Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

meethinkes he wants much of the ethicall part of a discourser, and slights too much many times the arguments of those he discourses with. But this is a fault he would quickly leave, if he had a friend, that would discreetly tell him of it. If you or Mr. Coventry would tell him, that you heard one, that knowes him, magnifye him exceedingly for other thinges, but censure him for this, you might doe him a very friendly office; and my writing to you thus much gives you grownd enough to say so truely. But you must not give the least suspicion, that I am the man, and therefore not doe it yet a good while.

“When Dr. Sheldon comes to Oxford, I will be there againe, and then will be very ready to doe any service in the businesse you imparted to mee.

“I was mistaken in my directing you to Eusebius for the matter you wott of. You shall find it in a witnesse much farther from exception herein then Eusebius, even Athanasius himselfe, the greatest adversary of that doctrine, and Hilary, who was his second. See the first in Ep. de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. p. 917. D. tom i. Edit. Paris, 1627. See the second de Synodis, fol. 97. In the first

you shall find, that the eighty fathers, which condemned Samosatenus, affirm'd expressely, that the Sonne is not of the same essence of the Father ; which is to contradict formally the councell of Nice, which decreed the Sonne co-essentiall to the Father. In the second you shall find these wordes to the same purpose, Octoginta Episcopi olim respuerunt Homousion. See also, if you please, Justin. cont. Tryph. p. 283. 356, 357. Tertull. against Praxeas, c. 9. Novatian de Trinit. in fine, who is joyn'd with Tertullian. Athanas.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Ep. de Fide Dion. Alex. t. i. p. 551, · Basil, t. ii. p. 802, 803, edit. Paris, 1618. See St. Hierom, Apol. 2. cont. Ruffinum, t. ii. p. 329. Paris, 1579. See Petavius upon Epiph. his Panar. ad Hæ. 69. quæ est. Arii, p. 285; and consider how well he cleares Lucian the martyr from Arianisme, and what he there confesses of all the ancient fathers.

“ If you could understand French, I would referre to Perron, p. 633, of his reply to King James, where you should find these wordes : If

“ a man should demand of an Arrian, if he would submitt to the judgment of the church of the ages præcedent to that of Constantine and Marcian, he would make no difficulty of it, but would presse himselfe, that the controversye might be decided by that little, which remaines to us of the authors of that time. For an Arrian would find in Irenæus, Tertullian, and others, which remaine of those ages, that the Sonne is the instrument of the Father; that the Father commanded the Sonne in the works of creation; that the Father and the Sonne are, aliud et aliud; which thinges he that should now hold, now when the language of the church is more examin’d, would be esteem'd a very Arrian. If you reade Bellarn

reade Bellarmine touching this matter, you should find, that he is troubled exceedingly to find any tolerable glosses for the speeches of the fathers before the councell of Nice, which are against him; and yet he conceales the strongest of them; and, to counterpoyse them, cites authors, that have indeed ancient names, but such, whom he himselfe has stigmatized for spurious, or doubtfull, in his book De Script. Eccles.

“Were I at leysure, and had a little longer time, I could referre you to some, that acknowledge Origen's judgment to be also against them in this matter. And Fishar, in his Answere to Dr. White's Nine Questions,* has a place almost parallel to that abovecited out of Perron.

“In a word, whosoever shall freely and impartially consider of this thing, and how on the other side the ancient fathers weapons against the Arrians are in a manner onely places of Scripture (and those now for the most part discarded as impertinent and unconcluding), and how in the argument drawne from the authority of the ancient fathers, they are almost alwayes defendants, and scarse ever opponents; he shall not choose but confesse, or at least be very inclinable to beleeve, that the doctrine of Arrius is eyther a truth, or at least no damnable hæresy.

“But the carryer stayes for my letter, and I have now no more time than to adde, that I am thy very true and loving friend, &c.

“ See Facundus Hermianensis, lib. 10. c. 15. Remember alwayes the wordes of our Saviour, • * If you will doe the will of my Father, you shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.

“ If you can send me Mr. Digges's speech. I prythee goe to Dr. Littleton, and desire him to send mee all that he has of Vorstius : for in the Epistles of his, which I borrowed of him, he referres mee to some other bookes of his, which I shall have especiall occasion to use; especially his booke against Pistorius the Jesuit.”

In the year 1635, Sir Thomas Coventry, lord keeper of the great seal, offering Mr. Chillingworth some preferment, he refused to accept it, on account of his scruples with regard to the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles of the church of England ;* and wrote a letter upon this subject to Dr. Sheldon. Mr. Des Maizeaux observes, † that he had two transcripts of it, one of which (that hath a postscript) was com-municated to him by Dr. White Kennet, lord bishop of Peterborough; to which, and to the copy of the other letter of Mr. Chillingworth, upon his going over to the Romish religion, his Lordship had subjoined the following memorandum: “ To the copies of these two letters to Mr. Gilbert Sheldon and Dr. Sheldon, Mr. Wharton, who procured the transcripts, gave this attestation under his own hand-Ex autographis literis penes Danielem Sheldon Armigerum, archiepiscopi nepotem. It is dated from Tew, I Septemb. 21, 1635, and directed—To the right worshipfull and his much honoured friend Dr. Sheldon, and is as follows, with the various readings of the other transcript communicated to Mr. Des Maizeaux, noted below.

* P. 106, 107.

[ocr errors]

GOOD DR, SHELDON,

“I do here send you news, as unto my best friend, of a great and happy victory, which at length, with extream difficultie, I have scarcely obtained over the onely enemie, that can hurt me, that is, myselfe.

* Des Maizeaux, ubi supra, p. 58, &c. + P. 86. # In Oxfordshire, the seat of Lucius, Lord Viscount Falk

land,

“Sir, so it is, that though I am in debt to yourselfe and others of my friends above twenty pounds more than I know how to pay; though I am in want of many conveniences; though in danger of falling into a chronicall infirmitie of my body; though in another thing, which you perhaps guesse at what it is, but I will not tell you, which would make more joyfull of preferment than all these things (if I could come honestly by* it); though money comes to me from my father's purse like blood from his veins, or from his heart; though I am very sensible, that I have been too long already an unprofitable burden to my Lord, and must not still continue so; though my refusing preferment may perhaps (which fear, I assure you, does much afflict me) be injurious to my friends and intimate acquaintance, and prejudicial to them in the way of theirs; though conscience of my own good intention and desiret suggests unto me many flattering hopes of great possibilitief of doing God and his church service, if I had the preferment, which I may fairly hope for; though I may justly fear, that by refusing those preferments, which I sought for, I shall gain the reputation of weaknesse and levity, and incur their displeasure, whose good opinion of me, next to God's favour, and my own good opinion of myselfe, I do esteem and desire above all things : though all these, and many other terribiles visu forma, have represented themselves to my imagination in the most hideous manner that may be; yet I am at length firmly and unmoveably resolved, if I can have no preferment without

* to.

t intentions and desires.

I possibilities.

« ZurückWeiter »