A27058:927
The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended…
The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended vindicator of the primitive church, but indeed of the tympanite & tyranny of some prelates many hundred years after Christ, with a detection of the false history of Edward Lord Bishop of Cork and Ross in Ireland ... and a preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's History of Habassta : written to show their dangerous error, who think that a general council, or college of bishops, is a supreme governor of all the Christian world ... / by Richard Baxter ... ; to which is added by another hand, a defence of a book, entitled, No evidence for diocesan churches ...The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended vindicator of the primitive church, but indeed of the tympanite & tyranny of some prelates many hundred years after Christ, with a detection of the false history of Edward Lord Bishop of Corke and Rosse in Ireland ... and a preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's History of Habassta : written to shew their dangerous errour, who think that a general council, or colledge of bishops, is a supream governour of all the Christian world ... / by Richard Baxter ... ; to which is added by another hand, a defence of a book, entituled, No evidence for diocesan churches ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1682
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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 Errors no more than you; but I would not ruin or imprison even such of your selves as have too many. Heresy 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.
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 denied 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 Chrysostom and Nestorius? He implieth 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 Emperors 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?
§ 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?