captivity first of the ten then of the two other Tribes very little mention of any such Magistrate much less evidence of a perfect continuance How far then are we from having any certainty of a doctrin's succession by them of whom 't is very obscure whither any such persons were or no A third objection is collected from the natural proness in Mankind to conserve Tradition by which they intend to shew Religion is corrupted Wherin you may note the force of wit and Logick to draw arguments against a truth even out of these very causes which are made to conserve the truth impugned The arguments are three First that divers Fathers for zeal to the received doctrin were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes which new is an ocular certainty That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrin I willingly grant but that it was for zeal to Religion and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy I am not satisfy'd nor does the Author bring any proof I remember they object as absurd that men should stand feet to feet I remember they conceit those under us would fal into heaven for the rest some places of Scripture are alledg'd so that not our of zeal to Tradition but through misunderstanding the Scripture they fel into this errour Yet I deny not there may perhaps be some argument out of Religion as men confirm their opinions from all they can The second proof I imagin touches the History of Virgilius who for a like opinion is reported to have lost his Bishoprick But 't is a mistake for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charg'd with this errour That he held there was another Sun and Moon belonging to the hemisphere opposite to us and a new world nor is it certain whether truly he thought so or recanted or was falsly accus'd but wel known he was afterward made Bishop and lived and dyed with opinion of sanctity But though the two first proofs are slender the third wil require more strength to resist it and therfore 't is especially recommended to the Reader to look on the place it being in a Council and our own proper confession and so apparently strong and altogether insoluble if the Author be inexpugnabilis Dialecticus as well as St. Augustine in his Burlesque phrase Thus then begins this Onset which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength I wil also desire you says he to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council set out by Binius and there you wil find that the Latins confess they added to the Creed the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son because the contrary opinion seem'd to them by consequence opposite to a confes'd Tradition of Christs eternal Divinity which yet appears by what Cardinal Perron has excellently shown not to be contradictory to Faith but that this consequence was ill drawn which may have been in other points too and so have brought in no smal number of errours since neither was their Logick certain to conclude better nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Thus far the charge And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request as wil I hope appear by my answer if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron with whom I do not engage nor need I since the Council has age and can speak for it self As also by the way note that since the addition of Filióque which was about the year 440 in St. Leo's time there has not any tittle been added to the Churches Creed though very many Heresies have been condemn'd So that the Objector is forward in his assertions without seconding them with solid proofs To come now to the Combate I doubt much he who was so sollicitous to have me look into the Council was not so careful as to cast an eye upon it himself Else he would have found the question had not been of adding the words Filióque or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the using them the adding having been for the controversy with Photius the using for the expression of our belief which the Council says consists in two points First that the Divinity is the same in all the three Persons that is there is not three Divinities in three Persons nor yet one Divinity from which the Persons or Personalities be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second that none should have any cause to suspect the holy Ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the insufficiency of the consequence which he says Cardinal Perron demonstrates is not to our purpose no such inference appearing in the Council the Latins or Roman Church only professing that if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son as one principium or cause then the Divinity were divided in the Father and Son and by consequence in the Holy Ghost too and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council speaks Whence we may see the Opponent mistook the whole case there being no question of the cause of adding but of what was express'd nor any dispute of Christs Divinity but of the Vnity of the Divinity with the Persons and in it self Nor any drawing of consequences but an expression of Catholick doctrin nor any supposed errour but a truth confess'd both by Protestants and us and finally the words are said to be used to express this point that He proceeds from the Son and not question'd why the opinion is held that He proceeds from the Son which is far different from what we now contend about There is another objection and Cardinal Perron made the Author as having reported out of Isidore that the Jews complotted together to abolish the book of Wisdom because it spake too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself wil not avouch because it would rank the Book by him pretended to be Apocryphal too high yet though it be acknowledg'd fals he conceives it strong enough against us because it shews such a thing might be done Let us poize a little the weight of this Argument It might have been done therfore your Tradition may fail you First I demand how you prove it might have been done because Isidore said it was done The Spanish Conquerors when first they enter'd the miracles of the Western World reported They climb'd up great hils in the Sea Therfore was it possible They talk't much of waters which restor'd Youth Therfore it is credible But Isidore's authority convinces this If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil somthing were said But 't is Isidore surnamed Mercator one that collects and patches together truths and falsities almost indifferently at least our men spare not to reject him in matters of great moment Thus the bare possibility that it might have been done is not it self yet sufficiently prov'd But let us pass that and without much straining our
clear in his comment upon St. Matthew and upon Ezekiel where he cals it a Jewish Fable l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of argues nothing of Tradition but the numerosity of that sort of believers occasion'd by the writings of the Heretick Apollinaris as the same Saint testifies Comment 10. in Esaiam Neither doth St. Austin stick to condemn it since those words c. 7. 24. de Civit. Dei esset utcunque tolerabilis signifie that it is not tolerable Yet truly I cannot but admire that he who puts the Chiliasts opinion to have been deriv'd duely and really from the Apostles by verbal Tradition should conceive that either St. Hierom or St. Austin could think such a Tradition to be no sign of the Churches doctrin or not care whether it were or no which seems to me the same as to impute to these Saints a neglect of what they thought to be the Churches opinion or els to the Church a neglect of what was Christs doctrin if She would not accept what She knew was descended verbally from Him or at least that St. Austin and St. Hierom lay this great slander of neglecting the known doctrin of Christ upon the Church THE ELEVENTH ENCOUNTER That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice THe Chiliad errour seems to have been only an Usher to the Arian which speaks far louder for it self And that learned Cardinal Perron is placed in the front of their Evidence whose testimony is that The Arians would gladly have been try'd by the writings yet remaining of those Authors who lived before the Council of Nice for in them will be found certain propositions which now since the Church-Language is more examin'd would make the Speaker thought an Arian From whence the Opposers infer that before the Council of Nice there was no Tradition for the mystery of the blessed Trinity But to maintain this consequence I see no proof for the Cardinal's words clearly import that the Fathers before that Council though being Catholiks they knew and held the mystery of the Trinity yet in somephrases spake like Arians How then can any man draw out of this Antecedent that these Fathers believ'd not the Trinity or had not receiv'd by Tradition the knowledg of that Mystery I confess my self unable to see the least probability in such an inference If it be permitted to guess what they aim at that make this objection I believe it is that some propositions concerning the Trinity by disputation and discussion have been either deduced or clear'd which before were not remark'd do draw so much consequence upon the mystery as since is found they do out of which they think it follows that such propositions were not delivered by Tradition and so not our whole Faith To this the answer is ready that as he who says a mystery was taught by the Apostles does not intend to say the Apostles taught what the words were in every Language which were to signify this Mystery so neither is his meaning that they taught how many ways the phrase in one language might be varied keeping the same sense But as they left the former to the natural Idiom of the speaker or writer so the latter to the Rules of Grammar as likewise they left it to the speakers skil in Logick to contrive explications or definitions for the terms wherein they deliver'd the Mysteries It is not therfore to be expected that men who had receiv'd the Mystery simply and plainly should without both art and attention know how in different cases to explicate it according to the exact rules of Science And thus the defect of the argument or arguer is that he supposes not only the main verity should be formally convey'd by Tradition but all manner of explication and in all terms which the subtlety or importunity of Hereticks could afterward drive the Catholicks to express this Mystery by a task both impossible to be perform'd and most unreasonable to require and perhaps unprofitable if it were done Nor therfore does it follow that somthing is to be believ'd which came not down by Tradition For as he that says Peter is a man says he is a living creature a body a substance though he uses not those words because all is comprehended in the term Man so he that delivers One God is Father Son and Holy Ghost delivers that those persons are not Alia but Alij and that truly the Son is not an Instrument a commanded servant c. Yet as it may happen that one man sees another to be but knows not what the definition of him is nor needs he ordinarily know it because he knows the thing defined so may it also chance that some Fathers who knew well enough the mystery might falter in explicating it precisely according to the rigour of Logick and 't is no good consequence The Fathers were less exact in some expressions concerning the Trinity therfore they held it not or had not learn'd it by Tradition Yet I must also intimate these differences of speech proceeded many times from the various usage of the words as the Greeks generally say the Father is cause of the Son the Latines abhor it calling him Principium which difference is not in the meaning but in the equivocation of the expression So we read in St. Athanasius that he found an opposition in some people one sort saying there were in the Trinity three Hypostases and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Hypostasis and St. Hierom though perfect in the Greek Tongue was so exceedingly troubled with this question that he sent to St. Damasus for the resolution of it yet he wel knew there was no difference in the sense but only in the terms however he fear'd lest by the wrong use of the words he might unawares be drawn into a wrong meaning So likewise did St. Athanasius find that the two former parties of which we spake agreed in the Catholick sense though their words were opposite The reason of this opposition is the nature of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hypostasis which primarily and radically signify the same thing Aristotle telling us that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it appears this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify what in Latin is call'd natura to which the word substantia by use is now appropriated when we speak of this mystery but only in a secondary sense Again the word Hypostasis is deriv'd from Substando or Subsistendo and therfore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be exprest by Substantia Now applying this to the mystery of the Trinity Because in God there is one common Nature abstrahible from three proprieties therfore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis wherupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis et tres Ousiae For
height of those Mysteries the Fathers saw just cause to conceal then in cavilling at their compendious expressions which suted best with their circumstances And certainly 't is most agreeable to reason that the mind of such as wrote before the Controversy began should be judged by those Fathers who for the easier defence of truth and fuller confutation of the Innovators were forc'd to break the Seal of secrecy and who being their immediate Disciples without doubt must necessarily best know their minds and consequently were most able to repeat the lessons they had so lately learnt of their Masters He afterwards reckons up certain Grammar weaknesses of some Fathers and the excellencies of others and out of both draws venom to his comb So that whether a Father write down right natural construction or by abilities of explicating himself polish his stile all breeds darkness to this great Illuminator or Calumniator rather of the Fathers Nay the very vices they cry out against in evil Preachers must be the faults of the Princes of antiquity by this Interpreters benevolence But he knocks all on the head by the example of St. Hierom who having related what had passed in him during his sleep in another place defends it was but a dream And can you believe the Objector was awake when he fumbled out this piece of impertinency Yet he urges it for a convincing evidence and bearing a special good wil to St. Hierom he very kindly perswades himself that the Stories of Malchus St. Paul the Eremit and St. Hillarion were Romances the first because his maligners calumniated it the other two though never question'd because he shew'd wit in them It seems too he would beget in his Reader this dutiful conceit of the Fathers that they were wont to deliver Romances for Articles of Faith concluding with this desperate and ungracious demand Who shall assure us that they have not made use of these same Arts in their discourses concerning the Eucharist and afterwards renews again the like impudent quaere discovering too openly the prophaness of his heart as if he suspected the Fathers might perhaps have cozen'd the people with some fals glasses to magnifie the power of Prelates Next he objects the Fathers often affirm or deny obsolutely what they mean only comparatively and if you wil not believe him he produces examples out of St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Amphilochius and Asterius But St. Hierom is plainly in the very words comparative The rest are both explicated to the same sense by the bordering Ages who might easily know the practice of their lives in that controversie and in his very citation have nothing capable of being urg'd against that explication besides the phrase it self is favourable What great difficulty is there to pick out the English of this sentence Praemia pudicitiae nuptiae possidere non possunt c. with the rest too trivial to be repeated He makes a second review of the Fathers speeches concerning some Heresy not yet debated upon another design to shew that while they speak against one Heresie they seem to fall into the contrary But there is no new difficulty brought unlesse it be of those terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which this Author abuses by a wrong interpretation the first he renders let fall in heat of disputation instead of giving it the true sense which Englishes it thus suppos'd for disputation sake for so 't is contradistinguish'd to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which St. Basil opposes it the later he explicates done or said by dispensation whereas the proper signification is by discretion St. Athanasius's meaning being that he deliverd what was fittest in that occasion and for the person to whom or in whose name he spake for his words give us some hints inclining to either of those senses that He intended only to personate an objection against himself or else to draw some answer out of another without engaging to declare his own judgment But 't is worthy our pains to look into the sweet interpretation he makes and compare it with the Greek which himself puts in the margin he reads therfore thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is men ought not maliciously to take or understand and draw it to be his proper meaning what one writes or does as now it s cal'd ad hominem for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies according to the art and understanding to apply every thing to the particular circumstances which offer themselvs Lastly he tels us the use of words is chang'd since Antiquity but specifies so simply that without question he hoped none but blind men would look into his book as if the World now thought that Papa signifies not a spiritual Authority but a temporal Garbo that Confessio signifies some outward ceremony Missa all the prayers now used c. THE FIFTH SURVEY Of the six Chapters following wherin he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers HItherto our Oratour has opened those Pleas which in a manner of necessity follow'd that multitude of books the Fathers have written and would if we could believe him perswade us Nothing is to be learn'd or understood out of Books but every three words wil never fail to have some reason or other to make them so obscure that no light or satisfaction can be derived out of them Nor is all this enough unless he gives them a touch of wilfulness which he does upon three Heads First from their writing Commentaries where he notes that many times they recite others opinions without naming the parties whence he would infer that out of their Commentaries nothing can be gather'd concerning their own judgment in the point they handle I cannot deny but such kind of commenting is sometimes used nor do I understand why it should be reprehensible to propose to the Reader choice judgments of divers eminent learned Persons even of Hereticks somtimes at least in St. Hieroms days when there were not so many Catholick writers that all good explications might be found in them though this honest man who otherwise is no enemy of liberty in Authors and opinions be at present for his interest offended with it But we can come to no assurance of the Authors mind what then If we do not see directly what he inclines to though ordinarily some liking is shew'd more to one opinion then another yet we may know he proposes all interpretations for the reader to chuse as he pleases which implys that he saw no apparent inconvenience in any But why is this manner of commenting made a calumny against all the rest being a particular kind and not much used why brought for a prejudice against such places where only one opinion is mentioned why is St. Hieroms indefinite doctrin which imports no more then that such is the nature of some Commentaries turn'd to an Universal as if none should do otherwise Let him reflect upon Beza's or other of his own parties glosses and see whether
mischance was that in a certain controversy betwixt St. Austin and him he mistook at first St. Austins meaning from whence this charitable Interpreter suspects he never delt any better with others and after the sentence so impudently pronounc'd rely's upon this bare suspition as a sufficient evidence Then he proceeds to another game he plays very much at call'd calumny and charges the same Father first about Gods knowing smal things but it is apparent out of the very citation that St. Hieroms intention is not of speculative knowledg but particular providence of which St. Paul said nunquid Deo cura est de bobus His second instance contradicts his former For it is that Saints are everywhere which is spoken of their knowledg not corporal presence Christ by whose company they are pretended to be everywhere being so by his sight and knowledg not by his presence corporally Which this Friend saw was contrary to the former yet would not make use of it to reconcile but aggravate the errours Thirdly he accuses him to say that the Souls of the blessed Saints and Angels are subject to sin but cites not a syllable except for Angels which so express'd is an undenyable truth being no more then that Angels by envy became Divels But his irreconcilable quarrel is against marriage and what St. Hierom writes of Ladies respects to their families that they did not marry the second time he interprets as intended against marriage it self I confess as concerning the act of marriage or appetite to it he says more what is true then perhaps what is convenient to be spoken before Persons that should not be dehorted from a thing so necessary in divers cases wherin the temperance not use is honourable He goes on and now charges this old severe Father with a scandalous doctrin indeed an intolerable heresy wherin all true Reform'd stomacks are fundamentally concern'd for he accuses him to say in express terms that eating of flesh a most wholsome custome was abolish'd by Jesus Christ but citing neither words nor place and afterward drawing it in by a fals consequence makes me suspect it is an arrant forgery Again he accuses him of saying oaths were unlawful but in truth the words of the very Scripture are harder then St. Hieroms The next errour is that he thought the validity of consecration depended on the sanctity of the Priest but his words are so common they easily receive explication Again he is offended with him for denying faintly that the blessed eat in Heaven Lastly he accuses him of abusing St. Paul and first of contradicting him about the inscription of the Athenian Altar because he says there was more in the inscription then the Apostle mention'd Secondly that he said he understood more then he could explicate Thirdly that to the Galathians he spake ordinary discourses because they were not capable of higher Of these three the first had no harm in it since all the Evangelists do not cite the whole title of our Saviours Cross the two latter Dignify a great commendation of St. Paul among wise men and such as understand there is any other learning besides well speaking I must not pass without one word of Ruffinus too because our Reformers account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the Council of Nice touching the Popes authority And this great Patron of theirs cals him an arrant wooden Statue A pitiful thing One that had scarce any reaon in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Must not then what is grounded upon his property and excellency of language be a perfect foundation for a point of faith By these you may guess how he has dealt with others which were too long to examin Approaching to the end of his Chapter he specify's some errours unanimously held by a just number of the Fathers First that of the Chiliasts an objection already answered in the former part of this discourse The second is the reservation of souls from heaven till the day of Judgment which is refuted in a little Treatise entitled De medio animarum statu The third concerns rebaptization of Heteticks which also is cleared above only I cannot forget how he would insinuate that St. Basil held it after the decision of the Council of Nice but his mincing the matter by saying in a manner shews it is only a largess of his good will and not any evidence he brings Next he urges fiercly a point of Chronology and then the Angels having bodies and after that the Angels falling in love with women three points not very material Then again he repeats the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants but brings in rather testimonies of the practice which is not in question then of the necessity which is And lastly that all the Greek Fathers and a great part of the Latins held Gods foresight of mens good and bad works to be the cause of predestination but his authority depending only on modern Writers saying so whose diligence in examining their meanings is not known it might as wisely have been omitted In this next Chapter he intends to prove that some Fathers have strongly maintain'd against others some opinions in matters of very great importance which is but one half of what follows from or rather is directly contain'd in the conclusion of the former Chapter and therfore not denyed by us nor useful to him which was the cause why he would not there add though the place were very proper that they defended such opinions against the whole current of others and of the Church But to make a seeming new argument he left out this and exprest himself generally like a true deceiver that some defended against others and to give his discours the better relish he begins his antipast with calumniating Bessarion making him say that the Fathers opinions never clash one against another touching the points of our Religion for a Person so learned could not be ignorant that some errour might be found in a Father against the cōmon consent of the rest But his meaning was that not so many could dissent as were able to make a party against the general agreeing judgment of the rest neither does our Informer seek to prove the contrary In his first instance if he had put in that Justin Irenaeus and Tertullian had held the Millenary Heresy against the communalty of Christians of their Age he had ruin'd his own proof which nevertheless he might have done out of Justinus as is declared and indeed was obliged to do if he intended to proceed pertinently But what should I pain my self in a question not controverted Only I cannot omit a subtlety he uses against St. Cyril and Theodoret. St. Cyril had said The Holy Ghost was proper to the Son Theodoret distinguishes his words saying if he means by proper proceeding as well as the Son or of the same nature so he allows the saying but if he means that he
reduc'd to a hopeful condition of living hereafter in a perpetual and unavoidable unity of Religion especially since an hundred yeers experience sadly demonstrates what we say to be true Besides why does not this good Orator spend some time to shew us that his Arguments have not as much force against Scripture as against the Fathers I confess he has hinted it sometimes like one that saw the objection so obvious it could not be forgotten yet was unwilling to wade the Ford for fear he should find it too deep To supply therfore his omission I shall observe one considerable difference betwixt the Scripture and Fathers as far as concerns these objections Which consists in this that the Fathers works are many and copious The Scriptures bulk every Maid can tell that carry's her Mistresses Book to Church Whence it follows that as in a great Ocean there may be many Shelvs and Rocks and Whirlpools and whatever else is frightful to Sea men and yet nevertheless a fair and large passage remain either not at all endammaged by these perillous adventures or only so that they are easily avoyded by a careful Pilot wheras in a narrow Channel or Frith if we meet but half the number there will be no sailing without manifest danger So I conceive between the Fathers and the Scripture Every exception this Caviller alledges or at least provs may be true of their works and yet more then sufficient left to convince Hereticks but if Scripture be half as much disabled it wil utterly lose its Protestant pretended power of deciding controversys A truth I believe Rushworth has abundantly demonstrated For the variae lectiones are so many that they trench upon every line the several Translations give some little difference to every sentence the many Explications leave nothing untouch'd the Comparisons of one place to another may be more then there are words in the Text the places brought by one side and the other so short that Equivocation has force upon every one the Languages in which they are written either Hebrew whose titles breed a difference or Greek written by strangers and full of Improprieties the Method and Stile the many repetitions and occasionary discourses speak plainly the design of the Apostles far different from intending their writings should contain a full body of Religion much less to be the sole Judg to determin all contentions about faith Yes wil he say but there are more objections against the Fathers then against the Scripture As that the writings of the Fathers for the first three Ages are few I confess it but yet dare affirm there is more of them then the whole Scripture makes That the Fathers treat of matters different from our controversy's This is true but so do the Scriptures That there are supposititious works of the Fathers Hereticks pretend the same against our Scriptures That the Fathers speak according to others minds But the like is found in Scripture And so going on it will easily appear the same objections or equivalent might have bin made against Scripture if Mr. Rushworth had thought them worthy the labour of setting down Now when these Books are put into a Vulgar language as is necessary to them who pretend every one should be judge of their belief out of Scripture by being first Judge of the sense of it that is of what is Scripture for the dead letter is nothing to the purpose can it be less then madnes to think of demonstrating a controverted position out of one or two places of Scripture And yet as I have before noted this Patron of Presbytery assures us that we ought to believe nothing in point of Religion but what we know to be certainly true which is evident in his way to be nothing at all At last his own good nature has perswaded him to propose one profitable question What use is to be made of Fathers for deciding Controversies And his first resolution is in the design of his Book conformable to the fore-layd grounds that we ought to read them carefully and heedfully searching their Writings for their opinions and not for our own A wonderful wise conclusion especially considering he says the Reader must endeavour diligently to peruse them all For my part I should advise my friend rather to take his rest and sleep then spend so much pains and time to search out what others have written which when I have found little imported what t was or whether I knew it or no this being the idlest and unworthiest sort of study to know what such or such books say without any farther end Yet generally this is the great learning these Grammatical Divines glory in not that they are better even at this then their Adversaries but because they have no other As if they had forgotten there were any solid knowledg to be sought after but being blown like a thin empty glass into the windy substance of words hang in the air not having weight enough to settle upon firm ground At least to maintain the Fathers are not altogether vain and useless he will teach us to argue negatively out of their writings as that such a position is not found in the Fathers Ergo not necessary to be believ'd and by this to reduce our Faith to that number of Articles which they unanimonsly deliver But he has forgot his own arguments for since we have so few of their works how can we tel the greater part did not teach somwhat necessary to be believ'd which these have omitted since corruption enter'd into the Church immediatly after the Apostles decease why may not some considerable point be strangled in its infancy since the Fathers are so hard to be understood why may there not be many doctrins of importance which we find not for want of quickness of sight to discover them and since they oppose one another in so many things why may not at least some one of these be a fundamental Article of Faith I cannot give over this discours concerning the testimony of the Fathers without first observing a notorious cheat of our Adversary's and too great an easiness in our own party which once discover'd and perfectly understood makes our cause so evident that in my opinion there will be left no possibility of disputing about Antiquity The business is this Wheras their breach from the old Religion is so apparent and visible ther 's not the least colour to doubt it we let our selvs by their cunning be drawn into dark and petty questions and so lose the face of Antiquity by disputing of some nice point As for example when the Presbyterian has ruin'd the whole fabrick of the ancient Church by taking away Episcopal Authority instead of questioning them for so palpable an innovation we unwarily suffer our selvs to be engag'd into the discussion of this partieular quaere Whether Bishops be de jure divino which cannot be determin'd by the vast body of Antiquity as the right and proper