all that defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Romane Church Cursed be he who doth not accurse them all The holy Council no doubt had an eye to the words of the Prophet Ieremy Cursed be he that doth the worke of the Lord negligently Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood To spare when God commands and whom he commands to curse or kill is neither pitty nor piety but meere rebellion against the Lord and pulls downe that judgement which God himselfe threatned to Ahab Because thou hast let goe out of thine hand a man whom I appointed to dye thy life shall goe for his life 23. What then is there no meanes no hope of such that they may be saved God forbid Far be it from my heart once to thinke or my tongue to utter so hard a sentence There is a meanes and that after the Scripture the Councill expresly and often sets downe even were they denounce all those Anathemaes for thus they say They who defend Theodorus the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill the impious Epistle of Ibas or the defenders of them et in his vsque ad mortem permanent and continue in this defence untill they dye let such be accursed Renounce the defence of these Chapters and of the Defenders of them that is forsake and renounce that position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith renounce the defence of all that defend it that is of the whole present Romane Church Come out of Babylon the habitation of devils the hold of all vncleane spirits which hath made all nations drunke with the wine of her fornication which themselves cannot but acknowledge to be meant of Rome This doe and then Come unto the Lord and he will have mercy and to our God for he is very ready to forgive All your former impieties heresies and blasphemies shall not be mentioned unto you but in the righteousnes and Catholike truths which ye then embrace you shall live If this they will not doe we accuse them not we accurse them not they have one who doth both accuse and accurse them even this holy general Council whose just Anathemaes shal as firmely binde them before God in heaven as they were truly denounced by the Synod here on earth for he hath sealed theirs and all like censures with his owne signet who said Whatsoever ye binde upon earth shall be bound in heaven 24. After all these just Anathemaes denounced as well in generall as in particular by the Councill against the defenders of these Three Chapters or any one of them the holy Synod sets downe in the last place one other point as memorable as any of the former And that is by what authority they decreed all these things of which they thus say we have rightly confessed these things quae tradita sund nobis tam à divinis scripturis which are delivered unto us both in the divine scriptures and in the doctrines of the holy Fathers and in the definitions of faith made by the foure former Councils So the holy Councill Whence it doth evidently ensue that to teach and affirme that the Pope in his judiciall and cathedrall sentence of faith may erre and define heresie and that Vigilius in his constitution de facto did so is a truth consonant to Scriptures fathers and the foure first general Councils But on the other side to maintaine or affirme as do all who are members of the present Romane Church that the Popes cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is infallible is an hereticall position repugnant to Scriptures Fathers and the 4. first Councils and condemned by them all So at once the Holy Councill judicially defineth both our faith to be truly ancient Apostolical the selfe same which the Holy Fathers generall Councills and the Catholike Church professed for 600 yeares and the doctrine of the present Romane Church even that fundamentall position on which all the rest doe relye to be not onely new but hereticall such as none can maintaine but even thereby he oppugneth and contradicteth both the Scriptures Fathers the foure first general Councils and the Catholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ. 25. Further yet because one part of their sentence is the accursing of all who defend the Three Chapters either expresly as did Vigilius or implicitè and by consequent as do all who maintaine the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is al who are members of the present Romane Church and so die it cleerely ensueth from that last clause of the Councill that to condemne and accurse as heretikes all these yea all which doe not accurse these is by the judgement of this whole generall Council warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by the foure first generall Councils and by the Caholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ The judgement of this fifth Council being consonant to them all and warranted by them all 26. Neither is their Decree consonant onely to precedent Fathers and Councils but approved and confirmed by succeeding generall Councils by Popes and other Bishops in the following ages of the Church By the sixt Councill which professeth of it selfe that in omnibus consonuit it in all points agreeth with the fifth By the second Nicene which they account for the seaventh which reckneth this fift for one of the golden Councils which are glorious by the words of the holy Spirit and which all being inlightned by the same spirit decreed those things which are profitable professing that themselves did condemne all whom those Councils and among them whom this fift did condemne By other following Councils in every one of which the 2 Nicene and by consequent this fift Councill is approved as by the acts is cleare and Baronius confesseth that this fift in alijs Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est atque probata was acknowledged and approved by the other generall Councils which were held after it 27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bishops By Pelagius the second who writ an whole Epistle to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters telling them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto By Gregory who professing to embrace reverence the 4 first Councils as the 4 Euangelists addeth of this fift Quintū quoque cōcilium pariter veneror I do in like manner reverence the fift Councill wherin the impious Epistle of Ibas is rejected the writings of Theodoret with Theodorus his writings And then of them all he saith Cunctas personas whatsoever persons the foresaid five venerable Councils doe condemne those also doe I condemne whom they reverence I embrace because seeing they are decreed by an universall consent whosoever presumeth to loose whom they bind or bind
victorious conquests Alexander for magnificence Augustus for his Piety constant love and zeal to the faith Constantine Theodosius or Martian for multiplicity of labours undertaken for the good of the whole Empire more indefatigable than Hercules and for supporting the whole fabricke of the Church and Christian faith a very Atlas Caelum qui vertice falcit 42. There onely remaineth now the other effect which is private which as it is the last so is it the heaviest punishment that Baronius could wish unto Iustinian and that is his adjudging him to the pit and torments of hell Did he not feare the Apostles reproofe either against rash and temerarious judgers Who art thou that judgest another mans servant or against uncharitable censures Charity thinketh not evill it rejoyceth not in iniquity but rejoyceth in the truth why did not the Cardinall harken rather to the judgement of the Church of Constantinople Wherein the memory of Iustinian was yearely celebrated and that with great pompe and solemnity in the Church of Sophia in the time of divine service all the people being assēbled The like celebrity of his memory was observed at Ephesus in the Church of Saint Iohn which he had builded Or if the authority of these particular Churches could not sway the Cardinall seemed it a small matter unto him to contemne the consenting judgement of Pope Agatho and his Romane Councell which ranke him among the glorious and blessed Saints in heaven with Saint Constantine Theodosius and Martian yea of the whole sixt generall Councell wherein his memory is so often called holy blessed divine happy and the like if his memory then much more himselfe is happy and blessed for to the just onely doth that honor belong The memoriall of the just shall be blessed but the name of the wicked shall rot To which purpose that is specially to be observed which Nicephorus addeth in plaine termes of the sixt generall Councell Iustinianum beata quiete dignatur It placeth Iustinian in blessed rest and peace and againe Semper cum qui in Sanctis est Iustinianum dicunt That general Councell ever calleth Iustinian one who is a Saint and among the Saints Adde to all these that seeing by the Cardinals confession the Epistles of Agatho In omnibus and therefore even in that which he saith of this holy Emperour That hee is a blessed Saint venerable in all Nations are to be imbraced as divine Oracles it may bee truly concluded that Iustinian not onely by the testimonies of mortall men and of all nations but even by the voyce of God himselfe is blessed and hath ever since his death and doth now rest and raigne with God When by the unpartiall judgement of S. Agatho of the Romane Synod of the whole sixt generall Councell of all Nations yea of God himselfe Iustinian is proclamed to be a venerable Saint now resting raigning with God in heaven who is Baronius a man of yesterday that after a thousand years possession of that heavenly rest he should unsaint him dethrone him and thrust him downe to the lowest pit and most hideous torments of hell I' st not enough for that Hildebrandicall generation to devest Kings Emperors of their earthly diadems unless in the pride of their hearts climbing up into heaven they thrust them out thence also deprive them of their crowns of immortality eternal glory 43. And yet were there neither Historian nor Pope nor Provinciall nor Generall Councell to testifie this felicity of Iustinian unto us that very text out of which being maimed the Cardinall sucked poyson and collected His death damnation doth so forcible prove the beatitude of Iustinian that it alone may bee sufficient in this cause The Cardinall cites but one part of the text but the whole doth manifest his fraud and malicious collection Apoc. 14.13 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence forth even so saith the Spirit for they rest from their labours and opera illorum sequuntur illos their workes follow them which last words the Cardinall onely alleageth and applyeth them to Iustinian Now who are Those that are meant by Their works and follow Them who are those Them that the Spirit meaneth in that text Out of al doubt those selfe-same of whom before he spake Them that dye in the Lord Them that are blessed and rest from their labours Of Them the Spirit there saith Opera illorum Their workes follow Them Seeing then the Cardinall confesseth this text to belong to Iustinian and himselfe applyeth it unto him it certainly hence followeth that Iustinian is of their number who dye in the Lord and are blessed for of Them and Them onely doth the holy Ghost speake in that text saying They rest from their labours and Their workes follow Them So hard it is for the Cardinal to cite or say ought against Iustinian which doth not redound to the Emperours honour and the Cardinals owne ignominie 44. But let us suppose the words to bee generall as being uttered alone without any reference to that text they may bee truly affirmed both of the good bad There cannot be found in al Scripture more faire evidence nor a more authentike Charter for the happy estate of any one in particular that lived since the Apostles times then is this for Iustinian For what were those workes which did accompanie and follow Iustinian Truely the workes of sincere faith of fervent zeale to GOD of love to the Church and Children of God the workes of piety of prudence of justice of fortitude of munificence of many other heroicall vertues with these as with a garment and chaine of pure Gold Iustinian being decked was brought unto the Bridegroom every decree made or ratified by him for confirming the faith every Anathema denounced against heresies heretiks particularly those against Vigilius al that defend him that is against Baronius and all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith everie Temple or Church every Monastery and Hospitall every City and Towne everie Bridge Haven and High-way every Castle Fort and Munition whether made or repaired by him tending either immediately to the advancement of Gods service or to the maintaining or relieving of Gods servants or strengthning the Empire against his and Gods enemies every booke in the Digest Code and Authentikes every Title yea every law in any title whereby either the Christian faith and religion or peaceable order and tranquillity have beene either planted or propagated or continued either in the Church or Common-wealth all these and every one of them and many other the like which I cannot either remember or recount are like so many Rubies Chrysolites and Diamonds in the costly garment or so many linkes in that golden chaine of his faith and vertues Seeing they who offer but one mite into the treasury of the Lord or give but one cup of cold water to a Prophet shall not want a reward O!
purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even an utter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because
part willing to thinke better and more favourably of Leo and Gelasius in this matter specially of Leo whose authority when some defenders of the three Chapters objected to Pope Pelagius as according with them Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary as consenting wholly with Saint Austen who professed that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death if it could appeare that he were guilty of those crimes Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause yea and the words of Leo which hee citeth doe declare no lesse In that Epistle Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church were excommunicated or who did not performe the acts required in repentance saith If any of them die before hee obtaine remission quod manens in corpore non receperit consequi exutus carne non poterit hee cannot obtaine that to wit remission of his fault being dead which before his death he had not received And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius Neither is it needfull that we shold fift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigiâ—lius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade faith he that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he namin hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasins saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but
not being trained up in their Romane Schooles where they learne to speake silken and sugered words of their Popes and sow the softest Pillowes under their elbowes I must crave pardon if according to the Macedoniā rudenesse of our dialect I call a spade a spade a slander a slander and heresie heresie though it happen to be found even in his Holinesse himselfe and in his Pontificall and Cathedrall decree In hope of which pardon specially since the fault is so veniall I will now addresse my selfe to an unaccustomed taske of making a Commentary upon the Popes writings 8. The scope and purpose of Vigilius in this whole passage is to prove not onely Ibas himselfe but his faith and profession also to have beene Catholike not onely when he writ this Epistle but ever since Cyrill explaned his Chapters and Ibas understood the same which was before this Epistle was writ And this appeares by the very words of Vigilius who saith that after Cyrils Chapters were explaned and understood by Ibas in communionem ejus devotè concurrerit he ranne and hastened with devotion to embrace the communion with Cyrill and having once embraced it in communione ipsius usque ad exitum permansisse that he continued in the same communion with Cyrill even to the end of his life and as he was then a Catholike so in this Epistle which was writ after Cyrils explanation understood by him hee expressed that Catholike faith and profession seeing Iuvenalis ex verbis Epistolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobavit proved the cōfession of Ibas to be orthodoxall by the very words of this Epistle This is the purpose then of my author to shew both Ibas and his confession of faith when he writ this Epistle to have beene Catholike To prove this he useth three principal reasons the first is drawne from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters which Ibas devoutly embraced and this hee harps upon almost in every part of his text as you may easily see The second is taken from his approbation of the holy Ephesine Councel before Photius and Eustathius in these words For the same venerable Ibas c. The third is drawne from the very profession it selfe and words thereof set downe in the Epistle of Ibas where he confesseth two natures and one person and though there be a touch and taste of this throughout the whole text yet is it specially and more expresly set downe in those words Further it doth without all doubt appeare c. I must be inforced for more perspicuities sake to invert the order of mine author and begin with the exposition of his third reason because if that be well understood it will serve for a torch to direct us in both the other 9. In his third reason the Pope both affirmes and by divers meanes proves that confession of Ibas which in his Epistle hee makes to bee orthodoxall and before wee handle his proofes hereof we must diligently consider the position it selfe or confession made by Ibas Ibas his confession in his Epistle is that there are two natures and one person in Christ This confession in his Epistle saith Vigilius is orthodoxall and for this was Ibas unjustly condemned by Dioscorus but justly commended by the Councell at Chalcedon I must set an unpleasant but a very true and certaine glosse upon these words Both Ibas and Vigilius commending him and Baronius defending Vigilius herein doe all Nestorianize or to speake more plainely Ibas by that confession in his Epistle teacheth Vigilius by his Cathedrall decree confirmeth Baronius gnatonically applaudeth and they all three conspire in defending the condemned heresie of Nestorius 10. For the full manifestation whereof it must bee observed that the Nestorians the more plansibly to convey their heresie wherein they denyed Christ the sonne of Mary to be God used the very same words altogether which Chatholikes did As Catholikes said that there are two natures in Christ the divinity and the humanity so said the Nestorians also As Catholikes confessed Christ to be our Lord so confessed the Nestorians likewise In words they both agreed and said the same but in the sense and meaning of those words they were quite contrary 11. When Catholikes said that there are two natures in Christ they meant truly orthodoxally that the divinity humanity in Christ were differēt in essence and substance yet they both made but one hypostasis that is but one and not two subsistent persons But when the Nestorians said that there are two natures in Christ they meant that either nature made a severall and distinct person by it selfe and so they made Christ to be two distinct persons each subsisting by it selfe two Sonnes two Christs that is in truth no Christ no Saviour at all for a Saviour he cannot bee unlesse the selfe same person which is man be God also 12. Againe when Catholikes said that Christ is one person they meant truly and orthodoxally that both natures together make but one personall subsistence as the humane soule and body make but one person or one man but when the Nestorians said that Christ was one person they meant not of that unity which is by naturall or personall subsistence but of unity in affection of unity by consent and liking of unity by cohabitation the person of the Sonne of God so affecting and liking the sonne of Marie that it inhabited and dwelt therein as in a holy temple or house but yet as neither the house is the inhabitant nor the inhabitant the house so neither was God by their doctrine the sonne of Mary or man nor yet was that man which was the sonne of Mary God but onely the house or temple of God 13. When Catholikes called Iesus Christ our Lord they meant truly and orthodoxally that the man Iesus Christ who tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary is in truth very God the Godhead being hypostatically united unto the manhood and both of them making but one person who is both God and man but the Nestoriās in calling Iesus Christ our Lord meant not that the man Christ was truly personally God or Lord but that he was God and the Lord onely by having God and the Lord inhabiting in him and united not personally but onely affectually unto him wherupon it followed that they in adoring Christ giving divine honours unto him were indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they gave the honour proper onely to God unto that person or that mā which according to their doctrine they held not to be God 14. And which of all may seeme most strange whereas Catholikes not onely professed the Virgin Mary to bee the Mother of God but under those very tearmes and by that forme of words as being most easie and perspicuous contradicted condemned all the heresies of Nestorius which were all by consequent included in their denying Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God The Nestorians to avoid the hatred
Popes Legates in crossing the decree and knowne resolution of Pope Leo and in being a most lively patterne of that rightfull and ancient authority which Emperours then held above all the Bishops in the Councell but now the Pope usurpes both above all Bishops Emperours and Councels God would by these monuments of antiquity pull downe the lofty Towers and raze from the very bottome that foundation of Babylon which can never be firme and setled hee would have besides other particular witnesses these unconquerable and irresistible forces of these ancient and generall Councels against which no just exception can be taken and although I will not excuse the acts of these nor any of them from all defects and blemishes whatsoever yet I dare boldly averre that they are so few so light and of so small importance that the maine controversies handled in them or relying on them cannot be prejudicated thereby they being rather the errours of the Collectors or of the writers and exscribers of these Councels than of the Councels themselves And particularly for this fift Councell against which Baronius doth so furiously declame I doubt not to make it evident that all the faults which after much prying hee hath objected unto the Acts thereof will prove so many evident testimonies of his owne most fraudulent and corrupt dealing and not the defects or corruptions in the Acts of this Councell But let us view the particulars CAP. XXV The first alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein refuted THE corruptions which Baronius and out of him Binius objecteth are according to the grammaticall division reduced to three sorts of irregularity Some by variation or alteration others by defect or mutilation the rest by redundance or addition In the first ranke bee pretendeth three examples the first which seemeth to be of greatest moment and carieth the greatest colour of probability is the corrupting of a certaine text of the Councell at Chalcedon cited by this fift Synod Heare the accusation in Baronius his owne words We may not here omit saith he to note the craft of the Grecians who contrary to right and equitie have corrupted the holy text of the Synodall Acts by adding unto the Councell of Chalcedon those words about which there was much contention in the time of Pope Hormisda when certaine suspected of Eutycheanisine specially some Scythian Monkes did labour that unto the holy Councell of Chalcedon these words might bee added Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum unum esse de sancta Trinitate which when they could not obtaine because the Synod was well enough without that addition here now in this fift Councell where the Epistle of Ibas is compared with the profession of the Councell at Chalcedon they recite these words of the Synod Chalcedonensis sancta Synodus in definitione quam de fide fecit praedicat Deum verbum incarnatum esse hominem the holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith doth professe God the Word to have beene incarnate and made man and they adde unto the words of the Synod qui est Dominus noster Iesus Christus unus de sancta Trinitate who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinitie as if the Synod of Chalcedon had professed that whereas they rather would call Christ unam personam sanctae Trinitatis than unum de sancta Trinitate Thus Baronius In which few words of his there are contained so many notable untruths and hereticall frauds that without a rare dexterity in that craft hee could not have easily contrived and couched them in so small a roome 2. First that they who contended to have Christ called unum de sancta Trinitate were heretikes or Eutycheans or unjustly suspected thereof is not onely untrue but bewrayes the Cardinals obstinate and obdurate affection to Nestorianisme for as Dionysius Exiguus in his Preface to the Epistle of Proclus witnesseth and most truly the disciples of Theodorus Mopsvestenus began to teach an impious faith to the people with most crafty subtilty professing the Trinity to bee in such sort of one Essence ut Christum Dominum nostrum unum ex Trinitate nullatenus faterentur that they would by no meanes confesse Christ our Lord to be one of the Trinity and thereupon they taught a quaternity in the persons If Baronius esteeme it heresie to professe Christ unum de sancta Trinitate then is hee certainly by this besides all other evidences convicted to be a Nestorian heretike for it is an Article of their Nestorian and repugnant to the Catholike faith to deny or doubt to call Christ unum de sancta Trinitate 3. Secondly that the Councell of Chalcedon made ever any doubt to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate or that they would rather call him unam personam Trinitatis is another vile Nestorian slander and hereticall untruth of Baronius The Councell of Chalcedon saith Iustinian approved the Epistle of Proclus wherin it is taught that we ought to confesse our Lord Iesus Christ to be one of the holy Trinity Proclus saith Dionysius Exiguus did marvellously resist that impiety and hee taught our Lord Iesus Christ unum de Trinitate esse to bee one of the Trinity When the Nestorians troubled the Church about this matter Iustinian set forth a most religious Imperiall Edict wherein hee commanded all to professe Christ to bee unum de Trinitate wee anathematize saith he every heresie especially Nestorius and those who thinke or have thought as he did wee anathematize those who deny or will not confesse our Lord Iesus Christ unum esse ex sancta consubstantiali Trinitate to bee one of the holy and consubstantiall Trinitie This Imperiall Edict the very next yeare after it was published was confirmed by Pope Iohn who thus writeth to the Emperour You for the love of the faith and to remove heresie have published an Edict which because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine wee confirme by our authority and againe You have writ and published those things which both the Apostolike doctrine and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed nos in omnibus confirmamus and we confirme it in all points This your faith is the true and certaine religion this all the Fathers Bishops of Rome and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept this confession whosoever doth contradict hee is an alien from the holy Communion and from the Catholike Church Thus Pope Iohn What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius but condemne him for an accursed heretike Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to embrace that profession unum de Trinitate which as the Emperour and Pope witnesse it earnestly embraceth he not onely suspecteth in this place but in plaine termes else-where he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans heretikes and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon and that
his Epistle is apparent wherein they oppose not that he denyed Christ to be one of the Trinity but that hee called them heretikes who taught the Word incarnate to be made man That clause which they adde That Christ is one of the Trinity is an addition of the fift Councell it selfe explicating that of Christ which the Emperours Edict bound them to professe as being the true sense and meaning of the Councell at Chalcedon but not as being word for word set downe in the decree of Chalcedon And even as he were more than ridiculous who would accuse one to corrupt the Councell of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man who was borne in Bethleem and fled from Herod into Aegypt so is the Cardinall as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod or addition to the Councell of Chalcedon that they say the Councell taught the Word of God to bee man who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinity Both additions are true but neither of them affirmed to be expresly and totidem verbis set downe in the Councell of Chalcedon Why but looke to the Cardinals proofe for he would not for any good affirme such a matter without proofe What doe yee aske for proofe of the Cardinall I tell you it is proofe enough that he sayth it and truly in this poynt he produceth neither any proofe nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fift Councell or that the fift Councell cited them as the very expresse words of the Councell of Chalcedon all the proofe is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit which is a sory kind of arguing against any that love the truth for although against the Pope or their popish cause any thing which he writeth is a very strong evidence against them seeing the Cardinall is very circumspect wary to let nothing no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Popes dignity or the cause of their Church unlesse the maine force and undeniable evidence of truth doe wrest and wring it from his pen yet in any matter of history wherein he may advantage the Pope or benefit their cause it is not by many degrees so good to say the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirmes it which is now growne a familiar kinde of proofe among them as to say Ovid Aesop or Iacobus Voraginensis affirme it therefore it is certainly true His Annals in the art of fraudulent vile and pernicious untruths farre excell the most base fictitious Poemes or Legends that ever as yet have seene the Sunne CAP. XXVI The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that Ibas is sayd therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 1. THe second thing which our Momus carpeth at is for that in these Acts it is sayd that Ibas denyed the Epistle written to Maris to bee his which saith Baronius is untrue for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinall an untruth in plaine termes affirmes it to be a lye Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius they would never have quarelled with the Acts about this matter nor for this accused them to have beene corrupt They may as well collect the Edict of Iustinian or that famous Epistle of Pope Gregorie wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters to be corrupted and of no credit as well as the Acts of the fift Councell for in both them the same is said concerning the deniall of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denyall they may passe for sincere and incorrupt it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinall and Binius to carpe at the Acts for this cause which will much more appeare if any please but to view the Acts themselves For this is not spoken obitèr nor once but the Councell insisteth upon it repeateth it in severall places and divers times and if those words were taken away there would be an apparent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words then are truly the words of the true Acts the corruption is onely in the braine of Baronius and Binius 2. Now whereas the Cardinall and Binius so confidently affirme this to be untrue or a lye that Ibas denyed his Epistle and so accuse the whole Councell to lye in this matter they doe but keepe their owne tongues and pens in ure with calumnies the untruth and lye belongs neither to the Councell nor to the Acts but must bee returned to themselves to whom onely it is due For the Councels truth herein the Emperour is a most honourable witnesse who saith Demonstratur Ibas cam abnegasse Ibas is demonstrated or by evident proofe knowne to have denyed his Epistle Pope Gregory is another witnesse above exception who saith Epistolam Ibas denegat suam Ibas denyed the Epistle to be his the fift Councell also doth not onely affirme it but prove it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops and their interloquution in the Councell of Chalcedon they all sayd they received Ibas eo quod negabat illa because he did deny those things which were objected by his adversaries a great part of which was that Epistle All these are witnesses for the Councell what witnesses now doth the Cardinall or Binius bring to countervaile these truly not so much as one and one were but a poore number to be opposed to so many and so worthy men testifying the contrary Now whether the testimony of the Emperour Pope Gregory of six Metropolitanes and an whole generall approved Councell affirming this or Baronius without any one witnesse denying this be more credible let the very best friends of Baronius judge but Baronius loves to bee Iohannes ad oppositum to Emperours Popes Bishops and Councels if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate that is indeed if they say the truth 3. But yet Baronius hath a proofe of his saying which is this because Ibas confessed it to be his and hee tels us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon Say he did confesse it as I will not deny that he did though I verily thinke the Cardinall speakes an untruth in saying that this is in the Acts for I finde not in those Acts either any such expresse confession or ought from whence it can be collected and Iustinian plainly saith that Ibas durst not acknowledge it to be his for the blasphemies contained therein but I admit that Ibas confessed it to be his Doth it thence follow that he denyed it not to be his might he nor doe both might he not contradict himselfe doth not the Cardinall who neither for wit nor wisedome will yeeld one jote to Ibas doth not
and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per cum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as found lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of 〈◊〉 it were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and fortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had just led out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the second Antichrist crescent In the third Antichrist regnant but in this fourth he is made
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because