The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII. Of his Second Chapter.
§ 1. PAg. 78. He would have men believe that it is Diſcipline againſt real Hereſie, that I find ſo much fault with, and aſcribe all miſchief to—
Anſw. Utterly contrary to my moſt open Profeſſion: It is only making thoſe things to ſeem Hereſie that are none (either Truth, or meer difference of words, or ſmall miſtakes,) or curing Hereſies by raſh Anathema's, without neceſſary precedent means of Conviction, or by Baniſhment or Blood.
§ 2. Is this it that you defend the Church for, and we oppoſe it for? When we would have none in our Churches whom we know not, and that have not perſonally, if at Age, profeſt underſtandingly their Faith. And what is the Diſcipline that you exerciſe on Hereticks? It's enough that you know them not, and ſo never trouble them. Your Talk and Pamphlets truly complain what ſwarms of Hobbiſts, Sadduces, Infidels, Atheiſts, are among us: Do they not all live in the Pariſhes and Dioceſſes? Doth the Biſhop know them? Are any of them Excommunicated? I could never learn yet how to know who are Members of your Churches: Is it all that dwell in the Pariſhes? Then all theſe aforeſaid, with Jews and Papiſts, are in it: And then why are ten parts of ſome Pariſhes ſuffered without Diſcipline to ſhun the Pariſh Church-Communion? Is it all that hear you? Then 1. Ten parts in ſome Pariſhes, and two or three, or half in others are not of your Church, and hear you not, and many Nonconformiſts hear you. 2. And any Infidel may hear. Bare hearing was never made a ſufficient note of a Church-Member. 3. And how can you tell who all be that hear you in an uncertain crowd? 4. And why doth not your Diſcipline meddle with conſtant Non-Communicants?
3. Is it only all that Communicate with you? 1. Theſe are yet fewer, and ſo the far greateſt part of many or moſt Pariſhes here are let alone to be no Church members at all, when they have been long Baptized, and no cenſure by diſcipline paſt on them. 2. How know you your ſtated Communicants, when any ſtranger may come unqueſtioned? The truth is, it is Pariſh diſcipline which you will not endure. No wonder if you named it Iſſachars burden. Bucer in ſcrip. Anglic. and all the Nonconformiſts after him long ſtrove for it in vain. It is the hated thing. Were it poſſible to prevail with you for this, we ſhould have little diſagreement about Church Government. But the Popes that have been the greateſt enemies of it, have yet gloried in a Diſcipline to ſet up their power over Princes and Peoples, and to have their own wills, and tread down all that are againſt them.
§ 2. To extenuate Anathematizing (ſo very Common with Councils) he tells us P. 81. that [Let him be Anathema imports no more than that we declare our abhorrence of ſuch doctrines, and will have nothing Common with thoſe that profeſs them.]
Anſ. 1. We may declare our abhorrence of every known ſin and Errour, in ſuch as muſt not be anathematized. 2. By (nothing) I ſuppoſe you mean not [not the ſame King, Countrey, Earth, Air, &c.] but [not the ſame Church, the ſame Chriſtian Communion, familiarity, love, &c] Whether you mean [not the ſame God, Chriſt, &c.] I know not But do you think the Anathematizing Biſhops ſo unreaſonable, as to renounce all Chriſtian Communion with men and not tell why? Or to give no better Reaſon than [We abhor their doctrine:] How few Churches or men have nothing worthy to be abhorred, that is, No Errour or ſin? And muſt we renounce Communion with all the Chriſtian world? No, they were not ſo bad: You uſe them hardlier than I. They took them to be no true Chriſtians, as wanting ſomewhat of that faith which is neceſſary to Salvation, and Eſſential to a Chriſtian, and ſo to have made themſelves no Church-Members, and therefore are to be ſentenced & avoided accordingly.
And how ordinarily do they expound [Let him be Anathema] that is [Cut off from Chriſt?] Not only Hildebrand ſo expounds it often, but many before him: Whereupon they commonly agree that an Anathematized Heretick is none of the Church, nor can be ſaved without repentance.
And indeed to renounce all Communion with Chriſts true members not Cut off from the Church, is a greater ſin than I charge on them. Though familiarity and ſpecially Communion may be ſuſpended, while delay of repentance makes the Caſe of a ſinner doubtful.
§ 3. Pag. 82 He begins himſelf with blaming Biſhop Victor, for Endangering the Peace of the whole Church upon ſo light occaſion. Valeſius is of opinion, that it was but by letters of accuſation.
Anſw. I think it could be but by Letters of Accuſation, Renunciation, and perſuading others to renounce them. For Biſhops were not then come up to their Commanding Power over one another. But doth not Mr. M's. here rail upon a Biſhop, in ſaying the ſame of him that I did, if my words were Railing? Thus you ſhall have him all along confeſſing much of that faultineſs by them, which he takes the mention of by me to be ſo bad.
§ 4. He nameth many Councils, which he ſaith I paſs lightly over; then ſure I ſay no harm of them. He thinks it is becauſe I could not, as if he knew it were my will. And ſo I am never blameleſs.
§ 5. But he hath a notable Controverſie againſt Baronius, who thought Novatus had been a Biſhop (ſuch Errours as Baronius was guilty of by Ignorance, are excuſable in one ſo far below him in Hiſtory as I am.) But I congratulate Mr. M's, diſcovery, that he was but a Presbyter: But all confeſs that he Ordained Feliciſſimus Deacon: And here is a Presbyter Ordaining: But it was irregularly! Let it be ſo: He ſaith, that he ought not to have Ordained, but with Cyprian, or by his permiſſion. I grant it. But 1. If Cyprian's permiſſion would ſerve, then it was not a work alien to a Presbyter: If a permitted Presbyter may Ordain, a Biſhop's Ordination is not neceſſary ad eſſe Officii; and ſo that which is a diſorder is no Nullity. 2. And it ſeems by Novatus's Act, that the Neceſſity of Epiſcopal Ordination was not univerſally received. And I have not yet met with any that make it more neceſſary ad eſſe Presbyteratus quam Diaconatus.
§ 6. Next he mentions another Carthage Council, where one Victor dead, is condemned for making a Prieſt Guardian of his Child, and ſo entangling him in worldly Affairs. And he tells you, that all that I can ſay againſt this, is the rigour of the Sentence; but he diſſembleth, and takes no notice that I mention it in praiſe of the Biſhops of thoſe Times, who were ſo much againſt Clergy-mens medling with Secular Affairs: What odious Puritaniſm would this have been with us? What I cite in praiſe, our Hiſtorian cannot underſtand.
§ 7. And that you may need no Confuter of much of his Accuſation of me but himſelf, who ſo oft ſaith, I ſay nothing of Biſhops and Councils, but of their faults, &c. he here ſaith as followeth.
[After this he gives a ſhort Account of Councils called on the Subject of Rebaptization of Hereticks: And here, to do him right, he is juſt enough in his Remarks: The generality of the World was for Rebaptizing Hereticks: And conſidering what manner of men the firſt Hereticks were, it is probable they had Tradition as well as Reaſon on their ſide. However, Mr. Baxter endeavours fairly to excuſe theſe Differences, and ſpeaks of the Biſhops with honour and reſpect, allowing them to be men of eminent Piety and Worth. Had he uſed the ſame Candour towards others, &c.
Anſw. 1. If this be true, a great deal contradictory is untrue.
2. He greatly miſreporteth the Controverſie: It was not whether Hereticks ſhould be Rebaptized, but thoſe that were Baptized by Hereticks, and taken into their Churches. If a Heretick had been Baptized when found by a ſound Miniſter, and after turned to Hereſie, he was to be reſtored by Repentance without Rebaptizing; and I think they all agreed in this. But I imagine this was but a lapſe of his memory in Writing.
3. But the Queſtion is, Whether the Biſhops, whoſe faults I mention, were of equal Worth and Innocency with thoſe whom I honour and praiſe? Let the proof ſhew.
I would he would freely tell us, Q. 1. Whether he think at this day the generality of Biſhops (in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the Greek Church, Moſcovy, Armenia, Syria, &c.) are ſo commendable, as not to be notably blamed? Q. 2. If not, When was it that he thinks they ceaſed to be generally ſo commendable? Was it in Hildebrand's Time, or any time before? Q. 3. Can you believe that the generality turn from good to bad juſt in one Age? Or rather that they degenerated by degrees? If they were moſtly bad in a thouſand, or nine hundred, or eight hundred, can you think that they were not drawing towards it and near as bad a little before; Q. 4. What was it think you in which the Corruption of the Clergy did conſiſt? Was it not moſt in a proud, domineering worldly Spirit? Is it not that that you blame the Popes for? Was not their Aſcent their Corruption? Sure you all agree of that. Q. 5. And did the Papacy Spring up in a year? Did not Leo begin to arrogate, and others after him (to ſay nothing now of thoſe before him) riſe higher and higher by degrees as Children grow up to manhood, till in Greg. 7. it came to Maturity? I know no Proteſtant that denyeth this? Q. 6. And can you or any ſober man think that in ſo many hundred years it was only the Biſhop of Rome that was ſick of this diſeaſe, and that all or moſt of the other Biſhops were Free? Were they not commonly for aſcending with them: Did not they in the Eaſt ſtrive to be greateſt? And the Biſhops of the Weſt ſtrive to riſe with, and by the Pope? Were they not, and are they not as his Army? And did he prevail againſt the Primitive Purity and Simplicity without them? Did not his Councils, and Prelates, as his Armies, do his greateſt works? Yea, have they not oft out-done him, and over-topt him in Miſchief (as in the depoſing of Ludov. Pius againſt his will? ſay good Hiſtorians.)
Tell us then at what Age juſt we may begin to diſpraiſe the Biſhops. And from that time forward, will you not be as great a Railer as I, and ſcandalize Chriſtianity more than Lucian or Julian?
§ 8. But I ſomewhat marvel that he is again at it (reciting Dionyſius's words which he thinks I miſtook for Euſebius's) That he does not condemn the rebaptizing of Hereticks which was a Tradition of ſo great antiquity: I judge more Candidly of him than he doth of me: Though he ſo oft repeat it, I will not believe that he knew not, that it was not the baptizing of Hereticks as ſuch, that was the queſtion: but only of thoſe that were baptized by Hereticks. Yet I confeſs Euſebius phraſing it, might tempt one to think ſo that had not read Cyprian and others upon the queſtions. But when Euſebius and Dionyſius mention [rebaptizing Hereticks] they mean only thoſe that were by Hereticks baptiſm entered into the Societies and Profeſſion of Hereticks. If the worſt Heretick, yea or Apoſtate, had been baptized, by the orthodox, Cyprian and all the reſt were agreed againſt Rebaptizing ſuch when they repented. This Dionyſius telling Xyſtus Rom. of an ancient Miniſter that was greatly troubled in Conſcience that he had been falſly Baptized by an Heretick (being himſelf no Heretick) and doubted whether he ſhould not be Rebaptized, yet ſaith, He told him he durſt not Rebaptize him that had ſo long been in the Church and Communicated, but bid him go on Comfortably in Communion (Much like a forementioned caſe put to me, by ſome that never were Baptized, but in our undiſciplined Pariſh Churches had been without knowledge or queſtion admitted long to Communion, whether yet they ſhould be Baptized at all: And Dionyſius's Reaſons againſt it I cannot anſwer.
§ 9. And here I may take notice how our new Church-men, (ſuch as Thorndike, Mr. Dodwell and all their partners) who nullifie ſacraments delivered by one that hath not Canonical Ordination by a Biſhop of uninterrupted Succeſſion from the Apoſtles, do make themſelves Hereticks in the ſenſe of the Roman Church which they allow: For 1. Baptiſm is the firſt and moſt neceſſary Sacrament in their own opinion. Yea Auſtin and too many of old, but ſpecially too many now, take it to be neceſſary to Salvation; 2. If therefore Baptiſm be a nullity all that are Baptized in England, Scotland and all the Proteſtant Churches by ſuch as had no ſuch Ordainers, muſt be Baptized again or be damned. 3. If they ſay, They may be ſaved without it, then 1. they confeſs Mr. Dodwells Doctrine to be falſe, that ſaith none have a Covenant right to Salvation, who have it not by a Sacrament from ſuch hands. 2. And they renounce the Doctrine of the Neceſſity of Baptiſm to Salvation. But if they are for Rebaptizing all ſuch Proteſtant Countries, as neceſſary to Salvation, they are uncharitable that do not ſpeak it out.
§ 10. He paſſeth by Biſhop Stephens Excommunicating all the Oriental Biſhops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, and Reprobating their Synods, for Rebaptization: Doth he think that even then ſome Biſhops did not riſe too faſt?
§ 11. The man that is ſo angry with me for telling of the faults of Biſhops and Councils, is pag. 87. angry with me for not ſaying worſe againſt Secundus his Council of Biſhops at Cirta; and ſaith, I have not done right to the Catholick Church: I perceive the queſtion is not, whether I may Rail at Biſhops, but what Biſhops they be that I muſt Rail at.
As for the Council at Sinueſſa, I believed the being of it no more than he doth: And when I am but naming the common Catalogue, he might pardon my modeſty for ſaying that the being of it is a Controverſie.
§ 12. Of the Council of Illiberis he ſaith but contractedly the ſame that I do, that It hath many good Canons, and ſome that need a favourable Interpretation, and is very ſevere in ſome caſes. This meaſure of juſt praiſe and diſpraiſe, is practiſed by him that is condemning it in me.
§ 13. As to his Controverſie, whether Biſhops, or ſuch as ſtrove to be Biſhops, were the very firſt movers of the Donatiſts Controverſie, who ſhould be Biſhop, it's not worth the turning over one Book to ſearch, as to my buſineſs.
§ 14. Next he that accuſeth me of Railing at Biſhops, accuſeth me for ſaying (from ſome good Authors) that a Biſhop of Carthage, Donatus, was a good man, who he ſaith was bad. It's little to me whether he were good or bad.
§ 15. Next he noteth that I Err with Binnius and Baronius as to the year of a Carthage Council. I undertook not to juſtifie all the Chronology or Hiſtory that I tranſcribe: Whether Optatus, or Binnius and Baronius hit on the juſt year, little care I.
§ 16. I praiſed a Donatiſt's Council of 270 Biſhops at Carthage for Moderation, agreeing to communicate with penitent Traditors, without Rebaptizing them, and ſo doing for 40 years.
Q. What was theſe mens Hereſie?
He ſaith, This looks liker a piece of Policy than Moderation, for it had no tendency to peace, but to ſtrengthen the Schiſm.]
Anſ. Who knows how to pleaſe men? When they exclaim againſt Separation if men Communicate with them, they judge it but Policy, that hath no tendency to peace. 2. And who is it now that moſt raileth at Biſhops? I am confuted for praiſing the moderation of 270 of them, and he is their cenſurer even when they do well, and their moderation with him is but Policy. Even as they ſay, of me, that I conſtantly Communicate with their Pariſh Churches to undermine them: Near or far off, all's one with this ſort of men, if you ſtick at any thing that they bid you ſay or do.
But he will not believe that this Council of Orthodox moderate Donatiſts were ſo many as 270. Becauſe 1. we have only the Authority for it of Tychonius a Donatiſt. 2. It's improbable after Conſtantine's ſuppreſſion of them that Schiſm ſhould ſo ſuddenly ſpread. 3. Leſt it ſhould prove the Churches to be too Small: Yet he ſaith, Theſe Schiſmaticks ſet up Churches in every City and Village.]
Anſ. 1. It's ſaid Tychonius confeſſeth this Council, becauſe the later Donatiſts would fain have buryed the memory of it: But that it depends only on the Credit of Tychonius, I think depends only on your Credit: 2. Auguſtine that reports it, honoureth this Tychonius, and reciteth an Expoſition of his of the Angels of the Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. which I ſuppoſe diſpleaſeth you more than his Donatiſm. 3. It ſeems you would have believed ſome ſtranger that knew it not, rather than a Donatiſt that ſpeaketh againſt the will and intereſt of his party. 4. It rather ſeems that the Donatiſts were the greater number of Chriſtians there before Conſtantine's time, and like the Papiſts therefore counted themſelves the Catholicks and the others the Schiſmaticks. Conſtantines Prohibition did not ſuppreſs them. 5. Therefore the numerouſneſs of their Biſhops and ſmallneſs of Churches, rather ſheweth what was the ſtate of the Churches before worldly greatneſs ſwelled them to that diſeaſe, which was the Embrio or infancy of Popery.
§ 17. Whether the Donatiſts be like the Papiſts or the Separatiſts (much leſs to the Nonconformiſts) if the Reader will but peruſe what I have ſaid and what Mr. M. hath ſaid, I am content that he judge without more words.
§ 18. He paſſeth by divers Councils becauſe he could not ſay that I blame them: And he paſſeth by Conſtantine's Epiſtle to Alexander and Arius, which raileth at them more than I do (in his ſence.)
As to the Council of Laodicea, it is not two or three ſuch words as his that will make an impartial man believe that the Churches were like our Dioceſſes, when every Convert before baptiſm was to ſay his Catechiſm to the Biſhops or his Presbyters: Or that the Command that Presbyters go ſtill with the Biſhop into the Church, and not before him, do not both imply that they were both together in every Church.
But he will have it confined to the Cathedral; And when I ſay, There were long no Churches but Cathedrals, he ſaith he will not differ with me whether they ſhall be called Churches or Chappels. But the difference is de re: They ſay themſelves that A Biſhop and a Church were then Relatives: And when they have put down many hundred Churches under the Dioceſan, forſooth they will gratifie us by giving us leave to call them Churches. As if they put down an hundred to one of the Cities and Corporations, and then give us leave, to call them Corporations when they are none. Yet bluſh they not to make the world believe that they are that Epiſcopal party (who put down a thouſand Churches and Biſhops in ſome one Dioceſs) and I am againſt Biſhops.
Yea when they have not the front to deny but that every City then had a Biſhop (that had Chriſtians,) and that our Corporations are ſuch as they called Cities, Yet when we plead but at leaſt, if they will have no Chorepiſcopi, they will reſtore a Church and Biſhop with his Presbyters to every ſuch City with its adjacent Villages, hatred, ſcorn and deriſion goeth for a Confutation of us; Though we do it but to make true diſcipline a poſſible thing; Which they call Iſſachar's burden, and abhor it, and then ſay, It is poſſible and practiſed.
§ 19. As to the Roman Council which he believeth not, he might perceive that I believed at leaſt their antiquity as little as he: But the Canons are ſo like thoſe of following Councils that ſuch it's like were ſometime made.
And whereas I noted that their condemning them that wrong timed Eaſter, would fall on the Subſcribers to our Engliſh Liturgy, where 2000 are Silenced for not Subſcribing, the man had no better anſwers to give, than theſe 1. That I ſhould have ſaid the Almanack-Makers. As if he would have had men believe that Falſhood, that it was the Almanack Makers and not our Liturgy changers that were deceived.
2. [Alas! one year they miſtook.] As if he would Perſwade men that their rule faileth but one year, which faileth oft.
3. The Silenced Miniſters have little Reaſon to thank him or any body elſe, that giveth this Reaſon of their Separation. It's ſtrange this ſhould trouble their Conſciences that Care no more for Eaſter than for Chriſtmas, but only that it Falls upon a Sunday.
Here ſee his Hiſtorical Credibility. 1. Would he perſwade men that we give this Reaſon alone? Or why may it not be one with twenty more?
2. He intimateth that I give them as reaſons of Separation: As if to be Silenced, were to ſeparate, and to be paſſive were to be active.
3. He intimateth that as Nonſubſcribers I and ſuch other are Separatiſts, which is falſe; While we live in their Communion.
4. He taketh on him to know our judgment as againſt Easter (but for Sunday) when we never told him any ſuch thing.
5. He intimateth that it's no credit to us that we make Conſcience of deliberate profeſſing Aſſent to a known untruth in open matter of fact: And if the Contrary be their Credit, I wiſh they may never be Witneſſes againſt us.
6. He intimateth that a man that is not for keeping Easter, is the leſs excuſable, if he will not Profeſs a known Falſhood about the time of Easter. If Conſcience ſtood a man in no ſtead for greater Ends than worldly wealth and eaſe and honour, who would not be a Latitudinarian Conformiſt?
§ 20. Next when I deny belief to theſe Councils, he blames me for making advantage of the Hiſtory of them. As if he ſaw not that I do it, but ad hominem to the Papiſts who record them as if they were really true. For it is principally the Papiſts (from Infancy to Hildebrands Maturity) againſt whom I write.
§ 21. He next comes to the Novatians as my Favourite ſect, And [Favourite] may ſignifie to the Reader a truth or a Falſhood. 1. Doth not every Chriſtian Favour them that have leſſer Errours more than them that have greater?
2. Do I not as oft as he profeſs my great diſlike of every ſect, as a ſect?
3. Do I not diſclaim this Novatian ſect and their opinion, and own the Contrary?
4. It ſeems he taketh me to be too Favourable to ſome Biſhops and their followers: The queſtion is but who they be that muſt be favoured? I may come to be taken for a Novatian by ſuch men as well as Socrates and Sozomen.
§ 22. Here (wi…hout railing) he bedawbs Novatus and Novatian to the purpoſe with horrid Crimes, a Phariſaical Saint, Perjured, and what not? But what! Were they not Epiſcopal? Yes, he doubts it not: It was for to be a Biſhop that Novatian wrought his Villanies; (what if I had thus bedawbed the Epiſcopal?) But yet the very word [Puritan] is of uſe to him. This, ſaith he of Novatus, was the tender Conſcience of the author of the Ancient ſect of the Puritanes? Can you tell who the man aimeth at? Is it Nonconformiſts? Novatus & Novatian were Prelatiſts, and never ſcrupled more Ceremonies than our Prelates impoſe. Who then can it be but men that in general, though Epiſcopal, do profeſs Tenderneſs of Conſcience? And there I leave them, without the application.
§ 23. But this Defender of Surgent Prelacy, ſticks not to diſgrace thoſe whom he ſeemeth to defend. It was three of the Catholick Biſhops that Conſecrated Novatian, and (without railing) he calls them Three plain ignorant Biſhops. Theſe good men ſuſpecting no trick, and overcome with his good entertainment, with too much Wine and perſwaſions, were forced at laſt to lay their hands on him and Conſecrate him Biſhop.] 1. Ignorant Biſhops; 2. Overcome with too much Wine, and entertainment: 3. And with perſwaſion: 4. To do ſuch an Act as to Conſecrate ſo bad a Biſhop, & that in ſuch a city as Rome, and that without the Churches choice or Conſent. How much worſe have I ſaid of Biſhops? But, yet [they were good men.] But if they had been Nonconformiſts, what names had been bad enough for them? No doubt if they had been ſequeſtred and caſt out (for their too much wine and ſuch ordination) how odiouſly might the agents have been deſcribed as enemies to the Church and Perſecutors of good men.
§ 24. Yet further this New Biſhop engageth men to him by Oaths, enough to ſtrike a horror in the minds of the Reader, ſaith he.
See what a man may do for a Biſhoprick? It reminds me of many good Canons that forbid Biſhops ſwearing their Clergy to them; And of our Et Caetera Oath in 1640 never to Conſent to any alteration, (to ſay nothing of our times) and the old Oath of Canonical obedience. It ſtrikes horror into mens minds now that we ſcruple theſe.
§ 25. He maketh the Novatian doctrine blaſphemous (without railing) and me too Favourable in repreſenting it. As to that I ſuppoſe he is not ignorant how great a Controverſie it is what they held, even among the greateſt Antiquaries, and Enemies of Schiſm and Hereſie. And I uſe in accuſations to meet with moſt truth in the moſt Favourable interpretations.
And here I will tell our Hiſtorian, that while I take leave to diſſent from his accuſation, it ſhall be but by the authority of thoſe whom I judge as well acquainted with Church Writers and Cuſtomes as any that ever Mr. M. or any of his Maſters read, not excepting more knowing men than Valeſius.
The firſt is D. Petavius in Epiphan. de Cath. Where firſt he tells us, that no leſs nor later men than moſt of the ancient Fathers, and Specially the Greeks, miſtook Novatus and Novatian for one, or thought the ſect had a ſingle Author; naming Euſeb. Theodoret, Epiphan. Nazian. Ambroſe, Auſtin, Philaſtrius, yea and Socrates. Yet half as great a miſtake in me would have been ſcorned.
2. Againſt Epiph. and Theodoret he ſaith [Non ea Novatiani Opinio fuit, eos qui gravioris peccati noxam contraherent, ab omni ſpe conſequendae ſalutis excludi: Nam & illos ad capeſſendam poenitentiam hortari ſolebant: Et ut Divinam clementiam lach…ymis ac ſordibus elicerent identidem admonebant: Sed hoc unum negabant; ad Eccleſiae fidelium Communionem recipi amplius oportere: Neque penes Eccleſiam reconciliandi jus ullum ac poteſtatem eſſe: Quippe unicam illam peccatorum indulgentiam in illius arbitrio verſari, quae per Baptiſmum obtinetur; which he proveth out of Socrates, Ambroſe. And he ſaith, that they were not counted Hereticks for wronging the lapſed, by denying them Communion, but for wronging the Church Power, by denying the Power of the Keyes for their Reſtitution. (Like enough.)
The other ſhall be that excellent Biſhop Albaſpineus Obſerv. lib. 2. Obſerv. 20, 21. p. (mihi) 130, 131. [Advertant Novatianorum errorem non in eo poſitum, quod dicerent neque lapſum, neque excommunicatum in morte à peccatis liberandum; ſed haereticos ideo habitos, quod opinarentur Deum ipſum Eccleſiae neque remittendorum neque retinendorum peccatorum capitalium poteſtatem copiamque feciſſe: Atque haec in eo fuit viguitque eorum haereſis, qui quanquam illud conſequeretur ex-eorum falſa Opinione, ut abſolutionem non largirentur, tamen hoc eorum factum non haereſis nomine afficiendum erat, neque ad haereſin accedebat ob aliam cauſam quam quod à fonte illo & quaſi capite hareſin olente dimanârat, eo maxime quod Novatiani crederent id Eccleſiae a Deo non fuiſſe praeſtitum & conceſſum; quae cauſa ſola fuit cur praxis illa ce… diſciplinae Novatianorum ratio haereſis nomen notionemque non effugeret.]
The Clergy felt their own Intereſt, and the Novatians denied their Power to retain, as well as forgive capital Crimes, and thought their Keyes extended not ſo far.
And that the Caſe of the lapſed was it that they began with, Epiphanius himſelf and others agree.
And Obſerv. 19. he ſhews that Novatianus did this againſt his former Judgment, in Envy and Faction againſt the Biſhop, becauſe he miſt of being Biſhop himſelf. A Biſhoprick was it that provoked him to deny this Pardoning Power in Biſhops.
And Albaſpineus hath in many antecedent Obſervations ſhewed, how little, if any thing at all, the Novatians differed elſe from the Antient Church in the ſtrictneſs of their Communion, and avoiding ſinners: So that he thus begins his fifth Obſervation [Incredibilia prope ſunt, quae his capitibus dicturi ſumus: ſed tamen ita vera & certa, & quae cujuſque animam ſummam in admirationem rapiant, Eccleſiam primis temporibus nulla vel leviſſima labe inquinatam fuiſſe; quin ita illibatam intactamque ut omni ratione, curâ & ſolicitudine proſpexerit, filii ut ſui quam à Baptiſmo hauſerant puritatem eam nulla aſperſam vitii alicujus macula & ſoeditate conſervarent. Imo ca ſe veritate adhibita ut fugiendum ſibi deteſtandumque peccatum, quovis terrore propoſito putarent. Non ſolum autem multa crimina peccataque numerabantur, quorum Authores artificeſque abſolutionem omnem deſperabant, ſed & ea quoque quibus ignoſcet poenitentiam concedi opertere cenſuerat, peccata ita ulciſcebatur, …ut non niſi ſemel eis qui ea commiſiſſent, unius poenitentiae copiam faceret Eccleſia, hoc eſt ſi poſt Baptiſmum lethaliter peccaſſent. Quod ſi cum Eccleſia reconciliatus in idem aut aliud mortale peccatum iterum prolaberetur, ita in perpetuum tribus primis ſaeculis ab Eccleſia repulſam ferebat, ut non niſi poenitentiae & in morte precum quae reliqua erant ſubſidia expectanda ſibi duceret, nulla abſolutione data quae in ſpem veniae illum erigeret.] And he adds, that many that cannot deny his proofs, yet will not believe that ever ſuch a Diſcipline was uſed.
But this was in the three Firſt Ages: After, when Proſperity and Wealth ticed the ungodly into Biſhops Seats, and into the Church, the Caſe was altered, and as he ſhews, Obſerv. 6. the Caſe was ſo altered to the looſe extreme, that Criminals were admitted toties quoties. And in his Notes on Tertullian he ſheweth, that this was a difference between the Orthodox and the Hereticks, that the Orthodox did di… multumque deliberare quos in ſocietatem ejuſdem Eccleſiae, & corporis recipere debeant; but the Hereticks were ready to take all that came. Yet I ſuppoſe not near ſo looſe as thoſe Dioceſan and Parochial Churches that know not who comes, but without queſtion take all that will but come to the Rails and kneel: And when by the magnitude of Dioceſs and other means, they have ſecured themſelves againſt the trouble and poſſibility of Paſtoral Diſcipline, the Prieſt wipes off all guilt with a word, and faith, If they were Atheiſts, Hobbiſts, Sadduces, Whoremongers, common Blaſphemers, Drunkards, it's no fault of mine, I know it not; and no wonder, when he knoweth not who in the Pariſh are his Flock.
That Euſebius himſelf and others named by Petavius miſtook the Novatians is no wonder to thoſe who read the volumes of palpable Falſhood written againſt the Nonconformiſts in this preſent age, and hear witneſſes at the bar ſwear thoſe Plots and Conſpiracies & Treaſons againſt men, from which grave and conſcionable Juries quit them.
But me thinks when Mr. M. had ſaid that Socrates is an Hiſtorian of good Credit and acquainted with them] he much forgot his own ends when he recited theſe words as his [Some took part with Novatian, and others with Cornelius; according to their ſeveral inclinations and Courſe of life: The looſer and more licentious ſort Favouring the moſt indulgent diſcipline, the other of more auſtere lives inclining moſt to the Novatian ſeverity.] Good ſtill, I now ſee that the Novatians indeed were Puritanes, though Epiſcopal, and I accuſe not our accuſers of any ſuch Hereſie. But I confeſs that I ſhall believe a Novatian Hiſtorian, who being ſo ſtrict againſt ſin muſt be ſtrict againſt a Lie, rather than thoſe that Scorn ſuch Puritaniſm, and deride the Perſon that cannot ſwallow a bigger Pill.
And when Mr. M. labours to ſhew out of Socrates that it was not only Idolatry that they cenſured, he labours in vain: It was the beginning of their Schiſm that I mentioned, and not Socrates his Age.
As to the judgment of the Council of Eliberis and all the three Firſt Ages, I have told you what Albaſpine ſaith before. If you can conſute him, do; I am not engaged to defend him; but I believe him.
§ 26. I conclude this and the former Chapter with this Counſel to the Scorners of Puritanes: Never truſt to your Titles and Order, how good ſoever, without a careful holy obedience to the Supreme Law-giver, either for Concord on Earth, or Salvation in Heaven. True Pariſh-Reformation is the way to ſatisfie godly perſons better than either Violence or Separation. But if you ſtill obſtinately reſiſt Pariſh. Diſcipline and Reformation, you muſt have Toleration of ſuch as will not conſent to your Corruption, or elſe perſecute the beſt to your own ruine. Theophilus Parochialis hath ſaid more for Pariſh Order againſt the Regulars, and Priviledged, than you have done againſt the Separatiſts. And yet the Confraternity of the Oratorians ſet up in every Pariſh, was the beſt way he could deviſe to recover the ſtate of lapſed Pariſhes: As the priviledging of Fryars was the Pope's laſt Remedy inſtead of Reforming his corrupted Church.