any Pope either by word or writing either hath already or shall at any time hereafter define to be a doctrine of faith Because I will not stay on particulars if any please seriously to consider this matter hee shall perceive that which now I intend to prove such venome of infidelity to lye in that one fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility that by reason of holding it they neither doe nor can beleeve or hold with certaintie of faith any one point or doctrine which they professe to beleeve and hold upon that Foundation 20. For the clearing of which point being very materiall it is to be observed that unto certainty of faith two things are of necessity required The one ex parte objecti on the part of thing beleeved which must be so true and certaine in it selfe that it cannot possibly bee or have beene otherwise then it is beleeved to be to have beene or to be hereafter And therefore none can truly beleeve any untruth for nothing which is untrue is or can be the object of faith The other thing is required ex parte subjecti on the part of him who beleeveth Now faith being onely of such things as are inevident that is which neither by sense can be perceived nor by naturall reason collected or found out but which are onely by the testimonie of such as first knew them made knowne unto us and none doth or can know that which is supernaturall unlesse God himselfe reveale the same unto him it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any beleeved the same is revealed and testified to him by God himselfe who is infallible and further that it is certainly knowne unto him who beleeveth that it is God himselfe who doth reveale and testifie that thing unto him For otherwise though the doctrine proposed be in it selfe never so certaine and divine yet unto thee or me it cannot be certaine nor held by certainty of faith unlesse first we be sure and infallibly certaine that he who testifieth it unto us is himselfe infallible that is that he is God Let us for perspicuity call the former of these two materiale fidei the materiall in faith or the thing beleeved and the later formale fidei that which is formall in faith seeing as the former is the thing beleeved so the later containes the reason the ground or foundation upon which and for which it is beleeved 21. Consider now first the materials in their faith In them there is a great difference for some of them are in themselves credible as being divine truths and true objects of faith Such are all those Catholike truths common to us and them as that there is a Trinity that Christ was borne of a Virgin dyed rose againe and the like Others are in themselves untrue such as cannot be the object of faith Of this sort are all those doctrines wherin they dissent from us Transubstantiation reall and proper sacrifice worshipping of Images Purgatory Iustification by the merit or dignity of our works and the like which may rightly bee called popish doctrines The later sort of these they neither doe nor can beleeve The former they might but they doe not beleeve The reason whereof will appeare by considering that which is formall or the fundamentall ground of their faith where it is first to be observed that a man may hold many yea all the doctrines professed by the present Church except that one of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility and yet bee no Papist or member of their present Church For although the things professed or the Materialls be the selfe same yet the formalitie or diverse reason of holding them causeth a maine difference in the parties that hold them And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three divers wayes whereby their doctrines are or may be held 22. The first is of them who build all those doctrines upon the Scripture as the Foundation thereof upon that ground holding not onely many Catholike truths which they most firmly beleeve the Church inducing the Scriptures outwardly teaching and the holy Spirit inwardly sealing the same unto them but together with those truths hold some errors also of the Romane Church take for example Transubstantiation which although for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live they thinke to be taught in the Scriptures and therefore hold and professe them and thinke they beleeve them yet because they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures nor sealed by Gods Spirit unto their hearts therefore they hold not these nor in truth can they hold them with that firmnesse and certainty of faith as they doe the former truths but they have a faintnes and feare in their assent unto these and so a readines and willing preparation of heart to disclaime these and to hold or professe the contrary if ever it may be fully cleared manifested out of the Scriptures unto them Of this sort we doubt not but many thousands of our fathers were who living in the darknesse thicke mists of their Antichristian superstition upon the Scriptures word of God which they held for the foundation of their saith builded indeed much gold precious stones but with a mixture of much hay stubble drosse thinking but very erroneously the later as well as the former to be contained in that foundation The state of all these is very like to S. Cyprians and those other Africane Bishops which were so earnest for Rebaptizatiō supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures though the foundation of it of those catholike truths that Christ was God or the like was one and the same unto them yet they held not both with like firmnes certainty of faith The doctrine of Christs deity manhood they so beleeved that they would not cōmunicate with any that denied this nay they would rather die then deny it But Rebaptization they so held as not thinking their opposites to be heretikes nor refusing p Haecre scripsimus nemini praescribentes aut praejudicantes quo minus unusquisque quod putaverit faciat habent liberam arbitrij sui facultatē Nos autem cum Collegis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. Epist ad Iubaian in fine vid. August lib. 5. de Baptis ca. 17. to cōmunicate with thē that denyed it so they held this with a certaine faintnes of faith or rather as indeed it was of opinion and not of faith having a preparation in heart to beleeve and professe the contrary if it might at any time be made manifest unto them This S. Austen often witnesseth of Cyprian Satis q Lib. 2. de Baptis ca. 4. ostendit se facillime correcturum he sufficiently declareth that hee would most easily have altered his opinion if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him Againe r Lib. 4 ca. 5. That holy man Cyprian being non solum doctus sed docilis not onely
learned but willing to learne and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same ſ Lib. 1. ca. 18. Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per eum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as sound lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of those that were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and sortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus ſ Paralip ad Abb. Vsperg pa. 448. I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had justled out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the
professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth f Papista deducitur à Papa qualis fuit Petrus Christus ipse ibid. it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure g Demand ◠him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme and infallible and so build their faith on him as on the foundation thereof which their owne Church never did till the time of Leo the tenth It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah but the Lion of that Laterane Synod who is the first God father of that name unto them when hee had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation were fitly christened with this name of Papists to distinguish them and their present Romane Church from all others who held the old good and sure foundation 26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines The errours maintained by all those three sorts of which I have spoken are almost the same and materially they are Popish heresies and yet the first sort did onely erre therein but were not heretikes because not pertinacious The second doe not onely erre but by adding pertinacy to errour are truly heretikes but yet not Papists because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner and on another foundation then Papists doe The third and last sort which containeth all and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church doe both erre and are heretikes and which is the worst degree of heresie are Papists that is Antichristian heretikes not onely holding and that in the highest degree of pertinacy those heresies which are contrary to the faith but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appeare which before h Sup. nu 19. I proposed that none who hold the Popes infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation that is none of the present Romane Church either doth or can beleeve any one doctrine of faith which they professe For seeing the beleefe of all other points relyes upō this so that they beleeve thē because they first beleeve this it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher i Arist lib. 1. demon ca. 2. Propter quod unumquodque illud magis that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this which is the foundation than they doe or can beleeve any other doctrine I say not Transubstantiation or Purgatory but more thā that Article of their Creed that Christ is God or that there is a God or any the like which is builded upon this foundatiō And seeing we have cleerly demonstrated that foundation to bee not onely untrue but hereticall and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith it being no true object of faith it doth evidently hence ensue that they neither doe nor can beleeve any one doctrine position or point of faith Impossible it is that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof or the conclusion more certaine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent and make us certaine of the conclusion That one fundamentall uncertainty contrariety to the faith which is vertually in all the rest breeds the like uncertainty and contrariety to faith in them all and like a Radicall poyson spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion infecting every arme branch and twigge of their doctrine and faith whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine and those are not a few those they neither doe nor can beleeve because they are no objects of faith whatsoever truths they maintaine and no doubt they doe many those they thinke they doe and they might doe but indeed they doe not beleeve because they hold them for that reason and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith and which overthroweth the faith For to hold or professe that Christ is God or that there is a God eo nomine because the Devill or Antichrist or a fallible man testifieth it unto us is not truly to beleeve but to overthrow the faith 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius If because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith they doe therefore beleeve it then must they beleeve Nestorianisme to be the truth and Christ not to bee God because Pope Vigilius by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence hath decreed this in decreeing that the three Chapters are to be defēded If they beleeve not this then can they beleeve nothing at all eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and then the foundation of their faith being abolished their whole faith together with it must needs be abolished also Againe if because the Pope defineth a doctrine they doe therefore beleeve it then seeing Pope Caelestine with the Ephesine and Pope Leo with the Chalcedon Councell decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie they by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infallibility must at one and the same time beleeve both Nestorianisme to be truth as Pope Vigilius defined and Nestorianisme to be heresie as Pope Caelestine and Leo defined and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true yea to bee truths of the Catholike faith which to beleeve is impossible or else they must beleeve that it is impossible to beleeve either the one or the other eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that which is the foundation of their whole faith Neither is this true onely in other points but even in this very foundation it selfe for the fift Councell which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters to be hereticall was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true because the Pope hath defined it then must they beleeve the Popes Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and so beleeve that upon this fallible and hereticall foundation they can build no doctrine of faith nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith So if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible then for this cause can they have no faith nor beleeve ought with certainty of faith seeing all
teach what wee affirme whatsoever any manor Councell saith or can say to the contrarie The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it he would have forsaken the defence of them then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious nor should have made him an hereticke but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters should have made him a catholike But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell that the definition of saith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters with this pertinacie and wilfull resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke notwithstanding his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof whereby all those Chapters are condemned which profession being joyned with the former pertinacie could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike 18. The very same must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel and faith thereof as that upon manifestation that this Councell beleeved taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible and de facto hath beene hereticall they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies then should they much rather for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof bee orthodoxall then for professing together with this the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie bee hereticall But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith touching the Three Chapters that the fift Councell beleeved this and decreed under the censure of an Anathema that all others should beleeve it and that all who beleeve the contrary are heretikes seeing I say notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in those causes yea defend it as the very foundation of their faith this makes it evident to all that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell or the other whether precedent or following for they all are consonant to this but with this pertinacious resolution not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie and therefore their expresse profession of this fift and other generall Councels yea of the Scriptures themselves cannot be so effectuall to make them Catholikes as the profession of the Popes infallibility which is joyned with this pertinacy is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes 19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the pertinacy of Vigilius For one may be and often is pertinacious in his errour not onely after but even before conviction or manifestation of the truth made unto him and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi prepared or ready to be informed of the truth and corrected thereby or when he doth nor or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen m Epist 162. and out of him Occham n Lib. 4. part 1. ca. 2. Gerson o Cons 12. de pertinacia part 1. pa. 430. Navar p Ench. ca. 11. nu 22. Alphonsus à Castro q Lib. 1. de justa punit haeret ca. 7 and many others doe truly teach See now I pray you how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking and preparation to embrace the truth He by his Apostolicall authoritie decreed r Const Vigil apud Bar. an 553. nu 208. that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By
the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they k Coll. 8. professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly l Sup. cap. 2. nu 1. seq entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos m Coll. 2. p. 523. vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth n An. 553. nu 221. persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius o An. 555. nu 2. redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there p Adeo exhorruisse visi sunt Antistites occidentales aliam post quaâ—tam admittere oecumenicam Synodum ut non potuerit Pelagius reperire Episcopos Romae à quibus consecraretur Bar. an 556. nu 1. could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon q Can. 1. Con. Nic. can 4. of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of those Chapters rejected the Councell though the Pope approved it Neither of them both and so none at all in the whole Church judged either the Popes approbation to give or his reprobation to take away authority from a generall Councell Thus by the Antecedentia Concomitantia and Consequentia of the Councell it is manifest by the judgement of the whole Church in that age that this fift Councell was of authority without the Popes approbation and was not held of authority by reason of his approbation 9. What the judgement of the Church was as well in the ages preceding as succeeding to this Councell is evident by that which we have already declared For we have at large shewed r Sup. ca. 4. nu 25 26. seq that the doctrine faith and judgement of this fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all following generall Councells till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth Whereupon it ensueth that this doctrine which wee maintaine and the Cardinall impugneth that neither the Popes approbation doth give nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth by the whole Catholike Church of all ages till that Lateran Synod that is for more than 1500. yeares together 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Pelagius approved it then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Vigilius rejected it If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it neither can his approbation though Apostolicall give authority unto it Or if they say that both are true as indeed they are both alike true then seeing this fift Councell is both approved by Pope Pelagius and rejected by Pope Vigilius it must now be held both to be wholly approved and wholly rejected both to be lawfull and unlawfull both to be a generall Councell and no generall Councell And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it They all because they are approved by some one Pope are approved and lawfull Councels and because they approve this fift which is rejected by the Pope they are all rejected and unlawfull Councells Such an havocke of generall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure 11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell yet for the more clearing of the truth and expressing my love to this holy Councell to which next after that at Chalcedon I beare speciall affection I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius Binius have used of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod The former is taken from the assembling the
10. and his Laterane Synod are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed before that Synod for they f Conc. Later ses 11 complaine that by reason of the malignitie of those times or else because they could not helpe it his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction and that for all which either they did or could doe the same Sanction retroactis temporibus viguisse et adhuc vigere had in former times and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session stand in force and full vigor Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall as did the Council also of Basil that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith which the present Romane Church defendeth it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught professed and beleeved to be an heresie and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes by the consenting judgement of Councils Popes Bishops and the Catholike Church even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session which was the 19. of December in the yeare 1516. after Christ 33 On that day a day never to be forgotten by the present Romane Church it being the birth-day thereof Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill or as the learned Divines of Paris g Leo 10. in quedam caetu nescimus qualiter tamen non in Spiritu Domini congregato App. Vniv Paris account it Conspiracie they being not assembled in Gods name abolished as much as in them lay the old and Catholike doctrine which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day and instead thereof erect a new faith yea a new foundation of the faith and with it a new Church also Hee and his Synod then reprobated h Quae de authoritate Concilij supra Pontificem constituerunt sententia CoÌ„c Lateranensis plane reprobata sunt Bin. Not. in Conc. Const § Ex parte the Decree of Constance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope they reprobated i Reprobarunt decre tum Concilij Basiliensis Bel. lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 17. § Denique also the Councill of Basil and the same Decree renewed by them That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum or k Conc. Lat. sess 11. Conventiculam quae nullum robur habere potuerit As a Conspiracie and Conventicle which could have no force at all They reprobated the l Ibid. Pragmaticall Sanction wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares together had beene imbraced and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day in reprobating it they rejected and reprobated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church In stead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be m Hujus sanctae sedis suprema authoritate Ibid. pa. 640. supreme that it is de n Ibid. necessitate salutis a thing necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the Pope and that not onely as they are severally considered but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill for they define Solum o Jbid. pa. 639. Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere The Pope alone to have authoritie above all Generall Councills This the Councill at Laterane diserte ex professo docuit taught cleerly and purposely as Bellarmine tells p Lib. 2. de Concil ca. 17. § Denique us nay they did not onely teach it but expressissimè definiunt q Lib. cod ca. 13. § Deinde they did most expresly define it And that their Definition is no other then a Decree of Faith as the same Cardinall assures us Decrees of faith saith he r Lib. â—â—d ca. 17. § Ad hunc are immutable neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus and such is this Decree for the Popes supreme authoritie over all even Generall Councils made in their Laterane Synod And what meane they thinke you by that supreme authoritie Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth That because his authoritie is supreme therefore his judgement s Proinde ultimum judicium summi poÌ„tificis esse lib. 4. de Rom. pontif ca. 1. § Sed nec in causes of Faith is the last and highest and because it is the last and highest therefore it is t Restat igitur ut Papa sit Index ultimus et proinde noÌ„ possit errare Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 3. § Contra. Et DicuÌ„t Concilij sententiam esse ultimuÌ„ judicium Hinc autem apertissimè sequitur non errare Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 3. § Accedat infallible So by their Decree together with supremacie of authority they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope and defined that to be a catholike truth and doctrine of Faith which the whole Church in all ages untill then taught professed and defined to be an heresie and all who maintaine it to be Heretikes and for such condemned both it and them 34 Now because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith but the very foundation on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie by decreeing this they have quite altered not onely the faith but the whole frame and fabricke of the church erecting a new Romane church consisting of them and them onely who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod a church truly new and but of yesterday not so old as Luther a church in faith and communion severed from all former generall Councils Popes and Bishops that is from the whole catholike Church of Christ which was from the Apostles times untill that day And if their Popes continue as it is to be presumed they doe to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe to hold among other this fift Councill ad unum iôta this certainly is but a verball no cordiall profession there neither is nor can be any truth therein it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to be hereticall as the fift Councill defined and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such causes to be infallible as their Laterane Councill decreed So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe such as none can possibly beleeve and withall new such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced untill that very day of their Laterane Session 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of v In Appel à Leon. 10. quae facta est 21 die Mart. an 1517. Decret
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 y Gloriosiss Iudices dixerunt Theodoretus in locum accusatoris nunc ingressus est unde patiamini ea quae inchoata sunt finiri reservata post hac omni accusatione et vobis et illi Conc Chal. Act. 1. pa. 6. a. 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 z Act. 8. Conc. Chal. 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 a Nihil relegi volumus anathematizet Nestorium Ib. refused he purposed at large by words b Ego inquit Theoretus quomodo credo c. Ibid. 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 said omnis dubitatio now all doubt is quite taken away concerning Theodoret and then the Synod both received him into their communion as an orthodoxe and restored him to his See from which in the Ephesine latrocinie hee was deposed they all crying out Theodoret is worthy of his See let his Church receive their orthodoxall Bishop To Theodoret a Catholike Doctor let the Church be restored 10. What greater detestation of heresie could the Synod possibly shew what greater tokens of the sinceritie of his faith could either Theodoret expresse or the Synod require It was too great rashnesse if not simplicitie in Vigilius to collect that the holy Councell did dissemble in their faith because they received him who had sometimes swarved in the faith The hereticall Theodoret they exclude and reject the orthodoxall Theodoret they reverence and embrace That which Saint Austen c Aug. lib. 2. de Adulter conjug ca. 9. saith in another cause that the husband who had put away his adulterous wife ought againe to receive her being purged by unfained repentance but so receive her non ut post viri divortium adultera revocetur sed ut post Christi consortium adultera non vocetur that same may bee accommodated to any other offence and not unfitly to this of heresie and the repentant hereticke whom they before for that cause had from themselves disioyned but they neither call nor count him an hereticke whom Christ hath now upon his repentance unto himselfe conjoyned So neither is the Popes reason consequent that the Councell did dissemble in their receiving of Theodoret nor his conclusion true which he would thence inferre that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill and the Catholike faith 11 The second personall matter which Vigilius taketh for another ground of his decree is that neither Theodoret himselfe did nor did the Councell of Chalcedon require him to anathematize his writings d Vig. Const nu 180. There was saith he divers in the Councell of Chalcedon who said that Theodoret had anathematized Cyrill and was an heretike yet those holy Fathers most diligently examining this cause of Theodoret nihil aliud ab eo exigisse noscuntur are knowne to have required no more of him than that hee should anathematize Nestorius and his impious doctrines hoc sibi tantummodo sufficere judicantes judging this alone to be sufficient for them to receive Theodoret. Now it is unfit saith e Ibid. nu 181. he further nos aliquid quaerere velut omissum à patribus that we should seek or require more than did the Councell of Chalcedon as if they had omitted any thing in this cause of Theodoret seeing then they required no anathematizing of his writings against Cyrill neither ought any others to anathematize or require of any the anathematizing of the same 12. As you saw Vigilius in the former Chapter to use haeretica astutia so may any man here easily discerne that hee useth an evident and fallacious sophistication The Councell indeed required not that nor did Theodoret in explicite or expresse termes performe it saying I anathematize my owne writings against Cyrill but in implicite termes in effect and by an evident consequent both the Councell required and Theodoret performed this before them all for hee subscribed f Ego autem et definitioni fidei subscripsi ait Theod. in Conc. Chal. Act. 8. to the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon one part of that definition is the approveing g Approbamus Synodicas Epistolas Cyrilli Conc. Chal. Act. 5. in definit of the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill a part of one of those Epistles h Nam continentur in Epist Cyrilli et Conc. Alexand. ad Nestorium quae extat inter acta Concilij Ephes to 1. Act. ca. 14. et repetitur in Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 568. et seq are the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which Theodoret refuted in every one of those chapters is an anathema denounced to the defenders of the contrarie doctrine Then certainely Theodoret by subscribing to the definition subscribed to the Epistles of Cyrill by them to the twelve chapters and by doing so he condemned and anathematized all who oppugned those twelve chapters and then undoubtedly his owne writings which were published as a confutation of those twelve chapters And it seemes strange that Vigilius professing that Theodoret did devota mente suscipere with a devout affection receive and approve the Epistles of Cyrill and the doctrine of them could deny or be ignorant that in doing so he did anathematize his owne writings which by the twelve chapters of Cyrill are anathematized 13. Besides this how often how plainely doth the Councell of Chalcedon i Act. 8. require and urge Theodoret to anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines how willingly did Theodoret performe this What else is
of Rome and members thereof professe to hold the faith of the fift generall Councell and so professe implicitè the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and hereticall but they lye in making this profession for they beleeve not the Popes sentence in such causes to be fallible but with the Laterane and Trent Councels they hold it to be infallible It is the practice of all heretikes to make such faire though lying professions For should they say in plaine termes that which is truth indeed wee beleeve not the scriptures nor the Councells of Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon every man would spit at them and detest them cane pejus angue nor could they ever deceive any or gaine one proselyte But when they commend their faith that is their heresie to be the same doctrine with the scriptures which the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon taught by these faire pretences and this lying profession they insinuate themselves into the hearts of the simple deceiving hereby both themselves and others 16. The other consequent is this That the profession of all heretikes is contradictory to it selfe For they professe to hold the scriptures and so to condemne every heresie and yet withal they professe one private doctrine repugnant to scripture and which is an heresie The like may be said of the Councells The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice professe Christ to bee but one person and yet withall by holding Nestorianisme they professe Christ to be two persons The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Councell of Ephesus professe two natures to remaine in Christ after the union which in that Councell is certainly decreed and yet by professing the heresie of Eutyches they professe the quite contradictory that one nature onely remaines after the union The Church of Rome and members thereof by professing the faith of the fift Councell professe the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and de facto to have beene hereticall and yet they professe the direct contradictory as the Councell of Laterane hath defined that the Popes sentence in such causes is infallible and neither hath beene nor can be hereticall So repugnant to it selfe and incoherent is the profession of all heretikes that it sighteth both with the truth and with it owne selfe also The very same is to be seene in Vigilius and his Constitution For in professing to defend the three Chapters and in decreeing that all shall defend them he professeth all the blasphemies of Nestorius and decreeth that all shall maintaine them and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon and decreeing that all shall hold it hee professeth that Nestorianisme is heresie and decreeth that all shall condemne it for heresie and so decreeing both these he decreeth that all men in the world shall beleeve two contradictories and beleeve them as Catholike Truths Such a worthy Apostolicall decree is this of Vigilius for defending whereof Baronius doth more then toyle himselfe 17. You will againe demand Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainely professe both these why shall not his expresse profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon make him or shew him to bee a Catholike rather then his other expresse profession to defend the Three Chapters make or shew him to bee an hereticke Why rather shall his hereticall then his orthodoxall profession give denomination unto him I also demand of you Seeing every hereticke in expresse words professeth to beleeve the whole Scripture which is in effect a condemning of every heresie why shall not this orthodoxall profession make or shew him to be a Catholike rather then his expresse profession of some one doctrine contrarie to Scripture say for example sake of Arianisme make or shew him to bee an Arian hereticke The reason of both is one and the same Did an Arian so professe to hold the Scriptures that hee were resolved to forsake his Arianisme and confesse Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this certainely his professiō of Arianisme with such a professiō to hold the Scriptures could not make him an hereticke no more then Cyprians profession of Rebaptization or Irenees of the millenarie heresie did make them heretikes Erre hee should as they did but being not pertinacious in error hereticke hee could not be as they were not But it falls out otherwise with all heretickes They professe to hold the Scripture yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintaine That they will hold and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrarie even of the Scriptures themselves They resolve of this that whosoever Bishops Councells or Church teach the contrarie to that or say judge that the Scripture so teacheth they all erre or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures Thus did not Cyprian nor Irenee And this wilfull and pertinacious resolution it is which evidently sheweth that in truth they beleeve not the Scriptures but beleeve their own fancies though they say a thousand times that they beleeve and embrace whatsoever the Scriptures teach for did they beleeve any doctrine say Arianisme eo nomine because the Scripture teacheth it they would presently beleeve the contrarie thereunto when it were manifested unto them as is was to the Arians by the Nicen Coūcell that the Scripture taught the contrarie to their error Seeing this they will not doe It is certaine that they hold their private opiniō eo nomine because they will hold it and they hold it to bee the doctrine of scripture not because it is so but because they will have it to bee so say what any will or can to the contrarie So their owne will and not Scripture is the reason why they beleeve it nay why they hold it with such a stiffe opinion for beleife it is not it cannot be This pertinacie to have beene in the Nestorians Eutycheans and the rest is evident Had they beleeved as they professed the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus then upon manifestation of their errors out of those Councels they would have renounced their heresies but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ notwithstanding that the whole Councell of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Councel held but one person and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union notwithstanding that the whole Councell at Chalcedon manifested unto them that the holy Ephesine Synod held two natures to abide in him after the union they did hereby make it evident unto all that they so professed to hold those Councels as that they resolved not to forsake their Nestorian and Eutichean heresies for any manifestation of the truth or conviction of their error out of those Councels and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said we hold those Councels and will have them to
that curse of the generall Councel The second that both Facundus Baronius do quite mistake the matter in carping at the Emperour as if by his Edict or in condemning those Three Chapters he had taught or published some new doctrine of faith he did not He taught and commanded all others to embrace that true ancient and Apostolicall faith which was decreed and explaned at Chalcedon as both the whole fift Councell witnesseth which sheweth that all those Chapters were implicitè but yet truly and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chalcedon and Pope Gregorie also testifieth the same saying of this fift Councell that it was in omnibus sequax in every point a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon This the religious Emperour wisely discerning did by his imperiall edict and authoritie as Constantine and Theodosius had done before him ratifie that old and Catholike faith which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time The third speciall point which I observe is that which Baronius noteth as the cause why Pope Vigil was so eager against the Emperor and his edict And what thinke you was it Forsooth because Iustinian primus m An. 553. nu 237. legem sancivit was the first who made a law and published a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters Had the Pope first done this and Iustinian seconded his holinesse therein hee had beene another Constantine a second Theodosius the dearest child of the Church But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope or make any lawes concerning the faith before they consult with the Romane Apollo or make him acquainted therewith that 's n Vel si rectum fuisset recte non fieret quia nulli Regum hinc aliquid agere sed solis est sacerdotibus datum Facund Bar. an 547. nu 35. Imperator est fidem coram sacerdotibus profiteri non eandem praescribere sacerdotibus Bar. ibid. piaculum a capitall a◠irremissible sinne the Pope may not endure it So then is was neither zeale not pietie nor love to the truth but meere stomacke and pride in Vigilius to oppose himselfe to the Emperours edict and make an insurrection against him A sory reason God wot for any wise man in the world much more for the Pope to contradict the truth and oppugne the Catholike faith Now if Iustinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and pietie tending wholy to the good and peace of the Church if hee could not escape so undutifull usage at the Pope his orators in those better times religious Kings may not thinke it strange to finde the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these dayes and their instruments men so exact and eloquent in reviling that in all such base and uncivill usage they goe as farre beyond Facundus Tertullus and them of former ages as drosse or the most abject mettle is inferiour to refined gold This is the first Period and first judgement of Vigilius touching this cause of the three Chapters in defence of which and oppugning of the Emperours edict hee continued more then a yeare after the publishing of the Edict even all that time while hee remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperour 6. As soone almost as Vigilius was come to Constantinople and had saluted the Emperor and conferred with them who stood for the Edict he was quite another man he changed cum caelo animum the aire of the Emperors Court altered the Popes judgement and this was about a yeare after o Edictū editū fuit anno 546. Bar. eo anno nu 8. Constantinopolin ingressus est an 547. propediē Natalis Domini Bar. an illo nu 26. the publishing of the Edict Now that all things might be done with more solemnitie and advise there was a Synod p Bar. an eod nu 31. 32. held shortly after his comming at Constantinople wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters and consented to the Emperors Edict This Facundus expresly witnesseth saying q Ibid. nu 37. How shall not this bee a prejudice to the cause if it bee demonstrated that Pope Vigilius with thirty Bishops or therabouts have condemned the Epistle of Ibas approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and anathematized that Bishop Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the praises whereof are set downe in that Councell Thus Facundus Besides all this Vigilius was now so forward in this cause that as before he had written bookes against the Edict in defence of the three Chapters and excommunicated those who condemned those Chapters so now on the Emperors side he writ bookes and gave judgement for the condemning of those Chapters and excommunicated some by name Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons because they would not condemne them None can deny saith Baronius d An. 547. nu 40. that Vigilius writ a booke against the three chapters and sent it unto Mennas Bishop of Constantinople Again there e Ibid. is certaine proofe latae ab eo sententiae of the sentence of excommunication pronounced by Vigilius against Rusticus Sebastianus and other defenders of those chapters and this is so cleare ut nulla dubitatio esse possit that there can be no doubt at all but that Vigilius approved by a Constitution the Emperors sentence and condemned the three Chapters So Baronius The Epistles of Vigilius doe testifie the same In that f Extat in Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578. to Rusticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention Iudicati nostri Constituti nostri of our judgement of our constitution against the three chapters concerning which he addeth g Ibid. pa. 580. that it was ratified by his Apostolicall authority saying that no man may doe contra constitutum nostrum quod ex beati Petri authoritate proferimus against this our Constitution which we set forth by the authority of Saint Peter The like hee testifieth in his Epistle h Ibid. to Valentinianus We beleeve saith he that those things may suffice the children of the Church which we writ to Mennas concerning the blasphemies of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and his person concerning the Epistle of Ibas and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith Thus Vigilius consenting now with the Emperor defending his Imperiall Edict and condemning the three Chapters in all which his profession was Catholike and orthodoxall 7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution become orthodoxall though as it seemeth he remained in heart hereticall hee fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters that they i Bar. an 547. nu 49. did proclamare proclame him to be a colluder a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith one who to please the Emperour revolted from his former judgement yea the Africane k In Chron. an 10. post Coss Basilij Bishops proceeded so farre against him that as Victor
this one cause touching the Three Chapters and this fift Councell besides many the like demonstratively to be proved untrue and false I speake it confidently and within compasse in six hundreth sayings at the least yet that they may not say wee decline the force of this so pregnant an exception we will for a little while admit and suppose it to bee true and try whether by this being yeelded unto them there can accrew any advantage to their cause or any help to excuse either Vigilius himselfe or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters from being hereticall 13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fift Councell and approved the Catholike faith Be it so we deny not but that Vigilius or any other of their Popes may decree and have decreed a truth that 's not the doubt betwixt us and them The question is whether any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedrall authoritie and teaching as Popes decreed an heresie or untruth That Pope Vigilius did so his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters is an eternall witnes against them a monument aere perennius Had Baronius said that Vigilius never decreed the defending of those Chapters he had fully cleared him in this matter if he could have proved what he had said But seeing undeniable records testifie and the Cardinall himselfe with a Stentors voice proclameth this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius though hee had revoked and repealed it a thousand times yet can not this quit his former Apostolicall Decree from being hereticall nor excuse their pontificall chaire from being fallible It is nothing at all materiall which of the Popes Cathedrall Decrees the first last or middle bee hereticall If any one of them all bee wee desire no more the field is wonne 14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolicall decree confirmed the fift Councell Then did hee certainely decree that all writings defending the Three Chapters doe defend heresie and that all persons who defend those Chapters for so long time as they defend them after the judgement of that Councell are convicted and condemned hereticks Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius set forth by his Apostolicall authoritie in the time of the Councell in defence of those Chapters is now by Popes Vigilius himselfe and by his Apostolicall authority and infallible Chaire declared to bee hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for that yeare after the Councell is now by Vigilius himselfe pronounced to bee an Hereticke yea a definer of heresie Vigilius now orthodoxal decreeth himselfe to have been before heretical Nay it further followeth that by confirming that Councell hee confirmeth and that by an Apostolicall and infallible Decree that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith to bee infallible are convicted and accursed heretickes for by defending that position they do eo ipso defend that ConstitutioÌ„ of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to bee true infallible and orthodoxall which Vigilius himselfe by an infallible decree hath declared to bee erroneous and hereticall So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause that upon the admission thereof it doth inevitably ensue both that Vigilius was an hereticke and a definer of heresie and that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibitie in causes of faith that is al who are members of their present Romane Church to bee not onely heretickes and for such condemned and accursed but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresie even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius 15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might bee excused being now fully dissolved There remaineth one point which Baronius and after him Binius observeth touching this often changing of Vigilius which being a point of speciall note I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should over-passe the same Some men when they heare of these often changings windings and turnings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresie will perhaps imagine this to bee a token of some levitie unconstancie or folly in the Pope O fie It was not so saith o Cum saepe sententia mutavit haud arguendus est levitatis an 553. nu 235. Baronius What hee did was not onely lawfull p Cur ei noÌ„lleuit mutato rerum statu mutare seÌ„tentiam ibid. nu 231 jure meritoque mutavit sententiam Bin. § Cum igitur done by good right and reason but it was laudable also done with great q Vigilius magna consideratione adhibita atque prudentiâ diverso modo pugnabat an â—4â— nu â—0 advise wisedome and consideration Vigilius a man of r Summa constaÌ„tiae specimen edidit ibid. nu 49. greatest constancie One who stood Å¿ An. 551. nu 5. up with courage for defence of the Church adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem against Iustinian a violent oppressor thereof one t An. 553. nu 251. who fought for the sacred lawes enduring exile constanti animo with a constant minde for the same One who did by this meanes wisely u An. 547. nu 41. yea prudentissimè most wisely provide for the good of the Church One who in thus doing did wisely x PrudeÌ„s piuâ— pontifex hac in re prudenter est imitatus S. Paulum Bin. in Edict nu 11. to 2. pa. 499. §. Cum Bar. an 553. nu 235. imitate Saint Paul who condemned circumcision and yet when hee circumcised Timothie approved circumcision And though there bee a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions the one change being in a mutable at that time an indifferent ceremonie the other being in an immutable doctrine of faith Yet thus do they please themselves and applaud the Pope in these his wise and worthy changes 16. Now in stead of a better conclusion to this Chapter I will entreate the reader to observe with me two things touching their commending Vigilius in this manner The former is what an happie thing it is to be a Pope or have a Cardinall for his spokesman Let Luther Cranmer or a Protestant make farre lesse change theÌ„ did Vigilius what shall they not heare An Apostate unconstant inconsiderate a Chamelion a Polipus another Proteus even Vertumnus himselfe Let the Pope say and gainesay the same doctrine of faith and then ex Cathedra define both his sayings being contradictorie to bee not onely true but infallible truths of the Catholike faith O It is all done with rare wisdome with great reason and consideration The Pope in all this deales wisely and that in the superlative degree If when he is absent from the Emperor he oppugne the truth published by the Emperors edict It is wisely done Kings and Emperors may not make Lawes in causes of faith no not for the faith The Cobler must not goe beyond his latcher If when hee is brought before the Emperor he sing
Councell that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian In that Councell n Conc. 6. Act. 3. a sermon or speech going under the name of Mennas to Vigilius was produced as a part of the Acts of the fift Councell the Legates of Pope Agatho cryed out before the Emperor and the whole Councell that it was a forgery which they proved o Eo argumento manifestissimè comprobarunt quod Mennas sex annis ante quintam Synodum sub Vigilio celebratam ex hac vitâ migrasset Bin. not in Conc. 6. in Act. 3. and that most manifestly because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian but the fift Synod was congregated in the 26 yeare which ended on the first of Aprill though the first Session of the Synod was not held till the May next after which was in the 27 yeare of Iustinian Thus testified the Popes owne Legates and the Emperour with the whole Synod upon their evidence rejected their writing for a forgerie 19. Said I not truly unto you that the Baronian narration was a peece of rare Poetry might not a meane Poet make an excellent Tragedy of it were it not a fine Pageant to see the Pope and so many Bishops sit in Vtopia and there make a law for Taciturnity the Emperour the Senate and people consenting unto it would it not bee another and farre more delightfull Act to see the Pope and Emperour quarrelling about this law the one beating buffeting and persecuting the other fleeing both by Sea and land from Placidiana to Saint Peter from him to Euphemia from Constantinople to Chalcedon what a sport were it to see the Romane Apollo ascend into his Delphian throne and thence as from Olympus cast his fierie darts his thunders and lightnings against that Typhoëan generation which durst speake when he enjoyned silence Now the embassage which the Emperour sent to Chalcedon to intreat his Holinesse to returne the magnanimity of the Pope in refusing to come from the Altar the Emperours yeelding to all that he prescribed this of it selfe would incourage a Poet and cause him to presume of an applause But the most rare Pageant of all would bee to see and heare Mennas foure yeares after he was dead and rotten to speake and dispute against the Decree of Silence the Silentes umbrae to declame against Silence to see him a Bishop a Patriarch at the voyce of the Popes sentence Audisne haec Amphiarai sub terram abditae to come ab inferis to come with a Bill of supplication in his hand with a song of Miserere in his mouth to the Romane Iove and intreat pardon for his talking so much in the grave and among the infernall ghosts against the Popes Decree of Silence after all this to see the Pope shake hands with him and all his Metropolitanes and Micropolitanes p Tu cum omnibus Metropolitanis et Micropolitanis Episcopis Vigil sententia apud Bar. an 551. nu 12. note the eloquence of the Pope and so after a most joyfull reconcilement to see the holy Reliques caried in a golden Chariot an excellent dumbe shew about the City and that by a dead man Can you doe lesse than give the Poet Baronius a Plaudite for his so rare invention or contriving of this Fable 20. Why but is it credible that Cardinall Baronius the great Annalist of our age hee who bestowed thirty q Hoc opus ante annos circiter 30 aggressus sum Bar. in praefat dedic ante tom 1. Annalium yeares in the study of these Ecclesiasticall affaires that hee should so foully be overseene in a computation so easie and so obvious as to thinke Mennas to bee excommunicated to come with a supplication to the Pope and to ride in a triumphant Chariot with those holy reliques foure or five yeares after he was dead and rotten Overseene nothing lesse It was no ignorance no oversight in him he knew all this matter ad unguem hee knew that Mennas was dead long before that submission and triumph But the Cardinall was disposed either to recreate the reader with the contemplation of this his Poetical fiction or else for to shew you that with the charme of those forgeries and counterfeit writings with which he hath stuffed his Annals hee is able to metamorphoze all other men into very blocks and beetles that they shall applaud his most absurd dotages as undoubted and historicall truths which that every man may perceive it must be observed that though in this place where the cause betwixt Vigilius and the Emperor is debated the Cardinall is content that you should thinke Mennas to have been alive in the 26. r Hoc anno 26. Iustiniani finem vivendi fecit Mennas Bar. an 552. nu 21. year of Iustinian that is five years after he was dead for otherwise all his narration even the whole play had been spoiled there had neither beene any Decree of Silence nor any persecution by Iustinian nor any flight of Vigilius nor any excommunication of Mennas or Theodorus nor any submission of them and of the Emperour also to the Pope the Pope had not beene knowne to bee so farre above Bishops Patriarks and Emperours that they must all stoope to him and laying their necks at his feet say unto him Calcate me salem insipidum punish me as you please for speaking without your Holinesse leave and licence yea that Kings must pull downe abrogate and adnull their imperiall Edicts if the Pope doe but becke unto them though for these considerations hee is here willing that you beleeve that untruth concerning Mennas for all these depend on that one sentence of Anathema against Mennas yet when this matter is over-past when the Cardinall comes to a new argument where hee hopes this which is said about the cause of Vigilius wil be forgotten there he confesseth the truth indeed concerning Mennas and tels you a quite contrary tale For intreating of the Acts of the sixt Councel particularly of that reason of the Popes Legates against the forged Epistle in Mennas name he thus ſ Bar. an 680. nu 46. saith Ejusque rei certum illud attulerunt argumentum quod Mennas diem obijt anno 21 Iustiniani Imperatoris The Legates give a certaine proofe that the writing was forged because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian the Emperour Loe the Cardinall knew and professeth it to bee not onely true but certaine that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian and yet against his owne certain knowledge for maintaining this fictitious Decree of Silence and the fables thereon depending he perswades you to beleeve that Mennas dealt against this Decree was excommunicated by Vigilius and submitted himselfe to the Pope and rode with the relikes five yeares after he was dead 21. Truly this was scarse faire and honest dealing in the Cardinall by untruths to strive to bolster out forged Acts and writing But the Cardinals Annals are so full of such like stuffe
condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also u Bar. an 553. nu 222. moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts x Conc. 5. Coll. 1. 7. Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor y Vict. in Chron. an 16. corruptè legitur 17. post Coss Basilij who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or
not hold Let us consider the Exception it selfe Vigilius writ this Epistle that is confessed hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope that wee have proved hee defined heresie in it and that which is against the faith that Bellarmine implyeth hee condemned in it the Catholike faith that Bellarmine in plaine words expresseth Thus far the cause is cleare Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined heresie and condemned the Catholike faith as he was Pope or no that is the point here to be debated 43. Some may thinke that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawne from secresie and an ambitious minde by which he laboured before to prove that Vigilius did not condemne the faith ex animo meant also that he condemned it not as Pope for it followeth in the next sentence siquidem Epistolam scripsit as giving a reason of his saying If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort then his reasons are before hand refuted for as Vigilius might ex animo write heretically both privately and out of ambition so also might hee tanquam Pontifex condemne the faith notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambitious mind secrecy and an ambitious mind are no more repugnant to the one than to the other they are compatible with them both the Pope may use his Apostolicall authority in teaching as wel privately as publikely as well with Iudas in ambition as with Iohn or Peter in sincerity of heart But the Cardinals Apologist who it may be consulted with the Cardinall about his intent herein doth ease us of those reasons for hee i Gretz loc cit tels us plainly that from Vigilius his desire of secrecie nil aliud colligit Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else but this that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò that hee did it not in earnest It is but a sport with Gretzer or with the Pope to condemne the Catholike faith they doe it but they doe it not in earnest they doe it jocularitèr not seriò Have ye indeed such May-games sports at Rome as to condemne the faith and then say I was in jest and in sport Are not these men new Philistines Call in Sampson Condemne the Catholike faith to make us pastime But let us leave them to their sports till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and dolefull end both of their actors spectators That which I now note is that Bellarmine doth not in those words Siquidem Epistolam scripsit c. from the privatenesse or secrecy prove any thing else but that Vigilius writ it not seriò in earnest and from his heart that hee writ it not tanquam Pontifex this those words prove not Bellarmine in those words collects not So we have now nothing but the bare saying of Bellarmine without any proofe without any reasons and I must needs confesse I hold it a most sufficient encounter for any man to Bellarmines ipse dixit to oppose ipse dico yet because I desire rather to satisfie such as seeke the truth then contend with those who seeke to smother and betray the truth I will a little further enlarge this point and see if it may be cleared by evidence of reason that Pope Vigilius did not onely condemne the Catholike faith at that time but that he did it even as hee was Pope and tanquam Pontifex condemne the Catholike faith 44. What it is for a Pope to teach an errour as Pope may be perceived by other Arts and Sciences in the practice or exercise whereof together with knowledge judgement and skill fidelity also is required were Baronius or some Romane Facundus to examine this point they would quickly sute the Pope to some Cobler Pedler or such like companion I love not to deale so rudely with his Holinesse yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way you know how the Cardinall quitted the religious Emperour with Ne ultra crepidam If a Physitian or Lawyer or Iudge in any discourse should speake barbarously or incongruously they erre therein but as Grammarians not as Iudges Lawyers or Physitians But if a Iudge for any sinister respect should pronounce that sentence as just which is against the law or if a Lawyer should after his diligent sifting of the cause affirme that title to bee sound which were clearely voide in law or if a Physitian should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet each of them now erred offended in his owne profession in that proper duty which belongeth to them the Iudge as a Iudge the Counsellor as a Counsellor the Physitian as a Physitian because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wherin they professe both to know themselves and to make knowne unto others what is right and good If in other matters they transgresse it is not quatenus tales if any of them bee prophane covetous or intemperate they offend now quatenus homines as they are mortall men in those duties of morality which are common to them with all men If they bee seditious rebellious and conspire in treasonable practice they offend quatenus Cives as they are parts of the Common-wealth in those duties which are common to them with all subjects but when they offend in Physick law or judgment those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences they then offend neither quatenus homines nor quatenus Cives nor in any other respect but quatenus tales as they are such professors for now they transgresse against those proper duties which as they are Iudges Counsellors or Physitians are required of them The like of all Artificers of Grāmarians Logicians Poets Philosophers of Presbyters of Bishops of the Professors of Theology which is scientia scientiarum is to bee said If a Divine shall speake rudely incongruously ad populum Antiochenum he offends as a Grammarian not as a Divine unlesse perhaps it bee no fault when it doth so happen for edification that hee ought so to speake as Saint Austen k Aust lib. 4. de doct Christ ca. 16. et Tract 7. in Johan did use divers barbarismes and say ossum for os floriet for florebit dolus for dolor Malo me populus I had rather edifie with rudenesse of words than speake nothing but pure Ciceronian without edifying them without honouring God But if a Bishop or any Divine in stead of truth teach heresie either because hee knowes not the truth or knowing it oppugnes the truth hee is now in his owne element he offends no longer as a Rhetorician or Grammarian but quatenus talis as hee is a Bishop as hee is a Divine as hee is one who both should know and bring others to the knowledge of the truth And this beside that by reason it is evident is grounded on that saying of Austen l Aug. Epist 50. Aliter servit Rex qua homo aliter qua Rex for as a King serveth God
nobiscum convenire eo quod plurimi quideÌ„ hîc sunt Orientales Episcopi pauci vero cum eo Coll. 2. pa. 523. a. there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them another because v Dicebat sacere se per semetipsum in scriptis offerre Imperatori ideo enim inducias se postulasse ab ejus serenitate Ibid. he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing and offer it to the Emperor for which cause he had entreated respite for certaine dayes of his highnesse Both which were in truth nothing else but meere preteÌ„ces as the Bishops theÌ„ sent manifestly declared unto him For both the Emperor said they vult te in coÌ„muni convenire will have you to come together with the rest therefore he ought not to have given his senteÌ„ce alone but in common and in the Synod and for his other excuse Baronius x Eam suae absentia causam pratexuisse an 553. nu 36. himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence for so it was indeed seeing as the Bishops truly told y Nec in sanctis 4. Synodis multitudo Occidentalium Episcoporum inventa est unquam sed duo vel tres Episcopi Col. 2. pa. 523. b. him in none of the former Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops but onely two or three and some Clerkes whereas at that time there were present with the Pope at Constantinople z Nunc vero adsunt multi ex Jtalia Episcopi sunt etiam ex Africa ex Illyrico Ibid. many Italian Bishops others out of Africk others out of Illirium for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Councills whereupon they plainly and truly told a Ibid. Col. 2. the Pope to his face Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod together with us not sicknesse not want of Western Bishops Nihil est there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind So extraordinary respect had they of the Pope at this time and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say that they assembled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius 5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod and why Noluit interesse was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters He saw the Catholike Bishops then assembled to be bent and forward as their dutie was for condemning those Chapters which himselfe embraced and defended he therefore thought it fit to separate himselfe from them in place from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of saith he was so farre disjoyned and severed This to have beene the onely true cause of his wilfull absence and of his Noluit interesse the sequell of this Treatise will make most evident For this time it is sufficient by all those honorable invitations earnest perswasions and Imperiall commands to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence so he not onely was absent but in meere stomacke wilfulnesse and perversnesse absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIVS during the time of the fift Councill published his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters 1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Constantinople where the Councill was held by no intreaties perswasions nor Imperiall commands could be brought to the Synod having no other let as before was declared but his owne wilfulnesse the holy Synod resolved a Deo juvante futuro die convenientes quâ— oportet agemus Col. 2. in fine without him to debate and judge the Controversie then referred unto them And in truth what else was to be done in that case The Emperor commanded b Celeriter de â—bis quae interrogavimus vestram manifestate voluntatem Iust ep ad Synod Col. 1. pa. 520. b them not to delay nor protract the time but deliver a speedy yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause The necessity of the Church required this which was now in a general c Ob tria capitula fideles fuerunt scissi atque schismate separati Bar. an 547. nu 29. tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters The Nestorians on one side triumphed as if the Councill of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas and thereby confirmed their heresies The Acephali on another side rejected that Councill as favoring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze not knowing which way to turne themselves whether allow the Councill of Chalcedon with the Nestorians or with the Acephali reject it The Catholikes against all these Sectaries both defended the Councill of Chalcedon and yet rejected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters In such a generall rent and contention of all sides what delay could the Church endure which the Councill rightly considering d Nec enim justum est vel Jmperatorem vel fideleÌ„ populum ex dilatione scandalizari Co. 2. p. 533. b said That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scandalized And for the absence of Vigilius they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth e Alioqui si expectatus non mitteret vel non veniret vel nollet Concilium congregatum suae necessitati Ecclesiae saluti providera debet lib. 2. de Concord Cath. cap. 1. that if the Pope being invited did not or would not come or send to a Synod but wilfully refused to come in this case the Councill without him must provide for the peace of the Church and safety of the Christian faith They had a very memorable example hereof as yet but fresh before their eyes when the Popes legats being present at Chalcedon were f Regavimus dominos Episcopos de Roma ut communicarent ijs gestis Conc. Chalc. act 16. pa. 134. a. invited and intreated to be present at the Synod there held which was the very next before this at the debating of the right and preeminence of the Sea of Constantinople but wilfully refused to be there saying g Ibid. as Vigilius now did Non sed alia se suscepisse mandata No we will not come we have a contrary command from pope Leo yet that holy Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence and their determination notwithstanding the Popes absence was not onely declared h Viri illustrissimi Iudices dixerunt quod interlocuti sumus tota Synodus approbavit Ibid. pa. 137. b. by the most glorious Iudges to be just and Synodall but the same was both by that holy Synod and all other ever since held to be the
all who are members of the present Romane Church and so continue till their death nay they not onely accurse all such but further also even all who doe not accurse such And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them to the least iôta it in the last place followeth that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith and accursing for heretikes all who either by word or writing have or doe at any time hereafter defend the same and so presist till they dye nay not onely the accursing of all such but of all who doe not accurse them is warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by all generall Councils by all Popes and Bishops that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ 30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill Till then neither was the Popes authoritie held for supreme nor his judiciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible nay to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall and the maintainers of them to be heretikes For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill wherein these truths were decreed the same was expresly decreed by two generall Councils the one at Constance the other at Basil not long before m Conc. Basil sinitum est an 1442. id est an 74. ante concil Later that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill n Concil Basil in Decreto quinq conclus pa. 96. a. is supremum in terris the highest judgement in earth for rooting out of errors and preserving the true faith unto which judgement every one even the Pope o Cui quilibet etiamsi papalis status existat obedire tenetur Conc. Constant sess 4. et Bas sess 2. himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable p Debitè puniatur Conc. Const ses 5. Basil ses 3. by the same Consider beside many other that one testimony of the Councill of Basil and you shall see they beleeved and professed this as a Catholike truth which in all ages of the Church had beene and still ought to be embraced They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance for the supreme authority of a Councill to which the Pope is subject say q Sess 33. thus Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet although it is sufficiently evident by many declarations made both at Constance here at Basil that these are truths of the Catholike faith yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein This holy Synod doth define as followeth The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope declared in the generall Councill at Constance and in this at Basil est veritas fidei Catholicae is a veritie of the Catholike faith and after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that r Per Concilia generalia quae summi Pontifices Consistorialiter declaraverunt esse legitima etiam pro eo tempore quo ejusmodi declarationes ediderunt Conc. Basil pa. 144. a. Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say s Epist Conc. Basil pa. 100. b. thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith t Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas Ses 16. of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion v Jn sua adhaesione sess 16. his maximā adhaesionem x Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b. to the Council by which Adhesion as they teach y Sess 29. pa. 96. b. Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but z Jurabant ejus decreta defendere c. Sess 16. corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall a Haec veritas toties et tam solenniter per universam ecclesiam declarata est Epist Conc. Bas pa. 144. a. and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of b Jn decreto quinque conclus pa. 96. Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting c Hildebrandum sic gloriari solitum testatur Avent lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455. Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop d Poss Biblic in Nic. Cusano a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 e Obijt ann 1464. Poss Conc. autem finitum
declared most evidently that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae Apostolicae for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholike and Apostolike faith Facundus himselfe doth not onely affirme this but prove it also even by the judgement of Pope Vigilius Vigilius saith he ſ Lib 4. pro desens trium Capit apud Bar. an 546. nu 57. esteemed the condemning of these Three Chapters to be so hainous a crime that hee thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle Avoid prophane novelties of words and opposition of science falsely so called which some professing have erred from the faith And hereupon as if he meant 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 t Ibid. nu 58. is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed qua 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 know that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into u Vniversus fere orbis occidentalis ab orientali Ecclesia divisus erat Bin. not in S. Conc. §. Concilium 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 x Epist 7. §. Pensate 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 y Ibid. § Sed cur 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 anutter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved z Lib. 2. Ind. 10. Epist 36. 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 a Cap. 4. 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 b Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 12. § Quartū 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 anathematize 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 c Coll. 8. pa. 588. a. 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 d Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. 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 e Coll. 8. pa. that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum
consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only sights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that a Vigil Const apud Bar. an 553. nu 179. the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We b Ibid. nu 184. doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have c Sup. ca. 6. shewed was knowne and confessed because d Perspenimus si quid de his qui defuncti sum nunime reperiuntur in vita damnati Vig. loc cit nu 176. Quos vocat In pace Ecclesiae defunctos Ibid nu 179. 184. he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith e Iust Edict § Quod autem Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat f Iust ibid. eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which if received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might g Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. verbo Theodorus be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift h Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. a. Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth
in doctrinall as personall matters That Theodorus was dead is personall but that none after death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ b Vig. Const nu 179 eum non audemus damnare sententia wee dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the c Sanctissimorum Episcoporum hic coactorum caput Cyrillum c. Epist Synod Ephes to 4. Act. Conc. Ephes ca. 8. head of the generall Councell Proclus a most d Cyrill epist ad Acat in Con. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 543. a. Dominus meus sanctissimus Episcopus Proclus holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus e Lib. ca. 10. saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal f Rursumque haereticus blasphemus c. Bar. an 553. nu 120. et seq et Bin. pa. 595. et seq Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle g Pier. Hierog lib. 55. is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith h Jer. 9.3 they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed i Vig. Const nu 179 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree k Vig. Const nu 208 that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes l Vig Const nu 173. Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of
almost in the same words The author say they o Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. of this Epistle teacheth two natures one vertue one person one sonne Sed certum est quod pro personis naturas ponit affectualem unitatem dicit but it is certaine that he taketh the name of natures for persons and understandeth an affectuall unitie even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius whom this writer doth defend and praise Thus both the Emperour and the whole generall approved Councell witnesse Ibas to meane by two natures two persons and by one person one by affectuall not by personall unitie and they witnesse this not as a thing doubtfull or uncertaine but they seale it with a Certum est this is certaine 26. The Epistle it selfe doth so abundantly declare this truth that none I thinke but a Nestorian can make any doubt thereof Maris to whom Ibas writ this was a Nestorian hereticke The end of his writing was to confirme both Maris and the rest of that sect in their heresie Had Ibas writ this touching two natures and one person in an orthodoxall sense he had utterly condemned that same doctrine which he purposely commendeth he had overthrowne Nestorianisme which he by this Epistle meant to establish Againe how could hee have condemned Cyrill or the Ephesine Councell as hereticall had he beleeved the two natures to be personally united in Christ for that is the selfe same which Cyrill and the Councell defendeth Or how could he have commended Theodorus for a teacher of the truth who denies the personall and holds onely an affectuall unitie of those two natures had Ibas meant that there had beene a true personall and Hypostaticall union of them Take the words in the Nestorian sense there is a perfect harmonie in the whole Epistle take them in the orthodoxall sense the beginning will then jarre from the middle and end this makes a discord in the whole writing yea it makes the profession of Ibas to fight with the maine scope and purpose of Ibas 27. That one place in the end of the Epistle concerning the union makes this most evident Ibas saith that among other things Paulus Emisenus required and Cyrill consented to anathematize those who professe quia una natura est divinitatis humanitatis that there is one nature of the deitie and humanitie in Christ Had Ibas by one nature meant one essence so that both the humanitie and deitie were one essence why should they require Cyrill to anathematize that for neither Cyrill nor any Catholike ever affirmed there was onely one nature that is one onely essence in Christ But by nature Ibas understood Person and so its true that Cyrill taught one nature that is one onely person in Christ whereas Nestorius Ibas and all the Nestorians affirmed two such Natures that is two persons to be in Christ according to which sense Ibas saith that Paulus dealing with Cyrill to yeeld to Nestorianisme and on the behalfe of the Nestorians required him to anathematize those who say there is but one Nature that is but one person in Christ and he slanderously adds that Cyrill consented so to do that is that he subscribed indeed to all Nestorianisme and renounced the Catholike faith the decree of the Ephesine Councell and his owne twelve Chapters In which slanderous report Ibas insulting saith Non enim quisquam audet dicere quia una est natura None dare now say that there is one nature of the divinitie and humanitie one nature that is one essence no Catholike then or ever did say but none dare now say that there is one Nature that is one person in Christ which all Catholikes both then and ever said and this the very next words doe declare but now they doe professe to beleeve in templum in eum qui in hoc habitat in the temple and in him who dwelleth in the temple which was the very comparison of Nestorius p Si quis dixerit Christum Deum verum esse non potius nobiscum deum hoc est inhabitasse naturam nostra per id quod unitus est nostrae anathema sit Nestorius in anathematismo 1. coÌ„tra Cyrill anath §. 1. in Act. Conc. Eph 2. to. ca. 5. in Appen pa. 768. to expresse that the two natures in Christ are two persons as are the house and inhabiters and one not by personall but onely by affectuall unitie and cohabitation So cleere it is that Ibas by his confessing of two natures meant two persons and by confessing one person meant one by affection but not by personall union that is meant all in an hereticall and Nestorian sense and nothing in the true Catholike and orthodoxall meaning 28. But what seeke I further proofe of this matter seeing the fift Councell approved by the whole catholike Church hath defined the whole q Tota Epistola haeretica est Epistola per omnia contraria est definitioni a Synodo Chalced. factae Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. b. Epistle to bee hereticall accursing every one who defendeth it or any part of it An undeniable proofe not onely that the profession of Ibas made therein of two natures and one person is hereticall but that Vigilius and Baronius for this very point are anathematized by the whole Church because they defend that profession in this Epistle as Catholike and orthodoxall which by so many so evident demonstrations and even by the consenting judgement of the whole Church is condemned for hereticall And this I hope may suffice to explaine or illustrate the Popes meaning in the Position or conclusion which he undertakes to prove in his reason that Ibas was a Catholike in making this so orthodoxall and Catholike a profession in his Epistle of two natures and one person 29. Let us now come unto the reasons whereby our Author Vigilius proves this profession to be Catholike Those are specially three in which because they all depend on that which hath beene declared in the position we may be the more briefe The first is because Dioscorus r Dioscorus Ibam propter hanc specialiter fidei professionem qua duas naturas unam virtutem unam personam apertissimè confitâ—tur haereticum condeÌ„navit Const Vig. nu 195. and the Ephesine Latrocinie did judge both this profession of Ibas and Ibas himselfe for making this profession to bee hereticall propter hanc fidei professionem for this profession of two natures and one person he condemned and deposed Ibas Now the judgement of Dioscorus to have beene unjust and hereticall there is so doubt and therefore the confession of Ibas which hee condemned must be acknowledged as orthodoxall and Catholike as being repugnant to the hereticall doctrine of Dioscorus A very poore and silly collection for a Pope and I doubt not but Vigilius would have derided it had not Nestorianisme at this time bereft him of all sound reason and judgement Dioscorus and his Ephesine conspiracie maintained the heresie of Eutiches which denieth
r Eutiches dixit cōfitemur ex duabus naturis fuisse dominum nostrum ante adunationē post vero adunationē unam naturam confiteor Dioscorus Synodus Ephesina 2. dixit consentimus huic nos omnes Act. Conc. Ephes recitata in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa 28. b. two natures at all or any way either making one or two persons to be in Christ after the incarnation So whether one held the same two natures to make but one person as the Catholikes said or to make two distinct persons as the Nestorians affirmed it was all one to Dioscorus The very holding of two natures to bee in Christ either of those wayes made one an hereticke in the judgment of Eutiches Dioscorus and their Ephesine Synod The heresie of Eutiches did equally contradict both the Catholike truth and the Nestorian heresie because they both consented in one common truth that there are two distinct natures or essences abiding in Christ If this judgement of Dioscorus against Ibas will prove either him or his Epistle to be Catholike the very like effect it must have in Theodorus in Nestorius in all Nestorians and in all their writings they all with Ibas professe two natures to abide in Christ they all by the judgement of Dioscorus and his Synod are hereticall So either must Vigilius approve all Nestorians for Catholikes if this reason for Ibas bee effectuall or if they bee truly heretickes whom Dioscorus yet hath condemned as well as Ibas then is this his reason ineffectuall to prove from the condemnation of Dioscorus Ibas or his profession to be Catholike 30. His second reason is drawne from the likenesse and identitie of faith in Flavianus and Ibas damnat ſ Vigil Const nu 195. quoque propter duarum naturarum vocem Dioscorus did also or for the same cause condemne Flavianus for which Ibas was condemned to wit for professing two natures in Christ Seeing then it is knowne that the profession of Flavianus was Catholike the profession also of Ibas made in this Epistle being like to that of Flavianus must needes be Catholike My annotation on this reason of Vigilius is that it is inconsequent sophisticall and worth nothing at all Ibas indeede in words said the like with Flavianus but Flavianus said it in a Chatholike sense holding those two natures to make but one person or personall subsistence and Ibas said it in this Epistle in an hereticall sense holding those two natures to make two distinct persons or two personall subsistences To Dioscorus it was all one to say as Flavianus did or as Ibas in this Epistle doth for seeing they both jumpe in this that two natures or essences doe remaine after the incarnation they are both alike heretickes to Dioscorus though in truth the profession of Flavianus made him a Martyr and the profession of Ibas set down in this Epistle being in words the same make him an hereticke Or if Ibas be a Catholike for professing in words the same which Flavianus did then by this reason of our Author Vigilius Theodorus Nestorius and all the Nestorians are Catholikes because they all professe with Flavianus two natures and one person to be in Christ in the same manner as Ibas here doth 31. His third and last reason is drawne from the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon they t Vig. Const nu 195 condemned Dioscorus and Eutiches but they embraced Ibas an evidence that as they judged the profession of Dioscorus to be hereticall so they esteemed the profession of Ibas to be orthodoxall yea even this which he maketh in this Epistle for after that Cyrill had once explaned his Chapters which was before this Epistle was writ after that time in Catholicae fidei rectitudine ab eâdem Chalcedonensi Synodo judicatus est Ibas permansisse Ibas was by the Synod at Chalcedon judged to have continued in the right profession of the faith The only glosse fit for this reason is that it is fallacious untrue and slanderous fallacious for the Councell of Chalcedon received Ibas indeed but not for this profession made in his Epistle which that holy Councell both knew and condemned as hereticall but as before we have declared for his consenting to the Ephesine Councell and condemning of Nestorius first before Photius Eustathius before then themselves in the Councell at Chalcedon upon this whereby Ibas did intruth condemne his owne profession made in this Epistle and this whole Epistle upon this I say and not for professing in this Epistle two natures and one person was Ibas received by the Councell at Chalcedon untrue for neither did the Councell of Chalcedon judge Ibas to have beene a Catholike or hold the Catholike faith upon the declaration of Cyrils Chapters much lesse did they judge him to have continued ever after that time in the orthodoxie of faith slanderous for Vigilius by saying that the Councell of Chalcedon held Ibas for a Catholike upon or shortly after the declaration of Cyrils Chapters makes them all guilty of Nestorianisme long after that explanation did Ibas write this Epistle wherein all the blasphemies of Nestorius are maintained Had they judged him since that Explanation to be a Catholike they must approve this Epistle for Catholike and so prove themselves to be hereticall to be Nestorians Thus Vigilius to cloake his owne heresie would faine fasten it upon the holy Councell of Chalcedon which was so farre from partaking with Vigilius herein that by their definitive sentence this very u Tota Epistola haeretica est Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. b. professiō of two natures and one person made in this Epistle yea every part of this Epistle is condemned for impious and hereticall And this I hope may serve for an explanation of Pope Vigilius his third reason to prove Ibas a Catholike drawne from this profession of faith made in this Epistle untill some Annalist like Baronius will helpe us to a better Commentary 32. The second reason of Vigilius set downe in the words before recited to prove Ibas a Catholike is drawne from his approving of the Ephesine Councell at the judgement before Photius Eustathius He there saith Vigilius x In Const nu 194. most plainly approved the Ephesine Synod and the doctrines decreed therein he professed them to be equall to the Nicene decrees Photius the Iudge exceedingly commended Ibas that hee was so forward to professe the true faith and wipe away all suspition of heresie from him how could Ibas then be ought else but a Catholike who made such a Catholike confession Truely when Ibas made this confession before Photius and Eustathius there is no doubt but he was then a Catholike but Vigilius his purpose is to prove him to have beene a Catholike when he writ this Epistle ever x His Capitulis à Cyrillo explanatis devotè in ejus communionem concurrit Vig Const nu 193. post explanationem 12. Capitulorum Ibas professus est se habuisse Cyrillum
assent to their Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church but co nomine even for that very cause they are convicted condemned and accursed heretikes For the manifesting of which conclusion I will begin with that their fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith whereof before I have so often made mention And to prove the present Romane Church to bee hereticall herein two things are to be declared the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church the other that this doctrine is hereticall and for such condemned by the Catholike Church 7. For the former that the assertion of Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith is the doctrine of the present Romane Church I thinke none conversant in their writings will make doubt Give mee leave to propose some testimonies of their owne The Pope saith Bellarmine g Lib. 4. de pont ca. 3. §. Sic. when hee teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith nullo casu errare potest hee can by no possible meanes then erre And this as he saith is certissimum a most certaine truth and in the end hee addeth this is a signe Ecclesiam totam sentire that the whole Church doth beleeve the Pope to be in such causes infallible So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church The Iesuite Coster for himselfe and their whole Church saith We h Ench. tit de summo pont §. Fatemur doe constantly deny the Popes vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere to be able either to teach an heresie or to propose an errour to be beleeved When the Pope saith Bozius i Th. Boz lib 18. de Sig. Eccl. ca. 6. §. Sequitur teacheth the Church or sets forth a decree of faith Divinitùs illi praeclusa est omnis via God then stoppeth every way unto him which might bring him into errour Againe k Idem lib. 16. ca. 8. §. Rursus in making such decrees nunquam valuit aut valebit facere contra fidem he never was he never shall be able to doe ought against the faith We beleeve saith Gretzer l Def. ca. 3. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. §. Terius the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the m Idem def ca. 28. lib. 1. de pontif §. Quocirca gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra definiant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton n Relect. Cont. 3. qu. 4. §. Circa a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement o Rel. Conc. 6. q. 3. Art 5. §. Respondeo of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus p Loc. Theol. lib. 6. ca. 7. §. Quid. who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine q Lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca. 8. §. Excutimus It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth r Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 2. § Quarto St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he ſ In 2. 2. disp 1. q. 1. punct 1 part 30. that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine t Lib 2. de Conc. ca. 2 §. Ac ut doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth u Lib. de Eccles milit ca. 14. §. Nostra Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer x Def. ca. 10. lib. 3. de verb. Dei §. Iam. pa. 1450. that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe y Ibid. §. An. pd 1451. They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia z In 2. 2. disp 1. q. 1. By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius a Lib. 2. de sig eccl ca. 21. §. His. lib.
diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine k Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 3. § Secundo and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place l Praef. in lib de Pont. § Quae. he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I m Isa 28.16 1 Pet. 2.8 lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius n Ca. 6. pa. 255. he cals these positioÌ„s of the Popes supremacy CardineÌ„ fundamentuÌ„ summaÌ„ fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals o Lib. 4 Hier. ca. 6. § Habes the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth delare Coster observes p Euch ca. de sum Pont § Nequc that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings q Bell. li. 4. de Pont. ca. 1. et l. 2. de Conc. ca. 14. § Vltima et Gretz def ca. 1. lib. 1. de verbo Dèi pa. 16. that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The r Lib. de Eccl. milit ca. 10 § Ad haec tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The Å¿ Lib. de effect Sacr. ca. 25 § Tertium certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully t Lib. 6. de grat et lib. arb ca. 3. § At Catholici The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclâ—siam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatioÌ„ on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than StapletoÌ„ The externall testimony of the Church saith he u Tripl cont Whit. ca. 11. § Venies Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe x Dupl cont Whit. ca. 16. sect 4. the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe y Tripl ca. 16. § At qui. whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we z Relect. Cont. 4 q. 1 art 3. ad 8. beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles a Doct. Prin. lib. 8. ca. 21 § Hic when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place b Ca. Eod. § Adsecundam and againe in his Relections c Reâ— Cont 4. q. 3. art 2. ad 8. gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma atque principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both this it owne selfe note this especially and all other Articles of faith doe depend upon this all Articles of faith doe hang hoc unum praesupponunt they all praesuppose this and take it for granted This and much more hath Stapleton 16. But what speake I of Bellarmine or Stapleton though the latter hath most diligently sifted this cause This position that the Church is the last Iudge and so the lowest foundation of their faith is the decreed doctrine of their Trent Councell and therefore the consenting voyce of their whole Church and of every member thereof For in that Councell d Sess 4. § Praeterea the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures and by the like reason it is to judge of traditions and of the
relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we hold their foundation being not onely uncertaine but hereticall and Antichristian poysoneth all which they build thereon it being vertually in them all makes them all like it selfe uncertaine hereticall and Antichristian and so those very doctrines which in themselves are most certaine and orthodoxall by the uncertainty of that ground upon which and for which they are beleeved are overthrowne with us and all Catholikes it fals out otherwise Though such happen to erre in some one or moe doctrines of faith say in Transubstantiation Purgatory or as Cyprian did in Rebaptization yet seeing they hold those errors because they thinke them to be taught in the Scriptures and Word of God on which alone their faith relyeth most firmely and undoubtedly beleeving whatsoever is taught therein among which things are the contrary doctrines to Transubstantiatiō Purgatory Rebaptization such I say even while they doe thus erre in their Explicite profession doe truly though implicitè by consequent and in radice or fundamento beleeve and that most firmely the quite contrary to those errours which they doe outwardly professe and think they doe but indeed doe not beleeve The vertue and strength of that fundamentall truth which they indeed and truly beleeve overcommeth all their errours which in very deed they doe not though they thinke they doe beleeve whereas in very truth they beleeve the quite contrary And this golden foundation in Christ which such men though erring in some points doe constantly hold shall more prevaile to their salvation than the Hay and Stubble of those errours which ignorantly but not pertinaciously they build thereon can prevaile to their destruction and therefore if such a man happen to die without explicite notice and repentance of those errours in particular as the saying of Saint Austen k Lib. 1. de baptism ca. 18. that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecillity the same by his glorious Martyrdome was washed away perswades mee that Cyprian did and as of Irene Nepos Iustine Martyr and others who held the errour of the Chiliasts I thinke none makes doubt it is not to be doubted but the abundance of this mans faith and love unto Christ to whom in the foundation hee most firmely adhereth shall worke the like effect in him as did the blood of martyrdome in Saint Cypran For the baptisme of martyrdome washeth away sinne not because it is a washing in blood but because it testifieth the inward washing of his heart by faith and by the purging Spirit of God This inward washing in whomsoever it is found and found it is in all who truly beleeve though in some point of faith they erre it is as forcible and effectuall to save Valentinian l Ablutus ascendit quē sua fides lavit Amb. Orat. de obitu Valent. neither baptized with water nor with blood and Nepos m Qui jam ad quietem processit ait Dionys apud Euseb l. 1. ca. 23. baptized with water but not with blood as to save Cyprian baptized both with water and with blood Such a comfort and happinesse it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith 30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them Though they explicitè professe Christ to be God which is a most orthodoxall truth yet because they hold this as all other points upon that foundation of the Popes infallible judgement in causes of faith and in that foundation this is denyed Pope Vigilius by his Cathedrall Constitution defining Nestorianisme to be truth and so Christ not to be God it must needs be confessed that even while they doe explicitè professe Christ to bee God they doe implicitè in radice and in fundamento deny Christ to be God and because by the Philosophers rule they doe more firmely beleeve that foundation than they doe or can beleeve any doctrine depending thereon it must needs ensue hence that they doe and must by their doctrine more firmely beleeve the Negative that Christ is not God which in the foundation is decreed then they doe or can beleeve the Affirmative that Christ is God which upon that foundation is builded The truth which upon that foundation they doe explicitè professe cannot possibly be so strong to salvation as the errour of the foundation upon which they build it will be to destruction For the fundamentall errour is never amended by any truth superedified and laid thereon no more than the rotten foundation of an house is made sound by laying upon it rafters of gold or silver but all the truths that are superedified are ruinated by that fundamentall errour and uncertainty on which they all relye even as the beames and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottennesse and unsoundnesse which resteth in the foundation Or if they say that both the assertions which are directly contradictory are from that foundation deduced Caelestine and Leo decreeing the one that Christ is God as Vigilius decreed the other that Christ is not God then doth it inevitably follow that they can truly beleeve neither the one nor the other seeing by beleeving that foundation they must equally beleeve them both which is impossible Such an unhappy and wretched thing it is to hold that erroneous hereticall and Antichristian foundation of faith 31. My conclusion of this point is this Seeing we have first declared that all who are members of the present Romane Church doe hold the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith yea hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines faith and religion doth relye and seeing wee have next demonstrated this to be a fundamentall heresie and not onely an hereticall but an Antichristian foundation condemned by Scriptures by generall Councels by ancient Fathers and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church that now hence followeth which I proposed n Sup. nu 6. to prove that none is or can bee a member of their present Church but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretike by Scriptures generall Councels Fathers and by the uniforme consent of the Catholike Church An heretike first in the very foundation of his faith which
Augustine Saint Ierome Saint Ambrose Saint Leo Papius Theophilact Tertullian Eusebius Prudentius and others most excellent Divines And I take God and the whole Court of heaven to witnesse before whom I must render an account of this protestation that the same faith and religion which I defend is taught and confirmed by those Hebrew and Greeke Scriptures those Historians Popes Decrees Scholies and Expositions Councells Schooles and Fathers and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same Thus he 11. Did ever mortall man read or heare of such a braggadochio For learning and languages Ierome is but a baby to him more industrious and adamantine then Origen then Adamantius himselfe A shop a storehouse of all knowledge his head a Library of all Fathers Councels Decrees of all writings an Heluo nay a very hell of books he devoures up all Rabsecha Thraso Pyrgopolinices Therapontigonus all ye Magnificoes Gloriosoes come sit at his feet and learne of him the exact forme of vaunting and reviling What silly men were Eutiches Nestorius and the old heretikes they boasted but of one or two Councells All Councells all Fathers all Decrees all bookes writings and records are witnesses of his faith They sayd it he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven that all Scriptures Councels Fathers all witnesses in heaven earth and hell yea the Devill and all are his and confirme their Romane faith and condemne the doctrine of Protestants Alas what shall we doe but even hide our selves in caves of the earth and clifts of the rocks from the force and fury of this Goliah who thus braves it out in the open field as who with the onely breath of his mouth can blow away whole legions quasi ventus folia aut pannicula tectoria 12. But let no mans heart faint because of this proud anonymall Philistim Thy servant O Lord though the meanest in the host of Israel will fight with him nor will I desire any other weapons but this one pible stone of the judiciall sentence of the fift generall Councell against Vigilius This being taken out of Davids bagge that is derived from Scriptures consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding Catholike Councells and Fathers directly and unavoydably hits him in the forehead it gives a mortall and uncurable wound unto him for it demonstrates not onely the foundation of their faith to be hereticall and for such to bee condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church but all their doctrines whatsoever they teach because they all relye on this foundation of the Popes infallibility are not onely unsound and in the root hereticall but even Antichristian also such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholike faith This being one part of the Philistimes weapons wherein he trusted and vanted with his owne sword is his head the head and foundation of all their faith cut off so that of him and the whole body of their Church it may be truly said Iacet ingens littore truncus Avulsumque humeris caput sine nomine corpus 13. You see now how both ancient and moderne heretikes boast of Councells and therefore that the reason of Baronius is most inconsequent that Vigilius was no heretike because hee professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon Nay I say more though one professe to hold the whole Scripture yet if with pertinacy hee hold any one doctrine repugnant thereunto the profession of the Scriptures themselves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretike If it could then not any of the old heretikes would want this pretence or to omit them seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to beleeve the Scriptures and whatsoever is taught therein would this profession exempt one from heresie neither they nor wee should be or be called heretikes But seeing in truth they are and wee in their Antichristian language are called heretikes as Cyrill and the orthodoxall beleevers in his time were by the Nestorians it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures much lesse to hold one or two Councells as Vigilius did cannot free one from being an heretike 14. You will perhaps say can one then beleeve the whole Scripture and be an heretike or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon and be an Arian Eutychean or Nestorian heretike No verily for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresie seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l Lib. 2. de doct Christ ca. 9. all doctrines concerning faith are set downe and that also perspicuously therein so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ But it is one thing to professe the scriptures or those three Councells and say that he beleeves them which many heretikes may doe and another thing to beleeve them indeed which none can doe and be an heretike for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures cannot possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scriptures but such a man upon evident declaration that this is taught in them though before he held the contrary presently submits his wit and will to the truth which out of them is manifested unto him If this he do not he manifestly declareth that he holds his error with pertinacy and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures and so hee is certainly an heretike notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures which he falsly said he beleeved and held when in very truth he held and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them The very like must be said of those three Councells and them who either truly beleeve or falsly say that they beleeve the faith explained in them or any one of them 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent the former that all heretikes are lyars in their profession not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue and hereticall but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not but hold and that for a point of their faith the quite contrary All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scriptures and the doctrines therein contained and yet every one of them lye herein for they beleeve one if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed but they lyed in making this profession for they beleeved not one person but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell but they lyed in this profession for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ but one onely The Church
that if you divide them into foure parts I doe constantly affirme there is no more truth in three of those foure than you have seene to bee in this fable which from a most base forgery knowne also to the Cardinall for such hee hath commended for a grave and authentike history unto us And I should grow somewhat out of patience to see the Cardinall so grosly contradict both the truth and his owne writings also but that by my long and serious tossing of his bookes I perceive this is so familiar a tricke with him that for the usuall meeting of it I have long since forgotten to be angry with him for such pettie faults This I hope which hath beene declared will serve for a caveat unto all to take heed how they credit any matter whatsoever upon the Cardinals relation either it is in it selfe untrue or it springs from some untruth or by his purpose in relating it it is made to serve but for a pully to draw you into some untruth aut aliquis latet dolus either in the header taile there is a sting beleeve him not And I would also have added somewhat for Binius who in this t Bin. Not. in Vigilij sententiam contra Theodorum tom ◠Conc. pa. 504. as in other fancies and fables applauds Baronius but I suppose that as hee sucketh his errours from Baronius so hee will thinke that the refuting of Baronius is a sufficient warning for him to purge his Edition of the Councels from such vile and shamelesse untruths Thus much of that former point which concernes the second Period in Vigilius changings CAP. XVII That Vigilius neither by his Pontificall Decree nor so much as by a personall profession consented to or confirmed the fift Councell after the end thereof or after his supposed exile 1. THE other point proposed concernes that fourth and last change of Vigilius judgement whereby as Baronius a Cum vero Vigilius graviori damno universum Orientem ab Ecclesia Rom. divisum cerneret nisi Synodo quintae consentiret eam probavit Bar. an 553 nu 235. tels us he by his Apostolicall Decree b Vigilius abrogato quod pro 3. Capitulis ediderat Constituto quinta Synodo adversanti eandem Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit Bar. 554. nu 7. Vigilius hanc Synodum quintam suo Decreto suaque authoritate Pontificia confirmavit Bin. not in Conc. 5. § Praestitit et Decretū Vigilij vocat Bar. an 553. nu 231. confirmed the fift Councell when about a yeare Quo anno 554. Vigilius praecibus Narsetis liberatur exilio Bar. an 554. nu 1. necesse est dicere id à Vigilio factum id est quintam Synodum comprobatam hoc tempore an 554. cum ab exili◠solutus est Bar. ibid. nu 4. Idem ait Bin. not in Conc. 5. § Praestitit after the end thereof he returned out of exile That such a change of Vigilius can no way helpe Baronius or his cause though it should be granted unto him we have before d Sup. ca. 15. declared but because al which we then said was onely spoken upon a supposall and admission of this Baronian change we will now more nearly examine the whole matter and try whether there was indeed any such Decree ever made by Vigilius and whether he did at any time after the end of the fift Councell change his judgement in such sort that he became a condemner of the Three Chapters and an approver of the fift Synod And truly I could wish so much good to Vigilius as that there might appeare some cleare and ancient records to testifie his renouncing of heresie and condemning of his owne hereticall and Cathedrall decree published in the time of the Councell for defence of the Three Chapters But the truth is more precious unto me than the love of Vigilius or any Pope whatsoever because it is the truth alone which causeth me to discusse this point I must needs confesse that I can finde nothing at all which can effectually induce mee to beleeve it but there are many and pregnant reasons which inforce me to thinke that Vigilius never made any such Decree or Change as Baronius fancieth but that this whole fourth Period and change of Vigilius so gloriously painted out by Baronius is nothing else but another fiction and peece of the Cardinals owne Poetry which without all warrant or ground from any ancient writer hee like a Spider onely out of his owne braine hath woven and devised 2. That Vigilius made no such Decree the reason which Bar. gives in this very case may declare he to prove that Vigilius made not this decree either during the time of the Synod or shortly after the end thereof hath these words e Bar. an 553. nu 223. If Vigilius had then assented by his letters utique literae illae Actis fuissent intextae verily those letters purchased with so great labour would have beene inserted among the Acts of the fift Synod and a great number of copies would have been taken thereof spred abroad and made knowne to all Churches as well in the East as West even as the Epistle of Leo was because by those letters validarentur quae à Synodo sancita those things which the fift Synod had decreed the Pope contradicting them and thereby they being invalid should now be made of force the Pope consenting to them Thus Baronius Doth not the same reason as effectually prove that he made no such decree at al or not a yeare after as that he made it not within one or two moneths after the end of the Synod with what labour at what price would not the Bishops of the fift Synod have purchased that decree how gladly would they have annexed it to their Acts as the Decree of Leo is to the acts at Chalcedon How many copies and extracts would they have taken of it and dispersed them every where both in the West and East to testifie the truth of their Synodall judgement and that the infallible Iudge had consented to their sentence and confirmed the same Or would they have done this within a month and not a yeare after the end of the Synod what odds to the point in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo f Ea est Epist Leonis 61. quae incipit Omnem fraternitatem whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five g Conc. Chalc. desijt 28. Oct. Coss Martiano aut 1. Novemb. ut patet ex ult Sess Epistola vero Leonis scripta est 21. Martij Coss Opilione ut patet ex sine Epist moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod it is altogether as effectuall to prove he writ it not at all nor
into banishment or returning out of banishment or of his defending the three Chapters or of his condemning the same Chapters or of the Emperours either casting him into or releasing him from exile or of the fift Councell or of the end thereof and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilfull Chymick extract both that Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell was banished for defending the Three Chapters and after that banishment consented to the Synod and to condemne the three Chapters And see I pray you how the Chymick distills this If Liberatus saith he e Bar. an 554. nu 5. being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters had found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem persisting untill his death in that sentence which in his Constitution he had published for defence of the Three Chapters truly he would have praised Vigilius for a Martyr had he dyed in such sort But when he saith Vigilius was afflicted and not crowned planè alludit ad ejus exilium he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius and to his forsaking or revolt from that judgement after he came from banishment Thus doth the Cardinall glosse upon the words of Liberatus 32. See the force of truth The Cardinalls owne words doe most sully answer his owne doubt and explane that truth which hee wittingly oppugneth Had Liberatus found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem constant or persisting without any change or relenting in his defending the three Chapters untill his dying day then indeed Vigilius should have beene with Liberatus an obstinate defender of that sentence a glorious Martyr at the least a worthy Confessor and for that cause he should have beene condemned by Liberatus But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence wavering and unconstant therein turning his note as soone almost as he had looked the Emperour in the face Vigilius by reason of that change unconstancie and revolt from his opinion lost his Crowne and all his commendation with Liberatus not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell for defence of those Chapters and by his dying in that opinion Liberatus found Vigilius stantem morientem but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem he found him standing and dying but hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts to testifie that for five or six yeares together hee not onely was of a contrary judgement but did judicially and definitively decree the contrary and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters this so long discontinuance and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence for this cause he lost his Crowne and dyed non coronatus in the Kalender and account of Liberatus 33. I adde further that the words of Liberatus being well pondered doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters for no other then heretikes then oppugners of the Catholike faith and holy Councell of Chalcedon And for Vigilius while hee fought f Comptures Orthodoxi ipse Vigilius contra eadem Capitula asserta ab Imperatore insurrexere Bar. an 546. nu 38. on their side and against the Emperour they honoured g Vigilius arguit ut prophanas vocum novitates Facundi dictum apud Bar. an 546. nu 57. 58. him as a Catholike as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor and upon his comming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters then they held him for no other then a betraier h Ne Traditor videretur Facundi dictum de Vigilio apud Bar. an 547. nu 37. Collusorem Praevaricatorem conclamarunt Bar. an eod nu 49. vulgarunt vbique eum impugnare Concilium Chalcedonense Bar. an 550. nu 1. of the faith then an heretike then a backslider revolter and lapser from the faith and for such they adjudged and accursed him by name in their Africane i Vict. in Chron. an 9. post Cons Basil Synod at which it is most like that Liberatus being a man of such note for dealing in that cause was present upon his returning at the time of the fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith Had Vigilius after this revolted and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters and in that opinion dyed as out of Liberatus the Cardinall would perswade Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike for a lapser and relapser from the faith for one dying in heresie and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike a condemned heretike and to dye in heresie that hee dyed non coronatus would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie of one dying in heresie would he not much rather have said he dyed Damnatus condemned and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod and therefore utterly separated from God Who ever read or heard that one dying in heresie was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus 43. This will most clearly appeare if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts so also two rewards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith such as joyfully endure torments imprisonment exile and if need be even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith and these are called coronati The other is of those who being timerous and faint-hearted yeeld to deny the truth rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts they returne againe and openly professe that truth from which they had before lapsed and these are called Non coronati saved by repentance and returning to the truth but by reason of their former faintnesse and lapsing Not crowned Both of these are Orthodoxall and Catholikes both of them placed in the blessed house of God but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God For in my Fathers k John 14 2. house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre l 1 Cor. 15.41 differeth from another in
The Popes Approbation it is not but what it is which makes a generall Councell or Canon thereof to be an approved Councell or an approved Canon and for such to bee righly accounted is not so easie to explane This in an other Treatise I have at large handled to which if it ever see the light I referre my selfe yet suffer me to touch in this place so much as may serve to cleare this and divers other doubts which are obvious in their writings concerning this point 25. That every Councell and Synodall decree thereof is approved or confirmed by those Bishops who are present in that Synod who consent upon 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 p Act. 10. 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 thus writeth q Lib. 3. de vità Constant ca. 13. 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 r Act. 6. 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 ſ Extat inter Epist post Concil Chal. pa. 168. a. 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 t Extat ibid. pa. 155. 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 u Tom. 1. Conc. pa. 541. 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
Pontificis Imperator excitatus sanctionem edidit Bin. not in eam Epist yea further the Emperour commanded the severall Bishops to shew their judgements in that doctrine of faith decreed at Chalcedon which he did to this end ut omnium calculo confessione Chalcedonense Concilium iterum firmaretur saith Binius m Locis citatiâ— that the Councell of Chalcedon might be confirmed againe by the consent and confession of all those Bishops They did what the Emperour commanded them some alone as Anatolius Sebastianus Lucianus Agapetus and many moe some in Synodal Epistles as the Bishops of Alexandria of Europe all whose letters are adjoyned to the Councell of Chalcedon n Pa. 146. ad pa. 179. concerning all which that is to be noted which Agapetus saith o Pa. 166. Pene omnes occidentalium partium Episcopi confirmaverunt atque consignaverunt almost all the Bishops of the West and so also in the East did confirme by their letters and subscriptions that faith which was explaned at Chalcedon What authority thinke you could the confirmation of one single Bishop as of Agapetus and Sebastianus or of a Synod consisting but of nineteene Bishops as that at Millan p Vt liquet ex eorum epist Synod quae extat post Epist 52. Leonis or but of seven q Vt Epis Syriae post Conc. Chal. pa. 155. b. or sixe r Vt Episc Maesia ibid. a. or five Å¿ Vt Episc secundae Syria Ibid. pa. 157. b. or foure t Vt Episc Osrâ—eviae Ibid. pa. 168. a. as some of the other give to the great and Oecumenicall Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon approved not onely by the Popes but by the consenting judgement of the whole Christian world as out of the Ephesine Synod we before declared And yet was never one of those confirmations fruitlesse as Pope Leo who was the author of them rightly judged Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis Bishop of Nice after they had endured exile for not consenting to the Nicene faith in token of their repentance writ u Epistola eorum extat apud Socratem lib. 1. ca. 10. thus unto the Synod Those things which are decreed by your judgement consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus we are purposed to confirme with consenting mindes Even the consent of two and those exiled and hereticall Bishops is called a confirmation of the great Nicene Councell to which no authority was added therby I will but add one example more and that is of this our fift Councell concerning which in their second Nicene Synod it is thus said x Act. 1. pa. 306 Foure Patriarkes being present approved the same and the most religious Emperour sent the Synodall Acts thereof to Ierusalem where a Synod being assembled all the Bishops of Palestina manibus pedibus ore sententiam Synodi confirmarunt they all confirmed the sentence of this Councell with their hands with their confessions and full consent except onely one Alexander Bishop of Abyles who thought the contrary and therefore was put from his Bishopricke and comming to Constantinople was swallowed up by an earthquake So their Nicene Synod By all which it is now cleare that generall and appoved 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 those 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 y Sacra Imper. ad Iohan. to 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 3. Cyril Epist 38. ad Dynatum to cod ca. 16. 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
yeare after it was published was confirmed by Pope Iohn who thus writeth f Epist 1. Ioh. 2. ad Justin to 2. Conc. pa. 404. et Bar. an 534. nu 15. et seq to the Emperour You for the love of the faith and to remove heresie have published an Edict which because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine wee confirme by our authority and againe You have writ and published those things which both the Apostolike doctrine and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed nos in omnibus confirmamus and we confirme it in all points This your faith is the true and certaine religion this all the Fathers Bishops of Rome and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept this confession whosoever doth contradict hee is an alien from the holy Communion and from the Catholike Church Thus Pope Iohn What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius but condemne him for an accursed heretike Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to embrace that profession unum de Trinitate which as the Emperour and Pope witnesse it earnestly embraceth he not onely suspecteth in this place but in plaine termes else-where g Planè comperitur eosdem ipsos Scythiae Monachos Eutycheanos fuisse haereticos Bar. an 519. nu 99. he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans heretikes and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon and that for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius h An. eod nu 102. that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Christ was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteret because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the foure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormisdaes dayes they could not now in this
others to the like consent to the truth by the authority and credit of the Pope and his Apostolicall decree it is not to bee imagined that the Emperour of Councell would at all either publish in their Synod or insert among their Acts the contrary Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters in doing whereof they should not onely have for ever disgraced Vigilius but have much impaired the reputation of their owne wisedome and quite crossed their principall designe Nay what will you say if Baronius himselfe professe the same See and wonder to see him infatuated in this point also The Bishops saith he l Bar. an 553. nu 218. of this fift Councell that they might pretend to have the consent of Vigilius to those things which they defined expressed in their sentence that Vigilius had before both in writing and by word condemned these three Chapters tacentes omninò quid ab ipso per editum constitutum pendente Synodo pro defensione trium Capitulorum decretum esset wholly concâ—aling or saying nothing at all of that decree which in the time of the Synod hee made for defence of those three Chapters Sicque nullam penitus de Vigilij Constitutione mentionem habendam esse duxerunt so they thought fit to make no mention at all of the Constitution of Vigilius wherein he defended the three Chapters So Baronius whom speaking the truth I gladly embrace and oppose him to himselfe speaking an untruth in malice to these Synodall Acts. 5. Now if none of these reasons nor yet Baronius his owne expresse testimony can perswade but still the Cardinall or his friends will reply with his cognoscitur It is certainly knowne that this Papall Constitution did belong to this Synod yea to the fift Collation thereof I would gladly intreat some of them to tell us in this as in the former concerning Origen who was the thiefe or robber that cut out or pickt away his holinesse Constitution a more capitall crime than the expiling of the Delphian Temple or the house of Iupiter Ammon Touch the Popes owne writings even his Apostolicall decree delivered out of the holy Chaire what Clement what Ravailack might be so impious so audacious so sacrilegious was it some Origenist no certainly the Constitution defending that none after their death might be condemned was a shield and safe charter for Origen to bring him to heaven Was it some Monothelite nothing lesse they knew that this Constitution was the overthrow of the Councell of Chalcedon and all the former holy CouÌ„cels Hoc Ithacus velit they would have wisht the Constitution to have stood for ever whom may we deeme then to have stolne away that Papall decree Truly by the old Cassian rule Cui bono none else but either some of the Popes themselves or some of their favourites who being ashamed to see such an hereticall Constitution of Pope Vigilius stand among the Acts judged theft and sacriledge a lesser crime than to have the Popes Chaire thought fallible and hereticall Now because I can imagine none to have beene so presumptuous and such is my charity and favourable opinion of those holy fathers and their children also that they would never commit such an hainous crime as with sacriledge to maime the Acts of the holy Councels I doe therefore here absolve and acquit them all of this crime promising against any adversary be it Baronius himselfe to defend their innocency in this matter untill some of Baronius his friends can either bring some further evidence against them or else prove which I thinke they will hardly be able that a decree which was never extant among the Synodall Acts can be stolne or cut away out of the Synodall Acts. CAP. XXXI The sixt defect in the Synodall Acts preteÌ„ded by Baronius for that the decree which advanced Ierusalem to patriarchall dignity is wanting therein refuted 1. THE sixt and last defect is of all the rest most memorable concerning the advancing of Ierusalem to a Patriarchall See and annexing some Churches unto it That this was done in the fift Councell Baronius a An. 553. nu 245. Acta illa desiderari noscuntur quibus agebatur de adjectis Patriarchatui Hierosolymitano Ecclesiis c. proves by Guil. Tyrius b De Bello sacro lib. 24. ca. 12. who writeth that in the fift Synod in the time of Iustinian Vigilius Eutychius and the rest decreed that this Bishopricke of Ierusalem should have the place of a Patriarke with the rest And because it was situate in a manner in the limits of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch and so there c Non habens unde illi urbi ordinaret suffraganeos nisi utrique Patriarchae aliquid detraheret was no meanes for it to have subordinate Bishops unlesse somewhat were taken from either of those Patriarkships therefore it seemed good to the Synod to take part from either so they tooke from the Bishop of Antioch two Provinces Caesarea and Scythopolis and two other from the Bishop of Alexandria Ruba and Beritus besides which Metropolitane Sees they tooke also from the same Patriarks divers Bishopricks and erected some other all which being in number twenty five they subjected to their new founded Patriarke of Ierusalem This is the summe of that which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius delivereth and Binius d Bin. inter fragmenta addit post CoÌ„c 5 pa. 606. a. addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell which is now not found among the Acts therof Baronius e An. 553. nu 246. further glossing on this text tels us that though Iuvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon when the f Post absentiam Legatorum Ibid. Pope Legates were absent yet Pope Leo resisting it he prevailed not nor was the matter put in execution but at this g Sic igitur inverso antiquo ordiâ—e à Nicaeno Constituto instituto Caesariensis Ecclesia totius Palestinae Metropolis nunc primum subjecta est Hierosolimorum Ecclesiae Bar. Ibid. time the ancient order instituted by the Nicene Councell being inverted Caesarea was now first of all made subject to the Church of Ierusalem which now was become a Patriarchall See 2. This whole passage of Baronius approving that testimony of Guil. Tyrius which is justly refuted by Berterius h Diatr 2. ca. 2. I cannot tell what to call but sure I am it consists of divers untruths not so much upon ignorance then his sinne had beene lesse as maliciously objected against the Acts of this holy Synod some of them I will explane beginning with that which is the â—â—ine point of all First then it is untrue that this fift Synod advanced the See of Ierusalem to a Patriarkship Not to the name and title of a Patriarke for that it had long before as Bellar. i Hierosolimitanâ— per annos ferè quingentos habita est quarta Paâ—ria chalis sed nomine
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 d Act. 3. pa. 85. 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 e an 449. n. 130 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 a Nestoriani coÌ„mentitias quasdam Theodoreti vulgavere Epistolas extat ex illis ad Nestorium inscripta ad finem 5. actionis 5. Synodi an 436 nu 10. 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 b Pa. 558. b. 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 c Bar. loco cit is grounded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus who writeth d Leont lib. de sect Act. 4 extat com 4. Bibl. S. Patrum Edit 3. 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 e Bar loco citat 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 f Nam Leontius meminit Eulogij Episcopi Alexandrini lib. de sect Act. 5. Gregorius vero et Eulogius aequales et extat Epist Greg ad ipsum lib. 6. Epist 37. 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 g Leont Act. 2. reckoning the bookes of the old Testament to be twenty two and expresly mentioning them all without these saith Hi sunt libri these are the bookes as well of the old as of the new Testament which in the Church are held for Canonical I doubt the Card. will here say that the case is altered In this hee speaks against them and their Trent faith not against us Here the note of their Index expurgatorius h Magister Sac. Palat. pa. 134. primi tom Indicis Romae â—liti an 1607. must bee embraced write saith the Index in the margent diminutè Catalogum texuit Leontius Leontius recites not fully the Catalogue of the sacred bookes And yet note one memorable thing by the way God who suffered not Laban to speake an ill word against Iacob and who turned the curses of Balaam into a blessing to Israell the same God over-ruled their pen or hands as hee did once the tongue of Caiphas and in stead of diminutè texuit they have uttered a Prophecy against themselves printing even in that edition i Edit 3. Bibl. S. Patr. per Marg. la â—igne Paris an 1610. which past through their Purgatorian fire of correction Divinitùs Catalogum librorum divinorum texuit Leontius hath recited this Catalogue by an heavenly inspiration and yet for all that divinitus texuit the Cardinall will not beleeve Leontius whom against us he perswades all men to beleeve But howsoever in other matters as by name in that Catalogue texto divinitus Leontius is to bee beleeved of a certainty hee is no fit witnesse in this cause of the Three Chapters Hee was too partiall that I say not hereticall in this point too much addicted to the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret let Baronius himselfe say whether his commending of Theodorus k Extiterunt ijs temporibus duo viri Diodorus et Theodorus Mopsvestiae qui universas literas sacras commentariis illustrabant Leont Act. 4. Bishop of Mopsvestia and Diodorus Bishop of Tarsis for illustrating the whole Scripture by their Commentaries for being such worthy men as that no man l Nec ipsis vivis quisquam dictuÌ„ aliquod eorum reprehendebat Jbid. while they lived did reprove any one saying of theirs bee not untrue and after both the person of the one and writing of both condemned by the generall Councell impious also and
the Country when hee writ that whole part of his Annals which concernes these three Chapters A little before he professeth y an 432. nu 80. 81. 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 z an eod nu 82 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 a Epistolas Theodoreti 157. numero Graecè scriptas continet codex Vaticanus c. Bar. an 430. nu 48. 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 b An. 444. nu 20. 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 c Epistola ad Leonem scripta erat post Ephesinum Latrocinium illud habitum an 449. altera ad Dioscorum scripta est an 444. ut ait Bar. illo an nu 18. at unio facta est an 432. Bar. illo an nu 72. 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 * Extat apud Bar. an 444. nu 21. 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 d Sex annos ibi ego docens tempore Theodosâ— alios tradecim annos tempore Johannis praeter haec jam septimus agitur annus quo Domnus sedet Epist Theod. apud Bar. an 444. nu 23. to bee twenty six all which time he continued a Preacher at Antioch Whence Baronius e Ibidem observeth Theodoretum Episcopum publicum semper egisse Catechistam 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 f Extat apud Bar. an 448. nu 12. et seq 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 g An. 423. nu 10. 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 h Epist ad Dioscorum apud Bar. an 444. nu that though hee so long continued a preacher at Antioch yet in all those yeares neither i Et usque hodiâ— cum tantum tempus praeterierit nullus neque Deo dilectorum Episcoporum neque pijssimoruÌ„ Cleâ—icorum ea quae à me dicta sunt reprehendit aliquando Ibid. any of the Bishops nor any of the Clergy did reprove his doctrine or sayings which hee explanes in that other Epistle k Epist Theod. 113. extat apud Bar. an 449. nu 115. 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 l An. 424. nu 19. 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 m Epist Theodoreti 81. ad Eusebium Ancyrae Episcopum apud Bar an 443. nu 1â— 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 n Theodor. Epist 81. apud Bar. an 448. nu 14. speaking of the same his integrity of faith in all these five and twenty yeares saith he Nec à quoquam
to be a testimony of the Resurrection belike because that Saint Iames shall then reade this holy Apostolicall Epistle n Hac epistola potius ad Simeonem qui etiam frater Domini dicitur scripta est in titulum epistolae mendose vox Iacobum irrepsit Bin. notis in epist 1. Clem. and see what t Ita certè est ut isti dicunt non potuisse ignorare Petrum fuisse jam ante annos 8. Iacobum mortuum ibid. pa. 208. godly exhortation and advice for government of the Church Clement gives unto him and such like in the end he concludes p Catholici vero si qui sint c. pa. 215. that such as are Catholikes must not doubt q Etiamsi unde aut quomodo ad nos profecta sint nesciamus tamē propter antiquorum authoritatem ita tenemus ut de eis dubitare nefas esse existimemus Ibid. 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 r Lib. 7. ca. 44. Theodoret ſ Lib. 5. ca. 36. Marcellimus t in suo Chron. an 438. the great Menology u Die 27. Ianu. their Romane Martyrology x Die 27. Ian. and others that we doe not doubt of the truth therof But since it is y Inde postea Romam translatum est Martyr Rom. Ibid. 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 have in reverence it is worthy the considering how miraculously they had made the manner of his Translation Nicephorus z Lib. 14. ca. 43. relates the summe of it but as by Baronius a Recitat idem Cosmas literas à quibus puto Nicephorum exscripsisse Bar. an 438. nu 8. it seemes he borrowed it out of the luculent Oration of one Cosmas Vestiarius whether one of the Vaticane b Habimus eum Cosma sermonem in nostrâ Bibliotheca discriptū Bar. an not in Martyr Ro◠Jan. 27. et an 438. nu 7. 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 c An. 438. 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 d Misit exercitum militum una cum clericis Georg. Patriar Alex. in vita Chrysostomi fol. 77. 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 b Jn thecâ argentea sacra Iohannis pignora asservabantur inde ea auferre et deferre conantibus nemine resistente minimè concessum fuit ressaepe frustra tentata Bar. an 438. nu 8 and very often they assay yea labor strive with all their strength w th all their skil to lift up the Coffin all was in vaine the sacred body c Sacro corpore instar silicis loco inhaerescente et immobili permanente Jbid. was more immoveabl 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 d Imperatoris sententia ab omnibus aequae pro bata atque laudata fuit Jbid. 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 praecibus 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 c Johanni aurei oris Patriarchiae Nic. lo. cit et At tu pater patrum c. Ib. 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 f
shewed that Iohn dyed before Cyrill by that Epistle than by Tullies ad Atticum That Epistle having neither date nor any circumstance to induce that may as well bee written Anno 448. as Anno 440. 21. His second reason is this There are letters saith hee i extant of Theodoret to Domnus the yeare following to wit an 437. and that Epistle of Theodoret I will set downe in his due place anno sequenti the next yeare Now in that next yeare viz. an 437. there is no Epistle of Theodoret set downe by the Cardinall nor is either Domnus or Theodoret so much as named in all his discourse of that yeare Is 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 k Bar. an 553. nu 44. 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 l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. in Chrō accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares and the Cardinall m Johannes obiit cum sedisset annos 13. licet Nicephorus in Chronico tribuat ei 18. Bar. an 436. nu 12. 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 n Post haec Theodotus ex hac vita migravit qui ad hunc usque annum pervenisse proditur c. Bar. an 427. nu 25. 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 o Bar. an 436. nu 12. 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 p Bar. Ibid. dyed an 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares Iohn succeeded to q Bar. an 427. nu 26. Defuncto Theodoto subrogatus est in ejus locum Iohannes 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 r Bar an 444. nu 23. glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus which as hee ſ Theodoreti ad Dioscorum data hoc anno Epistola sic se habet An. illo nu 18. saith was written an 444. there observes with a memorandum that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus t Hinc discas annos cujusque ipsorum Episcopatus Bar. an 444 nu 23. 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 u Bar. an 423. nu 10. Hoc anno Theodoretus creatus est Episcopus 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 x Bar. an 437. nu 12. 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 y An. 427. nu 26 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 z An. 436. nu 12. Hoc anno Iohannes diem obijt extremum that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn because he dyed not as Theodoret in one Epistle a Theodor. Epist ad Diosc apud Bar. an 444. nu 23. Alios 13. tēpore Iohannis 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 b Bar. an 436. nu 12. Iohannes sedit annot 13. that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare and so dyed not till an 440. beginning the first an 427 because Theodoret in another Epistle c Anno sequenti vid. an 437. extant literae Theodoreti ad ejus successorem Domnum Bar. on 436. nu 12. 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 d Extant litera Theodoreti ad Domnum Bar. an 436. nu 12. you wherby Iohn
of them hainous crimes and notorious in Vigilius the matters that offend the Cardinall No none of these hee is not used to finde such faults in their Popes these all hee commends as rare vertues as demonstrations of constancy of prudence of fortitude in Vigilius what then is it that his Cardinalship dislikes Truely among many great and eminent vices in Vigilius which are obvious and runne into every mans sight it hapned that once in his life he did one thing worthy of commendations and that was his obedience in going to Constantinople when the Emperour a Vigilius ab Imperatore evocatus Bizantium venit Proc. lib. 3 pa. 364. called and requested b Jpsum summâ celeritate venire rogans Bar. an 546. nu 54. him to come thither and the Cardinall winking at all the other reproves his Holinesse for this one thing which both in equity and duty hee ought to have done This forsooth is it which hee notes as a very c Caeterum Vigilij profectionem Constantinopolim magnum intulisse Catholicae Ecclesiae damnū eventa declararunt quae et sigficarunt quam prudentissimè egerunt illius praedecessores S. Leo et alij qui vocatisaepe ab orthodoxis licet Imperatoribus nunquanm passi sunt se ab ipsâ fixâ Romae sede divelli c. Bar. an 546. nu 55. dangerous and hurtfull matter and a speciall point of great indiscretion in Pope Vigilius that leaving Rome that holy City hee would goe to Constantinople and to the Emperours Court which his predecessors Leo and others in very great wisdome would never do not goe into the East nor suffer themselves to bee pulled away from their See fixed at Rome 2. Truely I never knew before that there was such vertue in the Romane or such venome in the Constantinopolitane soile or in the Easterne ayre specially seeing the holy Land and the holy City and the holy Temple were all in the East All the Westerne nations are beholding to the Cardinall for this conceit 2 King 5.17 Shall there not bee given to thy servant two Mules load of this Romish earth But let us a little more fully see why the Pope and particularly Vigilius might not goe to Constantinople Oh saith the Cardinall d Bar. los. cit it is found by experience that the Popes going from Rome to the Court obfuisse haud modicum hath done great hurt to the Church for then partly by the threats and partly by the favours and faire intreaties of Emperours as it were with two contrary windes the ship of Peter is exposed to great hazzard Modicae fidei phy a Cardinall to feare or distrust any wracke of Saint Peters ship though never so dangerous a tempest happen though Vna Eurusque Notusque ruant creberque procellis Africus S. Peter hath left such a Pilot in his Rome that a thousand times sooner might he himselfe than his ship sinke Pasce oves tu es Petra oravi pro te Petre will uphold it against all winde and weather And truly I would gladly know of his Cardinalship for my learning how any of their Popes can forsake their See or Rome They have heretofore held it for a maxime e Sententia illa omnium ore versata Vbi Papa ibi Roma Bar. an 552. nu 10. ubi Papa ibi Roma let the Pope goe to Peru yea ultra Garamantas Indos he hath a priviledge above all creatures but the Snaile hee carrieth not onely their infallible Chaire but the whole City of Rome on his backe whithersoever hee goes If not so or if the Chaire bee fixt to Rome where sate all their Popes for those seventy yeares f Clemens 5. propter seditiones Jtalicas sedē Pontificiam ab urbe Roma Avionem Galliae urbem ubi successores mansere annos 70. transtulit Geneb in Chron. in an 1305. when they were at Avinion or how shall they sit in the Chaire when their Babylonish Rome for her Idolatries shal be burnt with unquencheable fire and sinke like a Milstone into the bottome of the Sea which being foretold by Saint Iohn of the Romane City which yet remaineth as their owne Iesuite Ribera g Iohannes in omnibus quae de Babylone loquitur adversus urbem Romanam vaticinatur c. Rib. Com. in ca. 14. Apoc. nu 57. et Vicarius Christi ubicunque sit erit Episcopus Roma etiamsi illa penitut excisa sit Ibid. nu 48. doth truely and undeniably demonstrate is a most certaine Article of the Catholike faith though they seldome thinke of it and will hardly put it into their Creed When their Pope goe whither hee will carieth still with him his infallible Chaire was it not infidelity in the Cardinall to dreame or doubt lest that ship should any where miscarry more at the Court or Kings Pallace than in a Country Cottage more in the Trullane than in the Laterane Temple 3. Yea but usu rerum reperitur h Obshisse haud modicum usu rerum reperitur Pontificum ab urbe profectio ad Comitatum Bar. an 546. nu 55. experience teacheth that their going to the Emperour hath done exceeding hurt and particularly for Vigilius that his going to Constantinople hath brought i Ibid. magnum damnum great harme to the Catholike Church declararunt eventa the events have shewed Events and experience are the most woefull arguments in Divinitie that can possibly be devised Measure the Gospell by temporall calamities which ensued upon it the bloody murdering of the Apostles of the Saints of God almost for three hundred yeares together and hee may as well conclude that the Gospell and truth of Christ is found by woefull experience to have brought exceeding great hurt to the Church The Cardinall was driven to a narrow strait and an exceeding penury of reasons when he was forced to put Argumentum ab eventu for one of his Topicall places 4. But say what hurt can he tell us that ever any Emperours presence with the Pope brought unto the Church If both were Catholike or both hereticall they agreed well enough together As not Satans so much lesse is Gods Kingdome devided against it selfe if the Emperour Catholike and the Pope hereticall the worst the Emperour ever did was but to inflict just punishment on an heretike the worst the Pope sustained was but a just recompence of his heresie and hatred of truth The execution of Iustice never did nor ever can hurt the Catholike Church If the Emperor were hereticall and the Pope orthodoxal there was trial of the Popes art skil in converting such a man to the truth triall of his constancy and love unto Gods truth whether by feare or favour he would forsake it triall of his patience and fortitude in induring all torments even death it selfe for his love to Christ All the hurt which such an Emperour did or could doe was to crowne him a glorious Martyr and in stead of the white garment of innocency to
in Victor fraternitati vestrae fraternitatem vestram orate pro nobis mihi fratres in Christo conjuncti pray for us my brethren in the Lord. Which evidently shewes that Baronius and Binius either themselves 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 n Vel si fratres legas certè procul abhorret ut eosdem dicat Dominos Bar. an 538. nu 19. 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 o Epist S. Damasi apud Bin. to 1. Conc. pa. 501. 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 p Habentur in Concil Africano sub Caelest et Bonif ca. 101. et 105. to 1. Conc. pa. 644. 645. 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 q In eodem Cōc Afric ca. 102. Patriarke of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus and the other African Bishops Dominis honorabilibus to the honourable Lords and holy brethren In like sort Atticus r In eodem Conc. ca. 103. 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 ſ Sic Adrianus 1 scribit ad Constantinum et Irenem Tom. 3. Conc. pa. 254. filijs or Domino ac filio as doth P. Hadriā to Constant and Irene to Charles t Adrianus Papa to eod pa. 263. 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 u Servus servorum Dei sic se scribit Gregor 7. qui prius Hildebrandus dictus est Epist 13 14. et reliquis plus centies 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 Scull 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 x Quo pacto rogo potuit Vigilius anathematizare Dioscorum si cum Dioscoro Eutychianam haeresin praedicat Haec enim sibi invicem adversantur ut utraque vera esse non possint Bar. an 538. nu 16. et idem habet Bin. not in Lib. pa. 626. a. 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 y Eam fidem quam tenetis tenere me et tenuisse significo Epist Vigilij cū apud Liber ca. 22. et Vict. Tan. in Chron. an post Cons Basilij 2. to hold as did Dioscorus but one nature in Christ having againe in his Subscription and next words before anathematized z Qui dicit in Christo duas formas et non cōsitetur unam personam unam essentiam Anathema sit Ibid. apud Liber 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
at that same time what if most of them knew not of this Epistle which was sent secretly by Vigilius and by his advice kept closely by Anthimus and Severus what if they all knew it and yet having other crimes enough to object thought it needlesse to mention that as it seemes they did the Symony of Vigilius and censure of Silverius what if they were not so spitefull as the Cardinall is and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holinesse 28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinall How or why should Theodora upbrayd this to Vigilius for the not restoring of Anthimus that quarrell for the restoring of Anthimus as I have often sayd and clearly proved was a meere devise and fiction of Anastasius it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tayle Or how should Iustinian upbraid it when he was so enraged against Vigilius and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus Seeing neither Iustinian persecuted Vigilius nor was enraged against him but for the space of five of six yeares they both sang one note they fully consorted together or how should Mennas and Theodorus upbraid it when they were excommunicated by Vigilius Seeing that excommunication all the circumstances of it are merely fictitious as by the death of Mennas which was long before that forged excommunication of him was demonstrated Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to bee writ by Vigilius which all relie on fictions on most untrue and idle fancies And whether Facundus upbraided it or no may bee questioned nor will it bee clearly knowne untill they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vaticane where hee lyeth yet imprisoned But as for the fift Councell it was great sillinesse in the Cardinall once to thinke that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectfull manner that could be wished they uttered no one harsh or hard word against him but what was rightly said or done by him as his condemning of Origen his condemning the Three Chapters before the time of the Councell that they often mention and approve it also They sought by lenity to win the Popes heart to consent unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they k Etiamsi ista verè scripsisset Vigilius nullum tamen ob id infertur praejudicium Apostolicae sedi cujus tunc ipse erat invasor Silverius autem germanus Pontifex Bar. an 538. nu 15. Fecit id cum adhuc viveret Silverius quo tempore Vigilius non erat Papa sed Pseudopapa Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. Non mirum si Pseudoepiscopus et quasi Antichristus ad schisma haeresin addidisset Bin. not in Lib. pa 626. a. ita etiam Gretz in Defens ca. 10. lib. 4. Bell. yet that is no prejudice at all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he l Liber ca. 22. dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer m Gret loc cit Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of
Later fact 19 Decemb. 1517. 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 x A Relation of Religion in the West parts published an 1605. pa. 129. Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of y Gentil Exam. CoÌ„c Trid. Sess 13. Car. Mol. dec Conc. Trid. decret pa. 3. 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 z Alpheum fama est huc Elidis amnem Occultas egisse vias subter mare Virg lib. 3. Aeâ—eid 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 a Tot anni intersunt à Conc. Nic. 2. quod habituus est an 787. ad annum quo Lutherus se primum opposuit IndulgeÌ„tijs papalibus pontifici qui fuit an 1517 Cocl in vita Luther 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 b Brevi occupavit Lutheri haeresis multa regna Bel. l. 3. de pontif ca. 23. § Similitudo Et Romanasedes amisit nostris temporibus magnam Germaniae partem Suetiam Gethians Norvegiam Daniam universam bonam Anglia Gallia Helvetia Polonia Bohemia ac Pannonia partem lib. eod ca. 21. § Ac postea 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 theÌ„ 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 coÌ„sisteth 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
equivalent word called Chapters which heretikes specially the Nestorians collected and falsely boasted to bee taught by the Councell of Chalcedon whereas in very truth the holding of any one of them much more of them all is the overthrow of the whole Councell at Chalcedon yea of the whole Catholike faith that Councell contradicteth and condemneth them all no lesse than the fift Councell which as Gregory truly saith is in omnibus sequax it doth in every point follow and consent unto the Councell of Chalcedon The like may be said of that which out of Facundus Baronius observeth and citeth as a proofe of his saying that the Emperours Edict is repugnant and contrary to the orthodoxall faith Baronius will still keepe his old wont in applauding Vigilius and the defenders of the Three Chapters For if the Edict condemning them be contrary then is the defence of them consonant to the faith and then not the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian but the Pontificall Constitution of Vigilius must be approved as orthodoxall And what is this else but to condemne the judgement of the fift generall Councell of Pope Pelagius Gregory and all Popes after them of all generall Councells following it in a word to contradict and utterly condemne the consenting judgement of the whole Church for the space of 11. hundred yeares they all approve the determination of the fift Councell and it so fully consenteth with the Edict in condemning the Three Chapters that in their definitive sentence they differ very little in words but in substance and sense nothing at all from the Emperours Edict which caused Binius to say the Edict of the Emperour was approved by the Pope and the Councell So Catholike and orthodoxall is it so advisedly and orthodoxally penned To seeke no further proofe Baronius himselfe was so infatuated in this cause that he oftentimes confuteth his owne sayings for himselfe gives a most ample and most observable testimony of this Edict and of the orthodoxy thereof saying ſ an 534. nu 21. of it Est veluti Catechismus fidei Catholicae exacta declaratio this Edict of Iustinian is as it were a Catechisme or an exact declaration of the Catholike faith and an exact discussing of the Three Chapters which were afterwards long controversed in the Church So untrue is that his first calumnie against the Edict whereby hee would perswade that it is contrary to certaine Chapters of the holy Councell of Chalcedon or as Facundus plainly but most untruely affirmeth contrary to the Catholike faith 4. For the second calumnie that his Edict was a seminary of sedition Baronius might as justly condemne the decree of Nice of Ephesus of Chalcedon yea the very Scripture it selfe and preaching of the Gospell Christ himselfe is set as signum t Luk. 2.34 contradictionis as a butt of contradiction against which they will ever bee striving and shooting their arrowes of opposition sedition contention himselfe u Luk. 12.49 51 saith I am come to set fire on the earth and what would I but that it should bee kindled and againe Suppose yee that I am come to give peace on the earth I tell you nay but rather division and no sooner was the Gospell preached abroad in the world but that which our Saviour foretold them x Mat. 10.21 came to passe Brother shall deliver up brother the father the Childe the Children shall rise against their Parents and cause them to bee put to death and ye shall be hated of all men for my names sake what a seminary of sedition may the Cardinal call the Gospell that caused all these troubles warres seditions murders and burnings in the whole world what another Seminary was the Nicene decree against Arianisme and Constantines Edict to ratifie the same after that how seditiously was Athanasius and the Catholikes persecuted put to flight to torments by Constantius and the Arians how seditiously did the Councels of Ariminum and Syrmium oppugne and fight against that Nicene Decree till they had so farre prevailed that well-neare there had needed no longer contending the whole world almost being turned Arians and even groaning under Arianisme If the Cardinall by reason of those manifold troubles and oppositions which ensued upon 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 y Iohn 6. v. 71. 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 z Luk. 10.16 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 a Iam. 2 v. 1. 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 b Mat. 23. v. 2.3 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 c Johannes 23. inter Christi fideles â—itas ac mores ejus cognoscentes vulgariter dicitur Diabolus incarnatus Conc. Constant sess 11. pa. 1579. 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 d Per annos ferè 150. Pontifices ferè 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerunt Apotactici Apostaticivè potius quam Apostolici c. Gen. lib. 4. Chronol ad an 904. 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 e An. 546. nu 8 9. 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 f Jn suo Brevi ar ca. 24. 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 g Annuit eis Princeps Jbid. 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 h Ea quae scribi fecerunt titulo nominis tui prae notarunt verum nos illa scripta nolumus tua dici Fac. apud Bar. an 546. nu 9. 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 i Inter Epist Vigilij Epist 17. tom 2. Conc. pa. 503. b. 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 they must bee taken in the Dative case as if Theodorus had sollicited them to consent to his words that is as the Cardinall supposeth to the Edict which was penned and written by him or whereof he was the Author Sure against this Baronian construction the words of Liberatus are very pregnant seeing Theodorus as hee sheweth was one who entreated the Emperour to indite or dictate the booke and the Emperour promised so to doe If then Theodorus sollicited the Bishops to consent to the words of the Edict hee certainly urged them by this testimonie of Liberatus to consent not to his owne but to the Emperours words of whose inditing and dictating the Edict was Admit them to bee the Dative how knowes the Cardinall that by tuis vocibus are ment the words of the Edict might not Theodorus signifie to the Bishops his owne great liking of the Emperours Edict and perswade them to the like to say as he said to consent to his words in approving the Imperiall Edict The Card. was too secure negligeÌ„t in relying on these words tuis vocibus which being so ambiguous receive divers those also just exceptions But yet there is a farre worse fault in this proofe that the Epistle whence the Cardinall citeth these words though it beare the name of Vigilius yet is intruth not the Epistle of Vigilius but a very counterfeit and base forgery under his name full of untruths unworthy of any credit at all which besides other proofes hereafter to be alleaged faineth Mennas to be Bishop of Constantinople and to be excommunicated together with Theodorus by Vigilius foure or five yeares after hee was dead which censure was to stand in force till Mennas repented of his contumacie against the Popes Decree and should be reconciled to him This lying and base forgery doth Baronius bring to prove Theodorus and not Iustinian to bee the author of this Imperiall Edict Might not one say here as was said of the Asse