Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	1,725	5	9.4842	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19552	Vigilius dormitans Romes seer overseene· Or A treatise of the Fift General Councell held at Constantinople, anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour, in the time of Pope Vigilius: the occasion being those tria capitula, which for many yeares troubled the whole Church. Wherein is proved that the Popes apostolicall constitution and definitive sentence in matter of faith, was condemned as hereticall by the Synod. And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered. By Rich: Crakanthorp Dr. in Divinitie, and chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie King Iames. Opus posthumum. Published and set forth by his brother Geo: Crakanthorp, according to a perfect copy found written under the authors owne hand.	Crakanthorpe, Richard, 1567-1624.; Crakanthorpe, George, b. 1586 or 7.; Crakanthorpe, Richard, 1567-1624. Justinian the Emperor defended, against Cardinal Baronius.	1631 (1631)	STC 5983; ESTC S107274	689,557	538

this it owne selfe note this especially and all other Articles of faith doe depend upon this all Articles of faith doe hang hoc unum praesupponunt they all praesuppose this and take it for granted This and much more hath Stapleton 16. But what speake I of Bellarmine or Stapleton though the latter hath most diligently sifted this cause This position that the Church is the last Iudge and so the lowest foundation of their faith is the decreed doctrine of their Trent Councell and therefore the consenting voyce of their whole Church and of every member thereof For in that Councell the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures and by the like reason it is to iudge of traditions and of the sense of them Now because all doubts and controversies of faith depend on the one of these it clearly followeth upon that decree that the very last stay in all doubts of faith is the Churches judgement but that upon no other nor higher stay doth or can relie for whatsoever you take besides this the truth the waight and validity of all must be tried in the Church at her judgement it must stand or fall yea if you make a doubt of the Churches judgement it selfe even that as all other must be ended by the judgement of the Church it is the last Iudge of all This to bee the true meaning of the Trent Councel Bellarmine both saw and professeth when hee saith The Church that is the Pope with a Councell is Iudge of the sense of the Scripture omnium controversiarum and of all controversies of faith and in this all Catholikes do agree and it is expresly set downe in the Trent Councell So Bellarmine testifying this to be both the decreed doctrine of their generall and approved Councell and the consenting judgment of all that are Romane Catholikes 17. Now all this which they have said of the Church if you will have it in plaine termes and without circumloquution belongs onely to the Pope who is vertually both Church and Councell As the Church or Councell is called infallible no otherwise but by a Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head both of Church and Councell is infallible So is the Church or Councell called the foundation of faith or last principle on which their faith must relie by the same figure Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head of them both is the foundation of faith And whosoever is a true Romane Catholike or member of their present Church hee beleeveth all other doctrines because the Church that is the Pope doth teach them and the Pope to teach them infallibly he beleeveth for it selfe because the Pope saith hee is in such teaching infallible This infallibility of the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very corner stone the foundation stone the rocke and fundamentall position of their whole faith and religion which was the point that I purposed to declare 18. I have hitherto declared and I feare too abundantly that the assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie in causes of faith is not onely a position but the very fundamentall position of all the doctrines of the present Romane Church In the next place we are to prove that this position is hereticall and that for such it was adjudged and condemned by the Catholike Church In the proofe whereof I shall not need to stay long This whole treatise and even that which hath already beene declared touching the Constitution of Pope Vigilius doth evidently confirme the same For seeing the defending of the Three Chapters hath been proved to be hereticall the Constitution of Vigilius made in defence of those Chapters must of necessity be confessed to be hereticall Nay if you well consider you shall see that this very position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie is adjudged to bee hereticall For the fift generall Councell knew this cause of the Three Chapters to bee a cause of faith They knew further that Pope Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree and Cathedrall Constitution had defined that those Three Chapters ought to bee defended Now seeing they knew both these and yet judicially defined the defence of those Three Chapters to be hereticall and for such accursed it even in doing this they define the Cathedrall judgement of Vigilius in this cause of Faith to be hereticall and therefore most certainly and à fortiori define this position That the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is infallible to bee hereticall and for such they anathematize both it and all that defend it And because the judgement and definitive sentence of the fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all subsequent Councels till the Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth it unavoydably hence ensueth that the same position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is by the judgement of all generall Councells untill that time that is by the constant and uniforme consent of the whole Catholike Church adjudged condemned and accursed for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes And seeing we have cleerly proved the whole present Romane Church and all that are members therof to defend this position yea to defend it as the maine foundation of their whole faith the evidence of that assertion which I proposed doth now manifestly appeare That none can now assent to the Pope or to the doctrines of the present Church of Rome but he is eo nomine even for that very cause adjudged and condemned for hereticall and that even in the very ground and foundation of his faith 19. From the foundation let us proceed to the walls and roofe of their religion Thinke you the foundation thereof is onely hereticall and the doctrines which they build thereon orthodoxall Nothing lesse They are both sutable both hereticall That one fundamentall position is like the Trojan horse in the wombe of it are hid many troopes of heresies If Liberius confirme Arianisme Honorius Monothelitisme Vigilius Nestorianisme these all by vertue of that one assertion must passe currant for Catholike truths Nay who can comprehend I say not in words or writing but in his thought and imagination all the blasphemous and hereticall doctrines which by all their Popes have beene or if as yet they have not which hereafter may be by succeeding Popes defined to bee doctrines of faith Seeing Stapleton assures us That the Church of this or any succeeding age may put into the Canon and number of sacred and undoubtedly Canonicall bookes the booke of Hermas called Pastor and the Constitutions of Clement the former being as their owne notes censure it haeresibus fabulis opplet us full of heresies and fables rejected by Pope Gelasius with his Romane Synod the later being stuffed also with many impious doctrines condemning lawfull mariage as fornication and allowing fornication as lawfull with many the like impieties which in Possevine are to

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

foure times before them interpreting saying I my selfe and the Eastern Bishops did not nor would receive Cyrill nor make union nor hold communion with him donec interpret at us est till he had explained his meaning and interpreted those Chapters that in other places of those acts as also in his Epistle he in plaine tearmes calleth anathematizing his Chapters the doctrine of one Person taught therein saying Paulus required Cyrill to anathematize such as professe one Nature that is by the Nestorian dialect one person in Christ and God inclined the heart of the Aegyptian to consent hereunto and so contention ceased and peace was made and Cyrill and the rest doe now teach Contraria priori doctrinae the quite contrarie to their former doctrine for before Cyrill taught in his Chapters as Ibas said that there is one Nature that is one person that there is no personall differēce betwixt the temple and him that dwelleth in the temple but now no man not Cyrill himselfe nor any other dare say that there is one Nature that is one Person of the deitie and humanitie but all doe now professe to beleeve in the temple as one person and in him who dwelleth in the temple as another distinct person So Ibas expresly calling that in one place Cyrils anathematizing of his Chapters which in the other he calleth the explanation of his chapters And this the Epistle of Cyrill to Acatius doth further witnesse for he hearing how the Nestorians slandered him in this point doth there at large declare how by his profession of two natures he did not consent with them in teaching two persons but did ever both before and after the union teach the same truth herein to wit that in Christ there are two natures that is essences or subsistences against the Appollinarians and yet that Christ is but one Person or personall subsistence against the Nestorians So untruly did they slander him to reach contrarie to his Chapters or by his explaining of them to have condemned recalled and anathematized his Chapters 48. We doe now clearly see not onely that the explanation of Cyrils Chapters which Ibas and the other Nestorians of his time meant is an utter condemning of them all but upon what pretence and occasion they called his anathematizing an Explation of his Chapters If now it may further appeare that Vigilius in his Constitution meant this Nestorian and slanderous Explanation I doubt not but his text will bee sufficient easie and cleare in this point And though none who diligently peruseth the Popes words can as I thinke doubt hereof yet because it is not fit in a just Commentary to give naked asseverations specially in a point of such moment I will propose three or foure reasons to make evident the same The first is taken from the correspondence and parity of the effect which followed upon this Explanation as the cause therof It is no doubt but Vigilius meant such an explanation of Cyrils Chapters as upon which that union which Ibas held with Cyrill at the time when he writ this Epist. ensued for Vigilius proveth Ibas at that time to have bin a Catholike because upon Cyrils Explanation he forthwith embraced the union with Cyrill and ●an to communicate with him Now it is certaine that Ibas when he writ this Epistle approved not the orthodoxall and true union which Cyrill truly made with Iohn and the rest upon their profession of the orthodoxall faith sent unto him but onely the union in Nestorianisme the slanderous union which they falsely affirmed Cyrill to have made wherefore it certainly followeth that the Explanation of Cyrill which Vigilius intendeth as a cause of that union can bee no other then the slanderous explanation wherein Cyrill was falsely said to have explaned his Chapters that is anathematized them and the doctrine delivered in them for the true and orthodoxal explanatiō neither did nor could effect that uniō in Nestorianisme which Ibas embraced at the time when he writ this Epistle it was the condemning of his Chapters and in such sort to explane them that they were anathematized it was this and no other explanation which did make the union whereof Ibas boasteth Seeing then the hereticall union of Ibas followed upon that explanation which Vigilius here meaneth it is doubtlesse that the explanation also which hee intendeth is the same slanderous hereticall explanation which Ibas and the other Nestorians ascribed to Cyril upon which they joyned in union and communion with him The cause was like the effect the effect an hereticall and slanderous union the cause an hereticall and slanderous explanation 49. The other reason is taken from the words of Vigilius which being very pregnant to this purpose I shall desire the reader diligētly to consider the same Vigilius having said that upon Cyrils Explanation Ibas with all the Easterne Bishops held Cyrill for a Catholike addeth this collection thereupon Ex quo apparet By this it appeareth Ibas both before hee understood the twelve Chapters of Cyrils and when he suspected one Nature to be taught thereby orthodoxo sensu quod male dictum existimabat reprobasse then to have reproved those Chapters in an orthodoxall sense and also after the Explanation of them orthodoxo sensu quae rectè dicta cognoverat venerabiliter suscepisse then to have approved them very reverently and in an orthodoxall sense embraced that which he knew to bee rightly spoken therein So Vigilius plainly affirming the sense of Ibas to have been orthodoxall both before and after the Explanation or union made by Iohn and all the rest with Cyrill At both those times the doctrine sense and meaning of Ibas was the same and at both orthodoxal and Cyrill by that Explanation which Vigilius meaneth declared his Chapters to have the very same meaning and orthodoxall sense which Ibas had which when Ibas perceived to bee the sense of Cyrill forthwith he held Cyrill for a Catholike and joyned communion with him and reverently received his doctrine as being consonant to the sense of Ibas which was still orthodoxall so there was no alteration in the sense of Ibas that both before and after Cyrils Explanation was orthodoxall onely before the union or Explanation Ibas mis-understood Cyrils meaning and thought he had taught one Nature to bee in Christ whereas Cyrill by his Explanation shewed that he meant just as Ibas did that there were in Christ two Natures even in that orthodoxall sense which Ibas had held as well before as after the Explanation 50. Oh what a Circean Cup is Heresie specially Nestorianisme Pope Vigilius doth now shew himselfe in his colours and demonstrates that he is as by some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite transformed into Nestorius Theodorus or if there be any more hereticall than they in that kinde for what thinke you was that sense of Ibas which the Pope commends for orthodoxall what was it first after the

Explanation and union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill I have manifested this before and the Epistle of Ibas written two yeares at least after that union doth make it undeniably evident that his sense was then that there are two natures making two persons in Christ that the temple and the inhabiter in the temple are two distinct persons that Cyrils Chapters were hereticall in teaching one Nature that is one Person in Christ in a word his sense then was that Nestorianisme and nothing but Nestorianisme was Catholike that the decree at Ephesus against Nestorius was hereticall doctrine This sense of Ibas Vigilius by his Pontificall and Cathedral Constitution adjudgeth and decreeth to be orthodoxall and Catholike Could Nestorius judge otherwise or wish any other judgement 51. It may be the sense of Ibas was better before the union and Explanation what was it then Truly it was the very selfe same So long saith Ibas as the Easterne Councell anathematized Cyrill which was still till the union sequutus sum Primatem meum I followed my Primate that was Iohn of Antioch what his sense was and the Synods with him that was my sense Now the sense of Iohn and his Conventicle set downe in more than twenty Synodall Epistles of theirs was that Cyrils twelve Chapters were hereticall contrary to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine that there are two Natures making two Persons in Christ that to teach one Nature that is one Person in Christ was hereticall that Cyrill and all that tooke part with him or consented to his Chapters were heretikes yea condemned and anathematized heretikes that the holy Ephesine Councell was a Conspiracie of heretikes of seditious and factious persons This was the sense of Iohn this the sense of Ibas before the union and this sense the Popes Holinesse hath decreed to be a Catholike and orthodoxall sense The sense of Ibas saith hee both before the Explanation or union and after it was orthodoxall so by the Pope Vigilius his decree it is good Catholike doctrine to teach two Persons in Christ to teach Cyrill Caelestine the whole Ephesine Councell to be heretikes that is in a word to teach Nestorianisme and nothing but Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith 52. But that which I principally aimed at out of those words of Vigilius was to observe that Cyrils Explanation here mentioned and meant by Vigilius neither is nor can be ought else but an absolute condemning and anathematizing of his twelve Chapters for by that explanation which Vigilius intendeth Cyrill shewed that his sense was the very same with that which Ibas had before and after the union but that sense which Ibas had before and divers yeares after the union was that the two Natures in Christ make two distinct Persons and that Cyrils twelve Chapters in which it is constantly taught that there is but one Person or as the Nestorians spake but one nature in Christ are hereticall and to be anathematized as being contrary to the Catholike faith wherefore that Explanation of Cyrils Chapters which Vigilius intendeth is certainly a declaring and acknowledgment that there is not one but two distinct Persons in Christ and that his own twelve Chapters for teaching but one Person are all of them hereticall and to be anathematized 53. The third reason is taken from Vigilius his scope and purpose in this whole passage Suppose Vigilius to have meant the orthodoxall Explanation set out by Cyrill seeing that is wholly repugnant to the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme Vigilius by approving that Explanation had condemned this Epistle of Ibas and every part thereof Seeing then by that Explanation which Vigilius intendeth his purpose is to confirme and strengthen this Epistle of Ibas and prove it to bee orthodoxall which is onely done by approving the slanderous Explanation of Cyrill to be orthodoxall the very scope and maine purpose of Vigilius doth declare that it is not nor can be the orthodoxall but the slanderous and hereticall Explanation only of Cyrils Chapters which the Pope here meant and by which being commended for Catholike hee indevoureth to prove the Epistle which shewes Ibas to have consented most gladly and reverently as the Pope saith to it to bee indeed Catholike 54. The fourth and last reason is taken from the fit coherence and congruity which this exposition of Vigilius meaning hath with his whole text concerning this matter Take him to speake of the true and orthodoxall explanation of Cyrill his words are riddles more obscure than Plato's numbers yea they are unreconciliable to the truth of the story Ibas saith the Pope upon Cyrils Explanation hastened and ran to communicate with Cyrill Expound this of Cyrils orthodoxall Explanation it is utterly untrue Ibas detested that more than the Chapters themselves hee neither ranne to embrace that nor Cyrill for that hee fled from it as a serpent and the like may be said of the rest But take Vigilius to speake as indeed he doth of this slanderous and hereticall Explanation and then all the words of Vigilius are not onely coherent among themselves but perspicuous and easie Ibas by an errour mis-understood the words of Cyrill as thinkking him to teach one Nature that is one Person in Christ and then hee spake injuriously against him and called him an heretike sed intellectu Capitulorum meliore recepto but when Ibas better understood the Chapters of Cyrill when hee knew that Cyrill professed two Natures that is two persons in Christ and that Cyrill expounded his Chapters in such sort that the humanitie and deitie were each a distinct person then Ibas amended all that he had said amisse of Cyrill and called him no more an heretike but embraced him as a Catholike Again Ibas blamed Cyrill while he understood not his Chapters aright while he thought that but one person had beene taught therein but afterwards his ab eo explanatis intellectis when Cyrill had explaned himselfe and Ibas understood his meaning that hee meant either nature to a several person and so that there were two natures in Ibas sense that is two persons in Christ then devotè concurrit Ibas ran to communicate and shake hands with Cyrill Againe how should we not receive Ibas being a Catholike who though hee seemed to speak against Cyrill while he mis-understood his Chapters nunc ab eo in quo fallebatur intellectu conversus Now upon Cyrils Explanation hee is converted from that error whereby hee was deceived for now he seeth Cyrill to professe two Natures in the Nestorian sense that is two persons whereas he erroniously thought Cyrill to teach but one Person in Christ Againe nothing is reproved of the confession of Ibas that is orthodoxall as teaching two natures that is two persons in Christ but Ibas hath refuted all quod fallente intelligentia de Cyrillo male senserat which hee thought amisse of Cyrill by the errour of his misconceiving Cyrils

meaning as thinking Cyrill to have taught but one Nature that is one Person in Christ. Lastly the comparison which Vigilius sets downe betwixt Ibas and Dioscorus is hereby made easie and cleare Dioscorus though hee commended Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell for teaching one Nature in Christ to wit one Nature in Dioscorus sense that is one Essence did more wrong Cyrill and the Councell than Ibas who condemned them both teaching one Nature to wit one in Ibas his sense that is one person in Christ For Dioscorus commended them in an execrable and hereticall sense as teaching one nature in Dioscorus sense that is one essence which to affirme is hereticall but Ibas condemned them in an orthodoxall sense as thinking them to teach one nature in Ibas his sense that is one person in Christ which to condemne is orthodoxall Againe Dioscorus though it was explaned unto him that neither Cyrill nor the Ephesine Councell taught one nature in his sense yet did hee by his hereticall spirit persist in commending them as agreeing with him in that hereticall doctrine but Ibas when it was explaned unto him that Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell taught not one but two natures in Ibas his sense by his orthodoxall spirit desisted presently to condemne them and then embraced them both as agreeing with him in his orthodoxall doctrine of two natures that is of two persons in Christ. Lastly Dioscorus though hee commended them yet because hee did it in an hereticall sense and with an hereticall spirit was justly condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon but Ibas though hee condemned them yet because he did it in an orthodoxall sense and with an orthodoxall spirit amending what by an errour and mis-understanding he had done amisse was approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and judged by them to have continued in the right Catholike faith Thus by our exposition that Vigilius meant the slanderous and hereticall explanation of Cyrils Chapters is his whole text both coherent and congruous to it selfe and very perspicuous and easie which if Vigilius should meane or be expounded to have understood of the true and orthodoxall Explanation of Cyrill would bee not onely obscure and inextricable but even repugnant as well to the scope as to the words and text of Vigilius 55. Thus the whole text of Vigilius being elucidated it is now easie to discerne the two last parts of the Popes Artificium which before I mentioned for now you see that his Divinity is meere heresie and Nestorianisme and that his morality is unjustice falshood and calumnie most injuriously slandering not only Saint Cyrill but the holy generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon to have like himselfe defended and embraced the same heresies of Nestorius which by them all is together with this decree of Vigilius anathematized and condemned to the very pit of hell There needeth not nor will I seeke any other censure of this most shamefull dealing of Vigilius then the very words of Baronius concerning the Nestorians Haec cum sciveris perfacile intelliges Seeing you have knowne these things you may easily perceive under whose banner and ensigne these men fight For seeing you have seene them by calumnies lyes and impostures publishing counterfeit Epistles counterfeit explanations in the names of renowned men such as Cyrill was and patching lyes unto lyes you may well know whose souldiers they are even the ministers of Sathan transfiguring themselves into Angels of Light Nescit enim pura religio imposturas for true Religion is voyd of frauds and impostures nor doth the truth seeke lying pretenses nor the catholike faith support it selfe by calumnies and slanders sincerity goeth secure attended onely with simplicity with which censure of Baronius agreeing indeed to all Nestorians but in an eminencie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Vigilius hee being the Captaine and King of them all I end my Commentary on the Constitution of Vigilius which although it be not so plausibly set downe as Baronius would have done had hee thought good to have undertaken that office yet I dare boldly affirme it is delivered farre more truly faithfully and agreeably to the text then either the Cardinall himselfe or any other of the Popes Gnathoes would ever have performed for as I have not wittingly omitted any one clause which might breed a doubt in this obscure passage so have I not wrested the words of Vigilius to any other sense then the coherence of his text the evidence of reason and manifold proofe out of the historical narration and circumstances thereof doe necessarily inferre and even enforce 56. My conclusion now of this second reason of Vigilius and Baronius for defence of this Epistle of Ibas is this seeing the one defineth and the other defendeth both Ibas himselfe and his profession in this Epistle in this point and in the sense of Ibas to be orthodoxall because Ibas professeth therein two natures and one person to bee in Christ and seeing as wee have certainly proved Ibas meant two such natures as make two distinct persons and one person not by a naturall and hypostaticall union but onely by affection liking and cohabitation which is the very heresie condemned in Nestorius It doth hence clearly and unavoidably ensue not onely that this third Chapter touching the approving of the Epistle of Ibas doth concerne the faith and is a question and cause of faith but that Vigilius first and next Baronius and then all who by word or writing doe defend either Vigilius or Baronius or the Popes judgment in causes of faith to be infallible that they all by defending this Epistle as orthodoxall or that Ibas by it ought to bee judged a Catholike doe thereby maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius to be the onely Catholike faith CHAP. XIII Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chapters refuted and two other against them confirmed the one That to dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an Heretike nor a Schismatike the other That to assent absolutely in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome makes one both an Heretike and a Schismatike 1. HAving now demonstratively refuted the first evasion of Baronius I would proceed to the second but that Baronius doth enforce me to stay a little in the examining of two Positions which he collects and sets downe touching this cause the former concerning heresie the later concerning schisme 2. His former is this That both the defenders and the condemners of these three Chapters were Catholikes neither of both were Heretikes Negatio vel assertio non constituebat quemquam haereticum neither the condemning of these Chapters nor the defending of them made one an heretike unlesse there were some other error joyned with it Againe in these disputations about the three Chapters the question was not such ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus that one dissenting from another herein might be called an

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