Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	england_n	reform_a	3,931	5	9.9167	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46809	The blind 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 ... : this reply indifferently serving for the future direction of the seducer himself, and also of those his mis-led followers, who with him are turned enemies to the word and grace of God : to the authority of which word, and the efficacie of which grace are in this following treatise, succinctly, yet satisfactorily vindicated from the deplorably weak and erroneous cavills of the said John Goodwin in his late pamphlet / by William Jenkyn ...	Jenkyn, William, 1613-1685.	1648 (1648)	Wing J645; ESTC R32367	109,133	166

c. The Scripture considered immediately is onely a fit rule to men learned nor can it be of any use to the illiterate So Canus in Locis l. 2. c. 13. Discourse concerning the rule of faith sect 7. Scriptures cannot bee a rule of faith accomodate to the capacities of unlearned men who cannot read them Discourse uhi supr sec 6. These Translations are not infallible as the rule must be for neither were the Scriptures written in this Language neither were the Translators assisted by the same spirit infallibly as if it were imposble they should erre c. Protest Writers confuting them both Chamierius Panstr t. 1. l. 7. c. 7. Rivet Cath. or Trac 1. q. 1. Gerrand Exeg pag. 16. Whitak de Script Baronius Apol. pr. object formali fidei tr 4. p. 155. Maresitheol elench T. 1. p. 24. Sol. Glass T. 1. de pur Text. Chamierius Paustr T. 1. l. 12. c. 10. Baron Apol. Tr. 1. c. 2. Dr. White way to the Ch. p. 17. Dr. Whites way to the Church p. 13 I shall conclude with observing that in this Mr. Goodwin is worse than either Papists Enthusiasts or such other Sectaries that oppose the written Word because though they deny it to be the formall object of faith or that upon which we are to ground and build our faith in beleeving the matters of the Scriptures yet they have held forth some other foundation in stead of the written Word but never were we beholding to Master Goodwin for such a favour This Bishop of Bangor vainly threatned when he entred upon the handling of this question about the Scriptures Yo. Eld. p. 26. that he would make his friend William as hereticall as himselfe before they parted at this turning My Lord we are now parting at this turning but all that your young friend hath received at your Lordships hands is confirmation in the same truth which he entertained before you and he first met and which so much opposeth your Errours and he hopes that he shall ever forsake you and these your workes CHAP. IIII. Shewing the weaknesse and erroneousnesse of Master Goodwins pretended Answers to what I bring against his Errours about the power of man to good supernaturall IN my former Booke called Busie Bishop I charged you with Arminianism in the handling this Doctrine of grace and free will Yo. El p. 43 44. Sect. 56. you deny not the charge but acknowledge it true though not penitentially but impudently But what say you in your owne defence 1. You slight the charge Yo. Eld. p. 43. as fit to be regarded onely by women and child●en and not by m●n of worth parts c. But is it so small a matter to be accounted Answ nay to be a profest Arminian C●nc Carth●g sub Aurel. Apud Bin. To. 1. p. 864. Conc. Mileu 868 869. Nefarius ab omnibus anathematizandus error haeresis nimium periculoso error pernitiosissimus Aug. ad Hilar. ep 94. pestifeta impietas execrabile dogmald fidei venena Aug. Contr. Julian would it never have moved men of worth parts c. Were they men of no worth or parts c. that censured the Tenets in Pelagius which afterward revived in Arminius have none but women and children held these forth as accursed abominable most pernitious heresies execrable pestilent impieties the poyson and bane of faith The many holy and learned men who have been moved against the errours of Arminius were so far from being children for their deep resentment of this heresie that they shew you a childe for sleighting the charge of it Neither women nor children sit in Parliament and yet the House of Commons in their Remonstrance to the King June 11. 1628. professe themselves no lesse perplexed with the growth of Arminianism than of Popery that being a cunning way to bring in Popery and the professors of Arminianism they looke upon as the common disturbers of Protestant Churches and Incendiaries of those States wherein they have gotten head being Protestants in shew Vid. Prin. neces Introd p. 92. but Jesuites in opinion and practice It s cleare what Master Goodwins esteeme was of that Parliament for being so moved against Arminians and I doubt not but this present Parliament which hath been so earnest in suppressing Arminians is yet lower in the opinion of this censor 2. In this section you plead that truth is not the worse because bareticks hold it I my self you say hold some things that Devills Pharisees Arminians beleeve Yo. Eld. p. 4● It s confest but this comes not up to your case Answ If you hold any truth which the Arminians hold I blame you not L●de nup Conc. c. 3. libe●wn in hom●ne esse arbitrium utrique dicimus hinc non estis Celestiani liberum autem quenquam esse ad faciendum bonum hoc vos dicitis hinc estis celesti●ni It s for the embracing the errours which they maintaine that I charge you It s a speech of Augustine to the Sectaries That there is free will in man we say on both sides hence therefore it is not that you are called Celestians but that any one hath free will to good you say and hence you are called Celestians you tell me that the devill holds Jesus Christ to be the holy one of God but this confession makes him not a devill its common with the Church of Christ but your tenets are properly Pelagian Arminian condemned by the Churches of Christ whom you leave therefore particularly this Church of England of which the learned Davenant saith No man can embrace Arminianism in the Doctrin● of predestination and grace Prin. Comp. Tr. p. 166. but he must first desert the Articles agreed upon by the Church of England And in this you close with the Jesuite building upon that foundation which he laid and watering that plant which he planted in England and Holland as a soveraigne drugg to purge the Protestants from their heresie 3. You say That this practice of mine to defame books by saying that those who are erroneous hold them is an old device of Papists whereby they endeavour to render such truths of God as made not for their interests hatefull you instance in one Prateolus Yo. Eld p. 44. A triviall passage that needs not a reply Papists slander truths Answ I discover'd errours where 's the harmony They load truths with imputation of errour I compare errour with errour Morton Cath. Apo●par 1. c. 24 Spr. de haeres p. 1. l. 2 3. Riv. Cath. Orth. Tr. 1. When you shall have cleered your self and opinion from the imputation of Arminianism as Morton Springlius Rivet have vindicated the Protestants against Prateolus and his compeers you may say I used a popish stratagem but till then you must be under the accusation of heresie for ought I can do to relieve you I having told the Reader that your charging the Subscribers of the Testimony with Manicheism is as old as

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 religi●nis doctrina ad salutem necessariae Ecclesiae forma Scripturae esi t●tius doctrina de ver●● religione ad s●lutem necessariae ex imme●●●●● revelatione sp●● sancti conceptis ipsius verbis significatio Gomar de scrip s●●n Disp 2. Id. Ibid. ut verbum non scriptum sermonis signo enuntiatione sic contra verbum scriptum literarum notis descriptione ●●n ●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 ●rre in the matter of his will or manner of expressing of it 8. He ordered that his will sh●uld be written in such Languages as were best knowne and underst●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 inforn●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 beso●e c. therefore Answ Eccius Euchiri Tit. 1. Bailius q. 1. Bellar●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

documentom ad convincendos errores exeri potest si hac vex admittatur scripturas esse c●rruptas Aug. L. Cont. F●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 incorrup●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 ● 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

This is your detestable Doctrine Reader are there not two who hold that man of himselfe can be able to beleeve In this section you endeavour with wofull weaknesse to draw the forecited place of Master Ball to concurre with this your opinion Thus Master Ball saith No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the command Hence you infer Certainly a man hath power to do that from the d●ing whereof he is not hindered by any difficulty relating to the performance of it If the command of God wherein he commands men to beleeve hath no such difficulty in it whereby they are hindered from obeying it● have not men power to obey it and consequently to beleeve What dotard besides J. G. would have made such an inference Answ Master Ball removes difficulty and unreasonablenesse from the Command Master Goodwin simply all difficulty relating to the performance Master Ball saith No man is hindered from beleeving through the difficulty of the Command Therefore saith Master Goodwin men have power to obey it But friend be mercifull to the sepulchre of a Saint now in heaven How little did this blessed man thinke when he was on earth that ever Popery and Arminianisme should have found a prop in his writings after his discease Popery I say for might you not as well have argued from Master Balls words that men want no power to keep the whole Law for is it from the difficulty or unreasonablenesse of the Law that men performe not the Law or from the weaknesse and corruption of their nature pray passe not sentence upon Mr. Bell before you heare what he can say for himselfe p. 245. Cout of Gr. he saith Impossible in it selfe or in respect of the unreasonablenesse of the thing commanded is not the object of Gods Commandment but an impossible thing to us may be and is the object of Gods Commandment should I request Mr. Goodwin to construe a chapter in the Hebrew Bible he would not be hindered from doing it by any difficulty in the thing which I request of him but if he understands not the Hebrew Tongue he would be hindered through his owne unskilfulnesse if there be no impossibility on the part of the command yet if there be an impossibility on the part of the commanded there will be a falling short of performance 4 You adde besides when Mr. Ball saith A man doth not beleeve because he will not he doth not resolve his unbeleefe into any deficiency of power in him to will or to make himselfe willing as Mr. Jenkin would imply but into his will it selfe into the actuall and present frowardnesse and indisposition of his will therefore what why therefore according to the Glosse of Master Goodwin Mr. Ball asserts a man hath power to beleeve Answ If impudence in an old man be a vertue you are vertuous you shamefully abuse Mr. Ball for he resolves not mans unbeliefe into a present and actuall wilfulnesse or frowardnesse of his will as if the will had a strength and power to beleeve but being in a fit of peevishnesse would not put forth that power or make use of that strength though it could doe so if it pleased but he resolves mans unbeliefe into a frowardnesse not actuall and present but habituall and rooted awd setled such a frowardnesse and oppositenesse to the things of God as that he cannot but be froward and opposite till the Lord makes him to consent habituall frowardnes in mans will being the root of the wils impotency and that this holy man resolves unbeliefe into this habituall frowardnesse is cleare from the scope of this place which is to prove that God is just in requiring faith though he gives not sufficient grace to men to beleeve if they will and from the constant consent of other passages in this and his other books Tract of faith pag. 11. Heare what he saith concerning the production of faith God saith he doth infuse or poure the habit of faith into man whereby he giveth to will to come to Christ this is requisite to faith for as a dead man can doe no act of life untill a living soule be breathed into him c. no more can man dead in trespasses and sins move himselfe to receive the promises of grace untill the free and gracious habit of faith be infused We cannot will to beleeve unlesse God give that will the power to beleeve and will to use that power is of God It is God only and altogether that inableth stirreth up and inclineth the heart to beleeve pag. 12. If God have not left you to a most obstinate obduration of heart you will in your next acknowledge how you have abused Mr. Ball in your saying that he doth resolve mans unbeleefe only into present actuall frowardnesse or a fit of peevishnesse You give us a fifty ninth Section thus just such worke as he makes in interpreting Mr. Balls words to manife st their non-concurrence with me he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer Yo. Eld. p. 45. Sect. 59. the fathers Austine Hierome In this Section you plainly yeeld me Answ Bucer Austine and Hierome acknowledging that I have proved their non-concurrence with you as I have proved the non-concurrence of Mr. Ball with you if you desire the Reader should beleeve that Bucer and the Fathers are still on your side notwithstanding all that I have said to the contrary why give you not so much as one word by way of taking off my exceptions to your allegations out of them which exceptions were largely set downe in my Busie Bishop p. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 c. but all that I say in all these pages in proving the impertinency of your quotations out of the fore-cited Authors you blow away with this learned answer just such worke as he makes in manifesting the non-concurrence of Mr. Ball with me he makes also in a like attempt upon the passages cited by me from Mr. Bucer and the Fathers moll strenuously and disputant-like illustrating if not endeavouring to prove this your answer from the example of Josuah quoted in chapter and verse in your margin who as he had done to Hebron and Libnah and to her King so he did to Debir and her King and I promise you a good proofe too as proofes goe now a dayes in the alley But what is become of your friend Testard your chiefe witnesse whom also you alledged as concurring with you whose Doctrine you impudently said was asserted for orthodox by a province of Ministers in France and was the receaved Doctrine of the reformed Churches in France It had been ingenuity in this Reply to have asked pardon of that Province which in your last you so unworthily slandered In your sixtieth Section I reade thus Yon. Eld. Sect. 60. Whereas he quotes severall sentences out of Mr. Ball Bucer Austine c. of a contrary