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 l Nam unio facta an 432. Cyril autem obijt an 444. Barin illo ann 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 if 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 m Habentur tum in Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. tum in Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 561. 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 exercise it selfe night and day in the doctrine of God that you might be profitable unto many Thus farre are the words of Ibas written unto Maris an hereticke n Ad Marin Persam haereticum Con 5. Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. of Persia and writ not as a private letter but as an Encyclicall Epistle to bee shewed and notified to all that love peace that is according to their hereticall dialect to all that loved Nestorianisme in Persia and in the places adjoyning to be a comfort and encouragement to them to persist in their heresie to which even Cyrill himselfe and all Catholikes had upon better advice at the time of the union with Iohn consented 20. In which words any who hath though but halfe an eye of a Catholike cannot chuse but clearely discerne the very poyson and malice of all the heresies and practises of the Nestorians to be condensate and compact together First here is expressed their maine heresie that Christ is not God as the house is not the man who dwelleth in the house Secondly is set downe a notorious slander against Cyrill and the Catholikes that they at the union made with Iohn did anathematize all who held one naturall subsistence or one person to be in Christ that is in effect did accurse all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Faith Thirdly it is a notable untruth that Cyril made the union with Iohn upon this condition that hee should anathematize all who hold Christ to be one person the condition was quite contrarie to wit that Iohn and they on his part should anathematize all who denied Christ to be one or who affirmed him to be two persons Fourthly it is a slander that Cyrill writ an Epistle to that effect as if he assented to that condition mentioned by Ibas The Epistle is testified by Cyrill himselfe not to bee his but a counterfaite writing forged by the Nestorians Fiftly it is a Calumnie that Cyrill and the rest who condemned Nestorius and Theodorus were seditious persons it is as much as to say that the holy Ephesine Councell was a conspiracie and seditious conventicle Sixtly it is an unexcusable slander and untruth that Cyrill and they who held with him that is the Catholikes that they were confounded and repented of their former doctrines or writ contrarie unto them These besides divers the like are the flowers wherewith the latter part of that Epistle is deckt even that part which Pope Vigilius and Baronius doe so magnifie the one defining the other defending that by it Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike and his Epistle received as Catholike This part above all the rest is so stuffed with heresies and slanders that I doe constantly affirme that none of all their Romane Alcumists can extract or distill one dramme of Catholike doctrine or any goodnesse out of it Only Pope Vigilius being as I have often said blinded with Nestorianisme and Cardinall Baronius being infatuated with the admiration of their Pontificall
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 m Conc. Basil sinitum est an 1442. id est an 74. ante concil Later that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill n Concil Basil in Decreto quinq conclus pa. 96. a. 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 o Cui quilibet etiamsi papalis status existat obedire tenetur Conc. Constant sess 4. et Bas sess 2. himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable p Debitè puniatur Conc. Const ses 5. Basil ses 3. 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 q Sess 33. 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 after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that r Per Concilia generalia quae summi Pontifices Consistorialiter declaraverunt esse legitima etiam pro eo tempore quo ejusmodi declarationes ediderunt Conc. Basil pa. 144. a. Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say s Epist Conc. Basil pa. 100. b. thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith t Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas Ses 16. of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion v Jn sua adhaesione sess 16. his maximā adhaesionem x Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b. to the Council by which Adhesion as they teach y Sess 29. pa. 96. b. Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but z Jurabant ejus decreta defendere c. Sess 16. corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall a Haec veritas toties et tam solenniter per universam ecclesiam declarata est Epist Conc. Bas pa. 144. a. and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of b Jn decreto quinque conclus pa. 96. Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting c Hildebrandum sic gloriari solitum testatur Avent lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455. Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop d Poss Biblic in Nic. Cusano a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 e Obijt ann 1464. Poss Conc. autem finitum
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 i Accesserunt dignae causae ac rationes Bar. an 553. nu 233. 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 successioÌ„s 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 k In fine vitae reconciliatio petentibus et poenitentibus non est neganda dum tamen si haeretici sint recipiantur cum scriptura juramento Gloss in dist 1. de poenit ca. Multiplex 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 l Satis est ut Ecclesiae judicio coâ—flet aliquem decessisse impoenitentem si non conflet de illius poenitentiâ qui haereticus post mortemcoÌ„victus est Fran. Torrens lib. de 6 7 8. Synod pa. 13. ejusdem sententiae ait Pigh fuisse 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 wheÌ„soever occasioÌ„ 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 meÌ„bers of the present Romane church may be excused that these also as the former though dying in their error may dye in the peace coÌ„munion 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 m Aug. lib. 2. de bapt ca. 4. 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 n Ibid. 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 o Aug. lib. eod c. 1. words per universae Ecclesiae statuta firmatum est which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church This fift Councell consonant to all precedent and confirmed by all subsequent generall Councels unto Leo the tenth decreeing this cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to bee hereticall
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 a Annot. in 5. Concil §. Constitutum nequissimi scelestissimi alicujus 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 b an 553. nu 43 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 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 c Bar. an 444. nu 12. 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 d an 553. n. 44. it is sigmentum 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 e an 444. nu 16 an 553. n. 44. 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 f Loco citato 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 g Epist 1. Clem. extat to 1. Conc. pa. 25. seq 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 sinem 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 h Hic Iacobus 30. annis rexit Ecclesiam usque ad septimum Neronis annum Hier. in Catal. scrip in Iacâ—bo Petrus ad ultâ—mum annum Neronis id est 14. Ecclesiam rexit idem in Petro. Eusebius i Euseb an 7. Neronis ait Ià cobum occâ—sum an Christ 63. Petrus an 14. Neronis idem an 70. Iosephus k Ioseph IacobuÌ„ lapidatuÌ„ ait an post Christum natum 63. Antiqu lib. 20. c. 8. and others is evident and as Baronius l Anno 7. Neronis Iacobi necem accidisse omnes consentiunt Bar. an 63. nu 2. Petrum autem anno 13. Neronis occisum probat Bar. an 69. nu 2. and after him Binius m Annot. in Epist 1. Clem. not onely professe but clearly and rightly prove and because this is a decretall n Inter Decretales epistolas Pontificum numerat eam Tuâ—rian lib. 2 ca. 13. hoc probat p. 209 Epistle an Apostolicall o Apostolicorum Pontificum Tur. lib. 2. in praef pa. 150. et suis authoribus id est Apostolicis dignissimas ibid. pa. 152. writing sent from Clement being Pope which was not till the tenth p Clementem ingressum in Papatum an Chr. 93. is est Domitiani an 10. probat Baron an 93. nu 2. yeare of Domitian and that is thirty yeares after the q Nam is obijâ— ut probatum est an Chr. 63. 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
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 Vigin 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 g Nam Vigilius venit Constantinopolim anno 12 belli Gothici Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. Narses autem Totilam vicit et Romam recapit an 18. ejusdem belli Proc. lib 3. pa. 408. et seq 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 h Nam ex eo liquet Vigilium à primo ejus adventu Constantinopolim illic mansisse ad finē Concilij dicitur enim illic à Iustiniano quod Vigilius semper ejusdem voluntatis fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a Semper viz. à primo ejus advētu et consensu ad tempus 5. Concilij 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 i Nam Victor ait Pelagium redijsse ab exilio anno 18. post Coss Basilij Vict. Tun. in Chron. et Concilium habitum ait ille an 13. post ejusdem Consulatum 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 sorty 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 upon him then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Are these which are all
confirmed by succeeding generall Councils by Popes and other Bishops in the following ages of the Church By the sixt Councill which professeth t Act. 15. pa. 80. a. of it selfe that in omnibus consonuit it in all points agreeth with the fifth By the second Nicene which they account for the seaventh which reckneth v Act. 6. pa. 357. a this fift for one of the golden Councils which are glorious by the words of the holy Spirit and which all being inlightned by the same spirit decreed those things which are profitable professing that themselves did condemne all whom those Councils and among them whom this fift did condemne By other following Councils in every one of which the 2 Nicene and by consequent this fift Councill is approved as by the acts is cleare and Baronius confesseth x An. 553. nu 229. that this fift in alijs Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est atque probata was acknowledged and approved by the other generall Councils which were held after it 27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bishops By Pelagius the second who writ an whole Epistle y Epist 7. Pelag. 2. to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters telling z Pa. 687. them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto By Gregory who professing a Lib. 1. Epist 24. to embrace reverence the 4 first Councils as the 4 Euangelists addeth of this fift Quintū quoque cōcilium pariter veneror I do in like manner reverence the fift Councill wherin the impious Epistle of Ibas is rejected the writings of Theodoret with Theodorus his writings And then of them all he saith Cunctas personas whatsoever persons the foresaid five venerable Councils doe condemne those also doe I condemne whom they reverence I embrace because seeing they are decreed by an universall consent whosoever presumeth to loose whom they bind or bind 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 b In Cont. 6. Act. 4. pa. 16. a. by Leo c Epist ad Constan Imp. the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All d Bar. an 869. nu 58 59. 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 e In manuscripto codice ex quo eum citat Bar. loco citate 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 f Ses 39. pa. 1644. where the Councill having first decreed g Ses 4. pa. 1560. 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 h An. 553. nu 229. 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 i An. 869. nu 58. 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 k Cum quo totus orbis commercio formatarum concordat Opt. lib. 2. p. 40. Quaerebam utrum epistolas communicatorias quas Formatas dicimus possent quo vellent dare Aug. Epist 163. Sub probatione Epistolij sine Pacificis quae dicuntur Ecclesiastica Conc. Chalc. can 11. 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 l Celebratum est an 1414. 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
sec Act. 4. be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did c Viva quidem ipsis cur nemo contradixerat factum ideo c. Ibid. any while they lived reprove any of their sayings yet are there divers other inducements to perswade that Theodorus was not in his life time by any publike judgement of the Church either declared or condemned for an heretike for besides that neither Cyrill nor Proclus nor the fift generall Councell doe mention any such matter the words of Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary The Ephesine Synod saith d Cyril epist ad Procl in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550 551. he forbare in particular and by name to anathematize Theorus which they did dispensativè by a certaine dispensation indulgence or connivence because divers held him in great estimatioÌ„ or account what needed either any such dispensation or forbearance had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie Againe the Church of Mopsvestia where hee was Bishop for divers yeares after his death retained his name in e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. seq in act Synod Mopsv Diplicis that is in their Ecclesiasticall tables making a thankfull commemoration of him as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie which had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike they would not have done Lastly what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous to condemne him being dead had he in his life time beene before condemned Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead 3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon that Theodorus was not before but after his death condemned the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis whether a dead man may Noviter be coÌ„demned Now that this is no personall but meerly a dogmaticall cause and controversie of faith is so evident that it might be a wonder that Baronius or any other should so much as doubt thereof unlesse the Apostle had foretold that because men f 2 Thess 2.10 11. doe not receive the love of the truth therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions that they may beleeve lyes Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius held this for no other but a doctrine of faith for he sets it downe as a g Perspeximus si quid de his praedecessores nostri decreverint Vig. Const loc citat nu 176. Hujus causa formam veneranda praedecessorum nostrorum constituta nobis apertissime tradiderunt Ibid. Idem regulâ—ria Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta Jbid. nu 179. Definition or Constitution of his predecessors decreed by the Apostolike See particularly by Pope Leo and Gelasius and so decreed by them as warranted and taught by the Scriptures for out of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius h Ibid. nu 177. 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 i Licet cognosceremus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditionem Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. 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 cleare 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 faith their vaine and vaunting k Camp Rut. 3. 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 l Epist ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 548. b. 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 m Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc ca. 35. 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 n Pelag. 2. Epist 7.
§ In his autem 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 o Cyr. lib. cont Theod. cit à Conc. 5. Collat. 8. pa. 585. a. 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 p Citatur in Conc. 5. Coll 5 pa. 548 a. 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 q Inst Edict § Invenimus Iustinian Benignus r Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. Bishop of Heraclea and after them both the fift Councell ſ Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. testifieth In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia by Rambulas t Bar. an 435. nu 4 Bishop of Edessa Acatius and others wherein both themselves condemned Theodorus though dead and in their letters to Proclus exhort u Petimus quatenus fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega Dogmata ejus Jn Libell Presbyt Armē ad Procl in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 542. b. 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 x Act. 12.13 18. 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 y Act. 7. in Epistola 2. Synod Can. 1. Nicene and in the other under z Honorius post mortem ab Orientis Episcopi◠anathemate est affectus Conc. 8 Act. 7. pa. 891. b. Hadrian which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels In the Councell of Chalcedon Domnus a Edict Justin § Quod autem Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. 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 b Pelag. 2. Epist § In his expresly testifieth The like to have beene done against Macedonius by the fift Councell at Constantinople Iustinian c Sancta Dei Ecclesia post mortem Macedonium anathem atizavit Iust Edict § Quod 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 d Jbidem vivi alij autem post mortem anathematizati 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 age even from the Apostles time delivered unto them by warrant of which Apostolical tradition Valentinus Martian Basilides à nulla Synodo e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. anathematizati being by no Synod in their life time condemned were after their death accursed by the Church of God 9. And yet if none of all these particulars could bee produced seeing the doctrine of the faith decreed in this fift Councell one part whereof is this of condemning the dead is consonant to all the former and confirmed by all succeeding Councels as we did before demonstrate nor Councels only but approved by all Popes and Bishops from Gregory the first to Leo the tenth yea by all Catholikes whatsoever who all by approving this fift Councell consent in this truth Seeing all these that is the whole Catholike Church for 1500 yeares with one consenting voyce sound out like a multitude of mighty waters this Catholike truth which Vigilius oppugneth that one may after his death be noviter condemned and found it as a doctrine of the Catholike faith and even thereby found out Pope Vigilius to have held yea to have defined heresie and all who defend Vigilius to bee hereticall I do nothing doubt but if ever you did or can you doe now most distinctly heare the voyce of the Church even of that Church of which their Romane Rabsecha vaunteth that we are marvellously affrighted at the very name thereof 10. May I now intreate that as you have heard the Church so you would be pleased to heare what the Cardinall doth say of this matter After this part of Vigilius decree he sets a memorable glosse upon the Popes text Hic adverte Note here saith the Cardinall that f Bar. an 553. nu 185. this assertion of Vigilius that dead men ought not to be condemned is not so generally received as it is set downe by him A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinals mouth Papa hic non tenetur But I pray you by whom is it not received The Cardinall answers not by the holy Church the holy Church g Ejusmodi homine jure damnare post mortem sancta consucvit Ecclesia Bar. ibid. doth practise the contrary unto it What the holy Church not receive the dogmaticall and Apostolicall assertion of the holy Pope not that assertion which his Holinesse decreeth to be taught by Scripture to be a Constitution a rule a definition of the holy Apostolike See No truly The holy Church for all that receives not this assertion saith the Cardinall And the Cardinall was to blame to use such a palpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church receiveth it not hee might and he should have said The holy Church rejecteth condemneth and accurseth this Cathedrall assertion of the Pope and all that defend it nor the Church onely of that one age wherein Vigilius lived but the Catholike Church
the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former x Gelas Epist 11. entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigilius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade saith he y Gelas Epist 4. that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he nam in hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place z Epist Synodalis Gelas ij Synod Rom. 2. p. 268. b. alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead a Nos etiam mortuis veniam praestare deposcunt ibid. Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasius saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but laboureth also to fallen that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes as were Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short
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 d Acta illa Synodi Mopsvest extant in Conc. 5. Collat. 5. pa. 553. seq 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 e Cyrill obijt an 444. Conc. Chalced. habitum an 451. Bar. et Bin. yeares before the Councell of Chalcedon That by it Theodorus was also condemned their approving f Conc. Chalc. Act. 5. in definit Synodi the Councell of Ephesus and the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill in both which and in the later by name g Vt liquet ex Cyrilli Epistolis ad Iohannem Aâ—tiocheÌ„ et ad Acatium quae citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. et 550. Theodorus is condemned doth manifest and besides this the Emperour Iustinian expresly saith h Iustin Edict §. Tali 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 i Vt teslantur Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. et 582. a. and commemorating him in the Collect among catholikes the truth of this matter being examined and found that same Sergius by the command of Iustinus the Emperour was deposed from his Bishopricke excluded out of the Church and so continued even to his dying day and this was done but six yeares before the Empire of Iustinian as by the date k Iustinus scripsit id edictum Rustico Coss Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. b. fuit is Coss an 520. ut teslatur Marcell in Chron. et agnoscit Bar. in illo an nu 1 Justinianus vero coepit imperare an 527. ut Marcell et Baron asserunt of Iustinus his letters doth appeare 19. Now if to all these particular sentences you adde that which the fift Councell l Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 557. a. witnesseth that Theodorus post mortem à catholica ecclesia ejectus est hath beene after his death condemned and cast out and that even by the whole Catholike Church you will easily confesse that from the time almost of his death unto the raigne of Iustinian there hath beene a continuall and never interrupted condemnation of him in the Church But in Iustinians time and perhaps before though lesse eagerly the Nestorians began afresh to renew the memory and doctrine of Theodorus setting now a fairer glosse and varnish on their cause then ever they had before for they very gladly apprehending and applauding those to say the least inconsiderate speeches of the Popes Legates Maximus in the Councel of Chalcedon that by his dictation or Epistle Ibas was declared to be a catholike hereupon they now boasted that the holy Councell by approving that Epistle of Ibas had approved both the person and doctrine of Theodorus seeing they both are highly extolled and defended in that Epistle By this meanes was this cause brought ab inferis the second time upon the stage and that also cloaked under the name and credit of the Councell of Chalcedon And at this second boute all the defenders of the Three Chapters and among them Pope Vigilius as Generall to them all undertooke the defence of Theodorus and as if there had never beene any sentence of condemnation either in generall or in particular denounced against him even in his definitive and Apostolicall constitution declareth That Theodorus was not condemned either by former Councels or Fathers and this he declareth after his solicitous circumspective and most diligent examination of their writings 20. What thinke you was become of the Popes eyes at this time that he could see none of all those condemnations of Theodorus before mentioned Not the general anathema of the Councels at Ephesus and Chalcedon in which Theodorus was involved not the expresse and particular anathema denounced against him by Rambulas and Acatius with the Councell of Armenia not the condemnation of him and his writings by Saint Proclus by S. Cyrill by the Church of Mopsvestia by the Edict of the religious Emperours by the whole Catholike Church None of all these things were done in a corner they were all matters of publike notice and record obvious to any that did not shut their eyes against the sun-shine of the truth But as I said before and must often say Nestorianisme like Naash the Ammonite had put out the Popes right eye he could see nothing with that eye all that he saw in this cause was but a very oblique and sinister aspect as doth now I hope fully appeare but will bee yet much more manifest by that which in the Constitution of Vigilius wee are next to consider 21. For as if it were a small matter not to see Theodorus condemned by the former Councels and Fathers though in a man professing so exact and accurate inspection in any cause such grosse oversights are not veniall the Pope ventures one step further for the credit of this condemned heretike Hee could not finde that Theodorus was condemned by the former witnesses Tush that is nothing he findes him acquitted by them all hee findes by Cyrill by Proclus by the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon yea by Iustinians owne law that Theodorus ought not to be condemned This was indeed a point worthy the Popes owne finding But withall I must tell you that you also shall finde one other thing that Pope Vigilius having once passed the bounds of truth for defence of Theodorus cares not now if he wade up to the eares and drowne himselfe in untruths 22. Let us then examine the allegations which for proofe of this the Pope hath found and begin we as the Pope doth with Cyrill In his m Eam citat Vigi in Const nu 173. 174. apud Bar. an 553. Epist
orthodoxum et in cōmunione ipsius ad exitum permansisse Jbid. nu 194. 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 y Bar. an 553. nu 193. 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 z Iudicium illud Photij et Eustathij extat cum Actis in eo in Conc. Chal. Act. 9. et 10. do testifie that is according to Baronius account an 448. The union b Vt supra probatum est Ca. 11. 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 a Bar. illo an nu 57 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 Nor 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 c Vig. Const nu 192 193 194. 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 d Nu. 193. 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 seeemed Now Ibas professeth of himselfe that hee then called e Donec seipsum interpretatus fuisset quia Orientale Concilium eum vocabat haereticum et ut haereticum condemnavit haereticum eum et ego putavi verba Ibae in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. a. Cyrill an hereticke that hee followed Iohn f Quando Orientale Concilium eum quasi haereticum anathematizavit sequutus sum primatem meum verba Ibae ibid. pa. 112. b. and the Conventicle which held with him and so that with them hee counted and in plain terms called Cyrill h Ita Cyrillum vocatum à Conciliabulo Iohannis supra oftendi ca 11. 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
holding this one fundamentall position they are pertinacious in all their errours and that in the highest degree of pertinacy which the wit of man can devise yea and pertinacious before all conviction and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them For by setting this downe they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth though it should be manifested unto them that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves that they never will be convicted nor ever have the truth manifested unto them The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them that the doctrines which they maintaine are heresies were first to perswade the Pope who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall to make a contrary decree that they are hereticall Now although this may be morally judged to be a matter of impossibilitie yet if his Holinesse could be induced hereunto and would so farre stoope to Gods truth as to make such a decree even this also could not perswade them so long as they hold that foundation They would say either the Pope were not the true Pope or that he defined it not as Pope and ex Cathedra or that by consenting to such an hereticall decree hee ceased ipso facto to be Pope or the like some one or other evasion they would have still but grant the Popes sentence to be fallible or hereticall whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith yea as the foundation of their faith they would not Such and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed and that essentially to that one Position that so long as one holds it and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him or convert him to the truth 21. You doe now clearely see how feeble and inconsequent that Collection is which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith therein explaned Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes both ancient and moderne Quit him for this cause and quit them all condemne them and then this preteÌ„ce can no way excuse Vigilius froÌ„ heresie They all with him professe with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures of Fathers of generall Councels but because their profession is not onely lying and contradictorie to it selfe but alwayes such as that they retaine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace as Vigilius had not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures Fathers and Councels cannot make any of them nor Vigilius among them to be esteemed orthodoxall or Catholike but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine which they with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures or holy generall Councels as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters doth truly demonstrate them all and Vigilius among them to be heretikes And this may suffice for answer to the second exception or evasion of Baronius CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three or foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters It appeareth saith hee a An. 554. nu 7. that Vigilius to the end he might take away the schisme and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie Againe b An. 553. nu 235. when Vigilius saw that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West unlesse he consented to the fift Synod eam probavit he approved it Again c Ibid. nu 236. Pelagius thought it sit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again d An. 556. nu 1. Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine e Lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 5. § Coacta Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith f Not in Conc. 5. § Praestitit 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 g Bar. an 546. nu 8. yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth h An. 555. nu 1. in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth i In Chron. an 17. post Coss Basil 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 k Ipso exordio asserâ—ae ab Imperatore sententiae Bar. an 546 nu 38. et 39. 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
deriding his sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia being dead in this manner p Vigilius in sua sententia seu Epistola Rustico et Sebastiano in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. b. the Pope should have condemned not onely the person and writings of Theodorus sed territorium ipsum ubi positus est but even the very ground also where hee was buried adding that if any could finde but the bones of Theodorus though now accursed by the Pope gratanter acciperent they would very lovingly embrace them and keepe them for holy relickes 16. And what speake I of a few particular men In the 23. yeare of Iustinian that is in the second yeare after the supposed Decree the Illyrian y Vict. Tun. an 8. post Cons Bas sed corrupte legitur 9. Bishops held a Synod by which was both writ a booke in defence of those Chapters and sent unto the Emperor and Benenatus Bishop of Iustineanea was condemned by the same Synod because hee spake against those Chapters The next yeare z Vict. Tun. an 9 post Cons Basil after that did the Africane Bishops hold a Synod wherein they did nominatim and expresly condemne Pope Vigilius excommunicate him and shut him out of their communion because he was one of those who condemned the Three Chapters as Victor Bishop of Tunea who as it seemes was present in that Synod doth testifie Now seeing the Cardinall professeth a Bar. an 548. nu 6. that these divisions and contentions were among Catholikes pugnantibus inter se orthodoxis orthodoxall Bishops and Catholikes they were who at this time fought one against another yea and by his position Schismaticall they were not because b Qui postea post ultimum judicium Papae ab his dissensere Schismatici habiti sunt Cum tamen interea â—nte novissimum Apostolicae sedis assensum non esset piaculum pro tribus pugnare capitulis Bar. an 546. nu 38. the Pope had not yet given his last sentence If one listed to digresse here were a fit occasion to make a little sport with his Cardinalship upon whose assertion it clearely ensueth that a Synod even an Africane Synod which with them is more yea the whole Church of Africke may and de facto hath so done judge censure excommunicate and exclude from their communion the Pope and yet for all this themselves at the same time may be and have de facto beene very good Catholikes and neither heretickes nor schismatickes But of that point I have before intreated This onely I doe now observe that by the view and consideration of all sorts and degrees of men in the Church none at all observed that decree of Silence in this cause not the Pope not the Emperor not the Orthodoxall professors such as before condemned the Chapters not the hereticall defenders of them All these and in one of these rankes were comprehended all Christians at that time by their speeches by their writings by their actions by their Synodall decrees and judgements doe evidently witnesse that there was no such decree of Silence ever made which without all question amongst some one order and degree or other would have been observed and taken effect 17. To these I will adde one other reason taken from the weaknesse and unsoundnesse of that ground whereon the Cardinall hath framed this whole narration He tells c De hoc Vigilij decreto pro Silentio et inita cuÌ„ Theodoro Menna transactione testeâ— sunt acta publica Bar. an 547. nu 42. Ista Acta vocat Constitutum Vigilij de Anathemate an 551. nu 12. us that this Decree of Silence the Synod wherein it was made and divers of the consequents for some are of the Cardinalls owne invention are testified by certaine publike acts or Records to wit those which contained the sentence and Pontificall Constitution d Extat tum apud Bar. an 551 nu 6. et seq tum apud Bin. post Epist 16. Vigilij of Pope Vigilius against Mennas Theodorus and the rest In those acts indeed a good part of this Baronian fable is related how Mennas Dacius and many other both Greeke and Latine Bishops were present in this Synod at the making of this Decree how Theodorus e Ibid. nu 3. pene hoc quinquennio and other Eastern Bishops had dealt for the space of five yeares against that Decree how the Pope f Ib. nu 11. et 12 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 g Data 19. Kal. Septemb. Imperante Domino Justiniano an 25. post Cons Basilij anno decimo Bar. an 551 nu 12. 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 h Ibid. to wit the tenth after the Coss of Basilius which answereth to the 25 of Iustinian and the Pope accounts there almost five i Pene hoc quinquennio elapso monstravimus Ibid. nu 7. yeares since the Decree of Silence was made which being placed by Baronius k Bar. an 547. qui est Iustiniaeni 21. nu 41. et 43. 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 excoÌ„municate Mennas yea write and send this Excommunication unto him saying unto him in this l Apud Bar. an 551. nu 12. manner Teque Mennam tamdiu 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 m Bar. an 552. nu 20. Jpse Mennas libellum supplicem Vigilio obtulit 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
primo et secundo exilio egi Mauritaniae tertio Alexandrinae pro trium Capitulorum desensione Vict. in Chron. an 14. corruptâ— legitur 15. post CoÌ„sul Basilij after imprisonment and whipping was banished into three severall places for defending the Three Chapters and after that was brought to Constantinople n Isiod lib. de viris illust ca. 25. ex Aegypto rursuâ— Constantinopolin evocatus c. 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 16º 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 d Corrupte legitur 17. in Chron. Vict. 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 p Bar. an 553. nu 2â—2 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 q Per biennium fuere contentiones de Anthimâ— sed Vigil nullatenus voluit consentire c. Anast in vit Vig. 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 r Conc. illud sub Menna ubi Anthimus est depositus habitum est an 536. Bar. illo an nu 72. Vig. venit Constantinopolin an 547 Bar. illo a. nu 26 yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople and the time of this Anastasian banishment was two yeares after Å¿ Per biennium c. Anast loc cit Vigilius came to Constantinople and while Theodora t Non secerunt me ut video venire adse Iustinian et Theodora sed Dioclesianus et Eleutheria Anast Ibid. 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 u Bar. an 553. nu 221. et seq of the fift Synod that is about five x Nam Theodora obijt an 548. Bar. eo an nu 24 CoÌ„c 5. hâ—bituÌ„ an 553. Bar. eo an 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 y Pontifex Vigilius non aliam ob causam in exilium actus est nisi quod 5. Synodum minimè probare voluissâ—t Bar. an 554. nu 4. 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 nor 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 z Quo circa quia noluit Anthimum restituere ab irata Imperatrice in exilium missus fuit Vigilius miserè vexatus usque ad mortem Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 10 § Contigit and others but omitting them let us heare that worthy author to whom Binius a De Vigilio et tota ejus causa vid. Sanderum Bin. not in vit Vigil pa. 478. b. referres us concerning this matter Nicholas Sanders He o 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 c Sig. an 546. who placeth his banishmeÌ„t divers years before the fift Councel Albo d Alb. Flor. in vita Vig. Floriacensis who hath the same words with Anastasius b Sand. lib. 7. de visib Monarch ad an 537. Nauclerus d Naucl. an 540 Rhegino e Rheg an 559. Hermanus
f Herm. an 547. Cōtractus Gotofridus g Gotof. an 527. Viterbiensis Otho Frisingensis h Otho an 528. Palmerius i Palm in Chr. an 557. their owne Genebrard k Geneb an 537. Stapleton l Stapl. Counterbl ca. 15. 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 I can 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 m Hoc plane tempore accidisse noscuntur quae Anastasius jungit imo confundit cum prioribus quae acciderunt vivente adhuc Theodora Bar. an 552. nu 8. 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 n Caetera quae sequuntur in Anastasio post obitum Theodorae contingerunt Bar. an 547. nu 27. Jnter illa caetera est Vigilij exilium 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 Anastasio 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 o Conc. 5. Coll. 1 2 3 et 8. that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople yea that untill then he lived and dwelt p Contigit Vigilium in hac regia urbe degentem omnibus interesse c. Coll. ◠pa. 584. a. 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 q Vid Bar. an 774. nu 10.11 and it is defended by Gretzer in his Apology r Respondissemus hanc argumentandi rationem ab authoritate negativè in eis praesertim quae ad historiam spectant non esse prorsus infirmam et elum bem Gretz Apol pro Bar. ca. 1 § Peritius for Baronius let us take but one example and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius There is in Anastasius ſ Anast in vit Vigil 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 t Populus caepit jactare post cum lapides fustes et cacabos et dicere Fames tua tecum male invenias ubi vadis c. 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 * Aim lib. 2. de gest Franc. ca. 32 by the Historia Miscella u Hist misc lib. 16. going under the name of Paulus Diaconus though it be not his by Marianus x Mar. an 553. Scotus by Hermanus y Her an 547. Contractus by Sigebert z Sig. an 543. by Luitprandus a Luitp in vita Vigil de vitis Pontificum as the booke is called by Albo b Alb. in vita Vig. Floriacensis by Platina c Plat. in vita Vig. by Conrade d Conr. Ab. Vrsper an 527. by Nauclerus e Nauc an 540. by Martinus f Mart. in vita Vig. Polonus by Blondus g Blond Dec. 1. lib. 6. by Krantzius h Krant Met. lib. 2. by Sigonius i Sigeb lib. 19. de Occ. Imp. an 545. others Heare now the Cardinals censure of this narration of Anastasius and the rest who followed him Aperti mendacij k Bar. an 546. nu 54. 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
condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also u Bar. an 553. nu 222. moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his 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 x Conc. 5. Coll. 1. 7. 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 y Vict. in Chron. an 16. corruptè legitur 17. post Coss Basilij 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
exagitates the Emperour with his virulent tongue and stile worse than any of all the infernall Ghosts neither alive nor dead will the Cardinall cease to torment him 11. Verily I know not where either to begin or make an end in this matter nor how it is possible for any man with sufficient gravity and severity to castigate the Cardinals insolent inhumane unchristian demenour against the most renowned and religious Emperour Did any of those worthy professours of the civill lawes but halfe so much abound with leasure as they doe with excellency of wit and learning I doubt not but they would as I doe heartily wish undertake so honourable a service not onely to Iustinian but unto GOD and his Church as in a just volume to vindicate the Emperours honour from these so many so malicious so base immodest calūnies of this Rhabsecha A worke not very laborious seeing as on the Emperours part there is such abundant store and variety of all vertues and praise-worthy actions to set forth his honour as no mans stile nor words can equall or come neare the same so on Baronius part with whom hee is to contend there are so many shamelesse and detestable untruths either devised or applauded by him that Voraginensis himselfe may seeme inferiour to him in this kinde and I much doubt whether so many voluminous bookes as might equall any two Tomes of his Annals could bee able to comprehend them all Meane while that I seeme not to shuffle this burden from mine own to other mens shoulders I will with their good leave I hope adde somewhat out of those bookes which concerne my own profession and out of my shallow reading indeavour to free the Emperour from those most dishonorable imputations of the Cardinall 12. Let us then begin with that which is the substance and ground of this whole accusation and that is The Emperours supposed falling into heresie and writing that hereticall Edict This if we can prove to bee a slander and untruth all the rest which the Cardinall builds upon this and derives from it will of themselves fall to the ground First then I doe constantly avouch that imputation of heresie to bee untrue Iustinian neither held that fantasticall heresie of the Aphthardokites nor made any Edict for the defence or propagating thereof nor did hee banish or persecute any Orthodoxall Bishop for contradicting that heresie All these are slanderous untruths which the Cardinall hath collected out of others and maliciously uttered in disgrace of the Emperour And truly that very contradiction which is not onely in other writers but in the Cardinall himselfe in setting downe this narration is no small presumption of the untruth thereof d Iustiniani indictum minimè divulgatum est Lib 4. ca. 40. Evagrius and Nicephorus e Scriptum id editum non est Lib. 17. ca. 30. expresly witnesse that the Emperours Edict was not at all published Theophanes f Hist miscel lib. 16. an 38. Justin as the Cardinall cals him or Paulus Diaconus as others and after him Sixtus Senensis g Iustin praecepit hoc dogma à sacerdotibus publicè doceri et ab omni plebe recipi Lib. 5. Bibl. annot 186. expresly witnesse the contrary that his Edict was divulged ubique transmissum and sent to every place Baronius not knowing whether was truer affirmeth them both though they be expresly contradictory First that he did publish the Edict the Cardinall teacheth h An. 564. nu 1 saying Iustinian when he saw his Edict contemni ab Orthodoxis pro nihilo duci to bee contemned and set at nought by the Orthodoxall Bishops then hee raised his persecution How could that Edict be contemned unlesse it had been published set forth for an Edict or how could they be banished for gainsaying that Edict which if it was not published had not the force of an Edict Againe that hee did not publish it the i An. 565. nu 4. Cardinall likewise tels us Hee writ indeed Non tamen promulgavit de haeresi Edictum But hee did not publish that Edict Hee did publish it hee did not publish it what truth in those witnesses who thus contradict themselves If he did publish it as the Cardinals Theophanes and Sixtus Senensis affirme then Evagrius and Nicephorus are not herein to bee credited If hee did not publish it how is the Cardinals Theophanes or Senensis herein to be credited And whether hee did publish it or not publish it the Cardinall who teacheth both is certainly herein not to bee credited This disagreement of the witnesses one with another and of Baronius with his one selfe is no good signe of truth in their Narration 13. But that Iustinian neither published nor writ any such Edict nor held any such phantasticke heresie a farre more faithfull witnesse than any of the former even Victor B. of Tunen who lived in that same time at Constantinople and who would have triumphed to have had so just an occasion to reprove disgrace the Emperor by whom he was imprisoned and banished doth make evident Hee k Vict. Tun. in Chron. 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 l An. Just 39. Iustinian placed Iohn a condemner of the Three Chapters in the See 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 m Necessarium putavimus rectae fidei confessionem quae in sancta Dei Ecclesia praedicatur praesenti edicto facere manifestam Edict Iust pa. 492. 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 n Iesus Christus est consubstantialis Patri secundum Deitatem consubstantialis nobis secundum Humanitatem passibilis carne impassibilis deitate ibid. Vtraque natura in proprietate
538. nu 33. Bin. toâ—â— 2. â—a 482. doth manifest condemning them in particular y Quamobreâ—â— hoc quoquâ— risâ— dignum est 〈◊〉 Anath â— 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 a Evag. lib. 4. ca. 32. 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 aelimenti cepisse nor to have received any nourishment or food What a worthy S. doth he b Lib. eod ca. 33 describe Simeon Môros that is S. Foole to have been How doth he commend c Lib. 1. ca. 15. 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 â—ta censere vellet neither would beleeve that it was possible The like might bee noted touching the blood of Euphemia d Lib. 2. ca. 3. 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 e Lib. 1. ca. 8. 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 f Narrat ipse Nestorius se in eo loco quadriennij spacio commoratum postea relegatum ad Oasim Lib. 1. cap. 7. 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 g Soc. lib. 7. ca. 34. Liber Brev. ca. 7. 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 h Epist Johannis et Orientalium Cyrillo to 5 Act. Ephes ca. 5 ca. 17. of union that they acknowledge receive Maximianus for Bishop of ConstaÌ„tinople A demonstration that Maximianus was Bishop of Constantinople three whole yeares at least before the death of Nestorius Nay i Lib. 7. ca. 39. which argueth Evagrius to have doated in historicall relations Maximianus was dead 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 k Lib. 4. ca. 26. 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 n Act. 5. pa. 35 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 fillable of truth it is nothing but a fardle or dunghill of lyes First whereas Evagrius fathereth this on Procopius
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 m Socr. lib. 1. ca. 7. sayd once to Acesius the Novatian the same may be sayd to Baronius and his consorts Erigito tibi scalam Baroni ad coelum 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 n Wisd 5.4.6 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 a Impiae Theodorae Augustae an 535. nu 59. impious an hereticall b Haereticae faeminae impiae Theodorae ibid. nu 60. a sacrilegious c Sacrilega faemina molita est an 536. nu 123 a furious d A furente haeretica faemina excitata an 538 nu 9. hereticall woman a patrone e Jpsa haereticâ—rum Acephalorum Severianorum Eutychianorum patrona an 547. nu 49. of heretikes and the like Heare and consider how he stormeth but in one place f An. 535. nu 63 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 contended 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 g Sententiam excommunicationis inflixit et Excommunicationis sententia fulminis instar coelitus emisse prostravit an 547. nu 49. 50. whereupon she h Theodoram à Vigilio sauciatam diro jaculo anathematis haud diu post ulciscente numine est insequutus interitus an 548. nu 24 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 i Liber ca. 21 22. and Evagrius k Evagr. lib. 4. ca. 10. shew she tooke part with the oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon which was for sometime 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 Tanta 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 so 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 sounded 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 Megara 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 l Jn annal suis pa. 87. 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 m Participem consilij sumentes eam quae à Deo est data nobis
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 l Huic omnes cōsentimus omnes ita sapimus Act. 5. pa. 98. their owne decree of faith now this Epistle as not onely the fift Councell often m Epistolam definitio S. Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnavit Collat. 6. pa. 576 b. et alibi but after it Pope Gregory saith procul dubio definitioni Synodi probatur adversa without doubt is contrary to the definition of the Councell of Chalcedon n Lib. 7. Ind. 2. Epist 54. 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 o Chal. Conc. Act 5. pa. 38. 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 p Hoc judicium Photij et Eustathij omnes Episcopi Chal. Cōc sequuti perspexerunt ipsum Jbam anathematizare Nestorium et impia ejus dogmata Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 563. b. that the Councell of Chalcedon approved the judgement of Photius and Eustathius for as Photius and Eustathius so they all at q Ibam anathematizantem Nestorium et ejus impia dogmata permanere in Sacerdotio volo Euseb Epis Ancyrae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 115. sic Stephanus Romanus Eunomius et omnes Episcopi clamaverunt omnes eadē dicimus Ibid. pa. 116. a. Chalcedon required Ibas to anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines before they would receive him Now as the fift Councell r Coll. 6. p. 563. b 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 ſ Loco citato 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 a Intelligas quā plurima in eádē 5. Synodo desiderari Bar. an 553 nu 243. 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 b Decurtationē et mutilationem Actorum indicant illa fragmenta quae in sine hujus curavimus Bin. not in Conc. 5. § Constitutum 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 c Coll. 5. pa. 552. 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 c Coll. 8. Anath 11. pa. 587. a. If any man doe not accurse Arius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinarius Nestorius Eutyches Origen cum impijs eorum conscriptis with their impious writings and all other heretikes condemned by the Catholike Church let that man bee accursed When the holy Councell not onely mentions the condemning of Origen but by their judiciall sentence themselves also condemne both him his errors and his impious writings what a face of Adamant had Binius against the truth against his owne text of the Councell against his conscience and knowledge to say there is no mention no not any levis mentio to be found in the Acts of the errors of Origen condemned or if Binius will not be perswaded of his untruth for us let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit who saith d An. 553. nu 248. In these Synodall Acts there is made onely brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen and his errours condemned if there bee brevis mentio of him and his errours then Binius must cry the Acts forgivenesse for saying there is no mention at all no not levis mentio of his errours 2. Let us see now if Baronius deale any better Constat saith e An. 553. nu 238. hee It is manifest by the testification of many that Origen Didimus and Evagrius together with their errours were condemned in this fift Synod and that there was written at least recited repeated against them those ten Anathematismes which Nicephorus setteth downe but in the Acts there is
3. ad tom 6. Act. Conc. Eph. p. 907 which Theodoret made to the Nestorians at Chalcedon during the time of that Ephesine Councell of which Peltanus sayth Theodoret is caryed insano impitu with a furious rage against Cyrill and the other Orthodoxall Bishops of the holy Councell comparing them to Serpents Basiliskes murderers and the like Neither doth he onely vomit out his choler against them but he plainly girded at the Emperour also Did he accuse none when he uttered all this Nay he d Theod. loc cit affirmes Catholikes which hold Christ God and man to be one person and so to be passible to be worse than Heathens The Heathens sayth he taught the Heaven the Sun and the Starres to be impassible and shall wee beleeve the onely begotten Son of God to be passible and such as may dye Absit Salvator ne sic simus Apostatae farre be this from us O Saviour let us not be such Apostates as to teach this let us not suspect that our Saviour could suffer Let any man now judge whether it be not a shamelesse untruth which those Epistles avouch that Theodoret was not reproved for this doctrine no not lightly reproved in all those 26. yeares whereas both then and ever since the whole Catholike Church hath accursed his impiety and heresie which he so insolently then preached And omitting infinite like proofes of the falshood of that Epistle the next yeare after the Ephesine Councell there was a Synod e Tom. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 5. pa. 831. pa. 927. held at Antioch where Iohn and divers other Bishops concluded the full union with Cyrill wherein they all condemne anathematize the heresies of 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 f Lib. 5. ca. 40. 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 ovibus 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 suckt 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 g an 427. nu 28 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 h Lib. 5. hist Eccl. ca. 36. 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 i Bar. an 438. nu 6. Theodoret with a memorandum He ante omnes above them all mentioneth this translation but in few words That translation as Socrates k Lib. 7. ca. 44. and Marcellinus l In suo Chron. 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 fell out in that yeare and hereof further there may be a presumption because Theodoret as Baronius tels m Ecquid mirum si quod dixerat Sozomenus à Theodoreto repetitum inveniatur Bar. in Martyr Rom. Decemb. 23. 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 Sózomen 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
Precatus est ut tumuli ejus motus atque strepitus consisteret 35. enim annis jam is quatiebatur Bar. ibid. nu 12. which had shaked and been sicke of a palsie and made a noise and ratling for thirty five yeares together might now at length cease the holy man heard the request granted it the graves palsie was cured so that it shaked no more Then Proclsu the Bishop placed dead Chrysostome in eundem Thronum in the very same See and Episcopall seat with himselfe all the people applauding and crying O Father Chrysostome receive thy See and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration the lips g Ipse Chrysostomus labijs rursum apertis ad populum dixissè fertur Pax vobis Cosmas apud Bar. loco citat et Niceph. of Chrysostome five and thirty yeares after hee was laid in his grave opened and blessed all the people saying Peace be to you and this both the Patriarke Proclus and the people standing by testified h Jd circumstantes homines et Patriarcha Proclus se audisse testati sunt Cos et Niceph. loc cit that they heard Thus farre the Cardinals narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Nicephorus 4. Say now in earnest is not this a story able to put downe Heliodore Orlando and all the fictions of all the Poets their wits are barren their conceits dull they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor It is not my purpose to stand now to refute such a lying legend The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monke i Ad optimum quemque lectorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthusiam post vitam Chrysost apud Geor. pat Alex. 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 k Concionem illam rati tibi fore chariorem Bar. an 438. nu 2. Cosmas vestiarius luculenta oratione de câdë translatione habitá quâ—â— gesta fuerunt exactè recenset Jbid. nu 7. et alia similiahabet 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 l Conc. Coll. 5. 5. pa. 559. b. 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 〈◊〉 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 blasphemiâ—e 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 une 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 Nestorianisme 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 on 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 fame 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 m Vnio facta an 432. Bar. illo an nu 77. Cyrillus autem obijt an 444. Bar. illo an nu 9. 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 n Vt clarum est ex Epist Theod. ad Dioscorum ad Leonem ad Nomum de quibus diximus supra ca. 33. 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 out 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 o An. 69. nu 43 and Binius p Notis in 1. Epistolam Clementis 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 q In titulum Epistolae mendosè vâ—x Iacobum irrepsit Bin. loc cit 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 r Lib. 5 ca. 10. et secundum Chryst ca. 11. sets down an Epistle of Pope Damasus against Eunomius and other heretikes the title in him is thus The confession of faith 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 Å¿ Vides Lector ne fingi quidem posse ut Paulinus quem jactat Theodoretus fuerit Episcopus Thessalonicensis Bar. an 378. nu 43. Baronius and t Bin. not in Conc. Rom. 3. sub Damaso post professionem sidei Apollinaris c. pa. 508. 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 u Scripta fuit Synodalis Epistola à Dâ—maso ex Conâ—ilio Romano ad Paulinum Antiochenum Bar. an 378. nu 41. itidem Binius loco citat 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 x Locis citatis 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 Bellisarius 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 y Extat tom 2. Conc. pa. 390. to Sabina was written and dated on the twefth of the Kalends of November at which time a Hac Chronologia mendosa est nam hoc mense Bonifacius jam Pontifex creatus erat ut patet supra Bin. not in eam Epist et Bar. an 530. nu 1. Foelix was dead What may it by the Cardinals demonstration be rejected for a counterfeit No the Cardinall b Facile accidisse potuit ut loco Bonifacij Foeliâ—is nomen fuerit appositum Bar. loco citat 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 c Epist 1. Sylv. extat tom 2. Conc. pa. 476. 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 d Temporibus Sylverii nullus convenit Bellis rii consulatus neque Basilii Bar. an 539. 3. idem ait Bin. Not. margin ad eam epistolaÌ„ 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 e An. 539. nu 1. 4. 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 f Epiph. haer 46. that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour a manifest untruth for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus g Just Mart. ad Antoninum piuâ—â— defensio the successor of Adrian and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius and Verus 24. yeares h Nam Hadrianus obiit an 140. Bar. illo an nu 1. Iustinus vero an 165. Bar. illo an nu 1 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 i â—â—cc citat Notis in Martyr Rom. Apr. 13 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 * Guillisarius quia est initium capitis non est mutatum Not. Greg. in illud cap. uncorrected is not the Canon or Epistle rejected 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius i Post 5. Concil pa. 606. a. 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 k Ephreem sedere capit an 526. Bar. eo an nu 55 sedet aute â— an 18. Niceph. in Chron. who sate eighteene yeares in whose fourteenth or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius l Vigilius caepit an 440. Bar. eo an nu 9 is est Ephaimi an 15. to be Pope to him succeeded Domnus m Niceph. in Chron. Bar. an 446. nu 68. hee sate 18. yeares in whose n Nam 8. Domni est an 553. quo habitum est concilium hoc 5. seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held and himselfe personally subscribed unto o Collat. 8. pa. 588. a. it and
shewed that Iohn dyed before Cyrill by that Epistle than by Tullies ad Atticum That Epistle having neither date nor any circumstance to induce that may as well bee written Anno 448. as Anno 440. 21. His second reason is this There are letters saith hee i extant of Theodoret to Domnus the yeare following to wit an 437. and that Epistle of Theodoret I will set downe in his due place anno sequenti the next yeare Now in that next yeare viz. an 437. there is no Epistle of Theodoret set downe by the Cardinall nor is either Domnus or Theodoret so much as named in all his discourse of that yeare Is 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 k Bar. an 553. nu 44. 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 l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. in Chrō accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares and the Cardinall m Johannes obiit cum sedisset annos 13. licet Nicephorus in Chronico tribuat ei 18. Bar. an 436. nu 12. 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 n Post haec Theodotus ex hac vita migravit qui ad hunc usque annum pervenisse proditur c. Bar. an 427. nu 25. 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 o Bar. an 436. nu 12. 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 p Bar. Ibid. dyed an 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares Iohn succeeded to q Bar. an 427. nu 26. Defuncto Theodoto subrogatus est in ejus locum Iohannes 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 r Bar an 444. nu 23. glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus which as hee ſ Theodoreti ad Dioscorum data hoc anno Epistola sic se habet An. illo nu 18. saith was written an 444. there observes with a memorandum that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus t Hinc discas annos cujusque ipsorum Episcopatus Bar. an 444 nu 23. 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 u Bar. an 423. nu 10. Hoc anno Theodoretus creatus est Episcopus 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 x Bar. an 437. nu 12. 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 y An. 427. nu 26 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 z An. 436. nu 12. Hoc anno Iohannes diem obijt extremum that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn because he dyed not as Theodoret in one Epistle a Theodor. Epist ad Diosc apud Bar. an 444. nu 23. Alios 13. tēpore Iohannis 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 b Bar. an 436. nu 12. Iohannes sedit annot 13. that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare and so dyed not till an 440. beginning the first an 427 because Theodoret in another Epistle c Anno sequenti vid. an 437. extant literae Theodoreti ad ejus successorem Domnum Bar. on 436. nu 12. 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 d Extant litera Theodoreti ad Domnum Bar. an 436. nu 12. you wherby Iohn
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 k Vt ante probatum est hoc cap. 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 l Bar. an 540. nu 22. 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 m Nam literae Vigilij missae Iustimano sunt an 14. Iustiniani Bar. an 540. nu 14. Bellisarius autem redit Constantinopolim cum Vitige an Iustiniani 15. Bar. an 541. nu 3. 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 n Iustinianus Vigilium compelit ut ad urbaÌ„ regiam properaret an 4. post Consulatum Basilij Vict. in Chr. in eum an is autem est an 19. Justiniani secundum Bar. an 545. nu 1. 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 o Plut. in Alcih to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne p Nam mina Atâ—tica valet nostri nun mi 3. l. 2. s 6. d. ut testatur Edovardus Breirwooddus in lib. suo de Pond ca. 4. quem libruÌ„ accuratè admodum haec tractare non est cur docti dubitent 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 q Imperator Vigilium ad regiam urbem compellit venire ut tâ—ia Capitula condeÌ„naret Vict. in Chron. an 4. post Coss Basilij 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 divers 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 Scribo to take him wheresoever hee were except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribo came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people singing an hymne behold the Lord commeth Thus Anastasius Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend were easie to demonstrate if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part for they not onely condemne this as untrue but prove it by divers arguments to be such The first for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely r Trium Capitulotum causâ tantum vocatus est Bin. not in vita Vigilij § Tunc Romani Non alia causa profectionis Vigilij Constantinopolim cognoscitur Bar. an 546. nu 55. for the cause of the Three Chapters and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof aperti mendacij Å¿ Bar. an eodem 546. nu 54. arguitur is convinced of an evident untruth The second because seeing as they say Mennas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented Iustinian would conciliate t Putavit Vigilium quibus posset fieri blanditijs conciliandum Bin. loc cit Eum sibi quibus valuit studuit conciliare blanditijs Bar. an 546. nu 55. the Pope unto him by all faire meanes and intreate him no otherwise but favourably least if the Pope were displeased he should not yeeld his consent and then the whole
so blockish that what Totilas used as a warlike stratagem to deceive and more easily to overthrow and kill the Romanes that Anastasius in his simplicity takes and relates as done in favour of the Romanes that they might escape and not be killed And yet the taking of the City wherof Anastasius speaketh cannot be this second wherein the Trumpets were sounded but the former at which time Totilas used no such policie as appeares by the famine which Anastasius h Et facta est famâ—s in civitate talis c. Anast in vita Vigilij mentioneth which happened in this former i Vt testatur Proc. l. 3. p. 367. and not at this second taking of Rome by Totilas So very incoherent and false is all that Anastasius writeth of this matter But whereas Anastasius addes of King Totilas that hee dwelt among the Romanes as a father among his children I know not how to checke so great a folly The barbarous Gothes after that long and miserable siege of the Romanes having by trechery in the night entred the City the very next k Vbi primum illuxit Gothi c Proc. pa. 373. morning when they saw there was no danger of the enemy Quos obvios habent obtruncant killed all that they met and had made no end of slaughter if Pelagius l Pelagius Totilae supplex factus non prius precari hunc desâ—it quâ—m ille clemeÌ„tiorem fore in Romanos pollicitus esset Proc. lib. 3. pa. 374. comming in most submissive manner had not stayed their Gothish fury The Romane people m Pars maxima fugam capessunt pauci in templo perfugium habuere constat è plebe ad quingentos in urbe resides Proc. ibid. pa. 372. so many as could by flight sought their safety there remained of their innumerable Romane troups but to the number of five hundred the Noblemen n Inter hos erat Rusticiana filia Symmachi et uxor Boethij Senatoris Proc. ib. and better sort who remained among them led a life more ignominious and miserable than death being spoyled of all domos circumeundo foresque appulsando cibum dari sibi supplicitèr precabantur from doore to doore in most abject and beggerly manner praying for some reliefe of the proud and insolent victor nor was Totilas content herewith but he was resolved o Totilas RomaÌ„ ad solum prosternere decernit Proc. pa. 375. to ruinate and utterly deface the whole city of Rome which also he had then done had not the most prudent perswasions p E duobus sic ad eum scripsit Bellisarius alterum necesse est ut aut bello victus succumbaâ— aut ut nos vincas Si viceris et Romam demoliaris non alterius urbem sed tuam delebis quâ servata longe opulentior fies Si victus sis Româ incolumi reservata gratia tibi nec mediocris apud victorem conciliabitur qua deleta nullus tibi ad clementiam locus relinquetur His inter similes alias persuasionibus usus est Bellisarius apud Totilam ut refert Proc. lib. 3. pa. 375. of Bellisarius never sufficiently even for this onely cause to bee commended hindred so barbarous a designe And which is noted as one of the most miserable spectacles of all other in Rome which was the most frequent populous and eminent City in the whole world Totilas when he went away left not so much as one man q Nullo hominum in urbe relicto quam penitus destitutam demiserat Proc. lib. eod p. 376. Roma fuit ita desolata ut nemo ibi hominum nisi bestiae morarentur Marcell in Chron. an 547. woman or childe to remaine or inhabit therein would any but Anastasius call or account this fatherly usage what is then or can be called hostile savage and barbarous But let us leave this passage wherein we will account no more than ten of Anastasius grand lyes and proceed to the rest of his narration 23. At the same time saith he the Emperour sent Narses into Italie to whom God gave the victory over the Gothes the King and a great multitude of them were slaine I should have thought this eodem tempore to have had relation as in an orderly narration it ought to that taking of Rome by Totilas which is before expressed which if Anastasius meant then is this circumstance most sutable to all the rest that is wholly untrue for Totilas the first time tooke Rome in the 12. and the second time in the 15. yeare of the Gothicke warre whereas Narses overcame him not nor came as chiefe Generall into Italy till the eighteenth yeare of the same warre All which by Procopius r De Roma capta supra ostendimus De Narsete liquet ex Proc. lib. 3. pa. 408. ubi ait Iam 17. hujus belli exibat annus Et paulo post Narses ex Salonis in Sicilia profectus adversus Totilam progreditur Ibid. is clearly testified But Binius doth here set to his helping hand and making a glosse upon the text by two notes of time he declareth unto what this Anastasian eodem tempore is to be referred the former is this It was saith he Å¿ Bin. Not. in vitam Vigilij §. Eodem Illo anno quo Imperator revocavit 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 t Iustinianus omnia semper fecit facit quae sanctam Ecclesiam recta dogmata conservant Conc. 5. Coll. 7. in fine 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 u Bar. an 55. nu 15. 22 23. 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
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 faith n Bar. an 538. nu 14 15. 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 o Lib. loc cit 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 p Augusta Vigilium profiteri flagitavit ut si Papa fieret tolleret Synodum c. Lubenter suscepit Vigilius promissum Liber loc cit 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 q Silverius hoc anno obijt 12. Kalend. Iulij Ba. an 540. nu 2 in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon r Ita Silverius traditus duobus Vigilij servis qui in Palmariam abductus sub eorum custodiâ defecit inedia Lib. loc cit 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 ſ Mors Silverij fuit an 540. et hoc ipso itidem anno Vigilius ad Theodoram scripsit promissa exolvere volens Gretz def ca. 10 lib. 4. de Pont. 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 t Naucl. Gener. 18. 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 sorry for it So Nauclerus who therein no doubt followed Anastasius for hee u Anast in vit Vigilij having set downe both the same motion made by Theodora and the answer given by Vigilius Binius x Ecce ut Vigil statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit c. Bin. not in vit Vig. observes that this was done when Vigilius was now the rightfull and true Pope wherefore seeing Theodora writ to Pope Vigilius and that after the death of Silverius to performe his promise it is certaine that before then he had not done it and so that untill hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope hee did not write this Epistle which would have given full content to Theodora and seeing againe we have clearly proved that hee did write it it remaineth that hee writ it after the death of Silverius when himselfe was the onely lawfull and true Bishop of Rome One doubt in this matter remaineth which Binius y Bin. not in vit Vig § Ex Actis sleightly mentioneth for that Vigilius after he was true Pope did not onely anathematize Anthimus and confirme his deposition but professe himselfe also to defend the Councell of Chalcedon as appeares both by his Epistle to Iustinian and Mennas dated foure months z Epist Vigilij ad Mennam 15 Calend. Octob. data est Ea extat apud Bar. an 540. nu 25. et eodem tempore missa est etiam illa ad Iustinianum apud Bar. an 540. nu 15. et 22. after hee was the true Pope and by that answer which as Anastasius and Nauclerus say hee sent in a Ad haec rescripsit Vigilius Anast in vit Vig. writing to Theodora that hee would not now restore Anthimus being an heretike Whence it may bee collected that after he was once the true and lawfull Pope nihil horum dixerit scripserit vel egerit that hee neither said writ nor did any such thing as it is expressed in this Epistle for confirming the heresie of Eutyches for how is it credible that he should write both these being directly contrary the one to the other 32. I answer that had Vigilius bin an honest man or a man of credit of constancy and resolution he would never have thought or dreamed to write both those But Vigilius was perpaucorum hominum you may goe through the whole Catalogue of the Romane Popes and there is the best choise of wicked men in all formes and fashions of impiety to bee found and not picke out such a Polipus a turncoate a weather-cocke as Pope Vigilius Baronius compares him to King Saul and saith b Bar. an 540. nu 13. that as soone as hee was made the true Pope hee was then Saul inter Prophetas It is true in many things hee was like King Saul but in that act of prophesying wherein the Cardinal compares them there is a marvellous dissimilitude betwixt them Saul was moved by Gods Spirit Vigilius by his owne will Saul was acted and driven to utter those prophesies which God put into his mouth Vigilius himselfe did guide and move his tongue and turned it with the rudder of his unconstant minde when and whithersoever hee would Saul prophesied of necessity not being able to resist Gods motion Vigilius in hypocrisie being desirous to please and humour other men in a word Saul had the gift Vigilius the art or jugling tricke of prophesying When he would seeme to be that which indeed and in heart he was not a Catholike Bishop and gaine the favour of Iustinian a Catholike