whom they loose se et non illa destruit he destroyeth himselfe but not those Councils and whosoever thinketh otherwise let him be accursed Thus Pope Gregory the great ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill and accursing all that labour to unty those bands By Agatho by Leo the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All their Popes after the the time of Gregorie were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fift as of the former Councils and that in such solemne and exact manner after the time of Hadrian the second that they professed as their forme it selfe set downe by Anton. Augustinus doth witnesse to embrace the eight generall Councils whereof this was one to hold them pari honore et veneratione in equal honor and esteeme to keepe them intirely usque ad unum apicem to the least iôta to follow and teach whatsoever they decreed and whatsoever they condemned to condemne both with their mouth and heart A like forme of profession is set downe in the Councill at Constance where the Councill having first decreed the power and authoritie of the Pope to be inferiour and subject to the Councill and that he ought to be obedient to them both in matters of faith and orders of reformation by this their superior authoritie ordaineth That every Pope at the time of his election shall professe that corde et ore both in words and in his heart hee doth embrace and firmely beleeve the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers and by the eleven generall Councils this fift being reckned for one and that he will keepe defend and teach the same faith with them usque ad unum apicem even to the least syllable To goe no further Baronius confesseth that not onely Gregory and his predecessors unto Vigilius sed successores omnes but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have received and confirmed this fift Councill 28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it but all orthodoxal Bishops in the world it being a custome as Baronius sheweth that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Councills which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri deberent all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe And this as it seemeth they did in those Literae Formatae or Communicatoriae or Pacificae so they were called which from ancient time they used to give and receive For by that forme of letters they testified their communion in faith and peaceable agreemēt with the whole Catholike Church Such an Vniforme consent there was in approving this fift Council in all succeeding Councills Popes and Bishops almost to these dayes 29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth that as this fift Synod so all succeeding Councils Popes and Bishops to the time of the Councill of Constance that is for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse as hereticall the judiciall and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius delivered by his Apostolical authority for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith therfore they al with an uniforme consent did in heart beleeve and in words professe and teach that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith may be and de facto hath been hereticall that is they all did beleeve and teach that doctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine to be truly ancient orthodoxall and catholike such as the whole Church of Christ for more then 14 hundred yeares beleeved and taught but the doctrine even the Fundamentall position whereon all their doctrines doe relie and which is vertually included in them all which the present Church of Rome maintaineth to be new hereticall and accursed such as the whole Church for so many hundred yeares together with one consent beleeved and taught to be accursed and hereticall It hence further ensueth that as this fift Councill did so all the fore-mentioned generall Councils Popes and Bishops doe with it condemne and accurse for heretikes not onely Vigilius but all who either have or doe hereafter defend him and his Constitution even all who either by word or writing have or shall maintaine that the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith is infallible that is all who are members of the present Romane Church and so continue till their death nay they not onely accurse all such but further also even all who doe not accurse such And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them to the least iôta it in the last place followeth that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith and accursing for heretikes all who either by word or writing have or doe at any time hereafter defend the same and so presist till they dye nay not onely the accursing of all such but of all who doe not accurse them is warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by all generall Councils by all Popes and Bishops that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ. 30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill Till then neither was the Popes authoritie held for supreme nor his judiciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible nay to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall and the maintainers of them to be heretikes For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill wherein these truths were decreed the same was expresly decreed by two generall Councils the one at Constance the other at Basil not long before that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill is supremum in terris the highest judgement in earth for rooting out of errors and preserving the true faith unto which judgement every one even the Pope himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable by the same Consider beside many other that one testimony of the Councill of Basil and you shall see they beleeved and professed this as a Catholike truth which in all ages of the Church had beene and still ought to be embraced They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance for the supreme authority of a Councill to which the Pope is subject say thus Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet although it is sufficiently evident by many declarations made both at Constance here at Basil that these are truths of the Catholike faith yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein This holy Synod doth define as followeth The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope declared in the generall Councill at Constance and in this at Basil est veritas fidei Catholicae is a veritie of the Catholike faith and
of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius collecteth and Vigilius consenteth unto him that such as are not upon earth or among the living hos non humano sed suo Deus judicio reservavit God hath exempted them from humane and reserved them to his owne judgement nec audet Ecclesia nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such As the Pope so also the holy generall Councell tooke this for no other than a question of faith for they plainly professe even in their Synodall resolution that their decree concerning dead men that they may bee Noviter condemned is not onely an Ecclesiasticall tradition but an Apostolicall doctrine also warranted by the texts and testimonies of the holy Scriptures To which purpose alledging divers places of Scripture they adde these words It is many wayes manifest that they who affirme this that men after their death may not Noviter be condemned nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt nec Apostolicarum pronunciationum nec paternarum traditionum that such have no regard either to the word of God or the Apostles doctrine or the tradition of the Fathers So the whole Councell judging and decreeing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these 4. Now when both the Pope on the one side and the whole generall Councell on the other that is both the defenders and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both and against that truth wherein they both agree to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith or seeing it is cleâ—re both by the Pope and Councell that the resolution of this question is set downe in Scripture what else can bee thought of Baronius denying either the one or the other part to bee a cause or assertion of faith but that with him the doctrines defined and set down in Scriptures are no doctrines or assertions of faith at least not of the Cardinals faith 5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith and in this cause of faith the Pope and generall Councell are at variance either of them challenge the Scripture as consonant to his and repugnant to the opposite assertion what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit saith their vaine and vaunting Braggadochio Hast thou appealed to the Church to the Church and judgement thereof shalt thou goe at the name of which we are so farre from being daunted or appaled that with great confidence and assurance of victory we provoke unto it 6. But where may we heare the voyce and judgement of the Church out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers or provinciall Synods or in generall Councels in which of these soever the Church speake her sentence is for us and our side Her voyce is but soft stil in the writings of single Fathers the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly and audibly Heare Saint Austen who entreating of Caecilianus about an hundreth yeares after his death saith If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes which were by the Donatists objected unto him ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead though never condemned before nor in his life time Againe In this our communion if there have beene any Traditores or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such corde carne mortuos detestabor Heare Pope Pelagius who both himselfe fully assenteth herein to Saint Austen and testifieth the assent of Pope Leo in this manner Quis nesciat who knoweth not that the doctrine of Leo is consonant to Saint Austen Heare S. Cyrill who speaking of heretikes saith Evitandi sunt sive in vivis sive in mortuis they are to bee avoyded whether they bee dead or living 7. The Church speakes yet somewhat louder in the united judgement of Provinciall Synods In an Africane Councell it was proved how certaine Bishops at their death had bequeathed their goods to heretikes whereupon statuerunt the Bishops in that Synod decreed ut post mortem anathemati subjiciantur that such should bee accursed even after their death and this Sextilianus an Africane Bishop testifieth upon his owne certaine knowledge The judgement of the Romane Church is to this purpose most pregnant About some twenty yeares before this fift Councell Dioscorus was chosen Bishop of Rome but shortly after dying eum post mortem anathematizavit Romana Ecclesia the Romane Church accursed him even after he was dead although hee had not offended in the faith but in some pecuniary or Symoniacall crime Et hoc sciunt omnes qui degunt Romae and they all who live at Rome know this to have beene done against him after his death they especially who are in eminent place who also continued in the communion with Dioscorus untill hee dyed as after Iustinian Benignus Bishop of Heraclea and after them both the fift Councell testifieth In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia by Rambulas Bishop of Edessa Acatius and others wherein both themselves condemned Theodorus though dead and in their letters to Proclus exhort him to doe the like 8. But this voyce of the Church sounds like a mighty thunder in the consenting judgement of generall Councels In the sixt Pope Honorius who in his life time had not been was now about threescore yeares after his death convicted to bee an heretike and then noviter condemned and anathematized by the whole Councell The same sentence of Anathema was confirmed and againe denounced against him in the second Nicene and in the other under Hadrian which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels In the Councell of Chalcedon Domnus Bishop of Antioch was after his death condemned In the holy Ephesine Councell was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia after his death condemned as Pope Pelagius expresly testifieth The like to have beene done against Macedonius by the fift Councell at Constantinople Iustinian declareth Before that was the same done by the Councell at Sardica for when some of those who had subscribed to the Nicene faith returned to Arianisme alij quidem vivi alij autem post mortem anathemizati sunt à Damaso Papa ab universali Sardicensi Synodo they were anathematized some while they lived others after their death by Pope Damasus and by the generall Councell at Sardica as witnesseth Athanasius With such an uniforme consent doe all these Councels teach this and teach it not as any novell doctrine but as a truth successively from age to
a forgery devised by some knave and therfore we say that Epistle which is recited under the name of Theodoret to Iohn of Antioch Omni ex parte convinci is every way convinced not to bee Theodorets Againe There is an Epistle set downe in the fift Synod under the name of Theodoret written unto Iohn rejoycing in the death of Cyrill and babbling very many things against him which you may more truly call a Satyre or infamous libell than an Epistle And we take it very indignely that it should goe under the name of Theodoret which is rather the figment of some Nestorian and againe it is figmentum impudentissimi cujusdam nebulonis a fiction of some most shameles varlet Thus much more Baronius The like doth Binius with no lesse confidence and virulency against these Acts affirme The maine ground on which they both relye is for that Iohn Bishop of Antioch to whom this Epistle is inscribed was dead before Cyrill How could Theodoret saith Baronius write to Iohn touching the death of Cyrill seeing Iohn was dead seven yeares before Cyrill which saith he exploratum habetur is sure and certaine both by Nicephorus and others who writ the succession of Bishops as also by an Epistle which Cyrill writ to Domnus the successour of Iohn both which proofes Binius also alledgeth 2. My first answer hereunto is that if this bee a demonstration of forgery because an Epistle is written to one that is dead themselves and not we shall be the greatest losers hereby There is a decretall Epistle written by Pope Clement to Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and brother of our Lord in that Epistle the Pope tels Iames how Peter being now ready to bee martyred tooke Clement ordained him Bishop gave him the keyes set him in his owne chayre and when hee was set therein sayd unto him Deprecor te O Clemens O Clement I beseech thee before all that are here present that thou write unto Iames the brother of our Lord how thou hast beene a companion with me of my journyes and of my actions ab initio usque ad finem from the beginning to the end and write also what thou hast heard mee preach in every City what order of words of actions I have used in my preaching and also what an end I make of my life in this City Neither feare that he will be sory for my death seeing he will not doubt but I dye for pieties sake yea it will be a great comfort unto him to heare that I doe not leave my charge to one that is ignorant or unlearned According to this request and command of Peter Clement writ an Epistle to Iames exhorting him that he command all that which Peter taught to be diligently observed This and much more writ Clement to Iames after the death and of the life and death of Peter Now Iames unto whom hee writ was dead sixe or seven yeares before Peter For Iames was slaine in the seventh and Peter in the thirteenth yeare of Nero as out of S. Ierome Eusebius Iosephus and others is evident and as Baronius and after him Binius not onely professe but clearly and rightly prove and because this is a decretall Epistle an Apostolicall writing sent from Clement being Pope which was not till the tenth yeare of Domitian and that is thirty yeares after the death of Iames it hence ensueth that it was writ to Iames thirty yeares after he was dead What shall now become of this decretall and Apostolicall Epistle Will they be content that by the Cardinals demonstration it bee rejected as the forgery of some leud varlet Fye By no meanes Binius cals it the Epistle of Pope Clement Baronius tels us that it is not only Pope Clements but that this and the other written to the same Iames the dead Bishop of Ierusalem are integrae illibatae intire and incorrupted writings of Clement In their Canon law and that corrected by the Pope it is stiled the epistle of Pope Clement to Iames and that which is there related must stand for the words and doctrine of S. Peter yea the authority of it as other decretall Epistles Conciliorū Canonibus pari jure exaequatur is every way equall to the Canons of Nice of Chalcedon of other holy Councels If that bee too little what Saint Austen sayth of the very sacred Canonicall Scriptures indited by the Spirit of God himselfe that doth Gratian wretchedly abusing Saint Austens words apply to this and the rest of the Popes decretall Epistles saying of them Inter Canonicas Scripturas decretales Epistolae connumerantur the decretall Epistles are to be reckoned among the Canonicall Scriptures Bellarmine not onely in generall defends this saying of Gratian telling us that the decretals may well be called Canonicall that is either such as are a rule and have force to binde or Canonicall in that sense as the seventh Synod calleth the Decrees of Councels Constitutions inspired from God but particularly also he defends by the authority of Ruffinus this to be the true Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames and to omit others their Iesuite Turrian to whom Baronius Binius Gretzer and others refer us for the credit of these Epistles hath writ a whole booke in defence of them wherein he cals them and particularly he mentioneth and defendeth this of Clement to Iames sanctissimas verissimas c. most holy most true Epistles most worthy of their authors that is men Apostolike consecrated by the reverence of the whole word full of all gravity learning and sanctity confirmed by the testimony and use of all ages and which is most worthy remembring for our present purpose the Iesuite writes in defence of them thus What if in these Epistles sometimes there meet us some such matters as are not easie to all must wee therefore doubt of their authority by no meanes Therefore if any man doe not understand how the Epistle of Clement could bee written to Iames the brother of our Lord who was dead more than eight yeares before such an one if he be a learned modest and temperate man he will ask of others and in the meane space containe himselfe within his owne bounds that is as himselfe explaineth handling this Epistle he must so firmly hold it to be written by Pope Clement ut dubitare nefas existimet that he esteeme it a great sinne to doubt thereof Besides all this the Iesuite hath a large Chapter purposely to defend and shew this Epistle to be truly Clements though it was written to Iames long after he was dead Some there were whom Baronius Possevine and Binius follow who thought it was written indeed by Clement but not unto Iames who was then dead but unto his successor Simeon Against these their owne Turrian holds resolutely that it was writ not
unto him the Virgin Mother of God appeared unto him and plainly set downe the time when he should fight with the enemies nor fight wth thē til he received a sign from above Thus Evag. in whose words three things are to be observed First that Narses used noin vocatiō or prayers to the blessed Virgin or any other but only to God it was Divinū numen the very Godhead which hee did in his prayers offices of piety adore Secondly that Evag. mentioneth not either invocation or adoration used by Narses to the Virgin or any confidence that hee reposed in her or that she at al helped him in the battle but only that she appeared unto him as a messenger to signifie what time he should fight Now as the Angel Gabriel was no helper to the Virgin Mary either in the cōception of Christ or in his birth though as a messenger from God hee signifieth them both unto Ioseph Ioseph neither invocating him nor relying on him but on God whose messenger he was even so admitting the truth of this apparition the Virgin Mary did signifie from God the time when Narses should fight but neither did Narses invocate or adore her nor did shee her selfe more helpe in the battle than the Angell in the birth of Christ nor did the confidence of Narses relie on her but on God whose messenger he then beleeved her to be Let the Cardinall or Binius or any of them prove forcibly which they can never doe out of Evagrius any other invocation or adoration used by Narses to the blessed Virgin and I will consent unto them in that whole point Thirdly all that Evagrius saith of that apparition of the blessed Virgin is but a rumour and report of some who were with Narses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some say Evagrius himselfe doth not say it was so or that Narses either said or beleeved it to be so but reported it was by some of the souldiers of Narses whether true or false that must relie on the credit of the reporters Now for the Cardinall to avouch a doctrine of faith out of a rumour or report of how credible men themselves knew not from such an uncertainty to collect that Generals ought to relie on the aide of the blessed Virgin in their battels and that shee interpellata precibus being invocated by their prayers riseth up and becomes a warrier on their side this by none that are indifferent can be judged lesse than exceeding temerity and by those that are religious will bee condemned as plaine superstition and impiety But let us returne now to Anastasius whose narration as it is untrue in it selfe if the comming of Narses into Italy and victory over the Gothes bee referred to that time when Totilas had before wonne Rome so it is much more untrue if it bee referred as by Binius glosse it is either to the yeare wherein the Emperour recalled his Edict which was never or to the tenth yeare of Totilas which was wholly ended before the comming of Narses into Italie and before the fift Councell and the Baronian banishment of Vigilius 25. After the victory of Narses it followeth in Anastasius tunc adunatus Clerus then the Romane Clergy joyned together besought Narses that hee would intreat the Emperour that if as yet Pope Vigilius with the Presbiters and Deacons that were carried into banishment with him were alive they might returne home In that they speake of this exile as long before begun even so long that they doubted whether Vigilius were then alive or no it seemeth evidently that Anastasius still hath an eye to that banishment for the cause of Anthimus after he had beene two yeares in Constantinople that falling five whole yeares before the victory of Narses they had reason to adde si adhuc if Vigilius doe live as yet that is after so long time of banishment remaine alive Now seeing it is certaine that Vigilius was not at that time to wit not within two yeares after his comming to Constantinople banished as by the fift generall Councell is evident it hence followeth that as this Anastasian exile so all the consequents depending thereon are nothing else but a meere fiction of Anastasius without all truth or probability for seeing Vigilius was not then banished neither did the Romanes intreate Narses nor Narses the Emperour for his delivery nor the Emperour upon that send to recall him or them from exile nor use any such words about Pelagius nor thanke them if they would accept Vigilius nor did they promise after the death of Vigilius to chuse Pelagius nor did the Emperour dismisse them all for of Pelagius that hee three yeares after the end of the Councell remained in banishment is certainly testified by Victor nor did they returne from exile into Sicilie all this is a meere fiction So in this Catastrophe beginning at the time when Anastasius saith Totilas was King of the Gothes there are contained at least forty capitall untruths to let passe the rest as being of lesser note and moment Let any now cast up the whole summe I doubt not but hee shall finde not onely as I have said so many untruths as there are lines but if one would strictly examine the matter as there are words in the Anastasian description of the life of Vigilius I am verily perswaded that few Popes lives scape better at his hands than this But I have stayed long enough in declaring the falshood of Anastasius on whom Baronius so much relyeth and who is a very fit author for such an Annalist as Baronius CAP. XXXVI That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Constantinople and a refutation thereof with a description of the life of the same Vigilius 1. AFter all which the Cardinall could devise to disgrace either the Emperor or the Empresse or Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea or the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters or the Synodall Acts in the last place let us consider what he saith against Pope Vigilius for this cause so netled him that whatsoever or whosoever came in his way though it were his Holinesse himselfe hee would not spare them if he thought thereby to gaine never so little for the support of their infallible Chaire And what think you is it that he carps at and for which hee so unmannerly quarrels Pope Vigilius was it for oppugning the truth published by the Emp. Edict or was it for making his hereticall Constitution and defining it ex Cathedrâ in defence of the Three Chapters or was it for his pevishnesse in refusing to come to the generall Councell even then when he was present in the City where it was held and had promised under his owne hand that hee would come unto it or was it his pertinacious obstinacy in heresie that he would rather undergoe both the just sentence of an anathema denounced by the generall Councell and also the calamity and wearinesse of exile inflicted by the Emperor as Baronius saith
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 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 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 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 fift 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 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 Vigiâ—lius 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 faith he 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 namin 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 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 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 Gelasins 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
his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ. It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee it renounceth all peace and communion with him whether dead or alive nay rather it forsaketh not her communion with him but declareth unto all that shee never had communion or peace with this man such as hee was indeed before though she had peace with such as he seemed to bee Shee now denounceth a double anathema against him condemning him first for beleeving or teaching heresie and then for covering his heresie under the visor of a Catholike and of the Catholike faith So justly and fully doth the Emperour and Councell refute both the personall errour of Vigilius in that hee affirmeth Theodorus to have dyed in the peace of the Church and the doctrinall also in that he affirmeth it upon this ground that in his life time hee was not condemned by the Church 5. Now whereas Baronius saith that Vigilius had just and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter one of which is this because if this were once admitted that one dying in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned for an heretike pateret ostium there would a gap be opened that every ecclesiasticall writer licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset although hee dyed in the communion of the Catholike Church might after death be out of his writings condemned for an heretike truly hee feareth where no feare is at all This gap nay this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath laine wide open this sixteen hundred years Can the Cardinall or any of his friends in all these successiōs of ages wherin have dyed many thousand millions of Catholikes can he name or finde but so much as one who hath truly dyed in the peace and communion of the Church and yet hath beene after his death condemned by the Catholike Church for an heretike He cannot The Church should condemne her owne selfe if shee condemned any with whom she had peace and whom she embraceth in her holy communion which is no other but the society with God Such indeed may dye in some errour yea in an errour of faith as Papias Irenee Iustine in that of the millenaries as Cyprian as is likely and other Africane Bishops in that of Rebaptization but either dye heretikes or be after their death condemned by the Catholike Church for heretikes they cannot 6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinall and all his fellowes should feare another matter which more neerely concernes themselves and feare it even upon that Catholike position that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condemned They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause for his supremacy of authority or infallibility of his Cathedrall judgement feare to stuffe their Volumes as the Cardinall hath done his Annals with heresies and oppositions against the faith feare to continue and persist in their hereticall doctrine feare to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula the second and onely boord to save them after their shipwracke to dye I say before they revoked disclamed condemned or beene the first men to set fire to their hereticall doctrines and writings and at least in words if not as the custome was by oath and handwriting to testifie to the Church their desire to returne unto her bosome These are the things indeed they ought to feare knowing that howsoever they flatter themselves with the vaine name of the Church yet in very truth so long as their writings remaine testifying that they defended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith or any other doctrine relying on that ground whereof in their life time they have not made a certaine and knowne recantation they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church but may at any time after their death and ought whēsoever occasiō is offered be declared by the Church to have dyed in their heresies and therefore dyed both out of the peace of God and of the holy Church of God This unlesse they seriously and sincerely performe it is not I nor any of our writers whom they imagine but most unjustly out of spleene and contention to speake these things who condemne them but it is the whole Catholike Church Shee by approving this fift Councell and the true decree therof condemns this Apostolicall Cathedral definition of Vigilius and all that defend it that is all the members of the present Romane Church to be hereticall and as convicted heretikes she declares them to die anathematized that is utterly separated from God and from the peace and most blessed communion with the Church of God howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God 7. If any shall here reply or thinke that by the former examples of Papias Irenee Iustine Cyprian and the rest Baronius and other mēbers of the present Romane church may be excused that these also as the former though dying in their error may dye in the peace cōmunion of the Church this I confesse is a friendly but no firme excuse for although they are both alike in this that the former as well as the latter dye in an errour of faith yet is there extreme odds and many cleare dissimilitudes betwixt the state or condition of the one and the other 8. The first ariseth from the matter it selfe wherin they erre The former erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not eliquata declarata solidata per plenarium Concilium as S. Austen speaketh not fully scanned declared confirmed by a plenary Councell Had it bin we may well think the very same of all those holy men which Austen most charitably saith of S. Cyprian Sine dubio universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church The latter erre in that which to use same Fathers words per universae Ecclesiae statut a firmatum est which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church This fift Councell consonant to all precedent and confirmed by
their supplication with that holy Bishop 12. Saint Cyrill did the like as Proclus herein hee seeing the connivence and dispensation of the Councell not to take the intended effect but that the Nestorians proceeded rather from worse to worse boasting of Theodorus writings that they were consonant to the ancient Fathers and so farre applauding him that in some Churches they would cry out Crescat fides Theodori sic credimus sicut Theodorus let the faith of Theodorus increase we beleeve as he did yea even stoning some in the Church who spake against them Cyrill seeing all this could forbeare no longer Ego ista non sustinui sed fiducialiter dixi I could not hold my selfe to heare those things but said with great boldnesse and confidence that Theodorus was a blasphemous speaker a blasphemous writer that he was an heretike mentiuntur contra sanctos patres I said that they belyed the holy Fathers who affirmed Theodorus writings to be consonant to theirs nec cessavi increpās ea quae scripserunt nec cessabo nor have I ceased nor will I cease to reprove those who write thus and which demonstrates yet further the zeale of that holy Bishop he writ the same things concerning Theodorus to the Emperor Theodosius exhorting him to keepe his soule unspoted from his impieties Thus Cyrill by name condemning both the person and writings of Theodorus 13. The religious Emperors Theodosius Valentinian moved partly by the grave admonitions of Cyrill and specially by that disturbance which the Nestorians then made by their defending and magnifying Theodorus besides the former against Nestorius published two other Imperiall Edicts against Theodorus declaring him by name to have beene every way as blasphemous an heretike as Nestorius and that the defenders of him or his writings should be lyable to the same punishments as the defenders of Nestorius Those Edicts being so pregnant to demonstrate the errour of Vigilius I have thought it needfull to expresse some parts or clauses of them 14. We againe declare that the doctrine impiorum pestiferorum of those impious and pestiferous persons is abominable unto us similiter autem omnes and so are all who follow their error It is just that they all have one name and bee all clothed with confusion lest while they be called Christians they seeme to be honoured by that title Wherefore we by this our Law doe inact that whosoever in any part of the world be found consenting to the most wicked purpose of Nestorius and Theodorus that from hence forward they shall bee called Symonians as Constantine decreed that the followers of Arius should be called Porphirians Further let none presume either to have or keepe or write their sacrilegious bookes especially not those of Theodorus and Nestorius but all their bookes shall bee diligently sought and being found shall be publikely burned Neque de caetero inveniatur praedictorum hominum memoria neither let there be found any memorie of the foresaid persons Let none receive such as love that sect or love their teachers either in any city field suburbs let them not assemble in any place either openly or privily And if any shall doe contrary to this our sanction let him be cast into perpetuall banishment and let all his goods be confiscate And let your excellency they sent this to their Lieutenant publish this our Law through the whole world in every Province and in every city Thus did the Emperours inact and which is specially also to be remembred they inacted all this corroborantes ea que piè decreta sunt Ephesi strengthning thereby that which was decreed at Ephesus 15. Whence two things may be observed the one that Theodorus was not onely accounted and by name condemned for an heretike as by other catholiks so by the Emperors also but that this particular condemning was consonant to the decree of the Ephesine Synode this being nothing else but an explanation of that which they in generall termes had set down and a corroboration of the same The other that seeing this Imperiall decree hath stood ever since the inacting thereof in force and unrepealed by vertue of it had it beene or were it as yet I say not rigorously but duly and justly put in execution not any one defender of the three Chapters no not Pope Vigilius himselfe nor any who defends his Apostolicall constitution and those are all the members of the present Romane church not one of them shold either have beene heretofore or be now tolerated in any city suburbs towne village or field but besides the ecclesiasticall censures and anathemaes denounced against thē by the Councell and catholike church they should endure if no sharper edge of the civill sword yet perpetuall banishment out of all Christian Common-wealths with losse and confiscation of all their goods 16. After this Imperiall Law was once published the name and credit of Theodorus whose memory the Emperors had condemned and forbidden grew into a generall contempt and hatred whereof the church of Mopsvestia where hee had beene Bishop gave a memorable example They for a time esteeemed of Theodorus as a catholike Bishop and for that cause kept his name in their dipticks or Ecclesiasticall tables reciting him among the other Orthodox Bishops of that city in their Eucharisticall commemoration But now seeing him detected and condemned both by catholike Bishops by Councells and by the Imperiall Edict for an heretike they expunged and blotted out the name of Theodorus and in his roome inserted in their dipticks the name of Cyrill who though hee was not Bishop in that See yet had by his pietie and zeale manifested and maintained the faith brought both the heresie person of Theodorus into a just detestation and all this is evident by the Acts of that Synode held at Mopsvestia about this very matter of wiping out of the name of Theodorus 17. We are now come to the time of the Councell of Chalcedon for the expunging of Theodorus name and inserting of Cyrills followed as it seemes shortly after the death of Cyrill and he dyed about seven yeares before the Councell of Chalcedon That by it Theodorus was also condemned their approving the Councell of Ephesus and the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill in both which and in the later by name Theodorus is condemned doth manifest and besides this the Emperour Iustinian expresly saith of it that the impious Creed of Theodorus being recited in that Councell both it cum expositore ejus with the Author and expounder of it and that was Theodorus were condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon 18. When many yeares after that holy Councell some Nestorians began againe contrary to the Edict of Theodosius and Valentinian to revive the dead and condemned memory of Theodorus Sergius Bishop of Cyrus making mention and commemorating him in the Collect among catholikes the truth of this matter being examined and found that same
had forged and spread abroad in his name If any Epistle saith he be caried about as written by me tanquam de ijs quae Ephesi acta sunt jam dolente poenitentiam agente contemnatur as if I did now since the union sorrow and repent for those things which were done and decreed at Ephesus let such an Epistle be condemned Nay the Greeke is more emphaticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scorne and deride every such writing The like almost doth Cyrill write to Dynatus Bishop of Nicopolis who uppon the Nestorians slanderous reports suspected as it seemeth the very same of Cyrill as Acatius did Cyrill having declared the certaine truth of these matters unto him saith in the end It is needfull that you should know the cleare truth of these matters lest some men who doe vainly and falsly report one thing for another should trouble any of the brethren Perindè acsi nos quae contra Nestorij blasphemias scripsimus retractaremus as if wee had upon the union recalled revoked or denied those things which we have written before against the blasphemies of Nestorius 17. Besides these indubitate testimonies of Cyrill the Nestorians themselves doe manifest this their calumnie For although Iohn and those Easterne Bishops who in their Councell at Antioch subscribed to that holy profession of faith which was sent from Cyrill unto them who were by farre the greater part and who therefore are counted the Easterne Church though these I say were as they well deserved received into the Catholike Cōmunion when the union was concluded yet is it most untrue which Vigilius affirmeth and takes it for a ground of his errour touching Ibas that omnes orientales Episcopi per Paulum Emisenum ad concordiam redierunt that all the Easterne Bishops by Paulus Emisenus returned to the unity and communion of the Church They did not all not Helladius not Eutherius not Hemerius not Dorotheus for whose restoring to their Sees for they were deposed Paulus did earnestly labour with Cyrill but not being able to prevaile for them manserunt in eodem schismate in quo etiam nunc perseverant they continued in their former schisme as rent from the Church and so they do now also remaine nor was there in the covenants of peace any mention of them as Cyrill expresly affirmeth But I will onely insist upon two of the principall sticklers in the Nestorian heresie and who most concerne our present cause Theodoret and Ibas 18. Theodoret beleeving the reports of his fellow Nestorians that the Catholikes at the time of the Vnion had revoked their former doctrines and consented to Nestorianisme insulted over them in a publike oration at Antioch before Domnus in this manner Vbi sunt dicentes quod Deus est qui crucifixus est where are those that say that he was God who was crucified God was not crucified but the man Iesus Christ hee who is of the seed of David was crucified Christ is the Sonne of David but he is the temple of the sonne of God Non jam est contentio Oriens Aegyptus sub uno jugo est There is now no contention the East and Aegypt that is all who hold as Cyrill did are now both under one yoake Thus triumphed Theodoret over the Catholikes supposing as the Nestorians slanderously gave out that Cyrill and all that held with him that is all Catholikes had submitted themselves to the yoke of their Nestorian heresie that Christ is not God nor that God was either borne of Mary or suffered on the Crosse. And this being spoken by Theodoret after the death of Cyrill which was twelve yeares after the union made doth demonstrate the obstinate and malicious hatred of the Nestorians against the truth who notwithstanding Cyrill had often by words by writings testified that report to be nothing else but a slanderous untruth yet in all that time would not be perswaded to desist from that calumny but still let it passe for currant among them and insulted as it Cyrill and the Catholikes at the time of the union had condemned their former faith and consented to Nestorianisme So hard it is to reclame those who by selfe-will are wedded to any hereticall opinion 19. The other is Ibas the Popes owne Catholike doctor whom at that very time when hee writ this Epistle which was long after the Vnion made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill to have embraced no other then this slanderous union or union in Nestorianisme those very words in the later part of his Epistle out of which Vigilius and Baronius would prove him to bee a Catholike even those words I say doe so fully and manifestly demonstrate that you will say if not sweare that nothing but the love of Nestorianisme could so farre blind them as to defend that part of his Epistle or undertake by it to prove Ibas to be a Catholike The words of Ibas are these After that Iohn had received the Emperors letters compelling him to make agreement with Cyrill hee sent the most holy Bishop Paulus of Emisa writing by him a true profession of faith and denouncing unto him that if Cyrill would consent to that profession and anathematize those who say that the Godhead did suffer which opinion the Nestorians slandered Cyrill and all Catholike to hold and also those who say that there is but one nature that is one natural subsistence or person of the divinity and humanity in Christ then would he communicate with Cyrill Now it was the will of God who alwaies taketh care for his Church which hee hath redeemed with his owne blood to subdue the heart of the Aegyptian that is Cyrill that he presently consented to the faith and embraced it and anathematized all who beleeved otherwise So they Iohn and Cyrill communicating together the contention was taken away peace was made in the Church and now there is no schisme but peace as of late there was And that you may know what words were written by the most holy Archbishop Iohn and what answer hee received backe from Cyrill I have to this my writing adjoyned their very Epistles that your Holinesse reading them may know and declare to all our Fathers that love peace that the contention is now ceased and the partition wall is now taken away and that they hee meaneth Cyrill and the Catholikes who had before seditiously enveied against the living Nestorius and the dead Theodorus are now confounded making satisfaction for their faults contraria docentes suae priori doctrinae and now teach the contrarie to their former doctrine For none now dare say that there is one nature that is one naturall subsistence or person of the divinity and humanity but they confesse and beleeve both in the temple and in him who dwelleth in the temple who is one Sonne Iesus Christ. And this I have written to your Sanctitie out of that great affection which I beare to you knowing that your holinesse doth
to professe the true faith and wipe away all suspition of heresie from him how could Ibas then be ought else but a Catholike who made such a Catholike confession Truely when Ibas made this confession before Photius and Eustathius there is no doubt but he was then a Catholike but Vigilius his purpose is to prove him to have beene a Catholike when he writ this Epistle ever since the time that Cyrill explaned his Chapters and Baronius who is very sparing of his speech in this whole matter yet both saw and professeth this to be the true intent of Vigilius for he telling us that wheras those words in the end of the Epistle of Ibas None dare now say there is one nature but they professe to beleeve in the Temple and in him who dwelleth in the Temple were wont to be taken by the Nestorians in such a sense as if in Christ there were two persons ne Ibas putaretur ejusdem esse in verbis illis sententiae cum Nestorianis lest Ibas might be thought to have the same meaning with the Nestorians in those words Vigilius bringeth a declaration of those words how they are to be brought to a right sense and this he teacheth by shewing how Ibas in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius embraced the Ephesine Councell So Baronius by whose helpe besides the evidence in the text it selfe it now appeares that Vigilius by this profession of Ibas made before Photius and Eustathius would prove Ibas to have beene a Catholike when hee writ this Epistle and that in it Ibas was not ejusdem sententiae cum Nestorianis of the same opinion with the Nestorians 33. A reason so void of reason that I could not have held patience with the Popes Holinesse had not Nestorianisme dulled his wit and judgement at this time The judgement before Photius and Eustathius was in the yeare when Posthumianus and Zeno were Consuls or in the next unto it as the Acts do testifie that is according to Baronius account an 448. The union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill was made in the next yeare after the Ephesine Councell that is an 432. The Epistle of Ibas was writ by Baronius Almanacke in the very moment of the union but in truth two or three yeares at the least after the union as before we have proved Now I pray you what a consequent or collection call you this Ibas being suspected of Nestorianisme to cleare himselfe consented to the Ephesine Councell and shewed himselfe to bee a Catholike sixteene yeares after the union or thirteene yeares after he writ this Epistle therefore at the time of the union and of the writing of this Epistle he was a Catholike also and not a Nestorian Why twelve or sixteen years might have a strange operatiō in Ibas and there is no doubt but so it had In so many revolutions Ibas saw how both himselfe and other Nestorians were publikely cōdemned by the Church and by the Emperour and hated of all who had any love to the Catholike faith He saw that himselfe was personally called corā nobis for maintaining that heresie he knew that unlesse hee cleared himselfe before those Iudges deputed by the Emperour to heare and examine his cause he was in danger of the like deprivation as Nestorius and some others had justly felt The serious and often meditation of these matters wrought effectually upon Ibas and therefore before Photius Eustathius he renounced disclamed and condemned Nestorianisme and so at that time proved himselfe by his profession before them to bee a Catholike as he had before that time and specially when he writ this Epistle demonstrated himselfe to be not onely an earnest but a malicious and slanderous heretike I cannot illustrate the Pope my Authors reason by a more fit similitude than of a man once deadly sicke of the Pestilence but afterwards fully cured and amended for Vigilius his reason is as if one should say This man was not sicke of the Pestilence no not when the sore was running upon him and hee at the very point of death because some twelve or sixteene yeares after hee was a sound man cleare from all suspition of the Pestilence Not needeth this second reason of Vigilius any further explanation 34. We come now in the last place to that which Vigilius maketh his first reason in the former text into which because hee hath compacted the very venome of the Nestorians wee must bee inforced to take somewhat the more paines in our Commentary upon it This reason in which it seems the Pope puts his greatest confidence is drawne from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters of which Vigilius saith that Ibas at the first before Cyrill had explaned them misconceived the meaning of Cyrill and therefore seemed to speake against Cyrill but so soone as Cyrill had explaned them and decared his owne meaning then Ibas and all the Easterne Bishops forthwith embraced the communion with Cyrill and ever after that Ibas continued a Catholike This Epistle then of Ibas and profession of faith made therein which certainly followed the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters must needs be Catholike declare Ibas whē he writ it to have been a Catholike seeing when he made this confession of faith and writ this Epistle he held the same faith with Cyrill and therefore no doubt held the Catholike faith This is the full summe and effect of the Popes reason taken from the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters and for the excellency of it it spreadeth it selfe into every part of the two other reasons also as containing an explication of them or giving strength unto them for which cause wee are with more diligence and circumspection to examine the pith of it 35. And that we may more clearely behold and admire the Popes Artificium in handling this reason we are to observe five severall points thereof The first a peece of the Popes Rhetoricke in that he saith that Ibas before the Explanation and union whilst hee doubted and misconceived the meaning of Cyrill visus est ei obloqui he seemed to speake against Cyrill at that time He seemed Now Ibas professeth of himselfe that hee then called Cyrill an hereticke that hee followed Iohn and the Conventicle which held with him and so that with them hee counted and in plain terms called Cyrill an author of schisme a disturber of the peace of the Church a despiser of imperiall authoritie an upholder of open tyrannie an Arch-hereticke and chiefe of the conspiracie that he condemned accursed anathematized him and that with such a detestation that though Cyrill should disclaime his heresie yet hee should never be received into their communion These and many like intolerable calumnies and slanders were the usuall liveries that Ibas and the rest of that Conventicle during the time of the disunion bestowed upon Cyrill so vile and malitious that no hyperbolicall exaggeration can sufficiently expresse the impietie of them and yet the Popes
confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and the Emperour Pope Vigilius as in place and dignity hee was more eminent so in this Insurrection he was more forward and a ring-leader unto them all And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause First he proclameth the Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane novelty judging it to bee contrary to the holy faith and Councell at Chalcedon To this he addes writings threats and punishments Literas scripsit adversus eos saith Baronius Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor and his Edict in those letters comminatus est eis qui consenserunt he threatned those that consented to the Emperor edixit indixit correctionem he decreed punishment unto them and forewarned them thereof telling them that unlesse they did amend their fault hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them protesting with the Apostle I feare when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not Nor were his threats in vaine as it seemeth seeing Baronius tells us that for this very cause either he or Stephanus his Legate in his name did excommunicate besides others two Patriarkes Mennas of Constantinople and Zoilus of Alexandria and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea 4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons but for the Emperour he took another course with him He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors that he would not do himself But wheÌ„ like Pirrhus ipse sibi cavit loco he had provided for his owne safety then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines Facundus an eloquent maÌ„ indeed as his name also imports but a most obstinate heretike Schismatike seeing he persisted in defeÌ„ce of the three Chapters not only before but after the judicial senteÌ„ce of the general Councel yet is he coÌ„mended by Baronius to be prudentissimus agonistes a most wise champion for the Church but the more hereticall hee is the more like and better liked is hee to Baronius Him doth Vigilius egge and even command to write against the Emperour yea sugillare it is the Cardinals word to taunt and flout him for his Edict nor him onely but in him to reprove omnes simul Principes all Princes whosoever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith or make lawes therein as Iustinian had done Facundus being thus directed incouraged and warranted by Pope Vigilius and being but his instrument in this matter writes a large volume containing twelve bookes against the Emperor in defence of the three Chapters A worke stuffed with heresie yet highly commended by Possevine the Iesuite as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undutifull manner as if forsooth fides omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve and as if none might beleeve otherwise quam praeciperet imperator then the Emperour commanded telling him that it were more meet for him se infra limitem suum continere to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds as other Artificers kept their own shops the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office Such rude homely and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause And as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe enough Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence calling the Emperour utterly unlearned qui nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset who never had learned so much as his A B C nor could ever read the Title of the Bible a Punie a palliated Theologue a sacrilegious person a witlesse furious and franâ—ike fellow possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one to presume against all right to make lawes concerning matters of faith concerning Priests and the punishments of them adding that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie si qui ejusmodi esset if such as Iustinian should makes lawes of faith yea such lawes quas dolosè conscripsissent haeretici as heretikes had craftily penned telling him as Facundus had before that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admonition Ne ultra Crepidam Sr Cobler go not beyond your Last Latchet This scurrility doth the Cardinall use
this Synod at the making of this Decree how Theodorus and other Eastern Bishops had dealt for the space of five yeares against that Decree how the Pope after five yeares toleration and longanimitie called an other Synod and therin pronounced a sentence of Excommunication against Theodorus Mennas and the rest till they should acknowledge their fault and make a satisfaction for the same These and some other particulars are there expressed Now if we can demonstrate these publike Acts of Baronius to bee no other than forgeries I thinke none will make doubt but that all the rest of the Baronian narration which relyes hereon is a very fiction 18. But can those publike Acts be convinced for such they may and that most evidently besides many other meanes by comparing the date of this sentence against Mennas with the time of the death of Mennas These Acts Records Sentence or Constitution against Mennas call them what you list were made in the 25 yeare of Iustinian for so in the date of them is expressed nor can it bee supposed that there is any error either in the writer or Printer for both the Consular yeare is also added to wit the tenth after the Coss. of Basilius which answereth to the 25 of Iustinian and the Pope accounts there almost five yeares since the Decree of Silence was made which being placed by Baronius in the 21 the fift current yeare after it will directly fal to be the 25 year So in the 25 of Iustinian did the Pope excōmunicate Mennas yea write and send this Excommunication unto him saying unto him in this manner Teque Mennam tamdin à sacra communione suspendimus we suspend thee O Mennas and all the other Bishops in thy Diocesse so long untill every one of you acknowledging his errour shall make competent satisfaction for his owne fault which satisfaction and submission to have beene performed by Mennas in the next yeare to wit the 26 of Iustinian Baronius with great pompe declareth Now Mennas dyed five yeares before he offered this booke of supplication or submitted himself to Vigilius 4. before the Pope sent out this Excommunication unto him with that admonition to submit himselfe for it is certainly testified by the Popes Legates in the sixt generall Councell that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian In that Councell a sermon or speech going under the name of Mennas to Vigilius was produced as a part of the Acts of the fift Councell the Legates of Pope Agatho cryed out before the Emperor and the whole Councell that it was a forgery which they proved and that most manifestly because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian but the fift Synod was congregated in the 26 yeare which ended on the first of Aprill though the first Session of the Synod was not held till the May next after which was in the 27 yeare of Iustinian Thus testified the Popes owne Legates and the Emperour with the whole Synod upon their evidence rejected their writing for a forgerie 19. Said I not truly unto you that the Baronian narration was a peece of rare Poetry might not a meane Poet make an excellent Tragedy of it were it not a fine Pageant to see the Pope and so many Bishops sit in Vtopia and there make a law for Taciturnity the Emperour the Senate and people consenting unto it would it not bee another and farre more delightfull Act to see the Pope and Emperour quarrelling about this law the one beating buffeting and persecuting the other fleeing both by Sea and land from Placidian◠to Saint Peter from him to Euphemia from Constantinople to Chalcedon what a sport were it to see the Romane Apollo ascend into his Delphian throne and thence as from Olympus cast his fierie darts his thunders and lightnings against that Typhoëan generation which durst speake when he enjoyned silence Now the embassage which the Emperour sent to Chalcedon to intreat his Holinesse to returne the magnanimity of the Pope in refusing to come from the Altar the Emperours yeelding to all that he prescribed this of it selfe would incourage a Poet and cause him to presume of an applause But the most rare Pageant of all would bee to see and heare Mennas foure yeares after he was dead and rotten to speake and dispute against the Decree of Silence the Silentes umbrae to declame against Silence to see him a Bishop a Patriarch at the voyce of the Popes sentence Audisne haec Amphiarai sub terram abditae to come ab inferis to come with a Bill of supplication in his hand with a song of Miserere in his mouth to the Romane Iove and intreat pardon for his talking so much in the grave and among the infernall ghosts against the Popes Decree of Silence after all this to see the Pope shake hands with him and all his Metropolitanes and Micropolitanes note the eloquence of the Pope and so after a most joyfull reconcilement to see the holy Reliques caried in a golden Chariot an excellent dumbe shew about the City and that by a dead man Can you doe lesse than give the Poet Baronius a Plaudite for his so rare invention or contriving of this Fable 20. Why but is it credible that Cardinall Baronius the great Annalist of our age hee who bestowed thirty yeares in the study of these Ecclesiasticall affaires that hee should so foully be overseene in a computation so easie and so obvious as to thinke Mennas to bee excommunicated to come with a supplication to the Pope and to ride in a triumphant Chariot with those holy reliques foure or five yeares after he was dead and rotten Overseene nothing lesse It was no ignorance no oversight in him he knew all this matter ad unguem hee knew that Mennas was dead long before that submission and triumph But the Cardinall was disposed either to recreate the reader with the contemplation of this his Poetical fiction or else for to shew you that with the charme of those forgeries and counterfeit writings with which he hath stuffed his Annals hee is able to metamorphoze all other men into very blocks and beetles that they shall applaud his most absurd dotages as undoubted and historicall truths which that every man may perceive it must be observed that though in this place where the cause betwixt Vigilius and the Emperor is debated the Cardinall is content that you should thinke Mennas to have been alive in the 26. year of Iustinian that is five years after he was dead for otherwise all his narration even the whole play had been spoiled there had neither beene any Decree of Silence nor any persecution by Iustinian nor any flight of Vigilius nor any excommunication of Mennas or Theodorus nor any submission of them and of the Emperour also to the Pope the Pope had not beene knowne to bee so farre above Bishops Patriarks and Emperours that they must all stoope to
elect any other in his roome but his persisting in heresie had he consented to the Synod and condemned the Three Chapters the Emperor should have done wrong unto him to have suffered any other to have beene chosen nay the See being full Pelagius could not though all the banished Clergy had desired it have beene chosen Bishop in his stead Seeing then both the Emperours words and the answer of the Clergy as Anastasius relateth them doe shew that if they had pleased they might lawfully have chosen another Pope and seeing they could not by right have done that unlesse Vigilius had continued in his pertinacious defence of heresie even hereby it may bee perceived that at his restoring he persisted in the same hereticall minde of which he was before and that hee had not then consented to the Synod nor to the condemning of those Three Chapters So blinded was the Cardinall in this cause that he could not or rather would not see how his owne reason drawne from the intreaty of Narses and the narration of Anastasius doth quite overthrow the conclusion which by them he intended to confirme 14. And all this have I said upon supposall onely of the truth of that narration touching Narses his intreatie and the Emperors yeelding thereupon to restore Vigilius out of exile But now I must adde another answere which I feare will bee much more displeasing to the Cardinal and his friends and that is that this whole narration touching the exile of Vigilius after the Synod the intreaty of Narses the restoring him from that banishment and the rest depending thereon is all untrue fictitious such as hath no ground in the whole world but onely the Cardinals owne Poeticall pate For the manifesting whereof I will insist on the two principall points in the Cardinals narration the untruth of which being declared all the rest will easily be acknowledged to bee untrue and fabulous 15. The former concernes the restoring of Vigilius out of Banishment Baronius following Anastasius saith that the Emperour together with Vigilius restored all the rest who were banished with him Dimisit omnes cum Vigilio and by name Pelagius is expressed to bee one of them of whom the Emperour then said Hic habetis Pelagium you have here Pelagius Vigilius then with him by name among the rest was dismissed home A very fiction and fable witnesse whereof Victor Bishop of Tunea who then lived and who himselfe after imprisonment and whipping was banished into three severall places for defending the Three Chapters and after that was brought to Constantinople where hee was an eye witnesse of the most things there happening about this cause Hee having set downe the time of Vigilius death that he dyed in Sicily in the 16 year after the Coss. of Basilius addeth in the next yeare concerning Pelagius that he being that yeare called from banishment which he sustained for defence of the Three Chapters did then condemne them and then was ordained Bishop of Rome which demonstrateth the vanity of the Anastasian and Baronian tale how could the Emperor say You have Pelagius here when Pelagius was then and after that in exile How did the Emperour dismisse them all and particularly Pelagius when Vigilius was sent home seeing Pelagius remained in exile till Vigilius was dead But that which I principally collect is this Seeing Vigilius by the Cardinals narration was not freed from exile nor consented to the Synod but at the same time when Pelagius was released and seeing it is certaine by the testimony of Victor that Vigilius was not freed nor consented unto the Synod at that time for Vigilius was dead before Pelagius was released it hence certainly ensueth that Vigilius neither was freed from exile nor at all consented unto the fift Synod after his exile 16. The other which is indeed the speciall point concernes the banishment of Vigilius after the end of the Synod which Baronius so often mentioneth and on which depends the whole fable this banishment being in very deed nothing else than a Baronian fiction the author and the onely author whom Baronius names for proofe of this banishment is Anastasius and because the Cardinall in good discretion would name the best author and authority which hee had him whose antiquity and name might gaine credit to the narration it is not to bee doubted but Anastasius was the best most credible and authentike author which the Cardinall had for this banishment of him then Baronius saith thus Liquet ex Anastasio Vigilium in exilium deportatum fuisse It is evident by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who were with him were caried into banishment True that is evident indeed by Anastasius But why did the Cardinall omit the principall point to be proved why said he not Vigilius to have been caried into banishment after the end of the Synod or caried for not consenting with the Synod in their condemning of the Three Chapters why said he not this is evident by Anastasius Will you be pleased to know the reason herof It is this because hoc non liquet ex Anastasio nay because contrarium liquet ex Anastasio Anastasius is so farre from saying as the Cardinall doth that Vigilius was banished after the end of the Councell or for not consenting to the Councell that hee saith the quite contrary and contradicteth all that the Cardinall hath said touching that banishment both for the time and for the cause thereof The cause of the Anastasian banishment of Vigilius was for that hee refused to restore Anthimus to the See of Constantinople whence hee was justly ejected by Pope Agapetus and a generall Councell more than ten yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople and the time of this Anastasian banishment was two yeares after Vigilius came to Constantinople and while Theodora was alive which was long before the fift Synod was assembled This and no other banishment of Vigilius is to be found in Anastasius from this and no other it is that Anastasius saith he was freed by the entreaty of Narses remaining an exile untill that time Now this ex diametro fighteth with that exile which Baronius hath devised the time of the Baronian banishment was after the end of the fift Synod that is about five yeares after the death of Theodora til then Baronius wil acknowledge no banishment of Vigilius The cause of the Baronian banishment was not Anthimus nor the restoring of him but onely his not yeelding to the fift Synod and refusing to condemne the Three Chapters So the Cardinals owne witnesse yea his onely witnesse is so farre from proving what hee pretends and affirmes that upon his narration is demonstrated the quite contrary For if Vigilius was banished in the life time of Theodora as Anastasius declareth and there remained till by Narses intreaty he was released then most certainly was hee not cast into banishment after the end of the fift Synod not for refusing
to consent therunto which is the fiction of Baronius 16. And for more evidence that the same which I said is the banishment by Anastasius I might alleage Bellarmine and others but omitting them let us heare that worthy author to whom Binius referres us concerning this matter Nicholas Sanders He thus writeth That Vigilius was sent into banishment because he would not restore Anthimus the Romane Pontificall so he cals the booke of Anastasius doth testifie and besides it Aimonius Paulus Diaconus Marianus Scotus Platina Blondus Petrus de Natalibus Martinus Polonus Sabellicus and it may be gathered out of Nicephorus Thus Sanders who might have added Sigebert who placeth his banishmēt divers years before the fift Councel Albo Floriacensis who hath the same words with Anastasius Nauclerus Rhegino Hermanus Cōtractus Gotofridus Viterbiensis Otho Frisingensis Palmerius their owne Genebrard Stapleton and many others These following Anastasius relate the cause of his banishmēt to have bin the not restoring of Anthimus the time before the death of the Empresse Theodora Nor can I finde so much as one either ancient or later writer who saith with Baronius that hee was banished after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it what a rare Poeticall conceit hath the Cardinall who can make such a noble discourse of that fictitious banishment and commend it as an historicall narration for the warrant of which he had not so much as one writer and one is a small number ancient or late upon whose credit and authoritie he might report it and for that one witnesse Anastasius whom he nameth he is so farre from testifying it that he doth clearely testifie the quite contrary yea Baronius himselfe was not ignorant hereof but knew right well Anastasius to referre the beating of Vigilius his flight to Chalcedon the other indigne usage set downe by him and his exile to the time while Theodora lived and therefore hee taxeth Anastasius for confounding those things and referring them to that time whereas himselfe placeth them after the death of Theodora And yet for all this though he knew Anastasius to teach the quite contrary yet was not the Cardinall afraid nor ashamed to alleage Anastasius for a witnesse that Vigilius was cast into banishment after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it and to say of this banishment Liquet ex Anastacio it is clearly knowne out of Anastasius whereas not that but the quite contrarie Liquet ex Anastasio 17. From hence now there issueth another consequent to bee remembred It is agreed by all who mention any banishment of Vigilius and it is confessed also by Baronius that Vigilius was but once banished and from that one freed by the intreaty of Narses Now that one cannot bee the Baronian banishment for of it there is no proofe at all to bee found no one author to witnesse it but the Cardinall and his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in matters of fact done some thousand and more yeares before the Cardinall was borne is of no worth at all nor can be esteemed ought but one of his owne dreames and figments Againe that one cannot bee the Anastasian banishment which is said to happen before the death of Theodora more than foure yeares before the fift Councell for it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Synod that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople yea that untill then he lived and dwelt at Constantinople Seeing then Vigilius was neither banished before the Councell as Anastasius saith nor banished after the Councell as Baronius saith it followeth which indeed is very truth that Vigilius was not at all banished but all which is reported of his banishment and all that depends thereon is fictitious and Poeticall devised by two Bibliothecarij to his Holinesse the former and precedent to the Councell is an Anastasian the other following the Councell is a Barbarian Poeme but both Poems both fabulous and Aesopicall narrations 18. And truly might wee be allowed to imitate the Cardinals Arte in disputing this matter would easily be made plaine There is one Topicke place of arguing à testimonio negativè which is very familiar to Baronius in his Annals and it is defended by Gretzer in his Apology for Baronius let us take but one example and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius There is in Anastasius a narration how Vigilius was violently puld away from Rome by Anthemius Scribonius sent thither for that purpose by the Empresse how he was apprehended in the Church thrust into the shippe how the Romanes followed reviling him cursing him and casting stones and dung at him praying that a mischiefe might goe with him Thus it is historified by Anastasius The like is mentioned by many others who borrowed it out of Anastasius by Aimonius by the Historia Miscella going under the name of Paulus Diaconus though it be not his by Marianus Scotus by Hermanus Contractus by Sigebert by Luitprandus de vitis Pontificum as the booke is called by Albo Floriacensis by Platina by Conrade by Nauclerus by Martinus Polonus by Blondus by Krantzius by Sigonius others Heare now the Cardinals censure of this narration of Anastasius and the rest who followed him Aperti mendacij redarguitur Anastasius Anastasius is convicted of a manifest lye herein and how prove you that my Baronius res adeo ignominiosa so ignominious a matter as this is could not have beene unknowne to the Authors who writ most accurately the Acts of their times and those were Facundus and Procopius the Cardinall names no moe from the silence and omission of this matter in them two he concludes Anastasius to be a lyar and his narration seconded by many moe to be a lye 19. Let now but the like liberty of disputing à Testimonio negativè be allowed unto us and the Baronian banishment to begin with that must be rejected banished and set in the same ranke with that lye of Anastasius for thus wee may argue This banishment of Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it is neither mentioned by Victor Bishop of Tunen nor by Liberatus nor by Evagrius nor by Procopius who all then lived and in relating the affaires of the Church were full out as exact as Facundus and Procopius nor by Photius nor by Zonaras nor by Cedrenus nor by Nicephorus nor by Glicas nor by Constantinus Manasses nor by Anastasius nor by Paulus Diaconus nor by Aimonius nor by Luitprandus nor by Albo Floriacenfis nor by Otho Frisingensis nor by Conrade Abbat of Vrsberge nor by Hermanus Contractus nor by Sigebert nor by Lambertus Scaffuaburgensis nor by Martinus Polonus nor by Gotofridus Viterbiensis nor by Albertus Stadēsis nor by Vernerus nor by Marianus Scotus nor by
demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons. of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or in the next yeare before he dyed So uncertaine and by Victors account unlikely it is that Vigilius at his returne home was ornatus muncribus donis officiis and privilegiis as they pompously set out the matter Now it is true that the Emperour ordered and decreed those matters upon the entreaty of Vigilius for so the words pro petitione Vigilij doe make evident but that either Vigilius entreated or the Emperour granted this upon any entreaty which he made either after his return out of exile which certainly he did not or after the end of the Synod or at the time of his return al which are the Cardinals tales without any proofe none of the Cardinalls friends will bee ever able to make cleare And for my owne part till I see some reason to the contrary I cannot otherwise thinke but that this petition was made by Vigilius some three or foure yeares before the Councell at which time Vigilius consented wholly with the Emperor was in great grace and favour with him And I am hereunto induced by that which Procopius expresseth How in the 14. yeare of the Gothicke war which is the 23. of Iustinian when Totilas and the Gothes began to win againe divers parts of Italy which Belisarius had before recovered Vigilius and divers Italians and Romanes who were then at Constantinople submissius enixius postulabant ab Imperatore did in very submisse and earnest manner entreat the Emperour that he would reduce all Italy into his subjection Now it is very likely that together with this petition they signified divers matters to the Emperour which were behoovefull for his government in the Westerne parts and this the Emperors answer then made unto
triumphed to have had so just an occasion to reprove disgrace the Emperor by whom he was imprisoned and banished doth make evident Hee plainly sheweth how Iustinian continued constant in defence of his owne Edict for condemning the Three Chapters and of the synodall Iudgement given therein even to his death In his 38. yeare the very next to that wherein Baronius fancieth him to have fallen into heresie Hee sent for foure Africane and two Aegyptian Bishops and both personally by himselfe as also by some others he laboured to draw them to the orthodox faith in condemning with him and the fift Synod the Three Chapters and when he could not prevaile Custodiae mittuntur they were put into prison In the next yeare he saith that Iustinian placed Iohn a condemner of the Three Chapters in the Sec of Constantinople Eutychius being banished and to his very dying day he kept Theodorus Bishop of Cabarsussus in banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So orthodoxall was Iustinian and so earnest an oppugner of heresies of those especially which deny either the true humanity or the true Godhead of Christ even till his very death by the certaine testimony of Victor an eager enemy of Iustinian Seeing then he continued constant till his death in condemning the Three Chapters and maintaining his owne Edict for the condemning of them and seeing the condemning of them or the defence of that Edict is the defence of the true faith and an oppugnation of all heresies which deny either the Divinity or Humanity in Christ specially of that of the Phantasticks or Aphthardokites as the very words of his Edict doe declare it clearly hence followeth from the certaine testimony of Victor that Iustinian was so farre from embracing or making Edicts for that heresie that he constantly oppugned the same and even punished all who beleeved or taught as the Aphthardokites did for in beleeving that heresie they contradicted the Emperours owne Edict and the holy Councels both at Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon all which the Emperour by this Edict even untill his death constantly maintained 14. Why but All Writers saith Baronius both Greeke and Latine they all doe testifie that Iustinian sell into that heresie What heare I Doe All and All both Greeke and Latine doe they All testifie this of Iustinian A vast a shamelesse a Cardinall a very Baronian untruth Of the Greekes not Procopius not Agathias not Photius not Damascen though he entreat of this very heresie not the Cardinals owne Suidas who quite contrary to the Cardinall calls Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most Catholique and Orthodoxall Emperour Of the Latines not Victor by whom as you have seene the cleane contrary is also testified not Liberatus and both these lived at the same time with Iustinian not Marcellinus not Bede not Anastasius though such was his splene against Iustinian that he could not have concealed such a disgracefull crime not Aimonius of whom I pray you see how well his testimony accordeth with the Cardinall Iustinian saith he was a man fide Catholicus pietate insignis aquitatis cultor egregius for his faith Catholike for his piety renowned a marvellous lover of equitie and therefore all things did cooperate to his good he addeth for the whole time of his Empire which was 39. yeares Imperium faelici sorte rexit Hee governed the Empire in an happy manner Not the true Paulus Diaconus who using the like words saith that Iustinian governed the Empire in an happy sort was Prince for his faith Catholike in his actions upright in judgments just and therefore all things concurred to his good not Sigebert not Marianus Scotus not Lambertus Scafnaburgensis not Ado Viennensis not Albo Floriacensis not Luitprandus not Conrad Abbas Vspergensis not Albertus Stadensis not Otho Frisingensis who cals him Christianissimum ac pijssimum Principem a most Christian and most pious Prince unfit epethetes for an heretike or one condemned to the torments of hell not Gotofrid Viterbiensis who likewise calls him a most Christian Prince one who established peace in the Church which rejoyced under him to enjoy tranquillitie not Wernerus whose testimonie is worthy observing to see the Cardinals faith and true dealing in this cause Iustinian saith hee was in all things most excellent for in him did concurre three things which make a Prince glorious to wit power by which hee overcame his enemies wisedome by which hee governed the world with just lawes and a religious minde to Gods worship by which hee glorified God and beautified the Churches So farre is he from teaching him with the Cardinall to have beene a Tartarean Cerberus or Three-headed monster consisting of three detestable vices that he opposeth thereunto a Trinity of three most renowned vertues Fortitude Iustice and Piety of which the Emperour was composed Not Nauclerus not Krantzius not Tritemius not Papirius Massonus not Christianus Masseus not the Magnum Cronicum Belgicum not the Chronicon Reicherspergense which testifieth that he did performe many things profitable to the Common-wealth and so ended his life Not Munster who saith of him that hee was a just and upright man in finding out matters ingenious Atque haeresum maximus hostis and the greatest enemy of heresies not Platina who saith of Iustinus the next Emperour unto him hee was Nulla in re similis Iustiniano in nothing like unto Iustinian For hee was covetous wicked ravenous a contemner both of God and men whence it followeth that Iustinian was quite contrary bountifull just religious an honourer both of God and good men 15. Now whereas all these and I know not how many more I thinke an hundred at least if one were curious in this search doe write of Iustinian and not one of them for ought that after earnest search I can finde doe mention his fall in that fantasticke heresie nay many of them as you have seene doe testifie on the contrary that hee was and continued a Catholike a religious a most pious a most Christian a most orthodoxall Prince and the greatest oppugner of heresies what an audacious and shamelesse untruth was it in the Cardinall to say that All Authors all both Greeke and Latine doe witnesse and detest his impiety and his fall into that heresie Besides these I must yet adde some other and those also farre more eminent and ample witnesses who doe more than demonstrate both the honour of Iustinian and those imputations of heresie and the other disgraces wherewith Baronius hath loaded him to bee most shamelesse calumnies and slanders 16. The first of these is Pope Agatho one of their Canonized Saints Hee in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus to prove out of the venerable Fathers two natures to be in Christ tels us that S. Cyril Saint Chrysostome Iohn Bishop of Scithopolis Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Ephremius and Anastasius the elder two
the whole City Not one word of all which is true seeing Eutychius was long before the time of Tiberius restored from banishment at the least 11. or 12. yeares even ever since the crowning of Iustinus who reigned 12. yeares alone before he assumed Tiberius into the society of the Empire This will be further evident by those words of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople on which Baronius relieth Eutychius was recalled from banishment as the Cardinall teacheth and that rightly in the same yeare wherein Iohannes Scholasticus who was placed in his roome died Now Iohn was Bishop as Nicephorus witnesseth but two yeares and seven moneths Whereupon it certainly followeth that Eutychius was recalled within three yeares after his banishment that is in the very first yeare of Iustinus upon whom hee set the Crowne at the solemnity of his first Coronation as was shewed out of the Historia Miscella and this was full twelve yeares before Tiberius was made Emperour Which demonstrates not onely the untruth and manifold lyes of that Surian Eustathius but another handsome tricke of legerdemaine in Anastasius and Baronius For Anastasius seeing belike that it was needfull for saving the credit of some such like fabler as this Eustathius is that Iohn should bee Bishop twelve yeares he translating the Greeke Nicephorus in stead of two yeares seven moneths puts in twelve yeares and seven moneths and gives so many unto Iohn before Eutychius bee restored and Baronius finding this account in the Anastasian translation followeth it and saith Nicephorus ascribes twelve yeares to Iohn whereas not Nicephorus nor his Greek edition which hath onely two yeares and seven moneths but the Anaâ—asian falsified and corrupted Latine translation hath the other untrue and false accompt of twelve years and seven moneths This if nothing else might be sufficient to refute the whole fiction of that Surian Eustathius the untruths whereof Baronius could not defend but by applauding the untrue and falsified writings of his fellow Bibliothecarius 27. Perhaps you will demand why then did Iustinian banish Eutychius if not for refusing to consent to his opinion and heresie of the Aphthardokites as Eustathius saith which doubt seemes the greater because Nicephorus the Patriarch in his Chronology mentioneth the same cause saying thus Eutychius was cast out of his See by Iustinian eo quod non reciperet edictum ipsius de corpore Christi experte omnis labefactionis because Eutychius would not consent to his Edict that Christs body was incorruptible See here againe I pray you and detest for ever the vile and shamelesse dealing of Anastasius Nicephorus saith not so all that hee saith is that Eutychius was banished because hee would not receive or consent unto the Edict of Iustinian but that which followeth his Edict de corpore Christi incorruptibili wherein is contained the heresie slanderously objected to Iustinian of that Nicephorus hath not one word in his Greeke text that is wholy pacht to him in the Latine translation by the false hand of Anastasius the Arch-corrupter of all writings in his time as I have before more at large declared And yet so are they delighted with lyes corrupted writings this Latine translation thus vilely falsified by Anastasius is set in their Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum which much better deserves to bee called a Library of forged or corrupted Fathers and Writers 28. But for what other Edict if not for this of the Aphthardokites was Eutychius banished for that he was expelled from his See there is no doubt that being testified not onely by the Surian Eustathius Zonaras Glicas and others but by Victor who then lived and was at Constantinople when these things fell out to whom alone more credit herein is to bee given than to five hundredth of the Surian records Truly whatsoever was the cause why he was banished certaine it is that this heresie of Iustinian or any Edict made for it was not the cause thereof But there are two other matters the one or both of which may very well be thought to have incensed Iustinian against him The former was this Eutychius pretended a Propheticall skill whereby hee could foreshew who should succeed in the Empire and hee began to tamper and practice this Art about some three yeares before Iustinian dyed as that Eustathius delareth At that time hee privately called Iustinus unto him and told him that he should succeed in the Empire after the death of Iustinian for so said he God hath revealed unto mee The like good fortune hee foretold to Tiberius that ere long he should have the Empire alone Againe two yeares before the death of Tiberius hee prophesied of Mauritius that hee and none but hee should have the Empire after Tiberius idque juramento asseruit and hee confirmed this by an oath Now this Art of Divination and Mathematicall predictions especially when they prognosticate of Kings their deaths successours was never allowable in any wise State nor acceptable to any prudent Emperour It betokened no good to Caesar that they foretold him of those dismall Ides of March. Domitian was foretold not onely of the yeare but of the day and the very houre when hee should dye and when he had carefully looked to himselfe on that day enquiring the houre his owne men of purpose told him the sixt in stead of the fift hee then thinking all danger to bee past was by the Conspiratours who kept a better watch of the time than he did securely murdered What mischiefe ensued upon that prediction to Valence that one whose name did begin with Theod. should succeed unto him Socrates declareth Hee thereupon murdered most unjustly all whom he could finde to be called either Theodori or Theodoti or Theodosij or Theoduli or Theodosioli or beginning with those letters What hurt followed as wel in this kingdom upon that prophesie G. should succeed unto Edward the fourth as in the next when it was foretold the Earle of Athel that hee should bee crowned before hee dyed who thereupon never ceased to rebell against his Soveraigne till hee was crowned with an hot burning iron our owne Chronicles doe declare All kingdomes all Stories are full of like examples It was not without cause that in the Code both of Theodosius and Iustinian there are so many and so severe lawes aginst this kinde of Mathematicall diviners their Art being called damnabilis omnibus interdicta a damnable Art forbidden to all the punishment denounced against them being banishment yea death sâ—pplicio capitis ferietur hee shall bee put to death who practiseth the curiositie of divining Now Eutychius taking upoÌ„ him this Art of divining coÌ„trary to those severe and Imperiall Edicts ratified by Iustinian whether for this cause the Emperour who by the law might have deprived him of his life did not chuse rather to deprive him onely of his See and liberty I leave to the
and Proclus placed in his See long before the banishment of Nestorius to Oasis much more before his death for Maximianus was Bishop but two yeares and five months and hee dyed before the Ides of Aprill when Ariobindus and Asper were Consuls and before he was buried was Proclus placed in the See the same yeare as Socrates witnesseth Now Nestorius lived foure yeares at Ephesus and about Antioch after his deposition and some while also in banishment at Oasis as Evagrius himselfe affirmeth So that by Evagrius Narration Maximianus was made Bishop of Constantinople two yeares after his death and both Proclus and Maximianus were Bishops at once of that See So well doth Evagrius relate matters of fact and such credit is to be given unto him 32. The other concernes the fable touching the Epistle and Image of Christ sent to Abgarus which Evagrius paints out at large and in most lively colours He commends the Epistle as a true writing of Christ and celebrated by the Ancients Hee cals the Image sent to Abgarus a most holy Image He tels you it was not made by the hand of man but framed immediately by God that Christ himselfe sent it to Abgarus when he was desirous to see him that by reason of this Image and writing kept at Edessa it was famously reported and beleeved by all the faithfull that the City of Edessa should never be conquered that Image made it unconquerable Hee addes the event did confirme that praediction to bee true Hee saith that when Cosroes besieged the City and had almost taken it then the Edessanes brought forth that divine Image and laid it in a ditch to keepe away the Engines wherewith Cosroes intended to destroy the City and that by this meanes Cosroes was faine to returne home not onely without the victory but with great ignominie and for confirmation of this hee saith Procopius hath related this concerning Edessa and the Epistle of Christ This is the Narration of Evagrius which for the worthinesse thereof is approved and applauded by their second Nicene Synod to which Synod you need not doubt but Baronius subscribeth 33. By this now judge of the fidelity truth not only of Evagrius but of their Nicene Councell and Baronius for in this whole narration there is not a sillable of truth it is nothing but a fardle or dunghill of lyes First whereas Evagrius fathereth this on Procopius that is utterly untrue In Procopius there is not any mention either of Abgarus or of Christs Epistle or of that Image made without hands or of any praediction touching the unconquerable City of Edessa or that the Edessanes brought forth any such Image in the time of the Siege or that they laid it in the ditch or that by the meanes of it Cosroes was vanquished all these are the fictions of Evagrius and those also quite contrary to the true relation of Procopius for hee ascribes the repulsing of Cosroes from the City to the noble military skill and stratagem of the Romane Captaines by reason whereof when Cosroes perceived his attempt to bee in vaine hee made peace with the Romanes but yet so that the Romanes yeelded to pay unto him quinquaginta millia aureorum those fifty thousand pieces of Gold which hee at the beginning of the siege demanded and for which he offered to desist from warre 34. Againe whereas Evagrius to justifie that lying prediction as divine and propheticall such as the faithfull then beleeved as a prophesie of God saith that the Event did prove it to bee true in that Evagrius proves himselfe to bee so extremely false that almost nothing in him may be credited but certainly not for his authority for in the first yeare of Heraclius at which time it is not unlike but Evagrius lived for he writ his history but some sixteene yeares before the event plainely demonstrated the contrary and this to bee no divine prophesie but a lying fiction Then the Persians came against Syria saith the Author of the miscella historia ceperunt Edessam and they won and took Capessa and Edessa and proceeded as farre as Antioch yea Cosroes then so prevailed against Christians that Heraclius was faine to send many Legacies to intreate peace offering to pay what tribute hee would impose but the Persian disdainefully answered Non parcam vobis donec Crucifixum abnegetis adoretis Solem I will not spare you till you renounce the profession of Christ and with us adore the Sunne How did their Palladium that divine Image now defend them or how could that bee a divine praediction which for such Evagrius commends and saith the event proved it to bee true when the event within lesse than twenty yeares after demonstrated it to bee a lye 35. But that which is the principall fault in this narration is that Evagrius approves as true and certain that Epist. of Christ sent to Abgarus which is indeed the ground of the whole fable Now that Epistle to be a reprobated and rejected writing condemned by the Church is so cleare that their owne Writers proclame the same Bishop Canus among other bookes which the Church as hee saith rejecteth recites Epistolam Iesu ad Abgarum and Historiam Eusebij these two by name the Church saith he rejecteth because some ignorāt persons thought that touching Eusebius History not to be the words of Gelasius and the Councell Canus refuting those gives this as the reason why Eusebius is rejected because in it is set downe the Epistle of Iesus to Abgarus quam Gelasius explodit which Epistle Gelasius doth hisse out of the Church This Epistle of Iesus to Abgarus saith Sixtus Senensis Pope Gelasius inter scripturas Apochryphas rejicit doth reject among other Apocryphall writings Coster their Iesuit saith Eusebius relates how Christ sent a letter to Abgarus but that letter was never pro ejusmodi accepta ab Ecclesia esteemed for such that is not for Christs by the Church But the words of Gelasius the whole Roman Councel with him are of all most remarkeable They having expressed and named a long Catalogue of such fabulous writings and particularly this Epistle of Christ to Abgarus which Evagrius approveth set downe this censure of them all These and all like unto these wee confesse to bee not onely refused but also eliminata cast out of the Church by the whole Romane Catholike and Apostolike Church atque cum suis authoribus authorumque sequacibus sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata and wee confesse as well these writings as the Authors and the followers also of them to bee eternally condemned under the indissoluble bond of an Anathema So Gelasius and the whole Romane Councell whereby it is evident that not onely this Epistle and the Author of it but that the followers of the Author the approvers of that Epistle that is Evagrius and the whole second Nicene Synod and Baronius
what a weight of eternity and glory shall that troope of vertues and traine of good workes obtaine at his hands who rewardeth indeed every man according to their workes but withall rewardeth them infinitely above all the dignity or condignity of their workes 45. If Iustinian and those who are beautified with so many vertues and glorious works be as the Card. Judgeth tormented in hell belike the Cardinall himselfe hoped by workes contrary unto these by workes of infidelity of impiety of maligning the Church of reviling the servants of GOD of oppugning the faith of Patronizing heresie yea that fundamental heresie which overthroweth the whole Catholike faith and brings in a totall Apostasie from the faith by these hee hoped to purchase and in condignity to merit the felicity of the Kingdome of Heaven This being the track and beaten path wherein they walke and by which they aspire to immortality what Constantine sayd once to Acesius the Novatian the same may be sayd to Baronius and his consorts Erigito tibi scalam Baroni ad caelum solus ascendito Keepe that Ladder unto your selves and by it doe you alone climbe up into heaven But well were it with them and thrice happy had the Cardinall beene if with a faithfull and upright heart towards God he could have said of Iustinian the words of Balaam Let me dye the death of the righteous and let my last end be like his His life being led in piety and abounding in good workes hee now enjoyeth the fruit thereof felicity and eternall rest in Abrahams bosome As for the Cardinall who hath so malignantly reviled him himselfe can now best tell whether he doth not cry and pray Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Iustinian that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue or sing that other note unto his fellowes concerning this Emperour Wee fooles thought his life to be madnesse and his end to bee without honour but now is he numbred among the children of God and his lot is among the Saints Therefore wee have erred from the way of truth and wearied our selves in the wayes of wickednesse and destruction we have gone through deserts where there lay no way but as for the way of the Lord wee have not knowne it CAP. XXI How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same 1. NExt the Emperour let us see how dutifully the Cardinall behaveth himselfe towards the Empresse Theodora A small matter it is with him in severall places to call her an impious an hereticall a sacrilegious a furious hereticall woman a patrone of heretikes and the like Heare and consider how he stormeth but in one place against her These so great mischiefes did that most wicked woman beginne she became to her husband another Eve obeying the serpent a new Dalila to Samson striving by her subtiltie to weaken his strength another Herodias thirsting after the blood of most holy men a wanton mayd of the High Priest perswading Peter to deny Christ. But this is not enough Sugillare ipsam with these termes to flout her who exceedeth all women in impiety let her have a name taken from Hell let her be called Alecto or Megera or Tisiphone a Citizen of hell a childe of Devills ravished with a satanicall spirit driven up and downe with a devillish gad bee an enemy of concord and peace purchased with the blood of Martyrs Thus the Cardinall who tells us afterwards how when Vigilius came to Constantinople she contented long with him for to have Anthimus restored in so much that Vigilius was forced to smite her as from heaven with the thunderbolt of Excommunication whereupon she shortly dyed Here is the tragicall end which the Cardinall hath made of her 2. Now I would not have any think that I intend wholly to excuse the Empresse she had her passions and errors as who hath not and as Liberatus and Evagrius shew she tooke part with the oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon which was for some time true shee being as it seemes seduced by Anthimus whom for a while she laboured to have restored to the See of Constantinople though afterwards as Victor Tununensis testifieth she being better informed joyned with the Emperor in condemning the Three Chapters and so in truth in defending the Councell of Chalcedon though Victor thought the contrarie And of this minde in condemning the three Chapters shee was as by Victor is evident some yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople Her former error seduction and labour for Anthimus I will not seeke to lessen or any way excuse But though she were worthy of blame was it fit for the Cardinall so basely to revile her and in such an unseemly and undutifull manner to disgorge the venome of his stomacke upon an Empresse tantae ne animis caelestibus irae who would have thought such rancour and poison to have rested in the brest of a Cardinall But there was you may be sure some great cause which drew from the Cardinall to many unseemly speeches against the Empresse and though hee would bee thought to doe all this onely out of zeale to the truth which Anthimus the heretike oppugned yet if the depth of the Cardinalls heart were founded it will appeare that his spite against her was for condemning the Three Chapters which Pope Vigilius in his Constitution defendeth Anthimus and his cause is but a pretence and colour the Apostolicall Constitution the heresies of the Nestorians decreed and defined therein that is the true marke at which the Cardinall aymeth neither Emperour nor Empresse nor Bishop nor Councell nor any may open their mouth against that Constitution which toucheth them in capite but they shall be sure to heare and beare away as harsh and hellish termes from Baronius as if they had condemned the Trent Councell it selfe Had Theodora defended the Three Chapters as Vigilius in his Constitution did the Cardinall would have honoured her as a Melpomene Clio or Vrania because she did not that she must be nothing but Alecto Megaera or Tisiphone and they are too good names for her 3. If one desired to set forth her praise there wants not testimonies of her dignity and honour Constantinus Manasses saith that she was Iisdem addicta cum marito studiis iisdem praedita moribus that she so well consorted to her husband that shee was addicted to the same studies indued with the same manners as he was That Iustinian himselfe calleth her reverendissimam conjugem his most reverend wife given unto him by God adding that he tooke her as a partner with him of his counsells in making his lawes and after her death he calleth her Augustam piae memoriae Empresse of holy memorie as doe also and very often the sixt general Councell an unfit title to be given to an heretike or a fury either by a holy generall Councell or by a
the Three Chapters or judging of the Three Chapters had beene a depravation and corrupting of the Acts for this assertion that Ibas his Epistle was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon is as necessarie and essentiall to the Acts as the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters or any sentence that is any where set downe therein 2. But yet if it be no depravation in the Acts yet saith the Cardinall and Binius it is untrue It is a lye that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned that Epistle Let falshood and impudency it selfe stand here amazed and agast at these men This definitive sentence of this Councell wherein it is proclamed and decreed that the Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon is approved by all succeeding generall Councells by Pelagius Gregory and all other their successors till Leo the tenth that is by the consenting judgment of the whole Catholike Church and of all Catholikes ever since that decree was made and now Baronius and Binius stand up to give them all the lie they all say untruths onely Baronius and Binius are men that drop Oracles out of whose mouths no lie nor untruth can at any time proceed 3. But saith the Cardinall The Acts of the Councell of Chalcedon doe declare this and out of them I have before demonstrated this Loe the Cardinall will not onely say it but prove it yea he hath even demonstrated out of the Councell of Chalcedon all the former Popes and Councels that is all the whole Catholike Church to lye I feare mee such demonstrations will not turne to the Cardinals credit Doe the Acts of the Councell teach or demonstrate that could none of the Popes none of the succeeding generall Councels spie it in those Acts till Baronius took thē all tardy in an untruth What wil you say to the Cardinal and to his demonstration if the Acts doe not teach this nay if they teach directly and demonstrate the quite contrary who then I pray you must have the whetstone the Catholike Church or the illustrious Cardinall And certainly the Acts of Chalcedon doe demonstrate what this fift Councell and after it the sixt seventh and eighth and the rest testifie that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon First it is cleare and certaine by those Acts that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Nestorius and all the impious doctrines and blasphemies of Nestorius approving the Ephesine Councell and the Synodall Epistle of Cyrill wherein they are condemned and anathematized was not this a condemning of the Epistle of Ibas which defendeth Nestorius and his heresies which is full fraught with all his blasphemous doctrines Could the Councell of Chalcedon condemne and anathematize the doctrine of Nestorius and yet not condemne that Epistle which defends all those doctrines By the Acts it is cleare and certaine that the Councell of Chalcedon approve their owne decree of faith now this Epistle as not onely the fift Councell often but after it Pope Gregory saith procul dubio definitioni Synodi probatur adversa without doubt is contrary to the definition of the Councell of Chalcedon Is not the approving of their definition a rejecting and condemning of whatsoever writing is contrary to the same By the Acts it is cleare and certaine that the Councell even in their definition forbids and pronounceth it unlawfull for any to teach or produce or write or deliuer any other doctrine which whosoever doth if hee bee a Bishop or Clerke hee shall bee deposed if a Monke or Lay man anathematized Is not this a plaine forbidding of that Epistle to bee read or taught the doctrine whereof is directly contrary to their decree◠when by the Councels decree it may neither be taught written nor read otherwise then with a detestation is not this a condemning of it by the Councell by the Acts that is cleare in the fift Councell that the Councell of Chalcedon approved the judgement of Photius and Eustathius for as Photius and Eustathius so they all at Chalcedon required Ibas to anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines before they would receive him Now as the fift Councell truly saith to approve the judgement of Photius and Eustathius Nihil est aliud quam condemnare impiam Epistolam this is nothing else than to condemne the impious Epistle seeing in it Nestorius and his heresies are defended To be short for there are very many other evidences to declare this Pope Gregory testifieth that the fift Councell was in omnibus sequax did in all things follow the Councell of Chalcedon if in all then in condemning this impious Epistle and if they followed it therein then most certainly the Councell of Chalcedon condemned it before them So untrue it is which the Cardinall saith that the Acts doe shew and that out of them he hath demonstrated that the Councell of Chalcedon did not condemne this Epistle whereas he hath demonstrated nothing so cleare as himselfe to bee a malicious and shamelesse downfacer of most certaine and evident truths Thus much of his first sort of corruptions namely the three variations or depravations wherewith as you see hee hath slandered the Acts of this fift Councell to his immortall disgrace CAP. XXVIII The three first defects in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Acts against the Origenists the Edict of Iustinian and his Epistle touching that cause are wanting therein refuted 1. THE second kinde of the Cardinals Heteroclites are his defectives And here he and Binius labour to prove the lamenesse and defects of these Acts by five instances The first of them concernes the proceeding against Origen and the Origenists which was done in the fift Synod but is now wanting in the Acts thereof Let us first heare what Binius saith hereof The curtaling and maime of these Acts doe those fragments declare which we have added to the end of the Synod quodque nulla vel levis tantum mentio reperiatur de condemnatis erroribus Origenis and because there is no mention no not any small or light mention found in them touching the errours of Origen condemned If one were disposed to quit Binius with his owne uncivill words Binius should here be proclamed both for a most impudent lyar and a shamelesse belyar of these Synodal acts of this holy Councell There is expresse mention of condemning Origen in the fift Collation Origen was anathematized after his death in the time of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria which also your sanctitie hee speakes to the Bishops of this Synod and Vigilius Pope of Rome have now done Again there is expresse mention of him and his errours in the eighth collation in the very Synodall and definitive sentence of the Councel wherein Origen and his impious writings are condemned for thus it is writen If any man doe not accurse Arius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinarius Nestorius Eutyches Origen cum impijs eorum
Nestorius which their profession of faith and this condemning of the Nestorian heresie Iohn sent both to Cyrill to Pope Sixtus and to Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople Now seeing Theodoret not onely in former time had beene so violent and furious in defence of that doctrine but then and long after continued in the same minde was not his doctrine reproved nay was it not accursed and anathematized by Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and many other Bishops subject to his Patriarchship What a most vile and shameless untruth then is it which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter that in the whole space of 25. or 26. yeares he neither accused any nor was accused nor reproved no not lightly reproved either by Iohn or any other but that all and every one of his writings contained the true doctrine of the Church But enough of those Epistles which to be forged and false this which is already sayd may for this time suffice 11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affirmeth that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius and withall seene how weake and unsound his proofe is in this point I will yet adde one consideration which will further manifest and even demonstrate the same That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certaine it is that when Theodoret writ that history he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme whereof in the very last Chapter he gives an eminent proofe commending Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia for a worthy teacher of the whole Church and for an oppugner of all heresies adding that whereas he was a Bishop thirty six yeares he never ceased optimam herbam sanctis Christi â—viâ—us suppeditare to feed the flocke of Christ with the best herbes None can doubt but hee who so much extolleth so detestable an heretike and approveth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius suckâ— for the best herbes or doctrines but he must needs be confessed to bee as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe If now it may appeare that this history was writ by him after the union there can no doubt remaine but that after the union Theodoret favoured Nestorius and all his heresies 12. Baronius knowing this inevitably to follow to decline the whole force of this tels us that Theodoret writ his history not onely before the union but before the jarre also yea before the time of the holy Councell at Ephesus whereof having given some sleight conjectures in the end he concludes Dicendum est It must be sayd that Theodoret writ this history in the space of those three yeares which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Councell So he Shall I say the Cardinall was deceived and overseene herein No I will not suspect that such an evident error could creepe into the minde of so exact an Annalist I rather thinke his intent was wilfully and wittingly to deceive others and that therefore hee sayd this to smother that truth touching Theodorets continuance in Nestorianisme which he elsewhere so often denieth Theodoret mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or reliques of Chrysostome and bringing them to Constantinople The Cardinall was so far from being ignorant hereof that himselfe citeth Theodoret with a memorandum He ante omnes above them all mentioneth this translation but in few words That translation as Socrates and Marcellinus witnesse was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consull that is as the Cardinall also accounteth in the yeare 438. Now seeing the union betweene Iohn and Cyrill was made in the yeare 432. it unavoydably followeth that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven yeares at least after the union and how much more I know not whether 8.10 or 16. after it for it is uncertaine or if hee writ it as the Cardinall divineth before the Ephesine Synod that he writ it prophetically writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine yeares after his history was written The truth is an orderly and historicall continuation of things done he doth not write but onely to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia where his history for any such continuation of succeeding matters doth end but to shew and testifie that he writ his history after the yeare 438. hee purposely mentioneth some of those acts which sell out in that yeare and hereof further there may be a presumption because Theodoret as Baronius tels us followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mopsvestia now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius as himselfe witnesseth So that if Theodoret as the Cardinall tels us tooke it out of Sozomen and his booke was not published till the yeare 439. sure the Cardinall of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time otherwise than prophetically in this point write his history It remaineth now seeing Theodoret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this history and it was written after the yeare 438. that out of all doubt till then hee remained hereticall and devoted to all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus which in that history he commends for most wholsome food and Catholike doctrine 11. But not to stay longer in a matter very cleare my conclusion of this former point is this Seeing the Cardinall tels us that from the time of the union Theodoret was not onely a Catholike and orthodoxall Bishop but that he did manfully fight for the Catholike faith it evidently followeth that in the Cardinals judgment Nestorianism and those herbes nay most poysonfull weeds of Theodorus are Catholike doctrines seeing as now we have proved for many but of a certainty for seven yeares at least after the union that doctrine which Theodoret embraced and so earnestly defended was no other than the blasphemous heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus And let this suffice for the third addition which he unjustly objecteth to the Acts of this fift Councell CAP. XXXIV The fourth addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret intitled to Iohn Bishop of Antioch is falsly inserted therein refuted 1. HIs fourth instance concernes an Epistle of Theodoret inscribed to Iohn Bishop of Antioch set downe neare the last end of the fift Collation wherein Theodoret exceedingly rejoyceth for the death of Cyrill In handling whereof Baronius and Binius doe more than triumph as if the field were certainly wonne That Epistle sayth Binius nequissimi scelestissimi alicâ—jus nebulonis Eutychiani commentum est is the forgery of some most naughty and nefarious Eutychian varlet and by fraud and surreption is thrust into the Acts of this Synod We have before discovered saith Baronius the imposture of that Epistle but we are not grieved to repeat the same things here againe that it may be shewed that they are not the true Acts of the Synod sed nebulonis cujusdam ex cogitatione commentum but
a story able to put downe Heliodore Orlando and all the fictions of all the Poets their wits are barren their conceits dull they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor It is not my purpose to stand now to resute such a lying legend The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monke Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus the onely author that he knew till Baronius pull'd this blinde Tailor out of a corner Though I beleeve saith hee God to bee omnipotent yet I beleeve not all which is here written of Chrysostome sed fides penes lectoreÌ„ esto let the reader choose whether hee will beleeve it or not for the writers of mens lives who lived before Nicephorus and hee writ about the yeare 1328. would not have concealed or smothered in silence rem tanti momenti a matter of so great moment Thus the Carthusian whose judgement may justly be thought to bee the more weighty because of all the ancient Fathers there is none I speake it confidently who hapned to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius as he is called Leo and George the writers or rather the devisers of Chrysostomes acts his life and death Any one of them doting after such miraculous reports would have painted out this miracle of miracles with all the wit and words which they had That which I onely observe is the strange and if you please miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius This Epistle of Theodosius though it was written to Chrysostome more than thirty yeares after his death the Cardinall approves applaudes and for a rare monument hee commends it and all that appendant fable to all posterity Why it is an excellent story indeed to perswade the adoration of reliques invocation of Saints prayers for the dead and such like Had this Epistle of Theodorets contained such stuffe it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship because it wants such matters and crosseth in very many things the Cardinals Annals Oh it is nothing but a fiction and a very forgery of some lewd naughty varlet It is demonstrated to be such because it was written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch who was dead but 7. yeares before whereas more than foure times seven yeares cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after hee was dead to be an authentike and undoubted record This may serve the Cardinall for the first answere who is now bound in all equity either to confesse his owne demonstration to be fallacious or to proclame the Epistle of Pope Clement and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration to be fictitious and his owne Annals a fabulous legend 5. My second answer is that though Iohn to whom this Epistle is directed was dead yet that proves onely the title or inscription to be amisse or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to Iohn it cannot prove which the Cardinall undertooke to doe that the Epistle is forged and not written by Theodoret For the Epistle it selfe to bee truly Theodorets his owne Sermon publikely preached at Antioch before Domnus after the death of Cyrill and mentioned in the Synodall Acts next after this Epistle doth clearly manifest for the scope and purpose of that sermon is the same which is expressed in the Epistle In the Epistle Theodoret declareth his eagernesse in defending the doctrine of Nestorius and withall rejoyceth and insulteth over Cyrill being dead who was then the chiefe oppugner of the heresies of Nestorius The very same eagernesse for Nestorianisme and love to his heresies as also the like joy for Cyrils death doth his sermon expresse more fully saying Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare none doth now seeing Cyrill is dead compell any man to blaspheme so hee cals the Catholike faith Where are those to wit Cyrill who teach that God was crucified It was the man Christ and not God who was crucified It was the man IESVS that dyed and it was GOD the Word who raised him from the dead Non jam est contentio Now seeing Cyrill is dead there is no contention Oriens Egyptus sub uno jugo est the East Egypt that is as well those who are under the Patriarke of Alexandria as they who are under the Patriarke of Antioch are all under one yoke that is all submit themselves to one faith that is to Neâ—â—orianisme Mortua est invidia cum eo mortua est contentio Envy hee meaneth Cyrill who so much hated and oppugned the doctrine of Nestorius is now dead and all contention is dead and buried with him Let now the Theopaschites hee meanes Catholikes who taught God to have suffered and dyed let them now bee at quiet Thus preached Theodoret after the death of Cyrill insulting over him being dead triumphing that now seeing Cyrill was dead Nestorianisme did and would prevaile Who can imagine but that the Epistle maintaining the same heresie insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill was written by Theodoret when he publikely in his sermon before a Patriarke uttered the same matter Would Theodoret feare or forbeare to write that in a letter which hee neither did feare nor could forbeare to professe openly in a sermon and that in so solemne a place and assembly or was Theodoret orthodoxall and a lover of Cyrill in his writings before the death of Cyrill who was hereticall and so full with the dregs of Nestorianisme after the death of Cyrill that he must vent them and with them disgorge his malice and spite against Cyrill in an open Pulpit and in the hearing of a Patriarke and all the people of Antioch It is not the inscription or title of the Epistle but the Epistle it selfe which the fift Councell and wee after it doe stand upon Had not they knowne the Epistle to bee Theodorets they needed not by it to have proved that Theodoret after the union yea after the death of Cyrill was eager violent yea virulent also in defence of the heresies of Nestorius that his publike sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils death and against Cyrill had beene a sufficient proofe and demonstration of that but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret they thought good to testifie that he was in writing the selfe same man as hee was in preaching that is in both a spitefull maligner of Cyrill in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian and that long after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill yea that even after the death of Cyrill he continued both to write and to speake the same 6. Observe now by the way the fraudulent dealing of Baronius and Binius in this cause This passage taken out of a sermon publikely preached at Antioch against Cyrill and in an insulting manner for his death this they doe not nor durst they carpe at it It is testified by all the Bishops of the fift Councell to have beene a part of
Theodorets sermon the Epistle which likewise is testified by them all to bee Theodorets containing the same matter with his sermon that they raile at and revile both it and the writer of it because in the inscription thereof they have espyed an errour It had beene honest dealing in the Cardinall and Binius seeing these are fethers of one wing either to have acknowledged both or denyed both to bee the brood of Theodoret. 7. Againe the Cardinall undertooke to prove that still after the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill Theodoret was a Catholike and defender of the Catholike faith and because the Epistle demonstrates the contrary he will not allow it to bee Theodorets but a forgery written in his name Admit it were yet that part of Theodorets sermon is truly his nor doth eyther Baronius or Binius deny it to bee his Now by this sermon is Theodoret as effectually proved and demonstrated as by the Epistle to have beene an eager oppugner of the Catholike faith and an obstinate defender of all the heresies of Nestorius after the death of Cyrill which was twelve yeares after the union So that although the Epistle were not Theodorets or had never beene extant yet the Cardinals position for Theodorets Orthodoxy is clearly and certainly refuted by the sermon of Theodoret made twelve yeares after the union 8. Further yet the Cardinall to defend the Orthodoxy of Theodoret urgeth strongly and relyeth upon the Epistles which in their Vaticane or Mint-house are stamped with the name of Theodoret whereas if there were no other proofes this one sermon of Theodorets is an undoubted evidence that they can bee none of Theodorets but are forged in his name for the whole scope at which those Epistles ayme is to magnifie Theodoret both for his integrity of life uprightnesse in judgement laboriousnesse in preaching and specially for his soundnesse in the Catholike faith that he was never reproved nor accused by any no not in sixe and twenty yeares for his doctrine that he never accused any and specially for Cyrill that Theodoret loved and honoured him for a learned and pious man mirificè coluit ejus memoriam when Cyrill was dead hee wonderfully honoured his memory calling him a man of blessed memory all which and a hundred such like matters contained in those Epistles are undeniably convicted to bee untrue by this sermon of his wherein he vomiteth cut in a most solemne assembly together with the blasphemies of Nestorius most slanderous revilings not onely against Cyrill at whose death hee insulteth but against all Catholikes whom he according to the Nestorian language cals Theopaschites and heretikes with such false fained and lying writings doth the Cardinall fight against the fift Synod and the Acts thereof 9. Yea but still the Cardinall will reply the Inscription unto Iohn who before was dead shewes the Epistle to Iohn to bee forged and to be none of Theodorets It doth not for the inscription or title of an Epistle or other writing may bee erronious and the Epistle truly his whose name it beares which the Cardinal may see if need were in a hundred examples 10. In the Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames whereof before wee spake the Cardinall and Binius both confesse the inscription to be false and yet they both hold the Epistle to bee Pope Clements yea they can excuse that and say it was but an errour in writing Iames in stead of Simeon in the title were they not too too partiall and malicious against this holy Synod they would as easily have used the same excuse for Theodorets Epistle and have said the Epistle is truly his but in the inscription in the Acts the name of Iohn is by the writers mistaking set in stead of Domnus 11. Theodoret in his history sets down an Epistle of Pope Damasus against Eunomius and other heretikes the title in him is thus The confession of saith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica and with this inscription it is also published in the Venice edition of the Councels by Nicholinus Did Damasus write or send this to Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica No he did not there was no Paulinus then nor long after that Bishop of Thessalonica as Baronius and Binius at large prove and professe What then may we here conclude by the Cardinals demonstration certainly this Epistle was none of Pope Damasus writings it is a forgery and a counterfeit seeing it is written to Paulinus whereas there was no such man at all No the demonstration holds not in Pope Damasus nor in his writings for notwithstanding this errour in the title Baronius and Binius hold it both to be the true undoubted and Synodall Epistle of Pope Damasus and truely sent from him but sent to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch not to any Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica Applie now this to the Epistle of Theodoret may not it likewise be true and truly written by Theodoret though the title be either false or unpossible If any demand how that errour in Theodoret touching the title of the Epistle might happen Baronius and Binius impute it to the malice and wilful fraud of Theodoret but I much rather ascribe it to the writer who finding in Theodoret the name of Paulinus without any addition either ignorantly or wickedly inserted the false addition of Thessalonica Would the Cardinall have dealt favourably with the other inscription of Iohn and in stead of it have put Domnus who was then Bishop of Antioch he might have spared his labour in this point 12. In the sixteenth Novell of Iustinian the inscription is to Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople now the date of that Edict is on the thirteenth day of August in the yeare after the Consulship of Bell. sarius at which time it is certaine that not Anthimus but Mennas was Bishop for Mennas sate in the generall Councell held that yeare at Constantinople which began on the second of May yea the Emperour himselfe on the sixt of August in the same yeare and Consulship dates another Edict unto Mennas So that undoubtedly there is an errour in the inscription and yet notwithstanding this errour the Edict it selfe is without all doubt Iustinians nor will the Cardinals demonstration hold in this 13. The Epistle of Foelix the fourth to Sabina was written and dated on the twefth of the Kalends of November at which time Foelix was dead What may it by the Cardinals demonstration be rejected for a counterfeit No the Cardinall will tell you it was indeed the Popes Epistle but of Boniface the successor of Foelix and not as the inscription tels of Pope Foelix facile accidisse potuit it might easily happen that the name of Foelix might bee put in stead of Boniface his next successor Might not the very same and as easily happen in this Epistle of Theodoret that the name of Iohn might be put in the inscription in stead of Domnus
his next successor 14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius wherein he writ an excommunication against Vigilius usurping his See it is dated in some Copies in the yeare of Basilius in others of Bellisarius being Consuls Now in all the time Silverius was Pope neither was Basilius nor Bellisarius Consuls What then shall the Popes Epistle be rejected as a a forgery a counterfeit No by no meanes The Cardinall often mentioneth it honours it for a rare monument and to helpe that errour he tels us the date is added more than should be Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodorets letter in the Synodall acts Might it not happen that the inscription was onely to the Archbishop of Antioch that the name of Iohn was added more than should be Epiphanius in his Book of heresies sayth that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour a manifest untruth for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus the successor of Adrian and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius and Verus 24. yeares after the death of Adrian Will the Cardinall have his demonstration to hold here in Epiphanius so that his booke against heresies must be condemned for a counterfeit and none of Epiphanius writing No error irrepsit there slipt an error into Epiphanius for Adrian is written in stead of Antoninus as the Cardinall tels you but it rather seemes in stead of Aurelius under whom Iustine dyed Had the Cardinall beene any way as indifferent to Theodorets letters hee would likewise have said error irrepsit an error is slipt into the inscription by writing Iohn in stead of his successor Domnus rather than have condemned the writing for a forgery 14. In the twenty third Cause Question 4. Cap. 30. in the ancient title it was cited as a text of Sylvester a manifest errour of Sylvester instead of Sylverius Did the Gregorian Correctors for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted condemne that Canon or Epistle as a counterfeit no but approving the text as true they amended the title and restored it to Sylverius In the very same Chapter it is said that Guillisarius caused Sylverius to bee deposed there was no Guillisarius that ever did that but it was Bellisarius yet for that error of the name which yet remaines uncorrected is not the Canon or Epistle rejected 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius out of Tyrius commendeth it is sayd that the fift Synod which decreed the Patriarchall dignity to the Bishop of Ierusalem was held in the time of Vigilius of Rome Eutychius of Constantinople and Paule of Antioch Now that by the Cardinals demonstration was never for it is certaine that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his dayes Before this Synod was Ephreem who sate eighteene yeares in whose fourteenth or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius to be Pope to him succeeded Domnus hee sate 18. yeares in whose seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held and himselfe personally subscribed unto it and about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius So this decree by the Cardinals owne reason is but a forgery as in very truth it is Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse fragment will admit an error of the writing Paulus being put for Domnus why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret as not to thinke a like errour of the pen in it and Iohannes to be put for Domnus 16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editiōs of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan. a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptiō without al doubt Iohn being dead ten yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius himselfe both declares and proves professing that Inscription to be false Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstration drawne from the title and Inscription oh how happily how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against and contradicting that Edict Hee might have said Why that Edict was none of Iustinians nor ever published by him for the Inscription is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell or any Synodall Acts at all of it for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause to define the truth delivered by the Edict This had beene a short cut indeed and the Cardinall like another Alexander by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then nor ever I thinke till the acts of this fift Synod and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal for not withstanding the falshood of that inscription title the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit but a true imperiall Edict truely published by Iustinian contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say that addition to Iohn is added put amisse in the title by some later hand by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret the name of Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle rather than by reason of such an errour as happeneth in many Epistles and writings to declame not onely against the Epistle as a base forgery and none of Theodorets but even against all the Acts of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is sound extant 17. None I thinke doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire and without all corruption as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Councels To omit the rest in those of Chalcedon the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene
not this now shewed apertissimè you may bee sure the Cardinall would not have feared to performe his promise but that there was somewhat in that Epist. which would have bewrayed his lewd dealing in this cause 22. His third reason is drawne from the testimony of Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople This saith hee exploratum habetur is sure and certaine by Nicephorus No it is sure and certaine by Nicephorus that Baronius is erronious in this matter for Nicephorus accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares and the Cardinall will allow him no more but thirteene now the first yeare of Iohn cannot possibly be before the yeare 427. for in that year Theodotus the next predecessor of Iohn dyed as Baronius himselfe proveth Add now unto these seventeene moe and then the death of Iohn by Nicephorus will bee an 444. which is the selfe same yeare wherein Cyrill dyed Is not this a worthy proofe to shew Iohn to have dyed seven years before Cyrill as the Cardinall avoucheth that he did Or do not you think the Cardinal was in some extasy to produce Nicephorus as a witnesse for him whereas Nicephorus as the Cardinall himselfe also confesseth gives to Iohn 18. yeares and the Cardinall allowes him but thirteene and whereas the Cardinall of set purpose refuteth the account of Nicephorus 23. But will you bee pleased to see how the Cardinall refuteth him Domnus saith hee was Bishop of Antioch an 437. as is proved by an Epistle of Theodorets written to Domnus in that yeare which Epistle I will set downe in his due place to wit an 437. Lo all his proofe is from that Epistle which the Cardinall contrary to his own promise doth not and as I thinke durst not set downe 24. But see further how the Cardinall is infatuated in this cause Iohn saith he dyed an 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares Iohn succeeded to Theodotus who dyed an 427. Say now in truth is not the Cardinall a worthy Arithmetitian that of 427. and 13. can make no more than 436 And is not this a worthy reason to refute Nicephorus But this is not all for Baronius glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus which as hee saith was written an 444. there observes with a memorandum that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus Iohn and Domnus had sitten in the See of Antioch to wit 26. yeares in all from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop unto that 444. yeare viz. Theodotus 6. Iohn 13. and Domnus 7. untill that yeare Theodoret as Baronius will assure you was made Bishop an 423. Add now unto these six of Theodotus thirteene of Iohn and 7. of Domnus and tell me whither you thinke the Cardinall had sent his wits when hee could summe these to bee just 444 25. Or will you see the very quintessence of the Cardinals wisedome I will saith he set downe the next yeare that is an 437. the very Epistle of Theodoret to Domnus which was then written unto him eam quâ monstratur I wil also set downe in his due place to wit an 444. that Epistle of Theodoret to Dioscorus whereby is shewed that Iohn was Bishop of Antioch just thirteene yeare Thus Baronius who by these two Epistles of Theodoret will prove both these As much in effect as if hee had said I have already proved that Iohn began to bee Bishop of Antioch an 427. and this being set downe for a certainty I will now prove by Theodorets Epistle to Domnus that Iohn dyed an 436. that is in his ninth yeare and then I will prove againe by Theodorets Epistle to Dioscorus that hee dyed in his thirteenth yeare and so dyed not till the yeare 440. Or as if hee had thus said I will first prove that mine owne Annals are untrue wherin it is said that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn because he dyed not as Theodoret in one Epistle witnesseth untill his thirteenth yeare which is an 440. And then I will prove unto you that mine own Annals are again untrue wherein it is said that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare and so dyed not till an 440. beginning the first an 427 because Theodoret in another Epistle witnesseth that Iohn dyed an 436. Or thus I will first prove that Iohn was dead an 436. though he was alive an 440. and thē I will prove unto you that Iohn was alive an 440. though he was dead an 436. 26. Is not this brave dealing in the Cardinall is hee not worthy of a cap and a fether too that can prove all these and prove them by Theodorets Epistles or doe you not think those to be worthy Epistles of Theodoret by which such absurdities such impossibilities may bee proved Nay doth not this alone if there were no other evidence demonstrate those Epistles of Theodorets to bee counterfeits If that to Domnus be truly his as Baronius assures you wherby Iohn is shewed to have dyed an 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs be◠a forgery whereby Iohn is shewed to live an 440. Againe if that to Dioscous be truly his as Baronius assures you wherin Iohn is said to live an 440. then certainely the other to Domnus must of necessity bee a forgery wherein Iohn is said to be dead an 436. And as either of these two Epistles demonstrates the untruth and forgery of the other so they both demonstrate the great vanity of Baronius who applauds them both who wil make good what they both do affirm that is the same man to bee both dead and alive a Bishop and no Bishop at the selfe same time and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinall refute his owne witnesse Nicephorus who by giving eighteene yeares to Iohn shewes plainly that Iohn and Cyrill dyed within one yeare which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of Iohn whom upon Nicephorus account hee thought to live after Cyrill whereas in very deed hee dyed somewhile before Cyrill 27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonicall Epist. of Cyrils to Domnus which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Balsamon whence it is out of all doubt saith the Cardinall that Iohn dyed before Cyrill seeing Cyrill writ unto his successor Domnus But howsoever the Cardinall vanteth that this reason will leave no doubt yet if you observe it there are two great doubts therein The former is whether that Epistle be truly Cyrils And besides other reasons that one point which the Cardinall himselfe mentioneth may justly cause any to thinke it none of his for as the Cardinall saith the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus that he might ad libitum at his pleasure put out Bishops and at his pleasure restore them Now there is none that knowes the learning
on Orpheus harpe made an heavenly harmony but how hee failed in his skill and proved no better than Neanthes his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternall record and yet all that time hee sat in the Chaire and prophesied for as the common saying is Vbi Papa ibi Roma so it is as true Vbi Papa ibi Cathedra it is more easie for the Pope to take the Chaire with him than like an Elephant to carry the whole City of Rome upon his backe to Constantinople and goe up and downe the world with it 17. But is this narration thinke you of Anastasius true verily not one word therein neither did the Empresse write nor Vigilius answer any such thing for both these were done as Anastasius saith eodem tempore at or after that same time when Bellisarius having killed Gontharis came out of Africk and offered those spoiles of the Vandales and seeing that as wee have proved was never this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas Againe this answer of Vigilius was given statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit at his very first placing in the See as Binius sheweth and that was in the fourteenth yeare of Iustiâ—ian for then Sylverius dyed now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome and that was as Procopius sheweth in the nineteenth yeare of Iustinian it was a fine devise of Anastasius to tell how this new Saint answered a letter by way of prophesie three or foure yeares before the letter was written Further Vigilius as Liberatus saith implens promissum suum quod Augustae fecerat performing his promise to the Empress writ a letter in this manner hee performed it as much as hee could he laboured a while to doe it and this was both before and a little after the death of Sylverius but when hee could not effect it and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein left off that care untill hee could have a better oportunity to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon which so long as it stood in force was a barre unto Anthimus If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon but till that were done till the Councell were repealed Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that hee in two severall Epistles the one to Iustinian the other to Mennas confirmed as the Emperour required him to doe the deposition of Anthimus and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges namely in the fourteenth yeare of Iustinian and five yeares before the death of Gontharis Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood but Vigilius also to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Emperour that hee would not doe specially seeing as Baronius saith Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperour Omnem prorsus sive Theodorae sive alijs spem ademisset would put both Theodora and all else out of all hope that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus So although those words eodem tempore were not as they ought to be referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople which was the yeare after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour yet the Anastasian narration is not onely untrue but wholly improbable that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas that hee would not restore him and that he ought not to bee restored Lastly at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus which following the death of Gontharis must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside and the Three Chapters were then in every mans mouth and every where debated The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare as by Victor who then lived is evident if not before published his Edict and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople Anastasius dreamed of somewhat and hearing of some writing or sending to Vigilius about that time he not knowing or which I rather thinke willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration for his great love to the Pope conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus and indeavors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See Iust as Alcibiades to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne 218. pound and 15. shillings and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace The true cause of sending to Vigilius as Victor sheweth was about the Three Chapters this of Anthimus which Anastasius harpes upon is in truth no other but the dogs taile and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men but now the true cause being come to the open view fils the world with that shamefull heresie of Vigilius which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dogs taile But enough of this passage wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes 18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vigilius and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to ConstaÌ„tinople He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus suggested dâ—vers accusations against him as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed and that hee was a murderer and had killed his Nephew Asterius whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scribâ— to take him wheresoever hee wee except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribe came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people
Edictum in that yeare wherein the Emperour at the instance of Pope Vigilius recalled the Edict which he had published concerning the three Chapters shewing himselfe therein obedient to the Pope in that yeare Narses the Captaine of the Romane armie trusting to the helpe of God by the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary put to flight and killed Totilas with his whole army So Binius upon whose glosse it will inevitably follow that Narses never overcame Totilas nor was sent Generall into Italie For it is certaine as before wee have by many reasons proved and by the testimony of the whole generall Councell that Iustinian did not at all recall that Edict he was both before and after the Councell yea after the death of Vigilius earnest in the defence thereof But let us admit that hee had indeed recalled that Edict when thinke you was this done No man can tell you better than Baronius who referres all that to the 26. yeare of Iustinian which is the 17. of the Gothicke warre for by his narration not onely the Emperour in that yeare revoked his Edict against the Three Chapters but he with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Mennas were all in that yeare reconciled to the Pope and a perfect peace concluded on all hands before the moneth of Iuly peace being concluded Mennas shortly after dyed If then as Binius glosseth Totilas was slaine eo anno in that yeare wherein Iustinian is supposed to have recalled his Edict then was he certainly vanquished and slaine not by Narses for he as Procopius sheweth came not as chiefe Generall into Italy untill the 18. yeare of the Gothicke warre which is the 27. of Iustinian Againe seeing it followeth in Anastasius Tunc adunatus then when Totilas was vanquished and killed did the Romane Clergie entreat to have Vigilius with the rest restored from exile It hence clearly followeth that Anastasius can meane no other exile than such as was inflicted upon him some three or foure yeares before for the cause of Anthimus and not that which followed the Councell for the Councell was not held in the seventeenth yeare of the Gothicke warre or six and twentieth of Iustinian but in the eighteenth of the one and seven and twentieth of the other as the Acts doe witnesse or if Baronius will needs have the exile following the Councell to be that from which Narses entreated that he might be delivered then it certainly followeth upon this account of Binius reckoning Totilas death to be in the six and twentieth of Iustinian that Narses and the Romane Clergy entreated the Emperour to restore Vigilius out of exile before he was cast into exile nay before the Councell was assembled or before Vigilius had given any cause why he should be banished which doth not well accord with the wisedome of Narses and the Romane Clergy to entreat nor was it possible for the Emperour to grant The same is further manifest by the other note of time which Binius sets down that Totilas was killed decimo anno regni sui in the 10 year of his reigne as the holy Monk Bennet had foretold unto him for Totilas was made King of the Goths in the 7. yeare of the Gothick war as Procopius testifieth which was in the 16. yeare of Iustinian and as it seemeth by his Acts in the beginning of the yeare But to helpe the Benedictine prophesie we will suppose him to be made in the last end of all and account the next yeare for his first yet even so must Totilas be vanquished and slaine before the beginning of the 18. yeare of the Gothicke war or 27. of Iustinian for with the end of the 17. yeare of the Gothicke warre is fully completed the tenth yeare of Totilas Wherefore if Benedict was not a lying Prophet and if Totilas was slaine decimo anno in his tenth yeare then all the former inconveniences doe upon this account also ensue that he was not vanquished by Narses that then when he was slain Narses the Romane Clergy did not entreat for the delivery of Vigilius out of banishment and the like seeing it is certaine that Narses came not into Italie and that Vigilius was not banished by that Baronian exile which followeth the Councell till the 18. yeare of the Gothicke war and 27. of Iustinian Or if any to excuse Binius will expound as Baronius doth the prophesie to be meant that Totilas was slaine anno decimo that is in the tenth yeare being complete that plainly contradicteth the prophesie for if the tenth yeare was wholly ended then was he not slaine in the tenth but onely in the eleventh yeare nor in the tenth otherwise than in the first second or sixt yeare nay slaine in the yeare before hee was borne that is slaine after all those yeares ended and fully completed 24. Now that which Binius interlaceth of the Emperours being so obsequent and obedient to the Pope or as Baronius expresseth it for being ruled by the Popes command these as being but flourishes of their vanity and arrogancy I will passe over The Acts both of Iustinian and of the fift Councell doe demonstrate that Iustinian was as he ought to be the commander of the Pope the Popes Empire was not as yet in the cradle But that which is added that Narses overcame the Gothes by the intercession of the blessed Virgin I am desirous a little more at large to examine the rather because Baronius little lesse than triumpheth therein Narses saith he indevored all these things Mariae virginis ope by the help of the virgin Mary And again having cited certain words out of Evagrius to prove it By this saith he you do understand cujus niti praesidio duces debeant on whose help Generals Captains must rely that they may perform every difficultest enterprise truely even on the helpe of Mary the Mother of God who being invocated by our prayers may rise against the enemy for of her the Church singeth Terribilis ut Castrorum acies thou art terrible as an army well ordered Thus the Cardinall wresting and abusing the Scripture to draw mens confidence from the Lord of Hosts to the blessed Virgin making her contrary to her sexe to be another Mars and a chiefe warrier in all the greatest battels of the Christians But for the truth of the matter what Narses did Procopius doth declare who thus writeth of him When Totilas was overcome Narses being exceeding joyfull id omne Deo acceptū ut erat in vero indesinenter referre did continually attribute all that victorie to God to whom in truth it was to be ascribed Evagrius the Cardinals own witnesse testifieth the same even in that place which the Cardinall alledgeth his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they who were with Narses report that dum precibus divinum numen placeret while he appeased or pleased God by his prayer other offices of piety and gave due honour
unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and saith that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am
judgement of others 29. The other cause was a most impious heresie defended by Eutychius whom they so much honour which alone being duely considered overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius Eutychius when hee had long continued in the defence of the truth did afterwards fall both by words and writing to maintaine the Heresie of Origen and the Origenists denying Christs body after the resurrection to have beene palpable that is in effect to bee no true humane body and the very like hee taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection This the Surian Eustathius quite over-passeth in silence for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius so abundāt in miracles prophesies and visions should be thought guilty of so foule and condemned an heresie But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly testifie it that no doubt can remaine thereof hee tels us how himselfe disputed against Eutychius defending this heresie how hee urged those words of our Saviour palpate videte how Eutychius answered thereunto that Christs body was then indeed palpable to confirme the mindes of his Disciples but after they were once confirmed all that was before palpable in Christs bodie in subtilitatem est redactū was turned into an aërial and unpalpable subtilty How he further strived to prove this by those words of the Apostle Flesh blood cannot inherit the kingdome of heavē how then said hee may this be beleeved veraciter resurgere carnem that true bodies did or shall rise againe How he further insisted on those words That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving therby that which riseth againe either not to be a body or not a palpable that is no true humane body Gregory also tels us that Eutychius writ a booke in defence of this heresie which both himselfe read and Tiberius the Emperour after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it caused it publikely to bee burned as hereticall adding that Eutychius continued in this heresie almost till the very houre of his death Now although Gregory tels not when or at what time Eutychius fel into this heresie yet it may wel be supposed that as Iustinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the truth so when once hee gave himselfe to such dotages of the Origenists which as it seemes he did about the latter end of Iustinians Empire some three yeares before his death then the Emperour who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters as Victor sheweth the condemning of which is as before we declared the condemning of all the heresies of Origen and whatsoever contradicts the verity of Christs deity or humanity as it is most likely exiled him for this heretical opinion And this is much more probable seeing Iustinian had purposely set forth long before this a most religious and orthodoxall Edict or Decree particularly against Origen and the Origenists as Liberatus sheweth and as the Edict it selfe which is extant doth manifest condemning them in particular for denying the verity of Christs and other humane bodies after the resurrection Seeing then Nicephorus the Patriarch saith that Eutychius was banished for not consenting to the Emperours Edict and Eutychius by his defending of that heresie of the Origenists directly oppugned that his Edict most like it is that besides his Mathematicall Art whereby hee was liable both to death and banishment by the Emperours lawes this Edict of Iustinian against Origen should bee that which Nicephorus the Patriarch meant and for which Eutychius was and that most justly exiled So not Iustinian but Eutychius was the heretike nor was it any hereticall Edict of Iustinian as the Surian Eustathius and after him Baronius affirmeth to which Eutychius a Catholike opposed himselfe but an orthodoxall and Catholike Edict of Iustinian which Eutychius then an heretike and Origenist oppugned for not consenting whereunto hee was banished Thus not onely the Emperour is clearly acquitted of that phantasticall heresie whereof the Surian Eustathius and Baronius doe accuse him but Eutychius himselfe whom they honour for a Saint a Prophet and a Demi-god is found guilty of that selfe-same crime and of that very heresie of denying the truth of Christs body which they unjustly and slanderously impute to Iustinian And this I thinke is abundant to satisfie the Cardinals second witnesse namely that fabulous and legendary Surian Eustathius 30. All the Cardinals hope and the whole waight of his accusation relyes now on Evagrius He I confesse saith well neere as much as Baronius against Iustinian accusing him of avarice injustice and heresie But the credit of Evagrius is not such as to countenance such calumnies Evagrius in some matters wherein hee followeth Authors of better note is not be contemned but in very many hee is too credulous fabulous and utterly to bee rejected What credit can you give unto this Narration of the Monke Barsanuphius whom he reports to have lived in his Cell wherein he had mewed up himselfe and for the space of fifty yeares and more neither to have beene seene by any neque quidquam alimenti cepisse nor to have received any nourishment or food What a worthy S. doth he describe Simeon Môros that is S. Foole to have been How doth he commend Synesius whom they perswaded to bee baptized and undertake the function of a Priest though hee did not consent to the doctrine of the resurrection neque ita censere vellet neither would beleeve that it was possible The like might bee noted touching the blood of Euphemia and divers other Narrations Evagrius is full of such like fables but omitting the rest I will propose onely two which will demonstrate him to have beene either extremely negligent in the search or very malicious in perverting the truth 31. The former concernes Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople and his successor Maximianus Evagrius saith that Maximianus tooke the Bishopricke after the death of Nestorius An untruth so palpable that none can thinke Evagrius to have bin ignorant of those manifold and undoubted records which testifie the contrary For it appeares by the writings of Nestorius set downe also in Evagrius himselfe that after his deposition hee stayed at Ephesus and about Antioch for the space of foure yeares and then was exiled to Oasis Now Maximianus was placed in the See of Constantinople that very same yeare wherein the Ephesine Councell was held and Nestorius deposed some three or foure months after the same deposition as Socrates and Liberatus declare The next year after the Councel the union was made between Iohn Cyrill Iohn the rest with him professing expresly in their letters of union that they acknowledge receive Maximianus for Bishop of Constātinople A demonstration that Maximianus was Bishop of Constantinople three whole yeares at least before the death of Nestorius Nay which argueth Evagrius to have doated in historicall relations Maximianus was dead