Eunomius wherein there is neither mention nor intention of that Epistle neither of the first middle nor last part thereof But whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon many other k Act. 9. 10. things besides that Epistle were recited touching the cause of Ibas and particularly the whole Acts before Photius Eustathius and Vranius B. of Berithum where a Synod was held about Ibas it was those Acts and judgement given by them and performed by Ibas and not the Epistle of Ibas to which Eunomius had respect when he said by the posteriora or postrema Ibas made a true confession for so in the fifth Council it is cleerly witnessed It is manifest say they that l Col. 6. pa. 564. a. Eunomius made this speech gesta apud Photiûm et Eustathium attendens looking at those Acts before Photius and Eustathius Now in those Acts as is manifest by the diligent perusall thereof and is further testified by the fift Councill m Ibid. pa. 563. seq there was a judgement pronounced by Photius and Eustathius adversus cam epistolam et quae in ea continentur against that Epistle and the contents thereof Ibas being commanded by those venerable Iudges both to embrace the first Ephesine Synod which that impious Epistle rejecteth and to condemne and accurse Nestorius and his followers whom that Epistle commendeth which judgement that Ibas then performed the Acts before Photius and Eustathius doe make evident for there it is thus said n Apud Conc. Chal. act 9. pa. 108. a. Confessus est Ibas sic se credere Ibas professed that he beleeved as the letters of Cyrill to Iohn did import and that he consented in all things to the first Synod at Ephesus accounting their judgement as a decree inspired by the holy Ghost Yea he did not onely in words professe this but in o Praeparavimus Jbam quod amplexus est ex scripto dare quid sentit de pia fide nostra ibid. 107. b. writing also at the perswasions of Photius and Eustathius he expressed the like for the full satisfaction of such as had been before scandalized by his impious doctrine And Ibas yet further of his p Ex abundanti antē promisit c. ib. owne accord promised before those Iudges that he would in his own Church at Edessa and that publikely accurse Nestorius as the chief leader in that impious heresie and those also who did thinke as he did or who did use his books or writings Thus much do those Acts declare 12. This orthodoxall confession of Ibas made before Photius and Eustathius this accursing of Nestorius and his heresies this embracing of the Ephesine Councill is that which Eunomius calleth Posteriora or Postrema as following by many yeares not onely that which Ibas did or said before the Vnion made betweene Iohn and Cyrill but even this Impious Epistle also written after that Vnion Of this confession Eunomius truly said that by it being posterius later then the Epistle Ibas had refuted all for which he was formerly blamed for by this in effect he refuted condemned and accursed this whole Epistle with all the heresies and blasphemies both in the head and taile thereof And for this cause and in regard of this holy confession the fift Councill said that thereby Ibas q Ostenditur inde quod anathematizavit Epistolam c Col. 6. pa. 564. a. had anathematized his owne Epistle contrariam per omnia being in every part of it contrary to the faith both in the beginning and end thereof And the interlocution of Eusebius B. of Ancyra at the Councill of Chalcedon doth fully explaine the meaning of Eunomius for he expresly mentioneth those Acts before Photius and Eustathius and the confession of Ibas then made which Eunomius called posteriora saying thus r Act. 10. Concil Chal. pa. 115 b. The reading of that judgement before Photius and Eustathius doth teach that Ibas in that judgement accursed Nestorius and his impious doctrines and consented to the true faith Wherfore I receive him for a Bishop if he now doe condemne Nestorius The like said s Ibid. Diogenes B. of Cyzicum Thalassius Bishop of Cesarea Iohn Bishop of Sebastia and they all cryed Omnes eadem dicimus wee all say the same So cleare it is that upon this holy Confession of Ibas made first before Photius and Eustathius and after that before all the Councill at Chalcedon and not upon this Epistle nor any part first or last thereof Ibas was acknowledged and embraced for a Catholike both by Eunomius Eusebius Diogenes and all the whole Councill of Chalcedon 13. By this now appeareth not onely the error but the extreme fraud of Baronius who in excuse of Vigilius not onely affirmeth an hereticall untruth that the latter part of the Epistle is orthodoxall but labours to uphold and boulster out that untruth with a malitious perverting and falsifying both of the words and meaning of Eunomius And thus far proceeded the holy Councill against Vigilius in their sixt Session being the very next after they had received the Popes mandatorie letters commanding them neither to speake nor write ought concerning the Three Chapters otherwise then he by his Apostolicall constitution had decreed 14. In the seventh Collation besides the publike reading of divers letters and writings for the manifestation of the truth and of the uprightnes of their judgment in this cause of the three Chapters all that was formerly done was now againe t Quae jam acta sunt relegantur relecta sunt Col. 7. pa. 577. b. repeated and approved by the holy Councill Such diligence and warinesse they used in this matter that nothing might passe without often recitall and serious ponderation by the whole Councill 15. In the eight which is the last Collation the holy Councill proceeded to their Synodall and Definitive sentence touching all those Three Chapters which Vigilius as they knew by his decree and Apostolicall authoritie had defended But the Councill directly contradicting the Pope in them all doth Definitively condemne and accurse them all and all who defend them or any of them which sentence of the Councill as Baronius truly confesseth v Au. 553. nu 219. was pronounced contra decreta ipsius Vigilij in a direct opposition to the Decrees of Vigilius Which that it may fully appeare as you have before seene the words of the Popes Decree so now consider also and compare with them the words and Decree of the Councill 16. First the holy Councill sets downe in generall their sentence concerning all the Three Chapters The defenders of which they had before x Qui hanc Epistolam non anathematizat haereticus est Col 6. pa. 576. b. and here y Haereticorum condemnationem Col. 8 pa. 586. b. againe doe proclame to be heretikes in this manner We z Ibid. pa. 586. a accurse the Three foresaid Chapters to wit Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his impious writings The
persevering therein eternally shuts against them the gates of Gods mercy and the kingdome of heaven Both which because they are hid from mans eyes the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity onely to God passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity by the outward and apparent acts which are open unto them whomsoever shee seeth not nor findes by certaine and evident proofe to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their hereticall and impious writings which before they published and maintained all those though dead ten an hundred or a thousand years before she by her censure doth and doth most justly condemne accurse and anathematize as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia dead an hundred yeares before is most evident whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fift Councell is approved by all succeeding generall Councels by all Catholikes and even by the whole Catholike Church Nor will I here dispute whether such a sentence doth not sometimes passe errante clave the party having repented whom they not having proofe of his repentance thought to dye impenitent but howsoever that fall out none may justly complaine of the Churches judgement as unjust or unequall herein for besides that it is presumed that those who so notoriously and publikely by their hereticall writings doe scandalize the Church and people of God if they had seriously repented would have expressed some publike and outward testimony of the same the Church would by this severity of her censure teach all men a lesson which is very hard to learne first that they should not have such an itch and ambitious desire to write or utter those detestable heresies which lurk within their breasts or if they cannot observe that yet at least to learne to be so lowly and humble in heart as to revoke their impieties and blasphemies although to some blemish and disgrace of themselves yet to the great honour of Gods truth and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church which they had scandalized If in ambition they will first oppugne the truth and then in a worse pride of heart not be reclamed to the truth nor shew their love unto it why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement shew her open detestation of their persons who in the insolency of their hearts will not shew any open detestation of their heresies That Vigilius writ a papall Constitution in defence of heresie it is apparent and undenyable that he at any time revoked that writing I wish it were but it is not yet evident The like may be sayd of Baronius of Pighius of Eccius of the Laterane Florentine and Trent conspirators of all who have whet their tongues against other truth and specially to uphold that fundamentall heresie of the Popes infallibility Their writings for heresie are evident that they ever reclamed those writings it is inevident and if ever they and their cause come to bee tryed in such a free lawfull and oecumenicall Councell as was this fift under Iustinian they may justly feare and certainly expect from the Church unlesse the disclaming of their writings may by certaine proofe be made knowne the very like sentence though a hundred yeares after theirs as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred yeares after his death And because the houre-glasse for repentance is runne out to the former all that we can doe is which I seriously now doe from my heart to cry amaine unto others to admonish exhort yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God and by the love of their owne soules first that they keepe their tongues and pennes from once uttering any heresie or if they have not done that with the same hands to give the medicine wherewith they gave the wound and as openly nay much more openly to disclame than they have ever proclamed their impious and hereticall doctrines 53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius The exact pourtraiture of the Popes lives Baronius had beene able to set forth if he had listed but he addeth such fucos and so many sophisticall colours that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and naturall habit If ought be amisse in this our description and not set forth according to the lively lineaments of Vigilius and his impieties the equall reader will not too rigorously censure the same I acknowledge that I can but dolare in this kinde to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes I have not learned That is an Art which may not bee too vulgar lest their Romane policies be too farre divulged But by this it is easie to perceive what a silly excuse it is which Baronius useth in this cause blaming Vigilius for coming to Constantinople as if not the Popes owne hereticall minde but the ayre of Constantinople had wrought such effects as to produce that hereticall and yet as they count it Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters FINIS Laus Deo sine fine Errata haec corrigat benevolus Lector In Textu Pag. 48. lin 2. read Theodorus ibid. lin 9. diptisis p. 509. l. 14. eos p. 99. l. 3. John B. p. 125. l. 38. Catholikes p. 141 l. 35. Binius he was p. 145. l. 39. Son of God p. 163. prope finem substances p. 164. l. 5. explanation p. 172. l. 20. of the Pope p. 182. l. 45. their present p. 199. prope finem Catholicae p. 216. l. 17. it p. 224. l. 25. Popes p. 227. l. 5. yeeld p. 289. l. 33. the. p. 350. l. 30. aequiparare p. 425. l. 8. where is ibid. l. 27. Commana ibid. Marcellinus l. 42. inflamed p. 442. in fine Euphemia p. 462. l. 11. quarrels with Pope p. 465. l. 35. all this time p. 478. l. 23. it was written p. 495. l. 37. poysoner of p. 500. l. 35. right hand In Margine Pa. 9. lit c lege Marsorum p. 67. lit e Antioâ—henum p. 233. lit s emissam ibid. lit c corruptè p. 409. lit c commentitias supposititias p. 410. lit q Consilij 5. p. 437. lit l Concil 5. Coll. 5. AN ALPHABETICALL TABLE OF THE CHIEFE THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS TREATISE A. ACts in Councels not so intire but there may be faults from the exscriber pag. 433. Sect. 17 18. Acts of the fift Councell unjustly excepted against by Baronius pa. 379. sect 3 4. Agnoites and other sectaries called Acephali p. 3. sect 6. Agapetus lost nothing by the Emperours presence p. 464. sect 5. Antichrist the Pope first Antichrist nascent secondly crescent thirdly regnant fourthly in their Laterane Councell he was Antichrist triumphant pa. 186. sect 24. Anthimus a Catholike in shew and outward profession p. 157. sect 4. Anastasius narration not helped by Binius p. 458. sect 23. Anastasius a fabler p. 256. sect 23. and pa. 447. sect 12. c. The Author of that Apologicall Epistle published Anno 1601. a vaunting
to Iohn B. of Antioch Vigilius found an explication how it was said by Cyrill that by a dispensation the name of Theodorus was not condemned for there Cyrill saith Sed juste audient they shall justly heare this though they will not ye forget your selves when you bend your bowes against ashes that is against the dead for he who is written among them that is the dead nō superest is not and let no man blame me for these words Grave est enim insultare defunctis vel si Laici fuerint for it is an hard matter to insult over the dead yea though they bee but Laikes how much more over those who with their Bishopricks have left their lives Out of which words Vigilius affirmeth S. Cyrill to teach it to be an injurious and hard matter repugnant to the Ecclesiasticall rule to condemne any that is dead and then certainly not a Bishop not Theodorus 23. For answer hereunto I doe earnestly intreate the reader to ponder seriously the Popes good dealing herein That Epistle which Vigilius commendeth unto us under the name of n Beatae recordationis Cyrillum et beatus Cyrillus Vig loc cit S. Cyril is none of Cyrils it is a base and counterfeit writing forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill Witnesse hereof the whole fift generall Councell who of purpose and at large examined this matter and refuted this cavill of Vigilius before ever he set forth his Constitution for thus they o Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. say of it Some loving the persidiousnesse of Nestorius which is all one as to say the madnesse of Theodorus doe not refuse to faigne some things and use certaine words as written in an Epistle by S. Cyrill Nusquam vero talis Epistola scripta est à sanctae memoriae Cyrillo but Cyril never writ such an Epistle neither is it in his bookes And then reciting the whole Epistle and all those words which Vigilius alleageth they adde Et ista quidem continet conficta Epistola these are the contents of this counterfeit Epistle and a little after That nothing of all quae in conficta Epistola continentur which are contained in that counterfeit Epistle was writ by Cyrill it is declared by that which he writ to Acatius and yet further These things are spoken ad convictionem Epistolae quae à defensoribus Theodori falso composita est to convince that Epistle to be a forgerie which is falsely composed by the defenders of Theodorus The summe of this they repeate in their Synodall sentence saying p Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. We have found that the defenders of Theodorus have done the same which heretikes are wont to doe for they clip away some part of the Fathers words quaedam vero falsa ex semetipsis componentes confingentes and devising or faigning other things of themselves they seeke by them as it were by the testimony of Cyrill to free Theodorus from the Anathema Thus the Councell all of them with one voyce proclaming Pope Vigilius for a lewd dealer who commends and that even in his Apostolicall Constitution a false and forged writing for the true Epistle of S. Cyrill 24. It is true Vigilius is not the first Pope who hath blemished their See by such false and fraudulent dealing Zozimus and Bonifacius were long before this taxed and that justly by the Africane q Conc. Afric Epist ad Caelest ca. 105. tom 1. conc pa. 645. et seq Bishops for downe facing the Nicene Canons Vigilius was too too bold with Cyrill as now you see But if you descend to Pope Nicholas or to Gregory the seventh and their successors they were so shamelesse and audacious in this kinde that they scarce writ any decrees of importance but they stuffed them with such Fathers Even the basest and most abject fictions which were voyd not onely of truth but of braine were fittest for the Popes and their Pontificall determinations and were they never so base and bastardly yet the Popes like kind Godfathers could when they listed christen them with the names of S. Cyrill Cyprian or the like and then they must be called or esteemed for no others than holy and reverend Fathers 25. Proclus followeth In whose writings Vigilius found three testimonies to prove that Theodorus being dead was not to be condemned The first is out of his Epistle to r Const Vig. nu 174 Iohn Bishop of Antioch where these words are alleaged When did I write to you oportere aut Theodorum aut alios quosdam qui pridem defuncti sunt anathemate subdi that either Theodorus or others being dead ought to be anathematized The second is out of the same Epistle I rejected indeed those Chapters annexed to my Tome as being impious neque autem de Theodoro neque de alio quoquam qui jam defuncti sunt but I neither writ of Theodorus nor of any other who is dead that they should be anathematized or rejected The third is out of an Epistle of Proclus to Maximus I understand that the names of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and of some other is prefixed to the Chapters ad anathematizandum to bee anathematized together with the Chapters cum illi ad Deum jam migrarunt whereas they are now departed to God and it is needlesse to injure them being now dead quos nec vivos aliquando culpavimus whom being alive we did never reprove These are the Popes allegations out of S. Proclus in which I confesse it is clearely taught that neither any after their death may bee condemned and particularly that not Theodorus seeing he is gone to God and was never in his life time once reproved 26. It is a ſ De regulis juris lib. 6. decret reg 8. rule in law semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus He who is once convicted of any crime is presumed still to be faulty in that kinde Vigilius being lately convicted to commend forgeries for the writings of Fathers is in reason and equitie to bee thought to alleage such a S. Proclus as before hee did S. Cyrill Nay there needs no presuming in this matter there is evident proofe and witnesses above exception to manifest the same even the whole fift generall Councell who out of the true and undoubted writings of Proclus testifie that Proclus taught the quite contrary both that the dead might and particularly that Theodorus ought to be condemned and that hee was by Proclus himselfe condemned for in their very Synodall decree they thus t Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. write Because the disciples of Theodorus most evidently oppugning the truth thus sharply do they reprove Vigilius doe alleage certaine sayings of Cyrill and Proclus as written for Theodorus It doth appeare that those Fathers doe not free him from the Anathema but speake those things dispensativè by way of dispensation and in the very words of dispensation they declare of him quod oportet anathematizari Theodorum
Conc. Vig. a nu 60. ad nu 173. and in the Synodall h Conc. 5. coll 4. acts he thus saith i Vigil in const nu 173. 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 k nu 184. 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 l Sup. ca. 7. 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 m Defensores Theodori ea ipsius scripta esse negarunt Bar. an 435. nu 14. 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 theÌ„ 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 n Cyrill Epistolae ad Proclum citata in Conc. 5. coll 5 pa. 550. b. who then lived testifieth Theodorus to be author of those hereticall and blasphemous writinâ—â— 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 o Ibid. pa. 550 a. 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 p Qui Cyrilli libri citantur saepe in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 538. seq 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 q Prolata apud sanctâ—m Synodum expositione ab en composita sicut dicebant qui protulerunt c. Verba Cyrill in Epist ad Proclum citat in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 550. b. 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 thereunto thereupon condemned Theodorus r His condemnatis qui sic sapiunt nullam viri Theodori memoriam fecerunt Ibid. 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 Å¿ Fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega capitula dogmata ejus Libell Episc Armen ad Proclum in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 542. b. 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 t De quibus legibus supra hoc cap. Exta â—t vero in Conc. 5. coll 5. pa. 544. 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 u Habemus quae ex Theodori codicibus collegistu Conc. 5. coll 4. pa. 527. b. idem docet Iustin in suo Edict § Si quis defendit Theodorum of Theodorus that impious creed also whereof Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus they are so certaine x Jmpius Theodorus aliud Symbolum exposuit Iust in Edicto §. Tali Et impium ejus Theodori Symbolum coll 4. pa. 537. a. hereof that even in their Synodall sentence y Licet volentibus codices impij Theodori prae manibus accipere vel quae ex impijs codicibus ejus à nobis inserta his gestis sunt Conc. 5. coll 8. pa. 585. a. 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 one of his decretall Epistles wherein at large he handleth this cause not onely testifieth that impious Creed z Ab ejus Theodori discâ—pulis dictatum ab eo symbolum in eâ â—em Synodo Ephesina prolatum Pelagius Epist 7. §. In his and those hereticall a Ejusdem Theodori ex libris illius dicta replicemus ibid. writings to bee the workes of Theodorus alleaging many places of them but wheras some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved againe b Haec Theodori dicta utrum ejus sint fortasse dubitatur ibid. §. Haec this same doubt which Vigilius doth and as is likely by occasion of his decree Pelagius of purpose declareth those c Ibidem seq to have beene the true writings of Theodorus and consonant to his doctrine and that hee proveth by the testimonies of the Armenian Bishops of Proclus of Iohn of Antioch of Cyrill of Rambulas of Honoratus a Bishop of Cilicia and so a neighbor of Mopsvestia which is in the same d Secunda Cilicia sub qua Mopsvestia constituta est Conc 5. coll 5. pa. 547. b. Province of Hesychius of Theodosius and Valentinian the Emperours and of Theodoret then whom not any except perhaps Nestorius was more devoted to Theodorus insomuch that he is thought to have taken from Theodorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced Pelagius thus concludeth
shadowed his praise by his friendship with Nestorius but he utterly darkned it by his undertaking of the defence of that Arch-heretike against Cyrill And againe k an 431. nu 182. Theodoret being at that time the patron of Nestorius and an oppugner of the Catholike faith throweth his darts against the Chapters of Cyrill and by new writings doth oppugne them crying out in his letters to the Bishops of Millaine of Aquileia and of Ravenna that Cyrill renewed the heresie of Apollinaris 5. Witnesse men of better note then the former Liberatus who saith l Liber ca. 4. that Iohn of Antioch commanded two Bishops Andreas Theodoret that they should write against the 12. Chapters of Cyrill blaming him as one who renewed the heresie of Apollinaris and that Theodoret consented the event made manifest Pope Pelagius who saith m Pelag. 2. Epist 7. § Discusso that Theodoret monstratur scripsisse is demonstrated and certainly knowne to have written against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill and against the true Faith The Acts of the Ephesine Councell wherein n Reprehensio 12. Capitulorum divi Cyrilli à Theodoreto coâ—scripta habebetur in Append. ad to 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 2. pa. 859. b. is recorded the verie refutation of those twelve Chapters by Theodoret and the answere of Cyrill unto it the one still called Theodoreti reprehensio and the other Cyrilli adversus Theodoretum refutatio Cyrill who in his Epistle o Cyrill Epist ad Eulog extat to 5. Act. Conc. Eph. c. 8. to Eulogius saith thus You have my refutation which I set forth against Andreas and Theodoret who writ against my Chapters 6. Witnesse Theodoret himselfe who in sundrie of his Epistles testifieth his spleene and spight against Cyrill and the Catholike faith In p Extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 5 pa. 559. a. one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most perverse and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresie of Nestorius I wil never saith he while I live consent to those things which are done against you and against the law so hee taxeth not onely the Chapters of Cyrill but the decree of the holy Ephesine Synod no I will not consent unto them though they should cut off both my hands In another to Iohn the Bishop of Antioch We q Extat et citat ib. continue still saith he contradicting the twelve Chapters ut alienis à pietate as being contrary to pietie In another to Aemerius Wee r Ea citatur à Pelagio Epist 7 § Discusso ought not to consent to the condemnation of the venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius in another to Å¿ Citatur ibid. Alexander I told you before that the doctrine of my venerable and most holy Bishop Nestorius hath beene condemned nec ego cum his qui faciunt communicabo neither will I communicate with those who condemned that doctrine and yet more bitterly in his Epistle to t Extat in Conc 5. Coll. 5. pa. 558. b. Andreas his fellow-oppugner of those Chapters Insanit iterum Aegyptus adversus Deum Aegypt is againe madde against the Lord and makes warre with Moses and Aaron the servants of God As if Nestorius and his fellow-heretikes were the onely Israel but Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt and the holy Ephesine Councell and all Catholikes who held with them were no other but Pharao and his Aegyptian troupes which fought against GODS people 7. Doe we yet desire more or more pregnant and ample testimonies in this matter Take this one out of the acts of Chalcedon When Theodoret being called came first into the Synod the most reverend Bishops of Aegypt Illirium and u Conc. Chal. Act. 1 pa. 6. a. Palestine cryed out against him in this manner The Canons exclude this man thrust him out Magistrum Nestorij foras mittite thrust out the master of Nestorius the orthodoxall Councell doth not receive Theodoret Call him not a Bishop he is no Bishop hee is an oppugner of God he is a Iew thrust him out he accused he anathematized Cyrill If we receive him we reject Cyrill The Canons exclude him God doth detest him Thus cryed out the Bishops against Theodoret before they knew him to have renounced the heresie of Nestorius which he had so long and so eagerly defended nor were they pacified otherwise but that Theodoret at the appointment of the Iudges should sit onely as an accuser of Dioscorus not as one having judicatorie power or a decisive suffrage till his owne cause was fully examined and heard Seeing now there are besides many other which I willingly omit so many so evident so obvious so undeniable proofes that Theodoret writ against Cyrill and against his twelve Chapters in defence of Nestorius and his heresie what can one thinke of Vigilius but that he wilfully and wittingly resisted the truth while he not onely strives to perswade that Theodoret writ no such thing and that the Councell of Chalcedon thought so but takes this knowne and palpable untruth for one of the grounds of his Apostolicall decree touching this second Chapter 8. And yet there is a worse matter in this very passage of Vigilius and that is the reason whereby he proveth that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill or in defence of Nestorius you shall heare it in his owne words It is saith x Vigil Const nu 180. he undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon that any Nestorian doctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop Theodoret who together with those holy Fathers did accurse the doctrines of Nestorius Quid enim aliud est mendaces simulantes professionem rectae fidei patres in sancto Còncilio Chalcedonensi residentes ostendere quam dicere aliquos ex ijs similia sapuisse Nestorio for to say that any of them who were in that Councell had thought as Nestorius did is nothing else then to shew or affirme those Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon to be lyers and dissemblers in faith as condemning that faith which they doe allow Thus reasoneth Vigilius who hence implyeth that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops and Fathers at Chalcedon if he ever writ any such things in defence of Nestorius then both he and the rest admitting him should dissemble in their faith and lye professing to condemne Nestorius and yet approving him who had writ in defence of Nestorius 9. Truly I doe even admire to consider the blindnesse of Vigilius in this whole cause of the three Chapters Most certaine it is as we have shewed that Theodoret did both thinke as Nestorius and write in defence of him and his heresie and that the Councell of Chalcedon knew he did so If then to receive such an one as they knew Theodoret to have beene be as Vigilius saith a dissembling and lying in the faith the whole Councell of Chalcedon by the Popes judgement and decree were undoubtedly all lyers and dissemblers in the faith a
orthodoxum et in cōmunione ipsius ad exitum permansisse Jbid. nu 194. since the time that Cyrill explaned his Chapters and Baronius who is very sparing of his speech in this whole matter yet both saw and professeth this to be the true intent of Vigilius for he y Bar. an 553. nu 193. telling us that wheras those words in the end of the Epistle of Ibas None dare now say there is one nature but they professe to beleeve in the Temple and in him who dwelleth in the Temple were wont to be taken by the Nestorians in such a sense as if in Christ there were two persons ne Ibas putaretur ejusdem esse in verbis illis sententiae cum Nestorianis lest Ibas might be thought to have the same meaning with the Nestorians in those words Vigilius bringeth a declaration of those words how they are to be brought to a right sense and this he teacheth by shewing how Ibas in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius embraced the Ephesine Councell So Baronius by whose helpe besides the evidence in the text it selfe it now appeares that Vigilius by this profession of Ibas made before Photius and Eustathius would prove Ibas to have beene a Catholike when hee writ this Epistle and that in it Ibas was not ejusdem sententiae cum Nestorianis of the same opinion with the Nestorians 33. A reason so void of reason that I could not have held patience with the Popes Holinesse had not Nestorianisme dulled his wit and judgement at this time The judgement before Photius and Eustathius was in the yeare when Posthumianus and Zeno were Consuls or in the next unto it as the Acts z Iudicium illud Photij et Eustathij extat cum Actis in eo in Conc. Chal. Act. 9. et 10. do testifie that is according to Baronius account an 448. The union b Vt supra probatum est Ca. 11. betwixt Iohn and Cyrill was made in the next yeare after the Ephesine Councell that is an 432. The Epistle of Ibas was writ by Baronius Almanacke in the very moment of the union a Bar. illo an nu 57 but in truth two or three yeares at the least after the union as before we have proved Now I pray you what a consequent or collection call you this Ibas being suspected of Nestorianisme to cleare himselfe consented to the Ephesine Councell and shewed himselfe to bee a Catholike sixteene yeares after the union or thirteene yeares after he writ this Epistle therefore at the time of the union and of the writing of this Epistle he was a Catholike also and not a Nestorian Why twelve or sixteen years might have a strange operatiō in Ibas and there is no doubt but so it had In so many revolutions Ibas saw how both himselfe and other Nestorians were publikely cōdemned by the Church and by the Emperour and hated of all who had any love to the Catholike faith He saw that himselfe was personally called corā nobis for maintaining that heresie he knew that unlesse hee cleared himselfe before those Iudges deputed by the Emperour to heare and examine his cause he was in danger of the like deprivation as Nestorius and some others had justly felt The serious and often meditation of these matters wrought effectually upon Ibas and therefore before Photius Eustathius he renounced disclamed and condemned Nestorianisme and so at that time proved himselfe by his profession before them to bee a Catholike as he had before that time and specially when he writ this Epistle demonstrated himselfe to be not onely an earnest but a malicious and slanderous heretike I cannot illustrate the Pope my Authors reason by a more fit similitude than of a man once deadly sicke of the Pestilence but afterwards fully cured and amended for Vigilius his reason is as if one should say This man was not sicke of the Pestilence no not when the sore was running upon him and hee at the very point of death because some twelve or sixteene yeares after hee was a sound man cleare from all suspition of the Pestilence Nor needeth this second reason of Vigilius any further explanation 34. We come now in the last place to that which Vigilius maketh his first reason in the former text into which because hee hath compacted the very venome of the Nestorians wee must bee inforced to take somewhat the more paines in our Commentary upon it This reason in which it seems the Pope puts his greatest confidence is drawne from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters of which c Vig. Const nu 192 193 194. Vigilius saith that Ibas at the first before Cyrill had explaned them misconceived the meaning of Cyrill and therefore seemed to speake against Cyrill but so soone as Cyrill had explaned them and decared his owne meaning then Ibas and all the Easterne Bishops forthwith embraced the communion with Cyrill and ever after that Ibas continued a Catholike This Epistle then of Ibas and profession of faith made therein which certainly followed the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters must needs be Catholike declare Ibas whē he writ it to have been a Catholike seeing when he made this confession of faith and writ this Epistle he held the same faith with Cyrill and therefore no doubt held the Catholike faith This is the full summe and effect of the Popes reason taken from the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters and for the excellency of it it spreadeth it selfe into every part of the two other reasons also as containing an explication of them or giving strength unto them for which cause wee are with more diligence and circumspection to examine the pith of it 35. And that we may more clearely behold and admire the Popes Artificium in handling this reason we are to observe five severall points thereof The first a peece of the Popes Rhetoricke in that he saith d Nu. 193. that Ibas before the Explanation and union whilst hee doubted and misconceived the meaning of Cyrill visus est ei obloqui he seemed to speake against Cyrill at that time He seeemed Now Ibas professeth of himselfe that hee then called e Donec seipsum interpretatus fuisset quia Orientale Concilium eum vocabat haereticum et ut haereticum condemnavit haereticum eum et ego putavi verba Ibae in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. a. Cyrill an hereticke that hee followed Iohn f Quando Orientale Concilium eum quasi haereticum anathematizavit sequutus sum primatem meum verba Ibae ibid. pa. 112. b. and the Conventicle which held with him and so that with them hee counted and in plain terms called Cyrill h Ita Cyrillum vocatum à Conciliabulo Iohannis supra oftendi ca 11. an author of schisme a disturber of the peace of the Church a despiser of imperiall authoritie an upholder of open tyrannie an Arch-hereticke and chiefe of the conspiracie that he condemned accursed anathematized him and that with such
learned but willing to learne and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same ſ Lib. 1. ca. 18. Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per eum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as sound lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of those that were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and sortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus ſ Paralip ad Abb. Vsperg pa. 448. I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had justled out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the
Augustine Saint Ierome Saint Ambrose Saint Leo Papius Theophilact Tertullian Eusebius Prudentius and others most excellent Divines And I take God and the whole Court of heaven to witnesse before whom I must render an account of this protestation that the same faith and religion which I defend is taught and confirmed by those Hebrew and Greeke Scriptures those Historians Popes Decrees Scholies and Expositions Councells Schooles and Fathers and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same Thus he 11. Did ever mortall man read or heare of such a braggadochio For learning and languages Ierome is but a baby to him more industrious and adamantine then Origen then Adamantius himselfe A shop a storehouse of all knowledge his head a Library of all Fathers Councels Decrees of all writings an Heluo nay a very hell of books he devoures up all Rabsecha Thraso Pyrgopolinices Therapontigonus all ye Magnificoes Gloriosoes come sit at his feet and learne of him the exact forme of vaunting and reviling What silly men were Eutiches Nestorius and the old heretikes they boasted but of one or two Councells All Councells all Fathers all Decrees all bookes writings and records are witnesses of his faith They sayd it he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven that all Scriptures Councels Fathers all witnesses in heaven earth and hell yea the Devill and all are his and confirme their Romane faith and condemne the doctrine of Protestants Alas what shall we doe but even hide our selves in caves of the earth and clifts of the rocks from the force and fury of this Goliah who thus braves it out in the open field as who with the onely breath of his mouth can blow away whole legions quasi ventus folia aut pannicula tectoria 12. But let no mans heart faint because of this proud anonymall Philistim Thy servant O Lord though the meanest in the host of Israel will fight with him nor will I desire any other weapons but this one pible stone of the judiciall sentence of the fift generall Councell against Vigilius This being taken out of Davids bagge that is derived from Scriptures consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding Catholike Councells and Fathers directly and unavoydably hits him in the forehead it gives a mortall and uncurable wound unto him for it demonstrates not onely the foundation of their faith to be hereticall and for such to bee condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church but all their doctrines whatsoever they teach because they all relye on this foundation of the Popes infallibility are not onely unsound and in the root hereticall but even Antichristian also such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholike faith This being one part of the Philistimes weapons wherein he trusted and vanted with his owne sword is his head the head and foundation of all their faith cut off so that of him and the whole body of their Church it may be truly said Iacet ingens littore truncus Avulsumque humeris caput sine nomine corpus 13. You see now how both ancient and moderne heretikes boast of Councells and therefore that the reason of Baronius is most inconsequent that Vigilius was no heretike because hee professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon Nay I say more though one professe to hold the whole Scripture yet if with pertinacy hee hold any one doctrine repugnant thereunto the profession of the Scriptures themselves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretike If it could then not any of the old heretikes would want this pretence or to omit them seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to beleeve the Scriptures and whatsoever is taught therein would this profession exempt one from heresie neither they nor wee should be or be called heretikes But seeing in truth they are and wee in their Antichristian language are called heretikes as Cyrill and the orthodoxall beleevers in his time were by the Nestorians it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures much lesse to hold one or two Councells as Vigilius did cannot free one from being an heretike 14. You will perhaps say can one then beleeve the whole Scripture and be an heretike or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon and be an Arian Eutychean or Nestorian heretike No verily for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresie seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l Lib. 2. de doct Christ ca. 9. all doctrines concerning faith are set downe and that also perspicuously therein so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ But it is one thing to professe the scriptures or those three Councells and say that he beleeves them which many heretikes may doe and another thing to beleeve them indeed which none can doe and be an heretike for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures cannot possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scriptures but such a man upon evident declaration that this is taught in them though before he held the contrary presently submits his wit and will to the truth which out of them is manifested unto him If this he do not he manifestly declareth that he holds his error with pertinacy and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures and so hee is certainly an heretike notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures which he falsly said he beleeved and held when in very truth he held and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them The very like must be said of those three Councells and them who either truly beleeve or falsly say that they beleeve the faith explained in them or any one of them 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent the former that all heretikes are lyars in their profession not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue and hereticall but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not but hold and that for a point of their faith the quite contrary All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scriptures and the doctrines therein contained and yet every one of them lye herein for they beleeve one if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed but they lyed in making this profession for they beleeved not one person but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell but they lyed in this profession for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ but one onely The Church
teach what wee affirme whatsoever any manor Councell saith or can say to the contrarie The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it he would have forsaken the defence of them then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious nor should have made him an hereticke but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters should have made him a catholike But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell that the definition of saith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters with this pertinacie and wilfull resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke notwithstanding his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof whereby all those Chapters are condemned which profession being joyned with the former pertinacie could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike 18. The very same must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel and faith thereof as that upon manifestation that this Councell beleeved taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible and de facto hath beene hereticall they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies then should they much rather for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof bee orthodoxall then for professing together with this the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie bee hereticall But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith touching the Three Chapters that the fift Councell beleeved this and decreed under the censure of an Anathema that all others should beleeve it and that all who beleeve the contrary are heretikes seeing I say notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in those causes yea defend it as the very foundation of their faith this makes it evident to all that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell or the other whether precedent or following for they all are consonant to this but with this pertinacious resolution not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie and therefore their expresse profession of this fift and other generall Councels yea of the Scriptures themselves cannot be so effectuall to make them Catholikes as the profession of the Popes infallibility which is joyned with this pertinacy is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes 19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the pertinacy of Vigilius For one may be and often is pertinacious in his errour not onely after but even before conviction or manifestation of the truth made unto him and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi prepared or ready to be informed of the truth and corrected thereby or when he doth nor or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen m Epist 162. and out of him Occham n Lib. 4. part 1. ca. 2. Gerson o Cons 12. de pertinacia part 1. pa. 430. Navar p Ench. ca. 11. nu 22. Alphonsus à Castro q Lib. 1. de justa punit haeret ca. 7 and many others doe truly teach See now I pray you how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking and preparation to embrace the truth He by his Apostolicall authoritie decreed r Const Vigil apud Bar. an 553. nu 208. that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By
Nations and kingdomes 4. Now behold a miracle e Ita plane magno veluti miraculo factum est c. Ibid. nu 11. indeed by fleeing away Vigilius overcommeth by being persecuted hee is victorious all humane power even hell gates doth and must yeed to him For the Emperor understanding that he was fled away repented f Iustinianus facti poenitens dignam tanto Pontifice legationem â—rnavit c. Ib. him of that which hee had done against the Pope and therefore sent messengers to recall him from Chalcedon and those not ordinary souldiers sed dignam tanto Pontifice legationem but honourable embassadours worthy the estate of so great a Bishop who should assure him even upon their oathes g Iuramento praestito honorificè revocaret Ibid. that he should be honorably received But so stout nay magnanimous was the Pope and so very circumspect and wise h Nuncijs licet magna pollicentibus haud putaevit esse credendum utpote quod in proverbio est Graecorum fides Bar. 552. nu 12. as remembring the proverbe Graecorum fides that he would neither come out of the Church nor beleeve i Neque juratis patricijs voluit fidem adhibere nisi Imperator quae contra Rom. Pontificis voluntatem de tribus Capitulis appendisset Edicta protinus revocaret atque penitus aboleret Ibid. nu 12. the messengers though swearing unto him unles the Emperour would presently recall and abolish his Edicts against the Three Chapters The Emperour yeelded k Constat cessisse tandem Vigilio Jmperatorem atque appensa amoveri jussisse a se prolata de tribus Capitulis Edicta c. Ibid. an 552. nu 15. et Jmperator appensa antea de tribus Capitulis tolli jussit Edicta Ibid. nu 19. to all that the Pope prescribed yea constat cessisse it is certaine and evident that he submitted himselfe to the Popes pleasure and that penitus in every point hee commands the Edicts which hee had published to be taken away to bee removed ex sontentia l Ibid. an 552. nu 19. Vigilii quod fecerat abrogavit and according to Vigilius direction he abrogated what before he had done Nor onely did the Emperour repent but Theodorus l Theodorus facti poenitens ad eum accedens humilis libellum supplicem ipsi Vigilio offert Ibid. an 552. nu 19. Praestitit id ipsum etiam Mennas Ibid. nu 20. also and Mennas they came and offered libellum supplicem Vigilio a booke of supplication to intreat Vigilius that he would be appeased towards them and crying Peccavi suppliciter m Ibid. nu 29. veniam petunt they beseech him in a suppliant manner to forgive their n Quis ista considerans non miretur atque obstupescat c. Ibid. nu 20. offence Oh how admirable is this in our eyes the Rocke which the builders refused is now laid againe in the head of the Corner and those Princes and Prelates which opposed themselves to the Pope doe now submit supplicate and yeeld themselves unto him The Pope o Tali praemissa satisfactione Vigilius eosdem in communionem accepit redditaque est Ecclesiae pax Ibid. nu 20. after this so ample satisfaction was pleased to be reconciled to them all and admitted them into his communion so the storme of persecution being past the Church injoyed tranquillity the Pope was brought againe with great joy from Chalcedon to Constantinople For the joy p Hoc ipso anno 552 Mennas Const Episcopus à Vigilio in communionem admissus Encaeâ—ia celebravit c. Bar. ibid. an 552. nu 22. and solemnity whereof Mennas that same yeare which was the 26 q Anno hoc 552. exordio mensis Aprilis incipit numerari Justiniani annus 26. of Iustinian and next before the generall Councell celebrated a feast of the Encaenia or dedication of the Church of three Apostles Andrew Luke and Timothy and the holy reliques r Cum sacrae reliquiae curru aâ—reo circumvectae ab â—edem Menna reconditae sunt Bar. Ibid. nu 22. of their bodies being then found Mennas carried them round about the City in a Chariot of Gold and then laid them up in the Church After all which Mennas in the peace of the Church and communion with Vigilius in an happy manner gave up the ghost and Å¿ Bar. an 552. nu 23. so the Pope t Sic itaque animis junctis restitutoque in pristinaÌ„ dignitatem atque honorem Vigilio indicta est Synodus c. Bar. an 553. nu 14. being restored to his former dignitie animis junctis their mindes being joyned together the generall Councell long wished for by Vigilius was summoned against the moneth of May in the twenty seventh yeare of Iustinian This is the summe of the narration of Baronius touching the Decree of Taciturnity and the manifold consequents thereof 5. Concerning which none I thinke can judge otherwise but that Baronius as he is miserably infatuated in this whole cause of the Three Chapters so in this passage hee was growne to that extremity of dotage that hee seemes utterly to have beene bereft both of common sense and reason For I doe constantly avouch that in no part of all this his narration which as you see is very large and copious and runneth like a great streame through divers yeares in Baronius Annals there is any truth at al. No such Decree of Taciturnity ever made by Vigilius no Synod wherein it was decreed no assent either of Mennas or Theodorus or the Emperour unto it no violating of that Decree by Mennas or Theodorus no excommunication of them or other Bishops for doing contrary to it no hanging up of the Emperours Edict after it no resistance made by Vigilius against the Emperour no persecuting of Vigilius no buffeting of him no objecting of murder unto him no fleeing either to Saint Peters Church or to Chalcedon 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
absque dubio Vigilius after his returne out of exile consented to the fift Councell If now wee can clear this reason wherein consists the whole pith of the Cardinals cause I well hope that this consent of Vigilius of which he so much boasteth will be acknowledged to bee nothing else then a Baronian dreame 12. And first admitting for a while the Cardinalls antecedent the consequent sure is inconsequent Iustinian might upon the entreatie of Narses send Vigilius home though Vigilius had not consented to the Synod after the end thereof Narses was a man for his pietie prudence fortitude felicitie in warre exceedingly beloved honored by Iustinian They who are conversant in histories are not ignorant that Emperors doe yeeld many times greater matters then the restoring of Vigilius at the entreatie of such as Narses was When the Romane Matrones g Theod. histor lib. 2. ca. 17. their husbands not daring to motion such a matter entreated Constantius to restore Liberius to his See from which he was then banished the Emperour though he was most violently bent against Liberius and had placed an other Bishop in his See yet as Theodoret writeth sic inflectebatur hee was so affected with their entreatie that he yeelded to their request thinking it sitter that there should be two Bishops at once in Rome rather then he would seeme so obdurate and unkinde as to deny that petition in the time of his triumph It was as great incongruitie and disproportion in the government of Constantius an Arian to restore Liberius then a Catholike as for Iustinian being a Catholike Emperor to restore Vigilius being now an hereticall Bishop The hatred of Constantius to Liberius was farre greater then Iustinians against Vigilius The parties entreating are so unequall that Constantius seemes to have yeelded onely for popularitie and to get the opinion of courtisie they having done nothing to merit such favour at his hands but Narses had by his valor and late victories not onely won great honor to Iustinian and to the whole Empire but had freed Italie from the servitude of the Gothes and by that meanes besides many other had merited the love and favour of Iustinian who might have seemed not onely unkind but unjust in denying the petition of one so well deserving 13. Nay what if the intreaty of Narses and narration of Anastasius doe prove the quite contrary to that which Baronius from them collects that Vigilius had not consented to the Synod when hee was restored upon that entreaty Narses did this to gratifie h Tunc adunatus clerus rogaverunt Narsete ut rogaret Principem c. Anast in vita Vig. the Romane Clergy and the Italian Bishops who intreated him to bee a meanes for the restoring of Vigilius unto them And who I pray you were they or how affected in this cause of the three Chapters Truly they were eager in defending of them and for that cause rent and divided from the Easterne Churches as Baronius i Cum Vigilius cerneret universum Orientem ab Ecclesia Romana divisum nisi Synodo consentiret Bar. an 553. nu 235 witnesseth It had beene no gratifying but a very heart griefe and vexation to such to have Vigilius the condemner of those Chapters that is in their judgement an heretike restored unto them It was Vigilius the defender of those Chapters whom they desired for whom Narses intreated and whom if any the Emperour upon his intreaty restored which by the Anastasian narration is made very evident for he k Anast in vita Vig. sheweth how the Emperour upon his suggestion mox misit jussiones suas presently sent forth his command to bring Vigilius and the rest from exile He sent not to see if they would consent to the Synod and upon their consent to release them but without any questioning of that matter hee commands that they howsoever they stood affected should be free and brought out of banishment when they were returned did the Emperour aske them one word whether they would consent to the Synod or no He did not but al that he demanded of them was this vultis habere Vigilium will yee have Vigilius to continue your Pope as hee was before or will you have Pelagius who is here among you A demonstration that Vigilius had not then consented to the Synod when the Emperor said this for there was no cause either to deprive Vigilius or elect any other in his roome but his persisting in heresie had he consented to the Synod and condemned the Three Chapters the Emperor should have done wrong unto him to have suffered any other to have beene chosen nay the See being full Pelagius could not though all the banished Clergy had desired it have beene chosen Bishop in his stead Seeing then both the Emperours words and the answer of the Clergy as Anastasius relateth them doe shew that if they had pleased they might lawfully have chosen another Pope and seeing they could not by right have done that unlesse Vigilius had continued in his pertinacious defence of heresie even hereby it may bee perceived that at his restoring he persisted in the same hereticall minde of which he was before and that hee had not then consented to the Synod nor to the condemning of those Three Chapters So blinded was the Cardinall in this cause that he could not or rather would not see how his owne reason drawne from the intreaty of Narses and the narration of Anastasius doth quite overthrow the conclusion which by them he intended to confirme 14. And all this have I said upon supposall onely of the truth of that narration touching Narses his intreatie and the Emperors yeelding thereupon to restore Vigilius out of exile But now I must adde another answere which I feare will bee much more displeasing to the Cardinal and his friends and that is that this whole narration touching the exile of Vigilius after the Synod the intreaty of Narses the restoring him from that banishment and the rest depending thereon is all untrue fictitious such as hath no ground in the whole world but onely the Cardinals owne Poeticall pate For the manifesting whereof I will insist on the two principall points in the Cardinals narration the untruth of which being declared all the rest will easily be acknowledged to bee untrue and fabulous 15. The former concernes the restoring of Vigilius out of Banishment Baronius l Bar. 554. nu 1. following Anastasius saith that the Emperour together with Vigilius restored all the rest who were banished with him Dimisit omnes cum Vigilio and by name Pelagius is expressed to bee one of them of whom the Emperour then said Hic habetis Pelagium you have here Pelagius Vigilius then with him by name among the rest was dismissed home A very fiction and fable witnesse whereof Victor Bishop of Tunea who then lived and who himselfe m Victor Tunnensis author hujus operis post custodias simul et plagas
can except against our Negative Argument which will not more forcibly refute many of the Cardinals disputes unlesse perhaps as Gretzer m Gretz Apol. pro Bar. ca. 1. § Respondet answers in defence of Baronius in another cause that the old Logick rule Ex puris negativis nihil sequi holds only in Syllogismes but not in Enthymems for which subtilty I doubt not but the very Sophisters in our Vniversities will soundly deride him so in this they will say which with as good warrant and reason they may that an agument à testimonio negativè holds onely in the Cardinals Annals or when somewhat is to be proved for the Pope or his cause but it never holds when ought makes against the Pope and the Cardinall or makes for the Protestants and their cause 23. But if Anastasius in this narration be fabulous what shall wee say of Aimonius and al those other Writers who mention this banishment of Vigilius as well as doth Anastasius What else can bee said then that which Ierome n Hier. Apol. â— adver Ruff. pa. 223. saith of divers of the ancient Writers Before that Southerne Devill Arius arose at Alexandria innocenter quaedam minus cautè loquuti sunt the ancients spake certaine things in simplicitie and not so warily which cannot abide the touch nor avoide the reprehension of perverse men Or that which Saint Austen o Aug. lib. 3. de doct Christ ca. 33. observes in himselfe and Tyconius Non erat expertus hanc haeresin Tyconius had not to deale with this heresie of the Pelagians as I have said It hath made us multò vigilantiores diligentioresque much more diligent and vigilant in scanning of this point than Tyconius was who had no enemy to stir up his diligence Right so it fals out betwixt those Writers and us of this age Aimonius Otho Platina and the rest found the banishment of Vigilius and much like stuffe as it is historied in Anastasius they in simplicitie and harmelesse innocency tooke it upon his credit The question about the Popes Cathedrall Infallibility about Vigilius hereticall Constitution and such like controversies were not moved in their dayes and therefore they spake of these things innocenter minùs cautè as Ierome saith of the Fathers and because they were not distrustfull of Anastasius they writ not so warily of these matters as others whose industry by the manifold frauds of Baronius as of another Arius hath beene whetted and they compelled to fift the truth more narrowly than they wanting opposites and oppugners did It fell out to them as it did to Ierome himselfe Ruffinus had set p Vnus sub nomine Pamphili à te editus est et eadem quae sub Pamphili nomine à te ficta sunt Hier. Apol. 2. Cont. Ruff. pa. 226. out a book in defence of Origen under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr p Vnus sub nomine Pamphili à te editus est et eadem quae sub Pamphili nomine à te ficta sunt Hier. Apol. 2. Cont. Ruff. pa. 226. Ierome at the first and for divers yeares beleeved q Inter caeâ—eros translatores posui et hunc librum à Pamphilo editum ita putans esse ut à te et tuis discipulis fuerat divulgatum Ibid. the booke to have beene indeed written by Pamphilus as Ruffinus said it was Credidi r Hier. Apol. 3. contra Ruff. pa. 238. Christiano Credidi Monacho I never dreamed that such an horrible wickednesse as to forge writings and cal them by the name of Martyrs could come from a Christian from a Monke from Ruffinus but when the question about Origen was once set on foote Ierome then sought Å¿ Hier. locis citat out every corner every Copie every Library that hee could come to and so discovered the whole forgery The very like hapned to Otho Platina and the rest they found this fabulous narration of the banishment of Vigilius and the consequents upon it in the booke of Anastasius the Writer of the Popes lives of the Pontificall the keeper of the Popes Library a man of great name and note for learning one in high favour with the Popes of his time they never suspected or dreamed that such a man a Christian a Monke that Anastasius would deale so perfidiously and record such horrible untruths But now the question about Anastasius credit and the cause of Vigilius which was not moved in their dayes being sifted and come to the skanning the whole forgery and falshood of Anastasius is made evident to the world both in this and in a number the like narrations Anastasius is not the man the world tooke him for his writings are full of lyes and fictions Not the Legendaur more fabulous than Anastasius hee for a long time was the Master of the Popes Mint by his meanes the royall stampe of many golden Fathers yea of some Councels also and infinite historicall narrations was set upon Brasse Lead and most base metals and then being brought like so many Gibeonites in old Coates and mouldy coverings Anastasius gave them an high place and honourable entertainment in the Popes Librarie and with them ever since hath the Church of God beene pestered they past for currant among men delighted in darknesse and errours such as had no need to bring them to the touch but the light hath now manifested them and made both them and their author to be detested 24. You see now the weaknesse nay the nullity of the Cardinalls reason even of his Achilles drawne from the Emperours fact in restoring or freeing him from exile which he would never have done unlesse he had consented to the Synod For seeing we have proved that Vigilius was not at all banished it clearly thence ensueth that neither Narses entreated to have him freed from exile neither did the Emperour upon that entreaty free him from exile neither did Vigilius consent to the Synod after his exile and all the other consequents which upon this foundation of Vigilius his exile the Cardinall builds like so many Castles in the ayre they all of themselves doe now fall to the ground and which I specially observe it hence followeth that Vigilius did never after the end of the fift Councell consent unto it or to the condemning of the Three Chapters either by his Pontificall decree or by his personall profession for the Cardinall assures us and delivers it as a truth which of necessity t Necesse est affirmare Bar. an 554. nu 4. must bee granted that his consent whether personall or pontificall was at no other time but when he was loosed out of banishment 25. Now at that time it neither was nor could be for there was never any such time nor was hee at all banished and therefore upon the Cardinals owne words we are assured that Vigilius after the end of the Synod never revoked his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters never after that time
condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also u Bar. an 553. nu 222. moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts x Conc. 5. Coll. 1. 7. Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor y Vict. in Chron. an 16. corruptè legitur 17. post Coss Basilij who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or
honour of that most religious Emperour The first concernes His knowledge and learning Iustinian not able to reade not know so much as his Alphabet Is there any in the world thinke you so very stupid as to beleeve the Cardinall in this so shamelesse so incredible an untruth Tanti ingenii tantaeque doctrinae fuisse constat saith Platina x In vita Bonifac 2. it is manifest that Iustinian was of so great a wit and so great learning that it is not to bee marveiled if hee reduced the lawes being confused before into order Tritemius y Lib. de script Eccles saith of him He was a man of an excellent wit and hee is deservedly z Lecum inter Ecclesiasticos scriptores merito acquisivit Jbid. reckoned among Ecclesiasticall Writers and hee expresly mentioneth three bookes which hee writ against Eutyches one against the Africane Bishops adding that none may doubt but that besides these hee writ many and very excellent Epist Possevine a Appar Sac. in verbo Iustinianus the Iesuite acknowledgeth him with Tritemius for an Ecclesiasticall Writer besides the reciting of those same books which Tritemius mentioned hee alleageth these words of their Pontificall most worthy to be observed for this purpose Iustinian the Emperour a religious man sent unto the Apostolike See his profession of faith Scriptam chirographo proprio written with his own hand testifying his great love to the Christiā Religion In regard of which his excellēt writings both Pope Agatho * Conc. 6. Act. 4. in Epist Agath and the whole sixt generall Councell with him who lived in the next age to Iustinian reckoneth him in the same ranke not onely of Ecclesiasticall Writers but of venerable Fathers with Saint Cyrill Saint Chrysostome and others whose writings doe give testimony to the truth Liberatus who lived in the dayes of Iustinian and who was no well-willer of the Emperour yet could not but record That he b In Brevia ca. 24. writ a Booke against the Acephali or Eutichean heretikes in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and that Theodorus seeing him so toyled in writing against heretikes told him Scribendi laborem non eum debere pati That he should not trouble himselfe with writing books but maintaine the faith by publishing Edicts Procopius c Lib. 3. de bell Goth. 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 d Instit Proem are governed by the lawes Tam à nobis promulgatìs 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 * Ibid. 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 e Bar. an 528. nu 2. doth affirme f Jn verbo Iust 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 g In appar verbo Suidas 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 Chirorgrapho 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 h Suid. in verbo Constantimus 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 i Poss in verbo Suidas 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 venitatem against the Historicall truth His relation in verbo Apolonius where
exagitates the Emperour with his virulent tongue and stile worse than any of all the infernall Ghosts neither alive nor dead will the Cardinall cease to torment him 11. Verily I know not where either to begin or make an end in this matter nor how it is possible for any man with sufficient gravity and severity to castigate the Cardinals insolent inhumane unchristian demenour against the most renowned and religious Emperour Did any of those worthy professours of the civill lawes but halfe so much abound with leasure as they doe with excellency of wit and learning I doubt not but they would as I doe heartily wish undertake so honourable a service not onely to Iustinian but unto GOD and his Church as in a just volume to vindicate the Emperours honour from these so many so malicious so base immodest calūnies of this Rhabsecha A worke not very laborious seeing as on the Emperours part there is such abundant store and variety of all vertues and praise-worthy actions to set forth his honour as no mans stile nor words can equall or come neare the same so on Baronius part with whom hee is to contend there are so many shamelesse and detestable untruths either devised or applauded by him that Voraginensis himselfe may seeme inferiour to him in this kinde and I much doubt whether so many voluminous bookes as might equall any two Tomes of his Annals could bee able to comprehend them all Meane while that I seeme not to shuffle this burden from mine own to other mens shoulders I will with their good leave I hope adde somewhat out of those bookes which concerne my own profession and out of my shallow reading indeavour to free the Emperour from those most dishonorable imputations of the Cardinall 12. Let us then begin with that which is the substance and ground of this whole accusation and that is The Emperours supposed falling into heresie and writing that hereticall Edict This if we can prove to bee a slander and untruth all the rest which the Cardinall builds upon this and derives from it will of themselves fall to the ground First then I doe constantly avouch that imputation of heresie to bee untrue Iustinian neither held that fantasticall heresie of the Aphthardokites nor made any Edict for the defence or propagating thereof nor did hee banish or persecute any Orthodoxall Bishop for contradicting that heresie All these are slanderous untruths which the Cardinall hath collected out of others and maliciously uttered in disgrace of the Emperour And truly that very contradiction which is not onely in other writers but in the Cardinall himselfe in setting downe this narration is no small presumption of the untruth thereof d Iustiniani indictum minimè divulgatum est Lib 4. ca. 40. Evagrius and Nicephorus e Scriptum id editum non est Lib. 17. ca. 30. expresly witnesse that the Emperours Edict was not at all published Theophanes f Hist miscel lib. 16. an 38. Justin as the Cardinall cals him or Paulus Diaconus as others and after him Sixtus Senensis g Iustin praecepit hoc dogma à sacerdotibus publicè doceri et ab omni plebe recipi Lib. 5. Bibl. annot 186. expresly witnesse the contrary that his Edict was divulged ubique transmissum and sent to every place Baronius not knowing whether was truer affirmeth them both though they be expresly contradictory First that he did publish the Edict the Cardinall teacheth h An. 564. nu 1 saying Iustinian when he saw his Edict contemni ab Orthodoxis pro nihilo duci to bee contemned and set at nought by the Orthodoxall Bishops then hee raised his persecution How could that Edict be contemned unlesse it had been published set forth for an Edict or how could they be banished for gainsaying that Edict which if it was not published had not the force of an Edict Againe that hee did not publish it the i An. 565. nu 4. Cardinall likewise tels us Hee writ indeed Non tamen promulgavit de haeresi Edictum But hee did not publish that Edict Hee did publish it hee did not publish it what truth in those witnesses who thus contradict themselves If he did publish it as the Cardinals Theophanes and Sixtus Senensis affirme then Evagrius and Nicephorus are not herein to bee credited If hee did not publish it how is the Cardinals Theophanes or Senensis herein to be credited And whether hee did publish it or not publish it the Cardinall who teacheth both is certainly herein not to bee credited This disagreement of the witnesses one with another and of Baronius with his one selfe is no good signe of truth in their Narration 13. But that Iustinian neither published nor writ any such Edict nor held any such phantasticke heresie a farre more faithfull witnesse than any of the former even Victor B. of Tunen who lived in that same time at Constantinople and who would have triumphed to have had so just an occasion to reprove disgrace the Emperor by whom he was imprisoned and banished doth make evident Hee k Vict. Tun. in Chron. plainly sheweth how Iustinian continued constant in defence of his owne Edict for condemning the Three Chapters and of the synodall Iudgement given therein even to his death In his 38. yeare the very next to that wherein Baronius fancieth him to have fallen into heresie Hee sent for foure Africane and two Aegyptian Bishops and both personally by himselfe as also by some others he laboured to draw them to the orthodox faith in condemning with him and the fift Synod the Three Chapters and when he could not prevaile Custodiae mittuntur they were put into prison In the next yeare he saith that l An. Just 39. Iustinian placed Iohn a condemner of the Three Chapters in the See of Constantinople Eutychius being banished and to his very dying day he kept Theodorus Bishop of Cabarsussus in banishment because he would not condemne the Three Chapters So orthodoxall was Iustinian and so earnest an oppugner of heresies of those especially which deny either the true humanity or the true Godhead of Christ even till his very death by the certaine testimony of Victor an eager enemy of Iustinian Seeing then he continued constant till his death in condemning the Three Chapters and maintaining his owne Edict for the condemning of them and seeing the condemning of them or the defence of that Edict is the defence of the true faith m Necessarium putavimus rectae fidei confessionem quae in sancta Dei Ecclesia praedicatur praesenti edicto facere manifestam Edict Iust pa. 492. and an oppugnation of all heresies which deny either the Divinity or Humanity in Christ specially of that of the Phantasticks or Aphthardokites as the very words n Iesus Christus est consubstantialis Patri secundum Deitatem consubstantialis nobis secundum Humanitatem passibilis carne impassibilis deitate ibid. Vtraque natura in proprietate
that is all that are Papists or members of the present Church of Rome they are all hereby tryed to defend this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius that is to maintaine all the blasphemies of the Nestorians to deny the Catholike faith the doctrine of the Apostles of the primative Church of the fift generall Councell so to be not only heretikes but convicted anathematized and cōdemned heretikes by the judgement of a generall approved Councell and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church Further yet there is a tryall of them whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine or position of faith or religion if they doe as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that they are againe hereby tryed to be hereticall not onely in the foundation but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion which relyes upon that foundation 4. This was it which netled Baronius and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes that this controversie had never beene heard of nor mentioned in the world he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men of doctrines of Churches of the Pope himselfe and their whole Romish Church and seeing that tryall he never ceased to say that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved nor spoken of for so they had avoided this most notable triall Blessed be God for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated and discussed to the utmost that among many other tryals this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed and discovered to the world it is for them I say to wish that the controversies about Arianisme Nestorianisme Eutycheanisme and the like had never beene moved they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes But Catholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies by which both the truth which they maintaine is made more resplendent and victorious themselves and their faith tryed to be like refined gold the Church thereby is quieted the truth propagated heresies confounded and the glory of Almighty God much more magnified and praysed CAP. XXIII How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus B. of Caesarea and a refutation of the same 1. SEeing now notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius this controversie could not be buried it ought him and all ill-willers of it a greater shame than that in the next place let us see how he declameth both against the Emperors Edict whereby these three Chapters were condemned Theodorus Bish of Caesarea who as he saith was the author penner of that Edict The Edict it self he calleth first Seminarium a An. 534. n. 2◠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 b An. 546. nu 9. 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 c Ibid. nu 8. 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 d Edere sanctiones sibi arrogat Iustin quas dolose conscripsissent haeretici an 546. nu 41. Egerunt callide adversarii veritatis c. ibid. nu 9. it was written and that craftily by heretikes and adversaries to the truth by the e Ingenue professus est Origenistarum studiis ea fuisse ab Jmperatore promulgata ibid. nu 49. Origenists and in particular by f Illud à Theodoro conscriptū edictum suo nomine Iustin promulgavit ibid. nu 8. Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea one gratious g an 538. nu 85 potent and familiar with the Emperour and for proofe of all this the Cardinall citeth Liberatus h an 546. nu 9. an 534. nu 21. alibi 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 i Justin factiosorum studijs se inseruit an 550. nu 14. fraudulēt k Hominem vafrum an 551. nu 4. 564. nu 7. impudēt l Ejus gratia factus impudens ibid. nu 3. a most wicked m Theodorum illum nequissimum quem mirum in modum favisse ostendimus Origenis haeresibus an 564. nu 6. occullum haereticum manifestum schismaticum an 551. nu 5. Praeceps Origenista an eod nu 4. 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 n Non Origenis tantum errorum assecla sed Eutychianae blasphemia vehementissimus propugnator an 564. nu 7. a most earnest defender of the Eutychean blasphemy nor onely so but plunged o Ita miser Iustinianus caecus cacum Theodorum sectans cū īpso pariter mergitur in profundum an 564. nu 7. agit autē de haresi Aphthardochitarum in the heresie of the Aphthardokites or Phantastickes and like a blinde guide leading the blinde Emperour into that ditch of heresie a sacrilegious p Iuque sacrilegum Theodorum pseudoepiscopum imotyrannum insurgit in perversorem legum eversorem juriū an 551. nu 5. person a pseudobishop a tyrant a perverter of lawes an overthrower of right the q Qui Imperatori omnium illi malorum causa fuit an 551. n. 3 author of all mischiefe to the Empire the very r Hic igitur nefandissimus totius Ecclesiae pestis an 564. nu 7. 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
reason of the Cardinall may take effect themselves and their Romane Church will be farre the greatest loosers how easie will it be to reject and contemne an whole Volume of their Pontificall Edicts why this was made or written by Iohn 12. that by Hildebrand or Boniface 8. the other by Iohn 23. an heretike an Atheist a Devill incarnate as a generall Councell c Johannes 23. inter Christi fideles â—itas ac mores ejus cognoscentes vulgariter dicitur Diabolus incarnatus Conc. Constant sess 11. pa. 1579. testifieth another by Formosus Steven or by one of those whom themselves professe to have beene theeves robbers Wolves Tygers and most savage beasts and Apostaticall Popes as Genebrard d Per annos ferè 150. Pontifices ferè 50. à virtute majorum prorsus defecerunt Apotactici Apostaticivè potius quam Apostolici c. Gen. lib. 4. Chronol ad an 904. calleth threescore of them all worse than the Author of this Imperiall Edict though wee should admit him to have beene such or as bad every way as Baronius describeth him 6. But the truth is the Author of the Edict was no such man as the Cardinall fancieth as it beares the name so it was indeed the worke of Iustinian no childe can have more honour by his father than it by such an Emperour and though Baronius having so often slandered Iustinian to bee utterly rude unlearned one that could not so much as reade nor knew his Alphabet or first elements could not but in good congruity confidently deny Iustinian to bee the Writer or Author of so learned and divine an Edict or as himselfe cals it of so exact a Catechisme yet considering what before was declared both out of Procopius of the Emperours often tossing of bookes among the Bishops out of Liberatus of his great paines taken in writing against heretikes and for defence of the Councell of Chalcedon and out of Platina calling Iustinian a very learned Emperour I cannot thinke but that although Iustinian might use the advise helpe and industry of Mennas Theodorus or some other Bishops in this as in other Edicts concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires yet still the ultima manus the last correction and perfecting of all was the Emperours owne doing the rather because both in his other Edicts that against Anthimus against Origen as also in his letters to this Synod and the rest there is so uniforme a stile so Imperiall and so divine a kinde of writing that the same Genius of Iustinian seemes to breathe in them all 7. But Baronius e An. 546. nu 8 9. tels us that both Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius doe testifie Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea to bee the Author of this Edict Baronius is ever like himselfe that is untrue and fraudulent Not one of these say it first not Liberatus hee indeed affirmes f Jn suo Brevi ar ca. 24. Theodorus and some others to have suggested this unto the Emperour that hee would condemne those Three Chapters by a publike Edict or booke but hee addes withall Rogaverunt eum ut dictaret Libellum they prayed the Emperour that he would dictate or indite the booke against the Three Chapters and the Emperour consented saith Liberatus g Annuit eis Princeps Jbid. unto them hoc se laetus implere promisit and he gladly promised to doe so that is to indite or dictate such an Edict So farre is Liberatus from affirming as Baronius alleageth him Theodorus to bee the Author of this booke or Edict that hee teacheth the quite contrary As for Facundus he h Ea quae scribi fecerunt titulo nominis tui prae notarunt verum nos illa scripta nolumus tua dici Fac. apud Bar. an 546. nu 9. saith indeed the Edict was not written by Iustinian but by the adversaries of the truth but that Theodorus writ it that is the Cardinals addition Facundus saith it not and even in that which hee saith that the Edict is contrary to the Emperours faith Facundus doth so manifestly slander both the Emperour as if hee thought the Three Chapters were not to be condemned and the Edict also as if the condemning of these Three Chapters were contrary to the Catholike faith that there is no credit at all to bee given to him in his report touching the Author who is so untrue in his reports both touching the matter of the Edict and touching the knowne profession and faith of the Emperour 8. The Cardinals Vigilius now remaineth whose words i Inter Epist Vigilij Epist 17. tom 2. Conc. pa. 503. b. are these spoken to Theodorus The booke condemning the Three Chapters by their meanes was read in the Kings Pallace before certaine Greeke Bishops à quibus assentationum favorem tuis vocibus exigebas What if one should here oppose the Cardinall and say tuis vocibus were the Ablative case and that Theodorus had by his words sollicited the other Bishops favorably to consent to the Emperors Edict How will Baronius assure us that they must bee taken in the Dative case as if Theodorus had sollicited them to consent to his words that is as the Cardinall supposeth to the Edict which was penned and written by him or whereof he was the Author Sure against this Baronian construction the words of Liberatus are very pregnant seeing Theodorus as hee sheweth was one who entreated the Emperour to indite or dictate the booke and the Emperour promised so to doe If then Theodorus sollicited the Bishops to consent to the words of the Edict hee certainly urged them by this testimonie of Liberatus to consent not to his owne but to the Emperours words of whose inditing and dictating the Edict was Admit them to bee the Dative how knowes the Cardinall that by tuis vocibus are ment the words of the Edict might not Theodorus signifie to the Bishops his owne great liking of the Emperours Edict and perswade them to the like to say as he said to consent to his words in approving the Imperiall Edict The Card. was too secure negligeÌ„t in relying on these words tuis vocibus which being so ambiguous receive divers those also just exceptions But yet there is a farre worse fault in this proofe that the Epistle whence the Cardinall citeth these words though it beare the name of Vigilius yet is intruth not the Epistle of Vigilius but a very counterfeit and base forgery under his name full of untruths unworthy of any credit at all which besides other proofes hereafter to be alleaged faineth Mennas to be Bishop of Constantinople and to be excommunicated together with Theodorus by Vigilius foure or five yeares after hee was dead which censure was to stand in force till Mennas repented of his contumacie against the Popes Decree and should be reconciled to him This lying and base forgery doth Baronius bring to prove Theodorus and not Iustinian to bee the author of this Imperiall Edict Might not one say here as was said of the Asse
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 k Cic. de Senect 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 l Act. 24.12.13 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 m Ca. 20. 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 hee had demonstratively proved Theodorus to bee guilty hereof hee rageth and foameth like a wilde Bore against him calling him a most wicked man and most vehement propugner of blasphemy the plague of the whole Church who with a visor affrayed the Emperour like a little Boy from the truth and led him captive into heresâ—e Doe you not thinke that the Cardinall needed to be sent to Anticyra when he writ this not onely without truth but without braine and ordinary sense 11. The other crime that Theodorus opposed himselfe to Vigilius and to the decree of silence is like the former save that this difference is to be observed betwixt them that the former was forged by Baronius but this later is grounded on a foolish and forged writing applauded by Baronius fictions and forgeries they are both but the one was fained to the Cardinals hand for the other hee was faine to beate it out of his owne anvill There was neither any such decree for taciturnity neither did Theodorus nor needed hee to oppose himselfe to Vigilius for Vigilius as well as Theodorus all the whole time almost from his comming to Constantinople till the fift Councell was assembled wholly consented to condemne the Three Chapters as besides other evident proofes before alleaged to which I remit the reader that one testimony of the Emperour doth undeniably demonstrate Quod n Epist Iustin ad Conc. 5. Act. 1 pa. 520. a. vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum per plurima declaravit Vigilius hath by very many things declared that he hath been alwayes since his comming to Constantinople of the same minde in condemning the Three Chapters what thinke you here againe of Baronius who upon this occasion of contradicting Vigilius his decree of silence reviles Theodorus calling o Locis supra citatis him sacrilegious a Pseudo-Bishop a tyrant a schismatike a perverter of lawes the author of all evils and yet when the Cardinall hath said all this there is no truth nor reality in the cause and occasion for which hee thus rageth and revileth no opposition to Vigilius no
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 i Coll. 6. pa. 575. a. 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 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 k Vide Gretz tractatus varios alios ejus farinae 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 a Dum falsa quaedam ibi in Actis 5. Concilij asserta reperiuntur de impostura non mediocrem suspicionem inducunt cum viz. ibi dictum habetur Ibam negasse Epistolā esse suam Bar. an 553. nu 211 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 b Duo aut plura mendacia de Ibae epistola leguntur Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. pa. 606. b. Acta Conc. 5. nō uno loco indicant quod Ibas Epistolam non agnoverit verū haec sententia c. iid p. 607. a 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 c Ibas non est ausus eam suam dicere Epistolam Iustin edictum pa. 496. b. Epistolam Jbas denegat suam Greg. lib. 7. Epist 53. 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 d Abnegans Epistolam Coll. 6. pa. 563. b. Eo quod abnegabat Ibas illa Coll. eadem pa. 564. a. Vnde Jbas eam abnegabat ibid. alibi 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 inure with calumnies the untruth
is there set downe The Cardinall by the same reason might prove it a forgery as well as those other two and conclude the Acts of the Ephesine Councell to be falsified by Impostors and so to be of no credit as well as the Acts of this fift Synod Further yet there was another law against Nestorius published by the same Theodosius after the Ephesine latrociny and recorded in the Acts of the Councell d Act. 3. pa. 85. at Chalcedon wherein the Emperour shewes againe his detestation of that heresie approving the condemning and deposing of Domnus of Theodoret and Irenie Nestorian Bishops as also of Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorilen whom he thought to be Nestorians but therein the Emperour was mis-informed as hee had beene before in the time of the holy Ephesine Synod when upon like mis-information hee condemned Cyrill and Memnon as well as Nestorius That law though acknowledged also by Baronius e an 449. n. 130 to be true is not extant in the Theodosian Code nor doth it accord with that which is there expressed would not any man thinke it ridiculous hence to conclude as the Cardinall doth that certainly it is therefore a forgery and the Acts of Chalcedon containing such forgeries are to be held of no credit Thus while the Cardinall labours to discredit these Acts he so foully disgraceth himselfe that men may justly doubt whether hee were his owne man when he writ these things which are so voide both of truth and reason CAP. XXXIII The third addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union is falsely inserted refuted 1. THe third proofe which Baronius a Nestoriani coÌ„mentitias quasdam Theodoreti vulgavere Epistolas extat ex illis ad Nestorium inscripta ad finem 5. actionis 5. Synodi an 436 nu 10. brings to shew that these Acts are corrupted by the additions of some forged writings inserted among them is an Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union set downe in the fift Collation b Pa. 558. b. wherein Theodoret professeth to Nestorius that he did not receive the letters of Cyrill as orthodoxall nay hee sheweth himselfe so averse from consenting to them and so addicted to Nestorius after the union made that hee thus writeth I say the truth unto you I have often read them and earnestly examined them and I have found them to be free that is full in uttering hereticall bitternesse nor will I ever consent to those things which are unjustly done against you nec si ambas manus no though both my hands should bee cut off from me Thus writeth Theodoret in that Epistle which the holy Councell first and after them we affirme and professe to have beene the true writing of Theodoret and the same to be a counterfeit a forgery and none of Theodorets but framed by heretikes Baronius confidently avoucheth 2. Now in this cause having the Synodall Acts and with them the judgment of the whole generall approved Councell on our side wee might justly reject this as a calumny of Baronius but for as much as hee not onely saith it but undertakes to prove the same wee will examine his reasons that so the integrity and credit of these Acts may be more conspicuous His reasons are two The first c Bar. loco cit is grounded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus who writeth d Leont lib. de sect Act. 4 extat com 4. Bibl. S. Patrum Edit 3. thus It is to bee knowne that certaine letters of Theodoret and Nestorius are caried about in which either of them doe lovingly embrace the other sed fictitiae sunt but they are counterfeit and devised by heretikes thereby to oppugne the Councell at Chalcedon but Theodoret hated Nestorius c. Thus Leontius and the Card. adds e Bar loco citat this extat ex illis Epistolis una one of those counterfeit Epistles written to Nestorius is extant in the fift Councell neare the end of the fift action thereof 3. What if wee should except against Leontius though hee f Nam Leontius meminit Eulogij Episcopi Alexandrini lib. de sect Act. 5. Gregorius vero et Eulogius aequales et extat Epist Greg ad ipsum lib. 6. Epist 37. bee as ancient as Pope Gregory as a man not of sufficient credit Or will the Card. thinke you defend him and take his testimony for sound and good paiment then farewell for ever the books of Toby Iudith Wisdome Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus for Leontius g Leont Act. 2. reckoning the bookes of the old Testament to be twenty two and expresly mentioning them all without these saith Hi sunt libri these are the bookes as well of the old as of the new Testament which in the Church are held for Canonical I doubt the Card. will here say that the case is altered In this hee speaks against them and their Trent faith not against us Here the note of their Index expurgatorius h Magister Sac. Palat. pa. 134. primi tom Indicis Romae â—liti an 1607. must bee embraced write saith the Index in the margent diminutè Catalogum texuit Leontius Leontius recites not fully the Catalogue of the sacred bookes And yet note one memorable thing by the way God who suffered not Laban to speake an ill word against Iacob and who turned the curses of Balaam into a blessing to Israell the same God over-ruled their pen or hands as hee did once the tongue of Caiphas and in stead of diminutè texuit they have uttered a Prophecy against themselves printing even in that edition i Edit 3. Bibl. S. Patr. per Marg. la â—igne Paris an 1610. which past through their Purgatorian fire of correction Divinitùs Catalogum librorum divinorum texuit Leontius hath recited this Catalogue by an heavenly inspiration and yet for all that divinitus texuit the Cardinall will not beleeve Leontius whom against us he perswades all men to beleeve But howsoever in other matters as by name in that Catalogue texto divinitus Leontius is to bee beleeved of a certainty hee is no fit witnesse in this cause of the Three Chapters Hee was too partiall that I say not hereticall in this point too much addicted to the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret let Baronius himselfe say whether his commending of Theodorus k Extiterunt ijs temporibus duo viri Diodorus et Theodorus Mopsvestiae qui universas literas sacras commentariis illustrabant Leont Act. 4. Bishop of Mopsvestia and Diodorus Bishop of Tarsis for illustrating the whole Scripture by their Commentaries for being such worthy men as that no man l Nec ipsis vivis quisquam dictuÌ„ aliquod eorum reprehendebat Jbid. while they lived did reprove any one saying of theirs bee not untrue and after both the person of the one and writing of both condemned by the generall Councell impious also and
the Country when hee writ that whole part of his Annals which concernes these three Chapters A little before he professeth y an 432. nu 80. 81. this to be truly the Epistle of Theodoret and now hee will prove that it was not that it could not possible be the Epistle of Theodoret. Yea which is no lesse worthy of observing hee before not onely allowed this Epistle with the inscription wherein it was sayd that it was writ to Nestorius after the union to be Theodorets but he further sayth z an eod nu 82 that Theodoret seemes to have beene of this minde which is noted in this Epistle etiam post concordiam even after the agreement union and concord made with Cyrill seeing Theodoret so obstinately professeth in his letters that hee would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius Sicque certum est aliquandiu perseverasse and so it is certaine that Theodoret continued some while after the union with an angry minde against Cyrill But now hee will prove the quite contrary that Theodoret for a certainty writ no such things nor had any fellowship with Nestorius after the union So both it is certaine that Theodoret writ this and yet it is certaine he writ it not certaine that hee writ it after the union and yet certaine that he writ it not after the union That is to speake plainly it is certaine the Cardinall demonstrates himselfe and his Annals to be false untrue and ridiculous repugnant both to the truth and to his owne writings 7. This might suffice to oppose against whatsoever Baronius can produce If he prove by any testimony this Epistle not to be Theodorets I on the contrary will prove it to bee Theodorets by the Cardinals owne testimony If he prove by any reason Theodoret after the union not to have favoured Nestorius and his heresie I on the contrary will prove that after the union hee favoured Nestorius by a stronger reason even by the Cardinals owne confession If hee bring Theodoret I bring Baronius and so I might Par pari referre quod male mordeat hominem But besides this confession of Baronius which disproves whatsoever he can prove against us in this matter I will adde somewhat concerning those Epistles of Theodoret on which hee much relyeth Those Epistles comming out of the a Epistolas Theodoreti 157. numero Graecè scriptas continet codex Vaticanus c. Bar. an 430. nu 48. Vaticane the very Mint-house of forgery are in truth nothing else but counterfeits as hereafter I purpose more fully to demonstrate for this time I will onely mention that which most concernes this present cause out of those Epistles which the Cardinall most urgeth and those are his Epistles to Dioscorus to Pope Leo specially seeing that to Dioscorus as the Cardinall b An. 444. nu 20. tels us declareth the faith of Theodoret to bee such and so orthodoxal that it is enough ad abstergendum suspitionem to wipe away all suspition of heresie wherewith by reason of some counterfeit writings in the Synod I thinke he meanes the fift Councell hee was blamed And indeed in those Epistles there is a plain condemning of the heresies of Nestorius but first those Epist were writ long after c Epistola ad Leonem scripta erat post Ephesinum Latrocinium illud habitum an 449. altera ad Dioscorum scripta est an 444. ut ait Bar. illo an nu 18. at unio facta est an 432. Bar. illo an nu 72. the union and so cannot helpe the Cardinall at all in this point and if they had beene writ presently upon that union yet those not to bee truely Theodorets divers circumstances doe make evident In the Epistle to Dioscorus * Extat apud Bar. an 444. nu 21. Theodoret is made to relate how long before that time hee had beene a Bishop and where hee had preached The yeares of his Bishopricke he reckons d Sex annos ibi ego docens tempore Theodosâ— alios tradecim annos tempore Johannis praeter haec jam septimus agitur annus quo Domnus sedet Epist Theod. apud Bar. an 444. nu 23. to bee twenty six all which time he continued a Preacher at Antioch Whence Baronius e Ibidem observeth Theodoretum Episcopum publicum semper egisse Catechistam Antiochiae that Theodoret being a Bishop was continually the publike Catechist at Antioch during that time of three Patriarchs Theodatus Iohn and Domnus And at least it might bee supposed that hee was a Preacher or as the Cardinall cals him a Catechiser in that City before hee was Bishop another of those Epistles that ad Nonium f Extat apud Bar. an 448. nu 12. et seq wil assure us the contrary for there Theodoret saith of himselfe I stayed in a Monastery quousque Episcopus factus till I was made a Bishop And Baronius g An. 423. nu 10. further explanes this saying creatus Episcopus after Theodoret was made and ordained Bishop he was held at Antioch to be the preacher there first by Theodatus then by Iohn his successor Theodoret goes on to set forth his owne orthodoxy and praise saying h Epist ad Dioscorum apud Bar. an 444. nu that though hee so long continued a preacher at Antioch yet in all those yeares neither i Et usque hodiâ— cum tantum tempus praeterierit nullus neque Deo dilectorum Episcoporum neque pijssimoruÌ„ Cleâ—icorum ea quae à me dicta sunt reprehendit aliquando Ibid. any of the Bishops nor any of the Clergy did reprove his doctrine or sayings which hee explanes in that other Epistle k Epist Theod. 113. extat apud Bar. an 449. nu 115. to Pope Leo saying thus Whereas I have beene a Bishop these sixe and twenty yeares yet in all this time non subij quantumvis levem reprehensionem I have not beene so much as lightly reproved for my doctrine but by the favor of God I have delivered more than 1000 or as Baronius l An. 424. nu 19. corrects it more than ten thousand soules from Marcionisme Arianisme Eunomianisme so that in eight hundred Parishes so many are in my Diocesse of Cyrus there hath not remained no not one weede but my flocke is free from all hereticall errour Thus hee in that Epistle Which his orthodoxy hee yet more fully declares in another Epistle m Epist Theodoreti 81. ad Eusebium Ancyrae Episcopum apud Bar an 443. nu 1â— Looke on my writings both before and since the holy Ephesine Councell in singulis quae edidimus operibus Ecclesiae sanus sensus mens mihi conspicitur in all and every one of my writings the doctrine of the Church and my sound opinion is conspicuous And againe in that to Nomus n Theodor. Epist 81. apud Bar. an 448. nu 14. speaking of the same his integrity of faith in all these five and twenty yeares saith he Nec à quoquam
3. ad tom 6. Act. Conc. Eph. p. 907 which Theodoret made to the Nestorians at Chalcedon during the time of that Ephesine Councell of which Peltanus sayth Theodoret is caryed insano impitu with a furious rage against Cyrill and the other Orthodoxall Bishops of the holy Councell comparing them to Serpents Basiliskes murderers and the like Neither doth he onely vomit out his choler against them but he plainly girded at the Emperour also Did he accuse none when he uttered all this Nay he d Theod. loc cit affirmes Catholikes which hold Christ God and man to be one person and so to be passible to be worse than Heathens The Heathens sayth he taught the Heaven the Sun and the Starres to be impassible and shall wee beleeve the onely begotten Son of God to be passible and such as may dye Absit Salvator ne sic simus Apostatae farre be this from us O Saviour let us not be such Apostates as to teach this let us not suspect that our Saviour could suffer Let any man now judge whether it be not a shamelesse untruth which those Epistles avouch that Theodoret was not reproved for this doctrine no not lightly reproved in all those 26. yeares whereas both then and ever since the whole Catholike Church hath accursed his impiety and heresie which he so insolently then preached And omitting infinite like proofes of the falshood of that Epistle the next yeare after the Ephesine Councell there was a Synod e Tom. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 5. pa. 831. pa. 927. held at Antioch where Iohn and divers other Bishops concluded the full union with Cyrill wherein they all condemne anathematize the heresies of Nestorius which their profession of faith and this condemning of the Nestorian heresie Iohn sent both to Cyrill to Pope Sixtus and to Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople Now seeing Theodoret not onely in former time had beene so violent and furious in defence of that doctrine but then and long after continued in the same minde was not his doctrine reproved nay was it not accursed and anathematized by Iohn Patriarch of Antioch and many other Bishops subject to his Patriarchship What a most vile and shameless untruth then is it which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter that in the whole space of 25. or 26. yeares he neither accused any nor was accused nor reproved no not lightly reproved either by Iohn or any other but that all and every one of his writings contained the true doctrine of the Church But enough of those Epistles which to be forged and false this which is already sayd may for this time suffice 11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affirmeth that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius and withall seene how weake and unsound his proofe is in this point I will yet adde one consideration which will further manifest and even demonstrate the same That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certaine it is that when Theodoret writ that history he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme whereof in the very last Chapter f Lib. 5. ca. 40. he gives an eminent proofe commending Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia for a worthy teacher of the whole Church and for an oppugner of all heresies adding that whereas he was a Bishop thirty six yeares he never ceased optimam herbam sanctis Christi ovibus suppeditare to feed the flocke of Christ with the best herbes None can doubt but hee who so much extolleth so detestable an heretike and approveth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius suckt for the best herbes or doctrines but he must needs be confessed to bee as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe If now it may appeare that this history was writ by him after the union there can no doubt remaine but that after the union Theodoret favoured Nestorius and all his heresies 12. Baronius knowing this inevitably to follow to decline the whole force of this tels g an 427. nu 28 us that Theodoret writ his history not onely before the union but before the jarre also yea before the time of the holy Councell at Ephesus whereof having given some sleight conjectures in the end he concludes Dicendum est It must be sayd that Theodoret writ this history in the space of those three yeares which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Councell So he Shall I say the Cardinall was deceived and overseene herein No I will not suspect that such an evident error could creepe into the minde of so exact an Annalist I rather thinke his intent was wilfully and wittingly to deceive others and that therefore hee sayd this to smother that truth touching Theodorets continuance in Nestorianisme which he elsewhere so often denieth Theodoret h Lib. 5. hist Eccl. ca. 36. mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or reliques of Chrysostome and bringing them to Constantinople The Cardinall was so far from being ignorant hereof that himselfe citeth i Bar. an 438. nu 6. Theodoret with a memorandum He ante omnes above them all mentioneth this translation but in few words That translation as Socrates k Lib. 7. ca. 44. and Marcellinus l In suo Chron. witnesse was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consull that is as the Cardinall also accounteth in the yeare 438. Now seeing the union betweene Iohn and Cyrill was made in the yeare 432. it unavoydably followeth that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven yeares at least after the union and how much more I know not whether 8. 10. or 16. after it for it is uncertaine or if hee writ it as the Cardinall divineth before the Ephesine Synod that he writ it prophetically writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine yeares after his history was written The truth is an orderly and historicall continuation of things done he doth not write but onely to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia where his history for any such continuation of succeeding matters doth end but to shew and testifie that he writ his history after the yeare 438. hee purposely mentioneth some of those acts which fell out in that yeare and hereof further there may be a presumption because Theodoret as Baronius tels m Ecquid mirum si quod dixerat Sozomenus à Theodoreto repetitum inveniatur Bar. in Martyr Rom. Decemb. 23. us followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mopsvestia now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius as himselfe witnesseth So that if Theodoret as the Cardinall tels us tooke it out of Sózomen and his booke was not published till the yeare 439. sure the Cardinall of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time otherwise than prophetically in this point write his history It remaineth now seeing Theodoret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this
about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius p Domnus caepit an 446. quare ejus an 10. erit 55â— quo anno obijsse Vigilium ait Bar. an 555. nu 1. So this decree by the Cardinals owne reason is but a forgery as in very truth it is Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse fragment will admit an error of the writing Paulus being put for Domnus why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret as not to thinke a like errour of the pen in it and Iohannes to be put for Domnus 16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editioÌ„s of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius r In append ad Cod. Iustin the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Å¿ Bar. an 451. nu 129. Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again t An 530. nu 4. Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptioÌ„ without al doubt Iohn being dead ten u Iohannes 2. obijt an 9. Iustiniani Bar. an 535. nu 26. at Edictum editum an 20. Iustiniani Bar. an 546. nu 8. yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius x Iohannis Papae tempore editum mendaci inscriptione notatur Bar. an 546. nu 10. liquido constat non ante praesens tempus an vid. 20. Iustin potuisse esse conscriptum libellum illum Bar. ibid. constat Edictum Vigilij tempore conscriptum an 534. nu 21. himselfe both declares and proves professing that Inscription to be false Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstration drawne from the title and Inscription oh how happily how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against and contradicting that Edict Hee might have said Why that Edict was none of Iustinians nor ever published by him for the Inscription is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell or any Synodall Acts at all of it for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause to define the truth delivered by the Edict This had beene a short cut indeed and the Cardinall like another Alexander by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then nor ever I thinke till the acts of this fift Synod and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal for notwithstanding the falshood of that inscription title the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit but a true imperiall Edict truely published by Iustinian y Imperator promulgavit Edictum Bar. an 546. nu 8. Hactenus Iustiniani Edictum Ibid. nu 37. et saepissime similia contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say z Scias perperam additum ipsum missum ad Iohannem Bar. an 534. nu 21. et an 546. nu 10. that addition to Iohn is added put amisse in the title by some later hand by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret the name of Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle rather than by reason of such an errour as happeneth in many Epistles and writings to declame not onely against the Epistle as a base forgery and none of Theodorets but even against all the Acts a At quam fidem rogo merentur Acta hujusmodi qua sunt hiâ— contexta commentis Bar. an 553. nu 46. of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is found extant 17. None I thinke doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire and without all corruption as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Councels To omit the rest in those of Chalcedon b Act. 1. pa. 8. a. the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene held when Zeno and Posthumianus were Consuls in the third Indiction An undoubted errour For that Ephesine Conventicle was held when c Marcell in Chron. hinc certo liquet quâ—a Conciliabulum Ephesinum sequutum est illud Constantinopoli habitum in quo condemnatus est Eutyches à Flaviano at hoc Constantinopoli habitum est Protogene et Asterio Coss ut patet in Concil Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 30. Protogenes and Asterius were Consuls not when Zeno and Posthumianus neither were Zeno and Posthumianus Consuls in the third but in the first d Vt liquet ex Marcell in Chron. Indiction neither was the Councell held either in the first or in the third but in the e Vt liquet ex eodem Marc. second Indiction and therefore both Baronius f Ba. an 448. n. 58 and Binius g Haec verba teÌ„pore Zenonis et Posthumiani Jnd ctione 3. mendosa sunt surreptitia Bin. Not. in Conciliab Eph. to 1. Conc. pa. 1017. b say these words tempore Zenonis Post humiani venerabilium Consulum indictione tertia are false and by surreption crept into the Acts. Againe the sixteenth Action or Session is sayd to have beene on the twenty eight h Quinto Kalendaâ— Novembris Act. 16. Conc. Chalc. of October A manifest errour seeing their thirteenth Action i 3. Kalend. Novemb Conc. Chal. Act. 13. or Session was on the nine and twentieth and their fourteenth k Pridie Kalend Nov. Conc. Chal. Act. 14. Session on the thirtieth of October Yea there are in those Acts farre greater faults than these For in the third Action l Pa. 84. b. is set downe the Imperiall Edict of Valentinian and Martian for condemning of Eutyches and yet that Edict was not published untill the 26. of Ianuary when m Datum 7. Kalend Febr. Sporario Coss in fine Edicti Sporarius was Consull whereas the Councell of Chalcedon and all the Acts therof was ended on the first day of November n Nam ultima Sessio habita est Kalendis
which is sayd to have beene the copy of Albinus and Proculus and in that old written booke this Action is found saith Baronius u â—n 451. n. 130 A very Gibeonite you may be sure It came with old moulded bread such as was fittest to feed a dead man with old mouldy shooes and torne clothes and so deceived the Cardinall No it deceived him not but by it hee would deceive others and not onely most shamefully deprave and corrupt the Acts of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as hee and Binius have done herein but make a way and shew an occasion to carpe at the Synodall Acts of the fift Councell and had not the Cardinall beene conscious of this fault in this Action you may be well assured that he would not have omitted so foule an errour in the fift Synod and the Acts thereof as to avouch Domnus to have beene dead before the Councell of Chalcedon when hee scraped and raked together all that he could finde and they are all but motes to this beame whereby he might disgrace those Acts. 10. But the Cardinall will not for all this yeeld in this matter nay he will defend this Action also For objecting x an 451. n. 130 to himselfe how any such Action could be held concerning Domnus seeing Iustinian testifieth hee was dead before the Councell of Chalcedon hee answereth Iustinian was ignorant of this Action and he had some other Action of the Councell of Chalcedon touching Domnus Quam nusquam legimus Which we no where finde So Baronius Who hereby would have it thought that Iustinian and the fift Councell had not the true Copies of the Councell at Chalcedon but that these which the Cardinall frameth they are the onely perfect and entire Acts thereof Certainly Iustinian was ignorant of this Action and so was the fift Councell And no marvell when the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe was ignorant thereof And whether the Emperour and the whole fift generall Councell wherein were present foure Patriarkes and the Bishop of Chalcedon also whether these living about an hundred yeares after that Councell bee not like to have had more true Copies of the Councell at Chalcedon than Baronius living eleven hundred yeares after it it is not hard to judge 11. Now for that which the Cardinall would perswade that whereas Iustinian and the fift Synod sayd that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Domnus after he was dead they sayd this as he supposeth out of some other Action y Ex quibus apparet Justinianum alicujus alterius actionis quam nusquam legimus cognitionem habuisse Bar. loc cit of Chalcedon which is not now extant and thereby would blemish the Acts of the Councell of Chalcedon as being defective and wanting that Action Truly his Cardinalship is foully mistaken herein Neither Iustinian nor the fift Councell had any such Action as he vainly and idlely dreameth of It was these very Acts which now wee have out of which they affirme that For they say not that the Councell did that in any action particularly concerning Domnus nor yet that in expresse termes they condemned Domnus But they say the Councell condemned him and so they did in that they approved both his condemnation and deposition decreed in the Ephesine Latrociny That this they did the acts now extant doe declare whereas a Act. 10. pa. 115. the most holy Bishops of Rome accounted all that was done in the second Ephesine Synod to be void it is manifest that the judgement concerning the Bishop of Antioch is excepted so sayd the Popes Legates and Stephen b Ibid. I also judge those things to be voyd which were done at Ephesus absque his quae gesta sunt adversus Domnum excepting those things which were done against Domnus and to the like effect sayd they all Domnus then being dead at the time of the Councell at Chalcedon and having beene in the Ephesine Latrociny both condemned and deposed seeing the Councell of Chalcedon approved both his condemnation and deposition and the substitution of Maximus which were all done in that Ephesine Latrociny as just and lawfull hence it is that the fift Councell sayth and that out of these very Acts and no other as themselves explaine that c Chalcedonensis Synodus Domnum condemnavit cum confirmasset condemnationem ejus suscepisset Maximi ordinationem Conc. 5. Cell 6. pa. 575. the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned Domnus being dead whose condemnation they approved when at that time of their approving it hee was dead So neither are the Acts of the fourth Councell imperfect nor these of the fift untrue in affirming this of Domnus but that Vaticane and Gibeonitish Action inserted into the Acts of Chalcedon and approved by Baronius and Binius is both false ridiculous and impossible 12. The last whom I will now mention is Anastasius the writer of the lives of their Popes An author whom Baronius much followeth and relyeth upon almost in all parts of his Annals whom I doe not mention in this place as doubting whether those lives are truly his but as doubting nay rather without doubt assuring both my selfe and others that such credit is not to bee given to him and to his reports as the Cardinall and Binius doe give This I doubt not to demonstrate if ever I come to handle the second Nicene Synod and that which they call the eighth wherein Anastasius was a stickler yea and the penner of the one and correcter of the other For this present I will onely examine the life of Vigilius written by him wherein I doe constantly affirme that there are not so many lines as lyes set downe by Anastasius Which that it may appeare that I doe not speake in any spleene against Anastasius but out of the evidence of truth give me leave to take a view of some particulars therein those especially which most concerne this our present cause 13. First Anastasius d Anast in vita Vigil Nam Anastasius continuavit historiam Damasi ab obitu Damasi usque ad Adrianum secundum Possev in App. describing the entrance of Vigilius to have beene eodem tempore at that time when Bellisarius made warre against Vitiges the King of the Gothes sayth that Vitiges fled away by night but Iohn surnamed the bloody pursued after him and brought him to Bellisarius and Vigilius at Rome and there Bellisarius tooke the Sacrament to bring him safe to Iustinian All untrue First it is untrue that Vitiges fled away by night or secondly that hee fled at all or thirdly that Iohn did pursue him in flight or fourthly that Iohn tooke him or fiftly that Iohn brought him to Bellisarius or sixtly that hee brought him to Vigilius or seventhly that he brought him to Rome or eightly that Bellisarius tooke any such oath or ninthly any Sacrament or tenthly tooke it in the Church of Iulius or eleventhly tooke it to assure them that hee would bring Vitiges to Iustinian all
vanquished and slaine not by Narses for he as Procopius x Proc. lib. 3. pa. 408. sheweth came not as chiefe Generall into Italy untill the 18. yeare of the Gothicke warre which is the 27. of Iustinian Againe seeing it followeth in Anastasius Tunc adunatus then when Totilas was vanquished and killed did the Romane Clergie entreat to have Vigilius with the rest restored from exile It hence clearly followeth that Anastasius can meane no other exile than such as was inflicted upon him some three or foure yeares before for the cause of Anthimus and not that which followed the Councell for the Councell was not held in the seventeenth yeare of the Gothicke warre or six and twentieth of Iustinian but in the eighteenth of the one and seven and twentieth of the other as the Acts doe witnesse or if Baronius will needs have the exile following the Councell to be that from which Narses entreated that he might be delivered then it certainly followeth upon this account of Binius reckoning Totilas death to be in the six and twentieth of Iustinian that Narses and the Romane Clergy entreated the Emperour to restore Vigilius out of exile before he was cast into exile nay before the Councell was assembled or before Vigilius had given any cause why he should be banished which doth not well accord with the wisedome of Narses and the Romane Clergy to entreat nor was it possible for the Emperour to grant The same is further manifest by the other note of time which Binius * Bin not cit sets down that Totilas was killed decimo anno regni sui in the 10 year of his reigne as the holy Monk Bennet had foretold unto him for Totilas was made King of the Goths in the 7. yeare of the Gothick war as Procopius y Hujus belli annus sextus exierat Proc. lib. 3 pa. 346. Totilas ex conventu suscepit imperium idem pa. 347. testifieth which was in the 16. yeare of Iustinian and as it seemeth by his Acts in the beginning of the yeare But to helpe the Benedictine prophesie we will suppose him to be made in the last end of all and account the next yeare for his first yet even so must Totilas be vanquished and slaine before the beginning of the 18. yeare of the Gothicke war or 27. of Iustinian for with the end of the 17. yeare of the Gothicke warre is fully completed the tenth yeare of Totilas Wherefore if Benedict was not a lying Prophet and if Totilas was slaine decimo anno in his tenth yeare then all the former inconveniences doe upon this account also ensue that he was not vanquished by Narses that then when he was slain Narses the Romane Clergy did not entreat for the delivery of Vigilius out of banishment and the like seeing it is certaine that Narses came not into Italie and that Vigilius was not banished by that Baronian exile which followeth the Councell till the 18. yeare of the Gothicke war and 27. of Iustinian Or if any to excuse Binius will expound as Baronius z Necatur Totilas anno undecimo regnisui inchoato decimo expleto Bar. an 553. nu 16. doth the prophesie to be meant that Totilas was slaine anno decimo that is in the tenth yeare being complete that plainly contradicteth the prophesie for if the tenth yeare was wholly ended then was he not slaine in the tenth but onely in the eleventh yeare nor in the tenth otherwise than in the first second or sixt yeare nay slaine in the yeare before hee was borne that is slaine after all those yeares ended and fully completed 24. Now that which Binius a Se Rom. Pontifici obsequentem praebet Bin. loc citat et itidem Bar. an 553. nu 16. interlaceth of the Emperours being so obsequent and obedient to the Pope or as Baronius b Dum sibi imperari à Rom. Pontifice passus est Bar. ibid. nu 17. expresseth it for being ruled by the Popes command these as being but flourishes of their vanity and arrogancy I will passe over The Acts both of Iustinian and of the fift Councell doe demonstrate that Iustinian was as he ought to be the commander of the Pope the Popes Empire was not as yet in the cradle But that which is added that Narses overcame the Gothes by the intercession of the blessed Virgin I am desirous a little more at large to examine the rather because c Bar. an 553. nu 15. Baronius little lesse than triumpheth therein Narses saith he indevored all these things Mariae virginis ope by the help of the virgin Mary And again having cited certain words out of Evagrius to prove it By this saith d Ibid. nu 18. he you do understand cujus niti praesidio duces debeant on whose help Generals Captains must rely that they may perform every difficultest enterprise truely even on the helpe of Mary the Mother of God who being invocated by our prayers may rise against the enemy for of her the Church singeth Terribilis ut Castrorum acies thou art terrible as an army well ordered Thus the Cardinall wresting and abusing the Scripture to draw mens confidence from the Lord of Hosts to the blessed Virgin making her contrary to her sexe to be another Mars and a chiefe warrier in all the greatest battels of the Christians But for the truth of the matter what Narses did Procopius doth declare who thus writeth e Proc. lib. 3. pa. 416. of him When Totilas was overcome Narses being exceeding joyfull id omne Deo acceptū ut erat in vero indesinenter referre did continually attribute all that victorie to God to whom in truth it was to be ascribed Evagrius the Cardinals own witnesse testifieth the same even in that place which the Cardinall alledgeth his words are these f Evag. lib. 4. ca. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they who were with Narses report that dum precibus divinum numen placeret while he appeased or pleased God by his prayer other offices of piety and gave due honour unto him the Virgin Mother of God appeared unto him and plainly set downe the time when he should sight with the enemies nor sight w th thē til he received a sign from above Thus Evag. in whose words three things are to be observed First that Narses used no invocatiō or prayers to the blessed Virgin or any other but only to God it was Divinū numen the very Godhead which hee did in his prayers offices of piety adore Secondly that Evag. mentioneth not either invocation or adoration used by Narses to the Virgin or any confidence that hee reposed in her or that she at al helped him in the battle but only that she appeared unto him as a messenger to signifie what time he should sight Now as the Angel Gabriel was no helper to the Virgin Mary either in the cōception of Christ or in his birth though as a messenger
blowes Causa cum causa ratio cum ratione pugnet Cardinall Bellarmine hath but one reason but that is indeed a very sound one like the Cat in the fable which hath but one shift against the hounds his reason p Bell. loc cit is the testimony of Saint q Breviarium collectum à sancto Liberato sic inscribitur apud Binium to 2. pa. 610. Liberatus who then lived who not onely testifieth Vigilius to have writ this but sets downe the very Epistle it selfe of Vigilius and whereas some pretended both that Liberatus was corrupted by heretikes and that his narration was contrary to their Pontificall the Card. tels us for a certainty that there r Vestigium nullum apparet corruptionis in libro Liberati Bell. is neither any footstep nor print of corruption in Liberatus neither doth he ſ Revera non pugnat narratio Liberati cum narratione Pontificalis Jbid. herein dissent from the Pontificall Cardinall Baronius boasteth t Plura sunt quae persuadent Bar. an 538. nu 15. et ex pluribus colligi potest An. eod nu 19. of his reason as the Fox did in the same fable that he had a number of sleights and shifts to deceive the dogs but the hounds comming suddenly upon them both the Cat skipt into a tree which was her onely pollicy and there shee saw the Fox with all his hundreth wiles torne in pieces even such are Cardinall Baronius his sleights in this cause hee hath many but never a one that is worth a Rush none that would save from tearing if the hounds should happen to come upon him His first is because the u Bar. an 538. nu 19. Acts of the sixt generall Councell doe shew that heretikes had counterfaited some Epistles in the name of Vigilius and particularly those bookes which are said to be writ from Vigilius to Iustinian and Theodora of blessed memory Thus say the Acts To which the Card. assumes sane quidem inscriptio recitatae Epistolae Truly the inscription of the Epist recited in the name of Vigilius ad Dominos to my Lords doth demonstrate that it was written to Iust and Theodora Alas that this must be one of the Cardinals shifts and that it must bee for the worth of it stiled x Inscriptio ad Dominos demōstrat hanc Epistolam scriptam esse ad Just et Theodoram Bar. ibid. a demonstration Why there needs here neither mastive nor hound any beagle or brache will rent this reason into 20. pieces First what meant the Cardinal to expresse the words of the sixt Councell where Theodora is called an Empresse of blessed memory had he forgot what in another place y Bar. an 548. nu 24. hee said that she died miserably being blasted by the Popes thunder-clap Againe what a demonstration is this some Epistles were forged in the name of Vigilius ergo this is forged A pari some bookes are forged the Cardinals Annals are some bookes ergo they are all forged or some man is as wise as Chorebus ergo so is the Cardinall Take heed I pray you the hounds sent not these consequences of the Cardinall grounded on that old maxime A particulari non est Syllogisari Further yet what a reason call you this some bookes sent in Vigilius name to Iustinian and Theodora were forged ergo this Epist is forged It is a demonstration à baculo ad Angulum for this Epistle was writ neither to Iustinian nor to Theodora but to Anthimus Theodosius and Severus The Cardinall may know this clearly by Victor who testifieth the same in expresse words he might have perceived it by Liberatus who saith that Vigilius writ this Epistle to heretikes whereas not Pope Leo himselfe was more orthodoxall in this point than Iustinian as besides infinite other proofes is evident both by his Epistle z Constitutio Iustiniani vocatur Extat autem post finem Conc. Constantinopolitani sub Menna to 2. pa. 469. to Mennas confirming the deposition of Anthimus and by that his Epistle a Epistola illa ad Epiphanium extat Leg. 7. Cod. de summa Trin. written to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople foure b Data est ea Epist Iust 3. Consul Is est an 533. years before Silverius was expelled wherein hee professeth to embrace all the foure Councels and hee anathematizeth all that are anathematized by any of them declaring that he will not permit within his Empire any that oppugned those Councels But for all this the Card. will prove by the Inscription c Sanc quidem Inscriptio demonstrat Bar. an 538. nu 19. of this Epistle that it written to Iustinian and Theodora What if it were can hee prove withall that no other Epistle or booke was writ to them in the name of Vigilius No hee never offers to prove that and till that bee proved his reason at the best is but à particulari some Epistle writ in the name of Vigilius to Iustinian and Theodora was forged ergo this some man deserves a whetstone ergo so doth the Cardinall Besides this inconsequence the Antecedent is so false that I am ashamed to take the renowned Cardinall so tripping in his demonstration The Inscription saith hee demonstrates that it was writ to Iustinian and Theodora Truly the Inscription demonstrates the Cardinall to be of no truth or credit at al. The Inscription in Liberatus and him the d Bar. an 538. nu 13. Cardinal followeth is Dominis Christis e Sic habetur in Lib. ca. 22. apud Bin. pa. 624. b. Vigilius Vigilius to my Lords and Christs An Inscription indeed with a witnesse and a lesson for the Cardinall Iustinian Christ Theodora Christ and yet the Cardinall rankes the one Christ among the Furies of hell the other Christ hee condemnes to the pit and torments of hell what a Cardinall to bee so malitious and spightfull against Christ and Christs 21 The Inscription saith the Cardinall points f Demonstrat at Iustinian and Theodora I rejoyce to see the Cardinall once so charitably affected as to thinke Iustinian to be Christ Theodora Christ let all applaud the Cardinall in this saying seldome shall you take him nor will hee long persist in so good a mood or minde The Inscription of the Epistle is to Christs the Inscription demonstrates and points at them as the Cardinall tels us Christs then they were Christs they are against the spite of all slandering tongues Christs let them bee and with Christ let them rest for ever But will you now see a fine sleight indeed of the Cardinall such as put downe the Fox and Cat and all Truely saith hee the Inscription ad Dominos demonstrates that this Epistle was writ to Iustinian and Theodora why what meanes this Inscription ad Dominos why doth the Cardinal clip away the one halfe of the Inscription The Inscription in Liberatus is Dominis Christis the Cardinall belike misdoubted by Christis could not bee demonstrated
in Victor fraternitati vestrae fraternitatem vestram orate pro nobis mihi fratres in Christo conjuncti pray for us my brethren in the Lord. Which evidently shewes that Baronius and Binius either themselves corrupted and followed some corrupt Edition of that Epistle when they so craftily persist on the Inscription Dominis ac Patribus for had hee stiled them in the title fathers hee would not in the Epistle have so often called them brethren and never once fathers Now to say as the Cardinall n Vel si fratres legas certè procul abhorret ut eosdem dicat Dominos Bar. an 538. nu 19. doth that it is abhorrent either from reason or practice to call the same parties both Dominos and fratres argues either extreme and supine negligence or obstinate perversnesse in the Cardinall and Binius scarce any thing in antiquity being more frequent Pope Damasus o Epist S. Damasi apud Bin. to 1. Conc. pa. 501. writ a Synodall letter to Prosper Bishop of Numidia and others he inscribes it thus Dominis venerabilibus fratribus Prospero Leoni Reparato Damasus Episcopus Bishop Damasus to my reverend Lords and Brethren Prosper c. So the Councell of Carthage p Habentur in Concil Africano sub Caelest et Bonif ca. 101. et 105. to 1. Conc. pa. 644. 645. in two letters written the one to Pope Boniface the other to Pope Caelestine writes in both in this manner To our Lord and honourable brother So Cyrill q In eodem Cōc Afric ca. 102. Patriarke of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus and the other African Bishops Dominis honorabilibus to the honourable Lords and holy brethren In like sort Atticus r In eodem Conc. ca. 103. Patriarke of Constantinople to the same Africane Bishops Dominis sanctis to the holy Lords our most blessed brethren fellow Bish Why might not Vigilius call other Patriarks Lords and brethren when Atticus Cyrill the Councell of Carthage yea Pope Damasus himselfe called other Bishops Dominos ac fratres Nay seeing the Pope is used to inscribe his letters to the Emp. Dominis ac ſ Sic Adrianus 1 scribit ad Constantinum et Irenem Tom. 3. Conc. pa. 254. filijs or Domino ac filio as doth P. Hadriā to Constant and Irene to Charles t Adrianus Papa to eod pa. 263. why may not he as well call his brother as his son Lord is the title of son more compatible with Dominis than the title of brother or whether title thinke you Lord or brother may not the Pope give to his fellow Bishops the name of brother is almost every where seene in his letters the Cardinall envies not that unto them it is the name of Dominus that seemes somewhat harsh The Cardinall would not have the Pope call or account other Bishops his Lords and yet how can they even the meanest of them but bee his Lord when hee gladly stiles himselfe their servant yea servant u Servus servorum Dei sic se scribit Gregor 7. qui prius Hildebrandus dictus est Epist 13 14. et reliquis plus centies to every servant of the Lord So that if the Popes Secretary were well catechized and knew good manners his Holines should write thus to his own servants To my Lord Groome of my stable to my Lord the Scull of my Kitchen I am indeed your servant I am servus servorum Dei But let the title of the Epistle bee howsoever yee will whether Dominis ac Christis as it is in Liberatus or Dominis fratribus as it is in Victor or Dominis Patribus as the Cardinall without any authority that I can finde would have it certaine it is that the parties to whom Vigilius writ it were the three deposed Bishops to whom Vigilius was like to give any of all those titles and not to the Emperour and Empresse as the Cardinall without all shadow of truth affirmeth and saith that he hath demonstrated the same but it is with such a demonstration as was never found in any but in Chorebus his Analyticks 26. Another of the Cardinals reasons to prove this Epistle to be a forgery is taken from a repugnance and contrariety of the words in the Subscription wherein Vigilius x Quo pacto rogo potuit Vigilius anathematizare Dioscorum si cum Dioscoro Eutychianam haeresin praedicat Haec enim sibi invicem adversantur ut utraque vera esse non possint Bar. an 538. nu 16. et idem habet Bin. not in Lib. pa. 626. a. first professeth to hold but one nature in Christ and then anathematizeth Dioscorus who held the same The Cardinall should have proved that Vigilius could not or did not write contrarieties As the Cardinall though he hath beene so often taken tardy in contradictions yet will not deny the Annals for that cause to bee his owne faire birth so hee might thinke of this writing though it bee repugnant to it selfe yet it might proceed from such an unstayed and unstable minde as Vigilius had But I doe acquit Vigilius from this contradiction it is not his hee condemned not Dioscorus in his Subscription In his Epistle he professeth to hold the same doctrine of one onely nature in Christ with Eutyches and Dioscorus there is little reason then to thinke that hee did in his Subscription adjoyned condemne the professors of that doctrine of which Dioscorus was one of the chiefe as deepe in that heresie as Eutyches himselfe What shall wee say then to Liberatus in whom Dioscorus is named Truely had not malice and spight shut the eyes of Baronius and Binius they could not but have seene that the name of Dioscorus is by the oversight or negligence of the writer inserted in stead of Nestorius It was Nestorius and not Dioscorus whom Vigilius there accursed the very conclusion and coherence not onely with the Epistle but with the next precedent words in the Subscription doe evidently demonstrate thus much for having professed in his Epistle y Eam fidem quam tenetis tenere me et tenuisse significo Epist Vigilij cū apud Liber ca. 22. et Vict. Tan. in Chron. an post Cons Basilij 2. to hold as did Dioscorus but one nature in Christ having againe in his Subscription and next words before anathematized z Qui dicit in Christo duas formas et non cōsitetur unam personam unam essentiam Anathema sit Ibid. apud Liber all who admit two or deny but one nature in Christ hee in particular declares who those are that hee therein anathematized saying Anathematizamus ergo therefore we accurse by this our condemnation of those who deny but one nature Paulus Samosatenus Nestorius Theodorus and Theodoret and all who have or doe embrace their doctrine Now it was Nestorius not Dioscorus who embraced the same doctrine with Paulus Samosatenus with Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret all these concurred in that one and
selfe-same heresie of denying one nature in Christ they all consented in teaching two natures making two persons in Christ which Dioscorus and Eutyches condemned Of Theodorus and Theodoret it is cleare by the Councels both of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the fift Synod Of Paulus Samosatenus the writing or contestation of the Catholike Clergy of Constantinople set downe in the Acts of Ephesus a To. 1. act Conc. Eph. ca. 11. doe certainly witnesse and declare the same the title of which is to shew partly Nestoriū ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosatenus and in the contestation it selfe it is said thus I adjure all to publish this our writing for the evident reproofe of Nestorius the heretike as one who is convinced to teach and openly maintain eadem prorsus quae Paulus Samosatenus the same doctrines altogether which Paulus Samosatenus did and then they expresse seven heretical assertions taught alike by them both Seeing then Vigilius accursed him who taught the same with Paulus Theodorus and Theodoret and that was Nestorius not Dioscorus it is undoubtedly certaine that not Dioscorus but Nestorius was the party written and named by Vigilius in his subscription and that Dioscorus was not by Vigilius but by the oversight and negligence of the exscriber of Liberatus wrongfully inserted in stead of Nestorius And truly the like mistakings are not unusuall in Liberatus In this very Chapter it is sayd that Vigilius a little after the death of 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 b Quin Ravennae reperi◠Bellisarium Liber ca. 22. Bellisarius at Ravenna a manifest mistaking of Ravenna for Naples for there and not at Ravenna was Bellisarius at that time as by Procopius c Nam Silveriū ait ejectum à Bellisario p. 287 id fuit anno 3. belli Gothici ut liquet ex pa. 313 ubi ait Tertius belli hujus annus exibat at Bellisarius non caepit Ravennam ante finem anni 5. ejus belli ut ait Proc. 340. 343. ubi ait Iam annus 5. exibat is evident and because this is no way prejudiciall to their cause Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit d Hic puto Liberatum memoria lapsum Ravennam pro Neapoli posuisse Bar. an 538. nu 7. idem Bin. Not. in Liber 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 e Apud Bin. to 2. pa. 614. 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 f Bar. an 538. nu 14. 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 g Bar. an 538. nu 15. 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 Caesarea 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 epistolá 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 h Bar. locis supr citat 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
not materiall be they few be they moe if the Pope as Pope or as an hereticall pope may confirme three or but one that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible 49. But he taught this alone not in a Councell not with advice of his Cardinalls and Consistory why he did it not as a member of a Councell but as x Pontifex non ut praeses Concilij sed ut Princeps Ecclesiae summus potest iudicium Concilij retractare c. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 18. § Dico secundo Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus y Agapeti Papae contra Anthimū iudicium absque Synodo fuit secundum supremam Apostolicae sedis authoritatem qua supra omnes Canones Pontifex eminet Bar. an 536. nu 23. in deposing Anthimus above and besides the Canons The whole power of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision more than in any other where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe much more was this done by him as Pope than any of them And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of others or of a Synod herein what better direction advice or counsell could his Cardinalls or any Synod in the world give unto him than the decree of the whole Councell of Chalcedon That Vigilius had before his eyes at this time that was in stead of a thousand Cardinals unto him seeing he as Ecclesiae Princeps defined Eutycheanisme notwithstanding that most holy and generall Synod yea against that Synod what could the advice of another or of a few Cardinals have avayled at this time 50. Thus all the evasions which they use being refuted it may now be clearly concluded not onely that Vigilius writ this impious and hereticall Epistle and writ it when he was the true and lawfull Pope but that he writ it also ex animo even out of an hereticall heart and writ it as he was Pope that is in such sort as that by his Pontificall and supreme authority hee confirmed that heresie which hee taught therein And this is the former of his Acts which as I told you is very remarkable his purpose and intent therein being the overthrow of the Councell at Chalcedon and of the whole Catholike faith 51. The other act of Vigilius concernes the cause of the three Chapters wherein by the heresie of Nestorius he publikely decreed and performed that as much as in him lay and as by his Apostolicall decree could be effected which hee had purposed and intended to doe by the heresie of Eutycheanisme In which whole cause how Vigilius from the first to the last behaved himselfe how at the first hee oppugned the Emperours most religious Edict and the Catholike faith how afterward he played the dissembling Proteus with the Emperour and the whole Church for the space of five or six yeares together how at the last he returned to his naturall and habituall love of heresie and how in decreeing it by the fulnesse of his Apostolicall authority hee sought utterly and for ever to abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and with it the whole Catholike faith the former Treatise doth abundantly declare which withall demonstrates the vanity of that saying of Bellarmine For the time sayth he a Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. § Contigit Ab hoc tempore nullus inventus est in Vigilio aut error aut erroris simulatio c. that hee was true Pope neither any errour nor simulation of errour was found in him sed summa constantia in fide but the greatest constancy of faith that could be For as by our former treatise is evident he was not only most wavering but hereticall in faith And this was in a manner the whole course of Vigilius life or the most eminent acts thereof while he was Pope pretending orthodoxy but embracing heresie and as opportunity offered it selfe labouring by words by private Epistles by resisting the imperiall just and godly Edict by publike constitutions to overthrow the faith and the whole Church of God 52. You see now his ingresse into the Papacy and his progresse in the same touching his egresse both out of it and this life heare what S. Liberatus b Liber Brev ca. 22. saith How Vigilius being by heresie afflicted died it is knowne unto all Heare what Cardinall Bellarmine c Bell. loc cit saith out of Liberatus Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that selfesame heresie which at the first he nourished and againe Misere vexatus usque ad mortem he was miserably vexed even untill hee dyed Heare Baronius who first promised d Bar. an 538. nu 20. to declare how invigilavit in Vigilio vindicta Dei how the vengeance of God watched Vigilius and at last revenged the innocent blood which he shed and then performing that promise sayth e Bar. an 556. nu 2. He died in an Iland in Sicily by the just judgement of God confectus ipse aerumnis ex morbo himselfe being wasted with misery by reason of his disease who had caused Silverius in an Iland in Palmaria to bee pined away and put to death As he got the papacy by wicked meanes so was he immensis agitatus fluctibus tossed with exceeding great tempests therein hated by the Emperour not gratefull to the Easterne and execrable to the Westerne Bishops and when hee seemed to have come out of the streame into the haven and almost one foot into the City being pined away immensis doloribus with unmeasurable paines he dyed Thus Baronius Now if we should deale with him as Baronius f Opinari si cui licet facilius est invenire qui Evagrij de ejus condemnatione ad supplicia apud inferos luenda velit sequi sententiam quam aliorum Bar. an 565. nu 2. c. doth with Iustinian and by his precedent acts judge of his reward according to the Text Opera eorum sequuntur eos I feare the censure would seeme very harsh to those who are so ready to examine Iustinian by that rule For what workes I pray you followed Pope Vigilius Ambition usurpation sacriledge murder symony hypocrisie schisme heresie and Antichristianisme concerning which the Apostle sayth They which doe them shall not inherit the kingdome of God I will not I list not be rigorous in this point neither towards him or any other I content my selfe with that lesson of the Apostle g Rom. 14.4 Domino suo stat aut cadit Yet thus much by occasion of this Treatise and the approved judgement of the Church declared therein concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia long before dead must needs bee said of him of Baronius and of all other who have already or shall at any time hereafter write as they have done in defence of heresie and oppugnation of Gods truth As repentance for such sinnes and impious writings opens unto them so impenitency and