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
Propositions Doth it not cease upon the change of the subject Jesus Christ is to come in the flesh was once a true proposition and the object of the faith of those that lived before Christ his Incarnation but is it so still and is not veritas ethica or the agreement of the judgement or minde with the proposition changeable likewise upon the same ground To your minor whereas you alledge the changeablenesse of all Bibles in the contents of them what meane you by contents meane you inke papers letters c. such changes either pervert the sence and so farre as the Scriptures are thus chang'd they cease to be the written Word or they pervert it not Waleus T. 1. p. 129. Scriptura substantiâ— non potest corrumpi and if any such changes be they nothing hinder the written Word from being the foundation of faith Sphalmata Typographica Typographicall faults makeerrours in Orthography none in Divinity Your last demonstration Arg. 3 Yo. Eld. p. 36. If the Scripture be the true foundation of Religion it must be understood either of the Scriptures as in the originall Languages only or only as translated into other Languages or as both but the Scriptures neither in the originall Languages nor as translated nor as both are the foundations Ergo I deny your minor and assert the Scriptures as in the originals Answ and also as translated so farre as agreeing with the originals are the foundation 1. How prove you that the Scriptures in the originalls are not the foundation of religion thus If the Scriptures be the foundation as they are in the originall Bibles then they say you that understand not these Languages as illiterate men cannot build upon this foundation for your unworthy scoffe of the danger of my Religion you representing me as one that understands not the originals you may please to know that I am not ignorant of all originals for either concerning your scoffing or your unmannerly jeering Mr. T. G. said lately that you had it from your Father cheap enough it seemes but to the point This cavill is borrowed of your old Masters whom in this point you follow already answered by Anth. Wotton Pop. Artic. Ar. 3 p. 20. and by Baronius against Turnbul de objecto formali fid p. 44. but I answer Illiterate or unlearned men who cannot understand originals Answ nor yet can read translations doe build neverthelesse their saith upon the Scriptures contained in them though mediatly virtually and not with that distinctnesse which one learned doth the unlearned knowing not particularly in what words the minde of God was revealed though you call me a Novice yet let me teach you if at least so plaine a lesson hath not hitherto been learned by you that unto faith there is required Principium quod or the foundation to be beleeved Principium propter quod or the reason why men beleeve the former and media per quae those necessary meanes by which they come to beleeve and these are externall the ministery of the Word and internall the witnesse and effectuall working of the holy Ghost by which the heart is enabled to close with the formall object of faith viz. the revelation of Gods will in writing Now the Ministry of the Word and Spirit are limited to the written Word these teach no other things than God hath revealed therein and perswade not men but God as the Apostle saith Gal. 1.10 so that these lead the most illiterate to the Scriptures and are so administred that they draw the heart even of such to assent to the written Word as that into which their faith is ultimately resolved as the Scriptures abundantly testifie and you can no more conclude from the strangenesse of the originall Languages to those that are illiterate that illiterate persons doe not build their faith upon the written Word contained in them than that one who only understands the English tongue and receives a Letter from his Father in the French tongue for the explaining whereof the Father hath appointed an Interpreter builds not his obedience ultimately upon the writing of his Father though in a strange tongue 2. You endeavour to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion as in Translations and Originalls thus If they be this foundation in both those considerations or as well in the one or the other then two things or more specifically differing one from another may notwithstanding be one and the same numeriall thing You should rather have laid your consequence thus Answ then 〈◊〉 subject numerically the same may be the subject of accidents specifically different but you tell me of two suppositions upon which your consequence stands 1. That the foundation of Religion is but one and the same numerically 2. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically among themselues About the identy of the foundation numerically I shall not contend but how prove you your second supposition viz. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically you indeavour it thus Two things you say which differ more than numerically differ specifically Now an Hebrew and a Spanish Bible differ more than numerically because they differ more than two Spanish or two Hebrew Bibles differ from one another and yet these differ numerically the one from the other 1. Had the Youngling Elder disputed thus how many exclamations of poore man illiterate soule silly man c. would your tender heart have bestowed upon him but I shall not retaliate for the Reader if intelligent I am confident will spare me a labour Things you say that differ plusquam numero do differ specie Should a fresh-man hear you reason thus Mas faemina differunt plusquam numero ergo differunt specie or a learned man and an ideot differunt plusquam numero ergo differunt specie they would laugh at your argument the very boyes would judge you a professor fitter for an alley than an Academye Do not you grant that these differ specie accidentali onely and will you conclude that therefore they differ specifically 2. You say That though the difference betweene an Hebrew Bible and a Spanish is but in specie accidentali or specificall accidentall yet such a difference as this is sufficient to prove that they differ numerically You give in already and shew your self but a founder'd disputant for what is this to your undertaking which was to prove your second supposition viz. That they do differ specifically and not numerically onely which was nothing to the second supposition page 37. 3. You contend that a Spanish Bible a Latine and an English differ in specie accidentali or with a difference specifical accidentall in regard of the specifically different Languages wherein they were written Ergo quid how by all this prove you your assertion which was that the scriptures in their severall Languages do differ specifically nay how prove you by the specifical accidental dâ—fference of the Bibles that the Scripture or the
This is your detestable Doctrine Reader are there not two who hold that man of himselfe can be able to beleeve In this section you endeavour with wofull weaknesse to draw the forecited place of Master Ball to concurre with this your opinion Thus Master Ball saith No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the command Hence you infer Certainly a man hath power to do that from the dâ—ing whereof he is not hindered by any difficulty relating to the performance of it If the command of God wherein he commands men to beleeve hath no such difficulty in it whereby they are hindered from obeying itâ— have not men power to obey it and consequently to beleeve What dotard besides J. G. would have made such an inference Answ Master Ball removes difficulty and unreasonablenesse from the Command Master Goodwin simply all difficulty relating to the performance Master Ball saith No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty of the Command Therefore saith Master Goodwin men have power to obey it But friend be mercifull to the sepulchre of a Saint now in heaven How little did this blessed man thinke when he was on earth that ever Popery and Arminianisme should have found a prop in his writings after his discease Popery I say for might you not as well have argued from Master Balls words that men want no power to keep the whole Law for is it from the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the Law that men performe not the Law or from the weaknesse and corruption of their nature pray passe not sentence upon Mr. Bell before you heare what he can say for himselfe p. 245. Cout of Gr. he saith Impossible in it selfe or in respect of the unreasonablenesse of the thing commanded is not the object of Gods Commandment but an impossible thing to us may be and is the object of Gods Commandment should I request Mr. Goodwin to construe a chapter in the Hebrew Bible he would not be hindered from doing it by any difficulty in the thing which I request of him but if he understands not the Hebrew Tongue he would be hindered through his owne unskilfulnesse if there be no impossibility on the part of the command yet if there be an impossibility on the part of the commanded there will be a falling short of performance 4 You adde besides when Mr. Ball saith A man doth not beleeve because he will not he doth not resolve his unbeleefe into any deficiency of power in him to will or to make himselfe willing as Mr. Jenkin would imply but into his will it selfe into the actuall and present frowardnesse and indisposition of his will therefore what why therefore according to the Glosse of Master Goodwin Mr. Ball asserts a man hath power to beleeve Answ If impudence in an old man be a vertue you are vertuous you shamefully abuse Mr. Ball for he resolves not mans unbeliefe into a present and actuall wilfulnesse or frowardnesse of his will as if the will had a strength and power to beleeve but being in a fit of peevishnesse would not put forth that power or make use of that strength though it could doe so if it pleased but he resolves mans unbeliefe into a frowardnesse not actuall and present but habituall and rooted awd setled such a frowardnesse and oppositenesse to the things of God as that he cannot but be froward and opposite till the Lord makes him to consent habituall frowardnes in mans will being the root of the wils impotency and that this holy man resolves unbeliefe into this habituall frowardnesse is cleare from the scope of this place which is to prove that God is just in requiring faith though he gives not sufficient grace to men to beleeve if they will and from the constant consent of other passages in this and his other books Tract of faith pag. 11. Heare what he saith concerning the production of faith God saith he doth infuse or poure the habit of faith into man whereby he giveth to will to come to Christ this is requisite to faith for as a dead man can doe no act of life untill a living soule be breathed into him c. no more can man dead in trespasses and sins move himselfe to receive the promises of grace untill the free and gracious habit of faith be infused We cannot will to beleeve unlesse God give that will the power to beleeve and will to use that power is of God It is God only and altogether that inableth stirreth up and inclineth the heart to beleeve pag. 12. If God have not left you to a most obstinate obduration of heart you will in your next acknowledge how you have abused Mr. Ball in your saying that he doth resolve mans unbeleefe only into present actuall frowardnesse or a fit of peevishnesse You give us a fifty ninth Section thus just such worke as he makes in interpreting Mr. Balls words to manife st their non-concurrence with me he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 59. the fathers Austine Hierome In this Section you plainly yeeld me Answ Bucer Austine and Hierome acknowledging that I have proved their non-concurrence with you as I have proved the non-concurrence of Mr. Ball with you if you desire the Reader should beleeve that Bucer and the Fathers are still on your side notwithstanding all that I have said to the contrary why give you not so much as one word by way of taking off my exceptions to your allegations out of them which exceptions were largely set downe in my Busie Bishop p. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 c. but all that I say in all these pages in proving the impertinency of your quotations out of the fore-cited Authors you blow away with this learned answer just such worke as he makes in manifesting the non-concurrence of Mr. Ball with me he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer and the Fathers moll strenuously and disputant-like illustrating if not endeavouring to prove this your answer from the example of Josuah quoted in chapter and verse in your margin who as he had done to Hebron and Libnah and to her King so he did to Debir and her King and I promise you a good proofe too as proofes goe now a dayes in the alley But what is become of your friend Testard your chiefe witnesse whom also you alledged as concurring with you whose Doctrine you impudently said was asserted for orthodox by a province of Ministers in France and was the receaved Doctrine of the reformed Churches in France It had been ingenuity in this Reply to have asked pardon of that Province which in your last you so unworthily slandered In your sixtieth Section I reade thus Yon. Eld. Sect. 60. Whereas he quotes severall sentences out of Mr. Ball Bucer Austine c. of a contrary
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Blinde Guide or the Doting Doctor Composed by way of Reply to a late tediously trifling Pamphlet Entituled The Youngling Elder c. written by John Goodwin and containing little or nothing in it but what plainly speaketh the Author thereof to lie under the double unhappinesse of Seducers To be Deceiving And Deceived This reply indifferently serving for the future direction of the Seducer himselfe and also of those his mis-led followers who with him are turned enemies to the Word and grace of God The authority of which Word and the efficacie of which grace are in this following Treatise succinctly yet satisfactorily vindicated from the deplorably weake and erroneous Cavills of the said John Goodwin in his late Pamphlet By William Jenkyn Minister of the Word of God at Christ-Church in LONDON 2 Tim. 3.13 Evill men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived Prov. 14.16 The foole rageth and is confident Jude 13. Raging waves of the sea foming out their owne shame Nissen de Trinitat p. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cal. Ep. 354. Contra Mennonem Hoc sane video nihil hoc asino posse fingi superbius Printed at London by M. B. for Christopher Meridith and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard To the Christian READER READER WEre not my desire to serve thy Soul greater than my hope to recover my Adversary and were I not more apprehensive of the greatnesse of thy danger than the goodnesse of his disposition I should not spend my precious houres in a second engagement against his Errours my contention is greater that thou shouldest not fall to be like him than that he should rise to be unlike himselfe He who wrote his last Pamphlet only to represent me unworthy to contend with him will hardly write his next to confesse that truth by me hath conquered him It 's not consistent with his honour who in his last boasted that he had laid the attempts of all his adversaries in the dust Ep. to the Reader To. Eld. p. 3. and that Presbytery lay bleeding at the feet of his Writings in his next to lay himselfe in the dust and to acknowledge that his Heresies lye bleeding at the foot of a Yongling so that should he be convinced of the duty as possibly he may he would be afraid of the shame of a recantation It s more his sin than my unhappinesse though both that by confuting his errours I occasion him still to vent them but never did I meet with wretched opinions so wrathfully asserted and so weakly maintained His Writings have more of Tongue than matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nissen de Tri. and yet more of Teeth than either with the weapon of the Tooth like the Hereticks of old he conquers even after he is overcome with Arguments Certainly while Master Goodwin wrote his late Booke he was under a quotidian fit of Frenzie and all that time was an interregnum of his reason his Pen being onely dipt in passion His Pamphlet consists of such unmanlike scoldings that he hath rendred himselfe the shame of his Party and the scorne of his Opposites the only product of his reproaches being a confirmation of the report of his being badly nurtur'd formerly and worse natur'd still Vnhappy man who stumbleth in the darke and stormeth against the light and who alwaies endureth that least which he wanteth most The weaknesse of Flatterers hath so abus'd him into love of himselfe and the strength of interest into the love of Errour that he cannot abide either plaine-dealing or sound doctrine The palpable weaknesse of his late performance in his Youngl Eld. Ep. to Reader P. ult extorted from him this acknowledgement that he wrote not his Booke to refute me and had not his Lordship silenced his Conscience it would have added but to revile me Yo. Eld. p. 1. I confesse he words it more gently telling me that the taske to which he was confin'd in his Writing was to shew me more of my selfe nothing of him selfe and in pursuance of this mercifull designe he puts his whole Booke under a quaternion of topicks 1. My defect of Conscience 2. Of Clerkship 3. Of apprehension 4. Of ingenuity forgetting in the meane time one little defect which runs through the veines of all his foure parts viz. while he so rudely handles my name scarce to touch the matter of my Booke unto which foure defects he reduceth whatsoever malice or falshood can invent against me though the prosecution of them all be a continued transgression of the Lawes of Art and honesty nay not only of method but even at once of common modesty so that I know not in this world the thins that are so contemptible as Master Goodwins scurrilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil De ira for my part I much more regard that excellent advice of Basil Neither be proud of thy praises nor impatient at thy reproaches when neither are due unto thee I confesse I delight not to see him in those distempers for which I pitty him I never intended to drive him into a Frenzie and yet neither am I willing that he should drive me into a Palsie idle silence is a sinne as well as idle speaking his Contumelies can be no plea for my Cowardise where sinne is impudent reproofe must not be bashfull If errours seeke no corners should truth doe so How happy were we if we could leave all our stings in the sides of Errour and Prophanesse if in their blood all our hatreds might be dround I have ever thought that peace with that with which we should contend is the grand cause of contention with them with whom we should be at peace It s just that they who will not knwon Errour so as to hate it should not know Truth so as to find it How incongruous is it to shun that man upon whom as thou thinkest thou espyest a Wart and to take him into thy bosome upon whom thou knowest there is a Plague-sore Errours in Discipline doe but scratch the face of Religion these in Doctrine stab it to the heart To. Eld. p. 20. p. 47. p. 66 When the whole written Word is at once struck off from being the ground of faith and whatever is in and about the Scriptures denyed to be the foundation of Religion unlesse the Counsels contained in them When it shall be asserted that naturall men want no power of making themselves able to beleeve and that notwithstanding all the power of converting grace there 's a liberty in the will to defeat and frustrate conversion In a word when Sectaries strike at the faith both which and with which we beleeve Jude ver 3. it s our duty if ever to contend for this faith once delivered to the Saints In my present endeavours about which worke if thou embracest what thou findest of God I shall not only be willing that
Scriptures containe the foundation of Religion in them Answ is but a slender concession I suppose you will not deny this to the books of many a godly writer 2 In granting me that the foundation of Religion i. e. the Gracious Counsells of God are contained in the Scriptures and yet in denying that the written Word is that formall object of my faith or that foundation for which I should build my faith upon those counsells of God for salvation you do both delude your Reader and contradict your selfe you taking away what you grant Gods revelation of his minde in the written Word being the reason why I embrace the Counsells or matters as the foundation upon which I build 3 You vainly applaud your selfe for asserting the Scriptures to containe the foundation when as you deny the purity of the Scriptures for let it be once granted that errors are crept into the Scriptures Leo Castrius Goâ—â—onius c. and that there is no originall pure which is the blasphemous calumny cast upon the Scriptures by the Papists the authority of Scriptures falls to the ground and we may call the whole Scriptures into question You assert that the purest originall exemplar is corrupted and you know not what the particular places are that are corrupt when any Sentence therefore out of Scripture is brought against your errors why may you not shield your selfe with this defence for ought I know the place whence you take this sentence is corrupted Ecce fundamentum religionis Goodwiniana behold the foundation of a goodly religion I confesse one so erroneous as your selfe cannot coveniently be without this comfortable refuge If you be not too old to learne of the Fathers Aug Ep. 19 Ad. Hieron Non te arbitror sic legi tuâ—s libroâ— velle tanquam Prophetarum vel Apostolorum de quorum Scriptis quod omni careant errore dubitare nefarâ—um est Manichaeiplurima divinum Scripturararum loca quibus eorum nefarius error convincitur quia in alium sensum detoâ—quere non possunt falsa esse contendunt quod tamen quia nec probare potuerunt notissimâ veratate super ati confusique discedunt Id. Ib. take this from Augustine in his 19. Epist written to Hierom. I suppose thou art not willing that men should read thy books as they would read the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles it being a most hainous sinne to doubt of the freenesse of their writings from all error And the same Father in the same Epistle tells Hierom that the Manichees contended that sundry places of Scripture which overthrew their errors were false which falsenesse they did not attribute to the Apostles that wrote them but to certaine corrupters I know not whom quod quia c. which because they could not prove being overcome by knowne trub they departed confounded For your fourth frivolous exception Exception 4. Yo. Eld. p. 29 you cite a passage out of your Div. Auth. of Scrip. p. 17. where you say The true and proper foundation of Religion is not Inke and Paper nor any book or books nor any writing or writings whatsoever c. Hereupon you make a double enquiry First Why did not Mr. Jenkin insert the words true and proper into the charge of my deuiall of the Scriptures for the foundation of Christian Religion Secondly why doth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper c. 1 Poor shifter Answ I added not the words true and proper because the Ministers tooke not your charge out of the 17. pag. where you say the words true and proper are but out of the 18. where I say they are not 2 Because you being taxed with this abhominable error in the Testimony of the London Ministers your selfe in your Pamphlet call'd Sion Col. Vis p 12. for vindication and explanation of your selfe in this point referre the Reader only to the 13. and 15. pages and this 17 page your selfe never mentioned in Sion Col. Visited to which book only mine was an answer and not to Div. Auth. where say you in p. 17. you mention true and proper it seemes the novice hath now driven you to another shift another leafe though a meere Figg-leafe defence for 3 Your deniall of the Scripture to be the foundation without this mitigation or allay of true and proper is most sutable to your former undertakings I tooke you according to the constant streine of your writings as you desired even now see Hagiom Sect. 27 28. as also the many places in Div. Aut. p. 10 11 12. and p. 39. in Yo. Eld. so that evident it is that these words true and proper were inserted here as a blinde for your blasphemy They are not found for ought I know in any other place in all your Div. Aut. you mention I am sure no other place nor did you in Hagiom printed before your Div. Auth. once make mention of them In what a pittifull condition then are the poore old Hag. to lye under the charge of so many tongues and hearts so long before Div. Auth. was printed to be upon duty so long before releeved with true and proper 4 Do you not leave these words true and proper out in the conclusion of that discourse wherein they are contained in which conclusion being the result and winding up of all that which went before you peremptorily and unlimitedly deny any writing whatsoever to he any foundation at all of Christian Religion without a true and proper to mend the matter 2 Your second enquiry Why deth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper is too ridiculous for a novice to read though not for a dotard to write 1. In your next I pray tell me who beside your selfe and the blasphemous Papists did ever by the Scripture understand inke and paper Indeed Doctor Humfred Jesuitmise p. 2. pag. 89. Tels us of a Nun that to the question Quâ in re sita est religio Christiana wherein stands Christian Religion made answer In laceris panniculis in torne rags We need no other Oedipus to open this riddle than Master Goodwin 2 Had you therefore onely thus trifled by this denyall of ink and paper to be the foundation of Christian Religion you had neither been charged for erroneous by the London Ministers nor any one else in this point but when to your trifling you adde blasphemy and say That no writing whether originals or translations are the foundation of Christian Religion and pag. 29. Yo Eld. that you deny whatever is found in the Scriptures besides the precious counsels to be the foundation c. You are to be dealt withall upon a new account You then go beyond your denyall of ink and paper Your fifth Exception against me is Exception the fifth Yo Eld. pag. â—9 That I want Logick in denying the conclusion without answering any thing to the premisses You say you had proved the conclusion That the Scriptures are not the foundation of
will or do that which is spirituall and supernaturall as to repent believe c. I fiâ—de that Master John Goodwin hath alleadged some passages in my booke Christians daily walk cap 15. sect 1. page 452 453. as if I did concurre with him or favour his opinion I have hereupon considered and weighed well what I have there written and finde nothing tending to the maintenance of his errour but something expresly against free will to good I declaring That notwithstanding Christ may be said to give himselfe a ransome for all c. yet this doth not argue universall Redemption nor that all men may be saved if they will I appeale to any judicious and impartiall Reader whether in any thing I have there written I have justified his opinion which I am utterly against Henry Scudder SIR Undeâ—standing of your purpose to returne an answer to Master John Goodwins booke Master Calamy his Vindication and finding that therein I am brought upon the stage as one that in a Sermon preached Jan. 12.1644 should say something to countenance that heterodox opinion of his That a naturall man hath power to believe and repent I thought it my duty so far at least to vindicate my selfe and my Ministry as to intreate you to insert in your Answer thus much as from me by way of reply 1. That I do and alwaies did abhorre that proud Pelagian and Arminian Tenent And that 1. because it seemes to me as it is defended by him in his booke to set up free will which by the fall of Adam is no longer liberum but servum arbitrium in the place of free grace And to make free will to put the difference betweene the Elect and the Reprobate and not free grace which is coutrary to Rom. 9.11 18. Eph. 1.5 11. 1 Tit. 1.9 2. Because it makes a man able by nature to do something that will positively and infallibly dispose and prepare him to conversion which is contrary to Rom. 11.35 John 15.5 John 6.44 And contrary to right reason also as * * Nâ—lil se disponit ad gradum altiorem quam habet natura Atqui graâ—ia regenerans excedit totam naturem quicquid igitur est à viribus naturae id inferioris est ordinis improportionatum ad gratiam Potest quidem homo minus peccando miâ—us indispositus reddi ad recipiendam gratiam quam alius sed nihil tamen facere potest per quod ad gratiam disponatur Vossi historia Pelagiana lib. 4. part 1. pag. 420. pag. 419. Dispositio ad gratiam est pars converfionis nostrâ— Conversio autem est opus Divinwn Psal 85.5 Lam. 5.21 Vossius excellently sheweth 3. Because his opinion as he defends it seems to me wholly to take away the necessity of preventing grace and to make the grace of conversion to be subsequent onely to mans naturall endeavours or at least but concomitant Which is contrary to Isa 65.5 Rom. 9.16 4. Because the Scripture sets out the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inability of anaturall man to beleeve and repent in such full and expresse termes as that as I conceive it is impossible to be my opinion without wresting the Scriptures Witnesse Gen. 6.5 Gen 8.21 Jer. 17.9 Eccl. 36.26 Mat. 7.18 John 5.25 Rom 8.7 Rom. 5.6 10. 1 Cor. 2.14 2 Cor. 3.5 Ephes 2.1 2 3 Col. 2.13 John 3.6 and divers others of the like nature The Scripture doth not onely say That a man by nature is in the darke as Master G. erroneously affirmes but that he is darknesse Eph. 5.8 not onely that he wants light but that he wants eyes also Deut. 29.4 Not onely that he is de ad in sinnes in regard of the guilt of sinne as Master G. saith but also in regard of all spirituall ability to raise himselfe as appeareth by the next argument 5. Because conversion in Scripture is not onely said to be a giving of light to one that hath eyes before is Master G. saith but a giving of sight also Isa 42.7 Lu. 4.18 It is not onely a giving an immediate actuall or present capacity as Mr. G. minceth it contrary to Scripture but it is a sutting within us a principle of spirituall life It is not onely a raisâ—ng us up from the guilt of sinne but it is a bestowing upon us a new heart and a new Spirit it is a spirituall resurrection and regeneration 1 Pet. 1.23 Ja. 1 1â— John 3.3 Ezek. 36.26 And therefore as a naturall man cannot contribute any thing to his naturall being no more can he contribute any thing properly to his supernaturall being These and divers other reasons have induced me alwaies since I knew what belonged to Divinity to detest and abhorre this his unsound and unjustifiable opinion There is a second thing that I would have you likewise to put into your Answer Secondly That I am much wronged and abused in what Master G. relates concerning the Sermon I preached Jan. 12.1644 The truth is looking over my notes I finde that I made two Sermons upon the Doctrine mentioned in the Booke In which I laid downe this position quite contrary to his assertion That man by nature is dead in sin and trespasses unable to do any thing that is spiritually good as he ought to do That man by nature is unable to believe and repent and is like the cold earth able of it selfe to bring forth briers and thornes but not able to do any thing pleasing to God in order to eternall life unlesse he be enabled by the seed of grace sorcen in his heart by Gods holy Spirit Indeed I added That a man unconverted remaining unconverted might do that that was right in the sight of the Lord he might do bonum though not benè And by the helpe of the Holy Ghost in the common worke of it he might do many things in order to salvation And that the reason why he is damned is not for want of power but for not improving the power he hath not for cannot but will not But then I subjoyned two other positions 1. That no unconverted man did ever improve the power that God hath given him but doth give advantage to God to damne him for voluntary refusing to do what he hath power to do 2. That though an unconverted man did improve his naturall abilities to the utmost of his power yet notwithstanding God was not bound by any promise to bestow the grace of conversion upon him This I proved by five arguments too long here to repeat And thus I have given you a short account of what concerns me in his Booke I have but a word more to say and that is to a passage in the 131 page in which he saith He will not so far abuse me as to call me either learned or pious For my part I thanke God I am not solicitous what he or his Pulpit-Incendiary say of me I have learned of my great Master to requite good for evill and to heape
import as he after his weake manner imagines to that opinion which I affirme to be asserted by them in the passages cited by me I would gladly know of him what is the distinct sound that this trumpet makes my intent and drist in citing these Authors was not to prove or so much as to insinuate that they no where else in their writings delivered themselves with any sceming contrariety to the places cited by me 1. Whether it be more weaknesse in me to quote places out of them and also to prove the repugnancy of those places to the errors which you hold forth or in you not to answer the quotations let my very enemies judge if I cited those passages pertinently why tax you me with weaknesse if weakly they had been the sooner answered 2. Whereas you aske why I cited them I answer the tondency of my counter-quotations was to vindicate those godly and orthâ—dox Authors from your aspersions to manifest how much you abused the truth and them by holding them forth as favourers of your heresies and how farre they were from affording you succour in your sinne and to let the Reader see what little credit is to be given to you when you cite Authors and this was the intention both operis and operantis 3. Your intent you say in citing these Authors was not to infinuate that they no where else delivered themselves in contrariety to the placece cited by me c. But it s evident that you laid these few passages taken out of Bucer and the Fathers upon the stall in open view to make every Reader thinke that the Books of those eminent writers were shops that contained such commodities within Was it not your desire to have the Reader beleeve that the constant â—enor and straine of the writings of the cited Authors maintained your errours else what is the meaning of that passage of yours Sion Colledge visited p. 17. where you having abused Mr. Ball in citing a passage out of him you tell the Reader This passage fell not from the Authors pen at unawares but the contents of it were his setled and well resolved judgement to which end you produce another passage out of the same Author which also you pretend to speake for you I passe over your 61. and 62. Sections wherein you pretend to nothing but chaffe and scoffes my drift being to follow you only where you would be thought to write about the controversie To the next therefore I having told you Yo. Eld. p. 50. Sect. 6â— Busie Bish p. 48. that the great question between Jerome Austine and Pelagius was not whether the will did stand in need of an adjutory of grace for the performance of good but what kind of adjutory it was whether or no an adjutory by way of working of good in the will and that invincibly and indeclinably c. 1. You tell the Reader that I said that this was the question but why pilfer you from my words why clip you why leave you out the word great I said it was the great question had you put in that you had found nothing to reply in this place the state of the question changed foure times between Augustine and Pelagius as you may see collected by Aluar. de auxil Lib. 1. c. 2. by Jansenius in his Augustinus To. 1. l. 5. by Latins and Vossius in Hisioria Pelagianâ 1. At the first pelagius deny'd omne anxilium supernaturale all supernaturall assistance and affirmed that the naturall power of mans free will was sullicient to keep all the Commandments and to obtaine salvation 2. He did acknowledge an adjutory of grace but placed it in the outward Doctrine of the Law and in the example of Christ but denyed this to be simply necessary but only for the facilitation of the act 3. He confessed an adjutory by inward grace viz. the inward illumination of the understanding and the excitation of the stupid will but alwayes denyed that grace by which God works in us to will infallibly 4. His schollar Celestius did confesse that inward grace was simply necessary not to begin but to perfect that which was good Now my asserting that the great question between the Fathers and Pelagius was what kind of adjutory it was of which the will did stand in need is so farre from denying that there was any other question that it clearly implyes there were other 2. You indeavour in this Section to evince that this which I have mentioned was not the state of the question Yo. Eld. p. 50. for say you that which caused the distance between Austin and Pelagius was that Pelagius denyed the necessity of the adjutory of grace for the performance of the Law and this you pretend to prove from Austins words dicat Pelagiut per gratiam nos posse praestare legem Dei pax est Let Pelagius say that by grace we may performe the Law of God and it is Peace But 1. Why have you so learnedly passed by all the places quoted out of Austin in Bu. Bish to prove i.e. that Pelagius did acknowledge the necessity of the help of God to the doing of good Ba. Bish p. 49 Liberum sic confuemur arbitrium ut dicamus nos semper indigere dei auxilio Au. con Pel. l. 1. c. 31. Ita homenis laudamus naturam ut dei semper gratiam addamus auxalium Anathema qui docet gratiam dei per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam Ibid. Diligenter interrogandus est Pelagius quam dicat gratiam quâ fateatur honâ—nes adjâ—vari querimus quo auxilio c. Corur Pel. Cal l. 1. c. 31. fateantur imernâ in effabili potestate operari in cordibus hominum non solum veras revelationes sed bonas voluntates l. 1. c. 24. de gra Deus facit ut velimus praebendo vires efficacissiuas voluntati deâ—g l. c. 16â— as where he saith we so praise nature as that we alwayes adde the helpe of the grace of God and where he pronounceth anathema against every one that thinketh the grace of God is not necessary every houre to every act 2. Why have you passed by all the places brought to prove that Austin was not satisfied with this Concession of Pelagius but saith that Pelagius is to be asked what grace he meaneth Lib. 1. c. 24. de grâ Christi Fateantur c. Let them confesse that there are wrought by a wonderfull internal and ineffable power good wills in the heart as well as true discoveries Aug. degr et l. a l. 16. Deus facit ut velimus faciamus c. God makes us will and doe by affording most efficacious strength to the will Haecgratia à nullo c. this grace is rejected by no hard heart And de cor et gra C. 12. Infirm is servavit c. Hereserved for those that were weake that they should by his gift will what is good most invincibly c. And whereas you
say that the words of Austin are expreâ—y contrary to this my information he saying Dicat Pelagius c. Let Pelagius say that by grace we may perfurme the law of God and we are friends you shew your selfe a vaâ—ne man thus to boast of a sentence you misunderstand Aug. t is true desired only that Pelagius would acknowledge that a man did stand in need of the grace of God But what grace meaneth he a grace morally suasory a grace only exciting that leaves the will to its owne indifferency to be saved if it will that woos only and doth not work in a word Bishop Goodwins Grace Impudent soul once to imagine it and thus to fly-blow the Fathers But to evince that Austin did not only require from Pelagius the acknowledgement of the necessity of grace as an adjutory but as this kind of adjutory which I contend for I adde to the former these allegations out of Augustin de Grâ Christi c. 10. He thus tells you what grace it is that he would have Pelagius acknowledge Nos istam gratiam nolumus istam cliquando gratiam fateatur qua futurae gloriae magnitudo nâ—n solum promittitur vâ—rum etiam creditur speratur nec solum revelatur sapientia sed amatur nec suadetur solum omâ—e quod bonum est sed persuadetur Hanc debet Pelagius gratiam confiteri si vali non solum vacari verum etiam esse Christianus Hug de sacr l. 1. p. 6. c. 17. Aug. de bo pers c. 23. Deus sic in potestate sâ—a habet cor nostrum ut bo â—n quod non tenemus nisi proprid voluntate non tamen teneamus nisi â—pse in nobis operetur velle Aug. de praed sa l. 1. c. 20 â—on Deus vult id fieri quod non nisi volentibus hominibu 〈◊〉 et fieri inolinat corum corda ut hoc velint Eo scil inclinaâ—te qui in nobis miâ— abili in effabilâ— modo operatur velle before ever he would be friends with him Pelagius only acknowledging the grace that inlightned the understanding and excited the stupid will my Lords grace Augustin excellently saith as followes Nos istam gratiam nolumus istam aliquando gratiam fateatur c. We will not have such a grace as he brings Let Pelagius acknowledge that grace whereby the greatneâ—se of future glory is not only promised but beleeved and wisdom not only revealed but beloved we not only intreated but prevaild with to accept of good this grace must Pelagius ackdowledge if he will not only be cald but be a Christian It was a grace that workes the goodnesse of the will in us which gives to the soule a kind of spirituall and divine being a grace that first bonam voluntatem operatur and then per eam operatur first workes a good will and then by a good will Augustin saith God so hath our hearts in his power that the good which we lay hold upon with our will wee lay not hold upon unlesse God worke the will And elsewhere Cum Deus vult id fieri c. When God will have that to be done which is not to be done but by men that are willing to doc it he inclines their hearts that they may he willing namely he inclinet men who workes in us after a wonderfull and ineffable manner to will And de bon pers cap. Tantum spiritu Sancto accenditur voluntas eorum ut ideo possint quia volunt ideo sie velint quia Deus operatur ut velint Aug. de Cor. Gr. c. 12. Parum est permanere in bono si velit nisi etiam efficiatur ut velit Aug de cor gr c. 11. Est in nobis per hanc dei gratiam in bono recipiendo perseverarâ—er tenendo non solum posse quod volumus verum etiam velle quod possumus Id. Ib. 13. nos volumus sed Deus in nobis operatur velle nos operamur sed Deus in nobis operatur operari We will but God worketh in us to will we worke but its God worketh in us to worke It would requite a volumne to cite all the passages that might be collected out of Austine to this purpose namely to shew that the grace which he only admits of is efficaciously operative and determining 3. Yo. Eld p. 50. In this Section as if you had bid farewell to all wholsome reading and to ingenuity you shamefully abuse the holy man Austin thus If the question say you was whether God doth not invincibly and indeclinably draw or worke upon the will then the question could not be between Augustine and Pelagius what kinde of adjntory the will did stand in need of but whether it stood in need of an adjutory or a compulsory that you may have a pretence for this conclusion you give your owne interpretation of working invincibly and indeclinably vpon the will that is say you the will must of necessity follow the working of God will it â—ill it Yo. Eld. p. 51 be it never so obstinate or resolved to the contrary so that God should come in with an unresistible force upon one and ravish the will and force it to consent contrary to the present bent and posture of it now this say you is not adjuvare to help but cogere to compell If some stout Porter should boyse Mr. Jenkin upon his shoulder against his will this Porter were not an adjutory Answ But friend who ever thus interpreted this invincibly efficacious working of God upon the will before your Masters the Arminians and the Jesuits theirs the Orthodox know the invincibility certainty and indeclinablenesse of the worke of grace upon the will no whit promotes your hereticall inference that then the will may be wrought upon whether it will or no and so compeld you saw in Busie Bishop the contrary maintained to which you here answer nothing When God by his efficacious grace works in the will to will this efficacious grace puts into the will a non-resistencie or taketh away actuall resistencie there being an impossibility that these two should co-exist and meet together in the will to be wrought upon with efficacious grace and to resist this being as impossible as for the will in the same moment to resist and not resist to will not to resist and to will to resist Aug de Cor. ora cap. 14. Hwna â— voluntates non â— ofsunt resistere qâ—o micus facâ—at Dâ—us quod vult quand qâ—â—dem â—ttam de ipsis hominan voluntatibus quod valt cum valt facâ—t Piuna gratia dâ—ta primo Adâ—n est qua sit ut habtat homo justitiam si velit sed gratia potentior est in secun lo Adam qua sit ut velit tanteque 〈◊〉 diligat ut carnis voluntatem contraria concupistâ—nâ—em voluntate spiritus vincat Aug. de Cor. 〈◊〉 12 Infiâ—ms 〈◊〉 ut ipso donante â—n victissâ—ne