The Blind Guide, Chapter 3

The Blind Guide · Chapter 3

p. 30CHAP. III.

Shewing the weakneſſe and erroneouſneſſe of his pretended anſwers to what I bring againſt his Errours about the holy Scripture.

IN your title page you ſay there are two great queſtions which in your booke are ſatisfactorily diſcuſſed:

The one concerning the foundation of Chriſtian Religion.

The other concerning the power of the naturall man to good ſupernaturall.

The former whereof, you diſcuſſe after a faſhion, from page the 26. to page the 38 of your Youngling Elder, concerning which your poſition was this: Queſtionleſſe no writing whatſoever, whether tranſlations or originali, is the foundation of Chriſtian Religion.

I have proved in Buſie Biſhop that this poſition doth raze and deſtroy the very foundation of Chriſtian Religion,Buſie Biſhop; p, 23, 24. &c. and the ground-work of faith; I ſtill abide by what I there proved and maintained; I fear not at all to tell you, that this your aſſertion being imbraced, faith muſt needs be over throwne: That the matters and precious truths laid downe in the Scriptures; as that Chriſt is God and man, That he dyed for ſinners, &c. can never be beleeved with a Divine faith, unleſſe the ratio credendi or ground of ſuch beleeving be the revelation of God in writing, or the written Word. I againe inculcate, that your blaſphemous poſition, No writing, &c. is contrary to Scripture, which tels us, the Church is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apoſtles, Chamier to 1. L. 6. c. 8.Epheſ. 2.20. that is, their writings, ſee Chamier who vindicateth this place againſt the exceptions of the Popiſh writers.

Your poſition directly oppoſeth that place, Joh. 20.31. Theſe p. 31things are written that ye might beleeve that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Sonne of God, and that beleeving ye might have life through his Name, Deut. 17.18.19. Eſa. 8.20. Ioh. 5.39. 2 Pet. 1.19. Luk. 24.25, 27, 46. Act. 13.33. Act. 17.11. Rom. 14.11. &c.Deut 17:18Deut 17:19Isa 8:20John 5:392 Pet 1:19Luke 24:25Luke 24:27Luke 24:46Acts 13:33Acts 17:11Rom 14:11and that other, 1 Joh 5.13. Theſe things have I written unto you, &c. that ye might beleeve on the Name of the Son of God; with multitudes of other places which have been, and might againe be mentioned, in all which the ground and foundation of our beleeving the truths of ſalvation, and conſequently of religion, is ſaid to be the written Word.

Nor did I ever meet with any one Orthodox Writer, but he oppugned this your abominable aſſertion, when he diſcourſeth concerning the Scriptures in this point. I quoted ſundry places out of the Fathers in my laſt, fully to that purpoſe, out of Tertullian, Ireneus, Auguſtine, Hierome. I might adde, that all our moderne Proteſtant Writers oppoſe you herein.

To name all would require a volume. Zanchy. Tom. 8. in Confeſſ. cals the Scriptures, The foundation of all Chriſtian Religion. Synops. pur. theol. diſ. p. 2.The Leyden-profeſſors aſſert the Scriptures to be prineipium & fundamentum omnium Chriſtianorum dogmatum, &c. Gomarus alſo, Theſ. de ſcriptura, may be ſeen to this purpoſe.Ameſ…medul. c. ſcrip. Tilen ſyntag. diſp. de ſcrip. Rivetus Diſp. 1. de ſcrip. And I deſire the Reader to conſider, That in this whole diſcourſe, though you exceed your ſelfe in impudence and audacious aſſertions, yet you do not ſo much as offer a juſtification of this Theſs, as it is ſet downe in the teſtimony and in terminis taken out of your booke by the London Miniſters, and therefore whatever you ſay might be neglected as not appertaining to this controverſie between you and me.

But to conſider of what you ſay, though your whole diſcourſe be nothing to the purpoſe, in this ſatisfactory diſcuſſion (as you vainly and falſely terme it) of the foundation of Chriſtian Religion.

You do theſe three things: 1. You bring ſome ſix weak and childiſh exceptions againſt me, for oppoſing your errour in ſuch a manner as I have expreſt in my book. 2. You preſent the Reader with eight terrible things which you call demonſtrations to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Chriſtian Religion. Not one of which eight feathers but is able to cut off the arm of an adverſary. 3. You ſubjoyne two or three cavils (prophane trifles) by way of anſwer to me.

p. 32Firſt for your exceptions:

1.To. Eld. p. 27. You ſay, This unhallowed peece of Presbytery wholly concealeth and ſuppreſſeth my diſtinction, and what I deny onelyonly in ſuch and ſuch a ſenſe, he repreſenteth as abſolutely ſimply, and in every ſenſe denyed by me. In a due and regular ſenſe I affirme and avouch the Scriptures to be the foundation of Chriſtian Religion. I appeale to theſe words in page 13. of my Treatiſe concerning the Scriptures. If by Scriptures be meant the matter or ſubſtance of things contained and held forth in the books of the old and new Teſtament, I believe them to be of Divine Authority, &c.

1 Friend, Anſw. Rev. 22.15.Rev 22:15remember you the Catalogue of the excluded out of the new Jeruſalem? is not he that loveth and maketh a lye mentioned? wretched creature, what will be your portion if God in mercy give you not repentance? Doth not he whom you call the unhallowed peece of Presbytery ſet downe. page 20. of Buſie Biſhop, this your diſtinction? are not theſe very words ſpoken to and of you? You grant the matter and ſubſtance of the Scripture, the gracious counſels to be the Word of God, as that Chriſt is God and man, That he dyed, That he roſe againe, &c. And page 22. Buſie Biſhop, reade you not thus in expreſſe tearmes? You tell me p. 13. That you believe the precious Counſels, matter and ſubſtance of the Scriptures to be of Divine Authority, and in the ſame page you ſay, That the matters of the Scriptures repreſented in tranſlations are the Word of God. Do not you acknowledge, page the 39 of Youngling Elder, that I did ſet downe this your diſtinction, where you bring me in enquiring of you, How can any beleeve the matter and ſubſtance of the Scripture to be the Word of God, when he muſt be uncertaine whether the written Word or Scriptures wherein the matter is contained, are the Word of God, or no? Is it poſſible to diſpute againſt that which is altogether concealed, and acknowledge you not that I diſpute againſt it.

2 What great matter is it that you aſſert concerning the Scripture, in ſaying, You grant the matter and ſubſtance of the Scriptures to be the Word of God? All this you may ſay, and yet deny them the foundation of Chriſtian' Religion, and the formall object of faith. The Papiſts (from whom you have ſtollen moſt of your following Arguments) acknowledge as much, and yet deny them the foundation of faith?

p. 333 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, tis no divine faith.

4. In this your penurious and ſcanty conceſſion that the matters contained in the Scriptures are only the Word of God;foreign 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.19… 20, 21. foreign called afterward foreign Whituk. de Auth. Scrip. lib. 1. cap. 10. ſect. 8. Ne que tantum ratione dogmatum ſcriptura à Deo prodiit, etſi edita ſcriptura eſt ut certa & perpetua dogmatum ratio conſtaret, ſed tota ſcripturarum ſtructura & compoſitio divina eſt, ne que non modo dogma ſed ne verbum in Scripturis ullum niſs d…vinum eſt, &c. Yo. Eld. p. 5.2 Tim 3:162 Pet 1:19 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 foreign 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 34foundation 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 p. 35Religion 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 Scriptures containe the foundation of Religion in them, Anſw. is but a ſlender conceſſion; I ſuppoſe you will not deny this to the books of many a godly writer.

2 In granting me that the foundation of Religion, i. e. the Gracious Counſells of God are contained in the Scriptures, and yet in denying that the written Word is that formall object of my faith, or that foundation for which I ſhould build my faith upon thoſe counſells of God for ſalvation, you do both delude your Reader, and contradict your ſelfe; you taking away what you grant. Gods revelation of his minde in the written Word being the reaſon why I embrace the Counſells, or matters as the foundation upon which I build.

3 You vainly applaud your ſelfe, for aſſerting the Scriptures to containe the foundation, when as you deny the purity of the Scriptures, for let it be once granted that errors are crept into the Scriptures,Leo Caſtrius Go…onius, &c. and that there is no originall pure (which is the blaſphemous calumny caſt upon the Scriptures by the Papiſts the authority of Scriptures falls to the ground, and we may call the whole Scriptures into queſtion. You aſſert that the pureſt originall exemplar is corrupted, and you know not what the particular places are that are corrupt; when any Sentence p. 36therefore out of Scripture is brought againſt your errors, why may you not ſhield your ſelfe with this defence, for ought I know the place whence you take this ſentence is corrupted, Ecce fundamentum religionis Goodwiniana, behold the foundation of a goodly religion. I confeſſe one ſo erroneous as your ſelfe cannot coveniently be without this comfortable refuge. If you be not too old to learne of the Fathers,Aug Ep. 19 Ad. Hieron. Non te arbitror ſic legi tu…s libro… velle tanquam Prophetarum, vel Apoſtolorum: de quorum Scriptis quod omni careant errore dubitare nefar…um eſt. Manichaeiplurima divinum Scripturararum loca quibus eorum, nefarius error convincitur quia in alium ſenſum deto…quere non poſſunt falſa eſſe contendunt quod tamen quia nec, probare potuerunt, notiſſimâ veratate ſuper ati, confuſi que diſcedunt. Id. Ib. take this from Auguſtine in his 19. Epiſt written to Hierom. I ſuppoſe thou art not willing that men ſhould read thy books as they would read the Writings of the Prophets and Apoſtles, it being a moſt hainous ſinne to doubt of the freeneſſe of their writings from all error. And the ſame Father in the ſame Epiſtle tells Hierom, that the Manichees contended that ſundry places of Scripture which overthrew their errors were falſe, which falſeneſſe they did not attribute to the Apoſtles that wrote them, but to certaine corrupters I know not whom. quod quia, &c. which becauſe they could not prove, being overcome by knowne trub, they departed confounded.

For your fourth frivolous exception,Exception 4. Yo. Eld. p. 29 you cite a paſſage out of your Div. Auth. of Scrip. p. 17. where you ſay, The true and proper foundation of Religion is not Inke and Paper, nor any book or books, nor any writing or writings whatſoever, &c. Hereupon you make a double enquiry. Firſt, Why did not Mr. Jenkin inſert the words (true and proper) into the charge of my deuiall of the Scriptures for the foundation of Chriſtian Religion. Secondly, why doth he not declare that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper, &c.

1 Poor ſhifter! Anſw. I added not the words (true and proper) becauſe the Miniſters tooke not your charge out of the 17. pag. where you ſay the words (true and proper) are, but out of the 18. where I ſay they are not. 2 Becauſe you being taxed with this abhominable error in the Teſtimony of the London Miniſters, your ſelfe in your Pamphlet call'd (Sion Col. Viſ) p 12. for vindication and explanation of your ſelfe in this point, referre the Reader only to the 13. and 15. pages, and this 17 page, your ſelfe never mentioned in Sion Col. Viſited; to which book only mine was an anſwer, and not to Div. Auth. where (ſay you) p. 37in p. 17. you mention true and proper; it ſeemes the novice hath now driven you to another ſhift, another leafe, though a meere Figg-leafe defence; for

3 Your deniall of the Scripture to be the foundation without this mitigation or allay of (true and proper) is moſt ſutable to your former undertakings. I tooke you according to the conſtant ſtreine of your writings, as you deſired even now; ſee Hagiom. Sect. 27, 28. as alſo the many places in Div. Aut. p. 10, 11, 12. and p. 39. in Yo. Eld. ſo that evident it is that theſe words (true and proper) were inſerted here, as a blinde for your blaſphemy. They are not found (for ought I know) in any other place in all your Div. Aut. you mention (I am ſure) no other place; nor did you in Hagiom. printed before your Div. Auth. once make mention of them. In what a pittifull condition then are the poore old Hag. to lye under the charge of ſo many tongues and hearts, ſo long before Div. Auth. was printed; to be upon duty ſo long before releeved with (true and proper)

4 Do you not leave theſe words (true and proper) out, in the concluſion of that diſcourſe wherein they are contained, in which concluſion being the reſult and winding up of all that which went before, you peremptorily and unlimitedly deny any writing whatſoever to he any foundation at all of Chriſtian Religion, without a (true and proper) to mend the matter.

2 Your ſecond enquiry; Why deth he not declare, that I meane by the Scriptures Inke and Paper, is too ridiculous for a novice to read, though not for a dotard to write.

1. In your next I pray tell me who beſide your ſelfe and the blaſphemous Papiſts, did ever by the Scripture underſtand inke and paper? Indeed Doctor Humfred. Jeſuitmiſe, p. 2. pag. 89. Tels us of a Nun that to the queſtion, Quâ in re ſita eſt religio Chriſtiana, wherein ſtands Chriſtian Religion? made anſwer; In laceris panniculis, in torne rags, We need no other Oedipus to open this riddle than Maſter Goodwin.

2 Had you therefore onelyonly thus trifled by this denyall of ink and paper to be the foundation of Chriſtian Religion, you had neither been charged for erroneous by the London Miniſters nor any one elſe in this point; but when to your trifling you adde p. 38blaſphemy, and ſay, That no writing whether originals or tranſlations are the foundation of Chriſtian Religion, and pag. 29. Yo Eld. that you deny whatever is found in the Scriptures beſides the precious counſels to be the foundation, &c. You are to be dealt withall upon a new account. You then go beyond your denyall of ink and paper.

Your fifth Exception againſt me is,Exception the fifth Yo Eld. pag. …9. That I want Logick, in denying the concluſion, without anſwering any thing to the premiſſes. You ſay, you had proved the concluſion, That the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion, with ſeverall arguments, and that without any anſwer given to any one of theſe arguments, I denyed onelyonly your concluſion, which was this, No writing whatſoever, whether Originals or tranſlations, are the foundation of Chriſtian Religion.

1. Anſw. For that concluſion of yours, No writing whatſoever is the foundation of Chriſtian Religion. It was by the Subſcribers of the late Teſtimony taken out of your diſcourſe, without any mention of your premiſſes; your charge therefore of the want of Logick, is drawne up againſt them at the feet of many of whom, you may ſit to learne both Logick and Theologie alſo.

2. The ſcope of the Miniſters that ſubſcribed the Teſtimony was not to diſpute errours, but to recite them; and recite them they could not more properly than by ſetting downe the concluſion and reſult of your tedious diſcourſe, nothing ſpeaking a mans minde ſo plainly and peremptorily as that.

3. My booke was an anſwer to Sion Coll. viſited, and not to that former piece of yours, Divine Authors wherein you ſaid you brought the arguments to prove that the Scriptures were not the foundation of Religion. Had you recited your arguments in Sion Colledge viſited, they ſhould have been anſwered, though in truth neither you nor they deſerved it.

4. You bring one pittifull thing, which I dare ſay you account an argument in Sion Coll. viſited, pag. 2. to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Chriſtian Religion, viz. Becauſe Chriſt is the onelyonly foundation. Which weak cavill I fully anſwered, pag. 7. and 8. Buſie Biſhop. I call it a cavill, becauſe your ſelfe ſeem afraid to call it an argument; for though it be cleerly confuted yet you ſay I bring no anſwer to any one argument.

p. 39In your ſixth exception,Exception the ſixth, Yo. Eld. p. 30. you exceed your ſelfe in ignorance and impudence, wherein you write thus: Doth not himſelf (Maſter Jenkin) diſtinguiſh, pag. 7. and affirm that in a ſenſe the Scriptures are not the foundation of Chriſtian Religion, elſe what is the engliſh of theſe his words, Chriſt is the onelyonly foundation in point of mediation, and the Scriptures in point of manifeſtation, &c. hath the man a muſhrome inſtead of caput humanum upon his ſhoulders, to quarrell with me for denying in a ſenſe the Scriptures to be the foundation of Religion, and yet to deny as much himſelf; Did I ever, or do I any where deny them to be ſuch a foundation in reſpect of repreſentation and diſcovery, &c.

Dote you, Sir? or dream you? or are you ambitious to be Biſhop of Bethlehem, at your tranſlation from Swan-alley? Firſt, you pretend that you approve the diſtinction, and that you are of my opinion, Do you (ſay you) any where deny the Scriptures to be a foundation in reſpect of repreſentation? Then you ſcorne and revile it, ſaying, That the foundation of manifeſtation is an abſurd and a ridiculous metaphor; againe you owne it, and aſſert the Scriptures in this ſenſe, The foundation, &c. and laſtly you ſcorn it againe, and deſire me to tell you of one Claſſicall Author that uſeth it? Certainly if Maſter Jenkin have a muſhrome upon his ſhoulders, you have a windmill upon your pate. This paſſage (I fear) will confirme Maſter Vicars in his opinion of the ſuitableneſſe of the emblamaticall windmill, and make him applaud himſelfe notwithſtanding my endeavours to diſſwade the honeſt man from expreſſing you by ſuch a picture.

1 In this Exception, you ask, Did I ever deny the Scriptures to be a foundation in reſpect of manifeſtation?

Yes, and do ſo ſtill, Div. Author, page 18. Thus you write, Anſw. Certaine it is there was a time when neither Originals nor tranſlations were the foundation of Religion, but ſomewhat beſide, therefore as certain it is, that neither are they the foundation of Religion at this day. Th… you there, where you cleerly aſſert, that we muſt no more ground our faith upon the manifeſtation of the Scripture now, than they that never had any ſuch manifeſtation by way of writing at all. And what do you aſſert, page 49, 50. &c. of that Treatiſe, but that Religion hath another foundation in point of manifeſtation, than the Scriptures, viz. the ſun, moon, and ſtars, &c.

p. 402. In this Exception you ſay, That to call the Scriptures the foundation in point of manifeſtation is a ridiculous and abſurd metaphor: Maſter Jenkin thinks that he manifeſts the feebleneſſe of Sion Colledge viſited, is he therefore the foundation of the booke, or of the ſuppoſed feebleneſſe of it which he diſcovers.

Your jeering betrayes your ignorance, Anſw. or malitious forgetfulneſſe of that knowne diſtinction of fides quae creditur, and fides quâ creditur. The matter which faith beleeves, and the grace it ſelfe of faith, both called faith in Scripture. Religion alſo comprehends the matter of Religion and the grace of Religion. The Scriptures though they are not the foundation of the matter of Religion, yet by their manifeſtation of the will of God, they are the foundation of the grace of Religion, as my booke called the Buſie Biſhop if it have manifeſted the feebleneſſe of Sion Colledge viſited, may be the foundation upon which ſome may build the knowledge of the feebleneſſe of Sion Colledge viſited, though it be not the foundation of your book, or the weakneſſe of it.

3 In this exception you produce that queſtion which I propounded to you, p. 7. Buſ. Biſh. Why doth Maſter Goodwin alleadge that Scripture, Yo. Eld. p. 31.1 Cor. 3.11. Other foundation …an no man lay but Jeſus Chriſt, if he doth not ground his beliefe hereof upon this very Scripture?

To this you give a double anſwer; 1. By way of quaere, Why did Chriſt cite the teſtimony of John to prove himſelfe to be the Meſſias, if he did not ground his beliefe of his being the Meſſias upon Johns teſtimony?Joh. 5.32.33. &c.John 5:32John 5:33

1 When will you leave off to blaſpheme? Its my unhappineſſe that inſtead of reclaiming you from hereſie, Anſw. you ſhould take occaſion from my words to vent your blaſphemy. Toungl. Elder, pag. 6.Do you no more need the Scriptures than Chriſt did? Did Chriſt cite the teſtimony of John as a ground for his owne faith, or as a ground for the faith of others? Doth Maſter Goodwin never read the Scriptures that ſay, Chriſt is the Meſſias but only for the eſtabliſhing the faith of others?

2 You anſwer by way of ſuppoſition; What if I ſhould ſay that I do ground my beliefe of Chriſt his being the only foundation upon this place which followes?

1 It followes that you cite not this teſtimony as Chriſt did p. 41the teſtimony of John, who did not cite Johns teſtimony to ground his owne beliefe upon it that he was the Meſſias. 2. It followes that you contradict your ſelfe, for now you ſay this Scripture is the foundation of your faith in Chriſt; and before you ſaid, that becauſe Chriſt is the only foundation, therefore the Scriptures are not.

Before you ſaid, that only the matter and 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; p. 42that 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, 2you 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 foreign.

1 What do you call a Theologicall demonſtration? have you read the rule of Baſil; Whatever we ſay or doe, ought to be confirmed p. 43by 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 foreign 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 p. 44quibus ſcriberentur, dictavit atque ſuggeſſit. The holy Ghoſt ſuggeſteth words as well as matter, 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, 'tis 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 p. 45reveale 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 465. 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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.Titus 1

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 they muſt be now the foundation thereof. God teacheth his Church, and revealeth his will diverſly; he hath varied the p. 47wayes 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 at que 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, foreign tamen & fidei noſtrae foreign 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 p. 48of 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? p. 49Reverend 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 onelyonly 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, ea que 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,

p. 50'Tis 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 onelyonly 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 its 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.

p. 51Your fifth thing which you deſire to have us looke upon as a demonſtration, Arg. 5 Yo. El. p. 35is 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 p. 52I 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 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. 35or 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 p. 53contained 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. 378and 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; p. 54is 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 Propoſitions? Doth it not ceaſe upon the change of the ſubject? Jeſus Chriſt is to come in the fleſh was once a true propoſition, and the object of the faith of thoſe that lived before Chriſt his Incarnation, but is it ſo ſtill? and is not veritas ethica, or the agreement p. 55of the judgement or minde with the propoſition, changeable likewiſe upon the ſame ground.

To your minor, whereas you alledge the changeableneſſe of all Bibles in the contents of them, what meane you by contents? meane you inke, papers, letters, &c. ſuch changes either pervert the ſence, and ſo farre as the Scriptures are thus chang'd they ceaſe to be the written Word, or they pervert it not,Waleus. T. 1. p. 129. Scriptura ſubſtanti… non poteſt corrumpi. and if any ſuch changes be, they nothing hinder the written Word from being the foundation of faith. Sphalmata Typographica, Typographicall faults makeerrours in Orthography, none in Divinity.

Your laſt demonſtration; Arg. 3 Yo. Eld. p. 36.If the Scripture be the true foundation of Religion, it muſt be underſtood either of the Scriptures as in the originall Languages only, or only as tranſlated into other Languages, or as both; but the Scriptures neither in the originall Languages, nor as tranſlated, nor as both are the foundations. Ergo:

I deny your minor, and aſſert the Scriptures as in the originals, Anſw. and alſo as tranſlated ſo farre as agreeing with the originals are the foundation.

1. How prove you that the Scriptures in the originalls are not the foundation of religion? thus; If the Scriptures be the foundation as they are in the originall Bibles, then they (ſay you) that underſtand not theſe Languages, as illiterate men, cannot build upon this foundation; for your unworthy ſcoffe of the danger of my Religion, you repreſenting me as one that underſtands not the originals; you may pleaſe to know that I am not ignorant of all originals, for either concerning your ſcoffing, or your unmannerly jeering; Mr. T. G. ſaid lately, that you had it from your Father (cheap enough it ſeemes) but to the point: This cavill is borrowed of your old Maſters whom in this point you follow; already anſwered by Anth. Wotton, Pop. Artic. Ar. 3 p. 20. and by Baronius againſt Turnbul. de objecto formali fid. p. 44. but I anſwer:

Illiterate or unlearned men who cannot underſtand originals, Anſw. nor yet can read tranſlations, doe build nevertheleſſe their ſaith upon the Scriptures contained in them, though mediatly, virtually, and not with that diſtinctneſſe which one learned doth, the unlearned knowing not particularly in what words p. 56the minde of God was revealed; though you call me a Novice, yet let me teach you (if at leaſt ſo plaine a leſſon hath not hitherto been learned by you) that unto faith there is required, Principium quod, or the foundation to be beleeved; Principium propter quod, or the reaſon why men beleeve the former; and media per quae, thoſe neceſſary meanes by which they come to beleeve, and theſe are externall, the miniſtery of the Word, and internall, the witneſſe and effectuall working of the holy Ghoſt, by which the heart is enabled to cloſe with the formall object of faith, viz. the revelation of Gods will in writing. Now the Miniſtry of the Word and Spirit are limited to the written Word; theſe teach no other things than God hath revealed therein, and perſwade not men, but God (as the Apoſtle ſaith, Gal. 1.10.) ſo that theſe lead the moſt illiterate to the Scriptures, and are ſo adminiſtred that they draw the heart even of ſuch to aſſent to the written Word, as that into which their faith is ultimately reſolved, as the Scriptures abundantly teſtifie; and you can no more conclude from the ſtrangeneſſe of the originall Languages to thoſe that are illiterate, that illiterate perſons doe not build their faith upon the written Word contained in them, than that one who only underſtands the Engliſh tongue and receives a Letter from his Father in the French tongue (for the explaining whereof, the Father hath appointed an Interpreter) builds not his obedience ultimately upon the writing of his Father, though in a ſtrange tongue.

2. You endeavour to prove that the Scriptures are not the foundation of Religion, as in Tranſlations and Originalls, thus; If they be this foundation in both thoſe conſiderations, or as well in the one or the other, then two things or more, ſpecifically differing one from another, may notwithſtanding be one and the ſame numeriall thing,

You ſhould rather have laid your conſequence thus, Anſw. then … ſubject numerically the ſame may be the ſubject of accidents ſpecifically different; but you tell me of two ſuppoſitions upon which your conſequence ſtands.

1. That the foundation of Religion is but one and the ſame numerically.

2. That the Scriptures in ſeverall Languages differ ſpecifically among themſelues.

p. 57About the identy of the foundation numerically, I ſhall not contend; but how prove you your ſecond ſuppoſition? viz. That the Scriptures in ſeverall Languages differ ſpecifically, you indeavour it thus:

Two things (you ſay) which differ more than numerically, differ ſpecifically; Now an Hebrew and a Spaniſh Bible, differ more than numerically, becauſe they differ more than two Spaniſh or two Hebrew Bibles differ from one another, and yet theſe differ numerically the one from the other.

1. Had the Youngling Elder diſputed thus, how many exclamations, of poore man! illiterate ſoule! ſilly man! &c. would your tender heart have beſtowed upon him; but I ſhall not retaliate, for the Reader (if intelligent) I am confident will ſpare me a labour. Things (you ſay) that differ plusquam numero, do differ ſpecie. Should a freſh-man hear you reaſon thus. Mas & faemina differunt pluſquam numero, ergo differunt ſpecie, or a learned man and an ideot, differunt pluſquam numero ergo differunt ſpecie, they would laugh at your argument; the very boyes would judge you a profeſſor fitter for an alley than an Academye. Do not you grant that theſe differ ſpecie accidentali onelyonly; and will you conclude that therefore they differ ſpecifically.

2. You ſay, That though the difference betweene an Hebrew Bible and a Spaniſh is but in ſpecie accidentali, or ſpecificall accidentall, yet ſuch a difference as this is ſufficient to prove that they differ numerically. You give in already, and ſhew your ſelf but a founder'd diſputant, for what is this to your undertaking, which was to prove your ſecond ſuppoſition, viz. That they do differ ſpecifically and not numerically onelyonly, which was nothing to the ſecond ſuppoſition, page 37.

3. You contend that a Spaniſh Bible, a Latine, and an Engliſh, differ in ſpecie accidentali, or with a difference ſpecifical accidentall in regard of the ſpecifically different Languages wherein they were written. Ergo quid, how by all this prove you your aſſertion, which was; that the ſcriptures in their ſeverall Languages do differ ſpecifically; nay how prove you by the ſpecifical accidental d…fference of the Bibles, that the Scripture or the foundation is not the ſame numerically. The Languages I will grant differ ſpecifically, and the copies doe differ with a difference ſpecificall accidentall, but p. 58the Scripture the foundation of faith, the will of God revesled in writing, is numerically and identically the ſame. May not the ſame thing numerically be the ſubject of accidents ſpecifically different? The ſame man may (I ſpeak not of Maſter Goodwin) ſpeake Latine, Greek, and Hebrew. Theſe Languages differ ſpecifically, yet the man who ſpeaks them, is not multiplyed, but is numerically the ſame.Eſth. 3.12.8, 9.Esth 3:12Esth 3:8Esth 3:9 Ahaſhuerus ſent out a decree to the people of an hundred twenty and ſeven Provinces in ſevecall Languages, the Decree was one numerically, for he ſent not out many but onelyonly one Decree, though the Languages differed ſpecifically, and the Copies numerically, and ſpecie accidentali, in regard of the ſpecifically different Languages; and why may not the ſame be ſaid of the foundation of Religion. The Bibles and Copies wherein the foundation of Religion is contained differ ſpecifically accidentally, in regard of their ſpecifically different Languages, but the foundation of Religion, i. e. the revelation of the will of God in writing is numerically one and the ſame; ſo that your learned argument, That the Scriptures cannot be the foundation of Religion in ſeverall Languages, becauſe of the ſpecificall or at leaſt numericall difference of the Bibles, is vaine and childiſh.

We have ſeen your acumen in arguing, let us ſee what you can do in anſwering (ſo far as you go) of what you are pleaſed to pick out of Buſie Biſhop, againſt your opinion concerning the Scriptures.

You ſay but very little by way of anſwer; but in that little you wofully trifle; you ſtay not to anſwer the Scriptures I bring againſt you at all, nor do ſeriouſly indeavour ſatisfaction in any thing, onelyonly you propound two or three ſlight and impertinent quaeries againſt what I write, and ſo, as if you were lapping at Nilus, you haſtily and ſuperficially conclude.

I askt you in the Buſie Biſhop, Buſie Biſhop; p. 22.how any could beleeve the matter and ſubſtance of the Scriptures to be the Word of God, when as he must be uncertaine whether the written Word wherein the matter is contained, is the Word of God or no?

To this you anſwer by propounding theſe ignorant demands, whereof the firſt hath two branches.Yo. Eld. p. 39. &c.

1. Is not this a queſtion of the ſame profound calculation with this, how can a man beleeve the ſun is a greater and the moone a leſſer light if he be uncertaine whether every jot and tittle of what is read in p. 59our Bible, Gen. 1.16. be the Word of God or no? becauſe here it is ſaid, And God made two great lights, the greater, &c.

2. And afterwards. Do not the Scriptures affirme, That the heavens declare the glory of God, &c. and againe, That that which may be knowne of God, his inviſible things, his eternall power and Godhead, are clearely ſeene from the creation of the world; and that the Gentiles (without the written Word) ſhew the works of the Law written in their hearts?

In this demand which you put under two diſtinct heads, you expreſſe two groſſe miſtakes, unworthy a ſcholler, Anſw. though not unbeſeeming your ſelf.

1. In that you diſtinguiſh not betweene the matters of the Scripture to be beleeved, i. e. betweene thoſe things or objects which are communia, ſuch as may be knowe by the light of nature, and thoſe which are propria, ſuch as cannot be knowne but by the Revelation of the written Word; our queſtion was not concerning winter and ſummer, the greatneſſe of the Sun and Moon, &c. but concerning the Myſteries of faith.

For when you explaine your ſelf Sion Coll. viſited, and Divine Auth. pag. 17. what you meant by the matter, ſubſtance, precious counſels of the Scripture, did you make any mention of the ſun and moone, the winter and ſummer; did you not ſay you meant ſuch truths as theſe? That Chriſt was God and man, That Chriſt dyed, That he aroſe againe, &c. Now can you know theſe without a written Word, though you may the greatneſſe of the ſun above that of the Moone?

Your ſecond groſſe miſtake in propounding this demand, is, in that you diſtinguiſh not betweene an intellectuall habit, knowledge, and a divine grace, faith; the ground of the one being reaſon, the ground of the other being divine teſtimony. Or in that you diſtinguiſh not between fides divina, or theologica, and fides naturalis & acquiſita, acquired by humane reaſons, or by the authority of man; it was of the former that I diſputed, and now you learnedly (ut ſoles) fly to the latter. When you ſay, That without the written Word you can beleeve the greatneſſe of the Sun above that of the Moon, Can you beleeve this with a divine faith, without a written Word? Quaevis propoſitio phyſica, aſtrologica, hiſtorica fit objectum fidei, ſi à deo in Scripturis nobis propanatur, p. 60Davevant, p. 12.Scriptura, & fides noſtra ſunt aequalis latitudinis, fides nec plus nec minus debet amplecti quàm eſt in Scriptura revelatum. Geth. Exeg. p. 169. de judice fidei, Then (ſaith he) is any Phyſicall, Aſtrologicall, Hiſtoricall propoſition, the object of faith when it is propounded to us by God in the Scriptures; and page 149. Formalis ratio credendi, eſt authoritas dei revelantis. You may alſo ſay, That without a written Word you beleeve that the worlds were framed by God, but can you beleeve this with a divine faith, unleſſe you had a written word for it? Theſe things haply you may know, and by a naturall or acquired faith, but not by a divine faith, beleeve, unleſſe written, quod non lego, non credo.

Your ſecond profound demand is: If it be impoſſible for me to beleeve that the matter and ſubſtance of the Scripture is the Word of God, becauſe I am uncertaine whether the written Word be the word of God or no, how came the Patriarchs to beleeve it, who lived the firſt two thouſand yeeres of the world, ſince it was uncertaine to them whether the word ſhould ever be written? The ſame way to bring me to beleeve what they believed is open to the glorious God.

Thoſe things that the Patriarchs beleeved, Anſw. they had from and by divine revelation, and though the written word was not needfull to them for the grounding their faith upon the things beleeved, God then immediately manifeſting himſelfe to them without it, as even now I told you, yet the like cannot be ſaid of us who live under a different diſpenſation. Vid. Riv. Cath. Orth. T. 1. Q. 1. VVhitak. Chamier, &c.

This was the ſubſtance of your firſt argument, Yo. Eld. p. 32. I muſt ſend you back for anſwer: The ſame way to bring you to beleeve, may be open by Gods power, but it is not his pleaſure to open it.

3. You ſay, The nature, beauty, worth, weight, &c. of the matters and ſubſtance of the Scripture is ſufficient to bring men to believe that they are things which came from God, though they had not the ſuper-added advantage of any thing in the Scripture as writing.

It was great pitty that you were not conſulted withall to give your judgement concerning the moſt advantagious way of bringing men to believe; Anſw. why inſtead of inventing new grounds of faith, ſubmit you not to the old? Its no matter what ſuch a poore creature as your ſelf ſay, when you tell us what is the moſt ſufficient way to bring men to beleeve, when as I ſee that the p. 61wiſe God was pleaſed not onelyonly to have the matters committed to writing, but alſo to tell us (notwithſtanding the weight of the matter) that the end of that writing was that men might beleeve thoſe matters, Theſe things are written that ye might beleeve, Job. 21. and 1 Jo. 5.13. why rather did not the Evangeliſt ſay, Theſe things are ſo weighty, ſo worthy, ſo beautifull, that therefore you have reaſon to beleeve them.

2. The moſt weighty worthy matter that ever was beleeved, had it onelyonly been beleeved for its owne weight and worth, and not as revealed by God, and becauſe God manifeſted it, had not been beleeved with a divine faith. 'Tis not the worth of the thing but the Authority of the Speaker that is the ground of a mans faith: Nor doe I underſtand how the worth and beauty of any thing can be ſaid to bring men to beleeve that thing, they may indeed bring a man to deſire it, and to long to enjoy it; there's required to faith not a worth and a beauty in the thing revealed, but truth ln the revelatien; the object of aſſent is not pulchrum; but verum, not the beauty of the thing ſpoken, but the veracity of the ſpeaker. Be the thing never ſo good, yet I beleeve not (ſaith learned Downame) unleſſe I be perſwaded it is true, p. 355. Treat. of juſtification.

3. He that aſſents not to the Scriptures as revealed by God, cannot aſſent unto the beauty of the matters contained in the Scriptures. There's nothing revealed in the Scripture will ſeeme truly beautifull and worthy to that man that beleeves not the authority of the Revealer. If the written word be entertained, and received as (ſaith the apoſtle) as the word of man, the moſt beautifull and worthy matters in the Scripture will be ſo far from being beleeved, that they will be profanely neglected. When as the excellenteſt matters were preached to the Jewes by Chriſt, how were they contemned, in regard that they were not lookt upon as the minde of God, but rather on the contrary.

To conclude my Anſwer to this profane conceit of yours, ſhould this beauty, worth, weight, &c. of the matters contained in the Scripture be admitted as the ground of beleeving them, I would know by what rule we ſhould judge of this their beauty, worth, weight, &c. or what it is when their beauty is impugned by hereticks (as you know that the gloriouſly beautifull truth of p. 62the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, ſo beautifull that its worthy of all acceptation, is by Socinus accounted the moſt deformed and unrighteous conceit that can be. What is it (I ſay) in ſuch caſes by which I ſhould groundedly account the truth of God beautifull? you muſt here denying the written Word, make any mans judgement and reaſon to be the rule of the beauty and worth of the matters of the Scriptures, every one muſt eſteeme of truth, and believe them, as reaſon dictates and tels them they are beautifull, and then Mr. Goodwins Socinian deſigne is perfectly accompliſht. And there are who ſtick not to ſay, That all the clamourous outcries of your tongue and pen intend nothing but the advancing the Diana of recta ratio inſtead of Scripture.

Yet againe you querie (though to no purpoſe,Yo. Eld. p. 40. yet) to this effect: Doth not (ſay you) the Scripture affirme that the foreign, the goodneſſe of God leadeth to repentance? Rom. 2.4. Which repentance cannot be without beleeving of the matters of the Scripture, as that upon repentance God will be gracious and accept men into favour, and forgive their ſinnes; now this goodneſſe of God, leading to this repentance, is extended to many, who are uncertaine whether the written word be the Word of God or no.

1. Anſw. This is a paſſage of the ſame prophane calculation with that in Divine Auth. where you ſaid,pag. 182. That the Heathens who only have the Heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, to preach the Goſpell unto them, have reaſon ſufficient to judge the ſame judgement with them who have the Letter of the Goſpell. Which in Buſie Biſhop was diſproved; to which in this booke you reply nothing, but new braze your face and ſay the ſame things againe.

2. From this place Rom. 2.4. that Gods goodneſſe leads to repentance, followes it that Heathens who onelyonly were invited by the generall goodneſſe of God in the governing of the world, beleeved that God would be gracious unto them,Spanhem de grat. univerſ. pag. 1291. and forgive them their ſinnes in Chriſt the Mediator? followes it that all invitation to repentance is invitation to a Redeemer, and to beleeving, and that rain from Heaven and fruitfull ſeaſons did afford ſuch an invitation? There's a repentance which is not ſaving, and true and internall, but externa & diſciplinaris, which conſiſteth in meere abſtinence from outwardly vicious acts, and in the contrary practice of actions civilly and morally honeſt. And 2. there's an invitation p. 63to repentance, which is ſimpliciter imperativa and exactiva officii, (as Spanhemius ſaith) which ſimply commands and exacts, that duty which man owes to God, which requiring of repentance leads not more to a Redeemer, than the requiring of that debt did lead the ſervant in the Goſpell to a ſurety. And 3. how could the Gentiles be lead to true and ſaving repentance by the outward benefits they enjoyed, who thought that they received them from Jupiter and Juno and ſuch Idols, and that all that repentance which thoſe Idol-Deities required from them, did conſiſt in idolatrous worſhips, and ſacrifices and ſervices? Theſe of whom the Apoſtle ſpeakes, could not rightly think of God, who only could pardon them, nor of the duty of repentance they owed to this God without a ſuperiou… illumination, far excelling that which is by the common goodneſſe of God in the government of the world; you wofully blunder therefore in affirming that the heathens beleeved the matters of the Scripture being deſtitute of the written Word.

Briefly thus; you ſay, The goodneſſe of God beſtowed upon the Gentiles who were deſtitute of the written word, led them to a true and ſound repentance, and to a knowledge, that upon that repentance God would be gracious unto them and forgive them their ſins; I deſire in your next, your ſo frequently promiſed undertaking (if at leaſt we be not put off, as ever yet we have been, with a mouſe inſtead of a mountaine) you would tell us whether a true and ſound repentance and a knowledge that God will be gracious in the forgiveneſſe of ſins, were ever (yet) wrought in any without the knowledge of Chriſt Jeſus, and whether the generall goodneſſe of God put forth in the government of the world did ever manifeſt Chriſt Jeſus to the Gentiles; ſure I am the Apoſtle tels the Epheſians, Eph. 2.12. That they were formerly without Chriſt, having no hope, and without God in the world; and the times wherein the Gentiles were deſtitute of the Goſpell are called the times of ignorance, to which he directly oppoſeth the time in which now God commandeth all men every where to repent, Act. 17.30. I ſhall onelyonly adviſe you to learn of reverend**Nemo poteſt vel minimum guſtum rectae ſanae que doctrinae percipere, niſi qui ſcripturae fuerit diſcipulus. Palam eſt Deum erga eos omnes quos unquam erudire cum fructu voluit, ſubſidium verbi adhibuiſſe quòd effigiem ſuam in mundi formâ impreſſam parum eſſe efficacem provideret-Significat propheta, Pſ. 19. quum fruſtra Deus omnes populos ad ſe invitet caeli terrae que in tuitu, legem eſſe peculiarem filiorum Dei ſcholam Cùm humana mens pro ſuâ inbecilitate pervenire ad Deum nullo modo queat, niſi ſacro ejus verbo adjuta & ſublevata omnes tunc mortales, exceptis judaeis, quia Deum ſine verbo quaerebant, neceſſe fuit in vanitate, at que errore verſari. Calv. Inſtit. c. 6. l. 1.Ps 19 Calvin, Inſtit. l. 1. c. 6. No p. 64man, ſaith he, can have the leaſt taſte of ſound Doctrine, but he that is taught by the Scripture. And againe, God hath beſtowed upon all thoſe whom he ever taught with benefit, the help of his Word, in regard that the effigies of himſelf imprinted upon the world, he foreſaw could not be effectuall. And again, Quum fruſtra Deus, &c. Since God did ineffectually invite to himſelf all people by the ſight of the Heav…n and Earth, the Law is the peculiar ſ…hoole of his ſons. Once more heare that excellent man, Since the minde of man, in regard of its weakneſſe, could no wayes come unto God, unleſſe helped and relieved by his b…ly Word, all men who ſought God without his Word, were neceſſarily occupied in vanity and errour: The Gentiles could not have beleeved this propoſition (ſaith Davenant) Chriſt hath reconciled us to God by his death, unleſſe it had been revealed to them by the preaching of the Apoſtles.

To conclude this firſt queſtion,Gentes huic propoſitio…i, Chriſtus morte ſuâ nos reconciliavit Deo, non potuerunt fidem adhibere niſi ea per praedicationem Apoſtolorum fuiſſet illis revelata, p. 149 de jud. & nor. fid. I deſire the Reader to obſerve that this Dotard, who would be accounted the great aſſertor of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, doth when he ſtates the queſtion borrow of the Papiſts their blaſphemies, cals the Written Word ink and paper, as Ecchius, Pighius, and others; and when he diſputes againſt the Scriptures, he goeth downe to theſe Philiſtims to ſharpen his axe, and is beholding to Papiſts and Jeſuites for moſt of his arguments. This the Reader may ſee in this brief parallel which I have added with an intimation of ſome learned Proteſtants who have confuted them; that he may not ſay in his next, It is no matter whoſe the argument is, but who hath anſwered it?

Maſter Goodwin.

YO. Eld. p. 32. Arg. 1. Religion was founded, built, ſtood firme and ſtable in the world before the Scriptures were, Div. Auth. pag. 10. Moſes is generally acknowledged by us to be the firſt pen-man of the p. 65Scriptures, or the Word of God, and that the world had continued more than 2000 yeeres before he was borne; but to affirme that there was no word of God in the world, no foundation of Religion, for the ſpace of 2000 yeers is to contradict what is plainly written.

Youn. Eld. page 31. if the Scriptures be the only foundation in point of manifeſtation, how came all the pen-men of the Scriptures, by the knowledge they had of God, and of Chriſt, and of Religion, did they ground their knowledge of theſe upon the Scriptures, whileſt as yet they were not.

Yo. Eld. p. 33. Arg. 2. All bookes whatſoever are periſhable, may be burnt, miſcarry by many caſualties, Argu. 5. p. 66It is very poſſible, that either through negligence ignorance, of Scribes, and correctors of the preſſe, ſome ſuch errour may be found in every copy now extant in the world, which will render this Copy contradictious to it ſelf. Arg. 7. Experience teacheth us that the Books and Bibles themſelves, are de facto, altered by men from time to time.

Arg. 8. If Mr. Jenkin will ſay, That the Scriptures are the foundation of Religion, only as they are in the Originals, then they who underſtand not theſe languages, cannot build (at leaſt with underſtanding) upon this foundation, and conſequently can never bee truly religious, Divine Auth. pag. 19.

I ſuppoſe it is no foundation p. 67of faith to believe that the Engliſh Scriptures are the word of God; God ſpake not to his Prophess or Apoſtles in Engliſh, nor doth our Engliſh Tranſlation agree in all things with the true ſence and meaning of the Originals, Hagiom. pag, 37. ſect. 28.

p. 64The Papiſts agreeing with him.

BEllarminus de verbo Dei, l. 4. c. 4. Ab Adam uſ que ad Moſen, fuit Eccleſia dei aliqua in mundo, & colebant homines deum fide, &c. at nulla fuit ſcriptura ante Mofen. There was a Church in the world from Adam p. 65to Moſes, and men worſhipped God, but there was no Scripture before Moſes, &c.

Vid. etiam Bailium. Jeſuitam in ſua catech…ſi, Ecc. Enchirid T. 2. Trip. Cord. p. 156 before Moſes who firſt wrote, the Church continued 2000 yeeres. Fuit aſſenſus fidei antequam eſſet Scriptura, Turnb. Tetrag.

1 Turnbul Jeſuita Tetrag. c. 10. Ipſi ſcriptores canonici prius fuerunt divinitus edocti ſcribenda, quàm ſcriberent alioque proinde ſigno Deum fuiſſe dictatorem ſcribendorum.

The pen-men of the Scriptures, were taught by God the things that were to be wrote before they worte them, and therefore by ſome other ſigne than the written Word, God did dictate to them what they were to write.

Jac. Tiri. Ieſ. Syn. Contr. ex ſer. Textum bibliorum hebraicum non paucis in locis depravatum eſſe, partim injuria temporum, partim p. 66inſcitià vel oſeitantia typogra, horum, &c. ſuis hinc inde locis oſtendi. The Hebrew Text of the Bibles are corrupted and depraved, partly by the injury of times, partly by the ignorance and idleneſſe of printers, &c. vid. etiam Stapleton. Relect. princ. fid. doct. contr. 5. q. 3. act. 1.2. valent. in Thom. Tom. 3. Diſp. 1. q. 1.

Turnbul. Tetrag. c 5. ſect. 2. Scriptura immediate ſpectata, eſt idonea tantum regula literatis nec uſui eſſe poteſt illiteratis, &c. The Scripture conſidered immediately, is onelyonly 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. p. 67Theſe 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.

p. 64Proteſt. Writers confuting them both.

Chamierius Panſtr. t. 1. l. 7. c. 7. Rivet. Cath. or. Trac. 1. q. 1.

p. 65Gerrand Exeg. pag. 16. Whitak de Script.

Baronius Apol. pr. object. formali fidei tr. 4. p. 155.

p. 66Mareſitheol. 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.

p. 67Dr. 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.