that decree is by the Acts of the Councells most evident For both their consenting judgement pronounced by word of mouth and after that their subscription to their decree did ratifie and confirme their sentence In that which they call the eighth generall Synod after the sentence pronounced the Popes Legates said Oportet ut haec manu nostra subscribendo confirmemus it is needfull that wee confirme these things which we have decreed by our subscribing unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius this writeth Those things which with one consent they had decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were fully authorized ratified confirmed or approved the Greeke word is very emphaticall by their subscription In the Councell of Chalcedon when the agreement betwixt Iuvenalis and Maximus was decreed they subscribed in this forme That which is consented upon confirmo I by my sentence doe confirme or firma esse decerno I decree that it shall be firme and to the like effect subscribed all the rest Whereupon the glorious Iudges without expecting any other confirmation either from Pope Leo or any that was absent said This which is consented upon shall abide firme in omni tempore for ever by our decree and by the sentence of the Synod Of the second generall Councell a Synod at Hellespont said Hanc Synodum Timotheus unà cum eis praesens firmavit Timotheus with the other Bishops then present confirmed this Synod The consent and subscription of the Bishops present in the Synod they call a Confirmation of the Synod In the Synod at Maesia after the sentence of the Synod was given they all subscribed in this forme I M.P.D. c. confirmavi subscripsi have confirmed this Synodall sentence and subscribed unto it In the second Councell at Carthage held about the time of Pope Celestine Gennadius said Quae ab omnibus sunt dicta propria debemus subscriptione firmare what hath beene said and decreed by us all wee ought by our owne subscriptions to confirme and all the Bishops answered Fiat fiat let us so doe and then they subscribed So cleare it is that whatsoever decree is made by any Councell the same is truly and rightly said to bee confirmed by those very Bishops who make the Decree confirmed I say both by their joint consent in making that Decree and by their subscribing unto it when it is made 26. Vpon this confirmation or approbation of any Decree by the Bishops present in the Councell doth the whole strength and authority of any Synodall decree rely and upon no other confirmation of any Bishop whatsoever when the Councell is generall and lawfull For in such a Councell lawfully called lawfully governed and lawfully proceeding as well in the free discussing as free sentencing of the cause there is in true account the joynt consent of all Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons in the whole world No Bishop can then complaine that either he is not called or not admitted with freedome into such a Councell unlesse that he be excommunicated or suspended or for some such like reason justly debarred If all do come they may and doe freely deliver their owne judgement and that not onely for themselves but for all the Presbyters in their whole Diocesse For seeing the pastorall care of every Diocesse even from the Apostles time and by them is committed to the Bishop thereof all the rest being by him admitted but onely into a part of his care and to assist him in some parts of his Episcopall function he doth at least because he should he is supposed to admit none but such as hee knoweth to professe the same faith with himselfe whence it is that in his voice is included the judgement of his whole Diocesan Church and of all the Presbyters therein they all beleeving as he doth speake also in the Councell by his mouth the same that he doth If some of the Bishops come not personally but either depute others in their roomes or passe their suffrage as often they did in the voice of their Metropolitan then their consent is expressed in theirs whom they put in trust to be their agents at that time If any negligently absent themselves neither personally nor yet by delegates signifying their minde these are supposed to give a tacit consent unto the judgement which is given by them who are present whom the others are supposed to thinke not onely to be able and sufficient without themselves to define that cause but that they will define it in such sort as themselves doe wish and desire for otherwise they would have afforded their presence or at least sent some deputies to assist them in so great and necessary a service If any out of stomack or hatred to the truth do wilfully refuse to come because they dissent from the others in that doctrine yet even these also are in the eie of reason supposed to give an implicit consent unto that which is decreed yea though explicitè they doe dissent from it For every one doth and in reason is supposed to consent on this generall point that a Synodall judgement must bee given in that doubt controversie there being no better nor higher humane Court than is that of a generall Councell by which they may bee directed Now because there never possibly could any Synodall judgement be given if the wilfull absence of one or a few should bee a just barre to their sentence therefore all in reason are thought to consent that the judgement must be given by those who will come or who do come to the Councell and that their decree or sentence shall stand for the judgement of a generall Councell notwithstanding their absence who wilfully refuse to come 27. If then all the Bishops present in the Councell do consent upon any decree there is in it one of those wayes which we have mentioned either by personall declaration or by signification made by their delegates and agents or by a tacit or by an implicit consent the consenting judgement of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole Church that is of al who either have judicatory power or authoritie to preach publikely and therefore such a decree is as fully authorized confirmed and approved as if all the Bishops and Presbyters in the world had personally subscribed in this manner I confirme this Decree Hereof there is a worthy example in the third generall Councell No Presbyters at all were therein not in their owne right Very many Bishops were personally absent and present onely by their Legates or Agents as almost all the Westerne Bishops and by name Celestine Patriarch of Rome Some no question upon other occasions neglected that businesse as it may be the Bishops of Gangra and of Heraclèa in Macedonia who were not at this Councell Divers others wilfully and obstinately refused to come to that holy Synod as by name Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and some forty Bishops who at the
as persons failing in their Episcopall or Presbyteriall duties either not knowing the truth as by their office they should or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth as by their office they should not So by his subtilty if any applaud themselves in it not only the Bishops of Rome but of Constantinople of Antioch of Alexandria yea all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from errour as his holinesse himselfe yea all professors of any Art Science or faculty shall plead the like Papall exemption from errour every man shall bee a Pope in his owne faculty no Grammarian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian but as wanting the skil required in a Grammarian no Iudge giving a wrongfull sentence as a Iudge no Galenist ministring unwholsome physicke as a Physitian no Artificer working any thing amisse in his trade as an Artificer but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge or of that fidelity which is required in a Iudge a Physitian and in every Artificer If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters all Iudges and Physitians from erring as they are such Officers or Artificers we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope If they notwithstanding this subtilty will admit another Bishop to erre as Bishop they must not thinke much if wee exempt not the Pope as Pope For to speake that which is the very truth of them all and exactly to measure every thing by his owne line a Iudge simply as Iudge doth pronounce a judiciall sentence as a skilfull and faithfull judge an upright judiciall sentence as an unskilful or unfaithfull Iudge an erronious or unjust sentence A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter doth teach with publike authority in the Church as a skilfull and faithfull Bishop or Presbyter he teacheth the truth of God as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errours and heresies in the Church the one without the other with judicall power to censure the gainsayers The like in all Arts Sciences and faculties is to be sayd even in the Pope himselfe A Pope simply as he is Pope and defined by them teacheth both with authority to teach with power to censure the gainsayers and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeale without doubt as an infallible Oracle as a skilfull or faithfull Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort as an unskilfull or unfaithfull Pope he teacheth errour or heresie with the like authority power and supremacy binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholike truth and that with a most blind obedience without once doubting of the same 48. Apply this to Vigilius his hereticall Epistle In a vulgar sense Vig. erred as Pope because he erred in those very Pōtifical duties of feeding confirming which are proper to his office In a strickt sense though hee did not therein erre simply as Pope but quatenus talis taught onely with a supreme binding authority yet hee erred as an unfaithfull Pope binding others by that his Pontificall and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholike truth without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same What may wee thinke will they oppose to this If they say Vigilius doth not expresse in this Epistle that hee writ it by his Apostolicall authority Hee doth not indeed Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus against the heresie of Eutyches which to have beene writ by his Apostolicall authorty and as hee was Pope none of them doe or will deny that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon Pope Leo by his Papall authority condemneth Eutycheanisme Pope Vigilius by his Papall authority confirme Eutycheanisme both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papall authority both writ as Popes the one as orthodoxall the other as a perfidious and hereticall Pope neither of both expresse that their Apostolicall authority by which they both writ The like in many other Epistles of Leo and of other Popes might easily bee observed Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles such as they writ as Popes have this clause of doing it by their Apostolicall authority expressed in them It is sufficient that this is vertually in them all and vertually it is in this of Pope Vigilius Yea but hee taught this onely in a private letter to a few to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius not in a publike generall and encyclicall Epistles written for instruction of the whole Church What is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few in confirming three of his brethren why not in foure in eight in twenty and if in twenty why not in an hundred if so why not in a thousand if in one why not in two foure or ten thousand Caudaeque pilos ut equinae paulatim vellam where or at what number shall we stay as being the least which with infallibility he can teach Certainly confirma fratres in cathedra sede pasce oves respects two as well as two millions If in confirming or feeding three the Chaire may bee erroneous how can wee know to what number God hath tyed the infallibility of it But the sixt generall Councell may teach them a better lesson Pope Honorius writ an hereticall Epistle but onely to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople Vigilius writ this to three all of patriarchall dignity as Sergius was Honorius writ it privately as Vigilius did which was the cause as it seemes that the Romane Church tooke so little notice thereof yet though it was private and but to one it is condemned by the sixt Councell for a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius for a writing wherein hee confirmes others in heresie and Pope Leo the second judged it to bee such as was a blemish to the Apostolike See such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholike faith The like and more danger was in this to these three deposed patriarchs It confirmed them in heresie it confirmed the Empresse it confirmed all that tooke part with them it was the meanes whereby the faith was in hazard to have beene utterly subverted For plurality or paucity it is not materiall be they few be they moe if the Pope as Pope or as an hereticall pope may confirme three or but one that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible 49. But he taught this alone not in a Councell not with advice of his Cardinalls and Consistory why he did it not as a member of a Councell but as Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus in deposing Anthimus above and besides the Canons The whole power of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision more than in any other where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe much more was this done by him as Pope than any of them And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of
the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius The Pope universorum personam sustinet sustaineth the person of all Bishops of all Councels of all the whole Church he is in stead of them all As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formally and the generall Councell is the Church representatively so the Pope also is the Church Vertually as sustaining the person of all and having the power vertue and authoritie of all both the formall and representative Church and so the Churches or Councels judgement is the Popes judgement and the Churches or Councels infallibility is in plaine speech the Popes infallibilitie 10. This will further appeare by those comparisons which they make betwixt the Church or Councels and the Pope It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine as also of their best writers that there is as much authoritie Intensivè in the Pope alone as in the Pope with a generall Councell or with the whole Church though Extensivè it is more in them then in him alone Even as the light is Intensivè for degrees of brightnes as great in the Sun alone as in it with all the Starres though it is Extensivè more in thē that is more diffused or spred abroad into moe being in them then in the Sun alone Neither onely is all the authoritie which either Coūcell or Church hath in the Pope but is in a far more eminent manner in him then in them In him it is Primitively or originally as water in the fountaine or as light in the Sun Omnis authoritas est in uno saith Bellarmine seeing the governmēt of the Church is Monarchicall all ecclesiasticall power is in one he meanes the Pope and from him it is derived unto others In the Councell and the rest of the Church it is but derivatively borrowed from the Pope as waters in little brookes or as light in the moone starres In him is Plenitudo potestatis as Innocentius teacheth the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him in the rest whether Councels or Church it is onely by Participation and measure they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads from the lowest skirts of his garment So whatsoever authoritie either Church or generall Councell hath the same hath the Pope and that more eminently and more abundantly then they either have or can have 11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement that 's so peculiar to him that as they teach neither the Pope can communicate it unto Church or Councell nor can they receive it but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope in whom alone it resideth Potestas infallibilitaes papalis est potestas gratia personalis saith Stapleton Papall power and infallibilitie is a personall gift and grace given to the person of Peter and his successors and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others In like sort Pighius Vni Petro atque ejus Cathedrae non
after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
Theodoretum refutatio Cyrill who in his Epistle to Eulogius faith thus You have my refutation which I set forth against Andreas and Theodoret who writ against my Chapters 6. Witnesse Theodoret himselfe who in sundrie of his Epistles testifieth his spleene and spight against Cyrill and the Catholike faith In one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most perverse and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresie of Nestorius I wil never saith he while I live consent to those things which are done against you and against the law so hee taxeth not onely the Chapters of Cyrill but the decree of the holy Ephesine Synod no I will not consent unto them though they should cut off both my hands In another to Iohn the Bishop of Antioch We continue still saith he contradicting the twelve Chapters ut alienis à pietate as being contrary to pietie In another to Aemerius Wee ought not to consent to the condemnation of the venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius in another to Alexander I told you before that the doctrine of my venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius hath beene condemned nec ego cum his qui faciunt communicabo neither will I communicate with those who condemned that doctrine and yet more bitterly in his Epistle to Andreas his fellow oppugner of those Chapters Insanit iterum Aegyptus adversus Deum Aegypt is againe madde against the Lord and makes warre with Moses and Aaron the servants of God As if Nestorius and his fellow-heretikes were the onely Israel but Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt and the holy Ephesine Councell and all Catholikes who held with them were no other but Pharao and his Aegyptian troupes which fought against GODS people 7. Doe we yet desire more or more pregnant and ample testimonies in this matter Take this one out of the acts of Chalcedon When Theodoret being called came first into the Synod the most reverend Bishops of Aegypt Illirium and Palestine cryed out against him in this manner The Canons exclude this man thrust him out Magistrum Nestorij for as mittite thrust out the master of Nestorius the orthodoxall Councell doth not receive Theodoret Call him not a Bishop he is no Bishop hee is an oppugner of God he is a Iew thrust him out he accused he anathematized Cyrill If we receive him we reject Cyrill The Canons exclude him God doth detest him Thus cryed out the Bishops against Theodoret before they knew him to have renounced the heresie of Nestorius which he had so long and so eagerly defended nor were they pacified otherwise but that Theodoret at the appointment of the Iudges should sit onely as an accuser of Dioscorus not as one having judicatorie power or a decisive suffrage till his owne cause was fully examined and heard Seeing now there are besides many other which I willingly omit so many so evident so obvious so undeniable proofes that Theodoret writ against Cyrill and against his twelve Chapters in defence of Nestorius and his heresie what can one thinke of Vigilius but that he wilfully and wittingly resisted the truth while he not onely strives to perswade that Theodoret writ no such thing and that the Councell of Chalcedon thought so but takes this knowne and palpable untruth for one of the grounds of his Apostolicall decree touching this second Chapter 8. And yet there is a worse matter in this very passage of Vigilius and that is the reason whereby he proveth that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill or in defence of Nestorius you shall heare it in his owne words It is saith he undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon that any Nestorian doctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop Theodoret who together with those holy Fathers did accurse the doctrines of Nestorius Quid enim aliud est mendaces simulantes professionem rectae fidei patres in sancto Concilio Chalcedonensi residentes ostendere quam dicere aliquos ex ijs similia sapuisse Nestorio for to say that any of them who were in that Councell had thought as Nestorius did is nothing else then to shew or affirme those Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon to be lyers and dissemblers in faith as condemning that faith which they doe allow Thus reasoneth Vigilius who hence implyeth that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops and Fathers at Chalcedon if he ever writ any such things in defence of Nestorius then both he and the rest admitting him should dissemble in their faith and lye professing to condemne Nestorius and yet approving him who had writ in defence of Nestorius 9. Truly I doe even admire to consider the blindnesse of Vigilius in this whole cause of the three Chapters Most certaine it is as we have shewed that Theodoret did both thinke as Nestorius and write in defence of him and his heresie and that the Councell of Chalcedon knew he did so If then to receive such an one as they knew Theodoret to have beene be as Vigilius saith a dissembling and lying in the faith the whole Councell of Chalcedon by the Popes judgement and decree were undoubtedly all lyers and dissemblers in the faith a calumnie and slander so vile and incredible that it alone should cause any Catholike minde to detest this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius But to say truth the Popes reason is without al reason Had the holy Coūcell admitted Theodoret before he had renounced his heresie or manifested the sincerity of his faith unto them the Pope might have had some colour to have accused them of dissembling as condemning Nestorianisme yet receiving a known Nestorian into their communion but it was quite contrary In the former actions till Theodoret had cleared himselfe of heresie hee was as we have declared no otherwise admitted than onely as a plaintiffe who accused Dioscorus for injuriously deposing him and placing another in his See And in the eight Action wherein hee came to cleare himselfe and to be reconciled to the Church he had no sooner almost set his foot in the Synod but the Bishops cryed out Theodoretus modo anathematizet Nestorium let Theodoret forthwith anathematize Nestorius let him doe it instantly and without any delay And when Theodoret to give the Councell better satisfaction offered them first a book to reade containing the sincere profession of his faith and when that being refused he purposed at large by words to have expressed the same the Synod suspecting the worst and that hee used those delayes as being loath to anathematize Nestorius cryed out He is an heretike he is a Nestorian haereticum for as mitte out with the heretike and so they had indeed thrust him out but that he leaving all circuition presently before them all cryed Anathema to Nestorius Anathema to him who doth not confesse the blessed Virgin to bee the Mother of God with which profession the Synod being fully satisfied the glorious Iudges
it is manifest to be a Catholike seeing hee is now converted from that understanding of Cyrills Chapters whereby hee was deceived who while hee doubted of the understanding of those Chapters did seem to speak against Cyrill for never would Iuvenalis say that Ibas were a Catholike unlesse he had proved by the words of this Epistle his confession to bee orthodoxall And that the Interloquutions of Iuvenalis and Eunomius doe agree the words of Eunomius doe shew which are these In what things Ibas seemed to blame Cyrill by speaking ill hee hath refuted all those things which he blamed by making a right confession at the last By which words of Eunomius it is evidently declared that in the confession of faith made by Ibas nothing was reproved seeing it is manifest that his faith was praised and that Ibas hath refuted that which by misunderstanding Cyrill hee had thought amisse of him 4. For the same venerable Ibas by the precedent Acts as the judgement of Photius and Eustathius doth shew is most manifestly declared to receive and embrace all things which were done in the first Ephesine Synod and judge them equall to the Nicene decrees and to put no difference betwixt those and these at Ephesus and Eustathius is shewed very much to commend the sanctity of Ibas for that he was so ready and willing to cure those who either by suspition or any other way did hurt the opinion of his learning For after that Cyrill had explaned his twelve Chapters and the meaning which Cyrill had in them was declared unto Ibas after that Ibas professed himselfe with all the Easterne Bishops to have esteemed Cyrill a Catholike and to have remained even unto his end in the communion with him whence it is cleare that Ibas both before he understood the twelve Chapters of Cyrill and when hee suspected one onely nature of Christ to be taught and maintained by them did then in an orthodoxal sense reject that which he thought to be spoken amisse in those Chapters and also after the explanation thereof did in an orthodoxall sense reverently embrace those things which he knew to be rightly spoken in those Chapters 5. Further it doth without all doubt appeare to the minds of all the faithfull that Dioscorus with Eutiches did offer more wrong in the second Ephesine Synod than Ibas to Cyrill and the first Ephesine Councell by understanding Cyrils Chapters in an hereticall sense beleeving Cyrill to teach by his twelve Chapters one onely nature in our Lord Iesus Christ and for this cause did Dioscorus condemne some of the Easterne Bishops who would not acknowledge one only nature in Christ among whom he condemned as an heretike and deposed Ibas from his Bishopricke specially for this very confession of his faith wherein hee most plainly professeth two natures one power one person which is one Sonne our Lord Iesus Christ and Dioscorus restored Eutiches as a Catholike for the confession of one onely nature in Christ condemning also Flavianus of blessed memory for the same doctrine of holding two natures And Dioscorus and Eutiches are found much more to indeavour to overthrow the first Ephesine Synod while they defēd it under the shew of an execrable sense of one nature and to slander Cyrill more while they praise him than did Ibas when by the errour and misconceiving of Cyrils meaning he dispraised him for seeing their praise and dispraise doe tend unto the same thing Dioscorus and Eutiches who condemned Cyrill are found to have commended him with an hereticall spirit or in an hereticall sense and therfore were they condemned in the Councell at Chalcedon but Ibas who at the first dispraised Cyrils Chapters thinking one onely nature to bee taught by them and who after the sense and meaning of them was declared unto him did professe himselfe with the Easterne Bishops to communicate with Cyrill was judged by the same Councell of Chalcedon to have continued in the right faith Thus farre are the words of Vigilius and so much of his Constitution as concernes this profession made by Ibas of two natures and one person in Christ. 6. Words like the Oracles of Apollo ful of thick darknes hiddē mysteries Nor must you here expect any light at al from Binius was wise enough to decline these rocks in the Epist. of Ibas both that of the union with Cyril this of his cōfessing two natures and one person at which fearing to make shipwracke of faith as Vigilius had done before he thought it to be far the safest course at one stroke to wipe away and spunge out those whole passages both out of the Popes Constitution and his owne Tomes of Councels best to have them smothered in silence or buried in eternall oblivion Add yet to say truth had Binius used all his art in this point that alas would but have helped a little he poore lambe is not able of himselfe to wade no not through shallow places it would require an Elephant to swimme through such a deepe All his light is but borrowed of others specially from Baronius where Baronius is silent he is more mute than a fish yea and when some of the Cardinals beames doe happen to collustrate his notes yet even there they lose a great part of that vigour which they have in the Cardinals Phoebean lampe 7. The only man in the world fit to make a full and just commentary on this text of Vigilius had beene Baronius himselfe He by his long acquaintance with Popes and Court of Rome by his continuall rifling of the Vaticane Manuscripts and anatomising so many Pontificall decrees had quicke sense of the Popes pulse he knew every string and straine in their breasts But so unhappily it fals out that the Cardinall himselfe durst not touch this soare he passeth it over nay rather shuffles it from him with deepe silence wote you why you may bee sure hee knew there was a padde in this straw which had the Cardinall uncovered his owne friends could not have indured the lothsome sent of the Pontificall Constitution but for very shame would have swept it out of the Church of God Now because it were great pitty that so many mysteries as lye hid in this part of the Popes decree should be unknowne to the world and because the very explication of the Popes words is a full conviction of his heresie for want of a better I will lend them my best endeavours to supply the defect of the Cardinals Commentary in this point And although all that I can say is nihil ad Parmenonis suem nothing to that which you should have applauded si ipsam belluam audissetis if the Popes commentator had beene himselfe pleased to write hereof yet truly by long contemplation of the Popes workes and industrious observing the Cardinals artificium in explaning the like decrees I well hope that I shal be able dolare and after a rude fashion to rough-hew a peece of a commentary at this time onely
have fully seene CAP. XVIII The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius pretending that the fift Councell wherein the decree of Vigilius was condemned was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell till Vigilius confirmed the same refuted 1. THere now remaineth onely the fourth and last exception of Baronius in which though being the weakest and worst of all his whole hope now consists In this the Cardinall brings forth all his forces all the Engines of his wit and malice to batter downe the authority of the fift generall Councell Seeing it contradicted the Pope and judicially decreed his Apostolicall sentence to be hereticall it shall bee of no authority at all it shall bee neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell it shall bee nothing but a Conspiracy and conventicle with Baronius and his friends untill Vigilius doe approve the same But heare their owne words to this purpose 2. The fift Councell saith Baronius aliquando expers fuit omnis authoritatis was for a time void of all authority yea so void thereof ut nec legitima Synodus dici meruerit that it deserved not to bee called so much as a lawfull much lesse a generall and lawfull Synod because it was assembled the Pope resisting it was ended the Pope contradicting it But when afterwards it was approved by the sentence of Vigilius and other succeeding Popes then it got the title and authority of an Oecumenicall Synod Againe The fift Councell at that time when it was held could not have the name of an Oecumenicall Synod seeing it was not lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost because the Pope neither by himselfe nor by his Legates would be present in it And yet more spightfully These things cōsidered planè consenties ipsam nec Oecumenicae nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen you will consent that the fift Councell deserved not the name of an Oecumenicall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Synod nor Councell at all seeing both it was assembled resistente Pontifice the Pope resisting it and also pronounced sentence contra ipsius Decretum against the Popes Decree Thus Baronius in whose steps Binius treadeth saying Pope Vigilius was not present in this Councell either by himselfe or by his deputies Contradixit eidem he contradicted the Synod the members assembled without the head dum ageretur non consentit the Pope consented not to it while it was held nor did approve it straight after it was ended yet it got the name title and authority of an Oecumenicall Councell quando ipsius Vigilii sententia when it was afterwards approved by the sentence of Vigilius himselfe and his successors So Binius 3 How or where shall I begin or who though more censorious than Cato can with sufficient gravity and severity castigate the insolency and most shamelesse dealing of these men who rather than one of their Popes even Pope Proteus himselfe shall bee thought to erre in his Cathedrall Decree of faith care not to disgrace to vilifie yea to nullifie one of the ancient and sacred generall Councels approved as before we have shewed by the whole Catholike Church For if this Councell was neither generall nor lawfull as they teach till Vigilius approved it by his Apostolicall authority after his returne from exile then was it never nor as yet is either a generall or lawfull Councell seeing Vigilius after his exile never did nor could approve it as before we have clearly proved So this fift Councell must for ever be cashiered and blotted out of the ranke of Councels And because as their second Nicene Synod rightly disputes the seventh must follow the sixt in the same ranke and order and the sixt the fift if there was no fift generall and holy Councell neither can there bee any sixt nor seventh nor eighth nor any other after it So by the assertion of these men there are at once dashed out fourteene of those which themselves doe honour by the name of holy generall Councels 4. I say more the expunging of all those fourteene Councels doth certainly follow upon the Cardinals assertion though it were granted that Vigilius had confirmed this fift as it is true that Pelagius and Gregory did For if it was as he teacheth neither a generall nor lawfull Synod while the Councell continued and for that whole time while it was an assembly of Bishops then undoubtedly it never at any time was nor yet is either a generall or a lawfull Synod For after the end and dissolution thereof it was never extant in rerum natura againe it was ever after that time Non ens and being neither Synod nor yet so much as Ens it could not possibly be either generall or lawfull It is a Maxime Non entis non sunt Accidentia If while it was extant and while it was an assembly it was but a conventicle if then it was not gathered in Gods name I pray you when was it ever after that gathered in Gods name Did Vigilius Pelagius or Gregory when they made it by their approbation a generall and lawfull Councell did they like some new Aeolus blow all the Bishops againe to Constantinople and assemble them the second time in the Popes name that so they might be said to be gathered in Gods name Let their Popes trie if by all their magicall skill or omnipotent power they can make any one of those Africane Councels under Cyprian a Generall or make the Arimine Syrmian or second Ephesine a lawfull Councell and I will instantly yeeld that hee may doe the like to this fift If hee cannot doe any of the former what vanitie was it in the Cardinall and Binius to say of this fift that while it was extant and Ens it was neither a general nor lawful Councel but some one or some twenty yeares after when it was non Ens the Pope made it with a word both a generall and lawfull Councell Dixit factum est One word of his mouth makes or unmakes what he list Truth is the Popes or any other Bishops approbation or confirmation of a Councell or any decree thereof after the Councell is once ended may perhaps in the opinion of some men gaine some more liking unto that Councell or decree than before it had seeing now it hath the expresse consent of those Bishops whom the other doe much esteeme but the after consent or approbation of all the Bishops in the world much lesse of the Pope cannot make that to bee a generall which before and while it was extant was onely Provinciall or that to be a lawfull which before and while it was extant was an unlawfull Synod Even as the Pope and a thousand Bishops with him cannot now make any of the foure first generall and holy Councels to be either unlawfull or particular Synods and yet his power is every whit as great in annihilating that which now is as in creating that which never was
same time while the holy Councell was held in the Church at Ephesus held a Conventicle by themselves in an Inne in the same Citie and yet notwithstanding the personall absence of the first the negligent of the second and wilfull absence of the last the holy generall Councell saith of their Synodall judgement given by those who were then present that it was nihil aliud quam communis concors terrarum orbis sensus consensus nothing else but the common and consenting judgment of the whole world How could this be when so many Bishops besides three Patriarchs were either personally or negligently or wifully absent How was there in that decree the consent of these Truly because they all even all the Bishops in the world did either personally or by their Agents expresse or else in such a tacit and implicit manner as wee declared wrap up their judgement in the Synodall decree made by the Bishops present in the Councell 28. But what if many of those who are present doe dissent from that which the rest being the greater part doe decree Truly even these also doe implicitè and are in reason to bee judged to consent to that same decree For every one is supposed to agree on that generall Maxime of reason that in such an assembly of Iudges what the greater part decreeth shall stand as the Act and Iudgement of the whole seeing otherwise it would be impossible that such a multitude of Bishops should ever give any judgement in a cause for still some in perversenesse and pertinacie would dissent Seeing then it is the ordinance of God that the Church shall judge and seeing there can no other meanes be devised how they should judge unlesse the sentence of the greater part may stand for their judgement reason enforceth all to consent upon this Maxime Vpon this is that Imperiall Law grounded Quod major pars curiae effecit pro rato habetur acsi omnes id egerint what the greater part of the Court shall do that is ratified or to stand for the judgement of the Court as if all had done the same And againe Refertur ad universos quod publicè fit per majorem partem That is accounted the act of all which is publikely done by the greater part Vpon this ground is that truly said by Bellarmine That whereon the greater part doth consent est verum decretum Concilij is the true decree of the Councell even of the whole Councell Vpon the equitie of this rule was it said in the Councell at Chalcedon when ten Bishops dissented from the rest Non est justum decem audiri It is not just that the sentence of ten should prevaile against a thousand and two hundred Bishops Vpon the equitie of the same rule did the fift generall Councell truly constantly judge that the Councell of Chalcedon even in that definition of faith which they all with one consent agreed upon condemned the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall although they knew that Maximus with Pascasinus and the other Legats of Pope Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon adjudged that Epistle to be orthodoxall How was it the consenting judgement of the whole Councell of Chalcedon when yet some did expresse their dissent therein How but by that implicit consent which all give to that rule of reason that the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgment of the whole which the fift Councell doth plainly signifie saying In Councels we must not attend the interloquutions of one or two but what is defined in common ab omnibus aut amplioribus either by all or by the greater part to that we must attend as to the judgement of the whole Councell But omitting all the rest there is one example in the Councell of Chalcedon most pregnant to this purpose 29. All the Councell save onely the Popes Legates consented upon that third Canon decreed in the second and now confirmed in this fourth Councell that the See of Constantinople should have Patriarchall dignity over Thrace Asia and Pontus and have precedence before other Patriarches as the next after the Bishop of Rome The Legates following the instructions of Leo were so averse in this matter that they said not without some choler Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat Let our contradiction cleave to these Acts and so it doth to the eternall disgrace both of them and their master The glorious Iudges notwithstanding this dissenting of the Legates and of Pope Leo himselfe in them said concerning that Canon That which we have spoken that the See of Constantinople ought to be the second c. Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved it Why but the Popes Legates approved it not they contradicted it True in this particular they dissented But because they as all other Bishops even Pope Leo himselfe consented unto that generall Maxime That the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole Councell in that generall both the Legats of Leo and Leo himselfe did implicitè and virtually consent to that very Canon from which actually and explicitè they did then dissent For which cause the most prudent Iudges truly said Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved this Canon either explicitè or implicitè either expressely or virtually approved it Neither did onely those secular Iudges so esteeme the whole generall Councell it selfe professed the same and that even in the Synodall Relation of their Acts to Pope Leo The universall Synod said thus We have condemned Dioscorus we have confirmed the faith wee have confirmed the Canon of the second Councell for the honour of the See of Constantinople we have condemned the heresie of Eutyches Thus writ the whole Councell to Leo declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it 30. You see now that in every sentence of a generall and lawfull Councell there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters they all either explicitè or tacitè or implicitè consenting to that decree whether they be absent or present and whether in that particular they consent or dissent Now because there can bee no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiasticall matter than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters that is of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes it hence clearly ensueth that there neither is nor can be any Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree greater stronger or of more authority then is the judgement it selfe of such a generall Councell and their owne confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world 31. Besides this confirmation of any synodall decree which is by
Arimine and Syrmium called by the Arrian Emperour Constantius is most cleare 11. Hence it is that all the ancient generall Councels yea all that were held for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ were all assembled by no other than this Imperiall authority Take a short view of some and of the chiefe of them Of the first Nicen Eusebius saith Constantine assembled this Oecumenicall Councell hee called the Bishops by his letters and his call was mandatory for Mandatum erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad hanc rem Constantine commanded that they should come The very Synod it selfe writeth thus in their Synodall letters We are assembled by the grace of God mandato Imperatoris and by the mandate of Constantine the Emperour so Christopherson translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in Socrates and Theodoret. Of the second their owne Synodall Epistle to Theodosius witnesseth We came hither ex mandato tuae pietatis by the command of your Imperiall highnesse Of the third Councell the Synodall acts and Epistles are cleare witnesses Your Highnes hath cōmanded by your holy Edict the Bishops out of the whole world to come to Ephesus Againe the synod being assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Edict decree authority and appointment of the Emperour and the like is repeated I think not so little as threescore times in those Acts. And as they came at the Emperors command so would they not depart without his leave and licence We beseech your piety that you will at length free us from this exile and the Emperour granted their request for injungit eis he commanded injoyned them to returne to their owne Cities and againe Regio mandato imperatum est singulis Episcopis there was a mandate to all the Bishops by the Emperour to returne to their owne Provinces Of the Councell at Chalcedon the whole Synod saith in their Epistle to Pope Leo This holy and generall Synod was assembled by the grace of God sanctione Imperatorum and by the sanction or decree of our most holy Emperours Againe this synod was gathered ex decreto Imperatorum by the decree of the Emperours secundum jussionem according to his command And the like is repeated almost in every action Of the fift we shewed before that it was called Iussione piissimi Imperatoris by the command of the most holy Emperour Iustinian Of the sixt it is usually said it was assembled secundum Imperialem sanctionem aut decretum and the like by the Imperiall sanction or decree And the whole Councell in their prosphoneticall oration to the Emperour saith unto him your mansuetude hath congregated this holy and great assembly Of their second Nicene it is said that it was assembled per pium Decretum Sanctionem Mandatum by the holy Decree Sanction and Mandate of the Emperors of that which they call the eighth the synodall definition expresseth Quod à Basilio Imperatore coactum that it was assembled by Basilius the Emperour and the whole Synod cryed out We all thinke so we all subscribe to these things And Pope Stephen in his letters to Basilius speaking of this Synod saith Did not the Romane See send Legates to the Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 te imperante Raderus and Binius translate it but it is rather to be read ad imperium and summam jussionem tuam the Pope sent Legates not when Basilius was Emperour which was no great honour or token of duty to be done but at the most high command of Basilius which testified his subjection and duty to the Emperour whom the Pope in that same Epistle acknowledgeth to be the highest person who here upon earth sustaines the person of Christ and in the sixt Action of the same Councell it is said Imperator hanc Synodum coegit the Emperour assembled this Synod 12. Thus all those Councells which are usually reckoned for generall and approved for the space of a thousand yeares were all called by Imperiall jussion and command the religious Emperours exercising that right in commanding all Bishops even the Popes to such Councels all the Bishops even the Popes by their willing obedience acknowledging that authority and power to be in the Emperours and therefore they gladly obeyed those imperiall jussions and commands And as they were all assembled by Imperiall calling so were they all governed by Imperiall presidency That Constantine was President in the Nicene Pope Stephen in the Epistle lately cited expresly witnesseth Doe you not remember saith he what Pope Silvester said in the Nicene Synod praesidente ibi S. Constantino Saint Constantine being President therein His owne Acts in the Councell of moderating and repressing the jarres of the Bishops of burning their bookes of accusations and quarrels of drawing them to unity that with one consent they should define the causes proposed doe manifest the same for all these are acts of the Imperiall presidency That Theodosius was President in the second may appeare not onely for that he was present therein and present no doubt as Constantine had beene before as a moderator of their actions but that small remainder of the Acts of that Councell import also the same for he directed and that by his Mandatum what the Bishops should doe and when they out of their partiall affections would have preferred each his owne friend to the See of Constantinople the Emperour perceiving that corrected their partiall judgement Iussit inscribere chartae hee commanded them to write a bill of such men as they thought fit for the place himselfe nominated Nectarius and though many of the Bishops at first contradicted that choice yet he drew them all to his sentence and so the whole Synod consented upon the ordination of Nectarius 13. For the holy Ephesine Synod all the Acts are full of this Imperiall Presidency The Emperours sent Candidianus to keepe away tumult and disorderly persons from the Councell to see that no dissention and private quarrels might hinder their grave consultations the free and exact discussion of the causes proposed and to provide that every one might freely and with leisure propose what was needfull and have scope to refute all doubts proposed by others The Emperours when they heard of the dissentions and disorders among the Bishops writ unto them to take a better and more peaceable and orderly examination of the cause saying Majestas nostra ea quae acta sunt pro ratis legitimis habere non potest our Majesty cannot hold or esteeme those acts done so disorderly for firme and synodall nay we decree that all things which hitherto have beene done pro irritis nullis habenda esse shall be accounted of no force but utterly void and frustrate than which no greater tokens of Imperiall Presidency can be devised The whole and holy Synod willingly submitted themselves to this presidency In their
Iudge in his owne cause The Councell and by name the Popes Legates to whom the rest therein assented tooke this just exception thereat and said Non patimur we cannot indure this wrong to be done ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit that Dioscorus who is to bee judged sit as a Iudge in his owne cause upon which most just and equall motion the glorious Iudges who were Presidents for order commanded Dioscorus to remove from the Bench as I may say of Iudges and to sit in the middle of the Church which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei and Dioscorus accordingly sate there as the glorious Iudges had appointed Vpon the very same ground of equitie did the religious Emperour command in the second Ephesine Synod that if any question or cause fell out to be debated concerning Theodoret whom he commanded to be present that then absque illo Synodum convenire the Synod should assēble judge that cause without Theodoret he should have no judicatory power in his own cause And the like he further cōmanded cōcerning that holy Bish. Flavianus He some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople beene Iudges against Eutiches and condemned him An higher even that generall Councell at Ephesus which proved a Latrociny in the end was called to examine that judgment of Flavianus and the rest whether it was just or no. The Emperour commanded those who had beene Iudges of late in loco eorum esse qui judicandi sunt now to bee in the place of Rei such as were to bee judged A demonstration that if Theodosius or Martian or such like worthy and equall Iudges as they were at Chalcedon had been Presidents for order in their Trent assembly the Pope though hee had beene as just and orthodoxall as Flavianus much more being in impiety and heresie farre superiour to Dioscorus should not have beene permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Councell nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his owne cause much lesse have had such a supremacie of judgement that his onely voyce and sentence should over-rule and over-sway the whole Councell besides 35. The other example is this Athanasius Bishop of Paros being accused of sundry crimes was called to triall before a Provinciall Councell at Antioch held by Domnus Bishop of that See unto whose Patriarchall authority Athanasius was subject when hee refused to come after three citations hee was deposed by that Synod and Sabinianus by the same authority made Bishop of Paros in his roome In the Councel at Chalcedon Athanasius came complained of wrongfull extrusion and desired of the generall Councell that his Bishopricke might be restored unto him pleading for his refusall to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch nothing else but this that Dōnus who was the chiefe Iudge in that Synod was his enemy and therefore hee thought it not equall to be tryed before him though he was his owne Patriarch The glorious Iudges gave order that the accusations against Athanasius should within eight moneths bee examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch and a Synod with him and if he were found guilty of those crimes or any other worthy deposition he should for ever want the Bishopricke But if either they did not within such time examine the cause or examining it finde the accusations untrue that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius as unjustly deposed and that Sabinianus should remaine but a substitute unto him untill Maximus could provide him of another Bishopricke Thus ordered the secular Iudges and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence crying out Nihil justius nothing is more just nothing is more equall this is a just sentence you judge according to Gods minde O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe nay rather the onely Iudge would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity nor of force to bind I say not other Churches such as these of Britany but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority as Athanasius was to Domnus Such an holy Councell would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God and unlesse they could justifie which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us and withall purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convicted not onely in foro poli but in their owne consciences and by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny injustice and subversion of the Catholike Faith 36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops who were assessors in that Assembly Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance and murdered the Prophets Among whom that Canon authorizing trecherous and perfidious dealing stood in force Quod non obstantibus that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours Kings or any other granted to such as come to their Councels Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint by what bond soever they have tyed themselves by promise by their honour by their oath yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition and proceed to censure to punish them as they shall thinke fit and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousnesse saying Caesar obsignavit Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath but our Councell which is above the Emperour hath repealed it it shall not stand in force 37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope The Apulian Bishops crying out aliorum omnium nomine in the name of all the rest in their Councell Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae mancipia sanctissimi patris O we are all but the Popes creatures his very slaves The complaint of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed which he made of such like Councels at Basil that must bee done and of necessity be done and decreed in Councells quod nationi placeat Italicae which the Italian nation shall
ignominious Non est peccatum malos persequi saith Saint Augustine To persecute and justly punish wicked men is no offence neither are they just who are so persecuted but he who is persecuted for righteousnesse sake Had Iustinian done this to Vigilius hee had beene no persecutor But Vigilius who oppugned the truth Baronius who with such a virulent tongue reviles and railes at the defenders of Gods truth they and none but they are persecutors in this cause They kill not the Prophets nor Apostles but they kill murther as cruelly as they can that truth of God which the Prophets and Apostles imbraced and for defence of which they were ready to bee killed This spirituall persecution as Saint Augustine teacheth exceeds the corporall They murther the Prophets who contradict the doctrines of the Prophets Mitius ageretis It were lesse crueltie in you to thrust your swords into the bodies of the Prophets then with your tongues to murther the doctrine and words of the Prophets And a thousand like sayings hath the same Augustine by which it were easie to demonstrate Baronius himselfe and not Iustinian to bee the unjust impious sacrilegious and franticke persecutor if by that which hath beene said this were not abundantly apparent 8. Now followeth the other Pageant of this Baronian Tragedy in declaming against Iustinian That respects his last yeares and his death in which part as being the last and therefore likeliest to leave deepest impression in the hearts of the readers because Baronius hath couched together the most vile accusations of all the rest and the very venome of his poysonfull affections and splene against the Emperour I am most unwilling to forsake the religious Emperour in the last act of all but a◠exceeding desirous to testifie my love unto him both for other causes and for this especially that he next unto God was the preserver of the Catholike faith when in this cause of the Three Chapters the Nestorians and especially Pope Vigilius laboured with might and maine for ever to abolish and extinguish the same in regard of which act alone if there were none else hee deserved to bee eternized in the blessed memory and by the best indeavors of all that love the Catholike faith Baronius intreating of the 37. yeare of Iustinian which was about two yeares before his death tels us how at that time Iustinian Vnhappy Iustinian ranne headlong into the heresie of the Aphthardokites or incorrupticolae who denyed the body of CHRIST to bee subject to passions death or corruption These as Liberatus saith were also called Phantasticks because upon their doctrine it followed that CHRIST had not a true and truely humane but onely an imaginary and phantasticall body Into this phantasticall heresie saith Baronius did Iustinian fall and runne headlong in his last age and for proofe hereof hee alleageth most ample witnesses Authores omnes tam Graeci quam Latini All Authors both Greeke and Latine they all testifie that hee fell into this heresie and they detest that impiety in him Nor did he onely fall himselfe into it but hee sought to draw all others into the same errour Ita ebrius factus est ut mente motus Iustinian was so drunke that being out of his wits hee writ an Edict to confirme that heresie and bring all the Church to beleeve the same When hee prevailed not that way then hee began to use violence Exilium omnibus Episcopis contradicentibus comminatur hee threatned banishment to all the Bishops who contradicted that heresie and so boyling in rage raised a persecution yea Persecutionem haud mediocrem an heavy and great persecution against Catholike Bishops casting Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople into banishment for this cause Thus Baronius Who proves this concerning the Edict and persecution partly by the Surian Eustathius who writ the life of Eutychius partly out of Evagrius who both mention indeed the banishment of Eutychius and the Edict of Iustinian written for that heresie 9. This is the summe of that which is objected but how Baronius doth amplifie decke and paint out the same by his Rhetorication is not unworthy observing He not onely taxeth this in Iustinian as an act of curiosity temerity and arrogancy for His intermedling in sacred matters and of foolishnesse for Partaking with the one side in the faction as he had done with the Prasini for which he calleth him Maximum jurium proculcatorem The greatest despiser and trampler of lawes under his feet but he cals him also Mente motū a man out of his wits an hereteike another Aegyptian Pharaoh who bent all his power to oppresse the Catholike faith yea a very Antichrist saying thus of him Iustinian no otherwise than Antichrist setting up his Chaire and Throne in the Temple of God and extolling himselfe above all that is worshipped maketh sacrilegious lawes for establishing Infidelity and writes Edicts for heresie And againe not but onely the Emperours authority did erect that heresie Tanquam Idolum in Templo Dei As an Idoll in the Temple of God Whereupon the Cardinall in the anguish of his heart takes up with sighes and teares the complaint of Ieremy O heavens be astonished at this be afraid and utterly astonished the Emperor hath forsaken the fountaine of living waters he hath digged to himselfe pits that will hold no water After this fit of his weeping overpast he then comes to the most base reviling railing against the Emperor calling him Monstrū triceps that Monster with three heads like another Cerberus or hell-hound which Ecclesiasticus speaks of declares to be so odious execrable A poore man proud a rich man a lyar and an old man a foole Such a Monster saith he did Iustinian now appeare like three-bodied Gerion in the Poets seeing he joyned these three detestable faults in himselfe at this time Hee was poore yea most poore Expers penitus literarum Vtterly voyd of learning not able to reade his very A. b. c. and yet hee would seeme to be more learned than all Bishops so he was a poore man proud He was also a rich man a lyar in that he commanded all to embrace heresie and by his power hindreth them to contradict his Edict like him of whom it is said The rich man spake and all held their peace Lastly when he refused the counsell of the Elders Planè senex cognitus est fatuus insensatus He was therein plainly knowne to be an old doting foole without wit or sense Thus Baronius concluding that Emperour to be a monster an heretike a hell-hound a mad man a lyar a blockhead and a very plaine foole whom all the Christian world hath and shall for ever and that most justly admire for his piety prudence and wisedome 10. Baronius not content with this so uncivill demeanour tells us further what mischiefes ensued upon these detestable crimes of
some Churches unto it That this was done in the fift Councell Baronius proves by Guil. Tyrius who writeth that in the fift Synod in the time of Iustinian Vigilius Eutychius and the rest decreed that this Bishopricke of Ierusalem should have the place of a Patriarke with the rest And because it was situate in a manner in the limits of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch and so there was no meanes for it to have subordinate Bishops unlesse somewhat were taken from either of those Patriarkships therefore it seemed good to the Synod to take part from either so they tooke from the Bishop of Antioch two Provinces Caesarea and Scythopolis and two other from the Bishop of Alexandria Ruba and Beritus besides which Metropolitane Sees they tooke also from the same Patriarks divers Bishopricks and erected some other all which being in number twenty five they subjected to their new founded Patriarke of Ierusalem This is the summe of that which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius delivereth and Binius addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell which is now not found among the Acts therof Baronius further glossing on this text tels us that though Iuvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon when the Pope Legates were absent yet Pope Leo resisting it he prevailed not nor was the matter put in execution but at this time the ancient order instituted by the Nicene Councell being inverted Caesarea was now first of all made subject to the Church of Ierusalem which now was become a Patriarchall See 2. This whole passage of Baronius approving that testimony of Guil. Tyrius which is justly refuted by Berterius I cannot tell what to call but sure I am it consists of divers untruths not so much upon ignorance then his sinne had beene lesse as maliciously objected against the Acts of this holy Synod some of them I will explane beginning with that which is the maine point of all First then it is untrue that this fift Synod advanced the See of Ierusalem to a Patriarkship Not to the name and title of a Patriarke for that it had long before as Bellar. and Binius professe though it was but a single Bishorick subject as both Ierome and the Nicene Councell declare to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarke and to the Bishop of Cesarea Palestina for there is another in Cappadocia as his Metropolitane yet for honor of our Saviors resurrectiō in that place it had the name of Patriark and preeminency in Councels to the Bishop of Caesarea Not to the authoritie and power of a Patriarke for that it had and had it justly long before this fift Councell even by the decree and judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon Iuvenalis had sued for it in the Ephesine Councell but the Bish. of Antioch as it seemeth then being unwilling to manumit him as it were free him from his subjection Cyrill resisted it writ to Pope Leo praying him to do the like But after long contention both parties being throughly agreed the matter was brought to the Councell of Chalcedon where Maximus and Iuvenalis the Bishops of both Sees first of all and before the whole Councell professed that they were both willing that the Bishop of Antioch should hold the two Pheniciaes and Arabia and the Bishop of Ierusalem should hold the three Palestinaes and they both requested the whole Synod to decree cofirme and ratifie the same The whole Councell thereupon by their decree cōfirmed the same all the most reverēd Bishops cryed We all say the same and we consent thereunto After them the most glorious Iudges in the name of the Emperor added Imperiall authority and the royall assent to the Synods decree saying Firmum etiam per nostrum decretū sententiam Concilij in omni tempore permanebit hoc this shall abide firme for ever by our decree and by the judgement of the Councell that the Church of Antioch have under it the two Pheniciaes and Arabia the Church of Ierusalem have under it the three Palestines Thus the Iudges The same Decree of this Councell at Chalcedon is expresly testified both by Evagrius and Nicephorus So untrue it is which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius a voucheth that the Church of Ierusalem was first made a Patriarchall See or had the Provinces and Metropolitanes of Caesarea and Scithopolis annexed unto it by the fift Councell that it is undoubtedly certaine that it had with the title and dignity true Patriarchal authority and power over divers Provinces together with their inferiour Bishops conferred upon it with a plenary consent of the whole Church in the Councell of Chalcedon And that you may see the most shamefull dealing both of Bar. and Binius in another place where their choller against this fift Councell was not moved they acknowledge that truth for intreating of the Councell at Chalcedon In this seventh Session of it saith Baronius and the like doth Binius was the controversie cōposed betwixt the Bishops of Antioch Ierusalē and the cause being judged the two Pheniciae and Arabia were given to the Bishop of Antioch and the three Palestines were adjudged to the Bishop of Hierusalem ex quibus jam perspicuè apparet jus Metropolis in Hierosolymitanam Ecclesiam esse translatum whence it doth evidently appeare that the right of the Metropolis which before belonged to the Bishop of Caesarea was translated to the Bishop of Ierusalem So they who yet in hatred against the Acts of the fift Councell with faces of Adamant deny that truth which here they confesse to be cleare and conspicuous 3. But saith the Cardinall the decree of Chalcedon was made post absentiam Legatorum when the Popes Legates were now gone and so they being absent is to be held invalid O the forehead of the Cardinall Were the Popes Legats absent were they gone Truly they were not onely present at this decree and consenting unto it but after it was proposed by Maximus and Iuvenalis they were the very first men that gave sentence therein whose sentence the whole Councell followed For thus it is sayd Pascasinus and Lucentius the most reverend Bishops and Boniface a Presbyter these holding the place of the Apostolike See said by Pascasinus These things betwixt Maximus and Invenalis are knowne to be done for their good and peace nostrae humilitatis interloquutione firmantur and they are confirmed by the interloquuntion of our humility ut nulla imposterum de hac causa sit contentio that never hereafter there should be any contention about this matter betweene these Churches Is it credible that the Cardinall could be so audacious and impudent as to utter such palpable untruths Vnlesse he had quite put off I say not modesty but reason sense and almost humane nature Let this stand for the second
or knowing it oppugnes the truth hee is now in his owne element he offends no longer as a Rhetorician or Grammarian but quatenus talis as hee is a Bishop as hee is a Divine as hee is one who both should know and bring others to the knowledge of the truth And this beside that by reason it is evident is grounded on that saying of Austen Aliter servit Rex qua homo aliter qua Rex for as a King serveth God qua Rex in doing that which none but a King can doe so a King or a Bishop or any other offendeth God as a King or Bishop in doing against that duty which none but they are to doe 45. Now what is said of all Sciences Arts and mysteries that is in due proportion to be applyed to that greatest mysterie of mysteries and Craft above all Crafts to their Pope-craft or mysterie of Iniquity He is the sheepheard to feed all the Physitian to cure all the Counsellor to advise all the Iudge to decide al the Monarke to command all hee is all in all nay above all hard it is to define him or his duties hee is indefinite infinite transcendent above all limits above all definitions above all rule yea above all reason also But as the Nymphs not able to measure the vastnes of the Gyants whole body measured onely the compasse of his thumbe with a thred and by it knew and admired the bignesse of his Gygantean body so let us consider but the thumbe or little toe of his Holinesse fault and by it conjecture the immensity of this eldest sonne of Anak Pasce oves confirmafratres must bee to us as the Nymphes thred or line for these two are the Popes peculiars in which are contained all the rest and they reach as farre as heaven and hell they are the Popes duty quatenus hee is Pope If at any time or upon any occasion hee swarve from this line if by his doctrine he cast downe his brethren instead of confirming them or give them poyson in stead of good food he offends not now as Swines-snout nor as Peter of Tarantasia nor as Hugh Bone companion but quatenus Papa even as Pope in that very Pastorall and Papall duty which properly and peculiarly belongeth to him as Pope Lay now this line and thred to Pope Vigilius and his Epistle did he confirme Anthimus Theodosius and Severus in the faith when he told them that by Gods helpe both before and then also he held the same faith with them and that was Eutycheanisme and that they were joyned to him in the charity which is in Christ or was this wholsome food which hee the great Pastor of their soules set before them Accursed be all that deny one and affirme two natures to have beene in Christ If this bee hereticall doctrine seeing Pope Vigilius fed them and confirmed them in this faith then certainely he taught heresie as Pope that is hee exercised his Papall office even that of feeding and confirming his brethren which is peculiar to the Pope as Pope to the teaching and approving of heresie at this time 46. If yet wee shall goe somewhat more precisely and exactly to worke according to line and measure those acts of feeding and confirming doe but in a very equivocall sense for their doctrine is full of Equivocation agree to other Bishops but still a maine difference or odds is to bee observed betwixt the Popes feeding and confirming as hee is Pope and all others when any other Bishop teacheth heresie because his teaching is subordinate and fallible one may nay he must doubt or feare to feed on such food he must still receive it with this caution or tacit appeale of his heart if his holinesse commend it for an wholesome diet of the soule But if the Pope teach any heresie if hee say that the Sunne is darke the left the write hand poyson an wholesome food Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme the orthodoxall faith here because there is no higher judge to whom you may appeale you are bound upon salvation without any doubt or scruple at all to eate and devoure this meate you may not judge nay you may not dispute or aske any man whether it be true or no the Popes teaching is supreme and therefore infallible indubitable this is to teach to feed to confirme as Pope for none can thus teach or feed but onely the Pope as Pope So the same hereticall doctrine when it is taught by the Pope as he is a private man is a private instruction without any publike authority to teach when by him as a Presbiter it is an instruction with publike authority to teach but without judicatory power to censure the gainsayers when by him as a Bishop it is both with publike authority and judicatory power to censure suspend or excommunicate the gainsayers but yet subordinate and fallible including a virtuall appeale to the highest tribunall of the Pope when by him as Pope it hath all the former conditions both publike authority to teach and judiciall power to censure and which is the Popes peculiar prerogative as Pope to doe those with infallibility of judgement and supremacy of authority such as none may refuse or doubt to beleeve and embrace 47. If any will here reply with the Sophister Thrasimachus his subtilty in Plato that the Pope as Pope teacheth not amisse but as hee faileth in the Popes duty as hee wants skill or will to performe that office This must bee acknowledged as true indeed for in the strictest sense of all what the Pope is as Pope that must inseparably agree to every Pope and the manner of his teaching as Pope must inseparably agree to the teaching of every Pope even as Logicians say that what agreeth to a man a bird or a tree quatenus talia as they are such must agree to every man bird and tree But this quirke and subtilty will not helpe their cause nor excuse the Pope from erring as Pope for as in this sense no Pope as Pope doth erre because then every Pope should erre in all doctrines which hee teacheth so neither in the same sense doth any Pope as Pope teach the truth for then every doctrine of every Pope should bee true Againe as according to this sense no Pope as Pope so no Bishop as Bishop no Presbyter as Presbyter doth erre or teach heresie for did hee in his teaching erre as Bishop or Presbyter then every Presbyter and every Bishop and so even the Apostles themselves should erre in their teaching But as Vigilius or Liberius when they taught Arianisme Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme did this not simply as Popes but as persons not knowing as in duty they should what to teach or knowing it but willingly teaching the contrary to their knowledge which in duty they should not even so Nestorius Macedonius Arius and Eutyches every Bishop and Presbyter when they erred they erred not simply as Bishops or as Presbyters but