Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	article_n	believe_v	creed_n	2,820	5	10.5298	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30977	The genuine remains of that learned prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln containing divers discourses theological, philosophical, historical, &c., in letters to several persons of honour and quality : to which is added the resolution of many abstruse points published from Dr. Barlow's original papers.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1693 (1693)	Wing B832; ESTC R3532	293,515	707

Art Octavo Creed wherein we say and should believe that there is but one Eternal And if we had no Scripture yet Nature and the undoubted principles of our natural Reason tell us and efficaciously demonstrate that there can be but one Eternal For whatever is eternal of it self and without all beginning must of necessity be infinite for nothing can give finitude or bounds to it self and whatever is eternal cannot possibly have any thing before it to give it bounds and 't is more impossible that what is after it and temporal should give bounds to an Eternal Being so that if those Atoms be Eternal and Infinite as they must be if they be Eternal then they must be so many Deities or Gods for nothing but God can be Eternal and Infinite and then consider how many Gods we shall have even as many as there are of those Atomes Now he tells us p. 124. that perhaps a * In minimo corpusculo continentur multae Atomorum Myriades vid. Philosophiam Epicuri per Gassendum cap. 6. p. 39. Edit Londini Anno. 1660. Million of those Atomes do not make one corpusculum or visible body and then how many Millions must go to make up all the Corpuscula and corpora in the World will be a hard work for him or any body else to number He then who saith those Atomes are Eternal brings in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a multiplicity of Gods and so denies the onely true God for more than one true God there cannot be 2. He says those Atomes have magnitude and motion pag. 17 18. which no Eternal and infinite thing is capable of as (b) Aristotle Metaphysicorum lib. 14. cap. 6. Natural Auscult lib. 8. cap. 15. Aristotle from natural principles has evidently proved But if he say and nothing else can be said that these Atomes are Temporary and had a beginning I ask when and by whom did they begin 1. It is said by him p. 17. that they were the FIRST MATTER of the World Ergo they must be before the World as the matter of an House must be before a House can be made of it but if Moses say true Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth c no mention of Atomes Heaven and Earth were created says Moses and all Jews and Christians say that was ex nihilo non ex Atomis aut materià ullâ praexistenti Sed apage nugas quae Christianum Philosophum non sapiunt sed Atheum aut Epicurum qui creationem ne virtute quidam divinâ (c) Vid. notam Gassendi ad calcem cap. 5. Syntagmatis Philosophiae Epicuri pag. 37. supra citat possibilem esse negabat sunt Apinae tricaeque si quid vilius istis quas referre pudet piget refellere I am troubled nor can I without some sorrow and impatience speak or think of it to see the Scepticism to say no worse which now securely reigns in our miserable Nation while some dare profess and publish irrational and wild Notions in Philosophy and Divinity too to the great prejudice of our Church and Truth and gratification of our adversaries especially those of the Roman faction whose work we foolishly do for them quod Ithacus Velit and without hope of reward or thanks ruine our selves gratis whilst others by Authority and Duty oblig'd to suppress such opinions and punish their Authors betray their trust and truth and either knowingly License which I am loath to think or negligently permit such Apocryphal and Erroneous positions to be publish'd in veritatis damnum Ecclesiae Anglicanae scandalum God Almighty be merciful to this bleeding Church and Nation and to every true Member of either of them to your self and Sir Your faithful Servant T. B Another Letter to Sir J. B. Sir I received yours and return a thousand thanks I am glad that neither you nor that excellent person to whom you did innocently and prudently communicate what sub sigillo I communicated to you do condemn my censure of the Book I mention'd I confess I am and a long time have been not a little troubled to see Protestants nay Clergy-men and Bishops approve and propagate that which they miscall New-Philosophy so that our Universities begin to be infected with it little considering the Cause or Consequences of it or how it tends evidently to the advantage of Rome and the ruine of our Religion 1. It is certain this New-Philosophy as they call it was set on foot and has been carried on by the Arts of Rome and those (a) Vid. Juramentum Professionis fidei which all her Ecclesiasticks take in Concilio Trident Sess 24. De Reformatione in calce cap. 12. whose Oath and Interest it is to maintain all her superstitions Campanella de Monarchia Hispaniae I have lent out my Book and cannot cite you the page gives this advice to the King of Spain to give large stipends to some persons of great parts and wit who may in Flanders propagate some new opinions in Philosophy tells him that the Hereticks such as you and I he means are greedy of novelty and will be apt to receive such New opinions in Philosophy whence divisions and new opinions in Divinity will arise By which divisions so set on foot and well managed the Hereticks may with much more ease be rooted out and ruin'd Since which time Papists especially the Jesuites have promoted this New-Philosophy and their new design to ruine us by it for the great Writers and Promoters of it are of the Roman Religion such as Des Cartes Gassendus Du Hamel Maurus Mersennus De Mellos c. and what divisions this new Philosophy has caused amongst Protestants in Holland and England cannot be unknown to any considering person When I was though unworthy Library-Keeper and seeing the Jesuites and Popish party cry up their New-Philosophy I did by friends send to Paris Venice Florence Rome Alcala de Henares Academia Complutensis in Spain c. to inquire whether the Jesuites in their Colledges train'd up their young men in the New-Philosophy or whether in all their Disputations they kept them to strict form and Aristotle's way of ratiocination and the return I had from all places was That none were more strict than they in keeping all their young men to the old principles and forms of Disputation For they well know that all their School-men Casuists and Controversy-Writers have so mix'd Aristotle's Philosophy with their Divinity that he who has not a comprehension of Aristotles Principles and the use of them in all Scholastick Disputes and Controversies of Religion will never be able rationally to defend or confute any controverted position in the Roman or Reformed Religion Now while they keep close to the old way of disputing on the old received Principles if they can persuade us to spend our time about novel Whimsies and not well understood Experiments and neglect the severer Studies of the old Philosophy and Scholastical

necessarily presupposes and to believe that there is a God because God said so whose existence is in the mean time call'd in question were ridiculous Answ I. Tho' the Existence of God be an Article of Faith yet it may likewise be known by Natural light since there are many things in the Scriptures which we believe by Faith that can be demonstrated by natural light such as these known Principles that God is to be honoured Parents obeyed c. And the Reason is because Faith and Natural Scientifick Knowledge do not formally differ in their material Object for both may have one and the same Object viz. one and the same proposition both proved by natural demonstration and believed in by Faith because of the testimony of God but the main and principle difference lies in that which they call Objectum formale and the formality of the Object is taken from the principal Motive or mean by vertue whereof the proposition comes to gain an assent as in Natural things the motive of my assent is evident demonstration and in supernatural things the testimony of God so that I may assent unto a proposition that is demonstrable by natural light because of the clear probation of the same and this is call'd assensus scientificus and if God confirm it by Revelation I assent unto the same proposition because of the testimony of God and this is called assensus fidei or supernaturalis not as if the proposition it self were supernatural incomprehensible by natural light but because the medium or motive upon which I ground my assent unto it is supernatural So that one and the same proposition may be in ordine ad diversa motiva both the object of Faith and of a demonstrative Natural knowledge Instatur The Object of Faith is inevident for Faith is an inevident assent But if the Existence of God can be demonstratively proved by Natural Light then it cannot be inevident Ergo c. Answ There be three things to be considered in giving an assent to a truth 1. Firmitas or the stedfastness of the person in his belief not doubting of any thing 2. Certitudo or the certainty of the truth it self for some Men may be firmly perswaded of a thing which is not in it self a certain truth as the Hereticks are of their Errours 3. Evidentia or a demonstrative perspicuous manifestation of the truth For many things such as matters of Faith are certainly true and Men are firmly persuaded of their truth who yet cannot evidently shew and demonstrate that it is a truth because they believe upon the Testimony of another And of these truths that are evident some are more evident than others as the prima principia or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more evident than the other conclusions that are deduced tho' with evidence too by a longer series of consequences Now whatever is an Object of Faith is indeed ine●●●ent yet there are some things more inevident than others such as the principal and cardinal truths of th● Christian Rel●gion viz. The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the divinity and inc●●●nation of Christ and the whole Mystery of his Rede●ption of the World by his bloo● and these are ev●ry way inevident whereas there are some other truths which tho' in so far as they are believed in by Faith are justly denominated inevident because of the motive and medium of the Belief yet may be upon another occasional respect and per accidens called evident of which Nature is this of the Existence of a God which is truly an object of Faith and in that respect inevident viz. as assented unto upon the testimony of God But it is also upon another respect evident bec●use it per accidens so falls out that it is likewise demonstrable by natural knowledge Answ 2. It does not foll●w that the Existence of God cannot be believed by Faith because Faith depends on the Testimony of God which presupposes that there is a God for the contrary seems rather to be deducible from thence viz. That because all Faith is founded upon the Divine Testimony and because no Believer can give assent unto any truth unless he know the Testimony given unto the same to be divine therefore by that same very act of Faith whereby he believes this Testimony to come from God he likewise believes there is a God who sends it For by the same individual act of seeing I must of necessity see the colour and sensible species of a Wall as they call it that I see the Wall it self by No more can I know the testimony to the truth to be divine unless by the same very act of Faith whereby I believe the testimony to be God's I likewise believe the existence of God who gives this Testimony And this Divine Testimony is the ground of all my belief and the ratio a priori wherefore I give mine assent unto any thing yet there can be no ratio a priori given wherefore I believe the Testimony of God as when I see a Wall the ratio is because of the species but the species it self wants any ratio and is only ●●en propter se so in all the objects of my ●aith I believe them because of the Testimony of God but I believe the Testimony of God propter se So that the Existence of God though it be sufficiently demonstrable by the light of Nature and in that sense the Object of a scientifick as●●● yet since God has confirmed it by his revealed Testimony it may well be stated as an Article of our Creed which we believe because God has testified and revealed the same and that in a more clear manner than bare Reason is capable to perform the demonstration of it Objection 4. There is no other way of knowing God naturally than by way of causality from the Creatures arising from the effect unto the cause but that we cannot do unless we can evidently know and demonstrate that the Creature is really the effect and work of God and this we cannot since the greatest Philosophers were ignorant of it and th●ught the World to be eternal which is also confirmed by the Apostle Heb. 11. By faith we know that the World was created intimating that the Creation of the World is a truth not comprehended by Natural Light Answer All the Philosophers have generally acknowledged that God was the Creator of the World Hence Aristotle frequently calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plato in Timaeo Tom. 2. pag. 31. asserts that God made but one World not many Plutarch commends Alexander for saying that God was the Father of all things Plutarch in Alex. Magn. pag 681. What more ordinary amongst the Poets than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lle opisex rerum c Anaxagoras Hermotinus Pythagoras c. were all asserters of the same Doctrine so that they knew and acknowledged the Creation of the World in general though they could not condescend to the particular Circumstances

Apparitors to bring me a List of those who publickly or privately teach School in this Diocess which so soon as they have finish'd I shall send to your Lordship and in the mean time I shall inquire and know who have and who have not legal Licences to teach School and then give your Lordship an account of it When your Lordship shall be pleas'd to communicate any further commands though many have more discretion and ability to execute them than I do or can pretend to yet your Lordship may be assured of this that none shall with more honour and respect to your place and person or with more diligence and fidelity indeavour it Having said this I humbly crave leave to speak freely as to my Spiritual Father and my Friend Your Lordship seems to be displeas'd with the questions a resolution of which I desired in my last as being such as had not been put to any Bishop nor fit to be answered by your Lordship They were put to me by as learned and pious persons as any in the Diocess men who are ready to do their Duty but they desire as in reason they ought to know of their Guides and Governours the bounds and measures of that Duty they would have done This they cannot know or any way learn out of the Letters sent down in which there is no command which concerns the Duty of the Inferiour Clergy in any Diocess His Majesties command in my Lord of Canterbury's Letter concerns my Lords the Bishops only That they should injoin Catechizing according to the Laws and Constitutions which inable them so to do Those Constitutions whatever they be are the Rule of the Bishops Power who is to injoin them and the Clergies Duty who are to obey But what those Constitutions are the Letters mention not that is left to my Lords the Bishops As they best know what Canons and Constitutions inable them to injoin Catechizing so they ought to signify to their inferiour Clergy what Canons they are which they would have put in execution that by them they may first know their Duty and then do it It being impossible that they or any should obey Constitutions before they be made known to them by those who injoin and expect obedience As the inferiour Clergy in dubious cases are in Prudence and Conscience bound to desire the directions of their Superiours their Guides and Governours so their Superiours are by the same obligations bound to give them directions We have several Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Catechizing which in some things clash and contradict one another It is not probable that every one of the Inferiour Clergy should know all those Constitutions and less probable that every one should be able to reconcile the real or seeming Contradictions and so certainly know what remains as a Duty to be done without directions from his Superiours I humbly beg your Lordships pardon for this tedious and I fear impertinent scribble and your Paternal Benediction for My Lord Your Lordships most obliged faithful Servant Tho. Barlow Q. Coll. Oxon. May 29. 1673. Sir J. B. having sent to Bishop Barlow a Lecture before the Royal Society on the 26th of Novemb. 1674. Printed in Twelves his Lordship sent him the following answer Sir I thank you for the Discourse you sent me but am sorry so ingenious a person should write or others should approve it for that I may freely and sub sigillo to you say what I think and know though there be several things in it ingeniously said yet there be too several things highly irrational and indeed most metaphysical Non-sense and some things I fear impious if not plainly Atheistical we are told pag. 15. That place is the IMAGE or PHANCY of Matter or Matter considered If this be true then 1. Seeing all such Phancies are only in the Soul Therefore to be in a place is to be in a Phansy and therefore in the Soul where all such Phansies are and cannot possibly be elsewhere 2. Motion he says page 26. is change of place Now if Place be Phansy then if the Sun change its place it is only a change of phansy and a change of phansy will be a motion or change of place and then if men change their Phansies who only have Phansies to change the Sun may stand still and the Earth move For you know there have been and still are who strongly phansy the Sun to stand still and the Earth to move and others who as strongly phansy the contrary Now I would fain know which of their phansies is the place of Sun or Earth and if either why the one more than the other and if neither then place is not a phansy as is pretended and therefore the definition it self is but a phansy and a wild one too 3. We are told also pag. 15. that a place is Matter considered Ergo If matter be not considered it is in no place Ergo Horse or Man Sun and Moon and the World when not considered are in no place and therefore no where for quod nusquam est non est 4. He tells us there pag. 15. That quantity is the phansy of place and therefore all quantity must be where the phansy is and phansies can be no where but in the Soul which being a Spirit is capable of none and therefore no quantity can be extra animam in any body whatever 5. To say that place is matter considered is to say that the place of a Dog is a Dog considered and then all those things in the World which are unknown to Vs and therefore cannot be consider'd must therefore be in no place and therefore not in the World 5. He says pag. 17 18. That ALL the FIRST matter of the World are Atom's immutable in magnitude and figure 2. That many of them join'd make a Visible object 3. That this juncture is made by their own INNATE Motion Now 1. How well this agrees with Moses Gen. 1. do you judge 2. If such Atomes be the first matter of all things and by meeting of them all visible bodies be made and they meet and are join'd by their own innate motion then 't is evident Adam was made of such Atomes and they met in him not by Gods appointment and Divine-creating-power but by their own innate power and so Epicurus a Pagan Philosopher and his Hypothesis shall have more truth and credit than the Divine History of the Creation by Moses And how far this if believed may make for Atheism a denying of Scripture and the Divine Power and Providence of our infinitely good and gracious God do you judge certainly if Atomes or matter immutable in magnitude and figure as he says be the first matter of the World they must of necessity be either 1. Eternal without or 2. Temporal with a beginning To say that those Atomes are Eternal is to deny the Christians (a) Symbolum Athanasii in our Liturgy and all Christian Churches received and in our Articles