The Pagan Preacher Silenced, Text (4 of 4)

The Pagan Preacher Silenced · Text (4 of 4)

p. 90Firſt, what is meant by talents, the true examen of this will help us to decide all the reſt, and I ſhall proceed upon this ground, if theſe words make any thing for their invented or ſtanding providence, they muſt either by talents underſtand natural gifts, or elſe at leaſt take them in: but becauſe I am to deal with Mr. Goodwin, I ſhall conſider his own words in this caſe: [There is no ground nor colour of reaſon to think but that all the talents mentioned in the parable, the five, the two, and the one, were all of one kinde and nature, and ſignified not any ſupernatural or ſaving grace, but only natural abilities, and ſuch as men unregenerate as well as regenerate are capable of.] But then,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Their talents that were given were foreign, his own goods, that is, the proper goods of their Maſter, which he had in diſpoſe to diſtribute to his ſervants, and that as Mediator; but where ſhall we finde that he received naturall abilities to beſtow upon his Church; or that he is ſaid to give ſuch as mediatour? True, he is that light that enlightens every man; to wave all other commodious interpretations that are given, how will Maſter Goodwin prove that thoſe are ſpoken of Chriſt, as Mediatour, but rather as Creatour?John 1.9, 10.John 1:9John 1:10 the text ſaith not, he is the true light, but he was the true light, yea alſo, he was in the world; and the world was made by him. He was that enlightening light when he was in the world, creating the world, and ſo endewing them with the light of reaſon, and this way hath much countenance from Interpreters, When Chriſt aſcended on high,Epheſ. 4.9, 10, 11, 12.Eph 4:9Eph 4:10Eph 4:11Eph 4:12 he diſtributed thoſe gifts that he had received? but what were they? ſhall we ſo far miſtake as to judge them natural abilities? the text will explode ſuch a ſenſe, becauſe they are not pertinent for the perfecting of the p. 96Saints, the work of the Ministery, the edifying of the body of Chriſt; the Apoſtle ſaith,Epheſ. 1.3. John 1.16.Eph 13 John 1:16 That in him we are bleſt with all ſpiritual bleſſings, and that of him we receive grace for grace: but where ſhall we finde that his Church receiveth from him the abilities of nature, and that from him as Mediatour? Now he muſt prove this before it can be clear that theſe talents ſignifie naturall abilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If no man doth actually improve naturals regularly, then all men have not ſufficiency of means for believing on Chriſt.

But the former is true: Therefore the latter. The Minor is proved by Rom. 3.Rom. 3.Rom 3

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

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

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

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

[God diſcovered his gracious counſels in Jeſus Chriſt, under types & ſhadows to the Jews, not that it was any part of his minde that theſe diſcoveries, or the great bleſſings thereby accruing unto men, ſhould be confined to this people; but that all the world and all Nations round about them, might (if they pleaſed) have part in that fellowſhip, as many had who became Proſelytes.] Now if he could but half as eaſily prove as aſſert, he would drive on an unexpected work. If it was Gods minde, that the Gentiles ſhould have part in that fellowſhip; what meaneth that of the Pſalmiſt, (He gave his Word to Jacob, but with every Nation he hath not ſo dealt?)Pſal. 147.20.Ps 147:20 Was it no part of Gods minde, that thoſe diſcoveries and benefits thereby ſhould be confined to the Jews for a time? Why did Chriſt ſay ſo long after, that he was not ſent but to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael? Matth. 10.5.Matt 10:5and accounted all others as Dogs and Swine, and ſtrangers? Why did he forbid his Diſciples to go into the way of the Gentiles? If it was the minde of God that the Gentiles ſhould always partake of that fellowſhip with the Jews, how came Mr. Goodwin to know it? the fellowſhip of the Gentiles in the myſtery of the Goſpel, was hid from all ages paſt, and but of late made manifeſt. The holy Apoſtles were not ſo well nurtured and ſchooled in the fellowſhip of the Gentiles, Epheſ. 3.7, 8, 9.Eph 3:7Eph 3:8Eph 3:9as Mr. Goodwin, they wondred that the Goſpel ſhould be preached, and repentance to life ſhould be granted to the Gentiles: Acts 10.45.11 r 18.Acts 10:45Acts 10:11but what need they wonder, if they had known as diſtinctly as Mr. Goodwin, that it was no part of Gods minde that the Oracles of God, and benefits accruing to men thereby, ſhould be confined to the Jews? Epheſ. 2.14, 16, 17.Eph 2:14Eph 2:16Eph 2:17What was that wall of partition ſet up betwixt them? Epheſ. 2.14. which Chriſt took away, and ſo came and preached peace to them afarre off. The Gentiles were aliens and ſtrangers to the promiſes, Epheſ. 2.12.Eph 2:12without Christ and hope; Let Mr. Goodwin ſo arbitrate the buſineſs betwixt his aſſertion, and theſe particulars, that if he can, he may reconcile them; if it was no part of Gods minde that the Oracles of God ſhould be p. 102confined to the Jews for a time, why doth the Apoſtle ſay, (The fellowſhip of the Gentiles was bid in God, from the beginning of the world,) and but now made manifeſt; if it was no part of Gods mind, but that the Gentiles ſhould have part in that fellowſhip? How comes it to paſs, that this was not of ſo long diſcovered to the Gentiles; conſidering that God can raiſe up Saul amongſt the Prophets, and Saul amongſt the Apoſtles to perform his own work,Epheſ. 3.9, 10.Eph 3:9Eph 3:10 and he it is that ſendeth faithful labourers into his harveſt? How could Mr. Goodwin pitch his thoughts on ſuch an Anomalous aſſertion as this, as if he did purpoſely endeavour to levell and deſtroy the whole method of the ſacred Scripture at once? But he ſeemeth to pretend a piece of Reaſon, and that from the law of the Proſelytes. How narrowly hath he conſulted with the Remonſtrants in this caſe? For thus we finde them reaſoning: [**Neque unquam Gentiles à communione Iſraelis abſolutè excluſiſſe, ſicut patet ex legibus latis à Deo in cauſâ Proſelytarum. Hag. Collat. 180. The Gentiles were never excluded from the communion of Iſrael abſolutely, as appeareth by thoſe laws that are given by God concerning Proſelytes.] But I conceive, that in this caſe, their reaſon fails them much; for what needed men become Proſelytes to the Jews, if that as Gentiles they were to have a fellowſhip in the Goſpel, and that by the appointment of God? and that the Jews were betruſted with the Oracles of God, that they might communicate them to the Gentiles, the Gentiles might challenge them as their due without becomming Proſelytes to the Jews; and the argument is valid againſt them: For if they were not to have any fellowſhip with the Jews in the things of God, until they became Proſelytes to the Jews, then it roundly followeth that they were not to have any part in that fellowſhip as Gentiles; for in having it as Proſelytes that had it not as Gentiles, but as Jews.

He further ſaith alſo, that [the Moſaical and Ceremonial rites were of God delivered to the Jews by Moſes, for the training and nurturing up of the world in the knowledge of God, and the things of their eternall peace.] Which ſeemeth ſtrange to me, that the Lord ſhould intend the training up of the Gentiles by thoſe Moſaicall rites, when he never intended the Gentiles, ſhould be brought under that yoke of Judaiſme. How can he prove that God intended that the world ſhould be trained up in the knowledge of God,Deut. 14.21.Deut 14:21 when the Nations and Gentiles were not to obſerve thoſe rites, as God ſaith of thoſe unclean meats forbidden to the Jews, yet they might give it to ſtrangers, and ſell it unto aliens, and they might eat of them; and in many places we might ſhew that the Gentiles were not tied to obſerve thoſe rites, and ſo could not by them to be nurtured up in the knowledge of God.

But he ſeemeth to be carried on with vigour in this, meerely by the impulſe of one Scripture wherein Moſaicall rites are called foreign,Col. 2.20. Gal. 4.3, 10.Col 2:20Gal 4:3Gal 4:10 the elements of the world; and hence he inferres they were appointed for the training up of the world; but if he would peruſe Expoſitors, he may eaſily reduce himſelf out of p. 103this ſnare, and that many wayes: but I am led to interpret this text thus, it is a frequent Hebraiſme to put the abſtract for the concrete, as children of diſobedience for diſobedient children; houſe of rebellion, for rebellious houſe, the examples are many: So here, elements of the world, for worldly elements; neither do I this alone, but by the ducture of the Scriptures, the Sanctury and the Ordinances of Divine ſervice ſpoken of by the Apoſtle, Heb. 9.1.Heb. 9.1.Heb 9:1 are ſome of thoſe elements of the world, which the Apoſtle calleth in one place the elements of the world, but he calls the tabernacle, (A worldly Sanctuary,) the Sanctuary was as much an element of the world as any of thoſe Moſaical obſervances, but the Apoſtle calleth it (A worldly Sanctuary) foreign, as if it were explicative of the former. Some indeed who amongſt Interpreters go by themſelves, but in judgement take Mr. Goodwin along with them, they give this reaſon why this is call'd a (wordly Sanctuary,) becauſe it was open to all the world both Jewes and Gentiles, bringing it up to the height of Mr. Goodwins thoughts; but Cornel. à Lapide thus anſwereth,Hoc non videtur verum, quia Gentes ut prophanae a…cebantur ab atrio Judaeorum, ſed genuinè per Sanctuarium mundanum intelligitur temporaneum, caducum, terrenum, & evanidum. Cornel. à Lapide in Heb. 9.1. Gal. 4.3, 4, 5. Col. 2.20, 21.Heb 9:1Gal 4:3Gal 4:4Gal 4:5Col 2:20Col 2:21 [This ſeemeth not true becauſe the Gentiles as prophane were driven from the temple of the Jews, but more genuinely by this worldly Sanctuary is underſtood an earthly, fading, temporary, vaniſhing Sanctuary;] therefore called wordly, becauſe it was vaniſhing, and not to continue, like the world: and this receives ſome life from the context; The laſt verſe of the 8th Chap. to the Hebrewes, the Apoſtle had ſaid, That which is old, is vaniſhed away; and immediately followes this expreſſion of a (worldly Sanctuary) as an inſtance of that which vaniſheth away; and is there not this or ſuch like reference in all thoſe places where we find mentioned the (elements of the world,) as in Gal. 4.3.4.5. where he ſaith, As a ſon in his minority is under Tutours, till the time appointed of the father: ſo we, ſaith he, whileſt children, were under the elements of the world, till the fulneſs of time, and therefore reproves them for thinking to turne againe to thoſe beggerly elements, where it may well receive this ſenſe (elements of the world) that is, vaniſhing like the world, and to continue but till the fulneſſe of time, therefore not now to be kept on foot: as alſo in Col. 2.20, 21. the Apoſtle blames them for being ſubject to the elements of the world and ordinances that are to periſh with the uſing; which baſe, earthly, and vaniſhing nature contracts the titles of weak and beggarly elements, Galath. 4.3.4. and carnall ordinances, Heb. 9.10.Heb. 9.10, 11.Heb 9:10Heb 9:11 as they were oppoſed to & compared with the more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, Heb. 9.11. and that which is more exellent, ſpiritual and abiding. And thus there is ſome pregnancy in the Apoſtle… argument. The Coloſſians and others were blame-worthy to keepe thoſe elements of the world, ſeeing they were to continue but till the time of reformetion; Chriſt was the body; they but the ſhadow; they were to vaniſh, and were but weak and beggarly and carnall, therefore they p. 104ſhould not ſtay and reſt in them, being imperfect like the world, and neglect Chriſt, in whom they might be compleat; but, as Mr. Goodwin gloſſes upon the words, where is the pertinency of the Apoſtles argument? it is no motive to them to relinquiſh thoſe beggarly rudiments, if by (elements of the world) he mean ſuch as were given to the world, to train the Heathen up in the knowledge of God; for they might ſay, Doſt thou, Paul, reprove us Gentiles for adhering to theſe rudiments? are they not our own? and given to us to nurture us up in the knowledge of God; and therefore called the (elements of the world?) this would rather move them to adhere to them then relinquiſh them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If men cannot here believe without hearing, nor heare without preaching, nor preach without ſending, then men cannot believe without a further diſcovery of the Goſpel, then what the light of Nature affordeth:

But the former is true, Rom. 10.14.Rom. 10.14,Rom 10:14 I chuſe this argument founded upon this text, becauſe Mr. Goodwin ſeeks to temper and take off the edge of this text. Now I hope he will not ſay, that this hearing and preaching is by the heavens; for then the heavens muſt be ſent by God to preach in order to faith, but how will he prove that▪ but thus he anſwereth to this text and Argument,Pag. 32. in the 32 Page of this Treatiſe: [The meaning of theſe Interrogatories is not as if no man could poſſibly believe the Goſpel, but he that heard it perſonally preached by a Miniſter, but implyeth theſe three things. 1 That man having corrupted himſelf, was in no probability to believe on God by Jeſus Chriſt, without the advantage of ſome report of the Goſpel made in one kinde or other. 2 That there was no likelihood to hear of God or of Chriſt in the Gospel, had there not been ſome one or more to have preached the Goſpel in the world. 3 It was not likely that any man or men ſhould or would have preacht the Goſpel, had they not been ſent and received inſtructions concerning the publiſhing of it.] In which anſwers,

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

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

That all men are bound to believe on Jeſus Chriſt by the Poſitive law of God, and this he doth in Page the 44th. and he gives two Scriptures to prove it,Pag. 44. Pſal. 2.12. 1 Joh. 3.23.Ps 2:121 John 3:23 Pſal. 2.12. (Kiſs the Son. Be wiſe, O ye Judges of the earth. And, 1 Joh. 3.23. This is the commandement that we believe on his Son Jeſus Chriſt.) From theſe Scriptures he would prove that all men without exception are bound to believe on Jeſus Chriſt by the Poſitive law of God; but to this I anſwer,

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

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

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

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

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

1 By the face of his expreſſions I find that he ſuppoſeth it irrational, that this or any command ſhould be given or aſſerted to any that do already believe; but many expreſſes of Scripure will reſcue ſuch a practice from al the charges of impropriety, had he not ſo much time or leaſure to look upon the foregoing verſe, where he ſaith, We receive what we ask, becauſe we keep his commandement, 1 John 3.22, 231 John 3:221 John 3:23and this is the commandement that we believe in his Son,] and yet in his divinity it muſt not be we Saints, or we that have the Goſpel, but we men, as if it might be ſaid of all men, that (we keep the commandement;) in 1 John 2.12, 13, 14, 15. the Apoſtle ſaith, I write, to you fathers, young men, 2.12, 13, 14, 15.children, becauſe ye have known him from the beginning, and are ſtrong, & the Word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one; Love not the world, neither the things that are of the world, muſt we reaſon thus? he writes not to thoſe that love not the world already, for otherwiſe, they obſerving that piece of Chriſtian practice before this writing to them, did ſupererrogate; and if this inſtance pleaſe him not, let us ſee a little further. 1 John 5.13. (I have written to you that believe on the Name of the Son of God, 1 John 5.13.1 John 5:13that ye may believe on the Name of the Son of God.) But will Mr. Goodwin ſay, that in believing on Chriſt, before the Apoſtle wrote, this they did ſupererogate? therefore he muſt know that this mentioned, 1 John 3.23. is no new command, but a repetition of a command before given, and it is evident from the text: this is the commandement that we believe in him, & love one another, as he gave us commandement,) and this command may be on ſeveral occaſions revived to believers for many ends, as to let them ſee and know their obedience in believing, as alſo to ſtir them up to continue in believing, and many other things of precious concernment, the conſideration of which frights away that bugbear of ſupererogation, and encourageth me to ſay, that this text is ſpoken to, and of thoſe that had the letter of the Goſpel, and did p. 114actually believe, and ſo by conſequence, this text doth not furniſh us with any poſitive law, whereby all men without exception, are bound to believe on Chriſt,

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

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

2 But to ſuppoſe that men ſhould not be bound by any Law, and yet come to have the letter of the Goſpel, it might fall out that they p. 115ſhould neither have a new Command, nor yet remain diſobliged; I hope, he knoweth well to diſtinguiſh betwixt a new Command and a new Impoſition; for in thoſe expreſſes of his, [Or elſe there is ſome Commandement impoſed by God;] that word (new,) he may refer either to (Commandement) or (Impoſition;) now the Commandement may be old, and yet the Impoſition new, ſo it may be new to the perſons to whom it is at preſent impoſed; hence the Apoſtle calleth,1 John 2.7, 8.1 John 2:71 John 2:8 that command of love, an old command, and yet a new command. The comand in ſubſtance was old, but the impoſition upon them was new.

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

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

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

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

A third Scripture, by which he attempteth to prove that all men are bound to believe on Chriſt by a Poſitive Law,Acts 17.30.Acts 17:30 is out of Acts 17.30. (Now he commandeth all men every where to repent.) but,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soli DEO Gloria.

End of the text · Obadiah Howe, The Pagan Preacher Silenced (1655)