onely over some one arme of that great Ocean not doubting but the ice being once broken and the passage through these straits opened many other will with more facilitie and felicitie also performe the like in the rest untill the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished 3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fift held at Constantinople in the time of the Emperor Iustinian and Pope Vigilius for authoritie equall to the former it being as well as they approved by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for antiquitie venerable being held within 600. yeares after Christ even in those times while as yet the drosse had not prevailed and got the predominancie above the gold as in the second Nicene Synod and succeding ages it did for varietie of weighty and important matters more delightfull then any of the rest and which I most respected of them all most apt to make manifest the truth and true Iudgement of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Controversies of the Popes supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement which are of all other most ventilated in these dayes 4. The occasion of this Councill were those Tria capitula as they were called which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church to wit The person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead the writings of Theodoret B. of Cyrus against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Councill at b Act. 8 9 10. Chalcedon 5. The Nestorians whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill when they could no longer under the name of Nestorius countenance their heresie very subtilly indevored to c Nestorij sequace propriam impietateÌ„ applicà re volentes sanctae Dei Ecclesiae non potentes hoc per NestoriuÌ„ facere festinaverunt eam introducere per Theodorum Mopsvestenum nec non per impiae scripta Theodoreti persceleratam Epistolam quae dicitur Jbae ad Marin Iust Ep. ad Syn. 5. Col. 1. pa. 519. b. IdeÌ„habet â—oncilium ipsum in sua sententia definitiva Col. 8. pa. 584. Lib. c. 10 revive the same by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia and his writings as also the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed then before pretending d Theodori et Nestorij sequaâ—es conan tur dicere susceptam esse eam Epistolam Iba à 5. Chalcedonensi Conc. nomine ejus Theodorum Nestorium condemnatione liberare festinantes Iust Edict §. Tali Et iterum Epist Iust ad Synod Col. 1. pa 519 b. Et Dicebant istam impiam Epistolam quae laudat et defendit Theodorum et Nestorium et eorum impietatem susceptam esse à Synodo Chalc. Conc. 5. Col. 8 pa. 585. b. that not onely the persons of Theodoret and Ibas who both had sometimes beene very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme and wherein Theodorus with his hereticall writings are greatly extolled were received and approved in that famous Councill And in truth the Nestorians little lesse then triumphed herein and insulted over Catholikes thinking by this meanes either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Councill of Chalcedon if their doctrine were rejected or if that Council were imbraced together with it and under the colour and authoritie of it to renew and establish the doctrine of Nestorius which as they boasted that councill had certainly confirmed by their approving that Epistle of Ibas 6. By occasion hereof many who were weake in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy councill and those as Leontius e Lib. de sect act 6. sheweth were called Haesitantes waverers or Doubters Many others who for other causes distasted that Councill were hereby incouraged pertinaciously to reject the same as f Illi Acephali hoc offenduntur in Syn. Chalced quod laudes suscepit Theodori Mopsvest Epistolam que Ibae quae per omnia Nestoriana esse cognoscitur lib. Brev ca. 24. Liberatus declareth Such were the Agnoites Gainites Theodosians Themistians and other like Sectaries called all by the common name of Acephali because they had no one head by whom to be directed All these though being at mortall wars one with another yet herein conspired to oppugne the faith and the holy Councill of Chalcedon taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted and these men gladly beleeved that in it the Epistle of Ibas which maintaineth all the blasphemies of Nestorius was approved Thus the Church was by contrary enemies on every side assailed and so extremely disturbed that as the Emperor g Sacerdotes sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum ab Oriente usque ad Occidentem dâ—visi Just Epist ad Synod pa 519. b. testifieth it was in a manner rent even from East to West yea the East h Ob tria Capitula inter se invicem tam in oriente quam in occidente sideles sucrunt scissi atque schismate separatâ— Bar. an 547. nu 29. Vniversus fere orbis occident alis ab orientali ecclesia divisus erat Bin not in 5. Conc. § Concitium was rent from the West 7. Iustinian the religious Emperor knowing i Initium et fundamentum nostri imperij fecimus conjungere divisos Sacerdotes Epist ad Synod Col. 1. how much it was available not onely for his honor and the tranquillitie of his empire but for the good of the whole Church and glory of God to appease all those broiles and knowing further that the holy Councill of Chalcedon though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas after that they had publickly renounced the heresie of Nestorius yet did utterly condemne both that Impious Epistle of Ibas as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia both which that Epistle defendeth together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill he knowing and that exactly all these particulars that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unitie of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon set forth an k Extat apud Bin. tom 2. Conc. pa. 492. Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall religious and holy profession or rather an ample Declaration of his nay not his but of the Catholike Faith Among many other things the Emperor in that Edict did particularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the writings of Theodoret against Cyril and that most impious Epistle of Ibas accursing l Si quis desendit Theodorum c. anathema sit Edict pa. 496. all these as hereticall and all those who either had heretofore or should therafter maintaine or defend them or any one of them 8. But notwithstanding all
teach what wee affirme whatsoever any manor Councell saith or can say to the contrarie The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it he would have forsaken the defence of them then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious nor should have made him an hereticke but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters should have made him a catholike But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell that the definition of saith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters with this pertinacie and wilfull resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke notwithstanding his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof whereby all those Chapters are condemned which profession being joyned with the former pertinacie could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike 18. The very same must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel and faith thereof as that upon manifestation that this Councell beleeved taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible and de facto hath beene hereticall they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies then should they much rather for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof bee orthodoxall then for professing together with this the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie bee hereticall But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith touching the Three Chapters that the fift Councell beleeved this and decreed under the censure of an Anathema that all others should beleeve it and that all who beleeve the contrary are heretikes seeing I say notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in those causes yea defend it as the very foundation of their faith this makes it evident to all that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell or the other whether precedent or following for they all are consonant to this but with this pertinacious resolution not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie and therefore their expresse profession of this fift and other generall Councels yea of the Scriptures themselves cannot be so effectuall to make them Catholikes as the profession of the Popes infallibility which is joyned with this pertinacy is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes 19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the pertinacy of Vigilius For one may be and often is pertinacious in his errour not onely after but even before conviction or manifestation of the truth made unto him and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi prepared or ready to be informed of the truth and corrected thereby or when he doth nor or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen m Epist 162. and out of him Occham n Lib. 4. part 1. ca. 2. Gerson o Cons 12. de pertinacia part 1. pa. 430. Navar p Ench. ca. 11. nu 22. Alphonsus à Castro q Lib. 1. de justa punit haeret ca. 7 and many others doe truly teach See now I pray you how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking and preparation to embrace the truth He by his Apostolicall authoritie decreed r Const Vigil apud Bar. an 553. nu 208. that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By
Westerne Churches while hee defended the Three Chapters as they did and after that was beloved and honoured of the Emperour and Easterne Churches while hee with them condemned the Three Chapters when now againe he returned to defend them hee was contemned both of the one sort and the other they all now esteemed no better of him than a very Wethercocke Now whether this to see himselfe forsaken and contemned by all both friends and foes both Catholikes and heretikes whether this might not bee a corrasive to his heart let any man duly consider with himselfe Adde to these that corporeall anguish which caused his death hee if wee may trust Anastasius u Anast in vit Vig. afflictus calculi dolorem habens mortuus est being afflicted and vexed with paine of the stone or as by Liberatus it may bee thought by some more grievous disease of his body dyed in great affliction When there were so many afflictions lying at the heart of Vigilius all which Liberatus imputeth to his consenting to the Emperours Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters which he as the rest of the defenders of them called heresie was not the Cardinall thinke you in some extasie of his wit when he thought that the affliction of Vigilius must needs bee his owne fictitious banishment and that Liberatus doth plainly allude therunto 39. Thus all the reasons of Baronius being manie wayes and manifestly declared to bee ineffectuall to prove that last and Baronian change in Vigilius after the end of the Synod we may now safely conclude that as Vigilius after his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters once published made at no time after that any publike judiciall or Pontificall Decree to reverse and adnul the same but that still stood in full power and strength untill the death of Vigilius so neither did hee ever after that time declare so much as a private dislike thereof or a personall consent to the fift Councell which had decreed the contrary but pertinaciously persisting in that sentence he both lived and dyed an hereticall defender of those Three Chapters At the first he was hereticall in defending them against the Emperours Edict at the last he was not onely hereticall but a condemned heretike in defending them against the judiciall sentence of the holy generall Councell In the middle time he had a fit of professing the truth but that was only in shew and in appearance that so he might temporize with the Emperour in heart hee was as when the time of tryall came he demonstrated himselfe an oppugner of the truth both against the Imperiall Edict and Synodall judgement And therefore as wee found him at the first an heretike so for all which Baronius hath said or could say to the contrary we must leave him for a condemned heretike even such a one as not only defended but by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence defined heresie to be the Catholike faith And thus much bee spoken of the Cardinals third principall Exception or troupe of evasions marching under that Act of Vigilius which by his manifold changing in this cause of faith you have fully seene CAP. XVIII The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius pretending that the fift Councell wherein the decree of Vigilius was condemned was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell till Vigilius confirmed the same refuted 1. THere now remaineth onely the fourth and last exception of Baronius in which though being the weakest and worst of all his whole hope now consists In this the Cardinall brings forth all his forces all the Engines of his wit and malice to batter downe the authority of the fift generall Councell Seeing it contradicted the Pope and judicially decreed his Apostolicall sentence to be hereticall it shall bee of no authority at all it shall bee neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell it shall bee nothing but a Conspiracy and conventicle with Baronius and his friends untill Vigilius doe approve the same But heare their owne words to this purpose 2. The fift Councell saith Baronius a An. 593 nu 224. aliquando expers fuit omnis authoritatis was for a time void of all authority yea so void thereof ut nec legitima Synodus dici meruerit that it deserved not to bee called so much as a lawfull much lesse a generall and lawfull Synod because it was assembled the Pope resisting it was ended the Pope contradicting it But when afterwards it was approved by the sentence of Vigilius and other succeeding Popes then it got the title and authority of an Oecumenicall Synod Againe b An. eod nu 29. The fift Councell at that time when it was held could not have the name of an Oecumenicall Synod seeing it was not lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost because the Pope neither by himselfe nor by his Legates would be present in it And yet more spightfully These things c An. eod nu 219 cōsidered planè consenties ipsam nec Oecumenicae nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen you will consent that the fift Councell deserved not the name of an Oecumenicall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Synod nor Councell at all seeing both it was assembled resistente Pontifice the Pope resisting it and also pronounced sentence contra ipsius Decretum against the Popes Decree Thus Baronius in whole steps Binius treadeth saying d Not. in Conc. 5. § Praesedit Pope Vigilius was not present in this Councell either by himselfe or by his deputies Contradixit eidem he contradicted the Synod the members assembled without the head dum ageretur non consentit the Pope consented not to it while it was held nor did approve it straight after it was ended yet it got the name title and authority of an Oecumenicall Councell quando ipsius Vigilii sententia when it was afterwards approved by the sentence of Vigilius himselfe and his successors So Binius 3 How or where shall I begin or who though more censorious than Cato can with sufficient gravity and severity castigate the insolency and most shamelesse dealing of these men who rather than one of their Popes even Pope Proteus himselfe shall bee thought to erre in his Cathedrall Decree of faith eare not to disgrace to vilifie yea to nullifie one of the ancient and sacred generall Councels approved as before e Sup. ca. 4. nu 26. et seq we have shewed by the whole Catholike Church For if this Councell was neither generall nor lawfull as they teach till Vigilius approved it by his Apostolicall authority after his returne from exile then was it never nor as yet is either a generall or lawfull Councell seeing Vigilius after his exile never did nor could approve it as before f Sup. ca. 17. we have clearly proved So this fift Councell must for ever be cashiered and blotted out of the ranke of Councels And because as their second Nicene Synod rightly disputes g
2. et 552. nu 8. was buffeted and beaten at Constantinople before the time of the Councell and forced to slee to Chalcedon partly when he was banished i Bar. an 553. nu 221. et 222. c. after the end of the Councell for not consenting with the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Alas how hath heresie and malice quite blinded the Cardinall and bereft him of his understanding Iustinian neither before the Councell nor after it persecuted Vigilius Vigilius was neither beaten nor buffeted nor fled hee either to Saint Peter or to Saint Euphemia nor was he banished at all these all are nothing but the Poeticall and Chimericall fictions of the Cardinall no truth no realty at all in them as we have before k Sup. ca. 16. et 17. fully demonstrated Iudge now I pray you whether any but some Ajax furiosus or who were deprived of his wits would call the Emperour madde franticke sacrilegious possessed and guided by the Devill for persecuting and banishing him who neither was persecuted nor banished but enjoyed the latitude of liberty and all the benefits thereof even the Emperours favour and the comforts accompanying it But admit Vigilius had been banished as indeed many other Bishops were for defending the Three Chapters against the Decree of the holy generall Councell was Iustinian a persecutor a monstrous sacrilegious persecutor for banishing or punishing condemned heretikes and Nestorians such as all the defenders of the Three Chapters to have beene wee have * Ca. 4.5 et seq before declared what a monstrous persecutor then was holy Constantine for banishing Theognis l Socrat. lib. 1. c. 10. Bishop of Nice and Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia for refusing to consent to the Nicene Synod What a persecutor was Theodosius the the elder who commanded m L. 3. de fide Cath. Cod. Theod. all that held the Macedonian heresie to bee banished and shut out of their Churches without any hope to recover the same againe What a persecutor was Theodosius the younger who forbad all men n Leg. ult de haer Cod. Theod. to have or reade the bookes of Nestorius or to admit the Nestorians into any City Towne Village or house What an horrible and monstrous persecutor was Martian who made a law o Extat in Conc. Chal. Act. 3. pa 86. that if any should teach the Eutichean heresie ultimo supplicio coercebitur he shall bee put to death If Constantine Theodosius the elder and younger and Martian bee no persecutors notwithstanding this severity in exiling punishing and putting to death heretikes what a malicious slanderer is Baronius for cōdemning Iustinian as a persecutor for banishing imprisoning or punishing with like severity the defēders of the three Chapters who were every way as detestable as damnable as truly convicted condēned heretikes by the judgment of an holy general Councel as either the Arians Macedonians Eutycheans or old Nestorians Thus to persecute that is justly punish heretikes is laudable thus to be persecuted is ignominious Non est pecoatum malos persequi p Lib. cont Fulgent Donat. art 20. saith Saint Augustine To persecute and justly punish wicked men is no offence neither are they just who are so persecuted but he who is persecuted for righteousnesse sake Had Iustinian done this to Vigilius hee had beene no persecutor But Vigilius who oppugned the truth Baronius who with such a virulent tongue reviles and railes at the defenders of Gods truth they and none but they are persecutors in this cause They kill not the Prophets nor Apostles but they kill murther as cruelly as they can that truth of God which the Prophets and Apostles imbraced and for defence of which they were ready to bee killed This spirituall persecution as Saint Augustine teacheth q Lib. 1. cont liter Petil. ca. 27 exceeds the corporall They r Aug. lib. 2. cont lit Petil. ca. 14. murther the Prophets who contradict the doctrines of the Prophets Mitius ageretis It were lesse crueltie in you to thrust your swords into the bodies of the Prophets then with your tongues to murther the doctrine and words of the Prophets And a thousand like sayings hath the same Augustine by which it were easie to demonstrate Baronius himselfe and not Iustinian to bee the unjust impious sacrilegious and franticke persecutor if by that which hath beene said this were not abundantly apparent 8. Now followeth the other Pageant of this Baronian Tragedy in declaming against Iustinian That respects his last yeares and his death in which part as being the last and therefore likeliest to leave deepest impression in the hearts of the readers because Baronius hath couched together the most vile accusations of all the rest and the very venome of his poysonfull affections and splene against the Emperour I am most unwilling to forsake the religious Emperour in the last act of all but am exceeding desirous to testifie my love unto him both for other causes and for this especially that he next unto God was the preserver of the Catholike faith when in this cause of the Three Chapters the Nestorians and especially Pope Vigilius laboured with might and maine for ever to abolish and extinguish the same in regard of which act alone if there were none else hee deserved to bee eternized in the blessed memory and by the best indeavors of all that love the Catholike faith Baronius ſ An. 563. nu 1. intreating of the 37. yeare of Iustinian which was about two yeares before his death tels us how at that time Iustinian Vnhappy Iustinian ranne headlong into the heresie of the Aphthardokites or incorrupticolae who t Evagr. lib. 4. ca. 38. Leont lib. de sect Act. 10. et Prateoll de Haeres har 55. Dicebant carnem quam ex virgine Servator assumpsit ante passionem incorruptibilem fuisse denyed the body of CHRIST to bee subject to passions death or corruption These as Liberatus saith u Liberat. Brev. ca. 19. were also called Phantasticks because upon their doctrine it followed that CHRIST had not a true and truely humane but onely an imaginary and phantasticall body Into this phantasticall heresie saith Baronius did Iustinian fall and runne headlong in his last age and for proofe hereof hee alleageth x An. 563. nu 8. most ample witnesses Authores omnes tam Graci quam Latini All Authors both Greeke and Latine they all testifie that hee fell into this heresie and they detest that impiety in him Nor did he onely fall himselfe into it but hee sought to draw all others into the same errour Ita ebrius y Bar. ibid. nu 9. factus est ut mente motus Iustinian was so drunke that being out of his wits hee writ an Edict z Illud constat Jmperatorem haeresin comprobasse eandemque scripto Edicto firmasse An. 564. nu 3. to confirme that heresie and bring all the Church to beleeve the same When hee prevailed not
not materiall be they few be they moe if the Pope as Pope or as an hereticall pope may confirme three or but one that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible 49. But he taught this alone not in a Councell not with advice of his Cardinalls and Consistory why he did it not as a member of a Councell but as x Pontifex non ut praeses Concilij sed ut Princeps Ecclesiae summus potest iudicium Concilij retractare c. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 18. § Dico secundo Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus y Agapeti Papae contra Anthimū iudicium absque Synodo fuit secundum supremam Apostolicae sedis authoritatem qua supra omnes Canones Pontifex eminet Bar. an 536. nu 23. in deposing Anthimus above and besides the Canons The whole power of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision more than in any other where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe much more was this done by him as Pope than any of them And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of others or of a Synod herein what better direction advice or counsell could his Cardinalls or any Synod in the world give unto him than the decree of the whole Councell of Chalcedon That Vigilius had before his eyes at this time that was in stead of a thousand Cardinals unto him seeing he as Ecclesiae Princeps defined Eutycheanisme notwithstanding that most holy and generall Synod yea against that Synod what could the advice of another or of a few Cardinals have avayled at this time 50. Thus all the evasions which they use being refuted it may now be clearly concluded not onely that Vigilius writ this impious and hereticall Epistle and writ it when he was the true and lawfull Pope but that he writ it also ex animo even out of an hereticall heart and writ it as he was Pope that is in such sort as that by his Pontificall and supreme authority hee confirmed that heresie which hee taught therein And this is the former of his Acts which as I told you is very remarkable his purpose and intent therein being the overthrow of the Councell at Chalcedon and of the whole Catholike faith 51. The other act of Vigilius concernes the cause of the three Chapters wherein by the heresie of Nestorius he publikely decreed and performed that as much as in him lay and as by his Apostolicall decree could be effected which hee had purposed and intended to doe by the heresie of Eutycheanisme In which whole cause how Vigilius from the first to the last behaved himselfe how at the first hee oppugned the Emperours most religious Edict and the Catholike faith how afterward he played the dissembling Proteus with the Emperour and the whole Church for the space of five or six yeares together how at the last he returned to his naturall and habituall love of heresie and how in decreeing it by the fulnesse of his Apostolicall authority hee sought utterly and for ever to abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and with it the whole Catholike faith the former Treatise doth abundantly declare which withall demonstrates the vanity of that saying of Bellarmine For the time sayth he a Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. § Contigit Ab hoc tempore nullus inventus est in Vigilio aut error aut erroris simulatio c. that hee was true Pope neither any errour nor simulation of errour was found in him sed summa constantia in fide but the greatest constancy of faith that could be For as by our former treatise is evident he was not only most wavering but hereticall in faith And this was in a manner the whole course of Vigilius life or the most eminent acts thereof while he was Pope pretending orthodoxy but embracing heresie and as opportunity offered it selfe labouring by words by private Epistles by resisting the imperiall just and godly Edict by publike constitutions to overthrow the faith and the whole Church of God 52. You see now his ingresse into the Papacy and his progresse in the same touching his egresse both out of it and this life heare what S. Liberatus b Liber Brev ca. 22. saith How Vigilius being by heresie afflicted died it is knowne unto all Heare what Cardinall Bellarmine c Bell. loc cit saith out of Liberatus Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that selfesame heresie which at the first he nourished and againe Misere vexatus usque ad mortem he was miserably vexed even untill hee dyed Heare Baronius who first promised d Bar. an 538. nu 20. to declare how invigilavit in Vigilio vindicta Dei how the vengeance of God watched Vigilius and at last revenged the innocent blood which he shed and then performing that promise sayth e Bar. an 556. nu 2. He died in an Iland in Sicily by the just judgement of God confectus ipse aerumnis ex morbo himselfe being wasted with misery by reason of his disease who had caused Silverius in an Iland in Palmaria to bee pined away and put to death As he got the papacy by wicked meanes so was he immensis agitatus fluctibus tossed with exceeding great tempests therein hated by the Emperour not gratefull to the Easterne and execrable to the Westerne Bishops and when hee seemed to have come out of the streame into the haven and almost one foot into the City being pined away immensis doloribus with unmeasurable paines he dyed Thus Baronius Now if we should deale with him as Baronius f Opinari si cui licet facilius est invenire qui Evagrij de ejus condemnatione ad supplicia apud inferos luenda velit sequi sententiam quam aliorum Bar. an 565. nu 2. c. doth with Iustinian and by his precedent acts judge of his reward according to the Text Opera eorum sequuntur eos I feare the censure would seeme very harsh to those who are so ready to examine Iustinian by that rule For what workes I pray you followed Pope Vigilius Ambition usurpation sacriledge murder symony hypocrisie schisme heresie and Antichristianisme concerning which the Apostle sayth They which doe them shall not inherit the kingdome of God I will not I list not be rigorous in this point neither towards him or any other I content my selfe with that lesson of the Apostle g Rom. 14.4 Domino suo stat aut cadit Yet thus much by occasion of this Treatise and the approved judgement of the Church declared therein concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia long before dead must needs bee said of him of Baronius and of all other who have already or shall at any time hereafter write as they have done in defence of heresie and oppugnation of Gods truth As repentance for such sinnes and impious writings opens unto them so impenitency and
in the second Nicene Synod and by them rejected p. 109. sect 7. the booke was the booke of Epiphanius p. 112. sect 12. The explanation meant by Ibas was a condemning of the twelve chapters of Cyrill pa. 159. sect 42 43. a condemning of the faith p. 160. sect 44. the like explanation meant by Vigilius p. 166. sect 52. F. FAcundus set on by the Pope writ against the Emperours Edict p. 214. sect 4. Facundus and Baronius revile the Emperor p. 215. sect 4. Facundus an enemy to the Catholike faith p. 371. sect 13. The Foundation being hereticall poysons all which is built thereon p. 190. sect 29 30. Faith unto certainty of faith two things required p. 182. sect 20. G. GOntharis not trecherously slaine by Bellisarius p. 448. sect 15. Gregory his words and meaning pretended by Basil about the three Chapt. explained p. 43. sect 16 17. c. H. HEretikes dying dye not in the peace of the Church pag. 59. and pag. 61. § 6. Heresie with pertinacy differs much from an error p. 61. in fine First in regard of matter p. 62. sec 8. secondly for the manner ibid. sec 9. thirdly in regard of the persons who erre p. 64. sec 11. fourthly in regard of the Churches judgement ibid. sec 12. Heresie in its owne habit doth lesse harme p. 103. sec 27. Heretikes in words orthodoxall in sense and meaning hereticall p. 147. sec 20. proved in Vitalis ibid. An hereticall profession may be in termes orthodoxall ibid. sec 21. Heretikes pretend to hold with ancient Councels p. 201. sec 4 5. Worst Heretikes are the moderne Romanists p. 204. sec 10. Heretikes lyars in their profession pa. 207. sec 15. Heretikes profession contradictory to it selfe p. 208. sec 16. An hereticall profession gives denomination to a man rather than an orthodoxall pa. 208. sec 17 18. Heresie is a tryall of mens love to God pa. 361. sec 2. I. IBas his epistle unto Marie an heretike of Persia p. 125. sec 19. full of Nestorianisme Ibas denyeth God to be incarnate and Mary the mother of God p. 122. sec 13. Ibas professeth two natures and one person in Christ p. 139. sec 1. and p. 143. sec 9. Ibas his consenting to the Ephesme Counsell proves not his epistle Catholike p. 154. sec Ibas consented not to Cyrill upon his explanation p. 155. sec 35. c. Vigilius his first reason explained in five severall things first the Popes Rhetorick sec 35. second his Chronology of time sec 36. third his Logicke sec 40. the fourth and fifth his Ethicall and Theologicall knowledge sec 41. vide p. 168. sec 55. Ibas embraced the union in Nestorianisme p. 125. sec 19. Ibas professed not the epistle to bee his as the Acts declare p. 386. sec 2. The Image of Christ sent to Abgarus a fable p. 346. sec 32. Infallibility of the Popes judgement the foundation of a papists faith p. 34. sec 34. and a doctrine of the Romish Church p. 172. sec 7. 8 c. and p. 177. sec 13 14. Infallibility of the Popes judgement in causes of faith defended by any makes the defender hereticall p. 61. sec 6. and p. 63. sec 10. and to dye out of the peace of the Church ibid. Infallibility of the Popes judgement taught by commending the Churches judgement to be infallible and generall Councels pa. 173. sec 8. and by the Church they understand the Pope sec 8 9. and p. 178. sec 15. Infallibility only peculiar to the Pope p. 174 sec 11. Infallibility of the Popes judgement is hereticall p. 180. sec 18. Iustinian his Edict for defence of the three Chapters p. 3. sec 7. Iustinian the Emperour spared Vigilius from banishment and why p. 257. sec 26 27. Iustinian reviled by Baronius p. 324. slandered to be illiterate p. 325. sec 3. 4. for making lawes in causes of faith sec 5 6. for persecuting Vigilius sec 7. Iustinian in his last age no Aphthardokite p. 330. sec 8. and p. 333. sec 12. c. no disturber of the peace of the Church p. 331. in fine Iustinian a defender of the faith witnesse Pope Agatho p. 356. sec 16 witnesse the Rom. Synod sec 17. witnesse the sixt Councell sec 18. witnesse Pope Gregory sec 19. Iustinian no subverter of the faith pa. 349. sec 37 38. Iustinian founded many stately Churches and Monasteries p. 350. sec 39. Iustinian no subverter of the Empire ibid. sec 40. Iustinian severely censured by Baronius p. 354. sec 45. Ierusalem not advanced by the fift Synod to a Patriarchship p. 430. sec 1 2 c. Iustinian Dioclesian-like caused not Vigilius to be beaten p. 453. sec 19. Iustinian favoured not the heresie of Anthimus p. 454. sec 21. K. THe King of England refused to send to their Trent Councell p. 308. sec 24. Kings and Emperours have onely right to call Councels p. 239. sec 5. L. THe Laterane Councell under Leo the 10. reprobated the Councell at Constance and Basil touching the authority of Gen Councels p. 33. sec 33. The Laterane decree condemned by the Vniversity of Paris p. 34. sec 35. The more learned the man is the more dangerous are his heresies p. 123. sec 27. Luther his zeale that hee would not communicate in both kindes if the Pope as Pope should command him p. 195. sec 33. Liberatus an unfit witnesse in the cause of the three Chapt. p. 373. sec 15 16. Leo judged the Nicene Canons for the limits of Sees unalterable p. 405. sec 4. Leo his judgement erroneous for preheminency of Bishops p. 400. sec 4 5. Leontius no sufficient witnesse for the Epistle of Theodoret p. 415. sec 3. Lawes besides those in the Theodosian Code p. 412. sec 5 6. Lawfull Synods and what makes them so p. 282. sec 24 25 26. c. To Lawful Synods besides an Episcopall confirmation p. 281. sec 25. c. there is required a Regall or Imperiall p. 285. sec 31 32. Lawfull Councels require first that the summons be generall p. 292. sec 3. secondly that it be lawfull thirdly that it be orderly ibid. sec 4. M. MEnnas died in the 21. yeare of Iustinian and the Pope excommunicated him in the 25 p. 237. sec 18. The Matrones of Rome entreated Constantius to restore Liberius 248. sec 12. Monkes of Sythia slandred by Baronius for falsifying the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon p. 383. sec 4 5. Monothelite additions not extant in the fift Synod p. 409. sec 2 3. Mennas his confession to Vigilius a forgery p. 441. sec 2. Mennas not excommunicated by Vigilius p. 442. sec 4 5. N. NEpos died in an errour onely not in any formall heresie p. 65. sec 13. The 2. Nicene assembly a conspiracy p. 111. sec 11. in fine Nestorius his bookes being restrained the bookes of Theodorus and Diodorus were in more esteeme p. 121. sec 12. The Nestorians forged a false union between Iohn
how Pope Vigilius three or foure times changed his judgment in this cause of faith Pag. 213. Cap. 16. That the Decree Pope of Vigil for Taciturnity touching the Three Chapters and the Councell wherein it is supposed to bee made and all the Consequents upon that Decree painted out by Baronius are all fictions and Poeticall Pag. 225. Cap. 17. That Vigilius neither by his Pontificall Decree nor so much as by a personall profession consented to or confirmed the fift Councell after the end thereof or after his supposed exile Pag. 240. Cap. 18. The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius pretending That the fift Councell wherein the Decree of Vigilius was condemned was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell till Vigilius confirmed the same refuted Pag. 266. Cap. 19. The true notes to know which are Generall and lawfull which either are not Generall or being Generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes and that none of those which the Romanists doe reckon after the sixt are Generall lawfull Councels Pag. 291. Cap. 20. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same Pag. 324. Cap. 21. How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same Pag. 355. Cap. 22. How Baronius declameth against the Cause it selfe of the Three Chapter and a refutation of the same Pag. 361. Cap. 23. How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea and a refutation of the same Pag. 363. Cap. 24. How Baronius carpeth at the Synodall Acts of the fift Councell as corrupted and a refutation in generall of the same Pag. 377. Cap. 25. The 1. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein refuted Pag. 381. Cap. 26. The 2. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that Ibas is said therein to have denyed the Epistle writen to Maris to be his refuted Pag. 386. Cap. 27. The 3. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Councell of Chalcedon is said therein to condemne the Epistle of Ibas refuted Pag. 389. Cap. 28. The Three first Defects in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Acts against the Origenists The Edict of Iustinian And his Epistle touching that cause are wanting therein refuted Pag. 391. Cap. 29. The 4. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Emperours Epistle to the fift Councell is wanting therein refuted Pag. 398. Cap. 30. The 5. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Costitution of Pope Vigilius concerning the Three Chapters is wanting therein refuted Pag. 399. Cap. 31. The 6. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Decree which advanced Ierusalem to a Patriarchall dignity is wanting therein refuted Pag. 403. Cap. 32. The two first Additions to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius And the two lawes of Theodosius are falsly inserted therein refuted Pag. 408. Cap. 33. The 3. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the Vnion is falsly inserted therein refuted Pag. 413. Cap. 34. The 4. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Epistle of Theodoret to Iohn Bishop of Antioch is falsly inserted therein refuted Pag. 422. Cap. 35. That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings in handling this cause of the fift Councell as particularly the Excommunication ascribed to Vigilius and the Confession ascribed to Mennas Theodorus and others Pag. 440. Cap. 36. That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Constantinople and a refutation thereof with a Description of the life of the same Vigilius Pag. 462. A TREATISE OF THE FIFT GENERALL COVNCILL held at Constantinople under Justinian in the time of Pope Vigilius Wherein the exceeding fraud and falshoods of Cardinall Baronius are clearely discovered CAP. I. That the Emperour IVSTINIAN assembled the Fift Generall Councill to define a doubt of Faith about The three Chapters CONCILIA generalia mea sunt primum ultimum media saith their Romane a Camp Raâ— 4. Thraso Generall Councils are all ours the first the last the middle All 's mine as said the Devill to the Collier A vaunt too vaine too Thrasonicall Divide the Councils aright and let each have his own due part and portion and then all the five first and so much as they account the sixt that is all which were held for 600. yeares and more All the golden Councils and of the golden ages of the Church are ours onely and not theirs in many and even in the maine points of Religion repugnant to them and their doctrines but in every Decree Canon and Constitution of faith so consonant to us that we not onely embrace but earnestly defend them all as the rightfull and proper inheritance left unto us by those holy Fathers of the ancient and Catholike Church The middle ranke beginning at the second Nicene unto the Councill of Florence which were held in those ages of the mingled and confused Church none of them are either wholly ours or wholly theirs those miscellane Councils are neither thine nor mine but they must all be divided The two last the one at Laterane the other at Trent which are the very lees and dreggs of Councills held onely by such as were the drosse of the Church quite severed from the gold wee willingly yeeld unto them they and they onely are wholly theirs let them have let them enjoy their Helenaes we envy not such refuse Councils unto them 2. When first I set my selfe to the handling of this argument concerning the Councils it was my purpose besides those other generall questions concerning the right of calling generall Councils the right of Presidencie in them and the right of confirming them to have made manifest those three severall points touching those three rankes of Councils every one of which is not onely true but even demonstrable in it selfe And though with a delightfull kind of toile I have made no small progresse therein yet alas how unequall am I to such an Herculean labour whose time whose strength of body or industry of minde is able to accomplish a worke of such amplitude and of so vast extent for which not Nestors age would suffice Wherefore turning my sailes from this so long and tedious a voyage which I could not so much as hope to end which beside many dangerous rockes hidden Syrtes and sands is every where beset by many Romane enemies specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages with whom at every turne almost one shall be sure to have an hot encounter I thought a shorter course far more fit for my small and unfurnisht barke and despairing of more or longer voyages I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut
impious writings of Theodoret against Cyril and the impious Epistle of Ibas et defensores corum et qui scripserunt vel scribunt ad defensionem eorum also we accurse the Defenders of those Chapters and those who have written or who do at any time write for the defence of them or who presume to say that they are right or who have defended aut defendere conantur or who doe at any time indevour to defend their impietie under the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon Thus decreed the whole Synod Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene before defended all these Three Chapters he defended them by writing yea by his Apostolicall authoritie Constitution and Definitive sentence he defended them by the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon Pope Vigilius then by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill is an Anathema a condemned and accursed heretike yea a Definer of a condemned and accursed heresie Baronius writeth earnestly in defence of Pope Vigilius and his Constitution he commends him for defending those Three Chapters saying a An. 546. nu 40 The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius whom they might follow and Vigilius himselfe he had b An. 553. nu 233. many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and shew of consenting with the holy Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon Card. Baronius then by the same definitive sentence of this holy and generall Council is an Anathema with Vigilius a condemned and accursed heretike 17. After this generall sentence the Councill proceedeth in particular severally to condemne each of these Three Chapters by it selfe Of the first they thus define c Col. 8. pa. 587. b. If any do defend impious Theodorus of Mopsvestia et non anathematizat eum and doe not acourse him and his impious writings let such an one be accursed Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene would not himselfe neither would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus he forbiddeth any to doe it he made an Apostolicall Constitution that none should accurse him Card. Baronius he writeth in defence of Vigilius and of his Constitution in this point Thomas Stapleton goeth further for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus that he expresly calls d Conterbl divis 68. pa. 171. him a Catholike yea a most Catholike Bishop Vigilius then Baronius and Stapleton are al of them accursed by the Definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill in this first Chapter 18. Of the second Chapter they e Col. 8. thus decree If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril et non anathematizat ea and doe not accurse them let him be an Anathema Vigilius would not himselfe accurse them he would not permit any other to disgrace Theodoret or injure him by accursing his writings Baronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius they both then are tyed againe in this third Anathema of the Councill 19. Though a threefold cord be not easily broken yet the holy Councill addeth a fourth which is more indissoluble then any adamantine chaine Of the Third Chapter they decree in this manner f If any defend that impious Epistle of Ibas unto Maris which denieth God to be borne of the blessed Virgin which accuseth Cyrill for an heretike which condemneth the holy Councill of Ephesus and defendeth Theodorus and Nestorius with their impious doctrines and writings if any defend this Epistle et non anathematizat eam et defensores ejus et eos qui dicunt eam rectam esse vel partem ejus et eos qui scripserunt et scribunt pro eâ If any doe not accurse this Epistle and the Defenders of it and those who say that it or any part of it is right If any do not also accurse those who have written or who at any time doe write for it and the impiety contained in it and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon such an one be accursed Now Vigilius as was formerly declared defendeth this Epistle as orthodoxall he defendeth it by his Cathedrall sentence and Apostolicall authoritie he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon saying g Const loc cit nu 192. Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronuÌ„ciata dictatio Baronius defendeth both Vigilius and this Epistle in some part thereof he defendeth them under pretence of the Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon saying h An. 553. nu 191. Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam The Fathers at Chalcedon said that this Epistle ought to be received as orthodoxall Is it possible thinke you by any shift or evasion to free either Vigilius or Baronius from this fourth Anathema denounced by the judiciall and Definitive sentence of this Holy Generall Councill 20. But what speake I of Baronius as if he alone were a Defender of Vigilius and his Constitution All who have or who at any time doe hold and defend either by word or writing that the Popes judiciall and definitive sentence in causes of faith is infallible and this is held by Bellarmine Gretzer Pighius Gregorius de Valentia and as afterwards I purpose to declare at large by all i Vt nomo Catholicus esse possit qui illaÌ„ non amplectatur Greg. de Val in 2. 2 disp 1. par 1. pa. 30 and every one who is truly a member of the present Romane Church all these by holding and defending this one Position doe implicitly in that hold and defend every Cathedrall and definitive sentence of any of their Popes and particularly this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius to be not only true but infallible also and so they all defend the Three Chapters they defend the Defenders of them by name Pope Vigilius among the rest All these then are unavoidably included within all the former Anathemaes all denounced and proclamed to be heretikes to be accursed and separate from God by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill 21. With what comfort alacritie and confidence may the servants of Christ fight his battles and defend their holy faith and religion or how can the servants of Antichrist chuse but be utterly dismayed and daunted herewith seeing they cannot wâ—g their tongues or hands to speake or write ought either against ours or in defence of their owne doctrines especially not of that which is the foundation of the rest and is virtually in them all but ipso facto even for that act alone if there were no other cause they are declared and pronounced by the judiciall sentence of an holy generall and approved Councill to be accursed heretikes 22. The Councill yet adds another clause which justly chalengeth a speciall consideration Some there are who would be held men of
Later fact 19 Decemb. 1517. Paris as being contra fidem Catholicam against the catholike Faith and the authority of holy Councils And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that x A Relation of Religion in the West parts published an 1605. pa. 129. Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of y Gentil Exam. CoÌ„c Trid. Sess 13. Car. Mol. dec Conc. Trid. decret pa. 3. Trent wherein that Laterane Decree is confirmed is by them rejected And what speake I of them Behold while Leo with his Laterane Councill strives to quench this catholike truth it bursts out with farre more glorious and resplendent beauty This stone which was rejected by those builders of Babylon was laid againe in the foundations of Sion by those EZra's Nehemiah's Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord who at the voyce of the Angell came out of Babylon and repaired the ruines of Ierusalem And even as certaine rivers are said to runne z Alpheum fama est huc Elidis amnem Occultas egisse vias subter mare Virg lib. 3. Aeâ—eid under or through the salt Sea and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it but at length to burst out send forth their owne sweet and delightfull waters Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith This Catholike truth that the Popes judgement and Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is not infallible borne in the first age of the Church and springing from the Scriptures and Apostles as from the holy mountaines of God for the space of 600 yeares and more passed with a most faire and spatious current like Tygris Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord or like Pactolus with golden streames inriching and beautifying the Church of God after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages brackish I confesse before their second Nycene Synod but after it and the next unto it extremely salt and unpleasant more bitter then the waters of Mara And although the nearer it came to the streets of Babylon it was still more mingled with the slime or mud of their Babylonish ditches yet for all that dangerous and long mixture continuing about the space of a Tot anni intersunt à Conc. Nic. 2. quod habituus est an 787. ad annum quo Lutherus se primum opposuit IndulgeÌ„tijs papalibus pontifici qui fuit an 1517 Cocl in vita Luther 730. yeares this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse by the constant and successive professions of the whole Church throughout all those ages Now after that long passage through all those salt waves like Alpheus or Arethusa it bursts out againe not as they did in Sicily nor neare the Italian shores but as the Cardinall tells b Brevi occupavit Lutheri haeresis multa regna Bel. l. 3. de pontif ca. 23. § Similitudo Et Romanasedes amisit nostris temporibus magnam Germaniae partem Suetiam Gethians Norvegiam Daniam universam bonam Anglia Gallia Helvetia Polonia Bohemia ac Pannonia partem lib. eod ca. 21. § Ac postea us in Germanie in England in Scotland in France in Helvetia in Polonia in Bohemia in Pannonia in Sueveland in Denmarke in Norway in all the Reformed Churches and being by the power and goodnesse of God purified from all that mud and corruption wherewith it was mingled all which is now left in it owne proper that is in the Romane channels it is now preserved in the faire current of those Orthodoxall Churches wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith are with no lesse sinceritie professed theÌ„ they were in those ancient times before they were mingled with any bitter or brackish waters 36 You see now the whole judgement of the Fift Generall Councill how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius condemning and accursing both it for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes which their sentence you see is consonant to the Scriptures and the whole Catholike Church of all ages excepting none but such as adhere to their new Laterane decree and faith An example so ancient so authenticall and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth which wee teach and they oppugne that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger and stand in doubt even of the maine ground and foundation whereon all his faith relyeth For the full clearing of which matter being of so great importance and consequence I have thought it needful to rip up every veine and sinew in this whole cause concerning these Three Chapters and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same and withall examine the weight of every doubt evasion excuse which eyther Cardinall Baronius who is instar omnium or Binius or any other moveth or pretendeth herein not willingly nor with my knowledge omitting any one reason or circumstance which either they urge or which may seeme to advantage or help them to decline the inevitable force of our former Demonstration CAP. V. The first Exception of Baronius pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith refuted 1 THere is not as I thinke any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annalls hath with more art or industry handled then this concerning Pope Vigilius and the Fift Generall Councill In this hee hath strained all his wits moved and removed every stone under which hee imagined any help might be found eyther wholly to excuse or any way lessen the errour of Vigilius All the Cardinalls forces may be ranked into foure severall troupes In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawne from the Matter of the Three Chapters In the second those which are drawne from the Popes Constitution In the third those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius In the fourth last those which concerne the fift General Councill After all these wherin coÌ„sisteth the whole pith of the Cause the Cardinall brings forth another band of certaine subsidiary but most disorderly souldiers nay not souldiers they never tooke the Military oath nor may they by the Law of armes nor ever were by any worthy Generall admitted into any lawfull fight or so much as to set footing in the field meere theeves and robbers they are whom the Cardinall hath set in an ambush not to fight in the cause but onely like so many Shimei's that they might raile at and revile whomsoever the Cardinall takes a spleene at or with whatsoever hee shall be moved in the heat of his choler At the Emperour Iustinian at Theodora the Empresse at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters at the Imperiall Edict at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea at the Synodal acts yea at Pope Vigilius himselfe we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall which onely are his lawfull
fact of theirs they illustrate and labour to warrant by the example of the Councell at Chalcedon who received Ibas himselfe but accursed the Epistle going under the name of Ibas non x Jbid. b. enim demonstrari poterat quod esset Ibae for it could not be proved to be the Epistle of Ibas wherefore they anathematized not Ibas but it Dicebatur enim Ibae cum tamen illius handquaquam esset for it was said to be the Epistle of Ibas whereas indeed it was none of his Even so those false writings against venerable Images are said to bee the writings of Bishop Epiphanius but they are not his So those publike acts and second Nicene Fathers whose testimony concurreth and jumpeth with the Cardinall this is not the Epistle of Ibas 8. Before I come to examine those publike acts I must observe one thing touching Baronius which he will occasion and inforce me often to repeat and this it is that Baronius was meerly infatuated in his handling of this whole cause touching the three Chapters and this one might almost even sweare but any may see it as cleare as the light besides many other even by this one point whereof we now intreat If a man should study and devise ten dayes together how to confute and utterly overthrow all that Pope Vigilius hath decreed touching this third Chapter and all which Baronius himselfe hath either taught or said in defence of Vigilius in that point he cannot possibly doe it more clearly more certainly more effectually then by denying as the Cardinall and his Nicene Fathers doe that this is the Epistle of Ibas for how could either the Councell of Chalcedon or the Popes Legates therein by this Epistle and by the dictation and contents thereof judge Ibas to be a Catholike which Vigilius y Vigil Const nu 196. decreeth and Baronius z Bar. an 553. nu 191 192.193.196 197 c. more then twenty times I thinke repeateth unlesse it were indeed the Epistle of Ibas for of Ibas no otherwise then in the first person or as the author and writer of it there is no mention at all to be found or collected out of that Epistle 9. Now if you require testimonies or authorities in this case I oppose to Baronius the Popes Legates at Chalcedon of which Baronius himselfe saith a Bar. an 448. nu 71. This to be the Epistle of Ibas the Popes Legates and after them the rest of the Bishops by their subscription confirmed and againe the b an eod nu 77. Acts of Chalcedon doe teach that this we acknowledged to be the Epistle of Ibas I oppose Pope Vigilius who in his Constitution assenteth c Vigil Const nu 90 to that judgement of the Popes Legates and those words relecta ejus Epistola the Epistle of Ibas being read we acknowledge him to be a Catholike I oppose the confession of Ibas himselfe of which Baronius saith the d Bar. an 448. nu 77. Acts at Chalcedon declare Ibam confessum esse eam esse suam that Ibas confessed this Epistle to be his owne and againe e Bar. an 553. nu 211. we have before declared Ibam eandem Epistolam suam esse professum that Ibas professed this same Epistle to be his owne and Ibas of all men in the world knew best whether it was his or no. I oppose lastly Baronius to Baronius for he f an 448. nu 71. saith of this Epistle verè esse Ibae fuisse cognitam that it was knowne truly and indeed to be the Epistle of Ibas Say now in sadnesse what you thinke of Baronius and where you thinke his five wits were when hee denyed and that upon proofe by publike records this to be the Epistle of Ibas which the Popes Legates with the whole Councell of Chalcedon which Pope Vigilius whom hee defendeth which Ibas his owne selfe yea which Baronius also acknowledgeth confesseth and professeth to be truly and in very deed the Epistle of Ibas 10. But what shall we then say to those publike acts which as the Cardinall tells us doe testifie that this is not the Epistle of Ibas What first to the acts of the Councell at Chalcedon which he first g Bar. an 432. nu 71. alleageth and the tenth Action thereof I say and say it upon certaine grounds that the Cardinall therein saith an untruth for proofe whereof I appeale to that same tenth Action of the Councell in no part whereof it is said nor can thence be collected that this was not the Epistle of Ibas Or if you will not beleeve my saying yet beleeve the Cardinall himselfe more then once testifying that which he saith to be untrue These are his words h Bar. an 448. nu 77. The Acts of the tenth Action of the Councell at Chalcedon Eandem epistolam ut Ibae cognitam esse à patribus docent doe teach that this Epistle was knowne to be the Epistle of Ibas And againe i Jbid. nu 71 Vere esse Ibae fuisse cognitam eandem actio decima docet that this was knowne to have beene truly the Epistle of Ibas the tenth action of the Councell at Chalcedon doth teach Thinke you not that Baronius is more like the Esopicall Satyr then a grave Cardinall of the Romane Church At his first blast he makes the tenth action of the Councell at Chalcedon to testifie that this is not the Epistle of Ibas and then hee blowes a quite contrary blast professing the tenth action of the Councell at Chalcedon to testifie that this is truly and certainly the Epistle of Ibas 11. O but the second Nicene Councell and the publike acts thereof they witnesse the same which the Cardinall affirmeth that this is not the Epistle of Ibas They doe so indeed But as it is an untruth in the Cardinalls mouth so it is also in those his Nicene Fathers from whom hee tooke it unlesse perhaps those men of Nice knew better whose Epistle it was then did the 600 holy Bishops of the Councell at Chalcedon before whom Ibas stood or better then Ibas himselfe who confessed it to bee his owne Epistle The Cardinall may not be offended that we dissent from his Nicene Councell which dissenteth from the holy Councell at Chalcedon from Ibas his owne confession yea from whom the Cardinall dissenteth as much as we in this point And I cannot see what depth of wisedome it was in his Cardinalship to alleage them for witnesses whose testimony himselfe in this very point for which he produceth them doth avouch to bee untrue But let him please himselfe in those Nice Fathers we envie not such a Councell nor such Fathers nor such publike records unto them That Nicene assembly was but a conspiracie against the truth it was fit they should uphold untruth by untruth And whosoever shal be pleased to examine and rip up the Acts of that Councell I will give him this one assured comfort that besides their superstitious heretical doctrins therin
infallible Chaire they two by the new found art of Transubstantiating wherein that sect excelleth Iannes and Iambres and all the inchanters in the world they by one spell or charme of a few words pronounced out of that holy chaire can turne a serpent into a staffe bread into a living bodie darkenesse into light an hereticke into a Catholike yea the very venome and poyson of all Nestorianisme into most wholsome doctrines of the Catholike faith such as that none may write speake or thinke ought to the contrarie 21. See ye not now as I foretold that you should both the Pope and the Cardinall marching under the banner of Nestorius and like two worthy Generalls holding up a standard to the Nestorians and building in the Romane Church but very cunningly and artificially a Capitoll for Nestorianisme They forsooth will not in plaine tearmes say that Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith that Christ is not God that the Sonne of Mary is not the Sonne of God that Cyrill is an hereticke and the holy Ephesine Councell hereticall Fie these are too Beoticall and blunt they could never have gotten any one to tast of that cup of Nestorianisme had they dealt so plainely or simply rather Rome and Italy are Schooles of better manners and of more civilitie and subtiltie you must learne there to speake heresie in the Atticke Dialect in smooth plausible sweet and sugred tearmes you must say the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth is the Catholike union that Ibas by embracing that union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike that whosoever embraceth not this union which the Pope hath defined to be the Catholike communion cannot be a Catholike or if you speake more briefly and Laconically you may say the Popes decrees and Cathedrall judgements in causes of faith are infallible Say but either of these you say as much as either Theodorus or Nestorius did you deny Christ to bee God You condemne the Ephesine Councell you speake true Nestorianisme but you speake it not after the rude and rusticke fashion but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the refined language of the Romane Church By approving this union or the Popes decree in this cause of Ibas you drinke up at once all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius even the very dregs of Nestorianisme yet your comfort is though it be ranke poison you shall now take it as an antidote and soveraigne potion so cunningly tempered by Pope Vigilius and with such a grace and gravity commended reached and brought even in the golden cup of Babylon by the hands of Cardinall Baronius unto you that it killeth not onely without any sense of paine but with a sweet delight also even in a pleasing slumber and dreame of life bringing you as on a bed of downe unto the pit of death 22. See here again their Synoniā art Oh how nice scrupulous is Baronius in approving or allowing Vigilius to approve the former part of this Epistle of Ibas The Epistle o Bar. an 553. nu 192. was in no other part but onely in the last concerning the union approved Why there is nothing at all in the former no heresie or impiety set downe in it which doth not certainly and unavoydably ensue upon the approving of that union in Nestorianisme which Ibas embraceth in the latter part Why then must the latter and not the former be approved Forsooth in the former part p Vid. Epist Jba loc cit the blasphemies of the Nestorians are in too plaine and blunt a manner expressed Cyrill is an Apollinarian The twelve Chapters of Cirill omni impietate plena sunt are full of all impietie The Ephesine Councell unjustly deposed Nestorius and approved the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which are contraria verae fidei and such like It is not for a Pope or a Cardinall to approve such plaine and perspicuous heresies they might as well say We are heretikes wee are Nestorians which kinde of Beoticisme is farre from the civility of the Romane Court But in the latter part the heresies of Nestorius and all his blasphemies are offered in the shew of union with Cyrill and communion with the Church and comming under the vaunt of that union as in the wombe of the Trojane horse the Pope and the Cardinall may now with honour receive them the union and with or in it all Nestorianisme must be brought into the City the Pope and the Cardinall will themselves put their hands to this holy worke pedibusque rotarum subijciunt lapsus stupea vincula collo intendunt themselves will drag and hale it with their owne shoulders to within the wals nor is that enough it must be placed in the very Romane Capitoll in the holy temple and consecrated to God and that the Pope himselfe will doe by an Apostolicall and infallible constitution by that immutable decree is this union set up as the Catholike union Et monstrum infoelix sacrata sistitur arce this unholy and unhappy union is now embraced by which all the gates of the City of God are set wide open for all heresies to rush in at their pleasure and make havocke of the Catholike saith 23. Now it is not unworthy our labour to consider whether Vigilius and Baronius did in meere ignorance or wittingly embrace this union mentioned by Ibas that is in truth all Nestorianisme And for Vigilius if any will be so favourable as to interpret all this to have proceeded of ignorance I will not greatly contend with him It is as great a crime for their Romane Apollo and as foule a disgrace to their infallible Chaire upon ignorance to decree an heresie as to do it upon wilfull obstinacy yet to cōfesse the truth I am more than of opinion that Vigilius not upon ignorance but out of a setled judgment affection which he bare to Nestorianisme decreed this union and with it the doctrines of Nestorius to be embraced And that which induceth mee so to judge is the great diligence care and circumspection which Vigilius used to enforme both himselfe and others in this matter for besides that this cause was debated and continually discussed in the Church for the space of six yeares and more before the Pope published this his Apostolicall Constitution all which time Vigilius was a chiefe party in this cause himselfe in his decree witnesseth concerning this third Chapter or Epistle of Ibas that he examined it diligenti p Vig. Const nu 186. investigatione by a diligent inquisition yea that he perused his bookes most q Gesta Concilij Chalc. diligentissime perquirentes Jbid. diligently for this point and concludeth both of it and the rest that hee decreed these things cum r Ibid. nu 208. omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all possible care and diligence that could be used And because plus vident oculi quam oculus hee added to his owne the judgement of an whole Synod of Bishops
tanquam ipsa sola carni sit admistae Mentem divinitatem Christi dicenter Greg. ibid. and mind which hee had acknowledged in Christ he meant nothing but the very Deity it selfe which unto Christs body was as the soule mind to animate it with life sense and reason which was one part of the heresie of Apollinaris As soone g Statim ac dolum sensâ—runt fraudulentum hominem ab ecclesia proscribunt Elias Cret loc cit as Pope Damasus and Gregory Nazianzen knew of this fraud they not onely rejected Vitalis out of their communion but condemned as hereticall and that also with an Anathema denounced against it Fidei libellum that very same profession of faith made by Vitalis which themselves before had approved which fact Gregorie h Ne nos accusent quod Vitalis fidem prius quidem probaverimus nunc vero repudiemus Greg. Naz. Epist 2. ad Clidon similia habet in Epi. 2. ad Hollod defendeth as just and right both for himselfe and for Damasus 21. From this two things are specially for our present purpose to be observed The former that an hereticall profession may bee made in most orthodoxall termes yea in the very words of the holy Scripture not corrupted not altered not changed for so was this hereticall confession of Vitalis The other is that the selfe same profession of faith if wee looke onely at the words may be allowed for orthodoxall when the sense thereof is and appeareth to bee orthodoxall and when there is no evidence to the contrary but that the party who makes that profession as he speakes orthodoxally so also meaneth orthodoxally and that same profession also may justly bee condemned for hereticall when by any overt act or outward evidence it doth certainly appeare that the party who made that confession by and under those orthodoxall words meant by a fraudulent and equivocating collusion to expresse an hereticall sense for while there appeared no cause to mistrust Vitalis Pope Damasus and others approved his profession as orthodoxall but as soone as they knew hee meant heretically they condemned and anathematized the very selfe same profession as hereticall The reason of all which is that which the same Gregory i Greg. Epist 2. ad Clid and after him Iustinian k Iust in Edict §. Tali expresseth quoniam eaedem voces because the very same words if they bee rightly expounded and understood are pious but if they be taken in an hereticall sense they are impious 22. That which Damasus and Gregorie did in the confession of Vitalis must bee done in the profession of the Nestorians when Catholikes say there are in Christ two natures and one person their confession is orthodoxall because they say it in an orthodoxall sense using the words as they ought to bee in their right naturall and usuall signification But when the Nestorians say the very fame words their saying is hereticall because they say it in an hereticall sense abusing the words to an equivocall unnaturall and unusuall signification Nay it not onely must but it was sayd it was decreed in this very case of Nestorius and that by the whole generall Councell at Ephesus themselves being Catholikes professed in Christ two natures and one person and yet they condemned l Nestorium duas quidem naturas et unam personam dicentem Ephesina prima Synodus condemnavit Iust in Edict §. Tali and accursed Nestorius who in words said the very same acknowledging in Christ two natures and one person Whose judgement herein being followed both by the Councell at Chalcedon this 5. Synod in a word by the whole Catholike Church is a warrant authenticall that a profession being for words one and the selfe same may and ought in some to be judged orthodoxal in others condemned as hereticall and the saying of old Ennius m apud Gell. lib. 11. ca. 4. though spoken to another purpose is verified in this Eadem dicta eademque oratio aequa non aeque valet 23. It is not enough then to prove either Ibas to be a Catholike or his Epistle orthodoxall because in it Ibas professeth two natures and one person in Christ for Theodorus and Nestorius professed the very same but the sense and meaning of his words set downe in that Epistle must be exactly considered whether he meant not as other Nestorians and even as Nestorius himselfe did two such natures as make two distinct persons also and whether he called them not one person in such a sense as meaning that they were one not by naturall or personall subsistence but onely by affection and cohabitation If it may appeare that this was indeed the meaning of Ibas in his Epistle then will those words of his profession be so farre from proving either him or his Epistle to be Catholike as Vigilius and Baronius doe thence inferre that it will demonstrate both Ibas in making that profession and Vigilius and Baronius in defending it to approve and maintaine Nestorianisme as the onely Catholike Faith 24. But can this thinke you be shewed indeed It may and that most clearly and most certainely The Emperour Iustinian in his religious Edict both testifieth and demonstrates this Heretickes saith he n Edict Iust §. Tali omitting other blasphemies in this Epistle of Ibas alleage this onely which the Author of that Epistle spake to beguile the simple thereby in that he professeth duas naturas unam virtuteÌ„ unaÌ„ personaÌ„ two natures one power one person which we our selves also doe confesse Sed certum est quod unicuique naturae suam personam attribuit but it is certaine that the Author of that Epistle Ibas doth attribute to eyther nature a severall person even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius whom this Writer doth defend For they plainly teaching two natures of the Word of God or of Christ whom they esteeme to be no more then a man doe call them those two natures one person per affectualem conjunctionem by an affectuall conjunction and as having one dignity and one honour And it is cleere that the writer of this Epistle saying that there is one vertue and one power of the two natures doth herein follow the foresaid heretickes Theodorus in his impious booke of the incarnation and Nestorius in many of his writings but specially in his Epistle to AlexaÌ„der where he saith that there is one authoritie one vertue one power one person in respect of dignitie and honour due unto them whereby it is declared that the author of this Epistle did according to their perfidious impiety use vocabulo naturarum pro personis this word Natures for Persons for one authoritie one power one dignity and honour non in diversis naturis sed in diversis personis dicitur is not said to bee in divers natures but in divers persons of the same nature as in the Trinitie we professe Thus Iustinian both truly and profoundly 25. The fift generall Councell witnesseth the same and
upon the authority of Vigilius did not receive the fift Synod atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary Such were the Italian Africane Illirian other neighbour Bishops So Baronius truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part 36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes As the name of heresie though it bee common to any opinion whereof one makes choice whether it be true or false in which sense Constantine the great called o Epist ad Crestum apud Euseb lib. 10. ca. 5. the true faith Catholicam sanctissimam haeresim yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions as are repugnāt to the faith So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or renting of one from another yet now by the vulgar use of Divines it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause and from those to whom hee or they who are separated ought to unite themselves hold communion with them This whosoever doe whether they bee moe or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes and factious For it is neither multitude nor paucitie nor the holding with or against any visible head or governour whatsoever nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others but only the cause for which the separation is made which maketh a Schisme or faction and truly denounceth one to be factious or a Schismatike If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel because they are Idolaters and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal as they did If the three children for the like cause separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians in separation they are both like but in the cause being most unlike the Baalites onely and not Elijah and the Babylonians only and not the three children are Schismatikes Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church and hold communion with them in faith hence it is that as out of Austine h Lib. de unit Eccl. ca. 4. Stapleton rightly observes i Lib. 6. doct princ ca. 7. §. Istud Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the Church I say from the true orthodoxall Church for as Saint Augustine in the same place reacheth whosoever dissents from the Scriptures and so from the true faith though they be spred throughout the whole world k Lib. 10. ca. 7. §. Nempe yet such are not in the sound Church much lesse are they the Church And therefore from them be they never so many never so eminent one may and must separate himselfe But if any sever himselfe from the orthodoxall Church or to speake in Stapletons words si renuit operari in ratione fidei ut pars ecclesiae catholicae if he will not cooperate or joyne together in maintaining the faith as a member of the Catholike or orthodoxall Church Schismaticus hoc ipso est hee is for this very cause a Schismatike 37. Apply now this to Vigilius and the fift generall Councell and the case will be cleare The onely cause of separation on the Councels part was for that Vigilius with all his adherents were Heretikes convicted condemned and accursed for such by that true sentence and judgement of the fift generall Councell which was consonant both to Scriptures Fathers and the foure former generall Councels and approved by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops that is by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more then fifteene hundreth yeares together A cause not onely most just but commanded by the holy Apostle l Tit. 3.10 Shun him that is an hereticke after once or twice admonition much more after publike conviction and condemnation by the upright judgement of the whole Catholike Church On the other side Vigilius and his Faction separated themselves from the Councell and all that tooke part with it for this onely reason because they were Catholikes because they embraced and constantly defended the Catholike faith because he wold not cooperate as Stapleton speaketh with them to maintaine the true Catholike faith and so on their part there was that which essentially made them Schismatickes Baronius in saying that those who then dissented from Vigilius were Schismatickes speakes sutably to all his former assertions For in saying this he in effect saith that Catholikes to avoid a Schisme should have turned Heretickes should have embraced Nestorianisme and so have renounced and condemned the whole Catholike faith as Vigilius then did Had they so done they should have been no Schismatikes with Baronius But now for not condemning the Catholike faith with Vigilius they must all be condemned by the Cardinall for Schismatickes 38. For the very same reason the whole present Romane Church are Schismatickes at this day and not the Reformed Churches from whom they separate themselves For the cause of separation on their part is the same for which Vigilius and his schismaticall faction separated themselves from the fift Councell and the Catholikes of those times who all tooke part with it even because wee refuse to embrace the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith as the fift Councell refused that of Vigilius The cause on our part is the same which the fift Councell then had for that they defend the Popes hereticall constitution nay not onely that of Vigilius which yet were cause enough but many other like unto that and especially that one of Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councell wherby Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is given unto the Pope in all his decrees of faith In which one Cathedrall decree condemned for hereticall by the fift Councell and constant judgement both of precedent and subsequent Councells as before we have declared not onely innumerable heresies such as none yet doth dreame of are included but by the venom and poyson of that one fundamētall heresie not only all the other doctrines are corrupted but the very foundation of faith is utterly overthrowne Let them boast of multitudes and universalitie never so much which at this day is but a vaine brag say they were far more even foure hundreth to one Luther or the whole kingdome of Babilon to the two witnesses of God yet seeing it is the cause which makes a schismaticke the cause of separation on their part is most unjust but on ours most warrantable holy for that they will not cooperate with us in upholding the ancient and Catholike faith that especially of the fift Councell condemning and accursing the Cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius as hereticall all that defend it as Heretickes it evidently followeth that they
Omne septim◠ordinatum in eádem numeratione quâ res praecesserunt c. Act. 6. pa. 357. a. the seventh must follow the sixt in the same ranke and order and the sixt the fift if there was no fift generall and holy Councell neither can there bee any sixt nor seventh nor eighth nor any other after it So by the assertion of these men there are at once dashed out fourteene of those which themselves h Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 5. doe honour by the name of holy generall Councels 4. I say more the expunging of all those fourteene Councels doth certainly follow upon the Cardinals assertion though it were granted that Vigilius had confirmed this fift as it is true that Pelagius and Gregory did For if it was as he teacheth neither a generall nor lawfull Synod while the Councell continued and for that whole time while it was an assembly of Bishops then undoubtedly it never at any time was nor yet is either a generall or a lawfull Synod For after the end and dissolution thereof it was never extant in rerum natura againe it was ever after that time Non ens and being neither Synod nor yet so much as Ens it could not possibly be either generall or lawfull It is a Maxime Non entis non sunt Accidentia If while it was extant and while it was an assembly it was but a conventicle if then it was not gathered in Gods name I pray you when was it ever after that gathered in Gods name Did Vigilius Pelagius or Gregory when they made it by their approbation a generall and lawfull Councell did they like some new Aeolus blow all the Bishops againe to Constantinople and assemble them the second time in the Popes name that so they might be said to be gathered in Gods name Let their Popes trie if by all their magicall skill or omnipotent power they can make any one of those Africane Councels under Cyprian a Generall or make the Arimine Syrmian or second Ephesine a lawfull Councell and I will instantly yeeld that hee may doe the like to this fift If hee cannot doe any of the former what vanitie was it in the Cardinall and Binius to say of this fift that while it was extant and Ens it was neither a general nor lawful Councel but some one or some twenty yeares after when it was non Ens the Pope made it with a word both a generall and lawfull Councell Dixit factum est One word of his mouth makes or unmakes what he list Truth is the Popes or any other Bishops approbation or confirmation of a Councell or any decree thereof after the Councell is once ended may perhaps in the opinion of some men gaine some more liking unto that Councell or decree than before it had seeing now it hath the expresse consent of those Bishops whom the other doe much esteeme but the after consent or approbation of all the Bishops in the world much lesse of the Pope cannot make that to bee a generall which before and while it was extant was onely Provinciall or that to be a lawfull which before and while it was extant was an unlawfull Synod Even as the Pope and a thousand Bishops with him cannot now make any of the foure first generall and holy Councels to be either unlawfull or particular Synods and yet his power is every whit as great in annihilating that which now is as in creating that which never was a generall or a lawfull Councell 5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it and unlesse he should approve it See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church Begin we with the Church of that age Baronius tels i An. 547. nu 41. 43. us that both the Emperour the Pope Mennas and other Easterne Bishops agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters to a generall Councell Why did none of them reason as the Cardinall now doth against the Councell Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest who made that agreement and say to this effect unto them Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please If they say as I say it shall be a Councell a lawfull a generall an holy Councell If they say the contrary to that which I affirme though they have ten thousand millions of voyces their Decree shall be utterly void their assembly unlawfull they shall neither bee nor bee called a generall nor a lawfull Councell no nor a Councell neither but onely a Conventicle without all authoritie in the world Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this doctrine there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled nay there never had beene any other holy generall Councell The Pope had beene in stead of all and above them all This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell witnesseth them all even the Pope himselfe at that time to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes consent and to be of more authority in case they should differ as in this question they did than the sentence of the Pope This before the Councell was assembled 6. At the time of the Councell had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church beleeved their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod but a Conventicle why did they at all come together after their second Session for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe that he would neither come nor send any deputies unto them Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity why did they after the fift Session once proceed to examine or determine that cause For before the sixt day of their assembling they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause inhibiting them either to write or speak much more judicially to define ought contrarie to his sentence or if they did that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same Seeing notwithstanding all this well knowne unto them they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies but judicially defined that cause and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them it is an evident demonstration that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall and their sentence of full authority even as ample as of any generall Councell though the Pope denied his presence to the one and expressely signified not onely his dislike but contradiction and condemnation of the other 7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence or what thinke you will
later from the decree of the Councell It was assembled say Baronius ſ Sup. hoc cap. nu 2. and Binius Pontifice resistente contradicente the Pope resisting and contradicting it Whence they inferre that it was an unlawfull assembly not gathered in Gods name In this their reason both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue Did Pope Vigilius resist this Councell and contradict the calling or assembling thereof What testimonie doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion Truly none at all What probabilities yet or conjectures Even as many Are not these men think you wise worthy disputers who dare avouch so doubtfull matters and that also to the disgrace of an holy ancient and approved Councell and yet bring no testimonie no probabilitie no conjecture no proofe at all of their saying Ipse dixit is in stead of all 12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contrarie If both Baronius and Binius professe that Vigilius did consent that this Councell should be held Heare I pray you their own words and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men Hanc Synodum Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit saith Binius t Not. in 5. Con. §. Concilium Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority Againe u Ibid. The Emperour called this fift Synod authoritate Vigilij by the authority of Pope Vigilius Baronius sings the same note It was very well provided saith he x An. 553. nu 23 that this Oecumenicall Synod should be held ex Vigilii Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius who above all other men desired to have a Councell Againe y Ibid. nu 24. The Emperour decreed that the Synod should be called ex ipsius Vigilii sententia according to the minde of Vigilius And a little after It was commendable in the Emperor that he did labour to assemble the Synod ex Vigilij Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius Neither onely did the Pope consent to have a Councell but to have it in that very city where it was held and where himselfe then was Indeed at the first the Pope was desirous z Optavimus frequentissime supplici voce poposcimus eundē coetum ad quēlibet Italia locū aut certe ad Siciliam c. Vigil in Constit apud Bar. an 553. nu 56. and earnest to have it held in Sicily or in some Westerne Citie even as Pope Leo had laboured a Epist Leon. 24 with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent b Quod quia fieri Serenitas vestra non annuit Vigil loc cit to that petition as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo Vigilius then voluntati c Bin. Not. in Conc. 5. §. Concilium Imperatoris libens accessit very willingly consented to the Emperours pleasure in this matter that the Oecumenicall Councell should be held at Constantinople Say now in sadnesse what you thinke of Baronius and Binius Whither had they sent their wits when they laboured to perswade this Councell to be unlawfull because Pope Vigilius resisted and contradicted the assembling thereof whereas themselves so often so evidently so expresly testifie not onely that it was assembled by the consent and according to the minde will pleasure desire authority and sentence of the Pope but the very chiefe act and royaltie of the summons they challenge though falsely to the Pope the other which is an act of labour and service to be as it were the Popes Sumner or Apparitor in bringing the Bishops together by the Popes authoritie that and none but that they allow to the Emperour 13. Many other testimonies might bee produced to declare this truth That of Sigonius d Lib. 20. an 553. The Emperour called this Synod Vigilio Pontifice permittente Pope Vigilius permitting him that of Wernerus e An. 544. Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople That of Zonaras f An. to 3. in Iustiniano and Glicas g Cui Concilio praerant Eutychius Domnus Vigilius Glic annal part 4. pa. 379. who both affirme that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij the chiefe Bishop of the Councell not chiefe among them that sate in the Councell for there he was not at all nor chief◠in making the Synodall decree for therein he contradicted the Councell but chiefe of all who sued to the Emperour and procured the Councell as being desirous of the same But omitting the rest the whole generall Councell yea and the Popes owne letters put this out of all doubt This say h Coll. 8. p. 584. a the whole Councell even in their Synodall sentence Consensit in scriptis in Concilio convenire Vigilius under his owne hand-writing consented to come together and be present with us in the Synod Againe the Legates sent from the Councell to invite Vigilius said i Coll. 2. pa. 523. thus unto him Your Holinesse knoweth quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire that you have promised to come together with the other Bishops into the Councell and there to debate this question Vigilius himselfe writ k Coll. 1. p. 521. b thus to the Bishops of the Councell We knowing your desire praedictis postulationibus annuimus have consented to your petitions that in an orderly assembly being made wee may conferre with our united brethren about the three Chapters I doubt not but upon such faire and undoubted records every one will now confesse First that if to be gathered by the Popes consent and authority will make a Councell lawfull which with them is an authentike rule then this fift Councell is without question in this respect most lawfull Secondly that Baronius and Binius are shamelesse both in uttering untruths in reviling this holy Synod which they would perswade to be unlawful because it was assembled the Pope resisting it whereas this Councell to have beene assembled with the consent yea as they boast with the authority also of Pope Vigilius not onely other Writers but the Synodall Acts the whole generall Councell the letters of Vigilius and the expresse words of Baronius and Binius themselves doe evidently declare 14. Come now to the Consequence Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Councell was it for this cause unlawfull was it no generall Councell What say you then to the second Councell of which Baronius thus writeth l An. 553. nu 2 It was held repugnante Damaso Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof Will they blot that also out of the ranke of generall and lawfull Synods If not why may not this fift also bee a generall and lawfull Synod though Vigilius had with tooth and naile resisted the same Shall the peevishnesse or perversnesse of
authoritie to preach publikely and therefore such a decree is as fully authorized confirmed and approved as if all the Bishops and Presbyters in the world had personally subscribed in this manner I confirme this Decree Hereof there is a worthy example in the third generall Councell No Presbyters at all were therein not in their owne right Very many Bishops were personally absent and present onely by their Legates or Agents as almost all the Westerne Bishops and by name Celestine Patriarch of Rome Some no question upon other occasions neglected that businesse as it may be the Bishops of Gangra and of Heraclea in Macedonia who were not at this Councell Divers others wilfully and obstinately refused to come to that holy Synod as by name Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and some forty Bishops who at the same time while the holy Councell was held in the Church at Ephesus held a Conventicle by themselves in an Inne in the same Citie and yet notwithstanding the personall absence of the first the negligent of the second and wilfull absence of the last the holy x Epist Conc. Ephes ad Imper. tom 2. Act. Con. Ephes epist 17. generall Councell saith of their Synodall judgement given by those who were then present that it was nihil aliud quam communis concors terrarum orbis sensus consensus nothing else but the common and consenting judgment of the whole world How could this be when so many Bishops besides three Patriarchs were either personally or negligently or wifully absent How was there in that decree the consent of these Truly because they all even all the Bishops in the world did either personally or by their Agents expresse or else in such a tacit and implicit manner as wee declared wrap up their judgement in the Synodall decree made by the Bishops present in the Councell 28. But what if many of those who are present doe dissent from that which the rest being the greater part doe decree Truly even these also doe implicitè and are in reason to bee judged to consent to that same decree For every one is supposed to agree on that generall Maxime of reason that in such an assembly of Iudges what the greater part decreeth shall stand as the Act and Iudgement of the whole seeing otherwise it would be impossible that such a multitude of Bishops should ever give any judgement in a cause for still some in perversenesse and pertinacie would dissent Seeing then it is the ordinance of God that the Church shall judge and seeing there can no other meanes be devised how they should judge unlesse the sentence of the greater part may stand for their judgement reason enforceth all to consent upon this Maxime Vpon this is that Imperiall Law grounded Quod y Dig. lib. 50. leg 19. major pars curiae effecit pro rato habetur acsi omnes id egerint what the greater part of the Court shall do that is ratified or to stand for the judgement of the Court as if all had done the same And againe Refertur z Dig. lib. 5. tit 17. de Reg. Iuris 160. ad universos quod publicè fit per majorem partem That is accounted the act of all which is publikely done by the greater part Vpon this ground is that truly said by Bellarmine a Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 11. §. At. That whereon the greater part doth consent est verum decretum Concilij is the true decree of the Councell even of the whole Councell Vpon the equitie of this rule was it said in the Councell at Chalcedon b Act. 4. p. 90. b. when ten Bishops dissented from the rest Non est justum decem audiri It is not just that the sentence of ten should prevaile against a thousand and two hundred Bishops Vpon the equitie of the same rule did the fift generall Councell truly constantly judge c Coll. 6. p. 576. b that the Councell of Chalcedon even in that definition of faith which they all with one consent agreed upon condemned the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall although they knew that Maximus with Pascasinus and the other Legats of Pope Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon adjudged that Epistle to be orthodoxall How was it the consenting judgement of the whole Councell of Chalcedon when yet some did expresse their dissent therein How but by that implicit consent which all give to that rule of reason that the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgment of the whole which the fift Councell doth plainly signifie saying d Ibid. pa. 563. b. In Councels we must not attend the interloquutions of one or two but what is defined in common ab omnibus aut amplioribus either by all or by the greater part to that we must attend as to the judgement of the whole Councell But omitting all the rest there is one example in the Councell of Chalcedon most pregnant to this purpose 29. All e Haec omnes dicimus haec omnibus placent Act. 16. pa. 137. a. the Councell save onely the Popes Legates consented upon that third Canon decreed in the second and now confirmed in this fourth Councell that the See of Constantinople should have Patriarchall dignity over Thrace Asia and Pontus and have precedence before other Patriarches as the next after the Bishop of Rome The Legates following the instructions of Leo were so averse in this matter that they said f Ibid. pa. 137. b. not without some choler Contradictio nostra his gesti◠inhaereat Let our contradiction cleave to these Acts and so it doth to the eternall disgrace both of them and their master The glorious Iudges notwithstanding this dissenting of the Legates and of Pope Leo himselfe in them said g Ibid. concerning that Canon That which we have spoken that the See of Constantinople ought to be the second c. Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved it Why but the Popes Legates approved it not they contradicted it True in this particular they dissented But because they as all other Bishops even Pope Leo himselfe consented unto that generall Maxime That the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole Councell in that generall both the Legats of Leo and Leo himselfe did implicitè and virtually consent to that very Canon from which actually and explicitè they did then dissent For which cause the most prudent Iudges truly said Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved this Canon either explicitè or implicitè either expressely or virtually approved it Neither did onely those secular Iudges so esteeme the whole generall Councell it selfe professed the same and that even in the Synodall Relation of their Acts to Pope Leo The universall h Sancta universal Synod Leoni Relat. Synod post Act. 16 Synod said thus We have condemned Dioscorus we have confirmed the faith wee have confirmed the Canon of the second
by the Pope alone and by his authority Of the sixt which was the second at Lions Pope Gregory Indixit l Bin. Not. in Conc. 2. Lugdun ex Blond p. 1495. a. hoc Concilium appointed this Councell Of the seventh which was at Vienna Pope Clement m Bin. ex Tritem Not. in Conc. Vien to 3. Conc. pa. 1510. a. indixit Concilium appointed this Councell Of the Florentine which is the eighth This Synod was ab n Bin. Not. in Conc. Florent to 4. pa. 495. b. Eugenio indicta appointed by Eugenius at the intreaty of the Emperour Of the ninth which was the fift Laterane This was appointed and assembled Authoritate o Bin. Notis in Con. Later 1. sub Leone 10. to 4. Conc. pa. 651. Iulij Papae by the authority of Pope Iulius nor onely was it selfe so assembled but it p Conc. Later sub Leone 10. Sess 11. p. 639. b decreed which was never done before that all generall Councels ought to be so assembled For the last which is their faire Helen q Haec est Helena qua nuper Tridenti obtinuit Espenceon in Epist ad Tit. pa. 42. of Trent the Popes Bull whereby hee appointed summoned and assembled it is set in the forefront of it wherein the Pope saith Conventum r Pauli 3. Bulla indict praesixa Act. Conc. Trid. Mantuae indiximus we have appointed that this Councell should bee held at Mantua but afterwards he removed it to Trent 23. Thus were all the ten assembled by Papall not one of them by Imperiall authority For though some Emperours and Kings consented indeed unto some of them as to the first Laterane Henry 5. to that at Vienna Philip of France and so in some others yet the consent of Emperours and Kings is not sufficient for holding a Councell the authority by which the Bishops are called and come together must bee regall which in all these as Bellarmine ſ Cur tunc non solus Pontifex concilia indixerit ut postea factum est rationes multae sunt Bell. lib. 1. de Concil ca. 13. §. Habemus truly teacheth was onely pontificial Againe that very consent to hold those Councels which Kings then gave was a servile consent not Imperiall nor was it free and willing but coacted and extorted They knew certainly by the dealing of Pope Hildebrand with Henry the fourth what they might expect if they withstood the Popes will or wrastled with such a Giant no lesse than the losse of their Crownes had beene the censure for denying to consent to what the Pope would have them their consent was no other but that by the Popes authority the Synod should bee called and held a consent that the Synod should be called by an unlawfull and usurped authority even such a consent as if a rightfull King being overcome by a Rebell should for feare of his life consent that the Rebell should call and assemble a Parliament and there enact what lawes himselfe listed It is the authority by which those Councels were gathered not by whose consent they were gathered of which we doe now enquire The authority whereby they were assembled was onely in the Pope though to that authority Emperours and Kings consented and as they are not a little brag that the Pope could doe such worthy acts by his authority so are we so farre from denying him to have done this that wee willingly professe the same but withall doe affirme which inevitably ensues thereof that even for this very cause all those Councels are unlawfull because they were called by Papall and not by Imperiall authority This demonstrates them to have assembled without lawfull authority to have beene nothing else than so many great Routs and Riots in the Church so many tumultuous and disorderly Conventicles so much more odious both in the sight of God and men as those who tumultuously and without authority convented should have beene patternes of piety obedience and order unto others 24. Yea and this very exception which may equally be opposed against them all was most justly taken to omit the rest against their Trent Riot when it was congregated by that Papall and usurped authority The King t Innoc. Gentil in Examin Con. Trid. lib. 2. in initio of England gave this as a reason of his refusall to send to it because the right to call Councels belonged to Kings and Emperours nullam vero esse potestatem penes Pontificem but the Pope had no authority to call or assemble a Councell The French King writ a letter to them at Trent and the superscription u Gent. in Exam sess 12. Cōc Trid. pa. 96. Ioh. Sleid. Comment lib. 22. pa. 332. b. et seq was Conventui Tridentino The Fathers stormed and snuffed a long while at that disdaining that the King should write Conventui and not Concilio and hardly were they perswaded to read his letter At last when credence and audience was obtained for Iames Aimiot his Legate he signified before all the Trent Fathers that the King protested and published to al as also before he had done at Rome that he accounted not that assembly pro Oecumenico legitimo Concilio sed pro privato Conventu not for a generall Councell but for a private Convent gathered together for the private benefit and good of some few adding se suosque subditos nullo vinculo ad parendum his quae in eo decreta fuerint obstrictos iri that hee and his subjects would not be tyed by the decrees thereof exhorting further that this his protestation might bee recorded among the Acts of their Synod and that all Christian Kings might have notice thereof The Electours x Epit. rerum in orbe gest sub Ferd. 1. an 1561. apud Scard tom 3. pa. 2171. et seq and Princes of Germany being assembled at Nurimberge when Zacharias Delphinus and Franciscus Commendonius the Popes Legates came to warne them in the Popes name y Summus Pontifex sacrum Concilium Tridenti celebrandii authoritate divinitus sibi tradita decrevit nosque ablegavit nuncios suos qui pij Pontificis nomine singulos conveniremus et rogaremus ut ad Concilium hoc accederent Ibid. to come or send to the Councell of Trent returned this answere unto them Mirantur illustrissimi Electores Principes the most illustrious Electours and Princes doe wonder that the Pope would take upon him Celsitudinibus suis Concilij indictionem obtrudere to obtrude to their Celsitude his appointment of a Councell and that he durst call them to Trent adding wee would have both the Pope and you his Legates to know that wee acknowledge no such authority in the Pope and we are certainly perswaded by the undoubted testimonies both of Gods law and mans Concilij indicendi jus Pontificem Romanum non habere that the Pope hath no authority and right to appoint call or assemble a Councell Thus they whose answer is at large
hortatur Casus Vergerius vero qui periculum suum intelligeret recusat ibid. that as by reason of their want of this Imperiall presidency they had many disorders so by reason they excluded that Presidency they had nay they could have nothing in them at all but disorder 40. You see now the severall kinds of unlawfull Councells as well by want of Imperiall calling or of Imperiall Presidency as when neither is wanting by the abuse of that Imperiall authority in the Synod And though the unlawfulnesse of those ten later Synods doth now appeare to be farre greater than of those ancient Councells before mentioned seeing in all the ancient there was not onely a lawfull calling but a lawfull presidency also both which were wanting in the other tenne besides the unlawfull proceedings which were equally in both or rather farre worse in the later yet is there one especiall difference that is principally to be remembred which issuing from the former diversity of unlawfulnesse makes a greater oddes than at the first one would imagine and this it is When the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth as in their tenne Synods it doth from the want of the first condition that is of lawfull calling and authority to assemble and judge be the consultations and proceedings of such Synods otherwise never so orderly and their resolutions never so just and true yet for making of any Canon or Decree or giving any synodall judgement there is an invalidity in all such Synods and a meere nullity in all their Decrees Canons and Iudgements They had no authority to assemble in a Synod much lesse o Si legitima synodus non fuit planum est nulla authoritatem potuisse habere nullius roboris sunt illius canones Bell. lib. 2. de Pont. ca. 18. §. Caeterum §. Ac deinde Sententia à non suo Iudice dicta nihil firmitatis obtinet Greg lib. 11. Epist 56. have they any authority to make a Law or give judgement in that Synod That which is invalid in the spring and originall must needs in all the subsequent actions derived from thence depending thereon retain the same invalidity And seeing it is neither multitude nor learning nor wisdome but authority which is the fountain and foundation of all Lawes Canons and Iudgements where this authority is wanting in any person or assembly it is as impossible for such a person or assembly to make a law give any judgement or pronounce any judiciall sentence as to erect an house in the ayre or build without any foundation And truly this toucheth at the quick all those ten Councels which wanting authority to assemble them were no other but tumultuous seditious and unauthorized assemblies There was no more strength validity or vigour in any of their Decrees to binde as lawes or synodall judgements than there was in such Edicts as Spartacus and Catiline in Rome or Iacke Cade in this Kingdome should have published and set forth specially in that which he like another Pope intended to be his fundamentall law That all lawes should proceed out of his mouth Those which they untruly call the Canons Decrees or Iudgements of those Synods are onely the opinions resolutions and consultations of so many seditious men which cōvened and conspired together in those conjurations synodall Decrees or Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Iudgements they were not they could not be In the head they are nipt and tainted with a nullity of authority they beare this tainture and nullity throughout every part and parcell of their determinations 41. But when the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth as in the ancient Councels at Arimine Millane and Ephesus it did from the want of the other condition that is of orderly proceedings onely the Bishops being both lawfully called and having a lawfull President the case is here farre different their acts and sentences though they bee unlawfull yet are they truly judiciall and have the authority of synodall judgements and therefore doe binde others though not in conscience to accept them as true yet with patience to submit themselves to their censures till by like authority they be revoked and repealed Even as in civill Courts though an unjust or partiall Iudge either for feare favour hatred desire of lucre or any other perturbation of minde shall wilfully pervert justice and due proceedings and pronounce an unjust sentence yet is this act judiciall and stands in force of a judgement till by the like or higher authority it be reversed because such an one had authority and rightfull power to judge and give sentence in that cause though he abused his authority to injustice and wrong Right so it is in synodall and Ecclesiasticall assemblies when they are lawfully called and authorized to heare and judge any matter their want of due orderly and just proceedings makes their judgment unjust and shewes them to be wicked and malicious conspirators against the truth but it doth not make the decree to be no judgment or no judiciall sentence of a Councell The corruption is now in the branch not in the root the abuse of their authority makes not a nullity in their act It hinders not them to bee truly and rightfully Iudges but it demonstrates them not to bee upright good and just Iudges it shewes their sentence to be wicked and impious but it hinders it not to be a judiciall sentence Whereof that one among many in the Ephesine Latrociny is a cleare example In it p Flavianum et Eusebium ab omni Episcopali dignitate judicamus esse alienos Conc. Ephes in act Con. Chal. act 1. pa. 57. b. Eusebius Bishop of Dorileum was most wickedly and unjustly deposed from his See yet this their unjust sentence stood in force till by the like authority of another generall Councell at Chalcedon it was repealed for in it Eusebius sate not at the first as a Iudge but as an accuser q Et Eusebius et Theodoretus in ordine accusantium sedent Con. Chalc. act 1. pa. 13. a. of Dioscorus and in the place of accusers He entreated the holy Councell that all the Acts r Conc. Chalc. act 3. pa. 66. and Iudgements at Ephesus viribus carere might be adnulled and declared to be of no force and that hee might enjoy as before that sentence he did Sacerdotali dignitate his Episcopall dignity and See The holy Synod consented to his just request received him as a member ſ Nam act 6. pa. 101. b. Eusebius Dorilei subscribit definitioni fidei inter alios of the Councell restored him to his See and adnulled all the acts of the Ephesine Latrociny requesting t Praesens omne Concilium deprecatur Imperatorem quatenus pia lege sanciat neque Synodum illam Ephesinam 2. nominati neque quidquam quod actum est in eteneri Conc. Chalc. act 10. p. 115. §. Anatolius pa. 116. Omnes eadem dicimus the Emperour to ratifie and confirme that their Iudgement 42. Such an
magnum agitatum est de Origene judicium Bar. an 538. nu 31. et Conc. 5. habitum an 27. Iustin yeare of Iustinian that is full fourteene yeares before the fift Councell so ancient so constant was the detestation of Theodorus towards Origen 19. Will any now judge otherwise of Baronius than a malicious slanderer who raileth against Theodorus as the most earnest Patron of Origen whom his owne publike and constant profession and subscription testifieth to have accursed Origen with all his heresies yea to have accursed all that doe either defend him or think as Origen did though outwardly and openly he doe not defend him for that was one Article * Edict Iust cōtra Originem in fine to which Theodorus and the whole Synod under Mennas subscribed a curse be to Origen with all his execrable doctrine a curse bee to every one who thinketh the same which he did or who at any time doth presume to defend the same 20. What are the partiall uncertaine and malicious reports of Facundus of Liberatus or of the Surian Cyrill to adde him also among them to these undoubted and authentike records of Councels when wee reade and see the evident subscription of Theodorus proclaming him to condemne and accurse Origen what vanitie malice and hatred of truth is this in the Cardinall to alleage two or if you please three partiall testimonies against that evidence which condemneth them and all that they can say So unfortunate is the Cardinall in all that he undertakes in this cause that hee doth not onely speake praeter but contra directly contrary to the truth whereof as in other passages so in this touching Theodorus wee have seene so faire and cleare evidences CAP. XXIIII How unjustly Baronius excepteth against the Acts of the fift Councell as being corrupted and of no credit and a refutation in generall of the same 1. BAronius perceiving right well that all which heretofore hath beene said either against the Emperour or the Empresse or the Edict or Theodorus the supposed author of it is not sufficient in any measure either to defend or excuse Vigilius in the next place he taketh a very uncouth unusuall but a most sure course wherby hee may not onely weaken but utterly overthrow all that hath or can be said against the Pope in this cause for the Acts of the fift generall Councell being the most authentike records that can bee produced to prove Vigilius and all that defend him to bee heretikes the Cardinall and after him Binius will now no longer hacke at this or that person which were agents in the cause and but petty branches but now hee will strike at the very roote calling into question the Acts and evidences themselves striving to prove them to bee of no credit which if hee can doe all the rest whatsoever can bee said will most easily bee rejected Now because Baronius was willing in this passage to shew not onely the utmost subtilty of his wit but his exact diligence in picking out every quarrell that art or malice could suggest against the Acts of this holy Councell I must intreate the reader not to thinke it tedious though unto mee this was a matter almost of greatest trouble and difficultie to heare patiently and weigh with equity of judgement the manifold exceptions against these Acts which he hath collected or rather scattered upon every occasion which offered it selfe here and there that by his inculcating and ingeminating of the accusation he might breed some opinion of the truth thereof 2. And before I enter into examination of the particulars let me put the reader in minde of one or two considerations which may in generall concerne them all The first is that though the Cardinall and Binius following him have spared no labour to sift these Acts as diligently as Satan did Saint Peter and have objected ten or twelve speciall corruptions in them yet not any thing which they mention or against which they except doth any way so touch or concerne the cause of the Three Chapters whereof wee have intreated as either to shew that the Councell condemneth them not or that Vigilius defendeth them not by his definitive Apostolical Constitutiō or that the Councell by their Synodall sentence and consenting judgement did not for that cause condemne anathematize and accurse for heretikes all that defend them and so Pope Vigilius among the rest and al that defend him or his Apostolicall Constitution All these are matters of so certaine evident and undoubted truth by the Acts that Baronius or Binius could finde nothing at all to blemish or darken them So then though the Acts were admitted in 100. or 1000. other points to bee corrupted mutilated and altered yet the Cardinall and Binius are never a whit the nearer the maine point at which they aime is to excuse Vigilius and those that defend him but notwithstāding all that they have said and they have said all that industry having borrowed serpentine eyes could finde out both Vigilius himselfe and all who defend him and those are all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith that is all Papists remaine still as convicted accursed and anathematized heretikes and that by the judgment of an holy generall Councell approved by all succeeding both Popes and Councels till the time of Luther and Leo the tenth 3. The second thing which I observe is that corruptions which happely may bee crept into some Synodall Acts or other writings whether by mutilations additions or alterations are no just cause to reject as unworthy of credit all the Acts of that Councell or writings of the author Admit this once what credit can be given to the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Councels whose Acts to bee miserably maimed none is ignorant yea even the very Canons also to bee corrupted Bellarmine a Probatur Canones illos Nicenos non esse integros Lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 25. §. Omissa and Baronius b Quod Canon 6. Con. Nic. mutilatus sit c. Bar. an 225. nu 125. Canon iste 5. Concilij Constantinopolitani suspectus imo planè addititius esse atque suppositus habetur c. Bar. an 381 nu 35. doe professe and prove The like corruption Baronius noteth in the first Ephesine Councell wherein is set c Tom. 5. Conc. Ephes ca. 11. downe among other acts decretum Regum for the banishment of the Nestorians of which Baronius d An. 481. nu 173. saith plura simul mendacia insuta habent there are many lyes sowed up in these Acts. In like sort in the Councell of Chalcedon is inserted among the Acts of the third Session e Pag. 84. b. an Edict of the Emperor Valentinianus and Martianus which was written a long f Concilium finitum est mense Novemb. in Cōs Martiani et Adelphij Bar. an 451. nu 160. Edictum vero scriptum 7. Kalen Febr. Coss Sporatio yeare after the Councell was ended and
therefore must of necessity be acknowledged to bee foisted and unjustly inserted into the Acts. Of the sixt Councell Bellarmine g Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 11. § Ad secundum depravata sunt Bin. not in Con. 6. § Acta saith that it without doubt is corrupted and whatsoever is found there of Honorius is falsly inserted Of it Binius h Acta Concilij multis in locis after Baronius i Bar. an 681. nu 13. saith the Acts of it are in many places depraved and whatsoever is there reported to be said or done by Honorius all that is added by the Monothelites Of the seventh Binius k Not. in Conc. Nicen. 2. et Acti 4. thus writeth This fourth Action is in divers places faulty and in the History of the Image crucified at Beritus it containeth divers Apocryphall narrations concerning the Image of Christ made by Nicodemus Of the eighth Councell that the Canons thereof are corrupted and some inserted by Anastasius their owne Raderus l Viginti septem Canones ex Anastasii codice sumptos nullus dubitet et hi duo Canones non nisi ex Anastasio videntur accipi Rad. in Obser ad Conc. 8. pa. 448. will perswade them Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fift Councell bee applyed to these He having found among these one Epistle of Theodorets which hee supposeth to bee a counterfait concludeth upon that one example in this manner quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi quae sunt his contexta commentis what credit I pray you doe such Acts as these of the fift Councell deserve which are intangled in such fictions May not the selfe same reason be much more justly alleaged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Canons against the Acts of the Councell at Ephesus at Chalcedon against the sixt seventh and eighth Synods in every one of which some in divers more corruptions not onely mutilations but alterations and commentitious writings are inserted by their owne confession Let Baronius answer here his owne question Quam fidem rogo I pray you then what credit may bee given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon of the sixt seventh or eighth Councell they all must by the Cardinals reason be rejected as Canons and Acts of no worth of no credit at all Nor they onely but all the workes of Augustine of Athanasius of Ierome and almost all the holy Fathers none of them all by this Baronian reason deserve any credit for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts as the book de variis Quaestionibus Scripturae the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and many moe m Poss Appar in Athan. p. 127. in Athanasius the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill and Cyrils to Austen the author n Poss in Aug. pa. 147. of which was not onely an Impostor but an heretike the booke de Spiritu litera the booke of questions of the old and new Testament which is hereticall and an heape of the like in Austen the Commentaries on Pauls Epistles which savour of Pelagianisme the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity and 100. like in o Poss in Hier. pa. 751. Ierome Quae fides rogo what credit can bee given to these bookes or writings of Austen Athanasius Ierome or the rest in which are found so many fictitious heretical treatises falsly ascribed unto them mingled and inserted among their writings Truly I cannot devise what might move the great Card. to make such a collection and reason as from some corruptions crept into the bookes of fathers or Acts of Councels to inferre that the whole Acts or writings are unworthy of any credit but onely as Iacke Cade had a purpose to burne all authentick records and writings of law that as hee boasted all the law might proceed from his own mouth so the Cardinal intended to play a right Iacke Cade with all the ancient Councels and Fathers that having utterly though not abolished yet disgraced and made them all by this his reason and collection unworthy of any credit his owne mouth might bee an Oracle to report without controulment all histories of ancient matters and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter or to set downe in his Annals that all men should beleeve as if the most authentick Records in the world had testified the same How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinall have done to have wished all corruptions to bee removed whatsoever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Councels or writings of Fathers to be added unto them that to be quite cut off whatsoever might bee found wanting that to bee added whatsoever to be altered or perverted that to be amended and not in the blindnesse of his hatred against this one fift Councell to fight like one of the Andabatae against al the rest and with one stroke to cashire all the Acts and Canons of Councels all the writings of Fathers or Historians because forsooth one or some few corruptions have either by negligence or errour of writing or by fraud and malice of some malignant hand crept into them 4. The third thing which I observe is that whereas Baronius so often and so spightfully declameth against the Acts of this Councell as imperfect and corrupted this his whole accusation proceedeth of malice to the Councell and these Acts rather than of judgement or of truth for I doe constantly affirme and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Councels shall certainly finde and if he deale ingenuously will confesse the same that as of al the general Councels which go before this fift for integrity of the Acts none is better or any way comparable to this save that of Chalcedon so of all that follow it none at all is to bee preferred nor any way to bee counted equall with it unlesse that which they call the sixt Councell that is so much of the Acts of that Synod as concerne the cause of the Monothelites leaving out the Trullane Canons This whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Councels cannot choose but observe The Nicene Constantinopolitane being so miserably maimed that scarce wee have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Councels which if they could bee recovered no treasures are sufficient to redeeme a worke of that worth and value a worke non gemmis neque purpura vaenale neque auro That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus but yet it remaines so imperfect so confused and disorderly that as Diogines sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men so among those very Acts large Tomes of the Coūcels the reader shall be forced to seeke the Acts of the Ephesine Councell The Acts of the second Nicene and of the next to it which they call the eighth are so doubtfull that not onely this or that part
yeare after it was published was confirmed by Pope Iohn who thus writeth f Epist 1. Ioh. 2. ad Justin to 2. Conc. pa. 404. et Bar. an 534. nu 15. et seq to the Emperour You for the love of the faith and to remove heresie have published an Edict which because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine wee confirme by our authority and againe You have writ and published those things which both the Apostolike doctrine and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed nos in omnibus confirmamus and we confirme it in all points This your faith is the true and certaine religion this all the Fathers Bishops of Rome and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept this confession whosoever doth contradict hee is an alien from the holy Communion and from the Catholike Church Thus Pope Iohn What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius but condemne him for an accursed heretike Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to embrace that profession unum de Trinitate which as the Emperour and Pope witnesse it earnestly embraceth he not onely suspecteth in this place but in plaine termes else-where g Planè comperitur eosdem ipsos Scythiae Monachos Eutycheanos fuisse haereticos Bar. an 519. nu 99. he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans heretikes and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon and that 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 h An. eod nu 102. 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 Christ 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 consisteret 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 foure 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 Hormisdaes 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 i Coll. 6. pa. 575. a. 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 his Epistle is apparent wherein they oppose not that he denyed Christ to be one of the Trinity but that hee called them heretikes who taught the Word incarnate to be made man That clause which they adde That Christ is one of the Trinity is an addition of the fift Councell it selfe explicating that of Christ which the Emperours Edict bound them to professe as being the true sense and meaning of the Councell at Chalcedon but not as being word for word set downe in the decree of Chalcedon And even as he were more than ridiculous who would accuse one to corrupt the Councell of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man who was borne in Bethleem and fled from Herod into Aegypt so is the Cardinall as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod or addition to the Councell of Chalcedon that they say the Councell taught the Word of God to bee man who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinity Both additions are true but neither of them affirmed to be expresly and totidem verbis set downe in the Councell of Chalcedon Why but looke to the Cardinals proofe for he would not for any good affirme such a matter without proofe What doe yee aske for proofe of the Cardinall I tell you it is proofe enough that he sayth it and truly in this poynt he produceth neither any proofe nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fift Councell or that the fift Councell cited them as the very expresse words of the Councell of Chalcedon all the proofe is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit which is a sory kind of arguing against any that love the truth for although against the Pope or their popish cause any thing which he writeth is a very strong evidence against them seeing the Cardinall is very circumspect wary to let nothing no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Popes dignity or the cause of their Church unlesse the maine force and undeniable evidence of truth doe wrest and wring it from his pen yet in any matter of history wherein he may advantage the Pope or benefit their cause it is not by many degrees so good to say the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirmes it which is now growne a familiar kinde of proofe among them k Vide Gretz tractatus varios alios ejus farinae as to say Ovid Aesop or Iacobus Voraginensis affirme it therefore it is certainly true His Annals in the art of fraudulent vile and pernicious untruths farre excell the most base fictitious Poemes or Legends that ever as yet have seene the Sunne CAP. XXVI The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that Ibas is sayd therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 1. THe second thing which our Momus a Dum falsa quaedam ibi in Actis 5. Concilij asserta reperiuntur de impostura non mediocrem suspicionem inducunt cum viz. ibi dictum habetur Ibam negasse Epistolā esse suam Bar. an 553. nu 211 carpeth at is for that in these Acts it is sayd that Ibas denyed the Epistle written to Maris to bee his which saith Baronius is untrue for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinall an untruth in plaine termes affirmes b Duo aut plura mendacia de Ibae epistola leguntur Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. pa. 606. b. Acta Conc. 5. nō uno loco indicant quod Ibas Epistolam non agnoverit verū haec sententia c. iid p. 607. a it to be a lye Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius they would never have quarelled with the Acts about this matter nor for this accused them to have beene corrupt They may as well collect the Edict of Iustinian or that famous Epistle of Pope Gregorie wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters to be corrupted and of no credit as well as the Acts of the fift Councell for in both c Ibas non est ausus eam suam dicere Epistolam Iustin edictum pa. 496. b. Epistolam Jbas denegat suam Greg. lib. 7. Epist 53. them the same is said concerning the deniall of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denyall they may passe for sincere and incorrupt it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinall and Binius to carpe at the Acts for this cause which will much more appeare if any please but to view the Acts themselves For this is not spoken obitèr nor once but the Councell insisteth upon it repeateth it in severall d Abnegans Epistolam Coll. 6. pa. 563. b. Eo quod abnegabat Ibas illa Coll. eadem pa. 564. a. Vnde Jbas eam abnegabat ibid. alibi places and divers times and if those words were taken away there would be an apparent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words then are truly the words of the true Acts the corruption is onely in the braine of Baronius and Binius 2. Now whereas the Cardinall and Binius so confidently affirme this to be untrue or a lye that Ibas denyed his Epistle and so accuse the whole Councell to lye in this matter they doe but keepe their owne tongues and pens inure with calumnies the untruth
called Cyrill an heretike after that union The impious Epistle sayth the Councell x Loco citato is shewed by the contents thereof to have beene written after the union therefore it appeareth that Ibas denyed it to be his Epistle by this in that he sayd that he spake nothing against Cyrill after the union again Ibas in this denyed the Epistle eò quod dicebat because he sayd y Coll. 6. p. 564. a after the union I am not found to have sayd ought against Saint Cyrill Yea this and no other to have beene that denyall which the Councell meant Baronius knew right well for himselfe sayth z an 553. n. 211 that it is sayd in the Councell that Ibas denyed the Epistle ex eo for this cause for that after the union and peace made he denyed that he had sayd ought against Cyrill yet notwithstanding all this evidence of truth the Cardinall to disgrace the Acts of this Councell even against his owne knowledge and conscience affirmeth it to bee an untruth or as Binius calls it in a most spitefull manner a lye that Ibas denyed this Epistle to be his CAP. XXVII The third alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Councell of Chalcedon is said therein to condemne the Epistle of Ibas refuted 1. THE third corruption is by a mis-report and untrue relation which Baronius observeth in these Acts for that in them the Councel of Chalcedon is said to have condemned that Epistle of Ibas which he not onely saith a Quod ibidem subditur eandem Epistolam in Synodo Chalced. fuisse damnatam ipsa acta secus docent neutrum enim horum verum esse superius demonstravimus Bar. an 553. nu 211. is untrue Binius cals b Duo aut plura mendacia Bin. not in Conc. 5. pa. 60â— b. it also in plaine termes a lye but addeth both that the Acts of the Councell of Chalcedon doe teach the contrary and that out of those Acts hee hath before demonstrated the same Call you this a corruption of the Acts why it is the maine purpose of the Councell it is their very judgement and resolution touching the Three Chapters often and with acclamations repeated The Epistle c Anathematizavit Epist contrariam per omnia expositae definitioni à Concilio Chalc. Sancta Synodus dixit Scimus et nos haec ita subsequutâ— esse Coll. 6 pa. 564. a. is contrary to the definition Epistolam d Coll. eadem pa. 576. b. definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnat definitio ejecit in the proofe whereof they much insist Neither onely in the sixt collation doe they at large set downe this but in their eighth even in their Synodall definition e Quo facto demonstratum est contrariam per omnia Epistolam esse his quae definitione Chalc. continentur Coll. 8. pa. 584. a. they expresly mention that they have not onely said but even demonstrated before that this Epistle is in all things contrary to the definition of the Councell at Chalcedon yea they there adde which is more that the Councel of Chalcedon would in no sort otherwise f Jnvenimus quod non alâ—ter pâ—ssi sunt Ibam suscipere c. Ib. receive Ibas unlesse he himselfe did condemne the impietie contained in that Epistle Would any in the world save Baronius a man meerly infatuated in this cause and such as follow his idle fancies account that to bee a corruption or depravation of the Acts which is the maine scope purpose judgement and definition of the Synod which they so often in their severall Sessions repeate of which they expresly testifie in their very definitive sentence that they before had said proved demonstrated the same without which also if it were taken away as the Cardinall pretends it should not onely the Acts should be utterly perverted but the quite contrary to the judgement and determination of the Councell should bee affirmed Baronius might with as great truth and probability have said that the handling of the Three Chapters or judging of the Three Chapters had beene a depravation and corrupting of the Acts for this assertion that Ibas his Epistle was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon is as necessarie and essentiall to the Acts as the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters or any sentence that is any where set downe therein 2. But yet if it be no depravation in the Acts yet saith the Cardinall g Loc. citat and Binius it is untrue It is a lye that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned that Epistle Let falshood and impudency it selfe stand here amazed and agast at these men This definitive sentence of this Councell wherein it is proclamed and decreed that the Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon is approved by all succeeding generall Councells by Pelagius Gregory and all other their successors till Leo the tenth that is by the consenting judgment of the whole Catholike Church and of all Catholikes ever since that decree was made and now Baronius and Binius stand up to give them all the lie they all say untruths onely Baronius and Binius are men that drop Oracles out of whose mouths no lie nor untruth can at any time proceed 3. But saith the Cardinall h Loco cit The Acts of the Councell of Chalcedon doe declare this and out of them I have before demonstrated this Loe the Cardinall will not onely say it but prove it yea he hath even demonstrated out of the Councell of Chalcedon all the former Popes and Councels that is all the whole Catholike Church to lye I feare mee such demonstrations will not turne to the Cardinals credit Doe the Acts of the Councell teach or demonstrate that could none of the Popes none of the succeeding generall Councels spie it in those Acts till Baronius took theÌ„ all tardy in an untruth What wil you say to the Cardinal and to his demonstration if the Acts doe not teach this nay if they teach directly and demonstrate the quite contrary who then I pray you must have the whetstone the Catholike Church or the illustrious Cardinall And certainly the Acts of Chalcedon doe demonstrate what this fift Councell and after it the sixt seventh and eighth and the rest testifie that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon First it is cleare and certaine by those Acts that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Nestorius and all the impious doctrines and blasphemies of Nestorius approving the Ephesine i S. et magna Synodus 5. Cyrilli Synodales Epistolas amplexa est ad arguenduÌ„ Nestorianam dementiam c. Conc Chalc. Act. 5. pa. 96. et Can. 1. pa. 15. Councell and the Synodall Epistle of Cyrill wherein they k Omnes Episcopi clamaverunt Quicunque Nestoriano anathematizat anathema sit Omnes Nestorij Epistolam et dogmata anathematizamus Con. Ephes to 2. ca. 4. pa. 743. are condemned and anathematized
was not this a condemning of the Epistle of Ibas which defendeth Nestorius and his heresies which is full fraught with all his blasphemous doctrines Could the Councell of Chalcedon condemne and anathematize the doctrine of Nestorius and yet not condemne that Epistle which defends all those doctrines By the Acts it is cleare and certaine that the Councell of Chalcedon approve l Huic omnes cōsentimus omnes ita sapimus Act. 5. pa. 98. their owne decree of faith now this Epistle as not onely the fift Councell often m Epistolam definitio S. Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnavit Collat. 6. pa. 576 b. et alibi but after it Pope Gregory saith procul dubio definitioni Synodi probatur adversa without doubt is contrary to the definition of the Councell of Chalcedon n Lib. 7. Ind. 2. Epist 54. Is not the approving of their definition a rejecting and condemning of whatsoever writing is contrary to the same By the Acts it is cleare and certaine that the Councell even in their definition o Chal. Conc. Act 5. pa. 38. forbids and pronounceth it unlawfull for any to teach or produce or write or deliuer any other doctrine which whosoever doth if hee bee a Bishop or Clerke hee shall bee deposed if a Monke or Lay man anathematized Is not this a plaine forbidding of that Epistle to bee read or taught the doctrine whereof is directly contrary to their decree when by the Councels decree it may neither be taught written nor read otherwise then with a detestation is not this a condemning of it by the Councell by the Acts that is cleare in the fift Councell p Hoc judicium Photij et Eustathij omnes Episcopi Chal. Cōc sequuti perspexerunt ipsum Jbam anathematizare Nestorium et impia ejus dogmata Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 563. b. that the Councell of Chalcedon approved the judgement of Photius and Eustathius for as Photius and Eustathius so they all at q Ibam anathematizantem Nestorium et ejus impia dogmata permanere in Sacerdotio volo Euseb Epis Ancyrae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 115. sic Stephanus Romanus Eunomius et omnes Episcopi clamaverunt omnes eadē dicimus Ibid. pa. 116. a. Chalcedon required Ibas to anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines before they would receive him Now as the fift Councell r Coll. 6. p. 563. b truly saith to approve the judgement of Photius and Eustathius Nihil est aliud quam condemnare impiam Epistolam this is nothing else than to condemne the impious Epistle seeing in it Nestorius and his heresies are defended To be short for there are very many other evidences to declare this Pope Gregory ſ Loco citato testifieth that the fift Councell was in omnibus sequax did in all things follow the Councell of Chalcedon if in all then in condemning this impious Epistle and if they followed it therein then most certainly the Councell of Chalcedon condemned it before them So untrue it is which the Cardinall saith that the Acts doe shew and that out of them he hath demonstrated that the Councell of Chalcedon did not condemne this Epistle whereas he hath demonstrated nothing so cleare as himselfe to bee a malicious and shamelesse downfacer of most certaine and evident truths Thus much of his first sort of corruptions namely the three variations or depravations wherewith as you see hee hath slandered the Acts of this fift Councell to his immortall disgrace CAP. XXVIII The three first defects in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Acts against the Origenists the Edict of Iustinian and his Epistle touching that cause are wanting therein refuted 1. THE second kinde of the Cardinals Heteroclites are his defectives a Intelligas quā plurima in eádē 5. Synodo desiderari Bar. an 553 nu 243. And here he and Binius labour to prove the lamenesse and defects of these Acts by five instances The first of them concernes the proceeding against Origen and the Origenists which was done in the fift Synod but is now wanting in the Acts thereof Let us first heare what Binius b Decurtationē et mutilationem Actorum indicant illa fragmenta quae in sine hujus curavimus Bin. not in Conc. 5. § Constitutum saith hereof The curtaling and maime of these Acts doe those fragments declare which we have added to the end of the Synod quodque nulla vel levis tantum mentio reperiatur de condemnatis erroribus Origenis and because there is no mention no not any small or light mention found in them touching the errours of Origen condemned If one were disposed to quit Binius with his owne uncivill words Binius should here be proclamed both for a most impudent lyar and a shamelesse belyar of these Synodal acts of this holy Councell There is expresse mention of condemning Origen in the fift Collation Origen c Coll. 5. pa. 552. was anathematized after his death in the time of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria which also your sanctitie hee speakes to the Bishops of this Synod and Vigilius Pope of Rome have now done Again there is expresse mention of him and his errours in the eighth collation in the very Synodall and definitive sentence of the Councel wherein Origen and his impious writings are condemned for thus it is writen c Coll. 8. Anath 11. pa. 587. a. If any man doe not accurse Arius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinarius Nestorius Eutyches Origen cum impijs eorum conscriptis with their impious writings and all other heretikes condemned by the Catholike Church let that man bee accursed When the holy Councell not onely mentions the condemning of Origen but by their judiciall sentence themselves also condemne both him his errors and his impious writings what a face of Adamant had Binius against the truth against his owne text of the Councell against his conscience and knowledge to say there is no mention no not any levis mentio to be found in the Acts of the errors of Origen condemned or if Binius will not be perswaded of his untruth for us let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit who saith d An. 553. nu 248. In these Synodall Acts there is made onely brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen and his errours condemned if there bee brevis mentio of him and his errours then Binius must cry the Acts forgivenesse for saying there is no mention at all no not levis mentio of his errours 2. Let us see now if Baronius deale any better Constat saith e An. 553. nu 238. hee It is manifest by the testification of many that Origen Didimus and Evagrius together with their errours were condemned in this fift Synod and that there was written at least recited repeated against them those ten Anathematismes which Nicephorus setteth downe but in the Acts there is
onely a briefe mention that Origen and his errours were condemned Baronius adds one speciall point further out of Cedrenus that in this fift Councell first f An. eod nu 242. porro de Origine actum esse in Synodo ponitur inde vero de Theodoro c. they handled the cause against Origen and then against the Three Chapters So by the Cardinals profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod which it may be had many Sessions as the other Action about the three Chapters Besides this there wants also saith hee g CaeteruÌ„ et illas putamus esse his actis de Origine subjectas literas imperatoris ad Mennam Origenis errores continâ—ntes Bar. an eod 553. nu 242. the letters or Edict published by Iustinian Thirdly there wants h Fuisse eandem Epistolam quam Cedrenus recital ad Synodum datam actis ejus intextam nemo jure dubitarit ut ex his intelligas quam plurima desiderari Bar. an eod nu 243. the Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen which is set downe by Cedrenus out of whom both Baronius reciteth it and Binius adjoyns it at the end of the Acts among the fragments which are wanting in these Acts. These three defects touching the cause of Origen doth the Cardinall alleage 3. But in very deed none of these three nor ought else which Baronius mentioneth argue any defect at all in these Acts but they evidently demonstrate in the Card. a maine defect of judgement and an overflowing superabundance of malice against this holy Synod and these true Acts thereof That the cause of Origen was not as hee supposeth the first Action or the first cause handled by the Synod I might alleage the most cleare testimony of his i An. eod nu 238. owne witnesse Nicephorus who after the narration of the three Chapters and the Synodall sentence touching them delivered which he accounts for the first Session of the Synod addeth k Niceph. Col. â—st lib 17. Eccl. Histor ca. 27. In secunda autem Sessione but in the second SessioÌ„ the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred read and Iustinian rursum SynoduÌ„ de eis sententiaÌ„ ferre jussit commanded againe the Synod to give sentence in that cause So Nicephorus whereby it is evident that the Cardinal and his Cedrenus are foully deceived in saying that the cause of Origen was first handled by the Synod and after that the cause of the three Chapters but I oppose to these farre greater and even authentike records the Epistle of the Emperour l Extat Conc. 5. Coll. 1. to the Synod who at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Councell proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters and no other at all commanding them without delay to discusse and give their judgement in that I oppose the definition and Synodall decree m Collat. 8. wherein is set downe their whole proceeding and what they handled almost every day of their meeting from the beginning to the ending so that it alone is as a Thesean thred which wil not permit a man to erre in this cause unlesse he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth and wilfully depart out of that plaine path They n Pro Dei voluntate jussione pijssimi Imperatoris convenimus Jbid. came to the Synod to decide the controversie then moved about the Three Chapters at the command of the Emperour before they entred to the handling thereof they often intreated by their messengers Pope Vigilius to come together with them which was all that they did in the first o 1. Coll. 4. die Maij. second p 2. Coll. 8. die Maij. day of their meeting or Collation when Vigilius would not come then by the Apostles admonition they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed by setting downe a confession of their faith consonant to the foure former Councels and exposition of the Fathers and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters which was the summe of the third q 3. Coll. 9. die Maij. dayes Collation Cumque r Loc. cit Coll. 8. pa. 584. ita confessi simus initium fecimus examinationis trium Capitulorum and when wee had made this confession wee began the examination of the Three Chapters loe they did initium sumere they began with this Could they speak more plainly that the cause of Origen was not first handled as if prophetically they meant to refute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus and wee first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his owne writing there read before us This was all they did the fourth Å¿ Coll. 4. 12. die Maij. and a great part of the fift t Coll. 5. 14 die Maij. pridiè Idus Maij. Bar. an 553. nu 41. day of their CollatioÌ„ His de Theodoro discussis pauca de Theodoreto next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus wee caused a few things to bee repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret for the satisfying of the reader and this they did in the end of the fift day or Collation Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas In the third place we proposed and examined the Epistle of Ibas and this they did at large and it was all they did in the sixt u 6. Coll. 19. Maij. day of their Collation The whole cause being thus and as the Councell confesseth most diligently and sufficiently examined the Councell as it seemeth by their owne words in the end of the sixt Collation intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting but before ought was done therein the Emperour sent unto the Synod certaine letters of Vigilius testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters and some other writings the reading of theÌ„ is all was done in the seventh x 7. Coll. 26. die Maij. day of their Collation Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before and these letters were read onely for a further evidence but not for necessity of the cause and for that the Synod did nothing themselves but onely heard the letters and applauded the Emperours zeale and care for the truth therefore it is that this seventh Collation and what was done therein is omitted in the Synodall sentence and the Councell which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pronounced their sentence by this occasion deferred it to the next which was the eighth y 8. Coll. 2. die Iunij day of their Collation using these for the last words of their seventh dayes meeting De tribus capitulis altero die adjuvante Deo Synodicam sententiam proferemus God willing wee will pronounce our Synodall sentence touching this cause of the three Chapters the next day And so they did in that eighth which was their last day of Collation Thus
not onely by Nicephorus and the Emperours Epistle but by the evident testimony of the whole Synod in the synodall sentence it is undoubtedly certaine that the cause of Origen was not as he fancieth the first action or cause handled in the Synod and that he doth but play the Mome in carping at the Acts for want of the first Action 4. It may bee yet that the cause of Origen was the second action in the fift Synod as Nicephorus z Loco citato saith and after him Evagrius * Evag. lib. 4. ca. 37. and that is enough to prove the defects of these Acts. No it was not the second neither as it was not before so neither was it handled after the other of the Three Chapters witnesse the Synodall sentence it selfe wherein all the matters which every day they examined and discussed are set downe and repeated after repetition they testifie a Coll. 8. p. 586. a also Repetitis igitur omnibus quae apud nos acta sunt all things being repeated which were done or handled by way of discussion among us or in this Synod Seeing they repeated all that was debated among them and make no mention of this cause of Origen it is undoubtedly certaine that Origens cause was not debated either first or last in the Synod it was neither the first action as Cedrenus and Baronius nor the second as Evagrius and Nicephorus suppose besides the very determination of the Synod evidently declares the errours of Nicephorus and Evagrius The books say they b Niceph. et Evag. loc citat against the doctrine of Origen being offered to the Synod the Emperour demanded of the Councell Quid de his statueret What it would decree concerning those doctrines A matter utterly incoherent and improbable for in the synodall decree concerning the three Chapters which they suppose to be made before this cause of Origen was either heard or proposed the Councell had expresly delivered their judgement and condemned both Origen and his impious writings When they had already condemned both him and his errors what an incongruity is it to make the Emperour demand what they would decree of him and his errours Or may we thinke that the holy Synod would first condemne Origen and his impious writings as they did in the synodall sentence against the three Chapters and then afterwards examin the matter and make an enquiry whether Origen and his writings were to bee condemned or not which were to follow that disorder which the Switzers are reported to have used in judgement which was most justly called Iudicium vetitum to execute a man and then try and examine whether he ought to be executed or not Farre be it from any to imagine such injustice and rashnesse to have beene in this holy generall Councell Seeing then they condemned and accursed Origen and all his errours in that which Nicephorus and Evagrius account the former Session it is ridiculous to think that either the Emperour urged or that they themselves would in the second Session goe Switzer-like to examine the bookes and doctrines of Origen whether he they ought to be condemned Some doubt perhaps may arise out of those words in the Councell d Coll. 5. p. 552. a which the Cardinall slily e An. 553. nu 42 haec acta inquit desiderantur in Synodâ— c. alledgeth Origen was condemned in the time of Theophilus Quod etiam nunc in ipsa fecit vestra Sanctitas which your Holinesse hath now done and Pope Vigilius also But if the words be marked they make nothing against that which I have said for neither hath that Nunc a relation to this present Councell for it is certaine that in it Vigilius did not condemne Origen seeing he was not at all present in the Synod but to this age he was condemned in former ages as namely by Theophilus and now also that is in this your age and even by your selves and by Vigilius and if ought else were imported thereby yet is it onely said that Origen was now condemned which was indeed done by the Synod but that his cause was then examined and debated there neither is it true neither doe the words any way imply 5. Nay I adde further not onely that this Councell did not debate this cause of Origen but it had beene both superfluous and an open wrong to themselves and to the whole Church to have entred into the examination thereof For beside many other former judgements not many e Anno nempe 12. Iustiniani Vigilii 2. ut notat Bar. an 538. nu 29. et 31. yeares before in the time of Mennas both the Emperour in an Imperiall Edict f Extat Edict to 2. Conc. pa. 482. et seq had condemned Origen and his errors and by the Emperours command Mennas with a Synod of Bishops then present at Constantinople had confirmed that condemnation the other Bishops who were absent did the like the Emperour requiring every Patriarke to cause all the Bishops subject to his jurisdiction to subscribe to the same The doctrines and writings of Origen were no doubt at that time fully debated all the Bishops present in this fift Councell had then subscribed and consented to the condemnation of him and his errors so had Vigilius and all Catholike Bishops in the West Seeing the judgement of the Church in condemning Origen was universall would the Councell after themselves and all other Catholike Bishops that is after the judgement of the whole Catholike Church now debate and examine whether Origen and his doctrines ought to be condemned They might as well call into question whether Arius or Macedonius or Nestorius or Eutyches and their doctrine should bee condemned the judgement of the Catholike Church was alike passed on them all for this Councell g Coll. 8. pa. 587 condemned and accursed Origen and his errors as it did Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches but it condemned them all upon the knowne judgement of the Catholike Church not upon a new tryall or examination then taken of any one of them And this verily seemes to have deceived and led into error Evagrius Nicephorus and Cedrenus for of Baronius I cannot for many reasons imagine it to have beene errour or ignorance in him but wilfull and malicious oppugning the truth they knew or heard by report for even Evagrius h Evag. loc cit who lived in that age saith of that which hee writeth touching the fift Synod Of these things sic actum accepimus we have heard they were thus done I say they might heare that which indeed was true that Origen and his errours were condemned in a Councell at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian and they not being curious nor carefull to sift the diversities of Councels nor exact in computating times confounded the former particular Synod under Mennas wherein many of the doctrines of Origen were recited and he with them condemned in eleven Anathematismes i
Extant post edictum Justin pa. 488. with this fift generall Synod held some fourteene years after wherein Origen and his errours were also condemned but neither the Emperours Edict read nor the cause of Origen debated nor the particulars recited as they were in the former Further it is most likely that together with divers copies of the fift Councell were annexed the Acts of that former under Mennas that so men might see what were the particular heresies condemned in Origen wherein some according to the order of time might set them before these and others according to the order of dignity might set them after the acts of this fift Councell which might occasion some with Cedrenus to thinke them a former some with Nicephorus to thinke them a second action of this fift Councell whereas in truth they were the acts of a severall and provinciall Councell by themselves and neither the first nor last nor any acts at all of this generall Councell 6. By this now I suppose every one doth see the weaknesse of the Baronian frame touching the anathematismes and proceeding against Origen They are not extant among the acts of the fift Synod True nor were they ever nor ought they to bee inserted or set among the true Acts thereof these anathematismes neither were made nor repeated in the Councell The Edict of Iustinian for the condemning of Origen is not there neither True neither ought it to bee it was never sent to never published in this fift Councell but if in any in that provinciall Synod under Mennas unto which it was sent and the Cardinall to prove that Edict to have beene a part of these Acts brings no other nor better proofe than his owne putamus k an 553. n. 242. a proofe so exceeding weake that it is not worthy a refutation The Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod commanding them to condemne Origen which is one of the fragments that Binius l Post Conc. 5. pa. 604. et pa. 606. b. indicant illa fragmenta c. hath added is not among the Acts. True nor ought it to be for neither is it Iustinians but an extract and briefe collection of Cedrenus who out of the large Edict or Epistle as the Emperour calleth it collected this neither doth it any way belong to this but to the former Synod The condemnation of Didymus and Evagrius saith Binius m Ib. pa. 606. b. together with Origen was made in this fift Synod as the second Nicene Councell n Act. 1. pa. 306. a. witnesseth and that is not here among the Acts. That Didymus and Evagrius were nominatim condemned in the fift Synod the second Nicene Councell sayth it not no if one would straitly stand upon it they do not say so much as that o Communi et generali anathemate vi ejecti sunt Origenes et Theodorus Mopsvestenus et quaecunque ab Evagrìo et Didymo dicta sunt de praeexistentia Conc. Nic. 2. loco citat they were at all but that their doctrines touching preexistence were condemned But say they sayd it Didymus and Evagrius were two earnest Origenists p Didymus et Evagrius sectarii Origenis Bin. loc citat and defenders of Origens error Now the fift Councell not onely condemneth Origen and his errors sed eos qui similia praedictis haereticis sapuerunt vel sapiunt but all who teach or thinke the like that Origen did in which generality Didymus and Evagrius and all Origenists are condemned which generall condemnation is all that can be enforced one of the second Nicene Synod Thus all the three defects which Baronius and Binius labour to prove in these Acts about this cause of Origen declare a foule maime in their owne wits and judgements but none in the Acts and doe evidently shew that themselves under colour of correcting these acts doe indeed corrupt and falsifie the same 7. And yet which one can scarce with patience endure or reade without scorne of their folly they are not content to tell what is stoln or taken away touching this cause of Origen out of these acts but like skilfull figure-flingers they will name you the very thiefe and tell particularly who maimed the Acts in this part And who thinke you is it Even Theodorus q Quis dubitet id factuÌ„ ab Origenistis qui Synodo praefueruÌ„t quorum patronus fuit Theodorus malorum omniuÌ„ concinnator Bar. an 553. nu 244. intelligere potes quorum arte quae in Synodo acta sunt contra Origenem ejus errores ex ea fuerint decurtata ibid. Quis neget Theodorum Caesareensem abstulisse â—b actis hujus Concilij quae suae causae â—erat auteÌ„ Origenistarum patronus adversabantur Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. pa. 606. b. Bishop of Caesarea they have an implacable hatred to him he is an Origenist he the chiefe of the Origenists and for love of Origen hee corrupted the acts of this fift Synod and stole away the proceedings against Origen the Anathematismes the Edict and Epistle of Iustinian O how blinde and besotted is a malicious minde that is it which put this rare skill of divination into the heart of Baronius and Binius There is nothing stolne as these Acts doe demonstrate and yet they will tell you who took away the goods They doe with Theodorus as the malicious Arians dealt r Ruff. lib. 1. Eccl. hist ca. 17. alij with Athanasius proclamed him for a murderer and conjurer and little lesse than condemned him for killing Arsenius and cutting off his right hand which they brought into the open Court whereas Arsenius was both alive and a sound man with both his hands So this viperous Arian brood proclame Theodorus for cutting off one arme of these Acts which yet hath no maime nor defect at all in that part Theodorus was a Catholike Bishop a condemner and anathematizer of Origen and all his errors and yet they will enforce you to beleeve that he is an heretike an Origenist the chiefe patron of the Origenists Yet these men have not very well summed up their accounts For how did Theodorus take away that which was against the Origenists whereas hee suffered to stay in the Acts an anathema to Origen and to the impious writings of Origen and to all that thinke as did Origen yea to all that doe not anathematize Origen What sillinesse was it in the Cardinall to think that Theodorus or any Origenist would spoyle the Acts and take away some discourses and disputations against Origen and leave that which is the maine matter of all the sentence of condemnation against him and his errors yea against themselves supposing them to be such as the Cardinall slandereth them and that also subscribed by their owne hands as an eternall witnesse against them So maliciously blinded were the Cardinall and Binius in this cause that so they spake against the Councell and the Catholike Bishops thereof they regard not how untruly how
unadvisedly they slander them But neither is it a disgrace to Theodorus to suffer like slander as did Athanasius nor is it any honour to the Cardinall and Binius to slander and doe the like as their forefathers the old Arians have done before them And thus much of the three first defects in these Acts which all concerne the cause of Origen CAP. XXIX The fourth defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Emperors Epistle to the fift Councell is wanting therein refuted 1. THE fourth defect which they finde in these Acts is the want of that other Epistle of Iustinian directed to the Synod set downe by Cedrenus and out of him annexed by Binius a Epistola 2. Justin ad Conc. Oecumenicum 5. Bin. pa. 604. b to the end of the Synod as one of the fragments which were taken away from the Acts. Of it Baronius b An. 553. nu 243. thus writeth Cedrenus adjoyneth after this another Epistle of the Emperor sent to the Synod containing an history of the four generall Councells in the end whereof divers things are written against Theodorus of Mopsvestia the beginning of it is this Majores nostri fidei cultores c. That this same Epistle sent to the Synod was inserted among the Acts thereof nemo jure dubitârit none may justly doubt so that by this you may perceive Quamplurima in eadem quinta Synodo desiderari that very many things are wanting in the Acts of this fift Councell Thus Baronius No sure that cannot be hence perceived but another thing is most evident that the Cardinall is more malicious in carping at these Acts and correcting Magnificat than Momus himselfe May no man doubt but that this Epistle of Iustinian as it is set downe by Cedrenus was inserted in the Acts of this fift Councell what proofe hath the Cardinall for this his confident saying Truly none at all nor could hee finde any sound proofe if he had studied for one thirty yeares for none but a carping Momus can and none at all ought to doubt of the contrary that this Epistle which is in Cedrenus neither was Iustinians Epistle neither was sent unto the Synod Iustinian indeed sent a very large and learned Epistle to the Bishops of the Synod at their first assembling containing altogether the like effect to wit a history or narration of the foure former Councells and a declaration of the impieties both of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and of the writing of Theodoret and of the impious Epistle of Ibas by which he commanded and authorized the Synod to examine and decide that controversie touching the three Chapters and that being the true and authenticall Epistle of Iustinian is extant in the Acts c Collat. 1. pa. 518. sequ and is the warrant for all that the Synod did That which out of Cedrenus the Cardinall and Binius mention is nothing else as any man may easily see but an epitome or extract which Cedrenus himselfe or some other undiscreet abridger collected out of the true Epistle of Iustinian It is not the use of Emperours to send with their letters abridgements and briefes of the same especially such of which sort this is as come farre short of the maine scope of the same Besides if there were nothing else yet the untruths which the abbreviator sets down and that quite contrary to the mind of Iustinian may testifie it was neither writ nor sent by him to the Synod In that Baronian Epistle Eutyches is sayd d Eutyches Nestorii opiniones probat in Frag. ex Cedr apud Bin. pa. 605. b. to approve the opinions of Nestorius whereas the heresie of Eutyches was quite contrary to that of Nestorius as Iustinian i Nestorio alium dicente Deum verbum et alium Christum c. Iust epist Coll. 1. pa. 519. truly observeth in his Epistle for Nestorius taught two k Jn eâ— te laudo quod distinctionem naturarum secundum divinâ—tatis et humanitatis rationem praedicas Haec enim vera et orthodoxâ— sunt c. Sic Nestorius scribit Cyrillo in ea Epist Nest quae habetur tom 1. Ephes Con. ca. 14 natures to be in Christ and to make two persons Eutyches taught as but one person so but one l Eutyches negat consubstantialem nobis esse carnem Domini Iust in Epist ad Synod sup citat et anathem qui dixit duas naturas post adunationem dicunt Eutychiani in conciliab Eph. apud Conc. Chal. Act. 1. nature Yea the Eutycheans utterly condemned the Nestorians and with them all Catholikes as Nestorians because m Exclamaverunt de vicina Nestoriana haeresi infamantes nos In duo seperate interficite eos qui dicunt duas naturas de Eutychianis loquitur Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 8. a. they taught 2. natures after the adunation to remain in Christ n Eum qui dicit duas naturas in duo incidite Qui dicit duas naturas Nestorianus est ibid. pa. 12. a. Qui dicit duas naturas Nestorianus est In that Baronian Epistle Eutyches is affirmed to follow Nestorius in that o Eutyches Nestorii opiniones prâ—bans dicensque carnem Christi non ejusdem cum nostra esse naturae Epist ex Cedr pa. 605. b. he said that the flesh of Christ and ours are not of one nature but Nestorius taught no such thing but the clean contrary p Vt liquet ex verbis Nestorii ante citatis the flesh which Christ took of the blessed Virgin to be truly humane and therefore the sonne of Mary to be truly but yet onely a man as Iustinian also in his Epistle teacheth In that Baronian Epistle Nestorius is sayd q Opera Theodori Mopsvesteni qui magistrum suum Nestorium impie de rebus sacris loquendo superabat Epist ex Cedr loc cit to have beene the master or teacher of Theodorus but the quite contrary is truth as both the whole fift r Et docerent non solum discipulum impietatâ—s Nestorium sed etiam doctorem ejus Theodorum Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. Councell often and even in their definitive sentence and Iustinian Å¿ Per Theodorum Mopsvestenum doctorem Nestorij Epist Iust Coll. 1. p. 519. in his Epistle doe expresly witnesse Are not Baronius and Binius rare men to cure the lamenesse of Councels who when the Acts are sound and perfect would patch unto them such false and unworthy writings containing so manifest untruths repugnant to the authenticke records of the Acts But woe come to all Councels Fathers and ancient writings when they must be amended and cured by such Surgeons as Baronius and Binius Give me the most lame and impotent Councels that can be had I had rather have them all to bee creeples than to come under their deadly unfortunate and Harpyan hands which defile every history or writing that they touch CAP. XXX The fift defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the
about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius p Domnus caepit an 446. quare ejus an 10. erit 55â— quo anno obijsse Vigilium ait Bar. an 555. nu 1. 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 editioÌ„s of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius r In append ad Cod. Iustin the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Å¿ Bar. an 451. nu 129. Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again t An 530. nu 4. Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptioÌ„ without al doubt Iohn being dead ten u Iohannes 2. obijt an 9. Iustiniani Bar. an 535. nu 26. at Edictum editum an 20. Iustiniani Bar. an 546. nu 8. yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius x Iohannis Papae tempore editum mendaci inscriptione notatur Bar. an 546. nu 10. liquido constat non ante praesens tempus an vid. 20. Iustin potuisse esse conscriptum libellum illum Bar. ibid. constat Edictum Vigilij tempore conscriptum an 534. nu 21. 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 notwithstanding 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 y Imperator promulgavit Edictum Bar. an 546. nu 8. Hactenus Iustiniani Edictum Ibid. nu 37. et saepissime similia contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say z Scias perperam additum ipsum missum ad Iohannem Bar. an 534. nu 21. et an 546. nu 10. 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 a At quam fidem rogo merentur Acta hujusmodi qua sunt hiâ— contexta commentis Bar. an 553. nu 46. of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is found 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 b Act. 1. pa. 8. a. the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene held when Zeno and Posthumianus were Consuls in the third Indiction An undoubted errour For that Ephesine Conventicle was held when c Marcell in Chron. hinc certo liquet quâ—a Conciliabulum Ephesinum sequutum est illud Constantinopoli habitum in quo condemnatus est Eutyches à Flaviano at hoc Constantinopoli habitum est Protogene et Asterio Coss ut patet in Concil Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 30. Protogenes and Asterius were Consuls not when Zeno and Posthumianus neither were Zeno and Posthumianus Consuls in the third but in the first d Vt liquet ex Marcell in Chron. Indiction neither was the Councell held either in the first or in the third but in the e Vt liquet ex eodem Marc. second Indiction and therefore both Baronius f Ba. an 448. n. 58 and Binius g Haec verba teÌ„pore Zenonis et Posthumiani Jnd ctione 3. mendosa sunt surreptitia Bin. Not. in Conciliab Eph. to 1. Conc. pa. 1017. b say these words tempore Zenonis Post humiani venerabilium Consulum indictione tertia are false and by surreption crept into the Acts. Againe the sixteenth Action or Session is sayd to have beene on the twenty eight h Quinto Kalendaâ— Novembris Act. 16. Conc. Chalc. of October A manifest errour seeing their thirteenth Action i 3. Kalend. Novemb Conc. Chal. Act. 13. or Session was on the nine and twentieth and their fourteenth k Pridie Kalend Nov. Conc. Chal. Act. 14. Session on the thirtieth of October Yea there are in those Acts farre greater faults than these For in the third Action l Pa. 84. b. is set downe the Imperiall Edict of Valentinian and Martian for condemning of Eutyches and yet that Edict was not published untill the 26. of Ianuary when m Datum 7. Kalend Febr. Sporario Coss in fine Edicti Sporarius was Consull whereas the Councell of Chalcedon and all the Acts therof was ended on the first day of November n Nam ultima Sessio habita est Kalendis
is shewed to have dyed an 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs bee a forgery whereby Iohn is shewed to live an 440. Againe if that to Dioscous be truly his as Baronius e Hactenus Theodoreti ad Diosc Epistola Bar. an 440. nu 29. assures you wherin Iohn is said to live an 440. then certainely the other to Domnus must of necessity bee a forgery wherein Iohn is said to be dead an 436. And as either of these two Epistles demonstrates the untruth and forgery of the other so they both demonstrate the great vanity of Baronius who applauds them both who wil make good what they both do affirm that is the same man to bee both dead and alive a Bishop and no Bishop at the selfe same time and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinall refute his owne witnesse Nicephorus who by giving eighteene yeares to Iohn shewes plainly that Iohn and Cyrill dyed within one yeare which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of Iohn whom upon Nicephorus account hee thought to live after Cyrill whereas in very deed hee dyed somewhile before Cyrill 27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonicall Epist of Cyrils to Domnus which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Balsamon whence it is out of all doubt saith the Cardinall f Bar. an 553. nu 44. that Iohn dyed before Cyrill seeing Cyrill writ unto his successor Domnus But howsoever the Cardinall vanteth that this reason will leave no doubt yet if you observe it there are two great doubts therein The former is whether that Epistle be truly Cyrils And besides other reasons that one point which the Cardinall himselfe mentioneth may justly cause any to thinke it none of his for as the Cardinall g Nullus alius nomine Domnus inscriptus legitur qui tanta polleret authoritate ut ad libitum quod dictū est deponere atque restituere Episcopos posset Bar. an 553. nu 44. saith the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus that he might ad libitum at his pleasure put out Bishops and at his pleasure restore them Now there is none that knowes the learning moderation and wisedome of Cyrill that can thinke Cyrill ever to have written in such manner either to any Metropolitane or to any Patriarke specially seeing Cyrill was not ignorant of that Canon of the Councell at Antioch h Conc. Antioch sub Iulio 1. can 9. let not a Metropolitane doe any thing in such causes without the advise and consent of the other Bishops in the Province 28. The other doubt is whether that Domnus to whom this Epistle is written bee the same Domnus that was Bishop of Antioch and successor to Iohn The Cardinall is much troubled in removing this doubt and hee windes himselfe divers wayes Sure it is saith Baronius i Vnde apparet non inferioris sedis aliquem esse potuisse ejus nominis Episcopum an 553. nu 44. that hee who had such authoritie must needs bee some eminent Bishop and not one of an inferior See True but hee might bee a Metropolitane and so have inferiour Bishops under him and yet bee no Patriarke Againe saith hee k Certè quidem in scrie Episcoporum Orientalium qui Concilio Ephesmo et Chalcedoneusi interfuerunt nullus alius ejus nominis Dominus inscriptus reperitur c. Jbid. There is no Domnus else but this Domnus Bishop of Antioch mentioned either in the Councell of Ephesus or Chalcedon who had such authority as to depose and restore Bishops ad libitum As if Domnus of Antioch might doe it ad libitum But in such lawfull manner as Domnus of Antioch might doe it there were others called by the name of Domnus and those mentioned in those very Councels who might upon just cause and by due and Canonical proceeding depose and restore their inferiour Bishops looke but into those Councels and you will admire both the supine negligence of the Cardinall in this point and his most audacious down-facing of the truth for to omit others both in the Conventicle of Ephesus and the Councell of Chalcedon there is often mention of Domnus Bishop of Apamea a Metropolitane Bishop as the words of Miletius l Act. 3. Conc. Chal pa. 75. b. doe witnesse I Miletius Bishop of Larissa speaking for Domnus the Metropolitane Bishop of Apamea and for this Domnus hee subscribed m Act. eādem pa. 81. et Act. 6. pa. 101. a. And that you may see how fraudulently the Cardinall dealt in this very point he neither would set downe that Epistle nor acquaint you with that which in Balsamon n Sic enim in margine illius Epistolae notatur videtur tempore Cyrilli emissa esse Romam hujus Alexandrini Sacerdotis Appellatio is expresly noted that Peter the Bish whom that Domnus unto whom Cyrill writeth had deposed was Alexandrinus Sacerdos a Bishop of the patriarchall diocesse of Alexandria what had Domnus of Antioch to doe with the Alexandrian Bishops So cleare it is by Balsamon that this Domnus unto whom Cyrill writ was not Domnus of Antioch as the Card. I feare against his knowledge avoucheth 29. Thus you see all and every reason which the Cardinall bringeth Iohn to bee dead seven yeares before Cyrill not only to be weake and unable to enforce that Conclusion but withall to bee full fraught with frauds and untruths So that if I had not found more sound and certaine reasons to perswade this I could never by the Cardinals proofes have beene induced to thinke that an errour in the Inscription of Theodorets Epistle But seeing upon the undoubted testimonies in the Councell of Chalcedon it is certaine that Iohn dyed before Cyrill I willingly acknowledge a slip of some writer in that Inscription but yet the Epistle it selfe must bee acknowledged truly to bee Theodorets which is all that the Synod avoucheth and which is that which the Cardinall undertooke to disprove but by no one reason doth offer to prove the same And even for that errour also in the Inscription I doubt not but those who can have the sight of the Greek and Originall yea perhaps of some ancient Latine copies of the Acts of this fift Councell shall finde either no name at all or which I rather suppose the name of Domnus expressed therin in stead of which whereas some ignorant audacious exscriber hath thrust in the name of Iohn it is not nor ought it to bee any impeachment at all to the Synodall Acts unlesse the Cardinall will acknowledge his owne Annals to bee of no credit because in them Pascalis is written by some such errour for Pelagius Iohn for Vigilius Iustinus for Iustinianus Theodorus for Theodosius Sexta for Quinta Foelicianus for Celestianus and a number the like in other causes most of these slips pertaining to this very cause of the Three Chapters of which wee doe entreate CAP.
XXXV That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings and fabulous narrations in handling this cause of the fift Councell as particularly the excommunication ascribed to Mennas Theodorus and others and the narration of Anastasius 1. YOV have seene all the exceptions which their great Momus could devise against these Acts to prove them corrupted either by alteration or mutilation or which is the worst of all by additions of forged writings But alas who can endure to heare Baronius declame against corrupted false forged or counterfeit writings Quis tulerit Gracchos better might Gracchus invey against sedition or Verres against bribery than Baronius against the using of false and fained writings Aethiopem albus derideat hee should first have washt away those foule blemishes out of his owne Annals more blacke herewith than any Aethiopian and then have censured such spots in others Were his Annals well purged of such writings their vast Tomes would become a pretty Manuall They who have occasion to examine other passages in Baronius will finde the truth hereof in them for this one concerning the fift Councell Pope Vigilius and the cause of the Three Chapters from which I am loath to digresse I doubt not but whosoever will compare the Cardinals Annals with this Treatise wil easily perceive that all which hee hath said in defence of the Pope relyeth on no other nor better grounds but either forged writings or if truely written by the authors yet on some fabulous narration and untruths which from them the Cardinall hath culd out as onely sit for his purpose Suffer me to give a tast hereof in some of them 2. The first in this kinde is a supplication to Vigilius or a briefe confession made unto him by Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and divers other Easterne Bishops inserted in the beginning of the Constitution of Vigilius and much applauded by the Cardinall a Bar. an 572. nu 19. in this cause and this to bee a meere fiction is by many evident proofes before mentioned easily discerned The occasion of it as the Cardinall tels us b Ibid. et nu 20. was to humble themselves to Pope Vigilius and acknowledge the injuries they had done in writing and declaming against c Vigilio non acquu vit sed eâ—â— plane despexiâ— eique insultavit c. Ba. an 551 nu 3. him and his Synodall Constitution for Taciturnity concerning the Three Chapters Now seeing that whole matter is fictitious for neither was there any such Synod ever held nor any such decree ever made the confession which is grounded on them must be like them fabulous and forged 3. The contents bewray the dulnesse of the forgerer the Easterne Bishops professe there to imbrace the foure former Councels and all the Acts thereof in all causes judgements and Constitutions made with consent d Vniversa ab eisâ—em Synodiâ— Communi coâ—sensu cum Vicarijs sedis Apostolicae judicia conservamus c. in Exemplo confess quod extat in initio Constituti Vigilij of the Popes Legates Why the Easterne Bishops knew right well that some Canons were concluded both in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon not only without but quite contrary to the minde of the Pope and his Legates as namely that about the dignity of Constantinople which they notwithstanding the resistance of the Legates both approved and knew it to have beene ever held in force by the judgement of the Catholike Church but specially by the Bishops of Constantinople whose Patriarchall dignity which they ever after the second Councell enjoyed was both decreed and confirmed by those Canons Never did the Easterne Bishops in those dayes nor long after esteeme the Popes owne much lesse his Legates consent so necessary to any Synodall Decree but that without them the same might bee made and stand in force as the judgement of the generall Councell and whole Church And to goe no further what an unlikely and uncredible thing is it that Theodorus and the rest in one yeare should make this confession to accept no more of those Synodall decrees then the Pope or his Legates were pleased to allow and the very next yeare after contrary to that their confession themselves hold a Synod and make a Synodall decree in this cause of the Three Chapters not onely without the Popes consent or presence either of himself or his Legate but even contrary to his definitive sentence made known unto them the deviser of that confession shewes himselfe plainely to have beene some of the Vaticane favourites who living perhaps in the time of Gregory by this intended to infringe the dignity of the See of Constantinople and those Canons which were concluded both in the 2. and 4. Councell whereas the Easterne Bishops notwithstanding the contradiction and resistance of the Pope held them ever in as great authority and reverence as any Canons in all the foure former Councels 4. Againe what a silly devise was it to make Mennas Theodorus and a great number of Bishops to aske pardon of the Pope for that wherein they professe themselves no way to bee guilty I have e De injurijs beâ—titudini vestrae factis ego quideÌ„ nullam feci c. Ibid. done no injuries to your Holinesse yet for the peace of the Church veluti si eas fecissem veniam postulo I pray you forgive mee that which I never did as if I had done it Can any man thinke this the submission of wise men of such stout and constant mindes as Mennas and Theodorus besides the rest had or what could bee devised more repugnant to that which Vigilius is made to say in his excommunication f Extat inter Epist Vigilij post Epistolam 16. of Theodorus Thou scandalizing the whole Church and being warned entreated threatned by me hast refused to amend nunquam à pravâ intentione cessasti and never hast thou ceased from thy wicked designe nor to write and preach novelties so he cals the condemning of the Three Chapters yea after the Constitution for silence to which thou hadst sworne thou hast openly red in the Pallace a booke against the Three Chapters thou hast beene the fire-brand and the beginner of the whole scandall thou hast despised the authority of the Apostolike See Thus saith the Excommunication Was Vigilius well advised thinke you to accept as a satisfaction and submission for so many and so hainous crimes of insolency contempt perjury sacriledge and the like this confession at the hands of Theodorus wherein he doth in effect give the Pope the lie saying and avouching I have written no bookes at all contrarie to that Decree of Silence made by your Holinesse and for the injuries which have beene done to your holinesse and to your See eas quidem non feci truely I have done none at all Is not this a worthy submission the Pope saith he hath done innumerable and very hainous injuries to him such as deserved the censure of
from God hee signifieth them both unto Ioseph Ioseph neither invocating him nor relying on him but on God whose messenger he was even so admitting the truth of this apparition the Vigin Mary did signifie from God the time when Narses should fight but neither did Narses invocate or adore her nor did shee her selfe more helpe in the battle than the Angell in the birth of Christ nor did the confidence of Narses relie on her but on God whose messenger he then beleeved her to be Let the Cardinall or Binius or any of them prove forcibly which they can never doe out of Evagrius any other invocation or adoration used by Narses to the blessed Virgin and I will consent unto them in that whole point Thirdly all that Evagrius saith of that apparition of the blessed Virgin is but a rumour and report of some who were with Narses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some say Evagrius himselfe doth not say it was so or that Narses either said or beleeved it to be so but reported it was by some of the souldiers of Narses whether true or false that must relie on the credit of the reporters Now for the Cardinall to avouch a doctrine of faith out of a rumour or report of how credible men themselves knew not from such an uncertainty to collect that Generals ought to relie on the aide of the blessed Virgin in their battels and that shee interpellata precibus being invocated by their prayers riseth up and becomes a warrier on their side this by none that are indifferent can be judged lesse than exceeding temerity and by those that are religious will bee condemned as plaine superstition and impiety But let us returne now to Anastasius whose narration as it is untrue in it selfe if the comming of Narses into Italy and victory over the Gothes bee referred to that time when Totilas had before wonne Rome so it is much more untrue if it bee referred as by Binius glosse it is either to the yeare wherein the Emperour recalled his Edict which was never or to the tenth yeare of Totilas which was wholly ended before the comming of Narses into Italie and before the fift Councell and the Baronian banishment of Vigilius 25. After the victory of Narses it followeth in Anastasius tunc adunatus Clerus then the Romane Clergy joyned together besought Narses that hee would intreat the Emperour that if as yet Pope Vigilius with the Presbiters and Deacons that were carried into banishment with him were alive they might returne home In that they speake of this exile as long before begun even so long that they doubted whether Vigilius were then alive or no it seemeth evidently that Anastasius still hath an eye to that banishment for the cause of Anthimus after he had beene two yeares in Constantinople that falling five g Nam Vigilius venit Constantinopolim anno 12 belli Gothici Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. Narses autem Totilam vicit et Romam recapit an 18. ejusdem belli Proc. lib 3. pa. 408. et seq whole yeares before the victory of Narses they had reason to adde si adhuc if Vigilius doe live as yet that is after so long time of banishment remaine alive Now seeing it is certaine that Vigilius was not at that time to wit not within two yeares after his comming to Constantinople banished as by the fift generall Councell is h Nam ex eo liquet Vigilium à primo ejus adventu Constantinopolim illic mansisse ad finē Concilij dicitur enim illic à Iustiniano quod Vigilius semper ejusdem voluntatis fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a Semper viz. à primo ejus advētu et consensu ad tempus 5. Concilij evident it hence followeth that as this Anastasian exile so all the consequents depending thereon are nothing else but a meere fiction of Anastasius without all truth or probability for seeing Vigilius was not then banished neither did the Romanes intreate Narses nor Narses the Emperour for his delivery nor the Emperour upon that send to recall him or them from exile nor use any such words about Pelagius nor thanke them if they would accept Vigilius nor did they promise after the death of Vigilius to chuse Pelagius nor did the Emperour dismisse them all for of Pelagius that hee three yeares after the end of the Councell remained in banishment is certainly testified by Victor i Nam Victor ait Pelagium redijsse ab exilio anno 18. post Coss Basilij Vict. Tun. in Chron. et Concilium habitum ait ille an 13. post ejusdem Consulatum nor did they returne from exile into Sicilie all this is a meere fiction So in this Catastrophe beginning at the time when Anastasius saith Totilas was King of the Gothes there are contained at least sorty capitall untruths to let passe the rest as being of lesser note and moment Let any now cast up the whole summe I doubt not but hee shall finde not onely as I have said so many untruths as there are lines but if one would strictly examine the matter as there are words in the Anastasian description of the life of Vigilius I am verily perswaded that few Popes lives scape better at his hands than this But I have stayed long enough in declaring the falshood of Anastasius on whom Baronius so much relyeth and who is a very fit author for such an Annalist as Baronius CAP. XXXVI That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Constantinople and a refutation thereof with a description of the life of the same Vigilius 1. AFter all which the Cardinall could devise to disgrace either the Emperor or the Empresse or Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea or the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters or the Synodall Acts in the last place let us consider what he saith against Pope Vigilius for this cause so netled him that whatsoever or whosoever came in his way though it were his Holinesse himselfe hee would not spare them if he thought thereby to gaine never so little for the support of their infallible Chaire And what think you is it that he carps at and for which hee so unmannerly quarrels Pope Vigilius was it for oppugning the truth published by the Emp. Edict or was it for making his hereticall Constitution and defining it ex Cathedrâ in defence of the Three Chapters or was it for his pevishnesse in refusing to come to the generall Councell even then when he was present in the City where it was held and had promised under his owne hand that hee would come unto it or was it his pertinacious obstinacy in heresie that he would rather undergoe both the just sentence of an anathema denounced by the generall Councell and also the calamity and wearinesse of exile inflicted by the Emperor as Baronius saith upon him then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Are these which are all
Braggadochio p. 205. sect 10. To Assent to the Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions in a cause of faith makes one an heretike pa. 172. sect 6. Author of the Edict was Iustinian himselfe p. 366. sect 6 7. B. BAronius nice in approving the Epistle of Ibas and why p. 128. sect 22. Baronius wittingly obstinate in maintaining the heresie of Nestorius by approving the later part of that epistle p. 129 sect 24 25. and p. 31. sect 28. Baronius sports himselfe with contradictions p. 131. sect 27. Baronius revileth the cause of the Three Chapt. p. 361. sect 1. Baronius Annals not altogether intire pag. 435. sect 19. Baronius by his own reasons proves his Annals to be untrue p. 436. sect 19. in fine sect 20. c. Baronius holds it dangerous for Vigilius to leave Rome to come to Constantinople p. 462 sect 1 2. Bellisarius most renowned save in the matter of Silverius p 470. sect 11. Bellarmine and Baronius at variance about the Epistle of Vigilius to Anthimus Severus and others p. 477. sect 19 20. Baronius first reason to disprove it is taken from the inscription p 477. in fine p. 478. sect 21 22 23. c. his second reason from the subscription pa. 482. sect 26. his last reason is because hee was not upbraided for it by the Emperour and others p. 483. sect 27. Bellarmines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know when a Councell decreeth any doctrine tanquam de fide pa. 40. sect 9. c. Baronius vilifieth the fift generall Councell p. 266. sect 2. The Banishment of Vigilius after the fift Councell a fiction p. 250. sect 16. and p. 253. sect 19. When and for what Vigilius was banished p. 252. sect 18. Baronius his three reasons for Vigilius his consenting to the Synod after his exile p. 245. sect 8. First from the testimony of Evagrius sect ibid. the second from the fact of Iustinian in restoring Vigilius p. 247. sect 11. the third of Vigilius consenting to the Synod taken from the words of Liberatus He was afflicted not crowned p. 160. sect 30. C. COnstitution of Vigilius sent unto the Synod pag. 8. sect 4. in fine the summe of the Constitution was the defence of the Three Chapters p. 10. sect 8. c. The Councell refuteth the Popes decree and ground of it p. 14. sect 1 2. c. The Councell condemneth and accurseth the Popes decree p. 17. sect 6. and p. 22. sect 15 16 The Councels decree consonant to Scripture p. 26. sect 24. The fift Councell approved by succeeding Councels and Popes p. 27. sect 26. and how long p. 29. sect 29. c. Councells above the Pope p. 29. sect 30 31. The Cause of the Three Chapters a cause of faith p. 37. sect 3 4. c. professed by Baronius p. 42. sect 14. a tryall of mens faith p. 362. sect 4. The Councell proposeth their decree about them tanquam de fide p. 41. sect 13. The Churches in the East divided from the West about the three Chapters p. 39. sect 7. The fift Councell explaineth a former definition of faith made no decree to condemne any new heresie p. 46. sect 20 21. Fift Councell of authority without the Popes approbation p. 268. sect 5 6 c. it was neither hereticall nor schismaticall p. 269. sect 7. it was assembled with the Popes consent p. 272. sect 12 13. Corruptions crept into some synodall acts are not just causes of rejecting others of that Councell p. 378. sect 3. The Councell of Chalcedon held Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate p. 382. sect 8. 3. the Councell of Chalcedon not corrupted pa. 384. sect 6 7. The Constitution of Vigilius no part of the synodall acts p. 399. sect 1 2 3. not published in the Synod p 401. sect 4. Chrysostomes bones not translated from Commana to Constantinople p. 426. sect 3. Councell against Councell at Ephesus p. 113. sect 2. The Church may binde or loose a man after death p. 53. sect 15 16. The Church cannot loose those who dye impenitent p. 55. sect 20 21. Coronati non coronati as two sorts so two rewards of professors p. 263. sect 43. A Councell is approved though the Pope approve it not p. 275. sect 17 18. Generall Councels have sought the Popes approbation p. 287. sect 34. Cyrill cleares himselfe of Nestorianisme p. 123. sect 16. D. VVHether a dead man may novitèr bee condemned is a question of faith p. 48. sect 3. That a dead man may be condemned is the judgement of Fathers p. 49. sect 6. the judgement of provinciall Synods p. 50. sect 7. the judgement of generall Councels p. ibid. sect 7. the judgement of Baronius p. 51. sect 10. Defenders of the Popes infallibility accursed by the Councell p. 24 sect 20 21 22. Dioscorus being hereticall judged Ibas his profession hereticall therefore the profession of Ibas must be orthodoxall Vigilius his reason p. 151. sect 29. Defenders of the three Chapters heretikes p. 171. sect 4. Divination or Mathematicall predictions nor allowable p. 343. sect 28. Domnus his action not inserted at Chalcedon p. 44. sect 9. To dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes not one an heretike p. 171. sect 5. Many Doctrines of their Romish Church may be held except that of the Popes infallibility and yet the party that holds them no papist p. 182. sect 21. in fine E. EPistle of Ibas wholly hereticall p. 19. sect 8 9. and p. 24. sect 19. Eunomius approved not any part of this Epistle p. 20. sect 11. Eunomius approved the confession of Ibas p. 21. sect 14. The Epistle of Ibas not approved at Chalcedon p. 107. sect 2 3 4 c. The Epistle was truly the writing of Ibas p. 109. sect 5 6. At Ephesus a great rent and division between Iohn and Cyrill ibid. At Ephesus Cyrill was deposed by the Conventicle ibid. sect 3. The Emperour ignorant for a time of the division betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 15. sect 4. The Emperour had knowledge of the division by a letter brought into the Court by a beggar ibid. Eustathius full of forgeries p. 340. sect 24 25 c. Eutychius not banished for not consenting to the heresie of the Phantastickes p. 341. sect 25. Eutychius given to divination hereticall and what it was p. 343. sect 28 29. for these supposed to be banished ibid. Evagrius full of fables p. 345. sect 30. c. The Emperours Edict reviled by Baronius p. 363. sect 1. it was not repugnant to the orthodoxall faith it was no seminary of sedition ibid. sect 3 4. The Epistle of Ibas condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon p. 381. sect 1. the Epistle in Cedrenus not Iustinians p. 398. sect 1. Epistles writ to Dioscorus and Leo were forged and not Theodorets p. 417. sect 7 8. and p. 444. sect 8. Epistles by their erroneous inscription are not proved to be forged p. 429. sect 9 10. c. Epiphanius his writing against images read
and Cyrill p. 123. sec 15. and p. 134. se 34. The Nestorians confessed two natures and one person in Christ and how p. 144. how Catholikes confesse it ibid. sec 11 12 13. Nestorius affirmeth the two natures to be two persons pa. 145. sect 16. so Theodorus the Master of Nestorius sect 17. to affirme this is plaine Nestorianisme proved by Iustinian pa. 146. sect 18. by Pope Iohn the second The Nestorians in words orthodoxall in sense and meaning hereticall pa. 147. sect 20. and p. 448. sect 22 23. witnessed by Iustinian p. 449. sect 24. by the fift Councell sect 25. by the epistle it selfe sect 26 27. The Nestorians by Nature understand Person p. 162. sect 46 47. The Nestorians slander Cyrill to teach two persons p. 163. sect 47. Narses for his piety and prudence beloved of Iustinian p. 248. sect 12. Narses intreated not for Vigilius pa. 249. sect 14. Narses overcame not Totilas if Binius his glosse be true p. 458. sect 23. Narses overcame not the Gothes by the intercession of Mary p. 459. sect 24. O. THe occasion of the fift Councell was those tria capitula p. 2. sect 3. Origen commended for his gifts and learning p. 103. sect 28. Origen condemned by the Acts of the fift Synod p. 392. sect 1 2. Origens cause not the cause of the first action in the fift Synod p. 393. sect 3. nor the cause of the second action in the Synod sect 4. The order of lawfull generall Councels pa. 304. sect 19. P. PApists are truly such as ground upon the Popes infallibility p. 187. sect 26. Pope Vigilius excommunicated in an African Synod p. 236. sect 16. The Pope refuseth to come to the Synod p. 4. sect 2 3 4. and the true reason why pag. 6. sect 5. The Popes presence not needfull in a generall Councell p. 273. sect 14 15. The Pope present in the fift Councell by his letters of instruction p. 274. sect 16. The Popes consent makes not a Councell to be approved p. 275. sect 27. vid. lit C. In the Pope intensivè there is as much authority as in the Pope with a generall Councell Bellarmines assertion p. 174. sect 10. The Pope vertually both Church and Councell p. 178. sect 15. p. 180. sect 17. The name Papist not heard of till Leo the 10. p. 188. sect 25. to be a Pope an happy thing for all is held for truth that they define pag. 223. sect 16. Papist had need of a strong faith relying on the Popes judgement p. 224. sect 18. Paulus Bishop of Emisa subscribed to the anathematizing of Nestorius to perswade an union betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 133. sect 31 his Sermon at Alexandria containing an orthodoxall profession of the faith p. 134. sec 33. Pelagius Pope after Vigilius consecrated by two Bishops onely an a Presbyter of Ostia pa. 242. sect 4. A Pope may erre personally they say but doctrinally he cannot p. 244. sect 7. The Pope no competent Iudge of Protestants being an enemy unto them pag. 315. sect 33. Pope Clements epistle to Iames a forgery pa. 422. sect 2. Paul censured by some for an hot-headed person 434. sect 18. in fine R. THe Church of Rome holdeth no doctrine by certainty of faith p. 181. in fine and pa. 282. sect 20. and p. 189. sect 27 28. The Romish doctrines may bee held three wayes p. 183. sect 21. in fine First of them who hold the Scriptures for the foundation p. 183. sect 22. such were our forefathers Second way by grounding upon Scripture but with pertinacy p. 184. sect 23. A third way of holding them is on the Popes word p. 185. sec 24 They of the Romane Church are heretikes p. 192. sect 31. In their Romane Church no true holinesse p. 193. sect 32. They of the Romish Church are schismatikes p. 196. sect 34. Rome miserably besieged by Totilas p. 456. sect 22. Ruba not taken from Alexandria pag. 407. sect 8. S. THe Synod resolves to judge the controversie about the three Chapt. the Pope being absent p. 7. sect 1. Sergius Bishop of Cyrus deposed from his Bishopricke p. 706. sect 18. Scripture being the ground of a mans faith is a comfort unto him though in some things he erre pa. 191. sect 29. and p. 194. sect 33. Supremacy and infallibility are inseparably joyned p. 176. sect 12. Schismatikes are not of the Church pa. 199. sect 39. Profession of Scriptures excuse not from heresie p. 226. sect sect 13. Suidas a fabler 326. sect 4. Sophia built by Constantine the mirrour of ages p. 350. sect 39. Switzers order in judgement p. 394. in fine Shamefull matters not added to the Acts of the fift Synod p. 408. sect 1. 4. Silverius died of famine in the Iland Palmaria p. 472. sect 13. Synods what makes them lawfull p. 282. and what unlawfull p. 306. sect 20. T. THeodorus not condemned in his life time p. 47. sect 2. Theodorus died not in the peace of the Church p. 59. sect 1 2 3 4. and p. 66. Theodorus condemned by Cyrill and Proclus p. 68. sec 2 3. and p. 73. sec 11. c. by the Ephesine Councell p. 69. sec 4. c. by the Armenian Councell p. 72. sec 10. by the Emperours Edict sec 13 14 c. by the Catholike Church p. 76. sec 19. Theodoret writ against Cyrill and the true faith p. 62. sec 4 5. Theodoret very resolute for Nestorianisme p. 93. sec 6. Theodoret his writings condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon p. 96. sec 12 13. and p. 101. sec 23. and by Cyrill p. 98. sec 16 17. Theodoret was not injured though his writings were condemned p. 102. sec 24 26. Theodoret a man of rate worth and learning p. 104. sec 29 30. Taciturnity the decree of taciturnity and what effect it tooke p. 225. sec 2 3 4. a meere fiction p. 228. sec 5 6 c. Trent Bishops were the Popes creatures pa. 319. sec 37. The Trent Councell conspired against Protestants p. 314. sec 32. Theodora unjustly reviled by Baronius pag. 355. sec 1. Theodora favoured Anthimus as being orthodoxall p. 358. sec 5. Theodora not excommunicated by Vigilius p. 359. sec 6. Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea no heretike p. 368. sec 9 10. Theodorus of Caesarea no Origenist pa. 374. sec 17. he maimed not the Acts of the 5. Synod p. 697. sec 7. Theodosius law in the Code not corrupted p. 411. sec 4. Theodoret wrote that Epistle mentioned in the fift Synod p. 413. sec 1. hee wrote it after the union p. 416. sec 6 7. and p. 420. sec 12. Theodora writ not to Vigilius to restore Anthimus p. 449. sec 16 17. Theodora sent not Anthimus Scribe to Rome for Vigilius p. 452. sec 18. Theodoret sets forth his owne orthodoxy p. 417. sec 7. Theodoret condemned by the Councell at Ephesus p. 419. sec 10. Theodoret writ an epistle to Iohn of Antioch p. 422. sec 1. Theodoret rejoyceth over Cyrill
warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause 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 a An. 547. nu 30 nu 215. de personis non de fide of persons and not of the faith Againe b Ibid. nu 46. 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 c Ibid. nu 231. 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 d Not. in Conc. 5. §. Ne quis 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 faith We have saith he e Epist ad Synod Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. commanded Vigilius to come together with you all and debate these Three Chapters that a determination may be given rectae sidei conveniens consonant to the right faith Againe stirring f Ibid. ◠them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause hee addes this as a reason Quoniā qui de side 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 Gum h Coll. 8. pag. 584. a. 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 m Ibid. pa. 586. b. 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 the they conclude thus n Ibid. pa. 588. a. We have confessed these things being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures by the doctrine of the holy Fathers by those things which are defined de unâ eâdemque side 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 o Apud Bar. an 553. nu 106. 197. 208. alibi 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 p Jn Chron. an 2. post Consul Basilij That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged q Iudicio Synodi approbata oribodoxa judicata est ibid. 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 r In suo Chron. an 10. post Consul Basilij Evidentissime declaravit Facundus hath