A27058:613
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.
Ans. 1. My account of Athanasius is almost all, if not all, in his praise, and is not an enemies testimony there valid. If I mention the displeasure of Constantine against him it is not any Character of him, but of Constantine the Agent: Nor do I think Constantine, or Eusebius Caesar: meet to be numbered with his Enemies; why did he not instance in some words of mine?
Ans. 1. My account of Athanasius is almost all, if not all, in his praise, and is not an enemies testimony there valid. If I mention the displeasure of Constantine against him it is not any Character of him, but of Constantine the Agent: Nor do I think Constantine, or Eusebius Caesar: meet to be numbred with his Enemies; why did he not instance in some words of mine?
As to Theophilus and Cyril, I do not believe that he can prove that Socrates and Sozomen, and the Historians that Concur with them, were their Enemies. And if in reciting the Acts of the Councils I recite their Enemies words, so doth Surius, Nicholinus, Binnius, Baronius and all just writers of those acts. And I do not find that Chrysostom himself, or Isidore Pelusiota had any Enmity to them, nor Pope Innocent neither. Of the rest before.
As to Theophylus and Cyril, I do not believe that he can prove that Socrates and Sozomen, and the Historians that Concur with them, were their Enemies. And if in reciting the Acts of the Councils I recite their Enemies words, so doth Surius, Nicholinus, Binnius, Baronius and all just writers of those acts. And I do not find that Chrysostom himself, or Isidore Pelusiota had any Enmity to them, nor Pope Innocent neither. Of the rest before.
§ 7. VII. The next degree of credibility that I mentioned is that which dependeth on the Veracity and fitness of the reporter. Of which I named nine things requisite.