The Pagan Preacher Silenced, Text (1 of 4)

The Pagan Preacher Silenced · Text (1 of 4)

p. 1THE PAGAN PREACHER SILENCED.

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.Eph 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 p. 2all 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,

aaAct. 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. [bbFides 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] p. 3and 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 foreign 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 p. 4believe in Chriſt; Act. Synod. Art 20. p. 337Ergo, 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, aaOmnes 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,bbOmnes 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,ccCommuni 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,ddIſto 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 p. 5grace 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, eeCommuni 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 327Thus 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,ffEſto, 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, ggPropoſit…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 180Acts 17:30Rom 10:18That 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, aaQuod 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. 180As 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, p. 6and 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; bbPrimam cauſam cur Deus non omnibus et ſingulis hominibus Chriſtum revelat hanc eſſe, quòd parentes illorum verbum Evangelii repu…iavere. Antiper…. 258The 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, ccQuia ſu…s peccatis ſe iſtâ gratiâ i…dignos ſecerunt, in Molin. cap. 28 Sect. 8Becauſe they have made themſelves unworthy of that grace by their ſins. But the Remonſtrants in their Antidotum, refer it to Gods praſcience, thus, ddDeus non curat iſtud annunciari ii quos praef…actos et contumaces ſutu…os vi…et Antidot 79God 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, eeCulpa 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, ffCauſa eſt, quòd parentes corum Evangel um repudiavere, Antiperk. 258The 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, ggEos 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 7Thoſe 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, aaNon 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. 28We 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 p. 7doth, 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, bbFieri etiam poſſe ut extra ordinem, alio aliquo modo utatur ad ſuae voluntatis manifeſtationem Col. Hag 181It 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 p. 8though 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. p. 9Goodwins 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. 1.82 Thess 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 p. 10controverſie is, whether thoſe heathen who have onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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,

If God command all men to repent, hee commands all to believe in Chriſt.

But he commandeth all men to repent, Acts 17.30.

Argum. Ergo, He commands all men to believe.

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 p. 11imprinted 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, onelyonly 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.

p. 123. 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, aaHoc eſt foreign 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, bbStatuimus è contra, audire verhum, doleri pro peccato commiſſo, gratiam ſalutarem pettere, ſūt neceſſaria ad fidem et regenerationem obtinendam. act. Syn. pag. 1We 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, ccPoenitentia eſt dolor pro peccatis agnitis, pro debito mortis & ſervitutis inde contracto, cū deſiderio liberationis. Armin. d…ſp. priv. Theſ. 43Act. 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly, but Mr. Goodwin himſelfe doth not onelyonly aſſert, but prove too, that the Jewes of old believed on God onelyonly, not explicitely on Jeſus Chriſt, interpretatively onelyonly; thus …e, pag. 37, 38. and he proves it alſo from John 14.1. ye believe p. 13in 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, ddNullâ ratione probari poſſit, Achab…m Hypocriticè reſipuiſſe, ſed ex animo, quia Deus magno munere remuneravit cum. Act. Synod. art. 3. p. 1…5No 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,eeOmnium 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 onelyonly 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 p. 14he 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 onelyonly 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 (foreign) and (praedicare) a dialect which the Holy Ghoſt commonly neglecteth.

p. 15I 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 onelyonly, 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 p. 16are ſaid to preach. For as the word foreign which ſignifieth (enerravit,) and is properly attributed to animate, and rational creatures, as Pſal. 2. foreign I will declare the decree of God; Pſal. 2.Ps 2yet I find that it is alſo extended to the heavens. foreign the heavens declare the glory of God So I grant that the word foreign which ſignifieth to Cry, from whence cometh the word foreign, and foreign 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.Hos 2 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. 10.18Rom 10:18 there is no voice nor language where their voice is not heard: he reads it thus;bbNon eſt vox nec eſt ſermo, ſine his tamen intelligitur vox corū, Iun. in Pſal. 19.4Ps 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; ccProſopopeia emollit ſuperiorē, et nobis docet ejus intelligentiā; non loquuntur quidem ut homines, ſed velut loquentes à nobis intelliguntur, ibidhe 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 foreign, and praedicare. I ſay again, that the word foreign being uſed at large, may formatively be applyed to inanimate creatures; but when it is ſtrictly taken, for foreign, 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, 6Heb 4:2Heb 4:6 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 p. 17and 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 onelyonly 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. 4.2Heb 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 p. 18goſpel, are onelyonly 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. 11.1Isa 9:6Isa 9:7Zech 6:12Isa 11:1Branch. 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. 3.17Gen 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. 18.15Gal 3:16Deut 18:15And 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, 9Rev 5:5Gen 49:8Gen 49:9And 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. 49.10Gen 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? p. 19Whether we deduce the word from Shalah, paciferum eſſe, foreignto be peaceble, or (peace maker,) it is his name as well as that of Iſai, foreignthe 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, 5Heb 1:4Heb 1:5 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. 24.27Rev 22:16Num 24:27and was not this preach't to the Jews by Balaam prophetically? Num. 24 27. And if theſe ſerve not, I further ſay, that not onelyonly 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, foreignwhich 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,foreign. whence comes Meſſias, ſignifies to annoint, as well as the word foreign 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. 7.14John 1:41Matt 1:23Isa 7:14and 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 p. 20Rock. 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.1 Cor 10:11 Cor 10:21 Cor 10:31 Cor 10:43. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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, p. 21that 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 foreign, 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 p. 22is 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly: 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. 1.20Rom 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 p. 23we 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, 7Exod 33:19Exod 33:34Exod 33:6Exod 33:7 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. 1.17Rom 1:17And 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. 3.26Rom 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. 2.2Heb 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 p. 24to 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.Rom 2:152. 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, 5Rom 1:2Rom 1:3Rom 1:4Rom 1:5 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 p. 25knowne by the meer light of nature and common providences. Againe certainely, then the words of the Apoſtle want weight, when he ſaith,Rom. 3.19Rom 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

If the patience of God afforded to obſtinate ſinners doth not infer that he hath received an attonement for their obſtinacy, then the patience of God extended to heathens cannot infer that God hath received an attonement for their ſins.

But the patienc of God extended to obſtinate ſinners doth not rationally infer that he hath received an attonement for that their obſtinacy.

p. 26Ergo the patience of God afforded to the heathen doth not infer an attonement.

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.Rom 9:22 The minor I prove by Rom. 9.22. where the Apoſtle ſaith,aaVaſa 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 onelyonly take it as our adverſaries would, and improve their gloſs to my intended purpoſe;bbVaſa 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 onelyonly 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 p. 27ſave 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;aaPro 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

Arg. 1 That which the light of nature could not diſcover to Adam after his fall, cannot be diſcovered by the light of nature to the heathen.

But the duty of repentance, the light of nature could not diſcover to Adam after his fall.

p. 28Therefore the light of nature cannot diſcover it to the heathen.

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 onelyonly 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. 10.18Rom 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 p. 29this 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, onelyonly 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 p. 30Cornel. 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 onelyonly, 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,bbLaus 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,aaEſt 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.