onely a briefe mention that Origen and his errours were condemned Baronius adds one speciall point further out of Cedrenus that in this fift Councell first f An. eod nu 242. porro de Origine actum esse in Synodo ponitur inde vero de Theodoro c. they handled the cause against Origen and then against the Three Chapters So by the Cardinals profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod which it may be had many Sessions as the other Action about the three Chapters Besides this there wants also saith hee g CaeteruÌ„ et illas putamus esse his actis de Origine subjectas literas imperatoris ad Mennam Origenis errores continâ—ntes Bar. an eod 553. nu 242. the letters or Edict published by Iustinian Thirdly there wants h Fuisse eandem Epistolam quam Cedrenus recital ad Synodum datam actis ejus intextam nemo jure dubitarit ut ex his intelligas quam plurima desiderari Bar. an eod nu 243. the Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen which is set downe by Cedrenus out of whom both Baronius reciteth it and Binius adjoyns it at the end of the Acts among the fragments which are wanting in these Acts. These three defects touching the cause of Origen doth the Cardinall alleage 3. But in very deed none of these three nor ought else which Baronius mentioneth argue any defect at all in these Acts but they evidently demonstrate in the Card. a maine defect of judgement and an overflowing superabundance of malice against this holy Synod and these true Acts thereof That the cause of Origen was not as hee supposeth the first Action or the first cause handled by the Synod I might alleage the most cleare testimony of his i An. eod nu 238. owne witnesse Nicephorus who after the narration of the three Chapters and the Synodall sentence touching them delivered which he accounts for the first Session of the Synod addeth k Niceph. Col. â—st lib 17. Eccl. Histor ca. 27. In secunda autem Sessione but in the second SessioÌ„ the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred read and Iustinian rursum SynoduÌ„ de eis sententiaÌ„ ferre jussit commanded againe the Synod to give sentence in that cause So Nicephorus whereby it is evident that the Cardinal and his Cedrenus are foully deceived in saying that the cause of Origen was first handled by the Synod and after that the cause of the three Chapters but I oppose to these farre greater and even authentike records the Epistle of the Emperour l Extat Conc. 5. Coll. 1. to the Synod who at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Councell proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters and no other at all commanding them without delay to discusse and give their judgement in that I oppose the definition and Synodall decree m Collat. 8. wherein is set downe their whole proceeding and what they handled almost every day of their meeting from the beginning to the ending so that it alone is as a Thesean thred which wil not permit a man to erre in this cause unlesse he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth and wilfully depart out of that plaine path They n Pro Dei voluntate jussione pijssimi Imperatoris convenimus Jbid. came to the Synod to decide the controversie then moved about the Three Chapters at the command of the Emperour before they entred to the handling thereof they often intreated by their messengers Pope Vigilius to come together with them which was all that they did in the first o 1. Coll. 4. die Maij. second p 2. Coll. 8. die Maij. day of their meeting or Collation when Vigilius would not come then by the Apostles admonition they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed by setting downe a confession of their faith consonant to the foure former Councels and exposition of the Fathers and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters which was the summe of the third q 3. Coll. 9. die Maij. dayes Collation Cumque r Loc. cit Coll. 8. pa. 584. ita confessi simus initium fecimus examinationis trium Capitulorum and when wee had made this confession wee began the examination of the Three Chapters loe they did initium sumere they began with this Could they speak more plainly that the cause of Origen was not first handled as if prophetically they meant to refute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus and wee first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his owne writing there read before us This was all they did the fourth Å¿ Coll. 4. 12. die Maij. and a great part of the fift t Coll. 5. 14 die Maij. pridiè Idus Maij. Bar. an 553. nu 41. day of their CollatioÌ„ His de Theodoro discussis pauca de Theodoreto next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus wee caused a few things to bee repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret for the satisfying of the reader and this they did in the end of the fift day or Collation Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas In the third place we proposed and examined the Epistle of Ibas and this they did at large and it was all they did in the sixt u 6. Coll. 19. Maij. day of their Collation The whole cause being thus and as the Councell confesseth most diligently and sufficiently examined the Councell as it seemeth by their owne words in the end of the sixt Collation intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting but before ought was done therein the Emperour sent unto the Synod certaine letters of Vigilius testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters and some other writings the reading of theÌ„ is all was done in the seventh x 7. Coll. 26. die Maij. day of their Collation Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before and these letters were read onely for a further evidence but not for necessity of the cause and for that the Synod did nothing themselves but onely heard the letters and applauded the Emperours zeale and care for the truth therefore it is that this seventh Collation and what was done therein is omitted in the Synodall sentence and the Councell which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pronounced their sentence by this occasion deferred it to the next which was the eighth y 8. Coll. 2. die Iunij day of their Collation using these for the last words of their seventh dayes meeting De tribus capitulis altero die adjuvante Deo Synodicam sententiam proferemus God willing wee will pronounce our Synodall sentence touching this cause of the three Chapters the next day And so they did in that eighth which was their last day of Collation Thus
confirmed by succeeding generall Councils by Popes and other Bishops in the following ages of the Church By the sixt Councill which professeth t Act. 15. pa. 80. a. 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 v Act. 6. pa. 357. a 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 x An. 553. nu 229. 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 y Epist 7. Pelag. 2. to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters telling z Pa. 687. them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto By Gregory who professing a Lib. 1. Epist 24. 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 b In Cont. 6. Act. 4. pa. 16. a. by Leo c Epist ad Constan Imp. the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All d Bar. an 869. nu 58 59. 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 e In manuscripto codice ex quo eum citat Bar. loco citate 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 f Ses 39. pa. 1644. where the Councill having first decreed g Ses 4. pa. 1560. 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 h An. 553. nu 229. 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 i An. 869. nu 58. 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 k Cum quo totus orbis commercio formatarum concordat Opt. lib. 2. p. 40. Quaerebam utrum epistolas communicatorias quas Formatas dicimus possent quo vellent dare Aug. Epist 163. Sub probatione Epistolij sine Pacificis quae dicuntur Ecclesiastica Conc. Chalc. can 11. 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 l Celebratum est an 1414. 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 m Conc. Basil sinitum est an 1442. id est an 74. ante concil Later that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill n Concil Basil in Decreto quinq conclus pa. 96. a. 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 o Cui quilibet etiamsi papalis status existat obedire tenetur Conc. Constant sess 4. et Bas sess 2. himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable p Debitè puniatur Conc. Const ses 5. Basil ses 3. 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 q Sess 33. 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 r Per Concilia generalia quae summi Pontifices Consistorialiter declaraverunt esse legitima etiam pro eo tempore quo ejusmodi declarationes ediderunt Conc. Basil pa. 144. a. 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 s Epist Conc. Basil pa. 100. b. 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 t Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas Ses 16. 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 v Jn sua adhaesione sess 16. his maximā adhaesionem x Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b. to the Council by which Adhesion as they teach y Sess 29. pa. 96. b. 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 z Jurabant ejus decreta defendere c. Sess 16. 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 a Haec veritas toties et tam solenniter per universam ecclesiam declarata est Epist Conc. Bas pa. 144. a. and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of b Jn decreto quinque conclus pa. 96. 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 c Hildebrandum sic gloriari solitum testatur Avent lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455. 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 d Poss Biblic in Nic. Cusano a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 e Obijt ann 1464. Poss Conc. autem finitum
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 f Coll. 4. pa. 537. a. Coll. 8. pa. 586. et 587. to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema g Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we h Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If i Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. 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 k Ob easdem haeresâ—s decrevit eos esse alienos à diaconorii honore Lib. 7. de visib Monarch an 537. 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 l An. 546. nu 41. arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would m An. eodeÌ„ nu 43. be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe n Ibid. nu 50. Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancituÌ„ EdictuÌ„ against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe o An. 547. nu 50. 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 occasioÌ„ 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 ease 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 p An. 547. nu 30. an 553. nu 231. Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith q Lib. 3. Epist 37. 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 r Lib. 1. Epist 24. 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 ſ Ca. 4. nu 27. 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 t Exeuntes maligni homines turbaverunt animos vestros Lib. 2. Epist 10. malignant persons and troublers of the Church denieth and that most justly that this Councell had done ought in the faith not simply as if they had done nothing at all but nothing in such a manner as those malignant persons intended nothing that was contrary to the faith decreed at Chalcedon nothing that was new or uncouth in the doctrine of faith in this manner the Councell did nothing in the faith Heare the words of Gregorie expressing thus much Some there are saith hee u Lib. 3. Epist 3. who affirme that in the time of Iulian there was somewhat decreed against the Councell at Chalcedon But such men neither reading neither beleeving those who read remaine in their errour for we professe our conscience bearing witnesse unto us de fide ejusdem Concilij nihil esse motum nihil violatum that nothing concerning the faith of that Councell at Chalcedon was here in the fift Councell moved or altered nothing violated or hurt but whatsoever was done in this fift Synod it was done that the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon should in no sort be infringed So Gregory who to like purpose againe saith x Lib. 2. Ind. 10. Epist 36. In the Synod concerning the Three Chapters it is manifest nihil de fide convulsum esse nihil immutatū that nothing concerning the faith was weakned nothing changed therein 18. Now as against their first calumnie Gregory teacheth that nothing was done contrary to the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon so against their other he sheweth that they decreed no noveltie in the faith nor ought else but what was formerly decreed at Chalcedon To which purpose he saith y Lib. 7. Epist 54. of this fift Synod that it was in omnibus sequax in every point an imitator follower of the Councell at Chalcedō again z Lib. 2. Ind. 11. Epist 10. more clearly In this fift Synod nothing else was done quā apud Chalcedonēsem Synodū fuerat constitutū then was formerly decreed in the Councel at Chalcedon So Gregory Both this fift that at Chalcedon as also the former at Ephesus decreed one and the selfe same faith as by Gregory is truly witnessed but the Councell at Chalcedon and Ephesus decreed it absolutely without any expresse reference to those persons or writings which are condemned in the fift though in them both was implicitè contained a condemnation of all these Three Chapters the fift Councell decreed it with an expresse reference to these Chapters and an explicite condemnation of them The Decrees made at Ephesus and Chalcedon were Introductive as first condemning those heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches The Decree of this fift Councell was onely Corroborative or Declarative explaning and corroborating those former decrees by condemning these writings of Theodorus Theodoret and Ibas which did overthrow the same As Vigilius and other followers of Nestorius did not at this time broach any new heresie but under those Three Chapters on which they put the visor of the Councell at Chalcedon sought to revive the heresie of Nestorius which before when it came in its owne habit was condemned Even so the fift Councell needed not neither did they condemne any new but unmasked the old condemned heresie of Nestorius lurking under the defence of these Three Chapters they pulled off the visor of Chalcedon from it under which it most subtilly now sought to insinuate it selfe and creep into the Church And when Gregory saith that in this fift Councell they dealt tantummodo de personis that tantummodo in his sense doth not exclude all handling of the faith not the explaning not the corroborating of the faith for both these they certainly did and Gregory acknowledgeth but it onely excludes such an handling of the faith as was used ar Ephesus and Chalcedon by making an Introductive decree for condemning some new heresie The fift Councell dealt onely with persons without making such a Decree yet it dealt with those persons with an intent to explane and corroborate those Introductive decrees 19. The words of Gregory next following those on which Baronius relied doe yet more fully explane this to have beene his meaning In the fift Synod nothing was done concerning the faith but only the persons and those persons de quibus in Chalcedonensi Synodo nihil continetur concerning which persons nothing is contained or set downe in the Councell at Chalcedon For as there is much contained in that Councell concerning those persons especially Ibas in whose cause and the examining therof two a Act. 9. 10. whole Actions are bestowed and yet in a favourable construction or according to Gregory his meaning he might truly say that nothing concerning them is contained there to wit nothing to condemne Theodorus or the writings of Theodoret and Ibas in such an expresse and particular manner as they are condemned in the fift Councell Right so though the fift Councell not onely handled a cause of faith but published their decree as a Decree of faith yet in a like favourable construction and according to Gregories meaning he might truly say that nothing was done therein concerning the faith to wit nothing to make such an Introductive decree for condemning a new heresie as was formerly made in the Councell at Chalcedon 20. By all which the true meaning of Gregory is now by his owne explaning most evident In the fift Councell nothing
was done contrary to the faith as the malignant slanderers of this Councell pretended nothing was done de novo to condemne any new heresie nothing was done absolutely or without reference to these Three Chapters all this Gregory truly intendeth when he saith nothing was done therein concerning the faith but seeing all that was done in the Councell was done to explane confirme corroborate the faith decreed at Chalcedon Ephesus as Gregory himselfe professeth it undoubtedly followeth that even for this cause and by Gregories owne testimonie the question here defined was a cause and question of faith Vpon Gregories words the Cardinall might well have collected that Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters erred not in any new heresie or new question of faith such as was not before condemned but that he erred not at all in a cause of faith is so farre from the intent of Gregory that out of his expresse words the quite contrary is certainly to be collected For how can the Pope be said not at all to erre in the faith when by his Apostolicall Constitution he defendeth that cause of the Three Chapters the defending whereof contradicteth a former definition of faith and utterly overthroweth the holy Councell of Ephesus and Chalcedon yea the whole Catholike faith 21. Neither must this seeme strange to any that the fift generall Councell did onely explane and confirme a former definition of faith and made no decree to condemne any new heresie repugnant to the faith The like hereof in some other Councels may be obserued The Councell of Sardica was a generall holy Councel as beside b Socr. lib. 2. ca. 16. Ex pluribus quam 35 provincijs collecta Athan. Epist ad solit vitam agent pa. 225. others the Emperor Iustinian in that his c Ab universali Sardicensi Synodo Iust Edict § Quod autem Edict witnesseth and yet in it d Bin. Not. in Conc. Sard. § Cum igitur Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. chap. 25 § Tertia nihil novi quoad fidem definitū est no new doctrine of faith was there defined nor any new heresie condemned but 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 e Locis citat 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 f Can. 6. 7. 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 g Act. 15. pa. 80. Sāctas universales quinque Synodos super has quintae Synodi Councell and then in the 2. h Can. 1. 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 a Const Vigil ap Bar. an 55◠nu 179. 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 b Leon. lib. de
sec Act. 4. be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did c Viva quidem ipsis cur nemo contradixerat factum ideo c. Ibid. 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 d Cyril epist ad Procl in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550 551. 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 estimatioÌ„ 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 e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. seq in act Synod Mopsv 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 coÌ„demned 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 f 2 Thess 2.10 11. 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 g Perspeximus si quid de his praedecessores nostri decreverint Vig. Const loc citat nu 176. Hujus causa formam veneranda praedecessorum nostrorum constituta nobis apertissime tradiderunt Ibid. Idem regulâ—ria Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta Jbid. nu 179. 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 of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius h Ibid. nu 177. 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 i Licet cognosceremus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditionem Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. 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 cleare 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 faith their vaine and vaunting k Camp Rut. 3. 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 l Epist ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 548. b. 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 m Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc ca. 35. 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 n Pelag. 2. Epist 7.
of all ages speaking by the mouthes of al general Councels of Fathers of Popes of al Catholikes this holy Church condemneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius The Cardinall was too diminutive in his extenuations when he spake so faintly The holy Church doth not so generally receive it 11. Let us beare with the Cardinals tendernesse of heart the Popes sores must not be touched but with soft and tender hands Seeing the Cardinall hath brought the Pope and the holy Church to be at ods and at an unreconciliable contradiction the Pope denying the Church affirming that a man after his death may noviter be condemned it is well worth the labour to examine whether part the Cardinall himselfe will take in this quarrell you may be sure the choyce on either part was very hard for him he hath here a worse matter than a wolfe by the eares This is dignus vindice nodus a point which will trie the Cardinals art wisdome piety constancy and faire dealing And in very deed he hath herein plaid Sir Politike would be above the degree of commendation The Cardinall is a man of peace hee loves not to displease either the Pope or the Church he knew that to provoke either of them would bring an armie of waspes about his eares and therfore very gravely wisely and discreetly he takes part with them both and though their assertions bee directly contradictory he holds them both to be true and takes up an hymne of Omnia bene to them both 12. First he sheweth that the Church saith right in this manner Although h Bar. an 553. nu 185. it be proved that one dyed in the peace of the Church and yet it doe afterwards appeare that in his writings he defended a condemned heresie and continuing in that heresie died therein and but dissemblingly cōmunicate with the Church the holy Church useth to condemne such a man jure even by right Having said as much as can bee wished on the Churches part the Cardinall will now teach that the Pope also saith right in this manner Pope Vigilius i Bar. an 553. nu 233. had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chapters by his Constitution and among those worthy reasons this is one for if this were once admitted that a man who dyeth in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned pateret ostium this would open such a gap that every ecclesiasticall writer though hee dyed in the Catholike Communion may yet after his death out of his writings be condemned for an heretike Thus Baronius 13. O what a golden and blessed age was this that brought forth such a Cardinall The Church decreeth that a man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and it decreeth aright The Pope decreeth the quite contrary that no man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and hee also decreeth aright and with good reason So both the Church saith well the Pope saith well you can say no lesse then Et vitula tu dignus hic or because the Cardinall saith better than they both and what Iupiter himselfe could never doe makes two contradictory sayings to be both true and both said well hee best deserveth let him have all the prize Vitula tu dignus utrâque 14. I told you before and this ensuing treatise will make it as cleare as the Sunne that Baronius having once lost the path forsaken that truth where only sure footing was to be found wandreth up and downe in and out in this cause as in a wildernesse treading on nothing but thornes wherewith feeling himselfe prickt he skips hither and thither for succour but still lights on briars and brambles which doe not onely gall but so intangle him that by no meanes he can ever extricate or unwinde himselfe for if one listed to make sport with the Cardinall it clearly and certainly followeth that if the Church say true then the Pope saying the contrary doth say untrue Againe if the Pope say true then the Church saying the contrary doth say untrue and then upon the Cardinals saying that they both say true it certainly followeth that neither of them both say true and yet further that both of them say both true and untrue and yet that neither of them both saith either truth or untruth 15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars seeing by the upright and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages we have proved the Popes decree herein to be erroneous and because it is in a cause of faith heretical let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion The former is taken from those words of our Saviour k Matth. 18.18 whatsoever ye binde on earth whence as you have seene Vigilius and as he saith Gelasius also collecteth that such as are not on earth or alive cannot be judged by the Church 16. The answer is not hard our Saviours words being well considered are so farre from concluding what Vigilius or Gelasius or both doe thence collect that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary for he said not Whatsoever yee binde or loose concerning those that are on earth or living in which sense Vigilius tooke them but Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth or during your life time shall binde or loose the same according to your censure here passed upon earth shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven The restrictive termes upon earth are referred to the parties who doe binde or loose not to the parties who are bound or loosed The generall terme whatsoever is referred to the parties who are bound or loosed whether they be dead or alive not to the parties who binde or loose who are onely alive and upon earth Nor doth our Saviour say Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth shall bee bound or loosed in heaven for ecclesiae clave errante no censure doth or can either binde or loose either the quicke or the dead but he saith Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose if the party be once truly and really bound or loosed by you that are upon earth it shall stand firme and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven So the parties who doe binde or loose are the Apostles and their successors onely while they are upon earth the parties who are bound or loosed are any whosoever whether alive or dead the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing is Christ himselfe in heaven For I say unto you whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church which as we have before declared both beleeved taught and practised this authority of binding and loosing not onely upon the living but upon 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 a An. 547. nu 36. 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 b An. 553. nu 23. 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 c Haeres 43. Prateol lib. 17. Haeres 3. 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 d Ier. 2.22 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 e Vid. sup ca. 5. nu 14. 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 f An. 553. nu 47. vid. sup ca. 3. nu 6. 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
Bishop of Tunen testifieth Synodaliter eum 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 l An. 547. nu 30. 39. to have beene Catholikes at that time But let that passe Baronius to excuse m Ad haec omnia excusanda illud satis superque est Bar. ibi nu 49. Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator and to shew that hoe 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 n An. eodem nu 41. presently after Vigilius had made that Apostolicall decree for condemning the three Chapters he revoked the same touched be like 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 o Rursus a Vigilio promulgatum decretum est quo decernebatur ut de controversia de tribus Capitulis penitus taceretur ibid. 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 p Ab hoc anno 547 ad tempus Concilij indictum fuit autem an 553 fuit inea causa silentium ibid. nu 43. 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 q Sup. ca. 3. nu 4. seq 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 same 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 for ever adnuls r Si quid de â—isdem capitulis contra haec quae hic asseruimus nel statuimus factum dictum atque conscriptum est vel fuerit hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus Const Vigil in fine 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 Baronius 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 Å¿ Not. in Conc. 5. §. Praestitit 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 t An. 553. nu 222. Liquet ex Anastasio it is manifest by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who held with him were caried into banishment Againe u Ibid. nu 251. 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 sacrosanctis 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 x An. 554. nu 6. Horum solum causae 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 y Illi tantum immunes à persecutione erant c. an 553. nu 222. yea an heavy z Quod monstrosus accessit ab Imperatore persecutio excitata est baud quidem levis ibid. nu 221. 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
judgement and definition of the whole generall Councill for in their Synodal relation to the Pope speaking of this very decree they say i Ibid. pa. 140. a. 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 c Cum nos per omnia quod decet servavimus servamus saepius petivimus Vigilium Col. 2. pa. 524. a. yea k 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 l Pa. eadem b. up by the words of St. m 1 Pet. 3.15 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 n Incongruum auteÌ„ Sacerdotibus esse putanies protrahere dandum à nobis responsum Christianissimo Imperatori pa. eadem 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 set 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 o Vigilij libellus oblatus Synode Bar. an 553. nu 47. us the Constitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod The Pope promised p Ibid. 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 q An. eod nu 48 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 r Jbid. it s knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation and it s Anno eod nu 41. was this day offered to the Councill for which cause he strongly imagining this Constitution t Constitutum hoc ex actis 5. SynodeÌ„ nosâ—itur esse sublatum an eod nu 47. to be stolne out of the Synodall acts now extant is bold to insert v Cum ad hunc ipsum annum et dieth Collationis 5. pertinere cognoscitur Ibid. nu 48. 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 x An. 553. nu 210. 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 y Quae praesenti statuimus Constituto Vig Const apud Bar an 553. nu 208. a Statute z Statuimus et decernimus ibid. a Decree a Definition a Post praesentem definitionem ibid. or Definitive sentence and by the name of a Constitution it is subscribed unto both by the Pope b Vigilius Episcopus huic Constituto nostre subscripsi ib. nu 209. and all c Iohannes MarsoÌ„num huic Constituto subscripsi alij similiter ibid. the rest of his Assemblie and for such it is commended by Card. d Ann. 553. nu 47. Baronius and Binius e Vigilij Papae Constitutum Bin. in Fragm 5. Conc. pa. 591. In it the Pope delivereth his Apostolicall sentence Iudgement touching the Three Chapters this being f Hunc ipsum esse scias quem de sua sententia interpellatus pollicitus est se missurum ad Jmperatorem Bar. ann 553. nu 47. that very same answer which Vigilius promised to send to the Emperor and for the advised setting downe whereof he g Const Vigit nu 58. requested of the Emperor the respite of twenty dayes During which time he did insudare and laborare as the Card. saith h Ann. 553. nu 28. with much sweat and toile elaborate this large decree containing no lesse i Apud Bar. nu 553 a nu 50. ad 210. 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 k Bar. an 553. nu 47 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 l Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 3. § Sit. the Pope can by no meanes be possibly deceived For this cause also Vigilius at this time and in this businesse
the end of it is found to be orthodoxall and catholike and so to be received 8. What is it to be an heretike if this be not Directly to contradict the judgement of an holy generall Councill and defend that writing or part of it to be Catholike which in every part the whole Councill hath defined to be hereticall The whole Councill y Haec omnes dicimus c. Col. 6. pa. 576. b. with one voice proclamed Tota Epistola haeretica est Tota Epistola blasphema est qui istam suscipit haereticus est The whole Epistle is heretical and blasphemous who so receiveth this Epistle either in the whole or in any part as themselves expresly affirme z Qui dicunt cam rectam esse vel partem ejus Col. 8. pa. 587. b. he is an hereticke Not so saith the Card. It is not all hereticall It is not all blasphemous The latter part of it is right holy and Catholike by it Ibas was rightly judged to be a Catholike That part at least is to be received and embraced to declare Ibas to be a Catholike Now though this alone were enough to refute whatsoever the Cardinall doth or can say in this cause seeing it is all nothing else but the saying nay the cavilling of a convicted heretike proclamed for such by the loud cryes of an ancient and holy generall Councill yet for the full manifesting of the truth I will doe the Cardinall that favour as to examine both his assertion and the proofes thereof And because I shall hereafter in due place have fit occasion at large as the obscuritie and intricacy of this cause requireth to discusse the words and declare the true meaning of Ibas in that part which the Cardinall doth most wilfully and heretically mistake and pervert for this time I will use no other proofe against him but the cleere judgement and consenting testimony of the generall Councill which hath professedly refuted this very cavil which Baronius borrowed from the ancient heretikes of those times And I am verily perswaded that Baronius would never for very shame of the world have used this so untrue so hereticall and withall a rejected evasion but that he hoped that none would compare and examine his writings by the Acts of the Councils or if they did that the fame and credit of Cardinall Baronius his name would countenance any untruth or Heresie against whatsoever opponents 9. Is the end of the Epistle of Ibas Catholike or doth that shew Ibas to bee a Catholike The whole Councill expresly witnesseth the contrary Our a Col. 6. pa. 576. a. Collation say they doth manifestly shew that this Epistle of Ibas contraria per omnia est Definitioni is in every part of it contrary to the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon This whole Epistle is hereticall and blasphemous Againe Wee have demonstrated say they b Col. 8. pa. 5. this Epistle contrariam esse per omnia To be in every part of it contrary to those things which are contained in the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon Againe c Col. 6. pa. 564. a. Tota epistola impietatis plena est the whole Epistle is full of impietie And more clearly to our purpose and against this cavill of Baronius they adde Those d Ibid. who say that the former part of this Epistle is impious but the latter part or end thereof is right Calumniatores demonstrantur such are demonstrated to be Calumniators or Slanderers Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt for those things which are set downe in the latter part or end of that Epistle are more full of greater impietie injuring Cyrill and defending the impious heresie of Nestorius So by the judgement of the whole Council Baronius is not onely proved but even demonstrated to be an Heretike and a malicions Caviller for his defending the latter part of this Epistle to be right and catholike And this is al which he hath gained by renewing that old hereticall and rejected cavill for defence of Vigilius 10. But what shall we then say to the proofes of Baronius what first to the Interlocution of the Popes Legates so often and with oftentation mentioned by the Cardinall What Truly the very same which the holy generall Councill hath said before us and taught and warranted all others to say the same The holy Fathers at Chalcedon say they did these things pro e Col. 6. pâ— 576. a. nihilo habentes ea quae ab uno vel duobus pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt esteeming worth nothing at all those things which were spoken by one or two for that Epistle Thus testifieth the whole Synod and themselves follow herein the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon So by the judgement of two holy and generall Councils that Interlocution of the Legates of Pope Leo on which after Vigilius and Baronius relyeth is worth nothing at all 11. Yea but Eunomius as Baronius tells us affirmeth that though the beginning of the Epistle be hereticall yet the end of it is found to be Catholike Baronius indeed saith so of Eunomius but what truth and honest dealing there is in Baronius let the discreet Reader judge by this one saying among ten thousand the like Eunomius saith not so Eunomius saith the flat contrary as in the fift Councill is clearly witnessed where against this cavill of the old heretikes whom Baronius followeth they say f Col. 6. pa. 564. a. thus Nullam partem epistolae apparet Eunomium comprobasse it 's evident that Eunomius approved no part at all of this Epistle And againe Quomodo g Ibid. praesumunt isti defensores calumniari interlocutionem Eunomij how dare the defenders of this Epistle presume to slaunder the Interlocution of Eunomius as condemning one part of it and approving another seeing the whole epistle is full of impiety I say yet more which will manifest the Councils doome of Baronius that he is a malicious caviller to be most just Eunomius speakes not either of the beginning or end of that Epistle in his Interlocution but Baronius according to his wont foists in that clause touching the end of the Epistle out of his owne pate and thereby falsifieth both the words and meaning of Eunomius This in the Councill is evidently declared by reciting the true words of Eunomius out of the Acts h Act. 10. p. 116. a at Chalcedon which are these Ex recitatis i Con. 5. Col. 6. pa. 564. a. By those things which have beene read and recited Ibas is shewed to be innocent for wherein he seemed to be blame-worthy in accusing Cyrill in posterioribus or in postremis recte confessus having afterwards or at the last made a true confession he hath refuted that wherein he was blamed wherefore I also judge him worthy of his Bishoprike if he accurse Nestorius Eutyches and their wicked heresies and consent to the writings of Leo and this generall Councill Thus said
dead also Of their binding the nocent wee have alleaged before abundance of examples for their loosing the innocent that one of Flavianus is sufficient The Ephesine l Act. conciliab Ephes citata in actis Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 57. b. latrocinie adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop for an Hereticke under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died nay was martyred m Caesus Flavianus dolore plagarum migravit ad Dominum lib ca. 12. by them The holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus loosed that band wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their key did erre they did not in truth They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr n Quae Synodus Chalc. Flaviano palmam mortis tribuit gloriosae Edict Valen. Mart. in Chalced. Conc. Act. 4. pa. 86. a. Flavianus injuste quidem in vita condemnatus juste post mortem revocatus est a B. Leone et sancta Synodo Chalcedonensi Iust edict §. Invenimus whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike the holy Councell feared not to loose him because he was dead their power to binde or loose was onely towards those that are upon the earth or living By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time imitating the religious pietie of those ancient Bishops restored to their pristine o Hist combustionis Bucâ—ri et Fagij et restitutionis eorum dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs two Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fagius after their death when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound but even burned them to ashes Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian p Si non oporteret anathematizari post mortem eos qui insua impietate mortuisunt oportebat nec eos qui injuste condemnati sunt patres post mortem revocari Lust edict prope finem that if the Church may after their death restore such as being unjustly condemned and falsly supposed to be bound died in their innocency and sincerity of faith it may also by the very same reason condemne and anathematize such after their death who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church 18. And truely whether soever of these censures either of binding or loosing the Church useth towards the dead as they both are warranted by the words of Christ and judgement of the Church so in doing either of both they performe an acceptable service to God and an holy duty to the Church of God For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve the Communion of Saints which in part consisteth in loving praising and imitating all such as we know either now to live or heretofore to have dyed in the faith or for the faith of Christ so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed renounce all communion with whatsoever heretickes either dead or alive and therefore though in their life time they had never beene condemned for such but honored as the servants of God under whose livery they hide their heresies and impieties yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed and to have died heretikes we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them not love them nor speake well of them much lesse imitate them but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Caecilianus even after their death corde carne anathematizare not making them accursed For that the Church cannot do and themselves have done that already but declaring them to be accursed in truth excluded from the society of God Gods Church and to be such though dead as with whom we can have no more coÌ„munion then hath light with darknesse faith with heresie God and Beliall nay we should wish that if it were possible there might be such an antipathie and disunion betwixt us and them as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles q Impositis eorum cadaveribus eidem rogo flammam se divisisse traditur vid. Stat. in Theb. and Polinices that even our dead bones and ashes might leape from theirs nor sleepe in one Church nor one earth with them from whom one day they shall be eternally severed by a wall of immortality and immortall glory 19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules decrees and Constitutions r Idem regulariter Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta Vigil loc citat nu 179. of their Apostolicke See by name of Pope Leo Gelasius both whoÌ„ Vigilius saith to have defined this that a dead man might not noviter be condemned was it not enough for Vigilius that himselfe was hereticall herein unlesse he drew his predecessors also into the same crime of defending yea defining heresies How much better had it beseemed him to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were it not with a lappe of his robe as the good Emperour would yet at least with silence and oblivion 20. And yet for all this if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility will give me leave I am for my owne 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 Å¿ Praemisislis dicentes doctrina vestrae reverendae sedis est per B. Leonem successoresque ejus mortuum ab hominibus damnari nullatenus opertere Pelag. 2. Epist 7. §. In his 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 t Quis nescit quod ejusdem Leonis B. Augustini praedicatio contradicat ibid 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 u Leo Epist 91. 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 sift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what
openeth another errour of Vigilius He to excuse Theodorus would perswade that d Symbolum quod Charisius Presbyter illic prodidit c. Vig. Const loc cit nu 173. 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 e Pelag. loc cit 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 f Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. 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 g Coll. 5. pa. 575. b. called Impium Theodori Symbolum the impious creed of Theodorus the holy Synod h Coll. 4. pa. 537. a. 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 i Iust Edict § Tuli 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 k Cyrilli verba ex ep ad Procl citantur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550 551. 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 l Et talem dispensationem in divina scriptura est invenire Paulus ad hoc Timotheum circumcidit c. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Coll. 5. pa. 551. b. 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 m Gal 5.2 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 by a severe Imperiall n L. 66. de haeret Cod. Theod. Edict set forth some foure yeares o Conc. Eph. babit an 431. Basso et Antiocho Coss ut ex Act. liquet Tom. 2. ca. 1. Edictum vero editum Theodosio 15 Coss id est anno 433. after the Ephesine Synod forbidding the bookes of Nestorius either to bee read or retained But it fell out farre otherwise for when the Nestorians could no longer shrowd themselves under the name nor countenance their heresie by the bookes and writings of Nestorius they found this new device to p Confingentes enim quae Nestorij sunt odisse alio iterum ea introducunt modo quae Theodori sunt admirantes Cyrill cujus verba citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. â—t idem docet Liber ca. 10. commend their doctrine under the name dignity and authority of Theodorus of Mopsvestia whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius he having suckt all his hereticall poyson from Theodorus and this they thought they might safely doe Theodorus being not by name condemned either in the Synodall judgement or by the Imperiall Edict To which purpose they and particularly p Ibas quaedam ex impijs Theodori Capitulis in Syrorum linguam transtulit et ubique transmisit Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 562. b. Ibas spred abroad the bookes of Theodorus in every countrey and corner translating them as Liberatus q Ca. 10. sheweth into the Syrian Armenian and Persian languages by which meanes they deceived and seduced many pretending Theodorus r Theodori scripta admirantes et dicentes eum recta sapuisse et consonantia sanctis patribus Athanasio c. Conc. 5 Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. writings to bee consonant to the ancient fathers The Catholikes seeing how little effect their connivence at Theodorus name had
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 ſ Nu. 186. aperteque reperimus evidenter t Nu. 190. advertimus apertissimum u Ibid. noscuntur praebuisse consensum evidenter x Nu. 193. declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil in confessione fidei fuisse reprehensum illud y Nu. 195. indubitanter patet apertissima z Nu. 196. lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae constat a Nu. 198. eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore luce clarius b Nu. 207. 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 c Bar. an 432. nu 68. absque condemnatione suorum Capitulorum cuncta arbitrio Cyrilli gesta sunt that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils minde and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters addeth this They d An. eod nu 69. 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 e Ibid. nu 70. 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 f Ibid. nu 71. so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians let him reade the Epistle which 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 recantasse 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 evē 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 g Videre est Nestorianum hominem c. Bar. an 432. nu 71. hereticall hereticall in this point of the union there he will not h Non esse Ibae comperta Ibid. 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 i Vigilius afferere voluit ex ed Epistolâ Ibam esse recipiendum in qua nimirum ipse testatur se amplecti pacem ecclesiae qua recepta necesse fuerit eundem probare Catholicum Bar an 533. nu 191. 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
Cyr epist ad Acat quae est 29. et extat to 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 7. doth further witnesse for he hearing how the Nestorians slandered him in this point doth there at large declare how by his profession of two natures he did not consent with them in teaching two persons but did ever both before and after the union teach the same truth herein to wit that in Christ there are two d Scripsi me neque cum Ario neque cuÌ„ Apollinario sensisse unquam sed opus esse NaturaruÌ„ observare differentiam ib. §. Audivi natures that is essences or subsistences against the Appollinarians and yet that Christ is but one e Nestorij cacodoxia ab hac doctrinae longe diversa est nam duas Naturas nominat easque a se invicem divellit DeuÌ„ seorsimponit ut unaÌ„ personam et hominem itidem seorsim ut aliam personam ibid. §. Verum dicent Person or personall subsistence against the Nestorians So untruly did they slander him to teach contrarie to his Chapters or by his explaining of them to have condemned recalled and anathematized his Chapters 48. We doe now clearly see not onely that the explanation of Cyrils Chapters which Ibas and the other Nestorians of his time meant is an utter condemning of them all but upon what pretence and occasion they called his anathematizing an Explation of his Chapters If now it may further appeare that Vigilius in his Constitution meant this Nestorian and slanderous Explanation I doubt not but his text will bee sufficient easie and cleare in this point And though none who diligently peruseth the Popes words can as I thinke doubt hereof yet because it is not fit in a just Commentary to give naked asseverations specially in a point of such moment I will propose three or foure reasons to make evident the same The first is taken from the correspondence and parity of the effect which followed upon this Explanation as the cause therof It is no doubt but Vigilius meant such an explanation of Cyrils Chapters as upon which that union which Ibas held with Cyrill at the time when he writ this Epist ensued for Vigilius proveth Ibas f His ab eo explanatis in communionem ejus devotè concurrit Vig. Const nu 193. at that time to have bin a Catholike because upon Cyrils Explanation he forthwith embraced the union with Cyrill and ran to communicate with him Now it is certaine g Vt ante probatum est ca. 11. that Ibas when he writ this Epistle approved not the orthodoxall and true uniâ—â— which Cyrill truly made with Iohn and the rest upon their pâ—â—fession of the orthodoxall faith sent unto him but onely the union in Nestorianisme the slanderous union which they falsely affirmed Cyrill to have made wherefore it certainly followeth that the Explanation of Cyrill which Vigilius intendeth as a cause of that union can bee no other then the slanderous explanation wherein Cyrill was falsely said to have explaned his Chapters that is anathematized them and the doctrine delivered in them for the true and orthodoxal explanatioÌ„ neither did nor could effect that unioÌ„ in Nestorianisme which Ibas embraced at the time when he writ this Epistle it was the condemning of his Chapters and in such sort to explane them that they were anathematized it was this and no other explanation which did make the union whereof Ibas boasteth Seeing then the hereticall union of Ibas followed upon that explanation which Vigilius here meaneth it is doubtlesse that the explanation also which hee intendeth is the same slanderous hereticall explanation which Ibas and the other Nestorians ascribed to Cyril upon which they joyned in union and communion with him The cause was like the effect the effect an hereticall and slanderous union the cause an hereticall and slanderous explanation 49. The other reason is taken from the words of Vigilius which being very pregnant to this purpose I shall desire the reader diligeÌ„tly to consider the same Vigilius having said h Vig. Const nu 194 that upon Cyrils Explanation Ibas with all the Easterne Bishops held Cyrill for a Catholike addeth this collection thereupon Ex quo apparet By this it appeareth Ibas both before hee understood the twelve Chapters of Cyrils and when he suspected one Nature to be taught thereby orthodoxo sensu quod male dictum existimabat reprobasse then to have reproved those Chapters in an orthodoxall sense and also after the Explanation of them orthodoxo sensu quae rectè dicta cognoverat venerabiliter suscepisse then to have approved them very reverently and in an orthodoxall sense embraced that which he knew to bee rightly spoken therein So Vigilius plainly affirming the sense of Ibas to have been orthodoxall both before and after the Explanation or union made by Iohn and all the i Cum omnibus Orientalibus Episcopis Ibid. rest with Cyrill At both those times the doctrine sense and meaning of Ibas was the same and at both orthodoxal and Cyrill by that Explanation which Vigilius meaneth declared his Chapters to have the very same meaning and orthodoxall sense which Ibas had which when Ibas perceived to bee the sense of Cyrill forthwith he held Cyrill for a Catholike and joyned communion with him and reverently received his doctrine as being consonant to the sense of Ibas which was still orthodoxall so there was no alteration in the sense of Ibas that both before and after Cyrils Explanation was orthodoxall onely before the union or Explanation Ibas mis-understood Cyrils meaning and thought he had taught one Nature to bee in Christ whereas Cyrill by his Explanation shewed that he meant just as Ibas did that there were in Christ two Natures even in that orthodoxall sense which Ibas had held as well before as after the Explanation 50. Oh what a Circean Cup is Heresie specially Nestorianisme Pope Vigilius doth now shew himselfe in his colours and demonstrates that he is as by some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite transformed into Nestorius Theodorus or if there be any more hereticall than they in that kinde for what thinke you was that sense of Ibas which the Pope commends for orthodoxall what was it first after the Explanation and union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill I have manifested this before and the Epistle of Ibas written two yeares at least after that union doth make it undeniably evident that his sense was then that there k Vt liquet ex Ibae Epist are two natures making two persons in Christ that the temple and the inhabiter in the temple are two distinct persons that Cyrils Chapters were hereticall in teaching one Nature that is one Person in Christ in a word his sense then was that Nestorianisme and nothing but Nestorianisme was Catholike that the decree at Ephesus against Nestorius was hereticall doctrine This sense of Ibas Vigilius by his Pontificall and Cathedral Constitution adjudgeth and decreeth to be orthodoxall and Catholike
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 m Lib. de Eccles milit ca. 5. 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 n Extra quam Ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur Conc. Lateran ca. 1. 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 a An. 547. nu 47. 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 b An. 546. nu 33. 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 c An. 553. nu 197. writ these things pro defensione integritate Synodi Chalcedonensis for the defence and safety of the Councell at Chalcedon Vigilius d Ibid. nu 47. 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 remaine firme and by no meanes be infringed Againe e Ibid. nu 231. All that Vigilius or the rest did in this cause did tend hereunto ut consultum esset dignitati authoritati Synodi Chalcedonensis that the dignity and authoritie of the Councell at Chalcedon might be kept safe and sound Thus Baronius 2. The writings of those who defended those Chapters declare the same Victor in plaine termes affirmeth f In Chron. an 2. post Coss Basill the three Chapters to have been approved and judged orthodoxall by the Councell of Chalcedon and the condemning of them to bee the condemning of that Councell and that for this cause he refused to condemne them least in so doing he should condemne the Councell of Chalcedon The like hee witnesseth g An. 10. post Coss Basilij of Facundus whose owne words set downe by Baronius h An. 545. nu 28. shew that hee disliked the condemners of those three Chapters because by condemning them Synodum improbarent they condemned the Councell of Chalcedon But none shewes the like love to that Councell and care for it as doth Pope Vigilius in his Constitution we decree saith he i Apud Bar. an 553. nu 196. That the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon shall be kept inviolable in all things and particularly in this touching the Epistle of Ibas wee dare not call into question their judgement their judgement in omnibus conservantes we keepe in all things Againe k Ibid. nu 197 we permit no man to innovate either by additiō or detraction or alteration any thing which is ordained set down by the Councell at Chalcedon Againe l Ibid. nu 207. Behold O Emperor it is more cleare then the light that we have alwayes beene desirous to reverence the foure Councels and that all things might remaine inviolable which by them are defined and judged This and much more to the like purpose saith Vigilius Who now reading these things in his Cōstitution and seeing him so fervent and zealous for the Councell at Chalcedon and the faith therein declared would not thinke nay proclame Vigilius to be a most sound Catholike an utter enemie to Nestorianisme as that holy Councell at Chalcedon was Or who would not applaud Baronius for his devise to defend and excuse Vigilius from heresie because he was so earnest for the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith declared therein which none can embrace and be guiltie of Nestorianisme This is his plea for Vigilius 3. For answer whereunto I am ashamed that Baronius a Cardinall and man of rare knowledge as hee is supposed should shew himselfe so inconsiderate in this cause as to seeke to excuse or defend Vigilius by alledging the name credit or authoritie of the Councell of Chalcedon For even that alone if there were nothing else puls upon him that just Anathema denounced by the fift Councell who thus decree Wee m Coll. 8. pa. 586. b. 588. a. anathematize the defenders of these Three Chapters and those who have written or doe write for them or who doe defend or indeavour to defend the impiety of them nomine sanctorum Patrum aut sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij by the name of the holy fathers or of the Councell at Chalcedon The more then that either Vigilius pretends that Councell for defence of the Three Chapters or that Baronius pretends it for the defence of Vigilius the more they are still involved in the Councels Anathema and no marvell for by alledging that Councell as a patrone of those Three Chapters they slander that most holy Councell and all that approve it that is the whole Catholike Church to be hereticall and patrons of the most blasphemous and condemned heresie of Nestorius 4. Let this passe Is this reason thinke you of Baronius of any force to excuse Vigilius hee professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon therefore he is not an heretike Truly of none at all for who knoweth not that heretikes are as forward in chalenging to themselves the names and authority of ancient Councels and in professing to defend the same faith and doctrine which they taught Take a view but of three or foure examples
condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also u Bar. an 553. nu 222. moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts x Conc. 5. Coll. 1. 7. Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor y Vict. in Chron. an 16. corruptè legitur 17. post Coss Basilij who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or
into banishment or returning out of banishment or of his defending the three Chapters or of his condemning the same Chapters or of the Emperours either casting him into or releasing him from exile or of the fift Councell or of the end thereof and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilfull Chymick extract both that Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell was banished for defending the Three Chapters and after that banishment consented to the Synod and to condemne the three Chapters And see I pray you how the Chymick distills this If Liberatus saith he e Bar. an 554. nu 5. being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters had found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem persisting untill his death in that sentence which in his Constitution he had published for defence of the Three Chapters truly he would have praised Vigilius for a Martyr had he dyed in such sort But when he saith Vigilius was afflicted and not crowned planè alludit ad ejus exilium he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius and to his forsaking or revolt from that judgement after he came from banishment Thus doth the Cardinall glosse upon the words of Liberatus 32. See the force of truth The Cardinalls owne words doe most sully answer his owne doubt and explane that truth which hee wittingly oppugneth Had Liberatus found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem constant or persisting without any change or relenting in his defending the three Chapters untill his dying day then indeed Vigilius should have beene with Liberatus an obstinate defender of that sentence a glorious Martyr at the least a worthy Confessor and for that cause he should have beene condemned by Liberatus But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence wavering and unconstant therein turning his note as soone almost as he had looked the Emperour in the face Vigilius by reason of that change unconstancie and revolt from his opinion lost his Crowne and all his commendation with Liberatus not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell for defence of those Chapters and by his dying in that opinion Liberatus found Vigilius stantem morientem but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem he found him standing and dying but hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts to testifie that for five or six yeares together hee not onely was of a contrary judgement but did judicially and definitively decree the contrary and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters this so long discontinuance and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence for this cause he lost his Crowne and dyed non coronatus in the Kalender and account of Liberatus 33. I adde further that the words of Liberatus being well pondered doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters for no other then heretikes then oppugners of the Catholike faith and holy Councell of Chalcedon And for Vigilius while hee fought f Comptures Orthodoxi ipse Vigilius contra eadem Capitula asserta ab Imperatore insurrexere Bar. an 546. nu 38. on their side and against the Emperour they honoured g Vigilius arguit ut prophanas vocum novitates Facundi dictum apud Bar. an 546. nu 57. 58. him as a Catholike as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor and upon his comming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters then they held him for no other then a betraier h Ne Traditor videretur Facundi dictum de Vigilio apud Bar. an 547. nu 37. Collusorem Praevaricatorem conclamarunt Bar. an eod nu 49. vulgarunt vbique eum impugnare Concilium Chalcedonense Bar. an 550. nu 1. of the faith then an heretike then a backslider revolter and lapser from the faith and for such they adjudged and accursed him by name in their Africane i Vict. in Chron. an 9. post Cons Basil Synod at which it is most like that Liberatus being a man of such note for dealing in that cause was present upon his returning at the time of the fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith Had Vigilius after this revolted and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters and in that opinion dyed as out of Liberatus the Cardinall would perswade Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike for a lapser and relapser from the faith for one dying in heresie and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike a condemned heretike and to dye in heresie that hee dyed non coronatus would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie of one dying in heresie would he not much rather have said he dyed Damnatus condemned and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod and therefore utterly separated from God Who ever read or heard that one dying in heresie was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus 43. This will most clearly appeare if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts so also two rewards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith such as joyfully endure torments imprisonment exile and if need be even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith and these are called coronati The other is of those who being timerous and faint-hearted yeeld to deny the truth rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts they returne againe and openly professe that truth from which they had before lapsed and these are called Non coronati saved by repentance and returning to the truth but by reason of their former faintnesse and lapsing Not crowned Both of these are Orthodoxall and Catholikes both of them placed in the blessed house of God but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God For in my Fathers k John 14 2. house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre l 1 Cor. 15.41 differeth from another in
explaned in their Gravamina z Gravam opposita Conc. Trid. Causa 1. pa. 21. 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 a Epit. rerum in orb gest sub Fer. an 1561. apud Scard loc cit 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 b Ibid. 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 Conventicle 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 c 2 Thess 2.4 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 sight under the vety Ensignes and Banner of Antichrist But of this point I have before d Sup. ca. 13. 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 e Placuit annis singulis per unamquamque Provinciam his in anno Concilia celebrari Conc. Nic. Can. 5. 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 sitting occasions is no other than hee to whose sword and authority every Bishop is subject and without whose consent first obtained they may in no place of his Kingdome assemble together without the note of tumult and sedition This Nicene Canon as all the rest when Constantine f Quae ab Episcopis erant editae regulae Constantinus sua consignabat et confirmabat authoritate Euseb lib. 4. de vita Const ca. 27. and other suceeding Emperours and Kings approved as who hath not approved that holy Councel they then gave unto it the force of an Imperiall law according to the rule omnia g Lib. 1. Cod. de Veter jure enuc et lib. 2. Decretal tit 23. ca. sicut noxius in Glossa nostra facimus quibus nostram impartimur authoritatem wee make that our owne Act and our law which wee ratifie by our authoritie And Iustinian more plainly expressed this when he said h Novel 131. ca. 1. Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas regulas we enact that the holy Canons of the Church set downe in the former Councels the Nicene the Constantino-politane Ephesine and Chalcedon shall have the force and stand in the strength of Imperiall lawes By this Imperiall assent it is that when the wisedome of Christian Emperours and Kings doth not otherwise dispose of calling Synods in their dominions Primates may call the same two or moe or fewer in any yeare as necessitie shall perswade but whensoever they call any the same are called assembled and celebrated by the force of that Imperial authoritie which Kings and Emperours have either given to that Nicene Canon or which they in more explicite manner shall impart unto the Primates or Bishops in their Kingdomes 27. Now if Provinciall Councels may not nor ever are lawfully held in Christian Kingdomes without this authority how much lesse may generall and Oecumenicall the occasions of which being rare and extraordinary the calling also of them is extraordinary and both for the time place meerly arbitrary at the will of those who have Imperial or regal authority To say nothing how inconvenient it is even in civill government and how dangerous unto Christian States that all the Bish of a Kingdome should leave their own Churches naked of their guides and Pastours and goe into farre and forraigne Countries without the command of their Soveraigne Lords especially goe at the command of an usurping Commander and that also if he require though their owne Soveraignes shall forbid or withstand the same of the mischiefe and danger whereof the example of Becket among many like may be a warning to all Kingdomes But leaving that to the grave consideration of others thus much now out of that which hath beene said is evident that seeing all those ten forenamed Synods were called and assembled by no other authority than Pontificall and seeing
et qui non audierlut Ecclesiam fuerunt habiti ut Ethnici et Publicani ut legitur de Anastasio et Liberio Resp Synodalis Conc. Bas pa. â—05 a. et pa. eadem b. enumerat Ioh. 12. et alios of the Church in judging and deposing Liberius and Iohn the 12. by the very words of Bellarmine himselfe If the Bishops saith he u Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 21. §. Denique in a Synod can convince the Pope of heresie possunt eum 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 x Eusebius et Theodoretus in ordine accusantium sedent sicut et vos in loco accusatorum sedetis Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 13. a. 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 y Act. 1. Conc. Chal. pa. 5. a. 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 z Dioscoro secundum jussionem gloriosiss Judicum resideÌ„te in medio Ibid. 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 a Epist Theodos et Valent. ad Diosc extat in Actis Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 5. b. 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 asseÌ„ble judge that cause without Theodoret he should have no judicatory power in his own cause And the like he further coÌ„manded coÌ„cerning 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 b Nunc vos convenistis ut eos qui judicaverant judicciis Elpidij dierum nomine Imper. in Concilia b. Ephes recitatur vero in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 13. b. that judgment of Flavianus and the rest whether it was just or no. The Emperour commanded c Ibid. 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 d Conc. Chal. Act. 14. per totuÌ„ 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 e Dicat Athanasius cur tertâ—ò evocatus à Conci io Antiocheno non occurrit Athanasius dixit Quoniam inimicus meus erat ipse qui judicabat et rogo haec relegi et veritateÌ„ probari Ib. pa. 127 b. Solum quia sunt inimicus esset ipse qui judicabat clamavit à sancta Chal. Synodo ad causas illatas sibi examinandas reservatur Epist 8 Nich. 1. § Veniamus that DoÌ„nus 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
Iustinian against him The former was this Eutychius pretended a Propheticall skill whereby hee could foreshew who should succeed in the Empire and hee began to tamper and practice this Art about some three yeares before Iustinian dyed as that Eustathius delareth At that time f Tribus circiter annis ante Imperium Justini Eust apud Sur. hee privately called Iustinus unto him and told him that he should succeed in the Empire after the death of Iustinian for so g Significavit mihi Deus te post avunculum tuum fore Imperatorem Ibid. said he God hath revealed unto mee The like good fortune hee foretold to Tiberius that h Nunc in partê reipublicae gubernacula commisit Deus mox autem et sinem concedet Ibid. ere long he should have the Empire alone Againe two yeares before the death of Tiberius hee prophesied of Mauritius that i Verè inquit non est alius qui succedet quam Mauritius Ibid. hee and none but hee should have the Empire after Tiberius idque juramento asseruit and hee confirmed this by an oath Now this Art of Divination and Mathematicall predictions especially when they prognosticate of Kings their deaths successours was never allowable in any wise State nor acceptable to any prudent Emperour It betokened no good to Caesar that they foretold k Suet. in Iul Caes cap. 81. him of those dismall Ides of March. Domitian was foretold l Suet. in Domit. cap. 13. not onely of the yeare but of the day and the very houre when hee should dye and when he had carefully looked to himselfe on that day enquiring m Ibid. cap. 16. the houre his owne men of purpose told him the sixt in stead of the fift hee then thinking all danger to bee past was by the Conspiratours who kept a better watch of the time than he did securely murdered What mischiefe ensued upon that prediction to Valence that one whose name did begin with Theod. should succeed unto him Socrates n Lib. 4. cap. 1â— declareth Hee thereupon murdered most unjustly all whom he could finde to be called either Theodori or Theodoti or Theodosij or Theoduli or Theodosioli or beginning with those letters What hurt followed as wel in this kingdom upon that prophesie G. should succeed unto Edward the fourth as in the next when it was foretold the Earle of Athel that hee should bee crowned before hee dyed who thereupon never ceased to rebell against his Soveraigne till hee was crowned with an hot burning iron our owne Chronicles doe declare All kingdomes all Stories are full of like examples It was not without cause that in the Code p Tit. de Maleficis Mathematicis et his similibus both of Theodosius and Iustinian there are so many and so severe lawes aginst this kinde of Mathematicall diviners their Art q Leg. 2. eod tit Cod. Iust being called damnabilis omnibus interdicta a damnable Art forbidden to all the punishment denounced against them being r Non solum urbe Roma sed etiam omnibus civitatibus pelli decernimus l. ult Tit. de malef Cod. Theod. banishment yea death supplicio capitis Å¿ Leg. 5. tit de Malef. Cod. Iust et leg 4. Cod. Theod. ferietur hee shall bee put to death who practiseth the curiositie of divining Now Eutychius taking upoÌ„ him this Art of divining coÌ„trary to those severe and Imperiall Edicts ratified by Iustinian whether for this cause the Emperour who by the law might have deprived him of his life did not chuse rather to deprive him onely of his See and liberty I leave to the judgement of others 29. The other cause was a most impious heresie defended by Eutychius whom they so much honour which alone being duely considered overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius Eutychius when hee had long continued in the defence of the truth did afterwards fall both by words and writing to maintaine the Heresie of Origen and the Origenists denying Christs body after the resurrection to have beene palpable that is in effect to bee no true humane body and the very like hee taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection This the Surian Eustathius quite over-passeth in silence for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius so abundaÌ„t in miracles prophesies and visions should be thought guilty of so foule and condemned an heresie But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly testifie t Greg. lib. 14. Moral ca. 29. Eutythius scripsit quod corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria erit impalpabile it that no doubt can remaine thereof hee tels us how himselfe disputed against Eutychius defending this heresie how hee urged those words of our Saviour palpate videte how Eutychius answered thereunto that Christs body was then indeed palpable to confirme the mindes of his Disciples but after they were once confirmed all that was before palpable in Christs bodie in subtilitatem est redactuÌ„ was turned into an aërial and unpalpable subtilty How he further strived to prove this by those words of the Apostle Flesh blood cannot inherit the kingdome of heaveÌ„ how then said hee may this be beleeved veraciter resurgere carnem that true bodies did or shall rise againe How he further insisted on those words That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving therby that which riseth againe either not to be a body or not a palpable that is no true humane body Gregory also tels us that Eutychius writ u Libellum de Resurrectione scripsit ostendês quod caro vel impalpabilis vel ipsa non erit a booke in defence of this heresie which both himselfe read and Tiberius the Emperour after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it caused it publikely to bee burned as hereticall adding that Eutychius continued in this heresie almost till the very houre of his death Now although Gregory tels not when or at what time Eutychius fel into this heresie yet it may wel be supposed that as Iustinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the truth so when once hee gave himselfe to such dotages of the Origenists which as it seemes he did about the latter end of Iustinians Empire some three yeares before his death then the Emperour who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters as Victor showeth the condemning of which is as before t Hoc cap. nu 1â— we declared the condemning of all the heresies of Origen and whatsoever contradicts the verity of Christs deity or humanity as it is most likely exiled him for this heretical opinion And this is much more probable seeing Iustinian had purposely set forth long before this a most religious and orthodoxall Edict or Decree particularly against Origen and the Origenists as Liberatus u Cap. 23. sheweth and as the Edict it selfe which is extant x Apud Nar. aâ—
547. nu 49 hath borrowed all which is nothing but a meere fiction and legend patched up by Anastasius as elsewhere I shall further explaine Vigilius was neither called nor came about that businesse to Constantinople but about the three Chapters the cause of Anthimus was some ten yeares before ended the Empresse knew the resolution of Vigilius therein that he had absolutely refused to restore him And though for a while after the deposition of Anthimus shee being deceived by his faire words and shew of piety sought to restore him yet when shee saw Anthimus to remaine an obstinate heretike and to oppugne the faith of Chalcedon shee quite left off all striving for Anthimus and became with Iustinian a condemner of the three Chapters as Victor c Theodora elicuit à Vigilio ut tria Capitula condemnaret Vict. Tun. in Chron. an 2. post Coss Basilij testifieth that is in truth an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon and of the Catholike faith So unjustly doth the Cardinall take occasion upon an untruth and legendary fable to revile the Empresse as an heretike 6. The third and last point concernes the direfull thunderblast of Excommunication which Vigilius the Romane Iupiter cast from heaven against Theodora wherewith belike she was smit to death Wherein though the Cardinall d Ibid. is exceeding brag and thinkes his saying to be warranted by no meane witnesses but by Pope Gregory himselfe yet for all that I must be bold to tell him that it also is a fiction and that Vigilius brought no such Ioviall darts with him to Constantinople or if he did he spent them not upon the Empresse It was Pope Agapetus and not Vigilius by whom if by any Theodora was excommunicated seeing Theodora did contend with Agapetus about Anthimus and that also before his deposition It was he which called Theodora Eleutheria a persecuting Empresse Vigilius had no occasion at his comming to excommunicate her the cause of Anthimus was before that ended Theodora and Vigilius consented together in one profession of faith he condemning the three Chapters a little after he came to Constantinople as well as the Empresse could not condemne or excommunicate her for an heretike but hee must condemne himselfe also I but Pope Gregory e Greg. lib. 2. Epist 36. saith expresly he did excommunicate her Might I in stead of an answer say as some f Author apol Tumultuariae pro dispensatione de matrim Hen. 8. uxoris fratris ejus fol. 46. of their owne Writers do in another cause Gregorius hîc non est audiendus Gregory is here not to bee regarded or but say as their owne Bishop Canus g De loc Theol. lib. 11. ca. 6. §. Lex vero 2. doth that Gregory was too credulous in writing reports the matter were soone answered But I am not willing to censure Gregory so hard as they doe my answer is that the name of Vigilius is by an error either of the writer or Printer of Gregory inserted there in stead of Agapetus for of Agapetus Victor h Agapetus Archiepiscop Rom. Theodoram Augustam Anthimi patronam communione privat Anthimum deponit Mennam ejus loco Episcopum ponit Vict. Tunun in Chron. in Coss Iustin an 14. Iustiniani is an expresse witnesse that he indeed deprived Theodora of the communion All the circumstances accord thereunto Theodora was then an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon she tooke part and was a patron of Anthimus Gregory himselfe notes this fact to be done equally against the whole sect i Papa contra Theodoram Acephalos damnationis sententiam promulgavit Greg. loco citató of the Acephalian heretikes as against Theodora now Vigilius had nothing to doe with those heretikes it was the cause of the three Chapters wherewith hee was troubled the heads of the Acephali Anthimus Severus Petrus Zoaras and their followers were condemned both by Agapetus k Acephalorum Principes Anthimum Severū c. condemnavit Agapetus Bin. Not. in vitam Agapet pa. 416. b. and by the great Councell of Constantinople l Act. 5. under Mennas where were present the Legates of the Romane See Agapetus being lately dead and the same sentence was confirmed by the Emperour Iustinian m Const Justin post finem Synod sub Menna at the end of the Synod so that there was nothing left for Vigilius to doe against the Acephali who both by the Pontificall Synodall and Imperiall sentence were condemned nine yeares before his comming to Constantinople Lastly the very scope and coherence of Gregories text doth inforce this correction The defenders of the three Chapters alledged that since the time of the fift Councell wherein the three Chapters were condemned many calamities had befalne Italy whereupon they concluded that God afflicted the Church for that decree of the fift Councell and for condemning of those three Chapters Gregory to refute this their reason alledged another example and of former times to wit of condemning the Acephali whom they to whom Gregory writ acknowledged for heretikes saying Postquam after Pope Agapetus when he came into this kingly City denounced a sentence of condemnation against Theodora and the Acephali then was Rome besieged and taken by the enemies that is the Gothes was therefore God angry for that sentence against the Acephali Apply this reason to Vigilius and his time and it is not onely untrue but unfit to the purpose of Gregory for before Vigilius his comming to Constantinople not only Vitiges the Goth possessed Rome from whom Bellisarius in the time of Silverius recovered it and made great havocke in Italy but Totilas n Totilas Romam contendit quam statim obsedit Proc. lib. 3. de bell Goth. pa. 360. also before Vitiges came besieged it so hard that by reason of the famine they were driven not onely to eate mice and dogs but even dung also and last of all one to eate up another and that same yeare Totilas tooke Rome sacked it and had purposed utterly to have abolished it and burnt it to ashes but that Bellisarius by his most prudent and fortunate perswasions staid him from that barbarous immanity Now seeing not onely the siege but captivity of Rome was after the comming of that Pope to Constantinople and sentence against Theodora of whom Gregory speaketh it must needs be hee meant Pope Agapetus whose sentence all the foresaid calamities follow and not Vigilius o Vigilius venit Constantinopolin an 12. belli Gothic Proc. lib. eodem pa. 364. Romam obsedit Totilas an 11. ejusdem belli lib. eodem pa. 359. seq before whose comming to Constantinople Rome was besieged by Totilas and taken also before the sentence if it was as by Anastasius is to be gathered not denounced till the second yeare after Vigilius his comming thither Neither onely had the reason of Gregory beene untrue but most unfit for his purpose had he meant Vigilius in this place for hee clearly
yeare after it was published was confirmed by Pope Iohn who thus writeth f Epist 1. Ioh. 2. ad Justin to 2. Conc. pa. 404. et Bar. an 534. nu 15. et seq to the Emperour You for the love of the faith and to remove heresie have published an Edict which because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine wee confirme by our authority and againe You have writ and published those things which both the Apostolike doctrine and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed nos in omnibus confirmamus and we confirme it in all points This your faith is the true and certaine religion this all the Fathers Bishops of Rome and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept this confession whosoever doth contradict hee is an alien from the holy Communion and from the Catholike Church Thus Pope Iohn What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius but condemne him for an accursed heretike Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to embrace that profession unum de Trinitate which as the Emperour and Pope witnesse it earnestly embraceth he not onely suspecteth in this place but in plaine termes else-where g Planè comperitur eosdem ipsos Scythiae Monachos Eutycheanos fuisse haereticos Bar. an 519. nu 99. he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans heretikes and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon and that for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius h An. eod nu 102. that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Christ was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteret because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the foure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormisdaes dayes they could not now in this
not onely by Nicephorus and the Emperours Epistle but by the evident testimony of the whole Synod in the synodall sentence it is undoubtedly certaine that the cause of Origen was not as he fancieth the first action or cause handled in the Synod and that he doth but play the Mome in carping at the Acts for want of the first Action 4. It may bee yet that the cause of Origen was the second action in the fift Synod as Nicephorus z Loco citato saith and after him Evagrius * Evag. lib. 4. ca. 37. and that is enough to prove the defects of these Acts. No it was not the second neither as it was not before so neither was it handled after the other of the Three Chapters witnesse the Synodall sentence it selfe wherein all the matters which every day they examined and discussed are set downe and repeated after repetition they testifie a Coll. 8. p. 586. a also Repetitis igitur omnibus quae apud nos acta sunt all things being repeated which were done or handled by way of discussion among us or in this Synod Seeing they repeated all that was debated among them and make no mention of this cause of Origen it is undoubtedly certaine that Origens cause was not debated either first or last in the Synod it was neither the first action as Cedrenus and Baronius nor the second as Evagrius and Nicephorus suppose besides the very determination of the Synod evidently declares the errours of Nicephorus and Evagrius The books say they b Niceph. et Evag. loc citat against the doctrine of Origen being offered to the Synod the Emperour demanded of the Councell Quid de his statueret What it would decree concerning those doctrines A matter utterly incoherent and improbable for in the synodall decree concerning the three Chapters which they suppose to be made before this cause of Origen was either heard or proposed the Councell had expresly delivered their judgement and condemned both Origen and his impious writings When they had already condemned both him and his errors what an incongruity is it to make the Emperour demand what they would decree of him and his errours Or may we thinke that the holy Synod would first condemne Origen and his impious writings as they did in the synodall sentence against the three Chapters and then afterwards examin the matter and make an enquiry whether Origen and his writings were to bee condemned or not which were to follow that disorder which the Switzers are reported to have used in judgement which was most justly called Iudicium vetitum to execute a man and then try and examine whether he ought to be executed or not Farre be it from any to imagine such injustice and rashnesse to have beene in this holy generall Councell Seeing then they condemned and accursed Origen and all his errours in that which Nicephorus and Evagrius account the former Session it is ridiculous to think that either the Emperour urged or that they themselves would in the second Session goe Switzer-like to examine the bookes and doctrines of Origen whether he they ought to be condemned Some doubt perhaps may arise out of those words in the Councell d Coll. 5. p. 552. a which the Cardinall slily e An. 553. nu 42 haec acta inquit desiderantur in Synodâ— c. alledgeth Origen was condemned in the time of Theophilus Quod etiam nunc in ipsa fecit vestra Sanctitas which your Holinesse hath now done and Pope Vigilius also But if the words be marked they make nothing against that which I have said for neither hath that Nunc a relation to this present Councell for it is certaine that in it Vigilius did not condemne Origen seeing he was not at all present in the Synod but to this age he was condemned in former ages as namely by Theophilus and now also that is in this your age and even by your selves and by Vigilius and if ought else were imported thereby yet is it onely said that Origen was now condemned which was indeed done by the Synod but that his cause was then examined and debated there neither is it true neither doe the words any way imply 5. Nay I adde further not onely that this Councell did not debate this cause of Origen but it had beene both superfluous and an open wrong to themselves and to the whole Church to have entred into the examination thereof For beside many other former judgements not many e Anno nempe 12. Iustiniani Vigilii 2. ut notat Bar. an 538. nu 29. et 31. yeares before in the time of Mennas both the Emperour in an Imperiall Edict f Extat Edict to 2. Conc. pa. 482. et seq had condemned Origen and his errors and by the Emperours command Mennas with a Synod of Bishops then present at Constantinople had confirmed that condemnation the other Bishops who were absent did the like the Emperour requiring every Patriarke to cause all the Bishops subject to his jurisdiction to subscribe to the same The doctrines and writings of Origen were no doubt at that time fully debated all the Bishops present in this fift Councell had then subscribed and consented to the condemnation of him and his errors so had Vigilius and all Catholike Bishops in the West Seeing the judgement of the Church in condemning Origen was universall would the Councell after themselves and all other Catholike Bishops that is after the judgement of the whole Catholike Church now debate and examine whether Origen and his doctrines ought to be condemned They might as well call into question whether Arius or Macedonius or Nestorius or Eutyches and their doctrine should bee condemned the judgement of the Catholike Church was alike passed on them all for this Councell g Coll. 8. pa. 587 condemned and accursed Origen and his errors as it did Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches but it condemned them all upon the knowne judgement of the Catholike Church not upon a new tryall or examination then taken of any one of them And this verily seemes to have deceived and led into error Evagrius Nicephorus and Cedrenus for of Baronius I cannot for many reasons imagine it to have beene errour or ignorance in him but wilfull and malicious oppugning the truth they knew or heard by report for even Evagrius h Evag. loc cit who lived in that age saith of that which hee writeth touching the fift Synod Of these things sic actum accepimus we have heard they were thus done I say they might heare that which indeed was true that Origen and his errours were condemned in a Councell at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian and they not being curious nor carefull to sift the diversities of Councels nor exact in computating times confounded the former particular Synod under Mennas wherein many of the doctrines of Origen were recited and he with them condemned in eleven Anathematismes i