Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A75507
|
An apologie for the six book-sellers, subscribers of the second Beacon fired. Or, A vindication of them from the foul and unjust aspersions cast upon them by M. John Goodwin in a late pamphlet intituled A fresh discovery of the high Presbyterian spirit. Together with brief observations upon some remarkable passages in the said book. / By one that subscribes not his name, because he confesseth himself to be nullius nominis.
|
Nullius Nominus.
|
1655
(1655)
|
Wing A3557; Thomason E826_8; ESTC R10427
|
8,136
|
12
|
day to hate to morrow I leave to all those to judge that have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil And whereas M. Goodwins salvo is this Gods love is the same he always loves righteousness and hates unrighteousness and so there is no alteration in him but in the person beloved I answer there is a twofold love in God a love to righteousness a love to persons the former is unchangeable I confess according to M. Goodwin but the latter about which the difference lies M. Goodwin makes changeable which may appear by this similitude A Prince that loves a loyal and faithful subject but when he proves disloyal he hates him Will any man deny that the Princes affections are changed and yet he continues to love loyalty and hate disloyalty A Judge that loves righteousness and hates iniquity unchangeably loves his friend if he be righteous if he turn wicked he hates him and punishes him Can any deny that there is a change in him So in this case if God loves to day and hates to morrow is not here a change It is true the original cause of the change in all these cases is the person offending but still the subject of the change according to this Hypothesis is as the Prince and the Judge so God himself and so God is according to M. Goodwins doctrine as M. Goodwin hath proved himself to be not unchangeable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if God be not altered in this case M. Goodwin is desired to tell us what alteration is or when a person may be said to be changed in regard of his mind or affections If Master Goodwin mean to make this good he must as he hath done in part bring into the world a new Philosophy as he hath done a new Divinity Again this dreadful consequence which is justly charged upon M. Goodwin not only is hanged upon this such unchangeableness which he would have to be thought to be some other and higher degree of it then men dare to assert but doth no less truly flow from other passages in his Book where this word such is not found I will use but one argument which is c. 13. § 37. arg 8. It is too large to transcribe the sum of it I appeal to M. Goodwin is this That doctrine which evacuates turns into weakness folly all that gracious counsel of the H. Ghost c. these are his very words must needs be a doctrine of vanity and errour But such is the common doctrine of absolute and infallible perseverance mark it he saith the common doctrine and who ever doubted that the Book-sellers meant that very thing Thence let me use this one Argument That doctrine which in M. Goodwins judgement evacuates and turns into weakness and folly all that gracious counsel of the H. Ghost c. were it to be found in or regularly deduced from the Scriptures it were a just ground to any intelligent man to question their Authority and whether they were from God or no But such is the common doctrine of absolute and infallible perseverance Ergo I confess the syllogisme is somewhat long But M. Goodwin is a Ciceronian he useth to dispute in words at length not in figures The major I know he will grant the minor he cannot deny it is his own words and I hope he will suffer the conclusion to pass peaceably And if so M. Goodwin doth stil lie under the just imputation of that odious consequence which according to these other expressions of his is this If the Scripture should maintain the common doctrine of absolute and infallible perseverance it were a just ground to any rational man to doubt of its divine Authority which let any sober man judge what it differs from the words which the Book-sellers use Nay more plainly That such unchangeableness is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of the common doctrine of perseverance He often saith in his voluminous discourse and in hIs Letter to M. Caryl annexed to his last piece p. 78. upon this very particular occasion Nor do I wrong your doctrine of perseverance to the value of the least hair on your head because evident it is that without SUCH an UNCHANGEABLENESSE supposed the said doctrine will neither have footing nor foundation to support it From hence with M Goodwins favour I will try one syllogism If the doctrine of such unchangeableness and the common doctrine of perseverance are inseparably joined together and the one inevitably flows from the other then that consequence which follows from the one follows also from the other But the doctrine of such unchangeableness and the common doctrin of perseverance are inseparably conjoined c. nay are to M. Goodwin one of the same Ergo the Book-sellers did him no wrong when they fastened his odious consequence to the common doctrine of Gods unchangeableness which he there fastens to such unchangeableness Nor doth M. Goodwin wash off the guilt of this consequence in his Letter to M. Caryl where he hath these wordes The style of the discourse is built upon this foundation That God cannot deny himself he cannot blaspheme himself If therefore any Book contains any thing blasphemous against God the divine Authority of it might justly be questioned But Mr. Goodwin should consider that it is one thing when a Book contains something which doth expresly or undenyably blaspheme God then M. Goodwins reasoning were tolerable but if it contain it only doubtfully and by a remote and controverted consequence it is not modesty to use no harsher expression in M. Goodwin to say if any thing be said in the Scripture which his weak and dark so all mens are and prejudicate apprehehensions conceive repugnant to Gods holiness c. he may rationally doubt of the divinity of it And truly Sir to speak impartially if any man who believes the truth of the doctrine of perseverance should use such expressions as these If any unchangeableness of Gods love were to be found in or regularly deduced from the Scriptures it were just ground to any rational man to doubt of its divine Authority I should both question his modesty and lesse value his judgement And yet I think nay certain I am he might shew as fair and fairer cards from reason and rational consequence against the doctrine of Gods changeableness then you can against the unchangeableness of his love I could tell Mr. Goodwin of very considerable Authours that in their highest debates on the behalf of the truth when reason pleads the most strongly for their doctrines yet have so much sobriety as to put in this Proviso That if God in Scripture evidently say such a thing they wil receive it and conclude that there reason mistook in this as it commonly doth in other things and I do not mean Lutherans neither And it is observable the many words you spend to take off the odiousness of your consequence do not at all prevail with M. Caryl to eat his words
nor in the least to mitigate his censure of this passage So that all these things considered M. Goodwin was justly charged with denying not only such unchangeableness but Gods unchangeableness i. e. in that sense in which the Orthodox asserted it But I have not yet done I must needs have a little conference with Mr. Goodwin about some passages in his Book And first as for that tartness which you complain of in the language of the letter which the Book-sellers sent you they do ingenuously acknowledge their errour in it and as I have heard from them are ready to retract it setting you a copy what you ought to do in the like case M. Goodwins pen it is thought hath been as much dipt in gall as another mans Your scurrilous language towards the learned and reverend M. Walker and in particular your bitter recipe which you prescribe for him as for one that is not coÌ„pos sui Your elegant variety of taunts reproaches most contumelious expressions towards M. Jenkins which for the benefit of the Reader he hath collected together in his Blind Guide cum multis aliis may make M. Goodwins cheeks change colour as oft as he chargeth the Book-sellers or any others with scurrilous and unseemly language For what you say in favour of all cursed and damnable doctrins I mean for the toleration and against the suppression of them I shall hardly think that M. Goodwin is a man of so incompetent judgment that his own conscience is satisfied with what he hath said which I am the rather induced to believe because I remember M. Goodwins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it was without any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he hath set his wits and the Scripture too upon the rack to maintain that Monster of universal liberty of conscience as it is commonly though unduely called This Book M. Edwards did answer satisfyingly and convincingly in the judgement of any impartial man A solid reply whereunto the world did and doth expect ere ever M. Goodwin appeared upon the stage again in that cause or else by silence a confession which I am confident is the truth and so I believe are thousands besides me that he cannot answer it For this I have observed to be one of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer those Books which are more sinewous and unanswerable no otherwise then by contempt and silence And so it seems M. Goodwin resolves to answer those two acute and learned Doctours Dr. Owen and Dr. Kendall whose labours have had the high approbation of divers learned men no whit inferiour to M. Goodwin nor his congregation neither though it is true all mens tastes are not of the same temper non est disputandum de gustibus But Sir give me leave to tell you that if you resolve to answer those two champions in that manner you will give many more cause to think what some already do and what Sir Francis Nethersole called you at least that you are not many miles distant from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned And now I have mentioned that ingenious Knight I cannot but let the world know what kind of answer they may expect from Mr. Goodwin to Dr. Kendal c. by representing one of your answers to his charge by which you may see that Mr. Goodwin abhorres an ingenuous tractation as much as he doth an high Presbyterian Yet let not M. Goodwin twit me in the teeth with Carolizing Scotizing as he doth M. Jenkins telling him also of his bands c. most disingenuously and barbarously but most of all unbecoming him who professeth himself to be a man of most exquisite constitution and full of humility ingenuity c. for I mention this only to shew with what trash M. Goodwin can at least makes many believe he doth satisfie himself and his credulous congregation Sir Francis accused M. Goodwin of inconsistency in his judgement that in his Anti-Cavalierism pa. 7. he hath these expressions As for offering violence to the Kings person c. we leave the proof of that to the Jesuites we conceive it to be the just Prerogative of the persons of Kings IN WHAT CASE SOEVER to be secure from the violence of men and their lives to be as consecrated Corn meet to be reaped and gathered only by the hand of God himself This passage Sir Francis opposeth to M. Goodwins justification of that design of putting the King to the death To this Mr. Goodwin replies not by an ingenuous acknowledgement of his weakness c. which would better have becomed him but by this profound answer as you have it in his Pamphlet called The unrighteous Judge p. 9 10. That he meant it only of violence offered from private men not from Magistrates and that what Magistrates do in a way of Justice God himself may be said to do Thus M. Goodwins just Prerogative of Kings which no man that hath not his senses sodden into Trapezuntius his temper to use Mr. Goodwins own phrase doubts but he meant of something 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper to them and I am perswaded his conscience tells him so is levelled to that universal priviledge which even the vilest Rogue enjoyes i. e. that it is unlawful for their lives to be taken away by any other then the hand of the Magistrate Which is so manifest an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or self-contradiction that he that runs may read it By this judge of this great Doctours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One or two passages more I cannot but observe 1. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I say not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. He brings in the testimony of one whom he calls as learned grave and judicious as any English born at this day on the behalf of his Book about the Authority of the Scripture That it was as good a Book as any was written since the Apostles days This testimony saith M. Goodwin I confess if you do not many others do may be as much too wide on the right hand as your malignant imputation is on the left Note how cautelously he speaks it he dare not say it is too wide but it may be it is not impossible I confess I thought Mr. Goodwin would have vailed the Bonnet to Mornay Grotius or at least to his Camero upon that subject though they have not such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor such a mixture of errours there that I remember as Mr. Goodwin hath But it seems as he speaks of Dr. Owen in relation to Dr. Kendal p. 43. he reserved his high thoughts for his own writings 2. I Observe his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he is charged with this absurd assertion That knowledge c. is not attributed to God any otherwise then eyes It is not saith he for want of ignorance that Dr. Kendall Mr. Pool and others contend against me for such a saying He cites a saying of Austins We speak few things properly of God Sed quid hoc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We acknowledge this to be a great truth but this knowledge is one of those few And for what Mr. Goodwin addes It argues extream oscitancy for a man to think that they speak more honourably of God who ascribe unto him knwoledg properly as it is found in men or other creatures then they who attribute the same unto him by way of eminency and transcendency of perfection free from all the deficiency in men c. But what a piece of oscitancy what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this that Master Goodwin should not understand or else contrary to his understanding relate our opinion utrum horum mavis accipe Did ever the Orthodox say that knowledge is in God as in men c. Do they not free it from all imperfections as much Yea more I am sure then Master Goodwin witnesse his imputing to God ignorance of future contingences more Sociniano But Master Goodwin would do well to rub up his Philosophical notions and to consider that knowledge is not the lesse properly knowledge because it is freed from imperfections but rather more properly Shall any man absurdly say God is not properly holy just wise merciful because these are not in God as they are in the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall trouble Master Goodwin no farther only thus If he answer me as he hath answered Sir Fâ—ancis Nethersole or Master Jenkins c. I shall not trouble either him or the world with any Reply but that which is his constant refuge in arduous cases I mean that of silence This only being added for parting if Mr. Goodwin doth not moderate the heat of his carriage and expression let him take heed lest some deal by him as Lubbertus did by Vorstius one of his Masters who wrote a Book and intituled it Non aginta novem errores c. The ninety nine errours of Conradus Vorstius for some conceive Master Goodwins works will afford a Counter-part FINIS