such distinctions were thought of then For they judged all Prayer and Invocation by the very nature of it to import Divinity in that it was made to and therefore that no created Beings how excellent soever were capable of it From whence Origen afterwards supposing the Sun Moon and Starrs to be Intellectual Beings gives this account Why notwithstanding that they made no prayers to them For saith he since they offer up prayers themselves to God through his only Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we judge that we ought not to pray to them that pray Since they would rather send us to God whom they pray to then bring us down to themselves or to divide our praying vertue from God to themselves Can we then suppose that the Church at that time did allow of prayers to be made to Saints in Heaven supposing their praying there in behalf of the Church on earth For we see Origen goes on this ground that all Intellectual Spirits which pray themselves are not to be prayed too And that if they knew of our praying to them they would send us to God and not accept of those supplications to themselves which are due only to God In the beginning of the eighth Book Celsus disputes against the Christians because they worship only the Supreme God without giving any to the Inferiour Daemons and that upon this ground because saith he They who worship the Inferiour Gods acknowledging them Inferiour is so far from dishonouring the Supreme that he doth that which is acceptable to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he that honours and worships those who are subject to him doth not displease God whose they are all These are Celsus his words from whence we are to take notice that Celsus doth not plead for absolute and Soveraign worship to be given to these Inferiour Deities or Spirits but only a relative and subordinate worship So that if the Controversie had been between Celsus and a modern Romanist all that Celsus here sayes must have been confessed on both sides and the whole dispute only have been concerning those Daemons or Spirits which were to have this relative and inferiour kind of worship viz. Whether those which Celsus call'd Daemons or only the Blessed Spirits and glorified Saints But Origen who went upon other grounds returns a far different Answer For saith he it is not lest we should hurt God that we abstain from the worship of any but God according to this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to render the inferiour worship of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to any but God but lest we should thereby hurt our selves by separating our selves from our portion in God And the reason he gives why Christ is to be worship'd is from that divinity which manifested it self in him and because of the unity of nature between God and him And although Origen saith That in some sense we may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give some kind of worship to Angels and Archangels yet he saith the sense of the word must be purg'd and the actions of the worshippers distinguished Yet in the following words he attributes that worship which is by supplication only to God and his only Son So that still he reserves the offering up our prayers as the appropriate worship to God himself through his only Son For to him saith he we first offer them intreating him who is the propitiation for our sins that he would vouchsafe as our high Priest to offer our Prayers Sacrifices and Intercessions to God over all Therefore our Faith is only in God through his Son who hath confirmed it to us And afterwards Away saith he with Celsus his Counsel that we should worship Daemons or inferiour spirits not taking them in the worst sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we must only pray to God over all and to the Word of God his only begotten and first born of all Creatures and we must entreat him that he as High Priest would present our Prayer when it is come to him unto his God and our God and unto his Father and the Father of them that frame their life according to the Word of God To the same purpose again in another place To whom we offer our first fruits to him we direct our prayers having a High Priest who is entred into Heaven Jesus the Son of God and we hold fast this confession while we live through the favour of God and his Son who is manifested to us And after saith That the Angels help forward their salvation who call upon God and pray sincerely to whom they themselves also pray But not one word of any praying to them but only to God through Christ. For as he saith elsewhere We must endeavour to please God only who is over all and pray that he may be propitious to us procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue But if he will yet have us to procure the good will of any others after him that is God over all let him consider that as when the body is moved the motion of the shadow doth follow it so in like manner having God favourable to us who is over all it followeth that we shall have all his friends both Angels and Souls and Spirits favourable to us For they have a sympathy with them that are thought worthy to find favour with God Neither are they only favourable unto such as be worthy but they co-operate with them also that are willing to serve God over all and are friendly to them and pray with them and intreat with them So as we may be bold to say that when men who with a resolution propose to themselves the best things do pray unto God many thousands of the Sacred Powers pray together with them uncalled upon Here indeed we find that Saints and Angels do intercede in Heaven in behalf of the Saints on Earth but that is not the thing in dispute between us but here we find no such thing at all as an Invocation of them but he sayes They pray together with us when we pray to God himself not when we pray first to them to pray with us For this Origen makes to be wholly needless for if God be propitious to us so will all the Sacred Powers be too So that still we find in Origen that Invocation was only to be made to God over all although he saith That with those who do sincerely call upon God the Holy Spirits do joyn with them To the same purpose Arnobius speaks when the Heathens asked Why they did not worship any Inferiour Gods satis est nobis saith he Deus primus the Supreme God is sufficient for us In hoc omne quod colendum est colimus quod adorari convenit adoramus quod obsequium venerationis poscit venerationibus promeremur In worshipping him we worship all that is to be worshipped we adore all that is fit to be
the Church may declare matters of Faith The testimony of St. Augustine vindicated Page 44. CHAP. III. The Absurdities of the Romanists Doctrine of Fundamentals The Churches Authority must be Divine if whatever she defines be Fundamental His Lordship and not the Testimony of S. Augustine shamefully abused three several wayes Bellarmin not mis-cited the Pelagian Heresie condemned by the General Council at Ephesus The Popes Authority not implyed in that of Councils The gross Absurdities of the distinction of the Church teaching and representative from the Church taught and diffusive in the Question of Fundamentals The Churches Authority and Testimony in matters of Faith distinguished The Testimony of Vincentius Lirinensis explained and shewed to be directly contrary to the Roman Doctrine of Fundamentals Stapleton and Bellarmin not reconciled by the vain endeavours used to that end Page 79. CHAP. IV. The Protestant Doctrine of Fundamentals vindicated The unreasonableness of demanding a Catalogue of Fundamentals The Creed contains the Fundamentals of Christian Communion The belief of Scripture supposed by it The Dispute concerning the Sense of Christs Descent into Hell and Mr. Rogers his Book confessed by T. C. impertinent With others of the same nature T. C. his fraud in citing his Lordships words Of Papists and Protestants Vnity The Moderation of the Church of England compared with that of Rome Her grounds of Faith justified Infant-Baptism how far proved out of Scripture alone Page 98. CHAP. V. The Romanists way of Resolving Faith The ill consequences of the resolution of Faith by the Churches Infallibility The grand Absurdities of it manifested by its great unreasonableness in many particulars The certain Foundations of Faith unsettled by it as is largely proved The Circle unavoidable by their new attempts The impossibility of proving the Church Infallible by the way that Moses Christ and his Apostles were proved to be so Of the Motives of Credibility and how far they belong to the Church The difference between Science and Faith considered and the new art of mens believing with their wills The Churches Testimony must be according to their principles the formal object of Faith Of their esteem of Fathers Scripture and Councils The rare distinctions concerning the Churches Infallibility discussed How the Church can be Infallible by the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet not divinely Infallible but in a manner and after a sort T.C. applauded for his excellent faculty in contradicting himself Page 109. CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The â—estimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of Reason in the resolution of Faith C's Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not Infallible C's Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of Infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated p. 161. CHAP. VII The Protestant Way of resolving Faith Several Principles premised in order to it The distinct Questions set down and their several Resolutions given The Truth of matters of fact the Divinity of the Doctrine and of the Books of Scripture distinctly resolved into their proper grounds Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly true How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith Of the Certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture and the Authority of them S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority largely discussed and vindicated Of the private Spirit and the necessity of Grace His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light The several Testimonies of Bellarmine Brierly and Hooker cleared p. 202. CHAP. VIII The Churches Infallibility not proved from Scripture Some general Considerations from the design of proving the Churches Infallibility from Scripture No Infallibility in the High-Priest and his Clergy under the Law if there had been no necessity there should be under the Gospel Of S. Basil's Testimony concerning Traditions Scripture less liable to corruptions than Traditions The great uncertainty of judging Traditions when Apostolical when not The Churches perpetuity being promised in Scripture proves not its Infallibility His Lordship doth not falsifie C's words but T. C. doth his meaning Producing the Jesuits words no traducing their Order C's miserable Apology for them The particular Texts produced for the Churches Infallibility examined No such Infallibility necessary in the Apostles Successours as in Themselves The Similitude of Scripture and Tradition to an Ambassadour and his Credentials rightly stated p. 235. CHAP. IX The Sense of the Fathers in this Controversie The Judgement of Antiquity enquired into especially of the three first Centuries and the reasons for it The several Testimonies of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Tatianus Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and all the Fathers who writ in vindication of Christian Religion manifested to concurr fully with our way of resolving Faith C's Answers to Vincentius Lyrinensis à Gandavo and the Fathers produced by his Lordship pitifully weak The particulars of his 9th Chapter examined S. Augustine's Testimony vindicated C's nauseous Repetitions sent as Vagrants to their several homes His Lordships Considerations found too heavy for C's Answers In what sense the Scripture may be called a Praecognitum What way the Jews resolved their Faith This Controversie and the first part concluded p. 261 PART II. Of Schism CHAP. I. Of the Universal Church THe Question of Schism explained The nature of it enquired into Several general Principles laid down for clearing the present Controversie Three grounds of the charge of Schism on Protestant Churches by our Authour The first of the Roman Churches being the Catholick Church entred upon How far the Roman Church may be said to be a true Church The distinction of a Church morally and metaphysically true justified The grounds of the Unity of the Catholick Church as to Doctrine and Government Cardinal Perron's distinction of the formal causal and participative Catholick Church examined The true sense of the Catholick Church in Antiquity manifested from S. Cyprian and several cases happening in his time as the Schism of Novatianus at Rome the case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus Several other Instances out of Antiquity to the same purpose by all which it is manifest that the Unity of the Catholick Church had no dependence on the Church of Rome
ignorance it is far from it to be Magisterial and definitive that unless men acknowledge every punctilio they are guilty of Heresie and fundamental Errors St. Gregory Nazianzene mentioning that Question What this Procession is returns this Answer Tell me first what it is for the Father to be unbegotten and I will explain the Generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Ghost that we may both therein shew our folly who pry into these Divine mysteries and do not know the things which are before our feet And elsewhere If we enquire into these things what shall we leave to them whom the Scripture tells us alone know and are known of each other St. Cyrill requires of men To believe his Being and subsistence and dominion over all but for other things not to suffer the mind to go beyond the bounds allotted to humane nature These spoke like wise men and the true Fathers of the Church who would have men content themselves with believing meerly what was necessary in these deep and incomprehensible mysteries and not to make Articles of Faith of such things which are not made necessary either by deduction of Reason or clear Divine Revelation Although therefore I should grant that some or all of these did themselves believe this Procession from the Son yet hereby it appears they were far from imposing it upon others or making it a Heresie in any not to believe it They saw well these were not things to be narrowly searched into but as the Philosopher said of some kind of Hellebore taken in the lump it is Medicinal but beaten into powder is dangerous is true of these more abstruse mysteries of Religion for whosoever will endeavour to satisfie himself concerning them from the strange niceties and subtilties of the Schools may return with greater doubts then he went to them For not to go beyond our present Subject whosoever would examine the way they take to make the Procession to be immediate from the Father and the Son so as to be from one principle to shew how the Spirit comes from both by the same numerical spiration but most of all when they come to make distinctions between the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Holy Ghost of which no less then nine are recounted and rejected by Petavius out of the Fathers and Schoolmen and the last which he rests in which is the common one of the Schools viz. That the one is per modum Intellectûs and the other per modum Amoris as unsatisfactory as any there being so vast a disproportion between the most immediate acts of our souls and these emanations will see much greater reason to commend the Wisdome of those Fathers who sought to repress mens curiosity as to these things and as much to condemn you who are so apt to charge whole Churches with Heresie if they come not up to every thing which you shall pronounce to be an Article of Faith 2. It is plain from the Fathers That they made the belief of that to be sufficient for salvation which doth not imply this Procession from the Son which is that the Holy Ghost doth proceed from the Father If therefore they often mention the Procession from the Father without taking notice of the Procession from the Son and when they do so assert the sufficiency of the belief of that for Salvation there cannot be the least ground to imagine that they looked on the Procession from the Son as a necessary Article of Faith We see before Athanasius made no more necessary then the belief of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and in the same discourse where he speaks expresly what the Orthodox opinion was of the Holy Ghost he says no more but If they thought well of the Word they would likewise of the Spirit which proceeds from the Father and is proper to the Son and is given by him to the Disciples and all that believe on him In which words there is nothing but what the Greeks to this day do most freely and heartily acknowledge viz. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and is the Spirit of the Son being given by him to all that believe Many other Testimonies are produced out of him and the rest of the Greek Fathers by the Patriarch Hieremias in his Answer to the Wirtenberg Divines by Marcus Ephesius in his Disputes in the Council of Florence by Gregorius Palamas in his Answer to Beccus the Latinizing Patriarch of Constantinople in the time of Michael Palaeologus and other modern Defendants of the Greek Church But although I do not think that the places produced by them are sufficient for their purpose viz. That those Fathers believed the Procession from the Father exclusivè to be an Article of Faith yet whosoever will take the pains to compare those Testimonies with the others produced on the other side by those who writ in defence of the Filioque either Latins as Hugo Eterianus Anselme c. or Latinizing Greeks such as Nicephorus Blemmydes Beccus Emanuel Calecas and others will find it most for the honour of the Fathers and most consonant to Truth to assert that they did not look upon this as any necessary Article of Faith and therefore took liberty to express themselves differently about it as they saw occasion For such different Testimonies are produced not only of different Fathers but of several places of the same that it will be a hard matter but upon this ground to reconcile them to each other and themselves And that which abundantly confirms it is That when they sate most solemnly in Council to determine the matters of Faith about the Trinity they were so far from inserting this when they had just occasion to do it that they only mention the Proceeding from the Father and determine this to be a perfect Symbol of Christian Faith which contained no more In the first Nicene Creed and that which is properly so called for that which now goes under that Name is the Constantinopolitan Creed there was nothing at all determined concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost and yet Athanasius saith expresly of the Faith there delivered by the Fathers according to the Scriptures That it was of it self sufficient for the turning men from all impiety and the establishment of all Christian Piety And afterwards saith That though certain men contended much for some additions to be made to it yet the Sardican Synod would by no means consent to it because the Nicene Creed was not defective but sufficient for Piety and therefore forbid the making any new Creed lest the former should be accounted defective We see then by the Testimony of Athanasius and the Sardican Synod which when it serves your turn as in the case of Appeals you extoll so much and in defence of Zozimus his forgery of the Nicene Canons you would have confounded with the Nicene that the Nicene Creed without any thing at all
Spirit of the Son So Cyril expresly when Theodoret had denyed the Procession from the Son he gives no other Answer but this The Holy Spirit doth truly proceed from God and the Father according to our Saviours words but is not of another nature from the Son We see he contents himself with the acknowledgement that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son To the same purpose is another testimony of his produced by the Patriarch Hieremias speaking of the Spirit whereby the Apostles spake he saies Which proceeded in an ineffable manner from the Father but is not different from the Son in regard of his essence Several other testimonies are there produced by him and elsewhere by others which need not be here recited 2. That when they use the particle ex it is against those who denyed the Consubstantiality both of the Son and Spirit and therefore Gregorius Palamas lay's down this Rule That as often as the praepositions ex and per have the same force in Divinity they do not denote any division or difference in the Trinity but only their conjunction and inseparable union and consent of their wills For which he cites the famous Epistle of Maximus to Marinus which was made the foundation of the Vnion at the Council of Florence who therein saith that when the Latins said in their Synodical Epistle sent to Constantinople that the Spirit did proceed ex filio they meant no more than to shew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the perfect and inseparable Vnion of the Divine Essence So when S. Basil saith that the Father did create the world per filium he adds that notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conjunction of their Wills And by this means the Greeks interpret all those passages of the Fathers which seem most express for the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio So Marcus Ephesius tells the Latins in the Florentine Council that when we say Man comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Essence of a man therein is not implyed that the Essence of man is the productive cause of man but only it notes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Communion of Essence which is in men so when the Greek Fathers speak of the Spirit 's proceeding ex filio that doth not imply that the Son is the Principle of Spiration but that there is a Communion of Essence between the Son and the Spirit So when Athanasius disputing against the Arrians saith the Patriarch Hieremias saith that the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Son is given to all and that the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Son in the Spirit doth create work and give all things you must consider that Athanasius was then disputing against the Arrians who made both Son and Spirit to be creatures that therefore he might shew that the Spirit was of the same Substance with the Father and the Son he therefore useth that preposition ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very opportunely and conveniently Therefore saith he It is to be observed that he never useth this but in opposition to the Arrians and such who denyed the Divinity of the Holy Ghost To which purpose it is well observed by Spalatensis that when the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council did insert into their Creed the article of the Spirit 's Procession from the Father they did it not with a purpose to define any thing concerning the Procession as an article of Faith but that they might from those words of S. John inferr the Divinity of the Holy Ghost because it proceeds from the Father And withall it is further observable that in the Creed which Charisius delivered into and was accepted by the Council of Ephesus all that he sayes as to the Holy Ghost is And in the Spirit of Truth the Paraclete who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son By which that which Spalatensis saith is much confirmed for this Symbol of Charisius was accepted by the Council as agreeable to the Nicene Creed Thus we see how probable this Answer of the Greeks is That the intention of the Fathers in those expressions is only to assert the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son because when they used them it was in their disputes with them who denyed it And therefore Petavius spends his pains to very little purpose when going about to take off this answer of the Greeks he only shews that those expressions in themselves cannot be confined meerly to the signification of the Consubstantiality of the persons whereas the main force of this answer ly's in the intention and scope of the persons who used them and the adversaries they disputed against and not in the importance of the Articles themselves 2. The second answer of the Greeks is that most of those places which speak of the procession of the Spirit from the Son are not to be understood of the Eternal Procession but of the Temporal which is the same with the Spirits Mission This as the rest of the Greeks so the Patriarchs Hieremias and Cyril especially insist upon the first in his last answer to the Divines of Wirtenberg For when they in their reply to his second answer had produced several testimonies of Athanasius Cyril Epiphanius Basil and Nazianzen in behalf of the Spirit 's Procession from the Son he wonders at them that leaving the plain and clear places both of Scriptures and Fathers which do as he saith so openly proclaim the Spirit 's Procession from the Father only they should hope for relief from other obscure places which are capable of a different interpretation As from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which only relates to the Spirit 's manifestation and is quite different from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so cannot imply his Eternal Procession Therefore for the clearing the controversie and giving account of the mistakes in it he begins with the signification of the Spirit which when it is applyed to the Divine Spirit is capable of different significations being taken either for the several gifts of the Spirit or for the person of the Spirit and so though the word Procession be taken in a peculiar manner for the Eternal Procession of the Spirit yet it is not only some times attributed to the bestowing the forementioned gifts but likewise to the Eternal Generation of the Son and therefore whenever they meet with the word Procession attributed to the Spirit with a respect to the Son they must not presently infer the Eternal Procession but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that the Spirit doth come through is sent and given by the Son which the Fathers often mention the better thereby to assert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Identity of nature and essence which is in the Spirit with the Father and Son This he doth therein very largely explain
and endeavour to make it out that this is the most proper interpretation both of Scripture and Fathers when they seem most clearly to speak of the Procession of the Spirit from the Son The same likewise the Patriarch Cyril insists upon who acknowledgeth these several words to be attributed to the Spirit in reference to the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several others in the writings of the Fathers all which he acknowledgeth to be true but he denyes that any of them do import a Hypostatical Procession of the Spirit from the Son but that they all refer to the temporal mission and manifestation of the Spirit through Christ under the Gospel Whether this answer will reach to all the places produced out of the Fathers is not here my business to enquire only that which is pertinent to my purpose may be sufficiently inferred from hence that the Fathers certainly were not definitive in this Controversie when their expressest sentences seem capable of quite a different meaning to wise and learned men who one would think if the belief of this Procession had been a tradition of their Church or fully expressed in the Writings of the Fathers of the Greek Church could not be so ignorant or wilful as either not to see this to have been their meaning or supposing they had seen it to persist in so obstinate a belief of the contrary I can therefore with advantage return your words back again to you It is to be considered that for many hundred years the whole Greek Church never believed this to be an article of Faith nay the Fathers were so far from it that both single and in General Councils they did plainly express the contrary how then bears it any shew of probability what some few of yesterday forced to it by an impossibility of otherwise defending the Power and Infallibility of the Roman Church affirm that the matter of this Controversie is so great and considerable that it is sufficient to produce an Heresie on either side Is not this to make Fathers and General Councils and consequently all Christendom for many hundred years quite blind and themselves only clear and sharp-sighted Which swelling presumption what spirit it argues and whence it proceeds all those who have learnt from reason if not from S. Augustine That Pride is the Mother of making Heresies in unnecessary articles of Faith will easily collect Do not you see now how unadvisedly those words came from you which with so small variation in the manner of expression and much greater truth in the matter of it is restored upon your self But I go on still if possible to make you sensible how much you have wronged the Greek Church in this charge of a fundamental errour in her for denying this Procession of the Spirit from the Son Which shall be from hence that although there were some who did as plainly deny this as ever the Modern Greeks did or do yet they were far from being condemned for Heresie in so doing For which we must consider that although the Fathers as we have already seen did speak ambiguously in this matter yet the first who appears openly and stoutly to have denyed it was Theodoret which being the rise of the Controversie must be more carefully enquired into It appears then that a General Council being summoned by the Emperour Theodosius to meet at Ephesus concerning the opinions of Nectorius which were vehemently opposed by Cyril of Alexandria and several Aegyptian and Asian Bishops who being there convened proceed to the deposition of Nestorius and Anathematizing his doctrine before Johannes Antiochenus and several other Bishops who favoured Nestorius were come to Ephesus When these therefore came and found what had been done by the other Bishops they being seconded by Candidianus there and the Court-party at Constantinople assemble apart by themselves and proceed on the other side to a deposition and excommunication of Cyril and Memnon who were the leaders of all the rest and these make an Anti-Synod to the other which consisted of persons of several interests and perswasions some Pelagians some Nestorians and others more as Friends to Nestorius than his opinions as being his Ancient Familiars and acquaintance did joyn with them to prevent his deposition among which the chief were Johannes Antiochenus and Theodoret. But before the Council Cyril had published his Anathema's against the opinions of Nestorius to these therefore not only the Oriental Bishops gave an answer but John the Patriarch of Antioch particularly appoints Theodoret to refute them The ninth Anathema of Cyril was against Nestorius and all others who said That Christ used the Holy Ghost as a distinct power from himself for the working of miracles and that did not acknowledge him to be the proper Spirit of Christ. Theodoret grants the first part wherein he shews he was no Nestorian but quarrels with the latter part for saith he If by that he means that the Spirit is of the same nature with the Son and that it proceeds from the Father we acknowledge it together with him but if by that he understands as though the Spirit had his subsistence from or by the Son we reject it as blasphemous and impious Was ever any thing in this kind spoken with greater heat and confidence than this was here by Theodoret And if this had been looked on as Heretical at that time can we possibly imagine that so zealous an opposer of all Heresies and especially of the Nestorians as S. Cyril of Alexandria was should so coolly and patiently pass this by as he doth For all the answer he gives is only that which was before cited out of him that he acknowledgeth The Spirit doth proceed from the Father but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not of another nature from the Son but did not Theodoret expresly assert that as well as Cyril Is it then possible that any one who hath his wits about him should imagine that if that doctrine of Theodoret had been accounted Heretical it being expressed in so vehement a manner as it is it should have no other answer from Cyril but only approving that which Theodoret confesseth viz. the Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son All the answer which Petavius and others give is so weak and trifling that one may easily see how much they were put to it to find out any Sometimes it was because Cyril was intent upon his business and therefore passed it by as though he were so weak a man as to let his adversary broach Heresie and say nothing to it because it was not pertinent to the present cause But if it were not it is an argument the second Answer is false viz. that Theodoret was herein a Nestorian for if he were so it could not be besides the business but was a main part of it Moreover if this were a piece of Nestorianism it is very strange the Fathers of that Council when they purposely
understand that I must confess that whoever asserts the one and deny's the other is so far from Theological Reason that I think he hath no common reason in him Is this then think you a parallel case with the Procession of the Spirit from the Son which may be supposed Consubstantial to Father and Son and a distinct person from both without any Connotation of respect to the Personality of the Son as a principle of Spiration 2. He that should affirm the Procession of the Spirit only from the Son and not the Father would speak much more absurdly than the Greeks do for thereby he would destroy the Father's being the fountain or principle of Origination as to the distinct Hypostases of Son and Spirit he would plainly and directly thwart the Creed of the second General Council and which is more than would speak directly against express words of Scripture which say The Spirit proceeds from the Father which by the consent of the Christian Church hath been interpreted of the Eternal Procession And by this time I hope you begin to have better thoughts of rational men than to make such a wonder at their questioning the Greeks Heresie but if this be your Theological Reason one scruple of common reason goes far beyond it We have had a fair proof of your skill at charging we shall now see how good you are at standing your ground Your main defence lyes in a distinction which ruines you for you think to ward off all the citations his Lordship produceth against you out of the Schoolmen and others that the Greeks and Latins agree with each other in eandem fidei sententiam upon the same sentence of Faith but differ only in words by saying That the Greeks must be distinguished into Ancient and Modern The Ancient you say expressed themselves per filium but they meant thereby à filio whereas the Modern Greeks will not admit that expression à filio but per filium only and that too in a sense dissignificative to à filio This is the substance of all the answer you give both in general and to the particular authorities for several pages The disproof therefore of this distinction must by your own Confession make all those testimonies stand good against you which I shall do by two things 1. By shewing that the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do in this Controversie 2. That those who speak expresly of the Modern Greeks do deny their difference from us in any matter of Faith 1. That the Ancient Greeks did assert as much as the Modern do By the Ancient Greeks we must here understand those who writ before the Schoolmen whose testimonies you would answer by this distinction Now nothing can be more clear than that those Greeks who writ before them did as peremptorily deny the Procession from the Son as any of the Modern Greeks do We have already produced the testimony of Theodoret who accounts the contrary opinion blasphemous and impious and that of Photius who so largely and vehemently disputes against the Procession from the Son To whom I shall add two more of great reputation not only in the Greek but in the Latin Church and those are Theophylact and Damascen Theophylact whether he lived in the time of Photius about 870 as the common opinion is or more probably in the time of Michael Cerularius as great an adversary as Photius to the Latins about 1070. yet was long enough before the Schoolmen for Peter Lombard flourished A. D. 1145. and Thomas and Bonaventure about 1260. So that in this respect he must be one of the Ancient Greeks He therefore delivers his opinion as expresly as may be in his Commentaries on St. John and that not as his own private opinion but as the common sense of the Greek Church for there taking occasion to speak how the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son For the Latins saith he apprehend it amiss and mistaking it say That the Spirit proceeds from the Son But we answer That it is one thing to say The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son which we assert and another that it proceeds from the Son which we deny for it hath no testimony of Scripture for it and then we must bring in two principles the Father and the Son And withall adds that when Christ breathed the Spirit on his Disciples it is not to be understood personally but in regard of the gift of remission of sins after which he briefly and comprehensively sets down the opinion of the Greek Church Believe thou that the Spirit doth proceed from the Father but is given to men by the Son and let this be the Rule of sound doctrine to thee And what now do the Modern Greeks say more than Theophylact did or what do they say less for they acknowledge that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son as well as he To the same purpose Damascen who lived between the 6. and 7. Synod about A. D. 730. in the time of Leo Isaurus delivers the sense of the Greek Church in his time concerning this Article It must be considered saith he That we assert not the Father to be from any but that he is said to be the Father of the Son We say not that the Son is a proper cause neither the Father but we say the Son is from the Father and of the Father The Holy Spirit we say is from the Father and of the Father but we say not the Spirit is from the Son but we call him the Spirit of the Son And we confess that by the Son the Spirit is manifested and given to us These words are so plain that the Patriarch Hieremias producing them saith Nothing can be more clear and evident than these words are But the Philosopher who was so much pleased to see the Ass mumble his thistles could not take much less contentment to see how the Schoolmen handle this testimony of Damascen For being very loath that so zealous an assertor of Images should in any thing seem opposite to the Church of Rome they very handsomly and with wonderful subtilty bring him off by admiring the wisdom and caution he useth in these words So your own St. Bonaventure whose testimony youthink so considerable as to produce at large Tamen ipse cautè loquitur unde non dicit quod Spiriâ—us non est à filio sed dicit non dicimus à filio which you put in great letters the more to be taken notice of But I pray What was it which Damascen was there delivering of was it not the sense of the Greek Church concerning the Persons of the Trinity and how could he otherwise have expressed it than by non dicimus but if this must argue what Bonaventure and you would have from it for this is the only testimony you give of your distinction of Ancient and Modern Greeks will it not as well hold for the other
things before mentioned concerning the Father and the Son where he useth dicimus non dicimus as well as here And therefore Aquinas was much wiser who plainly condemns Damascen for a Nestorian in this licet à quibusdam dicatur c. Although it be said by some that in these words he neither affirms or denys it wherein I am much mistaken if he reflects not on Bonaventure Vasquez Petavius and several others think to bring Damascen off by the distinctions of à filio and per filium much to your purpose but in the great dispute at the Council at Florence between Bessarion and Marcus Ephesius about the importance of the Articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marcus Ephesius produceth the words of Damascen expresly that the Spirit doth not proceed from the Son but by the Son whereby it is plain that he understood per filium in opposition to à filio And Bessarion had nothing else to return in answer to it but that he could produce but one out of Antiquity who said so Thus we see if Theophylact and Damascen as well as Theodoret and Photius be Ancient Greeks your distinction comes to nothing But besides this it appears by the disputations of Hugo Etherianus against the Greeks who lived saith Bellarmin A. D. 1160. still extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum that the Greeks held the very same then that they do now And so in the Synod of Bar in Apulia when Anselm disputed so stoutly against the Greeks that Pope Vrban said he was alterius orbis Papa as the story is related by Eadmerus and Wilhelmus Malmesburiensis it appears they denyed the Procession of the Spirit absolutely from the Son and this was A. D. 1096. as is evident from the Letter of Hildebertus to him about the publishing his Disputation and from the Book of Anselm still extant on that subject We find not therefore any ground for this distinction of yours concerning the Ancient and Modern Greeks and therefore they who said that there was no real difference in any matter of Faith between the Ancient Greeks and Latins must be understood as well of the Modern Greeks as them Their words being no more capable of such a tolerable interpretation as you speak of than the words of any of the Modern Greeks are His Lordship was proving that the point was not fundamental that the Greeks and Latins differed in from that acknowledgement of Peter Lombard and the Schoolmen that is to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Son and that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Son is not to speak different things but the same sense in different words Now in this cause saith he where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same penitùs eadem even altogether the same can the point be fundamental But say you he was to prove that such as were in grievous errour in Divinity erred not fundamentally and for proof of this he alledges such as have no real errour at all in Divinity But do you not herein wilfully mistake his Lordships meaning For in the Paragraph foregoing his Lordship first declares his own judgement concerning the denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost viz. That he did acknowledge it to be a grievous errour in Divinity but yet he could not judge the Greeks guilty of a fundamental errour which he proves by a double medium 1. Because they did not thereby deny the Equality and Consubstantiality of the persons 2. Because divers learned men were of opinion that à filio per filium in the sense of the Greek Church was but a question in modo loquendi and therefore not fundamental now for this he produceth those testimonies Now I pray do you put no difference between the making the denyal of a Proposition to be an errour and the saying that such persons are guilty of the denyal of that Proposition His Lordship grants the denyal of the Procession to be a grievous errour in Divinity but he questioned as the Greeks expressed themselves for those very words he inserts whether they were guilty of denying that Proposition as appears by the authorities of the Schoolmen and therefore certainly much less guilty of a fundamental errour Thus you see his Lordship fully proves what he intends for if they agreed in sense they were much less guilty of a fundamental errour than if they had plainly denyed the Procession which he supposeth from those Authorities that they did not And therefore when you Sarcastically ask Is not this strong Logick The only answer I shall give you is That if you apprehend it not to be so it is because of the weakness of your Theological Reason And therefore you put his Lordships Defender on a strange task to prove from those Authorities that those Greeks who erre grievously in Divinity erre not fundamentally When the only design of his Lordship in producing those Authorities was to shew that according to their opinion the Greeks were so far from erring fundamentally that they did not erre grievously in Divinity And to this purpose the citation of Peter Lombard was pertinent who saith That because the Greeks acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son though he doth not proceed from him therefore the difference between the Greeks and Latins is in words and not in sense but you say He speaks only of such as differed in words and not in substance as though he put a difference between the Greeks that some differed in words and others really which is quite beside his meaning for he takes not the least notice of any such difference among themselves but saith The difference it self concerning the Procession the Greeks acknowledging the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son is more verbal than real And that the present Greeks say full as much is evident for they acknowledge the same things in express words The testimony of Bonaventure hath been already considered as far as concerns Damascen as for the rest it was sufficient for his Lordships purpose to produce such a Confession from so bitter an enemy of the Greeks as Bonaventure was so his Lordship in his Marginal Citation sayes truly of him licèt Graecis infensissimus c. that he doth not deny but that salvation might be had without the article of Filioque but whether on that supposition there were sufficient reason to add it to the Creed will be considered afterwards Though Bonaventure held the Greeks to be Hereticks and Schismaticks I hope you do not think that is Argument enough to perswade us that they were so That any thing without which salvation might have been had before may by the definition of your Church become so necessary that men cannot be saved without the belief of it had need be more than barely asserted either by Bonaventure or you and we must wait for the proof of it for any thing here said
some generall postulata must be laid down which by the very state of the Controversie must be acknowledged by you which are 1. That the Question in dispute is not concerning the Formal Object of all things divinely revealed but concerning the believing this to be a particular Divine Revelation For it is obvious to any one that considers what vast difference there is between those two Questions Why you believe that to be True which God hath revealed the plain and easie resolution of this is into the veracity and infallibility of God in all his Revelations But it is quite another Question when I ask Why you believe this to have been a True Divine Revelation Or that such particular Books contain the Word of God And it is apparent by the whole process of the the Dispute that the Question is not concerning the first but the second of these two 2. That the Question is not concerning any kind of perswasion as to this Divine Revelation but concerning that which you call Divine Faith 3. That this Divine Faith must be resolved into some Testimony supposed infallible These three are things agreed on between both parties as appears by the whole management of this Controversie Only you suppose this Infallible Testimony to be the Church which your Adversary denies and saith It will follow from thence that you make your Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith which I thus prove 1. That which is the only Ground and Foundation whereon a Divine Faith is built must be the Formal Object of Faith but the Infallible Testimony of your Church is the only Foundation whereon Faith is built By the Formal Object of Faith I suppose you and I mean the same thing which is the Foundation whereon the Certainty of the Assent is grounded or the principal Objective Cause of Faith viz. not every account that may be given Why men believe but that which is the only Certain Foundation to establish a Divine Faith upon Now let any one but consider what the Question is and what your resolution is and then judge Whether you make not the Churches Testimony the Formal Object The Question is How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God which in other terms is What the ground is why I assent to the Doctrine contained in Scripture as a Divine Revelation You say The Testimony of the Scripture it self cannot be that ground You say The Testimony of the Spirit cannot be it You say A Moral Certainty cannot be it because then it is not Divine Faith What then is the reason why you believe it Do you not over and over say It is because of the infallible Testimony of the Church which gives us unquestionable assurance that this was a Divine Revelation and yet for all this this Testimony is not the Formal Object of this Divine Faith The most charitable apprehension I can have of you when you write things so inconsistent is either that you understand not or consider not what you write of but take what hath been said in such cases by men of your own party and right or wrong that serves for an Answer But for all this you tell us confidently That your Faith is not resolved into the voice of the Church as into its Formal Object but it is enough to say Our Faith is resolved into God's Revelations whether written or unwritten as its Formal Object and our infallible assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions These are excellent Notions if they would hang together But 1. We enquire not what is enough to say in such a case but what ground you have for saying what you do You have enough to say upon many subjects in this Book or else your Book would never have swell'd to the bulk it hath but you have generally very little reason for what you say 2. Is that infallible Assurance that the things we believe as God's Revelations are revealed from him a thing call'd Faith or no If it be as I hope you will not deny it then by your own Confession Faith is resolved into the Churches Testimony as its Formal Object for you say This Infallible Assurance is resolved into the Infallibility of the Churches Definitions teaching us that they are his Revelations These are your own words And do you yet deny this Testimony of the Church to be the Formal Object of this infallible Assurance 3. What is it you mean when you say That Faith is resolved into God's Revelations as its Formal Object Is it that the reason why we believe is Because God hath revealed these things to us But that you know is not the matter at all in question but How we come to assent to such a Doctrine as a Divine Revelation Answer me punctually to it Can you possibly resolve your Faith into any thing else as its Formal Object If you can I pray do us the favour to name it If you resolve this Faith as you seem to express your mind into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object Shew us where that Revelation is extant for which you believe Scripture to be the Word of God Is it the Scripture it self or a Revelation distinct from it If you say It is the Scripture it self then you must make the infallible Testimony of your Church needless for then we may have infallible Assurance that the things we believe are Divine Revelations without your Churches Testimony or Definitions Then what is become of the unwritten Tradition you mention in these words If then it be demanded Why we believe such Books as are contained in the Bible to be the Word of God we answer Because it is a divine unwritten Tradition that they are his Word and this Divine Tradition is the Formal Object whereon our Faith relyes Well then our last resolution of Faith is into this Divine unwritten Tradition But whence come you to know that this Tradition is Divine Into what Revelation is the belief of that finally resolved Doth it appear to be so by it self and then why may not the Scripture or hath it some other Revelation and Divine Tradition to attest it And then the same Question returns concerning that and so in infinitum or else of necessity you must acknowledge one of these two things Either that some Divine Revelation may sufficiently manifest it self without any infallible Testimony of your Church Or else that this infallible Testimony must be the Formal Object of Faith Of these two chuse which you please 2. I prove that you must make the Churches Testimony the Formal Object of Faith because either you must make it so or you must deny Divine Revelation to be the Formal Object of Faith because the reason is equal for both I demand then How you resolve your Belief of the Truth of the Doctrine of Christ you tell me into Divine Revelation as its Formal Object I ask yet further Why
us still more evidence of your self-contradicting faculty for which we need no more than lay your words together Your words next before were If the Church should fall into errour it would be as much ascribed to God himself as in case of immediate Divine Revelation but here you add Neither is it necessary for us to affirm that the Definition of the Church is God's immediate Revelation as if the Definition were false God's Revelation must be also such It is enough for us to averr that God's Promise would be infringed as truly it would in that Supposition From which we may learn very useful instructions 1. That God's Promise may he infringed and yet God's Revelation not proved to be false But whence came that Promise Was it not a Divine Revelation if it was undoubtedly such Can such a Promise be false and not God's Revelation 2. That though if the Church erre God must be fallible yet for all this all God's Revelations may remain infallible 3. That though the only ground of Infallibility be the immediate Assistance of the Holy Ghost which gives as great an Infallibility as ever was in Prophets and Apostles yet we must not say That such an Infallibility doth suppose an immediate Revelation 4. That though God's Veracity would be destroyed if the Church should define any thing for a point of Catholick Faith which were not revealed from God which are your next words yet we are not to think if her Definition be false God's Revelation must be also such which are your words foregoing Those are excellent Corollaries to conclude so profound a discourse with And if the Bishop as you say had little reason to accuse you for maintaining a party I am sure I have less to admire you for your seeking Truth and what ever animosity you are led by I hope I have made it evident you are led by very little reason CHAP. VI. Of the Infallibility of Tradition Of the unwritten Word and the necessary Ingredients of it The Instances for it particularly examined and disproved The Fathers Rule for examining Traditions No unwritten Word the Foundation of Divine Faith In what sense Faith may be said to be Divine Of Tradition being known by its own light and the Canon of the Scripture The Testimony of the Spirit how far pertinent to this Controversie Of the use of reason in the resolution of Faith T. C ' s. Dialogue answered with another between himself and a Sceptick A twofold resolution of Faith into the Doctrine and into the Books Several Objections answered from the Supposition made of a Child brought up without sight of Scripture Christ no Ignoramus nor Impostor though the Church be not infallible T. C ' s. Blasphemy in saying otherwise The Testimonies of Irenaeus and S. Augustin examined and retorted Of the nature of infallible Certainty as to the Canon of Scripture and whereon it is grounded The Testimonies produced by his Lordship vindicated YOu begin this Chapter with as much confidence as if you had spoken nothing but Oracles in the foregoing Whether the Bishop or you were more hardly put to it let any indifferent Reader judge If he did as you say tread on the brink of a Circle we have made it appear notwithstanding all your evasions that you are left in the middle of it The reason of his falling on the unwritten Word is not his fear of stooping to the Church to shew it him and finally depend on her Authority but to shew the unreasonableness of your proceedings who talk much of an unwritten Word and are not able to prove any such thing If he will not believe any unwritten Word but what is shewn him delivered by the Prophets and Apostles I think he hath a great deal of reason for such incredulity unless you could shew him some assurance of any unwritten Word that did not come from the Apostles Though he desired not to read unwritten Words in their Books which is a wise Question you ask yet he reasonably requested some certain evidence of what you pretend to be so that he might not have so big a Faith as to swallow into his belief that every thing which his adversary saies is the unwritten Word is so indeed If it be not your desire he should we have the greater hopes of satisfaction from you but if you crave the indifferent Reader 's Patience till he hear reason from you I am afraid his patience will be tyred before you come to it But whatever it is it must be examined Though your discourse concerning this unwritten Word be as the rest are very confused and immethodical yet I conceive the design and substance of it lyes in these particulars as will appear in the examination of them 1. That there is an unwritten Word which must be believed by us containing such doctrinal Traditions as are warranted by the Church for Apostolical 2. That the ground of believing this unwritten Word is from the Infallibility of the Church which defines it to be so 3. That our belief of the Scriptures must be grounded on such an unwritten Word which is warranted by the Church under each of these I shall examine faithfully what belongs to them in your indigested discourse The first of these is taken from your own words where you tell us That our Ensurancer in the main Principle of Faith concerning the Scriptures being the Word of God is Apostolical Tradition and well may it be so for such Tradition declared by the Church is the unwritten Word of God And you after tell us That every Doctrine which any particular person may please to call Tradition is not therefore to be received as God's unwritten Word but such doctrinal Traditions only as are warranted to us by the Church for truly Apostolical which are consequently God's unwritten Word So that these three things are necessary ingredients of this unwritten Word 1. That it must be originally Apostolical and not only so but it must be of Divine Revelation to the Apostles too For otherwise it cannot be God's Word at all and therefore not his unwritten Word I quarrel not at all with you for speaking of an unwritten Word if you could prove it for it is evident to me that God's Word is no more so by being written or printed than if it were not so for the writing adds no Authority to the Word but only is a more certain means of conveying it to us It is therefore God's Word as it proceeds from him and that which is now his written Word was once his unwritten Word but however whatever is God's Word must come from him and since you derive the source of the unwritten Word from the Apostles whatever you call an unwritten Word you must be sure to derive its pedegree down from them So that insisting on that point of time when this was declared and owned for an unwritten Word you must be able to shew that it came from the Apostles otherwise it
part of the world should be so grosly deceived in a matter of such moment especially supposing a Divine Providence then I freely and heartily assert We have such a kind of rational Infallibility or rather the highest degree of actual Certainty concerning the Truth of the Canon of Scripture and that the Catholick Church hath not de facto erred in defining it Thus I have followed your discoursing Christian through all his doubts and perplexities and upon the result can find no ground at all either of doubting concerning the Scripture or of believing the Testimony of your Church or any to be an infallible ground of Faith Your next passage is to tell us how his Lordships Dedalian windings as you finely call them are disintricated A happy man you are at squaring Circles and getting out of Labyrinths And thus it appears in the present case For when his Lordship had said That the Tradition of the Church is too weak because that is not absolutely Divine you repeat over your already exploded Proposition that there may be an infallible Testimony which is not absolutely Divine which when I have your faculty of writing things which neither you nor any one else can understand I may admit of but till then I must humbly beg your pardon as not being able to assent to any thing which I cannot understand and have no reason to believe And withall contrary to your second Answer it appears That if the Testimony of the Primitive were absolutely Divine because infallible the Testimony of the present Church must be absolutely Divine if it be infallible The rest of this Chapter is spent in the examining some by-citations of men of your own side chiefly and therefore it is very little material as to the truth or falshood of the present Controversie yet because you seem to triumph so much assoon as you are off the main business I shall briefly return an Answer to the substance of what you say His Lordship having asserted the Tradition of the Primitive Apostolical Church to be Divine and that the Church of England doth embrace that as much as any Church whatsoever withall adds That when S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church moved me some of your own will not endure should be understood save of the Church in the time of the Apostles only and some of the Church in general not excluding after Ages but sure to include Christ and his Apostles In your Answer to this you insult strangely over his Lordship in two things First That he should say Some and mention but one in his Margent 2. That that One doth not say what he cites out of him To the first I answer you might easily observe the use his Lordship makes of his Margent is not so much to bring clear and distinct proofs of what he writes in his Book but what hath some reference to what he there saies and therefore it was no absurdity for him to say in his Book indefinitely some and yet in his Margent only to mention Occham For when his Lordship writ that no doubt his mind was upon others who asserted the same thing though he did not load his Margent with them And that you may see I have reason for what I say I hope you will not suppose his Lordship unacquainted with the Testimonies of those of your side who do in terms assert this That I may therefore free you from all kind of suspicion What think you of Gerson when speaking of the greater Authority of the Primitive Church than of the present he adds And by this means we come to understand what S. Augustine said I would not believe the Gospel c. For there saith he he takes the Church for the Primitive Congregation of Believers who saw and heard Christ and were witnesses of what he did Is not this Testimony plain enough for you But besides this we have another as evident in whom are those very words which his Lordship by a lapse of memory attributes to Occham For Durandus plainly sayes That for what concerns the approbation of Scripture by the Church it is understood only of the Church which was in the Apostles times who were filled with the Holy Spirit and withall saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his Doctrine and on that account were convenient witnesses of all which Christ did or taught that by their Testimony the Scripture containing the actions and speeches of Christ might receive approbation Do you yet desire a Testimony more express and full than this is of one who doth understand the Church exclusively of all successive to the Apostles when he had just before produced that known Testimony of S. Augustine You see then the Bishop had some reason to say Some of your Church asserted this to be S. Augustine 's meaning and therefore your Instances of some where but one is meant are both impertinent and scurrilous For where it is evidently known there was but one it were a Soloecism to say some as to say that some of the Apostles betrayed Christ when it is known that none but Judas did it But if I should say that some Jesuits had writ for the killing of Kings and in the Margent should cite Mariana no person conversant in their writings would think it a Soloecism for though I produce him for a remarkable Instance yet that doth not imply that I have none else to produce but only that the mentioning of one might shew I was not without proof of what I said For your impudent oblique slander on the memory of that excellent Prelate Arch-Bishop Cranmer when you say If a Catholick to disgrace the Protestant Primacy of Canterbury should say Some of them carried a holy Sister lockt up in a Chest about with them and name Cranmer only in the Margent His memory is infinitely above your slyest detractions and withall when you are about such a piece of Criticism I pray tell me what doth some of them relate to Is Primacy the name of some men Just as if one should disgrace the See of Rome and say Some of them have been Atheists Magicians debauched c. Though I confess it were a great injury in this case to cite but one in the Margent unless in pity to the Reader yet you may sooner vindicate some of them from a Soloecism in Language when the See of Rome went before than any of them from those Soloecisms in manners which your own Authours have complained of But say you What if this singular-plural say no such thing as the words alledged by the Bishop signifie I have already granted it to have been a very venial mistake of memory in his Lordship of Occham for Durandus in whom those very words are which are in the Margent of his Lordships Book as appears in the Testimony already produced I acknowledge therefore that Occham in that place of his Dialogues doth speak
contain the Gospel in them for it is plain he speaks of them and not the Doctrine abstractly considered should have wanted that consent of the Catholick Church that it had not been delivered down by a constant succession of all Ages from the Apostles and were not received among the Christian Churches but started out from a few persons who differ from all Christian Churches as this Apostleship of Manichaeus did he might justly question the Truth of them And this I take to be truest and most natural account of these so much controverted words of S. Austin by which sense the other two Questions are easily answered for it is plain S. Austin means not the judgement of the present Church but of the Catholick Church in the most comprehensive sense as taking in all ages and places or in Vincentius his words Succession Vniversality and Consent and it further appears that the influence which this Authority hath is sufficient to induce Assent to the thing attested in all persons who consider it in what age capacity or condition soever And therefore if in this sense you extend it beyond Novices and Weaklings I shall not oppose you in it but it cannot be denied that it is intended chiefly for doubters in the Faith because the design of it is to give men satisfaction as to the reason why they ought to believe But neither you nor any of those you call Catholick Authours will ever be able to prove that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church as might be abundantly proved from the chapter foregoing where he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church from the Consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by miracles nourished by hope increased by charity confirmed by continuance which certainly are not the expressions of one who resolved his Faith into the infallible Testimony of the present Church And the whole scope and design of his Book de utilitate credendi doth evidently refute any such apprehension as might be easily manifested were it not too large a subject for this place where we only examine the meaning of S. Austin in another Book The substance of which is that That speech of his doth not contain a resolution of his Faith as to the Divinity of Christs Doctrine but the resolution of it as to the Truth and authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists which we acknowledge to be into the Testimony of the Catholick Church in the most large and comprehensive sense The next thing we come to consider is an Absurdity you charge on his Lordship viz. That if the infallible Authority of the Church be not admitted in the Resolution he must have recourse to the private Spirit which you say though he would seem to exclude from the state of the Question yet he falls into it under the specious title of Grace so that he only changeth the words but admits the same thing for which you cite p. 83 84. That therein his Lordship should averr that where others used to say They were infallibly resolved that Scripture was Gods Word by the Testimony of the Spirit within them that he hath the same assurance by Grace Whether you be not herein guilty of abusing his Lordship by a plain perverting of his meaning will be best seen by producing his words A man saith he is probably led by the Authority of the present Church as by the first informing inducing perswading means to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God But when he hath studied considered and compared this Word with it self and with other writings with the help of ordinary Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably perswaded by the Voice of the Church the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self than Tradition alone could give And then he that believes resolves his last and full assent that Scripture is of Divine Authority into internal arguments found in the letter it self though found by the help and direction of Tradition without and Grace within Had you not a great mind to calumniate who could pick out of these words That the Bishop resolved his Faith into Grace Can any thing be more plain than the contrary is from them when in the most perspicuous terms he says that the last Resolution of Faith is into internal arguments and only supposeth Tradition and Grace as necessary helps for the finding them Might you not then as well have said That his Lordship notwithstanding his zeal against the Infallibility of Tradition is fain to resolve his Faith into it at last as well as say that he doth it into Grace for he joyns these two together But Is it not possible to assert the Vse and Necessity of Grace in order to Faith but the last Resolution of it must be into it Do not all your Divines as well as ours suppose and prove the Necessity of Grace in order to believing and Are they not equally guilty of having recourse to the private Spirit Do you really think your self that there is any thing of Divine Grace in Faith or no If there be free your Self then from the private Spirit and you do his Lordship For shame then forbear such pitiful calumnies which if they have any truth in them You are as much concerned as Your adversary in it You would next perswade us That the Relator never comes near the main difficulty which say you is if the Church be supposed fallible in the Tradition of Scripture how it shall be certainly known whether de facto she now errs not in her delivery of it If this be your grand difficulty it is sufficiently assoiled already having largely answered this Question in terminis in the preceding Chapter You ask further What they are to do who are unresolved which is the true Church as though it were necessary for men to know which is the true Church before they can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God but when we assert the tradition of the Church to be necessary for believing the Scriptures we do not thereby understand the particular Tradition of any particular Church whose judgement they must rely on but the Vniversal Tradition of all Christians though this must be first made known in some particular Society by the means of some particular persons though their authority doth not oblige us to believe but only are the means whereby men come acquainted with that Vniversal Tradition And therefore your following discourse concerning the knowing the true Church by its motives is superseded for we mean no other Church than the Community of Christians in this Controversie and if you ask me By what motives I come to be certain which is a Community of Christians and which of Mahumetans and how one should be known from another I can soon resolve you But we are so far from making it necessary to know which particular society
in case any Priest should be to seek as to any Ceremonial Cause as that of Leprosie brought before him he was to take advice of the Court of the Triumvirate where he lived if that did not agree then he was to appeal to the lesser Sanhedrin of 23. in the neighbour-City if there it could not be ended to the Sanhedrin of 23. at the entrance of the Mount of the Temple if not there neither then appeal was made to the Great Sanhedrin whose sentence was final and peremptory and was instead of a Law in the Case 2. You are greatly mistaken in supposing that all this is spoken of the High Priest and his Clergy I deny not but express mention is made of the Priests and Levites as those who were supposed most acquainted with all matters of difference which should happen among them and therefore were probably the greatest part of the great Sanhedrin for it is a groundless fancy to suppose two distinct Courts the one Civil and the other Ecclesiastical among the Jews Nay the High Priest himself was so far from being the constant President of this Court that if we believe the Tradition of the Jews he was not admitted to sit there without the same previous examination and tryal which others underwent Indeed in the decay of the Jewish Polity in the time of the Assomanean Family the chief Civil Power was in the hands of the High Priest on which account he might then preside in the Sanhedrin but that is nothing to this place where mention is made vers 9. of the Priests and Levites and then of the Judge which is in case God should raise up among them an extraordinary person who should be Judge over Israel then the appeals might be to him but otherwise v. 10. they were to do according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee which was the great Sanhedrin According therefore to the sentence of this Court whether pronounced by a Priest or other they were to act and they that refused were punished with death 3. Whoever the persons were who gave this Sentence yet it was not looked on as Infallible for it is not said Whosoever doth not believe the judgement given to be infallibly true but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Judge even that man shall dye Besides we are so far from reading of any promise of Infallibility made to the High Priest and his Clergy or to the Sanhedrin that God himself doth suppose a possibility of errour in the whole Congregation of Israel Levit. 4.15 And all along the Books of the Prophets we see how much God chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way And I pray Where was that Infallibility of the High Priest and his Clergy not only when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him and the Sanhedrin both but in that time when Israel for a long season had been without the True God and without a Teaching Priest and without Law So that we see what very little relief you have out of this place for the Infallibility of the High Priest and his Clergy But suppose we should grant them Infallible and that Infallibility proved from this place What is that to us Might not you as well challenge the Oracular Responses by Vrim and Thummim to belong to you as the High Priests Infallibility supposing he had any If God thought it fit to make them Infallible and gave such express command concerning obedience and submission to their judgement Is it not very reasonable to think that under the Gospel there should be express mention made of the subject of this Infallibility the place whither we should resort for final judgements as there is here Nay had it not been far more necessary to have specified and determined these circumstances since they are of such vast importance for the peace of the Christian world How easily had all our debates been ended if God had said any where in the New Testament When any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to the place which I shall chuse viz. Rome and there enquire the Judgement of the Bishop that shall sit there and whatever he determines that believe as infallibly true if we had met with any thing so express nay that had any seeming tendency this way How readily should we submit our Controversies to his determination But when there is so little ground or foundation for it there that you are fain to deduce your Infallibility from Gods settling a Court of Appeals among the Jews Can you think that we are presumptuous and deserve to be cut off if we do not believe For for all that I know you may challenge the sanction of the Law as well as the Priviledge of it and your former practises would perswade us that you believe the Sanction to be as valid as the other But say you the infinite dissentions and divisions among those that deny it make this necessary 1. I pray Doth your pretence of Infallibility put an end to all your divisions Nay Are there not many among your selves raised meerly on the account of this Infallibility Have not many among you grown so weary of it that they have wished the name had never been mentioned Are not others so ashamed of the thred-bare impertinent places of Scripture commonly produced that they have ventured the censure of your Church for disowning them and have sheltered themselves under the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition Have not some ingenuously confessed that there is no avoiding the circle on the common grounds Are those no differences at all concerning the subject of Infallibility and the Superiority of Pope and Council Happy men that have so many coincident distinctions and such agreeing differences 2. Were there not dissentions and divisions in the Apostles times And had it not been think you much better for the Apostle instead of saying There must be heresies or divisions among you that they which are approved may be made manifest have told them There must be an Infallible Judge among you that there may be no heresies or divisions If you had been at his Elbow what prudent advise you would have given S. Paul for ending all the divisions in the Corinthian Colossian Galatian Churches c You must have told him that it was to very little purpose to wooe them by the many arguments he useth to exhort them so often to unity and chide them as carnal while they had dissentions when one word of an Infallible Judge had ended all of them But poor S. Paul knew of no such thing which made him give as good counsels as the Spirit of God directed him to but alas they were but sorry things in comparison of an Infallible Judge Give us leave therefore to reckon our selves among those Primitive Christians who knew no more than we of any such way to
belief of Fundamentals makes it a Church and the not belief of them makes them cease to be a Christian Church I speak of an Essential and not of an Organical Church and I know not who those persons are who out of those places do inferr the perpetuity of an Organical Church nor if they did doth it thence follow they must suppose an Infallible Assistance beyond an Essential to make it an Organical Church For I cannot imagine what necessity can be supposed of Infallibility in order to that which may be sufficiently constituted without it 2. I answer the perpetuity of the Church doth rather argue the Infallibility of the Promise then of the Church Which if you did consider you would not certainly inferr Infallibility from a promise of Perpetuity For all the Infallibility supposable in this case is an Infallibility of Accomplishment of the Promise made As in a clear and parallel Instance of that Promise The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Lawgiver from between his feet untill Shiloh come Taking it in the most received Interpretation among Christians that the Jewish Polity should remain till the dayes of the Messias doth this inferr that there should be a continual Infallibility in the Jewish Polity because there was a Promise made of its perpetuity When God saith In Jerusalem have I set my name for ever doth it follow that Jerusalem should be alwayes Infallible But how would you triumph beyond all reason if you had but any thing like such a promise for Rome as that is for Jerusalem Supposing then that the Promises by you insisted on should be so far extended as to imply a perpetuity of a Christian Church what doth that argue but only this that to make it appear that Promise is Infallibly true there shall alwaies be a succession of Christians in the world 3. Suppose I should grant that the being of a Christian Church doth suppose the assistance of Gods Spirit is there no assistance but what is Infallible If not no one can be a Christian without Infallibility For we speak of no other assistance but what is necessary to make men Christians for what makes them such severally take them conjunctly makes them a Church But if you besides what assistance is requisite to make them Christians do suppose somewhat more to make them a Church I pray name what it is and whatever it be it will not be owned by such who inferr a perpetuity of a Church out of these places But if in order to that no more be meant as no more can be meant then what is necessary to make men Christians then Infallibility will grow so cheap and common it will not be worth challenging by you for your Church 4. Suppose I grant this assistance to be Infallible doth all Infallible assistance make an Infallible Testimony I am sure not in their sense who say the Church is infallible in Fundamentals for they never offer to assert that the present Church is Infallible in defining what are Fundamentals and what not And this is the only Infallibility in question viz. Such a one as makes the Testimony of those who have it Infallible For such a kind of assistance was that of the Apostles which is only the thing enquired after If you can therefore prove such an Infallibility in your Churches Testimony as the Apostles had you do something but what is short of this is nothing at all to the purpose 5. Suppose I should grant the Testimony of the Catholick Church to be Infallible yet all these concessions were nothing for your advantage unless you could as evidently prove that your Church is the only Catholick Church Which that you can never do will appear when we come to that question 6. Suppose I should yield the Catholick Churches Testimony to be Infallible and your Church to be the Catholick Church yet all this is far from proving Pope or Council or both to be Infallible For By what means come they to claim the Infallibility as belonging to them which is given to the Church by what deeds are the conveyances settled of the priviledges of the Church to them Where is it ever said in Scripture or in the least intimated that the Promises made to the Church are to be understood of the representative Church The Apostles had this Promise in their personal capacities made to them and not in a representative how comes then the Promise to be understood of a representation afterwards Thus you see that you are at least six removes from any title to claim this Infallibility from these Promises by and therefore you have little hopes that your claim should be admitted upon so slender a title From this therefore at present you fly off to the vindicating A. C. from asserting Infallibility belonging to all the Doctors and Pastors of the Church which yet is a very good design to vindicate a man from his own words For are they not as express as may be viz. That there is the Promise of Christ and his Holy Spirits continual presence Luk. 10.16 Matth. 28.19 20. Joh. 14.16 not only to the Apostles but to their Successours also the lawfully sent Pastours and Doctors of the Church in all Ages To which his Lordship saith Here 's a deal of Infallibility indeed and yet errour store You presently cry out But what shall we say to an Adversary that forges what Chimerical doctrine he pleases and then fights against it What Chimerical Doctrine is that which he forges doth he not relate A. C's words and do you or can you deny them to be his words But say you This was not his meaning I suppose you mean That his words as they are are not defensible and therefore you must have a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for them which is That he did not understand these words of every Doctor apart but of Pastors and Doctors lawfully assembled in Oecumenical Councils But 1. Are Pastors and Doctors never lawfully sent but when they are in Oecumenical Councils for it is plain A. C. speaks of them as lawfully sent 2. Have Pastors and Doctors met in Oecumenical Councils in all Ages I would you could prove a truly Oecumenical Council in any Age but sure you never pretend to it in all Ages yet if A. C's words have any sense in them they speak of such an Infallibility as belongs to the Church in all Ages And therefore this plaister is a great deal too narrow to cover the sore But say you Every Authour is to be understood to mean by his words what they will properly bear and is consonant with the meaning of his other words I most freely grant you this and all that follows if you will prove it impossible for any man to speak non-sense or contradictions But I can more easily prove it very possible for a man to speak things which contradict one the other which I have sufficiently proved from your own dear self in this very Discourse
of all his goods And when he speaks of the Doctrine it self of Christianity he saies It is suitable to whatever was rational among the Platonists or other Philosophers but far more agreeable to it self and containing much more excellent things than ever they could attain to the knowledge of In his second Apology for the Christians to the Emperour Antoninus Pius he insists much on the excellency of the Doâ—trine of Christianity from the Precepts of it chastity love of enemies liberality submission to authority worship of God c. Afterwards he proves the truth and certainty of all we believe concerning Christ from the exact accomplishment of the Prophecies made concerning him in the Old Testament which discourse he ends with this saying So many and so great things being seen are sufficient to perswade men to believe the truth of them who are lovers of truth and not seekers of applause and under the command of passions Thus we see in all his discourses where he had the most occasion administred to him to discover the most certain grounds of Christian Faith he resolves all into the rational evidence of the truth excellency and divinity of the Doctrine which was contained in the Scriptures For in his second Oration to the Greeks after he had spoken highly in commendation of the Scripture calling it The best expeller of all turbulent passions and the surest extinguisher of those preternatural heats in the souls of men which saith he makes men not Poets nor Philosophers nor Orators but it makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying men immortal and mortals become gods and transferrs them from the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such places whose confines are far above Olympus therefore O ye Greeks come and be instructed be ye as I am for I was as you are And these were the things which prevailed with me the divine power and efficacy of the Doctrine What was it then I pray that Justin Martyr of a Philosopher becoming a Christian resolved his Faith into If we may believe himself it was into the evidence of the Doctrine of Christianity and not into the Infallibility of any Church The Testimony of this person I have the more largely insisted on both because he was so great a Philosopher as well as Christian and lived so near the Apostolical times Next him we produce Athenagoras as a Philosopher too as well as Christian who flourished under Antoninus and Commodus to whom he made his Apology in behalf of the Christians in which he first undertakes to manifest the reasonableness of the Doctrine which they owned the Foundation of it being the same with that which the best Philosophers acknowledged the existence and unity of the Deity But saith he if we had nothing but such reasons as he had produced our perswasion could only be humane but the words of the Prophets are they which establish our minds who being carried beyond themselves by the impulse of the Divine Spirit spake that which they were moved to when the Spirit used them as Instruments through which he spake Is not here a plain resolution of Faith into that Divine Authority by which the Prophets spake and that not as testified by any Infallible Church but as it was discernable by those persons he spake to for he appeals to the Emperours themselves concerning it which had been a fond and absurd thing for him to do if the knowledge of that Divine Inspiration did depend meerly on the testimony of Christians as such and were not to be discovered by some common Principles to them and others Much to the same purpose Tatianus speaks in that eloquent Oration of his against the Greeks who was Justin Martyrs Scholar and we shall see how agreeably he speaks to him in the account he gives how he became a Christian. After saith he he had abundantly discovered the vanity of the Theology and Superstitions of the Greeks he fell to the reading some strange Books much elder and more Divine than the Writings of the Greek Philosophers And to these saith he I yielded up my Faith for the great simplicity and plainness of the style and the freedom from affectation which was in the writers and that evidence and perspicuity which was in all they writ and because they foretold things to come made excellent promises and manifestly declared the Monarchy of the World What Protestant could speak higher of the Scripture and of those internal arguments which are the grounds of Faith than Tatianus in these words doth Yet we see these were the arguments which made him relinquish the Greek learning of which he was a Professor at Rome and betake himself to the profession of Christianity though he was sure to undergo not only contempt from the world but to be in continual hazard of his life by it That innate simplicity of the writings of the Scripture joyned with the perspicuity of it if at least those words be rightly translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sermo nusquam obscurus and it doth not rather relate to the account of the worlds creation which I conjecture it may do but however the certainty of the predictions the excellency of the promises and the reasonableness of the Doctrine were the things which by the reading of the Books he was perswaded to believe them by But all this while we hear no news of any Churches Infallibility in order to Faith We come therefore to Irenaeus who was omnium doctrinarum curioâ—â—ssimus explorator as Tertullian speaks of him a great searcher into all kind of learning and therefore surely not to seek as to the true account of his Faith Whose judgement herein although we have had occasion to enquire into before yet we have testimonies enough beside to manifest his consent with them And although Irenaeus of all the ancient Fathers be looked on as the most favourable to Tradition and is most cited to that purpose in these disputes yet I doubt not but to make it appear that where he speaks most concerning Tradition he makes the resolution of Faith to be wholly and entirely into the Scripture and they who apprehend otherwise do either take the citations out of him upon trust or else only search him for the words of those citations and never take the pains to enquire into the scope and design of his discourse For clearing which we must consider what the subject was which he writ of what the plea's of the adverse party were what way Irenaeus takes to confute them and to establish the Faith of Christians as to the matter which was in Controversie The matter in dispute was this Valentinus and his Scholars not being contented with the simplicity of the Doctrine of the Gospel and in probability the better to suit their opinions to the Heathen Mythology had invented a strange Pedigree of Gods the better as they pretended to give an account of the production of things and the various dispensations
wine into the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ and that this conveniently properly and most aptly is call'd Transubstantiation Now if this Authour speaks wholly of a real but spiritual presence of Christ and if he asserts that the substance of bread and wine do remain still you can have no pretence at all left that this Authour asserts your Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the first he expresly saith That these things must not be understood after a carnal sense viz. unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you for Christ himself hath said His words are spirit and life And nothing can be more evident then that this Authour speaks not of any corporeal but spiritual presence of Christ by the effects which he attributes to it calling it inconsumptibilem cibum that food which cannot be consumed and the reason he gives of it is because it feeds to eternal life and therefore he saith it is immortalitatis alimonia that which nourisheth to immortality which cannot possibly be conceived of the corporal presence of Christ since you confess the body of Christ remains no longer in the body then the accidents of the bread and wine do And after he tells us What the feeding upon the flesh of Christ is viz. our hunger and desire of remaining in Christ by which the sweetness of his Love is so imprinted and melted as it were within us that the savour of it may remain in our palat and bowels penetrating and diffusing it self through all the recesses of soul and body And so just before he saith Christ did Spiritualinos instruere documento instruct us by a spiritual lesson that we might know that our abiding in him is our eating of him and our drinking a kind of incorporation by the humility of our obedience the conjunction of our wills the union of our affections And in another place denyes That there is any corporal union between Christ and us but a spiritual and therefore adds afterwards As often as we do these things we do not sharpen our teeth to bite but break and divide the holy bread by a sincere Faith All which and many other places in that Authour make it plain that he doth not speak of such a corporal presence as you imagine but of a real but spiritual presence of Christ whereby the souls of Believers have an intimate union and conjunction with Christ which he calls Societatem germanissimam in which respect they have communion with the body of Christ. But I need mention but one place more to explain his meaning in which he fully asserts the spiritual presence of Christ and withall that the substance of the elements doth remain That immortal nourishment is given us which differs from common food that it retains the nature of a corporeal substance but proving the presence of a Divine power by its invisible efficiency So that what presence of Divine power there is is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ for in reference to that efficiency he calls it immortal nourishment and afterwards That as common bread is the life of the body so this supersubstantial bread is the life of the soul and health of the mind But I know you will quarrel with me for rendring corporalis substantiae retinens speciem by retaining the nature of a corporal substance for you would fain have species to signifie only the accidents of a corporeal substance to remain This being therefore the main thing in dispute if I can evince that species signifies not the bare external accidents but the nature of a corporeal substance then this Authour will be so far from asserting that he will appear point-blank against your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now I shall prove that species was not taken then for the meer external shape and figure but for the solid body it self especially of such things as were designed for nourishment Thence in the Civil Law we read of the species annonariae and of the species publicae largitionales and fiscales and those who had the care of corn are said to be curatores specierum and thence very often in the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius there is mention of the species vini species olei species tritici But lest you should think it is only used in this sense in the Civil Law not only Cassiodore and Vegetius use it in the same sense for the species tritici and species annonariae but that which comes home to our purpose St. Ambrose uses it where it is impossible to be taken for the meer external accidents but must be understood of the substance it self speaking of Christs being desired to change the water into wine he thus expresses it Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutaret that he would change the substance of water into the species of wine Will you say that Christ turned it only into the external accidents and not the nature of it So when St. Austin sayes that Christ was the same food to the Jews and us significatione nonspecie he opposes species to a meer type and therefore it imports the substance and reality of the thing And so the translator of Origen opposes the regeneratio in specie to the baptismus in aenigmate and the manna in aenigmate to the manna in specie in both which being opposed to the figure it denotes the reality And one of those Authours whom you cite in the very same Book and Chapter which you cite uses species sanguinis for the substance of blood for he opposes it to the similitudo sanguinis for when the person objects and sayes That after the cup is consecrated speciem sanguinis non video I do not see the nature or substance of blood he answers him Sed similitudinem habet But it hath the resemblance of it for as saith he there is the similitude of his death so there is the similitude of his blood These may be sufficient to shew that species corporalis substantiae does not relate to the external shape and figure but to the nature and reality of it So that his meaning is although it remains still the same substance of bread and wine yet there is such an invisible efficiency of Divine power going along with the use of it as makes it to nourish the souls of men to eternal life And now it will be no matter of difficulty at all to Answer the places you bring out of this Authour The first is This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life But how little this place makes to your purpose is easie to discern because we do not deny a Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which you assert but that Authour sufficiently
produced is That a Tradition may be known to be such by the Light it hath in it self in which you say you find not one word of Tradition being known by its own Light But who are so blind as those who will not see I pray what difference is there between a Tradition being known to be such by its own Light and a Tradition being known by its own Light Yes say you known to be such implies that is to be God's unwritten Word but are not doctrinal Traditions and an unwritten Word with you the same thing Can therefore a Tradition be known to be an unwritten Word by its own Light and not be known to be a Tradition by its own Light Nay How can it possibly be known to be an unwritten Word unless it first appears to be a Tradition for Tradition containing under it both those that are unwritten Words and those that are not it must in order of nature be known to be a Tradition before it can be known to be the other As I must first know you to be a living Creature before I can know you to be a reasonable Creature and I may much sooner know the one than the other You do therefore very well when you have given us such occasion for sport to give us leave to laugh at it as you do in your next words But before you leave this point you have some graver matter to take notice of which is that you desire the reader to consider what the Relator grants viz. That the Church now admits of St. James and St. Judes Epistles and the Apocalypse which were not received for diverse years after the rest of the New Testament From which you wisely inferr That if some Books are now to be admitted for Canonical which were not alwayes acknowledged to be such then upon the same authority some Books may now be received into the Canon which were not so in Ruffinus his time And therefore the Bishop doth elsewhere unjustly charge the Church of Rome that it had erred in receiving more Books into the Canon then were received in Ruffinus his time To which I Answer 1. By your own confession then the Church of Rome doth now receive into the Canon more Books then she did in Ruffinus his time from whence I enquire whether the present Church of Rome were Infallible in Ruffinus his time in determining the Canon of the Scripture If not then the present Church is no Infallible propounder of the Word of God and then all your discourse comes to nothing If she were Infallible then she cannot be now for now she determins otherwise as to a main point of Faith than she did then unless you will say your Church can be Infallible in determining both parts of a contradiction to be true 2. Is the integrity of the Canon of Scripture an Apostolical tradition or no I doubt not but you will say It is if so Whether were these Books which you admit now and were not admitted then known to be of the Canon by this Apostolical tradition If not by what right come they now to be of the Canon if so then was not your Church in Ruffinus's time much to seek for her Infallibility in defining what was Apostolical tradition and what not 3. Your main principle on which the lawfulness of adding more books to the Canon of the Scripture is built is That it is in the power of your Church judicially and authoritatively to determine what books belong to the Canon of the Scripture and what not which I utterly deny For it is impossible that your Church or any in the world can by any definition make that Book to be Divine which was not so before such a definition For the Divinity of the Book doth meerly arise from Divine revelation Can your Church then make that to be a Divine revelation which was not so All that any Church in the world can do in this case is not to constitute any new Canon which were to make Books Divine which were not so but to use its utmost diligence and care in searching into the authenticalness of those Copy's which have any pretence to be of the Canon and whether they did originally proceed from such persons as we have reason to believe had an immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and according to the evidence they find the Church may declare and give in her verdict For the Church in this case is but a Jury of grand Inquest to search into matters of Fact and not a Judge upon the Bench to determine in point of Law And that is the true reason why the Books of the New Testament were gradually received into the Canon and some a great while after others as St. James St. Jude the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse because at first the Copyes being not so publickly dispersed there was not that occasion ministred to the Church for examination of them upon which when by degrees they came to be more publick it caused scruples in many concerning them because they appeared no sooner especially if any passages in them seemed to gratifie any of the Sects then appearing as the Epistle to the Hebrews the Novatians and the Apocalypse the Millenary's But when upon a through search and examination of all circumstances it did appear that these Copyes were authentical and did originally proceed from Divine Persons then they came to be admitted and owned for such by the Vniversal Church which we call being admitted into the Canon of the Scripture Which I take to be the only true and just account of that which is called the constituting the Canon of Scripture not as though either the Apostles met to do it or St. John intended any such thing by those words in the end of the Apocalypse for that Book being as much lyable to question as any how could that seal the Canon for all the rest much less that it was in the power of any Church or Council and least of all of the Pope to determine what was Canonical and what not but only that the Church upon examination and enquiry did by her Universal reception of these Books declare it self satisfied with the evidence which was produced that those were true and authentick Copyes which were abroad under such names or titles and that there was great reason to believe by a continued tradition from the age and time these Books were written in that they were written by such persons who were not only free from any design of imposture but gave the greatest Rational evidence that they had a more special and immediate assistance of Gods Spirit You see then to how little advantage to your Cause you made this digression As to the third way propounded for resolving the Question How we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God viz. by the testimony of the Holy Ghost three things you object against the Bishops discourse about it First that his discourse
is roving and uncertain 2. That notwithstanding his brags he must have recourse to a private spirit himself 3. That though the Bishop would seem to deny it diverse eminent Protestants do resolve their Faith into the private spirit This being the substance of what you say I shall return a particular Answer to each of them For the first you tell us He delivers himself in such a roving way of discourse as signifies nothing in effect as to what he would drive at No that is strange when that which his Lordship drives at is to shew how far this opinion is to be allowed and how far not which he is so far from roving in that he clearly and distinctly propounds the state of the question and the resolution of it which in short is this If by the testimony of the spirit be meant any special revelation of a new object of Faith then he denies the truth of it at least in an ordinary way both because God never sends us to look for such a testimony and because it would expose men to the danger of Enthusiasms but if by the testimony of the Spirit be meant the habit or the act of Divine infused Faith by vertue of which they believe the object which appears credible then he grants the truth but denyes the pertinency of it because it is quite out of the state of the question which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this object credible against all impeachment of folly and temerity in believing whether men do actually believe or not And withal adds that the question is of such outward and evident means as other men may take notice of as well as our selves Judge you now whether this may be called roving if it be so I can freely excuse you from it in all the discourses I have met with in your Book who abhorre nothing more then a true stating and methodical handling any question But yet say you the Bishop cannot free himself from that imputation of recurring to the private Spirit against any that should press the business home Sure you refer us here to some one else who is able to press a business home for you never attempt it your self and instead of that only produce a large testimony out of A. C. That he did not acquit the Bishop wholly of this Whether he did or no is to little purpose and yet those very words which his Lordship cites are in your testimony produced out of him Only what you add more from him that he must be driven to it that his Lordship denies and neither A. C. or you have been able to prove it But though the Bishop seems not only to deny any such private revelation himself but will not confess that any Protestants hold it yet you say there can be no doubt in this since Calvin and Whitaker do both so expresly own it But according to those principles laid down before both these testimonies are easily answered For 1. Neither of them doth imply any private revelation of any new object but only a particular application of the evidence appearing in Scripture to the conscience of every Believer 2. That these testimonies do not speak of the external evidence which others are capable of but of the internal satisfaction of every ones conscience Therefore Calvin saith Si conscientiis optimè consultum volumus c. if we will satisfie our own consciences not If we will undertake to give a sufficient reason to others of our Faith So Whitaker Esse enim dicimus certius illustrius testimonium quo nobis persuadeatur hos libros esse sacros c. There is a more certain and noble testimony by which we may be perswaded that these Books are sacred viz. that of the Holy Ghost 3. Neither of these testimonies affirm any more than the more judicious Writers among your selves do Your Canus asserts the necessity of an internal efficient cause by special assistance of the Spirit moving us to believe besides and beyond all humane authorities and motives which of themselves are not sufficient to beget Faith and this a little after he calls Divinum quoddam lume◠incitans ad credendum A divine light moving us to believe and again Interius lumen infusum à Spirit◠Sancto An inward light infused by the Spirit of God There is nothing in the sayings of the most rigid Protestants is more hard to explain or vindicate from a private revelation then this is if as you say one would press it home Nay hath not your own Stapleton Calvins very phrase of the necessity of the secret testimony of the Spirit that one believe the testimony and judgement of the Church concerning Scripture And is there not then as much danger of Enthusiasm in believing the Testimony of your Church as in believing the Scriptures Nay doth not your Gregory de Valentiâ rather go higher then the testimonies by you produced out of Calvin and Whitaker on this very subject in the beginning of his discourse of the resolution of Faith It is God himself saith he in the first place which must convince and perswade the minds of men of the truth of the Christian Doctrine and consequently of the Sacred Scriptures by some inward instinct and impulse as it appears from Scripture it self is fully explained by Prosper If you will then undertake to clear this inward instinct and impulse upon the minds of men whereby they are perswaded of the truth of Christianity and Scripture from Enthusiasm and a private spirit you may as easily do it for the utmost which is said by Calvin or Whitaker or any other Protestant Divine This therefore is only an argument of your desire to cavil and as such I will pass it over For what concerns the influence which the Spirit hath in the resolution of Faith it will be enquired into afterwards The last way mentioned in order to the resolution of Faith is that of Reason which his Lordship saith cannot be denyed to have some place to come in and prove what it can According to which he tells us no man can be hindred from weighing the tradition of the Church the inward motives in Scripture it self all testimonies within which seem to bear witness to it and in all this saith he there is no harm the danger is when a man will use no other scale but reason or prefer reason before any other scale Reason then can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his Faith that the Scripture is the word of God infallibly yet Reason can go so high as it can prove that Christian Religion which rests upon the authority of this Book stands upon surer grounds of nature reason common equity and justice then any thing in the world which any Infidel or meer naturalist hath done doth or can adhere unto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himself This