Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	faith_n	revelation_n	1,466	5	9.8611	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86612	The pagan preacher silenced. Or, an answer to a treatise of Mr. John Goodwin, entituled, the pagans debt & dowry. Wherein is discovered the weaknesse of his arguments, and that it doth not yet appear by scripture, reason, or the testimony of the best of his own side, that the heathen who never heard of the letter of the Gospel, are either obliged to, or enabled for the believing in Christ; and that they are either engaged to matrimonial debt, or admitted to a matrimonial dowry. Wherein also is historically discovered, and polemically discussed the doctrin of Universal grace, with the original, growth and fall thereof; as it hath been held forth by the most rigid patrons of it. / By Obadiah Howe, A.M. and pastor of Horne-Castle in Lincolnshire. With a verdict on the case depending between Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Howe, by the learned George Kendal, DD.	Howe, Obadiah, 1615 or 16-1683.; Kendall, George, 1610-1663.	1655 (1655)	Wing H3051; Thomason E851_16; ESTC R207423	163,028	140

the lye who saith in both that they preached the gospel both at Dorbe and at Lystra By this time any rational man may see what is become of Mr. Goodwins double doubtlesse and I cannot but professe it a tedious task to be tyed to trace him through all his extravagances and impertinent allegations And it is strange to me that he that undertakes to produce such arguments that neither men on earth nor angels in heaven can answer as he saith of himself in his dispute with Mr. Simpson I need not cite the page it is so notorious that he I say should thus delitate in a matter of so great concernement and that not one allegation nor any particular in any Allegation should have the least conclusive validity in it Certainely must produce some more weighty reasons to prove that the raine and fruitfull seasons are fit testimonies of a Saviour and attonement by him and the summe of the Gospel otherwise he is not of that credit with me as to take his bare word for it and he hath no reason to fasten any blame upon us for not believing his assertions herein because wee finde him declining his own heights very much for after all these his impertinent notions we find him giving the sum of all that went before in this impertinent conclusion thus so that it is cleare from this Scripture that all the world even those that are most straitned and scanted in this kind those that have not the letter of the gospel have yet the sufficient meanes of believing 1. That God is 2. That he is a rewarder of all that seek him Heb. 11.6 which the Apostle makes to be all the faith absolutely necessary to bring us into favour with him How is he suddenly sunk into a degenerous conclusion that do â—not at all suit with his intended purpose which was to prove that all heathen men are sufficiently enabled to believe in Christ and to draw out the sum and substance of the gospel and he proves it by a text which he saith proves no more then that men may believe First that God is Secondly that he is a rewarder of them that seek him Is not Mr. Goodwin able to see a wide distance betwixt these two to believe on Christ and to believe that God is Although every one that believes in Christ must believe in God yet it followeth not Ã¨ contra that all those that believe that God is Secundum et primÃ² succedaneuÌ„ praeceptum est fidei in Christum non generalis illius fideiqae ante ipsum oenitentiae actum et quamlibet legalem obedientiam praerequiritur quÃ¢ credimus Deum esse et praemâ—is cultoribus suis largiri sed specialis fidei in Christum Episcop Disp 24. Thes 1. doe believe in Jesus Christ Adam in his integrity did believe that God was and that he was a rewarder of them that seek him but I hope Mr. Goodwin will say that to believe in Jesus Christ is no act proper and suitable for the condition of Adams integrity therefore he had neither a sufficiency nor yet an obligation to believe Again the Jewes under the old Testament did believe that God was and that he was a rewarder of all them that seek him as is expressed Heb. 11.6 But Mr. Goodwin himselfe contends for this that they did not believe expressely in Christ and it is a pillar of the Arminian doctrine that faith in Jesus Christ was neither observed nor yet commanded To believe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him is a general faith that is requisite to every legal obedience even there where Christ hath no place or consideration as Episcopius one of the prolocutors of his side clearely speaketh Nay yet further let Mr. Goodwin consider whether the devils in hell doe not believe that God is and that he is a rewarder as well of them that seek him as of them that disobey him but these are neither in a sufficiency or obligation nor yet in a capacity of believing in Christ the faith of the former comes far short of the faith in the latter Although Mr. Goodwin is pleased to say in a second place thus Which the Apostle makes to be all the faith absolutely necessary to bring men into favour with him But what ground in the text doth hee discerne for this his assertion the text saith indeed that without faith it is impossible to please God and Mr. Goodwin himselfe that an evangelical faith is faith in Christ and the text further saith that he that cometh to God must first believe that God is but it doth not say that believing that God is is all that is necessary to believing in Christ or bringing men into favour with him he that saith he that ascendeth to the top of the ladder must climbe up the first step doth not say that to climbe up the first step is sufficient and onely necessary to the reaching to the top of the ladder It may helpe to illustrate the case in hand And if Mr. Goodwin will have no more as probable from this text in Acts 14.16 then this that the raine and fruitful seasons are meanes sufficient of knowing and believing that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him he shal quietly rest with his desire although it be a non probatum But then I must admonish him that if no more can be forced from this text not to put any more the word of God upon the rack to stretch it to his owne heights to make it speak thus much that raine and fruitfull seasons are sufficient meanes to bring men to faith in Jesus Christ and to draw out the summe of the gospel And how impertinent this text is to prove his assertion let all the world judge seeing it doth not arise so high as faith in Jesus Christ or the summe of the gospel but onely thus far by his owne confession that God is c. The third text by which he proveth his assertion is from Rom. 2.4 Rom. 2.4 Not knowing that the patience of God leadeth thee to repentance which he urgeth thus that the patience of God leadeth thee to repentance because it doth by way of a rational progresse and cleare interpretation discover a readinesse to receive such unto grace and favour who repent unfeinedly The evidence of which reason looks upon us with the same face of dissatisfaction with all that went before Suppose I grant all yet how will Mr. Goodwin prove that it is either called patience and longsuffering however knowne by that name without the advantage of the written word wherein are contained admonitions to repent and so sayd to lead to repentance and this he must prove before he shall carry the cause by the force of this text To decide this difficulty let us consider first the scope of the Apostle in the former part of this Epistle viz. to conclude both Jew and Gentile under him the

no not by the strength of that text To him that hath shall be given But fourthly and lastly suppose we grant him all these three that man could improve naturals regularly and so please God and so procure increase of grace according to that standing course of providene yet will it not so roundly follow as Mr. Goodwin pretendeth that all men even the Heathen are in a sufficiency of means to believe in Jesus Christ that upon the ground before-mentioned sufficiency to believe requireth all requisites to the act of believing now believing the revelation of Jesus Christ is a requisite which revelation of Christ is not made but upon the actuall and regular improvement according to the doctrine of Mr. Goodwin therefore we must not insist upon suppositions if man improve naturals well God will reveal Christ and so raise a Chymericall sufficiency of believing for there is no sufficiency of believing in Christ till he be revealed whom he will reveal saith Mr. Goodwin not upon the capacity of Improvement but upon the actuall Improvement according to the rule and that standing course of providence so much urged by Mr. Goodwin implyes no more then a not failing to reveal Christ upon the actual regular improvement of naturall abilities they will not say that God hath promised to reveal Christ to those that are able only to improve nature except they do actually improve it therefore it must needs follow that the revelation of Christ and the actuall improvement of naturall abilities leading thereunto are requisites to believe in Christ and therefore if both be not actually present there is no sufficiency for believing otherwise why should the Remonstrants trouble themselves in framing out a various measure and degree of sufficiency And grant that till men do use naturals well and so have Christ actually revealed Corvin in Molin c. 37. Â§. 11. there is no sufficiency of believing in Christ And to come to some close in this point let us grant all they urge that man can improve his naturals and to please God and by both according to that standing course of providence have Christ revealed and so believe and that it were also true that if he did all those things before-mentioned he should have Christ revealed in all this the question is not of a sufficiency ad posse credendum but a sufficiency ad actu credendum Now to this the actuall revelation of Christ is necessary and to this actuall revelation the actuall improvement of naturals is rquisite according to the course of providence as Mr. Goodwin describeth it what more roundly follows then this That those that do not actually improve naturals regularly have not a sufficiency to believe in Christ because such have not the revelation of Jesus Christ for if they had the standing course of providence is also broken and now there is a fair way thus to argue If no man doth actually improve naturals regularly then all men have not sufficiency of means for believing on Christ But the former is true Therefore the latter The Minor is proved by Rom. 3. Rom. 3. So that except Mr. Goodwin can prove that all men do actually improve naturall abilities and so do that upon which those things that are requisite to the believing on Christ are granted he hath not yet no nor ever can prove that all men have a sufficient means to believe in Christ if he will but adhere to the rules of his own pretended course of providence And now to close up all until Mr. Goodwin can prove that every man can improve naturall abilities well or can please God well by so doing and that there is such a standing course of providence as he pretendeth and that upon the grant of all these all men may be said to be in a sufficiency of means for believing in Christ until these be done I hope I may say I have beat him from his second strong-hold by which he expecteth to fortifie his doctrine of universall sufficiency for faith in Christ and that he suspects the safety of this plea I am induced to think because I finde him casting about for a third reserve and to recede a little further which maketh up a third part of his Treatise and it is thus as followeth Suppose we yet further for arguments sake that the Heathen wanting the letter and externall administâ—ation of the Gospell by men and also were in no capacitie of comming to the knowledge of it eitherly the works of Creation or Providence nor yet by any improvement of natural abilities yet it must needs be acknowledged that they are in such a capacity of being made partakers of them even of the oral administration thereof in such a sense as all nations are in a capacitie of having and enjoying such Merchandize and Commoditie as are exportable out of any Nation under heaven and may be had by equitable addresses to them Parturiunt montes but they bring forth a very ridiculous birth I hope Mr. Goodwin intends not his Treatise to be like those flying lying Phamphlets that bespeak bloody fights in the title-page but not so much as a slight skirmish in the body of them in his title-page he telleth us of a sufficiency to believe in Christ and now he is sunk so low as to a remote capacity doth he think that he dealeth with such adversaries as hold that the Heathen are not in a remote capacity of believing in Christ whom hath he yet ever known to hold so Let Mr. Goodwin enjoy his remote capacity and what will it avail him in the argument about which all their invented methods of universal sufficient grace are formed our Argument is this we conceive it not consonant to the wisdome of the Father and Christ to provide a way to procure life salvation for all men and that such a way as the blood of his only Son and Christs own blood and this price to be actually and compleatly paid and so the purchase fully and actually to be made and that out of a reall desire and intention to save them eternally as Mr. Goodwin and the Remonstrants grant and yet that God should not use some proportionable meanes that they might according to this purchase have life and salvation applyed this is that which is the obstruction that hindereth our concentring with Mr. Goodwin in his doctrine of universal redemption now if he shall satisfie us solve the scruple by saying he bringeth all men into a remote capacity of believing the business remaineth as much involved as before for what proportion is there betwixt in actuall and full purchase and a remote capacity to that on which the application depeÌ„ds or what probability is there that Christ would by his blood actually purchase and yet leave them but in a remote capacity yea such as is never likely to be reduced to act as I shall presently shew of the application But to consider this remote capacity that is his last refuge It is

immediate sufficiency and pleads for a mediate sufficiencie in pag. 15. to this effect Not that they can by the light of nature discover a Christ pag. 1â— but they may by nature do those things and so please God that he wil not faile to reveale his son Christ and this he proves from the parable of the Talents wherein it is expedient for him to resolve what those Talents are which are given upon the improvement of which Christ is revealed but when he is resolved himselfe he wil resolve uâ— For in pag. 20. he saith thus The Talents cannot signifie any thing but natural gifts and abilities Yet in pag. 21. he saith These Talents or abilities given to men to improve are more commonly then properly called natural Againe doth he not seat his controversie not in any sufficiency either immediate or mediate as he pretendeth but pag. 23. in a remote capacity which is far different from the former two and in this sense that they are capable of it viz. the Gospel as any Nation is capable of the Commodities that are exportable out of another Nation by equitable adresses to it Yea sometimes thus that the Gospel is preacht to all the world just the assertion of his brethren and in him we may see their fluctuations In pag. 23 24 25 26. he earnestly contends that the Gospel is actually preacht to the world But in pag. 34. he contendeth not for an Actual but a Virtual and constructive preaching in this sense The Gospel is preached in some eminent places of the world and it s interpreted and constructively preached all the world over For upon Rom. 10.18 he saith How can this assertion stand but in the strength of this supposition that the Apostles publishing of it in the places where they had opportunity to come was virtually and constructively a preaching through the world But lest this should fail he is content with a potential preaching at last that it may be preached And this he doth pag. 23. in this sense It is preacht in some place of the world and the rest of the world may addresse themselves to that place and so come to hear of it As the Queene of Sheba came from the South to heare the wisdome of Solomon And are not these fit men to be encountred with reason whose reason is not yet so much resolved as to give a setled ground of dispute It is the desire of my heart and my taske to grapple with the first borne of Mr. Goodwins strength But I have this disadvantage that Reuben like it is as unstable as water I have not hitherto annexed any answer to Mr. Goodwins or the remonstrants because my task hath been historicall not disputative to show the rise and progresse of this doctrine of universal saving grace and hitherto it appears to have had its rise out of a mist not the cleare Sun-light a mist of uncertainties and conjectures not out of the Sun-light of a setled and well grounded truth And as to Mr. Goodwin I say Quorsum hae erroris latebra what means these starting holes which truth never seeketh which are demonstrative not of a desire to vindicate the truth but an unwillingnesse to relinquish an errour these are but the doubles and the retropasses of the subtle fox to foile the sent meerely to retard the pursuer And as their labouring to prove an universal grace is demonstrative of the validity of the proposition so their dark and unresolved progresse in proving of it gives much credit and strength to the assumption of our argument and lets me see that their invented method for such an universal grace is not able to abide the light or to give satisfaction to any rational scrutiny And I am now come to examine Mr. Goodwins assertion and probation thereof all along his whole treatise That which he asserteth is that every heathen man to whom the letter of the Gospel never came is yet bound to believe in Christ and that upon this ground because they have sufficient meanes by the creatures and light of nature to discover Christ and the summe of the Gospel as he saith almost as often as he hath pages an attempt that none of his predecessors durst ever so roundly and professedly make In the Examen of which I must propound a few things by way of stating right understaÌ„ding of the question in difference betwixt us First when he saith those that never hear of the letter of the Gospel are yet bound to beleive in Jesus Christ I suppose by the letter of the Gospel he understandeth the commands as well as the promises of the Gospel the one is Gospel as well as the other Hence wee find in the Scripture obedience to the Gospel as well as faith of the Gospel 2 Thes 1.8 and indeed the commands of the Gospel are good newes as well as any other part thereof they being evidences to us that God will again take us into his service and give us further work to doe when wee deserve to be banished from his face for ever Then the question will arise to this whether those that never heard the letter of the Gospel viz. neither the commands nor promises nor any other part of that which wee cal the Gospel are yet bound to believe in Christ Secondly he must not think that we confine the discovery of Christ and salvation by him to the oral preaching of men or that the question betwixt us turneth upon this hinge I leave to the Almighty his liberty to use what meanes he pleaseth to discover his holy will to men I will thus far comply with Mr. Goodwin that whether men come to know God in Christ by reading any part of the written word or by hearing of it preached or by immediate revelation of the spirit of God or by an angel as to the shepherds or by a voyce from heaven as to Paul these wayes may all lay an obligation upon us to believe but then in all these they enjoy the letter of the Gospel The matter betwixt us in controversie is whether those heathen who have onely the light of nature and the creature and the works of common providence to direct them have such discoveries of Christ as that they become bound to believe in him This is the purport of Mr. Goodwins whole treatise as I shal cleare in some few instances Pag. 10. In one place he saith thus The Scripture intimateth that all men by the light of nature by such a rational discourse can draw out this Evangelical conclusion that an attonement is made And in another place thus That hearing by which faith comes or which is sufficient to produce it is the hearing of the found and those words which the heavens Ibid. and the day and night speake And the constant course of providence speaks in the ears of all nations the words of eternal life as well as those words of Christ himselfe when he was upon earth And in

creature to commit any act is the suspension of all impediments by which the will is to be moved and perswaded Now I thus urge that if permission be the suspension of all impediments by which the wiâ—l is to be perswaded then I say the will is neither to be Physically acted nor morally perswaded where either of these is there is no permission and this Arminius himself granteth thus (b) Impedimentum quo peccatum quÃ tale impeditur est vel voluntatis divinae â— velatio vel suasio voluntatis ad obreâ—nperandum voluntati divinae unde constat permissionem peccati esse suspensionem istius revelationis vel suasionis vel utriusque pag. 157. The impediments by which sin as sin is hindred are the revelation of the divine will and suasions to move the will to obey that divine will Whence it is clear that Gods permission to commit sin is the suspension of that Revelation or of that suasion or of both jointâ—y And as a further testimony in this case he saith in another place thus (c) Nam utunum argumentum impedire potest voluntatem ne velit quod Deus vult impeditum ita necesse est ut nullo argumentorum istorum persuadeatur voluntas ad nolendum secus non est permissio p. 153. For as one argument may hinder the will from willing that which God would have hindred so it is necessary that he use no argument to perswade the will to be unwilling otherwise there is no permission What can be made more clear then this that where God permits he useth no means either Physically to act or morally to perswade the will Now to draw to a conclusion in this Argument thus I summe up the strength of it God permitteth the Nations to walk in their own waies according to the Scriptures Acts 14.16 17. and because he permitteth therefore we must not say that either he Physically acts or morally perswades the will to use the light of nature well according to the Remonstrants own concessions and then I conclude that either the assisting spirit and grace of God is not given at all or else to be idle or to no use not to assist them to use the light of nature well Let them take which of these they please and till any for them can prove that Gods assisting grace and spirit and permission or suffering them to walk in their evil waies can stand together without being at a very high rate contradictious I shall conclude that they do but usurp the title of Universal Grace Arg. 4 If there be no need of the assisting principle of Divine grace to enable men to do those things that are contained in the Law then God giveth not to every man his assisting grace to do those things conteined in the Law But there is no need of Gods assisting grace to that end Therefore there is no such principle given Corvin in Mol. cap. 11. sect 4. We challenge and that but in equity that liberty of arguing which they take unto themselves When we urge that Adam in integrity had that grace which if we had now unmaimed and not impaired we might be as able to beleeve in Christ as Adam was to do that which was commanded him and so by consequence that grace which Adam had was principium potestativum credendi in Christum the potestative principle of beleeving in Christ if his condition had required it To this they say God did not give such power to beleeve to Adam in his integrity because then there was no need of it and that upon this ground it is against the wisdom of the Almighty to give grace to do that of which there is no need or to give grace where there is no need And may not we likewise say that it is not suitable to the wisedome of God to give his special assisting grace to enable them to use the light of nature well when they are enabled without that grace to do the things conteined in the Law Now in this Argument I shall proceed onely upon their principles and I clear it thus When we urge that all men are dead in sin and so improve this as an argument for the power of Gods grace because men are dead and so cannot further their own conversion or prepare themselves to receive regenerating grace as Molin presseth Arminius Corvinus who is the defender of the Arminian faith replieth thus (a) Addo quidem cum habere reliquias vitae spiritualis explico me in intellectu â— aliquam Dei cognitionem in affectu defiderium ad bonuÌ„ cognitum ideoque licet id quod vere bonum est age e non possit potest tamen per illud bonum aliquid agere intelligare Deum esse bonum justum facere caquae sunt legis pagnare cum defideriis licet non vincere locomotivum regere quae talia sunt quae Deu requirit ab eo quem intendit regenerare Cor. in Maâ— 32. se 2. Man hath the reliques of spiritual life that is in his understanding some knowledge of God in his affections some desire of good being known so that although he cannot do that which is truly good yet he can by it do some good understand God to be good and just do the things conteined in the Law fight with his own desires although not overcome them and to govern his locomotion which things God requireth in those whom he will regenerate Now if man by nature have such reliques of spiritual life in him as to know God desire good do the things conteined in the Law fight with their desires govern their locomotion and all this by vertue of the reliques of spiritual life then what need of a principle of assisting grace de novo to enable them to do the things conteined in the Law for that which is performed by the reliques of spiritual life need not any assisting principle of grace anew Again the Collocutors at the conference at Hague upon this very argument say thus (a) In spirituali morte non separantur propriÃ¨ dona spiritualia ab hominis voluntate quia nunquam illa fuerunt et insita Sed libertas duntaxat agendi bene aut malÃ¨ quae libertas quamvis vites suas non exerere possit in homine peccatoâ—e propter tenebras intellectus depravationem affectuum mansit tamen pars creatae naturae Col. Hag. 279. In spiritual death spiritual gifts are not properly separated from the will because they were never in it for in the will there is onely that liberty of doing good or evil which liberty although it cannot put forth its strength in fallen man because of the blindnesse of his understanding and depravation of his affections yet it remaineth as part of a created nature And many of such like expressions passe in that argument by all which they affirm death to be onely in the understanding and affections not in the will but that in the depth of

becomes of the doctrine of universal sufficient grace let all the world judg Thus I have according to my small talent endeavoured to refel the groundlesse doctrine of universal sufficient grace and have discovered the rise and progresse and growth of it how high it amounteth where it sticks and where the proofe remaineth on their part very short and imperfect and that it appeareth not that either all men have that which is truly called grace or if it might be so called yet they prove not that it may truly be said to be sufficient to any end no not to the enabling of men to worke those things by which they say men are enabled to conversion and if neither then universal sufficient grace must needs fall And by this engagement with the Remonstrants whom I now leave I am the better enabled to engage Mr. Goodwins notions which are of a farre lower flight and to him I now returne after this long digression Hee being something doubtful of carrying on his assertion the first height with strength of reason viz. a sufficiencie of means afforded to all men of believing in Christ immediately by the creatures and the sound of the heavens he is now traversing his ground in the lower road and would make out a sufficiencie to believe in Christ upon improvement of natural abilities according to the standing course of providence Habenti dabitur to him that hath shall be given in which I shall engage with him and now only mind him of his changeing the expression his task is to prove a sufficiencie in all men to believe but here wee have it only thus that all men are in a capacity of believing for thus runs his expression Pag. 15. Suppose that the heathen c. were not in an immediaie capacity of believing the Gospel yet this proves not but that they are in a capacity of believing it But by the term capacity I hope he meaneth sufficiency not only because this expression is suitable to his purpose but also because in his dispute with Mr. Sympson treating about the same businesse in stead of a remote capacity as he gives it here wee have a mediate sufficiency and a remote sufficiency Now seeing he attempts to make out a sufficiency of believing in Christ in this his second and as he thinketh a more safe and plausible method I must have a word or two with him about the terme sufficiencie for in that discourse wherein men litigate about sufficient meanes it is requisite to determine first what sufficiencie is Mr. Goodwin in his writings I find excuding a double distinction of sufficiencie First In this place covertly into Mediate and Immediate near and remote Pag. 78 79. but in other Treatises more expresse In his Dispute with Mr. Simpson treating about the same businesse hee saith thus There is a double sufficiency mediate and immediate Immediate by which a man is enabled for the doing of such a thing without the having or doing of any thing else but what hee then actually hath or doth Mediate is such by which he is not enabled to do the thing for the present but he is enabled to do such things by which he may compasse farther means and so possesse himself of an immediate capacity And this distinction hath some apparent footsteps in the Remonstrants But I conceive it is no fair and plausible distinction because the last member thereof seems to carry a contradiction in the face of it for saith he A mediate sufficiency is that whereby a man is not for the present enabled to do a thing A rare discovery an insufficient sufficiencie How that man can be said to have a sufficient means for that to which he is not at the present enabled let other men divine for I cannot Sufficiency if expressed in other terms is thus Positis omnibus requisitis and thus all of his own side define it to be a position of all things necessary and requisite Now if hee be not enabled without the doing and having a further supplement there is no kind of sufficiencie Hee seeketh to illustrate it and his very illustration discovers the vanity of this his pretended mediate sufficiencie it is thus Though wee have not a sufficiency at present to speak in an unknown tongue as Spanish or the like yet we have a remote sufficiency because we have the principles of Reason and Understanding by which we may come c. Wherein 1. His own expresses overthrow him he saith Though we have not a sufficiency at present yet we have a remote By which I perceive that by his remote sufficiencie he means a possibility of a sufficiencie But this in its very notion implyeth that a sufficiencie is not in act and then the heathen have not a sufficiencie but onely are in a capacitie of having it if he intend it thus it serves him nor neither will I contend with him 2. This maketh me think that there is some fraud in Mr. Goodwins changing his expresses using sometimes sufficiency sometimes capacitie but this is not ingenuously done for these are very far distant and so far that the one doth no whit imply the other Nay so far are they distant one from the other that the one doth exclude the other for Capacity implyies onely a power or possibility to receive but sufficiency intimates the present position or enjoyment of such means Those things which we have already we are not properly said to be in a capacity of them and so Ã¨ contra 3. Sufficiency is such a thing as is determined to an individuall position of all necessaries otherwise no sufficiencie and where that is there is a sufficiencie But a capacity is such a wild and undetermined notion that we know not where it should fix its foot True a man is in a capacity of learning the Spanish tongue when hee hath the use of reason and his understanding but may we not say he is in a capacity of learning it when he is born because he may come to have the use of his understanding and so further and why must we stay here May he not be said to be in a capacity though somewhat more remote when he is begotten for then is he in a capacity of being born and so of coming to the use of his understanding and may not this capacity thus run in infinitum Thus wee may affirm that Adam had a sufficiencie to beleeve in innocencie because he was in a remote capacity he had understanding and the use of his reason nay thus may he indeed assert all men to have a sufficiencie of believing in Christ without any means tending thereunto because they have the use of these faculties But this is but meer trifling so that in his next he may leave out this distinction I grant his Capacity but deny his Sufficiency and his mediate sufficiency is none truly so called A second distinction I finde in the same Dispute with Mr. Simpson where he distinguisheth thus

the regulating of our lives which he can no ways prove God doth by the Gospel in any proportionable discovery But he undertaketh to prove by a twofold Argument that nature bindeth all men to believe on Christ if reduced to form it would run thus If nature binds us to use the best means for our welfare and peace then it binds us to believe it being the only way to life But nature bindeth all men to use the best meant for their welfare Therefore c. The Argument is plausible enough if he had not himself laid the ground of its confutation the same notions will answer it that I gave before nature teacheth no man to use any means for his welfare but what he knoweth to be in such a tendency but the question presupposeth that they do not yet know and when they come to know true then they are bound to observe it but the state of the question is altered A second Argument which he useth is deduced from Acts 4.12 where the Apostle saith that There is no name under Heaven by which a man can be saved but Iesus Christ but how the Argument must be formed or where the strength of it lyeth he puts us to the labour to seek it out He saith that this text crosseth two main Pillars of his Adversaries doctrine the first I own with a little correction thus That the law of Salvation viz. He that believeth shall be saved respecteth those that are Evangelized onely that is such as have the discovery of the Gospel by some way and means beyond and above the light of nature So that this be understood of Adults for as for Infants how God dealeth with them whether they be saved by faith or whose faith or what faith or how I leave it to Mr. Goodwin to determine Let him understand me thus and then I challenge him to prove how that text Acts 4.12 overthroweth this it seemeth Mr. Goodwin thinketh that this Law of Salvation as he calleth it He that believeth shall be saved doth not respect men Evangelized onely I know not what sophistical sense he may retein of those words doth not respect he may know that the point in hand is about obligation to believe so that he ought to have exprest it thus That Law of Salvation respecteth not onely men Evangelized as a bond or obligation to believe but thus it is very liable to scruple for this Law of Salvation as he calleth it He that beleeveth shall be saved must be considered as conceived in God onely in his minde and purpose whereby as the Remonstrants say he did certam rationem statuere appoint a certain way by which he would save men and thus considered it is not to come under the notion of an obliging principle because thus it is hidden in God and so nothing to us Secondly it is considerable as discovered and pronounced to the world whereby the Lord acquainteth us with his gracious award concerning us and thus will Mr. Goodwin say that it respects not only persons Evangelized when the very discovery of this to us is Evangelization and the discovery of the Gospel and it becomes an obligation to none but them that have it discovered to them But in his next I expect that he produce his argument in form that I may know what he intendeth and I shall return answer But he proceeds in his magnificates of the light of nature thus My principles will not allow we to gratifie you with my belâ—efe of your position which is that the light of nature cannot discover to mankinde that there was or ever would be such a Mediatour or man as Jesus Christ What principles they are which thus obstruct his faith or belief of the truths of God are best known to himself the principles of saving truth will tell us that we may read of a naturall Theology but of a naturall Christianity no where This is revealed by a new way hence the Jews stumbled at it and the Greeks derided it as inconsistent with their Philosophicall and naturall principles the World by their wisedome knew not God how then can the light of Nature discover a Christ it is not by wisdome of the world but the foolishness of preaching that he saveth men and that the preaching by men not the heavens for this last preaching involves the wisdome of the world But because he will leave no stone unturned he by way of concession thus saith Suppose it cannot discover a Christ in such particularities as now under the Gospel yet it cannot be denied but that it may so far discover him as that a man may be rationally perswaded through him to depend upon God for the pardon of his sins and salvation But this is meer trifeling for we say that the light of Nature alone is unable not onely to discover a Christ in particularities but at all and upon that ground no man can be perswaded to depend upon God through him for thus suppose that a man know that Christ is it is strange that he should recede from the first position and suppose that the light of nature did not and could not discover that such a man as Christ ever was and yet to suppose that by the light of nature a man may be perswaded to depend upon God for life through Christ but he attempteth to prove that the light of nature doth discover so much as that men may be so rationally perswaded to depend on God through Christ for life and this he proved by two Arguments 1. His first Argument is from the Jews who he saith The sum of what they believed concerning Christ was this that God had found out a way and pleased himself in a means how to shew mercy and forgive sins and save their souls that put their trust in him and live righteously yet they believed to salvation though Christ not discovered to them in such particularities as now wherein he doth egregiously prevaricate for 1 That which he is to prove was this that men by the light of nature can so farre discover Christ as that they are rationally perswaded to depend on God for salvation through Christ but in all this abstract which he produceth what syllable is it that gives the least hint of Christ It is only thus that they beleeved that God pleased himself in a way and means to shew mercy forgive sin to save the soules of them that trust in him and live righteously now let the World judge whether any or all of these do infer a dependance upon God for life through Christ 2 Suppose it did so what pertinency hath this instance to the case in hand He instanceth in the Jews who had the written Word or vocall discoveries of Christ proportionable to their faith in Christ a generall and indistinct knowledge of Christ being every way proportionable to a generall and indistinct faith Now suppose they had a generall and indistinct faith in Christ yet if this faith came by a generall

Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Text snippets containing the quad