malum quod eveâ—it baeresinmanichaeam nec ideâ— posse captivam voluntatem nisi dei gratia respirare in salubrem libertatem quod evertit haeresin Pelagianam Peccarâ— Adae arbitririum liberum de hominum naâ—ura periisse non dictmus sed in horniuibus subditis diabolo ad bene pieque vivendum non â—lere nisi ipsa voluntas hominis fuâ—rit liberata Morton Apol. p. 1. c. 30. Alsted Tuppl de Not. Ecc. Manichaei naturam hominis tollebant i. e. libertatem naturae nos homini nondum regenito deroganus libertatem gratiae Peccâ—te Adae c. We say not saith he that by the sin of Adam free will is perisht but that in men that are slaves to Satan it hath no strength to holy living unlesse the will of men be delivered To conclude The Manichees tooke away the very nature of man i.e. the liberty of nature we deny to a man not regenerate only liberty in respect of grace In your former pamphlet you said that you were about to preach against Manioheism I suppose that the treasury of your understanding is not so full as yet but that it will hold one mite more take this therefore but if you consult with Aug. de civ d. l. 5. c. 10 11. and Zanc. de oper dei l. 4. c. 4. q. 4. youmay receive of their bounty if at least they give you not more than your treasury can hold 2. Yo. Eid p. 54. In this your section you liberally charge * Triglandius and Piscator two famous Divines of the reformed Churches with Manicheism but childishly prove no more the charge against them than you proved out of your Grammar rules by which you answered Master Edwards his Antapologia that there was no kisse of love or anoynting with oyl you know where Your onely argument whereby you endeavour to prove their opinions guilty of that imputation being this If such tenets as these be not pure Manicheism I know not what Manicheism is Who ever said that you did know This is somewhat like your learned confutation of the dispectation at Christ-Church concerning tithes where you having weakly and pittifully yeelded the question you vindicated your self shortly after in your preface to your Hag. with this burly but beggarly dictate I infallible John profes unfeignedly the two arguments brought for the payment of tithes were no more able to carry the cause than two lambs to draw a waggâ—n such stout confutations as these are current coyn no where but in the Alloy You tell the Reader that some passages in these two learned men whose umbra meridiana you as yet are not in understanding of Polemicall Divinity savour of Manicheisin but you prove it not nay you doe not so much as pretend to goe about to prove it I deny it with the same facility that you asserted it Asserenti incumbit probatio only I desire the Reader to take notice that Manicheism cannot be imputed to the former to Tri glandius for what he here saith but it must be charged upon the Apostles Act. 4.28 and for Piscator he is cleared by the acknowledgement of Vorstius himselfe John Goodwins friend and Piscators erroneous though farre more learned adversary You goe on Sect. 65. Yo. Eld. p. 54. you say that I understand not the will of God in the Scriptures c. because from Act. 26. 18. where Paul saith that he was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes c. I proved that Conversion is the restoring of sight not of light only the opening of the eyes not the bringing of light to them who have eyes already upon which passage of mine you comment thus 1 You say I am ridiculous in making an opposition betweene opening of mens eyes and bringing light to them who have eyes already as if men who had eyes to be opened had not yet eyes already Answ Most fulsome In Scripture Phrase to open the eyes is to give sight and not light only In Job 9.10.11.21.26.30 the blinde man is said to have had his eyes opened what 's that if not that he had sight bestowed upon him not according to Mr. Goodwin that he had light only brought to him having good eyes already His eyes are said to be opened though he were borne blinde 2 Thus you proceed The Scripture by the opening of the eyes of men in conversion meane only such an opening as is proper for the light to effect for as darknes shuts mens eyes and the light of the morning opens mens eyes So here Answ If this be so what is the worke of grace upon the understanding The light irradiats or cleares the medium but gives no strength to the organ so say you 't is in conversion a naturall man hath good eyes already let the object be but clearly proposed and he can see it is not this pure Pelagianism to place grace in the giving of the Word But know according to Scripture a naturall man wants sight as well as light Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you a heart toperceive nor eyes to see open mine eyes saith David Ps 119. and Es 42.7 Christ is said to open the blinde eyes Pro. 20.12 The hearing eare and seeing eye are made by God And 1 Jo. 5.20 He hath given us an understanding to know him And the Apostle tells us not that we were in the darke but that we were darknesse Eph. 5.8 you told us Sion Col. visit p. that you have alwaies asserted the necessity of grace by way of adjutory now I understand what grace you meane none that conferres any power upon the faculty by which it is inabled to act but only restores it to a capacity of present acting But you desire to prove your error 1. by Scripture Matth. 4.16 2 Cor. 4.4 c. But why ground you not an argument from any or all of these Scriptures that by giving of spiritual Isight is only meant the giving of light as the Sun or the Morning may be said to open mens eyes Nay why doe you not so much as recite the words of the text but only set downe the figures of Chapters and Verses There 's not one of them that make for your purpose and some that make directly against you Mat. 4.16 The people that sat in darknesse saw great light Ergo quid therefore in conversion because God gives the light by which he doth not also give the sight with which we spiritually see Doth his giving the one to this people prove that he did not also give the other to those among them that were savingly inlightned blinde Bartimeus sees the light when Christ recovers him from his blindnesse therefore his recovery was only effected by the comming of the light and not by the worke of Christ in bestowing a power of seeing upon his eyee so here the people saw great light that is according to G. the glosmaker they saw only by having the light of the Gospell for that place out of the 2 Cor. 4.4
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.
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
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
how it is written Consult with the places in the Margin and you will finde that the matter substance precious counsell c. contained in the Scripture are proved to be things to bee beleeved because they are written yeeld your self to that evident Scripture Joh. 20.21 These things are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Sonne of God c. The rativ or ground of beleeving this precious truth That Christ is the Son of God is its revelation by writing So Act. 14.24 Rom. 15.4 Job 5.47 If therefore you deny as you do in terminis the written Word to be the word of God what formall object hath faith i.e. to whom or what will you send me for the building my confidence upon the matters and counsels of the Scripture c. Touching this I added in Busie Bishop the testimonies of Tertullian Ireneus Aug. Chrisost c. Bu. Bish p. 24. Is not every man as a man a debtor to God and a creature tyed to obedience and doth his making himselfe insufficient to discharge the debt discharge him from payment it would follow that if such impotency excused from duty and from the obligation of the the command that those men were most excusable that were most sinfull and had by long accustoming themselves to sin made themselves most unable to leave and forsake sinne nay if by reason hereof God did not command obedience from them it would follow that such did not sinne at all for where there is no precept there is no transgression and so according to you by a mans progresse in sin he should make himselfe cease to be sinfull Bus Bish p. 29. In your next prove 1. That they who perish have power to beleeve The Scripture denyeth it when it saith The world cannot receive the Spirit c. Joh. 14.17 2. Prove if a man hath not power that this impotency is meerely poenall as inflicted by God so involuntarily indured by man for that is the nature of a punishment properly so called the Scripture saith Man hath found out many inventions Eccl. 7. c. Gen. 6.12 All flesh hath corrupted its way c. Bus Bish p. 31. I suppose by your naturall man who you say doth things to which God hath annexed acceptation you meane the same man the Apostle speaks of Rom. 8.8 The man in the flesh now that man cannot please God though your naturall man doth things acceptable to God Invert not gods and Natures order First let the tree be good and then the fruit Bus Bish p. 34. What stuffe is here have all the world sufficient meanes of beleeving these two 1. That God is 2. That he is a rewarder of them that diligently seeke him Paraeus informes you that those two heads of saith that God is and that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seeke him are not to be understood Philosophically but Theologically that the eternall God is Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and that be is a rewarder of them that seeke him Evangelically by faith in Christ with the benefits of the Gospell pardon adoption sanctification glory And can heathens by the sim moone and sâ—arres do this Can they by the light of nature beleeve a trinity of persons in unity of essence None saith Gerrard can be led to the knowledge of God by the creatures but only so farre forth as God is their cause Now God is their cause by a divine power common to the three persons therfore by the creatures we can onely attain to knowledge of these things which are common to the three Persons and not to the knowledge of the distinction of Persons Ger. de Trin. and can the heathens by the workes of creation have the discovery of a Mediator and have Christ made knowne to them and beleeve in him I am sure you nsver learned this of the Apostles who saith that faith cometh by hearing Rom. 10. or are you of Smalcius the Socinian his judgment who saith that faith in Christ is not alwaies required to justification but faith simply and he proves it out of this very Sctipture that you have alleadged Heb. 11.6 for the faith of heathens c. Bus Bish p. 36. The Fathers assert the being and nature of free-will only and not its power to supernaturall good in all the passages which you alleadge out of them Though Austin and Jerom against the Manichees maintained the nature of free-will yet 't is as true that against the Pelagians they denyed the abilities of free-wil to good supernaturall Of this latter you wisely take no notice at all as making directly against you though there are hundreds of instances to that purpose to be found in them And thus the learned and orthodox Divines of the reformed Churches abroad understand Austin and Hierom when alleadged by Papists and Arminians as writing for free-will Rivetus and Walleus two famously learned writers among the Protestants shall suffice for instances Baily the Jesuit objected out of Austin to prove free-will that very place against the Protestants which you alleadge against the Ministers The words of Austine which both Baily and your selfe alleadge are these Si non estliberum arbitrium quomodo Deus judicat mundum If there be no free-will how doth God judge the world This place Rivet understands onely of the naturall being of free-will For saith he if man were turned into a stone or a block or a bruit creature be should be exempted from Gods Judgement but since when he acts out of deliberation be chuseth and willeth what pleaseth him he deservedly gives account of his actions Riv. to 2. p. 183. The place you alleadge out of Jerom is this Frustra Blasphemas ingeris c. Thou blasphemest in vaine buzzing in the eares of the ignorant that we condemne free-will And Waleus T. 2. p. 95. answers Corvinus in these words of Hierom. Frustra c. but then he gives the reason why and how both be and Hierom did allow of free-will not in regard of its abilities to good supernaturall But because saith Waleus He denyeth man to be created according to the Image of God who denies him to be adorn'd with the naturall faculty of free-will Bus Bish p. 46. In Bus Bish I set downe the agreement betweene the Fathers and the Subscribers concerning the doctrine of the adjutory of grace at large and concluded thus I should gladly be informed by you in your next what the Ministers adjutorium differs from that held forth by the Fathers and what they hold tending more toward a compulsory then these Fathers here and in hundreds of other places have written but he answers nothing Your mistake here is pittifull for the great question between Hierom Augustine and Pelagius was not whither the will did stand in need of the adjutory of grace for the performance of good but what kinde of adjutory it was of which the will did stand in need and wherein grace was an adjutory and I alleadge sundry
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
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