they must be now the foundation thereof God teacheth his Church and revealeth his will diversly he hath varied the wayes of his administrations and his will being presupposed the Scriptures are now necessary as a foundation which in former times were not The learned Rivet tels us Rivet â— 1. c. 1. Aliud tempus alios mores postulat Deus pro multiformi suâ— sapiemia administrationis suae rationem volait variare Consequentias a lversariorum meritò ridemus fuit aliquando Ecclesia cum non esset Scripture ergo heâ— tempore Ecclesia potest câ—rere Scriptura prae suppositâ Dei veluntate nobis necessariam esse Scripturam asserimus Meritò ridemus We account it a ridiculous consequence That because formerly the Church was without the Scriptures therefore now it can want them The same solution doth Gerraâ—d also make Exeg p. 16. Quia non nisi per Scripturas c. Because God in the businesse of our salvation would not deale with us but by the Scriptures upon this supposition they are now necessary The like saith Whitaker Whitak de perfec Scrip. cap. 7. Partibus olim Dâ—us se familiariter ostendit atque iis per se voluntatem suam patesecit tum Scripturas non fuisse necessarias fateâ—r at postea mutavit hanc docendae â—â— clesiae rationem scribi suam voluntatem vâ—lait rumnecessarta esse scriptura â—â—â—pit Alia illorum alia horum temporuam ratio God of old time familiarly made known himselfe to the Fathers and by himselfe manifested to them his will and then I confesse the Scriptures were not necessary but after God did change the way or course of teaching his Church and would have his will written then the Scriptures began to become necessary The materiall object of the faith of those that lived before the Canon was put into writing was the same with ours they built their faith upon Christ they beleeved the same truths for salvation but the formall object of their faith or the ground of beleeving those truths differed from ours in the manner of its dispensation Diâ—ine â—eâ—elation was the foundation and ground of their faith and is of ours also but divine revelation was afforded to them afone manner and to us after another God hath spoken in divers manners Heb. 1.1 The authority of the revelation is alwaies the same the way of making that revelation hath frequently been different sometimes immediately by visions a lively voice c. at other times by writing as now in these latter times upon which consideration I flatly deny that because their Religion stood firme before the Word was written or before God revealed his will in writing therefore our religion is not built upon revelation of God in writing concluding my answer with that excellent passage of Tilenus Syntag. Disp 2. Licet plane eadem sint quae olim voce quâ—que deinceps scripto fuerunt tradida 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamen fidei nostrae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scriptis duntaxat nititur Although the things which were formerly delivered by voice were altogether the same with the things asterward delivered in writing yet the certainty of our faith only depends upon writings Your second Argument to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion Arg. 2 is because The foundation of Religion is imperishable even as is the Church you fay which is built upon it now you say any booke and all books whatsoever and consequently the Scriptures we perishable therefore no books and consequently not the Scriptures are this foundation If Master Jenkins Bible be the form 〈◊〉 of his Religiâ—n then is his Religion no such treasure but that thiâ—ces may breake through and steale it from him 〈◊〉 bearing that Platâ— had given the definition of a man that he was a living creature with twâ— feet withâ—et feathers gets a 〈…〉 off all his feathers while he was alice and throws him in among some of Plato's 〈◊〉 wishing them to behold their Master â—ato his man If some such odde conceited fellow should use means to get Master Jenkins â—ible and having defaced rent and torne it should cast it into the midst of his auditors and say Ecce fundamentum Religionis Jenkinianae I chold the foundation of your Master Jonkin it might prove a more offectuall conviction unto him of his folly than seven demonsirative reasons c. You say the foundation of Religion is as the Church unperishable This position Answ if you understand of a simple and absolute unperishablenesse I deny for though both Church and Scriptures upon which the Church is built be unperishable exhypothest divinae providentie in regard of Gods providence which he hath promised shall preserve the Scriptures and Church yet of themselves they might perish It was possible in it selfe that Christs leggs as well as the leggs of the thieves might have been broken but Gods pleasure presupposed it was altogether impossible As for your arguing from the tearing of my Bible to the abolishing of the Scriptures you shew your self as good as your word for this is one of the arguments which you bring to the shame of those that charge this errour upon you my self among sundry others being ashamed of your child shnesse herein have you any such ground of assurance from God that any one particular Bible shall not be burnt as you have that his written Word shall not be utterly removed from his Church or can the perishing of my Bible prove that God will suffer the Scriptures to be utterly taken away Reverend Mr. Bifield upon the first of Peter ver 25. p. 506. will tell you though this or that patticular Bible may be destroyed yet that the Word abideth for ever in the very writings of it If all the power on earth saith he should make war against the very paper of the Scriptures they cannot destroy it but the word of God written will be to be had still It is easier to destroy heaven and earth than to destroy the Bible So he you say the Scriptures are as imperishable as the Church but can you conclude because the Church in it self may faile and may cease in this or that particular place therefore that it may be overthrown in all parts and places of the world And therefore for that contemptible because profane scoffe of Platoe's man or a living creature with two feet without feathers had you added one accident more that he is animal latis unguibus it would more properly have belonged to your self than animal rationale your nayles being much sharper than your arguments a fit cock for such a cock-pit as you game in Your third argument is Arg. 3 That if any books called the Scripture be the foundation of Religion then may Religion be said to have been founded by men It would be to no purpose haply to tell you that this is a popish cavill Answ however to the Reader it may not be unprofitable to know so
Scriptures containe the foundation of Religion in them Answ is but a slender concession I suppose you will not deny this to the books of many a godly writer 2 In granting me that the foundation of Religion i. e. the Gracious Counsells of God are contained in the Scriptures and yet in denying that the written Word is that formall object of my faith or that foundation for which I should build my faith upon those counsells of God for salvation you do both delude your Reader and contradict your selfe you taking away what you grant Gods revelation of his minde in the written Word being the reason why I embrace the Counsells or matters as the foundation upon which I build 3 You vainly applaud your selfe for asserting the Scriptures to containe the foundation when as you deny the purity of the Scriptures for let it be once granted that errors are crept into the Scriptures Leo Castrius Goâ—â—onius c. and that there is no originall pure which is the blasphemous calumny cast upon the Scriptures by the Papists the authority of Scriptures falls to the ground and we may call the whole Scriptures into question You assert that the purest originall exemplar is corrupted and you know not what the particular places are that are corrupt when any Sentence therefore out of Scripture is brought against your errors why may you not shield your selfe with this defence for ought I know the place whence you take this sentence is corrupted Ecce fundamentum religionis Goodwiniana behold the foundation of a goodly religion I confesse one so erroneous as your selfe cannot coveniently be without this comfortable refuge If you be not too old to learne of the Fathers Aug Ep. 19 Ad. Hieron Non te arbitror sic legi tuâ—s libroâ— velle tanquam Prophetarum vel Apostolorum de quorum Scriptis quod omni careant errore dubitare nefarâ—um est Manichaeiplurima divinum Scripturararum loca quibus eorum nefarius error convincitur quia in alium sensum detoâ—quere non possunt falsa esse contendunt quod tamen quia nec probare potuerunt notissimâ veratate super ati confusique discedunt Id. Ib. take this from Augustine in his 19. Epist written to Hierom. I suppose thou art not willing that men should read thy books as they would read the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles it being a most hainous sinne to doubt of the freenesse of their writings from all error And the same Father in the same Epistle tells Hierom that the Manichees contended that sundry places of Scripture which overthrew their errors were false which falsenesse they did not attribute to the Apostles that wrote them but to certaine corrupters I know not whom quod quia c. which because they could not prove being overcome by knowne trub they departed confounded For your fourth frivolous exception Exception 4. Yo. Eld. p. 29 you cite a passage out of your Div. Auth. of Scrip. p. 17. where you say The true and proper foundation of Religion is not Inke and Paper nor any book or books nor any writing or writings whatsoever c. Hereupon you make a double enquiry First Why did not Mr. Jenkin insert the words true and proper into the charge of my deuiall of the Scriptures for the foundation of Christian Religion Secondly why doth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper c. 1 Poor shifter Answ I added not the words true and proper because the Ministers tooke not your charge out of the 17. pag. where you say the words true and proper are but out of the 18. where I say they are not 2 Because you being taxed with this abhominable error in the Testimony of the London Ministers your selfe in your Pamphlet call'd Sion Col. Vis p 12. for vindication and explanation of your selfe in this point referre the Reader only to the 13. and 15. pages and this 17 page your selfe never mentioned in Sion Col. Visited to which book only mine was an answer and not to Div. Auth. where say you in p. 17. you mention true and proper it seemes the novice hath now driven you to another shift another leafe though a meere Figg-leafe defence for 3 Your deniall of the Scripture to be the foundation without this mitigation or allay of true and proper is most sutable to your former undertakings I tooke you according to the constant streine of your writings as you desired even now see Hagiom Sect. 27 28. as also the many places in Div. Aut. p. 10 11 12. and p. 39. in Yo. Eld. so that evident it is that these words true and proper were inserted here as a blinde for your blasphemy They are not found for ought I know in any other place in all your Div. Aut. you mention I am sure no other place nor did you in Hagiom printed before your Div. Auth. once make mention of them In what a pittifull condition then are the poore old Hag. to lye under the charge of so many tongues and hearts so long before Div. Auth. was printed to be upon duty so long before releeved with true and proper 4 Do you not leave these words true and proper out in the conclusion of that discourse wherein they are contained in which conclusion being the result and winding up of all that which went before you peremptorily and unlimitedly deny any writing whatsoever to he any foundation at all of Christian Religion without a true and proper to mend the matter 2 Your second enquiry Why deth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper is too ridiculous for a novice to read though not for a dotard to write 1. In your next I pray tell me who beside your selfe and the blasphemous Papists did ever by the Scripture understand inke and paper Indeed Doctor Humfred Jesuitmise p. 2. pag. 89. Tels us of a Nun that to the question Quâ in re sita est religio Christiana wherein stands Christian Religion made answer In laceris panniculis in torne rags We need no other Oedipus to open this riddle than Master Goodwin 2 Had you therefore onely thus trifled by this denyall of ink and paper to be the foundation of Christian Religion you had neither been charged for erroneous by the London Ministers nor any one else in this point but when to your trifling you adde blasphemy and say That no writing whether originals or translations are the foundation of Christian Religion and pag. 29. Yo Eld. that you deny whatever is found in the Scriptures besides the precious counsels to be the foundation c. You are to be dealt withall upon a new account You then go beyond your denyall of ink and paper Your fifth Exception against me is Exception the fifth Yo Eld. pag. â—9 That I want Logick in denying the conclusion without answering any thing to the premisses You say you had proved the conclusion That the Scriptures are not the foundation of
Religion with severall arguments and that without any answer given to any one of these arguments I denyed onely your conclusion which was this No writing whatsoever whether Originals or translations are the foundation of Christian Religion 1. Answ For that conclusion of yours No writing whatsoever is the foundation of Christian Religion It was by the Subscribers of the late Testimony taken out of your discourse without any mention of your premisses your charge therefore of the want of Logick is drawne up against them at the feet of many of whom you may sit to learne both Logick and Theologie also 2. The scope of the Ministers that subscribed the Testimony was not to dispute errours but to recite them and recite them they could not more properly than by setting downe the conclusion and result of your tedious discourse nothing speaking a mans minde so plainly and peremptorily as that 3. My booke was an answer to Sion Coll. visited and not to that former piece of yours Divine Authors wherein you said you brought the arguments to prove that the Scriptures were not the foundation of Religion Had you recited your arguments in Sion Colledge visited they should have been answered though in truth neither you nor they deserved it 4. You bring one pittifull thing which I dare say you account an argument in Sion Coll. visited pag. 2. to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christian Religion viz. Because Christ is the onely foundation Which weak cavill I fully answered pag. 7. and 8. Busie Bishop I call it a cavill because your selfe seem afraid to call it an argument for though it be cleerly confuted yet you say I bring no answer to any one argument In your sixth exception Exception the sixth Yo. Eld. p. 30. you exceed your selfe in ignorance and impudence wherein you write thus Doth not himself Master Jenkin distinguish pag. 7. and affirm that in a sense the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christian Religion else what is the english of these his words Christ is the onely foundation in point of mediation and the Scriptures in point of manifestation c. hath the man a mushrome instead of caput humanum upon his shoulders to quarrell with me for denying in a sense the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion and yet to deny as much himself Did I ever or do I any where deny them to be such a foundation in respect of representation and discovery c. Dote you Sir or dream you or are you ambitious to be Bishop of Bethlehem at your translation from Swan-alley First you pretend that you approve the distinction and that you are of my opinion Do you say you any where deny the Scriptures to be a foundation in respect of representation Then you scorne and revile it saying That the foundation of manifestation is an absurd and a ridiculous metaphor againe you owne it and assert the Scriptures in this sense The foundation c. and lastly you scorn it againe and desire me to tell you of one Classicall Author that useth it Certainly if Master Jenkin have a mushrome upon his shoulders you have a windmill upon your pate This passage I fear will confirme Master Vicars in his opinion of the suitablenesse of the emblamaticall windmill and make him applaud himselfe notwithstanding my endeavours to disswade the honest man from expressing you by such a picture 1 In this Exception you ask Did I ever deny the Scriptures to be a foundation in respect of manifestation Yes and do so still Div. Author page 18. Thus you write Answ Certaine it is there was a time when neither Originals nor translations were the foundation of Religion but somewhat beside therefore as certain it is that neither are they the foundation of Religion at this day Thâ—â— you there where you cleerly assert that we must no more ground our faith upon the manifestation of the Scripture now than they that never had any such manifestation by way of writing at all And what do you assert page 49 50. c. of that Treatise but that Religion hath another foundation in point of manifestation than the Scriptures viz. the sun moon and stars c. 2. In this Exception you say That to call the Scriptures the foundation in point of manifestation is a ridiculous and absurd metaphor Master Jenkin thinks that he manifests the feeblenesse of Sion Colledge visited is he therefore the foundation of the booke or of the supposed feeblenesse of it which he discovers Your jeering betrayes your ignorance Answ or malitious forgetfulnesse of that knowne distinction of fides quae creditur and fides quâ creditur The matter which faith beleeves and the grace it selfe of faith both called faith in Scripture Religion also comprehends the matter of Religion and the grace of Religion The Scriptures though they are not the foundation of the matter of Religion yet by their manifestation of the will of God they are the foundation of the grace of Religion as my booke called the Busie Bishop if it have manifested the feeblenesse of Sion Colledge visited may be the foundation upon which some may build the knowledge of the feeblenesse of Sion Colledge visited though it be not the foundation of your book or the weaknesse of it 3 In this exception you produce that question which I propounded to you p. 7. Bus Bish Why doth Master Goodwin alleadge that Scripture Yo. Eld. p. 31. 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation â—an no man lay but Jesus Christ if he doth not ground his beliefe hereof upon this very Scripture To this you give a double answer 1. By way of quaere Why did Christ cite the testimony of John to prove himselfe to be the Messias if he did not ground his beliefe of his being the Messias upon Johns testimony Joh. 5.32.33 c. 1 When will you leave off to blaspheme It s my unhappinesse that instead of reclaiming you from heresie Answ you should take occasion from my words to vent your blasphemy Toungl Elder pag. 6. Do you no more need the Scriptures than Christ did Did Christ cite the testimony of John as a ground for his owne faith or as a ground for the faith of others Doth Master Goodwin never read the Scriptures that say Christ is the Messias but only for the establishing the faith of others 2 You answer by way of supposition What if I should say that I do ground my beliefe of Christ his being the only foundation upon this place which followes 1 It followes that you cite not this testimony as Christ did the testimony of John who did not cite Johns testimony to ground his owne beliefe upon it that he was the Messias 2. It followes that you contradict your selfe for now you say this Scripture is the foundation of your faith in Christ and before you said that because Christ is the only foundation therefore the Scriptures are not Before you said that only the matter and
deep reach because he feared not the same issue Exempla gratia p. 26. Y. El. You laid Master Walker and Master Robroughs writings in the dust with the former of which you encountred as an asse with a lyon and with the latter of which you never durst enter the Lists though provoked by an elaborate Treatise in confutation of your errors about justification So you laid Master Edwards his Antapologia in the dust a booke that so fully and clearly detected your frauds that instead of answering the matter of it by Scripture or reason you were faine to betake your self to your Grammer and only here and there snarle at the seeming impropernesse of a word He threatens That before he and his friend William part he will make him as hereticall as himselfe c. And rather than he will not prove himself a boaster he makes himself a ballad-maker he saith or rather saweth thus in the height of menacing The time will come that youthfull Turnus shall Wish dearly Pallas neâ—'r had been encountred But why rather makes he not use of the skill of a far better Poet who brings in Master Goodwins younger brother expressing himself thus to David Art thou weary of thy life so sâ—one O foolish bay phantasticall baboon I will not file My feared hands with blood so faintly vile Go seeke thy match thou shale not dye by me Thine honour shall not my dishonour be No silly lad no wert thou of the Gods I would not fight at so unknightly odds This among the rest of the characters of those ungodly men spoken of by Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 2.3 4. 2 Pet. 2.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with him to be fierce and high minded to speak great swelling words of vanity He expressing himself more like a Russian than a Minister he shining not like a sweetly influentiall star but flashing like an angry bloody Comet he speaking after the rate of the eldest sonne of Godmagog more like a Polyphemus than like a Paul more like a swash-buckler than a Bishop a Lamech than a Moses and expressing more the presumption of Behemoth Job 40.23 who trusteth that be can draw up Jordan into his mouth than the lamb-like spirit of a Saint In a word he hath so much of the Goodwin that be hath nothing at all of the John in him for From his eyes All drunke with rage and blood the lightning flyes Out of his beaver like a boar be foams A bellish fury in his bosome roams But alas this Ivye-bush of boasting doth but shew the badnesse of his wine to all prudent passengers his booke is a meer thundring trifle a mountaine of chaffe a terriculament onely for the ignorant of the alley like the logg in the fable it makes a great noise in its falling but then it lies still for every frog to skip upon it The truth is he might well have spared the paines of setting his name unto it for so poor a weakling and so mishapen a monster it is that as none will challenge it for theirs so none will doubt it for his although in two regards it be very unlike the father it having a rich and a full bead a stuffed title and a thin empty body the residue of the book He doth not so much as pretend to answer the greatest part by far of what I bring in opposition to his errours There 's not so much as any mention in his Youngling Elder of the most materiall passages contained in mine but he prudently passeth them by in learned silence and onely here and there toucheth superficially upon a few by-passages not but that he was able I trow with the least puffe to send them all on an errand to the wormes had not his owne goodnesse and noble nature more prevailed with him than any merit in such a naughty youth as I so that as to the businesse of answering me his booke is a meer by-work and indeed among all judicious men a meer by-word which he prudently foreseeing confesseth by way of anticipation that his booke is not a formall confutation of mine but that his end in fetting of it forth Epistle to the Reader was to make me know my selfe but of his childish and impotent omissions I shall God willing give a more particular account in the following Chapter But if at any time he doth vonchsafe a mentioning of any of my passages against him instead of an answer he either brings scoffs and reproaches or else he labours to do the work of an opponent bringing in stead of a solution of my arguments a bumble of musty reasons taken out of his other books to fill up paper in this or else his poore sew answers are so miserably unsatisfactory impertinent and hereticall that this his last worke appeares plainely to be the issue of his very dotage to all impartiall observers I shall onely in this fiâ—st Chapter barely recite some of his answers to some places of Scripture and passages contained in my booke reserving the refutation of them to the third and fourth Chapters though indeed the recitation of such cheape and poore stuffe be a sufficient refutation of them among intelligent Readers The places of Scripture which I bring against his Errours he either wholly passeth by as if they had never been alledged by me and thus he dealeth with all those many places which I alledge against his Errours about the Scripture or else if he pretends to answer them he puts such false and unsound glosses upon them that he speakes himself most erroneous even when he goeth about to cleere himselfe from errour like the swearer that being reproved for his oathes sware with a greater oath that he did not swear To that place Acts 26.18 where Paul declares That he was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes c. I having said That conversion is the restoring of sight not of light onely T. El. p. 54. he asserts most prophanely and erronously that mens eyes are onely opened in conversion as the light of the morning or the sun may be said to open a mans eyes which were shut by the darknesse of the night so that naturall men have good eyes onely they are in the darke there 's nothing perisht in the faculty of seeing To that place Yo. Eld. p 55. Epist 2. dead in trespasses and sins he answers by saying the meaning onely is That they of whom the Apostle speaks were guilty of death and liable to condemnation The meaning of that place Yo. Eld. p. 87. 1 Cor. 2.14 The naturall man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God neither can be know them c. he gives us thus by the naturall man he saith is not meant the man that is simply or meerly naturall or unregener are but such a kinde of men as are babes in Christ and whereas it s said be cannot know the things of the spirit of God Yo. Eld. p. 89. this profound
expositer of Scripture gives us this to be the meaning The naturall man whilest he continues thus bath not a power actually and for the present to know simply the things of the spirit but he hath such principles which by a due and regular improvement may advance and rise into such a capacity or power as is contended for That place of 1 Cor. 4.7 Yo. Eld. p. 59. Who maketh thee to differ he tels us is not to be understood of any difference betweene man and man which is made by any saving worke but of such a difference onely which stands in more or fewer or in greater or lesser gifts which difference in the primitive times was frequent He having said That no writings originals or translations are the Word of God the matter and substance of things as that Christ is God is Man that be dyed that be rose from the dead c. conteyned in the books of the Old and New Testament being by him acknowledged only for the word of God I demand of him thus Bu. p. 22. how can any beleeve that the matter and substance of the Scripture as that Christ is God and Man c is the Word of God when as be must be uncertaine whether the written word wherein that matter is conteyned is the Word of God or no This hereticall and rediculous soul fetcheth off himself thus by asking me againe Cannot a man beleeve these matters conteyned in the Scripture The Sun is the greater light and the Moon the lesser light unlesse he be certaine that the written word is the Word of God To my charge of his joyning hands with the Arminians in heir errours concerning power to good supernaturall he answers â—ot a sillable by way of denying the charge but tels me That in holding Jesus Christ to be they holy one of God Yo. Eld. p. 43. Y. El. p. 44. I joyn hands with the Devill Yea he saith the Arminians attribute all the praise of conversion to God Nay he slights and neglects as much the accusation of agreement with Pelagius in his Errours impudently affirming Youngl Elder pag. 52. that between Augustine and Pelagius there was little or no difference To my allegations out of the Fathers and Bucer for vindicating either of the Scriptures or the grace of God he answereth not a word And instead of doing so when I bring multitudes of evident places out of them to shew how those places which he wresteth ought to be understood he very modestly rather than they shall not be though to speak for him in some few places tels us that they contradict themselves in all the rest To cite saith he other words of a contrary import to those quâ—ted by me out of the same Author is no manifestation of the impertinency of my quotations Yo. Eld. p. 5. but it is indeed a discovering of the nakednesse of an Authâ—r to present him contradictious to himselfe and to expose the unstablenesse of his judgement to the eyes of men So that â—ucer Ball Augustine Hierome are self-contradictors unstable naked unable rather than this petty-toes of a Pope can erre an haires breadth He scoffs at the absolute decree and saith Yo. Eld. p 10. That I and my mates tremble not to inform the creature against the Creator as if from eternity be had shut up his grace c. with the iron barres of an irreversible indispensable decree He tels us pag. 62. that ther 's nothin but morall perswasion to act the will into a saving consent Yo. Eld. p. 62. pag. 63. for thus he wanders It passeth my understanding to conceive how the will should be wrought or acted into a consent in any kinde otherwise than by argument motive and perswasion unlesse it be by force violence and compulsion The essentiall constitution and falâ—ick of the will exempt it from being drawnely an other meanes And page 65. he thus debaseth the working of Gods grace There is no man converted actually but might possibly have acted or demeaned himselfe so as never to have been thus converted And pag. 52. The adjutory of grace doth not imply a necessity of effecting that which is effected by it He clearly takes part with that infamous Pelagius against those holy men Vid. p. 5. Y. El. in charging them with Manicheism I having told him That the charge of Manicheism was an old calumny cast upon the Fathers by Pelagius he tels me again We are not to enquire by whom or upon whom it was cast but by whom it bath beene taken off from any of your judgement Youngl Elder pag. 45. till this feat be done he concludes the charge must be continued But of his omissions and slender and erroneous performances you may please more fully to take this following account in these three following Chapters CHAP. II. Shewing Master Goodwin his omissions in his Youngling Elder and totall passing by of most of the materiall passages contained in my booke called The busie Bishop against his pamphlet called Sion Coll. visited by way of parallel Asserted in Sion Colledge visited IT was never well with Christian Religion since the Ministers of the Gospell so called by themselves and so reputed by the generality of men for want of knowing better cunningly vested that priviledge of theChurch of being the ground and pillar of truth in themselves There came lately out of the presse a few papers stiling themselves A testimony to the truth c. and pretending to a subscription by the Minist of Christ c. Sion Coll. visited pag. 1. It is a precious truth of Jesus Christ That no act of man what soever is any foundation of Christian Religion the Apostle affiâ—ming that other foundation can no man lay but Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 and yet the denyall of the act of man to be a foundation of Christian Religion as viz. The beleeving that the Scriptures are the Word of God is by the said Booke called A Testimony to the truth ranked among infamous and pernicious errours Sion Colledge â—sited pag. 3. You cite some of my words barely suppressing craftily my sense You cite these words Questionlesse no writing whatsoever whether translations or originals are the Word â—f God Divine Author pag. 18. without citing those other words of mine Divine Author pag. 13. wherein I assert them to be of Divine Authority Si. Coll. visited p. 11 12. Let the thirteenth and fifteenth pages of Divine Author be lookt upon pag. 12. Sion Coll. visited I beseech you brethren where lyes the error of these words 〈◊〉 God should not endue men with such principles abilities c. by the diligent improvement whereof they might come to be convinâ—ed of a readinesse and willingnesse in him to receive them into grace and favour upon their repentance and turning to him upon which conviction that repentance and turning to God alwaies followes they which are condemned would have their mouthes opened against God and surmshed with and excuse c.
places to prove that Pelagius himselfe granted the necessity of the adjutory but that Austine was not satisfied with that his grant saying that Pelagius is to be askt what grace he meaneth Replyed in Yo. El. Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing These are some of the heads of those many passages which Mr. G. toucheth not whether because they were too considerable or too contemptible himselfe best knowes Sundry other materiall omissions I could mention and how unscholler-like a deportment is it for him to boast that Buce and the Fathers are of his opinion and yet when the contrary is proved by shewing that the scope and streyne of their writings oppose his dotage and how they explaine themselves to have nothing to say but that these Authors contradict themselves and never to answer those multitudes of places which out of the said Authors are brought against him CHAP. III. Shewing the weaknesse and erroneousnesse of his pretended answers to what I bring against his Errours about the holy Scripture IN your title page you say there are two great questions which in your booke are satisfactorily discussed The one concerning the foundation of Christian Religion The other concerning the power of the naturall man to good supernaturall The former whereof you discusse after a fashion from page the 26. to page the 38 of your Youngling Elder concerning which your position was this Questionlesse no writing whatsoever whether translations or originali is the foundation of Christian Religion I have proved in Busie Bishop that this position doth raze and destroy the very foundation of Christian Religion Busie Bishop p 23 24. c. and the ground-work of faith I still abide by what I there proved and maintained I fear not at all to tell you that this your assertion being imbraced faith must needs be over throwne That the matters and precious truths laid downe in the Scriptures as that Christ is God and man That he dyed for sinners c. can never be beleeved with a Divine faith unlesse the ratio credendi or ground of such beleeving be the revelation of God in writing or the written Word I againe inculcate that your blasphemous position No writing c. is contrary to Scripture which tels us the Church is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Chamier to 1. L. 6. c. 8. Ephes 2.20 that is their writings see Chamier who vindicateth this place against the exceptions of the Popish writers Your position directly opposeth that place Joh. 20.31 These things are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Sonne of God and that beleeving ye might have life through his Name Deut. 17.18.19 Esa 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 2 Pet. 1.19 Luk. 24.25 27 46. Act. 13.33 Act. 17.11 Rom. 14.11 c. and that other 1 Joh 5.13 These things have I written unto you c. that ye might beleeve on the Name of the Son of God with multitudes of other places which have been and might againe be mentioned in all which the ground and foundation of our beleeving the truths of salvation and consequently of religion is said to be the written Word Nor did I ever meet with any one Orthodox Writer but he oppugned this your abominable assertion when he discourseth concerning the Scriptures in this point I quoted sundry places out of the Fathers in my last fully to that purpose out of Tertullian Ireneus Augustine Hierome I might adde that all our moderne Protestant Writers oppose you herein To name all would require a volume Zanchy Tom. 8. in Confess cals the Scriptures The foundation of all Christian Religion Synops. pur theol dis p. 2. The Leyden-professors assert the Scriptures to be prineipium fundamentum omnium Christianorum dogmatum c. Gomarus also Thes de scriptura may be seen to this purpose Amesâ—medul c. scrip Tilen syntag disp de scrip Rivetus Disp 1. de scrip And I desire the Reader to consider That in this whole discourse though you exceed your selfe in impudence and audacious assertions yet you do not so much as offer a justification of this Thess as it is set downe in the testimony and in terminis taken out of your booke by the London Ministers and therefore whatever you say might be neglected as not appertaining to this controversie between you and me But to consider of what you say though your whole discourse be nothing to the purpose in this satisfactory discussion as you vainly and falsely terme it of the foundation of Christian Religion You do these three things 1. You bring some six weak and childish exceptions against me for opposing your errour in such a manner as I have exprest in my book 2. You present the Reader with eight terrible things which you call demonstrations to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christian Religion Not one of which eight feathers but is able to cut off the arm of an adversary 3. You subjoyne two or three cavils prophane trifles by way of answer to me First for your exceptions 1. To. Eld. p. 27. You say This unhallowed peece of Presbytery wholly concealeth and suppresseth my distinction and what I deny onely in such and such a sense he representeth as absolutely simply and in every sense denyed by me In a due and regular sense I affirme and avouch the Scriptures to be the foundation of Christian Religion I appeale to these words in page 13. of my Treatise concerning the Scriptures If by Scriptures be meant the matter or substance of things contained and held forth in the books of the old and new Testament I believe them to be of Divine Authority c. 1 Friend Answ Rev. 22.15 remember you the Catalogue of the excluded out of the new Jerusalem is not he that loveth and maketh a lye mentioned wretched creature what will be your portion if God in mercy give you not repentance Doth not he whom you call the unhallowed peece of Presbytery set downe page 20. of Busie Bishop this your distinction are not these very words spoken to and of you You grant the matter and substance of the Scripture the gracious counsels to be the Word of God as that Christ is God and man That he dyed That he rose againe c. And page 22. Busie Bishop reade you not thus in expresse tearmes You tell me p. 13. That you believe the precious Counsels matter and substance of the Scriptures to be of Divine Authority and in the same page you say That the matters of the Scriptures represented in translations are the Word of God Do not you acknowledge page the 39 of Youngling Elder that I did set downe this your distinction where you bring me in enquiring of you How can any beleeve the matter and substance of the Scripture to be the Word of God when he must be uncertaine whether the written Word or Scriptures wherein the matter is
contained are the Word of God or no Is it possible to dispute against that which is altogether concealed and acknowledge you not that I dispute against it 2 What great matter is it that you assert concerning the Scripture in saying You grant the matter and substance of the Scriptures to be the Word of God All this you may say and yet deny them the foundation of Christian ' Religion and the formall object of faith The Papists from whom you have stollen most of your following Arguments acknowledge as much and yet deny them the foundation of faith 3 You say you beleeve the matters of the Scriptures to be the Word of God but you tell me not why Nay you plainly deny that which indeed is the true ground of beleeving the matter of the Word of God namely the written Word You are not too old to learne from a Youngling take this therefore for a truth Upon what ground soever you beleeve the substance and matters contained in the Scriptures for the Word of God if that faith be not ultimately resolved into the written Word or the revelation of God in writing t is no divine faith 4. In this your penurious and scanty concession that the matters contained in the Scriptures are only the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1 19â— 20 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whituk de Auth. Scrip. lib. 1. cap. 10. sect 8. Neque tantum ratione dogmatum scriptura à Deo prodiit etsi edita scriptura est ut certa perpetua dogmatum ratio constaret sed tota scripturarum structura compositio divina est neque non modo dogma sed ne verbum in Scripturis ullum niss dâ—vinum est c. Yo. Eld. p. 5. you come far short of the Scripture which cals the Written Word of God the Scriptures or Word of God It telling us That all Scripture is of divine inspiration and that we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A more sure word of prophecy not in regard of the matters of it but in regard of its manner of manifestation by writing And holy men spake being moved of the holy Ghost Did the holy men speak what they were moved to speak and not also as they were moved Learned Whitaker tels you The Scriptures did not proceed from God tantum ratione dogmatum onely in regard of those divine truths contained in them but the whole structure and composure of the Scripture is also divine and the truths are not onely divine but there is not a word in them which is not divine To that ridiculous passage of yours in this first Exception pag. 27. Mr. Jenkins charge against me in denying the Scriptures to be the foundation of Christian Religion stands upon the credit or base of such an argumentation as this c. A wooden horse for unruly Souldiers is no living creature thereiore an horse simply is no living creature so The Scriptures in regard of the writing are not the foundation of Religion therefore in no sence are they such The answer is obvious my charging of you to deny the Scriptures to be the foundation c. is not grounded upon any argumentation of my framing but upon the result of your own arguments as your self have set it downe in the place quoted Div. Auth. p. 18. Questionlesse no writings whatsoever are the foundation of Christian Religion which base being laid the superstructure will be this the Scriptures taken in your sense are not the foundation of Christian Religion you being no way able to ground your faith upon any matters in the Scripture and your talking of a â—â—oden horse shewes you have of late been either among 〈◊〉 Souldiers or the wanton Children 6 Why use you these words in this your last exception p. 27 the Holy Ghost saith Genes 6.6 It repented the Lord c yea and God himselfe said thus to Samuel It repenteth me c. surely there is some mistery in it Your second exception against me is Yo. Eld. p. 28. that in as much as I can produce but one place wherein you seeme to deny the Scriptures to be of divine authority or the foundation of Religion whereas in twenty and ten places you say you clearly assert them for such I ought to regulate the sence of that one place by the constant tennor of the rest of the treatise 1 The whole designe of your wordy worke Answ called Div. Au. of Scrip. so farre as it handles this point was to justifie those passages in your Hagiomastix which deny the divine authority of Scripture in it therefore certainly may be found more than one place wherein you do more than seeme to deny the same Div. Auth. of the Scriptures p. 10. you say No translation whatsoever nor any either written or printed Copies whatsoever are the Word of God Div Auth. p. 12. They who have the greatest insight into the originall Languages yea who beleeve the Scripture to salvation cannot upon any sufficient ground beleeve any originall Copy whatsoever under heaven whether Hebrew or Greek to be the Word of God And Yo. Eld. p. 29. When I deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God I meane whatever is found in them or appertaining to them besides the matters gracious counsells conteyned in them c. And how can it be otherwise when the places and passages in Hagiom which you intend to justifie in Div. Auth. and Yo. Eld. are such as these In your Hagiom p. 35. Sect. 27. Taking the word Scriptures for all the bookes of the Old and New Testament divisim and conjunctim as they are now received and acknowledged among us which is the only sence the ordinance can beare they can finde no manifest Word of God whereunto this That the Scriptures are not the Word of God is contrary And Hagiom p. 37. Sect. 28. It is no foundation of Christian Religion to beleeve that the English Scriptures or that book or that volume of books called the Bible translated out of the originall Hebrew and Greek copies into the English Tongue are the Word of God c. 2 Instance in one place in all your writings wherein you say as unlimitedly and peremptorily that the Scriptures are the Word of God as you do here deny them and you may have some pretence for this charge Nay it is impossible for you to grant the Scriptures to be the Word of God and not to contradict your selfe you denying the written Word Your third exception is this you say Third exception Yo. Eld. p. 28. That though you do not beleeve that any originall exemplar or Copy of the Scriptures now extant among us is so purely the Word of God but that it may very possibly have a mixture of the word of man in it yet you assert them to containe the foundation of Religion i. e. Those gracious Counsells c. 1 Your granting that the holy
truths contained in the Scripture were the foundation of faith and not the written Word which contained those truths and now you grant that the written Word of God 1 Corinth 3.11 is the ground of your faith 3 If you meane as you speake the controversie is at an end the written word being acknowledged a foundation of faith and all those Sophismes instead of Arguments which afterward you bring concerne you to answer as well as my selfe In this exception 4 You revile me for charging you with weaknesse and wickednesse in your opposing Christ and his Word since you say Yo. Eld. p. 31 32. that a while since I opposed a foundation Personall to a foundation Scripturall and what is that say you but to oppose Christ and his Word as much as you oppose them And for the knowne distinction of essendi and cognoscendi which Master Jenkin wonders should be hid from me he is desired in his next to produce any Classique Author that ever used it but himselfe The complexion of it is as if it were of the lineage of Mr. Jenkins learning You can finde no shelter from any thing that ever dropt from my Pen for your opposing Christ and his Word Answ you oppose Christ and his Word I distinguish only between Christ and his Word now Accurate Logicians know the difference between oppositio and distinctio though old detards have forgot it Opposition implyes a pugnarerum distinction only a non idenditas so Keckerm cap. 5. Lib. 1. Syst Lo. Suminus voâ—em distinctionis cum omnibus eâ—uditis Philosophis oppositioni contradivisive prout nude opponitur identitati excludendo diversitatem You so oppose Christ and his Word as that because Christ is the foundation you deny the Scripture to be a foundation Sion Colledge visited p. 2.15 this is Pugna but I shew Bu. Bish p. 7 8. how they both agree though they be not one and the same foundation that Christ is the foundation upon which I build for salvation and the Scriptures the foundation upon which I ground the knowledge of this Saviour your saying therefore that because I distinguish thus between a foundation Personall and a foundation Scripturall I therefore oppose them as much as you who make the word of Christ a foundation inconsistent with Christ's being a foundation againe bewrayes your forgetfulnesse of your Logick for every opposition implyes necessarily a distinction but a distinction doth not imply an opposition And whereas with sufficient ignorance you desire me to tell you of any Classique Author that useth the distinction of essendi and cognoscendi I referre you for information to Keckerman Syst Theol. p. 133. where he saith Duplicia reperiuntur principia essendi cognoscendi sic etiam in Theologiâ See also Trelcatius jun. Instit Theol. L. 1. Duo sunt principia rei cognitionis illa ex quibus alia producuntur haec ex quibus aliorum pendet cognitio Wollebius also Comp. Theol. p. 2. Principium Theologiae essendi quidem Deus est Cognoscendi vero verbum Dei See also Altenstaig Lexicon Theolog. in Tit. Principium where there is mention of sundry learned men that use this distinction If the complexion of this distinction shewes that it is of the lineage of my learning certainly the ignorance of this distinction shewes the complexion of Master Goodwins learning To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of religion you now proceed to your arguments and in your entrance upon them you brag that you demonstrate Yo. El. p. 32. and you thunder out the shame and confusion of all those that have charged the error upon you though the issue will prove to your owne confusion I say not to your shame who I think are past it Your owne words are these That the Scriptures whether written or printed are not truly and properly the foundation of religion I demonstrate in the sâ—ght of the Sun to the shame and confusion of all those faces who have charged the Tenet upon me as an error O yes all men women and children stand forty foot off from the blinde Beare if not being bitten thanke your selves Bas Moral reg 26. cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 What do you call a Theologicall demonstration have you read the rule of Basil Whatever we say or doe ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the holy Scriptures for the establishing of the good and the confusion of the bad Have you done thus certainly the Scriptures have not given to you a weapon nor lent you a proofe to destroy themselves No Sir your demonstrations are either childish mistakes or Popish cavills not demonstrations of your position but of your folly and impiety Ad bonam solutionem non pertinet quod probet conclusionem sed quod defendat eam ab objectione contrariâ 2 To what purpose doe you bring any Arguments at all Are you not respondent Was it not your part to answer what was brought against your wicked Position but you are better you thinke at your sword than your shield though at neither good otherwise why have you passed over what was brought against you and instead thereof vainly endeavour to bring somewhat in opposition to your opponent 3 Doth it become an Accurate disputant to propose a question under so many ambiguities and explaine none what meane you by Scripture what by foundation what by religion what by true and proper are these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same importance why leave you things so confused and indigested Is it to make your opponent ashamed with your folly because you cannot with your arguments That we may not therefore fight blind-fold at which you are old excellent I shall desire the Reader to take notice that in this whole dispute when you deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of religion By Scriptures are understood all the books of the Old and New Testament Scriptures conjunctim divisim as they are now received and acknowledged among us conjunctim the compleat foundation divisim the partiall foundation and your selfe grant that thus your opponents take the Scriptures You acknowledge this to be the only sence that the ordinance against Heresies can reasonably meane Hag. Sect. 26 27. and so you take the word Scriptures p. 32. Yo. El. p. 32. Yo. Eld. where you labour to prove them not the foundation of religion Now whereas you assert that by the Scriptures we are not to understand any writing or the wtitten Word that reveales the truths of God but only the truths and matters themselves named I affirme that the Scriptures are to be taken concretivè both for matter and words both being inspired of the Holy Ghost Ames medâ—â—de ser In iis omnibus quae per supernaturalem revelationem innoâ—uâ—runt non solum res ipsas inspiravit Deus sed etiam singulâ— verba quibus scriberentur dictavit atque suggessit The holy Ghost suggesteth words as well as matter
saith Ames and the forme of the Scripture stands in the manifestation of the true Doctrine in words which came from the immediate revelation of the holy Ghost saith Gomarus Materia Scripturae circa quam est tota verae religiâ—nis doctrina ad salutem necessariae Ecclesiae forma Scripturae esi tâ—tius doctrina de verâ—â— religione ad sâ—lutem necessariae ex immeâ—â—â—â—â— revelatione spâ—â— sancti conceptis ipsius verbis significatio Gomar de scrip sâ—â—n Disp 2. Id. Ibid. ut verbum non scriptum sermonis signo enuntiatione sic contra verbum scriptum literarum notis descriptione â—â—n â—at and both matter and words are preserved by the providence of God so pure this day Foundation that they are still the foundation of Religion the matter the foundation which we must beleeve or the objectum materiale this you grant the writing by the appointment of God the foundation why we must beleeve or the objectum formale into which our faith must be last resolved and this you deny and I maintaine against your following cavils Religion it being the thing in question betweene us Whereas Religion may signifie either the matter of it viz. the things beleeved or the habit of it i. e. the beleeving of these things I assert that the Scriptures are the foundation of Religion not as Religion is considered in it self or in the matter of it but as it is in us True and proper and considered in the grace and habit of it Whereas you joyne together True and proper words of a vast difference 't is affirmed that the Scriptures are the true foundation though not the proper as Christ when he cals himself the vine the doore spake truly though figuratively and so not properly So that the question is not whether the foundation or fundamentals the great articles of faith be contained in the Scriptures this Master Goodwin acknowledgeth Divine Author pag. 17. repeated in your last book sect 37. Nor is the question whether ink and paper be the foundation a conceit so sencelesse that it would never have come into the head of any man but Master Goodwin and such as are left of God to blaspheme inke and paper being the externall matter of any writings whatsoever as well as the holy Scriptures But the question is whether Christian faith which believeth the truths of Christian Religion necessary to salvation be built upon the divine authority of the written Word in which God hath been pleased to reveale those truths This Master Goodwin denyeth in sundry passages in his Hagiomastix and in his Divine Authority of the Scripture This he disputes against in his Youngling Elder and in this sense he endeavours to answer what I bring in Busie Bishop Hagiom sect 28. he denyes it to be any foundation of Religion to beleeve that the English Scriptures or the books called the Bible are the Word of God Div. Auth. page 10 he denyes the English Scriptures and the Hebrew and greek Originals themselves to be the Word of God c. Yo. Eld. page 29. he saith When I deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Religion I meane by the Scriptures inke and paper And whatever else is found in them or appertaining to them besides the truths matter and gracious counsels concerning the salvation of the world which are contained in them c. In direct opposition to which detestable passage I assert that by Scriptures or foundation of faith we are not onely to understand the gracious counsels or their materia circa quam as Gomarus speaks the doctrines of salvation but their form also or the signification from God of these Doctrines in the written Word or in letters or writing And page 39. Yo. Eld. he disputes after his manner dotingly a weak hand best beseeming a wicked work against the written Word If it he impossible saith he to beleeve that the matter of the Scriptures is the Word of God if I be uncertaine whether the written Word be the Word of God or no how came the Patriarchs who lived in the first two thousand yeares of the world to beleeve it since it was uncertaine to them whether such a word should ever be written Here 's more opposed than ink paper viz. the written Word I shall now examine his arguments having briefly premised these following considerations for the further explaining of the question 1. The end of mans creation was to glorifie God and to save his owne soule 2. The right way of Gods Worship and mans salvation could not be found out by the light of nature but there was necessarily required a supernaturall revelation of this way 3. God was therefore pleased to manifest his own will concerning it 4. This he hath done from the foundation of the world diversly after divers manners 5. In the infancy of the Church and while it was contained in narrow bounds God manifested his will without the written Word by dreames visions audible voice c. 6. When the Church was further extended more increased and to be set as a City upon an hill and when impiety abounded in mens lives God commanded this his will formerly revealed to be set downe in writing 7. God did infallibly guide holy men whom he did chuse for his Amanuenses that they did not â—rre in the matter of his will or manner of expressing of it 8. He ordered that his will shâ—uld be written in such Languages as were best knowne and understâ—od in the Churches unto whom his truths were committed 9. He hath given a charge to his Churches to have recourse to these writings onely to be infornâ—ed what were the truths and matters of his will and to try and prove all doctrines by those writings 10. Therefore the onely instrument upon which the Church now can ground their knowledge and beliefe of the truths matters gracious counsels of God revealed for his owne glory and their salvation is the written Word or holy Scriptures These things thus premised I come to your arguments which you are pleased to honour with the name of Demonstrations To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion Arg. 1 Yo. El. pag. 32. your first argument is this If Religion was founded built c. before the Scriptures were then cannot the Scripture be the foundation of Religion but Religion was built and founded besoâ—e c. therefore Answ Eccius Euchiri Tit. 1. Bailius q. 1. Bellarâ—de verb. dei l. 4. c. 4. Should I tell you that your demonstration if demonstration if must be called is stollen out of Papists in their writings against Protestants it would by you be accounted but a slight charge brasse cannot blush For answer I deny your consequence Though Religion was built and stood firme before the Scriptures were it followes not that the Scriptures now are not the foundation of Christian Religion Though the Scriptures were not alway heretofore the foundation of Religion it followes not but that
documentom ad convincendos errores exeri potest si hac vex admittatur scripturas esse câ—rruptas Aug. L. Cont. Fâ—ust Manic c. 2. If God by his written Word gathers and preserves his Church to the end of the world then certainly he defends it from being corrupted for there must be a sutablenesse between the rule and the thing regulated pure and incorrupâ—ed Doctrine requires a pure and incorrupted Scripture according whereunto it is to be examin'd and by which it is to be tryed Take away the purity of the written Word and the purity of Doctrine taken out of the written Word as Glassius saith must needs fall to the ground and what proofe can be taken out of the Scriptures against errours if this be admitted the Scriptures are corrupted as saith Augustine And 5. further prove from the false printing in some Copies that therefore the Canon or written Word is depraved shew that because some words may be written wrong therefore the written Word of God is corrupted Ceaseth it not so farre to be Gods Word as any thing is printed against the minde of the Lord the Revealer Is this purity of the Canon at the courtesie of a Printers boy Mans word may be inserted but Gods not by him depraved something may be represented instead of the Word but the Word is not corrupted by that mis-representation He that can make Gods Word to become his own that is humane corrupt may with the same labour make his own word to become Gods and of divine Authority Nay prove the errors of the edition E. G. of our new Translation from the errors of the Copies learne of the more learned Chamier Paust I. 12. c. 10. Ipsaratio cogit ut codices distinguamus ab editione haec enim prosect a abuno principio illi quotidie sunt authoritate privatâ vel cujus libet voluntate ergo non bene concluditur à singulis codicibus adversus primariam editionem We cannot conclude from some Copies against an edition The true and proper foundation of Religion is not any thing that is visible Arg. 6 Yo. Eld. p. 35 or exposed to the outward sences but something spirituall and opprehensible only by the understanding c. but Bibles or the Scriptures are legible Answ and may be seene The foundation of Religion taken materially for the truths contained in Scripture the things beleeved or fundamentum fedei quod is invisible and not exposed to outward sence but taken formally for the fundamentum propter quod or for which faith yeeldeth assent unto the matter beleeved for as much as God worketh mediately and now revealeth no truth to us but by externall meanes and Divine Authority of it selfe is hidden and unknowne the thing into which faith is ultimately resolved must be something externally knowne which we may read or heare Vid. White way to the Church p. 378 and you must either yeeld an externall foundation and formall object of faith or else lead us to secret revelations The materiall object of faith comprehends the Articles of faith as that God is one in essence and three in person that Christ dyed and rose againe the third day c. but the formall object of faith or the reason wherefore I give assent unto these matters and Articles of faith is Authority Divine revealed in writing Nor 2. is your Consequence true viz. If any booke be the foundation then is the foundation somewhat visible c. because our dispute is not about Inke and Paper Bookes or words materially considered which are the object of sight but about words and bookes as they are signa conceptuum and so discernable only by the understanding Verbis vocibus per se materialiter consideratis nulla in est vis saith Keckerman 3. How wretchedly weak is your proofe Yo. Eld. p. 35. that nothing externall is the foundation of faith because then say you there is nothing necessary to be beleeved by any man to make him religious but what he sees with his eyes c. And by the way I pray answer Is any thing to be beleeved to make a man religious but what may be seene written in the Scriptures what a disputer rampant have we here And you say every man that did but looke into â— Bible and see such and such sentences written or printed there and beleeved accordingly that these words and sentences were here written and printed must needs hereby become truly religious c. Thinke you dreadfull Sir by such stuffe as this to make your friend William of your judgement though the Word written be the foundation of Religion doth it follow that there is nothing necessary to be beleeved for the making of a man religious but this to beleeve that such and such things are written is it not also required that a man should beleeve the truths of the word because they are written from God as well as that he sees they are written The Assent to the truth of the things written is faith and not only that the things are written what can you say against this proposition Whosoever beleeves with his heart the things that are writen in these bookes because the first beleeves that these bookes in which he sees them written are the oracles of God is truly religious Your seventh commodity which you cail a demonstration Argm. 7 is the same with the second only it containes an absurdity or two more not worth the reciting Your Argument is this Yo. Eld p. 38. The true and proper foundation of religion is intrinsecally essentially and in the nature of it unchangeable and unalterable in the least by the wills pleasures or attempts of men but there is no book or books whatsoever Bible or other but in the contents of them they may be altered and changed by men Ergo It seemes you are much pleased with the blasphemy of the Jesuits against the Scriptures Answ drawne from their corruption your second Argument was drawne from the perishablenesse of them your fifth was they are corruptible your seventh they are changeable Your major I deny not if it only import that the foundation of religion admits not of the least change in the essence or nature of it by men but if it import that it is repugnant to the nature of the foundation to be changed in the least though this change be only accidentall I deny it The proofe of your major viz. That if the foundation of religion were intrinsecally and in the nature of it changeable then can it not be any matter of truth because the nature of truth is like the nature of God unchangeable bewrayes your ignorance or your dotage or something worse though ordinary with you what created veritie is there that is as unchangeable as God and which God cannot change Is it veritas metaphysica or the truth of being Cannot God annihilate all created beings and if so what becomes of their verity Is it Logicall truth or truth of
of a mountaine you would tell us whether a true and sound repentance and a knowledge that God will be gracious in the forgivenesse of sins were ever yet wrought in any without the knowledge of Christ Jesus and whether the generall goodnesse of God put forth in the government of the world did ever manifest Christ Jesus to the Gentiles sure I am the Apostle tels the Ephesians Eph. 2.12 That they were formerly without Christ having no hope and without God in the world and the times wherein the Gentiles were destitute of the Gospell are called the times of ignorance to which he directly opposeth the time in which now God commandeth all men every where to repent Act. 17.30 I shall onely advise you to learn of reverend * Nemo potest vel minimum gustum rectae sanaeque doctrinae percipere nisi qui scripturae fuerit discipulus Palam est Deum erga eos omnes quos unquam erudire cum fructu voluit subsidium verbi adhibuisse quòd effigiem suam in mundi formâ impressam parum esse efficacem provideret-Significat propheta Ps 19. quum frustra Deus omnes populos ad se invitet caeli terraeque in tuitu legem esse peculiarem filiorum Dei scholam Cùm humana mens pro suâ inbecilitate pervenire ad Deum nullo modo queat nisi sacro ejus verbo adjuta sublevata omnes tunc mortales exceptis judaeis quia Deum sine verbo quaerebant necesse fuit in vanitate atque errore versari Calv. Instit c. 6. l. 1. Calvin Instit l. 1. c. 6. No man saith he can have the least taste of sound Doctrine but he that is taught by the Scripture And againe God hath bestowed upon all those whom he ever taught with benefit the help of his Word in regard that the effigies of himself imprinted upon the world he foresaw could not be effectuall And again Quum frustra Deus c. Since God did ineffectually invite to himself all people by the sight of the Heavâ—n and Earth the Law is the peculiar sâ—hoole of his sons Once more heare that excellent man Since the minde of man in regard of its weaknesse could no wayes come unto God unlesse helped and relieved by his bâ—ly Word all men who sought God without his Word were necessarily occupied in vanity and errour The Gentiles could not have beleeved this proposition saith Davenant Christ hath reconciled us to God by his death unlesse it had been revealed to them by the preaching of the Apostles To conclude this first question Gentes huic propositioâ—i Christus morte suâ nos reconciliavit Deo non potuerunt fidem adhibere nisi ea per praedicationem Apostolorum fuisset illis revelata p. 149 de jud nor fid I desire the Reader to observe that this Dotard who would be accounted the great assertor of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures doth when he states the question borrow of the Papists their blasphemies cals the Written Word ink and paper as Ecchius Pighius and others and when he disputes against the Scriptures he goeth downe to these Philistims to sharpen his axe and is beholding to Papists and Jesuites for most of his arguments This the Reader may see in this brief parallel which I have added with an intimation of some learned Protestants who have confuted them that he may not say in his next It is no matter whose the argument is but who hath answered it Master Goodwin YO Eld. p. 32. Arg. 1. Religion was founded built stood firme and stable in the world before the Scriptures were Div. Auth. pag. 10. Moses is generally acknowledged by us to be the first pen-man of the Scriptures or the Word of God and that the world had continued more than 2000 yeeres before he was borne but to affirme that there was no word of God in the world no foundation of Religion for the space of 2000 yeers is to contradict what is plainly written Youn. Eld. page 31. if the Scriptures be the only foundation in point of manifestation how came all the pen-men of the Scriptures by the knowledge they had of God and of Christ and of Religion did they ground their knowledge of these upon the Scriptures whilest as yet they were not Yo. Eld. p. 33. Arg. 2. All bookes whatsoever are perishable may be burnt miscarry by many casualties Argu. 5. It is very possible that either through negligence ignorance of Scribes and correctors of the presse some such errour may be found in every copy now extant in the world which will render this Copy contradictious to it self Arg. 7. Experience teacheth us that the Books and Bibles themselves are de facto altered by men from time to time Arg. 8. If Mr. Jenkin will say That the Scriptures are the foundation of Religion only as they are in the Originals then they who understand not these languages cannot build at least with understanding upon this foundation and consequently can never bee truly religious Divine Auth. pag. 19. I suppose it is no foundation of faith to believe that the English Scriptures are the word of God God spake not to his Prophess or Apostles in English nor doth our English Translation agree in all things with the true sence and meaning of the Originals Hagiom pag 37. sect 28. The Papists agreeing with him BEllarminus de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. Ab Adam usque ad Mosen fuit Ecclesia dei aliqua in mundo colebant homines deum fide c. at nulla fuit scriptura ante Mofen There was a Church in the world from Adam to Moses and men worshipped God but there was no Scripture before Moses c. Vid. etiam Bailium Jesuitam in sua catechâ—si Ecc. Enchirid T. 2. Trip. Cord. p. 156 before Moses who first wrote the Church continued 2000 yeeres Fuit assensus fidei antequam esset Scriptura Turnb Tetrag 1 Turnbul Jesuita Tetrag c. 10. Ipsi scriptores canonici prius fuerunt divinitus edocti scribenda quà m scriberent alioque proinde signo Deum fuisse dictatorem scribendorum The pen-men of the Scriptures were taught by God the things that were to be wrote before they worte them and therefore by some other signe than the written Word God did dictate to them what they were to write Jac. Tiri Ies Syn. Contr. ex ser Textum bibliorum hebraicum non paucis in locis depravatum esse partim injuria temporum partim inscitià vel oseitantia typogra horum c. suis hinc inde locis ostendi The Hebrew Text of the Bibles are corrupted and depraved partly by the injury of times partly by the ignorance and idlenesse of printers c. vid. etiam Stapleton Relect. princ fid doct contr 5. q. 3. act 1.2 valent in Thom. Tom. 3. Disp 1. q. 1. Turnbul Tetrag c 5. sect 2. Scriptura immediate spectata est idonea tantum regula literatis nec usui esse potest illiteratis
c. The Scripture considered immediately is onely a fit rule to men learned nor can it be of any use to the illiterate So Canus in Locis l. 2. c. 13. Discourse concerning the rule of faith sect 7. Scriptures cannot bee a rule of faith accomodate to the capacities of unlearned men who cannot read them Discourse uhi supr sec 6. These Translations are not infallible as the rule must be for neither were the Scriptures written in this Language neither were the Translators assisted by the same spirit infallibly as if it were imposble they should erre c. Protest Writers confuting them both Chamierius Panstr t. 1. l. 7. c. 7. Rivet Cath. or Trac 1. q. 1. Gerrand Exeg pag. 16. Whitak de Script Baronius Apol. pr. object formali fidei tr 4. p. 155. Maresitheol elench T. 1. p. 24. Sol. Glass T. 1. de pur Text. Chamierius Paustr T. 1. l. 12. c. 10. Baron Apol. Tr. 1. c. 2. Dr. White way to the Ch. p. 17. Dr. Whites way to the Church p. 13 I shall conclude with observing that in this Mr. Goodwin is worse than either Papists Enthusiasts or such other Sectaries that oppose the written Word because though they deny it to be the formall object of faith or that upon which we are to ground and build our faith in beleeving the matters of the Scriptures yet they have held forth some other foundation in stead of the written Word but never were we beholding to Master Goodwin for such a favour This Bishop of Bangor vainly threatned when he entred upon the handling of this question about the Scriptures Yo. Eld. p. 26. that he would make his friend William as hereticall as himselfe before they parted at this turning My Lord we are now parting at this turning but all that your young friend hath received at your Lordships hands is confirmation in the same truth which he entertained before you and he first met and which so much opposeth your Errours and he hopes that he shall ever forsake you and these your workes CHAP. IIII. Shewing the weaknesse and erroneousnesse of Master Goodwins pretended Answers to what I bring against his Errours about the power of man to good supernaturall IN my former Booke called Busie Bishop I charged you with Arminianism in the handling this Doctrine of grace and free will Yo. El p. 43 44. Sect. 56. you deny not the charge but acknowledge it true though not penitentially but impudently But what say you in your owne defence 1. You slight the charge Yo. Eld. p. 43. as fit to be regarded onely by women and childâ—en and not by mâ—n of worth parts c. But is it so small a matter to be accounted Answ nay to be a profest Arminian Câ—nc Carthâ—g sub Aurel. Apud Bin. To. 1. p. 864. Conc. Mileu 868 869. Nefarius ab omnibus anathematizandus error haeresis nimium periculoso error pernitiosissimus Aug. ad Hilar. ep 94. pestifeta impietas execrabile dogmald fidei venena Aug. Contr. Julian would it never have moved men of worth parts c. Were they men of no worth or parts c. that censured the Tenets in Pelagius which afterward revived in Arminius have none but women and children held these forth as accursed abominable most pernitious heresies execrable pestilent impieties the poyson and bane of faith The many holy and learned men who have been moved against the errours of Arminius were so far from being children for their deep resentment of this heresie that they shew you a childe for sleighting the charge of it Neither women nor children sit in Parliament and yet the House of Commons in their Remonstrance to the King June 11. 1628. professe themselves no lesse perplexed with the growth of Arminianism than of Popery that being a cunning way to bring in Popery and the professors of Arminianism they looke upon as the common disturbers of Protestant Churches and Incendiaries of those States wherein they have gotten head being Protestants in shew Vid. Prin. neces Introd p. 92. but Jesuites in opinion and practice It s cleare what Master Goodwins esteeme was of that Parliament for being so moved against Arminians and I doubt not but this present Parliament which hath been so earnest in suppressing Arminians is yet lower in the opinion of this censor 2. In this section you plead that truth is not the worse because bareticks hold it I my self you say hold some things that Devills Pharisees Arminians beleeve Yo. Eld. p. 4â— It s confest but this comes not up to your case Answ If you hold any truth which the Arminians hold I blame you not Lâ—de nup Conc. c. 3. libeâ—wn in homâ—ne esse arbitrium utrique dicimus hinc non estis Celestiani liberum autem quenquam esse ad faciendum bonum hoc vos dicitis hinc estis celestiâ—ni It s for the embracing the errours which they maintaine that I charge you It s a speech of Augustine to the Sectaries That there is free will in man we say on both sides hence therefore it is not that you are called Celestians but that any one hath free will to good you say and hence you are called Celestians you tell me that the devill holds Jesus Christ to be the holy one of God but this confession makes him not a devill its common with the Church of Christ but your tenets are properly Pelagian Arminian condemned by the Churches of Christ whom you leave therefore particularly this Church of England of which the learned Davenant saith No man can embrace Arminianism in the Doctrinâ— of predestination and grace Prin. Comp. Tr. p. 166. but he must first desert the Articles agreed upon by the Church of England And in this you close with the Jesuite building upon that foundation which he laid and watering that plant which he planted in England and Holland as a soveraigne drugg to purge the Protestants from their heresie 3. You say That this practice of mine to defame books by saying that those who are erroneous hold them is an old device of Papists whereby they endeavour to render such truths of God as made not for their interests hatefull you instance in one Prateolus Yo. Eld p. 44. A triviall passage that needs not a reply Papists slander truths Answ I discover'd errours where 's the harmony They load truths with imputation of errour I compare errour with errour Morton Cath. Apoâ—par 1. c. 24 Spr. de haeres p. 1. l. 2 3. Riv. Cath. Orth. Tr. 1. When you shall have cleered your self and opinion from the imputation of Arminianism as Morton Springlius Rivet have vindicated the Protestants against Prateolus and his compeers you may say I used a popish stratagem but till then you must be under the accusation of heresie for ought I can do to relieve you I having told the Reader that your charging the Subscribers of the Testimony with Manicheism is as old as
coales of fire upon their heads which I desire may be in remedium not in ruinam The great God guide us all into the wayes of peace truth and holinesse So prayeth Your loving Brother in the worke of the Minestry EDM. CALAMY What a vast Ocean of scorns jeers vilifyings childish ventosities and prophane puffs of wit do I sayle through before I can espy the least point or spot of land any thing wherein he so much as pretends to theologicall argumentation sollid matter lodgeth in his great booke of words as a childe of two dayes old in the great bed of Ware Going over many pages fill'd with nothing but with scum and scurrility he vents among hundreds of other such unsavoury passages this gentle expression Sect. 90. Yo. Eld. p. 85. Sect 90. Confident I am that there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a gâ—neration of Christians scarce of men so bloody in asserting their opinions c. as the greatest part of the London Subscripturients I marvaile not at your confidence Solomon tels me who it is that rageth and is confâ—dent Prov. 14.16 Foâ— the bloody asserting c. never were the veines of any writings so fill'd with the blood which you speake of as those of this last and worst of your pamphlets certainly when you wrote it you were under a quatidian fury or sick of the miserere mei the Reader beholds you vomiting your excrements of scurrility and wrath in every page what is there that you mention through your booke if you would have it help you but either you feigne it your friend or else you frowne upon it that it may not dare to be your enemy the Scriptures the Fathers your mother Tongue your opposites against their bent and mindes are threatned unlesse they stoop to your sence and service Scriptures must speake for you against themselves and Vrijab-like must carry letters for their owne destruction Bucer Ball the Father under the paine of self contradiction and of being accounted naked and unstable must turn Pelagians Yo. Eld. p. 5. p. 76 79. If you will have it so it must be sence for the garment to be clothed with the man and it must be as proper to say exchange this thing into another as to say exchange it for another thing Who ever will lift up a pen against you must expect no other guerden but to have your pen cased in his heart and to lye bleeding at the feet of your writings the pulling downe of Sion Collâ—dge shall be voted the taking away of the pillar of all impiety and opposition to the truth all the workes that ever stood it out against you must be demolisht and dismantled Your next wrath is expected against those daring and yet more knowing than daring men who have prizâ— your works that now lye upon the hands of your late booksellers widow but for wast paper which by the way I note as a just retribution of providence that those writings which value the Scriptures below the Word of God should themselves be valued below the word of man You recite an argument which you brought in Sion Coll. visited Sect. 91. p. 85. to prove that naturall men have eyes to see spirituall things Naturall men say you have eyes to see because it is not needlesse for Satan to blinde them I deny'd your consequence and gave you the ground of that my denyall viz. because the Scripture saith 1 Cor. 2.14 The naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God After your scoffs which I answer with neglect you returne thus 1. You say That by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the naturall man is not meant the man that is simply naturall or unregenerate but such a kinde of men whâ—m the Apostle cals carnall babes in Christ meaning weake Christians Confidently concluding from my producing of this Scripture for this purpose I understand little of it Answ I had rather suspect any interpretation of Scripture when you say 't is true and sound than when you say 't is false and misunderstood You have the streame of godly and learned Interpreters against you Piscator takes this naturall man for a man that Nihil eximium in se habet prater animam rationalem qui non est regenitus a man that hath nothing excellent but a rationall soule and is not borne agains Ans saith this naturall man is one Qui animalium more versatur qui put at nihil esse pâ—st mortem one that lives like a brute creature and thinks there 's nothing more after death to be expected Ambrose thus Animalis homo pâ—coribus similis c. Ambr. in Lee. Sensum in terram deprimit ideaque non â—ssequitur nisi quae vâ—let 〈◊〉 putâ—t aliquid posse fieri quam quomodo 〈◊〉 ideo quicquaid aliter audit quam norit stâ—ltum juditar Theophilact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecumen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This naturall man like the beasts keeps downe his sence to the earth and therefore he only reacheth what be sees nor thinketh he that any thing can be but as he beares therefore whatever he heares to be otherwise he judgeth it foolish Theophilact saith This naturall man is one that is given altogether to naturall reasonings thinking not that he wants sâ—â—our from alove Oecumenius thus The naturall man is one that lives after the flesh and hath not his understanding enlightned by the Spirit Theadoret thus Qui Contentus propriis Cogitationibus spiritus doctrinam non admiâ—tit One that is pleased with his owne cogitations and gives no admittance to the Doctrine of the Spirit Calv. in Loc. Homiâ—em onimalem vecat queml bet hominem solis naturae facult tibus praelitum in puris naturalâ—tus relictum Ter spirituâ—lem intelliâ—iur is eujus mâ—ns illuminatione spiriâ—us Dei regitur Calvin saith By the Naturall man is meant a man endowed onely with the faculties of nature and by the spirituall a man whose minde is governed by the illumination of the Sprit I shall make bold to instruct my instructor out of Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. l. 5. Ep. 128. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Scripture distinguisheth as he shews between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Carnall the naturall and the spirituall The Carnall that fall by reason of their weaknesse into many wayes that are fleshly Naturall that follow the reasoning of the naturall minde and understanding The spirituall that are adorned with the gift of the holy Ghost and are illuminated above nature as he divinely expresseâ—h it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having gotten above naturall reasonings I stay in Arminius Disp 11. Thes 8. who saith Mens hominis non renati in isto stain Caeca est salutari Dei ejusque voluntatis cognitione destituta non capax illorum quae sunt spiritus Dei juxta Aposlolum Animalis homo c. The minde of an unregenerate man saith he is blinde and destitute of the saving
a power as is contended for you must understand a power of knowing savingly and beleeving the things of the Spirit of God The summe of all which is thus much A naturall man by the ordinary assistance and blessing of God afforded to every one may so improve his naturall Principles of Reason Judgement Memory c. as savingly to know and believe the things of God This your similitude of a youth that may be paines acquire skill in the tongues further declareth to be your meaning by which wretched opinion you hold out That there 's nothing in grace above nature which nature may not reach unto or rather That grace it selfe is nothing but polisht nature But how stands this with the words of the Apostle who saith That the naturall man cannot know the things of God because they are spirituaily discerned and elsewhere That the carnall minde cannot be subject to the Law of God as being enmity against God Can all the paines improvement pollishing make nature any other than nature and make a naturall man to understand or believe any thing but after a naturall manner can it give ability to know spiritually can all the care and cost and dressing make a bad tree to be of a good kinde and while bad to bring forth good fruit I adde in explication of this of the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1.14 and for your information that excellent passage of learned Musculus upon the place Confert utrinque tam hominem c. Musc in Loc. Confert utrinque tum hominem animalem tum spiritum dei doces ita esse comparatum hominem animalem ut quae spiritus Dei sunt nequeat cognoscere quemadmodum si dicas bestiam cognoscere non posse quae bominum sunt plus interest inter animolem hominem spiritum Dei deinde inter intellectam hominis ea quae sunt Dei quâ—m inter hominem bestiam The Apostle compareth the naturall man saith he and the Spirit of God and he teacheth That the naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit any more than a beast the things of a man c. In your 95. Yo. Eld. p. â—9 Sect. 95. Section you produce a double construction of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 2.14 The naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit c. This unabtlity you say may either be understand of the greatâ—d dâ—ffiâ—ultie that lyes in the way of such men to attame the knowledge of these things or else of their present actuall indâ—sp 〈…〉 to â—nder them capable of such knowledge Answ I meet in these â—ections with a sea of words and a 〈◊〉 of matter you multiply expressions to no purpose 1. If you say The naturall man is unable in the former sence because of the 〈◊〉 that lyeth in his way c. you are a 〈…〉 and that by your owne cleare confession which is in these very words The 〈…〉 Austin and Pelagius was 〈…〉 simply and absolutely necessary for the 〈◊〉 to do that which is good c. which was Austius opinion or Whether it was necessary 〈◊〉 by way of acconmâ—dation and facilitation for such a perfromance which was the sence of 〈◊〉 Yo. Eld. p. 51. 52. Quicurq 〈◊〉 vit ideo 〈◊〉 graâ—am 〈◊〉 ut quod faceâ— jabemur rer lihernm 〈◊〉 faciâ—ius pessimus 〈◊〉 per gratram ta quam 〈…〉 vina ma data Anathema sit De 〈…〉 sine me difficalius potestis facere sed art sine 〈…〉 facere Conc. Afr. Can. Cap. 5. And if this be your opinion with Pelagius why bring you the Fathers particularly Austin as joyning with you in the point of the 〈◊〉 of grace in Sion Coll. visited when as by your owne 〈◊〉 Anâ—in was against you and your 〈◊〉 I shall adde you were condemned for holding this opinion long before you were borne 2. If the latter be your opinion viz. That naturall men are 〈…〉 their present and actuall indisposednesse and 〈…〉 c. Besides that I save confuted it before it is evidenâ—ly coutrary to those Texes of Scripture impâ—dently and impertâ—nently cited by your self for your self as Matt. 12.24 Hew 〈◊〉 being evill speak good things Joh. 5.44 How can yee beleeve c. Job 6.44 No man can come to me unlesse the Father 〈◊〉 c. Jo. 12.39 Therefore they could not believe c. Joh. 15. Without we can dâ— nothing and Joh. 14.17 The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive c. Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot pltase God to which you might as well have added had it not oppos'd you a little too palpably Rom. 8.7 The carnall minde is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be These Scriptures clearely teaching that though man have a soul passively capeable of saving grace faith knowledge repentance c. and his want of them be indeed accompanied with present hatred and contempt of them yet that he is also absolutely unable to attaine them and that it is possible onely to God to worke them in him nor do you in alledging these Scriptures for me an argument out of them to prove that this want of power is onely in regard of actuall indi posednesse Sure I aâ— you might have rais'd severall arguments against that your cursed and rotten exposition as That its an impotency consisting in the want of a spirituall principle and faculty suitable to the duties and performances which men are said to be unable to do with ut me ye can do nothing Joh. 15.5 1 Cor. 2 14 The naturall man cannot know the things of God for they are spiritually discerned Mat. 7.18 a coâ—rupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit Mat. 12.34 how can ye being â—bill speake good things Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot please God and as the naturall mans impotency proceeds from the defect of a spirituall principle so for the removall of that impotency God bestoweth a new principle of spirituall life which were needlesse if mans impotency proceeded onely from actuall indisposednesse Ezek. 36.26 A new heart will I give you and a new spirit will I put into you and I will give you a heart of flesh And that it s not an impotency that proceeds onely from actuall indisposednesse or unwillingnesse is cleare in that a naturall man cannot but be indisposed Joh. 6.44 and unwilling to every spiâ—tuall act to believe and repent c. No man can come to me except the Father draw him Joh. 14.17 No man can be willing or consent unlesse the Father make him so the world cannot receive the spirit The like also is evident from Rom. 8.7 The carnall minde is enmity against God and cannot be subject to the Law of God c. These are the principall passages which I finde in his Booke wherein he pretends either to Scripture or Argument for indeed the businesse of argumentation is but the by-worke of this his big work The bulk of his booke being a heap of defamations and scurrilities fitter for a sinke than a study concerning which I say 't were easie to returne him reviling for revileng but this were to lay aside the Minister the Christian nay the man and as ridiculous as for a man whom an asse hath kickt Yo. Eld. p. 1. to kick the asse again I shal couclude mine mutatis mutandis as M. Goodwin began his Though more truly For a great part of Mr. Goodwin his pamphlet the constitution and complexion of it easeth me of the labour of making any answer or reply unto it for consisting of such reproaches vilifications and disparagements the madnesse whereof is sufficiently knowne unto and cryed out against by all men I should but actum agere and do that which is abundantly done already to my bond if I should go about to possesse men of sobriety and judgement with the unsavourinesse thereof FINIS ERRATA PAg. 5. Marg. read Ac. 1. 25. p. 2. l. ult for streames read steames p. 13. l. 35. r. pore than himself p 14. l. 25. instead of for r. only â—o amaze p 17 l. 2. r. their l. 3 r. not p. 26. l. 25. r. neaver p. 31. m. r. Cc. de Scar. d 36. m. l. 15. r divinarum p. 37 l. 15. r. waâ— p. 40 l. penult r place what follower p. 41. l. 32 r. sumimus p. 43. m r. script p. 47. l 3â— r. tradita p. 58. l. r. revealed p. 77. m. r. hominis p. 77. m. r. efficaciffirâ— p. 80. m r. concupiscentem p. 81. l. 11. r. illum p. 85. m. r. qua semper mala ib. l. arbâ— um p. 86. l. 25. l. scriptures p. 87. l. 14. r. makes p. 88. l. 25. r. undervalewing ib. in m. â— ut p. 89. m. l. perpetrando p. 94. l. 34. r. and. l. penult del you p. 95. l. 9. r. causality p. 93. l. 5. dele of p. 117. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉