see whether any such thing was so or no. M. Powell This is my witnesse the testimony of my conscience and here are many present can witnesse also that I would indeavour that there might bee a meeting of the Ministers and Elders of the Churches of London that so there might be a right understanding of things between them M. Price Sir I verily believe that you are ingenuous and have done nothing out of rancor M. Jess I desire to propound this to your consideration because I perceive that M. Powell's gift doth not lie in a way of dispute I rather desire that some other may be the party M. Goodwin I suppose there is no man will preach a Doctrine but he will give an account of it and will be able to prove it and so in a sense he is fit to dispute it M. Powell I account not my self a disputer of this world M. Goodwin He that disputeth the things of Iesus Christ he is no disputer of this world M. Powell I am come to maintain and assert in the plainest manner according to the Scriptures the truths that I do hold and that other Pastors and and Teachers of Christian Churches do hold and M. Goodwin is come to maintaine that which he conceives to be truth let us as we are able go on to maintain them for the glory of God and the edification of the people M. Goodwin We are upon the point agreed only if so be you decline the name of a dispute and that which it imports and exhibits then if you will nominate and state your Doctrine in opposition to mine and so argue it from the Scriptures by considering the parts of it first one and then another I shall be willing to admit of this conference between us M. Powell With all my heart I agree to it At this turn M. John Sympson besought a blessing upon the undertaking which done proceeded thus M. Powell M. Goodwin hath offered it and I am willing to consent to it that each of us lay downe those things which we hold and so to give Scriptures and Reasons for the maintaining thereof M. Goodwin That was not my proposition but the one half of it was for since this meeting was to satisfie you in what I hold supposing my judgement to be erroneous and yours orthodox and sound my proposition was that you would please to lay down your opinion which is contrary to mine and so produce your proofs from Scripture one after another that so we may see whether they will amount to the confirmation thereof yea or no. M. Iess You that were here the last time please to make discovery how for was proceeded M. Goodwin It may be M. Powell may go more clearly to work if he will propose his opinion contrary to mine and first see if it be so and then produce his proofs of it and in case his Doctrine shall be found contrary to mine and if he can prove it then I will submit M. Powell For my part I shall very willingly and freely accept of this way as conceiving it the best to understand the truth for my aim is to know wherein we differ and how we may come to be reconciled I offered three things the last time and shall now endeavour to prove them I conceive by what I heard from you then and formerly that we differ concerning Election Redemption Mans will and concerning falling away from grace Now if it please you you shall have your choice whether of these we shall discourse of and so I shall lay down my position and give you the grounds of it M. Goodwin First you have no ground from what you heard from me to conceive that my judgement was concerning falling away M. Iess Your desire the last day M. Powell was to discourse concerning Election and Redemption and the variety and multiplicity of Questions will but confound you M. Powell This was that which M. Goodwin laid down That Christ died intentionally on Gods part and on his own part to save all the posterity of Adam M. Goodwin Though for your satisfaction I gave you an account of my opinion yet I desire that you would state yours in opposition to mine M. Powell I offered then to prove first that Iesus Christ did not die alike for every man Secondly that he did not die to redeem every man from the guilt of his sin and from the curse of the Law M. Goodwin If you will argue against my Doctrine you must state your opinion contradictory to mine M. Powell It will lie upon you in the first place to prove your proposition and then upon me to prove the contrary M. Goodwin If you please then though the nature of the dispute doth not call upon me for it yet I will give you a briefe account of my opinion what it is and in what sense I hold it and then shall prove it from the Scripture and so that two do not speak at once I care not though twenty speak to it M. Powell I desire only to speak three things in three words because I hope they will tend to the glory of God First that if any of us shall break out into passion we may be told of it and kept from it Secondly if any one hath any thing to speak unto the point after both of us have spoken that they may do it orderly Thirdly that we may now agree whether to argue in a syllogisticall way or otherwise the Propositions being laid down to bring Scriptures to prove them M. Goodwin If you will reason from the Scriptures and argue from them I am willing M. Powell It is necessary that we explain the termes in the Proposition M. Goodwin This then is my judgment and doctrine touching the point of Gods intention in the death of Christ or in the matter of redemption and salvation I say it down thus That God did intend or the intention of God in the death of Christ was that all Adams posterity should be saved and redeemed This doctrine I thus explain and this is my sense in it When I affirm that the intention of God was that all Adams posterity should be saved I attribute intentions to God only in such a sense as he is capable of intending any thing or wherein they are appropriable or attributable to him which sense is this Supposing God to be a most pure simple undivided and indivisible Essence in himself not capable of any multiplicity or plurality of actions but remaining unchangeable every way he doth not intend things after the manner of creatures the difference I explain thus A man when he intends any thing the act of his mind by which his intention is produced it is essentially distinct from his essence and being and from the nature of his soul so that his soul is one thing and his intention another but now in attributing intentions to God I do not conceive that his intention is one thing and God himself another but he
and in the immediate expression of it in the gift of his Son it was that men should not partake of the compleat fruit and benefit of it but upon the terms and condition of believing M. Powell Let us keep to this either the love of God is a speciall or common love if it was a speciall love then it is a love to all or unto some if to all then you must prove it if to some then it must be tied to the Elect of God M. Goodwin I gave you clearly my sense before that there is an ambiguity in the word speciall if by that you mean great wonderfull and admirable so as to affect the heart and to ravish the souls of men so both this and that in the Romans are the speciall love of God but if you mean by it such a love or such expressions of love from God which are peculiar and appropriate only to believers so I say the love of God is not meant neither in this place nor in that M. Powell I conceive that in both these places he meanes a speciall love in the latter sense for the Evangelist and the Apostle do intend this speciall love to the Elect and my reason is this because God in the Scriptures holds forth no speciall love at all but unto such persons M. Goodwin You deny the conclusion for my conclusion is that it holds forth a speciall love M. Caryll That is not at all in the Question whether the love of God be speciall as a great love or a small love but whether speciall be opposed to generall M. Goodwin If by speciall he means such a love which is exprest or born by God towards those who are actuall believers then I say it is not speciall M. Powell When I speak of speciall love I mean not speciall so as belonging to actuall believers onely but unto those who believe as well de futuro as de praesenti M. Goodwin The Scripture doth not take knowledge or hold forth any speciall love in your sense to any but only unto those that are actuall believers As for all others whom you term the elect of God before their faith the Scripture still wraps them up in the same generall term of the world The whole world lieth in wickednesse saith John Now in this word world certainly there were more elect in your sense that did afterwards believer then at the present els all the labour and preaching of the Apostles had been in vain And therefore for the elect who do not actually believe they are no where presented in the Scripture as under part or fellowship of the speciall love of God which is appropriate to believers but they are bound up in the common bundle of the world and they are enemies to God and God an enemy to them in such a sense as to wicked men M. Powell Give me leave to answer unto this You say that if we mean a speciall love that is such a love as God beare unto believers that then there is no such love in God but unto actuall believers Now I deny this and affirm that there is the same love in God towards others that are elect who are not believers as there is to those who actually believe And this I prove from two Scriptures Jer. 31. 31. I have loved thee with an everlasting love and Rom. 9. 11. Jacob have I loved c. and now from hence I will argue thus That love which these two texts hold forth it is a speciall love and it is towards persons that were not actuall believers M. Cranford M. Goodwin's argument formerly was to this effect That the love of God was the motive to the giving of Christ is extended unto the world and therefore the giving of Christ must likewise concern the world M. Powell's Answer was that by the world is meant onely the elect this was took away thus that such a construction of the word would take away the savor and sense of the Scripture Now M. Powell should have given an answer to this and proved that the love of God in that place is meant of a speciall love Now I desire you to have respect to this word world where your Argument chiefly consists and prove that the word world in a narrower sense then the whole world takes away the savor of the words M. Caryll M. Goodwin seems to conclude against any interpretation but onely that of a universall because if it be taken in any narrower you spoile the sense M. Drake Let that be proved that it marrs the sense M. Goodwin I beseech you consider the words God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever c. Now if by the world you will understand the Elect then the sense must run thus God so loved the Elect that whosoever of these Elect should believe should not perish c. For this word whosoever is a distributive word it must distribute some either the Elect or all men therefore the meaning must needs be that God so loved the world that whosoever they be whether Elect or not Elect that shall believe they shall be saved And if you look your best Expositors many of them do interpret the word world as I do universally Musculus and others M. Powell When M. Goodwin urged his Argument I denied the major and minor Proposition that the world was not taken in that sense onely M. Goodwin Why who then doth he mean by whosoever for that must needs relate to the persons of men and if to men then to some men or to all men if you will not understand it so you make an absolute nonsense of it and put a Pronoune without an Adjective Therefore this word whosoever must distribute either the Elect or all men or else some middle sort of men between both M. Drake I desire you to bring an Argument to prove it nonsense if by the world be meant the Elect. M. Goodwin Mind the words again God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him c. That which I am to prove is that to make sense of the place the word whosoever must distribute some men either the Elect or all men or some other number of men between both If you deny that it must be distributive then find a Substantive to the Adjective who doth God meane when he saith whosoever doth he not mean what man soever M. Powell I think whosoever and world are of the same signification and extent and I suppose by the world there is meant those that should believe and not the world taken as it is oft in Scripture for all men I have given my reason why it cannot be understood but in the former sense for the Elect. M. Cranford Answer punctually to M. Goodwins Argument which is that the word whosoever is a distributive word dividing the subject spoken of into two parts and therefore the word world must not be understood
of his Son the salvation of all men M. Powell Your argument depends upon the word World supposing it to be taken in a uniform sense M. Lordell If it please you Sir deny one of the Propositions M. Powell I deny your minor if by the world you mean all Adams posterity M. Goodwin Very well I prove it thus Either by the world here must be meant all Adams posterity or particularly those whom you call in your language the elect of God but by the world are not meant only the Elect of God in your sense and therefore by the world is meant all mankind without exception M. Powell I may deny both your Propositions M. Goodwin Repeat them and then deny them M. Powell repeated the Argument and answered thus First your major proposition the world is taken in Scripture not only for all the world that is every particular man and for all the Elect but severall other wayes But I come to your minor and say that by the world in this place is meant the Elect of God M. Goodwin If by the world is meant the Elect of God only then the sense of the place must run thus So God loved the Elect of God that whosoever of these Elect of God should believe they should not perish but c. Which clearly implies that some of the Elect of God will not believe and so consequently may perish but this is to put a non-sense upon the place and to destroy the savor that is in it and therefore cannot be the sense of it as taken in this argument that which destroyeth the construction of the sentence and the savor which is in it which alone is fit to feed the understanding of a man that cannot be the sense of the place but now to understand the word world in this place of the Elect only it makes the sense altogether unprofitable and senselesse Ergo M. Powell To this Argument I answer that this may be the sense of the word world and the words may as well be read thus So God loved his Elect that he gave c. that such and such may be saved that is that they for whom he gave Jesus Christ might believe and so be saved for the Lord did not onely love them but he intended to bring them to believe and so the extend of his love and of believing they are as large the one as the other God so loved the Elect that he would give them faith and save them M. Goodwin I do not understand your answer but either you mean by the world the Elect only or else more then the Elect or all mankind in generall but say I neither of the former senses can be meant neither the Elect only nor some others besides the Elect but onely the whole posterity of Adam M. Powell I say by the word world in this place is meant the Elect only because the Evangelist saith God so loved the world he puts a so upon it Now you never find that God in Scripture is said to love all the posterity of Adam with such a love which is here called a loving of them so and which is called in Eph. 2. a great love M. Goodwin The Scripture holds forth a twofold love of God First a generall love which is attributed to him in respect of all his creatures and secondly a more particular and speciall love that is to those who have behaved themselves according to his Will and Word by believing in his Son and so by faith and holinesse continue to the end And whereas you conceive that this particle so here in the Text is only augmentative that it only declares the greatnesse of the love of God this I absolutely deny for together with the greatnesse of this love it doth modifie and restrain it and reduce it to this forme and tenor of love it is not said simply so God loved the world that he gave his Son that all the world should be saved then indeed it had been only augmentative but mark the condition which comes in upon which God loved the world and intends to save it viz. that whosoever believeth shall be saved Which shewes that this particle so is not onely intensive and doth not only stand there to declare the greatnesse and transcendency of the love of God to the world but the tenor and the limitation of it how and upon what termes God loved the world viz. that he gave his Son Jesus Christ so and upon such termes only that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life M. Powell You affirm these two things that there is a generall and a speciall love in God and when you speak of the generall you speak of it as extending to all the creatures But secondly when you speak of a speciall love you seem to say that it is not a speciall love which this word so holds out but I say this is a speciall love my reason is this because the Apostle when he speaketh of this very love in the 5. of the Rom. he saith that God commendeth his love towards us that whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us This Scripture explains the other and this must of necessity be speciall love M. Goodwin If by speciall you mean great and wonderfull and so forth so I grant it is a speciall love but if you meane such a love or affection in God which is exprest or born by him towards those that do actually believe so that place in the Romans doth not hold forth or speak of any such love for the love of God is generall and he commends it exceedingly and marvellously herein but yet it was a love so limited and qualified by God that no persons should partake of the fruit of it but those that should believe And further this condition which God puts upon the partaking of the fruit of his love doth not represent his love the lesse commendable or lesse worthy of him God doth not shew himself lesse loving hereby but onely declares himself herein to be a God as well of wisdome as of love and it is his wisdome that doth moderate and steer all his Attributes in all their issuings and goings forth unto the world Now it had not been a love worthy of God so infinite in wisdome and goodnesse towards those whom ye call the Elect that they should partake of the benefit of this love but in and by and upon their believing M. Powell From this I gather two things First that the speciall love of God is towards men that are believers and that upon conditions of believing And secondly you say that that is the meaning of the Apostle in the Romans M. Goodwin No that I do not but the contrary and that it is the same with that which is here spoken of for it 's said that whilst we were yet sinners God sent his Son to die for us and I say that the intention of God in this love of his
twice two make four so God loved the world that the whole world believing should be saved bring me such an example from Scripture or from any approved Author wherein the subject distributed was necessarily to partake of the benefit assigned to him by such a distribution M. Cranford Prove that it doth distribute M. Goodwin Either it doth distribute or else you must grant that there is no Substantive to the Adjective M. Cranford Was it not a great mercy that the Covenant was altered from a Covenant of Works to a Covenant of Grace M. Goodwin No not in your sense of the Covenant of Grace but the hardest measure that could be to the children of men M. Simpson It concerns you to require of M. Goodwin to prove by a Syllogisme that your interpretation is non-sense otherwise you have done nothing but talked all this while M. Powell I suppose he hath spoken in plain termes as much as he can put into a Syllogisme M. Goodwin Then take it thus if by the world be meant the Elect then there is a possibility that some of the Elect may perish but there is no possibility that any of the Elect should perish and therefore by the word world is not meant the Elect M. Powell I deny your consequence M. Goodwin Either such a consequence must follow that some of the Elect may perish or else this clause that whosoever believes shall not perish is impertinent and beares no manner of weight nor importance in it if there be an absolute necessity that the Elect should believe and be saved then there is a superfluity of this clause whosoever believeth shall not perish If God I say shall be supposed to have so loved the Elect or any certain number of men that he is resolved upon the account of this election of his that none of them shall perish then it will be found a meer impertinency or nonsense to put in such an exception or proviso as this that in case they believe they shall not perish for that I suppose is clearly included in this when he saith whosoever believeth shall be saved he intimates that whosoever doth not believe shall perish and so it followes that some of the Elect may perish M. Powell I deny the consequence of your major Proposition M. Goodwin If no other sense nor import can be found out for these words shall not perish but only upon a supposition that some may perish then your interpretation of the word world for the Elect cannot stand for it makes nonsense of the place because it supposeth that some of the elect may perish but in your sense it is impossible that any of them should perish therefore that cannot be the sense and meaning of the words M. Venning M. Goodwin cannot prove his Argument There is eternall life promised to them that are elected and believing is promised as well as eternall life therefore there is no implication that some of the elect should not believe and so may perish M. Goodwin What is believing here promised as clearly as eternall life upon believing it's cleare beside the truth M. Venning M. Goodwin cannot prove it therefore hold him to it M. Goodwin Observe the words God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life Now if there were a necessity that all those that are elected meant by the world here as you say should be saved and that there is no possibility that any of them should perish then this clause should not perish is impertinent and the mind of Christ would be every whit as complete and absolute if those words were left out namely if the sentence were read thus God so loved the elect that whosoever of them should believe should be saved and so that clause should not perish would be a meer absurdity M. Cranford M. Goodwin saith That if by the world be meant the elect then that clause of not perishing should bee in vain the reason is because the whole may as well be comprehended in these words They shall have eternall life M. Powell If it please you M. Goodwin I conceive that such a consequence cannot be deducted from the text that because the Lord addeth Whosoever believeth shall be saved that therefore there is a possibility that some of them may perish Doth not the Apostle when he speaks of assurance urge men to give all diligence to make their calling and election sure doth the exhortation hold forth any such thing that therefore it 's possible for them to fall because he thus exhorts them M. Goodwin I beseech you shew me what import or sense more there is in that clause should not perish then there would be in case it were wholly omitted and left out Or whether in saying God so loved the elect that every of them believing should have eternall life whether I say there be not as much in that clause as there is now this is put in M. Cran. We may consider the redemption wrought by Iesus Christ as complèted in two things in delivering us from the wrath and curse and in intitling of us to that life and grace from which we are fallen so he saith that every believer shall be delivered from wrath and shall have a repossession and right again unto that life and salvation from whence he is fallen M. Goodwin But the Question is whether there be not non-perishing included as well in those words shall have everlasting life as if the other words shall not perish were put in M. Caryll We may look upon it as confirmative that God should expresse it both in the negative and affirmative M. Goodwin If there be a sense wherein we may find more of the wisdome of God it is not for us to strike it out neither is there any reason that we should make God speak Tautologies when there is a fair sense of the words to be found out M. Drak God might but have made this promise that whosoever believes shall not perish and this had been great mercy and infinite love but to add that he shall have everlasting life this is ex abundanti he might have delivered men from hell and not have brought them to heaven M. Goodwin But is it possible for God to preserve a creature from perishing and not to give him everlasting life Not perishing doth include in it preservation in life and being M. Powell Let us not think because the Holy Ghost is pleased to use severall expressions to strengthen our faith in a thing that therefore it is needlesse to be added M. Goodwin I do not say it is needlesse to be added it is you that make it needlesse And for any man to say that the Holy Ghost speaks tautologies when we can find heavenly matter in the words this is contrary to the duty of an interpreter M. Cranf You have spent much time in this thing M. Goodwin saith that if by the world
it upon this account because he conceives that God in justice is bound to give eternall life unto that man that walks up unto the principles of nature that are in him Now in this sense I deny a sufficiency of means from the light of nature First because God hath not promised to lapsed man a sufficiency of means to him that walks according to the light of nature Secondly I deny it upon this account because no man ever yet did walk according to those principles as the Apostle doth plainly prove it in the first and second chapter of the Romans The second sort that I have met withall they conceive that Heathens have not a sufficiency of means proximè but remotè which is the same with you that they have it not immediately or neerly but onely remotely and the principle upon which they go is this that Facienti quod in se est Deus non potest denegare gratiam If a man do that which in him lies according to the principles of nature God cannot deny grace to that man But I deny this and say that walking according to the principles of the light of nature in any measure doth not ingage God to give the light of supernaturall grace unto men for the salvation of their soules And I find that many learned Iesuites maintain this point in this sense that the Heathens have a sufficiency of means to believe unto salvation remotely and upon this they bring their meritum ex congruo they say that a man doth not by the merit of congruity deserve supernaturall grace by walking according to the principles of nature but this they say that it is congruous to the bounty and goodnesse and mercy of God to be mercifull to those Heathens who walk up in some measure to those principles of nature which God hath given them The third sort are those who apprehend that the light of nature is sufficient in it self for the apprehending of supernaturall truths And I likewise deny a sufficiency of meanes unto the Heathens to believe to salvation in this sense So that you see plainly what my sense is I deny that the Heathens either in a remote or immediate sense have a sufficiency of means either externall or internall to believe unto salvation And thus in short you have my thoughts concerning the present Question M. Goodwin I hope now the offence is taken out of the way and you have had your liberty to speak your mind and since there was dirt raked out of the kennel and thrown into my face I hope that you will not forbid water towash it off Sir you pleaded that you could not give the right hand of fellowship unto a person that held free-will Now I must professe here before God Angells and men and unto you that I hold no manner of free-will if you take the word as the sound and the Gammer of it carries it in opposition in the least unto free grace and I am confident that when your opinion and mine shall be brought together and duely compared yours will be found the great exaltresse of free-will in men and the great abaser of free-grace for my Opinion is clearly this Here Mr. Goodwin was interrupted with this answer Mr. Simpson I know your opinion very well this is not to to the purpose another time if you please we will have a disputation upon this point whether free-will in your sense or mine overthrows free-grace M. Goodwin I beseech you give me leave to speak and if I be blame-worthy I will lie under all that reproach that you throw upon me but if innocent there is no reason that the truth of God or my selfe should lie under prejudice in the minds and judgements of men I desire nothing no manner of advantage but onely to render my selfe Rectus in Curia Right in the Court and free from prejudice as far as my judgement and opinion will free me in the apprehensions of men Mr. Simpson It is but your affirmation and my negation and that will not do it let the next thing we go upon if you will be this Whether free-will in your sense or mine overthrows the free-grace of God in the Gospell Mr. Goodwin VVhatsoever I shall propound or argue in the case before us if I shall lie under this prejudice which you have throwne upon me in the minds and judgements of the hearers Alas I shall speake every word unto losse and disadvantage as to the weight and importance of it Mr. Griffeth The Question being stated you holding that the Heathens have not an immediate sufficiency but remote If you please to propound your arguments the Respondent will receive them M. Goodwin Presently I will do it if this be your sense that having had dirt throwne into my face I should not have liberty to wash it off Mr. Simpson Let me urge my arguments against free-will M. Goodwin VVhat will you do that when you understand my opinion therein no more then the man that is now walking in S. Peters Church in Rome Mr. Cranford Pray good Sir no more Mr. Griffeth The Questions being stated and agreed upon which is this VVhether the Heathens who want the Ministery of the Gospell by men have sufficiency of means to believe unto salvation I pray go on to the proof of it M. Goodwin Very well since it can be no better we shall be willing to doe it And first then that the Heathens even without the verball Ministery of the Gospell have a sufficiency of means to believe unto salvation and so to be saved I argue from the 1 Tim. 2. 4. Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the acknowledgement of the truth From whence I argue thus If God will have all men to be saved and come to the acknowledgement of the truth then have all men and so the Heathens one or other sufficient means to be saved and to come to the acknowledgment of the truth But the will of God is to have all men saved and to come to the acknowledgment of the truth Therefore the Heathen also have sufficient means to be saved and to come to the acknowledgment of the truth Mr. Simpson I can either deny the sequall of your Major Proposition or can answer to your second or Minor Proposition by distinguishing M. Goodwin You have your liberty and therefore make your choice Mr. Simpson I answer therefore rather unto the Minor Proposition thus That there is a twofold will in God there is a decretive will which is irresistible and a preceptive will of God in his Word it is not decretive will of God that all men should be saved but it is his preceptive and revealed will in the means of grace which he doth afford unto men that all men should believe unto salvation And in the next place this Argument doth not at all reach the thing which we have in hand for the Apostle doth speak of those who injoy the Ministery of the Gospel
and all that can be concluded from it if we should put your sense upon it is this that it is the will of God that all men should be saved who do injoy the means of grace but Heathens according to us do not injoy the means of grace and therefore this Argument doth not reach the businesse in hand M. Goodwin If you would please to betake your self to one steddy answer I should know the better how to proceed but by your multiplying answers you clearly argue that there is no sufficiency in any one of them And therefore you make a pile of answers that so you may be thought to answer somthing to purpose M. Simpson My answer is plaine I tell you in what sense God wills that all men should be saved and in what sense he wills that they should not be saved And now if you please proceed against this distinction I say that God by his decretive will doth not will the salvation of all men but by his preceptive will where he affords the means of salvation to a people there his revealed will is that all that believe shall be saved by Jesus Christ And I beseech you proceed against this distinction M. Goodwin What against the decretive and preceptive will M. Simpson There is a fallacy in your Argument M. Goodwin Then there is a fallacy in the Apostles M. Simpson I distinguished between a twofold will of God a decretive and a preceptive will M. Goodwin It is a signe you are jealous of your distinction because you repeat it so often M. Simpson My answer is plaine that the meanest of the Congregation may understand it and I appeale to the Moderators which is this that God doth not will the salvation of all men by his decretive will but his preceptive will he reveals it that all that will believe should be saved so that I say there is a twofold will in God a decretive and a preceptive will M. Goodwin By that superfluity of words that you come with in the rear of your Answer I alwayes forget the sense and substance of it M. Cranford This is M. Simpson's Answer that the Text speaks of the preceptive will of God which concerns only those men who live within the Pale of the Church and not at all concerning his decretive will M. Goodwin If this Text of Scripture speaks of all men without exception then it doth not speak only of those which are within the pale of the Church but the Text speaks of all men without exception therefore it doth not speak only of those who are within the pale of the Church M. Simpson I deny your minor Proposition M. Goodwin I prove it thus If so be the exigency of the context and the scope of the place doth evidently require it and inforce it that it should be understood of all men without exception and not determinately of those withing the Church then it is so to be meant But the scope and context of the place being that which must open and determine the sense of the words doth necessarily and clearly shew that it is to be understood of all men without exception and therefore it is not to be limited to those that are within the Church M. Simpson I deny your minor Proposition or if you please I will give you a distinction I grant that the Apostle in these words doth acknowledge an universality of all men but here I distinguish all men that is either first all men of all sorts qualities and conditions rich and poore high and low Or secondly all men without exception of any all men in the world I grant an universality in the first sense that it is the will of God that all men that is that men of all sorts and conditions should be saved by Jesus Christ but that it is not according to the decretive will of God that all men without exception should be saved And this I conceive to be the plaine meaning of the Text and the ground and reason why hee would have us pray for all men M. Cranford M. Simpson you should give him leave to speake M. Goodwin Sir if you please go on where you was and prove that the scope of the Context doth require it to be understood of all men and not of all sorts and ranks of men only M. Goodwin I prove it thus If so be a limited sense of all sorts and ranks of men will render the Apostle in this discourse of his incongruous defective and indeed ridiculous then the other sense namely the generall and universall which respects all men without exception is that which is here meant But the limited sense determining it to all ranks and sorts of men onely this makes the Apostle weak defective and ridiculous in his Context and discourse and therefore it is the other sense that is to be taken Mr. Simpson I deny the sequell of your major Proposition M. Griffeth How Sir what the sequell of the major M. Powell No Sir he denies the minor M. Goodwin Then I prove it that the limited sense makes the Apostle weake and defective in his Argument thus Evident it is from the Context that the Apostle in these two Verses the third and fourth doth deliver a motive or Argument to presse his exhortation delivered in the two former Verses This is cleare from this illative or rationative particle for I exhort therefore that first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour who will have c. Now there is nothing more pregnant and evident then that there is a motive delivered in these two Verses to presse the exhortation delivered in the two former Now then I say if so be we shall take this phrase all men here in this motive to the Exhortation in a limited sense it makes the sense of the motive to be directly opposite to the exhortation and not any way conducing to the pressing and urging of it and that I demonstrate thus Moderator I pray draw up your sense into a short syllogisme M. Goodwin For matter of context it will not readily come into a syllogisme but we will try what may be done Thus then I prove it that that sense will make the Apostle ridiculous in his argument If so be such a sense which will make the motive incongruous incoherent nay opposite unto that very end for which it is brought will render the Apostle ridiculous then such a sense we speak of a limited sense will render him ridiculous But to bring a motive which is quite contrary and opposite to the exhortation which it is brought to promote and presse this makes the Apostle or whosoever doth it ridiculous defective and weak in his argument Therefore this is contrary to the Apostles
is one thing to pray for all men indifinitely and another thing to pray for all men universally We are to pray for all men indifinitely that is all sorts of men not defining these and these particular persons as set apart for salvation but we are not to pray for all men and women universally excluding none M. Grif. I pray speake to that Proposition prove that all are to be prayed for without excluding any M. Good I prove that we are to pray for all excluding none If so be that all are to be prayed for whom God hath not excluded from our prayers Then all simply indifinitely and universally are to be prayed for but all whom God hath not excluded from our prayers are to be prayed for Ergo. Mr. Simp. I deny the Major Proposition there are some excluded the prayer of Jesus Christ and consequently they are excluded the prayers of all the Saints And besides it is contrary to Scripture 1 John 5. 16. For such a man I do not say you should pray M. Good This I prove that your answer is clearly beside the sence of the Scripture and nothing to purpose as to my argument M. Simp. Prove that we are to pray for all men and women in the world without exception M. Good This is my sence in that proposition namely that all men as they are men and before they put themselves into an incapacity of being prayed for so all men I say are to be prayed for you bring a Scripture to prove that some men that have put themselves out of a capacity of being prayed for are not to be prayed for I do not say that all men in any condition after any degree of sining whatsoever as for example the sinne against the Holy Ghost that such men as these ought to be prayed for But I say that all men considered simply as men are to be prayed for M. Simp. These are words which you bring in now not before mentioned your proposition is universall without exception that all men are to be prayed for And I give a clear Scripture where we are commanded not to pray for some and therefore your Argument is false M. Good My argument is not false because I did not intend nor did I say that all men in any condition were to be prayed for but as they come into the world I told you in what sence I affirme it And the reason why I did not distinguish and limit it was because I did not thinke any man would be so irrationall as to conceive that I did include those that sin against the Holy Ghost I thought you had had more understanding M. Simp. The thing that you have indeavoured to prove is that the Apostle in that place of Timothy exhorts that prayers should be made for all men in generall but we prove that that cannot be the sence because it is contrary to another Apostle as in this place of John M. Good Nay I tell you it is not contrary to that Scripture though it should be taken in such a sence because those very persons who are there excluded by reason of that sin The very same persons before the committing thereof were capable of prayers and consequently all men are to be prayed for yea these men themselves are not excepted in reference to their persons but in reference to their sinnes Mr. Simp. The thing which you have indeavoured to prove though not able was that the Apostle in these words did intend that all men without exception were to be prayed for But by what we bring from John it is plain that all cannot be taken in that sence M. Good That in John is nothing to the purpose and I prove it thus The committing of the sinne against the Holy Ghost doth not multiply person in the World doth not make more soules to be in the world then there were And I say that all persons even these before they had sinned that sinne they were included in the Apostles all And you cannot prove that any Person in the world then had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and if you could yet this was not to the purpose for even these very persons before they had committed that sinne were persons to be prayed for and consequently all M. Simp. I shewed there was a positive Command that we should not pray for some men therefore what Mr. Goodwin saith cannot be according to the mind of the Holy Ghost I beseech you speak something that we may not spend all our time upon one Scripture but if you please let us proceed to another M. Good Now you take upon you the place of a Moderatour M. Simp. Sir I consider the People and I think it very unprofitable for the Hearers to insist so long upon one Scripture M. Good I conceive it most profitable for as the light of the Sun is more profitable then the light of all the Stars so one Scripture where the truth is evident pregnant and cleare may be of more concernment to the people and more edifying to them then many M. Simp. Sir you are not able to overthrow the distinction that we have given but we have overthrowne your Argument M. Good I that you have just as you have overthrowne the Apostles And I trust that those who are present and heare they do consider and see how things are carried And for my part I shall be willing to leave those things which have been argued to their judgements and Consciences M. Simp. I conceive they will and I know they will not say that all men in the world are to be prayed for when the Apostle saith expresly that some particular men are not to be prayed for M. Good This is that which I say that mens committing the unpardonable sin doth not multiply persons in the world but these very men before they had committed that sin were to be prayed for Mr. Cranf Sir you have waded in this Argument I conceive as farre as your Argument will drive from this Scripture The substance of all is this you contend that every singular man in the world is to be prayed for at least under this notion of a man quatenus homo Mr. Simpson he peremptorily denies this Propostion he cites out Text of Scripture which is 1 John 5. There is a sinne unto death I do not say that he shall pray for it You say that that sinne doth not multiply persons but states and that a man as a man was to have been prayed for before such time as he sinned that sinne He objects and sayes that Jesus Christ knew a sort of men as men that were not to be prayed for But I conceive so farre as I am able to understand that you are both gone from the main question you began with which was whether God had given sufficient meanes of faith and salvation unto those Gentiles to whom he had not given the Gospel M. Good We have proceeded in this question by direct
of the Elect except you say whosoever of the Elect believeth shall be saved and whosoever of them believeth not shall perish M. Goodwin If you will precisely urge the sense of the participle which is the present tense then it will be thus whoever doth now at the present believe he shall not perish and consequently ye exclude all other Answer No. M. Goodwin Then do not stick to the precise tense but whosoever doth or shall at any time believe and supposing this to be your sense yet the same absurdity will follow if ye admit any other sense of the word world but only the generality of mankind M. Powell For my part I have spoken what is my judgement and conscience in the thing that the words may be rendered thus without destroying the sense of them God so loved the world c. that whosoever believeth or shall believe Now whosoever that word may have relation to the world that is unto the elect world it may distribute it unto them and not destroy the sense M. Goodw. Do but see now and view it your self whether this be a commodious sense worthy to fasten upon the Holy Ghost to speak at such a rate God so loved the world of the elect that whosoever of the elect should believe should not perish but c. and whether this interpretation doth not clearely suppose that there is a possibility that some of these elect may perish wherefore els doth he interpose that clause that whosoever believeth shall not perish For taking your notion of election there election gives them a perfect and absolute right to salvation insomuch that there needs neither dying on Christs part nor believing on their part to give them a right thereunto If they were elected from eternity what greater or fuller title can there be to any creature or right to such a possession or inheritance as salvation is then the peremptory and absolute designation of God thereunto Salvation is Gods to give to whom he please and if he do it to any persons simply and absolutely as they are his Elect they should be saved whether they believed or no I only add this to shew the nonsense of such a construction of the words M. Powell To make it appear that it is not nonsense I illustrate it thus The Parliament of England suppose they make such a promise to the Army or unto others that whoever takes the Ingagement they shal be protected by their power and so taking of it they come under their protection but now will you say that of necessity it must be supposed here that some will deny to take this ingagement M. Good I go along with your similitude so far that God makes a Proposition as the Parliament to the Army others that is to all the world that whosoever takes the ingagement that is believeth they shal be protected i.e. they shal be saved this now is savory hath substance in it it feeds the understanding of a man But now if the Parliament had such a power over the wills of some particular men as to cause them to take this Ingagement and know certainly that no others would take it then to make such a proposall to them that whosoever will take it they shall be protected this would not be a Proposition worthy of them M. Cranford The point which you are to prove is That there is an absurdity in this sense to say that God so loved the elect that all the elect believing shall be saved the ground which you give of the absurdity is this because according to the judgement of M. Powell the decree of Election is such that there is no need of the death of Christ nor believing to bring them to salvation M. Goodwin That was a thing which I added by the way but to passe that God hath made such a decree that none though elect should be saved but in and through believing he hath linked together Faith and Election M. John Simpson I shall desire M. Powell being now to answer that he would not speak so largely as he doth but only deny M. Goodwins Proposition and put him to prove it for the thing is yet to prove that there is nonsense in that saying and it 's that which I suppose will not be proved these seven years M. Goodwin If I have no sense nor tast of nonsense possibly you may if not I cannot relieve you nor you me as yet and therefore let us read the words again So God loved the world that c. that all believing in him should not perish but c. Now to make the words run thus or to give this sense of them so God loved his Elect that every one of these Elect who shall believe or believing they shall not perish this I say is compleat nonsense neither can you bring any instance out of the Scripture nor from any approved Author that was but in his common senses that did ever build such a piece of construction as this is M. Caryll I doubt not but there will be a very good sense in it to say thus that God so loved the world that is the elect that whosoever believeth or that all believing should not perish but c. it is but the carrying on of the same thing from one act unto another from the act of God unto the act of man the act of God is his love and the giving of Jesus Christ for the redemption of his elect now because those shall never attain the end they shall never reach to that redemption which was intended for them without believing therefore Christ puts in that so that you must carry it on as to the compleaning of the person who shall inherit that estate M. Goodwin Then you deny it to be a distributive particle M. Caryll It is a collective and not a distributive it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Cranford This doth not only shew the love of God but the limitation of his love Now I take it it may be sense in that sense which you gave of it God shewes his love to his elect in appointing them the means of their salvation God modifies that love in bringing them to salvation through believing he so loveth his elect that all they by believing shall be saved M. Goodwin The question is whether such a sense be savory and whether it will stand with the words I say it is evident from the following words that it cannot be the sense M. Powell If it please you you have spoken what you think good in this particular and these have heard what hath been said and therefore let us refer it to them and passe to another Mr. Goodwin There is a great deale more yet to be said to it for either it is a distributive or else it hath no manner of Substantive or person that is implied in it for I would faine know what it signifieth or what you mean by it it 's impossible for me to prove that
be meant the elect then either it is possible that some of the elect may perish or els there is no waight or import to be found in these words shall not perish more then is in those other shall have everlasting life M. Powell saith there is a gradation he shall not perish but shall have everlasting life I conceive there are other Arguments which possibly may be more to the purpose therfore if you please leave this and passe to another M. Powell If you please let us leave this to the Lord and go on to some other Scripture M. Goodwin Then go to the next Verse M. Caryll M. Goodwin I onely desire this one thing whilst you say the word whosoever must needs be a distributive that you would consider the two Verses before whether it be a distributive there or no v. 14. 15. And as Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse even so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternall life Where is the distribution here M. Goodwin Why mankind for it is clear and I refer it to you whether there be any other sense of the word whosoever but whosoever of all mankind M. Caryll You made the distribution before of the world and here before he speaks any thing of a generality having said the Son of Man was lifted up not for these or these or for mankind in generall he comes in with these words that whosoever believeth in him should not perish M. Goodwin Very well then the thing is clear and I refer it to you whether you think that there is any other sense can be made of it then all mankind even all the posterity of Adam Nay M. Powell holds that Christ did die for all men upon such termes that whosoever believeth should not perish M. Caryll I say the words are a generall assertion and not a distribution M. Goodwin By a distribution I mean nothing else but the severing of a multitude or generalls into particulars M. Caryll Taking the word world for the elect we deny that whosoever is a distribution but only a generall assertion that all that believe shall be saved M. Goodwin Then is this the sense of the place that whosoever of the elect believeth shall be saved M. Caryll We need not bring the words into such a generall acceptation M. Goodwin But this is that which I would know Whether there be any difference between these two to say that all the elect shall be saved and to say that every one of the elect shall be saved M. Caryll No. M. Goodwin Then it is a distribution M. Caryll If it be a distribution it is within the same limits and doth not distribute divers kinds M. Goodwin If so be it be here supposed that there be some whom God so loved as to give his Son for who possibly may perish then by the word world is not meant the elect but here is a clear supposition that there are some of those whom God so loved that he gave his Son for that may perish and therefore by the word world is not meant the elect M. Powell I deny the sequell of your major Proposition M. Goodwin Mind how the words run God so loved the world that whosoever c. Now if you will not suppose that some of them for whom God gave his Son may perish then you must suppose that these must be saved whether they believe or no and so make this the sense that God so loved the world that he gave his Son that all the Elect whether believing or not belielieving should not perish but have everlasting life M. Simpson I desire that when M. Powell denies a sequell that M. Goodwin be very carefull to prove it M. Goodwin To deny the sense of the word world to be the generality of men it renders the carriage of the place altogether nonsense as hath been shewed already by severall arguments And if you will we will add another from the following verse v. 15. God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved This is not an Argument I confesse of such absolute demonstration but of marvellous great probability that the word world is taken and meant in the same sense in both the clauses Now if this cannot be the sense of it that God sent his Son into the world to condemne the elect then by the word world in the former verse is not meant the elect M. Powell Your Argument I conceive is not to the businesse which I deny M. Cranford Your first thing is to prove the sequell of your former Argument and now you are gone off to another M. Goodwin You have been continually pressing upon me to wave my former Argument and to go to another and yet now I have done so you are not contented My intent or desire in going off from it was not because I think there was any thing answered to it but because in variety of Arguments one may not be so concluding as another nor have such influence upon the people M. Simpson M. Powell denies the sequell and you have not proved it and all your Arguments have been answered M. Goodwin If you will call any thing that is said to what I have spoken an answer then you have answered my Argument but an Argument is then said to be answered when it is denied upon a rationall ground M. Powell You might have desired a reason of my deniall and had you asked it I would have given it M. Goodwin You did so such as it was M. Cranford M. Goodwin's sequell was this That if by the world be meant the elect then in these words should not perish it must bee supposed that some of the elect may perish which is impossible and therefore by the word world is not meant the elect M. Goodwin The reason which I gave was the very words themselves that else there will bee no import or weight of moment in this clause should not perish because as much as is contained herein will bee found in that clause shall have everlasting life if everlasting life imply non-perishing and non-perishing imply everlasting life then there is as much in that as in the other and so the other clause will bee found impertinent and superfluous it being included with advantage in this clause shall have everlasting life M. Powell Give mee leave to speake one word I suppose and appeale to this whole Congregation whether there bee not many words in Christ's owne speaking that are answerable to these as to exhort men not to fall from grace and the like and yet there is no danger in the thing M. Goodwin I am not of your mind M. Simpson This is not to the purpose but it concernes you to look to the Proposition and to see that that be proved M. Cranford This is a question of greater consequence then possibly is imagined upon
as the actuall blinding of men c. untill they themselves have contracted the most notorious and horrid guilt of wilfull sin and disobedience against Him the decrees of God concerning the Creature before the Creature is in being these are in himself absolute and peremptory so that I suppose an absolute Decree in God from eternity but the execution of this His Decree is according to the state and condition wherein the Creature shall be found Mr. Symp. Will you grant that there is an eternall Decree in God concerning some Particular Persons that they shall be blinded from himself and yet that the same God from all eternity shall Decree that the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ should be an effectuall meanes for these mens Salvation Mr. Goodw. If you please Sir you wholy mistake my Answer in that and are altogether beside it and how then is it possible for you to argue to the edification of the People My Answer is not that God Decreed from eternity to give or not to give to any Particular Person the means of grace or of believing but that his Decree is not to give to such a Species or if you will to such a sort or kinde of Men not to these Men or to those that prove in time to be of that sort and kinde that is not my meaning but that God from eternity Decreed that such and such a sort of Men who have advanced and made long progresse in wayes of sin and disobedience that these shall be divested of that capacity of believing which was sometime vested in them As thus to explaine my Answer The Law of this State or of any other enacts the punishment of Death against all kinde of Murtherers whatsoever that shall be found in that State now this Law it doth not Decree that this or that particular man by name as Thomas or William or the like who in time come to commit Murther that this or that man shall be put to death but it doth as much decree that the most innocent and best deserving men in all the State shall be put to death as well as he that proves the Murtherer in case they prove so also And this is my sence concerning the Decrees of God He decrees that such and such men who shall be rebellious to such and such a Degree and period of wickednesse that these shall be deprived of the meanes of grace and of believing but this doth not suppose that such or such persons personally considered who fall under these Decrees of His that they were any way Decreed or Determined by him to be denied the means of grace from eternity or to fall under this his Decree Mr. Symp. If God hath Decreed that some Particular Persons should not believe but that they should be blinded by himself from all eternity and that not in consideration of their sin and wretchednesse then your Answer is not sufficient to my Argument But God from all eternity hath Decreed that some Particular men should not believe but that they should be blinded and therefore your Answer is not sufficient Mr. Goodw. I deny your Minor Proposition God did not Decree from eternity against any Particular person that without relation to their sin they should be blinded or made uncapable of believing Mr. Symp. The Proposition which I am to prove is this That God did intend that some Particular Persons should not believe from all eternity and for this I shall give you severall Scriptures the first is that Iude 4. For there are certaine Men crept in unawares who were before of old ordained to this condemnation ungodly Men turning the Grace of God unto lasciviousnesse c. Mr. Goodw. Your Argument from this Scripture Mr. Symp. If there were some ordained from eternity to condemnation not in consideration of any sinne or if they were ordained to this ungodlinesse here spoken of then did God from eternity intend that some Particular Persons should not believe but there were some ordained from eternity to this condemnation not in reference or consideration of their sinne and therefore God intended that some Particular Persons should be blinded and not be able to believe Mr. Goodwin Reads the words Mr. Symp. I querie here two things first whether God did ordaine them from eternity to this condemnation or secondly if not whether He ordained them to these sins one of these two must needs be the meaning of this Scritpure Mr. Goodw. I have told you already in what sense these Men and so all like to them were ordained of old unto condemnation if by old you will understand eternity which cannot be proved to be the meaning of the word in this place but rather it is to be understood as some interpret it of the old Testament Yet if by old you understand eternity it will not follow from hence that these Persons personally considered were ordained to condemnation from eternity that is together irrelative I grant that God did Decree and Ordaine from eternity or of old that these Men that is such as these were and so these Persons too in a consequentiall way they were ordained to this condemnation by God but its cleare from this Scripture that the reason or that which makes them to fall under this ordination of His it is their ungodlinesse or turning the grace of God into laciviousnesse Now if you can prove that God did ordaine of old that these Men by name should be ungodly and should turne the grace of God into laciviousnesse then and not till then do you take away my Answer Mr. Symp. There are diverse things in your Answer First that the Apostle speaks of Particular Persons it is plaine Mr. Goodw. I grant that but He doth not speak of them in that consideration as they were Thomas or William or the like but because they were Men of such a demerit and under such and such sins and provocations Mr. Symp. This is your Answer you say they were ordained to condemnation but it was upon this consideration that they should be ungodly Men. Mr. Goodw. This is not my Answer for I say that the ordination of God is irrellative and hath no respect or dependance upon any Mans righteousnesse or unrighteousnesse the Decree was past with God and stated and established in himself before any thing was in being as touching the godlinesse or ungodlinesse of men but this is that which I say that the tenor and import of this Decree of His was this that not any Particular men no not these more then others should be ordained to condemnation but that these or whosoever else should fall into the same course of disobedience and unworthinesse they should be all condemned Mr. Ames Sir I humbly desire you in behalf of the People that whereas you was pleased even now to assert the eternall Decrees of God concerning the Creature before the foundation of the World was laid and now seeme to hint a difference even in those eternall Decrees I
were damned before the death of Christ thus It is an unreasonable thing for a man to intend the Salvation of him whom he knows certainly is already condemned and we cannot think the true God to be so irrational as to intend the Salvation of those whom he certainly knew were actually condemned by himself before Mr Goodwin The answer is very easie and ready Mr Simpson Then let us have it and not a discourse of halfe an hour long Mr Goodwin It is every whit as irrationall that Christ should dye to save those who were already actually saved as it is to say that he should dye to save those who were already actually damned But I deny your Major Proposition and say That the death of Christ is considerable two wayes either first in respect of the efficacy of it and the intention of God in it or secondly in respect of the execution of it In respect of the first Christ dyed as much from the beginning of the World at least upon the fall of Adam as he did at that very houre when he was actually Crucified And for the latter those who were damned before the litterall Crucifying of Christ yet they were not damned before such a Crucifying of Him as was effectuall to haved saved them M. Symp. There are but three wayes to answe reither negando limitando or distinguendo either by denying by limiting or distinguishing I beseech you either to deny one Proposition or give some short distinction or else limit some thing that I have spoken that so we may go on in a Scholastick way M. Goodw. You desire me to give a short distinction and yet you will not give me leave nor time to speak repeat your Argument M. Symp. If God had actually damned some men before the Death of Christ then he did not intend the Death of Christ as a meanes of their Salvation and consequently not of all But God had actually damned some men before the Death of Christ and therefore he did not intend the Death of Christ as a means for the Salvation of all M. Goodw. I answer by denying your major proposition with this distinction that there were no men damned before the death of Christ in such a sence and so considered as it was effectuall to have saved them and my reason is cleerly this because the death of Christ from the foundation of the World was as effectuall to have saved them as it is to save those that should believe after the litterall and actuall performance of it Mr. Ames Mr. Simp. You are to prove that those who were in a state of condemnation and perdition and damned in Hell before the actuall sufferings of Christ had not a sufficient provision for Salvation upon the accompt of the Death of Christ whilest they lived You must prove that there was not a sufficiency in the Death of Christ for the saving of them before the litterall execution of it or His actuall suffering upon the Crosse and that there was no intention in God for their salvation by His Death who were damned before he came into the World M. Symp. I prove it thus If God had no intention to give Faith unto them then he had no intention to save them by the Death of Christ But God had no intention to give Faith unto them therefore He had no intention to save them by His Death M. Goodw. I distinguish first that Phrase of yours of giving Faith unto them if by giving Faith you mean that God should give it to them by an irresistible hand or upon any such termes as that they could not but receive it so I deny your major Proposition if by giving Faith you meane that which the Scripture doth in that Phrase which is the giving men Faith in the means of it that is such means which are proper and sufficient to produce and worke it in this sence I affirme that God did give Faith unto these men that is He gave sufficient means to them whereby to have believed and so to have been saved by the Death of Christ M. Symp. I prove that God did not give them sufficient means in this sence If God did not give them the knowledge of the Gospell in any measure then he did not give them sufficient means of believing but God did not give them the knowledge of the Gospell in any measure ergo M. Goodw. I deny both Propositions for though God did not give them the knowledge of the Gospell yet iâ— have gave them means and opportunities whereby to come to the knowledge of the Gospell then he gave them sufficient means to believe And then againe I deny the minor for they are both tardy that God did not give them the knowledge of the Gospell in any measure M. Symp. If God did suffer them to walk in their own blindnesse and darknesse then he did to give them means for the knowledge of the Gospell But God did suffer them to walke in their own blindnesse and darknesse therefore he did not give them sufficient means for the knowledge of the Gospell I prove it from Acts 14. 16. who in times past suffered all Nations to walk in their own wayes From whence my Argument is this if God suffered all Nations to walke in their own wayes then he did not give to all Nations a sufficiency of means for the knowledge of the gospell But God suffered all Nations to walke in their own wayes ergo M. Goodw. I deny your major Proposition and the very next words immediately following doe confute it neverthelesse he left not Himself without witnesse in that he did good and gave us raine from Heaven and fruitfull Seasons filling our hearts with food and giadnesse Which clearly shewes that though God did suffer all Nations to walke in their own wayes yet neverthelesse he gave them sufficient means whereby to have known Him and His grace and goodnesse to the World in Jesus Christ This I say is cleerly proved in that Verse for although He suffered these Nations to walke in their own wayes that is did not deal with them as with men under the Gospell yet he did give them so much means to have restrained and reduced them from their owne wayes as had they been vigilant and attentive would have been sufficient to have recovered themselves out of them Mr. Ames Mr. Symp. You are to prove that these words God left not Himself without witnesse do not signifie the manifestation of the Gospell to the Heathen World you are to prove that they do not import that sence M. Symp. I prove it thus if the giving of Raine and fruitfull Seasons be not a sufficient means for the knowledge of the gospell then your interpretation of the words is not sufficient to my Argument But the giving of Raine and fruitfull Seasons is not a sufficient means for the knowledge of the Gospell ergo That which the Heathen had was only this witnesse from God that he gave them Raine and fruitfull
To give a faire Answer to a faire Demand and reasonable question I shall willingly doe it my sence therefore cleerly is this That the witnesse of Himself which God is there said not to have left Himself without by the meanes there exprest it must be not only a witnesse of his Godhead as of his power and wisdome for that was sufficiently witnessed unto them otherwise as by the fram of Heaven Earth and by the Creation and Generation of men that were then alive in the World but the witnesse which He gave of Himself or which He left not Himself destitute of it was of His grace and goodnesse and of that inclination which was in Him to shew mercy to men upon their Repentance that they might thereupon be saved it did witnesse or manifest to them that He had his Armes open to give entertainment to them and to accept of them upon their foresaking of their sins and turning aside from their wayes and workes of unrighteousnesse now this disposition in God a willingnesse and readinesse of shewing mercy interpretatively and constructively it is a Preaching of Jesus Christ unto men and that upon this accompt because that light of Reason in men which God hath given them at least before they quench it and obscure and bury it under sin and wickednesse it hath a sufficiency in it to prove by the means which God vouchsafeth unto them that there was some kinde of attonement intercession or mediation made betweene God and man otherwise it was not possible that the World should have subsisted under the sinfulnesse of the creature in that frame and state and being to the comfort of man had there not been some such Pillar said to have support it Mr. Ames I humbly crave leave to know this how its possible for us had not wee lived in an age and place where we have the Revelation and Manifestation of Jesus Christ as it is delivered to us in the Bible the Word of God by what rule should we proceed to interpret a shower of Raine or a fruitfull Season into this sence that Jesus Christ is come to save sinners M. Goodw. Look after such a manner or by such a rule of direction as the Jewes especially before the giving of the Law and as under the ceremonies of the Law they were able to pick out Jesus Christ and his satisfaction for the saving of the World by the same rule and meanes may men gather out though not particularly the Name of Jesus Christ I do not say so but that which is vertually and constructively and interpretatively and for the great end and purpose of Salvation every whit as much as the knowledge of that Name amunts unto all this I say may be learned from those gracious dispensation of the Providence of God in the World and my reason is because the reason of man and that light of understanding which God hath put into him it is able to bring him to this point and to fix him here that except some means had been used to pacifie God towards the World it was impossible that a God of that infinite Justice should endure such a World of ungodly ones such a wicked generation of men as wherewith the whole Earth was replenished from the one end of it unto the other This I say is nothing but what in a rationall and faire way may be collected and gathered by those meanes and by that light of direction which God hath â—ouchsafed unto men Mr. Ames Sir I humbly beseech you once more you are pleased to say That a reasonable Creature who never heard of the Revelation of the Gospell as we doe either by the Ministry of it by Men or by Angells from Heaven may as well gather out a Mediator interposing between the Creature and Divine Justice in a shower of Raine and a fruitfull Season as the Iewes were able to do from a Sacrifice and a Priest Mr. Goodw. No Sir that was not my Answer but this I said as that was a very improbable and unlikly way for men to have gathered out a mediator especially in those particularities which Mr. Sympson did urge in his Argument Yet look I say as there was a way and means open to the Jewes hereby to discover Iesus Christ though many of them did not finde Jesus Christ by that light so I say there is a way though I doe not say every way equall or of the same light and efficacy for the giving out of the knowledge of Iesus Christ unto men as the Iewes we speak of had yet it is of the same kinde though a dim saint and obscure way and method And to apply it to the Iewes and to the Heathen looke as the means vouchsafed unto the one and to the other to discover a Saviour and intercessour as the meanes was but weake and the light dim and faint so like were the acceptation of God even of that little which they were in a capacity to collect and gather together by this weak light it was prepared and ready for them and that according to the generall rule of his Providence and Goodnesse which is this to accept of Men according to what they have that is according to what they have power to doe and performe and not according to what they have not Mr. Ames Sir I only crave leave to add this further The different reason between the Ceremonies of the Iewes discovering a Mediator between God and them and the mean's which you say He vouchsafed unto the Gentiles seemes to lye in this That God was pleased to institute and appoint such Ceremonies and Sacrifices Temple and Worship to signifie spirituall things which were to come in the times of the Messiah And after he had instituted and appointed such things for such an end he was pleased them to comment and to gloss upon them and to give the serve of them which made the into pretation of those things easie unto the Iews But God not having declared in his Word that he hath appointed showers and fruitful seasons to be such interpreters of his minde 〈◊〉 to signifie a Mediator neither having glossed upon them I humbly desire to know how we may proceed to finde out a Saviour or to gather such a thing from them As for that which you say That a man by reason and understanding may gather much from such showers and fruitful seasons concerning the inclinable nature in God to shew mercy to a lost creature I humbly conceive that the Creature may gather and collect thus much That the great God who created the World is a God of infinite Goodness and for be drawne But that this God hath provided a Mediator to make an altonoment between him and man this I am not able to conceive how showers and fruitful seasons can discover but his declared minde and will revealed in his Word Mr Symps There hath been more spoken to this Argument then at the first was urged and therefore I conceive
we had best to leave it to the Judgment of those who are spiritual whether they do apprehend it to be according to the Truth of the Word That showers of rain and fruitful seasons do preach Jesus Christ For my part I must profess that I never learned any thing of Christ to be a Saviour of the World by any such showers Mr Goodw. I do not say That if men be negligent and careless that these will compel or necessitate any men to beleeve whether they will or no If you understand me thus you argue not to my sence I say not That God by giving rain and fruitful seasons doth necessitate any man to beleeve no nor by the preaching of the Gospel nor by any inward operation of his Spirit But this is that which I say and had I time and strength of body could clearly manifest from the Scripture and by evident Arguments yea and from the testimony of the best Writers That the Gentiles were in a capacity of coming to such a knowledg of God which was sufficient to save them I go no further Mr Symps You say That the Heathen have a sufficient means for the knowledg of the Gospel If you please to bring your Arguments for the proof of this I shall be ready in the strength of God to answer them and to maintain That the Heathen who never heard the Gospel have not a sufficient mans for the knowledg of the Gospel But because you say you are weary I dare not be so uncivil to press you any further at this time Mr Jesse spake to this effect I desire because there are many weak Christians here present that are apt to be troubled and to despair within themselves to hear such differences between godly and learned men they will be ready to say They know not what to beleeve nor what Religion to be of Therefore I shall onely desire to inform them this one thing namely That the difference between the two Opinions is not so great but that men whether they beleeve the one or the other they may be saved through the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. Mr Sympson replyed thus Mr Jesse Mr Jesse no more of that for I conceive that they that hold general Redemption and Free-will in opposition to Free-Grace never had any experimental knowledg of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ Mr Jesse I am sorry to hear such words come from you Then Mr Powel prayed and so the Congregation was dismissed Here ends the second Dispute THE THIRD DISPUTATION Being between Mr Goodwin and Mr Sympson at ALHALLOVV'S the great London Februar 11. 1649. Mr Cranford Mr Griffith Moderators The Clark desired silence in the Congregation and intreated the People to sit down Mr Sympson and Mr Powel did the like Mr Sympson PLease you Sir we will desire Mr Powel to pray Mr Goodwin Yes very well Sir Then Mr Powel prayed Mr Symps If you please Sir to make choyce of a Moderator without any Speeches or Prefaces we will address our selves to the Disputation For Speech will but beget Speech and it may be occasion passion which may hinder us in our work Mr Goodwin Very 〈◊〉 I hope I shall be able to moderate my my self or to be moderated by your self without any other in any just and reasonable way And therefore so far I willingly accept the motion Onely desire this That because I found some inconvenience in staying long the last time being in years I shall define that we may first agree upon certain bounds and limits of time for Disputation Mr Symps We will refer it to what time you shall 〈◊〉 Mr. Goodw. I shall be willing to stand as long as I am well able about two hours or somewhat more till about twelve a Clock or a little after and longer I shall not be well able to stay Mr Symps Whom will you please then to pitch upon for Moderator I shall leave it to you because I made choyce the last time Mr Goodw. I thought your motion had been to have forborn a Moderator however I have no exception against any supposing that they keep within the sphere and compass of a Moderator which is onely to see and order the Laws of the Dispute and not at all to intermeddle with the Disputation it self Mr Symps Sir her is Mr Ames and Mr Cranford if you please to make choyce of one of them Mr Goodw. I am very willing Mr Ames should be I liked his carriage the last time very well onely I desire that be should not intermeddle so much with the Question in dispute as he did the last day And if you please to joyn him * M. Griffith with him that was the last time I shall be willing that they may moderate I suppose he is not far from you Mr Symps Mr Ames desires to wave it therefore I desire Mr Cranford may be the man Mr Goodw. It is all one to me onely I expect that as I shall keep my self to the Laws of Dispute or howsoever shall submit to any lawful correction so I expect that the Moderators themselves be they one or more should be regular in observing the Laws of Moderators and not make any digression Mr Symps If you think they go beyond the bounds of Moderators you have liberty to speak to them Mr. Goodwin Very well Mr. Simpson This is your Question Whether the Heathen who want the Ministery of the Gospell have not sufficient means to believe unto salvation I am to answer your Arguments you affirm and I deny Mr. Goodwin Sir it appertains to me occupying the place this day of an Opponent to state the Question in my own sense according to which I shall be willing to own it and to plead for it Mr. Simpson Sir you should have done it had we not agreed upon it before You will have liberty to declare your sense plainly in urging of your arguments Mr. Goodwin We agreed upon the terms but not the stating of the Question I conceive it tends to a further benefit both to your self as unto all here present for me to give a distinct account of my sense in the Question which I maintain Mr. Simpson By no means I shall not grant that because I had not that liberty my selfe if we had agreed upon it to have altered any thing in the Question I should have done it I shall not grant you any advantage which I had not my self Mr. Goodwin I beseech you thus do you think that I should have lookt upon it as an advantage to you or disadvantage unto me to have given you free liberty to have declared the sense of your Question it 's contrary to all reason and to the law of Disputation that any man should lay down his Position and not be suffered to give forth his sense of the question in dispute Mr. Simpson I appeal to the Moderators if you please let them determine it Mr. Goodwin This doth not belong nor is it any
part of the work of a Moderator to determine that which is the known law of all disputes and without which it is impossible that any disputation should proceed to any good account to the hearers and except I may be suffered to state my question and to give an account of my sense and judgement in it I conceive I have no ground at all to dispute upon it and therefore if I may be permitted to do that I shall be willing to proceed M. Simpson The Congregation is already acquainted with the Question the former Disputation ended thus That raine and fruitfull seasons were sufficient means to preach the Gospell And the Question now in hand is Whether the Heathens have a sufficiency of means to believe unto salvation M. Goodwin If you will speak while I am speaking and not give me leave to finish what I have to say it is in vaine for me to dispute do but give me leave herein and I shall not be streightned toward you in giving you the like liberty or a greater if you desire it M. Simpson I beseech you expect no more liberty then what I had of you we have made choice choice of Moderators and I appeal to them in it M. Goodwin The thing I desire is not a liberty but an absolute necessity to the businesse in hand without which it is impossible that we should proceed it is to no purpose to dispute except we first agree upon the state of the Question and explaine the sense of it which is so reasonable that I wonder any man of ingenuity should make any stick at it M. Simpson I desire not to have any advantage at all in disputing neither will I give you any I desire not to have my own will but to refer it to the Moderators whether it be reasonable for you to speak largely to the Question when I had not that liberty granted unto me M. Goodwin We have not chosen Moderators to do any thing or to determine any thing against the lawes of Disputation but only to observe and oversee the laws thereof M. Simpson I conceive it unreasonable that you should have that liberty to state your Question at large when I had it not granted unto me M. Goodwin I wonder Sir that you will offer to open your mouth in a thing so manifestly untrue For what was there spoken by me or any man with me that did offer to stint restrain or prohibit you in that kind I appeal to all the company whether there was any one word from me or from any other to that purpose M. Simpson I desire the Moderator to speak I conceive it an unreasonable thing for my Opponent to have more liberty then I had and therefore I refer it to you to determine and if you agree to it then I shall take the same liberty M. Goodwin In what should I refer my self To make the Question now before us when there is so great company of people met together for their edification to have it managed so as that there should be no possibility of a right understanding of it and so no probability of any benefit by it M. Simpson I conceive the people very well understand the Question and I desire you so far to shew your self ingnuous as having chosen Moderators to refer your self to them if you do not look upon them as rationall and honest men why did you make choice of them M. Goodwin I wil refer my selfe to the judgement that is to the reasons which the Moderators shall please to give against my sense in the Question and if they shall give better reason why I should not declare my sense in it then I can why I should I shall yeeld to them M. Simpson But who shall judge M. Goodwin They shall give their Reasons and I will give mine and we will not determine it but leave it to the people M. Simpson Leave it to the Moderators to judge if they conceive your Reasons stronger for you then mine are for me I will submit M. Goodwin If that be their sense and they shall give reasons on that hand that is why I ought not to declare the state of the Question in my sense then I shall be willing only to compare my Reasons with theirs and so let them and whosoever will judge between us M. Simpson Sir I have two Reasons against it First I conceive that you ought to have no more liberty as Opponent then I had and I had not this liberty granted me M. Goodwin That 's an absolute untruth for I beseech you who did restrain you from this liberty Speak to it speak home if you will approve your self for a Christian who laid these bands of restraint upon you M. Simpson I took it for granted that I might not have the liberty and therefore did but state my Question My second reason why you ought not to have this liberty is this Here is a great Congregation and for my part I am perswaded in my conscience as in the presence of the Lord that it is an error which you hold forth and I do not hold it fit that where there are so many weak ones that you should have liberty to hold forth those things which are erroneous unlesse there be some to answer you in those Scriptures which you bring and the reasons that you alledge This is that which lies upon my conscience why I cannot admit the thing you desire M. Goodwin As to that point I answer thus That if you desire to be the man your selfe that will give answer or reply to my declaration of my sense in the Question or rather put it into the hands of the Moderators one or both I am freely content to allow liberty and full scope and as much time as you will desire for the doing of it But again another reason which I think will out weigh yours and that by many degrees for the declaring of my sense is this namely that by some words that fell from you the last day as that I did hold forth free will in opposition to free grace I desire to declare to all the people here present that you do utterly and absolutely mistake and misunderstand my sense and judgment in these Questions For I professe here before God Angells and men and all this company gathered together that I hold nothing at all neither free will nor any other opinion whatsoever in the least in opposition to free grace And I know it with the knowledge of assurance that whensoever your opinion and mine shall be brought into a clear light and truly compared yours will be found the great exaltress of free-will and the great abaser of free-grace And the account thereof is this because Here M. Simpson interrupted him and spake thus M. Simpson I thinke I shall never meet with any man that holds free-wil that will say he maintains it in opposition to free-grace But by something delivered then in that Disputation which I doubt not
salvation of all that are in authority should be prayed for But it is the mind of the Apostle and the will of Christ himselfe that the preceptive will of God should take place and be prayed for to be done in earth as it is in heaven Therefore certain it is that the meaning of the Apostle is that the salvation of all that are in authority should be prayed for And besides it is evident from the motives thus who will have all men to be saved which is the very reason why he enjoynes and requires prayer for these men because he will have all men to be saved Therefore the intent of the Apostle is that prayers should be made for all men for their salvation M. Simpson Thus you reason you say you will prove it from our own principle that if it be the preceptive will of God that all men should be saved then it is according to the will of God that we should pray for the salvation of all men But say you according to our own principle it is the preceptive will of God that all men should be saved Ergo To this I answer that there is praying for men two manner of wayes First absolutely Secondly conditionally We are not to pray absolutely for the salvation of all men not knowing whether God intended to damn them or to save them But we are to pray for all men conditionally that is if they be such for whom Christ died and belong to the election of grace In this sence we are to pray for the salvation of all men yet with submission to the will of God in the thing M. Good I argue against that distinction that the will of God is that we pray for all men not absolutely but conditionally If so be that the will of God be and the Apostles intent is that we should pray for all men conditionally Then Gods will is onely conditionall that all men should be saved But Gods will is not conditionall for it is exprest here who will have all men to be saved And therefore for you to distinguish and make that conditional which the Apostle makes absolute And for you to determine that men should do that conditionally which God hath cōmanded simply positively absolutely without any condition In this case you are not an interpreter but a maker of new Scriptures and you put your own sence upon the word of God M. Simpson I beseech you Sir speak nothing against me but prove what you can I say that it is not the will of God that the Saints should pray for all men M. Good That which God commands to be done absolutely namely without any manner of condition that is to be done absolutely and without condition But God commands that all men in authority should be prayed for without any condition or limitation And therefore it is the will of God that all those should be prayed for simply and absolutely M. Simpson I deny the second Proposition It is not the will of God that we should pray absolutely for the salvation of all men and women in the world without exception Christ did not pray so and we are to pray in faith but we cannot have faith to believe that God will save all men Nay it is contrary to the Scripture therefore we are not to pray for all men Mr. Good If so be that the Apostle here injoynes prayers to be made for all men without the mention of any condition in this kind and no such condition can be proved from any other Scripture Then we are to follow the expresness of the Letter and not to restraine stifle and quench the spirit of his meaning by any limitation or distinction of our own for that doth amount to a making of new Scriptures Mr. Simp. It belongs to you Sir not to speak so much The proposition which you are to prove is that the Apostle injoynes all men to be prayed for without any limitation Mr. Good The proposition is that the Apostle injoynes all men in Authority to be prayed for and this proves that by all in the motive to this Argument must be meant all men without exception For all men in the exhortation and all men in the motive to it must be of one and the same extent Mr. Simp. There is a plain exception against this for we gave this distiction before that by all is not meant all without exception but all sorts Mr. Good I have clearly proved the contrary Mr. Grif. I conceive Mr. Goodwin hath brought in his proof to that Mr. Simp. I tell you by all is meant all sorts of People Mr. Good There is not a jot or title of answer in what you say Mr. Simp. The distinction I made use of is this That it is not the mind of God that all men without exception should come to the knowledge of the truth but some of all sorts of men And likewise that it is not the will and mind of God that we should pray absolutely for the conversion and salvation of all men but onely for the salvation of those that are elected whom God did intend to save by Jesus Christ from all eternity Now if you have any thing more to say speak Mr. Good You have answered nothing to the purpose for here the words of the Text are For Kings and for all that are in Authority Now whether here be any restraint or limitation put upon the prayers of Christians for all those that are in Authority I leave to judge Mr. Simp. I can prove that by all in Scripture is meant all of such a quality such a state and condition And I say so it is taken here And the Apostle doth plainly hint it forth when he speaks of these particulars for he doth not speak of all particular men without exception but men of such a sort and condition so that if you have any plain Argument to overthrow this distinction we shall be willing to heare it Otherwise it is but Petitio principii A begging the Question and not proving of it Mr. Good No Sir the Scripture is plain and it hath been proved that by all men in the 4th verse must of necessity be understood all without exception The Argument to prove it was because the exhortation in the 1. verse is to have all men prayed for And to prove what these men were the second verse holds forth viz. That he would have all particulars of one sort and rank of men to be prayed for and consequently if all of one sort then all of every sort And therefore by all men in the former verse must be meant all men without exception The process of this discourse is so clear pregnant and regular that men of ingenuity cannot but own it Mr. Cranf I beseech you consider your fixst Argument was this that the Gentiles have sufficient meanes remotè of coming to faith and by faith to salvation your Text to prove it was this God would have all men
to be saved c. Mr. Simpsons distinction is this that all men signifies onely all sorts of men that are within the sound of the Gospel your disproofe of this was from the Apostles context that all men must signifie every particular man your reason was because every particular man was to be prayed for To prove that you cite the second verse because all Kings were to be prayed for and every particular of that sort Now Mr. Simpson doth deny the consequence that though every particular King and all in Authority should be prayed for yet it will not follow from thence that every particular man in the world should be prayed for Mr. Good If Mr. Simpson will own that Argument we will answer to it Mr. Simp. I answer that it is the will of God that we should pray for Kings and all that are in Authority that they may rule well but it is not the will of God that we should pray absolutely for their salvation Mr. Good That 's not the question but whether we may pray at all for their salvation If you will take away my Argument you must either prove that all of one sort are not to be prayed for Or if so that yet notwithstanding all of another sort are not to be prayed for Mr. Simp. My answer is this which I will stand by that the Apostle here doth not mean all men without exception but all sorts of men And I conceive that it is not the mind of God nor of the Apostle that we should pray for all particular Kings for their salvation now if you can disprove this answer and overthrow it I shall grant you the Question Mr. Good I proved that it is the mind of the Apostle that all Kings and all that are in Authority should be prayed for As to the matter of salvation I beseech you consider that is nothing at all to the Argument For what is to be proved is that all that are in Authority are to be prayed for whether conditionally or not that is not the business but that they are to be prayed for And if that be granted which is the expresse and undeniable letter of the words and cannot be avoided Then it doth evidently follow that by all men in the 4th verse must of necessity be understood all men without exception otherwise the motive will be incommensurable and narrower then the exhortation Mr. Cranf I beseech you Mr. Goodwin consider it there are two things which Mr. Simpson desires to be proved The first is concerning the objects to be prayed for you cite all Kings and all that are in Authority He saith not all Kings but onely those that are within the noise of the Gospel under which there are Christians That these Christians may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty Secondly he saith further not for their salvation but that under them we may lead a peaceable and quiet life c. Mr. Good If Mr. Simpson will stand to this answer let him but own it and we will answer it Mr. Simp. I stand to my own answer which is this That the motive is answerable to the precept The precept is for the praying for all men The motive is that it is the mind of God that all sorts of people should come to the knowledge of the truth Mr. Good Though that be nothing to the Argument yet I will go along with you for the Argument is clearly founded upon the express words of the second verse which are For Kings and all that are in Authority and not onely for those that are in the Church and under the sound of the Gospel Mr. Simp. Your consequence cannot be proved for we say the motive is answerable to the precept Mr. Good The consequence is proved to my hand by the Holy Ghost himself who expresly here affirm's that he would have all men not all sorts of men only he doth not say that he would have all sorts of Magistrates that are in Authority but all Magistrates to be prayed for And you come in with words and turn the Scripture up-side-down and quite dèstroy the life and power of the Apostles meaning Mr. Simp. I say that the Apostle doth not mean all men but all sorts of men Mr. Good Your answer is not to purpose but I must go along with you in your wild chase If the Apostles exhortation be this that he would have all sorts of men to be prayed for then his meaning is that he would have them prayed for either as corporations and rankes and species of men or else as they are orders of men consisting of so many particulars and individuals but his sense and meaning neither is that he would have them prayed for as they are communities of men nor yet as they are particular men in every calling therefore his mind and meaning is not that he would have all sorts and rankes of men onely to be prayed for Mr. Simp. I answer to your minor proposition it is the will of God that we should pray for all sorts of men look upon them in corporations and look upon them as particular persons It is the mind of God I say that we pray for all particular men of all sorts qualities rankes and conditions not knowing who shall be saved and who shall be damned Mr. Good Very well then you and I are agreed for this is all that I say that all sorts and particulars of men ought to be prayed for in order to salvation Now you are come home to my sense and I hope we shall have a good issue of the business in the conclusion Mr. Simp. Consider it I beseech you you put in the word salvation now it was not in your syllogisme for it was deny'd that we are to pray for all of all sorts I told you we are not to pray for their salvation absolutely but conditionally M. Good That is not to the busines whether conditionally or absolutely but whether we are to pray for them that they may be saved or no. M. Simp. We are to pray for all men indefinitely not defining which particular person shall be saved and which not and so we are to pray for all men without exception M. Good Very well that is all that I say for my meaning is not that men should go about to learn the names of all men so to pray for every one by name But that we should pray for all men in the world in a generall and comprehensive manner M. Cranford Vnder favour that is not to pray for all men indefinitely but Vniversally singularly which M. Simpson denies M. Good I beseech you Sir keepe to the place of a Moderator You know there is no difference betweene indefinite and universall in a necessary proposition but they are equivalent therefore the duty of prayer being necessary herein to do a thing indefinitely and to do it universally is one and the same M. Simp. I deny that It
mediums hitherto M. Cranf Sir if it please you to leave this and to urge another Argument M. Good All this while I say I have prosecuted the question in a very straight and direct line I proved that the Heathens have sufficient meanes of salvation because the will of God is that all men should be saved and come to the acknowledgement of the 〈◊〉 And Heathens being in the number of men it is the will of God that they also should be saved as well as others Mr. Simp. Sir If you please to proceed to another Argument we shall heare you bring your Arguments to prove that rain and fruitfull seasons are sufficient meanes to preach the Gospel M. Good I have proved that the will of God is that all men should be saved c. The motive would not be commensurable to the exhortation M. Good It 's desired that you address your self to a new Argument M. Good Very well Mr. Goodwins 2d Argument I shall be willing to do it All those for whom Christ gave himself a ransome have sufficient meanes to believe unto salvation But Christ gave himself a ransome for the Heathens as well for those who have not the Ministery of the Gospel by men as those who have And therefore these Heathen as well as others have sufficient meanes of salvation M. Simp. Sir I deny your minor Proposition but withall must give you notice that you are going from the question which is whether God hath afforded sufficient meanes by the light of nature and the works of Creation for the Heathen to believe unto salvation and you run upon another question whether or no Jesus Christ died for all M. Good Sir I bring this for the proof of it and will you deny me my mediums and appoint me by what Arguments I shall proceed M. Simp. You have not made good your promise to the Corgregarion which was to prove that rain and fruitfull seasons do preach Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Good That is not the business but the question is whether the Heathen without the preaching of the Gospel by men have sufficient meanes of salvation and I prove they have because Christ died for them M. Simp. Our question is about an external meanes for you said that the works of creation were a sufficient means as of the death of Christ but about the external which God hath given to discover Christ M. Cranf That is Mr. Goodwins Argument because they have the meritorious cause of salvation therefore they have the externall cause and meanes of salvation also M. Simp. I deny the minor Proposition M. Good I prove it thus Either Christ gave himself for the Heathen who want the Ministery of the Gospel as well as for others Or else he put a difference between these Heathen and others in laying down the ransome of himself But he did not put a difference between Heathen and Heathen or men and men in laying down his life and giving himself a ransome therefore he gave himselfe a ransome as well for the one as for the other M. Simp. I deny this Proposition and say that Jesus Christ did not die for those Heathens who never injoy'd the Ministery of the Gospel M. Good If so be Christ made no difference between men and men they that have the Ministery of the Gospel and they that have it not in laying down his life then he did as well give himself a ransome for those that have not the Gospel as for those that have But Christ made no difference between men and men in laying down his life Therefore he did as well lay it down for those that have not the ministery of the Gospel as for those that have it M. Simp. The minor Proposition is denyed M. Good Then I will prove it M. Cranf If it please you though I desire not to interpose any thing nor to do any thing contrary to that office and trust which is reposed in me as moderator yet I beseech you Sir a little to consider the expectation of the People and the end for which they are come together which is not in generall to have it wrangled out whether the Heathen have meanes of salvation or no but what that meanes of slavation is which the Heathen injoy without the preaching of the Gospell Mr. Good Now you start a new question which differs as much from ours as the East is from the West Our question as it was agreed upon on both sides was whether the Heathen without the ministery of the Gospel have sufficient meanes to believe unto salvation M. Simp. You come not to the thing you promised the last meeting which was to prove that raine and fruitfull seasons do preach the Gospel Mr. Good Was there not a question stated and agreed upon did not you give your sence of it and I mine and yet now will you find fault and take offence that I answer not to another question which is essentially and notoriously different from it For it is not material what meanes they have but whether they have sufficient meanes or no. M. Simp. It is material for this hath relation to our former Disputation M. Cranf Vnder favour this I conceive is the question in hand whether the Heathen who want the ministery of the Gospel have sufficient meanes unto salvation This question according to your own sense as you stated it First by the ministery of the Gospel you understand onely a Declaration by words There might be other meanes besides this ministery of the Gospel by men which the Heathen might injoy And Secondly By sufficient meanes to believe to salvation you stated sufficiency proximè remotè neere and remote mediate and immediate And you assert that the Heathen have such meanes which though they were not proximè yet remotè that is by doing some act or thing which they had a power to do those meanes might be made effectual for their salvation Now I conceive you have varied the state of the question for you now go upon the meritorious cause of salvation that Jesus Christ died for the Heathen promiscuously Mr. Good I do not make the least digression or variation from the question in that sence wherein I hold and state it My sence was that the Heathens have sufficient meanes for salvation I did not determine or prescribe neither is there any thing in the words of the question to bear it how or what kind of meanes they have for it may be very hard to determine and prescribe that but this is that which I undertake to prove that a sufficiency of meanes they have vouchsafed unto them by God for that end Mr. Simp. Sir if you will prove that raine and fruitfull seasons are sufficient to preach the Gospel doe for till this be done you frustrate the expectation of the Congregation Mr. Cranf I desire that the Disputation may proceed you onely maintain then in the generall that the Heathen have sufficient meanes to believe