but in these later there never was any power to binde any either to accept their Decrees or to undergoe their censures because ab initio there was a meere nullity in all their Acts. Againe the inflicting of any punishment upon the judgement of the former had the warrant though not of divine yet of humane authority and was to bee presumed as just the sentence of every Iudge even eo nomine because he is a Iudge being to bee presumed just untill upon evident proofe it bee declared to bee unjust But what censures or punishments soever are or at any time have beene denounced or inflicted on any upon the warrant or Iudgement of these last ten Synods they are all ab initio meerely tyrannous and unjust inflicted without any either divine or humane authority seeing those Synods had none at all there is not so much as a presumption that they were or could be just but for their want of authority in decreeing them they are though otherwise equall presumed to be unjust 43. And thus much I have thought good to insert concerning all sorts of Councels as well lawfull as unlawfull to manifest hereby not onely the injurious dealing of Baronius with this fift Councell against which he declameth as an impious and unlawfull conspiracy but their vanity also in extolling and magnifying many and specially those last ten for holy lawfull and oecumenicall Synods of which dignity they are so farre short that they are all most deservedly to be ranked with the Ephesine Latrocinie and put in the Classis of those which of all other are the most base impious unlawfull and disorderly Councells CAP. XX. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same 1. WEE have hitherto seene and fully examined all the materiall exceptions which Baronius could devise to excuse Pope Vigilius from heresie and in them consists the whole pith and all the sinewes of the cause they being the onely arguments which are to be reckoned as the lawfull warriers of the Cardinall Now followeth that other Troupe whereof I told you before of his piraticall and disorderly Straglers which the Cardinall hath mustred together not that they should dispute or reason in this cause but to raile and revile at every thing whereat their Leader is displeased And the Cardinall doth this with so impotent affections in so immodest that I say not so scurrill a manner and with such virulency of all uncivill and most undutiful speeches that you shall see him now having cast away all that gravity and modesty which is fit not onely for a Divine a Cardinall a Disputer but for a man of any temper or sobriety to act herein no other part but Hercules Furens or Ajax mastigophorus without all respect either of authority or dignity or innocency lashing every body and every thing that comes in his way be it friend or foe sparing nothing that seemes to crosse his fancy not the Emperour Iustinian not the Empresse Theodora not Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea not the Imperiall Edict not the controversie and cause it selfe of the Three Chapters not the Acts of the holy Generall Councell not Pope Vigilius himselfe nothing can scape the whippe of his tongue and pen. Let us begin with the Emperour against whom Baronius declameth in this manner 2. Princes to dare to make lawes for Priests who should obey the lawes made by them Such an one as Iustinian make lawes of faith an abcedary Emperour an illiterate Theologue utterly unlearned who knew not how to reade who could never reade the title of the Bible no not the very first elements not his Alpha Beta He on a sodaine to become a palliated Divine Hee to prescribe lawes for the Church as subject to his Hee against all right and equity to presume to make lawes of sacred matters of Priests He to set downe punishments for them Hee who was not onely thus utterly unlearned but withall an enemy to the Church a sacrilegious person a persecutor a grievous a monstrous persecutor one who was madde franticke and out of his wits who was possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one make lawes for Bishops what is this else but to confound all things to treade under foote the sacred Canons to abolish utterly the Church discipline to dissolve all divine order and to make of the Kingdome of heaven which the Church is the very prison of hell where there is nothing but confusion Thus the Cardinall And this is but the first pageant of his Ajax and but some gleanings neither of that harvest which is abundant in his Annals 3. Not to seeke any exact or methodicall refutation hereof All that the Cardinall hath hitherto said may bee reduced to three notorious slanders by which he laboureth to blemish the immortall fame and unspotted honour of that most religious Emperour The first concernes His knowledge and learning Iustinian not able to reade not know so much as his Alphabet Is there any in the world thinke you so very stupid as to beleeve the Cardinall in this so shamelesse so incredible an untruth Tanti ingenii tantaeque doctrinae fuisse constat saith Platina it is manifest that Iustinian was of so great a wit and so great learning that it is not to bee marveiled if hee reduced the lawes being confused before into order Tritemius saith of him He was a man of an excellent wit and hee is deservedly reckoned among Ecclesiasticall Writers and hee expresly mentioneth three bookes which hee writ against Eutyches one against the Africane Bishops adding that none may doubt but that besides these hee writ many and very excellent Epist. Possevine the Iesuite acknowledgeth him with Tritemius for an Ecclesiasticall Writer besides the reciting of those same books which Tritemius mentioned hee alleageth these words of their Pontificiall most worthy to be observed for this purpose Iustinian the Emperour a religious man sent unto the Apostolike See his profession of saith Scriptam chirographo proprio written with his own hand testifying his great love to the Christiā Religion In regard of which his excellēt writings both Pope Agatho and the whole sixt generall Councell with him who lived in the next age to Iustinian reckoneth him in the same ranke not onely of Ecclesiasticall Writers but of venerable Fathers with Saint Cyrill Saint Chrysostome and others whose writings doe give testimony to the truth Liberatus who lived in the dayes of Iustinian and who was no well-willer of the Emperour yet could not but record That he writ a Booke against the Acephali or Eutichean heretikes in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and that Theodorus seeing him so toyled in writing against heretikes told him Scribendi laborem non cum debere pati That he should not trouble himselfe with writing books but maintaine the faith by publishing
a view of the particulars and of their following Sessions how this Cathedrall sentence of the Pope was entertained by the holy generall Councill CAP. 4. That the holy generall Councill in their Synodall Iudgement contradicted the Popes Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in that cause of faith made knowne unto them 1. IN the sixt which was the very next Sessions after they had knowne the Popes will and pleasure contrary to the Apostolicall authoritie and command of Vigilius the Holy Synod began to examine the Epistle of Ibas for the causes of Theodorus and of Theodoret were sufficiently discussed in their former Collations And first of all alledging a saying of the Emperour to which themselves doe assent they thus say which being well observed gives light to the whole cause and openeth both the error of Vigilius and the ground thereof Because the most holy Emperor added among those things which he writ unto us that some indevouring to defend the Epistle of Ibas presume to say that it was approved by the holy Councill of Chalcedon using the words of one or two most religious Bishops who were in that Councill as spoken for that Epistle cum alij omnes whereas all the rest were of another minde we thinke it needfull this question being proposed to recite the Epistle of Ibas Thus said the Synod even at the first calling the Popes judgement Presumption and checking him both for pretending the Councill of Chalcedon and for alledging the Interlocutions of one or two as the Iudgement of that Councill For that the whole Synod consented to that speech of the Emperor appeareth both by their owne words where they shew this to be so odious an untruth that they all cried out against it saying The Decree of the Councill at Chalcedon condemneth this Epistle hee that receiveth this Episte rejecteth the Councill at Chalcedon and by those speeches of Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea Andreas Bishop of Ephesus and others to which the whole Synod assented Quomodo praesumunt quidam dicere How do any presume to say that this impious Epistle of Ibas was approved by the Councill of Chalcedon And againe Miramur quomodo we doe even marvell that any will defend this Epistle by the name of the Councill at Chalcedon and yet more sharply reproving Vigilius with others for using so deceitfull a proofe they adde Astutia enim haeretica utentes for they who so say of the Councill at Chalcedon using the fraud and subtilitie of heretickes doe produce the Interlocutions of one or two as spoken for that Epistle whereas this is to be set downe for a certaine rule that in Councills non unius aut secundi interloquutionem attendere oportet the speeches of one or two must not be attended but what is defined by all or by the greater part of the Councill And yet further expressing their dislike of that fallacious and sophisticall reason which Vigilius herein used the whole Councill said The Holy Fathers at Chalcedon did pro nihilo habere quae ab uno vel duobils pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt did esteeme as nothing or made no reckning at all of those things which were spoken for that Epistle by one of two And those one or two were Pascasinus and Maximus on whose interlocutions the Pope as you have formerly seene grounded his decree concerning this Chapter and if the proofe be of so small account by the judgement of that most holy Councill it inevitably followeth that the Decree of Vigilius which wholly for this Chapter relyeth on this proofe is no better then the ground thereof that is in very deed worth nothing at all 2. Now that all this is purposely spoken against Vigilius and his Constitution which before this 6 Collation was made knowne unto them beside that it is evident by the Acts themselves seeing the Councill doth exactly mention and refute all the principall points on which Vigilius doth insist Baronius doth not onely professe but truly upon this reason doth prove the same for entreating of this 6. Session and mentioning the contents thereof This was done saith he as is evident against the Constitution of Pope Vigilius although for reverence they doe not name him and partly also they excuse him partly they reprove him using especially this argument Because in Councils we must not attend what one or two say but what is defined by all or the most Thus Baronius who as he truly acknowlegeth the Council herein to have dealt against Vigilius and his Decree so in the other points hee bewrayes too great partialitie towards Vigilius for the Councill is so far from excusing the pope that neither Baronius could nor any of his friends shall be ever able to shew that excuse And for their not naming of Vigilius it proceeded not from any reverence they bare unto him though in every respect they gave him all honour that was due to him or his place but the true reason thereof was this because they neither did nor thought it fit to name any one of those whom they did condemne but without mention of their names in particular condemned them all under one generall Appellation of Sequaces Nestorij et Theodori the followers of Nestorius and Theodorus their Disciples or defenders which titles they saw the Emperor to have used and given unto them before both in his Edict and in his Epistle to the Synod which common names to have as fitly and truly agreed to Pope Vigilius as to any else the Councill knew right well seeing in every point concerning these Three Chapters he wholly agreed with them all The followers of Theodorus and Nestorius pretended and presumed to say that the Councill of Chalcedon approved the Epistle of Ibas Vigilius pretended and presumed to say the same The Fathers at Chalcedon saith he pronounced the Epistle of Ibas to be Orthodoxall The followers of Theodorus and Nestorius fraudulently used the Interlocutions of one or two as the Iudgment of the whole Councill at Chalcedon Vigilius used the very same fraud and for this very cause as the Cardinall confesseth is reproved by the Councill Seeing then Vigilius did at this time and in this cause walke hand in hand and step by step with the other followers of Theodorus and Nestorius The holy Councill judged it most fit and sufficient as it was indeed to refuse and condemne both him and his Constitution by that common name which agreed to all the rest with whom in one common doctrine both for his position and proofes thereof he fully conspired 3. The holy Council hauing now fully discovered the error of the Popes position and the fallacious proofe which he used to uphold the same procedeth to refute his very definitive sentence prooving that neither the Epistle of Ibas is to be received as Catholike neither that by it Ibas was or ought to be judged a Catholike which were the two maine points of the Popes Decree touching
whom they loose se et non illa destruit he destroyeth himselfe but not those Councils and whosoever thinketh otherwise let him be accursed Thus Pope Gregory the great ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill and accursing all that labour to unty those bands By Agatho by Leo the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All their Popes after the the time of Gregorie were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fift as of the former Councils and that in such solemne and exact manner after the time of Hadrian the second that they professed as their forme it selfe set downe by Anton. Augustinus doth witnesse to embrace the eight generall Councils whereof this was one to hold them pari honore et veneratione in equal honor and esteeme to keepe them intirely usque ad unum apicem to the least iôta to follow and teach whatsoever they decreed and whatsoever they condemned to condemne both with their mouth and heart A like forme of profession is set downe in the Councill at Constance where the Councill having first decreed the power and authoritie of the Pope to be inferiour and subject to the Councill and that he ought to be obedient to them both in matters of faith and orders of reformation by this their superior authoritie ordaineth That every Pope at the time of his election shall professe that corde et ore both in words and in his heart hee doth embrace and firmely beleeve the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers and by the eleven generall Councils this fift being reckned for one and that he will keepe defend and teach the same faith with them usque ad unum apicem even to the least syllable To goe no further Baronius confesseth that not onely Gregory and his predecessors unto Vigilius sed successores omnes but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have received and confirmed this fift Councill 28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it but all orthodoxal Bishops in the world it being a custome as Baronius sheweth that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Councills which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri deberent all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe And this as it seemeth they did in those Literae Formatae or Communicatoriae or Pacificae so they were called which from ancient time they used to give and receive For by that forme of letters they testified their communion in faith and peaceable agreemēt with the whole Catholike Church Such an Vniforme consent there was in approving this fift Council in all succeeding Councills Popes and Bishops almost to these dayes 29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth that as this fift Synod so all succeeding Councils Popes and Bishops to the time of the Councill of Constance that is for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse as hereticall the judiciall and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius delivered by his Apostolical authority for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith therfore they al with an uniforme consent did in heart beleeve and in words professe and teach that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith may be and de facto hath been hereticall that is they all did beleeve and teach that doctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine to be truly ancient orthodoxall and catholike such as the whole Church of Christ for more then 14 hundred yeares beleeved and taught but the doctrine even the Fundamentall position whereon all their doctrines doe relie and which is vertually included in them all which the present Church of Rome maintaineth to be new hereticall and accursed such as the whole Church for so many hundred yeares together with one consent beleeved and taught to be accursed and hereticall It hence further ensueth that as this fift Councill did so all the fore-mentioned generall Councils Popes and Bishops doe with it condemne and accurse for heretikes not onely Vigilius but all who either have or doe hereafter defend him and his Constitution even all who either by word or writing have or shall maintaine that the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith is infallible that is all who are members of the present Romane Church and so continue till their death nay they not onely accurse all such but further also even all who doe not accurse such And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them to the least iôta it in the last place followeth that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith and accursing for heretikes all who either by word or writing have or doe at any time hereafter defend the same and so presist till they dye nay not onely the accursing of all such but of all who doe not accurse them is warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by all generall Councils by all Popes and Bishops that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ. 30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill Till then neither was the Popes authoritie held for supreme nor his judiciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible nay to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall and the maintainers of them to be heretikes For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill wherein these truths were decreed the same was expresly decreed by two generall Councils the one at Constance the other at Basil not long before that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill is supremum in terris the highest judgement in earth for rooting out of errors and preserving the true faith unto which judgement every one even the Pope himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable by the same Consider beside many other that one testimony of the Councill of Basil and you shall see they beleeved and professed this as a Catholike truth which in all ages of the Church had beene and still ought to be embraced They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance for the supreme authority of a Councill to which the Pope is subject say thus Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet although it is sufficiently evident by many declarations made both at Constance here at Basil that these are truths of the Catholike faith yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein This holy Synod doth define as followeth The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope declared in the generall Councill at Constance and in this at Basil est veritas fidei Catholicae is a veritie of the Catholike faith and
of the Councill at Basill that neither the Popes authoritie is supreme nor his judgement in causes of faith is infallible yet suffer me to adde two other witnesses of those who were after that Councill 32. The former is the Iudgement of Vniversities quae fere omnes which all in a manner approved and honored that Councill of Basil The other is the Councill at Biturice some take it for Burdeaux called by Charles the seventh the French King in which was made consensu omnium ecclesiasticorum et principum regni by the consent of the whole clergy and all the Peeres of France that Pragmaticall Sanction which Iohn Marius calls medullam the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Councill at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this The authoritie of the Councill at Basil and the constancie of their decrees perpetua esto let it be perpetuall and let none no not the Pope himselfe presume to abrogate or infringe the same This Sanction was published with full authoritie not seventy yeares before the Councill at Lateran as Leo the tenth witnesseth that is some foure yeares after the end of the Councill at Basill And although the Popes whose avarice and ambition was restrained by that sanction did detest it as Gagninus saith non secus ac perniciosam haeresin no otherwise then as a dangerous heresie yea and labored tooth naile to admit it yet as saith the universitie of Paris by Gods helpe hactenus prohibitum extitit they have beene ever hindred untill this time of Leo the tenth Indeed Pius secundus indevored and labored with Lewes the 11. to have it abrogated and he sent a solemne embassador Card. Balveus a very subtill fellow to bring this to passe but after much toyling both himselfe and others re infecta redijt he returned without effecting the Popes desire And to goe no further Leo the 10. and his Laterane Synod are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed before that Synod for they complaine that by reason of the malignitie of those times or else because they could not helpe it his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction and that for all which either they did or could doe the same Sanction retroactis temporibus vignisse et adhuc vigere had in former times and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session stand in force and full vigor Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall as did the Council also of Basil that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith which the present Romane Church defendenth it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught professed and beleeved to be an heresie and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes by the consenting judgement of Councils Popes Bishops and the Catholike Church even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session which was the 19. of December in the yeare 1516. after Christ. 33 On that day a day never to be forgotten by the present Romane Church it being the birth-day thereof Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill or as the learned Divines of Paris account it Conspiracie they being not assembled in Gods name abolished as much as in them lay the old and Catholike doctrine which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day and in stead thereof erect a new faith yea a new foundation of the faith and with it a new Church also Hee and his Synod then reprobated the Decree of Constance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope they reprobated also the Councill of Basil and the same Decree renewed by them That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum or Conventiculam quae nullum robur habere potuerit As a Conspiracie and Conventicle which could have no force at all They reprobated the Pragmaticall Sanction wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares together had beene imbraced and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day in reprobating it they rejected and reprobated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church Instead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be supreme that it is de necessitate salutis a thing necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the Pope and that not onely as they are severally considered but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill for they define Solum Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere The Pope alone to have authoritie above all Generall Councills This the Councill at Laterane diserte ex prosesso docuit taught cleerly and purposely as Bellarmine tells us nay they did not onely teach it but expressissimè definiunt they did most expresly define it And that their Definition is no other then a Decree of Faith as the same Cardinall assures us Decrees of faith saith he are immutable neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus and such is this Decree for the Popes supreme authoritie over all even Generall Councils made in their Laterane Synod And what meane they thinke you by that supreme authoritie Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth That because his authoritie is supreme therefore his judgement in causes of Faith is the last and highest and because it is the last and highest therefore it is infallible So by their Decree together with supremacie of authority they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope and defined that to be a catholike truth and doctrine of Faith which the whole Church in all ages untill then taught professed and defined to be an heresie and all who maintaine it to be Heretikes and for such condemned both it and them 34 Now because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith but the very foundation on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie by decreeing this they have quite altered not onely the faith but the whole frame and fabricke of the church erecting a new Romane church consisting of them and them onely who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod a church truly new and but of yesterday not so old as Luther a church in faith and communion severed from all former generall Councils Popes and Bishops that is from the whole catholike Church of Christ which was from the Apostles times untill that day And if their Popes continue as it is to be presumed they doe to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe to hold among other this fift Councill ad unum iôta this certainly is but a verball no
death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ eum non audemus damnare sententia wee◠dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the head of the generall Councell Proclus a most holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodorus and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of Iustinian yea even the whole catholike Church which hath approved those holy Councells all these out of those very impieties which Vigilius mentioneth have condemned Theodorus them all for wronging and condemning Theodorus for those impieties we doe anathematize and accurse saith Vigilius 47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are who hold and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church this for a position or foundation of faith that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes is true is infallible is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced Let
adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels defining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth declare Coster observes that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place and againe in his Relections gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because
confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and the Emperour Pope Vigilius as in place and dignity hee was more eminent so in this Insurrection he was more forward and a ring-leader unto them all And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause First he proclameth the Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane novelty judging it to bee contrary to the holy faith and Councell at Chalcedon To this he addes writings threats and punishments Literas scripsit adversus eos saith Baronius Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor and his Edict in those letters comminatus est eis qui consenserunt he threatned those that consented to the Emperor edixit indixit correctionem he decreed punishment unto them and forewarned them thereof telling them that unlesse they did amend their fault hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them protesting with the Apostle I feare when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not Nor were his threats in vaine as it seemeth seeing Baronius tells us that for this very cause either he or Stephanus his Legate in his name did excommunicate besides others two Patriarkes Mennas of Constantinople and Zoilus of Alexandria and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea 4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons but for the Emperour he took another course with him He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors that he would not do himself But wheÌ„ like Pirrhus ipse sibi cavit loco he had provided for his owne safety then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines Facundus an eloquent maÌ„ indeed as his name also imports but a most obstinate heretike Schismatike seeing he persisted in defeÌ„ce of the three Chapters not only before but after the judicial senteÌ„ce of the general Councel yet is he coÌ„mended by Baronius to be prudentissimus agonistes a most wise champion for the Church but the more hereticall hee is the more like and better liked is hee to Baronius Him doth Vigilius egge and even command to write against the Emperour yea sugillare it is the Cardinals word to taunt and flout him for his Edict nor him onely but in him to reprove omnes simul Principes all Princes whosoever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith or make lawes therein as Iustinian had done Facundus being thus directed incouraged and warranted by Pope Vigilius and being but his instrument in this matter writes a large volume containing twelve bookes against the Emperor in defence of the three Chapters A worke stuffed with heresie yet highly commended by Possevine the Iesuite as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undutifull manner as if forsooth fides omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve and as if none might beleeve otherwise quam praeciperet imperator then the Emperour commanded telling him that it were more meet for him se infra limitem suum continere to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds as other Artificers kept their own shops the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office Such rude homely and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause And as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe enough Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence calling the Emperour utterly unlearned qui nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset who never had learned so much as his A B C nor could ever read the Title of the Bible a Punie a palliated Theologue a sacrilegious person a witlesse furious and franâ—ike fellow possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one to presume against all right to make lawes concerning matters of faith concerning Priests and the punishments of them adding that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie si qui ejusmodi esset if such as Iustinian should makes lawes of faith yea such lawes quas dolosè conscripsissent haeretici as heretikes had craftily penned telling him as Facundus had before that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admonition Ne ultra Crepidam Sr Cobler go not beyond your Last Latchet This scurrility doth the Cardinall use
Rocke upon which you may build two contradictories in the doctrine of faith and in them both say unto him Tu es Petra Such a Rocke neither the Prophets nor Apostles nor Christ himselfe ever was So wise so exceeding wise is the Pope in all his turnings even as wise as a wethercocke for turning with the wind and weather 17. Againe when the Pope his instruments or Inquisitors to whom Phalaris Busiris and all the heathen persecutors may yeeld exercise against us for maintaining the truth of God all exquisite hellish tortures to which the old heathenish were but ludus jocus all which they doe must be extolled as due punishments and just censures of the Holy Father of the holy Church of the Holy inquisition of the Holy house all must bee covered with the mantle of holinesse On the other side when they resist the most religious lawes or Edicts of Kings or Emperors when Vigilius or any of them being by an holy generall Councell declared and condemned for an Hereticke are for their obstinate rebellion against the truth justly punished though Iustinian yea Iustice it selfe shall use rather moderate then severe correction against them they forsooth must be accoumpted catholikes Cōsessers holy Martyrs such as suffer for religion for the sacred lawes and for the Catholike faith but Iustinian the Defender of the faith must be called Iulian Iustice be termed Scelus and the Church for that cause said to bee in farre worse condition then in the times of Nero Dioclesian or any of the heathen Tyrants Such an happie thing it is to bee a Pope or Papist for then their wavering shall be Constancie their rebellion Religion and fortitude their folly greate and rare wisedome their heresie Catholike doctrine and their most condigne punishments shall be crowned with Martyrdome 18. The other thing which I observe is what a strong faith Papists had need to have who rely upon the Popes judgement which changeth out and in in and out so many times who yet are bound to beleeve al the Pope definitive sentences in causes of faith that is to speake in plaine tearmes who are bound to beleeve two contradictories to bee both true both of them the infallible oracles of God Or if any of them have so weake a faith that he can but beleeve the one I would gladly learne of some who is an Oedipus among them In this case of two Contradictorie Cathedrall decrees such as were these of Pope Vigilius whether of the Popes definitive judgements that is according to their language whether of the sayings of God is true and whether false or what strength the one hath more then the other If the Apostolicall sentence of Vigilius delivered cum omni undique cautela and by his Cathedrall authoritie in defence of the Three Chapters be repealeable by a second why may not the second which cannot possibly have more authoritie bee repealed by a third and the third by a fourth and fourth by a fift and so in Infinitum If the Pope after seaven yeares deliberation and ventilating of the cause while hee is all that time in peace and libertie may be deceived in his judiciall and Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith how may wee be assured that when some yeares after that the tediousnesse of exile and desire of his pristine libertie and honour perswades him to make a contrary decree he may not therein also bee deceived If the Popes decrees made in libertie peace and prosperity be of force why shall not the decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters be an article of faith If those free decrees may be admitted by a stronger sentence when the Pope is in banishment how may any beleeve their Laterane and Trent decrees as doctrines of faith For why may there not once againe come some other Iustinian into the world as great pitie it is but there should who in these or future times may minister that soveraigne medicine to cleare the Popes judgement and restraine or close him up in some meaner estate and farre lower place whence as out of a darke and low pit he may discerne those coelestiall truths in the Word of God like so many Starres in heaven which now being invironed with the circumfused splendor of the Romane Court he cannot possibly behold If those Three Chapters were to bee condemned why did the Pope defend them at the time of the Councell If they were to be defended why did he condemne them after his returne from exile Nay if the Three Chapters were orthodoxall why did the Pope at any time first or last by his Apostolicall sentence condemne them If they were hereticall why did he at any time first or last by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence defend them I confesse I am here in a Labyrinth if any of the Cardinals friends will winde mee out he shall for ever be Theseus unto me CAP. XVI That the Decree of Vigilius for Taciturnity touching the Three Chapters and the Councell wherein it is supposed to be made and all the Consequents upon that Decree painted out by Baronius are all fictitious and Poeticall 1. THE whole reason of Baronius drawne from Vigilius his confirming of the fift Councell being now fully dissolved we might without further stay and I gladly would according to my intended order in the Treatise proceed to his next exceptiō but there are two points in this last passage touching the chāgings of Vigilius which even against my will pull mee backe and call me to examine what Baronius sets downe and with exceeding ostentation paints out in his Annals concerning them the due consideration whereof will cause any man to admire the Cardinals most audacious and shamelesse dealing in Synodall affaires and causes of the Church The one of them concernes the second the other the fourth period in Vigilius changings The former is this 2. As soone as the defenders of the Three Chapters had notice of that Iudiciall sentence and Decree published by Vigilius against the same Chapters upon his comming to Constantinople they began to storme thereat and condemne Vigilius as a Prevaricator or revolter from the faith whereupon Vigilius as the Cardinall tels us put in practice a rare peece of wisedome and of his Pontificall pollicy sententiam emissam mox suspendit seu potius revocavit he suspends and revokes that his late judgement rursum ab eo promulgatum decretum quo decernebatur ut penitus taceretur and he published a new Decree wherein he decreed that every man should be silent and say never a word either pro or contra touching that question of the Three Chapters till the time of the generall Councel from this yeare which was the 21 of Iustinian the same wherin Vigilius came to Constantinople until the time of the generall Councell in eâ causâ ab ipso Vigilio indictū fuit Silentiū Silence was injoyned every man in that cause by Pope Vigilius
no thundring out from thence of his Pontificall Censures no embassage sent from the Emperour to call him thence no such magnanimitie in Vigilius as to refuse to returne no recalling or abrogating of the Emperiall Edict by the Emperour no submission of Mennas or Theodorus to the Pope no solemnizing of the Encaenia for those three Apostles at that time by Mennas no carying of those holy reliques in a triumphing manner and in a golden Chariot no laying them up by Mennas and in a word in that whole passage of Baronius there is not so much as one dramme nor one syllable of truth The Cardinall from an Historian is here quite metamorphozed into a Poet into a Fabler and in stead of writing Annals matters of fact and reall truths he guls his readers with fictitious anile and more than Aesopicall fables 6. For the clearing whereof I will begin with the Decree it selfe which is the ground of the whole fiction and therefore if it bee demonstrated to bee but an idle dreame and fancie all the rest which hang on it like so many consequents and appendices will of themselves fall to the ground Nor doe I speake to disgrace this Decree as if Baronius could gaine ought thereby though it were admitted and granted unto him For alas what a poore pollicy or peece of wisedome was this in the Pope being a Iudge infallible to command and decree by his Apostolicall authority that for five or sixe or as it might have hapned for forty or sixty yeares together no man should speake a word in this cause of faith neither condemne the three Chapters nor defend the same which is in effect that they should neither speake against nor for Nestorianisme neither dare to say that Christ is God nor that he is not God but suspend their judgement in them both that for all that time none should either be Catholikes or heretikes but be like Vigilius meere Neutralists in the faith what other wisdome is this but that of the Laodiceans which Christ condemneth I would thou werst either hot or cold but because thou art neither hot nor cold it will come to passe that I will spue thee out of my mouth what other then that which Elias reproves Why halt yee betweene two opinions If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal or Nestorianisme be he goe after it By this Decree of Taciturnity Vigilius provideth that neither himselfe nor others should speake against the truth or condemne it True but that is not enough He should have defended it also and caused others by his instruction and example to doe the like A neutralist one that is not with Christ is against Christ Hee that is not with the truth is against the truth Silence where God commands to speake is betraying of Gods truth If the Heathen wise man set this and that justly among his eternall lawes That he who in a publike division of the Common-wealth tooke part with neither side should bee punished with losse of goods and banishment how much more ought this to take place in Vigilius and all such Metij Suffetij who in the publike rent of the Church and that for a cause of faith will be of neither part neither for God nor against him Nay if we well consider even for this very decree of silence Vigilius is to bee judged an heretike for the whole Councell of Chalcedon condemned Domnus Patriarch of Antioch as an Heretike onely for this cause for that hee writ that men should bee silent and say nothing of the twelve Chapters of Cyrill as both Iustinian and the fift Councell doe testifie Did not Vigilius if the Cardinall say true teach nay decree the very like silence concerning the Three Chapters as Domnus did concerning those twelve of Cyrill These Three doe as nearly concerne the faith as did the other twelve These three were as certainly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon as the other twelve were approved by the Councell of Ephesus As Domnus by teaching silence in those of Cyrill even thereby taught that men should not allow them nor say that they might be allowed and therein overthrew the faith of the Ephesine Councell which approved them and taught all men to approve them Even so Vigilius by decreeing silence in these Three Chapters decreeth that none shall condemne them or say they are to be condemned and so overthroweth the Catholike faith which was declared at Chalcedon whereby they are all three condemned and taught that they ought to bee condemned If the teaching of silence in the one can make Domnus an heretike certainly the decreeing of silence in the other cannot chuse but make Vigilius an heretike O but this decree was to continue but for a time Vigilius would expect the assembling of a generall Councell and then he would resolve the matter to the full And you have seen how well he resolved it then But what Expect a Councell why is not his Holinesse able to decide a doubt in faith without a generall Councell Is he not of himselfe infallible Doth his infallibilitie like an Ague goe away and come by fits upon him Is the generall Councel that Angel which must move the Poole in the Popes brest before he can teach infallibly The Pope scornes to hold his infallibility precario by the curtesie either of the whole Church or of any generall Councell He is all-sufficient in himselfe he gives to them infallibility he receives none from them what thinke you then was become of Vigilius his infallibility that for deciding a doubt in faith hee must suspend all in silence and stay till the generall Councel be assembled which for ought he knew might bee 60. or 100. yeares after If of himselfe he was infallible why did he hold men in suspence in the doctrine of faith why did he not presently and without the Councell infallibly decide it and so set the Church at quiet If of himselfe he was not infallible how could he at the time of the Councell infallibly decide it for they make not him or his sentence infallible but all their infallibility is borrowed from him So little helpe is there for them in this decree of taciturnity if wee should admit thereof that in very deed it doth many wayes prejudice their cause It is not then the preventing of any advantage which hence they might have that causeth me to reject this decree but the onely love of the truth perswadeth nay enforceth me hereunto For I professe I was not a little moved to see the Cardinalls Annalls so stuffed with untruths and figments and see him also not onely by these to abuse and that most vilely his Readers but even to vaunt and glory as you have seene hee doth in that which is and will be an eternall ignominy unto him But let us come to make evident the fiction of this Decree 7. That Vigilius made no such decree of Taciturnitie first the Emperor Iustinian in his Letters
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 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 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 in the next yeare before he dyed So uncertaine and by Victors account unlikely it is that Vigilius at his returne home was ornatus muncribus donis officiis and privilegiis as they pompously set out the matter Now it is true that the Emperour ordered and decreed those matters upon the entreaty of Vigilius for so the words pro petitione Vigilij doe make evident but that either Vigilius entreated or the Emperour granted this upon any entreaty which he made either after his return out of exile which certainly he did not or after the end of the Synod or at the time of his return al which are the Cardinals tales without any proofe none of the Cardinalls friends will bee ever able to make cleare And for my owne part till I see some reason to the contrary I cannot otherwise thinke but that this petition was made by Vigilius some three or foure yeares before the Councell at which time Vigilius consented wholly with the Emperor was in great grace and favour with him And I am hereunto induced by that which Procopius expresseth How in the 14. yeare of the Gothicke war which is the 23. of Iustinian when Totilas and the Gothes began to win againe divers parts of Italy which Belisarius had before recovered Vigilius and divers Italians and Romanes who were then at Constantinople submissius enixius postulabant ab Imperatore did in very submisse and earnest manner entreat the Emperour that he would reduce all Italy into his subjection Now it is very likely that together with this petition they signified divers matters to the Emperour which were behoovefull for his government in the Westerne parts and this the Emperors answer then made unto
a generall or a lawfull Councell 5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it and unlesse he should approve it See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church Begin we with the Church of that age Baronius tels us that both the Emperour the Pope Mennas and other Easterne Bishops agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters to a generall Councell Why did none of them reason as the Cardinall now doth against the Councell Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest who made that agreement and say to this effect unto them Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please If they say as I say it shall be a Councell a lawfull a generall an holy Councell If they say the contrary to that which I affirme though they have ten thousand millions of voyces their Decree shall be utterly void their assembly unlawfull they shall neither bee nor bee called a generall nor a lawfull Councell no nor a Councell neither but onely a Conventicle without all authoritie in the world Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this doctrine there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled nay there never had beene any other holy generall Councell The Pope had beene in stead of all and above them all This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell witnesseth them all even the Pope himselfe at that time to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes consent and to be of more authority in case they should differ as in this question they did than the sentence of the Pope This before the Councell was assembled 6. At the time of the Councell had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church beleeved their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod but a Conventicle why did they at all come together after their second Session for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe that he would neither come nor send any deputies unto them Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity why did they after the fift Session once proceed to examine or determine that cause For before the sixt day of their assembling they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause inhibiting them either to write or speak much more judicially to define ought contrarie to his sentence or if they did that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same Seeing notwithstanding all this well knowne unto them they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies but judicially defined that cause and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them it is an evident demonstration that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall and their sentence of full authority even as ample as of any generall Councell though the Pope denied his presence to the one and expressely signified not onely his dislike but contradiction and condemnation of the other 7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence or what thinke you will the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of
the Emperour and procured the Councell as being desirous of the same But omitting the rest the whole generall Councell yea and the Popes owne letters put this out of all doubt This say the whole Councell even in their Synodall sentence Consensit in scriptis in Concilio convenire Vigilius under his owne hand-writing consented to come together and be present with us in the Synod Againe the Legates sent from the Councell to invite Vigilius said thus unto him Your Holinesse knoweth quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire that you have promised to come together with the other Bishops into the Councell and there to debate this question Vigilius himselfe writ thus to the Bishops of the Councell We knowing your desire praedictis postulationibus annuimus have consented to your petitions that in an orderly assembly being made wee may conferre with our united brethren about the three Chapters I doubt not but upon such faire and undoubted records every one will now confesse First that if to be gathered by the Popes consent and authority will make a Councell lawfull which with them is an authentike rule then this fift Councell is without question in this respect most lawfull Secondly that Baronius and Binius are shamelesse both in uttering untruths in reviling this holy Synod which they would perswade to be unlawful because it was assembled the Pope resisting it whereas this Councell to have beene assembled with the consent yea as they boast with the authority also of Pope Vigilius not onely other Writers but the Synodall Acts the whole generall Councell the letters of Vigilius and the expresse words of Baronius and Binius themselves doe evidently declare 14. Come now to the Consequence Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Councell was it for this cause unlawfull was it no generall Councell What say you then to the second Councell of which Baronius thus writeth It was held repugnante Damaso Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof Will they blot that also out of the ranke of generall and lawfull Synods If not why may not this fift also bee a generall and lawfull Synod though Vigilius had with tooth and naile resisted the same Shall the peevishnesse or perversnesse of the Pope or any Bishop hinder the assembling of a generall Councell and so the publike peace and tranquillity of the whole Church Open but this gappe and there never should have been nor ever shall be any generall Councell The wilfulnesse of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia at Niceâ— of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch at Ephesus of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria at Chalcedon will frustrate all those holy Councells and make them to be neither generall nor lawfull The saying of Cardinall Cusanus is worthy observing to this purpose I beleeve saith he that to be spoken not absurdly that the Emperor himselfe in regard of that care and custody of preserving the faith which is committed unto him may praeceptivè indicere Synodum by his Imperiall authority and command assemble a Synod when the great danger of the Church requireth the same negligente aut contradicente Romano Pontifice the Pope either neglecting so to doe or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof So Cusanus This was the very state and condition of the Church at this time when the fift Councell was assembled The whole Church had beene a long time scandalized and troubled about those Three Chapters it was rent and divided from East to West High time it was and necessary for Iustinian to see that flame quenched although Pope Vigilius or any other Patriarch had never so eagerly resisted the remedie thereof 15. Had the Cardinall pleaded against this Synod that Vigilius had not beene called unto it hee had spoken indeed to the purpose For this is essentiall and such as without which a Synod cannot bee generall and lawfull that all Bishops be summoned to the Synod and comming thither have free accesse unto it and freedome of speech and judgment therein But the Cardinall durst not take this exception against this Synod or for Vigilius for none of these to have beene wanting in this Councell is so cleare that pertinacie it selfe cannot deny it It was not the Pope as they vainly boast but the Emperor who by his owne and Imperiall authority called this Councell as the whole Synod even in their Synodall sentence witnesse Wee are aâ—sembled here in this City jussione pijssimi Imperatoris vocati being called by the commandement of our most religious Emperor His calling to have beene generall Nicephorus doth expresly declare The Emperor saith he assembled the fift generall Councell Episcopis ecclesiarum omnium evocatis the Bishops of all Churches being called unto it yea the Emperor was so equall in this cause that Binius testifieth of him Paris numeri Episcopos ex Oriente Occidente convocavit that he called in particular and besides his generall summons by which all without exception had free accesse as many out of the West where the defenders of those Chapters did abound as he did out of the East where the same Chapters were generally condemned And yet further Vigilius himselfe was by name not onely invited intreated and by many reasons perswaded but even commanded by the Emperor and in his name to come unto the Synod as before we shewed Now what freedome hee might have had in the Councell both that offer of the Presidencie doth shew for him in particular and the words of the Councell spoken concerning all in generall doth declare for when Sabinianus and others who being then at Constantinople were invited to the Synod and refused to come the synod sayd It was meet that they being called should have come to the Councell and have been partakers of all things which are here done and debated especially seeing both the most holy Emperour and we licentiam dedimus unicuique have granted free liberty to every one to manifest his minde in the Synod concerning the causes proposed Seeing then he not onely might but in his duty both to God to the Emperour and to the whole Church hee ought to have come and freely spoken his minde in this cause his resisting the will of the Emperor and refusing to come doth evidently demonstrate his want of love to the truth and dutifulnesse to the Emperor and the Church but it can no way impaire or impeach the dignity and authority of the Councell neither for the generality nor for the lawfulnesse thereof 16. Besides all which there is yet one thing above all the rest to be remembred for though Pope Vigilius was not present in the Synod either personally or by his Legates but in that sort resisted to come unto it yet he was present there by his letters of instruction by his Apostolicall and Cathedrall Constitution which hee published as a direction what was to be judged and held in that cause of the Three Chapters That Decree and Constitution he promised to send
ad Imperatorem Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod quod ingenuè praestitit which also he ingenuously performed as the Cardinall tells us That elaborate decree to which an whole Synod together with the Pope subscribed containing the Popes sentence and instruction given in this cause Vniverso orbi Catholico cunctisque fidelibus not onely to the Synod teaching them what they should define but to all Christians teaching them what they shold beleeve was in consessu Episcoporum recitatum read and recited before all the Bishops in that Councell as Binius doth assure us This one kinde of presence in the Synod is suppletive of all the rest of more worth then 20. nay then 200. Legates à latere sent from his holinesse They all may deale besides or contrary to the Popes minde as Zacharias and Rhodoaldus did in a Councell held about the cause of Photius but this Cathedrall instruction is an inflexible messenger no bribes no perswasions no feare no favour can extort from it one syllable more then his holinesse by the infallible direction of his Chaire hath delivered yea though the Pope should have beene personally present in the Synod and face to face spoken his mind in his cause yet could not his sudden or lesse premeditated speech have beene for weight or authority comparable to this decree being elaborated after seven yeares ponderation of the cause and all things in it being disposed cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all diligence and circumspection that could possibly bee used which the Pope though absent in body yet sent as an Oracle from heaven to be a direction to the Synod and to supply his own absence So many wayes is this former objection of Baronius vaine and unsound when he pretends this Councell to have beene unlawfull because the Pope resisted it and the members assembled without their head for neither did Vigilius resist their assembling but freely and willingly consented unto it neither was hee excluded from the Synod but most undutifully absented himselfe from it and though the members at that time wanted the Popes head-peece yet they had his heart his minde and his Apostolicall direction among them to bee a Cynosure unto them in that cause which alone is able to supply both his personall and Legantine absence in any Councel 17. The other objection of Baronius is taken from the decree of this Synod The sentence saith he given by it was contra ipsius decretum against the decree of Vigilius and therefore their assembly deserved not the name of a generall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Councell at all Cardinall Bellarmine explaines this more fully saying Such Councells as define matters against the Popes instruction Reprobata Concilia dici debent are to bee called or accounted Rejected Councells for it is all one saith he whether the Pope doe expresly reject and reprobate a Councell or whether the Councell deale contra Pontificis sententiam against the Popes sentence either of both such Councells are reiected and so of no authoritie at all So Bellarmine What shall we answer to the perversnesse of these men If this rule be admitted the Church hath for ever and inevitably lost this fift Councell and by their second Nicen collection the sixt the seventh and all that follow And I verily am perswaded that none can possibly excuse either Baronius or Bellarmine from this crime of expunging the fift Councell and all which follow it from the ranke and number of generall or approved Councels For it is as cleare as the sunshine at noone day that the sentence pronounced by the fift synod was contradictory to the definition and Cathedrall instruction sent by Pope Vigilius into them If then to define a cause contrary to the Popes instruction be a sure note of a Reprobate Councell as they teach it to be farewell for ever this fift and all that follow it or approve it they are all by the rule of these two worthy Cardinals Reprobated Councels nay not so much as Councels but meere Conspiracies or Conventicles 18. Besides this see I pray you the zeale and devotion of these men to the Catholike faith If this Councell be for this cause a Rejected Councell because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius sent unto it then it should have beene an holy and approved Councell if it had followed those instructions of Vigilius that is if it had condemned the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon if it had decreed Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith and Iesus Christ not to be God for Vigilius be decreeing that the Three Chapters ought to be defended instructed them thus to define and judge Had they thus done then because they had followed the instructions of Vigilius the two Cardinalls would have embraced this Councell with both armes have applauded advanced it to the skies seeing it did not so but contradicted the Popes Apostolicall instructions at this time fie on it it is an unlawfull a Reprobated Councell nay it is no Councell at all nor of any authority Can any with reason judge these men to be ought else then Nestorians then condemned heretikes and obstinate oppugners of all ancient holy Councells and of the Catholike faith See the strange diversity of judgement which is in us and them They in their hereticall dotage on the Popes Cathedrall infallibility teach this fift holy Councell to bee a reprobated synod eo nomine because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius we on the contrary doe constantly affirme it to bee an holy and most approved synod eo nomine because it followed not but rejected and condemned those Cathedrall instructions of Vigilius with us consent the sixt seventh and all succeeding generall Councells till that at Laterane all former holy Councells also to all which this Councell is consonant From them dissent all these both former and subsequent Councells that is the whole Catholike Church for fifteene hundreth yeares and more Vtri creditis whose doctrine thinke you now is ancient orthodoxall and catholike And whether had you rather with these two Cardinalls account this fift synod an unlawfull assembly and a reprobate Councell because it contradicted the hereticall constitution of Pope Vigilius or with such an army of witnesses honor it for a sacred Oecumenicall approved Councell though it not onely wanted the approbation but had in plaine words the Cathedrall Reprobation of Pope Vigilius 19. Having now fully refuted not onely the Assertion of Baronius That this Councell was of no authority nor an approved Councell till Pope Vigilius confirmed and approved it but also both those reasons whereby he would perswade the same there remaineth yet one doubt which necessarily is to be satisfied for the finall clearing of this point For it will and justly may bee demanded what it was which made this fift an approved Councell Or if it bee not the Popes
Bishops and therefore to bee called Episcopall there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors which is called Royall or Imperiall by this later religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ecclesiasticall Canons within their dominions so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures but further also doe so strengthen and backe the same by their sword and civill authority that the contradicters of those decrees are made liable to those temporall punishments which are set downe in Ezra to death to banishment to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment as the quality of the offence shall require and the wisedome of that Imperiall State shall think fit Betwixt these two confirmations Episcopall and Imperiall there is exceeding great oddes and difference By the former judiciall sentence is given and the synodall decree made or declared to be made for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation by the later neither is the synodal decree made nor any judgment given to define that cause for neither Princes nor any Lay men are Iudges to decide those matters as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in their directions to Candidianus in the Councell of Ephesus but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops and their judgement given in that cause is strengthened by Imperiall authority for which cause this may fitly be called a superemineÌ„t or corroborative confirmation of the synodall judgement The former confirmation is Directive teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church the later is Coactive compelling all by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions The former is Essentiall to the Decree such as if it want there is no Synodall decree made at all the later is Accidentall which though it want yet is the Decree of the Councell a true Synodall Decree and sentence The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmeÌ„t By vertue of the former the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith or contumacious in other matters and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church though if the later be wanting those censures cannot bee inflicted by any or upon any but with danger to incurre the indignation of Princes By vertue of the later not onely the Church may safely yea with great allowance and praise inflict their Ecclesiasticall censures but inferiour Magistrates also may nay ought to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees as against notorious convicted and condemned heretikes or in causes which are not of faith but of externall discipline and orders as against contumacious persons The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperiall authority it is in dignitie inferiour The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject it is in dignity Supreme 32. This Imperiall confirmation as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith Constantine sealed ratified and confirmed the decrees which were made therein The second general Councel writ thus to the Emperour Theodosius We beseech your clemency that by your letters ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum that you would ratifie and confirme the decree of this Councell and that the Emperour did so his Emperiall Edict before mentioned doth make evident To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus Let matters coÌ„cerning religion and piety be diligently examined contention being laid aside ac tum demuÌ„ à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate and then expect from us our imperiall confirmation The holy Councell having done so writ thus to the Emperour We earnestly intreate your piety ut jubâ—at â—a omnia that you would coÌ„mand that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius may stand in force per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata being confirmed by your roall assent And that the Emperour yeelded to their request his Edict against Nestorius doth declare In the fourth Councell the Emperour said We come to this Synod not to shew our power sed ad conâ—irmandam fidem but to confirme the faith And wheÌ„ he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent to their decree the whole Councell cryed out Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations That Iustinian confirmed the fift Councell his imperiall Edict for condemning those Three Chapters which after the Synodall judgment stood in more force than before his severity in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence partly by exile partly by imprisonment are cleare witnesses The sixt Councell said thus to the Emperour O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us signaculum tribue seale and ratifie all that we have done vestram inscribito imperialem ratihabitionem adde unto them your imperiall confirmation that by your holy Edicts and godly constitutions they may stand in firme force And the Emperour upon their humble request set forth his Edict wherein he saith We have published this our Edict that we might corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt corroborate and confirme those things which are defined by the Councell To all which that may bee added which Basilius the Emperour said in the eighth Synod as they call it I had purposed to have subscribed after al the Bishops as did my predecessors Constantine the great Theodosius Martian and the rest thereby evidently testifying not onely the custome of imperiall confirmation to have been observed in all former Councels but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopall subscription the Bishops first subscribing and thereby making or declaring that they had made a Synodall decree the Emperours after them all subscribing as ratifying by their Imperiall confirmation what the Bishops had decreed 33. By this now it fully appeareth what it is which maketh any Synod or any Synodal decree to be and justly to be accounted an approved Synod or an approved Synodall and Oecumenicall decree It is not the Popes assent approbation or confirmation as they without all ground of truth doe fancy which at any time did or possibly can doe this It is onely the Vniversall and Oecumenicall consent of the whole Church and of all the members thereof upon any decree made by a generall Councell which truly makes that an approved decree
for by it hath beene lift up the man of sinne Christian Empires have beene robbed the ignorant seduced the whole Church abused Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him as the most falsly supposed donation hath done to the Catholike Church 5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinall in this reason drawne from the event and the Emperours presence Some ten yeares before this Pope Agapetus being sent by Theodotus King of the Gothes came to Constantinople and to the same Emperour It so fell out that at that time Anthimus an heretike and an intruder held the Sea of Constantinople Agapetus deposed him that is hee declared and denounced which was true indeed that hee was never lawfully Bishop of that See and that himselfe did not nor ought others to hold him for the lawfull Bishop thereof whereupon Mennas was chosen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his roome Vigilius was called by the Emperour Agapetus sent by a Gothish usurper Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxall Professor Agapetus sent by an heretike and Arian King Vigilius called purposely about causes of faith Agapetus sent only about civill and but casually intermedling w th Ecclesiasticall causes You would now even blesse your selfe to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu by it proves the Popes presence at the same Court with the same Emperor to have brought such an infinite unspeakeable good unto the Church as could scarce bee wished Agapetus no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth but even from God himselfe and by him commanded to goe thither with an errant from heaven hee seemed to bee sent to intreat of peace but hee was commanded by God to goe ut imperaret imperantibus that he should shew himselfe to be an Emperour above the Emperour He like Saint Peter had not gold nor silver being faine to pawne the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles Now was demonstrated the highest power of the Pope that without any Councell called about the matter as the custome is hee could depose a Patriarke at other times hee may not have that title and a Patriark of so high a See as Constantinople and so highly favoured by the Emp. Empresses Now was demonstrated that Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet that the Popes power is above all Canōs for herby was shewed that he by his omnipēt authority may do matters with the Canons without the Canons against all Canons seeing his judgement was without a Synod which in a Patriarks cause is required fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem it was according to his supreme authority which is transcēdent above all Canōs or to use Bellarmines phrase hee did shew himselfe to bee Princeps Ecclesiae one that may doe against the whole Church Nay if you well consider admirari non desines you will never cease to wonder to see that Agapetus a poore man as soone as hee came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus corū facta rescindere jura dare omnibusque jubere to command Emperours to adnull their Acts to depose a Patriarke and thrust him from his throne to set another there to set downe lawes and command all men and to do all this without any Synod such a Pope was Agapetus that I know not an similis alius inveniri possit whether such another can bee found among them all Thus declameth Baronius Where thinke you all time was the Cardinals argument ab adventu Experience teacheth that when Popes leave their See and goe to the Court or Emperours presence the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazzard If Agapetus his comming to Constantinople or to the Emperour did not hazzard or endanger the Church how came it to bee perillous a few yeares after in Vigilius and where were now the most wise examples of Pope Leo and the other who in great wisedome could never be drawne to the East and from their owne See how was the holy Church now fixed to Rome when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople perceive you not how these arguments lie asleepe in the cause of Agapetus which the Cardinall rouseth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople This ab adventu as all the Cardinals Topicke places is drawne from the art and authority of Esops Satyr If they make for the Pope as the event did in Agapetus then the Cardinall with his Satyrs blast will puffe them up and make them swell to demonstrations But if they make against the Pope as did the event in Vigilius all arguments in the world drawne from the cause effect or any other Topicall or demonstrative place the Cardinall with a contrary breath can turne them al to Sophistications He is another Iannes or Iambres of this age when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharao it shall sting like a Serpent when it is used against King Pharao it shall bee as dull and dead as a stick 6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the comming of Vigilius to Constantinople what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with Iustinian Sure the Cardinall in good discretion should have expressed them at least some one of them but hee was too politike to open such secrets of their State for mine owne part I cannot but first condemne his foule ingratitude in this point Vigilius before hee came to Constantinople was earnest in oppugning the truth and Catholike faith by defending of the Three Chapters hee defended them by words by writings by censures by the utmost of his power All the hurt the Emperour did him was this that he converted him to the truth that hee brought him to define by an Apostolicall Constitution that truth which before hee oppugned and in this tune the Emperour kept him for five or sixe yeares together but then when his old fit of heresie came upon him againe when at the time of the generall Councell he forsook the Emperours holy faith his communion and as may bee thought even his company and presence also by this absence from the Emperor he relapsed quite from the Catholike faith even from that which before hee had defended and defined so long as hee kept society with the Emperour When the Emperours presence made hereticall Pope Vigilius for the space of five or sixe yeares a Catholike Pope at least in shew and profession doe you not thinke Baronius to deale unkindly with the Emperour in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperour that is in effect to blame and little lesse than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresie and embraced or made profession of the Catholike faith 7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius
Vigilius was banished p. 252. sect 18. Baronius his three reasons for Vigilius his consenting to the Synod after his exile p. 245. sect 8. First from the testimony of Evagrius sect ibid. the second from the fact of Iustinian in restoring Vigilius p. 247. sect 11. the third of Vigilius consenting to the Synod taken from the words of Liberatus He was afflicted not crowned p. 160. sect 30. C. COnstitution of Vigilius sent unto the Synod pag. 8. sect 4. in fine the summe of the Constitution was the defence of the Three Chapters p. 10. sect 8. c. The Councell refuteth the Popes decree and ground of it p. 14. sect 1 2. c. The Councell condemneth and accurseth the Popes decree p. 17. sect 6. and p. 22. sect 15 16 The Councels decree consonant to Scripture p. 26. sect 24. The fift Councell approved by succeeding Councels and Popes p. 27. sect 26. and how long p. 29. sect 29. c. Councells above the Pope p. 29. sect 30 31. The Cause of the Three Chapters a cause of faith p. 37. sect 3 4. c. professed by Baronius p. 42. sect 14. a tryall of mens faith p. 362. sect 4. The Councell proposeth their decree about them tanquam de fide p. 41. sect 13. The Churches in the East divided from the West about the three Chapters p. 39. sect 7. The fift Councell explaineth a former definition of faith made no decree to condemne any new heresie p. 46. sect 20 21. Fift Councell of authority without the Popes approbation p. 268. sect 5 6 c. it was neither hereticall nor schismaticall p. 269. sect 7. it was assembled with the Popes consent p. 272. sect 12 13. Corruptions crept into some synodall acts are not just causes of rejecting others of that Councell p. 378. sect 3. The Councell of Chalcedon held Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate p. 382. sect 8.3 the Councell of Chalcedon not corrupted pa. 384. sect 6 7. The Constitution of Vigilius no part of the synodall acts p. 399. sect 1 2 3. not published in the Synod p 401. sect 4. Chrysostomes bones not translated from Commana to Constantinople p. 426. sect 3. Councell against Councell at Ephesus p. 113. sect 2. The Church may binde or loose a man after death p. 53. sect 15 16. The Church cannot loose those who dye impenitent p. 55. sect 20 21. Coronati non coronati as two sorts so two rewards of professors p. 263. sect 43. A Councell is approved though the Pope approve it not p. 275. sect 17 18. Generall Councels have sought the Popes approbation p. 287. sect 34. Cyrill cleares himselfe of Nestorianisme p. 123. sect 16. D. WHether a dead man may novitèr bee condemned is a question of faith p. 48. sect 3. That a dead man may be condemned is the judgement of Fathers p. 49. sect 6. the judgement of provinciall Synods p. 50. sect 7. the judgement of generall Councels p. ibid. sect 7. the judgement of Baronius p. 51. sect 10. Defenders of the Popes infallibility accursed by the Councell p. 24. sect 20 21 22. Dioscorus being hereticall judged Ibas his profession hereticall therefore the profession of Ibas must be orthodoxall Vigilius his reason p. 151. sect 29. Defenders of the three Chapters heretikes p. 171. sect 4. Divination or Mathematicall predictions not allowable p. 343. sect 28. Domnus his action not inserted at Chalcedon p. 44. sect 9. To dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes not one an heretike p. 171. sect 5. Many Doctrines of their Romish Church may be held except that of the Popes infallibility and yet the party that holds them no papist p. 182. sect 21. in fine E. EPistle of Ibas wholly hereticall p. 19. sect 8.9 and p. 24. sect 19. Eunomius approved not any part of this Epistle p. 20. sect 11. Eunomius approved the confession of Ibas p. 21. sect 14. The Epistle of Ibas not approved at Chalcedon p. 107. sect 2 3 4 c. The Epistle was truly the writing of Ibas p. 109. sect 5 6. At Ephesus a great rent and division between Iohn and Cyrill ibid. At Ephesus Cyrill was deposed by the Conventicle ibid. sect 3. The Emperour ignorant for a time of the division betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 15. sect 4. The Emperour had knowledge of the division by a letter brought into the Court by â— beggar ibid. Eustathius full of forgeries p. 340. sect 24 25 c. Eutychius not banished for not consenting to the heresie of the Phantastickes p. 341. sect 25. Eutychius given to divination hereticall and what it was p. 343. sect 28 29. for these supposed to be banished ibid. Evagrius full of fables p. 345. sect 30. c. The Emperours Edict reviled by Baronius p. 363. sect 1. it was not repugnant to the orthodoxall faith it was no seminary of sedition ibid. sect 3 4. The Epistle of Ibas condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon p. 381. sect 1. the Epistle in Cedrenus not Iustinians p. 398. sect 1. Epistles writ to Dioscorus and Leo were forged and not Theodorets p. 417. sect 7 8. and p. 444. sect 8. Epistles by their erroneous inscription are not proved to be forged p. 429. sect 9 10. c. Epiphanius his writing against images read in the second Nicene Synod and by them rejected p. 109. sect 7. the booke was the booke of Epiphanius p. 112. sect 12. The explanation meant by Ibas was a condemning of the twelve chapters of Cyrill pa. 159. sect 42 43. a condemning of the faith p. 160. sect 44. the like explanation meant by Vigilius p. 166. sect 52. F. FAcundus set on by the Pope writ against the Emperours Edict p. 214. sect 4. Facundus and Baronius revile the Emperor p. 215. sect 4. Facundus an enemy to the Catholike faith p. 371. sect 13. The Foundation being hereticall poysons all which is built thereon p. 190. sect 29 30. Faith unto certainty of faith two things required p. 182. sect â—0 G. GOntharis not trecherously slaine by Bellisarius p. 448. sect 15. Gregory his words and meaning pretended by Basil about the three Chapt. explained p. 43. sect 16 17. c. H. HEretikes dying dye not in the peace of the Church pag. 59. and pag. 61. § 6. Heresie with pertinacy differs much from an error p. 61. in fine First in regard of matter p. 62. sec. 8. secondly for the manner ibid. sec. 9. thirdly in regard of the persons who erre p. 64. sec. 11. fourthly in regard of the Churches judgement ibid. sec. 12. Heresie in its owne habit doth lesse harme p. 103. sec. 27. Heretikes in words orthodoxall in sense and meaning hereticall p. 147. sec. 20. proved in Vitalis ibid. An hereticall profession may be in termes orthodoxall ibid. sec. 21. Heretikes pretend to hold with ancient Councels p. 201. sec. 4 5. Worst Heretikes are the moderne Romanists p. 204. sec. 10. Heretikes lyars in their profession pa. 207. sec. 15. Heretikes
drosse of the Church quite severed from the gold wee willingly yeeld unto them they and they onely are wholly theirs let them have let them enjoy their Helenaes we envy not such refuse Councils unto them 2. When first I set my selfe to the handling of this argument concerning the Councils it was my purpose besides those other generall questions concerning the right of calling generall Councils the right of Presidencie in them and the right of confirming them to have made manifest those three severall points touching those three rankes of Councils every one of which is not onely true but even demonstrable in it selfe And though with a delightfull kind of toile I have made no small progresse therein yet alas how unequall am I to such an Herculean labour whose time whose strength of body or industry of minde is able to accomplish a worke of such amplitude and of so vast extent for which not Nestors age would suffice Wherefore turning my sailes from this so long and tedious a voyage which I could not so much as hope to end which beside many dangerous rockes hidden Syrtes and sands is every where beset by many Romane enemies specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages with whom at every turne almost one shall be sure to have an hot encounter I thought a shorter course far more fit for my small and unfurnisht barke and despairing of more or longer voyages I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut onely over some one arme of that great Ocean not doubting but the ice being once broken and the passage through these straits opened many other will with more facilitie and felicitie also performe the like in the rest untill the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished 3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fift held at Constantinople in the time of the Emperor Iustinian and Pope Vigilius for authoritie equall to the former it being as well as they approved by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for antiquitie venerable being held within 600. yeares after Christ even in those times while as yet the drosse had not prevailed and got the predominancie above the gold as in the second Nicene Synod and succeding ages it did for varietie of weighty and important matters more delightfull then any of the rest and which I most respected of them all most apt to make manifest the truth and true Iudgement of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Controversies of the Popes supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement which are of all other most ventilated in these dayes 4. The occasion of this Councill were those Tria capitula as they were called which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church to wit The person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead the writings of Theodoret B. of Cyrus against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Councill at Chalcedon 5. The Nestorians whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill when they could no longer under the name of Nestorius countenance their heresie very subtilly indevored to revive the same by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia and his writings as also the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed then before pretending that not onely the persons of Theodoret and Ibas who both had sometimes beene very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme and wherein Theodorus with his hereticall writings are greatly extolled were received and approved in that famous Councill And in truth the Nestorians little lesse then triumphed herein and insulted over Catholikes thinking by this meanes either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Councill of Chalcedon if their doctrine were rejected or if that Council were imbraced together with it and under the colour and authoritie of it to renew and establish the doctrine of Nestorius which as they boasted that councill had certainly confirmed by their approving that Epistle of Ibas 6. By occasion hereof many who were weake in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy councill and those as Leontius sheweth were called Haesitantes waverers or Doubters Many others who for other causes distasted that Councill were hereby incouraged pertinaciously to reject the same as Liberatus declareth Such were the Agnoites Gainites Theodosians Themistians and other like Sectaries called all by the common name of Acephali because they had no one head by whom to be directed All these though being at mortall wars one with another yet herein conspired to oppugne the faith and the holy Councill of Chalcedon taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted and these men gladly beleeved that in it the Epistle of Ibas which maintaineth all the blasphemies of Nestorius was approved Thus the Church was by contrary enemies on every side assailed and so extremely disturbed that as the Emperor testifieth it was in a manner rent even from East to West yea the East was rent from the West 7. Iustinian the religious Emperor knowing how much it was available not onely for his honor and the tranquillitie of his empire but for the good of the whole Church and glory of God to appease all those broiles and knowing further that the holy Councill of Chalcedon though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas after that they had publickly renounced the heresie of Nestorius yet did utterly condemne both that Impious Epistle of Ibas as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia both which that Epistle defendeth together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill he knowing and that exactly all these particulars that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unitie of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon set forth an Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall religious and holy profession or rather an ample Declaration of his nay not his but of the Catholike Faith Among many other things the Emperor in that Edict did particularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the writings of Theodoret against Cyril and that most impious Epistle of Ibas accursing all these as hereticall and all those who either had heretofore or should therafter maintaine or defend them or any one of them 8. But notwithstanding all this which the Emperor with great prudence piety and zeale performed very many even some of those who bare the names of orthodoxall and Catholike Bishops were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict and the Catholike truth delivered therein that they openly oppugned his Edict and defended the Three Chapters by him
purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even an utter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because
against the most religious and prudent Emperour and his holy and orthodoxall Edict and hee saith that he was willing to adde these ad roborandam Facundi sententiam to fortifie the sentence of Facundus whereby he with Vigilius did defend the Three Chapters 5. Were one disposed to make sport with the Cardinall himselfe here offereth a large field wherein one may exspaciate and seeing he useth not others as Kings hee might expect lege tulionis not to bee used himselfe as a Cardinall But because wee shall in another place more fitly convince the Cardinall both for his reviling the Emperor and raling at his Edict as penned by heretikes for this time I will but by the way observe two or three points touching this passage The first that Facundus by defending the Three Chapters and Baronius by fortifying his defence doe unavoydably pull upon themselves the just censure of Anathema denounced by the holy Councell against the defenders of those Chapters and those who are abetters of them So the more Baronius doth labour to fortifie the sentence of Facundus the more he entangles himselfe in that curse of the generall Councel The second that both Facundus Baronius do quite mistake the matter in carping at the Emperour as if by his Edict or in condemning those Three Chapters he had taught or published some new doctrine of faith he did not He taught and commanded all others to embrace that true ancient and Apostolicall faith which was decreed and explaned at Chalcedon as both the whole fift Councell witnesseth which sheweth that all those Chapters were implicite but yet truly and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chalcedon and Pope Gregorie also testifieth the same saying of this fift Councell that it was in omnibus sequax in every point a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon This the religious Emperour wisely discerning did by his imperiall edict and authoritie as Constantine and Theodosius had done before him ratifie that old and Catholike faith which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time The third speciall point which I observe is that which Baronius noteth as the cause why Pope Vigil was so eager against the Emperor and his edict And what thinke you was it Forsooth because Iustinian primus legem sancivit was the first who made a law and published a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters Had the Pope first done this and Iustinian seconded his holinesse therein hee had beene another Constantine a second Theodosius the dearest child of the Church But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope or make any lawes concerning the faith before they consult with the Romane Apollo or make him acquainted therewith that 's piaculum a capitall an irremissible sinne the Pope may not endure it So then is was neither zeale not pietie nor love to the truth but meere stomacke and pride in Vigilius to oppose himselfe to the Emperours edict and make an insurrection against him A sory reason God wot for any wise man in the world much more for the Pope to contradict the truth and oppugne the Catholike faith Now if Iustinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and pietie tending wholy to the good and peace of the Church if hee could not escape so undutifull usage at the Pope his orators in those better times religious Kings may not thinke it strange to finde the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these dayes and their instruments men so exact and eloquent in reviling that in all such base and uncivill usage they goe as farre beyond Facundus Tertullus and them of former ages as drosse or the most abject mettle is inferiour to refined gold This is the first Period and first judgement of Vigilius touching this cause of the three Chapters in defence of which and oppugning of the Emperours edict hee continued more then a yeare after the publishing of the Edict even all that time while hee remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperour 6. As soone almost as Vigilius was come to Constantinople and had saluted the Emperor and conferred with them who stood for the Edict he was quite another man he changed cum caelo animum the aire of the Emperors Court altered the Popes judgement and this was about a yeare after the publishing of the Edict Now that all things might be done with more solemnitie and advise there was a Synod held shortly after his comming at Constantinople wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters and consented to the Emperors Edict This Facundus expresly witnesseth saying How shall not this bee a prejudice to the cause if it bee demonstrated that Pope Vigilius with thirty Bishops or therabouts have condemned the Epistle of Ibas approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and anathematized that Bishop Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the praises whereof are set downe in that Councell Thus Facundus Besides all this Vigilius was now so forward in this cause that as before he had written bookes against the Edict in defence of the three Chapters and excommunicated those who condemned those Chapters so now on the Emperors side he writ bookes and gave judgement for the condemning of those Chapters and excommunicated some by name Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons because they would not condemne them None can deny saith Baronius that Vigilius writ a booke against the three chapters and sent it unto Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Again there is certaine proofe latae ab eo sententiae of the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Vigilius against Rusticus Sebastianus and other defenders of those chapters and this is so cleare ut nulla dubitatio esse possit that there can be no doubt at all but that Vigilius approved by a Constitution the Emperors sentence and condemned the three Chapters So Baronius The Epistles of Vigilius doe testifie the same In that to Rusticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention Iudicati nostri Constituti nostri of our judgement of our constitution against the three chapters concerning which he addeth that it was ratified by his Apostolicall authority saying that no man may doe contra constitutum nostrum quod ex beati Petri authoritate proferimus against this our Constitution which we set forth by the authority of Saint Peter The like hee testifieth in his Epistle to Valentinianus We beleeve saith he that those things may suffice the children of the Church which we writ to Mennas concerning the blasphemies of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and his person concerning the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith Thus Vigilius consenting now with the Emperor defending his Imperiall Edict and condemning the three Chapters in all which his profession was Catholike and orthodoxall 7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution become orthodoxall
in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod it is altogether as effectuall to prove he writ it not at all nor after his returne about a year after out of exile 3. The Cardinall gives yet another evidence hereof Pelagius saith he the successor of Vigilius did thinke it fit that the fift Synod should bee approved and the three Chapters condemned moved especially hereunto by this reason that the Easterne Church ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa being rent and divided from the Romane by reason of the Constitution of Vigilius might be united unto it How was the Easterne Church divided from the Romane in the time of Pelagius by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled and adnulled it If the Popes condemning of those Chapters and approving of the fift Councell could unite the Churches then the decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have effected that union If the Apostolike Decree of Vigilius could not effect it in vaine it was for Pelagius to thinke by his approbation which could have no more authority then Apostolicall to effect that union If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was as Baronius truly saith the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters against the judgement of the fift Synod seeing it is cleare by the Cardinalls owne confession that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius it certainly hence followeth that the Constitution of Vigilius which was the cause of that breach was never by himselfe repealed which even in Pelagius time remained in force and was then a wall of separation of the Easterne from the Westerne Church Againe if the Popes approving the fift Councell and condemning the three Chapters was as in truth it was and as the Cardinall noteth it to have beene the cause to unite those Churches seeing by his owne confession in Vigilius time they were not united for Pelagius after Vigilius his death sought to take away that schisme it certainly hence followeth that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod and their Synodall condemning of those Chapters for had he so done the union had in his time presently beene effected 4. The same may be perceived also by the Westerne Church For as that Pontificall decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have united the Easterne so much more would it have drawne the Westerne the Italian and specially the Romane Church to consent to the fift Councell and condemning of the three Chapters but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life may divers wayes be made evident Whē Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius and was to be consecrated Bishop there could no more then two Bishops be found in the Westerne Church that would consecrate or ordaine him Bishop wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers requiring three Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop which they so often boast of in their disputes against us the Pope himselfe was faine to be ordained onely by two Bishops with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third Anastasius very ignorantly if not worse sets downe the reason thereof to have beene for that Pelagius was suspected to have beene guilty by poison or some other way of the death of Vigilius A very idle fancie as is the most in Anastasius for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius and there continued till Vigilius was dead he had little leisure nor oportunity to thinke of poisoning or murdering his owne Bishop by whose death he could expect no gaine The true cause why the Westerne Bishops distasted Pelagius is noted by Victor who then lived Hee before hee came from Constantinople consented to the fift Synod and condemned the Three Chapters Now the Westerne Bishops so detested the fift Synod and those who with it condemned those Chapters that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia were the ordainers of Pelagius whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators Let any man now consider with himselfe whether it bee credible that in all Italy and some Provinces adjoyning there should be but two Bishops who would consēt to the Apostolicall decree of Vigilius for approving the fift Councell if he had indeed published such a decree If they knew not the Popes sentence in this cause which they held and that rightly for a cause of faith to be infallible how was not the westerne or the Romane Church hereticall at this time not knowing that point of faith which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith If they knew it to bee infallible seeing his judgement must then oversway their owne how could there bee no more but two bishops found among them all who approved the Popes Cathedrall sentence and consented to his infallible judgement Seeing then it is certaine that the Westerne Church did generally reject the fift Synod after the death of Vigilius and seeing it is not to bee thought that they would have persisted in such a generall dislike thereof had they knowne Vigilius to have by his Apostolicall sentence decreed that all should approve the same of which his sentence had there been any such they could not have beene ignorant for if by no other meanes which were very many Pelagius himselfe would have brought and assuredly made knowne the same unto them this their generall rejection of the fift Synod is an evident proofe that this Baronian decree which hee ascribeth to Vigilius is no better then the former of silence both untrue both fictitious and of the two this the far worse seeing for this the Cardinall hath not so much as any one no not a forged writing on which he may ground it it is wholy devised by himselfe he the onely Poet or maker of this fable 5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in Bede concerning the Councell of Aquileia in Italy That Councell was held neare about or rather as by Sigonius narration it appeareth after the death of Vigilius and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Millan Macedonius B. of Aquileia Maximianus B. of Ravenna besides many other Bishops of Liguria Venice and Istria These being as Bede saith
Rhegino nor by Bede nor by Platina nor by Nauclerus nor by Tritemius nor by Krantzius nor by the magnum Chronicon Belgicum nor by the Chronicon Reicherspergense nor by ChronicoÌ„ Germanicum per MonachuÌ„ Herveldensem nor by Chronica Compendrosa or Compilatio Chronologica nor by Blondus nor by Sabellicus nor by Aventinus nor by Huldericus Mutius nor by Sigonius nor by Palmerius nor by Karanza nor by Papirius Massonius nor by Genebrard nor by Sanders nor by Stapleton and I challenge the welwillers of Baronius by that love they beare unto him his estimatioÌ„ to name if they can but any one writer before Baronius who affirmeth Vigilius to have beene banished after the Synod for not consenting unto it that therby it may be knowne that their great Annalist playes the Historian and not the Poet in relating the Ecclesiasticall affaires of the Church Or if they can at any time doe this which I am verily perswaded they neither will nor ever can performe yet seeing none of all these doe mention that banishment truly if Baronius from the silence of two writers might conclude against Anastasius that he was a lyar in the former narration I thinke none will deny but à fortiori it will follow that seeing more than two score are silent in this matter it may farre more justly bee said aperti mendacij redarguitur which is the Cardinals owne doome and words that hee bestoweth on Anastasius and here much more fitly may the Cardinals reason take place res adeo ignominiosa so ignominious a matter nay so glorious a peece of martyrdome on the Popes part as the banishment and cruell persecution of the Pope the chiefe Bishop in the world for such a cause as for not assenting to the Synod could not have bin unknowne unto those writers who most diligently prosecute the affaires of their times and such as concerned the Church Nay from the most of these wee may draw an affirmative argument also and reason more strongly than the Cardinall doth in his disputes Anastasius Aimonius Diaconus Platina and divers moe of the forenamed authors to the number at least of twenty affirme Vigilius was banished before the Synod and in the life time of Theodora and withall teach but one banishment of Vigilius and therefore they not onely are silent of that which the Cardinal saith but they say the quite contrary unto him and so both by their silence and by their speech refute that as an untruth which the Cardinal so positively and historically narrateth 20. Now as the negative kinde of arguing disproves the Baronian so doth it also the Anastasian banishment and forcibly concludes that Vigilius was not at all banished either before or after the Councel for there is no banishmeÌ„t at all of Vigilius mentioned either by Victor or by Liberatus or by Evagrius or by Procopius who all lived writ at that time or by Photius or by Zonaras or by Cedrenus or by Glicas or by Constantinus Manasses or by Nicephorus or by Aimonius though Sanders falsely affirmed them to teach this or by Luitprandus or by Bede or by Krantzius or by Mutius or by Papirius Massonius or by Caranza besides others Adde now here againe the Cardinals words Res adeo ignominiosa surely so ignominious and shamefull a fact as the banishing of a Pope could not have beene unknowne to those who writ as exactly as Facundus and Procopius the Ecclesiasticall affaires and occurrents in their times and therfore seeing these so many so exact writers mention not that Anastasian banishment of Vigilius it may be rightly concluded that Anastasius therin aperti mendicij redarguitur or if none but the Cardinall may give the lye to Anastasius yet confessing his narration to be untrue let us leave that as a priviledge of the Cardinals that he alone shal bestow lies for liveries upon Anastasius Nay seeing none of these Writers mention any banishment at all of Vigilius it must further be concluded from their silence that Vigilius neither first nor last neither before nor after the Synod was banished but that the whole narration touching his banishment is a meere fiction and fable devised partly by Anastasius and partly by Baronius 21. Which may much rather be affirmed considering that Victoâ—â— who was himselfe exiled and brought to Constantinople is not onely careful but even curious that I say not proud in recounting the most eminent persons specially Bishops which were either deposed or imprisoned or banished about this cause of the three Chapters either before or after the Synod In this ranke he nameth Benenatus Bishop of Iustinianea Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria Reparatus Bishop of Carthage Verecundus Bishop of Nica Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem Rusticus a Romane Deacon Foelix a Monke of Guilla Frontinus Bishop of Salone Theodosius Bishop of Sebarsuse himselfe being Bishop of Tunen and Pelagius then a Deacon but afterwards Bishop of Rome and successor to Vigilius Had Baronius this negative argument à testimonio in hand how would hee insult and even triumph in it how easily would he perswade the world that certainly Bishop Victor who by name and so particularly recounteth meaner Bishops yea Deacons and Monkes who suffered banishment for this cause would never have omitted the Prince of Bishops had hee beene exiled for it as they were That one example had graced the defenders of the Three Chapters more than twenty nay than twenty hundred besides seeing by this it would have beene evident that the Oracle of the world the infallible Iudge had sealed the truth of that cause with his glorious banishment which is a kinde of Martyrdome Anastasius Diaconus Otho and all the rest who say he was banished should have had the lye an hundred times at the Cardinals hands for saying that he was banished either before or after the Councell rather than Bishop Victor who then lived at Constantinople and was fellow-partner in those troubles and banishments should have beene thought either ignorant or forgetfull to expresse that banishment of Vigilius had there beene truly any at all 22. Thus from the Cardinals owne Topicks it is concluded that both the Anastasian the Baronian banishments are both fictitious Nor can I find what they can except against our Negative Argument which will not more forcibly refute many of the Cardinals disputes unlesse perhaps as Gretzer answers in defence of Baronius in another cause that the old Logick rule Ex puris negativis nihil sequi holds only in Syllogismes but not in Enthymems for which subtilty I doubt not but the very Sophisters in our Vniversities will soundly deride him so in this they will say which with as good warrant and reason they may that an agument à testimonio negativè holds onely in the Cardinals Annals or when somewhat is to be proved for the Pope or his cause but it never holds when ought makes against the Pope and the Cardinall or makes for the Protestants and their cause 23. But if Anastasius
that decree is by the Acts of the Councells most evident For both their consenting judgement pronounced by word of mouth and after that their subscription to their decree did ratifie and confirme their sentence In that which they call the eighth generall Synod after the sentence pronounced the Popes Legates said Oportet ut haec manu nostra subscribendo confirmemus it is needfull that wee confirme these things which we have decreed by our subscribing unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius this writeth Those things which with one consent they had decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were fully authorized ratified confirmed or approved the Greeke word is very emphaticall by their subscription In the Councell of Chalcedon when the agreement betwixt Iuvenalis and Maximus was decreed they subscribed in this forme That which is consented upon confirmo I by my sentence doe confirme or firma esse decerno I decree that it shall be firme and to the like effect subscribed all the rest Whereupon the glorious Iudges without expecting any other confirmation either from Pope Leo or any that was absent said This which is consented upon shall abide firme in omni tempore for ever by our decree and by the sentence of the Synod Of the second generall Councell a Synod at Hellespont said Hanc Synodum Timotheus unà cum eis praesens firmavit Timotheus with the other Bishops then present confirmed this Synod The consent and subscription of the Bishops present in the Synod they call a Confirmation of the Synod In the Synod at Maesia after the sentence of the Synod was given they all subscribed in this forme I M.P.D. c. confirmavi subscripsi have confirmed this Synodall sentence and subscribed unto it In the second Councell at Carthage held about the time of Pope Celestine Gennadius said Quae ab omnibus sunt dicta propria debemus subscriptione firmare what hath beene said and decreed by us all wee ought by our owne subscriptions to confirme and all the Bishops answered Fiat fiat let us so doe and then they subscribed So cleare it is that whatsoever decree is made by any Councell the same is truly and rightly said to bee confirmed by those very Bishops who make the Decree confirmed I say both by their joint consent in making that Decree and by their subscribing unto it when it is made 26. Vpon this confirmation or approbation of any Decree by the Bishops present in the Councell doth the whole strength and authority of any Synodall decree rely and upon no other confirmation of any Bishop whatsoever when the Councell is generall and lawfull For in such a Councell lawfully called lawfully governed and lawfully proceeding as well in the free discussing as free sentencing of the cause there is in true account the joynt consent of all Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons in the whole world No Bishop can then complaine that either he is not called or not admitted with freedome into such a Councell unlesse that he be excommunicated or suspended or for some such like reason justly debarred If all do come they may and doe freely deliver their owne judgement and that not onely for themselves but for all the Presbyters in their whole Diocesse For seeing the pastorall care of every Diocesse even from the Apostles time and by them is committed to the Bishop thereof all the rest being by him admitted but onely into a part of his care and to assist him in some parts of his Episcopall function he doth at least because he should he is supposed to admit none but such as hee knoweth to professe the same faith with himselfe whence it is that in his voice is included the judgement of his whole Diocesan Church and of all the Presbyters therein they all beleeving as he doth speake also in the Councell by his mouth the same that he doth If some of the Bishops come not personally but either depute others in their roomes or passe their suffrage as often they did in the voice of their Metropolitan then their consent is expressed in theirs whom they put in trust to be their agents at that time If any negligently absent themselves neither personally nor yet by delegates signifying their minde these are supposed to give a tacit consent unto the judgement which is given by them who are present whom the others are supposed to thinke not onely to be able and sufficient without themselves to define that cause but that they will define it in such sort as themselves doe wish and desire for otherwise they would have afforded their presence or at least sent some deputies to assist them in so great and necessary a service If any out of stomack or hatred to the truth do wilfully refuse to come because they dissent from the others in that doctrine yet even these also are in the eie of reason supposed to give an implicit consent unto that which is decreed yea though explicitè they doe dissent from it For every one doth and in reason is supposed to consent on this generall point that a Synodall judgement must bee given in that doubt controversie there being no better nor higher humane Court than is that of a generall Councell by which they may bee directed Now because there never possibly could any Synodall judgement be given if the wilfull absence of one or a few should bee a just barre to their sentence therefore all in reason are thought to consent that the judgement must be given by those who will come or who do come to the Councell and that their decree or sentence shall stand for the judgement of a generall Councell notwithstanding their absence who wilfully refuse to come 27. If then all the Bishops present in the Councell do consent upon any decree there is in it one of those wayes which we have mentioned either by personall declaration or by signification made by their delegates and agents or by a tacit or by an implicit consent the consenting judgement of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole Church that is of al who either have judicatory power or authoritie to preach publikely and therefore such a decree is as fully authorized confirmed and approved as if all the Bishops and Presbyters in the world had personally subscribed in this manner I confirme this Decree Hereof there is a worthy example in the third generall Councell No Presbyters at all were therein not in their owne right Very many Bishops were personally absent and present onely by their Legates or Agents as almost all the Westerne Bishops and by name Celestine Patriarch of Rome Some no question upon other occasions neglected that businesse as it may be the Bishops of Gangra and of Heraclèa in Macedonia who were not at this Councell Divers others wilfully and obstinately refused to come to that holy Synod as by name Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and some forty Bishops who at the
Oecumenicall Councels or the decrees thereof may bee and de facto have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope but by other succeding generall Councels by Provinciall Synods yea by particular Bishops who have beene absent none of all which gave or could give more authority to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof than it had before and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse or fruitlesse 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of thâ—se two coÌ„firmations These use end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree that is in truth the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops who were absent was not judicially to define that cause or give any judgment therein for this was done already and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee but to preserve the peace of the Church and unity in faith which could by no other meanes be better effected than if Bishops who had been absent and therefore did but implicitè or by others consent to those decrees at the making thereof did afterwards declare their owne explicite and expresse consent to the same Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was either for authority or learning the more likely he was either to make a rent and schisme in the Church if hee should dissent or to procure the tranquility and peace of the Church if hee should consent hence it was that if any Patriarke Patriarchall Primate or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell the Church and Councell did the more earnestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees This was the cause why both the religious Emperour Theodosius and Cyrill with other orthodoxall Bishops were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod which long before was ended that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle and those who defended Nestorius with his heresie so his yeelding to the truth and embracing the Ephesine Councell which condemned Nestorius might draw many others to doe the like and so indeed it did This was the principall reason why some of the ancient Councels as that by name of Chalcedon for all did it not sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee invalid or their Councell no approved Councell if it wanted his approbation or confirmation a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Councels the Synod thought it fit to procure if they could his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church might by his example move all and by his authoritie draw his owne Patriarchall Diocesse as usually hee did to consent to the same decrees whereas if he should happen to dissent as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell hee was likely to cause as Vigilius then did a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritative such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificative such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull
Synod because the Pope resisted the assembling and contradicted the decree and sentence thereof but for as much as it is not victory but truth which I seeke and the full satisfaction of the reader in this cause and seeing this point about the lawfulnesse of generall Councels is frequent and very obvious and such as being rightly conceived will give great light to this whole controversie about Councels I will crave liberty to lanch somewhat further into this deepe and explane with what convenient brevity I can what it is which maketh any Synod to bee or rightly to be esteemed a generall and lawfull Councell 2. As the name of Synod doth in his primary and large acception agree to every assembly so doth the name of Councell to every assembly of consultation The former being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with Coetus and imports the assembly of any multitude which meeteth and commeth together The later being derived of Cilia whence also supercilium imports the common or joynt intending or bending their eyes both of body and minde to the investigation of the truth in that matter which is proposed in their assembly But both of those words being now drawne from those their large and primitive significations are by Ecclesiasticall writers and use of speech penes quem jus est norma loquendi restrained and appropriated onely to those assemblies of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons wherein they come together to consult of such matters as concernes either the faith or discipline of the Church Of these because some are lawfull others unlawfull Synods if we can finde what it is which maketh a generall and lawfull Councell it will bee easie therby to discerne which are unlawfull Synods seeing it is vulgarly and truly said that Rectum is index sui obliqui 3. That a Synod be generall and lawfull there are three things necessarily and even essentially required the want of any one of which is a just barre and exception why that Synod is either not generall or not lawfull The first which concernes the generalitie is that the calling and summons to the Councell be generall and Oecumenicall so that all Bishops be called and when they are come have free accesse to the same Councell unlesse for some fault of their owne or some just reason they ought to bee debarred For if the calling to any Synod bee out of some parts onely of the Church and not out of the whole the judgement also of such a Councell is but partiall not generall and the Councell is but particular not Oecumenicall seeing some of those who have judicatory power are either omitted or unjustly excluded from the Synod The want of this was a just exception taken by the Pope Iulius against that Councell of Antioch wherein Athanasius was deposed by the Arian faction and Gregory of Cappadocia intruded into his See why it neither was nor could be esteemed generall or such as should binde the whole Church by the decrees made by it for said Iulius they did against the Canons of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not so much as call him to that Synod whereas the Canons of the Church forbid that any decree which should have power to binde the whole Church should bee made without the sentence judgement and consent of the Bishop of Rome either attained or at least sought for The Canon which Iulius mentioned might well ordaine and if there were no such Canon yet even reason and equity doe teach that such decrees as concerne the whole Church and are to binde them all ought to be made by the helpe judgement and advise of them all according to the rule Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet The wilfull omission of any one Bishop much more of the Bish. of Rome who then was the chiefe Patriarch in the world declares the Councell not to be generall seeing unto it there was onely a partiall and not a generall summons or calling 4. As this first condition is required to the generality so are the other two for the lawfulnesse and order of Synods For if the Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order must bee kept in every private and particular Church how much more in those venerable assemblies of Oecumenicall Councels which are the Armies of God of the Angels of all the Churches of God amōg whom doth and ought to shine gravity prudence and all sacred and fitting orders no lesse than in the coelestiall Hierarchy and in the very presence of the Majesty of God If they bee gathered in Gods name how can they be other than lawfull and orderly Assemblies seeing God is not the God of confusion or disorder but of peace in all Churches Now the lawfulnesse and order of Synods consists partly in their orderly assembling and partly in their orderly government and proceedings when they are assembled whensoever the Bishops of any generall Councell first assemble together by lawfull authority and then are so governed by lawfull authority also that orderly lawfull and due synodall proceedings be onely used therein as well in the free and diligent discussion of the causes proposed as in the free sentencing thereof the same is truly and properly to bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lawfull Synod But if either if these conditions be wanting it becomes unlawfull and disorderly If the Bishops assemble together either not being called or if called yet not by such as have right and authority to call them though this in a large acception may bee called a Synod that is an assembly of Bishops yet because they doe unlawfully disorderly assemble together it is in propriety of speech to be termed a Cōventicle a riotous tumultuous seditious assembly even such as that was of Demetrius the other Ephesiās who without calling and order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rusht run headlong together to uphold the honour of their great Diana which both the Spirit of God condemneth as a confused or disorderly assembly and the more wise among them taxed as a riotous and seditious tumult If being lawfully called yet they either want a lawfull President to governe them or having one yet want freedome and liberty either in discussing or giving judgement in the cause such a Synod though in respect of their assembling it be lawfull yet in respect of their proceedings and judgment it is unlawfull and disorderly and therefore in propriety of speech to be termed a conspiracy because those men conspire and band themselves as did the Councell of the Priests with Pilate by unjust and unlawfull meanes to suppresse the truth and oppresse innocency 5. But unto whō belongs that right to call general Councels whē they are called to see orderly synodal proceedings observed therein To whom to whom else but only to those who have Imperiall Regal authority whether they
and pervert the sense by turning nobis into vobis that so they might deprive the Emperour of that supreme authority which Basilius there professed to belong unto himselfe and the Legates of the Patriarchs in the name of the whole Synod approved the Emperours saying Recte Imperatores nostri monuere the Emperours have said well To goe no further in this matter that which was cited out of the Scripture concerning Ioshua and David doth clear this point for seeing all who sit in Imperiall thrones are like Ioshua and David to feed the Israel of God and the Israel of God containes the whole flocke and all the sheepe of Christ ex hac ipsa voce Pasce difficile non est demonstrare summam potestatem ei attribut It is easie even by this very word Feed to demonstrate that supreme power doth belong to Kings seeing unto them it is said Feed my sheepe feed my people Wherefore seeing Kings are commanded by God to rule by their Pastorall authoritie all others and all others are commanded to obey and bee subject unto them and their Imperiall commands as unto their supreme Pastour here upon earth it hence unavoydably followeth that Bishops neither without that Imperiall command may in a riotous manner assemble in generall Councels nor being commanded by them may deny to assemble nor being assembled may refuse to bee ordered and governed by their Imperiall Presidency 9. After these precepts of GOD looke to the practice of the Church and you shall see that lawfull Synods or Assemblies about Ecclesiasticall affaires have beene gathered by no other than Imperiall authority as well in the old as new Testament In the time of IOSIA when the Temple was purged from those manifold Idolatries wherewith it was polluted who assembled Israel the Priests no but the King sent and gathered all the Elders of Iuda and went into the house of the LORD with the Priests and Levites The like had ASA done in the oath of Association He gathered all Iuda SALOMON in the Dedication of the Temple He assembled the Elders and the heads of the Tribes DAVID in bringing the Arke and in ordering the offices of the Temple DAVID gathered all Israel together Hee gathered together then all the Princes with the Priests and Levites HEZECHIA in clensing the house of the Lord Hee gathered the Priests and Levites called them his sonnes and they were gathered together juxta mandatum Regis according to the commandement of the King Ioshua at the renewing of the Covenant He assembled all the Tribes of Israel And to mention no more for what King is there or Iudge or Captaine who had all kingly authoritie though somewhat qualified and tempered in them more than in Kings who is not an example hereof Consider but Moses who was the first that had soveraignty in their common-wealth how often and still with a warrant from God did he assemble the people upon urgēt occasions At the first making of the covenant with God Moses called the Elders at the publishing of the law Moses brought the people out of their tents unto God after the bringing of the two Tables from God Moses assembled all the congregation of Israel at the anointing and investing of Aaron Moses assembled all the congregation at the repeating of the Covenant he commanded all the Elders of the Tribes of Israel to come unto him Yea at the very first time when God appointed him to be a Captaine and Ruler over his people even then God gave unto him that authority which afterwards he renewed in the tenth of Numbers to congregate and assemble the people of God Goe saith God and gather the Elders of Israel together thereby teaching the power of assembling Gods people to be inseparably annexed unto Imperiall regall and soveraigne authority that none hath the one who hath not the other by the very warrant of God committed unto him to the end the assemblies of Gods people might not be tumultuous and seditious as was that of Demetrius and of Corah Dathan and Abiram which the Lord severely revenged but lawfull and orderly as God is the author not of confusion but of order in all Churches and in all ages of the Church 10. Come we to the times of the Gospell The power and rightfull authority to call Synods was ever in the Emperours and Kings even in those three hundred years while the Church was in most grievous persecution under Heathen Emperours The right and power was in the Heathen as well as in Christian Emperours in Tiberius as well as Theodosius in Dioclesian as well as in Constantine or Iustinian But that power which they rightly had they did not use aright not to call Synods to maintaine the faith but to abolish Synods Bishops Christians and utterly extirpate the Christian faith Now because Christ had layd an absolute necessity upon the Apostles and their successors to feed to teach and maintaine the doctrine of faith and seeing they could not doe this with the allowance or so much as connivence of the Emperours who in duty should have protected them in so doing yea have caused them so to doe this very necessity enforced them and was a lawfull warrant unto them both to feed the flocke preach the Gospell and to hold Synods in the best and most convenient manner that they then could not onely without but against the will and command of the Emperors that higher command of Christ over-ruling theirs Whereby are warranted as lawfull to say nothing of that Acts 15. those Synods at Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus at Rome against the Novatians in Africke many in the time of Cyprian and divers the like For even the law of God to yeeld unto neccessity the example of David the doctrine of our Saviour doth demonstrate besides those many Maximes which are all grounded on this truth as that necessity hath no law nor is subject to any law but is a law of it selfe that many things are lawfull in case of necessity which otherwise are unlawfull that of Leo Inculpabile judicandum quod necessitas intulit that is blamelesse which necessity doth warrant and many the like which Pope Iohn alledgeth This and nothing else doth declare those Synods to have beene lawfull though assembled without Imperiall authority as the times were extraordinary so their extraordinary assembling was by those times of necessity made lawfull But as soone as Emperours began to professe the faith and to use their owne and Imperiall authority in assembling Bishops for consulting about causes of faith the Catholike Bishops knowing that from thence that law of Necessity was now expired and out of date attempted not then to come to Synods uncalled nor refused to come when they were called though sometimes they came with an assured expectance of the crowne of Martyrdome before they departed as in the Councels of Millane
Bish. of Constantinople said O our Lord crowned by God command that the name of Pope Vitalianus may bee set in the Dipticks his answer was quod postulatum est fiat let that be done which he hath requested The Emperour commanded the books of Macarius to be read the whole Synod answered Quod jussum est what your highnesse hath commanded shall be performed After the authenticall letters of Sergius Pope Honorius had been read in the Synod the glorious Iudges called for the like authenticall writings of Pirrhus Paulus Peter and Cyrus to bee produced and read the whole Councell answered that it was superfluous seeing their heresie was manifest to all the Iudges replied omnino necessarium existit this is necessary that they be convicted out of their owne writings and then their writings were produced I omit the rest whereof every Action of that Synod is ful and by those Acts the Presidency in Councels doth so clearly beloÌ„g to Emperors and that also by the acknowledgment of that whole generall Councell that Albertus Pighius being unwilling to yeeld to this truth hath purposely writ a most railing and reviling Treatise against this holy generall Synod condemning both this Councell and these Acts as unlawfull for this among other reasons because the Emperour with his Iudges plena authoritate Praesidet is President with full authority in the same hee doth all he proposeth hee questioneth he commandeth hee examineth he judgeth he decreeth And yet in all these hee doth nothing but what belongs essentially to his Imperiall authority nothing but what Constantine Theodosius Martian and Iustinian had done before him and done it with the approbation and applause of the whole Church and of all the Catholike Bishops in those holy generall Councels and hee performed this with such uprightnesse and equality that hee professed necessitatem nullatenus inferre volumus wee will inforce no man but leave him at his owne freedome in sentencing the causes proposed and aequalitatam utriusque partis conservabimus we will bee equall and indifferent Iudges betwixt both parties 16. In the second Nicene though by the fraud of Anastasius there be not many yet are there some prints remaining of this Imperiall Presidencie We have received say the Emperours letters from Hadrian Bish. of Rome sent by his Legates qui et nobiscum in Concilio sedent who also sit with us in the Synod Those letters jubemus publicè legi we command to be publikely read according to the use in Councels and we command all you to marke them with decent silence After that you shall reade two quaternions also sent from the Bishops in the East and the whole Synod obeyed the Imperiall commands Pope Hadrian himselfe was not ignorant of this right in the Emperours when sending his Pontificall and Cathedrall judgement concerning the cause of Images hee said thus unto them We offer these things to your highnesse with all humility that they may bee diligently examined for we have but perfunctoriè that is for fashioÌ„ and not exactly gathered these testimonies and we have delivered them to your Imperiall Highnesse to be read intreating and beseeching your mansuetude yea and as if I were lying at your feete I pray and adjure you that you will command holy Images to bee restored Thus hee When the Pope cals the Emperours his Lords and submits both his owne person to their feet and his judiciall sentence to such tryall as they shall thinke fit doth not this import an higher Presidency in the Emperour than either himselfe or his Legates had in the Synod Nay it is further to be remembred which will remaine as an eternal blot of that Synod that Irene the Empresse not contenting her selfe with the Imperiall which was her owne rightfull authority intruded her selfe into the Episcopall also she forshooth would be a Doctrix in the Councell she present among the Bishops to teach the whole Councell what they should define in causes of faith Perversas Constitutiones tradere shee tooke upon her to give Constitutions and those impious also unto them Those Constitutions backed with her sword and authority the Bishops of the Councell had not the hearts and courage to withstand All which is testified in the Libri Carolini which in part were written and wholly set forth by Charles the great being for the most part composed by the Councell at Frankfourd and approved by them all in that great synod A truth so cleare that Pope Adrian in his reply to those Caroline bookes denyeth not Irene to have done this which had easily and evidently refuted that objectioÌ„ and discredited those Caroline Bookes for ever but hee defends her fact by the examples of Helena and Pulcheria to which this of Irene is so unlike that for this very cause she is by the whole Councell of Frankford consisting of three hundred Bishops or thereabouts resembled to the tyrannizing and usurping Athalia Lastly when that whole Synod came to the Kingly City for the Imperiall confirmation of their Acts seeing it is expresly testified by Zonaras and Paulus Diacâ—â—â—s that the Emperour was President in that assembly of the Bishops why should it not by like reason be thought that both himselfe when hee was present and in his absence the secular Iudges his Deputies held the same Imperial Presidency in the Nicene Synod 17. For that which they call the eighth generall Councell both the Emperours Deputies are called Presidents and in the sixt seventh eighth and tenth actions it is expresly said Presidentibus Imperatoribus the Emperours being Presidents yea and both of them by their very actions declared their Presidencie The Popes Legate would not have permitted Photius and his Bishops to bee heard the Emperours Deputies over-ruled them as was fit in that matter yea they said to the Photian Bishops Imperator jubet et vult the Emperours will pleasure and command is that you should speake in your owne cause Of the Emperour they intreat libety to defend themselves Rogamus domine Imperator we beseech you our Lord and Emperour that without interruption we may defend our cause When the bookes of Photius were brought into the Synod and burned in the midst thereof this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Emperour commanding it and many the like 18. Now these eight are all which are accounted by them in the number of generall and approved Councels for the space of more than a thousand years after Christ Of al which seeing it is now cleare that they were both called by Imperiall authoritie and governed by Imperiall Presidencie it hence appeareth that as by the warrant of the Scriptures and example of the ancient Church before Christ so also by the continued practice of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand years together these rights of calling and ordering generall Councels doe belong and were acknowledged to
belong onely to Kings and Emperours they called and commanded the Bishops the Bishops came at that call and command they governed the assemblies in those Councels all the Bishops without murmuring or so much as once contradicting willingly submitted themselves to that Imperiall government And by this may now easily be discerned wherein the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of any Synod consisteth For wheresoever to Imperiall calling and Imperiall Presidencie there is added the rightfull use of that Imperiall authoritie in seeing liberty freedome diligent discussion of the causes and all due synodall order preserved in any generall Synod the fame is and ought to bee truly called a generall lawfull Councell But what generall Councels soever have beene heretofore or shall bee at any time hereafter either assembled by any other than Imperiall and regall authority or governed for the observing of synodall order by any other than Imperiall Presidencie or misgoverned by the abuse thereof they all are and are to bee esteemed for no other than generall unlawfull Councels 19. Suffer mee here to propose some examples of each kinde partly in the ancient partly in the later times of the Church In the order of lawfull generall Councels principally and by a certaine excellency above all the rest are the five first approved Councels to bee reckned The first at Nice the second at Constantinople the third at Ephesus the fourth at Chalcedon the fift at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian unto these the Sardicane and that at Constantinople under Mennas are to bee added like two Appendant Synods the former to that at Nice the later to that at Chalcedon For the sixt which was held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Pogonatus I am out of doubt and doe firmely hold it to have beene both generall and lawfull But I mention it apart by reason of that scruple touching the Canons thereof concerning which I intend if ever I have oportunity to make a severall tract by it selfe For their second Nicene and the next unto it to wit that at Constantinople in the time of Basilius and Hadrian the second besides that there are just exceptions against their lawfulnesse in regard of the proceedings used therin it may be justly doubted whether either of them may be esteemed generall specially considering that the Councell at Frankford utterly condemned that second Nicene and decreed that it should not bee called a generall Synod and in very like manner did the Councell at Constantinople held in the time of Pope Iohn the eighth or as some call him the ninth the next successor to Hadrian the second condemne that Councell which they call the eighth held in the time of Hadrian the second Now although by the judgements of these two Councels those other which they reckon for the seventh and eighth be wholy repealed and that most justly yet if the authority of these Synods were omitted there are so many and so just exceptions against the two former that I am out of doubt perswaded that neither of them ought to stand in the order of generall lawfull Councels nor will any I suppose judge otherwise who shall unpartially examine the Acts of them compare them with the histories of those times If any at all after the sixt be to be ranked in the number of generall and lawfull Councells I would not doubt to make it evident if ever I should proceed so farre in this argument about Councels that the Councell held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus whom they in contempt have with no small token of their immodesty nicknamed Copronimus that this ought to bee judged the seventh that at Frankford the eighth and that at Constantinople which even now I mentioned held in the time of Pope Iohn the eighth or as some call him the ninth the ninth of that order For both the generality of all these three is by the best Writers acknowledged and all of them were called by Imperiall authority governed by Imperiall presidency and that in a lawfull free and synodall manner as if ever I come to handle the Councels of those times I purpose to explaine This rather for this time I thinke needfull to observe that as a Councell may be generall and yet not lawfull so may one be both generall and lawfull and yet erroneous in the decrees thereof which one point rightly observed shewes an exceeding difference betwixt those five first generall Councels with the Sardicane and that under Mennas and all the rest which follow the fift Synod The former which were all held within the six hundred yeares after Christ in the golden ages of the Church are wholly and in every decree and Canon orthodoxall and golden Councells no drosse nor dramme of corrupt doctrine could prevaile in any one of them and so they are and ever since they were held were esteemed not onely generall and lawfull but in every part and parcell of their decrees holy and orthodoxall Councels approved by all Catholikes and by the whole Catholike Church But in all generall Councels which follow that fift which were held after the 600. yeare and in those times wherein dross and corruption began to prevaile above the gold in them all there is some one blot or other wherewith they are blemished and by reason whereof although they be both generall and lawfull yet are they not in every decree holy and orthodoxall nor approved by the succeeding ages of the Church Such in the sixt is the 2.52 and 53. Canons in that under Constantinus Iconomachus the 15. and 17. definitions in that at Frankford their condemning of the fact of the Iconoclasts which untill the decree for breaking them downe was repealed by the Councell at Frankford was both pious and warranted by the example of Hezekias dealing with the brazen serpent In that under Iohn the 8. their denying of the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son And these examples which I have now named are all the examples of generall and lawfull Councels which as yet have beene held in the Church 20. Wee come now to unlawfull Synods wherein it is very memorable that of such as are unlawfull by want of lawfull calling there is no example in the ancient Church to bee found nor more than a thousand yeares after Christ. All that time not any generall Councell assembled without lawfull warrant The Bishops no not they of Rome were as yet growne to bee so insolent and headstrong as to come together without the Emperours Mandatum And the very like might be said of such Synods as are unlawfull by want of Imperiall presidency During all that time no Bishop no not he of Rome durst intrude himselfe into that Royalty and Imperiall right As the Emperour called them all for a thousand yeares so was he by himselfe or his deputies President in them all But of such as were unlawfull by abuse of that Imperiall presidency those ancient times doe yeeld abundant examples Such among many was that
by his authority so are we so farre from denying him to have done this that wee willingly professe the same but withall doe affirme which inevitably ensues thereof that even for this very cause all those Councels are unlawfull because they were called by Papall and not by Imperiall authority This demonstrates them to have assembled without lawfull authority to have beene nothing else than so many great Routs and Riots in the Church so many tumultuous and disorderly Conventicles so much more odious both in the sight of God and men as those who tumultuously and without authority convented should have beene patternes of piety obedience and order unto others 24. Yea and this very exception which may equally be opposed against them all was most justly taken to omit the rest against their Trent Riot when it was congregated by that Papall and usurped authority The King of England gave this as a reason of his refusall to send to it because the right to call Councels belonged to Kings and Emperours nullam vero esse potestatem penes Pontificem but the Pope had no authority to call or assemble a Councell The French King writ a letter to them at Trent and the superscription was Conventui Tridentino The Fathers stormed and snuffed a long while at that disdaining that the King should write Conventui and not Concilio and hardly were they perswaded to read his letter At last when credence and audience was obtained for Iames Aimiot his Legate he signified before all the Trent Fathers that the King protested and published to al as also before he had done at Rome that he accounted not that assembly pro Oecumenico legitimo Concilio sed pro privato Conventu not for a generall Councell but for a private Convent gathered together for the private benefit and good of some few adding se suosque subditos nullo vinculo ad parendum his quae in eo decreta fuerint obstrictos iri that hee and his subjects would not be tyed by the decrees thereof exhorting further that this his protestation might bee recorded among the Acts of their Synod and that all Christian Kings might have notice thereof The Electours and Princes of Germany being assembled at Nurimberge when Zacharias Delphinus and Franciscus Commendonius the Popes Legates came to warne them in the Popes name to come or send to the Councell of Trent returned this answere unto them Mirantur illustrissimi Electores Principes the most illustrious Electours and Princes doe wonder that the Pope would take upon him Celsitudinibus suis Concilij indictionem obtrudere to obtrude to their Celsitude his appointment of a Councell and that he durst call them to Trent adding wee would have both the Pope and you his Legates to know that wee acknowledge no such authority in the Pope and we are certainly perswaded by the undoubted testimonies both of Gods law and mans Concilij indicendi jus Pontificem Romanum non habere that the Pope hath no authority and right to appoint call or assemble a Councell Thus they whose answer is at large explaned in their Gravamina where the first reason of their rejecting the Trent assembly is this quod ea illegitime contra manifestum jus indicta sit because it was appointed and gathered unlawfully against manifest right seeing the Pope who called it hath no authoritie to summon or call a Councel Of the same judgement were other Princes When Hieronimus Martinengus was sent as Legate from the Pope to call some out of England to that Trent assembly in the time of the late Queene of renowned and blessed memory è Belgio in insulam traijcere prohibuit she would not suffer him to set foote in her dominion about such businesse Nec diversum ad Reges Daciae Suetiae missus responsum retulit and the Kings of Denmarke and Swetia gave the like answere that the Pope had no right to call a Councell So justly did they dislike and contemne the going to that Synod even for this cause and that most justly esteeming it for no other than a Coventicle or unlawfull assembly 25. Said I unlawfull that is too soft and mild a word that and all the other nine with it by reason of that Papall calling were unlawfull in the highest degree even Antichristian For the authoritie whereby those Synods were called belonging in right to Emperours and Kings and being tyrannically usurped by the Pope as he by intruding himselfe into the Imperiall royalties and lifting up himselfe above all the Vicegerents of God here in earth that is above all that is called God did thereby proclame himselfe to bee that man of sinne and display his Antichristian Banner So on the other side those Bishops and others who came at his Papall call and yeelded obedience to him in such sort usurping did eo ipso in that very act of theirs receive the marke of the beast and not onely consent but submit themselves to his Antichristian authority and fight under the vety Ensignes and Banner of Antichrist But of this point I have before intreated where I shewed that all even the best actions how much more then such tumultuous and turbulent attempts when they are performed in obedience to the Pope as Pope that is as a supreme Commander are turned into impious and Antichristian rebellions against God 26. This rather is needfull to bee here observed that not onely generall but even Provinciall or Nationall Synods are in all Christian Kingdomes to bee called onely by Imperiall not at all by Papall or Episcopall authority yea and they are so called in every well ordered Church For although there goe not forth a particular and expresse Edict or mandatum from Kings to assemble them yet so long as Kings or Emperours doe not expresse their will to the contrary even that summons which is sent from Primates or other Bishops subject unto them hath virtually and implicitè the Imperiall authority by which every such Synod is assembled The reason whereof is this The holy Nicene Councell decreed that for the more peaceable government of each Church there should be two Provinciall Synods yearely held by every Primate Those holy Fathers meant not as the continuall practice throughout the whole Church doth explane so strictly to define that number of two as that neither moe nor fewer might be kept in one yeare But they judging that for those times a competent and convenient number they set it downe but yet as an accidentall ceremoniall and therefore mutable order if the necessitie and occasions of any Church should otherwise require That which is substantiall and immutable in their Canon is that Provinciall Synods shall be held by each Primate so often and at such times as the necessity and occasions of their Church shall require and the chiefe Iudge of that necessity and fitting occasions is no other than hee to whose sword and authority every Bishop is subject
into their Councell but command him to depart Ad hunc modum eliminatus by this meanes was the Bishop excluded from their free Synod and if Iohannes Casus the Popes Legate to the Venetians and Archbishops of Beneventum who writ a booke in the praise of one of the most detestable and damnable sinnes could have prevailed to have entised him to goe to Rome he had not thence escaped so easily as he did from Trent Could any of these or the like enormous disorders which utterly subvert all synodall freedome have been endured had there been equall and prudent Presidents for Kings and Emperours in that Councell But the Imperiall presidency being abandoned together with it was all freedome and synodall orders excluded So that I may truly say both of these Tridentine and their other nine Synods that as by reason of their want of this Imperiall presidency they had many disorders so by reason they excluded that Presidency they had nay they could have nothing in them at all but disorder 40. You see now the severall kinds of unlawfull Councells as well by want of Imperiall calling or of Imperiall Presidency as when neither is wanting by the abuse of that Imperiall authority in the Synod And though the unlawfulnesse of those ten later Synods doth now appeare to be farre greater than of those ancient Councells before mentioned seeing in all the ancient there was not onely a lawfull calling but a lawfull presidency also both which were wanting in the other tenne besides the unlawfull proceedings which were equally in both or rather farre worse in the later yet is there one especiall difference that is principally to be remembred which issuing from the former diversity of unlawfulnesse makes a greater oddes than at the first one would imagine and this it is When the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth as in their tenne Synods it doth from the want of the first condition that is of lawfull calling and authority to assemble and judge be the consultations and proceedings of such Synods otherwise never so orderly and their resolutions never so just and true yet for making of any Canon or Decree or giving any synodall judgement there is an invalidity in all such Synods and a meere nullity in all their Decrees Canons and Iudgements They had no authority to assemble in a Synod much lesse have they any authority to make a Law or give judgement in that Synod That which is invalid in the spring and originall must needs in all the subsequent actions derived from thence depending thereon retain the same invalidity And seeing it is neither multitude nor learning nor wisdome but authority which is the fountain and foundation of all Lawes Canons and Iudgements where this authority is wanting in any person or assembly it is as impossible for such a person or assembly to make a law give any judgement or pronounce any judiciall sentence as to erect an house in the ayre or build without any foundation And truly this toucheth at the quick all those ten Councels which wanting authority to assemble them were no other but tumultuous seditious and unauthorized assemblies There was no more strength validity or vigour in any of their Decrees to binde as lawes or synodall judgements than there was in such Edicts as Spartacus and Catiline in Rome or Iacke Cade in this Kingdome should have published and set forth specially in that which he like another Pope intended to be his fundamentall law That all lawes should proceed out of his mouth Those which they untruly call the Canons Decrees or Iudgements of those Synods are onely the opinions resolutions and consultations of so many seditious men which cōvened and conspired together in those conjurations synodall Decrees or Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Iudgements they were not they could not be In the head they are nipt and tainted with a nullity of authority they beare this tainture and nullity throughout every part and parcell of their determinations 41. But when the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth as in the ancient Councels at Arimine Millane and Ephesus it did from the want of the other condition that is of orderly proceedings onely the Bishops being both lawfully called and having a lawfull President the case is here farre different their acts and sentences though they bee unlawfull yet are they truly judiciall and have the authority of synodall judgements and therefore doe binde others though not in conscience to accept them as true yet with patience to submit themselves to their censures till by like authority they be revoked and repealed Even as in civill Courts though an unjust or partiall Iudge either for feare favour hatred desire of lucre or any other perturbation of minde shall wilfully pervert justice and due proceedings and pronounce an unjust sentence yet is this act judiciall and stands in force of a judgement till by the like or higher authority it be reversed because such an one had authority and rightfull power to judge and give sentence in that cause though he abused his authority to injustice and wrong Right so it is in synodall and Ecclesiasticall assemblies when they are lawfully called and authorized to heare and judge any matter their want of due orderly and just proceedings makes their judgment unjust and shewes them to be wicked and malicious conspirators against the truth but it doth not make the decree to be no judgment or no judiciall sentence of a Councell The corruption is now in the branch not in the root the abuse of their authority makes not a nullity in their act It hinders not them to bee truly and rightfully Iudges but it demonstrates them not to bee upright good and just Iudges it shewes their sentence to be wicked and impious but in hinders it not to be a judiciall sentence Whereof that one among many in the Ephesine Latrociny is a cleare example In it Eusebius Bishop of Dorileum was most wickedly and unjustly deposed from his See yet this their unjust sentence stood in force till by the like authority of another generall Councell at Chalcedon it was repealed for in it Eusebius sate not at the first as a Iudge but as an accuser of Dioscorus and in the place of accusers He entreated the holy Councell that all the Acts and Iudgements at Ephesus viribus carere might be adnulled and declared to be of no force and that hee might enjoy as before that sentence he did Sacerdotali dignitate his Episcopall dignity and See The holy Synod consented to his just request received him as a member of the Councell restored him to his See and adnulled all the acts of the Ephesine Latrociny requesting the Emperour to ratifie and confirme that their Iudgement 42. Such an exceeding great and most remarkable difference there is betwixt those ancient and these ten later unlawfull Synods Though both be unlawfull yet in the former there was a binding force for a while till they were repealed
triumphed to have had so just an occasion to reprove disgrace the Emperor by whom he was imprisoned and banished doth make evident Hee plainly sheweth how Iustinian continued constant in defence of his owne Edict for condemning the Three Chapters and of the synodall Iudgement given therein even to his death In his 38. yeare the very next to that wherein Baronius fancieth him to have fallen into heresie Hee sent for foure Africane and two Aegyptian Bishops and both personally by himselfe as also by some others he laboured to draw them to the orthodox faith in condemning with him and the fift Synod the Three Chapters and when he could not prevaile Custodiae mittuntur they were put into prison In the next yeare he saith that Iustinian placed Iohn a condemner of the Three Chapters in the Sec of Constantinople Eutychius being banished and to his very dying day he kept Theodorus Bishop of Cabarsussus in banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So orthodoxall was Iustinian and so earnest an oppugner of heresies of those especially which deny either the true humanity or the true Godhead of Christ even till his very death by the certaine testimony of Victor an eager enemy of Iustinian Seeing then he continued constant till his death in condemning the Three Chapters and maintaining his owne Edict for the condemning of them and seeing the condemning of them or the defence of that Edict is the defence of the true faith and an oppugnation of all heresies which deny either the Divinity or Humanity in Christ specially of that of the Phantasticks or Aphthardokites as the very words of his Edict doe declare it clearly hence followeth from the certaine testimony of Victor that Iustinian was so farre from embracing or making Edicts for that heresie that he constantly oppugned the same and even punished all who beleeved or taught as the Aphthardokites did for in beleeving that heresie they contradicted the Emperours owne Edict and the holy Councels both at Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon all which the Emperour by this Edict even untill his death constantly maintained 14. Why but All Writers saith Baronius both Greeke and Latine they all doe testifie that Iustinian sell into that heresie What heare I Doe All and All both Greeke and Latine doe they All testifie this of Iustinian A vast a shamelesse a Cardinall a very Baronian untruth Of the Greekes not Procopius not Agathias not Photius not Damascen though he entreat of this very heresie not the Cardinals owne Suidas who quite contrary to the Cardinall calls Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most Catholique and Orthodoxall Emperour Of the Latines not Victor by whom as you have seene the cleane contrary is also testified not Liberatus and both these lived at the same time with Iustinian not Marcellinus not Bede not Anastasius though such was his splene against Iustinian that he could not have concealed such a disgracefull crime not Aimonius of whom I pray you see how well his testimony accordeth with the Cardinall Iustinian saith he was a man fide Catholicus pietate insignis aquitatis cultor egregius for his faith Catholike for his piety renowned a marvellous lover of equitie and therefore all things did cooperate to his good he addeth for the whole time of his Empire which was 39. yeares Imperium faelici sorte rexit Hee governed the Empire in an happy manner Not the true Paulus Diaconus who using the like words saith that Iustinian governed the Empire in an happy sort was Prince for his faith Catholike in his actions upright in judgments just and therefore all things concurred to his good not Sigebert not Marianus Scotus not Lambertus Scafnaburgensis not Ado Viennensis not Albo Floriacensis not Luitprandus not Conrad Abbas Vspergensis not Albertus Stadensis not Otho Frisingensis who cals him Christianissimum ac pijssimum Principem a most Christian and most pious Prince unfit epethetes for an heretike or one condemned to the torments of hell not Gotofrid Viterbiensis who likewise calls him a most Christian Prince one who established peace in the Church which rejoyced under him to enjoy tranquillitie not Wernerus whose testimonie is worthy observing to see the Cardinals faith and true dealing in this cause Iustinian saith hee was in all things most excellent for in him did concurre three things which make a Prince glorious to wit power by which hee overcame his enemies wisedome by which hee governed the world with just lawes and a religious minde to Gods worship by which hee glorified God and beautified the Churches So farre is he from teaching him with the Cardinall to have beene a Tartarean Cerberus or Three-headed monster consisting of three detestable vices that he opposeth thereunto a Trinity of three most renowned vertues Fortitude Iustice and Piety of which the Emperour was composed Not Nauclerus not Krantzius not Tritemius not Papirius Massonus not Christianus Masseus not the Magnum Cronicum Belgicum not the Chronicon Reicherspergense which testifieth that he did performe many things profitable to the Common-wealth and so ended his life Not Munster who saith of him that hee was a just and upright man in finding out matters ingenious Atque haeresum maximus hostis and the greatest enemy of heresies not Platina who saith of Iustinus the next Emperour unto him hee was Nulla in re similis Iustiniano in nothing like unto Iustinian For hee was covetous wicked ravenous a contemner both of God and men whence it followeth that Iustinian was quite contrary bountifull just religious an honourer both of God and good men 15. Now whereas all these and I know not how many more I thinke an hundred at least if one were curious in this search doe write of Iustinian and not one of them for ought that after earnest search I can finde doe mention his fall in that fantasticke heresie nay many of them as you have seene doe testifie on the contrary that hee was and continued a Catholike a religious a most pious a most Christian a most orthodoxall Prince and the greatest oppugner of heresies what an audacious and shamelesse untruth was it in the Cardinall to say that All Authors all both Greeke and Latine doe witnesse and detest his impiety and his fall into that heresie Besides these I must yet adde some other and those also farre more eminent and ample witnesses who doe more than demonstrate both the honour of Iustinian and those imputations of heresie and the other disgraces wherewith Baronius hath loaded him to bee most shamelesse calumnies and slanders 16. The first of these is Pope Agatho one of their Canonized Saints Hee in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus to prove out of the venerable Fathers two natures to be in Christ tels us that S. Cyril Saint Chrysostome Iohn Bishop of Scithopolis Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Ephremius and Anastasius the elder two
added by the Monothelites Of the seventh Binius thus writeth This fourth Action is in divers places faulty and in the History of the Image crucified at Beritus it containeth divers Apocryphall narrations concerning the Image of Christ made by Nicodemus Of the eighth Councell that the Canons thereof are corrupted and some inserted by Anastasius their owne Raderus will perswade them Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fift Councell bee applyed to these He having found among these one Epistle of Theodorets which hee supposeth to bee a counterfait concludeth upon that one example in this manner quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi quae sunt his contexta commentis what credit I pray you doe such Acts as these of the fift Councell deserve which are intangled in such fictions May not the selfe same reason be much more justly alleaged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Canons against the Acts of the Councell at Ephesus at Chalcedon against the sixt seventh and eighth Synods in every one of which some in divers more corruptions not onely mutilations but alterations and commentitious writings are inserted by their owne confession Let Baronius answer here his owne question Quam fidem rogo I pray you then what credit may bee given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon of the sixt seventh or eighth Councell they all must by the Cardinals reason be rejected as Canons and Acts of no worth of no credit at all Nor they onely but all the workes of Augustine of Athanasius of Ierome and almost all the holy Fathers none of them all by this Baronian reason deserve any credit for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts as the book de variis Quaestionibus Scripturae the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and many moe in Athanasius the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill and Cyrils to Austen the author of which was not onely an Impostor but an heretike the booke de Spiritu litera the booke of questions of the old and new Testament which is hereticall and an heape of the like in Austen the Commentaries on Pauls Epistles which savour of Pelagianisme the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity and 100. like in Ierome Quae fides rogo what credit can bee given to these bookes or writings of Austen Athanasius Ierome or the rest in which are found so many fictitious heretical treatises falsly ascribed unto them mingled and inserted among their writings Truly I cannot devise what might move the great Card to make such a collection and reason as from some corruptions crept into the bookes of fathers or Acts of Councels to inferre that the whole Acts or writings are unworthy of any credit but onely as Iacke Cade had a purpose to burne all authentick records and writings of law that as hee boasted all the law might proceed from his own mouth so the Cardinal intended to play a right Iacke Cade with all the ancient Councels and Fathers that having utterly though not abolished yet disgraced and made them all by this his reason and collection unworthy of any credit his owne mouth might bee an Oracle to report without controulment all histories of ancient matters and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter or to set downe in his Annals that all men should beleeve as if the most authentick Records in the world had testified the same How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinall have done to have wished all corruptions to bee removed whatsoever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Councels or writings of Fathers to be added unto them that to be quite cut off whatsoever might bee found wanting that to bee added whatsoever to be altered or perverted that to be amended and not in the blindnesse of his hatred against this one fift Councell to fight like one of the Andabatae against al the rest and with one stroke to cashire all the Acts and Canons of Councels all the writings of Fathers or Historians because forsooth one or some few corruptions have either by negligence or errour of writing or by fraud and malice of some malignant hand crept into them 4. The third thing which I observe is that whereas Baronius so often and so spightfully declameth against the Acts of this Councell as imperfect and corrupted this his whole accusation proceedeth of malice to the Councell and these Acts rather than of judgement or of truth for I doe constantly affirme and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Councels shall certainly finde and if he deale ingenuously will confesse the same that as of al the general Councels which go before this fift for integrity of the Acts none is better or any way comparable to this save that of Chalcedon so of all that follow it none at all is to bee preferred nor any way to bee counted equall with it unlesse that which they call the sixt Councell that is so much of the Acts of that Synod as concerne the cause of the Monothelites leaving out the Trullane Canons This whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Councels cannot choose but observe The Nicene Constantinopolitane being so miserably maimed that scarce wee have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Councels which if they could bee recovered no treasures are sufficient to redeeme a worke of that worth and value a worke non gemmis neque purpura a vaenale neque auro That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus but yet it remaines so imperfect so confused and disorderly that as Diogines sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men so among those very Acts large Tomes of the Coūcels the reader shall be forced to seeke the Acts of the Ephesine Councell The Acts of the second Nicene and of the next to it which they call the eighth are so doubtfull that not onely this or that part but the whole fabrick of them both is questionable whether they were the Synodall Acts or but a relation framed by Anastasius as hee thought best Of all the eight Councels the Acts of Chalcedon this fift and the sixt have beene most safely preserved and like the river Arethusa have strongly passed through so many corrupt ages and hands and yet without tainture of the salt deliver unto us the cleare and sweete current of antiquity and truth And verily when I seriously compare the wrack of other Councels with the entirenesse of these three I cannot but admire and magnifie with all my might the gracious providence wisdome and love of God to his Church for in every one of these there is an unresistable force of truth against that Antichristiā authority supremacy which is now made the foundation of the Popish faith the sixt in the cause of Honorius the fift in this cause of Vigilius and that of Chalcedon in curbing the
at Chalcedon and repeated in the 6. Collation of this fift Councill What the Pope decrees herein Baronius doth declare who explaining the words and meaning of Vigilius saith That the Fathers of Chalcedon dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam said that this Epistle of Ibas was to be received as Catholike and further adds Ex eâ Ibam comprobatum esse Catholicum that by this Epistle Ibas himselfe was proved to be a Catholike yea that he was so proved by the consenting judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon So Baronius 12. This to have beene indeed the true meaning of Pope Vigilius his owne words in his Constitution make manifest There he first sets downe the ground of his sentence and that was the sayings of Pascasinus and Maximus in the Councill at Chalcedon The Popes legats said by Pascasinus Relecta ejus epistolâ agnovimus cum orthodoxum By the Epistle of Ibas now read we acknowledge him to be orthodoxall Maximus said Ex relecto rescripto epistolae orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio by the Epistle of Ibas now read his Epistle or writing is declared to be orthodoxall Vigilius grounding himselfe on these two speaches collects and sets downe two positions of his owne concerning this third Chapter The former that the Councill of Chalcedon approved that Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall to which purpose hee saith the Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon Epistolam pronunciantes orthodoxam pronounced this Epistle to be orthodoxall and yet more plainly Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio the Epistle or writing of Ibas was pronounced orthodoxall by the Fathers at Chalcedon The other that by this Epistle they judged Ibas to be a Catholike to which purpose Vigilius writeth thus Iuvenalis would never have said that Ibas was a Catholike nisi ex verbis episiolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobaret Vnles by the words of his Epistle he had proved his faith to be orthodoxall which words evidently shew that Vigilius thought in like sort all the Bishops at Chalcedon to have judged the same by the words of that Epistle for it is certaine that they all embraced Ibas himselfe for a Catholike 13. Hereupon now ensueth the Definitive sentence of Vigilius touching this Chapter in this manner We following the judgement of the holy Fathers in all things seeing it is a most cleare and shining truth ex verbis Epistolae venerabilis Ibae by the words of the Epistle of the reverend B. Ibas being taken in their most right and godly sense and by the acts of Photius and Eustathius and by the meaning of Ibas being present that the Fathers at Chalcedon did most justly pronounce the faith of this most reverend Bishop Ibas to be orthodoxall we decree by the authoritie of this our present sentence that the Iudgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon ought to remaine inviolable both in all other things and in this Epistle of Ibas so often mentioned Thus Vigilius decreeing both that this Epistle of Ibas is Catholike that by it by the words thereof Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike both which he decreeth upon this ground that the Councill of Chalcedon as he supposeth had judged the same 14. In the end to ratifie and confirme all that concernes any of these Three Chapters in the Popes Decree he addeth this very remarkable conclusion His igitur à nobis cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia dispositis These things being now with all diligence care and circumspection disposed Statuimus et decernimus we ordaine and decree that it shall be lawfull for none pertaining to Orders and ecclesiasticall dignities either to write or speake or teach any thing touching these three Chapters contrary to these things which by this our present Constitution we have taught and decreed aut aliguam post praesentem definitionem movere ulterius quaestionē neither shall it be lawfull for any after this our present definition to move any question touching these Three Chapters But if any thing concerning these Chapters be either done said or written or shall hereafter be done said or written contrary to that which we have here taught and decreed hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus we by all meanes do reject it by the Authority of the Apostolike See whereof by Gods grace we have now the government So Vigilius 15. Thinke ye not now that any Papist considering this so advised elaborate and Apostolicall decree of Pope Vigilius will be of opinion that there was now a finall end of this matter and that all doubt concerning these Three Chapters was for ever now removed seeing the supreme Iudge had published for a direction to the whole Church his definitive Apostolicall and infallible sentence in this cause what needeth the Councill either to judge or so much as debate this matter after this Decree To define the same was needlesse more then to light a candle when the Sunne shineth in his strength To define the contrary were Hereticall yea after such an authenticall decision and determination to be doubtfull onely what to beleeve hath the censure of an Infidell But thrice happy was it for the Church of God that this doctrine of the Popes supreme authoritie and infallible Iudgement was not then either knowne or beleeved Had it beene the Nestorians and their heresie had for ever prevailed the Catholike faith had beene utterly extinguished and that without all hope or possibility ever after this to have beene revived seeing Vigilius by his Apostolicall authoritie had stopt all mens mouthes from speaking tyed their hands from writing yea and their very hearts from beleeving or thinking ought contrary to his Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters wherein he hath confirmed all the Blasphemies of Nestorius and that by a Decree more irrevocable then those of the Medes and Persians Had the holy Council at that time assembled beleeved or knowne that doctrine of the Popes supremacie and infallible Iudgement they would not have proceeded one inch further in that businesse but shaking hands with Heretickes they and the whole Church with them had beene led in triumph by the Nestorians at that time under the conduct of Pope Vigilius 16. And by this you may conjecture that Binius had great reason to conceale the later part of the Popes decree for he might well thinke as any papist will that it were a foule incongruitie to set downe three intire Sessions of an holy and generall Council not onely debating this controversie of faith about the Three Chapters but directly also contradicting the Popes definitive sentence in them all notwithstanding they knew the Pope by his Apostolicall authoritie to have delivered his Iudgement and by the same authoritie to have forbidden all men either to write or speak or to move any doubt to the contrary of that which he had now decreed But let us see by
at Millane wherein Constantius who should have preserved order in all others most of all in his owne selfe used such violent and tyrannous dealing that the only Canon whereby he ruled the Synod was his owne will Quod ego volo pro Canone sit My will shall be your law and the onely reason wherby hee perswaded was a most tyrannous Dilemma Aut subscribite aut exulate either subscribe to Arianisme or goe into banishment Such againe was that Ephesine Latrocinie When Dioscorus could not otherwise prevaile hee brought the Proconsull guarded with clubs with swords with chaines and by such meanes forced the Bishops to subscribe to blankes and to the heresie of Eutiches such fraud violence and unjust proceedings whereby all liberty was taken away made that Synod though lawfully called and having a rightfull President to be no other than a very Lattocinie as it is usually and justly called Of this same sort was the Councel at Arimine at Syrmium and divers more of the ancient Synods But these are sufficient for examples in those ancient times the unlawfulnesse of them all arising onely from the abuse of the Imperiall and lawfull authority not for want of lawfull authority either to assemble them or governe them being assembled 21. Let us come lower and to later times and then we shall have abundance of examples of all kindes of unlawfull Synods Since the thousand yeare after Christ there have beene ten which they honour with the specious titles of generall and holy Councels All of them held in the West five at Rome in the Laterane three in France two of them at Lions the third at Vienna two in Italy the one at Florence the other which is the last and worst of all at Trent For their generality it is not unknowne what just exceptions may bee taken against them Seeing in foure of them none in the rest but very few of the Easterne Bishops were present they ought rather to bee called partiall than generall Westerne than Oecumenicall Synods That the Greekes held them not for generall both that speech of theirs in the Councell of Florence Venio ad septimum ultimum generale Concilium where they professe the second Nicene to be the last which they acknowledge for a generall Councell and the words of Bellarmine do make evident Graeci tantum recipiunt prima septem Concilia ut notum est It is a thing vulgarly knowne that the Greeke Church receiveth none but the seven first for generall Councells And yet if wee should admit them as we may not for generall what more honor were it for them that they were generall than for the Councell at Ariminum at Syrmium at Millane and the Ephesine Latrocine the worst of all which is by many degrees for sanctity and due synodall order to bee preferred before the best of their ten But besides this of their generality there is another exception which can never bee removed concerning their lawfulnesse They all and every one of them are unlawfull Synods and that by defect of all those conditions which are essentially required in all lawfull generall Councels 22. Vnlawfull first they are by want of lawfull calling and authoritie to assemble them not one of them assembled by Imperiall all by Papall and usurped authority The Popes saith Bellarmine have called moe than twelve generall Councels Of those these which wee have named were ten Of the first Laterane which is the first of the ten Binius saith It was appointed solius Pontificis authoritate by the authority of the Pope alone Of the next which was the second Laterane wherein were present about a thousand Bishops It was Innocentius will to congregate it Of the third at Laterane which is also the third in order It was assembled Papae authoritate by the authority of Pope Alexander Of the fourth Laterane the fourth also in order wherein among many other like matters Transubstantiation was first of all decreed more than twelve hundred yeares after Christ Authoritate Innocentij indicta esse indicat apertissime Encyclica epistola the Encyclicall Epistle doth most manifestly shew that it was appointed by the Popes authority Of the fift which was the former at Lions This Synod was appointed and congregated A solo Pontisice by the Pope alone and by his authority Of the sixt which was the second at Lions Pope Gregory Indixit hoc Concilium appointed this Councell Of the seventh which was at Vienna Pope Clement indixit Concilium appointed this Councell Of the Florentine which is the eighth This Synod was ab Eugenio indicta appointed by Eugenius at the intreaty of the Emperour Of the ninth which was the fift Laterane This was appointed and assembled Authoritate Iulij Papae by the authority of Pope Iulius nor onely was it selfe so assembled but it decreed which was never done before that all generall Councels ought to be so assembled For the last which is their faire Helen of Trent the Popes Bull whereby hee appointed summoned and assembled it is set in the forefront of it wherein the Pope saith Conventum Mantuae indiximus we have appointed that this Councell should bee held at Mantua but afterwards he removed it to Trent 23. Thus were all the ten assembled by Papall not one of them by Imperiall authority For though some Emperours and Kings consented indeed unto some of them as to the first Laterane Henry 5. to that at Vienna Philip of France and so in some others yet the consent of Emperours and Kings is not sufficient for holding a Councell the authority by which the Bishops are called and come together must bee regall which in all these as Bellarmine truly teacheth was onely pontificial Againe that very consent to hold those Councels which Kings then gave was a servile consent not Imperiall nor was it free and willing but coacted and extorted They knew certainly by the dealing of Pope Hildebrand with Henry the fourth what they might expect if they withstood the Popes will or wrastled with such a Giant no lesse than the losse of their Crownes had beene the censure for denying to consent to what the Pope would have them their consent was no other but that by the Popes authority the Synod should bee called and held a consent that the Synod should be called by an unlawfull and usurped authority even such a consent as if a rightfull King being overcome by a Rebell should for feare of his life consent that the Rebell should call and assemble a Parliament and there enact what lawes himselfe listed It is the authority by which those Councels were gathered not by whose consent they were gathered of which we doe now enquire The authority whereby they were assembled was onely in the Pope though to that authority Emperours and Kings consented and as they are not a little brag that the Pope could doe such worthy acts