the Emperour Those are of two sorts the former is publique concerning both the Ecclesiasticall and civill State For the Church pacem profligat Iustinian drove away peace and quiet from it he endangered atque tandem penitus labefactat fidem and at last utterly subverted and overthrew the faith For the Common wealth it did titubare reele and decline into a worse estate under this hereticall Emperour whom he accuseth frigescere to have beene cold and carelesse in the government of the Empire The other mischiefe which is private concernes Iustinian himselfe For the Cardinalls hatred to Iustinian is not satiate with the evils of this life he pursues him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sitting in the chayre of Radamanthus he approves and applauds that most rash and undiscreet judgement of Evagrius ad supplicia apud inferos luenda profectus est hee is gone to be tormented in hell Yea the Cardinall proves that he went thither in this manner Although it be not in mans power to bee present at Gods judgement and it be utterly unlawfull to judge of the dead yet according to that irrevocable sentence of God which is pronoūced of all the dead Their works follow them according to this sentence eadem ipsa quae hinc abeuntem sequuta sunt Iustinianū those same workes which followed Iustinian when hee dyed doe as yet crie against him in bookes and those are juge bellum his perpetuall warre against the Church which hee continually nourished having banished peace which he found therein and when hee dyed left it in a flame his unmeasurable Sacrilegies laying oftentimes his violent hands upon holy Bishops the annointed of the Lord his cruelty against innocent Citizens his covetousnesse and the rest which I omit Thus Baronius who plainly telling us that these so many so heinous crimes and crying sinnes followed Iustinian out of this life and every man knowes that these follow no whither but unto hell hee most forcibly concludeth that Iustinian out of all doubt was carried hence to be tormented in those hellish flames Never could the Cardinall bee at quiet till besides all those other reviling and disgracefull ignominies which hee hath heaped upon Iustinian he had brought him into the pit and torments of hell And yet not there also will the Cardinall suffer him to be at rest but like a Fiend or Fury hee still exagitates the Emperour with his virulent tongue and stile worse than any of all the infernall Ghosts neither alive nor dead will the Cardinall cease to torment him 11. Verily I know not where either to begin or make an end in this matter nor how it is possible for any man with sufficient gravity and severity to castigate the Cardinals insolent inhumane unchristian demenour against the most renowned and religious Emperour Did any of those worthy professours of the civill lawes but halfe so much abound with leasure as they doe with excellency of wit and learning I doubt not but they would as I doe heartily wish undertake so honourable a service not onely to Iustinian but unto GOD and his Church as in a just volume to vindicate the Emperours honour from these so many so malicious so base immodest calūnies of this Rhabsecha A worke not very laborious seeing as on the Emperours part there is such abundant store and variety of all vertues and praise-worthy actions to set forth his honour as no mans stile nor words can equall or come neare the same so on Baronius part with whom hee is to contend there are so many shamelesse and detestable untruths either devised or applauded by him that Voraginensis himselfe may seeme inferiour to him in this kinde and I much doubt whether so many voluminous bookes as might equall any two Tomes of his Annals could bee able to comprehend them all Meane while that I seeme not to shuffle this burden from mine own to other mens shoulders I will with their good leave I hope adde somewhat out of those bookes which concerne my own profession and out of my shallow reading indeavour to free the Emperour from those most dishonorable imputations of the Cardinall 12. Let us then begin with that which is the substance and ground of this whole accusation and that is The Emperours supposed falling into heresie and writing that hereticall Edict This if we can prove to bee a slander and untruth all the rest which the Cardinall builds upon this and derives from it will of themselves fall to the ground First then I doe constantly avouch that imputation of heresie to bee untrue Iustinian neither held that fantasticall heresie of the Aphthardokites nor made any Edict for the defence or propagating thereof nor did hee banish or persecute any Orthodoxall Bishop for contradicting that heresie All these are slanderous untruths which the Cardinall hath collected out of others and maliciously uttered in disgrace of the Emperour And truly that very contradiction which is not onely in other writers but in the Cardinall himselfe in setting downe this narration is no small presumption of the untruth thereof Evagrius and Nicephorus expresly witnesse that the Emperours Edict was not at all published Theophanes as the Cardinall cals him or Paulus Diaconus as others and after him Sixtus Senensis expresly witnesse the contrary that his Edict was divulged ubique transmissum and sent to every place Baronius not knowing whether was truer affirmeth them both though they be expresly contradictory First that he did publish the Edict the Cardinall teacheth saying Iustinian when he saw his Edict contemni ab Orthodoxis pro nihilo duci to bee contemned and set at nought by the Orthodoxall Bishops then hee raised his persecution How could that Edict be contemned unlesse it had been published set forth for an Edict or how could they be banished for gainsaying that Edict which if it was not published had not the force of an Edict Againe that hee did not publish it the Cardinall likewise tels us Hee writ indeed Non tamen promulgavit de haeresi Edictum But hee did not publish that Edict Hee did publish it hee did not publish it what truth in those witnesses who thus contradict themselves If he did publish it as the Cardinals Theophanes and Sixtus Senensis affirme then Evagrius and Nicephorus are not herein to bee credited If hee did not publish it how is the Cardinals Theophanes or Senensis herein to be credited And whether hee did publish it or not publish it the Cardinall who teacheth both is certainly herein not to bee credited This disagreement of the witnesses one with another and of Baronius with his one selfe is no good signe of truth in their Narration 13. But that Iustinian neither published nor writ any such Edict nor held any such phantasticke heresie a farre more faithfull witnesse than any of the former even Victor B. of Tunen who lived in that same time at Constantinople and who would have
this Edict will condemne it for being a Seminary of sedition let him first condemne the Nicene Decree and Imperiall Edict for it let him condemne the Gospell and Christ himselfe which were all such Seminaries as that Edict was If notwithstanding all the oppositions seditions cōtentions raysed by heathen heretical other wicked men against these they were as most certainly they were Seminaries of truth let the Card. know acknowledge his malicious slander against this most religious and orthodoxall Edict of Iustinian which was as all the former a sacred Sanctuary for the Catholike faith Seditions oppositions tumults persecutions and the like disturbances in the Church spring not from Christ nor from his Word and Gospel either preached by Bishops or decreed by Councels or confirmed by Imperiall Edicts all these are of themselves causes onely of unity concord peace and agreement in the Church these onely are the proper native and naturall fruits and effects that proceed from them but contentions and seditions come from the perverse froward wicked and malicious mindes of men that hate the truth and in hatred of it fight against all that uphold the truth bee it by preaching by decreeing or by enacting the truth these are as Wolves which by continuall tumbling in the mire disturbe and trouble the streame The fountaines whence the truth springeth are most pure and most peaceable 5. Now whereas in the third place Baronius seekes to disgrace the Edict by the Author of it whom he describes to have beene not onely an heretike but a most detestable person even the plague of the whole Church let us suppose and admit the Author to have beene such a man indeed nay to have beene Iudas himselfe and worse than Iudas hee could hardly bee seeing CHRIST himselfe called Iudas a Devill Is the Edict or the truth of God thereby published worse because Iudas uttered or penned it was the Arke to bee refused or contemned because wicked men framed and built it Did not Christ say of Iudas a Devill as well as of Peter a Saint Hee that heareth you heareth mee he that despiseth you despiseth me Hath Baronius forgotten the lesson of Saint Iames My brethren have not the faith of our glorious Lord Iesus Christ in respect of persons love it for it selfe but neither love it nor refuse it because of him that speaketh penneth or bringeth the same Did the Cardinall never heare of the Scribes and Pharisees they sit in Moses chaire that is deliver Gods truth out of Moses and the Prophets unto you whatsoever therefore they bid you that observe doe but after their workes doe not Or if this reason of the Cardinall may take effect themselves and their Romane Church will be farre the greatest loosers how easie will it be to reject and contemne an whole Volume of their Pontificall Edicts why this was made or written by Iohn 12. that by Hildebrand or Boniface 8. the other by Iohn 23. an heretike an Atheist a Devill incarnate as a generall Councell testifieth another by Formosus Steven or by one of those whom themselves professe to have beene theeves robbers Wolves Tygers and most savage beasts and Apostaticall Popes as Genebrard calleth threescore of them all worse than the Author of this Imperiall Edict though wee should admit him to have beene such or as bad every way as Baronius describeth him 6. But the truth is the Author of the Edict was no such man as the Cardinall fancieth as it beares the name so it was indeed the worke of Iustinian no childe can have more honour by his father than it by such an Emperour and though Baronius having so often slandered Iustinian to bee utterly rude unlearned one that could not so much as reade nor knew his Alphabet or first elements could not but in good congruity confidently deny Iustinian to bee the Writer or Author of so learned and divine an Edict or as himselfe cals it of so exact a Catechisme yet considering what before was declared both out of Procopius of the Emperours often tossing of bookes among the Bishops out of Liberatus of his great paines taken in writing against heretikes and for defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and out of Platina calling Iustinian a very learned Emperour I cannot thinke but that although Iustinian might use the advise helpe and industry of Mennas Theodorus or some other Bishops in this as in other Edicts concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires yet still the ultima manus the last correction and perfecting of all was the Emperours owne doing the rather because both in his other Edicts that against Anthimus against Origen as also in his letters to this Synod and the rest there is so uniforme a stile so Imperiall and so divine a kinde of writing that the same Genius of Iustinian seemes to breathe in them all 7. But Baronius tels us that both Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius doe testifie Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea to bee the Author of this Edict Baronius is ever like himselfe that is untrue and fraudulent Not one of these say it first not Liberatus hee indeed affirmes Theodorus and some others to have suggested this unto the Emperour that hee would condemne those Three Chapters by a publike Edict or booke but hee addes withall Rogaverunt eum ut dictaret Libellum they prayed the Emperour that he would dictate or indite the booke against the Three Chapters and the Emperour consented saith Liberatus unto them hoc se laetus implere promisit and he gladly promised to doe so that is to indite or dictate such an Edict So farre is Liberatus from affirming as Baronius alleageth him Theodorus to bee the Author of this booke or Edict that hee teacheth the quite contrary As for Facundus he saith indeed the Edict was not written by Iustinian but by the adversaries of the truth but that Theodorus writ it that is the Cardinals addition Facundus saith it not and even in that which hee saith that the Edict is contrary to the Emperours faith Facundus doth so manifestly slander both the Emperour as if hee thought the Three Chapters were not to be condemned and the Edict also as if the condemning of these Three Chapters were contrary to the Catholike faith that there is no credit at all to bee given to him in his report touching the Author who is so untrue in his reports both touching the matter of the Edict and touching the knowne profession and faith of the Emperour 8. The Cardinals Vigilius now remaineth whose words are these spoken to Theodorus The booke condemning the Three Chapters by their meanes was read in the Kings Pallace before certaine Greeke Bishops à quibus assentationum favorem tuis vocibus exigebas What if one should here oppose the Cardinall and say tuis vocibus were the Ablative case and that Theodorus had by his words sollicited the other Bishops favorably to consent to the Emperors Edict How will Baronius assure us that
Vigilius Dormitans ROMES SEER OVERSEENE OR A TREATISE OF THE FIFT Generall Councell held at Constantinople Anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour in the time of Pope VIGILIVS The Occasion being those Tria Capitula which for many yeares troubled the whole Church WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE POPES Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in matter of Faith was condemned as hereticall by the Synod And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered BY RICH CRAKANTHORP Dr. in DIVINITIE And Chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie KING IAMES Opus Posthumum PVBLISHED AND SET FORTH BY His Brother GEO CRAKANTHORP According to a perfect Copy found written under the Authors owne hand LONDON Printed by M. F. for ROBERT MYLBOVRNE in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Grey-hound M DC XXXI TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE EDVVARD LORD NEVVBVRGE Chancellour of the Duchie of Lancaster and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honourable Privie Counsell RIGHT HONOVRABLE IN all duty and submission I here present unto your Lordship a Treatise concerning the fift generall Councell held at Constantinople the cause being the Controversie of the Three Chapters which for many yeares troubled the whole Church and was at length decided in this Councell held under Iustinian that religious Emperour This Treatise now printed was long agoe penned by one well known unto your Honour your sincere affection to the truth of God and Gods cause gives mee good assurance of your favourable acceptance hereof I confesse indeed that when I call to minde the manifold affaires wherein your Honour is daily imployed the very thought hereof had almost perswaded mee not to interrupt your more serious affaires by drawing your Honour to the reading or view of this Booke but when I call to minde those respects of love and duty in which the Author hereof stood bound unto your Lordship I was againe incouraged in his name to tender it to your Honour And although I my selfe can challenge no interest in your Lordships favour to offer this yet your Lordship may challenge some interest in the fruits of his labours who was so truely as I can truely speake devoted unto your Honour Among many other hee especially acknowledged two assured bonds of love and duty by which hee was obliged unto you and your friends the former arose from that unfained affection which you ever bare him from your first acquaintance in the Colledge that other by which he was further ingaged unto you and your friends was when in a loving respect had unto him in his absence without any meanes made by him or knowledge of his he was called by that much honoured Knight Sir Iohn Levison his Patron your Father in law unto the best meanes of livelihood he ever enjoyed in the Ministery where spending himselfe in his studies hee ended his dayes during which time your Honour made your affection further knowne unto him by speciall expressions of extraordinary favours In regard whereof I perswaded my selfe that I could no where better crave Patronage for this worke than of your Honour that it may bee a further testimony of his love againe who cannot now speake for himselfe And this I intreat leave to doe the rather because I doubt not but hee acquainted your Lordship with his paines and intent in this and other Tractates of the Councels for when after divers yeares study bestowed in this argument of Councels hee was desirous to make some use of his labours his intent was to reduce all those points into foure severall Bookes 1. That the right of calling generall Councels 2. That the right of highest Presidency in them 3. That the right of the last and supreme Confirmation of them is onely Imperiall and not Papall 4. That all the lawfull generall Councels which hitherto have beene held consent with ours and oppugne the doctrines of the present Church of Rome Some of these hee finished the fourth hee could not so much as hope to accomplish and therefore after the examining of some particulars therein he desisted and weaned himselfe from those studies And yet after some yeares discontinuance being by some of his learned friends sollicited to communicate to others at least some one Tract in that argument consenting to their earnest desire after long suspence he resolved on this Treatise as being for weighty and important matters most delightfull unto him That it was not then published let it not seeme strange unto your Honour for having long since finished the Tract of this whole Councell it was his purpose that it should have undergone the publike view and judgement of the Church but when he came as I can truely testifie unto them whose art and ayde is needfull in such a businesse and found an aversenesse in them for that it wholy consisted of controversall matters whereof they feared that this age had taken a satiety he rested in this answer as willing to bury it After this being upon a speciall command from his Majesty King Iames of blessed memory made known unto him by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury to addresse himselfe to another worke hee then desisted from his former intended purpose and in finishing of that last worke of his he ended his dayes Some few yeares after his death being desirous to take a view of some of his Papers I came to the view and handling of this boooke a booke fully perfected for the Presse in his life time the publishing whereof being long expected and of many earnestly desired it was my desire and theirs to whose most grave and judicious censure I willingly submitted it that it might be published for the benefit of Gods Church and the rather that it might give some light in the study of the Councels and animate some of the threescore valiant men that are about Salomons bed being of the expert and valiant men of Israel unto the attempting and undertaking of the like Now what his desire was in this and other of his labours surely none but the very enemies of God and Gods truth can take it to be any other than to testifie his unfained love unto God and Gods Church and to subdue the pride idolatries and impieties of that Man of sinne and to strive for the maintenance of the true faith Now what allowance so ever it may finde abroad among our adversaries it humbly craves your favourable acceptāce at home and as it is published with no other intent than to gaine glory to God and good to his Church so I doubt not but that God who causeth light to shine out of darknesse will effectually in time bring to passe that not onely their violent oppugning of the truth but their fraudulent dealing also against the same wil if not breed in themselves yet increase in al welwillers unto the truth a constant dislike nay detestation of their hereticall and Antichristian doctrines and for your selfe my earnest and continuall prayer to God shall bee
that you may ever continue your religious and ardent desire to advance Gods truth and honour here which will procure your owne immortall fame in this world and through Gods mercy in Christ eternall felicity in that life which being unlike to this shall neither have end of dayes nor end of blessednesse Barton neare Bury S. Edmonds in Suffolke April 29. 1631. Your Lordships humbly devoted GEO CRAKANTHORP AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE CHRISTIAN REAder touching the Scope Argument and manifold Vse of this ensuing Treatise IT is not ambition to live in other mens writings but desire if I could to breath some life into them which hath drawn me of late rather to preface other mens works than to perfit mine owne It grieved me much to see such evidences lie in the darke which being produced to publike view would give singular light to the truth And if Socrates the mirrour of modesty in a Philosopher held it no disparagement to professe that he performed the office of a Midwife to other mens wits by helping them in the deliverie of those conceptions wherein himselfe had no part why should I either feare or regard any detraction from the living for a charitable office in this kinde to the dead doubtlesse if the office of a Midwife be at any time needfull it is then most necessarie when the living Child is to be takē out of the dead wombe of the parent Such was this Posthumus in whom I hope the observation of Plinie concerning children thus borne will bee verified For the most part saith hee those Children prove most lively and fortunate of whom the Parents dye in travell never seeing them live who cost them their lives The instances are many very illustrious Fabius Caeso thrice Consul Scipio surnamed the Africane Iulius Caesar the first most renowned of all the Romane Emperours and our peerlesse K. Edward 6. Howbeit I confesse it is an hard thing to calculate the nativity of a Book and certainly foretell what hazzard the impression of a Treatise of this subject may runne or guesse what argument will please the divers tasts of this distempered age yet this I am confident of that all who exactly view this worke in all parts and compare it with others drawne with the same Pensill will esteeme it like the Minerva of Phidias his Masterpeece It cost him neare as many yeares labour as Isocrates Panegyrique the Prime rose of his flowry Garden did him This Author perfected this worke in his life time and commanded it after a sort to the Presse in the last booke hee published by command from supreme authority in defence of the Church of England against the calumnies of the revolted Archbishop of Spalata in these words The Church had beene undone if Vigilius his decree had taken place But the most holy Emperour Iustinian and the fift Councell then happily shewed themselves Pillars of the Catholike faith concerning which whole Councell I desire you to take notice of an intire booke written by mee wherein the innumerable frauds lies and heresies of Baronius are manifestly detected out of that booke if it see light and come to your hands you shall understand and plainly perceive how fraile and reedy your Romane Pillar is In which passage he insinuates that the argument of it is non de stillicidiis aut aquis pluviis not of Eves droppings or water passages but of the Roofe of the house and Arch it selfe the authority of Councels and the infallibilitie of the Papall Chaire The Title carried through the whole booke carrieth not the greatest part of it plus in recessu est quam à fronte promittit his warehouse within is fraught with more variety of rich stuffs thā is set out on his shop An entire Treatise of the fift generall Councell hee professedly undertaketh but currente rota in the prosecution of this argument hee taketh tardy Baronius and Binius and other Romish falsaries hee runneth through all the later generall Councels he substantially handleth the maine Controversies concerning the power of calling and authority ratifying Ecclesiasticall Synods and so cleareth all Antiquity on the Reformed side in points of great moment that I perswade my selfe the wiser sort of our learned adversaries who will by stealth get a sight thereof will take good counsell and utterly derelinquish their most glorious but most vaine and false claime to generall Councels for if wee devide the Councels that beare the stile of Oecumenicall and Generall according to the different times in which they were held into pure mixt and wholly corrupt the first of undoubted the second of doubtful the third undoubtedly of no authority at all the first are wholly ours the last are wholly theirs in the middle sort we part stakes w th them 4. of the first ranke have beene heretofore wrested perforce out of the Romanists hands by Bishop Iewell Bish. Bilson Dr Reinolds Dr Whitaker and others The fift this accomplisht Antiquary vindicates also from them and declareth how in the Councels of the second ranke we share with them and in fine hee leaveth them nothing intirely but the lees and dregs of all Councels the Laterane and Trent Habeant quod sunt let them have these lees to themselves who themselves Moab-like for these many ages are setled upon the lees of their owne corruption Had this judicious and industrious Writer bent all his forces against the Romanists false pretended right to generall Councels and forcibly beat them out of that Hold onely hee had deserved that Eulogiū which the Iewes give any Rabbin to whom they are indebted for any wise saying or apt note upon any Scripture text ZICRONO LIBRACHA sit memoria ejus in benedictione blessed be his memorie how much more when he assaulteth the maine fort of the Romish faith and by impregnable authorities and infallible reasons over-throweth the Popes supposed infallibility when hee sits in his Chaire and with his Romane Synod determineth out of it questions and defineth Articles of faith This is indeed to let Rome bleed in her Master-veine to strike heresie at the roote to crush the Cockatrice in the head not to batter and breake downe the mudd-wals but utterly to ruinate the very foundation of the Tower of Babell For howsoever Scriptures Fathers Councels and the Catholike Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are pompously brought in into their Polemike writings against us yet the last resolution of their faith is upon the Pope who gives credit to Fathers validity to Councels and authority at least quoad nos to the Scriptures themselves This their Champion Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Skulkenius his second confidently undertakes to maintaine against all oppugners of the Popes transcendent power and uncontroulable verdict in matters of eternall life and death The Cardinall thus flourisheth In our disputations about the word of God we have already shewed that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controversies nor are secular
after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
from all his theevish piraticall and disordered straglers 2. The first and chiefest exception of Baronius ariseth from the matter controversie it selfe touching these Three Chapters concerning which he pretendeth that no question of faith was handled therin so one dissenting from another in this cause might not be counted or called an heretike This was a question saith he de personis non de fide of persons and not of the faith Againe Vigilius knew Non de fide esse quaestionem sed de personis that there was no question moved herein about the faith but about certaine persons And yet more clearly In these disputations saith he about the Three Chapters as we have oftē said Nulla fuit quaestio de side ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus there was no question at all about the faith so that one dissenting from another herein might be called an heretike And this hee so confidently avoucheth that he saith of it Abomnibus absque ulla controversia consentitur all men agree herein without any controversie Thus Baronius whom Binius applauding saith Sciendum est bee it knowne to all men that in these disputations and differences about the Three Chapters non fuisse quaestionem ullam de fide sed tantummodo de personis there was no quaestion at all concerning the faith but only concerning the persons So he Whereby they would insinuate that Pope Vigilius did erre onely in a personall cause or in a matter of fact which they not unwillingly confesse that the Pope may doe but he erred not in a cause of faith or in any doctrinall position of faith wherein onely they defend him to bee infallible 3. Truly the Card. was driven to an extreme exigent when this poore shift must be the first and best shelter to save the infallibility of the Apostolike Chaire For to say truth the maine controversie touching these Three Chapters which the Councell condēned and Vigilius defended was onely doctrinall and directly belonging to the faith nor did it concerne the persons any other way but with an implication of that hereticall doctrine which they and the defenders of these Chapters under that colour did cunningly maintaine A truth so evident that I doe even labour with abundance of proofes 4. Iustinian the religious Emperour who called this Councell about this matter committed it unto them as a question of saith We have saith he commanded Vigilius to come together with you all and debate these Three Chapters that a determination may be given rectae fidei conveniens consonant to the right faith Againe stirring them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause hee addes this as a reason Quoniā qui de fide recta interrogatur for when one is asked concerning the right faith and puts off his answer therein this is nothing else but a deniall of the true confession for in questions answers quae de fide sunt which are questions of faith hee that is more prompt and ready is acceptable with God Thus the Emperour 5. The Holy Councell esteemed it as did the Emperour to be no other than a cause or question of faith for thus they say Cum de fide ratio movetur when a doubt or question is moved touching the faith even he is to be condemned who may hinder impiety but is negligent so to doe and therefore Festinavimus bonum fidei semen conservare ab impietatis Zizanijs We have hastened to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impietie So cleerly doth the whole generall Councell even in their definitive sentence call the condemning of the Three Chapters which themselves did a preserving of the good seed of faith and the defending of them which Vigilius did a sowing of hereticall weeds which corrupt the faith Againe We being enlightned by the holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the holy Fathers have thought it needfull to set downe in certaine Chapters those are the particular points of their Synodall judgement Et praedicationem veritatis haereticorum eorumque impietatis condemnationem both the preaching of the truth or true faith and the condemning of Heretikes and their impietie And in the end having set downe those Chapters and among them a particular and expresse condemning of these Three w th an anathema denounced to the defenders of thē they conclude thus We have confessed these things being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures by the doctrine of the holy Fathers by those things wch are defined de unâ eâdemque fide concerning one and the same faith by the foure former Councels Then which nothing can be more cleare to witnesse their decree touching these Threee Chapters most nearely to concerne the faith unlesse some of Baronius his friends can make proofe that the condemning of heretikes and their impious heresies and the maintaining of that doctrine which the Scriptures and Fathers taught and the foure first Councels defined is not a point of faith 6. Neither onely did the Catholikes which were the condemners of these Three Chapters but the heretikes also which were the defenders of them they also consent in this truth that the question concerning them was a controversie or cause of faith Pope Vigilius in his Constitution still pretendeth his Defence of Those Chapters to be consonant to the Councell at Chalcedon and the Definition thereof and of the Epistle of Ibas hee expresly saith The Councel of Chalcedon pronounced it to be orthodoxall And none I suppose will doubt but that the question whether that or any other writing be orthodoxall and agreeable to the Definition of Chalcedon as Vigilius affirmed that Epistle to be or be heretical and repugnant to that Definition as the Holy Councell adjudged that Epistle to be is a plaine question and controversie of faith Victor B. of Tunen who suffered imprisonment and banishment for defence of these Three Chapters teacheth the like saying That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged orthodoxall by the sentence of the Councell at Chalcedon and the condemning of these Three Chapters is the condemning and banishing of that Councell Facundus B. of Hermian who writ seven bookes of these Three Chapters doth more than abundantly witnesse this of him Victor thus writeth Evidentissime declaravit Facundus hath declared most evidently that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae Apostolicae for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholike and Apostolike faith Facundus himselfe doth not onely affirme this but prove it also even by the judgement of Pope Vigilius Vigilius saith he esteemed the condemning of these Three Chapters to be so hainous a crime that hee thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle Avoid prophane novelties of words and opposition of science falsely so called which some professing have erred from the faith And hereupon as if he meant
by a severe Imperiall Edict set forth some foure yeares after the Ephesine Synod forbidding the bookes of Nestorius either to bee read or retained But it fell out farre otherwise for when the Nestorians could no longer shrowd themselves under the name nor countenance their heresie by the bookes and writings of Nestorius they found this new device to commend their doctrine under the name dignity and authority of Theodorus of Mopsvestia whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius he having suckt all his hereticall poyson from Theodorus and this they thought they might safely doe Theodorus being not by name condemned either in the Synodall judgement or by the Imperiall Edict To which purpose they and particularly Ibas spred abroad the bookes of Theodorus in every countrey and corner translating them as Liberatus sheweth into the Syrian Armenian and Persian languages by which meanes they deceived and seduced many pretending Theodorus writings to bee consonant to the ancient fathers The Catholikes seeing how little effect their connivence at Theodorus name had taken and that the heretikes abused their lenitie in forbearing him to strengthen their heresie saw that now it was time no longer to dispense or winke at Theodorus and therefore the time of that dispensation being expired they began now in plaine termes and by name to condemne both his person and his writings as before they had in a generalitie performed them both in the Councell of Ephesus and this was done by severall Bishops in severall Countries and by many severall wayes 10. The first sentence wherein Theodorus was particularly and by name condemned was in a Councell at Armenia where the credit of Theodorus had done most hurt The chiefe Bishops in that Synod were Acatius Bishop of Melitiū in Armenia a very learned holy mā who had bin one of the chiefe also in the holy Ephesine Councel and Rambulas or Rabulas Bishop of Edessa whose name it seemes the Nestorians for very spite against him turned into Rabula that so they might with more facility revile his person a man of such piety and high esteeme in the Church that Cyrill cals him columnam fundamentum veritatis the very piller and foundation of the truth and Benignus testifieth that he was a faire and resplendent lampe in the Church These two stirred up the Bishops of Armenia to reject the writings of Theodorus tanquam haeretici as one who was an heretike yea the author of the Nestorian heresie and themselves were present in that noble Councell of Armenia wherein they not onely condemned Theodorus as an impious person an oppugner of Christ and the childe of the Devill as by the contents of the acts of that Synod doth appeare but further also they writ their Synodal letters both to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople to Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria quatenus fiat unit as vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega dogmata ejus that they also would joyne with them and their Synod in cōdemning by name both the person and sacrilegious writings of Theodorus giving this as a reason thereof because they exhort them but to doe in plaine and expresse manner the same thing which was done by them before but in a generality We write unto you per vos etiam antea condemnatum sine nomine Theodorum nominatim condemnari that Theodorus may now by name bee condemned by you who hath already though without expressing his name beene condemned by you And what they exhorted Proclus and Cyrill to doe that Rambulas performed not onely in the Armenian Councell but in his owne Church at Edessa for as Ibas in his impious Epistle saith Ausus est Theodorum clarè anathematizare hee was bold by name and expresly to anathematize Theodorus in his owne Church and both Benignus and Liberatus witnesse the same 11. What Proclus did upon receipt of those letters sent from the Armenian Councell unto him is not to be learned out of Liberatus report of this matter for he in the narration of this passage is not onely untrue and partiall but very hereticall also justly herein taxed by Baronius and Binius as borrowing his narration from some Nestorians which the Reader will easily observe but the truth herein must be taken out of Cyrill and the fift Councell Proclus saith Cyrill sent a tome or writing to them of Armenia full of sound doctrine and hee adjoyned thereunto certaine chapters collecta è Theodori codicibus gathered out of the bookes of Theodorus consonant to the doctrine of Nestorius exhorting them etiam illa anathematizare to accurse even those doctrines of Theodorus also The fift Councel explaines this more fully Proclus say they writeth thus against Theodorus and his impious doctrine And then they cite first those words of Proclus before mentioned wherein he sets Theodorus in the same ranke with Arius Eunomius Macedonius and other like heretikes calling them all puddles of errours and deceit And after this those other words of Proclus written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch wherein he calleth the doctrines of Theodorus or those chapters which were collected out of his bookes vaniloquie monstriloquie Iudaicall impietie ad destructionem legentium evomita doctrines vomited out by him to the destruction of the readers and hearers exhorting others to reject to abhorre to tread under foot and to accurse all those chapters of Theodorus utpote diabolicae insaniae constituta inventiones as being the positions and inventions of devillish madnesse From which words of Proclus uttered both against the person and doctrine of Theodorus the Councell concludeth very justly that Proclus not onely in particular condemned Theodorus as the Armenian Councell exhorted him but condemned him as a Iew Pagan and Heretike And this was done by Proclus in the yeare when Valentinian was the 4 and Theodosius the 15. time Consull as the date of his letter or Tome to the Armenians doth declare which declares also that the Armenian Councell was held the same yeare for it followed the spreading abroad of the bookes of Theodorus and that was not done till the Nestorians were by the Imperiall Edict forbidden to reade the bookes of Nestorius Now the Imperiall Edict beares date in the same consulship which shewes evidently that as soone as ever the Nestorians began to revive the honour and name of Theodorus being onely in a generality before condemned the catholikes forthwith opposed themselves and by name condemned him And which is specially to be observed Proclus did this against Theodorus although the Easterne Bishops intreated him plurimis deprecationibus ut ne anathematizaretur Theodorus nec impia ejus conscripta did with most earnest prayers sollicite him not to condemne the person or doctrine of Theodorus but the truth of God which was oppugned by Theodorus and the sentence of the Councell which had condemned Theodorus did more prevaile then all
saying Saint Theophilus and Saint Gregory Nissene susceptis querimonijs adversus Theodorum adhuc viventem Complaints being brought unto them against Theodorus of Mopsvestia as yet living and against his writings scripserunt adversus eum Epistolas they writ Epistles against him and in those Epistles some part whereof is recorded in the Councell they blame him as presuming to renew the heresie and madnesse of Paulus Samosatenus And it is further added porrecta sunt autem and the impious chapters collected out of the books of Theodorus were shewed and brought to Theophilus whence it is now evident that those Epistles alleaged by Vigilius under the name of Proclus are no lesse by the untrue and hereticall assertions contained in them then by the cleare testimonies of the fift generall Councell convicted of forgery 30. From Fathers hee commeth to Councells and concerning the first Ephesine Vigilius noteth two points The former that Theodorus was not condemned by it to which purpose hee thus saith Solicite recensentes having with diligence and sollicitude reviewed the Ephesine Synode We have found that in it nothing is related touching the persō of Theodorus What nothing how then did Pope Pelagius after Cyrill and the fift Councell finde that in it Theodorus was condemned and if they condemned him then certainly somwhat was related debated about him upon knowledge whereof the Councell condemned him But say indeed is nothing found concerning Theodorus in that Councell What say you to the impious and diabolicall Creed which was both related in the Synode and condemned together with the author of it Truely here Vigilius useth a shift worthy to be observed That Creed he found and hee found it to be condemned but to quite Theodorus hee would have it beleeved that Theodorus was not the author of it nor that it was condemned as being the Creed of Theodorus but because it was divulged by certaine Nestorians Athanasius Photius Antonius and Iacobus Nor doth Vigilius use this shift only about that impious Creed but in other hereticall writings of Theodorus Proclus adjoyned to his Tome certaine impious positions collected è Theodori codicibus as Cyrill expresly witnesseth Vigilius likewise of them would have it thought that they were none of the positions of Theodorus and by the forged Epistles of Proclus hee would perswade that Proclus himselfe did not know whose they were The Emperour Iustinian before the Synode began sent threescore severall hereticall passages or chapters truly gathered out of the bookes and writings of Theodorus hoping that the Pope seeing Theodorus bookes so full fraught with heresies and blasphemies would make little doubt to condemne the writer of them Vigilius turnes to his former shift hee will not thinke nor have others to thinke that Theodorus writ such heresies though they had his name prefixed unto them for concerning those 60. chapters expressed both in the Popes Constitution and in the Synodall acts he thus saith Wee decree that by those foresaid chapters nulla injuriandi praecedentes patres praebeatur occasio no occasion be given to injure the former Fathers and Doctors of the Church And again We provide by this our Constitution that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Eutyches no contumely nor occasion of injury bee brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholike Church and that Vigilius thought Theodorus so to have dyed we have before declared yea that Vigilius knew it Baronius assured us Thus Vigilius to free Theodorus from condemnation pretends those hereticall writings to be none of his 31. What is it that Vigilius will not say for defence of this blasphemous and condemned heretike This cavill was used as Baronius tells us by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theodorus denying those to bee the writings of Theodorus quae diffamata which were famously knowne through the whole East and which being afterwards detected and discovered to bee truly his writings both they and their author with them were condemned Now this old hereticall and rejected cavill Vigilius here reneweth those writings famously knowne to be the workes of Theodorus condemned as his writings and he with them and for thē Vigilius will now have thought to be none of his nor he by them nor for them may bee now condemned And that you may see how Vigilius herein doth strive against the maine streame of the truth Saint Cyrill who then lived restifieth Theodorus to be author of those hereticall and blasphemous writings That wee have found certaine things in the writings of Theodorus nimiae plena blasphemiae nulli dubium est full of blasphemie none that thinks aright can make any doubt And againe I examining the bookes of Theodorus and Diodorus have contradicted them as much as I could declaring that sect to be every where full of abomination Yea hee writ divers bookes against Theodorus expressing the words of Theodorus and his owne confutation of the same So cleare and undoubted was this truth in Cyrills dayes who lived at the same time with Theodorus that hee thought them unwise who made any doubt of that which Vigilius now calls in question And particularly touching that impious Creed Cyrill saith that they who brought it to the Synode of Ephesus said that it was composed by Theodorus which they said not as by way of uncertaine report but as testifying it to be so in so much that the whole Synode giving credit there unto thereupon condemned Theodorus though by a dispensation they expressed not his name 32 The same is testified by Rambulas Acatius and the whole Armenian Councell who after examination of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacrilegious and therefore by name condemned him exhorting both Cyrill and Proclus to doe the like The Imperiall Edicts of Theodosius and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodorus and the reading or having of his bookes had it not by evidences undeniable beene knowne that those were indeed his workes and hereticall writings If all these suffice not when this cause about Theodorus was now againe brought into question the Emperour Iustinian and the fift Councell so narrowly and so exactly examined the truth hereof that after them to make a doubt is to seeke a knot in a rush They testifie those very hereticall assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth to be the doctrines and words of Theodorus that impious creed also whereof Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus they are so certaine hereof that even in their Synodall sentence they referre the triall of what they decree herein to the true and undoubted bookes of Theodorus And in their sentence is included the judgement of the whole catholike Church ever since they decreed this which hath with one consent approved their decree 33 After all these Pope Pelagius in
compassionate and tender heart of Vigilius Not onely Iustinian and the fift generall Councell but Pelagius Gregory and other succeeding Popes and Councels even the whole Catholike Church ever since the time of Vigilius they all by approving the decree of the fift Synod doe not onely taxe the name of Theodoret but accurse anathematize the writings of Theodoret and that even under his name Now such a loving and tender affection doth the Pope carry towards the hereticall writings of Theodoret that rather than they may be condemned or his name taxed by the condemning of them Iustinian Pelagius Gregory and other his successors the fift the sixt and other generall Councels even the whole Catholike Church they all must be and are de facto here declared and by the Popes cathedrall sentence decreed and defined not onely to bee hereticall as the former reason imported but injurious persons backbiters slanderers they all must be condemned and for ever disgraced rather then Theodorets name must bee taxed or his hereticall writings condemned or disgraced 26. But say indeed Is it an injurie a slander a disgrace to one that his errors should either by himselfe or by the Church be condemned How injurious was that holy Bishop Saint Augustine to himselfe in writing so many retractations and corrections of what he saw amisse And what himselfe did hee would not onely willingly but gladly have permitted the holy Church to have done Nor may we think this mind to have been onely in Austen Modestie and humilitie are the individuall concomitants of true knowledge and learning and the more learned any man is the more judicious is he in espying the more ingenuous in acknowledging the more lowly and humble in condemning his owne errors As it is but winde and no solid substance which puffes up a bladder so is it never any sound or solid learning but meere ventositie emptinesse of knowledge which makes the minde to swell to beare it selfe aloft and either not see that truth into which his high and windie conceit will not suffer him to looke downe and dive or seeing it not embrace the same though it were with a condemning yea with a detestation of his owne error It must never be a shame or disgrace to any man to recall and condemne his errors till he be ashamed of being a man that is subject to errors Saint Augustine more sharply saith That its a token not onely of a foolish and proud selfe-love but of a most malignant minde rather to wish others to bee poysoned with his heresies then either himselfe to recall or permit others specially the Church of God to condemne his heresies It was no injurie no slander nor disgrace to Theodoret that his hereticall writings were by the Church condemned but it had beene a fault unexcusable and an eternall disgrace to the Church if shee had suffered such hereticall writings to passe uncondemned 27. Oh but Theodoret was probatissimusvir a man most approved by the Councell of Chalcedon saith Vigilius is it not an injury to condemne the writings of a man most approved No verely the more approved the more eminent learned and orthodoxall any man is the more carefull and ready both himselfe and the Church must be to condemne his former hereticall writings When heresie commeth in his owne deformed habit it doth but little or no hurt at all who will not detest it when he reades it in the writings of Arius Nestorius Eutiches or such like condemned heretikes the odiousnesse of their names breeds a dislike almost of a truth in their mouthes but certainly of an errour But when Satan assumes the forme of an Angell of light when heresie comes palliated yea countenanced with the name of a Catholike a learned an holy a renowned and approved Bishop then and then specially is there danger of infection The reverence the love the honour wee beare to such a person causeth us unawares to swallow the poyson which hee reacheth unto us before we take leasure to examine or once make doubt of his doctrine 28. It was truely said by Vincentius Lirinensis The errour of the Master is the tryall of the Scholler tanto major tentatio quanto ipse doctior qui erraret and the more learned the teacher is the greater still is the temptation which beside other he shewes by the example of Origen he was in his age a mirrour of gravity integrity continency zeale piety of learning of all sorts both divine and humane of so happy a memory that he had the Bible without booke of such admirable eloquence that not words but hony seemed to drop from his lips of so indefatigable industry that he was called Adamantius and was said by some to have written six thousand bookes by Hierome one thousand besides innumerable commentaries of such high esteeme and authority that Christians honoured him as a Prophet Philosophers as a Master they flocked from the utmost parts of the world to heare his wisedome as if a second Salomon had beene sent from heaven yea most would say malle se cum Origene errare quam cum alijs vera sentire that they had rather erre with Origen then thinke aright with others When such a man lapseth into heresie if his writings may scape without censure if it shall be judged a contumelie an injurie or slander to condemne his bookes for the honour which was given to his person one such man as Origen were able to draw almost the third part of the starres of heaven after him 29. And if any beleeve the Epistles going under his name Theodoret was in divers respects not much inferiour to Origen His birth noble his parents being without hope of Children vowed him before his conception like another Samuel unto God And accordingly even from his Cradle consecrated him to Gods service Violently drawne to the dignity of a Bishop the Citie of Cyrus in Syria where was his episcopall See he nobilitated being before but obscure though worthy of eternall memorie as being one monument of the deliverance of Gods people by the hand of Cyrus out of the Babylonish captivitie So upright blamelesse and voide of covetousnesse that having beene five and twenty yeares Bishop of that place in all that time ne obolum mihi in tribunali ablatum aliquis conquestus est none could say that hee had exacted or received for causes of judgement so much as one halfe pennie I tooke no mans goods no mans garments nay which is a memorable token of integritie none of mine house saith he hath taken the worth of an egge or a morsell of bread So plentifull in workes of charitie That he distributed his inheritance among the poore repaired Churches builded bridges drained Rivers to townes where was want of water and such like in so much saith he that in all this time I have provided nothing for my selfe not any land not any house no
was fully concluded and the fifteenth Consulship of Theodosius wherein the Edict against Nestorius was published are two intire Consulships as by the Fasti and others is certaine So that it is certaine that the Epistle which mentioneth the condemning by name of Theodorus was not written till more then two compleat yeares after the union ended but how long after these two yeares it was before Ibas writ it is wholy uncertaine in likelihood it was two or three more for some time after the Edict must bee allowed for the Nestorians to translate first and then disperse the bookes of Theodorus some more after that for the condemning of him by Rambulas some againe after that before Rambulas dyed to whom Ibas succeeded in the Bishopricke of Edessa and who writ this Epistle when hee was in possession of that See as both the title and contents of the Epistle declare By all which and if there were none else by the last onely that Ibas writ this being Bishop of Edessa it is cleere that some good while in likelihood three or foure yeares were past after the union before Ibas writ this Epistle of which Baronius tells us so precisely that it was writ eo momento at the very moment and instant when the peace was concluded 13. The other point to be observed is what manner of a Catholike Pope Vigilius and Cardinall Baronius have here set forth unto us Ibas when he writ this Epistle is with them a Catholike a Catholike Writer a Catholike Bishop in him you shall see the lively portrature of one of their Catholikes Hee even in this Epistle written after the Vnion when he was as they teach a Catholike denyeth God to be incarnate and Marie to be the Mother of God he condemnes the holy Ephesine Councell and the twelve Chapters of Cyrill hee commends Theodorus of Mopsvestia for a Preacher of the truth while he lived for a Saint being dead These are the doctrines of Ibas all of them taught positively and avouched not as the Cardinall fancieth historically related in his Epistle as the words theÌ„selves do shew the whole fift Councell witnesseth all taught by him after the Vnion when he was one of the Popes and Cardinalls Catholikes yea taught consonantly to the Vnion which Ibas then embraced yet Ibas teaching writing and maintaining all these blasphemies and heresies that is oppugning with all his art and ability the whole Catholike faith is crowned and canonized by Vigilius and Baronius for a good Catholike Of such Catholikes their Romane Church hath great store nay seeing none is now of their Church who approves not all the Cathedrall decrees of their Popes and therefore this of Vigilius among the rest it hence ensueth that none is now a Romane Catholike that is a member of their present Romane Church who approves not Ibas such as he was when he writ this Epistle for a Catholike that is who approves not the most blasphemous heretikes and oppugners of the whole faith to be Catholikes and who condemnes not the Cyrillians that is all that maintaine the Catholike faith for heretikes 14. But still as yet the doubt concerning the Vnion remaineth Ibas say they when he writ this Epistle embraced the union with Cyrill and none can embrace that union but hee shewes himselfe thereby to bee a Catholike True none can truly and sincerely embrace that union which Cyrill made with Iohn the condition whereof was the subscribing to the holy Ephesine Synode and condemning of Nestorius with his doctrines but hee is and must be acknowledged to be a good Catholike Had Ibas approved that union or consented unto it Ibas had not beene Ibas he had never written that impious Epistle which in every part most of all in the end where hee speakes of the union is repugnant to that holy union It is the union in Nestorianisme the union in oppugning and overthrowing the whole Catholike faith which Ibas when he writ this Epistle embraced and which in his Epistle he commendeth which that it may appeare to all wee are now to unfold the mystery of that union with Cyrill under colour whereof Ibas first then Vigilius and lastly Baronius with all who hold the Popes judgement to bee infallible doe very cunningly convey their hereticall doctrines and contradict the Catholike faith 15. The Nestorians being loth to forsaâ—e or have it thought that any of them did forsake their heresies and being withall most desperately given to lying and slandering set forth a forme of union forged by themselves wherein they made Cyrill and all who consented to him that is all Catholikes to condemne their former Catholike doctrine decreed at the Ephesine Synod and to assent to their heresies And as if this had beene the true union and the conditions of peace agreed upon betwixt Cyrill and Iohn they every where buzzed this into the eares of their sectaries and spred abroad the copies thereof triumphing in it that now they had wonne the field that Cyrill and all his partakers had now consented to Nestorianisme and that upon this consent a generall union and peace ensued in the Church This and no other is the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth and by consenting whereunto Pope Vigilius decreeth and Baronius defendeth Ibas to be a Catholike to which union whosoever consenteth or approveth others consenting to it they doe even by that one act besides all the rest infallibly demonstrate themselves not onely to be Nestorians and to approve all the heresies and blasphemies of Nestorius but to be in the most base abject and low degree of all Nestorians even such as by lyes and calumnies strive to uphold their heresies 16. For proofe whereof I shall produce records above exception and first of all Cyrills owne testimony Acatius the worthy Bishop of Meletene hearing by the report which the Nestorians had spred abroad that Cyrill in making the union had consented to the Nestorian doctrine of two natures making two persons in Christ contrarie to his owne 12. Chapters certified Cyrill of this report Cyrill writ unto him at large declaring the contrarie and assuring him that it was but a meere calumnie devised against him They reprove and accuse us saith he as if formerly we had thought the quite contrarie to those things which now at the union we have written and I understand that they object also unto us quod novam fidei expositionen vel symboluÌ„ receperimus that we have now at the union embraced a new Creed or new exposition of the faith rejecting that old and venerable Creed Thus did the Nestorians accuse Cyrill as himselfe testifieth but what answered he for himselfe At stultus stulta loquitur cor ejus vana meditatur he calls them in plaine termes fooles and lyars the foole speaketh foolishly and his heart meditateth lyes And in the end he warneth Acatius not to give credit to the counterfeit Epistle or forme of union which the Nestorians
Apollinarius to be truly in Christ. But when he said that one Nature was in Christ he then ever meant one Person not one Essence And in this use of the word Nature hee followed Athanasius whose words he alledgeth and approveth we confesse Christ to be the Sonne of God according to the spirit and to be the Sonne of Man according to the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not two natures to be one Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but one nature of the Word incarnate Did Athanasius deny two essences either the divinitie or humanitie in Christ Nothing lesse in that very sentēce he professeth him to be truly God and truly Man but taking the word Nature for Person hee in that sense truly denies two and professeth but one Nature that is one naturall subsistence or Person to be in him In like sort Cyrill himselfe in his Epistle to Successus affirmeth that there is una natura Dei verbi incarnati one Nature of the Sonne of God incarnate that is the Sonne of God being now incarnate is one Nature or naturall subsistence or one and not two persons and yet one consisting of two natures that is two essences the divine nature assuming flesh and the humane nature being personally united unto the Godhead which to bee his true meaning besides Iustinians testimonie infinite places doe make evident those especially in his booke de fide recta ad Theodosium where he saith the scripture sometimes ascribes all that is spoken of Christ to the man sometimes all unto God and speaketh right in both propter utriusque naturae in unam candemque personam coitionem by reason that both the natures doe meete in one and the selfe same person Nor may we thinke this diverse use of the same word to be strange or unlawful but as the name of Father is given even in Scripture unto the Son when it is taken essentially or put in opposition to the creatures but never when it is taken personally or put in opposition to the Sonne Even so when the name of Naturo is taken as in Athanasius Cyrill and others sometimes it is without an opposition to Person it may there signifie the same with Person and note any naturall subsistence but when in any speech there is expressed or implied an opposition of Nature unto Person there it ought onely to signifie the substances or essences concurrant in in that person and not the Person it selfe Nor was it so great a fault in the Nestorians to take the word Nature for Person but partly in drawing that which was the unproper and abusive into the ordinarie and usuall signification they seldome by Nature noting ought but Person and specially for that they tooke Nature for Person even in those very speeches wherein was noted and expressed an opposition of Nature unto Person as in that profession which they made acknowledging in Christ two natures and one person where taking Nature for Person they were enforced to take one Person for one by affection or cohabitation neither of which truly making one person they called that one person which in truth was not one but divers distinct persons 46. This profession of one Nature that is of one naturall subsistence or of one person the Nestorions disliked in Cyrill and in his Chapters and thought it but very falsly to be the same which Apollinarius taught as appeareth by the Epistle of Ibas where he thus writeth Cyrill confuting the Bookes of Nestorius hath written as Apollinaris did that God himselfe or the Word is made man so that there is no difference betwixt the Temple and him who dwelleth in the Temple for he hath written twelve Chapters to shew quia una est natura divinitatis humanitatis that there is one nature of the Deitie and humanitie in Christ which thing is full of impiety So Ibas reproving Cyrill and condemning in his Chapters the teaching of one Nature to wit of one person so that according to him the temple and inhabiter in it are one and the same person And Cyrill so taught indeed that they were one nature in that sense howbeit in his Chapters hee doth not call them one nature but the Nestorians confounding Nature with person upon Cyrils words where in his Chapters he plainly teacheth them to be one person or one natural subsistence affirmed him to say in them that they were one Nature as they tooke Nature which is true for in his Chapters he teacheth them indeed to bee one person which in the Nestorian language is one Nature The very same by Theodorets words is most cleare who for this cause reproved Cyrils Chapters because he taught in them non oportere subsistentias sive naturas dividere that the subsistences that is the Natures ought not to bee divided and then he against Cyrill having opposed that there is in Christ both the perfect subsistence of God and the perfect forme or subsistence of man he addeth that it is pious to confesse them both to be one Person one Sonne one Christ and withall not amisse to call them duas subsistentias sive Naturas two distinct subsistencies or Natures united and often doth he teach the like manifestly shewing that both himselfe as the other Nestorians tooke Natures for Person or personall subsistence and that they condemned Cyrils Chapters for this cause for that he denied two Natures in that sense to be in Christ that is two persons to be in him 47. Now it is cleare and certaine that Cyrill as well before as at and after the union professed two natures that is two distinct essences or substances to be in Christ but so that they both concurred to make but one person which is both God and Man And it is not unlike but that Cyrill as in his writings so in his speeches even to Paulus B. of Emisa professed thus much when he came to deale about the union and in that defence of his Chapters which he made in his refutation of Theodoret this is often signified Hence now the Nestorians tooke occasion of their speech They knowing that Cyrill professed two Natures tooke him to meane as themselves did two Persons thereby malitiously suppressing what Cyrill added for the declaration of his meaning that those two natures did both make but one Person or personall subsistence This being concealed and the words Natures being taken not for essences or substances as Cyrill meant but as the Nestorians misconstrued him for Persons they with great ostentation gave out amongst their friends and slandered Cyrill to have now so expounded and explaned his Chapters as that he thereby wholy consented unto them and recalled and condemned all his former Chapters and doctrine That this was the meaning of the Nestorians in saying Cyrill explained his Chapters the words of Ibas spoken before Photius and Eustathius compared with his Epistle makes undoubted For what there hee calls three or
confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and the Emperour Pope Vigilius as in place and dignity hee was more eminent so in this Insurrection he was more forward and a ring-leader unto them all And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause First he proclameth the Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane novelty judging it to bee contrary to the holy faith and Councell at Chalcedon To this he addes writings threats and punishments Literas scripsit adversus eos saith Baronius Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor and his Edict in those letters comminatus est eis qui consenserunt he threatned those that consented to the Emperor edixit indixit correctionem he decreed punishment unto them and forewarned them thereof telling them that unlesse they did amend their fault hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them protesting with the Apostle I feare when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not Nor were his threats in vaine as it seemeth seeing Baronius tells us that for this very cause either he or Stephanus his Legate in his name did excommunicate besides others two Patriarkes Mennas of Constantinople and Zoilus of Alexandria and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea 4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons but for the Emperour he took another course with him He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors that he would not do himself But wheÌ„ like Pirrhus ipse sibi cavit loco he had provided for his owne safety then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines Facundus an eloquent maÌ„ indeed as his name also imports but a most obstinate heretike Schismatike seeing he persisted in defeÌ„ce of the three Chapters not only before but after the judicial senteÌ„ce of the general Councel yet is he coÌ„mended by Baronius to be prudentissimus agonistes a most wise champion for the Church but the more hereticall hee is the more like and better liked is hee to Baronius Him doth Vigilius egge and even command to write against the Emperour yea sugillare it is the Cardinals word to taunt and flout him for his Edict nor him onely but in him to reprove omnes simul Principes all Princes whosoever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith or make lawes therein as Iustinian had done Facundus being thus directed incouraged and warranted by Pope Vigilius and being but his instrument in this matter writes a large volume containing twelve bookes against the Emperor in defence of the three Chapters A worke stuffed with heresie yet highly commended by Possevine the Iesuite as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undutifull manner as if forsooth fides omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve and as if none might beleeve otherwise quam praeciperet imperator then the Emperour commanded telling him that it were more meet for him se infra limitem suum continere to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds as other Artificers kept their own shops the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office Such rude homely and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause And as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe enough Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence calling the Emperour utterly unlearned qui nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset who never had learned so much as his A B C nor could ever read the Title of the Bible a Punie a palliated Theologue a sacrilegious person a witlesse furious and franâ—ike fellow possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one to presume against all right to make lawes concerning matters of faith concerning Priests and the punishments of them adding that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie si qui ejusmodi esset if such as Iustinian should makes lawes of faith yea such lawes quas dolosè conscripsissent haeretici as heretikes had craftily penned telling him as Facundus had before that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admonition Ne ultra Crepidam Sr Cobler go not beyond your Last Latchet This scurrility doth the Cardinall use
against the most religious and prudent Emperour and his holy and orthodoxall Edict and hee saith that he was willing to adde these ad roborandam Facundi sententiam to fortifie the sentence of Facundus whereby he with Vigilius did defend the Three Chapters 5. Were one disposed to make sport with the Cardinall himselfe here offereth a large field wherein one may exspaciate and seeing he useth not others as Kings hee might expect lege tulionis not to bee used himselfe as a Cardinall But because wee shall in another place more fitly convince the Cardinall both for his reviling the Emperor and raling at his Edict as penned by heretikes for this time I will but by the way observe two or three points touching this passage The first that Facundus by defending the Three Chapters and Baronius by fortifying his defence doe unavoydably pull upon themselves the just censure of Anathema denounced by the holy Councell against the defenders of those Chapters and those who are abetters of them So the more Baronius doth labour to fortifie the sentence of Facundus the more he entangles himselfe in that curse of the generall Councel The second that both Facundus Baronius do quite mistake the matter in carping at the Emperour as if by his Edict or in condemning those Three Chapters he had taught or published some new doctrine of faith he did not He taught and commanded all others to embrace that true ancient and Apostolicall faith which was decreed and explaned at Chalcedon as both the whole fift Councell witnesseth which sheweth that all those Chapters were implicite but yet truly and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chalcedon and Pope Gregorie also testifieth the same saying of this fift Councell that it was in omnibus sequax in every point a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon This the religious Emperour wisely discerning did by his imperiall edict and authoritie as Constantine and Theodosius had done before him ratifie that old and Catholike faith which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time The third speciall point which I observe is that which Baronius noteth as the cause why Pope Vigil was so eager against the Emperor and his edict And what thinke you was it Forsooth because Iustinian primus legem sancivit was the first who made a law and published a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters Had the Pope first done this and Iustinian seconded his holinesse therein hee had beene another Constantine a second Theodosius the dearest child of the Church But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope or make any lawes concerning the faith before they consult with the Romane Apollo or make him acquainted therewith that 's piaculum a capitall an irremissible sinne the Pope may not endure it So then is was neither zeale not pietie nor love to the truth but meere stomacke and pride in Vigilius to oppose himselfe to the Emperours edict and make an insurrection against him A sory reason God wot for any wise man in the world much more for the Pope to contradict the truth and oppugne the Catholike faith Now if Iustinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and pietie tending wholy to the good and peace of the Church if hee could not escape so undutifull usage at the Pope his orators in those better times religious Kings may not thinke it strange to finde the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these dayes and their instruments men so exact and eloquent in reviling that in all such base and uncivill usage they goe as farre beyond Facundus Tertullus and them of former ages as drosse or the most abject mettle is inferiour to refined gold This is the first Period and first judgement of Vigilius touching this cause of the three Chapters in defence of which and oppugning of the Emperours edict hee continued more then a yeare after the publishing of the Edict even all that time while hee remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperour 6. As soone almost as Vigilius was come to Constantinople and had saluted the Emperor and conferred with them who stood for the Edict he was quite another man he changed cum caelo animum the aire of the Emperors Court altered the Popes judgement and this was about a yeare after the publishing of the Edict Now that all things might be done with more solemnitie and advise there was a Synod held shortly after his comming at Constantinople wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters and consented to the Emperors Edict This Facundus expresly witnesseth saying How shall not this bee a prejudice to the cause if it bee demonstrated that Pope Vigilius with thirty Bishops or therabouts have condemned the Epistle of Ibas approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and anathematized that Bishop Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the praises whereof are set downe in that Councell Thus Facundus Besides all this Vigilius was now so forward in this cause that as before he had written bookes against the Edict in defence of the three Chapters and excommunicated those who condemned those Chapters so now on the Emperors side he writ bookes and gave judgement for the condemning of those Chapters and excommunicated some by name Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons because they would not condemne them None can deny saith Baronius that Vigilius writ a booke against the three chapters and sent it unto Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Again there is certaine proofe latae ab eo sententiae of the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Vigilius against Rusticus Sebastianus and other defenders of those chapters and this is so cleare ut nulla dubitatio esse possit that there can be no doubt at all but that Vigilius approved by a Constitution the Emperors sentence and condemned the three Chapters So Baronius The Epistles of Vigilius doe testifie the same In that to Rusticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention Iudicati nostri Constituti nostri of our judgement of our constitution against the three chapters concerning which he addeth that it was ratified by his Apostolicall authority saying that no man may doe contra constitutum nostrum quod ex beati Petri authoritate proferimus against this our Constitution which we set forth by the authority of Saint Peter The like hee testifieth in his Epistle to Valentinianus We beleeve saith he that those things may suffice the children of the Church which we writ to Mennas concerning the blasphemies of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and his person concerning the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith Thus Vigilius consenting now with the Emperor defending his Imperiall Edict and condemning the three Chapters in all which his profession was Catholike and orthodoxall 7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution become orthodoxall
The Cardinalls reasons to prove this are three The first is taken from the testimonie of Evagrius who then lived Nicephorus Cedrenus Zonaras Photius and all Greeke writers Graeci omnes affirmant they all testifie Vigilius to have assented to this fift Councell and that by letters or by a booke whence the Cardinall collects that seeing he consented not either during the time of the Synod or shortly after for he was sent into banishment because he would not consent unto it necesse est affirmare id ab ipso factū esse hoc tempore cum ab exilio solutus est liberque dimissus It must of necessitie be affirmed that he consented at that time when he was freed from exile and dismissed home to Rome Thus Baronius whom I will never beleeve to have been so simple and ignorant as that he knew not how lame defective and unsound this his necessarie collection was That his Necesse est is meerly inconsequent it is not so good as Contingens est That Vigilius consented by a booke or letters to the Synod is certaine none that I know makes doubt of it and that is all that Evagrius or any of his other witnesses affirme but neither Evagrius nor any one of them saith that Vigilius consented to the Synod after the end thereof or after he was sent into banishment this and this onely is it which wee deny and which Baronius undertakes to prove but when he comes to his proofe hee still and that most fraudulently omitteth this which is the principall nay the onely verbe in the sentence And to prove that Vigilius consented to the Synod in condemning the three Chapters what needed the Cardinall to cite all or any one of the Greeke writers The very Acts of the fift Councell doe often and expresly testifie this Vigilius hath often by writings without writing condemned and anathematized the Three Chapters In the very Synodall sentence it is said It hath happened that Vigilius living in this City hath beene present at those things which are noted concerning these Chapters tam sine scriptis quam in scriptis ea saepius condemnasse and to have condemned the same as well by writing as by word The whole purpose of the seventh Collation is no other but to shew out of Vigilius own writings that he consented with the Councell in condemning the three Chapters the very letters of Vigilius which were read in that seventh Collation do clearely witnesse his consent and judgement in condemning those Chapters The Councell condemnes them Vigilius condemnes them Doth not Vigilius consent to and with the Synod Did he not per libellum literas expresse that assent when his owne Epistles testifie that he condemned those Chapters as did also the Synod wherefore of his consent to the Synod there is no doubt But this consent of his was before the time that the Councell made their Synodall Decree yea before they assembled in the Synod it was during the time of the second Period before mentioned shortly after his cōming to Constantinople untill the Councell met together all that time he consented in judgement with the Councell he condemned the Chapters as the Councell did But at the time of the Councell when Vigilius should have consented also in making the Synodall Decree for condemning of those Chapters then hee dissented from the Synod and published an Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters So he both consented and that by letters yea by his Decree with the Synod and withall he dissented and that also by his Decree from the Synod His consent which the Synodall Acts doe shew and testifie Evagrius and the rest who saw and therein followed the Acts report and that truly His dissent which his owne Apostolicall Constitution kept in their Vaticane doth shew and testifie which in likelyhood Evagrius saw not nor knew thereof they report not but they deny it not But for that Baronian consent after the end of the Synod or after his exile of that in Evagrius and the rest there is no mention nor any small signification 9. It is the precedent consent of Vigilius not that Baronian and subsequent consent of which Evagrius and the rest intreat which may appeare even by the very words of Evagrius Vigilius per liter as consensit Concilio non tamen interesse voluit He saith not Vigilius would not be present at the Councell but after the end of it hee consented by letters unto it this is the false and corrupt glosse of Baronius but Vigilius consented to the Councell by his letters but would not be present His consent by letters was the former his deniall to come was the later For when Evagrius saith consensit sed noluit interesse he plainely sheweth that Vigilius might have beene present in the Councell as well as have consented by his letters he might but he would not now had his consent beene after his returne from exile that is an whole yeare after the end of the Councell Vigilius could not possibly though hee would never so gladly have beene present in the Councell nor would Evagrius have said consensit sed noluit interesse but hee should have said consensit sed non potuit interesse hee consented indeed with the Synod but he could not be present in it because when he consented the Synod was dissolved and ended a yeare before The sense in Nicephorus is the very same but his words a little more cleare Vigilius saith he et si scripto interveniente cum Eutichio conveniret assidere tamen illi noluit although he agreed with Eutichius by a writing this as it seemes was his Epistle to Rusticus and Sebastianus read in the Synod yet hee would not sit with him in the Councell Importing hereby that Vigilius might also have sitten with Eutichius when hee consented in doctrine with him but he would not which is evidently to bee understood of his precedent not of any subsequent consent after the end of the Synod The very same is the meaning of Photius Though Vigilius was not forward to come to the sacred assembly communem tamen patrum fidem libello confirmavit yet he confirmed the same common faith marke the same faith so he accounts the cause of the Three Chapters to be a cause of faith and the condemning of them to bee the confirming of the faith by a booke which booke is the same that Evagrius and Nicephorus meant the booke Epistle or Constitution of Vigilius made before the time of the Councell and then read therein but of any confirming that common faith by Vigilius after the end of the Synod Photius hath not one syllable 10. Now whereas the Cardinall adds that Graeci omnes de consensione Vigilij affirment that all Greeke writers affirme Vigilius to have consented to the Councell it is nothing but an untrue and vaine bragge of Baronius to downeface the truth for Zonaras affirmes it not nor Cedrenus and yet both
in this narration be fabulous what shall wee say of Aimonius and al those other Writers who mention this banishment of Vigilius as well as doth Anastasius What else can bee said then that which Ierome saith of divers of the ancient Writers Before that Southerne Devill Arius arose at Alexandria innocenter quaedam minus cantè loquuti sunt the ancients spake certaine things in simplicitie and not so warily which cannot abide the touch nor avoide the reprehension of perverse men Or that which Saint Austen observes in himselfe and Tyconius Non erat expertus hanc haresin Tyconius had not to deale with this heresie of the Pelagians as I have said It hath made us multò vigilantiores diligentioresque much more diligent and vigilant in scanning of this point than Tyconius was who had no enemy to stir up his diligence Right so it fals out betwixt those Writers and us of this age Aimonius Otho Platina and the rest found the banishment of Vigilius and much like stuffe as it is histories in Anastasius they in simplicitie and harmelesse innocency tooke it upon his credit The question about the Popes Cathedrall Infallibility about Vigilius hereticall Constitution and such like controversies were not moved in their dayes and therefore they spake of these things innocenter minùs cautè as Ierome saith of the Fathers and because they were not distrustfull of Anastasius they writ not so warily of these matters as others whose industry by the manifold frauds of Baronius as of another Arius hath beene whetted and they compelled to fift the truth more narrowly than they wanting opposites and oppugners did It fell out to them as it did to Ierome himselfe Ruffinus had set out a book in defence of Origen under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr Ierome at the first and for divers yeares beleeved the booke to have beene indeed written by Pamphilus as Ruffinus said it was Credidi Christiano Credidi Monacho I never dreamed that such an horrible wickednesse as to forge writings and cal them by the name of Martyrs could come from a Christian from a Monke from Ruffinus but when the question about Origen was once set on foote Ierome then sought out every corner every Copie every Library that hee could come to and so discovered the whole forgery The very like hapned to Otho Platina and the rest they found this fabulous narration of the banishment of Vigilius and the consequents upon it in the booke of Anastasius the Writer of the Popes lives of the Pontificall the keeper of the Popes Library a man of great name and note for learning one in high favour with the Popes of his time they never suspected or dreamed that such a man a Christian a Monke that Anastasius would deale so perfidiously and record such horrible untruths But now the question about Anastasius credit and the cause of Vigilius which was not moved in their dayes being sifted and come to the skanning the whole forgery and falshood of Anastasius is made evident to the world both in this and in a number the like narrations Anastasius is not the man the world tooke him for his writings are full of lyes and fictions Not the Legendaur more fabulous than Anastasius hee for a long time was the Master of the Popes Mint by his meanes the royall stampe of many golden Fathers yea of some Councels also and infinite historicall narrations was set upon Brasse Lead and most base metals and then being brought like so many Gibeonites in old Coates and mouldy coverings Anastasius gave them an high place and honourable entertainment in the Popes Librarie and with them ever since hath the Church of God beene pestered they past for currant among men delighted in darknesse and errours such as had no need to bring them to the touch but the light hath now manifested them and made both them and their author to be detested 24. You see now the weaknesse nay the nullity of the Cardinalls reason even of his Achilles drawne from the Emperours fact in restoring or freeing him from exile which he would never have done unlesse he had consented to the Synod For seeing we have proved that Vigilius was not at all banished it clearly thence ensueth that neither Narses entreated to have him freed from exile neither did the Emperour upon that entreaty free him from exile neither did Vigilius consent to the Synod after his exile and all the other consequents which upon this foundation of Vigilius his exile the Cardinall builds like so many Castles in the ayre they all of themselves doe now fall to the ground and which I specially observe it hence followeth that Vigilius did never after the end of the fift Councell consent unto it or to the condemning of the Three Chapters either by his Pontificall decree or by his personall profession for the Cardinall assures us and delivers it as a truth which of necessity must bee granted that his consent whether personall or pontificall was at no other time but when he was loosed out of banishment 25. Now at that time it neither was nor could be for there was never any such time nor was hee at all banished and therefore upon the Cardinals owne words we are assured that Vigilius after the end of the Synod never revoked his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters never after that time condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his
affect which country alone for multitude of Bishops doth equall or exceed other nations and this very Italian faction to have prevailed at Trent their owne Bishop Espencaeus who was at the Councell doth testifie Haec illa Helena est this is the Helena which of late prevailed at Trent this Italian faction overswayed all whereof Molineus gives a plaine instance For when an wholesome Canon that the Pope might not dispence in some matters had like to have beene decreed many in the Councell liking well thereof the Pope procured a respite for that businesse for a month and an halfe during which time some forty poore Bishops of Italy and Sicily were shipped and sent to Trent like so many levis armaturae milites and so the good Canon was by their valour discomfited and rejected by that holy Synod Some of the Councell also were the Popes pensioners and stipendary Bishops nay rather ought than Bishops such as among others were Olaus Magnus the titular Archbishop of Vpsala in Gothia and Robertus Venantius the titular and blinde Bishop of Armach and yet not halfe so blinde in body as in minde Archbishops without Archbishoprickes without a Church without a Clergy without Diocesse without any revenues save a small pension which the Pope allowed them that they might be cyphers in the Councell and taking his pay might doe him some service for it and grace his Synod with their subscriptions But all the other bonds are a◠nothing to that oath wherewith every one of them was tyed and fettered to the Pope swearing to uphold the Papall authority against all men and to fight against all that should rebell against him an oath so execrable that Aeneas Sylvius is mentioned to have said Quod etiam verum dicere contra Papam sit contra Episcoporum juramentum that even to speake the truth to speake for the truth if it be contrary to the Pope is against the oath of Bishops By this they were so tyed at ne mutire quidem ipsis liceat adversus Idolum Romanum that they might not so much as whisper against him 38. Verily none of those Iron chaines which were used by Dioscorus in the Ephesine Latrocinie are comparable to these No subscription unto blankes like the swearing to maintaine whatsoever their Romane Dioscorus shall define They who were not chained might have no place in the Synod they who were chained with such bands and specially with such an oath could have no freedome in the Synod they must speake thinke and teach nothing but what the Pope breathes into them Had there beene such wise and worthy Iudges for Presidents of that Councell as there was at Chalcedon could they possibly have endured to see all synodall freedome thus oppressed and banished Nay they would in their zeale to God and his truth have broken and burst in sunder every linke of that chaine And as Ibas and Theodoret were not admitted to the Councel of Chalcedon as members thereof till they had openly renounced and anathematized the heresies which they had before embraced So would not those glorious Iudges have permitted any of those Tridentine Bishops to have sit in the Councell till they had openly renounced anathematized and abjured that oath and with it their vassallage to the Pope and all those hereticall doctrines which by their adhering to the Pope and following his faction they had embraced and those are Image-worship Transubstantiation proper Sacrifice Adoration of the Host their Purgatorian fire and the rest of those heresies which since the Romane faction began to prevaile and that was about seven hundred yeares after Christ in the dayes of Gregory the second who as I suppose first of all by synodall judgement decreed the worship of Images they have maintained For seeing since that time not truth nor equity but faction prevailed in their Synods and swayed matters in their Church there could be no equall triall of the truth by any of their Synods held since that time But when all the Bishops were freed from those chaines of their oath and slavish bondage to the Pope since the faction whereof he hath beene the leader got the upper hand those glorious Iudges would have permitted nothing to passe for a free synodall sentence but that onely which could have had warrant from the Scriptures those holy Councells and consenting judgement of those Fathers who lived within the six hundred yeares or somewhat more after Christ at what time partiality and faction had not corrupted and blinded their judgement as in the second Nicene and ever since it hath 39. But because such glorious Iudges and their most equall Presidency was wanting nay was banished from their Assembly at Trent scarce any tokens or shadow of freedome could take place therein Not towards Protestants Brentius and divers other learned Divines came to Trent offered themselves and their faith to triall of disputations Nulla ratione impetrari potuit this could not be obtained by any meanes that they should come to dispute for the faith Nullus unquam liber aditus Protestantibus the Protestants at no time had any freedone to come to the Councell at Trent Not towards their owne Bishops if they spake or did ought tending to the defence of the truth Cornelius Bishop of Bitons said that Christ offered not in his last supper his owne body and blood this crossed their proper sacrifice of the masse therfore Cornelius for that free true speech à Patribus universis explosus est was hissed out of their Trent Councell by all the Fathers and Divines there present Iacobus Nachiantes Bishop of Clodia Fossa sayd he could not approve that traditions should be held in equal reverence as the Scripture he was for this truth expulsed the Councell Gulielmus Venetus a Dominican Fryer sayd in the Councell that the Councell was above the Pope he was commanded to depart out of the Councell Another of the Bishops hapning to touch and that but lightly the pride of the Pope in his titles wished that seeing God is no where in the Scripture called sanctissimus but sanctus the Pope also would be content with the same title of sanctus and not take a more ample name of honour than is given in Scripture unto God The Pope being certified hereof sent for him to come from Trent to Rome and gave him to his Officers to use him hardly and to bee degraded Petrus Vergerius Bishop of Iustinianople he who endeavoring to refute the Protestant writings and began that booke which hee intituled Against the Apostates of Germany was himselfe overcome by the evidence of that truth specially in the doctrine of Iustification which he oppugned came to the Councell at Trent The Pope having intelligence that he was inclined to Lutheranisme writ to his Legats at Trent Ne locum ei tribuant in consessu That they should not admit him
but in these later there never was any power to binde any either to accept their Decrees or to undergoe their censures because ab initio there was a meere nullity in all their Acts. Againe the inflicting of any punishment upon the judgement of the former had the warrant though not of divine yet of humane authority and was to bee presumed as just the sentence of every Iudge even eo nomine because he is a Iudge being to bee presumed just untill upon evident proofe it bee declared to bee unjust But what censures or punishments soever are or at any time have beene denounced or inflicted on any upon the warrant or Iudgement of these last ten Synods they are all ab initio meerely tyrannous and unjust inflicted without any either divine or humane authority seeing those Synods had none at all there is not so much as a presumption that they were or could be just but for their want of authority in decreeing them they are though otherwise equall presumed to be unjust 43. And thus much I have thought good to insert concerning all sorts of Councels as well lawfull as unlawfull to manifest hereby not onely the injurious dealing of Baronius with this fift Councell against which he declameth as an impious and unlawfull conspiracy but their vanity also in extolling and magnifying many and specially those last ten for holy lawfull and oecumenicall Synods of which dignity they are so farre short that they are all most deservedly to be ranked with the Ephesine Latrocinie and put in the Classis of those which of all other are the most base impious unlawfull and disorderly Councells CAP. XX. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same 1. WEE have hitherto seene and fully examined all the materiall exceptions which Baronius could devise to excuse Pope Vigilius from heresie and in them consists the whole pith and all the sinewes of the cause they being the onely arguments which are to be reckoned as the lawfull warriers of the Cardinall Now followeth that other Troupe whereof I told you before of his piraticall and disorderly Straglers which the Cardinall hath mustred together not that they should dispute or reason in this cause but to raile and revile at every thing whereat their Leader is displeased And the Cardinall doth this with so impotent affections in so immodest that I say not so scurrill a manner and with such virulency of all uncivill and most undutiful speeches that you shall see him now having cast away all that gravity and modesty which is fit not onely for a Divine a Cardinall a Disputer but for a man of any temper or sobriety to act herein no other part but Hercules Furens or Ajax mastigophorus without all respect either of authority or dignity or innocency lashing every body and every thing that comes in his way be it friend or foe sparing nothing that seemes to crosse his fancy not the Emperour Iustinian not the Empresse Theodora not Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea not the Imperiall Edict not the controversie and cause it selfe of the Three Chapters not the Acts of the holy Generall Councell not Pope Vigilius himselfe nothing can scape the whippe of his tongue and pen. Let us begin with the Emperour against whom Baronius declameth in this manner 2. Princes to dare to make lawes for Priests who should obey the lawes made by them Such an one as Iustinian make lawes of faith an abcedary Emperour an illiterate Theologue utterly unlearned who knew not how to reade who could never reade the title of the Bible no not the very first elements not his Alpha Beta He on a sodaine to become a palliated Divine Hee to prescribe lawes for the Church as subject to his Hee against all right and equity to presume to make lawes of sacred matters of Priests He to set downe punishments for them Hee who was not onely thus utterly unlearned but withall an enemy to the Church a sacrilegious person a persecutor a grievous a monstrous persecutor one who was madde franticke and out of his wits who was possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one make lawes for Bishops what is this else but to confound all things to treade under foote the sacred Canons to abolish utterly the Church discipline to dissolve all divine order and to make of the Kingdome of heaven which the Church is the very prison of hell where there is nothing but confusion Thus the Cardinall And this is but the first pageant of his Ajax and but some gleanings neither of that harvest which is abundant in his Annals 3. Not to seeke any exact or methodicall refutation hereof All that the Cardinall hath hitherto said may bee reduced to three notorious slanders by which he laboureth to blemish the immortall fame and unspotted honour of that most religious Emperour The first concernes His knowledge and learning Iustinian not able to reade not know so much as his Alphabet Is there any in the world thinke you so very stupid as to beleeve the Cardinall in this so shamelesse so incredible an untruth Tanti ingenii tantaeque doctrinae fuisse constat saith Platina it is manifest that Iustinian was of so great a wit and so great learning that it is not to bee marveiled if hee reduced the lawes being confused before into order Tritemius saith of him He was a man of an excellent wit and hee is deservedly reckoned among Ecclesiasticall Writers and hee expresly mentioneth three bookes which hee writ against Eutyches one against the Africane Bishops adding that none may doubt but that besides these hee writ many and very excellent Epist. Possevine the Iesuite acknowledgeth him with Tritemius for an Ecclesiasticall Writer besides the reciting of those same books which Tritemius mentioned hee alleageth these words of their Pontificiall most worthy to be observed for this purpose Iustinian the Emperour a religious man sent unto the Apostolike See his profession of saith Scriptam chirographo proprio written with his own hand testifying his great love to the Christiā Religion In regard of which his excellēt writings both Pope Agatho and the whole sixt generall Councell with him who lived in the next age to Iustinian reckoneth him in the same ranke not onely of Ecclesiasticall Writers but of venerable Fathers with Saint Cyrill Saint Chrysostome and others whose writings doe give testimony to the truth Liberatus who lived in the dayes of Iustinian and who was no well-willer of the Emperour yet could not but record That he writ a Booke against the Acephali or Eutichean heretikes in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and that Theodorus seeing him so toyled in writing against heretikes told him Scribendi laborem non cum debere pati That he should not trouble himselfe with writing books but maintaine the faith by publishing
Edicts Procopius who was familiarly conversant with Iustinian recites that traiterous perswasion of Arsaces to Artabanus when he excited him to murther the Emperour This said hee you may doe easily and without danger for the Emperour is not mistrustfull and he passeth the time till very late of the night in talking without any watch or guard having none but some old and feeble Bishops about him Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus being marvellously addicted to reade and peruse the writings of Christians Are these thinke you the actions of an illiterate of an Abcedary Emperour And what speake I of these The Pandects the Code the Authentikes the Institutions the whole body of the law proclame the incredible wisedome and rare knowledge of Iustinian All people saith he are governed by the lawes Tam à nobis promulgatis quam compositis as well published as composed by us and though he used the learning helpe and industry of other worthy men whose names he hath commended to all posterity and never-dying fame yet when they offred the bookes unto him Et legimus recognovimus saith he wee both read them and examined them which the glosse explaineth saying Nos ipsi legimus We our selves have reade and perused them So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shamelesse untruth of Baronius in reviling him for an illiterate and not so much as an Abcedarie scholler whose wit learning and prudence hath beene and will for ever bee a mirrour to all ages 4. But Suidas saith the Cardinall doth affirme the same calling Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and void of all learning For answer whereunto first I would gladly know of the Cardinal how hee can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas specially seeing their owne Iesuite Possevine tels us for a certainty that Plaeraque very many things are falsly inserted into Suidas and that à Sciolis Schismaticis by some smatterers or Schismaticks and further that those Plaeraque are such as are repugnant to the Euangelicall truth and Historicall sinceritie How may we bee assured that this concerning Iustinian is not one of those Plaeraque seeing this to be contrary to Historicall sincerity doth by those many and evident proofes which wee before produced fully appeare Againe admitting Suidas for the Author thereof is Suidas thinke you of more or equall authority and credit to their Pontificall which witnesseth expresly that Iustinian writ the holy confession of his faith Chirographo proprio with his owne hand Equall to Tritemius and Possevine or to winke at them to Pope Agatho and the sixt generall Councell who all account Iustinian among the Writers of the Church Who I pray you was this Suidas truly an earnest defender of those impieties which in their second Nicene Synod began to prevaile who in reviling manner doth call Constantine Iconomachus a Serpent an Antichrist and the disciple of the Devill and all for his not consenting to the adoration of Images and reliques and to the Invocation of Saints Now how this sort of men were given to lyes and fables the Acts of that Synod doe fully demonstrate Or if you rather desire to have their Iesuites judgement of Suidas hee will tell you first that he was hereticall in teaching the Essence in the Godhead to be generative which their Laterane Councell hath condemned for an heresie Hee will tell you further that this booke is full of errours fables and lyes of which sort are these among many That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos that it shal continue 1200. thousand yeares that the Sun and Starres are fierie substances fed and perpetuated by terrestriall humours as their nutriment that Paradise is Hortus pensilis a garden hanging in the ayre farre above the earth that Caine was begotten of the Devill which is a lye that the Iewes adored an asses head and every seventh yeare sacrificed a stranger His narration in verbo Nero touching Annas and Caiphas Pilate Peter and Simon Magus wherin multa comminiscitur he forgeth many things His narration in verbo Iulianus which hee calleth in expresse words mendacium flagiciosissimum a most lewd lie His slandering Constantine the great as base of birth and his sonne Crispus as incestuous His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretikes adding that hee writeth many things contra Historiae veritatem against the Historicall truth His relation in verbo Apolonius where many things are praised quae omnia monstrosa sunt prorsus explodenda all which are utterly to be hissed at where also he seemeth to allow the impious Art of Magicke and Divinations His approving of Appolonius and Danis two wicked Magitians who both are relegati ad inferos condemned to Hell And to omit very many of this kinde of impieties and fables which abound in Suidas His narration in verbo Iesus which not onely Baronius rejecteth but Pope Paul the fourth for that cause beside some other exploded the booke of Suidas and placed it in the ranke librorum prohibitorum Such even by the confession of their owne Iesuite is this Suidas a depraver of good a commender of wicked men a fabler a lyer a falsifier of Histories a Magitian an Heretike whose booke is by the Pope forbidden to bee read Such a worthy witnesse hath the Cardinall of his Suidas with whom he conspireth in reviling Iustinian as one utterly unlearned Concerning which untruth I will say no more at this time than that which Gotofrâ—d doth in his censure of those words of Suidas where calling it in plaine termes a slander he rejects it as it justly deserveth in this manner Valeant calumniae nos sinceriora sequamur Away with this and such like opprobrious slanders of Suidas and Baronius but let us follow the truth 5. His second reproofe of the Emperour is for presuming to make lâ—res in causes of faith which for Kings and Emperours to doe brings as he saith an hellish confusion into the Church of God The wit of a Cardinall Iustinian may not doe that which King Hezekiah which Asa which Iesiah and Constantine the great the two Theodosu Martian and other holy Emperours before had done and done it by the warrant of God to the eternall good of the Church and their owne immortall â—ame Had hee indeed or any of those Emperours taken upon them by their lawes to establish some new erronious or hereticall doctrine the Cardinall might in this case have justly reproved them but this they did not what doctrines the Prophets delivered the word of God taught and holy Synods had before decreed and explaned those and none else did Iustinian by his Edict and other religious Emperours ratifie by their imperiall authority Heare Iustinians owne words Wee have thought it needfull by this our Edict to manifest that right confession of faith quae in sancta Dei Ecclesiá praedicatur which is preached in the holy Church of God Here
Councell to be as certaine and as true as if Saint Peter or the Holy Ghost had uttered the same Said I not truly that this cause of the Three Chapters had bereft the Cardinall not onely of truth but of judgement of modesty of civility yea almost of common sense so that he cares not what he sayes so he speake in defence of those who defend and in condemnation of those who condemne the Three Chapters though he knoweth that which he saith to be testified to be a calumny and slander not onely by historians and private writers but by the Pope by the Romane Synod by the holy general Councel that is by the whole Catholike Church by all Nations by the whole world by Saint Peter and by the Holy Ghost himselfe 19. There might be added unto these divers other pregnant testimonies of Pope Gregory who often calls Iustinian a man Piae memoriae of a pious memory of the Legates of Agatho who call him of divine memory of Peter B. of Nicomedia and others who call him of blessed remembrance of the Emperour Constantinus who calls him divinae memoriae of the sixt generall Councell which not so little as a dozen times I thinke calls him of pious or divine memory most holy Iustinian or the like and which to expresse that great honour which they ascribe to the religious Emperour then present before them whom they terme the driver away of heretikes proclame him to be a new Constantine a new Theodosius a new Martian a new Iustinian crying out in his honour in divers actions Novo Iustiniano aeterna memoria eternall memory bee to you our new Iustinian A miserable prayse and wish had this beene had Iustinian beene an Heretike a Persecutor an Antichrist a damned person in hell for then the whole generall Councell had not onely dishonoured Constantine there present but had wished honour and immortall glory to Heretikes to Persecutors to Antichrist yea to the Devill himselfe which kinde of praysing and praying is not very sutable to the piety and faith of that generall Councell But the former testimonies are so ample and illustrious that they seeme to me to obscure all these and the like and doe so abundantly convince Baronius to slander and calumniate the Emperour that I will forbeare to presse him with any more 20. Perhaps some good friends of Baronius will say in his behalfe and for his excuse that hee did not devise this of himselfe nor is hee the first that accuseth Iustinian of this Heresie he hath his Books and his Authors for him He hath so indeed And so he hath Nestorius and Theodorus of Mopsvestia for his defending Nestorianism He devised not that neither of himself he doth but secōd others therin By this apology whō may not the Cardinal revile when he list He may calumniate Athanasius for a murderer Celestine and Cyril for Apolinarians Constantine the great for a persecutor of the true faith for which crime his son is called an Hereticke a murderer a friend of the Devill Saint Paul for a seditious and pestilent fellow a mad man Christ himselfe for a glutton and drunkard a man possessed by the devill a blasphemer Thus may he revile and accuse these and al the best men that have ever been in the world yea even God himselfe and then salve all with this plaister Why Baronius deviseth not any one of these imputations hee can produce his books authors for thē all and those also far better than he doth for this concerning Iustinian In one he hath the whole Councell of Tyre in another Iohn Patriarch of Antioch Theodoret the Councel which they held at Ephesus in a third Lucifer Bishop of Calaris a Confessor one who suffered whippings and tortures at the Councell of Millan and after that exile for the faith in another Tertullus and Festus in the last the Iewes the Scribes and the High Priest with his Councell would this excuse either Baronius or any that should upbraid these crimes unto Athanasius Constantine Paul or Christ from being revilers and slanderers He who applaudeth abetteth a slander as doth Baronius this of Iustinian he is as guilty of slander as if himselfe had devised it The law of God doth not only say Thou shalt not lye or devise a false tale but Thou shalt not receive a false tale neither shalt thou put thine hand w th the wicked not be a coadjutor an accessary or an abetter to be a false witnesse Yea though many report an untruth yet their multitude cannot excuse thee Thou shalt not follow a multitude in doing evill neither shalt thou agree in a controversie to decline after many and overthrow the truth And the Apostles rule condemnes not onely those who doe evill themselves but those also and that much more who consent unto or who favour those that doe evill accordingly whereunto S. Ierome saith of wantonnesse that which is true in all other sins majori procacitate defendunt libidinem quam exercent it is a greater impudency to defend lust lying slandering or any sin than to commit it 21. But let us see who those are on whose report the Card. frames this his slanderous invective against the Emperor He saith they are all authors But that as you have seen is a vast and truly Baronian untruth They are but some and the Card. nameth three Evagrius Eustathius and Nicephorus Callistus I will yeeld more unto him if he please let him have 10. or 20. to say what his fore-man doth yet the law of God is forcible against them as if they were but one Thou shalt not follow a multitude to doe evill And alas what are these either for number or which is more for gravity and authority to those which we have before produced To say nothing of that cloud of Historians what are they to S. Agatho to S. Gregory to the Emperour Constantinus Pogonatus to the Romane Synod to the sixt generall Councel to all nations to the whole world to S. Peter yea to the Holy Ghost himselfe What an army of invincible unresistable Captaines hath Iustinian to fight on his side against two or three poore petite contemptible witnesses which the Card. hath raked together not to be named the same day with the former 22. Will it please you further to take a view in particular of them Truly of those whom the Card. would not vouchsafe once to name I will say nothing if they were not worthy to be named nor to have a whistle from the Cardinall I thinke them unworthy to bee refuted also This onely I say of them all they were misse-led and deceived by those whom the Card. mentioneth as his prime and principall witnesses and those are Evagrius Eustathius and Nicephorus Now for the last of these Possevine shewes him to be hereticall and in Historicall narrations erroneous and the Card. himselfe saith on him Fatuus
they condemne the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall and by that Epistle condemne the Councell of Chalcedon à qua suscepta est by which that Epistle is approved Thus Facundus so very heretically that Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus nor any cōdemned heretike could wish or say more than Facundus hath done both for their heresies against the Councell of Chalcedon For the impious Epistle of Ibas is wholly hereticall the approving of it is the overthrow of the whole Catholike faith and yet Facundus not onely himselfe defendeth that impious Epistle as orthodoxall and by it defendeth the person and writing of Theodorus of Mopsvestia a condemned heretike but avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to approve the same which condemnes it and every part of it even to the lowest pit of hell 14. Here by the way I must in a word put the reader in minde of one or two points which concern Possevine and Baronius in this passage If Facundus be a condemned heretike for writing in defence of the three Chapters what else can Possevine be who praysed those bookes of a condemned heretike for thus he writeth Facundus writ opus grande atque elegans a great and elegant worke containing twelve books fortified by the authorities of the Fathers in defence of the three Chapters Heretike Is that a brave and elegant booke that defendeth heresie can heresie be fortified by the testimonies of the holy Fathers What is this else but to make the holy Fathers heretikes So hereticall and spitefull is Possevine that together with himselfe he would draw the ancient and holy Fathers into one and the same crime of heresie The other point concernes Baronius hee sayth that the controversie or contention about the three Chapters was inter Catholicos tantum onely among such as were Catholikes doth not he plainly thereby signifie his opinion of Facundus that he was a Catholike for Facundus was as hot and earnest a contender in that controversie as Vigilius himselfe he writ in defence of the three Chapters twelve whole bookes elegant and brave bookes as Possevine saith he bitterly inveighed against the Emperour against all the condemners of them against Pope Vigilius himselfe when hee after his comming to Constantinople consented to the Emperor Seeing this Facundus a convicted and condemned hehetike is one of the Cardinals Catholikes must not heresie and Nestorianisme bee with him Catholike doctrine must not the impious Epistle be orthodoxall and the overthrow of the faith and decree of the Councell at Chalcedon bee an Article of Baronius faith even that which he accounted the Catholike faith But this by the way We see now what manner of Bishop Facundus was an obstinate heretike pertinaciously persisting in heresie What though Facundus call Theodorus of Caesarea an Origenist Did not the old Nestorians call Cyrill and other Catholikes Apollinarians of whom it seemes the defenders of the three Chapters learned to calumniate the Catholikes with the names of heretikes and Origenists when they were in truth wholly opposite to those and other heresies Can any expect a true testimony concerning Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea from Facundus concerning Catholikes from heretikes their immortall and malicious enemies nor theirs onely but enemies to the truth Such and of such small worth is the former witness of Baronius in this cause and against Theodorus 15. His other witnesse is Liberatus the Deacon who indeed sayth as plainly as Baronius that Theodorus was an Origenist and refers the occasion of that whole controversie touching the three Chapters to the malice of the same Theodorus For as Liberatus saith Pelagius the Popes Legate when he was at Constantinople entreated of the Emperour that Origen and his heresies wherewith the Easterne Churches specially about Ierusalem were exceedingly troubled might be condemned whereunto the Emperour willingly assenting published an Imperiall Edict both against him and his errors when Theodorus being an Origenist perceived that Origen who was long before dead was now condemned he to be quit with Pelagius for procuring the condemnation of Origen moved the Emperour also to condemne Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia who had written much against Origen whose writings were detested of all the Origenists the Emperour at Theodorus his suggestion made another Edict wherein he condemned Theodorus of Mopsvestia and the two other Chapters touching the writings of Theodoret and Ibas which bred so long trouble in the Church Thus Liberatus Who as you see speaketh as much and as eagerly against Theodorus as Baronius could wish and Liberatus lived and writ about that same time 16. Liberatus in many things is to be allowed in those especially wherein by partiality his judgement was not corrupt But in this cause of the Three Chapters in the occasion and circumstances thereof hee is a most unfit witnesse himselfe was deepely interressed in this cause partiality blinded him his stile was sharpe against the adverse part but dull in taxing any though never so great a crime in men of his owne faction Of him Binius gives this true censure hee was one of their ranke who defended the Three Chapters who also writ an Apology for Theodorus of Mopsvestia againe Baronius and Bellarmine have noted that divers things are caute legenda in Liberatus of him Possevine writeth There are many things in Liberatus which are to bee read with circumspection those especially which hee borrowed of some Nestorians and those are his narrations touching Theodorus of Mopsvestia that his writings were praised both by the Emperour Theodosius his Edict and by Cyrill and approved also in the Councell of Chalcedon all which to be lies Baronius doth convince Againe what Liberatus saith of the fift Councell is very warily to be read for either they were not his own or he was deceived by the false relation of some other but certainly they do not agree with the writings of other Catholike fathers Thus Possevine out of Baronius who might as well in plaine termes have called Liberatus a Nestorian heretike for none but Nestorians and such as slander the Councel of Chalcedon for hereticall can judge the writings of Theodorus which are ful of all heresies blasphemies and impieties to be approved in that holy Councell Againe Possevine rejecting that which Liberatus writeth of the fift Councell gives a most just exception against all that he writeth either touching Theodorus of Cesarea as being an Origenist or of the occasiō of this cōtroversie about the 3. Chapters as if it did arise from the cōdemning of Origen in all this Liberatus by the Iesuites confession was deceived by the false relation of others they agree not to the truth nor to the narrations of Catholike fathers Liberatus being an earnest favourer and defender of Theodorus Mopsvestenus could not chuse but hate Theodorus of Cesarea for seeking to have him and his writings condemned The saying of Ierome ought here to take place Professae inimicitiae suspitionem habent mendacij the report of a professed enemy ought to
be suspected as a lye The true cause why Liberatus is so violent against Theodorus of Cesarea was not for that Theodorus was an Origenist as Liberatus and out of him Baronius slandereth him but because this Theodorus condemned the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia whom Liberatus defended and the two other Chapters Neither was the condemning of Origen the occasion of condemning the three Chapters as Liberatus untruly reporteth but as both Iustinian and the whole Councell witnesse the true occasion thereof were the Nestorian heretikes who pretending and boasting the three Chapters to bee allowed in the Councell of Chalcedon both the Catholikes in defence of the Councell justly denyed the same and the Emperour first then the Councell to confirme the faith condemned the three Chapters which were the overthrow of the faith as before wee have proved 17. This were enough to oppose to all that Facundus and Liberatus say two defenders of the three Chapters and so professed enemies both to the Catholike truth defined in the fift Councell and to Theodorus of Cesarea who first of all suggested the condemning of them to the Emperour Iustinian But now besides this just exception against the Cardinals witnesses I will adde two cleare and authentike proofes to demonstrate both Liberatus and after him Baronius unjustly and falsly to slander Theodorus of Cesarea for an Origenist The former is his owne subscription to the fift Councell In that Councel among other heretikes Origen is not only expresly by name condēned that in their definitive sentence but an Anathema also denounced against all who doe not condemne and anathematize him these are the words of the Councell If any doe not anathematize Arius Emonius Macedonius Apollinarius Nestorius Eutyches Origen with their impious writings talis anathema sit such an one let him bee accursed To this Synodall decree did all the 165. Bishops in the Councell consent and subscribe the eighth man was this Theodorus of Cesarea who subscribed in this manner I Theodorus decrevi quae proposita sunt have decreed these things which are proposed and I confesse that the truth is as all those Chapters and doctrines above named of which this against Origen is the eleaventh doe containe when Theodorus himselfe confesseth Origen and his writings to bee condemned accurseth them yea and all who doe not accurse them is it not a vile and unexcusable calumny in Liberatus and in Baronius to revile him as a patron of Origen 18. Perhaps you will say hee was in former time an Origenist but at the time of the fift Councell hee was become a new man Though this were admitted yet cannot Baronius bee excused for calling him after that fift Councell an heretike an Origenist But hee was still the same man both now and before orthodoxall as by the other evidence taken from the Emperours Edict in condemning Origen will appeare when the defenders of Origen both for their number and insolency grew very troublesome in the East specially about Ierusalem Pelagius and Mennas as Liberatus saith at the instigation of some religious Monks intreated the Emperour that Origen and his heresies might be condemned the Emperour thereupon published a very large and religious Edict against Origen which he directed to Mennas and the copy therof he sent also to Vigilius and to other Patriarks after many other things the Emp. thus writeth We desiring to put away all offence from the holy Church to leave it without blemish following the divine Scriptures holy fathers who have cast out and justly anathematized Origen and his impious doctrine have sent this our Epistle unto you wherein we exhorte you that you call an assembly or Synod of all the holy Bishops and Abbots who are now in Constantinople and that you see that all of them doe in writing anathematize Origen and his wicked doctrines and all the Chapters out of him under-written and further that you send the Copy of what you have done in this cause to all other Bishops and Abbots within your Patriarkship that they also may all doe the like Besides this the Emperour yet commands that none be ordained Bishop or chosen into any Monastery unlesse forthwith in a booke they accurse and anathematize as Arius Sabellus Nestorius Eutyches and the rest so also Origen and his impious doctrines Thus writ the Emperour and what in this manner hee commanded Mennas to doe in his Patriarkship the like was Vigilius to doe in the Romane Zoilus in the Alexandrian Euphrenius in the Antiochian That according as the Emperour commanded this was done Liberatus is witnesse so that by all the Bishops in the world that then were and by such as were after this to bee ordained Origen with his impious doctrine was to bee condemned and accursed Particularly of the Synod or Bishops at Constantinople Baronius confesseth The Emperour admonished Mennas to assemble a Synod by which all these things which he had written against Origen might bee confirmed quod factum fuit which was accordingly done and as Cedrenus saith their sentence was this We condemne all these errours of Origen omnes qui ita sentiunt sentient and all who do either now or herafter shall think as he doth condemning themselves with an anathema if either then they did thinke so or ever hereafter should think the like That Theodorus though he had remained at Cesarea subscribed to this sentence I thinke none can doubt the Emperours command being so strict to all Patriarks But indeed it seemeth that Theodorus was not onely at Constantinople at this time and there subscribed but that hee was one of the chiefe agents with the Emperour to publish this Edict for of him Evagrius witnesseth that cum Iustiniano assiduè versabatur he was continually conversant with the Emperour hee was faithfull and especially necessary unto him of him Liberatus saith that hee was dilectus familiaris Principum deare and familiar both with the Emperour and Empresse of him Baronius testifieth that he was praepotens armiger Iustiniam the Champion of Iustinian for so saith he I may well call him that was used to sit at the Emperours Elbow yea of whom the Emperour had conceived so great an opinion that hee thought it the chiefe point of his duty or piety ejus semper inhaerere Vestigijs alwayes to tread in the footsteps of Theodorus Thus Baronius Seeing Theodorus was so neare unto so potent with the Emperour so highly esteemed by him that hee alwayes trode in his steps how could Theodorus bee a patron of Origen when the Emperor himselfe accursed and commanded all others to accurse him Did not Theodorus treade out this path of an anathema unto the Emperour or had he been an Origenist how could the Emperour following him step by step be an enemy to Origen Or to omit many other like consequences seeing the Synod of Constantinople as besides Baronius Liberatus witnesseth that is all the Bishops there
for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Chist was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteres because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the soure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormâ—sdaes dayes they could not now in this fift Synod they obtained now they added to the words of the Synod this clause qui est Dominus unus de sancta Trinitate A very perilous corruption sure to expresse that clause which all the Bishops of Rome semper excipio Hormisdam with all Catholikes beleeved and taught which whosoever denieth or wil not professe is anathematized and excluded from the Catholike Church is not this thinke you a very sore corruption of the Councell of Chalcedon Is not the Cardinall a rare man of judgement that could spie such a maine fault in these Acts of the fift Councell that they professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate to which profession both they and all other were bound under the censure of an anathema 7. Yea but in the Acts those words are cited as the words of the Councell of Chalcedon whose they are not A meere fancy and calumny of the Cardinall they are plainly set downe as the words of the fift Synod whose indeed they are and it relateth not precisely the words of the Councell of Chalcedon nor what it there expressed totidem verbis but the true summe and substance of what is there decreed For thus they say The holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith doth professe God the Word incarnate to be made man this is all they report of the Councell of Chalcedon as by the opposition of Ibas
not as yet by name condemned nor by name prohibited they presumed more boldly to rely on them The Catholikes and specially they of Armenia as is witnessed in a letter from them to Proclus seeing this their new device entreated the Emperor Theodosius to stop that wicked course to condemne by name Theodorus as well as hee had done Nestorius Which though at the first the Emperour did not yet seeing how insolent the Nestorians grew upon those writings long after the former he published these two condemning now explicitè by name and in particular Diodorus Theodorus and the writing of Theodoret which before were onely implicitè and in a generality condemned When the lawes the occasion the time of promulgation were all different was not the Cardinall thinke you bereft of judgement who would prove these later to bee forged and counterfeit because they differ from the former with which they should not agree 5. It may be the Cardinall thought that all lawes were expressed in the Code and therefore if there had beene any such lawes as they they would have beene there set downe A conceit I beleeve which will never enter into any mans mind while he hath use of his five wits but into the Cardinals who hath conceits by himselfe and knoweth notes above Ela. To say nothing of the twelve Tables and of all the ancient Romane lawes no part of which are extant in the Theodosian Code the most ancient law mentioned in the Gregorian surpasseth not the time of the Emperour Antoninus and in the Theodosian not the time of Constantine Can the Cardinall assure us that all the Lawes of Constantine Constantius and the other Emperours till the time of Theodosius the younger are expressed in this Code Eusebius and Zozomen mention divers of Constantines lawes Pro liberatione exulum Pro reducendis relegatis Pro ijs qui ad metalla damnati erant Pro confessoribus Pro ingenuis Quod Ecclesia sit haeres ijs quibus nemo de sanguine superfuerit De sacellis camiteriis and many the like none of which are in the Theodosian Code they were all published if the Cardinall say true in the Consulship of Licinius the fift time and Crispus for which yeare the Code hath no lawes but two one De veteranis and another De parricidio 6. To come yet nearer to the very times of Theodosius besides all these he made another Edict and law against Nestorius commanding if any Bishop or Clerke mention that heresie that hee should forthwith be deposed if a Laicke bee anathematized in which law hee particularly commandeth Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be deposed from his See This law though it is both recorded in the Acts of the Ephesine Councell and confessed by the Cardinall to bee truly the Emperours Law yet is not extant in the Code nor is it all one with that which is there set downe The Cardinall by the same reason might prove it a forgery as well as those other two and conclude the Acts of the Ephesine Councell to be falsified by Impostors and so to be of no credit as well as the Acts of this fift Synod Further yet there was another law against Nestorius published by the same Theodosius after the Ephesine latrociny and recorded in the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon wherein the Emperour shewes againe his detestation of that heresie approving the condemning and deposing of Domnus of Theodoret and Irenie Nestorian Bishops as also of Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorilen whom he thought to be Nestorians but therein the Emperour was mis-informed as hee had beene before in the time of the holy Ephesine Synod when upon like mis-information hee condemned Cyrill and Memnon as well as Nestorius That law though acknowledged also by Baronius to be true is not extant in the Theodosian Code nor doth it accord with that which is there expressed would not any man thinke it ridiculous hence to conclude as the Cardinall doth that certainly it is therefore a forgery and the Acts of Chalcedon containing such forgeries are to be held of no credit Thus while the Cardinall labours to discredit these Acts he so foully disgraceth himselfe that men may justly doubt whether hee were his owne man when he writ these things which are so voide both of truth and reason CAP. XXXIII The third addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union is falsely inserted refuted 1. THe third proofe which Baronius brings to shew that these Acts are corrupted by the additions of some forged writings inserted among them is an Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union set downe in the fift Collation wherein Theodoret professeth to Nestorius that he did not receive the letters of Cyrill as orthodoxall nay hee sheweth himselfe so averse from consenting to them and so addicted to Nestorius after the union made that hee thus writeth I say the truth unto you I have often read them and earnestly examined them and I have found them to be free that is full in uttering hereticall bitternesse nor will I ever consent to those things which are unjustly done against you nec si ambas manus no though both my hands should bee cut off from me Thus writeth Theodoret in that Epistle which the holy Councell first and after them we affirme and professe to have beene the true writing of Theodoret and the same to be a counterfeit a forgery and none of Theodorets but framed by heretikes Baronius confidently avoucheth 2. Now in this cause having the Synodall Acts and with them the judgment of the whole generall approved Councell on our side wee might justly reject this as a calumny of Baronius but for as much as hee not onely saith it but undertakes to prove the same wee will examine his reasons that so the integrity and credit of these Acts may be more conspicuous His reasons are two The first is grounded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus who writeth thus It is to bee knowne that certaine letters of Theodoret and Nestorius are caried about in which either of them doe lovingly embrace the other sed fictitiae sunt but they are counterfeit and devised by heretikes thereby to oppugne the Councell at Chalcedon but Theodoret hated Nestorius c. Thus Leontius and the Card. adds this extat ex illis Epistolis una one of those counterfeit Epistles written to Nestorius is extant in the fift Councell neare the end of the fift action thereof 3. What if wee should except against Leontius though hee bee as ancient as Pope Gregory as a man not of sufficient credit Or will the Card. thinke you defend him and take his testimony for sound and good paiment then farewell for ever the books of Toby Iudith Wisdome Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus for Leontius reckoning the bookes of the old Testament to be twenty
Nestorius which their profession of faith and this condemning of the Nestorian heresie Iohn sent both to Cyrill to Pope Sixtus and to Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople Now seeing Theodoret not onely in former time had beene so violent and furious in defence of that doctrine but then and long after continued in the same minde was not his doctrine reproved nay was it not accursed and anathematized by Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and many other Bishops subject to his Patriarchship What a most vile and shameless untruth then is it which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter that in the whole space of 25. or 26. yeares he neither accused any nor was accused nor reproved no not lightly reproved either by Iohn or any other but that all and every one of his writings contained the true doctrine of the Church But enough of those Epistles which to be forged and false this which is already sayd may for this time suffice 11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affirmeth that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius and withall seene how weake and unsound his proofe is in this point I will yet adde one consideration which will further manifest and even demonstrate the same That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certaine it is that when Theodoret writ that history he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme whereof in the very last Chapter he gives an eminent proofe commending Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia for a worthy teacher of the whole Church and for an oppugner of all heresies adding that whereas he was a Bishop thirty six yeares he never ceased optimam herbam sanctis Christi â—viâ—us suppeditare to feed the flocke of Christ with the best herbes None can doubt but hee who so much extolleth so detestable an heretike and approveth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius suckâ— for the best herbes or doctrines but he must needs be confessed to bee as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe If now it may appeare that this history was writ by him after the union there can no doubt remaine but that after the union Theodoret favoured Nestorius and all his heresies 12. Baronius knowing this inevitably to follow to decline the whole force of this tels us that Theodoret writ his history not onely before the union but before the jarre also yea before the time of the holy Councell at Ephesus whereof having given some sleight conjectures in the end he concludes Dicendum est It must be sayd that Theodoret writ this history in the space of those three yeares which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Councell So he Shall I say the Cardinall was deceived and overseene herein No I will not suspect that such an evident error could creepe into the minde of so exact an Annalist I rather thinke his intent was wilfully and wittingly to deceive others and that therefore hee sayd this to smother that truth touching Theodorets continuance in Nestorianisme which he elsewhere so often denieth Theodoret mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or reliques of Chrysostome and bringing them to Constantinople The Cardinall was so far from being ignorant hereof that himselfe citeth Theodoret with a memorandum He ante omnes above them all mentioneth this translation but in few words That translation as Socrates and Marcellinus witnesse was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consull that is as the Cardinall also accounteth in the yeare 438. Now seeing the union betweene Iohn and Cyrill was made in the yeare 432. it unavoydably followeth that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven yeares at least after the union and how much more I know not whether 8.10 or 16. after it for it is uncertaine or if hee writ it as the Cardinall divineth before the Ephesine Synod that he writ it prophetically writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine yeares after his history was written The truth is an orderly and historicall continuation of things done he doth not write but onely to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia where his history for any such continuation of succeeding matters doth end but to shew and testifie that he writ his history after the yeare 438. hee purposely mentioneth some of those acts which sell out in that yeare and hereof further there may be a presumption because Theodoret as Baronius tels us followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mopsvestia now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius as himselfe witnesseth So that if Theodoret as the Cardinall tels us tooke it out of Sozomen and his booke was not published till the yeare 439. sure the Cardinall of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time otherwise than prophetically in this point write his history It remaineth now seeing Theodoret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this history and it was written after the yeare 438. that out of all doubt till then hee remained hereticall and devoted to all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus which in that history he commends for most wholsome food and Catholike doctrine 11. But not to stay longer in a matter very cleare my conclusion of this former point is this Seeing the Cardinall tels us that from the time of the union Theodoret was not onely a Catholike and orthodoxall Bishop but that he did manfully fight for the Catholike faith it evidently followeth that in the Cardinals judgment Nestorianism and those herbes nay most poysonfull weeds of Theodorus are Catholike doctrines seeing as now we have proved for many but of a certainty for seven yeares at least after the union that doctrine which Theodoret embraced and so earnestly defended was no other than the blasphemous heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus And let this suffice for the third addition which he unjustly objecteth to the Acts of this fift Councell CAP. XXXIV The fourth addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret intitled to Iohn Bishop of Antioch is falsly inserted therein refuted 1. HIs fourth instance concernes an Epistle of Theodoret inscribed to Iohn Bishop of Antioch set downe neare the last end of the fift Collation wherein Theodoret exceedingly rejoyceth for the death of Cyrill In handling whereof Baronius and Binius doe more than triumph as if the field were certainly wonne That Epistle sayth Binius nequissimi scelestissimi alicâ—jus nebulonis Eutychiani commentum est is the forgery of some most naughty and nefarious Eutychian varlet and by fraud and surreption is thrust into the Acts of this Synod We have before discovered saith Baronius the imposture of that Epistle but we are not grieved to repeat the same things here againe that it may be shewed that they are not the true Acts of the Synod sed nebulonis cujusdam ex cogitatione commentum but
his next successor 14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius wherein he writ an excommunication against Vigilius usurping his See it is dated in some Copies in the yeare of Basilius in others of Bellisarius being Consuls Now in all the time Silverius was Pope neither was Basilius nor Bellisarius Consuls What then shall the Popes Epistle be rejected as a a forgery a counterfeit No by no meanes The Cardinall often mentioneth it honours it for a rare monument and to helpe that errour he tels us the date is added more than should be Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodorets letter in the Synodall acts Might it not happen that the inscription was onely to the Archbishop of Antioch that the name of Iohn was added more than should be Epiphanius in his Book of heresies sayth that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour a manifest untruth for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus the successor of Adrian and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius and Verus 24. yeares after the death of Adrian Will the Cardinall have his demonstration to hold here in Epiphanius so that his booke against heresies must be condemned for a counterfeit and none of Epiphanius writing No error irrepsit there slipt an error into Epiphanius for Adrian is written in stead of Antoninus as the Cardinall tels you but it rather seemes in stead of Aurelius under whom Iustine dyed Had the Cardinall beene any way as indifferent to Theodorets letters hee would likewise have said error irrepsit an error is slipt into the inscription by writing Iohn in stead of his successor Domnus rather than have condemned the writing for a forgery 14. In the twenty third Cause Question 4. Cap. 30. in the ancient title it was cited as a text of Sylvester a manifest errour of Sylvester instead of Sylverius Did the Gregorian Correctors for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted condemne that Canon or Epistle as a counterfeit no but approving the text as true they amended the title and restored it to Sylverius In the very same Chapter it is said that Guillisarius caused Sylverius to bee deposed there was no Guillisarius that ever did that but it was Bellisarius yet for that error of the name which yet remaines uncorrected is not the Canon or Epistle rejected 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius out of Tyrius commendeth it is sayd that the fift Synod which decreed the Patriarchall dignity to the Bishop of Ierusalem was held in the time of Vigilius of Rome Eutychius of Constantinople and Paule of Antioch Now that by the Cardinals demonstration was never for it is certaine that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his dayes Before this Synod was Ephreem who sate eighteene yeares in whose fourteenth or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius to be Pope to him succeeded Domnus hee sate 18. yeares in whose seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held and himselfe personally subscribed unto it and about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius So this decree by the Cardinals owne reason is but a forgery as in very truth it is Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse fragment will admit an error of the writing Paulus being put for Domnus why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret as not to thinke a like errour of the pen in it and Iohannes to be put for Domnus 16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editiōs of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan. a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptiō without al doubt Iohn being dead ten yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius himselfe both declares and proves professing that Inscription to be false Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstration drawne from the title and Inscription oh how happily how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against and contradicting that Edict Hee might have said Why that Edict was none of Iustinians nor ever published by him for the Inscription is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell or any Synodall Acts at all of it for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause to define the truth delivered by the Edict This had beene a short cut indeed and the Cardinall like another Alexander by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then nor ever I thinke till the acts of this fift Synod and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal for not withstanding the falshood of that inscription title the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit but a true imperiall Edict truely published by Iustinian contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say that addition to Iohn is added put amisse in the title by some later hand by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret the name of Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle rather than by reason of such an errour as happeneth in many Epistles and writings to declame not onely against the Epistle as a base forgery and none of Theodorets but even against all the Acts of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is sound extant 17. None I thinke doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire and without all corruption as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Councels To omit the rest in those of Chalcedon the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene
as much tyred as my selfe after conquest of the generall I will as Abner did play a little with these stragling Asaels in this point also or if you please to suffer me to give aime a while I will onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commit the two Cardinals into the pit to fight it out and day the matter betwixt themselves 19. Commentitium est it is a forged Epistle saith Cardinall Baronius it is none of Vigilius writing I here one say so saith Cardinall Bellarmine but I say Vigilium scripsisse illam Epistolam damnasse Catholicam fidem that Vigilius did write that Epistle and condemne the Catholike faith Epistolam quidem scripsit nefariam truely he writ that nefarious Epistle unworthy of any Christian. Here is worke indeed saying against saying Cardinall against Cardinall and whether Cardinall is the stronger let the spectators consider But the best sport is that whereas Cardinall Baronius tels us that this Epistle was written by some unskilfull Eutychean heretike and Cardinall Bellarmine tels us that it was writ by Vigilius it followeth upon the two Cardinals sayings joyned together that Vigilius was both an heretike and an unskilfull Eutychean heretike 20. From their words let us come to their strokes and sad blowes Causa cum causa ratio cum ratione pugnet Cardinall Bellarmine hath but one reason but that is indeed a very sound one like the Cat in the fable which hath but one shift against the hounds his reason is the testimony of Saint Liberatus who then lived who not onely testifieth Vigilius to have writ this but sets downe the very Epistle it selfe of Vigilius and whereas some pretended both that Liberatus was corrupted by heretikes and that his narration was contrary to their Pontificall the Card. tels us for a certainty that there is neither any footstep nor print of corruption in Liberatus neither doth he herein dissent from the Pontificall Cardinall Baronius boasteth of his reason as the Fox did in the same fable that he had a number of sleights and shifts to deceive the dogs but the hounds comming suddenly upon them both the Cat skipt into a tree which was her onely pollicy and there shee saw the Fox with all his hundreth wiles torne in pieces even such are Cardinall Baronius his sleights in this cause hee hath many but never a one that is worth a Rush none that would save from tearing if the hounds should happen to come upon him His first is because the Acts of the sixt generall Councell doe shew that heretikes had counterfaited some Epistles in the name of Vigilius and particularly those bookes which are said to be writ from Vigilius to Iustinian and Theodora of blessed memory Thus say the Acts To which the Card. assumes sanc quidem inscriptio recitatae Epistolae Truly the inscription of the Epist. recited in the name of Vigilius ad Dominos to my Lords doth demonstrate that it was written to Iust. and Theodora Alas that this must be one of the Cardinals shifts and that it must bee for the worth of it stiled a demonstration Why there needs here neither mastive nor hound any beagle or brache will rent this reason into 20. pieces First what meant the Cardinal to expresse the words of the sixt Councell where Theodora is called an Empresse of blessed memory had he forgot what in another place hee said that she died miserably being blasted by the Popes thunder-clap Againe what a demonstration is this some Epistles were forged in the name of Vigilius ergo this is forged A pari some bookes are forged the Cardinals Annals are some bookes ergo they are all forged or some man is as wise as Chorebus ergo so is the Cardinall Take heed I pray you the hounds sent not these consequences of the Cardinall grounded on that old maxime A particulari non est Syllogisari Further yet what a reason call you this some bookes sent in Vigilius name to Iustinian and Theodora were forged ergo this Epist. is forged It is a demonstration à baculo ad Angulum for this Epistle was writ neither to Iustinian nor to Theodora but to Anthimus Theodosius and Severus The Cardinall may know this clearly by Victor who testifieth the same in expresse words he might have perceived it by Liberatus who saith that Vigilius writ this Epistle to heretikes whereas not Pope Leo himselfe was more orthodoxall in this point than Iustinian as besides infinite other proofes is evident both by his Epistle to Mennas confirming the deposition of Anthimus and by that his Epistle written to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople foure years before Silverius was expelled wherein hee professeth to embrace all the foure Councels and hee anathematizeth all that are anathematized by any of them declaring that he will not permit within his Empire any that oppugned those Councels But for all this the Card will prove by the Inscription of this Epistle that it written to Iustinian and Theodora What if it were can hee prove withall that no other Epistle or booke was writ to them in the name of Vigilius No hee never offers to prove that and till that bee proved his reason at the best is but à particulari some Epistle writ in the name of Vigilius to Iustinian and Theodora was forged ergo this some man deserves a whet stone ergo so doth the Cardinall Besides this inconsequence the Antecedent is so false that I am ashamed to take the renowned Cardinall so tripping in his demonstration The Inscription saith hee demonstrates that it was writ to Iustinian and Theodora Truly the Inscription demonstrates the Cardinall to be of no truth or credit at al. The Inscription in Liberatus and him the Cardinal followeth is Dominis Christis Vigilius Vigilius to my Lords and Christs An Inscription indeed with a witnesse and a lesson for the Cardinall Iustinian Christ Theodora Christ and yet the Cardinall rankes the one Christ among the Furies of hell the other Christ hee condemnes to the pit and torments of hell what a Cardinall to bee so malitious and spightfull against Christ and Christs 21 The Inscription saith the Cardinall points at Iustinian and Theodora I rejoyce to see the Cardinall once so charitably affected as to thinke Iustinian to be Christ Theodora Christ let all applaud the Cardinall in this saying seldome shall you take him nor will hee long persist in so good a mood or minde The Inscription of the Epistle is to Christs the Inscription demonstrates and points at them as the Cardinall tels us Christs then they were Christs they are against the spite of all slandering tongues Christs let them bee and with Christ let them rest for ever But will you now see a fine sleight indeed of the Cardinall such as put downe the Fox and Cat and all Truely saith hee the Inscription ad Dominos demonstrates that this Epistle was writ to Iustinian