Nestorius which their profession of faith and this condemning of the Nestorian heresie Iohn sent both to Cyrill to Pope Sixtus and to Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople Now seeing Theodoret not onely in former time had beene so violent and furious in defence of that doctrine but then and long after continued in the same minde was not his doctrine reproved nay was it not accursed and anathematized by Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and many other Bishops subject to his Patriarchship What a most vile and shameless untruth then is it which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter that in the whole space of 25. or 26. yeares he neither accused any nor was accused nor reproved no not lightly reproved either by Iohn or any other but that all and every one of his writings contained the true doctrine of the Church But enough of those Epistles which to be forged and false this which is already sayd may for this time suffice 11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affirmeth that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius and withall seene how weake and unsound his proofe is in this point I will yet adde one consideration which will further manifest and even demonstrate the same That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certaine it is that when Theodoret writ that history he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme whereof in the very last Chapter he gives an eminent proofe commending Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia for a worthy teacher of the whole Church and for an oppugner of all heresies adding that whereas he was a Bishop thirty six yeares he never ceased optimam herbam sanctis Christi â—viâ—us suppeditare to feed the flocke of Christ with the best herbes None can doubt but hee who so much extolleth so detestable an heretike and approveth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius suckâ— for the best herbes or doctrines but he must needs be confessed to bee as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe If now it may appeare that this history was writ by him after the union there can no doubt remaine but that after the union Theodoret favoured Nestorius and all his heresies 12. Baronius knowing this inevitably to follow to decline the whole force of this tels us that Theodoret writ his history not onely before the union but before the jarre also yea before the time of the holy Councell at Ephesus whereof having given some sleight conjectures in the end he concludes Dicendum est It must be sayd that Theodoret writ this history in the space of those three yeares which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Councell So he Shall I say the Cardinall was deceived and overseene herein No I will not suspect that such an evident error could creepe into the minde of so exact an Annalist I rather thinke his intent was wilfully and wittingly to deceive others and that therefore hee sayd this to smother that truth touching Theodorets continuance in Nestorianisme which he elsewhere so often denieth Theodoret mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or reliques of Chrysostome and bringing them to Constantinople The Cardinall was so far from being ignorant hereof that himselfe citeth Theodoret with a memorandum He ante omnes above them all mentioneth this translation but in few words That translation as Socrates and Marcellinus witnesse was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consull that is as the Cardinall also accounteth in the yeare 438. Now seeing the union betweene Iohn and Cyrill was made in the yeare 432. it unavoydably followeth that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven yeares at least after the union and how much more I know not whether 8.10 or 16. after it for it is uncertaine or if hee writ it as the Cardinall divineth before the Ephesine Synod that he writ it prophetically writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine yeares after his history was written The truth is an orderly and historicall continuation of things done he doth not write but onely to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia where his history for any such continuation of succeeding matters doth end but to shew and testifie that he writ his history after the yeare 438. hee purposely mentioneth some of those acts which sell out in that yeare and hereof further there may be a presumption because Theodoret as Baronius tels us followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mopsvestia now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius as himselfe witnesseth So that if Theodoret as the Cardinall tels us tooke it out of Sozomen and his booke was not published till the yeare 439. sure the Cardinall of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time otherwise than prophetically in this point write his history It remaineth now seeing Theodoret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this history and it was written after the yeare 438. that out of all doubt till then hee remained hereticall and devoted to all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus which in that history he commends for most wholsome food and Catholike doctrine 11. But not to stay longer in a matter very cleare my conclusion of this former point is this Seeing the Cardinall tels us that from the time of the union Theodoret was not onely a Catholike and orthodoxall Bishop but that he did manfully fight for the Catholike faith it evidently followeth that in the Cardinals judgment Nestorianism and those herbes nay most poysonfull weeds of Theodorus are Catholike doctrines seeing as now we have proved for many but of a certainty for seven yeares at least after the union that doctrine which Theodoret embraced and so earnestly defended was no other than the blasphemous heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus And let this suffice for the third addition which he unjustly objecteth to the Acts of this fift Councell CAP. XXXIV The fourth addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret intitled to Iohn Bishop of Antioch is falsly inserted therein refuted 1. HIs fourth instance concernes an Epistle of Theodoret inscribed to Iohn Bishop of Antioch set downe neare the last end of the fift Collation wherein Theodoret exceedingly rejoyceth for the death of Cyrill In handling whereof Baronius and Binius doe more than triumph as if the field were certainly wonne That Epistle sayth Binius nequissimi scelestissimi alicâ—jus nebulonis Eutychiani commentum est is the forgery of some most naughty and nefarious Eutychian varlet and by fraud and surreption is thrust into the Acts of this Synod We have before discovered saith Baronius the imposture of that Epistle but we are not grieved to repeat the same things here againe that it may be shewed that they are not the true Acts of the Synod sed nebulonis cujusdam ex cogitatione commentum but
a story able to put downe Heliodore Orlando and all the fictions of all the Poets their wits are barren their conceits dull they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor It is not my purpose to stand now to resute such a lying legend The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monke Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus the onely author that he knew till Baronius pull'd this blinde Tailor out of a corner Though I beleeve saith hee God to bee omnipotent yet I beleeve not all which is here written of Chrysostome sed fides penes lectoreÌ„ esto let the reader choose whether hee will beleeve it or not for the writers of mens lives who lived before Nicephorus and hee writ about the yeare 1328. would not have concealed or smothered in silence rem tanti momenti a matter of so great moment Thus the Carthusian whose judgement may justly be thought to bee the more weighty because of all the ancient Fathers there is none I speake it confidently who hapned to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius as he is called Leo and George the writers or rather the devisers of Chrysostomes acts his life and death Any one of them doting after such miraculous reports would have painted out this miracle of miracles with all the wit and words which they had That which I onely observe is the strange and if you please miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius This Epistle of Theodosius though it was written to Chrysostome more than thirty yeares after his death the Cardinall approves applaudes and for a rare monument hee commends it and all that appendant fable to all posterity Why it is an excellent story indeed to perswade the adoration of reliques invocation of Saints prayers for the dead and such like Had this Epistle of Theodorets contained such stuffe it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship because it wants such matters and crosseth in very many things the Cardinals Annals Oh it is nothing but a fiction and a very forgery of some lewd naughty varlet It is demonstrated to be such because it was written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch who was dead but 7. yeares before whereas more than foure times seven yeares cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after hee was dead to be an authentike and undoubted record This may serve the Cardinall for the first answere who is now bound in all equity either to confesse his owne demonstration to be fallacious or to proclame the Epistle of Pope Clement and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration to be fictitious and his owne Annals a fabulous legend 5. My second answer is that though Iohn to whom this Epistle is directed was dead yet that proves onely the title or inscription to be amisse or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to Iohn it cannot prove which the Cardinall undertooke to doe that the Epistle is forged and not written by Theodoret For the Epistle it selfe to bee truly Theodorets his owne Sermon publikely preached at Antioch before Domnus after the death of Cyrill and mentioned in the Synodall Acts next after this Epistle doth clearly manifest for the scope and purpose of that sermon is the same which is expressed in the Epistle In the Epistle Theodoret declareth his eagernesse in defending the doctrine of Nestorius and withall rejoyceth and insulteth over Cyrill being dead who was then the chiefe oppugner of the heresies of Nestorius The very same eagernesse for Nestorianisme and love to his heresies as also the like joy for Cyrils death doth his sermon expresse more fully saying Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare none doth now seeing Cyrill is dead compell any man to blaspheme so hee cals the Catholike faith Where are those to wit Cyrill who teach that God was crucified It was the man Christ and not God who was crucified It was the man IESVS that dyed and it was GOD the Word who raised him from the dead Non jam est contentio Now seeing Cyrill is dead there is no contention Oriens Egyptus sub uno jugo est the East Egypt that is as well those who are under the Patriarke of Alexandria as they who are under the Patriarke of Antioch are all under one yoke that is all submit themselves to one faith that is to Neâ—â—orianisme Mortua est invidia cum eo mortua est contentio Envy hee meaneth Cyrill who so much hated and oppugned the doctrine of Nestorius is now dead and all contention is dead and buried with him Let now the Theopaschites hee meanes Catholikes who taught God to have suffered and dyed let them now bee at quiet Thus preached Theodoret after the death of Cyrill insulting over him being dead triumphing that now seeing Cyrill was dead Nestorianisme did and would prevaile Who can imagine but that the Epistle maintaining the same heresie insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill was written by Theodoret when he publikely in his sermon before a Patriarke uttered the same matter Would Theodoret feare or forbeare to write that in a letter which hee neither did feare nor could forbeare to professe openly in a sermon and that in so solemne a place and assembly or was Theodoret orthodoxall and a lover of Cyrill in his writings before the death of Cyrill who was hereticall and so full with the dregs of Nestorianisme after the death of Cyrill that he must vent them and with them disgorge his malice and spite against Cyrill in an open Pulpit and in the hearing of a Patriarke and all the people of Antioch It is not the inscription or title of the Epistle but the Epistle it selfe which the fift Councell and wee after it doe stand upon Had not they knowne the Epistle to bee Theodorets they needed not by it to have proved that Theodoret after the union yea after the death of Cyrill was eager violent yea virulent also in defence of the heresies of Nestorius that his publike sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils death and against Cyrill had beene a sufficient proofe and demonstration of that but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret they thought good to testifie that he was in writing the selfe same man as hee was in preaching that is in both a spitefull maligner of Cyrill in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian and that long after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill yea that even after the death of Cyrill he continued both to write and to speake the same 6. Observe now by the way the fraudulent dealing of Baronius and Binius in this cause This passage taken out of a sermon publikely preached at Antioch against Cyrill and in an insulting manner for his death this they doe not nor durst they carpe at it It is testified by all the Bishops of the fift Councell to have beene a part of
his next successor 14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius wherein he writ an excommunication against Vigilius usurping his See it is dated in some Copies in the yeare of Basilius in others of Bellisarius being Consuls Now in all the time Silverius was Pope neither was Basilius nor Bellisarius Consuls What then shall the Popes Epistle be rejected as a a forgery a counterfeit No by no meanes The Cardinall often mentioneth it honours it for a rare monument and to helpe that errour he tels us the date is added more than should be Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodorets letter in the Synodall acts Might it not happen that the inscription was onely to the Archbishop of Antioch that the name of Iohn was added more than should be Epiphanius in his Book of heresies sayth that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour a manifest untruth for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus the successor of Adrian and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius and Verus 24. yeares after the death of Adrian Will the Cardinall have his demonstration to hold here in Epiphanius so that his booke against heresies must be condemned for a counterfeit and none of Epiphanius writing No error irrepsit there slipt an error into Epiphanius for Adrian is written in stead of Antoninus as the Cardinall tels you but it rather seemes in stead of Aurelius under whom Iustine dyed Had the Cardinall beene any way as indifferent to Theodorets letters hee would likewise have said error irrepsit an error is slipt into the inscription by writing Iohn in stead of his successor Domnus rather than have condemned the writing for a forgery 14. In the twenty third Cause Question 4. Cap. 30. in the ancient title it was cited as a text of Sylvester a manifest errour of Sylvester instead of Sylverius Did the Gregorian Correctors for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted condemne that Canon or Epistle as a counterfeit no but approving the text as true they amended the title and restored it to Sylverius In the very same Chapter it is said that Guillisarius caused Sylverius to bee deposed there was no Guillisarius that ever did that but it was Bellisarius yet for that error of the name which yet remaines uncorrected is not the Canon or Epistle rejected 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius out of Tyrius commendeth it is sayd that the fift Synod which decreed the Patriarchall dignity to the Bishop of Ierusalem was held in the time of Vigilius of Rome Eutychius of Constantinople and Paule of Antioch Now that by the Cardinals demonstration was never for it is certaine that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his dayes Before this Synod was Ephreem who sate eighteene yeares in whose fourteenth or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius to be Pope to him succeeded Domnus hee sate 18. yeares in whose seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held and himselfe personally subscribed unto it and about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius So this decree by the Cardinals owne reason is but a forgery as in very truth it is Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse fragment will admit an error of the writing Paulus being put for Domnus why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret as not to thinke a like errour of the pen in it and Iohannes to be put for Domnus 16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editiōs of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan. a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptiō without al doubt Iohn being dead ten yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius himselfe both declares and proves professing that Inscription to be false Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstration drawne from the title and Inscription oh how happily how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against and contradicting that Edict Hee might have said Why that Edict was none of Iustinians nor ever published by him for the Inscription is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell or any Synodall Acts at all of it for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause to define the truth delivered by the Edict This had beene a short cut indeed and the Cardinall like another Alexander by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then nor ever I thinke till the acts of this fift Synod and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal for not withstanding the falshood of that inscription title the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit but a true imperiall Edict truely published by Iustinian contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say that addition to Iohn is added put amisse in the title by some later hand by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret the name of Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle rather than by reason of such an errour as happeneth in many Epistles and writings to declame not onely against the Epistle as a base forgery and none of Theodorets but even against all the Acts of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is sound extant 17. None I thinke doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire and without all corruption as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Councels To omit the rest in those of Chalcedon the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene
on Orpheus harpe made an heavenly harmony but how hee failed in his skill and proved no better than Neanthes his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternall record and yet all that time hee sat in the Chaire and prophesied for as the common saying is Vbi Papa ibi Roma so it is as true Vbi Papa ibi Cathedra it is more easie for the Pope to take the Chaire with him than like an Elephant to carry the whole City of Rome upon his backe to Constantinople and goe up and downe the world with it 17. But is this narration thinke you of Anastasius true verily not one word therein neither did the Empresse write nor Vigilius answer any such thing for both these were done as Anastasius saith eodem tempore at or after that same time when Bellisarius having killed Gontharis came out of Africk and offered those spoiles of the Vandales and seeing that as wee have proved was never this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas Againe this answer of Vigilius was given statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit at his very first placing in the See as Binius sheweth and that was in the fourteenth yeare of Iustiâ—ian for then Sylverius dyed now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome and that was as Procopius sheweth in the nineteenth yeare of Iustinian it was a fine devise of Anastasius to tell how this new Saint answered a letter by way of prophesie three or foure yeares before the letter was written Further Vigilius as Liberatus saith implens promissum suum quod Augustae fecerat performing his promise to the Empress writ a letter in this manner hee performed it as much as hee could he laboured a while to doe it and this was both before and a little after the death of Sylverius but when hee could not effect it and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein left off that care untill hee could have a better oportunity to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon which so long as it stood in force was a barre unto Anthimus If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon but till that were done till the Councell were repealed Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that hee in two severall Epistles the one to Iustinian the other to Mennas confirmed as the Emperour required him to doe the deposition of Anthimus and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges namely in the fourteenth yeare of Iustinian and five yeares before the death of Gontharis Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood but Vigilius also to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Emperour that hee would not doe specially seeing as Baronius saith Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperour Omnem prorsus sive Theodorae sive alijs spem ademisset would put both Theodora and all else out of all hope that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus So although those words eodem tempore were not as they ought to be referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople which was the yeare after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour yet the Anastasian narration is not onely untrue but wholly improbable that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas that hee would not restore him and that he ought not to bee restored Lastly at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus which following the death of Gontharis must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside and the Three Chapters were then in every mans mouth and every where debated The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare as by Victor who then lived is evident if not before published his Edict and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople Anastasius dreamed of somewhat and hearing of some writing or sending to Vigilius about that time he not knowing or which I rather thinke willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration for his great love to the Pope conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus and indeavors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See Iust as Alcibiades to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne 218. pound and 15. shillings and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace The true cause of sending to Vigilius as Victor sheweth was about the Three Chapters this of Anthimus which Anastasius harpes upon is in truth no other but the dogs taile and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men but now the true cause being come to the open view fils the world with that shamefull heresie of Vigilius which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dogs taile But enough of this passage wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes 18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vigilius and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to ConstaÌ„tinople He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus suggested dâ—vers accusations against him as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed and that hee was a murderer and had killed his Nephew Asterius whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scribâ— to take him wheresoever hee wee except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribe came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people
unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and saith that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am
laboureth also to fasten 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 aswere 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 consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only fights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have shewed was knowne and confessed because he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all
of the whole Church of the same communion with those who are separated from God yea it must needs be at peace and league with the Devills communicants Since this is the peace this the communion of their church if Theodorus dyed as the Cardinall assureth us he did in the peace and communion of it let them for ever keep to themselves let them alone enjoy both alive and dead this peace this communion of their Church But let dis-union and immortall warres be for ever betwixt us and it betwixt the society with God and all communion with it Nullus amor populis nec foedera sunto Littora littoribus contraria fluctibus undas Imprecor arma armis pugnent cineresque nepotesque Et nati natorum qui nascentur ab ipsis And let this suffice to be opposed against the second reason of Vigilius who therefore decreed that Theodorus ought not to be condemned because as he thought nay knew as Baronius saith that Theodorus dyed in the peace communion of the Church CHAP. VIII That the third and last reason of Vigilius touching the first chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because he was not condemned by former Fathers and Councells is erroneous and untrue 1. THe third and last reason of Pope Vigilius in defence of the first Chapter is drawne from the authority of the ancient Fathers and Councells by none of which as he pretendeth Theodorus of Mopsvestia was condemned and therefore ought not now by himselfe or any other to be condemned And Vigilius was so exceeding carefull to enforme both himselfe and all others of the certainty and truth herein that hee saith wee added solicitudinis nostrae animum the carefull solicitude of our thoughts and diligentissima investigatione quaerere curamus Wee have taken most diligent care to finde out whether any thing was decreed ordered or disposed by the Fathers de persona vel nomine either concerning the person or the name of Theodorus and againe Omnibus diligenter inspectis We have diligently viewed all things belonging to this matter Now after all this carefull solicitous diligent yea most diligent inspection Vigilius saith that neither in the Councell of Ephesus nor of Chalcedon nor in Cyril nor in Proclus nor in other Fathers could hee finde that Theodorus was ever condemned 2. Truly Vigilius had exceeding dimme eyes in this cause or to speake more truly Nestorianisme had so blinded and put out his eye-sight that he could discerne almost nothing though it were never so cleare and obvious unlesse it favoured the condemned heresie of Nestorius Can you see neither the person nor the name of Theodorus condemned by the Fathers not by Cyrill not by Proclus not by the Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon not by others Suffer me I pray you to helpe the Popes sight with some better spectacles Of Cyrill and Proclus the fift Councell after a farre better view and inspection even in the Synodall decree doe thus witnesse They shew their meaning concerning Theodorus quod oportet eum anathematizari that he ought to be accursed as we have demonstrated before out of those things which Cyrill and Proclus have written ad condemnationem Theodori for the condemning of Theodorus and his impiety In another place of them both they write againe in this manner Let them who pretend the names of Cyrill and Proclus say if Theodorus be not by them numbred with the Iewes Pagans Sodomites and heretikes particularly of Cyrill they say Cyrill seeing that divers continued to defend the blasphemies of Theodorus was forced to write bookes against him and his impieties post mortem ejusdem Theodori ostendere cum haereticum impium super Paganos super Iudaeos blasphemium And after the death of the same Theodorus to shew him to have beene an heretike and more blasphemous then either the Iewes or Pagans This the Councell saw in the writings of Cyrill and Proclus and upon their sight and knowledge testified the same 3. The words of Cyrill and Proclus doe clearly witnesse the same Cyrill speaking of Theodorus calls him one whose tongue speakes iniquity against God one whose horne is exalted against God one who insulteth over Christ who lesseneth the crimes of the Iewes who pulleth him downe ad infamiam to infamie and disgrace Proclus also speaking not only of the doctrine but of the person of Theodorus whom he setteth in the same ranke with Arius Eunomius Macedonius and other heretikes he calleth him as hee doth the rest turbulentos coenosos fallaciae rivos filthy and mirie rivers of deceit adding that the new blasphemie which was taught by Theodorus and Nestorius doth farre exceed the blasphemie of the Iewes Thus Proclus Where thinke you was the Popes eyes when hee could not or would not see any of all this Or if yet wee doubt of Cyrills minde herein Baronius himselfe could not chuse but observe this out of him you see that Cyrill doth una eademque lance Theodorum expendere cum Nestorio put him in the same scale and weigh him altogether alike as he doth Nestorius So the Cardinall checking the Popes sight that would not see him to be condemned by Cyrill whom Cyrill esteemed every whit as wicked an heretike as Nestorius 4. But this whole matter and the unexcusable error of Vigilius will be most evident by considering the judgment of the Ephesine Councell touching Theodorus and what ensued upon or after it That Theodorus of Mopsvestia who dyed about some foure yeares before was condemned in the holy Councell at Ephesus Cyrill who was President in that Councell doth declare as the fift Councell witnesseth Cyrill say they in the Synodall decree writ unto Iohn touching Theodorus utpote una cum Nestorio anathematizato as being anathematized together with Nestorius in the Ephesine Synod and this they shew out of the words of Cyrill which are worthy of most diligent consideration Peltanus and after him Binius have very unfitly translated Cyrils words but in the Greeke as also consonantly thereunto they are set downe in the fift Councell thus Processit adversus omnes qui eadem sapiunt vel sapuerunt aliquando 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id quod absolute nos vestra sāctitas dixit Athematizamus illos qui dicunt duos filios That sentence of Anathema which we to wit the holy Ephesine Councell and your Holinesse pronounced absolutely without naming any person saying we accuse those who say there are two Sonnes or two Christs that sentence proceeded against all who doe thinke so or who have thought so Thus Cyrill and that also in one of those his Synodall Epistles which the holy Councell of Chalcedon in their very definition of faith hath approved so that this is now not onely the judgement of Cyrill but of the whole Councell at Chalcedon The same is repeated againe by Cyrill and more conspicuously in
one of his decretall Epistles wherein at large he handleth this cause not onely testifieth that impious Creed and those hereticall writings to bee the workes of Theodorus alleaging many places of them but wheras some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved againe this same doubt which Vigilius doth and as is likely by occasion of his decree Pelagius of purpose declareth those to have beene the true writings of Theodorus and consonant to his doctrine and that hee proveth by the testimonies of the Armenian Bishops of Proclus of Iohn of Antioch of Cyrill of Rambulas of Honoratus a Bishop of Cilicia and so a neighbor of Mopsvestia which is in the same Province of Hesychius of Theodosius and Valentinian the Emperours and of Theodoret then whom not any except perhaps Nestorius was more devoted to Theodorus insomuch that he is thought to have taken from Theodorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced Pelagius thus concludeth blasphemias has ejus esse quis dubitat who may doubt but that those blasphemies are truly his namely of Theodorus being by so many witnesses declared to be his Now when Pope Vigilius against all these Councells Bishops Emperors Popes of the same of succeeding ages yea against the consenting judgement of the catholike Church shall not onely doubt whether Theodorus be the author of those hereticall and blasphemous assertions and writings but by his Apostolicall Constitution decree it to bee an injury to ascribe those blasphemies unto him or for them to condemne him as the whole Church ever since the Ephesine Councell hath done doth it not argue nay demonstrate an hereticall and most extreme distemper in the Popes judgment and in his cathedrall sentence at that time 34. The other point which Vigilius observeth out of the Ephesine Councel is worse then this for as yet he hath onely found that Theodorus was not de facto condemned by the Ephesine Synode but in the next place he will finde by that Councell that Theodorus de jure ought not to bee condemned To which purpose he saith that Cyrill and so the Ephesine Synode consenting to him as President would not have the name of Theodorus contained in the Synodall Acts at Ephesus propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est for the rule which is to bee kept in such Bishops as are dead And that rule he explaines in the words following to be this that the dead should not bee condemned nor should the living bend their bow against ashes or insult over the dead whereby Vigilius even by his Apostolicall decree adjudgeth both Cyrill and the whole Ephesine Councell consenting therein with him to have beleeved and held a condemned heresie as an Ecclesiasticall rule or rule of their faith and actions That one who is dead may not bee condemned and so by the Popes Constitution both Cyrill and the holy Ephesine Synode were heretikes Such worthy points doe the Popes finde when they use their art and industry to review ancient writings with a reference to their owne determinations and so easie was it for Vigilius to finde the Ephesine Councell first injurious to the dead and then hereticall in a doctrine or rule concerning the dead 35. The very like he found also in the Councell of Chalcedon that Theodorus ought not to be condemned His reason is this Iohn Bishop of Antioch writ a letter to the Emperor Theodosius in excuse of Theodorus of Mopsvestia ne post mortem damnari deberet that he ought not to bee condemned after his death Now this letter of Iohn Venerabiliter memoratur is with honour not onely with allowance and liking remembred by the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation or Synodall Epistle to the Emperour Martianus Whence Vigilius collecteth that seeing the Councell with reverence embraceth that letter of Iohn and that letter importeth that Theodorus being dead ought not to be condemned therefore the Councell judgeth that none who are dead and particularly that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned which reason of Vigilius was borrowed from other Nestorians and defenders of the three Chapters as appeareth by Liberatus who explaineth it and sets it downe almost totidem verbis Iohn saith he writ three letters in the behalfe of Theodorus of Mopsvestia praising in them Theodorus and declaring his wisedome one of those letters he sent to the Emperour Theodosius another to Cyrill the third to Proclus Now the first and third containing the praises of Theodorus the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation to Martianus the Emperour did embrace and confirme Thus Liberatus agreeing wholly herein as you see with Vigilius 36. For answer of which reason of Vigilius I will intreat you to spare my labour and heare how fully and soundly Cardinall Baronius doth refute it but yet so that hee will not seeme to taxe or touch Vigilius that had beene great insolency and incivilitie in a Cardinall but he payes the Deacon home to the full who saith but the very same with the Pope Liberatus saith hee borrowed this narration of I know not what Nestorian incautè nimis and he affirmes too indiscreetly that the writings of Theodorus were praised in the letters of Iohn Bishop of Antioch and which is farre worse that those letters of Iohn containing the praises of Theodosius were received and confirmed by the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation to Martianus for by that meanes adducit in idem crimen he makes the whole Councell of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime to wit of approving the praises doctrine of Theodorus So Baronius By whō it is cleare that Vigilius saying the same w th Liberatus makes the whole Coūce I of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime that is in plaine termes avoucheth them to be hereticall Videsne saith the Cardinall quot quales lateant colubri sub uno cespite Doe not you see how many and how vile and venemous snakes lye hid under this one turfe or tuft of untruth And that very tuft hath Pope Vigilius chosen to build up and beautifie with it his Apostolicall decree Now if under that one turfe there lurke as indeed there doth and the Cardinall acknowledgeth so great a number of Vipers what infinite and innumerable heapes of most deadly and poisonfull untruths are compacted into the whole body of his Apostolicall Constitution which containeth if one listed narrowly to examine it more than a thousand like turfes nay beyond comparison worse than this 37. But the Cardinall hath not yet done with Liberatus Let us saith hee put the Axe to the roote of the tree and citing the very words of the Councell and their Relation to Martianus he addeth You see that here is no mention at all of Theodorus of Mopsvestia which reason of Baronius Binius explaneth saying That which Liberatus affirmeth that the Councell of Chalcedon received the praises of Theodorus is not onely
elect any other in his roome but his persisting in heresie had he consented to the Synod and condemned the Three Chapters the Emperor should have done wrong unto him to have suffered any other to have beene chosen nay the See being full Pelagius could not though all the banished Clergy had desired it have beene chosen Bishop in his stead Seeing then both the Emperours words and the answer of the Clergy as Anastasius relateth them doe shew that if they had pleased they might lawfully have chosen another Pope and seeing they could not by right have done that unlesse Vigilius had continued in his pertinacious defence of heresie even hereby it may bee perceived that at his restoring he persisted in the same hereticall minde of which he was before and that hee had not then consented to the Synod nor to the condemning of those Three Chapters So blinded was the Cardinall in this cause that he could not or rather would not see how his owne reason drawne from the intreaty of Narses and the narration of Anastasius doth quite overthrow the conclusion which by them he intended to confirme 14. And all this have I said upon supposall onely of the truth of that narration touching Narses his intreatie and the Emperors yeelding thereupon to restore Vigilius out of exile But now I must adde another answere which I feare will bee much more displeasing to the Cardinal and his friends and that is that this whole narration touching the exile of Vigilius after the Synod the intreaty of Narses the restoring him from that banishment and the rest depending thereon is all untrue fictitious such as hath no ground in the whole world but onely the Cardinals owne Poeticall pate For the manifesting whereof I will insist on the two principall points in the Cardinals narration the untruth of which being declared all the rest will easily be acknowledged to bee untrue and fabulous 15. The former concernes the restoring of Vigilius out of Banishment Baronius following Anastasius saith that the Emperour together with Vigilius restored all the rest who were banished with him Dimisit omnes cum Vigilio and by name Pelagius is expressed to bee one of them of whom the Emperour then said Hic habetis Pelagium you have here Pelagius Vigilius then with him by name among the rest was dismissed home A very fiction and fable witnesse whereof Victor Bishop of Tunea who then lived and who himselfe after imprisonment and whipping was banished into three severall places for defending the Three Chapters and after that was brought to Constantinople where hee was an eye witnesse of the most things there happening about this cause Hee having set downe the time of Vigilius death that he dyed in Sicily in the 16 year after the Coss. of Basilius addeth in the next yeare concerning Pelagius that he being that yeare called from banishment which he sustained for defence of the Three Chapters did then condemne them and then was ordained Bishop of Rome which demonstrateth the vanity of the Anastasian and Baronian tale how could the Emperor say You have Pelagius here when Pelagius was then and after that in exile How did the Emperour dismisse them all and particularly Pelagius when Vigilius was sent home seeing Pelagius remained in exile till Vigilius was dead But that which I principally collect is this Seeing Vigilius by the Cardinals narration was not freed from exile nor consented to the Synod but at the same time when Pelagius was released and seeing it is certaine by the testimony of Victor that Vigilius was not freed nor consented unto the Synod at that time for Vigilius was dead before Pelagius was released it hence certainly ensueth that Vigilius neither was freed from exile nor at all consented unto the fift Synod after his exile 16. The other which is indeed the speciall point concernes the banishment of Vigilius after the end of the Synod which Baronius so often mentioneth and on which depends the whole fable this banishment being in very deed nothing else than a Baronian fiction the author and the onely author whom Baronius names for proofe of this banishment is Anastasius and because the Cardinall in good discretion would name the best author and authority which hee had him whose antiquity and name might gaine credit to the narration it is not to bee doubted but Anastasius was the best most credible and authentike author which the Cardinall had for this banishment of him then Baronius saith thus Liquet ex Anastasio Vigilium in exilium deportatum fuisse It is evident by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who were with him were caried into banishment True that is evident indeed by Anastasius But why did the Cardinall omit the principall point to be proved why said he not Vigilius to have been caried into banishment after the end of the Synod or caried for not consenting with the Synod in their condemning of the Three Chapters why said he not this is evident by Anastasius Will you be pleased to know the reason herof It is this because hoc non liquet ex Anastasio nay because contrarium liquet ex Anastasio Anastasius is so farre from saying as the Cardinall doth that Vigilius was banished after the end of the Councell or for not consenting to the Councell that hee saith the quite contrary and contradicteth all that the Cardinall hath said touching that banishment both for the time and for the cause thereof The cause of the Anastasian banishment of Vigilius was for that hee refused to restore Anthimus to the See of Constantinople whence hee was justly ejected by Pope Agapetus and a generall Councell more than ten yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople and the time of this Anastasian banishment was two yeares after Vigilius came to Constantinople and while Theodora was alive which was long before the fift Synod was assembled This and no other banishment of Vigilius is to be found in Anastasius from this and no other it is that Anastasius saith he was freed by the entreaty of Narses remaining an exile untill that time Now this ex diametro fighteth with that exile which Baronius hath devised the time of the Baronian banishment was after the end of the fift Synod that is about five yeares after the death of Theodora til then Baronius wil acknowledge no banishment of Vigilius The cause of the Baronian banishment was not Anthimus nor the restoring of him but onely his not yeelding to the fift Synod and refusing to condemne the Three Chapters So the Cardinals owne witnesse yea his onely witnesse is so farre from proving what hee pretends and affirmes that upon his narration is demonstrated the quite contrary For if Vigilius was banished in the life time of Theodora as Anastasius declareth and there remained till by Narses intreaty he was released then most certainly was hee not cast into banishment after the end of the fift Synod not for refusing
revolt from his opinion lost his Crowne and all his commendation with Liberatus not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell for defence of those Chapters and by his dying in that opinion Liberatus found Vigilius stantem morientem but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem he found him standing and dying but hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts to testifie that for five or six yeares together hee not onely was of a contrary judgement but did judicially and definitively decree the contrary and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters this so long discontinuance and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence for this cause he lost his Crowne and dyed non coronatus in the Kalender and account of Liberatus 33. I adde further that the words of Liberatus being well pondered doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters for no other then heretikes then oppugners of the Catholike faith and holy Councell of Chalcedon And for Vigilius while hee fought on their side and against the Emperour they honoured him as a Catholike as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor and upon his comming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters then they held him for no other then a betraier of the faith then an heretike then a backslider revolter and lapser from the faith and for such they adjudged and accursed him by name in their Africane Synod at which it is most like that Liberatus being a man of such note for dealing in that cause was present upon his returning at the time of the fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith Had Vigilius after this revolted and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters and in that opinion dyed as out of Liberatus the Cardinall would perswade Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike for a lapser and relapser from the faith for one dying in heresie and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike a condemned heretike and to dye in heresie that hee dyed non coronatus would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie of one dying in heresie would he not much rather have said he dyed Damnatus condemned and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod and therefore utterly separated from God Who ever read or heard that one dying in heresie was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus 43. This will most clearly appeare if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts so also two rewards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith such as joyfully endure torments imprisonment exile and if need be even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith and these are called coronati The other is of those who being timerous and faint-hearted yeeld to deny the truth rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts they returne againe and openly professe that truth from which they had before lapsed and these are called Non coronati saved by repentance and returning to the truth but by reason of their former faintnesse and lapsing Not crowned Both of these are Orthodoxall and Catholikes both of them placed in the blessed house of God but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God For in my Fathers house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre differeth from another in glory Both of them receive an infinity of glory but in that infinitie the weight is unequall and the one receives but as the pennie the other as the pound or talent of that glory Both of them blessed in the Kingdome of God but the former not blessed onely but crowned with blessednesse the later blessed but not crowned neither with the Aureall Crowne of Martyrs nor with the Lawrell garland of Confessors yet still whether coronati or non coronati as they both dye in the profession of the Catholike faith so are they both rewarded with eternall glory for profession of the Catholike faith As for heretikes such as die in heresie and out of the Catholike faith they are to be sorted with neither of these they have another and a quite different ranke Classis or Predicament of their owne They may not have that honour done unto them as to be called non coronati which implies that they have a part in felicity but not the Crowne As the Church doth justly anathematize and accurse such so are they to be ranked in the order of those to whom Christ shall say Goe yee cursed The Apostle reckoning heresies with Idolatry witchcraft adultery and the like of which he saith that they which doe them shall not inherite the Kingdome of God 35. Hence now it doth clearly appeare that Liberatus in saying that Vigilius dyed Non coronatus cannot intend as the Cardinall most ignorantly collecteth that Vigilius returned from the defence of the three Chapters to condemne the same for that being in Liberatus judgment a revolt from the truth hee thereby had by Liberatus beene accounted an heretike and to dye in heresie and so had beene in the ranke of those who are Damnati but Liberatus in saying he dyed non coronatus doth directly teach that he dyed in defence of those Three Chapters which with Liberatus is the Catholike faith from which hee had lapsed and revolted before but seeing at the time of the Councell hee returned againe to that opinion and therein dyed hee was saved in Liberatus judgement but not crowned By his penitence and returning to the defence of those Chapters he got glory but because he had so grievously lapsed before hee lost the crowne of glory And this also is the reason why Victor Bishop of Tunen mentioneth the death of Vigilius in such a naked manner neither disgracing him as a Prevaricator as hee doth Firmus Primasius and Pelagius nor honouring him as a Martyr or Confessor as he
judgement of others 29. The other cause was a most impious heresie defended by Eutychius whom they so much honour which alone being duely considered overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius Eutychius when hee had long continued in the defence of the truth did afterwards fall both by words and writing to maintaine the Heresie of Origen and the Origenists denying Christs body after the resurrection to have beene palpable that is in effect to bee no true humane body and the very like hee taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection This the Surian Eustathius quite over-passeth in silence for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius so abundāt in miracles prophesies and visions should be thought guilty of so foule and condemned an heresie But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly testifie it that no doubt can remaine thereof hee tels us how himselfe disputed against Eutychius defending this heresie how hee urged those words of our Saviour palpate videte how Eutychius answered thereunto that Christs body was then indeed palpable to confirme the mindes of his Disciples but after they were once confirmed all that was before palpable in Christs bodie in subtilitatem est redactū was turned into an aërial and unpalpable subtilty How he further strived to prove this by those words of the Apostle Flesh blood cannot inherit the kingdome of heavē how then said hee may this be beleeved veraciter resurgere carnem that true bodies did or shall rise againe How he further insisted on those words That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving therby that which riseth againe either not to be a body or not a palpable that is no true humane body Gregory also tels us that Eutychius writ a booke in defence of this heresie which both himselfe read and Tiberius the Emperour after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it caused it publikely to bee burned as hereticall adding that Eutychius continued in this heresie almost till the very houre of his death Now although Gregory tels not when or at what time Eutychius fel into this heresie yet it may wel be supposed that as Iustinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the truth so when once hee gave himselfe to such dotages of the Origenists which as it seemes he did about the latter end of Iustinians Empire some three yeares before his death then the Emperour who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters as Victor sheweth the condemning of which is as before we declared the condemning of all the heresies of Origen and whatsoever contradicts the verity of Christs deity or humanity as it is most likely exiled him for this heretical opinion And this is much more probable seeing Iustinian had purposely set forth long before this a most religious and orthodoxall Edict or Decree particularly against Origen and the Origenists as Liberatus sheweth and as the Edict it selfe which is extant doth manifest condemning them in particular for denying the verity of Christs and other humane bodies after the resurrection Seeing then Nicephorus the Patriarch saith that Eutychius was banished for not consenting to the Emperours Edict and Eutychius by his defending of that heresie of the Origenists directly oppugned that his Edict most like it is that besides his Mathematicall Art whereby hee was liable both to death and banishment by the Emperours lawes this Edict of Iustinian against Origen should bee that which Nicephorus the Patriarch meant and for which Eutychius was and that most justly exiled So not Iustinian but Eutychius was the heretike nor was it any hereticall Edict of Iustinian as the Surian Eustathius and after him Baronius affirmeth to which Eutychius a Catholike opposed himselfe but an orthodoxall and Catholike Edict of Iustinian which Eutychius then an heretike and Origenist oppugned for not consenting whereunto hee was banished Thus not onely the Emperour is clearly acquitted of that phantasticall heresie whereof the Surian Eustathius and Baronius doe accuse him but Eutychius himselfe whom they honour for a Saint a Prophet and a Demi-god is found guilty of that selfe-same crime and of that very heresie of denying the truth of Christs body which they unjustly and slanderously impute to Iustinian And this I thinke is abundant to satisfie the Cardinals second witnesse namely that fabulous and legendary Surian Eustathius 30. All the Cardinals hope and the whole waight of his accusation relyes now on Evagrius He I confesse saith well neere as much as Baronius against Iustinian accusing him of avarice injustice and heresie But the credit of Evagrius is not such as to countenance such calumnies Evagrius in some matters wherein hee followeth Authors of better note is not be contemned but in very many hee is too credulous fabulous and utterly to bee rejected What credit can you give unto this Narration of the Monke Barsanuphius whom he reports to have lived in his Cell wherein he had mewed up himselfe and for the space of fifty yeares and more neither to have beene seene by any neque quidquam alimenti cepisse nor to have received any nourishment or food What a worthy S. doth he describe Simeon Môros that is S. Foole to have been How doth he commend Synesius whom they perswaded to bee baptized and undertake the function of a Priest though hee did not consent to the doctrine of the resurrection neque ita censere vellet neither would beleeve that it was possible The like might bee noted touching the blood of Euphemia and divers other Narrations Evagrius is full of such like fables but omitting the rest I will propose onely two which will demonstrate him to have beene either extremely negligent in the search or very malicious in perverting the truth 31. The former concernes Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople and his successor Maximianus Evagrius saith that Maximianus tooke the Bishopricke after the death of Nestorius An untruth so palpable that none can thinke Evagrius to have bin ignorant of those manifold and undoubted records which testifie the contrary For it appeares by the writings of Nestorius set downe also in Evagrius himselfe that after his deposition hee stayed at Ephesus and about Antioch for the space of foure yeares and then was exiled to Oasis Now Maximianus was placed in the See of Constantinople that very same yeare wherein the Ephesine Councell was held and Nestorius deposed some three or foure months after the same deposition as Socrates and Liberatus declare The next year after the Councel the union was made between Iohn Cyrill Iohn the rest with him professing expresly in their letters of union that they acknowledge receive Maximianus for Bishop of Constātinople A demonstration that Maximianus was Bishop of Constantinople three whole yeares at least before the death of Nestorius Nay which argueth Evagrius to have doated in historicall relations Maximianus was dead
a forgery devised by some knave and therfore we say that Epistle which is recited under the name of Theodoret to Iohn of Antioch Omni ex parte convinci is every way convinced not to bee Theodorets Againe There is an Epistle set downe in the fift Synod under the name of Theodoret written unto Iohn rejoycing in the death of Cyrill and babbling very many things against him which you may more truly call a Satyre or infamous libell than an Epistle And we take it very indignely that it should goe under the name of Theodoret which is rather the figment of some Nestorian and againe it is figmentum impudentissimi cujusdam nebulonis a fiction of some most shameles varlet Thus much more Baronius The like doth Binius with no lesse confidence and virulency against these Acts affirme The maine ground on which they both relye is for that Iohn Bishop of Antioch to whom this Epistle is inscribed was dead before Cyrill How could Theodoret saith Baronius write to Iohn touching the death of Cyrill seeing Iohn was dead seven yeares before Cyrill which saith he exploratum habetur is sure and certaine both by Nicephorus and others who writ the succession of Bishops as also by an Epistle which Cyrill writ to Domnus the successour of Iohn both which proofes Binius also alledgeth 2. My first answer hereunto is that if this bee a demonstration of forgery because an Epistle is written to one that is dead themselves and not we shall be the greatest losers hereby There is a decretall Epistle written by Pope Clement to Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and brother of our Lord in that Epistle the Pope tels Iames how Peter being now ready to bee martyred tooke Clement ordained him Bishop gave him the keyes set him in his owne chayre and when hee was set therein sayd unto him Deprecor te O Clemens O Clement I beseech thee before all that are here present that thou write unto Iames the brother of our Lord how thou hast beene a companion with me of my journyes and of my actions ab initio usque ad finem from the beginning to the end and write also what thou hast heard mee preach in every City what order of words of actions I have used in my preaching and also what an end I make of my life in this City Neither feare that he will be sory for my death seeing he will not doubt but I dye for pieties sake yea it will be a great comfort unto him to heare that I doe not leave my charge to one that is ignorant or unlearned According to this request and command of Peter Clement writ an Epistle to Iames exhorting him that he command all that which Peter taught to be diligently observed This and much more writ Clement to Iames after the death and of the life and death of Peter Now Iames unto whom hee writ was dead sixe or seven yeares before Peter For Iames was slaine in the seventh and Peter in the thirteenth yeare of Nero as out of S. Ierome Eusebius Iosephus and others is evident and as Baronius and after him Binius not onely professe but clearly and rightly prove and because this is a decretall Epistle an Apostolicall writing sent from Clement being Pope which was not till the tenth yeare of Domitian and that is thirty yeares after the death of Iames it hence ensueth that it was writ to Iames thirty yeares after he was dead What shall now become of this decretall and Apostolicall Epistle Will they be content that by the Cardinals demonstration it bee rejected as the forgery of some leud varlet Fye By no meanes Binius cals it the Epistle of Pope Clement Baronius tels us that it is not only Pope Clements but that this and the other written to the same Iames the dead Bishop of Ierusalem are integrae illibatae intire and incorrupted writings of Clement In their Canon law and that corrected by the Pope it is stiled the epistle of Pope Clement to Iames and that which is there related must stand for the words and doctrine of S. Peter yea the authority of it as other decretall Epistles Conciliorū Canonibus pari jure exaequatur is every way equall to the Canons of Nice of Chalcedon of other holy Councels If that bee too little what Saint Austen sayth of the very sacred Canonicall Scriptures indited by the Spirit of God himselfe that doth Gratian wretchedly abusing Saint Austens words apply to this and the rest of the Popes decretall Epistles saying of them Inter Canonicas Scripturas decretales Epistolae connumerantur the decretall Epistles are to be reckoned among the Canonicall Scriptures Bellarmine not onely in generall defends this saying of Gratian telling us that the decretals may well be called Canonicall that is either such as are a rule and have force to binde or Canonicall in that sense as the seventh Synod calleth the Decrees of Councels Constitutions inspired from God but particularly also he defends by the authority of Ruffinus this to be the true Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames and to omit others their Iesuite Turrian to whom Baronius Binius Gretzer and others refer us for the credit of these Epistles hath writ a whole booke in defence of them wherein he cals them and particularly he mentioneth and defendeth this of Clement to Iames sanctissimas verissimas c. most holy most true Epistles most worthy of their authors that is men Apostolike consecrated by the reverence of the whole word full of all gravity learning and sanctity confirmed by the testimony and use of all ages and which is most worthy remembring for our present purpose the Iesuite writes in defence of them thus What if in these Epistles sometimes there meet us some such matters as are not easie to all must wee therefore doubt of their authority by no meanes Therefore if any man doe not understand how the Epistle of Clement could bee written to Iames the brother of our Lord who was dead more than eight yeares before such an one if he be a learned modest and temperate man he will ask of others and in the meane space containe himselfe within his owne bounds that is as himselfe explaineth handling this Epistle he must so firmly hold it to be written by Pope Clement ut dubitare nefas existimet that he esteeme it a great sinne to doubt thereof Besides all this the Iesuite hath a large Chapter purposely to defend and shew this Epistle to be truly Clements though it was written to Iames long after he was dead Some there were whom Baronius Possevine and Binius follow who thought it was written indeed by Clement but not unto Iames who was then dead but unto his successor Simeon Against these their owne Turrian holds resolutely that it was writ not
sorry for it So Nauclerus who therein no doubt followed Anastasius for hee having set downe both the same motion made by Theodora and the answer given by Vigilius Binius 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 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 after hee was the true Pope and by that answer which as Anastasius and Nauclerus say hee sent in 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 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 Emperor not Saul nor scarce Paul more orthodoxall than Vigilius when hee would open his heart and declare what hee was intus in cute not Eutyches or Nestorius more damnably heretical than Vigilius In his Epistle written secretly to Theodosius Anthimus and Severus he opens to them his true intent and minde that hee was of one faith with them an Eutychean as they were and so assures them that hee would doe what hee could for them when oportunity should be offered In his Epistles to the Emperour Empresse and Mennas which were to bee publike and seene of all hee makes a shew of love to the truth and to the Councell of Chalcedon which even then hee meant if oportunity were once offred to adnull abolish for ever I here remember a narration not unworthy observing which long since a man of great gravity and judgement in law and now one of the chiefe Iudges in this Realme related unto me how one of the most notorious Traytors in the time of our late Queene of happy memory having by solemne vow by oath by receiving the holy Sacrament bound himselfe to murder his Soveraigne returned home from Italy but with such a shew of zeale towards our religion our State and his Soveraigne that in open Parliament being chosen a Burgesse hee made a very spightfull and violent invective against Recusants and specially against Iesuites His Paymasters and friends of Rome expostulating with him then about the matter Oh quoth he it was needfull I should thus doe now all feare nay suspition of me is quite removed I have by this my open speech gained trust and credit with the Prince with the Councell and the whole State I have now made an easie and free accesse to performe that holy worke And if God had not watched over Israell and his Anoynted many times without suspition and danger he might have done and had done it indeed Seldome are great villanies attempted but with great hypocrisie such deepe dissembling is no novelty at Rome Pope Vigilius was not to be taught this lesson no treason more horrible than his was at this time Hee undertakes and bindes himselfe by his own handwriting by his oath also the Sacrament was not as yet growne to be an obligation of such detestable designes to overthrow and abolish for ever the Councell of Chalcedon and with it the whole Christian faith his purpose and resolution of heart hee signifies in his hereticall Epistle which as it seemes hee writ very shortly after hee was the true and lawfull Pope to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius and sent it privately to Theodora While hee is meditating and seeking how to effect this the Emperour writes unto him requiring him to approve that faith which Leo Caelestine Agapetus and others his predecessors had embraced and particularly to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Severus and Theodosius What should Vigilius here doe had he refused to yeeld to the Emperours just motion hee had bewrayed himselfe and his minde and then not onely the Emperour and Graecians but even his owne Romane Church then orthodoxall and Catholike would have expelled him for an heretike and so hee had deprived himselfe of all possibillity ever to effect his hereticall intendment Hee saw it was most needfull for him to put on the visor of a Catholike profession and therefore after his sacrifice and prayer to Laverna Pulcra Laverna da mihi fallere da justum sanctumque videri then in that counterfeit habit of holinesse he writ those open letters to Iustinian to Mennas and to Theodora so orthodoxall and Catholike that none by them in the world could otherwise judge of him but that he was another S. Silvester S. Caelestine or S. Leo When by this he had gained first the reputation of sanctity in the Church then the good will of the Emperour and the love of all Catholikes when every man now held Vigilius his Apostolicall letters or decrees
Vigilius his cariage in this cause and his 4. severall judgements or changings ibid. sect 2. in sequentibus Vigilius for his decree of silence is to bee judged an heretike p. 229. sec. 6. Vigilius after exile made no decree to approve the fift Councell p. 241. sec. 2 3. the westerne Church approved it not § 4. the Councell of Aquileia doubted to approve it sec. 5. Vigilius not so much as by a private consent did approve it ibid. pa. 245. sect 7. in fine sect 8. Vigilius consented to the Synod but not to the synodall decree p. 245. sec. 8. Vigilius was afflicted and what his afflictions were p. 264. sec. 37 38. Vitiges yeelded himself to Bellisarius p. 447. sec. 16. Vigilius lost not by his going to Constantinople p. 463. sec 3 4 5 c. p. 466. sec. 6 7 8. Vigilius his entrance into the Popedome and the manner of it p. 468. sec. 10. Vigilius his promise to the Empresse to restore Anthimus p. 469. sec. 11. Vigilius keepes not promise with the Empresse ibid. sec. 12. Vigilius resignes the Popedome and is anew elected into it p. 472. sec. 14 15. Vigilius exactly described by Baronius pag. 474. sec. 16. Vigilius writ unto Anthimus and other Eutycheans as unto Catholikes p. 475. in fine Vigilius laboured to undermine the Councell of Chalcedon p. 476. Vigilius accursed not Dioscorus but Nostorius p. 482. sec. 26. Vigilius writ this Epistle to Anthimus after the death of Silverius p. 486. Vigilius in some things alike in others unlike to K. Saul p. 487. in fine sect 30 31. Vigilius was hereticall and a dissembler pa 488. sec. 32. a dissembler in the faith in heart hereticall p. 490. sec. 33. in sequent Vigilius as Pope defined against the faith p 497. sec. 3 c. Vigilius his death and the manner of it pa. 504. sect 52 c. FINIS a Black Notley in Essex b See his Epistle to the Reader for the defence of Iustinian printed Anno 1616. c Disensio Ecclesiae Angliccont Archiep. Spal d Eccles 3.7 e Iude Epist. v. 5 f 2 Cor. 4.6 a Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 9. Auspicacius enecta Parente nascuntur sicut Scipio Africanus primusque Caesarum à Caeso matris utero dictus simili modo natus et Manlius qui Carthaginem cum exercitu intravit b Tert. lib. de resur carnis Possamus illos recogitare qui execto matris utero vivi aerem banserunt Laberij aliqui et Scipiones et Fabius Caeso tâ—r Consul c Cic. Orator d Def. Eccles. Angl. cap. 4. p. 19 De quo toto Concilio conscriptum scias à me librum integrum in quo innumerabiles Baronij fraudes mendacia etiam et hereses palam detecta c. e Quintil. instit Orat. lib. 1 5â—.4 f Paulus Fagius Epist. ad Albertum est maguâ—religio apud Iudaeos non subjicere nomen eius qui boni aliquid dixit docuit aut scripsit g Vid. comment Rabb passim h Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca. 1 in disputatione de verbo Dei Iam ostendimus iudicem controversiarum non esse scripturam nec seculares Principes c. ac proinde ullimum iudicium summi Pontificis esse i Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca. 5 in fine St Papa errayet praecipicudo vitia vel prohâ—bendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia crâ—dere vitia esse bona et virtutes malas nisi vellit contra 〈◊〉 scuntiata pâ—ccare k Bull Pij 4. super forma juramenti professionâ—s fidei anno Dom. 1564. l 〈◊〉 Apolog. pro Bell. ca. 6. Pontificia potestas est vel ut carao fundâ—meÌ„tuÌ„ et ut uno verbo dicam suÌ„ma fidei Christianae m 2 Tim. 3.1 b. n Bell. de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. ca. 4. Etiam si scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum et Apolloâ—orum esse divino tameâ— non certo id credam nisi prius credidero scripturam quae hoc dicit esse divinum nam etiam in Acclâ—orano Mahometi passim legimus ipsum Alchoranum de Caelo à Deo missu c o Quicunque non innititur doctrinae Romanae Ecclesiae ac Romani Pontificis tanquaÌ„ regulae fidei infallibili à quâ etiam sacra Scriptura robur trahit et authoritateÌ„ haereticus est coÌ„tra Lutherâ—i p Greâ—z descâ—s Bell. lib. 1. de verbo Dei Id solum proverbi Dei veneramur acsuscipiâ—us quod â—obis Pontificeâ— ex Cathedra Petri traâ—uÌ„t q Tertul. Apos adversus gentes Ca. 5. r August lib. 11. contra Faustum Manicheum ca. 2. inde proboinquichat Faustus hoc illius esse illud non esse quia hoc pro me sonat illud contra me s Dureus adversus Whitakerum fol. 1â—0 Neque enim patres censentur cum suum aliquid quod ab ecclesia non acceperunt velseribunt vel dicunt t Gretz lib. 2. de iure mâ—re prohâ—bendi libros nox os ca. 10. Nam Ecclesiae pater ille dicitur qui Ecclesiam salutari doctrine pabulo alit et pascit iam ergo si prosalutari doctrinae pabulo admetiatur Lolium et Zâ—zania non Pater est sed Vetricus u Lindan Panoâ—tia lib. 1. ca. 17. x Senensis Bib. S. titulo Ensebius y Possevinus in apparatu sacro z Canus locorum Theol. lib. 7. ca. 3 a Coster in Apolog contra Greâ—inc ca. 8. b Baron ad annum 340. c Lind. panoplia lib. 1. cap. 23. d Rehing in muris Civitatis sanctae fund 2. et 12. e Azorius moral lib. 8. cap. 16. f Maldon in Math. cap. 16. vers 19. p. 340. g Bell. de sanctorum beat lib. 1. ca. 5. p. 1938. Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 698. h 〈◊〉 Panopl lib. 3. c. 24. et 26. i 〈◊〉 contra Whitac fol. 109. k Canus loc Theol l. 7. c. 3. Maldon in Ioan. cap. 1. vers 3. pag. 399. l Ribâ—â—a in Malach Prophet proemium m Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. ca. 3 Tota firmitas legitimorum Conciliorum est à Pontifice Romano et cap. 1. n Conciliorum iudicium tum demuÌ„ firmum est cam accesserit Rom Pontificis confirmatio o An. Do. 681. p An. Do. 794. q An. Do. 1409. r An. Do. 1430. s An. Do. 1414. t An. 787. Irene u An. Do. 1517. x Dudithius quinque Eccles. Epist. ad Maximilianum secundum Caesarem y Lucau de bello â—iu l. 1. z Bell de Concil author l. 2. c. â—â— Dicere Ecclesiae id est sibi ipsi ut praesidi et Ecclesiae cui ipse praeest a Gretz defen Bell. lib. 3. de verbo Dei Ait tertiò interpretantur Ecclesiam Paâ—am non abâ—â—o quid tum b 2 a. 2â— disput. 1. q. 1. c Boz lib. 2. de signis Eccl. ca. 21. See farther in this Treatise cap. 13. p. 17â— d Plut. in vit Cicer. e Psal. 122. f Phil. 1.9 g Apoc. 9.11 a