bee seene together for which cause they are worthily rejected in the Canons of the sixt Councell seeing the Pope may canonize these what blasphemies what heresies what lies may not with them be canonized why may not their very Legend in the next Session bee declared to be Canonicall And yet by that fundamentall position they are bound and now doe implicitè beleeve whatsoever any Pope either by word or writing either hath already or shall at any time hereafter define to be a doctrine of faith Because I will not stay on particulars if any please seriously to consider this matter hee shall perceive that which now I intend to prove such venome of infidelity to lye in that one fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility that by reason of holding it they neither doe nor can beleeve or hold with certaintie of faith any one point or doctrine which they professe to beleeve and hold upon that Foundation 20. For the clearing of which point being very materiall it is to be observed that unto certainty of faith two things are of necessity required The one ex parte objecti on the part of thing beleeved which must be so true and certaine in it selfe that it cannot possibly bee or have beene otherwise then it is beleeved to be to have beene or to be hereafter And therefore none can truly beleeve any untruth for nothing which is untrue is or can be the object of faith The other thing is required ex parte subjecti on the part of him who beleeveth Now faith being onely of such things are inevident that is which neither by sense can be perceived nor by naturall reason collected or found out but which are onely by the testimonie of such as first knew them made knowne unto us and none doth or can know that which is supernaturall unlesse God himselfe reveale the same unto him it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any beleeved the same is revealed and testified to him by God himselfe who is infallible and further that it is certainly knowne unto him who beleeveth that it is God himselfe who doth reveale and testifie that thing unto him For otherwise though the doctrine proposed be in it selfe never so certaine and divine yet unto thee or me it cannot be certaine nor held by certainty of faith unlesse first we be sure and infallibly certaine that he who testifieth it unto us is himselfe infallible that is that he is God Let us for perspicuity call the former of these two materiale fidei the materiall in faith or the thing beleeved and the later formale fidei that which is formall in faith seeing as the former is the thing beleeved so the later containes the reason the ground or foundation upon which and for which it is beleeved 21. Consider now first the materials in their faith In them there is a great difference for some of them are in themselves credible as being divine truths and true objects of faith Such are all those Catholike truths common to us and them as that there is a Trinity that Christ was borne of a Virgin dyed rose againe and the like Others are in themselves untrue such as cannot be the object of faith Of this sort are all those doctrines wherin they dissent from us Transubstantiation reall and proper sacrifice worshipping of Images Purgatory Iustification by the merit or dignity of our works and the like which may rightly bee called popish doctrines The later sort of these they neither doe nor can beleeve The former they might but they doe not beleeve The reason whereof will appeare by considering that which is formall or the fundamentall ground of their faith where it is first to be observed that a man may hold many yea all the doctrines professed by the present Church except that one of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility and yet bee no Papist or member of their present Church For although the things professed or the Materialls be the selfe same yet the formalitie or diverse reason of holding them causeth a maine difference in the parties that hold them And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three divers wayes whereby their doctrines are or may be held 22. The first is of them who build all those doctrines upon the Scripture as the Foundation thereof upon that ground holding not onely many Catholike truths which they most firmly beleeve the Church inducing the Scriptures outwardly teaching and the holy Spirit inwardly sealing the same unto them but together with those truths hold some errors also of the Romane Church take for example Transubstantiation which although for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live they thinke to be taught in the Scriptures and therefore hold and professe them and thinke they beleeve them yet because they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures nor sealed by Gods Spirit unto their hearts therefore they hold not these nor in truth can they hold them with that firmnesse and certainty of faith as they doe the former truths but they have a faintnes and feare in their assent unto these and so a readines and willing preparation of heart to disclaime these and to hold or professe the contrary if ever it may be fully cleared manifested out of the Scriptures unto them Of this sort we doubt not but many thousands of our fathers were who living in the darknesse thicke mists of their Antichristian superstition upon the Scriptures word of God which they held for the foundation of their faith builded indeed much gold precious stones but with a mixture of much hay stubble drosse thinking but very erroneously the later as well as the former to be contained in that foundation The state of all these is very like to S. Cyprians and those other Africane Bishops which were so earnest for Rebaptizatiō supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures though the foundation of it of those catholike truths that Christ was God or the like was one and the same unto them yet they held not both with like firmnes certainty of faith The doctrine of Christs deity manhood they so beleeved that they would not cōmunicate with any that denied this nay they would rather die then deny it But Rebaptization they so held as not thinking their opposites to be heretikes nor refusing to cōmunicate with thē that denyed it so they held this with a certaine faintnes of faith or rather as indeed it was of opinion and not of faith having a preparation in heart to beleeve and professe the contrary if it might at any time be made manifest unto them This S. Austen often witnesseth of Cyprian Satis ostendit se facillime correcturum he sufficiently declareth that hee would most easily have altered his opinion if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him Againe That holy man Cyprian being non solum doctus sed docilis not onely learned but willing to learne
and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per cum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as found lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of 〈◊〉 it were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and fortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had just led out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the second Antichrist crescent In the third Antichrist regnant but in this fourth he is made
they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme and infallible and so build their faith on him as on the foundation thereof which their owne Church never did till the time of Leo the tenth It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah but the Lion of that Laterane Synod who is the first Godfather of that name unto them when hee had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation were fitly christened with this name of Papists to distinguish them and their present Romane Church from all others who held the old good and sure foundation 26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines The errours maintained by all those three sorts of which I have spoken are almost the same and materially they are Popish heresies and yet the first sort did onely erre therein but were not heretikes because not pertinacious The second doe not onely erre but by adding pertinacy to errour are truly heretikes but yet not Papists because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner and on another foundation then Papists doe The third and last sort which containeth all and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church doe both erre and are heretikes and which is the worst degree of heresie are Papists that is Antichristian heretikes not onely holding and that in the highest degree of pertinacy those heresies which are contrary to the faith but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appeare which before I proposed that none who hold the Popes infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation that is none of the present Romane Church either doth or can beleeve any one doctrine of faith which they professe For seeing the beleefe of all other points relyes upō this so that they beleeve thē because they first beleeve this it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher Propter quod unumquodque illud magis that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this which is the foundation than they doe or can beleeve any other doctrine I say not Transubstantiation or Purgatory but more thā that Article of their Creed that Christ is God or that there is a God or any the like which is builded upon this foundatiō And seeing we have cleerly demonstrated that foundation to bee not onely untrue but hereticall and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith it being no true object of faith it doth evidently hence ensue that they neither doe nor can beleeve any one doctrine position or point of faith Impossible it is that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof or the conclusion more certaine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent and make us certaine of the conclusion That one fundamentall uncertainty contrariety to the faith which is vertually in all the rest breeds the like uncertainty and contrariety to faith in them all and like a Radicall poyson spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion infecting every arme branch and twigge of their doctrine and faith whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine and those are not a few those they neither doe nor can beleeve because they are no objects of faith whatsoever truths they maintaine and no doubt they doe many those they thinke they doe and they might doe but indeed they doe not beleeve because they hold them for that reason and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith and which overthroweth the faith For to hold or professe that Christ is God or that there is a God eo nomine because the Devill or Antichrist or a fallible man testifieth it unto us is not truly to beleeve but to overthrow the faith 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius If because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith they doe therefore beleeve it then must they beleeve Nestorianisme to be the truth and Christ not to bee God because Pope Vigilius by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence hath decreed this in decreeing that the three Chapters are to be defēded If they beleeve not this then can they beleeve nothing at all eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and then the foundation of their faith being abolished their whole faith together with it must needs be abolished also Againe if because the Pope defineth a doctrine they doe therefore beleeve it then seeing Pope Caelestine with the Ephesine and Pope Leo with the Chalcedon Councell decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie they by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infallibility must at one and the same time beleeve both Nestorianisme to be truth as Pope Vigilius defined and Nestorianisme to be heresie as Pope Calestine and Leo defined and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true yea to bee truths of the Catholike faith which to beleeve is impossible or else they must beleeve that it is impossible to beleeve either the one or the other eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that which is the foundation of their whole faith Neither is this true onely in other points but even in this very foundation it selfe for the fift Councell which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters to be hereticall was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true because the Pope hath defined it then must they beleeve the Popes Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and so beleeve that upon this fallible and hereticall foundation they can build no doctrine of faith nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith So if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible then for this cause can they have no faith nor beleeve ought with certainty of faith seeing all relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we
Apostolicall authoritie decree that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By holding this one fundamentall position they are pertinacious in all their errours and that in the highest degree of pertinacy which the wit of man can devise yea and pertinacious before all conviction and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them For by setting this downe they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth though it should be manifested unto them that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves that they never will be convicted nor ever have the truth manifested unto them The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them that the doctrines which they maintaine are heresies were first to perswade the Pope who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall to make a contrary decree that they are hereticall Now although this may be morally judged to be a matter of impossibilitie yet if his Holinesse could be induced hereunto and would so farre stoope to Gods truth as to make such a decree even this also could not perswade them so long as they hold that foundation They would say either the Pope were not the true Pope or that he defined it not as Pope and ex Cathedra or that by consenting to such an hereticall decree hee ceased ipso facto to be Pope or the like some one or other evasion they would have still but grant the Popes sentence to be fallible or hereticall whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith yea as the foundation of their faith they would not Such and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed and that essentially to that one Position that so long as one holds it and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him or convert him to the truth 21. You doe now clearely see how feeble and inconsequent that Collection is which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith therein explaned Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes both ancient and moderne Quit him for this cause and quit them all condemne them and then this pretēce can no way excuse Vigilius frō heresie They all with him professe with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures of Fathers of generall Councels but because their profession is not onely lying and contradictorie to it selfe but alwayes such as that they retaine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace as Vigilius had not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures Fathers and Councels cannot make any of them nor Vigilius among them to be esteemed orthodoxall or Catholike but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine which they with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures or holy generall Councels as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters doth truly demonstrate them all and Vigilius among them to be heretikes And this may suffice for answer to the second exception or evasion of Baronius CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three of foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters It appeareth saith hee that Vigilius to the end he might take away the schisme and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie Againe when Vigilius saw that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West unlesse he consented to the fift Synod eam probavit he approved it Again Pelagius thought it fit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine Vigilius
those Chapters rejected the Councell though the Pope approved it Neither of them both and so none at all in the whole Church judged either the Popes approbation to give or his reprobation to take away authority from a generall Councell Thus by the Antecedentia Concomitantia and Consequentia of the Councell it is manifest by the judgement of the whole Church in that age that this fift Councell was of authority without the Popes approbation and was not held of authority by reason of his approbation 9. What the judgement of the Church was as well in the ages preceding as succeeding to this Councell is evident by that which we have already declared For we have at large shewed that the doctrine faith and judgement of this fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all following generall Councells till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth Whereupon it ensueth that this doctrine which wee maintaine and the Cardinall impugneth that neither the Popes approbation doth give nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth by the whole Catholike Church of all ages till that Lateran Synod that is for more than 1500. yeares together 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Pelagius approved it then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Vigilius rejected it If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it neither can his approbation though Apostolicall give authority unto it Or if they say that both are true as indeed they are both alike true then seeing this fift Councell is both approved by Pope Pelagius and rejected by Pope Vigilius it must now be held both to be wholly approved and wholly rejected both to be lawfull and unlawfull both to be a generall Councell and no generall Councell And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it They all because they are approved by some one Pope are approved and lawfull Councels and because they approve this fift which is rejected by the Pope they are all rejected and unlawfull Councells Such an havocke of generall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure 11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell yet for the more clearing of the truth and expressing my love to this holy Councell to which next after that at Chalcedon I beare speciall affection I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius Binius have used of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod The former is taken from the assembling the later from the decree of the Councell It was assembled say Baronius and Binius Pontifice resistente contradicente the Pope resisting and contradicting it Whence they inferre that it was an unlawfull assembly not gathered in Gods name In this their reason both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue Did Pope Vigilius resist this Councell and contradict the calling or assembling thereof What testimonie doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion Truly none at all What probabilities yet or conjectures Even as many Are not these men think you wise worthy disputers who dare avouch so doubtfull matters and that also to the disgrace of an holy ancient and approved Councell and yet bring no testimonie no probabilitie no conjecture no proofe at all of their saying Ipse dixit is in stead of all 12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contrarie If both Baronius and Binius professe that Vigilius did consent that this Councell should be held Heare I pray you their own words and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men Hanc Synodum Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit saith Binius Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority Againe The Emperour called this fift Synod authoritate Vigilij by the authority of Pope Vigilius Baronius sings the same note It was very well provided saith he that this Oecumenicall Synod should be held ex Vigilii Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius who above all other men desired to have a Councell Againe The Emperour decreed that the Synod should be called ex ipsius Vigilii sententia according to the minde of Vigilius And a little after It was commendable in the Emperor that he did labour to assemble the Synod ex Vigilij Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius Neither onely did the Pope consent to have a Councell but to have it in that very city where it was held and where himselfe then was Indeed at the first the Pope was desirous and earnest to have it held in Sicily or in some Westerne Citie even as Pope Leo had laboured with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent to that petition as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo Vigilius then voluntati Imperatoris libens accessit very willingly consented to the Emperours pleasure in this matter that the Oecumenicall Councell should be held at Constantinople Say now in sadnesse what you thinke of Baronius and Binius Whither had they sent their wits when they laboured to perswade this Councell to be unlawfull because Pope Vigilius resisted and contradicted the assembling thereof whereas themselves so often so evidently so expresly testifie not onely that it was assembled by the consent and according to the minde will pleasure desire authority and sentence of the Pope but the very chiefe act and royaltie of the summons they challenge though falsely to the Pope the other which is an act of labour and service to be as it were the Popes Sumner or Apparitor in bringing the Bishops together by the Popes authoritie that and none but that they allow to the Emperour 13. Many other testimonies might bee produced to declare this truth That of Sigonius The Emperour called this Synod Vigilio Pontifice permittente Pope Vigilius permitting him that of Wernerus Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople That of Zonaras and Glicas who both affirme that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij the chiefe Bishop of the Councell not chiefe among them that sate in the Councell for there he was not at all nor chiefe in making the Synodall decree for therein he contradicted the Councell but chiefe of all who sued to
cordiall profession there neither is nor can be any truth therein it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to be hereticall as the fift Councill defined and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such causes to be infallible as their Laterane Councill decreed So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe such as none can possibly beleeve and withall new such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced untill that very day of their Laterane Session 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of Paris as being contra fidem Catholicam against the catholike Faith and the authority of holy Councils And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of Trent wherein that Laterane Decree is confirmed is by them rejected And what speake I of them Behold while Leo with his Laterane Councill strives to quench this catholike truth it bursts out with farre more glorious and resplendent beauty This stone which was rejected by those builders of Babylon was laid againe in the foundations of Sion by those Ezra's Nehemiah's Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord who at the voyce of the Angell came out of Babylon and repaired the ruines of Ierusalem And even as certaine rivers are said to runne under or through the salt Sea and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it but at length to burst out send forth their owne sweet and delightfull waters Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith This Catholike truth that the Popes judgement and Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is not infallible borne in the first age of the Church and springing from the Scriptures and Apostles as from the holy mountaines of God for the space of 600 yeares and more passed with a most faire and spatious current like Tygris Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord or like Pactolus with golden streames inriching and beautifying the Church of God after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages brackish I confesse before their second Nycene Synod but after it and the next unto it extremely salt and unpleasant more bitter then the waters of Mara And although the nearer it came to the streets of Babylon it was still more mingled with the slime or mud of their Babylonish ditches yet for all that dangerous and long mixture continuing about the space of 730. yeares this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse by the constant and successive professions of the whole Church throughout all those ages Now after that long passage through all those salt waves like Alpheus or Arethusa it bursts out againe not as they did in Sicily nor neare the Italian shores but as the Cardinall tells us in Germanie in England in Scotland in France in Helvetia in Polonia in Bohemia in Pannonia in Sueveland in Denmarke in Norway in all the Reformed Churches and being by the power and goodnesse of God purified from all that mud and corruption wherewith it was mingled all which is now left in it owne proper that is in the Romane channels it is now preserved in the faire current of those Orthodoxall Churches wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith are with no lesse sinceritie professed thē they were in those ancient times before they were mingled with any bitter or brackish waters 36 You see now the whole judgement of the Fift Generall Councill how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius condemning and accursing both it for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes which their sentence you see is consonant to the Scriptures and the whole Catholike Church of all ages excepting none but such as adhere to their new Laterane decree and faith An example so ancient so authenticall and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth which wee teach and they oppugne that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger and stand in doubt even of the maine ground and foundation whereon all his faith relyeth For the full clearing of which matter being of so great importance and consequence I have thought it needful to rip up every veine and sinew in this whole cause concerning these Three Chapters and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same and withall examine the weight of every doubt evasion excuse which eyther Cardinall Baronius who is instar omnium or Binius or any other moveth or pretendeth herein not willingly nor with my knowledge omitting any one reason or circumstance which either they urge or which may seeme to advantage or help them to decline the inevitable force of our former Demonstration CAP. V. The first Exception of Baronius pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith refuted 1 THere is not as I thinke any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annalls hath with more art or industry handled then this concerning Pope Vigilius and the Fift Generall Councill In this hee hath strained all his wits moved and removed every stone under which hee imagined any help might be found eyther wholly to excuse or any way lessen the errour of Vigilius All the Cardinalls forces may be ranked into foure severall troupes In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawne from the Matter of the Three Chapters In the second those which are drawne from the Popes Constitution In the third those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius In the fourth last those which concerne the fift General Councill After all these wherin cōsisteth the whole pith of the Cause the Cardinall brings forth another band of certaine subsidiary but most disorderly souldiers nay not souldiers they never tooke the Military oath nor may they by the Law of armes nor ever were by any worthy Generall admitted into any lawfull fight or so much as to set footing in the field meere theeves and robbers they are whom the Cardinall hath set in an ambush not to fight in the cause but onely like so many Shimei's that they might raile at and revile whomsoever the Cardinall takes a spleene at or with whatsoever hee shall be moved in the heat of his choler At the Emperour Iustinian at Theodora the Empresse at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters at the Imperiall Edict at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea at the Synodal acts yea at Pope Vigilius himselfe we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall which onely are his lawfull warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause
Theodoretum refutatio Cyrill who in his Epistle to Eulogius faith thus You have my refutation which I set forth against Andreas and Theodoret who writ against my Chapters 6. Witnesse Theodoret himselfe who in sundrie of his Epistles testifieth his spleene and spight against Cyrill and the Catholike faith In one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most perverse and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresie of Nestorius I wil never saith he while I live consent to those things which are done against you and against the law so hee taxeth not onely the Chapters of Cyrill but the decree of the holy Ephesine Synod no I will not consent unto them though they should cut off both my hands In another to Iohn the Bishop of Antioch We continue still saith he contradicting the twelve Chapters ut alienis à pietate as being contrary to pietie In another to Aemerius Wee ought not to consent to the condemnation of the venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius in another to Alexander I told you before that the doctrine of my venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius hath beene condemned nec ego cum his qui faciunt communicabo neither will I communicate with those who condemned that doctrine and yet more bitterly in his Epistle to Andreas his fellow oppugner of those Chapters Insanit iterum Aegyptus adversus Deum Aegypt is againe madde against the Lord and makes warre with Moses and Aaron the servants of God As if Nestorius and his fellow-heretikes were the onely Israel but Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt and the holy Ephesine Councell and all Catholikes who held with them were no other but Pharao and his Aegyptian troupes which fought against GODS people 7. Doe we yet desire more or more pregnant and ample testimonies in this matter Take this one out of the acts of Chalcedon When Theodoret being called came first into the Synod the most reverend Bishops of Aegypt Illirium and Palestine cryed out against him in this manner The Canons exclude this man thrust him out Magistrum Nestorij for as mittite thrust out the master of Nestorius the orthodoxall Councell doth not receive Theodoret Call him not a Bishop he is no Bishop hee is an oppugner of God he is a Iew thrust him out he accused he anathematized Cyrill If we receive him we reject Cyrill The Canons exclude him God doth detest him Thus cryed out the Bishops against Theodoret before they knew him to have renounced the heresie of Nestorius which he had so long and so eagerly defended nor were they pacified otherwise but that Theodoret at the appointment of the Iudges should sit onely as an accuser of Dioscorus not as one having judicatorie power or a decisive suffrage till his owne cause was fully examined and heard Seeing now there are besides many other which I willingly omit so many so evident so obvious so undeniable proofes that Theodoret writ against Cyrill and against his twelve Chapters in defence of Nestorius and his heresie what can one thinke of Vigilius but that he wilfully and wittingly resisted the truth while he not onely strives to perswade that Theodoret writ no such thing and that the Councell of Chalcedon thought so but takes this knowne and palpable untruth for one of the grounds of his Apostolicall decree touching this second Chapter 8. And yet there is a worse matter in this very passage of Vigilius and that is the reason whereby he proveth that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill or in defence of Nestorius you shall heare it in his owne words It is saith he undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon that any Nestorian doctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop Theodoret who together with those holy Fathers did accurse the doctrines of Nestorius Quid enim aliud est mendaces simulantes professionem rectae fidei patres in sancto Concilio Chalcedonensi residentes ostendere quam dicere aliquos ex ijs similia sapuisse Nestorio for to say that any of them who were in that Councell had thought as Nestorius did is nothing else then to shew or affirme those Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon to be lyers and dissemblers in faith as condemning that faith which they doe allow Thus reasoneth Vigilius who hence implyeth that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops and Fathers at Chalcedon if he ever writ any such things in defence of Nestorius then both he and the rest admitting him should dissemble in their faith and lye professing to condemne Nestorius and yet approving him who had writ in defence of Nestorius 9. Truly I doe even admire to consider the blindnesse of Vigilius in this whole cause of the three Chapters Most certaine it is as we have shewed that Theodoret did both thinke as Nestorius and write in defence of him and his heresie and that the Councell of Chalcedon knew he did so If then to receive such an one as they knew Theodoret to have beene be as Vigilius saith a dissembling and lying in the faith the whole Councell of Chalcedon by the Popes judgement and decree were undoubtedly all lyers and dissemblers in the faith a calumnie and slander so vile and incredible that it alone should cause any Catholike minde to detest this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius But to say truth the Popes reason is without al reason Had the holy Coūcell admitted Theodoret before he had renounced his heresie or manifested the sincerity of his faith unto them the Pope might have had some colour to have accused them of dissembling as condemning Nestorianisme yet receiving a known Nestorian into their communion but it was quite contrary In the former actions till Theodoret had cleared himselfe of heresie hee was as we have declared no otherwise admitted than onely as a plaintiffe who accused Dioscorus for injuriously deposing him and placing another in his See And in the eight Action wherein hee came to cleare himselfe and to be reconciled to the Church he had no sooner almost set his foot in the Synod but the Bishops cryed out Theodoretus modo anathematizet Nestorium let Theodoret forthwith anathematize Nestorius let him doe it instantly and without any delay And when Theodoret to give the Councell better satisfaction offered them first a book to reade containing the sincere profession of his faith and when that being refused he purposed at large by words to have expressed the same the Synod suspecting the worst and that hee used those delayes as being loath to anathematize Nestorius cryed out He is an heretike he is a Nestorian haereticum for as mitte out with the heretike and so they had indeed thrust him out but that he leaving all circuition presently before them all cryed Anathema to Nestorius Anathema to him who doth not confesse the blessed Virgin to bee the Mother of God with which profession the Synod being fully satisfied the glorious Iudges
adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels defining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth declare Coster observes that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place and againe in his Relections gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they 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 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 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
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 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 fighteth 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 〈◊〉
against the most religious and prudent Emperour and his holy and orthodoxall Edict and hee saith that he was willing to adde these ad roborandam Facundi sententiam to fortifie the sentence of Facundus whereby he with Vigilius did defend the Three Chapters 5. Were one disposed to make sport with the Cardinall himselfe here offereth a large field wherein one may exspaciate and seeing he useth not others as Kings hee might expect lege tulionis not to bee used himselfe as a Cardinall But because wee shall in another place more fitly convince the Cardinall both for his reviling the Emperor and raling at his Edict as penned by heretikes for this time I will but by the way observe two or three points touching this passage The first that Facundus by defending the Three Chapters and Baronius by fortifying his defence doe unavoydably pull upon themselves the just censure of Anathema denounced by the holy Councell against the defenders of those Chapters and those who are abetters of them So the more Baronius doth labour to fortifie the sentence of Facundus the more he entangles himselfe in that curse of the generall Councel The second that both Facundus Baronius do quite mistake the matter in carping at the Emperour as if by his Edict or in condemning those Three Chapters he had taught or published some new doctrine of faith he did not He taught and commanded all others to embrace that true ancient and Apostolicall faith which was decreed and explaned at Chalcedon as both the whole fift Councell witnesseth which sheweth that all those Chapters were implicite but yet truly and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chalcedon and Pope Gregorie also testifieth the same saying of this fift Councell that it was in omnibus sequax in every point a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon This the religious Emperour wisely discerning did by his imperiall edict and authoritie as Constantine and Theodosius had done before him ratifie that old and Catholike faith which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time The third speciall point which I observe is that which Baronius noteth as the cause why Pope Vigil was so eager against the Emperor and his edict And what thinke you was it Forsooth because Iustinian primus legem sancivit was the first who made a law and published a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters Had the Pope first done this and Iustinian seconded his holinesse therein hee had beene another Constantine a second Theodosius the dearest child of the Church But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope or make any lawes concerning the faith before they consult with the Romane Apollo or make him acquainted therewith that 's piaculum a capitall an irremissible sinne the Pope may not endure it So then is was neither zeale not pietie nor love to the truth but meere stomacke and pride in Vigilius to oppose himselfe to the Emperours edict and make an insurrection against him A sory reason God wot for any wise man in the world much more for the Pope to contradict the truth and oppugne the Catholike faith Now if Iustinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and pietie tending wholy to the good and peace of the Church if hee could not escape so undutifull usage at the Pope his orators in those better times religious Kings may not thinke it strange to finde the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these dayes and their instruments men so exact and eloquent in reviling that in all such base and uncivill usage they goe as farre beyond Facundus Tertullus and them of former ages as drosse or the most abject mettle is inferiour to refined gold This is the first Period and first judgement of Vigilius touching this cause of the three Chapters in defence of which and oppugning of the Emperours edict hee continued more then a yeare after the publishing of the Edict even all that time while hee remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperour 6. As soone almost as Vigilius was come to Constantinople and had saluted the Emperor and conferred with them who stood for the Edict he was quite another man he changed cum caelo animum the aire of the Emperors Court altered the Popes judgement and this was about a yeare after the publishing of the Edict Now that all things might be done with more solemnitie and advise there was a Synod held shortly after his comming at Constantinople wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters and consented to the Emperors Edict This Facundus expresly witnesseth saying How shall not this bee a prejudice to the cause if it bee demonstrated that Pope Vigilius with thirty Bishops or therabouts have condemned the Epistle of Ibas approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and anathematized that Bishop Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the praises whereof are set downe in that Councell Thus Facundus Besides all this Vigilius was now so forward in this cause that as before he had written bookes against the Edict in defence of the three Chapters and excommunicated those who condemned those Chapters so now on the Emperors side he writ bookes and gave judgement for the condemning of those Chapters and excommunicated some by name Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons because they would not condemne them None can deny saith Baronius that Vigilius writ a booke against the three chapters and sent it unto Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Again there is certaine proofe latae ab eo sententiae of the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Vigilius against Rusticus Sebastianus and other defenders of those chapters and this is so cleare ut nulla dubitatio esse possit that there can be no doubt at all but that Vigilius approved by a Constitution the Emperors sentence and condemned the three Chapters So Baronius The Epistles of Vigilius doe testifie the same In that to Rusticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention Iudicati nostri Constituti nostri of our judgement of our constitution against the three chapters concerning which he addeth that it was ratified by his Apostolicall authority saying that no man may doe contra constitutum nostrum quod ex beati Petri authoritate proferimus against this our Constitution which we set forth by the authority of Saint Peter The like hee testifieth in his Epistle to Valentinianus We beleeve saith he that those things may suffice the children of the Church which we writ to Mennas concerning the blasphemies of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and his person concerning the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith Thus Vigilius consenting now with the Emperor defending his Imperiall Edict and condemning the three Chapters in all which his profession was Catholike and orthodoxall 7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution become orthodoxall
a monument are perennius Had Baronius said that Vigilius never decreed the defending of those Chapters he had fully cleared him in this matter if he could have proved what he had said But seeing undeniable records testifie and the Cardinall himselfe with a Stentors voice proclameth this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius though hee had revoked and repealed it a thousand times yet can not this quit his former Apostolicall Decree from being hereticall nor excuse their pontificall chaire from being fallible It is nothing at all materiall which of the Popes Cathedrall Decrees the first last or middle bee hereticall If any one of them all bee wee desire no more the field is wonne 14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolicall decree confirmed the fift Councell Then did hee certainely decree that all writings defending the Three Chapters doe defend heresie and that all persons who defend those Chapters for so long time as they defend them after the judgement of that Councell are convicted and condemned hereticks Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius set forth by his Apostolicall authoritie in the time of the Councell in defence of those Chapters is now by Popes Vigilius himselfe and by his Apostolicall authority and infallible Chaire declared to bee hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for that yeare after the Councell is now by Vigilius himselfe pronounced to bee an Hereticke yea a definer of heresie Vigilius now orthodoxal decreeth himselfe to have been before heretical Nay it further followeth that by confirming that Councell hee confirmeth and that by an Apostolicall and infallible Decree that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith to bee infallible are convicted and accursed heretickes for by defending that position they do eo ipso defend that Constitutiō of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to bee true infallible and orthodoxall which Vigilius himselfe by an infallible decree hath declared to bee erroneous and hereticall So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause that upon the admission thereof it doth inevitably ensue both that Vigilius was an hereticke and a definer of heresie and that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibitie in causes of faith that is al who are members of their present Romane Church to bee not onely heretickes and for such condemned and accursed but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresie even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius 15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might bee excused being now fully dissolved There remaineth one point which Baronius and after him Binius observeth touching this often changing of Vigilius which being a point of speciall note I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should over-passe the same Some men when they heare of these often changings windings and turnings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresie will perhaps imagine this to bee a token of some levitie unconstancie or solly in the Pope O fie It was not so saith Baronius What hee did was not onely lawfull done by good right and reason but it was laudable also done with great advise wisedome and consideration Vigilius a man of greatest constancie One who stood up with courage for defence of the Church adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem against Iustinian a violent oppressor thereof one who fought for the sacred lawes enduring exile constanti animo with a constant minde for the same One who did by this meanes wisely yea prudentissimé most wisely provide for the good of the Church One who in thus doing did wisely imitate Saint Paul who condemned circumcision and yet when hee circumcised Timothie approved circumcision And though there bee a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions the one change being in a mutable at that time an indifferent ceremonie the other being in an immutable doctrine of faith Yet thus do they please themselves and applaud the Pope in these his wise and worthy changes 16. Now in stead of a better conclusion to this Chapter I will entreate the reader to observe with me two things touching their commending Vigilius in this manner The former is what an happie thing it is to be a Pope or have a Cardinall for his spokesman Let Luther Cranmer or a Protestant make farre lesse change thē did Vigilius what shall they not heare An Apostate unconstant inconsiderate a Chamelion a Polipus another Proteus even Vertumnus himselfe Let the Pope say and gaine say the same doctrine of faith and then ex Cathedra define both his sayings being contradictorie to bee not onely true but infallible truths of the Catholike faith O It is all done with rare wisdome with great reason and consideration The Pope in all this deales wisely and that in the superlative degree If when he is absent from the Emperor he oppugne the truth published by the Emperors edict It is wisely done Kings and Emperors may not make Lawes in causes of faith no not for the faith The Cobler must not goe beyond his latchet If when hee is brought before the Emperor he sing a new song and say just as the Emperor saith Ait ato Negat nego It is wisely done principibus placuisse viris for the Kings wrath is the messenger of death If after both these bee become a meere Neutralist and Ambodexter in faith holding communion with all sides Catholikes heretickes and all this is also an act of rare wisdome the Pope is now become another Saint Paul factus est omnia omnibus with Catholikes he 's a Catholike that he may gaine Catholikes with Heretickes he 's an Hereticke that he may gaine heretickes he 's all with all that hee may gaine them all If when the Emperor the generall Councell the whole Church calls for his resolution in a cause of faith if then hee step into his infallible Chaire and thence by his Apostolicall authoritie define that the three Chapters that is that Nestorianisme shall for ever bee held for the Catholike faith O wisely done he now drops oracles from heaven in Cathedra sedet the voice of God and not of man If when hee is banished for his obstinacie against the truth upon some urgent cause which then he discernes he calls againe for his holy Trevit and thence decrees the quite contradictorie to his former Apostolicall sentence In this he 's wiser then in all the rest for by this he shews that he 's more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets and Apostles ever were They silly men could make but the one part of a contradiction to be true but the Pope he is tanto potentior Prophetis so much more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets that hee can make both parts of a contradiction to be infallible truths and unto which of the Prophets was it ever said Tu es Petra But the Pope is a Rocke indeed a
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 saith Ejusque rei certum illud attulerunt argumentum quod Mennas diem obijt anno 21 Iustiniani Imperatoris The Legates give a certaine proofe that the writing was forged because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian the Emperour Loe the Cardinall knew and professeth it to bee not onely true but certaine that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian and yet against his owne certain knowledge for maintaining this fictitious Decree of Silence and the fables thereon depending he perswades you to beleeve that Mennas dealt against this Decree was excommunicated by Vigilius and submitted himselfe to the Pope and rode with the relikes five yeares after he was dead 21. Truly this was scarse faire and honest dealing in the Cardinall by untruths to strive to bolster out forged Acts and writing But the Cardinals Annals are so full of such like stuffe that if you divide them into foure parts I doe constantly affirme there is no more truth in three of those foure than you have seene to bee in this fable which from a most base forgery knowne also to the Cardinall for such hee hath commended for a grave and authentike history unto us And I should grow somewhat out of patience to see the Cardinall so grosly contradict both the truth and his owne writings also but that by my long and serious tossing of his bookes I perceive this is so familiar a tricke with him that for the usuall meeting of it I have long since forgotten to be angry with him for such pettie faults This I hope which hath beene declared will serve for a caveat unto all to take heed how they credit any matter whatsoever upon the Cardinals relation either it is in it selfe untrue or it springs from some untruth or by his purpose in relating it it is made to serve but for a pully to draw you into some untruth aut aliquis latet dolus either in the head or taile there is a sting beleeve him not And I would also have added somewhat for Binius who in this as in other fancies and fables applauds Baronius but I suppose that as hee sucketh his errours from Baronius so hee will thinke that the refuting of Baronius is a sufficient warning for him to purge his Edition of the Councels from such vile and shamelesse untruths Thus much of that former point which concernes the second Period in Vigilius changings CAP. XVII That Vigilius neither by his Pontificall Decree nor so much as by a personall profession consented to or confirmed the fift Councell after the end thereof or after his supposed exile 1. THE other point proposed concernes that fourth and last change of Vigilius judgement whereby as Baronius tels us he by his Apostolicall Decree confirmed the fift Councell when about a yeare after the end thereof he returned out of exile That such a change of Vigilius can no way helpe Baronius or his cause though it should be granted unto him we have before declared but because al which we then said was onely spoken upon a supposall and admission of this Baronian change we will now more nearly examine the whole matter and try whether there was indeed any such Decree ever made by Vigilius and whether he did at any time after the end of the fift Councell change his judgement in such sort that he became a condemner of the Three Chapters and an approver of the fift Synod And truly I could wish so much good to Vigilius as that there might appeare some cleare and ancient records to testifie his renouncing of heresie and condemning of his owne hereticall and Cathedrall decree published in the time of the Councell for defence of the Three Chapters But the truth is more precious unto me than the love of Vigilius or any Pope whatsoever because it is the truth alone which causeth me to discusse this point I must needs confesse that I can finde nothing at all which can effectually induce mee to beleeve it but there are many and pregnant reasons which inforce me to thinke that Vigilius never made any such Decree or Change as Baronius fancieth but that this whole fourth Period and change of Vigilius so gloriously painted out by Baronius is nothing else but another fiction and peece of the Cardinals owne Poetry which without all warrant or ground from any ancient writer hee like a Spider onely out of his owne braine hath woven and devised 2. That Vigilius made no such Decree the reason which Bar. gives in this very case may declare he to prove that Vigilius made not this decree either during the time of the Synod or shortly after the end thereof hath these words If Vigilius had then assented by his letters utique literae illae Actis fuissent intextae verily those letters purchased with so great labour would have beene inserted among the Acts of the fift Synod and a great number of copies would have been taken thereof spred abroad and made knowne to all Churches as well in the East as West even as the Epistle of Leo was because by those letters validarentur quae à Synodo sancita those things which the fift Synod had decreed the Pope contradicting them and thereby they being invalid should now be made of force the Pope consenting to them Thus Baronius Doth not the same reason as effectually prove that he made no such decree at al or not a yeare after as that he made it not within one or two moneths after the end of the Synod with what labour at what price would not the Bishops of the fift Synod have purchased that decree how gladly would they have annexed it to their Acts as the Decree of Leo is to the acts at Chalcedon How many copies and extracts would they have taken of it and dispersed them every where both in the West and East to testifie the truth of their Synodall judgement and that the infallible Iudge had consented to their sentence and confirmed the same Or would they have done this within a month and not a yeare after the end of the Synod what odds to the point
demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons. of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or in the next yeare before he dyed So uncertaine and by Victors account unlikely it is that Vigilius at his returne home was ornatus muncribus donis officiis and privilegiis as they pompously set out the matter Now it is true that the Emperour ordered and decreed those matters upon the entreaty of Vigilius for so the words pro petitione Vigilij doe make evident but that either Vigilius entreated or the Emperour granted this upon any entreaty which he made either after his return out of exile which certainly he did not or after the end of the Synod or at the time of his return al which are the Cardinals tales without any proofe none of the Cardinalls friends will bee ever able to make cleare And for my owne part till I see some reason to the contrary I cannot otherwise thinke but that this petition was made by Vigilius some three or foure yeares before the Councell at which time Vigilius consented wholly with the Emperor was in great grace and favour with him And I am hereunto induced by that which Procopius expresseth How in the 14. yeare of the Gothicke war which is the 23. of Iustinian when Totilas and the Gothes began to win againe divers parts of Italy which Belisarius had before recovered Vigilius and divers Italians and Romanes who were then at Constantinople submissius enixius postulabant ab Imperatore did in very submisse and earnest manner entreat the Emperour that he would reduce all Italy into his subjection Now it is very likely that together with this petition they signified divers matters to the Emperour which were behoovefull for his government in the Westerne parts and this the Emperors answer then made unto
was Pope but as hee was a private man or some other way Would not the Cardinall laugh if Gretzer or any such good friend of his should say Bellarmine at that time while hee was at Ingolstad writ not his Controversies as he was Pope or hee writ them not as he was a Turke a Iew or Mahumetane But leaving these shifts which demonstrate plainly that Bellarmine had a desire to say somewhat in excuse of Vigilius but knew not what and therefore snatched at this or that or any thing though it were never so crosse unto himselfe and such also as he could not hold Let us consider the Exception it selfe Vigilius writ this Epistle that is confessed hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope that wee have proved hee defined heresie in it and that which is against the faith that Bellarmine implyeth hee condemned in it the Catholike faith that Bellarmine in plaine words expresseth Thus far the cause is cleare Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined heresie and condemned the Catholike faith as he was Pope or no that is the point here to be debated 43. Some may thinke that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawne from secresie and an ambitious minde by which he laboured before to prove that Vigilius did not condemne the faith ex animo meant also that he condemned it not as Pope for it followeth in the next sentence siquidem Epistolam scripsit as giving a reason of his saying If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort then his reasons are before hand refuted for as Vigilius might ex animo write heretically both privately and out of ambition so also might hee tanquam Pontifex condemne the faith notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambitious mind secrecy and an ambitious mind are no more repugnant to the one than to the other they are compatible with them both the Pope may use his Apostolicall authority in teaching as wel privately as publikely as well with Iudas in ambition as with Iohn or Peter in sincerity of heart But the Cardinals Apologist who it may be consulted with the Cardinall about his intent herein doth ease us of those reasons for hee tels us plainly that from Vigilius his desire of secrecie nil aliud colligit Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else but this that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò that hee did it not in earnest It is but a sport with Gretzer or with the Pope to condemne the Catholike faith they doe it but they doe it not in earnest they doe it jocularitèr not seriò Have ye indeed such May-games sports at Rome as to condemne the faith and then say I was in jest and in sport Are not these men new Philistines Call in Sampson Condemne the Catholike faith to make us pastime But let us leave them to their sports till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and dolefull end both of their actors spectators That which I now note is that Bellarmine doth not in those words Siquidem Epistolam scripsit c. from the privatenesse or secrecy prove any thing else but that Vigilius writ it not seriò in earnest and from his heart that hee writ it not tanquam Pontifex this those words prove not Bellarmine in those words collects not So we have now nothing but the bare saying of Bellarmine without any proofe without any reasons and I must needs confesse I hold it a most sufficient encounter for any man to Bellarmines ipse dixit to oppose ipse dico yet because I desire rather to satisfie such as seeke the truth then contend with those who seeke to smother and betray the truth I will a little further enlarge this point and see if it may be cleared by evidence of reason that Pope Vigilius did not onely condemne the Catholike faith at that time but that he did it even as hee was Pope and tanquam Pontifex condemne the Catholike faith 44. What it is for a Pope to teach an errour as Pope may be perceived by other Arts and Sciences in the practice or exercise whereof together with knowledge judgement and skill fidelity also is required were Baronius or some Romane Facundus to examine this point they would quickly sute the Pope to some Cobler Pedler or such like companion I love not to deale so rudely with his Holinesse yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way you know how the Cardinall quitted the religious Emperour with Ne ultra crepidam If a Physitian or Lawyer or Iudge in any discourse should speake barbarously or incongruously they erre therein but as Grammarians not as Iudges Lawyers or Physitians But if a Iudge for any sinister respect should pronounce that sentence as just which is against the law or if a Lawyer should after his diligent sifting of the cause affirme that title to bee sound which were clearely voide in law or if a Physitian should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet each of them now erred offended in his owne profession in that proper duty which belongeth to them the Iudge as a Iudge the Counsellor as a Counsellor the Physitian as a Physitian because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wherin they professe both to know themselves and to make knowne unto others what is right and good If in other matters they transgresse it is not quatenus tales if any of them bee prophane covetous or intemperate they offend now quatenus homines as they are mortall men in those duties of morality which are common to them with all men If they bee seditious rebellious and conspire in treasonable practice they offend quatenus Cives as they are parts of the Common-wealth in those duties which are common to them with all subjects but when they offend in Physick law or judgment those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences they then offend neither quatenus homines nor quatenus Cives nor in any other respect but quatenus tales as they are such professors for now they transgresse against those proper duties which as they are Iudges Counsellors or Physitians are required of them The like of all Artificers of Grāmarians Logicians Poets Philosophers of Presbyters of Bishops of the Professors of Theology which is scientia scientiarum is to bee said If a Divine shall speake rudely incongruously ad populum Antiochenum he offends as a Grammarian not as a Divine unlesse perhaps it bee no fault when it doth so happen for edification that hee ought so to speake as Saint Austen did use divers barbarismes and say ossum for os floriet for slorebit dolus for dolor Malo me populus I had rather edifie with rudenesse of words than speake nothing but pure Ciceronian without edifying them without honouring God But if a Bishop or any Divine in stead of truth teach heresie either because hee knowes not the truth
and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say that they assembled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius 5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod and why Noluit interesse was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters He saw the Catholike Bishops then assembled to be bent and forward as their dutie was for condemning those Chapters which himselfe embraced and defended he therefore thought it fit to separate himselfe from them in place from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of faith he was so farre disjoyned and severed This to have beene the onely true cause of his wilfull absence and of his Noluit interesse the sequell of this Treatise will make most evident For this time it is sufficient by all those honorable invitations earnest perswasions and Imperiall commands to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence so he not onely was absent but in meere stomacke wilfulnesse and perversnesse absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIVS during the time of the fift Councill published his Apostolicall Constitution indefence of the Three Chapters 1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Constantinople where the Councill was held by no intreaties perswasions nor Imperiall commands could be brought to the Synod having no other let as before was declared but his owne wilfulnesse the holy Synod resolved without him to debate and judge the Controversie then referred unto them And in truth what else was to be done in that case The Emperor commanded them not to delay nor protract the time but deliver a speedy yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause The necessity of the Church required this which was now in a general tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters The Nestorians on one side triumphed as if the Councill of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas and thereby confirmed their heresies The Acephali on another side rejected that Councill as favoring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze not knowing which way to turne themselves whether allow the Councill of Chalcedon with the Nestorians or with the Acephali reject it The Catholikes against all these Sectaries both defended the Councill of Chalcedon and yet rejected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters In such a generall rent and contention of all sides what delay could the Church endure which the Councill rightly considering said That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scandalized And for the absence of Vigilius they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth that if the Pope being invited did not or would not come or send to a Synod but wilfully refused to come in this case the Councill without him must provide for the peace of the Church and safety of the Christian faith They had a very memorable example hereof as yet but fresh before their eyes when the Popes legats being present at Chalcedon were invited and intreated to be present at the Synod there held which was the very next before this at the debating of the right and preeminence of the Sea of Constantinople but wilfully refused to be there saying as Vigilius now did Non sed alia se suscepisse mandata No we will not come we have a contrary command from pope Leo yet that holy Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence and their determination notwith ' standing the Popes absence was not onely declared by the most glorious Iudges to be just and Synodall but the same was both by that holy Synod and all other ever since held to be the judgement and definition of the whole generall Councill for in their Synodal relation to the Pope speaking of this very decree they say Confirmavimus ante we to wit this whole generall Councill have confirmed the sentence of the 150. Bishops for the prerogative of Constantinople A most cleare and undeniable demonstration and that by the warrant of one of the most famous Councils that ever were that the peevishnes perversnes or wilfull absence of one or a few Bishops yea of the Pope himselfe ought not nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and determine any needful cause much lesse a cause of faith about which there should happen as now there did a general disturbance of the whole Church Vpon these and other like reasons the holy Synod now assembled at Constantinople having done as much as in them lay yea as much in all points as was fit to be done for procuring the presence of Vigilius and having in their first and second Sessions done nothing but waited and expected for his comming seeing now all their invitations and intreaties to be contemned by him and their longer expectance to be but in vaine addresse themselves to the examining of the cause being stird up by the words of St. Peter Be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of your hope which readinesse if it must be in al Christians much more in Bishops and if it must be declared towards all men most of all towards the Emperor who now required their speedy judgement and Synodall resolution in this cause 2. Having in their first and second Sessions declared their long and earnest but vaine expectance of Vigilius In their third Collation so their Sessions are called they let downe as a foundation to all their future acts a most holy confession of their faith consonant in all points to that which the holy Apostles preached which the foure former Councils explained and which the Holy Fathers with uniforme consent maintained 3. In the 4. and 5. Collations they at large and very exactly discusse the first Chapter concerning the person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia adding so much also as was needfull touching the second Chapter which concerned the writings of Theodoret against Cyril 4. Now in that fifth Collation as Baronius tells us the Constitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod The Pope promised that he would send his judgement thereof ad ipsum Imperatorem atque ad Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod which he ingenuously performed yea modo opportunè praestandum putavit he did it opportunely at this very time of the 5. Collation And the Card. is so resolute in this point that he peremptorily affirmeth of the Popes Constitution Cognoscitur it s knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation and it was this day offered to the Councill for which cause he strongly imagining this
whom they loose se et non illa destruit he destroyeth himselfe but not those Councils and whosoever thinketh otherwise let him be accursed Thus Pope Gregory the great ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill and accursing all that labour to unty those bands By Agatho by Leo the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All their Popes after the the time of Gregorie were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fift as of the former Councils and that in such solemne and exact manner after the time of Hadrian the second that they professed as their forme it selfe set downe by Anton. Augustinus doth witnesse to embrace the eight generall Councils whereof this was one to hold them pari honore et veneratione in equal honor and esteeme to keepe them intirely usque ad unum apicem to the least iôta to follow and teach whatsoever they decreed and whatsoever they condemned to condemne both with their mouth and heart A like forme of profession is set downe in the Councill at Constance where the Councill having first decreed the power and authoritie of the Pope to be inferiour and subject to the Councill and that he ought to be obedient to them both in matters of faith and orders of reformation by this their superior authoritie ordaineth That every Pope at the time of his election shall professe that corde et ore both in words and in his heart hee doth embrace and firmely beleeve the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers and by the eleven generall Councils this fift being reckned for one and that he will keepe defend and teach the same faith with them usque ad unum apicem even to the least syllable To goe no further Baronius confesseth that not onely Gregory and his predecessors unto Vigilius sed successores omnes but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have received and confirmed this fift Councill 28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it but all orthodoxal Bishops in the world it being a custome as Baronius sheweth that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Councills which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri deberent all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe And this as it seemeth they did in those Literae Formatae or Communicatoriae or Pacificae so they were called which from ancient time they used to give and receive For by that forme of letters they testified their communion in faith and peaceable agreemēt with the whole Catholike Church Such an Vniforme consent there was in approving this fift Council in all succeeding Councills Popes and Bishops almost to these dayes 29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth that as this fift Synod so all succeeding Councils Popes and Bishops to the time of the Councill of Constance that is for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse as hereticall the judiciall and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius delivered by his Apostolical authority for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith therfore they al with an uniforme consent did in heart beleeve and in words professe and teach that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith may be and de facto hath been hereticall that is they all did beleeve and teach that doctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine to be truly ancient orthodoxall and catholike such as the whole Church of Christ for more then 14 hundred yeares beleeved and taught but the doctrine even the Fundamentall position whereon all their doctrines doe relie and which is vertually included in them all which the present Church of Rome maintaineth to be new hereticall and accursed such as the whole Church for so many hundred yeares together with one consent beleeved and taught to be accursed and hereticall It hence further ensueth that as this fift Councill did so all the fore-mentioned generall Councils Popes and Bishops doe with it condemne and accurse for heretikes not onely Vigilius but all who either have or doe hereafter defend him and his Constitution even all who either by word or writing have or shall maintaine that the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith is infallible that is 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 that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill 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 himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable 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 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 Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even an utter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because
laboureth also to fasten that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes aswere Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only fights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have shewed was knowne and confessed because he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all
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 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 head of the generall Councell Proclus a most holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodorus 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 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 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 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 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree 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 Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of Iustinian yea even the whole catholike Church which hath approved those holy Councells all these out of those very impieties which Vigilius mentioneth have condemned Theodorus them all for wronging and condemning Theodorus for those impieties we doe anathematize and accurse saith Vigilius 47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are who hold and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church this for a position or foundation of faith that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes is true is infallible is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced Let
omitting other blasphemies in this Epistle of Ibas alleage this onely which the Author of that Epistle spake to beguile the simple thereby in that he professeth duas naturas unam virtutē unā personā two natures one power one person which we our selves also doe confesse Sed certum est quod unicuique naturae suam personam attribuit but it is certaine that the Author of that Epistle Ibas doth attribute to eyther nature a severall person even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius whom this Writer doth defend For they plainly teaching two natures of the Word of God or of Christ whom they esteeme to be no more then a man doe call them those two natures one person per affectualem conjunctionem by an affectuall conjunction and as having one dignity and one honour And it is cleere that the writer of this Epistle saying that there is one vertue and one power of the two natures doth herein follow the foresaid heretickes Theodorus in his impious booke of the incarnation and Nestorius in many of his writings but specially in his Epistle to Alexāder where he saith that there is one authoritie one vertue one power one person in respect of dignitie and honour due unto them whereby it is declared that the author of this Epistle did according to their perfidious impiety use vocabulo naturarum pro personis this word Natures for Persons for one authoritie one power one dignity and honour non in diversis naturis sed in diversis personis dicitur is not said to bee in divers natures but in divers persons of the same nature as in the Trinitie we professe Thus Iustinian both truly and profoundly 25. The fift generall Councell witnesseth the same and almost in the same words The author say they of this Epistle teacheth two natures one vertue one person one sonne Sed certum est quod pro personis naturas ponit affectualem unitatem dicit but it is certaine that he taketh the name of natures for persons and understandeth an affectuall unitie even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius whom this writer doth defend and praise Thus both the Emperour and the whole generall approved Councell witnesse Ibas to meane by two natures two persons and by one person one by affectuall not by personall unitie and they witnesse this not as a thing doubtfull or uncertaine but they seale it with a Certum est this is certaine 26. The Epistle it selfe doth so abundantly declare this truth that none I thinke but a Nestorian can make any doubt thereof Maris to whom Ibas writ this was a Nestorian hereticke The end of his writing was to confirme both Maris and the rest of that sect in their heresie Had Ibas writ this touching two natures and one person in an orthodoxall sense he had utterly condemned that same doctrine which he purposely commendeth he had overthrowne Nestorianisme which he by this Epistle meant to establish Againe how could hee have condemned Cyrill or the Ephesine Councell as hereticall had he beleeved the two natures to be personally united in Christ for that is the selfe same which Cyrill and the Councell defendenth Or how could he have commended Theodorus for a teacher of the truth who denies the personall and holds onely an affectuall unitie of those two natures had Ibas meant that there had beene a true personall and Hypostaticall union of them Take the words in the Nestorian sense there is a perfect harmonie in the whole Epistle take them in the orthodoxall sense the beginning will then jarre from the middle and end this makes a discord in the whole writing yea it makes the profession of Ibas to fight with the maine scope and purpose of Ibas 27. That one place in the end of the Epistle concerning the union makes this most evident Ibas saith that among other things Paulus Emisenus required and Cyrill consented to anathematize those who professe quia una natura est divinitatis humanitatis that there is one nature of the deitie and humanitie in Christ. Had Ibas by one nature meant one essence so that both the humanitie and deitie were one essence why should they require Cyrill to anathematize that for neither Cyrill nor any Catholike ever affirmed there was onely one nature that is one onely essence in Christ. But by nature Ibas understood Person and so its true that Cyrill taught one nature that is one onely person in Christ whereas Nestorius Ibas and all the Nestorians affirmed two such Natures that is two persons to be in Christ according to which sense Ibas saith that Paulus dealing with Cyrill to yeeld to Nestorianisme and on the behalfe of the Nestorians required him to anathematize those who say there is but one Nature that is but one person in Christ and he slanderously adds that Cyrill consented so to do that is that he subscribed indeed to all Nestorianisme and renounced the Catholike saith the decree of the Ephesine Councell and his owne twelve Chapters In which slanderous report Ibas insulting saith Non enim quisquam audet dicere quia una est natura None dare now say that there is one nature of the divinitie and humanitie one nature that is one essence no Catholike then or ever did say but none dare now say that there is one Nature that is one person in Christ which all Catholikes both then and ever said and this the very next words doe declare but now they doe professe to beleeve in templum in eum qui in hoc habitat in the temple and in him who dwelleth in the temple which was the very comparison of Nestorius to expresse that the two natures in Christ are two persons as are the house and inhabiters and one not by personall but onely by affectuall unitie and cohabitation So cleere it is that Ibas by his confessing of two natures meant two persons and by confessing one person meant one by affection but not by personall union that is meant all in an hereticall and Nestorian sense and nothing in the true Catholike and orthodoxall meaning 28. But what seeke I further proofe of this matter seeing the fift Councell approved by the whole catholike Church hath defined the whole Epistle to bee hereticall accursing every one who defendeth it or any part of it An undeniable proofe not onely that the profession of Ibas made therein of two natures and one person is hereticall but that Vigilius and Baronius for this very point are anathematized by the whole Church because they defend that profession in this Epistle as Catholike and orthodoxall which by so many so evident demonstrations and even by the consenting judgement of the whole Church is condemned for hereticall And this I hope may suffice to explaine or illustrate the Popes meaning in the Position or conclusion which he undertakes to prove in his reason that Ibas was a Catholike in making this so orthodoxall and Catholike a profession in his Epistle of two natures and one
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 and the Ephesine Lactrocinie 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 no 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 two natures at all or any way either making one or two persons to be in Christ after the incarnation So whether one held the same two natures to make but one person as the Catholikes said or to make two distinct persons as the Nestorians affirmed it was all one to Dioscorus The very holding of two natures to bee in Christ either of those wayes made one an hereticke in the judgment of Eutiches Dioscorus and their Ephesine Synod The heresie of Eutiches did equally contradict both the Catholike truth and the Nestorian heresie because they both consented in one common truth that there are two distinct natures or essences abiding in Christ. If this judgement of Dioscorus against Ibas will prove either him or his Epistle to be Catholike the very like effect it must have in Theodorus in Nestorius in all Nestorians and in all their writings they all with Ibas professe two natures to abide in Christ they all by the judgement of Dioscorus and his Synod are hereticall So either must Vigilius approve all Nestorians for Catholikes if this reason for Ibas bee effectuall or if they bee truly heretickes whom Dioscorus yet hath condemned as well as Ibas then is this his reason ineffectuall to prove from the condemnation of Dioscorus Ibas or his profession to be Catholike 30. His second reason is drawne from the likenesse and identitie of faith in Flavianus and Ibas damnat quoque propter duarum naturarum vocem Dioscorus did also or for the same cause condemne Flavianus for which Ibas was condemned to wit for professing two natures in Christ. Seeing then it is knowne that the profession of Flavianus was Catholike the profession also of Ibas made in this Epistle being like to that of Flavianus must needes be Catholike My annotation on this reason of Vigilius is that it is inconsequent sophisticall and worth nothing at all Ibas indeede in words said the like with Flavianus but Flavianus said it in a Chatholike sense holding those two natures to make but one person or personall subsistence and Ibas said it in this Epistle in an hereticall sense holding those two natures to make two distinct persons or two personall subsistences To Dioscorus it was all one to say as Flavianus did or as Ibas in this Epistle doth for seeing they both jumpe in this that two natures or essences doe remaine after the incarnation they are both alike heretickes to Dioscorus though in truth the profession of Flavianus made him a Martyr and the profession of Ibas set down in this Epistle being in words the same make him an hereticke Or if Ibas be a Catholike for professing in words the same which Flavianus did then by this reason of our Author Vigilius Theodorus Nestorius and all the Nestorians are Catholikes because they all professe with Flavianus â—two natures and one person to be in Christ in the same manner as Ibas here doth 31. His third and last reason is drawne from the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon they condemned Dioscorus and Eutiches but they embraced Ibas an evidence that as they judged the profession of Dioscorus to be hereticall so they esteemed the profession of Ibas to be orthodoxall yea even this which he maketh in this Epistle for after that Cyrill had once explaned his Chapters which was before this Epistle was writ after that time in Catholicae fidei rectitudine ab eâdem Chalcedonensi Synodo judicatus est Ibas permansisse Ibas was by the Synod at Chalcedon judged to have continued in the right profession of the faith The only glosse fit for this reason is that it is fallacious untrue and slanderours fallacious for the Councell of Chalcedon received Ibas indeed but not for this profession made in his Epistle which that holy Councell both knew and condemned as hereticall but as before we have declared for his consenting to the Ephesine Councell and condemning of Nestorius first before Photius Eustathius then before themselves in the Councell at Chalcedon upon this whereby Ibas did in truth condemne his own profession made in this Epistle and this whole Epistle upon this I say and not for professing in this Epistle two natures and one person was Ibas received by the Councell at Chalcedon untrue for neither did the Councell of Chalcedon judge Ibas to have beene a Catholike or hold the Catholike faith upon the declaration of Cyrils Chapters much lesse did they judge him to have continued ever after that time in the orthodoxie of faith slanderous for Vigilius by saying that the Councell of Chalcedon held Ibas for a Catholike upon or shortly after the declaration of Cyrils Chapters makes them all guilty of Nestorianisme long after that explanation did Ibas write this Epistle wherein all the blasphemies of Nestorius are maintained Had they judged him since that Explanation to be a Catholike they must approve this Epistle for Catholike and so prove themselves to be hereticall to be Nestorians Thus Vigilius to cloake his owne heresie would faine fasten it upon the holy Counsell of Chalcedon which was so farre from partaking with Vigilius herein that by their definitive sentence this very professioÌ„ of two natures and one person made in this Epistle yea every part of this Epistle is condemned for impious and hereticall And this I hope may serve for an explanation of Pope Vigilius his third reason to prove Ibas a Catholike drawne from this profession of faith made in this Epistle untill some Annalist like Baronius will helpe us to a better Commentary 32. The second reason of Vigilius set downe in the words before recited to prove Ibas a Catholike is drawne from his approving of the Ephesine Councell at the judgement before Photius Eustathius He there saith Vigilius most plainly approved the Ephesine Synod and the doctrines decreed therein he professed them to be equall to the Nicene decrees Photius the Iudge exceedingly commended Ibas that hee was so forward
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 gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton 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 of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius The Pope universorum personam sustinet sustaineth the person of all Bishops of all Councels of all the whole Church he is in stead of them all As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formally and the generall Councell is the Church representatively so the Pope also is the Church Vertually as sustaining the person of all and having the power vertue and authoritie of all both the formall and representative Church and so the Churches or Councels judgement is the Popes judgement and the Churches or Councels infallibility is in plaine speech the Popes infallibilitie 10. This will further appeare by those comparisons which they make betwixt the Church or Councels and the Pope It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine as also of their best writers that there is as much authoritie Intensivè in the Pope alone as in the Pope with a generall Councell or with the whole Church though Extensivè it is more in them then in him alone Even as the light is Intensivè for degrees of brightnes as great in the Sun alone as in it with all the Starres though it is Extensivè more in thē that is more diffused or spred abroad into moe being in them then in the Sun alone Neither onely is all the authoritie which either Coūcell or Church hath in the Pope but is in a far more eminent manner in him then in them In him it is Primitively or originally as water in the fountaine or as light in the Sun Omnis authoritas est in uno saith Bellarmine seeing the governmēt of the Church is Monarchicall all ecclesiasticall power is in one he meanes the Pope and from him it is derived unto others In the Councell and the rest of the Church it is but derivatively borrowed from the Pope as waters in little brookes or as light in the moone starres In him is Plenitudo potestatis as Innocentius teacheth the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him in the rest whether Councels or Church it is onely by Participation and measure they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads from the lowest skirts of his garment So whatsoever authoritie either Church or generall Councell hath the same hath the Pope and that more eminently and more abundantly then they either have or can have 11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement that 's so peculiar to him that as they teach neither the Pope can communicate it unto Church or Councell nor can they receive it but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope in whom alone it resideth Potestas infallibilitaes papalis est potestas gratia personalis saith Stapleton Papall power and infallibilitie is a personall gift and grace given to the person of Peter and his successors and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others In like sort Pighius Vni Petro atque ejus Cathedrae non
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 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 saith 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 neither baptized with water nor with blood and Nepos 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 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 being Antichristian is hereticall in the highest and worst degree that may be razing the true foundation of faith in regard whereof the mystery of Antichristianisme farre surpasseth all the heresies that ever went before or shall ever follow after it An heretike secondly in many particular doctrines depending on that Foundation among which are the heresies and blasphemies of the Nestorians all which by the Cathedrall constitution of Vigilius are decreed to be truths and by all men to be defended Lastly an heretike vertually and quoad radicem in every doctrine of faith which hee holdeth or professeth and so hereticall therein that the very holding of Catholike truths becomes unto him hereticall seeing he holds them upon that Foundation which is not only contrary to faith but which overthroweth the whole faith Reward Babylon O ye servants of the Lord as she hath rewarded you give her double according to her workes and in the cup that she hath filled to you fill her the double 32. From hence there ensueth one other conclusion which being worthy observing I many
of Chalcedon and the faith therein explained 10. But neither the old nor later Nestorians are in this kind comparable to the modern Romanists the last and worst sect of heretikes that ever the Church was pestered withall Their profession is not so minute as to boast of this or that one Councell or of some few fathers All Scriptures make for them All the Fathers are theirs All generall Councels confirme what they teach Their bookes doe swell with this ventositie I pray you heare the words but of one of them but such an one as puts downe all Nestorians Eutycheans Monothelites and al heretickes that went before him We saith he have All authorities Times and places for our defence Our enemies have none at all Our doctrine is taught by all godly and famous professors of Divinity All Popes Fathers and Doctors that ever were in the Church All Councells particular and generall All Vniversities Schooles Colledges and places of learning since the time of Christ to Martin Luther It is ratified by all authority all Scriptures Traditions Prophets Apostles Evangelists Sibylls Rabbins All holy and learned Fathers Historians Antiquaries and Monuments All Synods Councells Lawes Parliaments Canons and Decrees of Popes of Emperours of Kings and Rulers All Martyrs Confessors and holy witnesses by all friends and enemies even Mahumetanes Iewes Pagans Infidells All former Heretikes and schismatikes by all testimonies that can bee devised not onely in this world but of God of Angells and glorious soules of Devills and damned spirits in hell The fittest witnesses of all What any more yes the best is yet behind I have saith he read and studied all the Scriptures the old Testament in the Hebrew Text the new in the Greeke I have studied the ancient Glosses and Scholies Latine and Greeke I have perused the most ancient Historians Eusebius Ruffinus Socrates Sozomene Palladius Saint Ierome Saint Bede and others I have often with diligence considered the Decrees of the Popes both of all that were before the Nicene Councell and after then no doubt but he diligently considered of this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius I have beene an auditor both of Scholasticall and Controversall questions where all doubts and difficulties that wit or learning can devise and invent are handled and most exquisitely debated I have seene and read all the generall Councells from the first at Nice to the last at Trent then doubt not but hee read this fift Councell as also all approved particular and Provinciall Councells which be extant and ordinarily used I have carefully read over all the workes and writings which be to be had of Dionysius the Areopagite Saint Ignatius Saint Policarp Saint Clement Martialis Saint Iustine Origen Saint Basil Saint Athanasius Saint Gregory Nazianzen Saint Gregory Nissene Saint Gregory the Great Saint Irene Saint Cyprian Fulgentius Pamphilus the Martyr Palladius Theodoret Ruffinus Socrates Sozomene Evagrius Cassianus Lactantius Vincentius Lyrinensis all the workes of all these have I read and examined and conferred them with Saint 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 Glorioâ—oes 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 corfirme 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
revolt from his opinion lost his Crowne and all his commendation with Liberatus not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell for defence of those Chapters and by his dying in that opinion Liberatus found Vigilius stantem morientem but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem he found him standing and dying but hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts to testifie that for five or six yeares together hee not onely was of a contrary judgement but did judicially and definitively decree the contrary and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters this so long discontinuance and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence for this cause he lost his Crowne and dyed non coronatus in the Kalender and account of Liberatus 33. I adde further that the words of Liberatus being well pondered doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters for no other then heretikes then oppugners of the Catholike faith and holy Councell of Chalcedon And for Vigilius while hee fought on their side and against the Emperour they honoured him as a Catholike as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor and upon his comming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters then they held him for no other then a betraier of the faith then an heretike then a backslider revolter and lapser from the faith and for such they adjudged and accursed him by name in their Africane Synod at which it is most like that Liberatus being a man of such note for dealing in that cause was present upon his returning at the time of the fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith Had Vigilius after this revolted and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters and in that opinion dyed as out of Liberatus the Cardinall would perswade Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike for a lapser and relapser from the faith for one dying in heresie and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike a condemned heretike and to dye in heresie that hee dyed non coronatus would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie of one dying in heresie would he not much rather have said he dyed Damnatus condemned and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod and therefore utterly separated from God Who ever read or heard that one dying in heresie was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus 43. This will most clearly appeare if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts so also two rewards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith such as joyfully endure torments imprisonment exile and if need be even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith and these are called coronati The other is of those who being timerous and faint-hearted yeeld to deny the truth rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts they returne againe and openly professe that truth from which they had before lapsed and these are called Non coronati saved by repentance and returning to the truth but by reason of their former faintnesse and lapsing Not crowned Both of these are Orthodoxall and Catholikes both of them placed in the blessed house of God but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God For in my Fathers house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre differeth from another in glory Both of them receive an infinity of glory but in that infinitie the weight is unequall and the one receives but as the pennie the other as the pound or talent of that glory Both of them blessed in the Kingdome of God but the former not blessed onely but crowned with blessednesse the later blessed but not crowned neither with the Aureall Crowne of Martyrs nor with the Lawrell garland of Confessors yet still whether coronati or non coronati as they both dye in the profession of the Catholike faith so are they both rewarded with eternall glory for profession of the Catholike faith As for heretikes such as die in heresie and out of the Catholike faith they are to be sorted with neither of these they have another and a quite different ranke Classis or Predicament of their owne They may not have that honour done unto them as to be called non coronati which implies that they have a part in felicity but not the Crowne As the Church doth justly anathematize and accurse such so are they to be ranked in the order of those to whom Christ shall say Goe yee cursed The Apostle reckoning heresies with Idolatry witchcraft adultery and the like of which he saith that they which doe them shall not inherite the Kingdome of God 35. Hence now it doth clearly appeare that Liberatus in saying that Vigilius dyed Non coronatus cannot intend as the Cardinall most ignorantly collecteth that Vigilius returned from the defence of the three Chapters to condemne the same for that being in Liberatus judgment a revolt from the truth hee thereby had by Liberatus beene accounted an heretike and to dye in heresie and so had beene in the ranke of those who are Damnati but Liberatus in saying he dyed non coronatus doth directly teach that he dyed in defence of those Three Chapters which with Liberatus is the Catholike faith from which hee had lapsed and revolted before but seeing at the time of the Councell hee returned againe to that opinion and therein dyed hee was saved in Liberatus judgement but not crowned By his penitence and returning to the defence of those Chapters he got glory but because he had so grievously lapsed before hee lost the crowne of glory And this also is the reason why Victor Bishop of Tunen mentioneth the death of Vigilius in such a naked manner neither disgracing him as a Prevaricator as hee doth Firmus Primasius and Pelagius nor honouring him as a Martyr or Confessor as he
that decree is by the Acts of the Councells most evident For both their consenting judgement pronounced by word of mouth and after that their subscription to their decree did ratifie and confirme their sentence In that which they call the eighth generall Synod after the sentence pronounced the Popes Legates said Oportet ut haec manu nostra subscribendo confirmemus it is needfull that wee confirme these things which we have decreed by our subscribing unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius this writeth Those things which with one consent they had decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were fully authorized ratified confirmed or approved the Greeke word is very emphaticall by their subscription In the Councell of Chalcedon when the agreement betwixt Iuvenalis and Maximus was decreed they subscribed in this forme That which is consented upon confirmo I by my sentence doe confirme or firma esse decerno I decree that it shall be firme and to the like effect subscribed all the rest Whereupon the glorious Iudges without expecting any other confirmation either from Pope Leo or any that was absent said This which is consented upon shall abide firme in omni tempore for ever by our decree and by the sentence of the Synod Of the second generall Councell a Synod at Hellespont said Hanc Synodum Timotheus unà cum eis praesens firmavit Timotheus with the other Bishops then present confirmed this Synod The consent and subscription of the Bishops present in the Synod they call a Confirmation of the Synod In the Synod at Maesia after the sentence of the Synod was given they all subscribed in this forme I M.P.D. c. confirmavi subscripsi have confirmed this Synodall sentence and subscribed unto it In the second Councell at Carthage held about the time of Pope Celestine Gennadius said Quae ab omnibus sunt dicta propria debemus subscriptione firmare what hath beene said and decreed by us all wee ought by our owne subscriptions to confirme and all the Bishops answered Fiat fiat let us so doe and then they subscribed So cleare it is that whatsoever decree is made by any Councell the same is truly and rightly said to bee confirmed by those very Bishops who make the Decree confirmed I say both by their joint consent in making that Decree and by their subscribing unto it when it is made 26. Vpon this confirmation or approbation of any Decree by the Bishops present in the Councell doth the whole strength and authority of any Synodall decree rely and upon no other confirmation of any Bishop whatsoever when the Councell is generall and lawfull For in such a Councell lawfully called lawfully governed and lawfully proceeding as well in the free discussing as free sentencing of the cause there is in true account the joynt consent of all Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons in the whole world No Bishop can then complaine that either he is not called or not admitted with freedome into such a Councell unlesse that he be excommunicated or suspended or for some such like reason justly debarred If all do come they may and doe freely deliver their owne judgement and that not onely for themselves but for all the Presbyters in their whole Diocesse For seeing the pastorall care of every Diocesse even from the Apostles time and by them is committed to the Bishop thereof all the rest being by him admitted but onely into a part of his care and to assist him in some parts of his Episcopall function he doth at least because he should he is supposed to admit none but such as hee knoweth to professe the same faith with himselfe whence it is that in his voice is included the judgement of his whole Diocesan Church and of all the Presbyters therein they all beleeving as he doth speake also in the Councell by his mouth the same that he doth If some of the Bishops come not personally but either depute others in their roomes or passe their suffrage as often they did in the voice of their Metropolitan then their consent is expressed in theirs whom they put in trust to be their agents at that time If any negligently absent themselves neither personally nor yet by delegates signifying their minde these are supposed to give a tacit consent unto the judgement which is given by them who are present whom the others are supposed to thinke not onely to be able and sufficient without themselves to define that cause but that they will define it in such sort as themselves doe wish and desire for otherwise they would have afforded their presence or at least sent some deputies to assist them in so great and necessary a service If any out of stomack or hatred to the truth do wilfully refuse to come because they dissent from the others in that doctrine yet even these also are in the eie of reason supposed to give an implicit consent unto that which is decreed yea though explicitè they doe dissent from it For every one doth and in reason is supposed to consent on this generall point that a Synodall judgement must bee given in that doubt controversie there being no better nor higher humane Court than is that of a generall Councell by which they may bee directed Now because there never possibly could any Synodall judgement be given if the wilfull absence of one or a few should bee a just barre to their sentence therefore all in reason are thought to consent that the judgement must be given by those who will come or who do come to the Councell and that their decree or sentence shall stand for the judgement of a generall Councell notwithstanding their absence who wilfully refuse to come 27. If then all the Bishops present in the Councell do consent upon any decree there is in it one of those wayes which we have mentioned either by personall declaration or by signification made by their delegates and agents or by a tacit or by an implicit consent the consenting judgement of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole Church that is of al who either have judicatory power or authoritie to preach publikely and therefore such a decree is as fully authorized confirmed and approved as if all the Bishops and Presbyters in the world had personally subscribed in this manner I confirme this Decree Hereof there is a worthy example in the third generall Councell No Presbyters at all were therein not in their owne right Very many Bishops were personally absent and present onely by their Legates or Agents as almost all the Westerne Bishops and by name Celestine Patriarch of Rome Some no question upon other occasions neglected that businesse as it may be the Bishops of Gangra and of Heraclèa in Macedonia who were not at this Councell Divers others wilfully and obstinately refused to come to that holy Synod as by name Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and some forty Bishops who at the
Oecumenicall Councels or the decrees thereof may bee and de facto have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope but by other succeding generall Councels by Provinciall Synods yea by particular Bishops who have beene absent none of all which gave or could give more authority to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof than it had before and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse or fruitlesse 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of thâ—se two coÌ„firmations These use end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree that is in truth the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops who were absent was not judicially to define that cause or give any judgment therein for this was done already and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee but to preserve the peace of the Church and unity in faith which could by no other meanes be better effected than if Bishops who had been absent and therefore did but implicitè or by others consent to those decrees at the making thereof did afterwards declare their owne explicite and expresse consent to the same Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was either for authority or learning the more likely he was either to make a rent and schisme in the Church if hee should dissent or to procure the tranquility and peace of the Church if hee should consent hence it was that if any Patriarke Patriarchall Primate or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell the Church and Councell did the more earnestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees This was the cause why both the religious Emperour Theodosius and Cyrill with other orthodoxall Bishops were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod which long before was ended that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle and those who defended Nestorius with his heresie so his yeelding to the truth and embracing the Ephesine Councell which condemned Nestorius might draw many others to doe the like and so indeed it did This was the principall reason why some of the ancient Councels as that by name of Chalcedon for all did it not sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee invalid or their Councell no approved Councell if it wanted his approbation or confirmation a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Councels the Synod thought it fit to procure if they could his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church might by his example move all and by his authoritie draw his owne Patriarchall Diocesse as usually hee did to consent to the same decrees whereas if he should happen to dissent as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell hee was likely to cause as Vigilius then did a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritative such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificative such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull
Bish. of Constantinople said O our Lord crowned by God command that the name of Pope Vitalianus may bee set in the Dipticks his answer was quod postulatum est fiat let that be done which he hath requested The Emperour commanded the books of Macarius to be read the whole Synod answered Quod jussum est what your highnesse hath commanded shall be performed After the authenticall letters of Sergius Pope Honorius had been read in the Synod the glorious Iudges called for the like authenticall writings of Pirrhus Paulus Peter and Cyrus to bee produced and read the whole Councell answered that it was superfluous seeing their heresie was manifest to all the Iudges replied omnino necessarium existit this is necessary that they be convicted out of their owne writings and then their writings were produced I omit the rest whereof every Action of that Synod is ful and by those Acts the Presidency in Councels doth so clearly beloÌ„g to Emperors and that also by the acknowledgment of that whole generall Councell that Albertus Pighius being unwilling to yeeld to this truth hath purposely writ a most railing and reviling Treatise against this holy generall Synod condemning both this Councell and these Acts as unlawfull for this among other reasons because the Emperour with his Iudges plena authoritate Praesidet is President with full authority in the same hee doth all he proposeth hee questioneth he commandeth hee examineth he judgeth he decreeth And yet in all these hee doth nothing but what belongs essentially to his Imperiall authority nothing but what Constantine Theodosius Martian and Iustinian had done before him and done it with the approbation and applause of the whole Church and of all the Catholike Bishops in those holy generall Councels and hee performed this with such uprightnesse and equality that hee professed necessitatem nullatenus inferre volumus wee will inforce no man but leave him at his owne freedome in sentencing the causes proposed and aequalitatam utriusque partis conservabimus we will bee equall and indifferent Iudges betwixt both parties 16. In the second Nicene though by the fraud of Anastasius there be not many yet are there some prints remaining of this Imperiall Presidencie We have received say the Emperours letters from Hadrian Bish. of Rome sent by his Legates qui et nobiscum in Concilio sedent who also sit with us in the Synod Those letters jubemus publicè legi we command to be publikely read according to the use in Councels and we command all you to marke them with decent silence After that you shall reade two quaternions also sent from the Bishops in the East and the whole Synod obeyed the Imperiall commands Pope Hadrian himselfe was not ignorant of this right in the Emperours when sending his Pontificall and Cathedrall judgement concerning the cause of Images hee said thus unto them We offer these things to your highnesse with all humility that they may bee diligently examined for we have but perfunctoriè that is for fashioÌ„ and not exactly gathered these testimonies and we have delivered them to your Imperiall Highnesse to be read intreating and beseeching your mansuetude yea and as if I were lying at your feete I pray and adjure you that you will command holy Images to bee restored Thus hee When the Pope cals the Emperours his Lords and submits both his owne person to their feet and his judiciall sentence to such tryall as they shall thinke fit doth not this import an higher Presidency in the Emperour than either himselfe or his Legates had in the Synod Nay it is further to be remembred which will remaine as an eternal blot of that Synod that Irene the Empresse not contenting her selfe with the Imperiall which was her owne rightfull authority intruded her selfe into the Episcopall also she forshooth would be a Doctrix in the Councell she present among the Bishops to teach the whole Councell what they should define in causes of faith Perversas Constitutiones tradere shee tooke upon her to give Constitutions and those impious also unto them Those Constitutions backed with her sword and authority the Bishops of the Councell had not the hearts and courage to withstand All which is testified in the Libri Carolini which in part were written and wholly set forth by Charles the great being for the most part composed by the Councell at Frankfourd and approved by them all in that great synod A truth so cleare that Pope Adrian in his reply to those Caroline bookes denyeth not Irene to have done this which had easily and evidently refuted that objectioÌ„ and discredited those Caroline Bookes for ever but hee defends her fact by the examples of Helena and Pulcheria to which this of Irene is so unlike that for this very cause she is by the whole Councell of Frankford consisting of three hundred Bishops or thereabouts resembled to the tyrannizing and usurping Athalia Lastly when that whole Synod came to the Kingly City for the Imperiall confirmation of their Acts seeing it is expresly testified by Zonaras and Paulus Diacâ—â—â—s that the Emperour was President in that assembly of the Bishops why should it not by like reason be thought that both himselfe when hee was present and in his absence the secular Iudges his Deputies held the same Imperial Presidency in the Nicene Synod 17. For that which they call the eighth generall Councell both the Emperours Deputies are called Presidents and in the sixt seventh eighth and tenth actions it is expresly said Presidentibus Imperatoribus the Emperours being Presidents yea and both of them by their very actions declared their Presidencie The Popes Legate would not have permitted Photius and his Bishops to bee heard the Emperours Deputies over-ruled them as was fit in that matter yea they said to the Photian Bishops Imperator jubet et vult the Emperours will pleasure and command is that you should speake in your owne cause Of the Emperour they intreat libety to defend themselves Rogamus domine Imperator we beseech you our Lord and Emperour that without interruption we may defend our cause When the bookes of Photius were brought into the Synod and burned in the midst thereof this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Emperour commanding it and many the like 18. Now these eight are all which are accounted by them in the number of generall and approved Councels for the space of more than a thousand years after Christ Of al which seeing it is now cleare that they were both called by Imperiall authoritie and governed by Imperiall Presidencie it hence appeareth that as by the warrant of the Scriptures and example of the ancient Church before Christ so also by the continued practice of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand years together these rights of calling and ordering generall Councels doe belong and were acknowledged to
this Edict will condemne it for being a Seminary of sedition let him first condemne the Nicene Decree and Imperiall Edict for it let him condemne the Gospell and Christ himselfe which were all such Seminaries as that Edict was If notwithstanding all the oppositions seditions cōtentions raysed by heathen heretical other wicked men against these they were as most certainly they were Seminaries of truth let the Card. know acknowledge his malicious slander against this most religious and orthodoxall Edict of Iustinian which was as all the former a sacred Sanctuary for the Catholike faith Seditions oppositions tumults persecutions and the like disturbances in the Church spring not from Christ nor from his Word and Gospel either preached by Bishops or decreed by Councels or confirmed by Imperiall Edicts all these are of themselves causes onely of unity concord peace and agreement in the Church these onely are the proper native and naturall fruits and effects that proceed from them but contentions and seditions come from the perverse froward wicked and malicious mindes of men that hate the truth and in hatred of it fight against all that uphold the truth bee it by preaching by decreeing or by enacting the truth these are as Wolves which by continuall tumbling in the mire disturbe and trouble the streame The fountaines whence the truth springeth are most pure and most peaceable 5. Now whereas in the third place Baronius seekes to disgrace the Edict by the Author of it whom he describes to have beene not onely an heretike but a most detestable person even the plague of the whole Church let us suppose and admit the Author to have beene such a man indeed nay to have beene Iudas himselfe and worse than Iudas hee could hardly bee seeing CHRIST himselfe called Iudas a Devill Is the Edict or the truth of God thereby published worse because Iudas uttered or penned it was the Arke to bee refused or contemned because wicked men framed and built it Did not Christ say of Iudas a Devill as well as of Peter a Saint Hee that heareth you heareth mee he that despiseth you despiseth me Hath Baronius forgotten the lesson of Saint Iames My brethren have not the faith of our glorious Lord Iesus Christ in respect of persons love it for it selfe but neither love it nor refuse it because of him that speaketh penneth or bringeth the same Did the Cardinall never heare of the Scribes and Pharisees they sit in Moses chaire that is deliver Gods truth out of Moses and the Prophets unto you whatsoever therefore they bid you that observe doe but after their workes doe not Or if this reason of the Cardinall may take effect themselves and their Romane Church will be farre the greatest loosers how easie will it be to reject and contemne an whole Volume of their Pontificall Edicts why this was made or written by Iohn 12. that by Hildebrand or Boniface 8. the other by Iohn 23. an heretike an Atheist a Devill incarnate as a generall Councell testifieth another by Formosus Steven or by one of those whom themselves professe to have beene theeves robbers Wolves Tygers and most savage beasts and Apostaticall Popes as Genebrard calleth threescore of them all worse than the Author of this Imperiall Edict though wee should admit him to have beene such or as bad every way as Baronius describeth him 6. But the truth is the Author of the Edict was no such man as the Cardinall fancieth as it beares the name so it was indeed the worke of Iustinian no childe can have more honour by his father than it by such an Emperour and though Baronius having so often slandered Iustinian to bee utterly rude unlearned one that could not so much as reade nor knew his Alphabet or first elements could not but in good congruity confidently deny Iustinian to bee the Writer or Author of so learned and divine an Edict or as himselfe cals it of so exact a Catechisme yet considering what before was declared both out of Procopius of the Emperours often tossing of bookes among the Bishops out of Liberatus of his great paines taken in writing against heretikes and for defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and out of Platina calling Iustinian a very learned Emperour I cannot thinke but that although Iustinian might use the advise helpe and industry of Mennas Theodorus or some other Bishops in this as in other Edicts concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires yet still the ultima manus the last correction and perfecting of all was the Emperours owne doing the rather because both in his other Edicts that against Anthimus against Origen as also in his letters to this Synod and the rest there is so uniforme a stile so Imperiall and so divine a kinde of writing that the same Genius of Iustinian seemes to breathe in them all 7. But Baronius tels us that both Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius doe testifie Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea to bee the Author of this Edict Baronius is ever like himselfe that is untrue and fraudulent Not one of these say it first not Liberatus hee indeed affirmes Theodorus and some others to have suggested this unto the Emperour that hee would condemne those Three Chapters by a publike Edict or booke but hee addes withall Rogaverunt eum ut dictaret Libellum they prayed the Emperour that he would dictate or indite the booke against the Three Chapters and the Emperour consented saith Liberatus unto them hoc se laetus implere promisit and he gladly promised to doe so that is to indite or dictate such an Edict So farre is Liberatus from affirming as Baronius alleageth him Theodorus to bee the Author of this booke or Edict that hee teacheth the quite contrary As for Facundus he saith indeed the Edict was not written by Iustinian but by the adversaries of the truth but that Theodorus writ it that is the Cardinals addition Facundus saith it not and even in that which hee saith that the Edict is contrary to the Emperours faith Facundus doth so manifestly slander both the Emperour as if hee thought the Three Chapters were not to be condemned and the Edict also as if the condemning of these Three Chapters were contrary to the Catholike faith that there is no credit at all to bee given to him in his report touching the Author who is so untrue in his reports both touching the matter of the Edict and touching the knowne profession and faith of the Emperour 8. The Cardinals Vigilius now remaineth whose words are these spoken to Theodorus The booke condemning the Three Chapters by their meanes was read in the Kings Pallace before certaine Greeke Bishops à quibus assentationum favorem tuis vocibus exigebas What if one should here oppose the Cardinall and say tuis vocibus were the Ablative case and that Theodorus had by his words sollicited the other Bishops favorably to consent to the Emperors Edict How will Baronius assure us 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 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 Chist 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 consisteres 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 soure 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 Hormâ—sdaes dayes they could not now in this fift Synod they obtained now they added to the words of the Synod this clause qui est Dominus unus de sancta Trinitate A very perilous corruption sure to expresse that clause which all the Bishops of Rome semper excipio Hormisdam with all Catholikes beleeved and taught which whosoever denieth or wil not professe is anathematized and excluded from the Catholike Church is not this thinke you a very sore corruption of the Councell of Chalcedon Is not the Cardinall a rare man of judgement that could spie such a maine fault in these Acts of the fift Councell that they professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate to which profession both they and all other were bound under the censure of an anathema 7. Yea but in the Acts those words are cited as the words of the Councell of Chalcedon whose they are not A meere fancy and calumny of the Cardinall they are plainly set downe as the words of the fift Synod whose indeed they are and it relateth not precisely the words of the Councell of Chalcedon nor what it there expressed totidem verbis but the true summe and substance of what is there decreed For thus they say The holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith doth professe God the Word incarnate to be made man this is all they report of the Councell of Chalcedon as by the opposition of Ibas
Constitution was read in their sixt Collation which was on the nineteenth of May foure or five dayes after the date and publishing of it So uncertaine and unlikely is that of which the Cardinall sayth Cognoscitur it is knowne to belong to the fift Collation 3. But indeed as the Imperiall Edict was not so neither was this Papal Constitution publikely read either in the fift or sixt or any other Collation of this Synod much lesse was it ever any part of the Synodall Acts thereof The Emperour and so all the Bishops of the Synod laboured as much as they could to draw the whole Church to unity of faith with themselves especially Pope Vigilius whose consent might happily draw after it if not the whole yet a great part of the Westerne Church which were most earnest in defence of the Three Chapters They knew that in particular and by name to condemne Vigilius or his Constitution might not only have exasperated but even utterly alienated the minde of Vigilius and made him and with him his adherents more obstinate in their heresie They sought by silence to conceale and by charity to suppresse as much as they could that hereticall and disgracefull Constitution of his and by their lenity and faire meanes to gaine him and his consent to them yea even to the truth it selfe for this cause though they knew full well that Vigilius had set out that decree yea though they confuted all the substance thereof and condemned both it and him in generalities yet they forbare at all to name Vigilius or in particular to mētion this his decree that had beene to proclame hostility and have made an absolute breach betwixt them and Vigilius for ever 4. Besides this which was a very just reason not so much as to publish as they did not that Constitution in their Synod the Emperour had alwayes a purpose to have as in the seventh Collation was done the Epistles of Vigilius to Rusticus and Sebastianus to Valentinianus and others opēly read published in the Councel In them Vigilius by his Apostolicall authority decreeth the condemning of the three Chapters what a disgrace had this beene to Vigilius to publish first his Apostolicall Constitution in defence and shortly after his Apostolicall Constitution for condemning the same Three Chapters How justly might this have incensed Vigilius and for ever with-held him from consenting to them who had proclamed him in their Councell recorded him in their Synodall Acts to bee such a Proteus Nay this had extenuated and vilified for ever the authority of Pope Vigilius the holy Apostolike See to record two constitutions both proceeding ex Tripode fighting ex Diametro and by an unreconciliable contradiction opposed the one to the other Seeing then both the Emperour and the Councell meant by their so often expressing the consent of Vigilius to them and by their reciting his Apostolicall Constitution for condemning the Three Chapters in the seventh Collation seeing they meant hereby to draw others to the like consent to the truth by the authority and credit of the Pope and his Apostolicall decree it is not to bee imagined that the Emperour or Councell would at all either publish in their Synod or insert among their Acts the contrary Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters in doing whereof they should not onely have for ever disgraced Vigilius but have much impaired the reputation of their owne wisedome and quite crossed their principall designe Nay what will you say if Baronius himselfe professe the same See and wonder to see him infatuated in this point also The Bishops saith he of this fift Councell that they might pretend to have the consent of Vigilius to those things which they defined expressed in their sentence that Vigilius had before both in writing and by word condemned these three Chapters tacentes omnino quid ab ipso per editum constitutum pendente Synodo pro defensione trium Capitulorum decretum esset wholly concealing or saying nothing at all of that decree which in the time of the Synod hee made for defence of those three Chapters Sicque nullam penitus de Vigilij Constitutione mentionem habendam esse duxerunt so they thought fit to make no mention at all of the Constitution of Vigilius wherein he defended the three Chapters So Baronius whom speaking the truth I gladly embrace and oppose him to himselfe speaking an untruth in malice to these Synodall Acts. 5. Now if none of these reasons nor yet Baronius his owne expresse testimony can perswade but still the Cardinall or his friends will reply with his cognoscitur It is certainly knowne that this Papall Constitution did belong to this Synod yea to the fift Collation thereof I would gladly intreat some of them to tell us in this as in the former concerning Origen who was the thiefe or robber that cut out or pickt away his holinesse Constitution a more capitall crime than the expiling of the Delphian Temple or the house of Iupiter Ammon Touch the Popes owne writings even his Apostolicall decree delivered out of the holy Chaire what Clement what Ravailack might be so impious so audacious so sacrilegious was it some Origenist no certainly the Constitution defending that none after their death might be condemned was a shield and safe charter for Origen to bring him to heaven Was it some Monothelite nothing lesse they knew that this Constitution was the overthrow of the Councell of Chalcedon and all the former holy Coūcels Hoc Ithacus velit they would have wisht the Constitution to have stood for ever whom may we deeme then to have stolne away that Papall decree Truly by the old Cassian rule Cui bono none else but either some of the Popes themselves or some of their favourites who being ashamed to see such an hereticall Constitution of Pope Vigilius stand among the Acts judged theft and sacriledge a lesser crime than to have the Popes Chaire thought fallible and hereticall Now because I can imagine none to have beene so presumptuous and such is my charity and favourable opinion of those holy fathers and their children also that they would never commit such an hainous crime as with sacriledge to maime the Acts of the holy Councels I doe therefore here absolve and acquit them all of this crime promising against any adversary be it Baronius himselfe to defend their innocency in this matter untill some of Baronius his friends can either bring some further evidence against them or else prove which I thinke they will hardly be able that a decree which was never extant among the Synodall Acts can be stolne or cut away out of the Synodall Acts. CAP. XXXI The sixt defect in the Synodall Acts pretēded by Baronius for that the decree which advanced Ierusalem to patriarchall dignity is wanting therein refuted 1. THE sixt and last defect is of all the rest most memorable concerning the advancing of Ierusalem to a Patriarchall See and annexing
not as yet by name condemned nor by name prohibited they presumed more boldly to rely on them The Catholikes and specially they of Armenia as is witnessed in a letter from them to Proclus seeing this their new device entreated the Emperor Theodosius to stop that wicked course to condemne by name Theodorus as well as hee had done Nestorius Which though at the first the Emperour did not yet seeing how insolent the Nestorians grew upon those writings long after the former he published these two condemning now explicitè by name and in particular Diodorus Theodorus and the writing of Theodoret which before were onely implicitè and in a generality condemned When the lawes the occasion the time of promulgation were all different was not the Cardinall thinke you bereft of judgement who would prove these later to bee forged and counterfeit because they differ from the former with which they should not agree 5. It may be the Cardinall thought that all lawes were expressed in the Code and therefore if there had beene any such lawes as they they would have beene there set downe A conceit I beleeve which will never enter into any mans mind while he hath use of his five wits but into the Cardinals who hath conceits by himselfe and knoweth notes above Ela. To say nothing of the twelve Tables and of all the ancient Romane lawes no part of which are extant in the Theodosian Code the most ancient law mentioned in the Gregorian surpasseth not the time of the Emperour Antoninus and in the Theodosian not the time of Constantine Can the Cardinall assure us that all the Lawes of Constantine Constantius and the other Emperours till the time of Theodosius the younger are expressed in this Code Eusebius and Zozomen mention divers of Constantines lawes Pro liberatione exulum Pro reducendis relegatis Pro ijs qui ad metalla damnati erant Pro confessoribus Pro ingenuis Quod Ecclesia sit haeres ijs quibus nemo de sanguine superfuerit De sacellis camiteriis and many the like none of which are in the Theodosian Code they were all published if the Cardinall say true in the Consulship of Licinius the fift time and Crispus for which yeare the Code hath no lawes but two one De veteranis and another De parricidio 6. To come yet nearer to the very times of Theodosius besides all these he made another Edict and law against Nestorius commanding if any Bishop or Clerke mention that heresie that hee should forthwith be deposed if a Laicke bee anathematized in which law hee particularly commandeth Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be deposed from his See This law though it is both recorded in the Acts of the Ephesine Councell and confessed by the Cardinall to bee truly the Emperours Law yet is not extant in the Code nor is it all one with that which is there set downe The Cardinall by the same reason might prove it a forgery as well as those other two and conclude the Acts of the Ephesine Councell to be falsified by Impostors and so to be of no credit as well as the Acts of this fift Synod Further yet there was another law against Nestorius published by the same Theodosius after the Ephesine latrociny and recorded in the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon wherein the Emperour shewes againe his detestation of that heresie approving the condemning and deposing of Domnus of Theodoret and Irenie Nestorian Bishops as also of Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorilen whom he thought to be Nestorians but therein the Emperour was mis-informed as hee had beene before in the time of the holy Ephesine Synod when upon like mis-information hee condemned Cyrill and Memnon as well as Nestorius That law though acknowledged also by Baronius to be true is not extant in the Theodosian Code nor doth it accord with that which is there expressed would not any man thinke it ridiculous hence to conclude as the Cardinall doth that certainly it is therefore a forgery and the Acts of Chalcedon containing such forgeries are to be held of no credit Thus while the Cardinall labours to discredit these Acts he so foully disgraceth himselfe that men may justly doubt whether hee were his owne man when he writ these things which are so voide both of truth and reason CAP. XXXIII The third addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union is falsely inserted refuted 1. THe third proofe which Baronius brings to shew that these Acts are corrupted by the additions of some forged writings inserted among them is an Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union set downe in the fift Collation wherein Theodoret professeth to Nestorius that he did not receive the letters of Cyrill as orthodoxall nay hee sheweth himselfe so averse from consenting to them and so addicted to Nestorius after the union made that hee thus writeth I say the truth unto you I have often read them and earnestly examined them and I have found them to be free that is full in uttering hereticall bitternesse nor will I ever consent to those things which are unjustly done against you nec si ambas manus no though both my hands should bee cut off from me Thus writeth Theodoret in that Epistle which the holy Councell first and after them we affirme and professe to have beene the true writing of Theodoret and the same to be a counterfeit a forgery and none of Theodorets but framed by heretikes Baronius confidently avoucheth 2. Now in this cause having the Synodall Acts and with them the judgment of the whole generall approved Councell on our side wee might justly reject this as a calumny of Baronius but for as much as hee not onely saith it but undertakes to prove the same wee will examine his reasons that so the integrity and credit of these Acts may be more conspicuous His reasons are two The first is grounded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus who writeth thus It is to bee knowne that certaine letters of Theodoret and Nestorius are caried about in which either of them doe lovingly embrace the other sed fictitiae sunt but they are counterfeit and devised by heretikes thereby to oppugne the Councell at Chalcedon but Theodoret hated Nestorius c. Thus Leontius and the Card. adds this extat ex illis Epistolis una one of those counterfeit Epistles written to Nestorius is extant in the fift Councell neare the end of the fift action thereof 3. What if wee should except against Leontius though hee bee as ancient as Pope Gregory as a man not of sufficient credit Or will the Card. thinke you defend him and take his testimony for sound and good paiment then farewell for ever the books of Toby Iudith Wisdome Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus for Leontius reckoning the bookes of the old Testament to be twenty
that since then strenuè atque impigrè laboravit that he laboured stoutly and diligently for the Catholike faith To which purpose he againe saith Post restitutam Ecclesiae pacem after the peace and unity of the Church Theodoret by all Catholikes was knowne to bee orthodoxall and to communicate with those that were orthodoxall Which orthodoxy of faith saith hee those Epistles of his doe so abundantly testifie that by them plus satis abstersit he hath too much wiped away purged and abolished all the blots and blemishes which he had contracted by his acquaintance with Nestorius Thus Baronius denying Theodoret at any time after the union made to have beene hereticall or a favourer of Nestorius and then undoubtedly this Epistle which both is hereticall and wherein such entire love and affection is expressed to Nestorius and which is recorded to have beene written after the time of the union can be none of Theodorets but must be rejected for an imposture a forgery 6. Doe you not verily beleeve the Cardinall had sent his wit out of the Country when hee writ that whole part of his Annals which concernes these three Chapters A little before he professeth this to be truly the Epistle of Theodoret and now hee will prove that it was not that it could not possible be the Epistle of Theodoret. Yea which is no lesse worthy of observing hee before not onely allowed this Epistle with the inscription wherein it was sayd that it was writ to Nestorius after the union to be Theodorets but he further sayth that Theodoret seemes to have beene of this minde which is noted in this Epistle etiam post concordiam even after the agreement union and concord made with Cyrill seeing Theodoret so obstinately professeth in his letters that hee would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius Sicque certum est aliquandiu perseverasse and so it is certaine that Theodoret continued some while after the union with an angry minde against Cyrill But now hee will prove the quite contrary that Theodoret for a certainty writ no such things nor had any fellowship with Nestorius after the union So both it is certaine that Theodoret writ this and yet it is certaine he writ it not certaine that hee writ it after the union and yet certaine that he writ it not after the union That is to speake plainly it is certaine the Cardinall demonstrates himselfe and his Annals to be false untrue and ridiculous repugnant both to the truth and to his owne writings 7. This might suffice to oppose against whatsoever Baronius can produce If he prove by any testimony this Epistle not to be Theodorets I on the contrary will prove it to bee Theodorets by the Cardinals owne testimony If he prove by any reason Theodoret after the union not to have favoured Nestorius and his heresie I on the contrary will prove that after the union hee favoured Nestorius by a stronger reason even by the Cardinals owne confession If hee bring Theodoret I bring Baronius and so I might Par pari referre quod male mordeat hominem But besides this confession of Baronius which disproves whatsoever he can prove against us in this matter I will adde somewhat concerning those Epistles of Theodoret on which hee much relyeth Those Epistles comming out of the Vaticane the very Mint-house of forgery are in truth nothing else but counterfeits as hereafter I purpose more fully to demonstrate for this time I will onely mention that which most concernes this present cause out of those Epistles which the Cardinall most urgeth and those are his Epistles to Dioscorus to Pope Leo specially seeing that to Dioscorus as the Cardinall tels us declareth the faith of Theodoret to bee such and so orthodoxal that it is enough ad abstergendum suspitionem to wipe away all suspition of heresie wherewith by reason of some counterfeit writings in the Synod I thinke he meanes the fift Councell hee was blamed And indeed in those Epistles there is a plain condemning of the heresies of Nestorius but first those Epist. were writ long after the union and so cannot helpe the Cardinall at all in this point and if they had beene writ presently upon that union yet those not to bee truely Theodorets divers circumstances doe make evident In the Epistle to Dioscorus Theodoret is made to relate how long before that time hee had beene a Bishop and where hee had preached The yeares of his Bishopricke he reckons to bee twenty six all which time he continued a Preacher at Antioch Whence Baronius observeth Theodoretum Episcopum publicum semper egisse Cathechistam Antiochiae that Theodoret being a Bishop was continually the publike Catechist at Antioch during that time of three Patriarchs Theodatus Iohn and Domnus And at least it might bee supposed that hee was a Preacher or as the Cardinall cals him a Catechiser in that City before hee was Bishop another of those Epistles that ad Nonium wil assure us the contrary for there Theodoret saith of himselfe I stayed in a Monastery quousque Episcopus factus till I was made a Bishop And Baronius further explanes this saying creatus Episcopus after Theodoret was made and ordained Bishop he was held at Antioch to be the preacher there first by Theodatus then by Iohn his successor Theodoret goes on to set forth his owne orthodoxy and praise saying that though hee so long continued a preacher at Antioch yet in all those yeares neither any of the Bishops nor any of the Clergy did reprove his doctrine or sayings which hee explanes in that other Epistle to Pope Leo saying thus Whereas I have beene a Bishop these sixe and twenty yeares yet in all this time non subij quantumvis levem reprehensionem I have not beene so much as lightly reproved for my doctrine but by the favor of God I have delivered more than 1000 or as Baronius corrects it more than ten thousand soules from Marcionisme Arianisme Eunomianisme so that in eight hundred Parishes so many are in my Diocesse of Cyrus there hath not remained no not one weede but my flocke is free from all hereticall errour Thus hee in that Epistle Which his orthodoxy hee yet more fully declares in another Epistle Looke on my writings both before and since the holy Ephesine Councell in singulis quae edidimus operibus Ecclesiae sanus sensus mens mihi conspicitur in all and every one of my writings the doctrine of the Church and my sound opinion is conspicuous And againe in that to Nomus speaking of the same his integrity of faith in all these five and twenty yeares saith he Nec à quoquam accusatus nec quenquam accusavi Neither have I beene accused of any man neither have I accused any Thus is Theodoret made to write in those Epistles 8. Let us omit the vanity and folly of the forgerer who reports this as an
to Simeon nor to any but to Iames and whereas some would think it a folly and madnesse to write to such an one as was dead and which was knowne to be dead to the author who writ it for who should be the carier of this letter unto him especially to write unto him as a governour in the Church militant to instruct and exhort him what he should carefully observe Turrian tels you that there were divers great and waighty reasons why Saint Peter commanded Clement and why Clement did write this to a dead man whom they both knew to be dead and having given divers very wise and worthy reasons hereof one taken from transfiguration another from imitation a third from avoyding hatred if he had writ to any that had beene alive a fourth for to be a testimony of the Resurrection belike because that Saint Iames shall then reade this holy Apostolicall Epistle and see what godly exhortation and advice for government of the Church Clement gives unto him and such like in the end he concludes that such as are Catholikes must not doubt of the truth of this Epistle though they know not the reason why it was written to a dead man and withall that with men who have reason and judgement certum esse debet such must assure themselves that both S. Peter and Clement had and knew reasons why the one commanded to write and the other did write unto a dead man Whereas now the Cardinals worthy demonstration Had hee and Binius beene men of reason and judgement and considered as no doubt but they read that tract of Turrian seeing unto it they referre us they might have seene therein divers reasons why Theodoret might write to Iohn though he were dead for every one of Turrians reasons is as forcible to defend this Epistle of Theodoret as they are to excuse Clement for writing to Iames who was dead long before But the case is now altered the Cardinals demonstration holds onely in those writings that distaste him or make for us and against their cause But si in rem sint if any such writing bring as all the decretals doe either honour to the Romane See or gaine to the Romane Court though they were writ to one that was dead I say not seven but seven times seven yeares before they shall bee honoured as the true and undoubted writings of the authors 3. Let mee adde but one other example but that is such an one as doth cut all the sinewes yea the very heart-strings of the Cardinals demonstration The translation of Chrysostomes body or reliques by Theodosius the younger more than thirty yeares after his death from Comana where hee dyed in banishment to Constantinople is a matter so testified by Socrates Theodoret Marcellimus the great Menology their Romane Martyrology and others that we doe not doubt of the truth therof But since it is retranslated as they say from Constantinople to Rome the onely shop indeed to utter all such ware and make the people goe a whoring after them That those his supposed reliques may be had in reverence it is worthy the considering how miraculously they have made the manner of his Translation Nicephorus relates the summe of it but as by Baronius it seemes he borrowed it out of the luculent Oration of one Cosmas Vestiarius whether one of the Vaticane or a Baronian author I know not but so ignoble and so unworthy an author that Possevine judged him not worthy to bee named in his Bibliotheca or reckoned among his testes veritatis Out of this Tailors Oration hath the Cardinall stitcht a very pretty Anile the summe whereof is this Proclus on a time making a panegyricall Oration in the praise of Chrysostome the people were so flamed with the love and longing desire after him that they interrupted the Bishop and would not suffer him to make an end of his Sermon crying out with many loud vociferations they would have Chrysostome Chrysostome and his reliques they would have Proclus moved herewith intreates the Emperour the Emperour at this their earnest sute sent divers Senators some say an army together with Clerks and Monkes to bring with all pompe the body of Chrysostome from Comana thither they goe and come to the place where Chrysostomes body was kept in a silver Coffin Once againe and very often they assay yea labor strive with all their strength which all their skil to lift up the Coffin all was in vaine the sacred body was more immovable than a rock they certifie this news to the Emperor who called Proclus other holy men to advise further about that matter in the end the resolution of them all was that the Emperour Theodosius should write a Letter to Chrysostome Supplicis instar libelli in forme of a supplication asking him forgivenesse for the sinnes which Arcadius his father had committed against him humilibus precibus to beseech him with most lowly prayers that hee would returne to Constantinople and take his old See againe praying him that hee would no longer by his absence afflict them being so desirous of his body yea of his ashes yea of his shadow The Emperour did so the forme of whose letter of supplication out of the Tailor Cosmas first Nicephorus and then Baronius expresse though the Cardinall for good cause was loath to give Chrysostome the title of a Patriarke and Pater Patrum which Nicephorus sets downe those either the Tailor or the Cardinall concealeth or altereth The Emperours letters were sent and brought to the dead corps and with great reverence laid upon the brest and heart of Chrysostome and the next day the Priests with great ease took up the body and brought it to Constantinople into the Church of the holy Apostles There first as out of Nicephorus the Cardinal relateth the Emperour with the people supplex communem precationem pro Parentibus fecit made an humble prayer for his Parents and more specially entreated for his Mother that her grave which had shaken and been sicke of a palsie and made a noise and ratling for thirty five yeares together might now at length cease the holy man heard the request granted it the graves palsie was cured so that it shaked no more Then Proclus the Bishop placed dead Chrysostome in eundem Thronum in the very same See and Episcopall seat with himselfe all the people applauding and crying O Father Chrysostome receive thy See and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration the lips of Chrysostome five and thirty yeares after hee was laid in his grave opened and blessed all the people saying Peace be to you and this both the Patriarke Proclus and the people standing by testified that they heard Thus farre the Cardinals narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Nicephorus 4. Say now in earnest is not this
not this now shewed apertissimè you may bee sure the Cardinall would not have feared to performe his promise but that there was somewhat in that Epist. which would have bewrayed his lewd dealing in this cause 22. His third reason is drawne from the testimony of Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople This saith hee exploratum habetur is sure and certaine by Nicephorus No it is sure and certaine by Nicephorus that Baronius is erronious in this matter for Nicephorus accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares and the Cardinall will allow him no more but thirteene now the first yeare of Iohn cannot possibly be before the yeare 427. for in that year Theodotus the next predecessor of Iohn dyed as Baronius himselfe proveth Add now unto these seventeene moe and then the death of Iohn by Nicephorus will bee an 444. which is the selfe same yeare wherein Cyrill dyed Is not this a worthy proofe to shew Iohn to have dyed seven years before Cyrill as the Cardinall avoucheth that he did Or do not you think the Cardinal was in some extasy to produce Nicephorus as a witnesse for him whereas Nicephorus as the Cardinall himselfe also confesseth gives to Iohn 18. yeares and the Cardinall allowes him but thirteene and whereas the Cardinall of set purpose refuteth the account of Nicephorus 23. But will you bee pleased to see how the Cardinall refuteth him Domnus saith hee was Bishop of Antioch an 437. as is proved by an Epistle of Theodorets written to Domnus in that yeare which Epistle I will set downe in his due place to wit an 437. Lo all his proofe is from that Epistle which the Cardinall contrary to his own promise doth not and as I thinke durst not set downe 24. But see further how the Cardinall is infatuated in this cause Iohn saith he dyed an 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares Iohn succeeded to Theodotus who dyed an 427. Say now in truth is not the Cardinall a worthy Arithmetitian that of 427. and 13. can make no more than 436 And is not this a worthy reason to refute Nicephorus But this is not all for Baronius glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus which as hee saith was written an 444. there observes with a memorandum that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus Iohn and Domnus had sitten in the See of Antioch to wit 26. yeares in all from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop unto that 444. yeare viz. Theodotus 6. Iohn 13. and Domnus 7. untill that yeare Theodoret as Baronius will assure you was made Bishop an 423. Add now unto these six of Theodotus thirteene of Iohn and 7. of Domnus and tell me whither you thinke the Cardinall had sent his wits when hee could summe these to bee just 444 25. Or will you see the very quintessence of the Cardinals wisedome I will saith he set downe the next yeare that is an 437. the very Epistle of Theodoret to Domnus which was then written unto him eam quâ monstratur I wil also set downe in his due place to wit an 444. that Epistle of Theodoret to Dioscorus whereby is shewed that Iohn was Bishop of Antioch just thirteene yeare Thus Baronius who by these two Epistles of Theodoret will prove both these As much in effect as if hee had said I have already proved that Iohn began to bee Bishop of Antioch an 427. and this being set downe for a certainty I will now prove by Theodorets Epistle to Domnus that Iohn dyed an 436. that is in his ninth yeare and then I will prove againe by Theodorets Epistle to Dioscorus that hee dyed in his thirteenth yeare and so dyed not till the yeare 440. Or as if hee had thus said I will first prove that mine owne Annals are untrue wherin it is said that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn because he dyed not as Theodoret in one Epistle witnesseth untill his thirteenth yeare which is an 440. And then I will prove unto you that mine own Annals are again untrue wherein it is said that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare and so dyed not till an 440. beginning the first an 427 because Theodoret in another Epistle witnesseth that Iohn dyed an 436. Or thus I will first prove that Iohn was dead an 436. though he was alive an 440. and thē I will prove unto you that Iohn was alive an 440. though he was dead an 436. 26. Is not this brave dealing in the Cardinall is hee not worthy of a cap and a fether too that can prove all these and prove them by Theodorets Epistles or doe you not think those to be worthy Epistles of Theodoret by which such absurdities such impossibilities may bee proved Nay doth not this alone if there were no other evidence demonstrate those Epistles of Theodorets to bee counterfeits If that to Domnus be truly his as Baronius assures you wherby Iohn is shewed to have dyed an 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs be◠a forgery whereby Iohn is shewed to live an 440. Againe if that to Dioscous be truly his as Baronius assures you wherin Iohn is said to live an 440. then certainely the other to Domnus must of necessity bee a forgery wherein Iohn is said to be dead an 436. And as either of these two Epistles demonstrates the untruth and forgery of the other so they both demonstrate the great vanity of Baronius who applauds them both who wil make good what they both do affirm that is the same man to bee both dead and alive a Bishop and no Bishop at the selfe same time and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinall refute his owne witnesse Nicephorus who by giving eighteene yeares to Iohn shewes plainly that Iohn and Cyrill dyed within one yeare which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of Iohn whom upon Nicephorus account hee thought to live after Cyrill whereas in very deed hee dyed somewhile before Cyrill 27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonicall Epist. of Cyrils to Domnus which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Balsamon whence it is out of all doubt saith the Cardinall that Iohn dyed before Cyrill seeing Cyrill writ unto his successor Domnus But howsoever the Cardinall vanteth that this reason will leave no doubt yet if you observe it there are two great doubts therein The former is whether that Epistle be truly Cyrils And besides other reasons that one point which the Cardinall himselfe mentioneth may justly cause any to thinke it none of his for as the Cardinall saith the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus that he might ad libitum at his pleasure put out Bishops and at his pleasure restore them Now there is none that knowes the learning
upon him then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Are these which are all of them hainous crimes and notorious in Vigilius the matters that offend the Cardinall No none of these hee is not used to finde such faults in their Popes these all hee commends as rare vertues as demonstrations of constancy of prudence of fortitude in Vigilius what then is it that his Cardinalship dislikes Truely among many great and eminent vices in Vigilius which are obvious and runne into every mans sight it hapned that once in his life he did one thing worthy of commendations and that was his obedience in going to Constantinople when the Emperour called and requested him to come thither and the Cardinall winking at all the other reproves his Holinesse for this one thing which both in equity and duty hee ought to have done This forsooth is it which hee notes as a very dangerous and hurtfull matter and a speciall point of great indiscretion in Pope Vigilius that leaving Rome that holy City hee would goe to Constantinople and to the Emperours Court which his predecessors Leo and others in very great wisdome would never do not goe into the East nor suffer themselves to bee pulled away from their See fixed at Rome 2. Truely I never knew before that there was such vertue in the Romane or such venome in the Constantinopolitane soile or in the Easterne ayre specially seeing the holy Land and the holy City and the holy Temple were all in the East All the Westerne nations are beholding to the Cardinall for this conceit Shall there not bee given to thy servant two Mules load of this Romish earth But let us a little more fully see why the Pope and particularly Vigilius might noâ— goe to Constantinople Oh saith the Cardinall it is found by experience that the Popes going from Rome to the Court obfuisse haud modicum hath done great hurt to the Church for then partly by the threats and partly by the favours and faire intreaties of Emperours as it were with two contrary windes the ship of Peter is exposed to great hazzard Modicae fidei phy a Cardinall to feare or distrust any wracke of Saint Peters ship though never so dangerous a tempest happen though Vna Eurusque Notusque ruant creberque procellis Africus S. Peter hath left such a Pilot in his Rome that a thousand times sooner might he himselfe than his ship sinke Pasce oves tues Petra oravi pro te Petre will uphold it against all winde and weather And truly I would gladly know of his Cardinalship for my learning how any of their Popes can forsake their See or Rome They have heretofore held it for a maxime ubi Papa ibi Roma let the Pope goe to Peru yea ultra Garamantas Indos he hath a priviledge above all creatures but the Snaile hee carrieth not onely their infallible Chaire but the whole City of Rome on his backe whithersoever hee goes If not so or if the Chaire bee fixt to Rome where sate all their Popes for those seventy yeares when they were at Avinion or how shall they sit in the Chaire when their Babylonish Rome for her Idolatries shal be burnt with unquencheable fire and sinke like a Milstone into the bottome of the Sea which being foretold by Saint Iohn of the Romane City which yet remaineth as their owne Iesuite Ribera doth truely and undeniably demonstrate is a most certaine Article of the Catholike faith though they seldome thinke of it and will hardly put it into their Creed When their Pope goe whither hee will carieth still with him his infallible Chaire was it not infidelity in the Cardinall to dreame or doubt lest that ship should any where miscarry more at the Court or Kings Pallace than in a Country Cottage more in the Trullane than in the Laterane Temple 3. Yea but usu rerum reperitur experience teacheth that their going to the Emperour hath done exceeding hurt and particularly for Vigilius that his going to Constantinople hath brought magnum damnum great harme to the Catholike Church declararunt eventa the events have shewed Events and experience are the most woefull arguments in Divinitie that can possibly be devised Measure the Gospell by temporall calamities which ensued upon it the bloody murdering of the Apostles of the Saints of God almost for three hundred yeares together and hee may as well conclude that the Gospell and truth of Christ is found by woefull experience to have brought exceeding great hurt to the Church The Cardinall was driven to a narrow strait and an exceeding penury of reasons when he was forced to put Argumentum ab eventu for one of his Topicall places 4. But say what hurt can he tell us that ever any Emperours presence with the Pope brought unto the Church If both were Catholike or both hereticall they agreed well enough together As not Satans so much lesse is Gods Kingdome devided against it selfe if the Emperour Catholike and the Pope hereticall the worst the Emperour ever did was but to inflict just punishment on an heretike the worst the Pope sustained was but a just recompence of his heresie and hatred of truth The execution of Iustice never did nor ever can hurt the Catholike Church If the Emperor were hereticall and the Pope orthodoxal there was trial of the Popes art skil in converting such a man to the truth triall of his constancy and love unto Gods truth whether by feare or favour he would forsake it triall of his patience and fortitude in induring all torments even death it selfe for his love to Christ. All the hurt which such an Emperour did or could doe was to crowne him a glorious Martyr and in stead of the white garment of innocency to send him in scarlet robes unto heaven and woe be to that Church which shall thinke Martyrdome an hurt unto it which was and ever will bee the glory of the Catholike Church Non decet sub spinoso capite membrum esse delicatum when Christ his Apostles and glorious Saints and Martyrs have gone before upon thornes and briars wee must not looke to have a silken way strewed with Roses and Lillies unto the Kingdome of God This which is yet the very worst that can befall any Catholike is no harme to him who hath learned that lesson Blessed are they which die in the Lord so whether Pope and Emperour be both of one or of a different religion his presence with the Emperour may happen to doe good but it is certaine it can never possibly doe hurt unto the Church The greatest hurt that was ever done to the Church by this meanes was when Constantine after his baptisme by Pope Silvester in liew of his paines and in token of a thankful minde sealed unto him that donation of the Romane and Westerne Provinces That one fable I must particularly except
corrupted and followed some corrupt Edition of that Epistle when they so craftily persist on the Inscription Dominis ac Patribus for had hee stiled them in the title fathers hee would not in the Epistle have so often called them brethren and never once fathers Now to say as the Cardinall doth that it is abhorrent either from reason or practice to call the same parties both Dominos and fratres argues either extreme and supine negligence or obstinate perversnesse in the Cardinall and Binius scarce any thing in antiquity being more frequent Pope Damasus writ a Synodall letter to Prosper Bishop of Numidia and others he inscribes it thus Dominis venerabilibus fratribus Prospero Leoni Reparato Damasus Episcopus Bishop Damasus to my reverend Lords and Brethren Prosper c. So the Councell of Carthage in two letters written the one to Pope Boniface the other to Pope Caelestine writes in both in this manner To our Lord and honourable brother So Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus and the other African Bishops Dominis honor abilibus to the honourable Lords and holy brethren In like sort Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople to the same Africane Bishops Dominis sanctis to the holy Lords our most blessed brethren fellow Bish. Why might not Vigilius call other Patriarks Lords and brethren when Atticus Cyrill the Councell of Carthage yea Pope Damasus himselfe called other Bishops Dominos ac fratres Nay seeing the Pope is used to inscribe his letters to the Emp. Dominis ac filijs or Domino ac filio as doth P. HadriaÌ„ to Constant. and Irene to Charles why may not he as well call his brother as his son Lord is the title of son more compatible with Dominis than the title of brother or whether title thinke you Lord or brother may not the Pope give to his fellow Bishops the name of brother is almost every where seene in his letters the Cardinall envies not that unto them it is the name of Dominus that seemes somewhat harsh The Cardinall would not have the Pope call or account other Bishops his Lords and yet how can they even the meanest of them but bee his Lord when hee gladly stiles himselfe their servant yea servant to every servant of the Lord So that if the Popes Secretary were well catechized and knew good manners his Holines should write thus to his own servants To my Lord Groome of my stable to my Lord the Scâ—ll of my Kitchen I am indeed your servant I am servus servorum Dei But let the title of the Epistle bee howsoever yee will whether Dominis ac Christis as it is in Liberatus or Dominis fratribus as it is in Victor or Dominis Patribus as the Cardinall without any authority that I can finde would have it certaine it is that the parties to whom Vigilius writ it were the three deposed Bishops to whom Vigilius was like to give any of all those titles and not to the Emperour and Empresse as the Cardinall without all shadow of truth affirmeth and saith that he hath demonstrated the same but it is with such a demonstration as was never found in any but in Chorebus his Analyticks 26. Another of the Cardinals reasons to prove this Epistle to be a forgery is taken from a repugnance and contrariety of the words in the Subscription wherein Vigilius first professeth to hold but one nature in Christ and then anathematizeth Dioscorus who held the same The Cardinall should have proved that Vigilius could not or did not write contrarieties As the Cardinall though he hath beene so often taken tardy in contradictions yet will not deny the Annals for that cause to bee his owne faire birth so hee might thinke of this writing though it bee repugnant to it selfe yet it might proceed from such an unstayed and unstable minde as Vigilius had But I doe acquit Vigilius from this contradiction it is not his hee condemned not Dioscorus in his Subscription In his Epistle he professeth to hold the same doctrine of one onely nature in Christ with Eutyches and Dioscorus there is little reason then to thinke that hee did in his Subscription adjoyned condemne the professors of that doctrine of which Dioscorus was one of the chiefe as deepe in that heresie as Eutyches himselfe What shall wee say then to Liberatus in whom Dioscorus is named Truely had not malice and spight shut the eyes of Baronius and Binius they could not but have seene that the name of Dioscorus is by the oversight or negligence of the writer inserted in stead of Nestorius It was Nestorius and not Dioscorus whom Vigilius there accursed the very conclusion and coherence not onely with the Epistle but with the next precedent words in the Subscription doe evidently demonstrate thus much for having professed in his Epistle to hold as did Dioscorus but one nature in Christ having againe in his Subscription and next words before anathematized all who admit two or deny but one nature in Christ hee in particular declares who those are that hee therein anathematized saying Anathematizamus ergo therefore we accurse by this our condemnation of those who deny but one nature Paulus Samosatenus Nestorius Theodorus and Theodoret and all who have or doe embrace their doctrine Now it was Nestorius not Dioscorus who embraced the same doctrine with Paulus Samosatenus with Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret all these concurred in that one and selfe-same heresie of denying one nature in Christ they all consented in teaching two natures making two persons in Christ which Dioscorus and Eutyches condemned Of Theodorus and Theodoret it is cleare by the Councels both of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the fift Synod Of Paulus Samosatenus the writing or contestation of the Catholike Clergy of Constantinople set downe in the Acts of Ephesus doe certainly witnesse and declare the same the title of which is to shew partly NestoriuÌ„ ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosatenus and in the contestation it selfe it is said thus I adjure all to publish this our writing for the evident reproofe of Nestorius the heretike as one who is convinced to teach and openly maintain eadem prorsus quae Paulus Samosatenus the same doctrines altogether which Paulus Samosatenus did and then they expresse seven heretical assertions taught alike by them both Seeing then Vigilius accursed him who taught the same with Paulus Theodorus and Theodoret and that was Nestorius not Dioscorus it is undoubtedly certaine that not Dioscorus but Nestorius was the party written and named by Vigilius in his subscription and that Dioscorus was not by Vigilius but by the oversight and negligence of the exscriber of Liberatus wrongfully inserted in stead of Nestorius And truly the like mistakings are not unusuall in Liberatus In this very Chapter it is sayd that Vigilius a little after the death of
unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and saith that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am
or knowing it oppugnes the truth hee is now in his owne element he offends no longer as a Rhetorician or Grammarian but quatenus talis as hee is a Bishop as hee is a Divine as hee is one who both should know and bring others to the knowledge of the truth And this beside that by reason it is evident is grounded on that saying of Austen Aliter servit Rex qua homo aliter qua Rex for as a King serveth God qua Rex in doing that which none but a King can doe so a King or a Bishop or any other offendeth God as a King or Bishop in doing against that duty which none but they are to doe 45. Now what is said of all Sciences Arts and mysteries that is in due proportion to be applyed to that greatest mysterie of mysteries and Craft above all Crafts to their Pope-craft or mysterie of Iniquity He is the sheepheard to feed all the Physitian to cure all the Counsellor to advise all the Iudge to decide al the Monarke to command all hee is all in all nay above all hard it is to define him or his duties hee is indefinite infinite transcendent above all limits above all definitions above all rule yea above all reason also But as the Nymphs not able to measure the vastnes of the Gyants whole body measured onely the compasse of his thumbe with a thred and by it knew and admired the bignesse of his Gygantean body so let us consider but the thumbe or little toe of his Holinesse fault and by it conjecture the immensity of this eldest sonne of Anak Pasce oves confirmafratres must bee to us as the Nymphes thred or line for these two are the Popes peculiars in which are contained all the rest and they reach as farre as heaven and hell they are the Popes duty quatenus hee is Pope If at any time or upon any occasion hee swarve from this line if by his doctrine he cast downe his brethren instead of confirming them or give them poyson in stead of good food he offends not now as Swines-snout nor as Peter of Tarantasia nor as Hugh Bone companion but quatenus Papa even as Pope in that very Pastorall and Papall duty which properly and peculiarly belongeth to him as Pope Lay now this line and thred to Pope Vigilius and his Epistle did he confirme Anthimus Theodosius and Severus in the faith when he told them that by Gods helpe both before and then also he held the same faith with them and that was Eutycheanisme and that they were joyned to him in the charity which is in Christ or was this wholsome food which hee the great Pastor of their soules set before them Accursed be all that deny one and affirme two natures to have beene in Christ If this bee hereticall doctrine seeing Pope Vigilius fed them and confirmed them in this faith then certainely he taught heresie as Pope that is hee exercised his Papall office even that of feeding and confirming his brethren which is peculiar to the Pope as Pope to the teaching and approving of heresie at this time 46. If yet wee shall goe somewhat more precisely and exactly to worke according to line and measure those acts of feeding and confirming doe but in a very equivocall sense for their doctrine is full of Equivocation agree to other Bishops but still a maine difference or odds is to bee observed betwixt the Popes feeding and confirming as hee is Pope and all others when any other Bishop teacheth heresie because his teaching is subordinate and fallible one may nay he must doubt or feare to feed on such food he must still receive it with this caution or tacit appeale of his heart if his holinesse commend it for an wholesome diet of the soule But if the Pope teach any heresie if hee say that the Sunne is darke the left the write hand poyson an wholesome food Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme the orthodoxall faith here because there is no higher judge to whom you may appeale you are bound upon salvation without any doubt or scruple at all to eate and devoure this meate you may not judge nay you may not dispute or aske any man whether it be true or no the Popes teaching is supreme and therefore infallible indubitable this is to teach to feed to confirme as Pope for none can thus teach or feed but onely the Pope as Pope So the same hereticall doctrine when it is taught by the Pope as he is a private man is a private instruction without any publike authority to teach when by him as a Presbiter it is an instruction with publike authority to teach but without judicatory power to censure the gainsayers when by him as a Bishop it is both with publike authority and judicatory power to censure suspend or excommunicate the gainsayers but yet subordinate and fallible including a virtuall appeale to the highest tribunall of the Pope when by him as Pope it hath all the former conditions both publike authority to teach and judiciall power to censure and which is the Popes peculiar prerogative as Pope to doe those with infallibility of judgement and supremacy of authority such as none may refuse or doubt to beleeve and embrace 47. If any will here reply with the Sophister Thrasimachus his subtilty in Plato that the Pope as Pope teacheth not amisse but as hee faileth in the Popes duty as hee wants skill or will to performe that office This must bee acknowledged as true indeed for in the strictest sense of all what the Pope is as Pope that must inseparably agree to every Pope and the manner of his teaching as Pope must inseparably agree to the teaching of every Pope even as Logicians say that what agreeth to a man a bird or a tree quatenus talia as they are such must agree to every man bird and tree But this quirke and subtilty will not helpe their cause nor excuse the Pope from erring as Pope for as in this sense no Pope as Pope doth erre because then every Pope should erre in all doctrines which hee teacheth so neither in the same sense doth any Pope as Pope teach the truth for then every doctrine of every Pope should bee true Againe as according to this sense no Pope as Pope so no Bishop as Bishop no Presbyter as Presbyter doth erre or teach heresie for did hee in his teaching erre as Bishop or Presbyter then every Presbyter and every Bishop and so even the Apostles themselves should erre in their teaching But as Vigilius or Liberius when they taught Arianisme Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme did this not simply as Popes but as persons not knowing as in duty they should what to teach or knowing it but willingly teaching the contrary to their knowledge which in duty they should not even so Nestorius Macedonius Arius and Eutyches every Bishop and Presbyter when they erred they erred not simply as Bishops or as Presbyters but