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
A19554	A treatise of the Fift General Councel held at Constantinople, anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperor, in the time of Pope Vigilius. The occasion being those tria capitula, which for many yeares troubled the whole Church. VVherein 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 Divinity, 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; Vigilius dormitans	Crakanthorpe, Richard, 1567-1624.; Crakanthorpe, George, b. 1586 or 7.; Crakanthorpe, Richard, 1567-1624. Justinian the Emperor defended, against Cardinal Baronius.	1634 (1634)	STC 5984; ESTC S107275	687,747	538

diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine k Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 3. § Secundo and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place l Praef. in lib de Pont. § Quae. he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I m Isa 28.16 1 Pet. 2.8 lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius n Ca. 6. pa. 255. he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals o Lib. 4 Hier. ca. 6. § Habes the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth delare Coster observes p Euch ca. de sum Pont § Nequc that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings q Bell. li. 4. de Pont. ca. 1. et l. 2. de Conc. ca. 14. § Vltima et Gretz def ca. 1. lib. 1. de verbo Dèi pa. 16. that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The r Lib. de Eccl. milit ca. 10 § Ad haec tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The ſ Lib. de effect Sacr. ca. 25 § Tertium certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully t Lib. 6. de grat et lib. arb ca. 3. § At Catholici The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Eccl●siam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he u Tripl cont Whit. ca. 11. § Venies Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe x Dupl cont Whit. ca. 16. sect 4. the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe y Tripl ca. 16. § At qui. whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we z Relect. Cont. 4 q. 1 art 3. ad 8. beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles a Doct. Prin. lib. 8. ca. 21 § Hic when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place b Ca. Eod. § Adsecundam and againe in his Relections c Re● Cont 4. q. 3. art 2. ad 8. gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma atque principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both 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 d Sess 4. § Praeterea the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures and by the like reason it is to judge of traditions and of the

to have accursed those who confesse one onely nature in Christ and to have confessed the two natures to make one person and Lord Iesus Christ So Baronius teaching not only that profession which Ibas makes in his Epistle of two natures and one person to be Catholike but that Ibas by that very confession is proved nay demonstrated to be a Catholike 3. Vigilius handles this matter farre more largely but very obscurely mystically as being indeed so miserably intangled in the birdlime of Nestorianisme that hee knew not possibly how to unfold himselfe I must first of all set downe his words though they be many and because they are very obscure they will require more attentive and serious ponderation Those things saith he e Vig. Const nu 192 which in the Epistle of Ibas are injuriously spoken against Cyrill by a misunderstanding of Cyrills sayings the Fathers at Chalcedon when they pronounced the Epistle to be orthodoxall did not receive for the venerable Bishop Ibas himselfe by changing refuted those when he had gotten better understanding of those Chapters which Eunomius in his interloquution doth most evidently declare And f Ibid. nu 193. the interloquution of Iuvenalis doth signifie the same who therefore decreed that Ibas should receive his Bishopricke as holding the orthodoxall profession of faith because he devoutly ranne to embrace the communion with Cyrill after that Cyrill had explaned his Chapters and Ibas had understood them otherwise then before he did though he had carped at Cyrill when hee misunderstood those Chapters for thus said Iuvenalis The holy Scripture commandeth that hee who is converted should be received for which cause we receive such as returne from heretickes wherefore I decree that the reverend Ibas should obtaine favour and receive his Bishopricke both because he is an old man and because he is a Catholike So Iuvenalis By which this is understood If wee receive such as returne from heretikes how should we not receive Ibas who is a Catholike whom 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 g Ibid. nu 194. 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 h Ibid. nu 195. 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 hidde 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 w●uld but have helped a little he poore lambe is not able of himselfe to wade no not

Cyr epist ad Acat quae est 29. et extat to 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 7. 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 d Scripsi me neque cum Ario neque cū Apollinario sensisse unquam sed opus esse Naturarū observare differentiam ib. §. Audivi natures that is essences or subsistences against the Appollinarians and yet that Christ is but one e Nestorij cacodoxia ab hac doctrinae longe diversa est nam duas Naturas nominat easque a se invicem divellit Deū seorsimponit ut unā personam et hominem itidem seorsim ut aliam personam ibid. §. Verum dicent Person or personall subsistence against the Nestorians So untruly did they slander him to teach 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 f His ab eo explanatis in communionem ejus devotè concurrit Vig. Const nu 193. at that time to have bin a Catholike because upon Cyrils Explanation he forthwith embraced the union with Cyrill and ran to communicate with him Now it is certaine g Vt ante probatum est ca. 11. that Ibas when he writ this Epistle approved not the orthodoxall and true uni●● which Cyrill truly made with Iohn and the rest upon their p●●fession 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 h Vig. Const nu 194 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 i Cum omnibus Orientalibus Episcopis Ibid. 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 k Vt liquet ex Ibae Epist 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

two persons in Christ then devotè concurrit Ibas ran to communicate and shake hands with Cyrill Againe x Ibid. 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 y Ex quibus evidenter declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil de confessione fidei reprehensum quam constat esse laudatam sed eundem c. Ibid nu 193. 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 u Ibid. nu 195. Vigilius sets downe betwixt Ibas and Dioscorus is hereby made easie and cleare Dioscorus though hee commended x Inventus est Dioscorus magis conari Ephesinam primam Synodum destruere qui eam sub execrabilis intellectus imagine defendebat amplius B. Cirillum criminatus est laudans eam Dioscorus quam Ibas sub falsi intellectus errore vituperans Vig Const Ibid. 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 y Haeretico spiritu Ephesinam Synodum Cyrillum laudasse reperti sunt Dioscorus et Eutiches Jbid. sense as teaching one nature in Dioscorus sense that is one essence which to affirme is hereticall but Ibas z At vero Ibas qui per errorem unam putans in his praedicari naturam id est personam prius vituperavit Capitula et post declaratum sibi intellectum eorum quod duas naturas Ibae sensu doceret communicatorem se B. Cyrilli cum omnibus Orientalibus professus est Ibid. nu 195. 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 a Ibid. 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 a Bar. an 433. nu 10. 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

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 confirma fratres 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 m Sunt qui Sergium 2. prius dicant os porci vocatum et ob turpitudinem cognomenti Sergij nomen sumpsisse eamque consuetudinem ad posteros manasse c. Plat. in vita Serg. 2. nor as Peter n Dicimus quidem quod Innocentius hoc dixit non ut Papa sed ut Petrus de Tarantasia In Extrav Johan 22. Tit. 14. de verbor signif ca. 5. Greg. 13. antea Hugo dictus à Boncompagnorū familia oriundus Anto. Cicar in ejus vita 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 o Vigil in epist apud Liber loc cit 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 pulike 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 p that the Pope as Pope teacheth not amisse q Plat. lib. 1. de Repub. 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 q Per hanc conditionem quatenus ipsam notatur quod praedicatum inest subjecto secundum propriam subjecti naturam Iac. Zab. com in ca. 4. lib. demon text 36. 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 Presbyteras 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