after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per cum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as found lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of 〈◊〉 it were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and fortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had just led out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the second Antichrist crescent In the third Antichrist regnant but in this fourth he is made
Apostolicall authoritie decree that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By holding this one fundamentall position they are pertinacious in all their errours and that in the highest degree of pertinacy which the wit of man can devise yea and pertinacious before all conviction and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them For by setting this downe they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth though it should be manifested unto them that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves that they never will be convicted nor ever have the truth manifested unto them The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them that the doctrines which they maintaine are heresies were first to perswade the Pope who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall to make a contrary decree that they are hereticall Now although this may be morally judged to be a matter of impossibilitie yet if his Holinesse could be induced hereunto and would so farre stoope to Gods truth as to make such a decree even this also could not perswade them so long as they hold that foundation They would say either the Pope were not the true Pope or that he defined it not as Pope and ex Cathedra or that by consenting to such an hereticall decree hee ceased ipso facto to be Pope or the like some one or other evasion they would have still but grant the Popes sentence to be fallible or hereticall whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith yea as the foundation of their faith they would not Such and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed and that essentially to that one Position that so long as one holds it and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him or convert him to the truth 21. You doe now clearely see how feeble and inconsequent that Collection is which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith therein explaned Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes both ancient and moderne Quit him for this cause and quit them all condemne them and then this pretēce can no way excuse Vigilius frō heresie They all with him professe with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures of Fathers of generall Councels but because their profession is not onely lying and contradictorie to it selfe but alwayes such as that they retaine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace as Vigilius had not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures Fathers and Councels cannot make any of them nor Vigilius among them to be esteemed orthodoxall or Catholike but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine which they with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures or holy generall Councels as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters doth truly demonstrate them all and Vigilius among them to be heretikes And this may suffice for answer to the second exception or evasion of Baronius CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three of foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters It appeareth saith hee that Vigilius to the end he might take away the schisme and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie Againe when Vigilius saw that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West unlesse he consented to the fift Synod eam probavit he approved it Again Pelagius thought it fit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine Vigilius
Vigilius Dormitans ROMES SEER OVERSEENE OR A TREATISE OF THE FIFT Generall Councell held at Constantinople Anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour in the time of Pope VIGILIVS The Occasion being those Tria Capitula which for many yeares troubled the whole Church WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE POPES Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in matter of Faith was condemned as hereticall by the Synod And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered BY RICH CRAKANTHORP Dr. in DIVINITIE And Chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie KING IAMES Opus Posthumum PVBLISHED AND SET FORTH BY His Brother GEO CRAKANTHORP According to a perfect Copy found written under the Authors owne hand LONDON Printed by M. F. for ROBERT MYLBOVRNE in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Grey-hound M DC XXXI TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE EDVVARD LORD NEVVBVRGE Chancellour of the Duchie of Lancaster and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honourable Privie Counsell RIGHT HONOVRABLE IN all duty and submission I here present unto your Lordship a Treatise concerning the fift generall Councell held at Constantinople the cause being the Controversie of the Three Chapters which for many yeares troubled the whole Church and was at length decided in this Councell held under Iustinian that religious Emperour This Treatise now printed was long agoe penned by one well known unto your Honour your sincere affection to the truth of God and Gods cause gives mee good assurance of your favourable acceptance hereof I confesse indeed that when I call to minde the manifold affaires wherein your Honour is daily imployed the very thought hereof had almost perswaded mee not to interrupt your more serious affaires by drawing your Honour to the reading or view of this Booke but when I call to minde those respects of love and duty in which the Author hereof stood bound unto your Lordship I was againe incouraged in his name to tender it to your Honour And although I my selfe can challenge no interest in your Lordships favour to offer this yet your Lordship may challenge some interest in the fruits of his labours who was so truely as I can truely speake devoted unto your Honour Among many other hee especially acknowledged two assured bonds of love and duty by which hee was obliged unto you and your friends the former arose from that unfained affection which you ever bare him from your first acquaintance in the Colledge that other by which he was further ingaged unto you and your friends was when in a loving respect had unto him in his absence without any meanes made by him or knowledge of his he was called by that much honoured Knight Sir Iohn Levison his Patron your Father in law unto the best meanes of livelihood he ever enjoyed in the Ministery where spending himselfe in his studies hee ended his dayes during which time your Honour made your affection further knowne unto him by speciall expressions of extraordinary favours In regard whereof I perswaded my selfe that I could no where better crave Patronage for this worke than of your Honour that it may bee a further testimony of his love againe who cannot now speake for himselfe And this I intreat leave to doe the rather because I doubt not but hee acquainted your Lordship with his paines and intent in this and other Tractates of the Councels for when after divers yeares study bestowed in this argument of Councels hee was desirous to make some use of his labours his intent was to reduce all those points into foure severall Bookes 1. That the right of calling generall Councels 2. That the right of highest Presidency in them 3. That the right of the last and supreme Confirmation of them is onely Imperiall and not Papall 4. That all the lawfull generall Councels which hitherto have beene held consent with ours and oppugne the doctrines of the present Church of Rome Some of these hee finished the fourth hee could not so much as hope to accomplish and therefore after the examining of some particulars therein he desisted and weaned himselfe from those studies And yet after some yeares discontinuance being by some of his learned friends sollicited to communicate to others at least some one Tract in that argument consenting to their earnest desire after long suspence he resolved on this Treatise as being for weighty and important matters most delightfull unto him That it was not then published let it not seeme strange unto your Honour for having long since finished the Tract of this whole Councell it was his purpose that it should have undergone the publike view and judgement of the Church but when he came as I can truely testifie unto them whose art and ayde is needfull in such a businesse and found an aversenesse in them for that it wholy consisted of controversall matters whereof they feared that this age had taken a satiety he rested in this answer as willing to bury it After this being upon a speciall command from his Majesty King Iames of blessed memory made known unto him by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury to addresse himselfe to another worke hee then desisted from his former intended purpose and in finishing of that last worke of his he ended his dayes Some few yeares after his death being desirous to take a view of some of his Papers I came to the view and handling of this boooke a booke fully perfected for the Presse in his life time the publishing whereof being long expected and of many earnestly desired it was my desire and theirs to whose most grave and judicious censure I willingly submitted it that it might be published for the benefit of Gods Church and the rather that it might give some light in the study of the Councels and animate some of the threescore valiant men that are about Salomons bed being of the expert and valiant men of Israel unto the attempting and undertaking of the like Now what his desire was in this and other of his labours surely none but the very enemies of God and Gods truth can take it to be any other than to testifie his unfained love unto God and Gods Church and to subdue the pride idolatries and impieties of that Man of sinne and to strive for the maintenance of the true faith Now what allowance so ever it may finde abroad among our adversaries it humbly craves your favourable acceptāce at home and as it is published with no other intent than to gaine glory to God and good to his Church so I doubt not but that God who causeth light to shine out of darknesse will effectually in time bring to passe that not onely their violent oppugning of the truth but their fraudulent dealing also against the same wil if not breed in themselves yet increase in al welwillers unto the truth a constant dislike nay detestation of their hereticall and Antichristian doctrines and for your selfe my earnest and continuall prayer to God shall bee
cordiall profession there neither is nor can be any truth therein it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to be hereticall as the fift Councill defined and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such causes to be infallible as their Laterane Councill decreed So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe such as none can possibly beleeve and withall new such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced untill that very day of their Laterane Session 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of Paris as being contra fidem Catholicam against the catholike Faith and the authority of holy Councils And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of Trent wherein that Laterane Decree is confirmed is by them rejected And what speake I of them Behold while Leo with his Laterane Councill strives to quench this catholike truth it bursts out with farre more glorious and resplendent beauty This stone which was rejected by those builders of Babylon was laid againe in the foundations of Sion by those Ezra's Nehemiah's Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord who at the voyce of the Angell came out of Babylon and repaired the ruines of Ierusalem And even as certaine rivers are said to runne under or through the salt Sea and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it but at length to burst out send forth their owne sweet and delightfull waters Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith This Catholike truth that the Popes judgement and Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is not infallible borne in the first age of the Church and springing from the Scriptures and Apostles as from the holy mountaines of God for the space of 600 yeares and more passed with a most faire and spatious current like Tygris Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord or like Pactolus with golden streames inriching and beautifying the Church of God after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages brackish I confesse before their second Nycene Synod but after it and the next unto it extremely salt and unpleasant more bitter then the waters of Mara And although the nearer it came to the streets of Babylon it was still more mingled with the slime or mud of their Babylonish ditches yet for all that dangerous and long mixture continuing about the space of 730. yeares this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse by the constant and successive professions of the whole Church throughout all those ages Now after that long passage through all those salt waves like Alpheus or Arethusa it bursts out againe not as they did in Sicily nor neare the Italian shores but as the Cardinall tells us in Germanie in England in Scotland in France in Helvetia in Polonia in Bohemia in Pannonia in Sueveland in Denmarke in Norway in all the Reformed Churches and being by the power and goodnesse of God purified from all that mud and corruption wherewith it was mingled all which is now left in it owne proper that is in the Romane channels it is now preserved in the faire current of those Orthodoxall Churches wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith are with no lesse sinceritie professed thē they were in those ancient times before they were mingled with any bitter or brackish waters 36 You see now the whole judgement of the Fift Generall Councill how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius condemning and accursing both it for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes which their sentence you see is consonant to the Scriptures and the whole Catholike Church of all ages excepting none but such as adhere to their new Laterane decree and faith An example so ancient so authenticall and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth which wee teach and they oppugne that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger and stand in doubt even of the maine ground and foundation whereon all his faith relyeth For the full clearing of which matter being of so great importance and consequence I have thought it needful to rip up every veine and sinew in this whole cause concerning these Three Chapters and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same and withall examine the weight of every doubt evasion excuse which eyther Cardinall Baronius who is instar omnium or Binius or any other moveth or pretendeth herein not willingly nor with my knowledge omitting any one reason or circumstance which either they urge or which may seeme to advantage or help them to decline the inevitable force of our former Demonstration CAP. V. The first Exception of Baronius pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith refuted 1 THere is not as I thinke any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annalls hath with more art or industry handled then this concerning Pope Vigilius and the Fift Generall Councill In this hee hath strained all his wits moved and removed every stone under which hee imagined any help might be found eyther wholly to excuse or any way lessen the errour of Vigilius All the Cardinalls forces may be ranked into foure severall troupes In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawne from the Matter of the Three Chapters In the second those which are drawne from the Popes Constitution In the third those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius In the fourth last those which concerne the fift General Councill After all these wherin cōsisteth the whole pith of the Cause the Cardinall brings forth another band of certaine subsidiary but most disorderly souldiers nay not souldiers they never tooke the Military oath nor may they by the Law of armes nor ever were by any worthy Generall admitted into any lawfull fight or so much as to set footing in the field meere theeves and robbers they are whom the Cardinall hath set in an ambush not to fight in the cause but onely like so many Shimei's that they might raile at and revile whomsoever the Cardinall takes a spleene at or with whatsoever hee shall be moved in the heat of his choler At the Emperour Iustinian at Theodora the Empresse at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters at the Imperiall Edict at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea at the Synodal acts yea at Pope Vigilius himselfe we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall which onely are his lawfull warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause
purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even an utter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because
of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius collecteth and Vigilius consenteth unto him that such as are not upon earth or among the living hos non humano sed suo Deus judicio reservavit God hath exempted them from humane and reserved them to his owne judgement nec audet Ecclesia nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such As the Pope so also the holy generall Councell tooke this for no other than a question of faith for they plainly professe even in their Synodall resolution that their decree concerning dead men that they may bee Noviter condemned is not onely an Ecclesiasticall tradition but an Apostolicall doctrine also warranted by the texts and testimonies of the holy Scriptures To which purpose alledging divers places of Scripture they adde these words It is many wayes manifest that they who affirme this that men after their death may not Noviter be condemned nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt nec Apostolicarum pronunciationum nec paternarum traditionum that such have no regard either to the word of God or the Apostles doctrine or the tradition of the Fathers So the whole Councell judging and decreeing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these 4. Now when both the Pope on the one side and the whole generall Councell on the other that is both the defenders and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both and against that truth wherein they both agree to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith or seeing it is cleâ—re both by the Pope and Councell that the resolution of this question is set downe in Scripture what else can bee thought of Baronius denying either the one or the other part to bee a cause or assertion of faith but that with him the doctrines defined and set down in Scriptures are no doctrines or assertions of faith at least not of the Cardinals faith 5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith and in this cause of faith the Pope and generall Councell are at variance either of them challenge the Scripture as consonant to his and repugnant to the opposite assertion what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit saith their vaine and vaunting Braggadochio Hast thou appealed to the Church to the Church and judgement thereof shalt thou goe at the name of which we are so farre from being daunted or appaled that with great confidence and assurance of victory we provoke unto it 6. But where may we heare the voyce and judgement of the Church out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers or provinciall Synods or in generall Councels in which of these soever the Church speake her sentence is for us and our side Her voyce is but soft stil in the writings of single Fathers the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly and audibly Heare Saint Austen who entreating of Caecilianus about an hundreth yeares after his death saith If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes which were by the Donatists objected unto him ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead though never condemned before nor in his life time Againe In this our communion if there have beene any Traditores or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such corde carne mortuos detestabor Heare Pope Pelagius who both himselfe fully assenteth herein to Saint Austen and testifieth the assent of Pope Leo in this manner Quis nesciat who knoweth not that the doctrine of Leo is consonant to Saint Austen Heare S. Cyrill who speaking of heretikes saith Evitandi sunt sive in vivis sive in mortuis they are to bee avoyded whether they bee dead or living 7. The Church speakes yet somewhat louder in the united judgement of Provinciall Synods In an Africane Councell it was proved how certaine Bishops at their death had bequeathed their goods to heretikes whereupon statuerunt the Bishops in that Synod decreed ut post mortem anathemati subjiciantur that such should bee accursed even after their death and this Sextilianus an Africane Bishop testifieth upon his owne certaine knowledge The judgement of the Romane Church is to this purpose most pregnant About some twenty yeares before this fift Councell Dioscorus was chosen Bishop of Rome but shortly after dying eum post mortem anathematizavit Romana Ecclesia the Romane Church accursed him even after he was dead although hee had not offended in the faith but in some pecuniary or Symoniacall crime Et hoc sciunt omnes qui degunt Romae and they all who live at Rome know this to have beene done against him after his death they especially who are in eminent place who also continued in the communion with Dioscorus untill hee dyed as after Iustinian Benignus Bishop of Heraclea and after them both the fift Councell testifieth In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia by Rambulas Bishop of Edessa Acatius and others wherein both themselves condemned Theodorus though dead and in their letters to Proclus exhort him to doe the like 8. But this voyce of the Church sounds like a mighty thunder in the consenting judgement of generall Councels In the sixt Pope Honorius who in his life time had not been was now about threescore yeares after his death convicted to bee an heretike and then noviter condemned and anathematized by the whole Councell The same sentence of Anathema was confirmed and againe denounced against him in the second Nicene and in the other under Hadrian which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels In the Councell of Chalcedon Domnus Bishop of Antioch was after his death condemned In the holy Ephesine Councell was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia after his death condemned as Pope Pelagius expresly testifieth The like to have beene done against Macedonius by the fift Councell at Constantinople Iustinian declareth Before that was the same done by the Councell at Sardica for when some of those who had subscribed to the Nicene faith returned to Arianisme alij quidem vivi alij autem post mortem anathemizati sunt à Damaso Papa ab universali Sardicensi Synodo they were anathematized some while they lived others after their death by Pope Damasus and by the generall Councell at Sardica as witnesseth Athanasius With such an uniforme consent doe all these Councels teach this and teach it not as any novell doctrine but as a truth successively from age to
age even from the Apostles time delivered unto them by warrant of which Apostolical tradition Valentinus Martian Basilides à nulla Synodo anathematizati being by no Synod in their life time condemned were after their death accursed by the Church of God 9. And yet if none of all these particulars could bee produced seeing the doctrine of the faith decreed in this fift Councell one part whereof is this of condemning the dead is consonant to all the former and confirmed by all succeeding Councels as we did before demonstrate nor Councels only but approved by all Popes and Bishops from Gregory the first to Leo the tenth yea by all Catholikes whatsoever who all by approving this fift Councell consent in this truth Seeing all these that is the whole Catholike Church for 1500 yeares with one consenting voyce sound out like a multitude of mighty waters this Catholike truth which Vigilius oppugneth that one may after his death be noviter condemned and sound it as a doctrine of the Catholike faith and even thereby sound out Pope Vigilius to have held yea to have defined heresie and all who defend Vigilius to bee hereticall I do nothing doubt but if ever you did or can you doe now most distinctly heare the voyce of the Church even of that Church of which their Romane Rabsecha vaunteth that we are marvellously affrighted at the very name thereof 10. May I now intreate that as you have heard the Church so you would be pleased to heare what the Cardinall doth say of this matter After this part of Vigilius decree he sets a memorable glosse upon the Popes text Hic adverte Note here saith the Cardinall that this assertion of Vigilius that dead men ought not to be condemned is not so generally received as it is set downe by him A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinals mouth Papa hic non tenetur But I pray you by whom is it not received The Cardinall answers not by the holy Church the holy Church doth practise the contrary unto it What the holy Church not receive the dogmaticall and Apostolicall assertion of the holy Pope not that assertion which his Holinesse decreeth to be taught by Scripture to be a Constitution a rule a definition of the holy Apostolike See No truly The holy Church for all that receives not this assertion saith the Cardinall And the Cardinall was to blame to use such a palpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church receiveth it not hee might and he should have said The holy Church rejecteth condemneth and accurseth this Cathedrall assertion of the Pope and all that defend it nor the Church onely of that one age wherein Vigilius lived but the Catholike Church of all ages speaking by the mouthes of al general Councels of Fathers of Popes of al Catholikes this holy Church condemneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius The Cardinall was too diminutive in his extenuations when he spake so faintly The holy Church doth not so generally receive it 11. Let us beare with the Cardinals tendernesse of heart the Popes sores must not be touched but with soft and tender hands Seeing the Cardinall hath brought the Pope and the holy Church to be at ods and at an unreconciliable contradiction the Pope denying the Church affirming that a man after his death may noviter be condemned it is well worth the labour to examine whether part the Cardinall himselfe will take in this quarrell you may be sure the choyce on either part was very hard for him he hath here a worse matter than a wolfe by the cares This is dignus vindice nodus a point which will trie the Cardinals art wisdome piety constancy and faire dealing And in very deed he hath herein plaid Sir Politike would be above the degree of commendation The Cardinall is a man of peace hee loves not to displease either the Pope or the Church he knew that to provoke either of them would bring an armie of waspes about his eares and therfore very gravely wisely and discreetly he takes part with them both and though their assertions bee directly contradictory he holds them both to be true and takes up an hymne of Omnia bene to them both 12. First he sheweth that the Church saith right in this manner Although it be proved that one dyed in the peace of the Church and yet it doe afterwards appeare that in his writings he defended a condemned heresie and continuing in that heresie died therein and bu◠dissemblingly cōmunicate with the Church the holy Church useth to condemne such a man jure even by right Having said as much as can bee wished on the Churches part the Cardinall will now teach that the Pope also saith right in this manner Pope Vigilius had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chapters by his Constitution and among those worthy reasons this is one for if this were once admitted that a man who dyeth in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned pateret ostium this would open such a gap that every ecclesiasticall writer though hee dyed in the Catholike Communion may yet after his death out of his writings be condemned for an heretike Thus Baronius 13. O what a golden and blessed age was this that brought forth such a Cardinall The Church decreeth that a man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and it decreeth aright The Pope decreeth the quite contrary that no man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and hee also decreeth aright and with good reason So both the Church saith well the Pope saith well you can say no lesse then Et vitulatu dignus hic or because the Cardinall saith better than they both and what Iupiter himselfe could never doe makes two contradictory sayings to be both true and both said well he◠best deserveth let him have all the prize Vitula tu dignus utrâque 14. I told you before and this ensuing treatise will make it as cleare as the Sunne that Baronius having once lost the path forsaken that truth where only sure footing was to be found wandreth up and downe in and out in this cause as in a wildernesse treading on nothing but thornes wherewith feeling himselfe prickt he skips hither and thither for succour but still lights on briars and brambles which doe not onely gall but so intangle him that by no meanes he can ever extricate or unwinde himselfe for if one listed to make sport with the Cardinall it clearly and certainly followeth that if the Church say true then the Pope saying the contrary doth say untrue Againe if the Pope say true then the Church saying the contrary doth say untrue and then upon the Cardinals saying that they both say true it certainly followeth that neither of them both say true and yet further that both of them say both true and untrue and yet that neither of them both saith
either truth or untruth 15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars seeing by the upright and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages we have proved the Popes decree herein to be erroneous and because it is in a cause of faith heretical let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion The former is taken from those words of our Saviour whatsoever ye binde on earth whence as you have seene Vigilius and as he saith Gelasius also collecteth that such as are not on earth or alive cannot be judged by the Church 16. The answer is not hard our Saviours words being well considered are so farre from concluding what Vigilius or Gelasius or both doe thence collect that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary for he said not Whatsoever yee binde or loose concerning those that are on earth or living in which sense Vigilius tooke them but Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth or during your life time shall binde or loose the same according to your censure here passed upon earth shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven The restrictive termes upon earth are referred to the parties who doe binde or loose not to the parties who are bound or loosed The generall terme whatsoever is referred to the parties who are bound or loosed whether they be dead or alive not to the parties who binde or loose who are onely alive and upon earth Nor doth our Saviour say Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth shall bee bound or loosed in heaven for ecclesiae clave errante no censure doth or can either binde or loose either the quicke or the dead but he saith Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose if the party be once truly and really bound or loosed by you that are upon earth it shall stand firme and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven So the parties who doe binde or loose are the Apostles and their successors onely while they are upon earth the parties who are bound or loosed are any whosoever whether alive or dead the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing is Christ himselfe in heaven For I say unto you whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church which as we have before declared both beleeved taught and practised this authority of binding and loosing not onely upon the living but upon the dead also Of their binding the nocent wee have alleaged before abundance of examples for their loosing the innocent that one of Flavianus is sufficient The Ephesine latrocinie adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop for an Hereticke under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died nay was martyred by them The Holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus loosed that band wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their key did erre they did not in truth They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike the holy Councell feared not to loose him because he was dead their power to binde or loose was onely towards those that are upon the earth or living By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time imitating the religious pietie of those ancient Bishops restored to their pristine dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs two Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fagius after their death when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound but even burned them to ashes Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian that if the Church may after their death restore such as being unjustly condemned and falsly supposed to be bound died in their innocency and sincerity of faith it may also by the very same reason condemne and anathematize such after their death who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church 18. And truely whether soever of these censures either of binding or loosing the Church useth towards the dead as they both are warranted by the words of Christ and judgement of the Church so in doing either of both they performe an acceptable service to God and an holy duty to the Church of God For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve the Communion of Saints which in part consisteth in loving praising and imitating all such as we know either now to live or heretofore to have dyed in the faith or for the faith of Christ so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed renounce all communion with whatsoever heretickes either dead or alive and therefore though in their life time they had never beene condemned for such but honored as the servants of God under whose livery they hide their heresies and impieties yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed and to have died heretikes we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them not love them nor speake well of them much lesse imitate them but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Cacilianus even after their death corde carne anathematizare not making them accursed For that the Church cannot do and themselves have done that already but declaring them to be accursed in truth excluded from the society of God Gods Church and to be such though dead as with whom we can have no more cōmunion then hath light with darknesse faith with heresie God and Beliall nay we should wish that if it were possible there might be such an antipathie and disunion betwixt us and them as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles and Polinices that even our dead bones and ashes might leape from theirs nor sleepe in one Church nor one earth with them from whom one day they shall be eternally severed by a wall of immortality and immortall glory 19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules decrees and Constitutions of their Apostolicke See by name of Pope Leo Gelasius both whō Vigilius saith to have defined this that a dead man might not noviter be condemned was it not enough for Vigilius that himselfe was hereticall herein unlesse he drew his predecessors also into the same crime of defending yea defining heresies How much better had it beseemed him to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were if not with a lappe of his robe as the good Emperour would yet at least with silence and oblivion 20. And yet for all this if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility will give me leave I am for my owne
part willing to thinke better and more favourably of Leo and Gelasius in this matter specially of Leo whose authority when some defenders of the three Chapters objected to Pope Pelagius as according with them Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary as consenting wholly with Saint Austen who professed that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death if it could appeare that he were guilty of those crimes Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause yea and the words of Leo which hee citeth doe declare no lesse In that Epistle Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church were excommunicated or who did not performe the acts required in repentance saith If any of them die before hee obtaine remission quod manens in corpore non receperit consequi exutus carne non poterit hee cannot obtaine that to wit remission of his fault being dead which before his death he had not received And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius Neither is it needfull that we shold fift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigiâ—lius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade faith he that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he namin hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasins saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but
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 him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee it renounceth all peace and communion with him whether dead or alive nay rather it forsaketh not her communion with him but declareth unto all that shee never had communion or peace with this man such as hee was indeed before though she had peace with such as he seemed to bee Shee now denounceth a double anathema against him condemning him first for beleeving or teaching heresie and then for covering his heresie under the visor of a Catholike and of the Catholike faith So justly and fully doth the Emperour and Councell refute both the personall errour of Vigilius in that hee affirmeth Theodorus to have dyed in the peace of the Church and the doctrinall also in that he affirmeth it upon this ground that in his life time hee was not condemned by the Church 5. Now whereas Baronius saith that Vigilius had just and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter one of which is this because if this were once admitted that one dying in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned for an heretike pateret ostium there would a gap be opened that every ecclesiasticall writer licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset although hee dyed in the communion of the Catholike Church might after death be out of his writings condemned for an heretike truly hee feareth where no feare is at all This gap nay this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath laine wide open this sixteen hundred years Can the Cardinall or any of his friends in all these successiōs of ages wherin have dyed many thousand millions of Catholikes can he name or finde but so much as one who hath truly dyed in the peace and communion of the Church and yet hath beene after his death condemned by the Catholike Church for an heretike He cannot The Church should condemne her owne selfe if shee condemned any with whom she had peace and whom she embraceth in her holy communion which is no other but the society with God Such indeed may dye in some errour yea in an errour of faith as Papias Irenee Iustine in that of the millenaries as Cyprian as is likely and other Africane Bishops in that of Rebaptization but either dye heretikes or be after their death condemned by the Catholike Church for heretikes they cannot 6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinall and all his fellowes should feare another matter which more neerely concernes themselves and feare it even upon that Catholike position that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condemned They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause for his supremacy of authority or infallibility of his Cathedrall judgement feare to stuffe their Volumes as the Cardinall hath done his Annals with heresies and oppositions against the faith feare to continue and persist in their hereticall doctrine feare to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula the second and onely boord to save them after their shipwracke to dye I say before they revoked disclamed condemned or beene the first men to set fire to their hereticall doctrines and writings and at least in words if not as the custome was by oath and handwriting to testifie to the Church their desire to returne unto her bosome These are the things indeed they ought to feare knowing that howsoever they flatter themselves with the vaine name of the Church yet in very truth so long as their writings remaine testifying that they defended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith or any other doctrine relying on that ground whereof in their life time they have not made a certaine and knowne recantation they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church but may at any time after their death and ought whēsoever occasiō is offered be declared by the Church to have dyed in their heresies and therefore dyed both out of the peace of God and of the holy Church of God This unlesse they seriously and sincerely performe it is not I nor any of our writers whom they imagine but most unjustly out of spleene and contention to speake these things who condemne them but it is the whole Catholike Church Shee by approving this fift Councell and the true decree therof condemns this Apostolicall Cathedral definition of Vigilius and all that defend it that is all the members of the present Romane Church to be hereticall and as convicted heretikes she declares them to die anathematized that is utterly separated from God and from the peace and most blessed communion with the Church of God howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God 7. If any shall here reply or thinke that by the former examples of Papias Irenee Iustine Cyprian and the rest Baronius and other mēbers of the present Romane church may be excused that these also as the former though dying in their error may dye in the peace cōmunion of the Church this I confesse is a friendly but no firme excuse for although they are both alike in this that the former as well as the latter dye in an errour of faith yet is there extreme odds and many cleare dissimilitudes betwixt the state or condition of the one and the other 8. The first ariseth from the matter it selfe wherin they erre The former erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not eliquata declarata solidata per plenarium Concilium as S. Austen speaketh not fully scanned declared confirmed by a plenary Councell Had it bin we may well think the very same of all those holy men which Austen most charitably saith of S. Cyprian Sine dubio universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church The latter erre in that which to use same Fathers words per universae Ecclesiae statut a firmatum est which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church This fift Councell consonant to all precedent and confirmed by
by a severe Imperiall Edict set forth some foure yeares after the Ephesine Synod forbidding the bookes of Nestorius either to bee read or retained But it fell out farre otherwise for when the Nestorians could no longer shrowd themselves under the name nor countenance their heresie by the bookes and writings of Nestorius they found this new device to commend their doctrine under the name dignity and authority of Theodorus of Mopsvestia whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius he having suckt all his hereticall poyson from Theodorus and this they thought they might safely doe Theodorus being not by name condemned either in the Synodall judgement or by the Imperiall Edict To which purpose they and particularly Ibas spred abroad the bookes of Theodorus in every countrey and corner translating them as Liberatus sheweth into the Syrian Armenian and Persian languages by which meanes they deceived and seduced many pretending Theodorus writings to bee consonant to the ancient fathers The Catholikes seeing how little effect their connivence at Theodorus name had taken and that the heretikes abused their lenitie in forbearing him to strengthen their heresie saw that now it was time no longer to dispense or winke at Theodorus and therefore the time of that dispensation being expired they began now in plaine termes and by name to condemne both his person and his writings as before they had in a generalitie performed them both in the Councell of Ephesus and this was done by severall Bishops in severall Countries and by many severall wayes 10. The first sentence wherein Theodorus was particularly and by name condemned was in a Councell at Armenia where the credit of Theodorus had done most hurt The chiefe Bishops in that Synod were Acatius Bishop of Melitiū in Armenia a very learned holy mā who had bin one of the chiefe also in the holy Ephesine Councel and Rambulas or Rabulas Bishop of Edessa whose name it seemes the Nestorians for very spite against him turned into Rabula that so they might with more facility revile his person a man of such piety and high esteeme in the Church that Cyrill cals him columnam fundamentum veritatis the very piller and foundation of the truth and Benignus testifieth that he was a faire and resplendent lampe in the Church These two stirred up the Bishops of Armenia to reject the writings of Theodorus tanquam haeretici as one who was an heretike yea the author of the Nestorian heresie and themselves were present in that noble Councell of Armenia wherein they not onely condemned Theodorus as an impious person an oppugner of Christ and the childe of the Devill as by the contents of the acts of that Synod doth appeare but further also they writ their Synodal letters both to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople to Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria quatenus fiat unit as vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega dogmata ejus that they also would joyne with them and their Synod in cōdemning by name both the person and sacrilegious writings of Theodorus giving this as a reason thereof because they exhort them but to doe in plaine and expresse manner the same thing which was done by them before but in a generality We write unto you per vos etiam antea condemnatum sine nomine Theodorum nominatim condemnari that Theodorus may now by name bee condemned by you who hath already though without expressing his name beene condemned by you And what they exhorted Proclus and Cyrill to doe that Rambulas performed not onely in the Armenian Councell but in his owne Church at Edessa for as Ibas in his impious Epistle saith Ausus est Theodorum clarè anathematizare hee was bold by name and expresly to anathematize Theodorus in his owne Church and both Benignus and Liberatus witnesse the same 11. What Proclus did upon receipt of those letters sent from the Armenian Councell unto him is not to be learned out of Liberatus report of this matter for he in the narration of this passage is not onely untrue and partiall but very hereticall also justly herein taxed by Baronius and Binius as borrowing his narration from some Nestorians which the Reader will easily observe but the truth herein must be taken out of Cyrill and the fift Councell Proclus saith Cyrill sent a tome or writing to them of Armenia full of sound doctrine and hee adjoyned thereunto certaine chapters collecta è Theodori codicibus gathered out of the bookes of Theodorus consonant to the doctrine of Nestorius exhorting them etiam illa anathematizare to accurse even those doctrines of Theodorus also The fift Councel explaines this more fully Proclus say they writeth thus against Theodorus and his impious doctrine And then they cite first those words of Proclus before mentioned wherein he sets Theodorus in the same ranke with Arius Eunomius Macedonius and other like heretikes calling them all puddles of errours and deceit And after this those other words of Proclus written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch wherein he calleth the doctrines of Theodorus or those chapters which were collected out of his bookes vaniloquie monstriloquie Iudaicall impietie ad destructionem legentium evomita doctrines vomited out by him to the destruction of the readers and hearers exhorting others to reject to abhorre to tread under foot and to accurse all those chapters of Theodorus utpote diabolicae insaniae constituta inventiones as being the positions and inventions of devillish madnesse From which words of Proclus uttered both against the person and doctrine of Theodorus the Councell concludeth very justly that Proclus not onely in particular condemned Theodorus as the Armenian Councell exhorted him but condemned him as a Iew Pagan and Heretike And this was done by Proclus in the yeare when Valentinian was the 4 and Theodosius the 15. time Consull as the date of his letter or Tome to the Armenians doth declare which declares also that the Armenian Councell was held the same yeare for it followed the spreading abroad of the bookes of Theodorus and that was not done till the Nestorians were by the Imperiall Edict forbidden to reade the bookes of Nestorius Now the Imperiall Edict beares date in the same consulship which shewes evidently that as soone as ever the Nestorians began to revive the honour and name of Theodorus being onely in a generality before condemned the catholikes forthwith opposed themselves and by name condemned him And which is specially to be observed Proclus did this against Theodorus although the Easterne Bishops intreated him plurimis deprecationibus ut ne anathematizaretur Theodorus nec impia ejus conscripta did with most earnest prayers sollicite him not to condemne the person or doctrine of Theodorus but the truth of God which was oppugned by Theodorus and the sentence of the Councell which had condemned Theodorus did more prevaile then all
Sergius by the command of Iustinus the Emperour was deposed from his Bishopricke excluded out of the Church and so continued even to his dying day and this was done but six yeares before the Empire of Iustinian as by the date of Iustinus his letters doth appeare 19. Now if to all these particular sentences you adde that which the fift Councell witnesseth that Theodorus post mortem à catholica ecclesia ejectus est hath beene after his death condemned and cast out and that even by the whole Catholike Church you will easily confesse that from the time almost of his death unto the raigne of Iustinian there hath beene a continuall and never interrupted condemnation of him in the Church But in Iustinians time and perhaps before though lesse eagerly the Neâ—â—orians began afresh to renew the memory and doctrine of Theodorus setting now a fairer glosse and varnish on their cause then ever they had before for they very gladly apprehending and applauding those to say the least inconsiderate speeches of the Popes Legates Maximus in the Councel of Chalcedon that by his dictation or Epistle Ibas was declared to be a catholike hereupon they now boasted that the holy Councell by approving that Epistle of Ibas had approved both the person and doctrine of Theodorus seeing they both are highly extolled and defended in that Epistle By this meanes was this cause brought ab inferis the second time upon the stage and that also cloaked under the name and credit of the Councell of Chalcedon And at this second boute all the defenders of the Three Chapters and among them Pope Vigilius as Generall to them all undertooke the defence of Theodorus and as if there had never beene any sentence of condemnation either in generall or in particular denounced against him even in his definitive and Apostolicall constitution declareth That Theodorus was not condemned either by former Councels or Fathers and this he declareth after his solicitous circumspective and most diligent examination of their writings 20. What thinke you was become of the Popes eyes at this time that he could see none of all those condemnations of Theodorus before mentioned Not the general anathema of the Councels at Ephesus and Chalcedon in which Theodorus was involved not the expresse and particular anathema denounced against him by Rambulas and Acatius with the Councell of Armenia not the condemnation of him and his writings by Saint Proclus by S. Cyrill by the Church of Mopsvestia by the Edict of the religious Emperours by the whole Catholike Church None of all these things were done in a corner they were all matters of publike notice and record obvious to any that did not shut their eyes against the sun-shine of the truth But as I said before and must often say Nestorianisme like Naash the Ammonite had put out the Popes right eye he could see nothing with that eye all that he saw in this cause was but a very oblique and sinister aspect as doth now I hope fully appeare but will bee yet much more manifest by that which in the Constitution of Vigilius wee are next to consider 21. For as if it were a small matter not to see Theodorus condemned by the former Councels and Fathers though in a man professing so exact and accurate inspection in any cause such grosse oversights are not veniall the Pope ventures one step further for the credit of this condemned heretike Hee could not finde that Theodorus was condemned by the former witnesses Tush that is nothing he findes him acquitted by them all hee findes by Cyrill by Proclus by the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon yea by Iustinians owne law that Theodorus ought not to be condemned This was indeed a point worthy the Popes owne finding But withall I must tell you that you also shall finde one other thing that Pope Vigilius having once passed the bounds of truth for defence of Theodorus cares not now if he wade up to the eares and drowne himselfe in untruths 22. Let us then examine the allegations which for proofe of this the Pope hath found and begin we as the Pope doth with Cyâ—â—â—â— In his Epist. to Iohn B. of Antioch Vigilius found an explication how it was said by Cyrill that by a dispensation the name of Theodorus was not condemned for there Cyrill saith Sed juste audient they shall justly heare this though they will not ye forget your selves when you bend your bowes against ashes that is against the dead for he who is written among them that is the dead noÌ„ superest is not and let no man blame me for these words Grave est enim insultare defunctis vel si Laici fuerint for it is an hard matter to insult over the dead yea though they bee but Laikes how much more over those who with their Bishopricks have left their lives Out of which words Vigilius affirment S. Cyrill to teach it to be an injurious and hard matter repugnant to the Ecclesiasticall rule to condemne any that is dead and then certainly not a Bishop not Theodorus 23. For answer hereunto I doe earnestly intreate the reader to ponder seriously the Popes good dealing herein That Epistle which Vigilius commendeth unto us under the name of S. Cyril is none of Cyrils it is a base and counterfeit writing forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill Witnesse hereof the whole fift generall Councell who of purpose and at large examined this matter and refuted this cavill of Vigilius before ever he set forth his Constitution for thus they say of it Some loving the perfidiousnesse of Nestorius which is all one as to say the madnesse of Theodorus doe not refuse to faigne some things and use certaine words as written in an Epistle by S. Cyrill Nusquam vero talis Epistola scripta est à sanctae memoriae Cyrillo but Cyril never writ such an Epistle neither is it in his bookes And then reciting the whole Epistle and all those words which Vigilius alleageth they adde Et ista quidem continet conficta Epistola these are the contents of this counterfeit Epistle and a little after That nothing of all quae in conficta Epistola continentur which are contained in that counterfeit Epistle was writ by Cyrill it is declared by that which he writ to Acatius and yet further These things are spoken ad convictionem Epistolae quae à defensoribus Theodori falso composita est to convince that Epistle to be a forgerie which is falsely composed by the defenders of Theodorus The summe of this they repeate in their Synodall sentence saying We have found that the defenders of Theodorus have done the same which heretikes are wont to doe for they clip away some part of the Fathers words quaedam vero falsa ex femetipsis componentes confingentes and devising or faigning other things of themselves they seeke by them as it were by the testimony of Cyrill to free Theodorus
death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ eum non audemus damnare sententia wee◠dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the head of the generall Councell Proclus a most holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodorus and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of Iustinian yea even the whole catholike Church which hath approved those holy Councells all these out of those very impieties which Vigilius mentioneth have condemned Theodorus them all for wronging and condemning Theodorus for those impieties we doe anathematize and accurse saith Vigilius 47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are who hold and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church this for a position or foundation of faith that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes is true is infallible is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced Let
all the rest be omitted embrace but this one decree of Vigilius nay but this one passage or parcell of his decree touching this first Chapter which concernes Theodorus yet by approving this one they demonstrate themselves not onely to renounce but with Vigilius to condemne accurse and anathematize both the Catholike faith and the Catholike Church yea to accurse all who doe not accurse them which because none but Anti-Christ and his hereticall adherents can doe they demonstrate againe hereby their Church to bee hereticall catacatholike and Anti-Christian such as not onely hateth but accurseth the holy and truly Catholike Church of Christ. But the curse that is causlesse shall not come Nay God doth and for ever will turne their cursings into blessings Blessed are yee when for my sake for professing and maintaining my truth men revile you and speake evill of you Let Balak hire with hous-fulls of gold Let the Romane Balaam for the wages of iniquity attempt never so oft on this hill on that mountaine or wheresoever hee sets up his altars to curse the Church of GOD the Lord will turne the curse into a blessing unto them for there is no sorcery against Iacob no curse no charme nor incantation against Israell Nay their curses shall fall on their owne heads and returne into their owne bosomes but peace and the blessings of peace shall bee upon Israel For blessed shall hee bee that blesseth thee and cursed is hee that curseth thee CHAP. IX That Vigilius besides divers personall held a doctrinall errour in â—aith in his defence of the second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill 1. THere was some shadow of reason to thinke that the former Chapter was a personall matter seeing that was indeed moved concerning the person of Theodorus But in the two other there is no pretence or colour for Baronius to say that in them the question or cause was personall and not wholy doctrinall who in all the fift Councell once doubted of the persons of Theodoret or Ibas whether they were Catholikes after their anathematizing of Nestorius in the Councell of Chalcedon The onely question about them was whether the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill were to bee condemned which the Pope denyeth and the holy Councell affirmeth and whether the Epistle of Ibas was Orthodoxall or he by it known to be Orthodoxal which the Pope affirmeth and the holy Councell denyeth The question about them no way concerned their persons but onely their writings And it might be a wonder that Baronius should have the face to say that the cause in these two Chapters was onely personall if it were not daily seene by experience that necessitas cogit ad turpia mere necessity enforced the Cardinall to use any though never so untrue never so unlikely excuses for Vigilius 2. There are I confesse divers personall matters and questions of facts which concernes both these Chapters and although they were not the controversies moved and debated betwixt the defenders and the oppugners of those Chapters yet is it needfull to say somewhat of them also partly for more illustration of the cause of faith specially that we may see how foully Vigilius and Baronius have erred not onely in doctrinall causes which are more obscure but even in those personall matters which had beene easie and obvious if they had not shut their eyes against the truth 3. Concerning the second Chapter the Popes decree herein relyeth and is grounded on three personall points or matters of fact The first is that Vigilius would perswade that Theodoret was not the author of those writings against Cyrill and against his twelve Chapters or Anathematizmes which containing a just condemnation of the twelve hereticall assertions of Nestorius were approved both by the Councell of Ephesus and Chalcedon To which purpose he calls them not Theodorets but writings quae sub Theodoreti nomine proferuntur which are set forth under the name of Theodoret. And againe the reprose of the 12. Chapters of Cyrill à Theodoreto ut putatur ingesta made as is thought by Theodoret adding this as one reason why the Councell of Chalcedon did not coÌ„demne those writings because they having those matters which were done but of late before their eyes Theodoretum nihil tale fecisse probaverunt did judge that Theodoret had written no such thing Thus Vigilius pretending those writings against Cyrill not to be Theodorets and that the Councell of Chalcedon also thought the same whence he would inferre and justly upon this supposall that Theodorets name ought not to bee blemished by those writings which were none of his 4. Not his why Theodoret is knowne and testified by so many to have beene so eager and violent in defence of Nestorius and his heresie and so spitefull both in words and writings against Cyrill and all orthodoxall professors of that time that it were more strange if Vigilius was ignorant of this then that knowing it he should deny or make a doubt thereof Witnesse Binius Iohn of Antioch saith he perswaded Theodoret that hee should with all his art and skill oppugne and refute those 12 Anathematizmes of Cyrill Theodoret being as much an enemy to Cyrill as was Iohn himselfe willingly yeelded to his petition and by manifest sycophancy wrested every one of Cyrills Chapters from their true genuine and orthodoxall to a false preposterous and hereticall sense and Enoptius sent that refutation of Theodoret unto Cyrill Againe Theodoret did once defend Theodorus and Nestorius two most pestiferous Arch-heretikes against Cyrill Yea Binius saith defendit constantissimè he defended them most constantly as if to defend heresie were with these men not pertinacie but constancy witnesse Baronius Theodoret saith he being most addicted to Theodorus shadowed his praise by his friendship with Nestorius but he utterly darkned it by his undertaking of the defence of that Arch-heretike against Cyrill And againe Theodoret being at that time the patron of Nestorius and an oppugner of the Catholike faith throweth his darts against the Chapters of Cyrill and by new writings doth oppugne them crying out in his letters to the Bishops of Millaine of Aquilcia and of Ravenna that Cyrill renewed the heresie of Apollinaris 5. Witnesse men of better note then the former Liberatus who saith that Iohn of Antioch commanded two Bishops Andreas Theodoret that they should write against the 12. Chapters of Cyrill blaming him as one who renewed the heresie of Apollinaris and that Theodoret consented the event made manifest Pope Pelagius who saith that Theodoret monstratur scripsisse is demonstrated and certainly knowne to have written against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill and against the true Faith The Acts of the Ephesine Councell wherein is recorded the verie refutation of those twelve Chapters by Theodoret and the answere of Cyrill unto it the one still called Theodoreti reprehensio and the other Cyrilli adversus
said omnis dubitatio now all doubt is quite taken away concerning Theodoret and then the Synod both received him into their communion as an orthodoxe and restored him to his See from which in the Ephesine latrocinie hee was deposed they all crying out Theodoret is worthy of his See let his Church receive their orthodoxall Bishop To Theodoret a Catholike Doctor let the Church be restored 10. What greater detestation of heresie could the Synod possibly shew what greater tokens of the sinceritie of his faith could either Theodoret expresse or the Synod require It was too great rashnesse if not simplicitie in Vigilius to collect that the holy Councell did dissemble in their faith because they received him who had sometimes swarved in the faith The hereticall Theodoret they exclude and reject the orthodoxall Theodoret they reverence and embrace That which Saint Austen saith in another cause that the husband who had put away his adulterous wife ought againe to receive her being purged by unfained repentance but so receive her non ut post viri divortium adultera revocetur sed ut post Christi consortium adultera non vocetur that same may bee accommodated to any other offence and not unfitly to this of heresie and the repentant hereticke whom they before for that cause had from themselves disioyned but they neither call nor count him an hereticke whom Christ hath now upon his repentance unto himselfe conjoyned So neither is the Popes reason consequent that the Councell did dissemble in their receiving of Theodoret nor his conclusion true which he would thence inferre that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill and the Catholike faith 11 The second personall matter which Vigilius taketh for another ground of his decree is that neither Theodoret himselfe did nor did the Councell of Chalcedon require him to anathematize his writings There was saith he divers in the Councell of Chalcedon who said that Theodoret had anathematized Cyrill and was an heretike yet those holy Fathers most diligently examining this cause of Theodoret nihil aliud ab eo exigisse noscuntur are knowne to have required no more of him than that hee should anathematize Nestorius and his impious doctrines hoc sibi tantummodo sufficere judicantes judging this alone to be sufficient for them to receive Theodoret. Now it is unfit saith he further nos aliquid quaerere velut omissum à patribus that we should seeke or require more than did the Councell of Chalcedon as if they had omitted any thing in this cause of Theodoret seeing then they required no anathematizing of his writings against Cyrill neither ought any others to anathematize or require of any the anathematizing of the same 12. As you saw Vigilius in the former Chapter to use haretica astutia so may any man here easily discerne that hee useth an evident and fallacious sophistication The Councell indeed required not that nor did Theodoret in explicite or expresse termes performe it saying I anathematize my owne writings against Cyrill but in implicite termes in effect and by an evident consequent both the Councell required and Theodoret performed this before them all for hee subscribed to the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon one part of that definition is the approveing of the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill a part of one of those Epistles are the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which Theodoret refuted in every one of those chapters is an anathema denounced to the defenders of the contrarie doctrine Then certainely Theodoret by subscribing to the definition subscribed to the Epistles of Cyrill by them to the twelve chapters and by doing so he condemned and anathemized all who oppugned those twelve chapters and then undoubtedly his owne writings which were published as a confutation of those twelve chapters And it seemes strange that Vigilius professing that Theodoret did devota mente suscipere with a dovout affection receive and approve the Epistles of Cyrill and the doctrine of them could deny or be ignorant that in doing so he did anathematize his owne writings which by the twelve chapters of Cyrill are anathematized 13. Besides this how often how plainely doth the Councell of Chalcedon require and urge Theodoret to anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines how willingly did Theodoret performe this What else is this but a vertuall and implicite anathematizing of those his owne writings against Cyrill which defended Nestorius and his doctrines None can anathematize the former but eo ipso he doth most certainely though not expresly anathematize the later as on the contrary none can say as Vigilius doth and decreeth that all shall doe the like none can say that the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and his twelve chapters ought not to be anathematized but eo ipso even by saying so he doth most certainly though but implicitè and by consequent say that Nestorius and his heresie ought not to be condemned A truth so cleare that Pope Pelagius from his anathematizing of Nestorius and his doctrine concludeth of Theodoret Constat eundem it is manifest that in doing this he condemned his owne writings against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill 14. Neither is that true which Vigilius fancied that to require men to anathematize the writings of Theodoret is to seeke and require more then the Councell of Chalcedon required It is not It is but requiring the selfe same thing to be done in actuall and expresse termes which the Councel required and Theodoret performed in vertuall and implicite termes The thing required and done is the same the manner onely of doing it or requiring it to be done is different Even as to require of men to professe Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Councell of Nice and the Church ever since requireth is not to require them to professe more or ought else then the Scripture teacheth and all catholikes before professed by those words I and my Father are one but it is a requiring of an explicite profession of that truth concerning the unity of substance of the Father and the Sonne which by those words of Scripture they did before implicitè professe 15. But yet at least will some of Vigilius friends reply it was unfit to require this explicite anathematizing of Theodorets writings seeing the Councell of Chalcedon did not require it No not so neither The explicite condemning of them was not only fit but necessarie at that time in the dayes of Iustinian and Vigilius For as when the Arians denyed Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was enough for one to cleare himselfe of Arianisme to say that he held this text for true I and the Father are one though therein he doe implicitè professe Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though to have professed that alone before the question about the unity of one substance was moved had beene sufficient but now he must explicitè professe that truth which is explicitè denyed and oppugned even so
it is in this cause of Theodorets writings and all like it While there was no doubt moved by heretikes whether those writings of his ought to be condemned and whether by the Councell of Chalcedon they were condemed or no so long it was sufficient for one to professe that he condemned Nestorius and subscribed to the definition of Chalcedon both which were implicite condemning of those writings of Theodoret but when the Nestorians began to boast that Theodorets writings against Cyrill neither were condemned but rather with the author of them approved by the Councell of Chalcedon neither ought to be condemned the Church now was necessarily enforced to require of all men a profession of that truth in plaine and explicite termes which before they made onely in generall and implicite Nor could Vigilius or any other Nestorian who refused in expresse manner to condemne the writings of Theodoret purge himselfe of that heresie of Nestorius at this time by saying they approved the definition of Chalcedon or condemned Nestorius though in both these they did implicitè condemne the writings of Theodoret but now they must expresly professe that which the heretikes expresly denyed they must in plaine termes anathematize those hereticall writings of Theodoret and acknowledge them to have bin anathematized by the Councel of Chalcedon as the heretiks in plaine termes vauÌ„ted that neither they ought nor were anathematized but approved by the Councel of Chalcedon whensoever any point tending to the impeaching of faith begins explicitè to be denyed the holy Church may not then content her selfe in generall and implicitè to condemne the same few perhaps can perceive that and many will make that generality of termes as Vigilius and other Nestorians now did but a cloak for their heresie but the Church must now in most plaine easie and expressed manner that can be devised both teach declare and define the same This the Church did in this fift Councell as in the other two so in this Chapter touching Theodorets writings It taught but the very same which the Councell of Chalcedon had done before it anathematized those his writings which at Chalcedon were anathematized before but they did this now in a plaine manner and explicitè which by the Councell oâ— Chalcedon only in an obscure manner and implicitè was done before 16. The third personall errour which Vigilius taketh for a ground of his decree is that Cyrill himselfe though he was so exceedingly injured by the writings of those Easterne Bishops that tooke part with Nestorius yet when he made union with them he required them not to anathematize their owne writings but overpast them in silence as if there had never beene any such whence Vigilius inferreth that neither ought this anathematizing of their writings by name of Theodorets bee required by others yea he saith the Fathers of Chalcedon imitated this example of Cyrill and so would not require that of Theodoret which they saw Cyrill not to have required of others 17. The answer is easie by that which hath beene declared this saying of Vigilius laboureth of the same equivocall sophistication as did the former for both Cyrill required and all who were united unto him and received into his which was the communion of the Catholike Church they all did though not in explicite termes which then was not needfull yet vertually and after a certaine and undoubted though implicite manner condemne and anathematize all their writings against Cyrill and the Catholike faith for he received none till they had anathematized the doctrines of Nestorius This doth Cyril himselfe most plainly witnesse in his Epistle to Dynatus I would not saith he admit Paulus Bishop of Emisa into communion priusquam Nestorij dogmata proprio chyrographo anathematizasset untill hee had anathematized by his owne hand-writing the doctrines of Nestorius And he intreated me in behalfe of the other Bishops that I would rest contented with that profession which they had sent and require no more nulla ratione id fieri passus I would by no meanes yeeld unto that but I sent them a profession of faith and when Iohn 8. of Antioch caeterique and the rest with him had anathematized the doctrine of Nestorius then and not before communionem illis restituimus did we receive them into our communion Thus Cyrill who by requiring this did in effect require they performed the same a condemning of all their witings which were made against him and in defence of that heresie of Nestorius And had Cyrill lived to see any question made whether those writings by whomsoever they had beene written ought to bee or were by himselfe condemned out of all doubt that holy Father would in most plaine and expresse termes have anathematized them all as vertually and implicitè he had before and would most strictly have exacted the like expresse anathematizing of them of all those who would wash their hands of the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius 18. Now from these three grounds every one of which is demonstrated to be untrue Vigilius collects his Conclusion or definitive sentence in defence of this second Chapter which also is an errour but not as the former personall but doctrinall yea hereticall that those writings of Theodoret or going under Theodorets name against Cyrill and his twelve Chapters ought not to be condemned which is as much as if he had decreed plainly that the heresies of Nestorius ought not to be condemned for in those writings of Theodoret they are all defended and that with such eagernesse art and acutenesse that if all other Nestorian books were abolished those writings alone of Theodoret would suffice as a rich storehouse to furnish the Nestorians with abundance of all kinde of weapons to maintaine their owne and oppugne the Catholike cause nor ever can Nestorianisme bee puld downe or overthrowne so long as those writings of Theodoret keeâ—e their credit and stand uncondemned yet shal not these be condemned doth Vigilius decree 19. Pope Pelagius seeing the poison of the hereticall doctrine which the defending of this second Chapter doth beare with it exclaimes against it in this manner O my deare brethren who seeth not these things to bee full of all impiety And againe who seeth not quanta temeritate plenum sit Theodoreti scripta superbiendo defendere how full of temeritie it is to defend so insolently the writings of Theodoret The fift generall Councell not onely accurseth those writings of Theodoret as hereticall but all who defend them yea all who doe not anathematize them A cleare evidence that they not onely judged this second Chapter to concerne the faith but the Constitution of Vigilius even herein to be hereticall because he would not anathematize those writings of Theodoret and much more because he decreed that they should not be anathematized and to their judgement consenteth the whole catholike Church they all condemne the decree of Vigilius even in this point as hereticall 20. I but Vigilius you will say
not so much as any sepulcher nothing praeter laceras has vestes I have left nothing to my selfe but onely this ragged attire wherewith I am apparelled For learning and knowledge both in divine and humane matters he was much honoured compared to Nilus as watering the whole countrie where hee abode with the streames of his knowledge he converted eight townes infected with the heresie of the Marcionites to the faith two other of the Arians and Eunomians wherein he tooke such paines and that also with some expence of his blood and hazard of his life that in eight hundreth parishes within the Diocesse of Cyrus Ne unum quidem haereticorum zizanium remansit there remained not so much as one hereticall weed 30. So learned so laborious so worthy a Bishop was Theodoret and so desirous am I not to impaire any part of his honour much lesse to injure disgrace or slander him Whom almost would not the writings of a man so noble for birth and parentage so famous for learning so eminent in vertue move and perswade to assent unto him if they might goe currant without taxing without note or censure of the Church and that much more than the bookes of Origen both because Origen was but a Presbyter but Theodoret a Bishop and specially because Origen himselfe was by the Church condemned and so the author being disgraced the authority of his writings must needs be very small but the person of Theodoret was approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon they all proclamed him to bee a Catholike and orthodoxall Bishop Here was a farre greater temptation and greater danger when his writings are hereticall whose person so famous and holy a Councell commendeth for Catholike Now or never was the Church to shew that it honoured no mans person writings or name more thā the truth of Christ. And so much the rather was the Church to doe this in Theodoret because about some thirty yeares before this fift Councell in the time of Iustinus the Emperour the Nestorians as if not onely some writings of his but Theodoret himselfe had beene wholly theirs set up his image in a Chariot and with great pompe and singing of hymnes brought it in triumphant manner into the City of Cyrus where Sergius a Nestorian and Bishop of that place mentioned in a Collect Theodorus of Mopsvestia Nestorius and Theodoret as three of their principall Nestorian Saints was it not now high time to wipe away that blemish from the name of Theodoret and to condemne those writings of his which gave occasion to the Nestorians to make such boasts 31. I appeale now unto any man whether their condemning of Theodorets writings did not much more tend to the honour then as Vigilius fancieth to the slander and disgrace of his person As it is a blemish to a man to retaine a filthy spot in his garment but the taking of it away doth grace and make him more comely even so the name of Theodoret was stained by those writings they emboldened the Nestorians to put him in their cursed Calender but by the condemning of those writings was the staine and blemish wiped away from his person his name and honour was vindicated from the Nestorians and brought as it well deserved to the holy Church of GOD nothing of Theodoret left for heretikes to vaunt of but the onely staines of Theodoret nothing but those hereticall writings condemned and accursed both by Theodoret himselfe and by the whole Church of God 32. No no it is Pope Vigilius and such as applaud his decree for infallible that disgraceth and most ignominiously useth the name person and memory of Theodoret By his decree those heretical writings of Theodoret which by the Churches sentence of condemnation are quite dulled receive full strength and vigour for the Nestorians against Catholikes By him the Nestorians have an eternall charter and irrevocable decree that Theodorets writings against Cyrill and with them the heresie of Nestorius ought not to be taxed nor condemned His Apostolicall Constitution is a triumphant chariot for them to set the Image of Theodoret in their Temples and with Anthemes and Collects to canonize yea adore him in their Masses among their hereticall Saints But for the Church of God I constantly affirme they could not possibly have more honoured Theodoret than by burning up the hay and stubble of his writings the condemning of which the Pope decreeth to bee an injury and slander unto him 33. May wee now in the last place consider a little what might be the intendment of Vigilius in pleading and decreeing this for Theodorets writings I doubt not but the love he bare to Nestorianisme might make him zealous for those writings which are the bulwarks of the Nestorians but non sunt in eo omnia Popes are men of profound thoughts and very long reaches they have deepe and mysticall projects in their decrees Vigilius had and it may be principally an eye to this his owne and all their Cathedrall Constitutions like unto it If the hereticall writings of Theodoret may not be condemned because himselfe was a Catholike à fortiori this decree of Vigilius be it never so hereticall may not bee condemned because the Pope is the head of all Catholikes If it bee an injury and a slandering of Theodoret to taxe him or his name by condemning his writings it must much more be an injury and slander nay that is nothing even a blasphemy and sinne irremissible to taxe the Popes Holinesse by condemning his Apostolicall decree If you presume to condemne nay but taxe them or their names though their decrees shall bee as apparently hereticall as are those writings of Theodoret you are condemned for ever as injurious as contumelious as slandering persons And let this suffice for the errours both personall and doctrinall of Vigilius touching this second Chapter CAP. X. That Vigilius and Baronius erre in divers personall points or matters of fact concerning the third Chapter or the Epistle of Ibas 1. THere remaineth now the third last Chapter which concernes the impious Epistle of Ibas In handling whereof being of them all most intricate and obscure as Vigilius first and then long after him his Champion Baronius have here bestowed greatest paines and used all their subtilty judging this to bee as indeed by reason of the manifold obscurities it is the fittest cloake for their heresie so must I on the other side intreate the more serious and attentive consideration at the readers hands while I indeavour not onely to discover the darke and secret corners of this cause but pull both the Pope and his Parasite out of this being their strongest hold and most hidden hereticall den wherein they hoped of all other most safely and securely to have lurked for the more perspicuous proceeding wherein before I come to the doctrinall errours and maine heresie which in this third Chapter they maintaine I will first manifest two or three of their personall untruths
which will both open a passage to the other and will give the reader a taste nay a certaine experiment what truth fidelity and faire-dealing he is to expect at the hands of Vigilius and Baronius in their handling of this Chapter 2. The first and that indeed a capitall untruth is that Vigilius avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to have approved this Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall They approve that impious and blasphemous Epistle they rejected they condemned anathematized and accursed it to the very pit of hell witnesse the fift generall Councell and the whole Catholike Church which hath approved it for thus cryed out and proclaimed all the Bishops Epistolam definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnavit ejecit the definition of faith made by the holy Councell at Chalcedon hath condemned this Epistle it hath cast out this Epistle But because I have formerly intreated hereof I will adde no more of this which is proclaimed by the whole Church to be an untruth 3. The second untruth is like this Vigilius having cited the interloquutions of Pascasinus and Maximus wherein they say that Ibas by his Epistle is declared to bee a Catholike addeth that all the rest in the Councell of Chalcedon did not onely not contradict their interloquutions verumetiam apertissimum eis noscuntur praebuisse consensum but also they are knowne to have assented and that most manifestly unto those interloquutions So Vigilius It had beene enough and too much to have said that the Councell had assented or had but seemed to assent but Vigilius in saying that all the rest did most manifestly assent to those interloquutions uttered a papall and supreme untruth whereof no colourable pretence can be made witnesse the fift general Councell and the whole Catholike Church which hath approved it They expresly testifie that the Councell of Chalcedon did pro nullo habere esteeme as nothing that which was spoken by one or two those were Pascasinus and Maximus for that Epistle but of this also I have spoken before 4. Now both these vntruths whereof Vigilius is so evidently and by so ample witnesses convicted Cardinall Baronius hath againe revived telling with a face more hard than Brasse or Adamant Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam the Fathers of Chalcedon said that this Epistle of Ibas is to be received as orthodoxall and againe ex ipsa Ibam fuisse probatum orthodoxum aequè una fuit sententia omnium Episcoporum that Ibas was by this Epistle approved for a Catholike it was the consent and uniforme judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon then which two lowder untruths and well worthy of a golden whetstone could hardly have beene uttered And though he tooke them from Pope Vigilius yet are they farre more inexcusable in the Cardinall than in the Pope his Master Vigilius dyed before he saw the judgement of succeeding Popes and generall Councels which had he knowne wee may charitably thinke that his Holinesse would have casseired and defaced such palpable and condemned untruths But Cardinall Baronius knew all this hee knew that the fift generall Councell had condemned these untruths in Vigilius he knew that Pelagius Gregory and their successors that the sixt seventh and other generall Councels had approved the fift Councell and so in approving it had condemned those same untruths and yet against the knowne consent and judgement of all those Popes and generall Councels that is against the knowne testimonie of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand yeares together he is bold to avouch both those former sayings for truths which all those former witnesses with one voyce proclaime to be condemned untruths Such account doth the Cardinall make of Fathers Popes Generall Councels and of the whole Catholike Church when they come crosse in his way 5. A third personall matter there is concerning this Chapter of which not Vigilius but Cardinall Baronius doth enforce me to intreate and that is whether Ibas was indeed the author of this Epistle or no for although it be not materiall to the intent of the fift Councell which against the decree of Vigilius we now defend whether Ibas writ it or not seeing neither this fift nor the former Councell of Chalcedon condemned the author of this Epistle but onely the Epistle it selfe yet seeing the Cardinall was pleased to undertake the defence of a needlesse untruth that this is not the Epistle of Ibas I am desirous that all should see how wisely and worthily hee hath behaved himselfe in this point 6. Baronius speaking against this Epistle first makes it doubtfull whose it is saying author qui fertur nomine Ibae quisquis ille fuerit the author of this Epistle which passeth under the name of Ibas whatsoever he be and having thus bred a distrust in your mindes then as the serpent dealt with Eve hee positively sets downe his untruth It is not the Epistle of Ibas in this manner Caeterum ut publica acta testantur producta in Concilium Epistola illa non esse Ibae comperta but the publike acts doe testifie that when this Epistle was produced in the Councell at Chalcedon it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it being condemned Ibas was absolved Thus Baronius who for proofe hereof alleageth the publike acts both of the Councell of Chalcedon and of the 2. Nicene Synod And truly in the second Nicene Synod that which the Cardinall saith is read indeed by Epiphanius a Deacon in that Synod but it is the testimony of the whole Councell Epiphanius onely reading and proposing it in the name and behalfe of the Synod And because it is a testimony very pregnant for the Cardinalls assertion and is cited out of a Councel which he much honoreth affecteth I will do him the favour as at large to expresse that passage the rather because this as the whole answer read by Epiphanius is not onely commended as a matter delivered unto them by the holy Ghost but they further request all who shall happen to light on that commentarie of theirs that they will not read it slightly or perfunctorily but with singular indagation and search of the same And I am loth to deny those Nicene Fathers so very just and reasonable a request 7. In that place there was read on the behalfe of the Iconoclasts a testimonie out of the ancient Father Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus forbidding to set up Images either in the Churches or in Churchyards or in their common dwelling houses but every where to carie about God in their hearts This saying netled the Nicene Fathers not a little who were very superstitiously devoted to Image-worship and therefore in stead of a better answer they say that the booke whence that is alleaged is falsly ascribed to Epiphanius hee was not the author of it Ephiphanius they honor as an holy Father and Doctor of the Catholike Church but that
Councell at Chalcedon and ought by all others to be adjudged a Catholike is it not evident that the Cardinall wittingly and willingly maintaines hereby the union with the Nestorians to bee the catholike union and so the doctrines of the Nestorians to bee the catholike faith for this union mentioned in the Epistle is as the Cardinall professeth an union in Nestorianisme an union with Cyrill having now renounced the Ephesine Councell and the catholike faith 27. Onely there is one quirke or subtilty in the Cardinals words which may not without great wrong unto him bee omitted where he acknowledgeth this Epistle to be hereticall hereticall in this point of the union there he will not have it to be the Epistle of Ibas for then by it Ibas should bee judged a Nestorian which would quite overthrow the Constitution of Vigilius when in the other place he defends as Vigilius decreeth that Ibas by this Epistle and by consenting to this union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike there the Epistle is truly the Epistle of Ibas but then consenting to this union is the note of a Catholike So both this Epistle is the Epistle of Ibas and it is not the Epistle of Ibas and to consent to the union herein mentioned is the note of a Nestorian heretike and to consent to the same union is the note of a good Catholike Thus doth the Cardinall play sport himselfe in contradictions and as the winde blowes and turnes him so doth he turne his note also If the winde blow to Alexandria and turne the Cardinals face towards Cyrill then the union is hereticall lest Cyrill who condemned it should bee condemned for an heretike If the winde blow from Africke and turne the Cardinals face towards Rome and Pope Vigilius then the union is Catholike lest Vigilius approving this union should not be thought a Catholike Or because a Cardinall so learned so renouned as Baronius may not be thought to contradict himselfe or speake amisse in either place let both sayings be admitted for true and then it unavoydably followeth that by the Cardinals divinity and in his judgment Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith which aptly and easily will accord both his sayings for so the author of this Epistle by approving this union shall be a perfect Nestorian as in the one place is affirmed and by approving this union shall be withall a perfect Catholike as in the other place is avouched 28. Besides this confession of Baronius which is cleare enough there is yet another meanes to demonstrate that the Cardinall by defending this latter part of the Epistle touching the union did wittingly and wilfully maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for the fift generall Councell approved as wee have shewed by the judgment of the whole Catholike Church hath adjudged this very part of the Epistle the defence whereof Baronius hath undertaken not onely to bee hereticall but to bee more full of blasphemies than any of the rest it hath further judicially defined al that defend either this or any part of that Epistle to be heretikes and for such it hath anathematized them yea all that write either for it or for them Now the Cardinall had read the whole fift Councell as appeareth by that summary collection which he hath made of the Acts and of every Collation thereof nay hee had not onely read these Acts but pried earnestly with a jealous and carping eie into every corner and sentence thereof as you shall perceive hereafter and therefore it is doubtlesse that hee knew the judgement of this fift Councell concerning all that defend any part of this Epistle and specially the latter part which concernes the union Neither onely did he know that to be the judgement of this fist Councell but as himselfe expresly witnesseth of all both Popes and generall Councels which followed it all of them approving this fift Councell and the judgement thereof whence it is cleare that Baronius knew certainly himselfe by defending this part of the Epistle touching the union to defend that which by the judgment of the fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church ever since hath beene condemned for hereticall and the defenders of it anathematized as heretikes yet such was the Cardinals zeale and ardent affection to Nestorianisme that against the judgement of the whole Church knowne unto him yea knowne for this very cause to anathematize him yet he defends the union there mentioned and the latter part of that Epistle wherein it is mentioned that is in truth all the blasphemies of Nestorius chosing rather by adhering to Vigilius and his hereticall decree to be condemned and anathematized by the whole Catholike Church for a Nestorian heretike than by forsaking the defence of Vigilius and his decree to condemne this latter part of the Epistle of Ibas touching the union which containeth in it the very quintessence of all Nestorianisme 29. I think it is now sufficiently apparent by that which wee have already said that the union which Ibas in his Epistle mentioneth and embraceth and which Vigilius first and after him Baronius approveth is not that true union in the Catholike faith which Cyrill made with Iohn and other Easterne Bishops but onely an union in Nestorianisme and in denying the Catholike faith to which the Nestorians falsly reported and slandered Cyrill with the other Catholikes to have consented and thereby to have condemned and anathematized that truth which the yeare before they had decreed at Ephesus Yet for the full satisfaction of all and clearing of all doubts which may arise I will adde one thing further which will much more manifest both the calumnie of the Nestorians and the constancy of Saint Cyrill and that is upon what colour or pretence the Nestorians raised this slanderous report which I am the more desirous to explane because the narration of this matter is extreamly confounded and entangled by Baronius and Binius and that as may be feared even of set purpose that they might either quite discourage others as almost they had done my selfe in the search of this truth or at least misleade them into such by-paths that they should not finde the truth in this matter 30. When Theodosius the religious Emperour had written by Aristolaus that earnest letter to Iohn and the other Easterne Bishops perswading yea commanding them to consent with Cyrill and embrace the Catholike communion they upon the Emperors motion sought indeed to make an union with Cyrill but they laboured to effect it by drawing Cyrill unto their bent and to consent unto their heresies This they first attempted by a letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea willing him to write in all their names unto Cyrill that no unity or concord could be made but according to those conditions which themselves should prescribe and the condition prescribed by them was that Cyrill should abolish and condemne all that ever hee had written against Nestorianisme and
of this speech if they should deny it and more plausibly to convay their heresie said and in words professed even this also that Mary was the Mother of God but they meant not thereby as Catholikes did that Christ who tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary was the same person or one personall subsistence with the Sonne of God or that God was incarnate and assumed the manhood to make one person with the Godhead but all that they meant was that the Son of God was onely by affection and love united unto the sonne of Marie being already perfect man in the wombe of his mother and that God was borne of her not by assuming flesh unto him but by inhabiting that man who tooke flesh of her Thus in shew of words the Nestorians seemed to bee Catholikes and to say the same with Catholikes but their sense and meaning in those words was most hereticall and therefore indeed and in truth themselves notwithstanding all these speeches were heretikes 15. For the full and ample proofe of all these I must referre my selfe to another Treatise if it ever happen to see the light wherein I have at large handled this point and proved another of their Popes somewhat more ancient then Vigilius I meane Hormisda to have beene as deepe in the heresie of Nestorius and to have as firmly by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence confirmed the same as Vigilius himselfe hath done who as I thinke by the example and authority of his predecessor was the more emboldned to plead for Nestorianisme it being of all heresies which ever sprung up in the Church most full of all sophisticall subtilties and colourable pretences of wit was most fit of all the rest to be commended by such as under the shew of learning and truth meant to defend and uphold heresie But for this time I will now alleage onely a few evident testimonies to declare the truth of that concurrence in words and difference in sense betweene Catholikes and Nestorians which even now I mentioned 16. Nestorius in his Epistle to Alexander signifying that the two natures in Christ are also two persons saith thus Non duas personas unam personam facimus we doe not make two persons one person but by this one name of Christ we signifie two natures to wit making two persons And to shew how these two persons are called by them one person thou mayst saith he call him that was borne of Mary by the name of the Sonne of God for the Virgin which bare Christ filium Dei genuit bare the Sonne of God but because the Sonne according to the Natures is double non genuit quidem filium Dei she did not truly beare the Son of God as taking flesh from her but she bare the man or humane nature quae propter filium adjunctum filij quoque appellatione afficitur which is called the Sonne of God because the Sonne God is united and joyned unto him and in another place He that was framed in the wombe and laid in the grave is not of himselfe God at quia Deus in homine assumpto existit but because God is in the man whom hee assumes unto him the man assumed is called God because hee is assumed of God So Nestorius plainly calling Christ God and the Son of God and Marie the mother of God and yet denying God and man to be one person but the person of God to assume a perfect man or the person of Man 17. Theodorus the master of Nestorius declares the same In ipso plasmato Deus verbum factus est The Word or Sonne of God was united to the man Christ being framed and formed shewing plainly that Christ was first made a perfect man and person and that then the Sonne of God as another person was united unto him And shewing that the unity of the two natures is not personall but onely affectuall hee compares the unity which is betwixt the Godhead and the manhood in Christ to that unitie which is bewixt man and wife who though they bee called one yet are they in naturall subsistence two distinct persons Even so saith he in Christ non nocet naturarum differentiae unitas personae the unity of person doth not take away the distinction of the natures And the two natures joyned together unam personam dicimus we call one person which unity not to be personall no more then it is in man and wife but affectuall hee immediately explaneth expresly affirming either nature in Christ to be a perfect and distinct person or personall subsistence by it selfe saying for when we discerne or teach two natures perfectam naturam verbi Dei dicimus perfectam personam perfectam autem hominis naturam personam similiter we affirme both the perfect nature and the perfect person of the Sonne of God and also the perfect nature and perfect person of man to be in Christ but when we look at the conjunction of these natures unam personam tunc dicimus then wee call them one person to wit one by affectuall but not by naturall and personall unity for he said plainly before that they were two perfect distinct persons Thus Theodorus 18. This is to have beene the very true meaning of the Nestorians Iustinian in his Edict manifestly declareth writing thus and most divinely In that the Apostle saith of the Sonne of God that he tooke the forme of a servant he sheweth that the Word was united to the Nature of Man but not to any subsistence or person for he doth not say he tooke him who was in the forme of a servant least he should imply thereby that the Word was united unto the man being formerly formed as impious Theodorus and Nestorius did blaspheme affectualem dicentes unitatem teaching an affectuall and no personall unitie betwixt them The fift Councell after most exact sifting of this matter doth witnes the same writing thus Theodorus and Nestorius teaching two persons two Christs two sonnes would hide their impietie by calling them two natures and one sonne And a little after Theodorus affectualem unitatem dicens naturas pro personis subsistentijs accipit Theodorus teaching an affectuall union onely to bee betwixt the two natures useth the word Nature for Person and so indeed teacheth two persons Quomodo Nestorius duas dicit naturas in which same sense also Nestorius teacheth two natures to be in Christ sed pro personis eas accipit but hee taketh twose two natures for two persons So the generall Councell 19. Pope Iohn the second doth clearly expresse this setting downe the faith of the Romane Church Wee professe Christ to be perfect in deity and perfect in the humanity non antea existente carne postea unit a verbo sed in ipso Deo verbo initium ut esset accipiens his flesh or humane nature not first existing and then the Word being united unto it but his flesh taking beginning in the
heretike So Baronius who to free Vigilius from heresie acquits all that deale either pro or contra in this cause neither one side nor the other are heretikes 3. See how heresie makes a man to dote That this question about the three Chapters is a cause of faith wee have cleerly and unanswerably confirmed and Baronius himselfe hath confessed That the defenders of them and condemners were in a manifest contradiction in this cause the former by an evident consequent and cunningly defending the other condemning the heresies of Nestorius is most evident and yet both of them in the Cardinals judgement are good Catholikes neither the one who with the Nestorians deny Christ to be God nor the other who affirme him to be God may be called heretikes This truly is either the same heresie which the Rhetorians maintained who as Philastrius saith praised all sects and opinions and said they all went the right way or else it is an heresie peculiar to Baronius such as none before him ever dreamed of That two contradictories in a cause of faith may be held and yet neither of them be an heresie nor the pertinacious defenders of either of them both be heretikes Baronius would be famous for a peece of new found learning and an hereticall quirke above all that ever went before him such as by which he hath ex condigno merited an applause of all heretiks which either have beene or shall arise hereafter For seeing in this cause of faith two contradictories may be held without heresie the like may be in every other point of faith and so with Vigilius the Arians Eutycheans and all heretikes shall have their quietus est say what they will in any cause of faith none may call them heretikes I commend the Cardinall for his wit This makes all cocke sure it is an unexpugnable bulwarke to defend the Constitution of Pope Vigilius 4. Say you neither the defenders nor the condemners of these Chapters may for that cause bee called heretikes For the condemners of them trouble not your wit they are and shall be ever acknowledged for Catholikes But for the defenders of them who are the onely men that the Cardinall would gratifie by this assertion I may boldly say with the Prophet Though thou wash them with nitre and much sope yet is their iniquity marked out All the water in Tyber and Euphrates cannot wash away their heresie for as we have before fully declared the defending of any one much more of all these three Chapters is the defending of Nestorianisme and all the blasphemies thereof the condemning of the holy Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon and of all that approve them that is of the whole catholike Church and of the whole Catholike Faith All these must be hereticall if the defenders of those three Chapters be not heretikes 5. Now against this assertion of Baronius whereby he would acquit Vigilius and all that defend him from heresie I will oppose another and true assertion ensuing of that which wee have clearly proved and this it is That one or moe either men or Churches may dissent from the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in a cause of faith made knowne unto them and yet be no heretikes For to omit other instances no lesse effectuall this one concerning Vigilius doth make this most evident The cause was a cause of faith as Baronius himselfe often professeth The Popes definitive and Apostolicall sentence in that cause of faith made for defence of those three Chapters was published and made knowne to the fift generall Councell and to the whole Church this also Baronius confesseth and yet they who contradicted the Popes Apostolicall sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them were not heretikes this also is the confession of Baronius whose assertion as you have seene is that neither the condemners of these Chapters nor the defenders of them were heretiks So by the Cardinalls owne assertions one may contradict and oppugne the Popes knowne Cathedral and Apostolicall sentēce in cause of faith and yet bee no heretike But what speake I of Baronius the evidence and force of reason doth unresistably confirme this For the whole fift generall Councell contradicted yea condemned and accursed the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them The whole Catholike Church ever since hath approved the fift Councell and the decree thereof and therefore hath contradicted condemned and accursed the Popes sentence as the Councell had done And none I hope will be so impudently hereticall as to call not onely the fift generall and holy Councell but the whole Catholike Church of God heretikes who yet must all be heretikes or else the dissenting from yea the detesting and accursing the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith cannot make one an heretike 6. I say more and adde this as a further consequent on that which hath been declared That none can now assent to their Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church but eo 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 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 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 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 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
adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels defining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth declare Coster observes that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place and againe in his Relections gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both
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 the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures and by the like reason it is to iudge of traditions and of the sense of them Now because all doubts and controversies of faith depend on the one of these it clearly followeth upon that decree that the very last stay in all doubts of faith is the Churches judgement but that upon no other nor higher stay doth or can relie for whatsoever you take besides this the truth the waight and validity of all must be tried in the Church at her judgement it must stand or fall yea if you make a doubt of the Churches judgement it selfe even that as all other must be ended by the judgement of the Church it is the last Iudge of all This to bee the true meaning of the Trent Councel Bellarmine both saw and professeth when hee saith The Church that is the Pope with a Councell is Iudge of the sense of the Scripture omnium controversiarum and of all controversies of faith and in this all Catholikes do agree and it is expresly set downe in the Trent Councell So Bellarmine testifying this to be both the decreed doctrine of their generall and approved Councell and the consenting judgment of all that are Romane Catholikes 17. Now all this which they have said of the Church if you will have it in plaine termes and without circumloquution belongs onely to the Pope who is vertually both Church and Councell As the Church or Councell is called infallible no otherwise but by a Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head both of Church and Councell is infallible So is the Church or Councell called the foundation of faith or last principle on which their faith must relie by the same figure Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head of them both is the foundation of faith And whosoever is a true Romane Catholike or member of their present Church hee beleeveth all other doctrines because the Church that is the Pope doth teach them and the Pope to teach them infallibly he beleeveth for it selfe because the Pope saith hee is in such teaching infallible This infallibility of the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very corner stone the foundation stone the rocke and fundamentall position of their whole faith and religion which was the point that I purposed to declare 18. I have hitherto declared and I feare too abundantly that the assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie in causes of faith is not onely a position but the very fundamentall position of all the doctrines of the present Romane Church In the next place we are to prove that this position is hereticall and that for such it was adjudged and condemned by the Catholike Church In the proofe whereof I shall not need to stay long This whole treatise and even that which hath already beene declared touching the Constitution of Pope Vigilius doth evidently confirme the same For seeing the defending of the Three Chapters hath been proved to be hereticall the Constitution of Vigilius made in defence of those Chapters must of necessity be confessed to be hereticall Nay if you well consider you shall see that this very position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie is adjudged to bee hereticall For the fift generall Councell knew this cause of the Three Chapters to bee a cause of faith They knew further that Pope Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree and Cathedrall Constitution had defined that those Three Chapters ought to bee defended Now seeing they knew both these and yet judicially defined the defence of those Three Chapters to be hereticall and for such accursed it even in doing this they define the Cathedrall judgement of Vigilius in this cause of Faith to be hereticall and therefore most certainly and à fortiori define this position That the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is infallible to bee hereticall and for such they anathematize both it and all that defend it And because the judgement and definitive sentence of the fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all subsequent Councels till the Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth it unavoydably hence ensueth that the same position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is by the judgement of all generall Councells untill that time that is by the constant and uniforme consent of the whole Catholike Church adjudged condemned and accursed for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes And seeing we have cleerly proved the whole present Romane Church and all that are members therof to defend this position yea to defend it as the maine foundation of their whole faith the evidence of that assertion which I proposed doth now manifestly appeare That none can now assent to the Pope or to the doctrines of the present Church of Rome but he is eo nomine even for that very cause adjudged and condemned for hereticall and that even in the very ground and foundation of his faith 19. From the foundation let us proceed to the walls and roofe of their religion Thinke you the foundation thereof is onely hereticall and the doctrines which they build thereon orthodoxall Nothing lesse They are both sutable both hereticall That one fundamentall position is like the Trojan horse in the wombe of it are hid many troopes of heresies If Liberius confirme Arianisme Honorius Monothelitisme Vigilius Nestorianisme these all by vertue of that one assertion must passe currant for Catholike truths Nay who can comprehend I say not in words or writing but in his thought and imagination all the blasphemous and hereticall doctrines which by all their Popes have beene or if as yet they have not which hereafter may be by succeeding Popes defined to bee doctrines of faith Seeing Stapleton assures us That the Church of this or any succeeding age may put into the Canon and number of sacred and undoubtedly Canonicall bookes the booke of Hermas called Pastor and the Constitutions of Clement the former being as their owne notes censure it haeresibus fabulis opplet us full of heresies and fables rejected by Pope Gelasius with his Romane Synod the later being stuffed also with many impious doctrines condemning lawfull mariage as fornication and allowing fornication as lawfull with many the like impieties which in Possevine are to
bee seene together for which cause they are worthily rejected in the Canons of the sixt Councell seeing the Pope may canonize these what blasphemies what heresies what lies may not with them be canonized why may not their very Legend in the next Session bee declared to be Canonicall And yet by that fundamentall position they are bound and now doe implicitè beleeve whatsoever any Pope either by word or writing either hath already or shall at any time hereafter define to be a doctrine of faith Because I will not stay on particulars if any please seriously to consider this matter hee shall perceive that which now I intend to prove such venome of infidelity to lye in that one fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility that by reason of holding it they neither doe nor can beleeve or hold with certaintie of faith any one point or doctrine which they professe to beleeve and hold upon that Foundation 20. For the clearing of which point being very materiall it is to be observed that unto certainty of faith two things are of necessity required The one ex parte objecti on the part of thing beleeved which must be so true and certaine in it selfe that it cannot possibly bee or have beene otherwise then it is beleeved to be to have beene or to be hereafter And therefore none can truly beleeve any untruth for nothing which is untrue is or can be the object of faith The other thing is required ex parte subjecti on the part of him who beleeveth Now faith being onely of such things are inevident that is which neither by sense can be perceived nor by naturall reason collected or found out but which are onely by the testimonie of such as first knew them made knowne unto us and none doth or can know that which is supernaturall unlesse God himselfe reveale the same unto him it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any beleeved the same is revealed and testified to him by God himselfe who is infallible and further that it is certainly knowne unto him who beleeveth that it is God himselfe who doth reveale and testifie that thing unto him For otherwise though the doctrine proposed be in it selfe never so certaine and divine yet unto thee or me it cannot be certaine nor held by certainty of faith unlesse first we be sure and infallibly certaine that he who testifieth it unto us is himselfe infallible that is that he is God Let us for perspicuity call the former of these two materiale fidei the materiall in faith or the thing beleeved and the later formale fidei that which is formall in faith seeing as the former is the thing beleeved so the later containes the reason the ground or foundation upon which and for which it is beleeved 21. Consider now first the materials in their faith In them there is a great difference for some of them are in themselves credible as being divine truths and true objects of faith Such are all those Catholike truths common to us and them as that there is a Trinity that Christ was borne of a Virgin dyed rose againe and the like Others are in themselves untrue such as cannot be the object of faith Of this sort are all those doctrines wherin they dissent from us Transubstantiation reall and proper sacrifice worshipping of Images Purgatory Iustification by the merit or dignity of our works and the like which may rightly bee called popish doctrines The later sort of these they neither doe nor can beleeve The former they might but they doe not beleeve The reason whereof will appeare by considering that which is formall or the fundamentall ground of their faith where it is first to be observed that a man may hold many yea all the doctrines professed by the present Church except that one of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility and yet bee no Papist or member of their present Church For although the things professed or the Materialls be the selfe same yet the formalitie or diverse reason of holding them causeth a maine difference in the parties that hold them And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three divers wayes whereby their doctrines are or may be held 22. The first is of them who build all those doctrines upon the Scripture as the Foundation thereof upon that ground holding not onely many Catholike truths which they most firmly beleeve the Church inducing the Scriptures outwardly teaching and the holy Spirit inwardly sealing the same unto them but together with those truths hold some errors also of the Romane Church take for example Transubstantiation which although for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live they thinke to be taught in the Scriptures and therefore hold and professe them and thinke they beleeve them yet because they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures nor sealed by Gods Spirit unto their hearts therefore they hold not these nor in truth can they hold them with that firmnesse and certainty of faith as they doe the former truths but they have a faintnes and feare in their assent unto these and so a readines and willing preparation of heart to disclaime these and to hold or professe the contrary if ever it may be fully cleared manifested out of the Scriptures unto them Of this sort we doubt not but many thousands of our fathers were who living in the darknesse thicke mists of their Antichristian superstition upon the Scriptures word of God which they held for the foundation of their faith builded indeed much gold precious stones but with a mixture of much hay stubble drosse thinking but very erroneously the later as well as the former to be contained in that foundation The state of all these is very like to S. Cyprians and those other Africane Bishops which were so earnest for Rebaptizatiō supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures though the foundation of it of those catholike truths that Christ was God or the like was one and the same unto them yet they held not both with like firmnes certainty of faith The doctrine of Christs deity manhood they so beleeved that they would not cōmunicate with any that denied this nay they would rather die then deny it But Rebaptization they so held as not thinking their opposites to be heretikes nor refusing to cōmunicate with thē that denyed it so they held this with a certaine faintnes of faith or rather as indeed it was of opinion and not of faith having a preparation in heart to beleeve and professe the contrary if it might at any time be made manifest unto them This S. Austen often witnesseth of Cyprian Satis ostendit se facillime correcturum he sufficiently declareth that hee would most easily have altered his opinion if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him Againe That holy man Cyprian being non solum doctus sed docilis not onely learned but willing to learne
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because
to be received in both kinds he then would receive it not in both but in one kind onely Blessed Luther it was never thy meaning either to receive it onely in one or to deny it to be necessary for Gods Church and people to receive it in both kindes Thou knewest right well that Bibite ex hoc omnes was Christs owne ordinance with which none might dispense Thou for defence of this truth among many was set up as a signe of contradiction unto them and as a marke at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches Farre was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth But whereas they taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrarie such as the Church that is the Pope might either allow or take away as he should thinke fit upon this supposall and no otherwise didst thou in thine ardent zeale to Christ and detestation of Antichrist say that were the use of both or one kinde onely a thing indeed indifferent as they taught it to be if the Pope as Pope should command the receiving in both kindes thou wouldst not then receive it so lest whilst thou might seeme to obey Christ commanding that but yet upon their supposall as a thing indifferent thou shouldest certainly performe obedience to Antichrist by his authoritie limiting and restraining that indifferency unto both kindes as now by his authority hee restraines it unto one The summe is this To doe any act whether in it selfe good or indifferent but commanded to be done by the Pope as Pope to pray to preach to receive the Sacraments yea but to lift your eyes or hold up your finger or say your Pater noster or your Ave Maria or weare a bead a modell a lace or my garment white or blacke or use any crossing either at Baptisme or any other time to do any one of these or any the like eo nomine because the Pope as Pope teacheth that they are to be done or commands the doing of them is in very deed a yeelding one selfe to be a vassall of Antichrist a receiving the marke of the beast and a vertuall or implicit deniall of the faith in Christ. So extremly venemous is that poison which lyeth in the root of that fundamentall heresie which they have laid as the very rocke and Foundation of their faith 34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baronius which concerned Heresie His other concerning Schisme is this That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended were Schismatikes A most strange assertion that the whole Catholike Church should bee schismaticall for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause that Catholikes should all at once become Schismatikes yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholike faith I oppose to this another and true assertion That not onely Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters and forsooke communion with the condemners of them was a Schismatike himselfe and chiefe of the Schisme but that all who as yet defend Vigilius that is who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith and forsake communion with those that condemne it that those all are and that for this very cause Schismatikes and the Pope the ringleader in the Schisme 35. For the manifesting whereof certaine it is that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly and judicially by his Apostolicall authority defined that the Three Chapters ought to be defended there was a great rent and Schisme in the Church either part separating it selfe from the other and forsaking communion with the other First the holy Councell and they who tooke part with it anathematized the defenders of those Chapters thereby as themselves expound it declaring their opposites to be separated from God and therefore from the society of the church of God On the other side Pope Vigilius they who were on his part were so averse from the others that they would rather endure disgrace yea banishment as Baronius sheweth thē communicate with their opposites But I shal not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schisme at this time betweene the defenders condemners of those chapters Baronius professeth it saying The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata torn asunder by a schisme Againe After the end of the Councell there arose a greater war then was before Catholikes so he falsly calls both parts being then divided among themselves some adhaering to the Councell others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution Againe Many relying upon the authority of Vigilius did not receive the fift Synod atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary Such were the Italian Africane Illirian other neighbour Bishops So Baronius truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part 36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes As the name of heresie though it bee common to any opinion whereof one makes choice whether it be true or false in which sense Constantine the great called the true faith Catholicam sanctissimam haeresim yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions as are repugnāt to the faith So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or renting of one from another yet now by the vulgar use of Divines it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause and from those to whom hee or they who are separated ought to unite themselves hold communion with them This whosoever doe whether they bee moe or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes and factious For it is neither multitude nor paucitie nor the holding with or against any visible head or governour whatsoever nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others but only the cause for which the separation is made which maketh a Schisme or faction and truly denounceth one to be factious or a Schismatike If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel because they are Idolaters and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal as they did If the three children for the like cause separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians in separation they are both like but in the cause being most unlike the Baalites onely and not Elijah and the Babylonians only and not the three children are Schismatikes Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church and hold communion with them in faith hence it is that as out of Austine Stapleton rightly observes Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 teach what wee affirme whatsoever any man or 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 faith 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 fame 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 not or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen and out of him Occham Gerson Navar Alphonsus à Castro 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
in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five 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 after his returne about a year after out of exile 3. The Cardinall gives yet another evidence hereof Pelagius saith he the successor of Vigilius did thinke it fit that the fift Synod should bee approved and the three Chapters condemned moved especially hereunto by this reason that the Easterne Church ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa being rent and divided from the Romane by reason of the Constitution of Vigilius might be united unto it How was the Easterne Church divided from the Romane in the time of Pelagius by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled and adnulled it If the Popes condemning of those Chapters and approving of the fift Councell could unite the Churches then the decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have effected that union If the Apostolike Decree of Vigilius could not effect it in vaine it was for Pelagius to thinke by his approbation which could have no more authority then Apostolicall to effect that union If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was as Baronius truly saith the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters against the judgement of the fift Synod seeing it is cleare by the Cardinalls owne confession that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius it certainly hence followeth that the Constitution of Vigilius which was the cause of that breach was never by himselfe repealed which even in Pelagius time remained in force and was then a wall of separation of the Easterne from the Westerne Church Againe if the Popes approving the fift Councell and condemning the three Chapters was as in truth it was and as the Cardinall noteth it to have beene the cause to unite those Churches seeing by his owne confession in Vigilius time they were not united for Pelagius after Vigilius his death sought to take away that schisme it certainly hence followeth that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod and their Synodall condemning of those Chapters for had he so done the union had in his time presently beene effected 4. The same may be perceived also by the Westerne Church For as that Pontificall decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have united the Easterne so much more would it have drawne the Westerne the Italian and specially the Romane Church to consent to the fift Councell and condemning of the three Chapters but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life may divers wayes be made evident Whē Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius and was to be consecrated Bishop there could no more then two Bishops be found in the Westerne Church that would consecrate or ordaine him Bishop wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers requiring three Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop which they so often boast of in their disputes against us the Pope himselfe was faine to be ordained onely by two Bishops with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third Anastasius very ignorantly if not worse sets downe the reason thereof to have beene for that Pelagius was suspected to have beene guilty by poison or some other way of the death of Vigilius A very idle fancie as is the most in Anastasius for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius and there continued till Vigilius was dead he had little leisure nor oportunity to thinke of poisoning or murdering his owne Bishop by whose death he could expect no gaine The true cause why the Westerne Bishops distasted Pelagius is noted by Victor who then lived Hee before hee came from Constantinople consented to the fift Synod and condemned the Three Chapters Now the Westerne Bishops so detested the fift Synod and those who with it condemned those Chapters that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia were the ordainers of Pelagius whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators Let any man now consider with himselfe whether it bee credible that in all Italy and some Provinces adjoyning there should be but two Bishops who would consēt to the Apostolicall decree of Vigilius for approving the fift Councell if he had indeed published such a decree If they knew not the Popes sentence in this cause which they held and that rightly for a cause of faith to be infallible how was not the westerne or the Romane Church hereticall at this time not knowing that point of faith which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith If they knew it to bee infallible seeing his judgement must then oversway their owne how could there bee no more but two bishops found among them all who approved the Popes Cathedrall sentence and consented to his infallible judgement Seeing then it is certaine that the Westerne Church did generally reject the fift Synod after the death of Vigilius and seeing it is not to bee thought that they would have persisted in such a generall dislike thereof had they knowne Vigilius to have by his Apostolicall sentence decreed that all should approve the same of which his sentence had there been any such they could not have beene ignorant for if by no other meanes which were very many Pelagius himselfe would have brought and assuredly made knowne the same unto them this their generall rejection of the fift Synod is an evident proofe that this Baronian decree which hee ascribeth to Vigilius is no better then the former of silence both untrue both fictitious and of the two this the far worse seeing for this the Cardinall hath not so much as any one no not a forged writing on which he may ground it it is wholy devised by himselfe he the onely Poet or maker of this fable 5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in Bede concerning the Councell of Aquileia in Italy That Councell was held neare about or rather as by Sigonius narration it appeareth after the death of Vigilius and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Millan Macedonius B. of Aquileia Maximianus B. of Ravenna besides many other Bishops of Liguria Venice and Istria These being as Bede saith
unskilfull of the faith doubted to approve the fift Synod nay Concilium illud non observandum esse statuêre they decreed that the fift Synod should not be allowed or received What would so many Italian Bishops in an Italian Councell decree the quite contradictory to the Popes known judiciall sentence in a cause of faith the Pope decreed as Baronius saith that the fift Councell ought to be imbraced The Italian Synod decreeth that the fift Councell ought to be rejected Neither onely did they thus decree but as Bede noteth they continued in this opinion donec salutaribus beati Pelagij monitis instructa consensit untill being instructed by the wholsome admonitions of Pope Pelagius they consented to the fift Councell as other Churches did Now this Pelagius of whom Bede speaketh was Pelagius the second who was not Pope till more then 20. yeares after the death of Vigilius He to reclame those Bishops of Istria Venice and Liguria writ a very large and decretall Epistle which Binius compares to that of Leo to Flavianus wherin he declares every one of those Three Chapters to be repugnant to the faith and decrees of the ancient Councells By this decretall instruction of Pelagius the second were those Italian defenders of the Three Chapters after twenty yeares and more reduced as Bede noteth to the unity of the Church and to approve of the fift Councell Had Vigilius made as Baronius fancieth the like decree why tooke it not the like effect in those Westerne Bishops was there more then Apostolicall authority and instruction in the decree of Pelagius or was there lesse then that in the decree of Vigilius 6. Nay there is another speciall point to bee observed concerning that Epistle of Pelagius Elias Bishop of Aquileia and the rest who defended the three Chapters among other reasons urged the authority of Vigilius on their part therby countenancing their error in that they taught no other doctrine in defending those Chapters then the Apostolicall See had taught by Vigilius thus writ they in their Apology which they sent to Pelagius ayming no doubt at that Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius published in the time of the Councell whereby hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought by all to be defended for that was it as the Cardinall saith which moved nay enforced all to follow that opinion and to defend the Three Chapters What doth Pelagius now answer to this reason Truly had Vigilius made any such later Decree as the Cardinall fancieth by which he had approved the fift Synod and so both condemned the three Chapters and repealed his owne former judgement in defence thereof neither could Pelagius have beene ignorant of that decree neither would he being so earnestly pressed therewith have omitted that oportunity both to grace Vigilius and most effectually confute that which was the speciall reason on which his opposites did relye Could he have truly replyed that Vigilius himselfe upon better advise had recalled his Decree made in defence of those Chapters and by his last Apostolicall judgement condemned the same Chapters this had cut insunder the very sinewes of that objection But Pelagius returnes them not this answer but knowing that to bee true which they said of Vigilius hee tells them which is a point worthy observing that the Apostolike See might change their judgement in this cause and this even by Pelagius himselfe is a cause of faith and that the ignorance of the Greeke in the Westerne Bishops was the cause why they so lately consented to the fift Synod And so though Vigilius had judged that the Three Chapters ought to be defended yet the successors of Vigilius might long after as they did teach and himselfe define that the same Chapters ought to bee condemned and that the fift Councell wherein they were condemned ought to bee approved A very strong inducement that Pelagius knew not and then that Vigilius made not any such Decree as the Cardinall commendeth unto us 7. For any Apostolicall Decree then whereby Vigilius after his exile recalled his former judgment or approved the fift Councell there was none as besides those reasons which the Cardinall himselfe giveth the persisting of the Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters not onely after the death of Vigilius but till the time of Pelagius the second makes evident If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof it was onely by some private or personall but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all this is the most that can be collected from them And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them yet can it no way helpe their cause or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible onely it would serve to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike or under the Anathema of the holy Councell For as they teach and teach it with ostentation as a matter of great wit and subtilty that the Pope may erre personally or in his owne person hold an heresie which onely hurts himselfe and not the Church but erre doctrinally or judicially define an heresie he cannot even so to pay them with their owne coine might it fall out at this time with Vigilius hee being wearied with long exile might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters and approve the Synod which may be called a personall truth or a personal profession in the Pope the benefit wherof was onely to redound to himselfe either to free him from the censure of the Synod or procure the Emperors favour goodwill that he might returne home to his See but that this professing supposing he made it was doctrinall or Cathedrall delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like neither Baronius nor any of all his favourers can ever prove Now were I sure that the Cardinall or his friends would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination But alas they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement As personall errors hurt them not so personall truths helpe them not Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall Doctrinall Apostolicall and Cathedrall or he will have none at all And therefore to demonstrate how farre Vigilius was frō decreeing this I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended not doubting to make it evident that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters and approve the fift Councell after the end of the fift Synod or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth 8.
a generall or a lawfull Councell 5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it and unlesse he should approve it See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church Begin we with the Church of that age Baronius tels us that both the Emperour the Pope Mennas and other Easterne Bishops agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters to a generall Councell Why did none of them reason as the Cardinall now doth against the Councell Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest who made that agreement and say to this effect unto them Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please If they say as I say it shall be a Councell a lawfull a generall an holy Councell If they say the contrary to that which I affirme though they have ten thousand millions of voyces their Decree shall be utterly void their assembly unlawfull they shall neither bee nor bee called a generall nor a lawfull Councell no nor a Councell neither but onely a Conventicle without all authoritie in the world Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this doctrine there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled nay there never had beene any other holy generall Councell The Pope had beene in stead of all and above them all This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell witnesseth them all even the Pope himselfe at that time to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes consent and to be of more authority in case they should differ as in this question they did than the sentence of the Pope This before the Councell was assembled 6. At the time of the Councell had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church beleeved their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod but a Conventicle why did they at all come together after their second Session for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe that he would neither come nor send any deputies unto them Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity why did they after the fift Session once proceed to examine or determine that cause For before the sixt day of their assembling they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause inhibiting them either to write or speak much more judicially to define ought contrarie to his sentence or if they did that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same Seeing notwithstanding all this well knowne unto them they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies but judicially defined that cause and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them it is an evident demonstration that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall and their sentence of full authority even as ample as of any generall Councell though the Pope denied his presence to the one and expressely signified not onely his dislike but contradiction and condemnation of the other 7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence or what thinke you will 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 that the doctrine faith and judgement of this fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all following generall Councells till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth Whereupon it ensueth that this doctrine which wee maintaine and the Cardinall impugneth that neither the Popes approbation doth give nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth by the whole Catholike Church of all ages till that Lateran Synod that is for more than 1500. yeares together 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Pelagius approved it then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Vigilius rejected it If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it neither can his approbation though Apostolicall give authority unto it Or if they say that both are true as indeed they are both alike true then seeing this fift Councell is both approved by Pope Pelagius and rejected by Pope Vigilius it must now be held both to be wholly approved and wholly rejected both to be lawfull and unlawfull both to be a generall Councell and no generall Councell And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it They all because they are approved by some one Pope are approved and lawfull Councels and because they approve this fift which is rejected by the Pope they are all rejected and unlawfull Councells Such an havocke of generall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure 11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell yet for the more clearing of the truth and expressing my love to this holy Councell to which next after that at Chalcedon I beare speciall affection I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius Binius have used of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod The former is taken from the assembling the later from the decree of the Councell It was assembled say Baronius and Binius Pontifice resistente contradicente the Pope resisting and contradicting it Whence they inferre that it was an unlawfull assembly not gathered in Gods name In this their reason both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue Did Pope Vigilius resist this Councell and contradict the calling or assembling thereof What testimonie doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion Truly none at all What probabilities yet or conjectures Even as many Are not these men think you wise worthy disputers who dare avouch so doubtfull matters and that also to the disgrace of an holy ancient and approved Councell and yet bring no testimonie no probabilitie no conjecture no proofe at all of their saying Ipse dixit is in stead of all 12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contrarie If both Baronius and Binius professe that Vigilius did consent that this Councell should be held Heare I pray you their own words and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men Hanc Synodum Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit saith Binius Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority Againe The Emperour called this fift Synod authoritate Vigilij by the authority of Pope Vigilius Baronius sings the same note It was very well provided saith he that this Oecumenicall Synod should be held ex Vigilii Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius who above all other men desired to have a Councell Againe The Emperour decreed that the Synod should be called ex ipsius Vigilii sententia according to the minde of Vigilius And a little after It was commendable in the Emperor that he did labour to assemble the Synod ex Vigilij Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius Neither onely did the Pope consent to have a Councell but to have it in that very city where it was held and where himselfe then was Indeed at the first the Pope was desirous and earnest to have it held in Sicily or in some Westerne Citie even as Pope Leo had laboured with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent to that petition as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo Vigilius then voluntati Imperatoris libens accessit very willingly consented to the Emperours pleasure in this matter that the Oecumenicall Councell should be held at Constantinople Say now in sadnesse what you thinke of Baronius and Binius Whither had they sent their wits when they laboured to perswade this Councell to be unlawfull because Pope Vigilius resisted and contradicted the assembling thereof whereas themselves so often so evidently so expresly testifie not onely that it was assembled by the consent and according to the minde will pleasure desire authority and sentence of the Pope but the very chiefe act and royaltie of the summons they challenge though falsely to the Pope the other which is an act of labour and service to be as it were the Popes Sumner or Apparitor in bringing the Bishops together by the Popes authoritie that and none but that they allow to the Emperour 13. Many other testimonies might bee produced to declare this truth That of Sigonius The Emperour called this Synod Vigilio Pontifice permittente Pope Vigilius permitting him that of Wernerus Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople That of Zonaras and Glicas who both affirme that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij the chiefe Bishop of the Councell not chiefe among them that sate in the Councell for there he was not at all nor chiefe in making the Synodall decree for therein he contradicted the Councell but chiefe of all who sued to
the Emperour and procured the Councell as being desirous of the same But omitting the rest the whole generall Councell yea and the Popes owne letters put this out of all doubt This say the whole Councell even in their Synodall sentence Consensit in scriptis in Concilio convenire Vigilius under his owne hand-writing consented to come together and be present with us in the Synod Againe the Legates sent from the Councell to invite Vigilius said thus unto him Your Holinesse knoweth quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire that you have promised to come together with the other Bishops into the Councell and there to debate this question Vigilius himselfe writ thus to the Bishops of the Councell We knowing your desire praedictis postulationibus annuimus have consented to your petitions that in an orderly assembly being made wee may conferre with our united brethren about the three Chapters I doubt not but upon such faire and undoubted records every one will now confesse First that if to be gathered by the Popes consent and authority will make a Councell lawfull which with them is an authentike rule then this fift Councell is without question in this respect most lawfull Secondly that Baronius and Binius are shamelesse both in uttering untruths in reviling this holy Synod which they would perswade to be unlawful because it was assembled the Pope resisting it whereas this Councell to have beene assembled with the consent yea as they boast with the authority also of Pope Vigilius not onely other Writers but the Synodall Acts the whole generall Councell the letters of Vigilius and the expresse words of Baronius and Binius themselves doe evidently declare 14. Come now to the Consequence Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Councell was it for this cause unlawfull was it no generall Councell What say you then to the second Councell of which Baronius thus writeth It was held repugnante Damaso Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof Will they blot that also out of the ranke of generall and lawfull Synods If not why may not this fift also bee a generall and lawfull Synod though Vigilius had with tooth and naile resisted the same Shall the peevishnesse or perversnesse of the Pope or any Bishop hinder the assembling of a generall Councell and so the publike peace and tranquillity of the whole Church Open but this gappe and there never should have been nor ever shall be any generall Councell The wilfulnesse of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia at Niceâ— of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch at Ephesus of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria at Chalcedon will frustrate all those holy Councells and make them to be neither generall nor lawfull The saying of Cardinall Cusanus is worthy observing to this purpose I beleeve saith he that to be spoken not absurdly that the Emperor himselfe in regard of that care and custody of preserving the faith which is committed unto him may praeceptivè indicere Synodum by his Imperiall authority and command assemble a Synod when the great danger of the Church requireth the same negligente aut contradicente Romano Pontifice the Pope either neglecting so to doe or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof So Cusanus This was the very state and condition of the Church at this time when the fift Councell was assembled The whole Church had beene a long time scandalized and troubled about those Three Chapters it was rent and divided from East to West High time it was and necessary for Iustinian to see that flame quenched although Pope Vigilius or any other Patriarch had never so eagerly resisted the remedie thereof 15. Had the Cardinall pleaded against this Synod that Vigilius had not beene called unto it hee had spoken indeed to the purpose For this is essentiall and such as without which a Synod cannot bee generall and lawfull that all Bishops be summoned to the Synod and comming thither have free accesse unto it and freedome of speech and judgment therein But the Cardinall durst not take this exception against this Synod or for Vigilius for none of these to have beene wanting in this Councell is so cleare that pertinacie it selfe cannot deny it It was not the Pope as they vainly boast but the Emperor who by his owne and Imperiall authority called this Councell as the whole Synod even in their Synodall sentence witnesse Wee are aâ—sembled here in this City jussione pijssimi Imperatoris vocati being called by the commandement of our most religious Emperor His calling to have beene generall Nicephorus doth expresly declare The Emperor saith he assembled the fift generall Councell Episcopis ecclesiarum omnium evocatis the Bishops of all Churches being called unto it yea the Emperor was so equall in this cause that Binius testifieth of him Paris numeri Episcopos ex Oriente Occidente convocavit that he called in particular and besides his generall summons by which all without exception had free accesse as many out of the West where the defenders of those Chapters did abound as he did out of the East where the same Chapters were generally condemned And yet further Vigilius himselfe was by name not onely invited intreated and by many reasons perswaded but even commanded by the Emperor and in his name to come unto the Synod as before we shewed Now what freedome hee might have had in the Councell both that offer of the Presidencie doth shew for him in particular and the words of the Councell spoken concerning all in generall doth declare for when Sabinianus and others who being then at Constantinople were invited to the Synod and refused to come the synod sayd It was meet that they being called should have come to the Councell and have been partakers of all things which are here done and debated especially seeing both the most holy Emperour and we licentiam dedimus unicuique have granted free liberty to every one to manifest his minde in the Synod concerning the causes proposed Seeing then he not onely might but in his duty both to God to the Emperour and to the whole Church hee ought to have come and freely spoken his minde in this cause his resisting the will of the Emperor and refusing to come doth evidently demonstrate his want of love to the truth and dutifulnesse to the Emperor and the Church but it can no way impaire or impeach the dignity and authority of the Councell neither for the generality nor for the lawfulnesse thereof 16. Besides all which there is yet one thing above all the rest to be remembred for though Pope Vigilius was not present in the Synod either personally or by his Legates but in that sort resisted to come unto it yet he was present there by his letters of instruction by his Apostolicall and Cathedrall Constitution which hee published as a direction what was to be judged and held in that cause of the Three Chapters That Decree and Constitution he promised to send
Oecumenicall Councels or the decrees thereof may bee and de facto have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope but by other succeding generall Councels by Provinciall Synods yea by particular Bishops who have beene absent none of all which gave or could give more authority to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof than it had before and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse or fruitlesse 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of thâ—se two coÌ„firmations These use end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree that is in truth the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops who were absent was not judicially to define that cause or give any judgment therein for this was done already and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee but to preserve the peace of the Church and unity in faith which could by no other meanes be better effected than if Bishops who had been absent and therefore did but implicitè or by others consent to those decrees at the making thereof did afterwards declare their owne explicite and expresse consent to the same Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was either for authority or learning the more likely he was either to make a rent and schisme in the Church if hee should dissent or to procure the tranquility and peace of the Church if hee should consent hence it was that if any Patriarke Patriarchall Primate or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell the Church and Councell did the more earnestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees This was the cause why both the religious Emperour Theodosius and Cyrill with other orthodoxall Bishops were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod which long before was ended that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle and those who defended Nestorius with his heresie so his yeelding to the truth and embracing the Ephesine Councell which condemned Nestorius might draw many others to doe the like and so indeed it did This was the principall reason why some of the ancient Councels as that by name of Chalcedon for all did it not sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee invalid or their Councell no approved Councell if it wanted his approbation or confirmation a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Councels the Synod thought it fit to procure if they could his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church might by his example move all and by his authoritie draw his owne Patriarchall Diocesse as usually hee did to consent to the same decrees whereas if he should happen to dissent as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell hee was likely to cause as Vigilius then did a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritative such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificative such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull
proceedings the Emperours letters were their direction and as themselves professe the very Torch to guide all their actions In the manifold injuries and contumelies which they endured at the hands of Iohn with his Conventicle they fled to the Emperour beseeching him to be Iudge of their equall proceedings and take an equal exact view and examination of their doings which upon their request the Emperour did and called five Bishops of either part to Constantinople to declare the whole cause unto him after which being performed he gave judgement for the holy Councell and adnulled all the acts of the Conventicle as the holy Synod had earnestly and humbly entreated him So fully and cleerly doth that sacred and Oecumenicall Councell wherein was the judgement and consent of the whole Catholike Church both acknowledge this Imperiall right of Presidency in the Emperours and submit themselves unto it 14. For the Councell of Chalcedon the matter is so evident that Bellarmine though strugling against the truth could not deny it There were present saith he in this Councell secular Iudges deputed by the Emperour who were not Iudges of controversies of faith to give a decisive suffrage therein for that belongs to no secular man whatsoever sed tantum an omnia fierent legitime sive vi fraude tumultibus but they were Iudges onely of Synodall order whether all things were done lawfully without force fraud and tumult And in this doth the very Imperiall Presidency consist And truly how religiously and worthily those glorious Iudges performed that honourable office in the synod all the actions thereof doe make manifest for scarce any matter was done in the synod but the same was ordered moderated and guided by their prudence and authority The Popes Legats very insolently took upon them at the beginning willing that Dioscorus might bee put out of the synod and sayd Either let Dioscorus goe out or we will depart The Iudges gravely reproved this stomacke in the Legates telling them If you will be Iudges you must not prosequute as accusers nor did they suffer Dioscorus to goe away but commanded him as was fit to sit in the place of the Ret. The cause of Iuvenalis and Thalassius was proposed to the synod It could not be examined by them till they had leave from the Emperour We said the Iudges have acquainted the Emperour therewith and we expect his Mandate herein and after they had received the Emperours minde they then told the synod Imperator sententiae vestrae permisit de Iuvenale deliberare the Emperour hath upon your intreaty permitted you to discusse and judge the cause of Iuvenalis Thalassius and the rest In the cause of the ten Aegyptian Bish. the Synod had almost pronounced a temerarious sentence against them as hereticall when indeed they were orthodoxall the Bishops cryed out Isti haeretici sunt these ten are heretikes The glorious Iudges knowing which was manifest that they forbore to subscribe by reason of a custome which they had that they might doe nothing without their Patriarke who was not then chosen and not as thinking heretically in the faith moderated the Synod in that matter saying Rationabile nobis clemens videtur it seemes to us to be reason and an act of clemencie not to have condemned them but staid till their Patriarch bee chosen the whole Synod consented to this grave sentence of Iudges and made a Canon for that purpose In making the very definition of faith there grew a great dissention in the Synod some would have it one some another way set downe in so much that the Popes Legates were ready to make a schisme and depart from the Councel and hold another Councell by themselves The glorious Iudges proposed a most equall and fitting meanes to have the matter peaceably debated and the whole Synod brought to unity But when out-cryes and tumult prevailed above reason the Iudges complained of those discords to the Emperour and Imperator praecepit the Emperour commanded them to follow the direction of the Iudges which they did and so with one accord consented on the Definition of faith The Emperour at the earnest entreaty of Bassianus commanded the Synod to examine the whole cause betwixt him and Stephanus to which of them in right the the See of Ephesus belonged The Synod would have given sentence for Bassianus Iustitia Bassianum vocat Equity and right doth call for Bassianus to bee the Bishop of that place The glorious Iudges weighing the cause more circumspectly thought that neither of them both could in right be Bishop The whole Synod being directed by them altered their opinion and said This is a just sentence this is the very jugement of God When there was a difference in the Synod about the dignity of Constantinople the greater part holding one way and the Popes Legates the contrary the glorious Iudges judicially sentenced which was to stand for the Iudgement of the Synod and the whole Councell in their synodall letter consented therunto So many so manifest evidences there are of the Imperiall Presidency in that holy Councell not any of all those Catholikes once repining at or contradicting the same 15. For the fift that it was ordered by the Imperiall authoritie may appeare in that both the Emperor was sometimes by himselfe sometimes by his glorious Iudges present in the Synod and specially in that hee tooke order that liberty and synodall freedome should be observed therein yea as the whole Synod testifieth hee did omnia all things which preserve the peace of the Church and unity in the Catholike faith The sixt Councell is abundant with proofes of this presidency Macarius said O our most holy Lord iubeto libros proferri command that the bookes bee produced and the Emperour answered Iubemus we command them to be brought wee command them to be read and it was done The Popes Legates say Petimus serenitatem vestram we entreate your highnesse that this booke may be examined the Emperour answered Quod postulatum est proveniat let that be done which you request Againe O most holy Lord we intreat that the letters of Pope Agatho may be read the Emperours answer was what you have desired let it be done and they were read Macarius having collected certaine testimonies out of the Fathers for his opinion intreated the Emperour Iubeto relegi that he would command them to be read his answere was let them bee read in order and so they were The Popes Legates said petimus wee intreate your highnesse that the authentike Copies may bee produced out of the Registrie his answer was fiat let it de done The whole Synod intreated If it please your piety let Theodorus and the rest stand in the midst and there make answer for themselves his answer was What the Synod hath moved fiat let it be done George
and without whose consent first obtained they may in no place of his Kingdome assemble together without the note of tumult and sedition This Nicene Canon as all the rest when Constantine and other suceeding Emperours and Kings approved as who hath not approved that holy Councel they then gave unto it the force of an Imperiall law according to the rule omnia nostra facimus quibus nostram impartimar authoritatem wee make that our owne Act and our law which wee ratifie by our authoritie And Iustinian more plainly expressed this when he said Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas regulas we enact that the holy Canons of the Church set downe in the former Councels the Nicene the Constantinopolitane Ephesine and Chalcedon shall have the force and stand in the strength of Imperiall lawes By this Imperiall assent it is that when the wisedome of Christian Emperours and Kings doth not otherwise dispose of calling Synods in their dominions Primates may call the same two or moe or fewer in any yeare as necessitie shall perswade but whensoever they call any the same are called assembled and celebrated by the force of that Imperial authoritie which Kings and Emperours have either given to that Nicene Canon or which they in more explicite manner shall impart unto the Primates or Bishops in their Kingdomes 27. Now if Provinciall Councels may not nor ever are lawfully held in Christian Kingdomes without this authority how much lesse may generall and Oecumenicall the occasions of which being rare and extraordinary the calling also of them is extraordinary and both for the time place meerly arbitrary at the will of those who have Imperial or regal authority To say nothing how inconvenient it is even in civill government and how dangerous unto Christian States that all the Bish. of a Kingdome should leave their own Churches naked of their guides and Pastours and goe into farre and forraigne Countries without the command of their Soveraigne Lords especially goe at the command of an usurping Commander and that also if he require though their owne Soveraignes shall forbid or withstand the same of the mischiefe and danger whereof the example of Becket among many like may be a warning to all Kingdomes But leaving that to the grave consideration of others thus much now out of that which hath beene said is evident that seeing all those ten forenamed Synods were called and assemble by no other authority than Pontificall and seeing lawfully assemble they could not but onely by Imperiall it hence clearly ensueth that for defect of lawfull calling and assembling they are all of them no other than unlawfull Councels Againe seeing no Synods are congregated in Christs name but such as are assembled by him who hath from Christ authority to assemble them which in Christian Kingdomes none hath as wee have shewed but onely Kings and Emperours and seeing none of those ten were assembled by them it hence further and certainly ensueth that never one of those ten were gathered in Christs name and if not in Christs then sure in no other but in the name of Antichrist and so all of them in respect of their calling not only unlawfull but even Antichristian Councels 28. After their calling consider their proceedings for as those Councels were unlawfully assembled so were they also unlawfull by defect of the other essentiall condition which is due and synodall order for they all not onely wanted synodall freedome and order but which is worse they wanted that which is the onely meanes to have synodall freedome and order observed in any generall Councell and that is the Imperiall Presidencie in none of them was the Emperour in them all the Pope was President In the first Later ane Calistus in the second Innocentius the second in the third Alexander the third in the fourth Innocentius the third and the like might bee shewed in the rest but that Bellarmines words may ease us of that labour who speaking of all those ten Councels saith In eis omnibus sine Controversia Pontifex Rom. praesedit the Pope without doubt was President in them all 29. Nor was this an Episcopall Presidencie a preheminence only precedence before other Bishops in the Synod such as any Bish. to whoÌ„ the Emp. pleased to confer that dignity might lawfully enjoy when he gave it to none by name it then by his tacit consent or permission fell as it were by devolution upon the chiefe Bishop that was present in the Councell Such a Presidencie though it bee not due to the Pope seeing in the ancient Councels hee neither had it nor grudged that other should have it yet are wee not unwilling to allow that unto him if contenting himselfe therewith hee would seeke no more But the Presidencie which hee now desires and in all those ten Councels usurped is meerely Imperiall the Presidencie of governing the Synod and ordering it by his authority and power the very same which in all the generall Councels for a thousand yeares after Christ the Emperour held and had it as one of his Royalties and Imperiall rights none of all the Catholike Bishops in those Councels ever so much as contradicting much lesse resisting the same For any Bishops most of all for the Pope to take upon them such a Presidencie utterly overthrows all liberty and order in Councels for by it all the Bishops are to be kept in awe and order and the Pope who of all other is most exorbitant and farthest out of square ought by this to be curbed reduced in to order Even as when Catiline took upon him to bee the Ruler and guide to his assembly and a punisher of disorders among them though all the rest willingly submitted themselves and that with a solemne oath to bee ordered by him in their actions yet for all this order they were no free Romane Senate but a Conjuration of Conspirators striving to oppresse the Romane State liberties and ancient lawes Right so it is in these Synods when the Pope who is the Lord of misrule and Ring-leader of the Conspirators takes upon him this Presidencie to order Councels though the â—est not onely consent but binde themselves by a sacred oath to be subject to his authoritie this very usurpation of such Presidencie doth eo ipso exclude and banish al liberty synodall order makes their assemblies meere Conjurations against the truth and ancient faith of the Church 30. How could it now be chosen but that whasoever heresie the Pope with the faction of his Catilinarie Conspiratours embraced should in such Councels prevaile against the truth The Imperiall authority was the onely hedge or pale to keepe the Pope within his bounds that being once removed he said he did he decreed what he listed The rule of his Rigiment was now the old Canon of Constantius Quod ego volo pro Canone sit the proofe of all their decrees was borrowed
affect which country alone for multitude of Bishops doth equall or exceed other nations and this very Italian faction to have prevailed at Trent their owne Bishop Espencaeus who was at the Councell doth testifie Haec illa Helena est this is the Helena which of late prevailed at Trent this Italian faction overswayed all whereof Molineus gives a plaine instance For when an wholesome Canon that the Pope might not dispence in some matters had like to have beene decreed many in the Councell liking well thereof the Pope procured a respite for that businesse for a month and an halfe during which time some forty poore Bishops of Italy and Sicily were shipped and sent to Trent like so many levis armaturae milites and so the good Canon was by their valour discomfited and rejected by that holy Synod Some of the Councell also were the Popes pensioners and stipendary Bishops nay rather ought than Bishops such as among others were Olaus Magnus the titular Archbishop of Vpsala in Gothia and Robertus Venantius the titular and blinde Bishop of Armach and yet not halfe so blinde in body as in minde Archbishops without Archbishoprickes without a Church without a Clergy without Diocesse without any revenues save a small pension which the Pope allowed them that they might be cyphers in the Councell and taking his pay might doe him some service for it and grace his Synod with their subscriptions But all the other bonds are a◠nothing to that oath wherewith every one of them was tyed and fettered to the Pope swearing to uphold the Papall authority against all men and to fight against all that should rebell against him an oath so execrable that Aeneas Sylvius is mentioned to have said Quod etiam verum dicere contra Papam sit contra Episcoporum juramentum that even to speake the truth to speake for the truth if it be contrary to the Pope is against the oath of Bishops By this they were so tyed at ne mutire quidem ipsis liceat adversus Idolum Romanum that they might not so much as whisper against him 38. Verily none of those Iron chaines which were used by Dioscorus in the Ephesine Latrocinie are comparable to these No subscription unto blankes like the swearing to maintaine whatsoever their Romane Dioscorus shall define They who were not chained might have no place in the Synod they who were chained with such bands and specially with such an oath could have no freedome in the Synod they must speake thinke and teach nothing but what the Pope breathes into them Had there beene such wise and worthy Iudges for Presidents of that Councell as there was at Chalcedon could they possibly have endured to see all synodall freedome thus oppressed and banished Nay they would in their zeale to God and his truth have broken and burst in sunder every linke of that chaine And as Ibas and Theodoret were not admitted to the Councel of Chalcedon as members thereof till they had openly renounced and anathematized the heresies which they had before embraced So would not those glorious Iudges have permitted any of those Tridentine Bishops to have sit in the Councell till they had openly renounced anathematized and abjured that oath and with it their vassallage to the Pope and all those hereticall doctrines which by their adhering to the Pope and following his faction they had embraced and those are Image-worship Transubstantiation proper Sacrifice Adoration of the Host their Purgatorian fire and the rest of those heresies which since the Romane faction began to prevaile and that was about seven hundred yeares after Christ in the dayes of Gregory the second who as I suppose first of all by synodall judgement decreed the worship of Images they have maintained For seeing since that time not truth nor equity but faction prevailed in their Synods and swayed matters in their Church there could be no equall triall of the truth by any of their Synods held since that time But when all the Bishops were freed from those chaines of their oath and slavish bondage to the Pope since the faction whereof he hath beene the leader got the upper hand those glorious Iudges would have permitted nothing to passe for a free synodall sentence but that onely which could have had warrant from the Scriptures those holy Councells and consenting judgement of those Fathers who lived within the six hundred yeares or somewhat more after Christ at what time partiality and faction had not corrupted and blinded their judgement as in the second Nicene and ever since it hath 39. But because such glorious Iudges and their most equall Presidency was wanting nay was banished from their Assembly at Trent scarce any tokens or shadow of freedome could take place therein Not towards Protestants Brentius and divers other learned Divines came to Trent offered themselves and their faith to triall of disputations Nulla ratione impetrari potuit this could not be obtained by any meanes that they should come to dispute for the faith Nullus unquam liber aditus Protestantibus the Protestants at no time had any freedone to come to the Councell at Trent Not towards their owne Bishops if they spake or did ought tending to the defence of the truth Cornelius Bishop of Bitons said that Christ offered not in his last supper his owne body and blood this crossed their proper sacrifice of the masse therfore Cornelius for that free true speech à Patribus universis explosus est was hissed out of their Trent Councell by all the Fathers and Divines there present Iacobus Nachiantes Bishop of Clodia Fossa sayd he could not approve that traditions should be held in equal reverence as the Scripture he was for this truth expulsed the Councell Gulielmus Venetus a Dominican Fryer sayd in the Councell that the Councell was above the Pope he was commanded to depart out of the Councell Another of the Bishops hapning to touch and that but lightly the pride of the Pope in his titles wished that seeing God is no where in the Scripture called sanctissimus but sanctus the Pope also would be content with the same title of sanctus and not take a more ample name of honour than is given in Scripture unto God The Pope being certified hereof sent for him to come from Trent to Rome and gave him to his Officers to use him hardly and to bee degraded Petrus Vergerius Bishop of Iustinianople he who endeavoring to refute the Protestant writings and began that booke which hee intituled Against the Apostates of Germany was himselfe overcome by the evidence of that truth specially in the doctrine of Iustification which he oppugned came to the Councell at Trent The Pope having intelligence that he was inclined to Lutheranisme writ to his Legats at Trent Ne locum ei tribuant in consessu That they should not admit him
avouch that it had beene much better that the Church had remained without these controversies about the three Chapters nec unquam de his aliquis habitus esset sermo and that there had never beene one word spoken of them Thus Baronius 2. What thinke you moved the Cardinall to have such an immortall hatred to this cause as to wish the condemning buriall and utter extinguishing of those controversies What more hurt did this to the Church than the question about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or about the opinion of Eutiches Very great calamity saith Baronius insued upon this controversie both in the East and West True it did so and so there did and far greater and longer about the controversie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more againe than that upon the question whether the Gospell or Paganisme should prevaile and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated the truth of Christ spred abroad the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospell No affliction calamity or persecution is a just cause either to wish that there had never beene any such controversie or to forsake the truth of God when the controversie is moved It was an excellent saying of the Aegyptian Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon Christianus neminem timet a Christian feareth no mortall man si homines timerentur martyres non essent if men should be feared there would be no Martyrs But the truth is it was not as Baronius fancieth the controversie it selfe nor the disputing and debating thereof that caused so great calamities in the East and West that is non causa pro causa the peevishnesse and perversenesse of wicked men maintaining heresies and oppugning the truth that was the true cause thereof The controversie it selfe if you well marke it was very beneficiall to the Church Oportet haereses esse there must be heresies among you that they which are approved might bee knowne Every heresie is a probation and tryall of mens love to God and his truth whether they esteeme it more than their honours pleasures and their owne wilfull conceits and the greater the heresie is and the further it spreads it is still a greater tryall Heretikes saith S. Austen doe much profit the Church though they be out of the Church not by teaching the truth which they doe not know but by stirring up those who are more carnall Catholikes to seeke and those who are more spirituall to defend and manifest the truth This triall and probation of men if I mistake not was never so great in any controversie or question as in this of the three Chapters First it sifted and tryed Vigilius to the full and tryed him to be a wether-cocke in faith an heretike and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolicall authority Next it sifted out divers notable conclusions as first that which I think was never before that tryed that not onely the Pope but the Apostolike See also to wit the Romane Church and with it the Westerne Churches all at once adhered to heresie and forsooke the truth and that even after it was decreed and judged by the generall approved Councell and so it proved both Pope and Romane Church to be properly hereticall the Easterne Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time it shewed that the Catholike faith was tied neither to the Chair nor Church of Rome Another conclusion then tryed was that either persons or Churches may not onely dissent from the Pope and the Romane Church and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod but may renounce communion with them and yet remaine Catholikes and in the unity of the Catholike Church the Pope the Westerne Church and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholike faith Heretikes and by forsaking the unity of the Church Schismatikes 3. Neither onely was this controversie a triall to them in that age a tryall of their faith love to God charity to the Church obedience to the Emperour but it is as great a triall even in these our dayes and ever since that doctrine of the Popes infallibility in causes of faith hath beene defined and condemned By this controversie most happly decided by the generall Councell all that hold the Popes definitions of faith to be infallible that is all that are Papists or members of the present Church of Rome they are all hereby tryed to defend this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius that is to maintaine all the blasphemies of the Nestorians to deny the Catholike faith the doctrine of the Apostles of the primative Church of the fift generall Councell so to be not only heretikes but convicted anathematized and cōdemned heretikes by the judgement of a generall approved Councell and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church Further yet there is a tryall of them whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine or position of faith or religion if they doe as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that they are againe hereby tryed to be hereticall not onely in the foundation but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion which relyes upon that foundation 4. This was it which netled Baronius and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes that this controversie had never beene heard of nor mentioned in the world he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men of doctrines of Churches of the Pope himselfe and their whole Romish Church and seeing that tryall he never ceased to say that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved nor spoken of for so they had avoided this most notable triall Blessed be God for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated and discussed to the utmost that among many other tryals this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed and discovered to the world it is for them I say to wish that the controversies about Arianisme Nestorianisme Eutycheanisme and the like had never beene moved they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes But Catholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies by which both the truth which they maintaine is made more resplendent and victorious themselves and their faith tryed to be like refined gold the Church thereby is quieted the truth propagated heresies confounded and the glory of Almighty God much more magnified and praysed CAP. XXIII How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus B. of Caesarea and a refutation of the same 1. SEeing now notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius this controversie could not be buried it ought him and all ill-willers
of it a greater shame than that in the next place let us see how he declameth both against the Emperors Edict whereby these three Chapters were condemned Theodorus Bish. of Caesarea who as he saith was the author penner of that Edict The Edict it self he calleth first Seminarium dissentionū a seed-plot of sedition which was never made upon a good occasion nor had any good end And not content herewith he tells us out of Facundus that it is contrary to the faith yea even to that faith which Iustinian himselfe professed as orthodoxall to which effect also Baronius himselfe saith that the Emperours Edict was set forth contrary to the three Chapters of the most holy Councell of Chalcedon But he specially seekes to disgrace it by the author of it for though it was published by Iustinian yet saith he it was written and that craftily by heretikes and adversaries to the truth by the Origenists and in particular by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea one gratious potent and familiar with the Emperour and for proofe of all this the Cardinall citeth Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius 2. Having thus declared Theodorus to be the author and writer of the Edict Baronius then rageth against Theodorus as if he were to act veterē comoediam or according to the Proverbe ex plaustro to raile out of a cart against him calling him factious fraudulēt impudēt a most wicked hereticall schismaticall headstrong Origenist the ring-leader of the Origenists one marvellously addicted to the heresie of Origen nor onely a servant to Origens errors but also a most earnest defender of the Eutychean blasphemy nor onely so but plunged in the heresie of the Aphthardokites or Phantastickes and like a blinde guide leading the blinde Emperour into that ditch of heresie a sacrilegious person a pseudobishop a tyrant a perverter of lawes an overthrower of right the author of all mischiefe to the Empire the very plague of the whole Church Thus and much more doth Baronius utter against Theodorus by whom being so unworthy an author hee would disgrace the Edict it selfe which he writ though the Emperour published it 3. Let us first begin with that most untrue and malicious calumny of Baronius that the Emperor published his Edict against the three Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon Truly the Cardinall should and might most truly have said the quite contrary that he published his Edict for defence not onely of the three but of every Chapter of every position of every decree of the Councell of Chalcedon The three Chapters which that Imperiall Edict and after it the fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church condemneth were not Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon but three impious positions assertions or as they were by an 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 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 contradictionis as a butt of contradiction against which they will ever bee striving and shooting their arrowes of opposition sedition contention himselfe 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 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 Iudas a Devill Is the Edict or the truth of God thereby published worse because Iudas uttered or penned it was the Arke to bee refused or contemned because wicked men framed and built it Did not Christ say of Iudas a Devill as well as of Peter a Saint Hee that heareth you heareth mee he that despiseth you despiseth me Hath Baronius forgotten the lesson of Saint Iames My brethren have not the faith of our glorious Lord Iesus Christ in respect of persons love it for it selfe but neither love it nor refuse it because of him that speaketh penneth or bringeth the same Did the Cardinall never heare of the Scribes and Pharisees they sit in Moses chaire that is deliver Gods truth out of Moses and the Prophets unto you whatsoever therefore they bid you that observe doe but after their workes doe not Or if this reason of the Cardinall may take effect themselves and their Romane Church will be farre the greatest loosers how easie will it be to reject and contemne an whole Volume of their Pontificall Edicts why this was made or written by Iohn 12. that by Hildebrand or Boniface 8. the other by Iohn 23. an heretike an Atheist a Devill incarnate as a generall Councell testifieth another by Formosus Steven or by one of those whom themselves professe to have beene theeves robbers Wolves Tygers and most savage beasts and Apostaticall Popes as Genebrard calleth threescore of them all worse than the Author of this Imperiall Edict though wee should admit him to have beene such or as bad every way as Baronius describeth him 6. But the truth is the Author of the Edict was no such man as the Cardinall fancieth as it beares the name so it was indeed the worke of Iustinian no childe can have more honour by his father than it by such an Emperour and though Baronius having so often slandered Iustinian to bee utterly rude unlearned one that could not so much as reade nor knew his Alphabet or first elements could not but in good congruity confidently deny Iustinian to bee the Writer or Author of so learned and divine an Edict or as himselfe cals it of so exact a Catechisme yet considering what before was declared both out of Procopius of the Emperours often tossing of bookes among the Bishops out of Liberatus of his great paines taken in writing against heretikes and for defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and out of Platina calling Iustinian a very learned Emperour I cannot thinke but that although Iustinian might use the advise helpe and industry of Mennas Theodorus or some other Bishops in this as in other Edicts concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires yet still the ultima manus the last correction and perfecting of all was the Emperours owne doing the rather because both in his other Edicts that against Anthimus against Origen as also in his letters to this Synod and the rest there is so uniforme a stile so Imperiall and so divine a kinde of writing that the same Genius of Iustinian seemes to breathe in them all 7. But Baronius tels us that both Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius doe testifie Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea to bee the Author of this Edict Baronius is ever like himselfe that is untrue and fraudulent Not one of these say it first not Liberatus hee indeed affirmes Theodorus and some others to have suggested this unto the Emperour that hee would condemne those Three Chapters by a publike Edict or booke but hee addes withall Rogaverunt eum ut dictaret Libellum they prayed the Emperour that he would dictate or indite the booke against the Three Chapters and the Emperour consented saith Liberatus unto them hoc se laetus implere promisit and he gladly promised to doe so that is to indite or dictate such an Edict So farre is Liberatus from affirming as Baronius alleageth him Theodorus to bee the Author of this booke or Edict that hee teacheth the quite contrary As for Facundus he saith indeed the Edict was not written by Iustinian but by the adversaries of the truth but that Theodorus writ it that is the Cardinals addition Facundus saith it not and even in that which hee saith that the Edict is contrary to the Emperours faith Facundus doth so manifestly slander both the Emperour as if hee thought the Three Chapters were not to be condemned and the Edict also as if the condemning of these Three Chapters were contrary to the Catholike faith that there is no credit at all to bee given to him in his report touching the Author who is so untrue in his reports both touching the matter of the Edict and touching the knowne profession and faith of the Emperour 8. The Cardinals Vigilius now remaineth whose words are these spoken to Theodorus The booke condemning the Three Chapters by their meanes was read in the Kings Pallace before certaine Greeke Bishops à quibus assentationum favorem tuis vocibus exigebas What if one should here oppose the Cardinall and say tuis vocibus were the Ablative case and that Theodorus had by his words sollicited the other Bishops favorably to consent to the Emperors Edict How will Baronius assure us that
added by the Monothelites Of the seventh Binius thus writeth This fourth Action is in divers places faulty and in the History of the Image crucified at Beritus it containeth divers Apocryphall narrations concerning the Image of Christ made by Nicodemus Of the eighth Councell that the Canons thereof are corrupted and some inserted by Anastasius their owne Raderus will perswade them Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fift Councell bee applyed to these He having found among these one Epistle of Theodorets which hee supposeth to bee a counterfait concludeth upon that one example in this manner quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi quae sunt his contexta commentis what credit I pray you doe such Acts as these of the fift Councell deserve which are intangled in such fictions May not the selfe same reason be much more justly alleaged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Canons against the Acts of the Councell at Ephesus at Chalcedon against the sixt seventh and eighth Synods in every one of which some in divers more corruptions not onely mutilations but alterations and commentitious writings are inserted by their owne confession Let Baronius answer here his owne question Quam fidem rogo I pray you then what credit may bee given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon of the sixt seventh or eighth Councell they all must by the Cardinals reason be rejected as Canons and Acts of no worth of no credit at all Nor they onely but all the workes of Augustine of Athanasius of Ierome and almost all the holy Fathers none of them all by this Baronian reason deserve any credit for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts as the book de variis Quaestionibus Scripturae the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and many moe in Athanasius the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill and Cyrils to Austen the author of which was not onely an Impostor but an heretike the booke de Spiritu litera the booke of questions of the old and new Testament which is hereticall and an heape of the like in Austen the Commentaries on Pauls Epistles which savour of Pelagianisme the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity and 100. like in Ierome Quae fides rogo what credit can bee given to these bookes or writings of Austen Athanasius Ierome or the rest in which are found so many fictitious heretical treatises falsly ascribed unto them mingled and inserted among their writings Truly I cannot devise what might move the great Card to make such a collection and reason as from some corruptions crept into the bookes of fathers or Acts of Councels to inferre that the whole Acts or writings are unworthy of any credit but onely as Iacke Cade had a purpose to burne all authentick records and writings of law that as hee boasted all the law might proceed from his own mouth so the Cardinal intended to play a right Iacke Cade with all the ancient Councels and Fathers that having utterly though not abolished yet disgraced and made them all by this his reason and collection unworthy of any credit his owne mouth might bee an Oracle to report without controulment all histories of ancient matters and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter or to set downe in his Annals that all men should beleeve as if the most authentick Records in the world had testified the same How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinall have done to have wished all corruptions to bee removed whatsoever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Councels or writings of Fathers to be added unto them that to be quite cut off whatsoever might bee found wanting that to bee added whatsoever to be altered or perverted that to be amended and not in the blindnesse of his hatred against this one fift Councell to fight like one of the Andabatae against al the rest and with one stroke to cashire all the Acts and Canons of Councels all the writings of Fathers or Historians because forsooth one or some few corruptions have either by negligence or errour of writing or by fraud and malice of some malignant hand crept into them 4. The third thing which I observe is that whereas Baronius so often and so spightfully declameth against the Acts of this Councell as imperfect and corrupted this his whole accusation proceedeth of malice to the Councell and these Acts rather than of judgement or of truth for I doe constantly affirme and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Councels shall certainly finde and if he deale ingenuously will confesse the same that as of al the general Councels which go before this fift for integrity of the Acts none is better or any way comparable to this save that of Chalcedon so of all that follow it none at all is to bee preferred nor any way to bee counted equall with it unlesse that which they call the sixt Councell that is so much of the Acts of that Synod as concerne the cause of the Monothelites leaving out the Trullane Canons This whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Councels cannot choose but observe The Nicene Constantinopolitane being so miserably maimed that scarce wee have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Councels which if they could bee recovered no treasures are sufficient to redeeme a worke of that worth and value a worke non gemmis neque purpura a vaenale neque auro That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus but yet it remaines so imperfect so confused and disorderly that as Diogines sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men so among those very Acts large Tomes of the Coūcels the reader shall be forced to seeke the Acts of the Ephesine Councell The Acts of the second Nicene and of the next to it which they call the eighth are so doubtfull that not onely this or that part but the whole fabrick of them both is questionable whether they were the Synodall Acts or but a relation framed by Anastasius as hee thought best Of all the eight Councels the Acts of Chalcedon this fift and the sixt have beene most safely preserved and like the river Arethusa have strongly passed through so many corrupt ages and hands and yet without tainture of the salt deliver unto us the cleare and sweete current of antiquity and truth And verily when I seriously compare the wrack of other Councels with the entirenesse of these three I cannot but admire and magnifie with all my might the gracious providence wisdome and love of God to his Church for in every one of these there is an unresistable force of truth against that Antichristiā authority supremacy which is now made the foundation of the Popish faith the sixt in the cause of Honorius the fift in this cause of Vigilius and that of Chalcedon in curbing the
his Epistle is apparent wherein they oppose not that he denyed Christ to be one of the Trinity but that hee called them heretikes who taught the Word incarnate to be made man That clause which they adde That Christ is one of the Trinity is an addition of the fift Councell it selfe explicating that of Christ which the Emperours Edict bound them to professe as being the true sense and meaning of the Councell at Chalcedon but not as being word for word set downe in the decree of Chalcedon And even as he were more than ridiculous who would accuse one to corrupt the Councell of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man who was borne in Bethleem and fled from Herod into Aegypt so is the Cardinall as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod or addition to the Councell of Chalcedon that they say the Councell taught the Word of God to bee man who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinity Both additions are true but neither of them affirmed to be expresly and totidem verbis set downe in the Councell of Chalcedon Why but looke to the Cardinals proofe for he would not for any good affirme such a matter without proofe What doe yee aske for proofe of the Cardinall I tell you it is proofe enough that he sayth it and truly in this poynt he produceth neither any proofe nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fift Councell or that the fift Councell cited them as the very expresse words of the Councell of Chalcedon all the proofe is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit which is a sory kind of arguing against any that love the truth for although against the Pope or their popish cause any thing which he writeth is a very strong evidence against them seeing the Cardinall is very circumspect wary to let nothing no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Popes dignity or the cause of their Church unlesse the maine force and undeniable evidence of truth doe wrest and wring it from his pen yet in any matter of history wherein he may advantage the Pope or benefit their cause it is not by many degrees so good to say the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirmes it which is now growne a familiar kinde of proofe among them as to say Ovid Aesop or Iacobus Voraginensis affirme it therefore it is certainly true His Annals in the art of fraudulent vile and pernicious untruths farre excell the most base fictitious Poemes or Legends that ever as yet have seene the Sunne CAP. XXVI The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that Ibas is sayd therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 1. THe second thing which our Momus carpeth at is for that in these Acts it is sayd that Ibas denyed the Epistle written to Maris to bee his which saith Baronius is untrue for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinall an untruth in plaine termes affirmes it to be a lye Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius they would never have quarelled with the Acts about this matter nor for this accused them to have beene corrupt They may as well collect the Edict of Iustinian or that famous Epistle of Pope Gregorie wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters to be corrupted and of no credit as well as the Acts of the fift Councell for in both them the same is said concerning the deniall of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denyall they may passe for sincere and incorrupt it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinall and Binius to carpe at the Acts for this cause which will much more appeare if any please but to view the Acts themselves For this is not spoken obitèr nor once but the Councell insisteth upon it repeateth it in severall places and divers times and if those words were taken away there would be an apparent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words then are truly the words of the true Acts the corruption is onely in the braine of Baronius and Binius 2. Now whereas the Cardinall and Binius so confidently affirme this to be untrue or a lye that Ibas denyed his Epistle and so accuse the whole Councell to lye in this matter they doe but keepe their owne tongues and pens in ure with calumnies the untruth and lye belongs neither to the Councell nor to the Acts but must bee returned to themselves to whom onely it is due For the Councels truth herein the Emperour is a most honourable witnesse who saith Demonstratur Ibas cam abnegasse Ibas is demonstrated or by evident proofe knowne to have denyed his Epistle Pope Gregory is another witnesse above exception who saith Epistolam Ibas denegat suam Ibas denyed the Epistle to be his the fift Councell also doth not onely affirme it but prove it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops and their interloquution in the Councell of Chalcedon they all sayd they received Ibas eo quod negabat illa because he did deny those things which were objected by his adversaries a great part of which was that Epistle All these are witnesses for the Councell what witnesses now doth the Cardinall or Binius bring to countervaile these truly not so much as one and one were but a poore number to be opposed to so many and so worthy men testifying the contrary Now whether the testimony of the Emperour Pope Gregory of six Metropolitanes and an whole generall approved Councell affirming this or Baronius without any one witnesse denying this be more credible let the very best friends of Baronius judge but Baronius loves to bee Iohannes ad oppositum to Emperours Popes Bishops and Councels if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate that is indeed if they say the truth 3. But yet Baronius hath a proofe of his saying which is this because Ibas confessed it to be his and hee tels us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon Say he did confesse it as I will not deny that he did though I verily thinke the Cardinall speakes an untruth in saying that this is in the Acts for I finde not in those Acts either any such expresse confession or ought from whence it can be collected and Iustinian plainly saith that Ibas durst not acknowledge it to be his for the blasphemies contained therein but I admit that Ibas confessed it to be his Doth it thence follow that he denyed it not to be his might he nor doe both might he not contradict himselfe doth not the Cardinall who neither for wit nor wisedome will yeeld one jote to Ibas doth not
conscriptis with their impious writings and all other heretikes condemned by the Catholike Church let that man bee accursed When the holy Councell not onely mentions the condemning of Origen but by their judiciall sentence themselves also condemne both him his errors and his impious writings what a face of Adamant had Binius against the truth against his owne text of the Councell against his conscience and knowledge to say there is no mention no not any levis mentio to be found in the Acts of the errors of Origen condemned or if Binius will not be perswaded of his untruth for us let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit who saith In these Synodall Acts there is made onely brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen and his errours condemned if there bee brevis mentio of him and his errours then Binius must cry the Acts forgivenesse for saying there is no mention at all no not levis mentio of his errours 2. Let us see now if Baronius deale any better Constat saith hee It is manifest by the testification of many that Origen Didimus and Evagrius together with their errours were condemned in this fift Synod and that there was written at least recited repeated against them those ten Anathematismes which Nicephorus setteth downe but in the Acts there is onely a briefe mention that Origen and his errours were condemned Baronius adds one speciall point further out of Cedrenus that in this fift Councell first they handled the cause against Origen and then against the Three Chapters So by the Cardinals profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod which it may be had many Sessions as the other Action about the three Chapters Besides this there wants also saith hee the letters or Edict published by Iustinian Thirdly there wants the Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen which is set downe by Cedrenus out of whom both Baronius reciteth it and Binius adjoyns it at the end of the Acts among the fragments which are wanting in these Acts. These three defects touching the cause of Origen doth the Cardinall alleage 3. But in very deed none of these three nor ought else which Baronius mentioneth argue any defect at all in these Acts but they evidently demonstrate in the Card. a maine defect of judgement and an overflowing superabundance of malice against this holy Synod and these true Acts thereof That the cause of Origen was not as hee supposeth the first Action or the first cause handled by the Synod I might alleage the most cleare testimony of his owne witnesse Nicephorus who after the narration of the three Chapters and the Synodall sentence touching them delivered which he accounts for the first Session of the Synod addeth In secunda autem Sessione but in the second Sessiō the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred read and Iustinian rursum Synodū de eis sententiā ferre jussit commanded againe the Synod to giue sentence in that cause So Nicephorus whereby it is evident that the Cardinal and his Cedrenus are foully deceived in saying that the cause of Origen was first handled by the Synod and after that the cause of the three Chapters but I oppose to these farre greater and even authentike records the Epistle of the Emperour to the Synod who at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Councell proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters and no other at all commanding them without delay to discusse and give their judgement in that I oppose the definition and Synodall decree wherein is set downe their whole proceeding and what they handled almost every day of their meeting from the beginning to the ending so that it alone is as a Thesean thred which wil not permit a man to erre in this cause unlesse he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth and wilfully depart out of that plaine path They came to the Synod to decide the controversie then moved about the Three Chapters at the command of the Emperour before they entred to the handling thereof they often intreated by their messengers Pope Vigilius to come together with them which was all that they did in the first second day of their meeting or Collation when Vigilius would not come then by the Apostles admonition they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed by setting downe a confession of their faith consonant to the foure former Councels and exposition of the Fathers and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters which was the summe of the third dayes Collation Cumque ita confessi simus initium fecimus examinationis trium Capitulorum and when wee had made this confession wee began the examination of the Three Chapters loe they did initium sumere they began with this Could they speak more plainly that the cause of Origen was not first handled as if prophetically they meant to refute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus and wee first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his owne writing there read before us This was all they did the fourth and a great part of the fift day of their Collatiō His de Theodoro discussis pauca de Theodoreto next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus wee caused a few things to bee repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret for the satisfying of the reader and this they did in the end of the fift day or Collation Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas In the third place we proposed and examined the Epistle of Ibas and this they did at large and it was all they did in the sixt day of their Collation The whole cause being thus and as the Councell confesseth most diligently and sufficiently examined the Councell as it seemeth by their owne words in the end of the sixt Collation intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting but before ought was done therein the Emperour sent unto the Synod certaine letters of Vigilius testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters and some other writings the reading of thē is all was done in the seventh day of their Collation Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before and these letters were read onely for a further evidence but not for necessity of the cause and for that the Synod did nothing themselves but onely heard the letters and applauded the Emperours zeale and care for the truth therefore it is that this seventh Collation and what was done therein is omitted in the Synodall sentence and the Councell which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pronounced their sentence by this occasion deferred it to the next which was the eighth day
some Churches unto it That this was done in the fift Councell Baronius proves by Guil. Tyrius 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 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 addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell which is now not found among the Acts therof Baronius further glossing on this text tels us that though Iuvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon when the Pope Legates were absent yet Pope Leo resisting it he prevailed not nor was the matter put in execution but at this 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 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 maine 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. and Binius professe though it was but a single Bishorick subject as both Ierome and the Nicene Councell declare to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarke and to the Bishop of Cesarea Palestina for there is another in Cappadocia as his Metropolitane yet for honor of our Saviors resurrectiō in that place it had the name of Patriark and preeminency in Councels to the Bishop of Caesarea Not to the authoritie and power of a Patriarke for that it had and had it justly long before this fift Councell even by the decree and judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon Iuvenalis had sued for it in the Ephesine Councell but the Bish. of Antioch as it seemeth then being unwilling to manumit him as it were free him from his subjection Cyrill resisted it writ to Pope Leo praying him to do the like But after long contention both parties being throughly agreed the matter was brought to the Councell of Chalcedon where Maximus and Iuvenalis the Bishops of both Sees first of all and before the whole Councell professed that they were both willing that the Bishop of Antioch should hold the two Pheniciaes and Arabia and the Bishop of Ierusalem should hold the three Palestinaes and they both requested the whole Synod to decree cofirme and ratifie the same The whole Councell thereupon by their decree cōfirmed the same all the most reverēd Bishops cryed We all say the same and we consent thereunto After them the most glorious Iudges in the name of the Emperor added Imperiall authority and the royall assent to the Synods decree saying Firmum etiam per nostrum decretū sententiam Concilij in omni tempore permanebit hoc this shall abide firme for ever by our decree and by the judgement of the Councell that the Church of Antioch have under it the two Pheniciaes and Arabia the Church of Ierusalem have under it the three Palestines Thus the Iudges The same Decree of this Councell at Chalcedon is expresly testified both by Evagrius and Nicephorus So untrue it is which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius a voucheth that the Church of Ierusalem was first made a Patriarchall See or had the Provinces and Metropolitanes of Caesarea and Scithopolis annexed unto it by the fift Councell that it is undoubtedly certaine that it had with the title and dignity true Patriarchal authority and power over divers Provinces together with their inferiour Bishops conferred upon it with a plenary consent of the whole Church in the Councell of Chalcedon And that you may see the most shamefull dealing both of Bar. and Binius in another place where their choller against this fift Councell was not moved they acknowledge that truth for intreating of the Councell at Chalcedon In this seventh Session of it saith Baronius and the like doth Binius was the controversie cōposed betwixt the Bishops of Antioch Ierusalē and the cause being judged the two Pheniciae and Arabia were given to the Bishop of Antioch and the three Palestines were adjudged to the Bishop of Hierusalem ex quibus jam perspicuè apparet jus Metropolis in Hierosolymitanam Ecclesiam esse translatum whence it doth evidently appeare that the right of the Metropolis which before belonged to the Bishop of Caesarea was translated to the Bishop of Ierusalem So they who yet in hatred against the Acts of the fift Councell with faces of Adamant deny that truth which here they confesse to be cleare and conspicuous 3. But saith the Cardinall the decree of Chalcedon was made post absentiam Legatorum when the Popes Legates were now gone and so they being absent is to be held invalid O the forehead of the Cardinall Were the Popes Legats absent were they gone Truly they were not onely present at this decree and consenting unto it but after it was proposed by Maximus and Iuvenalis they were the very first men that gave sentence therein whose sentence the whole Councell followed For thus it is sayd Pascasinus and Lucentius the most reverend Bishops and Boniface a Presbyter these holding the place of the Apostolike See said by Pascasinus These things betwixt Maximus and Invenalis are knowne to be done for their good and peace nostrae humilitatis interloquutione firmantur and they are confirmed by the interloquuntion of our humility ut nulla imposterum de hac causa sit contentio that never hereafter there should be any contention about this matter betweene these Churches Is it credible that the Cardinall could be so audacious and impudent as to utter such palpable untruths Vnlesse he had quite put off I say not modesty but reason sense and almost humane nature Let this stand for the second
to Simeon nor to any but to Iames and whereas some would think it a folly and madnesse to write to such an one as was dead and which was knowne to be dead to the author who writ it for who should be the carier of this letter unto him especially to write unto him as a governour in the Church militant to instruct and exhort him what he should carefully observe Turrian tels you that there were divers great and waighty reasons why Saint Peter commanded Clement and why Clement did write this to a dead man whom they both knew to be dead and having given divers very wise and worthy reasons hereof one taken from transfiguration another from imitation a third from avoyding hatred if he had writ to any that had beene alive a fourth for to be a testimony of the Resurrection belike because that Saint Iames shall then reade this holy Apostolicall Epistle and see what godly exhortation and advice for government of the Church Clement gives unto him and such like in the end he concludes that such as are Catholikes must not doubt of the truth of this Epistle though they know not the reason why it was written to a dead man and withall that with men who have reason and judgement certum esse debet such must assure themselves that both S. Peter and Clement had and knew reasons why the one commanded to write and the other did write unto a dead man Whereas now the Cardinals worthy demonstration Had hee and Binius beene men of reason and judgement and considered as no doubt but they read that tract of Turrian seeing unto it they referre us they might have seene therein divers reasons why Theodoret might write to Iohn though he were dead for every one of Turrians reasons is as forcible to defend this Epistle of Theodoret as they are to excuse Clement for writing to Iames who was dead long before But the case is now altered the Cardinals demonstration holds onely in those writings that distaste him or make for us and against their cause But si in rem sint if any such writing bring as all the decretals doe either honour to the Romane See or gaine to the Romane Court though they were writ to one that was dead I say not seven but seven times seven yeares before they shall bee honoured as the true and undoubted writings of the authors 3. Let mee adde but one other example but that is such an one as doth cut all the sinewes yea the very heart-strings of the Cardinals demonstration The translation of Chrysostomes body or reliques by Theodosius the younger more than thirty yeares after his death from Comana where hee dyed in banishment to Constantinople is a matter so testified by Socrates Theodoret Marcellimus the great Menology their Romane Martyrology and others that we doe not doubt of the truth therof But since it is retranslated as they say from Constantinople to Rome the onely shop indeed to utter all such ware and make the people goe a whoring after them That those his supposed reliques may be had in reverence it is worthy the considering how miraculously they have made the manner of his Translation Nicephorus relates the summe of it but as by Baronius it seemes he borrowed it out of the luculent Oration of one Cosmas Vestiarius whether one of the Vaticane or a Baronian author I know not but so ignoble and so unworthy an author that Possevine judged him not worthy to bee named in his Bibliotheca or reckoned among his testes veritatis Out of this Tailors Oration hath the Cardinall stitcht a very pretty Anile the summe whereof is this Proclus on a time making a panegyricall Oration in the praise of Chrysostome the people were so flamed with the love and longing desire after him that they interrupted the Bishop and would not suffer him to make an end of his Sermon crying out with many loud vociferations they would have Chrysostome Chrysostome and his reliques they would have Proclus moved herewith intreates the Emperour the Emperour at this their earnest sute sent divers Senators some say an army together with Clerks and Monkes to bring with all pompe the body of Chrysostome from Comana thither they goe and come to the place where Chrysostomes body was kept in a silver Coffin Once againe and very often they assay yea labor strive with all their strength which all their skil to lift up the Coffin all was in vaine the sacred body was more immovable than a rock they certifie this news to the Emperor who called Proclus other holy men to advise further about that matter in the end the resolution of them all was that the Emperour Theodosius should write a Letter to Chrysostome Supplicis instar libelli in forme of a supplication asking him forgivenesse for the sinnes which Arcadius his father had committed against him humilibus precibus to beseech him with most lowly prayers that hee would returne to Constantinople and take his old See againe praying him that hee would no longer by his absence afflict them being so desirous of his body yea of his ashes yea of his shadow The Emperour did so the forme of whose letter of supplication out of the Tailor Cosmas first Nicephorus and then Baronius expresse though the Cardinall for good cause was loath to give Chrysostome the title of a Patriarke and Pater Patrum which Nicephorus sets downe those either the Tailor or the Cardinall concealeth or altereth The Emperours letters were sent and brought to the dead corps and with great reverence laid upon the brest and heart of Chrysostome and the next day the Priests with great ease took up the body and brought it to Constantinople into the Church of the holy Apostles There first as out of Nicephorus the Cardinal relateth the Emperour with the people supplex communem precationem pro Parentibus fecit made an humble prayer for his Parents and more specially entreated for his Mother that her grave which had shaken and been sicke of a palsie and made a noise and ratling for thirty five yeares together might now at length cease the holy man heard the request granted it the graves palsie was cured so that it shaked no more Then Proclus the Bishop placed dead Chrysostome in eundem Thronum in the very same See and Episcopall seat with himselfe all the people applauding and crying O Father Chrysostome receive thy See and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration the lips of Chrysostome five and thirty yeares after hee was laid in his grave opened and blessed all the people saying Peace be to you and this both the Patriarke Proclus and the people standing by testified that they heard Thus farre the Cardinals narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Nicephorus 4. Say now in earnest is not this
upon him then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Are these which are all of them hainous crimes and notorious in Vigilius the matters that offend the Cardinall No none of these hee is not used to finde such faults in their Popes these all hee commends as rare vertues as demonstrations of constancy of prudence of fortitude in Vigilius what then is it that his Cardinalship dislikes Truely among many great and eminent vices in Vigilius which are obvious and runne into every mans sight it hapned that once in his life he did one thing worthy of commendations and that was his obedience in going to Constantinople when the Emperour called and requested him to come thither and the Cardinall winking at all the other reproves his Holinesse for this one thing which both in equity and duty hee ought to have done This forsooth is it which hee notes as a very dangerous and hurtfull matter and a speciall point of great indiscretion in Pope Vigilius that leaving Rome that holy City hee would goe to Constantinople and to the Emperours Court which his predecessors Leo and others in very great wisdome would never do not goe into the East nor suffer themselves to bee pulled away from their See fixed at Rome 2. Truely I never knew before that there was such vertue in the Romane or such venome in the Constantinopolitane soile or in the Easterne ayre specially seeing the holy Land and the holy City and the holy Temple were all in the East All the Westerne nations are beholding to the Cardinall for this conceit Shall there not bee given to thy servant two Mules load of this Romish earth But let us a little more fully see why the Pope and particularly Vigilius might noâ— goe to Constantinople Oh saith the Cardinall it is found by experience that the Popes going from Rome to the Court obfuisse haud modicum hath done great hurt to the Church for then partly by the threats and partly by the favours and faire intreaties of Emperours as it were with two contrary windes the ship of Peter is exposed to great hazzard Modicae fidei phy a Cardinall to feare or distrust any wracke of Saint Peters ship though never so dangerous a tempest happen though Vna Eurusque Notusque ruant creberque procellis Africus S. Peter hath left such a Pilot in his Rome that a thousand times sooner might he himselfe than his ship sinke Pasce oves tues Petra oravi pro te Petre will uphold it against all winde and weather And truly I would gladly know of his Cardinalship for my learning how any of their Popes can forsake their See or Rome They have heretofore held it for a maxime ubi Papa ibi Roma let the Pope goe to Peru yea ultra Garamantas Indos he hath a priviledge above all creatures but the Snaile hee carrieth not onely their infallible Chaire but the whole City of Rome on his backe whithersoever hee goes If not so or if the Chaire bee fixt to Rome where sate all their Popes for those seventy yeares when they were at Avinion or how shall they sit in the Chaire when their Babylonish Rome for her Idolatries shal be burnt with unquencheable fire and sinke like a Milstone into the bottome of the Sea which being foretold by Saint Iohn of the Romane City which yet remaineth as their owne Iesuite Ribera doth truely and undeniably demonstrate is a most certaine Article of the Catholike faith though they seldome thinke of it and will hardly put it into their Creed When their Pope goe whither hee will carieth still with him his infallible Chaire was it not infidelity in the Cardinall to dreame or doubt lest that ship should any where miscarry more at the Court or Kings Pallace than in a Country Cottage more in the Trullane than in the Laterane Temple 3. Yea but usu rerum reperitur experience teacheth that their going to the Emperour hath done exceeding hurt and particularly for Vigilius that his going to Constantinople hath brought magnum damnum great harme to the Catholike Church declararunt eventa the events have shewed Events and experience are the most woefull arguments in Divinitie that can possibly be devised Measure the Gospell by temporall calamities which ensued upon it the bloody murdering of the Apostles of the Saints of God almost for three hundred yeares together and hee may as well conclude that the Gospell and truth of Christ is found by woefull experience to have brought exceeding great hurt to the Church The Cardinall was driven to a narrow strait and an exceeding penury of reasons when he was forced to put Argumentum ab eventu for one of his Topicall places 4. But say what hurt can he tell us that ever any Emperours presence with the Pope brought unto the Church If both were Catholike or both hereticall they agreed well enough together As not Satans so much lesse is Gods Kingdome devided against it selfe if the Emperour Catholike and the Pope hereticall the worst the Emperour ever did was but to inflict just punishment on an heretike the worst the Pope sustained was but a just recompence of his heresie and hatred of truth The execution of Iustice never did nor ever can hurt the Catholike Church If the Emperor were hereticall and the Pope orthodoxal there was trial of the Popes art skil in converting such a man to the truth triall of his constancy and love unto Gods truth whether by feare or favour he would forsake it triall of his patience and fortitude in induring all torments even death it selfe for his love to Christ. All the hurt which such an Emperour did or could doe was to crowne him a glorious Martyr and in stead of the white garment of innocency to send him in scarlet robes unto heaven and woe be to that Church which shall thinke Martyrdome an hurt unto it which was and ever will bee the glory of the Catholike Church Non decet sub spinoso capite membrum esse delicatum when Christ his Apostles and glorious Saints and Martyrs have gone before upon thornes and briars wee must not looke to have a silken way strewed with Roses and Lillies unto the Kingdome of God This which is yet the very worst that can befall any Catholike is no harme to him who hath learned that lesson Blessed are they which die in the Lord so whether Pope and Emperour be both of one or of a different religion his presence with the Emperour may happen to doe good but it is certaine it can never possibly doe hurt unto the Church The greatest hurt that was ever done to the Church by this meanes was when Constantine after his baptisme by Pope Silvester in liew of his paines and in token of a thankful minde sealed unto him that donation of the Romane and Westerne Provinces That one fable I must particularly except
in particular by his comming to Constantinople so there is another and publike benefit which ensued thence to the whole Church and that so great and so happy that if we should as the Cardinall doth measure things by the event the comming of Agapetus to Constantinople though they glory therein more than in any other example of antiquity is no way comparable to this of Vigilius for by this comming of Vigilius it was demonstrated by evident experience that the Pope may say and gainsay his owne sayings in matters of faith and then define ex Cathedra both his sayings that is two direct contradictories to be both true seeing Pope Vigilius first while hee temporized with the Emperour defined ex Cathedra that the Three Chapters ought to bee condemned and after that when it pleased him to open the depth of his owne heart defined the quite contrary ex Cathedra that the Three Chapters ought to bee defended By it was further demonstrated that the Pope may not onely be an heretike but teach also and define and that ex cathedra an heresie to be truth and so be a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgment of an holy generall Councell and of the whole Catholike Church These and some other like conclusions of great moment for the instruction of the whole Church of God are so fully so clearly so undenyably demonstrated in the cause of Pope Vigilius when he came to Constantinople that had the Cardinall or his favourers I meane the maintainers of the Popes infallibility grace to make use thereof for the opening of their eyes in that maine and fundamentall point wherein they are now so miserably blinded they might have greater cause to thank God for his comming thither than for the voyage of Agapetus or of any other of his predecessors undertaken in many yeares before 8. Where are now the great hurts and inconveniences which the Cardinall fancieth by Vigilius his comming to the Emperour Truly I cannot devise what one they can finde but the disgrace onely of Vigilius in that upon his comming he shewed himselfe to be a temporizer a very weather-cocke in faith a dissembler with God and his Church pretending for five or six yeares that hee favoured the truth when all that time he harboured in his brest the deadly poyson of that heresie which as before his comming he defended so at the time of the Councell he defined This blot or blemish of their holy Father neither I nor themselves with all the water in Tiber can wash or ever wipe away The best use that can be made of it is that as Thomas distrusted to make others faithfull and void of distrust so God in the infinitenesse of his wisedome permitted Pope Vigilius to be not only unconstant but hereticall in defining causes of faith that others by relying on the Popes judgement as infallible might not be hereticall and yet even for this very fact thus much I must needs say that if the Cardinall thinke it was the place or the City of Constantinople that wrought this disgracefull effect in Vigilius it may bee truly replyed unto him much like as Themistocles did to the foolish Seriphian ascribing his owne ignobility to the basenesse of the towne of Seriphus certainly though Silvester Iulius and Calestine had beene never so oft at Constantinople they had beene orthodoxall and heroicall Bishops but Vigilius hereticall and ignoble though he had beene nayled to the posts of the Vaticane or chained to the pillars of it as fast as Prometheus to Caucasus The soyle and ayre is as Catholike at Constantinople as in the very Laterane it is as hereticall in Rome as in any City in all the world The onely difference is in the men themselves the former where ever they had come caried with them constant heroicall and truly pontificall minds Vigilius in every place was of an ambitious unstable dissembling hypocriticall and hereticall spirit which that every one may perceive I will now in the last place and in stead of an Epilogue to this whole Treatise set downe a true description of the life of Vigilius partly because it may bee thought a great wrong to reject the narration of Anastasius and not some way to supply that defect touching the life of so memorable a Pope as was Vigilius partly with a true report of this hereticall Popes life to requite the labour of Baronius in his malitious slanders of the religious Emperour Iustinian and specially because Vigilius being the subject in a manner of this whole Treatise it seemes to mee needfull to expresse the most materiall circumstances touching the entrance the actions the end of him who hath occasioned us to undertake this so long and as I truly professe both laborious and irksome labour 9. I confesse I have no good faculty in writing their Popes lives Nec fonte labra prolui Caballino nec in bicipiti somniasse Parnasso memini I have not tasted of their streames of Tiber more holy than Helicon nor ever had I dreame or vision in their sacred Parnassus yet with their leave will I adventure to set downe some parts of the life of Vigilius which doe afford as much variety of matter and are as needfull to be knowne and remembred as any other of that whole ranke from S. Peter to Paul the fift 10. That many of their Popes have unjustly climbed up to S. Peters Chaire I thinke none so unskilfull as not to know none so malitious as to deny But whether any of them all I except none not the boy-Pope Iohn the 12. not the Fox Boniface not Silvester the second who had it by a compact with the Devill of whom hee purchased it with the gift of his soule not Iohn the 23. called a Devill incarnate not any else whether any of them all I say obtained the See with more impiety or greater villany than Vigilius may be justly doubted He intending to be a good cammock beganne according to the Proverb to hooke and crooke betimes and gape after that eminent Throne His first attempt was in the time of Boniface the second with whom he prevailed so far that when Boniface in a Roman Synod had made a Constitution that he should nominate his successor before them all he named and constituted Vigilius to succeed to himselfe for the performance of which both he and all the rest of the Synod did binde themselves both by subscription and by a solemne oath Vigilius seemed for a while to be cocke-sure of the See but it fell out contrary to his expectation at this time the Senate of Rome justly withstood as Pope Silverius witnesseth that nomination It may be they knew the crooked disposition of Vigilius how unfit hee was to make a Bishop nor the Senate onely but the Ecclesiasticall Canons resisted it Thou endeavouredst this contra jura canonica saith Pope Silverius against the Canonicall right The Itaian lawes also resisted it at that
as persons failing in their Episcopall or Presbyteriall duties either not knowing the truth as by their office they should or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth as by their office they should not So by his subtilty if any applaud themselves in it not only the Bishops of Rome but of Constantinople of Antioch of Alexandria yea all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from errour as his holinesse himselfe yea all professors of any Art Science or faculty shall plead the like Papall exemption from errour every man shall bee a Pope in his owne faculty no Grammarian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian but as wanting the skil required in a Grammarian no Iudge giving a wrongfull sentence as a Iudge no Galenist ministring unwholsome physicke as a Physitian no Artificer working any thing amisse in his trade as an Artificer but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge or of that fidelity which is required in a Iudge a Physitian and in every Artificer If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters all Iudges and Physitians from erring as they are such Officers or Artificers we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope If they notwithstanding this subtilty will admit another Bishop to erre as Bishop they must not thinke much if wee exempt not the Pope as Pope For to speake that which is the very truth of them all and exactly to measure every thing by his owne line a Iudge simply as Iudge doth pronounce a judiciall sentence as a skilfull and faithfull judge an upright judiciall sentence as an unskilful or unfaithfull Iudge an erronious or unjust sentence A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter doth teach with publike authority in the Church as a skilfull and faithfull Bishop or Presbyter he teacheth the truth of God as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errours and heresies in the Church the one without the other with judicall power to censure the gainsayers The like in all Arts Sciences and faculties is to be sayd even in the Pope himselfe A Pope simply as he is Pope and defined by them teacheth both with authority to teach with power to censure the gainsayers and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeale without doubt as an infallible Oracle as a skilfull or faithfull Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort as an unskilfull or unfaithfull Pope he teacheth errour or heresie with the like authority power and supremacy binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholike truth and that with a most blind obedience without once doubting of the same 48. Apply this to Vigilius his hereticall Epistle In a vulgar sense Vig. erred as Pope because he erred in those very Pōtifical duties of feeding confirming which are proper to his office In a strickt sense though hee did not therein erre simply as Pope but quatenus talis taught onely with a supreme binding authority yet hee erred as an unfaithfull Pope binding others by that his Pontificall and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholike truth without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same What may wee thinke will they oppose to this If they say Vigilius doth not expresse in this Epistle that hee writ it by his Apostolicall authority Hee doth not indeed Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus against the heresie of Eutyches which to have beene writ by his Apostolicall authorty and as hee was Pope none of them doe or will deny that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon Pope Leo by his Papall authority condemneth Eutycheanisme Pope Vigilius by his Papall authority confirme Eutycheanisme both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papall authority both writ as Popes the one as orthodoxall the other as a perfidious and hereticall Pope neither of both expresse that their Apostolicall authority by which they both writ The like in many other Epistles of Leo and of other Popes might easily bee observed Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles such as they writ as Popes have this clause of doing it by their Apostolicall authority expressed in them It is sufficient that this is vertually in them all and vertually it is in this of Pope Vigilius Yea but hee taught this onely in a private letter to a few to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius not in a publike generall and encyclicall Epistles written for instruction of the whole Church What is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few in confirming three of his brethren why not in foure in eight in twenty and if in twenty why not in an hundred if so why not in a thousand if in one why not in two foure or ten thousand Caudaeque pilos ut equinae paulatim vellam where or at what number shall we stay as being the least which with infallibility he can teach Certainly confirma fratres in cathedra sede pasce oves respects two as well as two millions If in confirming or feeding three the Chaire may bee erroneous how can wee know to what number God hath tyed the infallibility of it But the sixt generall Councell may teach them a better lesson Pope Honorius writ an hereticall Epistle but onely to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople Vigilius writ this to three all of patriarchall dignity as Sergius was Honorius writ it privately as Vigilius did which was the cause as it seemes that the Romane Church tooke so little notice thereof yet though it was private and but to one it is condemned by the sixt Councell for a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius for a writing wherein hee confirmes others in heresie and Pope Leo the second judged it to bee such as was a blemish to the Apostolike See such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholike faith The like and more danger was in this to these three deposed patriarchs It confirmed them in heresie it confirmed the Empresse it confirmed all that tooke part with them it was the meanes whereby the faith was in hazard to have beene utterly subverted For plurality or paucity it is not materiall be they few be they moe if the Pope as Pope or as an hereticall pope may confirme three or but one that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible 49. But he taught this alone not in a Councell not with advice of his Cardinalls and Consistory why he did it not as a member of a Councell but as Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus in deposing Anthimus above and besides the Canons The whole power of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision more than in any other where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe much more was this done by him as Pope than any of them And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of
others or of a Synod herein what better direction advice or counsell could his Cardinalls or any Synod in the world give unto him than the decree of the whole Councell of Chalcedon That Vigilius had before his eyes at this time that was in stead of a thousand Cardinals unto him seeing he as Ecclesiae Princeps defined Eutycheanisme notwithstanding that most holy and generall Synod yea against that Synod what could the advice of another or of a few Cardinals have avayled at this time 50. Thus all the evasions which they use being refuted it may now be clearly concluded not onely that Vigilius writ this impious and hereticall Epistle and writ it when he was the true and lawfull Pope but that he writ it also ex animo even out of an hereticall heart and writ it as he was Pope that is in such sort as that by his Pontificall and supreme authority hee confirmed that heresie which hee taught therein And this is the former of his Acts which as I told you is very remarkable his purpose and intent therein being the overthrow of the Councell at Chalcedon and of the whole Catholike faith 51. The other act of Vigilius concernes the cause of the three Chapters wherein by the heresie of Nestorius he publikely decreed and performed that as much as in him lay and as by his Apostolicall decree could be effected which hee had purposed and intended to doe by the heresie of Eutycheanisme In which whole cause how Vigilius from the first to the last behaved himselfe how at the first hee oppugned the Emperours most religious Edict and the Catholike faith how afterward he played the dissembling Proteus with the Emperour and the whole Church for the space of five or six yeares together how at the last he returned to his naturall and habituall love of heresie and how in decreeing it by the fulnesse of his Apostolicall authority hee sought utterly and for ever to abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and with it the whole Catholike faith the former Treatise doth abundantly declare which withall demonstrates the vanity of that saying of Bellarmine For the time sayth he that hee was true Pope neither any errour nor simulation of errour was found in him sed summa constantia in fide but the greatest constancy of faith that could be For as by our former treatise is evident he was not only most wavering but hereticall in faith And this was in a manner the whole course of Vigilius life or the most eminent acts thereof while he was Pope pretending orthodoxy but embracing heresie and as opportunity offered it selfe labouring by words by private Epistles by resisting the imperiall just and godly Edict by publike constitutions to overthrow the faith and the whole Church of God 52. You see now his ingresse into the Papacy and his progresse in the same touching his egresse both out of it and this life heare what S. Liberatus saith How Vigilius being by heresie afflicted died it is knowne unto all Heare what Cardinall Bellarmine saith out of Liberatus Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that selfe same heresie which at the first he nourished and againe Misere vexatus usque ad mortem he was miserably vexed even untill hee dyed Heare Baronius who first promised to declare how invigilavit in Vigilio vindicta Dei how the vengeance of God watched Vigilius and at last revenged the innocent blood which he shed and then performing that promise sayth He died in an Iland in Sicily by the just judgement of God confectus ipse aerumnis ex morbo himselfe being wasted with misery by reason of his disease who had caused Silverius in an Iland in Palmaria to bee pined away and put to death As he got the papacy by wicked meanes so was he immensis agitatus fluctibus tossed with exceeding great tempests therein hated by the Emperour not gratefull to the Easterne and execrable to the Westerne Bishops and when hee seemed to have come out of the streame into the haven and almost one foot into the City being pined away immensis doloribus with unmeasurable paines he dyed Thus Baronius Now if we should deale with him as Baronius doth with Iustinian and by his precedent acts judge of his reward according to the Text Opera eorum sequuntur eos I feare the censure would seeme very harsh to those who are so ready to examine Iustinian by that rule For what workes I pray you followed Pope Vigilius Ambition usurpation sacriledge murder symony hypocrisie schisme heresie and Antichristianisme concerning which the Apostle sayth They which doe them shall not inherit the kingdome of God I will not I list not be rigorous in this point neither towards him or any other I contenâ— my selfe with that lesson of the Apostle Domino suo stat aut cadit Yet thus much by occasion of this Treatise and the approved judgement of the Church declared therein concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia long before dead must needs bee said of him of Baronius and of all other who have already or shall at any time hereafter write as they have done in defence of heresie and oppugnation of Gods truth As repentance for such sinnes and impious writings opens unto them so impenitency and persevering therein eternally shuts against them the gates of Gods mercy and the kingdome of heaven Both which because they are hid from mans eyes the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity onely to God passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity by the outward and apparant acts which are open unto them whomsoever shee seeth not nor findes by certaine and evident proofe to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their hereticall and impious writings which before they published and maintained all those though dead ten an hundred or a thousand years before she by her censure doth and doth most justly condemne accurse and anathematize as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia dead an hundred yeares before is most evident whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fift Councell is approved by all succeeding generall Councels by all Catholikes and even by the whole Catholike Church Not will I here dispute whether such a sentence doth not sometimes passe errante clave the party having repented whom they not having proofe of his repentance thought to dye impenitent but howsoever that fall out none may justly complaine of the Churches judgement as unjust or unequall herein for besides that it is presumed that those who so notoriously and publikely by their hereticall writings doe scandalize the Church and people of God if they had seriously repented would have expressed some publike and outward testimony of the same the Church would by this severity of her censure teach all men a lesson which is very hard to learne first that they should not have such an itch and ambitious desire to write or utter those detestable heresies which lurk
within their breasts or if they cannot observe that yet at least to learne to be so lowly and humble in heart as to revoke their impieties and blasphemies although to some blemish and disgrace of themselves yet to the great honour of Gods truth and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church which they had scandalized If in ambition they will first oppugne the truth and then in a worse pride of heart not be reclamed to the truth nor shew their love unto it why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement shew her open detestation of their persons who in the insolency of their hearts will not shew any open detestation of their heresies That Vigilius writ a papall Constitution in defence of heresie it is apparent and undenyable that he at any time revoked that writing I wish it were but it is not yet evident The like may be sayd of Baronius of Pighius of Eccius of the Laterane Florentine and Trent conspirators of all who have whet their tongues against other truth and specially to uphold that fundamentall heresie of the Popes infallibility Their writings for heresie are evident that they ever reclamed those writings it is inevident and if ever they and their cause come to bee tryed in such a free lawfull and oecumenicall Councell as was this fift under Iustinian they may justly feare and certainly expect from the Church unlesse the disclaming of their writings may by certaine proofe be made knowne the very like sentence though a hundred yeares after theirs as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred yeares after his death And because the houre-glasse for repentance in runne out to the former all that we can doe is which I seriously now doe from my heart to cry amaine unto others to admonish exhort yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God and by the love of their owne soules first that they keepe their tongues and pennes from once uttering any heresie or if they have not done that with the same hands to give the medicine wherewith they gave the wound and as openly nay much more openly to disclame than they have ever proclamed their impious and hereticall doctrines 53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius The exact pourtraiture of the Popes lives Baronius had beene able to set forth if he had listed but he addeth such fucos and so many sophisticall colours that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and naturall habit If ought be amisse in this our description and not set forth according to the lively lineaments of Vigilius and his impieties the equall reader will not too rigorously censure the same I acknowledge that I can but dolare in this kinde to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes I have not learned That is an Art which may not bee too vulgar lest their Romane policies be too farre divulged But by this it is easie to perceive what a silly excuse it is which Baronius useth in this cause blaming Vigilius for coming to Constantinople as if not the Popes owne hereticall minde but the ayre of Constantinople had wrought such effects as to produce that hereticall and yet as they count it Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters FINIS Laus Deo sine fine Errata haec corrigat benevolus Lector In Textu Pag. 48. lin 2. read Theodorus ibid. lin 9. diptisis p. 509. l. 14. eos p. 99. l. 3. Iohn B. p. 125. l. 38. Catholikes p. 141 l. 35. Binius he was p. 145. l. 39. Son of God p. 163. prope finem substances p. 164. l. 5. explanation p. 172. l. 20. of the Pope p. 182. l. 45. their present p. 199. prope finem Catholica p. 216. l. 17. it p. 224. l. 25. Popes p. 227. l. 5. yeeld p. 289. l. 35. the. p. 350. l. 30. aequiparare p. 425. l. 8. where is ibid. l. 27. Commana ibid. Marcellinus l. 42. inflamed p. 442. in fine Euphemia p. 462. l. 11. quarrels with Pope p. 465. l. 35. all this time p. 478. l. 23. it was written p. 495. l. 37. poysoner of p. 500. l. 35. right hand In Margine Pa. 9. lit c lege Marsorum p. 67. lit e Antiochenum p. 233. lit s emissam ibid. lit e corruptè p. 409. lit e commentitias supposititias p. 410. lit q Consilij 5. p. 437. lit l Concil 5. Coll. 5. AN ALPHABETICALL TABLE OF THE CHIEFE THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS TREATISE A. ACts in Councels not so intire but there may be faults from the exscriber pag. 433. Sect. 17 18. Acts of the fift Councell unjustly excepted against by Baronius pa. 379. sect 3 4. Agnoites and other sectaries called Acephali p. 3. sect 6. Agapetus lost nothing by the Emperours presence p. 464. sect 5. Antichrist the Pope first Antichrist nascent secondly crescent thirdly regnant fourthly in their Laterane Councell he was Antichrist triumphant pa. 186. sect 24. Anthimus a Catholike in shew and outward profession p. 157. sect 4. Anastasius narration not helped by Binius p. 458. sect 23. Anastasius a fabler p. 256. sect 23. and pa. 447. sect 12. c. The Author of that Apologicall Epistle published Anno 1601. a vaunting Braggadochio p. 205. sect 10. To Assent to the Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions in a cause of faith makes one an heretike pa. 172. sect 6. Author of the Edict was Iustinian himselfe p. 366. sect 6 7. B. BAronius nice in approving the Epistle of Ibas and why p. 128. sect 22. Baronius wittingly obstinate in maintaining the heresie of Nestorius by approving the later part of that epistle p. 129. sect 24 25. and p. 31. sect 28. Baronius sports himselfe with contradictions p. 131. sect 27. Baronius revileth the cause of the Three Chapt. p. 361. sect 1. Baronius Annals not altogether intire pag. 435. sect 19. Baronius by his own reasons proves his Annals to be untrue p. 436. sect 19. in fine sect 20. c. Baronius holds it dangerous for Vigilius to leave Rome to come to Constantinople p. 462 sect 1 2. Bellisarius most renowned save in the matter of Silverius p 470. sect 11. Bellarmine and Baronius at variance about the Epistle of Vigilius to Anthimus Severus and others p. 477. sect 19 20. Baronius first reason to disprove it is taken from the inscription p 477. in fine p. 478. sect 21 22 23. c. his second reason from the subscription pa. 482. sect 26. his last reason is because hee was not upbraided for it by the Emperour and others p. 483. sect 27. Bellarmines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know when a Councell decreeth any doctrine tanquam de fide pa. 40. sect 9 c. Baronius vilifieth the fift generall Councell p. 266. sect 2. The Banishment of Vigilius after the fift Councell a fiction p. 250. sect 16. and p. 253. sect 19. When and for what
needfull in a generall Councell p. 273. sect 14 15. The Pope present in the fift Councell by his letters of instruction p. 274. sect 16. The Popes consent makes not a Councell to be approved p. 275. sect 27. vid. lit C. In the Pope intensivè there is as much authority as in the Pope with a generall Councell Bellarmines assertion p. 174. sect 10. The Pope vertually both Church and Councell p. 178. sect 15. p. 180. sect 17. The name Papist not heard of till Leo the 10. p. 188. sect 25. to be a Pope an happy thing for all is held for truth that they define pag. 223. sect 16. Papist had need of a strong faith relying on the Popes judgement p. 224. sect 18. Paulus Bishop of Emisa subscribed to the anathematizing of Nestorius to perswade an union betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 133. sect 31 his Sermon at Alexandria containing an orthodoxall profession of the faith p. 134. sec. 33. Pelagius Pope after Vigilius consecrated by two Bishops onely an a Presbyter of Ostia pa. 242. sect 4. A Pope may erre personally they say but doctrinally he cannot p. 244. sect 7. The Pope no competent Iudge of Protestants being an enemy unto them pag. 315. sect 33. Pope Clements epistle to Iames a forgery pa. 422. sect 2. Paul censured by some for an hot-headed person 434. sect 18. in fine R. THe Church of Rome holdeth no doctrine by certainty of faith p. 181. in fine and pa. 282. sect 20. and p. 189. sect 27 28. The Romish doctrines may bee held three wayes p. 183. sect 21. in fine First of them who hold the Scriptures for the foundation p. 183. sect 22. such were our forefathers Second way by grounding upon Scripture but with pertinacy p. 184. sect 23. A third way of holding them is on the Popes word p. 185. seâ— 24 They of the Romane Church are heretikes p. 192. sect 31. In their Romane Church no true holinesse p. 193. sect 32. They of the Romish Church are schismatikes p. 196. sect 34. Rome miserably besieged by Totilas p. 456. sect 22. Ruba not taken from Alexandria pag. 407. sect 8. S. THe Synod resolves to judge the controversie about the three Chapt. the Pope being absent p. 7. sect 1. Sergins Bishop of Cyrus deposed from his Bishopricke p. 706. sect 18. Scripture being the ground of a mans faith is a comfort unto him though in some things he erre pa. 191. sect 29. and p. 194. sect 33. Supremacy and infallibility are inseparably joyned p. 176. sect 12. Schismatikes are not of the Church pa. 199. sect 39. Profession of Scriptures excuse not from heresie p. 226. sect sect 13. Suidas a fabler 326. sect 4. Sophia built by Constantine the mirrour of ages p. 350. sect 39. Switzers order in judgement p. 394. in fine Shamefull matters not added to the Acts of the fift Synod p. 408. sect 1.4 Silverius died of famine in the Iland Palmaria p. 472. sect 13. Synods what makes them lawfull p. 282. and what unlawfull p. 306. sect 20. T. THeodorus not condemned in his life time p. 47. sect 2. Theodorus died not in the peace of the Church p. 59. sect 1 2 3 4. and p. 66. Theodorus condemned by Cyrill and Proclus p. 68. sec. 2 3. and p. 73. sec. 11. c. by the Ephesine Councell p. 69. sec. 4. c. by the Armenian Councell p. 72. sec. 10. by the Emperours Edict sec. 13 14 c. by the Catholike Church p. 76. sec. 19. Theodoret writ against Cyrill and the true faith p. 62. sec. 4 5. Theodoret very resolute for Nâ—storianisme p. 93. sec. 6. Theodoret his writings condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon p. 96. sec. 12 13. and p. 101. sec. 23. and by Cyrill p. 98. sec. 16 17. Theodoret was not injured though his writings were condemned p. 102. sec. 24 26. Theodoret a man of rare worth and learning p. 104. sec. 29 30. Taciturnity the decree of taciturnity and what effect it tooke p. 225. sec. 2 3 4. a meere fiction p. 228. sec. 5 6 c. Trent Bishops were the Popes creatures pa. 319. sec. 37. The Trent Councell conspired against Protestants p. 314. sec. 32. Theodora unjustly reviled by Baronius pag. 355. sec. 1. Theodora favoured Anthimus as being orthodoxall p. 358. sec. 5. Theodora not excommunicated by Vigilius p. 359. sec. 6. Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea no heretike p. 368. sec. 9 10. Theodorus of Caesarea no Origenist pa. 374. sec. 17. he maimed not the Acts of the 5. Synod p. 697. sec. 7. Theodosius law in the Code not corrupted p. 411. sec. 4. Theodoret wrote that Epistle mentioned in the fift Synod p. 413. sec. 1. hee wrote it after the union p. 416. sec. 6 7. and p. 420. sec. 12. Theodora writ not to Vigilius to restore Anthimus p. 449. sec. 16 17. Theodora sent not Anthimus Scribo to Rome for Vigilius p. 452. sec. 18. Theodoret sets forth his owne orthodoxy p. 417. sec. 7. Theodoret condemned by the Councell at Ephesus p. 419. sec. 10. Theodoret writ an epistle to Iohn of Antioch p. 422. sec. 1. Theodoret rejoyceth over Cyrill being dead p. 427. sec. 5. A Trechery intended in Queene Elizabeths time by a deepe dissembler p 488. in medio V. VIgilius alledgeth counterfeit writings in stead of Fathers p. 78. sec. 23 24. c. Vigilius denieth the knowne writings of Theodorus p. 82. sec. 31. Vigilius imputeth an heresie to the Councell of Ephesus p. 84. sec. 34. Vigilius untruly pretendeth the Councell of Chalcedon p. 84. sec. 35 36. Vigilius falsely pretendeth Iustinian for Theodorus p. 86. sec. 38. Vigilius durst not himselfe condemne Theodorus p. 88. sec. 41 42. Vigilius would not permit any other to condemne Theodorus pa. 89. sec. 45. and pag. 99. sec. 18. Vigilius anathematizeth those that condemne Theodorus p. 90. sec. 46. Vigilius accuseth the Councell of Chalcedon as dissemblers p. 94. sec. 8. Vigilius condemneth Nestorianisme onely in shew p. 100. sec. 20 21. Vigilius and Baronius appeare in their lively colours for Nestorianisme p. 112. sec. 1. and p. 27. sec. 2. Vnion made betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 116 sec. 5. and how concluded p 133. sec. 30 31. Vigilius from the Vnion labours to prove Ibas a Catholike p. 117. sec. 7. Vigilius approveth the whole epistle of Ibas p. 118. sec. 9. Vnion in Nestorianisme was that union which Ibas embraced p 127. sec. 14. That Vigilius decreed this union in Nestorianisme with a setled affection is probable pa. 129 sec. 23. Vigilius approveth the confession made by Ibas p. 141. sec. 3 4 5. Vigilius his reasons to prove Ibas profession to be Catholike p. 151. sec. 29 c. Vigilius with Ibas approveth two persons in Christ p. 164. sec. 48 49 c. Vigilius his pretence to defend the Councell at Chalcedon p. 200 sec. 1 2. Vigilius hereticall notwithstanding his profession of Councels p. 208. sec. 17. Vigilius is said to have approved the fift Councell p. 213. sec. 1.
all subsequent generall Councels unto Leo the tenth decreeing this cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to bee hereticall whence it doth clearly ensue that as the former who were ready to embrace the truth had it beene manifested unto them erred not of pertinacy but as Austen saith of humane infirmitie so the latter who reject the truth being manifested unto them and withstand the knowne judgement of the whole catholike Church even that judgement which is testified by all those witnesses to be consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall doctrine can no way be excused from most wilfull and pertinacious obstinacy seeing they adhere to that opinion which themselves or their particular church hath chosen though they see and know the same to be repugnant to Scripture the consenting judgement of all generall and holy Councels that is of the whole catholike Church So the errour of the former though it was in a point of faith yet was but materially to be called heresie as being a doctrine repugnant to faith yet being not joyned in them with pertinacie which is essentially as Canus sheweth required in an heretike could neither make nor denominate them to be heretikes The errour of the latter is not onely an errour in a point of faith but is formally to bee called heresie such as being both a doctrine repugnant to faith and being in them joyned with pertinacy doth both make and truly denominate them who so erre to be heretikes and shew them to hold it heretically not onely as an errour but as a most proper heresie 9. The second difference is in the manner of their errour The former held their opinions as probable collections not as undoubted doctrines of saith and so long as those errours were so held the Church suspended her judgement both concerning the doctrines and the persons And this was at least untill the time of Ierome touching the millenary opinion for he mentioning the same saith thus Haec licet non sequamur tamen damnare non possumus quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum martyrum ista dixerunt These things concerning the raigne of Christ for one thousand yeares upon earth in a terrestriall but yet a golden Ierusalem although we doe not our selves follow yet wee cannot condemne them because many of the Ecclesiasticall writers and Martyrs have said the same whereby it is evident that in Ieromes time nothing was defined herein by the Church for then Ierome might and would constantly have condemned that errour by the warrant of the Churches authoritie which then hee held to bee a probable and disputable matter In which regard also Austen calleth it a tolerable opinion and such as himselfe had sometimes held if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spirituall Baronius tels us how rightly I will not now examine that when Apollinarius renewed this opinion and urged it ut dogma Catholicum no longer as a matter of probabilitie but as a Catholike doctrine of faith It was then condemned by Pope Damasus about the time of Ierome and so being condemned by the Church it was ever after that held for an heresie and the defenders of it for heretikes 10. Did Baronius and the rest of the Romane Church in like sort as those millenary Fathers commend their Popes infallibility no otherwise then as a probable a topicall or disputable matter the like favourable censure would not be denyed unto them but that they also notwithstanding that error in faith might die in the communion of the Church But when Pope Vigilius published his Apostolicall Constitution as a doctrine with such necessitie to be received of all that none either by word or writing might contradict the same when the chiefe Pillers of their Church urge the Popes Cathedrall definitions in causes of faith for such as wherein nullo casu errare potest he can by no possibilitie bee deceived or teach amisse when they urge this not onely as Apollinarius did the other ut dogma Catholicum as a doctrine of faith but as the foundation of all the doctrines of faith It was high time for the Catholike Church as soone as they espied this to creepe into the hearts of men to give some soveraigne antidote against such poyson and to prevent that deluge of heresies which they knew if this Cataract were set open would at once rush in and overwhelme the Church of God And therefore the fift generall and holy Councell to preserve for ever the faith of the Church against this heresie did not onely condemne it decreeing the Apostolicall and cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to be hereticall but decreed all the defenders of it to be accursed and separated from God and Gods Church so that whosoever after this sentence and decree of the holy Synod approved by the whole Catholike Church shall defend the Popes Cathedrall judgements as infallible and dye in that opinion they are so farre from dying as Papias and Irene did in the peace of the Church that by the whole catholike Church they are declared and decreed to dye out of the peace and communion of the whole catholike Church 11. A third dissimilitude ariseth from the persons who erre The former for all their errour held fast the unity with the Church even with those who contradicted and coÌ„demned their errours and we doubt not but that was verified of very many of them which Austen affirmeth of Cyprian that they kept this unitie of the Church humiliter fideliter fortiter ad martyrij usque coronam kept it with humility with fidelitie with constancy even to the crowne of martyrdome By reason of which their charity they were not onely fast linked and as I may say glued to the communion of the Church both in their life and death but all their other errours as Austen â—aith became veniall unto them for charity covereth a multitude of sinnes The latter are so unlike to these that with their errour and even by it they have made an eternall breach and separation of themselves from the Catholike Church even from all who consent unto or approve this fift generall Councell for having by their Laterane decree erected and set up in the Romane Capitol this pontificall supremacy and infallibilitie they now account all but Schismatickes who consent not with them they will have no peace no coÌ„munion with any who will not adore this Romish Calfe of the supreme infallible authoritie of their vice-god So the former notwithstaÌ„ding their error died in the peace of that Church to which by most ardent affection they were conjoyned The latter dying in this their errour whereby they cut off and quite dis-joyne themselves from the union of all who approve the decree of the fift Councell and those are the whole catholike Church of all ages though they dye in the very armes and bosome of the Queene of Babylon cannot chuse but die out of the blessed peace and
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 negligēt 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 Like lips like lettuce Such a writing is a most fit witnesse for Baronius who delighteth in untruths and not finding true records to give testimony to them it was fit hee should applaud the most vile and abject forgeries if they seeme to speak ought pleasing to the Cardinals pallate or which may serve to support his untruths 9. You see that yet it appeares not that Theodorus was the writer or penner of this Decree none of Baronius his witnesses affirming it and Liberatus who is the best of them all affirming the contrary I might now with this answer put off a great part of those reviling speeches which Baronius so prodigally bestoweth on Theodorus But I minde not so to leave the Cardinall nor suffer the proud Philistine so insolently to revile and insult over any one of the Israelites much lesse this worthy Bishop of Cesarea to whom hee could not have done a greater honor than in that which he intended as an exceeding disgrace to him to call and account him the Author and Writer of this Edict It is no small honour that Iustinian so wise and religious an Emperour should commit the care of so waighty a matter to Theodorus that hee should have him in so high esteeme as account his word an Oracle to bee guided and directed by his judgement so to adhere unto him as Constantine did to that renowned Hosius as to thinke it a piaculum or great offence not to follow his advice in matters of so great waight consequence and importance Nay this one Edict supposing with the Cardinall Theodorus to bee the Author of it shall not onely pleade for Theodorus but utterly wipe away all those vile slanders of heresie impiety imprudency and the like so often and so odiously objected and exaggerated by the Cardinall against him this writing and the words thereof being as whosoever readeth them will easily conceive and if hee deale ingenuously confesse the words of truth of faith of sobriety of profound knowledge evidences of a minde full fraught with faith with piety with the love of God and Gods Church and in a word full of the holy Ghost As Sophocles being accused to doate recited his Oedipus Coloneus and demanding whether that did seeme the Poeme of a doating man was by the sentence of all the Iudges acquitted So none can reade this Edict but forthwith acknowledge it a meere calumny in Baronius to call the maker of it an heretike whose profession of faith is so pious divine and Catholike Or rather Theodorus may answer that Baronian slander with the like words as did S. Paul They neither found me making an uproare among the people nor in the Synagogues nor in the City neither can they prove these things whereof they now accuse mee but this I confesse that after this way declared in this Edict which they call heresie so worship I the God of my fathers 10. Now as this may serve for a generall Antidote at once as it were to expell all the whole poyson of those Baronian calumnies so if we shall descend to particulars the innocency of Theodorus as also the malice and malignity of Baronius will much more clearly appeare The crimes objected to Theodorus by Baronius are reduced to three heads one his threefold heresie another his opposing himselfe to Pope Vigilius or the Decree of Taciturnity in the cause of the Three Chapters the third his misleading of Iustinian into the heresie of the Aphthardokites and so causing that great persecution of the Church which thereupon ensued all the other disgracefull termes are but the superfluity of that malice which the Cardinall beares against all that were opposite to Vigilius and his Apostolicall Constitution To begin then with that which is easiest the two last crimes are not so easily uttered as refuted they both are nothing else but meere slanders and calumnies without any certaine ground or probability of truth devised either by Baronius himselfe or by such as he is enemies and haters of the truth and truly for the later his misleading Iustinian into the heresie of the Apthardokites that is not onely a manifest untruth for Iustinian as wee have before proved did not onely at all hold that heresie but it is wholly forged and devised by Baronius he hath not any one Author no not so much as a forged writing to testifie this no nor any probable collection out of any Author to induce him to lay this imputation upon Theodorus the world is wholly and soly beholden to the Cardinall for this shamelesse calumny and yet see the wisedome of Baronius herein hee was not content barely and in a word to taxe and reprove Theodorus which had beene more than sufficient having no proofe nor evidence of the crime but in this passage as if shee had demonstratively proved Theodorus to bee guilty hereof hee rageth and foameth like a wilde Bore against him calling him a most wicked man and most vehement propugner of blasphemy the plague of the whole Church who with
a visor affrayed the Emperour like a little Boy from the truth and led him captive into heresie Doe you not thinke that the Cardinall needed to be sent to Anticyra when he writ this not onely without truth but without braine and ordinary sense 11. The other crime that Theodorus opposed himselfe to Vigilius and to the decree of silence is like the former save that this difference is to be observed betwixt them that the former was forged by Baronius but this later is grounded on a foolish and forged writing applauded by Baronius fictions and forgeries they are both but the one was fained to the Cardinals hand for the other hee was faine to beate it out of his owne anvill There was neither any such decree for taciturnity neither did Theodorus nor needed hee to oppose himselfe to Vigilius for Vigilius as well as Theodorus all the whole time almost from his comming to Constantinople till the fift Councell was assembled wholly consented to condemne the Three Chapters as besides other evident proofes before alleaged to which I remit the reader that one testimony of the Emperour doth undeniably demonstrate Quod vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum per plurima declaravit Vigilius hath by very many things declared that he hath been alwayes since his comming to Constantinople of the same minde in condemning the Three Chapters what thinke you here againe of Baronius who upon this occasion of contradicting Vigilius his decree of silence reviles Theodorus calling him sacrilegious a Pseudo-Bishop a tyrant a schismatike a perverter of lawes the author of all evils and yet when the Cardinall hath said all this there is no truth nor reality in the cause and occasion for which hee thus rageth and revileth no opposition to Vigilius no decree of silence either oppugned or such as might bee oppugned it was a non ens a chymera floating in the Cardinals idle fancy Was there no Helleborus at Rome or in Italy to purge the Cardinals braine of this extreme distemper 12. The whole hope consists now in the Cardinals Triarij the three heresies objected to Theodorus that of Origen of Eutyches and of the Aphthardokites And for the two last I must say the same almost as to the former calumnies they are meere fictions of Baronius Theodorus was saith hee an Aphthardokite and an Eutychean heretike what Author what witnesse or testimony doth the Cardinall produce to prove so hainous a crime against him truly not one himselfe accusator simul testis is both the accuser and the witnesse But yet hee proves it by some good consequence or reason no nor that neither his proofe is no lesse foolish than his position is false Iustinian saith he was misled into the heresie of the Aphthardokites by some Origenists as Eustathius declareth whereupon we may easily and without calumny affirme that the ring-leader of those who misled the Emperour was Theodorus Bish. of Caesarea an Origenist The ground of which to omit that this Eustathius is of no credit being the heresie of Iustinian seeing that to bee a calumnie and slander wee have before confirmed this whole collection must needs be like the foundation on which it relyeth slanderous and false to say nothing how alogicall and incoherent a consequent this is from particulars Some Origenists misled Iustinian therefore Theodorus how much rather on the contrary may wee certainly conclude that seeing Iustinian who was directed in causes of faith by Theodorus continued orthodoxall and a most worthy defender of the true faith as before we proved therefore doubtlesse Theodorus himselfe the director of the Emperor was and remained orthodoxall and that of a certaine hee was no Eutychean nor Aphthardokite is evident by his subscribing to the decree of the fift Councell wherein not onely the Councell and decree of Chalcedon condemning Eutyches and in it the heresie of the Aphthardokites is strongly confirmed but Eutyches also by name and all that hold his heresies are anathematized by all the Bishops of that fift Councell and particularly by this Theodorus whom the Cardinall without any testimony or proofe at all slanders to have beene an Eutychean and Apthardokite unto both which heresies he was most opposite All which will be more manifest by considering the first of those three heresies wherein Baronius hath the greatest colour for his saying That Theodorus was an Origenist and a most earnest maintainer of that heresie the Cardinall often and most confidently affirmeth wherein hee hath Liberatus the Deacon and Bishop Facundus for his Authors 13. First for Facundus he doth not expresly mention Theodorus as an Origenist but yet because Baronius citeth him to say that Theodorus writ the Edict and Facundus calleth the writers of that Edict Origenists let him be admitted for one of the Cardinals witnesses Who I pray you or of what credit thinke you is this Bishop Facundus Truly an enemy to Iustinian an enemy to Theodorus of Caesarea and to all that condemned the Three Chapters a very heretike and enemy to the Catholike truth Witnesse hereof that testimony which their owne Possevine giveth of him out of Isidorius He writ twelve bookes in defence of the three Chapters whereby he proveth the condemning of those three Chapters to bee the condemning or banishing of the Apostolike faith and the Councell of Chalcedon Now the defenders of the three Chapters and writers in defence of them to bee condemned anathematized and accursed for heretikes by the fift Councell and after it the 6.7 and in a word by all both generall Councels and Popes that follow Gregory we have often before declared So that by the consenting judgement of all those generall approved Councels and Popes Facundus being an earnest defender of them and writer in their defence is anathematized and condemned for an heretike And that the continued pertinaciously in this heresie after the sentence and judgement of the generall Councell Baronius doth witnesse who tels us and that with a Constat It is certaine and manifest that Facundus was sought for to be punished because hee had written most eloquently in defence of the three Chapters but by lurking in some secret place he escaped Possevine further addeth that Facundus writ a booke against Mutianus in defence of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and that Theodorus of Mopsvestia damnatus fuit ab Ecclesia Catholica ob errores contra sidem was condemned by the Catholike Church for his heresie or errors against the faith Must not he needs bee an heretike that defends a condemned heretike yea defends those very writings and errors of him and Ibas which are condemned for hereticall I confesse saith Facundus to your Holinesse that I withdraw my selfe from the communion of the opposites those were the condemners of the three Chapters that is to say in truth Catholikes not because they condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia but for that in the person of this Theodorus