learned but willing to learne 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 ſ Lib. 1. ca. 18. Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per eum 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 sound lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of those that 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 sortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus ſ Paralip ad Abb. Vsperg pa. 448. 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 justled 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
all who are members of the present Romane Church and so continue till their death nay they not onely accurse all such but further also even all who doe not accurse such And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them to the least iôta it in the last place followeth that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith and accursing for heretikes all who either by word or writing have or doe at any time hereafter defend the same and so presist till they dye nay not onely the accursing of all such but of all who doe not accurse them is warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by all generall Councils by all Popes and Bishops that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ 30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill Till then neither was the Popes authoritie held for supreme nor his judiciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible nay to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall and the maintainers of them to be heretikes For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill wherein these truths were decreed the same was expresly decreed by two generall Councils the one at Constance the other at Basil not long before m Conc. Basil sinitum est an 1442. id est an 74. ante concil Later that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill n Concil Basil in Decreto quinq conclus pa. 96. a. is supremum in terris the highest judgement in earth for rooting out of errors and preserving the true faith unto which judgement every one even the Pope o Cui quilibet etiamsi papalis status existat obedire tenetur Conc. Constant sess 4. et Bas sess 2. himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable p Debitè puniatur Conc. Const ses 5. Basil ses 3. by the same Consider beside many other that one testimony of the Councill of Basil and you shall see they beleeved and professed this as a Catholike truth which in all ages of the Church had beene and still ought to be embraced They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance for the supreme authority of a Councill to which the Pope is subject say q Sess 33. thus Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet although it is sufficiently evident by many declarations made both at Constance here at Basil that these are truths of the Catholike faith yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein This holy Synod doth define as followeth The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope declared in the generall Councill at Constance and in this at Basil est veritas fidei Catholicae is a veritie of the Catholike faith and 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 r Per Concilia generalia quae summi Pontifices Consistorialiter declaraverunt esse legitima etiam pro eo tempore quo ejusmodi declarationes ediderunt Conc. Basil pa. 144. a. 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 s Epist Conc. Basil pa. 100. b. 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 t Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas Ses 16. 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 v Jn sua adhaesione sess 16. his maximā adhaesionem x Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b. to the Council by which Adhesion as they teach y Sess 29. pa. 96. b. 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 z Jurabant ejus decreta defendere c. Sess 16. 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 a Haec veritas toties et tam solenniter per universam ecclesiam declarata est Epist Conc. Bas pa. 144. a. and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of b Jn decreto quinque conclus pa. 96. 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 c Hildebrandum sic gloriari solitum testatur Avent lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455. 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 d Poss Biblic in Nic. Cusano a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 e Obijt ann 1464. Poss Conc. autem finitum
10. and his Laterane Synod are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed before that Synod for they f Conc. Later ses 11 complaine that by reason of the malignitie of those times or else because they could not helpe it his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction and that for all which either they did or could doe the same Sanction retroactis temporibus viguisse et adhuc vigere had in former times and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session stand in force and full vigor Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall as did the Council also of Basil that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith which the present Romane Church defendeth it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught professed and beleeved to be an heresie and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes by the consenting judgement of Councils Popes Bishops and the Catholike Church even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session which was the 19. of December in the yeare 1516. after Christ 33 On that day a day never to be forgotten by the present Romane Church it being the birth-day thereof Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill or as the learned Divines of Paris g Leo 10. in quedam caetu nescimus qualiter tamen non in Spiritu Domini congregato App. Vniv Paris account it Conspiracie they being not assembled in Gods name abolished as much as in them lay the old and Catholike doctrine which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day and instead thereof erect a new faith yea a new foundation of the faith and with it a new Church also Hee and his Synod then reprobated h Quae de authoritate Concilij supra Pontificem constituerunt sententia CoÌ„c Lateranensis plane reprobata sunt Bin. Not. in Conc. Const § Ex parte the Decree of Constance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope they reprobated i Reprobarunt decre tum Concilij Basiliensis Bel. lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 17. § Denique also the Councill of Basil and the same Decree renewed by them That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum or k Conc. Lat. sess 11. Conventiculam quae nullum robur habere potuerit As a Conspiracie and Conventicle which could have no force at all They reprobated the l Ibid. Pragmaticall Sanction wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares together had beene imbraced and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day in reprobating it they rejected and reprobated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church In stead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be m Hujus sanctae sedis suprema authoritate Ibid. pa. 640. supreme that it is de n Ibid. necessitate salutis a thing necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the Pope and that not onely as they are severally considered but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill for they define Solum o Jbid. pa. 639. Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere The Pope alone to have authoritie above all Generall Councills This the Councill at Laterane diserte ex professo docuit taught cleerly and purposely as Bellarmine tells p Lib. 2. de Concil ca. 17. § Denique us nay they did not onely teach it but expressissimè definiunt q Lib. cod ca. 13. § Deinde they did most expresly define it And that their Definition is no other then a Decree of Faith as the same Cardinall assures us Decrees of faith saith he r Lib. â—â—d ca. 17. § Ad hunc are immutable neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus and such is this Decree for the Popes supreme authoritie over all even Generall Councils made in their Laterane Synod And what meane they thinke you by that supreme authoritie Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth That because his authoritie is supreme therefore his judgement s Proinde ultimum judicium summi poÌ„tificis esse lib. 4. de Rom. pontif ca. 1. § Sed nec in causes of Faith is the last and highest and because it is the last and highest therefore it is t Restat igitur ut Papa sit Index ultimus et proinde noÌ„ possit errare Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 3. § Contra. Et DicuÌ„t Concilij sententiam esse ultimuÌ„ judicium Hinc autem apertissimè sequitur non errare Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 3. § Accedat infallible So by their Decree together with supremacie of authority they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope and defined that to be a catholike truth and doctrine of Faith which the whole Church in all ages untill then taught professed and defined to be an heresie and all who maintaine it to be Heretikes and for such condemned both it and them 34 Now because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith but the very foundation on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie by decreeing this they have quite altered not onely the faith but the whole frame and fabricke of the church erecting a new Romane church consisting of them and them onely who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod a church truly new and but of yesterday not so old as Luther a church in faith and communion severed from all former generall Councils Popes and Bishops that is from the whole catholike Church of Christ which was from the Apostles times untill that day And if their Popes continue as it is to be presumed they doe to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe to hold among other this fift Councill ad unum iôta this certainly is but a verball no 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 v In Appel à Leon. 10. quae facta est 21 die Mart. an 1517. Decret
in doctrinall as personall matters That Theodorus was dead is personall but that none after death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ b Vig. Const nu 179 eum non audemus damnare sententia wee dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the c Sanctissimorum Episcoporum hic coactorum caput Cyrillum c. Epist Synod Ephes to 4. Act. Conc. Ephes ca. 8. head of the generall Councell Proclus a most d Cyrill epist ad Acat in Con. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 543. a. Dominus meus sanctissimus Episcopus Proclus holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus e Lib. ca. 10. saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal f Rursumque haereticus blasphemus c. Bar. an 553. nu 120. et seq et Bin. pa. 595. et seq Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle g Pier. Hierog lib. 55. is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith h Jer. 9.3 they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed i Vig. Const nu 179 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree k Vig. Const nu 208 that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes l Vig Const nu 173. Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of
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 as 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 saith 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 p Haecre scripsimus nemini praescribentes aut praejudicantes quo minus unusquisque quod putaverit faciat habent liberam arbitrij sui facultatē Nos autem cum Collegis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. Epist ad Iubaian in fine vid. August lib. 5. de Baptis ca. 17. 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 q Lib. 2. de Baptis ca. 4. 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 r Lib. 4 ca. 5. That holy man Cyprian being non solum doctus sed docilis not onely
teach what wee affirme whatsoever any manor Councell saith or can say to the contrarie The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it he would have forsaken the defence of them then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious nor should have made him an hereticke but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters should have made him a catholike But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell that the definition of saith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters with this pertinacie and wilfull resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke notwithstanding his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof whereby all those Chapters are condemned which profession being joyned with the former pertinacie could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike 18. The very same must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel and faith thereof as that upon manifestation that this Councell beleeved taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible and de facto hath beene hereticall they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies then should they much rather for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof bee orthodoxall then for professing together with this the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie bee hereticall But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith touching the Three Chapters that the fift Councell beleeved this and decreed under the censure of an Anathema that all others should beleeve it and that all who beleeve the contrary are heretikes seeing I say notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in those causes yea defend it as the very foundation of their faith this makes it evident to all that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell or the other whether precedent or following for they all are consonant to this but with this pertinacious resolution not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie and therefore their expresse profession of this fift and other generall Councels yea of the Scriptures themselves cannot be so effectuall to make them Catholikes as the profession of the Popes infallibility which is joyned with this pertinacy is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes 19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the pertinacy of Vigilius For one may be and often is pertinacious in his errour not onely after but even before conviction or manifestation of the truth made unto him and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi prepared or ready to be informed of the truth and corrected thereby or when he doth nor or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen m Epist 162. and out of him Occham n Lib. 4. part 1. ca. 2. Gerson o Cons 12. de pertinacia part 1. pa. 430. Navar p Ench. ca. 11. nu 22. Alphonsus à Castro q Lib. 1. de justa punit haeret ca. 7 and many others doe truly teach See now I pray you how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking and preparation to embrace the truth He by his Apostolicall authoritie decreed r Const Vigil apud Bar. an 553. nu 208. 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
the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they k Coll. 8. professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly l Sup. cap. 2. nu 1. seq entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos m Coll. 2. p. 523. vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth n An. 553. nu 221. persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius o An. 555. nu 2. redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there p Adeo exhorruisse visi sunt Antistites occidentales aliam post quaâ—tam admittere oecumenicam Synodum ut non potuerit Pelagius reperire Episcopos Romae à quibus consecraretur Bar. an 556. nu 1. could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon q Can. 1. Con. Nic. can 4. of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of those Chapters rejected the Councell though the Pope approved it Neither of them both and so none at all in the whole Church judged either the Popes approbation to give or his reprobation to take away authority from a generall Councell Thus by the Antecedentia Concomitantia and Consequentia of the Councell it is manifest by the judgement of the whole Church in that age that this fift Councell was of authority without the Popes approbation and was not held of authority by reason of his approbation 9. What the judgement of the Church was as well in the ages preceding as succeeding to this Councell is evident by that which we have already declared For we have at large shewed r Sup. ca. 4. nu 25 26. seq that the doctrine faith and judgement of this fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all following generall Councells till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth Whereupon it ensueth that this doctrine which wee maintaine and the Cardinall impugneth that neither the Popes approbation doth give nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth by the whole Catholike Church of all ages till that Lateran Synod that is for more than 1500. yeares together 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Pelagius approved it then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Vigilius rejected it If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it neither can his approbation though Apostolicall give authority unto it Or if they say that both are true as indeed they are both alike true then seeing this fift Councell is both approved by Pope Pelagius and rejected by Pope Vigilius it must now be held both to be wholly approved and wholly rejected both to be lawfull and unlawfull both to be a generall Councell and no generall Councell And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it They all because they are approved by some one Pope are approved and lawfull Councels and because they approve this fift which is rejected by the Pope they are all rejected and unlawfull Councells Such an havocke of generall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure 11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell yet for the more clearing of the truth and expressing my love to this holy Councell to which next after that at Chalcedon I beare speciall affection I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius Binius have used of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod The former is taken from the assembling the
almost in the same words The author say they o Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. 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 defendeth 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 faith 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 p Si quis dixerit Christum Deum verum esse non potius nobiscum deum hoc est inhabitasse naturam nostra per id quod unitus est nostrae anathema sit Nestorius in anathematismo 1. coÌ„tra Cyrill anath §. 1. in Act. Conc. Eph 2. to. ca. 5. in Appen pa. 768. 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 q Tota Epistola haeretica est Epistola per omnia contraria est definitioni a Synodo Chalced. factae Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. b. 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 person 29. Let us now come unto the reasons whereby our Author Vigilius proves this profession to be Catholike Those are specially three in which because they all depend on that which hath beene declared in the position we may be the more briefe The first is because Dioscorus r Dioscorus Ibam propter hanc specialiter fidei professionem qua duas naturas unam virtutem unam personam apertissimè confitâ—tur haereticum condeÌ„navit Const Vig. nu 195. and the Ephesine Latrocinie did judge both this profession of Ibas and Ibas himselfe for making this profession to bee hereticall propter hanc fidei professionem for this profession of two natures and one person he condemned and deposed Ibas Now the judgement of Dioscorus to have beene unjust and hereticall there is so doubt and therefore the confession of Ibas which hee condemned must be acknowledged as orthodoxall and Catholike as being repugnant to the hereticall doctrine of Dioscorus A very poore and silly collection for a Pope and I doubt not but Vigilius would have derided it had not Nestorianisme at this time bereft him of all sound reason and judgement Dioscorus and his Ephesine conspiracie maintained the heresie of Eutiches which denieth
assent to their Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church but co nomine even for that very cause they are convicted condemned and accursed heretikes For the manifesting of which conclusion I will begin with that their fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith whereof before I have so often made mention And to prove the present Romane Church to bee hereticall herein two things are to be declared the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church the other that this doctrine is hereticall and for such condemned by the Catholike Church 7. For the former that the assertion of Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith is the doctrine of the present Romane Church I thinke none conversant in their writings will make doubt Give mee leave to propose some testimonies of their owne The Pope saith Bellarmine g Lib. 4. de pont ca. 3. §. Sic. when hee teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith nullo casu errare potest hee can by no possible meanes then erre And this as he saith is certissimum a most certaine truth and in the end hee addeth this is a signe Ecclesiam totam sentire that the whole Church doth beleeve the Pope to be in such causes infallible So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church The Iesuite Coster for himselfe and their whole Church saith We h Ench. tit de summo pont §. Fatemur doe constantly deny the Popes vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere to be able either to teach an heresie or to propose an errour to be beleeved When the Pope saith Bozius i Th. Boz lib 18. de Sig. Eccl. ca. 6. §. Sequitur teacheth the Church or sets forth a decree of faith Divinitùs illi praeclusa est omnis via God then stoppeth every way unto him which might bring him into errour Againe k Idem lib. 16. ca. 8. §. Rursus in making such decrees nunquam valuit aut valebit facere contra fidem he never was he never shall be able to doe ought against the faith We beleeve saith Gretzer l Def. ca. 3. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. §. Terius the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the m Idem def ca. 28. lib. 1. de pontif §. Quocirca gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra definiant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton n Relect. Cont. 3. qu. 4. §. Circa a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement o Rel. Conc. 6. q. 3. Art 5. §. Respondeo of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus p Loc. Theol. lib. 6. ca. 7. §. Quid. who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine q Lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca. 8. §. Excutimus It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth r Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 2. § Quarto St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he ſ In 2. 2. disp 1. q. 1. punct 1 part 30. that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine t Lib 2. de Conc. ca. 2 §. Ac ut doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth u Lib. de Eccles milit ca. 14. §. Nostra Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer x Def. ca. 10. lib. 3. de verb. Dei §. Iam. pa. 1450. that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe y Ibid. §. An. pd 1451. They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia z In 2. 2. disp 1. q. 1. By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius a Lib. 2. de sig eccl ca. 21. §. His. lib.
professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth f Papista deducitur à Papa qualis fuit Petrus Christus ipse ibid. it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure g Demand ◠him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme and infallible and so build their faith on him as on the foundation thereof which their owne Church never did till the time of Leo the tenth It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah but the Lion of that Laterane Synod who is the first God father of that name unto them when hee had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation were fitly christened with this name of Papists to distinguish them and their present Romane Church from all others who held the old good and sure foundation 26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines The errours maintained by all those three sorts of which I have spoken are almost the same and materially they are Popish heresies and yet the first sort did onely erre therein but were not heretikes because not pertinacious The second doe not onely erre but by adding pertinacy to errour are truly heretikes but yet not Papists because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner and on another foundation then Papists doe The third and last sort which containeth all and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church doe both erre and are heretikes and which is the worst degree of heresie are Papists that is Antichristian heretikes not onely holding and that in the highest degree of pertinacy those heresies which are contrary to the faith but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appeare which before h Sup. nu 19. I proposed that none who hold the Popes infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation that is none of the present Romane Church either doth or can beleeve any one doctrine of faith which they professe For seeing the beleefe of all other points relyes upō this so that they beleeve thē because they first beleeve this it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher i Arist lib. 1. demon ca. 2. Propter quod unumquodque illud magis that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this which is the foundation than they doe or can beleeve any other doctrine I say not Transubstantiation or Purgatory but more thā that Article of their Creed that Christ is God or that there is a God or any the like which is builded upon this foundatiō And seeing we have cleerly demonstrated that foundation to bee not onely untrue but hereticall and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith it being no true object of faith it doth evidently hence ensue that they neither doe nor can beleeve any one doctrine position or point of faith Impossible it is that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof or the conclusion more certaine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent and make us certaine of the conclusion That one fundamentall uncertainty contrariety to the faith which is vertually in all the rest breeds the like uncertainty and contrariety to faith in them all and like a Radicall poyson spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion infecting every arme branch and twigge of their doctrine and faith whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine and those are not a few those they neither doe nor can beleeve because they are no objects of faith whatsoever truths they maintaine and no doubt they doe many those they thinke they doe and they might doe but indeed they doe not beleeve because they hold them for that reason and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith and which overthroweth the faith For to hold or professe that Christ is God or that there is a God eo nomine because the Devill or Antichrist or a fallible man testifieth it unto us is not truly to beleeve but to overthrow the faith 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius If because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith they doe therefore beleeve it then must they beleeve Nestorianisme to be the truth and Christ not to bee God because Pope Vigilius by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence hath decreed this in decreeing that the three Chapters are to be defēded If they beleeve not this then can they beleeve nothing at all eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and then the foundation of their faith being abolished their whole faith together with it must needs be abolished also Againe if because the Pope defineth a doctrine they doe therefore beleeve it then seeing Pope Caelestine with the Ephesine and Pope Leo with the Chalcedon Councell decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie they by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infallibility must at one and the same time beleeve both Nestorianisme to be truth as Pope Vigilius defined and Nestorianisme to be heresie as Pope Caelestine and Leo defined and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true yea to bee truths of the Catholike faith which to beleeve is impossible or else they must beleeve that it is impossible to beleeve either the one or the other eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that which is the foundation of their whole faith Neither is this true onely in other points but even in this very foundation it selfe for the fift Councell which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters to be hereticall was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true because the Pope hath defined it then must they beleeve the Popes Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and so beleeve that upon this fallible and hereticall foundation they can build no doctrine of faith nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith So if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible then for this cause can they have no faith nor beleeve ought with certainty of faith seeing all
relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we hold their foundation being not onely uncertaine but hereticall and Antichristian poysoneth all which they build thereon it being vertually in them all makes them all like it selfe uncertaine hereticall and Antichristian and so those very doctrines which in themselves are most certaine and orthodoxall by the uncertainty of that ground upon which and for which they are beleeved are overthrowne with us and all Catholikes it fals out otherwise Though such happen to erre in some one or moe doctrines of faith say in Transubstantiation Purgatory or as Cyprian did in Rebaptization yet seeing they hold those errors because they thinke them to be taught in the Scriptures and Word of God on which alone their faith relyeth most firmely and undoubtedly beleeving whatsoever is taught therein among which things are the contrary doctrines to Transubstantiatiō Purgatory Rebaptization such I say even while they doe thus erre in their Explicite profession doe truly though implicitè by consequent and in radice or fundamento beleeve and that most firmely the quite contrary to those errours which they doe outwardly professe and think they doe but indeed doe not beleeve The vertue and strength of that fundamentall truth which they indeed and truly beleeve overcommeth all their errours which in very deed they doe not though they thinke they doe beleeve whereas in very truth they beleeve the quite contrary And this golden foundation in Christ which such men though erring in some points doe constantly hold shall more prevaile to their salvation than the Hay and Stubble of those errours which ignorantly but not pertinaciously they build thereon can prevaile to their destruction and therefore if such a man happen to die without explicite notice and repentance of those errours in particular as the saying of Saint Austen k Lib. 1. de baptism ca. 18. that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecillity the same by his glorious Martyrdome was washed away perswades mee that Cyprian did and as of Irene Nepos Iustine Martyr and others who held the errour of the Chiliasts I thinke none makes doubt it is not to be doubted but the abundance of this mans faith and love unto Christ to whom in the foundation hee most firmely adhereth shall worke the like effect in him as did the blood of martyrdome in Saint Cypran For the baptisme of martyrdome washeth away sinne not because it is a washing in blood but because it testifieth the inward washing of his heart by faith and by the purging Spirit of God This inward washing in whomsoever it is found and found it is in all who truly beleeve though in some point of faith they erre it is as forcible and effectuall to save Valentinian l Ablutus ascendit quē sua fides lavit Amb. Orat. de obitu Valent. neither baptized with water nor with blood and Nepos m Qui jam ad quietem processit ait Dionys apud Euseb l. 1. ca. 23. baptized with water but not with blood as to save Cyprian baptized both with water and with blood Such a comfort and happinesse it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith 30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them Though they explicitè professe Christ to be God which is a most orthodoxall truth yet because they hold this as all other points upon that foundation of the Popes infallible judgement in causes of faith and in that foundation this is denyed Pope Vigilius by his Cathedrall Constitution defining Nestorianisme to be truth and so Christ not to be God it must needs be confessed that even while they doe explicitè professe Christ to bee God they doe implicitè in radice and in fundamento deny Christ to be God and because by the Philosophers rule they doe more firmely beleeve that foundation than they doe or can beleeve any doctrine depending thereon it must needs ensue hence that they doe and must by their doctrine more firmely beleeve the Negative that Christ is not God which in the foundation is decreed then they doe or can beleeve the Affirmative that Christ is God which upon that foundation is builded The truth which upon that foundation they doe explicitè professe cannot possibly be so strong to salvation as the errour of the foundation upon which they build it will be to destruction For the fundamentall errour is never amended by any truth superedified and laid thereon no more than the rotten foundation of an house is made sound by laying upon it rafters of gold or silver but all the truths that are superedified are ruinated by that fundamentall errour and uncertainty on which they all relye even as the beames and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottennesse and unsoundnesse which resteth in the foundation Or if they say that both the assertions which are directly contradictory are from that foundation deduced Caelestine and Leo decreeing the one that Christ is God as Vigilius decreed the other that Christ is not God then doth it inevitably follow that they can truly beleeve neither the one nor the other seeing by beleeving that foundation they must equally beleeve them both which is impossible Such an unhappy and wretched thing it is to hold that erroneous hereticall and Antichristian foundation of faith 31. My conclusion of this point is this Seeing we have first declared that all who are members of the present Romane Church doe hold the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith yea hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines faith and religion doth relye and seeing wee have next demonstrated this to be a fundamentall heresie and not onely an hereticall but an Antichristian foundation condemned by Scriptures by generall Councels by ancient Fathers and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church that now hence followeth which I proposed n Sup. nu 6. to prove that none is or can bee a member of their present Church but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretike by Scriptures generall Councels Fathers and by the uniforme consent of the Catholike Church An heretike first in the very foundation of his faith which
Augustine Saint Ierome Saint Ambrose Saint Leo Papius Theophilact Tertullian Eusebius Prudentius and others most excellent Divines And I take God and the whole Court of heaven to witnesse before whom I must render an account of this protestation that the same faith and religion which I defend is taught and confirmed by those Hebrew and Greeke Scriptures those Historians Popes Decrees Scholies and Expositions Councells Schooles and Fathers and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same Thus he 11. Did ever mortall man read or heare of such a braggadochio For learning and languages Ierome is but a baby to him more industrious and adamantine then Origen then Adamantius himselfe A shop a storehouse of all knowledge his head a Library of all Fathers Councels Decrees of all writings an Heluo nay a very hell of books he devoures up all Rabsecha Thraso Pyrgopolinices Therapontigonus all ye Magnificoes Gloriosoes come sit at his feet and learne of him the exact forme of vaunting and reviling What silly men were Eutiches Nestorius and the old heretikes they boasted but of one or two Councells All Councells all Fathers all Decrees all bookes writings and records are witnesses of his faith They sayd it he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven that all Scriptures Councels Fathers all witnesses in heaven earth and hell yea the Devill and all are his and confirme their Romane faith and condemne the doctrine of Protestants Alas what shall we doe but even hide our selves in caves of the earth and clifts of the rocks from the force and fury of this Goliah who thus braves it out in the open field as who with the onely breath of his mouth can blow away whole legions quasi ventus folia aut pannicula tectoria 12. But let no mans heart faint because of this proud anonymall Philistim Thy servant O Lord though the meanest in the host of Israel will fight with him nor will I desire any other weapons but this one pible stone of the judiciall sentence of the fift generall Councell against Vigilius This being taken out of Davids bagge that is derived from Scriptures consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding Catholike Councells and Fathers directly and unavoydably hits him in the forehead it gives a mortall and uncurable wound unto him for it demonstrates not onely the foundation of their faith to be hereticall and for such to bee condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church but all their doctrines whatsoever they teach because they all relye on this foundation of the Popes infallibility are not onely unsound and in the root hereticall but even Antichristian also such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholike faith This being one part of the Philistimes weapons wherein he trusted and vanted with his owne sword is his head the head and foundation of all their faith cut off so that of him and the whole body of their Church it may be truly said Iacet ingens littore truncus Avulsumque humeris caput sine nomine corpus 13. You see now how both ancient and moderne heretikes boast of Councells and therefore that the reason of Baronius is most inconsequent that Vigilius was no heretike because hee professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon Nay I say more though one professe to hold the whole Scripture yet if with pertinacy hee hold any one doctrine repugnant thereunto the profession of the Scriptures themselves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretike If it could then not any of the old heretikes would want this pretence or to omit them seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to beleeve the Scriptures and whatsoever is taught therein would this profession exempt one from heresie neither they nor wee should be or be called heretikes But seeing in truth they are and wee in their Antichristian language are called heretikes as Cyrill and the orthodoxall beleevers in his time were by the Nestorians it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures much lesse to hold one or two Councells as Vigilius did cannot free one from being an heretike 14. You will perhaps say can one then beleeve the whole Scripture and be an heretike or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon and be an Arian Eutychean or Nestorian heretike No verily for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresie seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l Lib. 2. de doct Christ ca. 9. all doctrines concerning faith are set downe and that also perspicuously therein so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ But it is one thing to professe the scriptures or those three Councells and say that he beleeves them which many heretikes may doe and another thing to beleeve them indeed which none can doe and be an heretike for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures cannot possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scriptures but such a man upon evident declaration that this is taught in them though before he held the contrary presently submits his wit and will to the truth which out of them is manifested unto him If this he do not he manifestly declareth that he holds his error with pertinacy and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures and so hee is certainly an heretike notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures which he falsly said he beleeved and held when in very truth he held and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them The very like must be said of those three Councells and them who either truly beleeve or falsly say that they beleeve the faith explained in them or any one of them 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent the former that all heretikes are lyars in their profession not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue and hereticall but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not but hold and that for a point of their faith the quite contrary All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scriptures and the doctrines therein contained and yet every one of them lye herein for they beleeve one if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed but they lyed in making this profession for they beleeved not one person but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell but they lyed in this profession for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ but one onely The Church
of Rome and members thereof professe to hold the faith of the fift generall Councell and so professe implicitè the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and hereticall but they lye in making this profession for they beleeve not the Popes sentence in such causes to be fallible but with the Laterane and Trent Councels they hold it to be infallible It is the practice of all heretikes to make such faire though lying professions For should they say in plaine termes that which is truth indeed wee beleeve not the scriptures nor the Councells of Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon every man would spit at them and detest them cane pejus angue nor could they ever deceive any or gaine one proselyte But when they commend their faith that is their heresie to be the same doctrine with the scriptures which the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon taught by these faire pretences and this lying profession they insinuate themselves into the hearts of the simple deceiving hereby both themselves and others 16. The other consequent is this That the profession of all heretikes is contradictory to it selfe For they professe to hold the scriptures and so to condemne every heresie and yet withal they professe one private doctrine repugnant to scripture and which is an heresie The like may be said of the Councells The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice professe Christ to bee but one person and yet withall by holding Nestorianisme they professe Christ to be two persons The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Councell of Ephesus professe two natures to remaine in Christ after the union which in that Councell is certainly decreed and yet by professing the heresie of Eutyches they professe the quite contradictory that one nature onely remaines after the union The Church of Rome and members thereof by professing the faith of the fift Councell professe the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and de facto to have beene hereticall and yet they professe the direct contradictory as the Councell of Laterane hath defined that the Popes sentence in such causes is infallible and neither hath beene nor can be hereticall So repugnant to it selfe and incoherent is the profession of all heretikes that it sighteth both with the truth and with it owne selfe also The very same is to be seene in Vigilius and his Constitution For in professing to defend the three Chapters and in decreeing that all shall defend them he professeth all the blasphemies of Nestorius and decreeth that all shall maintaine them and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon and decreeing that all shall hold it hee professeth that Nestorianisme is heresie and decreeth that all shall condemne it for heresie and so decreeing both these he decreeth that all men in the world shall beleeve two contradictories and beleeve them as Catholike Truths Such a worthy Apostolicall decree is this of Vigilius for defending whereof Baronius doth more then toyle himselfe 17. You will againe demand Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainely professe both these why shall not his expresse profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon make him or shew him to bee a Catholike rather then his other expresse profession to defend the Three Chapters make or shew him to bee an hereticke Why rather shall his hereticall then his orthodoxall profession give denomination unto him I also demand of you Seeing every hereticke in expresse words professeth to beleeve the whole Scripture which is in effect a condemning of every heresie why shall not this orthodoxall profession make or shew him to be a Catholike rather then his expresse profession of some one doctrine contrarie to Scripture say for example sake of Arianisme make or shew him to bee an Arian hereticke The reason of both is one and the same Did an Arian so professe to hold the Scriptures that hee were resolved to forsake his Arianisme and confesse Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this certainely his professiō of Arianisme with such a professiō to hold the Scriptures could not make him an hereticke no more then Cyprians profession of Rebaptization or Irenees of the millenarie heresie did make them heretikes Erre hee should as they did but being not pertinacious in error hereticke hee could not be as they were not But it falls out otherwise with all heretickes They professe to hold the Scripture yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintaine That they will hold and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrarie even of the Scriptures themselves They resolve of this that whosoever Bishops Councells or Church teach the contrarie to that or say judge that the Scripture so teacheth they all erre or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures Thus did not Cyprian nor Irenee And this wilfull and pertinacious resolution it is which evidently sheweth that in truth they beleeve not the Scriptures but beleeve their own fancies though they say a thousand times that they beleeve and embrace whatsoever the Scriptures teach for did they beleeve any doctrine say Arianisme eo nomine because the Scripture teacheth it they would presently beleeve the contrarie thereunto when it were manifested unto them as is was to the Arians by the Nicen Coūcell that the Scripture taught the contrarie to their error Seeing this they will not doe It is certaine that they hold their private opiniō eo nomine because they will hold it and they hold it to bee the doctrine of scripture not because it is so but because they will have it to bee so say what any will or can to the contrarie So their owne will and not Scripture is the reason why they beleeve it nay why they hold it with such a stiffe opinion for beleife it is not it cannot be This pertinacie to have beene in the Nestorians Eutycheans and the rest is evident Had they beleeved as they professed the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus then upon manifestation of their errors out of those Councels they would have renounced their heresies but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ notwithstanding that the whole Councell of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Councel held but one person and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union notwithstanding that the whole Councell at Chalcedon manifested unto them that the holy Ephesine Synod held two natures to abide in him after the union they did hereby make it evident unto all that they so professed to hold those Councels as that they resolved not to forsake their Nestorian and Eutichean heresies for any manifestation of the truth or conviction of their error out of those Councels and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said we hold those Councels and will have them to
Councell that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian In that Councell n Conc. 6. Act. 3. a sermon or speech going under the name of Mennas to Vigilius was produced as a part of the Acts of the fift Councell the Legates of Pope Agatho cryed out before the Emperor and the whole Councell that it was a forgery which they proved o Eo argumento manifestissimè comprobarunt quod Mennas sex annis ante quintam Synodum sub Vigilio celebratam ex hac vitâ migrasset Bin. not in Conc. 6. in Act. 3. and that most manifestly because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian but the fift Synod was congregated in the 26 yeare which ended on the first of Aprill though the first Session of the Synod was not held till the May next after which was in the 27 yeare of Iustinian Thus testified the Popes owne Legates and the Emperour with the whole Synod upon their evidence rejected their writing for a forgerie 19. Said I not truly unto you that the Baronian narration was a peece of rare Poetry might not a meane Poet make an excellent Tragedy of it were it not a fine Pageant to see the Pope and so many Bishops sit in Vtopia and there make a law for Taciturnity the Emperour the Senate and people consenting unto it would it not bee another and farre more delightfull Act to see the Pope and Emperour quarrelling about this law the one beating buffeting and persecuting the other fleeing both by Sea and land from Placidiana to Saint Peter from him to Euphemia from Constantinople to Chalcedon what a sport were it to see the Romane Apollo ascend into his Delphian throne and thence as from Olympus cast his fierie darts his thunders and lightnings against that Typhoëan generation which durst speake when he enjoyned silence Now the embassage which the Emperour sent to Chalcedon to intreat his Holinesse to returne the magnanimity of the Pope in refusing to come from the Altar the Emperours yeelding to all that he prescribed this of it selfe would incourage a Poet and cause him to presume of an applause But the most rare Pageant of all would bee to see and heare Mennas foure yeares after he was dead and rotten to speake and dispute against the Decree of Silence the Silentes umbrae to declame against Silence to see him a Bishop a Patriarch at the voyce of the Popes sentence Audisne haec Amphiarai sub terram abditae to come ab inferis to come with a Bill of supplication in his hand with a song of Miserere in his mouth to the Romane Iove and intreat pardon for his talking so much in the grave and among the infernall ghosts against the Popes Decree of Silence after all this to see the Pope shake hands with him and all his Metropolitanes and Micropolitanes p Tu cum omnibus Metropolitanis et Micropolitanis Episcopis Vigil sententia apud Bar. an 551. nu 12. note the eloquence of the Pope and so after a most joyfull reconcilement to see the holy Reliques caried in a golden Chariot an excellent dumbe shew about the City and that by a dead man Can you doe lesse than give the Poet Baronius a Plaudite for his so rare invention or contriving of this Fable 20. Why but is it credible that Cardinall Baronius the great Annalist of our age hee who bestowed thirty q Hoc opus ante annos circiter 30 aggressus sum Bar. in praefat dedic ante tom 1. Annalium yeares in the study of these Ecclesiasticall affaires that hee should so foully be overseene in a computation so easie and so obvious as to thinke Mennas to bee excommunicated to come with a supplication to the Pope and to ride in a triumphant Chariot with those holy reliques foure or five yeares after he was dead and rotten Overseene nothing lesse It was no ignorance no oversight in him he knew all this matter ad unguem hee knew that Mennas was dead long before that submission and triumph But the Cardinall was disposed either to recreate the reader with the contemplation of this his Poetical fiction or else for to shew you that with the charme of those forgeries and counterfeit writings with which he hath stuffed his Annals hee is able to metamorphoze all other men into very blocks and beetles that they shall applaud his most absurd dotages as undoubted and historicall truths which that every man may perceive it must be observed that though in this place where the cause betwixt Vigilius and the Emperor is debated the Cardinall is content that you should thinke Mennas to have been alive in the 26. r Hoc anno 26. Iustiniani finem vivendi fecit Mennas Bar. an 552. nu 21. year of Iustinian that is five years after he was dead for otherwise all his narration even the whole play had been spoiled there had neither beene any Decree of Silence nor any persecution by Iustinian nor any flight of Vigilius nor any excommunication of Mennas or Theodorus nor any submission of them and of the Emperour also to the Pope the Pope had not beene knowne to bee so farre above Bishops Patriarks and Emperours that they must all stoope to him and laying their necks at his feet say unto him Calcate me salem insipidum punish me as you please for speaking without your Holinesse leave and licence yea that Kings must pull downe abrogate and adnull their imperiall Edicts if the Pope doe but becke unto them though for these considerations hee is here willing that you beleeve that untruth concerning Mennas for all these depend on that one sentence of Anathema against Mennas yet when this matter is over-past when the Cardinall comes to a new argument where hee hopes this which is said about the cause of Vigilius wil be forgotten there he confesseth the truth indeed concerning Mennas and tels you a quite contrary tale For intreating of the Acts of the sixt Councel particularly of that reason of the Popes Legates against the forged Epistle in Mennas name he thus ſ Bar. an 680. nu 46. saith Ejusque rei certum illud attulerunt argumentum quod Mennas diem obijt anno 21 Iustiniani Imperatoris The Legates give a certaine proofe that the writing was forged because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian the Emperour Loe the Cardinall knew and professeth it to bee not onely true but certaine that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian and yet against his owne certain knowledge for maintaining this fictitious Decree of Silence and the fables thereon depending he perswades you to beleeve that Mennas dealt against this Decree was excommunicated by Vigilius and submitted himselfe to the Pope and rode with the relikes five yeares after he was dead 21. Truly this was scarse faire and honest dealing in the Cardinall by untruths to strive to bolster out forged Acts and writing But the Cardinals Annals are so full of such like stuffe
yeare after it was published was confirmed by Pope Iohn who thus writeth f Epist 1. Ioh. 2. ad Justin to 2. Conc. pa. 404. et Bar. an 534. nu 15. et seq to the Emperour You for the love of the faith and to remove heresie have published an Edict which because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine wee confirme by our authority and againe You have writ and published those things which both the Apostolike doctrine and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed nos in omnibus confirmamus and we confirme it in all points This your faith is the true and certaine religion this all the Fathers Bishops of Rome and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept this confession whosoever doth contradict hee is an alien from the holy Communion and from the Catholike Church Thus Pope Iohn What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius but condemne him for an accursed heretike Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to embrace that profession unum de Trinitate which as the Emperour and Pope witnesse it earnestly embraceth he not onely suspecteth in this place but in plaine termes else-where g Planè comperitur eosdem ipsos Scythiae Monachos Eutycheanos fuisse haereticos Bar. an 519. nu 99. he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans heretikes and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon and that for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius h An. eod nu 102. that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Christ was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteret because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the foure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormisdaes dayes they could not now in this