The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX. Of the first General Council at Conſtantinople. His Cap. 4.
§ 1. HE begins with accuſing me of imitating the Devil; Doth Job ſerve God for nought? becauſe I ſay that [the reaſon why the West was freer from the Arian Hereſie, than the East, was not as the Papists ſay, that Christ prayed for Peter, that his Faith might not fail, but becauſe the Emperours in the West were Orthodox, and thoſe in the East Arians: And the Biſhops much followed the Emperour's will.]
What, ſaith he, can be more unchristian?
Anſw. 1. I never ſaid that this was the Only Cauſe.
2. I proved that this Priviledge of Rome was not the meaning of Chriſt's Prayer.
3. Is not this the ſame man that even now …id the fall of far more Biſhops, even moſt in the World, on the Emperour, as overcoming them by force and fraud?
4. Doth not God himſelf keep men uſually from ſtrong temptations, when he will deliver them from ſin?
5. Were not the Eaſtern Biſhops, and the Weſtern, of the ſame mold and temper? And if the Eaſtern followed the Emperours, had not the Weſtern been in danger if they had the like temptation?
6. Doth not Baſil that ſent to them for help, complain of them as proud, and no better than their Brethren?
7. Did not Marcellinus fall to Idolatry, and Liberius to ſubſcribe againſt Athanaſius with the Arians?
8. Did not the Weſt actually fall to Arianiſm when tempted for the moſt part? Judge by the great Council at Milane, and by Hillary's complaints.
9. Hath Rome and the Weſt ſtood faſter to the Truth ſince then? What! all the Popes who are by Councils charged with Hereſie or Infidelity, and all wickedneſs, and thoſe many whoſe Lives even by Baronius and Genebrard, are ſo odiouſly deſcribed? Is the Weſt at this day free from Popery and its fruits?
10. Do you think in your conſcience that if we had not here a Proteſtant King, but a Papiſt, many of the Clergy would not be Papiſts? Why then are they ſo in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, &c? And why did the moſt of them turn in Qu. Mary's daies? I do not inſult, but lament the Churches Caſe, which ever ſince Wealth and Honour, and too much Power corrupted it, have had Biſhops far more worldly, and leſs faithful than they were the firſt three hundred years. Though I ſtill ſay that ever ſince, God hath in all times raiſed ſome ſerious Believers that have kept up ſerious Piety in the Church: And as I doubt not but there are ſo many ſuch among the Conformiſts, as is our great Joy, ſo I hope that, though foully blotted with Superſtition and Errour, there are many ſuch among the Papiſts themſelves.
§ 2. Yet he ſaith, I do the Biſhops Right again, without thinking of doing them Justice, while I tell how many were murdered.
Anſw. 1. Doth he know my thoughts? 2. It's true I intended not to do any other Juſtice, than to praiſe Chriſt's Martyrs and Confeſſors, while I lament the Caſe of Perſecutors and Revolters? Is the praiſe of Confeſſors any honour to the Hereticks?
But perhaps he means, I right the Order of Biſhops. Anſw. Did I ever ſay or think that there were no Biſhops that kept the Faith? Do I ſay All fell, when I ſay Moſt fell? The Man ſpeaks as his imagined Intereſt leads him, and ſo interpreteth my words to his own ſenſe, not as written. And if that be the right way, I think he will grant that there were more Martyrs and Sufferers under Valens, Conſtantius, Hunnericus, and Genſericus, in the Eaſt, and in Africk, by far, than were when their Tryal came in all the Weſt that is now ſubject to the Pope. And what moved the man to dream that when I ſo deſcribe and praiſe their conſtancy in Suffering, I did it as at unawares?
That the greater part of the Biſhops of the Empire were Arians, I will not offer by Teſtimony to prove, when it is ſo commonly by Fathers, Hiſtorians, by Papiſts and Proteſtants agreed on. How many of them were Biſhops before, and how many but Presbyters or Deacons, I'le not pretend to number. The turning of multitudes all agree on. The Conſtancy of many he falſly intimateth that I deny, and ſaith, I injuriouſly repreſent them, and cannot tell a word wherein that Crime is found.
§ 3. Naming the things that were done by the Council at Constantinople, I mention both the ſetting up, and after the putting down of Gregory; & leſt any Caviller ſhould carp at the word [putting down] I preſently open particularly what it was that they did toward it; that reſolving on his depoſition, they cauſed him, though unwilling, rather to give it up, than ſtay till they caſt him out. This great Hiſtorian had no more manlike an Exception here, than to ſay, that againſt all Hiſtory, and againſt my own Explication, I ſay that [They Depoſed him.] I ſaid [They put him down] in the manner, and as far as I explained.
§ 4. While he here himſelf accuſeth the Times then of General Corruption, and the Church of Diviſions, adding, [What Age hath been ſo happy as not to labour under thoſe Evils?] he accuſeth me of making miſuſe of Gregory's words, to repreſent the Council in an odious manner.
Anſw. It is to repreſent the worſer part in a lamentable manner, as far as Gregory did, and no further. And as to his quarrel at my citation, I ſhall ſay no more; but if the Reader will but read Gregory's own words, I willingly leave all that Cauſe to his Judgment: If he will not, my words cannot inform him.
Yet he himſelf ſaith [He doth indeed in ſeveral places find fault with this Council] And can you forgive him? I think I find no more than he did. But for this you find fault with him [He did reſent the Injury (And was it an Injury?) and did not bear the deprivation of his Biſhoprick with the ſame generoſity he propoſed, which made him a little more ſharp than was decent in his repreſentation of the Biſhops—What wonder if ſharpened with diſcontent, he exclaim with ſomewhat too great a paſſion against the adminiſtration of the Church which he had been forced to quit] Anſ. All will be confeſt anon, when I have been accuſed for ſaying it before him: That's his way. But it was not for leaving a high and fat Biſhoprick that he was grieved, but for being ſeparated from the People that he had partly ſerved in their lower ſtate, and partly won from Hereſie, and who came about him with tears intreating him not to forſake them. And though it were morethan generoſity to ſet light by the Honour and Wealth, it is treachery to ſet light by Souls: And they changed to their great loſs. He reſigned much to quiet the People leſt they ſhould do as they did for Chryſoſtom after him. It is no new thing for the Major vote of the Clergy to Envy thoſe few that are better and more eſteemed than themſelves, nor yet for the Godly People to be loth to leave ſuch paſtors.
§ 5. He ſaith [His cenſure of Councils that he knew none of them that have any happy End, was not the fault of the expedient, but of the men] Anſ. And what did I ever ſay more. It is his cuſtom when he hath ſtormed at me, to ſay in Effect the ſame that he ſtormed at. Some Papiſts would perſuade men, that it was only Arian Councils that he meant, but moſt Proteſtants that Write about Councils againſt them, do cite & vindicate theſe words of Gregory: And the impartial Papiſts confeſs that it was the Councils alſo of the Catholicks that there and elſe where he ſpake of.
§ 6. In the Caſe of Meletius, and Paulinus, two Biſhops in a City, and the Caſe of Lucifer Calaritanus made a Heretick for ſeparating from lapſed Arians, he ſaith over the ſame that I do; that good men cannot rightly underſtand one another, and ſo it ever hath been, and it's the Effect of humane frailty and not Epiſcopacy. In all this I agree. But 1. If humane frailty make Biſhops ſwell in pride and ambition, and domineering, it hath far worſe Effects than in other men: 2. And Biſhops are bound to excell their flocks in Piety, humility, Selfdenyal, peaceableneſs, as well as in knowledge. If the Phyſicians of this city ſhould prove unskilful, and yet confident where they err, it is not quatenus Phyſicians that they are ſuch: But if it be qui Phyſicians that are ſuch, they may kill thouſands, while the ſame faults in all their neighbours may kill few or none. If your Intereſt made you not ſmart and angry without cauſe, you would not cavil againſt ſuch plain truth.
§ 7. About the Priſcillianiſts he ſaith [I all along obſerve this Rule, to be very favourable to all Hereticks and Schiſmaticks be they never ſo much in the wrong, and to fall on the Orthodox party and improve every miſcarriage of theirs into a mighty crime.]
Anſ. If all along this accuſation be falſe, then all a long your Hiſtory ſerveth ſuch a uſe. But in France, Spain, Italy, he is favourable to Hereticks that takes not the orthodox for ſuch, or that is not for racking and burning them. And in England he is favourable to Schiſmaticks that taketh not the greateſt lovers of Piety and peace for ſuch, and the Church Tearers for Church-Healers: As Mr. Dodwell phraſeth it, they are Schiſmaticks that ſuffer themſelves to be excommunicate (for unſinful things in the Biſhops account, and heinous ſin in theirs; and ſo that are not ſo ripe in Knowledge, as to know all the unſinful things to be ſuch which may be impoſed.
§ 8. What would this enemy of railing have had me ſaid more than I did of the Priſcillianiſts? viz. that they were Gnoſticks and Manichees? Was not that bad Enough. No, I favour them ſtill? And what ſay I more of the Biſhops and the whole cauſe, than Sulpitius Severus the fulleſt and moſt knowing Deſcriber ſaith? Why doth he not accuſe him for the ſame deſcription? Yea and their Mr. Ri. Hooker who in the Preface to his Eccl. Pol. ſaith of Ithacius the like? Yea Baronius himſelf conſenteth? Where I ſay that to the death Martin ſeparated from the ſynods of theſe Biſhops (I ſaid not from all Biſhops in the world) he ſaith, he renounced only the Communion of Ithacius his Party, and that others did as well as he. Reader, it will be thy folly to take either his word or mine, what an Author ſaith, when we differ, without looking into the Book it ſelf. Read Sulpitius Severus; I will tranſcribe ſome words, leſt he ſay, I miſtranſlate them.
Priſcillianus, familia nobilis, praedives opibus, acer, inquies, facundus, multa lectione eruditus, diſſerendi & diſputandi promptiſſimus—vigilare multum, famem & ſitim ferre poterat, habendi minime cupidus, utendi parciſſimus (Was it a crime to ſay ſo much good of him?) But proud of his Learning, ſet up a Hereſie, and two Biſhops Inſtantius and Salvianus ioyned with him, and made him a Biſhop—At Caeſar Auguſta one Synod was gathered againſt him. The Story I before recited. Next a Synod at Burdeaux tryeth them. Saith Sulpitius [Ac mea quidem ſententia eſt, mihi tam reos quam accuſatores diſplicere. Certe Ithacium nihil penſi, nihil ſancti habuiſſe definio: ſuit enim audax, loquax, impudens, ſumptuoſus, ventri & gulae plurimum impertiens. Hic ſtultitiae eo uſque proceſſerat ut omnes etiam ſanctos viros, quibus aut studium erat lectionis, aut propoſitum erat certare jejuniis, tanquam Priſcilliani ſocios aut diſcipulos in crimen arceſſeret. Auſus etiam miſer est ea tempestate Martino Epiſcopo—palam objectare haereſis infamiam. Imperator per Magnum & Ru…um Epiſcopos depravatus à mitioribus conſiliis deflexus▪—So he tells how many were put to death—Caeterum Priſcilliano occiſo, non ſolum non repreſſa eſt haereſis—ſed confirmata, latius propagata est: Namque ſectatores ejus qui eum prius ut ſanctum honoraverant, poſtea ut Martyrem colere c…p… runt. Ac inter nostros perpetuum diſcordiarum bellum exarſerat, quod jam per quind…im annos …oedis diſſenſionibus agitatum, nullo modo ſopiri poterat. Et nunc cum maxime diſcordiis Epiſcoporum turbari aut miſceri omnia ce…nerentur, cunctaque per eos odio aut gratia, metu, inconſtantia, invidia, factione, libidine, avaritia, arrogantia, ſomno, deſidia, eſſent depravata: Poſtremo plures adverſus paucos bene conſulentes, inſan…s conſiliis & pertinacibus ſtudiis certarent: Inter haec Plebs Dei, & Optimus quiſque probro atque ludibrio habebatur.] So ends Sulpitius Hiſtory.
Do you not ſee, Mr. Morrice, that there have been Prelates and Puritanes, even Epiſcopal Puritanes before our Times? Doth not your ſtomach riſe againſt Sulpitius as too Puritanical and ſevere? Is not my Language of moſt of the Biſhops ſoft in compariſon of his? Yet he was ſo early as to live in that which you now call the moſt flouriſhing Time of the Church. Sir, I hate Diſcord, and love Peace; but I never look that the Enmity between the Woman's and the Serpent's Seed, or Cain and Abel, ſhould be ended▪ or that the holy Title of Biſhops and Prieſts ſhould reconcile ungodly men to Saints. Sir, England knoweth, that though ſome factious perſons have done otherwiſe, the main Body of thoſe that your Law doth Silence, Ruine and Revile, have a high eſteem of ſuch Biſhops as have been ſeriouſly godly; ſuch as were many in Antient and late Times: And deride it as long as you will, the ſeriouſly religious People in England are they that are moſt againſt Church-Tyranny, and which Party moſt of the debauched and prophane are of, hath long been known.
§ 9. But the Reader ſhall further hear how little you are to be truſted. Saith Sul. in Vita Mart. [Apud Nemauſium Epiſcoporum Synodus habebatur ad quam quidem ire noluerat—(There's another Synod.)
Et pag. 584. In Mon. Pat. [Maximus Imperator aliâs vir bonus, depravatus conſiliis Sacerdotum, poſt Priſcilliani necem Ithacium Epiſcopum Priſcilliani accuſatorem caeteroſ que illius ſocios, quos nominare non eſt neceſſe vi regia tuebatur.—Congregati apud Treveros Epiſcopi (there's another Synod) tenebantur, qui quotidie communicantes Ithacio communem ſibi cauſam ſecerant: His ubi nunciatum eſt …opinantibus, adeſſe Martinum, totis animis labeſacti, muſſitare & trepidare coeperunt.—Nec dubium erat quin Sanctorum etiam maximam turbam tempeſtas iſta depopulatura eſſet. Et enim tunc ſolis oculis diſcernunt inter hominum genera, cum quis Pallore potius aut Veſte, quam fide, haereticus aeſtimaretur. Haec nequaquam placitura Martino Epiſcopi faciebant.—Ineunt cum Imperatore Conſilium ut m…ſſis obviam Magiſtri officialibus, urbem iſtam (Martinus) vetaretur propius accedere. (But it was not five Miles from all Cities and Corporations.)—Interea Epiſcopi quorum communionem Martinus non in ibat trepidi ad Regem concurrunt, per damnatos ſe conquerentes actum eſſe de ſuo omnium ſtatu, ſi Theogniſti pertinaciam, qui eos SOLUS palam lata ſententia condemnaverat, Martini armaret authoritas: Non oportuiſſe hominem capimoenibus illis: Non jam deſenſorem haereticorum eſſe, ſed vindicem (Methinks I read Mr. Morrice) Nihil actum morte Priſcilliani ſi Martinus exerceat illius ultionem. (Theſe men have done nothing till they have deſtroy'd all that are againſt their Tyranny.) Poſtremo proſtrati cum fletu (they could weep too) & lamentatione Poteſtatem Regiam implorant, ut ut atur adverſus UNUM hominem vi ſua: Nec multum aberat quin cogeretur Imperator Martinum cum haereticorum ſorte miſcere.] But the Emperour knowing his eminent Holineſs and Reputation, tryeth perſuaſion; [& blande appellat, haereticos jure damnatos, more judiciorum publicorum, potius quam in ſectationibus Sacerdotum: Non eſſe cauſam qua Ithacii caet erorum que partis ejus communionem, putaret eſſe damnandam, Theogniſtum odio potius quam cauſa, feciſſe diſſidium; Eundem que tamen SOLUM eſſe qui ſe à communione interim ſeparavit; a reliquis nihil novatum.] You ſee here that M. M. ſaith truly, that Martin ſeparated but from the Biſhops of Ithacius's Party: That is, All ſave one Theogniſtus (and Iginus is elſewhere named.) Is not here a great accord of the Biſhops?) [Quinetiam paucos ante dies habita Synodus (Synods ſtill) Ithacium pronunciaverat culpa non teneri] no wonder: Synods have juſtified the forbidding of two thouſand to Preach the Goſpel.) At laſt when no other Remedy could ſave the Lives of men from the Leeches, Martin yielded once to communicate with the Biſhops on condition the mens Lives ſhould be ſaved: The Biſhops would have had him Subſcribe this Communion: But that he would never do. [Poſterodie inde ſe proripiens, cum revertens in viam moeſtus ingemiſceret, ſe vel ad horam noxiae communioni eſſe permixtum—ſubſedit, cauſam doloris & facti accuſante & defendente cogitatione pervolvens, aſtitit ei repente Angelus; Merito inquit Martine compungeris, ſed aliter exire nequiſti: Repara virtutem: reſume Conſtantiam; ne jam non periculum gloriae, ſed ſalutis incurreris. Itaque ab illo tempore ſatis cavit, cum illa Ithacianae partis communione miſceri. Caeterum cum quoſdam ex inergumenis, tardius quam ſolebat, & gratia minore curabat, ſubinde nobis cum lachrymis fatebatur, ſe propter communionis illius malum cui ſe vel puncto temporis neceſſitate, nonſpiritu miſcuiſſet, detrimentum ſentire virtutis. Sedecim poſtea vixit annos: Nullam Synodum adiit; ab omnibus Conventibus ſe removit.] Now Reader, judge how great Ithacius's Party was, that boaſted but one or two men were againſt them: And whether Martin ſeparated not from their common Synods.
Methinks I ſee Mr. M. here in the ſtrait of the Phariſees, when put to anſwer whether John's Baptiſm was from Heaven, or of men. Fain he would make Martin and Sulpitius Puritanes and Fanaticks; but the Church hath made a Holy day for Martin, and dedicated multitudes of Temples to his Honour; and all men reverence Sulpitius and him. Yet he ventures to go as far as he durſt p. 142. againſt them.
§ 10. But here Mr. M. ſmarteth, and ſaith [This Inſtance could become none worſe than Mr. B. who in a Letter to Dr. Hill confeſſes himſelf to have been a Man of Blood—]
Anſw. A Man of Blood is your Libertine Phraſe. If you would have publiſhed that ſecret Letter, you ſhould 1. Have told the whole, and worded it truly; 2. And have profeſſed your ſelf a derider of Repentance, while you call for it. I lived in an Age of War, and I was on the Parliaments ſide, and that was enough to prove that I had a hand in blood while I was on one ſide, though I never drew blood of any man my ſelf (ſave once a Boy at School with boxing.)
But he thinks I ſhould have imitated Martin in renouncing Communion with men of blood.
Anſw. Martin renounced Communion with thoſe that were for deſtroying even downright Hereticks. Alas Sir, I dare not renounce Communion with theſe that Silence thouſands of faithful Miniſters, and continue ſtill to Plead, Preach, and Write for their Proſecution by Impriſonment and Ruine. I hope many do it in Ignorance, and if I do it, it may increaſe the diſtance that I would heal. Nonconformiſts are no Priſcillianiſts.
And if I renounce Communion with all that were in Wars, it muſt be with ſome preſent Biſhops, and a great part of the Land.
But I underſtand you; it muſt be with all that were in Arms for the Parliament, &c. Anſw. The King then will condemn me by his Act of Oblivion, and by his own practice: Hath he not one of them for the Lord Preſident of his Council? and many more in Truſt and Honour? Did he renounce Communion with General Monk and his whole Army, who were long in Arms for the Parliament? Or with the Citizens, and multitudes of Commanders through the Land, who drew in▪ & encouraged General Monk? Or the Miniſters that perſuaded Sir Tho. Allen, Lord Mayor, to draw him in?
To be plain with you Sir (though you call it Railing) Men of your Faculty kindled the Fire, and ſet the Nation together by the Ears, and when ſad experience brought them to repentance and to deſire unity and peace, and thoſe that had fought for the Parliament had reſtored the King, this evil Spirit envyeth the Kingdom the benefit of this concord, and would fain break us again into contending Parties, and will not let King and Kingdom have peace, while God giveth us peace from all foreign enemies. Do we need any other notice what a Contentious Clergy have ſtill been, than the woful experience of what they are. If you would have had G. Monk and his Army, and all ſuch that joyned with him deſtroyed or excommunicate for what they had done, why did you not ſpeak out at firſt, but when we would all fain have peace and concord thus twenty years after caſt your Wildfire you warn the Preſent Duke of Albemarle to expect to be at laſt called to account for his original ſin.
§ 11. But his paſſion makes him ſay he knows not what, P. 142 [I need not call Mr. B. to rememberance who compared Cromwel to David and his Son to Solomon; But this has tranſported me a little too far.]
Anſ. He ſaith this plainly of me afterward, to ſhew the credibility of his Hiſtory? Did he know it to be falſe? If ſo, there's no diſputing with him. If not, why did he not cite my words. Yea he after tranſcribes the Epiſtle meant, where he ſaw there were no ſuch words: But others had told that tale before him, and that was Enough: Even as one of his tribe hath written that I have written in my Holy Common-wealth, that any one Peer may judge the King. If theſe Epiſcopal Hiſtorians tell forreigners that we have all Cloven Feet and Horns, and go on four legs, yea and if ſome ſwear it, we have no remedy: They can prove our noſes horns, and our hands Feet.
I again tell them, If Martins Angel and Miracles be credible, woe to thoſe Prelatiſts that are for ruining violence, and ſilences againſt men better than the Gnoſticks. If they be not true, let them not truſt too much to the beſt Hiſtorians.
§ 12. Of the Council at Capua I ſaid that they decreed that the two Biſhops and their People ſhould live in loving Communion, Mr. M. finds me miſtaken here. The words in Binnius are [Ut tam Flaviani quam Evagrii fautores in Communionem Catholicam admittantur, modo Catholicae fidei aſſertores inveniantur] I thought Catholick Communion had been Loving Communion: And I thought if their fautors were to be received, ſo were they: And I thought Antioch had been a part of the Catholick Church, and Catholick Communion had extended to Antioch: But if Mr. M. deny theſe, I will not contend with him.
§ 13. He tells us, that [No man with his Eyes open ever ſaw the Condemnation of Bonoſus by the Council of Capua] (for denying the Virgin Mary's perpetual Virginity.
Anſw. It is Criticiſm and not Hiſtory that the man is beſt at. They did it mediately, while they referred it to them that did it. Saith Binnius [Cauſa Bonoſi cujuſdam in Macedonia Epiſcopi haeretici, negantis delibatam Dei genitricis Mariae Virginitatem, poſt partum in judicium deducta eſt. Synodus cognitionem cauſae Anyſio Theſſalonienſi cum Epiſcopis ipſi ſubjectis aelegavit. Ab Anyſio Bonoſum damnatum, eorumque quos ordinaſſet communione privatum eſſe teſtatur Innoc. P. And he knows it's a Hereſie now. Yet this Council condemned Reordinations.
§ 14. That Jovinian a Monk was called a Heretick, for Doctrines judged ſound by Proteſtants, is no ſtrange thing. That one not a Biſhop was the Head of a Hereſie, was ſomewhat ſtrange then, but not before they got too high.
As to the Queſtion, Whether Biſhops were the Chief Heads and Fomenters of Hereſie, I crave his impartial Anſwer to theſe Queſtions. 1. Do not your ſelves maintain that all Churches in the world had Biſhops; and that the Biſhops were the Rulers, and of Chief Power? If ſo, can you imagine that after they had ſuch Power, Churches could be uſually made Hereticks without them?
Q. 2. Do not Councils, and all Church-Hiſtory tell us how many Councils of Hereticks there have been that were Biſhops?
Q. 3. If any Presbyter broke from his Biſhop to ſet up a Hereſie, was it not one that ſought to be a Biſhop? Or did they not make preſently him or ſome other their Biſhop and Head? Hereſie or Popery had made but ſmall progreſs, had it not been for Biſhops.
§ 15. When I commend the Novatians Canon, which allowed all men Liberty for the Time of Eaſter, as better than burning men as Hereticks, he takes it for an Immoderate Tranſport that I ſay▪ [as loud as I can ſpeak, If all the Proud, Ambitious, Hereticating part of the Biſhops had been of this mind, O what ſin, what ſcandal, and what ſhame, what cruelties, confuſions and miſeries had the Chriſtian world eſcaped?] That is, had they left ſuch Indifferent things as Indifferent.
And is this againſt Moderation? I would ſuch Zeal of God's Houſe had more eaten me up: Dare you deny but that this courſe would have ſaved the Lives of all thoſe thouſands of Albigenſes, Waldenſes, and Bohemians that the Papiſts killed: And the death and torment of multitudes by the Inquiſition? And the burning of our Smithfield Martyrs: And it's like moſt of the Wars between the Old Popes and Emperours about Inveſtitures? And the blood of many thouſand more. And it would have ſaved more Nations than ours from the Tearing and Diviſion of Churches by the Ejecting and Silencing of hundreds or thouſands of their Paſtors, as the caſe of the Germane Interim, and other ſuch actions prove. And is it Immoderate Tranſport to wiſh all this Blood, Schiſm, Hatred and Confuſion, and weakning and ſhaming of the Church had been prevented at the rate of Tolerating Indifferent things: No wonder if you had rather England ſtill ſuffered what it doth, and is in danger of by Schiſm, than ſuch things Indifferent ſhall be tolerated: It is not for nothing that Chriſt and Paul repeat, that ſome have Eyes and ſee not, Ears and hear not, &c.
§ 16. And here he again would make his Reader think it's true, that the Nonconformiſts pretend that their Silencing is for not keeping Eaſter Day at the due Time; as if this man that liveth among us did not know, that it is the avoiding of deliberate Lying by ſubſcribing to a known untruth, which is the thing that they refuſe; and they mention it only as an appurtenance of the Impoſition ad homines, that it would bind them to two different times.
Whether, as he ſaith, our diſeaſe be a wantonneſs ſed by conceſſion, and we are moſt violent when we know not what we would have, thoſe men are no credible Judges that for ſeventeen years would not endure us to ſpeak out our Caſe; and when before we debated part of it, would not vouchſafe to anſwer us; and at laſt when we tell it them, do but accuſe us with a ſharper ſtorm, inſtead of giving any thing that a man can call an Anſwer that ever knew the Caſe, e. g. to our Pleas for Peace, and my Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy.
§ 17. He confeſſeth that I praiſe the African Biſhops as the beſt in the world, though it contradict his former charge. As to the Magnitude of Dioceſſes, when he hath anſwered my Treat. of Epiſcopacy, ſome body may be edified by him.
I agree with him that Good men will do much Good in a great Dioceſs. But 1. Worldly Biſhops are ſo far bad: And worldly Wealth and Honour will ever be moſt ſought by the moſt worldly men: And uſually he that ſeeks ſhall find—Ergo—And 2. A good man cannot do Impoſſibilities: The beſt cannot do the work of many hundred.
Forty two years ago ſome wiſht for the Reſtoring of Confeſſion.
Theophilus Parochialis brings copious Reaſons and Orders of Princes, Popes and Prelates, that all ſhould confeſs to the Pariſh-Prieſt. If you had ſet this up here, how many men muſt have gone to it in the Pariſhes of St. Martin, Giles Cripplegate, Stepney, &c▪ But how much greater work hath Dr. Hammond, and Old Councils, cut out for him that will be the ſole Biſhop of many hundred Pariſhes? I have named it elſewhere.
And, if any man of conſideration think I have not proved againſt Mr. Dodwell, that Biſhops Government is not like a King's, who may make what Officers under him he pleaſe, but depends more as a Phyſician's or School-maſter's on Perſonal Ability, I will now add but this Queſtion to him [Why is it that Monarchy may be hereditary, and a Child or Infant may be King] but an Infant may not be Biſhop, nor any one not qualified with Eſſential Ability? I have at large told you how ſharply Baronius and Binnius condemn that odious Nullity of making a Child (by his Father's Power) A. Biſhop of Rhemes.
If I heard twenty men ſay and ſwear that one man is ſufficient to be the only Maſter of many hundred Schools, or Phyſician to many hundred Hoſpitals, or that one Carpenter or Maſon may alone build and rear all the Houſes in the City after the Fire, or one man be the ſole Maſter of an hundred thouſand Families; what can I ſay to him, but that he never tryed or knows the work?
§ 18. When I note that the Donatiſts took themſelves for the Catholicks, and the Adverſaries for Schiſmaticks, becauſe they were the greater number, he very honeſtly ſaith, that Multitude may render a Sect formidable, but it's no Argument of Right.
Very true; nor Secular Power neither. But what better Argument have the Papiſts, and many others that talk againſt Schiſm?
§ 19. He thinks the Donatiſts Biſhops Churches were not ſo ſmall as our Pariſhes. Anſw. Not as ſome: But if, as I ſaid before, Conſtantinople in the height of all it's Glory in Chryſoſtom's daies, had but 100000 Chriſtians, as many as three London▪ Pariſhes have, judge then what the Donatiſts had.
§ 20. His double quarrel with Binnius and Baronius, let who will mind. What I gathered out of thoſe and other Canons of the ſmalneſs of Churches then, I have elſewhere made good. His Reviling Accuſations of Envy to their Wealth, deſerveth no Anſwer.
§ 21. He comes to St. Theophilus's Caſe, of which we ſpake before. The Monks that reported evil of him, were, it may be, ſaith he, downright Knaves, The Reviling is blameleſs when applied to ſuch. Doubtleſs they were ignorant raſh Zealots: But one that reads what the Egyptian Monks were in Anthony's daies, and after, and what Miracles and Holineſs, Sulpitius Severus reporteth of them, and why Baſil retired into his Monaſtery, &c. may conjecture that they had much leſs worldlineſs than the Biſhops, and not greater faults.
§ 22. I think it not deſirable or pleaſant work to vindicate the credit of Socrates and Sozomen accuſing Theophilus: But if his Conjectures in this caſe may ſerve againſt expreſs Hiſtory of ſuch men, and ſo near, let him leave other Hiſtories as looſe to our Conjectures. Post…umianus Narrative in Sulpitius, is but of one piece of the Tragedy. He thinks it improbable that Origen ſhould be accuſed for making God Incorporeal; and ſuch Conjectures are his Conſutation of Hiſtory: But Origen had two ſort of Accuſers; the Biſhops, ſuch as Theophilus and Epiphanius had worſe charges againſt him: But the Anthropomorphite Monks were they that brought that Charge againſt him (that God had no face, hands, eyes.) And Theophilus before them cryed down Origen in general, to ſave his life, by deceiving them, that they might think he did it on the ſame account as they did. This is Socrates his Report of the Caſe.
He ſaith, that the Impudent Mutinous Monks were not aſhamed to tell all the world, that all that were againſt them were Anthropophites.
Anſw. It was other Monks that I here talk not of, that he means: It was theſe Monks that were Anthropomorphites themſelves, and would have killed Theophilus for not being ſo, till he ſaid to them, Methinks I ſee your faces as the Face of God: And the name of the Face of God did quiet them. Hierom was a Party againſt Chryſoſtom; it was for not paſſing that Sentence on Origen, that Epiphanius would by maſterly Uſurpation have impoſed on him, that Chryſoſtom was by him accuſed.
§ 23. Could any Sobriety excuſe that man Epiphanius, that would come to the Imperial City, and there purpoſely intrude into the Cathedral of one of the beſt Biſhops in the world, for Parts and Piety, and there play the Biſhop over an A. Biſhop in his own Church, and ſeek to ſet all the Auditory in a flame at the time of Publick Worſhip, and require him to ſay that of Origen, which he there without any Authority impoſed on him? I know not what is Pride, Uſurpation, Turbulency, if not Malignity, if this be not.
But at laſt he ſaith, [I do not intend to excuſo Theophilus in this particular: (Thank Pope Innocent) He did certainly proſecute his Reſentment too far: But he was not the only man: Epiphanius, a perſon of great Holineſs; Hierom, and ſeveral other perſons renowned for their Piety, were concerned in the perſecution of this Great man, as well as he: And to ſay the truth, this is their weakneſs; for that Severity which gives men generally a Reputation of Holineſs, though it mortifie ſome irregular heats, yet is apt to diſpoſe men to p…eviſhneſs.]
But true Holineſs ever ſincerely loveth holy men, and ſpecially ſuch as are publick Bleſſings to the Church: And though I cenſure not their main State, your Holy Perſecutors of the beſt of Chriſt's Servants, will never by Chriſt be judged ſmall Offenders.
Alas! it's too true that Theophilus was not alone: A Council of Biſhops were the Perſecutors. And it's hard to think that they loved Chryſoſtom as themſelves. When the forementioned Council at Conſtantinople had turned out Nazianzen, even the great magnifiers of General Councils, Baronius and Binnius, thus reproach them, that they drove away a holy excellent man, that a man was ſet up in his ſtead that was no Chriſtian; that it was the Epiſcopi Nundinarii that did it, the Oriental Biſhops firſt leaving them, and going away with Gregory. And if the Major Vote of that General Council were Epiſcopi Nundinarii, what Ch…yſostom's Perſecutors were may be conjectured. Do not theſe Papiſts here ſay worſe of them than I do?
§ 24. Yet though he confeſs as much as is aforeſaid, and bring but his Conjectures mixt with palpable omiſſions againſt the expreſs words of Socrates and Sozomen, he hath the face to make up his failing with this Calumny [I have dwelt ſo long on this, not only to vindicate Theophilus, but to ſhew once for all the manner of our Author's dealing with his Reader in his Church-Hiſtory. Any ſcandalous Story, though it be as falſe and improbable as any in the Anni Mirabiles, or Whites Centuries of Scandalous Miniſters, any Fiction that reflects with diſgrace on Biſhops and Councils is ſet down for aut…ntick, no matter who delivers it, friend or foe.]
Anſw. Are not Baronius and Binnius friends to the higheſt Prelacy? Doth not he himſelf ſay that Socrates is a credible Hiſtorian? Is his Authority weighty enough to diſcredit them whom he contradicts? Hath he proved one word falſe that I have ſaid of Theophilus? Is not Chryſoſtom as credible as he? Doth he not know how ill he is ſpoken of by a great number of Chryſoſtom's Defenders? And how ſmartly Iſidore Peluſiota reflects on him?
But who could have diſgraced him more, than he that will imply that the things mentioned of him are as true as what is ſaid in White's Centuries of Scandalous Miniſters, or the Anni Mirabiles. I know not all or moſt things in either of them. But he was a ſtranger in England that had not credible Teſtimony of divers of the things in the Anni Mirabiles. And Mr. White, the Chairman of that Parliament-Committee, was commonly reputed a grave and godly credible man; and if he lied, the whole Committee muſt concur in the Lie; and the Witneſſes muſt all be falſe. I will not further meddle in ſo unpleaſant a buſineſs, than to tell you, that all that I knew accuſed of Scandal, had Witneſſes of it, that in the places where they lived were thought to make as much conſcience of a Lie, as the beſt of their Neighbours: And whether ſuch a mans ſcorn that was then in the ſhell, is in Hiſtory a ſufficient proof that Committees of Parliament, and Witneſſes, were all Lyars, I leave to conſideration, I well know what School-maſters and Curates I was bred under, and what the two Miniſters were that were ſequeſtred in the place where I after came: And all the Country can tell you. They conſtrained me to name them, and the Caſe in my Apology for our Preaching, and my Anſwer to Mr. Hinkley: It's yet the ſame Age: Any may enquire of them.
§ 25. As to his Note of Altars, I doubt not but there were at the Memorials of Martyrs Commemoratory Altars erected in the third or fourth Centuries: But what's that to Communicatory Altars? and thoſe in the firſt and ſecond Century?
§ 26. I ſuppoſe he wrote againſt my Book upon ſome others Reading. I did in a Parentheſis ſay (Innocent Excommunicated Theophilus, Arcadius and the Empreſs.) And of another matter added; yet did this paſs without contradiction: And he confounds them, and ſaith, [Any thing paſſeth with him for History: This Epiſtle of Innocent is all forged.] Anſw. I ſee not his proof: But I had rather it were proved falſe than true: But when I ſpeak againſt Papal Uſurpation (be the men never ſo good) I think to ſuch Binnius and Baronius are meet Witneſſes.
§ 27. Boniface's Decree of exempting Biſhops from Civil Judicatures, he thinks not ſo Antient, and ſaith, We have only the Authority of Gratian for it: But his Conjecture and a flirt at me is all the Confutation: And he cannot doubt but that Exemption hath ſufficiently priviledged Biſhops ſince then: As is after proved.