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 present to know simply the things of the spirit but he hath such principles 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 Yo. Eld. p. 59. 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. conteyned 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 asking 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 â—ot a sillable by way of denying the charge but tels me That in holding Jesus Christ to be they holy one of God Yo. Eld. p. 43. Y. El. p. 44. 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 agreement with Pelagius in his Errours impudently affirming Youngl Elder pag. 52. 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 quâ—ted by me out of the same Author is no manifestation of the impertinency of my quotations Yo. Eld. p. 5. but it is indeed a discovering of the nakednesse of an Authâ—r to present him contradictious to himselfe and to expose the unstablenesse of his judgement to the eyes of men So that â—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 Yo. Eld. p 10. That I and my mates tremble not to inform the creature against the Creator as if from eternity be had shut up his grace c. with the iron barres of an irreversible indispensable decree He tels us pag. 62. that ther 's nothin but morall perswasion to act the will into a saving consent Yo. Eld. p. 62. pag. 63. 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 motive and perswasion unlesse it be by force violence and compulsion The essentiall constitution and falâ—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 Vid. p. 5. Y. El. 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 Youngl Elder pag. 45. till this feat be done he concludes the charge must be continued But of his omissions and slender and erroneous performances you may please more fully to take this following account in these three following Chapters CHAP. 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 themselves 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 of Jesus Christ That no act of man what soever is any foundation of Christian Religion the Apostle affiâ—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 â—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 â—f God 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 I 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 convinâ—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.
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 whether Originals or translations are the foundation of Christian Religion 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 account an argument in Sion Coll. visited pag. 2. to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christian Religion viz. Because Christ is the onely foundation Which weak cavill I fully answered 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 Exception the sixth Yo. Eld. p. 30. 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 mediation 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 suitablenesse 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 certain it is that neither are they the foundation of Religion at this day Thâ—â— 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 writing 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 metaphor Master Jenkin thinks that he manifests the feeblenesse of Sion Colledge visited is he therefore the foundation of the booke or of the supposed feeblenesse of it which he discovers Your jeering betrayes your ignorance Answ or malitious forgetfulnesse 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 comprehends 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 Colledge 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 propounded to you p. 7. Bus Bish Why doth Master Goodwin alleadge that Scripture Yo. Eld. p. 31. 1 Cor. 3.11 Other foundation â—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 Messias if he did not ground his beliefe of his being the Messias upon Johns testimony Joh. 5.32.33 c. 1 When will you leave off to blaspheme It s my unhappinesse that instead of reclaiming you from heresie Answ you should take occasion from my words to vent your blasphemy Toungl Elder pag. 6. Do you no more need the Scriptures than Christ did Did Christ cite the testimony 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 establishing 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 upon 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 therefore the Scriptures are not Before you said that only the matter and
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 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 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 makes 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 Nor 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. These men have exchanged the Fathers adjutorium into their owne compulsorium Sion Col. Vis p. 28. The 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 Answered in busie Bishop 1. T Is 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 private 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 ordination 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 man 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 not 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 onely 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 Ministers 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 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 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 is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit for belief they ever more tell
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 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 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 have 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 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 supernaturall 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 Religion I have proved in Busie Bishop that this position doth raze and destroy the very foundation of Christian Religion Busie Bishop p 23 24. c. 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 assertion 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 position No writing c. is contrary to Scripture which tels us the Church is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Chamier to 1. L. 6. c. 8. 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 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. 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 multitudes 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 Tertullian 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 Religion Synops. pur theol dis p. 2. The Leyden-professors assert the Scriptures to be prineipium fundamentum omnium Christianorum dogmatum c. Gomarus also Thes de scriptura may be seen to this purpose Amesâ—medul c. scrip Tilen syntag disp de scrip Rivetus Disp 1. de scrip And I desire the Reader to consider That in this whole discourse though you exceed your selfe in impudence and audacious assertions 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 whatever you say might be neglected as not appertaining to this controversie between you and me But to consider of what you say though your whole discourse be nothing to the purpose in this satisfactory discussion as you vainly and falsely terme it of the foundation of Christian 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 demonstrations to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Christian 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. To. Eld. p. 27. You say This unhallowed peece of Presbytery wholly concealeth and suppresseth my distinction and what I deny onely in such and such a sense he representeth as absolutely simply and in every sense denyed by me In a due and regular sense I affirme and avouch the Scriptures to be the foundation of Christian Religion I appeale to these words in page 13. of my Treatise concerning the Scriptures If by Scriptures 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 Rev. 22.15 remember you the Catalogue of the excluded out of the new Jerusalem is not he that loveth and maketh a lye mentioned 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 Bishop 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 Youngling 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 uncertaine whether the written Word or Scriptures wherein the matter is
contained are the Word of God or no Is it possible to dispute against 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 formall 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 revelation of God in writing t is no divine faith 4. In this your penurious and scanty concession that the matters contained in the Scriptures are only the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1 19â— 20 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called afterward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whituk de Auth. Scrip. lib. 1. cap. 10. sect 8. Neque tantum ratione dogmatum scriptura à Deo prodiit etsi edita scriptura est ut certa perpetua dogmatum ratio constaret sed tota scripturarum structura compositio divina est neque non modo dogma sed ne verbum in Scripturis ullum niss dâ—vinum est c. Yo. Eld. p. 5. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A more sure word of prophecy not in regard of the matters of it but in regard of its manner of manifestation by writing 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 foundation of Christian Religion which base being laid the superstructure 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 â—â—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. surely there is some mistery in it Your second exception against me is Yo. Eld. p. 28. 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 passages in your Hagiomastix which deny the divine authority of Scripture 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 cannot 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 Hagiom 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 divisim 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 Hebrew 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 Third exception Yo. Eld. p. 28. 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 Counsells c. 1 Your granting that the holy
Scriptures containe the foundation of Religion in them Answ is but a slender concession I suppose you will not deny this to the books of many a godly writer 2 In granting me that the foundation of Religion i. e. the Gracious Counsells of God are contained in the Scriptures and yet in denying that the written Word is that formall object of my faith or that foundation for which I should build my faith upon those counsells of God for salvation you do both delude your Reader and contradict your selfe you taking away what you grant Gods revelation of his minde in the written Word being the reason why I embrace the Counsells or matters as the foundation upon which I build 3 You vainly applaud your selfe for asserting the Scriptures to containe the foundation when as you deny the purity of the Scriptures for let it be once granted that errors are crept into the Scriptures Leo Castrius Goâ—â—onius c. and that there is no originall pure which is the blasphemous calumny cast upon the Scriptures by the Papists the authority of Scriptures falls to the ground and we may call the whole Scriptures into question You assert that the purest originall exemplar is corrupted and you know not what the particular places are that are corrupt when any Sentence therefore out of Scripture is brought against your errors why may you not shield your selfe with this defence for ought I know the place whence you take this sentence is corrupted Ecce fundamentum religionis Goodwiniana behold the foundation of a goodly religion I confesse one so erroneous as your selfe cannot coveniently be without this comfortable refuge If you be not too old to learne of the Fathers Aug Ep. 19 Ad. Hieron Non te arbitror sic legi tuâ—s libroâ— velle tanquam Prophetarum vel Apostolorum de quorum Scriptis quod omni careant errore dubitare nefarâ—um est Manichaeiplurima divinum Scripturararum loca quibus eorum nefarius error convincitur quia in alium sensum detoâ—quere non possunt falsa esse contendunt quod tamen quia nec probare potuerunt notissimâ veratate super ati confusique discedunt Id. Ib. take this from Augustine in his 19. Epist written to Hierom. I suppose thou art not willing that men should read thy books as they would read the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles it being a most hainous sinne to doubt of the freenesse of their writings from all error And the same Father in the same Epistle tells Hierom that the Manichees contended that sundry places of Scripture which overthrew their errors were false which falsenesse they did not attribute to the Apostles that wrote them but to certaine corrupters I know not whom quod quia c. which because they could not prove being overcome by knowne trub they departed confounded For your fourth frivolous exception Exception 4. Yo. Eld. p. 29 you cite a passage out of your Div. Auth. of Scrip. p. 17. where you say The true and proper foundation of Religion is not Inke and Paper nor any book or books nor any writing or writings whatsoever c. Hereupon you make a double enquiry First Why did not Mr. Jenkin insert the words true and proper into the charge of my deuiall of the Scriptures for the foundation of Christian Religion Secondly why doth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper c. 1 Poor shifter Answ I added not the words true and proper because the Ministers tooke not your charge out of the 17. pag. where you say the words true and proper are but out of the 18. where I say they are not 2 Because you being taxed with this abhominable error in the Testimony of the London Ministers your selfe in your Pamphlet call'd Sion Col. Vis p 12. for vindication and explanation of your selfe in this point referre the Reader only to the 13. and 15. pages and this 17 page your selfe never mentioned in Sion Col. Visited to which book only mine was an answer and not to Div. Auth. where say you in p. 17. you mention true and proper it seemes the novice hath now driven you to another shift another leafe though a meere Figg-leafe defence for 3 Your deniall of the Scripture to be the foundation without this mitigation or allay of true and proper is most sutable to your former undertakings I tooke you according to the constant streine of your writings as you desired even now see Hagiom Sect. 27 28. as also the many places in Div. Aut. p. 10 11 12. and p. 39. in Yo. Eld. so that evident it is that these words true and proper were inserted here as a blinde for your blasphemy They are not found for ought I know in any other place in all your Div. Aut. you mention I am sure no other place nor did you in Hagiom printed before your Div. Auth. once make mention of them In what a pittifull condition then are the poore old Hag. to lye under the charge of so many tongues and hearts so long before Div. Auth. was printed to be upon duty so long before releeved with true and proper 4 Do you not leave these words true and proper out in the conclusion of that discourse wherein they are contained in which conclusion being the result and winding up of all that which went before you peremptorily and unlimitedly deny any writing whatsoever to he any foundation at all of Christian Religion without a true and proper to mend the matter 2 Your second enquiry Why deth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper is too ridiculous for a novice to read though not for a dotard to write 1. In your next I pray tell me who beside your selfe and the blasphemous Papists did ever by the Scripture understand inke and paper Indeed Doctor Humfred Jesuitmise p. 2. pag. 89. Tels us of a Nun that to the question Quâ in re sita est religio Christiana wherein stands Christian Religion made answer In laceris panniculis in torne rags We need no other Oedipus to open this riddle than Master Goodwin 2 Had you therefore onely thus trifled by this denyall of ink and paper to be the foundation of Christian Religion you had neither been charged for erroneous by the London Ministers nor any one else in this point but when to your trifling you adde blasphemy and say That no writing whether originals or translations are the foundation of Christian Religion and pag. 29. Yo Eld. that you deny whatever is found in the Scriptures besides the precious counsels to be the foundation c. You are to be dealt withall upon a new account You then go beyond your denyall of ink and paper Your fifth Exception against me is Exception the fifth Yo Eld. pag. â—9 That I want Logick in denying the conclusion without answering any thing to the premisses You say you had proved the conclusion That the Scriptures are not the foundation of
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 religiâ—nis doctrina ad salutem necessariae Ecclesiae forma Scripturae esi tâ—tius doctrina de verâ—â— religione ad sâ—lutem necessariae ex immeâ—â—â—â—â— revelatione spâ—â— sancti conceptis ipsius verbis significatio Gomar de scrip sâ—â—n Disp 2. Id. Ibid. ut verbum non scriptum sermonis signo enuntiatione sic contra verbum scriptum literarum notis descriptione â—â—n â—at and both matter and words are preserved by the providence of God so pure this day Foundation that they are still the foundation of Religion the matter the foundation which we must beleeve or the objectum materiale this you grant the writing 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 Religion 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 True and proper and considered in the grace and habit of it Whereas you joyne together True and proper words of a vast difference 't is affirmed that the Scriptures are the true foundation 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 fundamentals 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 divine authority of the written Word in which God hath been pleased to reveale those truths This Master Goodwin denyeth in sundry passages 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 understand the gracious counsels or their materia circa quam as Gomarus 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 dotingly a weak hand best beseeming a wicked work against the written Word If it he impossible saith he to beleeve that the matter 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 after 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 Amanuenses that they did not â—rre in the matter of his will or manner of expressing of it 8. He ordered that his will shâ—uld be written in such Languages as were best knowne and understâ—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 infornâ—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 Demonstrations To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion Arg. 1 Yo. El. pag. 32. 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 besoâ—e c. therefore Answ Eccius Euchiri Tit. 1. Bailius q. 1. Bellarâ—de verb. dei l. 4. c. 4. 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 Scriptures 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
much See Stapleton lib. 9. c. 4. and we see his servant also following him In your argument I deny the consequence for though the written word be the foundation of Religion 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 * Greg. praf in job cap. 1. Si magni cujusdam viâ—i susceptis Epistolis verba legeremus eaque quo calamo suissent Scripta quaereremus râ—diculâ—m profectò esses c. cum ergo cegnoscimus ejuâ—que tei spiriâ—um sanctam uctorem tenemus cum scriptorem quae rimus quid aliuâ— egâ—mus nist legenies literas de calamo perscrutaâ—i in the band of God when he wrote unto his Church and we may looke upon men in this consideration and capacity and yet not upon either Scriptures or Religion 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 upon 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 'T is 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 Yo. El. p. 34. 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 foundations both alike of obedience and Religion But it s ridiculous to argue from the unfitnesse of the stone and paper to be foundations 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 revelation of the will of God by writing in our Bibles 3. If you intend that the writing of God in those two Tables 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 intended 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 reâ—de and learne to feare God Deut. 17.18 to have been the foundation of obedience unto the Law I expect stronger 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 Yo. El. p. 35 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 very argument and he is abundantly answered by Chamier Panstr lib. 12. cap. 10. Salom. Glassius lib. 1. t. 1. tr 1 2. de puritate textus Your consequence is denyed viz. If any books whatsoever bible or other be the foundation of Religion then is not the foundation 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 Scriptures from being corrupted or depraved that is from any such alteration or change in the words whether by transposition pointing or otherwise 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 exception 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 â—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 contradictious to themselves and 4. prove that the same power which keeps the Scriptures from perishing doth not also keepe them pure Tolle puritatem verbi dei scripti uliro collabescet dect inae ex veâ—bo desumptae puritas Glas p. 174. Quod