3. ad tom 6. Act. Conc. Eph. p. 907 which Theodoret made to the Nestorians at Chalcedon during the time of that Ephesine Councell of which Peltanus sayth Theodoret is caryed insano impitu with a furious rage against Cyrill and the other Orthodoxall Bishops of the holy Councell comparing them to Serpents Basiliskes murderers and the like Neither doth he onely vomit out his choler against them but he plainly girded at the Emperour also Did he accuse none when he uttered all this Nay he d Theod. loc cit affirmes Catholikes which hold Christ God and man to be one person and so to be passible to be worse than Heathens The Heathens sayth he taught the Heaven the Sun and the Starres to be impassible and shall wee beleeve the onely begotten Son of God to be passible and such as may dye Absit Salvator ne sic simus Apostatae farre be this from us O Saviour let us not be such Apostates as to teach this let us not suspect that our Saviour could suffer Let any man now judge whether it be not a shamelesse untruth which those Epistles avouch that Theodoret was not reproved for this doctrine no not lightly reproved in all those 26. yeares whereas both then and ever since the whole Catholike Church hath accursed his impiety and heresie which he so insolently then preached And omitting infinite like proofes of the falshood of that Epistle the next yeare after the Ephesine Councell there was a Synod e Tom. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 5. pa. 831. pa. 927. held at Antioch where Iohn and divers other Bishops concluded the full union with Cyrill wherein they all condemne anathematize the heresies of Nestorius which their profession of faith and this condemning of the Nestorian heresie Iohn sent both to Cyrill to Pope Sixtus and to Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople Now seeing Theodoret not onely in former time had beene so violent and furious in defence of that doctrine but then and long after continued in the same minde was not his doctrine reproved nay was it not accursed and anathematized by Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and many other Bishops subject to his Patriarchship What a most vile and shameless untruth then is it which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter that in the whole space of 25. or 26. yeares he neither accused any nor was accused nor reproved no not lightly reproved either by Iohn or any other but that all and every one of his writings contained the true doctrine of the Church But enough of those Epistles which to be forged and false this which is already sayd may for this time suffice 11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affirmeth that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius and withall seene how weake and unsound his proofe is in this point I will yet adde one consideration which will further manifest and even demonstrate the same That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certaine it is that when Theodoret writ that history he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme whereof in the very last Chapter f Lib. 5. ca. 40. he gives an eminent proofe commending Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia for a worthy teacher of the whole Church and for an oppugner of all heresies adding that whereas he was a Bishop thirty six yeares he never ceased optimam herbam sanctis Christi ovibus suppeditare to feed the flocke of Christ with the best herbes None can doubt but hee who so much extolleth so detestable an heretike and approveth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius suckt for the best herbes or doctrines but he must needs be confessed to bee as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe If now it may appeare that this history was writ by him after the union there can no doubt remaine but that after the union Theodoret favoured Nestorius and all his heresies 12. Baronius knowing this inevitably to follow to decline the whole force of this tels g an 427. nu 28 us that Theodoret writ his history not onely before the union but before the jarre also yea before the time of the holy Councell at Ephesus whereof having given some sleight conjectures in the end he concludes Dicendum est It must be sayd that Theodoret writ this history in the space of those three yeares which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Councell So he Shall I say the Cardinall was deceived and overseene herein No I will not suspect that such an evident error could creepe into the minde of so exact an Annalist I rather thinke his intent was wilfully and wittingly to deceive others and that therefore hee sayd this to smother that truth touching Theodorets continuance in Nestorianisme which he elsewhere so often denieth Theodoret h Lib. 5. hist Eccl. ca. 36. mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or reliques of Chrysostome and bringing them to Constantinople The Cardinall was so far from being ignorant hereof that himselfe citeth i Bar. an 438. nu 6. Theodoret with a memorandum He ante omnes above them all mentioneth this translation but in few words That translation as Socrates k Lib. 7. ca. 44. and Marcellinus l In suo Chron. witnesse was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consull that is as the Cardinall also accounteth in the yeare 438. Now seeing the union betweene Iohn and Cyrill was made in the yeare 432. it unavoydably followeth that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven yeares at least after the union and how much more I know not whether 8. 10. or 16. after it for it is uncertaine or if hee writ it as the Cardinall divineth before the Ephesine Synod that he writ it prophetically writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine yeares after his history was written The truth is an orderly and historicall continuation of things done he doth not write but onely to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia where his history for any such continuation of succeeding matters doth end but to shew and testifie that he writ his history after the yeare 438. hee purposely mentioneth some of those acts which fell out in that yeare and hereof further there may be a presumption because Theodoret as Baronius tels m Ecquid mirum si quod dixerat Sozomenus à Theodoreto repetitum inveniatur Bar. in Martyr Rom. Decemb. 23. us followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mopsvestia now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius as himselfe witnesseth So that if Theodoret as the Cardinall tels us tooke it out of Sózomen and his booke was not published till the yeare 439. sure the Cardinall of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time otherwise than prophetically in this point write his history It remaineth now seeing Theodoret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this
Precatus est ut tumuli ejus motus atque strepitus consisteret 35. enim annis jam is quatiebatur Bar. ibid. nu 12. which had shaked and been sicke of a palsie and made a noise and ratling for thirty five yeares together might now at length cease the holy man heard the request granted it the graves palsie was cured so that it shaked no more Then Proclsu the Bishop placed dead Chrysostome in eundem Thronum in the very same See and Episcopall seat with himselfe all the people applauding and crying O Father Chrysostome receive thy See and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration the lips g Ipse Chrysostomus labijs rursum apertis ad populum dixissè fertur Pax vobis Cosmas apud Bar. loco citat et Niceph. of Chrysostome five and thirty yeares after hee was laid in his grave opened and blessed all the people saying Peace be to you and this both the Patriarke Proclus and the people standing by testified h Jd circumstantes homines et Patriarcha Proclus se audisse testati sunt Cos et Niceph. loc cit that they heard Thus farre the Cardinals narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Nicephorus 4. Say now in earnest is not this a story able to put downe Heliodore Orlando and all the fictions of all the Poets their wits are barren their conceits dull they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor It is not my purpose to stand now to refute such a lying legend The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monke i Ad optimum quemque lectorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthusiam post vitam Chrysost apud Geor. pat Alex. Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus the onely author that he knew till Baronius pull'd this blinde Tailor out of a corner Though I beleeve saith hee God to bee omnipotent yet I beleeve not all which is here written of Chrysostome sed fides penes lectoreÌ„ esto let the reader choose whether hee will beleeve it or not for the writers of mens lives who lived before Nicephorus and hee writ about the yeare 1328. would not have concealed or smothered in silence rem tanti momenti a matter of so great moment Thus the Carthusian whose judgement may justly be thought to bee the more weighty because of all the ancient Fathers there is none I speake it confidently who hapned to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius as he is called Leo and George the writers or rather the devisers of Chrysostomes acts his life and death Any one of them doting after such miraculous reports would have painted out this miracle of miracles with all the wit and words which they had That which I onely observe is the strange and if you please miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius This Epistle of Theodosius though it was written to Chrysostome more than thirty yeares after his death the Cardinall approves applaudes and for a rare monument hee commends k Concionem illam rati tibi fore chariorem Bar. an 438. nu 2. Cosmas vestiarius luculenta oratione de câdë translatione habitá quâ—â— gesta fuerunt exactè recenset Jbid. nu 7. et alia similiahabet it and all that appendant fable to all posterity Why it is an excellent story indeed to perswade the adoration of reliques invocation of Saints prayers for the dead and such like Had this Epistle of Theodorets contained such stuffe it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship because it wants such matters and crosseth in very many things the Cardinals Annals Oh it is nothing but a fiction and a very forgery of some lewd naughty varlet It is demonstrated to be such because it was written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch who was dead but 7. yeares before whereas more than foure times seven yeares cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after hee was dead to be an authentike and undoubted record This may serve the Cardinall for the first answere who is now bound in all equity either to confesse his owne demonstration to be fallacious or to proclame the Epistle of Pope Clement and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration to be fictitious and his owne Annals a fabulous legend 5. My second answer is that though Iohn to whom this Epistle is directed was dead yet that proves onely the title or inscription to be amisse or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to Iohn it cannot prove which the Cardinall undertooke to doe that the Epistle is forged and not written by Theodoret For the Epistle it selfe to bee truly Theodorets his owne Sermon publikely preached at Antioch before Domnus after the death of Cyrill and mentioned in the Synodall Acts l Conc. Coll. 5. 5. pa. 559. b. next after this Epistle doth clearly manifest for the scope and purpose of that sermon is the same which is expressed in the Epistle In the Epistle Theodoret declareth his eagernesse in defending the doctrine of Nestorius and withall rejoyceth and insulteth 〈◊〉 Cyrill being dead who was then the chiefe oppugner of the heresies of Nestorius The very same eagernesse for Nestorianisme and love to his heresies as also the like joy for Cyrils death doth his sermon expresse more fully saying Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemiâ—e none doth now seeing Cyrill is dead compell any man to blaspheme so hee cals the Catholike faith Where are those to wit Cyrill who teach that God was crucified It was the man Christ and not God who was crucified It was the man IESVS that dyed and it was GOD the Word who raised him from the dead Non jam est contentio Now seeing Cyrill is dead there is no contention Oriens Egyptus sub une jugo est the East Egypt that is as well those who are under the Patriarke of Alexandria as they who are under the Patriarke of Antioch are all under one yoke that is all submit themselves to one faith that is to Nestorianisme Mortua est invidia cum eo mortua est contentio Envy hee meaneth Cyrill who so much hated and oppugned the doctrine of Nestorius is now dead and all contention is dead and buried with him Let now the Theopaschites hee meanes Catholikes who taught God to have suffered and dyed let them now bee at quiet Thus preached Theodoret after the death of Cyrill insulting over him being dead triumphing that now seeing Cyrill was dead Nestorianisme did and would prevaile Who can imagine but that the Epistle maintaining the same heresie insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill was written by Theodoret when he publikely in his sermon before a Patriarke uttered the same matter Would Theodoret feare or forbeare to write that in a letter which hee neither did feare nor could forbeare to professe openly in a sermon and that in so solemne a place and assembly or was Theodoret orthodoxall and a
a barre unto Anthimus If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon but till that were done till the Councell were repealed Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that hee in two severall Epistles the one to Iustinian the other to Mennas confirmed as the Emperour required him to doe the deposition of Anthimus and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges namely in the fourteenth yeare of k Vt ante probatum est hoc cap. Iustinian and five yeares before the death of Gontharis Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood but Vigilius also to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Emperour that hee would not doe specially seeing as Baronius l Bar. an 540. nu 22. saith Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperour Omnem prorsus sive Theodorae sive alijs spem ademisset would put both Theodora and all else out of all hope that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus So although those words eodem tempore were not as they ought to be referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople which was the yeare m Nam literae Vigilij missae Iustimano sunt an 14. Iustiniani Bar. an 540. nu 14. Bellisarius autem redit Constantinopolim cum Vitige an Iustiniani 15. Bar. an 541. nu 3. after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour yet the Anastasian narration is not onely untrue but wholly improbable that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas that hee would not restore him and that he ought not to bee restored Lastly at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus which following the death of Gontharis must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside and the Three Chapters were then in every mans mouth and every where debated The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare as by Victor n Iustinianus Vigilium compelit ut ad urbaÌ„ regiam properaret an 4. post Consulatum Basilij Vict. in Chr. in eum an is autem est an 19. Justiniani secundum Bar. an 545. nu 1. who then lived is evident if not before published his Edict and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople Anastasius dreamed of somewhat and hearing of some writing or sending to Vigilius about that time he not knowing or which I rather thinke willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration for his great love to the Pope conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus and indeavors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See Iust as Alcibiades o Plut. in Alcih to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne p Nam mina Atâ—tica valet nostri nun mi 3. l. 2. s 6. d. ut testatur Edovardus Breirwooddus in lib. suo de Pond ca. 4. quem libruÌ„ accuratè admodum haec tractare non est cur docti dubitent 218. pound and 15. shillings and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace The true cause of sending to Vigilius as Victor sheweth q Imperator Vigilium ad regiam urbem compellit venire ut tâ—ia Capitula condeÌ„naret Vict. in Chron. an 4. post Coss Basilij was about the Three Chapters this of Anthimus which Anastasius harpes upon is in truth no other but the dogs taile and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men but now the true cause being come to the open view fils the world with that shamefull heresie of Vigilius which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dogs taile But enough of this passage wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes 18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vigilius and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to ConstaÌ„tinople He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus suggested divers accusations against him as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed and that hee was a murderer and had killed his Nephew Asterius whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scribo to take him wheresoever hee were except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribo came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people singing an hymne behold the Lord commeth Thus Anastasius Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend were easie to demonstrate if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part for they not onely condemne this as untrue but prove it by divers arguments to be such The first for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely r Trium Capitulotum causâ tantum vocatus est Bin. not in vita Vigilij § Tunc Romani Non alia causa profectionis Vigilij Constantinopolim cognoscitur Bar. an 546. nu 55. for the cause of the Three Chapters and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof aperti mendacij Å¿ Bar. an eodem 546. nu 54. arguitur is convinced of an evident untruth The second because seeing as they say Mennas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented Iustinian would conciliate t Putavit Vigilium quibus posset fieri blanditijs conciliandum Bin. loc cit Eum sibi quibus valuit studuit conciliare blanditijs Bar. an 546. nu 55. the Pope unto him by all faire meanes and intreate him no otherwise but favourably least if the Pope were displeased he should not yeeld his consent and then the whole
the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and faith n Bar. an 538. nu 14 15. that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus o Lib. loc cit that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was p Augusta Vigilium profiteri flagitavit ut si Papa fieret tolleret Synodum c. Lubenter suscepit Vigilius promissum Liber loc cit the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed q Silverius hoc anno obijt 12. Kalend. Iulij Ba. an 540. nu 2 in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon r Ita Silverius traditus duobus Vigilij servis qui in Palmariam abductus sub eorum custodiâ defecit inedia Lib. loc cit his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth ſ Mors Silverij fuit an 540. et hoc ipso itidem anno Vigilius ad Theodoram scripsit promissa exolvere volens Gretz def ca. 10 lib. 4. de Pont. that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth t Naucl. Gener. 18. Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am sorry for it So Nauclerus who therein no doubt followed Anastasius for hee u Anast in vit Vigilij having set downe both the same motion made by Theodora and the answer given by Vigilius Binius x Ecce ut Vigil statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit c. Bin. not in vit Vig. observes that this was done when Vigilius was now the rightfull and true Pope wherefore seeing Theodora writ to Pope Vigilius and that after the death of Silverius to performe his promise it is certaine that before then he had not done it and so that untill hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope hee did not write this Epistle which would have given full content to Theodora and seeing againe we have clearly proved that hee did write it it remaineth that hee writ it after the death of Silverius when himselfe was the onely lawfull and true Bishop of Rome One doubt in this matter remaineth which Binius y Bin. not in vit Vig § Ex Actis sleightly mentioneth for that Vigilius after he was true Pope did not onely anathematize Anthimus and confirme his deposition but professe himselfe also to defend the Councell of Chalcedon as appeares both by his Epistle to Iustinian and Mennas dated foure months z Epist Vigilij ad Mennam 15 Calend. Octob. data est Ea extat apud Bar. an 540. nu 25. et eodem tempore missa est etiam illa ad Iustinianum apud Bar. an 540. nu 15. et 22. after hee was the true Pope and by that answer which as Anastasius and Nauclerus say hee sent in a Ad haec rescripsit Vigilius Anast in vit Vig. writing to Theodora that hee would not now restore Anthimus being an heretike Whence it may bee collected that after he was once the true and lawfull Pope nihil horum dixerit scripserit vel egerit that hee neither said writ nor did any such thing as it is expressed in this Epistle for confirming the heresie of Eutyches for how is it credible that he should write both these being directly contrary the one to the other 32. I answer that had Vigilius bin an honest man or a man of credit of constancy and resolution he would never have thought or dreamed to write both those But Vigilius was perpaucorum hominum you may goe through the whole Catalogue of the Romane Popes and there is the best choise of wicked men in all formes and fashions of impiety to bee found and not picke out such a Polipus a turncoate a weather-cocke as Pope Vigilius Baronius compares him to King Saul and saith b Bar. an 540. nu 13. that as soone as hee was made the true Pope hee was then Saul inter Prophetas It is true in many things hee was like King Saul but in that act of prophesying wherein the Cardinal compares them there is a marvellous dissimilitude betwixt them Saul was moved by Gods Spirit Vigilius by his owne will Saul was acted and driven to utter those prophesies which God put into his mouth Vigilius himselfe did guide and move his tongue and turned it with the rudder of his unconstant minde when and whithersoever hee would Saul prophesied of necessity not being able to resist Gods motion Vigilius in hypocrisie being desirous to please and humour other men in a word Saul had the gift Vigilius the art or jugling tricke of prophesying When he would seeme to be that which indeed and in heart he was not a Catholike Bishop and gaine the favour of Iustinian a Catholike
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 sights 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 a Vigil Const apud Bar. an 553. nu 179. 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 b Ibid. nu 184. 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 c Sup. ca. 6. shewed was knowne and confessed because d Perspenimus si quid de his qui defuncti sum nunime reperiuntur in vita damnati Vig. loc cit nu 176. Quos vocat In pace Ecclesiae defunctos Ibid nu 179. 184. 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 e Iust Edict § Quod autem 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 f Iust ibid. 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 if 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 g Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. verbo Theodorus 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 h Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. a. 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 his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth
hee that curseth not Theodorus how much more cursed then is he who acquits Theodorus from that curse who makes Theodorus blessed for blessed are all they that dye in the peace and holy communion of the Church and that Theodorus so dyed the Cardinall for a certainty doth assure us for Vigilius knew that he so dyed 16. But what Church I pray you is that in the communion whereof the Cardinall assures us Theodorus to have dyed you may bee sure it is their Romane for in the Cardinalls idiome that 's not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church but it s the one and onely Church In the communion then of their Romane church even in the communion with the Cardinall himselfe dyed Theodorus Now its certaine he died not in the communion of the Church which was in the fift generall Councell for they utterly disclaim him accurse him and call them lyars and slanderers that say hee dyed in their communion Againe its certaine that the Church of that fift Councell was of the same communion with the whole Catholike and Apostolike Church themselves professing to hold the same faith and communion with all former holy generall Councells and Catholikes and all succeeding catholikes by approving it professing the same faith and communion of with it Seeing then Theodorus dyed not in the communion of this Church which is the true and truly catholike Church and yet dyed as the Cardinall assures you if the communion of their Romane church it doth clearly and certainly hence ensue that their Romane church is neither the true catholike neither hath full communion with the true catholike Church 17. Lastly seeing Theodorus as the Cardinall tells us died in the peace and communion of their Church and Theodorus was most certainly an heretike condemned by the catholike Church declared by the same Church to bee accursed that is separated from God nay to be a very Devill as the holy Councell p Hoc symbolum Satanas composuit Conc. 5. ita ait de symbolo Theodori Collat. 4. pa. 537. a. proclaimed him Their Romane church must needes bee at peace and of the same communion with condemned heretikes with Arius Nestorius Eutiches Eunomius none of them all can bee worse then as Theodorus was condemned heretikes by the judgement 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 b ibid. nu 179. 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 a Vig. Const nu 173. 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 c Ipsam Synodum Ephesinam solicite recensentes nihil de Theodori persona referre coÌ„perimus ibid. nu 173. nor of Chalcedon d Sed neque insancto Chalcedonensi concilio aliquid de Theodori nomine inâ—enimus statutuÌ„ ibid. nu 175. nor in Cyril e Ex quo claret beatum Cyrillum noluisse nomen ejus Theodori monumentis Synodalibus propter regulam quae de mortuis servanda est contineri ibid. nu 173. nor in Proclus f Quando scripsi oportere aut Theodorum aut alios qui pridem desuncti sunt anathemati subdi oportere ibid. ex Proclo nu 174. 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 g Conc. 5. coll 8. pa. 585. b. shew their meaning concerning Theodorus quod oportet eum anathematizarì 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 h Coll. 9. pa. 551. b. 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 i Ibid. pa. 551. a. 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 eum 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
e Epist 7. §. Etsi 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 f Vigilius in Const nu 173. 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 servandae 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 g Vigil in Const nu 145. 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 h Liber ca. 10. 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 i Duas Iohannis Epistolas laudes Theodori continentes Chalced. Synod suscepit et confirmavit Jbid. 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 k Bar. an 435. nu 11. 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 Theodorus 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 Coūcell of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime that is in plaine termes avoucheth them to be hereticall Videsne saith the l Jbid. 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 m Bar. ibid. et nu 12. 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 n Bin. notis in Liberatum § Breviarium hoc explaneth saying That which Liberatus affirmeth that the Councell of Chalcedon received the praises of Theodorus is not onely untrue sed etiam ipsi relationi Synodicae contraria but it is plainly contrary to the Synodall Relation of the Councell at Chalcedon to which Liberatus referreth himselfe Change but the name and all this is everie whit as forcible against Vigilius as against Liberatus But the Cardinall had well learned the old lesson Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas the Pope offends more than any but the poore Deacon must feele the smart and beare all the blowes and yet by your leave through the Deacons sides the Cardinall hath cunningly given a deadly wound and cut the very roote of the Popes Apostolicall decree although he will not bee
into banishment or returning out of banishment or of his defending the three Chapters or of his condemning the same Chapters or of the Emperours either casting him into or releasing him from exile or of the fift Councell or of the end thereof and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilfull Chymick extract both that Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell was banished for defending the Three Chapters and after that banishment consented to the Synod and to condemne the three Chapters And see I pray you how the Chymick distills this If Liberatus saith he e Bar. an 554. nu 5. being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters had found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem persisting untill his death in that sentence which in his Constitution he had published for defence of the Three Chapters truly he would have praised Vigilius for a Martyr had he dyed in such sort But when he saith Vigilius was afflicted and not crowned planè alludit ad ejus exilium he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius and to his forsaking or revolt from that judgement after he came from banishment Thus doth the Cardinall glosse upon the words of Liberatus 32. See the force of truth The Cardinalls owne words doe most sully answer his owne doubt and explane that truth which hee wittingly oppugneth Had Liberatus found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem constant or persisting without any change or relenting in his defending the three Chapters untill his dying day then indeed Vigilius should have beene with Liberatus an obstinate defender of that sentence a glorious Martyr at the least a worthy Confessor and for that cause he should have beene condemned by Liberatus But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence wavering and unconstant therein turning his note as soone almost as he had looked the Emperour in the face Vigilius by reason of that change unconstancie and 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 f Comptures Orthodoxi ipse Vigilius contra eadem Capitula asserta ab Imperatore insurrexere Bar. an 546. nu 38. on their side and against the Emperour they honoured g Vigilius arguit ut prophanas vocum novitates Facundi dictum apud Bar. an 546. nu 57. 58. 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 h Ne Traditor videretur Facundi dictum de Vigilio apud Bar. an 547. nu 37. Collusorem Praevaricatorem conclamarunt Bar. an eod nu 49. vulgarunt vbique eum impugnare Concilium Chalcedonense Bar. an 550. nu 1. 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 i Vict. in Chron. an 9. post Cons Basil 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 k John 14 2. house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre l 1 Cor. 15.41 differeth from another in
history and it was written after the yeare 438. that out of all doubt till then hee remained hereticall and devoted to all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus which in that history he commends for most wholsome food and Catholike doctrine 11. But not to stay longer in a matter very cleare my conclusion of this former point is this Seeing the Cardinall tels us that from the time of the union Theodoret was not onely a Catholike and orthodoxall Bishop but that he did manfully fight for the Catholike faith it evidently followeth that in the Cardinals judgment Nestorianism and those herbes nay most poysonfull weeds of Theodorus are Catholike doctrines seeing as now we have proved for many but of a certainty for seven yeares at least after the union that doctrine which Theodoret embraced and so earnestly defended was no other than the blasphemous heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus And let this suffice for the third addition which he unjustly objecteth to the Acts of this fift Councell CAP. XXXIV The fourth addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret intitled to Iohn Bishop of Antioch is falsly inserted therein refuted 1. HIs fourth instance concernes an Epistle of Theodoret inscribed to Iohn Bishop of Antioch set downe neare the last end of the fift Collation wherein Theodoret exceedingly rejoyceth for the death of Cyrill In handling whereof Baronius and Binius doe more than triumph as if the field were certainly wonne That Epistle sayth Binius a Annot. in 5. Concil §. Constitutum nequissimi scelestissimi alicujus nebulonis Eutychiani commentum est is the forgery of some most naughty and nefarious Eutychian varlet and by fraud and surreption is thrust into the Acts of this Synod We have before discovered saith Baronius b an 553. nu 43 the imposture of that Epistle but we are not grieved to repeat the same things here againe that it may be shewed that they are not the true Acts of the Synod sed nebulonis cujusdam ex cogitatione commentum but a forgery devised by some knave and therfore we say that Epistle which is recited under the name of Theodoret to Iohn of Antioch Omni ex parte convinci is every way convinced not to bee Theodorets Againe c Bar. an 444. nu 12. There is an Epistle set downe in the fift Synod under the name of Theodoret written unto Iohn rejoycing in the death of Cyrill and babbling very many things against him which you may more truly call a Satyre or infamous libell than an Epistle And we take it very indignely that it should goe under the name of Theodoret which is rather the figment of some Nestorian and againe d an 553. n. 44. it is sigmentum impudentissimi cujusdam nebulonis a fiction of some most shameles varlet Thus much more Baronius The like doth Binius with no lesse confidence and virulency against these Acts affirme The maine ground on which they both relye is for that Iohn Bishop of Antioch to whom this Epistle is inscribed was dead before Cyrill How could Theodoret saith Baronius e an 444. nu 16 an 553. n. 44. write to Iohn touching the death of Cyrill seeing Iohn was dead seven yeares before Cyrill which saith he exploratum habetur is sure and certaine both by Nicephorus and others who writ the succession of Bishops as also by an Epistle which Cyrill writ to Domnus the successour of Iohn both which proofes Binius f Loco citato also alledgeth 2. My first answer hereunto is that if this bee a demonstration of forgery because an Epistle is written to one that is dead themselves and not we shall be the greatest losers hereby There is a decretall Epistle g Epist 1. Clem. extat to 1. Conc. pa. 25. seq written by Pope Clement to Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and brother of our Lord in that Epistle the Pope tels Iames how Peter being now ready to bee martyred tooke Clement ordained him Bishop gave him the keyes set him in his owne chayre and when hee was set therein sayd unto him Deprecor te O Clemens O Clement I beseech thee before all that are here present that thou write unto Iames the brother of our Lord how thou hast beene a companion with me of my journyes and of my actions ab initio usque ad sinem from the beginning to the end and write also what thou hast heard mee preach in every City what order of words of actions I have used in my preaching and also what an end I make of my life in this City Neither feare that he will be sory for my death seeing he will not doubt but I dye for pieties sake yea it will be a great comfort unto him to heare that I doe not leave my charge to one that is ignorant or unlearned According to this request and command of Peter Clement writ an Epistle to Iames exhorting him that he command all that which Peter taught to be diligently observed This and much more writ Clement to Iames after the death and of the life and death of Peter Now Iames unto whom hee writ was dead sixe or seven yeares before Peter For Iames was slaine in the seventh and Peter in the thirteenth yeare of Nero as out of S. Ierome h Hic Iacobus 30. annis rexit Ecclesiam usque ad septimum Neronis annum Hier. in Catal. scrip in Iacâ—bo Petrus ad ultâ—mum annum Neronis id est 14. Ecclesiam rexit idem in Petro. Eusebius i Euseb an 7. Neronis ait Ià cobum occâ—sum an Christ 63. Petrus an 14. Neronis idem an 70. Iosephus k Ioseph IacobuÌ„ lapidatuÌ„ ait an post Christum natum 63. Antiqu lib. 20. c. 8. and others is evident and as Baronius l Anno 7. Neronis Iacobi necem accidisse omnes consentiunt Bar. an 63. nu 2. Petrum autem anno 13. Neronis occisum probat Bar. an 69. nu 2. and after him Binius m Annot. in Epist 1. Clem. not onely professe but clearly and rightly prove and because this is a decretall n Inter Decretales epistolas Pontificum numerat eam Tuâ—rian lib. 2 ca. 13. hoc probat p. 209 Epistle an Apostolicall o Apostolicorum Pontificum Tur. lib. 2. in praef pa. 150. et suis authoribus id est Apostolicis dignissimas ibid. pa. 152. writing sent from Clement being Pope which was not till the tenth p Clementem ingressum in Papatum an Chr. 93. is est Domitiani an 10. probat Baron an 93. nu 2. yeare of Domitian and that is thirty yeares after the q Nam is obijâ— ut probatum est an Chr. 63. death of Iames it hence ensueth that it was writ to Iames thirty yeares after he was dead What shall now become of this decretall and Apostolicall Epistle Will they be content that by the Cardinals demonstration it bee rejected as the
lover of Cyrill in his writings before the death of Cyrill who was hereticall and so full with the dregs of Nestorianisme after the death of Cyrill that he must vent them and with them disgorge his malice and spite against Cyrill in an open Pulpit and in the hearing of a Patriarke and all the people of Antioch It is not the inscription on title of the Epistle but the Epistle it selfe which the fift Councell and wee after it doe stand upon Had not they knowne the Epistle to bee Theodorets they needed not by it to have proved that Theodoret after the union yea after the death of Cyrill was eager violent yea virulent also in defence of the heresies of Nestorius that his publike sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils death and against Cyrill had beene a sufficient proofe and demonstration of that but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret they thought good to testifie that he was in writing the selfe fame man as hee was in preaching that is in both a spitefull maligner of Cyrill in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian and that long after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill yea that even after the death of Cyrill he continued both to write and to speake the same 6. Observe now by the way the fraudulent dealing of Baronius and Binius in this cause This passage taken out of a sermon publikely preached at Antioch against Cyrill and in an insulting manner for his death this they doe not nor durst they carpe at it It is testified by all the Bishops of the fift Councell to have beene a part of Theodorets sermon the Epistle which likewise is testified by them all to bee Theodorets containing the same matter with his sermon that they raile at and revile both it and the writer of it because in the inscription thereof they have espyed an errour It had beene honest dealing in the Cardinall and Binius seeing these are fethers of one wing either to have acknowledged both or denyed both to bee the brood of Theodoret. 7. Againe the Cardinall undertooke to prove that still after the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill Theodoret was a Catholike and defender of the Catholike faith and because the Epistle demonstrates the contrary he will not allow it to bee Theodorets but a forgery written in his name Admit it were yet that part of Theodorets sermon is truly his nor doth eyther Baronius or Binius deny it to bee his Now by this sermon is Theodoret as effectually proved and demonstrated as by the Epistle to have beene an eager oppugner of the Catholike faith and an obstinate defender of all the heresies of Nestorius after the death of Cyrill which was twelve m Vnio facta an 432. Bar. illo an nu 77. Cyrillus autem obijt an 444. Bar. illo an nu 9. yeares after the union So that although the Epistle were not Theodorets or had never beene extant yet the Cardinals position for Theodorets Orthodoxy is clearly and certainly refuted by the sermon of Theodoret made twelve yeares after the union 8. Further yet the Cardinall to defend the Orthodoxy of Theodoret urgeth strongly and relyeth upon the Epistles which in their Vaticane or Mint-house are stamped with the name of Theodoret whereas if there were no other proofes this one sermon of Theodorets is an undoubted evidence that they can bee none of Theodorets but are forged in his name for the whole scope at which those Epistles n Vt clarum est ex Epist Theod. ad Dioscorum ad Leonem ad Nomum de quibus diximus supra ca. 33. ayme is to magnifie Theodoret both for his integrity of life uprightnesse in judgement laboriousnesse in preaching and specially for his soundnesse in the Catholike faith that he was never reproved nor accused by any no not in sixe and twenty yeares for his doctrine that he never accused any and specially for Cyrill that Theodoret loved and honoured him for a learned and pious man mirificè coluit ejus memoriam when Cyrill was dead hee wonderfully honoured his memory calling him a man of blessed memory all which and a hundred such like matters contained in those Epistles are undeniably convicted to bee untrue by this sermon of his wherein he vomiteth out in a most solemne assembly together with the blasphemies of Nestorius most slanderous revilings not onely against Cyrill at whose death hee insulteth but against all Catholikes whom he according to the Nestorian language cals Theopaschites and heretikes with such false fained and lying writings doth the Cardinall fight against the fift Synod and the Acts thereof 9. Yea but still the Cardinall will reply the Inscription unto Iohn who before was dead shewes the Epistle to Iohn to bee forged and to be none of Theodorets It doth not for the inscription or title of an Epistle or other writing may bee erronious and the Epistle truly his whose name it beares which the Cardinal may see if need were in a hundred examples 10. In the Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames whereof before wee spake the Cardinall o An. 69. nu 43 and Binius p Notis in 1. Epistolam Clementis both confesse the inscription to be false and yet they both hold the Epistle to bee Pope Clements yea they can excuse that and say it was but an errour in writing Iames q In titulum Epistolae mendosè vâ—x Iacobum irrepsit Bin. loc cit in stead of Simeon in the title were they not too too partiall and malicious against this holy Synod they would as easily have used the same excuse for Theodorets Epistle and have said the Epistle is truly his but in the inscription in the Acts the name of Iohn is by the writers mistaking set in stead of Domnus 11. Theodoret in his history r Lib. 5 ca. 10. et secundum Chryst ca. 11. sets down an Epistle of Pope Damasus against Eunomius and other heretikes the title in him is thus The confession of faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica and with this inscription it is also published in the Venice edition of the Councels by Nicholinus Did Damasus write or send this to Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica No he did not there was no Paulinus then nor long after that Bishop of Thessalonica as Å¿ Vides Lector ne fingi quidem posse ut Paulinus quem jactat Theodoretus fuerit Episcopus Thessalonicensis Bar. an 378. nu 43. Baronius and t Bin. not in Conc. Rom. 3. sub Damaso post professionem sidei Apollinaris c. pa. 508. Binius at large prove and professe What then may we here conclude by the Cardinals demonstration certainly this Epistle was none of Pope Damasus writings it is a forgery and a counterfeit seeing it is written to Paulinus whereas there was no such man at all No the demonstration holds not in Pope Damasus nor in his writings for notwithstanding this errour
in the title Baronius and Binius u Scripta fuit Synodalis Epistola à Dâ—maso ex Conâ—ilio Romano ad Paulinum Antiochenum Bar. an 378. nu 41. itidem Binius loco citat hold it both to be the true undoubted and Synodall Epistle of Pope Damasus and truely sent from him but sent to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch not to any Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica Applie now this to the Epistle of Theodoret may not it likewise be true and truly written by Theodoret though the title be either false or unpossible If any demand how that errour in Theodoret touching the title of the Epistle might happen Baronius and Binius impute x Locis citatis it to the malice and wilful fraud of Theodoret but I much rather ascribe it to the writer who finding in Theodoret the name of Paulinus without any addition either ignorantly or wickedly inserted the false addition of Thessalonica Would the Cardinall have dealt favourably with the other inscription of Iohn and in stead of it have put Domnus who was then Bishop of Antioch he might have spared his labour in this point 12. In the sixteenth Novell of Iustinian the inscription is to Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople now the date of that Edict is on the thirteenth day of August in the yeare after the Consulship of Bellisarius at which time it is certaine that not Anthimus but Mennas was Bishop for Mennas sate in the generall Councell held that yeare at Constantinople which began on the second of May yea the Emperour himselfe on the sixt of August in the same yeare and Consulship dates another Edict unto Mennas So that undoubtedly there is an errour in the inscription and yet notwithstanding this errour the Edict it selfe is without all doubt Iustinians nor will the Cardinals demonstration hold in this 13. The Epistle of Foelix the fourth y Extat tom 2. Conc. pa. 390. to Sabina was written and dated on the twefth of the Kalends of November at which time a Hac Chronologia mendosa est nam hoc mense Bonifacius jam Pontifex creatus erat ut patet supra Bin. not in eam Epist et Bar. an 530. nu 1. Foelix was dead What may it by the Cardinals demonstration be rejected for a counterfeit No the Cardinall b Facile accidisse potuit ut loco Bonifacij Foeliâ—is nomen fuerit appositum Bar. loco citat will tell you it was indeed the Popes Epistle but of Boniface the successor of Foelix and not as the inscription tels of Pope Foelix facile accidisse potuit it might easily happen that the name of Foelix might bee put in stead of Boniface his next successor Might not the very same and as easily happen in this Epistle of Theodoret that the name of Iohn might be put in the inscription in stead of Domnus his next successor 14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius c Epist 1. Sylv. extat tom 2. Conc. pa. 476. wherein he writ an excommunication against Vigilius usurping his See it is dated in some Copies in the yeare of Basilius in others of Bellisarius being Consuls Now in all the time d Temporibus Sylverii nullus convenit Bellis rii consulatus neque Basilii Bar. an 539. 3. idem ait Bin. Not. margin ad eam epistolaÌ„ Silverius was Pope neither was Basilius nor Bellisarius Consuls What then shall the Popes Epistle be rejected as a a forgery a counterfeit No by no meanes The Cardinall e An. 539. nu 1. 4. often mentioneth it honours it for a rare monument and to helpe that errour he tels us the date is added more than should be Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodorets letter in the Synodall acts Might it not happen that the inscription was onely to the Archbishop of Antioch that the name of Iohn was added more than should be Epiphanius in his Book of heresies sayth f Epiph. haer 46. that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour a manifest untruth for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus g Just Mart. ad Antoninum piuâ—â— defensio the successor of Adrian and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius and Verus 24. yeares h Nam Hadrianus obiit an 140. Bar. illo an nu 1. Iustinus vero an 165. Bar. illo an nu 1 after the death of Adrian Will the Cardinall have his demonstration to hold here in Epiphanius so that his booke against heresies must be condemned for a counterfeit and none of Epiphanius writing No error irrepsit there slipt an error into Epiphanius for Adrian is written in stead of Antoninus as the Cardinall i â—â—cc citat Notis in Martyr Rom. Apr. 13 tels you but it rather seemes in stead of Aurelius under whom Iustine dyed Had the Cardinall beene any way as indifferent to Theodorets letters hee would likewise have said error irrepsit an error is slipt into the inscription by writing Iohn in stead of his successor Domnus rather than have condemned the writing for a forgery 14. In the twenty third Cause Question 4. Cap. 30. in the ancient title it was cited as a text of Sylvester a manifest errour of Sylvester instead of Sylverius Did the Gregorian Correctors for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted condemne that Canon or Epistle as a counterfeit no but approving the text as true they amended the title and restored it to Sylverius In the very same Chapter it is said that Guillisarius caused Sylverius to bee deposed there was no Guillisarius that ever did that but it was Bellisarius yet for that error of the name which yet remaines * Guillisarius quia est initium capitis non est mutatum Not. Greg. in illud cap. uncorrected is not the Canon or Epistle rejected 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius i Post 5. Concil pa. 606. a. out of Tyrius commendeth it is sayd that the fift Synod which decreed the Patriarchall dignity to the Bishop of Ierusalem was held in the time of Vigilius of Rome Eutychius of Constantinople and Paule of Antioch Now that by the Cardinals demonstration was never for it is certaine that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his dayes Before this Synod was Ephreem k Ephreem sedere capit an 526. Bar. eo an nu 55 sedet aute â— an 18. Niceph. in Chron. who sate eighteene yeares in whose fourteenth or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius l Vigilius caepit an 440. Bar. eo an nu 9 is est Ephaimi an 15. to be Pope to him succeeded Domnus m Niceph. in Chron. Bar. an 446. nu 68. hee sate 18. yeares in whose n Nam 8. Domni est an 553. quo habitum est concilium hoc 5. seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held and himselfe personally subscribed unto o Collat. 8. pa. 588. a. it and
thither Ariobindus x Imperater Ariobindum duceÌ„ in Africam misit Artabanum sed inutile putans duorum ducum Imâ—erio res administrari Ariobind â—otius Africae curam delegavit Proc. de bell Vand. lib. 2. pa. 239. was sent with whom was sent Artabanus Neither did Bellisarius either by villany or victory kill Gontharis but Artabanus killed y Convivium erat in conclavi ubi tres mensae paratae ipse in prima accubuit cui Athanasium Artobanum adhibuit Artabanus Gontharidem adcessit quasi clam ei aliquid dicturus Gontharidi saucio exilire conanti Artâ—banus ensem educens latus dextrum capulo tenus confodit ex quo ille statim moribundus cecidit Proc. lib. 4. de bello Vandal pa. 243. him treacherously when they sat together at a feast in Gontharis Chamber nor came Bellisarius from Africk to Rome for after his second comming which was from Constantinople into Italy he stayed there till his returne to Bizantium five z Bellisarius Bizantium venit quum per quinquenuium ex Italia nusquam abcessisset Pro. lib. 3. de bell Goth. pa. 392. sicque 14. annus hujus belli exibat Ibid. pa. 394. yeares after and returned backe no more a Bizantium cum pervenisset ibi diutius commoratus ex otio vivere et in delitijs affluentibus opibus agere rebus ante hac foeliciter gestis contentus Proc. ibid pa. 393. nor brought hee thence with him any of the spoyles of the Vandales nor offered hee them to Saint Peter nor offered he by the hand of Vigilius either that golden Crosse of an hundred pound waight which is a golden lye consisting of an hundred latchets nor the silver table nor those many other gifts nor built he an Hospitall nor gave hee either possessions or donations All these if they be well summed will make at least twelve grand capitall mother lyes which have many moe in their wombs such an art of devising untruths hath Anastasius Or if this oblation bee referred as Binius b Bin. not in vitam Vigilij § De spolijs saith perhaps it ought to the time when Bellisarius wanne Rome from Vitiges which was as Procopius c Vrbâ— Roma recuperata à Gothis per Bellisarium post annum sexagesimum quo eam tenuerunt Gothi et post Iustiniani annum undecimum Proc. lib. 1. de bell Goth. pa. 271. et post haec ait Jan que tertius huic bello annus exibat Lib. 2. pa. 313. sheweth in the third yeare of the warres against the Gothes and 12. of Iustinian yet this can excuse no one of all the untruths of Anastasius for neither then was Vigilius but Sylverius d Duodecimus annus Iustiniani respondet anno 2. Sylverij Bar. an 538. nu 1. Sylverius autem sedit annos 3. Bar. an 540. nu 2. the Pope neither did Bellisarius then come out of Africk or bring the spoyles of the Vandals with him of which this oblation was made by the hands of Pope Vigilius 16. Next to this Anastasius saith eodem tempore Theodora scripsit at that same time Theodora the Empresse writ to Vigilius to come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus to his See but Vigilius refused saying I spake foolishly before when I promised that but now I can no way consent to restore an heretike Whence Baronius e An. 540. nu 13. observes a rare miracle that Vigilius was now turned to a new man now Saul was one of the Prophets of a blasphemer chaÌ„ged to a true Preacher of a Saul into a Paul all which change proceeded from his very sitting in the Popes Chaire momento temporis novam formam accepit at that very moment when he became the true Pope hee had a new forme a new speech and then prophesied consonantly to the fathers and the like miracle doth Binius f Bin. not in vit Vig. pa. 478. note statim ut sanctam sedem ascendit as soone as ever Vigilius had stept into the holy Chaire hee was wholly changed into a new man and then condemned the heresies which before hee approved A right Neanthes indeed of whom it is written that before being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having now got the harpe of Orpheus hee thought he was also able to worke wonders therwith as well as Orpheus had done he would needs then Saxa movere sono testudinis but all in vaine Even so Peters Chaire made Vigilius as infallible as Peter himselfe being once set there hee could doe nothing else but drop Oracles and his fidling 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 g Bar. an 54. nu 2. yeare of Iustinian for then Sylverius dyed now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome and that was as Procopius h Hoc modo caede nimirum GoÌ„tharidis et aliorum Artabanes Carthaginem Justiniano restituit anno ipsius decimo nono Procl lib. 2. de Bell. Vandal pa. 244. 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 i Liberat. ca. 22. implens promissum suum quod Augustae secerat 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
at that same time what if most of them knew not of this Epistle which was sent secretly by Vigilius and by his advice kept closely by Anthimus and Severus what if they all knew it and yet having other crimes enough to object thought it needlesse to mention that as it seemes they did the Symony of Vigilius and censure of Silverius what if they were not so spitefull as the Cardinall is and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holinesse 28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinall How or why should Theodora upbrayd this to Vigilius for the not restoring of Anthimus that quarrell for the restoring of Anthimus as I have often sayd and clearly proved was a meere devise and fiction of Anastasius it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tayle Or how should Iustinian upbraid it when he was so enraged against Vigilius and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus Seeing neither Iustinian persecuted Vigilius nor was enraged against him but for the space of five of six yeares they both sang one note they fully consorted together or how should Mennas and Theodorus upbraid it when they were excommunicated by Vigilius Seeing that excommunication all the circumstances of it are merely fictitious as by the death of Mennas which was long before that forged excommunication of him was demonstrated Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to bee writ by Vigilius which all relie on fictions on most untrue and idle fancies And whether Facundus upbraided it or no may bee questioned nor will it bee clearly knowne untill they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vaticane where hee lyeth yet imprisoned But as for the fift Councell it was great sillinesse in the Cardinall once to thinke that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectfull manner that could be wished they uttered no one harsh or hard word against him but what was rightly said or done by him as his condemning of Origen his condemning the Three Chapters before the time of the Councell that they often mention and approve it also They sought by lenity to win the Popes heart to consent 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 k Etiamsi ista verè scripsisset Vigilius nullum tamen ob id infertur praejudicium Apostolicae sedi cujus tunc ipse erat invasor Silverius autem germanus Pontifex Bar. an 538. nu 15. Fecit id cum adhuc viveret Silverius quo tempore Vigilius non erat Papa sed Pseudopapa Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. Non mirum si Pseudoepiscopus et quasi Antichristus ad schisma haeresin addidisset Bin. not in Lib. pa 626. a. ita etiam Gretz in Defens ca. 10. lib. 4. Bell. yet that is no prejudice at 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 l Liber ca. 22. dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer m Gret loc cit 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
being dead p. 427. sec 5. A Trechery intended in Queene Elizabeths time by a deepe dissembler p 488. in medio V. VIgilius alledgeth counterfeit writings in stead of Fathers p. 78. sec 23 24. c. Vigilius denieth the knowne writings of Theodorus p. 82. sec 31. Vigilius imputeth an heresie to the Councell of Ephesus p. 84 sec 34. Vigilius untruly pretendeth the Councell of Chalcedon p. 84. sec 35 36. Vigilius falsely pretendeth Iustinian for Theodorus p. 86. sec 38. Vigilius durst not himselfe condemne Theodorus p. 88. sec 41 42. Vigilius would not permit any other to condemne Theodorus pa. 89. sec 45. and pag. 99. sec 18. Vigilius anathematizeth those that condemne Theodorus p. 90. sec 46. Vigilius accuseth the Councell of Chalcedon as dissemblers p. 94. sec 8. Vigilius condemneth Nestorianisme onely in shew p. 100. sec 20 21. Vigilius and Baronius appeare in their lively colours for Nestorianisme p. 112. sec 1. and p. 27. sec 2. Vnion made betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 116 sec 5. and how concluded p 133. sec 30 31. Vigilius from the Vnion labours to prove Ibas a Catholike p. 117. sec 7. Vigilius approveth the whole epistle of Ibas p. 118. sec 9. Vnion in Nestorianisme was that union which Ibas embraced p. 127. sec 14. That Vigilius decreed this union in Nestorianisme with a setled affection is probable pa. 129. sec 23. Vigilius approveth the confession made by Ibas p. 141. sec 3 4 5. Vigilius his reasons to prove Ibas profession to be Catholike p. 151. sec 29 c. Vigilius with Ibas approveth two persons in Christ p. 164. sec 48 49 c. Vigilius his pretence to defend the Councell at Chalcedon p. 200 sec 1 2. Vigilius hereticall notwithstanding his profession of Councels p. 208. sec 17. Vigilius is said to have approved the fift Councell p. 213. sec 1. 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 Nestorius 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