The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 23
CHAP. XXIII. Of the 4th General Council at Calcedon.
§ 1. HE begins his Chapter comically, and notably derideth me for ſaying Pulcheria was the ſame that before at Epheſus had ſet the Biſhops againſt Neſtorius. Is this ſo ridiculous? It's well known that Hiſtorians make her very powerful with her Brother: ſhe choſe his Wife Eudocia, (They were long of two minds.) It's no wonder that ſhe that got him condemned at Epheſus, got the ſame further done at Calcedon, when ſhe was Empreſs her ſelf, having made Martian Emperour, and her nominal Husband, (for they were not conjugally to know each other.) Is there any thing in this that deſerveth the ſtage? Though Theodoſius be reproached by Popiſh Hiſtorians as an Eutychian, or a favourer of them, if credible honeſt Socrates may be believed, there have been few ſuch Princes in the World, (for Piety, his Houſe was a Church; for Patience, never ſeen angry; for Compaſſion, would never let a man die for Treaſon-againſt himſelf.) But his Siſter (a Woman eminent for Wit and Piety) was thought to govern him very much, & ſpecially in the ſeverities againſt Neſtorius. Evagrius who bitterly reproacheth Neſtorius, tells us of ſome writings of his that fell into his hand, in which he ſaith, that the Emperour was his friend, and would not ſign his baniſhment, and laies the cruelties that he underwent on his Officer: and conſidering the caſe of a ſuffering man, I ſee nothing unſeemly in the Letter to him, which Evagrius chargeth with contempt.
§ 2. My wiſh for the Churches Peace, that the unskilful words of Neſtorius and Eutyches had been ſilenced by neglect, rather than the flame blown up by honouring them with two General Councils diſputation, doth with this Gentleman deſerve this Replication, [He cannot be more violent and outragious, more bitter and malicious under all the provocations imaginable, than he is under that neglect which himſelf preſcribeth for the cure.] Anſ. If this be a true accuſer, he can prove what he ſaith: It's eaſie to ſay this of any man: But if a man that hath a cholerick Stomack ſhall ſwear that there was Aloes in his Phyſick, his word is no proof. Theſe are the men into whoſe hands we are by Gods permiſſion falln, while we are caſt out, judged to ſilence, priſons, & beggary, if we do but repeat the words of the Laws and Canons, and in 17 Years time when moſt that they turned out are dead, if the reſt at their own urgent demand do but tell them what they judge unlawful, and anſwer thoſe that accuſe them, they are outragious, violent, bitter, and malicious. As if one that wounds me ſhould ſue me for ſaying, You hurt me. It's violence and an unpeaceableneſs to feel, but none at all in them to ſtrike or to deſtroy. We will give you many thanks if you will hurt us no more than we do you.
§ 3. I ſaid that one skilful healing man that could explicate ambiguous words, and perſuade men to Love and Peace, till they underſtood each other, had more befriended Truth, Piety, and the Church, than the hereticating Councils did.] And why, ſaith he, may not that skilful man ſhew his skill in Councils, as well as elſe where?
Anſ. Who denieth it? But the queſtion is, how he ſhall be heard and prevail? I told you that here One man in one ſentence did ſo, by differencing between mental diſtinguiſhing and dividing; even Baſil of Seleucia, ſaying, [Cognoſcimus duas naturas, non dividimus; neque diviſas, neque confuſas dicimus.] This was true and plain enough, to have ended all the quarrel: But who laid hold on it, or did improve it? What the better was Nazianzen for ſpeaking well in the Council at Constantinople? Or Chryſoſtome for any thing he could ſay to the Biſhops for himſelf? I hope few of all that great number of Councils that were Arian, Semiarian, Eutychian, Monothelites, for Images, &c. were ſo bad as to have never a Biſhop among them that could or would ſpeak right: But did they prevail? In the very Council at Trent were more good Speeches than did prevail; and if Luther, Melanchthon, Zuinglius, and ſuch others, had not done more good ſingly by Writing and Preaching, than Dudithius could do at Trent, or any of them at Wormes, or Ratisbone, &c. there had been little done. What good did Philpot do in the Convocation? Some ſay one Paphnutius turned the Inclination of the firſt Nicene Council for good; But that hearing temper was too ſhort or rare.
§ 4. Next he tells us, that [in many late Diſputes of Juſtification, &c. we find not that any of theſe healing men were able to reconcile Parties any more than the Councils of old.]
Anſw. 1. If that were true, it's alſo true, that they have not made ſo great and many Parties as Councils did. We have not caſt the world into ſo many Nations of Jacobites, Neſtorians, and other Sects.
Anſw. 2. Through God's mercy it is much better than ſuch Hiſtorians would make men believe. Dr. Heylin tells us what work the Arminian Controverſie made between Biſhop Laud's Party, and the Parliaments and Abbots Party, as if it had ſet us all by the Ears. It is not ſo now: One of your Brethren lately tells us, how that Controverſie is quieted: What Contention do you hear of among the Nonconformiſts about it? No man hath ſo much as writ a line, that I know of, againſt my Conciliation in my Cathol. Theology. How little ſtir doth the Antinomian Controverſie make? If one or two men do vent their diſpleaſure about any of theſe, we neglect it, and it is preſently forgotten. I hear ſometime that called Arminianiſm hotly preached in the Pariſh Churches: It provoketh not me, and I take no notice of it. I (rarely) hear ſome preach againſt the Arminians: I take no notice of it, and there it dies: Whereas if one ſhould write Challenges and Accuſations to the Preachers, we might make work enough for all the Country. I never yet met with many ſuch, but if you make not a War of it, and engage them by oppoſition, they grow weary themſelves, and grow into unobſerv'd neglect or contempt. Moſt of the ſpreading Errours and Contentions among us have come by the Bellows of too ſtrong or imprudent Oppoſition or Diſputes. I hear of no conſiderable Doctrinal Strivings among all the Nonconformiſts now in England. One Ignorant Uncalled Fellow is lately crept into London, and wrote proud Challenges for Antinomianiſm, and none anſwered him, and he is contemned, and hath no Second that I hear of.
§ 5. Though he ſay [he is weary, yet he must not paſs by, that when I mention Socrates his moſt high praiſe of Theodoſius (living under him) and the miracles which he ſaith God wrought for him; I ſay, if this be true, God owned his Moderation by Miracles, notwithſtanding his favouring the Eutychians, more than he did any ways of violence.] And here the man hath found me in Contradiction, and ſaith, [Thoſe miracles could not countenance the Eutychian cauſe that was after. 2. That the Eutychians were the moſt violent men. Such Contradictions he and L'Eſtrange find in my Writings.
Anſ. But, 1. Is it true that I ſaid thoſe miracles countenanced the Eutychian Cauſe? I ſaid only that God owned the Moderation (not the Eutychian Opinion) of a man called an Eutychian by the Hereticators, notwithſtanding his favouring the Eutychians. He was a man that ſtudied the reconciliation of the contending Biſhops, and was moderate towards all, but perſuaded that the major Vote of the Biſhops being againſt Neſtorius, and for Cyril, and Dioſcorus, it tended to peace to take that ſide. His Moderation was the ſame before the ſtir with Eutyches as after. I only ſaid that God by miracles owned that mans moderation, who is charged with after favouring the Eutychians.
2. And what I ſpake of Moderation oppoſite to violence, in way of ſuppreſſing Hereticks, he feigneth me to ſpeak it as oppoſite to violence in the Perſons ſuppreſſed: I ſpake of Violence in the Prince as agent, and he feigneth me to ſpeak of Violence in the parties that he dealt with. He may find matter at this rate to write greater Volums againſt any man. I read of none of the Hereſies then contended about, Neſtorian or Eutychian, but the accuſed Biſhops were violent for them: But though they were all violent, yet if the queſtion were, whether the Emperour ſhould uſe violence or Moderation againſt them, I may ſay, that God owneth more the way of Moderation.
§ 6. P. 246. he ſaith [At Epheſus Euſtathius was kikt to death, and all thoſe that durſt deſend him were threatned to be ſerved in like manner.] Anſ. Of this before: His memory failed him: It was not Euſtathius but Flavianus. 2. Yet he after excuſeth Dioſcorus from Hereſie; more Biſhops than were Hereticks were violent.
§ 7. As to his Reflection, [It may be he thinks the Emperour took a particular Delight in that kind of cruelty, and that he had rather one ſhould be kickt to death, than that he ſhould be hanged or beheaded; which would not be much to the credit of his Moderation: And to ſay the truth, his Letter to Valentinian diſcovers a ſtrange kind of Spirit; for there he juſtifies the proceedings of the Eutychians at Epheſus, and ſaies that all things were carried on with much freedom and perfect Truth, and Flavian found guilty of Innovating in Religion. This is but an ill ſign that Mr. B. is a hater of falſe Hiſtory, when he lets this paſs unreproved.
Anſ. 1. Had I reproved ſuch an Emperour, I might have expected that ſome of you would have publiſhed me an Enemy to Kings.
Anſ. 2. Rather Sir, you and I ſhould hence gather, that all men muſt have pardon and forbearance, and that for want of that, the names of Neſtorians, Jacobites, Melchites, Greeks, Papiſts, Proteſtants, Lutheranes, Calviniſts, Prelatiſts, and Presbyterians, &c. have almoſt ſwallowed up the Name, much more the Love of Chriſtians.
Anſ. 3. May it not conſiſt with modeſty and the hatred of falſe Hiſtory, to believe the high praiſes of this Emperour, publiſhed by one that knew him in ſo pious and credible words as Socrates ſpeaks, as I before told you, giving him (to me) a more credible Canonization than the Pope could have done, as a man of eminent holineſs, wonderful Clemency, that would not let a Traitor go out of the Gates towards the place of Execution; and when he was moved to any Execution, anſwered, he had rather, were he able, reſtore the Dead to Life: excelling all the Clergy in meekneſs, and never ſeen angry. May not I who am branded for a railer by meek Prelatiſts, be tolerated to think charitably of ſuch an Emperour, and to wiſh that the world had many more ſuch.
Anſ. 4. Judges are taken for unjuſt if they will not hear both ſides ſpeak. And why ſhould not I regard the words of ſuch an Emperour, as well as of one half the Biſhops againſt the other?
Anſ. 5. Surely Modeſty requireth me to think that the Emperour was much more capable of knowing the truth of the acts of his own Subjects, when his Servants preſent gave him an account of them, than I am 1200 Years after: And ſo good a man would not willingly lye.
Anſ. 6. Therefore my own Concluſion is, God is true and all men are Lyars, that is, untruſty: and that Eudocia and his Courtiers had much power with him for Dioſcorus againſt Flavian, as Pulcheria had againſt Neſtorius; but that it was the Peace and Concord of the Biſhops which he moſt ſtudied, and thought that it lay in going with the major part. And I believe things were bad on both ſides, and worſe than the Emperour thought with the Eutychian Biſhops, and worſe than others ſay with their Adverſaries; and that the Emperour, though fallible, was as Socrates ſaith, beyond all the Clergie.
But here I ſee that I am blamed for not railing againſt a meek and pious Emperour, and as a Railer for lamenting the ſins of the Clergie.
§ 8. About the Council of Calcedon he accuſeth me in general, as [diſingeniouſly mincing the Acts, and uſing all the ſoul play poſſible.
Eaſily ſaid: And what's the proof? Why, 1. Leave out that they were violently beaten to it.
Anſ. The Reader may ſee that this is falſe: I mention it oft, pag. 101. [The Biſhops anſwered, that they did it againſt their Wills, being under fear: Condemnation and baniſhment was threatned, Souldiers were there with Clubs and Swords.] Shall I believe this man againſt ſuch as Socrates, of things done 1200 Years ago, that will face me down with ſuch untruths about my own yet viſible Writings?
2. But is it falſhood to omit what is ſaid in ſuch and ſo many Volumns? May not the Reader there ſee it? Do I contradict it? Muſt I write many Folio's or nothing? I refer all Readers to the Acts.
§ 9. But he ſaith, [It would go near to excuſe their Compliance with a merciful man.]
Anſ. I confeſs ſuch are not ſo bad as the Clergy-men, that will ſin for meer Preferment, and will write againſt, and revile, and call for Execution on thoſe that will not do as they. But if Nonconformiſts after 19 Years Ejection and Reproach, and Sufferings by more than Threats, ſhould at laſt ſurrender to heinous ſin, can he think it would excuſe their Compliance, when Chriſt ſaith, Luk. 14 33. He that forſaketh not all that he hath cannot be my Diſciple? If he think Martyrdom a work of Supererogation, he is dangerouſly miſtaken. And he that to day thinks Threatning and Danger an Excuſe for his ſin, may to morrow think Poverty, and the next day the deſire of Preferment an excuſe.
§ 10. Dioſcorus and the Eutychians holding cloſe to the Council of Nice, as ſufficient, as a Teſt of the Orthodox, to which nothing was to be added, in reciting this he hath found my Ignorance in tranſlating [retractat] by [retract.] Is not the Engliſh word of the ſame ſence with the Latine? If not, and I be ignorant in Engliſh too, what wrong is that to any Biſhop?
§ 11. When he had charged Nonſence and Confuſion on that which he underſtood not, and mentioned Euſib. Doril. giving the Lye to Eutyches, he confeſſeth that the thing was true.
§ 12. P. 253. He ſaith, When the giddy rabble of Monks with Swords and ſtaves, like Bedlams broke looſe, run upon them—I ſhould rather pity them than inſult.
Anſ. If the Hiſtory be an inſulting, his own credited Hiſtorians inſult by recording it. If noting it as a fault be inſulting, then a motion to Repentance is inſulting, and if he would have us pity them for their ſin, and not only for their ſuffering, that is inſulting too: But to own their ſin, and draw men to imitate them, ſhall be none of my Compaſſion.
He minds me of Peters Denial, and the Diſciples forſaking Chriſt. Alas! he is not a man that is not ſenſible of Humane frailty? But is it not therefore to be blamed? Why doth Scripture mention it, but that we may avoid the like? Is it to tempt others to the like? Did Chriſt inſult when he ſaid to Peter, Get thee behind me Satan, &c.
§ 13. He next falls into his familiar ſtrain, to carry that ex Cathedra, by ſentence, which he cannot do by proof, and ſaith, [When I venture on Obſervations it's an even lay that I am out.] Anſ. That is, I am out of the way of his Magiſtry, Preconceipt and Intereſt.
It is my Conciliatory words that the peaceable man is angry at, viz. [That this doleful, Contentious, Anathematizing, and ruining of each other, was about the ſenſe of ambiguous words, and they were both of one mind in the matter and knew it not.] He cannot but confeſs, that my judgment of them is ſofter than theirs that hereticate each other. And Derodon hath fully proved that this Council when they condemned Neſtorius, were of his Judgment in the whole matter, and ſaid but the ſame as he.
§ 14. As to his telling me, that Eutyches denied Chriſt to be truly and properly man, I will no more believe him, than if he had ſaid Cyril did ſo.
§ 15. But he ſaith, the Monothelites were the genuine Diſciples of Eutyches. They were of his mind in that Conſequence: And ſuch another Controverſie it was. And how much greater errour againſt our Belief of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, have I proved e. g. to be, in your Dr. Sherloks Book; And yet I hope he meant better than he ſpake.
§ 16. P. 255. He confeſſeth of one Party what I ſaid, viz. [Of Dioſcorus and Flavian, I am apt to believe they were much of the ſame Opinion as to the point in controverſie, and knew it well enough; which was the only cauſe why Dioſcorus with his party of Biſhops and Monks, would not endure to come to any Debate of the matter, for fear it would appear that they all agreed, and then there would have been no pretence to condemn Flavian, which was the Deſign, if not of the Emperour, yet at leaſt of thoſe that governed him.]
Anſ. Fie Dr. will you thus abuſe ſo many Orthodox Biſhops? And almoſt condemn your vindicating Book? And harden me in my Errour? But I am much of your mind, and if one of us err, ſo doth the other.
§ 17. And I like his Ingenuity, ſaying Anatolius confeſſeth in Council, that Dioſcorus was not condemned for Hereſie but Tyranny, and no man contradicted him. Anſ. Not in anſwer to thoſe words, but the Accuſations of many contradicted him before.
§ 18. That they mean one thing by their various expreſſions I have fully proved, and he no whit confuteth: That the Eutychians acknowledged no diſtinct Properties, and Neſtorius owned an Unity but in Dignity and Title only, are his flat ſlanders, to be no way proved but by their Adverſaries accuſations. The very words I named even now, [Divino, mirabili, ſublimi nexu.] and many clearer, ſhew it of Neſtorius. And I wiſh him to take heed himſelf how he defineth the Hypoſtatical Union, leſt the next General Council (if ever there be one) make him an Heretick.
Can he believe that the great number of Eutychian Biſhops were ſo mad, as not to know that Chriſts Mortality, poſſibility, material Quantity, Shape, &c. were the properties of Chriſts Humanity and not his Deity? But ſome Men can believe any thing well or ill, reaſonable or unreaſonable, as Intereſt and affection lead them.
§ 19. He ſaith, that [If it were a faction that denied this, it was a ſtrong one, and never was oppoſed by any Perſon before Mr. Baxter.
Anſ. I heard you were a young man; but if you be not above one Hundred Years old, your reading cannot be great enough to excuſe this confidence from ſuch temerity as rendereth you the leſs credible. How many Thouſand Books be they which you or I never read? How know you that none of them all oppoſe it? But would you perſuade the Reader that I call it a Faction, to believe your ſence of theſe Councils? Factious men are forwardeſt to judge others Hereticks without cauſe; and all that I ſay is, that Though ſuch deny my Aſſertion it is true: Doth it follow that I take all for factious that deny it? If I had ſaid, [Though Papiſts deny it,] that had not been all one as to ſay, [All are Papiſts that deny it.]
2. But did never any perſon oppoſe it? 1. I named you David Derodon before, who though he largely labour to prove Cyril an Eutychian in words and ſence, and that by foreign he did mean Natura, and not Perſona, yet as to Neſtorius he copiouſly proveth, that the Council of Calcedon was juſt of his Mind, and condemned him for want of Underſtanding him. Though you have not ſeen that Book of Derodons, I have, and you ſhould not judge of what you never ſaw.
2. Luther de Conciliis firſt accuſeth Neſtorius as a Heretick, denying Chriſt's Godhead, or holding two Perſons; And preſently retracts it, and confeſſeth he was ſeduced by believing the Papiſts, but (though he had not read much of the Councils, but what he had gathered out of the Tripartite and ſuch Hiſtorians) yet he gathered from the Paſſages of the Hiſtory, that the difference lay only in words, which he openeth at large, and yet turns it ſharply againſt Neſtorius, for thinking that we may not ſpeak of Chriſts Godhead or Manhood by communicated names or Attributes, and greatly rejoiceth that this ſerveth his turn in his Opinion about Conſubſtantiation and Sacramental words.
Becauſe I will leave nothing in doubt with you, but whether Luther was before my days, and leſt you ſay again that I cite Books which I ſee not, I will give you ſome of his words, beginning earlier, (not tranſlating leſt I have not skill enough) but they are ſo like mine, that I doubt you will be no Lutherane.
De Concil. pag. 175. Eccleſiae Romana & C. P. ambitioſe rixatae ſunt de re nihili, vaniſſimis & nugasiſſimis naeniis donec tandem utraque horribiliter vaſtata & deleta eſt.—Illa omnia libentius recito, ut videat prudens Lector quomodo ex tam celebri Synodo Conſtant inopolitana, ſeu ex ſonte manaverint ſemina maximarum Confuſionum propterea quod ibi Epiſcopus Eccleſiae ut Patriarcha fuerat Praefectus.—p. 178. Quam horribilia certamina & contentiones moverunt hi duo Epiſcopi de primatu: ut facile judicari poſſet Spiritum ſanctum non eſſe authorem hujus Inſtituti: Alia habet Epiſcopus longe potiora quae agat, quam ſunt hi pueriles & inepti ludi—Praemonemur quod Concilia prorſus nihil novi debent comminiſci vel tradere.
De Concil. Epheſ. p. 180, 181. Exceſſerant jam è vivis ſancti Patres, & illi optimi Epiſcopi, S. Ambroſius, S. Martinus, S. Hieronymus, S. Auguſtinus (qui eo ipſo anno quo Synodus coacta eſt mortuus eſt) S. Hilarius, S. Euſebius & ſimiles; eorumque loco prorſus diſſimiles patres ſuborti fuerant. Ita ut Imperator Theodoſius amplius eligi Epiſcopum C. P. ex Sacerdotibus vel Clericis Civitatis C. P. nollet: hanc ob cauſam quod plerumque eſſent ſuperbi, ambitioſi, moroſi, qui movere certamina, & tumultus in Eccleſiis plerumque tolerent.—p. 182. Cumjam videret Neſtorius tantas turbas ortas ex corruptela multiplici, gemens prorupit in haec verba, Tollamus è medio omnes ambiguitates quae primum praebuerunt occaſiones iſtis certaminibus, & fateamur palam Mariam recte vocari Matrem Dei. Sed nihil profecit Neſtorius, ne tunc quidem eum revocaret ſuum errorem; ſed voce publica conde m…atus, ex orbe Imperii univerſo ejectus & exploſus eſt: Quanquam illi duo Epiſcopi Antiochenus & Alexandrinus, etiam poſt Concilium cum rediiſſent in ſuas Eccleſias, ſe ipſi mutuis convitiis lacerabant, & omnibus diris devovebant: Etſi poſtea res ad placidum exitum deducta eſt: Quanquam tamen dolendum hoc, & effuſis lachrymis deplorandum in Eccleſia eſt, tam praeſtantes viros adeo indulſiſſe ſuis affectibus, ut inſtar mulierum aut puerorum ineptiſſime inter ſe rixarentur. Omnino ſuiſſet eis opus aliquo Conſtantino, qui ipſorum jurgia & contentioſa ſcripta etiam conjeciſſet in ignem.—p. 184. Mentioning the falſe accuſations of Neſtorius, making two Perſons, &c. [Atque adeo intricata & confuſa ſunt quae ſcribunt, ut exiſtimem ne quidem ipſos ſcire in hunc uſque diem, quid & propter quas cauſas damnaverint Neſtorium. Hoc inde conjicito. Fatentur credidiſſe Neſtorium quod Chriſtus ſit Deus & Homo—exhis certum eſt quod Neſtorius non crediderit Chriſtum eſſe purum hominem.—Conſtat Neſtorium non duos ſed unum Chriſtum credidiſſe, id quod ipſorum verba teſtantur—ideoque non potuit credere eſſe duas perſonas. Nec ullibi reperitur in hiſtoriis quod Neſtorius unum Chriſtum crediderit habere duas perſonas, niſi quod Pontifices & corum hiſtoriae it a argutantur. Apparet Papam & ſcriptores Pontificios haec verba contra Neſtorium calumnioſe & veteratorie finxiſſe, quod Christum pro puro homine & non pro Deo, & quod unum Christum pro duabus perſonis vel gemino Christo habuerit.—Nestorius fuit homo inflatus tumens Phariſaico fastu, & indoctus; Et cum ſubito eſſet evectus ad ſupremum fastigium Eccleſiae, adeo ut haberetur pro ſummo Pontifice, Patriarcha, ſomniabat ſe unum antecellere doctrina & eruditione omnes homines in toto genere humano, nec ſibi opus eſſe lectione librorum qui erant ſcripti à Majoribus aut aliis, nec in explicatione magnaram rerum retinendos eſſe modos loquendi antiquitus receptos in Eccleſia puriore; ſed quia & voce valebat, & ex temporali ſacundia volebat eſſe foreign, Doctor vel Magister, & ſormas loquendi quibus ipſe uteretur tantum recipiendas eſſe in Eccleſia, non alias. Et tali ſaſtu armatus adoriebatur illum articulum. Maria est mater Dei, aut genetrix Dei; Ibi viciſſim Epiſcopos in adverſa parte invenit perinde inflatos, quibus vehementer diſplicebat. Nestorii ſaſtus, in primis Cyrillum Alexandrinum: quia tunc nullus erat Augustinus aut Ambreſius.—p. 189. Hinc manifestum est, quod Nestorius ut homo imprudens & vaniſſima perſu…ſione adductus, loquatur quidem bono zelo de Christo: ſed ex mera inſcitia non intelligat quid & quomodo loquatur.—p. 192. Non est Neſtorii error quod Christum credit tantum eſſe purum hominem, nec in duas perſonas eum dirimi; ſed duas naturas Deum & hominem in una perſona uniri ſatetur: ſed communicationem idiomatum non vult concedere. Objiciat autem hic aliquis, Nestorium inſidioſe confeſſum eſſe, quod Christus Deus ſit & una perſona. Reſp. Quod non: Tam ingenioſus enim & industrius non ſuit, ſed ſerio ita judicavit.—Ad haec acceſſit aliorum Epiſcoporum inſolentia, qui non cogitaverunt quomodo ſananda eſſent talia vulnera, ſed multo magis irritandis & refricandis cauſam dederunt. Vide caetera.
P. 202. De Concil. Calcedon. Adeo indulgebant ſancti Patres mutuis odiis & diſſenſionibus ut alter non facile vellet alteri cedere—ſhewing the uncertainty of the Hiſtories of this Council, and the Lies of the Papiſts not to be truſted. Iam divina qua ratione ego ero ſalvandus, qui nec ipſum Concilium aſſequor, nec cauſam Concilii ſatis perſpicio. p. 205. Quod Eutyches non tantum unam in Christo naturam eſſe statuat, oſtendunt Papistarum Verba, qui dicunt Eutychen conceſſiſſe in Christo duas naturas, viz. Divinitatem & Humanitatem, quae à Divinitate eſt aſſumpta—Sed quid Eutyches voluerit quod poſtea in Chriſto tantum Divina natura manſerit, deſerta humana, ibi prorſus ſunt muti; & re nondum certo cognitd dicunt, ſtatuiſſe Eutychen quod in Chriſto duae naturae, & tamen non duae ſed una natura ſit: Ita poſtea hiſtoriae fiunt incertae & obſcurae, ut nemo poſſit intelligere quid Eutyches ſenſerit, aut quid Pontificiae hiſtoriae ſentiant. Amittimus hiſce ambagibus concilium una cum cauſis propter quas convocatum eſt.—Ego meas conjecturas recitabo: ſi rem aſſequor, bene; ſi non, non propterea labeſactabitur fides Chriſtiana. Eutychis opinio (ſicut & Neſtorii) errat circa idiomata, quamvis alio modo. Neſtorius non vult idiomata humanitatis tribuere Divinitati in Chriſto:—Contra Eutyches non vult idiomata divinitatis tribuere humanitati, etiamſi & ipſe firmiter & mordicus retineat Chriſtum eſſe verum Deum & hominem. Ut ſi dicerem in Concione publica, Verbum filium Dei eſſe conditorem Coeli & Terrae aequalem Patri ab aeterno—Et hoc Verbum, illum filium Dei eſſe verum hominem: Hoc concedit mihi Eutyches nihil dubitans. Iam ſi porro dicam, Quod ille homo Chriſtus ſit conditor coeli & terra, hoc offendit Eutychen, qui putat prorſus eſſe abſurdum dicere, Homo creat coelum & terram.—P. 210. Ibi vides quod idiomata facili occaſione homines non praemonitos offendant & perturbent. Hic erat ſubveniendum teneris Conſcientiis …raterna, amica & ſalutari admonitione, nec ſuperbiſſimi errantes abjiciendi eſſent. Utinam meo judicio non reſpondeat eventus: ſed vereor profecto aliquos haereticos in noviſſimo die fieri judices; & illos ipſos Epiſcopos penes quos ſuit judicandi poteſtas, in aeternum damnatos, ni Deus eſt mirabilis & incomprehenſibilis in ſuis judiciis; niſi quod ſcimus eum eſſe propitium humilibus & infenſiſſimum ſuperbis. Et praeſertim in Conciliis & Eccleſiis nihil erat agendum zelo vel invidia, vel ſuperbia, quia Deus non poteſt ferre.
§ 20. Readers, you ſee what tedious work ſome men can make us: Many are ſcandalized, as if we gave them falſe Hiſtory, if we do not thus confute them; and if we do, we tire our ſelves and you. If I ſhould cite you many more thus to confute his falſhood, that never perſon before me oppoſed that Faction, you would be weary of it.
§ 21. Yet now my hand is in, you ſhall ſee further how much Luther was for the ſame that I have written. [Qui volet poterit ulterius legere acta Concilii, privata opera. Ego ad taedium & nauſeam uſ que legi iſta; ejuſmodi Chaos ceremoniarum & confuſionum eſt ibi, ut videatur recte judicaſſe Greg. Naz. qui Synodis eruditioribas & ſedatioribus interfuit,—& ſcribit [Sic affectus ſum ſi dicenda eſt veritas. ut malim omnes Epiſcoporum conventus vitare, quia nullius Synodi finem vidi bonum, aut qui magis tolleret mala quam augeret. Nam cupiditas contentionis & principatus, & aemulatio vincunt rationem. Ut profecto miror quod propter haec verba non dudum eum excommunicaverunt ut atrociſſimum haereticum. Sed quid ſit quod dicit in Synodis Epiſcopos certaſſe ambitione, ſuperbia, foreign, habes in hac Synodo clariſſimum exempium. Quod autem certum ſit quod hic dicit ſe nullius Synodi vidiſſe finem bonum, docent nos hiſtoriae: Nam Ariana haereſis jocus fuit ante Nicaenum Concilium prae illa confuſione quam ipſi poſt Concilium excitaverunt, (that was not long of the Synod.) Talis etiam ſuit Macedonici & Neſtoriani Concilii. Nam illa pars quae eſt condemnat a eo ſuit conjunctior, ut tali ſpecie concordiae. & unitatis ſuas praeſtigias pingerent quaſi nulli juſta ratione damnari poſſent. Subinde excitarunt major a certamina contra Concilia quae ipſi non recte intelligebant.—P. 247. Illud poſſum facillime probare quod miſer ille Paſtor in Hippone S. Auguſtinus plus docuit quam omnia Concilia—Dicam & quiddam amplius: Majus Lumen accedit Doctrinae Chriſtianae ex Catechiſmo puerili quam ex omnibus Conciliis, & oratio Dominica & decem praecepta plus continent doctrinae & eruditionis quam omnia Concilia.
§ 2. Becauſe I recite the words of the Biſhops crying Peccavimus, he exclaimeth againſt me, as making Repentance and Reoantation a deriſion, and this by the Spirit of Schiſm which is nice in point of honour, no Conviction ſhall be able to reclaim it, though in the moſt indefenſible thing in the World.]
Anſ. Add but with the Inquiſitors, [Therefore burn them as hopeleſs.] and you are come to the end of your Leſſon. The penetrating Wits of ſome men are admirable. This man whoſe face I never ſaw, knoweth my heart ſo much better than my ſelf and my acquaintance, that he can tell that it is to avoid diſhonour that I avoid Repentance, when I offer him my Oath, that if I have any knowledge of my own deſire, I would thank him as my deareſt Friend, who will by Evidence ſhew me any neceſſary truth that I deny, or Falſhood that I hold, and will joyfully publiſh my recantation.
2. And he can ſee Schiſm in my forbearing known and heinous ſin in the ſatisfaction of my Conſcience, while I write, and preach, and practiſe Communion with their Church, and can ſee none in ſilencing Thouſands, and ipſo facto excommunicating many more Thouſands of godly Chriſtians, and denying Baptiſm and the Lords Supper to ſuch as think it is ſinful to do—he knows what.
3. And he can ſee thoſe things to be moſt indefenſible, which after our beſt ſtudy we take to be clear, and can get no rational Reply to our defence.
4. And (for want of memory or tenderneſs of his partners veracity) when their Advocates have ſo oft and ſcornfully charged me with Retractations, and alſo told the World how much my own party (as they call them) ſpeak againſt me, and my many large and free oppoſitions to the faults of Nonconformiſts that run into any extream, do all proclaim how little I have ſet by ſuch honour; yea, when himſelf ſaith that I have fiercely contended againſt all Sects and Parties, and they call me Iſhmael, whoſe hand is againſt every man: After all this to proclaim as aforeſaid, ſuch obſtinate Impenitence for the love of Honour, I confeſs doth no more further my conviction than the Oath of an Iriſh Witneſs would have done: For if he had ſworn it, I would have ſhewed my Books and their contrary teſtimony, and have askt him, whoſe honouring of me is it that I buy ſo dearly? It is not the Rulers, nor the Prelates, nor their Clergy, nor their adherents, noble or ignoble: And if I have willingly and laboriouſly diſpleaſed and loſt the Sectaries too, whoſe honour is it that I ſell my Soul for?
§ 23. But did the man think that Unconſtancy and compliance with powerful Hereſie, is the ſame thing with Repentance for it? Or is it well done to perſuade the Reader that it is Repentance or Retractation of Hereſie I write againſt, when I recite the words of the Council and their own? Do I ſay that peccavimus was their ſin?
§ 24. And I would humbly deſire him in time to conſider, 1. Whether it was a venial ſin not to be named by me, when the moſt zealous Papiſts and Hiſtorians name it, for ſo great a number of Biſhops to turn and turn again ſo often, and that with Anathematizing one year of what they voted for before with Anathema to the contrary. I crave your impartial conſideration but of two Inſtances: How oft did they with Anathema's vote for and againſt the Council of Calcedon as the Emperours changed? Yea in the ſame Uſurpers time, Baſiliſcus, when he changed himſelf. 2. In the caſe of Images: How oft did they change in Councils, for them and againſt them, as the Princes changed? Sir, we mind this with lamentation and not inſultingly: But if you take theſe for venial little ſins, and our not ſwearing and covenanting all that you bid us for a mortal ſin, are you not partial?
2. And I would wiſh you to think on it again, before you make this guilt your own, by mincing and excuſing it; and leſt you make all other mens ſin your own, whom hereby you encourage in the imitation of them. Theſe are not things indifferent.
3. And do not ſo diſhonour Prelacy, and your Church and Diſcipline, as to tell the World that theſe in Biſhops are little things; what then is left for you to ſtick at? No man ſhould make light of ſuch Beams in the Eyes of thoſe that ſhould be the moſt pure, while they are pulling the mote of ſcrupling a Ceremony, yea an Oath. &c. from their Brothers Eye, and that by ſuch Iron Inſtruments as they uſe.
§ 25. Next comes his Logical terms, [throwing dirt, outragious, bitter, malicious, &c.] And what's the matter? [I give not one looſe at Emperours and Courts: ſcorning to change the game; charging the Biſhops with the faults of the Magiſtrate, and laying all the blame on them.] In what words? I ſay, [ſo far could fierce, and factious Prelates prevail with a pious and peaceable Prince, by the pretences of oppoſing Hereſie and Schiſm.
Anſ. 1. Was he not a moſt pious and peaceable Prince? Then Socrates that knew him, and proteſteth againſt flattery, and many others, are not to be believed? yea, if he excelled not the Biſhops?
2. Do I ſay that none but the Biſhops perſuaded him? Where do I lay all the fault on them? Do I not after name the Empereſs Eudocia, as the Agent to perſuade him for the Eutychians, and Pulcheria to perſuade him againſt Neſtorius: My words are viſible.
3. What Biſhops were they that perſuaded him to make a Law to confirm the Epheſine, Eutychian Council? Was it not Dioſcorus and the Eutychians? Were they not Biſhops? Did they not do it? Yea, doth not this man oft revile them far more bitterly than ever I did, and revile me for ſpeaking ſo charitably of them? Would you ever have expected that the ſame man ſhould have ſo reviled me, for ſaying that theſe Eutychian Biſhops prevailed with a good Emperour to confirm that Council of Eutychians?
4. Is it a ſin not to ſpeak hardlier of ſo good a Prince, who after repented and puniſhed his Wife and Eunuch for perſuading him? It was a blaming him to tell to what he was perſuaded.
Truly the mans anger here for my blaming the Eutychian Biſhops, in condemnation of whom he hath poured out ſo much more than I, doth make me think that there is ſomewhat in the ſound of ſome words, that turns his wrath this way or that: When he hears the name of an Eutychian, away with them, ſpeak not eaſily of them. When the ſame men are called Biſhops, it's malice, outragious bitterneſs to blame them for getting a Law to confirm that called an Heretical, Murdering, Latroci…ian Council. His words are, p. 146. [Were there ever greater violences committed than in that infamous Conventicle at Epheſus?]
§ 26. P. 263. He confeſſeth that the Debate between the Council and the Egyptian Biſhops was ſomething too warm: but ſaith that heat was not altogether without reaſon. Anſ. This is his way to confeſs their faults, and then rail at me for bare reciting the words of the Debate or Hiſtory. But it was not without reaſon: He confeſſeth not ſo much as this of the ſilencing and ruining Miniſters now. It ſhall not be the uſe of my reaſon to make Figleaves to cloath and cover the ſins which God abhorreth.
Men will be men he ſaith, wherever they are placed, whether in a Council or in the Church, or even at the Altar.
Anſ. By Men I ſuppoſe he meaneth Sinners: and it's true. But of all Sinners Oh that God would ſave his Church from thoſe who hate reproof, and cheriſh the worſt that will be for them, and excommunicate and proſecute the moſt conſcionable that will not obey them in things which they call indifferent, for fear of ſinning againſt God.
§ 27. His trifling words about Leo and Rome are not worthy of an Anſwer.
§ 28. He hath, P. 268. hit again on the overſight which I before confeſſed, even the effect of my neceſſitated haſte, that in tranſlating Theodoret's words I put (truly) in the wrong place: I ask him forgiveneſs, and the Biſhops, if that be any ſlander againſt them; which is nothing to them.
§ 29. He ſaith, P. 269. [There is no truth in what our Author ſaith, that Ibas Epiſtle was acquit.] Anſ. There is no truth in ſaying that I ſaid it was, when my words were disjunctive, [The Epiſtle was acquit, or at leaſt the Biſhop upon the reading of it.] He ſaith, Ibas was not acquit on the reading the Epiſtle, but on the defence he made, that he communicated with Cyril. Anſ. His Accuſations of Falſhood are commonly Boyiſh Quibbles. His Defence and the Reading of his Letter go together, and in Binnius the Letter, and the Letters of the Clergy of Edeſſa are the laſt things done before he is diſcharged.
§ 30. P. 270. He ſaith, [The truth is, the Eaſtern Biſhops were not ſo ingenuous and fair after their reconciliation with Cyril, &c.] Thus he becomes himſelf ſtill an accuſer of the Biſhops.
§ 31. Becauſe I ſay that the Judges paſt ſentence to caſt out both Stephen and Baſſian from Epheſus, and all conſented, he ſaith, [One would think here the Judges paſſed ſentence againſt the conſent or Inclination of the Biſhops.] Anſ. There is no end of anſwering your thinkings. I did not ſay that the Judges paſſed the Councils Sentence but their own: And whether it were againſt the Fore-inclination of the Council let any Reader judge, when the Judges asking the Council their ſence, [Reſ. Epiſcopi clamaverunt, juſti…ia Baſſianum vocat: Regulae valeant. The Judges anſwered them that their judgment was that both were to be caſt out, and a third choſen, and the Council ſuddenly conſented. If he would be believed contradicting this he muſt deny the Acts.
§ 32. He hath found matter for a quibble againſt taſting Poterius Fleſh with their Teeth. Teeth taſte not: Dangerous falſe Hiſtory, or want of Learning is learnedly here diſcovered. When he cannot deny the moſt woeful, calamitous diſſentions which followed the Calcedon Council, he ſaith, [Was it the misfortune or the fault of theſe only not to be able to heal the differences of the Church? Or was the defect in the Councils, or the blame to be imputed to thoſe obſtinate men that oppoſed the Rule eſtabliſhed by them?]
Anſ. No: They were neither the firſt nor the laſt that have miſcarried. Nor are we the firſt that ſuffer under ſuch miſcarriage. It was the misfortune of the Churches to have ſuch Phyſicians: But as it is the honour of ſome Phyſicians to ſhew how many Patients they have cured, ſo is it of ſome others, when moſt die under their hands, to be able to ſay, that it was long of the Patients that would not be ruled, or that they killed them ſecundum artem. It was a Proverb in Sutton-Coldfield, [Who begun?] A poor man had but one Aſs and he loaded him too hard, and the Aſs being in pain bit his Maſter a little on the Buttock; and his Maſter knockt him down, and killed him; and when he ſaw him dying,, [Well, (ſaith he) But who begun?] But who had the loſs? There be Clergy-Men that can impenitently ſee the Strages, the diviſions, the ſwarms of ſin that are the conſequents of their needleſs maſterly Impoſitions, and wipe their mouths and ſay. It was the obſtinacy of thoſe that would not be ruled by us! They kill a Flea on a mans Forehead with a Beetle, and ſay they meant not to kill the man.
But if that Councils Acts were a fit means to cure the Churches Diviſions, how came they to be preſently and through many Ages, yea, ever ſince to this day, thereby increaſed ſo many fold? Though the Aſſembly at Jeruſalem cured not all the Jewiſh Teachers of their blind Zeal for Moſes Law, it was ſo far from increaſing the Diſſentions and number of Diſſenters, that it ſatisfied the Gentile Chriſtians for the moſt part, and many of the Jewiſh, and greatly diminiſhed the Diſcord. It's one thing not wholly to cure, and another to make far worſe.
§ 33. He inſtanceth alſo in the Dort Synod that made things worſe.
Anſ. 1. The Synod of Dort made things the worſe in their own Country, not by their Doctrinal Deciſions, but by too much of the Maſterly Spirit, engaging the Magiſtrates againſt the Arminians in the uſe of the Sword. Whether it be true that they ſay, that they were neceſſitated to do what they did againſt Barnevolt and Grotius for the ſafety of their State, I am no Judge: But I am ſure it is of an ill ſound to thoſe that read it: And ſo is it to read in Epiſcopius and others, what violence the People have uſed againſt the Arminians, and they were fain to tolerate them when all was done.
And it's no wonder that the Diſſention increaſed in England, when the Clergy would not long ſtand to the decrees that by our own ſix Delegates were moderated: Dr. Heylin tells you how Biſhop Laua's Zeal was the cauſe of our following Contentions: And how? By bearing down all that were againſt him.
2. But the meer Doctrinal Decrees of the Synod of Dort are ſo moderate and healing, that where Violence hath been forborn, and Reaſon uſed, many have been pacified by them. And
3. What that Synod did not, a few private Peace-makers have much done: The Writings of Camero Amyraldus, Capellus, Placeus, Teſtardus, Lud. Crocius, Mat. Martinius, Conr. Bergius, Joh. Bergius, Blondel, Daile, and above all, Le Blank's have for ought I hear, half ended the controverſie. And having my ſelf written one Book (Cathol. Theologie) for Reconciliation, I have not to this day had a word of Contradiction, but the Conſent of very many. And as I before noted, Is not even in London where other differences might exaſperate, yet this Controverſie almoſt laid to ſleep? But if our Arminians will but get as ſevere Laws and Canons made againſt them that are not of their Opinions, as be againſt them that dare not conform to the Dioceſane Model and the reſt, they ſhall quickly ſee this quarrel revived. The Articles of the Church of England determine not theſe Controverſies, and that is our Peace. Put in but one determining Article againſt either ſide, and it will break us more in pieces. Doth not our own Caſe and Experience then confute thoſe over-doing Councils?
§ 34. His next Inſtance is that of the Weſtminſter Aſſembly,—So far from reconciling the People, that after this they were diſtracted into innumerable Schiſms: Never was there ſo lamentable a face of things, never ſuch variety of Hereſie, and ſuch Wantonneſs, and Extravagancy, in blaſpheming God under pretence of Religion and Conſcience: And this is the State whither the ſame manner of men are driving again.
Anſ. 1. I ſay again I knew ſo many of that Aſſembly, as that I do not think that the Chriſtian World had ever an Aſſembly of more able and truly pious Clergy-Men, theſe 1300 Years at leaſt. But theſe Upſtarts that knew them not can tell us any thing that Faction hath taught them to believe concerning them and others. The Parliament was by ſeeming neceſſity drawn to gratifie the Scots: The Aſſembly, though Conformiſts, all, ſave Eight or Nine, were as ſenſible as the Nonconformiſts of the miſchiefs of ſilencing worthy Miniſters, and forbidding Afternoon Sermons, and ſuch like; and they were as much againſt Arminianiſm and Popery as the Church of England was in A. Bp. Abbat's days, and as much as he againſt the Doctrine of Mainwaring and Sibthorp: And the Parliament abſolutely reſtrained them from debating any thing but what they propoſed to them; ſo that they that were for the Primitive Epiſcopacy had no liberty to debate it, or ſpeak for it, but on the by. But when the Covenant was offered them againſt Prelacy, they were about to enter a Proteſtation againſt it, and were ſtopt only by limiting the renunciation to the Engliſh frame deſcribed in an explicatory Parentheſis. But for my part I think them much to be blamed, that they did not, though againſt that prohibition, reſolve to propoſe ſuch moderate healing terms to the Parliament as were agreeable to their judgments, or at leaſt have teſtified againſt the limiting of Church Concord to ſuch narrow termes, as muſt exclude ſuch men as were for the Engliſh Epiſcopacy: They might eaſily have known, that the number of ſuch in England was ſo great, as that an excluding Law muſt needs be an Engine of great Diviſion; and that Conqueſt will not change mens Judgments.
And as I doubt not but the five Diſſenting Independents were greatly to blame, for making ſuch a ſtir for leave to gather their Churches, when nothing was impoſed on them which they could accuſe; So I doubt not but the Aſſembly were to be blamed for making a greater noiſe againſt errours than they had cauſe for. Their deſire of Concord, which was good itſelf, did raiſe them to too great Expectations of it, and too great impatience of little differences. They publiſhed their Teſtimony againſt the errours of the times, in which they took in Dr. Hammond, and made many differences worſe than they were, too like the old Hereticators. And they wanted that skill to compoſe their differences with the Independents, as was needful to that end, and might have been attained. And will the faults of that Aſſembly juſtifie the far greater faults of others? But
2. This ſort of Hiſtorians do much more differ from us about the matters of Fact, which our Eyes have dayly-ſeen, yea, about our own Thoughts and Minds, than about the Hiſtory of the ancient Church. The caſe was very far different from that which he deſcribeth. Mr. Lawſon, a Conformiſt, ſaith, [There was never better Preaching, Piety encouraged and encreaſed, &c. than at that time. In all the Counties where I was acquainted, there were many young Orthodox faithful Preachers, that gave themſelves wholly to do good, for one that was ten Years before, and not any conſiderable number noted for any immorality: We were in the County where I lived almoſt all of one mind; for Epiſcopal, Presbyterians and Independents uniting in that which they agreed in, and leaving all to Liberty in the reſt, we lived in conſtant Brotherly Love and Peace without Diſſention. I never knew of any of a divers Religion in all the County, ſave at the end, in one or two corners about Twenty Quakers: And near me were about Twenty otherwiſe. Orthodox, that denied Infant-Baptiſm, (and perhaps as many more in the whole County,) and Two or Three ignorant Socinians. In the next County I heard not of ſo many Heterodox: Never did I ſee, before or ſince, ſo much Love and Concord among Miniſters, and all religious People, nor read of any Age that had ſo much for 1300 Years. And whereas the common cry is, Oh, but they were all Rebels againſt the King! I have named abundance of the Miniſters in mine Apology to Dr. Good, (who being Epiſcopal was a Guide in our Meetings, and after ſo accuſed the Nonconformiſts) and challenged him to name one of them that ever meddled with Wars. I knew none in all the County that was in any Army ſave the King's, ſave Mr. Hopkins of Eveſham (dead) and my ſelf, and one that is a Conformiſt, and one Independent (dead.)
But it's true, that they were then ſo ſet upon Pariſh Reformation and Concord, that they were more troubled at any one that did turn Quaker, or againſt Infant Baptiſm, than ſome indifferent Perſons are at Multitudes. And I was one that diſputed moſt againſt them, and wrote againſt ſome diſtant Antinomians, moſtly Souldiers; But our Diſputes ſatisfied and confirmed all our Neighbours more than Priſons would have done. We puniſhed none of them, and none of our People there turned to them. But I confeſs we were commonly too little ſenſible, how much hurtful Violence hindereth Concord, more than loving forbearance of tolerable differences. As too many were how much for Peace they ſhould have abated of the Zeal for their private Opinions, which they thought to be better than they were. We were much like the days that followed the Apoſtles, which had ſome troubleſome Sectaries, but the main Body of Chriſtians did cleave together in Love, till ſucceſs had puft up a rebellious Army to make themſelves Rulers, to the Confuſion of themſelves and others.
§ 35. At laſt mentioning the common Diſſentions of the Churches, he ſeems to reſolve the Queſtion, What then muſt be done? But he puts us off only with the Negative Anſwer, that [the Rule, i. e. of our Uniformity is not to be altered. And why? [We have no aſſurance that we ſhall find any Conformity to it more than we have now.]
Anſ. I muſt not call this Anſwer as it deſerveth.
1. You were about dealing otherwiſe with the Papiſts: Dr. Heylin tells us how much they were to have altered for Concord: Mr. Thorndike threatens the Land, if you alter not the Oath of Supremacy for them: The name of the Pope and Anti-Chriſt hath been expunged for them; yet you ſaid not, We know not that they will come any nearer us.
2. By theſe meaſures a Rag or a Ceremony ſhould never be abated for the Peace and Concord of any Church or Kingdom: You may ſtill ſay we are not ſure that this will ſerve them. The Pope may ſay ſo, where he refuſeth to abate the ſhaving of the Prieſts Beards, or the leaſt of his Impoſitions; yea he knows that would not ſerve. They ſaid ſo to the Bohemians four Demands: They concluded ſo at firſt againſt Luther. This very Argument hath kept them from all Reformation.
3. Can you find nothing in your Impoſitions that in the nature of the thing is worthy to be altered? If not, you have more or leſs Wiſdom than Biſhop Morton, and the reſt of the Church Doctors who at Weſtminſter motioned ſo many Alterations. … one ſhould but then move you to correct your known falſe Rule for finding Eaſterday, or to give Parents leave to be the firſt Promiſers for their own Children, and Godfathers but their ſeconds, or not to deny Chriſtendom and Communion for that or a Ceremony: No, come on it what will, nothing muſt be altered, leſt men ask more. And yet you preach againſt Clergy Infallibility, (or ſubſcribe at leaſt.)
4 But if you are ſo much againſt altering, why did you alter to our greater ſuffering, and add as much more (yea five times more) to the former Task and Burden? You can no doubt ſay ſomewhat for all this.
5. And when it is the ſame things that the old Nonconformiſts ſtill asked, and we ſince 1660 askt yet leſs, what reaſon had you to raiſe that ſuſpicion that we will not be ſatisfied with what we ask? Have we given you any cauſe? If you mean that perhaps there be ſome ſtill that may be unſatisfied, will you deny Peace to ſo many that beg it of you, becauſe others will not accept it on their Terms? Or will you never agree with any leſt ſome diſagreement ſhould ariſe hereafter.
Some Travellers were aſſaulted by the high way by a Captain of Souldiers, who took all their Money, Swords and Horſes, and ſwore he would kill them if they would not take an Oath to conceal him: One took the Oath to ſave his Life, another ſcrupled it: They begg'd his Mercy to reſtore ſo much as would bring them home: He askt them what would ſatisfie them: One would have his Horſe, another his Sword, another part of his Money. He told them, You are a Company of Rogues, that can neither agree what to ask, nor give me aſſurance if I give you this you will ask no more. I compare not the Authority but the Reaſons of the Denial.
§ 36. But ſeeing no abatement of their Canons, &c. muſt be granted, what is it that muſt cauſe our Concord? He would not tell you; but it's diſcernible what's left: It muſt be no Concord but what Puniſhment can procure: And what puniſhment? Sharper than is yet tried; for that hath not done it: Such Concord as Tertullian nameth, Solitudinem faciunt & pacem vocant: The Concord in Spain is worſe than the Amſterdam toleration.
Again I remember the great Fiſh-Pond mentioned by Judge Hale, that had multitudes of Fiſh and frie; and at laſt two ſmall Pikes put in; when the Pond was drawn there was never a Fiſh but the two Tyrants (as he calls them) grown to a huge bigneſs. The fear leaſt Popery and Prelacy ſhould be the two Pikes, tempted men irregularly to covenant againſt them. To have ſuch variety as Roch, Dace, Pierch, Tench, Carp, made it a Schiſmatical Pond; The two Pikes were againſt Schiſm and Toleration, and for ending the Diviſion by reducing all to unity of Species.
§ 37. As to his Queſtion of Qu. Elizabeths days, the Intimation may ſeduce the ignorant, but none elſe. 1. If he know not that it was the Subſcription required in the Canons, (that nothing in the Books is contrary to the Word of God, ſcrupled, which broke the Peace and Concord of England, he is unfit by his Ignorance to be an Informer of others. I have known many that would have yielded to come into the Conforming Church, if that one word had been but forborn: For when any practice againſt their Conſciences about baptizing, Communion, or Burials had faln in their way, they would have ſilently ſhifted it off, or been from home, and have ventured to anſwer it, ſo they could but conſcionably have got in. But our Canoneers are for all or nothing.
2. He is ſure no Engliſh Clergy-man, if he know not how much is laid on us, that was not known in the days of Qu. Elizabeth. Is it to inform men, or deceive them, that he makes the difference to be between 36 and 39 Articles, and ſaith nothing of all the new Covenants, Declaration…, Oaths, Subſcriptions, Doctrine and Practiſes?
§ 38. Many make uſe of Mr. Edwards Gangrena, and the London Miniſters Teſtimony againſt errours, to prove the Hereſies and Confuſions of the late times. No doubt all ſin is odious: But few men living are more competent Witneſſes of thoſe things than I. The Errours that ſprung up were much more tenderly reſented then than now. You now have many called Wits and Perſons of Quality, who at a Club diſpute againſt the Providence of God, the immortality of the Soul, and a future Life; and there is neither Church-Admonition, Excommunication, nor any great matter made of it, but they are Members of the Church of England, the pureſt Church in all the World: Whereas in thoſe licentious times, if one Souldier had ſpoken ſuch a Word, it would have rung out through the Land, and perhaps his Tongue would have been bored with an hot Iron. It was the errours of the proud rebellious Soldiers that made moſt of the noiſe, that had no conſiderable number of Miniſters left with them. I had a hand in Mr. Edwards Book thus: An Aſſembly of Miniſters after Naſeby Fight ſent me into the Army to try if I could reduce them. Dayly diſputing with them, a few proud ſelfconceited Fellows vented ſome groſs words. At Amerſham a few Country Sectaries had ſet up a Meeting in Dr. Crooks Church, to diſpute and deceive the People: A few of Major Bethel's Troop (that afterwards turned Levellers and were ruined) joined with them: I met them, and almoſt all day diſputed againſt them, and ſhamed them, and they met there no more. I gathered up all the groſs words which they uttered and wrote them in a Letter to Francis Tyton, and after I found them cited in Mr. Edwards Gangrena. And what's the abſurd Speeches of a few ignorant Souldiers, that are dead with them, to the Hereſies and Schiſms that theſe 1000 or 1200 Years continue in all the Roman Communion, and they ſay in all the reſt of the Chriſtian World. One cheating Papiſt as a converted Jew got into an Anabaptiſts Meeting, one Maxwell a Scot, and all England rung of it. But when Biſhops have made and keep France, Spain, Italy, &c. in the ſame Errours, Dr. Heylin, and Bp. Bromhall, and ſuch others, took them for ſuch, with whom a Coalition on the terms by them deſcribed was very deſirable.