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
onely the faith decreed at Nice was corroborated and confirmed And the cause why the Sardican Councell is not reckoned in the order of generall Councels was not that which Bellarmine and Binius fancie because the Sardican and Nicene were held to be one and the same Councell for neither were they so indeed being called by different Emperours to different places at different times and upon different occasions neither were they ever by the ancient or any of sound judgement held for one Synod but the true reason thereof was this because the Sardicane though in dignity authority it was equall to the Nicene yet onely confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice and made no new or Introductive decree to condemne any heresie as did the other at Nice And truly for the selfe same reason the Church might if they had pleased have done the like to this fift Councell and not have accounted it no more than they did the Sardicane in a distinct number but onely esteemed it a Councell corroborative of the Councell at Chalcedon as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Councell which some Churches also did as by the 14. Councell at Toledo held a little after the sixt generall appeareth wherein this fift being for that cause omitted the sixt held under Constantinus Pogonatus is reckoned as the fift or next Councell to that at Chalcedō But for as much as this cause about the Three Chapters had bred so long and so exceeding great trouble in the Church and because the explanation of the faith made in this fift Councell upon occasion of those Chapters was so exact that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done it pleased the Church for these reasons with one consent declared first in the sixt Councell and then in the 2. Nicene and divers other after it to account this for the fift and ranke it as it well deserveth in the number of holy and golden generall Councels 22. It now I hope clearely appeareth how unjustly the Cardinall pretends the words of Pope Gregory as denying this to be at all any cause of faith whereas not onely by the Emperour by the fift Councell by the defenders as well as the condemners of these Chapters by succeding generall Councels by Popes even Pope Gregory among the rest by the Catholike Church and consent thereof untill their Laterane Synod but even by their owne writers Cardinall Bellarmine Sanders yea by Baronius himselfe it is evidently proved so nearely to concerne the faith that to defend these Chapters which Vigilius did is to enervate and overthrow and to condemne them which the Councell did is to uphold and confirme the Holy Catholike faith And although this alone if I should say no more were sufficient to oppose to this first Evasion of Baronius yet that both the truth hereof may more fully and further appeare and that the most vile and shamelesse dealing of Baronius in this cause such as I thinke few heretikes have ever parallel'd may be palpable unto all To that which hitherto we have spoken in generall concerning all these Three Chapters I purpose now to adde a particular consideration of each of them by it selfe whereby it will be evident that every one of these Chapters doth so directly concerne the faith that the defence of any one of them but especially of the two last is an oppugnation yea an abnegation of the whole Christian faith CAP. VI. That the first reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because none after their death ought noviter to be condemned concernes the faith and is hereticall 1. IN the first Chapter wherein Vigilius defēdeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia being long before dead ought not to bee condemned for an heretike the Popes sentence relyeth on three reasons the examination whereof wil both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter and manifest the foule errors of Vigilius as well doctrinall as personall as well concerning the faith as the fact 2. His first reason is drawne from a generall position which Vigilius taketh as a Maxime or doctrinall principle in divinitie Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis It is lawfull to condemne none after their death who were not in their life time condemned and therefore not Theodorus That Theodorus in his life time was not condemned Vigilius proveth not but presupposeth nor doe I in that dissent from him for although that testimony of Leontius be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did any while they lived reprove any of their sayings yet are there divers other inducements to perswade that Theodorus was not in his life time by any publike judgement of the Church either declared or condemned for an heretike for besides that neither Cyrill nor Proclus nor the fift generall Councell doe mention any such matter the words of Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary The Ephesine Synod saith he forbare in particular and by name to anathematize Theorus which they did dispensativè by a certaine dispensation indulgence or connivence because divers held him in great estimatiō or account what needed either any such dispensation or forbearance had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie Againe the Church of Mopsvestia where hee was Bishop for divers yeares after his death retained his name in Diplicis that is in their Ecclesiasticall tables making a thankfull commemoration of him as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie which had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike they would not have done Lastly what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous to condemne him being dead had he in his life time beene before condemned Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead 3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon that Theodorus was not before but after his death condemned the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis whether a dead man may Noviter be cōdemned Now that this is no personall but meerly a dogmaticall cause and controversie of faith is so evident that it might be a wonder that Baronius or any other should so much as doubt thereof unlesse the Apostle had foretold that because men doe not receive the love of the truth therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions that they may beleeve lyes Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius held this for no other but a doctrine of faith for he sets it downe as a Definition or Constitution of his predecessors decreed by the Apostolike See particularly by Pope Leo and Gelasius and so decreed by them as warranted and taught by the Scriptures for out
to be received in both kinds he then would receive it not in both but in one kind onely Blessed Luther it was never thy meaning either to receive it onely in one or to deny it to be necessary for Gods Church and people to receive it in both kindes Thou knewest right well that Bibite ex hoc omnes was Christs owne ordinance with which none might dispense Thou for defence of this truth among many was set up as a signe of contradiction unto them and as a marke at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches Farre was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth But whereas they taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrarie such as the Church that is the Pope might either allow or take away as he should thinke fit upon this supposall and no otherwise didst thou in thine ardent zeale to Christ and detestation of Antichrist say that were the use of both or one kinde onely a thing indeed indifferent as they taught it to be if the Pope as Pope should command the receiving in both kindes thou wouldst not then receive it so lest whilst thou might seeme to obey Christ commanding that but yet upon their supposall as a thing indifferent thou shouldest certainly performe obedience to Antichrist by his authoritie limiting and restraining that indifferency unto both kindes as now by his authority hee restraines it unto one The summe is this To doe any act whether in it selfe good or indifferent but commanded to be done by the Pope as Pope to pray to preach to receive the Sacraments yea but to lift your eyes or hold up your finger or say your Pater noster or your Ave Maria or weare a bead a modell a lace or my garment white or blacke or use any crossing either at Baptisme or any other time to do any one of these or any the like eo nomine because the Pope as Pope teacheth that they are to be done or commands the doing of them is in very deed a yeelding one selfe to be a vassall of Antichrist a receiving the marke of the beast and a vertuall or implicit deniall of the faith in Christ. So extremly venemous is that poison which lyeth in the root of that fundamentall heresie which they have laid as the very rocke and Foundation of their faith 34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baronius which concerned Heresie His other concerning Schisme is this That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended were Schismatikes A most strange assertion that the whole Catholike Church should bee schismaticall for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause that Catholikes should all at once become Schismatikes yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholike faith I oppose to this another and true assertion That not onely Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters and forsooke communion with the condemners of them was a Schismatike himselfe and chiefe of the Schisme but that all who as yet defend Vigilius that is who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith and forsake communion with those that condemne it that those all are and that for this very cause Schismatikes and the Pope the ringleader in the Schisme 35. For the manifesting whereof certaine it is that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly and judicially by his Apostolicall authority defined that the Three Chapters ought to be defended there was a great rent and Schisme in the Church either part separating it selfe from the other and forsaking communion with the other First the holy Councell and they who tooke part with it anathematized the defenders of those Chapters thereby as themselves expound it declaring their opposites to be separated from God and therefore from the society of the church of God On the other side Pope Vigilius they who were on his part were so averse from the others that they would rather endure disgrace yea banishment as Baronius sheweth thē communicate with their opposites But I shal not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schisme at this time betweene the defenders condemners of those chapters Baronius professeth it saying The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata torn asunder by a schisme Againe After the end of the Councell there arose a greater war then was before Catholikes so he falsly calls both parts being then divided among themselves some adhaering to the Councell others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution Againe Many relying upon the authority of Vigilius did not receive the fift Synod atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary Such were the Italian Africane Illirian other neighbour Bishops So Baronius truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part 36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes As the name of heresie though it bee common to any opinion whereof one makes choice whether it be true or false in which sense Constantine the great called the true faith Catholicam sanctissimam haeresim yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions as are repugnāt to the faith So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or renting of one from another yet now by the vulgar use of Divines it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause and from those to whom hee or they who are separated ought to unite themselves hold communion with them This whosoever doe whether they bee moe or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes and factious For it is neither multitude nor paucitie nor the holding with or against any visible head or governour whatsoever nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others but only the cause for which the separation is made which maketh a Schisme or faction and truly denounceth one to be factious or a Schismatike If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel because they are Idolaters and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal as they did If the three children for the like cause separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians in separation they are both like but in the cause being most unlike the Baalites onely and not Elijah and the Babylonians only and not the three children are Schismatikes Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church and hold communion with them in faith hence it is that as out of Austine Stapleton rightly observes Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the
Apostolicall authoritie decree that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By holding this one fundamentall position they are pertinacious in all their errours and that in the highest degree of pertinacy which the wit of man can devise yea and pertinacious before all conviction and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them For by setting this downe they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth though it should be manifested unto them that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves that they never will be convicted nor ever have the truth manifested unto them The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them that the doctrines which they maintaine are heresies were first to perswade the Pope who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall to make a contrary decree that they are hereticall Now although this may be morally judged to be a matter of impossibilitie yet if his Holinesse could be induced hereunto and would so farre stoope to Gods truth as to make such a decree even this also could not perswade them so long as they hold that foundation They would say either the Pope were not the true Pope or that he defined it not as Pope and ex Cathedra or that by consenting to such an hereticall decree hee ceased ipso facto to be Pope or the like some one or other evasion they would have still but grant the Popes sentence to be fallible or hereticall whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith yea as the foundation of their faith they would not Such and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed and that essentially to that one Position that so long as one holds it and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him or convert him to the truth 21. You doe now clearely see how feeble and inconsequent that Collection is which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith therein explaned Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes both ancient and moderne Quit him for this cause and quit them all condemne them and then this pretēce can no way excuse Vigilius frō heresie They all with him professe with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures of Fathers of generall Councels but because their profession is not onely lying and contradictorie to it selfe but alwayes such as that they retaine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace as Vigilius had not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures Fathers and Councels cannot make any of them nor Vigilius among them to be esteemed orthodoxall or Catholike but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine which they with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures or holy generall Councels as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters doth truly demonstrate them all and Vigilius among them to be heretikes And this may suffice for answer to the second exception or evasion of Baronius CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three of foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters It appeareth saith hee that Vigilius to the end he might take away the schisme and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie Againe when Vigilius saw that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West unlesse he consented to the fift Synod eam probavit he approved it Again Pelagius thought it fit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine Vigilius
though as it seemeth he remained in heart hereticall hee fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters that they did proclamare proclame him to be a colluder a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith one who to please the Emperour revolted from his former judgement yea the Africane Bishops proceeded so farre against him that as Victor Bishop of Tunen testifieth Synodaliter cum à catholica communione recludunt they in a Synod and synodally excommunicated him or shut him from the Catholike communion A thing worthy observing being done by those whom the Cardinall professeth to have beene Catholikes at that time But let that passe Baronius to excuse Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator and to shew that hee was not in heart affected with the truth which in his Constitution he declared tells us a rare policy of the Pope which for this time we omit but hereafter will examine the truth and validity thereof and this it was Mox presently after Vigilius had made that Apostolicall decree for condemning the three Chapters he revoked the same touched belike with remorse for so hainous a crime as to professe the Catholike faith and he suspended it and his owne judgement in that cause till the time of a generall Councell decreeing that untill that time all men should be whisht and silent in this cause of faith they must neither say that the Three Chapters were to bee defended nor condemned they must neither speake one word for the truth nor against the truth they must all during that time be like himselfe lukewarme Laodiceans neither hot nor cold neither fish nor flesh This was the great wisedome and policy of the Pope as Baronius at large declares and makes no small boast thereof adding that the Pope remained in this mood till the time of the general Councel Thus you see the second judgmeÌ„t of Pope Vigilius in this cause and his cariage during the second period for a fit which perhaps lasted a weeke or a month hee was in outward profession orthodoxall but being weary of such an ague hee presently becomes a meere neutralist in the faith and in this sort hee continued till the assembling of the generall Councell that is for the space of six yeares and more 8. The third period begins at the time of the fift generall Councell Of what judgement the Pope then was it hath before beene sufficiently declared Then Vigilius turned to his old byas hee condemned the Emperours Edict and all that with it condemned the three Chapters he defends those three hereticall chapters and that after a most authenticall manner publishing a Synodall a Cathedrall and Apostolicall constitution in defence of the â—ame And whereas not only others but himselfe also had written and some sixe yeares before made a Constitution to condemne those Chapters Now after long and diligent ponderation of the cause when hee had examined all matters cum omni undique cautela with all warinesse and circumspection that could possible be used he quite casheires repeales and forever adnuls that former Constitution and whatsoever either himselfe or any other either had before written or should after that time write contrary to this present Decree And this no doubt was the reason why Baronias never so much as once endeavors to excuse Vigilius by that former decree or to prove him to have beene orthodoxall by it seeing by this later the whole force and vertue of that former is utterly made void frustrate and of no effect in the world In this judgement Vigilius was so resolute that hee was ready to endure any disgrace and punishment rather then consent to the condemning of the three Chapters and if wee may beleeve Baronius or Binius he did for this very cause endure banishment It is manifest saith Binius that after the end of the fift Councell Iustinian did cast into banishment both Vigilius and other orthodoxall Bishops so hee termeth convicted and condemned heretikes because they would not consent to the decrees of the Synod and condemning of the three Chapters In like sort Baronius Liquet ex Anastasio it is manifest by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who held with him were caried into banishment Againe Others thought they had a just quarrell in defending the three Chapters when they saw Vigilius even in banishment to maintaine the same and they thought se pro sacro sanctis pugnare legibus that they fought for the holy faith when they saw Pope Vigilius himselfe for the same cause constanti animo exilium ferre to endure banishment with a constant minde Againe Horum solum causa for this cause onely was Vigilius driven into banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So Baronius who often calleth this exiling of Vigilius and others who defended those Chapters persecution yea an heavy and monstrous persecution complaining that the Church under Iustinian and from him endured more hard conditions and was in worse case then under the Heathen Emperors 9. Now this demonstrates that which before I touched that though the Pope upon his comming to Constantinople made a decree for condemning the Three Chapters yet still hee was in heart an affectionate lover of Nestorianisme and a defender of those Chapters seeing for his love to them and defence of them he is ready not onely to bee bound but to goe and dye in banishment for his zeale unto them For had he sincerely embraced the truth as in his former Constitution he professed why doth he now at the time of the fift Councell disclame the same Of all times this was the fittest to stand constanly to the faith seeing now both the glory of God the good and peace of the Church the authority of the Emperor the exaÌ„ple of orthodoxall Bishops and the whole Councell invited urged and provoked him to this holy duty What was there or could there be to move him at this time to defend the 3. Chapters save only his ardent and inward love to Nestorianisme Indeed had he continued in defence of those Chapters untill this time and now relented or changed his judgement it would have bin vehemeÌ„tly suspected that not the hatred of those chapters or of Nestorianisme but either the favour of the Emperor or the importunity of the Easterne Bishops or the feare of exile or deprivation or some such punishment had extorted that sentence and confession from him But now when hee decreeth contrary to the Emperour to the generall Councell and to his owne former and true judgement when by publishing this Decree he was sure to gaine nothing but the censure of an unconstant and wavering minded man the Anathema of the whole generall Councell and the heavy indignation of the Emperor when he goes thus against the maine current streame of the time who can thinke but that his onely motive to doe this was his zeale and love to Nestorianisme Love
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
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
unskilfull of the faith doubted to approve the fift Synod nay Concilium illud non observandum esse statuêre they decreed that the fift Synod should not be allowed or received What would so many Italian Bishops in an Italian Councell decree the quite contradictory to the Popes known judiciall sentence in a cause of faith the Pope decreed as Baronius saith that the fift Councell ought to be imbraced The Italian Synod decreeth that the fift Councell ought to be rejected Neither onely did they thus decree but as Bede noteth they continued in this opinion donec salutaribus beati Pelagij monitis instructa consensit untill being instructed by the wholsome admonitions of Pope Pelagius they consented to the fift Councell as other Churches did Now this Pelagius of whom Bede speaketh was Pelagius the second who was not Pope till more then 20. yeares after the death of Vigilius He to reclame those Bishops of Istria Venice and Liguria writ a very large and decretall Epistle which Binius compares to that of Leo to Flavianus wherin he declares every one of those Three Chapters to be repugnant to the faith and decrees of the ancient Councells By this decretall instruction of Pelagius the second were those Italian defenders of the Three Chapters after twenty yeares and more reduced as Bede noteth to the unity of the Church and to approve of the fift Councell Had Vigilius made as Baronius fancieth the like decree why tooke it not the like effect in those Westerne Bishops was there more then Apostolicall authority and instruction in the decree of Pelagius or was there lesse then that in the decree of Vigilius 6. Nay there is another speciall point to bee observed concerning that Epistle of Pelagius Elias Bishop of Aquileia and the rest who defended the three Chapters among other reasons urged the authority of Vigilius on their part therby countenancing their error in that they taught no other doctrine in defending those Chapters then the Apostolicall See had taught by Vigilius thus writ they in their Apology which they sent to Pelagius ayming no doubt at that Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius published in the time of the Councell whereby hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought by all to be defended for that was it as the Cardinall saith which moved nay enforced all to follow that opinion and to defend the Three Chapters What doth Pelagius now answer to this reason Truly had Vigilius made any such later Decree as the Cardinall fancieth by which he had approved the fift Synod and so both condemned the three Chapters and repealed his owne former judgement in defence thereof neither could Pelagius have beene ignorant of that decree neither would he being so earnestly pressed therewith have omitted that oportunity both to grace Vigilius and most effectually confute that which was the speciall reason on which his opposites did relye Could he have truly replyed that Vigilius himselfe upon better advise had recalled his Decree made in defence of those Chapters and by his last Apostolicall judgement condemned the same Chapters this had cut insunder the very sinewes of that objection But Pelagius returnes them not this answer but knowing that to bee true which they said of Vigilius hee tells them which is a point worthy observing that the Apostolike See might change their judgement in this cause and this even by Pelagius himselfe is a cause of faith and that the ignorance of the Greeke in the Westerne Bishops was the cause why they so lately consented to the fift Synod And so though Vigilius had judged that the Three Chapters ought to be defended yet the successors of Vigilius might long after as they did teach and himselfe define that the same Chapters ought to bee condemned and that the fift Councell wherein they were condemned ought to bee approved A very strong inducement that Pelagius knew not and then that Vigilius made not any such Decree as the Cardinall commendeth unto us 7. For any Apostolicall Decree then whereby Vigilius after his exile recalled his former judgment or approved the fift Councell there was none as besides those reasons which the Cardinall himselfe giveth the persisting of the Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters not onely after the death of Vigilius but till the time of Pelagius the second makes evident If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof it was onely by some private or personall but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all this is the most that can be collected from them And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them yet can it no way helpe their cause or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible onely it would serve to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike or under the Anathema of the holy Councell For as they teach and teach it with ostentation as a matter of great wit and subtilty that the Pope may erre personally or in his owne person hold an heresie which onely hurts himselfe and not the Church but erre doctrinally or judicially define an heresie he cannot even so to pay them with their owne coine might it fall out at this time with Vigilius hee being wearied with long exile might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters and approve the Synod which may be called a personall truth or a personal profession in the Pope the benefit wherof was onely to redound to himselfe either to free him from the censure of the Synod or procure the Emperors favour goodwill that he might returne home to his See but that this professing supposing he made it was doctrinall or Cathedrall delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like neither Baronius nor any of all his favourers can ever prove Now were I sure that the Cardinall or his friends would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination But alas they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement As personall errors hurt them not so personall truths helpe them not Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall Doctrinall Apostolicall and Cathedrall or he will have none at all And therefore to demonstrate how farre Vigilius was frō decreeing this I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended not doubting to make it evident that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters and approve the fift Councell after the end of the fift Synod or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth 8.
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
same time while the holy Councell was held in the Church at Ephesus held a Conventicle by themselves in an Inne in the same Citie and yet notwithstanding the personall absence of the first the negligent of the second and wilfull absence of the last the holy generall Councell saith of their Synodall judgement given by those who were then present that it was nihil aliud quam communis concors terrarum orbis sensus consensus nothing else but the common and consenting judgment of the whole world How could this be when so many Bishops besides three Patriarchs were either personally or negligently or wifully absent How was there in that decree the consent of these Truly because they all even all the Bishops in the world did either personally or by their Agents expresse or else in such a tacit and implicit manner as wee declared wrap up their judgement in the Synodall decree made by the Bishops present in the Councell 28. But what if many of those who are present doe dissent from that which the rest being the greater part doe decree Truly even these also doe implicitè and are in reason to bee judged to consent to that same decree For every one is supposed to agree on that generall Maxime of reason that in such an assembly of Iudges what the greater part decreeth shall stand as the Act and Iudgement of the whole seeing otherwise it would be impossible that such a multitude of Bishops should ever give any judgement in a cause for still some in perversenesse and pertinacie would dissent Seeing then it is the ordinance of God that the Church shall judge and seeing there can no other meanes be devised how they should judge unlesse the sentence of the greater part may stand for their judgement reason enforceth all to consent upon this Maxime Vpon this is that Imperiall Law grounded Quod major pars curiae effecit pro rato habetur acsi omnes id egerint what the greater part of the Court shall do that is ratified or to stand for the judgement of the Court as if all had done the same And againe Refertur ad universos quod publicè fit per majorem partem That is accounted the act of all which is publikely done by the greater part Vpon this ground is that truly said by Bellarmine That whereon the greater part doth consent est verum decretum Concilij is the true decree of the Councell even of the whole Councell Vpon the equitie of this rule was it said in the Councell at Chalcedon when ten Bishops dissented from the rest Non est justum decem audiri It is not just that the sentence of ten should prevaile against a thousand and two hundred Bishops Vpon the equitie of the same rule did the fift generall Councell truly constantly judge that the Councell of Chalcedon even in that definition of faith which they all with one consent agreed upon condemned the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall although they knew that Maximus with Pascasinus and the other Legats of Pope Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon adjudged that Epistle to be orthodoxall How was it the consenting judgement of the whole Councell of Chalcedon when yet some did expresse their dissent therein How but by that implicit consent which all give to that rule of reason that the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgment of the whole which the fift Councell doth plainly signifie saying In Councels we must not attend the interloquutions of one or two but what is defined in common ab omnibus aut amplioribus either by all or by the greater part to that we must attend as to the judgement of the whole Councell But omitting all the rest there is one example in the Councell of Chalcedon most pregnant to this purpose 29. All the Councell save onely the Popes Legates consented upon that third Canon decreed in the second and now confirmed in this fourth Councell that the See of Constantinople should have Patriarchall dignity over Thrace Asia and Pontus and have precedence before other Patriarches as the next after the Bishop of Rome The Legates following the instructions of Leo were so averse in this matter that they said not without some choler Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat Let our contradiction cleave to these Acts and so it doth to the eternall disgrace both of them and their master The glorious Iudges notwithstanding this dissenting of the Legates and of Pope Leo himselfe in them said concerning that Canon That which we have spoken that the See of Constantinople ought to be the second c. Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved it Why but the Popes Legates approved it not they contradicted it True in this particular they dissented But because they as all other Bishops even Pope Leo himselfe consented unto that generall Maxime That the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole Councell in that generall both the Legats of Leo and Leo himselfe did implicitè and virtually consent to that very Canon from which actually and explicitè they did then dissent For which cause the most prudent Iudges truly said Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved this Canon either explicitè or implicitè either expressely or virtually approved it Neither did onely those secular Iudges so esteeme the whole generall Councell it selfe professed the same and that even in the Synodall Relation of their Acts to Pope Leo The universall Synod said thus We have condemned Dioscorus we have confirmed the faith wee have confirmed the Canon of the second Councell for the honour of the See of Constantinople we have condemned the heresie of Eutyches Thus writ the whole Councell to Leo declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it 30. You see now that in every sentence of a generall and lawfull Councell there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters they all either explicitè or tacitè or implicitè consenting to that decree whether they be absent or present and whether in that particular they consent or dissent Now because there can bee no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiasticall matter than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters that is of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes it hence clearly ensueth that there neither is nor can be any Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree greater stronger or of more authority then is the judgement it selfe of such a generall Councell and their owne confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world 31. Besides this confirmation of any synodall decree which is by
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
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
Edicts Procopius who was familiarly conversant with Iustinian recites that traiterous perswasion of Arsaces to Artabanus when he excited him to murther the Emperour This said hee you may doe easily and without danger for the Emperour is not mistrustfull and he passeth the time till very late of the night in talking without any watch or guard having none but some old and feeble Bishops about him Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus being marvellously addicted to reade and peruse the writings of Christians Are these thinke you the actions of an illiterate of an Abcedary Emperour And what speake I of these The Pandects the Code the Authentikes the Institutions the whole body of the law proclame the incredible wisedome and rare knowledge of Iustinian All people saith he are governed by the lawes Tam à nobis promulgatis quam compositis as well published as composed by us and though he used the learning helpe and industry of other worthy men whose names he hath commended to all posterity and never-dying fame yet when they offred the bookes unto him Et legimus recognovimus saith he wee both read them and examined them which the glosse explaineth saying Nos ipsi legimus We our selves have reade and perused them So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shamelesse untruth of Baronius in reviling him for an illiterate and not so much as an Abcedarie scholler whose wit learning and prudence hath beene and will for ever bee a mirrour to all ages 4. But Suidas saith the Cardinall doth affirme the same calling Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and void of all learning For answer whereunto first I would gladly know of the Cardinal how hee can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas specially seeing their owne Iesuite Possevine tels us for a certainty that Plaeraque very many things are falsly inserted into Suidas and that à Sciolis Schismaticis by some smatterers or Schismaticks and further that those Plaeraque are such as are repugnant to the Euangelicall truth and Historicall sinceritie How may we bee assured that this concerning Iustinian is not one of those Plaeraque seeing this to be contrary to Historicall sincerity doth by those many and evident proofes which wee before produced fully appeare Againe admitting Suidas for the Author thereof is Suidas thinke you of more or equall authority and credit to their Pontificall which witnesseth expresly that Iustinian writ the holy confession of his faith Chirographo proprio with his owne hand Equall to Tritemius and Possevine or to winke at them to Pope Agatho and the sixt generall Councell who all account Iustinian among the Writers of the Church Who I pray you was this Suidas truly an earnest defender of those impieties which in their second Nicene Synod began to prevaile who in reviling manner doth call Constantine Iconomachus a Serpent an Antichrist and the disciple of the Devill and all for his not consenting to the adoration of Images and reliques and to the Invocation of Saints Now how this sort of men were given to lyes and fables the Acts of that Synod doe fully demonstrate Or if you rather desire to have their Iesuites judgement of Suidas hee will tell you first that he was hereticall in teaching the Essence in the Godhead to be generative which their Laterane Councell hath condemned for an heresie Hee will tell you further that this booke is full of errours fables and lyes of which sort are these among many That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos that it shal continue 1200. thousand yeares that the Sun and Starres are fierie substances fed and perpetuated by terrestriall humours as their nutriment that Paradise is Hortus pensilis a garden hanging in the ayre farre above the earth that Caine was begotten of the Devill which is a lye that the Iewes adored an asses head and every seventh yeare sacrificed a stranger His narration in verbo Nero touching Annas and Caiphas Pilate Peter and Simon Magus wherin multa comminiscitur he forgeth many things His narration in verbo Iulianus which hee calleth in expresse words mendacium flagiciosissimum a most lewd lie His slandering Constantine the great as base of birth and his sonne Crispus as incestuous His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretikes adding that hee writeth many things contra Historiae veritatem against the Historicall truth His relation in verbo Apolonius where many things are praised quae omnia monstrosa sunt prorsus explodenda all which are utterly to be hissed at where also he seemeth to allow the impious Art of Magicke and Divinations His approving of Appolonius and Danis two wicked Magitians who both are relegati ad inferos condemned to Hell And to omit very many of this kinde of impieties and fables which abound in Suidas His narration in verbo Iesus which not onely Baronius rejecteth but Pope Paul the fourth for that cause beside some other exploded the booke of Suidas and placed it in the ranke librorum prohibitorum Such even by the confession of their owne Iesuite is this Suidas a depraver of good a commender of wicked men a fabler a lyer a falsifier of Histories a Magitian an Heretike whose booke is by the Pope forbidden to bee read Such a worthy witnesse hath the Cardinall of his Suidas with whom he conspireth in reviling Iustinian as one utterly unlearned Concerning which untruth I will say no more at this time than that which Gotofrâ—d doth in his censure of those words of Suidas where calling it in plaine termes a slander he rejects it as it justly deserveth in this manner Valeant calumniae nos sinceriora sequamur Away with this and such like opprobrious slanders of Suidas and Baronius but let us follow the truth 5. His second reproofe of the Emperour is for presuming to make lâ—res in causes of faith which for Kings and Emperours to doe brings as he saith an hellish confusion into the Church of God The wit of a Cardinall Iustinian may not doe that which King Hezekiah which Asa which Iesiah and Constantine the great the two Theodosu Martian and other holy Emperours before had done and done it by the warrant of God to the eternall good of the Church and their owne immortall â—ame Had hee indeed or any of those Emperours taken upon them by their lawes to establish some new erronious or hereticall doctrine the Cardinall might in this case have justly reproved them but this they did not what doctrines the Prophets delivered the word of God taught and holy Synods had before decreed and explaned those and none else did Iustinian by his Edict and other religious Emperours ratifie by their imperiall authority Heare Iustinians owne words Wee have thought it needfull by this our Edict to manifest that right confession of faith quae in sancta Dei Ecclesiá praedicatur which is preached in the holy Church of God Here
judicandus est he is but a foole and his reason is far worse than his censure because he is not so virulent and spitefull in condemning the Emperour Iustinian as the Card. could wish him and as himselfe is besides what Nicephorus saith is but borrowed from Evagrius Possevine calls him Asseclam a Page or Ape of Evagrius and therefore the answer to Evagrius will be sufficient for him also 23. His middle witnesse is Eustathius the writer of the life of Eutychius which is set forth by Surius He at large indeed describeth this matter both how Iustinian fell into this heresie of the Aphthardokites how hee writ an Edict for the same and read it to Eutychias B. of Constantinople urging him to approve it how when he refused so to doe the Emperor for this cause thrust him from his See and sent him into banishment where he lived working abundance of miracles for the space of 12. yeares till Tiberius the Emperour restored him with great honour This is the summe of that narration of Eustathius in which the Card. much pleaseth himselfe as if all that Eustathius saith in this matter were an undoubted Oracle seeing Eustathius as he often boasteth was present with Eutychius in all these occurrents and an eye-witnesse of them 24. But why did the Card. mention this worthy record out of Surius could hee finde this writing of Eustathius in no better Author than Surius Surius a man so prostitute in faith so delighted in lyes and forgeries of this kinde with which he hath stuffed his Lives of the Saints that at the very first naming of Surius I suspected this Eustathius to be but a forged Author and a fabler the rather because neither Photius nor Sixtus Senensis nor Possevine who all writ Bibliothecas nor Tritemius mention any such Eustathius to have writ the life of Eutychius But after I had perused and considered the writing it selfe I did no longer suspect but I found which now I do constantly affirm that Surian Eustathius to be so vile abject a fabler and so full of lyes that none but such as Surius and Baronius men delighted in applauding forgeries and untruths can give any credit at all to that Surian Eustathius By one or two examples take a conjecture of all the rest 25. That Eustathius describing the entrance of Eutychius to the See of Constantinople tells us that after the fift generall Councell was summoned Eutychius was sent thither by the Bishop of Amasea who then was sicke to supplie his roome in the Councell Mennas then Patriarch of Constantinople exhorted Eutychius not to depart from him and shewing Eutychius to the Clergie said of him by way of prophesie for that Eustathius is full of miracles prophesies and visions unto them This Monke shall be my successor and then sent him to the Emperor Some few dayes after this Mennas dyed and whereas many sued for the Bishopricke the Emperour had a vision wherein S. Peter appeared unto him shewing him Eutychius and saying Fac ut hic sit Episcopus see that this man be the Bishop of Constantinople The Emperour acquainted the Clergy with his vision and upon his oath testified it unto them whereupon they all chose Eutychius and then he was consecrated Thus the Surian Eustathius A narration so sottish and so absurd that nothing can bee more ridiculous and so untrue that there are not so many words as lyes therein The fift Councell was not summoned till the 26. yeare of Iustinian and that before then it could not be summoned Baronius evidently sneweth For the summons to the Councell followed as he saith the restoring of Vigilius and his reconcilement both to the Emperour to Mennas and to Theodorus of Caesarea all which he placeth in the 26. yeare of Iustinian Now it is certaine by that testimony of the Popes Legates which before was handled and was uttered before the sixt generall Councell and is acknowledged for true by Baronius that Mennas died in the 21. yeare of Iustinian that is foure whole yeares at the least before the summons of the Councell or before Eutychius came to Constantinople being sent from the Bishop of Amasea What a dull and doltish legend now is this of Eustathius to make Eutychius come and converse with Mennas to be brought by him to the Clergy to be designed and prophetically foretold by Mennas to bee his successor when Mennas was dead foure whole yeares before he did any of these things what a prophane fiction is it to make the Emperour see a vision and Saint Peter to command him to take care that Eutychius should be chosen and the Emperour to avouch all this upon his oath to be true whereas not one syllable thereof is true or so much as possible seeing Eutychius was actually placed in that See full foure years before this vision or before Saint Peter gave that strait charge unto Iustinian They who can beleeve these phantasticall dotages of that Surian Eustathius and Baronius applauds this with the other narrations in that Eustathius little marvell if upon his report they upbraid that which is every way as incredible that Iustinian fell into that heresie of the Phantastickes and banished Eutychius for not consenting to the same 26. Of no more truth is that which the same Eustathius sets downe for the continuance of the banishment of Eutychius which was the space of twelve whole yeares untill Tiberius was associated into the Empire by Iustinus and in the same yeare when Iohn the successor to Eutychius dyed For Theophanes as the Card calls him as other though amisse Paulus Diâ—conus but the author of the Miscella Historia expresly witnesseth that Iustinus who began his reigne two yeares after the banishment of Eutychius was crowned by Eutychius And Zonar as for a certainty relates how that before Tiberius was associated when Iustinus was sicke he called besides others Eutychius unto him and in their presence nominated Tiberius to be his partner in the Empire for Iohn saith he being dead Eutychius was reduced from banishment restored then to his See and that Tiberius was crowned by the same Eutychius Which evidently demonstrates the vanity of that whole Eustathian Narration wherein it is said that after the Empire of Tiberius begun the people came to them to entreat the restoring of Eutychius that the Emperors upon their supplication sent post hast to Amasea to bring him home out of banishment that the Angell of God brought him miraculously thence that the people flocked unto him in every place that they laid their sicke in the way that at least the shadow of this second Peter might touch them and according to their faith they were cured that he came like another Messias riding on the Colt of an Asse into Constantinople the people cutting downe boughes spreading their garments for him and so was with admirable joy received by the Emperors and
that I must be bold to tell him that it also is a fiction and that Vigilius brought no such Ioviall darts with him to Constantinople or if he did he spent them not upon the Empresse It was Pope Agapetus and not Vigilius by whom if by any Theodora was excommunicated seeing Theodora did contend with Agapetus about Anthimus and that also before his deposition It was he which called Theodora Eleutheria a persecuting Empresse Vigilius had no occasion at his comming to excommunicate her the cause of Anthimus was before that ended Theodora and Vigilius consented together in one profession of faith he condemning the three Chapters a little after he came to Constantinople as well as the Empresse could not condemne or excommunicate her for an heretike but hee must condemne himselfe also I but Pope Gregory saith expresly he did excommunicate her Might I in stead of an answer say as some of their owne Writers do in another cause Gregorius hîc non est audiendus Gregory is here not to bee regarded or but say as their owne Bishop Canus doth that Gregory was too credulous in writing reports the matter were soone answered But I am not willing to censure Gregory so hard as they doe my answer is that the name of Vigilius is by an error either of the writer or Printer of Gregory inserted there in stead of Agapetus for of Agapetus Victor is an expresse witnesse that he indeed deprived Theodora of the communion All the circumstances accord thereunto Theodora was then an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon she tooke part and was a patron of Anthimus Gregory himselfe notes this fact to be done equally against the whole sect of the Acephalian heretikes as against Theodora now Vigilius had nothing to doe with those heretikes it was the cause of the three Chapters wherewith hee was troubled the heads of the Acephali Anthimus Severus Petrus Zoaras and their followers were condemned both by Agapetus and by the great Councell of Constantinople under Mennas where were present the Legates of the Romane See Agapetus being lately dead and the same sentence was confirmed by the Emperour Iustinian at the end of the Synod so that there was nothing left for Vigilius to doe against the Acephali who both by the Pontificall Synodall and Imperiall sentence were condemned nine yeares before his comming to Constantinople Lastly the very scope and coherence of Gregories text doth inforce this correction The defenders of the three Chapters alledged that since the time of the fift Councell wherein the three Chapters were condemned many calamities had befalne Italy whereupon they concluded that God afflicted the Church for that decree of the fift Councell and for condemning of those three Chapters Gregory to refute this their reason alledged another example and of former times to wit of condemning the Acephali whom they to whom Gregory writ acknowledged for heretikes saying Postquam after Pope Agapetus when he came into this kingly City denounced a sentence of condemnation against Theodora and the Acephali then was Rome besieged and taken by the enemies that is the Gothes was therefore God angry for that sentence against the Acephali Apply this reason to Vigilius and his time and it is not onely untrue but unfit to the purpose of Gregory for before Vigilius his comming to Constantinople not only Vitiges the Goth possessed Rome from whom Bellisarius in the time of Silverius recovered it and made great havocke in Italy but Totilas also before Vitiges came besieged it so hard that by reason of the famine they were driven not onely to eate mice and dogs but even dung also and last of all one to eate up another and that same yeare Totilas tooke Rome sacked it and had purposed utterly to have abolished it and burnt it to ashes but that Bellisarius by his most prudent and fortunate perswasions staid him from that barbarous immanity Now seeing not onely the siege but captivity of Rome was after the comming of that Pope to Constantinople and sentence against Theodora of whom Gregory speaketh it must needs be hee meant Pope Agapetus whose sentence all the foresaid calamities follow and not Vigilius before whose comming to Constantinople Rome was besieged by Totilas and taken also before the sentence if it was as by Anastasius is to be gathered not denounced till the second yeare after Vigilius his comming thither Neither onely had the reason of Gregory beene untrue but most unfit for his purpose had he meant Vigilius in this place for hee clearly intends such a calamity as hapned before the condemning of the three Chapters but after the condemning of the Acephali Now it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Councell and by the Emperours testimony that as the Easterne Bishops so also Vigilius presently after he came to Constantinople consented to condemne the three Chapters yea condemned them by a Pontificall decree and judgement and continued in that minde till the time of the fift Councell at which time by the general Synod they were also condemned Gregory then should have spoken against himselfe had hee meant Vigilius and his comming to Constantinople in saying that after the sentence of Vigilius against Theodora the City was besieged and taken as it was once againe indeed taken by Totilas in the 23. yeare of Iustinus for his adversaries to whom he writ being defenders of the three Chapters would have replyed against him that this calamity befell them from the very same cause seeing both the Easterne Bishops and the Pope consented in that doctrine of condemning of the three Chapters Thus it appeareth not by surmises and conjectures but by certaine and evident proofe that the text of Gregory is corrupted or else that Gregory himselfe was mistaken therein which in a matter so neare his dayes wee may not thinke and so that it was not Vigilius but Agapetus whom Gregory intended to denounce that sentence against the Acephali or Theodora of which Baronius maketh such boast and commends with such great ostentation that thereby he might make the Empresse who was a condemner of the three Chapters more odious and strengthen that fiction and fabulous tale of Anastasius that Vigilius contended with Iustinian and Theodora about Anthimus CAP. XXII How Baronius declameth against the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters and a refutation thereof 1. BAronius not content to wrecke his spite upon the Emperour and Empresse in such uncivill manner as you have seene carpes in the next place at the very cause it selfe of the three Chapters What did Vigilius saith hee offend in appointing that men should be silent and say nothing untill the future Synod of this cause of the three Chapters which if it could have beene potius perpetuo erat silentio condemnanda sopienda sepelienda atque penitus extinguenda was rather to be condemned to perpetuall silence to be buried and utterly extinguished Againe I doe never feare to
avouch that it had beene much better that the Church had remained without these controversies about the three Chapters nec unquam de his aliquis habitus esset sermo and that there had never beene one word spoken of them Thus Baronius 2. What thinke you moved the Cardinall to have such an immortall hatred to this cause as to wish the condemning buriall and utter extinguishing of those controversies What more hurt did this to the Church than the question about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or about the opinion of Eutiches Very great calamity saith Baronius insued upon this controversie both in the East and West True it did so and so there did and far greater and longer about the controversie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more againe than that upon the question whether the Gospell or Paganisme should prevaile and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated the truth of Christ spred abroad the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospell No affliction calamity or persecution is a just cause either to wish that there had never beene any such controversie or to forsake the truth of God when the controversie is moved It was an excellent saying of the Aegyptian Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon Christianus neminem timet a Christian feareth no mortall man si homines timerentur martyres non essent if men should be feared there would be no Martyrs But the truth is it was not as Baronius fancieth the controversie it selfe nor the disputing and debating thereof that caused so great calamities in the East and West that is non causa pro causa the peevishnesse and perversenesse of wicked men maintaining heresies and oppugning the truth that was the true cause thereof The controversie it selfe if you well marke it was very beneficiall to the Church Oportet haereses esse there must be heresies among you that they which are approved might bee knowne Every heresie is a probation and tryall of mens love to God and his truth whether they esteeme it more than their honours pleasures and their owne wilfull conceits and the greater the heresie is and the further it spreads it is still a greater tryall Heretikes saith S. Austen doe much profit the Church though they be out of the Church not by teaching the truth which they doe not know but by stirring up those who are more carnall Catholikes to seeke and those who are more spirituall to defend and manifest the truth This triall and probation of men if I mistake not was never so great in any controversie or question as in this of the three Chapters First it sifted and tryed Vigilius to the full and tryed him to be a wether-cocke in faith an heretike and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolicall authority Next it sifted out divers notable conclusions as first that which I think was never before that tryed that not onely the Pope but the Apostolike See also to wit the Romane Church and with it the Westerne Churches all at once adhered to heresie and forsooke the truth and that even after it was decreed and judged by the generall approved Councell and so it proved both Pope and Romane Church to be properly hereticall the Easterne Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time it shewed that the Catholike faith was tied neither to the Chair nor Church of Rome Another conclusion then tryed was that either persons or Churches may not onely dissent from the Pope and the Romane Church and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod but may renounce communion with them and yet remaine Catholikes and in the unity of the Catholike Church the Pope the Westerne Church and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholike faith Heretikes and by forsaking the unity of the Church Schismatikes 3. Neither onely was this controversie a triall to them in that age a tryall of their faith love to God charity to the Church obedience to the Emperour but it is as great a triall even in these our dayes and ever since that doctrine of the Popes infallibility in causes of faith hath beene defined and condemned By this controversie most happly decided by the generall Councell all that hold the Popes definitions of faith to be infallible that is all that are Papists or members of the present Church of Rome they are all hereby tryed to defend this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius that is to maintaine all the blasphemies of the Nestorians to deny the Catholike faith the doctrine of the Apostles of the primative Church of the fift generall Councell so to be not only heretikes but convicted anathematized and cōdemned heretikes by the judgement of a generall approved Councell and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church Further yet there is a tryall of them whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine or position of faith or religion if they doe as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that they are againe hereby tryed to be hereticall not onely in the foundation but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion which relyes upon that foundation 4. This was it which netled Baronius and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes that this controversie had never beene heard of nor mentioned in the world he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men of doctrines of Churches of the Pope himselfe and their whole Romish Church and seeing that tryall he never ceased to say that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved nor spoken of for so they had avoided this most notable triall Blessed be God for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated and discussed to the utmost that among many other tryals this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed and discovered to the world it is for them I say to wish that the controversies about Arianisme Nestorianisme Eutycheanisme and the like had never beene moved they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes But Catholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies by which both the truth which they maintaine is made more resplendent and victorious themselves and their faith tryed to be like refined gold the Church thereby is quieted the truth propagated heresies confounded and the glory of Almighty God much more magnified and praysed CAP. XXIII How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus B. of Caesarea and a refutation of the same 1. SEeing now notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius this controversie could not be buried it ought him and all ill-willers
they must bee taken in the Dative case as if Theodorus had sollicited them to consent to his words that is as the Cardinall supposeth to the Edict which was penned and written by him or whereof he was the Author Sure against this Baronian construction the words of Liberatus are very pregnant seeing Theodorus as hee sheweth was one who entreated the Emperour to indite or dictate the booke and the Emperour promised so to doe If then Theodorus sollicited the Bishops to consent to the words of the Edict hee certainly urged them by this testimonie of Liberatus to consent not to his owne but to the Emperours words of whose inditing and dictating the Edict was Admit them to bee the Dative how knowes the Cardinall that by tuis vocibus are ment the words of the Edict might not Theodorus signifie to the Bishops his owne great liking of the Emperours Edict and perswade them to the like to say as he said to consent to his words in approving the Imperiall Edict The Card was too secure negligēt in relying on these words tuis vocibus which being so ambiguous receive divers those also just exceptions But yet there is a farre worse fault in this proofe that the Epistle whence the Cardinall citeth these words though it beare the name of Vigilius yet is intruth not the Epistle of Vigilius but a very counterfeit and base forgery under his name full of untruths unworthy of any credit at all which besides other proofes hereafter to be alleaged faineth Mennas to be Bishop of Constantinople and to be excommunicated together with Theodorus by Vigilius foure or five yeares after hee was dead which censure was to stand in force till Mennas repented of his contumacie against the Popes Decree and should be reconciled to him This lying and base forgery doth Baronius bring to prove Theodorus and not Iustinian to bee the author of this Imperiall Edict Might not one say here as was said of the Asse Like lips like lettuce Such a writing is a most fit witnesse for Baronius who delighteth in untruths and not finding true records to give testimony to them it was fit hee should applaud the most vile and abject forgeries if they seeme to speak ought pleasing to the Cardinals pallate or which may serve to support his untruths 9. You see that yet it appeares not that Theodorus was the writer or penner of this Decree none of Baronius his witnesses affirming it and Liberatus who is the best of them all affirming the contrary I might now with this answer put off a great part of those reviling speeches which Baronius so prodigally bestoweth on Theodorus But I minde not so to leave the Cardinall nor suffer the proud Philistine so insolently to revile and insult over any one of the Israelites much lesse this worthy Bishop of Cesarea to whom hee could not have done a greater honor than in that which he intended as an exceeding disgrace to him to call and account him the Author and Writer of this Edict It is no small honour that Iustinian so wise and religious an Emperour should commit the care of so waighty a matter to Theodorus that hee should have him in so high esteeme as account his word an Oracle to bee guided and directed by his judgement so to adhere unto him as Constantine did to that renowned Hosius as to thinke it a piaculum or great offence not to follow his advice in matters of so great waight consequence and importance Nay this one Edict supposing with the Cardinall Theodorus to bee the Author of it shall not onely pleade for Theodorus but utterly wipe away all those vile slanders of heresie impiety imprudency and the like so often and so odiously objected and exaggerated by the Cardinall against him this writing and the words thereof being as whosoever readeth them will easily conceive and if hee deale ingenuously confesse the words of truth of faith of sobriety of profound knowledge evidences of a minde full fraught with faith with piety with the love of God and Gods Church and in a word full of the holy Ghost As Sophocles being accused to doate recited his Oedipus Coloneus and demanding whether that did seeme the Poeme of a doating man was by the sentence of all the Iudges acquitted So none can reade this Edict but forthwith acknowledge it a meere calumny in Baronius to call the maker of it an heretike whose profession of faith is so pious divine and Catholike Or rather Theodorus may answer that Baronian slander with the like words as did S. Paul They neither found me making an uproare among the people nor in the Synagogues nor in the City neither can they prove these things whereof they now accuse mee but this I confesse that after this way declared in this Edict which they call heresie so worship I the God of my fathers 10. Now as this may serve for a generall Antidote at once as it were to expell all the whole poyson of those Baronian calumnies so if we shall descend to particulars the innocency of Theodorus as also the malice and malignity of Baronius will much more clearly appeare The crimes objected to Theodorus by Baronius are reduced to three heads one his threefold heresie another his opposing himselfe to Pope Vigilius or the Decree of Taciturnity in the cause of the Three Chapters the third his misleading of Iustinian into the heresie of the Aphthardokites and so causing that great persecution of the Church which thereupon ensued all the other disgracefull termes are but the superfluity of that malice which the Cardinall beares against all that were opposite to Vigilius and his Apostolicall Constitution To begin then with that which is easiest the two last crimes are not so easily uttered as refuted they both are nothing else but meere slanders and calumnies without any certaine ground or probability of truth devised either by Baronius himselfe or by such as he is enemies and haters of the truth and truly for the later his misleading Iustinian into the heresie of the Apthardokites that is not onely a manifest untruth for Iustinian as wee have before proved did not onely at all hold that heresie but it is wholly forged and devised by Baronius he hath not any one Author no not so much as a forged writing to testifie this no nor any probable collection out of any Author to induce him to lay this imputation upon Theodorus the world is wholly and soly beholden to the Cardinall for this shamelesse calumny and yet see the wisedome of Baronius herein hee was not content barely and in a word to taxe and reprove Theodorus which had beene more than sufficient having no proofe nor evidence of the crime but in this passage as if shee had demonstratively proved Theodorus to bee guilty hereof hee rageth and foameth like a wilde Bore against him calling him a most wicked man and most vehement propugner of blasphemy the plague of the whole Church who with
they condemne the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall and by that Epistle condemne the Councell of Chalcedon à qua suscepta est by which that Epistle is approved Thus Facundus so very heretically that Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus nor any cōdemned heretike could wish or say more than Facundus hath done both for their heresies against the Councell of Chalcedon For the impious Epistle of Ibas is wholly hereticall the approving of it is the overthrow of the whole Catholike faith and yet Facundus not onely himselfe defendeth that impious Epistle as orthodoxall and by it defendeth the person and writing of Theodorus of Mopsvestia a condemned heretike but avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to approve the same which condemnes it and every part of it even to the lowest pit of hell 14. Here by the way I must in a word put the reader in minde of one or two points which concern Possevine and Baronius in this passage If Facundus be a condemned heretike for writing in defence of the three Chapters what else can Possevine be who praysed those bookes of a condemned heretike for thus he writeth Facundus writ opus grande atque elegans a great and elegant worke containing twelve books fortified by the authorities of the Fathers in defence of the three Chapters Heretike Is that a brave and elegant booke that defendeth heresie can heresie be fortified by the testimonies of the holy Fathers What is this else but to make the holy Fathers heretikes So hereticall and spitefull is Possevine that together with himselfe he would draw the ancient and holy Fathers into one and the same crime of heresie The other point concernes Baronius hee sayth that the controversie or contention about the three Chapters was inter Catholicos tantum onely among such as were Catholikes doth not he plainly thereby signifie his opinion of Facundus that he was a Catholike for Facundus was as hot and earnest a contender in that controversie as Vigilius himselfe he writ in defence of the three Chapters twelve whole bookes elegant and brave bookes as Possevine saith he bitterly inveighed against the Emperour against all the condemners of them against Pope Vigilius himselfe when hee after his comming to Constantinople consented to the Emperor Seeing this Facundus a convicted and condemned hehetike is one of the Cardinals Catholikes must not heresie and Nestorianisme bee with him Catholike doctrine must not the impious Epistle be orthodoxall and the overthrow of the faith and decree of the Councell at Chalcedon bee an Article of Baronius faith even that which he accounted the Catholike faith But this by the way We see now what manner of Bishop Facundus was an obstinate heretike pertinaciously persisting in heresie What though Facundus call Theodorus of Caesarea an Origenist Did not the old Nestorians call Cyrill and other Catholikes Apollinarians of whom it seemes the defenders of the three Chapters learned to calumniate the Catholikes with the names of heretikes and Origenists when they were in truth wholly opposite to those and other heresies Can any expect a true testimony concerning Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea from Facundus concerning Catholikes from heretikes their immortall and malicious enemies nor theirs onely but enemies to the truth Such and of such small worth is the former witness of Baronius in this cause and against Theodorus 15. His other witnesse is Liberatus the Deacon who indeed sayth as plainly as Baronius that Theodorus was an Origenist and refers the occasion of that whole controversie touching the three Chapters to the malice of the same Theodorus For as Liberatus saith Pelagius the Popes Legate when he was at Constantinople entreated of the Emperour that Origen and his heresies wherewith the Easterne Churches specially about Ierusalem were exceedingly troubled might be condemned whereunto the Emperour willingly assenting published an Imperiall Edict both against him and his errors when Theodorus being an Origenist perceived that Origen who was long before dead was now condemned he to be quit with Pelagius for procuring the condemnation of Origen moved the Emperour also to condemne Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia who had written much against Origen whose writings were detested of all the Origenists the Emperour at Theodorus his suggestion made another Edict wherein he condemned Theodorus of Mopsvestia and the two other Chapters touching the writings of Theodoret and Ibas which bred so long trouble in the Church Thus Liberatus Who as you see speaketh as much and as eagerly against Theodorus as Baronius could wish and Liberatus lived and writ about that same time 16. Liberatus in many things is to be allowed in those especially wherein by partiality his judgement was not corrupt But in this cause of the Three Chapters in the occasion and circumstances thereof hee is a most unfit witnesse himselfe was deepely interressed in this cause partiality blinded him his stile was sharpe against the adverse part but dull in taxing any though never so great a crime in men of his owne faction Of him Binius gives this true censure hee was one of their ranke who defended the Three Chapters who also writ an Apology for Theodorus of Mopsvestia againe Baronius and Bellarmine have noted that divers things are caute legenda in Liberatus of him Possevine writeth There are many things in Liberatus which are to bee read with circumspection those especially which hee borrowed of some Nestorians and those are his narrations touching Theodorus of Mopsvestia that his writings were praised both by the Emperour Theodosius his Edict and by Cyrill and approved also in the Councell of Chalcedon all which to be lies Baronius doth convince Againe what Liberatus saith of the fift Councell is very warily to be read for either they were not his own or he was deceived by the false relation of some other but certainly they do not agree with the writings of other Catholike fathers Thus Possevine out of Baronius who might as well in plaine termes have called Liberatus a Nestorian heretike for none but Nestorians and such as slander the Councel of Chalcedon for hereticall can judge the writings of Theodorus which are ful of all heresies blasphemies and impieties to be approved in that holy Councell Againe Possevine rejecting that which Liberatus writeth of the fift Councell gives a most just exception against all that he writeth either touching Theodorus of Cesarea as being an Origenist or of the occasiō of this cōtroversie about the 3. Chapters as if it did arise from the cōdemning of Origen in all this Liberatus by the Iesuites confession was deceived by the false relation of others they agree not to the truth nor to the narrations of Catholike fathers Liberatus being an earnest favourer and defender of Theodorus Mopsvestenus could not chuse but hate Theodorus of Cesarea for seeking to have him and his writings condemned The saying of Ierome ought here to take place Professae inimicitiae suspitionem habent mendacij the report of a professed enemy ought to
conscriptis with their impious writings and all other heretikes condemned by the Catholike Church let that man bee accursed When the holy Councell not onely mentions the condemning of Origen but by their judiciall sentence themselves also condemne both him his errors and his impious writings what a face of Adamant had Binius against the truth against his owne text of the Councell against his conscience and knowledge to say there is no mention no not any levis mentio to be found in the Acts of the errors of Origen condemned or if Binius will not be perswaded of his untruth for us let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit who saith In these Synodall Acts there is made onely brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen and his errours condemned if there bee brevis mentio of him and his errours then Binius must cry the Acts forgivenesse for saying there is no mention at all no not levis mentio of his errours 2. Let us see now if Baronius deale any better Constat saith hee It is manifest by the testification of many that Origen Didimus and Evagrius together with their errours were condemned in this fift Synod and that there was written at least recited repeated against them those ten Anathematismes which Nicephorus setteth downe but in the Acts there is onely a briefe mention that Origen and his errours were condemned Baronius adds one speciall point further out of Cedrenus that in this fift Councell first they handled the cause against Origen and then against the Three Chapters So by the Cardinals profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod which it may be had many Sessions as the other Action about the three Chapters Besides this there wants also saith hee the letters or Edict published by Iustinian Thirdly there wants the Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen which is set downe by Cedrenus out of whom both Baronius reciteth it and Binius adjoyns it at the end of the Acts among the fragments which are wanting in these Acts. These three defects touching the cause of Origen doth the Cardinall alleage 3. But in very deed none of these three nor ought else which Baronius mentioneth argue any defect at all in these Acts but they evidently demonstrate in the Card. a maine defect of judgement and an overflowing superabundance of malice against this holy Synod and these true Acts thereof That the cause of Origen was not as hee supposeth the first Action or the first cause handled by the Synod I might alleage the most cleare testimony of his owne witnesse Nicephorus who after the narration of the three Chapters and the Synodall sentence touching them delivered which he accounts for the first Session of the Synod addeth In secunda autem Sessione but in the second Sessiō the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred read and Iustinian rursum Synodū de eis sententiā ferre jussit commanded againe the Synod to giue sentence in that cause So Nicephorus whereby it is evident that the Cardinal and his Cedrenus are foully deceived in saying that the cause of Origen was first handled by the Synod and after that the cause of the three Chapters but I oppose to these farre greater and even authentike records the Epistle of the Emperour to the Synod who at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Councell proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters and no other at all commanding them without delay to discusse and give their judgement in that I oppose the definition and Synodall decree wherein is set downe their whole proceeding and what they handled almost every day of their meeting from the beginning to the ending so that it alone is as a Thesean thred which wil not permit a man to erre in this cause unlesse he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth and wilfully depart out of that plaine path They came to the Synod to decide the controversie then moved about the Three Chapters at the command of the Emperour before they entred to the handling thereof they often intreated by their messengers Pope Vigilius to come together with them which was all that they did in the first second day of their meeting or Collation when Vigilius would not come then by the Apostles admonition they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed by setting downe a confession of their faith consonant to the foure former Councels and exposition of the Fathers and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters which was the summe of the third dayes Collation Cumque ita confessi simus initium fecimus examinationis trium Capitulorum and when wee had made this confession wee began the examination of the Three Chapters loe they did initium sumere they began with this Could they speak more plainly that the cause of Origen was not first handled as if prophetically they meant to refute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus and wee first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his owne writing there read before us This was all they did the fourth and a great part of the fift day of their Collatiō His de Theodoro discussis pauca de Theodoreto next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus wee caused a few things to bee repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret for the satisfying of the reader and this they did in the end of the fift day or Collation Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas In the third place we proposed and examined the Epistle of Ibas and this they did at large and it was all they did in the sixt day of their Collation The whole cause being thus and as the Councell confesseth most diligently and sufficiently examined the Councell as it seemeth by their owne words in the end of the sixt Collation intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting but before ought was done therein the Emperour sent unto the Synod certaine letters of Vigilius testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters and some other writings the reading of thē is all was done in the seventh day of their Collation Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before and these letters were read onely for a further evidence but not for necessity of the cause and for that the Synod did nothing themselves but onely heard the letters and applauded the Emperours zeale and care for the truth therefore it is that this seventh Collation and what was done therein is omitted in the Synodall sentence and the Councell which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pronounced their sentence by this occasion deferred it to the next which was the eighth day
to Simeon nor to any but to Iames and whereas some would think it a folly and madnesse to write to such an one as was dead and which was knowne to be dead to the author who writ it for who should be the carier of this letter unto him especially to write unto him as a governour in the Church militant to instruct and exhort him what he should carefully observe Turrian tels you that there were divers great and waighty reasons why Saint Peter commanded Clement and why Clement did write this to a dead man whom they both knew to be dead and having given divers very wise and worthy reasons hereof one taken from transfiguration another from imitation a third from avoyding hatred if he had writ to any that had beene alive a fourth for to be a testimony of the Resurrection belike because that Saint Iames shall then reade this holy Apostolicall Epistle and see what godly exhortation and advice for government of the Church Clement gives unto him and such like in the end he concludes that such as are Catholikes must not doubt of the truth of this Epistle though they know not the reason why it was written to a dead man and withall that with men who have reason and judgement certum esse debet such must assure themselves that both S. Peter and Clement had and knew reasons why the one commanded to write and the other did write unto a dead man Whereas now the Cardinals worthy demonstration Had hee and Binius beene men of reason and judgement and considered as no doubt but they read that tract of Turrian seeing unto it they referre us they might have seene therein divers reasons why Theodoret might write to Iohn though he were dead for every one of Turrians reasons is as forcible to defend this Epistle of Theodoret as they are to excuse Clement for writing to Iames who was dead long before But the case is now altered the Cardinals demonstration holds onely in those writings that distaste him or make for us and against their cause But si in rem sint if any such writing bring as all the decretals doe either honour to the Romane See or gaine to the Romane Court though they were writ to one that was dead I say not seven but seven times seven yeares before they shall bee honoured as the true and undoubted writings of the authors 3. Let mee adde but one other example but that is such an one as doth cut all the sinewes yea the very heart-strings of the Cardinals demonstration The translation of Chrysostomes body or reliques by Theodosius the younger more than thirty yeares after his death from Comana where hee dyed in banishment to Constantinople is a matter so testified by Socrates Theodoret Marcellimus the great Menology their Romane Martyrology and others that we doe not doubt of the truth therof But since it is retranslated as they say from Constantinople to Rome the onely shop indeed to utter all such ware and make the people goe a whoring after them That those his supposed reliques may be had in reverence it is worthy the considering how miraculously they have made the manner of his Translation Nicephorus relates the summe of it but as by Baronius it seemes he borrowed it out of the luculent Oration of one Cosmas Vestiarius whether one of the Vaticane or a Baronian author I know not but so ignoble and so unworthy an author that Possevine judged him not worthy to bee named in his Bibliotheca or reckoned among his testes veritatis Out of this Tailors Oration hath the Cardinall stitcht a very pretty Anile the summe whereof is this Proclus on a time making a panegyricall Oration in the praise of Chrysostome the people were so flamed with the love and longing desire after him that they interrupted the Bishop and would not suffer him to make an end of his Sermon crying out with many loud vociferations they would have Chrysostome Chrysostome and his reliques they would have Proclus moved herewith intreates the Emperour the Emperour at this their earnest sute sent divers Senators some say an army together with Clerks and Monkes to bring with all pompe the body of Chrysostome from Comana thither they goe and come to the place where Chrysostomes body was kept in a silver Coffin Once againe and very often they assay yea labor strive with all their strength which all their skil to lift up the Coffin all was in vaine the sacred body was more immovable than a rock they certifie this news to the Emperor who called Proclus other holy men to advise further about that matter in the end the resolution of them all was that the Emperour Theodosius should write a Letter to Chrysostome Supplicis instar libelli in forme of a supplication asking him forgivenesse for the sinnes which Arcadius his father had committed against him humilibus precibus to beseech him with most lowly prayers that hee would returne to Constantinople and take his old See againe praying him that hee would no longer by his absence afflict them being so desirous of his body yea of his ashes yea of his shadow The Emperour did so the forme of whose letter of supplication out of the Tailor Cosmas first Nicephorus and then Baronius expresse though the Cardinall for good cause was loath to give Chrysostome the title of a Patriarke and Pater Patrum which Nicephorus sets downe those either the Tailor or the Cardinall concealeth or altereth The Emperours letters were sent and brought to the dead corps and with great reverence laid upon the brest and heart of Chrysostome and the next day the Priests with great ease took up the body and brought it to Constantinople into the Church of the holy Apostles There first as out of Nicephorus the Cardinal relateth the Emperour with the people supplex communem precationem pro Parentibus fecit made an humble prayer for his Parents and more specially entreated for his Mother that her grave which had shaken and been sicke of a palsie and made a noise and ratling for thirty five yeares together might now at length cease the holy man heard the request granted it the graves palsie was cured so that it shaked no more Then Proclus the Bishop placed dead Chrysostome in eundem Thronum in the very same See and Episcopall seat with himselfe all the people applauding and crying O Father Chrysostome receive thy See and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration the lips of Chrysostome five and thirty yeares after hee was laid in his grave opened and blessed all the people saying Peace be to you and this both the Patriarke Proclus and the people standing by testified that they heard Thus farre the Cardinals narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Nicephorus 4. Say now in earnest is not this
moderation and wisedome of Cyrill that can thinke Cyrill ever to have written in such manner either to any Metropolitane or to any Patriarke specially seeing Cyrill was not ignorant of that Canon of the Councell at Antioch let not a Metropolitane doe any thing in such causes without the advise and consent of the other Bishops in the Province 28. The other doubt is whether that Domnus to whom this Epistle is written bee the same Domnus that was Bishop of Antioch and successor to Iohn The Cardinall is much troubled in removing this doubt and hee windes himselfe divers wayes Sure it is saith Baronius that hee who had such authoritie must needs bee some eminent Bishop and not one of an inferior See True but hee might bee a Metropolitane and so have inferiour Bishops under him and yet bee no Patriarke Againe saith hee There is no Domnus else but this Domnus Bishop of Antioch mentioned either in the Councell of Ephesus or Chalcedon who had such authority as to depose and restore Bishops ad libitum As if Domnus of Antioch might doe it ad libitum But in such lawfull manner as Domnus of Antioch might doe it there were others called by the name of Domnus and those mentioned in those very Councels who might upon just cause and by due and Canonical proceeding depose and restore their inferiour Bishops looke but into those Councels and you will admire both the supine negligence of the Cardinall in this point and his most audacious downâ—facing of the truth for to omit others both in the Conventicle of Ephesus and the Councell of Chalcedon there is often mention of Domnus Bishop of Apamea a Metropolitane Bishop as the words of Miletius doe witnesse I Miletius Bishop of Larissa speaking for Domnus the Metropolitane Bishop of Apamca and for this Domnus hee subscribed And that you may see how fraudulently the Cardinall dealt in this very point he neither would set downe that Epistle nor acquaint you with that which in Balsamon is expresly noted that Peter the Bish. whom that Domnus unto whom Cyrill writeth had deposed was Alexandrinus Sacerdos a Bishop of the patriarchall diocesse of Alexandria what had Domnus of Antioch to doe with the Alexandrian Bishops So cleare it is by Balsamon that this Domnus unto whom Cyrill writ was not Domnus of Antioch as the Card. I feare against his knowledge avoucheth 29. Thus you see all and every reason which the Cardinall bringeth Iohn to bee dead seven yeares before Cyrill not only to be weake and unable to enforce that Conclusion but withall to bee full fraught with frauds and untruths So that if I had not found more sound and certaine reasons to perswade this I could never by the Cardinals proofes have beene induced to thinke that an errour in the Inscription of Theodorets Epistle But seeing upon the undoubted testimonies in the Councell of Chalcedon it is certaine that Iohn dyed before Cyrill I willingly acknowledge a slip of some writer in that Inscription but yet the Epistle it selfe must bee acknowledged truly to bee Theodorets which is all that the Synod avoucheth and which is that which the Cardinall undertooke to disprove but by no one reason doth offer to prove the same And even for that errour also in the Inscription I doubt not but those who can have the sight of the Greek and Originall yea perhaps of some ancient Latine copies of the Acts of this fift Councell shall finde either no name at all or which I rather suppose the name of Domnus expressed therin in stead of which whereas some ignorant audacious exscriber hath thrust in the name of Iohn it is not nor ought it to bee any impeachment at all to the Synodall Acts unlesse the Cardinall will acknowledge his owne Annals to bee of no credit because in them Pascalis is written by some such errour for Pelagius Iohn for Vigilius Instinus for Iustinianus Theodorus for Theodosius Sexta for Quinta Foelicianus for Celestianus and a number the like in other causes most of these slips pertaining to this very cause of the Three Chapters of which wee doe entreate CAP. XXXV That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings and fabulous narrations in handling this cause of the fift Councell as particularly the excommunication ascribed to Mennas Theodorus and others and the narration of Anastasius 1. YOV have seene all the exceptions which their great Momus could devise against these Acts to prove them corrupted either by alteration or mutilation or which is the worst of all by additions of forged writings But alas who can endure to heare Baronius declame against corrupted false forged or counterfeit writings Quis tulerit Gracchos better might Gracchus invey against sedition or Verres against bribery than Baronius against the using of false and fained writings Aethiopem albus derideat hee should first have washt away those foule blemishes out of his owne Annals more blacke herewith than any Aethiopian and then have censured such spots in others Were his Annals well purged of such writings their vast Tomes would become a pretty Manuall They who have occasion to examine other passages in Baronius will finde the truth hereof in them for this one concerning the fift Councell Pope Vigilius and the cause of the Three Chapters from which I am loath to digresse I doubt not but whosoever will compare the Cardinals Annals with this Treatise wil easily perceive that all which hee hath said in defence of the Pope relyeth on no other nor better grounds but either forged writings or if truely written by the authors yet on some fabulous narration and untruths which from them the Cardinall hath culd out as onely fit for his purpose Suffer me to give a tast hereof in some of them 2. The first in this kinde is a supplication to Vigilius or a briefe confession made unto him by Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and divers other Easterne Bishops inserted in the beginning of the Constitution of Vigilius and much applauded by the Cardinall in this cause and this to bee a meere fiction is by many evident proofes before mentioned easily discerned The occasion of it as the Cardinall tels us was to humble themselves to Pope Vigilius and acknowledge the injuries they had done in writing and declaming against him and his Synodall Constitution for Taciturnity concerning the Three Chapters Now seeing that whole matter is fictitious for neither was there any such Synod ever held nor any such decree ever made the confession which is grounded on them must be like them fabulous and forged 3. The contents bewray the dulnesse of the forgerer The Easterne Bishops professe there to imbrace the foure former Councels and all the Acts thereof in all causes judgements and Constitutions made with consent of the Popes Legates Why the Easterne Bishops knew right well that some Canons were concluded both in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon not only
on Orpheus harpe made an heavenly harmony but how hee failed in his skill and proved no better than Neanthes his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternall record and yet all that time hee sat in the Chaire and prophesied for as the common saying is Vbi Papa ibi Roma so it is as true Vbi Papa ibi Cathedra it is more easie for the Pope to take the Chaire with him than like an Elephant to carry the whole City of Rome upon his backe to Constantinople and goe up and downe the world with it 17. But is this narration thinke you of Anastasius true verily not one word therein neither did the Empresse write nor Vigilius answer any such thing for both these were done as Anastasius saith eodem tempore at or after that same time when Bellisarius having killed Gontharis came out of Africk and offered those spoiles of the Vandales and seeing that as wee have proved was never this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas Againe this answer of Vigilius was given statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit at his very first placing in the See as Binius sheweth and that was in the fourteenth yeare of Iustiâ—ian for then Sylverius dyed now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome and that was as Procopius sheweth in the nineteenth yeare of Iustinian it was a fine devise of Anastasius to tell how this new Saint answered a letter by way of prophesie three or foure yeares before the letter was written Further Vigilius as Liberatus saith implens promissum suum quod Augustae fecerat performing his promise to the Empress writ a letter in this manner hee performed it as much as hee could he laboured a while to doe it and this was both before and a little after the death of Sylverius but when hee could not effect it and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein left off that care untill hee could have a better oportunity to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon which so long as it stood in force was a barre unto Anthimus If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon but till that were done till the Councell were repealed Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that hee in two severall Epistles the one to Iustinian the other to Mennas confirmed as the Emperour required him to doe the deposition of Anthimus and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges namely in the fourteenth yeare of Iustinian and five yeares before the death of Gontharis Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood but Vigilius also to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Emperour that hee would not doe specially seeing as Baronius saith Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperour Omnem prorsus sive Theodorae sive alijs spem ademisset would put both Theodora and all else out of all hope that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus So although those words eodem tempore were not as they ought to be referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople which was the yeare after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour yet the Anastasian narration is not onely untrue but wholly improbable that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas that hee would not restore him and that he ought not to bee restored Lastly at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus which following the death of Gontharis must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside and the Three Chapters were then in every mans mouth and every where debated The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare as by Victor who then lived is evident if not before published his Edict and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople Anastasius dreamed of somewhat and hearing of some writing or sending to Vigilius about that time he not knowing or which I rather thinke willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration for his great love to the Pope conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus and indeavors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See Iust as Alcibiades to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne 218. pound and 15. shillings and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace The true cause of sending to Vigilius as Victor sheweth was about the Three Chapters this of Anthimus which Anastasius harpes upon is in truth no other but the dogs taile and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men but now the true cause being come to the open view fils the world with that shamefull heresie of Vigilius which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dogs taile But enough of this passage wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes 18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vigilius and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to ConstaÌ„tinople He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus suggested dâ—vers accusations against him as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed and that hee was a murderer and had killed his Nephew Asterius whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scribâ— to take him wheresoever hee wee except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribe came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people
in particular by his comming to Constantinople so there is another and publike benefit which ensued thence to the whole Church and that so great and so happy that if we should as the Cardinall doth measure things by the event the comming of Agapetus to Constantinople though they glory therein more than in any other example of antiquity is no way comparable to this of Vigilius for by this comming of Vigilius it was demonstrated by evident experience that the Pope may say and gainsay his owne sayings in matters of faith and then define ex Cathedra both his sayings that is two direct contradictories to be both true seeing Pope Vigilius first while hee temporized with the Emperour defined ex Cathedra that the Three Chapters ought to bee condemned and after that when it pleased him to open the depth of his owne heart defined the quite contrary ex Cathedra that the Three Chapters ought to bee defended By it was further demonstrated that the Pope may not onely be an heretike but teach also and define and that ex cathedra an heresie to be truth and so be a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgment of an holy generall Councell and of the whole Catholike Church These and some other like conclusions of great moment for the instruction of the whole Church of God are so fully so clearly so undenyably demonstrated in the cause of Pope Vigilius when he came to Constantinople that had the Cardinall or his favourers I meane the maintainers of the Popes infallibility grace to make use thereof for the opening of their eyes in that maine and fundamentall point wherein they are now so miserably blinded they might have greater cause to thank God for his comming thither than for the voyage of Agapetus or of any other of his predecessors undertaken in many yeares before 8. Where are now the great hurts and inconveniences which the Cardinall fancieth by Vigilius his comming to the Emperour Truly I cannot devise what one they can finde but the disgrace onely of Vigilius in that upon his comming he shewed himselfe to be a temporizer a very weather-cocke in faith a dissembler with God and his Church pretending for five or six yeares that hee favoured the truth when all that time he harboured in his brest the deadly poyson of that heresie which as before his comming he defended so at the time of the Councell he defined This blot or blemish of their holy Father neither I nor themselves with all the water in Tiber can wash or ever wipe away The best use that can be made of it is that as Thomas distrusted to make others faithfull and void of distrust so God in the infinitenesse of his wisedome permitted Pope Vigilius to be not only unconstant but hereticall in defining causes of faith that others by relying on the Popes judgement as infallible might not be hereticall and yet even for this very fact thus much I must needs say that if the Cardinall thinke it was the place or the City of Constantinople that wrought this disgracefull effect in Vigilius it may bee truly replyed unto him much like as Themistocles did to the foolish Seriphian ascribing his owne ignobility to the basenesse of the towne of Seriphus certainly though Silvester Iulius and Calestine had beene never so oft at Constantinople they had beene orthodoxall and heroicall Bishops but Vigilius hereticall and ignoble though he had beene nayled to the posts of the Vaticane or chained to the pillars of it as fast as Prometheus to Caucasus The soyle and ayre is as Catholike at Constantinople as in the very Laterane it is as hereticall in Rome as in any City in all the world The onely difference is in the men themselves the former where ever they had come caried with them constant heroicall and truly pontificall minds Vigilius in every place was of an ambitious unstable dissembling hypocriticall and hereticall spirit which that every one may perceive I will now in the last place and in stead of an Epilogue to this whole Treatise set downe a true description of the life of Vigilius partly because it may bee thought a great wrong to reject the narration of Anastasius and not some way to supply that defect touching the life of so memorable a Pope as was Vigilius partly with a true report of this hereticall Popes life to requite the labour of Baronius in his malitious slanders of the religious Emperour Iustinian and specially because Vigilius being the subject in a manner of this whole Treatise it seemes to mee needfull to expresse the most materiall circumstances touching the entrance the actions the end of him who hath occasioned us to undertake this so long and as I truly professe both laborious and irksome labour 9. I confesse I have no good faculty in writing their Popes lives Nec fonte labra prolui Caballino nec in bicipiti somniasse Parnasso memini I have not tasted of their streames of Tiber more holy than Helicon nor ever had I dreame or vision in their sacred Parnassus yet with their leave will I adventure to set downe some parts of the life of Vigilius which doe afford as much variety of matter and are as needfull to be knowne and remembred as any other of that whole ranke from S. Peter to Paul the fift 10. That many of their Popes have unjustly climbed up to S. Peters Chaire I thinke none so unskilfull as not to know none so malitious as to deny But whether any of them all I except none not the boy-Pope Iohn the 12. not the Fox Boniface not Silvester the second who had it by a compact with the Devill of whom hee purchased it with the gift of his soule not Iohn the 23. called a Devill incarnate not any else whether any of them all I say obtained the See with more impiety or greater villany than Vigilius may be justly doubted He intending to be a good cammock beganne according to the Proverb to hooke and crooke betimes and gape after that eminent Throne His first attempt was in the time of Boniface the second with whom he prevailed so far that when Boniface in a Roman Synod had made a Constitution that he should nominate his successor before them all he named and constituted Vigilius to succeed to himselfe for the performance of which both he and all the rest of the Synod did binde themselves both by subscription and by a solemne oath Vigilius seemed for a while to be cocke-sure of the See but it fell out contrary to his expectation at this time the Senate of Rome justly withstood as Pope Silverius witnesseth that nomination It may be they knew the crooked disposition of Vigilius how unfit hee was to make a Bishop nor the Senate onely but the Ecclesiasticall Canons resisted it Thou endeavouredst this contra jura canonica saith Pope Silverius against the Canonicall right The Itaian lawes also resisted it at that
the Fox now become wil for ever stand without climbe in at the window he will no more either Christ himselfe shall reach the keyes unto him that he may be his lawfull Vicar or open and shut who will for Vigilius Thus by the death of Silverius the true and lawful Pope and by the abdication or resignation which is a death in law of the usurping Pope Vigilius the See is wholly vacant and that was as Anastasius witnesseth for the space of sixe dayes 15. In this vacancy of the See Baronius not onely tels you that there was which is not unlike very great deliberatiō about the election of a new Pope but as if hee had beene present in the very conclave at that time or as if by some Pythagoricall metempseuchosis the soules of some of those Electors comming from one beast to another had at last entred into the Cardinals breast declares their whole debatement of the matter pro con what was said for Vigilius what against Vigilius which kinde of poetry if any be pleased with they may have abundance of it in his Annals for my selfe I told you before I never dreamed as yet in their Romane Parnassus that I dare presume to vent such fictions fancies In that one he sounded the depth indeed both of Vigilius counsels and of the consultations of the Electors Of Vigilius hee saith that hee gave over the Popedome not with any purpose to leave it but as it were to act a part in a comedy and seeme to doe that which he never meant that he did it fretus potentià Bellisarij quod esset eum mox iterum conscensurus because he knew that by the meanes of Bellisarius hee should shortly after bee elected and placed in it againe or to use the Cardinals own comparison he did not play at mum chance but knowing how the election would goe after hee had given over haud dubiam jecit aleam hee knew what his cast would be and what side of the Die would fall upward hee knew his cast would bee better than jactus venereus it would be the cast of the triple Crowne As for the Electors he tels us that they chose him not for any worth piety vertue or such like Pontificall qualifications of which they saw none in him but to avoid a schisme in the Church because they knew if they should choose another the Empresse and Bellisarius would maintaine the right of Vigilius and as they had thrust him in so they would uphold and maintaine him in the See and for this cause at the instance of Bellisarius they all with one consent chose their old friend Vigilius and now make him the true and lawfull Pope the undoubted Vicar of Christ which was a fine cast indeed at the Dies 16. Now though this may seeme unto others to demonstrate great basenesse and pusilanimitie in the Electors at that time who fearing a little storme of anger or persecution would place so unworthy a man in the Papall throne and though it testifie the present Romane policy to be such that if Simon Magus nay the devill himself can once but be intruded into their Chaire put in possession thereof he shall be sure to hold it with the Electors consent if hee can but storme and threaten in a Pilates voyce to incense the Emperour or some potent King to revenge his wrong if they ever choose any other yet the Cardinal who was privy to the mysteries of their Conclave commends this for salubre consilium a very wholesome advice wisely was it done to chuse Vigilius nay as if that were too little he adds it was Divinitus inspiratum consilium God himself inspired this divine councell from heaven into their hearts rather to choose an ambitious an hypocriticall a Symoniacall a schismaticall an hereticall a perfidious a perjured a murderous a degraded an accursed a diabolicall person to be their Pope rather than hazzard to sustain a snuffe of Bellisarius or a frowne of Theodoraes countenance Howsoever chosen now Vigilius was by commō consent and solennibus ritibus made the true and lawfull Pope from thence forward and with all solemnity of their rites placed in the Papall throne and put not onely in the lawfull but quiet and peaceable possession thereof the whole Romane Church approving and applauding the same Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires hee so long gaped and thirsted after At the first onset hee sought the Papacy but got it not at the second turne hee got it but by usurpation and intrusion onely but now at this third and last boute hee hit the marke indeed hee got the rightfull possession of it and is now become what hee would bee the true Bishop of Rome and Vicar of S. Peter 16. I have stayed somewhat long in the entrance of Vigilius and yet because I have set downe no more but a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a naked undecked narration or as it were onely rough hewed I must pray the reader that hee will permit mee to set downe some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinall Baronius for though all men knew him to bee one whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oyle and who will bee sure to say no more ill of any of them than meere necessity and evidence of truth inforceth him yet so unfit am I to write their Popes lives that for want of fit termes I am inforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Description of Vigilius heare then no longer mee but the great Cardinall the deare friend of Vigilius telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope heare him defining Vigilius in this manner Hee was an ambitious Deacon who by a madde desire burned with pride whom thirst of vaine glory drove into madnesse and into the hellish gulfe by meanes whereof he makes shipwracke in the very haven becomes a Rocke of offence and seemes an infidell in faith a bondslave to impious and hereticall Theodora that is to Megera to Alecto and the hellish furies who with Lucifer desired to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the Starres but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes fals downe into the depth which crimes with Cain he having so inclosed in his breast must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond Vnsavory salt worthy by all to bee trodden under foote and cast into the dunghill of heresies who had got unto him the stench of heretical pravity who boūd himselfe by an obligation under his owne hand yea by his oath also to patronize heretikes who promised to abolish the faith and Councell of Chalcedon It was the just iudgement of God that hee should fall from the faith who became a Vassall to vaine glory a schismatike a Symoniacke a murderer