The Blind Guide, Chapter 2

The Blind Guide · Chapter 2

p. 18CHAP. II.

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

Aſſerted in Sion Colledge viſited.

IT was never well with Chriſtian Religion, ſince the Miniſters of the Goſpell (ſo called by themſelves, and ſo reputed by the generality of men for want of knowing better) cunningly veſted that priviledge of theChurch of being the ground and pillar of truth in p. 19themſelves. There came lately out of the preſſe a few papers, ſtiling themſelves, A teſtimony to the truth, &c. and pretending to a ſubſcription by the Miniſt. of Chriſt, &c. Sion Coll. viſited, pag. 1.

It is a precious truth p. 20of Jeſus Chriſt, That no act of man what ſoever is any foundation of Chriſtian Religion, the Apoſtle 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 errours. Sion Colledge …ſited, pag. 3.

You cite ſome of my words barely, ſuppreſſing craftily my ſenſe. You cite theſe words: Queſtionleſſe no writing whatſoever, whether tranſlations or originals, are the Word …f p. 21God, Divine Author, pag. 18. without citing thoſe other words of mine, Divine Author, pag. 13. wherein I aſſert them to be of Divine Authority, Si. Coll. viſited, p. 11, 12.

Let the thirteenth and fifteenth pages of Divine Author be lookt upon, pag. 12. Sion Coll. viſited.

p. 24I beſeech you brethren, where lyes the error of theſe words? … God ſhould not endue men with ſuch principles, abilities, &c. by the diligent improvement whereof they might come to be convin…ed of a readineſſe, and willingneſſe in him to receive them into grace and favour upon their repentance, and turning to him(upon which conviction that repentance and turning to God alwaies followes) they which are condemned would have their mouthes opened againſt God, and ſurmſhed with and excuſe, &c.

The ſum of his paſſage cited for an error in our teſtimonie is this: If God ſhould deprive men of all power to beleeve, & yet perſwade p. 25to beleeve, &c. God would be like a King that cauſeth a mans legs to be cut off, and yet urgeth him to run a Race with thoſe that have limbs. Div. Au. p. 168.

Naturall men may doe ſuch things as whereunto God hath by way of promiſe annexed grace and acceptation.

All the world, even thoſe that have not the letter of the Goſpell, have yet ſufficient meanes granted them of beleeving theſe two, viz. That God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently ſeeke him; which is all the faith that the Apoſtle p. 26makes neceſſary to bring a man into grace or favour with god. They who have only the heavens, the ſun, m one, and ſtarrs to preach the Goſpell to them, have alſo reaſon ſufficient, to judge the ſame judgment with them who have the letter of the Goſpell, for they have the Goſpell, the ſubſtance and effect of it, the willingneſſe of God to be reconciled to the world, preached unto them by the Apoſtles aforeſaid, the ſun, moone, and ſtars. Div. Auth. p. 183. p. 186

p. 27Nor were it a matter of much more difficulty to bring antiquity it ſelfe, and particularly thoſe very Authors who were the greateſt oppoſers of Pelagius, as Hierom, Auguſt. Proſper, &c. with mouthes wide open, in approbation of the ſame things for which I am arraigned at the tribunall of Sion Col. Sion Col. Viſ. p. 24.

p. 28Theſe men have exchanged the Fathers adjutorium, into their owne compulſorium. Sion Col. Viſ. p. 28.

p. 29The queſtion between Pelagius and the Fathers, was not whether man had freedome of will in reſpect of good or evill, but whether men notwithhſtanding their freedome of will, did not ſtill ſtand in need of the adjutory of grace, both for the performance of, and perſeverance in what was good.

p. 18Anſwered in buſie Biſhop.

1. TIs you ſorrow to ſee that they are ſo much as reputed Miniſters; your ſinne to ſay they are onelyonly reputed Miniſters for want of mens knowing better. Tell me of one man, either Miniſter or private Chriſtian, differing from the Subſcribers onelyonly in the point of Independency, who dares ſay thus with you. If you do account your ſelf a Miniſter, which way had you your ordination? Whether by that way p. 19that the Miniſters of London had theirs, who you ſay are no Miniſters, &c.

2. You ſay, The Miniſters have veſted themſelves with the priviledge of the Church, of being the ground and pillar of truth. — The Church (as a pillar) holds forth the truth, either in a common way to all Chriſtians mutuall exhortations, profeſſion, practice, &c. or in a miniſteriall way, preaching, adminiſtration of Sacraments, &c. If you ſay the Miniſters have veſted themſelves with the priviledge of being the pillars of truth the firſt way, '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 themſelves with the priviledge of pillars in the ſecond reſpect, 'tis odiouſly falſe, for the Lord Jeſus himſelfe and not themſelves veſted them with the priviledge of holding forth truth by way of Office, Eph. 4.11. Chriſt gave ſome Paſtors and Teachers, 1 Cor. 12.38. God hath ſet ſome in his Church, &c. Buſie Biſhop, pag. 3, 4.

Though no act unto which p. 20man is enabled by God (ſuch as beleeving) be a foundation in that ſenſe in which Chriſt is, upon whom we build the hope of out ſalvation, to be obtained by his mediation, yet beleeving of the Scripture, as it is an aſſenting to a maine and prime credendum, viz That the Scriptures are by divine inſpiration, is a neceſſary foundation for other ſubſequent graces that are required in the Chriſtian Religion, and without which foundation all godlineſſe and Religion would in a ſhort time fall to the ground; no theologicall grace can be without faith; and no faith, if the authority of the Scriptures fall.

If beleeving be no foundation, why doth the Apoſtle give to faith the name of foundation, Heb. 6.1. Not laying againe the foundation of repentance and of faith, &c. Bu. Biſh. p. 9.

Theſe words, therefore queſtionleſſe no writings, &c. are the concluſion and the reſult of your premiſſes in ſeverall long winded pages. If your concluſion be craſie and hereticall, your premiſſes muſt needs be ſo too; and therefore the ſetting them downe could p. 21not have helped you; and if the concluſion be not hereticall, why do you not defend it againſt the accuſation of the Subſcribers, which you dare not do; but only ſend the Subſcribers to your premiſſes in the thirteenth page, leaving the poore 18. (the concluſion) to mercy.

Suppoſe you had in the thirteenth page written the truth, therefore ought you not to be blamed for writing errours in the 18. pag. 21. Bu. Buſh.

At your command I ſhall conſult the pages, wherein you would be thought to ſay, The Scriptures are the word of God. In theſe pages, and pa. 17, you ſay, That you grant the matter and ſubſtance of the Scriptures, the gracious counſels of the Scriptures, to be the Word of God. As that Chriſt is God and man, that he dyed, that he roſe againe, &c. Theſe you ſay are onelyonly the word of God, and not the writings or written word; when you ſay the matters, &c. are the Word of God, you ſuppoſe they ſhould be beleeved for ſuch. But upon what ground ought I to beleeve them? I hope you wil not ſay, becauſe a province of London p. 22Miniſters ſaith they are to be beleeved, nor barely becauſe the ſpirit tels me they are to be beleeved for the Word of God, for the ſpirit ſends me to the written Word, bids me by that to try the ſpirits, and tels me I muſt beleeve nothing to be from God, but what I finde written. I therefore deſire to go to the written Word, as revealed by God, for the building my confidence upon the matters of the Scriptures (as pardon through Chriſt, &c.) but then J. Goodwin tels me, this written Word is not Gods Word. So it muſt be the word of vaine man, and ſo I have no more to ſhew for this precious truth, Chriſt dyed for loſt man, than mans word. In your alledged pages you make no diſtinction between res credenda and ratio cudendi, the matter to be beleeved, and the ground of beleeving that matter. The matters to be beleeved are the precious truths you ſpeake of. The ground of beleeving them is the revelation of God in his written Word. The Revelation of God hath alwayes been the foundation of faith; and now this Revelation is by writing, the ground of faith is, it p. 23is written. What courſe tooke Chriſt and his Apoſtles to prove the matters and doctrinall aſſertions which they taught but by the written Word, and when they would render them foreign, fit for belief, they ever more tell how it is written. Conſult with the places in the Margin and you will finde that the matter, ſubſtance, precious counſell, &c. contained in the Scripture, are proved to be things to bee beleeved becauſe they are written; yeeld your ſelf to that evident Scripture, Joh. 20.21. Theſe things are written that ye might beleeve that Jeſus is the Chriſt the Sonne of God, &c. The rativ or ground of beleeving this precious truth, That Chriſt is the Son of God, is its revelation by writing. So Act. 14.24. Rom. 15.4. Job. 5.47. If therefore you deny (as you do in terminis) the written Word to be the word of God, what formall object hath faith? i.e. to whom or what will you ſend me for the building my confidence upon the matters and counſels of the Scripture, &c. Touching this I added in Buſie Biſhop the teſtimonies of Tertullian, Ireneus, Aug. Chriſoſt. &c. Bu. Biſh. p. 24.

p. 24Is not every man, as a man, a debtor to God, and a creature tyed to obedience? and doth his making himſelfe inſufficient to diſcharge the debt diſcharge him from payment? it would follow, that if ſuch impotency excuſed from duty, and from the obligation of the the command, that thoſe men were moſt excuſable that were moſt ſinfull, and had by long accuſtoming themſelves to ſin, made themſelves moſt unable to leave and forſake ſinne; nay, if by reaſon hereof God did not command obedience from them, it would follow, that ſuch did not ſinne at all; (for where there is no precept, there is no tranſgreſſion) and ſo according to you, by a mans progreſſe in ſin he ſhould make himſelfe ceaſe to be ſinfull. Buſ. Biſh. p. 29.

In your next, prove 1. That they who periſh have power to beleeve. The Scripture denyeth it, when it ſaith, The world cannot receive the Spirit, &c. Joh. 14.17.

2. Prove if a man hath not p. 25power, that this impotency is meerely poenall, as inflicted by God, ſo involuntarily indured by man (for that is the nature of a puniſhment properly ſo called) the Scripture ſaith, Man hath found out many inventions, Eccl. 7. &c. Gen. 6.12. All fleſh hath corrupted its way, &c. Buſ. Biſh. p. 31.

I ſuppoſe by your naturall man, who you ſay doth things to which God hath annexed acceptation, you meane the ſame man the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, Rom. 8.8. The man in the fleſh. now, that man cannot pleaſe God, though your naturall man doth things acceptable to God. Invert not gods and Natures order. Firſt, let the tree be good, and then the fruit. Buſ. Biſh. p. 34.

What ſtuffe is here! have all the world ſufficient meanes of beleeving theſe two, 1. That God is. 2. That he is a rewarder of them that diligently ſeeke him? Paraeus informes you, that thoſe two heads of ſaith, that God is, and that God is a rewarder of them that diligently ſeeke him, are not to be underſtood Philoſophically, but Theologically; that the eternall God is Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghoſt, and that be is a rewarder p. 26of them that ſeeke him Evangelically by faith in Chriſt, with the benefits of the Goſpell, pardon, adoption, ſanctification, glory. And can heathens by the ſim, moone, and ſ…arres do this? Can they by the light of nature beleeve a trinity of perſons in unity of eſſence. None (ſaith Gerrard) can be led to the knowledge of God by the creatures, but only ſo farre forth as God is their cauſe. Now, God is their cauſe by a divine power common to the three perſons, therfore by the creatures we can onelyonly attain to knowledge of theſe things which are common to the three Perſons, and not to the knowledge of the diſtinction of Perſons, Ger. de Trin. and can the heathens by the workes of creation have the diſcovery of a Mediator, and have Chriſt made knowne to them, and beleeve in him? I am ſure you nsver learned this of the Apoſtles, who ſaith; that faith cometh by hearing, Rom. 10. or are you of Smalcius the Socinian his judgment, who ſaith, that faith in Chriſt is not alwaies required to juſtification, but faith ſimply; and he proves it out of this very Sctipture that you have alleadged, Heb. 11.6. for the faith of heathens, &c. Buſ. Biſh. p. 36.

p. 27The Fathers aſſert the being and nature of free-will only, and not its power to ſupernaturall good in all the paſſages which you alleadge out of them. Though Auſtin and Jerom againſt the Manichees maintained the nature of free-will, yet 'tis as true that againſt the Pelagians they denyed the abilities of free-wil to good ſupernaturall. Of this latter you wiſely take no notice at all, as making directly againſt you, though there are hundreds of inſtances to that purpoſe to be found in them. And thus the learned, and orthodox Divines of the reformed Churches abroad, underſtand Austin and Hierom, when alleadged by Papiſts and Arminians, as writing for free-will. Rivetus and Walleus, two famouſly learned writers among the Proteſtants ſhall ſuffice for inſtances. Baily the Jeſuit, objected out of Austin to prove free-will, that very place againſt the Proteſtants, which you alleadge againſt the Miniſters. The words of Auſtine which both Baily and your ſelfe alleadge are theſe. Si non eſtliberum arbitrium quomodo Deus judicat mundum? If there p. 28be no free-will how doth God judge the world? This place Rivet underſtands onelyonly of the naturall being of free-will, For ſaith he, if man were turned into a ſtone, or a block, or a bruit creature, be ſhould be exempted from Gods Judgement, but ſince when he acts out of deliberation be chuſeth and willeth what pleaſeth him, he deſervedly gives account of his actions, Riv. to. 2. p. 183. The place you alleadge out of Jerom is this. Fruſtra Blaſphemas & ingeris, &c. Thou blaſphemeſt in vaine, buzzing in the eares of the ignorant that we condemne freewill; And Waleus, T. 2. p. 95. anſwers Corvinus in theſe words of Hierom. Fruſtra, &c. but then he gives the reaſon why, and how both be and Hierom did allow of free-will, not in regard of its abilities to good ſupernaturall, But becauſe (ſaith Waleus) He denyeth man to be created according to the Image of God, who denies him to be adorn'd with the naturall faculty of freewill. 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 p. 29concluded thus. I ſhould gladly be informed by you in your next what the Miniſters adjutorium differs from that held forth by the Fathers, and what they hold tending more toward a compulſory then theſe Fathers here, and in hundreds of other places have written, but he anſwers nothing.

Your miſtake here is pittifull, for the great queſtion between Hierom, Auguſtine, and Pelagius, was not whither the will did ſtand in need of the adjutory of grace for the performance of good, but what kinde of adjutory it was, of which the will did ſtand in need, and wherein grace was an adjutory; and I alleadge ſundry places to prove that Pelagius himſelfe granted the neceſſity of the adjutory, but that Auſtine was not ſatisfied with that his grant, ſaying, that Pelagius is to be askt what grace he meaneth.

p. 18Replyed in Yo. El.

Nothing.

p. 19Nothing.

p. 20Nothing.

p. 21Nothing.

p. 22Nothing.

p. 23Nothing.

p. 24Nothing.

p. 25Nothing.

p. 26Nothing.

p. 27Nothing.

p. 28Nothing.

p. 29Nothing.

Theſe are ſome of the heads of thoſe many paſſages which Mr. G. toucheth not, whether becauſe they were too conſiderable, or too contemptible himſelfe beſt knowes.

Sundry other materiall omiſſions I could mention; and how unſcholler-like a deportment is it for him to boaſt, that Buce and the Fathers are of his opinion, and yet when the contrary is proved, by ſhewing that the ſcope and ſtreyne of their writings oppoſe his dotage, and how they explaine themſelves, to p. 30have nothing to ſay, but that theſe Authors contradict themſelves, and never to anſwer thoſe multitudes of places which out of the ſaid Authors are brought againſt him?