a sin was incest in Lot such are all the sins committed by the Elect And so were all the sins of the Elect remitted before they were committed But the Question is Whether God did so absolutely decree the remission of any mans sin from eternitie as that their remission was from eternitie absolutely necessarie If God did absolutely decree that the sins of the Elect should be remitted Sin not remitted before committed then he did absolutely decree that they should be committed For even in Gods eternal Foreknowledge of all things that fall out in time the Commission of sins hath precedencie of their Remission and if their Remission were in respect of his Foreknowledge or decree absolutely necessary their Commission was as necessarie It is impossible there should be any Remission of sins without a presupposal of their Commission Yet are the former Conclusions not muttered in corners but maintained as part of that holy doctrine which hath been delivered unto us by the masters of Israel approved by the best writers in reformed Churches These and the like Doctrines are held in so precious esteem that if the lawful Pastor seek to root them out where they have been planted by others or to prevent their growth or spreading he shall be traduced for an Arminian and as they hope be so censured by the high Court of Parliament But my hope is that no Loyal Elder of Israel shall ever so far forget himself as either to attempt or seek to have those and the like Conclusions ratified by our great Josuahs Royal consent Sure I am these are no branches of that Ancient Catholick Apostolick Faith of which we acknowledg our Soveraign Lord to be the defender and God grant that he may ever defend and keep it pure and undefiled from these and the like Conclusions that it may defend him and his people from their adversaries 12 Yet to seek the Correction of these and the like Conclusions though malapertly maintained by some of the Flock against most of their Pastors or the punishment of those which so maintain them until the Principles from which they naturally issue be checkt or inhibited were but Tyrannie These here related are the least not the worst part of those noysom branches which spring from this one root That Gods irresistible decree for the absolute Election of some and the absolute Reprobation of others is immediatly terminated to the Individual Natures Substances or Entities of men without any Logical respect or reference to their qualifications This Principle being once granted what breach of Gods moral Law is there whereon men will not boldly adventure either through desperation or presumption either openly or secretly For seeing Gods Will which in their Divinitie is the only Cause why the one sort are destinated to death the other to life is most immutable and most Irresistible and seeing the Individual Entities or natures of men unto which this irresistible Decree is respectively terminated are immutable let the one sort do what they can pray for themselves and beseech others to pray for them they shall be damn'd because their Entities or Individual Substances are unalterable Let the other sort Live as they list they shall be saved because no corruption of manners no change of morality breeds any mutability or change in their Individual Natures or Entities unto which Gods immutable Decree is immediatly terminated Whatsoever become of good life and manners so the Individual Nature or Entity fail not or be not annihilated salvation is tyed unto it by a necessity more indissoluble then any chains of Adamant 13. This Assertion Whosoever is Elected from Eternity was never the child of wrath save only in the esteem of men I found delivered in certain papers at my first entrance upon my Pastoral charge in the Town of Newsastle written by one that had been a great Rabbi in some private Conventicles in and about that Town And for the refuting of this Opinion and the Principles out of which it doth most necessarily follow it was presently conceived by some of my Auditors that I went about to refute the Doctrine of all Reformed Churches concerning Election and Reprobation And Amongst the Doctrines of Reformed Churches which it was vehemently suspected I went about to refute this was expressed for one That the sins of the Elect or Regenerate were remitted before they were committed A doctrine which for my part I dare not charge any one reformed Church with though some in reformed Churches have stifly maintained the Principle out of which this Conclusion will necessarily follow and some few have in expresse Termes delivered the Conclusion but so hath not to my knowledge any reformed Church or entire Congregation besides the Familist to which this errour properly belongs The Council of Dort hath expresly delivered the contrary so have others which write against the Arminians But in this Point a Reverend and Learned Pastor in the City of London hath saved me a Labour The false Principle from which both these Conclusions 1. The sins of the Elect are remitted before they are committed 2. Whosoever is Elected being elected from eternitie never was never could be never can be the child of wrath will most necessarily follow is the forementioned Errour which tyes or terminates Gods Eternal and irresistible Decree for the absolute Election of some and the absolute Reprobation of others to the Individual Natures persons or Entities of men elected or reprobated But to omit for the present the question concerning such absolute Election not the most Tyrannical Lawgiver that to this day hath breathed on earth did ever declare himself to be so farre the son of the Divel as to make solemn decrees against mens persons without respect or reference to their Qualifications It is the propertie of the enemy of mankind to delight in mans punishment as he is a man or a reasonable creature to desire to have any man as he himself now is but sometimes was not a vessel capable only of vengeance or punitive justice alltogether uncapable of Gods free bounty mercy or favour And seeing this most Honourable Court of Parliament now happily assembled to make wholesome Lawes doth not intend to make any Punitive Lawes or decrees specially capitally punitive against any mens Persons or Nature but against mens ill Qualifications misdemeanors I am confident that every member of it doth firmly believe that our heavenly Father did never make any such Decree or Law Again seeing God hath revealed his good Will and pleasure to be this To reward every man according to all his wayes I shall find no opposition or Contradiction to this Conclusion as I hope among good Christians God did from eternity decree to reward every man not according to his Individual Nature but according to his wayes his works or qualification which he did no lesse certainly foresee then he did his Individual Nature He hath decreed from eternity to revvard the vvicked and the ungodly for their vvicked vvorks
Truth it self Love it self Mercy it self Goodness it self The Branches of the Doctrine concerning Absolute Reprobation which bear this Fruit are to omit others for the present specially these Two The First That the manifestation of Gods punitive Justice was a part of the Object of Gods Primary Will and an exercise of his Will as directly as immediatly and as irresistibly intended by him in the Creation as the manifestation of his Goodnesse Bounty or reservation of his mercy to such as shall be saved was The Second That God from Eternity did as truly hate all those who perish without respect or reference to their works or qualifications as he did love those who shall be saved Now if the number of such as perish be much greater then the number of such as shall be saved and if the same God did from eternitie as truly hate the greater sort of men as he did love the lesse without all respect or reference to their works or qualifications if he did out of his eternal hatred as peremptorily decree the endless torments of the One as he did the everlasting happiness of the Other These Conclusions of the Lutherans avouched by them in some Catechismes which I have seen before the name of Arminius was heard of in these Parts will necessarily follow viz. That such as maintain this rigid doctrine of Absolute Reprobation do not believe in or acknowledge the same God which the Lutherans with all antiquitie acknowledge for they acknowledge their God to be Truth Mercy Love and Goodnesse whereas the stiffe maintainers of Absolute Reprobation confesse their God to be hatred and Crueltie it self Now to acknowledge one and the same God to be Truth Love Mercy and Goodnesse itself in respect of some and in respect of others to be falshood hatred crueltie it self is a grossser Heresie or Transformation of the Deity then was the Heresie of the Manichees which acknowledge Two Gods or independent Originals of all things the One as Fountain of all Goodness the Other the Authour of all Evill For avoyding these and the like Conclusions no evasion or observation hath been or can be pretended by such as make the Entity or Individual Natures of man the Formal Objects of Reprobation besides this One viz. That Gods Will is so the Rule of Goodness that if he will the death of all that dye without respect unto their works or Qualifications this must be Good If he be pleased to hate the greater Part of mankind without all reference to their Qualifications the hatred of them must be as good as his Love of those few which shall be saved And the Apostle did advise them to rest upon this answer when he saith O man who art thou that disputest against God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus hath not the Potter power over the clay c. But whether this Use of our Apostles Doctrine in that place be according to his meaning or whether any Conclusion can be drawn from that Chapter which may make for absolute Election or Reprobation is elsewhere examined By that which hath been said See Chapt. 42. Numb 9. 10. it may appear that such in this Land as stifly hold the Tenet of absolute Reprobation which the Christian world besides hath for the most part forsaken have some reason though no just cause to question the truth delivered by me in what sense Gods Will is said to be the Rule of Goodness For unlesse they can disprove my Tenet which God be praised hath stronger Supporters then my weaknesse can afford they must either revoke their errour or admit God to be more then the Author of sin as truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as properly sin it self as Being it self or life it self And yet if they could perswade the ignorant that Gods Will is the Rule of Goodness in such a sense as they would make it the Inconveniences which the Lutherans object would be rather for a while removed then cleerely avoided They might be prest upon them again with greater force and advantage with this addition that they maintain the Turkish Opinion concerning Fate and Providence And upon this Ground only as I conceive do the the Lutherans instile the Calvinists Limbs of Gog or of the Eastern Antichrist But the best is that of such who at this day do not disclaim the name of Calvinists the most and best learned dislike the opinion of Absolute Reprobation and so I hope in good time will every faithfull Pastor in the Church of England and every Loyal Elder in this our Israel For admit we could make full proofe unto the Congregations committed to our Charge that Papistry is as some have enstiled it the Ocean of Heresies that the Absolute Infallibility of the Pope or Consistory exceeds the mixture or combination of all other particular Heresies which have been that the Idolatry which the Roman Catholicks from the belief of the Pope or Churches absolute Infallibilitie are inforced to commit and practise doth equalize the Idolatry of those heathens which solemnly worshipt the Divel yet all this being proved by us and firmly believed by our flocks would be of small force or sway to retain understanding men in their Allegiance to their Soveraign Lord or in obedience to the Lawes Ecclesiastick or Civil of this Kingdom if once the Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation might be fastened upon the Church of England or be embraced by her Learned Pastors or Governours For so they might as concludently prove us to be as grosse Hereticks as we say they are and evince our Churches doctrine to be as Blasphemous as theirs is Idolatrous To have this Rigid Doctrine generally embraced or acknowledged by us or at least to have the World believe that it were generally acknowledged by us is the very Thing and the main business which the Factors for the Romish Church for these many years have earnestly sollicited This is the very net wherein Sathan hopes to catch this Island he hath set the Jesuites to spread and hold it and when opportunity serves to draw it And the Jesuites as they have long used our Pulpits and Print-houses so they attempt to use some in our Parliaments as their Podders to drive us into it Their prey they know must needs be great if they can bring us into these straights or put a necessity of this hard choice upon us Whether were better to live in obedience to a Church which adores wicked and naughty men Divels incarnate for such some of their Popes have been as Gods on Earth or to hold communion with that Church or societie of men which makes the God of heaven the Almighty Creatour of all things Visible and invisible much worse then an Incarnate Divel yea then any wicked Spirit or then the Divel himself can without slander be conceived to be Isaiah 58. 4. Behold ye fast for strife and debate and to smite with the Fist of wickedness ye shall
For Righteousness original to speak properly could be no other work or Effect imaginable save only the Resultance of that image of God wherein our Nature was first moulded And this Resultance was as immediate unto and as unseparable from the image of God wherein the first man was created as Roundness is from a perfect sphere or well moulded bullet or as Equality is from Identity of quantity Of none of which there can be two distinct Causes or Operations 2. To make the Image of God or that righteousnesse which by immediate necessity resulted from Gods image or work the substance nature or essential form of man quâ talis as he is man would be a grosse Error or grievous Soloecism in Philosophy For so Adam should not have been the same individual Party or Person after his Fall which he was before And this Error in Philosophy uncontrol'd would necessarily induce a more dangerous Heresie in Divinity to wit That the same party which was made righteous by God should not be punished for losing this Righteousnesse but some other for him By the same reason the Humane Nature it self which is now polluted by sin should not be so much as specifically the same with that which God did in the beginning create Our Nature as now it stands should be wholly a work or Creature of the Devil 3. But this Good writer I mean Illyricus iterum identidem often and again disclaims all Opinion or thought conceived by him of any Specifical change of the Essence or nature of mankind from the first Creation to the worlds End or of any Essential Change or destruction of the Individual Nature or Persons of our First Parents Yet his Expressions of his meaning sometimes may seem to infer either a change of Nature or a destruction of the Two Individuals first created by God It may be that Opinion of some late Philosophers Principium Individuationis est à materia that The root of Individuation or distinction of one particular Person from another was wholly from the Matter not from the Form which is the principal paâ—t of every mans Essence or person was imbraced by him But seeing he utterly disclaims the former Conclusions or Inferences which some would put upon him it would not be ingenuous to charge him with them upon Consequences not of his own but of other mens making The Learned and ingenuous Reader will easily excuse him from this One Error in Philosophie seeing he hath taught such as will be taught by him so many good useful Lessons as no Divine which I have read in modern Churches hath taught more for avoyding Sceptical or meerly Dialectical and making solid and theological Definitions in substantial or Fundamental points of Divinity â— or no Definition of sin especially or of Free-will or other Controversie depending upon their Determination can be truly Theological or such as a professor of Divinity if he be a true Artist can brook unlesse it be truly and solidly Philosophical 4. The difference between a Nominal or meerely Dialectical and a true Philosophical or Physical Definition of one and the same Reall Effect affection or propertie The difference between meerly Dialectical and Philosophical or Theological Definitions is Excellently set down in sundry Treatises by the Great Philosopher If this question Quid est ira what is that which we call Wrath or Anger were proposed to a meere Logician or Dialecticall Grammarian His answer is upon his tongues end Ira est appetitio vindictae Vâ— rath or Anger is a esâ—â—e or appetition of revenge But this is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meere Expression what the Word doth signifie or at the â—est but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Definition only of the Abstract Essence of the Accident or Affection But if the same question were proposed to a true Philosopher to a good Naturalist or Learned Physitian his answer would be Ira est ebullâ— tio sanguinis circa cor Wrath or Anger is in truth and indeed neither lesse nor more then the boyling of the blood about the heart This is the only root or Real Cause whence Anger immediatly growes Yet if we would take a full Definition of this most unruly passion which is the usual Commander in chief of greatest Commanders it must be This according to the rules of Art Ira est appetitio vindictae propter Ebullitionem sanguinis circa cor Wrath or Anger is an appetition of revenge caused by the boyling of blood about the heart And from this Definition Every good Moralist such all true Divines should be and somewhat more may Learne in part how to curbe or tame This unruly Beast according to the old proverb Equo ferocientisubtrahendum pabulum by abstaining from all Cholerick meates and by withdrawing his self from all probable occasions which by one sense or other may set his best blood on boyling 5. He that saith An Eclipse is the privation of light in the moone or other heavenly starr speakes properly Enough For this is the Essential Definition of that which we call an Ecliose whether in the Sun or in the Moone Yet but a Nominal Definition which every young Scholar or Academick may Learne out of his Lexicon What more then is required to a Philosopâ—icall or Real Definition of an Eclipse whether in the Moon Sun or other stars Nothing besides the assignation of the Reall Cause by which this defect of light is wrought whether in the Sun or Moon The Reall cause of this privation of Light in the moon is the Diametral interposition of the shadow of the earth between the Moon and the Sun from whom as from the Fountain of Light this second Light or Governesse of the night doth borrow its Light or Splendor Albeit of these two Definitions the Grammatical or Nominal be most proper Yet the Causal though taken alone as Philosophers use to express it is most Reall and more satisfactorie An Eclipse in the Moon is the interposition of the Earth betwixt the Sun and it The Eclipse of the Sun is the interposition of the body of the Moon betwixt the Sun and us that be inhabitants of the Earth Hence we may Learne that however the Nominal or Essential Definition of an Eclipse whether in the Sun or Moon or other Starr that is a Privation of Light be One and the same Yet we may Learne more from the Causal Definition of either of them then we can from the Nominal Definition of both In an Eclipse of the Sun there is no defect or privation of Light in it We inhabitants of the Earth onely are deprived of the light or Lustre of this glorious starr by the interposition of the body of the Moon between it and our bodily sight Whence we may truly inferr that the body of the Moon is in it self as impenetrable by Light or as uncapable of Transmission or free passage of Light through it as the body of the Earth is That the surface only of this
great starr is capable of Light by reflexion as a Globe of steel or other solid Body whose surfaces are smooth and Equable It doth not it cannot transmit Light or suffer it to be transfused through it after the manner of glass Yet if we should give a perfect and absolute Definition of an Eclipse in the Moon we must add the Abstract or nominal Definition of the Eclipse unto the Reall or Philosophicall As thus The Eclipse of the moon is a true and reall privation of light or splendor not in respect of us only but in it self caused by the interposition of the body of the Earth which hindereth the transmission of light which it borrowes from the Sun But the Eclipse of the Sun is only a privation of our sight or view of it occasioned or caused by the interposition of the dark body of the Moone betwixt this glorious Starr and fountaine of light and our eyes 6. The maine businesse wherein Illyricus is so Zealous was to banish all such Nominal or Grammatical Definitions as have been mentioned out of the precincts of Theologie and to put in continual Caveats against the Admission of Abstracts or mere Relations into the Definition of Original Sin or of that Unrighteousnesse which is inherent in the man unregenerate And however St. Austin Aquinas and Melancthon say in effect as much as Illyricus did if their meanings were rightly apprehended or weighed by their Followers Yet his Expressions of the Nature Cause and Properties of Original Sin were to his own and so they are to my apprehension more cleare more full and real then any Definitions of Aquinas or Melancthon Even where they speake most fully according to their own Principles unto this point Aquinas as this Author quotes him some where grantes Originale peccatum non esse meram privationem justitiae originalis that Original Sin is not only a meere privation or want of Original Righteousnesse but a positive or forcible inclination contrary to it Melancthon with many Others of the most Learned writers which have been in the Germane or French Church since Luther began to renounce the Romish Church acknowledge and Define the same Sin to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Disorder of our faculties and Affections or which is more a Depravation of our nature Or in other tearmes whether Greek or Latin fully equivalent unto these Wherein then doth this singular writer as some do censure him either differ from or go beyond Aquinas Melancthon or Others all of whom respectively grant as much and some of them more then is included in the Definitions or descriptions of Sin forecited out of Aquinas and Melancthon 7. Illyricus defines Originall Sin not by the Abstract but by the Concrete as thus Original Sin is the Nature of man corrupted or the affections or Faculties of our soules and bodyes disordered and depraved c.. He no where defines it to be the Nature the Substance or Faculties of men absolutely considered or without Limitation Yet to be All these so farr as they are depraved and corrupted or transformed out of that Image of God which was seated in them by Creation into the image or real similitude of Satan In man considered as he was the work of God or made after his image there was an exact Harmony or consonancie of Will unto the Law and Will of God an Exact Harmonie of Faculties and Affections amongst themselves and a sweet subordination of them unto the reasonable will or conscience whil'st that held consort with the will and Law of God But by the First Mans Fall or willfull transgression all parts of this Harmony are lost The sensitive desires Faculties or Affections are at continuall jarr and discord amongst themselves The best consort they hold is to fight joyntly against the Reasonable Soul and Conscience or spirituall part of our nature especially so far as it holds any Consort with the Will of God His Definition then of Sin by the substance or Nature of man as that is depraved or corrupted and the Definitions of other Writers which define it to be the Depravation of our nature or the difference between him when he defines it by the Faculties or parts of our nature as these are disordered or instamped with the image of Satan and other Divines who define it to be an Ataxie or disorder of the Affections and Faculties if we calculate their severall Expressions aright they come all to one Reckoning there is no more materiall question or reall difference betwixt them then if we should dispute whether Three times foure or foure times three Or two times six or six times two do better expresse or decipher the number of twelve Or whether Harmonie be a Consonancie of true voices or sounds Or true voices or sounds perfectly Consonant CHAP. XIII Calvin and Martyr c. consent with Illyricus in the Description of Original Sin How farr Sin Original may be said to be the Pollution of thewhole Nature and Faculties of man or the Faculties of man as they are polluted 1. The opinion of Calvin and Martyr concerning the nature of Original or acquired Sin BEsides many Other good Writers Calvin and Martyr in their Definitions or descriptions of Sin in the unregenerate man consort so well with Illyricus that he that will condemne any One of them will be concluded not to acquit either of the other Two He that approves One of them cannot but approve the Other if he either understand himself or them Calvin defines Sin Original to be a Pravity Corruption of nature Calvinus definit Peccatum Originale esse naturae pravitateÌ„ ac corruptionem ac mox exponens se dicit Imo tota hominis natura quoddam est peccati semen ideo non odiosa abominabilis Deo esse non potest Quae profectò ipsissima ratio formaque peccati originalis est ipsam certe essentiaÌ„ hominis pessimam describit Martyr quoque super Rom definiens Peccatum Originale eamque definitionem explicans non obscurè id ponit in ipsa mala Essentia hominis dicit enim totum hominem corruptissimum esse definit verò inquiens est ergo peccatum totius hominis naturae depravatio à lapsu primi parentis in posteros traducta per generationem c. Et mox definitionem explicans inquit In hac Definitione omnia genera Causarum habentur pro materia aut subjecto habemê° omnes hominis partes aut vires Forma est earuÌ„ omniuÌ„ depravatto c. En audis ei originale peccatum complecti etiam ipsas hominis partes ac vires quatenus sunt corruptae ac depravatae Illyricus in libello cui Titulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basileae impresso anno 1568. pag. 140. 141. and presently explaining himself saith yea the whole nature of man is a Kinde of Seed of Sin and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God which truly is the very Forme Essence or Definition of
VIII CHAP. LIV. Three Errors Disparaging Christs Priest-hood 1. The Novatian denying the Reception of some Sort of Sinners 2. A Late Contrary Error affirming That every Sin which some sort of men Committ is pardoned before it be Committed 3. The Romish Doctrine of the Masse giving scandal to the Jew All of them Respectively derogating from the Infinite value or Continual Efficacie of Christs Everlasting Priesthood THe First Error in this kind which did grow into an Heresie was that of Novatus Qui negavit lapsis poenitentiâ—m who would not have Backsliders or Revolters from Christianitie Of Novatus See Euseb L. 6. c. 42. Socrates Lib. 4. ch 23. to be upon any Terms or testifications of repentance re-admitted into the Church or made partakers of Absolution This Heresiâ— as all others took its Original from a plausiâ—le Truth or practise of former times The Truth is that in those times wherein men professing Christianitie were every day called unto the Fierie Tryal This Backsliding or Relapse unto Idolatrie or outward Profession of Idolatrie even after Baptism was so rife that the Church would not admitt any such as had thus revolted unto the Estate or Condition of Penitentiaries nor give them Absolution upon private testifications of sorrow for their Revolt Now if Novatus did only deny that unto such backssiders or Revolters which the Church in her purest times would not Grant them why was he condemned by the Church in Ages following for an Heretick If his Opinion were an Heresie why was not the Practise of the Antient Church Heretical Some Grave and Learned late Writers would have the Novatas Heresie not precisely to consist in that he denyed Absolution or Communion with the Church unto Revolters but in that he maintained That the Church had no right or Power to grant Absolution unto such Backsliders as Cornelius then Bishop of Rome with the Advice and consent of his Clergie did grant unto but that this was a Case reserved to God himself That such Backsliders or Revolters might at the point of death be Absolved Novatian himself had once solemnly profest But after Cornelius his Competitioner for the Bishoprick of Rome being preferred to that Dignitie had authorized this Practise he begun to set abroach his Error whatsoever that were and to accuse Cornelius and his adherents as Authors of Heresie and Novelties in the Church Had this Novatian been constant to his former Tenets and Profession made before Cornelius was chosen Bishop of Rome against him he could not have denyed either of these Two Points of Truth Either that God had mercie in store for Revolters from Christianitie when they did repent or the Churches Power to grant Absolution or other comfort spiritual unto those to whom she might out of charitable discretion presume God was merciful or to whom God had not forbid her to shew mercy or compassion For Christ had commanded her to be merciful as her Heavenly Father is merciful But it were too much Charitie to presume that a man of such a proud and turbulent Spirit as Novatian was in the depth of such discontent as took possession of his spirit upon Cornelius his Preferment to so great a dignitie as the Bishoprick of Rome unto his prejudice would be constant to his former Principles either in whole or in part As either to grant that God had mercy in store for Revolters or that the Church had power to Absolve them upon such significations of repentance as belonged unto her Cognizance Nor can we without breach of Charitie think that either Novatian or any other Heretick in those times would be so gross as to deny the Churches Power to Absolve men from any sinne from which they were perswaded God had or would absolve them And it is a clear Case that the Novatians did ground their Errour or Contradiction to the Church wherein they lived upon that place of the Apostle Heb. 6. 4 5 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the holy Ghost And have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come if they fall away to renue them again unto repentance seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame and grounding their Error or maintaining it by this place it is evident that they held Lapsos or Revolters from Christianitie unto Heathenism to be in the same estate Which modern Divines conceive all such to bâ— in as sin against the Holy Ghost But of the true meaning or extent of the Apostles words in the forecited place or how the absolute unpardonablness of sin against the holy Ghost may be thence concluded I have nothing for the present to say It sufficeth to know that this Error of the Novatians was by the Ancient Church wherein they lived Condemned for an Heresie Yet hence it will not follow that their Heresie in the Judgment of them which condemned it did properly or precisely consist in denying the Churches authoritie to absolve sinnes of what kind soever but rather in avouching this particular sin of Apostasie or revolting from Christianitie to be in it self unpardonable or uncapable of Repentance If it had been in it self unpardonable or so adjudged by the Primitive Church Navatian had been no Heretick in withstanding Cornelius Bishop of Rome and the particular Churches which consented with him or in denying to admit the Revolters from Christianitie unto the estate or Condition of Penitentiaries in the Church or in refusing to give them Absolution or to hold Communion with them after they had voluntarily or otherwise observed such a course of Life as the Church had appointed for Penitentiaries That the Antient Church did neither admit open Revolters to enter into this Course or Rule of life nor Absolve them after they had Uoluntarily though most strictly to the eyes of men observed it doth no way argue that the Church in which Cornelius lived or which lived after him did erre much lesse incurre the Censure of heresie which Novatian objected unto them in admitting open Revolters unto the estate and Condition of Penitentiaries or in absolving them from their sinnes after performance of such religious duties as were by the Church required of men admitted into that estate or Condition 2. The Primitive Church did hold both to be lawfull but not expedien for the present Times The Primitive Church did deny unto Revolters Both these Favours 1. Admission to the state of Penitentiaries 2. Absolution upon their good behaviour after testification of repentance onely de Facto not de Jure The Church in later times did onely alter the Practise or discipline as is to be presumed upon good cause or consideration And to conclude or limit the Authoritie of the present Church onely by Matter of fact or practise of the Church in former times is matter of Heresie at least of Schism And this it may be