The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 21
CHAP. XXI. Of the firſt Council of Epheſus, &c. His Cap. 5.
§ 1. OUR Accuſer in his Fifth Chapter paſſeth by the juſt Praiſes which I give to Peaceable Biſhops, as croſſing his Slander that I diſpraiſe all, or ſuch as well as the unpeaceable, whoſe Juſtification it is that he undertaketh.
§ 2. He begins with an Accuſation, that [to prejudice the Reader againſt Cyril's Council, I give the worſt account of him that I could patch up out of all the Libels and Accuſations of his Enemies.]
Anſw. If by Prejudice be meant Informing him of H…ſtory; and by Worſt is meant Impartial Recitation of what Hiſtory ſaith; and by Patching up be meant ſuch Reciting; and by Enemies be meant the beſt and moſt credible Hiſtorians that have written of it, then this is true: Elſe it is the work of that Undertaker that is engaged to call Evil Good, and Darkneſs Light, and preſerreth ſpeaking good of bad actions, before ſpeaking truly.
§ 3. And that you may know by what Spirit men that will not reproach the beſt that differ from the Prelates, are themſelves reproached by this Sect, and alſo what ſort of Hiſtory this man giveth the Lie to, on pretence of giving it me, and how far he is from Railing, he thus proceedeth.
[The firſt thing he is charged with is the Oppreſſion of the Novatians. This was enough with Socrates or Sozomen to paint him as ugly as men do the Devil or Antichriſt; and therefore there is no great credit to be given them in theſe Relations, as manifeſtly eſpouſing the Cauſe and Quarrel of the Novatians.]
Anſw. 1. Juſt as Thuanus or Eraſmus eſpouſed the Cauſe of the Proteſtants by Truth and Peace, when others hated and belied them. 2. Methinks the man revileth me very gently in compariſon of Socrates and Sozomen, the two moſt impartial and credible of all our Antient Church-Hiſtorians (with Theodorot.) But who can wonder that he imitateth that which he defendeth.
§ 4. But he ſaith, [It may be the Novatians deſerved it—and it's not unlikely that they were very troubleſom and ſeditious.]
Anſw. It's not unlikely now that others will ſay it was ſo. But mark Reader which of theſe Hiſtorians is moſt credible [Socrates and Sozomen lived with thoſe that knew the things and perſons: They have told us Truth in the reſt of their Hiſtories: If they had been Novatians, Mr. M. ſaith, They believed ſinning after Baptiſm had no pardon or abſolution: And were they not like then to fear ſuch Lying and falſe Accuſing as paints a Saint like the Devil or Antichriſt.] On the other ſide [Mr. M. liveth above a thouſand years after them: He is one of the Party that take it to be not only lawful, but a duty to ſay and ſwear all that is impoſed now, which I will not here deſcribe: How truly he writes the Hiſtory of his own Age, even of Parliament and Wars, and living perſons, I have told you. He ſaith no more againſt the Hiſtorians credit here, but [it may be] and [it's not unlikely] and [they were Novatians, Schiſmaticks, Alexandrians.] Even ſo their Counterminer, and many Conformiſts, that have many years reported us to be Raiſing a War againſt the King, had their [May-be'…] and [It's not unlikely] and [they are Schiſmaticks] to prove it: And others ſoon roſe up and ſwore it. And when ſome lament their Perjury, it ſtops not the reſt. But ſome have ſuch Free-will, that they can believe whom they liſt.
§ 5. Socrates, ſaith he, makes it part of his charge that he took on him the Government of temporal Affairs. This was not the Uſurpation of the Biſhop, but the Indulgence of the Emperour: And he ſhews the Churches need of it.
Anſw. That which he is charged with is, that he was the firſt Biſhop that himſelf uſed the Sword. And 1. Do you think that ſo great a Patriarchate & Dioceſs would not find a conſcionable Paſtor work enough, without joyning with it the Magiſtrates Office? 2. Was not the Church greatly changed even ſo early from what it was a little before in the daies of Martin and Sulpitius, when even Ithacius durſt not own being ſo much as a ſeeker to the Magiſtrate to draw the Sword againſt groſs Hereticks; and the beſt Biſhops denied Communion with them that ſought it: And now a Biſhop himſelf becomes the ſtriker not of groſs Hereticks, but ſuch as peaceable Biſhops bore with.
I remember not to have read that Cyril had any Commiſſion for the Sword from the Emperour: Others then had not: But I deny it not.
§ 6. He ſaith, that elſewhere I ſay [I ſhall not diſhonour ſuch, nor diſobey them.] Anſw. I ſay and do ſo: If a Biſhop will take another Calling from the King's Grant, when he hath undertaken already 40 times more work as a Dioceſan than he can do, Ile honour and obey him as a Magiſtrate: But I would be loth to ſtand before God under the guilt of his undertaking and omiſſions.
§ 7. As to all the reſt of the Hiſtory about Cyril's Executions, and the wounding of Oreſtes the Governour, I leave it between the Credit of Mr. M. and Socrates.: And he very much ſuſpects the Story of Cyril's making a Martyr of him that was executed for it: I leave all to the Reader's Judgment. I think I may tranſcribe Socrates without ſlandering Cyril.
Here his ſpleen riſing, ſaith [There are men in the world that honour ſuch as Martyrs for murdering a King.]
Anſw. You may ſmell what he inſinuates: I think he will not ſay, that he ever did more againſt them than thoſe that they call Presbyterians have done. We Wrote and Preacht againſt them when he did not. I know not the Presbyterian living to my remembrance, that was not againſt the Murder of the King, and Prin. whom the Biſhops had cropt and ſtigmatized for being againſt them, as an Eraſtian, was the hotteſt in the Parliament, for the Execution of the King's Judges: But I knew divers Conformiſts that have written or ſpoken to juſtifie or excuſe that Fact.
§ 8. As for the Murder of Hypatia, I leave him to his ſcuffle with Socrates and Damaſcius, in which I intereſs not my ſelf.
§ 9. I thank Pope Innocent Mr. M. durſt not deny Cyril's faults, in his Enmity to the memory of Chryſoſtom; and yet he calls my reciting the matter of Fact a reproach. He is conſtrained to confeſs [That the Quarrel was it ſeems hereditary to him (ſo is Original Sin) and he did proſecute it beyond all equity or decency againſt the memory of a dead man: This was a fault, and and he that is without any, or without any particular animoſity, ſpecially if he be in any eminent place, let him …aſt the firſt ſtone.]
Anſw. Thanks to Conſcience: We feel your Animoſities: But is not this man a Railing Accuſer of Cyril, if I am ſuch? What ſaith he leſs in the main? Yea he now renews his Accuſation of his Predeceſſor, ſaying, It was hereditary. To proſecute malice againſt the very name of a holy extraordinary Biſhop, beyond all equity and decency—what will Chriſtianity or Humanity call it? But Faction ſaith, it was a fault, and he that is without any, &c. Thus talkt Eli to his Sons: So one may ſay, To Silence 2000 Miniſters, or to hate the beſt men, and ſeek their ruine, is a fault, a Prelatical peccadillo; and ſo was Bonner's uſage of the Martyrs; and let him that is without any caſt the firſt ſtone. And St. John ſaith, He that hateth his Brother is a murderer, and none ſuch hath Eternal Life abiding in him; and that as Cain, he is of the Evil One, the Devil. And I believe him.
§ 10. But he ſaith, I injuriouſly charge him with calling Alexander a bold faced man, when Atticus was the firſt Author of that word.
Anſw. Atticus mentioned Alexander's confident, true and neceſſary Counſel; Cyril contradicting it, calls the man, A man of a confident face or mouth. If another Biſhop ſaid the firſt words before him, do I wrong him in ſaying he ſaid the ſecond? O tender men! His urging the keeping up the names of ſuch as Nectarius and Arſacius, and caſting out Chryſoſtomus, is ſo like our Canons about Readers and Nonconformiſts, and our Canoneers deſcriptions of their Country Parſons, and the Puritanes▪ that I wonder not that you defend him.
§ 11. But he ſaith, that It's a little unchriſtian to blaſt his memory with the faults which he corrected in his life-time.]
Anſw. 1. It's neceſſary to tell that truth which blaſteth the Reputation of ſuch ſin as was growing up towards Papacy▪ Anſ. 2. Then Chriſt was unchriſtian to tell the Jews of their very Fathers murders of the Prophets, while they diſclaimed it, and built their Sepulchres, Mat. 23. And then it was unchriſtian in the Holy Ghoſt, to blaſt the memory of Adam, Noe, Lot, David Solomon, Peter, yea or Manaſſeh, with ſins repented of. 3. Hiſtory muſt ſpeak truth about things repented of; or elſe it will but deceive the world. 4. The Honour of God, and Goodneſs, and Truth, muſt be preferred before our own Honour. Repentance, if true, will moſt freely confeſs a mans own ſin, and moſt fully ſhame it.
§ 12. Whether all his far-fetcht Conjectures that Cyril repented, be true or no, is nothing to me. I will hope he did, though I never ſaw it proved: The very laſt Sentence of Death might do it. His retortion is, [I know no man deeper engaged in the Contentions of the Church (than I) The writing of his Eighty Books being but like ſo many pitcht Battels he has fought, and moſt commonly in the dark, when he was hardly able to diſcover friend from foe.]
Anſw. It's too true, that being all written for Peace, the Enemies of Peace have fought againſt them. Nimis diu habitavit, anima mea inter oſores pacis. But pro captu Lectoris, &c. All men take not the words of ſuch as he for Oracles. How much I have written and done for Peace, let others read and judge. I long laboured and begg'd for Peace in vain with ſuch as he defendeth. And it's admirable if this pittileſs Enemy of Sects and Errours can be for all the Sects and Errours that I have written againſt. Have I in the dark taken for foes by Errour the Atheiſts, the Infidels, the Sadduces, the Hobbiſts, the Quakers, the Ranters, the Papiſts, the Socinians, the Libertines called Antinomians, the Anabaptiſts, the Separatiſts, and Sects as Sects? Be of good comfort all: Theſe Prelatiſts that accuſe us for too dark and ſharp Writings againſt you, ſeem to tell you that they will more hate perſecuting or diſtreſſing you; Yes when they agree with themſelves.
His Prayer that I may have a more honorable opinion of Repentance he calls me to ſpeak to in the End.
§ 13. Whether good Iſidore Peluſiota were a man [very eaſy to take any impreſſions, and upon falſe information chargeth Cyril with proſecuting his private quarrells with Neſtorius under pretence of zeal for the faith] I leave all men to believe our Accuſer as they ſee cauſe. And the ſame I ſay of that which is ſo great a Controverſie among the Critical Hiſtorians, whether Theodorets Epiſtle to Job. Aut. againſt Cyril be Counterfeit, or were written on a falſe rumour of Cyrils death. Their 5th General Council hath it. Baronius and Binnius ſay, ſome Eutychian knave hath corrupted the Acts of that Council. Muſt Councils be the Laws of all the world, and hath the Church and Tradition kept them no better, that we know not when we have them truly? Leave us then to the univerſal Laws of God.
§ 14. He ſaith truly that [the Council of Epheſus was chiefly directed by the authority of Cyril] Anſ. And ſo was that at Trent by the authority of the Pope And when he hath confuted the credible Hiſtory wich tells us of the womens and Courtiers hatred of Neſtorius, and proved that the Emperour and Pulcheria the Empreſs were but one, I will grant that the authority of the Court directed not Cyril; and that then and now Biſhops neither were nor are directed by the Civil powers.
§ 15. When I ſpake againſt Neſtorius his cruelty to Sectaries he asketh [What Hereticaters were hotter than the Preſbyterians in 1646. The inquiſition is not more ſevere than their ordinance againſt Hereſies, which they deſired ſhould be made felony and puniſhed by death &c.]
Anſ. Reader Judge of the mans Credit as to ancient Hiſtory ſtill by his truth about the Preſent age. 1. The Inquiſition he ſaith, is not more ſevere. Do I need to anſwer this to any man of 50 years of age? It's Capable of no anſwer but what he will call by ſome name deſerved by his own.
2. I can find no ſuch ordinance: He ſaith It was offered? Is that all? And by whom? Was it the body of the Presbterians, or who?
3. What were the Hereſies named by them? Were they not down right Blaſphemy?
4. Who and how many were ever either tormented or put to death for Hereſie, from 1641 till 1660: I remember not one, ſave that James Nayler was impriſoned and whipt, and had his Tongue bored for blaſphemous Perſonating Chriſt, and that not by the Presbyterians.
5. Why are they ſo ordinarily reproached by the Prelatiſts for tolerating all Sects here in England?
6. What if all this had been true? What is it to me or any of my mind? I never had a hand in perſecuting one man, to my remembrance. How few can you name of all the Nonconformiſts now in England, that had any hand in the Severities you mention? I know not four in England, that I remember. And what's this to us any more than to you?
7. And was it well done, or ill? If well▪ why do you liken them to the Inquiſition? Are you for it? If ill, why do you plead for it in others? Imitate it not if you diſlike it.
For my part, as I am againſt all Sects as ſuch, I am much more againſt the cruelty of any. I ſtick no more at the diſgracing the Presbyterians ſins, than yours: And I am readier to diſgrace my own than either, if I can know them. I would cheriſh Errours no more than you; but I would not ruine or impriſon even ſuch of your ſelves as have too many. Hereſie muſt have its proper cure. I thank God I had once an Orthodox agreeing Flock. But again I ſay, the Presbyterians were too impatient with Diſſenters; and it's better have variety of Fiſh in the Pond, than by the Pikes to reduce them to ſpecial unity.
§ 16. He ſaith that Neſtorius conſequentially denyed the God-Head of Chriſt. p. 192. Next he hath found a contradiction in my words, that the Emperor was weary of this ſtir: And yet that [Cyril did it to pleaſe the Court] Theſe critical men can make their two hands enemies to each other. How came he waking to dream that this was a contradiction, when Hiſtorians tell us that the Women and Courtiers hated both Chryſoſtome and Neſtorius? He implyeth that the Emperor and the Court were all one, or of one mind. But I am not bound to believe him, no more than of many other Emperours whoſe Wives kept up one party and they another. And I pray you why ſhould we be confident that Theodoſius 2. himſelf called an Eutychian by the hereticating Biſhops, was not againſt Neſtorius when he called that Council, & at firſt Condemned both him and Cyril, and after him alone? I did but recite the Hiſtorians words, and was that forgetfulneſs?
§ 17. His many words about this controverſie with Neſtorius are the moſt unworthy of any anſwer of all his Books: ſometime he ſaith as I, as p. 193. [It had been happy for the Church if the myſteries of our Religion had never been curiouſly diſputed: ſometime he confeſſeth that Neſtorius ſpake the ſame thing with Cyril, that Chriſt had two natures in one Perſon: ibid. And that he expreſſeth himſelf one would think very orthodoxly. p. 202. But the Heretick diſſembled and hid his ſence. And ſo this man after above 1000 years knew the mans mind to be contrary to his words: whereas it's palpable to him that readeth the Hiſtories, that the man was ſo far from hiding and diſſembling, that he was ſowrly and moroſely addicted to ſtick to the words and Notions he had eſpouſed, and too little to regard a peaceable complyance to mollifie his accuſers▪ His fault lay on the clean contrary ſide, But he proveth him a Heretick that meant Chriſt was two Perſons, though he ſaid the contrary, 1. Becauſe he ſaith that the Humane Nature was united in dignity and honour to the Divine.
Anſ. As if either the hypoſtatical union were denyed by thoſe words, or he knew that Neſtorius meant not to include it in thoſe terms:
But he ſaith he uſeth the word foreign and not foreign Anſ. As if foreign never ſignifyed more than a Relative or official Perſon, when beſides the many places cited by Derodon, Neſtorius oft explaineth himſelf in the common orthodox ſence.
But the fouleſt charge is, that he ſeems once or twice to diſtinguiſh Chriſt from the Divine Nature. Anſ. By [Chriſt] he expreſſeth himſelf to mean the humane nature anointed to his Office: And the man thought that the Divine Nature was not ſo anointed: and diſtinguiſhing is not dividing.
It is not his Nay and my Yea that can inform any Reader what Neſtorius ſaid and meant without reading his own words (rather than Cyrils of him.) And if ſuch as Mr. M. will pretend Charity, and contrary to plain evidence face down the world that a Man denyeth conſequentially Chriſts God-Head, and the Unity of his Perſon, while he profeſt the contrary, no mans innocency is ſufficient to eſcape the fangs of ſuch hereticaters: And let him call me what his liſt inclineth him to call me, I again profeſs that on the reading of Cyril, Neſtorius, and the Council, and Derodon's Citations, I am quite paſt doubt that the controverſy was Verbal, which of them ſpake orthodoxly while they both meant the ſame thing; and when one ſaid Mary was the Mother of God, and the other ſaid, no; She was but the Mother of that Perſon who is God; the fitneſs of the phraſe was the matter of their quarrel.
And conſider 1. Many think that when a high point is in controverſy to the danger of the Church, we muſt uſe the exacteſt phraſes, and not ſay all that may be juſtified.
2. And as forma dat nomen, ſo locutio formalis, or denominating forma is more exact and proper than à materia: And therefore though idioms may be Communicated, he that in controverſie denominateth the Divine Nature from its own properties, ſpeaks more exactly.
3. If one ſhould in our Pulpits ſay ordinarily▪ [The World was Created by Man:] The eternal proceeding of the Holy Ghoſt was from a Man: Fleſh and Blood was from Eternity;] many ſound Chriſtians would not like it. And yet it's true in the Communicative ſenſe, viz. [He that is now man made the world as God: The Holy Ghoſt eternally proceeded from the 2d Perſon in the Trinity who is now God and Man: Chriſt who was fleſh and blood on Earth, was Eternal as God.] So if one now ſay [God was confined to the Virgins Womb, and to the Manger: God could not ſpeak in the Infancy of Chriſt: God was but about 30 year old when Chriſt was Baptized: God knew not the day nor the hour of Chriſts ſecond coming: God was aſleep, hungry, ſorrowful, in an agony, crucified, dead, buried, &c.] All this is thus far true, viz. Of Chriſt who was God, not as God but as man: And yet if I ſhould deny but the fitneſs of this ſpeaking, I were juſt ſuch an Heretick as Neſtorius was: And many that are no Hereticks for all that would not relliſh it.
Either▪ my Eyes could not find that in Neſtorius which he affirms of him or elſe he is a meer ſlanderer of him, when he …aith Pag. 193 that he denyed Yea obſtinately] that Mary was the Mother of that Perſon who was God.] He hath produced no ſuch word. That which he ſtood to was, that inſtead… of ſaying Mary was the Mother of God, we ſhould ſay ſhe was the Mother of Chriſt who is God and Man. And of the unity of Perſon I have cited already his own words ſo fully, as moved Derodon to ſay [I dare boldly ſay, no Chriſtian hath hitherto ſpoken trulyer and plainer of the unity of Chriſts Perſon in two natures than Neſtorius▪] And that it's falſe that he confeſt but an union of dignity the ſame cited words ſhew: Nexu adeo ſublimi (ſaith he) Divinoque & admirabili (mentioning the conjunction of the Divinity and humanity) ut Divina natura ea ſibi vendicet quae Corporis alioquin ſint propria] Epiſt. ad Cyril.
And as to all his juſtifications of Cyril, he knoweth that I juſtify his Doctrine as well as he, but not the work that he made, which is not undone among Nations of Neſtorians to this day. But if the man were able to be impartial, and ſo happy as not to draw on himſelf the guilt of ſuch ſins by juſtifying them, he might eaſily ſee in his own confeſſion that Cyril the Hereticator ſpake as bad at leaſt as Neſtorius. He oft confeſſeth (for he cannot deny it) [that he doth frequently own but one nature] p. 197. and 198. [that there is but one nature of the word incarnate] ſo p. 201. &c. But Cyril meant well, that is, by Nature he meant Perſon. And was not this Eutychian Speech as improper as Neſtoriu's is? Is the nature and Perſon to be confounded? Did the Fathers ſpeak thus? If Nature put for Perſon be pardonable, why is it not pardonable to prefer a denomination a proprietate vel forma, to another? And thus you make Cyril to differ from the Eutychians, in their different meanings while they uſed the ſame words. If I had ſaid that Chriſt had but one Nature I ſhould have had a cenſure otherwiſe meaſured.
And though this man ſeem to deny it, I have cited many of his words in which he ſaith [Duas naturas unitas aſſerimus: paſt unionem vero tanquam adempta jam in duas diſtinctione, unam eſſe credimus filii naturam, tanquam unius ſed inhumati & incarnati & ad ſucceſ. Nihil injuſti facimus dicentes, ex duabus naturis factum eſſe concurſum in unit atem: Paſt unionem vero non diſtinguimus naturas ab invicem. But I have cited enough before.
The ſum and truth is, to judge no one but my ſelf, I muſt be blind by ignorance or partiality if I be not paſt doubt, 1. That unskilful explication was their difference. 2. That Cyrils words were Eutychian. 3. That Neſtorius words were orthodox in the main, but not ſufficiently yielding to a tolerable phraſe. 4. That they both meant the ſame thing. 5. That all their war was managed, 1. For want of diſtinguiſhing fully the Abſtract [Deitatem] and the Concrete [Deum] 2. For want of diſtinguiſhing [Qui Deus] from [Qua Deus] and a ſtrict formal expreſſion from a more laxe that's tolerable. And 3. For want of diſtinguiſhing [diviſion] from [diſtinction] of natures. 4. For want of explaining the various ſorts and ſenſes of [Unity] and [Plurality.] I cannot but know this to be true, though Mr. M. ſcorn me for it.
What [I that underſtand not the language they wrote in to pretend to know better than the Council?] Anſ. 1. So ſay the Papiſts: what? will you pretend to know more than the Church and Councils? If it be implicite faith that they are bringing us to, let them tell us which Councils we muſt ſo believe when they condemn each other? 2. I thought I could make ſhift to underſtand their language, though I be no critick in it: But if he know me better, I ſtrive not for the reputation of Learning; not only Baronius and Binnius, and all the reſt that he nameth that had no skill in Greek, but moſt of the Schoolmen, ſeem to me without it, far more Learned than he. I can tell him of Lads whoſe Learning I admire not, that ſhall vie with him in Languages Oriental and Occidental, and give him odds; And when he ſcorns Derodons diſtinctions, telling us it's making two bad Groats by ſlitting a Sixpence, &c. I leave him to glory in his Confuſion: But I ſuſpect the Fox that ſpeaks againſt Tails is like enough to want one himſelf.
But when he hath ſhewed in all this Hiſtory of Neſtorius, Cyril, and the Council, little but that partiality which can talk confidently to the ignorant for any cauſe, without any ſhew of confuting Derodons juſtification of Neſtorius, or my Conciliation, his craſt or paſſion attempts to divert the Reader by the art of the times, and as if it muſt ſtop our Mouths from lamenting the ſin of Hereticators, and miſery of the Church thereby, he tells us how men in theſe times call them Papiſts that are none.
Anſ. If it be ill done, why condemn you your ſelf by defending thoſe that did the like? If it was well done in Biſhops Councils, why not in them? 2. But what's this to me, if it be not me that he means? If it be, 1. If you will read but the laſt part of my Cathol. Theolog. judge of the mans front. 2. It is none but thoſe that are for a humane Soveraignty over all the Church on Earth that we judge Papiſts: And if you judge them not ſuch, we will thank you to tell us what a Papiſt is in your own ſenſe.
§ 18. His ſaying p. 225. that [John Comes that gives a ſad account of the Council is much to be ſuſpected, &c. doth but tell us that he would have your belief of Hiſtory guided by the Intereſt of his Cauſe.
§ 19. As to his ſcorn againſt my tranſlating the words [the Scripture and Sacred] which mean that imperial Scripture, I did think a litteral Tranſlation could not have been judged a miſunderſtanding or miſtranſlation: Why may they not be called in Engliſh what they are called in Greek? And he had a ſtrong imagination if he thought that Haumers Tranſlation of Euſebius, &c. afforded me ſuch materials as theſe.
§ 20. His concluſion of ſome that ſcorn to preach by the Licence of the Government I before mentioned. The Truth and miniſterial Honeſty of it, is much like as if Thouſands ſhould petition the Biſhop, that their ſick families may have licenſed Phyſicians, and he rejecteth all their Petitions, and prevaileth with the Parliament to do the like: At laſt the King pittieth them, and licenſeth the Phyſicians, and the Biſhop and his Clergy are offended, and get it revoked, and the Phyſicians practiſe at their peril without licenſe: And our credible Hiſtorian ſhould record it, that they ſcorned to practiſe as licenſed by the Government, even while ſtill they make all the Friends they can to the Clergy to be licenſed, and are not able to prevail. But the ages that knew not them and us, that are to come, may poſſibly believe theſe men as they believe their Predeceſſors.
§ 21. To conclude, Reader, if now thou have any ſenſe of Chriſtian Intereſt, Unity and Love, judge of the whole caſe impartially, and begin with notorious matter of fact.
1. We find at this day a great Body of Chriſtians, called Neſtorians, inhabiting the Countries of Babylon, Aſſyria, Meſopotamia, Partbia, and Media, yea, ſpread Northerly to Cataya, and Southerly to India; abundance of them even in Tartary, ſaith Paulus Venet. See Brierwood p. 139. And we find that they are by the Weſtern Churches, if not the Greeks, called Hereticks, and at the eaſieſt Schiſmaticks. And yet as thoſe very Friars that have lived among them ſay, they are commonly free from any ſuch Opinions as are charged on them, but only honour the name of Neſtoriaus, and condemned the Councils that condemned him. This Mr. M. nor no Prelate will deny that retaineth humanity.
2. We find that this woful fraction hath continued about one Thouſand two Hundred and thirty Years.
3. We are put to enquire what was and is the cauſe; and we find that on both ſides it is the Biſhops and their Clergy that now continue it, and it was Patriarchs and their Biſhops that at firſt cauſed it.
4. We enquire how they did it: And Mr. Morrice confeſſeth that it began in a diſpute between the two Patriarchs (whether the Virgin Mary was to be called The Mother of God, or rather The Mother of Jeſus Chriſt who is God and Man: and that on this occaſion Cyril charged Neſtorius, as making Chriſt to be two Perſons, and he himſelf ſaid Chriſt incarnate had but one Nature, but had no more skill in ſpeaking, than by one Nature to mean one Perſon, (though Derodon labour to prove that he meant worſe,) that Neſtorius profeſſed two Natures in one Perſon. And Mr. M. ſaith, Neſtorius when he ſpake well meant ill, and Cyril when he ſpake ill meant well. And upon this a General Council itſelf is firſt divided about them, even to blows: and after by the importunity of Cyril's party, Neſtorius is baniſhed, and the Biſhops divided, ſome for one, and ſome for another to this day. Another Council is called at Calcedon, and confirmeth the Condemnation, and the Neſtorian Biſhops condemn that Council, and for many Ages the Biſhops were divided alſo about that, one part condemning it, and the other ſubſcribing to it, and honouring it. Judge now what theſe Biſhops have done to Chriſtian Religion and the Church of Chriſt, and continue to do: And if you dare join with our Canoneers in making the guilt your own, by juſtifying ſuch diſmal work; the further you go, the more of it you have to juſtifie, till your Souls have guilt and load enough.
Honeſt Dr. Moore charged with Neſtorianiſm, is fain to accuſe Neſtorius out of his Enemies words to clear himſelf. That he owned not a [Phyſical Union of Natures] is an ambiguous, unſafe word: A Phyſical Union ſeems to ſignifie one foreign which is not to be ſaid. He never denied a perſonal or Hypoſtatical Union. And if he had (as he did not) oppoſed the word Hypoſtaſis, ſo did Hierom that was no Heretick, and many more for a long time.
I ſuppoſe Mr. M. is not more zealous againſt Neſtorianiſm than the Hereticating Church of Rome is: And how great they really thought the Neſtorian Hereſie, the ſtory which I mention of P. Hormiſda tells you, which I will repeat. [There aroſe a controverſie whether it might be ſaid that [One of the Trinity was crucified,] Pope Hormiſda ſaid [No] becauſe they that were for it were ſuſpected to be Eutychians: The Neſtorians laid hold on this, and ſaid, [Then we may not ſay that Mary was the Parent of one of the Trinity.] This was a hard caſe: Juſtinian ſent to Pope John about it. His infallibility and Hormiſda's were contrary: he and his Council ſay that we may ſay, that [One of the Trinity was crucified.] Hereupon Baronius and Binnius give us a uſeful note, [Ita mutatis hoſtibus arma mutari neceſſe ſuit.] What ſhould the World do if we had not had ſuch a Judge of Controverſies. I hope Mr. M. will not be ſo heretical, or ſchiſmatical, as to ſay that either of theſe Popes erred againſt an Article of Faith: But will rather recant his Accuſation of Neſtorius, and number this with Things Indifferent, which the Church hath power to change at her pleaſure.