of all ages speaking by the mouthes of al general Councels of Fathers of Popes of al Catholikes this holy Church condemneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius The Cardinall was too diminutive in his extenuations when he spake so faintly The holy Church doth not so generally receive it 11. Let us beare with the Cardinals tendernesse of heart the Popes sores must not be touched but with soft and tender hands Seeing the Cardinall hath brought the Pope and the holy Church to be at ods and at an unreconciliable contradiction the Pope denying the Church affirming that a man after his death may noviter be condemned it is well worth the labour to examine whether part the Cardinall himselfe will take in this quarrell you may be sure the choyce on either part was very hard for him he hath here a worse matter than a wolfe by the eares This is dignus vindice nodus a point which will trie the Cardinals art wisdome piety constancy and faire dealing And in very deed he hath herein plaid Sir Politike would be above the degree of commendation The Cardinall is a man of peace hee loves not to displease either the Pope or the Church he knew that to provoke either of them would bring an armie of waspes about his eares and therfore very gravely wisely and discreetly he takes part with them both and though their assertions bee directly contradictory he holds them both to be true and takes up an hymne of Omnia bene to them both 12. First he sheweth that the Church saith right in this manner Although h Bar. an 553. nu 185. it be proved that one dyed in the peace of the Church and yet it doe afterwards appeare that in his writings he defended a condemned heresie and continuing in that heresie died therein and but dissemblingly cōmunicate with the Church the holy Church useth to condemne such a man jure even by right Having said as much as can bee wished on the Churches part the Cardinall will now teach that the Pope also saith right in this manner Pope Vigilius i Bar. an 553. nu 233. had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chapters by his Constitution and among those worthy reasons this is one for if this were once admitted that a man who dyeth in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned pateret ostium this would open such a gap that every ecclesiasticall writer though hee dyed in the Catholike Communion may yet after his death out of his writings be condemned for an heretike Thus Baronius 13. O what a golden and blessed age was this that brought forth such a Cardinall The Church decreeth that a man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and it decreeth aright The Pope decreeth the quite contrary that no man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and hee also decreeth aright and with good reason So both the Church saith well the Pope saith well you can say no lesse then Et vitula tu dignus hic or because the Cardinall saith better than they both and what Iupiter himselfe could never doe makes two contradictory sayings to be both true and both said well hee best deserveth let him have all the prize Vitula tu dignus utrâque 14. I told you before and this ensuing treatise will make it as cleare as the Sunne that Baronius having once lost the path forsaken that truth where only sure footing was to be found wandreth up and downe in and out in this cause as in a wildernesse treading on nothing but thornes wherewith feeling himselfe prickt he skips hither and thither for succour but still lights on briars and brambles which doe not onely gall but so intangle him that by no meanes he can ever extricate or unwinde himselfe for if one listed to make sport with the Cardinall it clearly and certainly followeth that if the Church say true then the Pope saying the contrary doth say untrue Againe if the Pope say true then the Church saying the contrary doth say untrue and then upon the Cardinals saying that they both say true it certainly followeth that neither of them both say true and yet further that both of them say both true and untrue and yet that neither of them both saith either truth or untruth 15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars seeing by the upright and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages we have proved the Popes decree herein to be erroneous and because it is in a cause of faith heretical let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion The former is taken from those words of our Saviour k Matth. 18.18 whatsoever ye binde on earth whence as you have seene Vigilius and as he saith Gelasius also collecteth that such as are not on earth or alive cannot be judged by the Church 16. The answer is not hard our Saviours words being well considered are so farre from concluding what Vigilius or Gelasius or both doe thence collect that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary for he said not Whatsoever yee binde or loose concerning those that are on earth or living in which sense Vigilius tooke them but Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth or during your life time shall binde or loose the same according to your censure here passed upon earth shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven The restrictive termes upon earth are referred to the parties who doe binde or loose not to the parties who are bound or loosed The generall terme whatsoever is referred to the parties who are bound or loosed whether they be dead or alive not to the parties who binde or loose who are onely alive and upon earth Nor doth our Saviour say Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth shall bee bound or loosed in heaven for ecclesiae clave errante no censure doth or can either binde or loose either the quicke or the dead but he saith Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose if the party be once truly and really bound or loosed by you that are upon earth it shall stand firme and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven So the parties who doe binde or loose are the Apostles and their successors onely while they are upon earth the parties who are bound or loosed are any whosoever whether alive or dead the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing is Christ himselfe in heaven For I say unto you whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church which as we have before declared both beleeved taught and practised this authority of binding and loosing not onely upon the living but upon the
dead also Of their binding the nocent wee have alleaged before abundance of examples for their loosing the innocent that one of Flavianus is sufficient The Ephesine l Act. conciliab Ephes citata in actis Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 57. b. latrocinie adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop for an Hereticke under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died nay was martyred m Caesus Flavianus dolore plagarum migravit ad Dominum lib ca. 12. by them The holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus loosed that band wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their key did erre they did not in truth They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr n Quae Synodus Chalc. Flaviano palmam mortis tribuit gloriosae Edict Valen. Mart. in Chalced. Conc. Act. 4. pa. 86. a. Flavianus injuste quidem in vita condemnatus juste post mortem revocatus est a B. Leone et sancta Synodo Chalcedonensi Iust edict §. Invenimus whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike the holy Councell feared not to loose him because he was dead their power to binde or loose was onely towards those that are upon the earth or living By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time imitating the religious pietie of those ancient Bishops restored to their pristine o Hist combustionis Bucâ—ri et Fagij et restitutionis eorum dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs two Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fagius after their death when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound but even burned them to ashes Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian p Si non oporteret anathematizari post mortem eos qui insua impietate mortuisunt oportebat nec eos qui injuste condemnati sunt patres post mortem revocari Lust edict prope finem that if the Church may after their death restore such as being unjustly condemned and falsly supposed to be bound died in their innocency and sincerity of faith it may also by the very same reason condemne and anathematize such after their death who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church 18. And truely whether soever of these censures either of binding or loosing the Church useth towards the dead as they both are warranted by the words of Christ and judgement of the Church so in doing either of both they performe an acceptable service to God and an holy duty to the Church of God For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve the Communion of Saints which in part consisteth in loving praising and imitating all such as we know either now to live or heretofore to have dyed in the faith or for the faith of Christ so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed renounce all communion with whatsoever heretickes either dead or alive and therefore though in their life time they had never beene condemned for such but honored as the servants of God under whose livery they hide their heresies and impieties yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed and to have died heretikes we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them not love them nor speake well of them much lesse imitate them but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Caecilianus even after their death corde carne anathematizare not making them accursed For that the Church cannot do and themselves have done that already but declaring them to be accursed in truth excluded from the society of God Gods Church and to be such though dead as with whom we can have no more coÌ„munion then hath light with darknesse faith with heresie God and Beliall nay we should wish that if it were possible there might be such an antipathie and disunion betwixt us and them as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles q Impositis eorum cadaveribus eidem rogo flammam se divisisse traditur vid. Stat. in Theb. and Polinices that even our dead bones and ashes might leape from theirs nor sleepe in one Church nor one earth with them from whom one day they shall be eternally severed by a wall of immortality and immortall glory 19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules decrees and Constitutions r Idem regulariter Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta Vigil loc citat nu 179. of their Apostolicke See by name of Pope Leo Gelasius both whoÌ„ Vigilius saith to have defined this that a dead man might not noviter be condemned was it not enough for Vigilius that himselfe was hereticall herein unlesse he drew his predecessors also into the same crime of defending yea defining heresies How much better had it beseemed him to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were it not with a lappe of his robe as the good Emperour would yet at least with silence and oblivion 20. And yet for all this if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility will give me leave I am for my owne part willing to thinke better and more favourably of Leo and Gelasius in this matter specially of Leo whose authority when some defenders of the three Chapters objected Å¿ Praemisislis dicentes doctrina vestrae reverendae sedis est per B. Leonem successoresque ejus mortuum ab hominibus damnari nullatenus opertere Pelag. 2. Epist 7. §. In his to Pope Pelagius as according with them Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary as consenting t Quis nescit quod ejusdem Leonis B. Augustini praedicatio contradicat ibid wholly with Saint Austen who professed that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death if it could appeare that he were guilty of those crimes Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause yea and the words of Leo which hee citeth doe declare no lesse In that Epistle u Leo Epist 91. Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church were excommunicated or who did not performe the acts required in repentance saith If any of them die before hee obtaine remission quod manens in corpore non receperit consequi exutus carne non poterit hee cannot obtaine that to wit remission of his fault being dead which before his death he had not received And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius Neither is it needfull that we shold sift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what
the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former x Gelas Epist 11. entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigilius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade saith he y Gelas Epist 4. that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he nam in hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place z Epist Synodalis Gelas ij Synod Rom. 2. p. 268. b. alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead a Nos etiam mortuis veniam praestare deposcunt ibid. Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasius saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but laboureth also to fallen that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes as were Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short
Braggadochio p. 205. sect 10. To Assent to the Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions in a cause of faith makes one an heretike pa. 172. sect 6. Author of the Edict was Iustinian himselfe p. 366. sect 6 7. B. BAronius nice in approving the Epistle of Ibas and why p. 128. sect 22. Baronius wittingly obstinate in maintaining the heresie of Nestorius by approving the later part of that epistle p. 129 sect 24 25. and p. 31. sect 28. Baronius sports himselfe with contradictions p. 131. sect 27. Baronius revileth the cause of the Three Chapt. p. 361. sect 1. Baronius Annals not altogether intire pag. 435. sect 19. Baronius by his own reasons proves his Annals to be untrue p. 436. sect 19. in fine sect 20. c. Baronius holds it dangerous for Vigilius to leave Rome to come to Constantinople p. 462 sect 1 2. Bellisarius most renowned save in the matter of Silverius p 470. sect 11. Bellarmine and Baronius at variance about the Epistle of Vigilius to Anthimus Severus and others p. 477. sect 19 20. Baronius first reason to disprove it is taken from the inscription p 477. in fine p. 478. sect 21 22 23. c. his second reason from the subscription pa. 482. sect 26. his last reason is because hee was not upbraided for it by the Emperour and others p. 483. sect 27. Bellarmines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know when a Councell decreeth any doctrine tanquam de fide pa. 40. sect 9. c. Baronius vilifieth the fift generall Councell p. 266. sect 2. The Banishment of Vigilius after the fift Councell a fiction p. 250. sect 16. and p. 253. sect 19. When and for what Vigilius was banished p. 252. sect 18. Baronius his three reasons for Vigilius his consenting to the Synod after his exile p. 245. sect 8. First from the testimony of Evagrius sect ibid. the second from the fact of Iustinian in restoring Vigilius p. 247. sect 11. the third of Vigilius consenting to the Synod taken from the words of Liberatus He was afflicted not crowned p. 160. sect 30. C. COnstitution of Vigilius sent unto the Synod pag. 8. sect 4. in fine the summe of the Constitution was the defence of the Three Chapters p. 10. sect 8. c. The Councell refuteth the Popes decree and ground of it p. 14. sect 1 2. c. The Councell condemneth and accurseth the Popes decree p. 17. sect 6. and p. 22. sect 15 16 The Councels decree consonant to Scripture p. 26. sect 24. The fift Councell approved by succeeding Councels and Popes p. 27. sect 26. and how long p. 29. sect 29. c. Councells above the Pope p. 29. sect 30 31. The Cause of the Three Chapters a cause of faith p. 37. sect 3 4. c. professed by Baronius p. 42. sect 14. a tryall of mens faith p. 362. sect 4. The Councell proposeth their decree about them tanquam de fide p. 41. sect 13. The Churches in the East divided from the West about the three Chapters p. 39. sect 7. The fift Councell explaineth a former definition of faith made no decree to condemne any new heresie p. 46. sect 20 21. Fift Councell of authority without the Popes approbation p. 268. sect 5 6 c. it was neither hereticall nor schismaticall p. 269. sect 7. it was assembled with the Popes consent p. 272. sect 12 13. Corruptions crept into some synodall acts are not just causes of rejecting others of that Councell p. 378. sect 3. The Councell of Chalcedon held Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate p. 382. sect 8. 3. the Councell of Chalcedon not corrupted pa. 384. sect 6 7. The Constitution of Vigilius no part of the synodall acts p. 399. sect 1 2 3. not published in the Synod p 401. sect 4. Chrysostomes bones not translated from Commana to Constantinople p. 426. sect 3. Councell against Councell at Ephesus p. 113. sect 2. The Church may binde or loose a man after death p. 53. sect 15 16. The Church cannot loose those who dye impenitent p. 55. sect 20 21. Coronati non coronati as two sorts so two rewards of professors p. 263. sect 43. A Councell is approved though the Pope approve it not p. 275. sect 17 18. Generall Councels have sought the Popes approbation p. 287. sect 34. Cyrill cleares himselfe of Nestorianisme p. 123. sect 16. D. VVHether a dead man may novitèr bee condemned is a question of faith p. 48. sect 3. That a dead man may be condemned is the judgement of Fathers p. 49. sect 6. the judgement of provinciall Synods p. 50. sect 7. the judgement of generall Councels p. ibid. sect 7. the judgement of Baronius p. 51. sect 10. Defenders of the Popes infallibility accursed by the Councell p. 24 sect 20 21 22. Dioscorus being hereticall judged Ibas his profession hereticall therefore the profession of Ibas must be orthodoxall Vigilius his reason p. 151. sect 29. Defenders of the three Chapters heretikes p. 171. sect 4. Divination or Mathematicall predictions nor allowable p. 343. sect 28. Domnus his action not inserted at Chalcedon p. 44. sect 9. To dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes not one an heretike p. 171. sect 5. Many Doctrines of their Romish Church may be held except that of the Popes infallibility and yet the party that holds them no papist p. 182. sect 21. in fine E. EPistle of Ibas wholly hereticall p. 19. sect 8 9. and p. 24. sect 19. Eunomius approved not any part of this Epistle p. 20. sect 11. Eunomius approved the confession of Ibas p. 21. sect 14. The Epistle of Ibas not approved at Chalcedon p. 107. sect 2 3 4 c. The Epistle was truly the writing of Ibas p. 109. sect 5 6. At Ephesus a great rent and division between Iohn and Cyrill ibid. At Ephesus Cyrill was deposed by the Conventicle ibid. sect 3. The Emperour ignorant for a time of the division betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 15. sect 4. The Emperour had knowledge of the division by a letter brought into the Court by a beggar ibid. Eustathius full of forgeries p. 340. sect 24 25 c. Eutychius not banished for not consenting to the heresie of the Phantastickes p. 341. sect 25. Eutychius given to divination hereticall and what it was p. 343. sect 28 29. for these supposed to be banished ibid. Evagrius full of fables p. 345. sect 30. c. The Emperours Edict reviled by Baronius p. 363. sect 1. it was not repugnant to the orthodoxall faith it was no seminary of sedition ibid. sect 3 4. The Epistle of Ibas condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon p. 381. sect 1. the Epistle in Cedrenus not Iustinians p. 398. sect 1. Epistles writ to Dioscorus and Leo were forged and not Theodorets p. 417. sect 7 8. and p. 444. sect 8. Epistles by their erroneous inscription are not proved to be forged p. 429. sect 9 10. c. Epiphanius his writing against images read
condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema f Coll. 4. pa. 537. a. Coll. 8. pa. 586. et 587. to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema g Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we h Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If i Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth k Ob easdem haeresâ—s decrevit eos esse alienos à diaconorii honore Lib. 7. de visib Monarch an 537. the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would l An. 546. nu 41. arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would m An. eodeÌ„ nu 43. be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe n Ibid. nu 50. Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancituÌ„ EdictuÌ„ against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe o An. 547. nu 50. Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasioÌ„ which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the ease is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof p An. 547. nu 30. an 553. nu 231. Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith q Lib. 3. Epist 37. In eâ de
assent to their Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church but co nomine even for that very cause they are convicted condemned and accursed heretikes For the manifesting of which conclusion I will begin with that their fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith whereof before I have so often made mention And to prove the present Romane Church to bee hereticall herein two things are to be declared the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church the other that this doctrine is hereticall and for such condemned by the Catholike Church 7. For the former that the assertion of Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith is the doctrine of the present Romane Church I thinke none conversant in their writings will make doubt Give mee leave to propose some testimonies of their owne The Pope saith Bellarmine g Lib. 4. de pont ca. 3. §. Sic. when hee teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith nullo casu errare potest hee can by no possible meanes then erre And this as he saith is certissimum a most certaine truth and in the end hee addeth this is a signe Ecclesiam totam sentire that the whole Church doth beleeve the Pope to be in such causes infallible So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church The Iesuite Coster for himselfe and their whole Church saith We h Ench. tit de summo pont §. Fatemur doe constantly deny the Popes vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere to be able either to teach an heresie or to propose an errour to be beleeved When the Pope saith Bozius i Th. Boz lib 18. de Sig. Eccl. ca. 6. §. Sequitur teacheth the Church or sets forth a decree of faith Divinitùs illi praeclusa est omnis via God then stoppeth every way unto him which might bring him into errour Againe k Idem lib. 16. ca. 8. §. Rursus in making such decrees nunquam valuit aut valebit facere contra fidem he never was he never shall be able to doe ought against the faith We beleeve saith Gretzer l Def. ca. 3. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. §. Terius the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the m Idem def ca. 28. lib. 1. de pontif §. Quocirca gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra definiant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton n Relect. Cont. 3. qu. 4. §. Circa a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement o Rel. Conc. 6. q. 3. Art 5. §. Respondeo of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus p Loc. Theol. lib. 6. ca. 7. §. Quid. who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine q Lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca. 8. §. Excutimus It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth r Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 2. § Quarto St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he ſ In 2. 2. disp 1. q. 1. punct 1 part 30. that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine t Lib 2. de Conc. ca. 2 §. Ac ut doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth u Lib. de Eccles milit ca. 14. §. Nostra Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer x Def. ca. 10. lib. 3. de verb. Dei §. Iam. pa. 1450. that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe y Ibid. §. An. pd 1451. They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia z In 2. 2. disp 1. q. 1. By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius a Lib. 2. de sig eccl ca. 21. §. His. lib.
Church and generall Councels to be infallible seeing their infallibility is none but onely by adhering and consenting to the Pope it necessarily ensueth that they all à fortiori doe beleeve and must professe the Pope to be infallible seeing on his the infallibility of both the other doth wholly and solely depend 12. Let me adde but one other proofe hereof taken from Supremacy of authoritie and judgement It is a ruled case in their learning Si o Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca. 5. § Quintū et lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 1. § Denique et lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 11. § De tertio errare non potest debet esse summus judex He who is infallible must be the highest and last Iudge and Vice versa He p Affirmant ejus judicium esse ultimū Hinc autem aperte sequitur non errare Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 3 § Accedat who is the last and highest judge must be infallible Supremacy and infallibility of judgement are inseparably linked To whomsoever Supremacy is given even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also for seeing from the last or supreme Iudge there can be no appeale it were most unjust to binde Christians to beleeve his sentence who might be deceived most unjust to binde them from appealing from a judge that were fallible or from an erronious judgement Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith belongeth To whom else but to the Pope whereas some dare affirme saith the Canonist q Cupers com ad cap. oporteb pa. 4. nu 33. that a Councell is above the Pope Falsissimum est This is most false The Successor of Peter saith Stapleton r Rel Cont. 6. q. 3. art 5. opin 10. supra omnes est is above all Bishops Church generall Councels above all The Pope saith Bellarmine ſ Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 17. is simply and absolutely above the whole Church and above a generall Councell t Lib. eod ca. 14. § Vltimae Hee further tels us that this assertion That the Pope is above a generall Councell is not only the judgment of all the ancient Schoole Divines the cōmon sentence of their Writers of whom he reckoneth thirteene and if it were fit three times thirtie might bee scored up with them but that it is the publike doctrine of their Church decreed in their Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth There the Councell saith he u Lib. eod ca. 17. § Denique disertè ex professo docuit did plainly and of set purpose teach the Pope to bee above all Councels yea expressissimè x Lib. eod ca. 13. § Deinde rem definivit that Laterane Councell did most expresly define this and their definition hereof is Decretum de fide a Decree of faith for which cause in his Apology bearing the name of Schulkenius hee professeth y Ca. 6. § Probo pa. 227. that this is Articulus fidei an Article of faith such as every Christian is bound to beleeve that the Pope is Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae Iudex the Supreme last and highest Iudge of the whole Church here upon earth which he proves besides many other authorities by this very Laterane z Cap. eodem § Lateran pa. 249. decree and by their Trent Councell The words themselves of those Councels make the matter plaine in that at the Laterane Councell they thus decree Solum a Sess 11. pa. 639. b. Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia authoritatem habere that the Pope alone hath authority above all Councels and this they say is taught not b Nedum ex Scripturae sacrae testimonio dictis sanctorum patrum c. Ibid. onely by Fathers and Councels but by the holy Scriptures thereby shewing that in this decree they explicate declare the Catholike faith which is one of the Cardinals notes to know when a decree is published by a Councell tanquam de fide as a decree of faith and they threaten the c Ibid. pa. 340. indignation of God and the blessed Apostles to the gainsayers of their decree A censure as heavy as any Anathema the denouncing whereof is another of the Cardinals notes that they proposed this decree as a decree of faith In the other at Trent the Councell teacheth d Sess 14. ca. 7. that unto the Pope is given Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia the Supreme power in the whole Church And this Supremacy is such that from all Councels all other Iudges you may appeale to him and hee may reverse e Pontifex ut Princeps Ecclesiae summus potest retractare illud judicium Concilij Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 18. § Dico Potest approbare vel reprobare Idē lib. 2. ca. 11. § De tertio adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua f Bell. lib. eodem 2. ca. 18. § Praeterea nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some g Aug. Triump de potest Eccl. q. 6. ar 8. of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the h Sententia Concilij cui praest Petrus est sententia Spiritus sancti Bell. lib. 3 de verb. Dei ca. 5. § Sextum Idem asserere possunt caetera legitima Concilia Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 2. § Tertius sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente i Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca. 10. § Decimum gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels desining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is the very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must
upon the authority of Vigilius did not receive the fift Synod atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary Such were the Italian Africane Illirian other neighbour Bishops So Baronius truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part 36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes As the name of heresie though it bee common to any opinion whereof one makes choice whether it be true or false in which sense Constantine the great called o Epist ad Crestum apud Euseb lib. 10. ca. 5. the true faith Catholicam sanctissimam haeresim yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions as are repugnāt to the faith So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or renting of one from another yet now by the vulgar use of Divines it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause and from those to whom hee or they who are separated ought to unite themselves hold communion with them This whosoever doe whether they bee moe or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes and factious For it is neither multitude nor paucitie nor the holding with or against any visible head or governour whatsoever nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others but only the cause for which the separation is made which maketh a Schisme or faction and truly denounceth one to be factious or a Schismatike If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel because they are Idolaters and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal as they did If the three children for the like cause separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians in separation they are both like but in the cause being most unlike the Baalites onely and not Elijah and the Babylonians only and not the three children are Schismatikes Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church and hold communion with them in faith hence it is that as out of Austine h Lib. de unit Eccl. ca. 4. Stapleton rightly observes i Lib. 6. doct princ ca. 7. §. Istud Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the Church I say from the true orthodoxall Church for as Saint Augustine in the same place reacheth whosoever dissents from the Scriptures and so from the true faith though they be spred throughout the whole world k Lib. 10. ca. 7. §. Nempe 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 l Tit. 3.10 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
Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters not onely after the death of Vigilius but till the time of Pelagius the second makes evident If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof it was onely by some private or personall but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all this is the most that can be collected from them And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them yet can it no way helpe their cause or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible onely it would serve to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike or under the Anathema of the holy Councell For as they teach and teach it with ostentation as a matter of great wit and subtilty that the Pope may erre personally or in his owne person hold an heresie which onely hurts himselfe and not the Church but erre doctrinally or judicially define an heresie he cannot even so to pay them with their owne coine might it fall out at this time with Vigilius hee being wearied with long exile might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters and approve the Synod which may be called a personall truth or a personal profession in the Pope the benefit wherof was onely to redound to himselfe either to free him from the censure of the Synod or procure the Emperors favour goodwill that he might returne home to his See but that this professing supposing he made it was doctrinall or Cathedrall delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like neither Baronius nor any of all his favourers can ever prove Now were I sure that the Cardinall or his friends would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination But alas they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement As personall errors hurt them not so personall truths helpe them not Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall Doctrinall Apostolicall l Ante novissimuÌ„ Apostolicae sedâ—â— assensum Bar. an 546. nu 38. itidemque ejus successoribus licuit in ipsius Vigilij abire Decretum Bar. an 553. nu 231. Quintam Synodum Apostolica authoritate comprobavit an 554. nu 7. and Cathedrall or he will have none at all And therefore to demonstrate how farre Vigilius was froÌ„ decreeing this I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended not doubting to make it evident that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters and approve the fift Councell after the end of the fift Synod or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth 8. The Cardinalls reasons to prove this are three The first is taken from the testimonie of Evagrius m Bar. an 553. nu 223. who then lived Nicephorus Cedrenus Zonaras Photius and all Greeke writers Graeci n Bar. an 554. nu 4. omnes affirmant they all testifie Vigilius to have assented to this fift Councell and that by letters or by a booke whence the Cardinall collects that seeing he consented not either during the time of the Synod or shortly after for he was sent into banishment because he would not consent unto it necesse est affirmare o Ibid. id ab ipso factuÌ„ esse hoc tempore cum ab exilio solutus est liberque dimissus It must of necessitie be affirmed that he consented at that time when he was freed from exile and dismissed home to Rome Thus Baronius whom I will never beleeve to have been so simple and ignorant as that he knew not how lame defective and unsound this his necessarie collection was That his Necesse est is meerly inconsequent it is not so good as Contingens est That Vigilius consented by a booke or letters to the Synod is certaine none that I know makes doubt of it and that is all that Evagrius or any of his other witnesses affirme but neither Evagrius nor any one of them saith that Vigilius consented to the Synod after the end thereof or after he was sent into banishment this and this onely is it which wee deny and which Baronius undertakes to prove but when he comes to his proofe hee still and that most fraudulently omitteth this which is the principall nay the onely verbe in the sentence And to prove that Vigilius consented to the Synod in condemning the three Chapters what needed the Cardinall to cite all or any one of the Greeke writers The verâ— Acts of the fift Councell doe often and expresly testifie this q Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa 520. a. Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. Vigilius hath p often by writings without writing condemned and anathematized the Three Chapters In the very Synodall sentence q Collat. 8. pa. 584. a. it is said It hath happened that Vigilius living in this City hath beene present at those things which are noted concerning these Chapters tam sine scriptis quam in scriptis ea saepius condemnasse and to have condemned the same as well by writing as by word The whole purpose of the seventh Collation is no other but to shew out of Vigilius own writings that he consented with the Councell in condemning the three Chapters the very letters of Vigilius which were read in that seventh Collation do clearely witnesse his consent and judgement in condemning those Chapters The Councell condemnes them Vigilius condemnes them Doth not Vigilius consent to and with the Synod Did he not per libellum literas expresse that assent when his owne Epistles testifie that he condemned those Chapters as did also the Synod wherefore of his consent to the Synod there is no doubt But this consent of his was before the time that the Councell made their Synodall Decree yea before they assembled in the Synod it was during the time of the second Period before mentioned shortly after his coÌ„ming to Constantinople untill the Councell met together all that time he consented in judgement with the Councell he condemned the Chapters as the Councell did But at the time of the Councell when Vigilius should have consented also in making the Synodall Decree for condemning of those Chapters then hee dissented from the Synod and published an Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters So he both consented and that by letters yea by his Decree with the Synod and withall he dissented and that also by his Decree from the Synod His consent which the Synodall Acts doe shew and testifie Evagrius and the rest who saw and therein followed the Acts report and that truly His dissent which his owne Apostolicall Constitution
condemned by a generall Councell it is doubtlesse that at the promulgating of this law both the Emperour and the catholike Church held that decree of the second Councel against the Macedonians to be the judgment of an holy lawful approved Oecumenical Synod such as was the most ample convictioÌ„ of an heretike manifestation of a heresie Now this Edict was published before Pope Damasus either approved that Councell or so much as knew what was done therein For the first newes what was done in the Councell came to Damasus after the Councell of Aquileia as after Sigonius d L. 8. de Occid Jmp. an 381. Baronius declareth who after the Synod at Aquileia described saith e An. 381. nu 97. Post haec autem After these things done at Aquileia when Damasus had received a message concerning the Councell at Constantinople c. that Councell at Aquileia was held f Bar. an eod nu 81. on the fift of September when the other at Constantinople was ended a month before and how long after that time it was before Damasus approved that Councell at Constantinople whether one two or three yeares will bee hard for any of the Cardinals friends truly to explane Howsoever seeing it is certaine that the generall Councell was ended and the Decrees thereof not onely approved but put in execution by the Church before the Pope I say not confirmed that Councell but before hee knew what was done and decred therein it is a Demonstration that a generall Councell or a Decree thereof may bee and de facto hath beene judged by the Church both of them to bee of full and Synodall authoritie and approved by the Church when the Pope had confirmed or approved neither of both 20. Nay what if neither Damasus nor any of their Popes till Gregories time approved that Councell Gregory himselfe is a witnesse hereof The g Lib. 6. Epist 3â— Canons of the Constantinopolitane Councell condemne the Eudoxians but who that Eudoxius was they doe not declare And the Romane Church eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet nec accipit neither hath nor approveth those Canons or Acts but herein it accepteth that Synod in that which was defined against the Macedonians by it and it rejecteth those heresies which being mentioned therein were already condemned by other Fathers So Gregory By whose words it is plaine that the Romane Church untill Gregories time neither approved the Canons nor Acts of that second generall Councell Even the condemning of Macedonius and his heresie was not approved by the Romane Church eo nomine because it was decreed in that Councell for then they should have approved the Canon against the Eudoxians and all the rest of their Canons seeing there was the selfe-same authority of the holy Councell in decreeing them all but the reason why they approved that against the Macedonians was because Pope h Anathema infligimus Macedonianis Epist Damas et Synod Rom. apud Theod. lib. 5. ca. 10. Damasus had in a Romane Synod divers yeares before i Concilium illud Romanum habitum est tempore Petri Episcopi Alexandrini qui ei interfuit Zozom lib. 6. ca. 23. Timotheus vero qui Petro successit sedit in Concilio Constantinopolitano ut ex subscriptione liquet the second Councell condemned that heresie and what heresies were by former Fathers condemned those and nothing else did the Romane Church approve in that Councell as Gregory saith The inducement moving them was not the authority of the second Councell but the judgement of other Fathers for which they accepted of the second Councell therein and this was untill the dayes or time of Gregory for that is it which Gregory intendeth in the former words hactenus non habet nâ—â— accipit not meaning that till the yeare wherein he writ that Epistle which was the fifteenth Indiction the Romane Church received not those Canons or Acts for in the ninth Indiction that is sixe yeares before himselfe professed k Lib. 2. Epist 24 to embrace that second Councell as one of the foure Euangelists which also to have beene the judgement of their Church he l Lib. 2. Epist 10 Indict 11. witnesseth in the eleventh Indiction but untill Gregories time hactenus untill this age wherein I live was the second Councell the Canons or Acts thereof not had nor approved by the Romane Church And yet all that time even from the end of that Councell was both that Councell held for a generall lawfull and approved Synod and their Decree against Macedonius by the whole Church approved as a Decree of a generall and lawfull Councell such as ought to binde the whole Church 21. What wee have shewed concerning the Decree against the Macedonians and in generall for the second Councell that will bee much more evident in the third Canon of that Synod which concernes the Patriarchall dignity of the See of Constantinople his precedence to the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and his authority over the Churches in Asia minor Thrace and Pontus all which was conferred on that See by that third Canon That the Church of Rome till Gregories time approved not that Canon is evident by Pope Leo who in many m Epist 54.51.61 of his Epistles specially in that to Anatolius n Epist 53. shewes his dislike of it yea rejects it as contrary to the Nicene Decrees which Leo there defineth but without doubt erroniously to bee immutable The Legates of Leo having instructions from him said openly in the Councell of Chalcedon o Act. 16. pa. 136. â— touching the Canons of this Councell in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur they are not accounted or held for Synodall Canons and following the minde and precept p Sedes Apostolica quae nobis praecepit Ib. d. pa. 137. b. of the Pope they most earnestly oppugned this third Canon Long before Leo did Damasus reject q Vel ementer refutarunt hunc tertium CanoneÌ„ Leo et Damasus Turrian l b de 6 7 et 8 Synodis pa. 65. Romana Ecclesia hactenus respuit hunc Canonem Bin not in Conc. 2 § Approbatum this Canon facto decreto in Synodo Romana making a Decree against it in a Romane Synod which is extant in their Vaticane as Turrian who belike saw the Decree doth witnesse Now seeing that Decree of Damasus was made statim post secundum Concilium presently after the second Councell and was so strongly corroborated by Pope Leo this may perswade that none of their Popes before the dayes of Gregory would repeale the Decrees of those two Popes Their owne Nicholas Sanders goes further and saith r â—am primum in Concilio Later Constantinopolitana sedes Romanae Ecclesiae assensum publice obtinuit c. Sand. lib. 7. de visib Monar ad an 1215. That this Canon was not allowed by the Romane Church till the Councell at Laterane under Innocentius the third which is more than sixe
hundred yeares after the death of Gregory and though he prove this by the testimony of Guilielmus Tyrius yet I insist onely upon the time of Gregorie whose words are very pregnant for this and the other Canons of that second Councel the Romane Church hactenus non habet nec accipit did not till these dayes embrace nor approve them 22. Now that this same third Canon was all that time held to be of full authority and approved by the Church as a Canon of an holy generall Councell which bindeth all notwithstanding the Popes did not approve it nay did even by their Synodall Decrees reject it there are very many and cleare evidences By warrant of that Canon did Anatolius in the Councell of Chalcedon Å¿ Act. 1. et alijs ubi recensentur Episcopi and Eutichius in the fift Synod t Coll. 1. et alijs in the right of their See of Constantinople take place before and above the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch none in those Councels repining thereat nay those Synods and God himselfe as is there u Ecce nos Deo volente Anatolium primum habemus Ait Pascasinus in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 8. b. said approving that precedence And whereas this order had hot beene observed in the Ephesine Latrocinie Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being set after the Bishops of Antioch and Ierusalem the Bishops of the Councell of Chalcedon stormed thereat and said x Ibid. Why did not Flavianus sit in his proper place that is next to the Romane Bishop or his Legates By authority of the same Canon did Chrysostome when he was Bishop of Constantinople depose y S. memoriae Chrysostomus 15 Episcopos deposuit in Asia et pro eis alios ordinavit Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. in sine Zezo lib. 1. ca. 6. fifteene Bishops in Asia ordaine others in their roomes celebrate z Pallad in vit Chrys a Councell at Ephesus and call the Asian Bishops unto it none of which either could he have done or would the other have obeyed him therein had it not beene knowne that they were subject to him as their Patriarke by that Canon of the second generall Councell to which they all must obey And this was done about some twenty yeares after that Canon was made a Conc. habitum an 381. Chrysost creatus Episcopus Cesario et Attico Coss Socr. lib. 6. ca. 2. id est circa an 398 câ—jus secundo anno aut circiter haec evenerunt So quickly was the same in force and was acknowledged to bee of a binding authority In the Councell of Chalcedon when the truth of this Canon was most diligently examined Elutherius Bishop of Chalcedon said b Act. 16. pa. 136. b. Sciens quia per Canones per consuetudinem I subscribed hereunto knowing that the See of Constantinople hath these rights in Asia and Pontus as a Patriarke to governe there both according to the Canons and according to custome and the like was deposed by many Bishops of Asia and Pontus They acknowledge nay they knew there was such a Canon they knew also that the custome and practice did concurrere cum lege did concurre with the Canon whereupon the glorious Iudges after full discussing of this cause testified b and sentenced that the Bish of Constantinople had rightfull authority to ordaine Metropolitane Bishops in the Diocesses of Thrace Asia and Pontus and the whole Synod consented to them first proclaiming Haec c Ibid. justa est sententia this is a just sentence this we say all and then in the very Synodal Epistle d Relat. ad Leonem post act 16. to Leo testifying the same to wit that they had confirmed that custome to the Bishop of Constantinople that he should ordaine Metropolitanes in Thrace Asia and Pontus and thereby had confirmed the third Canon of the second Councell This was the judgement of the whole Councell at Chalcedon that is of the whole Catholike Church in that age to which have consented all Councels and catholike Bishops ever since All these doe approve and judge to bee approved that Canon of the second generall Councell which the Popes and Romane Church not onely not approved but expresly and by Synodall decrees rejected 23. About some ninety yeares e Conc. Chalced. habitum an 451 after this and an hundred sixty yeares f Conc. Constant habit an 381. after that second Synod did Iustinian the Emperour confirme the g Nov. 131. ca. 1 et 2. Canons both of that second and of al the former general Councels giving unto them force of Imperiall lawes Yea hee further commanded those Canons this third among the rest Dipticis inseri praedicari to be written in the Diptikes or Ecclesiasticall bookes and publikely to be read in the Churches in token of the publike and universall approbation of the same This the fift Councell h Coll. 2. pa. 524. a. testifieth as also Victor i In Chron. an 1. Iustin and Evagrius k Lib. 4. ca. 11. yea the Emperour himselfe also who both l Cod. l. 7. de summa Trin. professeth that he will not suffer this custome to bee taken away and signifieth m Nov. 115. that all Patriarkes are knowne to keepe in their Diptikes and to recite those Canons in their Churches The Emperor doubted not but the Romane Church Patriarke as well as the rest had done this and yeelded obedience to so holy an Edict but the Romane Church deluded the Emperour herein none of them as Bellarmine n Lib. 1. de Pont. ca. 24. § Hiâ— tels us did after Iustinians time or as he accounts after the yeare 500 reclamare contradict or speake against that Canon which their silence the Emperour and others not acquainted with the Romane Arts did interpret to be a consent but Binius o Not. in Conc. 2 §. Constantinop bewrayeth their policy they for peace and quietnes sake being loth to exasperate the Emperour did permit or connive at that honour conferred by the Canon upon the See of Constantinople yet nunquam à Romana Ecclesia approbatum fuit it was never theÌ„ not til Gregories time which is as much as I intended to prove it was never saith hee approved by the Romane Church which hee proves by a Decretall of Innocentius the third whence it is evident seeing that Canon of the second generall Councell was never as Binius avoucheth but certainly not till Gregories time approved by the Pope and yet was all that time approved by the catholike Church even by the great and famous Councell at Chalcedon al who approve it who are no fewer than the whole catholike Church it is evident I say that it is neither the Popes Approbation which maketh nor his Reprobation which hindereth a Councell or any Decree or Canon thereof to be an approved generall Councell or a Synodall Canon such as doth and ought to binde all that are in the Church 24.
Councell for the honour of the See of Constantinople we have condemned the heresie of Eutyches Thus writ the whole Councell to Leo declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it 30. You see now that in every sentence of a generall and lawfull Councell there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters they all either explicitè or tacitè or implicitè consenting to that decree whether they be absent or present and whether in that particular they consent or dissent Now because there can bee no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiasticall matter than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters that is of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes it hence clearly ensueth that there neither is nor can be any Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree greater stronger or of more authority then is the judgement it selfe of such a generall Councell and their owne confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world 31. Besides this confirmation of any synodall decree which is by Bishops and therefore to bee called Episcopall there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors which is called Royall or Imperiall by this later religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ecclesiasticall Canons within their dominions so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures but further also doe so strengthen and backe the same by their sword and civill authority that the contradicters of those decrees are made liable to those temporall punishments which are set downe in EZra i Ez. 7.16 to death to banishment to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment as the quality of the offence shall require and the wisedome of that Imperiall State shall think fit Betwixt these two confirmations Episcopall and Imperiall there is exceeding great oddes and difference By the former judiciall sentence is given and the synodall decree made or declared to be made for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation by the later neither is the synodal decree made nor any judgment given to define that cause for neither Princes nor any Lay men are Iudges to decide those matters as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in k Nefas est eum qui Episcoporum catalogo adscriptus non est Ecclesiasticis negotijs se immiscere nempe ut IudiceÌ„ qui definiat Epist Imp. ad Synod Ephes to 1. Act. Ephes Conc. ca. 32. their directions to Candidianus in the Councell of Ephesus but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops and their judgement given in that cause is strengthened by Imperiall authority for which cause this may fitly be called a superemineÌ„t or corrobotative confirmation of the synodall judgement The former confirmation is Directive teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church the later is Coactive compelling all by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions The former is Essentiall to the Decree such as if it want there is no Synodall decree made at all the later is Accidentall which though it want yet is the Decree of the Councell a true Synodall Decree and sentence The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmeÌ„t By vertue of the former the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith or contumacious in other matters and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church though if the later be wanting those censures cannot bee inflicted by any or upon any but with danger to incurre the indignation of Princes By vertue of the later not onely the Church may safely yea with great allowance and praise inflict their Ecclesiasticall censures but inferiour Magistrates also may nay ought to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees as against notorious convicted and condemned heretikes or in causes which are not of faith but of externall discipline and orders as against contumacious persons The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperiall authority it is in dignitie inferiour The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject it is in dignity Supreme 32. This Imperiall confirmation as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith l Lib. 4. de vita Constant ca 27. Constantine sealed ratified and confirmed the decrees which were made therein The second general Councel writ m Epist Synod 2. post Act. Concil pa. 518. thus to the Emperour Theodosius We beseech your clemency that by your letters ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum that you would ratifie and confirme the decree of this Councell and that the Emperour did so his Emperiall Edict before n Hoc cap. nu 19. mentioned doth make evident To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus o Act Ephes Conc tom 3. ca. 17. Let matters coÌ„cerning religion and piety be diligently examined contention being laid aside ac tum demuÌ„ à nostra pietate confirmationem expectate and then expect from us our imperiall confirmation The holy Councell having done so writ p Act. Conc. Eph. to 4. ca. 8. thus to the Emperour We earnestly intreate your piety ut jubeat ea omnia that you would coÌ„mand that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius may stand in force per vestrae pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata being confirmed by your roall assent And that the Emperour yeelded to their request his Edict q Imperator sententia Synodi publicè approbata Nestorio exilium indicit Act. Con. Eph. to 5. ca. 11. et lege ult de haeret Cod. Theod. against Nestorius doth declare In the fourth Councell the Emperour said r Act. 6. We come to this Synod not to shew our power sed ad confirmandam fidem but to confirme the faith And wheÌ„ he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent Å¿ Jn perpetuum quae à vobis termÃnata sunt serventur Jbid. to their decree the whole Councell cryed out Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations That
those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritativè such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificativè such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull Synod because the Pope resisted the assembling and contradicted the decree and sentence thereof but for as much as it is not victory but truth which I seeke and the full satisfaction of the reader in this cause and seeing this point about the lawfulnesse of generall Councels is frequent and very obvious and such as being rightly conceived will give great light to this whole controversie about Councels I will crave liberty to lanch somewhat further into this deepe and explane with what convenient brevity I can what it is which maketh any Synod to bee or rightly to be esteemed a generall and lawfull Councell 2. As the name of Synod doth in his primary and large acception agree to every assembly so doth the name of Councell to every assembly of consultation The former being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with Coetus and imports the assembly of any multitude which meeteth and commeth together The later being derived of Cilia a Concilium dictuÌ„ à communi intentione â—o quod in unum omnes dirigant mentis obtutuÌ„ Cilia enim oculorum sunt Isiod Mer. in suam Canon collect whence also supercilium imports the common or joynt intending or bending their eyes both of body and minde to the investigation of the truth in that matter which is proposed in their assembly But both of those words being now drawne from those their large and primitive significations are by Ecclesiasticall writers and use of speech penes quem jus est norma loquendi restrained and appropriated onely to those assemblies of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons wherein they come together to consult of such matters as concernes either the faith or discipline of the Church Of these because some are lawfull others unlawfull Synods if we can finde what it is which maketh a generall and lawfull Councell it will bee easie therby to discerne which are unlawfull Synods seeing it is vulgarly and truly said that Rectum is index sui obliqui 3. That a Synod be generall and lawfull there are three things necessarily and even essentially required the want of any one of which is a just barre and exception why that Synod is either not generall or not lawfull The first which concernes the generalitie is that the calling and summons to the Councell be generall and Oecumenicall so that all Bishops be called and when they are come have free accesse to the same Councell unlesse for some fault of their owne or some just reason they ought to bee debarred For if the calling to any Synod bee out of some parts onely of the Church and not out of the whole the judgement also of such a Councell is but partiall not generall and the Councell is but particular not Oecumenicall seeing some of those who have judicatory power are either omitted or unjustly excluded from the Synod The want of this was a just exception taken by the Pope Iulius against that Councell of Antioch b Extat tom 1. Conc. pa. 420. wherein Athanasius was deposed by the Arian faction and Gregory of Cappadocia intruded into his See why it neither was nor could be esteemed generall or such as should binde the whole Church by the decrees made by it for said Iulius c Apud Socr. l. 2 ca. 13. et Zozom lib. 3. ca. 9. they did against the Canons of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not so much as call him to that Synod whereas the Canons of the Church forbid that any decree which should have power to binde the whole Church should bee made without the sentence judgement and
he should for ever want the Bishopricke But if either they did not within such time examine the cause or examining it finde the accusations untrue that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius as unjustly deposed and that Sabinianus should remaine but a substitute unto him untill Maximus could provide him of another Bishopricke Thus ordered the secular Iudges and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence crying out Nihil justius nothing is more just nothing is more equall this is a just sentence you judge according to Gods minde O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe nay rather the onely Iudge would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity nor of force to bind I say not other Churches such as these of Britany but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority as Athanasius was to Domnus Such an holy Councell would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God and unlesse they could justifie which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us and withall purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convicted not onely in foro poli but in their owne consciences and by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny injustice and subversion of the Catholike Faith 36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops who were assessors in that Assembly Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance and murdered the Prophets Among whom that Canon authorizing trecherous and perfidious dealing stood in force Quod f Const Const sess 19. non obstantibus that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours Kings or any other granted to such as come to their Councels Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint by what bond soever they have tyed themselves by promise by their honour by their oath yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition and proceed to censure to punish them as they shall thinke fit and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousnesse saying Caesar obsignavit g Campian Rat. 4. Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath but our Councell which is above the Emperour hath repealed it it shall not stand in force 37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope The Apulian Bishops h Carol. Molin lib. de Concil Trident. nu 21. crying out aliorum omnium nomine in the name of all the rest in their Councell Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae mancipia sanctissimi patris O we are all but the Popes creatures his very slaves The complaint i Cl. Espenc cont in Epist ad Tit. ca. 1. pa. 42. of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed which he made of such like Councels at Basil that must bee done and of necessity be done and decreed in Councells quod nationi placeat Italicae which the Italian nation shall affect which country alone k Vt quae sol â— Episcoporum numero nationes alias aequet aut superet ibid. for multitude of Bishops doth equall or exceed other nations and this very Italian faction to have prevailed at Trent their owne Bishop Espencaeus who was at the Councell doth testifie Haec l Jbid. illa Helena est this is the Helena which of late prevailed at Trent this Italian faction overswayed all whereof Molineus m Car. Mol. locò citato gives a plaine instance For when an wholesome Canon that the Pope might not dispence in some matters had like to have beene decreed many in the Councell liking well thereof the Pope procured a respite n Pont fex ad sesquimensem decreti conclusionem ampliari fussit ibid. for that businesse for a month and an halfe during which time some forty poore Bishops of Italy and Sicily were shipped and sent to Trent like so many levis armaturae milites and so the good Canon was by their valour discomsited and rejected by that holy Synod Some of the Councell also were the Popes pensioners and stipendary Bishops nay rather ought than Bishops such as among others were Olaus â—agnus o Olaus lagnus Suevus qui Archiepiscopi Vpsalensis nomen et titulum vendicabat quae quidem regio nec Pontificem unquâ—m nec Ecclesiam Romanam agnovit Gent. Exam. Conc. Trid. sess 1. nu 3 the titular Archbishop of Vpsala in Gothia and Robertus Venantius the titular p Jbid. and blinde Bishop of Armach and yet not halfe so blinde in body as in minde Archbishops q Archiepiscopi sine Archiepiscopatu sine Ecclesia sine Clero sine ullo censu reditu ibid. without Archbishoprickes without a Church without a Clergy without Diocesse without any revenues save a small * Hos Archiepiscopos rerum tenues inopes Romae suis stipeÌ„diis aluerat Pontifex ibid. Olao in singulos menses 15. aureos nummos suppeditabat ibid. pension which the Pope allowed them that they might be cyphers in the Councell and taking his pay might doe him some service for it and grace his Synod with their subscriptions But all the other bonds are as nothing to that r Extr. ad Iurejur ca. Ego N. oath wherewith every one of them was tyed and fettered to the Pope swearing to uphold the Papall authority against all men and to fight Å¿ In nova juramenti forma insuper hoc jurant Episcopi se haereticos omnesque rebelles Pontifici extremè infestaturos persequuturos Grav oppos Conc. Trident p. 2. caus 4 pa. 52. against all that should rebell against him an oath so exercrable that Aeneas Sylvius is t Ibidem in Paral ad Abbat Vsper pa. 41â— mentioned to have said Quod etiam verum dicere contra Papam sit contra Episcoporum juramentum that even to speake the truth to speake for the truth if it be contrary to the Pope is against the oath of Bishops By this they were so tyed ut u Ibid. pa. â—1 ne mutire quidem