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.
documentom ad convincendos errores exeri potest si hac vex admittatur scripturas esse câ—rruptas Aug. L. Cont. Fâ—ust Manic c. 2. If God by his written Word gathers and preserves his Church to the end of the world then certainly he defends it from being corrupted for there must be a sutablenesse between the rule and the thing regulated pure and incorrupâ—ed Doctrine requires a pure and incorrupted Scripture according whereunto it is to be examin'd and by which it is to be tryed Take away the purity of the written Word and the purity of Doctrine taken out of the written Word as Glassius saith must needs fall to the ground and what proofe can be taken out of the Scriptures against errours if this be admitted the Scriptures are corrupted as saith Augustine And 5. further prove from the false printing in some Copies that therefore the Canon or written Word is depraved shew that because some words may be written wrong therefore the written Word of God is corrupted Ceaseth it not so farre to be Gods Word as any thing is printed against the minde of the Lord the Revealer Is this purity of the Canon at the courtesie of a Printers boy Mans word may be inserted but Gods not by him depraved something may be represented instead of the Word but the Word is not corrupted by that mis-representation He that can make Gods Word to become his own that is humane corrupt may with the same labour make his own word to become Gods and of divine Authority Nay prove the errors of the edition E. G. of our new Translation from the errors of the Copies learne of the more learned Chamier Paust I. 12. c. 10. Ipsaratio cogit ut codices distinguamus ab editione haec enim prosect a abuno principio illi quotidie sunt authoritate privatâ vel cujus libet voluntate ergo non bene concluditur à singulis codicibus adversus primariam editionem We cannot conclude from some Copies against an edition The true and proper foundation of Religion is not any thing that is visible Arg. 6 Yo. Eld. p. 35 or exposed to the outward sences but something spirituall and opprehensible only by the understanding c. but Bibles or the Scriptures are legible Answ and may be seene The foundation of Religion taken materially for the truths contained in Scripture the things beleeved or fundamentum fedei quod is invisible and not exposed to outward sence but taken formally for the fundamentum propter quod or for which faith yeeldeth assent unto the matter beleeved for as much as God worketh mediately and now revealeth no truth to us but by externall meanes and Divine Authority of it selfe is hidden and unknowne the thing into which faith is ultimately resolved must be something externally knowne which we may read or heare Vid. White way to the Church p. 378 and you must either yeeld an externall foundation and formall object of faith or else lead us to secret revelations The materiall object of faith comprehends the Articles of faith as that God is one in essence and three in person that Christ dyed and rose againe the third day c. but the formall object of faith or the reason wherefore I give assent unto these matters and Articles of faith is Authority Divine revealed in writing Nor 2. is your Consequence true viz. If any booke be the foundation then is the foundation somewhat visible c. because our dispute is not about Inke and Paper Bookes or words materially considered which are the object of sight but about words and bookes as they are signa conceptuum and so discernable only by the understanding Verbis vocibus per se materialiter consideratis nulla in est vis saith Keckerman 3. How wretchedly weak is your proofe Yo. Eld. p. 35. that nothing externall is the foundation of faith because then say you there is nothing necessary to be beleeved by any man to make him religious but what he sees with his eyes c. And by the way I pray answer Is any thing to be beleeved to make a man religious but what may be seene written in the Scriptures what a disputer rampant have we here And you say every man that did but looke into â— Bible and see such and such sentences written or printed there and beleeved accordingly that these words and sentences were here written and printed must needs hereby become truly religious c. Thinke you dreadfull Sir by such stuffe as this to make your friend William of your judgement though the Word written be the foundation of Religion doth it follow that there is nothing necessary to be beleeved for the making of a man religious but this to beleeve that such and such things are written is it not also required that a man should beleeve the truths of the word because they are written from God as well as that he sees they are written The Assent to the truth of the things written is faith and not only that the things are written what can you say against this proposition Whosoever beleeves with his heart the things that are writen in these bookes because the first beleeves that these bookes in which he sees them written are the oracles of God is truly religious Your seventh commodity which you cail a demonstration Argm. 7 is the same with the second only it containes an absurdity or two more not worth the reciting Your Argument is this Yo. Eld p. 38. The true and proper foundation of religion is intrinsecally essentially and in the nature of it unchangeable and unalterable in the least by the wills pleasures or attempts of men but there is no book or books whatsoever Bible or other but in the contents of them they may be altered and changed by men Ergo It seemes you are much pleased with the blasphemy of the Jesuits against the Scriptures Answ drawne from their corruption your second Argument was drawne from the perishablenesse of them your fifth was they are corruptible your seventh they are changeable Your major I deny not if it only import that the foundation of religion admits not of the least change in the essence or nature of it by men but if it import that it is repugnant to the nature of the foundation to be changed in the least though this change be only accidentall I deny it The proofe of your major viz. That if the foundation of religion were intrinsecally and in the nature of it changeable then can it not be any matter of truth because the nature of truth is like the nature of God unchangeable bewrayes your ignorance or your dotage or something worse though ordinary with you what created veritie is there that is as unchangeable as God and which God cannot change Is it veritas metaphysica or the truth of being Cannot God annihilate all created beings and if so what becomes of their verity Is it Logicall truth or truth of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Blinde Guide or the Doting Doctor Composed by way of Reply to a late tediously trifling Pamphlet Entituled The Youngling Elder c. written by John Goodwin and containing little or nothing in it but what plainly speaketh the Author thereof to lie under the double unhappinesse of Seducers To be Deceiving And Deceived This reply indifferently serving for the future direction of the Seducer himselfe and also of those his mis-led followers who with him are turned enemies to the Word and grace of God The authority of which Word and the efficacie of which grace are in this following Treatise succinctly yet satisfactorily vindicated from the deplorably weake and erroneous Cavills of the said John Goodwin in his late Pamphlet By William Jenkyn Minister of the Word of God at Christ-Church in LONDON 2 Tim. 3.13 Evill men and seducers shall wax worse and worse deceiving and being deceived Prov. 14.16 The foole rageth and is confident Jude 13. Raging waves of the sea foming out their owne shame Nissen de Trinitat p. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cal. Ep. 354. Contra Mennonem Hoc sane video nihil hoc asino posse fingi superbius Printed at London by M. B. for Christopher Meridith and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard To the Christian READER READER WEre not my desire to serve thy Soul greater than my hope to recover my Adversary and were I not more apprehensive of the greatnesse of thy danger than the goodnesse of his disposition I should not spend my precious houres in a second engagement against his Errours my contention is greater that thou shouldest not fall to be like him than that he should rise to be unlike himselfe He who wrote his last Pamphlet only to represent me unworthy to contend with him will hardly write his next to confesse that truth by me hath conquered him It 's not consistent with his honour who in his last boasted that he had laid the attempts of all his adversaries in the dust Ep. to the Reader To. Eld. p. 3. and that Presbytery lay bleeding at the feet of his Writings in his next to lay himselfe in the dust and to acknowledge that his Heresies lye bleeding at the foot of a Yongling so that should he be convinced of the duty as possibly he may he would be afraid of the shame of a recantation It s more his sin than my unhappinesse though both that by confuting his errours I occasion him still to vent them but never did I meet with wretched opinions so wrathfully asserted and so weakly maintained His Writings have more of Tongue than matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nissen de Tri. and yet more of Teeth than either with the weapon of the Tooth like the Hereticks of old he conquers even after he is overcome with Arguments Certainly while Master Goodwin wrote his late Booke he was under a quotidian fit of Frenzie and all that time was an interregnum of his reason his Pen being onely dipt in passion His Pamphlet consists of such unmanlike scoldings that he hath rendred himselfe the shame of his Party and the scorne of his Opposites the only product of his reproaches being a confirmation of the report of his being badly nurtur'd formerly and worse natur'd still Vnhappy man who stumbleth in the darke and stormeth against the light and who alwaies endureth that least which he wanteth most The weaknesse of Flatterers hath so abus'd him into love of himselfe and the strength of interest into the love of Errour that he cannot abide either plaine-dealing or sound doctrine The palpable weaknesse of his late performance in his Youngl Eld. Ep. to Reader P. ult extorted from him this acknowledgement that he wrote not his Booke to refute me and had not his Lordship silenced his Conscience it would have added but to revile me Yo. Eld. p. 1. I confesse he words it more gently telling me that the taske to which he was confin'd in his Writing was to shew me more of my selfe nothing of him selfe and in pursuance of this mercifull designe he puts his whole Booke under a quaternion of topicks 1. My defect of Conscience 2. Of Clerkship 3. Of apprehension 4. Of ingenuity forgetting in the meane time one little defect which runs through the veines of all his foure parts viz. while he so rudely handles my name scarce to touch the matter of my Booke unto which foure defects he reduceth whatsoever malice or falshood can invent against me though the prosecution of them all be a continued transgression of the Lawes of Art and honesty nay not only of method but even at once of common modesty so that I know not in this world the thins that are so contemptible as Master Goodwins scurrilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil De ira for my part I much more regard that excellent advice of Basil Neither be proud of thy praises nor impatient at thy reproaches when neither are due unto thee I confesse I delight not to see him in those distempers for which I pitty him I never intended to drive him into a Frenzie and yet neither am I willing that he should drive me into a Palsie idle silence is a sinne as well as idle speaking his Contumelies can be no plea for my Cowardise where sinne is impudent reproofe must not be bashfull If errours seeke no corners should truth doe so How happy were we if we could leave all our stings in the sides of Errour and Prophanesse if in their blood all our hatreds might be dround I have ever thought that peace with that with which we should contend is the grand cause of contention with them with whom we should be at peace It s just that they who will not knwon Errour so as to hate it should not know Truth so as to find it How incongruous is it to shun that man upon whom as thou thinkest thou espyest a Wart and to take him into thy bosome upon whom thou knowest there is a Plague-sore Errours in Discipline doe but scratch the face of Religion these in Doctrine stab it to the heart To. Eld. p. 20. p. 47. p. 66 When the whole written Word is at once struck off from being the ground of faith and whatever is in and about the Scriptures denyed to be the foundation of Religion unlesse the Counsels contained in them When it shall be asserted that naturall men want no power of making themselves able to beleeve and that notwithstanding all the power of converting grace there 's a liberty in the will to defeat and frustrate conversion In a word when Sectaries strike at the faith both which and with which we beleeve Jude ver 3. it s our duty if ever to contend for this faith once delivered to the Saints In my present endeavours about which worke if thou embracest what thou findest of God I shall not only be willing that
his owne seniority thus The worse spirits of malignity hypocrisie searednesse of conscience dissimulation of the truth c. do not often finde men out till they be stricken in yeeres As for the residue of his Pamphlet it speaks him old even to dotage which is to be a childe twice and alwayes That were I so young as he pretends yet he cannot prove the falsenesse of my assertions by the fewnesse of my yeeres though this be the strongest argument in all his booke against what I write his only indeavour being to make my booke a sufferer by my yeeres because he cannot make my yeeres to suffer by my booke That were there so great a disparity of yeeres between us yet truth is senior to us both and he and his errours are more younglings to truth than I am to him though I grant his Errours toâ—â—ing grace as old as Pelagius Touching that other imputation of illiteratenesse I say I am so far from disliking this his charge that I should have bin very well satisfied if sundry who exceed Master Goodwin in standing and very much in understanding had passed the same censure upon me that he hath done and never another That as he hath not so much learning as to allow him to boast so I have not so little as to suffer me to be unthankfull That he hath dishonoured himself in the undertaking nay in the overcomming were he victor much more inbeing overcome by one so illiterate having mustered such a vast body such a huge book to pursue a flea wherein every line is at least either a pike or a musket should he vanquish it would be no honour to him should he be vanquisht the disgrace would be indelible That sundry not contemptible have had but low estimations of Mr. Goodwins literature Famous Doctor Stoughton observing how Master Goodwin was wont to torture Scripture for the defending of his errors which in those dayes he vented in his Sermons used this comparison in the hearing of an eminent Minister now in London As an hungry dog that teareth and gnaweth upon a dry bone and can suck nothing out of it for the relief of his appetite by long gnawing upon it wets it all over with the unclean moysture of his own mouth and at length for hunger sucks in that moysture againe as if he had been beholding to the bone for it so said he did Mr. Goodwin teare the holy Scriptures to draw out a sense that might countenance his unlearned and corrupt opinions which he not able to obtaine the Scriptures being dry to such intents the spurious expositions that flowed out of his owne month upon the Scriptures in his tedious tozing of them he confidently sucks in againe as if they had been the contributions of the Scriptures themselves Mr. C. a Minister of good worth now in London and Minister of Ma. neare the be whether upon observing the darknesse of Mr. Goodwins way in expounding or rather his darkning in stead of expounding Scripture or otherwise sometimes said Mr. Goodwin was like a horse that went into a very clear streame but coming forth againe he left it by pawing with his feet very thick and muddy And indeed he is no better at the pen than in the pulpit for in making all his pamphlets he seems to dip his peâ— or rather his pia mater in puddle-dock A reverend Commissioner and a learned Minister of the Church of Scotland having one of those wretched pamphlets called Sion Colledge visited sent him in his letter shortly after returned he used only this short but sharp expression concerning it Goodwin is a beast The passage I reade Touching that imputation of Prelaticall peece of Presbytery I say my principles preaching and other practises are and ever shall be by Gods grace opposite to Prelacy because my conscience tels me that Prelacy so much opposeth the Word under Prelacy I was an early sufferer At Cambr. long since I was forced to forsake my otherwise dear Colledge because I durst not ful mit to popish and prelaticall innovations and to betake my self to another Colledge in the same University where I enjoyed liberty for study sundry yeares with out those Prelaticall impositions and sundry are able to testifie how fierce the rage of the Prelaticall faction was against me a long time in the university and afterwards though I say not that Master Goodwin was connived at and secretly encouraged to vent his opinions in Colemanstreet when the faithfull Minâ—sters of the City were silenced and persecuted You have had a taste of his reproaches behold him now making lyes his refuge He relates two stories concerning you which together with his descants upon them are the subject matter of most part of his Epistle but there is scarce a word in either of them in the writing whereof his fingers were not wofully troubled with the Cretian cramp In his first story he tels the Reader Pag. 2 3. of his Epist That although n a Provinciall meeting it was resolved upon the question That no answer should be given to his booke called Sion Colledge visited and he hopeth out of sense of his innocency that the graver judicatory had determined his immunity as Pilate did Christs yet Master Jenkins like the Jewes who would needs have Christ crucified hath made log furrowes upon his back c. A story that hath not fewer than fore of five of the foresaid Cretian commodities in it For first The Provinciall meeting never propounded much lese made any resolution upon any question concerning the answering or not answering his book 2. Never was it resolved in any of your meetings that his book should not be answered indeed it was generally conceived that so empty a pamphlet deserved not to be answered by any So that 3. the forbearance to put any upon the imployment of answering his book was not out of sense of his innocency but out of apprehension of his impotenoy you looking upon him as seven fold more the son of shame an t folly after the publishing of his Sion Colledge visited than he shewed himself before 4. Never did Mr. Jenkin make furrowes upon his back he onely shew'd the deep furrowes that Mr. Goodwin had made upon the back of truth with the plow of his pen Satan guiding and driving it most commonly for him And I know nothing that was laid upon his back but a rod according to Salomons advice and that too of his own making Sorry I am that instead of making him to mend it hath occasioned him to be mad In his second story he tels his Reader that the Archytects of the designe he meanes of testiâ—ying against his errors obtained the subscriptions of Master John Downame to a paper wherein was not the least mention of any of his Errors and after Mr. Downames band was obtained they foysted into the Catalogue of Errours what sayings they pleased Captain Cretensis is upon his march but I shall stop him The relation consisteth of two
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
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
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
import as he after his weake manner imagines to that opinion which I affirme to be asserted by them in the passages cited by me I would gladly know of him what is the distinct sound that this trumpet makes my intent and drist in citing these Authors was not to prove or so much as to insinuate that they no where else in their writings delivered themselves with any sceming contrariety to the places cited by me 1. Whether it be more weaknesse in me to quote places out of them and also to prove the repugnancy of those places to the errors which you hold forth or in you not to answer the quotations let my very enemies judge if I cited those passages pertinently why tax you me with weaknesse if weakly they had been the sooner answered 2. Whereas you aske why I cited them I answer the tondency of my counter-quotations was to vindicate those godly and orthâ—dox Authors from your aspersions to manifest how much you abused the truth and them by holding them forth as favourers of your heresies and how farre they were from affording you succour in your sinne and to let the Reader see what little credit is to be given to you when you cite Authors and this was the intention both operis and operantis 3. Your intent you say in citing these Authors was not to infinuate that they no where else delivered themselves in contrariety to the placece cited by me c. But it s evident that you laid these few passages taken out of Bucer and the Fathers upon the stall in open view to make every Reader thinke that the Books of those eminent writers were shops that contained such commodities within Was it not your desire to have the Reader beleeve that the constant â—enor and straine of the writings of the cited Authors maintained your errours else what is the meaning of that passage of yours Sion Colledge visited p. 17. where you having abused Mr. Ball in citing a passage out of him you tell the Reader This passage fell not from the Authors pen at unawares but the contents of it were his setled and well resolved judgement to which end you produce another passage out of the same Author which also you pretend to speake for you I passe over your 61. and 62. Sections wherein you pretend to nothing but chaffe and scoffes my drift being to follow you only where you would be thought to write about the controversie To the next therefore I having told you Yo. Eld. p. 50. Sect. 6â— Busie Bish p. 48. that the great question between Jerome Austine and Pelagius was not whether the will did stand in need of an adjutory of grace for the performance of good but what kind of adjutory it was whether or no an adjutory by way of working of good in the will and that invincibly and indeclinably c. 1. You tell the Reader that I said that this was the question but why pilfer you from my words why clip you why leave you out the word great I said it was the great question had you put in that you had found nothing to reply in this place the state of the question changed foure times between Augustine and Pelagius as you may see collected by Aluar. de auxil Lib. 1. c. 2. by Jansenius in his Augustinus To. 1. l. 5. by Latins and Vossius in Hisioria Pelagianâ 1. At the first pelagius deny'd omne anxilium supernaturale all supernaturall assistance and affirmed that the naturall power of mans free will was sullicient to keep all the Commandments and to obtaine salvation 2. He did acknowledge an adjutory of grace but placed it in the outward Doctrine of the Law and in the example of Christ but denyed this to be simply necessary but only for the facilitation of the act 3. He confessed an adjutory by inward grace viz. the inward illumination of the understanding and the excitation of the stupid will but alwayes denyed that grace by which God works in us to will infallibly 4. His schollar Celestius did confesse that inward grace was simply necessary not to begin but to perfect that which was good Now my asserting that the great question between the Fathers and Pelagius was what kind of adjutory it was of which the will did stand in need is so farre from denying that there was any other question that it clearly implyes there were other 2. You indeavour in this Section to evince that this which I have mentioned was not the state of the question Yo. Eld. p. 50. for say you that which caused the distance between Austin and Pelagius was that Pelagius denyed the necessity of the adjutory of grace for the performance of the Law and this you pretend to prove from Austins words dicat Pelagiut per gratiam nos posse praestare legem Dei pax est Let Pelagius say that by grace we may performe the Law of God and it is Peace But 1. Why have you so learnedly passed by all the places quoted out of Austin in Bu. Bish to prove i.e. that Pelagius did acknowledge the necessity of the help of God to the doing of good Ba. Bish p. 49 Liberum sic confuemur arbitrium ut dicamus nos semper indigere dei auxilio Au. con Pel. l. 1. c. 31. Ita homenis laudamus naturam ut dei semper gratiam addamus auxalium Anathema qui docet gratiam dei per singulos actus nostros non esse necessariam Ibid. Diligenter interrogandus est Pelagius quam dicat gratiam quâ fateatur honâ—nes adjâ—vari querimus quo auxilio c. Corur Pel. Cal l. 1. c. 31. fateantur imernâ in effabili potestate operari in cordibus hominum non solum veras revelationes sed bonas voluntates l. 1. c. 24. de gra Deus facit ut velimus praebendo vires efficacissiuas voluntati deâ—g l. c. 16â— as where he saith we so praise nature as that we alwayes adde the helpe of the grace of God and where he pronounceth anathema against every one that thinketh the grace of God is not necessary every houre to every act 2. Why have you passed by all the places brought to prove that Austin was not satisfied with this Concession of Pelagius but saith that Pelagius is to be asked what grace he meaneth Lib. 1. c. 24. de grâ Christi Fateantur c. Let them confesse that there are wrought by a wonderfull internal and ineffable power good wills in the heart as well as true discoveries Aug. degr et l. a l. 16. Deus facit ut velimus faciamus c. God makes us will and doe by affording most efficacious strength to the will Haecgratia à nullo c. this grace is rejected by no hard heart And de cor et gra C. 12. Infirm is servavit c. Hereserved for those that were weake that they should by his gift will what is good most invincibly c. And whereas you