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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉