of the Councill at Basill that neither the Popes authoritie is supreme nor his judgement in causes of faith is infallible yet suffer me to adde two other witnesses of those who were after that Councill 32. The former is the Iudgement of Vniversities quae fere omnes which all in a manner approved and honored that Councill of Basil The other is the Councill at Biturice some take it for Burdeaux called by Charles the seventh the French King in which was made consensu omnium ecclesiasticorum et principum regni by the consent of the whole clergy and all the Peeres of France that Pragmaticall Sanction which Iohn Marius calls medullam the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Councill at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this The authoritie of the Councill at Basil and the constancie of their decrees perpetua esto let it be perpetuall and let none no not the Pope himselfe presume to abrogate or infringe the same This Sanction was published with full authoritie not seventy yeares before the Councill at Lateran as Leo the tenth witnesseth that is some foure yeares after the end of the Councill at Basill And although the Popes whose avarice and ambition was restrained by that sanction did detest it as Gagninus saith non secus ac perniciosam haeresin no otherwise then as a dangerous heresie yea and labored tooth naile to admit it yet as saith the universitie of Paris by Gods helpe hactenus prohibitum extitit they have beene ever hindred untill this time of Leo the tenth Indeed Pius secundus indevored and labored with Lewes the 11. to have it abrogated and he sent a solemne embassador Card. Balveus a very subtill fellow to bring this to passe but after much toyling both himselfe and others re infecta redijt he returned without effecting the Popes desire And to goe no further Leo the 10. and his Laterane Synod are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed before that Synod for they complaine that by reason of the malignitie of those times or else because they could not helpe it his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction and that for all which either they did or could doe the same Sanction retroactis temporibus vignisse et adhuc vigere had in former times and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session stand in force and full vigor Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall as did the Council also of Basil that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith which the present Romane Church defendenth it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught professed and beleeved to be an heresie and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes by the consenting judgement of Councils Popes Bishops and the Catholike Church even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session which was the 19. of December in the yeare 1516. after Christ. 33 On that day a day never to be forgotten by the present Romane Church it being the birth-day thereof Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill or as the learned Divines of Paris account it Conspiracie they being not assembled in Gods name abolished as much as in them lay the old and Catholike doctrine which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day and in stead thereof erect a new faith yea a new foundation of the faith and with it a new Church also Hee and his Synod then reprobated the Decree of Constance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope they reprobated also the Councill of Basil and the same Decree renewed by them That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum or Conventiculam quae nullum robur habere potuerit As a Conspiracie and Conventicle which could have no force at all They reprobated the Pragmaticall Sanction wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares together had beene imbraced and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day in reprobating it they rejected and reprobated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church Instead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be supreme that it is de necessitate salutis a thing necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the Pope and that not onely as they are severally considered but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill for they define Solum Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere The Pope alone to have authoritie above all Generall Councills This the Councill at Laterane diserte ex prosesso docuit taught cleerly and purposely as Bellarmine tells us nay they did not onely teach it but expressissimè definiunt they did most expresly define it And that their Definition is no other then a Decree of Faith as the same Cardinall assures us Decrees of faith saith he are immutable neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus and such is this Decree for the Popes supreme authoritie over all even Generall Councils made in their Laterane Synod And what meane they thinke you by that supreme authoritie Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth That because his authoritie is supreme therefore his judgement in causes of Faith is the last and highest and because it is the last and highest therefore it is infallible So by their Decree together with supremacie of authority they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope and defined that to be a catholike truth and doctrine of Faith which the whole Church in all ages untill then taught professed and defined to be an heresie and all who maintaine it to be Heretikes and for such condemned both it and them 34 Now because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith but the very foundation on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie by decreeing this they have quite altered not onely the faith but the whole frame and fabricke of the church erecting a new Romane church consisting of them and them onely who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod a church truly new and but of yesterday not so old as Luther a church in faith and communion severed from all former generall Councils Popes and Bishops that is from the whole catholike Church of Christ which was from the Apostles times untill that day And if their Popes continue as it is to be presumed they doe to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe to hold among other this fift Councill ad unum iôta this certainly is but a verball no
adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels defining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth declare Coster observes that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place and againe in his Relections gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both
Constitution to be stolne out of the Synodall acts now extant is bold to insert it into the 5. Collation as into his owne due and proper place wherein it was and now ought to be 5. The Card. is too confident about the day when it was sent to the Synod as also in his adding this Constitution to the Acts of the Synod as hereafter in due place will appeare Thus much is certaine and evident by the Synodall acts that this Constitution of Vigilius was made knowne to the Bishops of this holy Councill before their sixt Collation for in that sixt divers things are expressed which have a cleare and undoubted reference to the Popes decree as containing a refutation of the same and herein the Card. saith truly The decree of Vigilius was first sent to the Emperor and from him to the Synod as by the sixt Collation may be perceived wherein those things which the Pope had alledged for defence of the Epistle of Ibas are refuted 6. As for the dignity credit and authority of this writing it is neither any ordinary nor private instruction but as the Pope himselfe calleth it a Constitution a Statute a Decree a Definition or Definitive sentence and by the name of a Constitution it is subscribed unto both by the Pope and all the rest of his Assemblie and for such it is commended by Card. Baronius and Binius In it the Pope delivereth his Apostolicall sentence Iudgement touching the Three Chapters this being that very same answer which Vigilius promised to send to the Emperror and for the advised setting downe whereof he requested of the Emperor the respite of twenty dayes During which time he did insudare and laborare as the Card. saith with much sweat and toile elaborate this large decree containing no lesse then thirty six columes in folio that it might in every respect and for the exact handling of so weighty a cause be correspondent to the gravity and authority of his infallible Chaire specially seeing he set it forth of purpose that it might be notified not onely to the Emperor and the Synod then assembled sed universo orbi Catholico but to the whole Catholike Church as a publike direction in faith for them all in which kinde of teaching nullo casu errare potest saith Card. Bellarmine the Pope can by no meanes be possibly deceived For this cause also Vigilius at this time and in this businesse used the help and advice of a Synod consisting of Italian Africane and Illyrian Bishops then present with him at Constantinople sixteene Bishops beside himselfe and three Romane Deacons These all consented with the Pope and subscribed to his Constitution and in theirs was included the consent of the Africane of the Illyrian of the Italian and other Westerne Churches even of the Church of Rome also who all at this time agreed in judgement about the Three Chapters with the Pope as Card. Baronius professeth So deliberate and advised was the Pope in this cause that his resolution herein is not onely a Pontificall but a Synodall Sentence also yea a Decree and definitive judgement delivered by the Pope as himselfe expresly witnesseth Ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae by the authoritie of the Apostolicke sea an whole Synod of Bishops the Westerne Churches consenting with them subscribing to the same for their number well-neere as many as there were Bishops present in some Sessions of their Oecumenicall Councill at Trent 7. This Apostolicall Constitution which had long laid in obscuritie about some 18. yeares since was brought to light and first of al published by Card. Baronius to the opē view of the world copied by him out of an ancient manuscript in their Vaticane where still it is kept and more then halfe of it is set out by Binius annexed as a fragment to the fifth generall Councill But for what good purpose Binius clipt away the residue being a great no lesse then five or six columes in folio and by farre the most needfull part of the Popes Decree thereby not onely injuring the Popes Holines and deluding the world but foully maiming and disgracing his owne Tomes of the Councils you will easily perceive hereafter 8. The summe and effect of the Popes Constitution is the Defence of those three Chapters which the Emperor by his most religious Edict had condemned and accursed The Pope saith Baronius during the time of the Synod set forth Decretum pro defensione trium Capitulorum his decree for defence of the Three Chapters Againe Vigilius made knowne to the whole Church pro Tribus Capitulis Constitutum à se editum his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters Againe pro ipsorum defensione laborat Vigilius labored for defence of the Three Chapters But the Constitution it selfe maketh this most evident 9. Concerning the first Chapter whether Theodorus being dead more then an hundred yeares before this Council ought to be condemned Vigilius thus decreed Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis That it is not lawfull for any to judge ought anew of those persons who are dead that is not to condemne those who as Vigilius explaining himselfe saith minime reperiuntur in vit a damnati are not found to have beene condemned while they lived This for the generality of the dead particularly for Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia he thus decreed Seeing the holy Fathers had not as he saith condemned him eum nostra non audemus damnare sententia we dare not condemne him by our sentence sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe we permit that any other shall condemne him 10. For the second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill Vigilius was so tender of the credit of Theodoret that he would by no meanes permit his name to be blemished by cōdemning his writings seeing as he saith neither Cyril himself nor after him the Councill of Chalcedon had condemned them Nay Vigilius further adds that it is valde contrarium indubitanter inimicum very contrary and undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councill at Chalcedon to condemne any Nestorian doctrines under the name of Theodoret. Whereupon he definitively decreeth in this manner Statutimus atque decernimus we ordaine and decree that no injury or slaunder shall by any man be raised or uttered against Theodoret sub taxatione nominis ejus by taxing of his name So Vigilius decreeing that the condemning of those writings of Theodoret against Cyril is an injury to Theodoret. 11. The third Chapter which indeed is the most materiall but withall most intricate and obscure concerns the Epistle written against Cyril and the holy Ephesine Synod by Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris a Persian and an Hereticke the copie whereof is set downe in the 10. Action of the Councill
of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius collecteth and Vigilius consenteth unto him that such as are not upon earth or among the living hos non humano sed suo Deus judicio reservavit God hath exempted them from humane and reserved them to his owne judgement nec audet Ecclesia nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such As the Pope so also the holy generall Councell tooke this for no other than a question of faith for they plainly professe even in their Synodall resolution that their decree concerning dead men that they may bee Noviter condemned is not onely an Ecclesiasticall tradition but an Apostolicall doctrine also warranted by the texts and testimonies of the holy Scriptures To which purpose alledging divers places of Scripture they adde these words It is many wayes manifest that they who affirme this that men after their death may not Noviter be condemned nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt nec Apostolicarum pronunciationum nec paternarum traditionum that such have no regard either to the word of God or the Apostles doctrine or the tradition of the Fathers So the whole Councell judging and decreeing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these 4. Now when both the Pope on the one side and the whole generall Councell on the other that is both the defenders and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both and against that truth wherein they both agree to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith or seeing it is cleâ—re both by the Pope and Councell that the resolution of this question is set downe in Scripture what else can bee thought of Baronius denying either the one or the other part to bee a cause or assertion of faith but that with him the doctrines defined and set down in Scriptures are no doctrines or assertions of faith at least not of the Cardinals faith 5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith and in this cause of faith the Pope and generall Councell are at variance either of them challenge the Scripture as consonant to his and repugnant to the opposite assertion what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit saith their vaine and vaunting Braggadochio Hast thou appealed to the Church to the Church and judgement thereof shalt thou goe at the name of which we are so farre from being daunted or appaled that with great confidence and assurance of victory we provoke unto it 6. But where may we heare the voyce and judgement of the Church out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers or provinciall Synods or in generall Councels in which of these soever the Church speake her sentence is for us and our side Her voyce is but soft stil in the writings of single Fathers the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly and audibly Heare Saint Austen who entreating of Caecilianus about an hundreth yeares after his death saith If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes which were by the Donatists objected unto him ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead though never condemned before nor in his life time Againe In this our communion if there have beene any Traditores or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such corde carne mortuos detestabor Heare Pope Pelagius who both himselfe fully assenteth herein to Saint Austen and testifieth the assent of Pope Leo in this manner Quis nesciat who knoweth not that the doctrine of Leo is consonant to Saint Austen Heare S. Cyrill who speaking of heretikes saith Evitandi sunt sive in vivis sive in mortuis they are to bee avoyded whether they bee dead or living 7. The Church speakes yet somewhat louder in the united judgement of Provinciall Synods In an Africane Councell it was proved how certaine Bishops at their death had bequeathed their goods to heretikes whereupon statuerunt the Bishops in that Synod decreed ut post mortem anathemati subjiciantur that such should bee accursed even after their death and this Sextilianus an Africane Bishop testifieth upon his owne certaine knowledge The judgement of the Romane Church is to this purpose most pregnant About some twenty yeares before this fift Councell Dioscorus was chosen Bishop of Rome but shortly after dying eum post mortem anathematizavit Romana Ecclesia the Romane Church accursed him even after he was dead although hee had not offended in the faith but in some pecuniary or Symoniacall crime Et hoc sciunt omnes qui degunt Romae and they all who live at Rome know this to have beene done against him after his death they especially who are in eminent place who also continued in the communion with Dioscorus untill hee dyed as after Iustinian Benignus Bishop of Heraclea and after them both the fift Councell testifieth In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia by Rambulas Bishop of Edessa Acatius and others wherein both themselves condemned Theodorus though dead and in their letters to Proclus exhort him to doe the like 8. But this voyce of the Church sounds like a mighty thunder in the consenting judgement of generall Councels In the sixt Pope Honorius who in his life time had not been was now about threescore yeares after his death convicted to bee an heretike and then noviter condemned and anathematized by the whole Councell The same sentence of Anathema was confirmed and againe denounced against him in the second Nicene and in the other under Hadrian which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels In the Councell of Chalcedon Domnus Bishop of Antioch was after his death condemned In the holy Ephesine Councell was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia after his death condemned as Pope Pelagius expresly testifieth The like to have beene done against Macedonius by the fift Councell at Constantinople Iustinian declareth Before that was the same done by the Councell at Sardica for when some of those who had subscribed to the Nicene faith returned to Arianisme alij quidem vivi alij autem post mortem anathemizati sunt à Damaso Papa ab universali Sardicensi Synodo they were anathematized some while they lived others after their death by Pope Damasus and by the generall Councell at Sardica as witnesseth Athanasius With such an uniforme consent doe all these Councels teach this and teach it not as any novell doctrine but as a truth successively from age to
his Epistle to Anastasius Alexander and the rest which also hath equall authoritie by the Councell of Chalcedon Sancta Synodus Ephesi saith Cyrill The holy Ephesine Synod having pronounced a just sentence of condemnation against Nestorius hath by the like sentence condemned the impiety of others qui vel postea futuri sunt vel jam fuerunt eadem illi sapientes who either shall hereafter or heretofore have thought the same aequalem condemnationem eis imponens imposing the same condemnation upon them also for it is fit that when one is condemned for such vaine speeches non contra unum tantum venire that the sentence should not come against him alone but against the whole heresie and sect Thus S. Cyrill setting this downe for a golden rule to be observed in all Synodall sentences and judgements of faith and being so usefull the fift Synod doth often insist upon it 5. Seeing then Theodorus did not onely teach write and speake the same with Nestorius but was indeed the Arch-heretike and author of this heresie Nestorius being but his disciple or the trunke to sound out or blaze abroad that hereticall doctrine which Theodorus had breathed into him it is evident by this golden rule of Cyrill that though Theodorus was dead before the Synod at Ephesus yet the anathema and condemnation denounced by the Synod no lesse pertaineth to him than to Nestorius though the one was named and not the other And this the fift Councell out of those very words of Cyrill doth collect and warrant others to collect the same The writings say they of Theodorus being in all things consonant to the vaniloquie of Nestorius are together with his deservedly rejected by the Councell of Ephesus utpote anathemate quod adversus Nestorium factum est procedente etiam adversus eos qui ante illum similia illi sapucrunt the Anathema which was pronounced against Nestorius proceeding also against those who before Nestorius thought the same which he did 6. This same judgement of the Ephesine Councell in condemning Theodorus is yet another way declared and testified expresly by Pope Pelagius Theodorum mortuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damnavit the holy Ephesine Councell condemned Theodorus being dead which so cleare a testimony though alone were enough to manifest the foule errour of Vigilius in this point But Pelagius sets downe a proofe also therof which openeth another errour of Vigilius He to excuse Theodorus would perswade that Theodorus was not the composer of that impious and diabolicall creed before mentioned Heare now the words and and proofe of Pelagius taken from that creed The Ephesine Synod saith he condemned Theodorus nam cum ab ejus discipulis dictatum ab eo Symbolum for when that creed dictated and composed by Theodorus was brought forth before the Ephesine Synod cum authore damnatum est both it and the author of it was condemned presently by the same holy Fathers So Pelagius testifying against Vigilius both Theodorus to bee the author of that creed and both him and it to have beene condemned by the Ephesine Councell 7. What Pelagius saith was formerly delivered by the whole fift Councell who thus say Theodorus besides other innumerable blasphemies ausus est impium exponere symbolum was so audacious as to set out that impious creed again hoc impium Theodori Symbolum this impious creed of Theodorus was anathematized tother with the writer of it in the first Ephesine Councell and againe when this creed was repeated which is by them called Impium Theodori Symbolum the impious creed of Theodorus the holy Synod cryed out anathema to him that composed it and that was Theodorus as themselves witnesse the holy Ephesine Councell accursed this creed una cum authore ejus together with the author of it Thus testified the whole Councell Before this fift Councell Iustinian in his most religious Edict witnesseth the same Theodorus saith hee who exceeds in impiety Pagans Iewes and all heretikes did not onely contemne the Nicene Creed sed aliud symbolum exposuit but he hath expounded another creed full of all impiety and this impious creed of Theodorus being produced in the first Ephesine Synod cum ejus expositore condemnatum est was condemned together with the author or composer of it by that holy Councell So the Emperour 8. Before all these this is testified and fully explaned by S. Cyrill who was the chiefe Bishop in the Ephesine Synod This creed saith he composed by Theodorus as they who brought it said or witnessed was rejected by the holy Councell and those who thought as that creed taught being condemned in which generall sentence Theodorus himselfe was especially included nullam viri mentionem fecit dispensatione nec ipsum nominatim anathemati subjecit propter dispensationem the Councell by a dispensation made no particular mention of Theodorus but forbare by name to denounce an anathema against him by a kinde of connivence or indulgence lest some who held him in great account should separate themselves from the Church So Cyrill Whence two things are evident the one that Theodorus though dead before was condemned in generall termes by the Ephesine Councell The other that they might in particular also have condemned him as they did Nestorius but they forbare that particular naming of him onely by a dispensation toleration or connivence at his name because Theodorus was then held by many in great account his impieties and blasphemies being not as yet so fully discovered to the world Wherein the Ephesine Councell imitated the wisedome and lenitie of the Apostles who for a time by a dispensation and connivence permitted the use of the Ceremoniall Law that so by insensible degrees the Iewes might be weaned from that unto which they had beene so long accustomed which examples of the Apostles the fift Councell even in their Synodall sentence apply to this very cause of Theodorus the Church and Ephesine Councell for a time spared by name to condemne him even then when by their generall sentence hee was as truly condemned as the Mosaicall ceremonies were dead though then not deadly to the end that the estimation which some but very unjustly had of him might rather dissui than dissecari rather by little and little be untwined and worne out than by a peremptory anathema be at once and as it were with one violent blow obliterated out of the hearts of such as admired him which they saw could hardly be effected 9. But as the Apostles when afterwards the Gospell had been long published and sufficient time allowed to forget and bury the ceremonies then did utterly condemne all that used the same saying If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Even so did the Church in this cause of Theodorus She expected that her generall sentence should have deterred all from that heresie specially seeing the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian had strengthened that Synodall judgement
death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ eum non audemus damnare sententia wee◠dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the head of the generall Councell Proclus a most holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodorus and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of Iustinian yea even the whole catholike Church which hath approved those holy Councells all these out of those very impieties which Vigilius mentioneth have condemned Theodorus them all for wronging and condemning Theodorus for those impieties we doe anathematize and accurse saith Vigilius 47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are who hold and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church this for a position or foundation of faith that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes is true is infallible is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced Let
Sacerdotali quantocunque Concilio the priviledge of never erring in faith was obtained by the prayer of Christ for Peter alone and his Chaire not for any Councell though it be never so great To the same purpose saith Bellarmine If a generall Councell could not erre in their sentence the judgement of such a Councell should be the last and highest judgement of the Church but that judgement is not the last for the Pope may either approve or reject their sentence So Bellarmine professing the Popes onely judgement to be infallible seeing it alone is the last and highest after and above both Church and generall Councell All the infallibility which they have is onely by reason of his judgement to which they accord consent It hence appeareth saith Bellarmine totam firmitatem that the whole strength and certainty of judgement which is even in lawfull Councels is from the Pope non partim à Concilio partim à Pontifice it is not partlie from the Councell and partly from the Pope it is wholly and onely from the Pope and in no part from the Councell When the Councell and Pope consent in judgement saith Gretzer omnis infallibilitas Concilij derivatur à Papa all the infallibility of the Councell is derived from the Pope and a little after when the Pope consenteth with the Councell ideo non errat quia est Papa hee is therfore free from erring because he is the Pope and not because he consenteth with the Councell In like sort Melchior Canus The strength and firmitude both of the whole Church and of Councels is derived from the Pope and againe In generall Councels matters are not to bee judged by number of suffrages but by the waight of them Pondus antem dat summi Pontificis authoritas and it is the Popes gravity and authority which gives waight to that part whereunto he inclineth If he say it one hundred Fathers with him are sufficient but if his assent bee wanting a thousand a million ten thousand millions Nulli satis sunt no number is sufficient Nay if all the whole world be of a contrary judgement to the Pope yet as the Canonist tels us the Popes sentence totius orbis placito praefertur is of more weight and worth than the judgement of the whole world So cleare it is that all their boasting of the authority and infallible judgement of the Church and of generall Councels wherein they please themselves more than ever the Iews did in crying so oft Templū Domini the Temple of the Lord that all this is nothing else but a Viser to hide or actually to draw into mens mindes the Popes infallibility they having no meaning at all to give or allow either to Church or generall Councell any infallibility but onely with a reference to the Pope to whom alone they annex it as a personall gift and peculiar prerogative and who like those leane and ill favoured Kine of Pharaoh hath devoured and quite swallowed up all the authority and infallibility both of Church and Councels yet thus much now is evident that seeing all who are of their present Romane Church beleeve and professe the Church and generall Councels to be infallible seeing their infallibility is none but onely by adhering and consenting to the Pope it necessarily ensueth that they all à fortiori doe beleeve and must professe the Pope to be infallible seeing on his the infallibility of both the other doth wholly and solely depend 12. Let me adde but one other proofe hereof taken from Supremacy of authoritie and judgement It is a ruled case in their learning Si errare non potest debet esse summus judex He who is infallible must be the highest and last Iudge and Vice versa He who is the last and highest judge must be infallible Supremacy and infallibility of judgement are inseparably linked To whomsoever Supremacy is given even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also for seeing from the last or supreme Iudge there can be no appeale it were most unjust to binde Christians to beleeve his sentence who might be deceived most unjust to binde them from appealing from a judge that were fallible or from an erronious judgement Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith belongeth To whom else but to the Pope whereas some dare affirme saith the Canonist that a Councell is above the Pope Falsissimum est This is most false The Successor of Peter saith Stapleton supra omnes est is above all Bishops Church generall Councels above all The Pope saith Bellarmine is simply and absolutely above the whole Church and above a generall Councell Hee further tels us that this assertion That the Pope is above a generall Councell is not only the judgment of all the ancient Schoole Divine the cōmon sentence of their Writers of whom he reckoneth thirteene and if it were fit three times thirtie might bee scored up with them but that it is the publike doctrine of their Church decreed in their Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth There the Councell saith he disertè ex professo docuit did plainly and of set purpose teach the Pope to bee above all Councels yea expressissimè rem definivit that Laterane Councell did most expresly define this and their definition hereof is Decretum de fide a Decree of faith for which cause in his Apology bearing the name of Schulkenius hee professeth that this is Articulus fidei an Article of faith such as every Christian is bound to beleeve that the Pope is Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae Iudex the Supreme last and highest Iudge of the whole Church here upon earth which he proves besides many other authorities by this very Laterane decree and by their Trent Councell The words themselves of those Councels make the matter plaine in that at the Laterane Councell they thus decree Solum Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia authoritatem habere that the Pope alone hath authority above all Councels and this they say is taught not onely by Fathers and Councels but by the holy Scriptures thereby shewing that in this decree they explicate declare the Catholike faith which is one of the Cardinals notes to know when a decree is published by a Councell tanquam de fide as a decree of faith and they threaten the indignation of God and the blessed Apostles to the gainsayers of their decree A censure as heavy as any Anathema the denouncing whereof is another of the Cardinals notes that they proposed this decree as a decree of faith In the other at Trent the Councell teacheth that unto the Pope is given Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia the Supreme power in the whole Church And this Supremacy is such that from all Councels all other Iudges you may appeale to him and hee may reverse
Oecumenicall Councels or the decrees thereof may bee and de facto have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope but by other succeding generall Councels by Provinciall Synods yea by particular Bishops who have beene absent none of all which gave or could give more authority to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof than it had before and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse or fruitlesse 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of thâ—se two coÌ„firmations These use end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree that is in truth the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops who were absent was not judicially to define that cause or give any judgment therein for this was done already and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee but to preserve the peace of the Church and unity in faith which could by no other meanes be better effected than if Bishops who had been absent and therefore did but implicitè or by others consent to those decrees at the making thereof did afterwards declare their owne explicite and expresse consent to the same Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was either for authority or learning the more likely he was either to make a rent and schisme in the Church if hee should dissent or to procure the tranquility and peace of the Church if hee should consent hence it was that if any Patriarke Patriarchall Primate or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell the Church and Councell did the more earnestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees This was the cause why both the religious Emperour Theodosius and Cyrill with other orthodoxall Bishops were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod which long before was ended that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle and those who defended Nestorius with his heresie so his yeelding to the truth and embracing the Ephesine Councell which condemned Nestorius might draw many others to doe the like and so indeed it did This was the principall reason why some of the ancient Councels as that by name of Chalcedon for all did it not sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee invalid or their Councell no approved Councell if it wanted his approbation or confirmation a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Councels the Synod thought it fit to procure if they could his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church might by his example move all and by his authoritie draw his owne Patriarchall Diocesse as usually hee did to consent to the same decrees whereas if he should happen to dissent as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell hee was likely to cause as Vigilius then did a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritative such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificative such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull
Vigilius Dormitans ROMES SEER OVERSEENE OR A TREATISE OF THE FIFT Generall Councell held at Constantinople Anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour in the time of Pope VIGILIVS The Occasion being those Tria Capitula which for many yeares troubled the whole Church WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE POPES Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in matter of Faith was condemned as hereticall by the Synod And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered BY RICH CRAKANTHORP Dr. in DIVINITIE And Chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie KING IAMES Opus Posthumum PVBLISHED AND SET FORTH BY His Brother GEO CRAKANTHORP According to a perfect Copy found written under the Authors owne hand LONDON Printed by M. F. for ROBERT MYLBOVRNE in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Grey-hound M DC XXXI TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE EDVVARD LORD NEVVBVRGE Chancellour of the Duchie of Lancaster and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honourable Privie Counsell RIGHT HONOVRABLE IN all duty and submission I here present unto your Lordship a Treatise concerning the fift generall Councell held at Constantinople the cause being the Controversie of the Three Chapters which for many yeares troubled the whole Church and was at length decided in this Councell held under Iustinian that religious Emperour This Treatise now printed was long agoe penned by one well known unto your Honour your sincere affection to the truth of God and Gods cause gives mee good assurance of your favourable acceptance hereof I confesse indeed that when I call to minde the manifold affaires wherein your Honour is daily imployed the very thought hereof had almost perswaded mee not to interrupt your more serious affaires by drawing your Honour to the reading or view of this Booke but when I call to minde those respects of love and duty in which the Author hereof stood bound unto your Lordship I was againe incouraged in his name to tender it to your Honour And although I my selfe can challenge no interest in your Lordships favour to offer this yet your Lordship may challenge some interest in the fruits of his labours who was so truely as I can truely speake devoted unto your Honour Among many other hee especially acknowledged two assured bonds of love and duty by which hee was obliged unto you and your friends the former arose from that unfained affection which you ever bare him from your first acquaintance in the Colledge that other by which he was further ingaged unto you and your friends was when in a loving respect had unto him in his absence without any meanes made by him or knowledge of his he was called by that much honoured Knight Sir Iohn Levison his Patron your Father in law unto the best meanes of livelihood he ever enjoyed in the Ministery where spending himselfe in his studies hee ended his dayes during which time your Honour made your affection further knowne unto him by speciall expressions of extraordinary favours In regard whereof I perswaded my selfe that I could no where better crave Patronage for this worke than of your Honour that it may bee a further testimony of his love againe who cannot now speake for himselfe And this I intreat leave to doe the rather because I doubt not but hee acquainted your Lordship with his paines and intent in this and other Tractates of the Councels for when after divers yeares study bestowed in this argument of Councels hee was desirous to make some use of his labours his intent was to reduce all those points into foure severall Bookes 1. That the right of calling generall Councels 2. That the right of highest Presidency in them 3. That the right of the last and supreme Confirmation of them is onely Imperiall and not Papall 4. That all the lawfull generall Councels which hitherto have beene held consent with ours and oppugne the doctrines of the present Church of Rome Some of these hee finished the fourth hee could not so much as hope to accomplish and therefore after the examining of some particulars therein he desisted and weaned himselfe from those studies And yet after some yeares discontinuance being by some of his learned friends sollicited to communicate to others at least some one Tract in that argument consenting to their earnest desire after long suspence he resolved on this Treatise as being for weighty and important matters most delightfull unto him That it was not then published let it not seeme strange unto your Honour for having long since finished the Tract of this whole Councell it was his purpose that it should have undergone the publike view and judgement of the Church but when he came as I can truely testifie unto them whose art and ayde is needfull in such a businesse and found an aversenesse in them for that it wholy consisted of controversall matters whereof they feared that this age had taken a satiety he rested in this answer as willing to bury it After this being upon a speciall command from his Majesty King Iames of blessed memory made known unto him by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury to addresse himselfe to another worke hee then desisted from his former intended purpose and in finishing of that last worke of his he ended his dayes Some few yeares after his death being desirous to take a view of some of his Papers I came to the view and handling of this boooke a booke fully perfected for the Presse in his life time the publishing whereof being long expected and of many earnestly desired it was my desire and theirs to whose most grave and judicious censure I willingly submitted it that it might be published for the benefit of Gods Church and the rather that it might give some light in the study of the Councels and animate some of the threescore valiant men that are about Salomons bed being of the expert and valiant men of Israel unto the attempting and undertaking of the like Now what his desire was in this and other of his labours surely none but the very enemies of God and Gods truth can take it to be any other than to testifie his unfained love unto God and Gods Church and to subdue the pride idolatries and impieties of that Man of sinne and to strive for the maintenance of the true faith Now what allowance so ever it may finde abroad among our adversaries it humbly craves your favourable acceptāce at home and as it is published with no other intent than to gaine glory to God and good to his Church so I doubt not but that God who causeth light to shine out of darknesse will effectually in time bring to passe that not onely their violent oppugning of the truth but their fraudulent dealing also against the same wil if not breed in themselves yet increase in al welwillers unto the truth a constant dislike nay detestation of their hereticall and Antichristian doctrines and for your selfe my earnest and continuall prayer to God shall bee
because hee dyed in the peace and Communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 58. 8. That the third and last reason of Vigilius touching the First Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because he was not condemned by former Fathers and Councels is erronious and untrue 67. 9. That Vigilius besides divers personall held a doctrinall errour in faith in his defence of the Second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodorus against Cyril Pag. 91. 10. That Vigilius and Baronius erre in divers personall points or matters of fact concerning the Third Chapter which was the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris 107. 11. That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas drawne from the union with Cyrill mentioned in the later part of that Epistle doe defend all the heresies of the Nestorians 112. 12. That Vigilius and Baronius in their later reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas taken from the words of Ibas wherein he confesseth Two natures and One Person to be in Christ doe maintaine all the heresies of the Nestorians 138. 13. Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chapters refuted and two other against them confirmed the one That to dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an heretike nor a Schismatike the other That to assent in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome makes one both an Heretike and a Schismatike 170. 14. The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresie For that hee often professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith thereof refuted 199. 15. The third Exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three or foure times changed his judgment in this cause of faith 213. 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 225. 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 240. 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 266. 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. 20. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same 324. 21. How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same 355. 22. How Baronius declameth against the Cause it selfe of the Three Chapter and a refutation of the same 361. 23. How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea and a refutation of the same 363. 24. How Baronius carpeth at the Synodall Acts of the fift Councell as corrupted and a refutation in generall of the same 377. 25. The 1. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein refuted 381. 26. The 2. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that Ibas is said therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 386. 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 389. 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 391. 29. The 4. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Emperours Epistle to the fift Councell is wanting therein refuted 398. 30. The 5. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius concerning the Three Chapters is wanting therein refuted 399. 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 403. 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 408. 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 413. 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 422. 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 440. 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 462. A TREATISE OF THE FIFT GENERALL COVNCILL held at Constantinople under Iustinian 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 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
condemned and anathematized by words by writings by all meanes which they could devise publishing libels and bitter invectives against it and the Emperor himselfe also He seeing so generall a disturbance in his Empire and the whole Church to be in a combustion about this cause to end and quiet all used that which is the best and last publick meanes which is left to the Church for deciding any doubt or controversie of faith and of purpose to determine this so weighty a cause whether those Three Chapters were to be condemned or allowed he assembled this fifth and holy generall Councill whereof God assisting us we are now to entreat CAP. II. That the Fift Generall Councill when Pope Vigilius refused to come unto it was held without the Popes presence therein either by himselfe or by his Legates 1. THat this Council was celebrated when Pope Vigilius was at Constantinople that he was once againe often and earnestly invited to the Synod but wilfully refused to be present either personally or by his deputies the Acts of the Councill doe abundantly witnesse The holy Synod said thus Saepius petivimus We have often entreated the most holy Pope Vigilius to come together with us and make a determination of these matters Againe the holy Synod said The most glorious Iudges and certaine of us saepius adhortati sunt Vigilium have often exhorted Vigilius to come and debate and make an end of this cause touching the Three Chapters Neither did they onely invite exhort and entreat him but in the Emperors name they commanded him to come to the Synod We being present said the Bishops who were sent unto him Liberius Peter and Patricius proposuerunt Iussionem pijssimi Imperatoris sanctissimo Papae proposed to the most holy Pope Vigilius the command of the most holy Emperor If all this seeme not enough the Emperor himselfe testifieth the same Mandavimus illi we have commanded Vigilius both by our Iudges and by certaine of your selves he writ this to the Synod ut una cum omnibus conveniret that he should come together with all the rest in common to debate and determine this cause touching the Three Chapters 2. What Pope Vigilius did after so many invitations entreaties and commands Card. Bellarmine doth declare The Pope saith he nesque per se neque per legatos interfuit was not present in the Council either by himselfe or by his legats And more clearly in another place The Pope saith he was then at Constantinople sed noluit interesse but he would not be present in the Councill Binius testifieth the same At the fifth Councill Vigilius was not present either by himselfe or by his deputies And Baronius The Pope saith he noluit interesse would not be present either by himselfe or by any to supply his place And this Cardinall adds not without some choler The members assembled without the head nulla Vigilij aegrotantis adhuc habita ratione having no regard at all to Pope Vigilius then sick 3. What doth the Card. complaine that they had no regard of him when himselfe a little before professeth noluit interesse he himselfe was not willing to be present Or had they no regard of him when before ever they assembled or sate in the Synod they writ an Epistle unto him entreating his presence and with their own request signified the Emperors command wil and pleasure to him that he shold come together with the rest when after they were assembled in the Synod they so often so earnestly invited and even entreated him to come together with them when they whom they sent to invite him were no meane no ordinary messengers neither for their number nor dignitie but twenty reverend Bishops all of them Metropolitanes as the Cardinal both knew and acknowledged the Synodall acts doe witnesse and of those twenty three were Patriarks Eutychius of Constantinople Apollinarius of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch Was this a signe that they had no regard of Vigilius when besides all this in token of their most earnest desire of his presence among divers other they proposed two most effectuall reasons to induce him to come The one the promise of Presidencie among them which so far as in them lay they offred unto him saying Petimus praesidente nobis vestra beatitudine we entreat that your holinesse being present in this Synod the question may be debated and have an end The other which should not onely in equitie but even in common honesty have prevailed with a Pope for that himselfe had promised and that under his owne hand-writing that he would come to the Synod we told him said the Bishop your holinesse knoweth quod in his quae inter nos in scriptis facta sunt promisistis that in those things which were done in writing betwixt us you have promised to come together with the rest and discusse these three Chapters And againe we entreated his reverence say the whole Synod scriptas suas promissiones adimplere to performe that which in his writing he had promised 4. Had they no regard of sick Vigilius whose infirmity being signified to the Synod at their first session they forthwith concluded that Session saying Oportet we must defer the examination of the cause to another day And whereas the Pope promised to give them an answer the next day then because his qualme was overpast he found new excuses for his absence one because there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them another because he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing and offer it to the Emperor for which cause he had entreated respite for certaine dayes of his highnesse Both which were in truth nothing else but meerepretēces as the Bishops thē sent manifestly declared unto him For both the Emperor said they vult te in cōmuni convenire will have you to come together with the rest therefore he ought not to have given his sentēce alone but in common and in the Synod and for his other excuse Baronius himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence for so it was indeed seeing as the Bishops truly told him in none of the former Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops but onely two or three and some Clerkes whereas at that time there were present with the Pope at Constantinople many Italian Bishops others out of Africk others out of Illirium for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Councills whereupon they plainly and truly told the Pope to his face Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod together with us not sicknesse not want of Western Bishops Nihil est there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind So extraordinary respect had they of the Pope at this time
and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say that they assembled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius 5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod and why Noluit interesse was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters He saw the Catholike Bishops then assembled to be bent and forward as their dutie was for condemning those Chapters which himselfe embraced and defended he therefore thought it fit to separate himselfe from them in place from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of faith he was so farre disjoyned and severed This to have beene the onely true cause of his wilfull absence and of his Noluit interesse the sequell of this Treatise will make most evident For this time it is sufficient by all those honorable invitations earnest perswasions and Imperiall commands to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence so he not onely was absent but in meere stomacke wilfulnesse and perversnesse absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIVS during the time of the fift Councill published his Apostolicall Constitution indefence of the Three Chapters 1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Constantinople where the Councill was held by no intreaties perswasions nor Imperiall commands could be brought to the Synod having no other let as before was declared but his owne wilfulnesse the holy Synod resolved without him to debate and judge the Controversie then referred unto them And in truth what else was to be done in that case The Emperor commanded them not to delay nor protract the time but deliver a speedy yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause The necessity of the Church required this which was now in a general tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters The Nestorians on one side triumphed as if the Councill of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas and thereby confirmed their heresies The Acephali on another side rejected that Councill as favoring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze not knowing which way to turne themselves whether allow the Councill of Chalcedon with the Nestorians or with the Acephali reject it The Catholikes against all these Sectaries both defended the Councill of Chalcedon and yet rejected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters In such a generall rent and contention of all sides what delay could the Church endure which the Councill rightly considering said That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scandalized And for the absence of Vigilius they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth that if the Pope being invited did not or would not come or send to a Synod but wilfully refused to come in this case the Councill without him must provide for the peace of the Church and safety of the Christian faith They had a very memorable example hereof as yet but fresh before their eyes when the Popes legats being present at Chalcedon were invited and intreated to be present at the Synod there held which was the very next before this at the debating of the right and preeminence of the Sea of Constantinople but wilfully refused to be there saying as Vigilius now did Non sed alia se suscepisse mandata No we will not come we have a contrary command from pope Leo yet that holy Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence and their determination notwith ' standing the Popes absence was not onely declared by the most glorious Iudges to be just and Synodall but the same was both by that holy Synod and all other ever since held to be the judgement and definition of the whole generall Councill for in their Synodal relation to the Pope speaking of this very decree they say Confirmavimus ante we to wit this whole generall Councill have confirmed the sentence of the 150. Bishops for the prerogative of Constantinople A most cleare and undeniable demonstration and that by the warrant of one of the most famous Councils that ever were that the peevishnes perversnes or wilfull absence of one or a few Bishops yea of the Pope himselfe ought not nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and determine any needful cause much lesse a cause of faith about which there should happen as now there did a general disturbance of the whole Church Vpon these and other like reasons the holy Synod now assembled at Constantinople having done as much as in them lay yea as much in all points as was fit to be done for procuring the presence of Vigilius and having in their first and second Sessions done nothing but waited and expected for his comming seeing now all their invitations and intreaties to be contemned by him and their longer expectance to be but in vaine addresse themselves to the examining of the cause being stird up by the words of St. Peter Be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of your hope which readinesse if it must be in al Christians much more in Bishops and if it must be declared towards all men most of all towards the Emperor who now required their speedy judgement and Synodall resolution in this cause 2. Having in their first and second Sessions declared their long and earnest but vaine expectance of Vigilius In their third Collation so their Sessions are called they let downe as a foundation to all their future acts a most holy confession of their faith consonant in all points to that which the holy Apostles preached which the foure former Councils explained and which the Holy Fathers with uniforme consent maintained 3. In the 4. and 5. Collations they at large and very exactly discusse the first Chapter concerning the person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia adding so much also as was needfull touching the second Chapter which concerned the writings of Theodoret against Cyril 4. Now in that fifth Collation as Baronius tells us the Constitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod The Pope promised that he would send his judgement thereof ad ipsum Imperatorem atque ad Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod which he ingenuously performed yea modo opportunè praestandum putavit he did it opportunely at this very time of the 5. Collation And the Card. is so resolute in this point that he peremptorily affirmeth of the Popes Constitution Cognoscitur it s knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation and it was this day offered to the Councill for which cause he strongly imagining this
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 The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius whom they might follow and Vigilius himselfe he had 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 If any do defend impious Theodorus of Mopsvestia et non anathematizat cum and doe not accurse 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 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 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 cam 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 Orthodoxa est Iba à patribus proniōciata 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 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 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 wag 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 such a milde and mercifull disposition that though they dislike and condemne those assertions of the Popes supremacy of authoritie and infallibility of judgement yet are they so charitably affected to the Defenders of those assertions that they dare not themselves nor can indure that others should call them heretickes or accursed Durus est hic sermo this is too harsh and hard See here the fervour and zeale of this holy Councill They first say Cursed be the defenders of this Epistle or any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all who defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Church of Rome Cursed be they all And not contenting themselves herewith they adde Cursed be he who doth not accurse the defenders of that Epistle or of any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and
all that defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Romane Church Cursed be he who doth not accurse them all The holy Council no doubt had an eye to the words of the Prophet Ieremy Cursed be he that doth the worke of the Lord negligently Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood To spare when God commands and whom he commands to curse or kill is neither pitty nor piety but meere rebellion against the Lord and pulls downe that judgement which God himselfe threatned to Ahab Because thou hast let goe out of thine hand a man whom I appointed to dye thy life shall goe for his life 23. What then is there no meanes no hope of such that they may be saved God forbid Far be it from my heart once to thinke or my tongue to utter so hard a sentence There is a meanes and that after the Scripture the Councill expresly and often sets downe even were they denounce all those Anathemaes for thus they say They who defend Theodorus the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill the impious Epistle of Ibas or the defenders of them et in his vsque ad mortem permanent and continue in this defence untill they dye let such be accursed Renounce the defence of these Chapters and of the Defenders of them that is forsake and renounce that position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith renounce the defence of all that defend it that is of the whole present Romane Church Come out of Babylon the habitation of devils the hold of all vncleane spirits which hath made all nations drunke with the wine of her fornication which themselves cannot but acknowledge to be meant of Rome This doe and then Come unto the Lord and he will have mercy and to our God for he is very ready to forgive All your former impieties heresies and blasphemies shall not be mentioned unto you but in the righteousnes and Catholike truths which ye then embrace you shall live If this they will not doe we accuse them not we accurse them not they have one who doth both accuse and accurse them even this holy general Council whose just Anathemaes shal as firmely binde them before God in heaven as they were truly denounced by the Synod here on earth for he hath sealed theirs and all like censures with his owne signet who said Whatsoever ye binde upon earth shall be bound in heaven 24. After all these just Anathemaes denounced as well in generall as in particular by the Councill against the defenders of these Three Chapters or any one of them the holy Synod sets downe in the last place one other point as memorable as any of the former And that is by what authority they decreed all these things of which they thus say we have rightly confessed these things quae tradita sund nobis tam à divinis scripturis which are delivered unto us both in the divine scriptures and in the doctrines of the holy Fathers and in the definitions of faith made by the foure former Councils So the holy Councill Whence it doth evidently ensue that to teach and affirme that the Pope in his judiciall and cathedrall sentence of faith may erre and define heresie and that Vigilius in his constitution de facto did so is a truth consonant to Scriptures fathers and the foure first general Councils But on the other side to maintaine or affirme as do all who are members of the present Romane Church that the Popes cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is infallible is an hereticall position repugnant to Scriptures Fathers and the 4. first Councils and condemned by them all So at once the Holy Councill judicially defineth both our faith to be truly ancient Apostolical the selfe same which the Holy Fathers generall Councills and the Catholike Church professed for 600 yeares and the doctrine of the present Romane Church even that fundamentall position on which all the rest doe relye to be not onely new but hereticall such as none can maintaine but even thereby he oppugneth and contradicteth both the Scriptures Fathers the foure first general Councils and the Catholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ. 25. Further yet because one part of their sentence is the accursing of all who defend the Three Chapters either expresly as did Vigilius or implicitè and by consequent as do all who maintaine the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is al who are members of the present Romane Church and so die it cleerely ensueth from that last clause of the Councill that to condemne and accurse as heretikes all these yea all which doe not accurse these is by the judgement of this whole generall Council warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by the foure first generall Councils and by the Caholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ The judgement of this fifth Council being consonant to them all and warranted by them all 26. Neither is their Decree consonant onely to precedent Fathers and Councils but approved and confirmed by succeeding generall Councils by Popes and other Bishops in the following ages of the Church By the sixt Councill which professeth of it selfe that in omnibus consonuit it in all points agreeth with the fifth By the second Nicene which they account for the seaventh which reckneth this fift for one of the golden Councils which are glorious by the words of the holy Spirit and which all being inlightned by the same spirit decreed those things which are profitable professing that themselves did condemne all whom those Councils and among them whom this fift did condemne By other following Councils in every one of which the 2 Nicene and by consequent this fift Councill is approved as by the acts is cleare and Baronius confesseth that this fift in alijs Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est atque probata was acknowledged and approved by the other generall Councils which were held after it 27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bishops By Pelagius the second who writ an whole Epistle to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters telling them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto By Gregory who professing to embrace reverence the 4 first Councils as the 4 Euangelists addeth of this fift Quintū quoque cōcilium pariter veneror I do in like manner reverence the fift Councill wherin the impious Epistle of Ibas is rejected the writings of Theodoret with Theodorus his writings And then of them all he saith Cunctas personas whatsoever persons the foresaid five venerable Councils doe condemne those also doe I condemne whom they reverence I embrace because seeing they are decreed by an universall consent whosoever presumeth to loose whom they bind or bind
whom they loose se et non illa destruit he destroyeth himselfe but not those Councils and whosoever thinketh otherwise let him be accursed Thus Pope Gregory the great ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill and accursing all that labour to unty those bands By Agatho by Leo the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All their Popes after the the time of Gregorie were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fift as of the former Councils and that in such solemne and exact manner after the time of Hadrian the second that they professed as their forme it selfe set downe by Anton. Augustinus doth witnesse to embrace the eight generall Councils whereof this was one to hold them pari honore et veneratione in equal honor and esteeme to keepe them intirely usque ad unum apicem to the least iôta to follow and teach whatsoever they decreed and whatsoever they condemned to condemne both with their mouth and heart A like forme of profession is set downe in the Councill at Constance where the Councill having first decreed the power and authoritie of the Pope to be inferiour and subject to the Councill and that he ought to be obedient to them both in matters of faith and orders of reformation by this their superior authoritie ordaineth That every Pope at the time of his election shall professe that corde et ore both in words and in his heart hee doth embrace and firmely beleeve the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers and by the eleven generall Councils this fift being reckned for one and that he will keepe defend and teach the same faith with them usque ad unum apicem even to the least syllable To goe no further Baronius confesseth that not onely Gregory and his predecessors unto Vigilius sed successores omnes but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have received and confirmed this fift Councill 28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it but all orthodoxal Bishops in the world it being a custome as Baronius sheweth that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Councills which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri deberent all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe And this as it seemeth they did in those Literae Formatae or Communicatoriae or Pacificae so they were called which from ancient time they used to give and receive For by that forme of letters they testified their communion in faith and peaceable agreemēt with the whole Catholike Church Such an Vniforme consent there was in approving this fift Council in all succeeding Councills Popes and Bishops almost to these dayes 29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth that as this fift Synod so all succeeding Councils Popes and Bishops to the time of the Councill of Constance that is for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse as hereticall the judiciall and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius delivered by his Apostolical authority for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith therfore they al with an uniforme consent did in heart beleeve and in words professe and teach that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith may be and de facto hath been hereticall that is they all did beleeve and teach that doctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine to be truly ancient orthodoxall and catholike such as the whole Church of Christ for more then 14 hundred yeares beleeved and taught but the doctrine even the Fundamentall position whereon all their doctrines doe relie and which is vertually included in them all which the present Church of Rome maintaineth to be new hereticall and accursed such as the whole Church for so many hundred yeares together with one consent beleeved and taught to be accursed and hereticall It hence further ensueth that as this fift Councill did so all the fore-mentioned generall Councils Popes and Bishops doe with it condemne and accurse for heretikes not onely Vigilius but all who either have or doe hereafter defend him and his Constitution even all who either by word or writing have or shall maintaine that the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith is infallible that is all who are members of the present Romane Church and so continue till their death nay they not onely accurse all such but further also even all who doe not accurse such And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them to the least iôta it in the last place followeth that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith and accursing for heretikes all who either by word or writing have or doe at any time hereafter defend the same and so presist till they dye nay not onely the accursing of all such but of all who doe not accurse them is warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by all generall Councils by all Popes and Bishops that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ. 30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill Till then neither was the Popes authoritie held for supreme nor his judiciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible nay to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall and the maintainers of them to be heretikes For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill wherein these truths were decreed the same was expresly decreed by two generall Councils the one at Constance the other at Basil not long before that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill is supremum in terris the highest judgement in earth for rooting out of errors and preserving the true faith unto which judgement every one even the Pope himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable by the same Consider beside many other that one testimony of the Councill of Basil and you shall see they beleeved and professed this as a Catholike truth which in all ages of the Church had beene and still ought to be embraced They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance for the supreme authority of a Councill to which the Pope is subject say thus Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet although it is sufficiently evident by many declarations made both at Constance here at Basil that these are truths of the Catholike faith yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein This holy Synod doth define as followeth The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope declared in the generall Councill at Constance and in this at Basil est veritas fidei Catholicae is a veritie of the Catholike faith and
after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
cordiall profession there neither is nor can be any truth therein it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to be hereticall as the fift Councill defined and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such causes to be infallible as their Laterane Councill decreed So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe such as none can possibly beleeve and withall new such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced untill that very day of their Laterane Session 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of 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 Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of 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 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 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 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 thē 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 cōsisteth 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 warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause
purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even an utter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because
every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitū Edictū against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasiō which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the case is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith In eâ de personis tantummodo non autem de fide aliquid est gestum In it was onely handled somewhat concerning those persons but nothing concerning the faith So Gregory whose words if they be taken without any limitation are not onely untrue but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Councels and Fathers above mentioned even to Gregory himselfe for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time he saith Whosoever embraceth praedictarum Synodorum fidem the faith explaned by those five Councels peace be unto them And if hee had not in such particular manner testified this yet seeing hee approveth as was before shewed this fift Councel and the Decree therof seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith grounded on Scriptures and the definitions of faith set downe in former Councels even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply that he accounted this cause for no other than as the Synod it selfe did for a cause of faith 17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himselfe herein I list not to censure so of him rather by his owne words I desire to explane his meaning There were divers in his time as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius who condemned this fift Councell because as they supposed it had altered and abolished the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon by condemning these Three Chapters and had established a new doctrine of faith Gregorie intreating against these whom he truly calleth malignant persons and troublers of the Church denieth and that most justly that this
onely the faith decreed at Nice was corroborated and confirmed And the cause why the Sardican Councell is not reckoned in the order of generall Councels was not that which Bellarmine and Binius fancie because the Sardican and Nicene were held to be one and the same Councell for neither were they so indeed being called by different Emperours to different places at different times and upon different occasions neither were they ever by the ancient or any of sound judgement held for one Synod but the true reason thereof was this because the Sardicane though in dignity authority it was equall to the Nicene yet onely confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice and made no new or Introductive decree to condemne any heresie as did the other at Nice And truly for the selfe same reason the Church might if they had pleased have done the like to this fift Councell and not have accounted it no more than they did the Sardicane in a distinct number but onely esteemed it a Councell corroborative of the Councell at Chalcedon as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Councell which some Churches also did as by the 14. Councell at Toledo held a little after the sixt generall appeareth wherein this fift being for that cause omitted the sixt held under Constantinus Pogonatus is reckoned as the fift or next Councell to that at Chalcedō But for as much as this cause about the Three Chapters had bred so long and so exceeding great trouble in the Church and because the explanation of the faith made in this fift Councell upon occasion of those Chapters was so exact that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done it pleased the Church for these reasons with one consent declared first in the sixt Councell and then in the 2. Nicene and divers other after it to account this for the fift and ranke it as it well deserveth in the number of holy and golden generall Councels 22. It now I hope clearely appeareth how unjustly the Cardinall pretends the words of Pope Gregory as denying this to be at all any cause of faith whereas not onely by the Emperour by the fift Councell by the defenders as well as the condemners of these Chapters by succeding generall Councels by Popes even Pope Gregory among the rest by the Catholike Church and consent thereof untill their Laterane Synod but even by their owne writers Cardinall Bellarmine Sanders yea by Baronius himselfe it is evidently proved so nearely to concerne the faith that to defend these Chapters which Vigilius did is to enervate and overthrow and to condemne them which the Councell did is to uphold and confirme the Holy Catholike faith And although this alone if I should say no more were sufficient to oppose to this first Evasion of Baronius yet that both the truth hereof may more fully and further appeare and that the most vile and shamelesse dealing of Baronius in this cause such as I thinke few heretikes have ever parallel'd may be palpable unto all To that which hitherto we have spoken in generall concerning all these Three Chapters I purpose now to adde a particular consideration of each of them by it selfe whereby it will be evident that every one of these Chapters doth so directly concerne the faith that the defence of any one of them but especially of the two last is an oppugnation yea an abnegation of the whole Christian faith CAP. VI. That the first reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because none after their death ought noviter to be condemned concernes the faith and is hereticall 1. IN the first Chapter wherein Vigilius defēdeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia being long before dead ought not to bee condemned for an heretike the Popes sentence relyeth on three reasons the examination whereof wil both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter and manifest the foule errors of Vigilius as well doctrinall as personall as well concerning the faith as the fact 2. His first reason is drawne from a generall position which Vigilius taketh as a Maxime or doctrinall principle in divinitie Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis It is lawfull to condemne none after their death who were not in their life time condemned and therefore not Theodorus That Theodorus in his life time was not condemned Vigilius proveth not but presupposeth nor doe I in that dissent from him for although that testimony of Leontius be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did any while they lived reprove any of their sayings yet are there divers other inducements to perswade that Theodorus was not in his life time by any publike judgement of the Church either declared or condemned for an heretike for besides that neither Cyrill nor Proclus nor the fift generall Councell doe mention any such matter the words of Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary The Ephesine Synod saith he forbare in particular and by name to anathematize Theorus which they did dispensativè by a certaine dispensation indulgence or connivence because divers held him in great estimatiō or account what needed either any such dispensation or forbearance had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie Againe the Church of Mopsvestia where hee was Bishop for divers yeares after his death retained his name in Diplicis that is in their Ecclesiasticall tables making a thankfull commemoration of him as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie which had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike they would not have done Lastly what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous to condemne him being dead had he in his life time beene before condemned Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead 3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon that Theodorus was not before but after his death condemned the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis whether a dead man may Noviter be cōdemned Now that this is no personall but meerly a dogmaticall cause and controversie of faith is so evident that it might be a wonder that Baronius or any other should so much as doubt thereof unlesse the Apostle had foretold that because men doe not receive the love of the truth therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions that they may beleeve lyes Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius held this for no other but a doctrine of faith for he sets it downe as a Definition or Constitution of his predecessors decreed by the Apostolike See particularly by Pope Leo and Gelasius and so decreed by them as warranted and taught by the Scriptures for out
part willing to thinke better and more favourably of Leo and Gelasius in this matter specially of Leo whose authority when some defenders of the three Chapters objected to Pope Pelagius as according with them Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary as consenting wholly with Saint Austen who professed that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death if it could appeare that he were guilty of those crimes Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause yea and the words of Leo which hee citeth doe declare no lesse In that Epistle Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church were excommunicated or who did not performe the acts required in repentance saith If any of them die before hee obtaine remission quod manens in corpore non receperit consequi exutus carne non poterit hee cannot obtaine that to wit remission of his fault being dead which before his death he had not received And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius Neither is it needfull that we shold fift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigiâ—lius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade faith he that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he namin hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasins saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but
laboureth also to fasten that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes aswere Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only fights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have shewed was knowne and confessed because he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all
his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ. It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee it renounceth all peace and communion with him whether dead or alive nay rather it forsaketh not her communion with him but declareth unto all that shee never had communion or peace with this man such as hee was indeed before though she had peace with such as he seemed to bee Shee now denounceth a double anathema against him condemning him first for beleeving or teaching heresie and then for covering his heresie under the visor of a Catholike and of the Catholike faith So justly and fully doth the Emperour and Councell refute both the personall errour of Vigilius in that hee affirmeth Theodorus to have dyed in the peace of the Church and the doctrinall also in that he affirmeth it upon this ground that in his life time hee was not condemned by the Church 5. Now whereas Baronius saith that Vigilius had just and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter one of which is this because if this were once admitted that one dying in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned for an heretike pateret ostium there would a gap be opened that every ecclesiasticall writer licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset although hee dyed in the communion of the Catholike Church might after death be out of his writings condemned for an heretike truly hee feareth where no feare is at all This gap nay this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath laine wide open this sixteen hundred years Can the Cardinall or any of his friends in all these successiōs of ages wherin have dyed many thousand millions of Catholikes can he name or finde but so much as one who hath truly dyed in the peace and communion of the Church and yet hath beene after his death condemned by the Catholike Church for an heretike He cannot The Church should condemne her owne selfe if shee condemned any with whom she had peace and whom she embraceth in her holy communion which is no other but the society with God Such indeed may dye in some errour yea in an errour of faith as Papias Irenee Iustine in that of the millenaries as Cyprian as is likely and other Africane Bishops in that of Rebaptization but either dye heretikes or be after their death condemned by the Catholike Church for heretikes they cannot 6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinall and all his fellowes should feare another matter which more neerely concernes themselves and feare it even upon that Catholike position that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condemned They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause for his supremacy of authority or infallibility of his Cathedrall judgement feare to stuffe their Volumes as the Cardinall hath done his Annals with heresies and oppositions against the faith feare to continue and persist in their hereticall doctrine feare to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula the second and onely boord to save them after their shipwracke to dye I say before they revoked disclamed condemned or beene the first men to set fire to their hereticall doctrines and writings and at least in words if not as the custome was by oath and handwriting to testifie to the Church their desire to returne unto her bosome These are the things indeed they ought to feare knowing that howsoever they flatter themselves with the vaine name of the Church yet in very truth so long as their writings remaine testifying that they defended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith or any other doctrine relying on that ground whereof in their life time they have not made a certaine and knowne recantation they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church but may at any time after their death and ought whēsoever occasiō is offered be declared by the Church to have dyed in their heresies and therefore dyed both out of the peace of God and of the holy Church of God This unlesse they seriously and sincerely performe it is not I nor any of our writers whom they imagine but most unjustly out of spleene and contention to speake these things who condemne them but it is the whole Catholike Church Shee by approving this fift Councell and the true decree therof condemns this Apostolicall Cathedral definition of Vigilius and all that defend it that is all the members of the present Romane Church to be hereticall and as convicted heretikes she declares them to die anathematized that is utterly separated from God and from the peace and most blessed communion with the Church of God howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God 7. If any shall here reply or thinke that by the former examples of Papias Irenee Iustine Cyprian and the rest Baronius and other mēbers of the present Romane church may be excused that these also as the former though dying in their error may dye in the peace cōmunion of the Church this I confesse is a friendly but no firme excuse for although they are both alike in this that the former as well as the latter dye in an errour of faith yet is there extreme odds and many cleare dissimilitudes betwixt the state or condition of the one and the other 8. The first ariseth from the matter it selfe wherin they erre The former erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not eliquata declarata solidata per plenarium Concilium as S. Austen speaketh not fully scanned declared confirmed by a plenary Councell Had it bin we may well think the very same of all those holy men which Austen most charitably saith of S. Cyprian Sine dubio universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church The latter erre in that which to use same Fathers words per universae Ecclesiae statut a firmatum est which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church This fift Councell consonant to all precedent and confirmed by
holy communion of the whole catholike Church which they have wilfully insolently and most disdainfully rejected 12. The fourth and last difference which I now observe ariseth from the judgement of the Church concerning them both The former she is so farre from once thinking to have dyed in heresie or heretikes that shee most gladly testifieth her selfe not onely to hold them in her communion but to esteeme and honour them as glorious Saints of the Church Papias the author of that opinion a Saint Irene Iustine and Cyprian both Saints and Martyrs On the parties which hold the latter error she hath passed a contrary doome for by decreeing the Cathedrall sentence of Vigilius to be hereticall and accursing all who defend it she hath clearely judged and declared all who defend the Popes infallibilitie in defining causes of faith to bee heretikes dying so to die heretikes yea convicted heretikes anathematized by the judgement of the catholike Church and so pronounced to die out of the peace and communion of the catholike Church 13. I have stayed the longer in dissolving this doubt partly for that it is very obvious in this cause and yet as to me it seemed not very easie but specially that hereby I might open another errour in the Constitution of Vigilius who from the example of those Millenarie Fathers one of which to wit Nepos he expresly mentioneth would conclude That none at all though dying in heresie may after their death be condemned seeing Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria though he condemned the bookes and errour of Nepos yet Nepos himselfe hee did not injure nor condemne propter hoc maxime quia jam defunctus fuerat for this reason especially because Nepos was dead But by that which now at large I have declared it appeareth that Vigilius was twice mistaken in this matter for neither did Nepos die in a formall heresie but in an errour onely at that time to which he did not pertinaciously adhere though Prateolus and after him the Cardinall upon what reason I know not but sure none that is good reckons Nepos with Tertullian as one excluded from the ranke and order of catholikes neither did Dionysius or the Church for that reason at all which Vigilius fancieth much lesse for that especially forbeare to condemne Nepos because he was dead for then they would not have condemned Valentinus Basilides Cerinthus who also were dead when the Church condemned them but because they judged Nepos as well as Irene Iustine and the rest to have dyed though in an error yet in the unity peace and communion of the Church And this the words of Dionysius not rightly alleaged by Vigilius and no better translated by Christopherson doe import For Dionysius said not that hee therefore reverenced Nepos quia jam defunctus fuerat as the one nor quia ex hac vita migravit as the other readeth them that is because he was dead for upon that reason the holy Bishops should have reverenced also Simon Magus Cerinthus and other heretickes who were then dead but because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Musculus very rightly translateth thus I much reverence him as one qui jam ad quietem praecessit who is gone before mee unto rest that is because hee so dyed that his death was a passage to rest even to that rest of which the scripture saith using the same words they rest from their labour to that rest unto which himselfe hoped to follow Nepos for that Nepos is gone before to this rest therefore did Dionysius reverence him So both the assertion of Vigilius which from Dionysius he would prove is untrue that none who are dead may bee condemned and yet the saying of Dionysius is true that such as goe to rest or dye in the peace of the Church ought not to bee condemned 14. After this which the Cardinall hath said in generall concerning such as dye in the peace of the Church hee addeth one thing in particular concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia by way of application of that generall position unto him saying that Vigilius was therefore very slacke to condemne him because hee would not condemne those quos scisset in catholica communione defunctos whom he knew to have died in the catholike communion of the Church So the cardinall tells us that Vigilius knew and therefore that it is not onely true but certaine that Theodorus dyed in the catholike communion 15. What thinke you doth the cardinall gaine by pleading thus for Theodorus a condemned heretike Truly for his paines herein the holy Councell payes him soundly for first in plaine termes it calls him a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Church and if this be not enough it denounceth an Anathema unto him for so saying Cursed bee hee that curseth not Theodorus how much more cursed then is he who acquits Theodorus from that curse who makes Theodorus blessed for blessed are all they that dye in the peace and holy communion of the Church and that Theodorus so dyed the Cardinall for a certainty doth assure us for Vigilius knew that he so dyed 16. But what Church I pray you is that in the communion whereof the Cardinall assures us Theodorus to have dyed you may bee sure it is their Romane for in the Cardinalls idiome that 's not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church but it s the one and onely Church In the communion then of their Romane church even in the communion with the Cardinall himselfe dyed Theodorus Now its certaine he died not in the communion of the Church which was in the fift generall Councell for they utterly disclaim him accurse him and call them lyars and slanderers that say hee dyed in their communion Againe its certaine that the Church of that fift Councell was of the same communion with the whole Catholike and Apostolike Church themselves professing to hold the same faith and communion with all former holy generall Councells and Catholikes and all succeeding catholikes by approving it professing the same faith and communion with it Seeing then Theodorus dyed not in the communion of this Church which is the true and truly catholike Church and yet dyed as the Cardinall assures you in the communion of their Romane church it doth clearly and certainly hence ensue that their Romane church is neither the true catholike neither hath full communion with the true catholike Church 17. Lastly seeing Theodorus as the Cardinall tells us died in the peace and communion of their Church and Theodorus was most certainly an heretike condemned by the catholike Church declared by the same Church to bee accursed that is separated from God nay to be a very Devill as the holy Councell proclaimed him Their Romane church must needes bee at peace and of the same communion with condemned heretikes with Anius Nestorius Eutiches Eunomius none of them all can bee worse then as Theodorus was condemned heretikes by the judgement
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 with themselves put their hands to this holy worke pedibusque rotarum subijciunt lapsus stupeae 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 faith 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 coÌ„fesse 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 investigatione by a diligent inquisition yea that he perused his bookes most diligently for this point and concludeth both of it and the rest that hee decreed these things cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all possible care and diligence that could be used And because plâ—s vident oculi quam oculus hee added to his owne the judgement of an whole Synod of Bishops all of them bending their eyes wits industry to find out the truth in this cause Further yet Vigilius speaketh in this cause of Ibas not doubtfully but in words proceeding from certaine knowledge and resolute judgment dilucide aperteque reperimus evidenter advertimus apertissimum noscuntur praebuisse consensum evidenter declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil in confessione fidei fuisse reprehensum illud indubitanter patet apertissima lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae constat eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore luce clarius demonstratur All which doe shew that Vigilius spake out of his setled judgement and resolution after most diligent examination of this cause Now that the whole Epistle and of all parts that especially where Ibas intreateth of the union that this is full of Nestorianisme is so evident that scarce any though but of a shallow judgement who doth with ordinary diligence peruse and ponder the same can otherwise chuse than observe and see it Wherefore I cannot thinke but that Vigilius both saw and knew that part of the Epistle above all the rest to containe the doctrines of Nestorius and an approbation of them all and that by approving the union there mentioned he approved all the doctrines of the Nestorians 24. But for cardinall Baronius that hee in defending the latter part of this Epistle as doth Vigilius before him that in striving so earnestly by it to prove Ibas to have beene a catholike and his Epistle to be orthodoxall at least in the latter part because Ibas assented to the union mentioned therein that he I say did herein wittingly willingly and obstinately labour to maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for my owne part I cannot almost doubt nor as I thinke will his best friends when they have well considered of his words He intreating of this matter touching Ibas and his Epistle in another place where this Constitution of Vigilius comes not to the scanning and so did not dimne his sight ingenuously there confesseth that this Epistle is hereticall written by a Nestorian written of purpose to disgrace Cyrill and the catholikes as if they at the union had recanted their former doctrines But let us heare his owne words 25. He having shewed that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils minde and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters addeth this They who favoured Nestorius spred abroad a rumour that Cyrill had in all things consented unto Iohn and condemned his former doctrines and a little after declaring how the Nestorians did slander Cyrill he saith Besides others who tooke part with Nestorius even Theodoret also ijsdem aggressus est Cyrillum urgere calumnijs vexed Cyrill with the same slanders that he had condemned his owne Chapters and then comming to this Epistle of Ibas he thus writeth Who so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians let him reade the Epistle wch is said to be the Epist. of Ibas unto Maris wherin any may see the Nestorian fellow insulting and triumphing as if the cause had beene adjudged to him jactantem Cyrillum poenitentem tandem recantâ—sse palinodiam and vaunting that Cyrill repenting himselfe of his former doctrines did now at last revoke the same and sing a new song And this the author of that Epistle writ and sent abroad as a Circular Epistle to be read throughout the Provinces pro solatio eorum ignominia Catholicorum for the comfort of the Nestorians and for the disgrace of Catholikes Thus Baronius Professing as you see that he knew this Epistle to be hereticall and that even in the latter end which Vigilius and himself defendeth as orthodoxall yea eveÌ„ in that very point touching the union mentioned in that Epistle to be a meere calumnie against Cyrill and the Catholikes as if they by making the union had consented to Nestorianisme and renounced the Ephesine Councell and the Catholike faith 26. Seeing now the Card. knew all this to be true and yet afterwards for defence of Vigilius and his Constitution teacheth and maintaineth that by embracing the union mentioned in this Epistle Ibas was a Catholike and was for this cause by the
Councell at Chalcedon and ought by all others to be adjudged a Catholike is it not evident that the Cardinall wittingly and willingly maintaines hereby the union with the Nestorians to bee the catholike union and so the doctrines of the Nestorians to bee the catholike faith for this union mentioned in the Epistle is as the Cardinall professeth an union in Nestorianisme an union with Cyrill having now renounced the Ephesine Councell and the catholike faith 27. Onely there is one quirke or subtilty in the Cardinals words which may not without great wrong unto him bee omitted where he acknowledgeth this Epistle to be hereticall hereticall in this point of the union there he will not have it to be the Epistle of Ibas for then by it Ibas should bee judged a Nestorian which would quite overthrow the Constitution of Vigilius when in the other place he defends as Vigilius decreeth that Ibas by this Epistle and by consenting to this union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike there the Epistle is truly the Epistle of Ibas but then consenting to this union is the note of a Catholike So both this Epistle is the Epistle of Ibas and it is not the Epistle of Ibas and to consent to the union herein mentioned is the note of a Nestorian heretike and to consent to the same union is the note of a good Catholike Thus doth the Cardinall play sport himselfe in contradictions and as the winde blowes and turnes him so doth he turne his note also If the winde blow to Alexandria and turne the Cardinals face towards Cyrill then the union is hereticall lest Cyrill who condemned it should bee condemned for an heretike If the winde blow from Africke and turne the Cardinals face towards Rome and Pope Vigilius then the union is Catholike lest Vigilius approving this union should not be thought a Catholike Or because a Cardinall so learned so renouned as Baronius may not be thought to contradict himselfe or speake amisse in either place let both sayings be admitted for true and then it unavoydably followeth that by the Cardinals divinity and in his judgment Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith which aptly and easily will accord both his sayings for so the author of this Epistle by approving this union shall be a perfect Nestorian as in the one place is affirmed and by approving this union shall be withall a perfect Catholike as in the other place is avouched 28. Besides this confession of Baronius which is cleare enough there is yet another meanes to demonstrate that the Cardinall by defending this latter part of the Epistle touching the union did wittingly and wilfully maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for the fift generall Councell approved as wee have shewed by the judgment of the whole Catholike Church hath adjudged this very part of the Epistle the defence whereof Baronius hath undertaken not onely to bee hereticall but to bee more full of blasphemies than any of the rest it hath further judicially defined al that defend either this or any part of that Epistle to be heretikes and for such it hath anathematized them yea all that write either for it or for them Now the Cardinall had read the whole fift Councell as appeareth by that summary collection which he hath made of the Acts and of every Collation thereof nay hee had not onely read these Acts but pried earnestly with a jealous and carping eie into every corner and sentence thereof as you shall perceive hereafter and therefore it is doubtlesse that hee knew the judgement of this fift Councell concerning all that defend any part of this Epistle and specially the latter part which concernes the union Neither onely did he know that to be the judgement of this fist Councell but as himselfe expresly witnesseth of all both Popes and generall Councels which followed it all of them approving this fift Councell and the judgement thereof whence it is cleare that Baronius knew certainly himselfe by defending this part of the Epistle touching the union to defend that which by the judgment of the fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church ever since hath beene condemned for hereticall and the defenders of it anathematized as heretikes yet such was the Cardinals zeale and ardent affection to Nestorianisme that against the judgement of the whole Church knowne unto him yea knowne for this very cause to anathematize him yet he defends the union there mentioned and the latter part of that Epistle wherein it is mentioned that is in truth all the blasphemies of Nestorius chosing rather by adhering to Vigilius and his hereticall decree to be condemned and anathematized by the whole Catholike Church for a Nestorian heretike than by forsaking the defence of Vigilius and his decree to condemne this latter part of the Epistle of Ibas touching the union which containeth in it the very quintessence of all Nestorianisme 29. I think it is now sufficiently apparent by that which wee have already said that the union which Ibas in his Epistle mentioneth and embraceth and which Vigilius first and after him Baronius approveth is not that true union in the Catholike faith which Cyrill made with Iohn and other Easterne Bishops but onely an union in Nestorianisme and in denying the Catholike faith to which the Nestorians falsly reported and slandered Cyrill with the other Catholikes to have consented and thereby to have condemned and anathematized that truth which the yeare before they had decreed at Ephesus Yet for the full satisfaction of all and clearing of all doubts which may arise I will adde one thing further which will much more manifest both the calumnie of the Nestorians and the constancy of Saint Cyrill and that is upon what colour or pretence the Nestorians raised this slanderous report which I am the more desirous to explane because the narration of this matter is extreamly confounded and entangled by Baronius and Binius and that as may be feared even of set purpose that they might either quite discourage others as almost they had done my selfe in the search of this truth or at least misleade them into such by-paths that they should not finde the truth in this matter 30. When Theodosius the religious Emperour had written by Aristolaus that earnest letter to Iohn and the other Easterne Bishops perswading yea commanding them to consent with Cyrill and embrace the Catholike communion they upon the Emperors motion sought indeed to make an union with Cyrill but they laboured to effect it by drawing Cyrill unto their bent and to consent unto their heresies This they first attempted by a letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea willing him to write in all their names unto Cyrill that no unity or concord could be made but according to those conditions which themselves should prescribe and the condition prescribed by them was that Cyrill should abolish and condemne all that ever hee had written against Nestorianisme and
meaning as thinking Cyrill to have taught but one Nature that is one Person in Christ. Lastly the comparison which Vigilius sets downe betwixt Ibas and Dioscorus is hereby made easie and cleare Dioscorus though hee commended Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell for teaching one Nature in Christ to wit one Nature in Dioscorus sense that is one Essence did more wrong Cyrill and the Councell than Ibas who condemned them both teaching one Nature to wit one in Ibas his sense that is one person in Christ For Dioscorus commended them in an execrable and hereticall sense as teaching one nature in Dioscorus sense that is one essence which to affirme is hereticall but Ibas condemned them in an orthodoxall sense as thinking them to teach one nature in Ibas his sense that is one person in Christ which to condemne is orthodoxall Againe Dioscorus though it was explaned unto him that neither Cyrill nor the Ephesine Councell taught one nature in his sense yet did hee by his hereticall spirit persist in commending them as agreeing with him in that hereticall doctrine but Ibas when it was explaned unto him that Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell taught not one but two natures in Ibas his sense by his orthodoxall spirit desisted presently to condemne them and then embraced them both as agreeing with him in his orthodoxall doctrine of two natures that is of two persons in Christ. Lastly Dioscorus though hee commended them yet because hee did it in an hereticall sense and with an hereticall spirit was justly condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon but Ibas though hee condemned them yet because he did it in an orthodoxall sense and with an orthodoxall spirit amending what by an errour and mis-understanding he had done amisse was approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and judged by them to have continued in the right Catholike faith Thus by our exposition that Vigilius meant the slanderous and hereticall explanation of Cyrils Chapters is his whole text both coherent and congruous to it selfe and very perspicuous and easie which if Vigilius should meane or be expounded to have understood of the true and orthodoxall Explanation of Cyrill would bee not onely obscure and inextricable but even repugnant as well to the scope as to the words and text of Vigilius 55. Thus the whole text of Vigilius being elucidated it is now easie to discerne the two last parts of the Popes Artificium which before I mentioned for now you see that his Divinity is meere heresie and Nestorianisme and that his morality is unjustice falshood and calumnie most injuriously slandering not only Saint Cyrill but the holy generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon to have like himselfe defended and embraced the same heresies of Nestorius which by them all is together with this decree of Vigilius anathematized and condemned to the very pit of hell There needeth not nor will I seeke any other censure of this most shamefull dealing of Vigilius then the very words of Baronius concerning the Nestorians Haec cum sciveris perfacile intelliges Seeing you have knowne these things you may easily perceive under whose banner and ensigne these men fight For seeing you have seene them by calumnies lyes and impostures publishing counterfeit Epistles counterfeit explanations in the names of renowned men such as Cyrill was and patching lyes unto lyes you may well know whose souldiers they are even the ministers of Sathan transfiguring themselves into Angels of Light Nescit enim pura religio imposturas for true Religion is voyd of frauds and impostures nor doth the truth seeke lying pretenses nor the catholike faith support it selfe by calumnies and slanders sincerity goeth secure attended onely with simplicity with which censure of Baronius agreeing indeed to all Nestorians but in an eminencie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Vigilius hee being the Captaine and King of them all I end my Commentary on the Constitution of Vigilius which although it be not so plausibly set downe as Baronius would have done had hee thought good to have undertaken that office yet I dare boldly affirme it is delivered farre more truly faithfully and agreeably to the text then either the Cardinall himselfe or any other of the Popes Gnathoes would ever have performed for as I have not wittingly omitted any one clause which might breed a doubt in this obscure passage so have I not wrested the words of Vigilius to any other sense then the coherence of his text the evidence of reason and manifold proofe out of the historical narration and circumstances thereof doe necessarily inferre and even enforce 56. My conclusion now of this second reason of Vigilius and Baronius for defence of this Epistle of Ibas is this seeing the one defineth and the other defendeth both Ibas himselfe and his profession in this Epistle in this point and in the sense of Ibas to be orthodoxall because Ibas professeth therein two natures and one person to bee in Christ and seeing as wee have certainly proved Ibas meant two such natures as make two distinct persons and one person not by a naturall and hypostaticall union but onely by affection liking and cohabitation which is the very heresie condemned in Nestorius It doth hence clearly and unavoidably ensue not onely that this third Chapter touching the approving of the Epistle of Ibas doth concerne the faith and is a question and cause of faith but that Vigilius first and next Baronius and then all who by word or writing doe defend either Vigilius or Baronius or the Popes judgment in causes of faith to be infallible that they all by defending this Epistle as orthodoxall or that Ibas by it ought to bee judged a Catholike doe thereby maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius to be the onely Catholike faith CHAP. XIII Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chapters refuted and two other against them confirmed the one That to dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an Heretike nor a Schismatike the other That to assent absolutely in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome makes one both an Heretike and a Schismatike 1. HAving now demonstratively refuted the first evasion of Baronius I would proceed to the second but that Baronius doth enforce me to stay a little in the examining of two Positions which he collects and sets downe touching this cause the former concerning heresie the later concerning schisme 2. His former is this That both the defenders and the condemners of these three Chapters were Catholikes neither of both were Heretikes Negatio vel assertio non constituebat quemquam haereticum neither the condemning of these Chapters nor the defending of them made one an heretike unlesse there were some other error joyned with it Againe in these disputations about the three Chapters the question was not such ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus that one dissenting from another herein might be called an
heretike So Baronius who to free Vigilius from heresie acquits all that deale either pro or contra in this cause neither one side nor the other are heretikes 3. See how heresie makes a man to dote That this question about the three Chapters is a cause of faith wee have cleerly and unanswerably confirmed and Baronius himselfe hath confessed That the defenders of them and condemners were in a manifest contradiction in this cause the former by an evident consequent and cunningly defending the other condemning the heresies of Nestorius is most evident and yet both of them in the Cardinals judgement are good Catholikes neither the one who with the Nestorians deny Christ to be God nor the other who affirme him to be God may be called heretikes This truly is either the same heresie which the Rhetorians maintained who as Philastrius saith praised all sects and opinions and said they all went the right way or else it is an heresie peculiar to Baronius such as none before him ever dreamed of That two contradictories in a cause of faith may be held and yet neither of them be an heresie nor the pertinacious defenders of either of them both be heretikes Baronius would be famous for a peece of new found learning and an hereticall quirke above all that ever went before him such as by which he hath ex condigno merited an applause of all heretiks which either have beene or shall arise hereafter For seeing in this cause of faith two contradictories may be held without heresie the like may be in every other point of faith and so with Vigilius the Arians Eutycheans and all heretikes shall have their quietus est say what they will in any cause of faith none may call them heretikes I commend the Cardinall for his wit This makes all cocke sure it is an unexpugnable bulwarke to defend the Constitution of Pope Vigilius 4. Say you neither the defenders nor the condemners of these Chapters may for that cause bee called heretikes For the condemners of them trouble not your wit they are and shall be ever acknowledged for Catholikes But for the defenders of them who are the onely men that the Cardinall would gratifie by this assertion I may boldly say with the Prophet Though thou wash them with nitre and much sope yet is their iniquity marked out All the water in Tyber and Euphrates cannot wash away their heresie for as we have before fully declared the defending of any one much more of all these three Chapters is the defending of Nestorianisme and all the blasphemies thereof the condemning of the holy Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon and of all that approve them that is of the whole catholike Church and of the whole Catholike Faith All these must be hereticall if the defenders of those three Chapters be not heretikes 5. Now against this assertion of Baronius whereby he would acquit Vigilius and all that defend him from heresie I will oppose another and true assertion ensuing of that which wee have clearly proved and this it is That one or moe either men or Churches may dissent from the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in a cause of faith made knowne unto them and yet be no heretikes For to omit other instances no lesse effectuall this one concerning Vigilius doth make this most evident The cause was a cause of faith as Baronius himselfe often professeth The Popes definitive and Apostolicall sentence in that cause of faith made for defence of those three Chapters was published and made knowne to the fift generall Councell and to the whole Church this also Baronius confesseth and yet they who contradicted the Popes Apostolicall sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them were not heretikes this also is the confession of Baronius whose assertion as you have seene is that neither the condemners of these Chapters nor the defenders of them were heretiks So by the Cardinalls owne assertions one may contradict and oppugne the Popes knowne Cathedral and Apostolicall sentēce in cause of faith and yet bee no heretike But what speake I of Baronius the evidence and force of reason doth unresistably confirme this For the whole fift generall Councell contradicted yea condemned and accursed the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them The whole Catholike Church ever since hath approved the fift Councell and the decree thereof and therefore hath contradicted condemned and accursed the Popes sentence as the Councell had done And none I hope will be so impudently hereticall as to call not onely the fift generall and holy Councell but the whole Catholike Church of God heretikes who yet must all be heretikes or else the dissenting from yea the detesting and accursing the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith cannot make one an heretike 6. I say more and adde this as a further consequent on that which hath been declared That none can now assent to their Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church but eo nomine even for that very cause they are convicted condemned and accursed heretikes For the manifesting of which conclusion I will begin with that their fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith whereof before I have so often made mention And to prove the present Romane Church to bee hereticall herein two things are to be declared the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church the other that this doctrine is hereticall and for such condemned by the Catholike Church 7. For the former that the assertion of Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith is the doctrine of the present Romane Church I thinke none conversant in their writings will make doubt Give mee leave to propose some testimonies of their owne The Pope saith Bellarmine when hee teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith nullo casu errare potest hee can by no possible meanes then erre And this as he saith is certissimum a most certaine truth and in the end hee addeth this is a signe Ecclesiam totam sentire that the whole Church doth beleeve the Pope to be in such causes infallible So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church The Iesuite Coster for himselfe and their whole Church saith We doe constantly deny the Popes vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere to be able either to teach an heresie or to propose an errour to be beleeved When the Pope saith Bozius teacheth the Church or sets forth a decree of faith Divinitùs illi praeclusa est omnis via God then stoppeth every way unto him which might bring him into errour Againe in making such decrees nunquam valuit aut valebit facere contra fidem he never was he never shall be able to doe ought against the faith We beleeve saith Gretzer
the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius The Pope universorum personam sustinet sustaineth the person of all Bishops of all Councels of all the whole Church he is in stead of them all As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formally and the generall Councell is the Church representatively so the Pope also is the Church Vertually as sustaining the person of all and having the power vertue and authoritie of all both the formall and representative Church and so the Churches or Councels judgement is the Popes judgement and the Churches or Councels infallibility is in plaine speech the Popes infallibilitie 10. This will further appeare by those comparisons which they make betwixt the Church or Councels and the Pope It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine as also of their best writers that there is as much authoritie Intensivè in the Pope alone as in the Pope with a generall Councell or with the whole Church though Extensivè it is more in them then in him alone Even as the light is Intensivè for degrees of brightnes as great in the Sun alone as in it with all the Starres though it is Extensivè more in thē that is more diffused or spred abroad into moe being in them then in the Sun alone Neither onely is all the authoritie which either Coūcell or Church hath in the Pope but is in a far more eminent manner in him then in them In him it is Primitively or originally as water in the fountaine or as light in the Sun Omnis authoritas est in uno saith Bellarmine seeing the governmēt of the Church is Monarchicall all ecclesiasticall power is in one he meanes the Pope and from him it is derived unto others In the Councell and the rest of the Church it is but derivatively borrowed from the Pope as waters in little brookes or as light in the moone starres In him is Plenitudo potestatis as Innocentius teacheth the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him in the rest whether Councels or Church it is onely by Participation and measure they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads from the lowest skirts of his garment So whatsoever authoritie either Church or generall Councell hath the same hath the Pope and that more eminently and more abundantly then they either have or can have 11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement that 's so peculiar to him that as they teach neither the Pope can communicate it unto Church or Councell nor can they receive it but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope in whom alone it resideth Potestas infallibilitaes papalis est potestas gratia personalis saith Stapleton Papall power and infallibilitie is a personall gift and grace given to the person of Peter and his successors and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others In like sort Pighius Vni Petro atque ejus Cathedrae non
this it owne selfe note this especially and all other Articles of faith doe depend upon this all Articles of faith doe hang hoc unum praesupponunt they all praesuppose this and take it for granted This and much more hath Stapleton 16. But what speake I of Bellarmine or Stapleton though the latter hath most diligently sifted this cause This position that the Church is the last Iudge and so the lowest foundation of their faith is the decreed doctrine of their Trent Councell and therefore the consenting voyce of their whole Church and of every member thereof For in that Councell the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures and by the like reason it is to iudge of traditions and of the sense of them Now because all doubts and controversies of faith depend on the one of these it clearly followeth upon that decree that the very last stay in all doubts of faith is the Churches judgement but that upon no other nor higher stay doth or can relie for whatsoever you take besides this the truth the waight and validity of all must be tried in the Church at her judgement it must stand or fall yea if you make a doubt of the Churches judgement it selfe even that as all other must be ended by the judgement of the Church it is the last Iudge of all This to bee the true meaning of the Trent Councel Bellarmine both saw and professeth when hee saith The Church that is the Pope with a Councell is Iudge of the sense of the Scripture omnium controversiarum and of all controversies of faith and in this all Catholikes do agree and it is expresly set downe in the Trent Councell So Bellarmine testifying this to be both the decreed doctrine of their generall and approved Councell and the consenting judgment of all that are Romane Catholikes 17. Now all this which they have said of the Church if you will have it in plaine termes and without circumloquution belongs onely to the Pope who is vertually both Church and Councell As the Church or Councell is called infallible no otherwise but by a Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head both of Church and Councell is infallible So is the Church or Councell called the foundation of faith or last principle on which their faith must relie by the same figure Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head of them both is the foundation of faith And whosoever is a true Romane Catholike or member of their present Church hee beleeveth all other doctrines because the Church that is the Pope doth teach them and the Pope to teach them infallibly he beleeveth for it selfe because the Pope saith hee is in such teaching infallible This infallibility of the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very corner stone the foundation stone the rocke and fundamentall position of their whole faith and religion which was the point that I purposed to declare 18. I have hitherto declared and I feare too abundantly that the assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie in causes of faith is not onely a position but the very fundamentall position of all the doctrines of the present Romane Church In the next place we are to prove that this position is hereticall and that for such it was adjudged and condemned by the Catholike Church In the proofe whereof I shall not need to stay long This whole treatise and even that which hath already beene declared touching the Constitution of Pope Vigilius doth evidently confirme the same For seeing the defending of the Three Chapters hath been proved to be hereticall the Constitution of Vigilius made in defence of those Chapters must of necessity be confessed to be hereticall Nay if you well consider you shall see that this very position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie is adjudged to bee hereticall For the fift generall Councell knew this cause of the Three Chapters to bee a cause of faith They knew further that Pope Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree and Cathedrall Constitution had defined that those Three Chapters ought to bee defended Now seeing they knew both these and yet judicially defined the defence of those Three Chapters to be hereticall and for such accursed it even in doing this they define the Cathedrall judgement of Vigilius in this cause of Faith to be hereticall and therefore most certainly and à fortiori define this position That the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is infallible to bee hereticall and for such they anathematize both it and all that defend it And because the judgement and definitive sentence of the fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all subsequent Councels till the Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth it unavoydably hence ensueth that the same position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is by the judgement of all generall Councells untill that time that is by the constant and uniforme consent of the whole Catholike Church adjudged condemned and accursed for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes And seeing we have cleerly proved the whole present Romane Church and all that are members therof to defend this position yea to defend it as the maine foundation of their whole faith the evidence of that assertion which I proposed doth now manifestly appeare That none can now assent to the Pope or to the doctrines of the present Church of Rome but he is eo nomine even for that very cause adjudged and condemned for hereticall and that even in the very ground and foundation of his faith 19. From the foundation let us proceed to the walls and roofe of their religion Thinke you the foundation thereof is onely hereticall and the doctrines which they build thereon orthodoxall Nothing lesse They are both sutable both hereticall That one fundamentall position is like the Trojan horse in the wombe of it are hid many troopes of heresies If Liberius confirme Arianisme Honorius Monothelitisme Vigilius Nestorianisme these all by vertue of that one assertion must passe currant for Catholike truths Nay who can comprehend I say not in words or writing but in his thought and imagination all the blasphemous and hereticall doctrines which by all their Popes have beene or if as yet they have not which hereafter may be by succeeding Popes defined to bee doctrines of faith Seeing Stapleton assures us That the Church of this or any succeeding age may put into the Canon and number of sacred and undoubtedly Canonicall bookes the booke of Hermas called Pastor and the Constitutions of Clement the former being as their owne notes censure it haeresibus fabulis opplet us full of heresies and fables rejected by Pope Gelasius with his Romane Synod the later being stuffed also with many impious doctrines condemning lawfull mariage as fornication and allowing fornication as lawfull with many the like impieties which in Possevine are to
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because
they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme and infallible and so build their faith on him as on the foundation thereof which their owne Church never did till the time of Leo the tenth It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah but the Lion of that Laterane Synod who is the first Godfather of that name unto them when hee had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation were fitly christened with this name of Papists to distinguish them and their present Romane Church from all others who held the old good and sure foundation 26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines The errours maintained by all those three sorts of which I have spoken are almost the same and materially they are Popish heresies and yet the first sort did onely erre therein but were not heretikes because not pertinacious The second doe not onely erre but by adding pertinacy to errour are truly heretikes but yet not Papists because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner and on another foundation then Papists doe The third and last sort which containeth all and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church doe both erre and are heretikes and which is the worst degree of heresie are Papists that is Antichristian heretikes not onely holding and that in the highest degree of pertinacy those heresies which are contrary to the faith but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appeare which before I proposed that none who hold the Popes infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation that is none of the present Romane Church either doth or can beleeve any one doctrine of faith which they professe For seeing the beleefe of all other points relyes upō this so that they beleeve thē because they first beleeve this it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher Propter quod unumquodque illud magis that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this which is the foundation than they doe or can beleeve any other doctrine I say not Transubstantiation or Purgatory but more thā that Article of their Creed that Christ is God or that there is a God or any the like which is builded upon this foundatiō And seeing we have cleerly demonstrated that foundation to bee not onely untrue but hereticall and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith it being no true object of faith it doth evidently hence ensue that they neither doe nor can beleeve any one doctrine position or point of faith Impossible it is that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof or the conclusion more certaine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent and make us certaine of the conclusion That one fundamentall uncertainty contrariety to the faith which is vertually in all the rest breeds the like uncertainty and contrariety to faith in them all and like a Radicall poyson spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion infecting every arme branch and twigge of their doctrine and faith whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine and those are not a few those they neither doe nor can beleeve because they are no objects of faith whatsoever truths they maintaine and no doubt they doe many those they thinke they doe and they might doe but indeed they doe not beleeve because they hold them for that reason and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith and which overthroweth the faith For to hold or professe that Christ is God or that there is a God eo nomine because the Devill or Antichrist or a fallible man testifieth it unto us is not truly to beleeve but to overthrow the faith 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius If because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith they doe therefore beleeve it then must they beleeve Nestorianisme to be the truth and Christ not to bee God because Pope Vigilius by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence hath decreed this in decreeing that the three Chapters are to be defēded If they beleeve not this then can they beleeve nothing at all eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and then the foundation of their faith being abolished their whole faith together with it must needs be abolished also Againe if because the Pope defineth a doctrine they doe therefore beleeve it then seeing Pope Caelestine with the Ephesine and Pope Leo with the Chalcedon Councell decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie they by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infallibility must at one and the same time beleeve both Nestorianisme to be truth as Pope Vigilius defined and Nestorianisme to be heresie as Pope Calestine and Leo defined and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true yea to bee truths of the Catholike faith which to beleeve is impossible or else they must beleeve that it is impossible to beleeve either the one or the other eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that which is the foundation of their whole faith Neither is this true onely in other points but even in this very foundation it selfe for the fift Councell which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters to be hereticall was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true because the Pope hath defined it then must they beleeve the Popes Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and so beleeve that upon this fallible and hereticall foundation they can build no doctrine of faith nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith So if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible then for this cause can they have no faith nor beleeve ought with certainty of faith seeing all relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we
to be received in both kinds he then would receive it not in both but in one kind onely Blessed Luther it was never thy meaning either to receive it onely in one or to deny it to be necessary for Gods Church and people to receive it in both kindes Thou knewest right well that Bibite ex hoc omnes was Christs owne ordinance with which none might dispense Thou for defence of this truth among many was set up as a signe of contradiction unto them and as a marke at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches Farre was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth But whereas they taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrarie such as the Church that is the Pope might either allow or take away as he should thinke fit upon this supposall and no otherwise didst thou in thine ardent zeale to Christ and detestation of Antichrist say that were the use of both or one kinde onely a thing indeed indifferent as they taught it to be if the Pope as Pope should command the receiving in both kindes thou wouldst not then receive it so lest whilst thou might seeme to obey Christ commanding that but yet upon their supposall as a thing indifferent thou shouldest certainly performe obedience to Antichrist by his authoritie limiting and restraining that indifferency unto both kindes as now by his authority hee restraines it unto one The summe is this To doe any act whether in it selfe good or indifferent but commanded to be done by the Pope as Pope to pray to preach to receive the Sacraments yea but to lift your eyes or hold up your finger or say your Pater noster or your Ave Maria or weare a bead a modell a lace or my garment white or blacke or use any crossing either at Baptisme or any other time to do any one of these or any the like eo nomine because the Pope as Pope teacheth that they are to be done or commands the doing of them is in very deed a yeelding one selfe to be a vassall of Antichrist a receiving the marke of the beast and a vertuall or implicit deniall of the faith in Christ. So extremly venemous is that poison which lyeth in the root of that fundamentall heresie which they have laid as the very rocke and Foundation of their faith 34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baronius which concerned Heresie His other concerning Schisme is this That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended were Schismatikes A most strange assertion that the whole Catholike Church should bee schismaticall for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause that Catholikes should all at once become Schismatikes yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholike faith I oppose to this another and true assertion That not onely Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters and forsooke communion with the condemners of them was a Schismatike himselfe and chiefe of the Schisme but that all who as yet defend Vigilius that is who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith and forsake communion with those that condemne it that those all are and that for this very cause Schismatikes and the Pope the ringleader in the Schisme 35. For the manifesting whereof certaine it is that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly and judicially by his Apostolicall authority defined that the Three Chapters ought to be defended there was a great rent and Schisme in the Church either part separating it selfe from the other and forsaking communion with the other First the holy Councell and they who tooke part with it anathematized the defenders of those Chapters thereby as themselves expound it declaring their opposites to be separated from God and therefore from the society of the church of God On the other side Pope Vigilius they who were on his part were so averse from the others that they would rather endure disgrace yea banishment as Baronius sheweth thē communicate with their opposites But I shal not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schisme at this time betweene the defenders condemners of those chapters Baronius professeth it saying The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata torn asunder by a schisme Againe After the end of the Councell there arose a greater war then was before Catholikes so he falsly calls both parts being then divided among themselves some adhaering to the Councell others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution Againe Many relying 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 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 Stapleton rightly observes Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the
Church I say from the true orthodoxall Church for a Saint Augustine in the same place teacheth whosoever dissents from the Scriptures and so from the true faith though they be spred throughout the whole world 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 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 are the only essentially schismatickes at this time and in this great rent of the Church 39. Whence againe doth ensue another Conclusion of no small importance For it is a ruled case among them such as Bellarmine avoucheth to be proved both by Scriptures by Fathers by pontificall decrees and sound reason that no schismatickes are in the Church or of the Church Now because out of the Church there is no salvation it nearly concernes them to bethinke themselves seriously what hope there is or can be unto them who being as wee have proved schismatickes are for this cause by their owne doctrine utterly excluded from the Church But I will proceed no further in this matter wherein I have stayed much longer then I intended yet my hope is that I have now abundantly cleared against Baronius not onely That one may dissent in faith and bee disioyned in communion from the Pope yet neither be Heretickes nor Schismatickes but That none can now consent in faith and hold communion with the Pope but for that very cause he is by the judgement of the Catholike Church both an hereticke and a schismaticke CHAP. XIIII The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresie for that he often professeth to hold the Coūcell of Chalcedon and the faith thereof refuted 1. HIs second excuse for Vigilius is taken from that profession which both other defenders of the three Chapters and Vigilius himselfe often maketh in his Constitution that hee holdes the faith of the Councell of Chalcedon and did all for the safety of that Councell Both parties saith Baronius as well the defenders as the condemners of those three Chapters did testifie that they desired nothing more quam consultum esse catholica fidei probatae à S. Concilio Chalcedonensi then to provide that the Catholike faith decreed at Chalcedon might be safe Againe liquet omnes it is manifest that all Catholikes in defence of the three Chapters at once contradicted this noveltie set downe in the Emperors Edict for condemning those chapters vindicesque se Concilij Chalcedonensis exhibuisse and shewed themselves to bee defenders of the Councell of Chalcedon Of Vigilius in particular hee not so little as fortie times ingeminates this Vigilius writ these things pro defensione integritate Synodi Chalcedonensis for the defence and safety of the Councell at Chalcedon Vigilius writ his constitution for no other cause as by it is evident but to the end that all things which were defined by the Councell at Chalcedon firma consisterent might
confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and the Emperour Pope Vigilius as in place and dignity hee was more eminent so in this Insurrection he was more forward and a ring-leader unto them all And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause First he proclameth the Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane novelty judging it to bee contrary to the holy faith and Councell at Chalcedon To this he addes writings threats and punishments Literas scripsit adversus eos saith Baronius Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor and his Edict in those letters comminatus est eis qui consenserunt he threatned those that consented to the Emperor edixit indixit correctionem he decreed punishment unto them and forewarned them thereof telling them that unlesse they did amend their fault hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them protesting with the Apostle I feare when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not Nor were his threats in vaine as it seemeth seeing Baronius tells us that for this very cause either he or Stephanus his Legate in his name did excommunicate besides others two Patriarkes Mennas of Constantinople and Zoilus of Alexandria and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea 4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons but for the Emperour he took another course with him He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors that he would not do himself But wheÌ„ like Pirrhus ipse sibi cavit loco he had provided for his owne safety then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines Facundus an eloquent maÌ„ indeed as his name also imports but a most obstinate heretike Schismatike seeing he persisted in defeÌ„ce of the three Chapters not only before but after the judicial senteÌ„ce of the general Councel yet is he coÌ„mended by Baronius to be prudentissimus agonistes a most wise champion for the Church but the more hereticall hee is the more like and better liked is hee to Baronius Him doth Vigilius egge and even command to write against the Emperour yea sugillare it is the Cardinals word to taunt and flout him for his Edict nor him onely but in him to reprove omnes simul Principes all Princes whosoever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith or make lawes therein as Iustinian had done Facundus being thus directed incouraged and warranted by Pope Vigilius and being but his instrument in this matter writes a large volume containing twelve bookes against the Emperor in defence of the three Chapters A worke stuffed with heresie yet highly commended by Possevine the Iesuite as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undutifull manner as if forsooth fides omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve and as if none might beleeve otherwise quam praeciperet imperator then the Emperour commanded telling him that it were more meet for him se infra limitem suum continere to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds as other Artificers kept their own shops the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office Such rude homely and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause And as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe enough Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence calling the Emperour utterly unlearned qui nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset who never had learned so much as his A B C nor could ever read the Title of the Bible a Punie a palliated Theologue a sacrilegious person a witlesse furious and franâ—ike fellow possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one to presume against all right to make lawes concerning matters of faith concerning Priests and the punishments of them adding that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie si qui ejusmodi esset if such as Iustinian should makes lawes of faith yea such lawes quas dolosè conscripsissent haeretici as heretikes had craftily penned telling him as Facundus had before that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admonition Ne ultra Crepidam Sr Cobler go not beyond your Last Latchet This scurrility doth the Cardinall use
though as it seemeth he remained in heart hereticall hee fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters that they did proclamare proclame him to be a colluder a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith one who to please the Emperour revolted from his former judgement yea the Africane Bishops proceeded so farre against him that as Victor Bishop of Tunen testifieth Synodaliter cum à catholica communione recludunt they in a Synod and synodally excommunicated him or shut him from the Catholike communion A thing worthy observing being done by those whom the Cardinall professeth to have beene Catholikes at that time But let that passe Baronius to excuse Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator and to shew that hee was not in heart affected with the truth which in his Constitution he declared tells us a rare policy of the Pope which for this time we omit but hereafter will examine the truth and validity thereof and this it was Mox presently after Vigilius had made that Apostolicall decree for condemning the three Chapters he revoked the same touched belike with remorse for so hainous a crime as to professe the Catholike faith and he suspended it and his owne judgement in that cause till the time of a generall Councell decreeing that untill that time all men should be whisht and silent in this cause of faith they must neither say that the Three Chapters were to bee defended nor condemned they must neither speake one word for the truth nor against the truth they must all during that time be like himselfe lukewarme Laodiceans neither hot nor cold neither fish nor flesh This was the great wisedome and policy of the Pope as Baronius at large declares and makes no small boast thereof adding that the Pope remained in this mood till the time of the general Councel Thus you see the second judgmeÌ„t of Pope Vigilius in this cause and his cariage during the second period for a fit which perhaps lasted a weeke or a month hee was in outward profession orthodoxall but being weary of such an ague hee presently becomes a meere neutralist in the faith and in this sort hee continued till the assembling of the generall Councell that is for the space of six yeares and more 8. The third period begins at the time of the fift generall Councell Of what judgement the Pope then was it hath before beene sufficiently declared Then Vigilius turned to his old byas hee condemned the Emperours Edict and all that with it condemned the three Chapters he defends those three hereticall chapters and that after a most authenticall manner publishing a Synodall a Cathedrall and Apostolicall constitution in defence of the â—ame And whereas not only others but himselfe also had written and some sixe yeares before made a Constitution to condemne those Chapters Now after long and diligent ponderation of the cause when hee had examined all matters cum omni undique cautela with all warinesse and circumspection that could possible be used he quite casheires repeales and forever adnuls that former Constitution and whatsoever either himselfe or any other either had before written or should after that time write contrary to this present Decree And this no doubt was the reason why Baronias never so much as once endeavors to excuse Vigilius by that former decree or to prove him to have beene orthodoxall by it seeing by this later the whole force and vertue of that former is utterly made void frustrate and of no effect in the world In this judgement Vigilius was so resolute that hee was ready to endure any disgrace and punishment rather then consent to the condemning of the three Chapters and if wee may beleeve Baronius or Binius he did for this very cause endure banishment It is manifest saith Binius that after the end of the fift Councell Iustinian did cast into banishment both Vigilius and other orthodoxall Bishops so hee termeth convicted and condemned heretikes because they would not consent to the decrees of the Synod and condemning of the three Chapters In like sort Baronius Liquet ex Anastasio it is manifest by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who held with him were caried into banishment Againe Others thought they had a just quarrell in defending the three Chapters when they saw Vigilius even in banishment to maintaine the same and they thought se pro sacro sanctis pugnare legibus that they fought for the holy faith when they saw Pope Vigilius himselfe for the same cause constanti animo exilium ferre to endure banishment with a constant minde Againe Horum solum causa for this cause onely was Vigilius driven into banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So Baronius who often calleth this exiling of Vigilius and others who defended those Chapters persecution yea an heavy and monstrous persecution complaining that the Church under Iustinian and from him endured more hard conditions and was in worse case then under the Heathen Emperors 9. Now this demonstrates that which before I touched that though the Pope upon his comming to Constantinople made a decree for condemning the Three Chapters yet still hee was in heart an affectionate lover of Nestorianisme and a defender of those Chapters seeing for his love to them and defence of them he is ready not onely to bee bound but to goe and dye in banishment for his zeale unto them For had he sincerely embraced the truth as in his former Constitution he professed why doth he now at the time of the fift Councell disclame the same Of all times this was the fittest to stand constanly to the faith seeing now both the glory of God the good and peace of the Church the authority of the Emperor the exaÌ„ple of orthodoxall Bishops and the whole Councell invited urged and provoked him to this holy duty What was there or could there be to move him at this time to defend the 3. Chapters save only his ardent and inward love to Nestorianisme Indeed had he continued in defence of those Chapters untill this time and now relented or changed his judgement it would have bin vehemeÌ„tly suspected that not the hatred of those chapters or of Nestorianisme but either the favour of the Emperor or the importunity of the Easterne Bishops or the feare of exile or deprivation or some such punishment had extorted that sentence and confession from him But now when hee decreeth contrary to the Emperour to the generall Councell and to his owne former and true judgement when by publishing this Decree he was sure to gaine nothing but the censure of an unconstant and wavering minded man the Anathema of the whole generall Councell and the heavy indignation of the Emperor when he goes thus against the maine current streame of the time who can thinke but that his onely motive to doe this was his zeale and love to Nestorianisme Love
specially of heresie is strong as death It will cause Vigilius or any like him when it hath once got possession of their heart with the Baalites and Donatists to contemne launcing whipping and tearing of their flesh yea to delight as much in Phalaris Bull as in a bed of doune and in the midst of all tortures to sing with him in the Orator Quam suave est hoc Quam nihil curo O how glad and merry a man am I that suffer all these for the love of my Three Chapters Losse of fame losse of goods losse of libertie losse of my Countrey losse of my pontificall See losse of communion and society of the Catholike Church and of God himselfe Farewell all these and all things else rather then the Three Chapters then Nestorianisme shall want a defender or a Martyr to seale it with blood 10. You see now the third period and the third judgement of Pope Vigilius in this cause A judgement which being delivered ex Tripode and with all possible circumspection puts downe for many respects both the former what hee spake the first time in defence of these Three Chapters was spoken in stomacke and in his heat and choler against the Emperor What he spake the second time for condemning those Chapters he did therein but temporize and curry favour with the Emperor But what he spake now this third time after seven yeares ventilating of the cause when all heat and passion being abated he was in cold blood and in such a calme that no perturbation did trouble his mind or darken his judgement that I say proceeded from the very bottome of the heart and from the Apostolicall authority of his infallible Chaire which to be a true and divine judgement he like a worthy Confessor sealed with his banishment And of this judgement hee continued in likelihood more but as Baronius whom I now follow tels us about the space of a yeare after the end of the fift Councell even till hee returned out of exile unto Constantinople 11. The fourth and last changing of Vigilius was after his returne from banishment as Baronius and Binius tell us For while hee was there he saw there was urgentissima causa a most urgent cause why he should consent to the Emperour and approve the judgement of the holy Councell and therefore hee was pleased once againe to make another Apostolicall Decree for adnulling his former Apostolicall judgement and for condemning the Three Chapters and confirming the fift Synod I thinke saith Binius that Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod by his Decree and Pontificall authority and abrogated his former Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters in the next yeare after the Councell was ended when he being loosed from banishment was suffered to returne into Italy being adorned with sundry gifts and priviledges Neither doth he only opinari but he is certaine of it Dubium non est there is no doubt but Vigilius being delivered from exile by the entreatie of Narses did confirme the fift Synod We thinke saith Baronius that when Vigilius was by the intreaty of Narses freed from exile hee did then assent to the Emperour and recalling his former sentence in his Constitution declared did approve the fift Synod Againe Seeing we have declared that Vigilius did not approve the fift Synod when hee was driven into banishment for he was exiled for no other cause but for that hee would not approve that Synod Necesse est affirmare it must of necessity bee said that hee did this approve the fift Synod at this time when being loosed out of exile he was sent home to his owne Church So Baronius Now seeing hee returned home after hee had obtained those ample gifts and priviledges which they so magnifie and which are set downe in that pragmaticall sanction of Iustinian which was dated on the twelfth day of August in the eight and twentieth yeare of his Empire and the fift Councell was ended on the second day of Iune in his seven and twentieth yeare it is cleare that this his last change was made about an whole yeare after the end of the fift Councell after hee had remained a yeare or thereabouts in banishment And in this minde as they tell us hee returned towards Rome but by the way while hee was yet but in Sicily being afflicted with the stone he dyed 12. Here is now the Catastrophe of the Popes turnings and returnings and often changing in this cause of faith Concerning which this is especially to bee remembred that whereas all the three former judgements of Vigilius the first when he defended those three Chapters being in Italie the second when he condemned them upon his comming to Constantinople and the third when he againe defended them at the time of the Councell and after have all of them certaine and undeniable proofes out of antiquitie such as the testimonies of Facundus Victor Liberatus the Popes owne letters and Constitutions together with the witnesse of the Emperor and the whole fift Councell onely this last period and this last change when hee consented to the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters This I say which is the onely judgement whereby Vigilius is excused from heresie is utterly destitute of all ancient witnesses not any one that I can finde makes mention of this change or of ought that can any way enforce the same and therefore this may and must be called the Baronian change or Period he being the first man that I can learne of who ever mentioned or dreamed of his change And although this alone were sufficient to oppose to all that the Cardinall or any other can hence collect in excuse of Vigilius reason and equitie forbidding us to bee too credulous upon the Cardinals bare word which even in this one cause touching the Three Chapters and this fift Councell besides many the like demonstratively to be proved untrue and false I speake it confidently and within compasse in six hundreth sayings at the least yet that they may not say wee decline the force of this so pregnant an exception we will for a little while admit and suppose it to bee true and try whether by this being yeelded unto them there can accrew any advantage to their cause or any help to excuse either Vigilius himselfe or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters from being hereticall 13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fift Councell and approved the Catholike faith Be it so we deny not but that Vigilius or any other of their Popes may decree and have decreed a truth that 's not the doubt betwixt us and them The question is whether any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedrall authoritie and teaching as Popes decreed an heresie or untruth That Pope Vigilius did so his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters is an eternall witnes against them
a monument are perennius Had Baronius said that Vigilius never decreed the defending of those Chapters he had fully cleared him in this matter if he could have proved what he had said But seeing undeniable records testifie and the Cardinall himselfe with a Stentors voice proclameth this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius though hee had revoked and repealed it a thousand times yet can not this quit his former Apostolicall Decree from being hereticall nor excuse their pontificall chaire from being fallible It is nothing at all materiall which of the Popes Cathedrall Decrees the first last or middle bee hereticall If any one of them all bee wee desire no more the field is wonne 14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolicall decree confirmed the fift Councell Then did hee certainely decree that all writings defending the Three Chapters doe defend heresie and that all persons who defend those Chapters for so long time as they defend them after the judgement of that Councell are convicted and condemned hereticks Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius set forth by his Apostolicall authoritie in the time of the Councell in defence of those Chapters is now by Popes Vigilius himselfe and by his Apostolicall authority and infallible Chaire declared to bee hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for that yeare after the Councell is now by Vigilius himselfe pronounced to bee an Hereticke yea a definer of heresie Vigilius now orthodoxal decreeth himselfe to have been before heretical Nay it further followeth that by confirming that Councell hee confirmeth and that by an Apostolicall and infallible Decree that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith to bee infallible are convicted and accursed heretickes for by defending that position they do eo ipso defend that Constitutiō of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to bee true infallible and orthodoxall which Vigilius himselfe by an infallible decree hath declared to bee erroneous and hereticall So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause that upon the admission thereof it doth inevitably ensue both that Vigilius was an hereticke and a definer of heresie and that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibitie in causes of faith that is al who are members of their present Romane Church to bee not onely heretickes and for such condemned and accursed but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresie even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius 15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might bee excused being now fully dissolved There remaineth one point which Baronius and after him Binius observeth touching this often changing of Vigilius which being a point of speciall note I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should over-passe the same Some men when they heare of these often changings windings and turnings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresie will perhaps imagine this to bee a token of some levitie unconstancie or solly in the Pope O fie It was not so saith Baronius What hee did was not onely lawfull done by good right and reason but it was laudable also done with great advise wisedome and consideration Vigilius a man of greatest constancie One who stood up with courage for defence of the Church adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem against Iustinian a violent oppressor thereof one who fought for the sacred lawes enduring exile constanti animo with a constant minde for the same One who did by this meanes wisely yea prudentissimé most wisely provide for the good of the Church One who in thus doing did wisely imitate Saint Paul who condemned circumcision and yet when hee circumcised Timothie approved circumcision And though there bee a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions the one change being in a mutable at that time an indifferent ceremonie the other being in an immutable doctrine of faith Yet thus do they please themselves and applaud the Pope in these his wise and worthy changes 16. Now in stead of a better conclusion to this Chapter I will entreate the reader to observe with me two things touching their commending Vigilius in this manner The former is what an happie thing it is to be a Pope or have a Cardinall for his spokesman Let Luther Cranmer or a Protestant make farre lesse change thē did Vigilius what shall they not heare An Apostate unconstant inconsiderate a Chamelion a Polipus another Proteus even Vertumnus himselfe Let the Pope say and gaine say the same doctrine of faith and then ex Cathedra define both his sayings being contradictorie to bee not onely true but infallible truths of the Catholike faith O It is all done with rare wisdome with great reason and consideration The Pope in all this deales wisely and that in the superlative degree If when he is absent from the Emperor he oppugne the truth published by the Emperors edict It is wisely done Kings and Emperors may not make Lawes in causes of faith no not for the faith The Cobler must not goe beyond his latchet If when hee is brought before the Emperor he sing a new song and say just as the Emperor saith Ait ato Negat nego It is wisely done principibus placuisse viris for the Kings wrath is the messenger of death If after both these bee become a meere Neutralist and Ambodexter in faith holding communion with all sides Catholikes heretickes and all this is also an act of rare wisdome the Pope is now become another Saint Paul factus est omnia omnibus with Catholikes he 's a Catholike that he may gaine Catholikes with Heretickes he 's an Hereticke that he may gaine heretickes he 's all with all that hee may gaine them all If when the Emperor the generall Councell the whole Church calls for his resolution in a cause of faith if then hee step into his infallible Chaire and thence by his Apostolicall authoritie define that the three Chapters that is that Nestorianisme shall for ever bee held for the Catholike faith O wisely done he now drops oracles from heaven in Cathedra sedet the voice of God and not of man If when hee is banished for his obstinacie against the truth upon some urgent cause which then he discernes he calls againe for his holy Trevit and thence decrees the quite contradictorie to his former Apostolicall sentence In this he 's wiser then in all the rest for by this he shews that he 's more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets and Apostles ever were They silly men could make but the one part of a contradiction to be true but the Pope he is tanto potentior Prophetis so much more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets that hee can make both parts of a contradiction to be infallible truths and unto which of the Prophets was it ever said Tu es Petra But the Pope is a Rocke indeed a
Rocke upon which you may build two contradictories in the doctrine of faith and in them both say unto him Tu es Petra Such a Rocke neither the Prophets nor Apostles nor Christ himselfe ever was So wise so exceeding wise is the Pope in all his turnings even as wise as a wethercocke for turning with the wind and weather 17. Againe when the Pope his instruments or Inquisitors to whom Phalaris Busiris and all the heathen persecutors may yeeld exercise against us for maintaining the truth of God all exquisite hellish tortures to which the old heathenish were but ludus jocus all which they doe must be extolled as due punishments and just censures of the Holy Father of the holy Church of the Holy inquisition of the Holy house all must bee covered with the mantle of holinesse On the other side when they resist the most religious lawes or Edicts of Kings or Emperors when Vigilius or any of them being by an holy generall Councell declared and condemned for an Hereticke are for their obstinate rebellion against the truth justly punished though Iustinian yea Iustice it selfe shall use rather moderate then severe correction against them they forsooth must be accoumpted catholikes Cōsessers holy Martyrs such as suffer for religion for the sacred lawes and for the Catholike faith but Iustinian the Defender of the faith must be called Iulian Iustice be termed Scelus and the Church for that cause said to bee in farre worse condition then in the times of Nero Dioclesian or any of the heathen Tyrants Such an happie thing it is to bee a Pope or Papist for then their wavering shall be Constancie their rebellion Religion and fortitude their folly greate and rare wisedome their heresie Catholike doctrine and their most condigne punishments shall be crowned with Martyrdome 18. The other thing which I observe is what a strong faith Papists had need to have who rely upon the Popes judgement which changeth out and in in and out so many times who yet are bound to beleeve al the Pope definitive sentences in causes of faith that is to speake in plaine tearmes who are bound to beleeve two contradictories to bee both true both of them the infallible oracles of God Or if any of them have so weake a faith that he can but beleeve the one I would gladly learne of some who is an Oedipus among them In this case of two Contradictorie Cathedrall decrees such as were these of Pope Vigilius whether of the Popes definitive judgements that is according to their language whether of the sayings of God is true and whether false or what strength the one hath more then the other If the Apostolicall sentence of Vigilius delivered cum omni undique cautela and by his Cathedrall authoritie in defence of the Three Chapters be repealeable by a second why may not the second which cannot possibly have more authoritie bee repealed by a third and the third by a fourth and fourth by a fift and so in Infinitum If the Pope after seaven yeares deliberation and ventilating of the cause while hee is all that time in peace and libertie may be deceived in his judiciall and Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith how may wee be assured that when some yeares after that the tediousnesse of exile and desire of his pristine libertie and honour perswades him to make a contrary decree he may not therein also bee deceived If the Popes decrees made in libertie peace and prosperity be of force why shall not the decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters be an article of faith If those free decrees may be admitted by a stronger sentence when the Pope is in banishment how may any beleeve their Laterane and Trent decrees as doctrines of faith For why may there not once againe come some other Iustinian into the world as great pitie it is but there should who in these or future times may minister that soveraigne medicine to cleare the Popes judgement and restraine or close him up in some meaner estate and farre lower place whence as out of a darke and low pit he may discerne those coelestiall truths in the Word of God like so many Starres in heaven which now being invironed with the circumfused splendor of the Romane Court he cannot possibly behold If those Three Chapters were to bee condemned why did the Pope defend them at the time of the Councell If they were to be defended why did he condemne them after his returne from exile Nay if the Three Chapters were orthodoxall why did the Pope at any time first or last by his Apostolicall sentence condemne them If they were hereticall why did he at any time first or last by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence defend them I confesse I am here in a Labyrinth if any of the Cardinals friends will winde mee out he shall for ever be Theseus unto me CAP. XVI That the Decree of Vigilius for Taciturnity touching the Three Chapters and the Councell wherein it is supposed to be made and all the Consequents upon that Decree painted out by Baronius are all fictitious and Poeticall 1. THE whole reason of Baronius drawne from Vigilius his confirming of the fift Councell being now fully dissolved we might without further stay and I gladly would according to my intended order in the Treatise proceed to his next exceptiō but there are two points in this last passage touching the chāgings of Vigilius which even against my will pull mee backe and call me to examine what Baronius sets downe and with exceeding ostentation paints out in his Annals concerning them the due consideration whereof will cause any man to admire the Cardinals most audacious and shamelesse dealing in Synodall affaires and causes of the Church The one of them concernes the second the other the fourth period in Vigilius changings The former is this 2. As soone as the defenders of the Three Chapters had notice of that Iudiciall sentence and Decree published by Vigilius against the same Chapters upon his comming to Constantinople they began to storme thereat and condemne Vigilius as a Prevaricator or revolter from the faith whereupon Vigilius as the Cardinall tels us put in practice a rare peece of wisedome and of his Pontificall pollicy sententiam emissam mox suspendit seu potius revocavit he suspends and revokes that his late judgement rursum ab eo promulgatum decretum quo decernebatur ut penitus taceretur and he published a new Decree wherein he decreed that every man should be silent and say never a word either pro or contra touching that question of the Three Chapters till the time of the generall Councel from this yeare which was the 21 of Iustinian the same wherin Vigilius came to Constantinople until the time of the generall Councell in eâ causâ ab ipso Vigilio indictū fuit Silentiū Silence was injoyned every man in that cause by Pope Vigilius
himselfe was so far from being silent therein that both by words by writings by pontificall censures and judgements himselfe condemned the 3 Chapters who will again perswade you that the Pope suffered very heavy persecution at the Emperors hands because he would not permit the 3. Chapters to be condemned whereas the Pope himselfe not onely condemned them all that time as well as the Emperor did but both by writings reproved and by judiciall censures punished condemned and deposed such as would not condemne them and that also eo nomine because they would not condemne them nor consent to his judgements whereby he had condemned them Now that Vigilius continued of the same mind both in the 25. 26. yeares of Iustinian that is untill the time that the fift Councell was assembled though there be no particulars to explaine yet by the Emperours words before remembred that per totum tempus perseveravit and ejusdem semper voluntatis fuit it is abundantly testified So that it is most certain that Vigilius at no time observed this decree of Taciturnity and because had there beene any he of all men was the most likely to observe it who as Baronius fableth was so rigorous against others even the Emperor also for not observing thereof his not observing of it is an evidence that he made no such Decree at all but that the whole narration concerning it and the consequents upon it is a very fiction and fable 11. Next after the Pope let us see if the Emperor who as Baronius saith promised to observe this law of Taciturnity was silent quiet in this cause And truly there is a strong presumption that he neither did nor would now refuse or forbeare to condemne the 3. Chapters seeing by so doing he should have anathematized himselfe for by his Imperiall Edict he denoūced all those to be an Anathema who do not condemne and anathematize the same Chapters The very silence in this cause and ceasing or refusing to anathematize the Chapters had made him guilty of his owne just Anathema But to leave presumptions Certaine it is that Iustinian continued the same man constant in condemning those Chapters and that not onely for the time after this supposed Decree but from the first publishing of his own Edict whereof the whole fift Councell is a most ample witnesse who thus say omnia semper fecit facit quae sanctam Ecclesiam recta dogmata conservant The most pious Emperor hath ever done concerning this cause of the three Chapters and now doth those things which preserve the holy Church and sound doctrine and that to be the condemning of these Chapters they by their Synodall sentence doe make evident where they professe the condemning thereof to bee the preserving of the good seed of faith the preserving of the Councell of Chalcedon and the rooting out of hereticall tares 12. And if wee desire particulars of his constant dealing herein Victor Tunavensis declareth the earnestnesse of Iustinian in condemning these Chapters for every yeare since this Decree of Taciturnity is supposed to have beene made The Decree as Baronius sheweth was set out in the sixt yeare after the Consulship of Basilius which account by Consular yeares Victor useth and it answereth to the end of twenty one and most of the 22. yeare of Iustinian In the seaventh yeare after Basilius Coss. that is in the very next to that wherein the Decree was made Iustinian writ most earnestly saith Victor into divers provinces antistites cunctos praefata tria Capitula damnare compellit and hee compelled all Bishops to condemne the Three Chapters In the eight he sheweth that the Illyrian Bishops held a Synod and writ unto the Emperour to disswade him from condemning those Chapters In the ninth he shewes that Facundus did the like and further in this yeare the Emperor commanded the Synod at Mopsvestia to be held against Theodorus that it might appeare how and from how long time before then the name of Theodorus had beene blotted out of the Ecclesiasticall tables the judgement of which Synod the Emperor sent to Vigilius to assure him of the truth thereof that hee might with more constancie continue to cōdemne the Three Chapters In the tenth Victor declares that the Emperor sent for Reparatus and Firmus two Primates for Primasius Verecundus two Bishops to deale with them that they would condemne the same Chapters and that Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria for refusing to condemne them was deposed which to have beene done by the Emperors command Liberatus sheweth In the eleventh which was the next before the generall Councell Victor tells us both that Firmus Primate of Numidia being wonne by the Emperors gifts so hee partially writeth consented to condemne the Chapters but Primasius Verecundus and Macarius for not consenting were all banished So cleare and undoubted it is that the Emperor continued so constant in his condemning of these Chapters that for every yeare since the Decree of Silence is supposed to be made he was resolute in this cause condemning and banishing such as consented not to the condemning of them 13. Whence the shamelesse untruths of the Baronian narration is demonstrated He tells you and tells it with a Constat that in the next yeare before the fift Councell the Emperour recalled his Edict and abrogated what he had done in this cause of the 3. Chapters whereas not onely the whole generall Councell testifieth on the contrary that hee still persisted constant in condemning of them but Victor one who had good reason to know these matters as feeling the smart of the Emperors severity for his obstinacie in defending those Chapters particularly witnesseth of that very yeare that the Emperor was so eager in maintaining his Edict and condemning the Chapters that he both drew Firmus the Primate of Numidia to his opiniō and banished Macarius Patriarch of Ierusalem Verecundus Bishop of Nica and Primasius another Bishop because they would not consent to his Edict and condemne the same Chapters And what a brainlesse devise was this that the Emperor in his 25. yeare should hang out his Edict at Constantinople so the Cardinall fableth as a matter of some great noveltie to bee published to the Citie whereas his Edict foure or five yeares before was so divulged throughout the whole Church that none may be thought to have beene ignorant thereof seeing universus orbis Catholicus the whole Catholike Church was divided and rent into a schisme about that Edict the one halfe defending the other oppugning the same Or what reason can the fabler give why Vigilius should in the 25. yeare quarrell with the Emperor rather then in the 24.23.22 in every one of which Iustinian was the same man constant in maintaining the truth published by his Edict Did the hanging out of the Edict more provoke the Popes zeale then the banishing imprisoning of those who withstood the Edict more then the
in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod it is altogether as effectuall to prove he writ it not at all nor after his returne about a year after out of exile 3. The Cardinall gives yet another evidence hereof Pelagius saith he the successor of Vigilius did thinke it fit that the fift Synod should bee approved and the three Chapters condemned moved especially hereunto by this reason that the Easterne Church ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa being rent and divided from the Romane by reason of the Constitution of Vigilius might be united unto it How was the Easterne Church divided from the Romane in the time of Pelagius by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled and adnulled it If the Popes condemning of those Chapters and approving of the fift Councell could unite the Churches then the decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have effected that union If the Apostolike Decree of Vigilius could not effect it in vaine it was for Pelagius to thinke by his approbation which could have no more authority then Apostolicall to effect that union If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was as Baronius truly saith the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters against the judgement of the fift Synod seeing it is cleare by the Cardinalls owne confession that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius it certainly hence followeth that the Constitution of Vigilius which was the cause of that breach was never by himselfe repealed which even in Pelagius time remained in force and was then a wall of separation of the Easterne from the Westerne Church Againe if the Popes approving the fift Councell and condemning the three Chapters was as in truth it was and as the Cardinall noteth it to have beene the cause to unite those Churches seeing by his owne confession in Vigilius time they were not united for Pelagius after Vigilius his death sought to take away that schisme it certainly hence followeth that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod and their Synodall condemning of those Chapters for had he so done the union had in his time presently beene effected 4. The same may be perceived also by the Westerne Church For as that Pontificall decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have united the Easterne so much more would it have drawne the Westerne the Italian and specially the Romane Church to consent to the fift Councell and condemning of the three Chapters but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life may divers wayes be made evident Whē Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius and was to be consecrated Bishop there could no more then two Bishops be found in the Westerne Church that would consecrate or ordaine him Bishop wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers requiring three Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop which they so often boast of in their disputes against us the Pope himselfe was faine to be ordained onely by two Bishops with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third Anastasius very ignorantly if not worse sets downe the reason thereof to have beene for that Pelagius was suspected to have beene guilty by poison or some other way of the death of Vigilius A very idle fancie as is the most in Anastasius for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius and there continued till Vigilius was dead he had little leisure nor oportunity to thinke of poisoning or murdering his owne Bishop by whose death he could expect no gaine The true cause why the Westerne Bishops distasted Pelagius is noted by Victor who then lived Hee before hee came from Constantinople consented to the fift Synod and condemned the Three Chapters Now the Westerne Bishops so detested the fift Synod and those who with it condemned those Chapters that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia were the ordainers of Pelagius whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators Let any man now consider with himselfe whether it bee credible that in all Italy and some Provinces adjoyning there should be but two Bishops who would consēt to the Apostolicall decree of Vigilius for approving the fift Councell if he had indeed published such a decree If they knew not the Popes sentence in this cause which they held and that rightly for a cause of faith to be infallible how was not the westerne or the Romane Church hereticall at this time not knowing that point of faith which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith If they knew it to bee infallible seeing his judgement must then oversway their owne how could there bee no more but two bishops found among them all who approved the Popes Cathedrall sentence and consented to his infallible judgement Seeing then it is certaine that the Westerne Church did generally reject the fift Synod after the death of Vigilius and seeing it is not to bee thought that they would have persisted in such a generall dislike thereof had they knowne Vigilius to have by his Apostolicall sentence decreed that all should approve the same of which his sentence had there been any such they could not have beene ignorant for if by no other meanes which were very many Pelagius himselfe would have brought and assuredly made knowne the same unto them this their generall rejection of the fift Synod is an evident proofe that this Baronian decree which hee ascribeth to Vigilius is no better then the former of silence both untrue both fictitious and of the two this the far worse seeing for this the Cardinall hath not so much as any one no not a forged writing on which he may ground it it is wholy devised by himselfe he the onely Poet or maker of this fable 5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in Bede concerning the Councell of Aquileia in Italy That Councell was held neare about or rather as by Sigonius narration it appeareth after the death of Vigilius and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Millan Macedonius B. of Aquileia Maximianus B. of Ravenna besides many other Bishops of Liguria Venice and Istria These being as Bede saith
these are expresly named by the Cardinall to write this nor Glicas nor Constantinus Manasses nor the Cardinalls owne Theophanes And yet if we should admit them to say the like or the same with Evagrius Nicephorus and Photius that Vigilius did consent to the Synod by a booke or letters yet what one of all the Greek writers yea or Latine either can the Cardinall produce to say that which he doth that Vigilius after the end of the Synod or after hee was sent into banishment consented to the Synod That by his precedent letters and judiciall sentence he consented to the same faith which the Synod decreed is true this the Cardinall doth but should not prove but that by a subsequent cōsent or writing he approved the Synod after his owne exile this none of the Cardinals witnesses affirme this the Cardinall should but neither doth nor can prove 11. His second reason is taken from the fact of Iustinian in restoreing Vigilius The Emperor saith he was most carefull for the condemning of the Three Chapters and therefore punished severely such as withstood his Edict and the Decree of the Synod how then could hee have endured Vigilius to have beene freed from exile to returne into the West nisi consensisset unlesse he had consented to the Synod Seeing otherwise Vigilius would have stird up all the Bishops in the West against the Emperors Edict and the Synodall sentence Now that the Emperor did free Vigilius from exile and permit him to returne to the West Baronius proves that by Anastasius out of whom hee relates that the whole Romane Clergie entreated Narses that he would be a meanes to the Emperor to restore unto thē Vigilius the rest who were banished with him The Emperor at the entreatie of Narses sent presently to Gissa Proconesus and other places and called them to him who were banished and put it to their choice whether they would have Vigilius to be their Pope or Pelagius there present among them and when they desired Vigilius dimisit omnes cum Vigilio he sent them all home with Vigilius Nay the Emperor did not onely restore him and send him home but granted divers matters gifts rewards and Priviledges as Binius calleth them and at his entreatie published a pragmaticall sanction for the affaires of Italie as the words of the sanction Pro petitione Vigilij doe declare Hence now doth the Card make his inference that absque dubio without all doubt Vigilius was very deare to the Emperor seeing he granted such favours unto him but there could have beene no friendship at all betwixt thē unlesse Vigilius after his returne from exile had consented to the Synod and condemned the Three Chapters seeing his not consenting thereunto was the cause of his banishment Thus Baronius who hath very hansomely concluded that absque dubio Vigilius after his returne out of exile consented to the fift Councell If now wee can clear this reason wherein consists the whole pith of the Cardinals cause I well hope that this consent of Vigilius of which he so much boasteth will be acknowledged to bee nothing else then a Baronian dreame 12. And first admitting for a while the Cardinalls antecedent the consequent sure is inconsequent Iustinian might upon the entreatie of Narses send Vigilius home though Vigilius had not consented to the Synod after the end thereof Narses was a man for his pietie prudence fortitude felicitie in warre exceedingly beloved honored by Iustinian They who are conversant in histories are not ignorant that Emperors doe yeeld many times greater matters then the restoring of Vigilius at the entreatie of such as Narses was When the Romane Matrones their husbands not daring to motion such a matter entreated Constantius to restore Liberius to his See from which he was then banished the Emperour though he was most violently bent against Liberius and had placed an other Bishop in his See yet as Theodoret writeth sic inflectebatur hee was so affected with their entreatie that he yeelded to their request thinking it fitter that there should be two Bishops at once in Rome rather then he would seeme so obdurate and unkinde as to deny that petition in the time of his triumph It was as great incongruitie and disproportion in the government of Constantius an Arian to restore Liberius then a Catholike as for Iustinian being a Catholike Emperor to restore Vigilius being now an hereticall Bishop The hatred of Constantius to Liberius was farre greater then Iustinians against Vigilius The parties entreating are so unequall that Constantius seemes to have yeelded onely for popularitie and to get the opinion of courtisie they having done nothing to merit such favour at his hands but Narses had by his valor and late victories not onely won great honor to Iustinian and to the whole Empire but had freed Italie from the servitude of the Gothes and by that meanes besides many other had merited the love and favour of Iustinian who might have seemed not onely unkind but unjust in denying the petition of one so well deserving 13. Nay what if the intreaty of Narses and narration of Anastasius doe prove the quite contrary to that which Baronius from them collects that Vigilius had not consented to the Synod when hee was restored upon that entreaty Narses did this to gratifie the Romane Clergy and the Italian Bishops who intreated him to bee a meanes for the restoring of Vigilius unto them And who I pray you were they or how affected in this cause of the three Chapters Truly they were eager in defending of them and for that cause rent and divided from the Easterne Churches as Baronius witnesseth It had beene no gratifying but a very heart griefe and vexation to such to have Vigilius the condemner of those Chapters that is in their judgement an heretike restored unto them It was Vigilius the defender of those Chapters whom they desired for whom Narses intreated and whom if any the Emperour upon his intreaty restored which by the Anastasian narration is made very evident for he sheweth how the Emperour upon his suggestion mox misit jussiones suas presently sent forth his command to bring Vigilius and the rest from exile He sent not to see if they would consent to the Synod and upon their consent to release them but without any questioning of that matter hee commands that they howsoever they stood affected should be free and brought out of banishment when they were returned did the Emperour aske them one word whether they would consent to the Synod or no He did not but al that he demanded of them was this vultis habere Vigilium will yee have Vigilius to continue your Pope as hee was before or will you have Pelagius who is here among you A demonstration that Vigilius had not then consented to the Synod when the Emperor said this for there was no cause either to deprive Vigilius or
to consent therunto which is the fiction of Baronius 16. And for more evidence that the same which I said is the banishment by Anastasius I might alleage Bellarmine and others but omitting them let us heare that worthy author to whom Binius referres us concerning this matter Nicholas Sanders He thus writeth That Vigilius was sent into banishment because he would not restore Anthimus the Romane Pontificall so he cals the booke of Anastasius doth testifie and besides it Aimonius Paulus Diaconus Marianus Scotus Platina Blondus Petrus de Natalibus Martinus Polonus Sabellicus and it may be gathered out of Nicephorus Thus Sanders who might have added Sigebert who placeth his banishmēt divers years before the fift Councel Albo Floriacensis who hath the same words with Anastasius Nauclerus Rhegino Hermanus Cōtractus Gotofridus Viterbiensis Otho Frisingensis Palmerius their owne Genebrard Stapleton and many others These following Anastasius relate the cause of his banishmēt to have bin the not restoring of Anthimus the time before the death of the Empresse Theodora Nor can I finde so much as one either ancient or later writer who saith with Baronius that hee was banished after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it what a rare Poeticall conceit hath the Cardinall who can make such a noble discourse of that fictitious banishment and commend it as an historicall narration for the warrant of which he had not so much as one writer and one is a small number ancient or late upon whose credit and authoritie he might report it and for that one witnesse Anastasius whom he nameth he is so farre from testifying it that he doth clearely testifie the quite contrary yea Baronius himselfe was not ignorant hereof but knew right well Anastasius to referre the beating of Vigilius his flight to Chalcedon the other indigne usage set downe by him and his exile to the time while Theodora lived and therefore hee taxeth Anastasius for confounding those things and referring them to that time whereas himselfe placeth them after the death of Theodora And yet for all this though he knew Anastasius to teach the quite contrary yet was not the Cardinall afraid nor ashamed to alleage Anastasius for a witnesse that Vigilius was cast into banishment after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it and to say of this banishment Liquet ex Anastacio it is clearly knowne out of Anastasius whereas not that but the quite contrarie Liquet ex Anastasio 17. From hence now there issueth another consequent to bee remembred It is agreed by all who mention any banishment of Vigilius and it is confessed also by Baronius that Vigilius was but once banished and from that one freed by the intreaty of Narses Now that one cannot bee the Baronian banishment for of it there is no proofe at all to bee found no one author to witnesse it but the Cardinall and his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in matters of fact done some thousand and more yeares before the Cardinall was borne is of no worth at all nor can be esteemed ought but one of his owne dreames and figments Againe that one cannot bee the Anastasian banishment which is said to happen before the death of Theodora more than foure yeares before the fift Councell for it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Synod that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople yea that untill then he lived and dwelt at Constantinople Seeing then Vigilius was neither banished before the Councell as Anastasius saith nor banished after the Councell as Baronius saith it followeth which indeed is very truth that Vigilius was not at all banished but all which is reported of his banishment and all that depends thereon is fictitious and Poeticall devised by two Bibliothecarij to his Holinesse the former and precedent to the Councell is an Anastasian the other following the Councell is a Barbarian Poeme but both Poems both fabulous and Aesopicall narrations 18. And truly might wee be allowed to imitate the Cardinals Arte in disputing this matter would easily be made plaine There is one Topicke place of arguing à testimonio negativè which is very familiar to Baronius in his Annals and it is defended by Gretzer in his Apology for Baronius let us take but one example and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius There is in Anastasius a narration how Vigilius was violently puld away from Rome by Anthemius Scribonius sent thither for that purpose by the Empresse how he was apprehended in the Church thrust into the shippe how the Romanes followed reviling him cursing him and casting stones and dung at him praying that a mischiefe might goe with him Thus it is historified by Anastasius The like is mentioned by many others who borrowed it out of Anastasius by Aimonius by the Historia Miscella going under the name of Paulus Diaconus though it be not his by Marianus Scotus by Hermanus Contractus by Sigebert by Luitprandus de vitis Pontificum as the booke is called by Albo Floriacensis by Platina by Conrade by Nauclerus by Martinus Polonus by Blondus by Krantzius by Sigonius others Heare now the Cardinals censure of this narration of Anastasius and the rest who followed him Aperti mendacij redarguitur Anastasius Anastasius is convicted of a manifest lye herein and how prove you that my Baronius res adeo ignominiosa so ignominious a matter as this is could not have beene unknowne to the Authors who writ most accurately the Acts of their times and those were Facundus and Procopius the Cardinall names no moe from the silence and omission of this matter in them two he concludes Anastasius to be a lyar and his narration seconded by many moe to be a lye 19. Let now but the like liberty of disputing à Testimonio negativè be allowed unto us and the Baronian banishment to begin with that must be rejected banished and set in the same ranke with that lye of Anastasius for thus wee may argue This banishment of Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it is neither mentioned by Victor Bishop of Tunen nor by Liberatus nor by Evagrius nor by Procopius who all then lived and in relating the affaires of the Church were full out as exact as Facundus and Procopius nor by Photius nor by Zonaras nor by Cedrenus nor by Nicephorus nor by Glicas nor by Constantinus Manasses nor by Anastasius nor by Paulus Diaconus nor by Aimonius nor by Luitprandus nor by Albo Floriacenfis nor by Otho Frisingensis nor by Conrade Abbat of Vrsberge nor by Hermanus Contractus nor by Sigebert nor by Lambertus Scaffuaburgensis nor by Martinus Polonus nor by Gotofridus Viterbiensis nor by Albertus Stadēsis nor by Vernerus nor by Marianus Scotus nor by
Rhegino nor by Bede nor by Platina nor by Nauclerus nor by Tritemius nor by Krantzius nor by the magnum Chronicon Belgicum nor by the Chronicon Reicherspergense nor by ChronicoÌ„ Germanicum per MonachuÌ„ Herveldensem nor by Chronica Compendrosa or Compilatio Chronologica nor by Blondus nor by Sabellicus nor by Aventinus nor by Huldericus Mutius nor by Sigonius nor by Palmerius nor by Karanza nor by Papirius Massonius nor by Genebrard nor by Sanders nor by Stapleton and I challenge the welwillers of Baronius by that love they beare unto him his estimatioÌ„ to name if they can but any one writer before Baronius who affirmeth Vigilius to have beene banished after the Synod for not consenting unto it that therby it may be knowne that their great Annalist playes the Historian and not the Poet in relating the Ecclesiasticall affaires of the Church Or if they can at any time doe this which I am verily perswaded they neither will nor ever can performe yet seeing none of all these doe mention that banishment truly if Baronius from the silence of two writers might conclude against Anastasius that he was a lyar in the former narration I thinke none will deny but à fortiori it will follow that seeing more than two score are silent in this matter it may farre more justly bee said aperti mendacij redarguitur which is the Cardinals owne doome and words that hee bestoweth on Anastasius and here much more fitly may the Cardinals reason take place res adeo ignominiosa so ignominious a matter nay so glorious a peece of martyrdome on the Popes part as the banishment and cruell persecution of the Pope the chiefe Bishop in the world for such a cause as for not assenting to the Synod could not have bin unknowne unto those writers who most diligently prosecute the affaires of their times and such as concerned the Church Nay from the most of these wee may draw an affirmative argument also and reason more strongly than the Cardinall doth in his disputes Anastasius Aimonius Diaconus Platina and divers moe of the forenamed authors to the number at least of twenty affirme Vigilius was banished before the Synod and in the life time of Theodora and withall teach but one banishment of Vigilius and therefore they not onely are silent of that which the Cardinal saith but they say the quite contrary unto him and so both by their silence and by their speech refute that as an untruth which the Cardinal so positively and historically narrateth 20. Now as the negative kinde of arguing disproves the Baronian so doth it also the Anastasian banishment and forcibly concludes that Vigilius was not at all banished either before or after the Councel for there is no banishmeÌ„t at all of Vigilius mentioned either by Victor or by Liberatus or by Evagrius or by Procopius who all lived writ at that time or by Photius or by Zonaras or by Cedrenus or by Glicas or by Constantinus Manasses or by Nicephorus or by Aimonius though Sanders falsely affirmed them to teach this or by Luitprandus or by Bede or by Krantzius or by Mutius or by Papirius Massonius or by Caranza besides others Adde now here againe the Cardinals words Res adeo ignominiosa surely so ignominious and shamefull a fact as the banishing of a Pope could not have beene unknowne to those who writ as exactly as Facundus and Procopius the Ecclesiasticall affaires and occurrents in their times and therfore seeing these so many so exact writers mention not that Anastasian banishment of Vigilius it may be rightly concluded that Anastasius therin aperti mendicij redarguitur or if none but the Cardinall may give the lye to Anastasius yet confessing his narration to be untrue let us leave that as a priviledge of the Cardinals that he alone shal bestow lies for liveries upon Anastasius Nay seeing none of these Writers mention any banishment at all of Vigilius it must further be concluded from their silence that Vigilius neither first nor last neither before nor after the Synod was banished but that the whole narration touching his banishment is a meere fiction and fable devised partly by Anastasius and partly by Baronius 21. Which may much rather be affirmed considering that Victoâ—â— who was himselfe exiled and brought to Constantinople is not onely careful but even curious that I say not proud in recounting the most eminent persons specially Bishops which were either deposed or imprisoned or banished about this cause of the three Chapters either before or after the Synod In this ranke he nameth Benenatus Bishop of Iustinianea Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria Reparatus Bishop of Carthage Verecundus Bishop of Nica Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem Rusticus a Romane Deacon Foelix a Monke of Guilla Frontinus Bishop of Salone Theodosius Bishop of Sebarsuse himselfe being Bishop of Tunen and Pelagius then a Deacon but afterwards Bishop of Rome and successor to Vigilius Had Baronius this negative argument à testimonio in hand how would hee insult and even triumph in it how easily would he perswade the world that certainly Bishop Victor who by name and so particularly recounteth meaner Bishops yea Deacons and Monkes who suffered banishment for this cause would never have omitted the Prince of Bishops had hee beene exiled for it as they were That one example had graced the defenders of the Three Chapters more than twenty nay than twenty hundred besides seeing by this it would have beene evident that the Oracle of the world the infallible Iudge had sealed the truth of that cause with his glorious banishment which is a kinde of Martyrdome Anastasius Diaconus Otho and all the rest who say he was banished should have had the lye an hundred times at the Cardinals hands for saying that he was banished either before or after the Councell rather than Bishop Victor who then lived at Constantinople and was fellow-partner in those troubles and banishments should have beene thought either ignorant or forgetfull to expresse that banishment of Vigilius had there beene truly any at all 22. Thus from the Cardinals owne Topicks it is concluded that both the Anastasian the Baronian banishments are both fictitious Nor can I find what they can except against our Negative Argument which will not more forcibly refute many of the Cardinals disputes unlesse perhaps as Gretzer answers in defence of Baronius in another cause that the old Logick rule Ex puris negativis nihil sequi holds only in Syllogismes but not in Enthymems for which subtilty I doubt not but the very Sophisters in our Vniversities will soundly deride him so in this they will say which with as good warrant and reason they may that an agument à testimonio negativè holds onely in the Cardinals Annals or when somewhat is to be proved for the Pope or his cause but it never holds when ought makes against the Pope and the Cardinall or makes for the Protestants and their cause 23. But if Anastasius
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 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 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 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 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 the Pope or any Bishop hinder the assembling of a generall Councell and so the publike peace and tranquillity of the whole Church Open but this gappe and there never should have been nor ever shall be any generall Councell The wilfulnesse of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia at Niceâ— of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch at Ephesus of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria at Chalcedon will frustrate all those holy Councells and make them to be neither generall nor lawfull The saying of Cardinall Cusanus is worthy observing to this purpose I beleeve saith he that to be spoken not absurdly that the Emperor himselfe in regard of that care and custody of preserving the faith which is committed unto him may praeceptivè indicere Synodum by his Imperiall authority and command assemble a Synod when the great danger of the Church requireth the same negligente aut contradicente Romano Pontifice the Pope either neglecting so to doe or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof So Cusanus This was the very state and condition of the Church at this time when the fift Councell was assembled The whole Church had beene a long time scandalized and troubled about those Three Chapters it was rent and divided from East to West High time it was and necessary for Iustinian to see that flame quenched although Pope Vigilius or any other Patriarch had never so eagerly resisted the remedie thereof 15. Had the Cardinall pleaded against this Synod that Vigilius had not beene called unto it hee had spoken indeed to the purpose For this is essentiall and such as without which a Synod cannot bee generall and lawfull that all Bishops be summoned to the Synod and comming thither have free accesse unto it and freedome of speech and judgment therein But the Cardinall durst not take this exception against this Synod or for Vigilius for none of these to have beene wanting in this Councell is so cleare that pertinacie it selfe cannot deny it It was not the Pope as they vainly boast but the Emperor who by his owne and Imperiall authority called this Councell as the whole Synod even in their Synodall sentence witnesse Wee are aâ—sembled here in this City jussione pijssimi Imperatoris vocati being called by the commandement of our most religious Emperor His calling to have beene generall Nicephorus doth expresly declare The Emperor saith he assembled the fift generall Councell Episcopis ecclesiarum omnium evocatis the Bishops of all Churches being called unto it yea the Emperor was so equall in this cause that Binius testifieth of him Paris numeri Episcopos ex Oriente Occidente convocavit that he called in particular and besides his generall summons by which all without exception had free accesse as many out of the West where the defenders of those Chapters did abound as he did out of the East where the same Chapters were generally condemned And yet further Vigilius himselfe was by name not onely invited intreated and by many reasons perswaded but even commanded by the Emperor and in his name to come unto the Synod as before we shewed Now what freedome hee might have had in the Councell both that offer of the Presidencie doth shew for him in particular and the words of the Councell spoken concerning all in generall doth declare for when Sabinianus and others who being then at Constantinople were invited to the Synod and refused to come the synod sayd It was meet that they being called should have come to the Councell and have been partakers of all things which are here done and debated especially seeing both the most holy Emperour and we licentiam dedimus unicuique have granted free liberty to every one to manifest his minde in the Synod concerning the causes proposed Seeing then he not onely might but in his duty both to God to the Emperour and to the whole Church hee ought to have come and freely spoken his minde in this cause his resisting the will of the Emperor and refusing to come doth evidently demonstrate his want of love to the truth and dutifulnesse to the Emperor and the Church but it can no way impaire or impeach the dignity and authority of the Councell neither for the generality nor for the lawfulnesse thereof 16. Besides all which there is yet one thing above all the rest to be remembred for though Pope Vigilius was not present in the Synod either personally or by his Legates but in that sort resisted to come unto it yet he was present there by his letters of instruction by his Apostolicall and Cathedrall Constitution which hee published as a direction what was to be judged and held in that cause of the Three Chapters That Decree and Constitution he promised to send
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 not without some choler Contradictio nostra his gestis 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 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 Synod said thus We have condemned Dioscorus we have confirmed the faith wee have confirmed the Canon of the second Councell for the honour of the See of Constantinople we have condemned the heresie of Eutyches Thus writ the whole Councell to Leo declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it 30. You see now that in every sentence of a generall and lawfull Councell there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters they all either explicitè or tacitè or implicitè consenting to that decree whether they be absent or present and whether in that particular they consent or dissent Now because there can bee no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiasticall matter than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters that is of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes it hence clearly ensueth that there neither is nor can be any Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree greater stronger or of more authority then is the judgement it selfe of such a generall Councell and their owne confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world 31. Besides this confirmation of any synodall decree which is by
Bishops and therefore to bee called Episcopall there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors which is called Royall or Imperiall by this later religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ecclesiasticall Canons within their dominions so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures but further also doe so strengthen and backe the same by their sword and civill authority that the contradicters of those decrees are made liable to those temporall punishments which are set downe in Ezra to death to banishment to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment as the quality of the offence shall require and the wisedome of that Imperiall State shall think fit Betwixt these two confirmations Episcopall and Imperiall there is exceeding great oddes and difference By the former judiciall sentence is given and the synodall decree made or declared to be made for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation by the later neither is the synodal decree made nor any judgment given to define that cause for neither Princes nor any Lay men are Iudges to decide those matters as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in their directions to Candidianus in the Councell of Ephesus but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops and their judgement given in that cause is strengthened by Imperiall authority for which cause this may fitly be called a superemineÌ„t or corroborative confirmation of the synodall judgement The former confirmation is Directive teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church the later is Coactive compelling all by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions The former is Essentiall to the Decree such as if it want there is no Synodall decree made at all the later is Accidentall which though it want yet is the Decree of the Councell a true Synodall Decree and sentence The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmeÌ„t By vertue of the former the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith or contumacious in other matters and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church though if the later be wanting those censures cannot bee inflicted by any or upon any but with danger to incurre the indignation of Princes By vertue of the later not onely the Church may safely yea with great allowance and praise inflict their Ecclesiasticall censures but inferiour Magistrates also may nay ought to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees as against notorious convicted and condemned heretikes or in causes which are not of faith but of externall discipline and orders as against contumacious persons The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperiall authority it is in dignitie inferiour The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject it is in dignity Supreme 32. This Imperiall confirmation as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith Constantine sealed ratified and confirmed the decrees which were made therein The second general Councel writ thus to the Emperour Theodosius We beseech your clemency that by your letters ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum that you would ratifie and confirme the decree of this Councell and that the Emperour did so his Emperiall Edict before mentioned doth make evident To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus Let matters coÌ„cerning religion and piety be diligently examined contention being laid aside ac tum demuÌ„ à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate and then expect from us our imperiall confirmation The holy Councell having done so writ thus to the Emperour We earnestly intreate your piety ut jubâ—at â—a omnia that you would coÌ„mand that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius may stand in force per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata being confirmed by your roall assent And that the Emperour yeelded to their request his Edict against Nestorius doth declare In the fourth Councell the Emperour said We come to this Synod not to shew our power sed ad conâ—irmandam fidem but to confirme the faith And wheÌ„ he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent to their decree the whole Councell cryed out Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations That Iustinian confirmed the fift Councell his imperiall Edict for condemning those Three Chapters which after the Synodall judgment stood in more force than before his severity in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence partly by exile partly by imprisonment are cleare witnesses The sixt Councell said thus to the Emperour O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us signaculum tribue seale and ratifie all that we have done vestram inscribito imperialem ratihabitionem adde unto them your imperiall confirmation that by your holy Edicts and godly constitutions they may stand in firme force And the Emperour upon their humble request set forth his Edict wherein he saith We have published this our Edict that we might corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt corroborate and confirme those things which are defined by the Councell To all which that may bee added which Basilius the Emperour said in the eighth Synod as they call it I had purposed to have subscribed after al the Bishops as did my predecessors Constantine the great Theodosius Martian and the rest thereby evidently testifying not onely the custome of imperiall confirmation to have been observed in all former Councels but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopall subscription the Bishops first subscribing and thereby making or declaring that they had made a Synodall decree the Emperours after them all subscribing as ratifying by their Imperiall confirmation what the Bishops had decreed 33. By this now it fully appeareth what it is which maketh any Synod or any Synodal decree to be and justly to be accounted an approved Synod or an approved Synodall and Oecumenicall decree It is not the Popes assent approbation or confirmation as they without all ground of truth doe fancy which at any time did or possibly can doe this It is onely the Vniversall and Oecumenicall consent of the whole Church and of all the members thereof upon any decree made by a generall Councell which truly makes that an approved decree
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 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 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 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 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 explaned in their Gravamina where the first reason of their rejecting the Trent assembly is this quod ea illegitime contra manifestum jus indicta sit because it was appointed and gathered unlawfully against manifest right seeing the Pope who called it hath no authoritie to summon or call a Councel Of the same judgement were other Princes When Hieronimus Martinengus was sent as Legate from the Pope to call some out of England to that Trent assembly in the time of the late Queene of renowned and blessed memory è Belgio in insulam traijcere prohibuit she would not suffer him to set foote in her dominion about such businesse Nec diversum ad Reges Daciae Suetiae missus responsum retulit and the Kings of Denmarke and Swetia gave the like answere that the Pope had no right to call a Councell So justly did they dislike and contemne the going to that Synod even for this cause and that most justly esteeming it for no other than a Coventicle or unlawfull assembly 25. Said I unlawfull that is too soft and mild a word that and all the other nine with it by reason of that Papall calling were unlawfull in the highest degree even Antichristian For the authoritie whereby those Synods were called belonging in right to Emperours and Kings and being tyrannically usurped by the Pope as he by intruding himselfe into the Imperiall royalties and lifting up himselfe above all the Vicegerents of God here in earth that is above all that is called God did thereby proclame himselfe to bee that man of sinne and display his Antichristian Banner So on the other side those Bishops and others who came at his Papall call and yeelded obedience to him in such sort usurping did eo ipso in that very act of theirs receive the marke of the beast and not onely consent but submit themselves to his Antichristian authority and fight under the vety Ensignes and Banner of Antichrist But of this point I have before intreated where I shewed that all even the best actions how much more then such tumultuous and turbulent attempts when they are performed in obedience to the Pope as Pope that is as a supreme Commander are turned into impious and Antichristian rebellions against God 26. This rather is needfull to bee here observed that not onely generall but even Provinciall or Nationall Synods are in all Christian Kingdomes to bee called onely by Imperiall not at all by Papall or Episcopall authority yea and they are so called in every well ordered Church For although there goe not forth a particular and expresse Edict or mandatum from Kings to assemble them yet so long as Kings or Emperours doe not expresse their will to the contrary even that summons which is sent from Primates or other Bishops subject unto them hath virtually and implicitè the Imperiall authority by which every such Synod is assembled The reason whereof is this The holy Nicene Councell decreed that for the more peaceable government of each Church there should be two Provinciall Synods yearely held by every Primate Those holy Fathers meant not as the continuall practice throughout the whole Church doth explane so strictly to define that number of two as that neither moe nor fewer might be kept in one yeare But they judging that for those times a competent and convenient number they set it downe but yet as an accidentall ceremoniall and therefore mutable order if the necessitie and occasions of any Church should otherwise require That which is substantiall and immutable in their Canon is that Provinciall Synods shall be held by each Primate so often and at such times as the necessity and occasions of their Church shall require and the chiefe Iudge of that necessity and fitting occasions is no other than hee to whose sword and authority every Bishop is subject
liberty of Germany may bee oppressed Was this Concilium pacis or rather Concilium sanguinis a conspiracie not onely against the faith but against the life of Catholikes Was it fit his Holinesse should play Iudas part pretend love and emendation of the faith when he entended murder and an utter extirpation of the servants of God Could there be freedome for them at Trent in the Popes dominion when they might not be suffered to breathe or live at home in their owne free Cities and States Was not this a stratagem unknowne in the time of the Councell at Millane and Arimine to invite Catholikes to the Synod and promise liberty and free accesse but provide that they shall have no leisure not so much as come to the Councell 33. What equity or freedome could there either be or be expected in that Councell wherein the Pope who is the capitall enemy of the Catholikes took upon him to be their Iudge yea when himselfe who was reus guilty of heresie besides other crimes and who should have beene judged first of all tooke upon him to bee supreme Iudge in his owne cause Let Catiline be held for such a Iudge betwixt the Senate and himselfe it is not to bee doubted but Tully and all who stood for the liberty of their City and Country shall be proscribed and condemned as rebels and Catiline with his faction decreed to be the onely true Citizens the onely men fit to rule the Empire It was the just exception which those 47. Catholike Bishops that stood for Athanasius tooke against the Councell at Tyre wherein hee was condemned that Eusebius and Theogius the mortall enemies of Athanasius were his Iudges in that Synod Lex autem Dei inimicum neque testem neque judicem esse vult but the law of God prohibits a mans enemy to be a witnesse much more to be his Iudge The very same exception took Chrysostome against Theophilus and the Synod with him Theophilus saith he hath called us unto judgement before hee hath purged himselfe of the crimes objected against him quod contra omnes Canones Leges est which is against all lawes and Canons and againe it is not fit that Theophilus should judge us qui ipse reus est inimicus hostis who is himselfe guilty or accused of crimes and is also our enemy Thus Chrysostome A matter of such equity that both Pope Nicholas the first and Celestine the third say Ipsa ratio dictat Common reason doth teach that those who are ones enemies ought not to be their Iudges The Pope then being a professed enemie of Protestants can be now lawfull or competent Iudge of them and being himselfe reus called into question for heresies can be no lawfull Iudge in his owne cause and in those very heresies whereof he is accused And truly the answer whereby Bellarmine thought to avoid this most just exception against their Trent Councell and the rest doth much more confirme the equity thereof He confesseth that this holds in all save onely in the supreme Iudge He onely may be Iudge in his owne cause and against his enemies also all else must stand to the judgement of others The interpretation is true but in the application of this to the Pope there he faileth for hee intends the Pope to be that supreme Iudge than which there cannot be devised a more base begging of the question and most speciall controversie That he is not supreme we unavoydably prove by the words of Christ Dic Ecclesiae by the judgement of this fift Councell which judged and condemned both the Popes Cathedrall Constitution for hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for an heretike and in saying the fift Councell it is as much as if I said by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church all the former Councels consenting in faith with this fift and all that follow it approving the judgement thereof untill their Laterane Synod The same is further proved by the sixt generall Councell which judged and condemned Pope Honorius for an Heretike by that which they call the seventh which also condemned Honorius by the next which they account the eighth wherein it is decreed that in the case of heresie the Pope may be judged and that is the very case whereof the Pope is now accused by the Councels of Constance and Basil in both which it is decreed to be a doctrine of the Catholike faith that the Pope hath a superiour Iudge in the case both of heresie schisme and scandalous life by the practice of the Church in judging and deposing Liberius and Iohn the 12. by the very words of Bellarmine himselfe If the Bishops saith he in a Synod can convince the Pope of heresie possunt cum judicare deponere they may judge and depose him And if in any cause he have a superiour Iudge then is he not supreme Seeing then by all these besides infinite moe it is not onely proved but demonstrated that the Pope is not nor ought to be held as supreme Iudge but may in some causes be both judged condemned and deposed and seeing by Bellarmines owne confession none can be judge in his owne cause or of his adversaries towards whom he professeth open enmity but onely the supreme Iudge it inevitably followeth upon the Cardinalls owne words besides evident reason that the Pope neither was in the Councell of Trent nor can be in any Councell a lawfull Iudge either of Protestants or in those causes which he then undertooke to judge in which himselfe was a party and Reus seeing then he should be Iudge in his owne cause which equity and reason the law both divine and humane doe constantly prohibite 34. Adde hereunto the judgement of the ancient and Catholike Church I doe never reade or almost remember the holy Councell of Chalcedon but with a kinde of amazement I admire the rare piety prudence integrity moderation and gravity of those most glorious Iudges who supplying the Emperours place when he was absent were the Imperiall Presidents in that Councell Had they or such like Presidents beene wanting at that time it may justly be feared considering the eagernesse and temerity that I say not the insolency of the Popes Legates in that Synod that the Councell of Chalcedon had proved a worse Latrociny than the second Ephesine was In that Councell both these causes now mentioned fell out the one in Dioscorus the other in Athanasius Bishop of Paros Dioscorus came and sate down in his place among the other Patriarks Bishops as one who would be a Iudge in the causes proposed for in ancient Councels there was a different place and seats for the Bishops who judged and gave sentence in the Councell and for others who were actors whether plaintiffs and accusers or Rei and accused Now because Dioscorus himselfe was the partie who was called into question and to be judged and equity forbids a man to bee
Iudge in his owne cause The Councell and by name the Popes Legates to whom the rest therein assented tooke this just exception thereat and said Non patimur we cannot indure this wrong to be done ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit that Dioscorus who is to bee judged sit as a Iudge in his owne cause upon which most just and equall motion the glorious Iudges who were Presidents for order commanded Dioscorus to remove from the Bench as I may say of Iudges and to sit in the middle of the Church which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei and Dioscorus accordingly sate there as the glorious Iudges had appointed Vpon the very same ground of equitie did the religious Emperour command in the second Ephesine Synod that if any question or cause fell out to be debated concerning Theodoret whom he commanded to be present that then absque illo Synodum convenire the Synod should assēble judge that cause without Theodoret he should have no judicatory power in his own cause And the like he further cōmanded cōcerning that holy Bish. Flavianus He some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople beene Iudges against Eutiches and condemned him An higher even that generall Councell at Ephesus which proved a Latrociny in the end was called to examine that judgment of Flavianus and the rest whether it was just or no. The Emperour commanded those who had beene Iudges of late in loco eorum esse qui judicandi sunt now to bee in the place of Rei such as were to bee judged A demonstration that if Theodosius or Martian or such like worthy and equall Iudges as they were at Chalcedon had been Presidents for order in their Trent assembly the Pope though hee had beene as just and orthodoxall as Flavianus much more being in impiety and heresie farre superiour to Dioscorus should not have beene permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Councell nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his owne cause much lesse have had such a supremacie of judgement that his onely voyce and sentence should over-rule and over-sway the whole Councell besides 35. The other example is this Athanasius Bishop of Paros being accused of sundry crimes was called to triall before a Provinciall Councell at Antioch held by Domnus Bishop of that See unto whose Patriarchall authority Athanasius was subject when hee refused to come after three citations hee was deposed by that Synod and Sabinianus by the same authority made Bishop of Paros in his roome In the Councel at Chalcedon Athanasius came complained of wrongfull extrusion and desired of the generall Councell that his Bishopricke might be restored unto him pleading for his refusall to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch nothing else but this that Dōnus who was the chiefe Iudge in that Synod was his enemy and therefore hee thought it not equall to be tryed before him though he was his owne Patriarch The glorious Iudges gave order that the accusations against Athanasius should within eight moneths bee examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch and a Synod with him and if he were found guilty of those crimes or any other worthy deposition he should for ever want the Bishopricke But if either they did not within such time examine the cause or examining it finde the accusations untrue that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius as unjustly deposed and that Sabinianus should remaine but a substitute unto him untill Maximus could provide him of another Bishopricke Thus ordered the secular Iudges and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence crying out Nihil justius nothing is more just nothing is more equall this is a just sentence you judge according to Gods minde O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe nay rather the onely Iudge would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity nor of force to bind I say not other Churches such as these of Britany but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority as Athanasius was to Domnus Such an holy Councell would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God and unlesse they could justifie which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us and withall purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convicted not onely in foro poli but in their owne consciences and by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny injustice and subversion of the Catholike Faith 36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops who were assessors in that Assembly Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance and murdered the Prophets Among whom that Canon authorizing trecherous and perfidious dealing stood in force Quod non obstantibus that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours Kings or any other granted to such as come to their Councels Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint by what bond soever they have tyed themselves by promise by their honour by their oath yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition and proceed to censure to punish them as they shall thinke fit and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousnesse saying Caesar obsignavit Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath but our Councell which is above the Emperour hath repealed it it shall not stand in force 37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope The Apulian Bishops crying out aliorum omnium nomine in the name of all the rest in their Councell Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae mancipia sanctissimi patris O we are all but the Popes creatures his very slaves The complaint of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed which he made of such like Councels at Basil that must bee done and of necessity be done and decreed in Councells quod nationi placeat Italicae which the Italian nation shall
Edicts Procopius who was familiarly conversant with Iustinian recites that traiterous perswasion of Arsaces to Artabanus when he excited him to murther the Emperour This said hee you may doe easily and without danger for the Emperour is not mistrustfull and he passeth the time till very late of the night in talking without any watch or guard having none but some old and feeble Bishops about him Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus being marvellously addicted to reade and peruse the writings of Christians Are these thinke you the actions of an illiterate of an Abcedary Emperour And what speake I of these The Pandects the Code the Authentikes the Institutions the whole body of the law proclame the incredible wisedome and rare knowledge of Iustinian All people saith he are governed by the lawes Tam à nobis promulgatis quam compositis as well published as composed by us and though he used the learning helpe and industry of other worthy men whose names he hath commended to all posterity and never-dying fame yet when they offred the bookes unto him Et legimus recognovimus saith he wee both read them and examined them which the glosse explaineth saying Nos ipsi legimus We our selves have reade and perused them So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shamelesse untruth of Baronius in reviling him for an illiterate and not so much as an Abcedarie scholler whose wit learning and prudence hath beene and will for ever bee a mirrour to all ages 4. But Suidas saith the Cardinall doth affirme the same calling Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and void of all learning For answer whereunto first I would gladly know of the Cardinal how hee can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas specially seeing their owne Iesuite Possevine tels us for a certainty that Plaeraque very many things are falsly inserted into Suidas and that à Sciolis Schismaticis by some smatterers or Schismaticks and further that those Plaeraque are such as are repugnant to the Euangelicall truth and Historicall sinceritie How may we bee assured that this concerning Iustinian is not one of those Plaeraque seeing this to be contrary to Historicall sincerity doth by those many and evident proofes which wee before produced fully appeare Againe admitting Suidas for the Author thereof is Suidas thinke you of more or equall authority and credit to their Pontificall which witnesseth expresly that Iustinian writ the holy confession of his faith Chirographo proprio with his owne hand Equall to Tritemius and Possevine or to winke at them to Pope Agatho and the sixt generall Councell who all account Iustinian among the Writers of the Church Who I pray you was this Suidas truly an earnest defender of those impieties which in their second Nicene Synod began to prevaile who in reviling manner doth call Constantine Iconomachus a Serpent an Antichrist and the disciple of the Devill and all for his not consenting to the adoration of Images and reliques and to the Invocation of Saints Now how this sort of men were given to lyes and fables the Acts of that Synod doe fully demonstrate Or if you rather desire to have their Iesuites judgement of Suidas hee will tell you first that he was hereticall in teaching the Essence in the Godhead to be generative which their Laterane Councell hath condemned for an heresie Hee will tell you further that this booke is full of errours fables and lyes of which sort are these among many That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos that it shal continue 1200. thousand yeares that the Sun and Starres are fierie substances fed and perpetuated by terrestriall humours as their nutriment that Paradise is Hortus pensilis a garden hanging in the ayre farre above the earth that Caine was begotten of the Devill which is a lye that the Iewes adored an asses head and every seventh yeare sacrificed a stranger His narration in verbo Nero touching Annas and Caiphas Pilate Peter and Simon Magus wherin multa comminiscitur he forgeth many things His narration in verbo Iulianus which hee calleth in expresse words mendacium flagiciosissimum a most lewd lie His slandering Constantine the great as base of birth and his sonne Crispus as incestuous His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretikes adding that hee writeth many things contra Historiae veritatem against the Historicall truth His relation in verbo Apolonius where many things are praised quae omnia monstrosa sunt prorsus explodenda all which are utterly to be hissed at where also he seemeth to allow the impious Art of Magicke and Divinations His approving of Appolonius and Danis two wicked Magitians who both are relegati ad inferos condemned to Hell And to omit very many of this kinde of impieties and fables which abound in Suidas His narration in verbo Iesus which not onely Baronius rejecteth but Pope Paul the fourth for that cause beside some other exploded the booke of Suidas and placed it in the ranke librorum prohibitorum Such even by the confession of their owne Iesuite is this Suidas a depraver of good a commender of wicked men a fabler a lyer a falsifier of Histories a Magitian an Heretike whose booke is by the Pope forbidden to bee read Such a worthy witnesse hath the Cardinall of his Suidas with whom he conspireth in reviling Iustinian as one utterly unlearned Concerning which untruth I will say no more at this time than that which Gotofrâ—d doth in his censure of those words of Suidas where calling it in plaine termes a slander he rejects it as it justly deserveth in this manner Valeant calumniae nos sinceriora sequamur Away with this and such like opprobrious slanders of Suidas and Baronius but let us follow the truth 5. His second reproofe of the Emperour is for presuming to make lâ—res in causes of faith which for Kings and Emperours to doe brings as he saith an hellish confusion into the Church of God The wit of a Cardinall Iustinian may not doe that which King Hezekiah which Asa which Iesiah and Constantine the great the two Theodosu Martian and other holy Emperours before had done and done it by the warrant of God to the eternall good of the Church and their owne immortall â—ame Had hee indeed or any of those Emperours taken upon them by their lawes to establish some new erronious or hereticall doctrine the Cardinall might in this case have justly reproved them but this they did not what doctrines the Prophets delivered the word of God taught and holy Synods had before decreed and explaned those and none else did Iustinian by his Edict and other religious Emperours ratifie by their imperiall authority Heare Iustinians owne words Wee have thought it needfull by this our Edict to manifest that right confession of faith quae in sancta Dei Ecclesiá praedicatur which is preached in the holy Church of God Here
is no new faith no Edict for any new doctrine but for maintaining that onely faith which the holy Catholike Church taught and the Councell of Chalcedon had decreed wherein that Iustinian did nothing but worthy of eternal praise the whole fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church approving it is a witnesse aboue exception which entreating of that which Iustinian had done in this cause of the Three Chapters the chiefe of all which was the publishing of his most religious Edict to cōdemne the same saith Omnia semper fecit facit quae sanctam Ecclesiam recta dogmata conservant Iustinian hath ever done and as yet doth all things which preserve the holy Church and the true faith So the Councell Is not Baronius minde composed of venome and malice who condemnes and reviles the Emperour as bringing hellish confusion into the Church by publishing that law which to have beene an especiall meanes to preserve the Church and Catholike faith the holy generall Councell and all the whole Catholike Church with it proclameth 6. See here againe the love and respect which Baronius beares to the Imperiall lawes and to those holy and religious Emperors which were the nursing fathers of Gods Church and pillers to uphold the faith in their dayes There are extant in the Theodosian Code many laws cōcerning the Catholike faith concerning Bish. Churches and the Clergy concerning Heretikes Apostates Monkes Iewes and Samaritanes concerning Pagan sacrifices and Temples concerning Religion Episcopall judgement those who flee unto Churches and many other of the same kinde lawes wholesome and necessary for those times The like titles are extant also in the Code of Iustinian In the Authenticks there are I know not how many lawes in the like causes Of the foure Councels of the Order of Patriarchs of the building of Churches of goods belonging to sacred places Of the holy Communion of Litanies of the memorials for the dead of the Priviledges of Churches of Patriarchs of the Pope of old Rome of Archbishops of Abbots of Presbyters of Deacons of Subdeacons of Monkes of Anchorites of Synods of deposing Bishops who fall into heresie that Patrons who builded Churches and their heyers shall nominate the Clerks for the same and in case they name such as are unmeet then the Bishop to appoint who he thinks fit that Heretikes shall be uncapable of any legacies and exceeding many the like Now such a spite hath the Cardinall to the Emperours and these their Imperiall lawes made concerning the affaires of the Church that like some new Aristarchus with one dash of his pen hee takes upon him to casheire and utterly abolish those lawes five or sixe hundreth at the least with such care piety and prudēce set forth by Constantine Theodosius Valentinian Gratian Martian Iustinian and other holy and religious Emperours And when these are gone whether the Cardinall meant not after them to wipe away which with as good reason and authority he may all the other lawes which are in the Digest Code and Authenticks that so his master the Pope may play even another Iack Cade that all law might proceed out of his mouth let the judicious consider This is cleare that the Cardinals malice is not satisfied with reproofe of the lawes themselves even these holy Emperors Constantine Theodosius and the rest are together with Iustinian for the making of those lawes touching Ecclesiasticall affaires and persons reproved nay reviled by Baronius as having beene presumptuous persons authors of an hellish confusion in the Church and for turning heaven into hell They and such as they make lawes of faith lawes for Bishops lawes for the Church let them heare as they well deserve and as the Cardinall shameth not to upbraid to Iustinian Ne ultra crepidam Sir Cobler goe not beyond you Last and Latchet So indignly doth the Cardinall use those holy and religious Princes and that even for their zeale to Gods truth and love to his Church for that which with exceeding piety and prudence they performed to their owne immortall honor and to the peace and tranquillity of the whole Church of God 7. His third calumnie is that hee revileth Iustinian for his sacrilegious fury and persecution which hee used against Pope Vigilius partly when Vigilius was buffeted and beaten at Constantinople before the time of the Councell and forced to flee to Chalcedon partly when he was banished 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 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 before declared what a monstrous persecutor then was holy Constantine for banishing Theognis 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 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 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 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
victorious conquests Alexander for magnificence Augustus for his Piety constant love and zeal to the faith Constantine Theodosius or Martian for multiplicity of labours undertaken for the good of the whole Empire more indefatigable than Hercules and for supporting the whole fabricke of the Church and Christian faith a very Atlas Caelum qui vertice falcit 42. There onely remaineth now the other effect which is private which as it is the last so is it the heaviest punishment that Baronius could wish unto Iustinian and that is his adjudging him to the pit and torments of hell Did he not feare the Apostles reproofe either against rash and temerarious judgers Who art thou that judgest another mans servant or against uncharitable censures Charity thinketh not evill it rejoyceth not in iniquity but rejoyceth in the truth why did not the Cardinall harken rather to the judgement of the Church of Constantinople Wherein the memory of Iustinian was yearely celebrated and that with great pompe and solemnity in the Church of Sophia in the time of divine service all the people being assēbled The like celebrity of his memory was observed at Ephesus in the Church of Saint Iohn which he had builded Or if the authority of these particular Churches could not sway the Cardinall seemed it a small matter unto him to contemne the consenting judgement of Pope Agatho and his Romane Councell which ranke him among the glorious and blessed Saints in heaven with Saint Constantine Theodosius and Martian yea of the whole sixt generall Councell wherein his memory is so often called holy blessed divine happy and the like if his memory then much more himselfe is happy and blessed for to the just onely doth that honor belong The memoriall of the just shall be blessed but the name of the wicked shall rot To which purpose that is specially to be observed which Nicephorus addeth in plaine termes of the sixt generall Councell Iustinianum beata quiete dignatur It placeth Iustinian in blessed rest and peace and againe Semper cum qui in Sanctis est Iustinianum dicunt That general Councell ever calleth Iustinian one who is a Saint and among the Saints Adde to all these that seeing by the Cardinals confession the Epistles of Agatho In omnibus and therefore even in that which he saith of this holy Emperour That hee is a blessed Saint venerable in all Nations are to be imbraced as divine Oracles it may bee truly concluded that Iustinian not onely by the testimonies of mortall men and of all nations but even by the voyce of God himselfe is blessed and hath ever since his death and doth now rest and raigne with God When by the unpartiall judgement of S. Agatho of the Romane Synod of the whole sixt generall Councell of all Nations yea of God himselfe Iustinian is proclamed to be a venerable Saint now resting raigning with God in heaven who is Baronius a man of yesterday that after a thousand years possession of that heavenly rest he should unsaint him dethrone him and thrust him downe to the lowest pit and most hideous torments of hell I' st not enough for that Hildebrandicall generation to devest Kings Emperors of their earthly diadems unless in the pride of their hearts climbing up into heaven they thrust them out thence also deprive them of their crowns of immortality eternal glory 43. And yet were there neither Historian nor Pope nor Provinciall nor Generall Councell to testifie this felicity of Iustinian unto us that very text out of which being maimed the Cardinall sucked poyson and collected His death damnation doth so forcible prove the beatitude of Iustinian that it alone may bee sufficient in this cause The Cardinall cites but one part of the text but the whole doth manifest his fraud and malicious collection Apoc. 14.13 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence forth even so saith the Spirit for they rest from their labours and opera illorum sequuntur illos their workes follow them which last words the Cardinall onely alleageth and applyeth them to Iustinian Now who are Those that are meant by Their works and follow Them who are those Them that the Spirit meaneth in that text Out of al doubt those selfe-same of whom before he spake Them that dye in the Lord Them that are blessed and rest from their labours Of Them the Spirit there saith Opera illorum Their workes follow Them Seeing then the Cardinall confesseth this text to belong to Iustinian and himselfe applyeth it unto him it certainly hence followeth that Iustinian is of their number who dye in the Lord and are blessed for of Them and Them onely doth the holy Ghost speake in that text saying They rest from their labours and Their workes follow Them So hard it is for the Cardinal to cite or say ought against Iustinian which doth not redound to the Emperours honour and the Cardinals owne ignominie 44. But let us suppose the words to bee generall as being uttered alone without any reference to that text they may bee truly affirmed both of the good bad There cannot be found in al Scripture more faire evidence nor a more authentike Charter for the happy estate of any one in particular that lived since the Apostles times then is this for Iustinian For what were those workes which did accompanie and follow Iustinian Truely the workes of sincere faith of fervent zeale to GOD of love to the Church and Children of God the workes of piety of prudence of justice of fortitude of munificence of many other heroicall vertues with these as with a garment and chaine of pure Gold Iustinian being decked was brought unto the Bridegroom every decree made or ratified by him for confirming the faith every Anathema denounced against heresies heretiks particularly those against Vigilius al that defend him that is against Baronius and all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith everie Temple or Church every Monastery and Hospitall every City and Towne everie Bridge Haven and High-way every Castle Fort and Munition whether made or repaired by him tending either immediately to the advancement of Gods service or to the maintaining or relieving of Gods servants or strengthning the Empire against his and Gods enemies every booke in the Digest Code and Authentikes every Title yea every law in any title whereby either the Christian faith and religion or peaceable order and tranquillity have beene either planted or propagated or continued either in the Church or Common-wealth all these and every one of them and many other the like which I cannot either remember or recount are like so many Rubies Chrysolites and Diamonds in the costly garment or so many linkes in that golden chaine of his faith and vertues Seeing they who offer but one mite into the treasury of the Lord or give but one cup of cold water to a Prophet shall not want a reward O!
avouch that it had beene much better that the Church had remained without these controversies about the three Chapters nec unquam de his aliquis habitus esset sermo and that there had never beene one word spoken of them Thus Baronius 2. What thinke you moved the Cardinall to have such an immortall hatred to this cause as to wish the condemning buriall and utter extinguishing of those controversies What more hurt did this to the Church than the question about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or about the opinion of Eutiches Very great calamity saith Baronius insued upon this controversie both in the East and West True it did so and so there did and far greater and longer about the controversie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more againe than that upon the question whether the Gospell or Paganisme should prevaile and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated the truth of Christ spred abroad the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospell No affliction calamity or persecution is a just cause either to wish that there had never beene any such controversie or to forsake the truth of God when the controversie is moved It was an excellent saying of the Aegyptian Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon Christianus neminem timet a Christian feareth no mortall man si homines timerentur martyres non essent if men should be feared there would be no Martyrs But the truth is it was not as Baronius fancieth the controversie it selfe nor the disputing and debating thereof that caused so great calamities in the East and West that is non causa pro causa the peevishnesse and perversenesse of wicked men maintaining heresies and oppugning the truth that was the true cause thereof The controversie it selfe if you well marke it was very beneficiall to the Church Oportet haereses esse there must be heresies among you that they which are approved might bee knowne Every heresie is a probation and tryall of mens love to God and his truth whether they esteeme it more than their honours pleasures and their owne wilfull conceits and the greater the heresie is and the further it spreads it is still a greater tryall Heretikes saith S. Austen doe much profit the Church though they be out of the Church not by teaching the truth which they doe not know but by stirring up those who are more carnall Catholikes to seeke and those who are more spirituall to defend and manifest the truth This triall and probation of men if I mistake not was never so great in any controversie or question as in this of the three Chapters First it sifted and tryed Vigilius to the full and tryed him to be a wether-cocke in faith an heretike and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolicall authority Next it sifted out divers notable conclusions as first that which I think was never before that tryed that not onely the Pope but the Apostolike See also to wit the Romane Church and with it the Westerne Churches all at once adhered to heresie and forsooke the truth and that even after it was decreed and judged by the generall approved Councell and so it proved both Pope and Romane Church to be properly hereticall the Easterne Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time it shewed that the Catholike faith was tied neither to the Chair nor Church of Rome Another conclusion then tryed was that either persons or Churches may not onely dissent from the Pope and the Romane Church and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod but may renounce communion with them and yet remaine Catholikes and in the unity of the Catholike Church the Pope the Westerne Church and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholike faith Heretikes and by forsaking the unity of the Church Schismatikes 3. Neither onely was this controversie a triall to them in that age a tryall of their faith love to God charity to the Church obedience to the Emperour but it is as great a triall even in these our dayes and ever since that doctrine of the Popes infallibility in causes of faith hath beene defined and condemned By this controversie most happly decided by the generall Councell all that hold the Popes definitions of faith to be infallible that is all that are Papists or members of the present Church of Rome they are all hereby tryed to defend this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius that is to maintaine all the blasphemies of the Nestorians to deny the Catholike faith the doctrine of the Apostles of the primative Church of the fift generall Councell so to be not only heretikes but convicted anathematized and cōdemned heretikes by the judgement of a generall approved Councell and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church Further yet there is a tryall of them whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine or position of faith or religion if they doe as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that they are againe hereby tryed to be hereticall not onely in the foundation but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion which relyes upon that foundation 4. This was it which netled Baronius and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes that this controversie had never beene heard of nor mentioned in the world he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men of doctrines of Churches of the Pope himselfe and their whole Romish Church and seeing that tryall he never ceased to say that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved nor spoken of for so they had avoided this most notable triall Blessed be God for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated and discussed to the utmost that among many other tryals this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed and discovered to the world it is for them I say to wish that the controversies about Arianisme Nestorianisme Eutycheanisme and the like had never beene moved they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes But Catholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies by which both the truth which they maintaine is made more resplendent and victorious themselves and their faith tryed to be like refined gold the Church thereby is quieted the truth propagated heresies confounded and the glory of Almighty God much more magnified and praysed CAP. XXIII How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus B. of Caesarea and a refutation of the same 1. SEeing now notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius this controversie could not be buried it ought him and all ill-willers
they must bee taken in the Dative case as if Theodorus had sollicited them to consent to his words that is as the Cardinall supposeth to the Edict which was penned and written by him or whereof he was the Author Sure against this Baronian construction the words of Liberatus are very pregnant seeing Theodorus as hee sheweth was one who entreated the Emperour to indite or dictate the booke and the Emperour promised so to doe If then Theodorus sollicited the Bishops to consent to the words of the Edict hee certainly urged them by this testimonie of Liberatus to consent not to his owne but to the Emperours words of whose inditing and dictating the Edict was Admit them to bee the Dative how knowes the Cardinall that by tuis vocibus are ment the words of the Edict might not Theodorus signifie to the Bishops his owne great liking of the Emperours Edict and perswade them to the like to say as he said to consent to his words in approving the Imperiall Edict The Card was too secure negligēt in relying on these words tuis vocibus which being so ambiguous receive divers those also just exceptions But yet there is a farre worse fault in this proofe that the Epistle whence the Cardinall citeth these words though it beare the name of Vigilius yet is intruth not the Epistle of Vigilius but a very counterfeit and base forgery under his name full of untruths unworthy of any credit at all which besides other proofes hereafter to be alleaged faineth Mennas to be Bishop of Constantinople and to be excommunicated together with Theodorus by Vigilius foure or five yeares after hee was dead which censure was to stand in force till Mennas repented of his contumacie against the Popes Decree and should be reconciled to him This lying and base forgery doth Baronius bring to prove Theodorus and not Iustinian to bee the author of this Imperiall Edict Might not one say here as was said of the Asse Like lips like lettuce Such a writing is a most fit witnesse for Baronius who delighteth in untruths and not finding true records to give testimony to them it was fit hee should applaud the most vile and abject forgeries if they seeme to speak ought pleasing to the Cardinals pallate or which may serve to support his untruths 9. You see that yet it appeares not that Theodorus was the writer or penner of this Decree none of Baronius his witnesses affirming it and Liberatus who is the best of them all affirming the contrary I might now with this answer put off a great part of those reviling speeches which Baronius so prodigally bestoweth on Theodorus But I minde not so to leave the Cardinall nor suffer the proud Philistine so insolently to revile and insult over any one of the Israelites much lesse this worthy Bishop of Cesarea to whom hee could not have done a greater honor than in that which he intended as an exceeding disgrace to him to call and account him the Author and Writer of this Edict It is no small honour that Iustinian so wise and religious an Emperour should commit the care of so waighty a matter to Theodorus that hee should have him in so high esteeme as account his word an Oracle to bee guided and directed by his judgement so to adhere unto him as Constantine did to that renowned Hosius as to thinke it a piaculum or great offence not to follow his advice in matters of so great waight consequence and importance Nay this one Edict supposing with the Cardinall Theodorus to bee the Author of it shall not onely pleade for Theodorus but utterly wipe away all those vile slanders of heresie impiety imprudency and the like so often and so odiously objected and exaggerated by the Cardinall against him this writing and the words thereof being as whosoever readeth them will easily conceive and if hee deale ingenuously confesse the words of truth of faith of sobriety of profound knowledge evidences of a minde full fraught with faith with piety with the love of God and Gods Church and in a word full of the holy Ghost As Sophocles being accused to doate recited his Oedipus Coloneus and demanding whether that did seeme the Poeme of a doating man was by the sentence of all the Iudges acquitted So none can reade this Edict but forthwith acknowledge it a meere calumny in Baronius to call the maker of it an heretike whose profession of faith is so pious divine and Catholike Or rather Theodorus may answer that Baronian slander with the like words as did S. Paul They neither found me making an uproare among the people nor in the Synagogues nor in the City neither can they prove these things whereof they now accuse mee but this I confesse that after this way declared in this Edict which they call heresie so worship I the God of my fathers 10. Now as this may serve for a generall Antidote at once as it were to expell all the whole poyson of those Baronian calumnies so if we shall descend to particulars the innocency of Theodorus as also the malice and malignity of Baronius will much more clearly appeare The crimes objected to Theodorus by Baronius are reduced to three heads one his threefold heresie another his opposing himselfe to Pope Vigilius or the Decree of Taciturnity in the cause of the Three Chapters the third his misleading of Iustinian into the heresie of the Aphthardokites and so causing that great persecution of the Church which thereupon ensued all the other disgracefull termes are but the superfluity of that malice which the Cardinall beares against all that were opposite to Vigilius and his Apostolicall Constitution To begin then with that which is easiest the two last crimes are not so easily uttered as refuted they both are nothing else but meere slanders and calumnies without any certaine ground or probability of truth devised either by Baronius himselfe or by such as he is enemies and haters of the truth and truly for the later his misleading Iustinian into the heresie of the Apthardokites that is not onely a manifest untruth for Iustinian as wee have before proved did not onely at all hold that heresie but it is wholly forged and devised by Baronius he hath not any one Author no not so much as a forged writing to testifie this no nor any probable collection out of any Author to induce him to lay this imputation upon Theodorus the world is wholly and soly beholden to the Cardinall for this shamelesse calumny and yet see the wisedome of Baronius herein hee was not content barely and in a word to taxe and reprove Theodorus which had beene more than sufficient having no proofe nor evidence of the crime but in this passage as if shee had demonstratively proved Theodorus to bee guilty hereof hee rageth and foameth like a wilde Bore against him calling him a most wicked man and most vehement propugner of blasphemy the plague of the whole Church who with
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 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 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 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 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 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 in ure with calumnies the untruth and lye belongs neither to the Councell nor to the Acts but must bee returned to themselves to whom onely it is due For the Councels truth herein the Emperour is a most honourable witnesse who saith Demonstratur Ibas cam abnegasse Ibas is demonstrated or by evident proofe knowne to have denyed his Epistle Pope Gregory is another witnesse above exception who saith Epistolam Ibas denegat suam Ibas denyed the Epistle to be his the fift Councell also doth not onely affirme it but prove it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops and their interloquution in the Councell of Chalcedon they all sayd they received Ibas eo quod negabat illa because he did deny those things which were objected by his adversaries a great part of which was that Epistle All these are witnesses for the Councell what witnesses now doth the Cardinall or Binius bring to countervaile these truly not so much as one and one were but a poore number to be opposed to so many and so worthy men testifying the contrary Now whether the testimony of the Emperour Pope Gregory of six Metropolitanes and an whole generall approved Councell affirming this or Baronius without any one witnesse denying this be more credible let the very best friends of Baronius judge but Baronius loves to bee Iohannes ad oppositum to Emperours Popes Bishops and Councels if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate that is indeed if they say the truth 3. But yet Baronius hath a proofe of his saying which is this because Ibas confessed it to be his and hee tels us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon Say he did confesse it as I will not deny that he did though I verily thinke the Cardinall speakes an untruth in saying that this is in the Acts for I finde not in those Acts either any such expresse confession or ought from whence it can be collected and Iustinian plainly saith that Ibas durst not acknowledge it to be his for the blasphemies contained therein but I admit that Ibas confessed it to be his Doth it thence follow that he denyed it not to be his might he nor doe both might he not contradict himselfe doth not the Cardinall who neither for wit nor wisedome will yeeld one jote to Ibas doth not
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 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 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 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 the letters or Edict published by Iustinian Thirdly there wants 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 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 In secunda autem Sessione but in the second Sessiō the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred read and Iustinian rursum Synodū de eis sententiā ferre jussit commanded againe the Synod to giue 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 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 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 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 second 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 dayes Collation Cumque 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 and a great part of the fift day of their Collatiō 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 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 thē is all was done in the seventh 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 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 saith and after him Evagrius 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 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 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 Indicium 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 which the Cardinall slily 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 yeares before in the time of Mennas both the Emperour in an Imperiall Edict 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 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 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 fift 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 with this fift generall Synod held some fourteene years after wherein Origen and his errours were also condemned but
singing an hymne behold the Lord commeth Thus Anastasius Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend were easie to demonstrate if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part for they not onely condemne this as untrue but prove it by divers arguments to be such The first for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely for the cause of the Three Chapters and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof aperti mendacij arguitur is convinced of an evident untruth The second because seeing as they say Mennas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented Iustinian would conciliate the Pope unto him by all faire meanes and intreate him no otherwise but favourably least if the Pope were displeased he should not yeeld his consent and then the whole purpose of the Emperour should bee made frustrate Their third reason is an argument à testimonio negativè because neither Procopius nor Facundus mention any such violence or abuse offered to the Pope of which reason I have spoken before A fourth is taken from the time whereas he saith that Vigilius came to Constant. on Christmas eve mendacij redarguitur hee is proved to lye by that which Procopius saith Many other reasons might bee added but these of Baronius and Binius are sufficiâ—nt to convince Anastasius of lying and open lying in this passage which is as now you see nothing but a fardell of lyes for neither did the people take that oportunity to accuse Vigilius nor did they accuse him of those crimes nor did the Empresse for that cause send for Vigilius neither did shee but Iustinian call him to Constantinople neither did shee send Anthimus Scribo to pull him away by violence neither commanded she him not to forbeare Vigilius in any place but only in Saint Peters Church this was but the kind affection of Anastasius to the honour of Peters See neither did shee sweare to excommunicate Scribo if hee brought not Vigilius neither did Scribo apprehend him in the Temple of Saint Cicile neither did Vigilius distribute a largesse at that time when he was apprehended neither did they violently carry him to Tiber and there ship him neither did the people follow him and desire him to pray for them neither when the ship was gone did they revile him nor cast stones nor clubs nor dung after him nor imprecate and curse him neither was hee at that time brought but as by Procopius appeareth long before hee voluntarily went to Sicilie and made so long stay there that the Emperour having called him the yeare before as by Victor is cleare by reason of his long abode in Sicilie he called him the yeare after againe out of Sicily as Procopius sheweth Neither came he to Constantinople on Christmas Eeve but either on the five and twentieth of Ianuary as Marcellinus saith or as by Procopius who is farre more worthy of credit may bee gathered about the middle of April next ensuing neither did the Emperour when they met kisse him nor did they weepe for joy the one of the other nor did they sing the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator behold the Lord the Ruler is come It was a very pretty allusion of Anastasius and very apt for the season in honour of the Pope to take part of the text expressing the joy for Christs Advent in the flesh and turne it to an Anthem to congratulate the Popes Advent on Christmas eve to Constantinople but I feare it will hardly be beleeved that men in those dayes did use such base nay blasphemous flattery to the Pope this hymne would have better befitted the time of Leo the tenth when in the open Councell they durst say to Pope Leo Weepe not O daughter Syon Ecce venit Leo de Tribu Iuda behold the Lion of the Tribe of Iuda commeth the roote of Iesse behold GOD hath raised up to thee a Saviour who shall save thee from the hands of the destroying Turks and deliver thee from the hand of the Persecutors O most blessed Leo wee have looked for thee we have hoped that thou shouldest come and be our deliverer The former Anthem had beene sutable to such a time the art of their blasphemous Gnatonisme to the Popes was not halfe learned in Iustinians dayes and most incredible it is that Iustinian would use or could endure in his presence such entertainment of Vigilius knowing that hee was an earnest and violent oppugner of his Imperiall Edict in which he had expresly anathematized and accursed all that did defend the Three Chapters This proclaming of an Anathema against Vigilius and the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator with kissing weeping for joy make no good concord nor harmony together Let this be accounted for no moe than twenty Anastasian lyes and those are the fewest which are bound up in this fardle 19. After that Anastasius hath as you have seene safely landed the Pope at Constantinople then hee tels you That for two yeares space there was continuall strife about Anthimus the Emperour and Empresse laboured to have Vigilius restore him urged him with his promise and handwriting but Vigilius would no way consent and when he found them so heavy towards him he said I perceive now it was not Iustinian and Theodora but Dioclesian and Eleutheria that called mee hither doe with me what you will thereupon they buffeted him and called him homicide and killer of Sylverius then hee fled to the Church of Euphemia and held himselfe by a Piller of the Altar but they puld him thence cast him out of the Church put a rope about his necke dragged him through all the City till evening and then put him in prison feeding him with a little bread and water and after this they banished him also with the rest of the Romane Clergy And these like the rest are meerely the sond and sottish dreames of Anastasius of as Baronius useth to call them lyes Baronius will assure you that it was not Anthimus or his restoring but the Three Chapters about which Vigilius was sent for The cause of Anthimus who was deposed tenne yeares before was quite forgotten and to see the sottishnesse of Anastasius Iustinian had long before written to Vigilius requiring him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius had done this upon the Emperours letter the Popes letters are recorded both in Baronius and Binius dated when Iustinus was Consull which was sixe whole yeares before the Popes comming to Constantinople all that time the Emperour still liked the deposing of Anthimus and many wayes had approved Mennas for the Bishop Now after all this when the whole Church and every man was troubled with a more waighty cause of the Three Chapters Anastasius brings in this that the Emperour and the Pope quarrelled for two yeares about an old forgotten matter of
for by it hath beene lift up the man of sinne Christian Empires have beene robbed the ignorant seduced the whole Church abused Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him as the most falsly supposed donation hath done to the Catholike Church 5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinall in this reason drawne from the event and the Emperours presence Some ten yeares before this Pope Agapetus being sent by Theodotus King of the Gothes came to Constantinople and to the same Emperour It so fell out that at that time Anthimus an heretike and an intruder held the Sea of Constantinople Agapetus deposed him that is hee declared and denounced which was true indeed that hee was never lawfully Bishop of that See and that himselfe did not nor ought others to hold him for the lawfull Bishop thereof whereupon Mennas was chosen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his roome Vigilius was called by the Emperour Agapetus sent by a Gothish usurper Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxall Professor Agapetus sent by an heretike and Arian King Vigilius called purposely about causes of faith Agapetus sent only about civill and but casually intermedling w th Ecclesiasticall causes You would now even blesse your selfe to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu by it proves the Popes presence at the same Court with the same Emperor to have brought such an infinite unspeakeable good unto the Church as could scarce bee wished Agapetus no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth but even from God himselfe and by him commanded to goe thither with an errant from heaven hee seemed to bee sent to intreat of peace but hee was commanded by God to goe ut imperaret imperantibus that he should shew himselfe to be an Emperour above the Emperour He like Saint Peter had not gold nor silver being faine to pawne the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles Now was demonstrated the highest power of the Pope that without any Councell called about the matter as the custome is hee could depose a Patriarke at other times hee may not have that title and a Patriark of so high a See as Constantinople and so highly favoured by the Emp. Empresses Now was demonstrated that Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet that the Popes power is above all Canōs for herby was shewed that he by his omnipēt authority may do matters with the Canons without the Canons against all Canons seeing his judgement was without a Synod which in a Patriarks cause is required fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem it was according to his supreme authority which is transcēdent above all Canōs or to use Bellarmines phrase hee did shew himselfe to bee Princeps Ecclesiae one that may doe against the whole Church Nay if you well consider admirari non desines you will never cease to wonder to see that Agapetus a poore man as soone as hee came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus corū facta rescindere jura dare omnibusque jubere to command Emperours to adnull their Acts to depose a Patriarke and thrust him from his throne to set another there to set downe lawes and command all men and to do all this without any Synod such a Pope was Agapetus that I know not an similis alius inveniri possit whether such another can bee found among them all Thus declameth Baronius Where thinke you all time was the Cardinals argument ab adventu Experience teacheth that when Popes leave their See and goe to the Court or Emperours presence the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazzard If Agapetus his comming to Constantinople or to the Emperour did not hazzard or endanger the Church how came it to bee perillous a few yeares after in Vigilius and where were now the most wise examples of Pope Leo and the other who in great wisedome could never be drawne to the East and from their owne See how was the holy Church now fixed to Rome when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople perceive you not how these arguments lie asleepe in the cause of Agapetus which the Cardinall rouseth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople This ab adventu as all the Cardinals Topicke places is drawne from the art and authority of Esops Satyr If they make for the Pope as the event did in Agapetus then the Cardinall with his Satyrs blast will puffe them up and make them swell to demonstrations But if they make against the Pope as did the event in Vigilius all arguments in the world drawne from the cause effect or any other Topicall or demonstrative place the Cardinall with a contrary breath can turne them al to Sophistications He is another Iannes or Iambres of this age when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharao it shall sting like a Serpent when it is used against King Pharao it shall bee as dull and dead as a stick 6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the comming of Vigilius to Constantinople what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with Iustinian Sure the Cardinall in good discretion should have expressed them at least some one of them but hee was too politike to open such secrets of their State for mine owne part I cannot but first condemne his foule ingratitude in this point Vigilius before hee came to Constantinople was earnest in oppugning the truth and Catholike faith by defending of the Three Chapters hee defended them by words by writings by censures by the utmost of his power All the hurt the Emperour did him was this that he converted him to the truth that hee brought him to define by an Apostolicall Constitution that truth which before hee oppugned and in this tune the Emperour kept him for five or sixe yeares together but then when his old fit of heresie came upon him againe when at the time of the generall Councell he forsook the Emperours holy faith his communion and as may bee thought even his company and presence also by this absence from the Emperor he relapsed quite from the Catholike faith even from that which before hee had defended and defined so long as hee kept society with the Emperour When the Emperours presence made hereticall Pope Vigilius for the space of five or sixe yeares a Catholike Pope at least in shew and profession doe you not thinke Baronius to deale unkindly with the Emperour in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperour that is in effect to blame and little lesse than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresie and embraced or made profession of the Catholike faith 7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius
as persons failing in their Episcopall or Presbyteriall duties either not knowing the truth as by their office they should or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth as by their office they should not So by his subtilty if any applaud themselves in it not only the Bishops of Rome but of Constantinople of Antioch of Alexandria yea all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from errour as his holinesse himselfe yea all professors of any Art Science or faculty shall plead the like Papall exemption from errour every man shall bee a Pope in his owne faculty no Grammarian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian but as wanting the skil required in a Grammarian no Iudge giving a wrongfull sentence as a Iudge no Galenist ministring unwholsome physicke as a Physitian no Artificer working any thing amisse in his trade as an Artificer but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge or of that fidelity which is required in a Iudge a Physitian and in every Artificer If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters all Iudges and Physitians from erring as they are such Officers or Artificers we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope If they notwithstanding this subtilty will admit another Bishop to erre as Bishop they must not thinke much if wee exempt not the Pope as Pope For to speake that which is the very truth of them all and exactly to measure every thing by his owne line a Iudge simply as Iudge doth pronounce a judiciall sentence as a skilfull and faithfull judge an upright judiciall sentence as an unskilful or unfaithfull Iudge an erronious or unjust sentence A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter doth teach with publike authority in the Church as a skilfull and faithfull Bishop or Presbyter he teacheth the truth of God as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errours and heresies in the Church the one without the other with judicall power to censure the gainsayers The like in all Arts Sciences and faculties is to be sayd even in the Pope himselfe A Pope simply as he is Pope and defined by them teacheth both with authority to teach with power to censure the gainsayers and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeale without doubt as an infallible Oracle as a skilfull or faithfull Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort as an unskilfull or unfaithfull Pope he teacheth errour or heresie with the like authority power and supremacy binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholike truth and that with a most blind obedience without once doubting of the same 48. Apply this to Vigilius his hereticall Epistle In a vulgar sense Vig. erred as Pope because he erred in those very Pōtifical duties of feeding confirming which are proper to his office In a strickt sense though hee did not therein erre simply as Pope but quatenus talis taught onely with a supreme binding authority yet hee erred as an unfaithfull Pope binding others by that his Pontificall and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholike truth without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same What may wee thinke will they oppose to this If they say Vigilius doth not expresse in this Epistle that hee writ it by his Apostolicall authority Hee doth not indeed Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus against the heresie of Eutyches which to have beene writ by his Apostolicall authorty and as hee was Pope none of them doe or will deny that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon Pope Leo by his Papall authority condemneth Eutycheanisme Pope Vigilius by his Papall authority confirme Eutycheanisme both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papall authority both writ as Popes the one as orthodoxall the other as a perfidious and hereticall Pope neither of both expresse that their Apostolicall authority by which they both writ The like in many other Epistles of Leo and of other Popes might easily bee observed Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles such as they writ as Popes have this clause of doing it by their Apostolicall authority expressed in them It is sufficient that this is vertually in them all and vertually it is in this of Pope Vigilius Yea but hee taught this onely in a private letter to a few to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius not in a publike generall and encyclicall Epistles written for instruction of the whole Church What is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few in confirming three of his brethren why not in foure in eight in twenty and if in twenty why not in an hundred if so why not in a thousand if in one why not in two foure or ten thousand Caudaeque pilos ut equinae paulatim vellam where or at what number shall we stay as being the least which with infallibility he can teach Certainly confirma fratres in cathedra sede pasce oves respects two as well as two millions If in confirming or feeding three the Chaire may bee erroneous how can wee know to what number God hath tyed the infallibility of it But the sixt generall Councell may teach them a better lesson Pope Honorius writ an hereticall Epistle but onely to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople Vigilius writ this to three all of patriarchall dignity as Sergius was Honorius writ it privately as Vigilius did which was the cause as it seemes that the Romane Church tooke so little notice thereof yet though it was private and but to one it is condemned by the sixt Councell for a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius for a writing wherein hee confirmes others in heresie and Pope Leo the second judged it to bee such as was a blemish to the Apostolike See such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholike faith The like and more danger was in this to these three deposed patriarchs It confirmed them in heresie it confirmed the Empresse it confirmed all that tooke part with them it was the meanes whereby the faith was in hazard to have beene utterly subverted For plurality or paucity it is 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 Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus 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 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 saith How Vigilius being by heresie afflicted died it is knowne unto all Heare what Cardinall Bellarmine saith out of Liberatus Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that selfe same 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 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 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 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 contenâ— my selfe with that lesson of the Apostle 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 persevering therein eternally shuts against them the gates of Gods mercy and the kingdome of heaven Both which because they are hid from mans eyes the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity onely to God passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity by the outward and apparant acts which are open unto them whomsoever shee seeth not nor findes by certaine and evident proofe to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their hereticall and impious writings which before they published and maintained all those though dead ten an hundred or a thousand years before she by her censure doth and doth most justly condemne accurse and anathematize as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia dead an hundred yeares before is most evident whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fift Councell is approved by all succeeding generall Councels by all Catholikes and even by the whole Catholike Church Not will I here dispute whether such a sentence doth not sometimes passe errante clave the party having repented whom they not having proofe of his repentance thought to dye impenitent but howsoever that fall out none may justly complaine of the Churches judgement as unjust or unequall herein for besides that it is presumed that those who so notoriously and publikely by their hereticall writings doe scandalize the Church and people of God if they had seriously repented would have expressed some publike and outward testimony of the same the Church would by this severity of her censure teach all men a lesson which is very hard to learne first that they should not have such an itch and ambitious desire to write or utter those detestable heresies which lurk
within their breasts or if they cannot observe that yet at least to learne to be so lowly and humble in heart as to revoke their impieties and blasphemies although to some blemish and disgrace of themselves yet to the great honour of Gods truth and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church which they had scandalized If in ambition they will first oppugne the truth and then in a worse pride of heart not be reclamed to the truth nor shew their love unto it why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement shew her open detestation of their persons who in the insolency of their hearts will not shew any open detestation of their heresies That Vigilius writ a papall Constitution in defence of heresie it is apparent and undenyable that he at any time revoked that writing I wish it were but it is not yet evident The like may be sayd of Baronius of Pighius of Eccius of the Laterane Florentine and Trent conspirators of all who have whet their tongues against other truth and specially to uphold that fundamentall heresie of the Popes infallibility Their writings for heresie are evident that they ever reclamed those writings it is inevident and if ever they and their cause come to bee tryed in such a free lawfull and oecumenicall Councell as was this fift under Iustinian they may justly feare and certainly expect from the Church unlesse the disclaming of their writings may by certaine proofe be made knowne the very like sentence though a hundred yeares after theirs as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred yeares after his death And because the houre-glasse for repentance in runne out to the former all that we can doe is which I seriously now doe from my heart to cry amaine unto others to admonish exhort yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God and by the love of their owne soules first that they keepe their tongues and pennes from once uttering any heresie or if they have not done that with the same hands to give the medicine wherewith they gave the wound and as openly nay much more openly to disclame than they have ever proclamed their impious and hereticall doctrines 53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius The exact pourtraiture of the Popes lives Baronius had beene able to set forth if he had listed but he addeth such fucos and so many sophisticall colours that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and naturall habit If ought be amisse in this our description and not set forth according to the lively lineaments of Vigilius and his impieties the equall reader will not too rigorously censure the same I acknowledge that I can but dolare in this kinde to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes I have not learned That is an Art which may not bee too vulgar lest their Romane policies be too farre divulged But by this it is easie to perceive what a silly excuse it is which Baronius useth in this cause blaming Vigilius for coming to Constantinople as if not the Popes owne hereticall minde but the ayre of Constantinople had wrought such effects as to produce that hereticall and yet as they count it Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters FINIS Laus Deo sine fine Errata haec corrigat benevolus Lector In Textu Pag. 48. lin 2. read Theodorus ibid. lin 9. diptisis p. 509. l. 14. eos p. 99. l. 3. Iohn B. p. 125. l. 38. Catholikes p. 141 l. 35. Binius he was p. 145. l. 39. Son of God p. 163. prope finem substances p. 164. l. 5. explanation p. 172. l. 20. of the Pope p. 182. l. 45. their present p. 199. prope finem Catholica p. 216. l. 17. it p. 224. l. 25. Popes p. 227. l. 5. yeeld p. 289. l. 35. the. p. 350. l. 30. aequiparare p. 425. l. 8. where is ibid. l. 27. Commana ibid. Marcellinus l. 42. inflamed p. 442. in fine Euphemia p. 462. l. 11. quarrels with Pope p. 465. l. 35. all this time p. 478. l. 23. it was written p. 495. l. 37. poysoner of p. 500. l. 35. right hand In Margine Pa. 9. lit c lege Marsorum p. 67. lit e Antiochenum p. 233. lit s emissam ibid. lit e corruptè p. 409. lit e commentitias supposititias p. 410. lit q Consilij 5. p. 437. lit l Concil 5. Coll. 5. AN ALPHABETICALL TABLE OF THE CHIEFE THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS TREATISE A. ACts in Councels not so intire but there may be faults from the exscriber pag. 433. Sect. 17 18. Acts of the fift Councell unjustly excepted against by Baronius pa. 379. sect 3 4. Agnoites and other sectaries called Acephali p. 3. sect 6. Agapetus lost nothing by the Emperours presence p. 464. sect 5. Antichrist the Pope first Antichrist nascent secondly crescent thirdly regnant fourthly in their Laterane Councell he was Antichrist triumphant pa. 186. sect 24. Anthimus a Catholike in shew and outward profession p. 157. sect 4. Anastasius narration not helped by Binius p. 458. sect 23. Anastasius a fabler p. 256. sect 23. and pa. 447. sect 12. c. The Author of that Apologicall Epistle published Anno 1601. a vaunting 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. WHether 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 not 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 â— 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 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 â—0 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 Maris 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 Ephesine 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 〈◊〉 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. 3â—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. 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 Lateranâ— Councell under Leo the 10. reprobated the Councell at Constance and Basil touching the authority of Gen Councels p. 33. sec. 33. The Lateranâ— 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 25â— p. 237. sec. 18. The Matrones of Rome entreated Constantius to râ—stâ—re 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 Diodorâ—â— were in more esteeme p. 121. sec. 12. The Nestorians forged a false union between Iohn 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
untroue sed etiam ipsi relationi Synodic ae contraria but it is plainly contrary to the Synodall Relation of the Councell at Chalcedon to which Liberatus referreth himselfe Change but the name and all this is everie whit as forcible against Vigilius as against Liberatus But the Cardinall had well learned the old lesson Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas the Pope offends more than any but the poore Deacon must feele the smart and beare all the blowes and yet by your leave through the Deacons sides the Cardinall hath cunningly given a deadly wound and cut the very roote of the Popes Apostolicall decree although he will not bee thought so unmannerly as once to touch his Holinesse or speake one syllable against him 38. After Fathers and Councels Vigilius will next finde that the Emperour Iustinian himselfe who was so earnest in condemning Theodorus doth yet teach that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned and how proves hee this You saith Vigilius to the Emperour laudabiliter adduxistis have with praise and approbation alleaged that Relation of the Councell of Chalcedon in your law de sancta Trinitate Seeing then that Relation of the Councell approveth the letters of Iohn and the letters of Iohn shew that Theodorus being dead ought not to bee condemned the Pope from hence inferreth that by Iustinians own law approving that Relation Theodorus ought not to be condemned It were very easie with Baronius Hatchet to chop off this reason and cut it up by the roote seeing neither Iohns letters did teach that Theodorus being dead might not be condemned nor did the Councell in their Relation approve either the person or doctrine or any praises of Theodorus or so much as mention him But I will not trouble the Cardinall in so easie a matter as this Besides all the inconsequences in this reason Iustinian is so farre from teaching or thinking this so much as in a dreame that in the same title de Summa Trinitate fide Catholica which seemes to be that which Vigilius intended he accurseth all heresies and specially that of Nestorius and all qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt vel senserunt who either doe thinke or have thought as Nestorius did in which number Theodorus of Mopsvestia to be comprehended not onely by that which we have said before is manifest but even by Iustinian himselfe who expresly witnesseth Theodorus to have thought so and to have dyed in that hereticall opinion and for that very cause doth he condemne and accurse him Now seeing that law de Summa Trinitate was published in the seventh yeare of Iustinians raigne as by the date appeareth and sent into twelve severall Provinces seeing after this Iustinian in his twentieth yeare set forth another Edict concerning these three Chapters wherein he particularly and by name anathematizeth Theodorus nor him onely but all that defend him yea all who doe not anathematize him out of which number Vigilius himselfe is not exempted seeing he remained so constant in this truth that after Vigilius had published his Constitution both himselfe signified to the fift Councell that he still persisted in condemning the three Chapters one of which was the condemning of Theodorus and the whole fift Synod testified the same saying in their seventh Collation semper fecit facit the Emperour hath ever done and now continueth to doe that which preserveth the holy Church and true faith Was it not a very strange thing in Vigilius to pretend in his Constitution that by the Emperours owne law Theodorus ought not be condemned whereas by the Emperours Edict not onely Theodorus by name but all who defend him even Vigilius himselfe eo nomine because he defendeth him is condemned and anathematized 39. And now you have seene all that Vigilius bringeth for defence of Theodorus all that hee found after his most diligent search of the Fathers Councels and ancient writings whereby I doubt not but it is evident unto all that Nestorianisme had either quite blinded the Pope or at least induced him to play which he hath done very skilfully one of the Lamia in this cause when ought that tended to the truth came in his way and offered it selfe unto him he then lockt up his eyes and kept them fast in a basket but when or where ought that tended to nestorianisme and the defence of a condemned heretike might in a likelihood be found then he put his eyes in his head and became as quicksighted as the Serpent of Epidaurus The writings of Cyril and Proclus condemning Theodorus for an heretike worse than either Iew or Pagan the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon anathematizing him the Imperiall lawes of Theodosius commanding all memory of him to bee abolished his heretical books to be burned the expunging his name out of the Ecclesiasticall tables even in that Church where hee had beene Bishop and a number the like none of all these could Vigilius in his most diligent inquisition finde or see why the Lamia had lockt up his eyes against all these publike and known evidences and records But when the base Counterfeits forged in the name of Cyrill and Proclus when the depraving or calumniating the Councels of Ephesus of Chalcedon and of Iustinian as being maintainers of a condemned heresie when these or the like might be found oh the Pope saw these at the first his eyes were now as cleare as the sight of Linceus he could spie these through a Milstone nay which is more hee could see them though there were no such matters at all to bee seene And truly if you well consider there was good reason why hee should see the one and not the other For the Pope saw the Epistle of Ibas to bee orthodoxall and to be approved by the Councell of Chalcedon he saw in that Epistle Theodorus to be called a Saint a Preacher of the truth a Doctor of the Church Now it had beene an exceeding incongruity to see a condemned Saint an accursed Saint an hereticall or blasphemous Saint It was not for the Popes wisedome to see such a Saint and therefore at all such sights up with the eyes locke them fast that they see none of those ugly and offensive sights nothing of the condemning of the accursing of the heresies and blasphemies of Theodorus So bewitched was the Pope with Nestorianisme at this time that it had the whole command of his heart of his eyes of his sense of his understanding it opened and shut them all whensoever it listed 40. I have stayed too long I feare in examining this first Chapter touching Theodorus but I was very loath to let any materiall point passe without due triall or before I had shaken asunder every joint and parcell of the Popes Constitution in this cause and fully manifested how erronious his Apostolicall decree is as well in doctrinall as personall matters That Theodorus was dead is personall but that none after