Church History of the Government of Bishops and Their Councils, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The First General Council at Ephesus, with the Second, and some other following.
§. 1. THe Church at Constantinople growing to be the greatest, by the presence of the Court (which was the spring or poise of most of the Bishops courses, and indeed did rule,) it became the envy and jealousie, especially or the two great Patriarchs, Rome and Alexandria. Alexandria being under the same Emperour had more to do with Const. and made the greater Stirs; For when the Empire was divided, Rome being under an Orthodox Emperour, had little trouble at home, and little opportunity for domination in the East: Yet keeping up the pretence of the prime Patriarchate, and the Caput Mundi Romani, the Pope watch'd his opportunity to lay in his claim, aud to keep under the stronger side, and while they did the work in the East against one another, he sent now and then a Letter or a Legate, to tell them that he was somebody still: And indeed the hope of help from the Western Emperour by the countenance of the Pope, made the Eastern Churches still vexed with Heresie and Persecutions and Divisions, to seek oft to Rome and be glad of their approbation, to strengthen them against their adversaries.
§. 2. When Arsacius was dead, Atticus succeeded him at Constantinople, a wise and pious healing man, who greatly thereby advanced that Church and all the Eastern Churches: He dealt gently with the Novatians and lived in peace with them. He encouraged Hereticks by kindness to return to the Communion of the Church. At Synada in Phygia Pac. was a Church of Macedonians: Theodosius Bishop of the Orthodox Persecuted them with great severity: And when he found that the Magistrates of the place had not power to do as much as he expected, he got him to Constantinople for greater power:☞ while he was there Agapetus the Macedonian Bishop turned Orthodox, and all the Church adhered to him,S…crat. l. 7. c. 3. and set him in the Bishops chair. When Theodosius came home with power to persecute him, he found him in his place, and the people shut the doors against Theodosius: Whereupon he went back to Const. and made his complaint to Atticus how he was used. Atticus knew that it fell out for the best, for the concord of the Church, and he gave Theodosius good words, and perswaded him only to be patient.
§. 3. Cyril at that time succeeded his Unkle Theophilus at Alexandria, in place and in unquiet domination, taking more upon him than Theophilus had done, even the Government of temporal affairs: He presently shut up the Novatian Churches in Alex. Socr. ib. c. 7.rifled them of all their Treasure, and bereaved Theopemptus their Bishop of his substance▪ The Jews at that time falling out with the Christians, murdered many of them. Cyril executed some, and banished them all. Orestes the Governour took this ill: Fifty Monks of Mount Nitria come to take Cyril's part, and assault the Governour, and wound him in the head with a stone: The people rise and put the Monks to flight, but take him that did the Fact, and he is tormented and put to death: Cyril pronounced the Monk a Martyr, but the people would not believe him one.Socr. c. 15. At that time there was a Woman, Hypatia, so famous for learning, that she excelled in all Philosophy, and taught in the Schools (which Plotinus continued:) so that she had Scholars out of many Countries, and was oft with Princes, and Rulers, and for her modesty and gravity was much esteemed. Orestes the Governour oft talking with her, the people said, It was long of her that he was not reconciled to Cyril: They laid hold of her; drew her into a Church, stript her stark naked; rase the skin, and tare the flesh off her body with sharp shells till she dyed: they quarter her body and burn them to ashes: which turned to the great dishonour of Cyril.
§. 4. All this while the followers of Chrysostome remained Nonconformists and Separatists at Constantinople, and were called Ioannites, and kept in Conventicles of their own. Atticus knew that love was the way to win them, and he purposing to take that way, writeth to Cyril Alex. that the restoring of Chrysostome's name in the Church-Office would tend to heal their sad division,☜ and give the Churches peace: He told Cyril, that Populus majori ex parte per factionem scissus extra muros conventus egerit, & plerique sacerdotes & colleg… nostri Episcopi & à mutuâ communione discedentes, bonam plantationem Domini parùm abest quin avulserint, &c. Most of the people were gone and had separate meetings without the Walls; Priests and Bishops separating from one another were like to destroy the Church, and that if he consented not to restore the name of dead Chrysostome, the people would do it without him, and he was loath that Church administration should so fall into the hands of the Multitude, and therefore he would take in Chrysostom's name.
Alexander, Niceph. l. 14. c. 17.a good Bishop of Antioch put him upon this way: But Cyril did vehemently oppose it (How did he obey Rome then, when the Pope had Excommunicated Chrysotom's persecutors?) And first he pleaded, that the Schismaticks were but few (as if their own Bishop knew not better than he;) and that Chrysostome being ejected dyed a Lay-man, and was not to be numbered with the Clergy, that Atticus had the Magistrates on his side, that would bring them in by force (Reader, there is nothing new under the sun: the things that have been are.) And a little time would reduce most of them to the Church (though they increased;) That by favouring the Schismaticks he would lose the obedient (Conformists,) and would get nothing by pleasing such disobedient men, but strengthen them; That the Conformists (or obedient) were the far more considerable part, even the Bishops and Churches of Egypt, Libia, &c. and threatned that he would seek a remedy himself;☞ And reproaching Chrysostome, he telleth A…ticus, That Conformity to the Canons was more to be observed than the pleasing of such Schismaticks, and that violating the Canons would do far more hurt than pleasing such men would do good; And that such men will never be satisfied by reasons, nor judge truly of themselves: And he likened the restoring of Chrysostome's Name, to the putting in the name of the Traytor Iudas with Matthias. He added, That if ignorant wilful fellows will forsake the Church, what loss is it? And therefore that a few mens talk must not draw Atticas to pluck up the Church Sanctions. And as for Alexander Antioch. who perswaded him to it, He was a bold-faced man that had deceived many; but this disease must not thus prevail, but be cured. Thus Cyril to Atticus: How oft have I heard just such language? Reader, How hard is it to know what History to believe, when it comes to the characterizing of adversaries? How little is a domineering Prelates accusation of such men as Chrysostome to be credited? And how ordinary is it with such, to call their betters, not what they are, but what they would have them thought, if not what they are themselves?
But Atticus was wiser than to take this Counsel; but obeyed the Wisdom which is from above, which is first pure and then peaceable, gentle, &c. And God had so much mercy on Constant. as to defeat the evil Counsel of Cyril, and turn it into foolishness: For Atticus restored the name of Chrysostome, and used the Nonconformists kindly, and they came into the unity of the Church: And when Proclus, after him, fetch'd home his bones with honour, the breach was healed.
§. 5. No credible History telleth us, that either Theophilus or Cyril did repent of this; (Though the Papists say, that the Pope Excommunicated Theophilus for it; yet they are now honoured, because the Pope did own the Cause against Nestorius.) Theodoret's Epistle to Ioh. Antioch. upon the death of Cyril, taking his death for the Churches deliverance from a turbulent enemy of Peace, intimates, that he repented not: But (God only knoweth:) Nicephorus out of Nicetas the Philosopher, tells us a report, that after all this, before he dyed, a dream did cure him; viz. That he saw Chrysostome drive him out of his own house, having a Divine company with him; and that the Virgin Mary intreated for him, &c. And that upon this Cyril changed his mind and admired Chrysostome, and repented of his imprudence and wrath, and hereupon called another Provincial Synod to honour him, and restore his name. (O ductile Synods! And O unhappy Churches, whose Pastors must grow wise, and cease destroying, after so long sinning, and by an experience which costeth the Church so dear!) And Nicephorus saith, that Isidore Pelusiota's reproof conduced much hereto, Niceph. lib. 14. cap. 28.
§. 6. Isidore Pelus. words you may see at large in his Epistles: Nicephorus reciteth thus much of them, lib. 14. c. 53. Cyrillum sanè ut hominem turbulentum refellens haec scribit: Favoris affectio acutum non videt: Hostilis verò animi odium nil prorsus cernit: Quod si utroque hoc vitio te purgare ipsum & liberare vis, ne violentas sententias extorqueto, sed justo judicio causas committe:—Multi qui Ephesi tecum congregati fuerunt, publicè te tr… ducunt, quod inimicitias tuas persecutus sis, & non ritè & ordine juxta rectae fidei sententiam ea quae Iesu Christi sunt quaesiveris: Theophili, inquiunt, cùm ex fratre nepos sit, mores quoque illius imitatur: sicut ille apertam insaniam in sanctum & Deo dilectum Joannem effudit, ita & iste gloriam eodem affectat modo. And after other sharper words, he addeth. Ne ego ita condemner, & ne tu ipse etiam à Deocondemneris, contentiones sopto: Nec injuriae propria vindicta quae ab hominibus provenit, videntem Ecclesiam per astu…as actiones, fallas. And of Theophilus, he saith. Eum quatuor administris seu potius desertoribus suis circumvallatum, qui Deum amantem, Deum que praedicantem virum (Chrysost.) hostiliter opprimeret, quum occasionem & caus…m impictatis suae arripuisset. Thus Isidore speaketh of them.
§. 7. Atticus dying,Socr. l. 7. c. 28. the Clergy were for Philip or Proclus, but the Laity choosing Sisinnius prevailed: He was a good and peaceable Man, and sent Proclus to be Bishop of Cyzicum; but the People refused him and chose another.
§. 8. After the death of Sisinnius to avoid strife at home the Emperour caused Nestorius to be chosen, a Monk from the House by Antioch, whence Chrysostome came. He was loud, eloquent, and temperate: But hot against the liberty of those called Hereticks: He begun thus to the Emperour, Give me the Earth weeded from Hereticks, and I will give thee Heaven: Help me against the Hereticks and I will help thee against the Persians.Socr. c. 29. Thus turbulent hereticators must have the Sword do the work that belongeth to the Word: Princes must do their Work,c. 31. and they will pretend that God shall for their sakes advance those Princes: But he was rewarded as he deserved. He presently enraged the Arians by going to pull down their Church, and they set it on Fire themselves to the hazard of the City. So that he was presently called a Firebrand. He vexed the Novatians, and raised stirs in many places, but the Emperour curbed him. Antony Bishop of Germa vexing the Macedonians, they killed him: whereupon they were put out of their Churches in many Cities.
§. 9. At last his own ruine came as followeth. Nestorius defended his Priest Anastasius, c. 32.for saying, that Mary was not to be called foreign, the Mother of God; This set all the City in a division, disputing of they well knew not what, and suspecting him of denying the Godhead of Christ: But he was of no such Opinion, but being eloquent and self-conceited read little of the Ancients Writings, nor was very learned; and thought to avoid all extreams herein, and so would not call Mary the Mother of God, nor the Mother of Man, but the Mother of Christ who was God and Man.
At that time some Servants of some Noble Men impatient of their Masters severities fled to the Church;c. 33. and with their Swords resisted all that would remove them, killed one Priest, wounded another and then killed themselves.
§. 10. CXIII. The Emperour Theodosius jun. A Religious Peaceable Prince, weary of this Stir, called a General Council at Ephesus, and gave Cyril order to preside, (the Papists pretend that he was Pope Caelestine's Legate, who indeed joyned with him by his Letters, when he saw how things went.) Both Cyril and Nestorius desired the Council (Letters before having made no end.) Caelestine nor the Africanes could not come, Augustine was dead: Nestorius, Cyril, and Iuvenal of Ierusalem came: Iohn of Antioch was thirty days journey off, and his Bishops much more, and stayed long. Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus would not stay for him: Nestorius came the first day; But Cyril and the rest being sharp against him, for not calling Mary the Parent of God, he said to them, Ego bimestrem aut trimestrem Deum non facile dixerim: Proinde purus sum à vestro sanguine: in posterum ad vos non veniam. That is, I will not easily say, that God is two or three months old: I am clean from your bloud, and will come to you no more. Some Bishops going with him, they met by themselves. Cyril summoneth him: He refuseth to come till Iohn Bishop of Antioch came. They examine his Sermons and Witnesses, and condemn and depose him, as blasphemous against Christ. Three or four days after, Iohn of Antioch, and his Eastern Bishops come: He took it ill that they stayed not for him: He joyneth in a distinct meeting with Nestorius: Theodoret accuseth Cyril's Anathematismes of errour: They depose Cyril and Memnon: Cyril's Synod citeth Iohn: He refuseth to appear:☞ They depose him and his adherent Bishops: And thus two Synods sate deposing and condemning one another: Both Parties send their Agents to the Emperour: His Officer Candidianus took part with Nestorius: He sendeth another Iohannes Comes, with charge to depose the heads of both the deposing Parties, and so to make good both their depositions, viz. Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon: Candidianus before had told the Emperour, how all was done in violence and confusion, and he had pronounced all Null, and charged them to begin all a-new. When Iohannes Comes came,…in. p 786. he wrote to the Emperour, that All being in confusion, and Cyril and Memnon fortifying themselves, he summoned them all to come to him; And lest they should fall together by the ears, (which he feared, by reason of their strange fierceness) he ordered their coming in so, that it might not be promiscuously: Nestorius and John of Antioch being come first, Cyril and his company (except Memnon) came next, and presently a great tumult and stir began, Cyril's Party saying, that the sight of Nestorius, whom they had deposed, was not to be endured: They would have the Scripture read: But those that favoured Cyril, said, that the Divine and terrible Scriptures were not to be read without Cyril, nor while Nestorius and the Oriental Bishops were present; and for this there was a Sedition, yea, a War, and Fight: The same said the Bishops that were with John, that Cyril ought not to be present at the Reading of the Scriptures, he and Memnon being deposed: The day being far spent thus, he attempted, excluding Cyril and Nestor…us, to read the Emperours Orders to the rest; But Cyril's Party would not hear them, because they said Cyril and Memnon were unlawfully dep…sed: He had much a… do to persw. de them at last, (and indeed thrusting out Nestorius and Cyril by force) so much as to hear the Emperours writing. But he made them hear it: In which Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, were deposed. Those that were with John heard it friendly, and approved it: The other clamoured, that Cyril and Memnon were wrongfully deposed: To avoid Sedition, Nestorius was committed to Candidianus Comes, and Cyril to Jacobus Comes (and Memnon after.) He concludeth, Quòd si pientissimos Episcopos videro implacatos & irreconciliabiles, (Nescio unde in hanc rabiem & asperitatem venerint,) &c. This was his Description of the carriage of this Council.
Both Parties sent several Bishops, as their Delegates, to Constantinople: The Emperour would not permit them to come nearer than Chalcedon, (which is as Southwark to London.) While they wait there, Theodorite, one of Iohn's Party against Cyril, wrote back, that the Court was against Nestorius, but most of the People were for them. It's said that Pulcheria, the Emperours Sister, was much against him. At last Pope Caelestine's Legates came to the Council and took Cyril's Part. The Emperour saw how great the breach would be, if Cyril were deposed, and he revoked the deposition of him and Memnon, but not of Nestorius, and wrote a threatning Letter to Cyril and Iohn, to charge them to agree and joyn in Communion, and not divide the Churches, or else what he would do to them both. These terrible words cured them both of Heresie: They presently consulted, and sent each other their Confessions,☜ and found (good men) that they were of one mind and did not know it. And so having their will upon Nestorius and his adherents, the rest united. But so, that Iohn and Theodorite took Cyril for a Firebrand to the last.
§. 11. Nestorius being deposed retired quietly to his Monastery by Antioch, and lived there in honour four years, but then was banished and dyed in distress: (some Fable that he was eaten with Worms.)
§. 12. The event of this Council was, that a Party of the Orientals adhered to Nestorius, took Cyril and this Council for Hereticks, and to this day continue a numerous Party of Christians, called Hereticks by the Pontificians, because they are not for them: And the Eutychians on all occasions accused their Adversaries the Orthodox to be Nestorians, and the Churches were inflamed by the dissention through many Ages following.
§. 13. And what was really the Controversie between them? Some accuse Nestorius as asserting two persons in Christ as well as two natures, which he still denyed▪ Others accuse Cyril as denying two Natures: But his words about this were many, but he affirmed two Natures before the Union, (and so did the Eutychians) but one after: David Derodon a most learned Frenchman hath written a Treatise De Supposite, in which he copiously laboureth to prove that Nestorius was Orthodox, holding two Natures in one Person, and that Cyril and his Council were Hereticks, holding one Nature only after Union, and that he was a true Eutychian, and Dioscorus did but follow him, and that the Council of Chalcedon condemned Nestorius and stablished his Doctrine, and extolled Cyril and condemned his Doctrine.☞ But for my part I make no doubt that, de re, they were both fully of one mind, and differed only about the aptitude of a phrase: Whether it were an apt Speech to call Mary the Parent of God, and to say that God was two moneths old, God hungred, God dyed and rose, &c. which Nestorius denyed, and Cyril and the Council with him affirmed. And what hath the World suffered by this Word Warr. But which was in the right.
We commonly say that forma denominat, & locutio formalis est maximè propria. And so Nestorius spake most properly: But Use is the Master of Speech, which tyeth us not always to that strictness, and so Cyril well interpreted spake well: especially if the contrary side should intrude a duality of Persons, by their denying the Phrase: While Nestorius accuseth Cyril as if he spake de abstracto, he wrongeth him: while Cyril accuseth Nestorius as if he spake de concreto, he wronged him: They both meant that Mary was the Mother of Christ who was God▪ and of the Vnion of the Natures, but not the Mother of Christ as God, or of the Deity. So that one speaking de concreto, and the other de abstracto, one materially and the other formally, in the heat of Contention they hereticated each other and kindled a flame not quenched to this day, about a word while both were of one mind.
§. 14. If any say it is arrogancy in me to say that such men had not skill enough to escape the deceit of such an ambiguity, I answer, humility maketh not men blind: The thing proveth it self. Judg by these following words of Nestorius and Cyril what they held.
§. 15. Nestorius Epist. ad Cyril: Nomen hoc, Christus, utramque naturam, patibilem scilicet & impatilibem in unicâ Personâ denotat. Quò idem Chrstus patibilis & impatibilis concipi queat; Illud quidem secundùm humanam naturam, hoc verò secundùm Divinaem.—In eo non injuria te laudo quod distinctionem naturarum secundùm Divinitatis & humanitatis rationem harumque in unâ duntaxat personâ conjunctionem praedicas.—☞ Et quòd Divinitatem pati …on potuisse discrtè pronuncias: Haec enim omnia & vera sunt & Orthodoxa; & vanis omnium hareticorum circa D…mini naturas opinationibus quam maximè adversa sunt. Non dicit, solvite Divinitatem meam & intra triduum exsuscitabo illa…, sed solvite Templum hoc, &c.—Vbicunque Divinae Scriptura Dominica dispensationis mentionem faciunt, tum incarnationem, tum ipsam mortem & Passionem, non Divinae, sed Humanae Christi naturae semper tribuunt. Ergo si rem diligentius consideremus, sacra Virgo non Deipera, sed Christipera, appellanda erit (which signifieth that She is the Parent of the Humane nature, receiving the Divine in Union of Person.)—Quis ita desipiat ut unigeniti Divinitatem Spiritus sancti creaturam esse credat.—Sunt imumerae sententiae quae Divinitatem neque nuper natam, neque corporeae perpessionis capacem esse testantur.—Rectum Evangelicaeque traditioni consentaneum est, ut Christi Corpus Divinitatis Templum esse confiteamur, illudque nexu adeò sublimi Divinoque & admirabili ipsi conjunctum esse statuamus, ut Divina natura ea sibi vendicet, quae Coporis alioqui sint propria: Verùm propter eam sive communications sive appropriationis notionem, nativitatem, passionem, mortem caterasque carnis propietates Divino Verbo ascribere, id demù…, mi frater, mentis est paganorum more verè errantis aut certè insani Apollinarii & Arii aliorumque haereticorum morbo aut alio etiam graviore laborantis. Nam qui appropriationis vocabulum it… detorquent illos Deum verbum lactationis participem & succedanei incrementi capacem & ob formidinem Passionis, &c.—
Nestor. Epist. 2. ad Caelest. Quidam de Ecclesiasticis quandam contemperationis imaginem ex Deitate & Humanitate accipientes, corporis passiones audent superfundere Deitati unigeniti, & immutabilem Deitatem ad naturam corporis trans…sse confingunt, atque utramque naturam quae per conjunctionem summam & inconfusam in Unica Persona unigenit… adoratur, contemperatione confundunt.
Nestor. Epist. ad Alexand. Hierapol. Concil. 5. Act. Sess. 6. Oportet manere naturas in suis proprietatibus, & sic per mirabilem & omnem rationem excedentem unitatem unum confiteri filium. Non duas personas unam facimus, sed una appellatione Christi duas naturas simul significamus.
In Scriptis Nestorii recitatis in Concil. Ephes. 1. Tom. 2. c. 8. Idem omnino & Infans erat & Infantem habitabat. Item, Deus Verbum ante incarnationem & Filius erat & Deus erat; At verò in novissimis temporibus servilem quoque formam assumpsit; Caeterum cum antè Filius esset, Filius appellaretur, attamen post Carnem assumptam, seorsim per se Filii nomine appellari non debet, ne duos Filios videamur inducere.—Item, voce Christi tanquam utriusque naturae notionem complectent… accepta, citrà periculum illum assumpsisse servi formam asseverat & Deum nominat; dictorum vim ad naturarum dualitatem manifeste referens.
Cyril lib. de recta fide ad Reginas pag. 53. de Nestorianis, Verbum & humanitas (ut ipsi loquuntur) in unam Personam concurrunt: Vnionis enim quae est secundum naturam & quae una est, nulla apud eos habetur ratio—Et p. 66. de Nestor. Si Christus sola union… secundum Personam cum Dei Verbo conjunctionem habeat, (sic enim illi loquuntur) quomodo in illis qui pereunt Evangelium Dei absconditum est? By which Cyril speaketh for one Nature, and Nestorius for one Person.
Cyril. l. 1. advers. Nestor. p. 16. thus reporteth Nestorius saying, Hic qui videtur Infans, hic qui recens apparet, hic qui fasciis corporalibus eget, hic qui secundum visibilem essentiam recenter est editus, Filius universorum opifex, Filius qui suae opis fasciis dissolubilem creaturae naturam astringit.—Item, Infans enim est Deus libera potestate; tantum abest (Arie) ut Deus Verbum sit sub Dei potest…te.—Again, Novimus ergo Humanitatem infantis & Deitatem; Filiationis Vnitatem servamus in Deitatis humanitatisque natura: saith Derodon, I dare boldly say no Christian hath hitherto spoke trulier and plainer of the Unity of Christs Person in two Natures, than Nestorius.
Ex lib. Cyril 2. Cont. Nestor. p. 4. He thus reporteth Nestorius, Hoc quod Christus est nullam patitur foreign, sed Deitatis, & Humanitatis est foreign: Christus qua Christus est foreign; neque enim duos Christos habemus neque duos Filios: Non est enim apud nos primus & secundus, neque alius & alius, neque rursus alius Filius & alius; sed ipse ille un…s est duplex non dignitate, sed naturâ.
Cyril saith that Nestorius was the Disciple of Diodorus Tarsensis from whom he learnt his Heresie, Epist. ad Succes. and that he was the hearer of Theodorus Mopsuest condemned in Council, for the same Heresie as Nestorius. But saith Derodon, Facundus toto lib. 4. largely proveth that Diod. Tarsensis was Orthodox by the testimonies of Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, &c. Et lib. 3. & 9. he proveth the same of Theod. Mopsuest, citing the places where he asserteth two Natures in one Person, Vid. Facund. l. 3. c. 2. & l. 9. c. 3. & 4. And Liberatus in Brevior. c. 10. saith: Diod. Tarsensis & Theod. Mopsuest. & alii Episcopi contra Eunomium & Apollinarem unius Naturae assertores libros composuerunt, duas in Christo ostendentes naturas in unâ personâ: & ibid. Duas Joh. Antiocheni Epistolas, primam & tertiam, laudes Theod. Mopsuest. continentes Chalced. Synodus Oecumenica per relationem suam Martiane Imper…tori directam, suscepit & confirmavit.
§. 16. By all this it is evident that Nestorius was Orthodox; and owned two Natures in one Person:☞ And that the Controversie was de nomine, unless Cyril was an Eutychian. And that it is a more accurate cautelous Speech à formâ to say that God did not increase, hunger, die, rise, &c. than to say God did these; because it seemeth to intimate that Christ did suffer these, quà Deus, As God, which is blasphemy. But that it is a true speech that God did suffer these, meaning not quà Deus, but Christus qui Deus: and that one Syllable of distinction between quà and qui might have saved these Councils their odious Contentions and Fighting, and the Churches for many Ages the Convulsions, Distractions and mutual Condemnations that followed, and the Papists the odious violation of Christian Charity and Peace in calling the Eastern Followers of Nestorius, Nestorian Hereticks to this day. Judge how much the World was beholden to Cyril, Caelestine, and this Council.
§. 17. Obj. By this you make the Bishops and Councils to be all Fools, that know not what they do, and to be the very plagues and shame of humane nature, that would kindle such a flame not yet quenched about nothing.
Answ. 1. If we must measure, fidem per personas, yea, judge of matter of Fact by respect of persons, judge so by the Councils at Ariminum, Syrmium, Milan, Tyre also; Judge so by the Second Council of Ephesus, and abundance such: How shall we know which of them so to judge by? 2. Good men have foul Vices: Faction, and Contention, and Pride, have undeniably troubled the Churches: When Concil. Carthag. 6. forbad Bishops to read the Books of Gentiles, it is no wonder that the number of Learned Bishops was small; And when no Bishop was to be removed from place to place, but all Bishops made out of an Inferiour degree, usually of the same Parish; Yea, and when Academies were so rare, it is past doubt that Learned Bishops were rare: When Nectarius must be the great Patriarch, that was yet no Christian, and when Synesius, because he had Philosophical knowledge, is chosen Bishop, even before he believed the Resurrection; When they were such, as credible Nazianzene, Isidore Pelusiota, and long after Salvian describes. It is not I, but these knowing Witnesses, and their own actions, that characterize them. Doth not Socrates, that knew Nestorius, say, that he was not Learned? And he, and others, that Cyril was high and turbulent? Theodoret was a Learned man, and he thought no better of his Adversaries.
The Objections against Nestorius and Theodorus Mopsuest, are largely answered by Derodon, ubi suprà.
§. 18. The same Derodon laboureth to prove, that Cyril was an Heretick, the Father of the Eutychians, and so were the Ephes. Council, and Pope Caelestine. His proofs against Cyril are reduced to these Heads. 1. His express asserting One Nature only in Christ. Epist. 2. ad succes. Diocesar-Quae igitur necessitas ipsum pati in propriâ naturâ, si post unionem dicatur una verbi Natura incarnati?
Item, Ignorant rursus qui recta pervertunt, quòd juxta Veritatem una sit natura Verbi incarnata: si enim unus est filius naturâ & verè Verbum quod ineffabiliter ex Deo Patre est genitum, & si idem per assumptionem carnis non exanimis sed animatae animâ intelligente processit homo de muliere—Non enim de solis simplicibus Vnum secundùm naturam verè dicitur, sed etiam de iis quae juxta compositionem convenerunt, ut est v. g. homo, qui constat animâ & corpore, haec enim inter se differunt specie, verunt a men unita unam naturam hominis absolvunt, quamvis adsit ratione compositionis differentia secundùm naturam rerum, in unitatem concurrentium: superfluis igitur sermonibus immorantur qui dicunt, si una est natura verbi incarnata, sequitur ut permixtio confusioque generetur.
Nestorius third Objection was from Christs voluntary passions; Ergo duas naturas subsistere post unionem indivise. Cyril answereth, Adversus rursus haec eorum propositio nihilominus iis qui dicunt unam esse Filii naturam incarnatam idque velut ineptum volentes ostendere, ubique duas naturas, subsistentes conantur astruere; sed ignorant quaecunque non distinguuntur solâ mentis consideratione, ea prorsus etiam in diversitatem distinctam omnifariam ac privatim à se mutuò segregari: e. g. Homo—duas in eo naturas intelligimus, unam animae, alteram corporis, sed cum sola discreverimus intelligentia & differentiam subtili contemplatione s…u mentis imaginatione conceperimus, non tamen seorsim ponimus naturas, sed unius esse intelligimus. Ita ut illae duae jam non sint duae, sed ambae unum animal absolvunt. Tandem ita concludit. ☞ Haec igitur ex quibus est unus & solus filius Dominus Iesus Christus cogitationibus complexi, duas quidam naturas un…as asserimus; post unionem verò tanquam adempta jam in duas distinctione unam esse credimus filii naturam tanquam unius, sed inhumati & incarnati. It's strange, how Cyril and the E…tychians meant, that Christs Natures were two before the Union. Did they think that the Humanity existed before the Union?
So Epist. 1. Cyril. ad success. Nihil injusti facimus dicentes ex duabus naturis factum esse concursum in unitatem; post unionem verò non distinguimus naturas ab invicem, nec in duos filios unum & individuum partimur, sed dicimus unum filium, & sicut Partes alterum erunt, Vnam Naturam Dei Verbi incarnati.
Eadem dicit Epist… ad Acacium Melet. Post unionem sublata jam in duas distinctione unam essi credimus filii naturam,☞ tanquam unius, sed inhumati.
Cyril. Epist. ad Eulog. Presb. Nos illas (duas naturas) adunantes unum filium, unum Dominum confitemur, deinde & unam per naturam incarnatam, quod & de communi homine dicendum—Dum unitatem confitemur, non distinguuntur amplius quae sunt unita: sed unus jam est Christus & una est ipsius tanquam incarnati Verbi natura.
Cyril. lib. cont. Nestor. p. 31. Hic recentissimae impietatis inventor quamvis Christum unum se dicere simulet, attamen ubique naturas distinguit.
Et p. 45. Quomodo Christum unum & individuum dicis esse duplicem natura?
Cyril. lib. de recta fide ad reginos p. 63. Assumitur in unum Deitatis Naturam unus Christus Iesus per quem omnia.
Cyril. Dialog. Quod unus sit Christus. [Vnum porro filium & unam ipsius Naturam esse dicimus, licet carnem anima intelligente praeditam assumpserit.]
Many more such passages are in Cyril. Here Derodon proveth, 1. That Cyril took not foreign for Persona. 2. That he took not foreign for Division but Distinction: If he did, it was an ill quarrel, when Nestorius asserted not a Division, but a Distinction. 3. That Cyril still reproveth Nestorius for asserting only a union secundùm personam, and not secundùm naturam 4. That Cyril (as Dioseorus) declares what union he meaneth, not by Confusion, Commixtion or Transmutation, but by Composition, (and so said the Eutychians.)
The second order of Derodons proofs is from all the places where Cyril pleads for one hypostasis, and he sheweth that by hypostasis Cyril meant natura or substantia singularis. The citations are too long to be repeated.
…. 3. His proofs are from all the Texts where he saith the Word, and Humanity concurred foreign.
His fourth proof that Cyril was an Eutychian, is from all those places where he saith, that the Godhead and Manhood are made one nature as the soul and body of man are.
His fifth order of proofs is from the words where he oft attributeth the same operations, and the same attributes to both nature.
His sixth proof is from the testimony of Ibas Edes. apud Facund. l. 6. c. 3. Ge…ad. Const. ibid, l. 2. p. 77, 78. Iohan. Antioch. Theodoret, &c.
§. 20. For my part, I again say, past doubt, that neither Nestorius nor Cyril were Heretical de re; but that they were of one mind, and that one spake of the concrete, and the other of the abstract; that one spake of Christus qui Deus, and the other of Christus quà Deus. But (pardon truth, or be deceived still) ignorance, pride, 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. But sin serveth the sinners turn but for the present, and becometh afterward his shame. All the Bishops would not follow Cyril. At this day the falsly Hereticated Nestorians (saith Breerwood Enquir. p. 139.) inhabites a great part of the East, for besides the Countries of Babylon, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Media, they are spread far and wide, both Northerly to Cataya, and Southerly to India: Marcus Paulus tells us of them and no other Christians in Tartary, as in Cassar, Sarmacham, Carcham, Chinchintalas, Tauguth, Suchir, Ergimul, Tenduc, Caraim, Mangi, &c. so that beyond Tigris there are few other Christians. The Persian Emperours forced the Christians to Nestorianisme; Their Patriarch hath his Seat at Musal in Mesopotamia or the Monastery of St. Ermes near it, in which City the Nestorians have 15 Temples: They are falsly accused still to hold two Persons in Christ: They say as Nestorius himself said, You may say that Christ's Mother is the Parent of God, if you will expound it well, but it is improper and dangerous. They take Nestorius, Diodorus Tarsensis and Theodorus Mopsuest, for holy Men; They renounce the Council Ephes. and all that owned it, and detest Cyril. They Communicate in both kinds: They use not auricular Confession: nor Confirmation: nor Crucifixes on their Crosses: Their Priests have liberty for first, second, or third Marriages, &c. Breerwood, ibid. p. 144.
§. 21. I need no other proof for my opinion, that these Bishops set the World on fire about a Word, being agreed in sense, than the reconciliation of the Patriarchs Cyril and Iohn when forced, and their Parties, professing that they meant the same and knew it not. Obj. But they all condemned Nestorius. Ans. To quiet the World, and to please the Courtiers and violent Bishops. And the Emperour himself (saith Socrates, l. 7. c. 41. one that excelled all the Priests in modesty and meekness, and could not away with persecution,) was the more against Nestorius because he was a persecutor himself.
Read Theodoret's Homily against Cyril, Bin. p. …07. and Iohan. Antioch. ibid. But neither the one side [Nestorius haeresiarcha impiissimus,] nor the other side [Cyrillus superbus & blasphemus] should signifie much with men that know what liberty adverse Bishops used.
§. 22. As for them that say, Nestorius did dissemble when he asserted the Vnity of two Natures in one Person: and is not to be judged of by his own words, I take them to be the firebrands of the world, and unworthy the regard of sober men, who pretend to know mens judgments better than themselves, and allow not mens own deliberate profession to be the notice of their Faith.
§. 23. When the Emperour saw that there was no reconciling the Bishops, but by force, he authorized Aristolaus, a Lay-Magistrate, to call Cyril and Ioh. Antioch. to Nicomedia, and keep them both there till they were agreed: whereupon Iohn communed with his Bishops, and they yielded, having no remedy, to the deposition of Nestorius, the Ordination of Maximinianus in his stead, and communion among themselves. This is called another Council.
It would grieve one to read the Emperour Theodosius importuning Simeon Stylites, a poor Anchorite, to try whether by Prayer and Counsel he could bring the Bishops to Unity, and concluding, [This discord doth so trouble me, that I judge that this only hath been the chief occasion of all my calamities.] Bin. p. 928.
§. 24. CXIV. An. 433. There was a Council called at Rome to clear Pope Sixtus from an accusation of one Bassus, of ravishing a Nun.
§. 25. CXV. There is talk of a Council at Rome to clear one Polychronius Bishop of Ierusalem, of accusations of Simony: But contradictions make this (and the former) to be altogether uncertain.
§. 26. CXVI. The Armenians in Council are said to condemn Nestorian Books.
§. 27. CXVII. A Council was held at Constant. to decide the Controversie between the Alexandrian and Constant. Bishops, which should be greatest, and rule the East; where it was carried for Constant. And Theodoret pleading for Antioch, Dioscorus (the Alex. Agent) hated him ever after, (as he saith Epist. 86.)
§. 28. CXVIII. An. 439. A Council at Regiense of 13 Bishops did somewhat about Ordinations, &c.
§. 29. About this time Leo at Rome was fain to forbid bowing toward the East, ☞because the Manichees joyned among them, and bowed to the Sun, and could not be else distinguished from the Orthodox, Bin. de Leone.
§. 30. CXIX. A Council at Aransican repeated some old disciplinary Canons.
§. 31. CXX. Leo held a Council at Rome of Bishops, Priests, and Laymen, to detect the wickedness of the Manichees, and warn men to avoid them.
§. 32. CXXI. An. 445. Leo held a Council at Rome against Hilary Bishop of Arles, for disobedience to his Decrees.
§. 33. CXXII. A Council called General in Spain, recited the Profession of Faith against the Priscillianists.