380

POSTCRIPT

TO THE

DISCOURSE OF THE BLASPHEMING OF THE HOLY

GHOST.

SINCE this was printed, I met with a book of a reverend divine's, (now with God,) Mr. William Lyford, wherein, among others, that are more deeply charged, I am confuted as one guilty of errors, or heresy, or I know not what. (Chap. v. sec. 3, p. 144, &c.) My error lieth in a wrong description of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thus he begins the charge:

"A learned man, correcting the common opinion of divines touching this point, doth think that this is it, which is called the sin against the Holy Ghost: when men will not be convinced by miracles that Jesus is the Christ."

Reply 1. He is a man that pretendeth not to much learning, but is unfeignedly willing to know the truth, and to bring this controversy to the test of God's word; but little did he think that his opinion in this was of that moment to be enumerated with the intolerable errors against the Deity, or divine worship of the Holy Ghost, or the rest in the black bill.

2. It is only the common opinion of our modern, reformed divines that I there contradict; but whether the ancient doctors were more for their exposition or for mine, I leave them to judge, that have considered what I have said before, as also, whether the said doctors be not taken into the black bill as well as I; yet will I not say, that I had rather err with them, than be orthodox with our moderns; but I will see better reason for it than this author allegeth, before I will condemn them, or depart from their opinion.

3. The description is too short, as the next page in my book will show to the not believing, he should have added blaspheming, by ascribing the works of Christ to Beelzebub, and he had taken in all my sense.

But three things he opposeth against my definition.

1. That miracles are not a sole, sufficient conviction to beget faith; the proper end of miracles was to bring the mind to a marking of the doctrine, &c.

Reply 1. Little do I know to what purpose is this observation, or how it is any opposition of my doctrine, unless he meant to argue thus: If miracles be not a sole, sufficient conviction to beget faith, then the blasphemous rejecting them is not the sin against the Holy Ghost; but the former is true, therefore: Answ. I deny the consequence, and never look to see it proved.

2. I distinguish of sufficiency. It is alone sufficient to its own use or office, but not sufficient to the whole work of conversion or producing faith. Miracles presuppose the doctrine of the Gospel, and are the seal of that doctrine, proving it to be of God. Who ever said the seal was sufficient without the instrument sealed? The question was, when the Gospel was preached, whether it were true or false. The infidels said it was false; Christ proves it true by his miracles, for these were God's attestation of it. Now, to this use, these miracles are sufficient, objectively, in their own kind; but this excludeth not the need of the Spirit's internal efficiency on the soul, much less the need of the Gospel, the truth of which it serveth to confirm.

And, as for the testimony of the prophets, on which, he saith after, "Their belief was to be grounded, and not on miracles alone." I reply, 1. Either miracles alone, or the believed testimony of the prophets alone, are a sufficient proof of those doctrines of Christ, to which they do attest; but both together is more than one; and the sense of the prophets was not so easily manifested to unbelievers, to be so undoubtedly full for Christ, as that we could imagine it to be equal to miracles for their conviction. We hear how men differ still about the sense of as plain Scriptures, who seem yet very godly on both sides; and we see how little the Jews to this day are convinced from the prophets; and we find expressly, in Scripture, that miracles were the ordinary, convincing means, which I have proved in the preface to the second part of the 'Book of Rest.'

2. The testimony of the prophets was of no validity to any that believed not the prophets, and that was almost all the world except the Jews for the apostle to have proved the Gospel to be true by the prophets, to the gentile world, had been but to prove one unknown thing by another.

3. And how would you have proved that those prophets spoke true to the nations that would have called for proof? It was by miracles that Moses and many of the prophets did prove their doctrine, and by these you must prove them to the world, before they would receive their witness to the Gospel. And is it not as clear, or much clearer, means of conviction, to appeal directly to the more numerous miracles that were near at hand, than to those so far off, whose truth the world would be more ready to question?

I must freely confess, for my part, it is the evidence of truth in the Gospel that owneth the Old Testament, which is my best objective help to believe that Testament.

Moreover, I would fain know whether that illumination of the Holy Ghost, which you say men do maliciously oppose, who sin against the Holy Ghost was a sufficient means of thorough conviction and belief, or not. If not; then doth not your reason confound your own definition, as much, at least, as mine? If it were, then it seems some unbelievers, or unregenerate men, have sufficient grace to conversion, which is not effectual: which doctrine, I conjecture, will not well relish with your orthodox friends. The second assault is thus, against these words of mine: "When men will not be convinced by miracles."

Mr. L. Will not? It is not in our choice whether we will be convinced or not, &c. Many are convinced against their wills: others are not convinced, though they desire it: the heretic useth means to prove his way to be truth: he would persuade himself that he is in the right, but cannot; and, therefore, the apostle saith he is self-condemned, because he holds on his against the convictions of his own conscience. It is not in my choice whether I will understand or remember. These are not

commanded faculties.

way

Reply. All men confess that the will hath not that plenary, despotical command of the understanding, memory, or passions, as it hath of the hand, foot, or tongue. But, 1. If these are not commanded faculties, then the whole school of all sects that I am acquainted with, have erred. And in philosophy, and so high a point about man's soul, it becomes not so young a scholar as I am, to follow the singular opinion of Mr. L. before all the world. What is the offence against my doctrine, but that it seemed singular? And must I side with one man against all the world, to cure my singularity, in siding with the ancient doctors against many moderns?

2. If the understanding be not a commanded faculty, then its acts are not imperate acts: but its acts are imperate acts; therefore, for the minor, I have the consent of the world.

3. If the understanding be not a commanded faculty, then are not any of its acts participativè, free; but the acts of the intellect are participativè liberi; therefore,

The consequent of the major is certain: for the intellect is not free of itself, but is necessitated by the object, and wrought on per modum naturæ, further than as it is commanded by the will.

The minor is proved by common consent, and the very name of liberum arbitrium, which taketh in the acts of the intellect, as is commonly maintained by divines. It is proved also by the argument following.

4. If the understanding be not a commanded faculty, and its acts free, participativè, then it is not capable of moral virtue or vice, of duty or sin; but it is capable of duty and sin, of moral virtue and vice, participativè, as it is free, therefore

The consequence of the major is apparent, in that voluntariness is absolutely necessary to actual sin; it is no further sin than a man is some way voluntary; that is, either willing of the thing itself or its cause; or not willing the contrary, or the means of prevention or cure. Nature hath taught all the world to excuse him that is wholly unwilling, and so could not help it.

But the minor is certainly true. He that will undertake to prove that all the errors of the intellect are no sins, will justify those that Christ will condemn. Ignorance, error, unbelief, undervaluing God and spiritual things, are very great sins, and not to be justified. Specially, it is an unfit task to be undertaken by those that write of the intolerableness and damnableness of error and heresy, and in such a book as this is. If, indeed, the understanding be no commanded faculty, nor any man able to be wilfully an unbeliever, it being not in their choice, then let no more write or speak against errors and the toleration of them; nor provoke the magistrate to meddle with men that cannot help it, how great soever their error may be.

5. If the intellect be not a commanded faculty, and, by participation, free, then no wicked man can by the most devilish, vicious habits of his will, make his understanding worse than it is. But the consequent is proved false by Scripture and constant experience: therefore, &c.

6. If the intellect be not a commanded faculty and participa

tivè, free; then God is the chief cause of all its sinful error; but the consequent is false and abominable; therefore, so is the antecedent.

The consequence is evident, because either God or man must be the chief cause of our errors: not man, if he have no command of his intellect, for he is forced to it, and cannot avoid it. If God make it the nature of the intellect to be moved ad modum naturæ, and to be void of liberty; and wholly from under the command of the will, and if the same God shall set before us those objects that thus necessitate the intellect, it is past all doubt that he is the principal and necessitating cause of all its errors; which is a doctrine unfit for a Christian to maintain.

7. If it be no whit in the choice of our wills, whether we will be convinced, and so become believers, then no preachers should offer it to men's choice, nor persuade them to a right choice, nor use means with their wills. But the consequent is most unchristian; therefore, so is the antecedent.

8. If it be not in a man's choice whether a man will be convinced and believe, then no man needs God's grace to cause him herein to make a right choice; but the consequent is false; therefore, so is the antecedent.

9. If it be not in man's choice to be convinced and believe, then no man is to be blamed by God or man, much less condemned or punished, for not making a right choice herein; but the consequent is false, therefore, so is the antecedent.

10. But because this learned man did make so strange of it, that I should say, 'Men will not be convinced by miracles,' let us see whether the scripture use not this strange language as I do. And first, it is strange how he could overlook what he cited himself, from John iii. 19, 20: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world; and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Darkness was in the understanding, and not a false pretence of darkness on the tongue. And this darkness is damnable because men love it better than the light; and love is in the will; and so is the hatred mentioned in the next verse.

"Men perish because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved; and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that all they might be damned that believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. ii. 10-12.) And he that "will come in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that