〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Blinde Guide or the Doting Doctor Composed by way of Reply to a late tediously trifling Pamphlet Entituled The Youngling Elder c. written by John Goodwin and containing little or nothing in it but what plainly speaketh the Author thereof to lie under the double unhappinesse of Seducers To be Deceiving And Deceived This reply indifferently serving for the future direction of the Seducer himselfe and also of those his mis-led followers who with him are turned enemies to the Word and grace of God The authority of which Word and the efficacie of which grace are in this following Treatise succinctly yet satisfactorily vindicated from the deplorably weake and erroneous Cavills of the said John Goodwin in his late Pamphlet By William Jenkyn Minister of the Word of God at Christ-Church in LONDON 2 Tim. 3.13 Evill men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived Prov. 14.16 The foole rageth and is confident Jude 13. Raging waves of the sea foming out their owne shame Nissen de Trinitat p. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cal. Ep. 354. Contra Mennonem Hoc sane video nihil hoc asino posse fingi superbius Printed at London by M. B. for Christopher Meridith and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard To the Christian READER READER WEre not my desire to serve thy Soul greater than my hope to recover my Adversary and were I not more apprehensive of the greatnesse of thy danger than the goodnesse of his disposition I should not spend my precious houres in a second engagement against his Errours my contention is greater that thou shouldest not fall to be like him than that he should rise to be unlike himselfe He who wrote his last Pamphlet only to represent me unworthy to contend with him will hardly write his next to confesse that truth by me hath conquered him It 's not consistent with his honour who in his last boasted that he had laid the attempts of all his adversaries in the dust Ep. to the Reader To. Eld. p. 3. and that Presbytery lay bleeding at the feet of his Writings in his next to lay himselfe in the dust and to acknowledge that his Heresies lye bleeding at the foot of a Yongling so that should he be convinced of the duty as possibly he may he would be afraid of the shame of a recantation It s more his sin than my unhappinesse though both that by confuting his errours I occasion him still to vent them but never did I meet with wretched opinions so wrathfully asserted and so weakly maintained His Writings have more of Tongue than matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nissen de Tri. and yet more of Teeth than either with the weapon of the Tooth like the Hereticks of old he conquers even after he is overcome with Arguments Certainly while Master Goodwin wrote his late Booke he was under a quotidian fit of Frenzie and all that time was an interregnum of his reason his Pen being onely dipt in passion His Pamphlet consists of such unmanlike scoldings that he hath rendred himselfe the shame of his Party and the scorne of his Opposites the only product of his reproaches being a confirmation of the report of his being badly nurtur'd formerly and worse natur'd still Vnhappy man who stumbleth in the darke and stormeth against the light and who alwaies endureth that least which he wanteth most The weaknesse of Flatterers hath so abus'd him into love of himselfe and the strength of interest into the love of Errour that he cannot abide either plaine-dealing or sound doctrine The palpable weaknesse of his late performance in his Youngl Eld. Ep. to Reader P. ult extorted from him this acknowledgement that he wrote not his Booke to refute me and had not his Lordship silenced his Conscience it would have added but to revile me Yo. Eld. p. 1. I confesse he words it more gently telling me that the taske to which he was confin'd in his Writing was to shew me more of my selfe nothing of him selfe and in pursuance of this mercifull designe he puts his whole Booke under a quaternion of topicks 1. My defect of Conscience 2. Of Clerkship 3. Of apprehension 4. Of ingenuity forgetting in the meane time one little defect which runs through the veines of all his foure parts viz. while he so rudely handles my name scarce to touch the matter of my Booke unto which foure defects he reduceth whatsoever malice or falshood can invent against me though the prosecution of them all be a continued transgression of the Lawes of Art and honesty nay not only of method but even at once of common modesty so that I know not in this world the thins that are so contemptible as Master Goodwins scurrilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil De ira for my part I much more regard that excellent advice of Basil Neither be proud of thy praises nor impatient at thy reproaches when neither are due unto thee I confesse I delight not to see him in those distempers for which I pitty him I never intended to drive him into a Frenzie and yet neither am I willing that he should drive me into a Palsie idle silence is a sinne as well as idle speaking his Contumelies can be no plea for my Cowardise where sinne is impudent reproofe must not be bashfull If errours seeke no corners should truth doe so How happy were we if we could leave all our stings in the sides of Errour and Prophanesse if in their blood all our hatreds might be dround I have ever thought that peace with that with which we should contend is the grand cause of contention with them with whom we should be at peace It s just that they who will not knwon Errour so as to hate it should not know Truth so as to find it How incongruous is it to shun that man upon whom as thou thinkest thou espyest a Wart and to take him into thy bosome upon whom thou knowest there is a Plague-sore Errours in Discipline doe but scratch the face of Religion these in Doctrine stab it to the heart To. Eld. p. 20. p. 47. p. 66 When the whole written Word is at once struck off from being the ground of faith and whatever is in and about the Scriptures denyed to be the foundation of Religion unlesse the Counsels contained in them When it shall be asserted that naturall men want no power of making themselves able to beleeve and that notwithstanding all the power of converting grace there 's a liberty in the will to defeat and frustrate conversion In a word when Sectaries strike at the faith both which and with which we beleeve Jude ver 3. it s our duty if ever to contend for this faith once delivered to the Saints In my present endeavours about which worke if thou embracest what thou findest of God I shall not only be willing that
The sum of his passage cited for an error in our testimonie is this If God should deprive men of all power to beleeve yet perswade to beleeve c. God would be like a King that causeth a mans legs to be cut off and yet urgeth him to run a Race with those that have limbs Div. Au. p. 168. Naturall men may doe such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation All the world even those that have not the letter of the Gospell have yet sufficient meanes granted them of beleeving these two viz. That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seeke him which is all the faith that the Apostle makes necessary to bring a man into grace or favour with god They who have only the heavens the sun m one and starrs to preach the Gospell to them have also reason sufficient to judge the same judgment with them who have the letter of the Gospell for they have the Gospell the substance and effect of it the willingnesse of God to be reconciled to the world preached unto them by the Apostles aforesaid the sun moone and stars Div. Auth. p. 183. p. 186 Nor were it a matter of much more difficulty to bring antiquity it selfe and particularly those very Authors who were the greatest opposers of Pelagius as Hierom August Prosper c. with mouthes wide open in approbation of the same things for which I am arraigned at the tribunall of Sion Col. Sion Col. Vis p. 24. These men have exchanged the Fathers adjutorium into their owne compulsorium Sion Col. Vis p. 28. The question between Pelagius and the Fathers was not whether man had freedome of will in respect of good or evill but whether men notwithhstanding their freedome of will did not still stand in need of the adjutory of grace both for the performance of and perseverance in what was good Answered in busie Bishop 1. T Is you sorrow to see that they are so much as reputed Ministers your sinne to say they are onely reputed Ministers for want of mens knowing better Tell me of one man either Minister or private Christian differing from the Subscribers onely in the point of Independency who dares say thus with you If you do account your self a Minister which way had you your ordination Whether by that way that the Ministers of London had theirs who you say are no Ministers c. 2. You say The Ministers have vested themselves with the priviledge of the Church of being the ground and pillar of truth The Church as a pillar holds forth the truth either in a common way to all Christians mutuall exhortations profession practice c. or in a ministeriall way preaching administration of Sacraments c. If you say the Ministers have vested themselves with the priviledge of being the pillars of truth the first way 't is ridiculously false profession of the truth being common to every one in the Church If you mean as you must needs that the Ministers have vested themselves with the priviledge of pillars in the second respect 't is odiously false for the Lord Jesus himselfe and not themselves vested them with the priviledge of holding forth truth by way of Office Eph. 4.11 Christ gave some Pastors and Teachers 1 Cor. 12.38 God hath set some in his Church c. Busie Bishop pag. 3 4. Though no act unto which man is enabled by God such as beleeving be a foundation in that sense in which Christ is upon whom we build the hope of out salvation to be obtained by his mediation yet beleeving of the Scripture as it is an assenting to a maine and prime credendum viz That the Scriptures are by divine inspiration is a necessary foundation for other subsequent graces that are required in the Christian Religion and without which foundation all godlinesse and Religion would in a short time fall to the ground no theologicall grace can be without faith and no faith if the authority of the Scriptures fall If beleeving be no foundation why doth the Apostle give to faith the name of foundation Heb. 6.1 Not laying againe the foundation of repentance and of faith c. Bu. Bish p. 9. These words therefore questionlesse no writings c. are the conclusion and the result of your premisses in severall long winded pages If your conclusion be crasie and hereticall your premisses must needs be so too and therefore the setting them downe could not have helped you and if the conclusion be not hereticall why do you not defend it against the accusation of the Subscribers which you dare not do but only send the Subscribers to your premisses in the thirteenth page leaving the poore 18. the conclusion to mercy Suppose you had in the thirteenth page written the truth therefore ought you not to be blamed for writing errours in the 18. pag. 21. Bu. Bush At your command I shall consult the pages wherein you would be thought to say The Scriptures are the word of God In these pages and pa. 17 you say That you grant the matter and substance of the Scriptures the gracious counsels of the Scriptures to be the Word of God As that Christ is God and man that he dyed that he rose againe c. These you say are onely the word of God and not the writings or written word when you say the matters c. are the Word of God you suppose they should be beleeved for such But upon what ground ought I to beleeve them I hope you wil not say because a province of London Ministers saith they are to be beleeved nor barely because the spirit tels me they are to be beleeved for the Word of God for the spirit sends me to the written Word bids me by that to try the spirits and tels me I must be leeve nothing to be from God but what I finde written I therefore desire to go to the written Word as revealed by God for the building my confidence upon the matters of the Scriptures as pardon through Christ c. but then J. Goodwin tels me this written Word is not Gods Word So it must be the word of vaine man and so I have no more to shew for this precious truth Christ dyed for lost man than mans word In your alledged pages you make no distinction between res credenda and ratio cudendi the matter to be beleeved and the ground of beleeving that matter The matters to be beleeved are the precious truths you speake of The ground of beleeving them is the revelation of God in his written Word The Revelation of God hath alwayes been the foundation of faith and now this Revelation is by writing the ground of faith is it is written What course tooke Christ and his Apostles to prove the matters and doctrinall assertions which they taught but by the written Word and when they would render them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit for belief they ever more tell
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
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
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
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
Propositions Doth it not cease upon the change of the subject Jesus Christ is to come in the flesh was once a true proposition and the object of the faith of those that lived before Christ his Incarnation but is it so still and is not veritas ethica or the agreement of the judgement or minde with the proposition changeable likewise upon the same ground To your minor whereas you alledge the changeablenesse of all Bibles in the contents of them what meane you by contents meane you inke papers letters c. such changes either pervert the sence and so farre as the Scriptures are thus chang'd they cease to be the written Word or they pervert it not Waleus T. 1. p. 129. Scriptura substantiâ— non potest corrumpi and if any such changes be they nothing hinder the written Word from being the foundation of faith Sphalmata Typographica Typographicall faults makeerrours in Orthography none in Divinity Your last demonstration Arg. 3 Yo. Eld. p. 36. If the Scripture be the true foundation of Religion it must be understood either of the Scriptures as in the originall Languages only or only as translated into other Languages or as both but the Scriptures neither in the originall Languages nor as translated nor as both are the foundations Ergo I deny your minor and assert the Scriptures as in the originals Answ and also as translated so farre as agreeing with the originals are the foundation 1. How prove you that the Scriptures in the originalls are not the foundation of religion thus If the Scriptures be the foundation as they are in the originall Bibles then they say you that understand not these Languages as illiterate men cannot build upon this foundation for your unworthy scoffe of the danger of my Religion you representing me as one that understands not the originals you may please to know that I am not ignorant of all originals for either concerning your scoffing or your unmannerly jeering Mr. T. G. said lately that you had it from your Father cheap enough it seemes but to the point This cavill is borrowed of your old Masters whom in this point you follow already answered by Anth. Wotton Pop. Artic. Ar. 3 p. 20. and by Baronius against Turnbul de objecto formali fid p. 44. but I answer Illiterate or unlearned men who cannot understand originals Answ nor yet can read translations doe build neverthelesse their saith upon the Scriptures contained in them though mediatly virtually and not with that distinctnesse which one learned doth the unlearned knowing not particularly in what words the minde of God was revealed though you call me a Novice yet let me teach you if at least so plaine a lesson hath not hitherto been learned by you that unto faith there is required Principium quod or the foundation to be beleeved Principium propter quod or the reason why men beleeve the former and media per quae those necessary meanes by which they come to beleeve and these are externall the ministery of the Word and internall the witnesse and effectuall working of the holy Ghost by which the heart is enabled to close with the formall object of faith viz. the revelation of Gods will in writing Now the Ministry of the Word and Spirit are limited to the written Word these teach no other things than God hath revealed therein and perswade not men but God as the Apostle saith Gal. 1.10 so that these lead the most illiterate to the Scriptures and are so administred that they draw the heart even of such to assent to the written Word as that into which their faith is ultimately resolved as the Scriptures abundantly testifie and you can no more conclude from the strangenesse of the originall Languages to those that are illiterate that illiterate persons doe not build their faith upon the written Word contained in them than that one who only understands the English tongue and receives a Letter from his Father in the French tongue for the explaining whereof the Father hath appointed an Interpreter builds not his obedience ultimately upon the writing of his Father though in a strange tongue 2. You endeavour to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion as in Translations and Originalls thus If they be this foundation in both those considerations or as well in the one or the other then two things or more specifically differing one from another may notwithstanding be one and the same numeriall thing You should rather have laid your consequence thus Answ then 〈◊〉 subject numerically the same may be the subject of accidents specifically different but you tell me of two suppositions upon which your consequence stands 1. That the foundation of Religion is but one and the same numerically 2. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically among themselues About the identy of the foundation numerically I shall not contend but how prove you your second supposition viz. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically you indeavour it thus Two things you say which differ more than numerically differ specifically Now an Hebrew and a Spanish Bible differ more than numerically because they differ more than two Spanish or two Hebrew Bibles differ from one another and yet these differ numerically the one from the other 1. Had the Youngling Elder disputed thus how many exclamations of poore man illiterate soule silly man c. would your tender heart have bestowed upon him but I shall not retaliate for the Reader if intelligent I am confident will spare me a labour Things you say that differ plusquam numero do differ specie Should a fresh-man hear you reason thus Mas faemina differunt plusquam numero ergo differunt specie or a learned man and an ideot differunt plusquam numero ergo differunt specie they would laugh at your argument the very boyes would judge you a professor fitter for an alley than an Academye Do not you grant that these differ specie accidentali onely and will you conclude that therefore they differ specifically 2. You say That though the difference betweene an Hebrew Bible and a Spanish is but in specie accidentali or specificall accidentall yet such a difference as this is sufficient to prove that they differ numerically You give in already and shew your self but a founder'd disputant for what is this to your undertaking which was to prove your second supposition viz. That they do differ specifically and not numerically onely which was nothing to the second supposition page 37. 3. You contend that a Spanish Bible a Latine and an English differ in specie accidentali or with a difference specifical accidentall in regard of the specifically different Languages wherein they were written Ergo quid how by all this prove you your assertion which was that the scriptures in their severall Languages do differ specifically nay how prove you by the specifical accidental dâ—fference of the Bibles that the Scripture or the
foundation is not the same numerically The Languages I will grant differ specifically and the copies doe differ with a difference specificall accidentall but the Scripture the foundation of faith the will of God revesled in writing is numerically and identically the same May not the same thing numerically be the subject of accidents specifically different The same man may I speak not of Master Goodwin speake Latine Greek and Hebrew These Languages differ specifically yet the man who speaks them is not multiplyed but is numerically the same Esth 3.12.8 9. Ahashuerus sent out a decree to the people of an hundred twenty and seven Provinces in sevecall Languages the Decree was one numerically for he sent not out many but onely one Decree though the Languages differed specifically and the Copies numerically and specie accidentali in regard of the specifically different Languages and why may not the same be said of the foundation of Religion The Bibles and Copies wherein the foundation of Religion is contained differ specifically accidentally in regard of their specifically different Languages but the foundation of Religion i. e. the revelation of the will of God in writing is numerically one and the same so that your learned argument That the Scriptures cannot be the foundation of Religion in severall Languages because of the specificall or at least numericall difference of the Bibles is vaine and childish We have seen your acumen in arguing let us see what you can do in answering so far as you go of what you are pleased to pick out of Busie Bishop against your opinion concerning the Scriptures You say but very little by way of answer but in that little you wofully trifle you stay not to answer the Scriptures I bring against you at all nor do seriously indeavour satisfaction in any thing onely you propound two or three slight and impertinent quaeries against what I write and so as if you were lapping at Nilus you hastily and superficially conclude I askt you in the Busie Bishop Busie Bishop p. 22. how any could beleeve the matter and substance of the Scriptures to be the Word of God when as he must be uncertaine whether the written Word wherein the matter is contained is the Word of God or no To this you answer by propounding these ignorant demands whereof the first hath two branches Yo. Eld. p. 39. c. 1. Is not this a question of the same profound calculation with this how can a man beleeve the sun is a greater and the moone a lesser light if he be uncertaine whether every jot and tittle of what is read in our Bible Gen. 1.16 be the Word of God or no because here it is said And God made two great lights the greater c. 2. And afterwards Do not the Scriptures affirme That the heavens declare the glory of God c. and againe That that which may be knowne of God his invisible things his eternall power and Godhead are clearely seene from the creation of the world and that the Gentiles without the written Word shew the works of the Law written in their hearts In this demand which you put under two distinct heads you expresse two grosse mistakes unworthy a scholler Answ though not unbeseeming your self 1. In that you distinguish not betweene the matters of the Scripture to be beleeved i. e. betweene those things or objects which are communia such as may be knowe by the light of nature and those which are propria such as cannot be knowne but by the Revelation of the written Word our question was not concerning winter and summer the greatnesse of the Sun and Moon c. but concerning the Mysteries of faith For when you explaine your self Sion Coll. visited and Divine Auth. pag. 17. what you meant by the matter substance precious counsels of the Scripture did you make any mention of the sun and moone the winter and summer did you not say you meant such truths as these That Christ was God and man That Christ dyed That he arose againe c. Now can you know these without a written Word though you may the greatnesse of the sun above that of the Moone Your second grosse mistake in propounding this demand is in that you distinguish not betweene an intellectuall habit knowledge and a divine grace faith the ground of the one being reason the ground of the other being divine testimony Or in that you distinguish not between fides divina or theologica and fides naturalis acquisita acquired by humane reasons or by the authority of man it was of the former that I disputed and now you learnedly ut soles fly to the latter When you say That without the written Word you can beleeve the greatnesse of the Sun above that of the Moon Can you beleeve this with a divine faith without a written Word Quaevis propositio physica astrologica historica fit objectum fidei si à deo in Scripturis nobis propanatur Davevant p. 12. Scriptura fides nostra sunt aequalis latitudinis fides nec plus nec minus debet amplecti quà m est in Scriptura revelatum Geth Exeg p. 169. de judice fidei Then saith he is any Physicall Astrologicall Historicall proposition the object of faith when it is propounded to us by God in the Scriptures and page 149. Formalis ratio credendi est authoritas dei revelantis You may also say That without a written Word you beleeve that the worlds were framed by God but can you beleeve this with a divine faith unlesse you had a written word for it These things haply you may know and by a naturall or acquired faith but not by a divine faith beleeve unlesse written quod non lego non credo Your second profound demand is If it be impossible for me to beleeve that the matter and substance of the Scripture is the Word of God because I am uncertaine whether the written Word be the word of God or no how came the Patriarchs to beleeve it who lived the first two thousand yeeres of the world since it was uncertaine to them whether the word should ever be written The same way to bring me to beleeve what they believed is open to the glorious God Those things that the Patriarchs beleeved Answ they had from and by divine revelation and though the written word was not needfull to them for the grounding their faith upon the things beleeved God then immediately manifesting himselfe to them without it as even now I told you yet the like cannot be said of us who live under a different dispensation Vid. Riv. Cath. Orth. T. 1. Q. 1. VVhitak Chamier c. This was the substance of your first argument Yo. Eld. p. 32. I must send you back for answer The same way to bring you to beleeve may be open by Gods power but it is not his pleasure to open it 3. You say The nature beauty worth weight c. of the matters and
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
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.
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
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
substance of the Scripture is sufficient to bring men to believe that they are things which came from God though they had not the super-added advantage of any thing in the Scripture as writing It was great pitty that you were not consulted withall to give your judgement concerning the most advantagious way of bringing men to believe Answ why instead of inventing new grounds of faith submit you not to the old It s no matter what such a poore creature as your self say when you tell us what is the most sufficient way to bring men to beleeve when as I see that the wise God was pleased not onely to have the matters committed to writing but also to tell us notwithstanding the weight of the matter that the end of that writing was that men might beleeve those matters These things are written that ye might beleeve Job 21. and 1 Jo. 5.13 why rather did not the Evangelist say These things are so weighty so worthy so beautifull that therefore you have reason to beleeve them 2. The most weighty worthy matter that ever was beleeved had it onely been beleeved for its owne weight and worth and not as revealed by God and because God manifested it had not been beleeved with a divine faith 'T is not the worth of the thing but the Authority of the Speaker that is the ground of a mans faith Nor doe I understand how the worth and beauty of any thing can be said to bring men to beleeve that thing they may indeed bring a man to desire it and to long to enjoy it there 's required to faith not a worth and a beauty in the thing revealed but truth ln the revelatien the object of assent is not pulchrum but verum not the beauty of the thing spoken but the veracity of the speaker Be the thing never so good yet I beleeve not saith learned Downame unlesse I be perswaded it is true p. 355. Treat of justification 3. He that assents not to the Scriptures as revealed by God cannot assent unto the beauty of the matters contained in the Scriptures There 's nothing revealed in the Scripture will seeme truly beautifull and worthy to that man that beleeves not the authority of the Revealer If the written word be entertained and received as saith the apostle as the word of man the most beautifull and worthy matters in the Scripture will be so far from being beleeved that they will be profanely neglected When as the excellentest matters were preached to the Jewes by Christ how were they contemned in regard that they were not lookt upon as the minde of God but rather on the contrary To conclude my Answer to this profane conceit of yours should this beauty worth weight c. of the matters contained in the Scripture be admitted as the ground of beleeving them I would know by what rule we should judge of this their beauty worth weight c. or what it is when their beauty is impugned by hereticks as you know that the gloriously beautifull truth of the satisfaction of Christ so beautifull that its worthy of all acceptation is by Socinus accounted the most deformed and unrighteous conceit that can be What is it I say in such cases by which I should groundedly account the truth of God beautifull you must here denying the written Word make any mans judgement and reason to be the rule of the beauty and worth of the matters of the Scriptures every one must esteeme of truth and believe them as reason dictates and tels them they are beautifull and then Mr. Goodwins Socinian designe is perfectly accomplisht And there are who stick not to say That all the clamourous outcries of your tongue and pen intend nothing but the advancing the Diana of recta ratio instead of Scripture Yet againe you querie though to no purpose Yo. Eld. p. 40. yet to this effect Doth not say you the Scripture affirme that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the goodnesse of God leadeth to repentance Rom. 2.4 Which repentance cannot be without beleeving of the matters of the Scripture as that upon repentance God will be gracious and accept men into favour and forgive their sinnes now this goodnesse of God leading to this repentance is extended to many who are uncertaine whether the written word be the Word of God or no. 1. Answ This is a passage of the same prophane calculation with that in Divine Auth. where you said pag. 182. That the Heathens who only have the Heavens the Sun Moon and Stars to preach the Gospell unto them have reason sufficient to judge the same judgement with them who have the Letter of the Gospell Which in Busie Bishop was disproved to which in this booke you reply nothing but new braze your face and say the same things againe 2. From this place Rom. 2.4 that Gods goodnesse leads to repentance followes it that Heathens who onely were invited by the generall goodnesse of God in the governing of the world beleeved that God would be gracious unto them Spanhem de grat univers pag. 1291. and forgive them their sinnes in Christ the Mediator followes it that all invitation to repentance is invitation to a Redeemer and to beleeving and that rain from Heaven and fruitfull seasons did afford such an invitation There 's a repentance which is not saving and true and internall but externa disciplinaris which consisteth in meere abstinence from outwardly vicious acts and in the contrary practice of actions civilly and morally honest And 2. there 's an invitation to repentance which is simpliciter imperativa and exactiva officii as Spanhemius saith which simply commands and exacts that duty which man owes to God which requiring of repentance leads not more to a Redeemer than the requiring of that debt did lead the servant in the Gospell to a surety And 3. how could the Gentiles be lead to true and saving repentance by the outward benefits they enjoyed who thought that they received them from Jupiter and Juno and such Idols and that all that repentance which those Idol-Deities required from them did consist in idolatrous worships and sacrifices and services These of whom the Apostle speakes could not rightly think of God who only could pardon them nor of the duty of repentance they owed to this God without a superiou◠illumination far excelling that which is by the common goodnesse of God in the government of the world you wofully blunder therefore in affirming that the heathens beleeved the matters of the Scripture being destitute of the written Word Briefly thus you say The goodnesse of God bestowed upon the Gentiles who were destitute of the written word led them to a true and sound repentance and to a knowledge that upon that repentance God would be gracious unto them and forgive them their sins I desire in your next your so frequently promised undertaking if at least we be not put off as ever yet we have been with a mouse instead
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
Pelagius Yo. Eld. p. 45. sect 57. and by him cast upon Jerome and Austin This you say is as if one charged for a seducer of the people should plead thus for himselfe The accusation of seducing the people was cast upon Christ by the Pharisees c. by whom have any of your judgement in the point of reprobation been vindicated from the accusation of Manicheism 1. Answ I do indeed tell the Reader That this charge of Manicheism is as old as Pelagius that he may observe your complyance with that Heretick Non est minon qròd nevi 〈◊〉 cathel is â— quibus exâ—unt noâ—um nomen 〈◊〉 Aug. l. 2. op imp n 7. as in your opinions so in your opprobrious calumnies against the truth you know who said it Nec lacie lacti nec ovum ovo similius 'Twixt milk and milk the likenesse is not greater Nor egge to egge more parallel in feature 2. A seduâ—er such are you may not plead for himselfe by saying the Pharisees did cast the accusation of seducing upon Christ but an innocent person may beare up his spirit with the recollection to his minde of the false accusations that have been cast upon the saints in former ages Cernis cum quibuâ— maledicta rua 〈◊〉 cernis cum quibus mihi sit causo 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 qu intâ—â—i perâ—â—osum sit tam horrthile â—rimen objicere talibus quam mihi gloriosion sit quod libet crimen oudire talilus Aug. Contr. Jul. l. 1. c. 4. So persecuted they the Prophets saith Christ Mat. 5 12. And is Austine saith though it be a dangerous thing to reproach such yet is it a glorious thing to suffer reproaches with such 3. You ask by whom any of my judgement in the point of reprobation have been vindiceted from Manicheism 1. How know you my judgement in the point of reprobation 2. What need any of my judgement in the point of reprobation any vindication from Manicheism doth not this further manifest that you understand not what Manicheism is Did the Manichees hold any reprobation at all You lay upon me the imputation of Manicheism I deny it 'T is your part to prove it who say it but do it throughly least you prove your self not onely a simple accuser but a false accufer But 3 know that if those whose heresie is your inheritance have case the imputation of Manicheism upon any of my judgement they have been sufficiently cleared by Augustine of old and by Springlius cited Busie Bishop page 48. among many Moderne Writers who have done the like In this section I finde you miserably flundering in the quagmires of errour non-sence and absurdity Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 58. and you would faine perswade Master Ball to sinke with you but you cannot your opinion is this Men are not wholly destitute of all power to do what God requires of them as simply necessary to salvation particularly to repent and beleeve Master Balls worde are these No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the command or through his owne simple infirmity as being willing to beleeve but not able which inability deserves pitty but he doth not beleeve because he will not 1. I demanded Yo. Eld p. 46. what is here that gives you the least countenance in your errours You answer by asking Who either said or thought that here was any thing of such import I reply Answ If you did not think so you dealt very contraconscientiously to say so Your very words Sion Coll. visited pag. 16. are these The self-same opinions are countenanced by men of your owne party for which you defame others and immediately you subjoyne this allegation out of Master Ball. And Youngling Elder pag. 46. say you not thus I cite the words not so much by way of countenance as concurrence Here 's an open confession that you cite the words by way of countenance as well as concurrence though not by way of countenance so much but you would faine be lookt upon as a Doctor seraphicus irrefragabilis resolutus the encomiums of three dunces met in one your opinions need no mans countenance nay you build your faith no more upon the Scripture than Christ his upon Moses You call me childling for but asking what is here that gives you countenance But friend Yo. Eld. p. 31. Yo. Eld p. 46. though you be haply a Pythagorus to your deluded followers you need some countenance to beare up your port among others And its just with God if you who have accustomed your self so much to falsnesse should not hereafter be beleeved by plaine hearted Christians without the Countenance of others though possibly you speake the truth It s the portion of the lyar 2. You proceed Yo. Eld. p. 46. Master Ball saith Master Jenkin saith That unwillingnesse to beleeve hinders a man from beleeving but he doth not say that any man of himselfe can be willing But Master Jenkin when I tell you that Master Ball speakes of apples why do you by way of answer tell me that he doth not speak of oysters where did Master Jenkin ever meet with any such assertion of mine who ever said that any man of himselfe could be willing to beleeve I perceive your minde is on your junkets you had rather be loading the asse than disputing But Master Goodwin if you cited Master Ball by way of concurrence with you why do you bring him in speaking of apples when you speake of oysters if the serious Reader compare your words and Master Balls should he finde them to agree 't will be with the agreement of harp and harrow 2. Yo. Eâ— p. 51 Did never any man say That a man of himself could be willing to beleeve why then you have wronged Pelagius in the 51. page of Taungling Elder charging him to have held That the adjutory of grace was not simply necessary for the enabling of the will to do that which is pleasing to God but by way of accommodation or facilitation of the worke citing sundry places out of Austine to prove that this was his opinion as indeed at first it was Why abuse you poore Pelagius if he never said so 3. Did I never meet with such an opinion of yours as this That man of himselfe can be willing to beleeve you either forget or understand not your self Yo. Eld. p. 45. sect 58. Say you not in this very section that your opinion is That men are not wholly destitute of all power to do what God requires of them as simply necessary to salvation particularly to repent and beleeve Yo. Eld p. 47 Also expresse you not your self thus in this section Natucall men want no power no not of being willing or making themselves willing to beleeve Say you not That men cannot be said to act or do or to be able to act or do but onely what is possible for them to will or to make themselves willing to do
mans sinne pardonable but man by his impenitency makes it not to be pardoned Page 230. Did not the very lifting up of the Serpent shew that it was Gods will they should looke on it and looking be cured So God causing Christ to be lifted up by preaching of the Go pell before thee sheweâ— that HEE WOULD THOU SHOULDEST BELIEVE and believing have everlasting life Page 231. God never failed any that continued to wait on him at length he satisfied their longing Page 289. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be hard to the carnall carelesse man yet as Salmon saith of knowledge Prov. 146. faith is easie to him that will believe not that it is simply in mans power but that GODS SPIRIT SO OPENETH HIS UNDERSTANDING c. Page 290. If we repaire to the Author who giveth faith and to the spring whence it floweth if we rightly use the right meanes of attaining it and waite at the doore of wisdome till hee open unto us UNDOUBTEDLY WE SHALL FINDE FAITH and not misse of it The Div. Auth. of the Scriptures Pag 26. Naturall men may do such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation Page 169. To suppose that they to whom God maketh rich and sweet applications of himselfe are wholly destitute of all power to do what he requires of them in this case to save them from destruction and to confer the great things promised upon them as viz. to believe and repent is to represent the glorious God in his greatest expressions of mercy and grace and love unto the world rather as laughing the world to scorne in that great misery wherein it is plunged then as a God any wayes truly desirous or intending to relieve it Page 183. They which are without I meane without the Gospell written or preached upon such termes as it is preached among us daily have also sufficient meanes if not large and plentifull for beleeving Page 186. They who are destroyed and perish by the hand of God for unbelief had meanes and those sufficient whereby to have beleeved Page 182. Concerning those have onely the Heavens the Sun Moon and Stars and the goodnesse of God in the government of the world to preach the Gospell unto them these also have reason sufficient if not in abundance to thinke the same though and judge the same judgement with the other who have the Letter of the Gospell in the point in hand In all the passages queâ—ed out of the whole Armour of God there is no sentence that implyeth that naturall men may do such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation Men are there incited to do what lieth in them for attaining grace but it is not said that any promise of grace is annexed to that which they do while they temaine in their naturall estate Neither is it said in any of those passages That none of those to whom God maketh rich and sweet applications of himselfe are wholly destitute of all power to believe and repent for those sweet applications in the outward dispensation of the Word are made to all present though there may be many reprobates there who have not power to believe and repent Nor yet is it there said That they who are without the Gospell have sufficient meanes for beleeving nor That they who perish for unbeliefe had meanes sufficient to have beleeved if meanes be taken for that power and ability which is in a naturall man 1 Object If mens coming short of that which they might have done be the reason of their condemnation it undeniably followes Yo. Eld. p. 70. that they have power to do that whereby their condemnation might be prevented Answ It doth not follow because they might more improve their naturall parts than they do and yet not prevent condemnation thereby they are supernaturall gifts whereby condemnation is prevented 2 Object In saying unbeliefe is in a mans power Ibid. doth he not imply that a man hath power over it and may dissolve subdue and destroy it if he will Answ No he implyeth no such thing he onely intendeth that it ariseth from a mans selfe and is ordered by a mans own free will as other corrupt acts are The evils which are in the Devill are in his power yet can he not dissolve subdue and destroy them As for the instances of originall corruption blindnesse by birth frailty of life mortality corruptiblenesse of flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for none of these are acts under the will of man to be ordered thereby as unbeliefe is 3 Object Questionlesse a Teacher would not incourage men Ibid. pag. 71. or perswade men to incourage themselves to do that which he judgeth impossible for them to do Answ 1. That which is here taken to be unpossible is brought upon man by his owne default 2. It is such an impossibility as God by the worke of his Spirit can and ordinarily doth make possible In this respect Christ saith of that which is impossible with men that it is not so with God Mark 10.27 3. The Teacher doth incourage men to go as far as they can and to do as much as in their power lyeth to obtaine such or such a blessing which is not to perswade to that which is impossible 4. Object If God excludeth none from bleeving then hath he not inflicted any such punishment upon men for their sinne in Adam by which they are disabled from believing Answ That which is spoken of Gods excluding none is meant of the manner of dispensing the Gospell and offering grace which is wiâ—â— such generall tearmes as therein no man hath cause to thinke himselfe excluded The Author of the 〈…〉 God thus explaineth his owne minde pag. 603. This Doâ—trine is to be understood of Gods outward dispensation and manifeâ—ation of his mercy by the ministry of the Word wherein no difference is made betwixt persons nor excertion of any So as it calleth not into question the secret counsell and â—ernall decree of God SIR YOu Master Souâ—â—â— Vindication with many other Ministers of the Province of London gave 〈◊〉 against this tenent of Master John Goodwin viz. touching 〈…〉 asserte â— That by imprâ—vement of nature a man may attaine to such 〈◊〉 is upon which saving conversion alwayes follows This I judge to be an errour 1 Cor. 2.14 For the Apostle saith The naturall man reiciveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are 〈…〉 him Neither can be knâ—w them because they are spiritualâ—y 〈◊〉 Rom. 8.5 7 8. And he saith also They that are after the flesh as all naturall men are savâ—ur or minde the things of the fasâ— And againe The carnall minde is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God nor indeed can be So that they that are in the flesh cannot please God Wherefore man by no naturall power can improve the gifts of nature so as without speciall grace to
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉