that he was unacquainted with the Fathers and Ecclesiastical writers which made him condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 32. which was us'd by Athanasius and several others and that he did not vouchfafe to read the Ancients As for Philosophy perhaps he had too much and his writings do shew that he had no confus'd illogical Pen So that this proves the ignorance of the Bishops of those times no more than the rest The truth is our Author has the worst luck in the world in his observations where he ventures to dictate out of his own head and to speak something new He could not have likely pitch'd upon such another age in all the History of the Church as this for multitude of eminent and learned Bishops and I believe I may say there is none that has recommended it self to Posterity by so numerous and substantial Monuments of learning What shall we think of Hierom Ruffinus Augustin the two Cyrils Theodoret what shall we say of Synesius Isidore Pelus and infinite others were these ignorant times that yielded such eminent lights such renown'd Champions and Ornaments to the Church of Christ One may say with great truth that it was not till now that learning was become general among Christians and especially in the East Yet alas say our Author how few Bishops could distinguish then as Derodon and cur conimon Metaphysicks do now between Individuum prima substantia natura suppositum persona and distinguish between a right essence and hypostasis or subsistence c. and have defin'd all these Nature says Derodon is taken in nine senses but the sense was not here agreed on before they disputed of the matter Alas indeed this was a wonderful ignorance They simple men did not understand the art of splitting a good six-pence into two bad groats or of evaporating all good substantial sense by multiplying impertinent distinctions but for my part I value them not a farthing the less for not knowing nine sorts of natures any more than for not knowing the four sorts of Seekers or our Authors twelve species of Episcopacy What our Author speaks of the turbulence and factiousness of the Bishops â—bid that blinded them so as not to distinguish between the Abstract and the Concrete and between the qui quà Deus It is after his wonted candour It is no wonder if good men are vehement when they think their faith is going to be overthrown and if heat and passion is in any thing to be excus'd it is surely here where the concern is so very great and easiness and moderation look like the betraying of the cause of God But there needs no other answer to our Author than the words of our Saviour Mat. 7.5 First cast out the beam out of thine eye and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye If the Bishops were turbulent here it was for the faith but there are those that have been and still are more turbulent for the circumstances of Religion I wish our Author would think of it There remains yet one considerable Objection against Cyril which I have reserv'd on purpose to the last place that I might answer it more at large and I hope it will give great light unto the subject we have in hand The objection is this That Cyril father'd the doctrine of Nestorius about the Incarnation upon his Master Theodorus Tarsensis and Theodorus Mopsuestenius But Theodore Tars dy'd in the Communion of the Church and was own'd by it not only as a sound Member but as an eminent Champion for the truth I will take notice at this time of this Theodore only whose discrple Nestorius was Facundus takes great pains to vindicate him and does it very effectually but as for this charge of Cyril he does not well know what to say sometimes he is in doubt of the matter of fact whether Cyril did condemn his doctrines and write against him because in doing so he must depart not only from the rest of the Fathers but from himself too For in some of his writings he is very high in his commendation Scripti sunt à Magno Theodore says Cyril ap Fac. l. 8. t. 6. p. 349. adversus Arrianorum Eunomianorum Haereses viginti forte ampliùs libri elia prater hac Evangelica Apostolica Scripta interpretatus est hos quidem labores nullus est ausus increpare sed dextrò decreto honorare studium rectorum dogmatum quod in cis est And therefore he makes it a doubt concerning Cyril sive scripserit aliquid adversus Theodorum sive non But there is no question to be made about the matter of fact For Cyril's Epistle to Successus where he accuses Theodore as the Father of Nestorianisme was never question'd that I know and another of his to Acacius Melitenus mentions not only his dislike of Theodore but that he had writ against him because he conceived he had writ against our Saviours incarnation and yet Theodore did expresly maintain two natures in one person So that Cyril in opposing this must either be a Heretick or he must mistake the meaning of those he wrote against Now for the clearing of this matter we must observe that though Theodore was no Heretick yet there was Heresie among his writings foisted in by the followers of Apollinaris and this is the very Heresie for which Cyril condemns him I will set down Theodore's own words as they are cited by Facundus Fac. l. 10. c. 1. Ante triginta enins hos annos de Incarnatione Domini Codicem conscripsinus usque ad 15. versum pertingentem in quae Arris Eunomii de hâc re delicta nee non etiam Apolinarii vanam prasumptionem per totum illud opus examinavi ut nihil sicut mea fert opinio praterirem ex his quâ—â— ad firmitatem Ecclesiastica Orthodoxia pertinerent ad convincendam corum impietatem Sed hi qui omnia facillime praesumunt praeterea rursum ab Apolinario qui princeps hujus haeresis fuerat instituti omnibus quidem similiter sentientibus opus nostrum manifestum fecerunt siquo modo aliqua invenirent valentia ad convincendum ea quae in eo sunt scripta quoniam verò nullus contra certamen Scriptis suscipere praesumebat imitati sunt infirmos Athletas callidos qui duni non possunt contra fortiores certare insidiis eos machinamentis quibus possunt conantur evertere Scripserunt enim ipsi inter se proculdubio quaedam inepta quae à nobis unqnam minimè dicerentur denique haec ipsa in medio Scriptorum nostrorum in quadam parte interposuerunt suis familiaribus demonstraverunt aliquando etiam nostris qui per facilitatem suam omnia pronis animis audiebant Et hoc quasi documentum ut putabant nostrae impietatis videntibus praebebant Vnum autem ex his Scriptis erat
Blasphemers put to death according to the Laws which then were and for ought I know are still in force But had the Bishops had as much zeal for God and his truth as they had for their own greatness they had obtain'd such a law as this is if not in all the particulars Presbyterian Toleration yet in most of them long ago and thereby prevented many of those monstrous opinions which have of late been vented among us to the great dishonour of God and our Kingdom and the mischief to Souls but they were cast out for their lukewarmness and let others take heed of the like How shall the Bishops do to please these men Sometimes when they are in authority they are Hereticators and Persecutors and Instigators of the Civil Magistrate against men for Conscience sake Sometimes they are lukewarm and negligent for not providing Laws severe enough and for not putting men to death for errours in Religion If I were worthy to advise our Author I would desire him for the honour of Presbytery to level his spiteful reflections a little more justly lest whilest he le ts fly with a good will against Bishops the Brethren of the Holy Discipline be not hurt and lest what he designs against Councils fall unhappily upon the Reverend Assembly Answer to Dr. Stillingst for which he expresses no small esteem elsewhere although Bishops and their Councils are so abominable in his sight But enough of this for our purpose I will leave our Author to the judgement of his Brethren and only crave the Readers Pardon for this digression We are now come to the Council of Ephesus §. 9. which was occasion'd by Nestorius his denying the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God this doctrine was broach'd by his favourite Priest Anastasius though Nestorius being the more eminent person carry'd away the name and reputation of it Our Author says This set all the City in a division disputing of they well knew not what Nestorius was suspected by some to deny the Godhead of Christ but he was of no such opinion It is true he did not directly deny the Godhead of Christ but consequentially he did as we shall shew hereafter The Emperour weary of this stir p. 89. sect 9. calls a Council and yet our Author forgets himself not many pages after where he will have his Reader believe that Cyril made all this stir to please the Court. The truth of it is the obstinacy of Nestorius oblig'd the Emperour to assemble this Council for Cyril had try'd all the moderate ways in the world to reclaim him before this was thought of Nothing can be more modest than Cyril's Letter to Nestorius Ep. ad Nest though he had receiv'd several personal provocations from him and after this another written with the same Spirit Secunda Ep. ad Nest but Nestorius took all this brotherly admonition for reproach and endeavour'd to maintain his opinion and to secure himself in equivocal and doubtful expressions sometimes seeming to speak the same thing with Cyril that Christ had two natures in one person sometimes considering Christ as a double person and always denying Mary to be the Mother of God by any means This was the unhappy Controversie that divided the world Several being deceiv'd by the Equivocations of Nestorius took his part at first but finding him obstinate in denying the Virgin to be the Mother of that person that was God they at last deserted him and joyn'd with Cyril in his condemnation It had been happy for the Church if the mysteries of our Religion had never been curiously disputed But when busie troublesome men have started a new dangerous doctrine and endeavour to propagate it with all industry imaginable it is not fit that the Governours should sit as unconcern'd Spectators but that they should oppose vigorously all such remedies as God has put into their hands i. e. advise admonish rebuke and if these means prove ineffectual to stop the course of evil doctrine they must proceed according to the Apostles advice a Heretick after admonition reject This method therefore of proceeding against Heresies and the Authors of them cannot be disallowed by any reasonable man But this case of Nestorius it seems yields a further debate and the merit of the cause is yet disputed Derodon makes Nestorius Orthodox and Cyril the Heretick our Author believes both Orthodox but that they did not understand one another and so by words that themselves did not understand they set all the world on fire As for Derodon he manifestly condemns Nestorius in a little Treatise De Supposito printed with several other Philosophical Tracts of his and approves Cyril the truth is he has a singular notion of a person there which seems to approach Nestorianism which he endeavours to confirm by the authority of Cyril and other Fathers but this which our Author cites I have not yet seen nor can I find that it has been yet publish'd however since the minutes of his arguments are set down by our Author I will endeavour to shew the mistake of that learned man by giving the true state of the question between Cyril and Nestorius Nestorius did first recede from the allow'd expressions of the Fathers who did all occasionally call the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God and therefore was justly suspected to recede from their doctrine Cyril admonishes him of this dangerous innovation and explains himself concerning the Incarnation of the son of God Nestorius endeavours to confute it and now let us see what it was that they both maintain'd I will begin with the Doctrine of Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word united the flesh to himself hypostatically or personally Ep. 2. ad Nestor and a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. i. e. distinct natures concurring to make a real Unity of both which consists one Christ and one Son not that the difference of the natures are taken away by that Unity but that the divinity and humanity combin'd by an unspeakable manner of Union make one Christ and one Son Ibid. And then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uniting the manhood hypostatically to himself and as to the order of this Union he explains himself farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He was not first a meer man that was born of the Holy Virgin which the Divinity afterwards did assume but the Word being united to the Man from the very Womb is said to have undergone a carnal generation And that this Union does not destroy the difference of natures in Christ he shews expresly in that same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He became man but did not therefore cease to be God but after the assumption of Flesh remain'd still the same that he was before And to the same purpose in another place after the assumption of Flesh he remain'd very God Ep. ad Eulog and suffer'd death upon the Cross i. e. the Flesh
Council in the West since they would not determine this present Controversie Upon which Cecropius Bishop of Sebaestopolis said We desire the Definition may be read and then those that will not subscribe and conform to rightful Determinations let them walk to Rome i. e. to that General Council which the Emperour threatened to call in the West And the Illyrican Bishops seconded this Motion Those that contradict are Nestorians let them walk to Rome What manner of slight this was is not easily guess'd at the worst these Bishops did no more slight Rome than Cecropius did the West whither he bid Dissenters walk to be satisfy'd In the next Paragraph our Author makes Theodoret speak what was never in his §. 26. thoughts nor indeed in any honest mans Theodoret said I take not my self to say true but I know I please God These are not Theodoret's but Mr. B.'s words and very applicable to himself and his Church History For as mean an opinion as I have of his knowledge in Church History I doubt not he can read Latin when he had the book before him and yet when he does that I am afraid that many times He takes not himself to say true But perhaps he may be of opinion that a pious fraud may be accepted and that by calumniating the Bishops whom he takes for Enemies to the Kingdom of Christ and gratifyers of the Devil he may please God Disp 1. of Ch. Gov. I cannot clear him of that in other places so well as in this Here our Authors fault was only ignorance of theodorets language or a mistake of his Latin Translation which I shall rectifie for it is pity the good Father should suffer by it His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in English In good truth I do not speak but as I know is pleasing to God The Latin Translation puzled our Author Vere i. e. reverà non dico nisi quomodo novi placere Deo The next words of our Author do as much wrong the sense though not so much the Reputation of Theodoret I would first satisfie you of my belief whereas Theodoret said only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. I would perswade you in the first place that I regard not preferment The Latin thus Priùs satisfactio vobis quia neque de civitate cogito c. And at last after a great deal of that debate about Theodoret our Author concludes do not these words here Translated out of Binius agree too well with Gregory Nazianzen 's character of Bishops and their Councils How well they may agree with Nazianzen is not so material but they should have agreed better either with the Original or at least with the Translation out of which our Author Translated them and yet for all this our Author will understand all these Greek Bishops better than they did one another or even themselves In the next place we have an account of Ibas Bishop of Edessa p. 108. sect 28. His Epistle to Maris against Cyril was acquitted at least the Bishop upon the reading of it It is a sad Narrative of the Calamitous Divisions which these Prelates and their Councils made In the first place there is no truth in what our Author says that this Epistle was acquitted for the Council says no such thing In the next place Ibas was not acquitted upon the reading of this Act. 10. Con. Chalc. any more than a prisoner is acquitted upon the reading of his Impeachment but he was upon the defence he made that he communicated with Cyril and receiv'd his Orthodox interpretation of those twelve Articles which before he thought to be full of Impiety Baronius An. 432. deceiv'd by Gregory the Great Gregor l. 7. Ep. 53. Act. 6. and the Acts of the Second Council of Nice concludes this Epistle to be forg'd and falsely father'd upon Ibas but Anno 448. he recants and owns it to be genuine The truth is Ibas himself never pretended to disown it neither at Tyre nor Berytus nor Chalcedon where this was objected against him but confessed that before Cyril explain'd himself he thought him a Heretick and follow'd the Judgement of the Eastern Bishops Some say this Epistle was written whilest Ibas was a Nestorian before the Reconciliation but the words of that letter are express to the contrary for it mentions the Union and Peace of the Churches by the means of Paulus Emissenus How then comes he to give such an odious account of Cyril and the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus The Truth is the Eastern Bishops were not so ingenuous and fair after their Reconciliation with Cyril as he was towards them however he goes in Mr. B.'s History under so odious a character Who ever reads his Letters to Nestorius and to John of Antioch and considers with what candour he acts must needs see that he had very hard measure from those whom he treated with great ingenuity and confidence The Eastern men are still upon the disparagement of Cyril's proceedings and the vindication of themselves with what Truth or Reason has been shew'd already and Ibas here pursues the same prejudices and would insinuate that his party had the Right and Cyril was their Convert But if here was any change of opinion on either side it was on theirs for first they joyn'd with Nestorius and afterwards condemn'd him Yet this Epistle of Ibas shews that there was a core left still In the eleventh Action p. 109. sect 29. two Bishops Bassia nus and Stephen strive for the Bishoprick of Ephesus And saith our Author while the Bishops were for one of them the Judges pass'd sentence to cast out both One would imagine here that the Judges pass'd sentence against the consent or inclination of the Bishops But there is no such matter it was not the Judges but the Bishops past this sentence Act. 11. When the cause of these two Bishops was examin'd the Judges propounded it to the Bishops to determine of the right that was in Dispute the Bishops answer'd that the right was on Bassianus his side let the Ganons take place for Bassianus was the first Possessour The Judges represented to them that in their opinion neither of them were fit to be continu'd Bishops yet referr'd the whole matter to the Council to determine as it should think fit And this Mr. B. calls passing a sentence while the Bishops were against it The Bishops finding that Stephen was not like to carry the cause for they had no great favour for him because he had been a very active Instrument of Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus willingly consented the other should be turn'd out too and were so extremely satisfy'd with this expedient that they cry'd it up presently and own'd it to be a Divine suggestion and so the Bishops who Mr. B. says were for one did indeed pass sentence against both Competitors At last our Author enquires after the success of all
reverence to Ambrose but for fear of Valentinian's preparation accepted a Peace But this Vsurper faith Mr. B. wrote Letters to Valentinian in favour of the Orthodox Bishops and St. Ambrose Who can help it if a busy Usurper will be forward to concern himself in matters that do not belong to him But lest the Reader may suspect any treacherous correspondence between those Bishops and this Usurper Amb. Ep. 27. I will give a brief account of Ambrose his negotiation with him When Maximus had seised that part of the Western Empire that Gratian was possessed of Valentinian fearing lest the Tyrant should invade his Countries sends St. Ambrose to mediate a peace Maximus having understood that Valentinian was making some preparations against him and had entertained the Huns and other Auxiliaries began to incline to an accommodation looking upon the Invasion of Italy as too hazardous an attempt Therefore he sent some of his Officers to meet Ambrose and to offer him a peace which afterwards was concluded upon these Terms That Maximus should be owned Emperour and retain all the Countries he was possessed of This was the first Embassy of Ambrose in which negotiation it was not so much to do Honour to Ambrose as out of fear of Gratians preparations that Maximus did forbear invading Italy But when this Usurper perceived that Valentinians affairs were not in so good a posture as he imagined at first he was vexed that he had let so fair an opportunity slip of adding the Dominions of Valentinian to his other Conquests Upon this he begins to pick quarrels with Valentinian to take the part of the Orthodox Bishops nay of the Heathens and every one that had reason of discontent calling himself Procuratorem Reipublicae Valentinian jealous of his designs sends Ambrose a second time to desire Gratians body and likely to sound Maximus This good Bishop was entertained this time but very coldly The Usurper reproached him with having imposed upon him before and keeping him out of Italy The Bishop replyed that it was not he but his own fears that prevailed with him and in short when Ambrose would not communicate with him nor his Bishops because he looked upon him as a man of blood He was sent back without having been able to effect any thing and with no better answer than that Maximus would consider of it This is the summ of this negotiation as Ambrose himself and Paulinus in his life gives an account of it And now if any disloyalty can be suspected in Ambrose and the Orthodox Bishops it must be such a secret as was never yet revealed Whereas nothing is more evident from these Relations than the integrity of that Bishop and his extraordinary affection towards his Prince and Country For from what has been already said we may observe 1. That Ambrose was not only a dutiful Subject but as himself sayes though without vanity the Father or Guardian of his Prince 2. The confidence his Prince had in his integrity when after so great and fresh Provocations he would trust him with his life and Empire and that although he had been provoked in the most tender part by his Princess indeavours for the introducing of Arianism Others perhaps if they had been in his condition would have looked upon this Tyrants declaring for the Truth as such an opportunity that Providence had offered for the preservation of the Faith and since the Empress was of a false Religion and the Emperour was Governed by her why should noâ— they set up this Maximus as the Protector of the true Faith But Ambrose and the Bishops were of another mind They knew what it was to Dye for their Religion but did not understand what it was to brigue or to resist I have thus far observ'd with Mr. B. what this Usurper Maximus did in favour of the Bishops how he studied to please and rise by them The next thing we ought to enquire after is what success his Design upon the Bishops produced and whether they answer'd his kindnesses by forming any interest to support his Pretensions or by declaring in his favour Mr. B. gives a full account of it in these words and the said Maximus and the Bishops did so close that only one Hyginus a Bishop is mention'd and Theognostus besides Ambrose and Martin that rejected Maximus I shall grant Mr. B. here more than he desires The truth is that even those Bishops that he says rejected Maximus did Really own him for Emperor as having all the Confirmation the Laws of that time did require and it is a mistake of Mr. B. before where he tells us that Ambrose would not Communicate with the Bishops because they own'd Maximus whereas all the quarrel of St. Martin and Theognostus was against his proceedings with the Priscillianists and his Murdering of Gratian if he Murder'd him But for all that they own'd him to be Emperor as much as those did that Communicated with him Ambrose would not Communicate with Theodosius upon the like account but never disown'd his Authority as Emperor all that while what Hyginus did Mr. B. cannot tell without Revelation he was bannish'd by Maximus as St. Ambrose tells us but the Reason is not express'd Well then if all this be true Mr. B's Observation will be so too That Bishops can comply with Vsurpers that will be for them as well as Presbyters What they can do is not our Question but this instance of Maximus I am sure does not discover in them any great inclination to it for how I pray did these Bishops comply with that Usurper Were any of them instrumental to his Advancement did they Preach up his cause and the lawfulness of his Revolt Did they ever press the people to bring in their Plate and Contributions Or after his successes and the Murder of Gratian did any of these Bishops justifie the Usurpers Proceedings and preach and print in defence of that Barbarous Regicide did they flatter him as the Preserver of Religion the David the Champion of Israel I believe one much better vers'd in Antiquity than Mr. B. will find it a hard task to find out any Books or Dedications of Bishops to this effect But Mr. B. can tell who Printed and Preach'd and gathered subscriptions for the Approbation of the most execrable Regicide committed under the Sun and others can say something though at present it is not necessary to be particular Well But as to the Bishops that own'd Maximus what sort of compliance was theirs What did they do so much in favour of the Usurper When he had Conquer'd the Countrys where they liv'd and been own'd by both the Emperors Reigning then they submitted to him that is they did not think themselves oblig'd to Rebel or to stir up the People against him that was none of their business and therefore they meddled not with it And in short we do not find they studied any other complyance than only to be quiet and to do their own business
Pelusuim l. 2. Ep. 126. into which it was brought by the covetousness and ambition of one Martinianus a Presbyter If. Pel. l. 2. Ep. 126. O thou best of men it belongs to thy Wisdom and Authority to rescue the poor Church of Pelusium from the Hands of evil Governours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is this only a general complement but he goes on to mention particular instances of his integrity against this Martinianus who after he had robb'd the Church of Pelusium sent some part of the money to Alexandria to endeavour to procure himself the Bishoprick Cyril having intimation of this practice rebukes him sharply and threatens if he go on any further in this base course so dishonourable to Religion that he will not only excommunicate but have him banish'd Whereupon Isidore applys himself to him in expressions of the greatest admiration of his integrity and does not know how to call him by a title good enough What Compe'lation shall I use that may be suitable to so great worth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whoever is the least acquainted with the Spirit and temper of Isidore will hardly suspect him of flattery but that he was the real Convert of this great Bishop and by these commendations of him endeavoured to make honourable amends and to wash off the dirt he had before rashly cast upon his name If I should take the pains to gather the hands of the Fathers and to set down the glorious testimonials they give of Cyril I believe few Saints could shew greater evidence of their merit towards the Church Gloriosissimus fidei Catholicae Defensor Prosper contra collat c. 41. Celest Ep. ad Nest §. 5. and Cyrillus Alexandriae Episcopus vir omni sapientia Sanctitatis exemplo clarissimus probatissimus Sacerdos c. But Theodoret it seems was never truly reconcil'd to him for in his Epistle to Johannes Antioch he looks upon the death of Cyril as a deliverance of the Church from a turbulent enemy of Peace But God only knows says our Author Yes sure there are men that know it too though not Mr. Baxter They that are a little more vers'd in the writings of the Fathers know very well Baron An. 44016. that this Epistle is spurious and that John to whom it was directed was dead four years before which Theodoret could not but know And it is very well known that the Nestorians forg'd several Letters in the name of Theodoret. Leont de Sect. Sect. 5. In short nothing can be a plainer confutation of this Fiction than Theodorets own Letter to Dioscorus the successor of Cyril where besides that he does shew John to be dead seven years before the time of the writing of that Letter Theod. Ep. ad Diosc he does also make it appear that there was a full and sincere reconciliation between him and Cyril before his death That Cyril when he had written his Books against Julian the Apostate and another about the Scape-Goat before he publish'd them sent them to John Bishop of Antioch to communicate them with the greatest Scholars of the East He sent them to me says Theodoret and I read them and sent him an account of them and I received Letters from him after that Ad Flavian which I have still by me And the same man in another Letter gives an account of this to Dioscorus that he had sent to him to acquaint him that he persevered still in that league that had been made between Cyril of happy memory and the Eastern Churches And now let any man judge whether this forg'd Letter that goes under the name of Theodoret be not as great an injury to him as it is to Cyril But with our Author that weeds Church-History any fiction or imposture is authentick that does but contain some scandalous reflections upon great Bishops and this seems to be the mark that directs his choice all along I have been more particular in the Vindication of this great Bishop from those calumnies our Author raked out of all the Libels of his Enemies because all this seems to be brought in on purpose to lessen the reputation of the Council of Ephesus that was chiefly directed by the authority of Cyril and that you may not take this for an uncertain conjecture of his design he explains himself But pardon truth or be deceived still ignorance and pride p. 94. sect 20. and envy and faction and desire to please the Court made Cyril and his party by quarrelsome Heretication to kindle that lamentable flame in the world Can any man that has any ingenuity or knowledge of those times affirm this How could this gratifie the Court since the Emperour was so highly offended with the contention that he ordered Cyril to be imprison'd and was extreamly dissatisfy'd with both parties Or how can that be the effect of Cyril's Envy or Ambition which he himself did endeavour to prevent by all the amicable methods imaginable as may be seen by his Letters to Nestorius But if the Reader will not blindly engage in all the groundless jealousies and malicious suggestions of our Author then he has much ado to forbear calling him Fool but however he dismisses him with that which is equivalent Let him be deceived still as if every one that had any more charitable opinion of Bishops and Councils than he that seems to have read little more than what Binnius has of them lov'd to be deceiv'd and shut his Eyes against the greatest evidence in the World Before we enter upon the Council of Ephesus it is fit some notice should be taken of our Authors account of Nestorius The worst thing he can say of him is That he was hot against Hereticks and desired the assistance of the Civil Magistrate to suppress them that he went about to pull down the Church of the Arians and they set it on fire themselves and then call'd him Firebrand when themselves were the Incendiaries he vex'd the Novatians c. After all we have this Remark Thus Turbulent Hereticators must have the Sword do the work of the Word When our Author lays about him he never minds where the blow falls and deals alike to friends and foes What Hereticators were hotter than the Presbyterians in the year 1646 the Inquisition is not more severe than their Ordinance against Heresies Ordinance against Heresie and Blasphemy presented to the House of Commons which they desir'd should be made Felony and punish'd by death And of other opinions that were to be punish'd by imprisonment were there not many that are yet in dispute between the Reformed themselves Nay he that vindicates that Bloody Ordinance as the Independents call'd it does complain against the Bishops for not being severe enough in the eradication of Heresies Vindication of the Ordin against Heresie p. 23. Impr. James Cranford I will set down the words because they are something remarkable In the Bishops times there were some Arians and