Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	church_n	true_a	visible_a	19,269	5	9.3685	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

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

they must be now the foundation thereof God teacheth his Church and revealeth his will diversly he hath varied the wayes of his administrations and his will being presupposed the Scriptures are now necessary as a foundation which in former times were not The learned Rivet tels us Rivet ● 1. c. 1. Aliud tempus alios mores postulat Deus pro multiformi su● sapiemia administrationis suae rationem volait variare Consequentias a lversariorum meritò ridemus fuit aliquando Ecclesia cum non esset Scripture ergo he● tempore Ecclesia potest c●rere Scriptura prae suppositâ Dei veluntate nobis necessariam esse Scripturam asserimus Meritò ridemus We account it a ridiculous consequence That because formerly the Church was without the Scriptures therefore now it can want them The same solution doth Gerra●d also make Exeg p. 16. Quia non nisi per Scripturas c. Because God in the businesse of our salvation would not deale with us but by the Scriptures upon this supposition they are now necessary The like saith Whitaker Whitak de perfec Scrip. cap. 7. Partibus olim D●us se familiariter ostendit atque iis per se voluntatem suam patesecit tum Scripturas non fuisse necessarias fate●r at postea mutavit hanc docendae ●● clesiae rationem scribi suam voluntatem v●lait rumnecessarta esse scriptura ●●●pit Alia illorum alia horum temporuam ratio God of old time familiarly made known himselfe to the Fathers and by himselfe manifested to them his will and then I confesse the Scriptures were not necessary but after God did change the way or course of teaching his Church and would have his will written then the Scriptures began to become necessary The materiall object of the faith of those that lived before the Canon was put into writing was the same with ours they built their faith upon Christ they beleeved the same truths for salvation but the formall object of their faith or the ground of beleeving those truths differed from ours in the manner of its dispensation Di●ine ●e●elation was the foundation and ground of their faith and is of ours also but divine revelation was afforded to them afone manner and to us after another God hath spoken in divers manners Heb. 1.1 The authority of the revelation is alwaies the same the way of making that revelation hath frequently been different sometimes immediately by visions a lively voice c. at other times by writing as now in these latter times upon which consideration I flatly deny that because their Religion stood firme before the Word was written or before God revealed his will in writing therefore our religion is not built upon revelation of God in writing concluding my answer with that excellent passage of Tilenus Syntag. Disp 2. Licet plane eadem sint quae olim voce qu●que deinceps scripto fuerunt tradida 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tamen fidei nostrae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scriptis duntaxat nititur Although the things which were formerly delivered by voice were altogether the same with the things asterward delivered in writing yet the certainty of our faith only depends upon writings Your second Argument to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion Arg. 2 is because The foundation of Religion is imperishable even as is the Church you fay which is built upon it now you say any booke and all books whatsoever and consequently the Scriptures we perishable therefore no books and consequently not the Scriptures are this foundation If Master Jenkins Bible be the form 〈◊〉 of his Religi●n then is his Religion no such treasure but that thi●ces may breake through and steale it from him 〈◊〉 bearing that Plat● had given the definition of a man that he was a living creature with tw● feet with●et feathers gets a 〈…〉 off all his feathers while he was alice and throws him in among some of Plato's 〈◊〉 wishing them to behold their Master ●ato his man If some such odde conceited fellow should use means to get Master Jenkins ●ible and having defaced rent and torne it should cast it into the midst of his auditors and say Ecce fundamentum Religionis Jenkinianae I chold the foundation of your Master Jonkin it might prove a more offectuall conviction unto him of his folly than seven demonsirative reasons c. You say the foundation of Religion is as the Church unperishable This position Answ if you understand of a simple and absolute unperishablenesse I deny for though both Church and Scriptures upon which the Church is built be unperishable exhypothest divinae providentie in regard of Gods providence which he hath promised shall preserve the Scriptures and Church yet of themselves they might perish It was possible in it selfe that Christs leggs as well as the leggs of the thieves might have been broken but Gods pleasure presupposed it was altogether impossible As for your arguing from the tearing of my Bible to the abolishing of the Scriptures you shew your self as good as your word for this is one of the arguments which you bring to the shame of those that charge this errour upon you my self among sundry others being ashamed of your child shnesse herein have you any such ground of assurance from God that any one particular Bible shall not be burnt as you have that his written Word shall not be utterly removed from his Church or can the perishing of my Bible prove that God will suffer the Scriptures to be utterly taken away Reverend Mr. Bifield upon the first of Peter ver 25. p. 506. will tell you though this or that patticular Bible may be destroyed yet that the Word abideth for ever in the very writings of it If all the power on earth saith he should make war against the very paper of the Scriptures they cannot destroy it but the word of God written will be to be had still It is easier to destroy heaven and earth than to destroy the Bible So he you say the Scriptures are as imperishable as the Church but can you conclude because the Church in it self may faile and may cease in this or that particular place therefore that it may be overthrown in all parts and places of the world And therefore for that contemptible because profane scoffe of Platoe's man or a living creature with two feet without feathers had you added one accident more that he is animal latis unguibus it would more properly have belonged to your self than animal rationale your nayles being much sharper than your arguments a fit cock for such a cock-pit as you game in Your third argument is Arg. 3 That if any books called the Scripture be the foundation of Religion then may Religion be said to have been founded by men It would be to no purpose haply to tell you that this is a popish cavill Answ however to the Reader it may not be unprofitable to know so

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 vi●i susceptis Epistolis verba legeremus eaque quo calamo suissent Scripta quaereremus r●dicul●m profectò esses c. cum ergo cegnoscimus eju●que tei spiri●um sanctam uctorem tenemus cum scriptorem quae rimus quid aliu● eg●mus nist legenies literas de calamo perscruta●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 re●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 ●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 ve●bo desumptae puritas Glas p. 174. Quod

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