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
made liable to wrath not the guilt and liablenesse it self 2 You say that quickning together with Christ opposed to this death is interpreted Col. 2.13 to be the forgivenesse of sinnes You that deny the Scripture feare not to pervert it the Apostle makes not forgivenesse of sinne the formalis ratio of vivification by quickning together with Christ he understands a spirituall reparation and forming of the Divine Image in us by which the filth and pollution of sinne is wip'd away and we are made his Workmanship created in Christ Jesus to good workes Davenant in 2 Col 13. Deus animâ—m vivificat allâ—m reparâ—n lo sordes peccati detergendo â—psius enim factara sumus creatâ— in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis Per vivificationem intelligit 〈…〉 quod ipsum Rom 6.11 Vocat vivere Deo amhulare in novâ—tate vitae Ro. 6.4 Pise in loc So Davenant wherever sin is remitted and its guilt taken away there is this vivification by grace Piscator saith expresly upon the place that by vivification the Apostle intends the renovation of nature 3 You say the Scripture expresseth the condition of guilt by the terme of death therefore by dead in trespasses we must understand guilty of death c. 2 Sam. 9.8 16.9 19.28 Rom. 8.10 2 Cor. 5.14 1 Tim. 5.6 That the Scripture doth often expresse the condition of guilt by the terme of death though I deny not yet the Scriptures which you cite prove nothing lesse those places 2 Sam. 9.8 where Mephib saith to David What is thy servant that thou shouldest looke upon such a dead Dog 2 Sam. 16.9 and Abishai cals Shimei a dead Dog c. have no other sence than 1 Sam. 24.14 where David expostulating with Saul asketh him after whom is the King of Israel come out after whom dost thou pursue after a dead Dog after a flea in which words the word dead notes not guilty as you most ignorantly suppose Vivens vita ndturali mortua morte spirituali Pis in Loc. but vile contemptible base that of 1 Tim. 5.6 where the widow is said to be dead while she liveth is by most understood to be meant of spirituall death and by the happy interpreter of Scripture learned Calvin it s understood of her unprofitablenesse and her being nothing worth q. d. those widowes who love to live without all care and passe their times idely and in pleasure are no more usefull profitable in their places then if they were dead Mortuas vocat quae nulli sunt usui he cals those dead which serve for no use now your interpetation is the widow that lives in pleasures is guilty of death if I may have John Calvin let who will have John Goodwin for their Expositor That of 2 Cor. 5.14 comprehends both liablenesse to eternall death and spirituall death also as all interpreters agree 4 Lastly whereas you most unworthily and wretchedly assert that dead in sins is not represented by the Apostle as the condition of men considered as naturall but of men who have a long time continued in sinne the context witnesseth against you for 1. First the Apostle tels them what they were by nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 3. not only by practice 2. He makes their walking in sinne a fruit of their death in it ver 2. dead in sinnes wherein ye walked 3. this death in sinne is represented by the Apostle as common to all Jewes and Gentiles and the Apostle certainly intends that the death is as extensive as the quickning which latter Mr. Goodwin will not limit unto those that have a long time continued in sins he intends that all were dead that ever were quickned old and young Your Expositions are huskes food fitter for swine than soules the Lord grant that your poore misled followers may no longer lay out their money for that which is not bread Upon your saying Sect. 66. Yo. Eld p. 56 Bu. Bush p. 25. that by the improvement of nature a man may attaine to such a conviction as upon which saving conversion alwaies followes I demanded what place is here left for grace you reply in this Section 1 By asking me If a man who is able through lazinesse were unwilling to goe an hundred miles in foure dayes for the saving of his life is there not place left for the kindnesse of his friends to accommodate him with an horse Answ There 's no place according to this supposition left for grace by way of absolute necessity but only by way of accommodation and facilitation of the worke he stands in no Absolute necessity of an horse to carry him that is able to goe his journey on his ten toes you now loudly speake your selfe a Pelagian you told me before that the â—â—turall man needed not eye-sight but light only and now you say he needs not the help of God save by way of accomodation he can of him selfe will or make himselfe willing to beleeve only not so easily detestable doctrine and yet 2 In this Section you tell me Yo. Eld. p. 56. there is place enough for all tha grace of God which the Apostle attributes unto him Phil. 2.13 in working both to will and to doe in mon of his good pleasure Answ I flatly deny it the Apostle in that place ascribes the work of faith to God wholly and necessarily you ascribe it to him but by way of partiality and convenienty According to your late resemblance God comes in in a super-added way and makes us to beleeve who yet are able to make our selves do sâ— The Apostle saith God workes according to his owne good pleasure but you That God workes according to mans good pleasure otherwise you suppose That God should worke in man whether he would or no and that grace would be a compulsorium not an ad utorium 3. Yo. Eld. p. 56. You say That there is far larger place left for grace by your opinion thâ—n by mine If you can evince this Eris mihi magnus Apollo my opinion saith with the Apoâ—le God hath quickned us being dead in trespasses and sins till which quickning the fruit of his rich love we lye under a present reall spirituall death and can do no act of spirituall life as â—o beleeve Yo. Eld p. 55. c. You say That this death implyes no impotenâ—y to believe but onely consisteth in guilt so that as to the being able to beleeve all naturall men are alive My opinion saith This grace of God is infallibly effectuall yours That it may be rejected and that there 's no infallibility in its effecting any thing Yo. Eld. p. 52. You say That God onely gives light l that God gives light and eyes to behold it In a Word You hold that God gives food I That That he gives life which is more than meat And now leaves your opinion a larger place for grace than mine 4. You endeavour to prove That your opinion leaves a larger place
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
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
truths contained in the Scripture were the foundation of faith and not the written Word which contained those truths and now you grant that the written Word of God 1 Corinth 3.11 is the ground of your faith 3 If you meane as you speake the controversie is at an end the written word being acknowledged a foundation of faith and all those Sophismes instead of Arguments which afterward you bring concerne you to answer as well as my selfe In this exception 4 You revile me for charging you with weaknesse and wickednesse in your opposing Christ and his Word since you say Yo. Eld. p. 31 32. that a while since I opposed a foundation Personall to a foundation Scripturall and what is that say you but to oppose Christ and his Word as much as you oppose them And for the knowne distinction of essendi and cognoscendi which Master Jenkin wonders should be hid from me he is desired in his next to produce any Classique Author that ever used it but himselfe The complexion of it is as if it were of the lineage of Mr. Jenkins learning You can finde no shelter from any thing that ever dropt from my Pen for your opposing Christ and his Word Answ you oppose Christ and his Word I distinguish only between Christ and his Word now Accurate Logicians know the difference between oppositio and distinctio though old detards have forgot it Opposition implyes a pugnarerum distinction only a non idenditas so Keckerm cap. 5. Lib. 1. Syst Lo. Suminus voâ—em distinctionis cum omnibus eâ—uditis Philosophis oppositioni contradivisive prout nude opponitur identitati excludendo diversitatem You so oppose Christ and his Word as that because Christ is the foundation you deny the Scripture to be a foundation Sion Colledge visited p. 2.15 this is Pugna but I shew Bu. Bish p. 7 8. how they both agree though they be not one and the same foundation that Christ is the foundation upon which I build for salvation and the Scriptures the foundation upon which I ground the knowledge of this Saviour your saying therefore that because I distinguish thus between a foundation Personall and a foundation Scripturall I therefore oppose them as much as you who make the word of Christ a foundation inconsistent with Christ's being a foundation againe bewrayes your forgetfulnesse of your Logick for every opposition implyes necessarily a distinction but a distinction doth not imply an opposition And whereas with sufficient ignorance you desire me to tell you of any Classique Author that useth the distinction of essendi and cognoscendi I referre you for information to Keckerman Syst Theol. p. 133. where he saith Duplicia reperiuntur principia essendi cognoscendi sic etiam in Theologiâ See also Trelcatius jun. Instit Theol. L. 1. Duo sunt principia rei cognitionis illa ex quibus alia producuntur haec ex quibus aliorum pendet cognitio Wollebius also Comp. Theol. p. 2. Principium Theologiae essendi quidem Deus est Cognoscendi vero verbum Dei See also Altenstaig Lexicon Theolog. in Tit. Principium where there is mention of sundry learned men that use this distinction If the complexion of this distinction shewes that it is of the lineage of my learning certainly the ignorance of this distinction shewes the complexion of Master Goodwins learning To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of religion you now proceed to your arguments and in your entrance upon them you brag that you demonstrate Yo. El. p. 32. and you thunder out the shame and confusion of all those that have charged the error upon you though the issue will prove to your owne confusion I say not to your shame who I think are past it Your owne words are these That the Scriptures whether written or printed are not truly and properly the foundation of religion I demonstrate in the sâ—ght of the Sun to the shame and confusion of all those faces who have charged the Tenet upon me as an error O yes all men women and children stand forty foot off from the blinde Beare if not being bitten thanke your selves Bas Moral reg 26. cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 What do you call a Theologicall demonstration have you read the rule of Basil Whatever we say or doe ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the holy Scriptures for the establishing of the good and the confusion of the bad Have you done thus certainly the Scriptures have not given to you a weapon nor lent you a proofe to destroy themselves No Sir your demonstrations are either childish mistakes or Popish cavills not demonstrations of your position but of your folly and impiety Ad bonam solutionem non pertinet quod probet conclusionem sed quod defendat eam ab objectione contrariâ 2 To what purpose doe you bring any Arguments at all Are you not respondent Was it not your part to answer what was brought against your wicked Position but you are better you thinke at your sword than your shield though at neither good otherwise why have you passed over what was brought against you and instead thereof vainly endeavour to bring somewhat in opposition to your opponent 3 Doth it become an Accurate disputant to propose a question under so many ambiguities and explaine none what meane you by Scripture what by foundation what by religion what by true and proper are these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same importance why leave you things so confused and indigested Is it to make your opponent ashamed with your folly because you cannot with your arguments That we may not therefore fight blind-fold at which you are old excellent I shall desire the Reader to take notice that in this whole dispute when you deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of religion By Scriptures are understood all the books of the Old and New Testament Scriptures conjunctim divisim as they are now received and acknowledged among us conjunctim the compleat foundation divisim the partiall foundation and your selfe grant that thus your opponents take the Scriptures You acknowledge this to be the only sence that the ordinance against Heresies can reasonably meane Hag. Sect. 26 27. and so you take the word Scriptures p. 32. Yo. El. p. 32. Yo. Eld. where you labour to prove them not the foundation of religion Now whereas you assert that by the Scriptures we are not to understand any writing or the wtitten Word that reveales the truths of God but only the truths and matters themselves named I affirme that the Scriptures are to be taken concretivè both for matter and words both being inspired of the Holy Ghost Ames medâ—â—de ser In iis omnibus quae per supernaturalem revelationem innoâ—uâ—runt non solum res ipsas inspiravit Deus sed etiam singulâ— verba quibus scriberentur dictavit atque suggessit The holy Ghost suggesteth words as well as matter
saith Ames and the forme of the Scripture stands in the manifestation of the true Doctrine in words which came from the immediate revelation of the holy Ghost saith Gomarus Materia Scripturae circa quam est tota verae 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
Propositions Doth it not cease upon the change of the subject Jesus Christ is to come in the flesh was once a true proposition and the object of the faith of those that lived before Christ his Incarnation but is it so still and is not veritas ethica or the agreement of the judgement or minde with the proposition changeable likewise upon the same ground To your minor whereas you alledge the changeablenesse of all Bibles in the contents of them what meane you by contents meane you inke papers letters c. such changes either pervert the sence and so farre as the Scriptures are thus chang'd they cease to be the written Word or they pervert it not Waleus T. 1. p. 129. Scriptura substantiâ— non potest corrumpi and if any such changes be they nothing hinder the written Word from being the foundation of faith Sphalmata Typographica Typographicall faults makeerrours in Orthography none in Divinity Your last demonstration Arg. 3 Yo. Eld. p. 36. If the Scripture be the true foundation of Religion it must be understood either of the Scriptures as in the originall Languages only or only as translated into other Languages or as both but the Scriptures neither in the originall Languages nor as translated nor as both are the foundations Ergo I deny your minor and assert the Scriptures as in the originals Answ and also as translated so farre as agreeing with the originals are the foundation 1. How prove you that the Scriptures in the originalls are not the foundation of religion thus If the Scriptures be the foundation as they are in the originall Bibles then they say you that understand not these Languages as illiterate men cannot build upon this foundation for your unworthy scoffe of the danger of my Religion you representing me as one that understands not the originals you may please to know that I am not ignorant of all originals for either concerning your scoffing or your unmannerly jeering Mr. T. G. said lately that you had it from your Father cheap enough it seemes but to the point This cavill is borrowed of your old Masters whom in this point you follow already answered by Anth. Wotton Pop. Artic. Ar. 3 p. 20. and by Baronius against Turnbul de objecto formali fid p. 44. but I answer Illiterate or unlearned men who cannot understand originals Answ nor yet can read translations doe build neverthelesse their saith upon the Scriptures contained in them though mediatly virtually and not with that distinctnesse which one learned doth the unlearned knowing not particularly in what words the minde of God was revealed though you call me a Novice yet let me teach you if at least so plaine a lesson hath not hitherto been learned by you that unto faith there is required Principium quod or the foundation to be beleeved Principium propter quod or the reason why men beleeve the former and media per quae those necessary meanes by which they come to beleeve and these are externall the ministery of the Word and internall the witnesse and effectuall working of the holy Ghost by which the heart is enabled to close with the formall object of faith viz. the revelation of Gods will in writing Now the Ministry of the Word and Spirit are limited to the written Word these teach no other things than God hath revealed therein and perswade not men but God as the Apostle saith Gal. 1.10 so that these lead the most illiterate to the Scriptures and are so administred that they draw the heart even of such to assent to the written Word as that into which their faith is ultimately resolved as the Scriptures abundantly testifie and you can no more conclude from the strangenesse of the originall Languages to those that are illiterate that illiterate persons doe not build their faith upon the written Word contained in them than that one who only understands the English tongue and receives a Letter from his Father in the French tongue for the explaining whereof the Father hath appointed an Interpreter builds not his obedience ultimately upon the writing of his Father though in a strange tongue 2. You endeavour to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion as in Translations and Originalls thus If they be this foundation in both those considerations or as well in the one or the other then two things or more specifically differing one from another may notwithstanding be one and the same numeriall thing You should rather have laid your consequence thus Answ then 〈◊〉 subject numerically the same may be the subject of accidents specifically different but you tell me of two suppositions upon which your consequence stands 1. That the foundation of Religion is but one and the same numerically 2. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically among themselues About the identy of the foundation numerically I shall not contend but how prove you your second supposition viz. That the Scriptures in severall Languages differ specifically you indeavour it thus Two things you say which differ more than numerically differ specifically Now an Hebrew and a Spanish Bible differ more than numerically because they differ more than two Spanish or two Hebrew Bibles differ from one another and yet these differ numerically the one from the other 1. Had the Youngling Elder disputed thus how many exclamations of poore man illiterate soule silly man c. would your tender heart have bestowed upon him but I shall not retaliate for the Reader if intelligent I am confident will spare me a labour Things you say that differ plusquam numero do differ specie Should a fresh-man hear you reason thus Mas faemina differunt plusquam numero ergo differunt specie or a learned man and an ideot differunt plusquam numero ergo differunt specie they would laugh at your argument the very boyes would judge you a professor fitter for an alley than an Academye Do not you grant that these differ specie accidentali onely and will you conclude that therefore they differ specifically 2. You say That though the difference betweene an Hebrew Bible and a Spanish is but in specie accidentali or specificall accidentall yet such a difference as this is sufficient to prove that they differ numerically You give in already and shew your self but a founder'd disputant for what is this to your undertaking which was to prove your second supposition viz. That they do differ specifically and not numerically onely which was nothing to the second supposition page 37. 3. You contend that a Spanish Bible a Latine and an English differ in specie accidentali or with a difference specifical accidentall in regard of the specifically different Languages wherein they were written Ergo quid how by all this prove you your assertion which was that the scriptures in their severall Languages do differ specifically nay how prove you by the specifical accidental dâ—fference of the Bibles that the Scripture or the
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.
a power as is contended for you must understand a power of knowing savingly and beleeving the things of the Spirit of God The summe of all which is thus much A naturall man by the ordinary assistance and blessing of God afforded to every one may so improve his naturall Principles of Reason Judgement Memory c. as savingly to know and believe the things of God This your similitude of a youth that may be paines acquire skill in the tongues further declareth to be your meaning by which wretched opinion you hold out That there 's nothing in grace above nature which nature may not reach unto or rather That grace it selfe is nothing but polisht nature But how stands this with the words of the Apostle who saith That the naturall man cannot know the things of God because they are spirituaily discerned and elsewhere That the carnall minde cannot be subject to the Law of God as being enmity against God Can all the paines improvement pollishing make nature any other than nature and make a naturall man to understand or believe any thing but after a naturall manner can it give ability to know spiritually can all the care and cost and dressing make a bad tree to be of a good kinde and while bad to bring forth good fruit I adde in explication of this of the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1.14 and for your information that excellent passage of learned Musculus upon the place Confert utrinque tam hominem c. Musc in Loc. Confert utrinque tum hominem animalem tum spiritum dei doces ita esse comparatum hominem animalem ut quae spiritus Dei sunt nequeat cognoscere quemadmodum si dicas bestiam cognoscere non posse quae bominum sunt plus interest inter animolem hominem spiritum Dei deinde inter intellectam hominis ea quae sunt Dei quâ—m inter hominem bestiam The Apostle compareth the naturall man saith he and the Spirit of God and he teacheth That the naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit any more than a beast the things of a man c. In your 95. Yo. Eld. p. â—9 Sect. 95. Section you produce a double construction of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 2.14 The naturall man cannot know the things of the Spirit c. This unabtlity you say may either be understand of the greatâ—d dâ—ffiâ—ultie that lyes in the way of such men to attame the knowledge of these things or else of their present actuall indâ—sp 〈…〉 to â—nder them capable of such knowledge Answ I meet in these â—ections with a sea of words and a 〈◊〉 of matter you multiply expressions to no purpose 1. If you say The naturall man is unable in the former sence because of the 〈◊〉 that lyeth in his way c. you are a 〈…〉 and that by your owne cleare confession which is in these very words The 〈…〉 Austin and Pelagius was 〈…〉 simply and absolutely necessary for the 〈◊〉 to do that which is good c. which was Austius opinion or Whether it was necessary 〈◊〉 by way of acconmâ—dation and facilitation for such a perfromance which was the sence of 〈◊〉 Yo. Eld. p. 51. 52. Quicurq 〈◊〉 vit ideo 〈◊〉 graâ—am 〈◊〉 ut quod faceâ— jabemur rer lihernm 〈◊〉 faciâ—ius pessimus 〈◊〉 per gratram ta quam 〈…〉 vina ma data Anathema sit De 〈…〉 sine me difficalius potestis facere sed art sine 〈…〉 facere Conc. Afr. Can. Cap. 5. And if this be your opinion with Pelagius why bring you the Fathers particularly Austin as joyning with you in the point of the 〈◊〉 of grace in Sion Coll. visited when as by your owne 〈◊〉 Anâ—in was against you and your 〈◊〉 I shall adde you were condemned for holding this opinion long before you were borne 2. If the latter be your opinion viz. That naturall men are 〈…〉 their present and actuall indisposednesse and 〈…〉 c. Besides that I save confuted it before it is evidenâ—ly coutrary to those Texes of Scripture impâ—dently and impertâ—nently cited by your self for your self as Matt. 12.24 Hew 〈◊〉 being evill speak good things Joh. 5.44 How can yee beleeve c. Job 6.44 No man can come to me unlesse the Father 〈◊〉 c. Jo. 12.39 Therefore they could not believe c. Joh. 15. Without we can dâ— nothing and Joh. 14.17 The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive c. Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot pltase God to which you might as well have added had it not oppos'd you a little too palpably Rom. 8.7 The carnall minde is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be These Scriptures clearely teaching that though man have a soul passively capeable of saving grace faith knowledge repentance c. and his want of them be indeed accompanied with present hatred and contempt of them yet that he is also absolutely unable to attaine them and that it is possible onely to God to worke them in him nor do you in alledging these Scriptures for me an argument out of them to prove that this want of power is onely in regard of actuall indi posednesse Sure I aâ— you might have rais'd severall arguments against that your cursed and rotten exposition as That its an impotency consisting in the want of a spirituall principle and faculty suitable to the duties and performances which men are said to be unable to do with ut me ye can do nothing Joh. 15.5 1 Cor. 2 14 The naturall man cannot know the things of God for they are spiritually discerned Mat. 7.18 a coâ—rupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit Mat. 12.34 how can ye being â—bill speake good things Rom. 8.8 They that are in the flesh cannot please God and as the naturall mans impotency proceeds from the defect of a spirituall principle so for the removall of that impotency God bestoweth a new principle of spirituall life which were needlesse if mans impotency proceeded onely from actuall indisposednesse Ezek. 36.26 A new heart will I give you and a new spirit will I put into you and I will give you a heart of flesh And that it s not an impotency that proceeds onely from actuall indisposednesse or unwillingnesse is cleare in that a naturall man cannot but be indisposed Joh. 6.44 and unwilling to every spiâ—tuall act to believe and repent c. No man can come to me except the Father draw him Joh. 14.17 No man can be willing or consent unlesse the Father make him so the world cannot receive the spirit The like also is evident from Rom. 8.7 The carnall minde is enmity against God and cannot be subject to the Law of God c. These are the principall passages which I finde in his Booke wherein he pretends either to Scripture or Argument for indeed the businesse of argumentation is but the by-worke of this his big work The bulk of his booke being a heap of defamations and scurrilities fitter for a sinke than a study concerning which I say 't were easie to returne him reviling for revileng but this were to lay aside the Minister the Christian nay the man and as ridiculous as for a man whom an asse hath kickt Yo. Eld. p. 1. to kick the asse again I shal couclude mine mutatis mutandis as M. Goodwin began his Though more truly For a great part of Mr. Goodwin his pamphlet the constitution and complexion of it easeth me of the labour of making any answer or reply unto it for consisting of such reproaches vilifications and disparagements the madnesse whereof is sufficiently knowne unto and cryed out against by all men I should but actum agere and do that which is abundantly done already to my bond if I should go about to possesse men of sobriety and judgement with the unsavourinesse thereof FINIS ERRATA PAg. 5. Marg. read Ac. 1. 25. p. 2. l. ult for streames read steames p. 13. l. 35. r. pore than himself p 14. l. 25. instead of for r. only â—o amaze p 17 l. 2. r. their l. 3 r. not p. 26. l. 25. r. neaver p. 31. m. r. Cc. de Scar. d 36. m. l. 15. r divinarum p. 37 l. 15. r. waâ— p. 40 l. penult r place what follower p. 41. l. 32 r. sumimus p. 43. m r. script p. 47. l 3â— r. tradita p. 58. l. r. revealed p. 77. m. r. hominis p. 77. m. r. efficaciffirâ— p. 80. m r. concupiscentem p. 81. l. 11. r. illum p. 85. m. r. qua semper mala ib. l. arbâ— um p. 86. l. 25. l. scriptures p. 87. l. 14. r. makes p. 88. l. 25. r. undervalewing ib. in m. â— ut p. 89. m. l. perpetrando p. 94. l. 34. r. and. l. penult del you p. 95. l. 9. r. causality p. 93. l. 5. dele of p. 117. l. 30. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉