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
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
different natures very unlike and disproportionable were joyn'd together in the person of Christ but never thought that one of the particulars united before that union had any separate existence nay his words are express to the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 2. ad Nestor he was not first born an ordinary meer man of the Holy Virgin and the word came afterwards into him but being united from the womb he is said so to have undergone a carnal generation It was the luck or the cunning of Eutyches not to engage far in disputes about his doctrines or to explain himself much in publick there he seem'd Orthodox enough but when he instructed his Monks in private then he discover'd himself more fully But the circumspection of the Church and the zeal of good men did not suffer it to go on long undiscover'd or uncensur'd This is no unusual thing with Hereticks to be reserv'd in publick and promiscuous audiences and to use greater freedom in select meetings This was much practis'd amongst us in the late unhappy times though there was licence enough to say any thing in publick yet the teachers Spirit it seems was under some restraint in the Church as some men think evil spirits are in consecrated places and were not free to reveal the mysteries of their sect of this we have several instances in Edwards his Gangrâ—na which I would recommend to the reading of such as are so fond of Toleration and if the effects of it in those times as they were represented there do not cure them of that mistaken charity nothing will but a too late experience of those evils when they are past remedy Having given this short account of the doctrine of Eutyches which they that condemned it understood much better than we can and could doubtless distinguish from such expressions of their own that sounded like it We will proceed to the history of its condemnation The Synod of Constantinople having condemn'd Eutyches he made his application first to Leo Bishop of Rome and being rejected there apply'd himself to the Emperour by the means of his old friend Chrysaphius Niceph. l. 14. c. 47. an Eunuch in great favour and credit at Court He obtain'd a review of the acts of the former Synod before Florentius and most of the same Bishops that had condemn'd him Florentius was a person of great integrity and the Bishops after a second hearing and after the cause of Eutyches had been pleaded by three Monks his Advocates and all things diligently fifted persever'd in the same opinion and the issue of this appeal was not a little to the disadvantage of Eutyches and increas'd the suspicion of his crime This way failing him Niceph. l. 14. c. 47. Lib. Synod in Syn. Eph. Diosc he makes use of the Eunuchs authority to call a General Council that should be so contriv'd that Eutyches might be acquitted and Flavian depos'd This Flavian had incurr'd the Eunuchs displeasure before by sending him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Benedictions in Bread and not in Gold therefore he was glad of any opportunity to do him ill offices and he had such an influence upon the Emperour who was too much addicted to this kind of Vermin Suidas as to set him upon the ruine of this Good Bishop In order to which he dispatches several Letters to summon Bishops and others to a Council at Ephesus Conc. Chalc. Par. 1. Sacrae ad Dioscor ad Elpid Comit c. Pars 1. which sufficiently shew his bitterness against Flavian intimating that the Nestorian Heresie was springing again and that there were several favourers of it he forbids Flavian and the Bishops that condemn'd Eutyches to sit in the Council he complains against Flavian that he had call'd a Synod against his will and prosecuted Eutyches and disturb'd the Church notwithstanding all his advice and orders to the contrary and in short the Letters that call'd this Council suggested sufficiently what it was to do and that their only business was to condemn a Bishop the Emperour did not care for though without any just ground nay for his honesty if Nicephorus relate the business truly There is no doubt but the Emperour or rather this Eunuch who contriv'd all this mischief knew how to choose Bishops for the purpose and the President did admirably suit with such a design who besides his emulation against the Bishops of Constantinople was if half be true that is said of him one of the most wicked profligate wretches in the World This Synod in short did the business it was call'd for and that not without force for they us'd all the violence imaginable to fright poor conscientious men to a concurrence with them and if any one should offer to speak for Flavian or Eusebius the next word was da comites you shall go the same way if you be troublesome Act. 1. Conc. Chalc. T. 4. p. 135. Eutyches brought in his confession of faith which was no other than the Nicene Creed and added only that he condemn'd all Hereticks but when Sozon would have put him to explain himself concerning the incarnation Dioscorus and his party would not suffer it for fear he should betray himself And upon that he was absolv'd Act. 1. Chalc. T. 4. p. 134. As if a Socinian were call'd to a Synod to answer for his doctrines and would make a confession of his faith in the Apostles Creed and when any one should desire him to explain himself farther moderate comprehending men should cry this contains all that is necessary there is no need of a farther Test And thus some Synods in Poland were so moderate as to be impos'd upon which occasion'd great mischief to those Reformed Churches there now almost extinguish'd under the notion of Socinians How bad soever Dioscorus and this Council were yet they are in my judgement to be look'd upon rather as favourers of Heresie than as Hereticks for although they did threaten to cleave him in sunder that durst say there are two natures in Christ yet they were not of Eutyches his opinion for all that but follow'd the meaning I believe as well as the words of Cyril And it is observable that Anatolius in the Council of Chalcedon after Dioscorus's condemnation Act. 5. T. 4. p. 558. says expresly that he was not condemn'd for Heresie but Misdemeanors The Judges said for this reason Dioscorus condemn'd Flavian because he said there were two natures in Christ Anatolius said Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie but because he excommunicated Leo and being cited to appear before the Council refus'd to obey The Instrument of his Deposition gives the same reason and all the subscriptions that mention any reasons at all only that of Paschasinus charges him with not only receiving Eutyches but of being of his opinion But because this Council chose two natures Act. 3. p. 458. as the most safe way of expressing the Oeconomy of Christs incarnation
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
Dioscorus cry'd cum Patribus ejicior and his followers were afterwards call'd Eutychians though they did not own his doctrines as some of the Eastern Christians are call'd Nestorians though they do not really hold the doctrine of Nestorius but the very same with the Eastern Bishops that mistook Cyril and with Theodorus Tarsens and Mopsuest who were misunderstood on the other side by Cyril But of this we have said enough already CHAP. VII The Council of Chalcedon NOw comes the great Council of Chalcedon under the new Emperour Martian p. 99. §. 14. where all is chang'd for a time yet Pulcheria who married him and made him Emperour and whose power then was great was the same that before had been against Nestorius in her Brothers reign Thus far our Church Historian It is a marvellous observation that all should be chang'd for a time and yet Pulcheria be the same that condemn'd Nestorius in her Brothers reign She was the same person I suppose though I dare not maintain any identity against the splitting instruments which he borrows of Derodon those Metaphysical terms I mean which we have mentioned before and our Authors charms and imaginary remedies against Heresie those Notions that he bewails the ancient Bishops were so dull as not to be able to find out But if out of special grace he will allow Pulcheria to be the same Pulcheria in and after her brothers reign we must acknowledge his good nature in the concession But where is the wonder all this while that matters should change and yet she be still the same It may be that she might not have always the same credit and authority with her brother and if Nicephorus may be believ'd in a story that hangs very well together and is very probable l. 14. c. 47 c. her interest was very low when the Second Council of Ephesus was call'd for the end of it was to ruine her favourite Flavian who had given her notice of a Court-plot that was form'd against her to shave her and thrust her into a Monastery So that it is not much to be wondred at if Pulcheria when she had the power in her own hands should change some things that had been done against her will and perhaps design'd by the Court on purpose to affront her This then cannot be the wonder and it would vex a man to see one stare and stand agast and yet not be able to find out the subject of the admiration It may be for I will venture to guess once more that the wonder is that the same Pulcheria should condemn Eutyches that had condemn'd Nestorius before But why should we wonder at this in Pulcheria more than in Flavian in Eusebius Doryl and a great many others that did the same thing at that time Nay did not all the world in a manner all the Catholick Church condemn both these Will he say that these are contradictory Doctrines and therefore one must be true and the other false But Mr. B. has determined already that Cyril Nestorius Flavian Eutyches all of them meant the same thing and what wonder then is it if a devout Lady could not find this secret consent of doctrine under appearing contradictions when the learned Bishops could not do it nor after ages nor the subtile distinguishing School-men no nor Derodon himself However since we cannot discern the drift and shrewdness of the observation we ought thankfully to accept what we can understand though that be no great news That Pulcheria that was Empress after her Brothers death was the very same that condemn'd Nestorius in her Brothers reign This profound Remark is immediately follow'd by another of great acuteness p. 100. sect 14. That it was never truer than in the case of general Councils that the multitude of Physicians exasperateth the disease and kills the patient And yet our Author will have these Physicians multiply'd without end If every Congregation have its own Bishop what general agreement can we then expect what unity in a Nation when Bishops are grown so inordinately numerous Since it can be no otherwise than by a consultation of these Physicians that the publick Peace and Unity can be preserv'd Or if this Expedient should fail what other way is there left Our Author comes in here and relieves us in a great strait and offers a remedy more Soveraign than all the Hereticating Councils in the World In short it is this The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one nature after Vnion the words One Will and one Operation had never done half so much mischief in the Church if the erroneous had been confuted by neglect p 100. sect 14. and Councils had not exasperated enraged and engag'd them and set all the world on taking one side or another It is an admirable way to cure Heresie to neglect it and to preserve the Church by despising such small differences as may be reduced into a Word It was but a word that divided the Arians and the Orthodox It was but the Trinity Servetus said that divided all the World Despise the disputes about this and then Christians Jews and Mahumetans may be comprehended under the same Rule It is but the Import of the word Episcopus that our Dissenters stand so much upon why does not Mr. B. perswade them to despise this Verbal Controversie and study rather to be quiet than to write about it But we find he cannot perswade himself to this otherwise the Shops would have wanted divers books that he hath publisht this year Nay we find that he himself will not be answer'd with Neglect So that we are like to find little benefit of this rare project for confuting the disturbers of the Church For though six of his Books that came out in little more than six months were let pass without any Answer that I know of yet this Patience has been so far from mending his humour that he writes and writes on still runs us down with Repetitions proclaims his own victories and insults over our silence and in short he cannot be more violent and outragious more bitter and malicious under all the provocations imaginable than he is under that Neglect which himself is pleased to prescribe for the cure of them I wish our Author had taken his own advice before this Book was written practic'd this Mortification upon himself And not gone on as he does still to disturb the world with perpetual contentions to no purpose but to shew how much he wants of a Scholar and a Christian But however men may be confuted yet they are seldom convinc'd by neglect and therefore lest that expedient might fail our Projector slurs in another p. 100. ubi supra One skilful healing man that could have explicated ambiguous terms and perswaded men to love and peace until they understood themselves and one another had more befriended Truth Piety and the Church than all the Hereticating Councils did And why may not this skilful man
but one son but how one in dignity and title only as we have shew'd before but that unity was of persons i. e. really distinct according to his notion taking person properly for an intelligent subsistence and not for a notional unity of two things really distinct in the participation of the same common name or title which was really the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nestorius And Mr. B. is so confident of this notion of his as to conclude with his defiance to all gain-sayers This is true whatsoever faction shall say against it If it were a Faction that spoke against this truth it was a mighty strong and general Faction and was never oppos'd by any person before Mr. B. For then all sides granted they disagreed one from the other and succeeding ages were of the same opinion and all the factions in the world agreed in this that Nestorius and those that oppos'd him spoke absolute contradictions to each other The next remarkable thing that our Author cites out of the debate of this Council p. 104. is that about the words of Cyril which in the next Paragraph he calls Eutychian words they are these We must not conceive two natures in Christ but one Incarnate These words may sound harsh to one that is not acquainted with Cyril's manner of expressing himself But they are not yet Eutychians For Eutyches his opinion is condemn'd by Eustathius who cites these words of Cyril immediately after He that says there is but one nature so as to deny Christs flesh which is consubstantial with us So Mr. B. translates indeed out of the Latin Translator who mistook the sense of this place The words of Eustathius were these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that affirms one nature to the taking away of the consubstantiality of Christs flesh to ours or to the denying that his flesh is of the same substance with ours let him be accurs'd Which was the doctrine of Eutyches whereof he was convicted by several Witnesses in the Council of C. P. and Basil Seleuc. Act. 2. one of the clearest men in all this Council makes a wide difference between saying one nature incarnate or of the word incarnate and one nature absolutely which was the errour of Eutyches as he affirm'd Though in the Council of C. P. Eutyches makes use of the same expression unless we may think those Acts corrupted by the Council of Ephesus in favour of Eutyches as Flavian complains they were to render his opinion more plausible I have shew'd before how ill the notion of Cyril about the Incarnation did agree with that of Eutyches Mr. B. had great reason to note the Impudence of Binius in calling this allegation of Eustathius out of Cyril to be Wicked and Heretical since he does no more than cite Cyril's words but this remark is left out of latter Editions After this Mr. B. brings in Dioscorus defending himself by the authority of Cyril p. 104. sect 22. who maintains one nature incarnate and then concludes I am condemn'd with the Fathers they say the same that I do I must repeat therefore once more what I had said before that Dioscorus was not condemn'd for Heresie but for condemning and murdering Flavian c. p. 104. And although our Author seems to be dissatisfy'd that when Dioscorus offers satisfaction to God and you i. e. Eusebius Doryl his repentance was not accepted yet I suppose he is not in earnest for upon other occasions he is inexorable in much lesser matters and surely if any Misdemeanours may depose a Bishop that has nothing to plead but the Orthodoxness of his belief Dioscorus was justly condemn'd and yet our Author observes that a verbal quarrel was turn'd to personal revenge because Eusebius Doryl reply'd upon Dioscorus that he must satisfie the law Mr. B. concludes his citations out of the first Action of this Council with the subscriptions of the Bishops in the Council of Ephesus whereby they absolv'd Eutyches which being read in the Council of Chalcedon the Bishops concern'd had no excuse but to cry Omnes peccavimus Our Author it seems takes great delight in repeating as often as he can this recantation of those Bishops looking upon it I suppose as a great undervaluing and reproach to confess an errour The Spirit of Schism is very nice in point of honour and reckons nothing so great a disgrace as the acknowledgement of a mistake where it is once engag'd no conviction shall be able to reclaim it though it be in the most indefensible thing in the World And though interest and conscience should oblige to return yet in honour he must not recede nor recant what no Rhetorick is able to palliate Recantation whether they be in the right or the wrong appears equally infamous A late brisk defender of Non-conformity out of fondness for a smart saying in Religio Medici has dropp'd an unlucky truth that he is not so much afraid as asham'd of Conformity I have charity enough to believe him that he is indeed asham'd of owning that which he has so fiercely oppos'd not so much by his reasoning as by his ill manners and scurrility For my part I do not envy these men this inflexible stiffness of Spirit but do sincerely pity them although the witty Author just now mention'd has derided Compassion no less than Mr. B. has Repentance and Recantation However I had rather be found among those Bishops that cry'd Peccavimus after a fault which yet had all the excuses that can be made from violence and compulsion than to maintain a Schism upon a point of honour and for shame of confessing to have been in the wrong In the third Action among many things p. 104. our Abridger of Church-History fastens upon the law of Theodosius for the confirming of the second Ephesine Council and the Condemnation of Nestorius and of Flavianus Domnus c. One would expect here that our Historian being tir'd with throwing dirt at the Bishops and their Councils should divert the outragious Spirit by giving him one loose at Emperours and Courts But no such matter he scorns to change his game and therefore charges the Bishops with the faults of the Magistrate and lays all the blame upon them So far says he could fierce and factious Prelates prevail with a pious and peaceable Prince by the pretences of opposing Heresie and Schism And what authority has our Author to ground this observation upon What if the Eunuchs and Courtiers prevail'd upon the Emperour Niceph. l. 14. Synod Eph. Dios◠Elib Synodico and the Emperour prevail'd upon some Bishops by fair means upon others by force to condemn those persons as Hereticks and to make way for his Edict against them what then will you say no extraordinary matter Only Mr. B. when he comes to make observations mistakes the Fact and the more bitter and malicious he endeavours to be the greatest oversights he usually commits It was once the hard fortune of the
or Deacons that were ordained in their Dioceses without their consent and that by simple Presbyters who were never Chorepiscopi or had any character to distinguish them from other Presbyters Therefore the case ought not to be reckoned so hard as it is commonly represented by the more moderate Nonconformists who pretend this point of Reordination the only bar that keeps them out of the Church since there was never any other Church not any in Ancient times would have received them upon any other terms and they must have remained Nonconformists under Basil Athanasius and all the ancient Bishops whose names are and alwayes have been had in veneration with all Christians not one of these would have ever been perswaded to own a Pastor that his Presbyters had ordained in opposition to him nay hardly could they have been prevailed with to admit such as any other Bishop should Ordain within their Diocess so extream punctilious they were in this matter and there is hardly any one thing that caused so frequent and dangerous contentions between them as the point of Ordination Nor was this Province singular in the extent of its Bishopricks or the manner of their Administration but all the parts of the Christian World went by the same Rule as to Diocesan Episcopacy and most of them had much larger Dioceses than these we have been speaking of The Frontier Provinces of the Empire towards the East being more remote from the contentions that afflicted the Church were not cantoned into so small Dioceses as other Countries and being likewise less divided in their Civil Condition because it might render them less defensible against Invasion the Ecclesiastical Dioceses likewise remained intire in the the measure of their first Constitution The Diocess of Edessa seems to be of extraordinary extent Conc. Chal. Act. 10. even at the time of the Council of Chalcedon when the ambition of some Metropolitans and the contentions of Hereticks and Schismaticks had reduced Bishopricks to be very small For 1. some of the misdemeanors charged upon Ibas Bishop of this place shew that Diocess to be extreamly rich 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Collection for redemption of Captives amounted to fifteen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and tho' it is not easy to reduce that summ to our money yet we must conclude it to be a considerable sum when we reflect upon another accusation of Daniel Brother to Ibas as if he had bestowed on Calloa the money of the Church for she had let out to use two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must be a considerable summ since it 's taken notice of as an argument of her wealth Besides the Church of Edessa had six thousand more of these Numismata besides its ordinary Revenues and one of its Mannors called Lafargaritha is mentioned there and two hundred pound weight of Church Plate 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The City of Battina was in the Diocess of Edessa for Ibas is accused of having endeavoured to make one John Bishop of it who was suspected of Magick But Ibas his Arch-Deacon of that place opposed it 3. Maras who was one of Ibas his accusers was Excommunicated by another Arch-Deacon of his 4. The Clergy of the City of Edessa was above two hundred persons not reckoning that of the Country within his Diocess and this was a Diocesan Bishop to purpose who besides a large Diocess had Excommunicating Arch-Deacons and a great Revenue And if Mr. B. or his Brethren had been of that Diocess we might have found them among his accusers The Diocess of Cyrus whereof Theodoret was Bishop was yet larger Theodor. Ep. 113. containing eight hundred Churches as he writes to Leo Bishop of Rome The exceptions which Mr. B. makes against this Epistle are so fully answered by the incomparable Dean of Pauls that nothing can be added But if Mr. B. should quarrel with any writings of this time for mentioning great Dioceses we must have a new Critick and disgrace a great deal of the Fathers that have hitherto been received by a general consent It is a very hard matter to convince men that imagine all that time for them whereof we have little or no account and reckon silence of Antiquity for consent and then if any thing shall appear against what they have once fanfi'd though it be never of so good credit it is spurious it is all Imposture because it makes against them who would ever be convicted if it shall be Defence enough to say the Evidence is a Lye Petavius mistaking a passage in Epiphanius Not. in Epiph Haeres Arr. Epiph. Ep. ad Joh. Hieros ap Hieron thought the Dioceses of Cyprus to be very small but from Epiphanius his Letter to John Bishop of Jerusalem it appears that his Diocess was of good extent John had a quarrel with him for having Ordained a Presbyter in his Diocess though it was only for the use of a Monastery and he excuses himself by shewing how common a thing this was and how frequently it was done in his own Diocess and he was so far from taking offence at it that he thought himself obliged to some of his neighbouring Bishops for using that liberty and therefore commends the good nature and meekness of the Cyprian Bishops who never quarrelled with one another upon this account and then adds That many Bishops of our Communion have Ordained Presbyters in our Province that we could not take because they fled from us on purpose to avoid that honour which was the modesty of those times Nay I my self desired Philo of blessed memory and Theophorbus that they would Ordain Presbyters in those Churches of Cyprus which were near them O vere benedicta Episcoporum Cypri mansuetudo bonitas multi Episcopi communionis nostrae Presbyteros in nostra ordinaverunt Provincia quos nos comprehendere non poteramus ipse cohortatus slim b. m. Philonem sanctum Theophorbum ut in Ecclesiis Cypri quae juxta se grant ad meae autem Parochiae videbantur Ecclesiam pertinere to quod grandis esset late patens Provincia ordinarent Presbyteros and belonged to my Diocess because my Province i.e. my Docess was very large Now that this Province which is here said to be of so large extent was no other than his Diocess appears from the nature of the thing For if we shall imagine that it was his Province as Metropolitan the words will have no sense for then are not there Bishops enough dispersed through this great Province who may Ordain within their respecture Dioceses and to them belonged the Ordination of Presbyters and not to the Metropolitan If we shall take this Province for a Civil division there will be yet greater absurdity for there may be other Metropolitans as well as he and by what Authority could he dispose of their Dioceses or Provinces In short there he gives leave to Ordain Presbyters where the right of Ordaining them belonged to