drosse of the Church quite severed from the gold wee willingly yeeld unto them they and they onely are wholly theirs let them have let them enjoy their Helenaes we envy not such refuse Councils unto them 2. When first I set my selfe to the handling of this argument concerning the Councils it was my purpose besides those other generall questions concerning the right of calling generall Councils the right of Presidencie in them and the right of confirming them to have made manifest those three severall points touching those three rankes of Councils every one of which is not onely true but even demonstrable in it selfe And though with a delightfull kind of toile I have made no small progresse therein yet alas how unequall am I to such an Herculean labour whose time whose strength of body or industry of minde is able to accomplish a worke of such amplitude and of so vast extent for which not Nestors age would suffice Wherefore turning my sailes from this so long and tedious a voyage which I could not so much as hope to end which beside many dangerous rockes hidden Syrtes and sands is every where beset by many Romane enemies specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages with whom at every turne almost one shall be sure to have an hot encounter I thought a shorter course far more fit for my small and unfurnisht barke and despairing of more or longer voyages I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut onely over some one arme of that great Ocean not doubting but the ice being once broken and the passage through these straits opened many other will with more facilitie and felicitie also performe the like in the rest untill the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished 3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fift held at Constantinople in the time of the Emperor Iustinian and Pope Vigilius for authoritie equall to the former it being as well as they approved by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for antiquitie venerable being held within 600. yeares after Christ even in those times while as yet the drosse had not prevailed and got the predominancie above the gold as in the second Nicene Synod and succeding ages it did for varietie of weighty and important matters more delightfull then any of the rest and which I most respected of them all most apt to make manifest the truth and true Iudgement of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Controversies of the Popes supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement which are of all other most ventilated in these dayes 4. The occasion of this Councill were those Tria capitula as they were called which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church to wit The person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead the writings of Theodoret B. of Cyrus against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Councill at Chalcedon 5. The Nestorians whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill when they could no longer under the name of Nestorius countenance their heresie very subtilly indevored to revive the same by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia and his writings as also the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed then before pretending that not onely the persons of Theodoret and Ibas who both had sometimes beene very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme and wherein Theodorus with his hereticall writings are greatly extolled were received and approved in that famous Councill And in truth the Nestorians little lesse then triumphed herein and insulted over Catholikes thinking by this meanes either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Councill of Chalcedon if their doctrine were rejected or if that Council were imbraced together with it and under the colour and authoritie of it to renew and establish the doctrine of Nestorius which as they boasted that councill had certainly confirmed by their approving that Epistle of Ibas 6. By occasion hereof many who were weake in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy councill and those as Leontius sheweth were called Haesitantes waverers or Doubters Many others who for other causes distasted that Councill were hereby incouraged pertinaciously to reject the same as Liberatus declareth Such were the Agnoites Gainites Theodosians Themistians and other like Sectaries called all by the common name of Acephali because they had no one head by whom to be directed All these though being at mortall wars one with another yet herein conspired to oppugne the faith and the holy Councill of Chalcedon taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted and these men gladly beleeved that in it the Epistle of Ibas which maintaineth all the blasphemies of Nestorius was approved Thus the Church was by contrary enemies on every side assailed and so extremely disturbed that as the Emperor testifieth it was in a manner rent even from East to West yea the East was rent from the West 7. Iustinian the religious Emperor knowing how much it was available not onely for his honor and the tranquillitie of his empire but for the good of the whole Church and glory of God to appease all those broiles and knowing further that the holy Councill of Chalcedon though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas after that they had publickly renounced the heresie of Nestorius yet did utterly condemne both that Impious Epistle of Ibas as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia both which that Epistle defendeth together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill he knowing and that exactly all these particulars that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unitie of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon set forth an Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall religious and holy profession or rather an ample Declaration of his nay not his but of the Catholike Faith Among many other things the Emperor in that Edict did particularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the writings of Theodoret against Cyril and that most impious Epistle of Ibas accursing all these as hereticall and all those who either had heretofore or should therafter maintaine or defend them or any one of them 8. But notwithstanding all this which the Emperor with great prudence piety and zeale performed very many even some of those who bare the names of orthodoxall and Catholike Bishops were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict and the Catholike truth delivered therein that they openly oppugned his Edict and defended the Three Chapters by him
Vigilius Dormitans ROMES SEER OVERSEENE OR A TREATISE OF THE FIFT Generall Councell held at Constantinople Anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour in the time of Pope VIGILIVS The Occasion being those Tria Capitula which for many yeares troubled the whole Church WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE POPES Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in matter of Faith was condemned as hereticall by the Synod And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered BY RICH CRAKANTHORP Dr. in DIVINITIE And Chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie KING IAMES Opus Posthumum PVBLISHED AND SET FORTH BY His Brother GEO CRAKANTHORP According to a perfect Copy found written under the Authors owne hand LONDON Printed by M. F. for ROBERT MYLBOVRNE in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Grey-hound M DC XXXI TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE EDVVARD LORD NEVVBVRGE Chancellour of the Duchie of Lancaster and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honourable Privie Counsell RIGHT HONOVRABLE IN all duty and submission I here present unto your Lordship a Treatise concerning the fift generall Councell held at Constantinople the cause being the Controversie of the Three Chapters which for many yeares troubled the whole Church and was at length decided in this Councell held under Iustinian that religious Emperour This Treatise now printed was long agoe penned by one well known unto your Honour your sincere affection to the truth of God and Gods cause gives mee good assurance of your favourable acceptance hereof I confesse indeed that when I call to minde the manifold affaires wherein your Honour is daily imployed the very thought hereof had almost perswaded mee not to interrupt your more serious affaires by drawing your Honour to the reading or view of this Booke but when I call to minde those respects of love and duty in which the Author hereof stood bound unto your Lordship I was againe incouraged in his name to tender it to your Honour And although I my selfe can challenge no interest in your Lordships favour to offer this yet your Lordship may challenge some interest in the fruits of his labours who was so truely as I can truely speake devoted unto your Honour Among many other hee especially acknowledged two assured bonds of love and duty by which hee was obliged unto you and your friends the former arose from that unfained affection which you ever bare him from your first acquaintance in the Colledge that other by which he was further ingaged unto you and your friends was when in a loving respect had unto him in his absence without any meanes made by him or knowledge of his he was called by that much honoured Knight Sir Iohn Levison his Patron your Father in law unto the best meanes of livelihood he ever enjoyed in the Ministery where spending himselfe in his studies hee ended his dayes during which time your Honour made your affection further knowne unto him by speciall expressions of extraordinary favours In regard whereof I perswaded my selfe that I could no where better crave Patronage for this worke than of your Honour that it may bee a further testimony of his love againe who cannot now speake for himselfe And this I intreat leave to doe the rather because I doubt not but hee acquainted your Lordship with his paines and intent in this and other Tractates of the Councels for when after divers yeares study bestowed in this argument of Councels hee was desirous to make some use of his labours his intent was to reduce all those points into foure severall Bookes 1. That the right of calling generall Councels 2. That the right of highest Presidency in them 3. That the right of the last and supreme Confirmation of them is onely Imperiall and not Papall 4. That all the lawfull generall Councels which hitherto have beene held consent with ours and oppugne the doctrines of the present Church of Rome Some of these hee finished the fourth hee could not so much as hope to accomplish and therefore after the examining of some particulars therein he desisted and weaned himselfe from those studies And yet after some yeares discontinuance being by some of his learned friends sollicited to communicate to others at least some one Tract in that argument consenting to their earnest desire after long suspence he resolved on this Treatise as being for weighty and important matters most delightfull unto him That it was not then published let it not seeme strange unto your Honour for having long since finished the Tract of this whole Councell it was his purpose that it should have undergone the publike view and judgement of the Church but when he came as I can truely testifie unto them whose art and ayde is needfull in such a businesse and found an aversenesse in them for that it wholy consisted of controversall matters whereof they feared that this age had taken a satiety he rested in this answer as willing to bury it After this being upon a speciall command from his Majesty King Iames of blessed memory made known unto him by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury to addresse himselfe to another worke hee then desisted from his former intended purpose and in finishing of that last worke of his he ended his dayes Some few yeares after his death being desirous to take a view of some of his Papers I came to the view and handling of this boooke a booke fully perfected for the Presse in his life time the publishing whereof being long expected and of many earnestly desired it was my desire and theirs to whose most grave and judicious censure I willingly submitted it that it might be published for the benefit of Gods Church and the rather that it might give some light in the study of the Councels and animate some of the threescore valiant men that are about Salomons bed being of the expert and valiant men of Israel unto the attempting and undertaking of the like Now what his desire was in this and other of his labours surely none but the very enemies of God and Gods truth can take it to be any other than to testifie his unfained love unto God and Gods Church and to subdue the pride idolatries and impieties of that Man of sinne and to strive for the maintenance of the true faith Now what allowance so ever it may finde abroad among our adversaries it humbly craves your favourable acceptāce at home and as it is published with no other intent than to gaine glory to God and good to his Church so I doubt not but that God who causeth light to shine out of darknesse will effectually in time bring to passe that not onely their violent oppugning of the truth but their fraudulent dealing also against the same wil if not breed in themselves yet increase in al welwillers unto the truth a constant dislike nay detestation of their hereticall and Antichristian doctrines and for your selfe my earnest and continuall prayer to God shall bee
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 faith 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 indefence 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 notwith ' standing the Popes absence was not onely declared 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 judgement and definition of the whole generall Councill for in their Synodal relation to the Pope speaking of this very decree they say Confirmavimus ante we to wit this whole generall Councill have confirmed the sentence of the 150. Bishops for the prerogative of Constantinople A most cleare and undeniable demonstration and that by the warrant of one of the most famous Councils that ever were that the peevishnes perversnes or wilfull absence of one or a few Bishops yea of the Pope himselfe ought not nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and determine any needful cause much lesse a cause of faith about which there should happen as now there did a general disturbance of the whole Church Vpon these and other like reasons the holy Synod now assembled at Constantinople having done as much as in them lay yea as much in all points as was fit to be done for procuring the presence of Vigilius and having in their first and second Sessions done nothing but waited and expected for his comming seeing now all their invitations and intreaties to be contemned by him and their longer expectance to be but in vaine addresse themselves to the examining of the cause being stird up by the words of St. Peter Be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of your hope which readinesse if it must be in al Christians much more in Bishops and if it must be declared towards all men most of all towards the Emperor who now required their speedy judgement and Synodall resolution in this cause 2. Having in their first and second Sessions declared their long and earnest but vaine expectance of Vigilius In their third Collation so their Sessions are called they let downe as a foundation to all their future acts a most holy confession of their faith consonant in all points to that which the holy Apostles preached which the foure former Councils explained and which the Holy Fathers with uniforme consent maintained 3. In the 4. and 5. Collations they at large and very exactly discusse the first Chapter concerning the person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia adding so much also as was needfull touching the second Chapter which concerned the writings of Theodoret against Cyril 4. Now in that fifth Collation as Baronius tells us the Constitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod The Pope promised that he would send his judgement thereof ad ipsum Imperatorem atque ad Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod which he ingenuously performed yea modo opportunè praestandum putavit he did it opportunely at this very time of the 5. Collation And the Card. is so resolute in this point that he peremptorily affirmeth of the Popes Constitution Cognoscitur it s knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation and it was this day offered to the Councill for which cause he strongly imagining this
after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
cordiall profession there neither is nor can be any truth therein it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to be hereticall as the fift Councill defined and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such causes to be infallible as their Laterane Councill decreed So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe such as none can possibly beleeve and withall new such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced untill that very day of their Laterane Session 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of Paris as being contra fidem Catholicam against the catholike Faith and the authority of holy Councils And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of Trent wherein that Laterane Decree is confirmed is by them rejected And what speake I of them Behold while Leo with his Laterane Councill strives to quench this catholike truth it bursts out with farre more glorious and resplendent beauty This stone which was rejected by those builders of Babylon was laid againe in the foundations of Sion by those Ezra's Nehemiah's Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord who at the voyce of the Angell came out of Babylon and repaired the ruines of Ierusalem And even as certaine rivers are said to runne under or through the salt Sea and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it but at length to burst out send forth their owne sweet and delightfull waters Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith This Catholike truth that the Popes judgement and Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is not infallible borne in the first age of the Church and springing from the Scriptures and Apostles as from the holy mountaines of God for the space of 600 yeares and more passed with a most faire and spatious current like Tygris Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord or like Pactolus with golden streames inriching and beautifying the Church of God after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages brackish I confesse before their second Nycene Synod but after it and the next unto it extremely salt and unpleasant more bitter then the waters of Mara And although the nearer it came to the streets of Babylon it was still more mingled with the slime or mud of their Babylonish ditches yet for all that dangerous and long mixture continuing about the space of 730. yeares this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse by the constant and successive professions of the whole Church throughout all those ages Now after that long passage through all those salt waves like Alpheus or Arethusa it bursts out againe not as they did in Sicily nor neare the Italian shores but as the Cardinall tells us in Germanie in England in Scotland in France in Helvetia in Polonia in Bohemia in Pannonia in Sueveland in Denmarke in Norway in all the Reformed Churches and being by the power and goodnesse of God purified from all that mud and corruption wherewith it was mingled all which is now left in it owne proper that is in the Romane channels it is now preserved in the faire current of those Orthodoxall Churches wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith are with no lesse sinceritie professed thē they were in those ancient times before they were mingled with any bitter or brackish waters 36 You see now the whole judgement of the Fift Generall Councill how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius condemning and accursing both it for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes which their sentence you see is consonant to the Scriptures and the whole Catholike Church of all ages excepting none but such as adhere to their new Laterane decree and faith An example so ancient so authenticall and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth which wee teach and they oppugne that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger and stand in doubt even of the maine ground and foundation whereon all his faith relyeth For the full clearing of which matter being of so great importance and consequence I have thought it needful to rip up every veine and sinew in this whole cause concerning these Three Chapters and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same and withall examine the weight of every doubt evasion excuse which eyther Cardinall Baronius who is instar omnium or Binius or any other moveth or pretendeth herein not willingly nor with my knowledge omitting any one reason or circumstance which either they urge or which may seeme to advantage or help them to decline the inevitable force of our former Demonstration CAP. V. The first Exception of Baronius pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith refuted 1 THere is not as I thinke any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annalls hath with more art or industry handled then this concerning Pope Vigilius and the Fift Generall Councill In this hee hath strained all his wits moved and removed every stone under which hee imagined any help might be found eyther wholly to excuse or any way lessen the errour of Vigilius All the Cardinalls forces may be ranked into foure severall troupes In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawne from the Matter of the Three Chapters In the second those which are drawne from the Popes Constitution In the third those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius In the fourth last those which concerne the fift General Councill After all these wherin cōsisteth the whole pith of the Cause the Cardinall brings forth another band of certaine subsidiary but most disorderly souldiers nay not souldiers they never tooke the Military oath nor may they by the Law of armes nor ever were by any worthy Generall admitted into any lawfull fight or so much as to set footing in the field meere theeves and robbers they are whom the Cardinall hath set in an ambush not to fight in the cause but onely like so many Shimei's that they might raile at and revile whomsoever the Cardinall takes a spleene at or with whatsoever hee shall be moved in the heat of his choler At the Emperour Iustinian at Theodora the Empresse at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters at the Imperiall Edict at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea at the Synodal acts yea at Pope Vigilius himselfe we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall which onely are his lawfull warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause
I cannot but observe seeing those Nicene Fathers professe that writing against Image-worship going under the name of Epiphanius to be in such sort the book of Epiphanius as this Epistle going under the name of Ibas is the Epistle of Ibas and seeing we have now demonstrated this Epistle to be truly and indeed the Epistle of Ibas it followeth even by their owne reason and comparison that the book also against Image-worship cited by the Councell at Constantinople in the name of Epiphanius is in truth and in very deed the true writing of Bishop Epiphanius And yet further because those Nicene Fathers acknowledge Epiphanius for a Catholike Doctor of the Church one who held the ancient tradition of the Church and consented to the Catholikes in and before his time it hence againe followeth that the doctrine of condemning Image-worship which in that booke of Epiphanius is delivered was by the generall Councell at Constantinople some thirty yeares before this Nicene Assembly decreed that it I say is ancient Catholike consonant to the ancient tradition and the doctrine of the ancient and catholike Fathers of the Church even from the Apostles time And this is all which Baronius hath gained by his alleaging those publike acts of the Nicene Fathers to prove this not to be the Epistle of Ibas And let this suffice to be spoken of the personall untruths of Vigilius and Baronius touching this Epistle of Ibas which are but a praeludium to their doctrinall errors and heresies wherof in the next place we are to entreat CHAP. XI That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas drawne from the union with Cyrill mentioned in the latter part of that Epistle doe defend all the heresies of the Nestorians 1. WEE come now from personall matters to that which is the Capital point and maine heresie contained in the defence of this Chapter wherein Vigilius and Baronius have so behaved themselves that those former errours though they be too shamefull are but a very sport and play to that hereticall frenzie which here they doe expresse For now you shall behold the Pope and his Cardinall in their lively colours fighting under the banner of Nestorius and using the most cunning stratagems that were ever devised to cloake their hereticall doctrine and gaine credit to that condemned heresie Those sleights are principally two The former is gathered out of the latter part of the Epistle of Ibas where mention is made of the union betwixt Cyrill and Iohn which although I touched before yet because it is a matter of greater obscuritie and containeth a most notable fraud of Vigilius and Baronius I purposely reserved the full handling of it unto this place where without interruption of other matters I might have scope enough to explaine the depth of this mysterie 2. In the time of the Ephesine Councell there was as all know an exceeding breach betwixt Cyrill with other Catholike Bishops who condemned Nestorius and Iohn Bishop of Antioch with divers other Eastern Bishops who tooke part with Nestorius against the holy Councell And the division was so great that at the selfe-same time in one the selfe-same citie of Ephesus they held two severall Councels and set up altare contra altare Councell against Councell Patriarcke against Patriarcke Bishops against Bishops and Synodall sentence against Synodall sentence But betwixt those two Councels there was as much difference as is betwixt light and darkenesse betwixt truth and heresie betwixt the Church of God and the Synagogue of Satan The one consisted of holy orthodoxall and Catholike Bishops whose President was Cyrill the other of hereticall factious and divers deposed Bishops whose President was Iohn The former condēned Nestorius his blasphemous doctrine whereby hee denied Christ to be God the latter defended Nestorius and all his impious doctrines The former was held in a Church even in the Church of the Blessed Virgin whose Sonne they professed to bee truly God the latter in an Inne or Taverne a fit place for them who denied Christ to be God The former proceeded in all respects orderly and Synodally as was fit and requisite that they should the latter did all things tumultuously presumptuously and against the Canons of the Church supporting themselves onely by lies calumnies and slanderous reports In a word the former was truly an holy a generall an Oecumenicall Councell wherein was the consent of the whole Catholike Church the latter was nothing else but an hereticall schismaticall and rebellious faction or conspiracie of some thirtie or fortie persons unworthy the name of Bishops insolently opposing themselves to the holy Councel yea to the whole Catholike Church in which number and faction besides others who lesse concerne our purpose were these Iohn Bishop of Antioch the ring-leader of the rest Paulus Bishop of Emisa Theodoret of whom wee before entreated and Ibas not then but some three or foure yeares after Bishop of Edessa whom to have beene present at that time as a Bishop though his name bee not expressed in their subscription both Glicas in his Annales and the Councell at Chalcedon and Ibas his owne words therein doe make manifest 3. Now though there was so great odds betwixt the holy Councell and this factious conventicle yet were they as is the custome of all heretickes and schismatickes most insolent in all their actions As the holy Councell deposed Nestorius for an hereticke so the Conventicle to cry quittance with them deposed Cyrill for an Arch-hereticke also condemning his twelve Chapters as hereticall which the holy Councell had approved as orthodoxall As the holy Councell excommunicated and anathematized Iohn Paulus Theodoret Ibas and all the rest of their factious adherents and defenders of Nestorius and his heresie So did the Conventicle also excommunicate and anathematize Cyrill and all that tooke part with him and defended his twelve Chapters and so among these even Pope Celestine and the whole Catholike Church As the holy Councell truly and justly called themselves the sacred and oecumenicall Councell and tearmed Iohn with his adherents a faction and hereticall Conventicle of Nestorians so did the Conventicle arrogate unto themselves the glorious name of the holy Ephesine Councell and slandered them which held with Cyrill to bee a Conventicle an unlawfull and disorderly assembly tearming them Arians Apollinarians and from Cyrill Cyrillians As the holy Councell constantly refused to communicate with Iohn or any of his faction untill they did cōsent to the deposing of Nestorius and anathematizing his heresie so the conventicle most peevishly and pertinaciously not onely refused the communion with Cyrill and other Catholikes but bound themselves by many solemne oathes and that even in the presence of the Emperor that they would never communicate with the Cyrillians unlesse they would condemne the twelve chapters of Cyrill adding that they
and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per cum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as found lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of 〈◊〉 it were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and fortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had just led out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the second Antichrist crescent In the third Antichrist regnant but in this fourth he is made
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 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 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 Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority Againe 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 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 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 and earnest to have it held in Sicily or in some Westerne Citie even as Pope Leo had laboured with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent to that petition as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo Vigilius then voluntati 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 The Emperour called this Synod Vigilio Pontifice permittente Pope Vigilius permitting him that of Wernerus Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople That of Zonaras and Glicas 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 chiefe in making the Synodall decree for therein he contradicted the Councell but chiefe of all who sued 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 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or about the opinion of Eutiches Very great calamity saith Baronius 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 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 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 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 that is all that are Papists or members of the present Church of Rome they are all hereby tryed to defend this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius that is to maintaine all the blasphemies of the Nestorians to deny the Catholike faith the doctrine of the Apostles of the primative Church of the fift generall Councell so to be not only heretikes but convicted anathematized and cōdemned heretikes by the judgement of a generall approved Councell and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church Further yet there is a tryall of them whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine or position of faith or religion if they doe as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that they are againe hereby tryed to be hereticall not onely in the foundation but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion which relyes upon that foundation 4. This was it which netled Baronius and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes that this controversie had never beene heard of nor mentioned in the world he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men of doctrines of Churches of the Pope himselfe and their whole Romish Church and seeing that tryall he never ceased to say that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved nor spoken of for so they had avoided this most notable triall Blessed be God for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated and discussed to the utmost that among many other tryals this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed and discovered to the world it is for them I say to wish that the controversies about Arianisme Nestorianisme Eutycheanisme and the like had never beene moved they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes But Catholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies by which both the truth which they maintaine is made more resplendent and victorious themselves and their faith tryed to be like refined gold the Church thereby is quieted the truth propagated heresies confounded and the glory of Almighty God much more magnified and praysed CAP. XXIII How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus B. of Caesarea and a refutation of the same 1. SEeing now notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius this controversie could not be buried it ought him and all ill-willers
Ibas was proved to be a Catholike The other is that speech of Eunomius B. of Nichomedia of whom he thus writeth 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 the end of it is found to be orthodoxall and catholike and so to be received 8. What is it to be an heretike if this be not Directly to contradict the judgement of an holy generall Councill and defend that writing or part of it to be Catholike which in every part the whole Councill hath defined to be hereticall The whole Councill with one voice proclamed Tota Epistola haeretica est Tota Epistola blasphema est qui istam suscipit haereticus est The whole Epistle is heretical and blasphemous who so receiveth this Epistle either in the whole or in any part as themselves expresly affirme he is an hereticke Not so saith the Card. It is not all hereticall It is not all blasphemous The latter part of it is right holy and Catholike by it Ibas was rightly judged to be a Catholike That part at least is to be received and embraced to declare Ibas to be a Catholike Now though this alone were enough to refute whatsoever the Cardinall doth or can say in this cause seeing it is all nothing else but the saying nay the cavilling of a convicted heretike proclamed for such by the loud cryes of an ancient and holy generall Councill yet for the full manifesting of the truth I will doe the Cardinall that favour as to examine both his assertion and the proofes thereof And because I shall hereafter in due place have fit occasion at large as the obscuritie and intricacy of this cause requireth to discusse the words and declare the true meaning of Ibas in that part which the Cardinall doth most wilfully and heretically mistake and pervert for this time I will use no other proofe against him but the cleere judgement and consenting testimony of the generall Councill which hath professedly refuted this very cavil which Baronius borrowed from the ancient heretikes of those times And I am verily perswaded that Baronius would never for very shame of the world have used this so untrue so hereticall and withall a rejected evasion but that he hoped that none would compare and examine his writings by the Acts of the Councils or if they did that the â—ame and credit of Cardinall Baronius his name would countenance any untruth or Heresie against whatsoever opponents 9. Is the end of the Epistle of Ibas Catholike or doth that shew Ibas to bee a Catholike The whole Councill expresly witnesseth the contrary Our Collation say they doth manifestly shew that this Epistle of Ibas contraria per omnia est Definitioni is in every part of it contrary to the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon This whole Epistle is hereticall and blasphemous Againe Wee have demonstrated say they this Epistle contrariam esse per omnia To be in every part of it contrary to those things which are contained in the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon Againe Tota epistola impietatis plena est the whole Epistle is full of impietie And more clearly to our purpose and against this cavill of Baronius they adde Those who say that the former part of this Epistle is impious but the latter part or end thereof is right Calumniatores demonstrantur such are demonstrated to be Calumniators or Slanderers Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt for those things which are set downe in the latter part or end of that Epistle are more full of greater impietie injuring Cyrill and defending the impious heresie of Nestorius So by the judgement of the whole Council Baronius is not onely proved but even demonstrated to be an Heretike and a malicious Caviller for his defending the latter part of this Epistle to be right and catholike And this is al which he hath gained by renewing that old hereticall and rejected cavill for defence of Vigilius 10. But what shall we then say to the proofes of Baronius what first to the Interlocution of the Popes Legates so often and with ostentation mentioned by the Cardinall What Truly the very same which the holy generall Councill hath said before us and taught and warranted all others to say the same The holy Fathers at Chalcedon say they did these things pro nihilo habentes ea quae ab uno vel duobus pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt esteeming worth nothing at all those things which were spoken by one or two for that Epistle Thus testifieth the whole Synod and themselves follow herein the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon So by the judgement of two holy and generall Councils that Interlocution of the Legates of Pope Leo on which after Vigilius and Baronius relyeth is worth nothing at all 11. Yea but Eunomius as Baronius tells us affirmeth that though the beginning of the Epistle be hereticall yet the end of it is found to be Catholike Baronius indeed saith so of Eunomius but what truth and honest dealing there is in Baronius let the discreet Reader judge by this one saying among ten thousand the like Eunomius saith not so Eunomius saith the flat contrary as in the fift Councill is clearly witnessed where against this cavill of the old heretikes whom Baronius followeth they say thus Nullam partem epistolae apparet Eunomium comprobasse â—t's evident that Eunomius approved no part at all of this Epistle And againe Quomodo praesumunt isti defensores ealumniari interlocutionem Eunomij how dare the defenders of this Epistle presume to slaunder the Interlocution of Eunomius as condemning one part of it and approving another seeing the whole epistle is full of impiety I say yet more which will manifest the Councils doome of Baronius that he is a malicious caviller to be most just Eunomius speakes not either of the beginning or end of that Epistle in his Interlocution but Baronius according to his wont foists in that clause touching the end of the Epistle out of his owne pate and thereby falsifieth both the words and meaning of Eunomius This in the Councill is evidently declared by reciting the true words of Eunomius out of the Acts at Chalcedon which are these Ex recitatis By those things which have beene read and recited Ibas is shewed to be innocent for wherein he seemed to be blame worthy in accusing Cyrill in posterioribus or in poshemis recte confessus having afterwards or at the last made a true confession he hath refuted that wherein he was blamed wherefore I also judge him worthy of his Bishoprike if he accurse Nestorius Eutyches and their wicked heresies
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 de personis non de fide of persons and not of the faith Againe 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 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 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 saith We have saith he commanded Vigilius to come together with you all and debate these Three Chapters that a determination may be given rectae fidei conveniens consonant to the right faith Againe stirring them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause hee addes this as a reason Quoniā qui de fide 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 Cum 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 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 thē they conclude thus We have confessed these things being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures by the doctrine of the holy Fathers by those things wch are defined de unâ eâdemque fide 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 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 That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged 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 Evidentissime declaravit Facundus hath declared most evidently that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae Apostolicae for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholike and Apostolike faith Facundus himselfe doth not onely affirme this but prove it also even by the judgement of Pope Vigilius Vigilius saith he esteemed the condemning of these Three Chapters to be so hainous a crime that hee thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle Avoid prophane novelties of words and opposition of science falsely so called which some professing have erred from the faith And hereupon as if he meant
said omnis dubitatio now all doubt is quite taken away concerning Theodoret and then the Synod both received him into their communion as an orthodoxe and restored him to his See from which in the Ephesine latrocinie hee was deposed they all crying out Theodoret is worthy of his See let his Church receive their orthodoxall Bishop To Theodoret a Catholike Doctor let the Church be restored 10. What greater detestation of heresie could the Synod possibly shew what greater tokens of the sinceritie of his faith could either Theodoret expresse or the Synod require It was too great rashnesse if not simplicitie in Vigilius to collect that the holy Councell did dissemble in their faith because they received him who had sometimes swarved in the faith The hereticall Theodoret they exclude and reject the orthodoxall Theodoret they reverence and embrace That which Saint Austen saith in another cause that the husband who had put away his adulterous wife ought againe to receive her being purged by unfained repentance but so receive her non ut post viri divortium adultera revocetur sed ut post Christi consortium adultera non vocetur that same may bee accommodated to any other offence and not unfitly to this of heresie and the repentant hereticke whom they before for that cause had from themselves disioyned but they neither call nor count him an hereticke whom Christ hath now upon his repentance unto himselfe conjoyned So neither is the Popes reason consequent that the Councell did dissemble in their receiving of Theodoret nor his conclusion true which he would thence inferre that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill and the Catholike faith 11 The second personall matter which Vigilius taketh for another ground of his decree is that neither Theodoret himselfe did nor did the Councell of Chalcedon require him to anathematize his writings There was saith he divers in the Councell of Chalcedon who said that Theodoret had anathematized Cyrill and was an heretike yet those holy Fathers most diligently examining this cause of Theodoret nihil aliud ab eo exigisse noscuntur are knowne to have required no more of him than that hee should anathematize Nestorius and his impious doctrines hoc sibi tantummodo sufficere judicantes judging this alone to be sufficient for them to receive Theodoret. Now it is unfit saith he further nos aliquid quaerere velut omissum à patribus that we should seeke or require more than did the Councell of Chalcedon as if they had omitted any thing in this cause of Theodoret seeing then they required no anathematizing of his writings against Cyrill neither ought any others to anathematize or require of any the anathematizing of the same 12. As you saw Vigilius in the former Chapter to use haretica astutia so may any man here easily discerne that hee useth an evident and fallacious sophistication The Councell indeed required not that nor did Theodoret in explicite or expresse termes performe it saying I anathematize my owne writings against Cyrill but in implicite termes in effect and by an evident consequent both the Councell required and Theodoret performed this before them all for hee subscribed to the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon one part of that definition is the approveing of the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill a part of one of those Epistles are the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which Theodoret refuted in every one of those chapters is an anathema denounced to the defenders of the contrarie doctrine Then certainely Theodoret by subscribing to the definition subscribed to the Epistles of Cyrill by them to the twelve chapters and by doing so he condemned and anathemized all who oppugned those twelve chapters and then undoubtedly his owne writings which were published as a confutation of those twelve chapters And it seemes strange that Vigilius professing that Theodoret did devota mente suscipere with a dovout affection receive and approve the Epistles of Cyrill and the doctrine of them could deny or be ignorant that in doing so he did anathematize his owne writings which by the twelve chapters of Cyrill are anathematized 13. Besides this how often how plainely doth the Councell of Chalcedon require and urge Theodoret to anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines how willingly did Theodoret performe this What else is 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 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 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
omitting other blasphemies in this Epistle of Ibas alleage this onely which the Author of that Epistle spake to beguile the simple thereby in that he professeth duas naturas unam virtutē unā personā two natures one power one person which we our selves also doe confesse Sed certum est quod unicuique naturae suam personam attribuit but it is certaine that the Author of that Epistle Ibas doth attribute to eyther nature a severall person even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius whom this Writer doth defend For they plainly teaching two natures of the Word of God or of Christ whom they esteeme to be no more then a man doe call them those two natures one person per affectualem conjunctionem by an affectuall conjunction and as having one dignity and one honour And it is cleere that the writer of this Epistle saying that there is one vertue and one power of the two natures doth herein follow the foresaid heretickes Theodorus in his impious booke of the incarnation and Nestorius in many of his writings but specially in his Epistle to Alexāder where he saith that there is one authoritie one vertue one power one person in respect of dignitie and honour due unto them whereby it is declared that the author of this Epistle did according to their perfidious impiety use vocabulo naturarum pro personis this word Natures for Persons for one authoritie one power one dignity and honour non in diversis naturis sed in diversis personis dicitur is not said to bee in divers natures but in divers persons of the same nature as in the Trinitie we professe Thus Iustinian both truly and profoundly 25. The fift generall Councell witnesseth the same and almost in the same words The author say they of this Epistle teacheth two natures one vertue one person one sonne Sed certum est quod pro personis naturas ponit affectualem unitatem dicit but it is certaine that he taketh the name of natures for persons and understandeth an affectuall unitie even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius whom this writer doth defend and praise Thus both the Emperour and the whole generall approved Councell witnesse Ibas to meane by two natures two persons and by one person one by affectuall not by personall unitie and they witnesse this not as a thing doubtfull or uncertaine but they seale it with a Certum est this is certaine 26. The Epistle it selfe doth so abundantly declare this truth that none I thinke but a Nestorian can make any doubt thereof Maris to whom Ibas writ this was a Nestorian hereticke The end of his writing was to confirme both Maris and the rest of that sect in their heresie Had Ibas writ this touching two natures and one person in an orthodoxall sense he had utterly condemned that same doctrine which he purposely commendeth he had overthrowne Nestorianisme which he by this Epistle meant to establish Againe how could hee have condemned Cyrill or the Ephesine Councell as hereticall had he beleeved the two natures to be personally united in Christ for that is the selfe same which Cyrill and the Councell defendenth Or how could he have commended Theodorus for a teacher of the truth who denies the personall and holds onely an affectuall unitie of those two natures had Ibas meant that there had beene a true personall and Hypostaticall union of them Take the words in the Nestorian sense there is a perfect harmonie in the whole Epistle take them in the orthodoxall sense the beginning will then jarre from the middle and end this makes a discord in the whole writing yea it makes the profession of Ibas to fight with the maine scope and purpose of Ibas 27. That one place in the end of the Epistle concerning the union makes this most evident Ibas saith that among other things Paulus Emisenus required and Cyrill consented to anathematize those who professe quia una natura est divinitatis humanitatis that there is one nature of the deitie and humanitie in Christ. Had Ibas by one nature meant one essence so that both the humanitie and deitie were one essence why should they require Cyrill to anathematize that for neither Cyrill nor any Catholike ever affirmed there was onely one nature that is one onely essence in Christ. But by nature Ibas understood Person and so its true that Cyrill taught one nature that is one onely person in Christ whereas Nestorius Ibas and all the Nestorians affirmed two such Natures that is two persons to be in Christ according to which sense Ibas saith that Paulus dealing with Cyrill to yeeld to Nestorianisme and on the behalfe of the Nestorians required him to anathematize those who say there is but one Nature that is but one person in Christ and he slanderously adds that Cyrill consented so to do that is that he subscribed indeed to all Nestorianisme and renounced the Catholike saith the decree of the Ephesine Councell and his owne twelve Chapters In which slanderous report Ibas insulting saith Non enim quisquam audet dicere quia una est natura None dare now say that there is one nature of the divinitie and humanitie one nature that is one essence no Catholike then or ever did say but none dare now say that there is one Nature that is one person in Christ which all Catholikes both then and ever said and this the very next words doe declare but now they doe professe to beleeve in templum in eum qui in hoc habitat in the temple and in him who dwelleth in the temple which was the very comparison of Nestorius to expresse that the two natures in Christ are two persons as are the house and inhabiters and one not by personall but onely by affectuall unitie and cohabitation So cleere it is that Ibas by his confessing of two natures meant two persons and by confessing one person meant one by affection but not by personall union that is meant all in an hereticall and Nestorian sense and nothing in the true Catholike and orthodoxall meaning 28. But what seeke I further proofe of this matter seeing the fift Councell approved by the whole catholike Church hath defined the whole Epistle to bee hereticall accursing every one who defendeth it or any part of it An undeniable proofe not onely that the profession of Ibas made therein of two natures and one person is hereticall but that Vigilius and Baronius for this very point are anathematized by the whole Church because they defend that profession in this Epistle as Catholike and orthodoxall which by so many so evident demonstrations and even by the consenting judgement of the whole Church is condemned for hereticall And this I hope may suffice to explaine or illustrate the Popes meaning in the Position or conclusion which he undertakes to prove in his reason that Ibas was a Catholike in making this so orthodoxall and Catholike a profession in his Epistle of two natures and one
bee seene together for which cause they are worthily rejected in the Canons of the sixt Councell seeing the Pope may canonize these what blasphemies what heresies what lies may not with them be canonized why may not their very Legend in the next Session bee declared to be Canonicall And yet by that fundamentall position they are bound and now doe implicitè beleeve whatsoever any Pope either by word or writing either hath already or shall at any time hereafter define to be a doctrine of faith Because I will not stay on particulars if any please seriously to consider this matter hee shall perceive that which now I intend to prove such venome of infidelity to lye in that one fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility that by reason of holding it they neither doe nor can beleeve or hold with certaintie of faith any one point or doctrine which they professe to beleeve and hold upon that Foundation 20. For the clearing of which point being very materiall it is to be observed that unto certainty of faith two things are of necessity required The one ex parte objecti on the part of thing beleeved which must be so true and certaine in it selfe that it cannot possibly bee or have beene otherwise then it is beleeved to be to have beene or to be hereafter And therefore none can truly beleeve any untruth for nothing which is untrue is or can be the object of faith The other thing is required ex parte subjecti on the part of him who beleeveth Now faith being onely of such things are inevident that is which neither by sense can be perceived nor by naturall reason collected or found out but which are onely by the testimonie of such as first knew them made knowne unto us and none doth or can know that which is supernaturall unlesse God himselfe reveale the same unto him it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any beleeved the same is revealed and testified to him by God himselfe who is infallible and further that it is certainly knowne unto him who beleeveth that it is God himselfe who doth reveale and testifie that thing unto him For otherwise though the doctrine proposed be in it selfe never so certaine and divine yet unto thee or me it cannot be certaine nor held by certainty of faith unlesse first we be sure and infallibly certaine that he who testifieth it unto us is himselfe infallible that is that he is God Let us for perspicuity call the former of these two materiale fidei the materiall in faith or the thing beleeved and the later formale fidei that which is formall in faith seeing as the former is the thing beleeved so the later containes the reason the ground or foundation upon which and for which it is beleeved 21. Consider now first the materials in their faith In them there is a great difference for some of them are in themselves credible as being divine truths and true objects of faith Such are all those Catholike truths common to us and them as that there is a Trinity that Christ was borne of a Virgin dyed rose againe and the like Others are in themselves untrue such as cannot be the object of faith Of this sort are all those doctrines wherin they dissent from us Transubstantiation reall and proper sacrifice worshipping of Images Purgatory Iustification by the merit or dignity of our works and the like which may rightly bee called popish doctrines The later sort of these they neither doe nor can beleeve The former they might but they doe not beleeve The reason whereof will appeare by considering that which is formall or the fundamentall ground of their faith where it is first to be observed that a man may hold many yea all the doctrines professed by the present Church except that one of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility and yet bee no Papist or member of their present Church For although the things professed or the Materialls be the selfe same yet the formalitie or diverse reason of holding them causeth a maine difference in the parties that hold them And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three divers wayes whereby their doctrines are or may be held 22. The first is of them who build all those doctrines upon the Scripture as the Foundation thereof upon that ground holding not onely many Catholike truths which they most firmly beleeve the Church inducing the Scriptures outwardly teaching and the holy Spirit inwardly sealing the same unto them but together with those truths hold some errors also of the Romane Church take for example Transubstantiation which although for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live they thinke to be taught in the Scriptures and therefore hold and professe them and thinke they beleeve them yet because they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures nor sealed by Gods Spirit unto their hearts therefore they hold not these nor in truth can they hold them with that firmnesse and certainty of faith as they doe the former truths but they have a faintnes and feare in their assent unto these and so a readines and willing preparation of heart to disclaime these and to hold or professe the contrary if ever it may be fully cleared manifested out of the Scriptures unto them Of this sort we doubt not but many thousands of our fathers were who living in the darknesse thicke mists of their Antichristian superstition upon the Scriptures word of God which they held for the foundation of their faith builded indeed much gold precious stones but with a mixture of much hay stubble drosse thinking but very erroneously the later as well as the former to be contained in that foundation The state of all these is very like to S. Cyprians and those other Africane Bishops which were so earnest for Rebaptizatiō supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures though the foundation of it of those catholike truths that Christ was God or the like was one and the same unto them yet they held not both with like firmnes certainty of faith The doctrine of Christs deity manhood they so beleeved that they would not cōmunicate with any that denied this nay they would rather die then deny it But Rebaptization they so held as not thinking their opposites to be heretikes nor refusing to cōmunicate with thē that denyed it so they held this with a certaine faintnes of faith or rather as indeed it was of opinion and not of faith having a preparation in heart to beleeve and professe the contrary if it might at any time be made manifest unto them This S. Austen often witnesseth of Cyprian Satis ostendit se facillime correcturum he sufficiently declareth that hee would most easily have altered his opinion if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him Againe That holy man Cyprian being non solum doctus sed docilis not onely learned but willing to learne
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 Godfather 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 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 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 Calestine 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
Apostolicall authoritie decree that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By 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 pretēce can no way excuse Vigilius frō 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 of 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 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 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 Pelagius thought it fit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine Vigilius
affect which country alone for multitude of Bishops doth equall or exceed other nations and this very Italian faction to have prevailed at Trent their owne Bishop Espencaeus who was at the Councell doth testifie Haec illa Helena est this is the Helena which of late prevailed at Trent this Italian faction overswayed all whereof Molineus gives a plaine instance For when an wholesome Canon that the Pope might not dispence in some matters had like to have beene decreed many in the Councell liking well thereof the Pope procured a respite for that businesse for a month and an halfe during which time some forty poore Bishops of Italy and Sicily were shipped and sent to Trent like so many levis armaturae milites and so the good Canon was by their valour discomfited and rejected by that holy Synod Some of the Councell also were the Popes pensioners and stipendary Bishops nay rather ought than Bishops such as among others were Olaus Magnus the titular Archbishop of Vpsala in Gothia and Robertus Venantius the titular and blinde Bishop of Armach and yet not halfe so blinde in body as in minde Archbishops without Archbishoprickes without a Church without a Clergy without Diocesse without any revenues save a small pension which the Pope allowed them that they might be cyphers in the Councell and taking his pay might doe him some service for it and grace his Synod with their subscriptions But all the other bonds are a◠nothing to that oath wherewith every one of them was tyed and fettered to the Pope swearing to uphold the Papall authority against all men and to fight against all that should rebell against him an oath so execrable that Aeneas Sylvius is mentioned to have said Quod etiam verum dicere contra Papam sit contra Episcoporum juramentum that even to speake the truth to speake for the truth if it be contrary to the Pope is against the oath of Bishops By this they were so tyed at ne mutire quidem ipsis liceat adversus Idolum Romanum that they might not so much as whisper against him 38. Verily none of those Iron chaines which were used by Dioscorus in the Ephesine Latrocinie are comparable to these No subscription unto blankes like the swearing to maintaine whatsoever their Romane Dioscorus shall define They who were not chained might have no place in the Synod they who were chained with such bands and specially with such an oath could have no freedome in the Synod they must speake thinke and teach nothing but what the Pope breathes into them Had there beene such wise and worthy Iudges for Presidents of that Councell as there was at Chalcedon could they possibly have endured to see all synodall freedome thus oppressed and banished Nay they would in their zeale to God and his truth have broken and burst in sunder every linke of that chaine And as Ibas and Theodoret were not admitted to the Councel of Chalcedon as members thereof till they had openly renounced and anathematized the heresies which they had before embraced So would not those glorious Iudges have permitted any of those Tridentine Bishops to have sit in the Councell till they had openly renounced anathematized and abjured that oath and with it their vassallage to the Pope and all those hereticall doctrines which by their adhering to the Pope and following his faction they had embraced and those are Image-worship Transubstantiation proper Sacrifice Adoration of the Host their Purgatorian fire and the rest of those heresies which since the Romane faction began to prevaile and that was about seven hundred yeares after Christ in the dayes of Gregory the second who as I suppose first of all by synodall judgement decreed the worship of Images they have maintained For seeing since that time not truth nor equity but faction prevailed in their Synods and swayed matters in their Church there could be no equall triall of the truth by any of their Synods held since that time But when all the Bishops were freed from those chaines of their oath and slavish bondage to the Pope since the faction whereof he hath beene the leader got the upper hand those glorious Iudges would have permitted nothing to passe for a free synodall sentence but that onely which could have had warrant from the Scriptures those holy Councells and consenting judgement of those Fathers who lived within the six hundred yeares or somewhat more after Christ at what time partiality and faction had not corrupted and blinded their judgement as in the second Nicene and ever since it hath 39. But because such glorious Iudges and their most equall Presidency was wanting nay was banished from their Assembly at Trent scarce any tokens or shadow of freedome could take place therein Not towards Protestants Brentius and divers other learned Divines came to Trent offered themselves and their faith to triall of disputations Nulla ratione impetrari potuit this could not be obtained by any meanes that they should come to dispute for the faith Nullus unquam liber aditus Protestantibus the Protestants at no time had any freedone to come to the Councell at Trent Not towards their owne Bishops if they spake or did ought tending to the defence of the truth Cornelius Bishop of Bitons said that Christ offered not in his last supper his owne body and blood this crossed their proper sacrifice of the masse therfore Cornelius for that free true speech à Patribus universis explosus est was hissed out of their Trent Councell by all the Fathers and Divines there present Iacobus Nachiantes Bishop of Clodia Fossa sayd he could not approve that traditions should be held in equal reverence as the Scripture he was for this truth expulsed the Councell Gulielmus Venetus a Dominican Fryer sayd in the Councell that the Councell was above the Pope he was commanded to depart out of the Councell Another of the Bishops hapning to touch and that but lightly the pride of the Pope in his titles wished that seeing God is no where in the Scripture called sanctissimus but sanctus the Pope also would be content with the same title of sanctus and not take a more ample name of honour than is given in Scripture unto God The Pope being certified hereof sent for him to come from Trent to Rome and gave him to his Officers to use him hardly and to bee degraded Petrus Vergerius Bishop of Iustinianople he who endeavoring to refute the Protestant writings and began that booke which hee intituled Against the Apostates of Germany was himselfe overcome by the evidence of that truth specially in the doctrine of Iustification which he oppugned came to the Councell at Trent The Pope having intelligence that he was inclined to Lutheranisme writ to his Legats at Trent Ne locum ei tribuant in consessu That they should not admit him
but in these later there never was any power to binde any either to accept their Decrees or to undergoe their censures because ab initio there was a meere nullity in all their Acts. Againe the inflicting of any punishment upon the judgement of the former had the warrant though not of divine yet of humane authority and was to bee presumed as just the sentence of every Iudge even eo nomine because he is a Iudge being to bee presumed just untill upon evident proofe it bee declared to bee unjust But what censures or punishments soever are or at any time have beene denounced or inflicted on any upon the warrant or Iudgement of these last ten Synods they are all ab initio meerely tyrannous and unjust inflicted without any either divine or humane authority seeing those Synods had none at all there is not so much as a presumption that they were or could be just but for their want of authority in decreeing them they are though otherwise equall presumed to be unjust 43. And thus much I have thought good to insert concerning all sorts of Councels as well lawfull as unlawfull to manifest hereby not onely the injurious dealing of Baronius with this fift Councell against which he declameth as an impious and unlawfull conspiracy but their vanity also in extolling and magnifying many and specially those last ten for holy lawfull and oecumenicall Synods of which dignity they are so farre short that they are all most deservedly to be ranked with the Ephesine Latrocinie and put in the Classis of those which of all other are the most base impious unlawfull and disorderly Councells CAP. XX. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same 1. WEE have hitherto seene and fully examined all the materiall exceptions which Baronius could devise to excuse Pope Vigilius from heresie and in them consists the whole pith and all the sinewes of the cause they being the onely arguments which are to be reckoned as the lawfull warriers of the Cardinall Now followeth that other Troupe whereof I told you before of his piraticall and disorderly Straglers which the Cardinall hath mustred together not that they should dispute or reason in this cause but to raile and revile at every thing whereat their Leader is displeased And the Cardinall doth this with so impotent affections in so immodest that I say not so scurrill a manner and with such virulency of all uncivill and most undutiful speeches that you shall see him now having cast away all that gravity and modesty which is fit not onely for a Divine a Cardinall a Disputer but for a man of any temper or sobriety to act herein no other part but Hercules Furens or Ajax mastigophorus without all respect either of authority or dignity or innocency lashing every body and every thing that comes in his way be it friend or foe sparing nothing that seemes to crosse his fancy not the Emperour Iustinian not the Empresse Theodora not Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea not the Imperiall Edict not the controversie and cause it selfe of the Three Chapters not the Acts of the holy Generall Councell not Pope Vigilius himselfe nothing can scape the whippe of his tongue and pen. Let us begin with the Emperour against whom Baronius declameth in this manner 2. Princes to dare to make lawes for Priests who should obey the lawes made by them Such an one as Iustinian make lawes of faith an abcedary Emperour an illiterate Theologue utterly unlearned who knew not how to reade who could never reade the title of the Bible no not the very first elements not his Alpha Beta He on a sodaine to become a palliated Divine Hee to prescribe lawes for the Church as subject to his Hee against all right and equity to presume to make lawes of sacred matters of Priests He to set downe punishments for them Hee who was not onely thus utterly unlearned but withall an enemy to the Church a sacrilegious person a persecutor a grievous a monstrous persecutor one who was madde franticke and out of his wits who was possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one make lawes for Bishops what is this else but to confound all things to treade under foote the sacred Canons to abolish utterly the Church discipline to dissolve all divine order and to make of the Kingdome of heaven which the Church is the very prison of hell where there is nothing but confusion Thus the Cardinall And this is but the first pageant of his Ajax and but some gleanings neither of that harvest which is abundant in his Annals 3. Not to seeke any exact or methodicall refutation hereof All that the Cardinall hath hitherto said may bee reduced to three notorious slanders by which he laboureth to blemish the immortall fame and unspotted honour of that most religious Emperour The first concernes His knowledge and learning Iustinian not able to reade not know so much as his Alphabet Is there any in the world thinke you so very stupid as to beleeve the Cardinall in this so shamelesse so incredible an untruth Tanti ingenii tantaeque doctrinae fuisse constat saith Platina it is manifest that Iustinian was of so great a wit and so great learning that it is not to bee marveiled if hee reduced the lawes being confused before into order Tritemius saith of him He was a man of an excellent wit and hee is deservedly reckoned among Ecclesiasticall Writers and hee expresly mentioneth three bookes which hee writ against Eutyches one against the Africane Bishops adding that none may doubt but that besides these hee writ many and very excellent Epist. Possevine the Iesuite acknowledgeth him with Tritemius for an Ecclesiasticall Writer besides the reciting of those same books which Tritemius mentioned hee alleageth these words of their Pontificiall most worthy to be observed for this purpose Iustinian the Emperour a religious man sent unto the Apostolike See his profession of saith Scriptam chirographo proprio written with his own hand testifying his great love to the Christiā Religion In regard of which his excellēt writings both Pope Agatho and the whole sixt generall Councell with him who lived in the next age to Iustinian reckoneth him in the same ranke not onely of Ecclesiasticall Writers but of venerable Fathers with Saint Cyrill Saint Chrysostome and others whose writings doe give testimony to the truth Liberatus who lived in the dayes of Iustinian and who was no well-willer of the Emperour yet could not but record That he writ a Booke against the Acephali or Eutichean heretikes in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and that Theodorus seeing him so toyled in writing against heretikes told him Scribendi laborem non cum debere pati That he should not trouble himselfe with writing books but maintaine the faith by publishing
Councell to be as certaine and as true as if Saint Peter or the Holy Ghost had uttered the same Said I not truly that this cause of the Three Chapters had bereft the Cardinall not onely of truth but of judgement of modesty of civility yea almost of common sense so that he cares not what he sayes so he speake in defence of those who defend and in condemnation of those who condemne the Three Chapters though he knoweth that which he saith to be testified to be a calumny and slander not onely by historians and private writers but by the Pope by the Romane Synod by the holy general Councel that is by the whole Catholike Church by all Nations by the whole world by Saint Peter and by the Holy Ghost himselfe 19. There might be added unto these divers other pregnant testimonies of Pope Gregory who often calls Iustinian a man Piae memoriae of a pious memory of the Legates of Agatho who call him of divine memory of Peter B. of Nicomedia and others who call him of blessed remembrance of the Emperour Constantinus who calls him divinae memoriae of the sixt generall Councell which not so little as a dozen times I thinke calls him of pious or divine memory most holy Iustinian or the like and which to expresse that great honour which they ascribe to the religious Emperour then present before them whom they terme the driver away of heretikes proclame him to be a new Constantine a new Theodosius a new Martian a new Iustinian crying out in his honour in divers actions Novo Iustiniano aeterna memoria eternall memory bee to you our new Iustinian A miserable prayse and wish had this beene had Iustinian beene an Heretike a Persecutor an Antichrist a damned person in hell for then the whole generall Councell had not onely dishonoured Constantine there present but had wished honour and immortall glory to Heretikes to Persecutors to Antichrist yea to the Devill himselfe which kinde of praysing and praying is not very sutable to the piety and faith of that generall Councell But the former testimonies are so ample and illustrious that they seeme to me to obscure all these and the like and doe so abundantly convince Baronius to slander and calumniate the Emperour that I will forbeare to presse him with any more 20. Perhaps some good friends of Baronius will say in his behalfe and for his excuse that hee did not devise this of himselfe nor is hee the first that accuseth Iustinian of this Heresie he hath his Books and his Authors for him He hath so indeed And so he hath Nestorius and Theodorus of Mopsvestia for his defending Nestorianism He devised not that neither of himself he doth but secōd others therin By this apology whō may not the Cardinal revile when he list He may calumniate Athanasius for a murderer Celestine and Cyril for Apolinarians Constantine the great for a persecutor of the true faith for which crime his son is called an Hereticke a murderer a friend of the Devill Saint Paul for a seditious and pestilent fellow a mad man Christ himselfe for a glutton and drunkard a man possessed by the devill a blasphemer Thus may he revile and accuse these and al the best men that have ever been in the world yea even God himselfe and then salve all with this plaister Why Baronius deviseth not any one of these imputations hee can produce his books authors for thē all and those also far better than he doth for this concerning Iustinian In one he hath the whole Councell of Tyre in another Iohn Patriarch of Antioch Theodoret the Councel which they held at Ephesus in a third Lucifer Bishop of Calaris a Confessor one who suffered whippings and tortures at the Councell of Millan and after that exile for the faith in another Tertullus and Festus in the last the Iewes the Scribes and the High Priest with his Councell would this excuse either Baronius or any that should upbraid these crimes unto Athanasius Constantine Paul or Christ from being revilers and slanderers He who applaudeth abetteth a slander as doth Baronius this of Iustinian he is as guilty of slander as if himselfe had devised it The law of God doth not only say Thou shalt not lye or devise a false tale but Thou shalt not receive a false tale neither shalt thou put thine hand w th the wicked not be a coadjutor an accessary or an abetter to be a false witnesse Yea though many report an untruth yet their multitude cannot excuse thee Thou shalt not follow a multitude in doing evill neither shalt thou agree in a controversie to decline after many and overthrow the truth And the Apostles rule condemnes not onely those who doe evill themselves but those also and that much more who consent unto or who favour those that doe evill accordingly whereunto S. Ierome saith of wantonnesse that which is true in all other sins majori procacitate defendunt libidinem quam exercent it is a greater impudency to defend lust lying slandering or any sin than to commit it 21. But let us see who those are on whose report the Card. frames this his slanderous invective against the Emperor He saith they are all authors But that as you have seen is a vast and truly Baronian untruth They are but some and the Card. nameth three Evagrius Eustathius and Nicephorus Callistus I will yeeld more unto him if he please let him have 10. or 20. to say what his fore-man doth yet the law of God is forcible against them as if they were but one Thou shalt not follow a multitude to doe evill And alas what are these either for number or which is more for gravity and authority to those which we have before produced To say nothing of that cloud of Historians what are they to S. Agatho to S. Gregory to the Emperour Constantinus Pogonatus to the Romane Synod to the sixt generall Councel to all nations to the whole world to S. Peter yea to the Holy Ghost himselfe What an army of invincible unresistable Captaines hath Iustinian to fight on his side against two or three poore petite contemptible witnesses which the Card. hath raked together not to be named the same day with the former 22. Will it please you further to take a view in particular of them Truly of those whom the Card. would not vouchsafe once to name I will say nothing if they were not worthy to be named nor to have a whistle from the Cardinall I thinke them unworthy to bee refuted also This onely I say of them all they were misse-led and deceived by those whom the Card. mentioneth as his prime and principall witnesses and those are Evagrius Eustathius and Nicephorus Now for the last of these Possevine shewes him to be hereticall and in Historicall narrations erroneous and the Card. himselfe saith on him Fatuus
judgement of others 29. The other cause was a most impious heresie defended by Eutychius whom they so much honour which alone being duely considered overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius Eutychius when hee had long continued in the defence of the truth did afterwards fall both by words and writing to maintaine the Heresie of Origen and the Origenists denying Christs body after the resurrection to have beene palpable that is in effect to bee no true humane body and the very like hee taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection This the Surian Eustathius quite over-passeth in silence for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius so abundāt in miracles prophesies and visions should be thought guilty of so foule and condemned an heresie But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly testifie it that no doubt can remaine thereof hee tels us how himselfe disputed against Eutychius defending this heresie how hee urged those words of our Saviour palpate videte how Eutychius answered thereunto that Christs body was then indeed palpable to confirme the mindes of his Disciples but after they were once confirmed all that was before palpable in Christs bodie in subtilitatem est redactū was turned into an aërial and unpalpable subtilty How he further strived to prove this by those words of the Apostle Flesh blood cannot inherit the kingdome of heavē how then said hee may this be beleeved veraciter resurgere carnem that true bodies did or shall rise againe How he further insisted on those words That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving therby that which riseth againe either not to be a body or not a palpable that is no true humane body Gregory also tels us that Eutychius writ a booke in defence of this heresie which both himselfe read and Tiberius the Emperour after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it caused it publikely to bee burned as hereticall adding that Eutychius continued in this heresie almost till the very houre of his death Now although Gregory tels not when or at what time Eutychius fel into this heresie yet it may wel be supposed that as Iustinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the truth so when once hee gave himselfe to such dotages of the Origenists which as it seemes he did about the latter end of Iustinians Empire some three yeares before his death then the Emperour who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters as Victor sheweth the condemning of which is as before we declared the condemning of all the heresies of Origen and whatsoever contradicts the verity of Christs deity or humanity as it is most likely exiled him for this heretical opinion And this is much more probable seeing Iustinian had purposely set forth long before this a most religious and orthodoxall Edict or Decree particularly against Origen and the Origenists as Liberatus sheweth and as the Edict it selfe which is extant doth manifest condemning them in particular for denying the verity of Christs and other humane bodies after the resurrection Seeing then Nicephorus the Patriarch saith that Eutychius was banished for not consenting to the Emperours Edict and Eutychius by his defending of that heresie of the Origenists directly oppugned that his Edict most like it is that besides his Mathematicall Art whereby hee was liable both to death and banishment by the Emperours lawes this Edict of Iustinian against Origen should bee that which Nicephorus the Patriarch meant and for which Eutychius was and that most justly exiled So not Iustinian but Eutychius was the heretike nor was it any hereticall Edict of Iustinian as the Surian Eustathius and after him Baronius affirmeth to which Eutychius a Catholike opposed himselfe but an orthodoxall and Catholike Edict of Iustinian which Eutychius then an heretike and Origenist oppugned for not consenting whereunto hee was banished Thus not onely the Emperour is clearly acquitted of that phantasticall heresie whereof the Surian Eustathius and Baronius doe accuse him but Eutychius himselfe whom they honour for a Saint a Prophet and a Demi-god is found guilty of that selfe-same crime and of that very heresie of denying the truth of Christs body which they unjustly and slanderously impute to Iustinian And this I thinke is abundant to satisfie the Cardinals second witnesse namely that fabulous and legendary Surian Eustathius 30. All the Cardinals hope and the whole waight of his accusation relyes now on Evagrius He I confesse saith well neere as much as Baronius against Iustinian accusing him of avarice injustice and heresie But the credit of Evagrius is not such as to countenance such calumnies Evagrius in some matters wherein hee followeth Authors of better note is not be contemned but in very many hee is too credulous fabulous and utterly to bee rejected What credit can you give unto this Narration of the Monke Barsanuphius whom he reports to have lived in his Cell wherein he had mewed up himselfe and for the space of fifty yeares and more neither to have beene seene by any neque quidquam alimenti cepisse nor to have received any nourishment or food What a worthy S. doth he describe Simeon Môros that is S. Foole to have been How doth he commend Synesius whom they perswaded to bee baptized and undertake the function of a Priest though hee did not consent to the doctrine of the resurrection neque ita censere vellet neither would beleeve that it was possible The like might bee noted touching the blood of Euphemia and divers other Narrations Evagrius is full of such like fables but omitting the rest I will propose onely two which will demonstrate him to have beene either extremely negligent in the search or very malicious in perverting the truth 31. The former concernes Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople and his successor Maximianus Evagrius saith that Maximianus tooke the Bishopricke after the death of Nestorius An untruth so palpable that none can thinke Evagrius to have bin ignorant of those manifold and undoubted records which testifie the contrary For it appeares by the writings of Nestorius set downe also in Evagrius himselfe that after his deposition hee stayed at Ephesus and about Antioch for the space of foure yeares and then was exiled to Oasis Now Maximianus was placed in the See of Constantinople that very same yeare wherein the Ephesine Councell was held and Nestorius deposed some three or foure months after the same deposition as Socrates and Liberatus declare The next year after the Councel the union was made between Iohn Cyrill Iohn the rest with him professing expresly in their letters of union that they acknowledge receive Maximianus for Bishop of Constātinople A demonstration that Maximianus was Bishop of Constantinople three whole yeares at least before the death of Nestorius Nay which argueth Evagrius to have doated in historicall relations Maximianus was dead
they condemne the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall and by that Epistle condemne the Councell of Chalcedon à qua suscepta est by which that Epistle is approved Thus Facundus so very heretically that Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus nor any cōdemned heretike could wish or say more than Facundus hath done both for their heresies against the Councell of Chalcedon For the impious Epistle of Ibas is wholly hereticall the approving of it is the overthrow of the whole Catholike faith and yet Facundus not onely himselfe defendeth that impious Epistle as orthodoxall and by it defendeth the person and writing of Theodorus of Mopsvestia a condemned heretike but avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to approve the same which condemnes it and every part of it even to the lowest pit of hell 14. Here by the way I must in a word put the reader in minde of one or two points which concern Possevine and Baronius in this passage If Facundus be a condemned heretike for writing in defence of the three Chapters what else can Possevine be who praysed those bookes of a condemned heretike for thus he writeth Facundus writ opus grande atque elegans a great and elegant worke containing twelve books fortified by the authorities of the Fathers in defence of the three Chapters Heretike Is that a brave and elegant booke that defendeth heresie can heresie be fortified by the testimonies of the holy Fathers What is this else but to make the holy Fathers heretikes So hereticall and spitefull is Possevine that together with himselfe he would draw the ancient and holy Fathers into one and the same crime of heresie The other point concernes Baronius hee sayth that the controversie or contention about the three Chapters was inter Catholicos tantum onely among such as were Catholikes doth not he plainly thereby signifie his opinion of Facundus that he was a Catholike for Facundus was as hot and earnest a contender in that controversie as Vigilius himselfe he writ in defence of the three Chapters twelve whole bookes elegant and brave bookes as Possevine saith he bitterly inveighed against the Emperour against all the condemners of them against Pope Vigilius himselfe when hee after his comming to Constantinople consented to the Emperor Seeing this Facundus a convicted and condemned hehetike is one of the Cardinals Catholikes must not heresie and Nestorianisme bee with him Catholike doctrine must not the impious Epistle be orthodoxall and the overthrow of the faith and decree of the Councell at Chalcedon bee an Article of Baronius faith even that which he accounted the Catholike faith But this by the way We see now what manner of Bishop Facundus was an obstinate heretike pertinaciously persisting in heresie What though Facundus call Theodorus of Caesarea an Origenist Did not the old Nestorians call Cyrill and other Catholikes Apollinarians of whom it seemes the defenders of the three Chapters learned to calumniate the Catholikes with the names of heretikes and Origenists when they were in truth wholly opposite to those and other heresies Can any expect a true testimony concerning Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea from Facundus concerning Catholikes from heretikes their immortall and malicious enemies nor theirs onely but enemies to the truth Such and of such small worth is the former witness of Baronius in this cause and against Theodorus 15. His other witnesse is Liberatus the Deacon who indeed sayth as plainly as Baronius that Theodorus was an Origenist and refers the occasion of that whole controversie touching the three Chapters to the malice of the same Theodorus For as Liberatus saith Pelagius the Popes Legate when he was at Constantinople entreated of the Emperour that Origen and his heresies wherewith the Easterne Churches specially about Ierusalem were exceedingly troubled might be condemned whereunto the Emperour willingly assenting published an Imperiall Edict both against him and his errors when Theodorus being an Origenist perceived that Origen who was long before dead was now condemned he to be quit with Pelagius for procuring the condemnation of Origen moved the Emperour also to condemne Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia who had written much against Origen whose writings were detested of all the Origenists the Emperour at Theodorus his suggestion made another Edict wherein he condemned Theodorus of Mopsvestia and the two other Chapters touching the writings of Theodoret and Ibas which bred so long trouble in the Church Thus Liberatus Who as you see speaketh as much and as eagerly against Theodorus as Baronius could wish and Liberatus lived and writ about that same time 16. Liberatus in many things is to be allowed in those especially wherein by partiality his judgement was not corrupt But in this cause of the Three Chapters in the occasion and circumstances thereof hee is a most unfit witnesse himselfe was deepely interressed in this cause partiality blinded him his stile was sharpe against the adverse part but dull in taxing any though never so great a crime in men of his owne faction Of him Binius gives this true censure hee was one of their ranke who defended the Three Chapters who also writ an Apology for Theodorus of Mopsvestia againe Baronius and Bellarmine have noted that divers things are caute legenda in Liberatus of him Possevine writeth There are many things in Liberatus which are to bee read with circumspection those especially which hee borrowed of some Nestorians and those are his narrations touching Theodorus of Mopsvestia that his writings were praised both by the Emperour Theodosius his Edict and by Cyrill and approved also in the Councell of Chalcedon all which to be lies Baronius doth convince Againe what Liberatus saith of the fift Councell is very warily to be read for either they were not his own or he was deceived by the false relation of some other but certainly they do not agree with the writings of other Catholike fathers Thus Possevine out of Baronius who might as well in plaine termes have called Liberatus a Nestorian heretike for none but Nestorians and such as slander the Councel of Chalcedon for hereticall can judge the writings of Theodorus which are ful of all heresies blasphemies and impieties to be approved in that holy Councell Againe Possevine rejecting that which Liberatus writeth of the fift Councell gives a most just exception against all that he writeth either touching Theodorus of Cesarea as being an Origenist or of the occasiō of this cōtroversie about the 3. Chapters as if it did arise from the cōdemning of Origen in all this Liberatus by the Iesuites confession was deceived by the false relation of others they agree not to the truth nor to the narrations of Catholike fathers Liberatus being an earnest favourer and defender of Theodorus Mopsvestenus could not chuse but hate Theodorus of Cesarea for seeking to have him and his writings condemned The saying of Ierome ought here to take place Professae inimicitiae suspitionem habent mendacij the report of a professed enemy ought to
added by the Monothelites Of the seventh Binius thus writeth This fourth Action is in divers places faulty and in the History of the Image crucified at Beritus it containeth divers Apocryphall narrations concerning the Image of Christ made by Nicodemus Of the eighth Councell that the Canons thereof are corrupted and some inserted by Anastasius their owne Raderus will perswade them Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fift Councell bee applyed to these He having found among these one Epistle of Theodorets which hee supposeth to bee a counterfait concludeth upon that one example in this manner quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi quae sunt his contexta commentis what credit I pray you doe such Acts as these of the fift Councell deserve which are intangled in such fictions May not the selfe same reason be much more justly alleaged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Canons against the Acts of the Councell at Ephesus at Chalcedon against the sixt seventh and eighth Synods in every one of which some in divers more corruptions not onely mutilations but alterations and commentitious writings are inserted by their owne confession Let Baronius answer here his owne question Quam fidem rogo I pray you then what credit may bee given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon of the sixt seventh or eighth Councell they all must by the Cardinals reason be rejected as Canons and Acts of no worth of no credit at all Nor they onely but all the workes of Augustine of Athanasius of Ierome and almost all the holy Fathers none of them all by this Baronian reason deserve any credit for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts as the book de variis Quaestionibus Scripturae the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and many moe in Athanasius the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill and Cyrils to Austen the author of which was not onely an Impostor but an heretike the booke de Spiritu litera the booke of questions of the old and new Testament which is hereticall and an heape of the like in Austen the Commentaries on Pauls Epistles which savour of Pelagianisme the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity and 100. like in Ierome Quae fides rogo what credit can bee given to these bookes or writings of Austen Athanasius Ierome or the rest in which are found so many fictitious heretical treatises falsly ascribed unto them mingled and inserted among their writings Truly I cannot devise what might move the great Card to make such a collection and reason as from some corruptions crept into the bookes of fathers or Acts of Councels to inferre that the whole Acts or writings are unworthy of any credit but onely as Iacke Cade had a purpose to burne all authentick records and writings of law that as hee boasted all the law might proceed from his own mouth so the Cardinal intended to play a right Iacke Cade with all the ancient Councels and Fathers that having utterly though not abolished yet disgraced and made them all by this his reason and collection unworthy of any credit his owne mouth might bee an Oracle to report without controulment all histories of ancient matters and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter or to set downe in his Annals that all men should beleeve as if the most authentick Records in the world had testified the same How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinall have done to have wished all corruptions to bee removed whatsoever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Councels or writings of Fathers to be added unto them that to be quite cut off whatsoever might bee found wanting that to bee added whatsoever to be altered or perverted that to be amended and not in the blindnesse of his hatred against this one fift Councell to fight like one of the Andabatae against al the rest and with one stroke to cashire all the Acts and Canons of Councels all the writings of Fathers or Historians because forsooth one or some few corruptions have either by negligence or errour of writing or by fraud and malice of some malignant hand crept into them 4. The third thing which I observe is that whereas Baronius so often and so spightfully declameth against the Acts of this Councell as imperfect and corrupted this his whole accusation proceedeth of malice to the Councell and these Acts rather than of judgement or of truth for I doe constantly affirme and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Councels shall certainly finde and if he deale ingenuously will confesse the same that as of al the general Councels which go before this fift for integrity of the Acts none is better or any way comparable to this save that of Chalcedon so of all that follow it none at all is to bee preferred nor any way to bee counted equall with it unlesse that which they call the sixt Councell that is so much of the Acts of that Synod as concerne the cause of the Monothelites leaving out the Trullane Canons This whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Councels cannot choose but observe The Nicene Constantinopolitane being so miserably maimed that scarce wee have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Councels which if they could bee recovered no treasures are sufficient to redeeme a worke of that worth and value a worke non gemmis neque purpura a vaenale neque auro That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus but yet it remaines so imperfect so confused and disorderly that as Diogines sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men so among those very Acts large Tomes of the Coūcels the reader shall be forced to seeke the Acts of the Ephesine Councell The Acts of the second Nicene and of the next to it which they call the eighth are so doubtfull that not onely this or that part 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
of their Collation using these for the last words of their seventh dayes meeting De tribus capitulis altero die adjuvante Deo Synodicam sententiam proferemus God willing wee will pronounce our Synodall sentence touching this cause of the three Chapters the next day And so they did in that eighth which was their last day of Collation Thus not onely by Nicephorus and the Emperours Epistle but by the evident testimony of the whole Synod in the synodall sentence it is undoubtedly certaine that the cause of Origen was not as he fancieth the first action or cause handled in the Synod and that he doth but play the Mome in carping at the Acts for want of the first Action 4. It may bee yet that the cause of Origen was the second action in the fift Synod as Nicephorus saith and after him Evagrius and that is enough to prove the defects of these Acts. No it was not the second neither as it was not before so neither was it handled after the other of the Three Chapters witnesse the Synodall sentence it selfe wherein all the matters which every day they examined and discussed are set downe and repeated after repetition they testifie also Repetitis igitur omnibus quae apud nos acta sunt all things being repeated which were done or handled by way of discussion among us or in this Synod Seeing they repeated all that was debated among them and make no mention of this cause of Origen it is undoubtedly certaine that Origens cause was not debated either first or last in the Synod it was neither the first action as Cedrenus and Baronius nor the second as Evagrius and Nicephorus suppose besides the very determination of the Synod evidently declares the errours of Nicephorus and Evagrius The books say they against the doctrine of Origen being offered to the Synod the Emperour demanded of the Councell Quid de his statueret What it would decree concerning those doctrines A matter utterly incoherent and improbable for in the synodall decree concerning the three Chapters which they suppose to be made before this cause of Origen was either heard or proposed the Councell had expresly delivered their judgement and condemned both Origen and his impious writings When they had already condemned both him and his errors what an incongruity is it to make the Emperour demand what they would decree of him and his errours Or may we thinke that the holy Synod would first condemne Origen and his impious writings as they did in the synodall sentence against the three Chapters and then afterwards examin the matter and make an enquiry whether Origen and his writings were to bee condemned or not which were to follow that disorder which the Switzers are reported to have used in judgement which was most justly called Indicium vetitum to execute a man and then try and examine whether he ought to be executed or not Farre be it from any to imagine such injustice and rashnesse to have beene in this holy generall Councell Seeing then they condemned and accursed Origen and all his errours in that which Nicephorus and Evagrius account the former Session it is ridiculous to think that either the Emperour urged or that they themselves would in the second Session goe Switzer-like to examine the bookes and doctrines of Origen whether he they ought to be condemned Some doubt perhaps may arise out of those words in the Councell which the Cardinall slily alledgeth Origen was condemned in the time of Theophilus Quod etiam nunc in ipsa fecit vestra Sanctitas which your Holinesse hath now done and Pope Vigilius also But if the words be marked they make nothing against that which I have said for neither hath that Nunc a relation to this present Councell for it is certaine that in it Vigilius did not condemne Origen seeing he was not at all present in the Synod but to this age he was condemned in former ages as namely by Theophilus and now also that is in this your age and even by your selves and by Vigilius and if ought else were imported thereby yet is it onely said that Origen was now condemned which was indeed done by the Synod but that his cause was then examined and debated there neither is it true neither doe the words any way imply 5. Nay I adde further not onely that this Councell did not debate this cause of Origen but it had beene both superfluous and an open wrong to themselves and to the whole Church to have entred into the examination thereof For beside many other former judgements not many yeares before in the time of Mennas both the Emperour in an Imperiall Edict had condemned Origen and his errors and by the Emperours command Mennas with a Synod of Bishops then present at Constantinople had confirmed that condemnation the other Bishops who were absent did the like the Emperour requiring every Patriarke to cause all the Bishops subject to his jurisdiction to subscribe to the same The doctrines and writings of Origen were no doubt at that time fully debated all the Bishops present in this fift Councell had then subscribed and consented to the condemnation of him and his errors so had Vigilius and all Catholike Bishops in the West Seeing the judgement of the Church in condemning Origen was universall would the Councell after themselves and all other Catholike Bishops that is after the judgement of the whole Catholike Church now debate and examine whether Origen and his doctrines ought to be condemned They might as well call into question whether Arius or Macedonius or Nestorius or Eutyches and their doctrine should bee condemned the judgement of the Catholike Church was alike passed on them all for this Councell condemned and accursed Origen and his errors as it did Arius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutyches but it condemned them all upon the knowne judgement of the Catholike Church not upon a new tryall or examination then taken of any one of them And this verily seemes to have deceived and led into error Evagrius Nicephorus and Cedrenus for of Baronius I cannot for many reasons imagine it to have beene errour or ignorance in him but wilfull and malicious oppugning the truth they knew or heard by report for even Evagrius who lived in that age saith of that which hee writeth touching the fift Synod Of these things sic actum accepimus we have heard they were thus done I say they might heare that which indeed was true that Origen and his errours were condemned in a Councell at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian and they not being curious nor carefull to fift the diversities of Councels nor exact in computating times confounded the former particular Synod under Mennas wherein many of the doctrines of Origen were recited and he with them condemned in eleven Anathematismes with this fift generall Synod held some fourteene years after wherein Origen and his errours were also condemned but
was not put in execution before this fift Councell Let this bee scored for his third capitall untruth in this short passage 7. A fourth untruth is that which is said in the fragments that the Councell had no other meanes to erect this Patriarchship of Ierusalem but by taking part from both the other of Antioch and Alexandria for there was another meanes as both the Decree of Chalcedon and the event did shew and nothing at al was taken from the See of Alexandria 8. A fift untruth is that they tooke from Alexandria the Metropolitane Sees and Provinces of Ruba and Berithus for neither of these Sees belonged to the Patriarch of Alexandria but of Antioch of them both Berterius refuting this very fragment which the Cardinall and Binius so gladly snatch at saith certainly Ruba is placed by Ptolome in Syria and it is manifest that Berithus is the Metropolis of Phenice neare Libanus Syria autem Phenicia Orientis Provinciae omnibus notae sunt but Syria and Phenicia to be Provinces of the East and so belonging formerly to the See of Antioch all men doe know Thus hee and for Berithus the matter is certaine that it is not neare the bounds oâ— limits of Alexandria for that it is in the Province of Phenicia not onely Ptolome shewes but the subscriptions of the Bishops both in the Nicene in the first Constantinopolitane and Chalcedon Councels in all which the Bishop of Berithus is set in the Province of Phenicia whence againe a sixt untruth is to bee observed in that fragment of Tyrius for it saith that Berithus was granted to the new Patriarch of Ierusalem whereas it is cleare that it was in Phenicia that the two Pheniciae both by the agreement of Max. and Invenalis and by the decree of the Councell of Chalcedon did belong to the See and Bishop of Antioch and not of Ierusalem 9. Is not this now thinke you a worthy fragment which Baronius and Binius have found to be wanting and will you nill you will needs fasten to the fift Councell Are not they excellent Surgeons to cure lame Councels who to the faire and authenticke Acts and Records of this Synod would patch such a rablement of untruths quite repugnant to the minde of this fift Synod For seeing as Gregory truly saith it was in omnibus sequax in all things a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon most certainly it never either decreed or approved this of taking ought from the See of Alexandria or of adding Berithus and Ruba to the See of Ierusalem both which are directly contrary to the Decree of Chalcedon which this fift Councell followeth Let the Cardinall and Binius themselves feed upon these and such like scraps and huskes they are fit and dainty meat for the Cardinals tooth and palate which relisheth little unlesse it have a touch of falshood But as I sayd before so I here againe proelame let all Councels be a thousand times lame rather than receive any crutches of the Cardinals and of Binius devising and framing And now you have all their defectives wherein I doubt not but every one seeth both the defects to rest in their corrupted judgement and the truth of these Acts to bee much more confirmed hereby seeing neither the craft nor malice nor extreme labour of Baronius and Binius was able to finde so much as any one thing which is wanting or defective in them CAP. XXXII The two first additions to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius and the two lawes of Theodosius are falsly inserted therein refuted 1. LEt us in the last place saith Baronius see what things Impostours have published under the name of the fift Synod Quaeve spuriae eidem accesserunt and what counterfeit additions are inserted in these Acts. Of these in generall the Cardinall tels us Pudenda planè in istis intexta habentur there are inserted very shamefull matters into these Acts such as are altogether unworthy of an oecumenical Synod An haynous crime indeed if the Cardinall can justifie this For though we might deplore the defects if ought were wanting yet that is no prejudice to the truth of that which remaineth no more than the extreme want and shipwracke of the Nicene Acts doth or can discredit the truth of the Canons which are come safe to land But if in these Acts which now are extant and passe for the true and faithfull Acts of the fift Synod Impostors have inserted false and counterfeit writings that may cause one justly to misdoubt the truth of these acts which wee have for why will some say may not that part or any one bee forged or foistâ—d in as well as this or that Let us then see how well the Cardinal doth prove this redundant corruption in these Acts which now are extant of this fift Councell his proofes thereof are five 2. The first is taken out of the sixt generall Councell in which when the Monothelites alledged an Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius as out of the Acts of the fift Synod It was proved that those Acts were corrupted and that the heretikes had inserted three quaternions that is foure and twenty leaves into the same Acts. Againe in the 7. Action or Collation it was found further that they added two Epistles of Vigilius one to Iustinian and the other to Theodora by which you see saith the Cardinal that the Acts of the fift Synod have beene foully corrupted by the Monothelites We see it indeed And wee see withall another thing no lesse remarkable and cleare that the Cardinall is an insignious slanderer and playes the trifling Sophister in the highest degree Who ever doubted or denyed but that some copies of the Acts of this Synod have beene corrupted of this none that read the sixt Councell can make the least question in the world For three corrupted copies were produced and examined and some other were mentioned and the authors both who falsified them and who writ the inserted additions are all there recorded Nay the three corrupted copies were not onely discovered but accursed defaced and raced before the whole Synod so farre as any corruption could bee found Doth the Cardinall know any man to defend as sincere or justifie one of those corrupted Monothelite copies If he doe the sixt Councell is an unresistable record against such and we will joyne with him in confuting such audaciousnesse Or will the Cardinall say that the Acts of the fift Synod which are now extant either have those additions or were written and taken out of those corrupted and falsified copies It is as cleare as the Sun they are not for not one of those Monothelite additions are in these Acts now extant These Acts and no other are they which we defend and which the Cardinall undertooke to disgrace and prove to bee corrupted and to have forgeries patched unto them
two and expresly mentioning them all without these saith Hi sunt libri these are the bookes as well of the old as of the new Testament which in the Church are held for Canonical I doubt the Card. will here say that the case is altered In this hee speaks against them and their Trent faith not against us Here the note of their Index expurgatorius must bee embraced write saith the Index in the margent diminutè Catalogum texuit Leontius Leontius recites not fully the Catalogue of the sacred bookes And yet note one memorable thing by the way God who suffered not Lahan to speak an ill word against Iacob and who turned the curses of Balaam into a blessing to Israell the same God over-ruled their pen or hands as hee did once the tongue of Caiphas and in stead of diminutè texuit they have uttered a Prophecy against themselves printing even in that edition which past through their Purgatorian fire of correction Divinitùs Catalogum librorum divinorum texuit Leontius hath recited this Catalogue by an heavenly inspiration and yet for all that divinitus texuit the Cardinall will not beleeve Leontius whom against us he perswades all men to beleeve But howsoever in other matters as by name in that Catalogue texto divinitus Leontius is to bee beleeved of a certainty hee is no fit witnesse in this cause of the Three Chapters Hee was too partiall that I say not hereticall in this point too much addicted to the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret let Baronius himselfe say whether his commending of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia and Diodorus Bishop of Tarsis for illustrating the whole Scripture by their Commentaries for being such worthy men as that no man while they lived did reprove any one saying of theirs bee not untrue and after both the person of the one and writing of both condemned by the generall Councell impious also and hereticall To come yet nearer to his saying concerning Theodoret in the very next sentence save one before those words which Baronius alleageth Leontius saith Verum ne Theodoretum quidem constat unquam admisisse Nestorium it doth not appeare that Theodoret did ever admit of Nestorius or hold communion with him Had not the Cardinall skipt over as is the wont of all heretikes these former words of Leontius hee would have beene ashamed to alleage this testimony For not onely the Synodall acts of the Ephesine Councell but the Cardinall himselfe often teacheth and proveth it by cleare evidence that Theodoret admitted Nestorius and that into a neare band of friendship love and communion In that Epistle which Theodoret writ from Chalcedon to Alexander hee calleth Nestorius their friend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith of him while wee are here in this legacy to the Emperour non cessabimus omni virtute ejus patris curam gerere wee will not cease with all our power to take care for Father Nestorius knowing that wrong is done to him by wicked men There is recorded a very loving Epist. to Nestorius written by Iohn other Eastern Bish. particularly by Theodoret who all writ of themselves tui studiosissimi we are all most affectionate to Nestorius of whom Baronius saith they who writ this to Nestorius eidem intima conjuncti necessitudine being joyned in a most neare band of familiarity stood afterwards for him in the Councell Maximè vero eidem addictus Theodoretus but of them all Theodoret was most addicted unto him And againe having cited some words of Theodoret he addeth Seeing Theodoret saith thus I am non solum cum Nestorio unanimem fuisse vides sed dixerim etiam concorporeum you see that he was not only a loving friend and of one minde but if I may so say one incorporated and concorporated to Nestorius Thus Baronius when himselfe so expresly contradicts his owne witnesse Leontius and in this very cause touching Theodoret and Nestorius yea in that which is the ground of Leontius errour touching this Epistle should hee require us to beleeve that which is but a collection from the former which is his fundamentall errour may Baronius reject him in the former clause must we embrace him in the next which is but a dependant on the other Leontius because hee thought and thought erroniously that Theodoret never embraced the friendship and communion with Nestorius thought also erroniously this Epistle which testifieth Theodorets love and communion with Nestorius to bee a counterfeit the Cardinall who knoweth and professeth against Leontius that Theodoret was most inward and even almost incorporated to Nestorius ought likewise to hold against Leontius that this Epistle which testifieth such ardent affection to Nestorius is the genuine and true Epistle of Theodoret. 4. And that every man may see the force of truth and with what a feared conscience the Cardinall dealt in this cause behold himselfe within few years after against this testimony of Leontius acknowledgeth professeth and sets downe this very Epistle as the true and certaine Epistle of Theodoret to Nestorius which here no doubt against his owne judgement and conscience hee denyeth and proves out of Leontius not to bee the Epistle of Theodoret but a counterfeit and a forgery for thus he writeth Theodoret indeed received the forme of faith sent from Cyrill at the time of the union and subscribed unto it but he could not so quickly forsake the friendship of Nestorius whom hee had so long affected for at this time to wit after the union was made hee writ an Epistle to Nestorius which was read in the fift generall Synod and then repeating every word of the Inscription and Epistle hee adds at the end hactenus ad Nestorium Theodoretus thus writ Theodoret to Nestorius and againe Theodoret obstinately professed in his letters lately recited that hee would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius Thus Baronius who hereby demonstrates himselfe to be a meere calumniator who to disgrace the Synodal Acts of the fift Councell affirmes and would seem by Leontius to prove that Epistle of Theodorets to bee none of his but a forgery which to bee no forgery but the true writing of Theodoret himselfe knew testifieth and professeth Thus much of his former proofe out of Leontius 5. His other proofe is taken out of divers Epistles of Theodoret specially out of that to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria to Pope Leo and divers others and because it might bee replyed that these were written long after the time of the union whereas onely at that time and somewhat after Theodoret might bee said to have been hereticall and a favourer of Nestorius as by this Epistle is signified to wipe away this suspition he addes these words post initam quidem pacem truly after the peace and union once made with Cyrill that ever after that time Theodoret was addicted to Nestorius Nulla prorsus est mentio there is no mention at all but there are many monuments
on Orpheus harpe made an heavenly harmony but how hee failed in his skill and proved no better than Neanthes his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternall record and yet all that time hee sat in the Chaire and prophesied for as the common saying is Vbi Papa ibi Roma so it is as true Vbi Papa ibi Cathedra it is more easie for the Pope to take the Chaire with him than like an Elephant to carry the whole City of Rome upon his backe to Constantinople and goe up and downe the world with it 17. But is this narration thinke you of Anastasius true verily not one word therein neither did the Empresse write nor Vigilius answer any such thing for both these were done as Anastasius saith eodem tempore at or after that same time when Bellisarius having killed Gontharis came out of Africk and offered those spoiles of the Vandales and seeing that as wee have proved was never this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas Againe this answer of Vigilius was given statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit at his very first placing in the See as Binius sheweth and that was in the fourteenth yeare of Iustiâ—ian for then Sylverius dyed now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome and that was as Procopius sheweth in the nineteenth yeare of Iustinian it was a fine devise of Anastasius to tell how this new Saint answered a letter by way of prophesie three or foure yeares before the letter was written Further Vigilius as Liberatus saith implens promissum suum quod Augustae fecerat performing his promise to the Empress writ a letter in this manner hee performed it as much as hee could he laboured a while to doe it and this was both before and a little after the death of Sylverius but when hee could not effect it and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein left off that care untill hee could have a better oportunity to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon which so long as it stood in force was 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 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 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 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 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 to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne 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 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 dâ—vers 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 Scribâ— to take him wheresoever hee wee except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribe 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
upon him then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Are these which are all 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 called and requested 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 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 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 noâ— goe to Constantinople Oh saith the Cardinall 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 tues 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 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 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 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 experience teacheth that their going to the Emperour hath done exceeding hurt and particularly for Vigilius that his going to Constantinople hath brought 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 send him in scarlet robes unto heaven and woe be to that Church which shall thinke Martyrdome an hurt unto it which was and ever will bee the glory of the Catholike Church Non decet sub spinoso capite membrum esse delicatum when Christ his Apostles and glorious Saints and Martyrs have gone before upon thornes and briars wee must not looke to have a silken way strewed with Roses and Lillies unto the Kingdome of God This which is yet the very worst that can befall any Catholike is no harme to him who hath learned that lesson Blessed are they which die in the Lord so whether Pope and Emperour be both of one or of a different religion his presence with the Emperour may happen to doe good but it is certaine it can never possibly doe hurt unto the Church The greatest hurt that was ever done to the Church by this meanes was when Constantine after his baptisme by Pope Silvester in liew of his paines and in token of a thankful minde sealed unto him that donation of the Romane and Westerne Provinces That one fable I must particularly except
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 Bellisarius at Ravenna a manifest mistaking of Ravenna for Naples for there and not at Ravenna was Bellisarius at that time as by Procopius is evident and because this is no way prejudiciall to their cause Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit 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 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 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 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 Caesareae 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 epistolâ 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 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 yet that is no prejudice 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 dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer 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 the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and saith that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am
or knowing it oppugnes the truth hee is now in his owne element he offends no longer as a Rhetorician or Grammarian but quatenus talis as hee is a Bishop as hee is a Divine as hee is one who both should know and bring others to the knowledge of the truth And this beside that by reason it is evident is grounded on that saying of Austen Aliter servit Rex qua homo aliter qua Rex for as a King serveth God qua Rex in doing that which none but a King can doe so a King or a Bishop or any other offendeth God as a King or Bishop in doing against that duty which none but they are to doe 45. Now what is said of all Sciences Arts and mysteries that is in due proportion to be applyed to that greatest mysterie of mysteries and Craft above all Crafts to their Pope-craft or mysterie of Iniquity He is the sheepheard to feed all the Physitian to cure all the Counsellor to advise all the Iudge to decide al the Monarke to command all hee is all in all nay above all hard it is to define him or his duties hee is indefinite infinite transcendent above all limits above all definitions above all rule yea above all reason also But as the Nymphs not able to measure the vastnes of the Gyants whole body measured onely the compasse of his thumbe with a thred and by it knew and admired the bignesse of his Gygantean body so let us consider but the thumbe or little toe of his Holinesse fault and by it conjecture the immensity of this eldest sonne of Anak Pasce oves confirmafratres must bee to us as the Nymphes thred or line for these two are the Popes peculiars in which are contained all the rest and they reach as farre as heaven and hell they are the Popes duty quatenus hee is Pope If at any time or upon any occasion hee swarve from this line if by his doctrine he cast downe his brethren instead of confirming them or give them poyson in stead of good food he offends not now as Swines-snout nor as Peter of Tarantasia nor as Hugh Bone companion but quatenus Papa even as Pope in that very Pastorall and Papall duty which properly and peculiarly belongeth to him as Pope Lay now this line and thred to Pope Vigilius and his Epistle did he confirme Anthimus Theodosius and Severus in the faith when he told them that by Gods helpe both before and then also he held the same faith with them and that was Eutycheanisme and that they were joyned to him in the charity which is in Christ or was this wholsome food which hee the great Pastor of their soules set before them Accursed be all that deny one and affirme two natures to have beene in Christ If this bee hereticall doctrine seeing Pope Vigilius fed them and confirmed them in this faith then certainely he taught heresie as Pope that is hee exercised his Papall office even that of feeding and confirming his brethren which is peculiar to the Pope as Pope to the teaching and approving of heresie at this time 46. If yet wee shall goe somewhat more precisely and exactly to worke according to line and measure those acts of feeding and confirming doe but in a very equivocall sense for their doctrine is full of Equivocation agree to other Bishops but still a maine difference or odds is to bee observed betwixt the Popes feeding and confirming as hee is Pope and all others when any other Bishop teacheth heresie because his teaching is subordinate and fallible one may nay he must doubt or feare to feed on such food he must still receive it with this caution or tacit appeale of his heart if his holinesse commend it for an wholesome diet of the soule But if the Pope teach any heresie if hee say that the Sunne is darke the left the write hand poyson an wholesome food Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme the orthodoxall faith here because there is no higher judge to whom you may appeale you are bound upon salvation without any doubt or scruple at all to eate and devoure this meate you may not judge nay you may not dispute or aske any man whether it be true or no the Popes teaching is supreme and therefore infallible indubitable this is to teach to feed to confirme as Pope for none can thus teach or feed but onely the Pope as Pope So the same hereticall doctrine when it is taught by the Pope as he is a private man is a private instruction without any publike authority to teach when by him as a Presbiter it is an instruction with publike authority to teach but without judicatory power to censure the gainsayers when by him as a Bishop it is both with publike authority and judicatory power to censure suspend or excommunicate the gainsayers but yet subordinate and fallible including a virtuall appeale to the highest tribunall of the Pope when by him as Pope it hath all the former conditions both publike authority to teach and judiciall power to censure and which is the Popes peculiar prerogative as Pope to doe those with infallibility of judgement and supremacy of authority such as none may refuse or doubt to beleeve and embrace 47. If any will here reply with the Sophister Thrasimachus his subtilty in Plato that the Pope as Pope teacheth not amisse but as hee faileth in the Popes duty as hee wants skill or will to performe that office This must bee acknowledged as true indeed for in the strictest sense of all what the Pope is as Pope that must inseparably agree to every Pope and the manner of his teaching as Pope must inseparably agree to the teaching of every Pope even as Logicians say that what agreeth to a man a bird or a tree quatenus talia as they are such must agree to every man bird and tree But this quirke and subtilty will not helpe their cause nor excuse the Pope from erring as Pope for as in this sense no Pope as Pope doth erre because then every Pope should erre in all doctrines which hee teacheth so neither in the same sense doth any Pope as Pope teach the truth for then every doctrine of every Pope should bee true Againe as according to this sense no Pope as Pope so no Bishop as Bishop no Presbyter as Presbyter doth erre or teach heresie for did hee in his teaching erre as Bishop or Presbyter then every Presbyter and every Bishop and so even the Apostles themselves should erre in their teaching But as Vigilius or Liberius when they taught Arianisme Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme did this not simply as Popes but as persons not knowing as in duty they should what to teach or knowing it but willingly teaching the contrary to their knowledge which in duty they should not even so Nestorius Macedonius Arius and Eutyches every Bishop and Presbyter when they erred they erred not simply as Bishops or as Presbyters but