himselfe, that if no grace be sufficient and not efficient, that (viz.) God prepareth both sufficiently and efficiently; and so in preventing, operating, coopera­ting [Page 75] grace; It will appear that no grace is, or can be said to be sufficient to any end or purpose, but what is also efficient in the same designe. And of this I shall make a good improvement, to bring to a faire issue out of this engagement with them, thus, If no grace, no not so much as prevenient and preparant, but they act both suffi­ciently and efficiently, and not sufficiently prepared and dispo­sed until they be efficiently so; then is my Argument strengthened; which is this, All are not sufficiently enabled either to convert, or to do those things by which they are disposed to convert, until they do actual­ly do those things which all do not, and therefore are not sufficiently enabled; and then what becomes of the doctrine of universal sufficient grace? let all the world judg. Thus I have (according to my small ta­lent) endeavoured to refel the groundlesse doctrine of universal suffi­cient grace, and have discovered the rise, and progresse, and growth of it, how high it amounteth, where it sticks, and where the proofe remain­eth on their part very short and imperfect, and that it appeareth not that either all men have that which is truly called grace: or if it might be so called, yet they prove not that it may truly be said to be sufficient to any end, no not to the enabling of men to worke those things by which they say men are enabled to conversion; and if neither, then universal sufficient grace must needs fall. And by this engage­ment with the Remonstrants, whom I now leave, I am the better ena­bled to engage Mr. Goodwins notions, which are of a farre lower flight: and to him I now returne after this long digression.

Hee being something doubtful of carrying on his assertion the first height with strength of reason, viz. a sufficiencie of means afforded to all men of believing in Christ, immediately by the creatures, and the sound of the heavens; he is now traversing his ground in the lower road, and would make out a sufficiencie to believe in Christ upon im­provement of natural abilities according to the standing course of pro­vidence, (Habenti dabitur) to him that hath shall be given: in which I shall engage with him, and now only mind him of his change­ing the expression; his task is to prove a sufficiencie in all men to be­lieve; but here wee have it only thus, that all men are in a capacity of believing; for thus runs his expression, Pag. 15. Suppose that the heathen &c. were not in an immediaie capacity of believing the Gospel; yet this proves not but that they are in a capacity of believing it. But by the term capacity, I hope he meaneth sufficiency, not only because this expression is suitable to his purpose, but also because in his dispute with Mr. Sympson, treating about the same businesse, in stead of a remote capacity (as he gives it here) wee have a mediate sufficiency, and a remote sufficiency. Now seeing he attempts to make out a sufficiency of believing in Christ in this his second, and (as he thinketh) a more safe and plausible me­thod, I must have a word or two with him about the terme suffi­ciencie; for in that discourse wherein men litigate about suffi­cient meanes, it is requisite to determine first what sufficiencie is.

Mr. Goodwin in his writings, I find excuding a double distincti­on of sufficiencie. First, In this place covertly, into Mediate and Im­mediate [Page 76] near and remote; Pag. 78, 79. but in other Treatises more expresse. In his Dispute with Mr. Simpson, treating about the same businesse, hee saith thus, There is a double sufficiency, mediate and immediate: Imme­diate, by which a man is enabled for the doing of such a thing, without the having or doing of any thing else but what hee then actually hath or doth. Mediate is such by which he is not enabled to do the thing for the present, but he is enabled to do such things by which he may compasse farther means, and so possesse himself of an immediate capacity. And this distinction hath some apparent footsteps in the Remonstrants. But I conceive, it is no fair and plausible distinction, because the last member thereof seems to carry a contradiction in the face of it; for, saith he, A me­diate sufficiency is that whereby a man is not for the present enabled to do a thing. A rare discovery! an insufficient sufficiencie. How that man can be said to have a sufficient means for that to which he is not at the present enabled, let other men divine, for I cannot. Sufficiency if ex­pressed in other terms, is thus, Positis omnibus requisitis; and thus all of his own side define it, to be a position of all things necessary and requi­site; Now if hee be not enabled without the doing and having a further supplement, there is no kind of sufficiencie. Hee seeketh to illustrate it, and his very illustration discovers the vanity of this his pretended mediate sufficiencie; it is thus: Though wee have not a suf­ficiency at present, to speak in an unknown tongue, as Spanish, or the like, yet we have a remote sufficiency, because we have the principles of Reason and Understanding, by which we may come, &c. Wherein

1. His own expresses overthrow him; he saith, Though we have not a sufficiency at present, yet we have a remote: By which I perceive, that by his remote sufficiencie, he means a possibility of a sufficiencie. But this in its very notion implyeth that a sufficiencie is not in act; and then the heathen have not a sufficiencie: but onely are in a capacitie of having it: if he intend it thus, it serves him nor, neither will I con­tend with him.

2. This maketh me think that there is some fraud in Mr. Goodwins changing his expresses, using sometimes sufficiency, sometimes capa­citie; but this is not ingenuously done: for these are very far distant, and so far that the one doth no whit imply the other. Nay, so far are they distant one from the other, that the one doth exclude the other; for Capacity implyies onely a power or possibility to receive; but suf­ficiency intimates the present position or enjoyment of such means: Those things which we have already, we are not properly said to be in a capacity of them; and so è contra.

3. Sufficiency is such a thing as is determined to an individuall position of all necessaries, otherwise no sufficiencie; and where that is, there is a sufficiencie. But a capacity is such a wild and undetermined notion, that we know not where it should fix its foot. True, a man is in a capacity of learning the Spanish tongue, when hee hath the use of reason and his understanding; but may we not say he is in a capacity of learning it when he is born, because he may come to have the use of his understanding, and so further? and why must we stay here? May [Page 77] he not be said to be in a capacity, though somewhat more remote, when he is begotten? for then is he in a capacity of being born, and so of coming to the use of his understanding; and may not this capacity thus run in infinitum? Thus wee may affirm, that Adam had a suf­ficiencie to beleeve in innocencie, because he was in a remote capacity, he had understanding and the use of his reason; nay thus may he in­deed assert all men to have a sufficiencie of believing in Christ without any means tending thereunto, because they have the use of these facul­ties: But this is but meer trifling; so that in his next he may leave out this distinction. I grant his Capacity, but deny his Sufficiency: and his mediate sufficiency is none truly so called.

A second distinction I finde in the same Dispute with Mr. Simpson where he distinguisheth thus; Pag. 64. There is a sufficiency by which a man is enabled the more easily to do a thing; and a sufficiency, that is, such a thing without which he cannot do the thing, viz. the act of beleeving. And this is more confused and impolite then the former. In the first mem­ber there is an intire distiction couched; and if he had spoken scho­lastically, he should have said thus, There is a sufficiency ad rem, and another ad modum rei; one sufficiency to the thing, and another to the manner of doing; for that which is sufficient to the thing barely, is not sufficient to this or that manner of doing. An ordinary power had been sufficient to have barely cured Peters mother of a feaver, but none but an extraordinary miraculous power served to cure her in an instant. But he immethodically giveth it us thus: That is a suf­ficiency by which we are enabled more easily to beleeve. As if that grace by which men are onely enabled to beleeve, were not as truly suffi­cient to the act of believing, as that which hee speaketh of to the more easie way and manner of believing. That which excludeth an entire distinction, is not providently produced as one member of an imperfect distinction.

The second member of his distinction is such as was never heard to come out of any mans study; it is an uncouth and illiterate de­scription of sufficiency, which agrees to many things that cannot be called sufficient. Hee saith, That is sufficient, without which it is im­possible for the action to be done. It is strange that he did not consider, that without his legs he cannot be an integrall man; but I hope hee will not say, that his legs are sufficent to make him an integrall man, there will be something else required. A man cannot see without his eyes; but his eyes are not sufficient to make him see a thing; there must be a visible object, a well disposed medium, a fit and proportio­nable distance. A man cannot ascend to the top of the ladder, ex­cept hee ascend the first steps; but I hope the ascending up the first steps is not sufficient to make him attain the top of it. In a word, of every or any one requisite it may be said, that without it a thing cannot be done; but a sufficiency is not till all requisites be present. And yet these are the most perspicuous notions that Mr. Goodwin sets before us. If he can distinguish about Sufficiency no better, we have smal ground to hope he will determine about it any better.

[Page 78]But to proceed to what he saith in the severall following pages in his Treatise.

All that I finde of moment in the 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 pa­ges of his Treatise is reducible to these four Heads.

1. That every man can use the light of Nature conscientiously and re­gularly.

2. That every heathen man may, and that in so doing be doth quit him­self to some degree of well-pleasing to God.

3. That there is a standing course of providence whereby God hath tyed himself not to faile to reveale Christ, and give further grace to such as improve naturall gifts, from that Text, Habenti dabitur, To him that hath shall be given.

4. That upon this ground all men have a remote sufficiency of having Christ revealed, and believing in Christ.

A very fair and plausible way (as Master Goodwin thinks) to make out his pretended Sufficiency. And upon these four Pillars stand­eth the whole Fabrick of this his second pretended Method, where­by by hee proveth his universall sufficiency. Now a full and cleare Answer will be made to him in counter-arguing in every one of these; and therefore I deny all these particulars, and in these follow­ing pages prove,

1. That no heathen man can improve the naturall gifts gi­ven him well (as Master Goodwin expresseth it) regularly and con­scientiously.

2. That if he could, yet he could not at all please God.

3. That there is no such standing course of Providence of giving the increase of his grace, as Mr. Goodwin pretendeth.

4. Though all were granted, yet will it not follow, that a man hath a sufficiency of believing in Christ. And when I shall have performed my task in all these, I hope Mr. Goodwin will bee seeking about for another Method to prove his Assertion.

For the first, viz. That no heathen man meerly by the light of nature can improve naturall abilities regularly and conscientiously, I need not spend much time to prove it; those of his own side will prove it for me. The Remonstrants never yet contended for an improvement of naturall gifts without the assisting grace of God; and but onely so much as to do the things contained in the Law: But this is far short of improving naturall abilities regularly and conscientiously. And if the Remonstrants did purposely use the term of assisting grace, to avoid the charge of Pelagianisme, how can Mr. Goodwin avoid it, when hee urgeth this, that men can improve natural abilities; yea, more then that, believe in Christ, only by the light of nature?

But to drive on this businesse to some faire issue: Mr. Goodwin must know, That for a man to improve abilities regularly, is beyond the materiality, and includeth the very formality of a good action; and that a good thing be done in a good manner, according to rule, and [Page 79] conscientiously; Corv. in Molin. cap. 34. §. 7. which the Remonstrants affirm to constitute the reality, and truth, and substance of a good action: And can the hea­then man do this without the renewing and regenerating grace of God? The Remonstrants yeeld ingenuously thus; That man can do nothing that is good, without he be renewed in all his faculties. Script. Synod. Art. 3. pag 1. Then certainly not improve naturall abilities in a regular way; for that, according to them, is a saving good, because it is tending to, and di­rected to salvation.

But when Mr. Goodwin saith, A heathen man can regularly im­prove natural abilities; hee implyes, that that improvement must be according to rule; which rule must either be the rule of Nature, or the law of God, or the law of the Gospel, or the rule of Conscience. To examine all these.

1. A heathen man by the light of nature cannot improve abilities ac­cording to the rule of Nature, or law of Nature; for to do thus, Non dicit A­postolus, Gentes legem implere; sed ea quae sunt legis facere; sc. faciliora aliqua. Qui legem im­plēt, totam et in­tegram facient, quod fieri non possit sine gratia Christi, & fide in Christum, Cornet. à Lap. in locum. is to fulfil and perform the law of Nature, legem Naturae implere; which none of the Patriots of that Cause durst ever claime. Cornelius à Lap. saith thus upon Rom. 2. They do by nature not fulfill the Law, but do the things contained in the Law; that is, some of the most easie precepts: for to fulfill the Law, is to perform it wholly and integrally; which cannot be done without the faith and grace of Christ. And the Remonstrants themselves (as Corvinus saith expresly) Non enim contendimus, Ethnicos legem Dei perfectè im­plere; sed in eo acquiescimus, quod probamus eos saltem ali­quid legis f [...]cisse. Corv. in Molin. cap 34. § 2, We do not contend, that the heathen do perfectly fulfill the Law of God; but we rest in this, that wee prove that they do something that the Law commands. And this the Text it self evinceth, because they have their consciences both excusing and accusing. But there is no place for accusing consciences, where they improve all abilities according to the rule of the law. The worship­ing of God Si per rectitu­dinem intell [...]gas, [...], verum est, nemi­nem posse rectè Deum colere ci­tra fidem; sed quaeritur, an non possit citra fidem, quanquam non [...], aliquâ tamen ra­tione, & imper­fectè Deum co­lere. [...]39 sect. 2. [...], according to the rule. Saith Corvinus, It is most true, that in this sense, it is not possible, that any man can serve God without faith: But it is questionable, whether without faith a man cannot worship, although not according to the rule, yet in some way and manner, although but imperfectly. Then certainly Mr. Goodwin walketh in a very unsafe and difficult way in contending for an ability in the heathen to improve their natural abilities according to the rule or law of nature.

Beside, to walk according to the light and law of Nature, is to walk according to the rule of Conscience; for the law of Nature is no­thing but the law of God engraven in the hearts and consciences of men; and here Master Goodwin joynes them together, [regular and conscientious improvement:] But then I hope, hee must meane a rightly guided and informed conscience: else how should it be a rule? A crooked rule will never bring men to the straight way of holinesse. I hope, that neither Master Goodwin, nor any Ar­minian will say, that the use of Naturals according to the dictate of a misguided and erring Conscience, leads either to a further degree of grace or glory. But then consider also, That men not having their consciences rightly informed and disposed, cannot be said to walke so regularly, as to fetch from God increase of grace; [Page 80] but such is the case of all men by nature without the grace of Christ.

To consider this a little more distinctly. Mr. Goodwin (I hope) well knoweth, that to the regular improvement of every heathen man, there is required both a Rule and Practice; and they are to afford both, not only to do those things contained in the law; but they are to be a law to themselves, Rom. 2. Now seeing that they are to afford the law and rule within them, I hope, they will say, it must be a right and straight rule; a rightly disposed and a good conscience; otherwise, to walk after the rule of an evill conscience, will not be found an im­provement or use, but rather an abuse of naturall gifts. An evill con­science is such from which we are to be cleansed, Hebr. 10.22. But from an improvement of naturall gifts, or from the right rule leading thereunto there is no need of being washed. Now where is this right­ly guided and good conscience amongst the heathen? All men are divided into two ranks by the Apostle; into the Pure and Impure: the pure have all things pure, the impure and unbelieving all things im­pure, Tit. 1.15. having their minds and very consciences impure, Tit. 1.15. Hence the Casuists tell us, that Amesius Cas. Cons. p. 102. Conscience is but a subordinate rule, as it is directed by the Word of God. Men have not improved their abilities by walking according to their consciences: Paul was a persecuter: and many come to kill and put to death the tru [...] disciples of Christ, John 16.2. John 16.2. and both by the dictate of their conscience; they thought they did God good service. And as for the light of the heathen, whereby they may be directed to the observance of God in a way of o­bedience, Alas, what is it? Well may the Remonstrants say, it is relicks of life, and sparks of knowledg, and that they have aliquam cog­nitionem Dei, some kind and measure of the knowledg of God: but alas, what is it? not so high as to be a rule of an acceptable improve­ment of their Abilities.

I would that Mr. Goodwin had put forth some Discourse of naturall light, that wee might examine the subject of it, and the penetrative vigour thereof. True indeed, the Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Invisible things of God are to be seen in the visible creatures. But here the glory of God is in the creatures, but as light is in the Sun; which yet is not actually seen by blind men. To the act of sight there is not only required a visible object, but there must be a well dis­posed organ; and the eye must be open. Now true it is, that the heavens declare the glory of God, as the Sun displayes his light; but the heavens do not open the eys, or give light to the simple, Psal. 19.4, 5, 6, 7. What improvement can Mr. Goodwin produce that ever was made by the rule of natural knowledg? The Apostle telleth us, that the Gentiles are alie­nated from the life of God, Ephes. 4.18. 2 Pet. 1.9 and that through the ignorance that is in them; having their mindes darkened. Man now in the state of corruption, whatever the light be that shines in the creatures, hee is but [...], a purre-blinde man, and their height is but to groape after him, palpare Deum, Acts 17.27 as blinde men; by which they are capable of so much as to render themselves inexcusable, if they fall to idolatry, and for­sake [Page 81] the true God, but that thereby they may know how to worship the true God, and serve him, or that their light is or can be a rule of a right and true Improvement of natural ability, I leave as Master Goodwin's task to prove either by Scripture or good reason; especial­ly such an Improvement, upon which all the administrations of God to men tending to salvation shall proceed. Now until that Master Goodwin cleareth these two things; First, that the Heathen can af­ford within themselves the rule of a right Improvement of their abi­lities: or, Secondly, that suppose they have the rule within them; yet that they can exercise such a regular Improvement according to the rule in a perfect Obedience: (for he that faileth in any one thing, walketh not according to rule, and maketh not a regular Im­provement) I shall conclude that no Heathen man can make a regular Improvement of his abilities, that is, neither according to the rule of Conscience or Law of Nature, and as for any Law of the Gospel or Positive Law of God: there is no need that any dispute proceed upon these, because in the very foundation of this discourse, it is supposed that those are not revealed to the Heathen. But ere I pass, I shall urge one only argument to prove that a Heathen man cannot make any regular Improvement of his natural abilities, and it is thus.

Now to this Argument, I for the present conceive, that two things chiefly may be replied.

First, he may say, that text, Rom. 8.7. speaks of the Positive and Moral Law of God; but we are treating of the Law of Nature. Now to the Laws of Nature we yield Obedience by Nature, but to the Po­sitive Law of God by Grace. If Master Goodwin please to urge this or any thing like it, then I refer it to him to prove that the Law of Nature and Positive Law of God be different in substance, and not in that respect one and the same, save only in the manner of dis­covery: the one internally inscribed, the other externally manifest­ed. Again, he must consider, that the dint of the Argument is in this, that the natural minde is enmity against God: the enmity of natu­ral men is originally against God: and so by consequence against any Law of God, whether internally inscribed, or outwardly given: the Law of Nature is as well the Law of God as any of his Positive Lawes, and so equally occasions the enmity of a natural man; For (Quae conveniunt in aliquo tertio conveniunt inter se:) both these Lawes being the Lawes of God, and the natural mans Enmity being originally against both these Laws, agree in this, that the natural man cannot be subject to them.

[Page 82] Rectè quidem concluditur, hominem qui merè naturalis est & omnis divinae cogni­tionis expers, qui instar bru­torum natura­liter & secun­dùm sensum vivit. Corvin. in Mo­lin. c. 33. §. 1.Secondly, I finde Corvinus thus replying to us, [Rightly it is con­cluded that a natural man cannot be subject to the divine Law: but that is such a man as is meerly natural, void of all the knowledge of God, and that liveth according to sense, like to brute beasts.]

Be it so, then we must enquire whether the Heathen men be not so, Ephes. 4.18.

Secondly, their gloss overthroweth their doctrine, their gloss sup­poseth many Heathen to be without all knowledge of God. When yet their whole Doctrine in this point urgeth so much of Divine Knowledge in every man, that they may improve their natural abili­ties, and are sufficiently enabled thereunto.

Thirdly, they would have man considered in his meer corrupt e­state, that is, without all knowledge of God and assistance of the Spi­rit; so that in their doctrine to have the knowledge and assisting Spirit of God, is to reduce them from the corrupt and natural estate, which knowledge and grace they pretend that every man in the world hath without exception; and hence we come to see that this is the summe of their Doctrine, that now no man is in his corrupt estate, or can be called a natural man, which will render the Apostles words very vain and empty.

Fourthly, this answer is grounded upon that exotick tripartition of the World, which we finde in all their works: They say (man is ei­ther meerly natural; or natural, yet disposed to regeneration; or thirdly, regenerate:) it matters not what our corrupt mindes may sug­gest to us to the maintenance of our opinions, when Molin saith, that (The fear of God doth not agree to those that are unregenerate;) Corvinus thus replyeth, Si per irrege­nitos intelli­gis eos qui a­nimum planè à Deo aversum habent, verum dicis, sed si per irregenitos eos intelligis qui nondum sunt regeniti, erras. cap. 34 §. 4. [If by unregenerate thou meanest those that have their mindes altogether averse from God, thou sayest true; but if by unregenerate thou meanest those that are not yet regenerate, thou er­rest in so speaking.] But can the acuteness of Corvinus discover a way whereby a man unregenerate may not be taken for a man not yet regenerate? as if a man unregenerate, and a man not yet regenerate, be not terms equipollent, and of the same signification; or where can he in Scripture give us the least testimony of Scripture, that pre­sents us with a man not yet regenerate, that hath not his minde whol­ly averse from God? we should be glad to see any of those proofs; or will they enable us to finde such Distinctions in the Scripture, as of natural men, such as are meerly natural, and such as are dispo­sed to regeneration? and so likewise of men having the Spirit; Some are such as are by the assisting Spirit only prepared to be regenerate: Others are by the Spirit regenerate and born again. Let them make it appear, that these notions are not the issue meerly of wanton and luxuriant brains; the Scripture thus only divideth, All man are either born of the flesh, or born of the Spirit, Joh. 3.6. either live after the flesh, or after the Spirit, Rom. 8.4, 5, 6. Either carnally minded, or spiritually minded, Verse 6. and it saith in general, [As [Page 83] many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God,] Rom. 8.14. that is, so many as are led by the sweet ducture of the Spirit of God, to do any thing in tendency to salvation, are the sons of God, and so born again: and of such it cannot be said, they are unregene­rate. But more shall be said to this purpose, when I see Master Good­wins, replyes to this argument, and till I see them, I shall conclude a Heathen man cannot improve his abilities regularly, because the natural man is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to his Law.

In the next place, I am to consider the second main Pillar upon which this pretended method stands, and that is, whether a Heathen man by the light of nature, can by his Improvements, or any other thing, quit himself to a degree of well-pleasing to God. Master Goodwin affirms it, I in this second particular counter-argue him thus:

That no Heathen man can please God by any such Improvement as he is able to make of his natural abilities, If it appear that man cannot by nature improve his natural gifts, upon that defect I know Master Goodwin himself will grant that man cannot please God; so that till he can make good the first particular, we are safe enough here; but I shall go a little further: Suppose man could improve his natural abilities, yet could he not be said to please God; what com­placency can any man discover from Scripture, if God takes in the performances and persons of men without faith before they be born again, & become his sons in Christ? the Apostle saith, Ephes. 1.6. He hath made us accepted in the beloved, Ephes. 1.6. Now I shall give the Remonstrants leave so far as to be the interpreters of this and the rest the of like ex­pressions in this Chap. In the fourth Verse he saith, He hath elected us, (in Christ;) now say the Remonstrants (us in Christ) that is, [...], elected us being (in Christ) that is, believing in act; & hence they contend that none are Elected but such as are believers either in act or in the divine prescience, then I hope they wil not repine if I say here, from this text (He hath made us accepted in the belo­ved) that is, we being in Christ actually believers, with whom and by which faith he is well pleased with us, and that none are ac­cepted of God, or he well pleased with any, but those that are in Christ; me thinks they might have so much fore-sight as not to give such glosses upon any expression in one place that will strangle their own sense in another text. But again, the Remonstrants willingly confesse, that no man can fulfil the Law of nature perfectly or wor­ship God according to the rule, and then will they say that God is pleased with lame and imperfect performances? He that faileth in one point, becomes guilty of all. Nay, but suppose they could im­prove the light of nature to the height of the rule of nature; yet how would they please God by so doing? All the obedience to the Law of God Positive and Moral, cannot please God without Christ. [Page 84] The people of God have confessed, Isaiah 64.6. that their righteousness is as men­struous rags in his sight: then certainly, the natural performances of the Heathen, though never so regular, cannot please God. Paul with all his moral righteousness, though in relation to the righteous­ness of the Law he was blameless, yet accounted that but dung (which is not acceptable to man) in comparison of the righteousness of Christ, that he might be found in it, but certainly he would not ac­count any thing dung that was acceptable to God, or with which he was pleased. Now the Apostle speaks here not comparatively, that is, his righteousness of the law was dung and loss in comparison of Christ, but absolutely he accompted his own righteousness dung, that he might win Christ: or such conceits that our own righteousness pleaseth God, hinder us either from the seeking or obteining the righteousness of Christ. Now if the moral righteousness of Paul, though to the law he was blameless, could not please God; How can the natural Improve­ments of the Heathen please God?

Again, the Heathen (let their Improvement be never so high and eminent) are but unregenerate, and not born again, and therefore but yet in the flesh, Rom. 8.6, 7, 8. But those that are in the flesh cannot please God. But I shall reduce all to one perspicuous Argument, and that is this.

The formation of which Argument made the answer of Corvinus to be so ready at hand, which was, That the conclusion of the argument is nothing against them, they pretending the assisting Spirit of God, they hold not any man can of himself without the grace of God do any thing to please God.

Yet notwithstanding this argument is valid enough against Master Goodwin: because he is not so express in the point of assisting grace, as the Remonstrants are, but is all for the light of nature onely; but because I will make it firm against all parties, I desire to form it thus:

And to this Corvinus hath an answer at hand, such an one as we [Page 85] finde it, thus: [Heb. 11.6. doth not well prove, Heb. 11.6. Male probat nullam actio­nem quae Deo placcat prae­fari posse, quia ibi agitur de tali beneplaci­to quo quis placet Deo ad gloriam. Corvin. in Mo­lin. c. 33. §. 4. Agitur de tali beneplacito quo Enoch Deo placuit, quan­do cum è mun­do sustulit. Ibid Acta Synod. Art. 1. pag. 211. that no action can be done to please God without faith. Because that text means such a plea­sing whereby a man pleaseth God to glory] how they sweat at it to strangle a clear text?

First, I demand how that appeareth from the text? that it meaneth such a pleasing, whereby a man pleaseth God to glory, he gives the reason why thus, in the same place, [because it speaks of that pleasing, whereby he pleased God when God translated him;] but this is a manifest forgery: for, saith the text (before he was translated he had this testimony, that he pleased God: but without faith a man can­not please God.) If then the Text speak of such a pleasing, where­by Enoch pleased God before the translation of him, then it is but a meer shift of diversion to confine it to such whereby Enoch pleased God when he translated him.

Secondly, it is not because of the long interval, that Corvinus cannot at his turn remember, that he was one of that full Jury of Remonstrants who urge this Argument to the clearing of their doctrine, in the first article from this very place thus:

Now, I shall make use both of this argument it self, as also their reply to our answer; to refel their futilous gloss, first, the argument it self overthrows them, if this text be to be taken in such sense as whereby a man pleaseth God to glory (that is, actually to give glo­ry) then their Proposition or Major, must be corrected and run thus: ‘That without which we cannot please God to glory, without it a man be elected to glory.’

And let any Arminian look upon the face of this Proposition, and tell me if it please them, and whether this be like their doctrine, that no man can please God so far as to Elect him, without that by which he will so far please him as to give him glory; and so by con­sequence he shall give glory to so many as he elects. What will then become of their doctrine of falling away, and that those that are now elected may afterwards come to be reprobated, and never so please God, as to give them glory? and if the case be such then, what egregious foul dealing are they guilty of, to forge such a gloss against the cleer text at this turn; when yet they are forced to relinquish it in another?

Secondly, to consider the Answer of the Contra-Remonstrants to this argument thus: [Faith is taken two wayes, either for faith pre­sent, or for faith fore-seen; the text runs upon faith present, but the [Page 86] question upon faith foreseen, therefore the text cannot agree with the question.] To this Answer, although very pertinent and plausible, yet the Remonstrants with an open mouth reply thus.

[ Quis non videt quàm Contra-Re­monstrant hae­rēt, quia Apo­stoli pronunci­atum est abso­lututum & u­niversale. Sine fide nemo potest Deo pla­cere? Act. Synod. ibi. Who seeth not the Contra-Remonstrants to be at a stand here, see­ing the saying of the Apostle is universal and absolute without faith a man cannot please God] but (mutato nomine de Remonstrantibus nar­ratur fabula;) or the Remonstrants may well bear with us, it is bet­ter sometimes to be at a stand, then alwayes in a precipice, falling down-right upon the truth in wilful contradictions: for if the A­postles words be universal and absolute, Without faith no man can please God, why then I pray must it now be confined and determi­ned to such a pleasing (viz.) to glory? Is it such an offence for us to distinguish of the word (faith) because the words of the Apostle are universal and absolute? and may they take the licence to di­stinguish of the word (please?) by what law, I pray? or what rea­son? for according to their own sense (placere Deo) to please God is immanent in God; but (to give glory) is external to God; the question is not, what followes our pleasing of God, but what goeth before it; not what he doth by our pleasing of him, but what we do whereby he comes to be pleased with us: and their gloss to this purpose is altogether heterogeneous and impertinent. (Pleasing to glory?) then it seemeth there is one degree of pleasing, to give the Gospel; another, to give faith; a third, to give glory; and so that which is in their doctrine immanent in God, shall be capable of in­tension, and remission: where shall they finde proof for these no­tions? I shall expect it.

I have said thus much in this business, because if Mr. Goodwin having consulted with them, shall reply these things, I prevent him, and ease my self, in putting things as far as I may: or if Mr. Good­win please to interpose other replies, I am readie to receive them.

Or if this place or phrase do not please Mr. Goodwin, I shall give him another, and so let him take both together thus:

This argument is grounded on this: All men till regenerated are in the flesh; and so long as they remain onely with the light of nature, they are unregenerated: till these arguments be answered, I shall conclude, that no Heathen can by his improvements please God.

Thirdly, in the next place I am to make good, that suppose man could both improve his naturals well, and thereby please God, yet there is no such standing course of providence, whereby God doth proceed to the revealing Christ and working faith and so give salvation, which course Mr. Goodwin affirms: I on the con­trary [Page 87] say, there is no such, neither doth that text (Habemi dabitur) To him that hath shall be given, import any such thing: If M. Goodwin take a survey of the Scriptures, he shall find that there is no standing course of providence in any of his dispensations whether natural or spiritual.

We shall find in Scripture most frequently, that much is given to them that had the least in possession or in improvement or in disposi­tion; somtimes God is found of them that seek him; hence that com­mand is given, and a promise is annexed, (Seek, and ye shall find;) but there is no standing course for this; For sometimes, yea, very oft­en he is ( found of them that seek him not; Rom. 10.20.) the Apostle seemeth to apply that saying to the Gentiles, but his dispensations of mercy to the full crop and harvest of Gentiles, are more Catholike and ge­nerall then to the handfull of the Jewes; any standing course of pro­vidence, or this grounded upon this method, would prostitute the unsearchable wisdome of God to every common capacity, and fill up that ( [...], or depth) that the Apostle affirms, yet admires, Rom. Rom. 11.33. 11.33. And what is that depth he telleth us in the 30. verse, that they who have not yet believed (the Gentiles) no nor yet were disposed to believe, should yet receive the Gospel. It is remarkable, how the Gentiles all along are branded with the black mark of all unrighte­ousness, and a reprobate sense, the Gentiles are made the standard and measure of all laciviousnesse, excesse, revellings, and all kindes of Idolatry, to commit these is to worke the will of the Gentiles. 1 Pet. 4.4, 5. 1. Pet. 4.4, 5. what dispositions or improvements are there found in these, now when we shall consider, that God taketh away the Gos­pel, from the Jew and gives it to these Gentiles? true it is, there is some cause why he might take it away from the Jew, but what was there that he should give it to the Gentiles? was it (To him that hath shall be given?) what had the Gentiles, or did they, to fetch this discoverie of the Gospel from the Almighty? Where as this standing course of providence? seeing here is nothing but that [...], that admirable depth of goodnesse and wisdome. Nay, let me go a litle further, when God chose Israel to be his people, and to discover his Word and will to them, what standing course of providence was there seen in that? what improvement was there? if any, let Mr. Goodwin, reconcile them to Deut. 7.7, 8. There was, Deut. 7.7, 8. saith the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.1. Such Fornication amongst the Co­rinthians as was not named among the Gentiles; the Corinthians who had the Gospel abused the light of nature so far, as to commit and allow of that sin; the Gentiles that had not the Gospel used the light of nature so well, or at least lesse evilly (as Arminius) that that sin was not so much as named amongst them; But God gave the Go­spel to the Corinthians, denied it to the other, where is this standing course of providence in all this?

[Page 88]Again, Ahab humbled himself, Herod heard John gladly, Agrippa was half perswaded to become a Christian, Judas repented, and Tyre and Sidon had so quitted themselves that God testified this of them, that if they had enjoyed the means that Corazin had, they would have repented, and that long ago, without any such delay. All these are accompted by the Remonstrants to be as preparations to regene­rations, and improvements and abilities: but I expect that Mr. Good­win give me as fair an accompt of the increase of saving grace given to any of them according to this stāding course of providence so much pretended: whereupon Mr Goodwin either doth or may know that the best of his owne side have (verbis disertis) declined this standing course of providence in a text before cited, the conclusion whereof is this [We freely acknowledge that God the giver of all good useth such a liberty in giving, Script. Synod. Art. 2. Pag. 528. inequall grace to equall men, and equall grace to inequall men, calling those that are more evill, and passing by those that are lesse evill, that we freely confesse that there can be no exact account given of his dispensations of grace either by the use or abuse of more generall gifts] and yet Mr. Goodwin will needs have a stand­ing course of providence; whereby God faileth not to give grace to him that improves naturalls well. And yet although by these clouds of witnesses they are forced to confesse that there can be no exact reason given of Gods dispensations of grace either by the use or a­buse of natural gifts, yet they can (to make out that intention in God to save all) affirm that [ Nullus co­rum quos com­muni vocatio­ne vocat quem non ex primâ intentione ideò vocet ut eos specialioris gratiâ vocatio­nis afficiat. Script. Synod. Art. 2. Pag. 327. No man that enjoyes that generall and common Call (which is the same with the generall gifts they before spoke of) but God calleth them out of his primary intention, to endew them with the grace of his more special call;] how miserable is the di­vision of that house, that the strengthening of one part is the confusi­on of another? true indeed if they did grant any such standing, or ex­act rule for Gods dispensations of grace, then they might thus evade us, all things propounded and intended by his primary and ante­cedent will, fall not out so in execution by his consequent, be­cause man is wanting to himself; there is the intervening peccancie of mans free wil; but they take this evasion out of their own mouths, for if no such exact or standing rule be, so that we cannot tell how grace shall be dispensed either by the use or abuse of general gifts, then how God may be truely said to give general gifts intentio­nally that by improvement of them he might in dew men with more special grace; let them that can, divine: for I professe my self un­able to do it.

Again, one thing more if there be such a method (which out of the fluttering expresses of our Adversaries may be made out) that general gifts are given to every man with an intention that they might improve them, and upon the inprovement of them be compen­sated with the revelation of Christ, and the improvement of that [Page 89] with more grace, till they come to be saved, and that all this me­thod from nature to glory (by the reason of the irrefragable contig­nation betwixt all the parts thereof) be but one entire way to Hea­ven and eternal glory, then I demand of Master Goodwin, whether those that believe in Christ are more truly said to have life then those that have only the gifts of nature, and how Christ is said to be the way? When yet the Heathen are in the way, and yet are without Christ; and how the Heathen are said to have gone out of the way, and not to have known the way of peace, when Mr. Goodwin can tell us they have the light of nature, which is a part of that way that leads to life, what doth he think is the difference betwixt the be­lievers in Christ, and the Heathen Gentiles? Doth he think them alike in this, that they are both in the way to life, and only this dif­ference that the one hath gone further in this way then the other. Those that are believers may (in Mr. Goodwins judgement) final­ly fall away and perish, and the Lord Christ hath not promised to preserve them from their voluntary defections; and their faith in Christ may yet so fail them, as that they shall not come to life: and yet on the other side, a Heathen man hath general gifts given to him with this intention, that he might improve them, and improving them have an increase of grace till they come to be saved, how shall we herein discry any difference betwixt them: and that the one shall appear to be more truly in the way to life then the other? his decisi­ons herein wil be acceptable, and provoke me to further explanations in this particular; only I must advise him to be casting about for suf­ficient proofs for this, that those Heathen men that have only the light of nature, can be said to know the way of peace, and to be in the way of eternal life; otherwise I shall not yield to this standing course of providence, so much, and so confidently urged by him.

But then in the next place, he will urge us with that text, Matth. 25. the Parable of the talents, in which it is said (To him that hath it shall be given:) from this text they deduce this generall or standing course of providence: and hence, say they, it appears, that God bindes himself to give increase to him that useth those gifts well, that he hath received, nay, Mr. Goodwin saith expresly, that here by talents are meant natural gifts, and in that saying (To him that hath shall be given) God promises to give an increase of grace to him that shall use the light of nature well.

Now because this text is the whole proof, by the strength of which the whole fabrick of Ʋniversal Grace seemeth to stand, I shall a little expatiate upon it, and truly were it so that either Mr. Goodwin or the Remonstrants were but at unity with themselves, it would be possible for us in sometime to shape them out some answer looking towards satisfaction; but the intricacies and uncertainties of our adversaries render our work herein very difficult. If this text prove their pre­tended method, they must prove that these talents are natural [Page 90] gifts and abilities, or at least necessary to take them in. But to take a survey of their constancy in this particular, Arminius would have the talents be the (light of nature) he saith thus. [ Vide mihi annon isto di­cto (Habenti dabitur) pro­missio ista con­tineatur, quâ Deus spondet se gratiâ super­naturali illu­minaturum eos qui lumi­ne naturali re­ctè utuntur. Antiperkins. pag. 218. Doth not that saying of Christ (To him that hath, shall be given) contein the promise by which God bindeth himself to give supernatural grace to him that useth the light of nature well?] But Corvinus tempers the text to a greater latitude thus: [ Quod atti­net ad prover­bialem illam sententiam, Habenti dabi­tur, confirme­mus sententi­am nostram de remunerando recto usu prio­ris gratiae per majorem sub­sequentem. in Molin. Cap. 41. §. 5. For as much as appertaineth to that proverbial sentence, (To him that hath, shall be given) by it we confine our sentence of re­warding the right use of former grace, by the increase of a greater following grace.] So that now those talents must be grace; and yet this doth not please, but in the words immediatly following another spirit possesseth his pen thus: [ Sententia est generalis, & nihil aliud Do­minus dictum vult quàm hoc, quòd Deus compensat re­ctum usum do­norum majori liberalitate. Ibidem. Pag. 20. The sentence is general, wherein the Lord speaks nothing but this, that he will compensate the right use of gifts received with greater liberality.] Here the talents are so laxly interpreted, as that we may make them either nature or grace or both, or, if such could possibly be, neither. Sometimes the talents are natural light, sometimes grace, sometimes either or both, and may we finde Master Goodwin any thing more certain to his princi­ples? In the 20th. page of his Book he urgeth (that the talents are natural gifts, and can be understood of nothing else by any colour of reason,) and yet in the 18th. page, he gives himself a little more room, and saith, that that text avoucheth that, [That whatsoever a mans stock or endowments is in one kinde or other from Gods hand, yet by a careful improvement it may arise to a spiritual estate.] and in the 21th. page further saith quite contrary, that [Those abilities that are given to man, are more commonly then properly called natural,] and is it not likely that we should give satisfactory answers to them, who cannot yet make any setled and satisfactory demands? but it seems I must do it as well as I may. And because Mr. Goodwin toucheth upon these things I shall examine: First, what we are to understand by the Talents; Secondly, who by servants; Thirdly, what by in­crease. Fourthly, what by the reward; and when this is done, this text will be sufficiently cleared.

First, what is meant by talents, the true examen of this will help us to decide all the rest, and I shall proceed upon this ground, if these words make any thing for their invented or standing providence, they must either by talents understand natural gifts, or else at least take them in: but because I am to deal with Mr. Goodwin, I shall consider his own words in this case: [There is no ground nor colour of reason to think but that all the talents mentioned in the parable, the five, the two, and the one, were all of one kinde and nature, and signified not any supernatural or saving grace, but only natural abilities, and such as men unregenerate as well as regenerate are capable of.] But then,

1 How inconstant is he to himself? for in the 21 page he saith, that these talents and endowments are more commonly then properly called natural, & yet here he is so assertive of this great Impropriety, [Page 91] as to say, that it cannot upon any ground or colour of reason be ta­ken for any thing but natural endowments.

2 I answer by concession, & grant all the talents to be of one kinde and nature; yea, and the increase to be of the same nature with the talents, but this is no favourable plea for Mr. Goodwins cause, which would have nature to be the talents, and grace the increase: but of this more presently.

3 Supppse they be all of one kinde, must that needs be natural? what colour of reason is there for this inference? may they not be supernatural, and yet be all of one kinde also? but he hath one ex­pression that seemeth to carry in it the force of a reason; and that is this: [Such as men unregenerate have as well as the regenerate,] and his reason seemeth to be this, [Those talents were given to that ser­nant that was cast into utter darkness, and so to the unregenerate, there­fore it must be understood of natural abilities:] but this is very mise­rable reasoning, as if supernatural grace was not given to the unrege­nerate, how then should they come to be regenerate? or if it be such as the regenerate have with the unregenerate, it must be more then natural, except he will say, that men become regenerate meerly by nature; but if he have here mistaké a word, unregenerate (putting men) for (men that shall perish) as I think he hath (because in the foregoing page, I finde him molding the expression so:) I shall not take the advantage, but consider it running thus, and yet I say, who ever hath said that God may not give supernatural grace to them that shall pe­rish? or that this is good reasoning (such means are given to men that shall perish, therefore they are only natural gifts.) Many shall say, We have prophesied in thy Name, of whom he shall say, I know ye not; the incredulous Jews were men that should perish, yet I hope they had supernatural grace of the Gospel. Now if he shall de­mand of me to what end God gives supernatural grace to them that shall perish; I present Arminius himself giving an Answer: Armin. Examen Perk. 154. and I say to the same end, that he gives and affords sufficient impediment to hinder men from walking in their own ways, when yet he cer­tainly knoweth it shall not take effect: Let him consult him at his leasure, so that there is but small reason on his side, to prove that by the talents are meant natural gifts.

But we have a very fair flourish, and because reason is but slender, authority must carry it: for he saith, That there is not one of our best Interpreters, but they adjudge the case for him, and that they are unanimous for natural abilities. I am sorry that I am the mes­senger to tell him that either he hath not read those Interpreters, or else that he hath too great inclinations to couzen the world, he ei­ther knoweth or may know that Expositors are very much divided here, and are far from being unanimous in the case in hand.

Marlorate and Stephanus in his Gloss upon the Evangelists, assert [Page 92] the talents to signifie Election; and the increase to be saving know­ledge, and their interpretation runs thus: [ Habenti­bus electionis donum dabitur scientia ad vi­tam. Marlorate. Stephanus, Gloss. in loc. To those that have the gift of election, shall be given the increase of saving know­ledge.]

The learned Deodati in his Annotations, understands by those ta­lents the operation of the Spirit in regeneration, or regenerating, and quickening grace, and the increase to be the Word and Spirit of God as food of the new men, and his interpretation is this: To him that hath the talent of spiritual life, shall be given the increase of spiritual food, and in this he hath his followers.

Piscator by the Talents understandeth the offices in the Church, and he interpreteth the text thus: [ Dominus est Christus, servi sunt Chri­stiani, praeser­tim ii qui officium ge­runt, talenta sunt dona spi­ritualia, prae­sertim officia ipsa. Piscator in loc. The Lord is Jesus Christ, the servants are Christians, chiefly those that bear office in the Church, the talents are spiritual graces, but especially those offices in the Church.] Neither doth he lead the way in this, but follows the steps of many Interpreters.

Jerome by the talents understandeth the preaching of the Go­spel, and he interpreteth the text thus: [ Pater-fa­milias est Chri­stus, post resur­rectionem as­cendens voca­tis doctrinam Evangelicam tradidit. Jerom. in loc. The Master of the Family is Christ, who after his Resurrection ascending to heaven, his servants being called, communicateth to them the Gospel.] And this way run Erasmus in his Paraphrase, and Tossanus in his Commentary; so that any may plainly see that Interpreters are not unanimous in any interpretation. Some think these talents to signifie Election, o­thers the regenerating grace of God, a third sort the offices in the Church, a fourth, the preaching of the Gospel; but none of them saith any thing for natural abilities; and yet Mr. Goodwin would perswade the world that Interpreters are unanimous for natural gifts and abilities. But he produceth a testimony or two, which because I will not be guilty of strengthning the authority of his cause by my si­lence, I shall examine them, and see how cleerly they make for him, he brings a four-fold testimony, one from Chamter, a second from Cal­vin, a third from Musculus, a fourth from Ambrose.

First, Chamier he quoteth saying thus: Talenta cuique distri­buta non pos­sunt significare vitā aeternam, quia dantur servisomnibus, frugi, & ne­quam; sed ne­cesse est referri ad gratias tem­porales, quas Deus commu­n [...]cat non tan­tùm piis & ele­ctis, sed impiis & reprobis. chamier. in loc. The talents cannot sig­nifie eternal life, because they were given to all the servants both good and bad, but they are referred to temporary graces, which God giveth to good and elect, as also to the bad and the reprobate.] And doth not Mr. Goodwin well to begin with this cleer testimony? But whether for us or for him, there is the Question; what one syllable is there extant in all this testimony that giveth the least hint, that by talents are meant natural gifts? it is not that part of it, wherein he saith, (by talents cannot be meant eternal life) for there are intervening graces betwixt natural abilities and eternal life; hence Mr. Goodwin saith, that natural abilities are not immediatly saving, so that it may not be eternal life, and yet not natural gifts: nor yet is it that ex­pression wherein he saith, that (these talents are given to all the ser­vants;) for the supernatural graces of God are given to reprobate as [Page 93] well as the elect, as before I shewed. Now besides this he saith, Dominus indies locuple­tat, & novis suae gratiae dotibus servos suosac­cumulat, quia opus quod in illis coepit, gra­tum habet & in illis inveni­re quod majori gratiâ prose­quatur: atque huc pertinet sententia illa (Habenti da­bitur) & fateor expectandum esse fidelibus, quò meliùs usi fuerint superi­oribus gratiis, ut novis majo­ribus augcan­tur. Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. c. 3. §. 11. they are (gratiae temporales) temporary graces, now in that he calls the talents graces, he overthroweth Mr. Goodwin, who will have them to be natural abilities; and in that he calleth them temporary, he helpeth him not, for supernatural grace being afforded promiscuously (ad tempus) for a time only, may be called temporary; but such is given to the Reprobates, so that this Quotation, though it grace the margin, yet it dishonoureth the text.

2 The second Protestant Writer whom he suborneth for his Cause, is Mr. Calvin, but we do not hear Calvin speaking. From Mr. Goodwin therefore I shall produce his words upon this very text, he saith thus: [ The Lord doth every day enrich with, and accumulate upon his ser­vants new gifts of his grace every day; because he accepts the work which he hath begun in them, and findes that in them, which he will follow with more grace, and hitherto doth that sentence belong (Ha­benti dabitur) To him that hath, shall be given; and I profess this, That believers may hence expect that the more they use the grace that is given, the more they shall be endewed with further grace.] And is not Calvin a probable testimony for Mr. Goodwin, who in even express words calleth the talents graces, not nature? I would not have Mr. Goodwin to injure the living works of dead Interpreters.

3 The third testimony is out of Musculus, & in this he would have us acted by an implicit faith, for he doth not produce his words, and because he doth not, I will. This Proverbe (Habenti dabitur) is used in in two places, Matth. 13. and Matth. 25. To the first text he saith thus. [ Quod mú­dus facit malè, hic fit benè & meritò: & ii qui gratiam regni Dei ob­latam suo vitio repudiant, & a [...]feretur ab ii, & dabitut aliis qui sunt magis cupidi ut fiant abundantiores. Musenlus in Matth. 13. What the world doth badly, is here done well and deserved­ly, that those who by their own fault refuse the grace of the Kingdome of God, it should be taken away from such, and given to those that are more desirous of it, that they be more abundant.] And upon Matth. 25. saith thus: [ Per talenta significari officia illa quae servi sui gerunt in Ecclesia. Musculus in Matth. 25. By these talents are understood any of those offi­ces which his servants do bear in the Church. And can he think Muscu­lus his testimony can stand him in any stead, except he will say that natural abilities may be called the grace of the Kingdom of God.

4 The sourh Writer whom he produceth for his Cause, is Ambrose, whose words indeed he produceth in the margin; but in that Edition those works, which pass under the name of Ambrose, which I have by me, I finde not the words which he inserteth, but take it as it lyeth. The dint of the testimony lyeth here, in that he saith, The servant that hid his talent in a napkin, was he that hid [ Rutionem quae nobis data ad imaginem & similitudinem, studio voluptatis ob­ruit & quasi fo [...]tâ carnis abscondit. That reason which is given to us, according to the similitude and image be burieth it in the study of pleasure, and hideth it in the pit of the flesh.] [Page 94] Now here is the difficulty what is meant by this, (Ratio data nobis ad imaginem & similitudinem) how will it be proved, that by these words is understood this light of nature and natural abilities? it is not (cor­rupta ratio) corrupt reason that rendreth us according to the image of God, but our right and perfect reason, in integrity, or renewed in the state of regeneration. Hence the Apostle saith, ( Renewed in knowledge according to the image of him that created us, Col. 3.10. And hereby we are changed into the same image, 2 Cor. 3.18.) so that this is not reason, as it is by nature or abilities meerly natural; but as they are elevated by the supernatural grace of God, and I am induced to think so, because I finde other Fathers speaking of the same business, to the same purpose, as Chrysostome, though not in his original language, yet, as Anianus, and other uncertain Interpreters lay it down thus: [ Abscondit autem talen­tum in terrâ, qui accipiens notitiam Chri­sti contemnit vitam spiritua­lem, & in ter­venis actu­bus & deliciis conversans ob­ruit illam in carne suâ, & mundi solici­tudinibus quasi spinis suffocat suaefidel bonum & fructum non fert. Chrysost. Anian Interpr. in Loc. He hideth his talent in the earth, that hath received the know­ledge of Christ, and yet contemneth a spiritual life: and being conver­sant in earthly actions and delights, overthrows it in the flesh, & choaks it by the cares of the flesh as so many thorns: so that he brings forth no good fruit of his faith.] And why may not that (Ratio data nobis ad imaginem,) which Ambrose speaketh of, be all one with that (notitia Christi) which Chrysostome gives us: but however, how weakly is Mr. Goodwins assertion fortified with authority, when in the midst of many flourishes there is not any thing that so much as looks towards him, but one testimony excepted, which is yet left in a dubious sense, and may be fairly carried quite another way? And this is the height of his authority. But because he seems to look also at colour of reason, and pretendeth that there is neither colour nor ground of reason for any man to think that the talents signifie any thing but natural abilities; I shall in the next place produce severall particulars, which to my understanding carry some colour of reason; by them I intend to prove that by the talents are not meant natural abilities.

1 To understand the talents of natural abilities, takes away all pertinency and aptness, either to the persons spoken to, or the occa­sion of speaking, from the words of Christ: which yet we are upon very necessary principles to grant to them: the persons to whom these words were spoken, were Jews, who had the letter of the Go­spel preached to them; and the occasion of speaking these words, was immediately upon the preaching that parable of the sower, the seed being the Word, it fell on all grounds good and bad, the stony, thorny, highway ground; but these mysteries our Saviour spake in Pa­rables, the reason being asked, he returns this answer in both places, (To him that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not, shall be taken away that which he hath.) Now let Mr. Goodwin shew the pertinency of this answer in his sense either to the persons or occasi­on for taking talents for natural abilities, then this is the sense [Page 95] of the place: Because the unbelieving Jews have not (that is) use not the light and abilities of nature well, therefore they had not the clear understanding of the mysteries of heaven, given to them; but our Savi­our gives the reason in the Parable, because the Gospel in its glorious discoveries fell upon their hearts as upon stony, high-way, thorny ground: therefore he spake to them in Parables, and therefore ad­viseth them to take heed how they heard (viz.) the letter of the Gospel; For to him that hath shall be given, &c. now to interpret the talents by the light of nature, is very much irrelative to the occasion of Christs words, which was their not using of the Gospel-light in the letter of it, and what an incoherency doth it introduce into Christs words, Luke 8.18. [Take heed how ye hear: For to him that hath, shall be given, &c?] for then the sense must run thus, Take heed how ye hear the Gospel, for from them that use not the light of nature well, shall be taken away the light of nature, even that which they have: the very words of (taking heed how they hear) seem to carry it hither, that the talents did signifie the preaching of the Gospel.

2. This very sense destroys his standing course of providence, for clear it is that as Christ applyeth this proverbiall sentence, the Jews did not use their talents well. Now if by talents be to be under­stood naturall abilities, then the unbelieving Jews did not use their naturall abilities well, and yet they had the letter of the Gospel, and God did not fail to reveal his Son Christ to them, else how could they be unbelieving? and if he revealed his Son to such as did not use their natural abilities regularly, where is Mr. Goodwins standing Course of providence, of revealing or hiding his Son Christ, accord­ing to mens exercising or not exercising their naturall abilities regu­larly.

3 Their talents that were given were [...], his own goods, that is, the proper goods of their Master, which he had in dis­pose to distribute to his servants, and that as Mediator; but where shall we finde that he received naturall abilities to bestow upon his Church; or that he is said to give such as mediatour? True, he is that light that enlightens every man; to wave all other commodious interpretations that are given, how will Master Goodwin prove that those are spoken of Christ, as Mediatour, but rather as Creatour? John 1.9, 10. the text saith not, he is the true light, but he was the true light, yea also, he was in the world; and the world was made by him. He was that enlightening light when he was in the world, creating the world, and so endewing them with the light of reason, and this way hath much countenance from Interpreters, When Christ ascended on high, Ephes. 4.9, 10, 11, 12. he di­stributed those gifts that he had received? but what were they? shall we so far mistake as to judge them natural abilities? the text will explode such a sense, because they are not pertinent for the perfecting of the [Page 96] Saints, the work of the Ministery, the edifying of the body of Christ; the Apostle saith, Ephes. 1.3. John 1.16. That in him we are blest with all spiritual blessings, and that of him we receive grace for grace: but where shall we finde that his Church receiveth from him the abilities of nature, and that from him as Mediatour? Now he must prove this before it can be clear that these talents signifie naturall abilities.

4 Those talents that were given, were in a various degree to di­verse men, some five, some two, some one talent; but how can Mr. Goodwin make his to agree with the light of nature, if he consider his own words, Pag. 10. Pag. 10. [That all men by the light of nature may make out the conclusions of the Gospel, and that an attonement is made for sin;] if all men can do thus much, and no man any more, where is this variety that the Parable speaketh of?

5 These talents were given to every man [...], according to his abilily, which Junius rendreth in his Annotations, [( Secundùm prudentiam & peritiam in negotiando quâ praediti erant. Junius in loc.) According to his prudence and skill in trading, with which they were endewed:] which indeed may take place, in the grace of the Gospel which any one is to improve for the edification of his Church; he may betrust us with so much as we by that measure of naturall abilities or other endowments bestowed on us, be in a capa­city of improving; but how this can be made good of natural abili­ties, I see not; for what prexistent or prevenient abilities and endow­ments to those which we call natural, according to the proportion of which, naturall abilities shall be measured out to us, [...]? I fear this will not easily be reduced to right reason.

6 These talents are such as that the improvement of them is im­mediately saying, the person that improved and gained other five, the Lord said to him, Enter thou into the joy of thy Master; but this cannot be affirmed of the abilities of nature, and that neither upon the principles of Mr. Goodwin, nor yet of the Remonstrants joyntly, for in all their endowments, the improvement of the light of na­ture to the height is not immediately saving.

7 These talents were given to his servants at his going into a far Countrey, and is not this generally interpreted, at his Ascension? but can it be reduced to right reason and evidence of Scripture, to say that Christ distributed naturall abilities at his Ascension? what needed he stay till his Ascension for the bestowing that boon, had he not done it long before? What did all men long before? if he gave not natural abilities till his Ascension? whether will not this Gloss depretiate those Princely Donatives, with which he solemnly ho­noured his Ascension, to bring them so low as the abilities of nature?

These things I lay down, as having afforded much colour of rea­son, if no more, and till these be cleared, I cannot think that by talents are meant natural abilities.

[Page 97]Thus having discussed the talents, I shall examine whether he speak right upon the servants to whom these talents were given. Mr. Goodwin describeth them very suitably to his purpose thus: [ By the servants who received these talents, as in a glass we may see the condition and state, not of believers only, or those that shall be sa­ved, but of the generality of mankinde, or at least of them that shall perish as well as of them that shall be saved. Now indeed, if by talents be meant naturall abilities, he had need make the servants to be all mankinde, and no other interpretation will serve his turn handsomely, and therefore Mr. Goodwin would have us believe, that by the servants in the Parable, is meant the state and condition (or more properly the persons) of all mankinde. But how doth he prove it? he thinketh he proveth it thus: [Not of those that believe only, or such as shall be saved,] as if because those servants were such as might perish, as well as those that believed and were saved, there­fore they are all mankinde in generall; an inference like the rest. The servants may represent the Church of Christ on earth, in which are those that shall perish, as well as those that shall be saved, to whom God may dispense many of his supernaturall abilities for the good and edification of his Church, though their persons pe­rish: and this I hope may well be, and yet not all mankinde come under the notion of his houshold-servants. For we may know from Scripture that Christ hath a house of his own, & a retinue of his own, the government and edification of which house, he hath transmitted to servants of his own, so run the words, [...], He called his own proper servants, the consideration of which is no propitious glass to present to us a gloss of such latitude: and un­til Master Goodwin prove that Christ as Mediator, hath received the oeconomy over the whole World, as his house and family over which he is master and head: I must conclude that the servants in the Pa­rable do not signifie all mankind in generall, but only those that are within the Church.

Thirdly, to consider a little the improvement, or rather the in­crease upon that improvement, it is evident it is in the same kinde, the increase was of the one talent that was given to him that had gained five to his five; that which was promised to him that hath, was not variety, but abundance in the same kinde: so that look what the increase is, we may conclude, such was the talents improved; but then suppose we should concede to Mr. Goodwin all he desireth, that talents signifie naturall abilities, and the servants all mankinde in generall: yet what would this contribute to his cause, which is (that God gives increase of supernaturall grace to him that useth naturall abilities worthily and regularly) wherein the use and the increase, the thing had and the thing given are (in diverso genere;) the one is natural, the other supernatural, which is against the current of the Parable; for if the talents given, & the increase given; upon improvement, be of one and the same kinde then, if the talents [Page 98] be the abilities of nature, Pag. 20, 21. then the increase must be naturall also, which Mr. Goodwin liketh not, for he saith expresly (it is not an increase of natural abilities, but of more saving grace) or else if the increase be spiritual grace, then the talents cannot be natural abili­ties, contrary to his present doctrine. To sum up all then together, we may see how unhandsomely his assertion and this Parable of the talents meet; his assertion pleads that the talents originally given are naturall gifts, the Parable seemeth to carry it for supernatural graces; his assertion urgeth that these servants are all mankind in ge­nerall, the Parable confines them only to his Church which is Christs house, and over which he is head and Master, and for whose use he bestoweth his goods to his servants. His assertion contendeth for a gift and an increase to be (in diverso genere) in a diverse kinde. The Parable makes both the improvement and increase to be (in eodem genere) in the same kinde.

Quàm benè conveniunt? Which being considered, we may come to see that that Parable of the talents (indeed it upholdeth such a course of providence as to bless the improvement of grace with more grace, but) holdeth not forth such a course of providence as Mr. Goodwin pretendeth, which to make an increase of grace to them that use nature well, because in this course of providence, the improvement and the increase are of divers kindes, but the Parable holds forth that only, wherein both are in the same kinde; and as I have proved there is no such course of providence: so I have also cleared that he hath not proved any such course, no not by the strength of that text [To him that hath shall be given.]

But fourthly and lastly, suppose we grant him all these three, that man could improve naturals regularly, and so please God, and so procure increase of grace according to that standing course of provi­dene; yet will it not so roundly follow, as Mr. Goodwin pretendeth, that all men even the Heathen are in a sufficiency of means to be­lieve in Jesus Christ, & that upon the ground before-mentioned, suffi­ciency to believe requireth all requisites to the act of believing; now believing the revelation of Jesus Christ is a requisite, which revelation of Christ is not made but upon the actuall and regular improvement (according to the doctrine of Mr. Goodwin;) therefore we must not insist upon suppositions, if man improve naturals well, God will reveal Christ, and so raise a Chymericall sufficiency of believing; for there is no sufficiency of believing in Christ till he be revealed, whom he will reveal (saith Mr. Goodwin) (not upon the capacity of Improvement) but upon the actuall Improvement according to the rule; and that standing course of providence, so much urged by Mr. Goodwin, implyes no more then a not failing to reveal Christ upon the actual regular improvement of naturall abilities; they will not say that God hath promised to reveal Christ to those that are able only to improve nature, except they do actually improve it, [Page 99] therefore it must needs follow that the revelation of Christ, and the actuall improvement of naturall abilities leading thereunto, are requisites to believe in Christ; and therefore if both be not actually present, there is no sufficiency for believing, otherwise why should the Remonstrants trouble themselves in framing out a various mea­sure and degree of sufficiency? And grant that till men do use natu­rals well, and so have Christ actually revealed, Corvin. in Mo­lin. c. 37. §. 11. there is no sufficiency of believing in Christ? And to come to some close in this point, let us grant all they urge, that man can improve his naturals, and to please God, and by both according to that standing course of provi­dence have Christ revealed, and so believe, and that it were also true that if he did all those things before-mentioned, he should have Christ revealed, in all this the question is not of a sufficiency (ad posse credendum,) but a sufficiency (ad actu credendum.) Now to this the actuall revelation of Christ is necessary, and to this actuall reve­lation, the actuall improvement of naturals is rquisite (according to the course of providence, as Mr. Goodwin describeth it) what more roundly follows then this, That those that do not actually improve naturals regularly, have not a sufficiency to believe in Christ, because such have not the revelation of Jesus Christ, for if they had, the standing course of providence is also broken? and now there is a fair way thus to argue,

So that except Mr. Goodwin can prove that all men do actually improve naturall abilities, and so do that, upon which those things that are requisite to the believing on Christ, are granted, he hath not yet, no nor ever can prove that all men have a sufficient means to be­lieve in Christ, if he will but adhere to the rules of his own pretended course of providence. And now to close up all, until Mr. Goodwin can prove that every man can improve naturall abilities well, or can please God well by so doing, and that there is such a standing course of providence, as he pretendeth, and that upon the grant of all these all men may be said to be in a sufficiency of means for believing in Christ; until these be done. I hope, I may say, I have beat him from his second strong-hold, by which he expecteth to fortifie his doctrine of universall sufficiency for faith in Christ: and that he suspects the safety of this plea, I am induced to think, because I finde him casting about for a third reserve, and to recede a little further, which maketh up a third part of his Treatise, and it is thus as followeth:

[Suppose we yet further for arguments sake, that the Heathen want­ing the letter and externall administ [...]ation of the Gospell by men, and also were in no capacitie of comming to the knowledge of it, eitherly [Page 100] the works of Creation or Providence, nor yet by any improvement of natural abilities, yet it must needs be acknowledged that they are in such a capacity, of being made partakers of them, even of the oral admini­stration thereof in such a sense as all nations are in a capacitie of having and enjoying such Merchandize and Commoditie, as are exportable out of any Nation under heaven, and may be had by equitable addresses to them,] Parturiunt montes: but they bring forth a very ridiculous birth. I hope Mr. Goodwin intends not his Treatise to be like those flying lying Phamphlets that bespeak bloody fights in the title-page, but not so much as a slight skirmish in the body of them; in his title-page he telleth us of a sufficiency to believe in Christ, and now he is sunk so low, as to a remote capacity; doth he think that he dealeth with such adversaries as hold that the Heathen are not in a remote ca­pacity of believing in Christ? whom hath he yet ever known to hold so? Let Mr. Goodwin enjoy his remote capacity, and what will it a­vail him in the argument about which all their invented methods of universal sufficient grace are formed? our Argument is this, we con­ceive it not consonant to the wisdome of the Father and Christ to provide a way to procure life & salvation for all men, and that such a way as the blood of his only Son, and Christs own blood, and this price to be actually and compleatly paid; and so the purchase fully and actually to be made, and that out of a reall desire and in­tention to save them eternally, as Mr. Goodwin and the Remon­strants grant, and yet that God should not use some proportionable meanes that they might according to this purchase have life and salvation applyed, this is that which is the obstruction that hinder­eth our concentring with Mr. Goodwin in his doctrine of universal redemption; now if he shall satisfie us, & solve the scruple by saying, he bringeth all men into a remote capacity of believing, the business remaineth as much involved as before; for what proportion is there betwixt in actuall and full purchase, and a remote capacity to that on which the application depēds? or what probability is there that Christ would by his blood actually purchase, and yet leave them but in a re­mote capacity (yea, such as is never likely to be reduced to act, as I shall presently shew) of the application?

But to consider this remote capacity, that is his last refuge [It is such as any nation hath of receiving those commodities that are export­able out of another Nation, and to be had upon equitable addresses to them.] Let us proceed upon the right stating of this instance, and I will transmit it to the judgement of the wise: we must consider a Nation altogether ignorant of the merchandize of another country, and in no probability of hearing thereof by any means by which they may be moved to make equitable addresses to that Nation, what capacity is that people in to partake of such commodities? it must certainly be (Potentia remotissima) the most remote capacity that can be, which indeed is just nothing; the case is just alike; for Mr. Goodwin suppo­seth [Page 101] that they want the orall preaching of the Gospel, and are not in any capacity of comming to the knowledg of it by the creature or providence, or by improvement of naturall abilities; that is, of having it discovered in any kind or other, yet these Heathen must have a ca­pacity of being partakers of the orall administration of the Gospel, because they may by equitable addresses to these places, in which the Gospel is preached, come to know: but where lyeth the capacity of these addresses, so long as they are ignorant of it, nor yet in a capacity to come to know it by any means?

He seemeth to drive on this designe in Pag. 23, to 29 and I appre­hend him, clearing it thus, Those addresses may be made, because God places his oracles amongst the Jews, for that end, that they might by them be made known to the Gentiles, & therefore probably would so order, it that they should come to hear of them, that they might come to make addresses to them for them, for I finde him thus speaking:

[God discovered his gracious counsels in Jesus Christ, under types & shadows to the Jews, not that it was any part of his minde that these discoveries, or the great blessings thereby accruing unto men, should be confined to this people; but that all the world and all Nations round a­bout them, might (if they pleased) have part in that fellowship, as many had who became Proselytes.] Now if he could but half as easily prove as assert, he would drive on an unexpected work. If it was Gods minde, that the Gentiles should have part in that fellow­ship; what meaneth that of the Psalmist, ( He gave his Word to Jacob, but with every Nation he hath not so dealt?) Psal. 147.20. Was it no part of Gods minde, that those discoveries and benefits thereby should be confined to the Jews for a time? Why did Christ say so long after, that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Matth. 10.5. and accounted all others as Dogs and Swine, and strangers? Why did he forbid his Disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles? If it was the minde of God that the Gentiles should always partake of that fel­lowship with the Jews, how came Mr. Goodwin to know it? the fel­lowship of the Gentiles in the mystery of the Gospel, was hid from all ages past, and but of late made manifest. The holy Apostles were not so well nurtured and schooled in the fellowship of the Gentiles, Ephes. 3.7, 8, 9. as Mr. Goodwin, they wondred that the Gospel should be preached, and repentance to life should be granted to the Gentiles: Acts 10.45.11 r 18. but what need they wonder, if they had known as distinctly as Mr. Goodwin, that it was no part of Gods minde that the Oracles of God, and be­nefits accruing to men thereby, should be confined to the Jews? Ephes. 2.14, 16, 17. What was that wall of partition set up betwixt them? Ephes. 2.14. which Christ took away, and so came and preached peace to them afarre off. The Gentiles were aliens and strangers to the promises, Ephes. 2.12. without Christ and hope; Let Mr. Goodwin so arbitrate the business betwixt his as­sertion, and these particulars, that if he can, he may reconcile them; if it was no part of Gods minde that the Oracles of God should be [Page 102] confined to the Jews for a time, why doth the Apostle say, (The fel­lowship of the Gentiles was bid in God, from the beginning of the world,) and but now made manifest; if it was no part of Gods mind, but that the Gentiles should have part in that fellowship? How comes it to pass, that this was not of so long discovered to the Gentiles; considering that God can raise up Saul amongst the Prophets, and Saul amongst the Apostles to perform his own work, Ephes. 3.9, 10. and he it is that sendeth faithful labourers into his harvest? How could Mr. Goodwin pitch his thoughts on such an Anomalous assertion as this, as if he did purposely endeavour to levell and destroy the whole method of the sacred Scripture at once? But he seemeth to pretend a piece of Reason, and that from the law of the Proselytes. How narrowly hath he consulted with the Remonstrants in this case? For thus we finde them reasoning: [ Neque un­quam Gentiles à communione Israelis absolu­tè exclusisse, si­cut patet ex le­gibus latis à Deo in causâ Proselytarum. Hag. Collat. 180. The Gentiles were never excluded from the communion of Israel absolutely, as appeareth by those laws that are given by God concerning Proselytes.] But I conceive, that in this case, their reason fails them much; for what needed men become Prose­lytes to the Jews, if that as Gentiles they were to have a fellowship in the Gospel, and that by the appointment of God? and that the Jews were betrusted with the Oracles of God, that they might com­municate them to the Gentiles, the Gentiles might challenge them as their due without becomming Proselytes to the Jews; and the argu­ment is valid against them: For if they were not to have any fellow­ship with the Jews in the things of God, until they became Prose­lytes to the Jews, then it roundly followeth that they were not to have any part in that fellowship as Gentiles; for in having it as Pro­selytes that had it not as Gentiles, but as Jews.

He further saith also, that [the Mosaical and Ceremonial rites were of God delivered to the Jews by Moses, for the training and nurturing up of the world in the knowledge of God, and the things of their eter­nall peace.] Which seemeth strange to me, that the Lord should in­tend the training up of the Gentiles by those Mosaicall rites, when he never intended the Gentiles, should be brought under that yoke of Judaisme. How can he prove that God intended that the world should be trained up in the knowledge of God, Deut. 14.21. when the Nations and Gentiles were not to observe those rites, as God saith of those unclean meats forbidden to the Jews, yet they might give it to stran­gers, and sell it unto aliens, and they might eat of them; and in many places we might shew that the Gentiles were not tied to observe those rites, and so could not by them to be nurtured up in the knowledge of God.

But he seemeth to be carried on with vigour in this, meerely by the impulse of one Scripture wherein Mosaicall rites are called [...], Col. 2.20. Gal. 4.3, 10. the elements of the world; and hence he inferres they were appointed for the training up of the world; but if he would peruse Expositors, he may easily reduce himself out of [Page 103] this snare, and that many wayes: but I am led to interpret this text thus, it is a frequent Hebraisme to put the abstract for the concrete, as children of disobedience for disobedient children; house of rebellion, for rebellious house, the examples are many: So here, elements of the world, for worldly elements; neither do I this alone, but by the du­cture of the Scriptures, the Sanctury and the Ordinances of Divine service spoken of by the Apostle, Heb. 9.1. Heb. 9.1. are some of those elements of the world, which the Apostle calleth in one place the elements of the world, but he calls the tabernacle, (A worldly Sanctuary,) the Sanctuary was as much an element of the world as any of those Mo­saical observances, but the Apostle calleth it (A worldly Sanctu­ary) [...], as if it were explicative of the former. Some in­deed who amongst Interpreters go by themselves, but in judgement take Mr. Goodwin along with them, they give this reason why this is call'd a (wordly Sanctuary,) because it was open to all the world both Jewes and Gentiles, bringing it up to the height of Mr. Goodwins thoughts; but Cornel. à Lapide thus answereth, Hoc non vide­tur verum, quia Gentes ut pro­phanae a [...]ce­bantur ab atrio Judaeorum, sed genuinè per Sanctuarium mundanum in­telligitur tem­poraneum, ca­ducum, terre­num, & evani­dum. Cornel. à Lapi­de in Heb. 9.1. Gal. 4.3, 4, 5. Col. 2.20, 21. [This seemeth not true because the Gentiles as prophane were driven from the temple of the Jews, but more genuinely by this worldly Sanctuary is understood an earthly, fading, temporary, vanishing Sanctuary;] therefore called wordly, because it was vanishing, and not to continue, like the world: and this receives some life from the context; The last verse of the 8th Chap. to the Hebrewes, the Apostle had said, That which is old, is va­nished away; and immediately followes this expression of a (worldly Sanctuary) as an instance of that which vanisheth away; and is there not this or such like reference in all those places where we find men­tioned the (elements of the world,) as in Gal. 4.3.4.5. where he saith, As a son in his minority is under Tutours, till the time appointed of the father: so we, saith he, whilest children, were under the ele­ments of the world, till the fulness of time, and therefore reproves them for thinking to turne againe to those beggerly elements, where it may well receive this sense (elements of the world) that is, vanishing like the world, and to continue but till the fulnesse of time, therefore not now to be kept on foot: as also in Col. 2.20, 21. the Apostle blames them for being subject to the elements of the world and or­dinances that are to perish with the using; which base, earthly, and vanishing nature contracts the titles of weak and beggarly elements, Galath. 4.3.4. and carnall ordinances, Heb. 9.10. Heb. 9.10, 11. as they were op­posed to & compared with the more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, Heb. 9.11. and that which is more exellent, spiritual and a­biding. And thus there is some pregnancy in the Apostle [...] argument. The Colossians and others were blame-worthy to keepe those ele­ments of the world, seeing they were to continue but till the time of reformetion; Christ was the body; they but the shadow; they were to vanish, and were but weak and beggarly and carnall, therefore they [Page 104] should not stay and rest in them, being imperfect like the world, and neglect Christ, in whom they might be compleat; but, as Mr. Good­win glosses upon the words, where is the pertinency of the Apostles argument? it is no motive to them to relinquish those beggarly rudi­ments, if by (elements of the world) he mean such as were given to the world, to train the Heathen up in the knowledge of God; for they might say, Dost thou, Paul, reprove us Gentiles for adhering to these rudiments? are they not our own? and given to us to nurture us up in the knowledge of God; and therefore called the (elements of the world?) this would rather move them to adhere to them then relin­quish them.

Many other occurrent expresses I find in this part of his treatise, which I should not pass, did not I fear being too voluminous; but much time and paper is taken up in proving that God hath done much for the Gentiles in this case; but all that discourse is very impertinent to that main question which he first propounded, viz. (that those are bound to believe, that never enjoyed the letter of the Gospel).

So that I have to some satisfaction to my selfe anotomized these three strong-holds, to which he flyes to secure himselfe against all assaults of Scripture and reason, and have so taken them to pieces, that they appear not in any capacity of defending his confident asser­tion; and notwithstanding all which he saith, it doth not yet appeare that those Heathen that never heard of Jesus Christ, are in any rati­onal capacity, much lesse in a mediate sufficiency, least of all in on immediate sufficiency of believing in Christ.

But should I grant him all that he hath attempted to prove, yet would it not hit his intended mark. I wonder that Mr. Goodwin, so devoted to the rules of exquisite dispute, should spend the bigger half of his Treatise, & never conclude with his question. In his Fron­tispice he promised to shew us, how farre those that never heard of Jesus Christ are ye bound, to believe in Christ; but in all that part of his Book, Obliga­tio ad creden­dum in Chri­stum non est ex lege, sed ex E­vangelio; ex eo putà verbo, quo Christus pro­ponitur, quia ex eo praecipi­tur ut in eo credamus. Corvin. in Mo­lin. c. 11. §. 7. which I have examined, he only proves that they are in a remote capacity, at the highest but a sufficiency, but this comes short of an obligation or being bound; we are not alwayes obliged to those things to do which we are sufficiently enabled; all obligation comes from a command; no man is obliged without some such cōmand as that, (Repent & believe the Gospel) this the Remonstrants give us for granted. Corvinus saith thus: [ The Obligation to believe in Christ, is not from the Law, but from the Gospel, namely by that word in which Christ is propounded, because in that word we are commanded to believe in him: but I need not urge them, Mr. Goodwins owne testi­mony is strong enough in this case; for he saith in his Postscript thus: [Adam was under no obligation to repent, as is evident, because there was no Positive Law given to him, or anything of that import, during that time;] now if this be a good argunent which Mr. Goodwin ur­geth. (viz) that Adam was not bound to repent, because there was [Page 105] no Law given to bind him to repent, it is grounded upon this truth, that there is no obligation to any thing without a command.

Now indeed in the following part of his Treatise he addresseth himself very handsomely to prove that all are bound to believe; but it is not without much provocation from his adversary, and it is not till much labour hath been spent, as if he intended to let the world see that it is one of the last things he intendeth, to be pertinent.

It is urged against him by an unknown Adversary, thus: All men are not bound to believe, without the letter of the Gospel, by which men are obliged and bound to believe, which argument is firm and good, and makes him cast about for an universal obligation to be­lieve, without the letter of the Gospel, and he affirms, that all men are bound to believe on Christ by a double law; First, by the Law of Nature. Secondly, by the Positive Law of God. I shall ex­amine both in their order.

First, to examine whether all men by the Law of Nature be bound to believe on Christ: He layeth down his method thus: [Nature requireth of men, 1 That they seek after God, that is, the knowledge of his attributes, and perfection of his being. 2 After the best and richest discoveries of his will, where they are to be found. 3 To sub­mit to every part of that will and pleasure being made known.] And then, as the accomplishment of his invention, he saith, that the Go­spel is the richest discovery of his will, and they are bound to subject themselves unto it. But though I grant all these things, yet thus I answer, There is no obligation to believe on Christ yet ex­tant except the l [...]tter of the Gospell come, and then the true state of the question is destroyed; true it is, the Gospel is the richest trea­sures of his mind and will, but how is this made knowne to them that never come to enjoy the letter of the Gospel? I further argue thus:

1 Adam in innocencie was bound to do all these, to seek and en­q [...]uire after God and the richest treasure of his will, &c. but I hope he will not say that Adam was bound to believe in innocency; if he do, it is not without the positive dissent of the best of his side.

2 It is strange to see the ways of these men, to assume that to themselves as Orthodox, what they explode in others as vaine and impertinent; when Molin urged thus upon the question, whether A­dam had power to believe [the law commands us to assent to, and obey what ever the Lord saith or commandeth, Corvin. in. in Mo­lin. cap. 11. § 7. then it must follow that if Christ was propounded and preached, by the same law he should be ac­counted to stand bound to believe the Gospel;] this reasoning is rejected by Corvinus as vain, and impertinent, but is not Mr. Goodwins the very same?

3 He saith, nature binds to obey the discoveries of his will being known; true, but then being unknown, no obligation to believe; then it must be enquired into, how men that never he the letter of [Page 106] the Gospel can come to the knowledge of the mind of God concern­ing faith in Christ. Still here is little proof, but meer trifeling.

Now such an assertion as this his adversary lays upon him (That the light of nature cannot discover that ever there was such a man or Mediator as Christ Jesus;) but he is pleased to say that it is not perti­nent to our purpose, but I think very much. For let this be granted, then I urge, though the law of nature bind us to do all the three fore­named particulars, yet it doth not oblige us to believe in Christ; be­cause the light of nature cannot discover Christ; and if not, how can it oblige men to believe on Christ I see not, because according to himself it bindes men to obey no further then is known; but he saith further thus: [Though it be not sufficient to discover Christ, yet it is suf­ficient to teach them that it is their duty to inquire after the best disco­very of his will, and being known it can tell them it is their duty to believe in Christ,] how he hath lost himself on his own circle? true, it may teach them to inquire, but how to believe on Christ I see not, because they are not bound to obey, further then it is known: and nature can­not discover Christ, nor any way left for knowing him otherwise. For the question supposeth them not to have the letter of the Gospel.

2 He is much mistaken, the law of nature (upon that supposition that faith in Christ was discovered,) could not be said to be the dicta­tor of that duty, but the positive law that is newly discovered; nature commandeth general obedience, being a general law, but a special law must be the ground of a special obedience: if he consult with Cor­vinus he will grant this to pass for good divinity, as I may illustrate it by this instance:

The Law of nature bindeth me to obey my Superiors and so us all, this is a general law; but as a ground of special obedience there is required a law positive, that I may know wherein to obey them; as to say, Our Superiours for Politique ends forbid us to eat flesh in Lent, [...]hall he hence conclude that it is a dictate of nature not to eat flesh in Lent? then it is against the law of nature to eat flesh in Lent, but who can understand this? therefore we must necessarily distinguist, thus, nature bindeth us to obey, but their Positive law to obey in this or that particularity; neither could the law of nature ever dictate to any man that he is bound not to eat flesh in Lent, the case is much a like, the law of nature binds us to obey God as our Maker, but the law positive comes and bids us to obey him in believing Christ: This obligation as it is particularized comes from the Positive law of God, not from the law of nature; for the law of nature could never dict­ate such a particularity of obedience, as to beleeve in Jesus Christ. And thus farre I can improve the smile he preduceth in Pag. 31, 32. but how farre further it tendeth I see not: for it vanisheth into smoak if we consider that the legislative power in any nation or kingdom doth not confine the discovery of their lawes to the Metropolis, but as for those Laws by which mens daily and weekly transactions are to [Page 107] be guided, they take such course that they shall be published at the Market-towns of every Shire or County where it is to be supposed, that all respectively are led by their occasions; or in a Sessions quar­terly, Justices of the Peace are in their charges to acquaint them with all those Penal Statutes, and other Lawes requisite to the re­gulating of our lives, which he can no ways prove God doth by the Gospel in any proportionable discovery.

But he undertaketh to prove by a twofold Argument, that nature bindeth all men to believe on Christ; if reduced to form, it would run thus: ‘(If nature binds us to use the best means for our welfare and peace, then it binds us to believe, it being the only way to life:’

But nature bindeth all men to use the best meant for their welfare: Therefore, &c.) The Argument is plausible enough, if he had not himself laid the ground of its confutation, the same notions will answer it that I gave before: nature teacheth no man to use any means for his welfare, but what he knoweth to be in such a tendency; but the question presupposeth that they do not yet know, and when they come to know, true then they are bound to observe it, but the state of the question is altered.

A second Argument which he useth is deduced from Acts 4.12. where the Apostle saith, that (There is no name under Heaven by which a man can be saved but Iesus Christ,) but how the Argument must be formed or where the strength of it lyeth, he puts us to the labour to seek it out. He saith, that this text crosseth two main Pillars of his Adversaries doctrine, the first I own with a little correction, thus: [ That the law of Salvation, viz. (He that believeth shall be saved) respecteth those that are Evangelized onely, that is, such as have the discovery of the Gospel by some way and means, beyond and above the light of nature.] So that this be understood of Adults; for as for Infants, how God dealeth with them, whether they be saved by faith, or whose faith, or what faith, or how; I leave it to Mr. Goodwin to determine. Let him understand me thus, and then I challenge him to prove how that text, Acts 4.12. overthroweth this; it seemeth Mr. Goodwin thinketh that this Law of Salvation (as he calleth it) (He that believeth shall be saved) doth not respect men Evangelized onely, I know not what sophistical sense he may retein of those words (doth not respect) he may know that the point in hand is a­bout obligation to believe, so that he ought to have exprest it thus; That Law of Salvation respecteth not onely men Evangelized as a bond or obligation to believe; but thus it is very liable to scruple: for this Law of Salvation, as he calleth it (He that beleeveth shall be saved) must be considered as conceived in God onely in his minde, and purpose, whereby as the Remonstrants say he did (certam rati­onem statuere) appoint a certain way by which he would save men; and thus considered it is not to come under the notion of an obliging [Page 108] principle, because thus it is hidden in God, and so nothing to us. Se­condly, it is considerable as discovered and pronounced to the world, whereby the Lord acquainteth us with his gracious award concern­ing us; and thus will Mr. Goodwin say, that it respects not only per­sons Evangelized, when the very discovery of this to us is Evangeli­zation, and the discovery of the Gospel; and it becomes an obliga­tion to none but them that have it discovered to them. But in his next I expect that he produce his argument in form, that I may know what he intendeth, and I shall return answer.

But he proceeds in his magnificates of the light of nature thus: [My principles will not allow we to gratifie you with my bel [...]efe of your position, which is, that the light of nature cannot discover to mankinde that there was or ever would be such a Mediatour or man as Jesus Christ.] What principles they are which thus obstruct his faith, or belief of the truths of God, are best known to himself, the princi­ples of saving truth will tell us, that we may read of a naturall Theology, but of a naturall Christianity no where. This is revealed by a new way; hence the Jews stumbled at it, and the Greeks derided it as inconsistent with their Philosophicall and naturall principles; the World by their wisedome knew not God, how then can the light of Nature discover a Christ? it is not by wisdome of the world, but the foolishness of preaching that he saveth men, and that the preach­ing by men, not the heavens; for this last preaching involves the wisdome of the world.

But because he will leave no stone unturned, he by way of concession, thus saith: [Suppose it cannot discover a Christ in such particularities as now under the Gospel, yet it cannot be denied but that it may so far discover him, as that a man may be rationally perswaded through him to depend upon God for the pardon of his sins and salvati­on.] But this is meer trifeling, for we say, that the light of Nature alone is unable not onely to discover a Christ in particularities, but at all, and upon that ground no man can be perswaded to depend upon God through him; for thus, suppose that a man know that Christ is, it is strange that he should recede from the first position; and suppose that the light of nature did not and could not discover that such a man as Christ ever was, and yet to suppose that by the light of nature a man may be perswaded to depend upon God for life through Christ: but he attempteth to prove, that the light of nature doth discover so much, as that men may be so rationally per­swaded to depend on God through Christ for life; and this he pro­ved by two Arguments.

1. His first Argument is from the Jews, who he saith, [The sum of what they believed concerning Christ was this, that God had found out a way, and pleased himself in a means how to shew mercy and forgive sins, and save their souls that put their trust in him, and live righteously, yet they believed to salvation, though Christ not discovered to them in [Page 109] such particularities as now;] wherein he doth egregiously prevari­cate; for,

1 That which he is to prove was this, that men by the light of na­ture can so farre discover Christ, as that they are rationally perswa­ded to depend on God for salvation through Christ: but in all this ab­stract which he produceth, what syllable is it that gives the least hint of Christ? It is only thus, (that they beleeved that God pleased him­self in a way, and means to shew mercy, forgive sin, to save the soules of them that trust in him and live righteously) now let the World judge, whether any or all of these do infer a dependance upon God for life through Christ.

2 Suppose it did so, what pertinency hath this instance to the case in hand▪ He instanceth in the Jews, who had the written Word or vo­call discoveries of Christ proportionable to their faith in Christ, a generall and indistinct knowledge of Christ being every way pro­portionable to a generall and indistinct faith; Now suppose they had a generall and indistinct faith in Christ, yet if this faith came by a generall and indistinct discoveries, either by written Word or vocal dispensation, then this instance is very vainly produced to prove that the light of nature without other discovery can discover Christ in particularities or in general.

2 His second Argument by which he proveth it is this, and it is by the complication of three Propositions thus:

[ Jesus Christ is in such a faith, wherby men are enabled to come to God with acceptance, John [...]4.6. Again, by such a faith, Pag. 39. whereby a man believeth that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, he is enabled to come to God, Heb. 11.6. and further, the Heathen by the light of nature, without the advantage of the Gospel, may come to be­lieve that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him;] by which he proveth that a Heathen meerly by the law and light of nature may discover Christ so as that by him he may come to God with acceptance; and a very plausible plea it were, if it did not favour too much of the windings of the subtile serpent. I shall consider them in order apart, and then leave them to Mr. Goodwin to improve joyntly and together,

1) His first Proposition is, [That Christ is in that faith whereby men are enabled to come to God with acceptance;] this I assert for a truth, but all together contradictious and inconsistent with the words of the Remonstrants and Mr. Goodwin himself; it is son thing remarkable to consider that when he would magnifie the light of nature by making it to run parallel with that which the Jews enjoyed, he then reduced the object of faith to a low scantling; and in the Page immediately foregoing, affirmed that the Jewes believed to salvation, and yet be­lieved nothing but this, [that God had pleased himselfe with a way & meanes of mercy and saving men that trust in him and live righteously; Pag. 36.] where is there the least intimation of Jesus Christ in all that and [Page 110] yet they believed to salvation, Pag. 37, 38. and therefore came to God with ac­ceptance; and again speaking of the faith of the Jews of old, he saith, [That they did not believe on Christ (except interpretatively and virtually) but only expresly in God, and yet none could deny but they be­lieved to salvation,] but now needs must Christ be in such a faith; without any such limitation and restriction, as (interpretatively or virtually); and how is it averred, and that both from reason and Scripture, as the Remonstrants pretend, that faith in Jesus Christ was never exacted, nor performed by the Fathers under the Old Te­stament?

2 His second Propositition is this: [ That by such a faith, whereby a man believeth that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, a man is enabled to come to God, Heb. 11.6.] which proposition is false, and by it he suborneth a text for his cause, that text, Heb. 11.6. saith indeed that he that commeth to God must believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder of thim that seek him, but it saith nor, neither will it follow, that all that believe those things are enabled to come with acceptance; the Devils in hell and many reprobates may and do believe these, and yet they are not enabled to come to God with acceptance; I wonder that any man of that way, who, to that text, Joh. 6. (No man comes except my Father draw him;) say, that it doth not follow, therefore that all that he draws do come, should thus prevaricate for their own ends in this text.

3 His third Proposition is this: [That every man by the light of nature can come to know that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him;] which I do not only bring into question, but do affirm also to be false; true indeed if we speak in generall terms, by the light of nature a man may discover that God is, and that he is a re­warder, &c. but if we make a particular application to man in his corrupt estate, then I say that no man without the letter of the Gos­pell can come to know this; the Law concludeth us all under an e­ternall curse, now who can know or what way is extant to believe a reward upon any termes, but by the Gospell and more then nature can discover? So that taking this short survey of the Propositions apart, if any please let him put them together, and judge what solid argument for the truth can be drawn out of one inconsistencie and two falsities, and if this my answer please him nor, let him in his next bring them into better form of arguing, and I shall say more; it is as methodicall an answer as I thought good to give to such a confused and indigested argument. And now I have seen the strength of his arguments whereby he hath attempted to prove that the light of nature doth oblige a man to believe, I shall urge one or two to prove that the law of nature neither doth nor can, and thus I urge: ‘ Arg. 1 If Adam before such time as the promise was given, was under nor such obligation as to repent and so to believe, then the law of na­ture doth not, can not binde men to repent and believe in Christ: But the former is true: Therefore the latter is true also.’ [Page 111] The Proposition of this Argument is grounded upon this, that Adam had the law of nature, and more quick-sighted into the creatures and common providence of God, then any of his posterity: and he equally bound to take the best course for his own welfare; and yet he was not bound to repent and believe; then certainly his posterity are not ob­liged by the meer light of Nature: I desire some proof why the fame Light and Law of Nature, that was no bond or obligation to Adam, could be so to his posterity. If Adam had the light of Na­ture, and yet was not bound to believe or repent, it was either,

1 Because he could not discover such a thing as satisfaction, or a Mediatour, or Christ; he saw only a reprieve, no pardon or sa­tisfaction: and if thus, how can his posterity meerly by the Law and light of Natur discover a Saviour?

2 Or else if he did discover, then it was because he had no com­mand to believe or repent, as he intimateth in his Postscript, because the obligation dependeth upon a command; and if so, then how can they who never had the letter of the Gospel, be said to be obli­ged to believe and repent? Thus the Major is strengthened.

Arg. 2 The Minor is his own in so many words in his Postscript.

But the former is true, Rom. 10.14. Rom. 10.14, I chuse this argument founded upon this text, because Mr. Goodwin seeks to temper and take off the edge of this text. Now I hope he will not say, that this hearing and preaching is by the heavens; for then the heavens must be sent by God to preach in order to faith, but how will he prove that▪ but thus he answereth to this text and Argument, Pag. 32. in the 32 Page of this Treatise: [The meaning of these Interrogatories is not as if no man could possibly believe the Gospel, but he that heard it personally preached by a Minister, but implyeth these three things. 1 That man having cor­rupted himself, was in no probability to believe on God by Jesus Christ, without the advantage of some report of the Gospel made in one kinde or other. 2 That there was no likelihood to hear of God or of Christ in the Gospel, had there not been some one or more to have preached the Gospel in the world. 3 It was not likely that any man or men should or would have preacht the Gospel, had they not been sent and received instructions concerning the publishing of it.] In which answers,

1 He prevaricateth and halteth manifestly; for his first particular comes far short of truth, as he intendeth it, viz. that it is any part of the Apostles meaning, to affirm that we could not believe without Christ was discovered in the Gospel by some way, and in one kinde or other; as if he purposely left such a latitude, as that he might take in the light of nature, as one kinde of discovery of Christ sufficient for faith, which is evidently false, for that hearing without which he [Page 112] saith, we cannot believe, is confined to the hearing the letter of the Gospel, which men are sent by commission to preach, and that to beget faith, and in that Apostolical Induction the last, and the first have as strong a dependance as any two: and it is as true that no man can believe except some be sent, as this, No man can believe except he hear.

2 But I desire no more then he gives, for solution to confirm us, he granteth three things. 1 That none can believe without the report of the Gospel, in one kinde or other. 2 That we are not likely to heare of Christ in the Gospel, without some preach. 3 That it is not likely that any should preach, except they be by Commissions and Instructions sent. Now what need we more then this, to confirm us, that men cannot, nor are bound to believe meerly by the light of Nature, without some further discovery thereof in the Gospel? Thus I have traversed all Mr. Goodwins steps, and yet it appeareth not that man is either enabled or bound to believe in Christ meerly by the law and light of Nature; and yet having done with the law of Nature, he proceeds further to say,

That all men are bound to believe on Jesus Christ by the Positive law of God, and this he doth in Page the 44th. and he gives two Scriptures to prove it, Pag. 44. Psal. 2.12. 1 Joh. 3.23. Psal. 2.12. ( Kiss the Son. Be wise, O ye Judges of the earth. And, 1 Joh. 3.23. This is the commandement that we be­lieve on his Son Jesus Christ.) From these Scriptures he would prove that all men without exception are bound to believe on Jesus Christ by the Positive law of God; but to this I answer,

1) How impertinent is all this to his purpose if he could prove it to be truth? that which he is to prove, is that even those that never heard of the letter of the Gospel, and so by consequence, not of the commands thereof, that those are bound to believe; and now he proves that all are bound by a Positive law, that is in effect thus, that those that never heard of the letter of the Gospel, have yet a Positive law to bind them to believe; it seemes he doth not so well consider as he might, that for any man to have such a Positive law, is to have the let­ter of the Gospell.

2) I hope henceforth the Remonstrants will never say, that faith in Jesus Christ was never commanded to our fathers of old under the time of the Law; Mr. Goodwin will teach them better Divini­ty and tell them they were all commanded to it by a Positive law.

3) Mr. Goodwin himselfe affirmeth that the faith that was requi­red of the Jews to justification under the Law [had Christ in it only virtually, and interpretatively, and explicitely none but God himselfe, and therefore God would accept such a faith much more in the Gen­tiles] Pag. 38. Pag. 38. and yet now they were all commanded by a Positive law to believe in Christ; I hope Mr. Goodwin will reconcile all these together.

4) But to examine the truth of his assertion, whether that com­mand [Page 113] was a sufficient obligation to all men to believe; how will Mr. Goodwin prove that this was any obligation to any man untill it be revealed to them? Let that stand which Musculus saith upon the text (Quisnam mortalium ab hâc submissione excipitur cùm ipsis regibus imponitur?) true, no man is exempted from this submission, when this command shall come greeting; yet not obliged until they heare the command.

But Mr. Goodwin drives on these general commands thus far; up­on 1 Joh. 3.23. he saith thus, [he cannot be conceived only to speake to Saints or such who are believers already, as if these were the men whom God commands to believe in the Name of his Son; for then it will follow that those that did believe before the command did supererogate; nor can it be meant of them only who have the letter of the Gospell for then such as believe without the letter thereof, do also supererogate; and therefore it must not be understood, we Saints, or we that have the letter of the Gospel, but we men;] wherein Mr. Goodwin layeth many feeble snares as easily broken as spiders webbes.

1 By the face of his expressions I find that he supposeth it irrational, that this or any command should be given or asserted to any that do already believe; but many expresses of Scripure will rescue such a pra­ctice from al the charges of impropriety, had he not so much time or leasure to look upon the foregoing verse, where he saith, We receive what we ask, because we keep his commandement, 1 John 3.22, 23 and this is the commande­ment that we believe in his Son,] and yet in his divinity it must not be we Saints, or we that have the Gospel, but we men, as if it might be said of all men, that (we keep the commandement;) in 1 John 2.12, 13, 14, 15. the Apostle saith, I write, to you fathers, young men, 2.12, 13, 14, 15. chil­dren, because ye have known him from the beginning, and are strong, & the Word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one; Love not the world, neither the things that are of the world, must we reason thus? he writes not to those that love not the world already, for otherwise, they observing that piece of Christian practice before this writing to them, did supererrogate; and if this instance please him not, let us see a little further. 1 John 5.13. (I have written to you that believe on the Name of the Son of God, 1 John 5.13. that ye may believe on the Name of the Son of God.) But will Mr. Goodwin say, that in belie­ving on Christ, before the Apostle wrote, this they did supererogate? therefore he must know that this mentioned, 1 John 3.23. is no new command, but a repetition of a command before given, and it is evi­dent from the text: this is the commandement that we believe in him, & love one another, as he gave us commandement,) and this command may be on several occasions revived to believers for many ends, as to let them see and know their obedience in believing, as also to stir them up to continue in believing, and many other things of precious concernment, the consideration of which frights away that bug­bear of supererogation, and encourageth me to say, that this text is spoken to, and of those that had the letter of the Gospel, and did [Page 114] actually believe, and so by consequence, this text doth not furnish us with any positive law, whereby all men without exception, are bound to believe on Christ,

2 This method of reasoning supposeth that some may come to believe, and yet not hear of the letter of the Gospel (that is) having only the light of nature; but he knows that (suppositio nihil ponit) he may suppose by the help of his compounding and dividing fancy, golden mountains and strange Chymaera's; but this supposition, saith he, is not unsound, because it hath been proved sufficiently, that those that have not the letter of the Gospel are yet in a capacity of be­lieving, but herein he must not play the Sophister with us, if he mean in sensu diviso, that is, he that is now a Heathen and a Gentile with­out all discovery of the Gospel, may in time by change of his con­dition come to believe in Christ. Thus he need not prove it, and if this hath been his task hitherto, he hath spent much time to little purpose, but if he mean (in sensu composito) that is, whilest he re­maineth so without any farther discovery then what nature affords him, he is in no capacity of believing, and it is impossible he should whilest he so remaineth, Rom. 10.14. How can they believe on him of whom they have not heard? Now if he mean this capacity, I think he neither hath, nor ever will prove, although it is the intended mark in all this his Treatise. But he gives a taste of his Logick, to prove that it is not impossible such a man should believe, and it is this: (Possibile est quo posito nihil sequitur impossibile;) That is possible, upon which no impossibility followeth; but this, I conceive, fitteth him not handsomely, but rather the contrary: (Impossibile quo posito, aliqua alia impossibilia:) that is, Impossibility supposeth all things impossible: for thus his own words direct us: [If their belief be im­possible, then it includeth some other thing impossible also.] Yes, it do's so: Quicquid est, dum est, neces­sariò est. for take it in sensu composito, and two impossibilities follow. 1 That they should ever know or hear of Christ, for (What ever is, whilest, it is necessarily;) and it is impossible for any man to come to Christ whilest he remaineth without all means to come to the know­ledge of him. 2 It is also impossible that they should be saved. But this will not be well digested by Mr. Goodwin, and that upon this Argu­ment, he produceth it thus: [In case men destitute at present of the letter of the Gospel should not stand bound by some Law of God to be­lieve, then in case the letter of the Gospel should afterward be vouch­safed to them, they must either be supposed to stand still as much disob­liged from, believing as before, or else that there is some new Command­ment imposed, which was not imposed on them before by God.] But may we not demand,

1 If they have the Command and Law of God already laid on them, obliging them to believe; what need they have a further Mi­nistery of the Gospel, as to the obligation to believe in Christ?

2 But to suppose that men should not be bound by any Law, and yet come to have the letter of the Gospel, it might fall out that they [Page 115] should neither have a new Command, nor yet remain disobliged; I hope, he knoweth well to distinguish betwixt a new Command and a new Imposition; for in those expresses of his, [Or else there is some Commandement imposed by God;] that word (new,) he may refer ei­ther to (Commandement) or (Imposition;) now the Commandement may be old, and yet the Imposition new, so it may be new to the per­sons to whom it is at present imposed; hence the Apostle calleth, 1 John 2.7, 8. that command of love, an old command, and yet a new command. The comand in substance was old, but the imposition upon them was new.

3 Admit the division to be full and good, yet what inconvenience will arise from hence, if we say that there is a new command impo­sed by God, which was not imposed before?

1 I know Mr. Goodwins will say again, that there was no com­mand to our fathers of old, to believe on Jesus Christ expresly in the particularities of his person, but we are now commanded to do so, and this I think is a new Command.

2 He urgeth thus, there is no new Law imposed, [Because in him there is not the least shadow of change,] a very consciencious plea, and I am glad to finde Mr. Goodwin thus tender of Gods Immutabi­lity if it come not (ex labi is dolosis) out of deceitful lips. It is usuall with men of Mr. Goodwins judgement to affirm God first willing to save all men by his antecedent will, but in regard of Infidelity interve­ning, to be resolving to condemn those men whom before he willed to save; and Mr. Goodwin himself, holds that a person whom God e­lecteth; may yet by God be reprobated, and this without the least sense and tenderness of his Immutability, when there is however e­quall, if not more cause. But, secondly, How doth this new Com­mand imposed on men, introduce a change into God? True indeed those things that are in God cannot be changed (to which it behoves the Arminians to look;) but those things that are without him, may without prejudice to him for God to entertain a change in his actions as to create and destroy the World, this agues no change in him; Hag. Coll. pag. ad argumen­tum primum de perseveran­tia. the Remonstrants will not stick to say, that God promises one thing, and doth another, and that all his promises do not come to pass, and yet they are well acquainted with that text that saith, There is no variableness of change with him. Adam had no obligation to repent and believe in the estate of his Integrity, nor after the fall until the promise, and that because there was no law to binde, nor any thing of that import given to man; if Mr. Goodwin deny this he contradicts himself; if he grant it, he either introduceth upon God variableness and shadow of change, contrary to this text, or else dis­covereth the weakness of his own Argument.

3 He urgeth, that it no new Law imposed, because (Affirmative pre­cepts binde always, but not to always.) Affirmativa proecepta obli­gant semper, sed non ad semper. And therfore he saith that (Gods Laws were imposed upon men, before any new emergencie of condition;) to which I say, that Affirmative precepts do binde always, but then it presupposeth them to be imposed, otherwise they are not precepts; all those precepts imposed upon the Jews, were not precepts unto the [Page 116] Gentiles; he saith, That a poor man that is very poor is bound to distribute, and to be rich in good works; but who will believe him? the text saith, Charge the rich that they do good, 1 Tim. 6.17, 18. but no where, Charge the poor that they be rich in good works, that is impossible: neither is a poor man concluded by that command to do good, and be rich in good works, and to distribute.

A third Scripture, by which he attempteth to prove that all men are bound to believe on Christ by a Positive Law, Acts 17.30. is out of Acts 17.30. (Now he commandeth all men every where to repent.) but,

1 True, suppose all without exception were admonished to re­pent; then, what became of all those that lived in the time of that ignorance spoken of, wherein God suffered the Nations to walk in their own wayes without admonishing, and directing them how to walk, as he now doth in the Gospel; as he saith in the 11th. page of his Treatise? Now I expect that he shew me the difference betwixt the admonitions before, and now, whether that before, was not orall by the Ministery of men, at it is now?

2 For this (all) he saith, it cannot be confined to such persons or places to which the Gospel is actually sent; (and that not with that honour and reverence that is due to the Scripture.) O how tender Mr. Goodwin is of the honour of the Scriptures, where they (as he thinks) speak of his side! but all is not truth that Mr. Goodwin saith, because he saith it; how (I pray) doth it derogate from the honour of the Scripture, to interpetret (all men) in the text, by (all both Jews and Gentiles) where this word of admonition shall come?

3 The Antithesis seems to carry it our way (but now he admonish­eth all men to repent;) it seems to infer that all men, that is, both Jew and Gentile, were not admonished to repent; we urge not that there was no admonition to repent at all before, but not so large as at that time there was; that is, both to Jew and Gentile: the Apostles won­dred that repentance to life should be given, and preached to the Gen­tile; But now, saith Peter, I know that of every Nation, he that worketh righteousness is accepted; and that is one, and the same with this text in hand. Now he admonisheth every one to repent, but the argument frō the Antithesis doth not please Mr. Goodwin, but I fear it is more pre­judice then reason that disaffecteth him to it; for clear it is, that this Antithesis argues such a thing as was not at all before: as first it ar­gues an admonition and leading to repentance by the orall admini­stration of the Gospel, for the Apostle hath relation to his own preaching the Gospel. 2 It intimateth a general and universal Admonition to all, Jews and Gentiles, which there was not before; as for the first, Mr. Goodwin granteth that it was not before; and will easily yield, that during that time, wherein he suffered them to walk in their evil wayes, he did not deal with them as men under the Go­spel; Pag. 63. this he is willing to grant in his dispute with Mr. Sympson; as for the second, it rests upon him to prove where God did admonish all men, even the Heathen, to repent in this way; this text doth not prove it, because he granteth that God did not deal with the Heathen [Page 117] as men under the Gospel, which this text chiefly hinteth, which cleer­ly sheweth that this text is weakly produced to prove, that all men, without exception, are bound by a positive Law to repent, because this speaks of such an Admonition, as in his own judgment was not af­forded to them whom he suffered to walk in their own wayes.

But he would have this the sense of the Antithesis, [Not as if his dispensations were so different, as that under the one men were left free from all manner of comand to repent, and only under the other they should stand charged with that duty, Pag. 51. but it importeth that the obligation to re­pent under the former was faint and obscure; and with little authority under the times of ignorance, in comparison of that tie and obligation which God by an express comand imposeth upon the world under the Go­spel; & this import of the said Antithesis, appears by frequent usage of Scriptures, and the condition of the Heathen throughout the world, before the times of the Gospel.] What pains will a mans interest provoke him to, even to the infatuation of his own understanding in cleer texts? For

1 How fraudulently doth he proceed (on these words?) [As if he had left men without all command to repent before these times, of which the Apostle speaks) leaving the expression so indefinite, and ge­nerall, as if we held that men were not under the Law commanded to repent.] When I grant it all along, and only deny that the Heathen were under such a command, who enjoyed no more then the light of nature: and I may as justly deny this as he denies that Adam had no obligation to repent till the promise was given, because there was no command, nor any thing of that import until that time.

2 How weakly and trivially doth he argue? he produceth this text, (as he affirmeth) to prove that an obligation lyeth upon all men (without exception) to repent; and when it commeth to the scan­ning; whether this text speak of all men in all ages and times, or all where and when the Gospel comes; instead of proving, Pag. 54. he answers and saith. [It doth not necessarily imply, that God never till now com­manded the same thing.] But where is his proof? his proof cannot be fetcht from this phrase, (He now admonisheth all men) because this is meant of the oral administration of the Gospel, which he granteth all have not, and if he have any possibility of proving his doctrine by this text, it lies in that expression, (The time of that ignorance God regardeth not;) and then let him form his thoughts into an argument, and it will be a miserable one.

3 How contradictiously doth he proceed? his tenent to be proved, is, that all men without exception are obliged by a positive Law to re­pent and believe; and he proves it by this text, the sense whereof is this: [That the obligation to repent in former times was but faint and obscure, and without authority, in comparison to that obligation which God layeth upon the world to an express command under the time of the Gospel.] As if there were such a difference betwixt an express com­mand, and a positive command; and now it seems, all men without exception, and all ages were obliged to repent by a positive Law- [Page] and proved by this text, that sheweth that the express command to repent is given but now in the times of the Gospel, and is not this handsomly proved? it seems that positive Law that breeds in all men to repent, is not an express command.

4 How injuriously doth he proceed? injuriously to God himself, for he is to prove a positive Law of God by which man are bound to repent, and doth it by a Scripture, that sheweth no command or ob­ligation, but what is weak and faint and obscure, and without autho­rity in comparison of that command in the Gospel, as if that Law that is positively given by God, should in its obligation be but weak, and faint, and obscure, and without authority, in comparison of that which is but positive; let him produce such commands positive that are so weak, obscure, and without authority; are not all the commands positive of God of equal Authority?

5 How slenderly is he backed with proof? he saith the obligation to repent in former times was but weak, and faint, and obscure. I be­lieve it, so obscure as that he cannot produce one Scripture to prove it, I shall be glad to see one Scripture, which cleerby evinceth any obligation at all, as lying on the Heathen that never had more then the light of nature,

6 For his Scriptures which he produceth to fortifie his tempera­ture of this Antithesis in the text, they are all of them impertinent, because they have not any of them such direct & full terms of an An­tithesis in them, no not that text, Luk. 24.44. which he alone produceth under the notion of an Antithesis. For Christ doth not at all oppose his being present with them before, & that after his Resurrection, nor speaks he any thing at all in that Verse of his being then present, but barely telleth them that when he was with them, he told them that all things must be fulfilled, which were said by Moses & the Prophets.

7 Whereas he saith, that his is the genuine sense of the text from the condition of the world and all mankinde, under the times of ig­norance, and before the dayes of the Gospel, which was this, that the world was generally under the comand to repent; he here doth but beg the question, and repeat what he had asserted before, and so proves nothing; for I say on the other hand, it is most clear they were not under any command to repent, but he proves by several expressions, which seem to carry the face of Arguments.

1 [Then their impenitency and obduracy in ways contrary to the Law of God and Nature had been no sin in them, nor obligatory to punishment.] But doth he think this any way coercive? I say, that their sin commeth not under the notion of impenitency; again, that such as have only the light of nature cannot be said to have any po­sitive Law of God. Thirdly, I also say, that the sins of the Heathen (though they have no command to repent) are yet sins against the law of nature, and they are a law to themselves, and shall be judg'd by that law of nature, and so without any positive law, as the Apo­stle saith, which helpeth us to understand the Apostle in that text, Rom. 4.15. The law worketh wrath; if we will take it thus generally, Every law worketh wrath proportionable to it self, the law of nature [Page 119] worketh wrath proportionable to it; the law of God positive, to it; the law of the Gospel, to it; not that by every law men shall incur wrath for non-repentance, except Mr. Goodwin can prove that all men without exception are condemned for not repenting (as a transgres­sion of a command) which proof I demand: therefore that doth not affright me; for it is easily answered, although they be not under a command to repent, yet they are not therefore left lawless, and may commit and do what they list, without any guilt or punishment; this is fondly alledged, for the solution is easie, they have a law of nature, and are a law to themselves, and so having a law they may sin, and their consciences shall condemn them, yea, and God shall condemn them also, these I know Mr. Goodwin could not but consider; therefore how he could think of mens being lawless, or Gods not ta­king account of the Heathen for sinning, although we do grant and prove it too, that the Heathen are under no obligation to repent, for that law may conclude us under sin, that cannot command us repent­ance for sinning, the one is a priviledge of the law, the other of the Gospel, which makes way for his second Reason, which is this:

2 Because to all, even in the times before the Gospel, he gave so much means, that they might seek the Lord and finde him, Acts 17.26, 27. Therefore all men are under a command to repent. But this is far from binding; for we seek the Lord. 1 In obe­dience, 2 In repentance for not obeying. Adam in his integrity was bound to seek God, but not to repent; now that God doth so much for the Heathen that they might seek him in a way of obedience, and so far as to serve and worship him as the true God, I grant; but that God intendeth, that by that which God doth for every man, they should seek him in a way of repentance, I put him to prove.

Thus have I followed him step by step, and if I have run into un­pleasing and extravagant notions, I have this fair excuse, that I was necessarily led thereinto, and I have considered and examined every parcel of his Treatise: and to close up all, this is the result of all, All men are not bound by any Law Positive, or of nature to repent and believe: neither are all the Heathen in a capacity of believing, much less in a mediate sufficiency, but much less in an immediate sufficiency of belie­ving in Christ, and so by consequence the whole and adequate subject of this his Treatise rendred dissonant both to Scripture and Reason.

And before I close up this my work, and make my due and legiti­mate claim, I cannot but let him and his Church know, that I take no­tice (as all the world may) of their Improvident boldness in that Book entituled [...], or (The Agreement and distance of Brethren) wherein they undertake to excude and thrust into the world their indigested thoughts upon the five controverted Articles. In the third Article, they pretend they cannot agree with their brethren in the confinement of the grace of God in the intendments of salvation to the small number of Gods elect, because they judge the Scripture clear in this, that God gives to all men sufficient means whereby to be saved; thus they say, Pag. 34. of that Treatise; it will be somthing digressive and irrelative to my present task to engage with them in [Page 120] that confinement of divine grace, and so to state it truly how we would have that grace to extend; the task I have in hand is only to answer Mr. Goodwin, who would extend that grace as far as nature, or else make the grace of God to be no grace, and so I am fairly led to look upon their first Argument that moveth them to dissent, which they express to be this, That God gives all a sufficiency of means whereby to be saved; a position which few before them have asserted and proved, yea, the best of their side have and do expresly deny it; but Mr. Goodwin and his Church think they have Scriptures clear for it. And what Scriptures, I pray? we read them from their pens, 1 Tim. 2.4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of his truth, 2 Pet. 3.9. Not willing any should perish, but should come to repentance. But,

1 Are these Scriptures produced to prove an actuall bestowing of sufficient means for salvation? and why not of actuall salvation too for they run in equipage, and he willeth that all men be saved as well as that they should come to the knowledge of the truth. So that by these texts they may as well prove that God actually saves all men.

2 Have neither the Pastour nor people of that Church, this in consideration, that these texts are expounded by the best of their own side, of the antecedent will of God, which in respect of mens malice and wickedness doth not always come to pass? and they will grant that God by his Antecedent will intendeth to give sufficient means; but because they use not nature well, or God fore-seeth them incorrigible, or their fore-fathers have refused the Gospel, therefore God doth not reveal Christ.

3 These texts favour not Mr. Goodwins one whit; if they think that God gives sufficient means to be saved, to those that never had the letter of the Gospel; for these texts presupposeth the letter of the Gospel, so runneth the text, (And come to the knowledge of the truth;) No sufficiency to be saved until they have the knowledge of the truth; and as not by these Scriptures, so neither by any other or any colour of reason do they prove that daring assertion (viz.) That God gives to all men sufficient means whereby to be saved.

And thus to conclude with his own expression, I have in the midst of many pressing occasions in my Pastoral Charge, impartially en­devoured to ventilate the truth; whether any thing I have said will turn to so happy an account as satisfaction, I cannot prophesie. How­ever, until (in case he receive not) he give satisfaction to the premi­ses, I must put in a Caveat against his Claim, which he makes, Pag. 61. and I shall make a legitimate Claim so far, as that he sur­render up the cause, until he prove that all men are bound to be­lieve in Christ; for till that be proved, or at least that Christ hath made some proportionable discoveries of that purchase made, that so men may be enabled to believe, and so have that purchase applyed; I shall conclude that Christ did not lay down the price of his own blood to purchase life and salvation for all men without exception.

Soli DEO Gloria.