Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	contain_v	law_n	moral_a	2,485	5	9.8922	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

Goodwin It is well known that the Doctrine of Universal sufficient grace is the standing Pillar of their Doctrine in the second Article and hence is it that all that hold universal redemption do also hold universal suffici●nt grace and their mouths and pens do every where savour of this Doctrine Let us therefore see in the first place how they prove that God gives that to all men without exception which may truly be called grace And any that are exercised in them may see that they do professe this very roundly without hesitation True indeed in their Synodical writings in the forementioned place they give it the name of More general Grace but Arminius a little more laxely in the description of their general call before mentioned he saith thus (a) quibus bonis si recte usi fuissent Deus ulteriorem gratiā ill●s concessurus est Arm. antiperk 259. All men have some knowledge of the power and goodnesse of God and such gifts which if they use well God is ready to give further grace where we have it called grace onely by intimation not expressely he saith God would give more grace which phrase More Grace implies some preceding grace yet in another place he saith more largely thus (b) Vide mihi annon isto dicto Habenti d●bitur promissio ista contineatur quâ spondet Deus e supernaturali g●at●â illumm●turum qui lu rine naturali rectè utitar aut saltem minùs malè Antiperk 218. Consider with me whether or no in that saying To him that hath shall be given that promise is not herein contained whereby God binds himself to give supernatural light to them that use the light of nature well or at least lesse evilly So that now hee makes the Talents that are to be used to be natural light and the increase to be supernatural grace when if he had spoken home to the point of Universal grace he should have made the Talents as wel as the increase that which is originally given to improve as well as that which is given by way of reward to be supernatural grace for the argument is good against him out of his own words for thus we may argue if supernatural grace be not conferred but upon the right use and improvement of natural abilities then all men have not supernatural grace and the reason is clear because they do not use the light of nature well which expresses of Arminius when Molineus undertaketh to Anatomize and urgeth against Arminius thus God in Scripture is no where said to bind himself to give increase of grace to them that use the light of nature well Corvinus who defendeth him saith thus by way of reply (c) 1. Non ab Arminio dici simpliciter à Deo dari incrementa gratiae lumine naturali rectè utenti sed luce illâ recte utenti per ad jutotium gratiae 2 Nec dici ab illo Deum teneri incrementa dare sed tantum quod Deus vult sine ullâ obligatione 1. It is not said by Arminius simply thus that God gives increase of grace to him that useth the light of nature well but to him that useth nature well by the help of grace 2. Neither is it said by him that God is bound to give the increase of grace but onely that God will do it without any obligation But here Corvinus doth not defend but chastise his Master good reason if he do not expresse himself in such a fundamental point modo decenti in such a manner as becometh it and I must tell also Corvinus that both th●se replies are far from truth For clear it is 1 That he affirms simply that God gives increase of supernaturall grace to him that useth the light of nature well without any mention of the least syllable of assisting grace as any may judge that revieweth the forementioned quotation our of him if any for Corvinus can extract out of that text the least syllable leading to assisting grace I shall then say that Corvinus defends but if not he sheweth not what he doth say but what he should have said Now if any shall say to this that Arminius is so to be understood becuse sometimes he expresseth himself to the su●l I find him indeed thus in other places speaking (d) Anne natura prorsus destituta gratiā Spiritu Dei instructa est notitia veritatis c. non Arbitror ista dona naturae sine gratiâ spiritu Dei tribui posse citra injuriam gratiae divinae Arm. resp ad A. Art 31. Artic. 15. But can nature altogether destitute of the grace and spirit of God be instructed with the knowledge of God c. I do not think that such natu●al gifts without the grace and spirit of God can be granted without manifest injury to the grace of God But this doth not at all reduce him to any clear discovery of the truth but rather detect his fraud for they may have the Spirit of God and gifts of it originally and yet no supernatural grace given them de novo to use the gifts of nature well because according to their own principles every man hath Reliquias vitae Spiritualis the Reliques of spiritual life whereby they know something of God and are enabled to do the things contained in the law which yet the Apostle saith the Heathen do by nature and this not onely Arminius but Corvinus himself saith as I shall shew presently so that seeing his clearest words are liable to this charge of aequivocation it savours of too much levity and inconstancy to treat or the use of natural light in so many places without the least hint of any new principle of assisting grace and I cannot but judge thus that because they cannot make good their Doctrine of Universal grace without this pretended assisting grace he therefore sometimes scatters such expressions carrying a covert intimation thereof but because they find the proof of it from Scripture to be but slender they most frequently let that passe untouched But however if the question turn upon this hinge it is very improvidently done of them to let the whole credit of their cause hang upon their bare assertions for they do not produce one Scripture in all their writings to prove that God gives divine assisting grace to inable men to use the light of nature well and here the question concerning universal grace sticks betwixt us They affirm that God gives to all men assisting grace to use the light of nature well We on the other side deny it and provoke them to produce one place of Scripture to prove it and they have not produced it yet to his day When Molineus in his Anatomy of Arminianisme Quod dicis falsum est chap. 39. sec 2. chargeth them thus God it no where said to give to all men supernatural grace to use the light of nature well Corvinus onely answers thus That which thou saiest is false when it had

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 wi●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 quà tale impeditur est vel voluntatis divinae ● velatio vel suasio voluntatis ad obre●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 joint●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 ● aliquam Dei cognitionem in affectu defiderium ad bonū 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 Ma● 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 propriè dona spiritualia ab hominis voluntate quia nunquam illa fuerunt et insita Sed libertas duntaxat agendi bene aut malè quae libertas quamvis vites suas non exerere possit in homine peccato●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

spiritual death the will according to its natural freedome can act as the understanding dictateth and the affections move all which are very contradictious to themselves in other places and the holy Scriptures every where yet upon this ground I proceed against them with their own sword The will needs no life to be infused anew it is enough if the understanding and the affections be rectified but as for the understanding that hath the knowledge of God and the truth naturally which Arminius calleth Lumen naturale natural light and Corvinus Scinitilla luminis sparks of light which light is called the law of Nature and so often by the Arminians and Mr. Goodwin called natural light and in the affections there is a desire of good fighting with inordinate desires and by both they come to do the things conteined in the Law and that by nature what need then of a principle of assisting grace conferred anew to enable them to do any of these True indeed the Remonstrants often use the word grace as Pelagius did Gratiae vocabulo invidiam frangens offensionem declinans of whom it was said by the word grace he indeavoured to break the cloud of envy and avoid offences so these meerly to serve them at this turn and to carry on their own interest are strong sticklers for the grace of God to assist man in doing the least thing towards grace and salvation When they would prove man not to be wholly dead they urge some Reliques of life whereby he is able to know God desire good fight against his lusts govern his locomotion do the things conteined in the Law Textus non dicit eos dispositos esse à Deo Coll. Hag. 109. and so to dispose themselves to grace and eternal life for thus they say when they speak of or rather pervert that text Acts 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternal life beleeved they say that ordained in the text is no more then disposed to eternal life and that the text saith not they are disposed by God to eternal life Now not to be disposed by God is not to be disposed by the grace of God for by that we say men are disposed to eternal life but it seemeth they say men are disposed to eternal life and yet not by God or his grace and what can this be but by nature and the natural powers of man and so of themselves without any new principle of assisting grace And yet when they come to make out a general and universal grace then no man must be disposed to do any thing or know any thing but by a principle of assisting grace without which nature is wholly blind and are now become as absolute patrons of the grace of God as may bee Oh the fraud and jugling of these supporters of the doctrine of universal grace I urge these two things to them First when they urge that man by the relicks of life hath abilities to all those things before mentioned and this to prove man not to be wholly dead I demand whether they understand man to have those abilities by the reliques of life with the assisting grace of God or without it if they meane with it then it is very impertinent to prove man not to be wholly dead for no man is so simple to plead man to be so dead by sinne that hee cannot do anything being excited and assisted by the grace of God and if they meane the reliques of life without that grace then I have what I desire that all men have not grace so universal grace falleth Secondly I urge if those words in Act. 13.48 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which text according to their own glosse is to be read thus as many as were disposed to eternal life if those words I say disposed to eternal life doe not necessarily import thus much that men are disposed by God to eternal life Then what ground have they to say that no man is able to do the things contained in the law or any thing whereby hee is disposed to faith and regeneration but as he is assisted by the grace of God de novo How necessarily is this doctrine inevitably involved When they would prove man not to be wholly dead then we have it only thus they do by nature the things contained in the law but when they come to prove universal grace we have it with a comment thus they do the things contained in the law by nature as it is helped and assisted by grace let them adhere either to the one or other either that man hath no such reliques of life by which he is able to dispose himselfe to faith or else that a new principle of assisting grace is not needful nor given to every man The one wil help in the point of the manner of working of Gods grace in mans conversion the other in the point of universal grace And until they can reconcile those reliques of life in every man wherby they are enabled to do those things contained in the law to prepare themselvs for faith and the necessity of the assisting principle of Gods grace to be imparted to man anew for those ends purposes I shal conclude that they do but usurp the name title of universal grace Thus I have endeavoured to prove that that which they pretend is given to everie man cannot be called Grace In the next place I shal examine whether that which is given to every man although it be granted to be grace be truly said to be sufficient Now this must be proved as wel as the former if they wil carry up to the height an universal sufficient grace Now that this business may be perspicuously decided it is requisite that we first consider the nature and definition of sufficiencie in general and then apply it to particular cases The Remonstrants give us a general definition of suffiencie tending to this result Sufficiencie is a position of things necessary and requisite to that thing in respect of which it is said to be sufficient and this I willingly receive as rationall Upon that text Isa 5.1 2.3 They say thus (a) Sufficiens gratia nihil aliud est quam ea gratia quae omnia necessaria ad regenerationem adhibet ut quod ad actum praestationem necessarium nihil ult a requiratur Definitio gratiae s●ffie ent●s hoc habet ut omnia necessaria adh●bet Tolle aliquid necessarium no● erit gratia sufficiens pone omnia necessaria erit gratia sufficiens Act. Synod acr 4. pag 9. Sufficient grace is nothing else but that grace which affordeth all requisites and necessaries to the effecting of regeneration so that to the performance of the act nothing can be beyond it required as necessary the very definition of sufficient grace containeth this in it that it afford all necessaries take away any one necessary requisite and we take away sufficient grace grant all and wee grant sufficient grace And true

the Remonstrants leave so far as to be the interpreters of this and the rest the of like expressions in this Chap. In the fourth Verse he saith He hath elected us in Christ now say the Remonstrants us in Christ that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elected us being in Christ that is believing in act hence they contend that none are Elected but such as are believers either in act or in the divine prescience then I hope they wil not repine if I say here from this text He hath made us accepted in the beloved that is we being in Christ actually believers with whom and by which faith he is well pleased with us and that none are accepted of God or he well pleased with any but those that are in Christ me thinks they might have so much fore-sight as not to give such glosses upon any expression in one place that will strangle their own sense in another text But again the Remonstrants willingly confesse that no man can fulfil the Law of nature perfectly or worship God according to the rule and then will they say that God is pleased with lame and imperfect performances He that faileth in one point becomes guilty of all Nay but suppose they could improve the light of nature to the height of the rule of nature yet how would they please God by so doing All the obedience to the Law of God Positive and Moral cannot please God without Christ The people of God have confessed Isaiah 64.6 that their righteousness is as menstruous rags in his sight then certainly the natural performances of the Heathen though never so regular cannot please God Paul with all his moral righteousness though in relation to the righteousness of the Law he was blameless yet accounted that but dung which is not acceptable to man in comparison of the righteousness of Christ that he might be found in it but certainly he would not account any thing dung that was acceptable to God or with which he was pleased Now the Apostle speaks here not comparatively that is his righteousness of the law was dung and loss in comparison of Christ but absolutely he accompted his own righteousness dung that he might win Christ or such conceits that our own righteousness pleaseth God hinder us either from the seeking or obteining the righteousness of Christ Now if the moral righteousness of Paul though to the law he was blameless could not please God How can the natural Improvements of the Heathen please God Again the Heathen let their Improvement be never so high and eminent are but unregenerate and not born again and therefore but yet in the flesh Rom. 8.6 7 8. But those that are in the flesh cannot please God But I shall reduce all to one perspicuous Argument and that is this Arg. 4 Without faith it is not possible to please God Heb. 11.6 But the Heathen with their Improvements are without faith so long as they have the light of Nature only Ergo So long as they have only the light of Nature they cannot please God Molinaeus in his Anatomy of Arminianisme I finde forming the Argument thus If a man cannot perform those actions by which he may please God without faith which is the gift of God then he cannot of himself please God But the former is true Therefore the latter is true The formation of which Argument made the answer of Corvinus to be so ready at hand which was That the conclusion of the argument is nothing against them they pretending the assisting Spirit of God they hold not any man can of himself without the grace of God do any thing to please God Yet notwithstanding this argument is valid enough against Master Goodwin because he is not so express in the point of assisting grace as the Remonstrants are but is all for the light of nature onely but because I will make it firm against all parties I desire to form it thus If no man without faith can please God then no man can by all his Improvemements please God before faith But the former is true Therefore the latter And to this Corvinus hath an answer at hand such an one as we finde it thus Heb. 11.6 doth not well prove Heb. 11.6 Male probat nullam actionem quae Deo placcat praefari posse quia ibi agitur de tali beneplacito quo quis placet Deo ad gloriam Corvin in Molin c. 33. §. 4. Agitur de tali beneplacito quo Enoch Deo placuit quando cum è mundo sustulit Ibid Acta Synod Art 1. pag. 211. that no action can be done to please God without faith Because that text means such a pleasing whereby a man pleaseth God to glory how they sweat at it to strangle a clear text First I demand how that appeareth from the text that it meaneth such a pleasing whereby a man pleaseth God to glory he gives the reason why thus in the same place because it speaks of that pleasing whereby he pleased God when God translated him but this is a manifest forgery for saith the text before he was translated he had this testimony that he pleased God but without faith a man cannot please God If then the Text speak of such a pleasing whereby Enoch pleased God before the translation of him then it is but a meer shift of diversion to confine it to such whereby Enoch pleased God when he translated him Secondly it is not because of the long interval that Corvinus cannot at his turn remember that he was one of that full Jury of Remonstrants who urge this Argument to the clearing of their doctrine in the first article from this very place thus That without which we cannot please God without it we cannot be elected to life But without faith we cannot please God Heb. 11.6 Therefore without faith it is impossible for any one to be elected to salvation Now I shall make use both of this argument it self as also their reply to our answer to refel their futilous gloss first the argument it self overthrows them if this text be to be taken in such sense as whereby a man pleaseth God to glory that is actually to give glory then their Proposition or Major must be corrected and run thus That without which we cannot please God to glory without it a man be elected to glory And let any Arminian look upon the face of this Proposition and tell me if it please them and whether this be like their doctrine that no man can please God so far as to Elect him without that by which he will so far please him as to give him glory and so by consequence he shall give glory to so many as he elects What will then become of their doctrine of falling away and that those that are now elected may afterwards come to be reprobated and never so please God as to give them glory and if the case be such then what egregious foul dealing are they

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

regenerations and improvements and abilities but I expect that Mr. Goodwin give me as fair an accompt of the increase of saving grace given to any of them according to this stāding course of providence so much pretended whereupon Mr Goodwin either doth or may know that the best of his owne side have verbis disertis declined this standing course of providence in a text before cited the conclusion whereof is this We freely acknowledge that God the giver of all good useth such a liberty in giving Script Synod Art 2. Pag. 528. inequall grace to equall men and equall grace to inequall men calling those that are more evill and passing by those that are lesse evill that we freely confesse that there can be no exact account given of his dispensations of grace either by the use or abuse of more generall gifts and yet Mr. Goodwin will needs have a standing course of providence whereby God faileth not to give grace to him that improves naturalls well And yet although by these clouds of witnesses they are forced to confesse that there can be no exact reason given of Gods dispensations of grace either by the use or abuse of natural gifts yet they can to make out that intention in God to save all affirm that (a) Nullus corum quos communi vocatione vocat quem non ex primâ intentione ideò vocet ut eos specialioris gratiâ vocationis afficiat Script Synod Art 2. Pag. 327. No man that enjoyes that generall and common Call which is the same with the generall gifts they before spoke of but God calleth them out of his primary intention to endew them with the grace of his more special call how miserable is the division of that house that the strengthening of one part is the confusion of another true indeed if they did grant any such standing or exact rule for Gods dispensations of grace then they might thus evade us all things propounded and intended by his primary and antecedent will fall not out so in execution by his consequent because man is wanting to himself there is the intervening peccancie of mans free wil but they take this evasion out of their own mouths for if no such exact or standing rule be so that we cannot tell how grace shall be dispensed either by the use or abuse of general gifts then how God may be truely said to give general gifts intentionally that by improvement of them he might in dew men with more special grace let them that can divine for I professe my self unable to do it Again one thing more if there be such a method which out of the fluttering expresses of our Adversaries may be made out that general gifts are given to every man with an intention that they might improve them and upon the inprovement of them be compensated with the revelation of Christ and the improvement of that with more grace till they come to be saved and that all this method from nature to glory by the reason of the irrefragable contignation betwixt all the parts thereof be but one entire way to Heaven and eternal glory then I demand of Master Goodwin whether those that believe in Christ are more truly said to have life then those that have only the gifts of nature and how Christ is said to be the way When yet the Heathen are in the way and yet are without Christ and how the Heathen are said to have gone out of the way and not to have known the way of peace when Mr. Goodwin can tell us they have the light of nature which is a part of that way that leads to life what doth he think is the difference betwixt the believers in Christ and the Heathen Gentiles Doth he think them alike in this that they are both in the way to life and only this difference that the one hath gone further in this way then the other Those that are believers may in Mr. Goodwins judgement finally fall away and perish and the Lord Christ hath not promised to preserve them from their voluntary defections and their faith in Christ may yet so fail them as that they shall not come to life and yet on the other side a Heathen man hath general gifts given to him with this intention that he might improve them and improving them have an increase of grace till they come to be saved how shall we herein discry any difference betwixt them and that the one shall appear to be more truly in the way to life then the other his decisions herein wil be acceptable and provoke me to further explanations in this particular only I must advise him to be casting about for sufficient proofs for this that those Heathen men that have only the light of nature can be said to know the way of peace and to be in the way of eternal life otherwise I shall not yield to this standing course of providence so much and so confidently urged by him But then in the next place he will urge us with that text Matth. 25. the Parable of the talents in which it is said To him that hath it shall be given from this text they deduce this generall or standing course of providence and hence say they it appears that God bindes himself to give increase to him that useth those gifts well that he hath received nay Mr. Goodwin saith expresly that here by talents are meant natural gifts and in that saying To him that hath shall be given God promises to give an increase of grace to him that shall use the light of nature well Now because this text is the whole proof by the strength of which the whole fabrick of Vniversal Grace seemeth to stand I shall a little expatiate upon it and truly were it so that either Mr. Goodwin or the Remonstrants were but at unity with themselves it would be possible for us in sometime to shape them out some answer looking towards satisfaction but the intricacies and uncertainties of our adversaries render our work herein very difficult If this text prove their pretended method they must prove that these talents are natural gifts and abilities or at least necessary to take them in But to take a survey of their constancy in this particular Arminius would have the talents be the light of nature he saith thus (a) Vide mihi annon isto dicto Habenti dabitur promissio ista contineatur quâ Deus spondet se gratiâ supernaturali illuminaturum eos qui lumine naturali rectè utuntur Antiperkins pag. 218. Doth not that saying of Christ To him that hath shall be given contein the promise by which God bindeth himself to give supernatural grace to him that useth the light of nature well But Corvinus tempers the text to a greater latitude thus (b) Quod attinet ad proverbialem illam sententiam Habenti dabitur confirmemus sententiam nostram de remunerando recto usu prioris gratiae per majorem subsequentem in Molin Cap.