The Nonconformists Vindicated, Remarks

The Nonconformists Vindicated · Remarks

p. 143LOng time after I had written the Appendix againſt Dr. Heylin, I was informed, that ſomething elſe was come abroad in Latin, in the which the Nonconformiſts were concerned. I could not think any thing was ſaid in it, that had not been ſaid before, and therefore I had once ſome thoughts, never ſo much as to look into it, but being told that the Author of it was Mr. Matthew Scrivener, reputed at Cambridge (while he there reſided) a cloſe Student, and great Scholar; I reſolved, to caſt my eye upon ſome Pages of it, that ſo, if it ſeemed written with any candor and judgement, I might either give an anſwer to it, or tell ſuch Nonconforming friends, as I was acquainted with, that I found it unanſwerable. But looking into it, at the Stationers ſhop, I ſoon found it to be made up of little beſides ſcurrility and calumny. Monſieur Daillees Book of the Right uſe of the Fathers, which I thought no Proteſtant had looked on without admiration, nor Papiſt without terror, this Engliſh Presbyter undertakes to anſwer, endeavours firſt of all to make it appear, that the Book deſerved not the Elogiums that ſome of great name and eſteem among us had beſtowed upon it, and that Mr. Daillee was but a Cham, taking delight to lay open the nakedneſs of the Fathers. Then proceeds to give him a general and particular anſwer. I confeſs I was moved p. 144not a little, to ſee a writer that had deſerved ſo well of the Reformed Religion, ſo unworthily dealt with, by one pretending to be a Proteſtant. For what one thing hath Mr. J. D. ſaid more or leſs about the Fathers, than what had been ſaid many years before by ſome of our moſt eminent Divines in England? It muſt be acknowledged, that he hath handled the point more copioufly, than any who went before him; and the heads of his diſcourſe are exemplified with a moſt admirable collection of particulars; but that he hath brought the Fathers any one peg lower than they had been brought by Juel, Humfred, Whitaker, Rainolds, Dr. George Abbot, Down, &c. will never be proved. Biſhop Coſins hath put together all the reaſons that were ſcattered and diſperſed in other mens writings, to prove the Non-canonicalneſs of the Apocryphal Books; now it would be no wonder if a Proteſtant in ſome writing ſhould obiter take notice, that the Biſhop in ſome particular had miſtook himſelf; but he that ſhould profeſſedly undertake to anſwer him, would ſcarce be accounted other than a Papiſt. e. c. The Biſhop ſaith, p. 18. All the Canonical Books of the Old Teſtament were originally written in Hebrew (except &c.) but theſe other books (he means thoſe canonized at Trent) were all confeſſedly firſt written in the Greek tongue, &c.) I may doubt whether all the controverted books were firſt written in the Greek tongue, I may confidently affirm this is not confeſſed concerning all the controverted books (for who knows not that Eccleſiaſticus is generally affirmed to be written firſt in p. 145Hebrew, to ſay nothing of other books) and yet not be thought ſpightful nor Popiſh; but if I ſhould publiſh a whole book againſt the Biſhop, labouring to leſſen his reputation and eſteem, to weaken the authorities by him produced, would not any man ſay, that either I was a Papiſt, or that I cared not how much I gratified the Papiſt, ſo I could but ſhow my teeth againſt Biſhop Coſins? yet juſt ſuch a game it is that Mr. Scrivener plays.

Obj. But if what he hath ſaid againſt Daillee be truth, if his anſwers to him be rational, is it not meet he ſhould be honoured? Will it not be for our credit and reputation, to let the Papiſts know, that we will not ſpare our own, how renowned ſoever, where they exceed the bounds of modeſty and ſobriety?

Anſ. If any one through a zeal (without knowledg) againſt Popery, ſhall ſay thoſe things againſt the Fathers that may diſcourage thoſe who have leaſure and money from buying and reading of them; or ſo weaken their authority, as to prejudice the intereſt of Chriſtianity; he doth deſerve praiſe and commendation who ſhall endeavour to bring the Fathers to their due eſteem. But neither hath Mr. Daillee wronged the Fathers, nor Mr. Scrivener righted them: but becauſe Mr. Scrivener heard a Presbyterian in a Sermon put off an objection taken from the authority of the Fathers by referring his hearers to Mr. Daillee, therefore he reſolves to encounter Mr. Daillee. And as ſpleen ſeems to be the chief thing that put him on this undertaking, ſo in the managing of it he hath diſcovered more of petulant p. 146ſpleen, than of judgment. This cenſure I had ſome purpoſe to make good, but that 1. I am aſſured that Daillee is like in a ſhort time to be vindicated by ſome of his own. 2. I am now alſo fallen into a place where I can have no books but what my own Library affords; and though I have moſt of the ancient Fathers of ſome Edition, yet in a matter of this nature, I ſhall neither be able to ſatisfie my ſelf nor others, unleſs I had opportunity to conſult all the Editions of them, or at leaſt the moſt renowned. For it often happeneth, that when a man thinketh he hath the Fathers on his ſide, and hath brought their teſtimonies too plain to be eluded for his opinion, he reapeth no benefit thereby, becauſe thoſe who differ from him, deny the copies according to which he proceedeth, to be ſuch as are to be relied on. It was my hap not long ſince to read Dr. Waltons Prolegomena, that I might ſee what he could ſay for the comparative novelty of the Hebrew Letters that we at preſent uſe; among other arguments I found him to make uſe of the authority of Euſebius his Chronicle ad annum mundi 4740. the words quoted out of him are theſe, Fuit Eſdras eruditiſſimus legis divinae, & clarus omnium Judaeorum magiſter, qui de captivitate regreſſi ſuerunt in Judaeam: affirmatur que divinas Scripturas memoriter condidiſſe, & ut Samari. tanis non miſcerentur literas Judaicas commutaſſe. What is his collection hence? why this, Hic videmus Euſebium non tantum hanc literarum mutationem diſerte aſſerere, ſed etiam ejus cauſam adferre; ut ſc. Judaeicum Samaritanis non miſcerentur. I could ſee no ſuch diſert or manifeſt aſſertion of the change of the Letters in this teſtimony of Euſebius. He that p. 147only ſaith affirmatur, cannot be concluded ſo much as to deliver his own opinion. Many Hiſtorians and Chronographers uſe affirmatur, or ſome word of like import in ſuch matters as they themſelves do not believe, and I hope for the credit of Euſebius that he did not think Eſdram divinas ſcripturas memoriter condidiſſe; and if ſo, it is not like that he believed the other part of the affirmation neither. But Mr. Baily, a learned and induſtrious Scotch-man, in his lately publiſhed Hiſtorical and Chronological Work, lib. 1. p. 197. tells me, That he had read over and over Euſebius his Chronicle, as well the Greek as the Latin Copy ſet forth by Scaliger, with great care out of the beſt Manuſcripts, and could not find one word in them concerning this change of Letters by Eſdras; and yet if Scaliger had in any Copy of good repute found any thing that might have confirmed this change of Letters, he would no doubt have inſerted it, becauſe he doth with ſo much paſſion take upon him to defend that change. Now if this be true, as I doubt it is, that Dr. Walton in his prologue to ſo renowned a Work as the Polyglotts, followed a Tranſlation of Euſebius that was corrupted, I may well be affrighted from examining teſtimonies of Fathers, till I be where I may be aſſured that the teſtimonies I am to examine are not counterfeited. In the mean time I ſhall lay down ſome few things concerning the Fathers.

1. Many times the uſefulneſs and almoſt abſolute neceſſity of being acquainted with the Oriental Languages and the Writings of the Fathers, is moſt cried up by thoſe who themſelves are but ſtrangers to them. It is not many years ſince a ſon p. 148of the Church at a Lecture in the Countrey, Preached up the neceſſity of the knowledge of the Original Hebrew, affirming that they were not worthy the name of Divines who did not well underſtand it; but this pert young man being at Dinner taken to task about his own skill in Hebrew, it was found that he could not ſo much as read Hebrew; yet he was out-done by the bold Jeſuit, who (as Melchior Adam relates the ſtory in his life, pag. 845.) in a Diſpute with Graſerus about the Hebrew Text of the Bibles, made boaſt of his skill in Hebrew; but this Father of the ſociety having an Hebrew Bible without points put into his hands, knew not which was the top, which was the bottom of the Pages, which occaſioned Graſerus his Scholar to laugh at his daring ignorance; ſo that the Nobleman who brought this Father, withdrew, and wiſh'd him, ſo ignorant, to be gone. They who have read the reaſons of Edmund Campian, cannot but know how much he boaſted of the Fathers, as if they had been all his own from firſt to laſt, even as much as Gregory the 13th: on this account he earneſtly deſired to be admitted to diſpute with our Divines. Quo quo ſe moverit adverſarius, feret incommodum: Patres admiſerit captus eſt; Excluſerit, nullus eſt. But when this vain-glorious creature came to be diſputed with, it was found that he could not underſtand a Greek Father, and that it might well be queſtioned whether he could ſo much as read Greek. Dr. Fulk plainly tells him in the third days conference, that it was not above a dozen years ſince he heard him at Oxford ask a Stationer for Irenaeus's Epiſtles. In the fourth days conference, p. 149when Mr. Clark brought Tertullians Book againſt Hermogenes to prove the Scriptures ſufficiency, he knew of no ſuch book; and yet when he was convinced that there was ſuch a book, then he could anſwer, and pretended to know upon what account Tertullian argued againſt Hermogenes? And he pretended in the ſame days conference, that he knew the meaning of St. Baſil, and yet would not, or could not read the place in Greek, though it were eaſie, and the ſentence ſhort, and though he knew not where to find it in the Latin book. So it ſeemed not improbable to ſome that Campian made not that confident Pamphlet, but only turned it into good Latin. Thompſon alſo in his Treatiſe de Amiſſione & Interciſione juſtificationis, & gratiae, muſters up the teſtimonies of many Fathers; but when his book was only manuſcript, one who knew him, asked him this queſtion, Ʋnde tot Patrum teſtimonia uſurparet, qui patres vix quidem attigiſſet? I could ſhew the like ignorance and confidence in another Arminian, who troubled Mr. Robert Baily of Scotland, with teſtimonies of Fathers againſt Predeſtination, but ſuch as were all taken out of Voſſius, and concluded them with an Item, that Beza and Calvin acknowledged the Fathers to be againſt themſelves, quoting as Voſſius through an overſight had done, Beza on Rom. 9.39. when as that Chapter hath but 33 Verſes in it. And Calvins third book of Inſtitutions 33 Chapter, when there be but 25 Chapters in that whole book. I could alſo diſcover a great many now living who carry it in their Sermons and Diſcourſes, as if they followed the ancient Fathers, when p. 150indeed they follow none but Hugh Groot. But would I by all this inſinuate, that Mr. Scrivener is not well verſed in the Fathers, for whom he Apologizeth? I anſwer, I would inſinuate no more, but that it is poſſible that all his pretended zeal for the Fathers may be without any great knowledge of them. What the courſe of his Studies hath been, I know not, his friends were wont to think, that his genius led him rather to School-men, than Fathers (if it did ſo, he is not the worſe to be liked; for of the two, a Miniſter who hath the cure of ſouls, may better want Patriſtical than Scholaſtical Theology); I ſuppoſe it would a little diſcompoſe his gravity to be catechized any whit ſtrictly concerning the age, ſtile and deſign of ſome of the Fathers whom he undertakes to defend; if in this I be miſtaken, the matter is not great, for I deſign it only to keep our Prieſts from boaſting of a falſe gift.

2. I never yet in all my life met with any perſon of any perſwaſion whatſoever, that would recede from any opinion he had at firſt imbibed, becauſe one or more Fathers were againſt him. We all firſt take up our opinions from the Catechiſms, or Confeſſions that are authorized in thoſe Churches of which we are members, and many, that I ſay not moſt, go all their days by an implicit faith, believing as the Church believes, and as their Miniſters do Preach, never taking pains to ſearch whether they agree to the Canon of Faith. Popiſh Divines think that their Church cannot err, and ſo ſtrain all their learning and diligence to defend what ſhe hath determined; all that call themſelves Proteſtants, p. 151ſay they ought to uſe their judgement of diſcretion, though they may be bound, if in ſome comparatively leſs matters, they have knowledge different from the Church in which they are Miniſters, to have it to themſelves. This is truth, but the men who do conſcientiouſly and impartially make uſe of their judgement of diſcretion, are not very many, they are very ſoon tyed up by ſubſcriptions, and account it not for their credit to recede from them; if in diſputation they be preſſed with the authority of the Fathers or ancient Doctors, they either bluntly declare that they little regard them, or elſe find out ſome plauſible ſalvo, or foreign to elude them.

1. Some will flatly declare that they do not much matter what mind the Fathers are of. The great Patron of Ubiquity Jacobus Andraeas is reported by Scultetus in his Nuncupatory to his Medulla, not to value the Fathers at all, Athanaſius with him was Sathanaſius, Vigilius, Dormilius, and all the Patres he would in contempt call Matres, that is, I ſuppoſe, weak and ſilly creatures, unfit to be uſed as guides and directors in matters of Religion. The Papiſts themſelves, as great a ſhew as they ſometimes make of Fathers, do at other times uſe language not much more civil concerning them. Was it not a Pope of Rome that declared his eſteem of the learning of Thomas Aquinas to be ſo great, that he doubted not to give unto him the firſt place after the Canonical Scripture? Such a Speech is fathered upon one of the Innocents by Auguſtin Hunne, if I may credit Dr. G. Abbot againſt Hill, Pag. 426. and I ſuppoſe I may well p. 152credit him, becauſe I find as much in Alvarez de Auxiliis, lib. 1. pag. 52. Indeed to almoſt all truly and throughly Popiſh Writers, the Fathers are but Children, his Holineſs, as they call him, is all in all with them. Suarez in 3. Com. 1. qu. 2. not. 2. diſp. 42. ſect. 1. ſaith, The definition of the Pope is altogether true; and if it ſhould be contrary to the ſayings of all Saints, it were to be preferred to them. Bellar. lib. 4. de Pon. cap. 5. If the Pope ſhould err by commanding vices, or prohibiting vertues, the Church would be bound to believe vices to be good, and vertues bad, unleſs ſhe would ſin againſt her conſcience. Cornelius Mus in his Comments on the Romans, p. 606. e. g. I, to confeſs ingenuouſly, would more believe the Pope alone in thoſe things which concern the myſteries of faith, than a thouſand Auſtins, Hieroms, Gregories, &c. becauſe the Pope in matters of faith cannot err. Much ſuch ranting ſtuff I could quote, did I count it needful; but indeed it is not needful, for his Holineſs takes upon him to have a power to correct Fathers, that they may juſt fit and ſuit the preſent ſtate of his Church. By the Conſtitution of Sixtus the Fifth, care is taken to ſet out Fathers free from the corruptions they have contracted by coming through the hands of Hereticks, but with this proviſo, That if any more weighty doubts and difficulties ſhall happen in the authority of old Books, in the correction and emendation of books, things being firſt examined in the Congregation, they ſhould be referred to him, that in variety of readings he might determine that by a ſpecial priviledge granted to his See, which was moſt conſonant to orthodox verity: and leſt we ſhould think that p. 153the Pope muſt determine nothing of his own head, but after he hath taken great pains, hear Gregory de Valentia Analyſis fidei, lib. 8. p. 70. Non eſt ratio ulla firma quamobrem exiſtimare debeamus, ſtudii diligentiam Pontifici eſſe neceſſariam, ſive in definiendo ſtudium adhibeat ſive non adhibeat, infallibiliter certe definiet. But this it may be is ſaid but by one, and a long time ſince; not ſo, we ſhall find our Countrey-man Thomas Bacon, or Southwell in his Analyſis fidei ſaying as much.

But do not Calviniſts as much ſet at naught the Fathers when they make not for them?

Anſ. So they are charged to do by Papiſts, and the Remonſtrants, and their adherents. Campian ſaith, Cauſaeus called Dionyſius the Areopagite a doting old man; but Dr. Humphred denies him to have uſed any ſuch broad language even of the pretended Dionyſius, De Patribus, p. 520, &c. Grotius alſo gives them ſuch a bob pag. 15. Piet. Illuſ. Ordin. Hollandiae, but quoteth no Author that gave him any occaſion to vent ſuch a reproach.

2. Some hating to ſpeak contemptibly of the Fathers, will civilly put off their authority, either by putting another ſenſe on their words than is commonly given, or by blaming the edition, or the tranſlation, or by oppoſing one Father to another, or the ſame Father to himſelf, or by ſaying that he relates the opinion of others: So that they do by them, juſt as they do at Oxford by Ariſtotle, his authority muſt not be denied in diſputations under a penalty appointed by the Statutes, yet any one in Paerviſiis, or Auguſtinenſibus holds the opinion that he beſt liketh, how contrary ſoever it be to p. 154Ariſtotle; and if Ariſtotle be urged againſt him, Loquitur ad modum vulgi, diſputative, non doctrinaliter, &c. ſerves well enough to put him by, and ſhift him off.

The day is yet, I ſuppoſe, to come that ever any Scholar in diſputation ſaid, I find that Ariſtotle is againſt me, and therefore I do revoke and recall my opinion, promiſing to be of another mind for the future. If the Roman Catholicks do not uſe the Fathers juſt ſo, then let me be accounted to bear falſe witneſs againſt them. In the general that caution of the Belgick Cenſors is well known, and extant in the Chapter concerning Bertram. In veteribus aliis plurimos ferimus errores, & extenuamus, excuſamus excogitato commento, perſaepe negamus & commodum eis ſenſum affingimus, dum opponuntur in diſputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum adverſariis. This affixing of a commodious ſenſe to the Fathers, is a ſhield that will quench all darts; by help of this, Bellarmine thought himſelf able to avoid the general Propoſitions of the Fathers, concerning the extent of Original ſin, ſo as to leave room and place for the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, De Amiſ. Grat. Lib. 4. cap. 15. I wonder, having found out ſuch a ſhield, he would ever part with it. What need he ſay de Sanct. Beat. 1. Cap. 6. concerning Juſtin, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Oecumenius. I ſee not how I can defend them; or concerning Lactantius, that he fell into many errors, eſpecially about the age to come, being more skilful in the books of Tully than in the holy Scriptures; or concerning Victorinus, that he wanted learning, but not a will to learning, Lib. eodem cap. 5. Why are Procopius, Eucherius, p. 155Iſidorus branded to be uncertain Authors, or obſcure, Lib. de Purg. 2. cap. 6. Why is it ſaid of Origen, that his words on the 14th Homily on Luke do not bear a commodious expoſition, de Pur. lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 630. Origen was one of the firſt that brought in Purgatory fire; and could Bellarmine find out no commodious ſenſe of his words concerning thoſe that are to be purged by it? Could he not ſay that he related only the opinion of others, as he doth concerning Hierom? Lib. de gratia primi hominis, cap. 11. or that he ſpake hyperbolically, as he brings off Chryſoſtom, lib. 2. de Miſſ. cap. 10. or that he did write after the manner of Poets, which he ſaith about Prudentius, lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. Why could he not ſay, that writing againſt one extreme, he fell into the other extreme; a ſalvo often brought when ſome of the Fathers ſayings are brought, that ſeem to favour Manichaeiſm or Pelagianiſm, Arrianiſm or Sabellianiſm. If no ſuch thing would ſerve the turn, why then it might have been ſaid, that he ſpoke foreign, a diſtinction uſed by St. Baſil to fetch off Gregory, Epiſ. 64. but made uſe of by more than one Papiſt; or rather than fail, it might have been ſaid, that Origen was abuſed and corrupted.

Q. What then, is no authority to be aſcribed to the Fathers?

A. There may be authority enough aſcribed to them, notwithſtanding any thing I have ſaid; for I have only related how men deal with the Fathers, not how they ought to deal with them. Yet I confeſs I am ſomewhat to ſeek how to draw ſuch an argument from the authority of the Fathers, as p. 156none but deſperate perſons will think invalid. Should I, meeting with an Adverſary that differs from me, argue thus, Auſtin ſays it is ſo, therefore ſo it is; or Auſtin ſaith it is not ſo, therefore it is not ſo: My antecedents I may chance to prove, if I have ſuch an Edition of Auſtin by me, as is liable to no exception; but my arguments to be ſure would be denied, and how ſhall I prove them, by asking him whether he account himſelf wiſer than Auſtin? he will, if he be wiſe, ask me, whether I will ſubſcribe to every thing that he can bring a place of Auſtin for? and I, if I be not a fool, ſhall not promiſe ſo to do; ſo is our argument at an end. But perhaps if I had argued from conſent of Fathers, then he muſt when I had proved: ſuch conſent, have yielded to me, or elſe he might juſtly be reputed contentious and ſelf-conceited. I muſt needs acknowledg that the teſtimony of many Fathers to a point, is more conſiderable, than the teſtimony of any one Father to the ſame point. And yet ſometimes one may ſo practiſe upon many, that thoſe many who join with him, may juſtly be reputed to ſignifie no more than himſelf alone, or rather not ſo much as himſelf alone; for he that goes about to trapan others into a conſent with him, may well be thought not to be himſelf; there may be a good appeal from a man engaged to make a party, and carry on a deſign, to the ſame man under no ſuch engagement. Sometimes alſo it is too too apparent, that after one Father had written his opinion upon a matter, others have choſen rather to follow him, than to be at the pains to enquire whether he p. 157was to be followed. But be this as it will: when is it we may reckon our ſelves to have the conſent of Fathers? I ſuppoſe when we hold that which all or the moſt of the Fathers did hold manifeſtly, frequently, conſtantly, no others contradicting them. If ſuch a conſent as this be not almoſt impoſſible to be had in the queſtions now diſputed among Chriſtians, then muſt I needs confeſs my ſelf much miſtaken in the collections I have made out of the Writings of the Fathers. But it will be good for the further clearing of this buſineſs, to inſtance in particulars, that we may know how much we are bound to follow Fathers.

1. There be ſome matters purely philoſophical; how much is to be attributed to the conſent of the Fathers in theſe? Muſt we concern our ſelves before we come to be of any opinion about them, to enquire what their ſentiments concerning them were? Had the Fathers ſuch clear conceptions in Phyſicks, Metaphyſicks, Mathematicks, that he who departs from them, muſt needs be thought to be in an error? If ſo, I know no Sect of Philoſophers that muſt not be judged to abound with errors. Cornelius à Lapide tells us, that Baſil, Theodoret, Nazianzen, did all hold that Light was created by God out of any ſubject, and thence notes againſt Hereticks, That accidents can in the Euchariſt exiſt without a ſubject. As for Baſil, I think notwithſtanding all the pains Bellarmine takes De Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. to make him of that opinion, he is well enough brought off by Scultetus. Theodoret I have not by me, and will not gueſs what p. 158his mind was. Nazianzen in his 43. Orat. foreign, &c. hath theſe words concerning that Light, foreign, ſome of which words ſound ſuſpiciouſly, yet perhaps do not neceſſarily infer, that he conceived Light to be a quality exiſting without a ſubject; if they do, he ſaith plainly it was but his own private opinion. But now ſuppoſe all theſe three, and three and twenty more Fathers had been of this mind, muſt I be thought proud if I did not forthwith allow the poſſibility of an accident's ſubſiſting without a ſubject? If I muſt, jacta eſt alea, I am reſolved in all ſuch caſes not to purchaſe a reputation of humility by diſclaiming my reaſon. Lactantius and Auſtin do with ſome zeal oppoſe the Antipodes, and laugh at the aſſertors of them. Venerable Bede treads in their ſteps. As for Pope Zachary who got into the Chair about the year 750. his zeal againſt the Antipodes was ſo furious, that nothing Ieſs would ſatisfie it, than the condemning of Virgilius, a Biſhop in Bavaria, as an Heretick, becauſe he adventured to aſſert, that there were men whoſe feet were oppoſite to ours. Fromund in his Anti-ariſtarchus is troubled at this ſtory, and takes ſome pains to qualifie it ſo, as that it may not derogate from the Popes infallibility.

I ſhall not be offended with any man that can prove there never was a Pope who thought it hereſie to hold the Earth to be round. And I am glad the Church of Rome now-a-days allows her followers more liberty in matters of Philoſophy, than p. 159formerly; for the more liberty is allowed to men of that perſwaſion, though but in Philoſophy, the more hopes may we conceive of their coming over to us.

But I ſee plainly that the ancient Fathers did look upon the roundneſs of the Earth as a paradox; and it is not many years ſince a Divine in England writing againſt the morality of the Sabbath, laid down abundance of propoſitions which were every one of them falſe, the plainneſs of the earth not being ſuppoſed.

However, I am reſolved to adhere to demonſtration and hiſtory, ſay the Fathers and their admirers what they will to the contrary. To be ſhort, ſo far as I can judg, the Fathers were not the beſt Philoſophers that ever the world enjoyed.

2. What is to be attributed to the conſent of Fathers in matters of Chronology? Surely not very much: for being generally unacquainted with the Hebrew, and following none of the beſt Copies of the Septuagint, they miſerably failed in the Age of the Antediluvian Patriarchs. All good men can eaſily pardon that their error; ſome of late have gone about to juſtifie their account, but upon ſuch weak grounds, that I ſhould much wonder if among Scholars they ſhould have many followers. The Learned world will not eaſily yield that all the Hebrew Copies we now uſe, are corrupted, Gen. 5. and to be amended by the Septuagint.

3. What is to be attributed to the Fathers in matters Hiſtorical? To anſwer this it would be enquired, 1. How far they thought themſelves concerned to report truth. 2. Of what prudence p. 160they were. For if any of them thought an officious lye lawful, there is no relying upon the Hiſtory written by him; and that none of the Fathers thought an officious lye lawful, I am not he that will affirm; I rather fear that ſome of them did make no ſcruple to uſe pious frauds, the more to ſet off Chriſtian Religion to thoſe Heathens againſt whom they did write. He that hath any noſe may ſmell ſomething of this officiouſneſs in ſundry of thoſe miracles that are left on record by Eccleſiaſtical Writers. 2. If any of them did think that they might not lye, no not foreign; yet if they were credulous, and apt to be abuſed by cunning men, they might report things far from truth, which yet upon their credit and reputation would be taken for true in ſucceeding generations. What an incredible ſtory doth Juſtin Martyr in his Exhortation to the Greeks tell us, concerning the 72. Interpreters, viz. That the King who ſent for them, appointed them to be kept in diſtinct Cells, not ſuffering them to ſpeak with one another, and yet that their interpretation at laſt was ſound not only to agree in ſenſe, but in every word. This he relates to the Grecians not without great confidence, ſaying that he had ſeen ſome footſteps of the Cells in the Iſland where they were firſt built, and referring himſelf to Joſephus and Philo, and other Hiſtorians. And yet Philo makes no mention of theſe Cells into which they were ſeverally put; and Joſephus ſpeaks of their conferring together, as Ariſtaeas had done before him. 'Tis like ſome Jews had abuſed honeſt Juſtin into a belief of this figment; and that p. 161Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyrill, Hilary, ſecurely followed Juſtin. Nor is this the only inſtance of falſe ſtories tranſmitted to us by the Fathers. Mean time it is a piece of Juſtice due to the Fathers that follow Juſtin in the matter of the Cells, and the Interpreters conſent to a word, to Iet my Reader know that they do not follow him in his ſtupendous Anachroniſm of Ptolemies ſending to Herod King of the Jews (as he reports) when the Tranſlation was to be made. The Learned Francis Junius in his Animadverſions on Bellarmine, endeavours to ſalve Juſtin's credit in this matter; but whether Mr. Scrivener will like his ſalvo, he beſt knows.

4. What is to be attributed to the Fathers in expounding of Scripture? Muſt we not take that to be the true ſenſe of a Text, which they have generally pitched upon? Anſ. To find out the true ſenſe and meaning of the Spirit of God in any Text not very obvious, in an ordinary way 'tis neceſſary that a man ſhould have a good skill in Logick, ſo as to be able to analyſe well; and that he ſhould be well ſeen in thoſe Languages in which the inſpired Penmen did write. As for knowledg in Logick, the moſt of the Fathers did not abound in that; I could inſtance in one Modern Logician, from whom a Scholar may have more help for analyſing Scripture, than from all the Fathers put together. And for skill in the Oriental Languages, every one will acknowledge that moſt of the Fathers had but little. Origen and Hierome underſtood Hebrew, ſo did few of the Ancients beſides; and it will be no diſparagement to Origen p. 162or Hierome to ſay, that there are hundreds in the world at preſent that underſtand that Language far better than either of them ever did, or were in any near capacity to do.

The Greek Fathers muſt needs be ſuppoſed well to underſtand the Greek Tongue in which the whole New Teſtament was written; but ſo did very few of the Latin Fathers. I will not ſay who it was that derived foreign from foreign and foreign. So groſs ignorance do not all the Latin Fathers bewray; but they who have Eraſmus his Commentaries by them, will find quickly that the Fathers of the Latin Church are not the beſt guides to follow in interpreting Scripture. One Expoſition of Auſtin not taken notice of by Eraſmus, I will here mention. The Apoſtle ſaith Rom. 3.27. that boaſting is excluded; that is, hath no place; but that Learned Father finding the word excluſa, runs away with it till he hath quite loſt the Apoſtles ſenſe, Excluſa, non ut abſcederet pulſa, ſed ut emineret expreſſa.

5. What is to be attributed to the Fathers in matters of Doctrine or Faith? Anſ. 1. I ſhall readily grant that to be no fundamental Doctrine or Article of Faith which is denied by many Fathers. 2. If I find any doctrine pretty unanimouſly aſſerted by Fathers, though I ſee no foundation for it in Scripture, I ſhall not think my ſelf concerned to oppoſe that doctrine, till I find ſomething in Scripture that it contradicts. But I am alſo certain, that moſt of the Fathers (that I ſay not all) had their errors, and ſome of them ſo groſs, that he who ſhould now hold them, would ſcarce be p. 163thought meet to be a Church-officer. Therefore I am reſolved to ſtudy Scripture with care and conſcience, and on that to build my faith. In ſo doing I ſhall be ſure to obey my Saviours precept; and I may promiſe my ſelf the aſſiſtance of the Spirit, whoſe office it is to lead me into all truth. And if thoſe doctrines that I have good aſſurance be grounded on Scripture, be charged with novelty and ſingularity, then ſhall I rejoice if I can find the Fathers conſenting with me. Other good ends I can propound to my ſelf in reading of the Fathers; but the main end I aim at, is to ſtop the mouth of gainſayers, eſpecially thoſe who glory in Antiquity, and make conſent of Fathers their rule. I will not reject any truth becauſe it is but newly diſcovered, nor yet embrace any error becauſe it is of long continuance, or becauſe ſome great and good man had the ill hap to be the firſt Author of it. Never ſhall any Socinian have occaſion to ſay of me, as I find it by one of that Sect objected to the Reformed, Scripturam ſacram ex illorum (Patrum Conciliorum que ) mente explicant. Ab illis doctrinae capita repetunt. Illorum auctoritate confirmant. Ne que adverſus Pontificios tantum, ſed & adverſus eos diſputantes, qui à Patribus ſe diſſentire non inficiantur, perpetuum illum Patrum Conciliorum que conſenſum perpetuo crepant; Eoſ que qui Patribus illis olim Conciliiſ que contra dixerunt, tanquam Haereticos merito damnatos eſſe cenſent. Ne que Patres propterea recipiunt, quia cum ſcriptura conſentiunt, ſed ſcripturam eo intelligendam modo cenſent, quia Patres ita explicarunt. Ideo que prius de unamini Patrum p. 164Conciliorum que conſenſu, quam de vero ſcripturae ſenſu ſunt ſolliciti. Nec deſunt qui affirmare non dubitant, etſi ſacrae literae illorum adverſari ſententiae manifeſtè viderentur: ſi tamen Patres Concilia que ſecus eas intellexerint, malle ſe Patribus iſtis Conciliiſ que adhaerere, quam privatum ſuum, uti vocant, de ſcripturis ſequi judicium. Ne que illi è faece ſunt; ſed qui ad ſummum in Theologia gradum conſcenderunt. I will judg from Scripture what is truth, and unto what degree any truth is neceſſary; but when I have found any opinion to be contrary to Scripture, I ſhall be the more confident that I was not miſtaken in accounting the opinion erroneous, when I have found it condemned as ſuch by many or all the Fathers that ſpeak of it.

3. There are but few againſt whom the Fathers are ſo frequently and fiercely quoted, that need fear tryal by the Fathers.

By ſaying there are but few, I intimate there are ſome; in that number I place,

1. The Socinians, againſt whom I conceive the whole ſtream of Antiquity doth run very ſtrongly; for though ſome would have the doctrine of the T…inity as it is commonly delivered in Chriſtian Churches, to be no older than the Nicene Council; and though it cannot be denied but that divers of the Fathers who flouriſhed before that Council, have left in their Writings ſundry ill ſounding propoſitions; yet if a man interpret their ſayings candidly, and remember that the ſignification of ſome Theological terms is ſomewhat varied ſince their times, he ſhall be forced p. 165to acknowledg that they all agreed in this, That the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghoſt God, and all three but one God. To demonſtrate this conſent againſt a late wretched diſcourſe called Hiſtoria enucleata, would be an employment well worthy Mr. Scriveners pains, if he be ſo well verſed in the ancient Fathers as he makes ſhew; till he or ſome other will be at that pains, the Engliſh Reader may help himſelf ſufficiently from Mr. Eſtwick.

The greateſt doubt ſeems to be about Origen, whom ſundry of the Church of Rome make an Arian. Bellarmine mentions out of Pratum Spirituale, a viſion, in the … was ſeen in hell with Arius and Neſtoriu… …. de Purg. lib. 2. c. 8. where he alſo affirms, that the fifth Synod condemned him as an Heretick. Aquinas in his 1a. quaeſt. 34. calls him the fountain of Arianiſm, but without any cauſe. The Hereſie of Arius for which he is moſt infamous in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, is the denying of Chriſts Divinity. He granted that Chriſt had a being before he was born of the Virgin Mary, but withal ſaid, he was created by God, foreign, ſo as there was a time in which it might have been ſaid foreign he was not. That Origen ever held any ſuch opinion, I am not convinced. Certain I am, that in the Homilies aſcribed to him, I have obſerved moſt clear paſſages for the Deity of our Lord Jeſus. In his Books againſt Celſus he moſt ſtrenuouſly defends his Divinity againſt that Sophiſter.

But are there not other places in his Writings in which he makes Chriſt foreign, a man, p. 166and no more than a man? Anſ. So ſay ſome of the Ancients; as alſo the wretched Tranſylvanian Miniſters in their Books concerning the original and progreſs of the Trinity; on which account they call him the moſt learned of the Fathers. But when we have given him as many grains of allowance as muſt in charity be given to one who writ much, and in great haſte, and whoſe Writings have fallen into falſe hands, and by them been tranſmitted to us, we need not ſay that he was an Arian, or had any favourable thoughts of Arianiſm. The Viſion related by Bellarmine will not, I ſuppoſe, move any wiſe man. As for Thomas Aquinas who would … Origen to be the fountain of Arianiſm, … on thoſe words John 1. In the beginning was the word, he ſaith, Verbum in divinis metaphoricè dicitur; I muſt needs ſay, it is a weak foundation to build ſo heavy a charge upon. That great School-man doth thus put his 34. queſtion, Ʋtrum verbum in divinis ſit perſonale? (an obſcure queſtion I wot) he determines it affirmatively; but firſt brings this as an objection againſt himſelf, Nomina perſonalia proprie dicuntur in divinis, ut pater & filius, ſed verbum metaphorice dicitur in divinis, ut Origenes dicit ſuper Joannem. A doughty objection, no queſtion, and worthy to have a place in a ſum of Divinity. Perſonal names are uſed properly in the Myſtery of the Trinity; the word, according to Origen, is not uſed properly, but metaphorically, ergo it is not a perſonal name. Becauſe the minor could not be denied, Origen muſt be accounted the fountain of Arianiſm. Firſt, the whole perhaps would be p. 167granted by Durand, who ſaith that the title of [Word] properly imports ſomething eſſential and not perſonal. I think the Scriptures (which in ſpeaking of this Myſtery I would follow) alway appropriate the title of Word to the ſecond perſon; but that he is called the Word properly and not metaphorically only, I cannot as yet find in Scripture. I believe according to Scripture, that the Father begat the Son, but that he begat him as affected with an act of underſtanding, not as underſtanding is common to all the three perſons, but as he hath it from himſelf, is not I hope a neceſſary Article of Faith; if it be, I have not all the faith that is neceſſary to ſalvation. Nor can I obtain of my ſelf to think, that the Son of God is any otherways called the Word, than becauſe he reſembleth that either Oral or Mental Word that is formed by us men. And were it not that the general ſtream of Interpreters carrieth the reſemblance to a Mental Word, I ſhould be eaſily inclined to believe, that as a vocal word ſerves to diſcloſe the mind of a man, ſo Chriſt is called the Word, becauſe he diſcovereth the Myſterious Will and Counſel of God.

If Origen did not lay the foundation of Arianiſm, much leſs can the Photinians (whom the Socinians now follow) pretend to be his off-ſpring, for they denied Chriſt to have any being before he was conceived by the Holy Ghoſt in the womb of the Virgin Mary, differing from the Ebionites only in this, that they did not hold him to be begotten by Joſeph, as well as born of Mary. Socinus againſt Ʋniebus is ſo ingenuous, as to confeſs p. 168that he and his continually diſpute againſt the Fathers that flouriſhed after the Nicene Council, and declares plainly, that he did not think any of his party had in their writings aſſerted, that any of the Writers before the Nicene Council, now extant, were of their mind: Yet certainly he knew that the Writings of Origen were extant, and therefore was conſcious that it was in vain to father his hereſies upon him. The truth is, we need not be afraid leſt our young Divines ſhould grow Socinians by reading the Fathers, or thoſe who profeſs themſelves to be Socinians, the great danger is from Eraſmus and Grotius who never profeſſed Socinianiſm; but yet in their Commentaries, eſpecially on the Epiſtles, do moſt unhappily, by the various readings which they have, as they pretend, met with, or ſome plauſible expoſitions of their own, endeavour to enervate the places that are brought to prove the Deity of Chriſt Jeſus. One I will here take notice of, 1 Tim. 3.16. God manifeſt in the fleſh, is a place brought to prove the Divinity of Chriſt, and is the more conſiderable, ad hominem, becauſe the word foreign doth occupy the place of the Subject in the propoſition. Smalcius, de Incarnatione Chriſti, Cap. 18. acknowledgeth, omnia exemplaria graeca hactenus conſtanter vocem Dei habent. And indeed to this day there is not a Greek Copy to be found of any good eſteem that doth not read foreign. What now do theſe two learned Dutchmen ſay? Eraſmus prefers the vulgar Latin, which reads foreign inſtead of foreign, and ſuſpects foreign was added againſt the Arians. But Grotius takes more pains to avoid that reading p. 169which is ſo commonly received, foreign, ſuſpectam nobis faciunt hanc lectionem interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrius, Arabs, & Ambroſius qui omnes legerunt, foreign, addit Hincmarus opuſculo 55. illud foreign hic poſitum à Neſtorianis: And after ſtrains his wit to find out a good ſenſe of foreign, throughout the whole Verſe. If this be allowable to forſake the Greek, where the vulgar Latin, Syriack and Arabick differ from it, how ſhall we know where to fix our feet? And let the Learned judg, whether the Syriack and Arabick Tranſlations that we have in the Polyglott, did read, foreign: if they did, thoſe who tranſlated them are much to be blamed. It is alſo untruly ſuggeſted, that Hincmarus ſaith, foreign was put in by the Neſtorians: But if Hincmarus had ſo ſaid, Grotius might, if he had ſo pleaſed, have acquainted his Reader, that Chryſoſtom read foreign, who was older than Neſtorius himſelf: And he could alſo have told us, that Cyril and Theodoret made uſe of this reading, foreign, againſt Neſtorius; and therefore ſure neither he nor his followers did firſt frame this reading, which is ſo perfectly deſtructive to their hereſie. Another place we bring to prove Chriſts Deity, is, Rom. 9.5. Mirum eſt (ſaith Bellarmine Praef. ad libros de Chriſto) quid non agat Eraſmus, quò ſe non vertat, quid non moliatur ut hoc telum de manibus nobis extorqueat. Eraſmus doth indeed take two much pains to make this place uſeleſs againſt the Arians; yet which ſhould have aſſwaged Bellarmines wrath, he adds like a good Son of the Church, that if ſhe ſay we muſt not p. 170interpret theſe words, but of the Divinity of Chriſt, ſhe is to be obeyed. As for Grotius, he firſt tells us, that it is manifeſt from the Syriack, that foreign was wanting in the ancient Greek Copies. There is not a Greek Copy of any note now extant, in which the word foreign occurs not; and yet if the Syriack expreſs it not, then it muſt be thought it was abſent from the ancient Greek Copies: what will ſuch an opinion as this lead us to? Secondly, he refers us to Eraſmus, who hath noted, that the words are read without foreign in the ancient Books of Cyprian, as alſo in Hilary; and that St. Chryſoſtom ſeems to have read ſo too. But Eraſmus ſpeaks not of the ancient Books of Cyprian, in which, or ſundry of which, the word Deus is to be found; and Grotius could not but know that thoſe Copies of Cyprian muſt needs be corrupted in which Deus is wanting; for no Scripture, but that in which Chriſt is called God, could ſerve Cyprians turn in that place, as any Reader may diſcern. Hilary left not out the word Deus, but his Scribe, as Eraſmus almoſt acknowledgeth, and Hilary, to be ſure, in his Books, de Trinitate, citeth this place with the word Deus. Chryſoſtom, indeed, doth not expound foreign, nor yet doth he expound foreign; but he reads juſt as we read. By this we may ſee how little zeal Grotius had for the Divinity of Chriſt, and what danger they are in, who will take his quotations in his Annotations upon truſt.

2. In this number I muſt needs place the Papiſts properly and ſtrictly ſo called. A Papiſt ſtrictly and properly ſo called, is with me not one who p. 171holds the moſt of thoſe doctrines which the preſent Romiſh Church holds; but he who holds them ſolely or principally on the account of the preſent Churches Infallibility: More particularly, I do not ſay he is a Papiſt who holds Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe as he thinks the Scripture teacheth it; but he who therefore believes the Scripture to teach Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe the Pope in or out of a Council hath decreed or warranted the ſame. Should I deny the Popes Infallibility in a cauſe of faith, I were to a Trent-Papiſt a Heretick, as well as if I denied all the Articles of the faith, becauſe I deny the formal reaſon upon which all are to be believed. Should I hold the Popes Infallibility as the ground and foundation of my faith, then I were to him a good Catholick, though I were miſtaken in many of the things to be believed, becauſe I am upon the true and ſure foundation of faith. Now if any one can ſhew me any whole ancient Church, or any one ancient Doctor of the Church who believed the Article of the Biſhop of Romes Infallible Supremacy, and made that the ground of believing all other Articles, I will be his Convert, if he will promiſe to be my Convert provided I can ſhew him ancient Doctors and Councils that have either not acknowledged or denied this foundation of the Papal faith. And if we ſpeak of the things believed by Papiſts, the moſt of them are utterly deſtitute of all primitive Antiquity.

But there are others in the world generally decried as deſpiſers of the Fathers, who had they but men among them able and willing to ſearch the p. 172Fathers, might from them ſay more for themſelves, than would eaſily be anſwered. I inſtance:

1. In the Anabaptiſts, or Antipaedobaptiſts, (as they had rather be called) ſome of great eſteem among the ſons of the Church, have ſaid that the opinion of theſe men cannot be confuted by Scripture, at leaſt not by Scripture alone. In this they give theſe men as much as the generality of them deſire or care for. But of late one of good learning hath eſpouſed their Cauſe; and finding it granted by too too many, that Infantbaptiſm cannot with ſufficient evidence be proved from Scripture alone; he enquires what it is that together with Scripture will prove it? Being referred to the Ancients, he there joins iſſue, and hath ſo acquitted himſelf, that for my part if I were not perſwaded from Scripture that Infants are to be baptized, I ſhould hardly be brought to be of that perſwaſion by any thing quoted from the Fathers.

One deſervedly dignified in the Church, hath ſuffered it to be printed as his opinion, that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Paedobaptiſm, nor any juſt evidence for it for about two hundred years after Chriſt. The firſt who bears witneſs to Infant-baptiſm practiſed in the Church, is Tertullian; but ſo, as he expreſly diſlikes and condemns it as an unwarrantable and irrational cuſtome; and Nazianzen a good while after him diſlikes it too, &c. with much more of that nature. Really were I of this learned perſons judgment, that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture p. 173for Paedobaptiſm, I ſhould much haeſitate in the matter: for if there be no precept or example of Paedobaptiſm in Scriptures, I ask whether the Church ſucceeding the Apoſtles had any reaſon or authority to take up that cuſtom? if ſhe had, then the preſent Church alſo hath authority to take it up, though it had never before been taken up; for the Church hath now the ſame authority that the Church ſucceeding the Apoſtolical times had. It will be ſaid, that the Church ſucceeding immediately to the Apoſtles, had better opportunity to know the practice of the Apoſtles, than the preſent Church hath. Anſ. That muſt needs be granted; and if the Church ſucceeding the Apoſtles have given any undoubted teſtimony that the Apoſtolical Churches practiſed Infant-baptiſm, her teſtimony cannot be refuſed; but that that Church hath given any ſuch teſtimony, is eaſie to ſay, but not ſo eaſie to prove. Nothing out of Ignatius, or Clemens Romanus, is produced to ſuch a purpoſe. The Author of the Queſtions and Anſwers to the Orthodox, doth indeed, qu. 56. plainly inſinuate, that in his time foreign were baptized, and gives ſome account what difference ſhould be in the reſurrection, betwixt thoſe who were baptized, and thoſe who were not baptized, and of the reaſon why the foreign are accounted worthy of Baptiſm, viz. the foreign: And were this Author Juſtin Martyr, the teſtimony were conſiderable, not to prove that Infant-baptiſm was practiſed in the time of the Apoſtles, but that Infant-baptiſm was ſoon practiſed; but the Author of thoſe Queſtions and p. 174Anſwers muſt needs be ſome one that lived long after Juſtin Martyr. Origen I believe will be found to be the firſt that ſpeaks of Infant-baptiſm as an Apoſtolical tradition, in his Com. on Rom. But the Antipaedobaptiſt to him and all others may ſay, It is manifeſt from the Ancients, that divers children of Chriſtian Parents were not baptized in their infancy, nor till they were come to maturity of judgment; and that it was accounted no foreign, no bar to their preferment that their Baptiſm was ſo long deferred, that they were not before their baptiſm looked upon as unclean: now if this be ſo, how cometh it to paſs that in a Church profeſſing to follow and reverence Antiquity, they are excommunicated and thrown into priſon if they do not bring their children to be baptized. Let any man prove out of Antiquity, that Nazianzen and his father were accounted Heathens and Publicans till the Son was baptized, which was not till he was about thirty years old.

2. I hear there are ſundry among us here in England, that refuſe to take an oath, judging any oath unlawful in Goſpel-times. The opinion of theſe men is very pernicious, manifeſtly tending to perpetuate ſtrifes and contentions, which cannot in our Courts of Judicature be ended but by an oath; and I doubt not at all, but that the opinion may be clearly refuted out of Scripture, where the preſent Patrons of it eſpecially ſeek to ſhelter themſelves: but if from the Scriptures we remove their Cauſe to the Fathers, among them I doubt they will find more friends than adverſaries. p. 175For that an Oath is not, at leaſt in any ſecular matter, to be required or taken, ſeems clearly to have been the opinion of Athanaſius, Nazianzen, Chryſoſtom, Iſidore Peleuſiota, Theophylact, Hilary, Ambroſe, Hierom; and I think, to the Greek. Fathers I might have added Baſil. Artifices I know are uſed to evade their teſtimonies, but ſuch as will not hold when they are examined by thoſe who can underſtand the languages in which thoſe ancient Doctors did write.

3. Men uſually exclaim againſt the Presbyterians, as perſons who forſake all antiquity to follow Calvin who is but of yeſterday; and I think, if any of them ſay that Calvin affords a ſtudent more light to underſtand Scripture than moſt of the Fathers put together, they are not much to be blamed. But I muſt needs ſay, that Presbyterians is now become a term that I underſtand not; every Nonconformiſt who is not Congregational, is in ſome mens mouths a Presbyterian, though he never declared any diſlike of Epiſcopacy; yea, though he vehemently proteſt that his judgment is for Epiſcopacy, even for all and every part of Primitive Epiſcopacy. In Dr. Heylins late Hiſtory of Presbyterians, a Presbyterian is ſometimes one that would have the Lords day obſerved as a Sabbath, one that thinks election and non election to be abſolute; and if a Presbyterian be ſuch a one, ſure it would be no difficult task to prove that there were ſuch men in the world long before Culvins name was ever heard of. With other m…n, a Presbyterian is the ſame with the old Non conformiſt, and againſt ſuch a Presbyterian it is that Mr. p. 176Scrivener ſeems to have laid his action; but beſides that he hath laid his Action coram non Judice, I think, that when the merits of the cauſe come to be examined, he will quickly be non-ſuited: For it will be impoſſible for him to prove either that ſuch a Presbyterian is a Schiſmatick, or that if he be a Schiſmatick, his Schiſm is novel. The old Non-conformiſt was one that could not think a Biſhop to be by Divine inſtitution, an Officer of a ſuperior Order to a Presbyter, ſole power of Juriſdiction and Ordination was the block he could never get over. In matter of worſhip, he could not ſatisfie himſelf to practiſe the Ceremonies retained and preſcribed in the Church of England. That the Miniſters ordained in England were not true Miniſters, or that they might not be ſubmitted to as ſuch, he never thought. He could and did give, and receive the Sacrament, only ſometimes he both Preached and Adminiſtred the Sacrament in private, to ſuch as were of his own opinion and perſwaſion. If every ſuch man muſt be accounted an Arian and a Schiſmatick, he may comfort himſelf in this, that he hath many among the Ancients, who if they had lived in theſe days, muſt needs have been called by the ſame name. If ſuch a one decline tryal by the Fathers, it is only becauſe he hath not had the good hap to read the Fathers, or becauſe he foreſees the tryal will be too tedious and chargeable, and might ſooner be ended, if only Scripture were made the Rule. Mr. Scrivener is not ſure ſuch a ſtranger in our Iſrael, as not to know how hard the Dioceſans are put to it, when the Fathers are brought againſt p. 177them. He can tell, no doubt, who they be that are wont to call St. Hierom a diſcontented Presbyter, and St. Cyprian, a Popular Biſhop. He knows who they be, that have undertaken to ruine Dioceſan Epiſcopacy by Clement and Ignatius. And it is poſſible he hath heard of thoſe, who did undertake to overthrow our Engliſh Hierarchy, by Dr. Hammonds diſſertations for Epiſcopacy. He knows, that when two were appointed to diſpute againſt Dr. Preſton in the five points, the Dr. preſently divided, and ſet them at variance betwixt themſelves; and cannot chuſe but think it very eaſie for the preſent Non-conformiſts, if they were brought to a conference with the Prelatical, to make them do execution one upon another.

To deal a little more cloſely with Mr. Scrivener, he hath in the name of the Church of England and his own, laid an action againſt a Novel Schiſm: If the Non-conformiſts upon ſummons made, ſhall think meet to appear to this Action, doubtleſs they will plead not guilty; they will not confeſs themſelves guilty of cauſing any new ſchiſm, but will averr, that they proceed upon the ſame Principles, that were laid down by the great inſtruments of our reformation here in England. It will be replied, that they oppugne Biſhops, they will rejoyn in the words of Dr. Stilling fleet, Iren. p. 385. That they doubt not to make it evident that the main ground for ſetling Epiſcopal Government in this Nation, was not accounted any pretence of Divine right, but the convenience of that form of Church government, to the ſtate and condition of this Church, at the time of its p. 178Reformation; and that they for their parts were never asked whether Epiſcopal government was ſuitable to the condition of this Church when it was at firſt reformed; but whether it be founded on Divine Right. Now to anſwer them here, the words of the declaration they are to make muſt be ſcanned, and the particulars of thoſe Books they are to aſſent and conſent to muſt be ſearched; if from them it do appear, that he who doth without quillets declare aſſent and conſent, muſt receive Biſhops as an higher order of Officers than Presbyters, and that by Chriſts inſtitution, how will they be found guilty of Novelliſm or Schiſm, unleſs Wickliff and Cranmer, &c. be found guilty alſo? But perhaps it will go harder with them in the matter of Ceremonies. Really it will, and if for theſe they ſeparate from the Church, I am content they be caſt; for certainly it is againſt the whole rule of charity and humility to break off communion in all Ordinances, becauſe ſome one Ordinance is adminiſtred with ſome ſuch ceremony as I account inexpedient or unlawful. If any Church make the approving of the expedience or lawfulneſs of that Ceremony, a neceſſary condition of my holding communion with her, then ſhe, and not I cauſeth the Schiſm. But to ſpeak to the matter in iſſue. The preſent Non-conformiſts are not the firſt that ſcrupled the uſe of the Engliſh Ceremonies. Sundry of thoſe who were martyred in Queen Maries days would never be brought to uſe them, moſt of thoſe who then fled into forreign parts both in their exile, and at their return, either durſt not, or did not care to uſe them. p. 179Some of them for Non-conformity refuſed preferment, ſome were turned out of that they had, ſome took up with very ſmall preferment, where no eye could envy them. I have ſometimes thought upon it, who they were, that in Queen Eliz. Reign did the Church moſt ſervice in diſputing and writing againſt the Papiſts, and I find them to have been ſuch, as either did not conform, or conformed heavily and by halves. I have heard it cenſured as an error in policy, for a Court not to regard thoſe in a time of peace, whom they were forced to make uſe of in a time of war. Let Mr. Scrivener conſider whether the Conformiſts have ſtrength and number ſufficient to look the Papiſts and other adverſaries in the face, unleſs they take in the Non-conformiſts; if they have not, is it prudence, to be at odds with thoſe that muſt joyn with them in the day of Battel? If he ſay they have number and ſtrength enough, let him then conſider whether it may not be, that ſome of them will prove falſe and treacherous, or at leaſt, make a diſhonourable peace. I could here ſhew that ſundry of them, who moſt rigorouſly preſſed conformity in Q. Elizabeths days, did in Q. Maries days either recant, or play the Nicodemites. But this is a performance that I have no mind to be put upon; how ſoon ſome other may put himſelf upon it I cannot tell.

Here I might with credit enough take my leave of Mr. Scrivener; yet becauſe there be two particulars in his Book, that have not in theſe Papers been accounted for, I will, before I conclude, eſſay whether the Non-conformiſts cannot be acquitted p. 180therefrom. The firſt is the Hampton-Court Conference: The ſecond is the matter of Ruling Elders: About both Mr. Scrivener is full of confidence and triumph. If a good account can be given of theſe, I may think the reproach to be rolled away from the Nonconformiſts; for as for railing invectives againſt particular perſons, I need only ſay, Lord lay them not to his charge.