PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)


OR, An Anſwer to a Treatiſe of Mr. John Goodwin, ENTITULED, The PAGANS DEBT & DOWRY.

Wherein is diſcovered the weakneſſe of his Arguments, and that it doth not yet appear by Scripture, Reaſon, or the Teſtimony of the beſt of his own ſide, that the Heathen who never heard of the letter of the Goſpel, are either ob­liged to, or enabled for the believing in Chriſt; and that they are either engaged to matrimonial Debt, or admitted to a matrimonial Dowry.

Wherein alſo is Hiſtorically diſcovered, and Polemically diſcuſſed the Doctrin of Univerſal Grace, with the Original, growth and fall thereof; as it hath been held forth by the moſt rigid Patrons of it.

By OBADIAH HOWE, A. M. and Paſtor of Horne-Caſtle in Lincolnſhire.

With a verdict on the Caſe depending between Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Howe, by the learned GEORGE KENDAL, DD.

(〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Ducit Evangelio, (ſcil. ) ipſis prophanis tunc demum patefacto, & Ju­daeis exhibito, quo reſpicit particula (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) abſque Chriſti verbo, benignitas Dei poteſt perducere homines ad peccati ſenſum, non ad veram reſcipiſcenti­am.

Beza in Rom. 2.4.

Quomodo fieri poſſit ut reſcipiſcerent ſi virtutes ut virtutes tantum conſideren­tur? virtutes quà tales reſcipiſcentiam non ſuadent; neceſſe eſt aliquid quo re­ſcipiſcentia mandetur aut ſuadeatur ſaltem; nam ſine verbo ne fictam tantum reſcipiſcentiam efficere poſſunt virtutes.

Acta Synod. Art 4. p. 725.

Quantum ad Ethnicos ad quos Chriſti nomen non pervenit, illos tali gratiâ abſolutè ad ſalutem aut fidem ſufficiente, praeditos non eſſe, ſaepe ſupra dixi­mus.

Corvin. in Mol. cap. 37. Sect. 11.

But now is made appear, through the appearing of Jeſus Chriſt, who hath brought Immortality and life to light through the Goſpel,

2 Tim. 1.10.

If I had not come and ſpoken to them, they had had no ſin,

John 15.22,

London, Printed by Th. Maxey, for John Rothwell, at the Fountain and Bear in Cheap-ſide. 1655.

Intelligent Reader,

DEdications and Epiſtles plead pre­ſcription; to commit a Treatiſe to the wide world without theſe phy­lacteries, would be to thruſt it forth ſeemingly naked, and ſo be a Soloeciſme both to the preſent, and the practices of Antiquity, becauſe many expect I ſhall ſay ſomething; but becauſe it is the reſult but of ſecond thoughts, I ſhall ſay but little. For me to tell thee much of the perſons engaged herein, would be an unſeemly Digreſſion; and to tell thee of the matter of the enſuing Treatiſe here, would be a too unſeaſonable anticipatiō: only of the occaſion thereof a word or two.

The Moraliſts tel us, that Virtutes ſunt conne­xae; virtues are linked in an irrefragable chain; and ſo are divine Truths connected and tied together by ſuch rational ſequitur's, that they all point at a concentricity in that unity of faith ſpoken of by the Apoſtle. And as Vertues and Truths are linked, ſo are vices and errors; ſa­ving only with this difference; Truths are ſo coupled as the Hangings and Curtains of the Tabernacle, by the top and the ſides thereof with rings of gold, to the ornament and beauty of the Houſe of God: but Errours are like Samſons foxes, tied together onely by the tails, purpoſely to ſet on fire the glorious harveſt of divine Truths.

It is wel known, that thoſe flames that did utterly conſume the peace of the Belgick Chur­ches, have miſerably of late broken out a­mongſt us; and as it was then, that Arminius, though he penn'd a ſmall Tract De componen­do Religionis diſsidio, yet he himſelf was no ſmal Incendiary; even ſo it is now.

I need not tell thee that the fewel of that fire was the hot agitation of thoſe five Points, which when the Remonſtrants came to de­clare themſelves upon, at the Synod of Dort, they did not load their Remonſtrance with ſuch a voluminous Title, as to rehearſe all and the ſingular Articles; but this, De Predeſtinatione cum ſuis annexis: granting us gratis, That No abſolute Election, Univerſal Redemption, Univerſal Grace, Reſiſtibility of Grace, Apoſtacie from Grace were ſo mutually interwoven, that they muſt either ſtand or fall together. Some indeed, there have been of late of ſuch clouded Intel­lectuals, that they have driven on furiouſly in ſome, but have imagined they might relin­quiſh other of the five Points: ſuch I leave, as not worthy an examen, being men incapa­ble of carrying their own interſt, not know­ing where it lyeth. But Mr. Goodwin, with whom I have now engaged, is ſomething in this more diſcreet; for when he comes forth (like Saul) higher by the head then the reſt of his brethren, in that great Body, Redempti­on Redeemed, hee orders this little Tract to follow him as his Armour-bearer; wherein he doth, (or would at leaſt) prove an Uni­verſal ſufficient Grace, without which he can never prove an Univerſall Redemption. In which, although for the ſubſtance of his work, he doth but follow the ſteps of his Anceſtours; yet for the manner of it, hee appears like Goliah, that ſets forth in his might to defie the whole Hoſt of Iſrael. None (I am confident) amongſt the Philiſtines, hath been found to engage ſo far, and ſo ſin­gly as he hath done. His pen is his ſpear, and his voluble expreſſions, and daring bold­neſſe, and poliſhed phraſiologies have made it ſwell into the magnitude of a Weavers beam; yet I am confident, ſome little ſtones out of the bag of Scripture and Reaſon, will ſmite him down. This I have (by the di­vine help) in my enſuing Diſcourſe attempt­ed: for me to ſay any thing of it here, would be not ſo much to ſatisfie thee, as to pre­poſſeſſe thee. I have an adverſary that will loſe no ground by cowardize; his works are all along full fraught with ſuch aſſerti­ons, which have neither the ſtabiliment of Scripture, evidence of Reaſon, patronage of Authority, nor any ſeconds of the beſt of his own ſide; ſo we may preſume of this ad­vantage, that he will be left in the combat to mannage his own quarrell. Of thoſe Hete­rodox and impious paſſages of his in all his Works, Catalogues are extant by better hands then mine; yet in this ſmall Tract of his, The Pagan Debt and Dowry, there are ſome few that will increaſe the ſtore.

1. That the patience of God leads men to faith in Jeſus Chriſt, whether he be known or not known to them. p. 9.

2. That by the light of Nature God is known or knowable, &c. that men may by it come to gather〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the effect and ſubſtance of the Goſpel, p. 9, 10.

3. That the Apoſtle, Rom. 10. ſheweth that by that hearing whereby faith is wrought, or which is able to produce it, is meant the hearing of the words, ſound of the heavens, the day and the night, p. 10.

4. That the words of the heavens, the day and the night, which they ſpeak in the ears of all Nations, are the words of eternal life, as well as thoſe which our Saviour himſelf did ſpeak.

With many others, which it cannot but be as unpleaſing to refel, as to repeat; In all which he doth magnifie Nature, and exceedingly depre­ciate Chriſt, and his perſonal diſcoveries, and ſo brings him to open ſhame; which are all of them called to the teſt, and examined in the following Treatiſe, which I commend to thy candid overſight. Firſt, granting me the ci­vility of paſſing over the Typographicall〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which needs muſt happen in the prin­ting, by reaſon of the non acquaintance of the Printer with my Manuſcript. To prevent the incurſions of men of Mr. Goodwin's hu­mour, who rather contend about Words then Reaſon, I have hinted ſome of them in the enſuing page; the reſt ſupply if thou meeteſt with them, and I commit thee and us all to God, who is able to lead us into all truth.



In the Body of the Book.
  • PAg. 3. lin. 1. for is not, r. is it not
  • p. 16. l 34. r. figuratively.
  • p. 21. l. 3. r. Epheſ. 2.12
  • p. 28. l 18 for challenge r. charge
  • p. 32. l. 3. r. Willet.
  • p. 33 l. 43. r. of Chriſt
  • p. 36. l. 5. for heavens r. hearing
  • p. 43. l, 33. for only more r. no more
  • p. 48. l 19. r. omne es.
  • p. 50. l. 15. r. certailie he muſt
  • p. 56. l. 3. r. Impoſtor
  • p. 52 l. 1. r under ſin
  • p 79 l. 28. r. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
  • p. 83 l. 23. r. that God
  • p. 85 l. 31 r cannot be elected
  • p. 88 l. 7. r. Improvement of abilities
  • p. 106 l. 15. r. in his own circle.
  • p. 114 l. 32. r. whileſt it is, it neceſ­ſarily is.
In the Margin.
  • Pag. 5. (e) pro ad lege &. (f) after ſufficit l. ad.
  • p. 12 (b) l. dolere. l. petere
  • p. 13. (e) l. obediendas
  • p. 23 l. juxta id quod ipſi
  • p. 52. l. ſibi data
  • p. 53. (c) l. ut virtutes. l. quidem
  • p. 62 (c) l. impediri.
  • p. 79 (c) l. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
  • p. 85. l. praeſtari.
  • p. 93 (a) l. invenit. (b) l. ab iis
  • p. 94 (d) l. errenis

A VERDICT In the Caſe depending be­tween Maſter J. Goodwin, and Maſter Howe, concerning the Heavens Prea­ching the Goſpel; maintained by Maſter Goodwin in his Pagans Debt and Dowry, as well as his Redemption redeemed. To the READER.

MAY it pleaſe him to know, that though J doe not preſume to look upon my ſelf, as one vvhoſe teſtimony can adde any value to thoſe worthy Diſcourſes, which are here preſented him; yet J eſteem it ſome honour to my poor judgement, that J have been earneſtly ſolicited to ſpend it upon them.

2Accordingly J ſhall aſſume the boldneſſe to ſay, that the Pamphlet which is here taken to task, vvhile it flily pre­tends to ſue the Pagans for an unknown debt, ſecretly relea­ſeth Chriſtians from a great part of thoſe ſweet obligations; wherein they juſtly rejoice to be bound, and muſt in all humble thankfulneſſe acknowledge, they can never ſatisfie them. No leſſe then the honour of the Miniſtery, the Scrip­tures, the goodneſſe of God in bleſſing our ears with the joyful ſound of them, and bowing our hearts quite againſt their na­tive poſture, to an humble ſubmiſſion unto them, lies at the ſtake in this Controverſie.

And 1. Maſter Goodwins nw licenſing the Sun, Moon, and Stars, to Preah the Doctrine of the Goſpel, is an ap­parent encroachment upon the Commiſſion granted to the A­poſtles, and us their unworthy ſucceſſors, in that honou­rable Office of diſpenſing theſe ſacred Myſteries. And who knows, but Maſter Goodwin (long noted for a back-friend to our publick Preachers) had a ſubtile deſign to obſcure the Lights of our Churches, by bringing in the Sun to out-ſhine them?

2. Nor yet have the Miniſters more cauſe to complain of the injuries done them by thoſe audacious Papers, then have the Scriptures themſelves. If the Pagans may ſo eaſily read the great Myſteries of the Goſpel, written with the Sun­beams, the Book of God muſt be content to be ſet at a lower rate, then David was wont even in his time to put upon it. Alas! multitudes of Chriſtians have much adoe, after many years teaching, to read any conſiderable part of the Doctrine of Chriſt, in that Obſcurer Volume; while the Pagans in the mean time, are indoctrinated by Maſter Good­win, to run and read all in the Sun.

The Jews had ſmall cauſe, it ſeems, to talk of their Pri­viledge, in having the Oracles of God committed to them, Rom. 3. I wis, the Sun proclaimed all as much to the Heathens, as any of the Jews could, and more then moſt of them did pick out of their Moſes and the Prophets. And therefore Paul might have forborn to have told his Country-men ſo ſolemnly of the great advantage they had, above his new3 Diſciples the Gentiles. There were none of them all, but might have ſeen Chriſt as clearly in the Sunne, as ever Mo­ſes did God in the Cloud. Nay, howbeit Chriſt were plea­ſed to ſay, that ſalvation was of the Jews, (Joh. 4.22. ) yet Ma­ſter Goodwin hath concluded upon a more ſerious debate, that the Gentiles were every way as near to it; and the par­tition wall was no conſiderable inconvenience to them, nor the plucking down of this wall any viſible enlarge­ment of the Courts of Gods houſe, which were all along of the ſame dimenſions with the Globe of the Earth.

I fear this ſhort Pamphlet of Maſter Goodwins, hath done much more againſt the honour of the Scriptures, then his Bulkier Volume, for the Authority of them will in haſte make amends for; notwithſtan­ding(a)In his Notes on the ſix Book-ſel­lers, p. 28. he pleaſeth to tell us of(b)As I am cre­dibly informed, the Reverend Doctour Whichcote. one known to be at learned, grave, and judicious, as any Engliſh born at this day; who ſaid it was as good a Book as any was written ſince the Apoſtles dayes.

It had need to be ſo, to make any tolerable ſatisfaction for theſe improvi­dent pleadings for the pretended ſufficiency of the Sunne, Moon, and Starres, to deliver all the chief contents of the Goſpel.

3. How doth this blemiſh and ſully the ſingular graci­ouſneſſe of our good God to us poor Chriſtians, and give occaſion to too many to ſlake their thankfulneſſe to his hea­venly Majeſty, for his Letters Patents, and the Oral Pro­clamations of the Goſpel, vouchſafed to themſelves? ſo far is it from inflaming their zeal in the propagation of it to others. What reckon we ſo much upon our being called out of dtkneſſe into his marvellous light? (1 Pet. 2.9.) The Pa­gans eyes indeed are blind, but the light of the Goſpel ſhines clearly upon them, and makes no difference between England and India; yea, the Indians have ſome advan­tage, as lying nearer the Sunne, whoſe Sermons it is there­fore probable they may hear ſomewhat the more diſtinct­ly. 4And if we have ſo little to bleſſe God for more then the Pagans, what need we give him too many thanks for our ſuppoſed happineſſe above the Papiſts? we in vain dream of too much felicity in our ſuperfluous Reformation. Heaven is at no greater diſtance from Rome, then London. And the poor Popiſh Laicks, though interdicted the Scrip­tures in their Vulgar tongue; yet may read enough to ſave them, in the Sunnes Catechiſme, written in the Catho­lick Language. What meant our raſh Martyrs to be ſo pro­digal of their bloud at the ſtake? They needed not have feared any danger of that Egyptian darkneſſe, as long as they might have enjoyed Goſpel-light enough, with a ſuffi­cient Gods bleſſing on their hearts, in a warm Sun. What an unneceſſary quoil did many good men lately make a­gainſt ſome imperious Prelates, for ſilencing a few ſetled Miniſters? The danger was none, or very ſmall, as long as the Sunne, that grand Itinerant Preacher, was in no pe­ril of being ſuſpended: Maſter Goodwins dumb Preachers would have exerciſed in ſpight of them all, and that upon the very houſe-tops. Onwards, what a needleſſe quarter do the Adventurers for New England keep about erecting Schools, and training up Preachers for the Natives? Had they ten thou­ſand Hiacomeſſes, they could all ſay little more then the Sun doth every day of the Goſpel of Chriſt in a Language much like the Ʋniverſal Character, which the late Exami­ner of the Ʋniverſities, to uſe his own words, is about to excogitate as his Reſponſions doe make probation. Si Cloaca eſſet, magna eſſet. Nay, what talk we ſo much of the vain advancement of Learning at home, in order to bringing men to be better qualified for the Preaching of the Goſpel? All the Books in the Publick Library at Oxford, are not of half the uſe that Will: Lillies Almanacks are, wherein the Sunne Preacheth in his Pontificalibus. Who would have thought it, Maſter Goodwins ſix penny Pam­phlet beats down all Pulpits and Libraries, and affords the Sunnes Lectures at ſuch a rate, that moſt other Books may goe for waſte paper, and think themſelves happy in being employed to defend Roſte Bief from the furie of the fire.

5Thus hath he made (which who could ever have ſuſ­pected?) the ſuperiour Lights to Eclipſe the inferiour; and the Sunne by advantage belike of his nearneſſe to the Church Triumphant in Heaven, to darken all the lower Stars of the Church Miiitant here on Earth. Such are the conſequences of Maſter Goodwins Diſcourſes.

4. Yea more, whereas all good Chriſtians have ever been wont to bleſſe God for being pleaſed to diſtinguiſh them from many other profeſſed Chriſtians, who enjoy the Books of Scriptures, and the Oral Miniſtery of the Goſpel, as far forth as themſelves, but are not ſo happily breathed on by the Spirit of grace, which alone makes them effectual to converſion, Maſter Goodwins Book would bear them in hand, that there is little more owing to God from the beſt of Chriſtians, then the worſt of Pagans; and that theſe have equal means of ſalvation, at leaſt in a Geometrical pro­portion. (Red. Red. P. Ʋlt.)

The truth is, having taken ſo much worthy pains in his Redemption Redeemed, to ſhew that Chriſt died equally for all men, he was of courſe to aſſert, that he procured equal means of that equally intended ſalvation of all men; and to make good theſe equal means of ſalvation afforded to all men, he was of neceſſity to run on one of theſe two rocks, either to deny that the Preaching of the Goſpel is neceſ­ſary to ſalvation, or to affirm, that the Sunne, Moon, and Stars (who alone viſit all the world) are ſufficient Preach­ers of it.

I am ſo much Maſter Goodwins friend, (what ever he think of me) as ſeriouſly to adviſe him, as he tenders his ſafety, to have a ſpecial care, while he layes himſelf out for an Ʋniverſal toleration of all Religions, that he ſet him­ſelf againſt Poperie to the utmoſt of his power: For how­ever he ſpeed, through the highly deſerved favour of all o­ther Sectaries, that may chance to get the moderation of Eccleſiaſtical cauſes; yet ſhould ever the Papiſts rule the roſte, Maſter Goodwin muſt look to be caſt into the fire: So ſe­verely would the Papiſts handle him for this piece of new Doctrine, not as a Proteſtant, but an Anti-Scripturiſt. The6 Pope himſelf though he pretend to be the Oecumenical Pa­ſtor, would not endure the thought of ſuch an Ʋniverſal Preacher as Maſter Goodwin is pleaſed to ordain the Sun, to the diſparagement of the Scriptures. And yet that I may give the Sunne and his Patron their due, I readily con­feſſe, the Sunne Preacheth enough to condemn all the world, though not a word to purpoſe for the ſaving of any ſingle ſoul.

The Sunne rarely ſets forth the power of God, enabling ſo vaſt a body for ſo ſwift a courſe, and making ſo ſwift a courſe to bee all as regular; The Sunne never ſtumbling nor tripping ſince his firſt ſetting out, as a Giant to runne his race; never ſtopping but once in above five thouſand yeares, and that only upon a command to attend the motion of Joſhuahs army; never retreating but once, and that upon a like order, to aſſure Hezekiah of an unexpe­cted ſetting back of the Clock of his days. The Sunne diſplayes the glory of Gods power no leſſe every year, in reviving plants, and trees, after a whole Winters Epilepſie; whence we conclude beyond contradiction, that God can raiſe our bodies out of the boſome of the Earth, with more facility then the Sunne re-quickens any vegetables upon the face of it. The Sunne as openly Preacheth the ſame pow­er of God in its occulter operations upon Minerals, which it ſo curiouſly works, where we would not think it did look, and doth a kind of ſtupendious miracles by inviſible influen­ces. Shortly, the Sunne tells all the world ſo plainly, that there is God Omnipotent, that too many Pagans have taken the Sunne for that God. So children are apt to look on a King at Arms, as King of the Realm. The Sunne Preach­eth, that God in its face, which too too many men eve­ry where deny in their heart; but of Chriſt the Lord, it had never a word to ſay, unleſſe perhaps once, when it muffled its face, as bluſhing at the monſtrous indignities offered by poor worms on Earth to the great Prince of Hea­ven. But even then the Sunne ſpake ſo low under its mask, that the Jews themſelves did not hear, much leſſe did the Heathens underſtand it. And though one of their Philo­ſophers7 be ſaid to have cried out, aut Deus naturae patitur, aut mundi machina diſſolvetur; yet I believe that ſpeech of his well examined, carries more in it againſt the honour of the Almighty Creator, then for the glory of our Merciful Redeemer. Alas, they who have been the moſt diligent and curious Auditours of the Sunne, never learned any thing of that Starre which was a Light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Iſrael. God manifeſted in the fleſh, was a Myſtery which the Angels ſtooped down to look into, ſo little could the Pagans diſcover it in the Heavens over their heads. It was the Apoſtles wonder, to hear it ſhould ever be Preached to the Gentiles, ſo little did they conceive (what Ma­ſter Goodwin could have taught them) that the Sun Preach­ed words of eternall life as well as thoſe which (as Peter ac­knowledgeth) our Saviour himſelf had to ſpeak, Pag. Debt and Dow. P. 11. Sure I am, Aſtrologers the more they have obſerved the Sunne, the leſſe they have acknowledged our Saviour, as not conceiving how he who guides the Sunne ſhould have been carried in the arms, or he who governs that Chariot, ſuffer on a Croſſe. The glory of the Sunne made them ſcorn the obſcurity of Chriſt, which was to the Jews a ſtumbling block, and to the Greeks fooliſhneſſe. Had not thoſe wiſe men which came from the Eaſt, had a Revelation of the Spirit, beſides the apparition of a Starre, they had never worſhipped him as a King of the Jews, much leſſe as Saviour of the world, whom they found ſo contemp­tibly Cradled in a common Manger. In a word, the My­ſtery of Chriſt had been hid at this day all as much as it was in any former ages, had he not ſent othergates Heraulds then Sunne, Moon and Stars to publiſh it. It is enough, they proclaim ſo much as ſerves to condemn men for not obeying their Creator; they ſay nothing of our being to be ſaved by the man Chriſt Jeſus. The Pagans are left without ex­cuſe, for rebelling againſt the Law which is written on their hearts; As for the Goſpel, as they ſin without it, ſo may they juſtly periſh without it, and have nothing at all to ſay for themſelves, as much as Maſter Goodwin is pleaſed to plead8 for them, little to the benefit of them poor wretches, exceed­ing much to the diſhonour of Gods grace.

That which makes his Learned Congregagation, with ſome others of the ſame hair, ſo readily to ſwallow this his tough Paradox, is his ſuperficial pretence of magnifying the riches of Gods general grace and mercy; but whiles the grace and mercy of God are ſeemingly advanced, his being gracious to whom he will be gracious, and merciful to whom he will be merciful, is moſt inſolently oppugned; and this crotchet is quickly diſcovered to be deeply guilty of a deſperate deſign, to unchriſten England, while it pretends to Chriſten the unknown parts of America. Certainly Maſter Goodwins talents had been farre better employed in endeavouring to keep Chriſtians from degenerating into Pagans, ſleighting the Goſpel both in deeds and words, then in ſhewing how Pagans may bee ſaved, though they never come to bee Chriſtians. It would have turned bet­ter to his account, to have ſhewed what a ſhame it is for Chriſtians to live as Pagans, then ſo induſtriouſly to have eſſaied to prove, that Pagans may, while Pagans, believe as Chriſtians. But it ſeems he had ſo fully indoctrinated his dear flock in all things concerning themſelves, that he had nothing left to deliver them but ſuch notorious impertinen­cies. And yet I cannot think but he might more profitably have ſpent his labours, in ſhewing the beſt Chriſtians their ſins againſt God, then in this ſuperflous diſplaying of this pretended goodneſſe of God to the worſt Pagans.

Surely there was leſſe need of an Apology for Gods ways, then a reproof of thoſe of the beſt Saints; nor was there ſo much cauſe to clear God, as to condemn our ſelves.

The Learned Authour of this Anſwer, hath to better purpoſe travelled in Gods cauſe, may God have the glory, the Reader the benefit, himſelf the reward of his labours, that is, a thankful acceptance of them.

And he may challenge it the more, for that he dares appear ſo fully againſt Maſter Goodwin in this juncture of9 time, when he is crowned with ſo many Lawrels, for his late ſignal Victory, over no leſſe then a double Triumvirate of〈◊〉Book-ſellers, whom notwithſtanding all the Learning they have in their ſhops to defend themſelves with, hee hath laid as low at the feet of his writings, as ever hee did high Presbytery and her ſons, though as they lie ſprawling there, their Vindicatour plaguily bites his heels with a ſting­ing Apology. I doubt not but this glorious Conqueſt fluſheth him in his attempts againſt the Synod of Dort, which being once devoured, he may bee at leaſure to digeſt Doctour Owen, and my ſelf, whom he hath already thrown down his throat in his Horn-ſpoon. In the mean time, he ſatiſ­fies himſelf with this, that Doctour Owen hath not anſwe­red Maſter Horn, nor I Maſter Baxter; to both which, I humbly reply:

Firſt, for Maſter Vice-Chancellour, that it may bee a queſtion, whether he ever heard of Maſter Horns Book till I gave him notice of it about ſome three years after it was printed, I can ſcarce ſay publiſhed; but ſince there is a ſe­cond Edition of the Title Page, which I know not, but Ma­ſter Vice-Chancellour may one day have leaſure to conſi­der. In the interim, as I am informed, the caſe ſtands thus; Maſter Horns Open door was ſhut up as it were with a Red Croſſe on it for ſome years till it was unlocked by Tho: John­ſon at his golden Key in Pauls Church-yard, who bought it for Lumber; and to make the beſt of his bargain, new printed the Poſtes of it, by which means he hopes to ſecure it a while from being diſhonored down to mens back-doors.

Next for my ſelf, may it pleaſe Maſter Goodwin to know, that Maſter Baxter and I are grown wiſer thn to engage one another any more; not that I mean to ſpend my inke (as Maſter Goodwin will) upon better men, but upon worſe. And the truth is, Maſter Baxter and I differ not ſo much as Maſter Goodwin may chance to conceive; for there being two points handled in that digreſſion, which Maſter Good­win ſaith Maſter Baxter encounters with as much facility, and like ſucceſſe, as fire doth the dried ſtubble; as to the firſt,10 concerning the impoſſibility of new immanent acts in God, Maſter Baxter profeſſeth to oppoſe my Doctrine, not as untrue, but uncertain, Section 5. pag. 16. And after hee hath produced ſeveral arguments againſt me, he is pleaſed to ſay, he knows ſeveral things that I may ſay againſt his reaſonings, p. 19. and that he doth not own all theſe argu­ments which he toucheth upon, p. 29. and that he mentions them only to ſhew that a full or clear ſolution of theſe doubts is not ſo facile and obvious as you ſeem to imagine, p. 29. and again profeſſeth, that if he would be of any ſide in that Con­troverſie, he would be of Maſter Kendals ſide, p. 29.

Beſides, Maſter Goodwin himſelf profeſſeth the ſame, if I underſtand him, (Red. Redeemed, Chap. 16. Sect. 14. pag. 425, 426.) though I cannot blame him for being angry with that paſſage, which unawares baffled a conſiderable part of his Book. And in that reſpect, I will God wil­ling for his ſatisfaction, without breach of the Agreement between Maſter Baxter and me, handle that point in Latine (which is the only fit Language for ſuch a Diſcourſe) long before Maſter Goodwin ſhall hang up the leaſt member of the Synod of Dort at the doors of his Meeting houſe.

As to the latter, I had no more to doe then to ſhew, that the Doctrine of Juſtification from Eternity is not ſo horrible a blaſphemy as M. Goodwin was pleaſed to brand it for. Where­as he may know, that I look upon that of Condemnation from Eternity (maintained by no man that I wot of, though jumbled in by him) to be no leſſe; and therefore I ſingled out that of Juſtification, and let paſſe the other, ſaying, that in Gods Decree from Eternity to juſtifie and condemn men in time, there was ſomewhat like Juſtification in oppoſition to Condemnation, which is of another conſideration. Nor can I be perſwaded there is any abſurdity in ſaying, that in Gods Decree from Eternity to juſtifie and condemn men in time, there is ſomewhat that looks like Juſtification, though there be nothing that looks like Juſtification in the Decree which con­cerns Condemnation; more then in ſaying, that my purpoſe to goe to Oxford and return to London, carries ſomewhat that11 reſpects my going to Oxford, though my purpoſe to go to Oxford carries nothing in it that concerns my return.

As for Maſter Baxter, if in any particular I have miſ-re­preſented him, (which is the main thing he laies to my charge) I ſhall, as I diſcover it, willingly retract it; and it is not unlikely but we do both underſtand each other much better then we did. But I deſire Maſter Goodwin to know, that Maſter Baxter profeſſed he was offended with me for nothing ſo much, as joining him with John Goodwin. And howbeit he pleaſe to let fall a word of my inclemency to Ma­ſter Goodwin, in one paſſage twice quoted by him, and ac­cordingly remembred by Maſter Goodwin, I believe Maſter Goodwin deſires his Reader ſhould take notice of that place for the many good words I beſtow on him there, (as ſome others have conceived) farre beyond the proportion of his deſerts. In Concluſion, ſo far am I from being convinced of offending by my frolicks, that I am reſolved to bee as pleaſant as ever in my Language, let who will chuſe to be bitter; only I ſhall ſtill pray to God to forgive us all our iniquities of our holieſt things, and to work our hearts to a Chriſtian endeavour of overcoming evil with good, and to the affecting of no greater Conqueſt then the captivating of all our thoughts to the obedience of Chriſt.



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 ucredant, 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••pok, 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 re­caione vocat om­nes, non quod ſe­cundum ſtius vo­cationisenorem et generatiois gratiae menſuram vtam inſtituen­tes immediate ſerventur, ſed ut diſponenturde­vangelicae praedi­cationis idneoreddantur an i o­res in qua ſal••offenur Act Sy­nodal 327 Thus by this generalal, 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,ggPropoſitoni iſti prouà 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 pro­ſus ignorant il­lud verbum re­conciliationis, re­ſpondemus, Deſi ab initio mundi &c. toti mundo ſermonem recon­ciliationis evolu­iſſe & juſſiſſe à generationem propagati. Rg. 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 moth'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 repuiavere. 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 ſus pec­catis ſe iſtâ gra­tiâ idignos 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 prae­factos et contu­maces ſutuos viet 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 con­tuereune Col. Hag. 18 The fault is to be aſcrbed 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 in­telgi poſſe et ce­bere quibus gra­tia Dei aut facta eſt, aut paratus eſt facer, ne nol is infantium, ſurd­rum, 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 nbis 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,

If God command all men to repent, hee commands all to believe in Chriſt.
But he commandeth all men to repent, Acts 17.30.
Argum. Ergo, He commands all men to believe.

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

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

Before I anſwer diſtinctly to this uncouth and impertinent Argu­ment, I muſt premiſe a few things, that I may be rightly underſtood con­cerning Pagans repentance. There is in every rational creature 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. dſp. 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; thuse, 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, Achabm Hypocriticè reſi­puiſſe, ſed ex ani­mo, quia Deus magno munere remuneravit cum. Act. Synod. art. 3. p. 15 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 feait 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 cauelous 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 ettera fuerant a­nimaa. 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 oiginal 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</