Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	ghost_n	holy_a	inspire_v	2,844	5	10.2489	5	false

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

truths contained in the Scripture were the foundation of faith and not the written Word which contained those truths and now you grant that the written Word of God 1 Corinth 3.11 is the ground of your faith 3 If you meane as you speake the controversie is at an end the written word being acknowledged a foundation of faith and all those Sophismes instead of Arguments which afterward you bring concerne you to answer as well as my selfe In this exception 4 You revile me for charging you with weaknesse and wickednesse in your opposing Christ and his Word since you say Yo. Eld. p. 31 32. that a while since I opposed a foundation Personall to a foundation Scripturall and what is that say you but to oppose Christ and his Word as much as you oppose them And for the knowne distinction of essendi and cognoscendi which Master Jenkin wonders should be hid from me he is desired in his next to produce any Classique Author that ever used it but himselfe The complexion of it is as if it were of the lineage of Mr. Jenkins learning You can finde no shelter from any thing that ever dropt from my Pen for your opposing Christ and his Word Answ you oppose Christ and his Word I distinguish only between Christ and his Word now Accurate Logicians know the difference between oppositio and distinctio though old detards have forgot it Opposition implyes a pugnarerum distinction only a non idenditas so Keckerm cap. 5. Lib. 1. Syst Lo. Suminus vo●em distinctionis cum omnibus e●uditis Philosophis oppositioni contradivisive prout nude opponitur identitati excludendo diversitatem You so oppose Christ and his Word as that because Christ is the foundation you deny the Scripture to be a foundation Sion Colledge visited p. 2.15 this is Pugna but I shew Bu. Bish p. 7 8. how they both agree though they be not one and the same foundation that Christ is the foundation upon which I build for salvation and the Scriptures the foundation upon which I ground the knowledge of this Saviour your saying therefore that because I distinguish thus between a foundation Personall and a foundation Scripturall I therefore oppose them as much as you who make the word of Christ a foundation inconsistent with Christ's being a foundation againe bewrayes your forgetfulnesse of your Logick for every opposition implyes necessarily a distinction but a distinction doth not imply an opposition And whereas with sufficient ignorance you desire me to tell you of any Classique Author that useth the distinction of essendi and cognoscendi I referre you for information to Keckerman Syst Theol. p. 133. where he saith Duplicia reperiuntur principia essendi cognoscendi sic etiam in Theologiâ See also Trelcatius jun. Instit Theol. L. 1. Duo sunt principia rei cognitionis illa ex quibus alia producuntur haec ex quibus aliorum pendet cognitio Wollebius also Comp. Theol. p. 2. Principium Theologiae essendi quidem Deus est Cognoscendi vero verbum Dei See also Altenstaig Lexicon Theolog. in Tit. Principium where there is mention of sundry learned men that use this distinction If the complexion of this distinction shewes that it is of the lineage of my learning certainly the ignorance of this distinction shewes the complexion of Master Goodwins learning To prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of religion you now proceed to your arguments and in your entrance upon them you brag that you demonstrate Yo. El. p. 32. and you thunder out the shame and confusion of all those that have charged the error upon you though the issue will prove to your owne confusion I say not to your shame who I think are past it Your owne words are these That the Scriptures whether written or printed are not truly and properly the foundation of religion I demonstrate in the s●ght of the Sun to the shame and confusion of all those faces who have charged the Tenet upon me as an error O yes all men women and children stand forty foot off from the blinde Beare if not being bitten thanke your selves Bas Moral reg 26. cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 What do you call a Theologicall demonstration have you read the rule of Basil Whatever we say or doe ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the holy Scriptures for the establishing of the good and the confusion of the bad Have you done thus certainly the Scriptures have not given to you a weapon nor lent you a proofe to destroy themselves No Sir your demonstrations are either childish mistakes or Popish cavills not demonstrations of your position but of your folly and impiety Ad bonam solutionem non pertinet quod probet conclusionem sed quod defendat eam ab objectione contrariâ 2 To what purpose doe you bring any Arguments at all Are you not respondent Was it not your part to answer what was brought against your wicked Position but you are better you thinke at your sword than your shield though at neither good otherwise why have you passed over what was brought against you and instead thereof vainly endeavour to bring somewhat in opposition to your opponent 3 Doth it become an Accurate disputant to propose a question under so many ambiguities and explaine none what meane you by Scripture what by foundation what by religion what by true and proper are these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same importance why leave you things so confused and indigested Is it to make your opponent ashamed with your folly because you cannot with your arguments That we may not therefore fight blind-fold at which you are old excellent I shall desire the Reader to take notice that in this whole dispute when you deny the Scriptures to be the foundation of religion By Scriptures are understood all the books of the Old and New Testament Scriptures conjunctim divisim as they are now received and acknowledged among us conjunctim the compleat foundation divisim the partiall foundation and your selfe grant that thus your opponents take the Scriptures You acknowledge this to be the only sence that the ordinance against Heresies can reasonably meane Hag. Sect. 26 27. and so you take the word Scriptures p. 32. Yo. El. p. 32. Yo. Eld. where you labour to prove them not the foundation of religion Now whereas you assert that by the Scriptures we are not to understand any writing or the wtitten Word that reveales the truths of God but only the truths and matters themselves named I affirme that the Scriptures are to be taken concretivè both for matter and words both being inspired of the Holy Ghost Ames med●●de ser In iis omnibus quae per supernaturalem revelationem inno●u●runt non solum res ipsas inspiravit Deus sed etiam singul● verba quibus scriberentur dictavit atque suggessit The holy Ghost suggesteth words as well as matter saith Ames and the forme of the Scripture stands

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

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 19● 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 d●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 ●●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

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