THE PAGAN PREACHER SILENCED.
WHEN I firſt caſt mine eyes upon this Treatiſe, and the Title of it, which preſenteth us with the Pagans debt and dowry. I wondred that the match ſhould be ſo ſoone ſtruck up betwixt Chriſt and his Pagan Spouſe; eſpecially conſidering, that he had entailed his conjugal affection to his Church which he loveth, and preſenteth as his only glorious Bride unto his Father. And I ſhould ſtil have continued wondering, but that I found under it the Name of Mr. John Goodwin, whom I perceive to be a man wel underlayed with a ſtock of boldneſſe, urged on with the ſtreſs of Judgement, led on by the hand of leiſure proportionable to ſuch attempts as theſe; (viz.) to eſtate dowries upon aliens, entitle to the moſt intimate mercies of Chriſt, thoſe whom the Scripture beſpeaketh to be without him, to faſten ſaving grace upon, and to reduce them, in ſeriem ſalvandorum, whom the Scripture ſaith,Epheſ. 2.12. are without hope; And upon this account, I could wel have paſſed by it: But the moment of the queſtion being ſuch, and ſo neerly concerned in that Controverſie, in which I have already publikely engaged, I was provoked to a more narrow and ſerious examination of thoſe things which he no leſſe confidently, then ſingularly thruſts upon his over credulous reader.
In the purſuance of which, the occaſion and matter of this Treatiſe, are chiefly enquirable.
I need not inſiſt upon the manner of his writings, which in this as in2 all others, is with ſo much groundleſſe confidence, tart ſcurrility, ſmooth expreſſions, yet ſwelling words, which may make us collect, that doctrines of divels never want Angels voices, which ſerve as garniſhed ſepulchres, to cover rotten bones, and as ſo much grain to allure the ſimple bird into the ſnare; but the Lord wil diſcover the Prophet who is the ſnare of the fowler in all his wayes.
The occaſion of this Treatiſe, as many others of the like nature, I find ſuggeſted by himſelf to be in the purſuance of that now much ventilated Article of Univerſal Redemption. For in his 60 pag. I find this Enthymem,
All men without exception are bound to beleeve in Chriſt. Ergo, Chriſt died for all without exception.
In which Argument, the Major is to be ſupplyed to complete a ſyllogiſm, thus,
If all men be bound to beleeve in Chriſt, then Chriſt dyed for all. But all men are bound to believe in Chriſt: Ergo, Chriſt dyed for all.
Which Argument he would have the world believe to be his own, when not only in this ſhort Treatiſe, but in that Chaos, Redemption Redeemed, a large Treatiſe of his, if every bird ſhould take his own feather, he would be left like Aeſop's Crow; the Argument is both formed and confirmed to his hand by Corvin. in Molin. in the Acta Synodal. in the conference at the Hague; yet he may know, they never intended to take ſo high a flight,Chap. 29. §. 14.16. pag. 337 p. 133. Arg. 5. as to prove that all men without exception are either bound to believe, or have ſufficient means to believe in Jeſus Chriſt; but only thus farre, that all to whom the Goſpel cometh, viz. both Elect, and Reprobate; as appears both by the illuſtrations and various formations of the Argument, in this manner, when they propound the Argument thus,
aaAct. Synod. 337. Whoſoever are bound to believe in Jeſus Chriſt, for them Chriſt died.
But, all and every one, both Elect (as they call them) and Reprobate, are bound to believe. Ergo, Chriſt died for all and every man.
The Minor of which Syllogiſm, they illuſtrate and explain thus. [bbFides hac concipi non poteſt, niſi ſuppoſitâ prius objecti veritate in ſe, neque enim aut dei voluntate aut noſtrâ fide immutatur objectum, ſed proponitur et apprehenditur quale eſt in ſe.Act. Synod, 337. This faith cannot be conceived, unleſſe the truth of the object be firſt ſuppoſed; neither is this object changed, either by the wil of God, or our faith, but it is propounded and apprehended as it is in it ſelfe. Now the raciocination herein, is obvious and clear, viz. until there be (objectum) and (objectum propoſitum) an object propounded, there is no place for faith; for true it is, revealed things belong to us, both in [credendis] and [faciendis]. So that that phraſe in the Major (Qui in Jeſum credere tenentur,) is thus to be interpreted, (qui habent Chriſtum tanquam fidei objectum propoſitum;) Thoſe that are bound to beleeve, are no other then ſuch as have Chriſt propounded as the real exiſtent object of faith: and that they intend thus to interpret the phraſe, I am induced to think, becauſe this very Argument which runneth thus in their Act. Synod. in the Collation at the Hague runneth in an other expreſſion, thus, [Quos ad ſalutem partam vocat, pro iis Chriſtus mortuns.] And thus, [Quibus Deus pracipit u•credant, pro iis Chriſtus morium eſt]3 and is not hence concluſive, that they beſpeak none other bound to believe, then thoſe to whom he gives a command to believe, or elſe cals to the ſalvation purchaſed, which is all one with having the letter of the Goſpel: and further they reſt ſatisfied with that rule [Lex non lata nec intellecta, cum intelligi non poteſt, non obligat,] a law not given nor underſtood, when it can not be underſtood, bindeth not; yet I think they have carryed on the main〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of univerſal Redemption, with as tender an eye to its neereſt intereſt, as Mr. Goodwin can doe.
Beſides, it is evident that all the diſcourſes about univerſal grace are but a meere Countermine to that Argument which is formed by us againſt Univerſal Redemption: thus,
If Chriſt died for all, then he would certainly make ſuch diſcoveries of this purchaſe to all, that they may have this ſalvation purchaſed, applyed, and that without exception. But be doth not the latter, therefore not the former.
And here are all theſe intricate and winding diſputes about univerſal Grace hatched. Therefore the ſubject of this Treatiſe of Mr. Goodwins, is to prove that all the heathens have ſuch diſcoveries of Jeſus by the light of nature, without the letter of the Goſpel, as that they are bound to believe in Chriſt, and have means ſufficient thereunto. And indeed, ſo naturally conſequential is it, (according to our Argument) that if ſuch a purchaſe was ſo univerſally made, it would be as univerſally diſcovered, without which there is no ordinary way of having that purchaſed inheritance applyed; this Argument of ours is founded upon ſuch equitable principles, that the aſſertors of Univerſal Redemption, have all of them, ſome more lightly, others more ſollicitouſly beaten out an univerſal grace, ſufficient, and ſaving, afforded to all men without exception. And that ſuch diſcoveries however made, if wel improved, would bring a ſtock of more grace til they come to be ſaved. And this is the ſubject of Mr. Goodwins whole treatiſe, and he ſweats much in the ventilating thereof; which demonſtratively cleareth the evidence of our Conſequence or major propoſition, which runneth thus:
If Jeſus Chriſt died for every man without exception, then he makes to every man without exception ſuch diſcoveries of himſelf, that all men by them might come to believe in him.
But when they come to the aſſumptive part, and to make out this univerſal call, and general tender of grace; to cleere that ſuch diſcoveries are made to all men without exception, no men more divided in their ſentences, loſt in their own uncertainties (every man contradicting himſelf and one another, then theſe men) as ſhall appear in theſe following inſtances.
Firſt how uncertain and wavering are they in the formation of their aſſertion, how unſatisfied are they about the terms of it, to make it to appear to be univerſal?
The Remonſtrants in their Synodical writings, give the Argument thus,Whoever are bound to believe in Chriſt, for them Chriſt died.
But all and every man as wel the Elect as Reprobate, are bound to4 believe in Chriſt;Act. Synod. Art 20. p. 337 Ergo, he dyed for all and every man. Wherein the All contended for who are bound to believe, is only Elect and Reprobate; but theſe two notions do not take in or involve all and every perſon without exception, and this appears thus: Thoſe that are Elect, are conſidered as believers; and thoſe that are Reprobated, are conſidered as unbelievers; but there are many that are neither believers, nor yet unbelievers, as Surdi, Amentes, Infantes, Indi, deaf, madmen, infants, Indians; being ſuch as to whom God neither doth diſpenſe, nor is ready to diſpenſe his Divine grace; they come not under either of thoſe notions. And this is evident from their own method of arguing.
Act. Synod. Art 10. p. 6. But the Collocutors at Hague, propound it with an other face. Thoſe whom God commands to believe in Jeſus Chriſt, for them Chriſt dyed,Collat. Hag. p. 133. but God commands not only the Elect, but other men to believe in Chriſt, Ergo, Chriſt died not for the Elect, but for other men alſo.
Which is a farre different concluſion from the former. For the firſt way expreſſed both Elect and Reprobate,Corvin. in Mol. cap. 29. §. 14. 16. but this doth not; for if upon their owne principles, ſome, yea many, as deaſe, mad men, Indians, be neither believers nor unbelievers, and ſo neither Elect no Reprobate; then theſe two phraſes Elect and Other men, do not involve reprobates, and ſo he may die for Elect and Other men, yet not for all.
But Corvinus preſents us with it in an other different forme, thus; Whom God commands to believe in Chriſt, for them Chriſt is dead; But God commands all men to believe in Chriſt, and all are bound thereto, Ergo, Chriſt died for all.
Now if they cannot more diſtinctly determine then thus, about the expreſſion of the perſons on whom this univerſaltie and obligation to believe is laid; we have reaſon little enough to expect more poſitive and ſetled judgments in the reſt. The firſt urgeth, that Elect and Reprobate, the ſecond that Elect and other men, the third ſaith that All men are bound to believe: and where ſhould we fix our thoughts to oppoſe, if they be ſo unreſolved to aſſert? But to let this paſſe, and to examine whether they be leſſe uncertain in the next thing conſiderable, Arminius, when he undertaketh, Mr. Perkins, ſaith thus,aaOmnes homines aliquā vocatione vocantur, Arm. Antiperk 259. All men are called with ſome call. And there is nothing more intimate to all their writings, then this; that God calls to himſelf all men without exception, yet the Collocutors at the conference at the Hague, ſeem to be of an other mind, whiles they ſay thus,bbOmnes irregeniti non ſunt ejuſdem ordinis, quidam tanquam extra omnem vocationem poſiti, ambulantes in vanitate mentis, non intelligentes viam, veritatis: alii ſunt vocati &c. Collat. Hag. Art 3. p 288. Unregenerate men are not all in one order and place; ſome there are as being put without all manner of Cal, walking in the vanity of their mind, not at all underſtanding the way of truth; others are called, &c. And not only in this, whether all men be called or no, but alſo in the title or name whereby they ſhould cal, or denominate this cal, they are thus unreſolved.
When there was a ful Jury of them empannelled at the Synod of Dors, they gave this as their definitive ſentence at that time. Thus,ccCommuni vocatione omne; evocat ad ſe Deus Act. Synod. 327 All men are called to God by himſelf in that general Cal; but what muſt we cal this general Gal, whether nature alone, or grace alone, or grace and nature mixt? and this is requiſite to be known, becauſe they contend for an univerſal Grace. Arminius he ſaith it is natural light, thus,ddIſto loco, Habenti dabitur, Deus ſpondet ſe ſpirituali gratiâ illuminaturum eum qui naturali lumine bene utitur, aut ſaltem minus male Arm. A••po•k, 218 In that Text (To him that hath ſhal be given) God bindeth himſelf to give ſupernatural5 grace to him that ſhall uſe natural light wel, or at leaſt leſſe ill But the Remonſtrance in their Synodical writings, thinking this notion a little too ſhort to expreſſe, and denotate an univerſal Grace; they thus ſay,eeCommuni reca•ione vocat omnes, non quod ſecundum ſtius vocationis•enorem et generatio•is gratiae menſuram v•tam inſtituentes immediate ſerventur, ſed ut diſponentur•devangelicae praedicationis id•neo•reddantur an i ores in qua ſal••offenur Act Synodal 327 Thus by this general•al, be calleth all men to him; not that according to the tenour of this common cal, or meaſure of this more general Grace, they ſhould be immediately ſaved; but by this general grace they might be diſpoſed and made fit hearers of the Goſpel, in which Chriſt and ſalvation is offered. So that herein they relinquiſh the truth of this outward Cal, formerly given by Arminius, and upon better thoughts call it General Grace, and not The light of nature.
But Corvinus not ſatisfied in either alone, when he is preſſed by Molin his adverſary, with making grace and nature to be of equal extent and latitude, and ſo to run ere he is aware, too far into the tents of the Pelagians, he thus anſwers,ffEſto, modo enim naturam ite à gratia diſtingnamus, ut intelligamus gratiam naturae ſuperadditam, hoc ſ••ficit nos a Pelagio ſeperandos. Corvin in Mol cap 38 Section 8 Let it be ſo, ſo that we diſtinguiſh them ſo far, as to underſtand grace ſuperadded to nature; this is enough to ſeparate us from Pelagius. Some wil have this Cal to be the natural light impreſt in our minds naturally, others to be called general Grace, others Grace ſuperadded to nature.
Further, when they come to examine the Minor of our Argument, which is, That ſuch a diſcovery of Chriſt is not made to all men without exception; and ſo to ſtrengthen their own aſſertion, diametrally oppoſite to it, viz. that ſuch a diſcoverie is made, and therefore all bound to believe in Chriſt, what reverſt and intricate motions have, we to admiration?
Firſt the Collocutors of the Hague Confer. roundly ſay,ggPropoſit•oni iſti prou•à fratribus concepta eſt, non omnibus, ſcil, praedicari Sermonem reconciliatitionis manifeſtè in Scripturis contradictur ratione temporis novi Teſtamenti Acts 17.30 Romans 10 18 Collat. Hag pag 180 That Propoſition as it is produced by our brethren, viz. that the word of reconciliation is not preached to all, is contradicted by clear Scriptures; as Act. 17.30. He commands all men to repent. Rom. 10.18 Their ſound is gone throughout all the earth. This in reſpect of the new Teſtament, &c. So that there they roundly, and without any Haſitation pronounce the Goſpel, and the words of the Apoſtles to be diſpenſed to all men without exception. And what can they more deſire for the ſtrengthening of their cauſe? Here is teſtimony cleer enough if they durſt but ſtand to the award of theſ Scriptures, but fearing the iſſue, they begin to make ſome cautelous proviſoes againſt a ſtorme; for leſt we ſhould preſſe them with all the times before Chriſt, which contains three Periods of the world; the time of the Goſpel ſince Chriſt, is but one, and called The laſt dayes; and in theſe laſt dayes the experience that many live and die, and never hear of the Goſpel, as if they could not but contradict and involve themſelves with the ſame breath, they thus grant and ſay,aaQuod item ad populos quoſdam attinet qui pro•ſus ignorant illud verbum reconciliationis, reſpondemus, Deſi ab initio mundi &c. toti mundo ſermonem reconciliationis evoluiſſe & juſſiſſe à generationem propagati. R•g. Col. 180 As for thoſe many people, who are altogether ignorant of this word of Reconciliation, we anſwer, God from the beginning of the world, and in the poſterity of Noah, and by his Apoſtles, did wil and command that the Goſpel ſhould be preached from generation to generation wherein not daring to ſubſcribe to the award of thoſe quoted Scriptures, they retract from their full mo•th'd aſſertions, and now doe grant that there are many people that are altogether ignorant of the word of Reconciliation: Here let all the world judge of theſe unſtable diſputers, they prove that the Goſpel is preached to every individual, and thence conclude, that Chriſt dyed for every individuall,6 and yet many are altogether ignorant of that word of reconciliation; and now they ſalve it by that which is nothing at all to the purpoſe. And Arminius himſelf thus;bbPrimam cauſam cur Deus non omnibus et ſingulis hominibus Chriſtum revelat hanc eſſe, quòd parentes illorum verbum Evangelii repu•iavere. Antiper•. 258 The cauſe why Chriſt is not revealed to all and every man, is becauſe their forefathers have rejected the Goſpel; for thus I urge it, If he give the cauſe why Chriſt is not revealed to all, ſurely then they do give it us for granted that Chriſt is not revealed to all
Come we 'then to conſider the cauſe, and upon examen thereof we ſhal find, they are as much involved into uncertainties in this as in the thing it ſelf. Corvinus gives the cauſe to be in the men themſelves, thus,ccQuia ſu•s peccatis ſe iſtâ gratiâ i•dignos ſecerunt, in Molin. cap. 28 Sect. 8 Becauſe they have made themſelves unworthy of that grace by their ſins. But the Remonſtrants in their Antidotum, refer it to Gods praſcience, thus,ddDeus non curat iſtud annunciari ii quos praef•actos et contumaces ſutu•os vi•et Antidot 79 God doth not take care to reveal Chriſt to them, becauſe be foreſees them to be incorrigible and contumacious. The Collocutors at the Conference at Hague, give the cauſe to be in the preachers of the Goſpel, thus,eeCulpa tranſcribenda ſit partim ad negligentiam praedicantium qui operam ſuam ſatis fideliter non contu•ereune Col. Hag. 18• The fault is to be aſcr•bed partly to the negligence of the preachers of the Goſpel, who do not faithfully their duty. Arminius aſcribes the cauſe to their forefathers, thus,ffCauſa eſt, quòd parentes corum Evangel um repudiavere, Antiperk. 258 The cauſe why God revealeth not Chriſt to all and every man, is becauſe their forefathers have formerly rejected the Goſpel. And now they have removed their foot, they know not where to ſtay it, and ſeeing they have granted that the Goſpel is not preached to all, yet they wil not ſuffer the minor of cur argument to paſſe without correction: and ſometimes they ſay, Praedicari debet, it ought to be preached; ſometimes, Praedicare poteſt, it may be preached; ſometimes, In quantum in ſe eſt praedicare paratus eſt, God is ready in as much as in him lieth, to preach it; and this laſt they much uſe in all their works, and think they make all things look upon them with a propitious face; when they ſay, Deus aut facit, aut paratus eſt facere gratiam omnibus et ſingulis, God either doth or is ready to diſpenſe his Divine Grace; but they ſnatch the benefit of ſuch a lenitive out of their own mouths; for in their Synodical writings upon the Article of election, confining election to be'ievers as the object of it, and reprebation to unbeleevers as the object of it, they ſay,ggEos tantum intel•gi poſſe et cebere quibus gratia Dei aut facta eſt, aut paratus eſt facer•, ne nol is infantium, ſurd•rum, rabroſorum, Indorum aliorumque exempla quis alleget. Lex non lata nec intellecta, non obligat. J••15.22. Act. Synod pag 7 Thoſe are to be underſtood to whom God either hath, or was ready to diſpenſe Divine Grace, leſt any one alledg againſt us the example of Infants, deafe, mad men, Indians; for the law that is not given, and ſo not underſtood, doth not bind, John 15.22. Now from theſe words of theirs, it more then ſeems to appear, that they grant that deafe, mad men, Infants, Indians are ſuch as to whom God hath not, nor yet is ready to diſpenſe his grace: if this be not their meaning, Eorum verba ſale carent, their words want ſalt; if it be, their own tenent of univerſal grace is fallen, and indeed how miſerably is that Babel of theirs fallen? as it aroſe out of ſmoak, ſo it vaniſheth into it. But what muſt ſuch confident aſſertours, and ſuch a clear cauſe do in ſuch a Chaſme as this is? They have yet two ſhifts, the one is that of Corvin, with an ingenuous confeſſion, to acknowledge they are at a loſſe, thus,aaNon diſſimulavimusnos exactam iflius diſpenſationis rationem dare non poſſe, et cauſam à n•bis datam non eſſe preciſam et adequatam, ſed tantum ſufficientem, in Molin, cap. 28 We have not diſſembled that we could not give an exact reaſon of his diſpenſations in this kind, or that the cauſe alledged by us why the Goſpel is not preached to ſome, is an exact or adequate cauſe, but only a ſufficient. That is not the exact cauſe why he7 doth, but the ſufficient cauſe why he may deny the goſpel to ſome; and we accept of this confeſſion: but left this ſhould too much reflect upon their daring adventures, every where extant from their pens, the Gollocutors at the conferrence at Hague, as puzled naturaliſts reſolve their uncertainties into occult qualities, ſo do theſe, not knowing how to aſſert their general tender of grace, either by the Scripture or reaſon, thus at laſt ſay,bbFieri etiam poſſe ut extra ordinem, alio aliquo modo utatur ad ſuae voluntatis manifeſtationem Col. Hag 181 It may alſo be, that God may uſe ſome other extraordinary way to manifeſt his wil unto them. A very rational Epilogue, but no whit becoming ſuch men; to ſuppoſe, That he may, but no man knowes when; Uſe ſome means, but none knowes how. They do not conſider that hereby they do diveſt the preaching of the Goſpel of that title and dignity of being the ordinary means to ſalvation; for that is the ordinary means which is afforded to the generality of them that come to know the wil of God in Chriſt: But that which is afforded to them that heare not of the goſpel, is afforded to the generality and the moſt; therefore that extraordinary way, what ever it is, and not the Goſpel, muſt be accounted ordinary.
But it may be thought, that I have too long forſaken Mr. Goodwin. I wil therefore examine whether he be built upon a more plauſible foundation of reſolution then his anceſtors. Not to commit him and his forefathers together (as I might inſtance in innumerable inſtances where they run croſſe, and contradicting each other) the remonſtrants in all their writings, by all that (Call,) whether it be nature alone, or grace, or grace ſuperadded to nature; this is all that they contend for, that all are called to God, and that they are afforded ſome means to ariſe to the knowledg of God; not that they are enabled by any common grace to come to the knowledg of, and faith in Chriſt; but that by ſuch knowledg of God, they might be ſucceſſively diſpoſed to heare the Goſpel wherein Chriſt is tendred. But to let this paſſe, and all of the like nature, I ſhal examine how conſiſtent he is with himſelf.
In the frontiſpiece of his treatiſe, he promiſeth to prove that thoſe that never heard of the letter of the Goſpel, are yet bound to believe in Jeſus Chriſt; but how many words doth he produce, until he proceede to the 29 page of his Book, that tended to that purpoſe? How unreſolved is Mr. Goodwin, what to prove or what to aſſert?
Doth not Mr. Goodwin in the firſt part of his Treatiſe, contend for an immediate ſufficiency in the Heathen to believe in Chriſt, and to draw out the moſt intimate concluſions of the Goſpel, and that by the light of nature, by the works of providence, and by raine, and fruitful ſeaſons, that there is ſuch a light darted from theſe that men have a ſufficiencie of believing? But here Mr. Goodwin wavereth; Sometimes it is to-believe in Chriſt, as in the frontiſpiece of his book, wherein he undertakes to prove, that men that never heard of the letter of the Goſpel, are yet bound to believe in Chriſt, as alſo pag. 9.
Sometimes it is to believe only this, as he ſaith, pag. 10. That there hath been ſome mediation or ſome attonement or other made and accepted by God for the ſins of men. And this is much different from the former; for8 though God uſeth this way of attonement by Chriſt, yet he was not tyed by any natural neceſſity to it; ſo that though the light of nature might diſcover an attonement yet it wil not hence follow, that by it men may believe on a Chriſt, that is, an attonement made by that perſon, and that way.
Sometimes it is neither of theſe, but a third, farre different from both,Pag. 13 as he ſaith, They have means of believing; I mean, of believing, 1. That God is. 2. That he is a rewarder of them that ſeek him All which doth no where lead to, or diſcover a Chriſt, as I ſhal afterwards clearly ſhow.
But doth he not again, as not daring to truſt all in this veſſel, relinquiſh his immediate ſufficiency, and pleads for a mediate ſufficiencie in pag. 15. to this effect? Not that they can by the light of nature diſcover a Chriſt,pag. 1•. but they may by nature do thoſe things, and ſo pleaſe God, that he wil not faile to reveale his ſon Chriſt; and this he proves from the parable of the Talents; wherein it is expedient for him to reſolve what thoſe Talents are, which are given, upon the improvement of which, Chriſt is revealed: but when he is reſolved himſelfe, he wil reſolve u•. For in pag. 20. he ſaith thus, The Talents cannot ſignifie any thing but natural gifts and abilities. Yet in pag. 21. he ſaith, Theſe Talents or abilities given to men to improve, are more commonly then properly called natural.
Againe, doth he not ſeat his controverſie (not in any ſufficiency either immediate or mediate, as he pretendeth, but) pag. 23. in a remote capacity, which is far different from the former two; and in this ſenſe that they are capable of it, (viz. the Goſpel) as any Nation is capable of the Commodities that are exportable out of another Nation, by equitable adreſſes to it. Yea ſometimes thus, that the Goſpel is preacht to all the world (juſt the aſſertion of his brethren, and in him we may ſee their fluctuations) In pag. 23, 24, 25, 26. he earneſtly contends that the Goſpel is actually preacht to the world: But in pag. 34. he contendeth not for an Actual, but a Virtual and conſtructive preaching, in this ſenſe; The Goſpel is preached in ſome eminent places of the world, and its interpreted and conſtructively preached all the world over. For upon Rom. 10.18, he ſaith, How can this aſſertion ſtand, but in the ſtrength of this ſuppoſition, that the Apoſtles publiſhing of it in the places where they had opportunity to come, was virtually and conſtructively a preaching through the world. But leſt this ſhould fail, he is content with a potential preaching at laſt, that it may be preached. And this he doth pag. 23. in this ſenſe, It is preacht in ſome place of the world, and the reſt of the world may addreſſe themſelves to that place, and ſo come to hear of it, As the Queene of Sheba came from the South to heare the wiſdome of Solomon.
And are not theſe fit men to be encountred with reaſon, whoſe reaſon is not yet ſo much reſolved, as to give a ſetled ground of diſpute? It is the deſire of my heart, and my taske, to grapple with the firſt borne of Mr. Goodwins ſtrength. But I have this diſadvantage that Reuben like, it is as unſtable as water, I have not hitherto annexed any anſwer to Mr. 9Goodwins or the remonſtrants, becauſe my task hath been hiſtoricall, not diſputative; to ſhow the riſe and progreſſe of this doctrine of univerſal ſaving grace: and hitherto it appears to have had its riſe out of a miſt, not the cleare Sun-light; a miſt of uncertainties and conjectures, not out of the Sun-light of a ſetled and well grounded truth. And as to Mr. Goodwin, I ſay, (Quorſum hae erroris latebra?) what means theſe ſtarting holes which truth never ſeeketh? which are demonſtrative, not of a deſire to vindicate the truth, but an unwillingneſſe to relinquiſh an errour; theſe are but the doubles and the retropaſſes of the ſubtle fox to foile the ſent, meerely to retard the purſuer. And as their labouring to prove an univerſal grace is demonſtrative of the validity of the propoſition, ſo their dark and unreſolved progreſſe in proving of it, gives much credit and ſtrength to the aſſumption of our argument, and lets me ſee that their invented method for ſuch an univerſal grace is not able to abide the light, or to give ſatisfaction to any rational ſcrutiny.
And I am now come to examine Mr. Goodwins aſſertion and probation thereof, all along his whole treatiſe.
That which he aſſerteth is; that every heathen man to whom the letter of the Goſpel never came, is yet bound to believe in Chriſt, and that upon this ground: becauſe they have ſufficient meanes by the creatures, and light of nature, to diſcover Chriſt and the ſumme of the Goſpel, as he ſaith, almoſt as often as he hath pages: an attempt that none of his predeceſſors durſt ever ſo roundly and profeſſedly make.
In the Examen of which, I muſt propound a few things by way of ſtating & right underſtāding of the queſtion in difference betwixt us.
Firſt, when he ſaith, thoſe that never hear of the letter of the Goſpel, are yet bound to beleive in Jeſus Chriſt; I ſuppoſe by the letter of the Goſpel he underſtandeth the commands as well as the promiſes of the Goſpel, the one is Goſpel as well as the other. Hence wee find in the Scripture, obedience to the Goſpel, as well as faith of the Goſpel:2 Theſ. 1.8 and indeed the commands of the Goſpel are good newes as well as any other part thereof, they being evidences to us that God will again take us into his ſervice, and give us further work to doe, when wee deſerve to be baniſhed from his face for ever. Then the queſtion will ariſe to this, whether thoſe that never heard the letter of the Goſpel, (viz.) neither the commands, nor promiſes, nor any other part of that which wee cal the Goſpel, are yet bound to believe in Chriſt.
Secondly, he muſt not think that we confine the diſcovery of Chriſt and ſalvation by him to the oral preaching of men, or that the queſtion betwixt us turneth upon this hinge. I leave to the Almighty his liberty to uſe what meanes he pleaſeth to diſcover his holy will to men, I will thus far comply with Mr. Goodwin, that whether men come to know God in Chriſt by reading any part of the written word, or by hearing of it preached, or by immediate revelation of the ſpirit of God, or by an angel, as to the ſhepherds, or by a voyce from heaven, as to Paul, theſe wayes may all lay an obligation upon us to believe; but then in all theſe they enjoy the letter of the Goſpel. The matter betwixt us in10 controverſie is, whether thoſe heathen who have onely the light of nature and the creature, and the works of common providence to direct them, have ſuch diſcoveries of Chriſt as that they become bound to believe in him. This is the purport of Mr. Goodwins whole treatiſe, as I ſhal cleare in ſome few inſtances. Pag. 10.In one place he ſaith thus, [The Scripture intimateth that all men by the light of nature, by ſuch a rational diſcourſe can draw out this Evangelical concluſion, that an attonement is made.] And in another place thus, [That hearing by which faith comes, or which is ſufficient to produce it, is the hearing of the found, and thoſe words which the heavens,Ibid. and the day, and night ſpeake. And the conſtant courſe of providence ſpeaks in the ears of all nations the words of eternal life, as well as thoſe words of Chriſt himſelfe when he was upon earth.] And in another page thus, [The heathen who onely have the benefit of the light of nature, together with thoſe impreſſions of good and evil which accompany it, are and have been in ſuch a capacity of having the Goſpel.] Wherein it plainely appeareth that whatever be the praedicate, yet the ſubject about which all his whole diſcourſe proceeds is, A man having only the light of nature: and it needs muſt be ſo, becauſe otherwiſe what he ſaith will not reach every man without exception: ſo that now the controverſie appears thus: Whether thoſe ſtand bound to believe on Jeſus Chriſt who have no further diſcovery of Jeſus Chriſt, then the light of nature, works of providence, the book of the creatures, fruitful ſeaſons afford unto them? or whether theſe do make ſuch a diſcovery of Chriſt to all men, as that by it they are and ſtand bound to believe in Chriſt? Mr. Goodwin affirmes in both, I deny in both. I therfore addreſs my ſelf to examine his proofs.
It ſeemes he was provoked to this treatiſe by a diſcourſe written to him by a Gentleman of worth and learning, ſo that ſeveral pages are ſpent in complements and anti-complements, in which for me to trace him would be both irkſome and uſeleſs. That which firſt occurreth worthy to bee taken notice of in reference to the queſtion, wee find in the ſeventh and eighth pages of his treatiſe, where in the cloſe I find theſe words,Pag. 8.[When God commandeth men to repent, certainely he doth in the ſame command them to believe, in as much as that repentance which he commands is Evangelical.]Which words ſeeme to carry in them the force of an Argument. But herein, as all along, I am put to a double task, both to form his Arguments and anſwer them: but I am not unwilling to do it, the argument therfore if ſyllogiſtically propounded, muſt run thus,
The propoſition is grounded upon this, that no Evangelical repentance can be without faith in Chriſt, as he contends. pag. 7.
The aſſumption is proved by Act. 17.30. And thus is he ſafely delivered of the firſt-borne of his ſtrength.
Before I anſwer diſtinctly to this uncouth and impertinent Argument, I muſt premiſe a few things, that I may be rightly underſtood concerning Pagans repentance. There is in every rational creature originally11 imprinted the love of his maker, and thereupon the light of nature obligeth to love God, which love will ſhew it ſelfe in obedience to his commands, and in caſe of a fall into ſin, this love calls for ſorrow for that delinquency, and a diſplicancy with our ſelves that we ſhould offend our Creator, and incur his wrath; and this I deny not to bee a part of the eternal law of God and nature, lying on all men, both living on earth, and lying in torments, yea, upon the divels in their deſperate condition, ſeeing that it is a duty required of every offending creature as ſuch, and if any ſhall call this repentance, I will grant that there is an obligation lyes upon all Pagans by the light of nature to repent; but this is not Evangelical in order to life and ſalvation, which the Goſpel ſo frequently calleth for, and in that cited text, Act. 17. given by M. Goodwin, of which ſaving repentance and Evangelical, Mr. Goodwin directly and all along ſpeaketh: and this is that repentance which I treat of, otherwiſe I ſhould not be pertinent to Mr. Goodwins aſſertions: and I deſire to be underſtood as ſpeaking of this Evangelical repentance in order to life and ſalvation. And in this ſenſe I deny that Pagans are obliged to repent by the light of nature, and Mr. Goodwins quoted text proves it not, for that text includeth not Pagans, but thoſe to whom the Goſpel cometh, as I afterwards ſhew, neither doth it ſpeak of the light of nature, onely an Evangelical command: and if Mr. Goodwin would but learne to conclude with the queſtion, and make his concluſion thus, as it ſhould, [therefore all Pagans are bound to believe by the light of nature,] or make his minor to run thus, [But God commandeth all men to repent by the light of nature] his Argument would not be a birth but a miſcarriage: and though orthodox and good, yet impertinent and uſeleſſe in his buſineſſe. For to anſwer more diſtinctly, I ſay,
Anſw. Firſt, What is all this if granted to him? is yet Mr. Goodwin to ſeek in the rudiments of diſpute, one of which is to conclude with the queſtion? which is not, whether all men be commanded to believe. But whether thoſe that never heard of the letter of the goſpel be bound to believe? The very concluſion of his Argument expreſſing a command to repent and believe, ſuppoſeth the enjoyment of the letter of the goſpel except he will ſay that the commands of the Goſpel, are not the letter of he Goſpel.
Secondly, to the aſſumption I anſwer, it is deniable in that ſenſe, which he muſt receive, if it doe him any good. That is, that God commands all & every man without exception, yea, thoſe that have only the light of nature and not the letter of the Goſpel diſpenſed at all, further then by the creatures; but this is falſe, and that text, Act. 17.30. ſpeaketh not any thing to this purpoſe. And therefore Mr. Goodwin might with credit enough have ſuffered his Antagoniſt in that Adage, Quid hoc ad Iphicli loves? wth out that ſcurrilous retortion of Balaams aſſe in exchange; but conſider how hard a thing it is for one of Mr. Goodwins ſpirit not to be at once both tart and impertinent: but in this it gives us a taſte of what we are to expect in the remains of his works.
123. To his Propoſition, I have nothing upon mine owne intereſt, but their principles beget a ſcruple not eaſily ſatisfied, and wee may doubt the concluſive validity of it, it becometh not thoſe of his way to explode a repentance which is without faith in Jeſus Chriſt; and this I prove many wayes.
1 There is nothing more frequent with men of his way then this, to aſcribe to man certaine preparatives to faith and regeneration, which will be found to come little ſhort of repentance; or however, can no more be granted as truth, then repentance it ſelfe. Corvinus ſaith thus, thoſe that are preſt under the burthen of ſin, and are weary, and thirſt after Chriſt, and the ſaving grace by him, are diſpoſed to thoſe benefits that the Lord conferreth on us by the Goſpel. And hee being urged by his Antagoniſt that the deſires of ſalvation, the groanes of a breathing conſcience under the weight of ſin, are parts of regeneration, hee thus replyeth,aaHoc eſt〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſunt effecta ſpiritus, ſed non regenerantis, at ad regenerantionē praeparantis. Ibidem. That is the queſtion: they are the effects of the ſpirit, but not of the ſpirit regenerating, but preparing to regeneration. Now taking this for granted, as that which the joynt ſuffrage of the Remonſtrants declareth, thus,bbStatuimus è contra, audire verhum, doleri pro peccato commiſſo, gratiam ſalutarem pettere, ſūt neceſſaria ad fidem et regenerationem obtinendam. act. Syn. pag. 1 We alſo determine, that to hear the word, grieve and ſorrow for ſin, to deſire ſaving grace, are neceſſary to the obtaining of faith and regeneration. If theſe may be without faith and before it, why then may not repentance, eſpecially looking upon that definition which Arminius gives of repentance? thus; It is a griefe for ſins acknowledged, and ſorrow for the debt of death and ſervitude contracted by them, with a deſire of being freed. Which definition of repentance hath no more in it then thoſe conceſſions give us roundly to be found in men before, and therefore without faith.
2 It is ordinary with men of Mr. Goodwins way to affirme; that men may pleaſe God by their works and improvements, before either Chriſt be propounded, or they come to believe in Chriſt, as in the example of Cornelius,ccPoenitentia eſt dolor pro peccatis agnitis, pro debito mortis & ſervitutis inde contracto, cū deſiderio liberationis. Armin. d•ſp. priv. Theſ. 43 Act. 10. and many other. And Mr. Goodwin himſelfe Pag. 15. affirmes that a heathen man (before he have Chriſt revealed, and ſo neceſſarily before he believe in Chriſt) may pleaſe God by his regular improvements of natural abilities. But can Mr. Goodwin prove that God is pleaſed with any man before repentance? If hee did abominate the ſacrifices of his people becauſe their hands were full of the blood of their ſins, with whom ſhall hee bee pleaſed for any improvements whatſoever without repentance? So that if they may pleaſe without faith, and yet not without repentance; then repentance doth not include in it faith in Jeſus Chriſt.
3 It is very uſual with them to deny, that faith in Jeſus Chriſt was ever commanded to the fathers under the old Teſtament. Armin. reſp. ad Art. 31And this is no inconſiderable pillar of their doctrine, onely faith in God was required, by which they were carried on in all acts of religion and obedience towards God. Art. 11.And not the Remonſtrants onely, but Mr. Goodwin himſelfe doth not onely aſſert, but prove too, that the Jewes of old believed on God onely, not explicitely on Jeſus Chriſt, interpretatively onely; thus•e, pag. 37, 38. and he proves it alſo from John 14.1. ye believe13 in God, believe alſo in me; whence he makes it inconſiſtent with the text, to think that they in times paſt did believe in Chriſt, except virtually, that is as he muſt underſtand it, as he is one with that God in whom they believed; but explicitely as a mediatour they did not believe in him. Now if we conſider the Jewes not believing on Chriſt as mediatour, and yet repenting by expreſſe command, yea, and the Remonſtrants are angry if wee ſay that Ahab did not truly repent, thus,ddNullâ ratione probari poſſit, Achab•m Hypocriticè reſipuiſſe, ſed ex animo, quia Deus magno munere remuneravit cum. Act. Synod. art. 3. p. 1•5 No reaſon can be given to prove that Ahab did repent in hypocriſie, but rather from his heart becauſe God rewarded him; until Mr. Goodwin can give us ſome competent intelligence of Ahabs believing in Chriſt, their owne principles give us occaſion enough to ſcruple the conſequence of his propoſition, (viz) if God command all men to repent, he commandeth them to believe in Chriſt. Thus have I taken a ſurvey of this firſt piece of his reaſon, and I am ſorry that a man of ſuch profeſſes and credit in the world, ſhould aſſault us with ſuch an argument at the firſt daſh, whoſe propoſition cannot ſtand with his owne principles, whoſe aſſumption is inconſiſtent with truth, whoſe concluſion is nothing to the queſtion, and therefore I leave M. Goodwin to ſatisfie himſelfe, whether repentance be a work of the law, or of the Goſpel, or of a third covenant. I am not at all intereſted into theſe intergatories, pag. 7. it is ſufficient for me that it is not a work of the law of nature, & to prove it, I accept Mr, Goodwins owne grant, which is this, It cannot be the work of the law, for the law knoweth no repentance, the tenour of the law is more diſtrict and inexorable, Gal. 3.10. Curſed is every one that continueth not. Very Orthodox and right; but how this ſerves his turn, will appeare when he gives ſatisfaction to us in this demand. If the poſitive law of God doe not know or admit of ſuch a thing as repentance,eeOmnium hominum cordibus inſculpſit Deus aliquam ſui cognitionem, & aliquam legem ad obediendam perſwaſiones, poenarum metum et praemiorum ſpem. art. Synod. art. 20, p. 327 how can the law of nature bind us to repentance, there being no ſubſtantiall difference betwixt the law of nature and the lawes of God, ſave onely in the manner of diſcovery. The poſitive law is a law outwardly given and commanded, the law of nature is the ſame law inwardly written and imprinted in the heart. Now if the one be enexorable and admits not repentance, why ſhould the other diſcover and command it? Suppoſe we admit the placita of the Remonſtrants in their latitude, thus, God hath inſcribed in the hearts of men ſome knowledge of himſelfe and a certain law, and perſwaſions to obedience, and hope of reward, and feare of puniſhments, All which they produce as the product of the light and law of nature, yet all theſe ariſe not ſo high as to command repentance; for the poſitive law of God to Adam in integrity propounded all theſe, and all theſe might agree with Adam then in his beſt condition; but then there was no obligation lay upon him to repent, nor after, till he received the promiſe as Mr. Goodwin himſelfe in ſo many words profeſſeth in his Poſtſcript: which here (before we paſſe from this argument) falleth under examination, and I find ſomething in it that will make this caſe more cleare. It ſeemes that the Gentleman who wrote to Mr. Goodwin had affirmed, that Adam during the interval, betwixt his fall and the promiſe, was under an obligation to repent; but who ever it was, I hope14 he will not take it ill, if I leave it for him to prove. I am ſo farre confederate with Mr. Goodwin, as to think it a miſtake. And here comes in Mr. Goodwins poſtſcript, wherein he earneſtly contendeth by ſtreſſe of Argument, that during that time he was under no obligation either of the natural law or poſitive: I might well paſſe all this by as not appertaining any thing at all to my ſelfe, yet I ſhall improve what hee here affirmeth to my owne advantage in clearing the truth; That hee was not bound by the law of nature, he proves thus: If by the law of nature, then was it required in order to his ſalvation, then there was a principle veſted by God in the nature of man to recover and ſave himſelfe, and this principle to be carryed over unmaymed from the eſtate of integrity to the eſtate of ſin, into which he plunged himſelfe, and then alſo to remaine in the ſame vigour in his poſterity, & ſo every perſon of mankind to be in a capacity of ſalvation; & if ſo, then Chriſt muſt have dyed for all without exception. His intentions in theſe reaſonings I cannot well divine, but what ever it be, I retort upon him thus; if they be to overthrow the poſition of his adverſary, as by ſo many monſtruous abſurdities, he muſt know they are all his own; if otherwiſe he intend hereby to gaine upon his adverſary in theſe deductions, and draw him by degrees into his owne tent by the ducture of theſe his owne poſitions, then I thus argue, Either all theſe are the genuine and legitimate inferences from his poſitions, or not: if not, then he beateth the ayre, and muſt caſt about for another poſtſcript; if they be, then I demand an account why Mr. Goodwin ownes the inferences, and yet diſclaimes the Poſition from whence they genuinely flow; when any one may eaſily ſee it to be more congruous to the whole purport of his treatiſe to affirm it, then to deny it. Seeing it is his task to prove that every man by the law of nature onely is bound to believe & repent, which is utterly out irrecoverably loſt, if Adam in that interval was not bound to believe or repent, in which he had the light of nature as much as ever after. I might here propound an Argument of ſome conſiderable ſtrength againſt his main poſition, thus, If Adam was not tyed by the law of nature to repent, then his poſterity is not. But hee was not, Ergo, his poſterity is not: But I ſhall purſue this more pertinently when I anſwer his argument, whereby he proves that the law of nature bindeth every man to repent and believe.
Thus having propounded his firſt Argument, in which he hath done nothing in relation to the controverſie in hand, becauſe he hath not in it proved, that God ever gave a command, or laid an obligation upon any ſuch man or men to repent, to whom the letter of the Goſpel never came, either in the commands or the promiſes of it. He yet can (before he begin handſomely to combat) triumph as he doth,Pag. 8, 9. pag. 8. 9. where he concludeth thus: From the premiſes it further appeareth, that the Gentiles to whom the letter, the written letter of the Goſpel never came, and amongſt whom the name of Jeſus Chriſt (haply) was never named, yet in ſufficient propriety of ſpeech, and largeneſſe enough of truth, may be ſayd to have the Goſpel preached to them, though not in that critical formality of the ſignification of the word (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and (praedicare) a dialect which the Holy Ghoſt commonly neglecteth.
15I wonder Mr. Goodwin doth not bluſh that the world ſhould ſee ſo much weakneſſe, falſhood and boldneſſe come from him in one line.
1. What cauſe hath he to ſay, that this he hath now uttered, plainly appeares from the premiſes? was there ever mention made of the Gentiles who never heard of the letter of the Goſpel, or of the name of Chriſt, or of the preaching of the Goſpel to ſuch? Let him, if he think good, form thoſe premiſes and this concluſion into an Argument, and I believe it will be of ſmal ſtrength.
2. What is it that doth by the premiſes appear? I fea•it is ſome ſuch thing as that not onely, not by the premiſes, but not by all that Mr. Goodwin can ſay, will yet appear. It is this, that they that never had the letter, the written letter of the Goſpel, or the name of Chriſt named, may yet properly be ſaid to have had the Goſpel preached. But,
1. How cau•elous is he? (the letter, the written letter) ſurely he doth intend to play with this terme (letter of the Goſpel) as if we held that none are tyed to believe but they to whom the written letter comes, or as if it were his task to prove that; more are tyed to believe then they to whom the written letter is come. I ſay again, it matters not how the diſcovery be made, by reading, hearing a voice from heaven, an Angel from heaven, or any, which way God ſhall chuſe, ſo that it be but beyond what nature diſcovereth, it confirmeth us, and overthroweth him.
2. How miſerably doth he praevaricate and change the face of the queſtion? that which he is to prove, is, that they are bound to believe, to whom the letter of the Goſpel never cometh: but he now deceitfully ſhaffles in an Heterogenius expreſſion, if he himſelfe divine right, viz. [Or the Name of Chriſt ever named:] Betwixt which and the former there is a wide difference; ſo much, as that the one may be without the other, as he ſaith, pag. 9. The Goſpel was preached to the ancient Jews, yet the name of Chriſt was not named amongſt them. Hereby he hath this advantage, that we ſhould think it his task to prove, that they that have not the name of Chriſt named, are bound to believe; when his aſſertion looks quite with another face: this is nothing ingenuous.
3. Whereas he ſaith, (they may be ſaid in propriety of ſpeech and largeneſſe of truth enough, to have had the Goſpel preached I demand by what? and if Mr. Goodwin ſhould do to me as he did to Mr. Simpſon in their conference, affirme a ſufficient meanes of believing; but think it beſides the queſtion to ſtate it what thoſe means were, he might make me ſeek the preacher: but he is a little more ingenuous, and tells us,Pag. 10.11. that the heavens, the day, and the night, and the providence of God, rain, and fruitfull ſeaſons. Theſe are M•. Goodwins preachers, and that theſe are properly ſaid to preach the Goſpel he affirmeth; wherein hee excuſeth a heap of falſities under the ſhelter of one intimated and implyed truth. For anatomize his aſſertion into theſe axiomes; 1. The heavens preach. 2. They preach in propriety of ſpeech. 3. They preach the Goſpel. 4. They preach the Goſpel in propriety of ſpeech. One alone is true, and the reſt very falſe. The firſt I will eaſily grant, that the heavens16 are ſaid to preach. For as the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which ſignifieth (enerravit,) and is properly attributed to animate, and rational creatures, as Pſal. 2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉I will declare the decree of God;Pſal. 2. yet I find that it is alſo extended to the heavens. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the heavens declare the glory of God So I grant that the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which ſignifieth to Cry, from whence cometh the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the verb, which ſignifieth to preach, may alſo be extended to inanimate creatures, (though examples of it be very rare:) yet will Mr. Goodwin ſay, that it is in propriety of ſpeech? This would croſſe both reaſon and interpreters: it is rather by the figure, called Proſopopeia, as he well enough knowes, wherein God in Scripture often produceth inanimate creatures as perſonating animate and rational; as when God is ſaid to heare the heavens,Hoſ. 2 Adhibet proſopopeia, fictionem perſonae, et ita loquitur quaſi coeli etter•a fuerant anima•a. Ribera in locum. which intimates that the heavens call to God. Yet we have this Comment upon the words, the Lord uſeth a Proſopopeia, (viz.) a fiction of the perſon whereby he ſpeaketh, as if the heavens and the earth were animate creatures. And Cornel. de Lapid, Although he be of Mr. Goodwins ſide, yet he doth not help him in this, for though he ſay they preach the Goſpel, yet he would have it to be no otherwiſe then allegorically and ſymbolically. And if Junius be of any credit with him, he will read the 4th verſe of the nineteenth Pſalm which we ordinarily read,Cornel. à Lapid. in Rom. 10.18 there is no voice nor language where their voice is not heard: he reads it thus;bbNon eſt vox nec eſt ſermo, ſine his tamen intelligitur vox corū, Iun. in Pſal. 19.4 they have no ſpeech, no words, yet without theſe their voice is heard and underſtood. And let Mr. Goodwin examine his reading by the original text, and he gives us a further account of this his reading in his annotations, thus;ccProſopopeia emollit ſuperiorē, et nobis docet ejus intelligentiā; non loquuntur quidem ut homines, ſed velut loquentes à nobis intelliguntur, ibid he allayeth the forenamed Proſopopeia, and teacheth us to underſtand it, they ſpeak not as men, yet they are to be underſtood by us as if they could ſpeak. Thus the propriety of Mr. Goodwins language vaniſheth into ſmoak; and it is well he couples thoſe two ſo handſomely together, (viz.) propriety of ſpeech, and largeneſſe of truth, for indeed they are both of one ſize, there is no more largeneſſe of truth in this, That the heavens preach the Goſpel; then propriety of ſpeech in this, That the heavens preach.
4. Whereas he ſaith, the Holy Ghoſt neglecteth ſuch a critical formality of the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and praedicare. I ſay again, that the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉being uſed at large, may formatively be applyed to inanimate creatures; but when it is ſtrictly taken, for〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to preach the Goſpel, until Mr. Goodwin produce one example wherin the Holy Ghoſt doth not confine it to thoſe animate and rational inſtruments whom he chuſeth for this purpoſe, and that beyond what the heavens declare, I ſhall judge him guilty of groſſe forgery againſt the Holy ſpirit of God.
But becauſe this diſreliſhing pill will not downe without a due preparative, he gives us ſomething more in the next words to facilitate our beliefe of the former, in this manner.
The Goſpel is ſaid to have been preached to the antient Jewes, Heb. 4.26.Heb. 4, 2, 6 yet Chriſt was not by name preached unto them, nor knowne amongſt them. And as the rock out of which Moſes, or God by Moſes gave them water to drink, is ſaid to have been Chriſt, (viz.) in type17 and repreſentation, and ſpiritually. In like manner, yea with much more pregnancy of ſignification and revelation, the patience and goodneſſe of God vouchſafed to the heathen, may he termed Chriſt.] In all which he ſeems to me to be deſerting his firſt argument, yea, & his firſt ſubject too, which was to prove, that all men are bound to beliave in Chriſt; and now he is inclining to prove a ſufficiency of meanes afforded to all to believe: and this he ſeemed to aſſert in his expreſſes immediately foregoing, wherein he told us, that every heathen man, though he had not the letter of the Goſpel, yet he might in propriety of language be ſayd to have the Goſpel preached to him. Now theſe expreſſions are to make good this propriety of ſpeech. But then,
2. His ingenuity is blemiſhed, in that he doth ſo notoriouſly abuſe his readers in this ſo palpable a deluſion, in that he alters the ſtate of the queſtion to a quite different notion: at the firſt he propounded it thus, that thoſe that never had the letter of the Goſpel were bound to believe. Afterwards he adjoyned an expreſſion of a different nature, and then it was thus; thoſe that never had the letter of the Goſpel, nor yet had the name of Chriſt named. And now he hath utterly left out his o•iginal expreſſion, and we have it onely thus; they who never had the name of Chriſt among them named. This is not tollerable in any method of true argumentation, every line to beſtow upon the queſtion, or aſſertion that is to be proved, a new face, eſpecially ſeeing there is ſuch wide difference betwixt the having of the (letter of the Goſpel) and having the (naming of the name of Chriſt) as he himſelfe grants, the one may be without the other: Had he dealt ingenuouſly and fairely, he ſhould have expreſt it thus; the Jews, who neither had the letter of the Goſpel preached, nor yet the name of Chriſt ſo much as named amongſt them, yet they had the Goſpel preached to them. For otherwiſe, if both theſe expreſſions be not taken in, how can they be pertinent to this purpoſe? viz. to illuſtrate and cleare, that the heathen who neither have the letter of the Goſpel, nor yet Chriſt named, may yet properly be ſayd to have the Goſpel preached? But the one of theſe, and that which was moſt pertinent to the queſtion in hand, he fraudulently leaves out, becauſe he knew his conſcience otherwiſe would charge him with much falſhood, and that from his owne text, where it is ſaid, the goſpel was preached to us, as it was to them; that is, to both, in the letter and oral adminiſtration therof. Heb. 4.2
3. His Divinity is blemiſhed more.
1. In affirming that the Jewes had not the name of Chriſt named amongſt them. And if Mr. Goodwin expect to carry it with ſuch pregnancy of reaſon, that becauſe the Jews had not the name of Chriſt named, and yet were ſaid to have the Goſpel preached to them, therefore theſe heathen that have neither Chriſt named, nor yet the letter of the goſpel, may be ſaid to have the goſpel preached, why may not I make claime to this conſequence, that ſeeing they were ſaid to have the goſpel preached to them, and alſo to have the letter of it, and Chriſt by name knowne amongſt them, therefore it is more probable that thoſe, that either have the name of Chriſt, or the letter of the18 goſpel, are onely ſaid properly to have the goſpel preached? therefore I ſay, in oppoſition to Mr. Goodwin, that the antient Jewes in having the goſpel preached, they had Chriſt by name preached unto them. And the more am I provoked to a word or two in this particular, becauſe it will be uſeful to us in the point of faith in Jeſus, under the old Teſtament. Now I ſay, they had the name of Chriſt in the due latitude and acceptation of the word (Name.) Mr. Goodwin, I hope, ſeeth a wide difference betwixt preaching the name (Chriſt) and preaching Chriſt (by name:) as it is in one thing to preach or ſpeak the name (God) and another thing to preach God by name, for hee hath many names.
2. I premiſe this alſo, the queſtion betwixt us will not be whether they were well acquainted with the diſcoveries of Chriſt by his names; probably they might not, and yet it be true that he was preached by name. As it was true that God was preached to the Jews by name when he bad Moſes ſay, (I am hath ſent thee,) although they did not ſo well know him by that name: which being premiſed, I thus proceed. As that is a mans name wherby he is knowne and diſtinguiſhed: (nomen quaſi noſcimen, or notamen) ſo is Gods name, not only the words (God) (Lord,) but the tearms, (Almighty) (Jehovah) (I am) are Gods names. So of Chriſt, we muſt not confine the name of Chriſt to the words (Chriſt) or (Jeſus,) but Counſellour, Everlaſting Father, Prince of Peace, Wonderful,Iſai. 9.6, 7 Zech. 6.12 Iſai. 11.1 Branch. And all theſe, the Scripture expreſſely ſaith are the names of Chriſt, as we may ſee in Iſai. 9.6, 7. Zech. 6.12. His name is Wonderful, Counſellour, &c. Which laſt name, Branch, the prophet Iſaiah expreſſeth by the rod coming forth out of the root of Iſhai. Iſai. 11.1. Now in that his name is the Branch, wee may conclude by the rule of proportion, that whatever expreſſeth his original is his name. So in that Counſellour is his name, we may conclude any thing that expreſſeth any of his perfections is his name; in that Chriſt, and Jeſus, are his names, wee may conclude that ſuch expreſſion as denote any of his offices of mediation, are his names alſo; ſo that by this we may clearly prove that the antient Jews had his name preached upon all occaſions, as Gen. 3.17. Gen. 3.17The ſeed of the woman, &c. Why may not this paſſe for the name of Chriſt as well as the branch out of the root of Iſhai? ſeeing it is retained in Gods promiſe to Abraham and Sarah, in thy ſeed ſhall all nations be bleſſed. Gal. 3.16 Deut. 18.15And the Apoſtle retaineth this name, and applyeth it to Chriſt, Gal. 3.16. to thy ſeed, which is Chriſt. So Deut. 18.15. prophetically Chriſt is there called by the name of the prophet, and that prophet. Rev. 5.5 Gen. 49.8, 9And why is not this Chriſts name as well as Counſellour? we read in Rev. 5.5. Chriſt is called the Lyon of the tribe of Judah; And was not this name diſcovered unto the ancient Jews? Gen. 49.8, 9. prophetically? Gen. 49.10Chriſt to come out of Judah, is ſet out to them thus, Judah is a Lyons whelp. And in Gen. 49.10. We find that the Scepter ſhall not depart from Judah, untill Shiloh come. Let Mr. Goodwin tell me whoſe name is that? doe not interpreters ſay, it is Chriſts? 19Whether we deduce the word from Shalah, paciferum eſſe,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be peaceble, or (peace maker,) it is his name as well as that of Iſai,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the prince of peace; or as others would have it from the word Shil, which ſignifies a ſon; and the ſuffix, vau: and ſo to ſignifie his ſon, it may paſſe for the name of Chriſt, and is ſo, Heb. 1.4, 5. Heb. 1.4, 5He hath obtained a more excellent name, and this name is but this, thou art my Son only. Yet further, Rev. 22.16. Chriſt is there called the bright morning ſtar,Rev. 22, 16 Numb. 24.27 and was not this preach't to the Jews by Balaam prophetically? Num. 24 27. And if theſe ſerve not, I further ſay, that not onely Chriſt by name, but the very name Chriſt was preached to them of old by David. Pſal. 2. 2. They aſſemble themſelves againſt the Lord, vegnal meſhicho,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we read properly, againſt his Chriſt. Now Mr. Goodwin affirmes and proves too, pag 44. that this Pſalme is ſpoken of Chriſt, and he muſt confeſſe that here his name is preached. For Maſhach in the Hebrew,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. whence comes Meſſias, ſignifies to annoint, as well as the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the greek, whence comes Chriſt, and theſe two words are both the ſame. John 1.41. This is Meſſias, which is by interpretation Chriſt,John 1.41 Matth. 1.23 Iſai. 7.14 and the time when the holy Pſalmiſt preacht this name was but four hundred yeares after Moſes: againe, is not Chriſt called Emmanuel? Matth. 1. And is he not ſo called by name? Iſai. 7.14. And this above a thouſand years before Chriſt was born? all this Mr. Goodwin had either not the divinity to know, or not the candor and ingenuity to acknowledge, although it be ſo cleare from the words of the goſpel, that thoſe ancient words did directly and clearly lead to Chriſt. As Peter applyes the name of the Prophet to him, out of Deut. 18.15. in Acts 3.22, and Philip to Nathanael thus ſpake, We have found him of whom Moſes and the Prophets do write. John 1.45. Even Jeſus of Nazareth. And Chriſt himſelfe, had ye beleived Moſes, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.
But had Mr. Goodwin carryed it at this turne, ſo as to prove that the ancient Jewes had neither the letter of the goſpel, nor the name of Chriſt preached, and yet could produce ſuch a peremptory evidence upon record againſt us, from Heb. 2.4. that the goſpel was preached to them, what a plauſible way had he found out to make good that in the propriety of language, thoſe heathen might have the Goſpel preached ſome way or other, although they neither had Chriſt by name, nor yet the letter of the goſpel preached to them? But he miſerably faileth in all; yet let the evidence of the parallel prove how it will, he at a venture, concludeth, that; As the rock is ſaid in type and repreſentation to have been Chriſt, in like manner, yea, and with much more pregnancy, and neereneſſe of ſignification is the goodneſs, and patience, and bounty of God vouchſafed to the heathen to be termed Chriſt.
But why ſhould Mr. Goodwin or any man uſurp that licentious way of gloſſing upon the oracles of God, that when the Scripture expreſſely ſaith, the rock was Chriſt; but no where ſaith that the bounty and patience of God is Chriſt, yet we ſhall ſay that the patience of God is to be called Chriſt in more pregnant neereneſſe of ſignification then the20 Rock. Doe we not in theſe methods of ours irreverently chaſtiſe the holy ſpirit of God, in that he doth not call that Chriſt, which indeed is ſo in a greater neerneſſe of ſignification, then that which yet he expreſſely calleth Chriſt?
2. When he ſaith, (in like manner) can any rational man divine what he meaneth, that the patience and bounty of God is in like manner to be called Chriſt? it muſt be as the rock was Chriſt, i e. in type and repreſentation. That is, the rock was a type and repreſentation of Chriſt, but is the patience of God ſo? I hope Mr. Goodwin ſhall never ſee that time wherein theſe types of Chriſt, (viz.) the Patience and bounty of God ſhall be aboliſhed. How that can be called Chriſt in type and repreſentation, which is for the Churches ſake to continue to the end of the world, that all ſhould come to repentance, I leave to him by his new lights to diſcover to the world.
Poſt legem, temporaria & extraordinaria Sacramenta fuerunt tranſitus per mare rubrum umbraculum nubis, manna deſcendens è coelo aqua è rupe profluens, quorum priora duo baptiſmo, poſterio a duo coenae dominicae, reſpondent, teſte Apoſtolo. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3, 4 Tylen. Syntag. 864 1. Cor. 10, 1. &c.3. Suppoſe we ſhould grant that the patience of God did ſignally diſcover to us that attonement which is wrought out by Chriſt; yet will it not follow that it may be termed Chriſt, with a more pregnant ſignificancy then the rock, becauſe the rock, with ſeveral other things of the like nature, were ſacramental to the Jews, and ſo they not onely were ſignes, as bare types, but ſeals to the covenant of grace in Chriſt, as Tylenus telleth us, The temporary and extraordinary ſacraments after the giving of the law, were paſſage through the red ſea, being under the cloud, Mannah comming from heaven, and the water iſſuing out of a rock, the two former anſwering to Baptiſme, the two latter to the Lords Supper. And what more cleare from the Apoſtle then this? who reduceth the red ſea, and the cloud, and baptiſme, and Supper of the Lord unto the ſame in ſubſtance; and the red ſea and the rock, to anſwer to our baptiſme and the Supper of the Lord, in that he ſaith, our Fathers were baptized in the ſea. So that what baptiſme and the Lords Supper are to us, the red ſea and the water at the rock was to them, (viz.) Sacraments, and ſo not onely to ſign, but to ſeale the things promiſed in his covenant. Now is it according to the method of Mr. Goodwins divinity, that the Patience of God, which hath neither natural, nor any inſtituted relation or tendency to ſignifie Chriſt, ſhould be called Chriſt in more neerneſſe of ſignification then thoſe things that were inſtituted Sacraments to the Jewes; and that in direct reference to Chriſt?
4. That which he ſaith here, viz. The patience afforded to the heathen may in a greater neerneſſe of ſignification be termed Chriſt then the rock, is no more but what he elſewhere uttereth, and to this effect; that the heathen have more pregnant meanes for the believing in Chriſt, then the Jewes, and it is cleare from his conſtant reaſoning; for hee holds that [all that the Jews had afforded them led them but hither, to believe in God, and not in Jeſus Chriſt, except implicitely and interpretatively, as he doth pag. 37.38. But the heathen have ſuch meanes, (viz.) the patience of God, the light of nature, workes of the creation.] They have now ſufficient meanes of beleiving in Chriſt, and to draw out thence the very ſumme and ſubſtance of the goſpel, as he doth 10, 11, 12, pages of his treatiſe aſſert. But will this paſſe for currant in his divinity,21 that God hath nurtured up the heathen, who are wthout God and aliens, without Chriſt, and hope, Heb. 2.12. with as pregnant diſcoveries of his ſon, & the ſubſtance of the goſpel, as as he did the Jewiſh church who were a peculiar people to himſelfe? Let henceforth all their priviledges of the circumciſion, mentioned Romanes 9.1, 2, 3. vaniſh into ſmoak.
But to pardon Mr. Goodwin this ſlip, and to look upon his words as not making any compariſon at all with the Jewes, but onely ſimply and abſolutely thus, that the patience of God, may be termed Chriſt. I expect that he proves how the patience of God without the concurrence of the word to informe us of all things concerning it, can diſcover Chriſt ſo far as that it may be called Chriſt. He attempts to prove it by Rom. 2.4. Becauſe it is there ſaid, the patience of God leads us to repentance; but becauſe this Text is produced afterward as a maſter proofe of the marrow of his diſcourſe ſoon after produced. I ſay onely thus much now; the patience of God there ſpoken of, implyeth a concurrent word, and ſo all wayes whereby it may bee known to bee patience; and without which, it cannot diſcover Chriſt; which word it is praeſuppoſed by the termes of the queſtion in hand, the heathen have not: But let all go, Yet
Laſtly, his reaſon is much blemiſhed in arguing thus, the Jewes were ſayd to have the goſpel preached, therefore the heathen may; ſeeing that the Jews had the letter of the goſpel, and Chriſt preached by name, but the Gentiles had not. Therefore let that propriety be granted to the Jews but denyed to the Gentiles, and the heathen whilſt they remain ſo, and he will doe his judgement and reaſon a great deale of right.
Thus having toyled himſelfe in proving that it may be ſayd in propriety of language, the heathen have the goſpel preached, although they have not the letter of the goſpel preached, he now is ſitting downe to reap the fruit of thoſe labours, and now ſhews how the heathen come to draw out ſuch Evangelical concluſions concerning Chriſt, and ſalvation by him, without the letter of the goſpel; and indeed, having before broken the bone, here giveth us the marrow of his whole diſcourſe, thus; God being by the light of nature known, or at leaſt knowable to be infinitely juſt, and bent in hatred againſt ſin, when notwithſtanding hee ſhall expreſſe himſelfe in goodneſſe, and patience, and long ſuffering towards thoſe that know themſelves to be ſinners: Hereby he declares ſufficiently that his juſtice and ſeverity againſt ſin, have been (and this muſt be in reaſon ſuppoſed to have been in a way proportionably to ſo glorious an effect) ſatisfied, and that he hath ſo far accepted an attonement for them