The blind 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 ... : this reply indifferently serving for the future direction of the seducer himself, and also of those his mis-led followers, who with him are turned enemies to the word and grace of God : to the authority of which word, and the efficacie of which grace are in this following treatise, succinctly, yet satisfactorily vindicated from the deplorably weak and erroneous cavills of the said John Goodwin in his late pamphlet / by 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 reci∣tall 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 scurri∣lities are so honourable, as are those which drop from his pen. 'Tis 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 will••, 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 Shime•• hath cast against it, God hath turned into pearses, and made of them a Crown of honour for it. Your testimony op∣posed errour, and God hath made it to vanquish infamy. He who directed you to make it usefull, hath himself made it ac∣cepted.

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 plea∣sant garden, the close and noysome alley as well as the sweet and open Country. No wonder then if its successe have been as va∣rious as its objects. When its welcome warmth visited the Countries, 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 at∣testations 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. And who observeth not the frequent and respectfull men∣tion 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 enjoy∣ing 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 young∣ling 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. 'Tis true, his expert∣nesse 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 pas∣sages, 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, 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 com∣munion with them.

In his former pamphlet Syon Colledge was visited, in this latter, 'tis excommunicated, in neither 'tis prejudiced. In casting upon you the names of blots and spots of mankinde, he is but your scul∣lion to make your integrity shine the brighter by all these re∣proachfull 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 ac∣counts 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 ha∣ving been guilty in their meetings at Sion Colledge, he know∣eth that in stead of shunning communion with you, the faith∣full with a holy scorn neglect his excommunioating of you. The truth is, most of those whom he accounts to be of his own par∣ty, 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 with∣out 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 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 pru∣dent 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, 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, 'tis 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 perfor∣mances 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, Impiety and opposition to the truth hang upon Sion Colledge, and if Sion Col∣ledge 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? 'Tis true, there's much impiety & opposition to the truth in the Kingdom but, Mr Good∣win, 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, 'tis but a cast of his Episcopall office. Not long since he visi••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 em∣ployment, 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, before Sion Colledge be removed out of its place: And truly could all his impious er∣rours that so much oppose the truth be removed with him, his miserably mis-led flock wouldhave a happy change, if his en∣deavours 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, either in con∣verting of soules, unlesse it be from God unto Satan; and so for buil∣ding up of soules, unlesse it hath been in wrath against the Parlia∣ment,

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, its not so easie to deter∣mine as 'tis to sear.

But the totall insuccessefulnesse of your Ministry in the conver∣sion 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 'tis for conveniency of spit∣ting; 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 er∣rours. But if he thinkes that there is no conversion of soules in our Churches, what will he and his Collegues do for new re∣cruits? 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 Me∣tropolitan, 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 Lo∣gick 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. Good∣wins book speaks him old, particularly, that passage of his, p. 2. To. Eld. where he speaks his owne seniority thus: The worse spirits of malignity, hypocrisie, searednesse of conscience, dissimulation of the truth. &c. do not often finde men out till they be stricken in yeeres. As for the residue of his Pamphlet it speaks him old even to dotage, which is to be a childe twice and alwayes. That were I so young as he pretends, yet he cannot prove the falsenesse of my assertions by the fewnesse of my yeeres, though this be the strongest argument in all his booke against what I write, his only indea∣vour being to make my booke a sufferer by my yeeres, because he cannot make my yeeres to suffer by my booke. That were there so great a disparity of yeeres between us, yet truth is senior to us both, and he and his errours are more younglings to truth than I am to him, though I grant his Errours to••••ing grace, as old as Pelagius.

Touching that other imputation of illiteratenesse; I say I am so far from disliking this his charge, that I should have bin very well satisfied if sundry who exceed Master Goodwin in standing, and very much in understanding, had passed the same censure up∣on me that he hath done, and never another. That as he hath not so much learning as to allow him to boast, so I have not so little as to suffer me to be unthankfull. That he hath dishonoured

himself in the undertaking, nay in the overcomming (were he victor) much more inbeing overcome by one so illiterate; having muste∣red such a vast body, such a huge book to pursue a flea, wherein every line is at least either a pike or a musket; should he vanquish it would be no honour to him, should he be vanquisht the disgrace would be indelible. That sundry, not contemptible, have had but low estimations of Mr. Goodwins literature. Famous Doctor Stough∣ton observing how Master Goodwin was wont to torture Scrip∣ture for the defending of his errors which in those dayes he vented in his Sermons, used this comparison in the hearing of an eminent Minister now in London, As an hungry dog that teareth and gnaweth upon a dry bone, and can suck nothing out of it for the relief of his appetite, by long gnawing upon it, wets it all over with the unclean moysture of his own mouth, and at length for hunger sucks in that moysture againe as if he had been be∣holding to the bone for it; so, said he, did Mr. Goodwin teare the holy Scriptures to draw out a sense that might countenance his unlearned and corrupt opinions, which he not able to obtaine, (the Scriptures being dry to such intents) the spurious expo∣sitions that flowed out of his owne month upon the Scriptures in his tedious tozing of them, he confidently sucks in againe, as if they had been the contributions of the Scriptures themselves. Mr. C. a Minister of good worth, now in London, and Minister of Ma. neare the be. whether upon observing the darknesse of Mr. Goodwins way in expounding, or rather his darkning in stead of expounding Scripture, or otherwise, sometimes said, Mr. Goodwin was like a horse that went into a very clear streame, but coming forth againe, he left it by pawing with his feet, very thick and muddy. And indeed he is no better at the pen than in the pul∣pit; for in making all his pamphlets, he seems to dip his pe••, or rather his pia mater, in puddle-dock. A reverend Commissioner, and a learned Minister of the Church of Scotland, having one of those wretched pamphlets called Sion Colledge visited sent him, in his letter shortly after returned, he used only this short but sharp expression concerning it, Goodwin is a beast, The pas∣sage I reade.

Touching that imputation of Prelaticall peece of Presbytery, I say, my principles, preaching, and other practises, are and

ever shall be, by Gods grace, opposite to Prelacy, because my conscience tels me that Prelacy so much opposeth the Word; under Prelacy I was an early sufferer. At Cambr. long since I was forced to forsake my otherwise dear Colledge, because I durst not ful mit to popish and prelaticall innovations, and to betake my self to another Colledge in the same University, where I enjoyed liberty for study sundry yeares with out those Prelaticall imposi∣tions; and sundry are able to testifie how fierce the rage of the Prelaticall faction was against me a long time in the university, and afterwards; though I say not that Master Goodwin was con∣nived at, and secretly encouraged to vent his opinions in Cole∣manstreet, when the faithfull Min••sters of the City were silen∣ced and persecuted.

You have had a taste of his reproaches; behold him now making lyes his refuge. He relates two stories concerning you, which together with his descants upon them, are the subject matter of most part of his Epistle; but there is scarce a word in either of them, in the writing whereof, his fingers were not wofully troubled with the Cretian cramp.

In his first story he tels the Reader, That although n a Pro∣vinciall meeting, it was resolved upon the question, That no answer should be given to his booke called Sion Colledge visited, and (he hopeth out of sense of his innocency) that the graver judicatory had de∣termined his immunity as Pilate did Christs, yet Master Jenkins like the Jewes, who would needs have Christ crucified, hath made log furrowes upon his back, &c.

A story that hath not fewer than fore of five of the foresaid Cretian commodities in it. For first, The Provinciall meeting ne∣ver propounded, much lese made any resolution upon, any question concerning the answering or not answering his book. 2. Never was it resolved in any of your meetings, that his book should not be answered; indeed it was generally conceived that so empty a pamphlet deserved not to be answered by any. So that 3. the forbearance to put any upon the imployment of answer∣ing his book, was not out of sense of his innocency, but out of apprehension of his impotenoy; you looking upon him as seven fold more the son of shame ant folly after the publishing of his Sion Colledge visited than he shewed himself before. 4. Never

did Mr. Jenkin make furrowes upon his back, he onely shew'd the deep furrowes that Mr. Goodwin had made upon the back of truth with the plow of his pen, Satan guiding and driving it most commonly for him. And I know nothing that was laid upon his back but a rod, (according to Salomons advice) and that too of his own making. Sorry I am, that instead of making him to mend, it hath occasioned him to be mad.

In his second story he tels his Reader, that the Archytects of the designe (he meanes of testi••ying against his errors) obtained the subscriptions of Master John Downame to a paper, wherein was not the least mention of any of his Errors, and after, Mr. Downames band was obtained, they foysted into the Catalogue of Errours what sayings they pleased.

Captain Cretensis is upon his march, but I shall stop him. The relation consisteth of two as odious untruths as ever dropt from a Cretians quill. For.

First, I affirm, that the Errours of Master Goodwin were men∣tioned and set downe in the Catalogue in that fulnesse and order where∣in they are now expressed, nay distinctly read in the bearing of Master John Downame, before be subscribed his band to the paper for the witnessing against them.

2. No sayings of Mr. Goodwin, or of any other of the Sectaries mentioned in the Catalogue, were put into the Catalogue of Errours after Master Downames hand was obtained.

The former Master Downame hath acknowledged to two or three Reverend Ministers that went to him on purpose for enqui∣ry, at the same time expressing to them his abhorring of Mr. Goodwins opinions mentioned in the Catalogue; which I ra∣ther relate, because he termes Mr. Downame learned, and one of the best spirited men. I like the expressions, with this note, that such men most detest Mr Goodwins Errours.

Two detestable lied are contained in that relation of his, pag. 78. To. Eld. where he saith, That not long since some of his followers came to me to propound their scrup••es about the Dectrine that I had taught, concerning the nature of a true Church, and that contrary to my 〈…〉〈…〉 promise, I denyed conference with them, and that I refused to dispute with them unlesse by writing. The truth is this, many Sectaries (observing how sundry Christians (I desire to

mention it with humble thankfulnes) were strengthened against the Schisme of Independency, by the Sermons which I preach∣ed neer three yeeres since, concerning a true visible Church) were filled and cut to the heart with madnesse. At which time some of Mr. Goodwins followers, upon a Lords day toward eve∣ning came to my house, sundry of my Christian friends in my owne parish coming with them, to observe (as I conceive) their deportment. Where one or two of Mr. Goodwins followers that had a minde to speak more than the rest, discovered that shame∣full ignorance in cavelling, that divers of those that flood by, and some of their owne party, as afterward they confessed, blush••d to hear them; my self also wondring at their empty impudence; they being so farre from bringing any objection against what I had delivered, that they were not able without my prompting them to tell me what particular passage in my Sermon it was against which they took exception. Only they knew, that what I had delivered made against them, and they were resolved that they would not like it. But so far was I from refusing conference with them, that I entertained neare two houres discourse with them at that time, though I had preach∣ed twice that Sabboth, my body being thereby very faint and weary; expressing also the greatest forwardnesse and willing∣nesse to informe and satisfie them whensoever they pleased, and desiring them to that end to come to my house, for indeed I much pittied them. To be short, it wat at length propounded by one of my friends, that my self and two Ministers might dispute with three of theirs who were of a contrary judgement concerning the points in controversie, for the satisfaction of the unsetled Gentlemen. This motion I embraced most willingly, and desired them to certifie so much to their Ministers, which they promised to do; and upon advice taken with some reve∣rend brethren concerning the fittest and profitablest manner of managing the said disputation, I made this offer under my hand in writing, and sent it by some of the unsetled Gentle∣men, viz. That I would send their Ministers the heads of all my Sermons, with all those positions contained in them, that opposed the way of separation; and if they would ingage to answer them in print, I promised also to publish a reply in print

to that their answer, that so all the world might see on which fide the truth lay. But this offer, savouring too much of plaine dealing, and love of the light, their Minihers accepted not, pretending their mighty imployments. The Ministers refu∣sing the discussion of the controversie by way of writing, though solicited thereto by my Letter, what followed: why now my Gentlemen (to make up in sobriety what they wanted in set∣lednesse) having it seems leisure enough, earnestly desire that I would engage with them in writing. This I refused, holding my self close to my former offers, that if any of them were unsatisfied, I would endeavour most willingly in a private way of conference to inform them, conceiving that this might content them who aimed at information and not at ostentati∣on. In this relation therefore of Mr. Goodwins, I charge him with these two broad faced falsities: 1. His saying, That I re∣fused conference with his followers, whereas I earnestly invi∣ted them to come to me for that end. 2. His saying, That I was advised by my brethren to dispute with his followers only by writing, whereas I never was advised or offered at all to dispute with them by writing; my offer to dispute by writing or printing, being onely made to their Ministers, or those so called.

In a coole requitall for these three rotten and false stories, in two of which he basely slanders so many of his betters, I shall onely succinctly shew how much more he hath abused himselfe in his Youngl. Elder, than he hath all or any of you, by his foule and false representations.

For the wronging of his owne reputation, (if at least it could be made worse than it was before) by his late pamphlet called, The Youngling Elder, to say nothing here, how cheap and worthles he hath made his scriblings by the scores of pages spent in such raylings, as the common observations and light of every reader doth confute (scum and scurrility making up his whole book.) I shall onely observe how shamelesse and ridi∣culous he is in magnifying and extolling himself, pretending himself to be the most dreadfull adversary that ever put on gowne or ••antlet, bragging, and swaggering, and boasting, and ranting, and rufling, in the beginning of his book, as if he

would bury ten such younglings as my self in one furrow of his brow; and as if he would affright the whole world into a forbearance of quetching against him, by the terror of my ex∣ample; when as, alas, in the sequell of his booke he is so wretchedly weake, and ridiculously empty, that instead of ma∣king me to bleed with his force, he onely makes me to blush at his folly.

Speaking concerning my hazardous adventures in dealing with him, he thus insults: Little doth this poore man know what be hath done. Presbytery lies bleeding at the soot of my writings, and is as good as broken in peeces by them; it is shaken, shattered, and dis∣mantled by them. When I write I feele the strength of God neare me. I have had to do with the keenest sons of high Presbytery, whose little finger had more weight than Master Jenkins loyns, and yet I have laid all their attempts and writing in the dust, as well they did de∣serve, and therefore this young man was of no deep reach, because he feared not the same issue. Exempla gratia, You laid Master Wal∣ker and Master Robroughs writings in the dust; with the former of which you encountred as an asse with a lyon; and with the latter of which you never durst enter the Lists, though provo∣ked by an elaborate Treatise in confutation of your errors about justification. So you laid Master Edwards his Antapologia in the dust; a booke that so fully and clearly detected your frauds, that instead of answering the matter of it by Scripture or rea∣son, you were faine to betake your self to your Grammer, and only here and there snarle at the seeming impropernesse of a word. He threatens, That before he and his friend William part, he will make him as hereticall as himselfe, &c. And rather than he will not prove himself a boaster, he makes himself a ballad-maker; he saith. or rather saweth thus, in the height of menacing:

The time will come that youthfull Turnus shall Wish dearly Pallas ne••'r had been encountred.

But why rather makes he not use of the skill of a far better Poet, who brings in Master Goodwins younger brother, expressing himself thus to David:

— Art thou weary of thy life so s••one, O foolish bay, phantasticall baboon.

— I will not file My feared hands with blood so faintly vile, Go seeke thy match, thou shale not dye by me, Thine honour shall not my dishonour be, No (silly lad) no, wert thou of the Gods, I would not fight at so unknightly odds.

This, among the rest of the characters of those ungodly men, spoken of by Paul and Peter, agrees with him, to be fierce and high minded, to speak great swelling words of vanity. He expressing himself more like a Russian than a Minister; he shining not like a sweetly influentiall star, but flashing like an angry bloody Comet, he speaking after the rate of the eldest sonne of God∣magog; more like a Polyphemus than like a Paul; more like a swash-buckler than a Bishop; a Lamech than a Moses; and ex∣pressing more the presumption of Behemoth, who trusteth that be can draw up Jordan into his mouth, than the lamb-like spirit of a Saint. In a word, he hath so much of the Goodwin, that be hath nothing at all of the John in him, for

— From his eyes All drunke with rage and blood, the lightning flyes Out of his beaver like a boar be foams, A bellish fury in his bosome roams.

But alas this Ivye-bush of boasting doth but shew the badnesse of his wine to all prudent passengers; his booke is a meer thun∣dring trifle, a mountaine of chaffe, a terriculament, onely for the ignorant of the alley; like the logg in the fable, it makes a great noise in its falling, but then it lies still for every frog to skip upon it.

The truth is, he might well have spared the paines of setting his name unto it, for so poor a weakling, and so mishapen a monster it is, that as none will challenge it for theirs, so none will doubt it for his; although in two regards it be very unlike the father, it having a rich and a full bead, (a stuffed title) and a thin empty body; the residue of the book.

He doth not so much as pretend to answer the greatest part by far of what I bring in opposition to his errours. There's not so much as any mention in his Youngling Elder of the most ma∣teriall passages contained in mine; but he prudently passeth

them by in learned silence, and onely here and there toucheth superficially upon a few by-passages, (not but that he was able I trow, with the least puffe to send them all on an errand to the wormes, had not his owne goodnesse and noble nature more prevailed with him than any merit in such a naughty youth as I) so that as to the businesse of answering me, his booke is a meer by-work, and indeed among all judicious men a meer by∣word; which he prudently foreseeing, confesseth by way of an∣ticipation, that his booke is not a formall confutation of mine, but that his end in fetting of it forth, was to make me know my selfe; but of his childish and impotent omissions I shall (God willing) give a more particular account in the following Chap∣ter. But if at any time he doth vonchsafe a mentioning of any of my passages against him; instead of an answer he either brings scoffs and reproaches, or else he labours to do the work of an opponent, bringing in stead of a solution of my argu∣ments, a bumble of musty reasons, taken out of his other books to fill up paper in this; or else his poore sew answers are so miserably unsatisfactory, impertinent, and hereticall, that this his last worke appeares plainely to be the issue of his very dotage to all impartiall observers.

I shall onely in this fi••st Chapter barely recite some of his an∣swers to some places of Scripture and passages contained in my booke; reserving the refutation of them to the third and fourth Chapters, though indeed the recitation of such cheape and poore stuffe, be a sufficient refutation of them among intelligent Readers.

The places of Scripture which I bring against his Errours, he either wholly passeth by, as if they had never been alledged by me, (and thus he dealeth with all those many places which I alledge against his Errours about the Scripture) or else if he pretends to answer them, he puts such false and unsound glos∣ses upon them, that he speakes himself most erroneous, even when he goeth about to cleere himselfe from errour; like the swearer, that being reproved for his oathes, sware with a greater oath that he did not swear.

To that place Acts 26.18. where Paul declares, That he was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes, &c. I having said, That con∣version

is the restoring of sight, not of light onely, he asserts most prophanely and erronously, that mens eyes are onely opened in conversion as the light of the morning or the sun may be said to open a mans eyes which were shut by the darknesse of the night; so that naturall men have good eyes, onely they are in the darke, there's nothing perisht in the faculty of seeing.

To that place, Epist. 2. dead in trespasses and sins. he answers, by saying the meaning onely is, That they of whom the Apo∣stle speaks, were guilty of death, and liable to condemnation.

The meaning of that place, 1 Cor. 2.14. The naturall man re∣ceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, neither can be know them, &c. he gives us thus, by the naturall man, he saith, is not meant the man that is simply or meerly naturall or unregener are, but such a kinde of men as are babes in Christ; and whereas its said, be cannot know the things of the spirit of God; this profound 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 pre∣sent, to know simply the things of the spirit, but he hath such princi∣ples 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. 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.) con∣teyned 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 ask∣ing 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 ••ot a sillable by way of denying the charge, but tels me, That in holding Jesus Christ to be they holy one of God, 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 agree∣ment with Pelagius in his Errours, impudently affirming, 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 qu••ted by me out of the same Author, is no manifestation of the imperti∣nency of my quotations; but it is indeed a discovering of the naked∣nesse of an Auth••r, to present him contradictious to himselfe, and to expose the unstablenesse of his judgement to the eyes of men; So that ••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, That I and my mates tremble not to inform the creature against the Creator, as if from eter∣nity be had shut up his grace, &c. with the iron barres of an irrever∣sible indispensable decree.

He tels us pag. 62. that ther's nothin but morall perswasi∣on to act the will into a saving consent, 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, mo∣tive and perswasion, unlesse it be by force, violence, and compulsion. The essentiall constitution and fal••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, 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; till this feat be done, he concludes the charge must be continued.

But of his omissions, and slender and erroneous performan∣ces, you may please more fully to take this following account in these three following Chapters.

CHAP. II.

Shewing Master Goodwin his omissions in his Young∣ling Elder, and totall passing by of most of the ma∣teriall passages contained in my booke called, The busie Bishop, against his pamphlet called, Sion Coll. visited, by way of parallel.

Asserted in Sion Col∣ledge visited.

IT was never well with Christian Religion, since the Ministers of the Gospell (so called by themselves, and so reputed by the ge∣nerality of men for want of knowing better) cunningly vested that privi∣ledge of theChurch of being the ground and pillar of truth in

themselves. There came lately out of the presse a few pa∣pers, stiling them∣selves, 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 foun∣dation of Christian Religion, the Apo∣stle affi••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 er∣rours. Sion Colledge ••sited, pag. 3.

You cite some of my words barely, suppressing craftily my sense. You cite these words: Que∣stionlesse no writing whatsoever, whether translations or origi∣nals, are the Word ••f

God, Divine Author, pag. 18. without ci∣ting those other words of mine, Di∣vine Author, pag. 13. wherein I assert them to be of Di∣vine 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 bre∣thren, where lyes the error of these words? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God should not endue men with such principles, abi∣lities, &c. by the diligent improve∣ment whereof they might come to be convin••ed of a rea∣dinesse, and wil∣lingnesse in him to receive them into grace and favour upon their repen∣tance, and turning to him(upon which conviction that re∣pentance and turn∣ing to God al∣waies followes) they which are condemned would have their mouthes opened against God, and surmshed with and excuse, &c.

The sum of his passage cited for an error in our testi∣monie is this: If God should deprive men of all power to beleeve, & yet per∣swade

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 accepta∣tion.

All the world, e∣ven those that have not the letter of the Gospell, have yet sufficient meanes granted them of be∣leeving these two, viz. That God is, and that he is a rewar∣der of them that di∣ligently seeke him; which is all the faith that the Apo∣stle

makes necessa∣ry to bring a man into grace or fa∣vour with god. They who have only the heavens, the sun, m one, and starrs to preach the Gos∣pell to them, have also reason suffici∣ent, to judge the same judgment with them who have the letter of the Gospell, for they have the Gos∣pell, the substance and effect of it, the willingnesse of God to be reconciled to the world, prea∣ched unto them by the Apostles afore∣said, 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 particu∣larly those very Au∣thors who were the greatest opposers of Pelagius, as Hierom, August. Prosper, &c. with mouthes wide open, in approba∣tion of the same things for which I am arraigned at the tribunall of Si∣on Col. Sion Col. Vis. p. 24.

These men have exchanged the Fa∣thers adjutorium, in∣to their owne com∣pulsorium. Sion Col. Vis. p. 28.

The question be∣tween Pelagius and the Fathers, was not whether man had freedome of will in respect of good or evill, but whether men notwithhstan∣ding their freedome of will, did not still stand in need of the adjutory of grace, both for the perfor∣mance of, and per∣severance in what was good.

Answered in busie Bishop.

1. TIs 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 pri∣vate 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 ordi∣nation? 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 pil∣lar) holds forth the truth, ei∣ther in a common way to all Christians mutuall exhortati∣ons, profession, practice, &c. or in a ministeriall way, preach∣ing, administration of Sacra∣ments, &c. If you say the Mini∣sters have vested themselves with the priviledge of being the pillars of truth the first way, 'tis 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 them∣selves with the priviledge of pil∣lars in the second respect, 'tis odiously false, for the Lord Je∣sus 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, up∣on whom we build the hope of out salvation, to be obtained by his mediation, yet beleeving of the Scripture, as it is an as∣senting to a maine and prime credendum, viz That the Scrip∣tures are by divine inspiration, is a necessary foundation for other subsequent graces that are re∣quired 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 foundati∣on, why doth the Apostle give to faith the name of foundati∣on, Heb. 6.1. Not laying againe the foundation of repentance and of faith, &c. Bu. Bish. p. 9.

These words, therefore que∣stionlesse no writings, &c. are the conclusion and the result of your premisses in severall long winded pages. If your conclusion be crasie and here∣ticall, your premisses must needs be so too; and therefore the setting them downe could

not have helped you; and if the conclusion be not hereti∣call, why do you not defend it against the accusation of the Subscribers, which you dare not do; but only send the Sub∣scribers to your premisses in the thirteenth page, leaving the poore 18. (the conclusion) to mercy.

Suppose you had in the thir∣teenth 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 Scrip∣tures, 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 wri∣tings 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 Lon∣don

Ministers saith they are to be beleeved, nor barely because the spirit tels me they are to be belee∣ved 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 con∣fidence upon the matters of the Scriptures (as pardon through Christ, &c.) but then J. Good∣win 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 Revelati∣on of God hath alwayes been the foundation of faith; and now this Revelation is by wri∣ting, the ground of faith is, it

is written. What course tooke Christ and his Apostles to prove the matters and doctrinall asser∣tions which they taught but by the written Word, and when they would render them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fit for belief, they ever more tell how it is written. Con∣sult with the places in the Mar∣gin and you will finde that the matter, substance, precious coun∣sell, &c. contained in the Scrip∣ture, 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 mat∣ters and counsels of the Scrip∣ture, &c. Touching this I ad∣ded in Busie Bishop the testi∣monies of Tertullian, Ireneus, Aug. Chrisost. &c. Bu. Bish. p. 24.

Is not every man, as a man, a debtor to God, and a crea∣ture tyed to obedience? and doth his making himselfe in∣sufficient 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 sin∣full. Bus. Bish. p. 29.

In your next, prove 1. That they who perish have power to beleeve. The Scripture deny∣eth 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 cal∣led) the Scripture saith, Man hath found out many inventi∣ons, 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 rewar∣der 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 dili∣gently 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 Evangeli∣cally by faith in Christ, with the benefits of the Gospell, pardon, adoption, sanctification, glory. And can heathens by the sim, moone, and s••arres do this? Can they by the light of nature beleeve a trinity of persons in unity of es∣sence. 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 com∣mon 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 di∣stinction 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 So∣cinian his judgment, who saith, that faith in Christ is not al∣waies 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 hea∣thens, &c. Bus. Bish. p. 36.

The Fathers assert the being and nature of free-will only, and not its power to supernatu∣rall good in all the passages which you alleadge out of them. Though Austin and Je∣rom against the Manichees main∣tained the nature of free-will, yet 'tis as true that against the Pelagians they denyed the abi∣lities of free-wil to good super∣naturall. 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 Di∣vines of the reformed Churches abroad, understand Austin and Hierom, when alleadged by Papists and Arminians, as wri∣ting for free-will. Rivetus and Walleus, two famously learned writers among the Protestants shall suffice for instances. Baily the Jesuit, objected out of Au∣stin to prove free-will, that very place against the Protestants, which you alleadge against the Ministers. The words of Au∣stine 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 Ri∣vet 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 crea∣ture, be should be exempted from Gods Judgement, but since when he acts out of deliberation be chu∣seth and willeth what pleaseth him, he deservedly gives account of his actions, Riv. to. 2. p. 183. The place you alleadge out of Je∣rom 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 re∣gard of its abilities to good super∣naturall, 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 glad∣ly be informed by you in your next what the Ministers adju∣torium differs from that held forth by the Fathers, and what they hold tending more to∣ward a compulsory then these Fathers here, and in hundreds of other places have written, but he answers nothing.

Your mistake here is pitti∣full, for the great question be∣tween Hierom, Augustine, and Pe∣lagius, 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 adjuto∣ry; and I alleadge sundry pla∣ces to prove that Pelagius him∣selfe 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 consider∣able, 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 wri∣tings oppose his dotage, and how they explaine themselves, to

have nothing to say, but that these Authors contradict them∣selves, 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 su∣pernaturall.

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 Re∣ligion.

I have proved in Busie Bishop that this position doth raze and destroy the very foundation of Christian Religion, 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 asserti∣on 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 positi∣on, No writing, &c. is contrary to Scripture, which tels us, the Church is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, 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, 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 multi∣tudes 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 Ter∣tullian, 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 Reli∣gion. The Leyden-professors assert the Scriptures to be prineipi∣um & fundamentum omnium Christianorum dogmatum, &c. Gomarus also, Thes. de scriptura, may be seen to this purpose. And I desire the Reader to consider, That in this whole discourse, though you exceed your selfe in impudence and audacious as∣sertions, 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 what∣ever you say might be neglected as not appertaining to this con∣troversie between you and me.

But to consider of what you say, though your whole dis∣course be nothing to the purpose, in this satisfactory discussion (as you vainly and falsely terme it) of the foundation of Christi∣an 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 demonstrati∣ons to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christi∣an 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. You say, This unhallowed peece of Presbytery wholly conceal∣eth and suppresseth my distinction, and what I deny onely in such and such a sense, he representeth as absolutely simply, and in every sense de∣nyed by me. In a due and regular sense I affirme and avouch the Scrip∣tures to be the foundation of Christian Religion. I appeale to these words in page 13. of my Treatise concerning the Scriptures. If by Scrip∣tures 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.] remember you the Catalogue of the excluded out of the new Jerusalem? is not he that loveth and maketh a lye men∣tioned? 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 Bi∣shop, 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 Young∣ling 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 un∣certaine whether the written Word or Scriptures wherein the matter is contained, are the Word of God, or no? Is it possible to dispute a∣gainst 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 for∣mall 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 revelati∣on of God in writing, tis no divine faith.

4. In this your penurious and scanty concession that the mat∣ters contained in the Scriptures are only the Word of God; 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A more sure word of prophecy, not in regard of the mat∣ters of it, but in regard of its manner of manifestation by wri∣ting. 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 founda∣tion of Christian Religion; which base being laid, the superstru∣cture 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 ••••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. sure∣ly there is some mistery in it.

Your second exception against me is, 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 passa∣ges in your Hagiomastix, which deny the divine authority of Scrip∣ture; 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, can∣not 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 Ha∣giom, 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 di∣visim 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 He∣brew 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, 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 Coun∣sells, &c.

1 Your granting that the holy Scriptures containe the foun∣dation of Religion in them, [Answ.] is but a slender concession; I sup∣pose 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 Graci∣ous 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 foun∣dation upon which I build.

3 You vainly applaud your selfe, for asserting the Scrip∣tures 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, 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 Sen∣tence

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 funda∣mentum 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, 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, 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 Scrip∣tures 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 with∣out 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 nei∣ther 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 transla∣tions are the foundation of Christian Religion, and pag. 29. Yo Eld. that you deny whatever is found in the Scriptures besides the preci∣ous counsels to be the foundation, &c. You are to be dealt with∣all upon a new account. You then go beyond your denyall of ink and paper.

Your fifth Exception against me is, That I want Logick, in denying the conclusion, without answering any thing to the premisses. You say, you had proved the conclusion, That the Scrip∣tures are not the foundation of 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, whe∣ther Originals or translations, are the foundation of Christian Re∣ligion.

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 ac∣count an argument in Sion Coll. visited, pag. 2. to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christian Religion, viz. Be∣cause Christ is the onely foundation. Which weak cavill I fully an∣swered, 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, 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 media∣tion, 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 suitable∣nesse 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 cer∣tain it is, that neither are they the foundation of Religion at this day. Th•••• 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 wri∣ting 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 meta∣phor: Master Jenkin thinks that he manifests the feeblenesse of Sion Colledge visited, is he therefore the foundation of the booke, or of the sup∣posed feeblenesse of it which he discovers.

Your jeering betrayes your ignorance, [Answ.] or malitious forgetful∣nesse 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 com∣prehends 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 Col∣ledge 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 pro∣pounded to you, p. 7. Bus. Bish. Why doth Master Goodwin al∣leadge that Scripture, 1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation ••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 Messi∣as, if he did not ground his beliefe of his being the Messias upon Johns testimony?

1 When will you leave off to blaspheme? Its my unhappinesse that instead of reclaiming you from heresie, [Answ.] you should take oc∣casion from my words to vent your blasphemy. Do you no more need the Scriptures than Christ did? Did Christ cite the testi∣mony 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 esta∣blishing 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 up∣on 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, there∣fore the Scriptures are not.

Before you said, that only the matter and 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 wick∣ednesse in your opposing Christ and his Word, since you say, that a while since I opposed a foundation Personall to a foundation Scrip∣turall, 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 Au∣thor 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 op∣pose Christ and his Word, I distinguish only between Christ and his Word; now Accurate Logicians know the difference be∣tween 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 vo••em distinctionis cum omnibus e••uditis Philosophis, oppositioni contradi∣visive, prout nude opponitur identitati, excludendo diversitatem. You so oppose Christ and his Word, as that because Christ is the foun∣dation, 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 know∣ledge of this Saviour; your saying therefore that because I di∣stinguish 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 Lo∣gick, 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, cer∣tainly the ignorance of this distinction shewes the complexion of Master Goodwins learning.

To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of reli∣gion, [unspec 2] you now proceed to your arguments, and in your entrance upon them you brag that you demonstrate, and you thun∣der out the shame and confusion of all those that have charged the er∣ror upon you; (though the issue will prove to your owne confu∣sion, I say not to your shame who I think are past it.)

Your owne words are these; That the Scriptures whether writ∣ten or printed are not truly and properly the foundation of religion, I demonstrate in the s••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.

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? cer∣tainly 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 demonstrati∣ons of your position, but of your folly and impiety.

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 nei∣ther 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 de∣ny the Scriptures to be the foundation of religion.

By Scriptures are understood all the books of the Old and New Testament, conjunctim & divisim, as they are now received and ac∣knowledged among us, conjunctim, the compleat foundation; divi∣sim, 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. 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 na∣med; I affirme, that the Scriptures are to be taken concretivè both for matter and words, both being inspired of the Holy Ghost. (In iis omnibus quae per supernaturalem revelationem inno••u••∣runt, non solum res ipsas inspiravit Deus, sed etiam singul•• verba

quibus scriberentur, dictavit atque suggessit. The holy Ghost sug∣gesteth 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 religi••nis doctrina ad salutem necessariae Ecclesiae; forma Scrip∣turae esi t••tius doctrina de ver•••• religione ad s••lutem necessariae ex im∣me•••••••••• revelatione sp••••: sancti conceptis ipsius verbis significatio. Go∣mar. de scrip. s••••n Disp. 2. Id. Ibid. ut verbum non scriptum sermonis signo & enuntiatione sic contra verbum scriptum, literarum notis, & descriptione ••••n ••at) and both matter and words are preserved by the providence of God so pure this day, that they are still the foundation of Religion; the matter the foundation which we must beleeve, or the objectum materiale (this you grant) the wri∣ting 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, 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, and considered in the grace and habit of it.

Whereas you joyne together (True and proper) words of a vast difference, 'tis affirmed that the Scriptures are the true founda∣tion, 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 fundamen∣tals, 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 di∣vine authority of the written Word, in which God hath been pleased to

reveale those truths. This Master Goodwin denyeth in sundry passa∣ges 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 un∣derstand the gracious counsels, or their materia circa quam, as Go∣marus 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, do∣tingly, a weak hand best beseeming a wicked work) against the written Word. If it he impossible (saith he) to beleeve that the mat∣ter 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, af∣ter 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 A∣manuenses, that they did not ••rre in the matter of his will, or manner of expressing of it.

8. He ordered that his will sh••uld be written in such Languages, as were best knowne and underst••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 inforn••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 Demonstra∣tions.

To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Reli∣gion, [Arg. 1] 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 beso••e, &c. there∣fore — [Answ.]

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 Scrip∣tures were, it followes not that the Scriptures now are not the foundation of Christian Religion. Though the Scriptures were not alway heretofore the foundation of Religion, it followes not but that they must be now the foundation thereof. God teacheth his Church, and revealeth his will diversly; he hath varied the

wayes of his administrations; and his will being presupposed, the Scriptures are now necessary as a foundation, which in former times were not. The learned Rivet tels us, 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 Gerra••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: 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 ma∣teriall 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. Di••ine ••e••elation was the foundation and ground of their faith and is of ours also, but divine revelation was afforded to them af∣one 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 revea∣led 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, qu••{que} deinceps scripto fuerunt tradida, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ta∣men & fidei nostrae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 cer∣tainty

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 Reli∣gion is imperishable, even as is the Church (you fay) which is built up∣on it; now you say, any booke and all books whatsoever, and conse∣quently the Scriptures, we perishable, therefore no books and consequently not the Scriptures are this foundation. If Master Jenkins Bible be the form 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Religi••n, then is his Religion no such treasure but that thi••ces may breake through and steale it from him.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 bearing that Plat•• had given the definition of a man, that he was a living creature with tw•• feet with••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 Ma∣ster ••ato his man. If some such odde conceited fellow should use means to get Master Jenkins ••ible, and having defaced, rent and torne it, should cast it into the midst of his auditors, and say, Ecce funda∣mentum 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 unperish∣able, 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 pro∣mised 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 Scrip∣tures, 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 Scrip∣ture 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 po∣pish cavill; [Answ.] however to the Reader it may not be unprofitable to know so much. See Stapleton, lib. 9. c. 4. and we see his ser∣vant also following him. In your argument I deny the conse∣quence, for though the written word be the foundation of Religi∣on, yet cannot Religion be said to be founded by man, without borrowing blasphemies from Master Goodwin, who hath enough to furnish all the town; the written word had not men for the Authors of it, but onely for the Amanuenses or pen-men of it, who indeed rather were the pens in the band of God, when he wrote unto his Church; and we may looke upon men in this considera∣tion and capacity, and yet not upon either Scriptures or Reli∣gion as founded by men: holy men inspired by the holy Ghost wrote and spake. 2 Pet 1.19, 21. The holy Ghost did both put them up∣on, and direct them in the worke of writing; and therefore though the word were written by them, yet not founded by them or upon them, and by consequence not Religion.

Your fourth argument seems too weake to be owned by Mr. Goodwin, or any other man that ever pretended to a competent share in common sence,

'Tis this: If those tables of stone wherein the Law was written by the finger of God, were not the foundation of obedience exhibited to the Law, then neither is any Bible or booke the foundation of Religion.

This thing which you call a demonstration toucheth not the question; [Answ.] for it is onely framed against the paper of the Bible, and so indeed and no otherwise it holds good, for the paper of our Bibles, and the stone wherein the Law was written, are foundati∣ons both alike, of obedience and Religion. But its ridiculous to argue from the unfitnesse of the stone and paper to be foundati∣ons, to the denyall of the written word to be a foundation, your consequence therefore is a creple.

To the proofe of it which you pretend to bring in these words, Doubtlesse there is as much reason to judge those two tables which are said to have been the work of God, and the writing therein, the writing of God graven upon the tables to have been the foundation of the Law, and of the obedience to it, as to judge any book whatsoever either written or printed, to be the foundation of that religion, the principles whereof are contained in it. I answer:

1. You joyne together things that are of a different nature, the Law and the obedience to it; the question was not concerning the former, whether the writing in the tables was the foundation of the Law, but of the latter, whether it were not the foundation of obedience to it.

2. There's not as much reason to judge the two tables which were stone a foundation of obedience, as there is to judge the reve∣lation of the will of God by writing in our Bibles.

3. If you intend, that the writing of God in those two Ta∣bles which were broken was as much the foundation of obedience to the Israelites, as the Revelation of the will of God by Writing is now to us, I deny that also, because God foresaw and inten∣ded that those numericall tables should be broken, and that the writing upon them should perish and not be communicated to the people to be a foundation of their obedience; howbeit if you deny the writing in the second tables, and in that booke that was before the Priest, out of which the King was commanded to take a copy, that he might re••de and learne to feare God, Deut. 17.18. to have been the foundation of obedience unto the Law, I expect stron∣ger arguments from you than any of these demonstrations you have brought in your Yo, El.

Your fifth thing which you desire to have us looke upon as a demonstration, [Arg. 5] is drawn from the inconsistency of the foundation of Religion with it self, if any book or books whatsoever be the foundation of Christian Religion; in regard of the Errours which you say may possibly be found in every copy now extant in the world, by reason of the negligence, ignorance, &c. of the Scribes, &c.

You live upon stealing: Stapleton is still your friend, [Answ.] you plow with his heifer, Prin. Doct. lib. 9. cap. 5. Arg. 4. he useth this ve∣ry argument, and he is abundantly answered by Chamier, Panstr. lib. 12. cap. 10. Salom. Glassius, lib. 1. t. 1. tr. 1, 2. de puri∣tate textus. Your consequence is denyed, viz. If any books whatsoe∣ver, bible or other be the foundation of Religion, then is not the foun∣dation of Religion in every thing consistent with it selfe. The reason of your proposition (you say, you should have said of your consequence) is a bold assertion, of which you offer not the least proof, of errours that may be found in every copy now extant, which may render the copy contradictious to it selfe.

1 A double minded man is unstable in all his wayes. Remember you what you asserted Divine Author, p 257. God hath kept the Scrip∣tures from being corrupted or depraved, that is, from any such alterati∣on or change in the words, whether by transposition, pointing, or other∣wise, whereby the nature or proper sence of them should be impaired or cast out, or a sence that is spurious and unsound brought in in the stead thereof. Why is your Hosanna to the Scriptures turned so soone into a crucifie them?

2 Whether grant you that even there was any copy in the world pure and without errours, and so not liable to this ex∣ception of yours; if there were not, how hath God left his Church an unerring stedfast rule of faith and life, and how is the Word called a Canon, 6 Gal. If there were whether grant you ••hat the written Word in that pure and unerring copy was the Word of God, and so the foundation of Religion; if you do grant it, you contradict your self, who have said all this while, No writing whatsoever is the Word of God; if you grant not that purely written Word to be a foundation of Religion, (as its cleare you do not) to what purpose argue you against the Word for being corrupted, when as you do not deny the written Word to be a foundation quà corrupted but quà delivered in the way of writing. 3. In your next

I pray bring in your instances of those Typographicall Sphalmata, & errors found in every Copy that render the Scriptures thus con∣tradictious to themselves; and 4. prove that the same power which keeps the Scriptures from perishing, doth not also keepe them pure. 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 incorrup••ed Doctrine re∣quires 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 print∣ing in some Copies that therefore the Canon or writ∣ten 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; some∣thing 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 quoti∣die 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] 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 ex∣ternall meanes, and Divine Authority of it selfe is hidden and un∣knowne, the thing into which faith is ultimately resolved must be something externally knowne, which we may read or heare, and you must either yeeld an externall foundation and formall ob∣ject 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 foun∣dation, 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 considera∣tis nulla in est vis, saith Keckerman.

3. How wretchedly weak is your proofe, that nothing exter∣nall is the foundation of faith; because then (say you) there is no∣thing 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 •• Bible, and see such and such sentences written or printed there, and be∣leeved 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 reli∣gious 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; The true and proper foundation of reli∣gion 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 Je∣suits 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 change∣able. Your major I deny not, if it only import, that the foun∣dation 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 reli∣gion 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 be∣comes of their verity? Is it Logicall truth, or truth of Proposi∣tions? 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 Incar∣nation, but is it so still? and is not veritas ethica, or the agree∣ment

of the judgement or minde with the proposition, change∣able 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 per∣vert the sence, and so farre as the Scriptures are thus chang'd they cease to be the written Word, or they pervert it not, and if any such changes be, they nothing hinder the written Word from being the foundation of faith. Sphalmata Typographica, Ty∣pographicall faults makeerrours in Orthography, none in Di∣vinity.

Your last demonstration; [Arg. 3] If the Scripture be the true foundation of Religion, it must be understood either of the Scriptures as in the ori∣ginall 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 origi∣nals, [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 origi∣nals, [Answ.] nor yet can read translations, doe build neverthelesse their saith upon the Scriptures contained in them, though medi∣atly, 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 hi∣therto 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 be∣leeve, 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 Mini∣stry 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 re∣solved, 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 nu∣merically.

2. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically among themselues.

About the identy of the foundation numerically, I shall not con∣tend; but how prove you your second supposition? viz. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically, you indea∣vour it thus:

Two things (you say) which differ more than numerically, differ specifically; Now an Hebrew and a Spanish Bible, differ more than nu∣merically, because they differ more than two Spanish or two Hebrew Bi∣bles differ from one another, and yet these differ numerically the one from the other.

1. Had the Youngling Elder disputed thus, how many excla∣mations, of poore man! illiterate soule! silly man! &c. would your tender heart have bestowed upon him; but I shall not re∣taliate, 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 Bi∣ble and a Spanish is but in specie accidentali, or specificall acciden∣tall, yet such a difference as this is sufficient to prove that they differ numerically. You give in already, and shew your self but a foun∣der'd disputant, for what is this to your undertaking, which was to prove your second supposition, viz. That they do differ speci∣fically and not numerically onely, which was nothing to the se∣cond supposition, page 37.

3. You contend that a Spanish Bible, a Latine, and an English, differ in specie accidentali, or with a difference specifical acciden∣tall 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 d••fference of the Bibles, that the Scripture or the foundation is not the same numerically. The Languages I will grant differ specifically, and the copies doe differ with a difference specificall accidentall, but

the Scripture the foundation of faith, the will of God revesled in writing, is numerically and identically the same. May not the same thing numerically be the subject of accidents specifically different? The same man may (I speak not of Master Goodwin) speake La∣tine, Greek, and Hebrew. These Languages differ specifically, yet the man who speaks them, is not multiplyed, but is numerically the same. 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 De∣cree, though the Languages differed specifically, and the Copies numerically, and specie accidentali, in regard of the specifi∣cally 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 founda∣tion 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 nume∣ricall 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, how any could beleeve the mat∣ter 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.

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 hea∣vens 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 Gen∣tiles (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 un∣beseeming 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 na∣ture, 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 with∣out 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, know∣ledge, and a divine grace, faith; the ground of the one being rea∣son, 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 di∣vine faith, without a written Word? Quaevis propositio physica, astro∣logica, historica fit objectum fidei, si à deo in Scripturis nobis propa∣natur,

Davevant, p. 12. de judice fidei, Then (saith he) is any Phy∣sicall, 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 whe∣ther 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 plea∣sure 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 be∣lieve that they are things which came from God, though they had not the super-added advantage of any thing in the Scripture as wri∣ting.

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? Its 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 be∣leeve 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. 'Tis 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 beau∣ty 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 beau∣tifull 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 up∣on 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 accep∣tation, 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, yet) to this ef∣fect: Doth not (say you) the Scripture affirme that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the goodnesse of God leadeth to repentance? Rom. 2.4. Which repen∣tance 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 writ∣ten 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, 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 dis∣proved; 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 repen∣tance, 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, 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 in∣vitation? 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 repen∣tance 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 of a mountaine) you would tell us whether a true and sound repentance and a knowledge that God will be gracious in the forgivenesse of sins, were ever (yet) wrought in any without the knowledge of Christ Jesus, and whether the generall goodnesse of God put forth in the government of the world did ever ma∣nifest Christ Jesus to the Gentiles; sure I am the Apostle tels the Ephesians, Eph. 2.12. That they were formerly without Christ, ha∣ving no hope, and without God in the world; and the times wherein the Gentiles were destitute of the Gospell are called the times of ignorance, to which he directly opposeth the time in which now God commandeth all men every where to repent, Act. 17.30. I shall onely advise you to learn of reverend Calvin, Instit. l. 1. c. 6. No

man, saith he, can have the least taste of sound Doctrine, but he that is taught by the Scripture. And againe, God hath bestowed upon all those whom he ever taught with benefit, the help of his Word, in re∣gard that the effigies of himself imprinted upon the world, he foresaw could not be effectuall. And again, Quum frustra Deus, &c. Since God did ineffectually invite to himself all people by the sight of the Hea∣v••n and Earth, the Law is the peculiar s••hoole of his sons. Once more heare that excellent man, Since the minde of man, in regard of its weaknesse, could no wayes come unto God, unlesse helped and relieved by his b••ly Word, all men who sought God without his Word, were ne∣cessarily occupied in vanity and errour: The Gentiles could not have beleeved this proposition (saith Davenant) Christ hath reconciled us to God by his death, unlesse it had been revealed to them by the preach∣ing of the Apostles.

To conclude this first question, I desire the Reader to ob∣serve that this Dotard, who would be accounted the great as∣sertor of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, doth when he states the question borrow of the Papists their blasphemies, cals the Written Word ink and paper, as Ecchius, Pighius, and others; and when he disputes against the Scriptures, he goeth downe to these Philistims to sharpen his axe, and is beholding to Papists and Jesuites for most of his arguments. This the Reader may see in this brief parallel which I have added with an inti∣mation of some learned Protestants who have confuted them; that he may not say in his next, It is no matter whose the argu∣ment is, but who hath answered it?

Master Goodwin.

YO. Eld. p. 32. Arg. 1. Religion was foun∣ded, built, stood firme and stable in the world before the Scriptures were, Div. Auth. pag. 10. Moses is generally ac∣knowledged by us to be the first pen-man of the

Scriptures, or the Word of God, and that the world had continued more than 2000 yeeres before he was borne; but to affirme that there was no word of God in the world, no foun∣dation of Religion, for the space of 2000 yeers is to contradict what is plainly written.

Youn. Eld. page 31. if the Scriptures be the on∣ly foundation in point of manifestation, how came all the pen-men of the Scriptures, by the knowledge they had of God, and of Christ, and of Religion, did they ground their know∣ledge of these upon the Scriptures, whilest as yet they were not.

Yo. Eld. p. 33. Arg. 2. All bookes whatsoever are perishable, may be burnt, miscarry by ma∣ny casualties, Argu. 5.

It is very possible, that either through negli∣gence ignorance, of Scribes, and correctors of the presse, some such errour may be found in every copy now extant in the world, which will render this Copy contradictious to it self. Arg. 7. Experience tea∣cheth us that the Books and Bibles themselves, are de facto, altered by men from time to time.

Arg. 8. If Mr. Jen∣kin will say, That the Scriptures are the foun∣dation of Religion, on∣ly as they are in the O∣riginals, then they who understand not these languages, cannot build (at least with under∣standing) upon this foundation, and conse∣quently can never bee truly religious, Divine Auth. pag. 19.

I suppose it is no foun∣dation

of faith to be∣lieve that the English Scriptures are the word of God; God spake not to his Prophess or Apo∣stles in English, nor doth our English Tran∣slation agree in all things with the true sence and meaning of the Originals, Hagiom. pag, 37. sect. 28.

The Papists agreeing with him.

BEllarminus de ver∣bo Dei, l. 4. c. 4. Ab Adam us{que} ad Mosen, fuit Ecclesia dei aliqua in mundo, & colebant homi∣nes deum fide, &c. at nulla fuit scriptura ante Mofen. There was a Church in the world from Adam

to Moses, and men wor∣shipped God, but there was no Scripture before Moses, &c.

Vid. etiam Bailium. Jesuitam in sua catech••si, Ecc. Enchirid T. 2. Trip. Cord. p. 156 before Moses who first wrote, the Church continued 2000 yeeres. Fuit assensus fidei antequam esset Scriptura, Turnb. Tetrag.

1 Turnbul Jesuita Te∣trag. c. 10. Ipsi scriptores canonici prius fuerunt di∣vinitus edocti scribenda, quàm scriberent alioque proinde signo Deum fuisse dictatorem scribendorum.

The pen-men of the Scriptures, were taught by God the things that were to be wrote before they worte them, and therefore by some other signe than the written Word, God did dictate to them what they were to write.

Jac. Tiri. Ies. Syn. Contr. ex ser. Textum bibliorum hebraicum non paucis in locis depravatum esse, par∣tim injuria temporum, par∣tim

inscitià vel oseitantia typogra, horum, &c. suis hinc inde locis ostendi. The Hebrew Text of the Bibles are corrup∣ted and depraved, partly by the injury of times, partly by the ignorance and idlenesse of prin∣ters, &c. vid. etiam Sta∣pleton. Relect. princ. fid. doct. contr. 5. q. 3. act. 1.2. valent. in Thom. Tom. 3. Disp. 1. q. 1.

Turnbul. Tetrag. c 5. sect. 2. Scriptura immedi∣ate spectata, est idonea tantum regula literatis nec usui esse potest illitera∣tis, &c. The Scripture considered immediate∣ly, is onely a fit rule to men learned, nor can it be of any use to the illi∣terate. So Canus in Lo∣cis, l. 2. c. 13. Discourse concerning the rule of faith, sect. 7. Scriptures cannot bee a rule of faith, accomodate to the capacities of unlear∣ned men who cannot read them.

Discourse uhi supr. sec. 6.

These Translations are not infallible as the rule must be, for neither were the Scriptures written in this Lan∣guage, neither were the Translators assisted by the same spirit infalli∣bly, as if it were impos∣ble they should erre, &c.

Protest. Wri∣ters confuting them both.

Chamierius Panstr. t. 1. l. 7. c. 7. Rivet. Cath. or. Trac. 1. q. 1.

Gerrand Ex∣eg. pag. 16. Whitak de Script.

Baronius Apol. pr. ob∣ject. formali fidei tr. 4. p. 155.

Maresitheol. elench. T. 1. p. 24.

Sol. Glass. T. 1. de pur. Text.

Chamierius Paustr. T. 1. l. 12. c. 10.

Baron. Apol. Tr. 1. c. 2. Dr. White way to the Ch. p. 17.

Dr. Whites way to the Church, p. 13

I shall conclude with observing, that in this Mr. Goodwin is worse than either Papists, Enthusiasts, or such other Sectaries that oppose the written Word, because though they deny it to be the formall object of faith, or that upon which we are to ground and build our faith in beleeving the matters of the Scriptures, yet they have held forth some other foundation in stead of the written Word, but never were we beholding to Master Goodwin for such a favour.

This Bishop of Bangor vainly threatned when he entred up∣on the handling of this question about the Scriptures, that he would make his friend William as hereticall as himselfe before they parted at this turning: My Lord, we are now parting at this tur∣ning; but all that your young friend hath received at your Lord∣ships hands is confirmation in the same truth which he entertained before you and he first met, and which so much opposeth your Errours; and he hopes that he shall ever forsake you and these your workes.

CHAP. IIII.

Shewing the weaknesse and erroneousnesse of Master Good∣wins pretended Answers to what I bring against his Errours about the power of man to good supernaturall.

IN my former Booke called Busie Bishop, I charged you with Arminianism in the handling this Doctrine of grace and free will; you deny not the charge but acknowledge it true, though not penitentially, but impudently: But what say you in your owne defence?

1. You slight the charge, as fit to be regarded onely by women and child••en, and not by m••n of worth, parts, &c.

But is it so small a matter to be accounted, [Answ.] nay, to be a profest Arminian? would it never have moved men of worth, parts, &c. Were they men of no worth or parts, &c. that cen∣sured the Tenets in Pelagius, which afterward revived in Arminius? have none but women and children held these forth as accursed, abominable, most pernitious heresies, execrable, pestilent impieties, the poyson and bane of faith? The many holy and lear∣ned men who have been moved against the errours of Armi∣nius, were so far from being children for their deep resent∣ment of this heresie, that they shew you a childe for sleight∣ing the charge of it; Neither women nor children sit in Parlia∣ment, and yet the House of Commons in their Remonstrance to the King, June 11. 1628. professe themselves no lesse perplexed with the growth of Arminianism than of Popery; that being a cun∣ning way to bring in Popery; and the professors of Arminianism they looke upon as the common disturbers of Protestant Churches, and Incendiaries of those States wherein they have gotten head, being Protestants in shew, but Jesuites in opinion and practice; Its cleare what Master Goodwins esteeme was of that Parliament, for being so moved against Arminians; and I doubt not but this present Parliament which hath been so earnest in suppressing Ar∣minians, is yet lower in the opinion of this censor.

2. In this section you plead that truth is not the worse because bareticks hold it, I my self (you say) hold some things that Devills, Pha∣risees, Arminians beleeve.

Its confest, but this comes not up to your case; [Answ.] If you hold any truth which the Arminians hold, I blame you not; Its for the embracing the errours which they maintaine that I charge you. Its a speech of Augustine to the Sectaries. That there is free will in man, we say on both sides, hence therefore it is not that you are called Celestians, but that any one hath free will to good, you say, and hence you are called Celestians; you tell me that the de∣vill holds Jesus Christ to be the holy one of God; but this confession makes him not a devill, its common with the Church of Christ; but your tenets are properly Pelagian, Arminian, condemned by the Churches of Christ, whom you leave therefore, particularly this Church of England, of which the learned Davenant saith: No man can embrace Arminianism in the Doctrin•• of predesti∣nation and grace, but he must first desert the Articles agreed upon by the Church of England. And in this you close with the Jesu∣ite, building upon that foundation which he laid, and watering that plant which he planted in England and Holland, as a sove∣raigne drugg to purge the Protestants from their heresie.

3. You say, That this practice of mine to defame books, by say∣ing that those who are erroneous hold them, is an old device of Papists, whereby they endeavour to render such truths of God as made not for their interests hatefull, you instance in one Prateolus.

A triviall passage that needs not a reply. Papists slander truths, [Answ.] I discover'd errours; where's the harmony? They load truths with imputation of errour, I compare errour with errour. When you shall have cleered your self and opinion from the imputati∣on of Arminianism, as Morton, Springlius, Rivet, have vindicated the Protestants against Prateolus and his compeers, you may say I used a popish stratagem, but till then you must be under the ac∣cusation of heresie, for ought I can do to relieve you.

I having told the Reader that your charging the Subscribers of the Testimony with Manicheism is as old as Pelagius, and by him cast upon Jerome and Austin; This, you say, is as if one charged for a seducer of the people, should plead thus for himselfe, The accusation of seducing the people was cast upon Christ by the Phari∣sees,

&c. by whom have any of your judgement in the point of reproba∣tion, been vindicated from the accusation of Manicheism.

1. [Answ.] I do indeed tell the Reader, That this charge of Mani∣cheism is as old as Pelagius, that he may observe your complyance with that Heretick, as in your opinions, so in your opprobrious calumnies against the truth; you know who said it.

Nec lacie lacti, nec ovum ovo similius. 'Twixt milk and milk the likenesse is not greater, Nor egge to egge more parallel in feature.

2. A sedu••er (such are you) may not plead for himselfe, by saying the Pharisees did cast the accusation of seducing upon Christ, but an innocent person may beare up his spirit with the recollection to his minde, of the false accusations that have been cast upon the saints in former ages. So persecuted they the Prophets, saith Christ, Mat. 5: 12. And (is Austine saith) though it be a dangerous thing to reproach such, yet is it a glorious thing to suffer re∣proaches with such.

3. You ask by whom any of my judgement in the point of reprobation, have been vindiceted from Manicheism.

1. How know you my judgement in the point of reprobation. 2. What need any of my judgement in the point of reprobation, any vindication from Manicheism? doth not this further mani∣fest, that you understand not what Manicheism is? Did the Ma∣nichees hold any reprobation at all? You lay upon me the impu∣tation of Manicheism; I deny it. 'Tis your part to prove it, who say it; but do it throughly least you prove your self not onely a simple accuser, but a false accufer. But 3 know that if those whose heresie is your inheritance, have case the imputation of Manicheism upon any of my judgement, they have been suffici∣ently cleared by Augustine of old, and by Springlius, cited Busie Bishop, page 48. among many Moderne Writers who have done the like.

In this section I finde you miserably flundering in the quagmires of errour, non-sence, and absurdity; and you would faine perswade Master Ball to sinke with you, but you cannot; your opinion is this: Men are not wholly destitute of all power to do what God re∣quires of them as simply necessary to salvation, particularly to repent, and beleeve. Master Balls worde are these: No man is hindered

from beleeving through the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the com∣mand, or through his owne simple infirmity, as being willing to be∣leeve but not able, which inability deserves pitty, but he doth not be∣leeve because he will not.

1. I demanded, what is here that gives you the least countenance in your errours? You answer by asking, Who either said or thought that here was any thing of such import? I reply, [Answ.] If you did not think so, you dealt very contraconscientiously to say so. Your very words, Sion Coll. visited, pag. 16. are these: The self-same opinions are countenanced by men of your owne party for which you defame others, and immediately you subjoyne this allegation out of Master Ball. And Youngling Elder, pag. 46. say you not thus: I cite the words not so much by way of countenance as con∣currence. Here's an open confession that you cite the words by way of countenance as well as concurrence, though not by way of countenance so much; but you would faine be lookt upon as a Doctor seraphicus, irrefragabilis, resolutus, (the encomiums of three dunces met in one,) your opinions need no mans counte∣nance, nay, you build your faith no more upon the Scripture, than Christ his upon Moses. You call me childling for but asking what is here that gives you countenance. But friend, though you be hap∣ly a Pythagorus to your deluded followers, you need some counte∣nance to beare up your port among others. And its just with God if you who have accustomed your self so much to falsnesse should not hereafter be beleeved by plaine hearted Christians, without the Countenance of others, though possibly you speake the truth; Its the portion of the lyar.

2. You proceed, Master Ball (saith Master Jenkin) saith, That unwillingnesse to beleeve hinders a man from beleeving, but he doth not say, that any man of himselfe can be willing. But, Master Jen∣kin, when I tell you that Master Ball speakes of apples, why do you (by way of answer) tell me that he doth not speak of oysters; where did Master Jenkin ever meet with any such assertion of mine? who ever said that any man of himselfe could be willing to beleeve?

I perceive your minde is on your junkets, you had rather be loading the asse than disputing. But (Master Goodwin) if you ci∣ted Master Ball by way of concurrence with you, why do you bring him in speaking of apples, when you speake of oysters?

if the serious Reader compare your words and Master Balls, should he finde them to agree, 'twill be with the agreement of harp and harrow.

2. Did never any man say, That a man of himself could be willing to beleeve? why then you have wronged Pelagius in the 51. page of Taungling Elder, charging him to have held, That the adjutory of grace was not simply necessary for the enabling of the will to do that which is pleasing to God, but by way of accommodation or facilitation of the worke, citing sundry places out of Austine to prove that this was his opinion, as indeed at first it was. Why abuse you poore Pelagius if he never said so?

3. Did I never meet with such an opinion of yours as this, That man of himselfe can be willing to beleeve? you either forget or understand not your self. Say you not in this very section that your opinion is, That men are not wholly destitute of all power to do what God requires of them, as simply necessary to salvation, par∣ticularly to repent and beleeve? Also expresse you not your self thus in this section; Natucall men want no power, no not of being wil∣ling, or making themselves willing to beleeve? Say you not, That men cannot be said to act or do, or to be able to act or do, but onely what is possible for them to will, or to make themselves willing to do? 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. [unspec 3] 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 d••ing whereof he is not hindered by any difficulty relating to the per∣formance 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 it•• 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 Com∣mand, Master Goodwin simply all difficulty relating to the per∣formance; Master Ball saith, No man is hindered from belee∣ving 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 wri∣tings 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 be∣leeve because he will not, he doth not resolve his unbeleefe into any de∣ficiency 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 vertu∣ous; 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 froward∣nesse 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 o∣ther passages in this and his other books. Heare what he saith concerning the production of faith; God (saith he) doth in∣fuse 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. If God have not left you to a most obstinate obdurati∣on of heart, you will in your next acknowledge how you have abused Mr. Ball, in your saying that he doth resolve mans un∣beleefe only into present, actuall frowardnesse, or a fit of peevish∣nesse.

You give us a fifty ninth Section thus: just such worke as he makes in interpreting Mr. Balls words, to manife st their non-concur∣rence with me, he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer, 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 quo∣tations 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 at∣tempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer and the Fathers; moll strenuously and disputant-like illustrating, if not endea∣vouring

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 wit∣nesse, 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 Re∣ply to have asked pardon of that Province, which in your last you so unworthily slandered?

In your sixtieth Section I reade thus. Whereas he quotes seve∣rall sentences out of Mr. Ball, Bucer, Austine, &c. of a contrary im∣port (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 glad∣ly 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 de∣livered 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 quota∣tions, let my very enemies judge; if I cited those passages per∣tinently, 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 ton∣dency of my counter-quotations was, to vindicate those godly, and orth••dox Authors from your aspersions, to manifest how much you abused the truth and them, by holding them forth as fa∣vourers of your heresies, and how farre they were from affor∣ding 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 in∣finuate, that they no where else delivered themselves in contrariety to the placece cited by me, &c. But its 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 commo∣dities within. Was it not your desire to have the Reader be∣leeve, that the constant ••enor and straine of the writings of the cited Authors maintained your errours? else what is the mea∣ning 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 una∣wares, but the contents of it were his setled and well resolved judge∣ment; 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 pre∣tend 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, 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 questi∣on, 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, for (say you) that which caused the distance between Austin and Pela∣gius 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; 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 a∣gainst 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 expre••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 va••ne man thus to boast of a sentence you misunderstand; Aug. (tis true) desired on∣ly that Pelagius would acknowledge that a man did stand in need of the grace of God. But what grace meaneth he? a grace mo∣rally 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, before ever he would be friends with him, Pelagius only acknowledging the grace that in∣lightned the understanding, and excited the stupid will (my Lords grace) Augustin excellently saith as followes. Nos istam grati∣am nolumus, istam aliquando gratiam fateatur, &c. We will not have such a grace as he brings. Let Pelagius acknowledge that grace, whereby the greatne••se of future glory is not only promised, but beleeved, and wis∣dom 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.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 re∣quite 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 deter∣mining.

3. In this Section as if you had bid farewell to all wholsome reading and to ingenuity, you shamefully abuse the holy man Au∣stin thus: If the question (say you) was, whether God doth not in∣vincibly and indeclinably draw or worke upon the will, then the que∣stion could not be between Augustine and Pelagius what kinde of ad∣jntory 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 invinci∣bly and indeclinably vpon the will, that is (say you) the will must of necessity follow the working of God, will it, ••ill it, 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 in∣vincibility, 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. Hence is that conclusion of Augustine; Humane vo••untates 〈…〉〈…〉, &c. Mens wills cannot resist Gods d••ing what he will, since God 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the very wills of men as he will, and when he will; Its a 〈…〉〈…〉 imputation cast upon the grace of God, that from the inf••llibility of its working upon the will you should conclude a possibility of its compelling the will, or 〈…〉〈…〉; will nothing prevaile with you to acquit grace from compelling the will, unlesse put∣ting all the operations of grace that need be put into the ballance, a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 free wil musi turn the 〈…〉〈…〉 whether a man shall be comberted 〈◊〉〈◊〉? If these be the institutes of the alley, cer∣tainly its as corrit••t as its close, and as narrow in grace as space. No friend, when you suppose that essi••tious grace workes upon the will whether it will, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, p. 50. you speake contradicti∣ons, for that which grace workes is this, to will; and the will is not against the working when under the working of efficaciens grace. Its a happy expression of Augustines, Inspiratâ gratiae suavitate, &c. The sweetnesse of grace inspired by the Holy Ghost, makes the soule more to be delighted with what is commanded than with what would hinder it, &c. 34. Ea quae pertinent ad justitiam, &c. Those things that belong to righteousnesse so delight the soule, that griefe doth not so much hinder, as delight prevaileth, & de pec. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 19. he calls it (sweetly) Victricem delectationem, a conquering and victorious delight that God puts into the soule when he converts it; the will is wrought upon so sweetly that it yeelds it selfe to God with the greatest willingnesse, and yet so powerfully, that it yeelds to him with unfayling certainty.

4. Whereas Austine said, that there is a two-fold adjutory

to good, the one, without which a good worke it not done, the ether by and through which a thing is done; and I having said that the Pelagians in granting the former never satisfied Austine, de∣aying (as I feare you doe) the latter; hereupon in this Section you say, that I am an unhappy man, that neither feares nor faiths but without ground; you (say you) freely acknowledge such an ad∣jutory of grace, not only without which a good worke in not done, but by which every good work is done.

A good confession, such an one the Arminians make, Decla•• Sent. c. 17. such an one Pelagius, Aug. de Gra. Christi. c. 3. so that Austine himselfe professeth, Mihi paenè persuaserat, hane illam gra∣tiam de quâ quaestio est confiteri, Ib. c. 37. Pelagius had almost per∣swaded me that he granted that grace for which I contended, but as he suffered not Austine, so neither doe you the Reader long to retaine any hopes of you, for you instantly cast in your Coloquintida, (a mite you call it,) which you bequeath to my understan∣ding (a bountifull man to give away all you have at once) and it is this; such an adjutory of grace (say you) by and through which a thing is done, doth not imply an absolute necessity of effecting that which is effected by it.

But why doe you involve your selfe in darke termes? why make you the streame by your pawing so muddy? Come, come; off with your Visard, speake aloud man, and tell the world; I say with my Masters, The adjutory of grace doth not infallibly produce that effect which is produced by it; putting all the operations of grace that God useth to the working of grace in us, yet conversion is so in our power as that we may not be cenverted; and no twithstanding all these opera∣tions, the will may not consent. Wherein you fight against the Scrip∣tures, which tell us, that the boly Ghost workes in them that be∣leeve according to his mighty power, and that his power towards be∣leevers is exceeding great; and that he workes even this in us to will, and

This your error attributes more to mans will than to God in conversion, man being converted not because God makes

him so, but because he will be so; God only perswading, but man of himselfe consenting; God only giving a posse velle, a p••ss••••muerti, a power to be converted if one will, but man de∣termining himselfe to will or not to will as he pleaseth; by which opinion that which is the greater, and which specifies the e∣vent, man performes of himselfe, to wit, actually to beleeve, convert, and will, and by all the power of Gods grace the will is advanced but to a middle kinde of state, a posture of indifferency, or an indifferent profension to either hand, and God workes only by way of contingency & sub h••c conditione, on this condition, that the will by its naturall power will move it selfe. Thus Augustine expresseth himselfe against Pelagius, De pec. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 18. Si nobis libera quaedam voluntas ex Deo est, &c. If we have a free will from God which yet either can be good or evill, and the good will be of our selves, what we have from our selves is better than what we have from God, which is most absurd; so that evident it is, that in saying you acknowledge with Austine such an ad∣jutory of grace by which every good worke is done, you both delude your selfe and your followers; for he by this adjutory expres∣seth himselfe to meane, not such an one by which a man is left to himselfe, to susser conversion to be wrought or not to be wrought, but such an adjutory by which it is infallibly wrought Vid. Aug. de cor. & gra••c 12. Aliud est adjutorium sine quo ali∣quid n••n fit, aliud est ad u••orium, quo aliquid fit; nam sine alimen∣tis, &c. There's an adjutory (saith he) without which a thing is not done, and an ad utory by which a thing is done; we cannot live with∣out food, and yet neither doth he live by food who will dye though he hath it; so that food is an adjutory without which we cannot live, not by which it is that we d••e live; but when blessednesse is bestowed upon a man, he is f••rthwith made blessed: this is an adjutory not only without which a thing is not done, but by which that is done for which it is given, because if blessednesse be given to a man he forth∣with bec••mes blessed; and if it be not given he shall never be blessed;

but it followes not that a man shall live by having food, onely without food he cannot live. If your adjutory be the same with Austines tell me; I charged you from your accusing of the Ministers with Manicheism that you understood not what it was.

1. In the next Section you give me an account therefore of your profound knowledge what Manicheism is, and having cited a sentence out of Augustine, Serm. deaemp. 191. They erre who with Manicheus affirme that a man cannot avoyd snne, &c. — from this passage you say it clearly appeares, that one notorious straine of the Manichean errour was this; that men by the eternall, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, are put into, or left in such a condition, wherein it is impossible but that they should sinne.

Answ. Who is the illiterate soule now? had you required from me an account of Manicheism out of the Fathers, and had I given you such an ignorant answer as this, I had deserved to have changed my Seraglio for the Ware-house? From whom have it you, that the Manichees held that man was put into, or left in such a condition of sin by any decree of God? Is this your knowledge of Manicheism? had you held your peace haply you would have been accounted wise in this point; but now Schol∣lars are ashamed of you. Did the Manichees hold that a man could not avoyd sinne, from the unchangeablenesse of Gods de∣cree? Jerom would have inform'd you better; Manichaeorum est hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium. It is Ma∣nicheism to condemne the nature of man, and to dispoile it of freo will; and Augustine haer. 46 Peccatorum Originem non libero arbitrio volun∣tatis, sed substantiae tribuunt gentis adversae. The Manichees asserted impossibility to avoyd sinfrom the very being of nature in it selfe, which could not but be bad; and their Principles were: 1. Peecatum esse substantiam, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per se viventem & subsistentem, non autem tantum, qualitatem quandam, affectionemque vel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mentis a rati∣one aversae, quae substantiae superuenerit; that sinne was a substance, living, and subsisting of it selfe, and not onely a quality, or an affe∣ction of the minde averse from reason, which did supervene.

2. They held voluntatem malè agendi nobis à naturâ infitam esse, non ex rebellione nosirâ accensitam, vel inobedientia natam, That the will of doing evill was from the very nature, not fetcht from rebel∣tion

und disubedience; for Austin chargeth them to hold, that Malum was ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nesoio quâ fomper m••la, that sin was from a kinde of nature alwaies evill; And Jerome saith they held, That nature it self was evill, and could by no means be changed; he saying in that place, That no man ever heard him say so. Evident it is that the Manichees asserted such a necessity of sin, as that it was repugnant to the very being of nature not to sin; and blush you not to cast such a fencelesse imputation upon the Ministers of Christ? Did they whom you accuse of Manicheism ever say or thinke that sin was from any nature unchangeably evill? or that we sin by a necessity of nature? or in regard of the unchangeable decree of God, that nothing can come to passe contingently, so as that it would have been against the nature of the creature to have acted otherwise? bringeth not learned Piscator the instance of breaking the legs of Christ? saith he not that though it were determined by the decree of God, that his legs should not be broken, yet by the nature and will of the Souldiers such a thing might have been? And the last mentioned Father thus meets with your argument from the unchangeablenesse of Gods Decrees. Aske the Apostle (saith he) quae necessitas, &c. what necessity hinders the will? what force commands it to do things worthy of batred, that it should be compelled to do not what it would, but what it would not and bates to do? Will not (saith Jerome) the Apostle answer, O man who art thou that disputest against God? shall the thing formed say to him that formod it, Why hast thou made me thus? Object to God a stronger calumny, for 'tis said, Esau and Jacob being yet in the wombe, he hated the one and loved the other; and Austine, to whom the Pelagians objected that he brought in Manicheism by the Doctrine of the necessity of the spirit (the making of which objection is pure Goodwinism) in severall places saith, that the Catholici go in a middle way betweene Manicheism and Pelagianism. Contr. du. ep. Pel. l. 4. c. 3. A Catholike so asserts free will, that he saith the sin of Angels and men came not from I cannot tell what nature alwaies evill, which is none, but from the will it self, and this overthrowes the heresie of the Manichees, nor therefore that the captive will can attaine to a saving liberty but by the grace of God, and this over throwes the heresie of the Pelagians. And Contr.

du. ep. Pel. l. 2. c. 5. Pecc••te Adae, &c. We say not (saith he) that by the sin of Adam free will is perisht, but that in men that are slaves to Satan it hath no strength to holy living, unlesse the will of men be de∣livered. To conclude, The Manichees tooke away the very nature of man i.e. the liberty of nature, we deny to a man not regenerate only liber∣ty in respect of grace. In your former pamphlet you said that you were about to preach against Manioheism; I suppose that the treasury of your understanding is not so full as yet, but that it will hold one mite more, take this therefore; but if you consult with Aug. de civ. d. l. 5. c. 10, 11. and Zanc. de oper. dei l. 4. c. 4. q. 4. youmay receive of their bounty, if at least they give you not more than your treasury can hold.

2. In this your section you liberally charge two famous Di∣vines of the reformed Churches with Manicheism, but childishly prove no more the charge against them, than you proved out of your Grammar rules, by which you answered Master Edwards his Antapologia, that there was no kisse of love or anoynting with oyl you know where—Your onely argument whereby you en∣deavour to prove their opinions guilty of that imputation, be∣ing this: If such tenets as these be not pure Manicheism, I know not what Manicheism is. (Who ever said that you did know?) This is somewhat like your learned confutation of the dispectation at Christ-Church concerning tithes, where you having weakly and pittifully yeelded the question, you vindicated your self shortly after, in your preface to your Hag. with this burly but beggarly dictate, I (infallible John) profes unfeignedly, the two argu∣ments brought for the payment of tithes were no more able to carry the cause, than two lambs to draw a wagg••n; such stout confutations as these are current coyn no where but in the Alloy.

You tell the Reader that some passages in these two learned men (whose umbra meridiana you (as yet) are not in understanding of Polemicall Divinity) savour of Manicheisin; but you prove it

not, nay you doe not so much as pretend to goe about to prove it; I deny it with the same facility that you asserted it. Asseren∣ti incumbit probatio; only I desire the Reader to take notice, that Manicheism cannot be imputed to the former, to Tri glandius, for what he here saith, but it must be charged upon the Apostles, Act. 4.28. and for Piscator, he is cleared by the acknowledgement of Vorstius himselfe, John, Goodwins friend and Piscators erroneous though farre more learned adversary.

You goe on; you say that I understand not the will of God in the Scriptures, &c. because from Act. 26. 18. where Paul saith, that he was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes, &c. I pro∣ved that Conversion is the restoring of sight, not of light only; the opening of the eyes, not the bringing of light to them who have eyes al∣ready; upon which passage of mine you comment thus:

1 You say, I am ridiculous in making an opposition betweene opening of mens eyes, and bringing light to them who have eyes already, as if men who had eyes to be opened had not (yet) eyes already.

Answ. Most fulsome! In Scripture Phrase to open the eyes is to give sight, and not light only. In Job. 9.10.11.21.26.30. the blinde man is said to have had his eyes opened, what's that if not that he had sight bestowed upon him? not (according to Mr. Goodwin) that he had light only brought to him having good eyes already. His eyes are said to be opened, though he were borne blinde.

2 Thus you proceed; The Scripture by the opening of the eyes of men in conversion, meane only such an opening as is proper for the light to effect, for as darknes shuts mens eyes, and the light of the morning opens mens eyes. So here,

Answ. If this be so, what is the worke of grace upon the un∣derstanding? The light irradiats or cleares the medium, but gives no strength to the organ; so (say you) 'tis in conversion, a naturall man hath good eyes already, let the object be but clearly proposed, and he can see it; is not this pure Pelagianism, to place grace in the giving of the Word? But know according to Scripture, a naturall man wants sight as well as light, Deut. 29.4 the Lord hath not given you a heart toperceive, nor eyes to see; open mine eyes (saith David) Ps. 119. and Es. 42.7. Christ is said to open the blinde eyes, Pro. 20.12. The hearing eare, and seeing eye are made

by God. And 1 Jo. 5.20. He hath given us an understanding to know him. And the Apostle tells us, not that we were in the darke, but that we were darknesse, Eph. 5.8. you told us, Sion Col. visit, p. that you have alwaies asserted the necessity of grace by way of adjutory; now I understand what grace you meane, none that conferres any power upon the faculty by which it is inabled to act, but only restores it to a capacity of present acting. But you desire to prove your error; 1. by Scripture, Matth. 4.16. 2 Cor. 4.4, &c.

But why ground you not an argument from any or all of these Scriptures, that by giving of spiritual Isight is only meant the giving of light, as the Sun or the Morning may be said to open mens eyes? Nay, why doe you not so much as recite the words of the text, but only set downe the figures of Chapters and Verses. There's not one of them that make for your pur∣pose, and some that make directly against you, Mat. 4.16. The people that sat in darknesse saw great light; Ergo quid? therefore in conversion, because God gives the light by which he doth not also give the sight with which we spiritually see. Doth his giving the one to this people prove that he did not also give the other to those among them, that were savingly inlightned; blinde Bartimeus sees the light when Christ recovers him from his blindnesse, therefore his recovery was only effected by the com∣ming of the light, and not by the worke of Christ in bestowing a power of seeing upon his eyee; so here the people saw great light, that is (according to G. the glosmaker) they saw only by ha∣ving the light of the Gospell; for that place out of the 2 Cor. 4.4 The god of this world hath blinded the mindes of them that beleeve not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them; it makes directly against him: 1. The naturall man of whom the Aposile speakes is here said to be blinded, which Mr. Goodwin denies; for he only grants that a naturall man is as a man in the darknesse of the night, not blinde, but his eyes are good. 2. Its said, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto them; evidently importing that their blindnes hindred the light from shining unto them, & that though these naturall men had the light of the Gospel shining among them, yet they were blinde for all that, when as Mr. G. tells us, its proper for the light to effect the opening of the eyes of men in conversion; but here was light without sight: This quotati∣on

sure (if it be not false printed) he laid before him, not to confirme, but to consute his errou••.

But you labour by argument to maintaine your errour thus; If men should have the eyes of their mindes opened in any other sence, then that wherein the light nay be said to open them, God must be said to worke as many miracles as conversions; and how then can that great Pillar of Presbitery, that Miracles are ceased, stand.

Answ. I desire to know why you call the cessasion of Miracles a pillar of Plesbitery; 1. If cessation of Miracles be a pillar of Presbitery, I pray take heed lest in opposition to a Pillar of Presbitery, you cry up Miracles as you cry downe the Word; some of you (I heare) begin. Your engagement against querisne or seeking, mentioned in Sion Colledge visited, I plainly see will come to nothing. Rather than Presbitery shall not sinke, you will seek. 2. What doe Presbiterians as such, build upon the cessation of Miracles. 3. It seemes by your arguing, that you know not what a Miracle is; Polanus (I remember) Lib. 6. c. 58 makes this the first condition of a Miracle, that it be visible and externall, and he proves it by many Scriptures: Miracula necesse est sensui exposita esse, qui•• debent convincere infideles, &c. Miracles ought to be externall for conviction of unbeleevers, or confirmation of beleevers. You cannot say this of the opening of the eyes of mens mindes in conversion, taken either in your sence or mine, vid. Greg. val••m. To. 1. Disp. 8. c. 3. p. 3. It's in courtefie that I returne not upon you those undervalewing expressions os illite∣rate silly-braine, &c. I can easily grant the worke you speake of, to be a greater and more admirable work than many Miracles, and yet not a Miracle properly so called.

3. In this Section you weakly cavill against my quotation, Eph. 2. Dead in trespasses and sins; you say the Apostle only mean∣eth that they were guilty of death, and liable to condemnation.

1 Before you had so peremptorily pronounced your glos upon this place (which if you know any thing you know is cited by all writers of Controvetsies agninst Papists and Armi∣nians, as by me) you should have furnished your selfe with stronger arguments.

1 You say this their death in sins and trespasses is explained by their being children of wrath, ver. 3. — but is this to under∣stand the Scripture? had i•• bin as easie for you to have proved as to have said i, we should have had an argument instead of a dictate, but you only give the latter, &c. The scope of the Apostle is to illustrate the benefits we receive by Christ, this he doth by the calling to minde our former misery out of Christ, this misery was 1. our spirituall b••ndage to sinne, and 2. for sinne to wrath. The former contained in the 1. vers. Dead in trespasses and sinnes, every naturall man being totally void of spirituall life, and so under the power of sinne that he can do nothing holily. The latter contained in the 3. vers. children of wrath; in which 3. vers. the Aposile expresseth that practicall unholinesse (held forth in the 2. vers. as the fruit of their death in fins) by shewing 1. who they were that had lived in it, Jewes as well as Gentiles, also we all, &c. 2. By shewing wherein it consisted, they had conversati∣ons in lusts of the flesh, fulsilling, &c. 3. by shewing what they de∣served, or the punishment to which they were liable when they lived so, they were children of wrath.

Thus the most learned Calvin upon this place, interprets this of the Apostle dead in sins. Non intellegit solum fuisse, &c. The Apestle understands not only (saith Calvin) that they were in danger of death (Mr. Goodwin saith, liable to death) but he signifies a reall and a present death; all are borne dead, and live dead till they are made partakers of the life of Christ; whence is that of John, The dead shall heare the voyce of the Sonne of God, and they who heare shall live. So Pifeator also upon the place; Homo naturâ mancipium, &c. Man by nature is a slave to Satan, whom he serves in committing sin, and therefore is a childe of wrath and guilty of damnation. So Davenant; anima moritur, &c. the soule dieth, in as much as sinne by its impurity dissolves that union of the soule to God, wherein stands spi∣rituali life. You see that Expositors understand by this death in

sinne, &c. that our native corruptednesse whereby we become guilty, and we are made liable to wrath, not the guilt, and liablenesse it self.

2 You say, that quickning together with Christ opposed to this death is interpreted, Col. 2.13. to be the forgivenesse of sinnes. You that deny the Scripture, feare not to pervert it; the Apostle makes not forgivenesse of sinne the formalis ratio of vivification; by quickning together with Christ, he understands a spirituall re∣paration, and forming of the Divine Image in us, by which the filth and pollution of sinne is wip'd away, and we are made his Workman∣ship, created in Christ Jesus to good workes. So Davenant; wherever sin is remitted, and its guilt taken away, there is this vivification by grace. Piscator saith expresly upon the place, that by vivification the Apostle intends the renovation of nature.

3 You say the Scripture expresseth the condition of guilt by the terme of death, therefore by dead in trespasses we must understand guilty of death, &c. 2 Sam. 9.8 — 16.9 — 19.28 Rom. 8.10. 2 Cor. 5.14. 1 Tim. 5.6.

That the Scripture doth often expresse the condition of guilt by the terme of death though I deny not, yet the Scriptures which you cite, prove nothing lesse; those places, 2 Sam. 9.8. where Mephib. saith to David, What is thy servant that thou shoul∣dest looke upon such a dead Dog, 2 Sam. 16.9. and Abishai cals Shimei a dead Dog, &c. have no other sence than 1 Sam. 24.14. where David expostulating with Saul, asketh him, after whom is the King of Israel come out, after whom dost thou pursue, after a dead Dog, after a flea? in which words the word dead notes not guil∣ty as you most ignorantly suppose, but vile, contemptible, base; that of 1 Tim. 5.6. where the widow is said to be dead while she li∣veth, is by most understood to be meant of spirituall death, and by the happy interpreter of Scripture, learned Calvin, its understood of her unprofitablenesse, and her being nothing worth, q. d. those widowes who love to live without all care, and passe their times idely and in pleasure are no more usefull, profitable in their pla∣ces then if they were dead; Mortuas vocat quae nulli sunt usui, he

cals those dead which serve for no use; now your interpetation is, the widow that lives in pleasures is guilty of death, if I may have John Calvin, let who will have John Goodwin for their Expo∣sitor, That of 2 Cor. 5.14. comprehends both liablenesse to eternall death, and spirituall death also, as all interpreters agree.

4 Lastly, whereas you most unworthily and wretchedly as∣sert, that dead in sins is not represented by the Apostle as the condition of men considered as naturall, but of men who have a long time conti∣nued in sinne, the context witnesseth against you; for 1. First the Apostle tels them what they were by nature, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 verse 3. not only by practice; 2. He makes their walking in sinne a fruit of their death in it, ver. 2. dead in sinnes wherein ye walked; 3. this death in sinne is represented by the Apostle as common to all, Jewes and Gentiles; and the Apostle certainly intends that the death is as extensive as the quickning, which latter Mr. Good∣win will not limit unto those that have a long time continued in sins, he intends that all were dead that ever were quickned, old and young. Your Expositions are huskes, food fitter for swine than soules; the Lord grant that your poore misled fol∣lowers may no longer lay out their money for that which is not bread.

Upon your saying, that by the improvement of nature a man may attaine to such a conviction, as upon which saving conversion alwaies followes; I demanded what place is here left for grace? you reply in this Section:

1 By asking me, If a man who is able, through lazinesse were unwilling to goe an hundred miles in foure dayes for the saving of his life, is there not place left for the kindnesse of his friends to accommodate him with an horse?

Answ. There's no place according to this supposition left for grace, by way of absolute necessity, but only by way of accommoda∣tion, and facilitation of the worke, he stands in no Absolute necessity of an horse to carry him, that is able to goe his journey on his ten toes, you now loudly speake your selfe a Pelagian: you told me before that the ••••turall man needed not eye-sight but light only, and now you say he needs not the help of God save by way of accomodation, he can of him selfe will, or make himselfe willing to beleeve, only not so easily; detestable doctrine! and yet,

2 In this Section you tell me, there is place enough for all tha grace of God which the Apostle attributes unto him, Phil. 2.13. in working both to will and to doe in mon of his good pleasure.

Answ. I flatly deny it; the Apostle in that place ascribes the work of faith to God wholly and necessarily, you ascribe it to him but by way of partiality and convenienty. According to your late resemblance God comes in, in a super-added way, and makes us to beleeve who yet are able to make our selves do s••. The Apo∣stle saith, God workes according to his owne good pleasure, but you, That God workes according to mans good pleasure, otherwise you suppose, That God should worke in man whether he would or no, and that grace would be a compulsorium, not an ad utorium.

3. You say, That there is far larger place left for grace by your opinion th••n by mine. If you can evince this, Eris mihi magnus Apollo, my opinion saith with the Apo••le, God hath quickned us be∣ing dead in trespasses and sins, till which quickning (the fruit of his rich love) we lye under a present, reall, spirituall death, and can do no act of spirituall life as ••o beleeve, &c. You say, That this death implyes no impoten••y to believe, but onely consisteth in guilt, so that as to the being able to beleeve all naturall men are alive. My opi∣nion saith, This grace of God is infallibly effectuall; yours, That it may be rejected, and that there's no infallibility in its effe∣cting any thing. You say, That God onely gives light; l, that God gives light and eyes to behold it. In a Word, You hold that God gives food; I, That That he gives life, which is more than meat. And now leaves your opinion a larger place for grace than mine?

4. You endeavour to prove, That your opinion leaves a lar∣ger place than mine for that grace which the Apostle attributes to God, Phil. 2.13. You say, Its a greater act of grace to forgive the sins of one who knowes how to d••well and yet d••th evill, than to for∣give the sins of him that hath no fower to do well; the latter is Mr. Jenkin his sinner, the sormer mine.

Ergo quid? therefore your opinion leaves a larger place for that grace which the Apostle attributes to God, in working to will and to do, Phil. 2.13.

1. Whether now Sir? have we a wandring Jew, or a wan∣dring John, you are quite gone from the question; we were dis∣puting

about the grace of conversion, and the Apostle was assert∣ing this, and now you flye to the grace of remission. Its not this latter that the Apostle in this place Phil. 2.13. attributes to God; he speaks not of God pardoning the evill which we have done but of giving the will to do that good which of our selves we cannot do. And by the way, I cannot but observe your per∣fect conformity with Pelagius, one spirit acts you both.

Sic Oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora forebat, just so and so, with eyes, hands, face, he acted. Pelagius said, that the grace of God, which was neither Law nor nature, onely did serve for the remission of for∣mer sins, not for the avoyding of future sins, &c. So Julian the Pela∣gian expou••ds that place, who shall deliver me from this body of death? i. e. Who (saith he) shall deliver me from the guilt of my sins, which I have committed when as I could have avoyded them?

2. In proposing the object of this grace (a sinner) you deale unworthily, in concealing both what your self hold, and what I hold; for your sirner is one that wants no ability, either in his understanding to know the things of God, or in his will to embrace them; the grace he wants is onely outward light for the under∣standing, and morall perswasion for the will, which is left to its owne choice, whether it will embrace what is offered it or no, and when it hath received all from God, there's a possibility of non∣conversion; whereas my sinner is one that is in spirituall things starke blinde, that neither knowes nor is able to receive the things of God, that in his will is wholly unable to embrace them; this inability arising from his p••avity and lusts, which have put out his eyes, and made him an Enemy to God, so that he hates light and reformation, and the grace that I stand for, is such as renewes the understanding, and changes the will not onely by af∣fording light and perswasion, but by an infallibly effectuall power. And now let any judge whether of these is the more miserable sinner? whether of these the more glorious worke of grace? you will have grace for the accommodation and facilitation of the work; I maintaine it to be simply necessary. Your sinner is but in a sleep, and may ••ossibly awake of himself, mine is dead, and cannot live but by the power of grace.

2. You say, For God to give a man strength and power to be∣leeve twice over, or after a forfeiture made by sin, of the first donation,

is an act of more grace than to confer them onely once, and that with∣out any such provocation. Master Jenkins opinion leaves place on∣ly for the latter act of grace, whereas my opinion makes rome for the former.

To say nothing of your non-sence in this passage, [Answ.] here is abo∣minable falshood.

Do I deny that God gives a man strength to beleeve twice over? I have ever taught that God created man in his owne image, in all the faculties of his soule, which when man had defaced and lost, and thereby infinitely provoked God, that God of his in∣finite goodnesse by the power of his Word and spirit of grace, doth renew in man that image, giving him not onely ability to repent and beleeve if he will, but working in him to will and to do according to his good pleasure, giving repentance, and being the ••••thor and finisher of our faith.

5. I having demanded of you how this your position, upon the improvement of nature, a man may attaine to such a conviction, upon which saving conversion alwayes followes, agrees with that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.7. Who maketh thee to differ from another? And I having said that Master Goodwins answer to this question of the Apostle, is my self by my improvement of nature,

1. You say, That these words, from another, are not in the Originall. There its onely found thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Who makes thee differ, subtill Sir? can there be any difference if there be none to differ from?

2. You demand how your opinion leads you to make such an answer as I put into your mouth? Relate your opinion and you shall finde the answer at hand, You who say, That conversion alwapes fol∣lowes a conviction abtained by the improvement of nature, D. a. p. 200. You who say, A naturall man may do such things, as whereunto God hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation, pag. 26. And hold, That after every worke of grace, the will remaines in equilibrio, and may convert or refuse to be converted, pag. 52. 65. re∣solving actuall conversion not into the efficacy of the grace of God, pag. 52. but into the compliance of mans will. And yet will not say with your friend Episcopius, Ego meipsum discrevi, I have made my self to differ, upon this your forbearance you may be lookt upon as more courteous, but by no wise man as lesse hereticall than

Episcopias; if in your next you will determine this question, whether the same grace being afforded to two sinners of the same de∣gree, one may be converted, and not the other, you will haply be better knowne to your selfe in this point.

Your sixty seventh, and sixty eighth Section followes, where∣in you proclaime your sinne; in the former you say, that these words, (who made thee to differ) exclude not the creature from be∣ing the cause of its differing in a way of inferiour efficiency, and causalty, for if it be (say you) the creature it selfe, and not God who beleeveth, then is it the creature it selfe and not God which maketh it selfe to differ.

Answ. The Apostle removes all cause of glorying from man, and therefore leaves no share in the efficiency of this worke to man. 2. The Apostle denyes most vehemently, that man hath any thing which he hath not received; therefore a man hath not this con∣currence of his will with the grace of God. It is very true that a man beleeves when he beleeves, and it is man, and not God who beleeveth; but the question is, who maketh him to beleeve? cer∣tainly that is not of himselfe, it is the gift of God.

In the next Section you say, Evident it is that the Apostle speakes not of any difference between man and man, which is made by faith, or by any saving worke in either, but of such a difference which stands in more or fewer, in greater or lesser gifts. A difference frequent in the primitive times, and God was indeed the sole cause of such differings.

Answ. Profound! 1. God was the sole cause (you say) of sptrituall gifts, speaking with tongues, &c. but not of beleeving, for here you say, that man himselfe is a subordinate cause, its man that beleeves when he beleeves, and not God; but how prove you that God is rather the sole Author of spirituall gifts, than of sa∣ving graces; I thought that the former, gifts, had not been (as grace) above nature, but had been attaineable by study and in∣dustry; you say that its man that beleeves, when he beleeves; and is't not man that speakes with tongues, when he speakes; you say, that man beleeves and not God, and is't not man that speakes with tongues and not God; take him, not Bedlam, but Beth-lehem.

2 Doth not the Apostle make use of generall maximes, as that none but God makes to differ, and that there's nothing that a man

hath but he received it, according to that of the third of John, A man can receive nothing unlesse it be given him from heaven; and drawes not the Apostle these generall maximes downe to this par∣ticular case, of which he is speaking.

3 Cannot a man make himselfe to differ from another in the least things, as more or fewer gifts, and can a man make himselfe to d••ffer in the greater.

You conclude this Section with singing your Jo Paean; thus you chante to the Reader, you have seene the young mans ankednesse in point of arguing; he neither leavies ••easons nor Scriptures with any pertinency. There's not the least haire of the head of my opinion concerning the naturall mans power to good supernaturall falne to the ground; which passage I am confident every pious and pru∣dent Reader will interpret thus: You have seene the old mans na∣kednesse in point of answering, he neither answers Scriptures nor rea∣sons, with either piety or pertinency, and there's not only the haire of the head of his opinion concerning the naturall mans power, &c. but even that very head it selse falne to the ground, being struck off by the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, who I desire may have the only glory of it.

I propounded, busie Bish. p 54. foure quaeries to you, to know what kinde of adjutory it was which you acknowledg'd grace to be, that you might not under the pretended name of grace ob∣trude nature, as the Pelagiams of old, and Jesuits and Arminians of late have done, and now you come to taste my genius and strength (you say) in quaereing. You begin with a scoffe; you say Arisiotle cannot answer so much as an asse can aske; you have pre∣fac'd a good apology for the weaknes of your following answers for how then, say I, should an asse answer more then ever Aristotle could aske? you are such a friend to independency, that your first qua••nell against my quaerces is, that they have a dependance the three last upon the first.

My first quaeree, is whether grace be an adjutory by way of in∣sluence into the will, or by way of concourse unto the work only.

Your answer is, you understand it not; he hath opposed me with his first question.

I see my mishap to aske a tallent of him that is not worth a mite, and your audaciousnesle to undertake to be a Rabbi, and

to pretend to a tractate of the power of naturall mans will to good supernaturall, like those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that did not know what they said, or whereof they did affirme.

This question is of great weight, famous in the Schooles, and the first usually handled in this controversie, but I perceive that Jesuits and remonstrants are halfe as bad to you as modall Propositions in Logick, De quibus non gustabit Asinus; what? J. Goodwin apposed? he? even he, not understand a question so frequently agitated? penotrus in his Propugna. bum. lib. L. 8. C. 15. propounds it thus: An concursus Divinus sit influxus in secundas causas, & in illarum effectus, an solus sit influxus cum causis secundis in effectus, non autem in ipsas secundas causas? esse vero hanc controver siam gra∣vissimam, &c. Whether the divine concourse be an influx into the se∣cond causes, and into their effects, or only with the second causes into the effects, and not into the causes themselves? So Alvar. de auxil. lib. 3. disp. 18. &c. and this question was determined in the affirmative by Augustine de grâ Chri. c. 16. viz. that the grace of God was an adjutory by way of influence into the will. Certum est nos servare mandata si volumus, sed quia preparatur voluntas a Domino, ab illo petendum est, ut tantum velimus, quantum suffi∣cit ut volendo faciamus. Certum est nos velle cum volumus sed ille fa∣cit ut velimus bouum, de quo dictum est quod preparatur voluntas a Domino. Its certaine, saith he, that when we are willing we will: but he makes us to will good of whom its said, that the will is prepa∣red of the Lord, But this question is determined negatively by Arminius. Cont. Perkins: Convursus & influxus Dei, nihil con∣fert creaturae liberae quoad agendum, vel inclinetur vel juvetur, vel confortetur. The influx of God conferres nothing to the free creature, to helpe, incline, or strengthen it. The Schoole of the Arminians follow their Master, and joyne with Jesuits, making the grace of God and mans will the partiall causes of mans conversion, as if two men between them both should beare a burden: thus Grevinchovius contr. Ames. p. 208. Gratia & arbitrium concurrunt ut partiales causae ad conversionem hominis, partialitate causae non effe∣ctus, eodem planè modo quo pater & fili••s unam, eandem{que} navem trabunt. Grace and free will coucurre as partiall causes to the conversi∣on of man, with a partiality of the cause, not of the effect, as a Fa∣ther and a Son draw between them both the same ship, the father not

contributing strength to the Son, &c. Such an answer as this will make short work, for it leaves no place at all to the grace of Christ, but resolves all at last into nature; acknowledging no other influence from God into the will, but that generall influ∣ence God affordeth unto it, as the author and preserver thereof. And what else doth Mader Goodwin grant us, when he makes all the influx that God affo••ds us to be onely by way of generall con∣c••urse as we are creatures or men whose natures are from God, or sustained by God, denying g••any speciall influx of Gods grace in∣to our wils in conversion. Whats••ever (saith Master Goodwin, p. 11. Yo. Eld.) is afribed unto nature, except nature be giv•• away from God theres no occasion given to looke upon it as der••gating from the grace of God; just as Pelagius, whose plea is recited and refuted by Aug. S••bminem Deus creavit, & hamini Deus liberum donavit ar∣bitrium, quiequid potest 〈…〉〈…〉 arbitrio, eujus gratiae debetur nisi ejas qui eum condidit cum libero arbitrio? If Go I created man, and gave him free will, whatever man doth by his free will, to whose grace is this due but to his that made man with free will? — Ob∣serve (Brethren) how they proclaim the generall grace of God whereby we are men, not whereby we are Christians, &c.

2. You answer by taking away the subject of the questim; for I ha∣ving explain'd to you what I meant by grace its concourse unto the work, only thus, as two men that between them both carry a barden, yeeld no assistanre to each other, neither of them contributing strength unto other. You learnedly answer that you must deny what the question supposeth, viz that faith hath two ends.

If you had not confessed your ignorance in this answer, yet you had here grosly bewrayed it Who but you would have sup∣posed that faith hath two ends? or that this had been the sub∣ject of the question? Alvar. de arx. l. 3. disp. 18. would have informed you better, where he saith, The question is, utrum ne∣cessaria sit praevia dei motio, recepta in ipsa causa, ut de facto producat suam operationem, an vero sufficiat concursus simultaneus pariter influ∣ens cum ipsis causis in earum effectus. The question is, Whether the

motion of Gods spirit he necessary, as received into the cause it selfe, that it may produce its operation, or whether there be required a concourse bestowing its influence together with the cause upon its ef∣fect. Where you may see the answer in three conclusions, the third whereof is against quos dam recentieres theologos, some late Divines (he meanes Jesuites and Arminians) asserentes, quòd con∣cursus supernaturalis non sit in causam sed cum causa in effectum; Who held that supernaturall concourse was not into the cause, but with the cause in and upon the effect. And yet here was no supposition that grace had two ends.

And did not you say, pag. 99. Yo. Eld. The purging of Jeru∣salem was an effect which depended partly upon God and partly upon Jerusalem, in comporting with God. And page 100. of Yo. Eld. you say in these words, For men actually to will and do things ac∣companying salvation, depends partly upon God in respect of the neces∣sity of the motion, and assistance of his spirit thereunto, partly upon man in respect of a like necessity of their concurrence, and consenting unto the motion of the spirit of God. Did you suppose when you say that the purging of Jerusalem depended partly upon God, and partly upon Jerusalem, that this purging had two ends? and when you say that a mans willing depends partly upon God, in respect of motion, and partly upon man in respect of a like necessity of their concurrence, that faith hath two ends?

Can there not be a concourse of two partiall causes into an effect, but this effect must needs have two ends? Can you not di∣stinguish with Grevinchonius betweene partialitas causae & effectus? May not two causes produce one and the same effect, which yet partially concur••e as causes to that effect?

In your next section you come to the second quaere that I pro∣pounded to you, which was this: If you do acknowledge that grace is an adjutory unto the will by way of influence into it, whether meane you that this influence is morall, suasory, by way of intreaty, that the will would in••ve, or physica, that is properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon it.

This you say contains in it more absurdities than the for∣mer; I wish your answer bewrayed not more ignorance and ma∣lice than your former.

1. You say, It supposeth that there can be no morall influence,

but that which is suasory, or by way of intreaty. When Master Jenkin commands his Clerke to set a Psalme, and threatens him, that be will turne him out of his place if he will not do as he is command∣eth, hath such an addresse any other influence than what is morall, but will Master Jenkin call it suasory, by way of intreaty?

I pitty you! [Answ.] was there ever a more sencelesse exception propoun∣ded by one pretending to be an instructor? Are you yet to learn what suasio moralis is? My acute adversary conceives, that a threatning may be said to have a morall influence upon the will, but it cannot be suasory or by way of intreaty. He will not have Comminations or threatnings to be morally suasory; though you have but a mite of your owne, you might have been acquainted with those that have more; but I see that (spider-like) you are only beholding to your owne bowels (and truly you go far enough for your cob-webs) otherwise you might have observed in every author who writes about suasio moralis, that even threat∣nings are suafory; not to give above one or two instances in a case so triviall, see Wendelins, Christ, Theol. p. 534. de sanctif. mandata, promissiones, comminationes saepe non persuadent quod sua∣dent. See also suffragium Britan. p. 135. where you shall have these words: Non inficiamur in opere conversionis Deum adhibere Comminationum, promissionum, aliarum{que} hortationum vim suasori∣am. I pray ask Price, that puppet incendiary whats the English of Comminationes suadent, in the former, and of Comminationum vim suasoriam in the latter; (the Latine holding him up, haply he may be kept (though hardly) from stumbling into a lye) Learne one lesson more from a novice, Though there be difference betweene threatnings and promises, yet they are both in their influence upon the will suasory, the latter ab utili, the former ab inutili.

2. You say, That my quaere supposeth, an inconsistency between a morall influence upon the will, and that which is properly, really, and efficaciously operative upon it.

Answ. Where do I say or suppose that these two 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 metaphoric••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 supernatu∣rals, cannot be wrought upon in such an objective way of mo∣rall perswasion.

3. You say, That if by physicall influence Master Jenkin un∣derstandeth any ether kinde of work••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 up∣on 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 ar∣gument, motive, and perswasion, unlesse by force, violence, and compul∣sion, &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, 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, 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 gra∣tia 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 under∣stand

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 measu∣red 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 im∣mediately, 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 ••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 beart? 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; adjuvat nos Deus per doctrinam & revelatim••m, &c. God assisteth us by doctrine and re∣velation, 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 disc••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 p••aised the Word; in which respect, In Con. mileu. Can. 4. was that ana∣them•• denounced, 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.

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 promo••ing Arminianism, and yet never heard of the phy∣sicall 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; 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 Section you say, That I make the invincibility and infallibility of the working of grace, and the certaine determination of the will by grace, to be one and the same; whereas invincibility and infallibility are but modifications of the act or working of grace, and determination of the will, is the act it self, or the effect of such an act.

The quaere look't upon will shew you a wrangler. Did I ever take it in any other sence than what your self here set downe? namely, That grace is in the manner of working invincible and infallible, and therefore determinating the will? and make I not both in the quaere and throughout my booke, the certaine deter∣mination of the will, to be the product or effect of grace, working infallibly and invincibly; shew your seniority by more seriousnesse.

2. You charge me with supposing what is not to be sup∣pos'd; For grace (you say) may invincibly produce such an effect in the soule, which answers the nature, measure, and degree of it, and yet not necessarily produce such a certaine determination of the will to a saving consent, or a through act of beleeving.

It being presuppos'd, 1. That the question is concerning con∣verting grace, and not common. And 2. That by (necessarily) is meant infallibly. I demand:

1. What that effect is, which speciall converting grace workes in the soule, which answers the nature measure, and degree of it, if it be not a certaine determination of the will.

2. How this assertion of yours will stand together with that which afterward followes, p. 65. The grace of God acting in and toward the conversion of a man, subdues and takes away all actuall rebelltousnesse or gainsayingnesse of the will, and all inclination toward any rebellion? Doth it accomplish all this, and not deter∣mine the will?

3. You say (in this Section) That I was ridiculous in demand∣ing whether the certaine determination of the will by grace proceedeth from the powerfull nature of grace, considering (you say) that effects do not proceed from the natures of their causes, but from the actuall engagement of their causes in a way of efficiency, &c.

Answ. But (my acute Antagonist) was not I enquiring into the efficacy of the grace of God as a cause of conversion in us? And doth not every effect proceed from the nature of the cause? no, say you, but from the actuall engagement of the cause in a way of efficiency; but this actuall engagement of the cause in a way of effici∣ency, is the nature of a cause as a cause; we are not considering of the grace of God absolutely as it is in it self, but relatively, as it is a cause of an effect in others. And I demand whether this ef∣fect do depend upon this cause infallibly, that wheresoever the cause is, by vertue of it the effect shall necessarily follow.

4. What you say concerning the obtusenesse of the distinction between an infallibility of the working of grace, in respect of the event or what de facto doth come to passe, and in respect of the powerfull uature of grace as the cause, is not for want of igno∣rance, both because the distinction is most frequently used among the acutest that write concerning this controversie, and also in regard that it so directly tends to the declaring of that efficacious causality which is by the Orthod••x claimed, and by Se∣ctaries denyed to the grace of God, there being a vast difference betweene an antecedent adjunct, the presence whereof an event doth infallibly follow, and a cause properly productive of an effect infallibly to ensue.

5. To the maine intent of my quaerees you would be thought to answer.

1. By saying your sense clearly is, According to the ordinary course of the grace of God, working in and about the conversion of men, there is no man actually converted, but might possibly have acted and demea∣ned himselfe so, as never to have been thus converted.

Answ. You pretend to clearnesse, but in your performance I finde nothing lesse. Why use you this expression (according to the ordinary course of the grace of God) would you have me beleeve that God hath some other way (though extraordinary) by which he can do that which you assert simply impossible to be done, as you say it is to make a man simply impoccable by the infallibility of the worke of the grace of God.

2. You say, That possibly the grace of God may take away from the will all inclination toward any rebellion, yet it remeves not away all possibility to rebell and do wickedly.

Answ. What you say is nothing to the question; there's no enquiry whether grace doth take away all possibility in the will to rebell, but whether it doth not so infallibly take away the act of, and inclination to rebellion, as that the worke of conversion al∣waies followes this working of grace?

3. You say, That Master Jenkin maketh a blasphemous claime to an incommunicable property of God, he asserteth himselfe under the same impossibility of sinning with God; probatur, he supposeth it impossible for him to sin when he is converted?

Though I shall not hope to determine whether ignorance or malice be most praedominant in this charge, yet to the matter of it I easily returne this: A simple and absolute impossibility to sin, is one of the incommunicable properties of God; but what say you to an impossibility to sin ex su positione; the efficacy of grace supposed, though there be a naturall defectibility in the creature, may there not be an impossibility to sin? Is it not true, that good angels and Saints in heaven cannot sin? can they actually put forth their defectibility, so as to frustrate the grace of God, and is it blas∣phemy to say that they cannot sinne, or in so saying do we grant they have an incommunicable property of God?

But 2. O thou my simple and false accuser, though you be not tender of charging me with blasphemy, yet take heed your selfe of Blaspheming. I claime no share in the incommunicable properties of God, when I averre it impossible for my self or any other to frustrase the councell of God (for who hath resisted his will)

or to hinder the worke of speciall grace comming to convert; but sadly consider whether you blaspheme not, in asserting men to be stronger than God, that they can hinder his worke, when he acteth with that power which is exceeding great, and which raised Christ from the dead?

4. You say, An man may sinne after his conversion; therefore much more at my time befoe.

Answ. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉! If a man be left to himselfe he may sinne; but can he sinne being under that measure and strength of grace which is put forth in his conversion, and so as to over∣come it?

5. You say, If there be a possibility for a man to sinne at any time before his conversion, then is there a possibility in him also to hin∣der his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, because it is impossible for any man to be converted in an act of sinne.

Answ. From this principle, That it is impossible for a man to be converted in an act of sinne, you may rather argue for the impossibility of conversion, than for the possibility of non-conversi∣on; must a man leave his sinne first, and be converted afterward? why cannot God change the heart, and infuse a principle of spiritu∣all life into a man (as into Saul, Act. 9.) while he is actually sinning, so that this conversion or passive reception of a new life should be in an act of sinne?

6. I having said, bu. Bish. pag. 52. That the efficatious de∣termination of the will by grace, takes nothing away but the pravity and rebellion of it, and restores it to its true liberty; you tell me, If grace takes nothing away but the rebellion of the will, then it leaves a liberty of rebellion, for there's nothing more evident than that there may remaine a liberty or power of rebellion in the will, when the rebellion it self is taken away.

There is no question but there may remaine a power of rebelli∣on, where there is no actuall rebellion, but that this power may be brought into act when the act it self. and inclination to it, is taken away, which you grant may be, implyes a contradiction. Reconcile these two. Gods grace subdues all rebellion, and all inclination to rebell, and yet rebellion may hinder the worke of Gods grace.

7. You tell me, If the adjutory of grace restores the true liberty of the will to it, then its that liberty which was naturall to it, wherein

'twas created, &c. and then it leaves a liberty in it to rebell and to frustrate the worke of conversion and defeat it, for the liberty wherein the will was created left the will under a possibility of rebelling.

Answ. Your arguing discovers that you understand not the nature of the wils true liberty which once it had, and to which it is by grace restored. The true liberty of the will is willingly and freely to obey, to be able to sin is no perfection, nor any part of true liberty, but a defect in the wils liberty.

I having desired but one page half fil'd with quotations out of Orthodox Writers agreeing with those your opinions transcribed by the Subscribers, you hereupon promise to give me measure hea∣ped up. Resolving to make up in measure your want in weight, and to supply with the abundancy of your quotations the defect of their aptitude to the matter for which you alleadge them.

1. You snarle at this passage in the Testimony, [thousands of soules which Christ hath ransomed with his blood, shall be endangered to be undone] here is (say you) the Doctrine of universall redemption asserted, If the ransomed by Christ may perish to eternity, then Christ ransomed not the elect onely, of whose perishing there's not the least possibility.

Answ. Who but such a spider-like reader would have suckt poyson out of so sweet a floure? may not the Subscribers say to you with Hicrome (as I told you even now) hoc non nobis sed apostolo, lay this accusation at the Ap••stles doore? Rom. 14.15. 1 Cor. 8. 11. doth the Apostle meane that any of the Sheep of Christ could perish, or that any could take them out of the hand of Christ? or that any could perish that are upheld by the power of God through faith, or that have the intercession of Christ improved for them, &c. or that are given to Christ by the Father? Why (if either you could or would not your selfe, have answered for the Apostle or the Ministers) went you not to those reverend and learned Inter∣preters that have expounded these Texts? surely they would have taught you to have given the Ministers better usage.

Chrysostome would have informed you, that those of whom Christ is Redeemer in respect of the sufficiency of the price, may perish, though not those to whom the price is applyed.

Paraeus would have taught you, That in respect of themselves and left to themselves, the best are in danger of perishing. Hominibus

nihil infirmius, In regard of Satans formidable power they might perish; In regard of the scandals themselves which (without the pow∣erfull sustentation of God) are insuperable They might perish, but in respect of the counsell and decrce of God, in respect they are the sheep of Christ, and are sustained with his interce••ion, they cannot perish.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 would have told you, That these who are lookt upon with the judgement of charity, as these for whom Christ dyed, of whom (he saith) the Apostle speaks, may perish, though not those for whom certainly Christ dyed.

You now impudently improve many Sections (though with vaine endeavour) to make three Reverend learned Ministers guil∣ty of concurring with you in your err neous epinions concerning the power of naturall men to good supera••turall.

These my Reverend friends Doctor Gouge, Master Scudder, Master Calamy, (though one so weakly slanderous as your selfe de∣served it not) have so far condescended to you as to send me in their severall vindi••ations from that unworthy and hatefull asporsion of complying with you in your fore••aid opinions; I shall present them to the Reader distinctly, and word for word, as they sent them to me under their ewne hands.

MAfter John G••dwin to demonstrate that the substance of his opinion of the power of a naturall man, is contained in the Writings of many of the Subscribers, produceth sundry sentences of theirs: And in particular, having gathered sun∣dry passages out of The whole Armour of God, he thus saith in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pag. 72. I appeale to any man that will take the painee to comp••re my passages with these, whether the one can be Or••hodox if the other be 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Here therefore behold the one compared with the other, each in their owne termes, and thereby judge whether the one be so like the other as is pre∣tended.

The whole Armour of God.

Page 233. In something or other all those which believe not come short of that which

they might have done for at∣taining unto this precious gift of faith: and that is it for which another day they shall be condemned, unbeliefe is in a mans power.

Page 604. Let every one of what ranke or condition soe∣ver he be, be encouraged to apply to himselfe these glad tidings of pardon; and see∣ing God excludeth none, let not any of us exclude our selves.

Page 591. In the order of Redemption God hath made mans sinne pardonable; but man by his impenitency makes it not to be pardoned.

Page 230. Did not the very lifting up of the Serpent shew, that it was Gods will they should looke on it, and look∣ing be cured? So God cau∣sing Christ to be lifted up by preaching of the Go pell be∣fore thee, shewe•• that HEE WOULD THOU SHOULD∣EST BELIEVE, and be∣lieving, have everlasting life.

Page 231. God never failed any that continued to wait on him, at length he satisfied their longing.

Page 289. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be

hard to the carnall carelesse man, yet (as Salmon saith of knowledge Prov. 146.) faith is easie to him that will believe, not that it is simply in mans power, but that GODS SPI∣RIT SO OPENETH HIS UNDERSTAND∣ING, &c.

Page 290. If we repaire to the Author who giveth faith, and to the spring whence it floweth; if we rightly use the right meanes of attaining it, and waite at the doore of wis∣dome till hee open unto us, UNDOUBTEDLY WE SHALL FINDE FAITH, and not misse of it.

The Div. Auth. of the Scriptures.

Pag 26. Naturall men may do such things, as whereunto God hath by way of promise

annexed grace and accepta∣tion.

Page 169. To suppose that they to whom God maketh rich and sweet applications of himselfe, are wholly destitute of all power to do what he re∣quires of them, in this case to save them from destruction, and to confer the great things promised upon them, as viz. to believe and repent, is to re∣present the glorious God in his greatest expressions of mercy and grace, and love unto the world, rather as laughing the world to scorne in that great misery wherein it is plunged, then as a God any wayes truly desirous, or intending to re∣lieve it.

Page 183. They which are without (I meane without the Gospell written or preached upon such termes as it is prea∣ched among us daily) have al∣so sufficient meanes (if not large and plentifull) for belee∣ving.

Page 186. They who are destroyed and perish by the hand of God for unbelief, had meanes, and those sufficient whereby to have beleeved.

Page 182. Concerning those

have onely the Heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and the goodnesse of God in the government of the world, to preach the Gospell unto them; these also have reason suffici∣ent (if not in abundance) to thinke the same though, and judge the same judgement with the other [who have the Letter of the Gospell] in the point in hand.

In all the passages que••ed out of the whole Armour of God, there is no sentence that implyeth, that naturall men may do such things as whereunto God hath by way of promise an∣nexed grace and acceptation. Men are there incited to do what lieth in them for attaining grace; but it is not said, that any promise of grace is annexed to that which they do, while they temaine in their naturall estate.

Neither is it said in any of those passages, That none of those to whom God maketh rich and sweet applications of himselfe, are wholly destitute of all power to believe and re∣pent; for those sweet applications in the outward dispensation of the Word, are made to all present, though there may be many reprobates there, who have not power to believe and repent.

Nor yet is it there said, That they who are without the

Gospell have sufficient meanes for beleeving; nor, That they who perish for unbeliefe, had meanes sufficient to have belee∣ved, if meanes be taken for that power and ability which is in a naturall man.

1 Object. If mens coming short of that which they might have done be the reason of their condemnation, it undeniably followes, that they have power to do that whereby their condemnation might be prevented.

Answ. It doth not follow; because they might more im∣prove their naturall parts than they do, and yet not prevent condemnation thereby, they are supernaturall gifts whereby condemnation is prevented.

2 Object. In saying unbeliefe is in a mans power, doth he not imply, that a man hath power over it, and may dissolve, sub∣due, and destroy it, if he will?

Answ. No, he implyeth no such thing; he onely intendeth that it ariseth from a mans selfe, and is ordered by a mans own free will, as other corrupt acts are. The evils which are in the Devill, are in his power; yet can he not dissolve, subdue, and destroy them. As for the instances of originall corruption, blindnesse by birth, frailty of life, mortality, corruptiblenesse of flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for none of these are acts under the will of man, to be ordered thereby, as unbeliefe is.

3 Object. Questionlesse a Teacher would not incourage men, or perswade men to incourage themselves, to do that which he judgeth impossible for them to do.

Answ. 1. That which is here taken to be unpossible, is brought upon man by his owne default.

2. It is such an impossibility as God by the worke of his Spirit can, and ordinarily doth make possible. In this respect Christ saith of that which is impossible with men, that it is not so with God, Mark 10.27.

3. The Teacher doth incourage men to go as far as they can, and to do as much as in their power lyeth, to obtaine such or such a blessing; which is not to perswade to that which is impossible.

4. Object. If God excludeth none [from bleeving] then hath he not inflicted any such punishment upon men for their sinne

in Adam, by which they are disabled from believing.

Answ. That which is spoken of Gods excluding none, is meant of the manner of dispensing the Gospell, and offering grace, which is wi•••• such generall tearmes, as therein no man hath cause to thinke himselfe excluded. The Author of the 〈…〉〈…〉 God, thus explaineth his owne minde, pag. 603. This Do••trine is to be understood of Gods outward dispensa∣tion and manife••ation of his mercy by the ministry of the Word, wherein no difference is made betwixt persons, nor excertion of any. So as it calleth not into question the secret counsell and ••ernall decree of God.

SIR,

YOu, with many other Ministers of the Province of London, gave 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against this tenent of Master John Goodwin, viz. touching 〈…〉〈…〉 asserte ••, That by impr••vement of nature a man may attaine to such 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is upon which saving conversion alwayes follows: This I judge to be an errour. For the Apostle saith, The natu∣rall man reiciveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are 〈…〉〈…〉 him: Neither can be kn••w them, because they are spiritual••y 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And he saith also, They that are after the flesh (as all naturall men are) sav••ur or minde the things of the fas••. And againe, The carnall minde is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can be. So that they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Wherefore man by no naturall power can improve the gifts of nature so, as without speciall grace to will or do that which is spirituall and supernaturall, as to repent, believe, &c.

I fi••de that Master John Goodwin hath alleadged some pas∣sages in my booke, 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 sa∣ved if they will. I appeale to any judicious and impartiall

Reader, whether in any thing I have there written, I have ju∣stified his opinion; which I am utterly against.

Henry Scudder.

SIR,

Unde••standing of your purpose to returne an answer to Master John Goodwins booke, 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 hete∣rodox 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 An∣swer 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 conver∣sion, which is contrary to Rom. 11.35. John 15.5. John 6.44. And contrary to right reason also, as 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 en∣deavours, or at least but concomitant. Which is contrary to Isa. 65.5. Rom. 9.16.

4. Because the Scripture sets out the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 gi∣ving 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 rais••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. 1.1••. John 3.3. Ezek. 36.26. And therefore as a naturall man can∣not 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 un∣able 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 salva∣tion. 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-Incendia∣ry say of me. I have learned of my great Master to requite good for evill, and to heape coales of fire upon their heads, which I desire may be in remedium, not in ruinam. The great God guide us all into the wayes of peace, truth and holinesse. So prayeth

Your loving Brother in the worke of the Minestry. EDM. CALAMY.

What a vast Ocean of scorns, jeers, vilifyings, childish ventosi∣ties, and prophane puffs of wit do I sayle through, before I can espy the least point or spot of land, any thing wherein he so much as pretends to theologicall argumentation? sollid matter lodgeth in his great booke of words, as a childe of two dayes old in the great bed of Ware. Going over many pages fill'd with no∣thing but with scum and scurrility, he vents, among hundreds of other such unsavoury passages, this gentle expression:

Sect. 90. Confident I am, that there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a g••neration of

Christians (scarce of men) so bloody in asserting their opinions, &c. as the greatest part of the London Subscripturients.

I marvaile not at your confidence, Solomon tels me who it is that rageth and is conf••dent, Prov. 14.16.

Fo•• the bloody asserting, &c. never were the veines of any wri∣tings so fill'd with the blood which you speake of, as those of this last and worst of your pamphlets; certainly when you wrote it, you were under a quatidian fury, or sick of the miserere mei; the Reader beholds you vomiting your excrements of scurrility and wrath in every page; what is there that you men∣tion through your booke (if you would have it help you) but either you feigne it your friend, or else you frowne upon it, that it may not dare to be your enemy, the Scriptures, the Fathers, your mother Tongue, your opposites, against their bent and mindes, are threatned unlesse they stoop to your sence and service; Scrip∣tures must speake for you against themselves, and Ʋrijab-like must carry letters for their owne destruction; Bucer, Ball, the Father, under the paine of self-contradiction, and of being accounted na∣ked and unstable, must turn Pelagians.

If you will have it so, it must be sence for the garment to be clothed with the man, and it must be as proper to say, exchange this thing into another, as to say exchange it for another thing. Who ever will lift up a pen against you, must expect no other guerden, but to have your pen cased in his heart, and to lye bleed∣ing at the feet of your writings; the pulling downe of Sion Col∣l••dge shall be voted the taking away of the pillar of all impiety and opposition to the truth; all the workes that ever stood it out against you must be demolisht and dismantled: Your next wrath is expected against those daring (and yet more knowing than daring) men, who have priz•• your works that now lye upon the hands of your late booksellers widow, but for wast paper; which by the way I note as a just retribution of providence, that those wri∣tings which value the Scriptures below the Word of God, should themselves be valued below the word of man.

You recite an argument which you brought in Sion Coll. visited, to prove that naturall men have eyes to see spirituall things. Naturall men (say you) have eyes to see because it is not needlesse for Satan to blinde them.

I deny'd your consequence, and gave you the ground of that my denyall, viz. because the Scripture saith, 1 Cor. 2.14. The naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God.

After your scoffs (which I answer with neglect) you returne thus?

1. You say, That by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the naturall man is not meant the man that is simply naturall or unregenerate, but such a kinde of men wh••m the Apostle cals carnall, babes in Christ, meaning weake Christians. Confidently concluding from my producing of this Scripture for this purpose, I understand little of it.

Answ. I had rather suspect any interpretation of Scripture, when you say 'tis true and sound, than when you say 'tis false and misunderstood.

You have the streame of godly and learned Interpreters against you. Piscator takes this naturall man for a man that Nihil eximium in se habet prater animam rationalem, qui non est regenitus; a man that hath nothing excellent but a rationall soule, and is not borne agains, Ans. saith, this naturall man is one Qui animalium more ver∣satur, qui put at nihil esse p••st mortem, one that lives like a brute crea∣ture, and thinks there's nothing more after death to be expected. Am∣brose thus: Animalis homo p••coribus similis, &c. This naturall man like the beasts, keeps downe his sence to the earth, and therefore he only reacheth what be sees, nor thinketh he that any thing can be, but as he beares; therefore whatever he heares to be otherwise, he judgeth it foo∣lish. Theophilact saith, This naturall man is one that is given alto∣gether to naturall reasonings thinking not that he wants s••••our from alove.

Oecumenius thus: The naturall man is one that lives after the flesh, and hath not his understanding enlightned by the Spirit.

Theadoret thus: Qui Contentus propriis Cogitationibus, spiritus doctrinam non admi••tit, One that is pleased with his owne cogitations and gives no admittance to the Doctrine of the Spirit.

Calvin saith, By the Naturall man is meant a man endowed onely

with the faculties of nature, and by the spirituall, a man whose minde is governed by the illumination of the Sprit.

I shall make bold to instruct my instructor out of Isidorus Pe∣lusiota, Ep. l. 5. Ep. 128. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. The Scripture distinguisheth (as he shews) between the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Carnall, the naturall, and the spirituall. The Carnall that fall, by reason of their weaknesse, into many wayes that are fleshly. Naturall, that follow the reasoning of the naturall minde and understanding. The spirituall that are ador∣ned with the gift of the holy Ghost, and are illuminated above nature, as (he divinely expresse••h it) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having gotten above naturall reasonings.

I stay in Arminius, who saith, Mens hominis (non renati) in isto stain Caeca est, salutari Dei, ejus{que} voluntatis cognitione destituta, non capax illorum, quae sunt spiritus Dei, juxta Aposlolum, Animalis homo, &c. The minde of an unregenerate man (saith he) is blinde and destitute of the saving knowledge of God and of his will, not able to receive the things of the Spirit of God, according to the Apostle, The na∣turall man, &c. I add, the same kind of men are spoken of by Iude,

The Aposile, vers. 19. he joyning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, be∣cause by naturall here, and carnall cap. 3.1.3. are meant the same men. Now by carnall there is meant the weak beleever.

Answ. Its 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 gene∣rall 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 wis∣dome 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. 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 belee∣vers, &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 know∣ledge whereof is of absolute necessity to salvation, as Generally of the du∣ties commanded in the Morall Law, of the eternall power and God∣head 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 spea∣king 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 salu••, 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. 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 prin∣ciples, 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 Bi∣ble, 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 mea∣ning of the Apostles saying, This power may well be under∣stood, &c. the meaning may onely be this, &c. Did your heart misgive you? take heed; uncertainty, I feare, is your punish∣ment, 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 where∣of 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 ca∣pable 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 a power as is contended for, you must understand a power of knowing savingly, and beleeving the things of the Spirit of God. The summe of all which is thus much: A naturall man, by the ordinary assistance and blessing of God, afforded to every one, may so improve his naturall Principles of Rea∣son, Judgement, Memory, &c. as savingly to know and believe the things of God.

This your similitude of a youth that may be paines ac∣quire skill in the tongues further declareth to be your meaning, by which wretched opinion you hold out, That there's nothing in grace above nature, which nature may not reach unto; or rather, That grace it selfe is nothing but polisht nature. But how stands this with the words of the Apostle, who saith, That the naturall man cannot know the things of God, because they are spirituaily discer∣ned, and elsewhere, That the carnall minde cannot be subject to the Law of God, as being enmity against God. Can all the paines, improvement, pollishing, make nature any other than nature, and make a naturall man to understand or believe any thing but after a naturall manner? can it give ability to know spiritually? can all the care, and cost, and dressing, make a bad tree to be of a good kinde, and while bad, to bring forth good fruit?

I adde in explication of this of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1.14. and for your information; that excellent passage of learned Musculus upon the place, Confert, utrin{que} tam hominem, &c.

The Apostle compareth the naturall man (saith he) and the Spirit of God, and he teacheth, That the naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit, any more than a beast the things of a man, &c.

In your 95. Section you produce a double construction of

the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 2.14. The naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit, &c. This unabtlity (you say) may either be un∣derstand of the great••d d••ffi••ultie that lyes in the way of such men; to at∣tame the knowledge of these things, or else of their present, actuall in∣d••sp 〈…〉〈…〉 to ••nder them capable of such knowledge.

Answ. I meet in these ••ections with a sea of words, and a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of matter, you multiply expressions to no purpose.

1. If you say. The naturall man is unable in the former sence, because of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that lyeth in his way, &c. you are a 〈…〉〈…〉, and that by your owne cleare confession; which is in these very words: The 〈…〉〈…〉 Austin and Pe∣lagius, was, 〈…〉〈…〉 simply and absolutely necessary, for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to do that which is good, &c. which was Austius opinion; or, Whether it was necessary 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by way of accon∣m••dation and facilitation for such a perfromance; which was the sence of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And if this be your opinion with Pelagius. why bring you the Fathers particularly Austin, as joyning with you in the point of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of grace, in Sion Coll. visited? when as, by your owne 〈◊〉〈◊〉, An••in was against you and your 〈◊〉〈◊〉. I shall adde you were condemned for holding this opinion long before you were borne.

2. If the latter be your opinion, viz. That naturall men are 〈…〉〈…〉 their present and actuall indisposednesse and 〈…〉〈…〉, &c. Besides that I save confuted it before; it is evi∣den••ly coutrary to those Texes of Scripture imp••dently and impert••nently cited by your self for your self. as Matt. 12.24 Hew 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being evill speak good things, Joh. 5.44. How can yee beleeve, &c. Job 6.44. No man can come to me, unlesse the Father 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. Jo. 12.39. Therefore they could not believe, &c. Joh. 15. Without we can d•• nothing, and Joh. 14.17. The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive, &c. Rom. 8.8. They that are in the flesh cannot pltase God, (to which you might as well have ad∣ded, had it not oppos'd you a little too palpably) Rom. 8.7. The carnall minde is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. These Scriptures clearely teach∣ing

that though man have a soul passively capeable of saving grace, faith, knowledge, repentance, &c. and his want of them be indeed accompanied with present hatred and contempt of them, yet that he is also absolutely unable to attaine them, and that it is possible onely to God to worke them in him; nor do you in al∣ledging these Scriptures, for me an argument out of them, to prove that this want of power is onely in regard of actuall indi posednesse. Sure I a••, you might have rais'd severall ar∣guments against that your cursed and rotten exposition; as, That its an impotency consisting in the want of a spirituall principle and faculty suitable to the duties and performances which men are said to be unable to do, with ut me ye can do no∣thing,1 Cor. 2 14 The naturall man cannot know the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned, Mat. 7.18. a co••rupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, Mat. 12.34. how can ye being ••bill speake good things, Rom. 8.8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God; and as the naturall mans impotency proceeds from the de∣fect of a spirituall principle, so for the removall of that impo∣tency, God bestoweth a new principle of spirituall life, (which were needlesse if mans impotency proceeded onely from actu∣all indisposednesse) Ezek. 36.26. A new heart will I give you and a new spirit will I put into you, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And that its not an impotency that proceeds onely from actuall indisposednesse or unwillingnesse, is cleare in that a naturall man cannot but be indisposed, and unwilling to every spi••tuall act; to believe and repent, &c. No man can come to me except the Father draw him; No man can be willing or consent, unlesse the Father make him so; the world cannot receive the spirit. The like also is evident from, Rom. 8.7. The carnall minde is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to the Law of God, &c.

These are the principall passages which I finde in his Booke, wherein he pretends either to Scripture or Argument; for in∣deed the businesse of argumentation, is but the by-worke of this his big work.) The bulk of his booke, being a heap of de∣famations and scurrilities, fitter for a sinke than a study, concer∣ning which, I say, 'twere easie to returne him reviling for revi∣leng; but this were to lay aside the Minister, the Christian,

nay the man; and as ridiculous as for a man whom an asse hath kickt, to kick the asse again. I shal couclude mine (mutatis mutan∣dis) as M. Goodwin began his: Though more truly. For a great part of Mr. Goodwin his pamphlet, the constitution and complexion of it, easeth me of the labour of making any answer or reply unto it; for con∣sisting of such reproaches, vilifications. and disparagements (the mad∣nesse whereof is sufficiently knowne unto and cryed out against by all men) I should but actum agere, and do that which is abundantly done already to my bond, if I should go about to possesse men of sobriety and judgement, with the unsavourinesse thereof.

FINIS.

Notes

• Warwickshire, Essex, Norfolk, Devonshire, Yorkshire, Nor∣thamptonshire, Lancashire, Wiltshire, So∣mersetshire.
• A Declaration and exhortati∣on, pag. 34. The many te∣stimonies which the truth and cause of Christ, the Covenant, and Presbyte∣••iall Govern∣ment, have lately received from that cloud of witnesses of the Ministry in leverall Coun∣ties 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.
• Epistle to the Reader, p. 4, 5.
• pag. 5.
• Youngl. Elder, pag. 16.
• Ar. 1.25.
• Youngl. Elder, pag. 25.
• Pag. 2, 3. of his Epist.
• pag. 3.
• pag. 17.
• pag. 5, Ep.
• p. 26. Y. El.
• 2 Tim. 2.3, 4. 2 Pet. 2.18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Job 40.23.
• Epistle to the Reader,
• T. El. p. 54.
• Yo. Eld. p 55.
• Yo. Eld. p. 87.
• Yo. Eld. p. 89.
• Yo. Eld. p. 59.
• Yo. Eld. p. 43. Y. El. p. 44.
• Youngl. Elder, pag. 52.
• Yo. Eld. p. 5.
• Yo. Eld. p 10.
• Yo. Eld. p. 62. pag. 63.
• Vid. p. 5. Y. El.
• Youngl. Elder, pag. 45.
• Busie Bishop; p, 23, 24. &c.
• Chamier to 1. L. 6. c. 8.
• 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.
• Synops. pur. theol. dis. p. 2.
• Ames••medul. c. scrip. Tilen syntag. disp. de scrip. Rivetus Disp. 1. de scrip.
• To. Eld. p. 27.
• Rev. 22.15.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.19•• 20, 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called afterward 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whituk. de Auth. Scrip. lib. 1. cap. 10. sect. 8. Ne{que} tantum ratione dogma∣tum scriptura à Deo prodiit, etsi edita scrip∣tura est ut certa & perpetua dogmatum ra∣tio constaret, sed tota scriptu∣rarum structu∣ra & compositio divina est, ne{que} non modo dog∣ma sed ne ver∣bum in Scrip∣turis ullum niss d••vinum est, &c. Yo. Eld. p. 5.
• Yo. Eld. p. 28.
• Third excep∣tion Yo. Eld. p. 28.
• Leo Castrius Go••••onius, &c.
• Aug Ep. 19 Ad. Hieron. Non te arbi∣tror sic legi tu∣••s libro•• velle tanquam Pro∣phetarum, vel Apostolorum: de quorum Scriptis quod omni careant errore dubitare nefar••um est. Manichaeiplu∣rima divinum Scripturararum loca quibus eorum, nefarius error convincitur quia in alium sensum deto••quere non possunt falsa esse contendunt quod tamen quia nec, probare potuerunt, notissimâ veratate super ati, confusi{que} discedunt. Id. Ib.
• Exception 4. Yo. Eld. p. 29
• Exception the fifth Yo Eld. pag. ••9.
• Exception the sixth, Yo. Eld. p. 30.
• Yo. Eld. p. 31.
• Joh. 5.32.33. &c.
• Toungl. Elder, pag. 6.
• Yo. Eld. p. 31, 32.
• Yo. El. p. 32.
• Bas. Moral. reg. 26. cap. 1 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Ad bonam solu∣tionem non per∣tinet quod pro∣bet conclusio∣nem sed quod defendat eam ab objectione contrariâ.
• Scriptures.
• Yo. El. p. 32.
• Ames. med••••de ser,
• Foundation.
• Religion.
• True and proper.
• Yo. El. pag. 32.
• Eccius Euchiri. Tit. 1. Bailius. q. 1. Bellar••de verb. dei, l. 4. c. 4.
• Rivet. ••. 1. c. 1. Aliud tempus alios mores po∣stulat Deus pro multiformi su•• sapiemia, admi∣nistrationis suae rationem vo∣lait variare. Consequentias a lversariorum meritò ridemus; fuit aliquando Ecclesia cum non esset Scripture ergo he•• tempore Ecclesia potest c••rere Scriptura. prae suppositâ Dei veluntate nobis necessariam esse Scripturam asserimus.
• Whitak. de perfec. Scrip. cap. 7. Partibus olim D••us se fami∣liariter ostendit at{que} iis per se voluntatem su∣am patesecit, & tum Scripturas non fuisse neces∣sarias fate••r: at postea mutavit hanc docendae •••• clesiae rationem & scribi suam voluntatem v••∣lait, rumneces∣sarta esse scrip∣tura ••••••pit. Alia illorum: alia horum tempo∣ruam ratio.—
• Greg. praf. in job, cap. 1. Si magni cujus∣dam vi••i sus∣ceptis Epistolis, verba legere∣mus, ea{que} quo calamo suissent Scripta quaere∣remus, r••dicu∣l••m profectò esses &c. cum ergo cegnosci∣mus, eju••{que} tei spiri••um san∣ctam, uctorem tenemus, cum scriptorem quae rimus quid ali∣u•• eg••mus, nist legenies literas de calamo per∣scruta••i,
• Yo. El. p. 34.
• Yo. El. p. 35
• Tolle puritatem verbi dei scrip∣ti & uliro col∣labescet dect i∣nae ex ve••bo desumptae pu∣ritas. Glas. p. 174. Quod docu∣mentom ad con∣vincendos erro∣res exeri potest, si hac vex ad∣mittatur scrip∣turas esse c••r∣ruptas. Aug. L. Cont. F••ust. Manic. c. 2.
• Yo. Eld. p. 35
• Vid. White, way to the Church, p. 378
• Yo. Eld. p. 35.
• Yo. Eld p. 38.
• Waleus. T. 1. p. 129. Scrip∣tura substanti•• non potest cor∣rumpi.
• Yo. Eld. p. 36.
• Esth. 3.12.8, 9.
• Busie Bishop; p. 22.
• Yo. Eld. p. 39. &c.
• Scriptura, & fides nostra sunt aequalis latitu∣dinis, fides nec plus nec minus debet amplecti quàm est in Scriptura reve∣latum. Geth. Exeg. p. 169.
• Yo. Eld. p. 40.
• pag. 182.
• Spanhem de grat. univers. pag. 1291.
• Nemo potest vel minimum gustum rectae sanae{que} doctrinae percipere, nisi qui scripturae fuerit discipu∣lus. Palam est Deum erga eos omnes quos un∣quam erudire cum fructu vo∣luit, subsidium verbi adhibuisse quòd effigiem suam in mundi formâ impres∣sam parum esse efficacem pro∣videret-Signifi∣cat propheta, Ps. 19. quum frustra Deus omnes populos ad se invitet cae∣li terrae{que} in tui∣tu, legem esse peculiarem filiorum Dei scholam Cùm humana mens pro suâ inbecilitate pervenire ad Deum nullo modo queat, nisi sacro ejus verbo adjuta & sublevata omnes tunc mortales, exceptis judaeis, quia Deum sine verbo quaerebant, necesse fuit in vanitate, at{que} errore versari. Calv. Instit. c. 6. l. 1.
• Gentes huic propositio••i, Christus morte suâ nos reconci∣liavit Deo, non potuerunt fidem adhibere nisi ea per praedicatio∣nem Apostolo∣rum fuisset illis revelata, p. 149 de jud. & nor. fid.
• Yo. Eld. p. 26.
• Yo. El p. 43, 44. Sect. 56.
• Yo. Eld. p. 43.
• C••nc. Carth••g sub Aurel. Apud Bin. To. 1. p. 864. Conc. Mileu. 868, 869. Ne∣farius & ab omnibus anathe∣matizandus er∣ror. haeresis ni∣mium periculo∣so, error perni∣tiosissimus. Aug. ad Hilar. ep. 94. pestife∣ta impietas exe∣crabile dogma∣ld. fidei venena Aug. Contr. Julian.
• Vid. Prin. neces. Introd p. 92.
• Yo. Eld. p. 4••.
• L••de nup & Conc. c. 3. li∣be••wn in hom••∣ne esse arbitri∣um, utri{que} dici∣mus, hinc non estis Celestiani liberum autem quenquam esse ad faciendum bonum, hoc vos dicitis, hinc estis celesti••ni.
• Prin. Comp. Tr. p. 166.
• Yo. Eld p. 44.
• Morton, Cath. Apo••par. 1. c. 24 Spr. de haeres. p. 1. l. 2, 3. Riv. Cath. Orth. Tr. 1.
• Yo. Eld. p. 45. sect. 57.
• Non est minon qròd nevi 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cathel is •• quibus ex••unt, no••um nomen 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Aug. l. 2. op. imp. n 7.
• Cernis cum qui∣bu•• maledicta rua 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cernis cum qui∣bus mihi sit cau∣so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 qu int••∣••i per••••osum sit, tam horrthi∣le ••rimen obji∣cere talibus, & quam mihi glo∣riosion sit quod libet crimen ou∣dire & talilus. Aug. Contr. Jul. l. 1. c. 4.
• Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 58.
• Yo. Eld p. 46.
• Yo. Eld. p. 31. Yo. Eld p. 46.
• Yo. Eld. p. 46.
• Yo. E•• p. 51
• Yo. Eld. p. 45. sect. 58.
• Yo. Eld p. 47
• Tract of faith, pag. 11.
• pag. 12.
• Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 59.
• Yon. Eld. Sect. 60.
• Yo. Eld. p. 50. Sect. 6••.
• Yo. Eld. p. 50.
• Ba. Bish. p. 49 Liberum sic confuemur ar∣bitrium ut di∣camus nos sem∣per indigere dei auxilio, Au. con. Pel. l. 1. c. 31. Ita ho∣menis laudamus naturam ut dei semper gratiam addamus auxa∣lium. Anathema qui docet gratiam dei per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam. Ibid. Diligenter interrogandus est Pelagius quam dicat gratiam quâ fateatur hon••nes adj••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, de••g. & l. c. 16••
• Nos istam gra∣tiam nolumus, istam cliquando gratiam fatea∣tur, qua futurae gloriae magni∣tudo n••n solum promittitur v••∣rum etiam cre∣ditur & spera∣tur, nec solum revelatur sapi∣entia, sed & a∣matur nec sua∣detur solum om∣••e quod bonum est, sed & per∣suadetur. Hanc debet Pelagius gratiam confi∣teri, 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 s••a habet cor nostrum ut bo ••n quod non tenemus nisi proprid voluntate, non tamen teneamus nisi ••pse in nobis operetur & velle. Aug. de praed. sa. l. 1. c. 20. ••on Deus vult id fieri, quod non nisi volentibus hominibu, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 et fieri, inolinat corum corda ut hoc velint. Eo scil. inclina••te qui in nobis mi•• abili & in effabil•• modo operatur & velle.
• Tantum spiritu Sancto accendi∣tur voluntas eo∣rum, ut ideo possint quia vo∣lunt, ideo sie ve∣lint, 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 & perseverar••er tenendo, non solum posse quod volumus, verum etiam velle quod possumus. Id. Ib.
• Yo. Eld p. 50.
• Yo. Eld. p. 51
• Aug de Cor. & ora. cap. 14. Hwna •• volun∣tates non •• of∣sunt resistere q••o micus fa∣c••at D••us quod vult, quand q••••∣dem ••ttam de ipsis hominan voluntatibus quod valt, cum valt fac••t. Piuna gratia d••ta primo A∣d••n est qua sit ut habtat homo justitiam si ve∣lit, sed gratia potentior est in secun lo Adam qua sit ut velit, tanteque 〈◊〉〈◊〉 diligat, ut car∣nis voluntatem contraria con∣cupist••n••em vo∣luntate spiritus vincat. Aug. de Cor. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 12 Infi••ms 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ut ipso do∣nante ••n victis∣s••ne quod be∣••m est, vellent. Id. ib. Inspirata gratiae suavitate per spirium sanct••m, f••ciente plus delectare quod precip••t, quam delectat quod impedit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 34. Ea quae pert••nent ad justiti••m, fic delectant animun ut quiqaid aliud dolor impedit, delectatio superat.
• Yo. Eld. p. 52.
• Col. Mag. Act. 4. Quoad modum illius co-opera∣tianis illa non est irresisti∣bilis. Coruin. Cout. Bogerman, p. 263. Positis ommibus opera∣tionibus quibus ad gratiam in nobis efficiendam Dens utitur, manet tomen ipsa conversio, ita in nostrâ petestate, ut poffimus non converti. Id. p. 274. Istis omnibus operationibus non obstantibus, fieri posse statuimus, ut voluntas non consentiat.
• Aug. de pee. mer. & rem. l. 2. c. 18 Si nob••s libera voluntas ex Deo est, quae adhuc potest esse vel bona, vel mala, bo••a verò vo∣luntas ex nobas sit, nelius est ••d quod a nobis quàm quod ob allo, quod non nisi abjurdssimè dic•• possit. Aliud est adju∣torium sine quo aliquid non fit, & aliud quo aliquid fit, nam sine al••mentis non possumus vivere, nec ta∣men cum affue∣rint alimenta, eis fit ut vivat qai mori volue∣rit, ergo adjuto••iam alimentorum est sine quo non fit, non quo fit ut vivamus, ut vero beatitudo quam non habet homo, cum dara fuerit, continu•• 〈…〉〈…〉 bee adjutorium est non solum sine quo non fit, verum etiam quo fit propter quod d••tu•• quia & sida••a suerit b••mini beatitudo, couti••uo fit beatus, & si data non fuerit, nunquam erit; ••l••menta vero non consequenter faciunt ut homo vivat.
• Yo. Eld. p. 53.
• Hier ad Ctes.
• Dan. de haer c. 46.
• Aug. l. 4 c. 3. Contra duas ep. Pel. Asserunt malam esse na∣turam, quae••im mutari nullo modo potest. A me nunquam au∣dies malam esse naturam.
• Resp. Apol, p. 23.
• Quae necessitas illius impediat voluntatem, quae ••anta vis odio digna imperet (acere, ut non quod vult sed quod non vult, & odit, face∣re compellatur? Respondebit tu quis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c.
• Vid. vos. hist. Pel. l. 3. p. 2.
• Sic asserit Ca∣tholicus libe∣rum arbitrium, ut non ex natu∣ra nescio quâ quae nulla est sed ex ipso arbitrio Coepisse dicat & angeli & hominis malum, quod eve••it baeresinmani∣chaeam nec ide•• posse captivam voluntatem, nisi dei gratia, respirare in salubrem libertatem quod evertit haeresin Pelagianam. Peccar•• Adae arbitriri∣um liberum de hominum na••ura periisse non dictmus, sed in horniuibus subditis diabolo, ad bene, pie{que} vivendum non ••lere, nisi, ipsa voluntas hominis fu••rit liberata. Morton Apol. p. 1. c. 30. Al∣sted. Tuppl. de Not. Ecc. Manichaei, naturam hominis tollebant, i. e. libertatem naturae, nos homi∣ni nondum regenito deroganus libertatem gratiae.
• Yo. Eid. p. 54.
• Triglandius and Piscator.
• Sect. 65. Yo. Eld. p. 54.
• Yo. Eld. p. 54.
• Id. Ib.
• Yo. Eld. p. 55.
• Nos non asseri∣mus Dei bra∣chium sic hodie esse abbrevia∣tum, ut mira∣cula mulla con∣cedat, praeser∣sertim iis qui Evangelium sincerè conan∣tur inter Eth∣nicos praedica∣re, sednegamus ista inter Chri∣stianos, de ar∣••iculis non∣nullis dissenti∣entes, ad mit∣tenda esse ut veritatis gno∣risi••••, aut criteria, Prid. 10. pag. 99. quae invisibilia & occulta sunt, miracula non sunt. Pol. synt. Lib. 6. Cap. 58.
• Calvin in Lo. Non in elligat solum fuisse in mor••s periculo, sed realem mor∣tem significat, ac•• praesentem q••â jam erant oppressi; om∣nes mortui nas∣cimur, donec ef∣ficiamur vitae Christi parti∣cipes, unde il∣lud Johannis. O••nis bom•• na u•• alis mortu∣us est in ha••na∣tiva sua corruptione, quia nulla pars anitrae petest in spiriualibus vitalem ••ct. o••em exercere. Dav. in 2 Col 13. Amma mornu••, morte gratiae quatenus peccatum sua impuritate dissoluit grat••itam animae unicnem ad Deum, in qua sita est vita spiritualis. Id. Ib. Pise. In loc homo natura manciptum est dia∣boli, cui servit pepetram••o peccata, ac prcinde est filius irae, h. e. reus damnationtis. Pisc. in lec. Quum dicit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 significat se conceptos & natos esse in peccato, ac proinde reos mortis, nam singulis natu∣raliter n••scentitus imputatur Ad•• lapsus, & in singulos nascendo propagatur naturae eorruptio seu pravitas.
• Davenant, in 2 Col 13. Deus anim••m vivificat all••m repar••n lo, & sordes peccati detergendo ••psius enim factara sumus, creat•• in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis. — Per vivificationem intelligit 〈…〉〈…〉 quod ipsum, Rom 6.11. Vocat vivere Deo amhulare in nov••tate vitae. Ro. 6.4. Pise in loc.
• Vivens vita ndturali mortua morte spiri∣tuali, Pis. in Loc.
• Sect. 66. Yo. Eld p. 56 Bu. Bush. p. 25.
• Yo. Eld. p. 56.
• Yo. Eld. p. 56.
• Yo. Eld p. 55.
• Yo. Eld. p. 52.
• Yo. Eld. p. 56.
• Gra••iam Dei, quae ne{que} lex est, ne{que} natura, in hoc tantum va∣lere, ut peccata praeterita di∣mittantur, nou ut futura viten∣tur, &c. Quis me libera∣b•• à reatu pec∣catorum meo∣rum quae com∣misi cum vitare potuissem. Contr. Jul. l. 1. f. 85.
• Yo. Eld p. 65.
• Yo. Eld. p. 57.
• Yo Eld. p. 58. Sect. 67.
• Yo. Eld. p. 59. Sect. 68
• Yo. Eld. p. 60.
• Yo. Eld. p. 60. Sect. 69.
• Yo. Eld. Sect. 69.
• Yo. Eld. p. 53.
• Aug de verb.
• Videte tum fra∣tres mei quomo∣do generalem illam gratiam praedicant, quá creatus est ho∣mo, qua bomt∣nes sumas, & uti{que} cum imoiis homines sumus, hane gratiom qua Christiani sumus, ipsam volumus prae licent, ip∣sam volumus agnoscant. Faust. Regie••s, de l a. l. 2. c. 8. Qui naturam in bonis suis negat prae∣dicari debere, nescit profecto spsum naturae dathorem esse, quigratiae.
• Yo. Eld. p. 61. Sect. 70.
• Yo. Eld. p. 62.
• Homines ten∣tum sunt habi∣tualis conversi∣onis, or••••sio & amecedens con∣dit o••quod prae∣dicato evangedi•• resipiscent•••• & fidei, deus spi∣r••••u regenerante virtutem fidei & resipiscentiae ••nimis electorum indat, ut habiles sin•• ad par••dun Evangelium, actualis verò conversionis sum causa instrumentalis. Gom. p. 154.
• Aug. de gra. Chr cap. 7. Adj••vat no; Deus per do∣ctrinam & re∣velarionem su∣am, dam cordis nostri oculos aperit, du••n no∣bis ne praesenti∣bus occupemur, futura demon∣strat, dum dia∣boli pandit in∣fidiat, &c. Nunquam isti inimici gratiae ad eandem gratiam vehememius oppugnan lem occultiores mol untur insidias, quàm ubi legem laudant.
• Conc. Mil. c. 4. Quisquis di erit gratiam dei propter hoc tantum nos adju∣vare ad non peccandion, quia per ipsam revelaiu••, & aperitur intelligentia man lato••um, ut scia∣mut, &c. non autem per illam nobis praestari ut quod saciendum cognoverimu, agere valeamus, anathema sit.
• Yo. Eld. p. 63
• Yo. Eld. p. 63 Sect. 72.
• Bu. Bush. p. 54.
• Yo Eld. p. 65.
• Yo. Eld. p. 65.
• Yo. Eld. p. 65.
• Yo. Eld. p. 66.
• Yo. Eld. p. 66.
• Yo. Eld. p. 66.
• Yo. Eld p. 67. Sect. 76.
• Rom. 14.15. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Job. 10.28.
• Job. 6.39. Rom. 8.38.
• Reader, in Yo Elder p. 100. John Goodwin al∣loweth this interpretation Rom 14 15. In Pauls lan∣guare saith he he is said to destroy his brother, who doth that which is apt or like to de∣story him, whether he be actually de∣stroyed or no. Yo Eld. Sect. 77, 7••, 7••, 8••.
• Doctor Willi∣am Gouge his Vindication.
• Yo. Eld. p. 70.
• Ibid.
• Ibid. pag. 71.
• Master Sou••∣•••• Vindica∣tion.
• 1 Cor. 2.14.
• Rom. 8.5, 7, 8.
• Christians daily walk, cap 15. sect. 1. page 452, 453.
• Master Calamy his Vindicati∣on.
• N••lil se dis∣ponit ad gra∣dum altiorem quam habet na∣tura. Atqui gra∣••ia regenerans excedit totam naturem, quic∣quid igitur est à viribus naturae id inferioris est ordinis & improportionatum ad gratiam. Potest quidem homo minus peccando, mi••us indispositus reddi ad recipiendam gratiam, quam alius sed nihil tamen fa∣cere potest, per quod ad gratiam disponatur. Vossi historia Pelagiana. lib. 4. part. 1. & pag. 420. pag. 419. Dispositio ad gratiam est pars converfionis nostr••: Conversio autem est opus Divinwn, Psal. 85.5. Lam. 5.21.
• Yo. Eld. p. 85. Sect 90.
• Yo. Eld. p. 5. p. 76, 79.
• Sect. 91. p. 85.
• Ambr. in Lee. Sensum in ter∣ram deprimit, idea{que} non ••sse∣quitur nisi quae v••let, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pu∣t••t aliquid posse fieri quam quo∣modo 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ideo quicquaid aliter audit quam no∣rit, st••ltum juditar. Theophilact. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Oecumen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Calv. in Loc. Homi••em oni∣malem vecat queml. bet ho∣minem solis naturae facult tibus praelitum in puris natural••tus relictum. Ter spiritu••lem intelli••i∣ur is eujus m••ns illuminatione spiri••us Dei regitur.
• Disp. 11. Thes. 8.
• 1 Cor. 2.8. Chrys. in Loc. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Perfectos voc••t non qui asiquuti sunt plenam sa∣pi••ntra••, sed qui sano sunt & in corrupto jud cio Caiv. in Loc.
• Pag. 88. Se. 94.
• Musc. in Loc. Confert. utrin{que} tum hominem animalem tum spiritum dei, & doces ita esse comparatum hominem animalem, ut quae spiritus Dei sunt nequeat cognoscere, que∣madmodum si dicas bestiam cognoscere non posse quae bominum sunt plus interest inter animolem ho∣minem, & spiritum Dei, deinde & inter intellectam hominis, & ea quae sunt Dei, qu••m inter ho∣minem & bestiam.
• Yo. Eld. p. ••9. Sect. 95.
• Yo. Eld. p. 51. 52. Quicurq. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vit ideo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gra••am 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ut, quod face••, jabemur rer li∣hernm 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faci••ius pessimus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 per gratram, ta quam & 〈…〉〈…〉 vina ma data, Anathe∣ma sit De 〈…〉〈…〉 sine me difficalius potestis facere, sed art sine 〈…〉〈…〉 facere. Conc. Afr. Can. Cap. 5.
• Joh. 15.5.
• Joh. 6.44.
• Joh. 14.17.
• Yo. Eld. p. 1.