A27058:591
The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended…
The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended vindicator of the primitive church, but indeed of the tympanite & tyranny of some prelates many hundred years after Christ, with a detection of the false history of Edward Lord Bishop of Cork and Ross in Ireland ... and a preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's History of Habassta : written to show their dangerous error, who think that a general council, or college of bishops, is a supreme governor of all the Christian world ... / by Richard Baxter ... ; to which is added by another hand, a defence of a book, entitled, No evidence for diocesan churches ...The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended vindicator of the primitive church, but indeed of the tympanite & tyranny of some prelates many hundred years after Christ, with a detection of the false history of Edward Lord Bishop of Corke and Rosse in Ireland ... and a preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's History of Habassta : written to shew their dangerous errour, who think that a general council, or colledge of bishops, is a supream governour of all the Christian world ... / by Richard Baxter ... ; to which is added by another hand, a defence of a book, entituled, No evidence for diocesan churches ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1682
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
§ 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 ⟨p. 99⟩them, and that made Ruffinus (and Chrysostom) Originists, and Origen a Heretic, condemned also by a General Council, and Socrates, and Sozomen, Novatians, Epiphanius an ignorant credulous Fabler, Sulpitius Severus, and Bede, two pious credulous Reporters of many feigned Miracles, and one a Millenary, Nicephorus a Fabler, Anastasius Bibl. full of Falsehoods, 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 Errors 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:
§ 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