An enquiry into the original, nature, institution, power, order and communion of evangelical churches.…

The first is, that the Novatians whose Pretences were the Discipline and Purity of the Churches, wherein he says, there was a Concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas; Zeal for Reformation of Discipline, the greater Edification of the People, and the asserting of their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was likely to promote their Edification. I am sorry that Interest and Party should sway with learned Men, to seek Advantages unto their Cause so unduly▪ The story in short is this; Novatus or Novatianus rather, being disappointed in his ambitious Design to have been chosen Bishop of the Church of Rome, Cornelius being chosen by much the Major Part of the Church, betook himself to indirect means to weaken and invalidate the Election of Cornelius. And this he did by raising a new Principle of false Doctrine, whereunto he as falsely accommodated the Matter of Fact. The Error he broached and promoted was that there was no place for Repentance (such as whereon they should be admitted into the Church) unto them who had fallen into sin after Baptism, nor as some add any Salvation to be obtained by them who had fallen in the time of Persecution. This the ancient Church looked on as a pestilent Heresy; and as such was it condemned in a considerable Counsel at Rome with Cornelius. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43; where ⟨p. 314⟩also is reported the Decree which they made in the Case, wherein they call his Opinion Cruel or inhumane and contrary to Brotherly Love. As such it is strenuously confuted by Cyprian Epist. 82. ad Antonianum. But because the Church would not submit unto this Novel false Opinion of his, contrary to the Scripture and the Discipline of the Church, he and all his Followers separated from all the Churches in the World, and rebaptized all that were baptized in the Orthodox Churches, they denying unto them the means of Salvation. Cyprian ad Julian: Epist. 73. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 8. That which was most probably false also in Matter of Fact when this foolish Opinion, which Dionysius of Alexandria in his Epistle to Dionysius of Rome, calls a most profane Doctrine, reflecting unmerciful cruelty on our most gracious Lord Jesus Christ; Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 8. was invented to be subservient unto, was that many of those by whom Cornelius was chosen Bishop, were such as had denied the Faith under the Persecution of Decius the Emperor. This also was false in Matter of Fact.

The first is, that the Novatians whose Pretences were the Discipline and Purity of the Churches, wherein he says, there was a Concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas; Zeal for Reformation of Discipline, the greater Edificatian of the People, and the asserting of their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was likely to promote their Edification. I am sorry that Interest and Party should sway with learned Men, to seek Advantages unto their Cause so unduly The story in short is this; Novatus or Novatianus rather, being disappointed in his ambitious Design to have been chosen Bishop of the Church of Rome, Cornelius being chosen by much the Major Part of the Church, betook himself to indirect means to weaken and invalidate the Election of Cornelius. And this he did by raising a new Principle of false Doctrine, whereunto he as falsly accommodated the Matter of Fact. The Error he broached and promoted was that there was no place for Repentance (such as whereon they should be admitted into the Church) unto them who had fallen into sin after Baptisme, nor as some add any Salvation to be obtained by them who had fallen in the time of Persecution. This the antient Church looked on as a pestilent Heresie; and as such was it condmened in a considerable Counsel at Rome with Cornelius. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43; where