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
to the fift generall Councell is a witnes above exception When Pope Vigilius saith he was come to this our Princely City we did accurately manifest unto him all things touching these three Chapters and we demanded of him what he thought hereof and he not once or twise but often in writing without writing did anathematize the same Chapters Quod vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione trium Capitulorum per plurima declaravit and that he hath alwayes ever since his comming hither continued in the same minde of condemning those three Chapters he hath very many wayes declared And after repeating some of those particulars hee adds Et compendiosè dicere semper in eadem voluntate perseveravit and to speake briefly he hath ever since persevered in this minde So writ and testified the Emperour In the seventh Collation the Emperour sent Constantine the most glorious Quaestor of his Palace unto the Synod to deliver unto them certaine letters of Vigilius who againe testified this from the Emperour before the whole Councell Vigilius saith he hath very often manifested by writings his minde that he condemneth the Three Chapters which also without writing he hath said before the Emperour in the presence of the most glorious Iudges and of very many of your selves who are here in the Councell et non intermisit semper anathematizans Theodorum and hee hath not intermitted or ever ceased since his first comming almost to Constantinople to anathematize the defenders of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and then delivering the letters of Vigilius unto them he addeth Vigilius doth by these make manifest quod per totum tempus eorundem trium Capituloriō impietatem aversatur that for this whole time since his first consenting to the Edict upon his comming to Constantinople untill the assembling of the generall Councell hee hath detested the impiety of those Three Chapters Thus said and testified Constantine from the Emperor 8. If I should say no more at all even this one testimony being so pregnant and withall so certaine that there can bee no doubt but the Emperor both knew and testified the truth herein this alone I say is sufficient to demonstrate the vanity of that fictitious Synod decree of Taciturnity For seeing it is hence certaine that Vigilius persisted and persevered to condemne the Three Chapters after the time of his consenting to the Emperors Edict upon his comming to Constantinople till the time of the fift Councell it must needs be acknowledged for certaine that in that time hee made no decree to forbid men to condemne the same and then not this decree of Taciturnity which tyes all mens tongues that they shal neither defend nor yet condemne them And if the decree be fictitious such as was never made as by this testimony it is now certaine then is the Councell fictitious wherein it was decreed then the whole fable of Baronius how the Emperor and Mennas violated that decree how the Pope indured persecution for maintaining that Decree and the other Consequents they all are certainly fictitious this one testimonie overthroweth thē all But I will adde a second reason drawne from the consideration of the observing and putting in execution this Synodall and pontificall Decree For it is not to bee doubted but if such a Decree had beene made especially with the consent of a Synod and of the Emperour also but some one or other would have observed the same the rather because Baronius tols us that upon the publishing of this Decree in the one and twentieth yeare of Iustinian res consopita siluit the controversie was for a while husht Let us then see who those were whom this Decree made silent or tongue-tyed in this cause and it will appeare that none at all observed it 9. Let us begin with the Pope himselfe who of all is most likely to have kept his owne decree but he was so farre from observing it that he practised the quite contrary In the two and twentieth yeare of Iustinian the very next unto that wherein this decree is supposed to be made Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons remaining then at Constantinople and being earnest defenders of the Three Chapters writ letters unto divers Bishops and into divers Provinces against Pope Vigilius and the cause was for that he condemned the Three Chapters and thereby as they pretended condemned also the Councell of Chalcedon and for a proofe of their accusation they dispersed the copies of Vigilius his Constitution sent unto Mennas against the Three Chapters A cleare proofe that as then Vigilius neither had made this Decree nor revoked his judgement for condemning of those Chapters In the 23. yeare Vigilius writ to Valentinianus to purge himselfe of those slanders and untruths and that hee doth by referring himselfe to his judgement sent to Mennas against the 3. Chapters wherein he then plainly professeth that what he had therein defined was consonant to the faith of the 4. former Councels and to the decrees of his predecessors he is so resolute in maintaining the same judgement that he addeth of it that it is abundant to satisfie any man An infallible evidence that as yet nor till that year he had neither revoked his former sentence nor made any decree of silence to forbid men to condemne the same Chapters In the foure and twentieth yeare hee writ the like Apology to Aurelianus Bishop of Arles yea which is more Baronius sheweth that in that 24. yeare he published his judiciall sentence of condemnation and deposition against Rusticus Sebastianus Gerontius Severus Importunus Iohn and Deusdedit for that they by defending the Three Chapters and communicating with such as defended them contra Iudicati nostri seriem nitebantur dealt against the tenor of his judgement shewing plainly that till then and in that yeare his judgement against the Three Chapters stood so firmly in force that by a judiciall sentence he deposed the contradictors thereof which had himselfe revoked and by a Decree of silence adnulled in likelihood he wold not certainly in justice he could not have done and seeing hee censured them not for speaking of that controversie but for speaking in defence of those Chapters it is evident that as then he had not made any Decree for silence in that cause for then his censure should have beene because they had done contrary to it not because they had contradicted his judgement in condemning those Chapters 10. Is not Baronius thinke you a very wise and worthy Annalist who perswades you that Vigilius made this Decree of silence in the 21. yeare of Iustinian forbidding all thereby to condemne the Three Chapters which not to have been made either in the 22 or 23 or 24. yeares the undoubted writing and censures of Vigilius expressed by Baronius himselfe doe make evident and testifie that the Pope
himselfe was so far from being silent therein that both by words by writings by pontificall censures and judgements himselfe condemned the 3 Chapters who will again perswade you that the Pope suffered very heavy persecution at the Emperors hands because he would not permit the 3. Chapters to be condemned whereas the Pope himselfe not onely condemned them all that time as well as the Emperor did but both by writings reproved and by judiciall censures punished condemned and deposed such as would not condemne them and that also eo nomine because they would not condemne them nor consent to his judgements whereby he had condemned them Now that Vigilius continued of the same mind both in the 25. 26. yeares of Iustinian that is untill the time that the fift Councell was assembled though there be no particulars to explaine yet by the Emperours words before remembred that per totum tempus perseveravit and ejusdem semper voluntatis fuit it is abundantly testified So that it is most certain that Vigilius at no time observed this decree of Taciturnity and because had there beene any he of all men was the most likely to observe it who as Baronius fableth was so rigorous against others even the Emperor also for not observing thereof his not observing of it is an evidence that he made no such Decree at all but that the whole narration concerning it and the consequents upon it is a very fiction and fable 11. Next after the Pope let us see if the Emperor who as Baronius saith promised to observe this law of Taciturnity was silent quiet in this cause And truly there is a strong presumption that he neither did nor would now refuse or forbeare to condemne the 3. Chapters seeing by so doing he should have anathematized himselfe for by his Imperiall Edict he denoūced all those to be an Anathema who do not condemne and anathematize the same Chapters The very silence in this cause and ceasing or refusing to anathematize the Chapters had made him guilty of his owne just Anathema But to leave presumptions Certaine it is that Iustinian continued the same man constant in condemning those Chapters and that not onely for the time after this supposed Decree but from the first publishing of his own Edict whereof the whole fift Councell is a most ample witnesse who thus say omnia semper fecit facit quae sanctam Ecclesiam recta dogmata conservant The most pious Emperor hath ever done concerning this cause of the three Chapters and now doth those things which preserve the holy Church and sound doctrine and that to be the condemning of these Chapters they by their Synodall sentence doe make evident where they professe the condemning thereof to bee the preserving of the good seed of faith the preserving of the Councell of Chalcedon and the rooting out of hereticall tares 12. And if wee desire particulars of his constant dealing herein Victor Tunavensis declareth the earnestnesse of Iustinian in condemning these Chapters for every yeare since this Decree of Taciturnity is supposed to have beene made The Decree as Baronius sheweth was set out in the sixt yeare after the Consulship of Basilius which account by Consular yeares Victor useth and it answereth to the end of twenty one and most of the 22. yeare of Iustinian In the seaventh yeare after Basilius Coss. that is in the very next to that wherein the Decree was made Iustinian writ most earnestly saith Victor into divers provinces antistites cunctos praefata tria Capitula damnare compellit and hee compelled all Bishops to condemne the Three Chapters In the eight he sheweth that the Illyrian Bishops held a Synod and writ unto the Emperour to disswade him from condemning those Chapters In the ninth he shewes that Facundus did the like and further in this yeare the Emperor commanded the Synod at Mopsvestia to be held against Theodorus that it might appeare how and from how long time before then the name of Theodorus had beene blotted out of the Ecclesiasticall tables the judgement of which Synod the Emperor sent to Vigilius to assure him of the truth thereof that hee might with more constancie continue to cōdemne the Three Chapters In the tenth Victor declares that the Emperor sent for Reparatus and Firmus two Primates for Primasius Verecundus two Bishops to deale with them that they would condemne the same Chapters and that Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria for refusing to condemne them was deposed which to have beene done by the Emperors command Liberatus sheweth In the eleventh which was the next before the generall Councell Victor tells us both that Firmus Primate of Numidia being wonne by the Emperors gifts so hee partially writeth consented to condemne the Chapters but Primasius Verecundus and Macarius for not consenting were all banished So cleare and undoubted it is that the Emperor continued so constant in his condemning of these Chapters that for every yeare since the Decree of Silence is supposed to be made he was resolute in this cause condemning and banishing such as consented not to the condemning of them 13. Whence the shamelesse untruths of the Baronian narration is demonstrated He tells you and tells it with a Constat that in the next yeare before the fift Councell the Emperour recalled his Edict and abrogated what he had done in this cause of the 3. Chapters whereas not onely the whole generall Councell testifieth on the contrary that hee still persisted constant in condemning of them but Victor one who had good reason to know these matters as feeling the smart of the Emperors severity for his obstinacie in defending those Chapters particularly witnesseth of that very yeare that the Emperor was so eager in maintaining his Edict and condemning the Chapters that he both drew Firmus the Primate of Numidia to his opiniō and banished Macarius Patriarch of Ierusalem Verecundus Bishop of Nica and Primasius another Bishop because they would not consent to his Edict and condemne the same Chapters And what a brainlesse devise was this that the Emperor in his 25. yeare should hang out his Edict at Constantinople so the Cardinall fableth as a matter of some great noveltie to bee published to the Citie whereas his Edict foure or five yeares before was so divulged throughout the whole Church that none may be thought to have beene ignorant thereof seeing universus orbis Catholicus the whole Catholike Church was divided and rent into a schisme about that Edict the one halfe defending the other oppugning the same Or what reason can the fabler give why Vigilius should in the 25. yeare quarrell with the Emperor rather then in the 24.23.22 in every one of which Iustinian was the same man constant in maintaining the truth published by his Edict Did the hanging out of the Edict more provoke the Popes zeale then the banishing imprisoning of those who withstood the Edict more then the
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
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
not this now shewed apertissimè you may bee sure the Cardinall would not have feared to performe his promise but that there was somewhat in that Epist. which would have bewrayed his lewd dealing in this cause 22. His third reason is drawne from the testimony of Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople This saith hee exploratum habetur is sure and certaine by Nicephorus No it is sure and certaine by Nicephorus that Baronius is erronious in this matter for Nicephorus accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares and the Cardinall will allow him no more but thirteene now the first yeare of Iohn cannot possibly be before the yeare 427. for in that year Theodotus the next predecessor of Iohn dyed as Baronius himselfe proveth Add now unto these seventeene moe and then the death of Iohn by Nicephorus will bee an 444. which is the selfe same yeare wherein Cyrill dyed Is not this a worthy proofe to shew Iohn to have dyed seven years before Cyrill as the Cardinall avoucheth that he did Or do not you think the Cardinal was in some extasy to produce Nicephorus as a witnesse for him whereas Nicephorus as the Cardinall himselfe also confesseth gives to Iohn 18. yeares and the Cardinall allowes him but thirteene and whereas the Cardinall of set purpose refuteth the account of Nicephorus 23. But will you bee pleased to see how the Cardinall refuteth him Domnus saith hee was Bishop of Antioch an 437. as is proved by an Epistle of Theodorets written to Domnus in that yeare which Epistle I will set downe in his due place to wit an 437. Lo all his proofe is from that Epistle which the Cardinall contrary to his own promise doth not and as I thinke durst not set downe 24. But see further how the Cardinall is infatuated in this cause Iohn saith he dyed an 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares Iohn succeeded to Theodotus who dyed an 427. Say now in truth is not the Cardinall a worthy Arithmetitian that of 427. and 13. can make no more than 436 And is not this a worthy reason to refute Nicephorus But this is not all for Baronius glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus which as hee saith was written an 444. there observes with a memorandum that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus Iohn and Domnus had sitten in the See of Antioch to wit 26. yeares in all from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop unto that 444. yeare viz. Theodotus 6. Iohn 13. and Domnus 7. untill that yeare Theodoret as Baronius will assure you was made Bishop an 423. Add now unto these six of Theodotus thirteene of Iohn and 7. of Domnus and tell me whither you thinke the Cardinall had sent his wits when hee could summe these to bee just 444 25. Or will you see the very quintessence of the Cardinals wisedome I will saith he set downe the next yeare that is an 437. the very Epistle of Theodoret to Domnus which was then written unto him eam quâ monstratur I wil also set downe in his due place to wit an 444. that Epistle of Theodoret to Dioscorus whereby is shewed that Iohn was Bishop of Antioch just thirteene yeare Thus Baronius who by these two Epistles of Theodoret will prove both these As much in effect as if hee had said I have already proved that Iohn began to bee Bishop of Antioch an 427. and this being set downe for a certainty I will now prove by Theodorets Epistle to Domnus that Iohn dyed an 436. that is in his ninth yeare and then I will prove againe by Theodorets Epistle to Dioscorus that hee dyed in his thirteenth yeare and so dyed not till the yeare 440. Or as if hee had thus said I will first prove that mine owne Annals are untrue wherin it is said that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn because he dyed not as Theodoret in one Epistle witnesseth untill his thirteenth yeare which is an 440. And then I will prove unto you that mine own Annals are again untrue wherein it is said that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare and so dyed not till an 440. beginning the first an 427 because Theodoret in another Epistle witnesseth that Iohn dyed an 436. Or thus I will first prove that Iohn was dead an 436. though he was alive an 440. and thē I will prove unto you that Iohn was alive an 440. though he was dead an 436. 26. Is not this brave dealing in the Cardinall is hee not worthy of a cap and a fether too that can prove all these and prove them by Theodorets Epistles or doe you not think those to be worthy Epistles of Theodoret by which such absurdities such impossibilities may bee proved Nay doth not this alone if there were no other evidence demonstrate those Epistles of Theodorets to bee counterfeits If that to Domnus be truly his as Baronius assures you wherby Iohn is shewed to have dyed an 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs be◠a forgery whereby Iohn is shewed to live an 440. Againe if that to Dioscous be truly his as Baronius assures you wherin Iohn is said to live an 440. then certainely the other to Domnus must of necessity bee a forgery wherein Iohn is said to be dead an 436. And as either of these two Epistles demonstrates the untruth and forgery of the other so they both demonstrate the great vanity of Baronius who applauds them both who wil make good what they both do affirm that is the same man to bee both dead and alive a Bishop and no Bishop at the selfe same time and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinall refute his owne witnesse Nicephorus who by giving eighteene yeares to Iohn shewes plainly that Iohn and Cyrill dyed within one yeare which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of Iohn whom upon Nicephorus account hee thought to live after Cyrill whereas in very deed hee dyed somewhile before Cyrill 27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonicall Epist. of Cyrils to Domnus which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Balsamon whence it is out of all doubt saith the Cardinall that Iohn dyed before Cyrill seeing Cyrill writ unto his successor Domnus But howsoever the Cardinall vanteth that this reason will leave no doubt yet if you observe it there are two great doubts therein The former is whether that Epistle be truly Cyrils And besides other reasons that one point which the Cardinall himselfe mentioneth may justly cause any to thinke it none of his for as the Cardinall saith the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus that he might ad libitum at his pleasure put out Bishops and at his pleasure restore them Now there is none that knowes the learning
to beg forgivenesse of his Holinesse who had more reason to have prayed pardon of Mennas for disquieting and waking him out of that long and sound sleepe 6. So both the occasion the contents and the time besides other circumstances doe evidently convince that submission to bee a counterfeit But how comes it then into the Popes Constitution You must enquire this of Baronius or of those who have accesse to the Vaticane whence this Constitution was taken might one have the sight of the Vaticane copy I doubt not but either there are some evident prints of error in inserting this confession into it or which I exceedingly mistrust Baronius hath used a little of the Vaticane art in this matter Howsoever certaine it is that this confession hath neither fit coherence nor any dependence at all of ought in the Constitution but it is both complete and much more orderly this being wholly expunged than if so idle a fiction be annexed unto it But let the Cardinall and his friends looke to this matter by what meanes or whose fraud this was inserted I thought needfull to admonish thē of the fault nor for the love and affection I beare to that Constitution of Vigilius could I with silence see and suffer it to be blemished therewith 7. The second is Eustathius of whom I would have spoken more in this place but that his fained and fabulous narrations are so clearly discovered before that I thinke it needlesse to adde ought concerning him or them 8. The third writing is a book in very great request with Baronius and that is those Epistles which beare the name of Theodoret of which though much hath beene sayd before yet will I here adde somewhat to manifest them further to bee counterfeit and most false Among them two are most eminent that to Dioscorus and the other to Pope Leo. That the former is forged the other doth demonstrate For by that to Dioscorus which was writ anno 444. Theodoret is made to say that he had then beene Bishop 26. yeares whereas by the later written anno 449. it is cleare that in that yeare he had beene Bishop no more than 26. yeares So vice versa that the later is forged is demonstrated by the former for by that to Leo written an 449. Theodoret is made to say that he had then beene Bishop just 26. whereas by the other to Dioscorus written anno 444. it is witnessed that hee had beene Bishop 26. yeares five yeares before he writ to Leo. And they are both demonstrated to be meere fictitious in that Theodoret is made in them both to testifie that for that whole time of 26. yeares he had beene orthodoxall in faith and for proofe thereof he appeales to his owne writings written 12.15 and 20. yeares before that whereas it is as cleare as the Sunne that hee was a most earnest defender and writer in defence of Nestorius and his heresies and for this cause was justly condemned by the holy Councell of Ephesus yea and his writings yet extant doe undenyably convince the same Besides in that to Dioscorus hee professeth his ardent affection and love to Cyrill whereas after Cyrils death in an open assembly at Antioch he most bitterly unjustly and spitefully declamed against him Further in that to Dioscorus it is said that he was orthodoxall anno 444. when that Epistle was written whereas in his Epistle written anno 448. or after unto Irene a Nestorian Bishop of Tyre justly deposed by the Emperour he bemones both the publike cause and the case of Irene comparing his to the cause of Susanna and lamenting that either they must offend God and hurt their owne conscience if they forsake Nestorianisme or else fall into unjust decrees and punishments of men if they continued in that doctrine and who further calls this deposed and hereticall Bishop Dilectissimum piissimum Irenaeum The most beloved and most holy Irene The like forgery might be shewed in his Epistle to Nomus written also anno 448. wherein hee exclameth against the Emperor Theodosius as if he had given toleration free liberty of Religion to Arians Eunomians Manichees Marcionites Valentinians Mōtanists yet restrained yea excluded him ab omni civitate from every City in his Empire which to bee a most vile and unjust slander the piety and zeale of Theodosius highly renowned both by Sozomen and Pope Leo doth demonstrate and whose Edicts against heretikes do also manifest the same seeing therein out of his hatred to heresie and specially to Nestorianisme he forbids any such to enjoy their Sees or to scape unpunished and being misinformed that Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorileum were Nestorians hee upon that misinformation unjustly and rashly subjected them to that censure but being truly enformed of Domnus and Theodoret that they embraced Nestorianisme he justly confirmed their deposition forbidding any either to reade or have the bookes or Theodoret or of Nestorius Theodorets being every whit as bad as the bookes of Nestorius It were easie to shew the like prints of forgery in all those Epistles going under the name of Theodoret which the Cardinall so much magnifieth but I am loth to stay too long in them the falshood of which hath beene so often before demonstrated 9. A fourth is that Action concerning Domnus inserted by Baronius and Binius into the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon This to be undoubtedly a forgery and fiction was before proved because Domnus was dead before the Councell at Chalcedon for so both the Emperour Iustinian in his Edict and the fift Councell expresly witnesse saying the holy Councell at Chalcedon condemned Domnus post mortem after he was dead for that he durst write that the twelve chapters of Cyrill should not be spoken of Now that whole Action containing nothing else but a consultation and decree for the maintenance of Domnus by some annuall allowance out of the revenewes of the See of Antioch none I thinke will once imagine that so grave so wise and worthy an assembly of 603. Bishops would either consult or make a decree for the allowance of a stipend or maintenance to be given to a dead man specially not to Domnus whose deposition in the Ephesine latrociny the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved and it is very unlikely they would judge him worthy to have maintenance out of that Bishopricke of which by reason of his heresie they judged him most justly to bee deprived But if there were no other reasons to manifest this the place whence it comes might justly cause one to distrust the same for is it thinke you in the Greeke and originall copies of that Councell No certainly it is not as both the Cardinall and Binius will assure you Desideratur in Graeco it is wanting in the Greeke or originall nor onely is it now wanting there but certum est eadem caruisse
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
singing an hymne behold the Lord commeth Thus Anastasius Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend were easie to demonstrate if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part for they not onely condemne this as untrue but prove it by divers arguments to be such The first for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely for the cause of the Three Chapters and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof aperti mendacij arguitur is convinced of an evident untruth The second because seeing as they say Mennas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented Iustinian would conciliate the Pope unto him by all faire meanes and intreate him no otherwise but favourably least if the Pope were displeased he should not yeeld his consent and then the whole purpose of the Emperour should bee made frustrate Their third reason is an argument à testimonio negativè because neither Procopius nor Facundus mention any such violence or abuse offered to the Pope of which reason I have spoken before A fourth is taken from the time whereas he saith that Vigilius came to Constant. on Christmas eve mendacij redarguitur hee is proved to lye by that which Procopius saith Many other reasons might bee added but these of Baronius and Binius are sufficiâ—nt to convince Anastasius of lying and open lying in this passage which is as now you see nothing but a fardell of lyes for neither did the people take that oportunity to accuse Vigilius nor did they accuse him of those crimes nor did the Empresse for that cause send for Vigilius neither did shee but Iustinian call him to Constantinople neither did shee send Anthimus Scribo to pull him away by violence neither commanded she him not to forbeare Vigilius in any place but only in Saint Peters Church this was but the kind affection of Anastasius to the honour of Peters See neither did shee sweare to excommunicate Scribo if hee brought not Vigilius neither did Scribo apprehend him in the Temple of Saint Cicile neither did Vigilius distribute a largesse at that time when he was apprehended neither did they violently carry him to Tiber and there ship him neither did the people follow him and desire him to pray for them neither when the ship was gone did they revile him nor cast stones nor clubs nor dung after him nor imprecate and curse him neither was hee at that time brought but as by Procopius appeareth long before hee voluntarily went to Sicilie and made so long stay there that the Emperour having called him the yeare before as by Victor is cleare by reason of his long abode in Sicilie he called him the yeare after againe out of Sicily as Procopius sheweth Neither came he to Constantinople on Christmas Eeve but either on the five and twentieth of Ianuary as Marcellinus saith or as by Procopius who is farre more worthy of credit may bee gathered about the middle of April next ensuing neither did the Emperour when they met kisse him nor did they weepe for joy the one of the other nor did they sing the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator behold the Lord the Ruler is come It was a very pretty allusion of Anastasius and very apt for the season in honour of the Pope to take part of the text expressing the joy for Christs Advent in the flesh and turne it to an Anthem to congratulate the Popes Advent on Christmas eve to Constantinople but I feare it will hardly be beleeved that men in those dayes did use such base nay blasphemous flattery to the Pope this hymne would have better befitted the time of Leo the tenth when in the open Councell they durst say to Pope Leo Weepe not O daughter Syon Ecce venit Leo de Tribu Iuda behold the Lion of the Tribe of Iuda commeth the roote of Iesse behold GOD hath raised up to thee a Saviour who shall save thee from the hands of the destroying Turks and deliver thee from the hand of the Persecutors O most blessed Leo wee have looked for thee we have hoped that thou shouldest come and be our deliverer The former Anthem had beene sutable to such a time the art of their blasphemous Gnatonisme to the Popes was not halfe learned in Iustinians dayes and most incredible it is that Iustinian would use or could endure in his presence such entertainment of Vigilius knowing that hee was an earnest and violent oppugner of his Imperiall Edict in which he had expresly anathematized and accursed all that did defend the Three Chapters This proclaming of an Anathema against Vigilius and the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator with kissing weeping for joy make no good concord nor harmony together Let this be accounted for no moe than twenty Anastasian lyes and those are the fewest which are bound up in this fardle 19. After that Anastasius hath as you have seene safely landed the Pope at Constantinople then hee tels you That for two yeares space there was continuall strife about Anthimus the Emperour and Empresse laboured to have Vigilius restore him urged him with his promise and handwriting but Vigilius would no way consent and when he found them so heavy towards him he said I perceive now it was not Iustinian and Theodora but Dioclesian and Eleutheria that called mee hither doe with me what you will thereupon they buffeted him and called him homicide and killer of Sylverius then hee fled to the Church of Euphemia and held himselfe by a Piller of the Altar but they puld him thence cast him out of the Church put a rope about his necke dragged him through all the City till evening and then put him in prison feeding him with a little bread and water and after this they banished him also with the rest of the Romane Clergy And these like the rest are meerely the sond and sottish dreames of Anastasius of as Baronius useth to call them lyes Baronius will assure you that it was not Anthimus or his restoring but the Three Chapters about which Vigilius was sent for The cause of Anthimus who was deposed tenne yeares before was quite forgotten and to see the sottishnesse of Anastasius Iustinian had long before written to Vigilius requiring him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius had done this upon the Emperours letter the Popes letters are recorded both in Baronius and Binius dated when Iustinus was Consull which was sixe whole yeares before the Popes comming to Constantinople all that time the Emperour still liked the deposing of Anthimus and many wayes had approved Mennas for the Bishop Now after all this when the whole Church and every man was troubled with a more waighty cause of the Three Chapters Anastasius brings in this that the Emperour and the Pope quarrelled for two yeares about an old forgotten matter of
condemned and anathematized by words by writings by all meanes which they could devise publishing libels and bitter invectives against it and the Emperor himselfe also He seeing so generall a disturbance in his Empire and the whole Church to be in a combustion about this cause to end and quiet all used that which is the best and last publick meanes which is left to the Church for deciding any doubt or controversie of faith and of purpose to determine this so weighty a cause whether those Three Chapters were to be condemned or allowed he assembled this fifth and holy generall Councill whereof God assisting us we are now to entreat CAP. II. That the Fift Generall Councill when Pope Vigilius refused to come unto it was held without the Popes presence therein either by himselfe or by his Legates 1. THat this Council was celebrated when Pope Vigilius was at Constantinople that he was once againe often and earnestly invited to the Synod but wilfully refused to be present either personally or by his deputies the Acts of the Councill doe abundantly witnesse The holy Synod said thus Saepius petivimus We have often entreated the most holy Pope Vigilius to come together with us and make a determination of these matters Againe the holy Synod said The most glorious Iudges and certaine of us saepius adhortati sunt Vigilium have often exhorted Vigilius to come and debate and make an end of this cause touching the Three Chapters Neither did they onely invite exhort and entreat him but in the Emperors name they commanded him to come to the Synod We being present said the Bishops who were sent unto him Liberius Peter and Patricius proposuerunt Iussionem pijssimi Imperatoris sanctissimo Papae proposed to the most holy Pope Vigilius the command of the most holy Emperor If all this seeme not enough the Emperor himselfe testifieth the same Mandavimus illi we have commanded Vigilius both by our Iudges and by certaine of your selves he writ this to the Synod ut una cum omnibus conveniret that he should come together with all the rest in common to debate and determine this cause touching the Three Chapters 2. What Pope Vigilius did after so many invitations entreaties and commands Card. Bellarmine doth declare The Pope saith he nesque per se neque per legatos interfuit was not present in the Council either by himselfe or by his legats And more clearly in another place The Pope saith he was then at Constantinople sed noluit interesse but he would not be present in the Councill Binius testifieth the same At the fifth Councill Vigilius was not present either by himselfe or by his deputies And Baronius The Pope saith he noluit interesse would not be present either by himselfe or by any to supply his place And this Cardinall adds not without some choler The members assembled without the head nulla Vigilij aegrotantis adhuc habita ratione having no regard at all to Pope Vigilius then sick 3. What doth the Card. complaine that they had no regard of him when himselfe a little before professeth noluit interesse he himselfe was not willing to be present Or had they no regard of him when before ever they assembled or sate in the Synod they writ an Epistle unto him entreating his presence and with their own request signified the Emperors command wil and pleasure to him that he shold come together with the rest when after they were assembled in the Synod they so often so earnestly invited and even entreated him to come together with them when they whom they sent to invite him were no meane no ordinary messengers neither for their number nor dignitie but twenty reverend Bishops all of them Metropolitanes as the Cardinal both knew and acknowledged the Synodall acts doe witnesse and of those twenty three were Patriarks Eutychius of Constantinople Apollinarius of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch Was this a signe that they had no regard of Vigilius when besides all this in token of their most earnest desire of his presence among divers other they proposed two most effectuall reasons to induce him to come The one the promise of Presidencie among them which so far as in them lay they offred unto him saying Petimus praesidente nobis vestra beatitudine we entreat that your holinesse being present in this Synod the question may be debated and have an end The other which should not onely in equitie but even in common honesty have prevailed with a Pope for that himselfe had promised and that under his owne hand-writing that he would come to the Synod we told him said the Bishop your holinesse knoweth quod in his quae inter nos in scriptis facta sunt promisistis that in those things which were done in writing betwixt us you have promised to come together with the rest and discusse these three Chapters And againe we entreated his reverence say the whole Synod scriptas suas promissiones adimplere to performe that which in his writing he had promised 4. Had they no regard of sick Vigilius whose infirmity being signified to the Synod at their first session they forthwith concluded that Session saying Oportet we must defer the examination of the cause to another day And whereas the Pope promised to give them an answer the next day then because his qualme was overpast he found new excuses for his absence one because there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them another because he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing and offer it to the Emperor for which cause he had entreated respite for certaine dayes of his highnesse Both which were in truth nothing else but meerepretēces as the Bishops thē sent manifestly declared unto him For both the Emperor said they vult te in cōmuni convenire will have you to come together with the rest therefore he ought not to have given his sentēce alone but in common and in the Synod and for his other excuse Baronius himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence for so it was indeed seeing as the Bishops truly told him in none of the former Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops but onely two or three and some Clerkes whereas at that time there were present with the Pope at Constantinople many Italian Bishops others out of Africk others out of Illirium for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Councills whereupon they plainly and truly told the Pope to his face Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod together with us not sicknesse not want of Western Bishops Nihil est there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind So extraordinary respect had they of the Pope at this time
and consent to the writings of Leo and this generall Councill Thus said Eunomius wherein there is neither mention nor intention of that Epistle neither of the first middle nor last part thereof But whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon many other things besides that Epistle were recited touching the cause of Ibas and particularly the whole Acts before Photius Eustathites and Vranius B. of Berithum where a Synod was held about Ibas it was those Acts and judgement given by them and performed by Ibas and not the Epistle of Ibas to which Eunomius had respect when he said by the posteriora or postrema Ibas made a true confession for so in the fifth Council it is cleerly witnessed It is manifest say they that Eunomius made this speech gesta apud Photium et Eustathium attendens looking at those Acts before Photius and Eustathius Now in those Acts as is manifest by the diligent perusall thereof and is further testified by the fift Councill there was a judgement pronounced by Photius and Eustathius adversus eam epistolam et quae in ea continentur against that Epistle and the contents thereof Ibas being commanded by those venerable Iudges both to embrace the first Ephesine Synod which that impious Epistle rejecteth and to condemne and accurse Nestorius and his followers whom that Epistle commendeth which judgement that Ibas then performed the Acts before Photius and Eustathius doe make evident for there it is thus said Confessus est Ibas sic se credere Ibas professed that he beleeved as the letters of Cyrill to Iohn did import and that he consented in all things to the first Synod at Ephesus accounting their judgement as a decree inspired by the holy Ghost Yea he did not onely in words professe this but in writing also at the perswasions of Photius and Eustathius he expressed the like for the full satisfaction of such as had been before scandalized by his impious doctrine And Ibas yet further of his owne accord promised before those Iudges that he would in his own Church at Edessa and that publikely accurse Nestorius as the chief leader in that impious heresie and those also who did thinke as he did or who did use his books or writings Thus much do those Acts declare 12. This orthodoxall confession of Ibas made before Photius and Eustathius this accursing of Nestorius and his heresies this embracing of the Ephesine Councill is that which Eunomius calleth Posteriora or Postrema as following by many yeares not onely that which Ibas did or said before the Vnion made betweene Iohn and Cyrill but even this Impious Epistle also written after that Vnion Of this confession Eunomius truly said that by it being posterius later then the Epistle Ibas had refuted all for which he was formerly blamed for by this in effect he refuted condemned and accursed this whole Epistle with all the heresies and blasphemies both in the head and taile thereof And for this cause and in regard of this holy confession the fift Councill said that thereby Ibas had anathematized his owne Epistle contrariam per omnia being in every part of it contrary to the faith both in the beginning and end thereof And the interlocution of Eusebius B. of Ancyra at the Councill of Chalcedon doth fully explaine the meaning of Eunomius for he expresly mentioneth those Acts before Photius and Eustathius and the confession of Ibas then made which Eunomius called posteriora saying thus The reading of that judgement before Photius and Eustathius doth teach that Ibas in that judgement accursed Nestorius and his impious doctrines and consented to the true faith Wherfore I receive him for a Bishop if he now doe condemne Nestorius The like said Diogenes B. of Cyzicum Thalassius Bishop of Cesarea Iohn Bishop of Sebastia and they all cryed Omnes eadem dicimus wee all say the same So cleare it is that upon this holy Confession of Ibas made first before Photius and Eustathius and after that before all the Councill at Chalcedon and not upon this Epistle nor any part first or last thereof Ibas was acknowledged and embraced for a Catholike both by Eunomius Eusebius Diogenes and all the whole Councill of Chalcedon 13. By this now appeareth not onely the error but the extreme fraud of Baronius who in excuse of Vigilius not onely affirmeth an hereticall untruth that the latter part of the Epistle is orthodoxall but labours to uphold and boulster out that untruth with a malitious perverting and falsifying both of the words and meaning of Eunomius And thus far proceeded the holy Councill against Vigilius in their sixt Session being the very next after they had received the Popes mandatorie letters commanding them neither to speake nor write ought concerning the Three Chapters otherwise then he by his Apostolicall constitution had decreed 14. In the seventh Collation besides the publike reading of divers letters and writings for the manifestation of the truth and of the uprightnes of their judgment in this cause of the three Chapters all that was formerly done was now againe repeated and approved by the holy Councill Such diligence and warinesse they used in this matter that nothing might passe without often recitall and serious ponderation by the whole Councill 15. In the eight which is the last Collation the holy Councill proceeded to their Synodall and Definitive sentence touching all those Three Chapters which Vigilius as they knew by his decree and Apostolicall authoritie had defended But the Councill directly contradicting the Pope in them all doth Definitively condemne and accurse them all and all who defend them or any of them which sentence of the Councill as Baronius truly confesseth was pronounced contra decreta ipsius Vigilij in a direct opposition to the Decrees of Vigilius Which that it may fully appeare as you have before seene the words of the Popes Decree so now consider also and compare with them the words and Decree of the Councill 16. First the holy Councill sets downe in generall their sentence concerning all the Three Chapters The defenders of which they had before and here againe doe proclame to be heretikes in this manner We accurse the Three foresaid Chapters to wit Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his impious writings The impious writings of Theodoret against Cyril and the impious Epistle of Ibas et defensores eorum et qui scripserunt vel scribunt ad defensionem eorum also we accurse the Defenders of those Chapters and those who have written or who do at any time write for the defence of them or who presume to say that they are right or who have defended aut defendere conantur or who doe at any time indevour to defend their impietie under the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon Thus decreed the whole Synod Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene before defended all these Three Chapters he defended them by writing yea by his
Apostolicall authoritie Constitution and Definitive sentence he defended them by the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon Pope Vigilius then by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill is an Anathema a condemned and accursed heretike yea a Definer of a condemned and accursed heresie Baronius writeth earnestly in defence of Pope Vigilius and his Constitution he commends him for defending those Three Chapters saying The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius whom they might follow and Vigilius himselfe he had many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and shew of consenting with the holy Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon Card. Baronius then by the same definitive sentence of this holy and generall Council is an Anathema with Vigilius a condemned and accursed heretike 17. After this generall sentence the Councill proceedeth in particular severally to condemne each of these Three Chapters by it selfe Of the first they thus define If any do defend impious Theodorus of Mopsvestia et non anathematizat cum and doe not accurse him and his impious writings let such an one be accursed Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene would not himselfe neither would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus he forbiddeth any to doe it he made an Apostolicall Constitution that none should accurse him Card. Baronius he writeth in defence of Vigilius and of his Constitution in this point Thomas Stapleton goeth further for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus that he expresly calls him a Catholike yea a most Catholike Bishop Vigilius then Baronius and Stapleton are al of them accursed by the Definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill in this first Chapter 18. Of the second Chapter they thus decree If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril et non anathematizat ea and doe not accurse them let him be an Anathema Vigilius would not himselfe accurse them he would not permit any other to disgrace Theodoret or injure him by accursing his writings Baronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius they both then are tyed againe in this third Anathema of the Councill 19. Though a threefold cord be not easily broken yet the holy Councill addeth a fourth which is more indissoluble then any adamantine chaine Of the Third Chapter they decree in this manner f If any defend that impious Epistle of Ibas unto Maris which denieth God to be borne of the blessed Virgin which accuseth Cyrill for an heretike which condemneth the holy Councill of Ephesus and defendeth Theodorus and Nestorius with their impious doctrines and writings if any defend this Epistle et non anathematizat eam et defensores ejus et eos qui dicunt cam rectam esse vel partem ejus et eos qui scripserunt et scribunt pro eâ If any doe not accurse this Epistle and the Defenders of it and those who say that it or any part of it is right If any do not also accurse those who have written or who at any time doe write for it and the impiety contained in it and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon such an one be accursed Now Vigilius as was formerly declared defendeth this Epistle as orthodoxall he defendeth it by his Cathedrall sentence and Apostolicall authoritie he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon saying Orthodoxa est Iba à patribus proniōciata dictatio Baronius defendeth both Vigilius and this Epistle in some part thereof he defendeth them under pretence of the Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon saying Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam The Fathers at Chalcedon said that this Epistle ought to be received as orthodoxall Is it possible thinke you by any shift or evasion to free either Vigilius or Baronius from this fourth Anathema denounced by the judiciall and Definitive sentence of this Holy Generall Councill 20. But what speake I of Baronius as if he alone were a Defender of Vigilius and his Constitution All who have or who at any time doe hold and defend either by word or writing that the Popes judiciall and definitive sentence in causes of faith is infallible and this is held by Bellarmine Gretzer Pighius Gregorius de Valentia and as afterwards I purpose to declare at large by all and every one who is truly a member of the present Romane Church all these by holding and defending this one Position doe implicitly in that hold and defend every Cathedrall and definitive sentence of any of their Popes and particularly this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius to be not only true but infallible also and so they all defend the Three Chapters they defend the Defenders of them by name Pope Vigilius among the rest All these then are unavoidably included within all the former Anathemaes all denounced and proclamed to be heretikes to be accursed and separate from God by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill 21. With what comfort alacritie and confidence may the servants of Christ fight his battles and defend their holy faith and religion or how can the servants of Antichrist chuse but be utterly dismayed and daunted herewith seeing they cannot wag their tongues or hands to speake or write ought either against ours or in defence of their owne doctrines especially not of that which is the foundation of the rest and is virtually in them all but ipso facto even for that act alone if there were no other cause they are declared and pronounced by the judiciall sentence of an holy generall and approved Councill to be accursed heretikes 22. The Councill yet adds another clause which justly chalengeth a speciall consideration Some there are who would be held men of such a milde and mercifull disposition that though they dislike and condemne those assertions of the Popes supremacy of authoritie and infallibility of judgement yet are they so charitably affected to the Defenders of those assertions that they dare not themselves nor can indure that others should call them heretickes or accursed Durus est hic sermo this is too harsh and hard See here the fervour and zeale of this holy Councill They first say Cursed be the defenders of this Epistle or any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all who defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Church of Rome Cursed be they all And not contenting themselves herewith they adde Cursed be he who doth not accurse the defenders of that Epistle or of any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and
every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitū Edictū against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasiō which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the case is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith In eâ de personis tantummodo non autem de fide aliquid est gestum In it was onely handled somewhat concerning those persons but nothing concerning the faith So Gregory whose words if they be taken without any limitation are not onely untrue but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Councels and Fathers above mentioned even to Gregory himselfe for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time he saith Whosoever embraceth praedictarum Synodorum fidem the faith explaned by those five Councels peace be unto them And if hee had not in such particular manner testified this yet seeing hee approveth as was before shewed this fift Councel and the Decree therof seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith grounded on Scriptures and the definitions of faith set downe in former Councels even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply that he accounted this cause for no other than as the Synod it selfe did for a cause of faith 17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himselfe herein I list not to censure so of him rather by his owne words I desire to explane his meaning There were divers in his time as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius who condemned this fift Councell because as they supposed it had altered and abolished the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon by condemning these Three Chapters and had established a new doctrine of faith Gregorie intreating against these whom he truly calleth malignant persons and troublers of the Church denieth and that most justly that this
his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ. It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee it renounceth all peace and communion with him whether dead or alive nay rather it forsaketh not her communion with him but declareth unto all that shee never had communion or peace with this man such as hee was indeed before though she had peace with such as he seemed to bee Shee now denounceth a double anathema against him condemning him first for beleeving or teaching heresie and then for covering his heresie under the visor of a Catholike and of the Catholike faith So justly and fully doth the Emperour and Councell refute both the personall errour of Vigilius in that hee affirmeth Theodorus to have dyed in the peace of the Church and the doctrinall also in that he affirmeth it upon this ground that in his life time hee was not condemned by the Church 5. Now whereas Baronius saith that Vigilius had just and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter one of which is this because if this were once admitted that one dying in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned for an heretike pateret ostium there would a gap be opened that every ecclesiasticall writer licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset although hee dyed in the communion of the Catholike Church might after death be out of his writings condemned for an heretike truly hee feareth where no feare is at all This gap nay this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath laine wide open this sixteen hundred years Can the Cardinall or any of his friends in all these successiōs of ages wherin have dyed many thousand millions of Catholikes can he name or finde but so much as one who hath truly dyed in the peace and communion of the Church and yet hath beene after his death condemned by the Catholike Church for an heretike He cannot The Church should condemne her owne selfe if shee condemned any with whom she had peace and whom she embraceth in her holy communion which is no other but the society with God Such indeed may dye in some errour yea in an errour of faith as Papias Irenee Iustine in that of the millenaries as Cyprian as is likely and other Africane Bishops in that of Rebaptization but either dye heretikes or be after their death condemned by the Catholike Church for heretikes they cannot 6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinall and all his fellowes should feare another matter which more neerely concernes themselves and feare it even upon that Catholike position that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condemned They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause for his supremacy of authority or infallibility of his Cathedrall judgement feare to stuffe their Volumes as the Cardinall hath done his Annals with heresies and oppositions against the faith feare to continue and persist in their hereticall doctrine feare to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula the second and onely boord to save them after their shipwracke to dye I say before they revoked disclamed condemned or beene the first men to set fire to their hereticall doctrines and writings and at least in words if not as the custome was by oath and handwriting to testifie to the Church their desire to returne unto her bosome These are the things indeed they ought to feare knowing that howsoever they flatter themselves with the vaine name of the Church yet in very truth so long as their writings remaine testifying that they defended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith or any other doctrine relying on that ground whereof in their life time they have not made a certaine and knowne recantation they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church but may at any time after their death and ought whēsoever occasiō is offered be declared by the Church to have dyed in their heresies and therefore dyed both out of the peace of God and of the holy Church of God This unlesse they seriously and sincerely performe it is not I nor any of our writers whom they imagine but most unjustly out of spleene and contention to speake these things who condemne them but it is the whole Catholike Church Shee by approving this fift Councell and the true decree therof condemns this Apostolicall Cathedral definition of Vigilius and all that defend it that is all the members of the present Romane Church to be hereticall and as convicted heretikes she declares them to die anathematized that is utterly separated from God and from the peace and most blessed communion with the Church of God howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God 7. If any shall here reply or thinke that by the former examples of Papias Irenee Iustine Cyprian and the rest Baronius and other mēbers of the present Romane church may be excused that these also as the former though dying in their error may dye in the peace cōmunion of the Church this I confesse is a friendly but no firme excuse for although they are both alike in this that the former as well as the latter dye in an errour of faith yet is there extreme odds and many cleare dissimilitudes betwixt the state or condition of the one and the other 8. The first ariseth from the matter it selfe wherin they erre The former erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not eliquata declarata solidata per plenarium Concilium as S. Austen speaketh not fully scanned declared confirmed by a plenary Councell Had it bin we may well think the very same of all those holy men which Austen most charitably saith of S. Cyprian Sine dubio universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church The latter erre in that which to use same Fathers words per universae Ecclesiae statut a firmatum est which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church This fift Councell consonant to all precedent and confirmed by
Theodoretum refutatio Cyrill who in his Epistle to Eulogius faith thus You have my refutation which I set forth against Andreas and Theodoret who writ against my Chapters 6. Witnesse Theodoret himselfe who in sundrie of his Epistles testifieth his spleene and spight against Cyrill and the Catholike faith In one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most perverse and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresie of Nestorius I wil never saith he while I live consent to those things which are done against you and against the law so hee taxeth not onely the Chapters of Cyrill but the decree of the holy Ephesine Synod no I will not consent unto them though they should cut off both my hands In another to Iohn the Bishop of Antioch We continue still saith he contradicting the twelve Chapters ut alienis à pietate as being contrary to pietie In another to Aemerius Wee ought not to consent to the condemnation of the venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius in another to Alexander I told you before that the doctrine of my venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius hath beene condemned nec ego cum his qui faciunt communicabo neither will I communicate with those who condemned that doctrine and yet more bitterly in his Epistle to Andreas his fellow oppugner of those Chapters Insanit iterum Aegyptus adversus Deum Aegypt is againe madde against the Lord and makes warre with Moses and Aaron the servants of God As if Nestorius and his fellow-heretikes were the onely Israel but Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt and the holy Ephesine Councell and all Catholikes who held with them were no other but Pharao and his Aegyptian troupes which fought against GODS people 7. Doe we yet desire more or more pregnant and ample testimonies in this matter Take this one out of the acts of Chalcedon When Theodoret being called came first into the Synod the most reverend Bishops of Aegypt Illirium and Palestine cryed out against him in this manner The Canons exclude this man thrust him out Magistrum Nestorij for as mittite thrust out the master of Nestorius the orthodoxall Councell doth not receive Theodoret Call him not a Bishop he is no Bishop hee is an oppugner of God he is a Iew thrust him out he accused he anathematized Cyrill If we receive him we reject Cyrill The Canons exclude him God doth detest him Thus cryed out the Bishops against Theodoret before they knew him to have renounced the heresie of Nestorius which he had so long and so eagerly defended nor were they pacified otherwise but that Theodoret at the appointment of the Iudges should sit onely as an accuser of Dioscorus not as one having judicatorie power or a decisive suffrage till his owne cause was fully examined and heard Seeing now there are besides many other which I willingly omit so many so evident so obvious so undeniable proofes that Theodoret writ against Cyrill and against his twelve Chapters in defence of Nestorius and his heresie what can one thinke of Vigilius but that he wilfully and wittingly resisted the truth while he not onely strives to perswade that Theodoret writ no such thing and that the Councell of Chalcedon thought so but takes this knowne and palpable untruth for one of the grounds of his Apostolicall decree touching this second Chapter 8. And yet there is a worse matter in this very passage of Vigilius and that is the reason whereby he proveth that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill or in defence of Nestorius you shall heare it in his owne words It is saith he undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon that any Nestorian doctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop Theodoret who together with those holy Fathers did accurse the doctrines of Nestorius Quid enim aliud est mendaces simulantes professionem rectae fidei patres in sancto Concilio Chalcedonensi residentes ostendere quam dicere aliquos ex ijs similia sapuisse Nestorio for to say that any of them who were in that Councell had thought as Nestorius did is nothing else then to shew or affirme those Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon to be lyers and dissemblers in faith as condemning that faith which they doe allow Thus reasoneth Vigilius who hence implyeth that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops and Fathers at Chalcedon if he ever writ any such things in defence of Nestorius then both he and the rest admitting him should dissemble in their faith and lye professing to condemne Nestorius and yet approving him who had writ in defence of Nestorius 9. Truly I doe even admire to consider the blindnesse of Vigilius in this whole cause of the three Chapters Most certaine it is as we have shewed that Theodoret did both thinke as Nestorius and write in defence of him and his heresie and that the Councell of Chalcedon knew he did so If then to receive such an one as they knew Theodoret to have beene be as Vigilius saith a dissembling and lying in the faith the whole Councell of Chalcedon by the Popes judgement and decree were undoubtedly all lyers and dissemblers in the faith a calumnie and slander so vile and incredible that it alone should cause any Catholike minde to detest this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius But to say truth the Popes reason is without al reason Had the holy Coūcell admitted Theodoret before he had renounced his heresie or manifested the sincerity of his faith unto them the Pope might have had some colour to have accused them of dissembling as condemning Nestorianisme yet receiving a known Nestorian into their communion but it was quite contrary In the former actions till Theodoret had cleared himselfe of heresie hee was as we have declared no otherwise admitted than onely as a plaintiffe who accused Dioscorus for injuriously deposing him and placing another in his See And in the eight Action wherein hee came to cleare himselfe and to be reconciled to the Church he had no sooner almost set his foot in the Synod but the Bishops cryed out Theodoretus modo anathematizet Nestorium let Theodoret forthwith anathematize Nestorius let him doe it instantly and without any delay And when Theodoret to give the Councell better satisfaction offered them first a book to reade containing the sincere profession of his faith and when that being refused he purposed at large by words to have expressed the same the Synod suspecting the worst and that hee used those delayes as being loath to anathematize Nestorius cryed out He is an heretike he is a Nestorian haereticum for as mitte out with the heretike and so they had indeed thrust him out but that he leaving all circuition presently before them all cryed Anathema to Nestorius Anathema to him who doth not confesse the blessed Virgin to bee the Mother of God with which profession the Synod being fully satisfied the glorious Iudges
union with Cyrill and communion with the Church and comming under the vaunt of that union as in the wombe of the Trojane horse the Pope and the Cardinall may now with honour receive them the union and with or in it all Nestorianisme must be brought into the City the Pope and the Cardinall with themselves put their hands to this holy worke pedibusque rotarum subijciunt lapsus stupeae vincula collo intendunt themselves will drag and hale it with their owne shoulders to within the wals nor is that enough it must be placed in the very Romane Capitoll in the holy temple and consecrated to God and that the Pope himselfe will doe by an Apostolicall and infallible constitution by that immutable decree is this union set up as the Catholike union Et monstrum infoelix sacrata sistitur arce this unholy and unhappy union is now embraced by which all the gates of the City of God are set wide open for all heresies to rush in at their pleasure and make havocke of the Catholike faith 23. Now it is not unworthy our labour to consider whether Vigilius and Baronius did in meere ignorance or wittingly embrace this union mentioned by Ibas that is in truth all Nestorianisme And for Vigilius if any will be so favourable as to interpret all this to have proceeded of ignorance I will not greatly contend with him It is as great a crime for their Romane Apollo and as foule a disgrace to their infallible Chaire upon ignorance to decree an heresie as to do it upon wilfull obstinacy yet to coÌ„fesse the truth I am more than of opinion that Vigilius not upon ignorance but out of a setled judgment affection which he bare to Nestorianisme decreed this union and with it the doctrines of Nestorius to be embraced And that which induceth mee so to judge is the great diligence care and circumspection which Vigilius used to enforme both himselfe and others in this matter for besides that this cause was debated and continually discussed in the Church for the space of six yeares and more before the Pope published this his Apostolicall Constitution all which time Vigilius was a chiefe party in this cause himselfe in his decree witnesseth concerning this third Chapter or Epistle of Ibas that he examined it diligenti investigatione by a diligent inquisition yea that he perused his bookes most diligently for this point and concludeth both of it and the rest that hee decreed these things cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all possible care and diligence that could be used And because plâ—s vident oculi quam oculus hee added to his owne the judgement of an whole Synod of Bishops all of them bending their eyes wits industry to find out the truth in this cause Further yet Vigilius speaketh in this cause of Ibas not doubtfully but in words proceeding from certaine knowledge and resolute judgment dilucide aperteque reperimus evidenter advertimus apertissimum noscuntur praebuisse consensum evidenter declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil in confessione fidei fuisse reprehensum illud indubitanter patet apertissima lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae constat eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore luce clarius demonstratur All which doe shew that Vigilius spake out of his setled judgement and resolution after most diligent examination of this cause Now that the whole Epistle and of all parts that especially where Ibas intreateth of the union that this is full of Nestorianisme is so evident that scarce any though but of a shallow judgement who doth with ordinary diligence peruse and ponder the same can otherwise chuse than observe and see it Wherefore I cannot thinke but that Vigilius both saw and knew that part of the Epistle above all the rest to containe the doctrines of Nestorius and an approbation of them all and that by approving the union there mentioned he approved all the doctrines of the Nestorians 24. But for cardinall Baronius that hee in defending the latter part of this Epistle as doth Vigilius before him that in striving so earnestly by it to prove Ibas to have beene a catholike and his Epistle to be orthodoxall at least in the latter part because Ibas assented to the union mentioned therein that he I say did herein wittingly willingly and obstinately labour to maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for my owne part I cannot almost doubt nor as I thinke will his best friends when they have well considered of his words He intreating of this matter touching Ibas and his Epistle in another place where this Constitution of Vigilius comes not to the scanning and so did not dimne his sight ingenuously there confesseth that this Epistle is hereticall written by a Nestorian written of purpose to disgrace Cyrill and the catholikes as if they at the union had recanted their former doctrines But let us heare his owne words 25. He having shewed that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils minde and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters addeth this They who favoured Nestorius spred abroad a rumour that Cyrill had in all things consented unto Iohn and condemned his former doctrines and a little after declaring how the Nestorians did slander Cyrill he saith Besides others who tooke part with Nestorius even Theodoret also ijsdem aggressus est Cyrillum urgere calumnijs vexed Cyrill with the same slanders that he had condemned his owne Chapters and then comming to this Epistle of Ibas he thus writeth Who so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians let him reade the Epistle wch is said to be the Epist. of Ibas unto Maris wherin any may see the Nestorian fellow insulting and triumphing as if the cause had beene adjudged to him jactantem Cyrillum poenitentem tandem recantâ—sse palinodiam and vaunting that Cyrill repenting himselfe of his former doctrines did now at last revoke the same and sing a new song And this the author of that Epistle writ and sent abroad as a Circular Epistle to be read throughout the Provinces pro solatio eorum ignominia Catholicorum for the comfort of the Nestorians and for the disgrace of Catholikes Thus Baronius Professing as you see that he knew this Epistle to be hereticall and that even in the latter end which Vigilius and himself defendeth as orthodoxall yea eveÌ„ in that very point touching the union mentioned in that Epistle to be a meere calumnie against Cyrill and the Catholikes as if they by making the union had consented to Nestorianisme and renounced the Ephesine Councell and the Catholike faith 26. Seeing now the Card. knew all this to be true and yet afterwards for defence of Vigilius and his Constitution teacheth and maintaineth that by embracing the union mentioned in this Epistle Ibas was a Catholike and was for this cause by the
Church I say from the true orthodoxall Church for a Saint Augustine in the same place teacheth whosoever dissents from the Scriptures and so from the true faith though they be spred throughout the whole world yet such are not in the sound Church much lesse are they the Church And therefore from them be they never so many never so eminent one may and must separate himselfe But if any sever himselfe from the orthodoxall Church or to speake in Stapletons words si renuit operari in ratione fidei ut pars ecclesiae catholicae if he will not cooperate or joyne together in maintaining the faith as a member of the Catholike or orthodoxall Church Schismaticus hoc ipso est hee is for this very cause a Schismatike 37. Apply now this to Vigilius and the fift generall Councell and the case will be cleare The onely cause of separation on the Councels part was for that Vigilius with all his adherents were Heretikes convicted condemned and accursed for such by that true sentence and judgement of the fift generall Councell which was consonant both to Scriptures Fathers and the foure former generall Councels and approved by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops that is by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more then fifteene hundreth yeares together A cause not onely most just but commanded by the holy Apostle Shun him that is an hereticke after once or twice admonition much more after publike conviction and condemnation by the upright judgement of the whole Catholike Church On the other side Vigilius and his Faction separated themselves from the Councell and all that tooke part with it for this onely reason because they were Catholikes because they embraced and constantly defended the Catholike faith because he wold not cooperate as Stapleton speaketh with them to maintaine the true Catholike faith and so on their part there was that which essentially made them Schismatickes Baronius in saying that those who then dissented from Vigilius were Schismatickes speakes sutably to all his former assertions For in saying this he in effect saith that Catholikes to avoid a Schisme should have turned Heretickes should have embraced Nestorianisme and so have renounced and condemned the whole Catholike faith as Vigilius then did Had they so done they should have been no Schismatikes with Baronius But now for not condemning the Catholike faith with Vigilius they must all be condemned by the Cardinall for Schismatickes 38. For the very same reason the whole present Romane Church are Schismatickes at this day and not the Reformed Churches from whom they separate themselves For the cause of separation on their part is the same for which Vigilius and his schismaticall faction separated themselves from the fift Councell and the Catholikes of those times who all tooke part with it even because wee refuse to embrace the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith as the fift Councell refused that of Vigilius The cause on our part is the same which the fift Councell then had for that they defend the Popes hereticall constitution nay not onely that of Vigilius which yet were cause enough but many other like unto that and especially that one of Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councell wherby Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is given unto the Pope in all his decrees of faith In which one Cathedrall decree condemned for hereticall by the fift Councell and constant judgement both of precedent and subsequent Councells as before we have declared not onely innumerable heresies such as none yet doth dreame of are included but by the venom and poyson of that one fundamētall heresie not only all the other doctrines are corrupted but the very foundation of faith is utterly overthrowne Let them boast of multitudes and universalitie never so much which at this day is but a vaine brag say they were far more even foure hundreth to one Luther or the whole kingdome of Babilon to the two witnesses of God yet seeing it is the cause which makes a schismaticke the cause of separation on their part is most unjust but on ours most warrantable holy for that they will not cooperate with us in upholding the ancient and Catholike faith that especially of the fift Councell condemning and accursing the Cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius as hereticall all that defend it as Heretickes it evidently followeth that they are the only essentially schismatickes at this time and in this great rent of the Church 39. Whence againe doth ensue another Conclusion of no small importance For it is a ruled case among them such as Bellarmine avoucheth to be proved both by Scriptures by Fathers by pontificall decrees and sound reason that no schismatickes are in the Church or of the Church Now because out of the Church there is no salvation it nearly concernes them to bethinke themselves seriously what hope there is or can be unto them who being as wee have proved schismatickes are for this cause by their owne doctrine utterly excluded from the Church But I will proceed no further in this matter wherein I have stayed much longer then I intended yet my hope is that I have now abundantly cleared against Baronius not onely That one may dissent in faith and bee disioyned in communion from the Pope yet neither be Heretickes nor Schismatickes but That none can now consent in faith and hold communion with the Pope but for that very cause he is by the judgement of the Catholike Church both an hereticke and a schismaticke CHAP. XIIII The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresie for that he often professeth to hold the Coūcell of Chalcedon and the faith thereof refuted 1. HIs second excuse for Vigilius is taken from that profession which both other defenders of the three Chapters and Vigilius himselfe often maketh in his Constitution that hee holdes the faith of the Councell of Chalcedon and did all for the safety of that Councell Both parties saith Baronius as well the defenders as the condemners of those three Chapters did testifie that they desired nothing more quam consultum esse catholica fidei probatae à S. Concilio Chalcedonensi then to provide that the Catholike faith decreed at Chalcedon might be safe Againe liquet omnes it is manifest that all Catholikes in defence of the three Chapters at once contradicted this noveltie set downe in the Emperors Edict for condemning those chapters vindicesque se Concilij Chalcedonensis exhibuisse and shewed themselves to bee defenders of the Councell of Chalcedon Of Vigilius in particular hee not so little as fortie times ingeminates this Vigilius writ these things pro defensione integritate Synodi Chalcedonensis for the defence and safety of the Councell at Chalcedon Vigilius writ his constitution for no other cause as by it is evident but to the end that all things which were defined by the Councell at Chalcedon firma consisterent might
confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and the Emperour Pope Vigilius as in place and dignity hee was more eminent so in this Insurrection he was more forward and a ring-leader unto them all And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause First he proclameth the Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane novelty judging it to bee contrary to the holy faith and Councell at Chalcedon To this he addes writings threats and punishments Literas scripsit adversus eos saith Baronius Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor and his Edict in those letters comminatus est eis qui consenserunt he threatned those that consented to the Emperor edixit indixit correctionem he decreed punishment unto them and forewarned them thereof telling them that unlesse they did amend their fault hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them protesting with the Apostle I feare when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not Nor were his threats in vaine as it seemeth seeing Baronius tells us that for this very cause either he or Stephanus his Legate in his name did excommunicate besides others two Patriarkes Mennas of Constantinople and Zoilus of Alexandria and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea 4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons but for the Emperour he took another course with him He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors that he would not do himself But wheÌ„ like Pirrhus ipse sibi cavit loco he had provided for his owne safety then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines Facundus an eloquent maÌ„ indeed as his name also imports but a most obstinate heretike Schismatike seeing he persisted in defeÌ„ce of the three Chapters not only before but after the judicial senteÌ„ce of the general Councel yet is he coÌ„mended by Baronius to be prudentissimus agonistes a most wise champion for the Church but the more hereticall hee is the more like and better liked is hee to Baronius Him doth Vigilius egge and even command to write against the Emperour yea sugillare it is the Cardinals word to taunt and flout him for his Edict nor him onely but in him to reprove omnes simul Principes all Princes whosoever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith or make lawes therein as Iustinian had done Facundus being thus directed incouraged and warranted by Pope Vigilius and being but his instrument in this matter writes a large volume containing twelve bookes against the Emperor in defence of the three Chapters A worke stuffed with heresie yet highly commended by Possevine the Iesuite as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undutifull manner as if forsooth fides omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve and as if none might beleeve otherwise quam praeciperet imperator then the Emperour commanded telling him that it were more meet for him se infra limitem suum continere to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds as other Artificers kept their own shops the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office Such rude homely and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause And as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe enough Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence calling the Emperour utterly unlearned qui nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset who never had learned so much as his A B C nor could ever read the Title of the Bible a Punie a palliated Theologue a sacrilegious person a witlesse furious and franâ—ike fellow possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one to presume against all right to make lawes concerning matters of faith concerning Priests and the punishments of them adding that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie si qui ejusmodi esset if such as Iustinian should makes lawes of faith yea such lawes quas dolosè conscripsissent haeretici as heretikes had craftily penned telling him as Facundus had before that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admonition Ne ultra Crepidam Sr Cobler go not beyond your Last Latchet This scurrility doth the Cardinall use
a generall or a lawfull Councell 5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it and unlesse he should approve it See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church Begin we with the Church of that age Baronius tels us that both the Emperour the Pope Mennas and other Easterne Bishops agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters to a generall Councell Why did none of them reason as the Cardinall now doth against the Councell Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest who made that agreement and say to this effect unto them Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please If they say as I say it shall be a Councell a lawfull a generall an holy Councell If they say the contrary to that which I affirme though they have ten thousand millions of voyces their Decree shall be utterly void their assembly unlawfull they shall neither bee nor bee called a generall nor a lawfull Councell no nor a Councell neither but onely a Conventicle without all authoritie in the world Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this doctrine there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled nay there never had beene any other holy generall Councell The Pope had beene in stead of all and above them all This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell witnesseth them all even the Pope himselfe at that time to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes consent and to be of more authority in case they should differ as in this question they did than the sentence of the Pope This before the Councell was assembled 6. At the time of the Councell had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church beleeved their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod but a Conventicle why did they at all come together after their second Session for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe that he would neither come nor send any deputies unto them Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity why did they after the fift Session once proceed to examine or determine that cause For before the sixt day of their assembling they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause inhibiting them either to write or speak much more judicially to define ought contrarie to his sentence or if they did that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same Seeing notwithstanding all this well knowne unto them they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies but judicially defined that cause and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them it is an evident demonstration that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall and their sentence of full authority even as ample as of any generall Councell though the Pope denied his presence to the one and expressely signified not onely his dislike but contradiction and condemnation of the other 7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence or what thinke you will the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of
Arimine and Syrmium called by the Arrian Emperour Constantius is most cleare 11. Hence it is that all the ancient generall Councels yea all that were held for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ were all assembled by no other than this Imperiall authority Take a short view of some and of the chiefe of them Of the first Nicen Eusebius saith Constantine assembled this Oecumenicall Councell hee called the Bishops by his letters and his call was mandatory for Mandatum erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad hanc rem Constantine commanded that they should come The very Synod it selfe writeth thus in their Synodall letters We are assembled by the grace of God mandato Imperatoris and by the mandate of Constantine the Emperour so Christopherson translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Socrates and Theodoret. Of the second their owne Synodall Epistle to Theodosius witnesseth We came hither ex mandato tuae pietatis by the command of your Imperiall highnesse Of the third Councell the Synodall acts and Epistles are cleare witnesses Your Highnes hath cōmanded by your holy Edict the Bishops out of the whole world to come to Ephesus Againe the synod being assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Edict decree authority and appointment of the Emperour and the like is repeated I think not so little as threescore times in those Acts. And as they came at the Emperors command so would they not depart without his leave and licence We beseech your piety that you will at length free us from this exile and the Emperour granted their request for injungit eis he commanded injoyned them to returne to their owne Cities and againe Regio mandato imperatum est singulis Episcopis there was a mandate to all the Bishops by the Emperour to returne to their owne Provinces Of the Councell at Chalcedon the whole Synod saith in their Epistle to Pope Leo This holy and generall Synod was assembled by the grace of God sanctione Imperatorum and by the sanction or decree of our most holy Emperours Againe this synod was gathered ex decreto Imperatorum by the decree of the Emperours secundum jussionem according to his command And the like is repeated almost in every action Of the fift we shewed before that it was called Iussione piissimi Imperatoris by the command of the most holy Emperour Iustinian Of the sixt it is usually said it was assembled secundum Imperialem sanctionem aut decretum and the like by the Imperiall sanction or decree And the whole Councell in their prosphoneticall oration to the Emperour saith unto him your mansuetude hath congregated this holy and great assembly Of their second Nicene it is said that it was assembled per pium Decretum Sanctionem Mandatum by the holy Decree Sanction and Mandate of the Emperors of that which they call the eighth the synodall definition expresseth Quod à Basilio Imperatore coactum that it was assembled by Basilius the Emperour and the whole Synod cryed out We all thinke so we all subscribe to these things And Pope Stephen in his letters to Basilius speaking of this Synod saith Did not the Romane See send Legates to the Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 te imperante Raderus and Binius translate it but it is rather to be read ad imperium and summam jussionem tuam the Pope sent Legates not when Basilius was Emperour which was no great honour or token of duty to be done but at the most high command of Basilius which testified his subjection and duty to the Emperour whom the Pope in that same Epistle acknowledgeth to be the highest person who here upon earth sustaines the person of Christ and in the sixt Action of the same Councell it is said Imperator hanc Synodum coegit the Emperour assembled this Synod 12. Thus all those Councells which are usually reckoned for generall and approved for the space of a thousand yeares were all called by Imperiall jussion and command the religious Emperours exercising that right in commanding all Bishops even the Popes to such Councels all the Bishops even the Popes by their willing obedience acknowledging that authority and power to be in the Emperours and therefore they gladly obeyed those imperiall jussions and commands And as they were all assembled by Imperiall calling so were they all governed by Imperiall presidency That Constantine was President in the Nicene Pope Stephen in the Epistle lately cited expresly witnesseth Doe you not remember saith he what Pope Silvester said in the Nicene Synod praesidente ibi S. Constantino Saint Constantine being President therein His owne Acts in the Councell of moderating and repressing the jarres of the Bishops of burning their bookes of accusations and quarrels of drawing them to unity that with one consent they should define the causes proposed doe manifest the same for all these are acts of the Imperiall presidency That Theodosius was President in the second may appeare not onely for that he was present therein and present no doubt as Constantine had beene before as a moderator of their actions but that small remainder of the Acts of that Councell import also the same for he directed and that by his Mandatum what the Bishops should doe and when they out of their partiall affections would have preferred each his owne friend to the See of Constantinople the Emperour perceiving that corrected their partiall judgement Iussit inscribere chartae hee commanded them to write a bill of such men as they thought fit for the place himselfe nominated Nectarius and though many of the Bishops at first contradicted that choice yet he drew them all to his sentence and so the whole Synod consented upon the ordination of Nectarius 13. For the holy Ephesine Synod all the Acts are full of this Imperiall Presidency The Emperours sent Candidianus to keepe away tumult and disorderly persons from the Councell to see that no dissention and private quarrels might hinder their grave consultations the free and exact discussion of the causes proposed and to provide that every one might freely and with leisure propose what was needfull and have scope to refute all doubts proposed by others The Emperours when they heard of the dissentions and disorders among the Bishops writ unto them to take a better and more peaceable and orderly examination of the cause saying Majestas nostra ea quae acta sunt pro ratis legitimis habere non potest our Majesty cannot hold or esteeme those acts done so disorderly for firme and synodall nay we decree that all things which hitherto have beene done pro irritis nullis habenda esse shall be accounted of no force but utterly void and frustrate than which no greater tokens of Imperiall Presidency can be devised The whole and holy Synod willingly submitted themselves to this presidency In their
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
what a weight of eternity and glory shall that troope of vertues and traine of good workes obtaine at his hands who rewardeth indeed every man according to their workes but withall rewardeth them infinitely above all the dignity or condignity of their workes 45. If Iustinian and those who are beautified with so many vertues and glorious works be as the Card. Judgeth tormented in hell belike the Cardinall himselfe hoped by workes contrary unto these by workes of infidelity of impiety of maligning the Church of reviling the servants of GOD of oppugning the faith of Patronizing heresie yea that fundamental heresie which overthroweth the whole Catholike faith and brings in a totall Apostasie from the faith by these hee hoped to purchase and in condignity to merit the felicity of the Kingdome of Heaven This being the track and beaten path wherein they walke and by which they aspire to immortality what Constantine sayd once to Acesius the Novatian the same may be sayd to Baronius and his consorts Erigito tibi scalam Baroni ad caelum solus ascendito Keepe that Ladder unto your selves and by it doe you alone climbe up into heaven But well were it with them and thrice happy had the Cardinall beene if with a faithfull and upright heart towards God he could have said of Iustinian the words of Balaam Let me dye the death of the righteous and let my last end be like his His life being led in piety and abounding in good workes hee now enjoyeth the fruit thereof felicity and eternall rest in Abrahams bosome As for the Cardinall who hath so malignantly reviled him himselfe can now best tell whether he doth not cry and pray Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Iustinian that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue or sing that other note unto his fellowes concerning this Emperour Wee fooles thought his life to be madnesse and his end to bee without honour but now is he numbred among the children of God and his lot is among the Saints Therefore wee have erred from the way of truth and wearied our selves in the wayes of wickednesse and destruction we have gone through deserts where there lay no way but as for the way of the Lord wee have not knowne it CAP. XXI How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same 1. NExt the Emperour let us see how dutifully the Cardinall behaveth himselfe towards the Empresse Theodora A small matter it is with him in severall places to call her an impious an hereticall a sacrilegious a furious hereticall woman a patrone of heretikes and the like Heare and consider how he stormeth but in one place against her These so great mischiefes did that most wicked woman beginne she became to her husband another Eve obeying the serpent a new Dalila to Samson striving by her subtiltie to weaken his strength another Herodias thirsting after the blood of most holy men a wanton mayd of the High Priest perswading Peter to deny Christ. But this is not enough Sugillare ipsam with these termes to flout her who exceedeth all women in impiety let her have a name taken from Hell let her be called Alecto or Megera or Tisiphone a Citizen of hell a childe of Devills ravished with a satanicall spirit driven up and downe with a devillish gad bee an enemy of concord and peace purchased with the blood of Martyrs Thus the Cardinall who tells us afterwards how when Vigilius came to Constantinople she contented long with him for to have Anthimus restored in so much that Vigilius was forced to smite her as from heaven with the thunderbolt of Excommunication whereupon she shortly dyed Here is the tragicall end which the Cardinall hath made of her 2. Now I would not have any think that I intend wholly to excuse the Empresse she had her passions and errors as who hath not and as Liberatus and Evagrius shew she tooke part with the oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon which was for some time true shee being as it seemes seduced by Anthimus whom for a while she laboured to have restored to the See of Constantinople though afterwards as Victor Tununensis testifieth she being better informed joyned with the Emperor in condemning the Three Chapters and so in truth in defending the Councell of Chalcedon though Victor thought the contrarie And of this minde in condemning the three Chapters shee was as by Victor is evident some yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople Her former error seduction and labour for Anthimus I will not seeke to lessen or any way excuse But though she were worthy of blame was it fit for the Cardinall so basely to revile her and in such an unseemly and undutifull manner to disgorge the venome of his stomacke upon an Empresse tantae ne animis caelestibus irae who would have thought such rancour and poison to have rested in the brest of a Cardinall But there was you may be sure some great cause which drew from the Cardinall to many unseemly speeches against the Empresse and though hee would bee thought to doe all this onely out of zeale to the truth which Anthimus the heretike oppugned yet if the depth of the Cardinalls heart were founded it will appeare that his spite against her was for condemning the Three Chapters which Pope Vigilius in his Constitution defendeth Anthimus and his cause is but a pretence and colour the Apostolicall Constitution the heresies of the Nestorians decreed and defined therein that is the true marke at which the Cardinall aymeth neither Emperour nor Empresse nor Bishop nor Councell nor any may open their mouth against that Constitution which toucheth them in capite but they shall be sure to heare and beare away as harsh and hellish termes from Baronius as if they had condemned the Trent Councell it selfe Had Theodora defended the Three Chapters as Vigilius in his Constitution did the Cardinall would have honoured her as a Melpomene Clio or Vrania because she did not that she must be nothing but Alecto Megaera or Tisiphone and they are too good names for her 3. If one desired to set forth her praise there wants not testimonies of her dignity and honour Constantinus Manasses saith that she was Iisdem addicta cum marito studiis iisdem praedita moribus that she so well consorted to her husband that shee was addicted to the same studies indued with the same manners as he was That Iustinian himselfe calleth her reverendissimam conjugem his most reverend wife given unto him by God adding that he tooke her as a partner with him of his counsells in making his lawes and after her death he calleth her Augustam piae memoriae Empresse of holy memorie as doe also and very often the sixt general Councell an unfit title to be given to an heretike or a fury either by a holy generall Councell or by a
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
for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Chist was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteres because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the soure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormâ—sdaes dayes they could not now in this fift Synod they obtained now they added to the words of the Synod this clause qui est Dominus unus de sancta Trinitate A very perilous corruption sure to expresse that clause which all the Bishops of Rome semper excipio Hormisdam with all Catholikes beleeved and taught which whosoever denieth or wil not professe is anathematized and excluded from the Catholike Church is not this thinke you a very sore corruption of the Councell of Chalcedon Is not the Cardinall a rare man of judgement that could spie such a maine fault in these Acts of the fift Councell that they professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate to which profession both they and all other were bound under the censure of an anathema 7. Yea but in the Acts those words are cited as the words of the Councell of Chalcedon whose they are not A meere fancy and calumny of the Cardinall they are plainly set downe as the words of the fift Synod whose indeed they are and it relateth not precisely the words of the Councell of Chalcedon nor what it there expressed totidem verbis but the true summe and substance of what is there decreed For thus they say The holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith doth professe God the Word incarnate to be made man this is all they report of the Councell of Chalcedon as by the opposition of Ibas
his Epistle is apparent wherein they oppose not that he denyed Christ to be one of the Trinity but that hee called them heretikes who taught the Word incarnate to be made man That clause which they adde That Christ is one of the Trinity is an addition of the fift Councell it selfe explicating that of Christ which the Emperours Edict bound them to professe as being the true sense and meaning of the Councell at Chalcedon but not as being word for word set downe in the decree of Chalcedon And even as he were more than ridiculous who would accuse one to corrupt the Councell of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man who was borne in Bethleem and fled from Herod into Aegypt so is the Cardinall as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod or addition to the Councell of Chalcedon that they say the Councell taught the Word of God to bee man who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinity Both additions are true but neither of them affirmed to be expresly and totidem verbis set downe in the Councell of Chalcedon Why but looke to the Cardinals proofe for he would not for any good affirme such a matter without proofe What doe yee aske for proofe of the Cardinall I tell you it is proofe enough that he sayth it and truly in this poynt he produceth neither any proofe nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fift Councell or that the fift Councell cited them as the very expresse words of the Councell of Chalcedon all the proofe is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit which is a sory kind of arguing against any that love the truth for although against the Pope or their popish cause any thing which he writeth is a very strong evidence against them seeing the Cardinall is very circumspect wary to let nothing no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Popes dignity or the cause of their Church unlesse the maine force and undeniable evidence of truth doe wrest and wring it from his pen yet in any matter of history wherein he may advantage the Pope or benefit their cause it is not by many degrees so good to say the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirmes it which is now growne a familiar kinde of proofe among them as to say Ovid Aesop or Iacobus Voraginensis affirme it therefore it is certainly true His Annals in the art of fraudulent vile and pernicious untruths farre excell the most base fictitious Poemes or Legends that ever as yet have seene the Sunne CAP. XXVI The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that Ibas is sayd therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 1. THe second thing which our Momus carpeth at is for that in these Acts it is sayd that Ibas denyed the Epistle written to Maris to bee his which saith Baronius is untrue for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinall an untruth in plaine termes affirmes it to be a lye Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius they would never have quarelled with the Acts about this matter nor for this accused them to have beene corrupt They may as well collect the Edict of Iustinian or that famous Epistle of Pope Gregorie wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters to be corrupted and of no credit as well as the Acts of the fift Councell for in both them the same is said concerning the deniall of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denyall they may passe for sincere and incorrupt it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinall and Binius to carpe at the Acts for this cause which will much more appeare if any please but to view the Acts themselves For this is not spoken obitèr nor once but the Councell insisteth upon it repeateth it in severall places and divers times and if those words were taken away there would be an apparent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words then are truly the words of the true Acts the corruption is onely in the braine of Baronius and Binius 2. Now whereas the Cardinall and Binius so confidently affirme this to be untrue or a lye that Ibas denyed his Epistle and so accuse the whole Councell to lye in this matter they doe but keepe their owne tongues and pens in ure with calumnies the untruth and lye belongs neither to the Councell nor to the Acts but must bee returned to themselves to whom onely it is due For the Councels truth herein the Emperour is a most honourable witnesse who saith Demonstratur Ibas cam abnegasse Ibas is demonstrated or by evident proofe knowne to have denyed his Epistle Pope Gregory is another witnesse above exception who saith Epistolam Ibas denegat suam Ibas denyed the Epistle to be his the fift Councell also doth not onely affirme it but prove it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops and their interloquution in the Councell of Chalcedon they all sayd they received Ibas eo quod negabat illa because he did deny those things which were objected by his adversaries a great part of which was that Epistle All these are witnesses for the Councell what witnesses now doth the Cardinall or Binius bring to countervaile these truly not so much as one and one were but a poore number to be opposed to so many and so worthy men testifying the contrary Now whether the testimony of the Emperour Pope Gregory of six Metropolitanes and an whole generall approved Councell affirming this or Baronius without any one witnesse denying this be more credible let the very best friends of Baronius judge but Baronius loves to bee Iohannes ad oppositum to Emperours Popes Bishops and Councels if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate that is indeed if they say the truth 3. But yet Baronius hath a proofe of his saying which is this because Ibas confessed it to be his and hee tels us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon Say he did confesse it as I will not deny that he did though I verily thinke the Cardinall speakes an untruth in saying that this is in the Acts for I finde not in those Acts either any such expresse confession or ought from whence it can be collected and Iustinian plainly saith that Ibas durst not acknowledge it to be his for the blasphemies contained therein but I admit that Ibas confessed it to be his Doth it thence follow that he denyed it not to be his might he nor doe both might he not contradict himselfe doth not the Cardinall who neither for wit nor wisedome will yeeld one jote to Ibas doth not
not as yet by name condemned nor by name prohibited they presumed more boldly to rely on them The Catholikes and specially they of Armenia as is witnessed in a letter from them to Proclus seeing this their new device entreated the Emperor Theodosius to stop that wicked course to condemne by name Theodorus as well as hee had done Nestorius Which though at the first the Emperour did not yet seeing how insolent the Nestorians grew upon those writings long after the former he published these two condemning now explicitè by name and in particular Diodorus Theodorus and the writing of Theodoret which before were onely implicitè and in a generality condemned When the lawes the occasion the time of promulgation were all different was not the Cardinall thinke you bereft of judgement who would prove these later to bee forged and counterfeit because they differ from the former with which they should not agree 5. It may be the Cardinall thought that all lawes were expressed in the Code and therefore if there had beene any such lawes as they they would have beene there set downe A conceit I beleeve which will never enter into any mans mind while he hath use of his five wits but into the Cardinals who hath conceits by himselfe and knoweth notes above Ela. To say nothing of the twelve Tables and of all the ancient Romane lawes no part of which are extant in the Theodosian Code the most ancient law mentioned in the Gregorian surpasseth not the time of the Emperour Antoninus and in the Theodosian not the time of Constantine Can the Cardinall assure us that all the Lawes of Constantine Constantius and the other Emperours till the time of Theodosius the younger are expressed in this Code Eusebius and Zozomen mention divers of Constantines lawes Pro liberatione exulum Pro reducendis relegatis Pro ijs qui ad metalla damnati erant Pro confessoribus Pro ingenuis Quod Ecclesia sit haeres ijs quibus nemo de sanguine superfuerit De sacellis camiteriis and many the like none of which are in the Theodosian Code they were all published if the Cardinall say true in the Consulship of Licinius the fift time and Crispus for which yeare the Code hath no lawes but two one De veteranis and another De parricidio 6. To come yet nearer to the very times of Theodosius besides all these he made another Edict and law against Nestorius commanding if any Bishop or Clerke mention that heresie that hee should forthwith be deposed if a Laicke bee anathematized in which law hee particularly commandeth Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be deposed from his See This law though it is both recorded in the Acts of the Ephesine Councell and confessed by the Cardinall to bee truly the Emperours Law yet is not extant in the Code nor is it all one with that which is there set downe The Cardinall by the same reason might prove it a forgery as well as those other two and conclude the Acts of the Ephesine Councell to be falsified by Impostors and so to be of no credit as well as the Acts of this fift Synod Further yet there was another law against Nestorius published by the same Theodosius after the Ephesine latrociny and recorded in the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon wherein the Emperour shewes againe his detestation of that heresie approving the condemning and deposing of Domnus of Theodoret and Irenie Nestorian Bishops as also of Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorilen whom he thought to be Nestorians but therein the Emperour was mis-informed as hee had beene before in the time of the holy Ephesine Synod when upon like mis-information hee condemned Cyrill and Memnon as well as Nestorius That law though acknowledged also by Baronius to be true is not extant in the Theodosian Code nor doth it accord with that which is there expressed would not any man thinke it ridiculous hence to conclude as the Cardinall doth that certainly it is therefore a forgery and the Acts of Chalcedon containing such forgeries are to be held of no credit Thus while the Cardinall labours to discredit these Acts he so foully disgraceth himselfe that men may justly doubt whether hee were his owne man when he writ these things which are so voide both of truth and reason CAP. XXXIII The third addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union is falsely inserted refuted 1. THe third proofe which Baronius brings to shew that these Acts are corrupted by the additions of some forged writings inserted among them is an Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union set downe in the fift Collation wherein Theodoret professeth to Nestorius that he did not receive the letters of Cyrill as orthodoxall nay hee sheweth himselfe so averse from consenting to them and so addicted to Nestorius after the union made that hee thus writeth I say the truth unto you I have often read them and earnestly examined them and I have found them to be free that is full in uttering hereticall bitternesse nor will I ever consent to those things which are unjustly done against you nec si ambas manus no though both my hands should bee cut off from me Thus writeth Theodoret in that Epistle which the holy Councell first and after them we affirme and professe to have beene the true writing of Theodoret and the same to be a counterfeit a forgery and none of Theodorets but framed by heretikes Baronius confidently avoucheth 2. Now in this cause having the Synodall Acts and with them the judgment of the whole generall approved Councell on our side wee might justly reject this as a calumny of Baronius but for as much as hee not onely saith it but undertakes to prove the same wee will examine his reasons that so the integrity and credit of these Acts may be more conspicuous His reasons are two The first is grounded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus who writeth thus It is to bee knowne that certaine letters of Theodoret and Nestorius are caried about in which either of them doe lovingly embrace the other sed fictitiae sunt but they are counterfeit and devised by heretikes thereby to oppugne the Councell at Chalcedon but Theodoret hated Nestorius c. Thus Leontius and the Card. adds this extat ex illis Epistolis una one of those counterfeit Epistles written to Nestorius is extant in the fift Councell neare the end of the fift action thereof 3. What if wee should except against Leontius though hee bee as ancient as Pope Gregory as a man not of sufficient credit Or will the Card. thinke you defend him and take his testimony for sound and good paiment then farewell for ever the books of Toby Iudith Wisdome Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus for Leontius reckoning the bookes of the old Testament to be twenty
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
a story able to put downe Heliodore Orlando and all the fictions of all the Poets their wits are barren their conceits dull they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor It is not my purpose to stand now to resute such a lying legend The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monke Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus the onely author that he knew till Baronius pull'd this blinde Tailor out of a corner Though I beleeve saith hee God to bee omnipotent yet I beleeve not all which is here written of Chrysostome sed fides penes lectoreÌ„ esto let the reader choose whether hee will beleeve it or not for the writers of mens lives who lived before Nicephorus and hee writ about the yeare 1328. would not have concealed or smothered in silence rem tanti momenti a matter of so great moment Thus the Carthusian whose judgement may justly be thought to bee the more weighty because of all the ancient Fathers there is none I speake it confidently who hapned to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius as he is called Leo and George the writers or rather the devisers of Chrysostomes acts his life and death Any one of them doting after such miraculous reports would have painted out this miracle of miracles with all the wit and words which they had That which I onely observe is the strange and if you please miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius This Epistle of Theodosius though it was written to Chrysostome more than thirty yeares after his death the Cardinall approves applaudes and for a rare monument hee commends it and all that appendant fable to all posterity Why it is an excellent story indeed to perswade the adoration of reliques invocation of Saints prayers for the dead and such like Had this Epistle of Theodorets contained such stuffe it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship because it wants such matters and crosseth in very many things the Cardinals Annals Oh it is nothing but a fiction and a very forgery of some lewd naughty varlet It is demonstrated to be such because it was written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch who was dead but 7. yeares before whereas more than foure times seven yeares cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after hee was dead to be an authentike and undoubted record This may serve the Cardinall for the first answere who is now bound in all equity either to confesse his owne demonstration to be fallacious or to proclame the Epistle of Pope Clement and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration to be fictitious and his owne Annals a fabulous legend 5. My second answer is that though Iohn to whom this Epistle is directed was dead yet that proves onely the title or inscription to be amisse or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to Iohn it cannot prove which the Cardinall undertooke to doe that the Epistle is forged and not written by Theodoret For the Epistle it selfe to bee truly Theodorets his owne Sermon publikely preached at Antioch before Domnus after the death of Cyrill and mentioned in the Synodall Acts next after this Epistle doth clearly manifest for the scope and purpose of that sermon is the same which is expressed in the Epistle In the Epistle Theodoret declareth his eagernesse in defending the doctrine of Nestorius and withall rejoyceth and insulteth over Cyrill being dead who was then the chiefe oppugner of the heresies of Nestorius The very same eagernesse for Nestorianisme and love to his heresies as also the like joy for Cyrils death doth his sermon expresse more fully saying Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare none doth now seeing Cyrill is dead compell any man to blaspheme so hee cals the Catholike faith Where are those to wit Cyrill who teach that God was crucified It was the man Christ and not God who was crucified It was the man IESVS that dyed and it was GOD the Word who raised him from the dead Non jam est contentio Now seeing Cyrill is dead there is no contention Oriens Egyptus sub uno jugo est the East Egypt that is as well those who are under the Patriarke of Alexandria as they who are under the Patriarke of Antioch are all under one yoke that is all submit themselves to one faith that is to Neâ—â—orianisme Mortua est invidia cum eo mortua est contentio Envy hee meaneth Cyrill who so much hated and oppugned the doctrine of Nestorius is now dead and all contention is dead and buried with him Let now the Theopaschites hee meanes Catholikes who taught God to have suffered and dyed let them now bee at quiet Thus preached Theodoret after the death of Cyrill insulting over him being dead triumphing that now seeing Cyrill was dead Nestorianisme did and would prevaile Who can imagine but that the Epistle maintaining the same heresie insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill was written by Theodoret when he publikely in his sermon before a Patriarke uttered the same matter Would Theodoret feare or forbeare to write that in a letter which hee neither did feare nor could forbeare to professe openly in a sermon and that in so solemne a place and assembly or was Theodoret orthodoxall and a lover of Cyrill in his writings before the death of Cyrill who was hereticall and so full with the dregs of Nestorianisme after the death of Cyrill that he must vent them and with them disgorge his malice and spite against Cyrill in an open Pulpit and in the hearing of a Patriarke and all the people of Antioch It is not the inscription or title of the Epistle but the Epistle it selfe which the fift Councell and wee after it doe stand upon Had not they knowne the Epistle to bee Theodorets they needed not by it to have proved that Theodoret after the union yea after the death of Cyrill was eager violent yea virulent also in defence of the heresies of Nestorius that his publike sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils death and against Cyrill had beene a sufficient proofe and demonstration of that but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret they thought good to testifie that he was in writing the selfe same man as hee was in preaching that is in both a spitefull maligner of Cyrill in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian and that long after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill yea that even after the death of Cyrill he continued both to write and to speake the same 6. Observe now by the way the fraudulent dealing of Baronius and Binius in this cause This passage taken out of a sermon publikely preached at Antioch against Cyrill and in an insulting manner for his death this they doe not nor durst they carpe at it It is testified by all the Bishops of the fift Councell to have beene a part of
among which it stands must be condemned as worthy of no credit 19. If none of these can mollifie the Cardinals heart let it yet further be considered that in his owne Annals it is sayd of the consent of Vigilius to the Edict the fift Synod doth often give witnesse quinetiam sexta Synodus Actione septimâ continet monumenta Further also the sixt Synod in the seventh Action containes the writings of Pope Vigilius against the three Chapters A saying so voyd of truth that those monuments of Vigilius yea almost any one of them is able to eat up all that whole seventh Action it is such a pittance to those large writings of Vigilius Besides in that seventh action of the sixt Councell there is neither monuments of Vigilius nor so much as any mention of Vigilius at all nor of the three Chapters Let him againe consider how hee saith that Caelestine called the Ephesine Councell by the Emperour Theodorus that is to say never if the Cardinall be not relieved with an error or scape of the writer That elsewhere in the same Annalls he sayth that by the Catholike Church the Romane Church is signified as appeares ex Epistola Hormisdae Papae ad Iustinum Imperatorem by the Epistle he quoteth the 22. of Pope Hormisda to Iustinus An evident error For neither is that 22. Epistle written to Iustinus but to Dorotheus a Bishop neither is that which the Cardinall alledgeth either in that 22. or in any other of all the epistles they are five which Hormisda writ to Iustinus But the Card. by a pretty mistaking first turnes Iustinian into Iustinus and then pretends that to be written Epist 22. and by Hormisda and to Iustinus which is written by Iustinian and to Hormisda and which followeth the 56. Epistle Further yet let him remember how in the same Annals it is said that before the Edict of Iustinian was written those controversies hapned betwixt Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Pascalis the Deacon The Card. might as wel have said that the Edict was never written nor published for there was never any contention nor controversie betwixt Pascalis the Deacon and Theodorus and I doubt or rather am out of doubt that there was never any such contention as the Cardinal dreameth of the best author for it being Liberatus one heretically affected in this cause and maliciously bent against Theodorus but if there was any such controversie it was not betwixt Theodorus and Pascalis but betwixt Theodorus and Pelagius Pelagius not Pascalis was the Popes Agent at Constantinople at that time as not onely Liberatus but Procopius a man of better note testifieth Now these foule errours whereupon is consequent that almost all which the Cardinall hath historified for some 10. or 11. yeares is utterly untrue being extant and recorded in his Annals though there be violent presumption to thinke that the Cardinall judged some of them to be indeed no errors neither of his own memory nor of the writerspen seeing when he reviewed or retracted his Tomes and corrected therein small slips and very motes to such beames as these as the mistaking of a few months or dayes or miswriting a word or syllable and the like yet hee not once mentioneth any correction in these places yet am I content to allow these to bee but slips of the writer or Printer as writing Theodorus in stead of Theodosius Pascalis for Pelagius from Hormisda for to Hormisda to Iustine for from Iustinian and sexta for quinta or eadem quinta upon condition that the Cardinall and his friends will in like sort consent that by an error of some writer of these Synodall acts the name of Iohn is either inserted when there was no name or written in stead of Domnus in that inscription But if they be obstinate and refuse such a reasonable profer the Card. and all his friends must be patient to heare how justly and forcibly his owne demonstation may in his owne words be retorted upon himselfe these errors of his Certainly these are patent and manifest lyes and frauds devised by some hereticall knave or varlet they are such as every man may perceive to be written by him who was not in any measure a lover of Christian piety Sed impudentissimi cujuspiam Nestorij sigmentum but they are the fiction of a most impudent Nestorian forgerer Et quam fidem rogo merentur and what credit in the world can bee given to those writings or Annals which have such untruths and fictions inserted in them and are contexta composed and woven together with such untruths This being abundantly sufficient to satisfie any indifferent man in this matter yet would I a little further let the Reader see how childishly and corruptly Baronius dealeth in this cause It is true I confesse that Iohn dyed before Cyrill for this is cleare and certaine by many undoubted testimonies in the Councell of Chalcedon not one of all which the Cardinall had the grace to alledge But all the Cardinals reasons are so weake and withall so full of fraud and untruth that it is worthy your considering to see his blindnesse and perversenesse even in proving that which is true 20. His first reason is this I have shewed this apertissimè that Iohn dyed seven yeares before Cyrill by the Epistle which Theodoret writ to Domnus foure yeares since that is foure before the yeare 444. in the behalfe of one Felicianus whose estate Theodoret recommends to Domnus Truly the Cardinall hath shewed himselfe an egregious trifler hereby For neither in the 440. nor in any foure yeares either before or after that doth hee set-downe any Epistle of Theodorets to Domnus in the behalfe of Felicianus The Epistle which the Cardinall dreameth of is in behalfe of Celestianus and that is indeed expressed An. 440 where note I pray you that the Cardinall by a slip either of his owne penne or memory as I verily suppose or of his Scribe names Felicianus in stead of Celestianus God even by this demonstrating how unjustly he carpes at the Synodall Acts for that very errour or slippe of a penne which the Cardinall himselfe falls into even while hee for the like slippe declameth against those holy Synodall Acts. And yet there is a worse fault in this reason For it is no more shewed that Iohn dyed before Cyrill by that Epistle than by Tullies ad Atticum That Epistle having neither date nor any circumstance to induce that may as well bee written Anno 448. as Anno 440. 21. His second reason is this There are letters saith hee i extant of Theodoret to Domnus the yeare following to wit an 437. and that Epistle of Theodoret I will set downe in his due place anno sequenti the next yeare Now in that next yeare viz. an 437. there is no Epistle of Theodoret set downe by the Cardinall nor is either Domnus or Theodoret so much as named in all his discourse of that yeare Is
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
hee would bring Vitiges to Iustinian all these are the fictions of Anastasius For as Procopius who was Counsellor to Bellisarius and present with him in all his warres testifieth Vitiges and the Gothes willingly yeelded themselves and Ravenna unto Bellisarius yea Vitiges perswaded and even entreated him to accept the kingdome and Bellisarius tooke Vitiges himselfe and kept him in custody yea he sent away Iohn and Narses before either he entred in Ravenna or tooke Vitiges and being taken he caried him not to Rome but the straight way by Sea to Constantinople whither himselfe was then called by the Emperour and commanded to come without any delay So in the very entrance of his narration Anastasius hath in few words couched together at the least ten or eleven evident untruths 14. Next Anastasius relates how the Emperour and his wife demanded of Bellisarius when be came to Constantinople how he had placed Vigilius instead of Silverius and thanked him for it Truly Anastasius had small wit to thinke that the Emperour had leasure to confer with Bellisarius concerning a matter done about three yeares before and specially which with the death of Silverius was now dead and buried Yet say he did Againe what an idle discourse was this about the placing of Vigilius in the roome of Silverius seeing the Emperour knew the whole matter long before how Silverius was banished upon an accusation of a Letter written to the Gothish King to come and take possession of Rome and himselfe had taken order that the cause of Silverius should be againe examined and if that letter was truly writ by Silverius that he should be banished if it were found a calumny that he should bee restored as Liberatus sheweth Hee knew also that Silverius was dead and that Vigilius was peaceably and with his consent placed in the Romane See before Bellisarius came for hee had written p unto him as the onely lawfull Pope and both the Emperour and Mennas had received Letters from him the yeare before But Anastasius thought the Emperours discourses to bee as idle as his owne Besides whereas he addes that the Emperour thanked him for placing of Vigilius in the roome of Silverius Binius is bould therein to tell Anastasius of his untruth seeing all that as he saith was done without the knowledge of Iustinian by the plotting of Theodora I will account these for no more than two untruths 15. After this Anastasius tels us that Iustinian then sent Bellisarius againe into Africke who comming thither killed by trechery Gontharis King of the Vandalls and then comming to Rome offered some of the spotles of the Vandalls to Saint Peter by the hands of Pope Vigilius to wit a Crosse of gold beset with precious stones being a hundred pound in waight wherin were writ his victories two great silver tables guilded which unto this day stand saith hee before the body of Saint Peter also hee gave many other gifts and many almes to the poore and built an hospitall in the broad way and a Monastery of Saint Iuvenalis at the City of Orta where hee gave possessions and many gifts Thus Anastasius whose narration as it must needs testifie in what great honour the Romane Church was in those ancient times and how bountifull they were then unto it so may it serve for an incentive to inflame the zeale of Emperours and great persons to doe the like after their victories and conquests and no doubt but by such lyes and fables as this is their Church had gained the best part of her treasures and possessions for all this not one syllable is true or probable Bellisarius when hee came to Constantinople with Vitiges was not then sent into the West but into Persia against Cosroes as Procopius who was present with him testifieth and in those warres hee continued full three yeares When hee was sent Westward hee was not sent into Africk for thither Ariobindus was sent with whom was sent Artabanus Neither did Bellisarius either by villany or victory kill Gontharis but Artabanus killed him treacherously when they sat together at a feast in Gontharis Chamber nor came Bellisarius from Africk to Rome for after his second comming which was from Constantinople into Italy he stayed there till his returne to Bizantium five yeares after and returned backe no more nor brought hee thence with him any of the spoyles of the Vandales nor offered hee them to Saint Peter nor offered he by the hand of Vigilius either than golden Crosse of an hundred pound waight which is a golden lye consisting of an hundred latcheâ—s nor the silver table nor those many other gifts nor built he an Hospitall nor gave hee either possessions or donations All these if they be well summed will make at least twelve grand capitall mother lyes which have many moe in their wombs such an art of devising untruths hath Anastasius Or if this oblation bee referred as Binius saith perhaps it ought to the time when Bellisarius wanne Rome from Vitiges which was as Procopius sheweth in the third yeare of the warres against the Gothes and 12. of Iustinian yet this can excuse no one of all the untruths of Anastasius for neither then was Vigilius but Sylverius the Pope neither did Bellisarius then come out of Africk or bring the spoyles of the Vandals with him of which this oblation was made by the hands of Pope Vigilius 16. Next to this Anastasius saith eodem tempore Theodora scripsit at that same time Theodora the Empresse writ to Vigilius to come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus to his See but Vigilius refused saying I spake foolishly before when I promised that but now I can no way consent to restore an heretike Whence Baronius observes a rare miracle that Vigilius was now turned to a new man now Saul was one of the Prophets of a blasphemer chaÌ„ged to a true Preacher of a Saul into a Paul all which change proceeded from his very sitting in the Popes Chaire momento temporis novam formam accepit at that very moment when he became the true Pope hee had a new forme a new speech and then prophesied consonantly to the fathers and the like miracle doth Binius note statim ut sanctam sedem ascendit as soone as ever Vigilius had stept into the holy Chaire hee was wholly changed into a new man and then condemned the heresies which before hee approved A right Neanthes indeed of whom it is written that before being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having now got the harpe of Orpheus hee thought he was also able to worke wonders therwith as well as Orpheus had done he would needs then Saxa movere sono testudinis but all in vaine Even so Peters Chaire made Vigilius as infallible as Peter himselfe being once set there hee could doe nothing else but drop Oracles and his fidling
Anthimus wherein there was a perfect concord betwixt them both nay that is nothing to quarrell but that the Emperour like Dioclesian should cause him to be beaten to bee reviled to be puld from the Altar and Sanctuary and haled about the towne by a rope about his necke imprison and banish him and all for his refusing to doe that which the Emperour had decreed to be done and commanded him to do the same that for this cause their kisses should be turned into curses and they both now weep a contrary weeping to their former the Emperour wept because Vigilius would not doe that which the Emperour himselfe commanded him not to doe the Pope wept for that he was trailed in a rope about the towne and all for not doing that which the Emperour would not have him to doe Truely this surpasseth the degree of a fable or untruth Voraginensis himselfe could not devise a more simple and sottish Legend 20. If this doe not sufficiently perswade you of the untruth of this passage see how Baronius and Binius doe contradict the same for in this short narration are contained those complura mendacia as Baronius cals them which writers and first of all Anastasius delivereth The Church of Euphemia whither the Pope fled was as Anastasius saith one of the Churches in Constantinople Baronius and Binius tels you it was the Church in Chalcedon Anastasius saith the Pope was puld thence from the Altar Baronius tels you the Emperour sent a most honorable message to intreat him to come from thence but the Pope refused till the Emperour yeelded to his demands in recalling his Edict Lastly Baronius and Binius will assure you that the buffeting of Vigilius his fleeing to the Church of Euphemia and their haling him from thence did all happen divers yeares three at least after the death of Theodora the Empresse but Anastasius referres all that to the time of Theodora and makes her another Eleutheria as great an agent in all this as Dioclesian himselfe belike as Eleutheria by a metempseuchosis was changed into Theodora so Theodora by a like Necromanticall tricke of Anastasius was raised out of her grave to buffet to beate and banish Pope Vigilius for not restoring Anthimus 21. That which as it seemes gave occasion of this whole errour to Anastasius was a matter done by Agapetus Hee when hee came to Constantinople had much contention with the Acephali who were oppugners of the Councell at Chalcedon among which Anthimus the Bishop of Constantinople was one and a most earnest defender of that sect It is not unlike but Iustinian at the first favoured Anthimus untill he perceived him to be hereticall Anastasius further saith that Iustinian favoured not onely the person but the very heresie of Anthimus and relates certaine threatning words used by Iustinian against Agapetus for that cause as if Iustinian had sayd either consent to us or I will banish thee which the Pope answered in the same manner almost as Vigilius is sayd to have done I thought I had come to Iustinian but now I perceive I have found Dioclesian upon which narration of Anastasius Baronius and Binius having an implacable hatred to Iustinian say that he was suspected of heresie and to cleare himselfe he upon the Popes command published againe his profession of the true faith But that neither Anastasius nor Baronius are herein to bee credited may cleerly appeare partly because Iustinian had before published an orthodoxall profession in the beginning of the Popedome of Agapetus and specially by that ample testimony which is given him by the Easterne and orthodoxall Bishops in the Councell under Mennas after the death of Agapetus who say of him that à primordits regni sui usque nunc from the very beginning of his Empire till then he studied to keepe the whole body of the Church sound and intire and free from all infection of heresies So farre was he from supporting that heresie or Anthimus in it when he once knew him to defend the same Theodora the Empresse by whose meanes Anthimus who secretly oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon was translated from Trapezuntum to Constantinople she I say was indeed for a time more earnest for Anthimus both to prevent his deposition and after it was past to have him restored by the meanes of Vigilius Liberatus who then lived saying nothing of the Emperours threats which had Iustinian used for the ill will Liberatus bare to Iustinian he would not have omitted expresly mentioneth both how Theodora by rewards sought to corrupt Agapetus and when that prevailed not added threats therunto and how the Pope would not at all consent to her motion Victor who also lived at that time saith that Agapetus communione privavit did excommunicate Theodora the patron of Anthimus an oppugner of the Councell of Chalcedon whence it may appeare that Anastasius ascribes to the Emperour that which was done by the Empresse against Agapetus and if any such words were used by Agapetus as comparing their tyranny to Dioclesians persecution it was spoken no way of Iustinian who was even then a most earnest defender of the true faith but of Theodora who for a while laboured for Anthimus and against the Councell of Chalcedon till seeing that shee could not prevaile therein neither by the meanes of Agapetus nor Silverius nor Vigilius after he had once writ to the Emperour his confirmation of the deposition of Anthimus she then changed her mind the cause of the three Chapters being then moved she became as the Emperour himselfe was an earnest condemner of the three Chapters as by Victor is evident that is in truth an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon Now upon this truth errour alwayes having some truth for his ground Anastasius buildeth many fabulous and poeticall fictions of his owne devising as that Iustinian and Agapetus quarrelled about the faith Agapetus defending against him the two natures in Christ that the Emperour threatned banishment to Agapetus unlesse he would consent with him and deny the two natures that Agapetus called him Dioclesian that Agapetus disputed with Anthimus and overcame him before the Emperour that the Emperour thereupon humbled himselfe to the Pope and adored the most blessed Agapetus that then hee banished Anthimus and entreated Agapetus to consecrate Mennas in his roome Now Anastasius perceiving these his fictions concerning Iustinian and Agapetus wherein hee had some ground of truth to be plausible and his end being this Papae ut placerēt quas fecisset fabulas hee brings in Iustinian and Vigilius to act the very same pageant againe and that without any ground of truth they for sooth tenne yeares after Anthimus was deposed and for ought appeareth was dead at that time must come in quarrelling againe about Anthimus as fresh as ever the Emperour and Agapetus had done before nay they must contend two other whole yeares after the
corrupted and followed some corrupt Edition of that Epistle when they so craftily persist on the Inscription Dominis ac Patribus for had hee stiled them in the title fathers hee would not in the Epistle have so often called them brethren and never once fathers Now to say as the Cardinall doth that it is abhorrent either from reason or practice to call the same parties both Dominos and fratres argues either extreme and supine negligence or obstinate perversnesse in the Cardinall and Binius scarce any thing in antiquity being more frequent Pope Damasus writ a Synodall letter to Prosper Bishop of Numidia and others he inscribes it thus Dominis venerabilibus fratribus Prospero Leoni Reparato Damasus Episcopus Bishop Damasus to my reverend Lords and Brethren Prosper c. So the Councell of Carthage in two letters written the one to Pope Boniface the other to Pope Caelestine writes in both in this manner To our Lord and honourable brother So Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus and the other African Bishops Dominis honor abilibus to the honourable Lords and holy brethren In like sort Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople to the same Africane Bishops Dominis sanctis to the holy Lords our most blessed brethren fellow Bish. Why might not Vigilius call other Patriarks Lords and brethren when Atticus Cyrill the Councell of Carthage yea Pope Damasus himselfe called other Bishops Dominos ac fratres Nay seeing the Pope is used to inscribe his letters to the Emp. Dominis ac filijs or Domino ac filio as doth P. HadriaÌ„ to Constant. and Irene to Charles why may not he as well call his brother as his son Lord is the title of son more compatible with Dominis than the title of brother or whether title thinke you Lord or brother may not the Pope give to his fellow Bishops the name of brother is almost every where seene in his letters the Cardinall envies not that unto them it is the name of Dominus that seemes somewhat harsh The Cardinall would not have the Pope call or account other Bishops his Lords and yet how can they even the meanest of them but bee his Lord when hee gladly stiles himselfe their servant yea servant to every servant of the Lord So that if the Popes Secretary were well catechized and knew good manners his Holines should write thus to his own servants To my Lord Groome of my stable to my Lord the Scâ—ll of my Kitchen I am indeed your servant I am servus servorum Dei But let the title of the Epistle bee howsoever yee will whether Dominis ac Christis as it is in Liberatus or Dominis fratribus as it is in Victor or Dominis Patribus as the Cardinall without any authority that I can finde would have it certaine it is that the parties to whom Vigilius writ it were the three deposed Bishops to whom Vigilius was like to give any of all those titles and not to the Emperour and Empresse as the Cardinall without all shadow of truth affirmeth and saith that he hath demonstrated the same but it is with such a demonstration as was never found in any but in Chorebus his Analyticks 26. Another of the Cardinals reasons to prove this Epistle to be a forgery is taken from a repugnance and contrariety of the words in the Subscription wherein Vigilius first professeth to hold but one nature in Christ and then anathematizeth Dioscorus who held the same The Cardinall should have proved that Vigilius could not or did not write contrarieties As the Cardinall though he hath beene so often taken tardy in contradictions yet will not deny the Annals for that cause to bee his owne faire birth so hee might thinke of this writing though it bee repugnant to it selfe yet it might proceed from such an unstayed and unstable minde as Vigilius had But I doe acquit Vigilius from this contradiction it is not his hee condemned not Dioscorus in his Subscription In his Epistle he professeth to hold the same doctrine of one onely nature in Christ with Eutyches and Dioscorus there is little reason then to thinke that hee did in his Subscription adjoyned condemne the professors of that doctrine of which Dioscorus was one of the chiefe as deepe in that heresie as Eutyches himselfe What shall wee say then to Liberatus in whom Dioscorus is named Truely had not malice and spight shut the eyes of Baronius and Binius they could not but have seene that the name of Dioscorus is by the oversight or negligence of the writer inserted in stead of Nestorius It was Nestorius and not Dioscorus whom Vigilius there accursed the very conclusion and coherence not onely with the Epistle but with the next precedent words in the Subscription doe evidently demonstrate thus much for having professed in his Epistle to hold as did Dioscorus but one nature in Christ having againe in his Subscription and next words before anathematized all who admit two or deny but one nature in Christ hee in particular declares who those are that hee therein anathematized saying Anathematizamus ergo therefore we accurse by this our condemnation of those who deny but one nature Paulus Samosatenus Nestorius Theodorus and Theodoret and all who have or doe embrace their doctrine Now it was Nestorius not Dioscorus who embraced the same doctrine with Paulus Samosatenus with Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret all these concurred in that one and selfe-same heresie of denying one nature in Christ they all consented in teaching two natures making two persons in Christ which Dioscorus and Eutyches condemned Of Theodorus and Theodoret it is cleare by the Councels both of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the fift Synod Of Paulus Samosatenus the writing or contestation of the Catholike Clergy of Constantinople set downe in the Acts of Ephesus doe certainly witnesse and declare the same the title of which is to shew partly NestoriuÌ„ ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosatenus and in the contestation it selfe it is said thus I adjure all to publish this our writing for the evident reproofe of Nestorius the heretike as one who is convinced to teach and openly maintain eadem prorsus quae Paulus Samosatenus the same doctrines altogether which Paulus Samosatenus did and then they expresse seven heretical assertions taught alike by them both Seeing then Vigilius accursed him who taught the same with Paulus Theodorus and Theodoret and that was Nestorius not Dioscorus it is undoubtedly certaine that not Dioscorus but Nestorius was the party written and named by Vigilius in his subscription and that Dioscorus was not by Vigilius but by the oversight and negligence of the exscriber of Liberatus wrongfully inserted in stead of Nestorius And truly the like mistakings are not unusuall in Liberatus In this very Chapter it is sayd that Vigilius a little after the death of
was Pope but as hee was a private man or some other way Would not the Cardinall laugh if Gretzer or any such good friend of his should say Bellarmine at that time while hee was at Ingolstad writ not his Controversies as he was Pope or hee writ them not as he was a Turke a Iew or Mahumetane But leaving these shifts which demonstrate plainly that Bellarmine had a desire to say somewhat in excuse of Vigilius but knew not what and therefore snatched at this or that or any thing though it were never so crosse unto himselfe and such also as he could not hold Let us consider the Exception it selfe Vigilius writ this Epistle that is confessed hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope that wee have proved hee defined heresie in it and that which is against the faith that Bellarmine implyeth hee condemned in it the Catholike faith that Bellarmine in plaine words expresseth Thus far the cause is cleare Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined heresie and condemned the Catholike faith as he was Pope or no that is the point here to be debated 43. Some may thinke that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawne from secresie and an ambitious minde by which he laboured before to prove that Vigilius did not condemne the faith ex animo meant also that he condemned it not as Pope for it followeth in the next sentence siquidem Epistolam scripsit as giving a reason of his saying If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort then his reasons are before hand refuted for as Vigilius might ex animo write heretically both privately and out of ambition so also might hee tanquam Pontifex condemne the faith notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambitious mind secrecy and an ambitious mind are no more repugnant to the one than to the other they are compatible with them both the Pope may use his Apostolicall authority in teaching as wel privately as publikely as well with Iudas in ambition as with Iohn or Peter in sincerity of heart But the Cardinals Apologist who it may be consulted with the Cardinall about his intent herein doth ease us of those reasons for hee tels us plainly that from Vigilius his desire of secrecie nil aliud colligit Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else but this that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò that hee did it not in earnest It is but a sport with Gretzer or with the Pope to condemne the Catholike faith they doe it but they doe it not in earnest they doe it jocularitèr not seriò Have ye indeed such May-games sports at Rome as to condemne the faith and then say I was in jest and in sport Are not these men new Philistines Call in Sampson Condemne the Catholike faith to make us pastime But let us leave them to their sports till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and dolefull end both of their actors spectators That which I now note is that Bellarmine doth not in those words Siquidem Epistolam scripsit c. from the privatenesse or secrecy prove any thing else but that Vigilius writ it not seriò in earnest and from his heart that hee writ it not tanquam Pontifex this those words prove not Bellarmine in those words collects not So we have now nothing but the bare saying of Bellarmine without any proofe without any reasons and I must needs confesse I hold it a most sufficient encounter for any man to Bellarmines ipse dixit to oppose ipse dico yet because I desire rather to satisfie such as seeke the truth then contend with those who seeke to smother and betray the truth I will a little further enlarge this point and see if it may be cleared by evidence of reason that Pope Vigilius did not onely condemne the Catholike faith at that time but that he did it even as hee was Pope and tanquam Pontifex condemne the Catholike faith 44. What it is for a Pope to teach an errour as Pope may be perceived by other Arts and Sciences in the practice or exercise whereof together with knowledge judgement and skill fidelity also is required were Baronius or some Romane Facundus to examine this point they would quickly sute the Pope to some Cobler Pedler or such like companion I love not to deale so rudely with his Holinesse yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way you know how the Cardinall quitted the religious Emperour with Ne ultra crepidam If a Physitian or Lawyer or Iudge in any discourse should speake barbarously or incongruously they erre therein but as Grammarians not as Iudges Lawyers or Physitians But if a Iudge for any sinister respect should pronounce that sentence as just which is against the law or if a Lawyer should after his diligent sifting of the cause affirme that title to bee sound which were clearely voide in law or if a Physitian should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet each of them now erred offended in his owne profession in that proper duty which belongeth to them the Iudge as a Iudge the Counsellor as a Counsellor the Physitian as a Physitian because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wherin they professe both to know themselves and to make knowne unto others what is right and good If in other matters they transgresse it is not quatenus tales if any of them bee prophane covetous or intemperate they offend now quatenus homines as they are mortall men in those duties of morality which are common to them with all men If they bee seditious rebellious and conspire in treasonable practice they offend quatenus Cives as they are parts of the Common-wealth in those duties which are common to them with all subjects but when they offend in Physick law or judgment those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences they then offend neither quatenus homines nor quatenus Cives nor in any other respect but quatenus tales as they are such professors for now they transgresse against those proper duties which as they are Iudges Counsellors or Physitians are required of them The like of all Artificers of Grāmarians Logicians Poets Philosophers of Presbyters of Bishops of the Professors of Theology which is scientia scientiarum is to bee said If a Divine shall speake rudely incongruously ad populum Antiochenum he offends as a Grammarian not as a Divine unlesse perhaps it bee no fault when it doth so happen for edification that hee ought so to speake as Saint Austen did use divers barbarismes and say ossum for os floriet for slorebit dolus for dolor Malo me populus I had rather edifie with rudenesse of words than speake nothing but pure Ciceronian without edifying them without honouring God But if a Bishop or any Divine in stead of truth teach heresie either because hee knowes not the truth
as persons failing in their Episcopall or Presbyteriall duties either not knowing the truth as by their office they should or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth as by their office they should not So by his subtilty if any applaud themselves in it not only the Bishops of Rome but of Constantinople of Antioch of Alexandria yea all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from errour as his holinesse himselfe yea all professors of any Art Science or faculty shall plead the like Papall exemption from errour every man shall bee a Pope in his owne faculty no Grammarian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian but as wanting the skil required in a Grammarian no Iudge giving a wrongfull sentence as a Iudge no Galenist ministring unwholsome physicke as a Physitian no Artificer working any thing amisse in his trade as an Artificer but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge or of that fidelity which is required in a Iudge a Physitian and in every Artificer If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters all Iudges and Physitians from erring as they are such Officers or Artificers we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope If they notwithstanding this subtilty will admit another Bishop to erre as Bishop they must not thinke much if wee exempt not the Pope as Pope For to speake that which is the very truth of them all and exactly to measure every thing by his owne line a Iudge simply as Iudge doth pronounce a judiciall sentence as a skilfull and faithfull judge an upright judiciall sentence as an unskilful or unfaithfull Iudge an erronious or unjust sentence A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter doth teach with publike authority in the Church as a skilfull and faithfull Bishop or Presbyter he teacheth the truth of God as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errours and heresies in the Church the one without the other with judicall power to censure the gainsayers The like in all Arts Sciences and faculties is to be sayd even in the Pope himselfe A Pope simply as he is Pope and defined by them teacheth both with authority to teach with power to censure the gainsayers and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeale without doubt as an infallible Oracle as a skilfull or faithfull Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort as an unskilfull or unfaithfull Pope he teacheth errour or heresie with the like authority power and supremacy binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholike truth and that with a most blind obedience without once doubting of the same 48. Apply this to Vigilius his hereticall Epistle In a vulgar sense Vig. erred as Pope because he erred in those very Pōtifical duties of feeding confirming which are proper to his office In a strickt sense though hee did not therein erre simply as Pope but quatenus talis taught onely with a supreme binding authority yet hee erred as an unfaithfull Pope binding others by that his Pontificall and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholike truth without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same What may wee thinke will they oppose to this If they say Vigilius doth not expresse in this Epistle that hee writ it by his Apostolicall authority Hee doth not indeed Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus against the heresie of Eutyches which to have beene writ by his Apostolicall authorty and as hee was Pope none of them doe or will deny that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon Pope Leo by his Papall authority condemneth Eutycheanisme Pope Vigilius by his Papall authority confirme Eutycheanisme both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papall authority both writ as Popes the one as orthodoxall the other as a perfidious and hereticall Pope neither of both expresse that their Apostolicall authority by which they both writ The like in many other Epistles of Leo and of other Popes might easily bee observed Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles such as they writ as Popes have this clause of doing it by their Apostolicall authority expressed in them It is sufficient that this is vertually in them all and vertually it is in this of Pope Vigilius Yea but hee taught this onely in a private letter to a few to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius not in a publike generall and encyclicall Epistles written for instruction of the whole Church What is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few in confirming three of his brethren why not in foure in eight in twenty and if in twenty why not in an hundred if so why not in a thousand if in one why not in two foure or ten thousand Caudaeque pilos ut equinae paulatim vellam where or at what number shall we stay as being the least which with infallibility he can teach Certainly confirma fratres in cathedra sede pasce oves respects two as well as two millions If in confirming or feeding three the Chaire may bee erroneous how can wee know to what number God hath tyed the infallibility of it But the sixt generall Councell may teach them a better lesson Pope Honorius writ an hereticall Epistle but onely to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople Vigilius writ this to three all of patriarchall dignity as Sergius was Honorius writ it privately as Vigilius did which was the cause as it seemes that the Romane Church tooke so little notice thereof yet though it was private and but to one it is condemned by the sixt Councell for a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius for a writing wherein hee confirmes others in heresie and Pope Leo the second judged it to bee such as was a blemish to the Apostolike See such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholike faith The like and more danger was in this to these three deposed patriarchs It confirmed them in heresie it confirmed the Empresse it confirmed all that tooke part with them it was the meanes whereby the faith was in hazard to have beene utterly subverted For plurality or paucity it is not materiall be they few be they moe if the Pope as Pope or as an hereticall pope may confirme three or but one that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible 49. But he taught this alone not in a Councell not with advice of his Cardinalls and Consistory why he did it not as a member of a Councell but as Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus in deposing Anthimus above and besides the Canons The whole power of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision more than in any other where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe much more was this done by him as Pope than any of them And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of