Cyril that he did acknowledge two natures in one person and that when he oftentimes affirm'd one nature in Christ he meant only one person which he would not have divided and separated from it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the reason of using the phrase of one nature as well as of one hypostasis or person will appear further by considering the errour of Nestorius against which he oppos'd those expressions This Heretick began to discover himself by not only scrupling The Opinion of Nestorius but condemning the Title which the Blessed Virgin bore commonly in that age of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God by condemning this expression Nestorius in effect condemn'd all the Fathers who had us'd it and this gave a general alarm as if the faith of the Fathers Athan. Gregory c. was going to be condemn'd in this Word and there was very great reason for this jealousie John Bishop of Antioch a particular friend of Nestorius Joh. Ep. ad Nest was scandaliz'd at this innovation and sends a Letter to him to expostulate about this matter and presses him very hard with this argument If you understand and believe the same thing with the Holy Fathers that have gone before us for this I understand by several common friends that you do why are you afraid to express an orthodox meaning by a convenient phrase Especially since so great mischief and confusion is like to ensue upon your refusal But how he explain'd himself we shall see presently In his Epistle to Cyril he expresses himself one would think very Orthodoxly Ep. ad Cyr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if we examine what he means by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we shall find that he really maintain'd two persons as well as two natures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is us'd not only for a person or an intelligent subsistence but likewise as Persona in Latine with relation to office dignity authority and other circumstances of a man so 't is used in those phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was the most common signification of the word and therefore Cyril does not use it so frequently as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he thought more proper to express the personal union of Christ and Nestorius does industriously avoid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now let us see wherein he made the unity of person to consist Cyr. Cont. Nest p. 43. Ed. Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. It was God that took upon him the form of a servant it was this which was assumed after that there is the dignity of the conjunction though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signifie such a near conjunction as that personal one but only an artificial joyning so as that the things do still remain under different subsistences the authority is common to both natures for the same dignity belongs to both confess the unity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of personal dignity not subsistence Ibid. the natures or subsistences remaining still different and then there is no dividing of the conjunction of dignity and filiation and then the son is twofold not in respect of dignity but of nature And the errour which he charges Cyril with is as if all those things that are said of Christ as God and as Man p. 33. were understood by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not according to the Honour of the conjunction but according to nature or naturally than which nothing can be plainer Cyril's answer does plainly shew what he meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what Nestorius by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why therefore says he dost thou pretend to maintain the true faith when thou dost manifestly divide Christ into two persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and dost destroy the manner of that true and real union 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is with him the same thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really one But thou on the other side makest that equality of honour to be Vnity which is not a real substantial but an imaginary Vnity So that Nestorius does evidently hold two natural persons for so I must speak still distinct in Christ Vid. Zanch. de Incarnat Verbi joyn'd together not hypostatically but into one title or dignity which Cyril explains sometimes very properly by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This being premis'd concerning Nestorius his holding two natures in one person we shall see more clearly how all his expressions do point at this notion we have now observ'd Cyr. cont Nest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where there are two generations p. 21. there are two Sons but the Church knows but one son therefore the word cannot be said to be born with the flesh as one person and so consequently God and Man is not the person that was born of the Virgin and Christ was a person distinct from the word nor does he hold this consequentially only but in express terms therefore says he Christ is said to be the Word p. 47. because he i. e. Christ is joyn'd for ever to the Word What is not Christ the name of the person and if there be not two what can this conjunction of Christ with the word signifie and therefore Cyril makes this advantage of it p. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same thing is observable from Nestorius dividing his Worship in respect of God and Man the first he worships upon his own account the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Cyril takes to imply another person There are many more instances to the same effect p. 74 84 90 100 108 126. Ed. Par. cited and confuted by Cyril in the same Book When Cyril and the Eastern Bishops were agreed the Nestorians cavil'd as if Cyril had receiv'd those that maintain'd the same doctrine with Nestorius and as if John and the rest had condemn'd those that held the same faith with them Ep. ad Acac but Cyril makes it sufficiently appear what difference there was between them and Nestorius For he destroys the mystery of the incarnation denying that the Son of God was born of the Virgin for these are Nestorius his own words I have read says he in Scripture that God proceeded or pass'd through the Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he read no where that he was born of her and in the same place Therefore Christ is call'd the Word of God because he is joyn'd for ever to the word Christ then in his sense is not the word but belongs to it which manifestly makes two persons and a while after I separate the natures but I joyn the adoration and that upon the account of that equality of honour and authority which the man had by his conjunction with God not into one natural person and properly so call'd but into an union of title
only and not the divine nature but nothing can be plainer than this That there is a vast difference or distance between the divinity and humanity of Christ l. 2. contra Nestor I must needs confess for they are different things that are signify'd by these two names as to what regards their essence and have nothing the one like the other and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Vnion does admit a difference but excludes all division Ep. ad Nest and lastly he shews the absurdity of rejecting this Hypostatical Vnion as incomprehensible because it will unavoidably force us to allow two Sons the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by himself and the Son of God again by himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he plainly confutes If this does not sufficiently declare two natures subsisting in one person it is not in the power of words to do it Thus was he understood by all the world excepting only the Eastern Bishops who had a quarrel against him and therefore were resolv'd to cavil and even these at last were reconcil'd to his expressions Thus the Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon understood him and the Catholick Church ever since yet all this it seems could not prevail with Derodon who in opposition to almost all the world maintains his Paradox that Cyril taught the same doctrine with Eutyches and that Nestorius was in the right For this purpose he cites out of Cyril several passages that affirm Christ to have but one nature and this is that which was condemn'd in Eutyches It is true indeed that Cyril does frequently own but one nature but it is to be observ'd that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his sense is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by both he means nothing but a real Union in opposition to an imaginary notional one which Nestorius did maintain This may be easily observ'd by comparing all those places where he affirms but one nature with those already alledg'd that expresly affirm the contrary But besides this if he shall be allow'd to explain himself the matter will be soon decided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Natural that is Confir Anath 3. a real Union When Acacius presses him with the Confessions of the Orthodox Ep. ad Acacium that own two natures in Christ and that those Divines do express this difference because there really is one between the Natures Cyril answers that he does by no means take away these terms of distinction but condemns the wrong application of them so as that one should be apply'd to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other to the Son of the Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so as to divide the person and to make the Son of the Virgin different from the Son of God therefore says he there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature of the word but of the word incarnate i. e. one hypostasis For so he explains himself in the conclusion of that answer that those Orthodox that mention two natures and he are all of the same opinion for since there is but one Son one God and Lord so it is that we and they do confess one person only for that was his design by the expression of one nature and that those things that belong to the Divinity and those which belong to the Humanity must be all ascrib'd to one Christ and justifying himself against such as suspected him of confounding the two natures in Christ Ibid. he denies that ever he took away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And John Bishop of Antioch willing to express the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though he disowns to be his own words but that John express'd himself after that manner yet he receives the sense of them that several things are to be understood of Christ as Man and others of him as God yet that the Godhead and the Manhood make but one Christ In what sense Cyril affirm'd one nature appears further from what he condemn'd in Nestorius and others Cyr. Ep. cum 12. Anath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not dividing and separating God from man as part from part nor yet joyning them together by an Vnity only of honour and authority this was it that he charg'd Nestorius with and from which he never did so much as endeavour to vindicate himself Whereupon Cyril urges that unity of dignity or honour does not imply personal union and parity of authority does not unite nature for Peter and John may be of the same authority and dignity and yet they are not one but two persons besides this he rejects another way of Union 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a participation of divine graces as holy men are said to be united to God upon which account he does reject frequently this expression that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he no less rejects the way of artificial conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being very improper to express this hypostatical union of Christ But that which he thinks comes nearest to illustrate this Union is that conjunction of body and soul in man which is a concourse of two very different natures which yet make but one man this is one of the greatest arguments to prove him a Heretick but if this will serve to do it most of the Fathers that wrote upon this subject must be Hereticks as well as he since they all make use of this illustration Yet though he were singular in this instance it would by no means conclude him in the Heresie of Eutyches for those things that are brought to illustrate are not necessarily required to be like the things they are to illustrate in every point What Cyril concludes is only this that as the Body and Soul make one Man so God and Man makes one Christ and this is the composition that he means which will be easily understood by comparing this with other passages of Cyril If he judg'd that Christ had but one only nature resulting out of that Composition like that of Man then it must be either the divine nature which had taken the humane into it self or that the divinity should be chang'd into his humanity or some third nature that must result from both all which he equally abhorrs for notwithstanding the incarnation Ep. ad Nest ad Acac. ad Joh. 12. Anathim ad Success he affirms expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the humanity he affirms it still remains because there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no mixture no changing of it into another nature 3. In the Composition of man there is one form joyn'd to matter which makes the unity of nature but in the hypostatical union the man retains his proper form according to Cyril who denys that the word informs the body of the man but that it is Corpus animatum a body endu'd with reason and understanding So that it appears plainly by the doctrine of
and dignity With respect to which opinion Cyril presses the unity of nature and makes use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hypostasis indiscriminately And lastly Nestorius denys Christ to be truly and properly God in his first Anathema in answer to those of Cyril saying Si quis Christum verum deum non Immanuel dixerit i. e. Whosoever shall call him True God let him be Anathema which shews that the Union he meant was not personal but that Christ was no more than what Cyril often charges Nestorius with holding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If those twelve Articles of Nestorius were extant in Greek they would likely discover more of his mind but as they are they have hardly any sense at all How far Nestorius dissembles his opinion by those plausible expressions of one person and two natures may be judg'd from what is already observ'd concerning him but our Author falls into a great passion against those that say Nestorius dissembled when he affirm'd two natures and one person I take them says he to be the Fire-brands of the World and unworthy the regard of sober men who pretend to know mens judgements better than themselves c. It cannot be unknown to any man that has read any thing in Ecclesiastical writings that Hereticks were us'd to take refuge in Equivocation and to shew a fair plausible doctrine to the first view but when this was narrowly examin'd and compar'd with other things that dropp'd from them either unawares or in greater confidence it was found to be nothing but deceit and illusion Thus the Arians frequently impos'd upon the Orthodox thus the Nestorians seem'd to own the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changing only the accent which chang'd the signification of the Word from the Mother to the Child and off-spring of God and S. Paul who was not unacquainted with the arts of Hereticks gives this caution against them that they are not presently to be taken for what they appear Rom. 16.17 18. Now I beseech you Brethren mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learn'd and avoid them for such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple But let them be accounted Firebrands of the World that will not put the most charitable interpretation upon the expressions of men of suspected doctrines I am content and I believe the Bishops will not be so much concern'd in this accusation I could wish our Author would look home and observe those Fire-brands that will make men of what Religion they please in despite of all Protestations and Oaths to the contrary Is it not strange that men who subscribe the Articles of the Church of England so destructive of all the errours of Popery which were the occasion of the Reformation that renounce Transubstantiation Popes Supremacy Idolatry Rebellion for the cause of Religion Adoration of Images and Saints and Angels that notwithstanding all this these men must be Papists and Popishly affected and let them say or believe what they will they must be accounted so What shall a man do to these men who instead of pulling down Popery strengthen it by reckoning so many learned and godly persons of that side and whilest they endeavour to dishonour these persons by so odious a name do no small honour to the Papists by making the most eminent party of men both for learning and integrity that perhaps is now in the World to be favourers of their way hoc Ithacus velit The Jesuites indeed are apt to feign several death-bed Reconciliations to their Church to gain it credit by the accession of some eminent opposers of it but this they do sparingly as the easie people can swallow the cheat But these Papist-makers of ours will present them with thousands together and send them the Protestant Churches of three Kingdoms in one present If any be Fire brands of the World if any set up Popery under the disguise of Protestants they are surely these men that cry down all for Papists that they have any prejudice against and out of spight to their brethren assist that common enemy and become the most liberal Benefactors to the Church of Rome that ever it had since the Reformation nay not inferiour to the forgers of Constantine's Donation These men would deserve better of Rome than Francis or Dominick could they but make their words good Surely the Papists are not now to learn how to make the best use of a fictitious title they will not fail to boast of that strength which dissenters give them and have no reason to discover the falshood of a calumny that is so much to their credit and advantage I must beseech the Readers Pardon for this digression and Gods Pardon to these false accusers of their brethren that they may know in this their day the things that belong to their peace To return now to the business we left It will not suit the proportion of my design to dwell upon every particular expression of Cyril's that may be suspected and to detect the Heresie of Nestorius lurking under the disguise of Orthodox Expressions I hope that what has been already observ'd may be sufficient at least to suspend the Readers judgement from pronouncing Cyril a Heretick with Derodon or Nestorius who was condemn'd by almost all the world an Orthodox and sound believer until some abler hand undertake that matter and treat it more particularly Our Author though he make use of Derodon's citations to disparage the authority of these Councils yet he differs from him in conclusion and is loth to give in to that bold Paradox that Cyril so much celebrated in the Catholick Church for his defence of the faith should at last after twelve hundred years good credit prove down-right Heretick Therefore he endeavours to moderate the business and to make both parties Friends and Orthodox though they themselves were not sensible of it All this stir saith our Author proceeded only from misunderstanding and Cyril and Nestorius and the rest of the Bishops did not understand one anothers meaning It is not unpleasant to observe a man unacquainted with the language in which these disputes were pretend gravely to be Moderator and to perswade the World they did not understand the terms they quarrelled about though the language were vulgar to them all and by the strength of Hanmer's and other miserable translations to play the Critick but whether is most likely that these great and learned men should understand one anothers terms or persons remov'd from their times many hundreds of years and ignorant of the language in which they writ I leave the Reader to determine It is true that in this case there was great misunderstanding between Cyril and the Eastern Bishops yet we find that as soon as ever they came to debate the matter calmly they found they differ'd but in expression and yet both found
Author makes Eutyches as Orthodox as Cyril and would shew that he was condemn'd for the doctrine of the Council of Ephesus Brevic. de Hist Eutych The Truth of this we shall understand by considering the following particulars of his doctrine He held Christum verum hominem non fuisse nec in co esse duas naturas sed unam Dei Verbi incarnatam though the last words be the very same with those of Cyril Ep. 2. ad Nest alib yet the rest are expresly condemn'd by him for he maintains upon every occasion that Christ is truly Man as well as God and perfect too as consisting of Body and Soul nor did he deny two natures in Christ but only said that they were not separated or divided that there was no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that both were united in one subsistence He does indeed frequently assert one nature ad Eulog l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in his sense is no more than personal unity and sometimes too says there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Acac. Melit unless we shall read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is much more agreeable to Cyril's ordinary way of expressing himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. and yet Eustath Beryt cites Cyril in the Council of Chalcedon according to the first reading But not to make any difficulty about this Flav. Exempl fidei Theodos Dat. Conc. Chalc. part 1. Ep. 5. It. Maxentii Cathol Professio Flavian it seems did not stand much upon that expression For he owns it with this interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so far he own'd one nature as was consistent with one Christ that must be God and Man but he condemns all those that shall teach that there are two sons or two hypostases or two persons and so dissolves that unity And yet for all this he was condemn'd as a Nestorian and although he seems to speak the same words with Eutyches yet he condemns him Brevic. Ep. Flav. but you have already seen some difference and shall sind yet more He goes on concerning Eutyches saying Christum nobis esse Consubstantialem negavit which is an express contradiction to the doctrine of Cyril who all along affirms Christ to be of the same substance with us as to his humanity as well as of the same substance with the Father in respect of the divine nature Deinde dixit Virginem quidem quae cum genuit secundum carnem consubstantialem nobis esse Rescript Flav. ad Leon. ipsum antem dominum non suscepisse ex eâ carnem nobis consubstantialem Corpus domini non esse quidem corpus hominis humanum verò corpus esse quod est ex Virgine adjecit autem aliam impietatem Ep. ad Leon. Corpus domini quod ex Maria factum est non esse nostrae substantiae neque humanae conspersionis This is something hard to be understood at first sight but the Breviculus Hist Eutych does explain it speaking of Eutyches his opinion concerning Christs flesh quam quidem non esse hominis perhibuit sed humanum ut similitudo magis humani corporis quà m veritas suaderetur But to return to that which was more insisted upon for Heresie his affirming of one nature which these passages will serve to explain The great Complaint of Eusebius Doryl to Flavian and of Flavian to Leo against Eutyches was that he affirm'd one nature after the incarnation Did not Cyril say the same thing does not Flavian himself say that he does not reject it what then is the Controversie Surely these men cannot be so mad as to fall out so violently when they all say not only the same thing but the same words Shall we imagine that Flavian would prevaricate and accuse Eutyches to Leo of that Heresie which he owns for sound doctrine to Theodosius Flav. Ep. ad Theod. It is not to be conceiv'd that any one much less so great a man as Flavian should be either so foolish or so wicked and if we consider the accusation we shall be able to unriddle this difficulty Flav. Ep. ad Leon. For after he had charg'd Eutyches with holding but one nature after the Union he adds for a confutation of that errour neque vero unitas convenientium in Christo duarum naturarum sicut unâ re proprietates suas in unitate confudit sed manent in unitate perfectae naturarum proprietates the one nature of Christ according to Eutyches did it seems take away and confound the properties of humanity but according to Flavian they still remain'd for how else could Christ suffer and the divine nature not have suffer'd too The Monothelites spoke out what Eutyches disguis'd whose principle extended to much absurder consequences than that if it had been pursued and the denying of the body of Christ for I do not find that he mentions any thing of his Soul to be like ours tends manifestly to this confusion of the nature the form and properties of the humanity of Christ with that of his divinity There is one thing more in Eutyches his way of expressing himself which is liable to exception and that is that before the union there were two natures afterwards they were but one if he speaks of the particular natures of Christ this must be very impious or absurd either it must imply that the divinity was united to Christ after he was come in the Flesh or that he was at first but a meer man and the divinity was united to him afterwards for the merit of his obedience or else that the man was before his birth the first I think Eutyches did not hold the latter was suspected by Leo Ep. ad Flav. Julian who wishes he had been ask'd what he meant by this expression For where were the two natures before the incarnation his humanity could not antecede it self and be before he was man and he was never purely and simply man but ever from the first moment in conjunction with the Godhead therefore Leo fancies that Eutyches was of opinion that the soul of Christ pre-existed and so indeed there would be two natures but it is still absurd to say they were both in Christ for Christ denotes the person that is constituted of both and so they could be never in him until they were united Ch. 6. Ject 1. Mr. B. makes Cyril say the same thing which if it were true would either justifie Eutyches or involve Cyril in the same condemnation with him But our Author has mistaken Cyril or Derodon who furnish'd him with this notion and the citations upon which it depends For Cyril never said there were two natures in Christ before the Union but only considers the divinity and humanity abstractedly not that the humanity ever had a separate existence from the Godhead in Christ and the result of all Cyril's discourses upon this point is only this that two
this in the next page our Author observes to the discredit of the Bishops of those times p. 103 111. that they were so far from the Martyrs constancy that they turn'd as the Emperours Countenance and the Times and worldly interest turn'd Voting down things and persons in one Council and crying Omnes peccavimus in the next How easie they were to follow the Emperours Inclination in this case we have seen already in the Account these Bishops gave of the violence us'd towards them When Souldiers and a giddy Rabble of Monks with Swords and Staves like Bedlam broke loose run upon men with open mouth denouncing death and destruction We ought rather to pity the infirmity of those poor men that were overborn with the Temptation than to insult over them It may be they had no mind to be Martyrs in this Controversie that must be confess'd as it was manag'd to be something perplex'd though neither these nor any other terrours could have prevail'd with them to betray their religion And it is not unlikely that had they had the cause of the Martyrs which was plain and indisputable they might likewise have had their Resolution and Constancy and Basil Seleuc. does mention when this levity is objected to him that he had behav'd himself with greater courage upon the account of Religion at C. P. probably against Macedonius or the Arians Mr. B. who is here so severe upon the Bishops for sacrificing their Consciences to their fears might have remember'd that when the Jews came with Swords and with Staves to take our Saviour the Disciples forsook him and fled and Peter deny'd his Master out of fear and yet they were all receiv'd again upon their return and entrusted with the planting and propagation of the Gospel From these warm debates of the Bishops Mr. B. observes two lamentable §. 19. undeniable things The Reader may observe that when our Author ventures upon Observations it is more than an even lay that he is out I believe his memory betrays his judgement for his eye is no sooner off of the book to consider but he loses his story Now let us see what he infers from what he has recited as he says out of Binius and others 1. That this doleful Contention p. 103. sect 19. Anathematizing and ruining of each other was about the sense of ambiguous words and that they were of one mind in the matter and knew it not Who were they that were of one mind and knew it not Eutyches and those that oppos'd him They were far from being of a mind for Eutyches deny'd Christ to be truly and properly man i. e. to have the proprieties and the Constituents of Humane Nature and the Monothelites Theopaschites c. were the Genuine Disciples of Eutyches and own'd those Consequences of his Doctrines which he did not think fit to publish Or who else were those that were of one mind and knew it not Dioscorus and Flavian I am apt to believe they were much of the same Opinion as to the point in Controversie and knew it well enough which was the only reason why Dioscorus with his party of Bishops and Monks would not endure to come to any Debate of that matter for fear it would appear that they all agreed and then there would have been no pretence to condemn Flavian which was the design if not of the Emperor yet at leastwise of those that govern'd him and several Bishops in that infamous Assembly at Ephesus were about to make this Mutual consent in Doctrine appear if the Monks the Myrmidons of Dioscorus would have given them leave to speak Or lastly did not the Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon understand one another The contrary is notorious from their Debates and their Subscriptions The Egyptians indeed scrupled subscribing not upon the account of the matter but the form because they had no Metropolitane Dioscorus being now depos'd and it was against their usage to sign any thing in Council without their Metropolitane and as soon as they had one they subscrib'd willingly But if they were all of a mind and knew it How did they condemn Dioscorus Anatolius confesses in the Council and no man contradicted him that Dioscorus was not condemn'd for Heresie but Misdemeanours Well But why did Dioscorus absolve Eutyches if he had not thought him to be of his opinion There is good reason for that for Flavian could not be condemn'd unless Eytyches were absolv'd and that those very men that receiv'd him did not think he was of their opinion though their expressions were the same appears manifestly from the manner of their transacting that affair for when some well-meaning Bishops were so curious as to desire he should explain himself in that point of doctrine for which alone he had been call'd in question Dioscorus forbids any farther search for fear Heresie would appear and then Flavian must be acquitted The Case was just as if a Papist were to purge himself of that Imputation in an Assembly of Divines and should offer the Nicene Creed for his Faith But some honest plain men not satisfy'd with this Impertinent vindication in those things he was not question'd for putting cross questions about Transubstantiation or Supremacy should immediately be check'd and all should cry we will have nothing added to the Nicene Faith would not any one conclude that this Reverend Assembly was afraid Popery would appear and that the man that for private Reasons they would acquit for that time would discover himself to hold such opinions as he could not be able to approve to that Assembly This is the naked case from whence the Reader may judge how far these were of one mind and that men of very different opinions joyn'd to serve a present turn and united in design when they knew some of them that their doctrines could never be reconcil'd Mr. B. to make out that they were all of one mind p. 102. sect 19.1 shews how they came to be mistaken The Egyptians Eutychians took two natures and two sons to be of the same sense which the others did not The Egyptians indeed took two natures to imply two sons for they took nature in the sense Cyril us'd it for hypostasis and so it really did imply two persons but they acknowledg'd distinct properties of the divinity and humanity which Eutyches did not and so Eutychians and Egyptians are not altogether the same thing 2. Though at first the Egyptians seem'd not to understand what Flavian meant by two natures yet it is evident that there was something of wilfulness in that mistake and at the Council of Chalcedon it was quite taken away and all subscrib'd to two natures that yet own'd Cyril's expressions of but one Nature Incarnate It is plain saith Mr. B. that while all sides held p. 103. 11. that Nestorius held that there were two sons which he expresly deny'd that they accus'd Nestorius in ignorance It is true indeed that Nestorius own'd
fiercely the greatest occasion of all this stir was some Recreations as Dancing which the People of Geneva were addicted to and Calvin forbad upon pain of Excomunication this bred the first discontents Perinus being Captain of the people and perhaps a lover of Liberty began to oppose this Tyranny and to charge Calvin with false Doctrine two of the Ministers joyn'd with him and were turn'd out as Scandalous and Seditious and so by degrees the Contention was improv'd to that desperate point that the Common Council of the City had almost destroyed one another I might add a great many more instances of the Tumults occasion'd by this Discipline and shew how distracted the condition of Geneva was during the time of Calvin meerly upon the account of this form of Ecclesiastical Government But whoever desires to see more may have Recourse to Calvin's life written by Beza But as to the Rigours of that Discipline I suppose the Highest Tyranny of Epilcopacay can hardly match them One was put to death at Geneva for Libelling Calvin I wish the Majesty of Kings were so Sacred to the men of this way Another was banished the City for preaching against Predestination a hard punishment for weakness of understanding Servetus was burn'd for Heresie by the Instigation of Calvin and the Minsters of Geneva and such others of the Neighbour hood as they could engage in that cause which occasioned no small disputes between them and some other more Moderate Divines the Case of Ithacius and the bloody Bishops as Mr. B. calls them was not half so odious for this Heretick Servetus was burn'd for opinions only the Priscillianists for lewd abominable Practices besides Nor did Geneva only feel the evil effects of this unepiscopal Government but it had in a little while an unhappy Influence upon the Neighbouring Churches of Suitzerland Erastus having published his Theses of Excommunication was confuted by Beza yet there remain'd still several Ministers dissatisfi'd as Bullinger Gualter and diverse others This occasion'd very great jealousies between the several Parties and it had almost come to a Rupture The Churches of the Palatinate were no less shaken with this new Controversie Vid. Bullingeri Epcum Erasti Thes Editas and the zealots for this Government and discipline took all occasions publickly to maintain them but the Prudence of that Prince prevented the mischiefs which threatned his Churches from this question Bullinger in a Letter dated March. 10. 1574. and Gualter in some Letters of his to the Bishops of London and Ely and several other eye-witnesses do sufficiently testifie the Lamentable condition of those Reformed Churches and the Confusion which Presbyterian Government brought upon them From Geneva this Government was brought into the Churches of France But what success it had there the Miserable distractions and wars that presently follow'd do sufficiently declare I do not charge all that Tragedy upon this Government but it seems it cannot prevent Tumults and Sedition and War any more than Episcopacy For with what violence the Reformation was carried on in many parts of that Kingdom is not unknown to any that has but look'd into the Histories of those times There were some very wise men who understood the condition of that Kingdom of opinion that had the Reformation there proceeded with more Moderation and been content to have left the Ancient Government and some observances of unquestionable Antiquity that Kingdom was in a great disposition to receive it and in probability all the following Wars and bloodshed about Religion would have been prevented That the Reformed Churches of France had no considerable differences between them is owing not so much to the Constitution of their Government as to their Common danger which United them closer than all the bands of Discipline and Government Besides when they obtained some Edicts in favour of their Religion they Extended them only to such as their Churches would own and so every dissenter from them was left to the Rigour of the Laws against Hereticks and enjoy'd no benefit of that Protection which the Reformed Churches were to have Upon this account the Lutherans of whom there were many in that Kingdom in the beginning of the Reformation were oblig'd either to Conform to the Rule of those Churches or to leave the Country and these necessities kept them along while Undivided Besides this the affairs of that Reformation were manag'd not so much by their Ministers as by the great Persons who were the Heads of that party and their Synods were imploy'd not so much in making Ecclesiastical Canons as in taking effectual measures for their mutual defence and preservation in receiving assurances of Protection from foreign Princes La vie de Mr. Dis Plesses Mornay p. 119 120 123 124 231 280 345. in making Alliances in providing for Peace and War so that they might be more properly call'd Parliaments than Synods although they had their Politick Assemblies besides And yet they were not without their differences about Religion among themselves Some Ministers starting new and unprofitable questions in Divinity their remedy was no other than that of the Ancients to condemn such opinions as they judged to be dangerous by the Authority of their Synods and they descended to take notice of very trifling subtilties some times such being unregarded would perhaps have died of themselves The Synod of Saumur condemned a Minister of Poictou for questioning the Humanity of Christ when he lay in the Grave and the same Assembly condemned the Doctrine of a Suiss not under their jurisdiction about justification by works after Regeneration a Controversie meerly about words another Synod at Gap declared against the Doctrine of Piscator about Justification which Alarm'd some of the Reformed Churches but the Prudence of Du Plessis prevented any mischief that might have ensu'd by stopping the proceedings of that Synod P. D. Moulin and Tilenus happen'd to have some difference of a dangerous nature about the Mystery of the Incarnation and notwithstanding these great Professours had learning and distinctions enough which Mr. B. says the Ancients that first mov'd this Controversie wanted yet they could by no means agree about it and disputes about Person Nature Properties had like to have endanger'd the peace of those Churches But how was it prevented The Litigants were too considerable to be pass'd by with Contempt and the subject of the difference was of so high a nature that it ought not to be left to the hazard of so slight a remedy How then was this Controversie decided Not by Niceness of Distinction noâ— by distingushing nature into 9 sorts or spliting of Notions But the wise Du Plessis having got their Papers into his hands burn'd them altogether and the fire without making distinction between the Orthodox and Heretical sence put an end to that Controversie Vidâ— Du Pless p. 388. But yet it was not quite ended for it began to revive afterwards oâ—â— of its own Ashes and so made some little
flattering but was compos'd again by the same Person to whose prudence the Unity of that Church is in great measure to be ascribed as the Instrument of the Divine goodness towards them for after his death the peace of those Churches was very much endangered by a new Controversie about Universal Redemption and the Nature of Original sin and the Dissention was not far from a Schism Cameron though he had clear'd himself of all suspition of Heterodoxy at his promotion to the Professourship of Saumur had the bad fortune after his death to fall into suspition of Heresie and his Scholars and followers were brought into no small troubles What had been allow'd by the Synod of Dort as sound Doctrine in the English Divines was now call'd in question in France and what was approv'd in Camero while he was alive Acts Authentiques per Blondel became dangerous and Heretical after his death It is hardly to be imagin'd what great contention this little and to some Imperceptible difference did create or how many Synods it employ'd Amyraldus Dallee Blondel and several others were look'd upon as little better than Hereticks and their Doctrine about Original sin condemn'd in a National Synod at Charenton and an Abjuration of it requir'd by all those that were to enter into holy orders and a stricct Injunction was layd on all Ministers upon pain of all the Censures of the Church not to preach any other wise of this point than according to the Common opinion And all this stir as Blondel deduces it p. 50. was rais'd from little private quarrels between some of the Profesours and from the discontents of the University of Montauban that they of Saumur should be favour'd too much in the distribution of such Pensions as the Churches furnish'd for the maintenance of their Universities and they thought themselves wrong'd and undervalued because their Salaries were less We see that lesser matters than a Bishoprick can sometimes disturb the Church and that others as well as Bishops shops can prosecute their private piques to the hazard of the Publick peace and that there will be contentions where there is no Episcopacy If we Consult the History of the Reform'd Churches in the Vnited Netherlands We shall be farther confirm'd that Heresie Schifm and contention may arise under other forms of Church Government as well as Episcopal and the parity of Ministers cannot remove all occasions of Strise and Disturbance and many eminent men of that Church are said to be very sensible of this truth and to look upon Episcopacy as the most effectual remedy in the world for their Divisions The Church Government of that Country was not establish'd without great trouble and difficulty and occasion'd no small disturbance the Ministers taking an authority to themselves of setling the Church as they thought fit without the consent and Concurrence of the Magistrates The first Synod they held was at Dort assembl'd without the permission of the Civil Authority Brandt Hist vande Reform l. xi where the Heidelberg Catechism was impos'd upon all Ministers and they were farther obliged to subscribe the Netherland Confession and to submit themselves to the Presbyterian Government It seems the Bishops are not the only Church Governours in the world that require subscriptions and Canonical obedience Nor were the Ministers only bound to subscribe but all the Lay Elders and Deacons were to declare Assent and Consent to the Articles of Discipline The Civil Magistrate was very much offended with these Proceedings and would by no means confirm no not so much as take into Consideration the acts of this Synod but said they would take care of Religion themselves and appoint Commissioners to put in and put out Preachers as they should think Expedient and as for their Consistories and Classes they declared they knew of no Power they had The Ministers on the other side Preach'd up their own authority and vilifi'd the States calling them in derision Stakes But the effect of this Contention about Presbyterian Government was very sad for while they were quarreling about Jurisdiction the Spaniards made great Advances and took several Towns in Holland The Synod of Middlebrough An. 1581. Bâ—and 13. was held likewife without the Magistrates leave and the Historian observes that the Eccleslasticks were thought by several to have extended their Jurisdiction here a little too far and to the prejudice of the Civil power Here they distributed their Churches throughout the Country digesting them into Classes and Classes into Synods Here likewise they excluded the Magistrates from any share in the Election of Church Officers and oblig'd all Ministers Elders Deacons Professors of Divinity and School-masters to subscribe the Netherland Confession which was little so known there that several members of this Synod had never seen it and began to enquire what Confession of 37 Articles it was that they talk'd of They order'd likewise that the form of Excommunication should be I deliver thee up to Satan something more harsh than the Anathema's of Bishops and their Councils Here also they condemn'd Kaspers Colhaes Minister of Leyden for unsound Doctrine But he would not stand to the judgment of this Synod that was Judge and Party both and this occasion'd strange disorders in the Church of Leyden which continu'd still a kindness for their Pastor notwithstanding this condemnation and the Excommunication of the Synod at Harlem However prevail'd they so far that he was turn'd out of his Ministry and forc'd to betake himself to a mean employment This caus'd great discontents among the Common people many of them fell off to other opinions and there was no Communion administred in that City for a year and a half and when there was a Communion in the year 82 there were not a hundred persons present at it If these Synods had been Episcopal what Clamour might we have expected What Animadversions But others can disturb the Church as well as Bishops The Synod held at Harlem did but encrease their confusion For by the Excommunication of Colhaes and other proceedings they brought all things to that confusion that the Prince of Orange told the States roundly that unless they took some care to settle the Church which was daily more and more distracted by the Presbyterial Synods they must expect that the Reform'd Religion and their Country would be unavoidably lost They according to his advice empower'd Commissioners to settle the affairs of Religion which establishment the North Holland Ministers in a Synod at Amsterdam publickly protested against At Dort Herman Herberts Minister of the place was accused of having caus'd a Book of D. George to be be printed which he absolutely deny'd and the proceedings were so extraordinary that one of the Commissiners that sate with the Classes upon that occasion said that he had read much of the Spanish Inquisition H. van Nespen but that he never was in any place where he saw so lively and effectual a representation of it as