Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n divine_a trinity_n unity_n 2,602 5 9.3119 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

how it is written Consult with the places in the Margin and you will finde that the matter substance precious counsell c. contained in the Scripture are proved to be things to bee beleeved because they are written yeeld your self to that evident Scripture Joh. 20.21 These things are written that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Sonne of God c. The rativ or ground of beleeving this precious truth That Christ is the Son of God is its revelation by writing So Act. 14.24 Rom. 15.4 Job 5.47 If therefore you deny as you do in terminis the written Word to be the word of God what formall object hath faith i.e. to whom or what will you send me for the building my confidence upon the matters and counsels of the Scripture c. Touching this I added in Busie Bishop the testimonies of Tertullian Ireneus Aug. Chrisost c. Bu. Bish p. 24. Is not every man as a man a debtor to God and a creature tyed to obedience and doth his making himselfe insufficient to discharge the debt discharge him from payment it would follow that if such impotency excused from duty and from the obligation of the the command that those men were most excusable that were most sinfull and had by long accustoming themselves to sin made themselves most unable to leave and forsake sinne nay if by reason hereof God did not command obedience from them it would follow that such did not sinne at all for where there is no precept there is no transgression and so according to you by a mans progresse in sin he should make himselfe cease to be sinfull Bus Bish p. 29. In your next prove 1. That they who perish have power to beleeve The Scripture denyeth it when it saith The world cannot receive the Spirit c. Joh. 14.17 2. Prove if a man hath not power that this impotency is meerely poenall as inflicted by God so involuntarily indured by man for that is the nature of a punishment properly so called the Scripture saith Man hath found out many inventions Eccl. 7. c. Gen. 6.12 All flesh hath corrupted its way c. Bus Bish p. 31. I suppose by your naturall man who you say doth things to which God hath annexed acceptation you meane the same man the Apostle speaks of Rom. 8.8 The man in the flesh now that man cannot please God though your naturall man doth things acceptable to God Invert not gods and Natures order First let the tree be good and then the fruit Bus Bish p. 34. What stuffe is here have all the world sufficient meanes of beleeving these two 1. That God is 2. That he is a rewarder of them that diligently seeke him Paraeus informes you that those two heads of saith that God is and that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seeke him are not to be understood Philosophically but Theologically that the eternall God is Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and that be is a rewarder of them that seeke him Evangelically by faith in Christ with the benefits of the Gospell pardon adoption sanctification glory And can heathens by the sim moone and s●arres do this Can they by the light of nature beleeve a trinity of persons in unity of essence None saith Gerrard can be led to the knowledge of God by the creatures but only so farre forth as God is their cause Now God is their cause by a divine power common to the three persons therfore by the creatures we can onely attain to knowledge of these things which are common to the three Persons and not to the knowledge of the distinction of Persons Ger. de Trin. and can the heathens by the workes of creation have the discovery of a Mediator and have Christ made knowne to them and beleeve in him I am sure you nsver learned this of the Apostles who saith that faith cometh by hearing Rom. 10. or are you of Smalcius the Socinian his judgment who saith that faith in Christ is not alwaies required to justification but faith simply and he proves it out of this very Sctipture that you have alleadged Heb. 11.6 for the faith of heathens c. Bus Bish p. 36. The Fathers assert the being and nature of free-will only and not its power to supernaturall good in all the passages which you alleadge out of them Though Austin and Jerom against the Manichees maintained the nature of free-will yet 't is as true that against the Pelagians they denyed the abilities of free-wil to good supernaturall Of this latter you wisely take no notice at all as making directly against you though there are hundreds of instances to that purpose to be found in them And thus the learned and orthodox Divines of the reformed Churches abroad understand Austin and Hierom when alleadged by Papists and Arminians as writing for free-will Rivetus and Walleus two famously learned writers among the Protestants shall suffice for instances Baily the Jesuit objected out of Austin to prove free-will that very place against the Protestants which you alleadge against the Ministers The words of Austine which both Baily and your selfe alleadge are these Si non estliberum arbitrium quomodo Deus judicat mundum If there be no free-will how doth God judge the world This place Rivet understands onely of the naturall being of free-will For saith he if man were turned into a stone or a block or a bruit creature be should be exempted from Gods Judgement but since when he acts out of deliberation be chuseth and willeth what pleaseth him he deservedly gives account of his actions Riv. to 2. p. 183. The place you alleadge out of Jerom is this Frustra Blasphemas ingeris c. Thou blasphemest in vaine buzzing in the eares of the ignorant that we condemne free-will And Waleus T. 2. p. 95. answers Corvinus in these words of Hierom. Frustra c. but then he gives the reason why and how both be and Hierom did allow of free-will not in regard of its abilities to good supernaturall But because saith Waleus He denyeth man to be created according to the Image of God who denies him to be adorn'd with the naturall faculty of free-will Bus Bish p. 46. In Bus Bish I set downe the agreement betweene the Fathers and the Subscribers concerning the doctrine of the adjutory of grace at large and concluded thus I should gladly be informed by you in your next what the Ministers adjutorium differs from that held forth by the Fathers and what they hold tending more toward a compulsory then these Fathers here and in hundreds of other places have written but he answers nothing Your mistake here is pittifull for the great question between Hierom Augustine and Pelagius was not whither the will did stand in need of the adjutory of grace for the performance of good but what kinde of adjutory it was of which the will did stand in need and wherein grace was an adjutory and I alleadge sundry
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