The Lightless Star, Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
Goodwin.
THe second thing (▪good Reader) wherewith I desire to possesse and fill thee, judgement and conscience, heart and soule, and all that is within thee, to strengthen ttine hand to a diligent perusall of the Treatise ensuing is, the high necessity that lyeth upon thee (as it doth upon all the world besides respectively) to awake, raise, and engage all those worthy faculties, and endowments which God hath vested in thee, reason, judgement, memory, understanding, about the things of thine eternall peace; and because this Iron I feare hath of late been much blunted with the earthly conceits, and suggestions of many, I am desirous to put so much the more strength to it; but to me it is the first borne of wonder and astonishment, that amongst men, professing the glorious Gospell of Christ, who is the wisdome of God; yea, amongst the Teachers themselves of this wisdome; men should be found, who thinke they doe God and men very good service, in perswading men wholly to lay aside their reasons, judgements, understandings in matters of Religion, and not to make use of, or engage any of these in their enquiries after matters of a Spirituall, or supernaturall concernment; doubtlesse Satan is a debtor to those persons, who have seasoned the world with the unsavoury salt of such a Principle as this, for all the religious respects, and high entertainment, that have of late been given by many amongst us, to all those wicked, sencelesse, saplesse, hideous, and blasphemous Doctrines and Opinions, which like the dead Froggs of Aegypt make the Land to stinke; for if men may not interpose with their reasons, and judgements, to distinguish between Spirit and Spirit, Opinion and Opinion, why should not one Spirit be beleeved as well as another? and one Opinion received as well as another? or if the difference be not to be made by the interposure and exercise of reason in a man, I demand, by what other principle or meanes ought it to be made? If it be said partly by the Word of God, and partly by the Spirit of God. I answer;
Resbury.
Now he begins to come closer to his work, and by bolder steps then hitherto, moves on to the open venting of such Doctrines, as he durst but nibble at till now. In his first motive he hath made such a long discourse against Errours, as he begins to grow confident, that in the second, to which he is now come, he may broach errour without suspicion.
Here we have an hideous out-cry against such, as teach the laying aside of naturall reason, in enquiries about matters of Religion, and of a *Let it be here observed, that he useth Spirituall, and supernaturall for one and the same, which will be of use afterwards.spirituall and supernaturall concernment; and to make it sound the better, he tels us of such worthy faculties, reason, understanding, &c. in reference to these enquiries, as if he had never heard any thing of Originall sin, the blindnesse, darknesse, perversnesse, folly, bruitishnesse of the Naturall man; and then, as is the manner of all Seducers, and Heretiques, he drawes his charge confused and in generall termes, and therein vents the bitternesse of his spirit to the full against all the Orthodox, that is generally, the Ancient Fathers, the School-men of best note after them; and in the last place the eminent Lights of the last Ages reformation, and of this present Generation, these must be Factours for Satan, seasoners of the World with unsavoury salt, the abettors at least of all those borrid opinions, and blasphemies which have darkned our Land. What Jesuite hath a blacker mouth, or a stronger breath? But let us enquire into his Doctrine, and the mystery of deceit working in the bowels of it, and that by distinct proceeding in particulars, which he hath fraudulently wrapt up together in generall.
1 Then it is true, that in some sence Reason is to be made use of in these enquiries of Religion, and Spirituall concernments, as
1 Suppose an Heathen, not yet owning the true God, and his Word, he is by arguments propounded to his reason to be dealt with; by the Booke of the Creation to prove the one true God, as likewise by extrinsecall arguments to be drawne to read the Word of God, that by the word it selfe, as the Spirit shall please to enlighten by it, he may come to owne the Divine Canon, for the true word of the true God.
2 Granting the Scripture the un-erring Word of God, in whatsoever it shall deliver, we are diligently to employ our reason, in searching into the minde of God by the Scriptures, as our light to enlighten, and rule to direct our reason, as that word, which is able to make wise unto Salvation, and to make the man of God perfect, throughly furnisht to every good worke. And in two things here are our reasons to be exercised; 1. The Grammar of the Scriptures, or the formes of expression, to finde out the truth of them. 2. The Logick of the Scripture, or the true discourse thereof, and this in three things; the Scope, the Context, and Selfe-consent; Scripture compared with Scripture, the more obscure places interpreted by the clearer, and so in all the analogy of faith held. Now, Sir, you know very well that in this sence, and upon these termes, none of those, against whom you bend your stile, deny the use of reason, for they doe not teach that men in seeking into the meaning of the Scripture must become either fooles, or mad-men, or Enthusiasts. And was it in this sence only that you require the use of reason, or in any such sence as preserves the due authority of the Word, as for it selfe to be beleeved, as the perfect rule, you had never raised such Tragedies about the use of reason, or the laying it aside, as here you have; but we shall now passe to the enquiry, in what sence it is to be laid aside, and there I am affraid we shall finde you requiring the use of it, so as to evacuate the authority of the Word, therefore we say,
2. It is true, that in some sence man must lay aside his reason, in matters of religion, and in enquiries after matters of Spirituall, and supernaturall concernment; as,
1 That our assent to such truthes, as the Scriptures hold forth, may be the assent of Faith, the immediate ground of it must not be the Selfe-evidence of the thing testified by the Scriptures unto reason, but the authority of God testifying. Hence that knowne Doctrine of the Schooles, that the formall object (I like as well to say the proper ground) of faith is the first truth, or God himselfe revealing his minde. Hence suppose a truth taught in the Scripture is likewise demonstrated to my reason by Philosophicall arguments; (as for instance, That God created the world, that is, made it of nothing;) so farre is my assent to this truth, the assent of Divine faith, as it is grounded upon the authority of Divine testimony that assent which is grounded upon Philosophicall demonstration, is not Divine faith, but only Humane knowledge. He that trusts a man no further then he sees him (as we say Proverbially) trusts him not at all. Hence the Apostle, Through faith we understand Heb. 11. 3that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seene were not made of things that doe appeare. It is only the Christian, sure, not the meere Philosopher, that by faith understands this, though haply both of them may understand it by demonstration, but the Christian alone by Divine testimony for its owne authority assented to.
2 We may not oppose our naturall conceptions to the Word of God, or make our apprehensions before-hand the rule of what we will receive, for the Word and revealed Will of God, and what we will reject; but what the Grammar, and Logick of the Word holds forth, must be the rule of our apprehensions, whether we can discerne how in reason the things affirmed should be, or not (we must not Afferre sensum Scripturae, but referre) otherwise we subject the authority of Gods Truth to our owne apprehensions, and beleeve him not, because he hath said it, but because we by reason see it; neither shall we ever otherwise embrace the Word of God, for as much as the Word it selfe teacheth many things; 1. Above reason, Great is the mystery of godlinesse, saith the Apostle; yet it is no great mystery, if reason may comprehend it. What reason of men or Angels could ever have thought of such a thing, as the three Persons of the God-head, as the Personall union of God and Man in the Mediatour, the imputation of the Mediatours righteousnesse to beleevers; of Adams sinne to his Posterity, with many others? or who comprehends clearly these things, at least some of them, when revealed in the Word?
2 Many things against reason, that is, crosse to the apprehensions of corrupt reason, as it is now in all naturall men; The minding of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. The naturall man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse unto him, neither can hee know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. (Your fruitlesse attempt to avoyd the strength of this text of Scripture, we shall consider in due place.) It is one vertue of the VVord preached, to cast downe the reasonings of the naturall man, 2 Cor. 10. 5. Many others of like import we shall have occasion afterwards to mention. On the one hand such is the blindnesse and wickednesse of man by Originall sinne, which are withall daily encreased by themselves and Satan; on the other hand, such is the mysterious height, and transcendent purity of the Word of God, that mans reason must receive light from it, is not a light, otherwise then as enlightned by it, whereby to judge of it.
And as the truth we are now upon is evident by the Word, so is it by all experience; name me any one people, or any one person, since man was Created upon earth, that without the word or voyce of God for direction, by the light and ducture of reason, either worshipped the true God, or did not fall upon a most abominable way of Worship, or light upon the Gospel-way of Salvation, to omit all other deviations. Nay, you your selfe, who leane so much to your owne wisdome, and are so much in advancing the Rush-Candle of reason, against the Sun of the Scripture, are amongst others an evidence, even in this the Master-piece of your reason, the Treatise in hand, of the incompetency of mans reason not enlightened by the Word, through the Spirit, to judge of the things of the Spirit of God, whilst you fall so wretchedly foule upon the maine Doctrines of Predestination, Redemption, Perseverance, &c.
Now if in this sence Mr. Goodwin acknowledged that reason is to be laid aside, why doth he raise a Controversie with those, who in the other sence, formerly specified, not only grant, but urge the use of it? But that Master Goodwin in this sence denies the laying it aside, and exalts it as the Judge of the VVord beside, and above the word, seemes in the first place not obscurely insinuated, in the second place openly exprest, by some passages of his Pen.
For the first not obscurely insinuating it, what shal we say to that Doctrine of his, which he sayes is much to be observed, Pag. 5. of this Preface? That a man or woman, who have for many yeares profest the Gospel, may in processe of time come to discover vanity in some erroneous Principle, or Tenet, wherewith their judgements have been leavened for some considerable space formerly, and so grow into a dis-approbation or contempt of it, and yet may very possibly think the Gospell favoureth, or countenanceth it, and that otherwise they should never have owned, nor approved it.
Hence it appeares, that in your account errour may be discerned by reason, which yet shall be thought by the Gospell to be owned, so that the Gospell shall not be the rule by which to judge of truth and errour, but reason shall be the rule by which to judge, whether the Gospell it selfe (to wit, that sacred Writ which is received in the Church of God for the Gospell) be true or false. Then you goe on to the same purpose; Now when a person shall be brought into the snare of such a conceit, or imagination as this, that the Gospell in some of the veins or carriages of it, teacheth, or asserteth things that are vaine. But before you goe any further (allowing the Divine authority of the Gospell) it is unpossible that such a conceit should have place, that the Gospell in any of the veines or carriages of it should assert any thing that is vaine. He goes on; Or if no good consistency with reason or truth; here is your rule, to judge of any opinion in matters of Faith, and that whereby the Gospell it selfe must be called to an account, the consistency or inconsistency of it with reason; so farre it must be truth, as vaine mans blind reason judgeth it consistent with it selfe. You conclude, He is in a ready posture to throw from his soule all credence of the Divine authority of the Gospell, and to esteeme it no better then a Fable devised by men; so farre then as you comprehend by reason, the things taught in the Gospell, to be agreeable to reason, neither above it, nor crosse thereto, so farre you will embrace the Gospell; if any thing you finde in it otherwise, you are in a ready posture to esteeme it no better then a Fable: I doubt you are so indeed by your discourse here, and other-where, for most certaine it is, that there are many things in the Gospell both above your reason, and crosse to it.
But Sir, allowing the divine authority of the Gospell, It is impossible that any man should discover an errour in matter of faith, and religion, but he therein discernes it to be dis-owned and condemned by the Gospell, and the Gospell it selfe was the rule and the light whereby he discovered it; and the fruit of his discovery will not be (as you reason here) the blame of the Gospell, but of his owne former ignorance of the Gospell. But if here you have not spoken openly enough, you have discovered your selfe fully, pag. 335. of your booke, where disputing against a maine Gospel-truth, namely, the unchangeable love of God to the Saints, your words are these. Besides whether any such assurance of the unchangeablenesse of the love of God, to him that is godly, as the objection speaks of, can be effectually and upon sufficient grounds given unto men is very questionable; yea, I conceive there is more reason to judge otherwise then so. But let us hear what you say next; Yea, (that which is more, it is indeedmore then enough) I verily beleeve that in case any such assurance of the unchangeablenesse of Gods love were to be found in, or could regularly bee deduced from the Scriptures, it were a just ground to any intelligent and considering man to question their authority, and whether they were from God or no. Now have you spoken out; evident it is, as the light of the sunne, that you make mans reason (blind and corrupt as it is) a rule above the Scriptures, whereby to try them, and the only touch-stone of them; for that which may be found in, or regularly deduced from the Scriptures, must needs be the voyce of the Scripture in concordance with it self, by what rule now shall we question it, but that of our reason, as above it?
Now Sir, you must give me leave to tell you that your owne pen hath proclaimed you a very Socinian. And now let us see, whether this conclusion leads, even to the utter overthrow of the Scriptures: By the same reason that you may question this doctrine, found in, or regularly deduced from the Scriptures, you may question any other, and the authority of the Scriptures thereupon; a ready way for all Hereticks and erroneous Teachers. The Papists may question the authority of the Scripture, if Gods hatred against Image-worship, may bee found in, or regularly deduced from the Scriptures; you may question the authority of Scriptures, if holinesse of life, or whatsoever other truth (as wel one as another) may be found in, or regularly deduced from them. Let me advise you a more compendious way to maintain your errours against personall election, and reprobation, against the dominion of God therein exprest, against the confinement of redemption to the elect, against the perseverance of the Saints, against the efficacious influence of grace upon the will of man; and even this errour concerning the light and ability of the naturall man, for discerning and applying the things of the spirit of God, held forth in the Gospell; trouble not your selfe to torture the Scriptures, that they may seeme to witnesse for you; but for as much as they speake so much against you, question their authority, and whether they be from God, or not. And why should you not doe as your elder brethren of the Socinian-family have done before you? Let us first see their doctrines, as like to yours, as one egge is like another, what saith Smalcius? It is certaine, that whatsoever is contrary to reason, is neither extant in the holy Scriptures, neither can it be gathered from them, De Christo vero & naturali Dei filio, C. 6. What saith Ostorodius, another head of that Tribe? If reason or understanding expresly prove the Trinity of persons in God to be false, how may it come into the minde of any man, right in his wits, that yet notwithstanding it is true, and may be proved by the Word of God? Now adde Mr. Goodwins doctrine, and see if it speak not the same language. I verily beleeve (by the Secinian not Apostolicall faith) that in case any such assurance of the unchangeablenes of Gods love, was to be found in, or could regularly be deduced from the Scriptures, it was a just ground to any intelligent and considering man, to question their authority, and whether they were from God or no? These doctrines, plainly allow not the Scripture in the Grammar and Logique of it, the rule and light to guide and conclude mans reason; but exalt the reason of man, as judge above it; whence, whatsoever Article of faith they dispute about, nothing is more usuall with them then this objection, this or that is false, because contrary to reason.
We have now seen their doctrines, let us see their deductions, which likewise must be yours, your doctrine being the same. Hence they proceed to deny many Articles of the faith, because contrary to reason, at least in their apprehensions. The Racovian Catechisme, the body of their Theology, or Heresie rather, rejects the doctrine of the three persons in one essence, p. 49. the two natures in the one person of Christ, pag. 55. Danies that Christ by his death satisfied for us, and merited eternall life for us, pag. 261. And all, because these are contrary, say they, to right reason. Smalcius against Franzius opposeth Originall sinne, because (if he say true) it is utterly contrary to reason, that an innocent person by once sinning should infect all his posterity. These for a touch of your Doctrine, and whither it leads.