REMARKS Of an University-Man UPON A Late BOOK Falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum Written by Mr. Hill of Killmington LONDON Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCXCV REMARKS UPON A late Book falsly called A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers c. THE great Satisfaction I had in reading the Lord Bishop of Sarum ' s Four Discourses to his Clergy and that especially concerning the Divinity of our Saviour wherein I met with such excellent Arguments as I had not found in other Authors for the Confirmation of that great Article of our Faith oblig'd me to think that they could not but be receiv'd with as general an Esteem and Approbation as in my Judgment they deserv'd And as I was persuaded they would be extreamly useful so I could not but imagine they would remain unexcepted against by the most Malicious and Ill-natured unless they were such as denied the very Divinity of our Saviour All which I was the more fully convinc'd of and believ'd I might relie upon them as agreeable to the true and orthodox Doctrine of the Church since they appeared in Publick with the Approbation and Licence of the never enough to be admired Late Archbishop of Canterbury whose Sincerity Clearness and Strength of Judgment I was well assured would approve of nothing as the Doctrine of the Church and fit to believed by its Clergy which deserv'd the Censure of a Convocation And though there came out some Exceptions against the Second Discourse which relates to the Divinity and Death of Christ as well as against the Archbishop's Sermons and one of the Bishop of Worcester ' s by the Socinian Party yet they appear'd so trifling especially since they have been answered by the Bishop of Sarum ' s Letter to Dr. Williams which is annex'd to his Learned Vindication of the other Two that they rather confirm'd than lessen'd my Opinion of it But I must confess I was something surpris'd and began to distrust my Judgment when I saw Mr. Hill's Book come forth with such a Title as I thought was almost enough had there been nothing more in it to have made the Bishop's Second Discourse which is the only one aim'd at be censur'd as Heretical and had it been made good must have thought it my Duty also as being a Member of one of those Bodies to whose Judgment the Book is referred as well as to the Church Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England and the next Session of Convocation to assist at the Solemnity of condemning the Bishop himself for an Heretick But when I considered that it was grown to too general a Custom for Authors to make large and specious Titles to make amends for the emptiness of the Book and that they oftner give a Specimen of their own ill Nature than of any real Errors they discover I began to be no more concern'd at the Title than I was at the mighty Quotations which this Author makes use of when I considered that by turning to the Indexes of the Paris Editions of the Fathers in our Publick Library I could quote as much and as little to the Purpose as our Author has done I am almost apt to think it would be labour lost to run through his whole Book to detect every Absurdity in it since I believe those who have read the Preface to it were so sufficiently convinc'd of the weakness of the Author that they could not think it worth their while to make any farther search into it 'T is a great deal of Pity that the Letter which he mentions to have sent to his Lordship did not appear with the Preface for certainly it must have prov'd as great a Satire upon himself as the Preface appears to be But I am too forward in my Censure for if you will believe him the Bishop is mightily beholding to him for his gentle usage of him and for not divulging some Private Practice which upon fitting terms he is contented to hush up at present And therefore his Lordship had not best provoke him and think of returning an Answer for if he doth he shall then be set free from all Obligations to Secrecy and good Manners and then Wo betide him This I take to be the Sense of what follows viz. But for the Private Practice objected to him I will at present spare him and if his Lordship will be so kind to himself as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Matter shall be hushed up A trifling and Childish Insinuation For had the Bishop been really guilty of any such Private Practice as would have been a dishonourable Reflection upon him I question not but we should have heard more of it since so much Malice could never have let slip so fair an Occasion without making the best Improvements of it had there been any thing more that could have advanc'd the Credit of the other Aspersions or have been any support to the weakness of the Cause The rest of the Preface is of the same Piece and thus he concludes it But as to his Doctrine it is gone abroad and cannot return and if it be of evil Influence on young Students or Men prepar'd to Irreligion or of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign or State of Religion every Man has a just right fairly and bravely to oppose it without fear of Men or respect of Persons And if it be not so I promise his Lordship the most publick Recantation and Penance And supposing he should be oblig'd to undergo it with the utmost severity the Law could inflict he may remain a lasting and sad Example of the Punishment due to all Libellers and to all malicious Forgers of Falsehood For though I have made a very diligent search into the Bishop's Discourse and into the Objections this Author has made against it yet I do solemnly protest that I do not find any one of those Charges made good against it What he means by these Words of dishonourable Reflection to the present Reign I can't guess I believe they are not only very rude but such a malicious Insinuation as if it can be understood deserves a more severe Answer and of a different Nature than I am able to give him How fairly and bravely he has opposed any thing that the Bishop has said or rather how fairly and openly he has rendred himself contemptible is now high time to consider He begins his Book with a great deal of Confidence and supercilious Contempt That he has Two things to urge against the Lord Bishop of Sarum in his Discourse on the Divinity and Death of Christ 1. That the Bishop very defectively to say no worse states our Faith and Doctrine in the Articles of the Trinity and Incarnation And 2. That he exposes the Fathers under the same and worse Imputations which is the Second thing that he says offends All that the Bishop
says of the Fathers if I mistake him not is to this purpose That though the Fathers might have the same Notions of the Trinity that we now have namely That every one of the Blessed Three has a peculiar Distinction in himself by which he is truly Different from the other Two yet in their Explanations of this Doctrine they often went so far as might give occasion to some to think that they believ'd an Inequality between the Persons and a Subordination of the Second and Third to the First And their Explanatory Notions of the Trinity seem sometimes to carry them beyond those Bounds the Holy Scriptures had set them By all which his Lordship could design nothing more than to shew us That since some even of the Fathers were sometimes confounded in their Explanations of that Sacred Inconceivable Mystery it would be great Presumption in us to offer to explain the Modes or to pretend to have any adequate Conceptions of it That we may not presume to dive into the Depths of those Mysteries which the Primitive Ages of the Church could never Fathom And if they unhappily failed in the Attempt it will be great Arrogance in us to hope of having any better Success Nor do I find the least Shadow of Reason to think Pag. 2. that the Bishop in any part of his Discourse as our Author too falsly and maliciously insinuates censures the Catholick and Establisht Principles of the Ancients but only shews us some of their Failures and Imperfections He denies not that the Fathers believ'd a Trinity as the Scriptures had revealed it but only that they were at a loss when they offer'd to make the manner of it intelligible which is to take away the Mysteriousness of it And I wonder how our Author has the Confidence to say more I will give this parallel Instance which may serve both to defend and illustrate what the Bishop has said upon this Subject of the Fathers which our pretended Vindicator where there is the least necessity for it makes the greatest noise about We of the Church of England do certainly believe and can undeniably prove that the Primitive Church were of the same Doctrine and Faith with us concerning the Eucharist that there was no Corporal but only a Sacramental Presence of Christ's Body yet we also confess that some of the Fathers have exprest themselves in some of their Writings in such high Strains and Figurative Raptures as might give occasion to some to think that they meant a Corporal Presence by those lofty Expressions which only their height of Devotion drew from them After the same manner we may conclude that though the Fathers believed the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is revealed in Scripture yet in their Explanations of the Modes and Manner of it some of them may have given us Cause to think that several of those Expressions which they have let fall about it as well as of the forementioned Doctrine went farther than they were instructed or warranted by God's Word And this I think may be sufficient to explain the Bishop's Sense about the Fathers if I understand him aright and to answer all those ill Natur'd Exceptions which our Vindicator has very unjustly fram'd against it But I shall have more to say to him in his due place I shall then examine his first Charge against the Bishop Pag. â— viz. That he foully states the Faith of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ and therein of the Holy Trinity Of which says our Author The Bishop tells us there have been three Opinions the Socinian Arian and that which he would have called the Catholick and Christian Faith Now where is the Fault of all this and yet as I perceive this is one of the Chiefest Imputations of Heresie against the Bishop I never heard any Man yet so much as spoken against for saying that there are Three Opinions about the Eucharist the Roman the Lutheran and that of the Church of England with those that believe the same Doctrine And if any one should ask me whether these Opinions were within or without the Church I should justly brand him with the Character of Impertinent and think him not worth answering It is such a common form of expressing our selves that I wonder how it could come into any Man's thoughts to cavil at it But he adds That which is more grievously suspicious I wonder how he came to omit Heretical is that his Lordship calls the Catholick Faith but a meer Opinion and Persuasion of a Party With what Confidence he asserts this I can't imagine He cannot shew me where the Bishop says that the Catholick Faith is but a meer Opinion for my part I can see no such thing throughout the whole Discourse no more than I can find that he says 't is the Persuasion of a Party I suppose he had a mind that the Bishop should have said it and since he has not he is so kind as to do it for him For the Bishop in his Preface calls it the great Article of Christianity its most important Head and rejects the Pacificatory Doctrines of those who think that a diversity of Opinions may be endured upon those Heads without breaking Communion about them He says they seem to be the Fundamentals of Christianity And he thus concludes his Discourse upon this Head This Doctrine is so plainly set down in the New Testament that if the Socinians Expositions are to be admitted it will be hard to preserve any Respect for it or to believe those Books writ with the common Degrees of Honesty and Discretion not to speak of Inspiration And all this is very fully repeated in the Bishop's Letter to Dr. Williams So that to infer from his stating this matter at first as a Third Opinion that he thought it to be no more than an Opinion is a Strain as unjust as it is malicious All that the Bishop says of Opinion is no more than this viz. The third Opinion is that the Godhead Pag. 31. by the Eternal Word c. And a little after by those of this Persuasion c. And then a little after he adds That this is the Doctrine I intend now to explain to you And then after he has explain'd it according to the Sense of the Church of England he calls it the received Doctrine by which he can only mean nor can any one else give another Interpretation of it than the Article of our Faith which we profess to believe and defend I would willingly know where is the hurt of all this in saying as I before mentioned that there are Three Opinions concerning Christ's Presence in the Sacrament one of which is that of our Church which I am fully persuaded is a Doctrine revealed in the Scriptures and confirmed by the Authority of the Primitive Fathers Dares any one I say after all this urge that I assert this only as a new Opinion and Persuasion of a Party And if the Bishop does
as might justifie that design This is the foundation of all the stir that our Author has made which as I am truly informed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops look upon as a breach not only of Charity but of the Order of the Church For it is far from their thoughts that either a Bishop or even an Archbishop should have a Priviledge to corrupt the Faith and be safe when he has done it As they ought to be the chief Conveyors of this Sacred Depositum so if any of them should so far betray his trust as to offer to corrupt it he must be used with all severity But if such a case should happen the method of proceeding ought to be a denunciation to the Archbishop when it is in the case of a Bishop This ought to be first made to the Archbishop in private and if that will not do then it ought to be made in open Court by Articles If any thing is taught contrary to the Doctrine of the first Four General Councils it is by Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. Heresie And if it is contrary to the Creeds then it falls under the Act of Uniformity The Three Creeds being parts of the Book of Common-Prayer And if any Doctrine is contrary to the Thirty nine Articles then the Proceedings are to be founded on the Authority of the Church in a Convocation confirmed by the King This is a Regular Method and if Mr. Hill had took this way he could have met with no sort of obstruction But it is certainly intolerable that a Book writ by a Bishop and Licensed by an Archbishop should be thus attack'd and a Bishop be so openly defam'd I have one thing more to add and that is an account of that private Practice which our Author in his Preface objects against the Bishop as unjust and that is only this When his Lordship came to the See of Sarum he found the Prebends so scatter'd up and down England that there was seldom a Surplice-man to Preach The Cathedral was often very ill served So he resolved to keep the Dignities of the Church of Sarum within the Diocess and to oblige those that left the Diocess to leave the Church likewise according to the Tenth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon Which is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beverig Pandect Canon Tom. 1. p. 123. Non liceat Clerico in duarum Civitatum Ecclesiis eodem tempore in Catalogum referri Et in ea qua a principio ordinatus est in ea in quam tanquam ad majorem confugit propter inanis gloriae cupiditatem Eos autem qui hoc faciunt propriae Ecclesiae restitui in qua ab initio ordinati sunt ut illic solum ministrent Sed si jam quispiam ex alia in aliam Ecclesiam translatus est nihil prioris Ecclesiae vel corum quae sub ea sunt Martyriorum vel Phochotrophiorum vel Xenodochiorum rebus communicare And elsewhere as well as in the Scholia upon this Canon they are very express to the same purpose That no Bishop shall receive a Clergyman of another Diocess into his Church under pain of Excommunication to both In order to effect this his Lordship was advised by an Ancient and Venerable Prelate I may add one of the Worthiest and Learnedest now in the World to take Bonds of Resignation of those to whom he gave Prebends in case they should go out of the Diocess There is no General Bond this Condition is named and no other This was also the more necessary because his Lordship hath hitherto generally given the Prebends to the Ministers in Market-Towns where the Labour is great and the Provision mean So unhandsomely does this Man reproach his Lordship for a Method that seems so good and useful to the Church and which could be compassed no other way but that which his Lordship made use of Postscript to the Stationer Sir SInce I sent you these Papers I understand by one on whose Judgment I can well depend that there is another Answer prepared by a very learned Hand who has follow'd Mr. Hill through all his Pretences to Learning and the Study of the Fathers and discovers that he has just as much Knowledge as he has Modesty or good Breeding Ignorance and ill Nature go often together For you know whose Character it is That he rageth and is Confident I should be sorry to have sent this to you when there is another so much perfecter coming to your Hand But my Friend comforts me a little by telling me we write in such different ways that both ma prove acceptable and make one Compleat Answer I confess I was amaz'd to hear there was so much Learning employed to refute so poor a Book but the Answer made me was that though Mr. Hill's Book did not deserve it yet the Bishop's did and the Cause did it much more It seemed necessary to take the Diversion that Mr. Hill's Book has perhaps given to Libertines and Atheists as well as to Socinians and other ill-natur'd Men out of the way and to shew the World that Mr. Hill was all through equally blinded with Ignorance and Malice There is no hopes that any thing can convince so aukward a Man as he seems to be A short piece of Parchment founded on a Certain Statute is perhaps the only Answer that can work on him Unless his Friends can prevent it by shewing he has a better right to a Lodging in Moor-Fields where good Air and Discipline may restore him to himself This may seem too pleasant but it is really the charitablest Thought that can be entertained of him For I am sure if his Head is sound his Heart is naught Such Men as he are born to be the Pests of their Neighbourhood and the Plagues of the Church but I hope he will be so subdued that the World shall be no more troubled with him Only I will conclude with one pleasant thing concerning him which I have from so sure a hand that you may depend upon it and publish it While he was contriving to midwife this Book into the World he apprehended it seems that it might raise a Storm and he hoped to secure himself against that by writing another Book in defence of the present Government and for justifying the filling the Sees of the deprived Bishops as he had writ some Years ago a Pamphlet intituled Solomon and Abiathar upon the same subject In this he attack'd Mr. Dod ll's Principle with great Fury This Book he sent up to a Bishop and it seems he thought it was such a Performance and that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops would have been so sensible of this Service which to be sure he thought a signal one that they must have abandoned the Bishop of Salisbury to the indignation of such a Champion But when he saw that small account was had of that Trifle of his for without seeing it I can easily believe nothing stronger can come from such a Pen and that the Archbishop thought so base a Libel as this was such an Injury to the Church as well as to the Order of Bishops that he required him to come and make all due Submissions and Reparation otherwise he judged the Bishop of Salisbury ought for the Churches sake as well as for his own to prosecute him he then resolved to court his old Friends the Jacobites though I am told he treats them in that Book with the same brutality of Style which he bestows in this on the Bishop And therefore he has very earnestly desired his Book may not be printed but be sent back to him again and then if he had it once in his Hands he would perhaps as impudently deny that ever he wrote any such Book as he begins now to deny that he is the Author of this though if the Bishop wants Proofs of it this place can afford him a great many FINIS