but the Synodall Acts â—mong which it stands must be condemned as worthy of no credit 19. If none of these can mollifie the Cardinals heart let it yet further be considered that in his owne Annals a an 547. nu 40 it is sayd of the consent of Vigilius to the Edict the fift Synod doth often give witnesse quinetiam sexta Synodus Actione septimâ continet monumenta Further also the sixt Synod in the seventh Action containes the writings of Pope Vigilius against the three Chapters A saying so voyd of truth that those monuments of Vigilius yea almost any one of them is able to eat up all that whole seventh Action it is such a pittance to those large writings of Vigilius Besides in that seventh action of the sixt Councell there is neither monuments of Vigilius nor so much as any mention of Vigilius at all nor of the three Chapters Let him againe consider how hee saith b Bar. an 536. nu 32. that Caelestine called the Ephesme Councell by the Emperour Theodorus that is to say never if the Cardinall be not relieved with an error or scape of the writer That elsewhere in the same Annalls he * Bar. an 534. sayth that by the Catholike Church the Romane Church is signified as appeares ex Epistola Hormisdae Papae ad Iustinum Imperatorem by the Epistle he quoteth the 22. of Pope Hormisda to Iustinus An evident error For neither is that 22. Epistle written to Iustinus but to Dorotheus a Bishop neither is that which the Cardinall alledgeth either in that 22. or in any other of all the epistles they are five which Hormisda writ to Iustinus But the Card. by a pretty mistaking first turnes Iustinian into Iustinus and then pretends that to be written Epist 22. and by Hormisda and to Iustinus which is written by Iustinian and to Hormisda and which followeth the 56. Epistle Further yet let him remember how in the same Annals c Bar. an 546. nu 10. it is said that before the Edict of Iustinian was written those controversies hapned betwixt Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Pascalis the Deacon The Card. might as wel have said that the Edict was never written nor published for there was never any contention nor controversie betwixt Pascalis the Deacon and Theodorus and I doubt or rather am out of doubt that there was never any such contention as the Cardinal dreameth of the best author for it being Liberatus one heretically affected in this cause and maliciously bent against Theodorus but if there was any such controversie it was not betwixt Theodorus and Pascalis but betwixt Theodorus and Pelagius Pelagius not Pascalis was the Popes Agent at Constantinople at that time as not onely Liberatus d Pelagius aemulus existens Theodoro volens einocere Liber Brev. ca. 23. 24. Pelagius Apocrisiarius Agapeti Siloerij Vigilij Bar. an 536. nu 116. but Procopius e Lib. 3. de Bell. Goth. pa. 365. Pelagius diu Constantinopoli commoratus a man of better note testifieth Now these foule errours whereupon is consequent that almost all which the Cardinall hath historified for some 10. or 11. yeares is utterly untrue being extant and recorded in his Annals though there be violent presumption to thinke that the Cardinall judged some of them to be indeed no errors neither of his own memory nor of the writers pen seeing when he reviewed or retracted his Tomes and corrected therein small slips and very motes to such beames as these as the mistaking of a few months or dayes or miswriting a word or syllable and the like yet hee not once mentioneth any correction in these places yet am I content to allow these to bee but slips of the writer or Printer as writing Theodorus in stead of Theodosius Pascalis for Pelagius from Hormisda for to Hormisda to Iustine for from Iustinian and sexta for quinta or eadem quinta upon condition that the Cardinall and his friends will in like sort consent that by an error of some writer of these Synodall acts the name of Iohn is either inserted when there was no name or written in stead of Domnus in that inscription But if they be obstinate and refuse such a reasonable profer the Card. and all his friends must be patient to heare how justly and forcibly his owne demonstation may in his owne words be retorted upon himselfe these errors of his Certainly these are patent and manifest lyes and frauds devised by some hereticall knave or varlet they are such as every man may perceive to be written by him who was not in any measure a lover of Christian piety Sed impudentissimi cujuspiam Nestorij sigmentum but they are the fiction of a most impudent Nestorian forgerer Et quam fidem rogo merentur and what credit in the world can bee given to those writings or Annals which have such untruths and fictions inserted in them and are contexta composed and woven together with such untruths This being abundantly sufficient to satisfie any indifferent man in this matter yet would I a little further let the Reader see how childishly and corruptly Baronius dealeth in this cause It is true I confesse that Iohn dyed before Cyrill for this is cleare and certaine by many undoubted testimonies in the Councell of Chalcedon f Act. 14. Vbi extat germana Cyrilli Episcopi Alexandrini Epistola ad Domnum Antiochenum pa. 122. sapius fit mentio Cyrilli mortui cùm Domnus ille sedebat Antiochiae not one of all which the Cardinall had the grace to alledge But all the Cardinals reasons are so weake and withall so full of fraud and untruth that it is worthy your considering to see his blindnesse and perversenesse even in proving that which is true 20. His first reason is this I have shewed g Bar. an 444. nu 16. this apertissimè that Iohn dyed seven yeares before Cyrill by the Epistle which Theodoret writ to Domnus foure yeares since that is foure before the yeare 444. in the behalfe of one Felicianus whose estate Theodoret recommends to Domnus Truly the Cardinall hath shewed himselfe an egregious trifler hereby For neither in the 440. nor in any foure yeares either before or after that doth hee set downe any Epistle of Theodorets to Domnus in the behalfe of Felicianus The Epistle which the Cardinall dreameth of is in behalfe of Celestianus and that is indeed expressed An. 440 h To. 6. an 440. nu 9. where note I pray you that the Cardinall by a slip either of his owne penne or memory as I verily suppose or of his Scribe names Felicianus in stead of Celestianus God even by this demonstrating how unjustly he carpes at the Synodall Acts for that very errour or slippe of a penne which the Cardinall himselfe falls into even while hee for the like slippe declameth against those holy Synodall Acts. And yet there is a worse fault in this reason For it is no more
nobiscum convenire eo quod plurimi quideÌ„ hîc sunt Orientales Episcopi pauci vero cum eo Coll. 2. pa. 523. a. there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them another because v Dicebat sacere se per semetipsum in scriptis offerre Imperatori ideo enim inducias se postulasse ab ejus serenitate Ibid. he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing and offer it to the Emperor for which cause he had entreated respite for certaine dayes of his highnesse Both which were in truth nothing else but meere preteÌ„ces as the Bishops theÌ„ sent manifestly declared unto him For both the Emperor said they vult te in coÌ„muni convenire will have you to come together with the rest therefore he ought not to have given his senteÌ„ce alone but in common and in the Synod and for his other excuse Baronius x Eam suae absentia causam pratexuisse an 553. nu 36. himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence for so it was indeed seeing as the Bishops truly told y Nec in sanctis 4. Synodis multitudo Occidentalium Episcoporum inventa est unquam sed duo vel tres Episcopi Col. 2. pa. 523. b. him in none of the former Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops but onely two or three and some Clerkes whereas at that time there were present with the Pope at Constantinople z Nunc vero adsunt multi ex Jtalia Episcopi sunt etiam ex Africa ex Illyrico Ibid. many Italian Bishops others out of Africk others out of Illirium for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Councills whereupon they plainly and truly told a Ibid. Col. 2. the Pope to his face Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod together with us not sicknesse not want of Western Bishops Nihil est there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind So extraordinary respect had they of the Pope at this time and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say that they assembled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius 5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod and why Noluit interesse was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters He saw the Catholike Bishops then assembled to be bent and forward as their dutie was for condemning those Chapters which himselfe embraced and defended he therefore thought it fit to separate himselfe from them in place from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of saith he was so farre disjoyned and severed This to have beene the onely true cause of his wilfull absence and of his Noluit interesse the sequell of this Treatise will make most evident For this time it is sufficient by all those honorable invitations earnest perswasions and Imperiall commands to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence so he not onely was absent but in meere stomacke wilfulnesse and perversnesse absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIVS during the time of the fift Councill published his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters 1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Constantinople where the Councill was held by no intreaties perswasions nor Imperiall commands could be brought to the Synod having no other let as before was declared but his owne wilfulnesse the holy Synod resolved a Deo juvante futuro die convenientes quâ— oportet agemus Col. 2. in fine without him to debate and judge the Controversie then referred unto them And in truth what else was to be done in that case The Emperor commanded b Celeriter de â—bis quae interrogavimus vestram manifestate voluntatem Iust ep ad Synod Col. 1. pa. 520. b them not to delay nor protract the time but deliver a speedy yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause The necessity of the Church required this which was now in a general c Ob tria capitula fideles fuerunt scissi atque schismate separati Bar. an 547. nu 29. tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters The Nestorians on one side triumphed as if the Councill of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas and thereby confirmed their heresies The Acephali on another side rejected that Councill as favoring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze not knowing which way to turne themselves whether allow the Councill of Chalcedon with the Nestorians or with the Acephali reject it The Catholikes against all these Sectaries both defended the Councill of Chalcedon and yet rejected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters In such a generall rent and contention of all sides what delay could the Church endure which the Councill rightly considering d Nec enim justum est vel Jmperatorem vel fideleÌ„ populum ex dilatione scandalizari Co. 2. p. 533. b said That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scandalized And for the absence of Vigilius they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth e Alioqui si expectatus non mitteret vel non veniret vel nollet Concilium congregatum suae necessitati Ecclesiae saluti providera debet lib. 2. de Concord Cath. cap. 1. that if the Pope being invited did not or would not come or send to a Synod but wilfully refused to come in this case the Councill without him must provide for the peace of the Church and safety of the Christian faith They had a very memorable example hereof as yet but fresh before their eyes when the Popes legats being present at Chalcedon were f Regavimus dominos Episcopos de Roma ut communicarent ijs gestis Conc. Chalc. act 16. pa. 134. a. invited and intreated to be present at the Synod there held which was the very next before this at the debating of the right and preeminence of the Sea of Constantinople but wilfully refused to be there saying g Ibid. as Vigilius now did Non sed alia se suscepisse mandata No we will not come we have a contrary command from pope Leo yet that holy Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence and their determination notwithstanding the Popes absence was not onely declared h Viri illustrissimi Iudices dixerunt quod interlocuti sumus tota Synodus approbavit Ibid. pa. 137. b. by the most glorious Iudges to be just and Synodall but the same was both by that holy Synod and all other ever since held to be the
thought so unmannerly as once to touch his Holinesse or speake one syllable against him 38. After Fathers and Councels Vigilius will next finde that the Emperour Iustinian himselfe who was so earnest in condemning Theodorus doth yet teach that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned and how proves hee this You saith o In Const nu 175. Vigilius to the Emperour laudabiliter adduxistis have with praise and approbation alleaged that Relation of the Councell of Chalcedon in your law de sancta Trinitate Seeing then that Relation of the Councell approveth the letters of Iohn and the letters of Iohn shew that Theodorus being dead ought not to bee condemned the Pope from hence inferreth that by Iustinians own law approving that Relation Theodorus ought not to be condemned It were very easie with Baronius Hatchet to chop off this reason and cut it up by the roote seeing neither Iohns letters did teach that Theodorus being dead might not be condemned nor did the Councell in their Relation approve either the person or doctrine or any praises of Theodorus or so much as mention him But I will not trouble the Cardinall in so easie a matter as this Besides all the inconsequences in this reason Iustinian is so farre from teaching or thinking this so much as in a dreame that in the same title p In Cod. Iust leg 6. tit de summa Trin. de Summa Trinitate fide Catholica which seemes to be that which Vigilius intended he accurseth all heresies and specially that of Nestorius and all qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt vel senserunt who either doe thinke or have thought as Nestorius did in which number Theodorus of Mopsvestia to be comprehended not onely by that which we have said before is manifest but even by Iustinian himselfe who expresly witnesseth Theodorus q Theodorus haereticos omnes impietate superat c. Iust in edict § Tali to have thought so and to have r Iste autem Theodorus usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate Ibid. § Quod autem dyed in that hereticall opinion and for that very cause doth he condemne and accurse him Now seeing that law de Summa Trinitate was published in the seventh yeare of Iustinians raigne as by the Å¿ Datum Iustiniano August 3. Coss Is vero est annus 7. Iustiniani ut docet Marcell in ChroÌ„ et Bar. in eum an nu 1. date appeareth and sent into twelve severall Provinces seeing after this Iustinian in his twentieth t Vt ait Bar. an 546 nu 8. yeare set forth another Edict u Edictum hoc de quo toties mentionem feâ—imus concerning these three Chapters wherein he particularly and by name anathematizeth y Iust Edict § Si quis defendit Theodorum Theodorus nor him onely but all that defend him yea all who doe not anathematize him out of which number Vigilius himselfe is not exempted seeing he remained so constant in this truth that after Vigilius had published his Constitution both himselfe signified to the fift Councell that he still persisted in condemning the three Chapters one of which was the condemning of Theodorus and the whole fift Synod testified the same saying in their seventh Collation semper z Pa. 582. b. fecit facit the Emperour hath ever done and now continueth to doe that which preserveth the holy Church and true faith Was it not a very strange thing in Vigilius to pretend in his Constitution that by the Emperours owne law Theodorus ought not be condemned whereas by the Emperours Edict not onely Theodorus by name but all who defend him even Vigilius himselfe eo nomine because he defendeth him is condemned and anathematized 39. And now you have seene all that Vigilius bringeth for defence of Theodorus all that hee found after his most diligent search of the Fathers Councels and ancient writings whereby I doubt not but it is evident unto all that Nestorianisme had either quite blinded the Pope or at least induced him to play which he hath done very skilfully one of the Lamiae in this cause when ought that tended to the truth came in his way and offered it selfe unto him he then lockt up his eyes and kept them fast in a basket but when or where ought that tended to Nestorianisme and the defence of a condemned heretike might in a likelihood be found then he put his eyes in his head and became as quicksighted as the Serpent of Epidaurus The writings of Cyril and Proclus condemning Theodorus for an heretike worse than either Iew or Pagan the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon anathematizing him the Imperiall lawes of Theodosius commanding all memory of him to bee abolished his heretical books to be burned the expunging his name out of the Ecclesiasticall tables even in that Church where hee had beene Bishop and a number the like none of all these could Vigilius in his most diligent inquisition finde or see why the Lamia had lockt up his eyes against all these publike and known evidences and records But when the base Counterfeits forged in the name of Cyrill and Proclus when the depraving or calumniating the Councels of Ephesus of Chalcedon and of Iustinian as being maintainers of a condemned heresie when these or the like might be found oh the Pope saw these at the first his eyes were now as cleare as the sight of Linceus he could spie these through a Milstone nay which is more hee could see them though there were no such matters at all to bee seene And truly if you well consider there was good reason why hee should see the one and not the other For the Pope saw the Epistle of Ibas to bee orthodoxall and to be approved by the Councell of Chalcedon he saw in that Epistle Theodorus to be called a a Quorum unus est beatus Theodorus veritatis praedicator et doctor Ecclesiae Epist Jbae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. b. Saint a Preacher of the truth a Doctor of the Church Now it had beene an exceeding incongruity to see a condemned Saint an accursed Saint an hereticall or blasphemous Saint It was not for the Popes wisedome to see such a Saint and therefore at all such sights up with the eyes locke them fast that they see none of those ugly and offensive sights nothing of the condemning of the accursing of the heresies and blasphemies of Theodorus So bewitched was the Pope with Nestorianisme at this time that it had the whole command of his heart of his eyes of his sense of his understanding it opened and shut them all whensoever it listed 40. I have stayed too long I feare in examining this first Chapter touching Theodorus but I was very loath to let any materiall point passe without due triall or before I had shaken asunder every joint and parcell of the Popes Constitution in this cause and fully manifested how erronious his Apostolicall decree is as well
Nations and kingdomes 4. Now behold a miracle e Ita plane magno veluti miraculo factum est c. Ibid. nu 11. indeed by fleeing away Vigilius overcommeth by being persecuted hee is victorious all humane power even hell gates doth and must yeed to him For the Emperor understanding that he was fled away repented f Iustinianus facti poenitens dignam tanto Pontifice legationem â—rnavit c. Ib. him of that which hee had done against the Pope and therefore sent messengers to recall him from Chalcedon and those not ordinary souldiers sed dignam tanto Pontifice legationem but honourable embassadours worthy the estate of so great a Bishop who should assure him even upon their oathes g Iuramento praestito honorificè revocaret Ibid. that he should be honorably received But so stout nay magnanimous was the Pope and so very circumspect and wise h Nuncijs licet magna pollicentibus haud putaevit esse credendum utpote quod in proverbio est Graecorum fides Bar. 552. nu 12. as remembring the proverbe Graecorum fides that he would neither come out of the Church nor beleeve i Neque juratis patricijs voluit fidem adhibere nisi Imperator quae contra Rom. Pontificis voluntatem de tribus Capitulis appendisset Edicta protinus revocaret atque penitus aboleret Ibid. nu 12. the messengers though swearing unto him unles the Emperour would presently recall and abolish his Edicts against the Three Chapters The Emperour yeelded k Constat cessisse tandem Vigilio Jmperatorem atque appensa amoveri jussisse a se prolata de tribus Capitulis Edicta c. Ibid. an 552. nu 15. et Jmperator appensa antea de tribus Capitulis tolli jussit Edicta Ibid. nu 19. to all that the Pope prescribed yea constat cessisse it is certaine and evident that he submitted himselfe to the Popes pleasure and that penitus in every point hee commands the Edicts which hee had published to be taken away to bee removed ex sontentia l Ibid. an 552. nu 19. Vigilii quod fecerat abrogavit and according to Vigilius direction he abrogated what before he had done Nor onely did the Emperour repent but Theodorus l Theodorus facti poenitens ad eum accedens humilis libellum supplicem ipsi Vigilio offert Ibid. an 552. nu 19. Praestitit id ipsum etiam Mennas Ibid. nu 20. also and Mennas they came and offered libellum supplicem Vigilio a booke of supplication to intreat Vigilius that he would be appeased towards them and crying Peccavi suppliciter m Ibid. nu 29. veniam petunt they beseech him in a suppliant manner to forgive their n Quis ista considerans non miretur atque obstupescat c. Ibid. nu 20. offence Oh how admirable is this in our eyes the Rocke which the builders refused is now laid againe in the head of the Corner and those Princes and Prelates which opposed themselves to the Pope doe now submit supplicate and yeeld themselves unto him The Pope o Tali praemissa satisfactione Vigilius eosdem in communionem accepit redditaque est Ecclesiae pax Ibid. nu 20. after this so ample satisfaction was pleased to be reconciled to them all and admitted them into his communion so the storme of persecution being past the Church injoyed tranquillity the Pope was brought againe with great joy from Chalcedon to Constantinople For the joy p Hoc ipso anno 552 Mennas Const Episcopus à Vigilio in communionem admissus Encaeâ—ia celebravit c. Bar. ibid. an 552. nu 22. and solemnity whereof Mennas that same yeare which was the 26 q Anno hoc 552. exordio mensis Aprilis incipit numerari Justiniani annus 26. of Iustinian and next before the generall Councell celebrated a feast of the Encaenia or dedication of the Church of three Apostles Andrew Luke and Timothy and the holy reliques r Cum sacrae reliquiae curru aâ—reo circumvectae ab â—edem Menna reconditae sunt Bar. Ibid. nu 22. of their bodies being then found Mennas carried them round about the City in a Chariot of Gold and then laid them up in the Church After all which Mennas in the peace of the Church and communion with Vigilius in an happy manner gave up the ghost and Å¿ Bar. an 552. nu 23. so the Pope t Sic itaque animis junctis restitutoque in pristinaÌ„ dignitatem atque honorem Vigilio indicta est Synodus c. Bar. an 553. nu 14. being restored to his former dignitie animis junctis their mindes being joyned together the generall Councell long wished for by Vigilius was summoned against the moneth of May in the twenty seventh yeare of Iustinian This is the summe of the narration of Baronius touching the Decree of Taciturnity and the manifold consequents thereof 5. Concerning which none I thinke can judge otherwise but that Baronius as he is miserably infatuated in this whole cause of the Three Chapters so in this passage hee was growne to that extremity of dotage that hee seemes utterly to have beene bereft both of common sense and reason For I doe constantly avouch that in no part of all this his narration which as you see is very large and copious and runneth like a great streame through divers yeares in Baronius Annals there is any truth at al. No such Decree of Taciturnity ever made by Vigilius no Synod wherein it was decreed no assent either of Mennas or Theodorus or the Emperour unto it no violating of that Decree by Mennas or Theodorus no excommunication of them or other Bishops for doing contrary to it no hanging up of the Emperours Edict after it no resistance made by Vigilius against the Emperour no persecuting of Vigilius no buffeting of him no objecting of murder unto him no fleeing either to Saint Peters Church or to Chalcedon no thundring out from thence of his Pontificall Censures no embassage sent from the Emperour to call him thence no such magnanimitie in Vigilius as to refuse to returne no recalling or abrogating of the Emperiall Edict by the Emperour no submission of Mennas or Theodorus to the Pope no solemnizing of the Encaenia for those three Apostles at that time by Mennas no carying of those holy reliques in a triumphing manner and in a golden Chariot no laying them up by Mennas and in a word in that whole passage of Baronius there is not so much as one dramme nor one syllable of truth The Cardinall from an Historian is here quite metamorphozed into a Poet into a Fabler and in stead of writing Annals matters of fact and reall truths he guls his readers with fictitious anile and more than Aesopicall fables 6. For the clearing whereof I will begin with the Decree it selfe which is the ground of the whole fiction and therefore if it bee demonstrated to bee but an idle dreame and fancie all the
some of those particulars hee adds Et compendiosè dicere semper in eadem voluntate perseveravit and to speake briefly he hath ever since persevered in this minde So writ and testified the Emperour In the seventh Collation the Emperour sent Constantine the most glorious Quaestor of his Palace unto the Synod to deliver unto them certaine letters of Vigilius who againe testified this from the Emperour before the whole Councell Vigilius saith he c Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578. a. hath very often manifested by writings his minde that he condemneth the Three Chapters which also without writing he hath said before the Emperour in the presence of the most glorious Iudges and of very many of your selves who are here in the Councell et non intermisit semper anathematizans Theodorum and hee hath not intermitted or ever ceased since his first comming almost to Constantinople to anathematize the defenders of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and then delivering the letters of Vigilius unto them he addeth Vigilius doth by these make manifest quod per totum tempus eorundem trium CapituloruÌ„ impietatem aversatur that for this whole time since his first consenting to the Edict upon his comming to Constantinople untill the assembling of the generall Councell hee hath detested the impiety of those Three Chapters Thus said and testified Constantine from the Emperor 8. If I should say no more at all even this one testimony being so pregnant and withall so certaine that there can bee no doubt but the Emperor both knew and testified the truth herein this alone I say is sufficient to demonstrate the vanity of that fictitious Synod decree of Taciturnity For seeing it is hence certaine that Vigilius persisted and persevered to condemne the Three Chapters after the time of his consenting to the Emperors Edict upon his comming to Constantinople till the time of the fift Councell it must needs be acknowledged for certaine that in that time hee made no decree to forbid men to condemne the fame and then not this decree of Taciturnity which tyes all mens tongues that they shal neither defend nor yet condemne them And if the decree be fictitious such as was never made as by this testimony it is now certaine then is the Councell fictitious wherein it was decreed then the whole fable of Baronius how the Emperor and Mennas violated that decree how the Pope indured persecution for maintaining that Decree and the other Consequents they all are certainly fictitious this one testimonie overthroweth theÌ„ all But I will adde a second reason drawne from the consideration of the observing and putting in execution this Synodall and pontificall Decree For it is not to bee doubted but if such a Decree had beene made especially with the consent of a Synod and of the Emperour also but some one or other would have observed the same the rather because Baronius d Bar. an 547. nu 41. tels us that upon the publishing of this Decree in the one and twentieth yeare of Iustinian res consopita siluit the controversie was for a while husht Let us then see who those were whom this Decree made silent or tongue-tyed in this cause and it will appeare that none at all observed it 9. Let us begin with the Pope himselfe who of all is most likely to have kept his owne decree but he was so farre from observing it that he practised the quite contrary In the two and twentieth yeare of Iustinian the very next unto that wherein this decree is supposed to be made Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons remaning then at Constantinople and being earnest defenders of the Three Chapters writ letters unto divers Bishops and into divers Provinces against e Hi adversus Rom. PontificeÌ„ in diversas provincias literas dedere Bar. an 548. nu 2. is est juxta Bar. an Iustin 22. Pope Vigilius and the cause was for that he condemned f Schismatici scriptis ubique vulgaverant Vigilium tria damnando Caepitula impugnare Chalcedonensè Concilium Bar. an 550. nu 1. the Three Chapters and thereby as they pretended condemned also the Councell of Chalcedon and for a proofe of their accusation they dispersed g Exemplaria Iudicati nostri per plurimos sacerdotes et laicos in Africana Provincia destinares ait Vig Rustico et Sebastiano in sua Epist ad eos in Conc. 5. Coll. 7 pa. 578 b. the copies of Vigilius his Constitution sent unto Mennas against the Three Chapters A cleare proofe that as then Vigilius neither had made this Decree nor revoked his judgement for condemning of those Chapters In the 23. h Epistola Vigilij ad Valentin data est 1 5. Kâ—l April anno 23. Iustiniani extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 580. et seq yeare Vigilius writ to Valentinianus to purge himselfe of those slanders i Etiam hoc mentiti sunt etc. Epist Vig. ib. pa. 581. a. and untruths and that hee doth by referring himselfe to his judgement k Legant quae de causa quae hic mota est ad fratrem nostrum Mennam scribentes legimur definivisse ibid. sent to Mennas against the 3. Chapters wherein he then plainly professeth that what he had therein defined was consonant l Ibid. to the faith of the 4. former Councels and to the decrees of his predecessors he is so resolute in maintaining the same judgement that he addeth of it that it is abundant m Credimus enim Catholicae ecclesiae filijs ea quae tunc ad MeÌ„nam scripsimus de blasphemijs Theodori ejusque persona deque Epistola Ibae scriptis Theodoreti coÌ„tra rectam fidem abunde posse sufficere ibid. to satisfie any man An infallible evidence that as yet nor till that year he had neither revoked his former sentence nor made any decree of silence to forbid men to condemne the same Chapters In the foure and twentieth n Epistola Vigilij ad Aurel. data est Kal. Maijs an 24. Iustiniani Augusti extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 581. b. yeare hee writ the like Apology to Aurelianus Bishop of Arles yea which is more Baronius o Ista hoc anno Constantinopoli à Vigilio adversus schismaticos decreta fuerunt Bar. an 550. qui est Iustiniani 24. nu 36. sheweth that in that 24. yeare he published his judiciall sentence of condemnation and deposition against p Ea extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. seq eam recitat Bar. an 550. nu 16. seq Rusticus Sebastianus Gerontius q Hi in senteÌ„tia papae decreto nominantur apud Bar. an eodem nu 34. Severus Importunus Iohn and Deusdedit for that they r Immutatum te comperimus cum adversarijs ecclesiae qui contra Iudicati nostri seriem nitebantur se caute tractare c. Vigil in suo decreto contra Rust
the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they k Coll. 8. professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly l Sup. cap. 2. nu 1. seq entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos m Coll. 2. p. 523. vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth n An. 553. nu 221. persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius o An. 555. nu 2. redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there p Adeo exhorruisse visi sunt Antistites occidentales aliam post quaâ—tam admittere oecumenicam Synodum ut non potuerit Pelagius reperire Episcopos Romae à quibus consecraretur Bar. an 556. nu 1. could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon q Can. 1. Con. Nic. can 4. of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of those Chapters rejected the Councell though the Pope approved it Neither of them both and so none at all in the whole Church judged either the Popes approbation to give or his reprobation to take away authority from a generall Councell Thus by the Antecedentia Concomitantia and Consequentia of the Councell it is manifest by the judgement of the whole Church in that age that this fift Councell was of authority without the Popes approbation and was not held of authority by reason of his approbation 9. What the judgement of the Church was as well in the ages preceding as succeeding to this Councell is evident by that which we have already declared For we have at large shewed r Sup. ca. 4. nu 25 26. seq that the doctrine faith and judgement of this fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all following generall Councells till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth Whereupon it ensueth that this doctrine which wee maintaine and the Cardinall impugneth that neither the Popes approbation doth give nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth by the whole Catholike Church of all ages till that Lateran Synod that is for more than 1500. yeares together 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Pelagius approved it then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Vigilius rejected it If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it neither can his approbation though Apostolicall give authority unto it Or if they say that both are true as indeed they are both alike true then seeing this fift Councell is both approved by Pope Pelagius and rejected by Pope Vigilius it must now be held both to be wholly approved and wholly rejected both to be lawfull and unlawfull both to be a generall Councell and no generall Councell And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it They all because they are approved by some one Pope are approved and lawfull Councels and because they approve this fift which is rejected by the Pope they are all rejected and unlawfull Councells Such an havocke of generall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure 11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell yet for the more clearing of the truth and expressing my love to this holy Councell to which next after that at Chalcedon I beare speciall affection I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius Binius have used of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod The former is taken from the assembling the
later from the decree of the Councell It was assembled say Baronius ſ Sup. hoc cap. nu 2. and Binius Pontifice resistente contradicente the Pope resisting and contradicting it Whence they inferre that it was an unlawfull assembly not gathered in Gods name In this their reason both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue Did Pope Vigilius resist this Councell and contradict the calling or assembling thereof What testimonie doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion Truly none at all What probabilities yet or conjectures Even as many Are not these men think you wise worthy disputers who dare avouch so doubtfull matters and that also to the disgrace of an holy ancient and approved Councell and yet bring no testimonie no probabilitie no conjecture no proofe at all of their saying Ipse dixit is in stead of all 12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contrarie If both Baronius and Binius professe that Vigilius did consent that this Councell should be held Heare I pray you their own words and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men Hanc Synodum Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit saith Binius t Not. in 5. Con. §. Concilium Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority Againe u Ibid. The Emperour called this fift Synod authoritate Vigilij by the authority of Pope Vigilius Baronius sings the same note It was very well provided saith he x An. 553. nu 23 that this Oecumenicall Synod should be held ex Vigilii Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius who above all other men desired to have a Councell Againe y Ibid. nu 24. The Emperour decreed that the Synod should be called ex ipsius Vigilii sententia according to the minde of Vigilius And a little after It was commendable in the Emperor that he did labour to assemble the Synod ex Vigilij Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius Neither onely did the Pope consent to have a Councell but to have it in that very city where it was held and where himselfe then was Indeed at the first the Pope was desirous z Optavimus frequentissime supplici voce poposcimus eundē coetum ad quēlibet Italia locū aut certe ad Siciliam c. Vigil in Constit apud Bar. an 553. nu 56. and earnest to have it held in Sicily or in some Westerne Citie even as Pope Leo had laboured a Epist Leon. 24 with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent b Quod quia fieri Serenitas vestra non annuit Vigil loc cit to that petition as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo Vigilius then voluntati c Bin. Not. in Conc. 5. §. Concilium Imperatoris libens accessit very willingly consented to the Emperours pleasure in this matter that the Oecumenicall Councell should be held at Constantinople Say now in sadnesse what you thinke of Baronius and Binius Whither had they sent their wits when they laboured to perswade this Councell to be unlawfull because Pope Vigilius resisted and contradicted the assembling thereof whereas themselves so often so evidently so expresly testifie not onely that it was assembled by the consent and according to the minde will pleasure desire authority and sentence of the Pope but the very chiefe act and royaltie of the summons they challenge though falsely to the Pope the other which is an act of labour and service to be as it were the Popes Sumner or Apparitor in bringing the Bishops together by the Popes authoritie that and none but that they allow to the Emperour 13. Many other testimonies might bee produced to declare this truth That of Sigonius d Lib. 20. an 553. The Emperour called this Synod Vigilio Pontifice permittente Pope Vigilius permitting him that of Wernerus e An. 544. Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople That of Zonaras f An. to 3. in Iustiniano and Glicas g Cui Concilio praerant Eutychius Domnus Vigilius Glic annal part 4. pa. 379. who both affirme that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij the chiefe Bishop of the Councell not chiefe among them that sate in the Councell for there he was not at all nor chief◠in making the Synodall decree for therein he contradicted the Councell but chiefe of all who sued to the Emperour and procured the Councell as being desirous of the same But omitting the rest the whole generall Councell yea and the Popes owne letters put this out of all doubt This say h Coll. 8. p. 584. a the whole Councell even in their Synodall sentence Consensit in scriptis in Concilio convenire Vigilius under his owne hand-writing consented to come together and be present with us in the Synod Againe the Legates sent from the Councell to invite Vigilius said i Coll. 2. pa. 523. thus unto him Your Holinesse knoweth quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire that you have promised to come together with the other Bishops into the Councell and there to debate this question Vigilius himselfe writ k Coll. 1. p. 521. b thus to the Bishops of the Councell We knowing your desire praedictis postulationibus annuimus have consented to your petitions that in an orderly assembly being made wee may conferre with our united brethren about the three Chapters I doubt not but upon such faire and undoubted records every one will now confesse First that if to be gathered by the Popes consent and authority will make a Councell lawfull which with them is an authentike rule then this fift Councell is without question in this respect most lawfull Secondly that Baronius and Binius are shamelesse both in uttering untruths in reviling this holy Synod which they would perswade to be unlawful because it was assembled the Pope resisting it whereas this Councell to have beene assembled with the consent yea as they boast with the authority also of Pope Vigilius not onely other Writers but the Synodall Acts the whole generall Councell the letters of Vigilius and the expresse words of Baronius and Binius themselves doe evidently declare 14. Come now to the Consequence Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Councell was it for this cause unlawfull was it no generall Councell What say you then to the second Councell of which Baronius thus writeth l An. 553. nu 2 It was held repugnante Damaso Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof Will they blot that also out of the ranke of generall and lawfull Synods If not why may not this fift also bee a generall and lawfull Synod though Vigilius had with tooth and naile resisted the same Shall the peevishnesse or perversnesse of
others to the like consent to the truth by the authority and credit of the Pope and his Apostolicall decree it is not to bee imagined that the Emperour of Councell would at all either publish in their Synod or insert among their Acts the contrary Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters in doing whereof they should not onely have for ever disgraced Vigilius but have much impaired the reputation of their owne wisedome and quite crossed their principall designe Nay what will you say if Baronius himselfe professe the same See and wonder to see him infatuated in this point also The Bishops saith he l Bar. an 553. nu 218. of this fift Councell that they might pretend to have the consent of Vigilius to those things which they defined expressed in their sentence that Vigilius had before both in writing and by word condemned these three Chapters tacentes omninò quid ab ipso per editum constitutum pendente Synodo pro defensione trium Capitulorum decretum esset wholly concâ—aling or saying nothing at all of that decree which in the time of the Synod hee made for defence of those three Chapters Sicque nullam penitus de Vigilij Constitutione mentionem habendam esse duxerunt so they thought fit to make no mention at all of the Constitution of Vigilius wherein he defended the three Chapters So Baronius whom speaking the truth I gladly embrace and oppose him to himselfe speaking an untruth in malice to these Synodall Acts. 5. Now if none of these reasons nor yet Baronius his owne expresse testimony can perswade but still the Cardinall or his friends will reply with his cognoscitur It is certainly knowne that this Papall Constitution did belong to this Synod yea to the fift Collation thereof I would gladly intreat some of them to tell us in this as in the former concerning Origen who was the thiefe or robber that cut out or pickt away his holinesse Constitution a more capitall crime than the expiling of the Delphian Temple or the house of Iupiter Ammon Touch the Popes owne writings even his Apostolicall decree delivered out of the holy Chaire what Clement what Ravailack might be so impious so audacious so sacrilegious was it some Origenist no certainly the Constitution defending that none after their death might be condemned was a shield and safe charter for Origen to bring him to heaven Was it some Monothelite nothing lesse they knew that this Constitution was the overthrow of the Councell of Chalcedon and all the former holy CouÌ„cels Hoc Ithacus velit they would have wisht the Constitution to have stood for ever whom may we deeme then to have stolne away that Papall decree Truly by the old Cassian rule Cui bono none else but either some of the Popes themselves or some of their favourites who being ashamed to see such an hereticall Constitution of Pope Vigilius stand among the Acts judged theft and sacriledge a lesser crime than to have the Popes Chaire thought fallible and hereticall Now because I can imagine none to have beene so presumptuous and such is my charity and favourable opinion of those holy fathers and their children also that they would never commit such an hainous crime as with sacriledge to maime the Acts of the holy Councels I doe therefore here absolve and acquit them all of this crime promising against any adversary be it Baronius himselfe to defend their innocency in this matter untill some of Baronius his friends can either bring some further evidence against them or else prove which I thinke they will hardly be able that a decree which was never extant among the Synodall Acts can be stolne or cut away out of the Synodall Acts. CAP. XXXI The sixt defect in the Synodall Acts preteÌ„ded by Baronius for that the decree which advanced Ierusalem to patriarchall dignity is wanting therein refuted 1. THE sixt and last defect is of all the rest most memorable concerning the advancing of Ierusalem to a Patriarchall See and annexing some Churches unto it That this was done in the fift Councell Baronius a An. 553. nu 245. Acta illa desiderari noscuntur quibus agebatur de adjectis Patriarchatui Hierosolymitano Ecclesiis c. proves by Guil. Tyrius b De Bello sacro lib. 24. ca. 12. 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 c Non habens unde illi urbi ordinaret suffraganeos nisi utrique Patriarchae aliquid detraheret 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 d Bin. inter fragmenta addit post CoÌ„c 5 pa. 606. a. addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell which is now not found among the Acts therof Baronius e An. 553. nu 246. further glossing on this text tels us that though Iuvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon when the f Post absentiam Legatorum Ibid. Pope Legates were absent yet Pope Leo resisting it he prevailed not nor was the matter put in execution but at this g Sic igitur inverso antiquo ordiâ—e à Nicaeno Constituto instituto Caesariensis Ecclesia totius Palestinae Metropolis nunc primum subjecta est Hierosolimorum Ecclesiae Bar. Ibid. 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 h Diatr 2. ca. 2. 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 â—â—ine 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. i Hierosolimitanâ— per annos ferè quingentos habita est quarta Paâ—ria chalis sed nomine
from God hee signifieth them both unto Ioseph Ioseph neither invocating him nor relying on him but on God whose messenger he was even so admitting the truth of this apparition the Vigin Mary did signifie from God the time when Narses should fight but neither did Narses invocate or adore her nor did shee her selfe more helpe in the battle than the Angell in the birth of Christ nor did the confidence of Narses relie on her but on God whose messenger he then beleeved her to be Let the Cardinall or Binius or any of them prove forcibly which they can never doe out of Evagrius any other invocation or adoration used by Narses to the blessed Virgin and I will consent unto them in that whole point Thirdly all that Evagrius saith of that apparition of the blessed Virgin is but a rumour and report of some who were with Narses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some say Evagrius himselfe doth not say it was so or that Narses either said or beleeved it to be so but reported it was by some of the souldiers of Narses whether true or false that must relie on the credit of the reporters Now for the Cardinall to avouch a doctrine of faith out of a rumour or report of how credible men themselves knew not from such an uncertainty to collect that Generals ought to relie on the aide of the blessed Virgin in their battels and that shee interpellata precibus being invocated by their prayers riseth up and becomes a warrier on their side this by none that are indifferent can be judged lesse than exceeding temerity and by those that are religious will bee condemned as plaine superstition and impiety But let us returne now to Anastasius whose narration as it is untrue in it selfe if the comming of Narses into Italy and victory over the Gothes bee referred to that time when Totilas had before wonne Rome so it is much more untrue if it bee referred as by Binius glosse it is either to the yeare wherein the Emperour recalled his Edict which was never or to the tenth yeare of Totilas which was wholly ended before the comming of Narses into Italie and before the fift Councell and the Baronian banishment of Vigilius 25. After the victory of Narses it followeth in Anastasius tunc adunatus Clerus then the Romane Clergy joyned together besought Narses that hee would intreat the Emperour that if as yet Pope Vigilius with the Presbiters and Deacons that were carried into banishment with him were alive they might returne home In that they speake of this exile as long before begun even so long that they doubted whether Vigilius were then alive or no it seemeth evidently that Anastasius still hath an eye to that banishment for the cause of Anthimus after he had beene two yeares in Constantinople that falling five g Nam Vigilius venit Constantinopolim anno 12 belli Gothici Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. Narses autem Totilam vicit et Romam recapit an 18. ejusdem belli Proc. lib 3. pa. 408. et seq whole yeares before the victory of Narses they had reason to adde si adhuc if Vigilius doe live as yet that is after so long time of banishment remaine alive Now seeing it is certaine that Vigilius was not at that time to wit not within two yeares after his comming to Constantinople banished as by the fift generall Councell is h Nam ex eo liquet Vigilium à primo ejus adventu Constantinopolim illic mansisse ad finē Concilij dicitur enim illic à Iustiniano quod Vigilius semper ejusdem voluntatis fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a Semper viz. à primo ejus advētu et consensu ad tempus 5. Concilij evident it hence followeth that as this Anastasian exile so all the consequents depending thereon are nothing else but a meere fiction of Anastasius without all truth or probability for seeing Vigilius was not then banished neither did the Romanes intreate Narses nor Narses the Emperour for his delivery nor the Emperour upon that send to recall him or them from exile nor use any such words about Pelagius nor thanke them if they would accept Vigilius nor did they promise after the death of Vigilius to chuse Pelagius nor did the Emperour dismisse them all for of Pelagius that hee three yeares after the end of the Councell remained in banishment is certainly testified by Victor i Nam Victor ait Pelagium redijsse ab exilio anno 18. post Coss Basilij Vict. Tun. in Chron. et Concilium habitum ait ille an 13. post ejusdem Consulatum nor did they returne from exile into Sicilie all this is a meere fiction So in this Catastrophe beginning at the time when Anastasius saith Totilas was King of the Gothes there are contained at least sorty capitall untruths to let passe the rest as being of lesser note and moment Let any now cast up the whole summe I doubt not but hee shall finde not onely as I have said so many untruths as there are lines but if one would strictly examine the matter as there are words in the Anastasian description of the life of Vigilius I am verily perswaded that few Popes lives scape better at his hands than this But I have stayed long enough in declaring the falshood of Anastasius on whom Baronius so much relyeth and who is a very fit author for such an Annalist as Baronius CAP. XXXVI That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Constantinople and a refutation thereof with a description of the life of the same Vigilius 1. AFter all which the Cardinall could devise to disgrace either the Emperor or the Empresse or Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea or the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters or the Synodall Acts in the last place let us consider what he saith against Pope Vigilius for this cause so netled him that whatsoever or whosoever came in his way though it were his Holinesse himselfe hee would not spare them if he thought thereby to gaine never so little for the support of their infallible Chaire And what think you is it that he carps at and for which hee so unmannerly quarrels Pope Vigilius was it for oppugning the truth published by the Emp. Edict or was it for making his hereticall Constitution and defining it ex Cathedrâ in defence of the Three Chapters or was it for his pevishnesse in refusing to come to the generall Councell even then when he was present in the City where it was held and had promised under his owne hand that hee would come unto it or was it his pertinacious obstinacy in heresie that he would rather undergoe both the just sentence of an anathema denounced by the generall Councell and also the calamity and wearinesse of exile inflicted by the Emperor as Baronius saith upon him then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Are these which are all
of the Synodall acts referring the Reader for the full notice of them all to the Acts themselves wherein they are at large exactly and excellently n Col. 6. pa. 575. seq delivered 4. I. The holy Councill of Chalcedon professeth GOD to be incarnate and made man The Epistle calleth them Heretickes and Apollinarians who say that GOD was incarnate or made Man II. The holy Synod professeth the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of GOD The Epistle denieth the Virgin Mary to be the Mother of GOD. III. The holy Councill embraced that forme of Faith which was declared in the first Ephesine Synod and anathematizeth Nestorius The Epistle defendeth Nestorius injureth nay rejecteth o Primam Ephesinam Synodum reprobat haec Epistola Col. 6. pa. 563. a. the holy Ephesine Councill as if it had condemned Nestorius without due triall of his cause IV. The holy Councill commendeth Cyrill of blessed memory and approveth his Synodall Epistles in one of which are conteined those his 12. Chapters by which he condemned the heresie of Nestorius The Epistle calleth Cyrill an heretike and his 12. Chapters it tearmeth impious V. The Holy Councill professeth their faith to be the same with Cyrils and accurseth those who beleeve otherwise The Epistle saith of Cyrill those who beleeved as he did that they were confounded and recanted their former doctrine VI. The holy Councill accurseth those who either make or deliver any other Creed then that which was expounded at the great Nicen Syond The Epistle doth extoll Theodorus who besides innumerable blasphemies made another Creed wherein he teacheth the Word of God to be one person and Christ another person accursing all who doe not embrace that his new Creed This is that Creed of Theodorus against which being openly read before in the fourth Collation the holy Councill exclamed saying p Pa. 536. a. the devill himselfe composed this Creed Cursed be he that composed this Creed Cursed be all those that curse not the composer of this Creed Of this it is that here they witnes that the Epistle of Ibas praiseth and magnifieth the author and composer thereof VII The holy Councill teacheth that in Christ there are two distinct natures yet but one person consisting of both The Epistle teacheth that as there are two natures so also two persons in Christ and that there is no personall but onely an affectuall unitie of those two persons Thus far hath the Synod opened by way of comparison tho blasphemies of that Epistle and the contrary truths decreed at Chalcedon 5. Now although this Collation doth abundantly of it selfe manifest both the Impieties of that Epistle of which Vigilius had decreed that it ought to be received as orthodoxall and how repugnant it is to the Councill of Chalcedon of which Vigilius had decreed that it was received as orthodoxall by those holy Fathers yet for more evidence of this truth the holy Councill doth in plaine and expresse tearmes expresse both these points for after this comparison they said q Col. 6. pa. 576. a. This our Collation doth manifestly shew quod contraria per omnia est Epistola definition that this Epistle of Ibas is in all and every part thereof contrary to the definition of faith which was made at Chalcedon And againe We all accurse this Epistle who so doth not accurse this Epistle is an heretike who so receiveth this Epistle is an heretike who so receiveth this Epistle rejecteth the Councill of Chalcedon who so receiveth this Epistle denieth God to be made man Thus said and cryed out the whole Synod with one voice accursing as you plainly see not onely the decree and definitive sentence of Vigilius as hereticall but Vigilius himselfe as an heretike as a rejecter of the Councill of Chalcedon as a denier that God was incarnate or made man 6. Thinke ye not that the Councill was very unmannerly daring not onely to talke and write of this Chapter contrary to the Popes knowne will and pleasure but even to condemne with one consent his sentence for hereticall and himselfe for an heretike Binius was exceeding loath to have it thought that a generall lawfull ancient and approved Councill had so directly contradicted the Popes Cathedrall judgement and proclamed to all the world the Pope to be an heretike yea a definer of heresie and that by his Apostolicall authoritie and therefore he not knowing any better way to save the Popes credit thoght it most fit to suppresse and dash out that whole passage in the Popes Constitution which bewrayeth this matter Deleatur let all that part of the Constitution of Vigilius be left out though the omission thereof doth disgrace and maime my edition of the Councils let the latter part of his Apostolicall sentence lye in obscuritie and never see the Sunne 7. Baronius who to the eternall infamy of their Popes of their infallible Chaire and of their whole religion which wholly relies thereon first had the heart to publish this Hereticall decree of Vigilius deviseth another medicine to salve this sore But avoiding Sylla he falleth into Charybdis a worse gulfe then the other plunging himselfe with the Pope in a condemned heresie There are as he could not but confesse r Ann. 553. nu 191. many blasphemies in that Epistle but none of those saith he did either the Councill of Chalcedon or Pope Vigilius approve What then I pray you was it which his Holinesse defended and approved therein Forsooth in the end Å¿ Ibid. nu 192. of the Epistle Ibas declareth that he assented to the covenants of Vnion betweene Iohn and Cyrill qua recepta necesse fuit eundem probare catholicum which peace and union being embraced by Ibas he must needes be acknowledged thereby to be a Catholike Seeing t Ibid. nu 197. then this is understood and gathered out of it that after the Vnion Ibas was a Catholike we may see ob id non esse explodendam epistolam sed ad hoc quod dixi recipiendam that for this cause the Epistle is not to be rejected but to be received for this purpose which I said that by the end of it Ibas may be proved to be a Catholike And the Cardinall labours to prove this by two testimonies the one is that of Pascasinus and the other legates of Leo They saith he v Ibid. nu 213. spake not amisse when they said Epistola illa lecta Ibam probatum esse Catholicum that by that Epistle being read Ibas was proved to be a Catholike The other is that speech of Eunomius B. of Nichomedia of whom he thus writeth x Ibid. Hoc plane fuit this is cleerly that which Eunomius said ipsam Epistolam in principio apparere haereticam in fine vero inventam esse Catholicam that the Epistle of Ibas by the beginning seemeth to be hereticall but by the end was found to be Catholike Thus Baronius in defence of that most impious Epistle which as he saith by
warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause from all his theevish piraticall and disordered straglers 2. The first and chiefest exception of Baronius ariseth from the matter controversie it selfe touching these Three Chapters concerning which he pretendeth that no question of faith was handled therin so one dissenting from another in this cause might not be counted or called an heretike This was a question saith he a An. 547. nu 30 nu 215. de personis non de fide of persons and not of the faith Againe b Ibid. nu 46. Vigilius knew Non de fide esse quaestionem sed de personis that there was no question moved herein about the faith but about certaine persons And yet more clearly In these disputations saith he c Ibid. nu 231. about the Three Chapters as we have oftē said Nulla fuit quaestio de side ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus there was no question at all about the faith so that one dissenting from another herein might be called an heretike And this hee so confidently avoucheth that he saith of it Abomnibus absque ulla controversia consentitur all men agree herein without any controversie Thus Baronius whom Binius applauding saith d Not. in Conc. 5. §. Ne quis Sciendum est bee it knowne to all men that in these disputations and differences about the Three Chapters non fuisse quaestionem ullam de fide sed tantummodo de personis there was no quaestion at all concerning the faith but only concerning the persons So he Whereby they would insinuate that Pope Vigilius did erre onely in a personall cause or in a matter of fact which they not unwillingly confesse that the Pope may doe but he erred not in a cause of faith or in any doctrinall position of faith wherein onely they defend him to bee infallible 3. Truly the Card. was driven to an extreme exigent when this poore shift must be the first and best shelter to save the infallibility of the Apostolike Chaire For to say truth the maine controversie touching these Three Chapters which the Councell condēned and Vigilius defended was onely doctrinall and directly belonging to the faith nor did it concerne the persons any other way but with an implication of that hereticall doctrine which they and the defenders of these Chapters under that colour did cunningly maintaine A truth so evident that I doe even labour with abundance of proofes 4. Iustinian the religious Emperour who called this Councell about this matter committed it unto them as a question of faith We have saith he e Epist ad Synod Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. commanded Vigilius to come together with you all and debate these Three Chapters that a determination may be given rectae sidei conveniens consonant to the right faith Againe stirring f Ibid. ◠them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause hee addes this as a reason Quoniā qui de side recta interrogatur for when one is asked concerning the right faith and puts off his answer therein this is nothing else but a deniall of the true confession for in questions answers quae de fide sunt which are questions of faith hee that is more prompt and ready is acceptable with God Thus the Emperour 5. The Holy Councell esteemed it as did the Emperour to be no other than a cause or question of faith for thus they say Gum h Coll. 8. pag. 584. a. de fide ratio movetur when a doubt or question is moved touching the faith even he is to be condemned who may hinder impiety but is negligent so to doe and therefore Festinavimus bonum fidei semen conservare ab impietatis Zizanijs We have hastened to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impietie So cleerly doth the whole generall Councell even in their definitive sentence call the condemning of the Three Chapters which themselves did a preserving of the good seed of faith and the defending of them which Vigilius did a sowing of hereticall weeds which corrupt the faith Againe m Ibid. pa. 586. b. We being enlightned by the holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the holy Fathers have thought it needfull to set downe in certaine Chapters those are the particular points of their Synodall judgement Et praedicationem veritatis haereticorum eorumque impietatis condemnationem both the preaching of the truth or true faith and the condemning of Heretikes and their impietie And in the end having set downe those Chapters and among them a particular and expresse condemning of these Three w th an anathema denounced to the defenders of the they conclude thus n Ibid. pa. 588. a. We have confessed these things being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures by the doctrine of the holy Fathers by those things which are defined de unâ eâdemque side concerning one and the same faith by the foure former Councels Then which nothing can be more cleare to witnesse their decree touching these Threee Chapters most nearely to concerne the faith unlesse some of Baronius his friends can make proofe that the condemning of heretikes and their impious heresies and the maintaining of that doctrine which the Scriptures and Fathers taught and the foure first Councels defined is not a point of faith 6. Neither onely did the Catholikes which were the condemners of these Three Chapters but the heretikes also which were the defenders of them they also consent in this truth that the question concerning them was a controversie or cause of faith Pope Vigilius in his Constitution o Apud Bar. an 553. nu 106. 197. 208. alibi still pretendeth his Defence of Those Chapters to be consonant to the Councell at Chalcedon and the Definition thereof and of the Epistle of Ibas hee expresly saith The Councel of Chalcedon pronounced it to be orthodoxall And none I suppose will doubt but that the question whether that or any other writing be orthodoxall and agreeable to the Definition of Chalcedon as Vigilius affirmed that Epistle to be or be heretical and repugnant to that Definition as the Holy Councell adjudged that Epistle to be is a plaine question and controversie of faith Victor B. of Tunen who suffered imprisonment and banishment for defence of these Three Chapters teacheth the like saying p Jn Chron. an 2. post Consul Basilij That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged q Iudicio Synodi approbata oribodoxa judicata est ibid. orthodoxall by the sentence of the Councell at Chalcedon and the condemning of these Three Chapters is the condemning and banishing of that Councell Facundus B. of Hermian who writ seven bookes of these Three Chapters doth more than abundantly witnesse this of him Victor thus writeth r In suo Chron. an 10. post Consul Basilij Evidentissime declaravit Facundus hath
condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema f Coll. 4. pa. 537. a. Coll. 8. pa. 586. et 587. to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema g Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we h Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If i Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth k Ob easdem haeresâ—s decrevit eos esse alienos à diaconorii honore Lib. 7. de visib Monarch an 537. the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would l An. 546. nu 41. arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would m An. eodeÌ„ nu 43. be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe n Ibid. nu 50. Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancituÌ„ EdictuÌ„ against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe o An. 547. nu 50. Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasioÌ„ which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the ease is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof p An. 547. nu 30. an 553. nu 231. Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith q Lib. 3. Epist 37. In eâ de
sec Act. 4. be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did c Viva quidem ipsis cur nemo contradixerat factum ideo c. Ibid. any while they lived reprove any of their sayings yet are there divers other inducements to perswade that Theodorus was not in his life time by any publike judgement of the Church either declared or condemned for an heretike for besides that neither Cyrill nor Proclus nor the fift generall Councell doe mention any such matter the words of Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary The Ephesine Synod saith d Cyril epist ad Procl in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550 551. he forbare in particular and by name to anathematize Theorus which they did dispensativè by a certaine dispensation indulgence or connivence because divers held him in great estimatioÌ„ or account what needed either any such dispensation or forbearance had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie Againe the Church of Mopsvestia where hee was Bishop for divers yeares after his death retained his name in e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. seq in act Synod Mopsv Diplicis that is in their Ecclesiasticall tables making a thankfull commemoration of him as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie which had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike they would not have done Lastly what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous to condemne him being dead had he in his life time beene before condemned Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead 3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon that Theodorus was not before but after his death condemned the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis whether a dead man may Noviter be coÌ„demned Now that this is no personall but meerly a dogmaticall cause and controversie of faith is so evident that it might be a wonder that Baronius or any other should so much as doubt thereof unlesse the Apostle had foretold that because men f 2 Thess 2.10 11. doe not receive the love of the truth therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions that they may beleeve lyes Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius held this for no other but a doctrine of faith for he sets it downe as a g Perspeximus si quid de his praedecessores nostri decreverint Vig. Const loc citat nu 176. Hujus causa formam veneranda praedecessorum nostrorum constituta nobis apertissime tradiderunt Ibid. Idem regulâ—ria Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta Jbid. nu 179. Definition or Constitution of his predecessors decreed by the Apostolike See particularly by Pope Leo and Gelasius and so decreed by them as warranted and taught by the Scriptures for out of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius h Ibid. nu 177. collecteth and Vigilius consenteth unto him that such as are not upon earth or among the living hos non humano sed suo Deus judicio reservavit God hath exempted them from humane and reserved them to his owne judgement nec audet Ecclesia nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such As the Pope so also the holy generall Councell tooke this for no other than a question of faith for they plainly professe even in their Synodall resolution that their decree concerning dead men that they may bee Noviter condemned is not onely an Ecclesiasticall i Licet cognosceremus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditionem Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. tradition but an Apostolicall doctrine also warranted by the texts and testimonies of the holy Scriptures To which purpose alledging divers places of Scripture they adde these words It is many wayes manifest that they who affirme this that men after their death may not Noviter be condemned nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt nec Apostolicarum pronunciationum nec paternarum traditionum that such have no regard either to the word of God or the Apostles doctrine or the tradition of the Fathers So the whole Councell judging and decreeing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these 4. Now when both the Pope on the one side and the whole generall Councell on the other that is both the defenders and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both and against that truth wherein they both agree to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith or seeing it is cleare both by the Pope and Councell that the resolution of this question is set downe in Scripture what else can bee thought of Baronius denying either the one or the other part to bee a cause or assertion of faith but that with him the doctrines defined and set down in Scriptures are no doctrines or assertions of faith at least not of the Cardinals faith 5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith and in this cause of faith the Pope and generall Councell are at variance either of them challenge the Scripture as consonant to his and repugnant to the opposite assertion what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit faith their vaine and vaunting k Camp Rut. 3. Braggadochio Hast thou appealed to the Church to the Church and judgement thereof shalt thou goe at the name of which we are so farre from being daunted or appaled that with great confidence and assurance of victory we provoke unto it 6. But where may we heare the voyce and judgement of the Church out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers or provinciall Synods or in generall Councels in which of these soever the Church speake her sentence is for us and our side Her voyce is but soft stil in the writings of single Fathers the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly and audibly Heare Saint l Epist ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 548. b. Austen who entreating of Caecilianus about an hundreth yeares after his death saith If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes which were by the Donatists objected unto him ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead though never condemned before nor in his life time Againe m Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc ca. 35. In this our communion if there have beene any Traditores or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such corde carne mortuos detestabor Heare Pope n Pelag. 2. Epist 7.
§ In his autem Pelagius who both himselfe fully assenteth herein to Saint Austen and testifieth the assent of Pope Leo in this manner Quis nesciat who knoweth not that the doctrine of Leo is consonant to Saint Austen Heare o Cyr. lib. cont Theod. cit à Conc. 5. Collat. 8. pa. 585. a. S. Cyrill who speaking of heretikes saith Evitandi sunt sive in vivis sive in mortuis they are to bee avoyded whether they bee dead or living 7. The Church speakes yet somewhat louder in the united judgement of Provinciall Synods In an p Citatur in Conc. 5. Coll 5 pa. 548 a. Africane Councell it was proved how certaine Bishops at their death had bequeathed their goods to heretikes whereupon statuerunt the Bishops in that Synod decreed ut post mortem anathemati subjiciantur that such should bee accursed even after their death and this Sextilianus an Africane Bishop testifieth upon his owne certaine knowledge The judgement of the Romane Church is to this purpose most pregnant About some twenty yeares before this fift Councell Dioscorus was chosen Bishop of Rome but shortly after dying eum post mortem anathematizavit Romana Ecclesia the Romane Church accursed him even after he was dead although hee had not offended in the faith but in some pecuniary or Symoniacall crime Et hoc sciunt omnes qui degunt Romae and they all who live at Rome know this to have beene done against him after his death they especially who are in eminent place who also continued in the communion with Dioscorus untill hee dyed as after q Inst Edict § Invenimus Iustinian Benignus r Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. Bishop of Heraclea and after them both the fift Councell ſ Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. testifieth In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia by Rambulas t Bar. an 435. nu 4 Bishop of Edessa Acatius and others wherein both themselves condemned Theodorus though dead and in their letters to Proclus exhort u Petimus quatenus fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega Dogmata ejus Jn Libell Presbyt Armē ad Procl in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 542. b. him to doe the like 8. But this voyce of the Church sounds like a mighty thunder in the consenting judgement of generall Councels In the sixt x Act. 12.13 18. Pope Honorius who in his life time had not been was now about threescore yeares after his death convicted to bee an heretike and then noviter condemned and anathematized by the whole Councell The same sentence of Anathema was confirmed and againe denounced against him in the second y Act. 7. in Epistola 2. Synod Can. 1. Nicene and in the other under z Honorius post mortem ab Orientis Episcopi◠anathemate est affectus Conc. 8 Act. 7. pa. 891. b. Hadrian which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels In the Councell of Chalcedon Domnus a Edict Justin § Quod autem Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. Bishop of Antioch was after his death condemned In the holy Ephesine Councell was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia after his death condemned as Pope Pelagius b Pelag. 2. Epist § In his expresly testifieth The like to have beene done against Macedonius by the fift Councell at Constantinople Iustinian c Sancta Dei Ecclesia post mortem Macedonium anathem atizavit Iust Edict § Quod declareth Before that was the same done by the Councell at Sardica for when some of those who had subscribed to the Nicene faith returned to Arianisme alij quidem d Jbidem vivi alij autem post mortem anathematizati sunt à Damaso Papa ab universali Sardicensi Synodo they were anathematized some while they lived others after their death by Pope Damasus and by the generall Councell at Sardica as witnesseth Athanasius With such an uniforme consent doe all these Councels teach this and teach it not as any novell doctrine but as a truth successively from age to age even from the Apostles time delivered unto them by warrant of which Apostolical tradition Valentinus Martian Basilides à nulla Synodo e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. anathematizati being by no Synod in their life time condemned were after their death accursed by the Church of God 9. And yet if none of all these particulars could bee produced seeing the doctrine of the faith decreed in this fift Councell one part whereof is this of condemning the dead is consonant to all the former and confirmed by all succeeding Councels as we did before demonstrate nor Councels only but approved by all Popes and Bishops from Gregory the first to Leo the tenth yea by all Catholikes whatsoever who all by approving this fift Councell consent in this truth Seeing all these that is the whole Catholike Church for 1500 yeares with one consenting voyce sound out like a multitude of mighty waters this Catholike truth which Vigilius oppugneth that one may after his death be noviter condemned and found it as a doctrine of the Catholike faith and even thereby found out Pope Vigilius to have held yea to have defined heresie and all who defend Vigilius to bee hereticall I do nothing doubt but if ever you did or can you doe now most distinctly heare the voyce of the Church even of that Church of which their Romane Rabsecha vaunteth that we are marvellously affrighted at the very name thereof 10. May I now intreate that as you have heard the Church so you would be pleased to heare what the Cardinall doth say of this matter After this part of Vigilius decree he sets a memorable glosse upon the Popes text Hic adverte Note here saith the Cardinall that f Bar. an 553. nu 185. this assertion of Vigilius that dead men ought not to be condemned is not so generally received as it is set downe by him A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinals mouth Papa hic non tenetur But I pray you by whom is it not received The Cardinall answers not by the holy Church the holy Church g Ejusmodi homine jure damnare post mortem sancta consucvit Ecclesia Bar. ibid. doth practise the contrary unto it What the holy Church not receive the dogmaticall and Apostolicall assertion of the holy Pope not that assertion which his Holinesse decreeth to be taught by Scripture to be a Constitution a rule a definition of the holy Apostolike See No truly The holy Church for all that receives not this assertion saith the Cardinall And the Cardinall was to blame to use such a palpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church receiveth it not hee might and he should have said The holy Church rejecteth condemneth and accurseth this Cathedrall assertion of the Pope and all that defend it nor the Church onely of that one age wherein Vigilius lived but the Catholike Church
the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former x Gelas Epist 11. entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigilius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade saith he y Gelas Epist 4. that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he nam in hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place z Epist Synodalis Gelas ij Synod Rom. 2. p. 268. b. alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead a Nos etiam mortuis veniam praestare deposcunt ibid. Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasius saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but laboureth also to fallen that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes as were Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short
consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only sights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that a Vigil Const apud Bar. an 553. nu 179. the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We b Ibid. nu 184. doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have c Sup. ca. 6. shewed was knowne and confessed because d Perspenimus si quid de his qui defuncti sum nunime reperiuntur in vita damnati Vig. loc cit nu 176. Quos vocat In pace Ecclesiae defunctos Ibid nu 179. 184. he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith e Iust Edict § Quod autem Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat f Iust ibid. eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which if received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might g Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. verbo Theodorus be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift h Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. a. Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth
to Iohn B. of Antioch Vigilius found an explication how it was said by Cyrill that by a dispensation the name of Theodorus was not condemned for there Cyrill saith Sed juste audient they shall justly heare this though they will not ye forget your selves when you bend your bowes against ashes that is against the dead for he who is written among them that is the dead nō superest is not and let no man blame me for these words Grave est enim insultare defunctis vel si Laici fuerint for it is an hard matter to insult over the dead yea though they bee but Laikes how much more over those who with their Bishopricks have left their lives Out of which words Vigilius affirmeth S. Cyrill to teach it to be an injurious and hard matter repugnant to the Ecclesiasticall rule to condemne any that is dead and then certainly not a Bishop not Theodorus 23. For answer hereunto I doe earnestly intreate the reader to ponder seriously the Popes good dealing herein That Epistle which Vigilius commendeth unto us under the name of n Beatae recordationis Cyrillum et beatus Cyrillus Vig loc cit S. Cyril is none of Cyrils it is a base and counterfeit writing forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill Witnesse hereof the whole fift generall Councell who of purpose and at large examined this matter and refuted this cavill of Vigilius before ever he set forth his Constitution for thus they o Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. say of it Some loving the persidiousnesse of Nestorius which is all one as to say the madnesse of Theodorus doe not refuse to faigne some things and use certaine words as written in an Epistle by S. Cyrill Nusquam vero talis Epistola scripta est à sanctae memoriae Cyrillo but Cyril never writ such an Epistle neither is it in his bookes And then reciting the whole Epistle and all those words which Vigilius alleageth they adde Et ista quidem continet conficta Epistola these are the contents of this counterfeit Epistle and a little after That nothing of all quae in conficta Epistola continentur which are contained in that counterfeit Epistle was writ by Cyrill it is declared by that which he writ to Acatius and yet further These things are spoken ad convictionem Epistolae quae à defensoribus Theodori falso composita est to convince that Epistle to be a forgerie which is falsely composed by the defenders of Theodorus The summe of this they repeate in their Synodall sentence saying p Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. We have found that the defenders of Theodorus have done the same which heretikes are wont to doe for they clip away some part of the Fathers words quaedam vero falsa ex semetipsis componentes confingentes and devising or faigning other things of themselves they seeke by them as it were by the testimony of Cyrill to free Theodorus from the Anathema Thus the Councell all of them with one voyce proclaming Pope Vigilius for a lewd dealer who commends and that even in his Apostolicall Constitution a false and forged writing for the true Epistle of S. Cyrill 24. It is true Vigilius is not the first Pope who hath blemished their See by such false and fraudulent dealing Zozimus and Bonifacius were long before this taxed and that justly by the Africane q Conc. Afric Epist ad Caelest ca. 105. tom 1. conc pa. 645. et seq Bishops for downe facing the Nicene Canons Vigilius was too too bold with Cyrill as now you see But if you descend to Pope Nicholas or to Gregory the seventh and their successors they were so shamelesse and audacious in this kinde that they scarce writ any decrees of importance but they stuffed them with such Fathers Even the basest and most abject fictions which were voyd not onely of truth but of braine were fittest for the Popes and their Pontificall determinations and were they never so base and bastardly yet the Popes like kind Godfathers could when they listed christen them with the names of S. Cyrill Cyprian or the like and then they must be called or esteemed for no others than holy and reverend Fathers 25. Proclus followeth In whose writings Vigilius found three testimonies to prove that Theodorus being dead was not to be condemned The first is out of his Epistle to r Const Vig. nu 174 Iohn Bishop of Antioch where these words are alleaged When did I write to you oportere aut Theodorum aut alios quosdam qui pridem defuncti sunt anathemate subdi that either Theodorus or others being dead ought to be anathematized The second is out of the same Epistle I rejected indeed those Chapters annexed to my Tome as being impious neque autem de Theodoro neque de alio quoquam qui jam defuncti sunt but I neither writ of Theodorus nor of any other who is dead that they should be anathematized or rejected The third is out of an Epistle of Proclus to Maximus I understand that the names of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and of some other is prefixed to the Chapters ad anathematizandum to bee anathematized together with the Chapters cum illi ad Deum jam migrarunt whereas they are now departed to God and it is needlesse to injure them being now dead quos nec vivos aliquando culpavimus whom being alive we did never reprove These are the Popes allegations out of S. Proclus in which I confesse it is clearely taught that neither any after their death may bee condemned and particularly that not Theodorus seeing he is gone to God and was never in his life time once reproved 26. It is a ſ De regulis juris lib. 6. decret reg 8. rule in law semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus He who is once convicted of any crime is presumed still to be faulty in that kinde Vigilius being lately convicted to commend forgeries for the writings of Fathers is in reason and equitie to bee thought to alleage such a S. Proclus as before hee did S. Cyrill Nay there needs no presuming in this matter there is evident proofe and witnesses above exception to manifest the same even the whole fift generall Councell who out of the true and undoubted writings of Proclus testifie that Proclus taught the quite contrary both that the dead might and particularly that Theodorus ought to be condemned and that hee was by Proclus himselfe condemned for in their very Synodall decree they thus t Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. write Because the disciples of Theodorus most evidently oppugning the truth thus sharply do they reprove Vigilius doe alleage certaine sayings of Cyrill and Proclus as written for Theodorus It doth appeare that those Fathers doe not free him from the Anathema but speake those things dispensativè by way of dispensation and in the very words of dispensation they declare of him quod oportet anathematizari Theodorum
Conc. Vig. a nu 60. ad nu 173. and in the Synodall h Conc. 5. coll 4. acts he thus saith i Vigil in const nu 173. Wee decree that by those foresaid chapters nulla injuriandi praecedentes patres praebeatur occasio no occasion be given to injure the former Fathers and Doctors of the Church And again k nu 184. We provide by this our Constitution that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Eutyches no contumely nor occasion of injury bee brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholike Church and that Vigilius thought Theodorus so to have dyed we have before l Sup. ca. 7. declared yea that Vigilius knew it Baronius assured us Thus Vigilius to free Theodorus from condemnation pretends those hereticall writings to be none of his 31. What is it that Vigilius will not say for defence of this blasphemous and condemned heretike This cavill was used as Baronius m Defensores Theodori ea ipsius scripta esse negarunt Bar. an 435. nu 14. tells us by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theodorus denying those to bee the writings of Theodorus quae diffamata which were famously knowne through the whole East and which being afterwards detected and discovered to bee truly his writings both they and their author with them were condemned Now this old hereticall and rejected cavill Vigilius here reneweth those writings famously knowne to be the workes of Theodorus condemned as his writings and he with them and for theÌ„ Vigilius will now have thought to be none of his nor he by them nor for them may bee now condemned And that you may see how Vigilius herein doth strive against the maine streame of the truth Saint Cyrill n Cyrill Epistolae ad Proclum citata in Conc. 5. coll 5 pa. 550. b. who then lived testifieth Theodorus to be author of those hereticall and blasphemous writinâ—â— That wee have found certaine things in the writings of Theodorus nimiae plena blasphemiae nulli dubium est full of blasphemie none that thinks aright can make any doubt And againe o Ibid. pa. 550 a. I examining the bookes of Theodorus and Diodorus have contradicted them as much as I could declaring that sect to be every where full of abomination Yea hee writ divers bookes p Qui Cyrilli libri citantur saepe in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 538. seq against Theodorus expressing the words of Theodorus and his owne confutation of the same So cleare and undoubted was this truth in Cyrills dayes who lived at the same time with Theodorus that hee thought them unwise who made any doubt of that which Vigilius now calls in question And particularly touching that impious Creed Cyrill saith q Prolata apud sanctâ—m Synodum expositione ab en composita sicut dicebant qui protulerunt c. Verba Cyrill in Epist ad Proclum citat in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 550. b. that they who brought it to the Synode of Ephesus said that it was composed by Theodorus which they said not as by way of uncertaine report but as testifying it to be so in so much that the whole Synode giving credit thereunto thereupon condemned Theodorus r His condemnatis qui sic sapiunt nullam viri Theodori memoriam fecerunt Ibid. though by a dispensation they expressed not his name 32 The same is testified by Rambulas Acatius and the whole Armenian Councell who after examination Å¿ Fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega capitula dogmata ejus Libell Episc Armen ad Proclum in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 542. b. of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacrilegious and therefore by name condemned him exhorting both Cyrill and Proclus to doe the like The Imperiall Edicts of Theodosius t De quibus legibus supra hoc cap. Exta â—t vero in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 544. and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodorus and the reading or having of his bookes had it not by evidences undeniable beene knowne that those were indeed his workes and hereticall writings If all these suffice not when this cause about Theodorus was now againe brought into question the Emperour Iustinian and the fift Councell so narrowly and so exactly examined the truth hereof that after them to make a doubt is to seeke a knot in a rush They testifie those very hereticall assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth to be the doctrines and words u Habemus quae ex Theodori codicibus collegistu Conc. 5. coll 4. pa. 527. b. idem docet Iustin in suo Edict § Si quis defendit Theodorum of Theodorus that impious creed also whereof Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus they are so certaine x Jmpius Theodorus aliud Symbolum exposuit Iust in Edicto §. Tali Et impium ejus Theodori Symbolum coll 4. pa. 537. a. hereof that even in their Synodall sentence y Licet volentibus codices impij Theodori prae manibus accipere vel quae ex impijs codicibus ejus à nobis inserta his gestis sunt Conc. 5. coll 8. pa. 585. a. they referre the triall of what they decree herein to the true and undoubted bookes of Theodorus And in their sentence is included the judgement of the whole catholike Church ever since they decreed this which hath with one consent approved their decree 33 After all these Pope Pelagius in one of his decretall Epistles wherein at large he handleth this cause not onely testifieth that impious Creed z Ab ejus Theodori discâ—pulis dictatum ab eo symbolum in eâ â—em Synodo Ephesina prolatum Pelagius Epist 7. §. In his and those hereticall a Ejusdem Theodori ex libris illius dicta replicemus ibid. writings to bee the workes of Theodorus alleaging many places of them but wheras some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved againe b Haec Theodori dicta utrum ejus sint fortasse dubitatur ibid. §. Haec this same doubt which Vigilius doth and as is likely by occasion of his decree Pelagius of purpose declareth those c Ibidem seq to have beene the true writings of Theodorus and consonant to his doctrine and that hee proveth by the testimonies of the Armenian Bishops of Proclus of Iohn of Antioch of Cyrill of Rambulas of Honoratus a Bishop of Cilicia and so a neighbor of Mopsvestia which is in the same d Secunda Cilicia sub qua Mopsvestia constituta est Conc 5. coll 5. pa. 547. b. Province of Hesychius of Theodosius and Valentinian the Emperours and of Theodoret then whom not any except perhaps Nestorius was more devoted to Theodorus insomuch that he is thought to have taken from Theodorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced Pelagius thus concludeth
in doctrinall as personall matters That Theodorus was dead is personall but that none after death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ b Vig. Const nu 179 eum non audemus damnare sententia wee dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the c Sanctissimorum Episcoporum hic coactorum caput Cyrillum c. Epist Synod Ephes to 4. Act. Conc. Ephes ca. 8. head of the generall Councell Proclus a most d Cyrill epist ad Acat in Con. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 543. a. Dominus meus sanctissimus Episcopus Proclus holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus e Lib. ca. 10. saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal f Rursumque haereticus blasphemus c. Bar. an 553. nu 120. et seq et Bin. pa. 595. et seq Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle g Pier. Hierog lib. 55. is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith h Jer. 9.3 they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed i Vig. Const nu 179 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree k Vig. Const nu 208 that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes l Vig Const nu 173. Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of
Iustinian yea even the whole catholike Church which hath approved those holy Councells all these out of those very impieties which Vigilius mentioneth have condemned Theodorus them all for wronging and condemning Theodorus for those impieties we doe anathematize and accurse saith Vigilius 47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are who hold and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church this for a position or foundation of faith that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes is true is infallible is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced Let all the rest be omitted embrace but this one decree of Vigilius nay but this one passage or parcell of his decree touching this first Chapter which concernes Theodorus yet by approving this one they demonstrate themselves not onely to renounce but with Vigilius to condemne accurse and anathematize both the Catholike faith and the Catholike Church yea to accurse all who doe not accurse them which because none but Anti-Christ and his hereticall adherents can doe they demonstrate againe hereby their Church to bee hereticall catacatholike and Anti-Christian such as not onely hateth but accurseth the holy and truly Catholike Church of Christ But the curse m Prov. 26.2 that is causlesse shall not come Nay God doth and for ever will turne their cursings into blessings Blessed are n Ma. 5.11 yee when for my sake for professing and maintaining my truth men revile you and speake evill of you Let Balak hire with hous-fulls of gold Let the Romane Balaam for the wages of iniquity attempt never so oft on this hill on that mountaine or wheresoever hee sets up his altars to curse the Church of GOD the Lord o Deut. 23.5 will turne the curse into a blessing unto them for there is no sorcery p Numb 23.23 against Iacob no curse no charme nor incantation against Israell Nay their curses shall fall on their owne heads and returne into their owne bosomes but peace and the blessings of peace shall bee upon Israel For blessed q Numb 24.9 shall hee bee that blesseth thee and cursed is hee that curseth thee CHAP. IX That Vigilius besides divers personall held a doctrinall errour in saith in his defence of the second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill 1. THere was some shadow of reason to thinke that the former Chapter was a personall matter seeing that was indeed moved concerning the person of Theodorus But in the two other there is no pretence or colour for Baronius to say that in them the question or cause was personall and not wholy doctrinall who in all the fift Councell once doubted of the persons of Theodoret or Ibas whether they were Catholikes after their anathematizing of Nestorius in the Councell of Chalcedon The onely question about them was whether the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill were to bee condemned which the Pope denyeth and the holy Councell affirmeth and whether the Epistle of Ibas was Orthodoxall or he by it known to be Orthodoxal which the Pope affirmeth and the holy Councell denyeth The question about them no way concerned their persons but onely their writings And it might be a wonder that Baronius should have the face to say that the cause in these two Chapters was onely personall if it were not daily seene by experience that necessitas cogit ad turpia were necessity enforced the Cardinall to use any though never so untrue never so unlikely excuses for Vigilius 2. There are I confesse divers personall matters and questions of facts which concernes both these Chapters and although they were not the controversies moved and debated betwixt the defenders and the oppugners of those Chapters yet is it needfull to say somewhat of them also partly for more illustration of the cause of faith specially that we may see how foully Vigilius and Baronius have erred not onely in doctrinall causes which are more obscure but even in those personall matters which had beene easie and obvious if they had not shut their eyes against the truth 3. Concerning the second Chapter the Popes decree herein relyeth and is grounded on three personall points or matters of fact The first is that Vigilius would perswade that Theodoret was not the author of those writings against Cyrill and against his twelve Chapters or Anathematizmes a Extant in Actis Conc. Ephes to 1. ca. 14. et tom 5. ca. 1. which containing a just condemnation of the twelve hereticall assertions of Nestorius were approved both by the Councell of Ephesus b Ibid. to 5. ca. 2. §. Ego vero Et Liber ca. 6. and Chalcedon c Act. 5. in definit fidei To which purpose he calls them not Theodorets but writings quae d Vigil Constit nu 180. sub Theodoreti nomine proferuntur which are set forth under the name of Theodoret. And againe the reprofe of the 12. Chapters of Cyrill à Theodoreto e Ibid. nu 181. ut putatur ingesta made as is thought by Theodoret adding f Jbid. this as one reason why the Councell of Chalcedon did not cōdemne those writings because they having those matters which were done but of late before their eyes Theodoretum nihil tale fecisse probaverunt did judge that Theodoret had written no such thing Thus Vigilius pretending those writings against Cyrill not to be Theodorets and that the Councell of Chalcedon also thought the same whence he would inferre and justly upon this supposall that Theodorets name ought not to bee blemished by those writings which were none of his 4. Not his why Theodoret is knowne and testified by so many to have beene so eager and violent in defence of Nestorius and his heresie and so spitefull both in words and writings against Cyrill and all orthodoxall professors of that time that it were more strange if Vigilius was ignorant of this then that knowing it he should deny or make a doubt thereof Witnesse Binius Iohn of Antioch saith he g Bin. in argumento ca. 2. Append. ad to 5. Act. Conc. Ephes pa. 859. perswaded Theodoret that hee should with all his art and skill oppugne and refute those 12 Anathematizmes of Cyrill Theodoret being as much an enemy to Cyrill as was Iohn himselfe willingly yeelded to his petition and by manifest sycophancy wrested every one of Cyrills Chapters from their true genuine and orthodoxall to a false preposterous and hereticall sense and Enoptius sent that refutation of Theodoret unto Cyrill Againe h Bin. notis in Epist Leonis 62. to 1. Conc. pa. 971. Theodoret did once defend Theodorus and Nestorius two most pestiferous Arch-heretikes against Cyrill Yea Binius saith defendit constantissimè he defended them most constantly as if to defend heresie were with these men not pertinacie but constancy witnesse Baronius Theodoret saith he i Bar. an 427. nu 30. being most addicted to Theodorus
this but a vertuall and implicite anathematizing of those his owne writings against Cyrill which defended Nestorius and his doctrines None can anathematize the former but eo ipso he doth most certainely though not expresly anathematize the later as on the contrary none can say as Vigilius doth and decreeth that all shall doe the like none can say that the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and his twelve chapters ought not to be anathematized but eo ipso even by saying so he doth most certainly though but implicitè and by consequent say that Nestorius and his heresie ought not to be condemned A truth so cleare that Pope Pelagius k Pelag. 2. Epist 7. §. Quis haec from his anathematizing of Nestorius and his doctrine concludeth of Theodoret Constat eundem it is manifest that in doing this he condemned his owne writings against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill 14. Neither is that true which Vigilius fancied that to require men to anathematize the writings of Theodoret is to seeke and require more then the Councell of Chalcedon required It is not It is but requiring the selfe same thing to be done in actuall and expresse termes which the Councel required and Theodoret performed in vertuall and implicite termes The thing required and done is the same the manner onely of doing it or requiring it to be done is different Even as to require of men to professe Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Councell of Nice and the Church ever since requireth is not to require them to professe more or ought else then the Scripture teacheth and all catholikes l Hoc testimonio omnes patres utuntur contra Arianos ut probent unam esse essentiam patris filij Bell. lib 1. de Christ ca. 6. §. Quartum before professed by those words I and my Father are one but it is a requiring of an explicite profession of that truth concerning the unity of substance of the Father and the Sonne which by those words of Scripture they did before implicitè professe 15. But yet at least will some of Vigilius friends reply it was unfit to require this explicite anathematizing of Theodorets writings seeing the Councell of Chalcedon did not require it No not so neither The explicite condemning of them was not only fit but necessarie at that time in the dayes of Iustinian and Vigilius For as when the Arians denyed Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was enough for one to cleare himselfe of Arianisme to say that he held this text for true I and the Father are one though therein he doe implicitè professe Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though to have professed that alone before the question about the unity of one substance was moved had beene sufficient but now he must explicitè professe that truth which is explicitè denyed and oppugned even so it is in this cause of Theodorets writings and all like it While there was no doubt moved by heretikes whether those writings of his ought to be condemned and whether by the Councell of Chalcedon they were condemed or no so long it was sufficient for one to professe that he condemned Nestorius and subscribed to the definition of Chalcedon both which were implicite condemning of those writings of Theodoret but when the Nestorians began to boast that Theodorets writings against Cyrill neither were condemned but rather with the author of them approved by the Councell of Chalcedon neither ought to be condemned the Church now was necessarily eâ—â—â—rced to require of all men a profession of that truth in plaine and explicite termes which before they made onely in generall and implicite Nor could Vigilius or any other Nestorian who refused in expresse manner to condemne the writings of Theodoret purge himselfe of that heresie of Nestorius at this time by saying they approved the definition of Chalcedon or condemned Nestorius though in both these they did implicitè condemne the writings of Theodoret but now they must expresly professe that which the heretikes expresly denyed they must in plaine termes anathematize those hereticall writings of Theodoret and acknowledge them to have bin anathematized by the Councel of Chalcedon as the heretiks in plaine termes vauÌ„ted that neither they ought nor were anathematized but approved by the Councel of Chalcedon whensoever any point tending to the impeaching of faith begins explicitè to be denyed the holy Church may not then content her selfe in generall and implicitè to condemne the same few perhaps can perceive that and many will make that generality of termes as Vigilius and other Nestorians now did but a cloak for their heresie but the Church must now in most plaine easie and expressed manner that can be devised both teach declare and define the same This the Church did in this fift Councell as in the other two so in this Chapter touching Theodorets writings It taught but the very same which the Councell of Chalcedon had done before it anathematized those his writings which at Chalcedon were anathematized before but they did this now in a plaine manner and explicitè which by the Councell of Chalcedon only in an obscure manner and implicitè was done before 16. The third personall errour which Vigilius m Vig. Const nu 181. taketh for a ground of his decree is that Cyrill himselfe though he was so exceedingly injured by the writings of those Easterne Bishops that tooke part with Nestorius yet when he made union with them he required them not to anathematize their owne writings but overpast them in silence as if there had never beene any such whence Vigilius inferreth that neither ought this anathematizing of their writings by name of Theodorets bee required by others yea he saith the Fathers of Chalcedon imitated this example of Cyrill and so would not require that of Theodoret which they saw Cyrill not to have required of others 17. The answer is easie by that which hath beene declared this saying of Vigilius laboureth of the same equivocall sophistication as did the former for both Cyrill required and all who were united unto him and received into his which was the communion of the Catholike Church they all did though not in explicite termes which then was not needfull yet vertually and after a certaine and undoubted though implicite manner condemne and anathematize all their writings against Cyrill and the Catholike faith for he received none till they had anathematized thâ— doctrines of Nestorius This doth Cyril himselfe most plainly witnesse in his Epistle to n Cyrill Epist ad Dynat extat in Act. Conc. Ephes to 5. ca. 16. Dynatus I would not saith he admit Paulus Bishop of Emisa into communion priusquam Nestorij dogmata proprio chyrographo anathematizasset untill hee had anathematized by his owne hand-writing the doctrines of Nestorius And he intreated me in behalfe of the other Bishops that I would rest contented with that profession which they had sent and require no
more nulla ratione id fieri passus I would by no meanes yeeld unto that but I sent them a profession of faith and when Iohn 8. of Antioch caeterique and the rest with him had anathematized the doctrine of Nestorius then and not before communionem illis restituimus did we receive them into our communion Thus Cyrill who by requiring this did in effect require they performed the same a condemning of all their witings which were made against him and in defence of that heresie of Nestorius And had Cyrill lived to see any question made whether those writings by whomsoever they had beene written ought to bee or were by himselfe condemned out of all doubt that holy Father would in most plaine and expresse termes have anathematized them all as vertually and implicitè he had before and would most strictly have exacted the like expresse anathematizing of them of all those who would wash their hands of the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius 18. Now from these three grounds every one of which is demonstrated to be untrue Vigilius collects his Conclusion or definitive sentence in defence of this second Chapter which also is an errour but not as the former personall but doctrinall yea hereticall that those writings of Theodoret or going under Theodorets name against Cyrill and his twelve Chapters ought not to be condemned which is as much as if he had decreed plainly that the heresies of Nestorius ought not to be condemned for in those writings of Theodoret they are all defended and that with such eagernesse art and acutenesse that if all other Nestorian books were abolished those writings alone of Theodoret would suffice as a rich storehouse to furnish the Nestorians with abundance of all kinde of weapons to maintaine their owne and oppugne the Catholike cause nor ever can Nestorianisme bee puld downe or overthrowne so long as those writings of Theodoret keepe their credit and stand uncondemned yet shal not these be condemned doth Vigilius decree 19. Pope Pelagius seeing the poison of the hereticall doctrine which the defending of this second Chapter doth beare with it exclaimes against it in this manner o Pelag. 2. Epist 7. §. Quis hac O my deare brethren who seeth not these things to bee full of all impiety And againe who seeth not quanta temeritate plenum sit Theodoreti scripta superbiendo defendere how full of temeritie it is to defend so insolently the writings of Theodoret The fift generall Councell p Collat. 8. pa. 587. not onely accurseth those writings of Theodoret as hereticall but all who defend them yea all who doe not anathematize them A cleare evidence that they not onely judged this second Chapter to concerne the faith but the Constitution of Vigilius even herein to be hereticall because he would not anathematize those writings of Theodoret and much more because he decreed that they should not be anathematized and to their judgement consenteth the whole catholike Church they all condemne the decree of Vigilius even in this point as hereticall 20. I but Vigilius you will say condemneth q Quaecunque scripta vel dogmata scelâ—ratorum Nestorij Eutychetis erroribus manifestantur consonare anathematizamus damnamus Vig. Const nu 182. those very heresies of Nestorius which are defended in those writings he doth so at least he seemes by his words to doe it and had he not withall decreed that Theodorets writings should not bee condemned he could not justly have beene reproved in this point But in doing both he proves not himselfe orthodoxal by that which he saith well but unconstant and contrary to himselfe in overthrowing that which he saith well for if Theodorets writings against Cyrill may not be condemned as Vigilius decreth then may not the doctrines of Nestorius defended therein be condemned as Vigilius would seeme to doe Theodorets writings and Nestorianisme are inseparable companions either both must stand or both fall together It s as impossible and repugnant to condomne the one and deny that the other may be condemned as to condemne Euticheanisme and yet defend the Ephesine latrocinie and decree thereof or condemne Arianisme and not condemne the Arimine Councel It s the honor of truth that it never is nor can be dissonant to any other truth but heresie not onely may but almost ever doth fight not only against truth but against it selfe overthroweth with one hand or positioÌ„ what it builds up by another as in this of Vigilius is now apparent 21. Now although this clearly convinceth the Popes decree to be hereticall seeing it maintaineth two contradictory positions in a cause of faith the one is without all doubt an heresie yet is it worthy the examining whether of these contradictories must passe for the Popes judgment cathedrall resolution in this cause Cardinall Baronius will certainly direct vs in this doubt for he tells us which of it selfe also is evident that the Popes purpose r Pro ipsorum defensione laborat Vigilius Bar. an 553. nu 172. intent in setting forth this Constitution was to defeÌ„d the 3 Chapters adversus Imperatoris decretum sententiam Synodi against the Emperors Edict and the sentence of the fift Synode As the Emperour then and the Synode condemned Å¿ Ibid. nu 2â—2 so was it the Popes maine purpose to defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill which was the second Chapter This is must stand for the judgement cathedrall resolution of the Pope in this matter what he speaks repugnant to this is casuall praeter nay contra intentionem it s against his mind purpose it s to be thought onely by in-incogitancy to have slipt from his pen. So his condemning of the Nestorian doctrine is but in shew it s onely verball his defining that Theodorets writings which maintaine Nestorianisme may not be condemned is the true purpose and intent of his mind its cordial real By his verball condemning of Nestorianisme he shuts it out in words or as you may say at the foregate of his pallace By his defining that Theodorets writings may not be condemned he puls in Nestorianisme with all his might sets wide open a postren gate unto it by condemning Nestorianisme in shew of words he seemes to be orthodoxall by defending Nestorianisme indeed and in truth he demonstrates himselfe to be hereticall Or because Vigilius was so very wise a Pope as hereafter out of Baronius you shall heare it seemes he meant to shew one part of his wisedome and policie in this matter and therefore while the heresie of Nestorius comes in his owne naturall habit or in the liverie of Nestorius away with it the Popes holinesse will not admit it hee cannot abide it but when it comes countenanced and graced with the name of Theodoret and in his liverie the Pope embraceth it in both his armes and by his Apostolicall authoritie commandeth all men to give most friendly welcome and entertainement unto
shew that it honoured no mans person writings or name more thā the truth of Christ And so much the rather was the Church to doe this in Theodoret because about some thirty y Nam Iustini rescriptum de eâ re datum est Rustico Coss ut liquet ex Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. Vbi rescriptum extat Eusticus vero Consul cum Vitaliano an 520. Marcel in Chron. et Bar. in eum annum nu 1. yeares before this fift Councell in the time of Iustinus the Emperour the Nestorians as if not onely some writings of his but Theodoret himselfe had beene wholly theirs set up z Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. et pa. 578. a. his image in a Chariot and with great pompe and singing of hymnes brought it in triumphant manner into the City of Cyrus where Sergius a Nestorian and Bishop of that place mentioned in a Collect Theodorus of Mopsvestia Nestorius and Theodoret as three of their principall Nestorian Saints was it not now high time to wipe away that blemish from the name of Theodoret and to condemne those writings of his which gave occasion to the Nestorians to make such boasts 31. I appeale now unto any man whether their condemning of Theodorets writings did not much more tend to the honour then as Vigilius fancieth to the slander and disgrace of his person As it is a blemish to a man to retaine a filthy spot in his garment but the taking of it away doth grace and make him more comely even so the name of Theodoret was stained by those writings they emboldened the Nestorians to put him in their cursed Calender but by the condemning of those writings was the staine and blemish wiped away from his person his name and honour was vindicated from the Nestorians and brought as it well deserved to the holy Church of GOD nothing of Theodoret left for heretikes to vaunt of but the onely staines of Theodoret nothing but those hereticall writings condemned and accursed both by Theodoret himselfe and by the whole Church of God 32. No no it is Pope Vigilius and such as applaud his decree for infallible that disgraceth and most ignominiously useth the name person and memory of Theodoret By his decree those heretical writings of Theodoret which by the Churches sentence of condemnation are quite dulled receive full strength and vigour for the Nestorians against Catholikes By him the Nestorians have an eternall charter and irrevocable decree that Theodorets writings against Cyrill and with them the heresie of Nestorius ought not to be taxed nor condemned His Apostolicall Constitution is a triumphant chariot for them to set the Image of Theodoret in their Temples and with Anthemes and Collects to canonize yea adore him in their Masses among their hereticall Saints But for the Church of God I constantly affirme they could not possibly have more honoured Theodoret than by burning up the hay and stubble of his writings the condemning of which the Pope decreeth to bee an injury and slander unto him 33. May wee now in the last place consider a little what might be the intendment of Vigilius in pleading and decreeing this for Theodorets writings I doubt not but the love he bare to Nestorianisme might make him zealous for those writings which are the bulwarks of the Nestorians but non sunt in eo omnia Popes are men of profound thoughts and very long reaches they have deepe and mysticall projects in their decrees Vigilius had and it may be principally an eye to this his owne and all their Cathedrall Constitutions like unto it If the hereticall writings of Theodoret may not be condemned because himselfe was a Catholike à fortiori this decree of Vigilius be it never so hereticall may not bee condemned because the Pope is the head of all Catholikes If it bee an injury and a slandering of Theodoret to taxe him or his name by condemning his writings it must much more be an injury and slander nay that is nothing even a blasphemy and sinne irremissible to taxe the Popes Holinesse by condemning his Apostolicall decree If you presume to condemne nay but taxe them or their names though their decrees shall bee as apparently hereticall as are those writings of Theodoret you are condemned for ever as injurious as contumelious as slandering persons And let this suffice for the errours both personall and doctrinall of Vigilius touching this second Chapter CAP. X. That Vigilius and Baronius erre in divers personall points or matters of fact concerning the third Chapter or the Epistle of Ibas 1. THere remaineth now the third last Chapter which concernes the impious Epistle of Ibas In handling whereof being of them all most intricate and obscure as Vigilius first and then long after him his Champion Baronius have here bestowed greatest paines and used all their subtilty judging this to bee as indeed by reason of the manifold obscurities it is the fittest cloake for their heresie so must I on the other side intreate the more serious and attentive consideration at the readers hands while I indeavour not onely to discover the darke and secret corners of this cause but pull both the Pope and his Parasite out of this being their strongest hold and most hidden hereticall den wherein they hoped of all other most safely and securely to have lurked for the more perspicuous proceeding wherein before I come to the doctrinall errours and maine heresie which in this third Chapter they maintaine I will first manifest two or three of their personall untruths which will both open a passage to the other and will give the reader a taste nay a certaine experiment what truth fidelity and faire-dealing he is to expect at the hands of Vigilius and Baronius in their handling of this Chapter 2. The first and that indeed a capitall untruth is that Vigilius avoucheth the Councell of a Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio Vig. Const nu 192. Chalcedon to have approved this Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall They approve that impious and blasphemous Epistle they rejected they condemned anathematized and accursed it to the very pit of hell witnesse the fift generall Councell and the whole Catholike Church which hath approved it for thus cryed out and proclaimed all the Bishops Epistolam b Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnavit ejecit the definition of faith made by the holy Councell at Chalcedon hath condemned this Epistle it hath cast out this Epistle But because I have formerly c Supra ca. 4.5.1.3.13 intreated hereof I will adde no more of this which is proclaimed by the whole Church to be an untruth 3. The second untruth is like this Vigilius having cited the interloquutions of Pascasinus and Maximus wherein they say that Ibas by his Epistle is declared to bee a Catholike d Vig. Const nu 19◠addeth that all the rest in the Councell of Chalcedon did not onely not
contradict their interloquutions verumetiam apertissimum eis noscuntur praebuisse consensum but also they are knowne to have assented and that most manifestly unto those interloquutions So Vigilius It had beene enough and too much to have said that the Councell had assented or had but seemed to assent but Vigilius in saying that all the rest did most manifestly assent to those interloquutions uttered a papall and supreme untruth whereof no colourable pretence can be made witnesse the fift general Councell and the whole Catholike Church which hath approved it They expresly e Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a.b. testifie that the Councell of Chalcedon did pro nullo habere esteeme as nothing that which was spoken by one or two those were Pascasinus and Maximus for that Epistle but of this also I have spoken before 4. Now both these vntruths whereof Vigilius is so evidently and by so ample witnesses convicted Cardinall Baronius hath againe revived telling with a face more hard than Brasse or Adamant Patres f Bar. an 553. nu 191. dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam the Fathers of Chalcedon said that this Epistle of Ibas is to be received as orthodoxall and g Ba an 448. nu 71 againe ex ipsa Ibam fuisse probatum orthodoxum aequè una fuit sententia omnium Episcoporum that Ibas was by this Epistle approved for a Catholike it was the consent and uniforme judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon then which two lowder untruths and well worthy of a golden whetstone could hardly have beene uttered And though he tooke them from Pope Vigilius yet are they farre more inexcusable in the Cardinall than in the Pope his Master Vigilius dyed before he saw the judgement of succeeding Popes and generall Councels which had he knowne wee may charitably thinke that his Holinesse would have casseired and defaced such palpable and condemned untruths But Cardinall Baronius knew all this hee knew that the fift h In 6. collatione Conc. 5. allata ab ipso Vigilio pro defensione Ibae Epistolae confutantur Bar. an 553. nu 210. generall Councell had condemned these untruths in Vigilius he knew that Pelagius i Gregorius cum praedecessoribus successoribus ejus omnes quintam Synodum confirmasse noscuntur Bar. an 553 nu 229. Gregory and their successors that the sixt k Bar. ibid. seventh and other generall Councels had approved the fift Councell and so in approving it had condemned those same untruths and yet against the knowne consent and judgement of all those Popes and generall Councels that is against the knowne testimonie of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand yeares together he is bold to avouch both those former sayings for truths which all those former witnesses with one voyce proclaime to be condemned untruths Such account doth the Cardinall make of Fathers Popes Generall Councels and of the whole Catholike Church when they come crosse in his way 5. A third personall matter there is concerning this Chapter of which not Vigilius but Cardinall Baronius doth enforce me to intreate and that is whether Ibas was indeed the author of this Epistle or no for although it be not materiall to the intent of the fift Councell which against the decree of Vigilius we now defend whether Ibas writ it or not seeing neither this fift nor the former Councell of Chalcedon condemned the author of this Epistle but onely the Epistle it selfe yet seeing the Cardinall was pleased to undertake the defence of a needlesse untruth that this is not the Epistle of Ibas I am desirous that all should see how wisely and worthily hee hath behaved himselfe in this point 6. Baronius speaking against this Epistle first makes it doubtfull whose it is saying l Bar. an 432. nu 71. author qui fertur nomine Ibae quisquis ille fuerit the author of this Epistle which passeth under the name of Ibas whatsoever he be and having thus bred a distrust in your mindes then as the serpent dealt with Eve hee positively sets downe his untruth It is not the Epistle of Ibas in this manner Caeterum m Ibid. ut publica acta testantur producta in Concilium Epistola illa non esse Ibae comperta but the publike acts doe testifie that when this Epistle was produced in the Councell at Chalcedon it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it being condemned Ibas was absolved Thus Baronius who for proofe hereof alleageth the publike acts n Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. citantur à Bar. ibidem both of the Councell of Chalcedon and of the 2. Nicene Synod And truly in the second Nicene Synod that which the Cardinall saith is read indeed by Epiphanius a Deacon in that Synod but it is the testimony of the whole Councell Epiphanius onely reading and proposing it in the name o Epiphanius scitam à patribus appositam responsionem per legit Bar. nu 787. nu 34. and behalfe of the Synod And because it is a testimony very pregnant for the Cardinalls assertion and is cited out of a Councel which he much honoreth affecteth I will do him the favour as at large to expresse that passage the rather because this as the whole answer read by Epiphanius is not onely commended as a matter delivered p Quam confutationem nobis spiritus sanctus dedit Conc. Nâ—c 2. Act. 6. pa. 356. a. unto them by the holy Ghost but they further request q Rogamus autem quicunque etc. ibid b. all who shall happen to light on that commentarie of theirs that they will not read it slightly or perfunctorily but with singular indagation and search of the same And I am loth to deny those Nicene Fathers so very just and reasonable a request 7. In that place r Conc. Nic 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. a. there was read on the behalfe of the Iconoclasts a testimonie out of the ancient Father Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus forbidding to set up Images either in the Churches or Å¿ Epiphanius Cyprius sic inquit Ne in ecclesiam imagines infer atis neque in coemiterijs statuatis neque in domo communi tolerentur ibid. in Churchyards or in their common dwelling houses but every where to carie about God in their hearts This saying netled the Nicene Fathers not a little who were very superstitiously devoted to Image-worship and therefore in stead of a better answer they say that the booke whence that is alleaged is falsly t Id ex Epiphanio lectum nequaquam illius existit ibid. a. Et verum ut novitij libelli et alieni falsique sunt ibid b. ascribed to Epiphanius hee was not the author of it Epiphanius they honor u Commentarium illum reijcimus beatum autem patrem Epiph. ecclesiae Doctorem agnoscimus ibid. b. as an holy Father and Doctor of the Catholike Church but that booke going under his name they reject which
infallible Chaire they two by the new found art of Transubstantiating wherein that sect excelleth Iannes and Iambres and all the inchanters in the world they by one spell or charme of a few words pronounced out of that holy chaire can turne a serpent into a staffe bread into a living bodie darkenesse into light an hereticke into a Catholike yea the very venome and poyson of all Nestorianisme into most wholsome doctrines of the Catholike faith such as that none may write speake or thinke ought to the contrarie 21. See ye not now as I foretold that you should both the Pope and the Cardinall marching under the banner of Nestorius and like two worthy Generalls holding up a standard to the Nestorians and building in the Romane Church but very cunningly and artificially a Capitoll for Nestorianisme They forsooth will not in plaine tearmes say that Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith that Christ is not God that the Sonne of Mary is not the Sonne of God that Cyrill is an hereticke and the holy Ephesine Councell hereticall Fie these are too Beoticall and blunt they could never have gotten any one to tast of that cup of Nestorianisme had they dealt so plainely or simply rather Rome and Italy are Schooles of better manners and of more civilitie and subtiltie you must learne there to speake heresie in the Atticke Dialect in smooth plausible sweet and sugred tearmes you must say the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth is the Catholike union that Ibas by embracing that union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike that whosoever embraceth not this union which the Pope hath defined to be the Catholike communion cannot be a Catholike or if you speake more briefly and Laconically you may say the Popes decrees and Cathedrall judgements in causes of faith are infallible Say but either of these you say as much as either Theodorus or Nestorius did you deny Christ to bee God You condemne the Ephesine Councell you speake true Nestorianisme but you speake it not after the rude and rusticke fashion but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the refined language of the Romane Church By approving this union or the Popes decree in this cause of Ibas you drinke up at once all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius even the very dregs of Nestorianisme yet your comfort is though it be ranke poison you shall now take it as an antidote and soveraigne potion so cunningly tempered by Pope Vigilius and with such a grace and gravity commended reached and brought even in the golden cup of Babylon by the hands of Cardinall Baronius unto you that it killeth not onely without any sense of paine but with a sweet delight also even in a pleasing slumber and dreame of life bringing you as on a bed of downe unto the pit of death 22. See here again their Synoniā art Oh how nice scrupulous is Baronius in approving or allowing Vigilius to approve the former part of this Epistle of Ibas The Epistle o Bar. an 553. nu 192. was in no other part but onely in the last concerning the union approved Why there is nothing at all in the former no heresie or impiety set downe in it which doth not certainly and unavoydably ensue upon the approving of that union in Nestorianisme which Ibas embraceth in the latter part Why then must the latter and not the former be approved Forsooth in the former part p Vid. Epist Jba loc cit the blasphemies of the Nestorians are in too plaine and blunt a manner expressed Cyrill is an Apollinarian The twelve Chapters of Cirill omni impietate plena sunt are full of all impietie The Ephesine Councell unjustly deposed Nestorius and approved the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which are contraria verae fidei and such like It is not for a Pope or a Cardinall to approve such plaine and perspicuous heresies they might as well say We are heretikes wee are Nestorians which kinde of Beoticisme is farre from the civility of the Romane Court But in the latter part the heresies of Nestorius and all his blasphemies are offered in the shew of union with Cyrill and communion with the Church and comming under the vaunt of that union as in the wombe of the Trojane horse the Pope and the Cardinall may now with honour receive them the union and with or in it all Nestorianisme must be brought into the City the Pope and the Cardinall will themselves put their hands to this holy worke pedibusque rotarum subijciunt lapsus stupea vincula collo intendunt themselves will drag and hale it with their owne shoulders to within the wals nor is that enough it must be placed in the very Romane Capitoll in the holy temple and consecrated to God and that the Pope himselfe will doe by an Apostolicall and infallible constitution by that immutable decree is this union set up as the Catholike union Et monstrum infoelix sacrata sistitur arce this unholy and unhappy union is now embraced by which all the gates of the City of God are set wide open for all heresies to rush in at their pleasure and make havocke of the Catholike saith 23. Now it is not unworthy our labour to consider whether Vigilius and Baronius did in meere ignorance or wittingly embrace this union mentioned by Ibas that is in truth all Nestorianisme And for Vigilius if any will be so favourable as to interpret all this to have proceeded of ignorance I will not greatly contend with him It is as great a crime for their Romane Apollo and as foule a disgrace to their infallible Chaire upon ignorance to decree an heresie as to do it upon wilfull obstinacy yet to cōfesse the truth I am more than of opinion that Vigilius not upon ignorance but out of a setled judgment affection which he bare to Nestorianisme decreed this union and with it the doctrines of Nestorius to be embraced And that which induceth mee so to judge is the great diligence care and circumspection which Vigilius used to enforme both himselfe and others in this matter for besides that this cause was debated and continually discussed in the Church for the space of six yeares and more before the Pope published this his Apostolicall Constitution all which time Vigilius was a chiefe party in this cause himselfe in his decree witnesseth concerning this third Chapter or Epistle of Ibas that he examined it diligenti p Vig. Const nu 186. investigatione by a diligent inquisition yea that he perused his bookes most q Gesta Concilij Chalc. diligentissime perquirentes Jbid. diligently for this point and concludeth both of it and the rest that hee decreed these things cum r Ibid. nu 208. omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all possible care and diligence that could be used And because plus vident oculi quam oculus hee added to his owne the judgement of an whole Synod of Bishops
all of them bending their eyes wits industry to find out the truth in this cause Further yet Vigilius speaketh in this cause of Ibas not doubtfully but in words proceeding from certaine knowledge and resolute judgment dilucide ſ Nu. 186. aperteque reperimus evidenter t Nu. 190. advertimus apertissimum u Ibid. noscuntur praebuisse consensum evidenter x Nu. 193. declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil in confessione fidei fuisse reprehensum illud y Nu. 195. indubitanter patet apertissima z Nu. 196. lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae constat a Nu. 198. eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore luce clarius b Nu. 207. demonstratur All which doe shew that Vigilius spake out of his setled judgement and resolution after most diligent examination of this cause Now that the whole Epistle and of all parts that especially where Ibas intreateth of the union that this is full of Nestorianisme is so evident that scarce any though but of a shallow judgement who doth with ordinary diligence peruse and ponder the same can otherwise chuse than observe and see it Wherefore I cannot thinke but that Vigilius both saw and knew that part of the Epistle above all the rest to containe the doctrines of Nestorius and an approbation of them all and that by approving the union there mentioned he approved all the doctrines of the Nestorians 24. But for cardinall Baronius that hee in defending the latter part of this Epistle as doth Vigilius before him that in striving so earnestly by it to prove Ibas to have beene a catholike and his Epistle to be orthodoxall at least in the latter part because Ibas assented to the union mentioned therein that he I say did herein wittingly willingly and obstinately labour to maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for my owne part I cannot almost doubt nor as I thinke will his best friends when they have well considered of his words He intreating of this matter touching Ibas and his Epistle in another place where this Constitution of Vigilius comes not to the scanning and so did not dimne his sight ingenuously there confesseth that this Epistle is hereticall written by a Nestorian written of purpose to disgrace Cyrill and the catholikes as if they at the union had recanted their former doctrines But let us heare his owne words 25. He having shewed c Bar. an 432. nu 68. absque condemnatione suorum Capitulorum cuncta arbitrio Cyrilli gesta sunt that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils minde and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters addeth this They d An. eod nu 69. who favoured Nestorius spred abroad a rumour that Cyrill had in all things consented unto Iohn and condemned his former doctrines and a little after declaring e Ibid. nu 70. how the Nestorians did slander Cyrill he saith Besides others who tooke part with Nestorius even Theodoret also ijsdem aggressus est Cyrillum urgere calumnijs vexed Cyrill with the same slanders that he had condemned his owne Chapters and then comming to this Epistle of Ibas he thus writeth Who f Ibid. nu 71. so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians let him reade the Epistle which is said to be the Epist of Ibas unto Maris wherin any may see the Nestorian fellow insulting and triumphing as if the cause had beene adjudged to him jactantem Cyrillum poenitentem tandem recantasse palinodiam and vaunting that Cyrill repenting himselfe of his former doctrines did now at last revoke the same and sing a new song And this the author of that Epistle writ and sent abroad as a Circular Epistle to be read throughout the Provinces pro solatio eorum ignominia Catholicorum for the comfort of the Nestorians and for the disgrace of Catholikes Thus Baronius Professing as you see that he knew this Epistle to be hereticall and that even in the latter end which Vigilius and himself defendeth as orthodoxall yea evē in that very point touching the union mentioned in that Epistle to be a meere calumnie against Cyrill and the Catholikes as if they by making the union had consented to Nestorianisme and renounced the Ephesine Councell and the Catholike faith 26. Seeing now the Card. knew all this to be true and yet afterwards for defence of Vigilius and his Constitution teacheth and maintaineth that by embracing the union mentioned in this Epistle Ibas was a Catholike and was for this cause by the Councell at Chalcedon and ought by all others to be adjudged a Catholike is it not evident that the Cardinall wittingly and willingly maintaines hereby the union with the Nestorians to bee the catholike union and so the doctrines of the Nestorians to bee the catholike faith for this union mentioned in the Epistle is as the Cardinall professeth an union in Nestorianisme an union with Cyrill having now renounced the Ephesine Councell and the catholike faith 27. Onely there is one quirke or subtilty in the Cardinals words which may not without great wrong unto him bee omitted where he acknowledgeth this Epistle to be g Videre est Nestorianum hominem c. Bar. an 432. nu 71. hereticall hereticall in this point of the union there he will not h Non esse Ibae comperta Ibid. have it to be the Epistle of Ibas for then by it Ibas should bee judged a Nestorian which would quite overthrow the Constitution of Vigilius when in the other i Vigilius afferere voluit ex ed Epistolâ Ibam esse recipiendum in qua nimirum ipse testatur se amplecti pacem ecclesiae qua recepta necesse fuerit eundem probare Catholicum Bar an 533. nu 191. place he defends as Vigilius decreeth that Ibas by this Epistle and by consenting to this union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike there the Epistle is truly the Epistle of Ibas but then consenting to this union is the note of a Catholike So both this Epistle is the Epistle of Ibas and it is not the Epistle of Ibas and to consent to the union herein mentioned is the note of a Nestorian heretike and to consent to the same union is the note of a good Catholike Thus doth the Cardinall play sport himselfe in contradictions and as the winde blowes and turnes him so doth he turne his note also If the winde blow to Alexandria and turne the Cardinals face towards Cyrill then the union is hereticall lest Cyrill who condemned it should bee condemned for an heretike If the winde blow from Africke and turne the Cardinals face towards Rome and Pope Vigilius then the union is Catholike lest Vigilius approving this union should not be thought a Catholike Or because a Cardinall so learned so renouned as Baronius may not be thought to contradict himselfe or speake amisse in either place let both sayings be
admitted for true and then it unavoydably followeth that by the Cardinals divinity and in his judgment Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith which aptly and easily will accord both his sayings for so the author of this Epistle by approving this union shall be a perfect Nestorian as in the one place is affirmed and by approving this union shall be withall a perfect Catholike as in the other place is avouched 28. Besides this confession of Baronius which is cleare enough there is yet another meanes to demonstrate that the Cardinall by defending this latter part of the Epistle touching the union did wittingly and wilfully maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for the fift generall Councell approved as wee have shewed by the judgment of the whole Catholike Church hath adjudged this very part k Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt Cyrillum et similia ei sapientes injuriantia et omnino impiam sectam Nestorij vindicantia Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 564. a. Scimus et nos haec ita subse quuta est c. Ibid. of the Epistle the defence whereof Baronius hath undertaken not onely to bee hereticall but to bee more full of blasphemies than any of the rest it hath l Qui dicit eam rectam esse vel partem ejus Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. further judicially defined al that defend either this or any part of that Epistle to be heretikes and for such it hath anathematized them yea all that write m Eos qui scripserunt velscribunt pro ea Ibid. eirher for it or for them Now the Cardinall had read the whole fift Councell as appeareth by that summary collection n Extat in Annal. Bar an 553. a. nu 33. ad 217. which he hath made of the Acts and of every Collation thereof nay hee had not onely read these Acts but pried earnestly with a jealous and carping eie into every corner and sentence thereof as you shall perceive hereafter and therefore it is doubtlesse that hee knew the judgement of this fift Councell concerning all that defend any part of this Epistle and specially the latter part which concernes the union Neither onely did he know that to be the judgement of this fift Councell but as himselfe o An. 553. nu 229. expresly witnesseth of all both Popes and generall Councels which followed it all of them approving this fift Councell and the judgement thereof whence it is cleare that Baronius knew certainly himselfe by defending this part of the Epistle touching the union to defend that which by the judgment of the fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church ever since hath beene condemned for hereticall and the defenders of it anathematized as heretikes yet such was the Cardinals zeale and ardent affection to Nestorianisme that against the judgement of the whole Church knowne unto him yea knowne for this very cause to anathematize him yet he defends the union there mentioned and the latter part of that Epistle wherein it is mentioned that is in truth all the blasphemies of Nestorius chosing rather by adhering to Vigilius and his hereticall decree to be condemned and anathematized by the whole Catholike Church for a Nestorian heretike than by forsaking the defence of Vigilius and his decree to condemne this latter part of the Epistle of Ibas touching the union which containeth in it the very quintessence of all Nestorianisme 29. I think it is now sufficiently apparent by that which wee have already said that the union which Ibas in his Epistle mentioneth and embraceth and which Vigilius first and after him Baronius approveth is not that true union in the Catholike faith which Cyrill made with Iohn and other Easterne Bishops but onely an union in Nestorianisme and in denying the Catholike faith to which the Nestorians falsly reported and slandered Cyrill with the other Catholikes to have consented and thereby to have condemned and anathematized that truth which the yeare before they had decreed at Ephesus Yet for the full satisfaction of all and clearing of all doubts which may arise I will adde one thing further which will much more manifest both the calumnie of the Nestorians and the constancy of Saint Cyrill and that is upon what colour or pretence the Nestorians raised this slanderous report which I am the more desirous to explane because the narration of this matter is extreamly confounded and entangled by Baronius and Binius and that as may be feared even of set purpose that they might either quite discourage others as almost they had done my selfe in the search of this truth or at least misleade them into such by-paths that they should not finde the truth in this matter 30. When Theodosius the religious Emperour had written by Aristolaus that earnest letter to Iohn and the other Easterne Bishops perswading yea commanding them to consent with Cyrill and embrace the Catholike communion they upon the Emperors motion sought indeed to make an union with Cyrill but they laboured to effect it by drawing Cyrill unto their bent and to consent unto their heresies This they first attempted by a letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea willing p Apud Acatium Bercensem Episcopâ—â— congressi scribi ad me curarunt pacem concordiamque nisi eo modo quem praescriberent fieri non debere Epist Cyrilli ad Acatium quae est 29. ext tom 5. Act. Ephes ca. 7. idem habetur in Epist Cyrilli ad Dynatum tom eod ca. 16. him to write in all their names unto Cyrill that no unity or concord could be made but according to those conditions which themselves should prescribe And the condition prescribed by them was that Cyrill should q Vrgebat ut omnibus quae adversus Nestorium scripsimus abolitis velut inutilibus rejectis c. Epist ad Dynat similia habentur in Epist Cyrill ad Acat locis cit abolish and condemne all that ever hee had written against Nestorianisme and so both his twelve Chapters and the Ephesine decree and all the like Cyrill answered r Cyrill Epistola ad Dynat ad Acat with great confidence rem eos postulare quae fieri plane non posset that they required a matter utterly impossible because what hee had written touching that matter was rightly written and in defence of the true faith and therefore that he could not either condemne or deny what he had written 31. When it succeeded not this first way they next attempted to effect the union by Paulus Å¿ Miserunt Alexandriam Paulum Episcopum EmisenoruÌ„ c. ibid. Bishop of Emisa whom they sent to Alexandria to negotiate for them both by words and by a second letter which they sent by him And although they were not in this second so violent as in the former of Acatius yet they writ t At tulit quaedam parum decore commode proposita ibid. some things therein also not sitting nor allowable for they
they meant that either nature made a severall and distinct person by it selfe and so they made Christ to be two distinct persons each subsisting by it selfe two Sonnes two Christs that is in truth no Christ no Saviour at all for a Saviour he cannot bee unlesse the selfe same person which is man be God also 12. Againe when Catholikes said that Christ is one person they meant truly and orthodoxally that both natures together make but one personall subsistence as the humane soule and body make but one person or one man but when the Nestorians said that Christ was one person they meant not of that unity which is by naturall or personall subsistence but of unity in affection of unity by consent and liking of unity by cohabitation the person of the Sonne of God so affecting and liking the sonne of Marie that it inhabited and dwelt therein as in a holy temple or house but yet as neither the house is the inhabitant nor the inhabitant the house so neither was God by their doctrine the sonne of Mary or man nor yet was that man which was the sonne of Mary God but onely the house or temple of God 13. When Catholikes called Iesus Christ our Lord they meant truly and orthodoxally that the man Iesus Christ who tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary is in truth very God the Godhead being hypostatically united unto the manhood and both of them making but one person who is both God and man but the Nestoriās in calling Iesus Christ our Lord meant not that the man Christ was truly personally God or Lord but that he was God and the Lord onely by having God and the Lord inhabiting in him and united not personally but onely affectually unto him wherupon it followed that they in adoring Christ giving divine honours unto him were indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for they gave the honour proper onely to God unto that person or that mā which according to their doctrine they held not to be God 14. And which of all may seeme most strange whereas Catholikes not onely professed the Virgin Mary to bee the Mother of God but under those very tearmes and by that forme of words as being most easie and perspicuous contradicted condemned all the heresies of Nestorius which were all by consequent included in their denying Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God The Nestorians to avoid the hatred of this speech if they should deny it and more plausibly to convay their heresie said and in words professed even this also that Mary was the Mother of God but they meant not thereby as Catholikes did that Christ who tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary was the same person or one personall subsistence with the Sonne of God or that God was incarnate and assumed the manhood to make one person with the Godhead but all that they meant was that the Son of God was onely by affection and love united unto the sonne of Marie being already perfect man in the wombe of his mother and that God was borne of her not by assuming flesh unto him but by inhabiting that man who tooke flesh of her Thus in shew of words the Nestorians seemed to bee Catholikes and to say the same with Catholikes but their sense and meaning in those words was most hereticall and therefore indeed and in truth themselves notwithstanding all these speeches were heretikes 15. For the full and ample proofe of all these I must referre my selfe to another Treatise if it ever happen to see the light wherein I have at large handled this point and proved another of their Popes somewhat more ancient then Vigilius I meane Hormisda to have beene as deepe in the heresie of Nestorius and to have as firmly by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence confirmed the same as Vigilius himselfe hath done who as I thinke by the example and authority of his predecessor was the more emboldned to plead for Nestorianisme it being of all heresies which ever sprung up in the Church most full of all sophisticall subtilties and colourable pretences of wit was most fit of all the rest to be commended by such as under the shew of learning and truth meant to defend and uphold heresie But for this time I will now alleage onely a few evident testimonies to declare the truth of that concurrence in words and difference in sense betweene Catholikes and Nestorians which even now I mentioned 16. Nestorius in his Epistle n Extat in Conc. 5 Coll. 6. pa 57◠b. to Alexander signifying that the two natures in Christ are also two persons saith thus Non duas personas unam personam facimus we doe not make two persons one person but by this one name of Christ we signifie two natures to wit making two persons And to shew how these two persons are called by them one person thou mayst saith he o Nestorij verba citata ibidem pa. 576. a. in Actis Conc. Ephes to 2. ca. 8. pa. 747. a. call him that was borne of Mary by the name of the Sonne of God for the Virgin which bare Christ filium Dei genuit bare the Sonne of God but because the Sonne according to the Natures is double non genuit quidem p Negat Nestorius Mariam genuisse filium ita ut ex ipsa carnem sumpserit affirmat genuisse ita ut ex ipsa prodierit Hoc declarant Nestorij verba apud Cyrillum citata in Epist ad Acatium to 3. Act. Ephes ca. 7 vbi ita ait Nestorius Deum ex Christipaera virgine prodijsse ex divina scriptura edoctus sum at vero Deum ex ipsa genitum esse eo quo dixi sexsu id nusquam edoctus sum filium Dei she did not truly beare the Son of God as taking flesh from her but she bare the man or humane nature quae propter filium adjunctum filij quoque appellatione afficitur which is called the Sonne of God because the Sonne God is united and joyned unto him and in another place q Non per se secundum se Deus est quod in utero formatum est non per se secundum se Deus est quod spiritus sancti operâ effectum est non per se secundum se Deus est quod in monumento conditum est At quia Deus in homine assumpto extitit assumptus assumenti conjunctus propter assumentum Deus appellatur verba Nestorij citata in Act. Conc. Ephes to 2. ca. 8. pa. 748. a. He that was framed in the wombe and laid in the grave is not of himselfe God at quia Deus in homine assumpto existit but because God is in the man whom hee assumes unto him the man assumed is called God because hee is assumed of God So Nestorius plainly calling Christ God and the Son of God and Marie the mother of God and yet denying God and man to be one person but the person of
r Eutiches dixit cōfitemur ex duabus naturis fuisse dominum nostrum ante adunationē post vero adunationē unam naturam confiteor Dioscorus Synodus Ephesina 2. dixit consentimus huic nos omnes Act. Conc. Ephes recitata in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa 28. b. two natures at all or any way either making one or two persons to be in Christ after the incarnation So whether one held the same two natures to make but one person as the Catholikes said or to make two distinct persons as the Nestorians affirmed it was all one to Dioscorus The very holding of two natures to bee in Christ either of those wayes made one an hereticke in the judgment of Eutiches Dioscorus and their Ephesine Synod The heresie of Eutiches did equally contradict both the Catholike truth and the Nestorian heresie because they both consented in one common truth that there are two distinct natures or essences abiding in Christ If this judgement of Dioscorus against Ibas will prove either him or his Epistle to be Catholike the very like effect it must have in Theodorus in Nestorius in all Nestorians and in all their writings they all with Ibas professe two natures to abide in Christ they all by the judgement of Dioscorus and his Synod are hereticall So either must Vigilius approve all Nestorians for Catholikes if this reason for Ibas bee effectuall or if they bee truly heretickes whom Dioscorus yet hath condemned as well as Ibas then is this his reason ineffectuall to prove from the condemnation of Dioscorus Ibas or his profession to be Catholike 30. His second reason is drawne from the likenesse and identitie of faith in Flavianus and Ibas damnat ſ Vigil Const nu 195. quoque propter duarum naturarum vocem Dioscorus did also or for the same cause condemne Flavianus for which Ibas was condemned to wit for professing two natures in Christ Seeing then it is knowne that the profession of Flavianus was Catholike the profession also of Ibas made in this Epistle being like to that of Flavianus must needes be Catholike My annotation on this reason of Vigilius is that it is inconsequent sophisticall and worth nothing at all Ibas indeede in words said the like with Flavianus but Flavianus said it in a Chatholike sense holding those two natures to make but one person or personall subsistence and Ibas said it in this Epistle in an hereticall sense holding those two natures to make two distinct persons or two personall subsistences To Dioscorus it was all one to say as Flavianus did or as Ibas in this Epistle doth for seeing they both jumpe in this that two natures or essences doe remaine after the incarnation they are both alike heretickes to Dioscorus though in truth the profession of Flavianus made him a Martyr and the profession of Ibas set down in this Epistle being in words the same make him an hereticke Or if Ibas be a Catholike for professing in words the same which Flavianus did then by this reason of our Author Vigilius Theodorus Nestorius and all the Nestorians are Catholikes because they all professe with Flavianus two natures and one person to be in Christ in the same manner as Ibas here doth 31. His third and last reason is drawne from the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon they t Vig. Const nu 195 condemned Dioscorus and Eutiches but they embraced Ibas an evidence that as they judged the profession of Dioscorus to be hereticall so they esteemed the profession of Ibas to be orthodoxall yea even this which he maketh in this Epistle for after that Cyrill had once explaned his Chapters which was before this Epistle was writ after that time in Catholicae fidei rectitudine ab eâdem Chalcedonensi Synodo judicatus est Ibas permansisse Ibas was by the Synod at Chalcedon judged to have continued in the right profession of the faith The only glosse fit for this reason is that it is fallacious untrue and slanderous fallacious for the Councell of Chalcedon received Ibas indeed but not for this profession made in his Epistle which that holy Councell both knew and condemned as hereticall but as before we have declared for his consenting to the Ephesine Councell and condemning of Nestorius first before Photius Eustathius before then themselves in the Councell at Chalcedon upon this whereby Ibas did intruth condemne his owne profession made in this Epistle and this whole Epistle upon this I say and not for professing in this Epistle two natures and one person was Ibas received by the Councell at Chalcedon untrue for neither did the Councell of Chalcedon judge Ibas to have beene a Catholike or hold the Catholike faith upon the declaration of Cyrils Chapters much lesse did they judge him to have continued ever after that time in the orthodoxie of faith slanderous for Vigilius by saying that the Councell of Chalcedon held Ibas for a Catholike upon or shortly after the declaration of Cyrils Chapters makes them all guilty of Nestorianisme long after that explanation did Ibas write this Epistle wherein all the blasphemies of Nestorius are maintained Had they judged him since that Explanation to be a Catholike they must approve this Epistle for Catholike and so prove themselves to be hereticall to be Nestorians Thus Vigilius to cloake his owne heresie would faine fasten it upon the holy Councell of Chalcedon which was so farre from partaking with Vigilius herein that by their definitive sentence this very u Tota Epistola haeretica est Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. b. professiō of two natures and one person made in this Epistle yea every part of this Epistle is condemned for impious and hereticall And this I hope may serve for an explanation of Pope Vigilius his third reason to prove Ibas a Catholike drawne from this profession of faith made in this Epistle untill some Annalist like Baronius will helpe us to a better Commentary 32. The second reason of Vigilius set downe in the words before recited to prove Ibas a Catholike is drawne from his approving of the Ephesine Councell at the judgement before Photius Eustathius He there saith Vigilius x In Const nu 194. most plainly approved the Ephesine Synod and the doctrines decreed therein he professed them to be equall to the Nicene decrees Photius the Iudge exceedingly commended Ibas that hee was so forward to professe the true faith and wipe away all suspition of heresie from him how could Ibas then be ought else but a Catholike who made such a Catholike confession Truely when Ibas made this confession before Photius and Eustathius there is no doubt but he was then a Catholike but Vigilius his purpose is to prove him to have beene a Catholike when he writ this Epistle ever x His Capitulis à Cyrillo explanatis devotè in ejus communionem concurrit Vig Const nu 193. post explanationem 12. Capitulorum Ibas professus est se habuisse Cyrillum
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
professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth f Papista deducitur à Papa qualis fuit Petrus Christus ipse ibid. it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure g Demand ◠him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme and infallible and so build their faith on him as on the foundation thereof which their owne Church never did till the time of Leo the tenth It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah but the Lion of that Laterane Synod who is the first God father of that name unto them when hee had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation were fitly christened with this name of Papists to distinguish them and their present Romane Church from all others who held the old good and sure foundation 26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines The errours maintained by all those three sorts of which I have spoken are almost the same and materially they are Popish heresies and yet the first sort did onely erre therein but were not heretikes because not pertinacious The second doe not onely erre but by adding pertinacy to errour are truly heretikes but yet not Papists because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner and on another foundation then Papists doe The third and last sort which containeth all and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church doe both erre and are heretikes and which is the worst degree of heresie are Papists that is Antichristian heretikes not onely holding and that in the highest degree of pertinacy those heresies which are contrary to the faith but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appeare which before h Sup. nu 19. I proposed that none who hold the Popes infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation that is none of the present Romane Church either doth or can beleeve any one doctrine of faith which they professe For seeing the beleefe of all other points relyes upō this so that they beleeve thē because they first beleeve this it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher i Arist lib. 1. demon ca. 2. Propter quod unumquodque illud magis that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this which is the foundation than they doe or can beleeve any other doctrine I say not Transubstantiation or Purgatory but more thā that Article of their Creed that Christ is God or that there is a God or any the like which is builded upon this foundatiō And seeing we have cleerly demonstrated that foundation to bee not onely untrue but hereticall and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith it being no true object of faith it doth evidently hence ensue that they neither doe nor can beleeve any one doctrine position or point of faith Impossible it is that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof or the conclusion more certaine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent and make us certaine of the conclusion That one fundamentall uncertainty contrariety to the faith which is vertually in all the rest breeds the like uncertainty and contrariety to faith in them all and like a Radicall poyson spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion infecting every arme branch and twigge of their doctrine and faith whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine and those are not a few those they neither doe nor can beleeve because they are no objects of faith whatsoever truths they maintaine and no doubt they doe many those they thinke they doe and they might doe but indeed they doe not beleeve because they hold them for that reason and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith and which overthroweth the faith For to hold or professe that Christ is God or that there is a God eo nomine because the Devill or Antichrist or a fallible man testifieth it unto us is not truly to beleeve but to overthrow the faith 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius If because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith they doe therefore beleeve it then must they beleeve Nestorianisme to be the truth and Christ not to bee God because Pope Vigilius by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence hath decreed this in decreeing that the three Chapters are to be defēded If they beleeve not this then can they beleeve nothing at all eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and then the foundation of their faith being abolished their whole faith together with it must needs be abolished also Againe if because the Pope defineth a doctrine they doe therefore beleeve it then seeing Pope Caelestine with the Ephesine and Pope Leo with the Chalcedon Councell decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie they by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infallibility must at one and the same time beleeve both Nestorianisme to be truth as Pope Vigilius defined and Nestorianisme to be heresie as Pope Caelestine and Leo defined and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true yea to bee truths of the Catholike faith which to beleeve is impossible or else they must beleeve that it is impossible to beleeve either the one or the other eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that which is the foundation of their whole faith Neither is this true onely in other points but even in this very foundation it selfe for the fift Councell which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters to be hereticall was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true because the Pope hath defined it then must they beleeve the Popes Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and so beleeve that upon this fallible and hereticall foundation they can build no doctrine of faith nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith So if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible then for this cause can they have no faith nor beleeve ought with certainty of faith seeing all
relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we hold their foundation being not onely uncertaine but hereticall and Antichristian poysoneth all which they build thereon it being vertually in them all makes them all like it selfe uncertaine hereticall and Antichristian and so those very doctrines which in themselves are most certaine and orthodoxall by the uncertainty of that ground upon which and for which they are beleeved are overthrowne with us and all Catholikes it fals out otherwise Though such happen to erre in some one or moe doctrines of faith say in Transubstantiation Purgatory or as Cyprian did in Rebaptization yet seeing they hold those errors because they thinke them to be taught in the Scriptures and Word of God on which alone their faith relyeth most firmely and undoubtedly beleeving whatsoever is taught therein among which things are the contrary doctrines to Transubstantiatiō Purgatory Rebaptization such I say even while they doe thus erre in their Explicite profession doe truly though implicitè by consequent and in radice or fundamento beleeve and that most firmely the quite contrary to those errours which they doe outwardly professe and think they doe but indeed doe not beleeve The vertue and strength of that fundamentall truth which they indeed and truly beleeve overcommeth all their errours which in very deed they doe not though they thinke they doe beleeve whereas in very truth they beleeve the quite contrary And this golden foundation in Christ which such men though erring in some points doe constantly hold shall more prevaile to their salvation than the Hay and Stubble of those errours which ignorantly but not pertinaciously they build thereon can prevaile to their destruction and therefore if such a man happen to die without explicite notice and repentance of those errours in particular as the saying of Saint Austen k Lib. 1. de baptism ca. 18. that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecillity the same by his glorious Martyrdome was washed away perswades mee that Cyprian did and as of Irene Nepos Iustine Martyr and others who held the errour of the Chiliasts I thinke none makes doubt it is not to be doubted but the abundance of this mans faith and love unto Christ to whom in the foundation hee most firmely adhereth shall worke the like effect in him as did the blood of martyrdome in Saint Cypran For the baptisme of martyrdome washeth away sinne not because it is a washing in blood but because it testifieth the inward washing of his heart by faith and by the purging Spirit of God This inward washing in whomsoever it is found and found it is in all who truly beleeve though in some point of faith they erre it is as forcible and effectuall to save Valentinian l Ablutus ascendit quē sua fides lavit Amb. Orat. de obitu Valent. neither baptized with water nor with blood and Nepos m Qui jam ad quietem processit ait Dionys apud Euseb l. 1. ca. 23. baptized with water but not with blood as to save Cyprian baptized both with water and with blood Such a comfort and happinesse it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith 30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them Though they explicitè professe Christ to be God which is a most orthodoxall truth yet because they hold this as all other points upon that foundation of the Popes infallible judgement in causes of faith and in that foundation this is denyed Pope Vigilius by his Cathedrall Constitution defining Nestorianisme to be truth and so Christ not to be God it must needs be confessed that even while they doe explicitè professe Christ to bee God they doe implicitè in radice and in fundamento deny Christ to be God and because by the Philosophers rule they doe more firmely beleeve that foundation than they doe or can beleeve any doctrine depending thereon it must needs ensue hence that they doe and must by their doctrine more firmely beleeve the Negative that Christ is not God which in the foundation is decreed then they doe or can beleeve the Affirmative that Christ is God which upon that foundation is builded The truth which upon that foundation they doe explicitè professe cannot possibly be so strong to salvation as the errour of the foundation upon which they build it will be to destruction For the fundamentall errour is never amended by any truth superedified and laid thereon no more than the rotten foundation of an house is made sound by laying upon it rafters of gold or silver but all the truths that are superedified are ruinated by that fundamentall errour and uncertainty on which they all relye even as the beames and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottennesse and unsoundnesse which resteth in the foundation Or if they say that both the assertions which are directly contradictory are from that foundation deduced Caelestine and Leo decreeing the one that Christ is God as Vigilius decreed the other that Christ is not God then doth it inevitably follow that they can truly beleeve neither the one nor the other seeing by beleeving that foundation they must equally beleeve them both which is impossible Such an unhappy and wretched thing it is to hold that erroneous hereticall and Antichristian foundation of faith 31. My conclusion of this point is this Seeing we have first declared that all who are members of the present Romane Church doe hold the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith yea hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines faith and religion doth relye and seeing wee have next demonstrated this to be a fundamentall heresie and not onely an hereticall but an Antichristian foundation condemned by Scriptures by generall Councels by ancient Fathers and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church that now hence followeth which I proposed n Sup. nu 6. to prove that none is or can bee a member of their present Church but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretike by Scriptures generall Councels Fathers and by the uniforme consent of the Catholike Church An heretike first in the very foundation of his faith which
Augustine Saint Ierome Saint Ambrose Saint Leo Papius Theophilact Tertullian Eusebius Prudentius and others most excellent Divines And I take God and the whole Court of heaven to witnesse before whom I must render an account of this protestation that the same faith and religion which I defend is taught and confirmed by those Hebrew and Greeke Scriptures those Historians Popes Decrees Scholies and Expositions Councells Schooles and Fathers and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same Thus he 11. Did ever mortall man read or heare of such a braggadochio For learning and languages Ierome is but a baby to him more industrious and adamantine then Origen then Adamantius himselfe A shop a storehouse of all knowledge his head a Library of all Fathers Councels Decrees of all writings an Heluo nay a very hell of books he devoures up all Rabsecha Thraso Pyrgopolinices Therapontigonus all ye Magnificoes Gloriosoes come sit at his feet and learne of him the exact forme of vaunting and reviling What silly men were Eutiches Nestorius and the old heretikes they boasted but of one or two Councells All Councells all Fathers all Decrees all bookes writings and records are witnesses of his faith They sayd it he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven that all Scriptures Councels Fathers all witnesses in heaven earth and hell yea the Devill and all are his and confirme their Romane faith and condemne the doctrine of Protestants Alas what shall we doe but even hide our selves in caves of the earth and clifts of the rocks from the force and fury of this Goliah who thus braves it out in the open field as who with the onely breath of his mouth can blow away whole legions quasi ventus folia aut pannicula tectoria 12. But let no mans heart faint because of this proud anonymall Philistim Thy servant O Lord though the meanest in the host of Israel will fight with him nor will I desire any other weapons but this one pible stone of the judiciall sentence of the fift generall Councell against Vigilius This being taken out of Davids bagge that is derived from Scriptures consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding Catholike Councells and Fathers directly and unavoydably hits him in the forehead it gives a mortall and uncurable wound unto him for it demonstrates not onely the foundation of their faith to be hereticall and for such to bee condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church but all their doctrines whatsoever they teach because they all relye on this foundation of the Popes infallibility are not onely unsound and in the root hereticall but even Antichristian also such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholike faith This being one part of the Philistimes weapons wherein he trusted and vanted with his owne sword is his head the head and foundation of all their faith cut off so that of him and the whole body of their Church it may be truly said Iacet ingens littore truncus Avulsumque humeris caput sine nomine corpus 13. You see now how both ancient and moderne heretikes boast of Councells and therefore that the reason of Baronius is most inconsequent that Vigilius was no heretike because hee professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon Nay I say more though one professe to hold the whole Scripture yet if with pertinacy hee hold any one doctrine repugnant thereunto the profession of the Scriptures themselves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretike If it could then not any of the old heretikes would want this pretence or to omit them seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to beleeve the Scriptures and whatsoever is taught therein would this profession exempt one from heresie neither they nor wee should be or be called heretikes But seeing in truth they are and wee in their Antichristian language are called heretikes as Cyrill and the orthodoxall beleevers in his time were by the Nestorians it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures much lesse to hold one or two Councells as Vigilius did cannot free one from being an heretike 14. You will perhaps say can one then beleeve the whole Scripture and be an heretike or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon and be an Arian Eutychean or Nestorian heretike No verily for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresie seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l Lib. 2. de doct Christ ca. 9. all doctrines concerning faith are set downe and that also perspicuously therein so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ But it is one thing to professe the scriptures or those three Councells and say that he beleeves them which many heretikes may doe and another thing to beleeve them indeed which none can doe and be an heretike for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures cannot possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scriptures but such a man upon evident declaration that this is taught in them though before he held the contrary presently submits his wit and will to the truth which out of them is manifested unto him If this he do not he manifestly declareth that he holds his error with pertinacy and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures and so hee is certainly an heretike notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures which he falsly said he beleeved and held when in very truth he held and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them The very like must be said of those three Councells and them who either truly beleeve or falsly say that they beleeve the faith explained in them or any one of them 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent the former that all heretikes are lyars in their profession not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue and hereticall but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not but hold and that for a point of their faith the quite contrary All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scriptures and the doctrines therein contained and yet every one of them lye herein for they beleeve one if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed but they lyed in making this profession for they beleeved not one person but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell but they lyed in this profession for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ but one onely The Church
of Rome and members thereof professe to hold the faith of the fift generall Councell and so professe implicitè the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and hereticall but they lye in making this profession for they beleeve not the Popes sentence in such causes to be fallible but with the Laterane and Trent Councels they hold it to be infallible It is the practice of all heretikes to make such faire though lying professions For should they say in plaine termes that which is truth indeed wee beleeve not the scriptures nor the Councells of Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon every man would spit at them and detest them cane pejus angue nor could they ever deceive any or gaine one proselyte But when they commend their faith that is their heresie to be the same doctrine with the scriptures which the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon taught by these faire pretences and this lying profession they insinuate themselves into the hearts of the simple deceiving hereby both themselves and others 16. The other consequent is this That the profession of all heretikes is contradictory to it selfe For they professe to hold the scriptures and so to condemne every heresie and yet withal they professe one private doctrine repugnant to scripture and which is an heresie The like may be said of the Councells The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice professe Christ to bee but one person and yet withall by holding Nestorianisme they professe Christ to be two persons The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Councell of Ephesus professe two natures to remaine in Christ after the union which in that Councell is certainly decreed and yet by professing the heresie of Eutyches they professe the quite contradictory that one nature onely remaines after the union The Church of Rome and members thereof by professing the faith of the fift Councell professe the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and de facto to have beene hereticall and yet they professe the direct contradictory as the Councell of Laterane hath defined that the Popes sentence in such causes is infallible and neither hath beene nor can be hereticall So repugnant to it selfe and incoherent is the profession of all heretikes that it sighteth both with the truth and with it owne selfe also The very same is to be seene in Vigilius and his Constitution For in professing to defend the three Chapters and in decreeing that all shall defend them he professeth all the blasphemies of Nestorius and decreeth that all shall maintaine them and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon and decreeing that all shall hold it hee professeth that Nestorianisme is heresie and decreeth that all shall condemne it for heresie and so decreeing both these he decreeth that all men in the world shall beleeve two contradictories and beleeve them as Catholike Truths Such a worthy Apostolicall decree is this of Vigilius for defending whereof Baronius doth more then toyle himselfe 17. You will againe demand Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainely professe both these why shall not his expresse profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon make him or shew him to bee a Catholike rather then his other expresse profession to defend the Three Chapters make or shew him to bee an hereticke Why rather shall his hereticall then his orthodoxall profession give denomination unto him I also demand of you Seeing every hereticke in expresse words professeth to beleeve the whole Scripture which is in effect a condemning of every heresie why shall not this orthodoxall profession make or shew him to be a Catholike rather then his expresse profession of some one doctrine contrarie to Scripture say for example sake of Arianisme make or shew him to bee an Arian hereticke The reason of both is one and the same Did an Arian so professe to hold the Scriptures that hee were resolved to forsake his Arianisme and confesse Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this certainely his professiō of Arianisme with such a professiō to hold the Scriptures could not make him an hereticke no more then Cyprians profession of Rebaptization or Irenees of the millenarie heresie did make them heretikes Erre hee should as they did but being not pertinacious in error hereticke hee could not be as they were not But it falls out otherwise with all heretickes They professe to hold the Scripture yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintaine That they will hold and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrarie even of the Scriptures themselves They resolve of this that whosoever Bishops Councells or Church teach the contrarie to that or say judge that the Scripture so teacheth they all erre or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures Thus did not Cyprian nor Irenee And this wilfull and pertinacious resolution it is which evidently sheweth that in truth they beleeve not the Scriptures but beleeve their own fancies though they say a thousand times that they beleeve and embrace whatsoever the Scriptures teach for did they beleeve any doctrine say Arianisme eo nomine because the Scripture teacheth it they would presently beleeve the contrarie thereunto when it were manifested unto them as is was to the Arians by the Nicen Coūcell that the Scripture taught the contrarie to their error Seeing this they will not doe It is certaine that they hold their private opiniō eo nomine because they will hold it and they hold it to bee the doctrine of scripture not because it is so but because they will have it to bee so say what any will or can to the contrarie So their owne will and not Scripture is the reason why they beleeve it nay why they hold it with such a stiffe opinion for beleife it is not it cannot be This pertinacie to have beene in the Nestorians Eutycheans and the rest is evident Had they beleeved as they professed the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus then upon manifestation of their errors out of those Councels they would have renounced their heresies but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ notwithstanding that the whole Councell of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Councel held but one person and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union notwithstanding that the whole Councell at Chalcedon manifested unto them that the holy Ephesine Synod held two natures to abide in him after the union they did hereby make it evident unto all that they so professed to hold those Councels as that they resolved not to forsake their Nestorian and Eutichean heresies for any manifestation of the truth or conviction of their error out of those Councels and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said we hold those Councels and will have them to
holding this one fundamentall position they are pertinacious in all their errours and that in the highest degree of pertinacy which the wit of man can devise yea and pertinacious before all conviction and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them For by setting this downe they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth though it should be manifested unto them that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves that they never will be convicted nor ever have the truth manifested unto them The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them that the doctrines which they maintaine are heresies were first to perswade the Pope who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall to make a contrary decree that they are hereticall Now although this may be morally judged to be a matter of impossibilitie yet if his Holinesse could be induced hereunto and would so farre stoope to Gods truth as to make such a decree even this also could not perswade them so long as they hold that foundation They would say either the Pope were not the true Pope or that he defined it not as Pope and ex Cathedra or that by consenting to such an hereticall decree hee ceased ipso facto to be Pope or the like some one or other evasion they would have still but grant the Popes sentence to be fallible or hereticall whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith yea as the foundation of their faith they would not Such and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed and that essentially to that one Position that so long as one holds it and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him or convert him to the truth 21. You doe now clearely see how feeble and inconsequent that Collection is which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith therein explaned Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes both ancient and moderne Quit him for this cause and quit them all condemne them and then this preteÌ„ce can no way excuse Vigilius froÌ„ heresie They all with him professe with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures of Fathers of generall Councels but because their profession is not onely lying and contradictorie to it selfe but alwayes such as that they retaine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace as Vigilius had not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures Fathers and Councels cannot make any of them nor Vigilius among them to be esteemed orthodoxall or Catholike but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine which they with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures or holy generall Councels as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters doth truly demonstrate them all and Vigilius among them to be heretikes And this may suffice for answer to the second exception or evasion of Baronius CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three or foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters It appeareth saith hee a An. 554. nu 7. that Vigilius to the end he might take away the schisme and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie Againe b An. 553. nu 235. when Vigilius saw that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West unlesse he consented to the fift Synod eam probavit he approved it Again c Ibid. nu 236. Pelagius thought it sit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again d An. 556. nu 1. Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine e Lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 5. § Coacta Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith f Not in Conc. 5. § Praestitit A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth g Bar. an 546. nu 8. yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth h An. 555. nu 1. in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth i In Chron. an 17. post Coss Basil in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first k Ipso exordio asserâ—ae ab Imperatore sententiae Bar. an 546 nu 38. et 39. publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and
that curse of the generall Councel The second that both Facundus Baronius do quite mistake the matter in carping at the Emperour as if by his Edict or in condemning those Three Chapters he had taught or published some new doctrine of faith he did not He taught and commanded all others to embrace that true ancient and Apostolicall faith which was decreed and explaned at Chalcedon as both the whole fift Councell witnesseth which sheweth that all those Chapters were implicitè but yet truly and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chalcedon and Pope Gregorie also testifieth the same saying of this fift Councell that it was in omnibus sequax in every point a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon This the religious Emperour wisely discerning did by his imperiall edict and authoritie as Constantine and Theodosius had done before him ratifie that old and Catholike faith which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time The third speciall point which I observe is that which Baronius noteth as the cause why Pope Vigil was so eager against the Emperor and his edict And what thinke you was it Forsooth because Iustinian primus m An. 553. nu 237. legem sancivit was the first who made a law and published a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters Had the Pope first done this and Iustinian seconded his holinesse therein hee had beene another Constantine a second Theodosius the dearest child of the Church But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope or make any lawes concerning the faith before they consult with the Romane Apollo or make him acquainted therewith that 's n Vel si rectum fuisset recte non fieret quia nulli Regum hinc aliquid agere sed solis est sacerdotibus datum Facund Bar. an 547. nu 35. Imperator est fidem coram sacerdotibus profiteri non eandem praescribere sacerdotibus Bar. ibid. piaculum a capitall a◠irremissible sinne the Pope may not endure it So then is was neither zeale not pietie nor love to the truth but meere stomacke and pride in Vigilius to oppose himselfe to the Emperours edict and make an insurrection against him A sory reason God wot for any wise man in the world much more for the Pope to contradict the truth and oppugne the Catholike faith Now if Iustinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and pietie tending wholy to the good and peace of the Church if hee could not escape so undutifull usage at the Pope his orators in those better times religious Kings may not thinke it strange to finde the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these dayes and their instruments men so exact and eloquent in reviling that in all such base and uncivill usage they goe as farre beyond Facundus Tertullus and them of former ages as drosse or the most abject mettle is inferiour to refined gold This is the first Period and first judgement of Vigilius touching this cause of the three Chapters in defence of which and oppugning of the Emperours edict hee continued more then a yeare after the publishing of the Edict even all that time while hee remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperour 6. As soone almost as Vigilius was come to Constantinople and had saluted the Emperor and conferred with them who stood for the Edict he was quite another man he changed cum caelo animum the aire of the Emperors Court altered the Popes judgement and this was about a yeare after o Edictū editū fuit anno 546. Bar. eo anno nu 8. Constantinopolin ingressus est an 547. propediē Natalis Domini Bar. an illo nu 26. the publishing of the Edict Now that all things might be done with more solemnitie and advise there was a Synod p Bar. an eod nu 31. 32. held shortly after his comming at Constantinople wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters and consented to the Emperors Edict This Facundus expresly witnesseth saying q Ibid. nu 37. How shall not this bee a prejudice to the cause if it bee demonstrated that Pope Vigilius with thirty Bishops or therabouts have condemned the Epistle of Ibas approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and anathematized that Bishop Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the praises whereof are set downe in that Councell Thus Facundus Besides all this Vigilius was now so forward in this cause that as before he had written bookes against the Edict in defence of the three Chapters and excommunicated those who condemned those Chapters so now on the Emperors side he writ bookes and gave judgement for the condemning of those Chapters and excommunicated some by name Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons because they would not condemne them None can deny saith Baronius d An. 547. nu 40. that Vigilius writ a booke against the three chapters and sent it unto Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Again there e Ibid. is certaine proofe latae ab eo sententiae of the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Vigilius against Rusticus Sebastianus and other defenders of those chapters and this is so cleare ut nulla dubitatio esse possit that there can be no doubt at all but that Vigilius approved by a Constitution the Emperors sentence and condemned the three Chapters So Baronius The Epistles of Vigilius doe testifie the same In that f Extat in Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578. to Rusticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention Iudicati nostri Constituti nostri of our judgement of our constitution against the three chapters concerning which he addeth g Ibid. pa. 580. that it was ratified by his Apostolicall authority saying that no man may doe contra constitutum nostrum quod ex beati Petri authoritate proferimus against this our Constitution which we set forth by the authority of Saint Peter The like hee testifieth in his Epistle h Ibid. to Valentinianus We beleeve saith he that those things may suffice the children of the Church which we writ to Mennas concerning the blasphemies of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and his person concerning the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith Thus Vigilius consenting now with the Emperor defending his Imperiall Edict and condemning the three Chapters in all which his profession was Catholike and orthodoxall 7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution become orthodoxall though as it seemeth he remained in heart hereticall hee fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters that they i Bar. an 547. nu 49. did proclamare proclame him to be a colluder a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith one who to please the Emperour revolted from his former judgement yea the Africane k In Chron. an 10. post Coss Basilij Bishops proceeded so farre against him that as Victor
Bishop of Tunen testifieth Synodaliter eum à catholica communione recludunt they in a Synod and synodally excommunicated him or shut him from the Catholike communion A thing worthy observing being done by those whom the Cardinall professeth l An. 547. nu 30. 39. to have beene Catholikes at that time But let that passe Baronius to excuse m Ad haec omnia excusanda illud satis superque est Bar. ibi nu 49. Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator and to shew that hoe was not in heart affected with the truth which in his Constitution he declared tells us a rare policy of the Pope which for this time we omit but hereafter will examine the truth and validity thereof and this it was Mox n An. eodem nu 41. presently after Vigilius had made that Apostolicall decree for condemning the three Chapters he revoked the same touched be like with remorse for so hainous a crime as to professe the Catholike faith and he suspended it and his owne judgement in that cause till the time of a generall Councell decreeing o Rursus a Vigilio promulgatum decretum est quo decernebatur ut de controversia de tribus Capitulis penitus taceretur ibid. that untill that time all men should be whisht and silent in this cause of faith they must neither say that the Three Chapters were to bee defended nor condemned they must neither speake one word for the truth nor against the truth they must all during that time be like himselfe lukewarme Laodiceans neither hot nor cold neither fish nor flesh This was the great wisedome and policy of the Pope as Baronius at large declares and makes no small boast thereof adding p Ab hoc anno 547 ad tempus Concilij indictum fuit autem an 553 fuit inea causa silentium ibid. nu 43. that the Pope remained in this mood till the time of the general Councel Thus you see the second judgmeÌ„t of Pope Vigilius in this cause and his cariage during the second period for a fit which perhaps lasted a weeke or a month hee was in outward profession orthodoxall but being weary of such an ague hee presently becomes a meere neutralist in the faith and in this sort hee continued till the assembling of the generall Councell that is for the space of six yeares and more 8. The third period begins at the time of the fift generall Councell Of what judgement the Pope then was it hath before q Sup. ca. 3. nu 4. seq beene sufficiently declared Then Vigilius turned to his old byas hee condemned the Emperours Edict and all that with it condemned the three Chapters he defends those three hereticall chapters and that after a most authenticall manner publishing a Synodall a Cathedrall and Apostolicall constitution in defence of the same And whereas not only others but himselfe also had written and some sixe yeares before made a Constitution to condemne those Chapters Now after long and diligent ponderation of the cause when hee had examined all matters cum omni undique cautela with all warinesse and circumspection that could possible be used he quite casheires repeales and for ever adnuls r Si quid de â—isdem capitulis contra haec quae hic asseruimus nel statuimus factum dictum atque conscriptum est vel fuerit hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus Const Vigil in fine that former Constitution and whatsoever either himselfe or any other either had before written or should after that time write contrary to this present Decree And this no doubt was the reason why Baronius never so much as once endeavors to excuse Vigilius by that former decree or to prove him to have beene orthodoxall by it seeing by this later the whole force and vertue of that former is utterly made void frustrate and of no effect in the world In this judgement Vigilius was so resolute that hee was ready to endure any disgrace and punishment rather then consent to the condemning of the three Chapters and if wee may beleeve Baronius or Binius he did for this very cause endure banishment It is manifest saith Binius Å¿ Not. in Conc. 5. §. Praestitit that after the end of the fift Councell Iustinian did cast into banishment both Vigilius and other orthodoxall Bishops so hee termeth convicted and condemned heretikes because they would not consent to the decrees of the Synod and condemning of the three Chapters In like sort Baronius t An. 553. nu 222. Liquet ex Anastasio it is manifest by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who held with him were caried into banishment Againe u Ibid. nu 251. Others thought they had a just quarrell in defending the three Chapters when they saw Vigilius even in banishment to maintaine the same and they thought se pro sacrosanctis pugnare legibus that they fought for the holy faith when they saw Pope Vigilius himselfe for the same cause constanti animo exilium ferre to endure banishment with a constant minde Againe x An. 554. nu 6. Horum solum causae for this cause onely was Vigilius driven into banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So Baronius who often calleth this exiling of Vigilius and others who defended those Chapters persecution y Illi tantum immunes à persecutione erant c. an 553. nu 222. yea an heavy z Quod monstrosus accessit ab Imperatore persecutio excitata est baud quidem levis ibid. nu 221. and monstrous persecution complaining that the Church under Iustinian and from him endured more hard conditions and was in worse case then under the Heathen Emperors 9. Now this demonstrates that which before I touched that though the Pope upon his comming to Constantinople made a decree for condemning the Three Chapters yet still hee was in heart an affectionate lover of Nestorianisme and a defender of those Chapters seeing for his love to them and defence of them he is ready not onely to bee bound but to goe and dye in banishment for his zeale unto them For had he sincerely embraced the truth as in his former Constitution he professed why doth he now at the time of the fift Councell disclame the same Of all times this was the fittest to stand constanly to the faith seeing now both the glory of God the good and peace of the Church the authority of the Emperor the exaÌ„ple of orthodoxall Bishops and the whole Councell invited urged and provoked him to this holy duty What was there or could there be to move him at this time to defend the 3. Chapters save only his ardent and inward love to Nestorianisme Indeed had he continued in defence of those Chapters untill this time and now relented or changed his judgement it would have bin vehemeÌ„tly suspected that not the hatred of those chapters or of Nestorianisme but either the
this one cause touching the Three Chapters and this fift Councell besides many the like demonstratively to be proved untrue and false I speake it confidently and within compasse in six hundreth sayings at the least yet that they may not say wee decline the force of this so pregnant an exception we will for a little while admit and suppose it to bee true and try whether by this being yeelded unto them there can accrew any advantage to their cause or any help to excuse either Vigilius himselfe or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters from being hereticall 13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fift Councell and approved the Catholike faith Be it so we deny not but that Vigilius or any other of their Popes may decree and have decreed a truth that 's not the doubt betwixt us and them The question is whether any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedrall authoritie and teaching as Popes decreed an heresie or untruth That Pope Vigilius did so his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters is an eternall witnes against them a monument aere perennius Had Baronius said that Vigilius never decreed the defending of those Chapters he had fully cleared him in this matter if he could have proved what he had said But seeing undeniable records testifie and the Cardinall himselfe with a Stentors voice proclameth this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius though hee had revoked and repealed it a thousand times yet can not this quit his former Apostolicall Decree from being hereticall nor excuse their pontificall chaire from being fallible It is nothing at all materiall which of the Popes Cathedrall Decrees the first last or middle bee hereticall If any one of them all bee wee desire no more the field is wonne 14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolicall decree confirmed the fift Councell Then did hee certainely decree that all writings defending the Three Chapters doe defend heresie and that all persons who defend those Chapters for so long time as they defend them after the judgement of that Councell are convicted and condemned hereticks Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius set forth by his Apostolicall authoritie in the time of the Councell in defence of those Chapters is now by Popes Vigilius himselfe and by his Apostolicall authority and infallible Chaire declared to bee hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for that yeare after the Councell is now by Vigilius himselfe pronounced to bee an Hereticke yea a definer of heresie Vigilius now orthodoxal decreeth himselfe to have been before heretical Nay it further followeth that by confirming that Councell hee confirmeth and that by an Apostolicall and infallible Decree that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith to bee infallible are convicted and accursed heretickes for by defending that position they do eo ipso defend that ConstitutioÌ„ of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to bee true infallible and orthodoxall which Vigilius himselfe by an infallible decree hath declared to bee erroneous and hereticall So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause that upon the admission thereof it doth inevitably ensue both that Vigilius was an hereticke and a definer of heresie and that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibitie in causes of faith that is al who are members of their present Romane Church to bee not onely heretickes and for such condemned and accursed but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresie even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius 15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might bee excused being now fully dissolved There remaineth one point which Baronius and after him Binius observeth touching this often changing of Vigilius which being a point of speciall note I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should over-passe the same Some men when they heare of these often changings windings and turnings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresie will perhaps imagine this to bee a token of some levitie unconstancie or folly in the Pope O fie It was not so saith o Cum saepe sententia mutavit haud arguendus est levitatis an 553. nu 235. Baronius What hee did was not onely lawfull p Cur ei noÌ„lleuit mutato rerum statu mutare seÌ„tentiam ibid. nu 231 jure meritoque mutavit sententiam Bin. § Cum igitur done by good right and reason but it was laudable also done with great q Vigilius magna consideratione adhibita atque prudentiâ diverso modo pugnabat an â—4â— nu â—0 advise wisedome and consideration Vigilius a man of r Summa constaÌ„tiae specimen edidit ibid. nu 49. greatest constancie One who stood Å¿ An. 551. nu 5. up with courage for defence of the Church adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem against Iustinian a violent oppressor thereof one t An. 553. nu 251. who fought for the sacred lawes enduring exile constanti animo with a constant minde for the same One who did by this meanes wisely u An. 547. nu 41. yea prudentissimè most wisely provide for the good of the Church One who in thus doing did wisely x PrudeÌ„s piuâ— pontifex hac in re prudenter est imitatus S. Paulum Bin. in Edict nu 11. to 2. pa. 499. §. Cum Bar. an 553. nu 235. imitate Saint Paul who condemned circumcision and yet when hee circumcised Timothie approved circumcision And though there bee a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions the one change being in a mutable at that time an indifferent ceremonie the other being in an immutable doctrine of faith Yet thus do they please themselves and applaud the Pope in these his wise and worthy changes 16. Now in stead of a better conclusion to this Chapter I will entreate the reader to observe with me two things touching their commending Vigilius in this manner The former is what an happie thing it is to be a Pope or have a Cardinall for his spokesman Let Luther Cranmer or a Protestant make farre lesse change theÌ„ did Vigilius what shall they not heare An Apostate unconstant inconsiderate a Chamelion a Polipus another Proteus even Vertumnus himselfe Let the Pope say and gainesay the same doctrine of faith and then ex Cathedra define both his sayings being contradictorie to bee not onely true but infallible truths of the Catholike faith O It is all done with rare wisdome with great reason and consideration The Pope in all this deales wisely and that in the superlative degree If when he is absent from the Emperor he oppugne the truth published by the Emperors edict It is wisely done Kings and Emperors may not make Lawes in causes of faith no not for the faith The Cobler must not goe beyond his latcher If when hee is brought before the Emperor he sing
Councell that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian In that Councell n Conc. 6. Act. 3. a sermon or speech going under the name of Mennas to Vigilius was produced as a part of the Acts of the fift Councell the Legates of Pope Agatho cryed out before the Emperor and the whole Councell that it was a forgery which they proved o Eo argumento manifestissimè comprobarunt quod Mennas sex annis ante quintam Synodum sub Vigilio celebratam ex hac vitâ migrasset Bin. not in Conc. 6. in Act. 3. and that most manifestly because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian but the fift Synod was congregated in the 26 yeare which ended on the first of Aprill though the first Session of the Synod was not held till the May next after which was in the 27 yeare of Iustinian Thus testified the Popes owne Legates and the Emperour with the whole Synod upon their evidence rejected their writing for a forgerie 19. Said I not truly unto you that the Baronian narration was a peece of rare Poetry might not a meane Poet make an excellent Tragedy of it were it not a fine Pageant to see the Pope and so many Bishops sit in Vtopia and there make a law for Taciturnity the Emperour the Senate and people consenting unto it would it not bee another and farre more delightfull Act to see the Pope and Emperour quarrelling about this law the one beating buffeting and persecuting the other fleeing both by Sea and land from Placidiana to Saint Peter from him to Euphemia from Constantinople to Chalcedon what a sport were it to see the Romane Apollo ascend into his Delphian throne and thence as from Olympus cast his fierie darts his thunders and lightnings against that Typhoëan generation which durst speake when he enjoyned silence Now the embassage which the Emperour sent to Chalcedon to intreat his Holinesse to returne the magnanimity of the Pope in refusing to come from the Altar the Emperours yeelding to all that he prescribed this of it selfe would incourage a Poet and cause him to presume of an applause But the most rare Pageant of all would bee to see and heare Mennas foure yeares after he was dead and rotten to speake and dispute against the Decree of Silence the Silentes umbrae to declame against Silence to see him a Bishop a Patriarch at the voyce of the Popes sentence Audisne haec Amphiarai sub terram abditae to come ab inferis to come with a Bill of supplication in his hand with a song of Miserere in his mouth to the Romane Iove and intreat pardon for his talking so much in the grave and among the infernall ghosts against the Popes Decree of Silence after all this to see the Pope shake hands with him and all his Metropolitanes and Micropolitanes p Tu cum omnibus Metropolitanis et Micropolitanis Episcopis Vigil sententia apud Bar. an 551. nu 12. note the eloquence of the Pope and so after a most joyfull reconcilement to see the holy Reliques caried in a golden Chariot an excellent dumbe shew about the City and that by a dead man Can you doe lesse than give the Poet Baronius a Plaudite for his so rare invention or contriving of this Fable 20. Why but is it credible that Cardinall Baronius the great Annalist of our age hee who bestowed thirty q Hoc opus ante annos circiter 30 aggressus sum Bar. in praefat dedic ante tom 1. Annalium yeares in the study of these Ecclesiasticall affaires that hee should so foully be overseene in a computation so easie and so obvious as to thinke Mennas to bee excommunicated to come with a supplication to the Pope and to ride in a triumphant Chariot with those holy reliques foure or five yeares after he was dead and rotten Overseene nothing lesse It was no ignorance no oversight in him he knew all this matter ad unguem hee knew that Mennas was dead long before that submission and triumph But the Cardinall was disposed either to recreate the reader with the contemplation of this his Poetical fiction or else for to shew you that with the charme of those forgeries and counterfeit writings with which he hath stuffed his Annals hee is able to metamorphoze all other men into very blocks and beetles that they shall applaud his most absurd dotages as undoubted and historicall truths which that every man may perceive it must be observed that though in this place where the cause betwixt Vigilius and the Emperor is debated the Cardinall is content that you should thinke Mennas to have been alive in the 26. r Hoc anno 26. Iustiniani finem vivendi fecit Mennas Bar. an 552. nu 21. year of Iustinian that is five years after he was dead for otherwise all his narration even the whole play had been spoiled there had neither beene any Decree of Silence nor any persecution by Iustinian nor any flight of Vigilius nor any excommunication of Mennas or Theodorus nor any submission of them and of the Emperour also to the Pope the Pope had not beene knowne to bee so farre above Bishops Patriarks and Emperours that they must all stoope to him and laying their necks at his feet say unto him Calcate me salem insipidum punish me as you please for speaking without your Holinesse leave and licence yea that Kings must pull downe abrogate and adnull their imperiall Edicts if the Pope doe but becke unto them though for these considerations hee is here willing that you beleeve that untruth concerning Mennas for all these depend on that one sentence of Anathema against Mennas yet when this matter is over-past when the Cardinall comes to a new argument where hee hopes this which is said about the cause of Vigilius wil be forgotten there he confesseth the truth indeed concerning Mennas and tels you a quite contrary tale For intreating of the Acts of the sixt Councel particularly of that reason of the Popes Legates against the forged Epistle in Mennas name he thus ſ Bar. an 680. nu 46. saith Ejusque rei certum illud attulerunt argumentum quod Mennas diem obijt anno 21 Iustiniani Imperatoris The Legates give a certaine proofe that the writing was forged because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian the Emperour Loe the Cardinall knew and professeth it to bee not onely true but certaine that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian and yet against his owne certain knowledge for maintaining this fictitious Decree of Silence and the fables thereon depending he perswades you to beleeve that Mennas dealt against this Decree was excommunicated by Vigilius and submitted himselfe to the Pope and rode with the relikes five yeares after he was dead 21. Truly this was scarse faire and honest dealing in the Cardinall by untruths to strive to bolster out forged Acts and writing But the Cardinals Annals are so full of such like stuffe
that if you divide them into foure parts I doe constantly affirme there is no more truth in three of those foure than you have seene to bee in this fable which from a most base forgery knowne also to the Cardinall for such hee hath commended for a grave and authentike history unto us And I should grow somewhat out of patience to see the Cardinall so grosly contradict both the truth and his owne writings also but that by my long and serious tossing of his bookes I perceive this is so familiar a tricke with him that for the usuall meeting of it I have long since forgotten to be angry with him for such pettie faults This I hope which hath beene declared will serve for a caveat unto all to take heed how they credit any matter whatsoever upon the Cardinals relation either it is in it selfe untrue or it springs from some untruth or by his purpose in relating it it is made to serve but for a pully to draw you into some untruth aut aliquis latet dolus either in the header taile there is a sting beleeve him not And I would also have added somewhat for Binius who in this t Bin. Not. in Vigilij sententiam contra Theodorum tom ◠Conc. pa. 504. as in other fancies and fables applauds Baronius but I suppose that as hee sucketh his errours from Baronius so hee will thinke that the refuting of Baronius is a sufficient warning for him to purge his Edition of the Councels from such vile and shamelesse untruths Thus much of that former point which concernes the second Period in Vigilius changings CAP. XVII That Vigilius neither by his Pontificall Decree nor so much as by a personall profession consented to or confirmed the fift Councell after the end thereof or after his supposed exile 1. THE other point proposed concernes that fourth and last change of Vigilius judgement whereby as Baronius a Cum vero Vigilius graviori damno universum Orientem ab Ecclesia Rom. divisum cerneret nisi Synodo quintae consentiret eam probavit Bar. an 553 nu 235. tels us he by his Apostolicall Decree b Vigilius abrogato quod pro 3. Capitulis ediderat Constituto quinta Synodo adversanti eandem Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit Bar. 554. nu 7. Vigilius hanc Synodum quintam suo Decreto suaque authoritate Pontificia confirmavit Bin. not in Conc. 5. § Praestitit et Decretū Vigilij vocat Bar. an 553. nu 231. confirmed the fift Councell when about a yeare Quo anno 554. Vigilius praecibus Narsetis liberatur exilio Bar. an 554. nu 1. necesse est dicere id à Vigilio factum id est quintam Synodum comprobatam hoc tempore an 554. cum ab exili◠solutus est Bar. ibid. nu 4. Idem ait Bin. not in Conc. 5. § Praestitit after the end thereof he returned out of exile That such a change of Vigilius can no way helpe Baronius or his cause though it should be granted unto him we have before d Sup. ca. 15. declared but because al which we then said was onely spoken upon a supposall and admission of this Baronian change we will now more nearly examine the whole matter and try whether there was indeed any such Decree ever made by Vigilius and whether he did at any time after the end of the fift Councell change his judgement in such sort that he became a condemner of the Three Chapters and an approver of the fift Synod And truly I could wish so much good to Vigilius as that there might appeare some cleare and ancient records to testifie his renouncing of heresie and condemning of his owne hereticall and Cathedrall decree published in the time of the Councell for defence of the Three Chapters But the truth is more precious unto me than the love of Vigilius or any Pope whatsoever because it is the truth alone which causeth me to discusse this point I must needs confesse that I can finde nothing at all which can effectually induce mee to beleeve it but there are many and pregnant reasons which inforce me to thinke that Vigilius never made any such Decree or Change as Baronius fancieth but that this whole fourth Period and change of Vigilius so gloriously painted out by Baronius is nothing else but another fiction and peece of the Cardinals owne Poetry which without all warrant or ground from any ancient writer hee like a Spider onely out of his owne braine hath woven and devised 2. That Vigilius made no such Decree the reason which Bar. gives in this very case may declare he to prove that Vigilius made not this decree either during the time of the Synod or shortly after the end thereof hath these words e Bar. an 553. nu 223. If Vigilius had then assented by his letters utique literae illae Actis fuissent intextae verily those letters purchased with so great labour would have beene inserted among the Acts of the fift Synod and a great number of copies would have been taken thereof spred abroad and made knowne to all Churches as well in the East as West even as the Epistle of Leo was because by those letters validarentur quae à Synodo sancita those things which the fift Synod had decreed the Pope contradicting them and thereby they being invalid should now be made of force the Pope consenting to them Thus Baronius Doth not the same reason as effectually prove that he made no such decree at al or not a yeare after as that he made it not within one or two moneths after the end of the Synod with what labour at what price would not the Bishops of the fift Synod have purchased that decree how gladly would they have annexed it to their Acts as the Decree of Leo is to the acts at Chalcedon How many copies and extracts would they have taken of it and dispersed them every where both in the West and East to testifie the truth of their Synodall judgement and that the infallible Iudge had consented to their sentence and confirmed the same Or would they have done this within a month and not a yeare after the end of the Synod what odds to the point in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo f Ea est Epist Leonis 61. quae incipit Omnem fraternitatem whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five g Conc. Chalc. desijt 28. Oct. Coss Martiano aut 1. Novemb. ut patet ex ult Sess Epistola vero Leonis scripta est 21. Martij Coss Opilione ut patet ex sine Epist moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod it is altogether as effectuall to prove he writ it not at all nor
Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters not onely after the death of Vigilius but till the time of Pelagius the second makes evident If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof it was onely by some private or personall but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all this is the most that can be collected from them And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them yet can it no way helpe their cause or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible onely it would serve to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike or under the Anathema of the holy Councell For as they teach and teach it with ostentation as a matter of great wit and subtilty that the Pope may erre personally or in his owne person hold an heresie which onely hurts himselfe and not the Church but erre doctrinally or judicially define an heresie he cannot even so to pay them with their owne coine might it fall out at this time with Vigilius hee being wearied with long exile might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters and approve the Synod which may be called a personall truth or a personal profession in the Pope the benefit wherof was onely to redound to himselfe either to free him from the censure of the Synod or procure the Emperors favour goodwill that he might returne home to his See but that this professing supposing he made it was doctrinall or Cathedrall delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like neither Baronius nor any of all his favourers can ever prove Now were I sure that the Cardinall or his friends would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination But alas they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement As personall errors hurt them not so personall truths helpe them not Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall Doctrinall Apostolicall l Ante novissimuÌ„ Apostolicae sedâ—â— assensum Bar. an 546. nu 38. itidemque ejus successoribus licuit in ipsius Vigilij abire Decretum Bar. an 553. nu 231. Quintam Synodum Apostolica authoritate comprobavit an 554. nu 7. and Cathedrall or he will have none at all And therefore to demonstrate how farre Vigilius was froÌ„ decreeing this I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended not doubting to make it evident that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters and approve the fift Councell after the end of the fift Synod or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth 8. The Cardinalls reasons to prove this are three The first is taken from the testimonie of Evagrius m Bar. an 553. nu 223. who then lived Nicephorus Cedrenus Zonaras Photius and all Greeke writers Graeci n Bar. an 554. nu 4. omnes affirmant they all testifie Vigilius to have assented to this fift Councell and that by letters or by a booke whence the Cardinall collects that seeing he consented not either during the time of the Synod or shortly after for he was sent into banishment because he would not consent unto it necesse est affirmare o Ibid. id ab ipso factuÌ„ esse hoc tempore cum ab exilio solutus est liberque dimissus It must of necessitie be affirmed that he consented at that time when he was freed from exile and dismissed home to Rome Thus Baronius whom I will never beleeve to have been so simple and ignorant as that he knew not how lame defective and unsound this his necessarie collection was That his Necesse est is meerly inconsequent it is not so good as Contingens est That Vigilius consented by a booke or letters to the Synod is certaine none that I know makes doubt of it and that is all that Evagrius or any of his other witnesses affirme but neither Evagrius nor any one of them saith that Vigilius consented to the Synod after the end thereof or after he was sent into banishment this and this onely is it which wee deny and which Baronius undertakes to prove but when he comes to his proofe hee still and that most fraudulently omitteth this which is the principall nay the onely verbe in the sentence And to prove that Vigilius consented to the Synod in condemning the three Chapters what needed the Cardinall to cite all or any one of the Greeke writers The verâ— Acts of the fift Councell doe often and expresly testifie this q Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa 520. a. Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. Vigilius hath p often by writings without writing condemned and anathematized the Three Chapters In the very Synodall sentence q Collat. 8. pa. 584. a. it is said It hath happened that Vigilius living in this City hath beene present at those things which are noted concerning these Chapters tam sine scriptis quam in scriptis ea saepius condemnasse and to have condemned the same as well by writing as by word The whole purpose of the seventh Collation is no other but to shew out of Vigilius own writings that he consented with the Councell in condemning the three Chapters the very letters of Vigilius which were read in that seventh Collation do clearely witnesse his consent and judgement in condemning those Chapters The Councell condemnes them Vigilius condemnes them Doth not Vigilius consent to and with the Synod Did he not per libellum literas expresse that assent when his owne Epistles testifie that he condemned those Chapters as did also the Synod wherefore of his consent to the Synod there is no doubt But this consent of his was before the time that the Councell made their Synodall Decree yea before they assembled in the Synod it was during the time of the second Period before mentioned shortly after his coÌ„ming to Constantinople untill the Councell met together all that time he consented in judgement with the Councell he condemned the Chapters as the Councell did But at the time of the Councell when Vigilius should have consented also in making the Synodall Decree for condemning of those Chapters then hee dissented from the Synod and published an Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters So he both consented and that by letters yea by his Decree with the Synod and withall he dissented and that also by his Decree from the Synod His consent which the Synodall Acts doe shew and testifie Evagrius and the rest who saw and therein followed the Acts report and that truly His dissent which his owne Apostolicall Constitution
kept in their Vaticane doth shew and testifie which in likelyhood Evagrius saw not nor knew thereof they report not but they deny it not But for that Baronian consent after the end of the Synod or after his exile of that in Evagrius and the rest there is no mention nor any small signification 9. It is the precedent consent of Vigilius not that Baronian and subsequent consent of which Evagrius and the rest intreat which may appeare even by the very words of Evagrius Vigilius r Evag. lib. 4. ca. 37. per literas consensit Concilio non tamen interesse voluit He saith not Vigilius would not be present at the Councell but after the end of it hee consented by letters unto it this is the false and corrupt glosse of Baronius but Vigilius consented to the Councell by his letters but would not be present His consent by letters was the former his deniall to come was the later For when Evagrius saith consensit sed noluit interesse he plainely sheweth that Vigilius might have beene present in the Councell as well as have consented by his letters he might but he would not now had his consent beene after his returne from exile that is an whole yeare after the end of the Councell Vigilius could not possibly though hee would never so gladly have beene present in the Councell nor would Evagrius have said consensit sed noluit interesse but hee should have said consensit sed non potuit interesse hee consented indeed with the Synod but he could not be present in it because when he consented the Synod was dissolved and ended a yeare before The sense in Nicephorus is the very same but his words a little more cleare Vigilius saith he Å¿ Nicepâ— lib. 17. ca. 27. et si scripto interveniente cum Eutichio conveniret assidere tamen illi noluit although he agreed with Eutichius by a writing this as it seemes was his Epistle to Rusticus and Sebastianus read in the Synod yet hee would not sit with him in the Councell Importing hereby that Vigilius might also have sitten with Eutichius when hee consented in doctrine with him but he would not which is evidently to bee understood of his precedent not of any subsequent consent after the end of the Synod The very same is the meaning of Photius Though t Phâ—t lib. de 7. Synod in Conc. 5 Vigilius was not forward to come to the sacred assembly communem tamen patrum fidem libello confirmavit yet he confirmed the same common faith marke the same faith so he accounts the cause of the Three Chapters to be a cause of faith and the condemning of them to bee the confirming of the faith by a booke which booke is the same that Evagrius and Nicephorus meant the booke Epistle or Constitution of Vigilius made before the time of the Councell and then read therein but of any confirming that common faith by Vigilius after the end of the Synod Photius hath not one syllable 10. Now whereas the Cardinall u Bar. an 554. nu 4. adds that Graeci omnes de consensione Vigilij affirment that all Greeke writers affirme Vigilius to have consented to the Councell it is nothing but an untrue and vaine bragge of Baronius to downeface the truth for Zonaras affirmes it not nor Cedrenus and yet both these are expresly named by the Cardinall to write this nor Glicas nor Constantinus Manasses nor the Cardinalls owne Theophanes And yet if we should admit them to say the like or the same with Evagrius Nicephorus and Photius that Vigilius did consent to the Synod by a booke or letters yet what one of all the Greek writers yea or Latine either can the Cardinall produce to say that which he doth that Vigilius after the end of the Synod or after hee was sent into banishment consented to the Synod That by his precedent letters and judiciall sentence he consented to the same faith which the Synod decreed is true this the Cardinall doth but should not prove but that by a subsequent coÌ„sent or writing he approved the Synod after his owne exile this none of the Cardinals witnesses affirme this the Cardinall should but neither doth nor can prove 11. His second reason is taken from the fact of Iustinian in restoreing Vigilius The Emperor saith he x Bar. an 5â—4 nu 6. was most carefull for the condemning of the Three Chapters and therefore punished severely such as withstood his Edict and the Decree of the Synod how then could hee have endured Vigilius to have beene freed from exile to returne into the West nisi consensisset unlesse he had consented to the Synod Seeing otherwise Vigilius would have stird up all the Bishops in the West against the Emperors Edict and the Synodall sentence Now that the Emperor did free Vigilius from exile and permit him to returne to the West Baronius y An. eodem nu 1. et an 553. nu 222. liquet ex Anastasio Vigilium fuisse in exilium deportatum c. proves that by Anastasius z Anast in vita Vigilij out of whom hee relates that the whole Romane Clergie entreated Narses that he would be a meanes to the Emperor to restore unto theÌ„ Vigilius the rest who were banished with him The Emperor at the entreatie of Narses sent presently to Gissa Proconesus and other places and called them to him who were banished and put it to their choice whether a Vultis habere Vigilium ut fuit Papa vester Minusvel Hîc habetis Pelagium Archidiaconum c. Anast ibid. they would have Vigilius to be their Pope or Pelagius there present among them and when they desired Vigilius dimisit omnes cum Vigilio he sent them all b Liquet ex Anastasio omnes ab exillo pariter revocatos Bar. an 553. nu 222 home with Vigilius Nay the Emperor did not onely restore him and send him home but granted c Alia non nulla eidem percuti coÌ„cessit ipso exigente sanctioneÌ„ promulgavit Bar. an 554. nu 6. divers matters gifts rewards and Priviledges as Binius d Donis muneribus ac privilegijs ornatus in ItaliaÌ„ redire permissus fuit Bin. notis in Conc. 5. §. Praestitit calleth them and at his entreatie published a pragmaticall sanction for the affaires of Italie as the words of the sanction Pro petitione Vigilij doe declare Hence now doth the Card make his inference that absque e Bar. an 554 nu 6. dubio without all doubt Vigilius was very deare to the Emperor seeing he granted such favours unto him but there could have beene no friendship at all betwixt theÌ„ unlesse Vigilius after his returne from exile had consented to the Synod and condemned the Three Chapters seeing f Quorum solùm causâ odium conflatum erat exilium irrogatum Bar. ibid. his not consenting thereunto was the cause of his banishment Thus Baronius who hath very hansomely concluded that
absque dubio Vigilius after his returne out of exile consented to the fift Councell If now wee can clear this reason wherein consists the whole pith of the Cardinals cause I well hope that this consent of Vigilius of which he so much boasteth will be acknowledged to bee nothing else then a Baronian dreame 12. And first admitting for a while the Cardinalls antecedent the consequent sure is inconsequent Iustinian might upon the entreatie of Narses send Vigilius home though Vigilius had not consented to the Synod after the end thereof Narses was a man for his pietie prudence fortitude felicitie in warre exceedingly beloved honored by Iustinian They who are conversant in histories are not ignorant that Emperors doe yeeld many times greater matters then the restoring of Vigilius at the entreatie of such as Narses was When the Romane Matrones g Theod. histor lib. 2. ca. 17. their husbands not daring to motion such a matter entreated Constantius to restore Liberius to his See from which he was then banished the Emperour though he was most violently bent against Liberius and had placed an other Bishop in his See yet as Theodoret writeth sic inflectebatur hee was so affected with their entreatie that he yeelded to their request thinking it sitter that there should be two Bishops at once in Rome rather then he would seeme so obdurate and unkinde as to deny that petition in the time of his triumph It was as great incongruitie and disproportion in the government of Constantius an Arian to restore Liberius then a Catholike as for Iustinian being a Catholike Emperor to restore Vigilius being now an hereticall Bishop The hatred of Constantius to Liberius was farre greater then Iustinians against Vigilius The parties entreating are so unequall that Constantius seemes to have yeelded onely for popularitie and to get the opinion of courtisie they having done nothing to merit such favour at his hands but Narses had by his valor and late victories not onely won great honor to Iustinian and to the whole Empire but had freed Italie from the servitude of the Gothes and by that meanes besides many other had merited the love and favour of Iustinian who might have seemed not onely unkind but unjust in denying the petition of one so well deserving 13. Nay what if the intreaty of Narses and narration of Anastasius doe prove the quite contrary to that which Baronius from them collects that Vigilius had not consented to the Synod when hee was restored upon that entreaty Narses did this to gratifie h Tunc adunatus clerus rogaverunt Narsete ut rogaret Principem c. Anast in vita Vig. the Romane Clergy and the Italian Bishops who intreated him to bee a meanes for the restoring of Vigilius unto them And who I pray you were they or how affected in this cause of the three Chapters Truly they were eager in defending of them and for that cause rent and divided from the Easterne Churches as Baronius i Cum Vigilius cerneret universum Orientem ab Ecclesia Romana divisum nisi Synodo consentiret Bar. an 553. nu 235 witnesseth It had beene no gratifying but a very heart griefe and vexation to such to have Vigilius the condemner of those Chapters that is in their judgement an heretike restored unto them It was Vigilius the defender of those Chapters whom they desired for whom Narses intreated and whom if any the Emperour upon his intreaty restored which by the Anastasian narration is made very evident for he k Anast in vita Vig. sheweth how the Emperour upon his suggestion mox misit jussiones suas presently sent forth his command to bring Vigilius and the rest from exile He sent not to see if they would consent to the Synod and upon their consent to release them but without any questioning of that matter hee commands that they howsoever they stood affected should be free and brought out of banishment when they were returned did the Emperour aske them one word whether they would consent to the Synod or no He did not but al that he demanded of them was this vultis habere Vigilium will yee have Vigilius to continue your Pope as hee was before or will you have Pelagius who is here among you A demonstration that Vigilius had not then consented to the Synod when the Emperor said this for there was no cause either to deprive Vigilius or elect any other in his roome but his persisting in heresie had he consented to the Synod and condemned the Three Chapters the Emperor should have done wrong unto him to have suffered any other to have beene chosen nay the See being full Pelagius could not though all the banished Clergy had desired it have beene chosen Bishop in his stead Seeing then both the Emperours words and the answer of the Clergy as Anastasius relateth them doe shew that if they had pleased they might lawfully have chosen another Pope and seeing they could not by right have done that unlesse Vigilius had continued in his pertinacious defence of heresie even hereby it may bee perceived that at his restoring he persisted in the same hereticall minde of which he was before and that hee had not then consented to the Synod nor to the condemning of those Three Chapters So blinded was the Cardinall in this cause that he could not or rather would not see how his owne reason drawne from the intreaty of Narses and the narration of Anastasius doth quite overthrow the conclusion which by them he intended to confirme 14. And all this have I said upon supposall onely of the truth of that narration touching Narses his intreatie and the Emperors yeelding thereupon to restore Vigilius out of exile But now I must adde another answere which I feare will bee much more displeasing to the Cardinal and his friends and that is that this whole narration touching the exile of Vigilius after the Synod the intreaty of Narses the restoring him from that banishment and the rest depending thereon is all untrue fictitious such as hath no ground in the whole world but onely the Cardinals owne Poeticall pate For the manifesting whereof I will insist on the two principall points in the Cardinals narration the untruth of which being declared all the rest will easily be acknowledged to bee untrue and fabulous 15. The former concernes the restoring of Vigilius out of Banishment Baronius l Bar. 554. nu 1. following Anastasius saith that the Emperour together with Vigilius restored all the rest who were banished with him Dimisit omnes cum Vigilio and by name Pelagius is expressed to bee one of them of whom the Emperour then said Hic habetis Pelagium you have here Pelagius Vigilius then with him by name among the rest was dismissed home A very fiction and fable witnesse whereof Victor Bishop of Tunea who then lived and who himselfe m Victor Tunnensis author hujus operis post custodias simul et plagas
f Herm. an 547. Cōtractus Gotofridus g Gotof. an 527. Viterbiensis Otho Frisingensis h Otho an 528. Palmerius i Palm in Chr. an 557. their owne Genebrard k Geneb an 537. Stapleton l Stapl. Counterbl ca. 15. and many others These following Anastasius relate the cause of his banishmēt to have bin the not restoring of Anthimus the time before the death of the Empresse Theodora Nor I can finde so much as one either ancient or later writer who saith with Baronius that hee was banished after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it what a rare Poeticall conceit hath the Cardinall who can make such a noble discourse of that fictitious banishment and commend it as an historicall narration for the warrant of which he had not so much as one writer and one is a small number ancient or late upon whose credit and authoritie he might report it and for that one witnesse Anastasius whom he nameth he is so farre from testifying it that he doth clearely testifie the quite contrary yea Baronius himselfe was not ignorant hereof but knew right well Anastasius to referre m Hoc plane tempore accidisse noscuntur quae Anastasius jungit imo confundit cum prioribus quae acciderunt vivente adhuc Theodora Bar. an 552. nu 8. the beating of Vigilius his flight to Chalcedon the other indigne usage set downe by him and his exile to the time while Theodora lived and therefore hee taxeth Anastasius for confounding those things and referring them to that time whereas himselfe placeth them after the death n Caetera quae sequuntur in Anastasio post obitum Theodorae contingerunt Bar. an 547. nu 27. Jnter illa caetera est Vigilij exilium of Theodora And yet for all this though he knew Anastasius to teach the quite contrary yet was not the Cardinall afraid nor ashamed to alleage Anastasius for a witnesse that Vigilius was cast into banishment after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it and to say of this banishment Liquet ex Anastasio it is clearly knowne out of Anastasius whereas not that but the quite contrarie Liquet ex Anastasio 17. From hence now there issueth another consequent to bee remembred It is agreed by all who mention any banishment of Vigilius and it is confessed also by Baronius that Vigilius was but once banished and from that one freed by the intreaty of Narses Now that one cannot bee the Baronian banishment for of it there is no proofe at all to bee found no one author to witnesse it but the Cardinall and his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in matters of fact done some thousand and more yeares before the Cardinall was borne is of no worth at all nor can be esteemed ought but one of his owne dreames and figments Againe that one cannot bee the Anastasian banishment which is said to happen before the death of Theodora more than foure yeares before the fift Councell for it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Synod o Conc. 5. Coll. 1 2 3 et 8. that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople yea that untill then he lived and dwelt p Contigit Vigilium in hac regia urbe degentem omnibus interesse c. Coll. ◠pa. 584. a. at Constantinople Seeing then Vigilius was neither banished before the Councell as Anastasius saith nor banished after the Councell as Baronius saith it followeth which indeed is very truth that Vigilius was not at all banished but all which is reported of his banishment and all that depends thereon is fictitious and Poeticall devised by two Bibliothecarij to his Holinesse the former and precedent to the Councell is an Anastasian the other following the Councell is a Barbarian Poeme but both Poems both fabulous and Aesopicall narrations 18. And truly might wee be allowed to imitate the Cardinals Arte in disputing this matter would easily be made plaine There is one Topicke place of arguing à testimonio negativè which is very familiar to Baronius in his Annals q Vid Bar. an 774. nu 10.11 and it is defended by Gretzer in his Apology r Respondissemus hanc argumentandi rationem ab authoritate negativè in eis praesertim quae ad historiam spectant non esse prorsus infirmam et elum bem Gretz Apol pro Bar. ca. 1 § Peritius for Baronius let us take but one example and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius There is in Anastasius ſ Anast in vit Vigil a narration how Vigilius was violently puld away from Rome by Anthemius Scribonius sent thither for that purpose by the Empresse how he was apprehended in the Church thrust into the shippe how the Romanes followed reviling t Populus caepit jactare post cum lapides fustes et cacabos et dicere Fames tua tecum male invenias ubi vadis c. him cursing him and casting stones and dung at him praying that a mischiefe might goe with him Thus it is historified by Anastasius The like is mentioned by many others who borrowed it out of Anastasius by Aimonius * Aim lib. 2. de gest Franc. ca. 32 by the Historia Miscella u Hist misc lib. 16. going under the name of Paulus Diaconus though it be not his by Marianus x Mar. an 553. Scotus by Hermanus y Her an 547. Contractus by Sigebert z Sig. an 543. by Luitprandus a Luitp in vita Vigil de vitis Pontificum as the booke is called by Albo b Alb. in vita Vig. Floriacensis by Platina c Plat. in vita Vig. by Conrade d Conr. Ab. Vrsper an 527. by Nauclerus e Nauc an 540. by Martinus f Mart. in vita Vig. Polonus by Blondus g Blond Dec. 1. lib. 6. by Krantzius h Krant Met. lib. 2. by Sigonius i Sigeb lib. 19. de Occ. Imp. an 545. others Heare now the Cardinals censure of this narration of Anastasius and the rest who followed him Aperti mendacij k Bar. an 546. nu 54. redarguitur Anastasius Anastasius is convicted of a manifest lye herein and how prove you that my Baronius res adeo ignominiosa so ignominious a matter as this is could not have beene unknowne to the Authors who writ most accurately the Acts of their times and those were Facundus and Procopius the Cardinall names no moe from the silence and omission of this matter in them two he concludes Anastasius to be a lyar and his narration seconded by many moe to be a lye 19. Let now but the like liberty of disputing à Testimonio negativè be allowed unto us and the Baronian banishment to begin with that must be rejected banished and set in the same ranke with that lye of Anastasius for thus wee may argue This banishment of Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell and for refusing
condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also u Bar. an 553. nu 222. moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts x Conc. 5. Coll. 1. 7. Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor y Vict. in Chron. an 16. corruptè legitur 17. post Coss Basilij who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or
into banishment or returning out of banishment or of his defending the three Chapters or of his condemning the same Chapters or of the Emperours either casting him into or releasing him from exile or of the fift Councell or of the end thereof and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilfull Chymick extract both that Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell was banished for defending the Three Chapters and after that banishment consented to the Synod and to condemne the three Chapters And see I pray you how the Chymick distills this If Liberatus saith he e Bar. an 554. nu 5. being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters had found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem persisting untill his death in that sentence which in his Constitution he had published for defence of the Three Chapters truly he would have praised Vigilius for a Martyr had he dyed in such sort But when he saith Vigilius was afflicted and not crowned planè alludit ad ejus exilium he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius and to his forsaking or revolt from that judgement after he came from banishment Thus doth the Cardinall glosse upon the words of Liberatus 32. See the force of truth The Cardinalls owne words doe most sully answer his owne doubt and explane that truth which hee wittingly oppugneth Had Liberatus found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem constant or persisting without any change or relenting in his defending the three Chapters untill his dying day then indeed Vigilius should have beene with Liberatus an obstinate defender of that sentence a glorious Martyr at the least a worthy Confessor and for that cause he should have beene condemned by Liberatus But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence wavering and unconstant therein turning his note as soone almost as he had looked the Emperour in the face Vigilius by reason of that change unconstancie and revolt from his opinion lost his Crowne and all his commendation with Liberatus not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell for defence of those Chapters and by his dying in that opinion Liberatus found Vigilius stantem morientem but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem he found him standing and dying but hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts to testifie that for five or six yeares together hee not onely was of a contrary judgement but did judicially and definitively decree the contrary and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters this so long discontinuance and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence for this cause he lost his Crowne and dyed non coronatus in the Kalender and account of Liberatus 33. I adde further that the words of Liberatus being well pondered doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters for no other then heretikes then oppugners of the Catholike faith and holy Councell of Chalcedon And for Vigilius while hee fought f Comptures Orthodoxi ipse Vigilius contra eadem Capitula asserta ab Imperatore insurrexere Bar. an 546. nu 38. on their side and against the Emperour they honoured g Vigilius arguit ut prophanas vocum novitates Facundi dictum apud Bar. an 546. nu 57. 58. him as a Catholike as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor and upon his comming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters then they held him for no other then a betraier h Ne Traditor videretur Facundi dictum de Vigilio apud Bar. an 547. nu 37. Collusorem Praevaricatorem conclamarunt Bar. an eod nu 49. vulgarunt vbique eum impugnare Concilium Chalcedonense Bar. an 550. nu 1. of the faith then an heretike then a backslider revolter and lapser from the faith and for such they adjudged and accursed him by name in their Africane i Vict. in Chron. an 9. post Cons Basil Synod at which it is most like that Liberatus being a man of such note for dealing in that cause was present upon his returning at the time of the fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith Had Vigilius after this revolted and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters and in that opinion dyed as out of Liberatus the Cardinall would perswade Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike for a lapser and relapser from the faith for one dying in heresie and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike a condemned heretike and to dye in heresie that hee dyed non coronatus would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie of one dying in heresie would he not much rather have said he dyed Damnatus condemned and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod and therefore utterly separated from God Who ever read or heard that one dying in heresie was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus 43. This will most clearly appeare if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts so also two rewards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith such as joyfully endure torments imprisonment exile and if need be even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith and these are called coronati The other is of those who being timerous and faint-hearted yeeld to deny the truth rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts they returne againe and openly professe that truth from which they had before lapsed and these are called Non coronati saved by repentance and returning to the truth but by reason of their former faintnesse and lapsing Not crowned Both of these are Orthodoxall and Catholikes both of them placed in the blessed house of God but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God For in my Fathers k John 14 2. house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre l 1 Cor. 15.41 differeth from another in
these by workes of infidelity of impiety of maligning the Church of reviling the servants of GOD of oppugning the faith of Patronizing heresie yea that fundamental heresie which overthroweth the whole Catholike faith and brings in a totall Apostasie from the faith by these hee hoped to purchase and in condignity to merit the felicity of the Kingdome of Heaven This being the track and beaten path wherein they walke and by which they aspire to immortality what Constantine m Socr. lib. 1. ca. 7. sayd once to Acesius the Novatian the same may be sayd to Baronius and his consorts Erigito tibi scalam Baroni ad coelum solus ascendito Keepe that Ladder unto your selves and by it doe you alone climbe up into heaven But well were it with them and thrice happy had the Cardinall beene if with a faithfull and upright heart towards God he could have said of Iustinian the words of Balaam Let me dye the death of the righteous and let my last end be like his His life being led in piety and abounding in good workes hee now enjoyeth the fruit thereof felicity and eternall rest in Abrahams bosome As for the Cardinall who hath so malignantly reviled him himselfe can now best tell whether he doth not cry and pray Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Iustinian that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue or sing that other note n Wisd 5.4.6 unto his fellowes concerning this Emperour Wee fooles thought his life to be madnesse and his end to bee without honour but now is he numbred among the children of God and his lot is among the Saints Therefore wee have erred from the way of truth and wearied our selves in the wayes of wickednesse and destruction we have gone through deserts where there lay no way but as for the way of the Lord wee have not knowne it CAP. XXI How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same 1. NExt the Emperour let us see how dutifully the Cardinall behaveth himselfe towards the Empresse Theodora A small matter it is with him in severall places to call her an a Impiae Theodorae Augustae an 535. nu 59. impious an hereticall b Haereticae faeminae impiae Theodorae ibid. nu 60. a sacrilegious c Sacrilega faemina molita est an 536. nu 123 a furious d A furente haeretica faemina excitata an 538 nu 9. hereticall woman a patrone e Jpsa haereticâ—rum Acephalorum Severianorum Eutychianorum patrona an 547. nu 49. of heretikes and the like Heare and consider how he stormeth but in one place f An. 535. nu 63 against her These so great mischiefes did that most wicked woman beginne she became to her husband another Eve obeying the serpent a new Dalila to Samson striving by her subtiltie to weaken his strength another Herodias thirsting after the blood of most holy men a wanton mayd of the High Priest perswading Peter to deny Christ But this is not enough Sugillare ipsam with these termes to flout her who exceedeth all women in impiety let her have a name taken from Hell let her be called Alecto or Megera or Tisiphone a Citizen of hell a childe of Devills ravished with a satanicall spirit driven up and downe with a devillish gad-bee an enemy of concord and peace purchased with the blood of Martyrs Thus the Cardinall who tells us afterwards how when Vigilius came to Constantinople she contended long with him for to have Anthimus restored in so much that Vigilius was forced to smite her as from heaven with the thunderbolt of Excommunication g Sententiam excommunicationis inflixit et Excommunicationis sententia fulminis instar coelitus emisse prostravit an 547. nu 49. 50. whereupon she h Theodoram à Vigilio sauciatam diro jaculo anathematis haud diu post ulciscente numine est insequutus interitus an 548. nu 24 shortly dyed Here is the tragicall end which the Cardinall hath made of her 2. Now I would not have any think that I intend wholly to excuse the Empresse she had her passions and errors as who hath not and as Liberatus i Liber ca. 21 22. and Evagrius k Evagr. lib. 4. ca. 10. shew she tooke part with the oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon which was for sometime true shee being as it seemes seduced by Anthimus whom for a while she laboured to have restored to the See of Constantinople though afterwards as Victor Tununensis testifieth she being better informed joyned with the Emperor in condemning the Three Chapters and so in truth in defending the Councell of Chalcedon though Victor thought the contrarie And of this minde in condemning the three Chapters shee was as by Victor is evident some yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople Her former error seduction and labour for Anthimus I will not seeke to lessen or any way excuse But though she were worthy of blame was it fit for the Cardinall so basely to revile her and in such an unseemly and undutifull manner to disgorge the venome of his stomacke upon an Empresse Tanta ne animis caelestibus irae who would have thought such rancour and poison to have rested in the brest of a Cardinall But there was you may be sure some great cause which drew from the Cardinall so many unseemly speeches against the Empresse and though hee would bee thought to doe all this onely out of zeale to the truth which Anthimus the heretike oppugned yet if the depth of the Cardinalls heart were sounded it will appeare that his spite against her was for condemning the Three Chapters which Pope Vigilius in his Constitution defendeth Anthimus and his cause is but a pretence and colour the Apostolicall Constitution the heresies of the Nestorians decreed and defined therein that is the true marke at which the Cardinall aymeth neither Emperour nor Empresse nor Bishop nor Councell nor any may open their mouth against that Constitution which toucheth them in capite but they shall be sure to heare and beare away as harsh and hellish termes from Baronius as if they had condemned the Trent Councell it selfe Had Theodora defended the Three Chapters as Vigilius in his Constitution did the Cardinall would have honoured her as a Melpomene Clio or Vrania because she did not that she must be nothing but Alecto Megara or Tisiphone and they are too good names for her 3. If one desired to set forth her praise there wants not testimonies of her dignity and honour Constantinus Manasses l Jn annal suis pa. 87. saith that she was Iisdem addicta cum marito studiis iisdem praedita moribus that she so well consorted to her husband that shee was addicted to the same studies indued with the same manners as he was That Iustinian himselfe calleth her m Participem consilij sumentes eam quae à Deo est data nobis
547. nu 49 hath borrowed all which is nothing but a meere fiction and legend patched up by Anastasius as elsewhere I shall further explaine Vigilius was neither called nor came about that businesse to Constantinople but about the three Chapters the cause of Anthimus was some ten yeares before ended the Empresse knew the resolution of Vigilius therein that he had absolutely refused to restore him And though for a while after the deposition of Anthimus shee being deceived by his faire words and shew of piety sought to restore him yet when shee saw Anthimus to remaine an obstinate heretike and to oppugne the faith of Chalcedon shee quite left off all striving for Anthimus and became with Iustinian a condemner of the three Chapters as Victor c Theodora elicuit à Vigilio ut tria Capitula condemnaret Vict. Tun. in Chron. an 2. post Coss Basilij testifieth that is in truth an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon and of the Catholike faith So unjustly doth the Cardinall take occasion upon an untruth and legendary fable to revile the Empresse as an heretike 6. The third and last point concernes the direfull thunderblast of Excommunication which Vigilius the Romane Iupiter cast from heaven against Theodora wherewith belike she was smit to death Wherein though the Cardinall d Ibid. is exceeding brag and thinkes his saying to be warranted by no meane witnesses but by Pope Gregory himselfe yet for all that I must be bold to tell him that it also is a fiction and that Vigilius brought no such Ioviall darts with him to Constantinople or if he did he spent them not upon the Empresse It was Pope Agapetus and not Vigilius by whom if by any Theodora was excommunicated seeing Theodora did contend with Agapetus about Anthimus and that also before his deposition It was he which called Theodora Eleutheria a persecuting Empresse Vigilius had no occasion at his comming to excommunicate her the cause of Anthimus was before that ended Theodora and Vigilius consented together in one profession of faith he condemning the three Chapters a little after he came to Constantinople as well as the Empresse could not condemne or excommunicate her for an heretike but hee must condemne himselfe also I but Pope Gregory e Greg. lib. 2. Epist 36. saith expresly he did excommunicate her Might I in stead of an answer say as some f Author apol Tumultuariae pro dispensatione de matrim Hen. 8. uxoris fratris ejus fol. 46. of their owne Writers do in another cause Gregorius hîc non est audiendus Gregory is here not to bee regarded or but say as their owne Bishop Canus g De loc Theol. lib. 11. ca. 6. §. Lex vero 2. doth that Gregory was too credulous in writing reports the matter were soone answered But I am not willing to censure Gregory so hard as they doe my answer is that the name of Vigilius is by an error either of the writer or Printer of Gregory inserted there in stead of Agapetus for of Agapetus Victor h Agapetus Archiepiscop Rom. Theodoram Augustam Anthimi patronam communione privat Anthimum deponit Mennam ejus loco Episcopum ponit Vict. Tunun in Chron. in Coss Iustin an 14. Iustiniani is an expresse witnesse that he indeed deprived Theodora of the communion All the circumstances accord thereunto Theodora was then an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon she tooke part and was a patron of Anthimus Gregory himselfe notes this fact to be done equally against the whole sect i Papa contra Theodoram Acephalos damnationis sententiam promulgavit Greg. loco citató of the Acephalian heretikes as against Theodora now Vigilius had nothing to doe with those heretikes it was the cause of the three Chapters wherewith hee was troubled the heads of the Acephali Anthimus Severus Petrus Zoaras and their followers were condemned both by Agapetus k Acephalorum Principes Anthimum Severū c. condemnavit Agapetus Bin. Not. in vitam Agapet pa. 416. b. and by the great Councell of Constantinople l Act. 5. under Mennas where were present the Legates of the Romane See Agapetus being lately dead and the same sentence was confirmed by the Emperour Iustinian m Const Justin post finem Synod sub Menna at the end of the Synod so that there was nothing left for Vigilius to doe against the Acephali who both by the Pontificall Synodall and Imperiall sentence were condemned nine yeares before his comming to Constantinople Lastly the very scope and coherence of Gregories text doth inforce this correction The defenders of the three Chapters alledged that since the time of the fift Councell wherein the three Chapters were condemned many calamities had befalne Italy whereupon they concluded that God afflicted the Church for that decree of the fift Councell and for condemning of those three Chapters Gregory to refute this their reason alledged another example and of former times to wit of condemning the Acephali whom they to whom Gregory writ acknowledged for heretikes saying Postquam after Pope Agapetus when he came into this kingly City denounced a sentence of condemnation against Theodora and the Acephali then was Rome besieged and taken by the enemies that is the Gothes was therefore God angry for that sentence against the Acephali Apply this reason to Vigilius and his time and it is not onely untrue but unfit to the purpose of Gregory for before Vigilius his comming to Constantinople not only Vitiges the Goth possessed Rome from whom Bellisarius in the time of Silverius recovered it and made great havocke in Italy but Totilas n Totilas Romam contendit quam statim obsedit Proc. lib. 3. de bell Goth. pa. 360. also before Vitiges came besieged it so hard that by reason of the famine they were driven not onely to eate mice and dogs but even dung also and last of all one to eate up another and that same yeare Totilas tooke Rome sacked it and had purposed utterly to have abolished it and burnt it to ashes but that Bellisarius by his most prudent and fortunate perswasions staid him from that barbarous immanity Now seeing not onely the siege but captivity of Rome was after the comming of that Pope to Constantinople and sentence against Theodora of whom Gregory speaketh it must needs be hee meant Pope Agapetus whose sentence all the foresaid calamities follow and not Vigilius o Vigilius venit Constantinopolin an 12. belli Gothic Proc. lib. eodem pa. 364. Romam obsedit Totilas an 11. ejusdem belli lib. eodem pa. 359. seq before whose comming to Constantinople Rome was besieged by Totilas and taken also before the sentence if it was as by Anastasius is to be gathered not denounced till the second yeare after Vigilius his comming thither Neither onely had the reason of Gregory beene untrue but most unfit for his purpose had he meant Vigilius in this place for hee clearly
intends such a calamity as hapned before the condemning of the three Chapters but after the condemning of the Acephali Now it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Councell and by the Emperours testimony that as the Easterne Bishops so also Vigilius presently after he came to Constantinople consented to condemne the three Chapters yea condemned them by a Pontificall decree and judgement and continued in that minde till the time of the fift Councell at which time by the general Synod they were also condemned Gregory then should have spoken against himselfe had hee meant Vigilius and his comming to Constantinople in saying that after the sentence of Vigilius against Theodora the City was besieged and taken as it was once againe indeed taken by Totilas p Proc. lib. eodē 3. an 15. belli Goth. pa. 394. in the 23. yeare of Iustinus for his adversaries to whom he writ being defenders of the three Chapters would have replyed against him that this calamity befell them from the very same cause seeing both the Easterne Bishops and the Pope consented in that doctrine of condemning of the three Chapters Thus it appeareth not by surmises and conjectures but by certaine and evident proofe that the text of Gregory is corrupted or else that Gregory himselfe was mistaken therein which in a matter so neare his dayes wee may not thinke and so that it was not Vigilius but Agapetus whom Gregory intended to denounce that sentence against the Acephali or Theodora of which Baronius maketh such boast and commends with such great ostentation that thereby he might make the Empresse who was a condemner of the three Chapters more odious and strengthen that fiction and fabulous tale of Anastasius that Vigilius contended with Iustinian and Theodora about Anthimus CAP. XXII How Baronius declameth against the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters and a refutation thereof 1. BAronius not content to wrecke his spite upon the Emperour and Empresse in such uncivill manner as you have seene carpes in the next place at the very cause it selfe of the three Chapters What did Vigilius saith hee a Bar. an 547. nu 48. offend in appointing that men should be silent and say nothing untill the future Synod of this cause of the three Chapters which if it could have beene potius perpetuo erat silentio condemnanda sopienda sepelienda atque penitus extinguenda was rather to be condemned to perpetuall silence to be buried and utterly extinguished Againe b an 553. n. 237 I doe never feare to avouch that it had beene much better that the Church had remained without these controversies about the three Chapters nec unquam de his aliquis habitus esset sermo and that there had never beene one word spoken of them Thus Baronius 2. What thinke you moved the Cardinall to have such an immortall hatred to this cause as to wish the condemning buriall and utter extinguishing of those controversies What more hurt did this to the Church than the question abut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or about the opinion of Eutiches Very great calamity saith Baronius c Jbidem insued upon this controversie both in the East and West True it did so and so there did and far greater and longer about the controversie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more againe than that upon the question whether the Gospell or Paganisme should prevaile and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated the truth of Christ spred abroad the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospell No affliction calamity or persecution is a just cause either to wish that there had never beene any such controversie or to forsake the truth of God when the controversie is moved It was an excellent saying of the Aegyptian Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon d Act. 1. pa. 8. Christianus neminem timet a Christian feareth no mortall man si homines timerentur martyres non essent if men should be feared there would be no Martyrs But the truth is it was not as Baronius fancieth the controversie it selfe nor the disputing and debating thereof that caused so great calamities in the East and West that is non causa pro causa the peevishnesse and perversenesse of wicked men maintaining heresies and oppugning the truth that was the true cause thereof The controversie it selfe if you well marke it was very beneficiall to the Church Oportet haereses e 1 Cor. 11.19 esse there must be heresies among you that they which are approved might bee knowne Every heresie is a probation and tryall of mens love to God and his truth whether they esteeme it more than their honours pleasures and their owne wilfull conceits and the greater the heresie is and the further it spreads it is still a greater tryall Heretikes saith S. Austen f Lib. de ver◠relig ca. 8. doe much profit the Church though they be out of the Church not by teaching the truth which they doe not know but by stirring up those who are more carnall Catholikes to seeke and those who are more spirituall to defend and manifest the truth This triall and probation of men if I mistake not was never so great in any controversie or question as in this of the three Chapters First it sifted and tryed Vigilius to the full and tryed him to be a wether-cocke in faith an heretike and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolicall authority Next it sifted out divers notable conclusions as first that which I think was never before that tryed that not onely the Pope but the Apostolike See also to wit the Romane Church and with it the Westerne Churches all at once adhered to heresie and forsooke the truth and that even after it was decreed and judged by the generall approved Councell and so it proved both Pope and Romane Church to be properly hereticall the Easterne Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time it shewed that the Catholike faith was tied neither to the Chair nor Church of Rome Another conclusion then tryed was that either persons or Churches may not onely dissent from the Pope and the Romane Church and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod but may renounce communion with them and yet remaine Catholikes and in the unity of the Catholike Church the Pope the Westerne Church and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholike faith Heretikes and by forsaking the unity of the Church Schismatikes 3. Neither onely was this controversie a triall to them in that age a tryall of their faith love to God charity to the Church obedience to the Emperour but it is as great a triall even in these our dayes and ever since that doctrine of the Popes infallibility in causes of faith hath beene defined and condemned By this controversie most happly decided by the generall Councell all that hold the Popes definitions of faith to be infallible
Like lips like lettuce Such a writing is a most fit witnesse for Baronius who delighteth in untruths and not finding true records to give testimony to them it was fit hee should applaud the most vile and abject forgeries if they seeme to speak ought pleasing to the Cardinals pallate or which may serve to support his untruths 9. You see that yet it appeares not that Theodorus was the writer or penner of this Decree none of Baronius his witnesses affirming it and Liberatus who is the best of them all affirming the contrary I might now with this answer put off a great part of those reviling speeches which Baronius so prodigally bestoweth on Theodorus But I minde not so to leave the Cardinall nor suffer the proud Philistine so insolently to revile and insult over any one of the Israelites much lesse this worthy Bishop of Cesarea to whom hee could not have done a greater honor than in that which he intended as an exceeding disgrace to him to call and account him the Author and Writer of this Edict It is no small honour that Iustinian so wise and religious an Emperour should commit the care of so waighty a matter to Theodorus that hee should have him in so high esteeme as account his word an Oracle to bee guided and directed by his judgement so to adhere unto him as Constantine did to that renowned Hosius as to thinke it a piaculum or great offence not to follow his advice in matters of so great waight consequence and importance Nay this one Edict supposing with the Cardinall Theodorus to bee the Author of it shall not onely pleade for Theodorus but utterly wipe away all those vile slanders of heresie impiety imprudency and the like so often and so odiously objected and exaggerated by the Cardinall against him this writing and the words thereof being as whosoever readeth them will easily conceive and if hee deale ingenuously confesse the words of truth of faith of sobriety of profound knowledge evidences of a minde full fraught with faith with piety with the love of God and Gods Church and in a word full of the holy Ghost As Sophocles k Cic. de Senect being accused to doate recited his Oedipus Coloneus and demanding whether that did seeme the Poeme of a doating man was by the sentence of all the Iudges acquitted So none can reade this Edict but forthwith acknowledge it a meere calumny in Baronius to call the maker of it an heretike whose profession of faith is so pious divine and Catholike Or rather Theodorus may answer that Baronian slander with the like words as did S. Paul l Act. 24.12.13 They neither found me making an uproare among the people nor in the Synagogues nor in the City neither can they prove these things whereof they now accuse mee but this I confesse that after this way declared in this Edict which they call heresie so worship I the God of my fathers 10. Now as this may serve for a generall Antidote at once as it were to expell all the whole poyson of those Baronian calumnies so if we shall descend to particulars the innocency of Theodorus as also the malice and malignity of Baronius will much more clearly appeare The crimes objected to Theodorus by Baronius are reduced to three heads one his threefold heresie another his opposing himselfe to Pope Vigilius or the Decree of Taciturnity in the cause of the Three Chapters the third his misleading of Iustinian into the heresie of the Aphthardokites and so causing that great persecution of the Church which thereupon ensued all the other disgracefull termes are but the superfluity of that malice which the Cardinall beares against all that were opposite to Vigilius and his Apostolicall Constitution To begin then with that which is easiest the two last crimes are not so easily uttered as refuted they both are nothing else but meere slanders and calumnies without any certaine ground or probability of truth devised either by Baronius himselfe or by such as he is enemies and haters of the truth and truly for the later his misleading Iustinian into the heresie of the Apthardokites that is not onely a manifest untruth for Iustinian as wee have before m Ca. 20. proved did not onely at all hold that heresie but it is wholly forged and devised by Baronius he hath not any one Author no not so much as a forged writing to testifie this no nor any probable collection out of any Author to induce him to lay this imputation upon Theodorus the world is wholly and soly beholden to the Cardinall for this shamelesse calumny and yet see the wisedome of Baronius herein hee was not content barely and in a word to taxe and reprove Theodorus which had beene more than sufficient having no proofe nor evidence of the crime but in this passage as if hee had demonstratively proved Theodorus to bee guilty hereof hee rageth and foameth like a wilde Bore against him calling him a most wicked man and most vehement propugner of blasphemy the plague of the whole Church who with a visor affrayed the Emperour like a little Boy from the truth and led him captive into heresâ—e Doe you not thinke that the Cardinall needed to be sent to Anticyra when he writ this not onely without truth but without braine and ordinary sense 11. The other crime that Theodorus opposed himselfe to Vigilius and to the decree of silence is like the former save that this difference is to be observed betwixt them that the former was forged by Baronius but this later is grounded on a foolish and forged writing applauded by Baronius fictions and forgeries they are both but the one was fained to the Cardinals hand for the other hee was faine to beate it out of his owne anvill There was neither any such decree for taciturnity neither did Theodorus nor needed hee to oppose himselfe to Vigilius for Vigilius as well as Theodorus all the whole time almost from his comming to Constantinople till the fift Councell was assembled wholly consented to condemne the Three Chapters as besides other evident proofes before alleaged to which I remit the reader that one testimony of the Emperour doth undeniably demonstrate Quod n Epist Iustin ad Conc. 5. Act. 1 pa. 520. a. vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum per plurima declaravit Vigilius hath by very many things declared that he hath been alwayes since his comming to Constantinople of the same minde in condemning the Three Chapters what thinke you here againe of Baronius who upon this occasion of contradicting Vigilius his decree of silence reviles Theodorus calling o Locis supra citatis him sacrilegious a Pseudo-Bishop a tyrant a schismatike a perverter of lawes the author of all evils and yet when the Cardinall hath said all this there is no truth nor reality in the cause and occasion for which hee thus rageth and revileth no opposition to Vigilius no
but the whole fabrick of them both is questionable whether they were the Synodall Acts or but a relation framed by Anastasius as hee thought best Of all the eight Councels the Acts of Chalcedon this fift and the sixt have beene most safely preserved and like the river Arethusa have strongly passed through so many corrupt ages and hands and yet without tainture of the salt deliver unto us the cleare and sweete current of antiquity and truth And verily when I seriously compare the wrack of other Councels with the entirenesse of these three I cannot but admire and magnifie with all my might the gracious providence wisdome and love of God to his Church for in every one of these there is an unresistable force of truth against that Antichristiā authority supremacy which is now made the foundation of the Popish faith the sixt in the cause of Honorius the fift in this cause of Vigilius and that of Chalcedon in curbing the Popes Legates in crossing the decree and knowne resolution of Pope Leo and in being a most lively patterne of that rightfull and ancient authority which Emperours then held above all the Bishops in the Councell but now the Pope usurpes both above all Bishops Emperours and Councels God would by these monuments of antiquity pull downe the lofty Towers and raze from the very bottome that foundation of Babylon which can never be firme and setled hee would have besides other particular witnesses these unconquerable and irresistible forces of these ancient and generall Councels against which no just exception can be taken and although I will not excuse the acts of these nor any of them from all defects and blemishes whatsoever yet I dare boldly averre that they are so few so light and of so small importance that the maine controversies handled in them or relying on them cannot be prejudicated thereby they being rather the errours of the Collectors or of the writers and exscribers of these Councels than of the Councels themselves And particularly for this fift Councell against which Baronius doth so furiously declame I doubt not to make it evident that all the faults which after much prying hee hath objected unto the Acts thereof will prove so many evident testimonies of his owne most fraudulent and corrupt dealing and not the defects or corruptions in the Acts of this Councell But let us view the particulars CAP. XXV The first alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein refuted 1 THE corruptions which Baronius and out of him Binius objecteth are according to the grammaticall division reduced to three sorts of irregularity Some by variation or alteration others by defect or mutilation the rest by redundance or addition In the first ranke hee pretendeth three examples the first which seemeth to be of greatest moment and carieth the greatest colour of probability is the corrupting of a certaine text of the Councell at Chalcedon cited by this fift Synod Heare the accusation in Baronius his owne words We may not here omit saith he a An. 553. nu 214. to note the craft of the Grecians who contrary to right and equitie have corrupted the holy text of the Synodall Acts by adding unto the Councell of Chalcedon those words about which there was much contention in the time of Pope Hormisda when certaine suspected of Eutycheanisme specially some Scythian Monkes did labour that unto the holy Councell of Chalcedon these words might bee added Dominum nostrum Iesum Chistum unum esse de sancta Trinitate which when they could not obtaine because the Synod was well enough without that addition here now in this fift Councell where the Epistle of Ibas is compared with the profession of the Councell at Chalcedon they recite these words of the Synod Chalcedonensis sancta Synodus in definitione quam de fide fecit praedicat Deum verbum incarnatum esse hominem the holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith doth professe God the Word to have beene incarnate and made man and they adde unto the words of the Synod qui est Dominus noster Iesus Christus unus de sancta Trinitate who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinitie as if the Synod of Chalcedon had professed that whereas they rather would call Christ unam personam sanctae Trinitatis than unum de sancta Trinitate Thus Baronius In which few words of his there are contained so many notable untruths and hereticall frauds that without a rare dexterity in that craft hee could not have easily contrived and couched them in so small a roome 2. First that they who contended to have Christ called unum de sancta Trinitate were heretikes or Eutycheans or unjustly suspected thereof is not onely untrue but bewrayes the Cardinals obstinate and obdurate affection to Nestorianisme for as Dionysius b Extat in Bib. §. pat tom 3. Exiguus in his Preface to the Epistle of Proclus witnesseth and most truly the disciples of Theodorus Mopsvestenus began to teach an impious faith to the people with most crafty subtilty professing the Trinity to bee in such sort of one Essence ut Christum Dominum nostrum unum ex Trnitate nullatenus faterentur that they would by no meanes confesse Christ our Lord to be one of the Trinity and thereupon they taught a quaternity in the persons If Baronius esteeme it heresie to professe Christ unum de sancta Trinitate then is hee certainly by this besides all other evidences convicted to be a Nestorian heretike for it is an Article of their Nestorian and repugnant to the Catholike faith to deny or doubt to call Christ unum de sancta Trinitate 3. Secondly that the Councell of Chalcedon made ever any doubt to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate or that they would rather call him unam personam Trinitatis is another vile Nestorian slander and hereticall untruth of Baronius The Councell of Chalcedon saith Iustinian c Leg. 7. de summa Trinit ca. 4. approved the Epistle of Proclus wherin it is taught that we ought to confesse our Lord Iesus Christ to be one of the holy Trinity Proclus saith d Loco citato Dionysius Exiguus did marvellously resist that impiety and hee taught our Lord Iesus Christ unum de Trinitate esse to bee one of the Trinity When the Nestorians troubled the Church about this matter Iustinian set forth a most religious Imperiall Edict e Edict extat apud Bar. an 533. nu 7. 9. wherein hee commanded all to professe Christ to bee unum de Trinitate wee anathematize saith he every heresie especially Nestorius and those who thinke or have thought as he did wee anathematize those who deny or will not confesse our Lord Iesus Christ unum esse ex sancta consubstantiali Trinitate to bee one of the holy and consubstantiall Trinitie This Imperiall Edict the very next
Extant post edictum Justin pa. 488. with this fift generall Synod held some fourteene years after wherein Origen and his errours were also condemned but neither the Emperours Edict read nor the cause of Origen debated nor the particulars recited as they were in the former Further it is most likely that together with divers copies of the fift Councell were annexed the Acts of that former under Mennas that so men might see what were the particular heresies condemned in Origen wherein some according to the order of time might set them before these and others according to the order of dignity might set them after the acts of this fift Councell which might occasion some with Cedrenus to thinke them a former some with Nicephorus to thinke them a second action of this fift Councell whereas in truth they were the acts of a severall and provinciall Councell by themselves and neither the first nor last nor any acts at all of this generall Councell 6. By this now I suppose every one doth see the weaknesse of the Baronian frame touching the anathematismes and proceeding against Origen They are not extant among the acts of the fift Synod True nor were they ever nor ought they to bee inserted or set among the true Acts thereof these anathematismes neither were made nor repeated in the Councell The Edict of Iustinian for the condemning of Origen is not there neither True neither ought it to bee it was never sent to never published in this fift Councell but if in any in that provinciall Synod under Mennas unto which it was sent and the Cardinall to prove that Edict to have beene a part of these Acts brings no other nor better proofe than his owne putamus k an 553. n. 242. a proofe so exceeding weake that it is not worthy a refutation The Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod commanding them to condemne Origen which is one of the fragments that Binius l Post Conc. 5. pa. 604. et pa. 606. b. indicant illa fragmenta c. hath added is not among the Acts. True nor ought it to be for neither is it Iustinians but an extract and briefe collection of Cedrenus who out of the large Edict or Epistle as the Emperour calleth it collected this neither doth it any way belong to this but to the former Synod The condemnation of Didymus and Evagrius saith Binius m Ib. pa. 606. b. together with Origen was made in this fift Synod as the second Nicene Councell n Act. 1. pa. 306. a. witnesseth and that is not here among the Acts. That Didymus and Evagrius were nominatim condemned in the fift Synod the second Nicene Councell sayth it not no if one would straitly stand upon it they do not say so much as that o Communi et generali anathemate vi ejecti sunt Origenes et Theodorus Mopsvestenus et quaecunque ab Evagrìo et Didymo dicta sunt de praeexistentia Conc. Nic. 2. loco citat they were at all but that their doctrines touching preexistence were condemned But say they sayd it Didymus and Evagrius were two earnest Origenists p Didymus et Evagrius sectarii Origenis Bin. loc citat and defenders of Origens error Now the fift Councell not onely condemneth Origen and his errors sed eos qui similia praedictis haereticis sapuerunt vel sapiunt but all who teach or thinke the like that Origen did in which generality Didymus and Evagrius and all Origenists are condemned which generall condemnation is all that can be enforced one of the second Nicene Synod Thus all the three defects which Baronius and Binius labour to prove in these Acts about this cause of Origen declare a foule maime in their owne wits and judgements but none in the Acts and doe evidently shew that themselves under colour of correcting these acts doe indeed corrupt and falsifie the same 7. And yet which one can scarce with patience endure or reade without scorne of their folly they are not content to tell what is stoln or taken away touching this cause of Origen out of these acts but like skilfull figure-flingers they will name you the very thiefe and tell particularly who maimed the Acts in this part And who thinke you is it Even Theodorus q Quis dubitet id factuÌ„ ab Origenistis qui Synodo praefueruÌ„t quorum patronus fuit Theodorus malorum omniuÌ„ concinnator Bar. an 553. nu 244. intelligere potes quorum arte quae in Synodo acta sunt contra Origenem ejus errores ex ea fuerint decurtata ibid. Quis neget Theodorum Caesareensem abstulisse â—b actis hujus Concilij quae suae causae â—erat auteÌ„ Origenistarum patronus adversabantur Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. pa. 606. b. Bishop of Caesarea they have an implacable hatred to him he is an Origenist he the chiefe of the Origenists and for love of Origen hee corrupted the acts of this fift Synod and stole away the proceedings against Origen the Anathematismes the Edict and Epistle of Iustinian O how blinde and besotted is a malicious minde that is it which put this rare skill of divination into the heart of Baronius and Binius There is nothing stolne as these Acts doe demonstrate and yet they will tell you who took away the goods They doe with Theodorus as the malicious Arians dealt r Ruff. lib. 1. Eccl. hist ca. 17. alij with Athanasius proclamed him for a murderer and conjurer and little lesse than condemned him for killing Arsenius and cutting off his right hand which they brought into the open Court whereas Arsenius was both alive and a sound man with both his hands So this viperous Arian brood proclame Theodorus for cutting off one arme of these Acts which yet hath no maime nor defect at all in that part Theodorus was a Catholike Bishop a condemner and anathematizer of Origen and all his errors and yet they will enforce you to beleeve that he is an heretike an Origenist the chiefe patron of the Origenists Yet these men have not very well summed up their accounts For how did Theodorus take away that which was against the Origenists whereas hee suffered to stay in the Acts an anathema to Origen and to the impious writings of Origen and to all that thinke as did Origen yea to all that doe not anathematize Origen What sillinesse was it in the Cardinall to think that Theodorus or any Origenist would spoyle the Acts and take away some discourses and disputations against Origen and leave that which is the maine matter of all the sentence of condemnation against him and his errors yea against themselves supposing them to be such as the Cardinall slandereth them and that also subscribed by their owne hands as an eternall witnesse against them So maliciously blinded were the Cardinall and Binius in this cause that so they spake against the Councell and the Catholike Bishops thereof they regard not how untruly how
Constitution of Pope Vigilius concerning the three Chapters is wanting therein refuted 1. THe fift defect which the Cardinall hath spyed in these Acts is that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius is not now extant therein Of it the Cardinall sayth a An. 553. nu 48 That it belongeth to the Acts of the fift Synod is evidently declared by that which we have spoken and againe this b Ibid. nu 47. Constitution as also many other things Noscitur esse sublatum is knowne to be taken out of the Acts of the fift Synod How prove you Sir that either it belongs to it or is taken out of these Synodall acts What againe so rude and unmannerly as aske a reason of the Cardinall Is it not proved sufficiently when Baronius hath sayd it Truly then it is disproved sufficiently when an opposer of Baronius hath denyed it For any man for truth and credit may easily oversway Baronius I pray why should the Popes Constitution bee part of the Acts rather than the Emperours Edict or why doth the Cardinall finde a defect in wanting the Papall which is hereticall and not of the Imperiall which is an orthodoxall decree 2. Baronius will further tell you out of which part of the Acts this is stolne It c Libellus Synodo oblatus pridie Idus Maij. an 553. nu 41. et Papae libellus oblatus Synodo nos hic in 5. Collatione suo loco restituendū esse putamus ibid nu 47. was offered to the Synod in their fift Collation Ad d Jbid. nu 48. hunc ipsum diem quintae Collationis pertinere cognoscitur It is knowne that the Popes Constitution belongs to this yeare and to this very day of the fift Collation And how I pray you is that knowne Because e Ibid. the Constitution hath in the end of it the date of the day and yeare wherein Vigilius published it A reason fit for none but a Cardinall As if all Constitutions Letters and Edicts which beare date of a yeare and a day belonged to that fift Collation and were certainly stolne out of it Was ever any infatuated if not Baronius in this cause But the Constitution beares date f Pridie Idus Maij. Bar. an 553. nu 210. eo autem die habita 5. Collatio an eodem nu 41. on the 14. day of May in the reigne of Iustinian and the fift Collation of the Synod was on the same day A like reason to the former as if all Letters or Constitutions written on that day must needs be published in the Councell or on that very day in their Collation Admitting it was read yet the contrary seemes much rather to follow that it was not read on that day but on some other after for the Constitution is directed g Gloriosissimo et clementissimo filio Iustiniano Vigilius Episcopus ita incipit Constit Vigil apud Bar. an 553 nu 50. and was sent h Vigilius pollicitus fuit se missurum decretū suum seu Constitutum ad ipsum Imperatorem atque ad Syodum quod et ingenue praestitit Bar. an eodem nu 47. to the Emperour that could not be before the fourteenth day on which it is dated and in likelihood the Emperour both read and examined it with leasure before he sent it from him to the Councell the length of the Constitution may easily perswade any that one day was little enough for that businesse supposing no other affaires to have distracted the Emperour Binius considering this and being better advised hereof dissenting from the Cardinall herein tels us that the Constitution was read in their sixt Collation which was on the nineteenth k 14. Kalendas Iunias Coll. 6. in initio of May i Oblatum fuisse Concilio Vigilij constitutum c. quibus non obscure significatur idem Constitutum in sexto illo Patrum confessu recitatum fuisse Bin. Not. ad Conc. 5. pa. 610. a. et Ex Actis Concilii non obscure colligitur ipsum Constitutum insexto Confessu Episcoporum recitatum fuisse idem pa 606. b. foure or five dayes after the date and publishing of it So uncertaine and unlikely is that of which the Cardinall sayth Cognoscitur it is knowne to belong to the fift Collation 3. But indeed as the Imperiall Edict was not so neither was this Papal Constitution publikely read either in the fift or sixt or any other Collation of this Synod much lesse was it ever any part of the Synodall Acts thereof The Emperour and so all the Bishops of the Synod laboured as much as they could to draw the whole Church to unity of faith with themselves especially Pope Vigilius whose consent might happily draw after it if not the whole yet a great part of the Westerne Church which were most earnest in defence of the Three Chapters They knew that in particular and by name to condemne Vigilius or his Constitution might not only have exasperated but even utterly alienated the minde of Vigilius and made him and with him his adherents more obstinate in their heresie They sought by silence to conceale and by charity to suppresse as much as they could that hereticall and disgracefull Constitution of his and by their lenity and faire meanes to gaine him and his consent to them yea even to the truth it selfe for this cause though they knew full well that Vigilius had set out that decree yea though they confuted all the substance thereof and condemned both it and him in generalities yet they forbare at all to name Vigilius or in particular to mētion this his decree that had beene to proclame hostility and have made an absolute breach betwixt them and Vigilius for ever 4. Besides this which was a very just reason not so much as to publish as they did not that Constitution in their Synod the Emperour had alwayes a purpose to have as in the seventh Collation was done the Epistles of Vigilius to Rusticus and Sebastianus to Valentinianus and others opēly read published in the Councel In them Vigilius by his Apostolicall authority decreeth the condemning of the three Chapters what a disgrace had this beene to Vigilius to publish first his Apostolicall Constitution in defence and shortly after his Apostolicall Constitution for condemning the same Three Chapters How justly might this have incensed Vigilius and for ever with-held him from consenting to them who had proclamed him in their Councell recorded him in their Synodall Acts to bee such a Proteus Nay this had extenuated and vilified for ever the authority of Pope Vigilius the holy Apostolike See to record two constitutions both proceeding ex Tripode fighting ex Diametro and by an unreconciliable contradiction opposed the one to the other Seeing then both the Emperour and the Councell meant by their so often expressing the consent of Vigilius to them and by their reciting his Apostolicall Constitution for condemning the Three Chapters in the seventh Collation seeing they meant hereby to draw
about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius p Domnus caepit an 446. quare ejus an 10. erit 55â— quo anno obijsse Vigilium ait Bar. an 555. nu 1. So this decree by the Cardinals owne reason is but a forgery as in very truth it is Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse fragment will admit an error of the writing Paulus being put for Domnus why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret as not to thinke a like errour of the pen in it and Iohannes to be put for Domnus 16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editioÌ„s of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius r In append ad Cod. Iustin the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Å¿ Bar. an 451. nu 129. Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again t An 530. nu 4. Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptioÌ„ without al doubt Iohn being dead ten u Iohannes 2. obijt an 9. Iustiniani Bar. an 535. nu 26. at Edictum editum an 20. Iustiniani Bar. an 546. nu 8. yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius x Iohannis Papae tempore editum mendaci inscriptione notatur Bar. an 546. nu 10. liquido constat non ante praesens tempus an vid. 20. Iustin potuisse esse conscriptum libellum illum Bar. ibid. constat Edictum Vigilij tempore conscriptum an 534. nu 21. himselfe both declares and proves professing that Inscription to be false Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstration drawne from the title and Inscription oh how happily how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against and contradicting that Edict Hee might have said Why that Edict was none of Iustinians nor ever published by him for the Inscription is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell or any Synodall Acts at all of it for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause to define the truth delivered by the Edict This had beene a short cut indeed and the Cardinall like another Alexander by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then nor ever I thinke till the acts of this fift Synod and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal for notwithstanding the falshood of that inscription title the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit but a true imperiall Edict truely published by Iustinian y Imperator promulgavit Edictum Bar. an 546. nu 8. Hactenus Iustiniani Edictum Ibid. nu 37. et saepissime similia contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say z Scias perperam additum ipsum missum ad Iohannem Bar. an 534. nu 21. et an 546. nu 10. that addition to Iohn is added put amisse in the title by some later hand by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret the name of Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle rather than by reason of such an errour as happeneth in many Epistles and writings to declame not onely against the Epistle as a base forgery and none of Theodorets but even against all the Acts a At quam fidem rogo merentur Acta hujusmodi qua sunt hiâ— contexta commentis Bar. an 553. nu 46. of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is found extant 17. None I thinke doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire and without all corruption as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Councels To omit the rest in those of Chalcedon b Act. 1. pa. 8. a. the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene held when Zeno and Posthumianus were Consuls in the third Indiction An undoubted errour For that Ephesine Conventicle was held when c Marcell in Chron. hinc certo liquet quâ—a Conciliabulum Ephesinum sequutum est illud Constantinopoli habitum in quo condemnatus est Eutyches à Flaviano at hoc Constantinopoli habitum est Protogene et Asterio Coss ut patet in Concil Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 30. Protogenes and Asterius were Consuls not when Zeno and Posthumianus neither were Zeno and Posthumianus Consuls in the third but in the first d Vt liquet ex Marcell in Chron. Indiction neither was the Councell held either in the first or in the third but in the e Vt liquet ex eodem Marc. second Indiction and therefore both Baronius f Ba. an 448. n. 58 and Binius g Haec verba teÌ„pore Zenonis et Posthumiani Jnd ctione 3. mendosa sunt surreptitia Bin. Not. in Conciliab Eph. to 1. Conc. pa. 1017. b say these words tempore Zenonis Post humiani venerabilium Consulum indictione tertia are false and by surreption crept into the Acts. Againe the sixteenth Action or Session is sayd to have beene on the twenty eight h Quinto Kalendaâ— Novembris Act. 16. Conc. Chalc. of October A manifest errour seeing their thirteenth Action i 3. Kalend. Novemb Conc. Chal. Act. 13. or Session was on the nine and twentieth and their fourteenth k Pridie Kalend Nov. Conc. Chal. Act. 14. Session on the thirtieth of October Yea there are in those Acts farre greater faults than these For in the third Action l Pa. 84. b. is set downe the Imperiall Edict of Valentinian and Martian for condemning of Eutyches and yet that Edict was not published untill the 26. of Ianuary when m Datum 7. Kalend Febr. Sporario Coss in fine Edicti Sporarius was Consull whereas the Councell of Chalcedon and all the Acts therof was ended on the first day of November n Nam ultima Sessio habita est Kalendis
XXXV That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings and fabulous narrations in handling this cause of the fift Councell as particularly the excommunication ascribed to Mennas Theodorus and others and the narration of Anastasius 1. YOV have seene all the exceptions which their great Momus could devise against these Acts to prove them corrupted either by alteration or mutilation or which is the worst of all by additions of forged writings But alas who can endure to heare Baronius declame against corrupted false forged or counterfeit writings Quis tulerit Gracchos better might Gracchus invey against sedition or Verres against bribery than Baronius against the using of false and fained writings Aethiopem albus derideat hee should first have washt away those foule blemishes out of his owne Annals more blacke herewith than any Aethiopian and then have censured such spots in others Were his Annals well purged of such writings their vast Tomes would become a pretty Manuall They who have occasion to examine other passages in Baronius will finde the truth hereof in them for this one concerning the fift Councell Pope Vigilius and the cause of the Three Chapters from which I am loath to digresse I doubt not but whosoever will compare the Cardinals Annals with this Treatise wil easily perceive that all which hee hath said in defence of the Pope relyeth on no other nor better grounds but either forged writings or if truely written by the authors yet on some fabulous narration and untruths which from them the Cardinall hath culd out as onely sit for his purpose Suffer me to give a tast hereof in some of them 2. The first in this kinde is a supplication to Vigilius or a briefe confession made unto him by Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and divers other Easterne Bishops inserted in the beginning of the Constitution of Vigilius and much applauded by the Cardinall a Bar. an 572. nu 19. in this cause and this to bee a meere fiction is by many evident proofes before mentioned easily discerned The occasion of it as the Cardinall tels us b Ibid. et nu 20. was to humble themselves to Pope Vigilius and acknowledge the injuries they had done in writing and declaming against c Vigilio non acquu vit sed eâ—â— plane despexiâ— eique insultavit c. Ba. an 551 nu 3. him and his Synodall Constitution for Taciturnity concerning the Three Chapters Now seeing that whole matter is fictitious for neither was there any such Synod ever held nor any such decree ever made the confession which is grounded on them must be like them fabulous and forged 3. The contents bewray the dulnesse of the forgerer the Easterne Bishops professe there to imbrace the foure former Councels and all the Acts thereof in all causes judgements and Constitutions made with consent d Vniversa ab eisâ—em Synodiâ— Communi coâ—sensu cum Vicarijs sedis Apostolicae judicia conservamus c. in Exemplo confess quod extat in initio Constituti Vigilij of the Popes Legates Why the Easterne Bishops knew right well that some Canons were concluded both in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon not only without but quite contrary to the minde of the Pope and his Legates as namely that about the dignity of Constantinople which they notwithstanding the resistance of the Legates both approved and knew it to have beene ever held in force by the judgement of the Catholike Church but specially by the Bishops of Constantinople whose Patriarchall dignity which they ever after the second Councell enjoyed was both decreed and confirmed by those Canons Never did the Easterne Bishops in those dayes nor long after esteeme the Popes owne much lesse his Legates consent so necessary to any Synodall Decree but that without them the same might bee made and stand in force as the judgement of the generall Councell and whole Church And to goe no further what an unlikely and uncredible thing is it that Theodorus and the rest in one yeare should make this confession to accept no more of those Synodall decrees then the Pope or his Legates were pleased to allow and the very next yeare after contrary to that their confession themselves hold a Synod and make a Synodall decree in this cause of the Three Chapters not onely without the Popes consent or presence either of himself or his Legate but even contrary to his definitive sentence made known unto them the deviser of that confession shewes himselfe plainely to have beene some of the Vaticane favourites who living perhaps in the time of Gregory by this intended to infringe the dignity of the See of Constantinople and those Canons which were concluded both in the 2. and 4. Councell whereas the Easterne Bishops notwithstanding the contradiction and resistance of the Pope held them ever in as great authority and reverence as any Canons in all the foure former Councels 4. Againe what a silly devise was it to make Mennas Theodorus and a great number of Bishops to aske pardon of the Pope for that wherein they professe themselves no way to bee guilty I have e De injurijs beâ—titudini vestrae factis ego quideÌ„ nullam feci c. Ibid. done no injuries to your Holinesse yet for the peace of the Church veluti si eas fecissem veniam postulo I pray you forgive mee that which I never did as if I had done it Can any man thinke this the submission of wise men of such stout and constant mindes as Mennas and Theodorus besides the rest had or what could bee devised more repugnant to that which Vigilius is made to say in his excommunication f Extat inter Epist Vigilij post Epistolam 16. of Theodorus Thou scandalizing the whole Church and being warned entreated threatned by me hast refused to amend nunquam à pravâ intentione cessasti and never hast thou ceased from thy wicked designe nor to write and preach novelties so he cals the condemning of the Three Chapters yea after the Constitution for silence to which thou hadst sworne thou hast openly red in the Pallace a booke against the Three Chapters thou hast beene the fire-brand and the beginner of the whole scandall thou hast despised the authority of the Apostolike See Thus saith the Excommunication Was Vigilius well advised thinke you to accept as a satisfaction and submission for so many and so hainous crimes of insolency contempt perjury sacriledge and the like this confession at the hands of Theodorus wherein he doth in effect give the Pope the lie saying and avouching I have written no bookes at all contrarie to that Decree of Silence made by your Holinesse and for the injuries which have beene done to your holinesse and to your See eas quidem non feci truely I have done none at all Is not this a worthy submission the Pope saith he hath done innumerable and very hainous injuries to him such as deserved the censure of
a barre unto Anthimus If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon but till that were done till the Councell were repealed Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that hee in two severall Epistles the one to Iustinian the other to Mennas confirmed as the Emperour required him to doe the deposition of Anthimus and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges namely in the fourteenth yeare of k Vt ante probatum est hoc cap. Iustinian and five yeares before the death of Gontharis Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood but Vigilius also to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Emperour that hee would not doe specially seeing as Baronius l Bar. an 540. nu 22. saith Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperour Omnem prorsus sive Theodorae sive alijs spem ademisset would put both Theodora and all else out of all hope that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus So although those words eodem tempore were not as they ought to be referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople which was the yeare m Nam literae Vigilij missae Iustimano sunt an 14. Iustiniani Bar. an 540. nu 14. Bellisarius autem redit Constantinopolim cum Vitige an Iustiniani 15. Bar. an 541. nu 3. after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour yet the Anastasian narration is not onely untrue but wholly improbable that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas that hee would not restore him and that he ought not to bee restored Lastly at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus which following the death of Gontharis must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside and the Three Chapters were then in every mans mouth and every where debated The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare as by Victor n Iustinianus Vigilium compelit ut ad urbaÌ„ regiam properaret an 4. post Consulatum Basilij Vict. in Chr. in eum an is autem est an 19. Justiniani secundum Bar. an 545. nu 1. who then lived is evident if not before published his Edict and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople Anastasius dreamed of somewhat and hearing of some writing or sending to Vigilius about that time he not knowing or which I rather thinke willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration for his great love to the Pope conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus and indeavors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See Iust as Alcibiades o Plut. in Alcih to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne p Nam mina Atâ—tica valet nostri nun mi 3. l. 2. s 6. d. ut testatur Edovardus Breirwooddus in lib. suo de Pond ca. 4. quem libruÌ„ accuratè admodum haec tractare non est cur docti dubitent 218. pound and 15. shillings and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace The true cause of sending to Vigilius as Victor sheweth q Imperator Vigilium ad regiam urbem compellit venire ut tâ—ia Capitula condeÌ„naret Vict. in Chron. an 4. post Coss Basilij was about the Three Chapters this of Anthimus which Anastasius harpes upon is in truth no other but the dogs taile and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men but now the true cause being come to the open view fils the world with that shamefull heresie of Vigilius which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dogs taile But enough of this passage wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes 18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vigilius and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to ConstaÌ„tinople He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus suggested divers accusations against him as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed and that hee was a murderer and had killed his Nephew Asterius whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scribo to take him wheresoever hee were except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribo came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people singing an hymne behold the Lord commeth Thus Anastasius Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend were easie to demonstrate if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part for they not onely condemne this as untrue but prove it by divers arguments to be such The first for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely r Trium Capitulotum causâ tantum vocatus est Bin. not in vita Vigilij § Tunc Romani Non alia causa profectionis Vigilij Constantinopolim cognoscitur Bar. an 546. nu 55. for the cause of the Three Chapters and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof aperti mendacij Å¿ Bar. an eodem 546. nu 54. arguitur is convinced of an evident untruth The second because seeing as they say Mennas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented Iustinian would conciliate t Putavit Vigilium quibus posset fieri blanditijs conciliandum Bin. loc cit Eum sibi quibus valuit studuit conciliare blanditijs Bar. an 546. nu 55. the Pope unto him by all faire meanes and intreate him no otherwise but favourably least if the Pope were displeased he should not yeeld his consent and then the whole
Theodora the patron of Anthimus an oppugner of the Councell of Chalcedon whence it may appeare that Anastasius ascribes to the Emperour that which was done by the Empresse against Agapetus and if any such words were used by Agapetus as comparing their tyranny to Dioclesians persecution it was spoken no way of Iustinian who was even then a most earnest defender of the true faith but of Theodora who for a while laboured for Anthimus and against the Councell of Chalcedon till seeing that shee could not prevaile therein neither by the meanes of Agapetus nor Silverius nor Vigilius after he had once writ to the Emperour his confirmation of the deposition of Anthimus she then changed her mind the cause of the three Chapters being then moved she became as the Emperour himselfe was an earnest condemner of the three Chapters as by t Nam Victor asserit Theodoram laborasse ut tria Capitula condemnentur in suo Chron. sub an 2 â—ost Cons Basilij Victor is evident that is in truth an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon Now upon this truth errour alwayes having some truth for his ground Anastasius u Jn vita Agapeti buildeth many fabulous and poeticall fictions of his owne devising as that Iustinian and Agapetus quarrelled about the faith Agapetus defending against him the two natures in Christ that the Emperour threatned banishment to Agapetus unlesse he would consent with him and deny the two natures that Agapetus called him Dioclesian that Agapetus disputed with Anthimus and overcame him before the Emperour that the Emperour thereupon humbled himselfe to the Pope and adored x Augustus adoravit beatissimû Agapetum Papam Anast ibid. the most blessed Agapetus that then hee banished Anthimus and entreated Agapetus to consecrate Mennas in his roome Now Anastasius perceiving these his fictions concerning Iustinian and Agapetus wherein hee had some ground of truth to be plausible and his end being this Papae ut placereÌ„t quas fecisset fabulas hee brings in Iustinian and Vigilius to act the very same pageant againe and that without any ground of truth they for sooth tenne yeares after Anthimus was deposed and for ought appeareth was dead at that time must come in quarrelling againe about Anthimus as fresh as ever the Emperour and Agapetus had done before nay they must contend two other whole yeares after the former tenne about this Helena Iustinian and his Empresse must for want of variety of phrases be termed Dioclesian and Eleutheria Vigilius must be buffeted and beaten haled dragged imprisoned and banished Truly Anastasius had some ground for the act under Agapetus for this of Vigilius he is beholding to none but his own poeticall pate lest any little scene or shadow of resemblance might be wanting Baronius y Bar. an 547. nu 49. supplying one defect in Anastasius tels us how Vigilius for the same cause of Anthimus excommunicated Theodora at his comming to Constantinople even as Agapetus had done before Who sees not all this to be nothing else but a mimesis of the acts of Agapetus and a meere fiction of Anastasius in which there are not so few as thirty lyes 22. You have seene the tragicall part of this Anastasian fable now followeth the Catastrophe or sudden change of all this hard fortune Tunc Gothi secerunt then saith he the Gothes made Totilas their King who comming to Rome besieged it so sore that the City was pressed with a great famine so that they did eate their owne children Totilas entred the Citie at the gate of Saint Paul in the 13. Indiction and for a whole night caused a Trumpet to be sounded till all the Romane people were fled away or hid in Churches And Totilas dwelled with the Romanes quasi pater cum filijs even as a father with his children Thus Anastasius Who would not think by this narration that Totilas were made King after the beating dragging and imprisonment of Vigilius and banishment of him his fellows upoÌ„ which Anastasius presently adjoyneth Tunc Gothi fecerunt then the Gothes made Totilas King and yet Totilas was King a Totilas creatur Rex Gothorum anno 7. belli Gothici Proc. lib. 3. pa. 346. Is est annus Iust 16. ut ait Bar. an 542. nu 1. Vigilius Bizantium venit anno 12. belli Gothici Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. iâ— est Iustiniani 21. isto anno Constantinopolim venisse Vigilium ait Bar. an 547. nu 26. not onely before all that tragicall act but foure or five yeares also before Vigilius came to Constantinople or before the Emperour sent for him and in like sort Totilas his besieging of Rome by Anastasius narration follows all the former whereas by Procopius b Totilas Romam contendit quam statim obsedit Procop. lib. 3. pa. 360. Per id tempus obsidionis cum Vigilius in Sicilia esset c. lib. eod pa. 364. it is evident that Totilas besieged Rome while Vigilius stayed in Sicilie before he set forward to Constantinople The like errour is in the note of the Indiction for Totilas tooke the City not as Anastasius saith in the 13. but as c Indictione 10. 6. post Cons Basilij anno Totilas Romam ingreditur Marc. in Chron. Is est juxta eundem Marc. an 547. cui consentit Bar. an 547. nu 12. Marcellinus witnesseth and that aright in the 10. Indiction neither did he enter at the gate of Saint Paul but as Procopius d Vniverso exercitu instructo ad pâ—rtam Asinariam duxit c. Proc. lib. 3. p. 372 expresly declareth at that which was called Asinaria neither did Totilas sound any such Trumpet to give them warning or space to flee but entring the City in the night and that by trechery of the watch he stayed e Vnum in locum copias omnes coegit hostium insidias verituâ— Proc. ibid. his army together till morning for feare that some danger might befall himselfe or his army in the darke by the lying in wait of the enemies And when after this Bellisarius having recovered the City Totilas againe wan it from the Romanes which was three yeares after this to wit in the 15. yeare of the Gothicke warre as Procopius f Annus 14. exibat hujus belli Totilas deinde copias Romam ductavit c. Proc. l. 3. pa. 394. sheweth which was the 24. of Iustinian whereas his first taking it was in the 21. of Iustinian then indeed Totilas as Procopius g Praecepit ut quanta vi posseÌ„t buccinâ clangorem eliderent c. Proc. ibid. pa. 394. declareth caused divers Trumpets to sound an alarum on the river of Tyber in the night time as if hee would on that side assault the City while hee had his army in readinesse on the contrary side and entred there by trechery also of the Watch the Romanes giving little regard to that part These Trumpets gave the occasion to Anastasius his fiction which is
applauding the same Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires hee so long gaped and thirsted after At the first onset hee sought the Papacy but got it not at the second turne hee got it but by usurpation and intrusion onely but now at this third and last boute hee hit the marke indeed hee got the rightfull possession of it and is now become what hee would bee the true Bishop of Rome and Vicar of S. Peter 16. I have stayed somewhat long in the entrance of Vigilius and yet because I have set downe no more but a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a naked undecked narration or as it were onely rough hewed I must pray the reader that hee will permit mee to set downe some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinall Baronius for though all men knew him to bee one whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oyle and who will bee sure to say no more ill of any of them than meere necessity and evidence of truth inforceth him yet so unfit am I to write their Popes lives that for want of fit termes I am inforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Description of Vigilius heare then no longer mee but the great Cardinall the deare friend of Vigilius telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope heare him defining Vigilius in this manner Hee was an ambitious f Ab ambitioso Diacono procurata Bar. an 538 nu 9. Deacon who by a madde g Insana cupiditate flagrans ambitione Vigilius Jbid. nu 5. desire burned with pride whom thirst h Enin quod burathrum infaliceÌ„ hominem conjecit ambitio in quantum insaniam infamiam adegit euÌ„ vana gloriae cupido cujus causa cogatur in ipso portu pati naufragium in Petra Petrae scandalum esse et in fide infidâ—lem haberi Jbid. nu 17. of vaine glory drove into madnesse and into the hellish gulfe by meanes whereof he makes shipwracke in the very haven becomes a Rocke of offence and seemes an infidell in faith a bondslave i Se Theodorae Augustae instar mancipij turpissimè vendidit Bar. an 540. nu 8. to impious and hereticall Theodora that is to Megera k Accipiat Theodora nomen potius ab inferis Alecto vel Megera vel Tisiphone nuÌ„cupanda Bar. an 535. nu 63. to Alecto and the hellish furies who with Lucifer desired to ascend l Dum sursum ascendere meditatur deorsum demergitur An. 538. nu 18. into heaven and exalt his throne above the Starres but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes fals downe into the depth which crimes with Cain m Vagetur necesse est cum Caine qui intus clausum habet quod eum agit in adversa peccatum Ibid. he having so inclosed in his breast must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond Vnsavory salt n Quid reliquuÌ„ esse potuit salis infatuati nisi ut conculcetur et proijciatur in sterquiliniuÌ„ haeresum An. 538. nu 17. worthy by all to bee trodden under foote and cast into the dunghill of heresies who had got unto him the stench o Putorem contraxit haeretica pravitatis Ibid. of heretical pravity who bouÌ„d himselfe p Pactis conventis conscripta jurataque haereticorum defensio An. 540. nu 4. by an obligation under his owne hand yea by his oath also to patronize heretikes who promised q Augusta Vigilium sibi profiteri flagitavit ut tolleret Synodum lubenter suscepit Vigilius promissum ejus Haec cum ipso sacrilega foemina molita est An. 536. nu 123. to abolish the faith and Councell of Chalcedon It was the just iudgement r Ita planè sententiâ Domini judicatur à fide excidere qui gloriae mancipium se constituit An. 538. nu 17. of God that hee should fall from the faith who became a Vassall to vaine glory a schismatike Å¿ Vigilij schismatici an 538. nu 20. a Symoniacke t Alienae sedis emptor Jbid. et Symoniaca labes eum deturpavit an 540. nu 4. a murderer u Silverij necis cooperatio eum redarguit Ibid. whose sacriledges x Clamantibus undique sacrilegijs an 538. nu 19. cried unto heaven an usurper y Silverij viventis sedem usurpasse malis artibus nactum esse imo invâ—sisse eum intelligit an 540. nu 4. violentus intrusor an 538. nu 11. a violent invader an intruder of the Apostolike See a bastard z Agit Rom. PoÌ„tificem quamvis spurius et penitus illegitimus an 538. nu 2â— and unlawfull Pope whom the true and lawfull Pope hath bound a Sciens cunctos sibi subjectos quos vel absolvat vel aeternis vinculis obliget authoritate c. an 539. nu 4. with eternall chaines against whom hee hath shot the dart b Adversus Romanae Ecclesiae invasorem spurilique intrusum Pontificem validè telum damnationis intorquet an 539. nu 4. of damnation and shewed to the whole world that he ascended into the throne ut lapsu graviore ruat that hee might have a greater and more shamefull fall that hee did not represent c Silverius osteÌ„dit universo orbi Vigilium non referre Simonem Petrum sed Maâ—um neque Vicâ—rium Christi sed Antichristum Ibid. nor was the successor of Simon Peter but of Simon Magus and that hee is the Vicar not of Christ but of Antichrist an Idol d Cernebanc quod rursus Idolum collocanduÌ„ esset in Templo conspiciendamque abominationem desolationis slanseÌ„ in loco sancto an 540. nu 7. even the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place and set up in the temple of God one rightly e Quonam alio nomine quam lupus sur et latro Pseudoepiscopus ac denique Antichristus jure potuit appellari an 538. nu 20. to bee called by no other name than a Wolfe a Thiefe a Robber a Pseudobishop and even Antichrist and which after all the rest is especially to bee remembred as the cloze of the Cardinals Description all this time Vigilius f Cum Vigilij personam satis perspectam haberent eum nempe esse hominem revera Catholicum an 540. nu 8. both was and was known to the Electors to be a very sound and true Catholike A true Catholike Such Catholikes indeed doth the Cardinall describe and commend unto the world a Catholike Schismatike a Catholike heretike a Catholike Antichrist a Catholike Devill If such were their Romane Catholikes and Catholike Popes in those ancient times O gracious God what manner of Catholike Popes are they in these ages Then and untill the yeare 600 was the golden age of the Church their Romane Bishops were then like the head of Nebuchadnezzers Image to the late and moderne Popes Vigilius a golden Bishop indeed to the brazen iron
selfe-same heresie of denying one nature in Christ they all consented in teaching two natures making two persons in Christ which Dioscorus and Eutyches condemned Of Theodorus and Theodoret it is cleare by the Councels both of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the fift Synod Of Paulus Samosatenus the writing or contestation of the Catholike Clergy of Constantinople set downe in the Acts of Ephesus a To. 1. act Conc. Eph. ca. 11. doe certainly witnesse and declare the same the title of which is to shew partly Nestoriū ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosatenus and in the contestation it selfe it is said thus I adjure all to publish this our writing for the evident reproofe of Nestorius the heretike as one who is convinced to teach and openly maintain eadem prorsus quae Paulus Samosatenus the same doctrines altogether which Paulus Samosatenus did and then they expresse seven heretical assertions taught alike by them both Seeing then Vigilius accursed him who taught the same with Paulus Theodorus and Theodoret and that was Nestorius not Dioscorus it is undoubtedly certaine that not Dioscorus but Nestorius was the party written and named by Vigilius in his subscription and that Dioscorus was not by Vigilius but by the oversight and negligence of the exscriber of Liberatus wrongfully inserted in stead of Nestorius And truly the like mistakings are not unusuall in Liberatus In this very Chapter it is sayd that Vigilius a little after the death of Agapetus and election of Silverius when he came from Constantinople to Rome with the Empresse her letters for placing him in the Romane See he found b Quin Ravennae reperi◠Bellisarium Liber ca. 22. Bellisarius at Ravenna a manifest mistaking of Ravenna for Naples for there and not at Ravenna was Bellisarius at that time as by Procopius c Nam Silveriū ait ejectum à Bellisario p. 287 id fuit anno 3. belli Gothici ut liquet ex pa. 313 ubi ait Tertius belli hujus annus exibat at Bellisarius non caepit Ravennam ante finem anni 5. ejus belli ut ait Proc. 340. 343. ubi ait Iam annus 5. exibat is evident and because this is no way prejudiciall to their cause Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit d Hic puto Liberatum memoria lapsum Ravennam pro Neapoli posuisse Bar. an 538. nu 7. idem Bin. Not. in Liber an error or slip of memory in Liberatus and not so hastily conclude as here they doe that because Bellisarius was not then at Ravenna as in Liberatus is falsly affirmed therefore that Chapter of Liberatus is forged and not truly written by him Would his Cardinalship have beene as favourable to Liberatus in naming Dioscorus for Nestorius which the like evidence of truth and all the circumstances doe necessarily enforce the Epistle might as well passe for the true writing of Vigilius as that Chapter for the writing of Liberatus In this very Epistle of Vigilius it is said in Liberatus e Apud Bin. to 2. pa. 614. I know quia ad Sanctitatē vestrā fidei meae crudelitas pervenit that the cruelty of my faith is before this come to your eares and the very same word of crudelitas fidei is in Victor also which argues the fault to be very ancient It is true that the faith of Vigilius was indeed cruell for he by it cruelly condemned abolished and as it were murdered the Councell of Chalcedon that is in truth the whole Catholike faith and so this happened to be not onely a true but a fit and significant error Yet the Cardinall was so friendly and charitable here as to thinke that it was but a slip of the penne or negligence of the writer in saying crudelitas for credulitas as the Cardinall readeth f Bar. an 538. nu 14. it might not by the like negligence and with lesse disgrace to Vigilius Dioscorus slip into the text in stead of Nestorius In the inscription of the Epistle Liberatus reades it Dominis ac Christis Victor Dominis ac fratribus the Cardinall corrects both and makes it worst of all Dominis ac patribus May he play the Criticke and turne Christis or fratribus into patribus and that without nay against reason and may not others in the subscription restore Nestorius for Dioscorus when the truth and necessary circumstances enforce that correction It was Nestorius then not Dioscorus whom Vigilius accursed it is but the errour or corrupt writing of Vigilius Epistle in Liberatus which wee also condemne and not the Epistle of Vigilius at which the Cardinall unjustly quarrelleth 27. His third and last shift is worst of all If Vigilius had indeed writ this Epistle why then saith he g Bar. an 538. nu 15. was it not upbraided unto him at Constantinople neither by the Empresse Theodora when shee contended with him about the restoring of Anthimus nor by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Mennas when Vigilius excommunicated them both and they vexed him so long nor by the Emperour Iustinian when he was furiously inraged against him nor by the fift Synod which was offended with him for refusing to come to the Councell nor yet by Facundus when he writ angerly against him these were publikely debated nec tamen de dicta epistolá vel usquam mentio yet is there not any mention or light signification of any such Epistle Thus the Cardinall Of whom I againe demand where he learned to dispute ab authoritate humanâ negativè the old and good rule was Neque ex negativis recte concludere si vis but the Cardinall hath new Analytickes and new-found rules of Art Ex negativis poteris concludere si vis Himselfe witnesseth h Bar. locis supr citat and proclameth Vigilius to have beene a Symoniack and to have compacted with Bellisarius for 200. peeces of gold to have beene excommunicated deposed degraded by Pope Silverius pronouncing that sentence out of his Apostolike authority and from the mouth of God why was not this Symony why was not this censure of Silverius upbraided neither by Theodora nor Theodorus nor Iustinian nor the fift Councell nor Facundus that being a publike and knowne censure had been a matter of farre greater disgrace to Vigilius farre more justifiable than the epistle writ privately and secretly to Anthimus and commanded by Vigilius to bee kept close that none might know it See you not how vaine this shift of the Cardinall is How it crosseth him in his Annals to slander Vigilius as symoniacall as censured by Silverius both which seeing they are not upbrayded to him by the forenamed persons but set downe in the Cardinals Analytickes sure they are impostures and forgeries What though none of them upbrayded this Epistle unto him Is it not enough that it is assuredly testified and recorded by S. Liberatus by Bishop Victor two who lived and writ
at that same time what if most of them knew not of this Epistle which was sent secretly by Vigilius and by his advice kept closely by Anthimus and Severus what if they all knew it and yet having other crimes enough to object thought it needlesse to mention that as it seemes they did the Symony of Vigilius and censure of Silverius what if they were not so spitefull as the Cardinall is and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holinesse 28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinall How or why should Theodora upbrayd this to Vigilius for the not restoring of Anthimus that quarrell for the restoring of Anthimus as I have often sayd and clearly proved was a meere devise and fiction of Anastasius it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tayle Or how should Iustinian upbraid it when he was so enraged against Vigilius and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus Seeing neither Iustinian persecuted Vigilius nor was enraged against him but for the space of five of six yeares they both sang one note they fully consorted together or how should Mennas and Theodorus upbraid it when they were excommunicated by Vigilius Seeing that excommunication all the circumstances of it are merely fictitious as by the death of Mennas which was long before that forged excommunication of him was demonstrated Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to bee writ by Vigilius which all relie on fictions on most untrue and idle fancies And whether Facundus upbraided it or no may bee questioned nor will it bee clearly knowne untill they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vaticane where hee lyeth yet imprisoned But as for the fift Councell it was great sillinesse in the Cardinall once to thinke that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectfull manner that could be wished they uttered no one harsh or hard word against him but what was rightly said or done by him as his condemning of Origen his condemning the Three Chapters before the time of the Councell that they often mention and approve it also They sought by lenity to win the Popes heart to consent unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they k Etiamsi ista verè scripsisset Vigilius nullum tamen ob id infertur praejudicium Apostolicae sedi cujus tunc ipse erat invasor Silverius autem germanus Pontifex Bar. an 538. nu 15. Fecit id cum adhuc viveret Silverius quo tempore Vigilius non erat Papa sed Pseudopapa Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. Non mirum si Pseudoepiscopus et quasi Antichristus ad schisma haeresin addidisset Bin. not in Lib. pa 626. a. ita etiam Gretz in Defens ca. 10. lib. 4. Bell. yet that is no prejudice at all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he l Liber ca. 22. dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer m Gret loc cit Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of
favourer of the Eutychean heresie Vigilius saith the Cardinall d Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. ca. 10. § Sciendum was here in a great straite for if hee openly professed heresie hee feared the Romanes who would never indure an heretike to sit in Peters Chaire if hee should on the other side professe himselfe a Catholike he feared Theodora the hereticall Empresse that she would not indure him Itaque rationem illam excogitavit therfore he devised this policy and I pray you note it well that e Vt Romae Catholicum ageret et interim per literas apud Jmperatricem haereticum simularet Bell. ibid. at Rome or openly hee would play the Catholike but secretly in his private letters to the Empresse and to Anthimus he would faine himselfe an heretike Thus Bellarmine who fully expresseth the nature and disposition of Pope Vigilius as if hee had not onely felt his pulse but beene in his bosome Hee was indeed another Catiline Simulare ac dissimulare hee could semble and dissemble conceale what indeed hee was seeme to bee what hee was not At Rome and in shew of the world a Catholike at Constantinople and in his secret and close actions an heretike Thus farre the Cardinall saith well but hee is extremely mistaken in one circumstance in that hee saith that his open or Catholike profession was mentall and ex animo and his private and secret detestation of the Catholike faith was verball and fained It was quite contrary his heart and Intrals were all hereticall nothing but his face and outward shew was Catholike for proofe whereof I will not urge that the Pope in this Epistle accurseth and f Qui dicit in Christo duas formas i. naturas et non confitetur unam personá unam essentiam anathema sit Vigil in Epist apud Liber loc cit anathematizeth all who hold the Catholike faith or who beleeve otherwise than Eutyches did for so hee doth also in his other Epistle to the Emperour and Mennas condemne Eutycheanisme and yet it is no commendation for his Holinesse either to curse the Catholike faith or to curse that faith which in his heart hee beleeveth But this I would have considered that Vigilius promised g Adimple nobis quae pronâ voluntate promisisti Anast in vita Vigil under his hand-writing yea hee swore h Conscriptaque jurataque haereticorum defensio Bar. an 540. nu 4. also that he would abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and restore Anthimus for performance whereof hee writ i Vigilius implens promissionē suam quam Augustae fecerat talē scripsit Epistolam Liber ca. 22 that private Epistle which was all that as yet hee could doe Let Bellarmine now say if their Popes doe use to promise and that under their hands yea to sweare also to doe that which they meane not to doe Who may bee beleeved upon their words upon their oathes if not the Popes Holinesse if hee not onely in words and writing but in his solemne oathes equivocate whose oath among all that generation can bee thought simple and without fraud 34. Againe to what end should Pope Vigilius dissemble secretly and among his intire friends such as were Anthimus Theodosius and Severus where or to whom should he truly open himselfe and his inward heart if not to such The first lesson that men of Vigilius metall learne is that of Lucilius k Ex quo citat Lactant. lib. 6. divin Jnst ca. 18. Homini amico ac familiari non est mentiri meum The Priscilians who as S. Austen l Exhortantur suos ad mendacium tanquam exemplis Prophetarum Apostolorum Angelorum et ipsius Christi Aug. lib. contr Mend. ca. 2. shewes were the very teachers of lying and dissembling and who perswaded their fellow heretikes unto that base art and trade yet even they taught that Lucilian lesson and most impiously pretended m Aug. ibid. to collect it out of the words of the Apostle Speake the truth every man to his neighbour for we are members one of another To his neighbour and fellow member sayd they we must speake the truth but to such as are not joyned n Cum eis qui nobis in societate veritatis proximi non sunt neque ut ita dicam commembres nostri sunt Ibid. to us in the neighbourhood or fellowship of the same Religion and who are not of the same body with us to them loqui licet oportetque mendacium to them you may lye nay you must not speake the truth to such Anthimus Severus and Theodosius they were the next neighbours to Vigilius all conjoyned o Grati◠qua nos Deo nostro conjungimur eam fidem quam tenetis et tenuisse me tenere significo ut et anima una sit et cor unum Vig. Epist ad Anth. apud Lib. loc cit and concorporated into Eutycheanisme Had he dissembled with them he had beene worse than the Priscilianists nay worse than the devils themselves for they though they lye to all others yet speake truth among themselves and to Beelzebub otherwise his kingdome could not endure It was Iustinian and the Catholikes who were of a contrary religion to Vigilius there was little or no neighbourhood at all betwixt them they were not concorporall not members of one body with him to them not being his neighbors commembres with him by the rules of that blacke Art he might he ought to lye but to Anthimus and Severus being of one body with him he must speake the truth 35. Further yet looke to that old Cassian rule Cui bono where and with whom was Pope Vigilius to gaine more by his cogging and counterfeiting He had now rightfull possession of the See of Rome which was the onely marke he aymed at What hurt could three deposed Bishops or the Empresse her selfe doe now unto him being backt by the Emperor by all Catholikes and which is best by a good cause what needed he for pleasing them to faine himselfe an heretike Could they thrust Vigilius from his See who could not hold their owne or could the Empresse deprive Vigilius who could not restore Anthimus There was nothing that could move Vigilius to faine himselfe an heretike or to write that hereticall Epistle if he had been in heart a Catholike But being in heart hereticall there was many most urgent and necessary inducements why he should faine himselfe a Catholike Had hee shewed his inside unto the Emperour and the Church had he opened to them the heresie lurking in his brest had he made it knowne that he would abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and the Catholike faith hee had instantly incensed all against him both the Emperour and the Romanes as Bellarmine p Metuebat Romanos qui haereticum sedere nunquam passuri videbantur Bell. loc cit sayth yea the whole Catholike Church would have joyned in the expulsing and deposing of such a wolfe and wretched heretike out of
not hold Let us consider the Exception it selfe Vigilius writ this Epistle that is confessed hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope that wee have proved hee defined heresie in it and that which is against the faith that Bellarmine implyeth hee condemned in it the Catholike faith that Bellarmine in plaine words expresseth Thus far the cause is cleare Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined heresie and condemned the Catholike faith as he was Pope or no that is the point here to be debated 43. Some may thinke that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawne from secresie and an ambitious minde by which he laboured before to prove that Vigilius did not condemne the faith ex animo meant also that he condemned it not as Pope for it followeth in the next sentence siquidem Epistolam scripsit as giving a reason of his saying If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort then his reasons are before hand refuted for as Vigilius might ex animo write heretically both privately and out of ambition so also might hee tanquam Pontifex condemne the faith notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambitious mind secrecy and an ambitious mind are no more repugnant to the one than to the other they are compatible with them both the Pope may use his Apostolicall authority in teaching as wel privately as publikely as well with Iudas in ambition as with Iohn or Peter in sincerity of heart But the Cardinals Apologist who it may be consulted with the Cardinall about his intent herein doth ease us of those reasons for hee i Gretz loc cit tels us plainly that from Vigilius his desire of secrecie nil aliud colligit Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else but this that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò that hee did it not in earnest It is but a sport with Gretzer or with the Pope to condemne the Catholike faith they doe it but they doe it not in earnest they doe it jocularitèr not seriò Have ye indeed such May-games sports at Rome as to condemne the faith and then say I was in jest and in sport Are not these men new Philistines Call in Sampson Condemne the Catholike faith to make us pastime But let us leave them to their sports till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and dolefull end both of their actors spectators That which I now note is that Bellarmine doth not in those words Siquidem Epistolam scripsit c. from the privatenesse or secrecy prove any thing else but that Vigilius writ it not seriò in earnest and from his heart that hee writ it not tanquam Pontifex this those words prove not Bellarmine in those words collects not So we have now nothing but the bare saying of Bellarmine without any proofe without any reasons and I must needs confesse I hold it a most sufficient encounter for any man to Bellarmines ipse dixit to oppose ipse dico yet because I desire rather to satisfie such as seeke the truth then contend with those who seeke to smother and betray the truth I will a little further enlarge this point and see if it may be cleared by evidence of reason that Pope Vigilius did not onely condemne the Catholike faith at that time but that he did it even as hee was Pope and tanquam Pontifex condemne the Catholike faith 44. What it is for a Pope to teach an errour as Pope may be perceived by other Arts and Sciences in the practice or exercise whereof together with knowledge judgement and skill fidelity also is required were Baronius or some Romane Facundus to examine this point they would quickly sute the Pope to some Cobler Pedler or such like companion I love not to deale so rudely with his Holinesse yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way you know how the Cardinall quitted the religious Emperour with Ne ultra crepidam If a Physitian or Lawyer or Iudge in any discourse should speake barbarously or incongruously they erre therein but as Grammarians not as Iudges Lawyers or Physitians But if a Iudge for any sinister respect should pronounce that sentence as just which is against the law or if a Lawyer should after his diligent sifting of the cause affirme that title to bee sound which were clearely voide in law or if a Physitian should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet each of them now erred offended in his owne profession in that proper duty which belongeth to them the Iudge as a Iudge the Counsellor as a Counsellor the Physitian as a Physitian because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wherin they professe both to know themselves and to make knowne unto others what is right and good If in other matters they transgresse it is not quatenus tales if any of them bee prophane covetous or intemperate they offend now quatenus homines as they are mortall men in those duties of morality which are common to them with all men If they bee seditious rebellious and conspire in treasonable practice they offend quatenus Cives as they are parts of the Common-wealth in those duties which are common to them with all subjects but when they offend in Physick law or judgment those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences they then offend neither quatenus homines nor quatenus Cives nor in any other respect but quatenus tales as they are such professors for now they transgresse against those proper duties which as they are Iudges Counsellors or Physitians are required of them The like of all Artificers of Grāmarians Logicians Poets Philosophers of Presbyters of Bishops of the Professors of Theology which is scientia scientiarum is to bee said If a Divine shall speake rudely incongruously ad populum Antiochenum he offends as a Grammarian not as a Divine unlesse perhaps it bee no fault when it doth so happen for edification that hee ought so to speake as Saint Austen k Aust lib. 4. de doct Christ ca. 16. et Tract 7. in Johan did use divers barbarismes and say ossum for os floriet for florebit dolus for dolor Malo me populus I had rather edifie with rudenesse of words than speake nothing but pure Ciceronian without edifying them without honouring God But if a Bishop or any Divine in stead of truth teach heresie either because hee knowes not the truth 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 l Aug. Epist 50. Aliter servit Rex qua homo aliter qua Rex for as a King serveth God
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 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 Nor doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus against the heresie of Eutyches which to have beene writ by his Apostolicall authority and as he was Pope none of them doe or will deny that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell r Conc. Chalc. Act. 2. et 3. 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 Epistle 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 ſ Quae recitatur Conc. 6. Act. 12. pa. 64. 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 t Vocantur istae et aliae Epistolae dogmatica scripta In eodem Conc. Act. 12. p. 65. a. et retractantes dogmaticas Epistolas à Sergio et ab Honorio ad Sergium Act. 13. pa. 67. a. et Honorius impia dogmata confirmavit Jbid. a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius for a writing wherein hee confirmes others in heresie and Pope Leo u Anathematizamus quoque Honorium qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam et immaculatam fidem prophana proditione subvertere conatus est Leo 2. Epist 1 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
persevering therein eternally shuts against them the gates of Gods mercy and the kingdome of heaven Both which because they are hid from mans eyes the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity onely to God passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity by the outward and apparent acts which are open unto them whomsoever shee seeth not nor findes by certaine and evident proofe to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their hereticall and impious writings which before they published and maintained all those though dead ten an hundred or a thousand years before she by her censure doth and doth most justly condemne accurse and anathematize as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia dead an hundred yeares before is most evident whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fift Councell is approved by all succeeding generall Councels by all Catholikes and even by the whole Catholike Church Nor will I here dispute whether such a sentence doth not sometimes passe errante clave the party having repented whom they not having proofe of his repentance thought to dye impenitent but howsoever that fall out none may justly complaine of the Churches judgement as unjust or unequall herein for besides that it is presumed that those who so notoriously and publikely by their hereticall writings doe scandalize the Church and people of God if they had seriously repented would have expressed some publike and outward testimony of the same the Church would by this severity of her censure teach all men a lesson which is very hard to learne first that they should not have such an itch and ambitious desire to write or utter those detestable heresies which lurk within their breasts or if they cannot observe that yet at least to learne to be so lowly and humble in heart as to revoke their impieties and blasphemies although to some blemish and disgrace of themselves yet to the great honour of Gods truth and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church which they had scandalized If in ambition they will first oppugne the truth and then in a worse pride of heart not be reclamed to the truth nor shew their love unto it why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement shew her open detestation of their persons who in the insolency of their hearts will not shew any open detestation of their heresies That Vigilius writ a papall Constitution in defence of heresie it is apparent and undenyable that he at any time revoked that writing I wish it were but it is not yet evident The like may be sayd of Baronius of Pighius of Eccius of the Laterane Florentine and Trent conspirators of all who have whet their tongues against other truth and specially to uphold that fundamentall heresie of the Popes infallibility Their writings for heresie are evident that they ever reclamed those writings it is inevident and if ever they and their cause come to bee tryed in such a free lawfull and oecumenicall Councell as was this fift under Iustinian they may justly feare and certainly expect from the Church unlesse the disclaming of their writings may by certaine proofe be made knowne the very like sentence though a hundred yeares after theirs as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred yeares after his death And because the houre-glasse for repentance is runne out to the former all that we can doe is which I seriously now doe from my heart to cry amaine unto others to admonish exhort yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God and by the love of their owne soules first that they keepe their tongues and pennes from once uttering any heresie or if they have not done that with the same hands to give the medicine wherewith they gave the wound and as openly nay much more openly to disclame than they have ever proclamed their impious and hereticall doctrines 53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius The exact pourtraiture of the Popes lives Baronius had beene able to set forth if he had listed but he addeth such fucos and so many sophisticall colours that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and naturall habit If ought be amisse in this our description and not set forth according to the lively lineaments of Vigilius and his impieties the equall reader will not too rigorously censure the same I acknowledge that I can but dolare in this kinde to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes I have not learned That is an Art which may not bee too vulgar lest their Romane policies be too farre divulged But by this it is easie to perceive what a silly excuse it is which Baronius useth in this cause blaming Vigilius for coming to Constantinople as if not the Popes owne hereticall minde but the ayre of Constantinople had wrought such effects as to produce that hereticall and yet as they count it Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters FINIS Laus Deo sine fine Errata haec corrigat benevolus Lector In Textu Pag. 48. lin 2. read Theodorus ibid. lin 9. diptisis p. 509. l. 14. eos p. 99. l. 3. John B. p. 125. l. 38. Catholikes p. 141 l. 35. Binius he was p. 145. l. 39. Son of God p. 163. prope finem substances p. 164. l. 5. explanation p. 172. l. 20. of the Pope p. 182. l. 45. their present p. 199. prope finem Catholicae p. 216. l. 17. it p. 224. l. 25. Popes p. 227. l. 5. yeeld p. 289. l. 33. the. p. 350. l. 30. aequiparare p. 425. l. 8. where is ibid. l. 27. Commana ibid. Marcellinus l. 42. inflamed p. 442. in fine Euphemia p. 462. l. 11. quarrels with Pope p. 465. l. 35. all this time p. 478. l. 23. it was written p. 495. l. 37. poysoner of p. 500. l. 35. right hand In Margine Pa. 9. lit c lege Marsorum p. 67. lit e Antioâ—henum p. 233. lit s emissam ibid. lit c corruptè p. 409. lit c commentitias supposititias p. 410. lit q Consilij 5. p. 437. lit l Concil 5. Coll. 5. AN ALPHABETICALL TABLE OF THE CHIEFE THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS TREATISE A. ACts in Councels not so intire but there may be faults from the exscriber pag. 433. Sect. 17 18. Acts of the fift Councell unjustly excepted against by Baronius pa. 379. sect 3 4. Agnoites and other sectaries called Acephali p. 3. sect 6. Agapetus lost nothing by the Emperours presence p. 464. sect 5. Antichrist the Pope first Antichrist nascent secondly crescent thirdly regnant fourthly in their Laterane Councell he was Antichrist triumphant pa. 186. sect 24. Anthimus a Catholike in shew and outward profession p. 157. sect 4. Anastasius narration not helped by Binius p. 458. sect 23. Anastasius a fabler p. 256. sect 23. and pa. 447. sect 12. c. The Author of that Apologicall Epistle published Anno 1601. a vaunting
of them hainous crimes and notorious in Vigilius the matters that offend the Cardinall No none of these hee is not used to finde such faults in their Popes these all hee commends as rare vertues as demonstrations of constancy of prudence of fortitude in Vigilius what then is it that his Cardinalship dislikes Truely among many great and eminent vices in Vigilius which are obvious and runne into every mans sight it hapned that once in his life he did one thing worthy of commendations and that was his obedience in going to Constantinople when the Emperour a Vigilius ab Imperatore evocatus Bizantium venit Proc. lib. 3 pa. 364. called and requested b Jpsum summâ celeritate venire rogans Bar. an 546. nu 54. him to come thither and the Cardinall winking at all the other reproves his Holinesse for this one thing which both in equity and duty hee ought to have done This forsooth is it which hee notes as a very c Caeterum Vigilij profectionem Constantinopolim magnum intulisse Catholicae Ecclesiae damnū eventa declararunt quae et sigficarunt quam prudentissimè egerunt illius praedecessores S. Leo et alij qui vocatisaepe ab orthodoxis licet Imperatoribus nunquanm passi sunt se ab ipsâ fixâ Romae sede divelli c. Bar. an 546. nu 55. dangerous and hurtfull matter and a speciall point of great indiscretion in Pope Vigilius that leaving Rome that holy City hee would goe to Constantinople and to the Emperours Court which his predecessors Leo and others in very great wisdome would never do not goe into the East nor suffer themselves to bee pulled away from their See fixed at Rome 2. Truely I never knew before that there was such vertue in the Romane or such venome in the Constantinopolitane soile or in the Easterne ayre specially seeing the holy Land and the holy City and the holy Temple were all in the East All the Westerne nations are beholding to the Cardinall for this conceit 2 King 5.17 Shall there not bee given to thy servant two Mules load of this Romish earth But let us a little more fully see why the Pope and particularly Vigilius might not goe to Constantinople Oh saith the Cardinall d Bar. los. cit it is found by experience that the Popes going from Rome to the Court obfuisse haud modicum hath done great hurt to the Church for then partly by the threats and partly by the favours and faire intreaties of Emperours as it were with two contrary windes the ship of Peter is exposed to great hazzard Modicae fidei phy a Cardinall to feare or distrust any wracke of Saint Peters ship though never so dangerous a tempest happen though Vna Eurusque Notusque ruant creberque procellis Africus S. Peter hath left such a Pilot in his Rome that a thousand times sooner might he himselfe than his ship sinke Pasce oves tu es Petra oravi pro te Petre will uphold it against all winde and weather And truly I would gladly know of his Cardinalship for my learning how any of their Popes can forsake their See or Rome They have heretofore held it for a maxime e Sententia illa omnium ore versata Vbi Papa ibi Roma Bar. an 552. nu 10. ubi Papa ibi Roma let the Pope goe to Peru yea ultra Garamantas Indos he hath a priviledge above all creatures but the Snaile hee carrieth not onely their infallible Chaire but the whole City of Rome on his backe whithersoever hee goes If not so or if the Chaire bee fixt to Rome where sate all their Popes for those seventy yeares f Clemens 5. propter seditiones Jtalicas sedē Pontificiam ab urbe Roma Avionem Galliae urbem ubi successores mansere annos 70. transtulit Geneb in Chron. in an 1305. when they were at Avinion or how shall they sit in the Chaire when their Babylonish Rome for her Idolatries shal be burnt with unquencheable fire and sinke like a Milstone into the bottome of the Sea which being foretold by Saint Iohn of the Romane City which yet remaineth as their owne Iesuite Ribera g Iohannes in omnibus quae de Babylone loquitur adversus urbem Romanam vaticinatur c. Rib. Com. in ca. 14. Apoc. nu 57. et Vicarius Christi ubicunque sit erit Episcopus Roma etiamsi illa penitut excisa sit Ibid. nu 48. doth truely and undeniably demonstrate is a most certaine Article of the Catholike faith though they seldome thinke of it and will hardly put it into their Creed When their Pope goe whither hee will carieth still with him his infallible Chaire was it not infidelity in the Cardinall to dreame or doubt lest that ship should any where miscarry more at the Court or Kings Pallace than in a Country Cottage more in the Trullane than in the Laterane Temple 3. Yea but usu rerum reperitur h Obshisse haud modicum usu rerum reperitur Pontificum ab urbe profectio ad Comitatum Bar. an 546. nu 55. experience teacheth that their going to the Emperour hath done exceeding hurt and particularly for Vigilius that his going to Constantinople hath brought i Ibid. magnum damnum great harme to the Catholike Church declararunt eventa the events have shewed Events and experience are the most woefull arguments in Divinitie that can possibly be devised Measure the Gospell by temporall calamities which ensued upon it the bloody murdering of the Apostles of the Saints of God almost for three hundred yeares together and hee may as well conclude that the Gospell and truth of Christ is found by woefull experience to have brought exceeding great hurt to the Church The Cardinall was driven to a narrow strait and an exceeding penury of reasons when he was forced to put Argumentum ab eventu for one of his Topicall places 4. But say what hurt can he tell us that ever any Emperours presence with the Pope brought unto the Church If both were Catholike or both hereticall they agreed well enough together As not Satans so much lesse is Gods Kingdome devided against it selfe if the Emperour Catholike and the Pope hereticall the worst the Emperour ever did was but to inflict just punishment on an heretike the worst the Pope sustained was but a just recompence of his heresie and hatred of truth The execution of Iustice never did nor ever can hurt the Catholike Church If the Emperor were hereticall and the Pope orthodoxal there was trial of the Popes art skil in converting such a man to the truth triall of his constancy and love unto Gods truth whether by feare or favour he would forsake it triall of his patience and fortitude in induring all torments even death it selfe for his love to Christ All the hurt which such an Emperour did or could doe was to crowne him a glorious Martyr and in stead of the white garment of innocency to