Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	good_a	seed_n	word_n	4,972	5	5.3021	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86612	The pagan preacher silenced. 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.	Howe, Obadiah, 1615 or 16-1683.; Kendall, George, 1610-1663.	1655 (1655)	Wing H3051; Thomason E851_16; ESTC R207423	163,028	140

created us Col. 3.10 And hereby we are changed into the same image 2 Cor. 3.18 so that this is not reason as it is by nature or abilities meerly natural but as they are elevated by the supernatural grace of God and I am induced to think so because I finde other Fathers speaking of the same business to the same purpose as Chrysostome though not in his original language yet as Anianus and other uncertain Interpreters lay it down thus (d) Abscondit autem talentum in terrâ qui accipiens notitiam Christi contemnit vitam spiritualem in tervenis actubus deliciis conversans obruit illam in carne suâ mundi solicitudinibus quasi spinis suffocat suaefidel bonum fructum non fert Chrysost Anian Interpr in Loc. He hideth his talent in the earth that hath received the knowledge of Christ and yet contemneth a spiritual life and being conversant in earthly actions and delights overthrows it in the flesh choaks it by the cares of the flesh as so many thorns so that he brings forth no good fruit of his faith And why may not that Ratio data nobis ad imaginem which Ambrose speaketh of be all one with that notitia Christi which Chrysostome gives us but however how weakly is Mr. Goodwins assertion fortified with authority when in the midst of many flourishes there is not any thing that so much as looks towards him but one testimony excepted which is yet left in a dubious sense and may be fairly carried quite another way And this is the height of his authority But because he seems to look also at colour of reason and pretendeth that there is neither colour nor ground of reason for any man to think that the talents signifie any thing but natural abilities I shall in the next place produce severall particulars which to my understanding carry some colour of reason by them I intend to prove that by the talents are not meant natural abilities 1 To understand the talents of natural abilities takes away all pertinency and aptness either to the persons spoken to or the occasion of speaking from the words of Christ which yet we are upon very necessary principles to grant to them the persons to whom these words were spoken were Jews who had the letter of the Gospel preached to them and the occasion of speaking these words was immediately upon the preaching that parable of the sower the seed being the Word it fell on all grounds good and bad the stony thorny highway ground but these mysteries our Saviour spake in Parables the reason being asked he returns this answer in both places To him that hath shall be given but from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath Now let Mr. Goodwin shew the pertinency of this answer in his sense either to the persons or occasion for taking talents for natural abilities then this is the sense of the place Because the unbelieving Jews have not that is use not the light and abilities of nature well therefore they had not the clear understanding of the mysteries of heaven given to them but our Saviour gives the reason in the Parable because the Gospel in its glorious discoveries fell upon their hearts as upon stony high-way thorny ground therefore he spake to them in Parables and therefore adviseth them to take heed how they heard viz. the letter of the Gospel For to him that hath shall be given c. now to interpret the talents by the light of nature is very much irrelative to the occasion of Christs words which was their not using of the Gospel-light in the letter of it and what an incoherency doth it introduce into Christs words Luke 8.18 Take heed how ye hear For to him that hath shall be given c for then the sense must run thus Take heed how ye hear the Gospel for from them that use not the light of nature well shall be taken away the light of nature even that which they have the very words of taking heed how they hear seem to carry it hither that the talents did signifie the preaching of the Gospel 2. This very sense destroys his standing course of providence for clear it is that as Christ applyeth this proverbiall sentence the Jews did not use their talents well Now if by talents be to be understood naturall abilities then the unbelieving Jews did not use their naturall abilities well and yet they had the letter of the Gospel and God did not fail to reveal his Son Christ to them else how could they be unbelieving and if he revealed his Son to such as did not use their natural abilities regularly where is Mr. Goodwins standing Course of providence of revealing or hiding his Son Christ according to mens exercising or not exercising their naturall abilities regularly 3 Their talents that were given were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own goods that is the proper goods of their Master which he had in dispose to distribute to his servants and that as Mediator but where shall we finde that he received naturall abilities to bestow upon his Church or that he is said to give such as mediatour True he is that light that enlightens every man to wave all other commodious interpretations that are given how will Master Goodwin prove that those are spoken of Christ as Mediatour but rather as Creatour John 1.9 10. the text saith not he is the true light but he was the true light yea also he was in the world and the world was made by him He was that enlightening light when he was in the world creating the world and so endewing them with the light of reason and this way hath much countenance from Interpreters When Christ ascended on high Ephes 4.9 10 11 12. he distributed those gifts that he had received but what were they shall we so far mistake as to judge them natural abilities the text will explode such a sense because they are not pertinent for the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministery the edifying of the body of Christ the Apostle saith Ephes 1.3 John 1.16 That in him we are blest with all spiritual blessings and that of him we receive grace for grace but where shall we finde that his Church receiveth from him the abilities of nature and that from him as Mediatour Now he must prove this before it can be clear that these talents signifie naturall abilities 4 Those talents that were given were in a various degree to diverse men some five some two some one talent but how can Mr. Goodwin make his to agree with the light of nature if he consider his own words Pag. 10. Pag. 10. That all men by the light of nature may make out the conclusions of the Gospel and that an attonement is made for sin if all men can do thus much and no man any more where is this variety that the Parable speaketh of 5 These talents

constitutions of the Almighty God may say in this case as in Isa 44.7 who as I shall call and declare it and set in order for me the things that are to come to passe but to come to a close I shall in a line or two ingage him with two Arguments only to prove that the light of nature cannot discover to the heathen life upon the duty of repentance Arg. 1 That which the light of nature could not discover to Adam after his fall cannot be discovered by the light of nature to the heathen But the duty of repentance the light of nature could not discover to Adam after his fall Therefore the light of nature cannot discover it to the heathen The proposition is grounded upon his owne words in his postscript thus I see no difference in this case betwixt Adam and his posterity The minor or assumption is also his owne he saith in his postscript that there was no command to repent nor any thing of that import until the promise and therefore he was not obliged to repent And if the premises be both his the conclusion must be his Arg. 2 What the Apostle could not discover who had the advantage both of the light of nature and the letter of the Gospel the light of nature onely cannot discover to the heathen But the Apostles by the light of nature and letter of the Gospel could not discover life for the Gentiles upon repentance Therefore the light of nature cannot discover life upon the duty of repentance to the heathen The proposition is grounded upon this principle what a double advantage cannot do a single one cannot do alone The minor is cleare from Acts 11.18 indeed in all the tenth and eleventh Chapters wholly Thus have I touched upon every parcel of his pretended rational discourse that a heathen may as he saith make by the light of nature and after examination it appears that without his officious suggestion hee could not read one syllable of it I have been the shorter because I expect the provocation of his reply and I have sayd so much because it is the foundation of his whole Treatise But because Mr. Goodwin knoweth that it matters not what negotiating and busiy heads assert but how they prove he gives us a text or two or some few to prove all this which he seemes to pretend a serious examination of I shall do the like and thereby be enabled to survey both his understanding and ingenuity at once Now this I observe in the superficial survey of them all that they are all of them impertinent to this businesse for any that hath but an indifferent exercise of his reason may see that all those Scriptures which are produced as proofes for his assertion must expressly point at the want of the letter of the gospel and also at the cleare tye and obligation particularly to these duties viz. to believe and repent But all his Scriptures produced by him fail in one of these two either clearly implying the letter of the gospel or else not arising so high as believing and repenting as shall presently appear Rom. 10.18 The first text by which he proves his assertion is Rom. 10.18 but I demand have they not heard yes verily their sound is gone through all the world By which he proves that a heathen man without the letter of the gospel may be enabled to discover an attonement and a very futilous and absurd consequence we have at the first entrance The text saith have they not heard and yet this is produced as a proof that those that never heard of the letter of the gospel are yet bound to believe in Jesus Christ But I suppose this businesse will stick here betwixt us whether this hearing mentioned in this chapter be meant of hearing by the oral administration of the word or hearing the voice of the heavens and the creatures We are for the former he is strong for the latter in these words Pag. 10. The Apostle shews by what hearing Faith comes or at least what is sufficient to produce Faith it is the hearing of that sound and those words which the heavens the day and the night speak as appeareth by those words taken out of Psalme 19.4 And the Apostle further saith that that sound and those words uttered by the heavens are the words of eternal life as well as those words which our Saviour himselfe spake on earth onely not so clearely and plainely spoken In all which we have first his interpretation S●condly his illustrative confirmation Thirdly his ground and reason His interpretation is thus the hearing mentioned in Rom. 10. is the hearing of the sound of the heavens the day and the night His conformation is this those words and sound of the heavens are the words of eternal life as well as those words that Christ spake on earth His ground and reason is because the Apostle useth the expressions of the Psalmist Psal 19.4 where that text relates to the sound of the heavens His interpretation I challenge with insolent forgery Secondly his illustration with impious blasphemy Thirdly his reason with weak and fond absurditie all these charges I shall make good against him in their order 1. His interpretation is an insolent forgery against a cleare text and this I prove First by the current of Interpreters Secondly by the testimony of the best of his owne side Thirdly by the expresses that drop from his own pen. Fourthly by the opening of the text and chapter all along 1. It appeares a forgery against a cleare text if we reflect upon the unanimous suffrage of interpreters against him It would seeme a prodigy in any but Mr. Goodwin to obtrude upon a text such an interpretation to which upon the least colour of reason we are not lead by the least syllable and neglect another to which every word almost doth safely lead us What one expression in the whole chapter gives the least incouragement to this interpretation as the heavens the day or the night Reprehendit Iud●orum incredulitatem et publicationem evangeclii amplific●t per coelorom sonum Pet. Martyr in loc or any thing to that purpose mentioned in all that subject about which the Apostle treateth but of the letter of the Gospel in many verses particularly in verses 15 16 upon which this immediately followeth faith cometh by hearing and this question have they not heard Now it may help much in this difficulty if there be any in it to consider the persons of whom this question proceedeth whether of the Jewes or Gentiles or both jointly Mr. Goodwin knoweth well that interpreters are very much divided and that to dissatisfaction herein Junius Beza Deodato Galvin Paraeus Cornel. à Lapid Some are for the Jewes as Peter Martyr who saith he reprehendeth the infidelity of the Jewes and amplifieth the publication of the Gospel by the sound of the heavens and many are of his judgement as Iunius in his Parallels Beza the

whom they have not heard how shall they heare without a preacher And that all these interogatories are understood of the oral preaching of the gospel if Mr. Goodwin did not acknowledge it pag. 31 32. I should easily prove it Some I confesse may be so perverse but none so blind as to think that those words preaching hearing word gospel believing so often repeated in this chapter are not understood and relate to the oral preaching of the Gospel and in the letter of it And thus till he produce further proofe on all hands we shall conclude his interpretation a meer forgery against a clear text and so adjudged against him by the current of interpreters the judgement of the best of his owne side his own expresses and the cleare genius of the whole chapter 2. Having examined his interpretation I proceed to the confirmation and illustration of his interpretation He would establish it by affirming that the voice of the heavens and the night and the day and the words which they speak are the words of eternal life as well as those which Christ himselfe spake when he was upon earth which I charged with impious blasphemy and proceed thus to make it good If to affirme any thing from Christ that derogateth either from the dignity of his person or office be truely to be termed blasphemy then they may be termed so for herein he doth both advance the creatures into the Chaire of Christ and reduce Christ into the ranke of the creatures Christ hath received an universal charter and patent to bee the publisher of the Gospel and that out of his mouth should proceed the words of eternal life according to that text Luke 4.18 the spirit of the Lord is upon me to preach c. We find a dicotomy in Heb. 2 2. of Gods speaking by the prophets and speaking by his Son but of his speaking the things of the gospel by the heavens no where Had such a pregnant suggester stood at Peters elbow when he asked this question Whither shall we goe Lord thou hast the words of eternal life Ioh. 6.68 he would have told him that he was not a well tutoured scholler in the schoole of Christ And as the wiseman sends the sluggard to the ant so he would have sent Peter to the heavens the Moon and the Sun and Stars to hear them preach the words of eternal life What futilousnesse and vanity doth this assertion of his introduce into the words of the Apostle 2 Tim. 1.10 But is made appear by the appearing of Jesus Christ who hath brought immortality and life to light through the gospel And this gospel is that which Paul was appointed to preach in the next verse what need the Apostle wrap up all in expressions at such a distance as to say Now it is manifest and that by the coming of Christ and that Hee hath brought immortality and life to light And that in that Gospel which Paul was sent to preach if that life and immortality and the saving grace of God be clearely discovered by the creatures Nay I intreat Mr. Goodwin to consider whether he doth not by this introduce a needlesnesse and uselesnesse of Christ coming to discover the mysteries of the gospel to the Gentiles or of any oral preaching thereof either to Jew or Gentile if that in the heavens and the creatures there be so much seen of the Gospel as to make men wise unto salvation And so good old Simeon must stand charged rather with dotage then devotion in waiting for Christ to be the light of the Gentiles How doth he in this utterly make voyd the dignity and preheminence of the Scriptures which are said to make men wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 and to be the words of eternal life Ioh. 5.39 If that both these may be as truly recorded of the book of the creatures as of the book of the Scriptures Lastly let Mr. Goodwin upon better thoughts consider whether the creatures and the motions of the heavens be truly and properly said to carry in them the words of eternal life at all 1. We find the Scriptures the words which Christ and his Apostles orally preached to the world to be called the word of Life Phil. 2.16 so Ioh. 6.63 the words which I speak unto you are life And the words of eternal life in many texts But I intreat Mr Goodwin to produce one text that either expressely or by intimation calls the sound of the heavens so Me thinks his reason should bespeak it too great presumption for any man to make the words of Christ to bee no more the words of eternal life then the sound of the heavens which never in Scripture are honoured with that dignifying title 2. The words of eternal life must discover not only God but Christ without the knowledg of both no salvation Iohn 17.3 This is life eternal to know God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent But how long long will it be ere he prove that the creatures can give the knowledge of Christ I expect that Mr. Goodwin give me some pertinent Scriptures to prove it Psal 19.1 2 3 4. Rom. 1.20 Act. 17.27 go no further then the glorie of God the invisible things of God and that they might seek after God but that the creatures of themselves discover a Christ the Scriptures say no where 3. The words of eternal life are the charter and magna charta of the Church Hence he knowes it is a rule extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also that of the Apostle Act. 2.47 The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved To be brought into the Church was to be brought in seriem salvandorum and both by the word of eternal life Then if the heavens declare the words of eternal life either that distinction betwixt the church of Christ and them that are without falls to the ground or else the word of eternal life is given as the ordinary means to bring men to faith in Jesus Christ to others besides the Church of God And then what transcendent love is there in Christ towards the Church in washing of it with water by the word Eph 5.25 26 4. The words of eternal life must convert the soule open the eyes make wise the simple otherwise they are not to bee called the words of eternal life But if Mr. Goodwin say that the creatures and voice of the heavens doe convert the soule c. then let him consider whether hee doth not overthrow that plaine distinction of the Psalmist Ps 19.4 6 7 8. where he saith the heavens declare the glory of God and the law converteth the soule He speaketh not of converting the soule til he passeth by the heavens and speaketh of the law of God 5. The word of eternal life is the ordinary meanes which God hath appointed to bring men to life But if Mr. Goodwin say that the heavens and the creatures are the ordinary way to bring men to salvation then he

the life of Christ These two are arguments ad hominem Arg. 3 If God suffered the Nations to walk in their own waies then he did not give the principle of his assisting Grace to that end that they might use the light of nature well But God suffered the Nations to walk in their own waies Acts 14.16 Therefore he doth not the latter This Argument I humbly conceive hath so much weight in it that it will deservedly challenge their most intimate consideration and it is grounded upon this foundation For God to suffer them to walk in their own waies which the word of God affirmeth and yet to do what in him lieth to hinder them from so doing which this method of the Remonstrants must needs import are in themselves very contradictious and inconsistent and that upon the principle of Arminius himself which is that (a) Permissio est cessat●o ab omni impediendi actu Anteperk 2. p. 21 impedition and permission cannot stand together permission is the cessation from all acts of impedition for clear it is that he that doth any thing to hinder an act cannot be properly said to permit it although the thing it self be done Now let us proceed to the businesse upon Arminius's grounds that Permission is the suspension of all efficiency whereby the action of men may be rationally hindred and that God hinders an act two waies either giving a law whereby men are not left to their own liberty but they are so confined that they cannot do it but sin as also by putting to any impediment whereby the action may be hindred both these then must be wanting if there be a permission and so by consequence where there is permission there is neither of these so that by the help of this we may come to conclude what consonance the Doctrine of universal grace hath with the Scriptures or Reason Will they think it rational for us to say that that father which gives to his son a great estate or it may be a lesser portion to negotiate and trade with and also by his counsel and direction yea and his labour and pains is ready to assist him that he should be said to leave him to himself and to suffer him to walk in his own waies So in this case they say that God gives all the heathen a law to circumscribe them and by that their consciences will accuse them and condemn them if they walk not according to that law and this God gives them as a full stock and measure of Talents to negotiate and drive on an heavenly trade and with that intent that they may thrive in a spiritual estate towards heaven and not onely so but by the motion of his holy Spirit assist direct and move and perswade to restrain them from abusing those Talents and to the end they may use them well If so then what truth can there be in that Scripture that saith God suffered them to walk in their evill waies or if there be truth in those Scriptures what truth then in those frequent assertions of theirs that contein such administrations of grace to them to hinder them from walking in their own waies seeing permission and impedition cannot stand together no nor your permission and the putting forth such means as either they suppose may or intend should hinder such actions can consist and stand together And as a further illustration of this argument I demand Cui fini to what end is this principle of assisting grace given to all men I● is true I know they tell us in general that it is to assist them that they may use the light of nature well Specialem modū operationis non necesse est nobis exponere Corvin in Mol. c. 43. S. 5. Etsi dici à nobis actum per meras scastones●n nobis effici probare non pussi● lubenter canon concedimus cam non effici fine suasionibus Ib. see 7 Ponitur Impedi mentum volan tati duplici mo do vel per modum naturae vel per madū liber●a●s Prima est physicci ●pellendo Secunda est moral●e● suadendo in prima voluntas necessariò in secan a certò impeditur Armin. Antiperk p 150. but this doth not satisfie I demand further what is the work or the manner of working in this case how doth this spirit assist the heathen to use nature wel They deny any infused habites but it must be in a way that sutes well with the liberty of mans free will which is by moral suasion as they say in all their writings yet if we charge them with this they deny it and that upon good ground for if they say it is by a Physical efficiency onely it destroies their very foundation and if by a moral suasion onely they cannot prove it we may well therefore demand how but we cannot receive satisfaction from them in this for they answer us thus The special and particular manner by which the spirit works it is not necessary for us to explain How do these assertors of universal grace delight to lurk in obscurities and upon every occasion decline the open profession of the truth and it will be too much digressive from the point for me to ingage in this dispute de modo operationis gratiae but to take it as we find it granted by them thus Although thou canst not prove that we say the grace of God acts by mere suasion yet we grant willingly it acts not without suasion or to ●ake the words of Arminius who treating of permission which he maketh to be a suspension of all impediment saith thus Impediments are put before the will of man two waies either by acting according to the manner of nature or acting according to the manner of free choice the former is by Physical impulse the second by moral suasion in the first the will is necessarily in the second certainly hindred By all which we may conclude that where the grace of God is given by way of an assisting principle it must be either by a Physical efficiency necessarily acting the will or by a moral perswasion certainly perswading the will or both join●ly and so on the contrary we may say that to them whom he neither Physically moves nor morally perswades to such the assisting grace of God is not given to hinder them from walking in sinfull waies or to enable them to use the light of nature well by this we may conclude that this assisting grace is not given to the Heathen nations because he suffred them to walk in their waies which permission excludes both Physical efficiency and moral suasion and that this is firm reason I shall present to the world their own grants Fi●st Arminius gives it as the ground work thus (a) Perm●ssio igitur quà Deus perm●tat creaturam ra●ionalem perpetrate actum est suspensio impedimentorum om●um quibus volantas persua denda erat Arm in Perk. p. 153. Permission by which God permitteth a rational

co●nelio Lydia Corvin in Mol. cap. 34. sect 5. that when men are so farre turned from sin as to grieve for it groane under the burden of it and so to strive and fight against it and so farre turned to God as to desire and hunger and thirst after his grace they should not yet be partakers of conversion shal we see a piece of their reason wee have it in Corvinus who saith thus It is said in the Acts of the Apostles that many before they were converted were religious and feared God as Act. 2 5. 10.2 16.14 of the Jews Cornelius and Lydia And it wil be an excellent proofe when they prove that these mentioned in these Scriptures were not converted before the preaching of the Apostles which I believe wil be ad Gracas Calendas Let any Arminian tell me what one syllable in those texts import that those there spoken of were then unconverted or where do we find any footsteps of their conversion afterwards or that the Apostle was sent for to convert Cornelius and where hee did it til this be done I shall conclude their proofe very infirm and weake For the Apostle did not goe to Cornelius to convert him to God but to instruct him in a more particular and distinct knowledge of Christ which I hope they will grant many had not in those daies and before that yet were converted to God A second piece of their reason wee have from the same Author and in the same place from this that the feare of God is said to be before the revelation of the divine wills and his Argument is this (a) Ille timor convenit nondum credentibus qui praecedit revelationem divinae voluntatis talis est timor de quo sermo est Psal 15.12 14. Ibid. That fear agreeth well to those that yet believe not in Christ which goeth before the revelation of the divine will But such a feare is that spoken of Psal 25.12 14. Ergo. But when this argument is reduced to a right and legitimate formation it wil appear to be of the same size with the former First for that phrase believeth not in Christ he should have inserted are not converted now it is ill confounding these two because according to them many before Christ of whom this text is spoken were converted to God and yet did not believe in Christ so that the proposition should have run thus That fear agreeth wel to men unconverted which goeth before the revelation of Gods wil. Secondly That phrase Revelation of the divine will must be distinguished and we must know whether he meaneth all the discoveries of Gods will or only a further confirmation or increase of knowledge of his wil. If they understand it in this last sense I deny the Proposition if in the former the Assumption for the fear there spoken of doth not precede all knowledg of the divine will God may well be said to shew his covenant and to teach in the way that he shall chuse and to tell his secrets to them that are already converted and have had some discoveries of his will otherwise David so often as hee prayes to God in Psal 119. to teach him his word his wil his waies his statutes so often he should bespeake himself without the knowledge of Gods will and yet unconverted And by such arguments as those they attempt to prove that those actions are but preparative to conversion and regeneration I shall only come against them with their own sword in one Argument thus they grant us in expresse terms that (b) Homo in statu peccati nihil boni ex se à se potest aut facere aut velle aut cogitare sed ne cesse est ut in intellectu voluntate affectibus omnibus viribus renovetur Script Synod Art 3. p. 1. Man in the state of sinne can do no good nor think good nor desire good of himself but to these it is necessary that he be renewed in his understanding will affections and all his powers Now upon this ground they will be reduced to this dilemma either these actions are not good or else they are not done as preparative to but as effects or as parts as some would expresse it of regeneration Now to examine which of these two they take Wee find Corvinus thus salving the businesse speaking of those re●icks of life in man he saith thus (c) Ideoque licèt illud quod verè honum est agere non possit potest tamen per illud bonum aliquid agere In Molin cap. 32. Sect. 24. Although by this he cannot do that which is truly good yet by this good he is able to do somthing A very learned decision and well becoming such a man Who ever yet feigned to himself man so destitute of power that he could do nothing But with him it seems man hath such a sufficiency of grace that he can do something But I hope this is not the height of the doctrine of universal sufficient grace he should have shown what it is that they can do whether bonum or malum or nec bonum nec mulum that is whether good or evil or indifferent Good he denies Indifferent he doth not say and Evil he cannot prove Neither is that any clearer satisfaction which we find in another place though upon the same subject who being pressed with this Whether those works that men did as dispositive to regeneration were good or no he answers thus (a) Si verè bona ea intelligantur quae habent quicquid secundùm evangelium ad essentiam boni operis pertiner non sunt verè bona sed si verum opponitur ficto ac apparenti c●tra substantiam suo modo etiam verè bona dici possunt quâ in illis est sinceritas integritas c. 34. s 7 If truly good be understood of that which hath those things which according to the Gospel appertain to the essence of a good work so they are not truly good but as truly good is opposed to feigned and appearing without substance so they are truly good because there is in them integrity and sincerity But hee that can reduce this elaborate distinction to right reason hee shall be with mee great Apollo How willing and yet unwilling is Corvinus to affirme these actions truly good and that because pressing inconveniences attend him on either hand And therefore he will speake at a high rate of inconsistency but hee will reconcile the businesse and affirme them good and truly good as they have the substance of good but not truly good as they have not the essence of good as if the substance of good can be present and yet the essence of good be absent as if when the question was put concerning this or that thing whether it be a true man or no wee should say as true man is taken for that which hath the essence of a man so it is not a true man but as the phrase

true man is taken for that which is a man not in appearance but in substance so it is a true man would not this be exploded as very ridiculous the termes are so coincident that one cannot be without the other for it cannot be truly said to be a man quoad substantiam unlesse it hath the essence of a man Quicquid est homo habet essentiam hominis Yet this is the best satisfaction that wee receive from these great assertours of universal grace and in this distinction they have a double disadvantage The members thereof are coincident and so no legitimate members of a distinction and also the last member which he granteth serveth our turne for then those actions which they produce which all men have sufficient grace to performe as they say are by Corvinus his owne confession such as have the substance of good and are not feignedly but truly good then how can such things be done before regeneration as pre-dispositions therunto seeing they are truly good and because they are so according to their own concessions they cannot be done by any man untill he be regenerated in all his p●wers how are they in their last refuge implicated and involved Secondly I urge Suppose they he proved to be antecedents to regeneration yet how will they prove they are true and proper dispositives thereunto I demand some ground either from Scripture or reason to prove that by these man is disposed to conversion What place in Scripture intimateth either these or any other things as dispositions to conversion or how in all their writings do they cleer these expressions to satisfaction Those words by which they most declare their minds in this point I find in Corvinus who saith thus (a) Mens nostra est Hominem communiori istâ gratiâ rectè utentem ideo esse aptum idoneum ad credendum Evangelio quia tal bus evangelium ●um fi●ctu revelat ut evangelio credant in talibus efficit Corvin in Mol. c. 33. §. 11. Our mind is that man using common grace well is therefore apt and fit to believe the Gospel because God doth reveale the Gospel to such with fruit and doth worke faith in such And in another place speaking of these verie actions saith thus God requireth them of him whom he wil regenerate And many more to this purpose whereby they in stead of proofe from Scriptures being deductions of their owne which are very obnoxious to scruple and their reasoning is this they deduct mens aptnesse and fitnesse to be converted by such acts from Gods dispensations and his actual converting of those in whom are seen those acts And may not I retort this Argument with as great strength thus Man using common grace well is not disposed to converting grace (b) Ea praeexi it Leus ab eo quem intendit regenerare c. 32. Sec. 14. because God doth not alwaies give converting grace to such and doth often give it to others that do not use the light of nature wel or at least as Armanius saith minus malè And the Argument is of some strength if there be no unbended method for Gods dispensing converting grace then what wil become of their dispositions to conversion Many of the Corinthians are recorded to be Idolaters Adulterers buggerers theeves and what not they did not use the light of nature well and yet they were blessed with the Gospel and did partake of the regenerating grace of God but let any man shew me the dispositions to this grace by which they were fitted to receive it Paul was a persecuter blasphemer injurious abusing not only the Gospel but the light of nature also which if Mr. Goodwin divine right teacheth men to search out and yeild to the best discoveries of Gods will and pleasure and so was without all dispositions to receive converting grace and yet he found mercy in the height of his obstinacie which is recorded as a demonstration of the power of Gods grace to reduce him when there were no probable apparent dispositions to receive converting grace but Tyre and Sydon who were so well disposed and fitted to receive further grace and had used the light of nature well as that Christ saith of them they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes if they had enjoyed that word and these miracles and yet to them God gave neither the outward meanes of the Gospel nor yet converting grace but what need I cast about to produce proofe The Remonstrants owne concessions are enough to confirme us against themselves who upon the same point thus say (a) Novimus enim Deum saepe evangelicae praeditationis gratiam iis facere qui nihil minus curae habuerunt quam ut communion vo●ation respond●ant qaum tal●bus eam facit eandem non facit ii● qui nihilo sunt pejores si ulterius consideretur mediorum ad salutem dispensatio agnoscimus Deum omnis boni largitorem tali ut● libertate ut paribus impa●em imparibus parem gratiam conferendo minus malos non vocando pejores vocando ut ex usu vel abusu donorum generaliorū exactam ejus rationem red●i non posse libenter a●noscimus Act. Synod Art 2. p. 528. For wee know very wel that God hath given evangelical grace to them that take care for nothing lesse then to use common grace well and also doth not give it to others that are nothing worse then they and if his dispensations of the means of salvation be truly considered wee acknowledge that God who is the giver of all good useth such a liberty in giving unequal grace to equal men and equal grace to unequal men in rejecting those that are lesse evil and calling worse and that he makes such a various administration of his grace that wee willingly acknowledge there can be no exact account given thereof by the use or abuse of general grace And what more clear then this to cause all that doctrine of dispositions to conversion which God requires in all them to whom he intendeth to give converting grace to vanish into smoak There are no such congruities in men or dispositions to determine the will of God to give them converting grace but according to their owne judgment he useth such a liberty that as Jacob he layeth his right hand upon the youngest son and reserves his left for his eldest which makes us oftentimes to admire the depth of the power and the wisdom of God Now if any shal demand of me what I have gained in all these allegations I answer thus much that those actions which they pretend all may do are no way dispositions to converting grace or regeneration and therefore they have no colour of reason to pretend men are sufficiently enabled to do them and that in reference to salvation making all to ha●g in this method All men have grace to enable them to use nature well and do things contained in the law c. which are dispositions to

so also in respect of the event and of man now vitiated and corrupted it only can be called sufficient True indeed I acknowledge there are very elaborate disputes about this very distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace And the Remonstrants thus bound either Sufficient grace they say is such as is able to produce the effect and efficient is that which doth actually produce the effect and this distinction is good if taken in the general but as it is applyed to man in his corrupt estate it will not passe and that upon the forementioned ground Learned Mr. Perkins urgeth this also That no grace is sufficient but what is efficient and then proves it hee first asserteth it but Arminius he denies it and maintaineth the distinction of sufficient and efficient grace and holds that grace may be said to be sufficient that is not efficient and he attempts to illustrate the businesse thus (a) Deus sufficit multis mundis creandis sed tamen efficaciter non fecit Christus sufficit ad omnes homines salvandos sed efficaciter non fecit Antiper p. 245. God was sufficient to have made many worlds but hee did not make them effectually Christ was sufficient to save all men but he doth not effect it Which Instances satisfie not for several reasons 1. Because there is no due Analogie betwixt creation and conversion in this particular In creation there are no impediments to hinder this worke the Chaos riseth not up against the plasticall power of the Creator but in man and that according to their owne principles there is a strong resisting power and so as to make the the work of God altogether null and void as to the act of conversion no impediments in the one but such in the other that can not be removed without being efficient 2 His arguing is fallacious for when wee treat of sufficient means wee presuppose them to be actually put forth and administred and hence the definition of sufficiency is the Position or adhibition of all requisites nothing can be said to be sufficient to produce any act except it be applyed and put forth And I may say I suppose with a holy reverence no not the divine power except it by his holy will be put forth to create so that the divine power may be considered either as put forth and set on worke by the counsel of his will or not if not then I see not I speak with submission how it can bee called sufficient His omnipotency we are taught thus to conceive of it is that by which hee doth whatsoever he will and if that power bee by his wil put forth it is efficient and so the cause returneth to us again But Mr. Perkins doth not only assert but prove also that now in mans corruption nothing is sufficient to conversion but what is efficient and that by an argument which I shal follow a little and it is this Argum. If to conversion be necessary prevenient preparant operant cooperant grace of God then no grace is sufficient but what is efficient But the former is true therefore the latter This argument is grounded upon this method Sufficiency implyeth a position of all necessaries Now if all those be necessarie then all must concurre to make a sufficient grace to conversion and if all concurre that grace is efficient then what is more connatural then this that no grace is sufficient but what is efficient And Mr. Perkins proceeds only upon Arminius his owne concessions yet Arminius answers thus Consequentia ista nulla est dicere nulla datur sufficiens gratia quia null illorū sola s●fficiat Antiper p. 246 The consequence is not good to say there is no sufficient grace because none of these five alone is sufficient but this is a meere trifling and misallegation of his adversary Perkins did not say that there was no sufficient grace but no sufficient but what was efficient because none alone except a●l concurred could be called sufficient and if al did then it was efficient and is not the consequence good I conceive undeniable If all be granted to conversion before a man can be said to have sufficient grace to the working of regeneration then sufficiency and efficiency must needs meet in one for where all are there they are certainly efficient the cooperant grace of God alwaies implying efficiency But Arminius answers further (a) Omnes illae gratiae praeveniens nempe et praeparans aut suffientes sunt aut efficaces Deus praevenit sufficienter efficaciter praeparat sufficienter efficaciter quaeri possit an non sic de reliquis Armin. Antiperk ibid. All those graces namely the prevenient and preparant are either sufficient or efficient God preveneth sufficiently and effectually he prepareth sufficiently and effectually and it may be enquired into whether it holdeth not in the two last graces But what rational answer these expresses are to the Argument in hand I am not able to divine nor the congruity of them with themselves The making those graces in one clause to be either sufficient or effectuall in the second clause to be both couplatives and disjunctives do not wel in the same sentence referred to the same thing in the same respect Besides here is a grosse mis-understanding of his adversary he did not say there was not a sufficiencie in any of those graces alone to their proper ends and actions as that there was not a sufficiencie in the prevening grace alone to prevent so not in preparing grace alone to prepare But he said not in any alone to convert If hee understand him otherwise he thinks amisse and if he judge of his adversary aright his answer is very impertinent But further then this Arminius is his owne greatest enemie Arminius contendeth for a sufficient and efficient grace distinct so that he should have produced a sufficient grace that had not beene effectual then it had beene to his purpose but this is no probable way to make both sufficiencie and efficiency to concurre in every grace And I conceive it is an undeniable argument against himselfe that if no grace be sufficient and not efficient that viz. God prepareth both sufficiently and efficiently and so in preventing operating cooperating grace It will appear that no grace is or can be said to be sufficient to any end or purpose but what is also efficient in the same designe And of this I shall make a good improvement to bring to a faire issue out of this engagement with them thus If no grace no not so much as prevenient and preparant but they act both sufficiently and efficiently and not sufficiently prepared and disposed until they be efficiently so then is my Argument strengthened which is this All are not sufficiently enabled either to convert or to do those things by which they are disposed to convert until they do actually do those things which all do not and therefore are not sufficiently enabled and then what

41. §. 5. For as much as appertaineth to that proverbial sentence To him that hath shall be given by it we confine our sentence of rewarding the right use of former grace by the increase of a greater following grace So that now those talents must be grace and yet this doth not please but in the words immediatly following another spirit possesseth his pen thus (c) Sententia est generalis nihil aliud Dominus dictum vult quàm hoc quòd Deus compensat rectum usum donorum majori liberalitate Ibidem Pag. 20. The sentence is general wherein the Lord speaks nothing but this that he will compensate the right use of gifts received with greater liberality Here the talents are so laxly interpreted as that we may make them either nature or grace or both or if such could possibly be neither Sometimes the talents are natural light sometimes grace sometimes either or both and may we finde Master Goodwin any thing more certain to his principles In the 20th page of his Book he urgeth that the talents are natural gifts and can be understood of nothing else by any colour of reason and yet in the 18th page he gives himself a little more room and saith that that text avoucheth that That whatsoever a mans stock or endowments is in one kinde or other from Gods hand yet by a careful improvement it may arise to a spiritual estate and in the 21th page further saith quite contrary that Those abilities that are given to man are more commonly then properly called natural and is it not likely that we should give satisfactory answers to them who cannot yet make any setled and satisfactory demands but it seems I must do it as well as I may And because Mr. Goodwin toucheth upon these things I shall examine First what we are to understand by the Talents Secondly who by servants Thirdly what by increase Fourthly what by the reward and when this is done this text will be sufficiently cleared First what is meant by talents the true examen of this will help us to decide all the rest and I shall proceed upon this ground if these words make any thing for their invented or standing providence they must either by talents understand natural gifts or else at least take them in but because I am to deal with Mr. Goodwin I shall consider his own words in this case There is no ground nor colour of reason to think but that all the talents mentioned in the parable the five the two and the one were all of one kinde and nature and signified not any supernatural or saving grace but only natural abilities and such as men unregenerate as well as regenerate are capable of But then 1 How inconstant is he to himself for in the 21 page he saith that these talents and endowments are more commonly then properly called natural yet here he is so assertive of this great Impropriety as to say that it cannot upon any ground or colour of reason be taken for any thing but natural endowments 2 I answer by concession grant all the talents to be of one kinde and nature yea and the increase to be of the same nature with the talents but this is no favourable plea for Mr. Goodwins cause which would have nature to be the talents and grace the increase but of this more presently 3 Supppse they be all of one kinde must that needs be natural what colour of reason is there for this inference may they not be supernatural and yet be all of one kinde also but he hath one expression that seemeth to carry in it the force of a reason and that is this Such as men unregenerate have as well as the regenerate and his reason seemeth to be this Those talents were given to that sernant that was cast into utter darkness and so to the unregenerate therefore it must be understood of natural abilities but this is very miserable reasoning as if supernatural grace was not given to the unregenerate how then should they come to be regenerate or if it be such as the regenerate have with the unregenerate it must be more then natural except he will say that men become regenerate meerly by nature but if he have here mistaké a word unregenerate putting men for men that shall perish as I think he hath because in the foregoing page I finde him molding the expression so I shall not take the advantage but consider it running thus and yet I say who ever hath said that God may not give supernatural grace to them that shall perish or that this is good reasoning such means are given to men that shall perish therefore they are only natural gifts Many shall say We have prophesied in thy Name of whom he shall say I know ye not the incredulous Jews were men that should perish yet I hope they had supernatural grace of the Gospel Now if he shall demand of me to what end God gives supernatural grace to them that shall perish I present Arminius himself giving an Answer Armin. Examen Perk. 154. and I say to the same end that he gives and affords sufficient impediment to hinder men from walking in their own ways when yet he certainly knoweth it shall not take effect Let him consult him at his leasure so that there is but small reason on his side to prove that by the talents are meant natural gifts But we have a very fair flourish and because reason is but slender authority must carry it for he saith That there is not one of our best Interpreters but they adjudge the case for him and that they are unanimous for natural abilities I am sorry that I am the messenger to tell him that either he hath not read those Interpreters or else that he hath too great inclinations to couzen the world he either knoweth or may know that Expositors are very much divided here and are far from being unanimous in the case in hand Marlorate and Stephanus in his Gloss upon the Evangelists assert the talents to signifie Election and the increase to be saving knowledge and their interpretation runs thus (a) Habentibus electionis donum dabitur scientia ad vitam Marlorate Stephanus Gloss in loc To those that have the gift of election shall be given the increase of saving knowledge The learned Deodati in his Annotations understands by those talents the operation of the Spirit in regeneration or regenerating and quickening grace and the increase to be the Word and Spirit of God as food of the new men and his interpretation is this To him that hath the talent of spiritual life shall be given the increase of spiritual food and in this he hath his followers Piscator by the Talents understandeth the offices in the Church and he interpreteth the text thus (b) Dominus est Christus servi sunt Christiani praesertim ii qui officium gerunt talenta sunt dona spiritualia praesertim officia ipsa

anything of that import during that time now if this be a good argunent which Mr. Goodwin urgeth viz that Adam was not bound to repent because there was no Law given to bind him to repent it is grounded upon this truth that there is no obligation to any thing without a command Now indeed in the following part of his Treatise he addresseth himself very handsomely to prove that all are bound to believe but it is not without much provocation from his adversary and it is not till much labour hath been spent as if he intended to let the world see that it is one of the last things he intendeth to be pertinent It is urged against him by an unknown Adversary thus All men are not bound to believe without the letter of the Gospel by which men are obliged and bound to believe which argument is firm and good and makes him cast about for an universal obligation to believe without the letter of the Gospel and he affirms that all men are bound to believe on Christ by a double law First by the Law of Nature Secondly by the Positive Law of God I shall examine both in their order First to examine whether all men by the Law of Nature be bound to believe on Christ He layeth down his method thus Nature requireth of men 1 That they seek after God that is the knowledge of his attributes and perfection of his being 2 After the best and richest discoveries of his will where they are to be found 3 To submit to every part of that will and pleasure being made known And then as the accomplishment of his invention he saith that the Gospel is the richest discovery of his will and they are bound to subject themselves unto it But though I grant all these things yet thus I answer There is no obligation to believe on Christ yet extant except the l●tter of the Gospell come and then the true state of the question is destroyed true it is the Gospel is the richest treasures of his mind and will but how is this made knowne to them that never come to enjoy the letter of the Gospel I further argue thus 1 Adam in innocencie was bound to do all these to seek and enq●uire after God and the richest treasure of his will c. but I hope he will not say that Adam was bound to believe in innocency if he do it is not without the positive dissent of the best of his side 2 It is strange to see the ways of these men to assume that to themselves as Orthodox what they explode in others as vaine and impertinent when Molin urged thus upon the question whether Adam had power to believe the law commands us to assent to and obey what ever the Lord saith or commandeth Corvin in in Molin cap. 11. § 7. then it must follow that if Christ was propounded and preached by the same law he should be accounted to stand bound to believe the Gospel this reasoning is rejected by Corvinus as vain and impertinent but is not Mr. Goodwins the very same 3 He saith nature binds to obey the discoveries of his will being known true but then being unknown no obligation to believe then it must be enquired into how men that never he the letter of the Gospel can come to the knowledge of the mind of God concerning faith in Christ Still here is little proof but meer trifeling Now such an assertion as this his adversary lays upon him That the light of nature cannot discover that ever there was such a man or Mediator as Christ Jesus but he is pleased to say that it is not pertinent to our purpose but I think very much For let this be granted then I urge though the law of nature bind us to do all the three forenamed particulars yet it doth not oblige us to believe in Christ because the light of nature cannot discover Christ and if not how can it oblige men to believe on Christ I see not because according to himself it bindes men to obey no further then is known but he saith further thus Though it be not sufficient to discover Christ yet it is sufficient to teach them that it is their duty to inquire after the best discovery of his will and being known it can tell them it is their duty to believe in Christ how he hath lost himself on his own circle true it may teach them to inquire but how to believe on Christ I see not because they are not bound to obey further then it is known and nature cannot discover Christ nor any way left for knowing him otherwise For the question supposeth them not to have the letter of the Gospel 2 He is much mistaken the law of nature upon that supposition that faith in Christ was discovered could not be said to be the dictator of that duty but the positive law that is newly discovered nature commandeth general obedience being a general law but a special law must be the ground of a special obedience if he consult with Corvinus he will grant this to pass for good divinity as I may illustrate it by this instance The Law of nature bindeth me to obey my Superiors and so us all this is a general law but as a ground of special obedience there is required a law positive that I may know wherein to obey them as to say Our Superiours for Politique ends forbid us to eat flesh in Lent ●hall he hence conclude that it is a dictate of nature not to eat flesh in Lent then it is against the law of nature to eat flesh in Lent but who can understand this therefore we must necessarily distinguist thus nature bindeth us to obey but their Positive law to obey in this or that particularity neither could the law of nature ever dictate to any man that he is bound not to eat flesh in Lent the case is much a like the law of nature binds us to obey God as our Maker but the law positive comes and bids us to obey him in believing Christ This obligation as it is particularized comes from the Positive law of God not from the law of nature for the law of nature could never dictate such a particularity of obedience as to beleeve in Jesus Christ And thus farre I can improve the smile he preduceth in Pag. 31 32. but how farre further it tendeth I see not for it vanisheth into smoak if we consider that the legislative power in any nation or kingdom doth not confine the discovery of their lawes to the Metropolis but as for those Laws by which mens daily and weekly transactions are to be guided they take such course that they shall be published at the Market-towns of every Shire or County where it is to be supposed that all respectively are led by their occasions or in a Sessions quarterly Justices of the Peace are in their charges to acquaint them with all those Penal Statutes and other Lawes requisite to