mischance was that in a certain controversy betwixt St. Austin and him he mistook at first St. Austins meaning from whence this charitable Interpreter suspects he never delt any better with others and after the sentence so impudently pronounc'd rely's upon this bare suspition as a sufficient evidence Then he proceeds to another game he plays very much at call'd calumny and charges the same Father first about Gods knowing smal things but it is apparent out of the very citation that St. Hieroms intention is not of speculative knowledg but particular providence of which St. Paul said nunquid Deo cura est de bobus His second instance contradicts his former For it is that Saints are everywhere which is spoken of their knowledg not corporal presence Christ by whose company they are pretended to be everywhere being so by his sight and knowledg not by his presence corporally Which this Friend saw was contrary to the former yet would not make use of it to reconcile but aggravate the errours Thirdly he accuses him to say that the Souls of the blessed Saints and Angels are subject to sin but cites not a syllable except for Angels which so express'd is an undenyable truth being no more then that Angels by envy became Divels But his irreconcilable quarrel is against marriage and what St. Hierom writes of Ladies respects to their families that they did not marry the second time he interprets as intended against marriage it self I confess as concerning the act of marriage or appetite to it he says more what is true then perhaps what is convenient to be spoken before Persons that should not be dehorted from a thing so necessary in divers cases wherin the temperance not use is honourable He goes on and now charges this old severe Father with a scandalous doctrin indeed an intolerable heresy wherin all true Reform'd stomacks are fundamentally concern'd for he accuses him to say in express terms that eating of flesh a most wholsome custome was abolish'd by Jesus Christ but citing neither words nor place and afterward drawing it in by a fals consequence makes me suspect it is an arrant forgery Again he accuses him of saying oaths were unlawful but in truth the words of the very Scripture are harder then St. Hieroms The next errour is that he thought the validity of consecration depended on the sanctity of the Priest but his words are so common they easily receive explication Again he is offended with him for denying faintly that the blessed eat in Heaven Lastly he accuses him of abusing St. Paul and first of contradicting him about the inscription of the Athenian Altar because he says there was more in the inscription then the Apostle mention'd Secondly that he said he understood more then he could explicate Thirdly that to the Galathians he spake ordinary discourses because they were not capable of higher Of these three the first had no harm in it since all the Evangelists do not cite the whole title of our Saviours Cross the two latter Dignify a great commendation of St. Paul among wise men and such as understand there is any other learning besides well speaking I must not pass without one word of Ruffinus too because our Reformers account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the Council of Nice touching the Popes authority And this great Patron of theirs cals him an arrant wooden Statue A pitiful thing One that had scarce any reaon in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Must not then what is grounded upon his property and excellency of language be a perfect foundation for a point of faith By these you may guess how he has dealt with others which were too long to examin Approaching to the end of his Chapter he specify's some errours unanimously held by a just number of the Fathers First that of the Chiliasts an objection already answered in the former part of this discourse The second is the reservation of souls from heaven till the day of Judgment which is refuted in a little Treatise entitled De medio animarum statu The third concerns rebaptization of Heteticks which also is cleared above only I cannot forget how he would insinuate that St. Basil held it after the decision of the Council of Nice but his mincing the matter by saying in a manner shews it is only a largess of his good will and not any evidence he brings Next he urges fiercly a point of Chronology and then the Angels having bodies and after that the Angels falling in love with women three points not very material Then again he repeats the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants but brings in rather testimonies of the practice which is not in question then of the necessity which is And lastly that all the Greek Fathers and a great part of the Latins held Gods foresight of mens good and bad works to be the cause of predestination but his authority depending only on modern Writers saying so whose diligence in examining their meanings is not known it might as wisely have been omitted In this next Chapter he intends to prove that some Fathers have strongly maintain'd against others some opinions in matters of very great importance which is but one half of what follows from or rather is directly contain'd in the conclusion of the former Chapter and therfore not denyed by us nor useful to him which was the cause why he would not there add though the place were very proper that they defended such opinions against the whole current of others and of the Church But to make a seeming new argument he left out this and exprest himself generally like a true deceiver that some defended against others and to give his discours the better relish he begins his antipast with calumniating Bessarion making him say that the Fathers opinions never clash one against another touching the points of our Religion for a Person so learned could not be ignorant that some errour might be found in a Father against the cōmon consent of the rest But his meaning was that not so many could dissent as were able to make a party against the general agreeing judgment of the rest neither does our Informer seek to prove the contrary In his first instance if he had put in that Justin Irenaeus and Tertullian had held the Millenary Heresy against the communalty of Christians of their Age he had ruin'd his own proof which nevertheless he might have done out of Justinus as is declared and indeed was obliged to do if he intended to proceed pertinently But what should I pain my self in a question not controverted Only I cannot omit a subtlety he uses against St. Cyril and Theodoret. St. Cyril had said The Holy Ghost was proper to the Son Theodoret distinguishes his words saying if he means by proper proceeding as well as the Son or of the same nature so he allows the saying but if he means that he
captivity first of the ten then of the two other Tribes very little mention of any such Magistrate much less evidence of a perfect continuance How far then are we from having any certainty of a doctrin's succession by them of whom 't is very obscure whither any such persons were or no A third objection is collected from the natural proness in Mankind to conserve Tradition by which they intend to shew Religion is corrupted Wherin you may note the force of wit and Logick to draw arguments against a truth even out of these very causes which are made to conserve the truth impugned The arguments are three First that divers Fathers for zeal to the received doctrin were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes which new is an ocular certainty That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrin I willingly grant but that it was for zeal to Religion and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy I am not satisfy'd nor does the Author bring any proof I remember they object as absurd that men should stand feet to feet I remember they conceit those under us would fal into heaven for the rest some places of Scripture are alledg'd so that not our of zeal to Tradition but through misunderstanding the Scripture they fel into this errour Yet I deny not there may perhaps be some argument out of Religion as men confirm their opinions from all they can The second proof I imagin touches the History of Virgilius who for a like opinion is reported to have lost his Bishoprick But 't is a mistake for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charg'd with this errour That he held there was another Sun and Moon belonging to the hemisphere opposite to us and a new world nor is it certain whether truly he thought so or recanted or was falsly accus'd but wel known he was afterward made Bishop and lived and dyed with opinion of sanctity But though the two first proofs are slender the third wil require more strength to resist it and therfore 't is especially recommended to the Reader to look on the place it being in a Council and our own proper confession and so apparently strong and altogether insoluble if the Author be inexpugnabilis Dialecticus as well as St. Augustine in his Burlesque phrase Thus then begins this Onset which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength I wil also desire you says he to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council set out by Binius and there you wil find that the Latins confess they added to the Creed the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son because the contrary opinion seem'd to them by consequence opposite to a confes'd Tradition of Christs eternal Divinity which yet appears by what Cardinal Perron has excellently shown not to be contradictory to Faith but that this consequence was ill drawn which may have been in other points too and so have brought in no smal number of errours since neither was their Logick certain to conclude better nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Thus far the charge And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request as wil I hope appear by my answer if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron with whom I do not engage nor need I since the Council has age and can speak for it self As also by the way note that since the addition of Filióque which was about the year 440 in St. Leo's time there has not any tittle been added to the Churches Creed though very many Heresies have been condemn'd So that the Objector is forward in his assertions without seconding them with solid proofs To come now to the Combate I doubt much he who was so sollicitous to have me look into the Council was not so careful as to cast an eye upon it himself Else he would have found the question had not been of adding the words Filióque or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the using them the adding having been for the controversy with Photius the using for the expression of our belief which the Council says consists in two points First that the Divinity is the same in all the three Persons that is there is not three Divinities in three Persons nor yet one Divinity from which the Persons or Personalities be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second that none should have any cause to suspect the holy Ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the insufficiency of the consequence which he says Cardinal Perron demonstrates is not to our purpose no such inference appearing in the Council the Latins or Roman Church only professing that if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son as one principium or cause then the Divinity were divided in the Father and Son and by consequence in the Holy Ghost too and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council speaks Whence we may see the Opponent mistook the whole case there being no question of the cause of adding but of what was express'd nor any dispute of Christs Divinity but of the Vnity of the Divinity with the Persons and in it self Nor any drawing of consequences but an expression of Catholick doctrin nor any supposed errour but a truth confess'd both by Protestants and us and finally the words are said to be used to express this point that He proceeds from the Son and not question'd why the opinion is held that He proceeds from the Son which is far different from what we now contend about There is another objection and Cardinal Perron made the Author as having reported out of Isidore that the Jews complotted together to abolish the book of Wisdom because it spake too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself wil not avouch because it would rank the Book by him pretended to be Apocryphal too high yet though it be acknowledg'd fals he conceives it strong enough against us because it shews such a thing might be done Let us poize a little the weight of this Argument It might have been done therfore your Tradition may fail you First I demand how you prove it might have been done because Isidore said it was done The Spanish Conquerors when first they enter'd the miracles of the Western World reported They climb'd up great hils in the Sea Therfore was it possible They talk't much of waters which restor'd Youth Therfore it is credible But Isidore's authority convinces this If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil somthing were said But 't is Isidore surnamed Mercator one that collects and patches together truths and falsities almost indifferently at least our men spare not to reject him in matters of great moment Thus the bare possibility that it might have been done is not it self yet sufficiently prov'd But let us pass that and without much straining our
whether it be foretold the people or no saving that to conceal the wrong is a more wicked and destructive piece of cunning Another consideration is that in practical things more probability approaches to certainty and by multiplication contingencie at last begets perfect Necessity but in speculation not so For as there is more probability to throw seven upon two dice in forty trials then in foure so in five hundred most certainly that cannot fail to be the cast the reason is because the number of casting so exceeds the variety of chances that it makes first a difficulty and after an impossibility of missing Now in speculation if no particular cause precisely compel and determine the effect variety can prevail nothing so that rigorously speaking a conclusion is no neerer being true for a hundred unconvincing Arguments then for one whence it follows where there is no demonstration neither Opinion is securely the better He therfore that pretends the introduction of a change in a speculative point ought either to promise evidence and conviction or else content himself with silence for 't is absurd to move any one to change his assent I speak not here of a practicall resolution without promising him some abetterment Lastly as far as I can penetrate he that has a changeable and uncertain Religion has none at all For I conceive a Religion as we now discourse of it is the knowledge by which we are to guide our selves in our way and progress towards eternal felicity so that if the Religion any one professes be not the true he cannot by its principles perform what is requisite to the gaining of that end Neither is any knowledge which such a Probablist has the right and proper means of cultivating his soul in order to future happiness and therfore it is as impossâ—ble an untrue Religion should lead to Heaven as a fals way to London Now if a Religion that is not true be no Religion he that doubts whether he has the true is in doubt whether he has any Religion or none and he that pretends no farther then to doubt about Religion pretends not to know he has any but the act of knowing cannot be had if he that has it does not know he has it therfore he that pretends not to know he has a Religion confesses himself to have none The same is clear in practice For suppose an Apothecary had compos'd a drug for his Patient but being incertain whether to administer it like a potion or a glister should sometimes give it one way sometimes the other or a Guide having undertaken to conduct a Stranger thorow some untroden Wildernes for want of assurance which way to take should lead him up and down as in a Maze first to the left hand then to the right were not these excellent Masters in their crafts and worthy of continual imployment but with this condition that they practised their Arts upon none but one another Then if Religion be the knowledge of conducting our souls to heaven is not he like to make good speed that acknowledges himself incertain of the way who to day marches forwards and to morrow goes as much backward to day confesses and adores Christ in the Eucharist to morrow blasphemes him and damns all that adore him to day prays to Saints bears respect to a Crucifix and a compassion to the dead to morrow cries out against all as Idolatry Superstition and meer inventions of lucre Still there remains with me one other scruple about this point Divers great Brains have undertaken the commendations of things which mankind is so far from delighting in that very few can endure them this aversion rising out of a judgement not taken up by humour but taught by nature which justly abhors all that diminishes or destroys its being as Blindness Folly Sickness and the like and contrived many perswasive forms and witty inducements to invegle their Auditory into an evident absurdity Others we find who by whole Sects maintain'd that all propositions were indifferent and their practice was of every subject to speak copiously and plausibly on both sides and this in good earnest out of a setled belief that they could make which side they pleasd the more probable I ask then whether the probability either of these two sorts of wits bring for their paradoxes be sufficient to chuse a point in Religion If you say I What imports it in any point which part you take that is whether you have any Religion or none If you say no what means do you prescribe us to know when a probability is great enough or who 's he that is able to judge the degrees of probability when they are sufficient and when not Peradventure you may say In the first case the evidence of nature shews their probability to be clearly absurd and I could answer why may not Nature sometimes be deceiv'd as Anaxagoras would perswade us when he maintain'd Snow was black but I need not 'T is enough to remember The questions of Religion are concerning actions whose effects appear not to us and yet ordinarily the effects are the chief means to frame arguments and produce certainty in practice that the cause is right 'T is enough to remember eternall blisse belongs to the next world and the Mysterys we dispute are such as the Son of God only has seen and brought us tydings of But what wil you say to the second sort of disputers who equall all probabilities and are men against whose eloquence erudition and prudence in other things you cannot except To all this I can yet add one plain but very confiderable reflexion that certainly to prove any position those wild capricious Brains cannot find weaker places for their arguments then a mute ambiguous dead writing not quickned with reason and discourse which yet is the boasted ground of all that renounce the infallibility of the Church in matters of supernaturall belief THE SIXTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture THe case thus stated we have won the field If I have err'd in framing the question let them correct it with these two conditions that they propose it so as to leave themselves a Relâ—gion and different from ours for unless both these subsist the quarrel betwixt us is at an end But if I have rightly exprest the point in controversie let them bring one place of Scripture that comes home to the question and carry the Bays Their position must include these two branches That Scripture is intended for a ground to decide Controversies in such a contentious way as I have set down and sufficient to perform this charge For the former I dare confidently affirm there is not in the whole Bible an expression so much as glances towards it And though the second includes the first and can have no verity nor subsistence without it yet since there are some who discovering not the first can perswade themselves they finde the second we wil