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
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
saying Saint Theophilus and Saint Gregory Nissene susceptis querimonijs adversus Theodorum adhuc viventem Complaints being brought unto them against Theodorus of Mopsvestia as yet living and against his writings scripserunt adversus eum Epistolas they writ Epistles against him and in those Epistles some part whereof is recorded in the Councell they blame him as presuming to renew the heresie and madnesse of Paulus Samosatenus And it is further added porrecta sunt autem and the impious chapters collected out of the books of Theodorus were shewed and brought to Theophilus whence it is now evident that those Epistles alleaged by Vigilius under the name of Proclus are no lesse by the untrue and hereticall assertions contained in them then by the cleare testimonies of the fift generall Councell convicted of forgery 30. From Fathers hee commeth to Councells and concerning the first Ephesine Vigilius noteth two points The former that Theodorus was not condemned by it to which purpose hee thus saith Solicite recensentes having with diligence and sollicitude reviewed the Ephesine Synode We have found that in it nothing is related touching the persō of Theodorus What nothing how then did Pope Pelagius after Cyrill and the fift Councell finde that in it Theodorus was condemned and if they condemned him then certainly somwhat was related debated about him upon knowledge whereof the Councell condemned him But say indeed is nothing found concerning Theodorus in that Councell What say you to the impious and diabolicall Creed which was both related in the Synode and condemned together with the author of it Truely here Vigilius useth a shift worthy to be observed That Creed he found and hee found it to be condemned but to quite Theodorus hee would have it beleeved that Theodorus was not the author of it nor that it was condemned as being the Creed of Theodorus but because it was divulged by certaine Nestorians Athanasius Photius Antonius and Iacobus Nor doth Vigilius use this shift only about that impious Creed but in other hereticall writings of Theodorus Proclus adjoyned to his Tome certaine impious positions collected è Theodori codicibus as Cyrill expresly witnesseth Vigilius likewise of them would have it thought that they were none of the positions of Theodorus and by the forged Epistles of Proclus hee would perswade that Proclus himselfe did not know whose they were The Emperour Iustinian before the Synode began sent threescore severall hereticall passages or chapters truly gathered out of the bookes and writings of Theodorus hoping that the Pope seeing Theodorus bookes so full fraught with heresies and blasphemies would make little doubt to condemne the writer of them Vigilius turnes to his former shift hee will not thinke nor have others to thinke that Theodorus writ such heresies though they had his name prefixed unto them for concerning those 60. chapters expressed both in the Popes Constitution and in the Synodall acts he thus saith Wee decree that by those foresaid chapters nulla injuriandi praecedentes patres praebeatur occasio no occasion be given to injure the former Fathers and Doctors of the Church And again We provide by this our Constitution that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Eutyches no contumely nor occasion of injury bee brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholike Church and that Vigilius thought Theodorus so to have dyed we have before declared yea that Vigilius knew it Baronius assured us Thus Vigilius to free Theodorus from condemnation pretends those hereticall writings to be none of his 31. What is it that Vigilius will not say for defence of this blasphemous and condemned heretike This cavill was used as Baronius tells us by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theodorus denying those to bee the writings of Theodorus quae diffamata which were famously knowne through the whole East and which being afterwards detected and discovered to bee truly his writings both they and their author with them were condemned Now this old hereticall and rejected cavill Vigilius here reneweth those writings famously knowne to be the workes of Theodorus condemned as his writings and he with them and for thē Vigilius will now have thought to be none of his nor he by them nor for them may bee now condemned And that you may see how Vigilius herein doth strive against the maine streame of the truth Saint Cyrill who then lived restifieth Theodorus to be author of those hereticall and blasphemous writings That wee have found certaine things in the writings of Theodorus nimiae plena blasphemiae nulli dubium est full of blasphemie none that thinks aright can make any doubt And againe I examining the bookes of Theodorus and Diodorus have contradicted them as much as I could declaring that sect to be every where full of abomination Yea hee writ divers bookes against Theodorus expressing the words of Theodorus and his owne confutation of the same So cleare and undoubted was this truth in Cyrills dayes who lived at the same time with Theodorus that hee thought them unwise who made any doubt of that which Vigilius now calls in question And particularly touching that impious Creed Cyrill saith that they who brought it to the Synode of Ephesus said that it was composed by Theodorus which they said not as by way of uncertaine report but as testifying it to be so in so much that the whole Synode giving credit there unto thereupon condemned Theodorus though by a dispensation they expressed not his name 32 The same is testified by Rambulas Acatius and the whole Armenian Councell who after examination of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacrilegious and therefore by name condemned him exhorting both Cyrill and Proclus to doe the like The Imperiall Edicts of Theodosius and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodorus and the reading or having of his bookes had it not by evidences undeniable beene knowne that those were indeed his workes and hereticall writings If all these suffice not when this cause about Theodorus was now againe brought into question the Emperour Iustinian and the fift Councell so narrowly and so exactly examined the truth hereof that after them to make a doubt is to seeke a knot in a rush They testifie those very hereticall assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth to be the doctrines and words of Theodorus that impious creed also whereof Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus they are so certaine hereof that even in their Synodall sentence they referre the triall of what they decree herein to the true and undoubted bookes of Theodorus And in their sentence is included the judgement of the whole catholike Church ever since they decreed this which hath with one consent approved their decree 33 After all these Pope Pelagius in
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
condemneth those very heresies of Nestorius which are defended in those writings he doth so at least he seemes by his words to doe it and had he not withall decreed that Theodorets writings should not bee condemned he could not justly have beene reproved in this point But in doing both he proves not himselfe orthodoxal by that which he saith well but unconstant and contrary to himselfe in overthrowing that which he saith well for if Theodorets writings against Cyrill may not be condemned as Vigilius decreth then may not the doctrines of Nestorius defended therein be condemned as Vigilius would seeme to doe Theodorets writings and Nestorianisme are inseparable companions either both must stand or both fall together It s as impossible and repugnant to condemne the one and deny that the other may be condemned as to condemne Euticheanisme and yet defend the Ephesine latrocinie and decree thereof or condemne Arianisme and not condemne the Arimine Councel It s the honor of truth that it never is nor can be dissonant to any other truth but heresie not onely may but almost ever doth fight not only against truth but against it selfe overthroweth with one hand or positiō what it builds up by another as in this of Vigilius is now apparent 21. Now although this clearly convinceth the Popes decree to be hereticall seeing it maintaineth two contradictory positions in a cause of faith the one is without all doubt an heresie yet is it worthy the examining whether of these contradictories must passe for the Popes judgment cathedrall resolution in this cause Cardinall Baronius will certainly direct vs in this doubt for he tells us which of it selfe also is evident that the Popes purpose intent in setting forth this Constitution was to defēd the 3 Chapters adversus Imperatoris decretum sententiam Synodi against the Emperors Edict and the sentence of the fift Synode As the Emperour then and the Synode condemned so was it the Popes maine purpose to defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill which was the second Chapter This is must stand for the judgement cathedrall resolution of the Pope in this matter what he speaks repugnant to this is casuall praeter nay contra intentionem it s against his mind purpose it s to be thought onely by in-incogitancy to have slipt from his pen. So his condemning of the Nestorian doctrine is but in shew it s onely verball his defining that Theodorets writings which maintaine Nestorianisme may not be condemned is the true purpose and intent of his mind its cordial real By his verball condemning of Nestorianisme he shuts it out in words or as you may say at the foregate of his pallace By his defining that Theodorets writings may not be condemned he puls in Nestorianisme with all his might sets wide open a postren gate unto it by condemning Nestorianisme in shew of words he seemes to be orthodoxall by defending Nestorianisme indeed and in truth he demonstrates himselfe to be hereticall Or because Vigilius was so very wise a Pope as hereafter out of Baronius you shall heare it seemes he meant to shew one part of his wisedome and policie in this matter and therefore while the heresie of Nestorius comes in his owne naturall habit or in the liverie of Nestorius away with it the Popes holinesse will not admit it hee cannot abide it but when it comes countenanced and graced with the name of Theodoret and in his liverie the Pope embraceth it in both his armes and by his Apostolicall authoritie commandeth all men to give most friendly welcome and entertainement unto it 22 You have now the judgement and cathedrall resolution of Vigilius touching this second Chapter that the hereticall writings of Theodoret against Cyril and the Catholike faith may not bee condemned Take a view also of those two reasons by which hee labours to strengthen and perswade the same The former is drawne from the Councell at Chalcedon It is saith Vigilius valde contrarium Chalcedonensis Synodi judicio indubitabiliter inimicum very contrarie and without all doubt repugnant to the judgement of the Synod at Chalcedon that any Nestorian doctrines should now be condemned sub ejus sacerdotis nomine under the name of Bishop Theodoret. So Vigilius 23 Could he not content himselfe to be hereticall alone unlesse he disgraced the holy Councell of Chalcedon as guilty of the same heresie as if they also had judged that none of Theodorets writings not those written against the faith ought to bee condemned They to judge this or is it contrary and that indubitabiliter to condemne those writings of Theodoret or any writings under his name Far was it from the thought much more from the grave judgement of so holy a Councell Even themselves as before we declared condemned and anathematized all those writings of Theodorrt and warranted by their judgement all others to anathematize the same Gregorie witnesseth of the fift Councell that it is sequax in omnibus in all things a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon Seeing then the fift Councell doth so often and so constantly condemne and anathematize those writings of Theodoret its undoubted that the same writings were formerly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon the fift Synod but treading in their steps and following them in that judgement wherein they had gone before them If to condemne those writings be repugnant to the judgment at Chalcedon then is the fift Councell not a follower but a confuter and contradicter of the judgement at Chalcedon Nor onely the fift Councell but the whole catholike Church ever since the time of Vigilius they all doe reject and condemne the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon seeing they all by approving the fift Synod and decree thereof do anathematize those writings of Theodoret which to doe is as Vigilius teacheth indubitanter contrarium most certainely contrary to the judgement at Chalcedon If the whole catholike Church bee not hereticall which to thinke is impietie by contradicting and condemning the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon then undoubtedly is Vigilius hereticall in teaching and decreeing that to condemne any writings of Theodoret or any under his name is repugnant to the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon 24. The other reason of Vigilius is because it were a disgrace injury and slander against Theodoret to condemne his writings This the Pope expresseth in the very words of his sentence in this manner The truth of these things those are the three personall points before handled being weighed we ordaine and decree nihil in injuriam at que obtrectationem probatissimi viri hoc est Theodoreti sub taxatione nominis ejus à quoquam fieri vel proferri that nothing shall be done or spoken by any to the injury and slāder of the most approved Bishop Theodoret by taxing of his name and it must needs be taxed if his writings or bookes be condemned 25. See here the
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
Explanation and union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill I have manifested this before and the Epistle of Ibas written two yeares at least after that union doth make it undeniably evident that his sense was then that there are two natures making two persons in Christ that the temple and the inhabiter in the temple are two distinct persons that Cyrils Chapters were hereticall in teaching one Nature that is one Person in Christ in a word his sense then was that Nestorianisme and nothing but Nestorianisme was Catholike that the decree at Ephesus against Nestorius was hereticall doctrine This sense of Ibas Vigilius by his Pontificall and Cathedral Constitution adjudgeth and decreeth to be orthodoxall and Catholike Could Nestorius judge otherwise or wish any other judgement 51. It may be the sense of Ibas was better before the union and Explanation what was it then Truly it was the very selfe same So long saith Ibas as the Easterne Councell anathematized Cyrill which was still till the union sequutus sum Primatem meum I followed my Primate that was Iohn of Antioch what his sense was and the Synods with him that was my sense Now the sense of Iohn and his Conventicle set downe in more than twenty Synodall Epistles of theirs was that Cyrils twelve Chapters were hereticall contrary to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine that there are two Natures making two Persons in Christ that to teach one Nature that is one Person in Christ was hereticall that Cyrill and all that tooke part with him or consented to his Chapters were heretikes yea condemned and anathematized heretikes that the holy Ephesine Councell was a Conspiracie of heretikes of seditious and factious persons This was the sense of Iohn this the sense of Ibas before the union and this sense the Popes Holinesse hath decreed to be a Catholike and orthodoxall sense The sense of Ibas saith hee both before the Explanation or union and after it was orthodoxall so by the Pope Vigilius his decree it is good Catholike doctrine to teach two Persons in Christ to teach Cyrill Caelestine the whole Ephesine Councell to be heretikes that is in a word to teach Nestorianisme and nothing but Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith 52. But that which I principally aimed at out of those words of Vigilius was to observe that Cyrils Explanation here mentioned and meant by Vigilius neither is nor can be ought else but an absolute condemning and anathematizing of his twelve Chapters for by that explanation which Vigilius intendeth Cyrill shewed that his sense was the very same with that which Ibas had before and after the union but that sense which Ibas had before and divers yeares after the union was that the two Natures in Christ make two distinct Persons and that Cyrils twelve Chapters in which it is constantly taught that there is but one Person or as the Nestorians spake but one nature in Christ are hereticall and to be anathematized as being contrary to the Catholike faith wherefore that Explanation of Cyrils Chapters which Vigilius intendeth is certainly a declaring and acknowledgment that there is not one but two distinct Persons in Christ and that his own twelve Chapters for teaching but one Person are all of them hereticall and to be anathematized 53. The third reason is taken from Vigilius his scope and purpose in this whole passage Suppose Vigilius to have meant the orthodoxall Explanation set out by Cyrill seeing that is wholly repugnant to the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme Vigilius by approving that Explanation had condemned this Epistle of Ibas and every part thereof Seeing then by that Explanation which Vigilius intendeth his purpose is to confirme and strengthen this Epistle of Ibas and prove it to bee orthodoxall which is onely done by approving the slanderous Explanation of Cyrill to be orthodoxall the very scope and maine purpose of Vigilius doth declare that it is not nor can be the orthodoxall but the slanderous and hereticall Explanation only of Cyrils Chapters which the Pope here meant and by which being commended for Catholike hee indevoureth to prove the Epistle which shewes Ibas to have consented most gladly and reverently as the Pope saith to it to bee indeed Catholike 54. The fourth and last reason is taken from the fit coherence and congruity which this exposition of Vigilius meaning hath with his whole text concerning this matter Take him to speake of the true and orthodoxall explanation of Cyrill his words are riddles more obscure than Plato's numbers yea they are unreconciliable to the truth of the story Ibas saith the Pope upon Cyrils Explanation hastened and ran to communicate with Cyrill Expound this of Cyrils orthodoxall Explanation it is utterly untrue Ibas detested that more than the Chapters themselves hee neither ranne to embrace that nor Cyrill for that hee fled from it as a serpent and the like may be said of the rest But take Vigilius to speake as indeed he doth of this slanderous and hereticall Explanation and then all the words of Vigilius are not onely coherent among themselves but perspicuous and easie Ibas by an errour mis-understood the words of Cyrill as thinkking him to teach one Nature that is one Person in Christ and then hee spake injuriously against him and called him an heretike sed intellectu Capitulorum meliore recepto but when Ibas better understood the Chapters of Cyrill when hee knew that Cyrill professed two Natures that is two persons in Christ and that Cyrill expounded his Chapters in such sort that the humanitie and deitie were each a distinct person then Ibas amended all that he had said amisse of Cyrill and called him no more an heretike but embraced him as a Catholike Again Ibas blamed Cyrill while he understood not his Chapters aright while he thought that but one person had beene taught therein but afterwards his ab eo explanatis intellectis when Cyrill had explaned himselfe and Ibas understood his meaning that hee meant either nature to a several person and so that there were two natures in Ibas sense that is two persons in Christ then devotè concurrit Ibas ran to communicate and shake hands with Cyrill Againe how should we not receive Ibas being a Catholike who though hee seemed to speak against Cyrill while he mis-understood his Chapters nunc ab eo in quo fallebatur intellectu conversus Now upon Cyrils Explanation hee is converted from that error whereby hee was deceived for now he seeth Cyrill to professe two Natures in the Nestorian sense that is two persons whereas he erroniously thought Cyrill to teach but one Person in Christ Againe nothing is reproved of the confession of Ibas that is orthodoxall as teaching two natures that is two persons in Christ but Ibas hath refuted all quod fallente intelligentia de Cyrillo male senserat which hee thought amisse of Cyrill by the errour of his misconceiving Cyrils
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
though as it seemeth he remained in heart hereticall hee fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters that they did proclamare proclame him to be a colluder a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith one who to please the Emperour revolted from his former judgement yea the Africane Bishops proceeded so farre against him that as Victor Bishop of Tunen testifieth Synodaliter cum à catholica communione recludunt they in a Synod and synodally excommunicated him or shut him from the Catholike communion A thing worthy observing being done by those whom the Cardinall professeth to have beene Catholikes at that time But let that passe Baronius to excuse Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator and to shew that hee was not in heart affected with the truth which in his Constitution he declared tells us a rare policy of the Pope which for this time we omit but hereafter will examine the truth and validity thereof and this it was Mox presently after Vigilius had made that Apostolicall decree for condemning the three Chapters he revoked the same touched belike with remorse for so hainous a crime as to professe the Catholike faith and he suspended it and his owne judgement in that cause till the time of a generall Councell decreeing that untill that time all men should be whisht and silent in this cause of faith they must neither say that the Three Chapters were to bee defended nor condemned they must neither speake one word for the truth nor against the truth they must all during that time be like himselfe lukewarme Laodiceans neither hot nor cold neither fish nor flesh This was the great wisedome and policy of the Pope as Baronius at large declares and makes no small boast thereof adding that the Pope remained in this mood till the time of the general Councel Thus you see the second judgmeÌ„t of Pope Vigilius in this cause and his cariage during the second period for a fit which perhaps lasted a weeke or a month hee was in outward profession orthodoxall but being weary of such an ague hee presently becomes a meere neutralist in the faith and in this sort hee continued till the assembling of the generall Councell that is for the space of six yeares and more 8. The third period begins at the time of the fift generall Councell Of what judgement the Pope then was it hath before beene sufficiently declared Then Vigilius turned to his old byas hee condemned the Emperours Edict and all that with it condemned the three Chapters he defends those three hereticall chapters and that after a most authenticall manner publishing a Synodall a Cathedrall and Apostolicall constitution in defence of the â—ame And whereas not only others but himselfe also had written and some sixe yeares before made a Constitution to condemne those Chapters Now after long and diligent ponderation of the cause when hee had examined all matters cum omni undique cautela with all warinesse and circumspection that could possible be used he quite casheires repeales and forever adnuls that former Constitution and whatsoever either himselfe or any other either had before written or should after that time write contrary to this present Decree And this no doubt was the reason why Baronias never so much as once endeavors to excuse Vigilius by that former decree or to prove him to have beene orthodoxall by it seeing by this later the whole force and vertue of that former is utterly made void frustrate and of no effect in the world In this judgement Vigilius was so resolute that hee was ready to endure any disgrace and punishment rather then consent to the condemning of the three Chapters and if wee may beleeve Baronius or Binius he did for this very cause endure banishment It is manifest saith Binius that after the end of the fift Councell Iustinian did cast into banishment both Vigilius and other orthodoxall Bishops so hee termeth convicted and condemned heretikes because they would not consent to the decrees of the Synod and condemning of the three Chapters In like sort Baronius Liquet ex Anastasio it is manifest by Anastasius that Vigilius and those who held with him were caried into banishment Againe Others thought they had a just quarrell in defending the three Chapters when they saw Vigilius even in banishment to maintaine the same and they thought se pro sacro sanctis pugnare legibus that they fought for the holy faith when they saw Pope Vigilius himselfe for the same cause constanti animo exilium ferre to endure banishment with a constant minde Againe Horum solum causa for this cause onely was Vigilius driven into banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So Baronius who often calleth this exiling of Vigilius and others who defended those Chapters persecution yea an heavy and monstrous persecution complaining that the Church under Iustinian and from him endured more hard conditions and was in worse case then under the Heathen Emperors 9. Now this demonstrates that which before I touched that though the Pope upon his comming to Constantinople made a decree for condemning the Three Chapters yet still hee was in heart an affectionate lover of Nestorianisme and a defender of those Chapters seeing for his love to them and defence of them he is ready not onely to bee bound but to goe and dye in banishment for his zeale unto them For had he sincerely embraced the truth as in his former Constitution he professed why doth he now at the time of the fift Councell disclame the same Of all times this was the fittest to stand constanly to the faith seeing now both the glory of God the good and peace of the Church the authority of the Emperor the exaÌ„ple of orthodoxall Bishops and the whole Councell invited urged and provoked him to this holy duty What was there or could there be to move him at this time to defend the 3. Chapters save only his ardent and inward love to Nestorianisme Indeed had he continued in defence of those Chapters untill this time and now relented or changed his judgement it would have bin vehemeÌ„tly suspected that not the hatred of those chapters or of Nestorianisme but either the favour of the Emperor or the importunity of the Easterne Bishops or the feare of exile or deprivation or some such punishment had extorted that sentence and confession from him But now when hee decreeth contrary to the Emperour to the generall Councell and to his owne former and true judgement when by publishing this Decree he was sure to gaine nothing but the censure of an unconstant and wavering minded man the Anathema of the whole generall Councell and the heavy indignation of the Emperor when he goes thus against the maine current streame of the time who can thinke but that his onely motive to doe this was his zeale and love to Nestorianisme Love
no thundring out from thence of his Pontificall Censures no embassage sent from the Emperour to call him thence no such magnanimitie in Vigilius as to refuse to returne no recalling or abrogating of the Emperiall Edict by the Emperour no submission of Mennas or Theodorus to the Pope no solemnizing of the Encaenia for those three Apostles at that time by Mennas no carying of those holy reliques in a triumphing manner and in a golden Chariot no laying them up by Mennas and in a word in that whole passage of Baronius there is not so much as one dramme nor one syllable of truth The Cardinall from an Historian is here quite metamorphozed into a Poet into a Fabler and in stead of writing Annals matters of fact and reall truths he guls his readers with fictitious anile and more than Aesopicall fables 6. For the clearing whereof I will begin with the Decree it selfe which is the ground of the whole fiction and therefore if it bee demonstrated to bee but an idle dreame and fancie all the rest which hang on it like so many consequents and appendices will of themselves fall to the ground Nor doe I speake to disgrace this Decree as if Baronius could gaine ought thereby though it were admitted and granted unto him For alas what a poore pollicy or peece of wisedome was this in the Pope being a Iudge infallible to command and decree by his Apostolicall authority that for five or sixe or as it might have hapned for forty or sixty yeares together no man should speake a word in this cause of faith neither condemne the three Chapters nor defend the same which is in effect that they should neither speake against nor for Nestorianisme neither dare to say that Christ is God nor that he is not God but suspend their judgement in them both that for all that time none should either be Catholikes or heretikes but be like Vigilius meere Neutralists in the faith what other wisdome is this but that of the Laodiceans which Christ condemneth I would thou werst either hot or cold but because thou art neither hot nor cold it will come to passe that I will spue thee out of my mouth what other then that which Elias reproves Why halt yee betweene two opinions If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal or Nestorianisme be he goe after it By this Decree of Taciturnity Vigilius provideth that neither himselfe nor others should speake against the truth or condemne it True but that is not enough He should have defended it also and caused others by his instruction and example to doe the like A neutralist one that is not with Christ is against Christ Hee that is not with the truth is against the truth Silence where God commands to speake is betraying of Gods truth If the Heathen wise man set this and that justly among his eternall lawes That he who in a publike division of the Common-wealth tooke part with neither side should bee punished with losse of goods and banishment how much more ought this to take place in Vigilius and all such Metij Suffetij who in the publike rent of the Church and that for a cause of faith will be of neither part neither for God nor against him Nay if we well consider even for this very decree of silence Vigilius is to bee judged an heretike for the whole Councell of Chalcedon condemned Domnus Patriarch of Antioch as an Heretike onely for this cause for that hee writ that men should bee silent and say nothing of the twelve Chapters of Cyrill as both Iustinian and the fift Councell doe testifie Did not Vigilius if the Cardinall say true teach nay decree the very like silence concerning the Three Chapters as Domnus did concerning those twelve of Cyrill These Three doe as nearly concerne the faith as did the other twelve These three were as certainly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon as the other twelve were approved by the Councell of Ephesus As Domnus by teaching silence in those of Cyrill even thereby taught that men should not allow them nor say that they might be allowed and therein overthrew the faith of the Ephesine Councell which approved them and taught all men to approve them Even so Vigilius by decreeing silence in these Three Chapters decreeth that none shall condemne them or say they are to be condemned and so overthroweth the Catholike faith which was declared at Chalcedon whereby they are all three condemned and taught that they ought to bee condemned If the teaching of silence in the one can make Domnus an heretike certainly the decreeing of silence in the other cannot chuse but make Vigilius an heretike O but this decree was to continue but for a time Vigilius would expect the assembling of a generall Councell and then he would resolve the matter to the full And you have seen how well he resolved it then But what Expect a Councell why is not his Holinesse able to decide a doubt in faith without a generall Councell Is he not of himselfe infallible Doth his infallibilitie like an Ague goe away and come by fits upon him Is the generall Councel that Angel which must move the Poole in the Popes brest before he can teach infallibly The Pope scornes to hold his infallibility precario by the curtesie either of the whole Church or of any generall Councell He is all-sufficient in himselfe he gives to them infallibility he receives none from them what thinke you then was become of Vigilius his infallibility that for deciding a doubt in faith hee must suspend all in silence and stay till the generall Councel be assembled which for ought he knew might bee 60. or 100. yeares after If of himselfe he was infallible why did he hold men in suspence in the doctrine of faith why did he not presently and without the Councell infallibly decide it and so set the Church at quiet If of himselfe he was not infallible how could he at the time of the Councell infallibly decide it for they make not him or his sentence infallible but all their infallibility is borrowed from him So little helpe is there for them in this decree of taciturnity if wee should admit thereof that in very deed it doth many wayes prejudice their cause It is not then the preventing of any advantage which hence they might have that causeth me to reject this decree but the onely love of the truth perswadeth nay enforceth me hereunto For I professe I was not a little moved to see the Cardinalls Annalls so stuffed with untruths and figments and see him also not onely by these to abuse and that most vilely his Readers but even to vaunt and glory as you have seene hee doth in that which is and will be an eternall ignominy unto him But let us come to make evident the fiction of this Decree 7. That Vigilius made no such decree of Taciturnitie first the Emperor Iustinian in his Letters
them imports who as Procopius addeth answered them Italiam sibi cura fore that hee would have a care of Italy but for that time hee was busie in composing the differences about Christian doctrines The fift Synod then being ended and all those Ecclesiasticall affaires concluded nor that onely but Totilas and Teiaâ— being both vanquished and so the whole dominion of Italy being recovered by the victorious Narses the Emperour in his 28. yeare which was next after the Synod performed that promise which hee had made before to Vigilius and the other Italians and according to their request disposed and ordered divers matters which in that sanction are set downe 29. Now if the words of the Sanction have respect as I verily thinke they have to that time then all that Baronius collecteth from granting that sanction and those priviledges upon the petition of Vigilius after his returne from exile or after the Synod are meere fancies and dreames Or if it were admitted whereof I can find no proofe at all that Vigilius made and the Emperour granted unto him this petition after the end of the Councell yet will it not hence follow that Vigilius then consented to the Synod for as wee have before declared the Emperour was not so eager nor rigorous against Vigilius but that upon his entreaty hee might grant to establish those Lawes which being in themselves so commodious and behoovefull he without any entreaty upon the consideration of those matters would in all likelihood have enacted And so every joynt of the Cardinalls second reason wherein consists the very pith of his cause drawne from the fact of Iustinian in restoring him from exile and dismissing him home with gifts and priviledges being now fully dissolved by that which hath beene said it remaineth cleere that notwithstanding all which the Cardinall hath yet brought there appeares no proofe nor token that Vigilius any time after the end of the Councell either by his publike decree as the Cardinall boasteth or so much as by his personall profession consented to the Synod and the condemning of the Three Chapters 30. His third and last reason is drawne from those darke words of Liberatus where he saith that Vigilius dyed being afflicted by that heresie of the Eutycheans but he was not crowned Before wee examine the Cardinalls reason grounded hereon let us first in a word observe the Cardinalls honest dealing with Liberatus In that very same chapter and in the words next before that sentence which the Cardinall alledgeth Liberatus sets downe the Epistle and profession of Vigilius wherein he defendeth the Eutychean heresie and anathematizeth all who hold two natures in Christ as the Councell of Chalcedon had defined Of that Epistle Liberatus witnesseth that it is the Epistle of Vigilius and was truly written by him Baronius seeing that to tend to the disgrace of Vigilius that the Pope should be an heretike an Eutychean and should accurse all that are not such what saith he for this matter Truly he contemnes and rejects the testimonie of Liberatus The Epistle is not the writing of Vigilius it is an Impostor a forged writing a counterfeit notwithstanding all that Liberatus saith So if Liberatus say ought distastfull to the Cardinals palate Liberatus is a witnesse of no worth he is utterly to be contemned to be rejected But if in the next words Liberatus say ought that seemeth to favour the Cardinalls fancy Liberatus then is a worthy witnesse you may not take any exception against Liberatus if he say that Vigilius when hee dyed had consented to the fift Synod you must beleeve him Some would thinke this to be scarce currant dealing with his own witnesse to make him sometimes more then a thousand sometimes lesse then a Cypher but such are almost all the Cardinalls witnesses they speak not so much for him in one place as they doe against him in others nor is he so willing to accept them in one as he is ready to reject theÌ„ in another If Liberatus be to bee credited why doth the Cardinall reject him If he be not to be credited why doth the Cardinall alleage him 31. Thus one might if he listed elude his proofe and make a little sport with the Cardinalls Counters But I will let the words of Liberatus stand in their best value and to see the Cardinals deduction the better wee must consider the whole sentence of Liberatus which is this Vigilius writing these things to wit that hereticall Epistle in defence of Eutycheanisme and that closely to heretikes continued sitting in the See of Rome In whom was fulfilled that testimony of Salomon they shall eate the fruit of their owne way and they shall bee filled with their owne Counsells Ab ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius nec coronatus qualem vitae terminum suscepit notum est omnibus Vigilius being afflicted by that heresie but not crowned how hee ended his life every man can tell Thus Liberatus In which words as you see there is no mention at all either of Vigilius his going into banishment or returning out of banishment or of his defending the three Chapters or of his condemning the same Chapters or of the Emperours either casting him into or releasing him from exile or of the fift Councell or of the end thereof and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilfull Chymick extract both that Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell was banished for defending the Three Chapters and after that banishment consented to the Synod and to condemne the three Chapters And see I pray you how the Chymick distills this If Liberatus saith he being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters had found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem persisting untill his death in that sentence which in his Constitution he had published for defence of the Three Chapters truly he would have praised Vigilius for a Martyr had he dyed in such sort But when he saith Vigilius was afflicted and not crowned planè alludit ad ejus exilium he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius and to his forsaking or revolt from that judgement after he came from banishment Thus doth the Cardinall glosse upon the words of Liberatus 32. See the force of truth The Cardinalls owne words doe most fully answer his owne doubt and explane that truth which hee wittingly oppugneth Had Liberatus found Vigilius perstantem in sententia usque ad wortem constant or persisting without any change or relenâ—ing in his defending the three Chapters untill his dying day then indeed Vigilius should have beene with Liberatus an obstinate defender of that sentence a glorious Martyr at the least a worthy Confessor and for that cause he should have beene condemned by Liberatus But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence wavering and unconstant therein turning his note as soone almost as he had looked the Emperour in the face Vigilius by reason of that change unconstancie and
have fully seene CAP. XVIII The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius pretending that the fift Councell wherein the decree of Vigilius was condemned was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell till Vigilius confirmed the same refuted 1. THere now remaineth onely the fourth and last exception of Baronius in which though being the weakest and worst of all his whole hope now consists In this the Cardinall brings forth all his forces all the Engines of his wit and malice to batter downe the authority of the fift generall Councell Seeing it contradicted the Pope and judicially decreed his Apostolicall sentence to be hereticall it shall bee of no authority at all it shall bee neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell it shall bee nothing but a Conspiracy and conventicle with Baronius and his friends untill Vigilius doe approve the same But heare their owne words to this purpose 2. The fift Councell saith Baronius aliquando expers fuit omnis authoritatis was for a time void of all authority yea so void thereof ut nec legitima Synodus dici meruerit that it deserved not to bee called so much as a lawfull much lesse a generall and lawfull Synod because it was assembled the Pope resisting it was ended the Pope contradicting it But when afterwards it was approved by the sentence of Vigilius and other succeeding Popes then it got the title and authority of an Oecumenicall Synod Againe The fift Councell at that time when it was held could not have the name of an Oecumenicall Synod seeing it was not lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost because the Pope neither by himselfe nor by his Legates would be present in it And yet more spightfully These things cōsidered planè consenties ipsam nec Oecumenicae nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen you will consent that the fift Councell deserved not the name of an Oecumenicall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Synod nor Councell at all seeing both it was assembled resistente Pontifice the Pope resisting it and also pronounced sentence contra ipsius Decretum against the Popes Decree Thus Baronius in whose steps Binius treadeth saying Pope Vigilius was not present in this Councell either by himselfe or by his deputies Contradixit eidem he contradicted the Synod the members assembled without the head dum ageretur non consentit the Pope consented not to it while it was held nor did approve it straight after it was ended yet it got the name title and authority of an Oecumenicall Councell quando ipsius Vigilii sententia when it was afterwards approved by the sentence of Vigilius himselfe and his successors So Binius 3 How or where shall I begin or who though more censorious than Cato can with sufficient gravity and severity castigate the insolency and most shamelesse dealing of these men who rather than one of their Popes even Pope Proteus himselfe shall bee thought to erre in his Cathedrall Decree of faith care not to disgrace to vilifie yea to nullifie one of the ancient and sacred generall Councels approved as before we have shewed by the whole Catholike Church For if this Councell was neither generall nor lawfull as they teach till Vigilius approved it by his Apostolicall authority after his returne from exile then was it never nor as yet is either a generall or lawfull Councell seeing Vigilius after his exile never did nor could approve it as before we have clearly proved So this fift Councell must for ever be cashiered and blotted out of the ranke of Councels And because as their second Nicene Synod rightly disputes the seventh must follow the sixt in the same ranke and order and the sixt the fift if there was no fift generall and holy Councell neither can there bee any sixt nor seventh nor eighth nor any other after it So by the assertion of these men there are at once dashed out fourteene of those which themselves doe honour by the name of holy generall Councels 4. I say more the expunging of all those fourteene Councels doth certainly follow upon the Cardinals assertion though it were granted that Vigilius had confirmed this fift as it is true that Pelagius and Gregory did For if it was as he teacheth neither a generall nor lawfull Synod while the Councell continued and for that whole time while it was an assembly of Bishops then undoubtedly it never at any time was nor yet is either a generall or a lawfull Synod For after the end and dissolution thereof it was never extant in rerum natura againe it was ever after that time Non ens and being neither Synod nor yet so much as Ens it could not possibly be either generall or lawfull It is a Maxime Non entis non sunt Accidentia If while it was extant and while it was an assembly it was but a conventicle if then it was not gathered in Gods name I pray you when was it ever after that gathered in Gods name Did Vigilius Pelagius or Gregory when they made it by their approbation a generall and lawfull Councell did they like some new Aeolus blow all the Bishops againe to Constantinople and assemble them the second time in the Popes name that so they might be said to be gathered in Gods name Let their Popes trie if by all their magicall skill or omnipotent power they can make any one of those Africane Councels under Cyprian a Generall or make the Arimine Syrmian or second Ephesine a lawfull Councell and I will instantly yeeld that hee may doe the like to this fift If hee cannot doe any of the former what vanitie was it in the Cardinall and Binius to say of this fift that while it was extant and Ens it was neither a general nor lawful Councel but some one or some twenty yeares after when it was non Ens the Pope made it with a word both a generall and lawfull Councell Dixit factum est One word of his mouth makes or unmakes what he list Truth is the Popes or any other Bishops approbation or confirmation of a Councell or any decree thereof after the Councell is once ended may perhaps in the opinion of some men gaine some more liking unto that Councell or decree than before it had seeing now it hath the expresse consent of those Bishops whom the other doe much esteeme but the after consent or approbation of all the Bishops in the world much lesse of the Pope cannot make that to bee a generall which before and while it was extant was onely Provinciall or that to be a lawfull which before and while it was extant was an unlawfull Synod Even as the Pope and a thousand Bishops with him cannot now make any of the foure first generall and holy Councels to be either unlawfull or particular Synods and yet his power is every whit as great in annihilating that which now is as in creating that which never was
Edicts Procopius who was familiarly conversant with Iustinian recites that traiterous perswasion of Arsaces to Artabanus when he excited him to murther the Emperour This said hee you may doe easily and without danger for the Emperour is not mistrustfull and he passeth the time till very late of the night in talking without any watch or guard having none but some old and feeble Bishops about him Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus being marvellously addicted to reade and peruse the writings of Christians Are these thinke you the actions of an illiterate of an Abcedary Emperour And what speake I of these The Pandects the Code the Authentikes the Institutions the whole body of the law proclame the incredible wisedome and rare knowledge of Iustinian All people saith he are governed by the lawes Tam à nobis promulgatis quam compositis as well published as composed by us and though he used the learning helpe and industry of other worthy men whose names he hath commended to all posterity and never-dying fame yet when they offred the bookes unto him Et legimus recognovimus saith he wee both read them and examined them which the glosse explaineth saying Nos ipsi legimus We our selves have reade and perused them So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shamelesse untruth of Baronius in reviling him for an illiterate and not so much as an Abcedarie scholler whose wit learning and prudence hath beene and will for ever bee a mirrour to all ages 4. But Suidas saith the Cardinall doth affirme the same calling Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and void of all learning For answer whereunto first I would gladly know of the Cardinal how hee can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas specially seeing their owne Iesuite Possevine tels us for a certainty that Plaeraque very many things are falsly inserted into Suidas and that à Sciolis Schismaticis by some smatterers or Schismaticks and further that those Plaeraque are such as are repugnant to the Euangelicall truth and Historicall sinceritie How may we bee assured that this concerning Iustinian is not one of those Plaeraque seeing this to be contrary to Historicall sincerity doth by those many and evident proofes which wee before produced fully appeare Againe admitting Suidas for the Author thereof is Suidas thinke you of more or equall authority and credit to their Pontificall which witnesseth expresly that Iustinian writ the holy confession of his faith Chirographo proprio with his owne hand Equall to Tritemius and Possevine or to winke at them to Pope Agatho and the sixt generall Councell who all account Iustinian among the Writers of the Church Who I pray you was this Suidas truly an earnest defender of those impieties which in their second Nicene Synod began to prevaile who in reviling manner doth call Constantine Iconomachus a Serpent an Antichrist and the disciple of the Devill and all for his not consenting to the adoration of Images and reliques and to the Invocation of Saints Now how this sort of men were given to lyes and fables the Acts of that Synod doe fully demonstrate Or if you rather desire to have their Iesuites judgement of Suidas hee will tell you first that he was hereticall in teaching the Essence in the Godhead to be generative which their Laterane Councell hath condemned for an heresie Hee will tell you further that this booke is full of errours fables and lyes of which sort are these among many That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos that it shal continue 1200. thousand yeares that the Sun and Starres are fierie substances fed and perpetuated by terrestriall humours as their nutriment that Paradise is Hortus pensilis a garden hanging in the ayre farre above the earth that Caine was begotten of the Devill which is a lye that the Iewes adored an asses head and every seventh yeare sacrificed a stranger His narration in verbo Nero touching Annas and Caiphas Pilate Peter and Simon Magus wherin multa comminiscitur he forgeth many things His narration in verbo Iulianus which hee calleth in expresse words mendacium flagiciosissimum a most lewd lie His slandering Constantine the great as base of birth and his sonne Crispus as incestuous His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretikes adding that hee writeth many things contra Historiae veritatem against the Historicall truth His relation in verbo Apolonius where many things are praised quae omnia monstrosa sunt prorsus explodenda all which are utterly to be hissed at where also he seemeth to allow the impious Art of Magicke and Divinations His approving of Appolonius and Danis two wicked Magitians who both are relegati ad inferos condemned to Hell And to omit very many of this kinde of impieties and fables which abound in Suidas His narration in verbo Iesus which not onely Baronius rejecteth but Pope Paul the fourth for that cause beside some other exploded the booke of Suidas and placed it in the ranke librorum prohibitorum Such even by the confession of their owne Iesuite is this Suidas a depraver of good a commender of wicked men a fabler a lyer a falsifier of Histories a Magitian an Heretike whose booke is by the Pope forbidden to bee read Such a worthy witnesse hath the Cardinall of his Suidas with whom he conspireth in reviling Iustinian as one utterly unlearned Concerning which untruth I will say no more at this time than that which Gotofrâ—d doth in his censure of those words of Suidas where calling it in plaine termes a slander he rejects it as it justly deserveth in this manner Valeant calumniae nos sinceriora sequamur Away with this and such like opprobrious slanders of Suidas and Baronius but let us follow the truth 5. His second reproofe of the Emperour is for presuming to make lâ—res in causes of faith which for Kings and Emperours to doe brings as he saith an hellish confusion into the Church of God The wit of a Cardinall Iustinian may not doe that which King Hezekiah which Asa which Iesiah and Constantine the great the two Theodosu Martian and other holy Emperours before had done and done it by the warrant of God to the eternall good of the Church and their owne immortall â—ame Had hee indeed or any of those Emperours taken upon them by their lawes to establish some new erronious or hereticall doctrine the Cardinall might in this case have justly reproved them but this they did not what doctrines the Prophets delivered the word of God taught and holy Synods had before decreed and explaned those and none else did Iustinian by his Edict and other religious Emperours ratifie by their imperiall authority Heare Iustinians owne words Wee have thought it needfull by this our Edict to manifest that right confession of faith quae in sancta Dei Ecclesiá praedicatur which is preached in the holy Church of God Here
Christian orthodox Emperour who was so earnest with the fift Councell to condemne all that should obstinately persist in the condemning of the true faith and dye out of the communion of the holy Church Divers the like testimonies might be alledged if one would labour to extoll that Empresse as the Cardinall hath strained his wit and pen to vilifie and disgrace her But because that is not my purpose at this time I would onely observe how unjustly the Cardinall hath taxed her in respect of three severall times and three speciall matters 4. The first concernes the placing of Anthimus an Eutychean heretike in the See of Constantinople which Baronius saith was done by Iustinian occultis insidiis Theodorae by the cunning and trecherous meanes of Theodora and thereupon hee breakes into many uncivill termes Wherein the Cardinalls spite and indiscretion is utterly unexcusable for whatsoever Anthimus was secretly and in his heart be at that time when he was placed in the See and afterwards also outwardly shewed and professed himselfe to bee a Catholike he was a wolfe as the Archimandrites and Monkes of Constantinople Ierusalem and other parts of the East doe witnesse in their synodall Epistles to Agapetus but he covered himselfe and his wolvish conditions under sheepes clothing Againe hee and others religionis pietatem dissimulantes counterfeiting the piety of religion thrust themselves into the Church Anthimus lived not an Euangelicall that is sincere sed fictam vitam but a fained and hypocriticall life manifesting forth to all men the counterfeit continency of his government and the shew of piety which by it he made The Emperour testifieth the same Anthimus forsooke and refused those true doctrines which hee often seemed to love simulans sequi sanctas quatuor Synodos faining himselfe to follow the foure holy Synods The whole generall Councell under Mennas in their definitive sentence against Anthimus do expresly witnesse the same He counterfeited himselfe to embrace and receive the foure Councells and he kept them in 〈◊〉 Againe he used deceptibilibus rationibus ad ejus Serenitatem deceitfull and cozening meanes before the Emperour promising to doe all things which the Apostolike See then Catholike did decree and hee writ to the most holy Patriarchs Se sequi per omnia Apostolicam sedem that he did in all things follow the Apostolike See when Anthimus made so holy and orthodoxall a profession better than which no Catholike could desire what marvell if by this faire shew and outward orthodoxy hee deceived both the Emperour and the Empresse and the whole Church They were not nor could they looke into his heart it was their duty to judge him to bee such in deed as he shewed and professed himselfe to be a Catholike Bishop and taking him for such they placed him in that high Patriarchall See Did not Constantine the great the like and without any just blame or reprehension receiving into great favour Eusebius of Nicomedia and others though inwardly and in heart most pestilent Arians yet in outward profession orthodoxall and embracers of the Nicene faith Nay what if Baronius himselfe acknowledge that neither Theodora nor Iustinian advanced Anthimus the heretike but Anthimus then seeming and being in their judgement a Catholike Heare I pray you his owne words The Empresse favoured Anthimus uti orthodoxo as an orthodoxall Bishop and Iustinian sent a Constitution to him ut orthodoxū Antistitem as to an orthodoxal Bishop He did outwardly professe the Catholike faith but inwardly was an Eutychean Againe the Fox had so ordered himselfe that being a most abominable heretike Studeret tamen in omnibus apparere Catholicus yet he endeavoured every way to seeme a Catholike approving the Councell of Chalcedon and all that true Catholikes did yea and when there was a rumour spred of him to bee an heretike the crafty companion throughly purged himselfe of that crime when in plaine termes he professed before the Emperour that he would in all things assent to what the Apostolike See did prescribe these things being dissembled by Anthimus his hypocrisie and heresie were not detected untill Agapetus the next yeare came to Constantinople in the meane space he was held for a professor of the Catholike faith a communicator with the Apostolike See by reason of his publike profession wherein he openly before all mens eyes and before the Emperor himselfe professed to receive all things which the Apostolike See did prescribe Thus Baronius By whose words it is most cleare that Anthimus when hee was placed in that See of Constantinople by the meanes of the Empresse was not knowne to her nor discovered to the Church as yet to be an heretike nor a full yeare after hee was held reputed by all for a Catholike and very orthodoxall Bishop What fault was this now in Theodora or Iustinian to place him in this See whom they knew for no other than a Catholike who professed to hold the foure former Councels and promised to yeeld to whatsoever Agapetus a knowne Catholike did prescribe Nay seeing by Baronius owne confession the Empresse did then favour him uti orthodoxo no otherwise than as being orthodoxall she even therein testified her orthodoxy in faith at that time as favouring him eo nomine because she thought him to be orthodoxall So farre was she in this act either from being an heretike or deserving those epithetes titles which the Cardinall hath fetcht from hell to bestow upon her that in very deed by the Cardinals words she deserveth praise and honour 5. The second point concernes the bienniall contention with Vigilius for restoring of Anthimus which out of Anastasius Baronius hath borrowed all which is nothing but a meere fiction and legend patched up by Anastasius as elsewhere I shall further explaine Vigilius was neither called nor came about that businesse to Constantinople but about the three Chapters the cause of Anthimus was some ten yeares before ended the Empresse knew the resolution of Vigilius therein that he had absolutely refused to restore him And though for a while after the deposition of Anthimus shee being deceived by his faire words and shew of piety fought to restore him yet when shee saw Anthimus to remaine an obstinate heretike and to oppugne the faith of Chalcedon shee quite left off all striving for Anthimus and became with Iustinian a condemner of the three Chapters as Victor testifieth that is in truth an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon and of the Catholike faith So unjustly doth the Cardinall take occasion upon an untruth and legendary fable to revile the Empresse as an heretike 6. The third and last point concernes the direfull thunderblast of Excommunication which Vigilius the Romane Iupiter cast from heaven against Theodora wherewith belike she was smit to death Wherein though the Cardinall is exceeding brag and thinkes his saying to be warranted by no meane witnesses but by Pope Gregory himselfe yet for all
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
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
for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Chist was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteres because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the soure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormâ—sdaes dayes they could not now in this fift Synod they obtained now they added to the words of the Synod this clause qui est Dominus unus de sancta Trinitate A very perilous corruption sure to expresse that clause which all the Bishops of Rome semper excipio Hormisdam with all Catholikes beleeved and taught which whosoever denieth or wil not professe is anathematized and excluded from the Catholike Church is not this thinke you a very sore corruption of the Councell of Chalcedon Is not the Cardinall a rare man of judgement that could spie such a maine fault in these Acts of the fift Councell that they professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate to which profession both they and all other were bound under the censure of an anathema 7. Yea but in the Acts those words are cited as the words of the Councell of Chalcedon whose they are not A meere fancy and calumny of the Cardinall they are plainly set downe as the words of the fift Synod whose indeed they are and it relateth not precisely the words of the Councell of Chalcedon nor what it there expressed totidem verbis but the true summe and substance of what is there decreed For thus they say The holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith doth professe God the Word incarnate to be made man this is all they report of the Councell of Chalcedon as by the opposition of Ibas
for by it hath beene lift up the man of sinne Christian Empires have beene robbed the ignorant seduced the whole Church abused Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him as the most falsly supposed donation hath done to the Catholike Church 5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinall in this reason drawne from the event and the Emperours presence Some ten yeares before this Pope Agapetus being sent by Theodotus King of the Gothes came to Constantinople and to the same Emperour It so fell out that at that time Anthimus an heretike and an intruder held the Sea of Constantinople Agapetus deposed him that is hee declared and denounced which was true indeed that hee was never lawfully Bishop of that See and that himselfe did not nor ought others to hold him for the lawfull Bishop thereof whereupon Mennas was chosen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his roome Vigilius was called by the Emperour Agapetus sent by a Gothish usurper Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxall Professor Agapetus sent by an heretike and Arian King Vigilius called purposely about causes of faith Agapetus sent only about civill and but casually intermedling w th Ecclesiasticall causes You would now even blesse your selfe to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu by it proves the Popes presence at the same Court with the same Emperor to have brought such an infinite unspeakeable good unto the Church as could scarce bee wished Agapetus no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth but even from God himselfe and by him commanded to goe thither with an errant from heaven hee seemed to bee sent to intreat of peace but hee was commanded by God to goe ut imperaret imperantibus that he should shew himselfe to be an Emperour above the Emperour He like Saint Peter had not gold nor silver being faine to pawne the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles Now was demonstrated the highest power of the Pope that without any Councell called about the matter as the custome is hee could depose a Patriarke at other times hee may not have that title and a Patriark of so high a See as Constantinople and so highly favoured by the Emp. Empresses Now was demonstrated that Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet that the Popes power is above all Canōs for herby was shewed that he by his omnipēt authority may do matters with the Canons without the Canons against all Canons seeing his judgement was without a Synod which in a Patriarks cause is required fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem it was according to his supreme authority which is transcēdent above all Canōs or to use Bellarmines phrase hee did shew himselfe to bee Princeps Ecclesiae one that may doe against the whole Church Nay if you well consider admirari non desines you will never cease to wonder to see that Agapetus a poore man as soone as hee came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus corū facta rescindere jura dare omnibusque jubere to command Emperours to adnull their Acts to depose a Patriarke and thrust him from his throne to set another there to set downe lawes and command all men and to do all this without any Synod such a Pope was Agapetus that I know not an similis alius inveniri possit whether such another can bee found among them all Thus declameth Baronius Where thinke you all time was the Cardinals argument ab adventu Experience teacheth that when Popes leave their See and goe to the Court or Emperours presence the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazzard If Agapetus his comming to Constantinople or to the Emperour did not hazzard or endanger the Church how came it to bee perillous a few yeares after in Vigilius and where were now the most wise examples of Pope Leo and the other who in great wisedome could never be drawne to the East and from their owne See how was the holy Church now fixed to Rome when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople perceive you not how these arguments lie asleepe in the cause of Agapetus which the Cardinall rouseth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople This ab adventu as all the Cardinals Topicke places is drawne from the art and authority of Esops Satyr If they make for the Pope as the event did in Agapetus then the Cardinall with his Satyrs blast will puffe them up and make them swell to demonstrations But if they make against the Pope as did the event in Vigilius all arguments in the world drawne from the cause effect or any other Topicall or demonstrative place the Cardinall with a contrary breath can turne them al to Sophistications He is another Iannes or Iambres of this age when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharao it shall sting like a Serpent when it is used against King Pharao it shall bee as dull and dead as a stick 6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the comming of Vigilius to Constantinople what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with Iustinian Sure the Cardinall in good discretion should have expressed them at least some one of them but hee was too politike to open such secrets of their State for mine owne part I cannot but first condemne his foule ingratitude in this point Vigilius before hee came to Constantinople was earnest in oppugning the truth and Catholike faith by defending of the Three Chapters hee defended them by words by writings by censures by the utmost of his power All the hurt the Emperour did him was this that he converted him to the truth that hee brought him to define by an Apostolicall Constitution that truth which before hee oppugned and in this tune the Emperour kept him for five or sixe yeares together but then when his old fit of heresie came upon him againe when at the time of the generall Councell he forsook the Emperours holy faith his communion and as may bee thought even his company and presence also by this absence from the Emperor he relapsed quite from the Catholike faith even from that which before hee had defended and defined so long as hee kept society with the Emperour When the Emperours presence made hereticall Pope Vigilius for the space of five or sixe yeares a Catholike Pope at least in shew and profession doe you not thinke Baronius to deale unkindly with the Emperour in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperour that is in effect to blame and little lesse than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresie and embraced or made profession of the Catholike faith 7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius
the Fox now become wil for ever stand without climbe in at the window he will no more either Christ himselfe shall reach the keyes unto him that he may be his lawfull Vicar or open and shut who will for Vigilius Thus by the death of Silverius the true and lawful Pope and by the abdication or resignation which is a death in law of the usurping Pope Vigilius the See is wholly vacant and that was as Anastasius witnesseth for the space of sixe dayes 15. In this vacancy of the See Baronius not onely tels you that there was which is not unlike very great deliberatiō about the election of a new Pope but as if hee had beene present in the very conclave at that time or as if by some Pythagoricall metempseuchosis the soules of some of those Electors comming from one beast to another had at last entred into the Cardinals breast declares their whole debatement of the matter pro con what was said for Vigilius what against Vigilius which kinde of poetry if any be pleased with they may have abundance of it in his Annals for my selfe I told you before I never dreamed as yet in their Romane Parnassus that I dare presume to vent such fictions fancies In that one he sounded the depth indeed both of Vigilius counsels and of the consultations of the Electors Of Vigilius hee saith that hee gave over the Popedome not with any purpose to leave it but as it were to act a part in a comedy and seeme to doe that which he never meant that he did it fretus potentià Bellisarij quod esset eum mox iterum conscensurus because he knew that by the meanes of Bellisarius hee should shortly after bee elected and placed in it againe or to use the Cardinals own comparison he did not play at mum chance but knowing how the election would goe after hee had given over haud dubiam jecit aleam hee knew what his cast would be and what side of the Die would fall upward hee knew his cast would bee better than jactus venereus it would be the cast of the triple Crowne As for the Electors he tels us that they chose him not for any worth piety vertue or such like Pontificall qualifications of which they saw none in him but to avoid a schisme in the Church because they knew if they should choose another the Empresse and Bellisarius would maintaine the right of Vigilius and as they had thrust him in so they would uphold and maintaine him in the See and for this cause at the instance of Bellisarius they all with one consent chose their old friend Vigilius and now make him the true and lawfull Pope the undoubted Vicar of Christ which was a fine cast indeed at the Dies 16. Now though this may seeme unto others to demonstrate great basenesse and pusilanimitie in the Electors at that time who fearing a little storme of anger or persecution would place so unworthy a man in the Papall throne and though it testifie the present Romane policy to be such that if Simon Magus nay the devill himself can once but be intruded into their Chaire put in possession thereof he shall be sure to hold it with the Electors consent if hee can but storme and threaten in a Pilates voyce to incense the Emperour or some potent King to revenge his wrong if they ever choose any other yet the Cardinal who was privy to the mysteries of their Conclave commends this for salubre consilium a very wholesome advice wisely was it done to chuse Vigilius nay as if that were too little he adds it was Divinitus inspiratum consilium God himself inspired this divine councell from heaven into their hearts rather to choose an ambitious an hypocriticall a Symoniacall a schismaticall an hereticall a perfidious a perjured a murderous a degraded an accursed a diabolicall person to be their Pope rather than hazzard to sustain a snuffe of Bellisarius or a frowne of Theodoraes countenance Howsoever chosen now Vigilius was by commō consent and solennibus ritibus made the true and lawfull Pope from thence forward and with all solemnity of their rites placed in the Papall throne and put not onely in the lawfull but quiet and peaceable possession thereof the whole Romane Church approving and applauding the same Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires hee so long gaped and thirsted after At the first onset hee sought the Papacy but got it not at the second turne hee got it but by usurpation and intrusion onely but now at this third and last boute hee hit the marke indeed hee got the rightfull possession of it and is now become what hee would bee the true Bishop of Rome and Vicar of S. Peter 16. I have stayed somewhat long in the entrance of Vigilius and yet because I have set downe no more but a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a naked undecked narration or as it were onely rough hewed I must pray the reader that hee will permit mee to set downe some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinall Baronius for though all men knew him to bee one whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oyle and who will bee sure to say no more ill of any of them than meere necessity and evidence of truth inforceth him yet so unfit am I to write their Popes lives that for want of fit termes I am inforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Description of Vigilius heare then no longer mee but the great Cardinall the deare friend of Vigilius telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope heare him defining Vigilius in this manner Hee was an ambitious Deacon who by a madde desire burned with pride whom thirst of vaine glory drove into madnesse and into the hellish gulfe by meanes whereof he makes shipwracke in the very haven becomes a Rocke of offence and seemes an infidell in faith a bondslave to impious and hereticall Theodora that is to Megera to Alecto and the hellish furies who with Lucifer desired to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the Starres but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes fals downe into the depth which crimes with Cain he having so inclosed in his breast must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond Vnsavory salt worthy by all to bee trodden under foote and cast into the dunghill of heresies who had got unto him the stench of heretical pravity who boūd himselfe by an obligation under his owne hand yea by his oath also to patronize heretikes who promised to abolish the faith and Councell of Chalcedon It was the just iudgement of God that hee should fall from the faith who became a Vassall to vaine glory a schismatike a Symoniacke a murderer
Agapetus and election of Silverius when he came from Constantinople to Rome with the Empresse her letters for placing him in the Romane See he found Bellisarius at Ravenna a manifest mistaking of Ravenna for Naples for there and not at Ravenna was Bellisarius at that time as by Procopius is evident and because this is no way prejudiciall to their cause Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit an error or slip of memory in Liberatus and not so hastily conclude as here they doe that because Bellisarius was not then at Ravenna as in Liberatus is falsly affirmed therefore that Chapter of Liberatus is forged and not truly written by him Would his Cardinalship have beene as favourable to Liberatus in naming Dioscorus for Nestorius which the like evidence of truth and all the circumstances doe necessarily enforce the Epistle might as well passe for the true writing of Vigilius as that Chapter for the writing of Liberatus In this very Epistle of Vigilius it is said in Liberatus I know quia ad Sanctitatē vestrā fidei meae crudelitas pervenit that the cruelty of my faith is before this come to your eares and the very same word of crudelitas fidei is in Victor also which argues the fault to be very ancient It is true that the faith of Vigilius was indeed cruell for he by it cruelly condemned abolished and as it were murdered the Councell of Chalcedon that is in truth the whole Catholike faith and so this happened to be not onely a true but a fit and significant error Yet the Cardinall was so friendly and charitable here as to thinke that it was but a slip of the penne or negligence of the writer in saying crudelitas for credulitas as the Cardinall readeth it might not by the like negligence and with lesse disgrace to Vigilius Dioscorus slip into the text in stead of Nestorius In the inscription of the Epistle Liberatus reades it Dominis ac Christis Victor Dominis ac fratribus the Cardinall corrects both and makes it worst of all Dominis ac patribus May he play the Criticke and turne Christis or fratribus into patribus and that without nay against reason and may not others in the subscription restore Nestorius for Dioscorus when the truth and necessary circumstances enforce that correction It was Nestorius then not Dioscorus whom Vigilius accursed it is but the errour or corrupt writing of Vigilius Epistle in Liberatus which wee also condemne and not the Epistle of Vigilius at which the Cardinall unjustly quarrelleth 27. His third and last shift is worst of all If Vigilius had indeed writ this Epistle why then saith he was it not upbraided unto him at Constantinople neither by the Empresse Theodora when shee contended with him about the restoring of Anthimus nor by Theodorus Bishop of Caesareae and Mennas when Vigilius excommunicated them both and they vexed him so long nor by the Emperour Iustinian when he was furiously inraged against him nor by the fift Synod which was offended with him for refusing to come to the Councell nor yet by Facundus when he writ angerly against him these were publikely debated nec tamen de dicta epistolâ vel usquam mentio yet is there not any mention or light signification of any such Epistle Thus the Cardinall Of whom I againe demand where he learned to dispute ab authoritate humanâ negativè the old and good rule was Neque ex negativis recte concludere si vis but the Cardinall hath new Analytickes and new-found rules of Art Ex negativis poteris concludere si vis Himselfe witnesseth and proclameth Vigilius to have beene a Symoniack and to have compacted with Bellisarius for 200. peeces of gold to have beene excommunicated deposed degraded by Pope Silverius pronouncing that sentence out of his Apostolike authority and from the mouth of God why was not this Symony why was not this censure of Silverius upbraided neither by Theodora nor Theodorus nor Iustinian nor the fift Councell nor Facundus that being a publike and knowne censure had been a matter of farre greater disgrace to Vigilius farre more justifiable than the epistle writ privately and secretly to Anthimus and commanded by Vigilius to bee kept close that none might know it See you not how vaine this shift of the Cardinall is How it crosseth him in his Annals to slander Vigilius as symoniacall as censured by Silverius both which seeing they are not upbrayded to him by the forenamed persons but set downe in the Cardinals Analytickes sure they are impostures and forgeries What though none of them upbrayded this Epistle unto him Is it not enough that it is assuredly testified and recorded by S. Liberatus by Bishop Victor two who lived and writ at that same time what if most of them knew not of this Epistle which was sent secretly by Vigilius and by his advice kept closely by Anthimus and Severus what if they all knew it and yet having other crimes enough to object thought it needlesse to mention that as it seemes they did the Symony of Vigilius and censure of Silverius what if they were not so spitefull as the Cardinall is and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holinesse 28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinall How or why should Theodora upbrayd this to Vigilius for the not restoring of Anthimus that quarrell for the restoring of Anthimus as I have often sayd and clearly proved was a meere devise and fiction of Anastasius it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tayle Or how should Iustinian upbraid it when he was so enraged against Vigilius and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus Seeing neither Iustinian persecuted Vigilius nor was enraged against him but for the space of five of six yeares they both sang one note they fully consorted together or how should Mennas and Theodorus upbraid it when they were excommunicated by Vigilius Seeing that excommunication all the circumstances of it are merely fictitious as by the death of Mennas which was long before that forged excommunication of him was demonstrated Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to bee writ by Vigilius which all relie on fictions on most untrue and idle fancies And whether Facundus upbraided it or no may bee questioned nor will it bee clearly knowne untill they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vaticane where hee lyeth yet imprisoned But as for the fift Councell it was great sillinesse in the Cardinall once to thinke that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectfull manner that could be wished they uttered no one harsh or hard word against him but what was rightly said or done by him as his condemning of Origen his condemning the Three Chapters before the time of the Councell that they often mention and approve it also They sought by lenity to win the Popes heart to consent
for so many Oracles and himselfe for an Apostle and Prophet sent from heaven to instruct them then and not before was it time to worke his intended feat then and never before hee was to publish his Apostolicall decree his minde was as yet but private for overthrow of the Catholike faith and the Councell of Chalcedon But if so happened that the heresie of the Eutychians was so generally odious and so lately condemned that there was no likelihood for him to bring his purpose about by establishing it as at the first he meant but after some few yeares expectance there fell out another farre fitter oportunity that was the defence of the Three Chapters there he had the Africane the Illirian the Italian and in a manner all the Westerne Churches to partake with him in that heresie that oportunity Vigilius gladly embraceth nor would hee let it passe Then hee labours tooth and naile and in the end when either then or never he must do the deed by his Apostolicall Const. he decreeth that those 3. Chapters should by al be defēded Certainly had that his decree prevailed as his purpose and earnest desire was that it should not only Anthimus Theodosius Severus being Eutychians but all Arians Macedonians all heresies and heretikes had at once like so many wilde Bores rushed into the inheritance of Christ the Catholike faith which is the only barre and fence against them all being by that Constitution of Vigilius utterly broken downe and by the defending of those Three Chapters for ever subverted This was the most Diabolicall plot and project of Pope Vigilius to seeme a Catholike and openly to professe before Iustinian and others the Catholike faith and while they are secure of him closely in the meane space to undermine and blow up at once all Catholikes and with them the Catholike faith So there is no repugnance no incoherence at all in these though contradictory letters of Vigilius both of them the orthodoxall to Iustinian Theodora and Mennas the hereticall to Anthimus Theodosius and Severus both were writ by Vigilius both by Pope Vigilius both by Vigilius when he was the onely true and lawfull Pope but the former were writ by the personated and visored the later by the naked and unmasked Pope Vigilius 33. Wee have now proved first that Vigilius writ this hereticall Epistle against their first evasion next that hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope against their second evasion there remains as yet two other Pretences of Bellarmine but such as Baronius was ashamed to use so poore and petty excuses for their Pope The third evasion then is this that Vigilius in heart embraced the true faith and onely fained himselfe in this Epistle to be a favourer of the Eutychean heresie Vigilius saith the Cardinall was here in a great straite for if hee openly professed heresie hee feared the Romanes who would never indure an heretike to sit in Peters Chaire if hee should on the other side professe himselfe a Catholike he feared Theodora the hereticall Empresse that she would not indure him Itaque rationem illam excogitavit therfore he devised this policy and I pray you note it well that at Rome or openly hee would play the Catholike but secretly in his private letters to the Empresse and to Anthimus he would faine himselfe an heretike Thus Bellarmine who fully expresseth the nature and disposition of Pope Vigilius as if hee had not onely felt his pulse but beene in his bosome Hee was indeed another Catiline Simulare ac dissimulare hee could semble and dissemble conceale what indeed hee was seeme to bee what hee was not At Rome and in shew of the world a Catholike at Constantinople and in his secret and close actions an heretike Thus farre the Cardinall saith well but hee is extremely mistaken in one circumstance in that hee saith that his open or Catholike profession was mentall and ex animo and his private and secret detestation of the Catholike faith was verball and fained It was quite contrary his heart and Intrals were all hereticall nothing but his face and outward shew was Catholike for proofe whereof I will not urge that the Pope in this Epistle accurseth and anathematizeth all who hold the Catholike faith or who beleeve otherwise than Eutyches did for so hee doth also in his other Epistle to the Emperour and Mennas condemne Eutycheanisme and yet it is no commendation for his Holinesse either to curse the Catholike faith or to curse that faith which in his heart hee beleeveth But this I would have considered that Vigilius promised under his hand-writing yea hee swore also that he would abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and restore Anthimus for performance whereof hee writ that private Epistle which was all that as yet hee could doe Let Bellarmine now say if their Popes doe use to promise and that under their hands yea to sweare also to doe that which they meane not to doe Who may bee beleeved upon their words upon their oathes if not the Popes Holinesse if hee not onely in words and writing but in his solemne oathes equivocate whose oath among all that generation can bee thought simple and without fraud 34. Againe to what end should Pope Vigilius dissemble secretly and among his intire friends such as were Anthimus Theodosius and Severus where or to whom should he truly open himselfe and his inward heart if not to such The first lesson that men of Vigilius metall learne is that of Lucilius Homini amico ac familiari non est mentiri meum The Prisciliaens who as S. Austen shewes were the very teachers of lying and dissembling and who perswaded their fellow heretikes unto that base art and trade yet even they taught that Lucilian lesson and most impiously pretended to collect it out of the words of the Apostle Speake the truth every man to his neighbour for we are members one of another To his neighbour and fellow member sayd they we must speake the truth but to such as are not joyned to us in the neighbourhood or fellowship of the same Religion and who are not of the same body with us to them loqui licet oportetque mendacium to them you may lye nay you must not speake the truth to such Anthimus Severus and Theodosius they were the next neighbours to Vigilius all conjoyned and concorporated into Eutycheanisme Had he dissembled with them he had beene worse than the Priscilianists nay worse than the devils themselves for they though they lye to all others yet speake truth among themselves and to Beelzebub otherwise his kingdome could not endure It was Iustinian and the Catholikes who were of a contrary religion to Vigilius there was little or no neighbourhood at all betwixt them they were not concorporall not members of one body with him to them not being his neighbors commembres with him by the rules of
was Pope but as hee was a private man or some other way Would not the Cardinall laugh if Gretzer or any such good friend of his should say Bellarmine at that time while hee was at Ingolstad writ not his Controversies as he was Pope or hee writ them not as he was a Turke a Iew or Mahumetane But leaving these shifts which demonstrate plainly that Bellarmine had a desire to say somewhat in excuse of Vigilius but knew not what and therefore snatched at this or that or any thing though it were never so crosse unto himselfe and such also as he could not hold Let us consider the Exception it selfe Vigilius writ this Epistle that is confessed hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope that wee have proved hee defined heresie in it and that which is against the faith that Bellarmine implyeth hee condemned in it the Catholike faith that Bellarmine in plaine words expresseth Thus far the cause is cleare Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined heresie and condemned the Catholike faith as he was Pope or no that is the point here to be debated 43. Some may thinke that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawne from secresie and an ambitious minde by which he laboured before to prove that Vigilius did not condemne the faith ex animo meant also that he condemned it not as Pope for it followeth in the next sentence siquidem Epistolam scripsit as giving a reason of his saying If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort then his reasons are before hand refuted for as Vigilius might ex animo write heretically both privately and out of ambition so also might hee tanquam Pontifex condemne the faith notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambitious mind secrecy and an ambitious mind are no more repugnant to the one than to the other they are compatible with them both the Pope may use his Apostolicall authority in teaching as wel privately as publikely as well with Iudas in ambition as with Iohn or Peter in sincerity of heart But the Cardinals Apologist who it may be consulted with the Cardinall about his intent herein doth ease us of those reasons for hee tels us plainly that from Vigilius his desire of secrecie nil aliud colligit Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else but this that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò that hee did it not in earnest It is but a sport with Gretzer or with the Pope to condemne the Catholike faith they doe it but they doe it not in earnest they doe it jocularitèr not seriò Have ye indeed such May-games sports at Rome as to condemne the faith and then say I was in jest and in sport Are not these men new Philistines Call in Sampson Condemne the Catholike faith to make us pastime But let us leave them to their sports till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and dolefull end both of their actors spectators That which I now note is that Bellarmine doth not in those words Siquidem Epistolam scripsit c. from the privatenesse or secrecy prove any thing else but that Vigilius writ it not seriò in earnest and from his heart that hee writ it not tanquam Pontifex this those words prove not Bellarmine in those words collects not So we have now nothing but the bare saying of Bellarmine without any proofe without any reasons and I must needs confesse I hold it a most sufficient encounter for any man to Bellarmines ipse dixit to oppose ipse dico yet because I desire rather to satisfie such as seeke the truth then contend with those who seeke to smother and betray the truth I will a little further enlarge this point and see if it may be cleared by evidence of reason that Pope Vigilius did not onely condemne the Catholike faith at that time but that he did it even as hee was Pope and tanquam Pontifex condemne the Catholike faith 44. What it is for a Pope to teach an errour as Pope may be perceived by other Arts and Sciences in the practice or exercise whereof together with knowledge judgement and skill fidelity also is required were Baronius or some Romane Facundus to examine this point they would quickly sute the Pope to some Cobler Pedler or such like companion I love not to deale so rudely with his Holinesse yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way you know how the Cardinall quitted the religious Emperour with Ne ultra crepidam If a Physitian or Lawyer or Iudge in any discourse should speake barbarously or incongruously they erre therein but as Grammarians not as Iudges Lawyers or Physitians But if a Iudge for any sinister respect should pronounce that sentence as just which is against the law or if a Lawyer should after his diligent sifting of the cause affirme that title to bee sound which were clearely voide in law or if a Physitian should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet each of them now erred offended in his owne profession in that proper duty which belongeth to them the Iudge as a Iudge the Counsellor as a Counsellor the Physitian as a Physitian because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wherin they professe both to know themselves and to make knowne unto others what is right and good If in other matters they transgresse it is not quatenus tales if any of them bee prophane covetous or intemperate they offend now quatenus homines as they are mortall men in those duties of morality which are common to them with all men If they bee seditious rebellious and conspire in treasonable practice they offend quatenus Cives as they are parts of the Common-wealth in those duties which are common to them with all subjects but when they offend in Physick law or judgment those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences they then offend neither quatenus homines nor quatenus Cives nor in any other respect but quatenus tales as they are such professors for now they transgresse against those proper duties which as they are Iudges Counsellors or Physitians are required of them The like of all Artificers of Grāmarians Logicians Poets Philosophers of Presbyters of Bishops of the Professors of Theology which is scientia scientiarum is to bee said If a Divine shall speake rudely incongruously ad populum Antiochenum he offends as a Grammarian not as a Divine unlesse perhaps it bee no fault when it doth so happen for edification that hee ought so to speake as Saint Austen did use divers barbarismes and say ossum for os floriet for slorebit dolus for dolor Malo me populus I had rather edifie with rudenesse of words than speake nothing but pure Ciceronian without edifying them without honouring God But if a Bishop or any Divine in stead of truth teach heresie either because hee knowes not the truth
unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and saith that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am