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
contained are the Word of God or no Is it possible to dispute against that which is altogether concealed and acknowledge you not that I dispute against it 2 What great matter is it that you assert concerning the Scripture in saying You grant the matter and substance of the Scriptures to be the Word of God All this you may say and yet deny them the foundation of Christian ' Religion and the formall object of faith The Papists from whom you have stollen most of your following Arguments acknowledge as much and yet deny them the foundation of faith 3 You say you beleeve the matters of the Scriptures to be the Word of God but you tell me not why Nay you plainly deny that which indeed is the true ground of beleeving the matter of the Word of God namely the written Word You are not too old to learne from a Youngling take this therefore for a truth Upon what ground soever you beleeve the substance and matters contained in the Scriptures for the Word of God if that faith be not ultimately resolved into the written Word or the revelation of God in writing t is no divine faith 4. In this your penurious and scanty concession that the matters contained in the Scriptures are only the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1 19â— 20 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whituk de Auth. Scrip. lib. 1. cap. 10. sect 8. Neque tantum ratione dogmatum scriptura à Deo prodiit etsi edita scriptura est ut certa perpetua dogmatum ratio constaret sed tota scripturarum structura compositio divina est neque non modo dogma sed ne verbum in Scripturis ullum niss dâ—vinum est c. Yo. Eld. p. 5. you come far short of the Scripture which cals the Written Word of God the Scriptures or Word of God It telling us That all Scripture is of divine inspiration and that we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A more sure word of prophecy not in regard of the matters of it but in regard of its manner of manifestation by writing And holy men spake being moved of the holy Ghost Did the holy men speak what they were moved to speak and not also as they were moved Learned Whitaker tels you The Scriptures did not proceed from God tantum ratione dogmatum onely in regard of those divine truths contained in them but the whole structure and composure of the Scripture is also divine and the truths are not onely divine but there is not a word in them which is not divine To that ridiculous passage of yours in this first Exception pag. 27. Mr. Jenkins charge against me in denying the Scriptures to be the foundation of Christian Religion stands upon the credit or base of such an argumentation as this c. A wooden horse for unruly Souldiers is no living creature thereiore an horse simply is no living creature so The Scriptures in regard of the writing are not the foundation of Religion therefore in no sence are they such The answer is obvious my charging of you to deny the Scriptures to be the foundation c. is not grounded upon any argumentation of my framing but upon the result of your own arguments as your self have set it downe in the place quoted Div. Auth. p. 18. Questionlesse no writings whatsoever are the foundation of Christian Religion which base being laid the superstructure will be this the Scriptures taken in your sense are not the foundation of Christian Religion you being no way able to ground your faith upon any matters in the Scripture and your talking of a â—â—oden horse shewes you have of late been either among 〈◊〉 Souldiers or the wanton Children 6 Why use you these words in this your last exception p. 27 the Holy Ghost saith Genes 6.6 It repented the Lord c yea and God himselfe said thus to Samuel It repenteth me c. surely there is some mistery in it Your second exception against me is Yo. Eld. p. 28. that in as much as I can produce but one place wherein you seeme to deny the Scriptures to be of divine authority or the foundation of Religion whereas in twenty and ten places you say you clearly assert them for such I ought to regulate the sence of that one place by the constant tennor of the rest of the treatise 1 The whole designe of your wordy worke Answ called Div. Au. of Scrip. so farre as it handles this point was to justifie those passages in your Hagiomastix which deny the divine authority of Scripture in it therefore certainly may be found more than one place wherein you do more than seeme to deny the same Div. Auth. of the Scriptures p. 10. you say No translation whatsoever nor any either written or printed Copies whatsoever are the Word of God Div Auth. p. 12. They who have the greatest insight into the originall Languages yea who beleeve the Scripture to salvation cannot upon any sufficient ground beleeve any originall Copy whatsoever under heaven whether Hebrew or Greek to be the Word of God And Yo. Eld. p. 29. When I deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God I meane whatever is found in them or appertaining to them besides the matters gracious counsells conteyned in them c. And how can it be otherwise when the places and passages in Hagiom which you intend to justifie in Div. Auth. and Yo. Eld. are such as these In your Hagiom p. 35. Sect. 27. Taking the word Scriptures for all the bookes of the Old and New Testament divisim and conjunctim as they are now received and acknowledged among us which is the only sence the ordinance can beare they can finde no manifest Word of God whereunto this That the Scriptures are not the Word of God is contrary And Hagiom p. 37. Sect. 28. It is no foundation of Christian Religion to beleeve that the English Scriptures or that book or that volume of books called the Bible translated out of the originall Hebrew and Greek copies into the English Tongue are the Word of God c. 2 Instance in one place in all your writings wherein you say as unlimitedly and peremptorily that the Scriptures are the Word of God as you do here deny them and you may have some pretence for this charge Nay it is impossible for you to grant the Scriptures to be the Word of God and not to contradict your selfe you denying the written Word Your third exception is this you say Third exception Yo. Eld. p. 28. That though you do not beleeve that any originall exemplar or Copy of the Scriptures now extant among us is so purely the Word of God but that it may very possibly have a mixture of the word of man in it yet you assert them to containe the foundation of Religion i. e. Those gracious Counsells c. 1 Your granting that the holy
truths contained in the Scripture were the foundation of faith and not the written Word which contained those truths and now you grant that the written Word of God 1 Corinth 3.11 is the ground of your faith 3 If you meane as you speake the controversie is at an end the written word being acknowledged a foundation of faith and all those Sophismes instead of Arguments which afterward you bring concerne you to answer as well as my selfe In this exception 4 You revile me for charging you with weaknesse and wickednesse in your opposing Christ and his Word since you say Yo. Eld. p. 31 32. that a while since I opposed a foundation Personall to a foundation Scripturall and what is that say you but to oppose Christ and his Word as much as you oppose them And for the knowne distinction of essendi and cognoscendi which Master Jenkin wonders should be hid from me he is desired in his next to produce any Classique Author that ever used it but himselfe The complexion of it is as if it were of the lineage of Mr. Jenkins learning You can finde no shelter from any thing that ever dropt from my Pen for your opposing Christ and his Word Answ you oppose Christ and his Word I distinguish only between Christ and his Word now Accurate Logicians know the difference between oppositio and distinctio though old detards have forgot it Opposition implyes a pugnarerum distinction only a non idenditas so Keckerm cap. 5. Lib. 1. Syst Lo. Suminus voâ—em distinctionis cum omnibus eâ—uditis Philosophis oppositioni contradivisive prout nude opponitur identitati excludendo diversitatem You so oppose Christ and his Word as that because Christ is the foundation you deny the Scripture to be a foundation Sion Colledge visited p. 2.15 this is Pugna but I shew Bu. Bish p. 7 8. how they both agree though they be not one and the same foundation that Christ is the foundation upon which I build for salvation and the Scriptures the foundation upon which I ground the knowledge of this Saviour your saying therefore that because I distinguish thus between a foundation Personall and a foundation Scripturall I therefore oppose them as much as you who make the word of Christ a foundation inconsistent with Christ's being a foundation againe bewrayes your forgetfulnesse of your Logick for every opposition implyes necessarily a distinction but a distinction doth not imply an opposition And whereas with sufficient ignorance you desire me to tell you of any Classique Author that useth the distinction of essendi and cognoscendi I referre you for information to Keckerman Syst Theol. p. 133. where he saith Duplicia reperiuntur principia essendi cognoscendi sic etiam in Theologiâ See also Trelcatius jun. Instit Theol. L. 1. Duo sunt principia rei cognitionis illa ex quibus alia producuntur haec ex quibus aliorum pendet cognitio Wollebius also Comp. Theol. p. 2. Principium Theologiae essendi quidem Deus est Cognoscendi vero verbum Dei See also Altenstaig Lexicon Theolog. in Tit. Principium where there is mention of sundry learned men that use this distinction If the complexion of this distinction shewes that it is of the lineage of my learning certainly the ignorance of this distinction shewes the complexion of Master Goodwins learning To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of religion you now proceed to your arguments and in your entrance upon them you brag that you demonstrate Yo. El. p. 32. and you thunder out the shame and confusion of all those that have charged the error upon you though the issue will prove to your owne confusion I say not to your shame who I think are past it Your owne words are these That the Scriptures whether written or printed are not truly and properly the foundation of religion I demonstrate in the sâ—ght of the Sun to the shame and confusion of all those faces who have charged the Tenet upon me as an error O yes all men women and children stand forty foot off from the blinde Beare if not being bitten thanke your selves Bas Moral reg 26. cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 What do you call a Theologicall demonstration have you read the rule of Basil Whatever we say or doe ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the holy Scriptures for the establishing of the good and the confusion of the bad Have you done thus certainly the Scriptures have not given to you a weapon nor lent you a proofe to destroy themselves No Sir your demonstrations are either childish mistakes or Popish cavills not demonstrations of your position but of your folly and impiety Ad bonam solutionem non pertinet quod probet conclusionem sed quod defendat eam ab objectione contrariâ 2 To what purpose doe you bring any Arguments at all Are you not respondent Was it not your part to answer what was brought against your wicked Position but you are better you thinke at your sword than your shield though at neither good otherwise why have you passed over what was brought against you and instead thereof vainly endeavour to bring somewhat in opposition to your opponent 3 Doth it become an Accurate disputant to propose a question under so many ambiguities and explaine none what meane you by Scripture what by foundation what by religion what by true and proper are these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same importance why leave you things so confused and indigested Is it to make your opponent ashamed with your folly because you cannot with your arguments That we may not therefore fight blind-fold at which you are old excellent I shall desire the Reader to take notice that in this whole dispute when you deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of religion By Scriptures are understood all the books of the Old and New Testament Scriptures conjunctim divisim as they are now received and acknowledged among us conjunctim the compleat foundation divisim the partiall foundation and your selfe grant that thus your opponents take the Scriptures You acknowledge this to be the only sence that the ordinance against Heresies can reasonably meane Hag. Sect. 26 27. and so you take the word Scriptures p. 32. Yo. El. p. 32. Yo. Eld. where you labour to prove them not the foundation of religion Now whereas you assert that by the Scriptures we are not to understand any writing or the wtitten Word that reveales the truths of God but only the truths and matters themselves named I affirme that the Scriptures are to be taken concretivè both for matter and words both being inspired of the Holy Ghost Ames medâ—â—de ser In iis omnibus quae per supernaturalem revelationem innoâ—uâ—runt non solum res ipsas inspiravit Deus sed etiam singulâ— verba quibus scriberentur dictavit atque suggessit The holy Ghost suggesteth words as well as matter
saith Ames and the forme of the Scripture stands in the manifestation of the true Doctrine in words which came from the immediate revelation of the holy Ghost saith Gomarus Materia Scripturae circa quam est tota verae religiâ—nis doctrina ad salutem necessariae Ecclesiae forma Scripturae esi tâ—tius doctrina de verâ—â— religione ad sâ—lutem necessariae ex immeâ—â—â—â—â— revelatione spâ—â— sancti conceptis ipsius verbis significatio Gomar de scrip sâ—â—n Disp 2. Id. Ibid. ut verbum non scriptum sermonis signo enuntiatione sic contra verbum scriptum literarum notis descriptione â—â—n â—at and both matter and words are preserved by the providence of God so pure this day Foundation that they are still the foundation of Religion the matter the foundation which we must beleeve or the objectum materiale this you grant the writing by the appointment of God the foundation why we must beleeve or the objectum formale into which our faith must be last resolved and this you deny and I maintaine against your following cavils Religion it being the thing in question betweene us Whereas Religion may signifie either the matter of it viz. the things beleeved or the habit of it i. e. the beleeving of these things I assert that the Scriptures are the foundation of Religion not as Religion is considered in it self or in the matter of it but as it is in us True and proper and considered in the grace and habit of it Whereas you joyne together True and proper words of a vast difference 't is affirmed that the Scriptures are the true foundation though not the proper as Christ when he cals himself the vine the doore spake truly though figuratively and so not properly So that the question is not whether the foundation or fundamentals the great articles of faith be contained in the Scriptures this Master Goodwin acknowledgeth Divine Author pag. 17. repeated in your last book sect 37. Nor is the question whether ink and paper be the foundation a conceit so sencelesse that it would never have come into the head of any man but Master Goodwin and such as are left of God to blaspheme inke and paper being the externall matter of any writings whatsoever as well as the holy Scriptures But the question is whether Christian faith which believeth the truths of Christian Religion necessary to salvation be built upon the divine authority of the written Word in which God hath been pleased to reveale those truths This Master Goodwin denyeth in sundry passages in his Hagiomastix and in his Divine Authority of the Scripture This he disputes against in his Youngling Elder and in this sense he endeavours to answer what I bring in Busie Bishop Hagiom sect 28. he denyes it to be any foundation of Religion to beleeve that the English Scriptures or the books called the Bible are the Word of God Div. Auth. page 10 he denyes the English Scriptures and the Hebrew and greek Originals themselves to be the Word of God c. Yo. Eld. page 29. he saith When I deny the Scripture to be the foundation of Religion I meane by the Scriptures inke and paper And whatever else is found in them or appertaining to them besides the truths matter and gracious counsels concerning the salvation of the world which are contained in them c. In direct opposition to which detestable passage I assert that by Scriptures or foundation of faith we are not onely to understand the gracious counsels or their materia circa quam as Gomarus speaks the doctrines of salvation but their form also or the signification from God of these Doctrines in the written Word or in letters or writing And page 39. Yo. Eld. he disputes after his manner dotingly a weak hand best beseeming a wicked work against the written Word If it he impossible saith he to beleeve that the matter of the Scriptures is the Word of God if I be uncertaine whether the written Word be the Word of God or no how came the Patriarchs who lived in the first two thousand yeares of the world to beleeve it since it was uncertaine to them whether such a word should ever be written Here 's more opposed than ink paper viz. the written Word I shall now examine his arguments having briefly premised these following considerations for the further explaining of the question 1. The end of mans creation was to glorifie God and to save his owne soule 2. The right way of Gods Worship and mans salvation could not be found out by the light of nature but there was necessarily required a supernaturall revelation of this way 3. God was therefore pleased to manifest his own will concerning it 4. This he hath done from the foundation of the world diversly after divers manners 5. In the infancy of the Church and while it was contained in narrow bounds God manifested his will without the written Word by dreames visions audible voice c. 6. When the Church was further extended more increased and to be set as a City upon an hill and when impiety abounded in mens lives God commanded this his will formerly revealed to be set downe in writing 7. God did infallibly guide holy men whom he did chuse for his Amanuenses that they did not â—rre in the matter of his will or manner of expressing of it 8. He ordered that his will shâ—uld be written in such Languages as were best knowne and understâ—od in the Churches unto whom his truths were committed 9. He hath given a charge to his Churches to have recourse to these writings onely to be infornâ—ed what were the truths and matters of his will and to try and prove all doctrines by those writings 10. Therefore the onely instrument upon which the Church now can ground their knowledge and beliefe of the truths matters gracious counsels of God revealed for his owne glory and their salvation is the written Word or holy Scriptures These things thus premised I come to your arguments which you are pleased to honour with the name of Demonstrations To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion Arg. 1 Yo. El. pag. 32. your first argument is this If Religion was founded built c. before the Scriptures were then cannot the Scripture be the foundation of Religion but Religion was built and founded besoâ—e c. therefore Answ Eccius Euchiri Tit. 1. Bailius q. 1. Bellarâ—de verb. dei l. 4. c. 4. Should I tell you that your demonstration if demonstration if must be called is stollen out of Papists in their writings against Protestants it would by you be accounted but a slight charge brasse cannot blush For answer I deny your consequence Though Religion was built and stood firme before the Scriptures were it followes not that the Scriptures now are not the foundation of Christian Religion Though the Scriptures were not alway heretofore the foundation of Religion it followes not but that
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.
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
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
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
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
knowledge of God and of his will not able to receive the things of the Spirit of God according to the Apostle The naturall man c. I add the same kind of men are spoken of by Iude The Aposile vers 19. he joyning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seperatists sensuall or naturall not having the Spirit together So James joynes naturall and devillish together the 3. cap. 15. ver The wisdome that is not from above is sensitall or naturall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and devillish so that the naturall man 1 Cor. 2.14 is unregenerate 2. You say That by naturall man is meant a weake beleever because by naturall here and carnall cap. 3.1.3 are meant the same men Now by carnall there is meant the weak beleever Answ It s evident that the carnall man spoken of cap. 3.1 and the naturall man spoken of in cap. 2.14 are not the same That carnall man was a babe in Christ and therefore he was such an one as had the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him Rom 8.9 This naturall man was such an one as bad not received the Spirit ver 12.14 3. You endeavour to prove that by carnall man cap. 3.1 and by naturall man c. 2.15 are meant the same Because the same kinde of persons whom he cals spirituall is oppused both the naturall man c. 2.15 and to the carnall c. 3.1 Answ Away with this trifling a man may be opposed to a beast and a childe therefore a beast and a childe are the same dicite Jo. Paean cop 2.15 the spirituall and naturall man differ statu as a man that hath the spirit from him that hath it not but c. 3.1 the spirituall man and the carnall differ onely gradu in degree and measure of participation of the same spirit as you your self assert 4. You say That the Apostle doth not speake simply or in generall of the things of God nor particularly of things simply necessary to be beleeved to salvation but onely of the deep things of God which things v. 6. he had called wisdome Answ The contrary is evident by the context that the Apostle speakes generally of the things of the Gospell Christ crucified c. 1.24 made to us of God wisdome c. c. 1.30 c. of the wisdome of God c. 2.7 as opposed to the wisdome of this world v. 6. the manifold wisdome of God made known by the Church Ep. 3.10 All the Gospell is a great mystery 1 Tim. 3.16 A mystery kept secret Rom. 16.25 Into which the Angels desire to looke 1 P. 1.12 Though in this mystery there be greater and lesser deeps yet all are deeps so deep as that none of the princes of this world did know them by the spirit we coming to know the things that are given us by God Chrysost 1 Cor. 2.8 Chrys in Loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perfectos vocâ—t non qui asiquuti sunt plenam sapiâ—ntraâ— sed qui sano sunt in corrupto jud cio Caiv. in Loc. by the wisdome you speake of which the Apostle preacht to those that were perfect understands it of the preaching of life and salvation by the death of Christ and by the perfect ones beleevers c. And Calvin upon the place saith That by perfect ones the Apostle understands not those that had atteyned to high degree of knowledge but those that were of a sound judgement 5. You say That man meerly naturall may be uncapable of these and yet be apprehensive of such of the things of God the knowledge whereof is of absolute necessity to salvation as Generally of the duties commanded in the Morall Law of the eternall power and Godhead manifested in the creation c. Answ The things of the Law or of the eternall power and Godhead are not the things of which the Apostle is speaking or which you and I are disputing of The things we are now speaking of are the things freely given us to our glory for those other which you say naturall men are apprehensive of duties of the Morall Law which are absolutely necessary to salvation c. if you say they are absolutely necessary to salvation I yeeld it as sine quibus non est saluâ— but not as Cum quibus est salus by the way let the Reader but consider this arch-argumentator who from this his exposition That weak Christians are not capable of the deep things of God undertakes to prove that the naturall man may understand those things which are necessary to salvation In your 94. Pag. 88. Se. 94. Section you say That power which the Apostle here denyes to his naturall man of knowing the things of God may well may of necessity must be understood onely of an immediate actuall or present capacity of power so that his meaning may be carely this The naturall man while he continues meerly such hath no principle or power actually and de praesenti to know savingly the things of the Spirit of God but this proveth not but that a naturall man may have such principles even for the present which by a regular improvement and such whereof by the never denyed assistance of Grd at first he is very capable may advance and rise through the ordinary blessing of God in such cases into such a capacity or power as is contended for a youth of twelve yeares of age cannot construe a Chapter in the Hebrew Bible he hath no immediate actuall power yet such a power he hath by the improvement whereof he will according to the ordinary course of Gods providence be able to do it c. Answ Why do you so flagg and faulter in giving us the meaning of the Apostles saying This power may well be understood c. the meaning may onely be this c. Did your heart misgive you take heed uncertainty I feare is your punishment though you pretend confidence 2. That the naturall man hath no power to know savingly the things of the Spirit of God I acknowledge for an undeniable truth 3. When you say Neverthelesse this proveth not but such a man may have such principles by a regular improvement c. I told you before of your foggy conceptus you might have spoken your self a Pelagian as plainly as now you do with half these words 1. These principles you speake of by the improvement whereof he may rise to the power contended for I suppose are those which you mention Divine Auth. pag. 200. reason judgement understanding memory c. if you meane not these let me heare 2. By the never denyed affistance of God whereby a man is capable of improvement c. at first If you meane not a generall concourse of God afforded and given to every man as a man and as created of God according to that passage Yo. Eld. p. 11. Where you told us because nature is not given away from God whatever is ascribed unto nature is no derogating from the grace of God cleare your selfe 3. By advancing into such
this very purpose did he expresse himself And I have heard sundry of the Independent judgement speake of this and his other opinions propagated in the alley against grace with the height of abhorrence and with much professed detestation And the truth is Master Goodwin in his pretended joyning with the conscientious Independent is lookt upon by the piously prudent but as a scabthat cleaveth to the body He speakes of clean birds that forsake you A double mistake I know but of one that hath forsaken you and I wish he were not Master Goodwin in stead of a cleane bird an unclean heast He thus goeth on raving pag. 5. There 's an old saw which cuts well Non audet stygius Pluto tentare quod audet Effranis flamen Which he thus englisheth The Prince himself of the black stygian lake Dares not attempt what Priests will undertake In cutting with this saw he turned the teeth of it the wrong way I mean from himself toward you otherwise it wouldhave cut better and quicker thus The sins which stygian Pluto dreads The Priest of Errour-alley spreads But let him turn the teeth of the saw his owne way 't is no disgrace for you to be taxed with deeds which Satan dares not attempt and such are those which I mentioned even now to be the deeds of Sion Colledge nor is it any honour for him to be in harmony with hell and to conspire in the same performances with Satan He saith his saw cuts well but whom may he thank he knowes who it was that did both file the teeth of it and helpt him to handle it viz. the prince of styx in Satans saw pit school'd he was In another place drunk with rage he thus goeth on Youngl Elder pag. 16. Impiety and opposition to the truth hang upon Sion Colledge and if Sion Colledge were removed impiety and opposition to the truth would soone fall to the ground What Si. Col. a prop of all impieties could more be said for the removall of any stewes or stie of fin 'T is true there 's much impiety opposition to the truth in the Kingdom but Mr Goodwin suppose impiety and opposition to the truth be Independent how can they then hang on Sion Colledge And were that poore Colledge so loaded with impiety c. a removall of it might be spared for it would of it self certainly and suddenly fall to the ground For his intimation of a removall of Sion Colledge 't is but a cast of his Episcopall office Not long since he visiâ—ed Sion Colledge even now he excommunicated it and now he sues out his Writ de excommunicato capiendo absolving those from finne that shall remove it nay he makes it a most meritorious employment even the taking away of all impiety and opposition to the truth Mean while let him take heed lest he be translated from his Bishoprick and removed to his own place Ar. 1.25 before Sion Colledge be removed out of its place And truly could all his impious errours that so much oppose the truth be removed with him his miserably mis-led flock wouldhave a happy change if his endeavours that they may have his spirit among them when he is gone have not been too effectuall and his head be not their directory then as it is their rubrick now He now foams for madnesse For all the successe Youngl Elder pag. 25. either in converting of soules unlesse it be from God unto Satan and so for building up of soules unlesse it hath been in wrath against the Parliament Army and faithfull servants of God which the Ministers have had for these three or foure yeeres last past I am full of rationall confidence that it may be cast up with a cypher and measured with a reed that never grew In one thing you may observe Master Goodwins modesty he only saith That for these three or foure yeeres you have converted none but I have spoken with some very gracious Christians who have been exact observers of Master Goodwins Ministry and they told me That they never heard or perceived that ever God blessed it with the turning of any one sinner toward God How many he hath turn'd from God it s not so easie to determine as 't is to sear But the totall insuccessefulnesse of your Ministry in the conversion of none is such a putid calumny that even the sectaries read it with blushing and when they are told of it they turne their heads another way and pretend 't is for conveniency of spitting It may be your grief you are successefull in converting no more your comfort you are successefull in converting some your confidence that he is a soul perverter or at least that the way to convert men is not to teach that men can convert themselves His trouble it is that any are converted by you from his errours But if he thinkes that there is no conversion of soules in our Churches what will he and his Collegues do for new recruits their trade of Sheep-stealing will quite decay for I have heard that sundry of themselves do not so much as pretend to preach for conversion of soules As for my selfe I see no other import or tendency as he cants it in this his foolish pamphlet but onely by reviling to vilifie me though I can blessed be God say with Joseph God hath meant it unto good for me yea unto a good contrary to the evill of reproaching and therefore more than one hundred times doth he in this his rayling pasquill expresse himselfe against me in such termes as these Youngling novice boy childe youth young springlius young glorioso young ignaro young Phaeton vaine young man unworthy young man young Jenkins young simplicius childling young Pragmatico shamelesse young man young Dictator young Metropolitan young Thraso green-head young peece of presumption Prelaticall peece of Presbytery unhallowed peece of Presbytery swelling peece of vanity san of shame and folly illiterate soule poore man silly brain mancipium of illiteratenesse friend William Batte mi fili as if with his religion and reason he had also abjured good manners And he plainly tels his Reader that his aime in writing his booke was thus To make me know my selfe though a gracious heart would have put him upon writing to have made the people know the truth Touching his reproaches for my want of yeers I could say That I was ordained Presbyter about ten yeares before Mr. Goodwin commenced Independent That I learned those rudiments of Logick above 20. yeares ago in the University of Cambridge which Master Goodwin is now defective in either by never learning them or forgetting them as is cleere by sundry passages in his Booke which I have mentioned in this That if I be so young I am in part excused for my illiteratenesse my times it seems having been short as well as my attainments That I grant Mr. Goodwins book speaks him old particularly that passage of his p. 2. To. Eld. where he speaks
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
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
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
cannot stand together this indeed I say that a morall influence is of it selfe insufficient but not with an efficatious influence inconsistent That a meere morall influence is operative onely metaphoricâ—s per modum objecti and gives no power to the faculty upon which it workes but serves onely to excite and draw into act the innate power and that the soule of man destitute of power to supernaturals cannot be wrought upon in such an objective way of morall perswasion 3. You say That if by physicall influence Master Jenkin understandeth any ether kinde of workâ—ng upon the will by God than by the mediation of the Word or than that which is proper to be wrought by such an instrument as this c. I deny any other physicall influence upon the will 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 by force violence and compulsion c. Answ Your answers here are inconsistent 1. with themselves and 2. with truth First you deny any worke of God upon the will save by the mediation of the Word and yet instantly you say Yo. Eld. p. 62. You allow an outward excitation of the soule or opening of the heart by the spirit a gracious and immediate supporting of the will in the act of consenting c. I would faine know how these two can stand together 2. You deny That God workes any thing upon the will which is not proper for the Word to worke or that any thing can be wrought upon the will except by perswasion or by argument c. If you had attended the state of the question you would have spared much of this twatling the question is by what influence of grace the naturall mans will is set right in actu primo hath a principle of new life infused into it and not by what it is made actually to beleeve in actu secundo the former is done by the immediate and almighly power of the grace of God Homines tentum sunt habitualis conversionis orâ—â—sio amecedens condit oâ—quod praedicato evangediâ— resipiscentâ—â— fidei deus spirâ—â—u regenerante virtutem fidei resipiscentiae â—nimis electorum indat ut habiles sinâ— ad parâ—dun Evangelium actualis verò conversionis sum causa instrumentalis Gom. p. 154. the other by the same power working in the word You must not assert that the causa objectiva or moralis doth create the faculty but suppose it For your further information herein I refer you to that excellent Tractate of Gornarus de gratia conversionis particularly to pag. 154. To. 1. at whose feet you may fit to reape the blessing of his head as you speak but fit not as an instructor any more but as a novice not as a teacher but as teachable 4. You tell me in this section frequently that you understand not well it passeth your understanding c. to conceive how the will should be acted into consent c. how men be begotten by the Word c. The miste ies of faith are not to be measured by the strength of your understanding will you beleeve nothing but what you can conceive why do you not turne a professed Socinian 5. You tell me in this Section that God opens the heart immediately supporteth the will in the act of consenting suffers nothing to intervene to prevent consent You would faine seem to say something but hoc aliquid nihilest what meane you by supporting of the will Doth not God as immediately support the will when it consents to evill as in the act of consenting to good and though he prevents externall tentations yet leaves he not the will it self in â—quilibria to consent or not to consent Is it enough to deliver from externall tentation unlesse also from our owne internall corruption What meane you by opening the bea rt is it not so done by the Word that it passeth as you say your understanding how the will should any other way be wrought into a consent meane you not as your Pelagius who in a fit of zeale spake for the working of grace just as you do Aug. de gra Chr cap. 7. Adjâ—vat no Deus per doctrinam revelarionem suam dam cordis nostri oculos aperit duâ—n nobis ne praesentibus occupemur futura demonstrat dum diaboli pandit infidiat c. Nunquam isti inimici gratiae ad eandem gratiam vehememius oppugnan lem occultiores mol untur insidias quà m ubi legem laudant adjuvat nos Deus per doctrinam revelatimâ—m c. God assisteth us by doctrine and revelation when he opens the eyes of our mindes when he shewes us things to come lest we should be intangled in things present when he discâ—vers the snares of Satan Concerning which and the like passages Augustine saith That the enemies of grace the Pelagians did never more subtilly oppose grace than when they most pâ—aised the Word in which respect In Con. mileu Can. 4. was that anathemâ— denounced * Conc. Mil. c. 4. Quisquis di erit gratiam dei propter hoc tantum nos adjuvare ad non peccandion quia per ipsam revelaiuâ— aperitur intelligentia man latoâ—um ut sciamut c. non autem per illam nobis praestari ut quod saciendum cognoverimu agere valeamus anathema sit Quisquis dixerit c. whosoever shall say That the grace of God serves to help ut against sinne onely because by that we know and understand the commandment and not also because by that grace power is bestawed upon us to do what we know let him be accursed Yo. Eld. p. 63 Lastly you say in this Section That you do not well understand what I meane by my physicall insiuence of grace upon the will Answ Where have you lived all your time have you grown grey in promoâ—ing Arminianism and yet never heard of the physicall influence go to Ames Triglandius Rivet c. and you shall be informed what it is I acknowledge it with these and sundry other reformed Divines to be that gracious and reall working of the Spirit of God by which a principle of divine life is put into the soule of the naturall man that was dead in sins and trespasses by which he is quickned and raised from the death of sinne and of naturall is made spirituall and savingly to understand and will spirituall things You acknowledge Sect. 69. that I propounded foure quaeries Yo. Eld. p. 63 Sect. 72. but now in this your 72 Section you having thus ridiculously as is seene gone over my two former quaerees muddily jumble together my two last though not without this designe of a more convenient hiding your opinion from the Reader My third quaere was this Whether grace be an adjutory uncertaine and resistible or whether grace be an invincible infallible determinating adjutory to the will 1. In this
thou shouldst reject and desirous that thou wouldst remit whatever thou findest of man but shall also ever remaine thankfull to God and Reader From my Study at Christ-Church London Nov. 23. 1648. A friend to thy-Soule William Jenkyn THE Blinde-Guide GUIDED Chap. 1. Directed more particularly to the reverend and learned subscribers of the late testimony to the truth with-in the Province of London Shewing the senselesse raylings the grosse untruths the shamelesse boastings expressed by Master Goodwin in his Pasquill called The youngling Elder With a recitall of sundry weake and erroneous passages contained therein THe reproached in Mr. Goodwins Pamphlets have more need to be humble under their glory than to be patient under their disgrace no scriblings are so scurrilous and no scurrilities are so honourable as are those which drop from his pen. 'T is rare to meet with that Christian who doth not more than conjecture that there is much worth in every thing against which he expresseth much wrath His Antagonists never could do him good with their willâ— but he hath ever done them good against his will By writing against his errours they could never make him better but be hath ever by rayling against the truth and them made both to be better beloved I suppose Master Goodwin rather noteth than liketh that abundant estimation which your testimony findeth with the faithfull The stones that this Shimeâ— hath cast against it God hath turned into pearses and made of them a Crown of honour for it Your testimony opposed errour and God hath made it to vanquish infamy He who directed you to make it usefull hath himself made it accepted God hath caused your testimony like the sun to rise on the evill and on the good and rather than it should not refresh them that did desire it to diffuse its beams on them that did not deserve it It hath shined upon the unsavoury dunghill as well as the pleasant garden the close and noysome alley as well as the sweet and open Country No wonder then if its successe have been as various as its objects When its welcome warmth visited the Countries Warwickshire Essex Norfolk Devonshire Yorkshire Northamptonshire Lancashire Wiltshire Somersetshire how sweetly fragrant was the savour which instantly they breathed forth Who hath not gratefully resented the pleasant odours of zeale and learning scattered through the Kingdome by the Ministers of sundry Counties in the many attestations to and approbations of your testimony Some of us have seene the letters of the learned Spanhemius highly approving of it as an eminent expression of your faithfulnesse to Christ and his truth A Declaration and exhortation pag. 34. The many testimonies which the truth and cause of Christ the Covenant and Presbyteâ—iall Government have lately received from that cloud of witnesses of the Ministry in leverall Counties of England after the example of the worthy Ministry of the City of London against the errours of Independency Anabaptisme c. are unto us matter of great praise and hearty thanksgiving And who observeth not the frequent and respectfull mention that the famous and faithfull Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland maketh of your testimony in their Declarations of most publique concernment These indeed were the breathings of the more sweet and open places when warmed with the zeale of your witnessing to the truth But who can expect the like from the unsavoury dunghill or the noysom alley though joyntly enjoying the same bounty from the beams of your testimony with the other Those stinking exhalations those muddy streames I meane the suming and foolish pamphlets arising against your testimony out of that alley of errours where Master Goodwin lodgeth whose composition is mud and blood are a supersufficient testimony of the contrary In his other impure pamphlets he outgoeth all his complices in wickednesse But in his two last wherein God did leave him to oppose Christ in your testimony he hath even out-gone himselfe I know not one in the world left him to contend with for mastery in the black arts of lying and reviling unlesse it be his stygian teather In which respect as his tearmes of youngling and novice are notes of no disgrace to me so neither is his hoary and hereticall head found in those wayes of unrighteousnesse an ensigne of over-abundant honour to him 'T is true his expertnesse in lying speakes him Captain of the Cretian Band and his skilfulnesse in reviling a Doctor fit for the ducking-stoole though not for the chaire hut these preferments rather deserve pitty than provoke envy As ambitious to give the world a view of his maturity in the forecited sins he addresseth himself against the reverend subscribers of the late testimony in multitudes of passages after such an odiously false and reproachfull manner as thousands of moralliz'd heathens in the world would blush if but desired to do the like A handfull in stead of a vast heap which might be given are these which follow To this effect he breathes out reproaches Master Jenkin his reverend and beloved brethren Epistle to the Reader p. 4 5. are these fals-fingered men these opprobria propudia generis humani The shames and blots of man-kinde the vilest of men Their cage is defiled cleane birds forsake them and it stands all of this nation in hand whom either the interest of honour or conscience toucheth speedily to quit communion with them In his former pamphlet Syon Colledge was visited in this latter 't is excommunicated in neither 't is prejudiced In casting upon you the names of blots and spots of mankinde he is but your scullion to make your integrity shine the brighter by all these reproachfull smutchings and as he willingly detracts from your reputation so he unwillingly adds to your reward What he relates of the foule and forsaken cage clearely shewes that he accounts meetings for prayer preaching purity of reformation alms to the poore reliefe to the aged and for increase of brotherly love to be the foule defilements of a place of which the Ministers having been guilty in their meetings at Sion Colledge he knoweth that in stead of shunning communion with you the faithfull with a holy scorn neglect his excommunioating of you The truth is most of those whom he accounts to be of his own party forsake and abhominate him if they have any thing of God in them onely they being I fear under the tentation of carnall policy have not as yet fully declared against him for which the Lord pardon them Master Bridg lately of Holland whose judgement in this particular I shall not mention without respect said but a little while since among sundry Ministers of my intimate acquaintance That some brethren of them were resolved to repaire to Master Goodwin by way of advising him to desist from maintaining his erroneous opinions touching the Scriptures and if he refused so to do they resolved he said to quit communion with him with these or with words to