The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Mr. M's. way of getting belief, by a Magiſterial condemning the moſt credible Hiſtorians, and authorizing whom he pleaſe.
§ 1. IF we had not Euſebius, Socrates and Sozomen, how naked ſhould we be left, and much unacquainted with the caſe of the Church from the Apoſtles; (Beſides Theodorets Hiſtory) till 440. And what a ſhake is given to the Credit of all theſe by Mr. M. and others of greater name?
Though Euſebius himſelf be by Petavius and many other Papiſts accounted an Arian, yea and ſeemingly proved ſuch, and by Bellarmine de Script. Eccleſ. its ſaid that Athanaſius ſo calls him, and Jerom calls him the Arian Signifer and Prince, and the 7th General Council ſo judgeth him, yet Socrates vindicateth him, and thinks he is wronged: And indeed though his own Epiſtle written to his Flock be not juſtifyable, incautelous and unjuſtifyable words were too Common before his daies (as Petavius hath too fully proved) with thoſe that we muſt not yet call Arians. But while Bellarmine and Mr. M. charge Socrates and Sozomen as Novatians that is Hereticks themſelves, they deprive Euſebius of much of their defence; and render his Hiſtory the more ſuſpicious.
§ 2. And though I know Mr. M. hath more partners herein, I never ſaw yet any credible proof that either of them were Novatians: Good Chriſtians are not aſhamed nor afraid to make profeſſion of their Religion. And they are ſo far from profeſſing it, that they oft ſpeak of the Novatians in diſowning words. But they praiſed them for the good that is in them! And would not any impartial Hiſtorian do the like? Muſt a man rail at any party, or hide their Virtues or elſe be taken to be one of them? I confeſs that ſuch as Mr. M. do fully acquit themſelves from the ſuſpicion of being Presbyterians or Nonconformiſts. But ſo did not A. Biſhop Grindall, Biſhop Jewel, A. Biſhop Abbot A. Biſhop Uſher, and many more ſuch. Sure Candor and Impartiality is Laudable in Hiſtorians; And Thuanus is moſt honoured for that. And notwithſtanding Mr. M's aſſertions of the contrary, I profeſs my ſelf a lover & honourer of the worth of many of the aſpiring Biſhops that corrupted the Church, and of many Popes, and of many that continue Church corruptions in the height; even many of the Papiſts Cardinals, Schoolmen and Jeſuites. Who will not love and praiſe the excellent Learning of ſuch as Suarez, Vaſquez, Victoria, Petavius and abundance ſuch? Who will not praiſe the piety of ſuch as Gerſon, Borromaeus, Sales, and many others, though we nevertheleſs diſown their Popery? For my part I highly value the Cleareneſs, of multitudes of the Schoolmen, and that they have not in whole loads of their volumes ſo much malicious railing as the Jeſuits and many of our late Conformiſts have in a few ſheets. Doth it follow that I am a Papiſt becauſe I praiſe them, or that Socrates or Sozomen were Novatians becauſe they ſpeak well of their faith and piety.
There are abundance of Malignants, that acknowledge the Good Lives of thoſe they call Puritanes (and if he had not had the late Wars between King and Parliament to fill all Mouths and Books againſt them, the Devil by this time might have been at a loſs with what Accuſations to reproach them. For he was put to uſe the Voices (no names) of [Roundheads, Whigs, &c. when their Revilers were called Drunkards. Swearers, Dam-me's, &c.] But they that confeſs the Good, reproach them as Hypocrites that do but counterfeit it. Doth this acknowledgment prove them Puritanes. I ſuppoſe Mr. M. knoweth that no ſmall number of Hiſtorians and Fathers confeſs the ſtrictneſs of the Novatians Lives, and yet were no Novatians. And Conſtantine's words to Aceſius imply that he thought him ſingularly ſtrict. And Mr. M. ſaith Pref. [The Novatians, ſaith the Author, did not ſuffer much by this Edict, being beſriended by the Emperour, who had an eſteem for their Biſhop of C. P. upon the account of his Holineſs.] And may not an Orthodox man confeſs the Piety of others?
§ 3. But Mr. M. is ſo Magiſterial as to ſay, Pag. 322. The ſtory of Theophilus, and the Monks of Nitria, no reaſonable man can believe, as it is related by Socrates and Sozomen, without loving a malicious Lie.] So that Socrates and Sozomen either believed not themſelves, or elſe Love… a malicious Lie.
And Page 319. he ſaith, [The ſtory of Theophilus his charging Iſidore with double Letters, that whoever was Conquerour, he might apply himſelf to him in his name, is of the ſame piece with the reſt of Socrates his ſtory concerning that Biſhop; and in all probability an invention of one of the Monk… of Nitria.]
It ſeems this Hiſtorian believeth Old Hiſtorians, as the matters ſeem probable or improbable to himſelf. And ſo we may take him for the Univerſal Expoſitor of Hiſtory: It is not the Old Hiſtorians that we muſt believe, but his Conjectures. And thus he deals with divers others.
§ 4. For my part I profeſs, that before I had any Engagement in theſe Controverſies, ſince I firſt read them, I took Socrates and Sozomen to be two of the moſt credible Hiſtorians that the Church had till their Times, and of many an Age after them. I ſaid of them, as I uſe to do of Thuanus, A man may trace the footſteps of Knowledge, and impartial honeſty, and ſo of Veracity in their very ſtyle. And there are few of the judicious Cenſurers of Hiſtorians, but do tell us of far more uncertainties in Euſebius, and after in Nicephorus, and moſt that followed, (as far as I am acquainted with ſuch Cenſurers) than in theſe two. And if their Hiſtory be ſhaken, our loſs will not be ſmall. And I doubt not but the Anathematizing and Condemning Spirit hath done hurt, which hath made Euſebius an undoubted Arian, and Theodoret, firſt a Neſtorian, and after at the fifth General Council condemned ſome of his Writings, and impoſed it on the whole Chriſtian World to condemn them, though many never heard of them, and that made Ruffinus (and Chryſoſtom) Originiſts, and Origen a Heretick, condemned alſo by a General Council, and Socrates, and Sozomen, Novatians, Epiphanius an ignorant credulous Fabler, Sulpitius Severus, and Beda, two pious credulous Reporters of many feigned Miracles, and one a Millenary, Nicephorus a Fabler, Anaſtaſius Bibl. full of Falſhoods, Philaſtrius an ignorant Erroneous Hereticator, Caſſianus a Semi-Pelagian, Caſſiodori Chronic. eſt farrago temulentiae inquit Onuphrius Pan. Pene nunquam cum Euſebio convenit inquit Voſſius, &c. I ſay, Though it be no wrong to the Church to take them for fallible, and ſuch as have miſtakes (which the Engliſh Articles ſay even of General Councils) yet it wrongfully ſhaketh all our belief of Church Hiſtory to call their Credit in matters of fact into queſtion for their Errours or opinions ſake, without good Evidence that either they were ignorant, miſ-informed or wilfully lied. But if the Novatians were more ſtrict & preciſe than others, it's rather like that they were more and not leſs credible than others, and made more or not leſs conſcience of a lye. Certainly that which the reſt named are charged with is ſomewhat more as to Hiſtorical Credit than to be Novatians: So that if theſe men had been Novatians, I ſhould yet ſay by the Complexion of their Hiſtory that They are two of our moſt uſeful and credible Church Hiſtorians.
§ 5. But when it ſerveth his turn he can gather out of Sozomen that even in Conſtantine's time, Conſtantinople was [Altogether a Chriſtian City] Becauſe he mentioneth the great Enlargement of it; and great encreaſe of Chriſtianity: When as no man that lived could be a ſitter judge of the number of Chriſtians in his time than Chryſoſtom: And he that conſidered that there and every where Conſtantine left all the Jews and Heathens uncompelled to be Chriſtians, yea and uſed them commonly in places of dignity and Government in City, Provinces and Armies, and that they continued in ſuch power under many Emperours after him, will hardly believe that in Conſtantine's time C. P. had half or a quarter ſo many Chriſtians as were in the time of Arcadius and Chryſoſtom; And yet then Chryſoſtom conjectureth the Chriſtians to be an hundred thouſand, and all the City poor half as many, but the Jews and Heathens not to be numbred. See him one Act 4. Hom. 11. When he is making the moſt of their eſtate and numbers, ſaith he [I pray you tell me: How great a number of all ſorts of men hath our City? How many Chriſtians will you that there be (That is will you grant, or do you think there be?) Will you that there be foreign an hundred thouſand? But how great is the Number of Jews and Ethnicks? How many pounds of Gold have been gathered? (or Myriads?) And how great is the Number of the Poor? (that is, of the whole City?) I do not think they are above fifty thouſand (Commelin. hath put an hundred thouſand, as Eraſmus Tranſlation, I ſuppoſe by the Errour of the Preſs.) Now if there was in Chryſoſtom's daies but an hundred thouſand (which many ſay is not near ſo many as there be in two Pariſhes here, Martins and Stepney) it is not like that in Conſtantine's Time they were half ſo many at moſt. And yet I am far from thinking that there was then no more than uſually met in an Aſſembly, or could ſo meet.
§ 6. The Jeſuites, Valeſius and Sirmondus, I am no fit perſon to cenſure. But I am not ſatisfied why their Credit ſhould go as far with me as it doth with him: I have before ſpoke of Valeſius's Recording Grotius as one that deſigned to bring many with him into the Roman Church. And Grotius himſelf ſaith, That many of the Engliſh Biſhops were of his mind, as Biſhop Bromhall, and many Doctors by defending him ſeem to be: And yet when I wrote my Chriſtian Concord, and The Grotian Religion, how many cenſured me as a Slanderer, for ſaying leſs than Valeſius doth. Yet I am falſe with this Hiſtorian, and Valeſius is a credible Jeſuite.
And he vouchſafeth to tell us the Judgment of Valeſius, that Euſebius Nicomed. was no Arian, pag. 332. where he ſaith [Euſebius of Nicomedia was no Heretick in the Judgment of Valeſius: But if he were, he was not an Heretick, becauſe he did not begin the Arch-Hereſie, but followed Arius.]
What the meaning is of the latter words I know not [If he were (an Heretick) he was not an Heretick] I conjecture it is one of the almoſt Infinite Errata's of the Printer: (But he ſuppoſeth my Printer's to be mine own:) But that Euſebius Nicomed. ſhould be no Heretick, whom all the ſtream of credible Hiſtorians make to be that Arch-Heretick (I ſay not the firſt) who corrupted Conſtantine his Court and Son, which introduced the prevalency of Arianiſm to the almoſt Ruine of the Orthodox Church, is a thing which he that believeth Valeſius in, muſt prefer the Credit of one Jeſuite that lived above a thouſand years after, before the whole current of the beſt Hiſtorians of the ſame, and many following Ages. And did I ever ſo diſcredit the whole ſtream of Church-Hiſtorians, as on the word of one Jeſuite, to bring them under the ſuſpicion of ſuch a Lie? But I confeſs I am more inclined to believe a Jeſuite, and a Prelatiſt, when they excuſe any man of Hereſie, than when they accuſe him.
§ 7. In the Preface he tells us that [Had I conſulted Sirmond's, Edition of the French Councils I muſt have wanted ſeveral Allegations for the Congregational way, which are nothing elſe but corrupt readings of the ancient Canons of the Gallican Church. Nor can we ſuſpect Sirmond as too great a favourer of Dioceſan Biſhops, ſince it is well known how he is charged by the Abbot of S. Cyran under the name of Petrus Aurelius, for having falſified a Canon in the Council of Orange to the prejudice of the Epiſcopal Order] Jeſuites care as little for Biſhops as our Proteſtant Diſſenters can do.] Anſw. I doubt not but Sirmond was a very Learned man, and had not the Conformiſts diveſted me of all Church-maintenance, I had been like to have bought his French Councils. In the mean time, that notice which others before him gave of the Acts and Canons of Councils, ſufficed to my furniture, fully to prove the Cauſe I maintained: But I confeſs his pretended reaſon no whit induceth me to give more credit to a Jeſuite than to another man. Though Albaſpineus was a Biſhop, there is ſo much Judgment and Honeſty appears in his Obſervations, that I would ſooner believe him about Epiſcopacy, than a Jeſuite that you ſay is againſt it.
But it's as incredible to me, as the reſt of his ſpurious Hiſtory, that the Jeſuites care as little for Biſhops as our Proteſtant Diſſenters can do. Sure many of thoſe called Presbyterians and Independents, would have none at all. If this be true, then 1. The Jeſuites would have no Biſhops of Rome, though they be his ſworn Servants. 2. Then they would have no Biſhops to be ſubject to the Pope. 3. Then they would have all particular Churches to be without Biſhops, or to be unchurcht. 4. Then they would have Ordination without Biſhops. 5. Then they think not that an uninterrupted Succeſſion of Epiſcopal Ordination is neceſſary to Church or Miniſtry. 6. Then they think that Biſhops ſhould not confirm. 7. Then they are againſt the Councils of Biſhops, General or Provincial. 8. And againſt Dioceſans Government of the Pariſh Prieſts. And yet is a Jeſuite a Papiſt? Wonderful! that they will venture their Lives in endeavours for the Church of Rome, and that they write ſo much of and for Biſhops Councils, and yet are quite againſt them.
But if really this be ſo, you that take me for incredible, who am againſt but the Corruption of Epiſcopacy, do allow me to take Sirmondus and Valeſius, and the reſt of the Jeſuites for incredible, who are as much againſt the very Office as our Diſſenters can be? But what will not ſome Hiſtorians confidently ſay?