condemned and anathematized by words by writings by all meanes which they could devise publishing libels and bitter invectives against it and the Emperor himselfe also He seeing so generall a disturbance in his Empire and the whole Church to be in a combustion about this cause to end and quiet all used that which is the best and last publick meanes which is left to the Church for deciding any doubt or controversie of faith and of purpose to determine this so weighty a cause whether those Three Chapters were to be condemned or allowed he assembled this fifth and holy generall Councill whereof God assisting us we are now to entreat CAP. II. That the Fift Generall Councill when Pope Vigilius refused to come unto it was held without the Popes presence therein either by himselfe or by his Legates 1. THat this Council was celebrated when Pope Vigilius was at Constantinople that he was once againe often and earnestly invited to the Synod but wilfully refused to be present either personally or by his deputies the Acts of the Councill doe abundantly witnesse The holy Synod said thus Saepius petivimus We have often entreated the most holy Pope Vigilius to come together with us and make a determination of these matters Againe the holy Synod said The most glorious Iudges and certaine of us saepius adhortati sunt Vigilium have often exhorted Vigilius to come and debate and make an end of this cause touching the Three Chapters Neither did they onely invite exhort and entreat him but in the Emperors name they commanded him to come to the Synod We being present said the Bishops who were sent unto him Liberius Peter and Patricius proposuerunt Iussionem pijssimi Imperatoris sanctissimo Papae proposed to the most holy Pope Vigilius the command of the most holy Emperor If all this seeme not enough the Emperor himselfe testifieth the same Mandavimus illi we have commanded Vigilius both by our Iudges and by certaine of your selves he writ this to the Synod ut una cum omnibus conveniret that he should come together with all the rest in common to debate and determine this cause touching the Three Chapters 2. What Pope Vigilius did after so many invitations entreaties and commands Card. Bellarmine doth declare The Pope saith he nesque per se neque per legatos interfuit was not present in the Council either by himselfe or by his legats And more clearly in another place The Pope saith he was then at Constantinople sed noluit interesse but he would not be present in the Councill Binius testifieth the same At the fifth Councill Vigilius was not present either by himselfe or by his deputies And Baronius The Pope saith he noluit interesse would not be present either by himselfe or by any to supply his place And this Cardinall adds not without some choler The members assembled without the head nulla Vigilij aegrotantis adhuc habita ratione having no regard at all to Pope Vigilius then sick 3. What doth the Card. complaine that they had no regard of him when himselfe a little before professeth noluit interesse he himselfe was not willing to be present Or had they no regard of him when before ever they assembled or sate in the Synod they writ an Epistle unto him entreating his presence and with their own request signified the Emperors command wil and pleasure to him that he shold come together with the rest when after they were assembled in the Synod they so often so earnestly invited and even entreated him to come together with them when they whom they sent to invite him were no meane no ordinary messengers neither for their number nor dignitie but twenty reverend Bishops all of them Metropolitanes as the Cardinal both knew and acknowledged the Synodall acts doe witnesse and of those twenty three were Patriarks Eutychius of Constantinople Apollinarius of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch Was this a signe that they had no regard of Vigilius when besides all this in token of their most earnest desire of his presence among divers other they proposed two most effectuall reasons to induce him to come The one the promise of Presidencie among them which so far as in them lay they offred unto him saying Petimus praesidente nobis vestra beatitudine we entreat that your holinesse being present in this Synod the question may be debated and have an end The other which should not onely in equitie but even in common honesty have prevailed with a Pope for that himselfe had promised and that under his owne hand-writing that he would come to the Synod we told him said the Bishop your holinesse knoweth quod in his quae inter nos in scriptis facta sunt promisistis that in those things which were done in writing betwixt us you have promised to come together with the rest and discusse these three Chapters And againe we entreated his reverence say the whole Synod scriptas suas promissiones adimplere to performe that which in his writing he had promised 4. Had they no regard of sick Vigilius whose infirmity being signified to the Synod at their first session they forthwith concluded that Session saying Oportet we must defer the examination of the cause to another day And whereas the Pope promised to give them an answer the next day then because his qualme was overpast he found new excuses for his absence one because there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them another because he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing and offer it to the Emperor for which cause he had entreated respite for certaine dayes of his highnesse Both which were in truth nothing else but meerepretēces as the Bishops thē sent manifestly declared unto him For both the Emperor said they vult te in cōmuni convenire will have you to come together with the rest therefore he ought not to have given his sentēce alone but in common and in the Synod and for his other excuse Baronius himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence for so it was indeed seeing as the Bishops truly told him in none of the former Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops but onely two or three and some Clerkes whereas at that time there were present with the Pope at Constantinople many Italian Bishops others out of Africk others out of Illirium for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Councills whereupon they plainly and truly told the Pope to his face Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod together with us not sicknesse not want of Western Bishops Nihil est there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind So extraordinary respect had they of the Pope at this time
and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say that they assembled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius 5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod and why Noluit interesse was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters He saw the Catholike Bishops then assembled to be bent and forward as their dutie was for condemning those Chapters which himselfe embraced and defended he therefore thought it fit to separate himselfe from them in place from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of faith he was so farre disjoyned and severed This to have beene the onely true cause of his wilfull absence and of his Noluit interesse the sequell of this Treatise will make most evident For this time it is sufficient by all those honorable invitations earnest perswasions and Imperiall commands to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence so he not onely was absent but in meere stomacke wilfulnesse and perversnesse absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIVS during the time of the fift Councill published his Apostolicall Constitution indefence of the Three Chapters 1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Constantinople where the Councill was held by no intreaties perswasions nor Imperiall commands could be brought to the Synod having no other let as before was declared but his owne wilfulnesse the holy Synod resolved without him to debate and judge the Controversie then referred unto them And in truth what else was to be done in that case The Emperor commanded them not to delay nor protract the time but deliver a speedy yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause The necessity of the Church required this which was now in a general tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters The Nestorians on one side triumphed as if the Councill of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas and thereby confirmed their heresies The Acephali on another side rejected that Councill as favoring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze not knowing which way to turne themselves whether allow the Councill of Chalcedon with the Nestorians or with the Acephali reject it The Catholikes against all these Sectaries both defended the Councill of Chalcedon and yet rejected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters In such a generall rent and contention of all sides what delay could the Church endure which the Councill rightly considering said That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scandalized And for the absence of Vigilius they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth that if the Pope being invited did not or would not come or send to a Synod but wilfully refused to come in this case the Councill without him must provide for the peace of the Church and safety of the Christian faith They had a very memorable example hereof as yet but fresh before their eyes when the Popes legats being present at Chalcedon were invited and intreated to be present at the Synod there held which was the very next before this at the debating of the right and preeminence of the Sea of Constantinople but wilfully refused to be there saying as Vigilius now did Non sed alia se suscepisse mandata No we will not come we have a contrary command from pope Leo yet that holy Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence and their determination notwith ' standing the Popes absence was not onely declared by the most glorious Iudges to be just and Synodall but the same was both by that holy Synod and all other ever since held to be the judgement and definition of the whole generall Councill for in their Synodal relation to the Pope speaking of this very decree they say Confirmavimus ante we to wit this whole generall Councill have confirmed the sentence of the 150. Bishops for the prerogative of Constantinople A most cleare and undeniable demonstration and that by the warrant of one of the most famous Councils that ever were that the peevishnes perversnes or wilfull absence of one or a few Bishops yea of the Pope himselfe ought not nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and determine any needful cause much lesse a cause of faith about which there should happen as now there did a general disturbance of the whole Church Vpon these and other like reasons the holy Synod now assembled at Constantinople having done as much as in them lay yea as much in all points as was fit to be done for procuring the presence of Vigilius and having in their first and second Sessions done nothing but waited and expected for his comming seeing now all their invitations and intreaties to be contemned by him and their longer expectance to be but in vaine addresse themselves to the examining of the cause being stird up by the words of St. Peter Be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of your hope which readinesse if it must be in al Christians much more in Bishops and if it must be declared towards all men most of all towards the Emperor who now required their speedy judgement and Synodall resolution in this cause 2. Having in their first and second Sessions declared their long and earnest but vaine expectance of Vigilius In their third Collation so their Sessions are called they let downe as a foundation to all their future acts a most holy confession of their faith consonant in all points to that which the holy Apostles preached which the foure former Councils explained and which the Holy Fathers with uniforme consent maintained 3. In the 4. and 5. Collations they at large and very exactly discusse the first Chapter concerning the person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia adding so much also as was needfull touching the second Chapter which concerned the writings of Theodoret against Cyril 4. Now in that fifth Collation as Baronius tells us the Constitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod The Pope promised that he would send his judgement thereof ad ipsum Imperatorem atque ad Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod which he ingenuously performed yea modo opportunè praestandum putavit he did it opportunely at this very time of the 5. Collation And the Card. is so resolute in this point that he peremptorily affirmeth of the Popes Constitution Cognoscitur it s knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation and it was this day offered to the Councill for which cause he strongly imagining this
Apostolicall authoritie Constitution and Definitive sentence he defended them by the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon Pope Vigilius then by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill is an Anathema a condemned and accursed heretike yea a Definer of a condemned and accursed heresie Baronius writeth earnestly in defence of Pope Vigilius and his Constitution he commends him for defending those Three Chapters saying The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius whom they might follow and Vigilius himselfe he had many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and shew of consenting with the holy Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon Card. Baronius then by the same definitive sentence of this holy and generall Council is an Anathema with Vigilius a condemned and accursed heretike 17. After this generall sentence the Councill proceedeth in particular severally to condemne each of these Three Chapters by it selfe Of the first they thus define If any do defend impious Theodorus of Mopsvestia et non anathematizat cum and doe not accurse him and his impious writings let such an one be accursed Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene would not himselfe neither would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus he forbiddeth any to doe it he made an Apostolicall Constitution that none should accurse him Card. Baronius he writeth in defence of Vigilius and of his Constitution in this point Thomas Stapleton goeth further for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus that he expresly calls him a Catholike yea a most Catholike Bishop Vigilius then Baronius and Stapleton are al of them accursed by the Definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill in this first Chapter 18. Of the second Chapter they thus decree If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril et non anathematizat ea and doe not accurse them let him be an Anathema Vigilius would not himselfe accurse them he would not permit any other to disgrace Theodoret or injure him by accursing his writings Baronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius they both then are tyed againe in this third Anathema of the Councill 19. Though a threefold cord be not easily broken yet the holy Councill addeth a fourth which is more indissoluble then any adamantine chaine Of the Third Chapter they decree in this manner f If any defend that impious Epistle of Ibas unto Maris which denieth God to be borne of the blessed Virgin which accuseth Cyrill for an heretike which condemneth the holy Councill of Ephesus and defendeth Theodorus and Nestorius with their impious doctrines and writings if any defend this Epistle et non anathematizat eam et defensores ejus et eos qui dicunt cam rectam esse vel partem ejus et eos qui scripserunt et scribunt pro eâ If any doe not accurse this Epistle and the Defenders of it and those who say that it or any part of it is right If any do not also accurse those who have written or who at any time doe write for it and the impiety contained in it and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon such an one be accursed Now Vigilius as was formerly declared defendeth this Epistle as orthodoxall he defendeth it by his Cathedrall sentence and Apostolicall authoritie he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon saying Orthodoxa est Iba à patribus proniōciata dictatio Baronius defendeth both Vigilius and this Epistle in some part thereof he defendeth them under pretence of the Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon saying Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam The Fathers at Chalcedon said that this Epistle ought to be received as orthodoxall Is it possible thinke you by any shift or evasion to free either Vigilius or Baronius from this fourth Anathema denounced by the judiciall and Definitive sentence of this Holy Generall Councill 20. But what speake I of Baronius as if he alone were a Defender of Vigilius and his Constitution All who have or who at any time doe hold and defend either by word or writing that the Popes judiciall and definitive sentence in causes of faith is infallible and this is held by Bellarmine Gretzer Pighius Gregorius de Valentia and as afterwards I purpose to declare at large by all and every one who is truly a member of the present Romane Church all these by holding and defending this one Position doe implicitly in that hold and defend every Cathedrall and definitive sentence of any of their Popes and particularly this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius to be not only true but infallible also and so they all defend the Three Chapters they defend the Defenders of them by name Pope Vigilius among the rest All these then are unavoidably included within all the former Anathemaes all denounced and proclamed to be heretikes to be accursed and separate from God by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill 21. With what comfort alacritie and confidence may the servants of Christ fight his battles and defend their holy faith and religion or how can the servants of Antichrist chuse but be utterly dismayed and daunted herewith seeing they cannot wag their tongues or hands to speake or write ought either against ours or in defence of their owne doctrines especially not of that which is the foundation of the rest and is virtually in them all but ipso facto even for that act alone if there were no other cause they are declared and pronounced by the judiciall sentence of an holy generall and approved Councill to be accursed heretikes 22. The Councill yet adds another clause which justly chalengeth a speciall consideration Some there are who would be held men of such a milde and mercifull disposition that though they dislike and condemne those assertions of the Popes supremacy of authoritie and infallibility of judgement yet are they so charitably affected to the Defenders of those assertions that they dare not themselves nor can indure that others should call them heretickes or accursed Durus est hic sermo this is too harsh and hard See here the fervour and zeale of this holy Councill They first say Cursed be the defenders of this Epistle or any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all who defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Church of Rome Cursed be they all And not contenting themselves herewith they adde Cursed be he who doth not accurse the defenders of that Epistle or of any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and
all that defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Romane Church Cursed be he who doth not accurse them all The holy Council no doubt had an eye to the words of the Prophet Ieremy Cursed be he that doth the worke of the Lord negligently Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood To spare when God commands and whom he commands to curse or kill is neither pitty nor piety but meere rebellion against the Lord and pulls downe that judgement which God himselfe threatned to Ahab Because thou hast let goe out of thine hand a man whom I appointed to dye thy life shall goe for his life 23. What then is there no meanes no hope of such that they may be saved God forbid Far be it from my heart once to thinke or my tongue to utter so hard a sentence There is a meanes and that after the Scripture the Councill expresly and often sets downe even were they denounce all those Anathemaes for thus they say They who defend Theodorus the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill the impious Epistle of Ibas or the defenders of them et in his vsque ad mortem permanent and continue in this defence untill they dye let such be accursed Renounce the defence of these Chapters and of the Defenders of them that is forsake and renounce that position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith renounce the defence of all that defend it that is of the whole present Romane Church Come out of Babylon the habitation of devils the hold of all vncleane spirits which hath made all nations drunke with the wine of her fornication which themselves cannot but acknowledge to be meant of Rome This doe and then Come unto the Lord and he will have mercy and to our God for he is very ready to forgive All your former impieties heresies and blasphemies shall not be mentioned unto you but in the righteousnes and Catholike truths which ye then embrace you shall live If this they will not doe we accuse them not we accurse them not they have one who doth both accuse and accurse them even this holy general Council whose just Anathemaes shal as firmely binde them before God in heaven as they were truly denounced by the Synod here on earth for he hath sealed theirs and all like censures with his owne signet who said Whatsoever ye binde upon earth shall be bound in heaven 24. After all these just Anathemaes denounced as well in generall as in particular by the Councill against the defenders of these Three Chapters or any one of them the holy Synod sets downe in the last place one other point as memorable as any of the former And that is by what authority they decreed all these things of which they thus say we have rightly confessed these things quae tradita sund nobis tam à divinis scripturis which are delivered unto us both in the divine scriptures and in the doctrines of the holy Fathers and in the definitions of faith made by the foure former Councils So the holy Councill Whence it doth evidently ensue that to teach and affirme that the Pope in his judiciall and cathedrall sentence of faith may erre and define heresie and that Vigilius in his constitution de facto did so is a truth consonant to Scriptures fathers and the foure first general Councils But on the other side to maintaine or affirme as do all who are members of the present Romane Church that the Popes cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is infallible is an hereticall position repugnant to Scriptures Fathers and the 4. first Councils and condemned by them all So at once the Holy Councill judicially defineth both our faith to be truly ancient Apostolical the selfe same which the Holy Fathers generall Councills and the Catholike Church professed for 600 yeares and the doctrine of the present Romane Church even that fundamentall position on which all the rest doe relye to be not onely new but hereticall such as none can maintaine but even thereby he oppugneth and contradicteth both the Scriptures Fathers the foure first general Councils and the Catholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ. 25. Further yet because one part of their sentence is the accursing of all who defend the Three Chapters either expresly as did Vigilius or implicitè and by consequent as do all who maintaine the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is al who are members of the present Romane Church and so die it cleerely ensueth from that last clause of the Councill that to condemne and accurse as heretikes all these yea all which doe not accurse these is by the judgement of this whole generall Council warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by the foure first generall Councils and by the Caholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ The judgement of this fifth Council being consonant to them all and warranted by them all 26. Neither is their Decree consonant onely to precedent Fathers and Councils but approved and confirmed by succeeding generall Councils by Popes and other Bishops in the following ages of the Church By the sixt Councill which professeth of it selfe that in omnibus consonuit it in all points agreeth with the fifth By the second Nicene which they account for the seaventh which reckneth this fift for one of the golden Councils which are glorious by the words of the holy Spirit and which all being inlightned by the same spirit decreed those things which are profitable professing that themselves did condemne all whom those Councils and among them whom this fift did condemne By other following Councils in every one of which the 2 Nicene and by consequent this fift Councill is approved as by the acts is cleare and Baronius confesseth that this fift in alijs Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est atque probata was acknowledged and approved by the other generall Councils which were held after it 27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bishops By Pelagius the second who writ an whole Epistle to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters telling them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto By Gregory who professing to embrace reverence the 4 first Councils as the 4 Euangelists addeth of this fift Quintū quoque cōcilium pariter veneror I do in like manner reverence the fift Councill wherin the impious Epistle of Ibas is rejected the writings of Theodoret with Theodorus his writings And then of them all he saith Cunctas personas whatsoever persons the foresaid five venerable Councils doe condemne those also doe I condemne whom they reverence I embrace because seeing they are decreed by an universall consent whosoever presumeth to loose whom they bind or bind
cordiall profession there neither is nor can be any truth therein it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to be hereticall as the fift Councill defined and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such causes to be infallible as their Laterane Councill decreed So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe such as none can possibly beleeve and withall new such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced untill that very day of their Laterane Session 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of Paris as being contra fidem Catholicam against the catholike Faith and the authority of holy Councils And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that Laterane Decree and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope but their Councill also of Trent wherein that Laterane Decree is confirmed is by them rejected And what speake I of them Behold while Leo with his Laterane Councill strives to quench this catholike truth it bursts out with farre more glorious and resplendent beauty This stone which was rejected by those builders of Babylon was laid againe in the foundations of Sion by those Ezra's Nehemiah's Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord who at the voyce of the Angell came out of Babylon and repaired the ruines of Ierusalem And even as certaine rivers are said to runne under or through the salt Sea and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it but at length to burst out send forth their owne sweet and delightfull waters Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith This Catholike truth that the Popes judgement and Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith is not infallible borne in the first age of the Church and springing from the Scriptures and Apostles as from the holy mountaines of God for the space of 600 yeares and more passed with a most faire and spatious current like Tygris Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord or like Pactolus with golden streames inriching and beautifying the Church of God after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages brackish I confesse before their second Nycene Synod but after it and the next unto it extremely salt and unpleasant more bitter then the waters of Mara And although the nearer it came to the streets of Babylon it was still more mingled with the slime or mud of their Babylonish ditches yet for all that dangerous and long mixture continuing about the space of 730. yeares this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse by the constant and successive professions of the whole Church throughout all those ages Now after that long passage through all those salt waves like Alpheus or Arethusa it bursts out againe not as they did in Sicily nor neare the Italian shores but as the Cardinall tells us in Germanie in England in Scotland in France in Helvetia in Polonia in Bohemia in Pannonia in Sueveland in Denmarke in Norway in all the Reformed Churches and being by the power and goodnesse of God purified from all that mud and corruption wherewith it was mingled all which is now left in it owne proper that is in the Romane channels it is now preserved in the faire current of those Orthodoxall Churches wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith are with no lesse sinceritie professed thē they were in those ancient times before they were mingled with any bitter or brackish waters 36 You see now the whole judgement of the Fift Generall Councill how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius condemning and accursing both it for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes which their sentence you see is consonant to the Scriptures and the whole Catholike Church of all ages excepting none but such as adhere to their new Laterane decree and faith An example so ancient so authenticall and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth which wee teach and they oppugne that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger and stand in doubt even of the maine ground and foundation whereon all his faith relyeth For the full clearing of which matter being of so great importance and consequence I have thought it needful to rip up every veine and sinew in this whole cause concerning these Three Chapters and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same and withall examine the weight of every doubt evasion excuse which eyther Cardinall Baronius who is instar omnium or Binius or any other moveth or pretendeth herein not willingly nor with my knowledge omitting any one reason or circumstance which either they urge or which may seeme to advantage or help them to decline the inevitable force of our former Demonstration CAP. V. The first Exception of Baronius pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith refuted 1 THere is not as I thinke any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annalls hath with more art or industry handled then this concerning Pope Vigilius and the Fift Generall Councill In this hee hath strained all his wits moved and removed every stone under which hee imagined any help might be found eyther wholly to excuse or any way lessen the errour of Vigilius All the Cardinalls forces may be ranked into foure severall troupes In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawne from the Matter of the Three Chapters In the second those which are drawne from the Popes Constitution In the third those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius In the fourth last those which concerne the fift General Councill After all these wherin cōsisteth the whole pith of the Cause the Cardinall brings forth another band of certaine subsidiary but most disorderly souldiers nay not souldiers they never tooke the Military oath nor may they by the Law of armes nor ever were by any worthy Generall admitted into any lawfull fight or so much as to set footing in the field meere theeves and robbers they are whom the Cardinall hath set in an ambush not to fight in the cause but onely like so many Shimei's that they might raile at and revile whomsoever the Cardinall takes a spleene at or with whatsoever hee shall be moved in the heat of his choler At the Emperour Iustinian at Theodora the Empresse at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters at the Imperiall Edict at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea at the Synodal acts yea at Pope Vigilius himselfe we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall which onely are his lawfull warriours and having discomfited them we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause
purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even an utter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum condemnationem and the condemning of Heretikes So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is undoubted that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith 12. The third note is more than demonstrative For the Holy Councell denounceth not once or twice but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence Anathema to Theodorus anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings Anathema to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them we all anathematize the impious Epistle of Ibas If any defend this Epistle or any part of it if any doe not anathematize it and the defenders of it let him be an Anathema 13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine it is evident not onely that this question about the Three Chapters is a question of faith but which is more that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein tanquam de fide as a Decree of faith Now because
every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitū Edictū against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasiō which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the case is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith In eâ de personis tantummodo non autem de fide aliquid est gestum In it was onely handled somewhat concerning those persons but nothing concerning the faith So Gregory whose words if they be taken without any limitation are not onely untrue but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Councels and Fathers above mentioned even to Gregory himselfe for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time he saith Whosoever embraceth praedictarum Synodorum fidem the faith explaned by those five Councels peace be unto them And if hee had not in such particular manner testified this yet seeing hee approveth as was before shewed this fift Councel and the Decree therof seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith grounded on Scriptures and the definitions of faith set downe in former Councels even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply that he accounted this cause for no other than as the Synod it selfe did for a cause of faith 17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himselfe herein I list not to censure so of him rather by his owne words I desire to explane his meaning There were divers in his time as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius who condemned this fift Councell because as they supposed it had altered and abolished the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon by condemning these Three Chapters and had established a new doctrine of faith Gregorie intreating against these whom he truly calleth malignant persons and troublers of the Church denieth and that most justly that this
his life time not onely uncondemned by the Church but in all outward pompe honour and applause of the Church either himselfe cunningly cloaking or the Church not curiously and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth yet such a man neither lives nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church The Church hath such peace with none who have not peace with God nor communion with any who have not union with Christ. It condemned him not because as it teacheth others so it selfe judgeth most charitably of all It judged him to be such as hee seemed and professed himselfe to bee It was not his person but his profession with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace As soone as ever it seeth him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee it renounceth all peace and communion with him whether dead or alive nay rather it forsaketh not her communion with him but declareth unto all that shee never had communion or peace with this man such as hee was indeed before though she had peace with such as he seemed to bee Shee now denounceth a double anathema against him condemning him first for beleeving or teaching heresie and then for covering his heresie under the visor of a Catholike and of the Catholike faith So justly and fully doth the Emperour and Councell refute both the personall errour of Vigilius in that hee affirmeth Theodorus to have dyed in the peace of the Church and the doctrinall also in that he affirmeth it upon this ground that in his life time hee was not condemned by the Church 5. Now whereas Baronius saith that Vigilius had just and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter one of which is this because if this were once admitted that one dying in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned for an heretike pateret ostium there would a gap be opened that every ecclesiasticall writer licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset although hee dyed in the communion of the Catholike Church might after death be out of his writings condemned for an heretike truly hee feareth where no feare is at all This gap nay this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath laine wide open this sixteen hundred years Can the Cardinall or any of his friends in all these successiōs of ages wherin have dyed many thousand millions of Catholikes can he name or finde but so much as one who hath truly dyed in the peace and communion of the Church and yet hath beene after his death condemned by the Catholike Church for an heretike He cannot The Church should condemne her owne selfe if shee condemned any with whom she had peace and whom she embraceth in her holy communion which is no other but the society with God Such indeed may dye in some errour yea in an errour of faith as Papias Irenee Iustine in that of the millenaries as Cyprian as is likely and other Africane Bishops in that of Rebaptization but either dye heretikes or be after their death condemned by the Catholike Church for heretikes they cannot 6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinall and all his fellowes should feare another matter which more neerely concernes themselves and feare it even upon that Catholike position that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condemned They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause for his supremacy of authority or infallibility of his Cathedrall judgement feare to stuffe their Volumes as the Cardinall hath done his Annals with heresies and oppositions against the faith feare to continue and persist in their hereticall doctrine feare to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula the second and onely boord to save them after their shipwracke to dye I say before they revoked disclamed condemned or beene the first men to set fire to their hereticall doctrines and writings and at least in words if not as the custome was by oath and handwriting to testifie to the Church their desire to returne unto her bosome These are the things indeed they ought to feare knowing that howsoever they flatter themselves with the vaine name of the Church yet in very truth so long as their writings remaine testifying that they defended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith or any other doctrine relying on that ground whereof in their life time they have not made a certaine and knowne recantation they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church but may at any time after their death and ought whēsoever occasiō is offered be declared by the Church to have dyed in their heresies and therefore dyed both out of the peace of God and of the holy Church of God This unlesse they seriously and sincerely performe it is not I nor any of our writers whom they imagine but most unjustly out of spleene and contention to speake these things who condemne them but it is the whole Catholike Church Shee by approving this fift Councell and the true decree therof condemns this Apostolicall Cathedral definition of Vigilius and all that defend it that is all the members of the present Romane Church to be hereticall and as convicted heretikes she declares them to die anathematized that is utterly separated from God and from the peace and most blessed communion with the Church of God howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God 7. If any shall here reply or thinke that by the former examples of Papias Irenee Iustine Cyprian and the rest Baronius and other mēbers of the present Romane church may be excused that these also as the former though dying in their error may dye in the peace cōmunion of the Church this I confesse is a friendly but no firme excuse for although they are both alike in this that the former as well as the latter dye in an errour of faith yet is there extreme odds and many cleare dissimilitudes betwixt the state or condition of the one and the other 8. The first ariseth from the matter it selfe wherin they erre The former erred in that doctrine of faith wherein the truth was not eliquata declarata solidata per plenarium Concilium as S. Austen speaketh not fully scanned declared confirmed by a plenary Councell Had it bin we may well think the very same of all those holy men which Austen most charitably saith of S. Cyprian Sine dubio universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth being manifested unto them by the authority of the whole Church The latter erre in that which to use same Fathers words per universae Ecclesiae statut a firmatum est which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church This fift Councell consonant to all precedent and confirmed by
death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ eum non audemus damnare sententia wee◠dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence wee dare not doe it saith Vigilius 42. Oh how faint-hearted pusillanimous and dastardly was the Pope in this cause Cyrill the head of the generall Councell Proclus a most holy Bishop whose Epistle as Liberatus saith the Councell of Chalcedon approved Rambulas the piller of the Church the religious Emperours Theodorus and Valentinian the Church of Mopsvestia the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod both durst and did condemne Theodorus and besides these Baronius and Binius two of the most artificiall Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope even they durst and did even in setting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius cal Theodorus more than forty times an heretike a craftie impious madde prophane blasphemous execrable heretike onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart nor courage hee onely with his sectators dare not call him nor cōdemne him for an heretike we dare not condemne him by our sentence 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good hee who durst not doe this durst doe a greater matter he durst doe that which not any of all the former nay which they all put together never durst doe Vigilius durst defend both an heresie and a condemned and anathematized heretike he durst commend forged and hereticall writings under the name of holy Fathers hee durst approve that Epistle wherein an heretike is called and honoured for a Saint he durst contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells defend Theodorus honor his memorie yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived as a Saint being dead These things none of all the former ever durst doe in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all 44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius that made him sometimes more bold then a Lyon and other times more timerous then an Hare Truely even from hence As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought but what favored Nestorianisme so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme If a Catholike truth met him or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him Vigilius could not endure it the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof but when the Nestorian heresie blew upon him when being full with Nestorius he might say agitante calescimus illo not Ajax not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius As the Scarobee or beetle is said to feed on dung but to dye at the sent of a Rose So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat and drinke to the Pope it was vita vitalis unto him but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth was poison it was even death to this Beetle So truly was it fulfilled in him which the Prophet saith they bend their tongues for lyes but they have no courage for the truth we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence 45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is Sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus Nay we decree that none else shall speake write or teach otherwise then we doe herein As much in effect as if the Pope had definitively decreed wee permit or suffer no man whatsoever to teach or beleeve what Cyrill what Proclus what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon that is what all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Church hath done taught and beleeved we permit nay we command and by this our Apostolicall Constitution decree that they shall be heretikes and defend both an heresie that no dead man may be condemned and condemned heretikes in defending Theodorus yea defending him for a Saint and teacher of truth This we permit command and decree that they shall doe but to doe otherwise to condemne Theodorus or a dead man that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them 46. And as if all this were not sufficient the Pope addes one other clause more execrable then all the former for having recited those threescore hereticall assertions which as we have declared were all collected out of the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus he adjoynes Anathematizamus omnem wee accurse and anathematize every man pertaining to orders who shall ascribe or impute any contumely to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church by those forenamed impieties and if no Father then not Theodorus for those may be condemned See now unto what height of impiety the Pope is ascended for it is as much as if hee had said We anathematize and accurse Saint Cyrill Saint Proclus Saint Rambulas Saint Acatius the Synode of Armenia the generall Councells of Ephesus of Chalcedon of Constantinople in the time of Iustinian yea even the whole catholike Church which hath approved those holy Councells all these out of those very impieties which Vigilius mentioneth have condemned Theodorus them all for wronging and condemning Theodorus for those impieties we doe anathematize and accurse saith Vigilius 47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are who hold and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church this for a position or foundation of faith that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes is true is infallible is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced Let
Church I say from the true orthodoxall Church for a Saint Augustine in the same place teacheth whosoever dissents from the Scriptures and so from the true faith though they be spred throughout the whole world yet such are not in the sound Church much lesse are they the Church And therefore from them be they never so many never so eminent one may and must separate himselfe But if any sever himselfe from the orthodoxall Church or to speake in Stapletons words si renuit operari in ratione fidei ut pars ecclesiae catholicae if he will not cooperate or joyne together in maintaining the faith as a member of the Catholike or orthodoxall Church Schismaticus hoc ipso est hee is for this very cause a Schismatike 37. Apply now this to Vigilius and the fift generall Councell and the case will be cleare The onely cause of separation on the Councels part was for that Vigilius with all his adherents were Heretikes convicted condemned and accursed for such by that true sentence and judgement of the fift generall Councell which was consonant both to Scriptures Fathers and the foure former generall Councels and approved by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops that is by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more then fifteene hundreth yeares together A cause not onely most just but commanded by the holy Apostle Shun him that is an hereticke after once or twice admonition much more after publike conviction and condemnation by the upright judgement of the whole Catholike Church On the other side Vigilius and his Faction separated themselves from the Councell and all that tooke part with it for this onely reason because they were Catholikes because they embraced and constantly defended the Catholike faith because he wold not cooperate as Stapleton speaketh with them to maintaine the true Catholike faith and so on their part there was that which essentially made them Schismatickes Baronius in saying that those who then dissented from Vigilius were Schismatickes speakes sutably to all his former assertions For in saying this he in effect saith that Catholikes to avoid a Schisme should have turned Heretickes should have embraced Nestorianisme and so have renounced and condemned the whole Catholike faith as Vigilius then did Had they so done they should have been no Schismatikes with Baronius But now for not condemning the Catholike faith with Vigilius they must all be condemned by the Cardinall for Schismatickes 38. For the very same reason the whole present Romane Church are Schismatickes at this day and not the Reformed Churches from whom they separate themselves For the cause of separation on their part is the same for which Vigilius and his schismaticall faction separated themselves from the fift Councell and the Catholikes of those times who all tooke part with it even because wee refuse to embrace the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith as the fift Councell refused that of Vigilius The cause on our part is the same which the fift Councell then had for that they defend the Popes hereticall constitution nay not onely that of Vigilius which yet were cause enough but many other like unto that and especially that one of Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councell wherby Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is given unto the Pope in all his decrees of faith In which one Cathedrall decree condemned for hereticall by the fift Councell and constant judgement both of precedent and subsequent Councells as before we have declared not onely innumerable heresies such as none yet doth dreame of are included but by the venom and poyson of that one fundamētall heresie not only all the other doctrines are corrupted but the very foundation of faith is utterly overthrowne Let them boast of multitudes and universalitie never so much which at this day is but a vaine brag say they were far more even foure hundreth to one Luther or the whole kingdome of Babilon to the two witnesses of God yet seeing it is the cause which makes a schismaticke the cause of separation on their part is most unjust but on ours most warrantable holy for that they will not cooperate with us in upholding the ancient and Catholike faith that especially of the fift Councell condemning and accursing the Cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius as hereticall all that defend it as Heretickes it evidently followeth that they are the only essentially schismatickes at this time and in this great rent of the Church 39. Whence againe doth ensue another Conclusion of no small importance For it is a ruled case among them such as Bellarmine avoucheth to be proved both by Scriptures by Fathers by pontificall decrees and sound reason that no schismatickes are in the Church or of the Church Now because out of the Church there is no salvation it nearly concernes them to bethinke themselves seriously what hope there is or can be unto them who being as wee have proved schismatickes are for this cause by their owne doctrine utterly excluded from the Church But I will proceed no further in this matter wherein I have stayed much longer then I intended yet my hope is that I have now abundantly cleared against Baronius not onely That one may dissent in faith and bee disioyned in communion from the Pope yet neither be Heretickes nor Schismatickes but That none can now consent in faith and hold communion with the Pope but for that very cause he is by the judgement of the Catholike Church both an hereticke and a schismaticke CHAP. XIIII The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresie for that he often professeth to hold the Coūcell of Chalcedon and the faith thereof refuted 1. HIs second excuse for Vigilius is taken from that profession which both other defenders of the three Chapters and Vigilius himselfe often maketh in his Constitution that hee holdes the faith of the Councell of Chalcedon and did all for the safety of that Councell Both parties saith Baronius as well the defenders as the condemners of those three Chapters did testifie that they desired nothing more quam consultum esse catholica fidei probatae à S. Concilio Chalcedonensi then to provide that the Catholike faith decreed at Chalcedon might be safe Againe liquet omnes it is manifest that all Catholikes in defence of the three Chapters at once contradicted this noveltie set downe in the Emperors Edict for condemning those chapters vindicesque se Concilij Chalcedonensis exhibuisse and shewed themselves to bee defenders of the Councell of Chalcedon Of Vigilius in particular hee not so little as fortie times ingeminates this Vigilius writ these things pro defensione integritate Synodi Chalcedonensis for the defence and safety of the Councell at Chalcedon Vigilius writ his constitution for no other cause as by it is evident but to the end that all things which were defined by the Councell at Chalcedon firma consisterent might
were by the Nestorians it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures much lesse to hold one or two Councells as Vigilius did cannot free one from being an heretike 14. You will perhaps say can one then beleeve the whole Scripture and be an heretike or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon and be an Arian Eutychean or Nestorian heretike No verily for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresie seeing as Saint Austen truly saith all doctrines concerning faith are set downe and that also perspicuously therein so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ. But it is one thing to professe the scriptures or those three Councells and say that he beleeves them which many heretikes may doe and another thing to beleeve them indeed which none can doe and be an heretike for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures cannot possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scriptures but such a man upon evident declaration that this is taught in them though before he held the contrary presently submits his wit and will to the truth which out of them is manifested unto him If this he do not he manifestly declareth that he holds his error with pertinacy and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures and so hee is certainly an heretike notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures which he falsly said he beleeved and held when in very truth he held and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them The very like must be said of those three Councells and them who either truly beleeve or falsly say that they beleeve the faith explained in them or any one of them 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent the former that all heretikes are lyars in their profession not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue and hereticall but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not but hold and that for a point of their faith the quite contrary All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scriptures and the doctrines therein contained and yet every one of them lye herein for they beleeve one if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed but they lyed in making this profession for they beleeved not one person but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ. The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell but they lyed in this profession for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ but one onely The Church of Rome and members thereof professe to hold the faith of the fift generall Councell and so professe implicitè the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and hereticall but they lye in making this profession for they beleeve not the Popes sentence in such causes to be fallible but with the Laterane and Trent Councels they hold it to be infallible It is the practice of all heretikes to make such faire though lying professions For should they say in plaine termes that which is truth indeed wee beleeve not the scriptures nor the Councells of Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon every man would spit at them and detest them cane pejus angue nor could they ever deceive any or gaine one proselyte But when they commend their faith that is their heresie to be the same doctrine with the scriptures which the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon taught by these faire pretences and this lying profession they insinuate themselves into the hearts of the simple deceiving hereby both themselves and others 16. The other consequent is this That the profession of all heretikes is contradictory to it selfe For they professe to hold the scriptures and so to condemne every heresie and yet withal they professe one private doctrine repugnant to scripture and which is an heresie The like may be said of the Councells The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice professe Christ to bee but one person and yet withall by holding Nestorianisme they professe Christ to be two persons The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Councell of Ephesus professe two natures to remaine in Christ after the union which in that Councell is certainly decreed and yet by professing the heresie of Eutyches they professe the quite contradictory that one nature onely remaines after the union The Church of Rome and members thereof by professing the faith of the fift Councell professe the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and de facto to have beene hereticall and yet they professe the direct contradictory as the Councell of Laterane hath defined that the Popes sentence in such causes is infallible and neither hath beene nor can be hereticall So repugnant to it selfe and incoherent is the profession of all heretikes that it fighteth both with the truth and with it owne selfe also The very same is to be seene in Vigilius and his Constitution For in professing to defend the three Chapters and in decreeing that all shall defend them he professeth all the blasphemies of Nestorius and decreeth that all shall maintaine them and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon and decreeing that all shall hold it hee professeth that Nestorianisme is heresie and decreeth that all shall condemne it for heresie and so decreeing both these he decreeth that all men in the world shall beleeve two contradictories and beleeve them as Catholike Truths Such a worthy Apostolicall decree is this of Vigilius for defending whereof Baronius doth more then toyle himselfe 17. You will againe demand Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainely professe both these why shall not his expresse profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon make him or shew him to bee a Catholike rather then his other expresse profession to defend the Three Chapters make or shew him to bee an hereticke Why rather shall his hereticall then his orthodoxall profession give denomination unto him I also demand of you Seeing every hereticke in expresse words professeth to beleeve the whole Scripture which is in effect a condemning of every heresie why shall not this orthodoxall profession make or shew him to be a Catholike rather then his expresse profession of some one doctrine contrarie to Scripture say for example sake of Arianisme make or shew him to bee an Arian hereticke The reason of both is one and the same Did an Arian so professe to hold the Scriptures that hee were resolved to forsake his Arianisme and confesse Christ to bee 〈◊〉
confirmed the fift Synod per libellum by a booke or writing Binius is so resolute herein that hee saith A Vigilio quintam Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod and of his defending those Three Chapters is of no force and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike This is the Exception the validity whereof we are now to examine 2. For the clearing of which whole matter it must bee remembred that all which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius hath reference to his Apostolicall decree published in defence of those Three Chapters that is to Vigilius being such as that decree doth shew and demonstrate him to have beene even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict which was in the twentieth yeare of Iustinian unto the death of Vigilius which was as Baronius accounteth in the 29 of Iustinian and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended but as Victor who then lived accounteth in the 31 of Iustinian and fourth yeare after the Synod And for the more cleare view of his cariage wee must observe foure severall periods of time wherein Vigilius during those nine or tenne yeares gave divers severall judgements and made three or foure eminent changes in this cause of faith The first from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict while he remained at Rome and was absent from the Emperor The second after he came to Constantinople and to the Emperours presence but before the fift Synod was begun The third in the time of the fift Synod and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof The fourth from thence that is from the yeare after the Synod unto his death 3. At the first publishing of the Edict many of the Westerne Churches impugnabant Edictum did oppose themselves to it and as Baronius saith insurrexere made an insurrection against it and the Emperour Pope Vigilius as in place and dignity hee was more eminent so in this Insurrection he was more forward and a ring-leader unto them all And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause First he proclameth the Edict and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane novelty judging it to bee contrary to the holy faith and Councell at Chalcedon To this he addes writings threats and punishments Literas scripsit adversus eos saith Baronius Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor and his Edict in those letters comminatus est eis qui consenserunt he threatned those that consented to the Emperor edixit indixit correctionem he decreed punishment unto them and forewarned them thereof telling them that unlesse they did amend their fault hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them protesting with the Apostle I feare when I come I shall not finde you such as I would and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not Nor were his threats in vaine as it seemeth seeing Baronius tells us that for this very cause either he or Stephanus his Legate in his name did excommunicate besides others two Patriarkes Mennas of Constantinople and Zoilus of Alexandria and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea 4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons but for the Emperour he took another course with him He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors that he would not do himself But wheÌ„ like Pirrhus ipse sibi cavit loco he had provided for his owne safety then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines Facundus an eloquent maÌ„ indeed as his name also imports but a most obstinate heretike Schismatike seeing he persisted in defeÌ„ce of the three Chapters not only before but after the judicial senteÌ„ce of the general Councel yet is he coÌ„mended by Baronius to be prudentissimus agonistes a most wise champion for the Church but the more hereticall hee is the more like and better liked is hee to Baronius Him doth Vigilius egge and even command to write against the Emperour yea sugillare it is the Cardinals word to taunt and flout him for his Edict nor him onely but in him to reprove omnes simul Principes all Princes whosoever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith or make lawes therein as Iustinian had done Facundus being thus directed incouraged and warranted by Pope Vigilius and being but his instrument in this matter writes a large volume containing twelve bookes against the Emperor in defence of the three Chapters A worke stuffed with heresie yet highly commended by Possevine the Iesuite as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undutifull manner as if forsooth fides omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve and as if none might beleeve otherwise quam praeciperet imperator then the Emperour commanded telling him that it were more meet for him se infra limitem suum continere to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds as other Artificers kept their own shops the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office Such rude homely and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause And as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe enough Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence calling the Emperour utterly unlearned qui nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset who never had learned so much as his A B C nor could ever read the Title of the Bible a Punie a palliated Theologue a sacrilegious person a witlesse furious and franâ—ike fellow possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one to presume against all right to make lawes concerning matters of faith concerning Priests and the punishments of them adding that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie si qui ejusmodi esset if such as Iustinian should makes lawes of faith yea such lawes quas dolosè conscripsissent haeretici as heretikes had craftily penned telling him as Facundus had before that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admonition Ne ultra Crepidam Sr Cobler go not beyond your Last Latchet This scurrility doth the Cardinall use
a monument are perennius Had Baronius said that Vigilius never decreed the defending of those Chapters he had fully cleared him in this matter if he could have proved what he had said But seeing undeniable records testifie and the Cardinall himselfe with a Stentors voice proclameth this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius though hee had revoked and repealed it a thousand times yet can not this quit his former Apostolicall Decree from being hereticall nor excuse their pontificall chaire from being fallible It is nothing at all materiall which of the Popes Cathedrall Decrees the first last or middle bee hereticall If any one of them all bee wee desire no more the field is wonne 14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolicall decree confirmed the fift Councell Then did hee certainely decree that all writings defending the Three Chapters doe defend heresie and that all persons who defend those Chapters for so long time as they defend them after the judgement of that Councell are convicted and condemned hereticks Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius set forth by his Apostolicall authoritie in the time of the Councell in defence of those Chapters is now by Popes Vigilius himselfe and by his Apostolicall authority and infallible Chaire declared to bee hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for that yeare after the Councell is now by Vigilius himselfe pronounced to bee an Hereticke yea a definer of heresie Vigilius now orthodoxal decreeth himselfe to have been before heretical Nay it further followeth that by confirming that Councell hee confirmeth and that by an Apostolicall and infallible Decree that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith to bee infallible are convicted and accursed heretickes for by defending that position they do eo ipso defend that Constitutiō of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to bee true infallible and orthodoxall which Vigilius himselfe by an infallible decree hath declared to bee erroneous and hereticall So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause that upon the admission thereof it doth inevitably ensue both that Vigilius was an hereticke and a definer of heresie and that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibitie in causes of faith that is al who are members of their present Romane Church to bee not onely heretickes and for such condemned and accursed but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresie even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius 15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might bee excused being now fully dissolved There remaineth one point which Baronius and after him Binius observeth touching this often changing of Vigilius which being a point of speciall note I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should over-passe the same Some men when they heare of these often changings windings and turnings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresie will perhaps imagine this to bee a token of some levitie unconstancie or solly in the Pope O fie It was not so saith Baronius What hee did was not onely lawfull done by good right and reason but it was laudable also done with great advise wisedome and consideration Vigilius a man of greatest constancie One who stood up with courage for defence of the Church adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem against Iustinian a violent oppressor thereof one who fought for the sacred lawes enduring exile constanti animo with a constant minde for the same One who did by this meanes wisely yea prudentissimé most wisely provide for the good of the Church One who in thus doing did wisely imitate Saint Paul who condemned circumcision and yet when hee circumcised Timothie approved circumcision And though there bee a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions the one change being in a mutable at that time an indifferent ceremonie the other being in an immutable doctrine of faith Yet thus do they please themselves and applaud the Pope in these his wise and worthy changes 16. Now in stead of a better conclusion to this Chapter I will entreate the reader to observe with me two things touching their commending Vigilius in this manner The former is what an happie thing it is to be a Pope or have a Cardinall for his spokesman Let Luther Cranmer or a Protestant make farre lesse change thē did Vigilius what shall they not heare An Apostate unconstant inconsiderate a Chamelion a Polipus another Proteus even Vertumnus himselfe Let the Pope say and gaine say the same doctrine of faith and then ex Cathedra define both his sayings being contradictorie to bee not onely true but infallible truths of the Catholike faith O It is all done with rare wisdome with great reason and consideration The Pope in all this deales wisely and that in the superlative degree If when he is absent from the Emperor he oppugne the truth published by the Emperors edict It is wisely done Kings and Emperors may not make Lawes in causes of faith no not for the faith The Cobler must not goe beyond his latchet If when hee is brought before the Emperor he sing a new song and say just as the Emperor saith Ait ato Negat nego It is wisely done principibus placuisse viris for the Kings wrath is the messenger of death If after both these bee become a meere Neutralist and Ambodexter in faith holding communion with all sides Catholikes heretickes and all this is also an act of rare wisdome the Pope is now become another Saint Paul factus est omnia omnibus with Catholikes he 's a Catholike that he may gaine Catholikes with Heretickes he 's an Hereticke that he may gaine heretickes he 's all with all that hee may gaine them all If when the Emperor the generall Councell the whole Church calls for his resolution in a cause of faith if then hee step into his infallible Chaire and thence by his Apostolicall authoritie define that the three Chapters that is that Nestorianisme shall for ever bee held for the Catholike faith O wisely done he now drops oracles from heaven in Cathedra sedet the voice of God and not of man If when hee is banished for his obstinacie against the truth upon some urgent cause which then he discernes he calls againe for his holy Trevit and thence decrees the quite contradictorie to his former Apostolicall sentence In this he 's wiser then in all the rest for by this he shews that he 's more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets and Apostles ever were They silly men could make but the one part of a contradiction to be true but the Pope he is tanto potentior Prophetis so much more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets that hee can make both parts of a contradiction to be infallible truths and unto which of the Prophets was it ever said Tu es Petra But the Pope is a Rocke indeed a
Rocke upon which you may build two contradictories in the doctrine of faith and in them both say unto him Tu es Petra Such a Rocke neither the Prophets nor Apostles nor Christ himselfe ever was So wise so exceeding wise is the Pope in all his turnings even as wise as a wethercocke for turning with the wind and weather 17. Againe when the Pope his instruments or Inquisitors to whom Phalaris Busiris and all the heathen persecutors may yeeld exercise against us for maintaining the truth of God all exquisite hellish tortures to which the old heathenish were but ludus jocus all which they doe must be extolled as due punishments and just censures of the Holy Father of the holy Church of the Holy inquisition of the Holy house all must bee covered with the mantle of holinesse On the other side when they resist the most religious lawes or Edicts of Kings or Emperors when Vigilius or any of them being by an holy generall Councell declared and condemned for an Hereticke are for their obstinate rebellion against the truth justly punished though Iustinian yea Iustice it selfe shall use rather moderate then severe correction against them they forsooth must be accoumpted catholikes Cōsessers holy Martyrs such as suffer for religion for the sacred lawes and for the Catholike faith but Iustinian the Defender of the faith must be called Iulian Iustice be termed Scelus and the Church for that cause said to bee in farre worse condition then in the times of Nero Dioclesian or any of the heathen Tyrants Such an happie thing it is to bee a Pope or Papist for then their wavering shall be Constancie their rebellion Religion and fortitude their folly greate and rare wisedome their heresie Catholike doctrine and their most condigne punishments shall be crowned with Martyrdome 18. The other thing which I observe is what a strong faith Papists had need to have who rely upon the Popes judgement which changeth out and in in and out so many times who yet are bound to beleeve al the Pope definitive sentences in causes of faith that is to speake in plaine tearmes who are bound to beleeve two contradictories to bee both true both of them the infallible oracles of God Or if any of them have so weake a faith that he can but beleeve the one I would gladly learne of some who is an Oedipus among them In this case of two Contradictorie Cathedrall decrees such as were these of Pope Vigilius whether of the Popes definitive judgements that is according to their language whether of the sayings of God is true and whether false or what strength the one hath more then the other If the Apostolicall sentence of Vigilius delivered cum omni undique cautela and by his Cathedrall authoritie in defence of the Three Chapters be repealeable by a second why may not the second which cannot possibly have more authoritie bee repealed by a third and the third by a fourth and fourth by a fift and so in Infinitum If the Pope after seaven yeares deliberation and ventilating of the cause while hee is all that time in peace and libertie may be deceived in his judiciall and Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith how may wee be assured that when some yeares after that the tediousnesse of exile and desire of his pristine libertie and honour perswades him to make a contrary decree he may not therein also bee deceived If the Popes decrees made in libertie peace and prosperity be of force why shall not the decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters be an article of faith If those free decrees may be admitted by a stronger sentence when the Pope is in banishment how may any beleeve their Laterane and Trent decrees as doctrines of faith For why may there not once againe come some other Iustinian into the world as great pitie it is but there should who in these or future times may minister that soveraigne medicine to cleare the Popes judgement and restraine or close him up in some meaner estate and farre lower place whence as out of a darke and low pit he may discerne those coelestiall truths in the Word of God like so many Starres in heaven which now being invironed with the circumfused splendor of the Romane Court he cannot possibly behold If those Three Chapters were to bee condemned why did the Pope defend them at the time of the Councell If they were to be defended why did he condemne them after his returne from exile Nay if the Three Chapters were orthodoxall why did the Pope at any time first or last by his Apostolicall sentence condemne them If they were hereticall why did he at any time first or last by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence defend them I confesse I am here in a Labyrinth if any of the Cardinals friends will winde mee out he shall for ever be Theseus unto me CAP. XVI That the Decree of Vigilius for Taciturnity touching the Three Chapters and the Councell wherein it is supposed to be made and all the Consequents upon that Decree painted out by Baronius are all fictitious and Poeticall 1. THE whole reason of Baronius drawne from Vigilius his confirming of the fift Councell being now fully dissolved we might without further stay and I gladly would according to my intended order in the Treatise proceed to his next exceptiō but there are two points in this last passage touching the chāgings of Vigilius which even against my will pull mee backe and call me to examine what Baronius sets downe and with exceeding ostentation paints out in his Annals concerning them the due consideration whereof will cause any man to admire the Cardinals most audacious and shamelesse dealing in Synodall affaires and causes of the Church The one of them concernes the second the other the fourth period in Vigilius changings The former is this 2. As soone as the defenders of the Three Chapters had notice of that Iudiciall sentence and Decree published by Vigilius against the same Chapters upon his comming to Constantinople they began to storme thereat and condemne Vigilius as a Prevaricator or revolter from the faith whereupon Vigilius as the Cardinall tels us put in practice a rare peece of wisedome and of his Pontificall pollicy sententiam emissam mox suspendit seu potius revocavit he suspends and revokes that his late judgement rursum ab eo promulgatum decretum quo decernebatur ut penitus taceretur and he published a new Decree wherein he decreed that every man should be silent and say never a word either pro or contra touching that question of the Three Chapters till the time of the generall Councel from this yeare which was the 21 of Iustinian the same wherin Vigilius came to Constantinople until the time of the generall Councell in eâ causâ ab ipso Vigilio indictū fuit Silentiū Silence was injoyned every man in that cause by Pope Vigilius
himselfe was so far from being silent therein that both by words by writings by pontificall censures and judgements himselfe condemned the 3 Chapters who will again perswade you that the Pope suffered very heavy persecution at the Emperors hands because he would not permit the 3. Chapters to be condemned whereas the Pope himselfe not onely condemned them all that time as well as the Emperor did but both by writings reproved and by judiciall censures punished condemned and deposed such as would not condemne them and that also eo nomine because they would not condemne them nor consent to his judgements whereby he had condemned them Now that Vigilius continued of the same mind both in the 25. 26. yeares of Iustinian that is untill the time that the fift Councell was assembled though there be no particulars to explaine yet by the Emperours words before remembred that per totum tempus perseveravit and ejusdem semper voluntatis fuit it is abundantly testified So that it is most certain that Vigilius at no time observed this decree of Taciturnity and because had there beene any he of all men was the most likely to observe it who as Baronius fableth was so rigorous against others even the Emperor also for not observing thereof his not observing of it is an evidence that he made no such Decree at all but that the whole narration concerning it and the consequents upon it is a very fiction and fable 11. Next after the Pope let us see if the Emperor who as Baronius saith promised to observe this law of Taciturnity was silent quiet in this cause And truly there is a strong presumption that he neither did nor would now refuse or forbeare to condemne the 3. Chapters seeing by so doing he should have anathematized himselfe for by his Imperiall Edict he denoūced all those to be an Anathema who do not condemne and anathematize the same Chapters The very silence in this cause and ceasing or refusing to anathematize the Chapters had made him guilty of his owne just Anathema But to leave presumptions Certaine it is that Iustinian continued the same man constant in condemning those Chapters and that not onely for the time after this supposed Decree but from the first publishing of his own Edict whereof the whole fift Councell is a most ample witnesse who thus say omnia semper fecit facit quae sanctam Ecclesiam recta dogmata conservant The most pious Emperor hath ever done concerning this cause of the three Chapters and now doth those things which preserve the holy Church and sound doctrine and that to be the condemning of these Chapters they by their Synodall sentence doe make evident where they professe the condemning thereof to bee the preserving of the good seed of faith the preserving of the Councell of Chalcedon and the rooting out of hereticall tares 12. And if wee desire particulars of his constant dealing herein Victor Tunavensis declareth the earnestnesse of Iustinian in condemning these Chapters for every yeare since this Decree of Taciturnity is supposed to have beene made The Decree as Baronius sheweth was set out in the sixt yeare after the Consulship of Basilius which account by Consular yeares Victor useth and it answereth to the end of twenty one and most of the 22. yeare of Iustinian In the seaventh yeare after Basilius Coss. that is in the very next to that wherein the Decree was made Iustinian writ most earnestly saith Victor into divers provinces antistites cunctos praefata tria Capitula damnare compellit and hee compelled all Bishops to condemne the Three Chapters In the eight he sheweth that the Illyrian Bishops held a Synod and writ unto the Emperour to disswade him from condemning those Chapters In the ninth he shewes that Facundus did the like and further in this yeare the Emperor commanded the Synod at Mopsvestia to be held against Theodorus that it might appeare how and from how long time before then the name of Theodorus had beene blotted out of the Ecclesiasticall tables the judgement of which Synod the Emperor sent to Vigilius to assure him of the truth thereof that hee might with more constancie continue to cōdemne the Three Chapters In the tenth Victor declares that the Emperor sent for Reparatus and Firmus two Primates for Primasius Verecundus two Bishops to deale with them that they would condemne the same Chapters and that Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria for refusing to condemne them was deposed which to have beene done by the Emperors command Liberatus sheweth In the eleventh which was the next before the generall Councell Victor tells us both that Firmus Primate of Numidia being wonne by the Emperors gifts so hee partially writeth consented to condemne the Chapters but Primasius Verecundus and Macarius for not consenting were all banished So cleare and undoubted it is that the Emperor continued so constant in his condemning of these Chapters that for every yeare since the Decree of Silence is supposed to be made he was resolute in this cause condemning and banishing such as consented not to the condemning of them 13. Whence the shamelesse untruths of the Baronian narration is demonstrated He tells you and tells it with a Constat that in the next yeare before the fift Councell the Emperour recalled his Edict and abrogated what he had done in this cause of the 3. Chapters whereas not onely the whole generall Councell testifieth on the contrary that hee still persisted constant in condemning of them but Victor one who had good reason to know these matters as feeling the smart of the Emperors severity for his obstinacie in defending those Chapters particularly witnesseth of that very yeare that the Emperor was so eager in maintaining his Edict and condemning the Chapters that he both drew Firmus the Primate of Numidia to his opiniō and banished Macarius Patriarch of Ierusalem Verecundus Bishop of Nica and Primasius another Bishop because they would not consent to his Edict and condemne the same Chapters And what a brainlesse devise was this that the Emperor in his 25. yeare should hang out his Edict at Constantinople so the Cardinall fableth as a matter of some great noveltie to bee published to the Citie whereas his Edict foure or five yeares before was so divulged throughout the whole Church that none may be thought to have beene ignorant thereof seeing universus orbis Catholicus the whole Catholike Church was divided and rent into a schisme about that Edict the one halfe defending the other oppugning the same Or what reason can the fabler give why Vigilius should in the 25. yeare quarrell with the Emperor rather then in the 24.23.22 in every one of which Iustinian was the same man constant in maintaining the truth published by his Edict Did the hanging out of the Edict more provoke the Popes zeale then the banishing imprisoning of those who withstood the Edict more then the
Edicts Procopius who was familiarly conversant with Iustinian recites that traiterous perswasion of Arsaces to Artabanus when he excited him to murther the Emperour This said hee you may doe easily and without danger for the Emperour is not mistrustfull and he passeth the time till very late of the night in talking without any watch or guard having none but some old and feeble Bishops about him Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus being marvellously addicted to reade and peruse the writings of Christians Are these thinke you the actions of an illiterate of an Abcedary Emperour And what speake I of these The Pandects the Code the Authentikes the Institutions the whole body of the law proclame the incredible wisedome and rare knowledge of Iustinian All people saith he are governed by the lawes Tam à nobis promulgatis quam compositis as well published as composed by us and though he used the learning helpe and industry of other worthy men whose names he hath commended to all posterity and never-dying fame yet when they offred the bookes unto him Et legimus recognovimus saith he wee both read them and examined them which the glosse explaineth saying Nos ipsi legimus We our selves have reade and perused them So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shamelesse untruth of Baronius in reviling him for an illiterate and not so much as an Abcedarie scholler whose wit learning and prudence hath beene and will for ever bee a mirrour to all ages 4. But Suidas saith the Cardinall doth affirme the same calling Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and void of all learning For answer whereunto first I would gladly know of the Cardinal how hee can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas specially seeing their owne Iesuite Possevine tels us for a certainty that Plaeraque very many things are falsly inserted into Suidas and that à Sciolis Schismaticis by some smatterers or Schismaticks and further that those Plaeraque are such as are repugnant to the Euangelicall truth and Historicall sinceritie How may we bee assured that this concerning Iustinian is not one of those Plaeraque seeing this to be contrary to Historicall sincerity doth by those many and evident proofes which wee before produced fully appeare Againe admitting Suidas for the Author thereof is Suidas thinke you of more or equall authority and credit to their Pontificall which witnesseth expresly that Iustinian writ the holy confession of his faith Chirographo proprio with his owne hand Equall to Tritemius and Possevine or to winke at them to Pope Agatho and the sixt generall Councell who all account Iustinian among the Writers of the Church Who I pray you was this Suidas truly an earnest defender of those impieties which in their second Nicene Synod began to prevaile who in reviling manner doth call Constantine Iconomachus a Serpent an Antichrist and the disciple of the Devill and all for his not consenting to the adoration of Images and reliques and to the Invocation of Saints Now how this sort of men were given to lyes and fables the Acts of that Synod doe fully demonstrate Or if you rather desire to have their Iesuites judgement of Suidas hee will tell you first that he was hereticall in teaching the Essence in the Godhead to be generative which their Laterane Councell hath condemned for an heresie Hee will tell you further that this booke is full of errours fables and lyes of which sort are these among many That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos that it shal continue 1200. thousand yeares that the Sun and Starres are fierie substances fed and perpetuated by terrestriall humours as their nutriment that Paradise is Hortus pensilis a garden hanging in the ayre farre above the earth that Caine was begotten of the Devill which is a lye that the Iewes adored an asses head and every seventh yeare sacrificed a stranger His narration in verbo Nero touching Annas and Caiphas Pilate Peter and Simon Magus wherin multa comminiscitur he forgeth many things His narration in verbo Iulianus which hee calleth in expresse words mendacium flagiciosissimum a most lewd lie His slandering Constantine the great as base of birth and his sonne Crispus as incestuous His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretikes adding that hee writeth many things contra Historiae veritatem against the Historicall truth His relation in verbo Apolonius where many things are praised quae omnia monstrosa sunt prorsus explodenda all which are utterly to be hissed at where also he seemeth to allow the impious Art of Magicke and Divinations His approving of Appolonius and Danis two wicked Magitians who both are relegati ad inferos condemned to Hell And to omit very many of this kinde of impieties and fables which abound in Suidas His narration in verbo Iesus which not onely Baronius rejecteth but Pope Paul the fourth for that cause beside some other exploded the booke of Suidas and placed it in the ranke librorum prohibitorum Such even by the confession of their owne Iesuite is this Suidas a depraver of good a commender of wicked men a fabler a lyer a falsifier of Histories a Magitian an Heretike whose booke is by the Pope forbidden to bee read Such a worthy witnesse hath the Cardinall of his Suidas with whom he conspireth in reviling Iustinian as one utterly unlearned Concerning which untruth I will say no more at this time than that which Gotofrâ—d doth in his censure of those words of Suidas where calling it in plaine termes a slander he rejects it as it justly deserveth in this manner Valeant calumniae nos sinceriora sequamur Away with this and such like opprobrious slanders of Suidas and Baronius but let us follow the truth 5. His second reproofe of the Emperour is for presuming to make lâ—res in causes of faith which for Kings and Emperours to doe brings as he saith an hellish confusion into the Church of God The wit of a Cardinall Iustinian may not doe that which King Hezekiah which Asa which Iesiah and Constantine the great the two Theodosu Martian and other holy Emperours before had done and done it by the warrant of God to the eternall good of the Church and their owne immortall â—ame Had hee indeed or any of those Emperours taken upon them by their lawes to establish some new erronious or hereticall doctrine the Cardinall might in this case have justly reproved them but this they did not what doctrines the Prophets delivered the word of God taught and holy Synods had before decreed and explaned those and none else did Iustinian by his Edict and other religious Emperours ratifie by their imperiall authority Heare Iustinians owne words Wee have thought it needfull by this our Edict to manifest that right confession of faith quae in sancta Dei Ecclesiá praedicatur which is preached in the holy Church of God Here
is no new faith no Edict for any new doctrine but for maintaining that onely faith which the holy Catholike Church taught and the Councell of Chalcedon had decreed wherein that Iustinian did nothing but worthy of eternal praise the whole fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church approving it is a witnesse aboue exception which entreating of that which Iustinian had done in this cause of the Three Chapters the chiefe of all which was the publishing of his most religious Edict to cōdemne the same saith Omnia semper fecit facit quae sanctam Ecclesiam recta dogmata conservant Iustinian hath ever done and as yet doth all things which preserve the holy Church and the true faith So the Councell Is not Baronius minde composed of venome and malice who condemnes and reviles the Emperour as bringing hellish confusion into the Church by publishing that law which to have beene an especiall meanes to preserve the Church and Catholike faith the holy generall Councell and all the whole Catholike Church with it proclameth 6. See here againe the love and respect which Baronius beares to the Imperiall lawes and to those holy and religious Emperors which were the nursing fathers of Gods Church and pillers to uphold the faith in their dayes There are extant in the Theodosian Code many laws cōcerning the Catholike faith concerning Bish. Churches and the Clergy concerning Heretikes Apostates Monkes Iewes and Samaritanes concerning Pagan sacrifices and Temples concerning Religion Episcopall judgement those who flee unto Churches and many other of the same kinde lawes wholesome and necessary for those times The like titles are extant also in the Code of Iustinian In the Authenticks there are I know not how many lawes in the like causes Of the foure Councels of the Order of Patriarchs of the building of Churches of goods belonging to sacred places Of the holy Communion of Litanies of the memorials for the dead of the Priviledges of Churches of Patriarchs of the Pope of old Rome of Archbishops of Abbots of Presbyters of Deacons of Subdeacons of Monkes of Anchorites of Synods of deposing Bishops who fall into heresie that Patrons who builded Churches and their heyers shall nominate the Clerks for the same and in case they name such as are unmeet then the Bishop to appoint who he thinks fit that Heretikes shall be uncapable of any legacies and exceeding many the like Now such a spite hath the Cardinall to the Emperours and these their Imperiall lawes made concerning the affaires of the Church that like some new Aristarchus with one dash of his pen hee takes upon him to casheire and utterly abolish those lawes five or sixe hundreth at the least with such care piety and prudēce set forth by Constantine Theodosius Valentinian Gratian Martian Iustinian and other holy and religious Emperours And when these are gone whether the Cardinall meant not after them to wipe away which with as good reason and authority he may all the other lawes which are in the Digest Code and Authenticks that so his master the Pope may play even another Iack Cade that all law might proceed out of his mouth let the judicious consider This is cleare that the Cardinals malice is not satisfied with reproofe of the lawes themselves even these holy Emperors Constantine Theodosius and the rest are together with Iustinian for the making of those lawes touching Ecclesiasticall affaires and persons reproved nay reviled by Baronius as having beene presumptuous persons authors of an hellish confusion in the Church and for turning heaven into hell They and such as they make lawes of faith lawes for Bishops lawes for the Church let them heare as they well deserve and as the Cardinall shameth not to upbraid to Iustinian Ne ultra crepidam Sir Cobler goe not beyond you Last and Latchet So indignly doth the Cardinall use those holy and religious Princes and that even for their zeale to Gods truth and love to his Church for that which with exceeding piety and prudence they performed to their owne immortall honor and to the peace and tranquillity of the whole Church of God 7. His third calumnie is that hee revileth Iustinian for his sacrilegious fury and persecution which hee used against Pope Vigilius partly when Vigilius was buffeted and beaten at Constantinople before the time of the Councell and forced to flee to Chalcedon partly when he was banished after the end of the Councell for not consenting with the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters Alas how hath heresie and malice quite blinded the Cardinall and bereft him of his understanding Iustinian neither before the Councell nor after it persecuted Vigilius Vigilius was neither beaten nor buffeted nor fled hee either to Saint Peter or to Saint Euphemia nor was he banished at all these all are nothing but the Poeticall and Chimericall fictions of the Cardinall no truth no realty at all in them as we have before fully demonstrated Iudge now I pray you whether any but some Ajax furiosus or who were deprived of his wits would call the Emperour madde franticke sacrilegious possessed and guided by the Devill for persecuting and banishing him who neither was persecuted nor banished but enjoyed the latitude of liberty and all the benefits thereof even the Emperours favour and the comforts accompanying it But admit Vigilius had been banished as indeed many other Bishops were for defending the Three Chapters against the Decree of the holy generall Councell was Iustinian a persecutor a monstrous sacrilegious persecutor for banishing or punishing condemned heretikes and Nestorians such as all the defenders of the Three Chapters to have beene wee have before declared what a monstrous persecutor then was holy Constantine for banishing Theognis Bishop of Nice and Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia for refusing to consent to the Nicene Synod What a persecutor was Theodosius the the elder who commanded all that held the Macedonian heresie to bee banished and shut out of their Churches without any hope to recover the same againe What a persecutor was Theodosius the younger who forbad all men to have or reade the bookes of Nestorius or to admit the Nestorians into any City Towne Village or house What an horrible and monstrous persecutor was Martian who made a law that if any should teach the Eutichean heresie ultimo supplicio coercebitur he shall bee put to death If Constantine Theodosius the elder and younger and Martian bee no persecutors notwithstanding this severity in exiling punishing and putting to death heretikes what a malicious slanderer is Baronius for cōdemning Iustinian as a persecutor for banishing imprisoning or punishing with like severity the defēders of the three Chapters who were every way as detestable as damnable as truly convicted condēned heretikes by the judgment of an holy general Councel as either the Arians Macedonians Eutycheans or old Nestorians Thus to persecute that is justly punish heretikes is laudable thus to be persecuted is
because hee dyed in the peace and Communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 58. 8. That the third and last reason of Vigilius touching the First Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because he was not condemned by former Fathers and Councels is erronious and untrue 67. 9. That Vigilius besides divers personall held a doctrinall errour in faith in his defence of the Second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodorus against Cyril Pag. 91. 10. That Vigilius and Baronius erre in divers personall points or matters of fact concerning the Third Chapter which was the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris 107. 11. That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas drawne from the union with Cyrill mentioned in the later part of that Epistle doe defend all the heresies of the Nestorians 112. 12. That Vigilius and Baronius in their later reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas taken from the words of Ibas wherein he confesseth Two natures and One Person to be in Christ doe maintaine all the heresies of the Nestorians 138. 13. Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chapters refuted and two other against them confirmed the one That to dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an heretike nor a Schismatike the other That to assent in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome makes one both an Heretike and a Schismatike 170. 14. The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresie For that hee often professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith thereof refuted 199. 15. The third Exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three or foure times changed his judgment in this cause of faith 213. 16. That the Decree Pope of Vigil for Taciturnity touching the Three Chapters and the Councell wherein it is supposed to bee made and all the Consequents upon that Decree painted out by Baronius are all fictions and Poeticall 225. 17. That Vigilius neither by his Pontificall Decree nor so much as by a personall profession consented to or confirmed the fift Councell after the end thereof or after his supposed exile 240. 18. The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius pretending That the fift Councell wherein the Decree of Vigilius was condemned was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell till Vigilius confirmed the same refuted 266. 19. The true notes to know which are Generall and lawfull which either are not Generall or being Generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes and that none of those which the Romanists doe reckon after the sixt are Generall lawfull Councels Pag. 291. 20. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same 324. 21. How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same 355. 22. How Baronius declameth against the Cause it selfe of the Three Chapter and a refutation of the same 361. 23. How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea and a refutation of the same 363. 24. How Baronius carpeth at the Synodall Acts of the fift Councell as corrupted and a refutation in generall of the same 377. 25. The 1. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein refuted 381. 26. The 2. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that Ibas is said therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 386. 27. The 3. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Councell of Chalcedon is said therein to condemne the Epistle of Ibas refuted 389. 28. The Three first Defects in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Acts against the Origenists The Edict of Iustinian And his Epistle touching that cause are wanting therein refuted 391. 29. The 4. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Emperours Epistle to the fift Councell is wanting therein refuted 398. 30. The 5. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius concerning the Three Chapters is wanting therein refuted 399. 31. The 6. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Decree which advanced Ierusalem to a Patriarchall dignity is wanting therein refuted 403. 32. The two first Additions to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius And the two lawes of Theodosius are falsly inserted therein refuted 408. 33. The 3. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the Vnion is falsly inserted therein refuted 413. 34. The 4. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius For that the Epistle of Theodoret to Iohn Bishop of Antioch is falsly inserted therein refuted 422. 35. That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings in handling this cause of the fift Councell as particularly the Excommunication ascribed to Vigilius and the Confession ascribed to Mennas Theodorus and others 440. 36. That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Constantinople and a refutation thereof with a Description of the life of the same Vigilius 462. A TREATISE OF THE FIFT GENERALL COVNCILL held at Constantinople under Iustinian in the time of Pope Vigilius Wherein the exceeding fraud and falshoods of Cardinall Baronius are clearely discovered CAP. I. That the Emperour IVSTINIAN assembled the Fift Generall Councill to define a doubt of Faith about The three Chapters CONCILIA generalia mea sunt primum ultimum media saith their Romane Thraso Generall Councils are all ours the first the last the middle All 's mine as said the Devill to the Collier A vaunt too vaine too Thrasonicall Divide the Councils aright and let each have his own due part and portion and then all the five first and so much as they account the sixt that is all which were held for 600. yeares and more All the golden Councils and of the golden ages of the Church are ours onely and not theirs in many and even in the maine points of Religion repugnant to them and their doctrines but in every Decree Canon and Constitution of faith so consonant to us that we not onely embrace but earnestly defend them all as the rightfull and proper inheritance left unto us by those holy Fathers of the ancient and Catholike Church The middle ranke beginning at the second Nicene unto the Councill of Florence which were held in those ages of the mingled and confused Church none of them are either wholly ours or wholly theirs those miscellane Councils are neither thine nor mine but they must all be divided The two last the one at Laterane the other at Trent which are the very lees and dreggs of Councills held onely by such as were the
Constitution to be stolne out of the Synodall acts now extant is bold to insert it into the 5. Collation as into his owne due and proper place wherein it was and now ought to be 5. The Card. is too confident about the day when it was sent to the Synod as also in his adding this Constitution to the Acts of the Synod as hereafter in due place will appeare Thus much is certaine and evident by the Synodall acts that this Constitution of Vigilius was made knowne to the Bishops of this holy Councill before their sixt Collation for in that sixt divers things are expressed which have a cleare and undoubted reference to the Popes decree as containing a refutation of the same and herein the Card. saith truly The decree of Vigilius was first sent to the Emperor and from him to the Synod as by the sixt Collation may be perceived wherein those things which the Pope had alledged for defence of the Epistle of Ibas are refuted 6. As for the dignity credit and authority of this writing it is neither any ordinary nor private instruction but as the Pope himselfe calleth it a Constitution a Statute a Decree a Definition or Definitive sentence and by the name of a Constitution it is subscribed unto both by the Pope and all the rest of his Assemblie and for such it is commended by Card. Baronius and Binius In it the Pope delivereth his Apostolicall sentence Iudgement touching the Three Chapters this being that very same answer which Vigilius promised to send to the Emperror and for the advised setting downe whereof he requested of the Emperor the respite of twenty dayes During which time he did insudare and laborare as the Card. saith with much sweat and toile elaborate this large decree containing no lesse then thirty six columes in folio that it might in every respect and for the exact handling of so weighty a cause be correspondent to the gravity and authority of his infallible Chaire specially seeing he set it forth of purpose that it might be notified not onely to the Emperor and the Synod then assembled sed universo orbi Catholico but to the whole Catholike Church as a publike direction in faith for them all in which kinde of teaching nullo casu errare potest saith Card. Bellarmine the Pope can by no meanes be possibly deceived For this cause also Vigilius at this time and in this businesse used the help and advice of a Synod consisting of Italian Africane and Illyrian Bishops then present with him at Constantinople sixteene Bishops beside himselfe and three Romane Deacons These all consented with the Pope and subscribed to his Constitution and in theirs was included the consent of the Africane of the Illyrian of the Italian and other Westerne Churches even of the Church of Rome also who all at this time agreed in judgement about the Three Chapters with the Pope as Card. Baronius professeth So deliberate and advised was the Pope in this cause that his resolution herein is not onely a Pontificall but a Synodall Sentence also yea a Decree and definitive judgement delivered by the Pope as himselfe expresly witnesseth Ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae by the authoritie of the Apostolicke sea an whole Synod of Bishops the Westerne Churches consenting with them subscribing to the same for their number well-neere as many as there were Bishops present in some Sessions of their Oecumenicall Councill at Trent 7. This Apostolicall Constitution which had long laid in obscuritie about some 18. yeares since was brought to light and first of al published by Card. Baronius to the opē view of the world copied by him out of an ancient manuscript in their Vaticane where still it is kept and more then halfe of it is set out by Binius annexed as a fragment to the fifth generall Councill But for what good purpose Binius clipt away the residue being a great no lesse then five or six columes in folio and by farre the most needfull part of the Popes Decree thereby not onely injuring the Popes Holines and deluding the world but foully maiming and disgracing his owne Tomes of the Councils you will easily perceive hereafter 8. The summe and effect of the Popes Constitution is the Defence of those three Chapters which the Emperor by his most religious Edict had condemned and accursed The Pope saith Baronius during the time of the Synod set forth Decretum pro defensione trium Capitulorum his decree for defence of the Three Chapters Againe Vigilius made knowne to the whole Church pro Tribus Capitulis Constitutum à se editum his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters Againe pro ipsorum defensione laborat Vigilius labored for defence of the Three Chapters But the Constitution it selfe maketh this most evident 9. Concerning the first Chapter whether Theodorus being dead more then an hundred yeares before this Council ought to be condemned Vigilius thus decreed Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis That it is not lawfull for any to judge ought anew of those persons who are dead that is not to condemne those who as Vigilius explaining himselfe saith minime reperiuntur in vit a damnati are not found to have beene condemned while they lived This for the generality of the dead particularly for Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia he thus decreed Seeing the holy Fathers had not as he saith condemned him eum nostra non audemus damnare sententia we dare not condemne him by our sentence sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus neither doe we permit that any other shall condemne him 10. For the second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill Vigilius was so tender of the credit of Theodoret that he would by no meanes permit his name to be blemished by cōdemning his writings seeing as he saith neither Cyril himself nor after him the Councill of Chalcedon had condemned them Nay Vigilius further adds that it is valde contrarium indubitanter inimicum very contrary and undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councill at Chalcedon to condemne any Nestorian doctrines under the name of Theodoret. Whereupon he definitively decreeth in this manner Statutimus atque decernimus we ordaine and decree that no injury or slaunder shall by any man be raised or uttered against Theodoret sub taxatione nominis ejus by taxing of his name So Vigilius decreeing that the condemning of those writings of Theodoret against Cyril is an injury to Theodoret. 11. The third Chapter which indeed is the most materiall but withall most intricate and obscure concerns the Epistle written against Cyril and the holy Ephesine Synod by Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris a Persian and an Hereticke the copie whereof is set downe in the 10. Action of the Councill
a view of the particulars and of their following Sessions how this Cathedrall sentence of the Pope was entertained by the holy generall Councill CAP. 4. That the holy generall Councill in their Synodall Iudgement contradicted the Popes Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in that cause of faith made knowne unto them 1. IN the sixt which was the very next Sessions after they had knowne the Popes will and pleasure contrary to the Apostolicall authoritie and command of Vigilius the Holy Synod began to examine the Epistle of Ibas for the causes of Theodorus and of Theodoret were sufficiently discussed in their former Collations And first of all alledging a saying of the Emperour to which themselves doe assent they thus say which being well observed gives light to the whole cause and openeth both the error of Vigilius and the ground thereof Because the most holy Emperor added among those things which he writ unto us that some indevouring to defend the Epistle of Ibas presume to say that it was approved by the holy Councill of Chalcedon using the words of one or two most religious Bishops who were in that Councill as spoken for that Epistle cum alij omnes whereas all the rest were of another minde we thinke it needfull this question being proposed to recite the Epistle of Ibas Thus said the Synod even at the first calling the Popes judgement Presumption and checking him both for pretending the Councill of Chalcedon and for alledging the Interlocutions of one or two as the Iudgement of that Councill For that the whole Synod consented to that speech of the Emperor appeareth both by their owne words where they shew this to be so odious an untruth that they all cried out against it saying The Decree of the Councill at Chalcedon condemneth this Epistle hee that receiveth this Episte rejecteth the Councill at Chalcedon and by those speeches of Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea Andreas Bishop of Ephesus and others to which the whole Synod assented Quomodo praesumunt quidam dicere How do any presume to say that this impious Epistle of Ibas was approved by the Councill of Chalcedon And againe Miramur quomodo we doe even marvell that any will defend this Epistle by the name of the Councill at Chalcedon and yet more sharply reproving Vigilius with others for using so deceitfull a proofe they adde Astutia enim haeretica utentes for they who so say of the Councill at Chalcedon using the fraud and subtilitie of heretickes doe produce the Interlocutions of one or two as spoken for that Epistle whereas this is to be set downe for a certaine rule that in Councills non unius aut secundi interloquutionem attendere oportet the speeches of one or two must not be attended but what is defined by all or by the greater part of the Councill And yet further expressing their dislike of that fallacious and sophisticall reason which Vigilius herein used the whole Councill said The Holy Fathers at Chalcedon did pro nihilo habere quae ab uno vel duobils pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt did esteeme as nothing or made no reckning at all of those things which were spoken for that Epistle by one of two And those one or two were Pascasinus and Maximus on whose interlocutions the Pope as you have formerly seene grounded his decree concerning this Chapter and if the proofe be of so small account by the judgement of that most holy Councill it inevitably followeth that the Decree of Vigilius which wholly for this Chapter relyeth on this proofe is no better then the ground thereof that is in very deed worth nothing at all 2. Now that all this is purposely spoken against Vigilius and his Constitution which before this 6 Collation was made knowne unto them beside that it is evident by the Acts themselves seeing the Councill doth exactly mention and refute all the principall points on which Vigilius doth insist Baronius doth not onely professe but truly upon this reason doth prove the same for entreating of this 6. Session and mentioning the contents thereof This was done saith he as is evident against the Constitution of Pope Vigilius although for reverence they doe not name him and partly also they excuse him partly they reprove him using especially this argument Because in Councils we must not attend what one or two say but what is defined by all or the most Thus Baronius who as he truly acknowlegeth the Council herein to have dealt against Vigilius and his Decree so in the other points hee bewrayes too great partialitie towards Vigilius for the Councill is so far from excusing the pope that neither Baronius could nor any of his friends shall be ever able to shew that excuse And for their not naming of Vigilius it proceeded not from any reverence they bare unto him though in every respect they gave him all honour that was due to him or his place but the true reason thereof was this because they neither did nor thought it fit to name any one of those whom they did condemne but without mention of their names in particular condemned them all under one generall Appellation of Sequaces Nestorij et Theodori the followers of Nestorius and Theodorus their Disciples or defenders which titles they saw the Emperor to have used and given unto them before both in his Edict and in his Epistle to the Synod which common names to have as fitly and truly agreed to Pope Vigilius as to any else the Councill knew right well seeing in every point concerning these Three Chapters he wholly agreed with them all The followers of Theodorus and Nestorius pretended and presumed to say that the Councill of Chalcedon approved the Epistle of Ibas Vigilius pretended and presumed to say the same The Fathers at Chalcedon saith he pronounced the Epistle of Ibas to be Orthodoxall The followers of Theodorus and Nestorius fraudulently used the Interlocutions of one or two as the Iudgment of the whole Councill at Chalcedon Vigilius used the very same fraud and for this very cause as the Cardinall confesseth is reproved by the Councill Seeing then Vigilius did at this time and in this cause walke hand in hand and step by step with the other followers of Theodorus and Nestorius The holy Councill judged it most fit and sufficient as it was indeed to refuse and condemne both him and his Constitution by that common name which agreed to all the rest with whom in one common doctrine both for his position and proofes thereof he fully conspired 3. The holy Council hauing now fully discovered the error of the Popes position and the fallacious proofe which he used to uphold the same procedeth to refute his very definitive sentence prooving that neither the Epistle of Ibas is to be received as Catholike neither that by it Ibas was or ought to be judged a Catholike which were the two maine points of the Popes Decree touching
and consent to the writings of Leo and this generall Councill Thus said 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 things besides that Epistle were recited touching the cause of Ibas and particularly the whole Acts before Photius Eustathites 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 Eunomius made this speech gesta apud Photium 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 there was a judgement pronounced by Photius and Eustathius adversus eam 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and here againe doe proclame to be heretikes in this manner We accurse the Three foresaid Chapters to wit Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his impious writings The impious writings of Theodoret against Cyril and the impious Epistle of Ibas et defensores eorum et qui scripserunt vel scribunt ad defensionem eorum also we accurse the Defenders of those Chapters and those who have written or who do at any time write for the defence of them or who presume to say that they are right or who have defended aut defendere conantur or who doe at any time indevour to defend their impietie under the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon Thus decreed the whole Synod Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene before defended all these Three Chapters he defended them by writing yea by his
whom they loose se et non illa destruit he destroyeth himselfe but not those Councils and whosoever thinketh otherwise let him be accursed Thus Pope Gregory the great ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill and accursing all that labour to unty those bands By Agatho by Leo the second who both call this an holy Synod and not to stay in particulars All their Popes after the the time of Gregorie were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fift as of the former Councils and that in such solemne and exact manner after the time of Hadrian the second that they professed as their forme it selfe set downe by Anton. Augustinus doth witnesse to embrace the eight generall Councils whereof this was one to hold them pari honore et veneratione in equal honor and esteeme to keepe them intirely usque ad unum apicem to the least iôta to follow and teach whatsoever they decreed and whatsoever they condemned to condemne both with their mouth and heart A like forme of profession is set downe in the Councill at Constance where the Councill having first decreed the power and authoritie of the Pope to be inferiour and subject to the Councill and that he ought to be obedient to them both in matters of faith and orders of reformation by this their superior authoritie ordaineth That every Pope at the time of his election shall professe that corde et ore both in words and in his heart hee doth embrace and firmely beleeve the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers and by the eleven generall Councils this fift being reckned for one and that he will keepe defend and teach the same faith with them usque ad unum apicem even to the least syllable To goe no further Baronius confesseth that not onely Gregory and his predecessors unto Vigilius sed successores omnes but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have received and confirmed this fift Councill 28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it but all orthodoxal Bishops in the world it being a custome as Baronius sheweth that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Councills which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri deberent all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe And this as it seemeth they did in those Literae Formatae or Communicatoriae or Pacificae so they were called which from ancient time they used to give and receive For by that forme of letters they testified their communion in faith and peaceable agreemēt with the whole Catholike Church Such an Vniforme consent there was in approving this fift Council in all succeeding Councills Popes and Bishops almost to these dayes 29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth that as this fift Synod so all succeeding Councils Popes and Bishops to the time of the Councill of Constance that is for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse as hereticall the judiciall and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius delivered by his Apostolical authority for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith therfore they al with an uniforme consent did in heart beleeve and in words professe and teach that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith may be and de facto hath been hereticall that is they all did beleeve and teach that doctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine to be truly ancient orthodoxall and catholike such as the whole Church of Christ for more then 14 hundred yeares beleeved and taught but the doctrine even the Fundamentall position whereon all their doctrines doe relie and which is vertually included in them all which the present Church of Rome maintaineth to be new hereticall and accursed such as the whole Church for so many hundred yeares together with one consent beleeved and taught to be accursed and hereticall It hence further ensueth that as this fift Councill did so all the fore-mentioned generall Councils Popes and Bishops doe with it condemne and accurse for heretikes not onely Vigilius but all who either have or doe hereafter defend him and his Constitution even all who either by word or writing have or shall maintaine that the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith is infallible that is all who are members of the present Romane Church and so continue till their death nay they not onely accurse all such but further also even all who doe not accurse such And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them to the least iôta it in the last place followeth that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith and accursing for heretikes all who either by word or writing have or doe at any time hereafter defend the same and so presist till they dye nay not onely the accursing of all such but of all who doe not accurse them is warranted by Scriptures by Fathers by all generall Councils by all Popes and Bishops that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ. 30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill Till then neither was the Popes authoritie held for supreme nor his judiciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible nay to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall and the maintainers of them to be heretikes For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill wherein these truths were decreed the same was expresly decreed by two generall Councils the one at Constance the other at Basil not long before that Laterane Synod In both which it was defined that not the Popes sentence but the Iudgement of a generall Councill is supremum in terris the highest judgement in earth for rooting out of errors and preserving the true faith unto which judgement every one even the Pope himselfe is subject and ought to obey it or if he will not is punishable by the same Consider beside many other that one testimony of the Councill of Basil and you shall see they beleeved and professed this as a Catholike truth which in all ages of the Church had beene and still ought to be embraced They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance for the supreme authority of a Councill to which the Pope is subject say thus Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet although it is sufficiently evident by many declarations made both at Constance here at Basil that these are truths of the Catholike faith yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein This holy Synod doth define as followeth The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope declared in the generall Councill at Constance and in this at Basil est veritas fidei Catholicae is a veritie of the Catholike faith and
Councell had done ought in the faith not simply as if they had done nothing at all but nothing in such a manner as those malignant persons intended nothing that was contrary to the faith decreed at Chalcedon nothing that was new or uncouth in the doctrine of faith in this manner the Councell did nothing in the faith Heare the words of Gregorie expressing thus much Some there are saith hee who affirme that in the time of Iulian there was somewhat decreed against the Councell at Chalcedon But such men neither reading neither beleeving those who read remaine in their errour for we professe our conscience bearing witnesse unto us de side ejusdem Concilij nihil esse motum nihil violatum that nothing concerning the faith of that Councell at Chalcedon was here in the fift Councell moved or altered nothing violated or hurt but whatsoever was done in this fift Synod it was done that the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon should in no sort be infringed So Gregory who to like purpose againe saith In the Synod concerning the Three Chapters it is manifest nihil de fide convulsum esse nihil immutatū that nothing concerning the faith was weakned nothing changed therein 18. Now as against their first calumnie Gregory teacheth that nothing was done contrary to the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon so against their other he sheweth that they decreed no noveltie in the faith nor ought else but what was formerly decreed at Chalcedon To which purpose he saith of this fift Synod that it was in omnibus sequax in every point an imitator follower of the Councell at Chalcedō again more clearly In this fift Synod nothing else was done quā apud Chalcedonēsem Synodū fuer at constitutū then was formerly decreed in the Councel at Chalcedon So Gregory Both this fift that at Chalcedon as also the former at Ephesus decreed one and the selfe same faith as by Gregory is truly witnessed but the Councell at Chalcedon and Ephesus decreed it absolutely without any expresse reference to those persons or writings which are condemned in the fift though in them both was implicitè contained a condemnation of all these Three Chapters the fift Councell decreed it with an expresse reference to these Chapters and an explicite condemnation of them The Decrees made at Ephesus and Chalcedon were Introductive as first condemning those heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches The Decree of this fift Councell was onely Corroborative or Declarative explaning and corroborating those former decrees by condemning these writings of Theodorus Theodoret and Ibas which did overthrow the same As Vigilius and other followers of Nestorius did not at this time broach any new heresie but under those Three Chapters on which they put the visor of the Councell at Chalcedon sought to revive the heresie of Nestorius which before when it came in its owne habit was condemned Even so the fift Councell needed not neither did they condemne any new but unmasked the old condemned heresie of Nestorius lurking under the defence of these Three Chapters they pulled off the visor of Chalcedon from it under which it most subtilly now sought to insinuate it selfe and creep into the Church And when Gregory saith that in this fift Councell they dealt tantummodo de personis that tantummodo in his sense doth not exclude all handling of the faith not the explaning not the corroborating of the faith for both these they certainly did and Gregory acknowledgeth but it onely excludes such an handling of the faith as was used at Ephesus and Chalcedon by making an Introductive decree for condemning some new heresie The fift Councell dealt onely with persons without making such a Decree yet it dealt with those persons with an intent to explane and corroborate those Introductive decrees 19. The words of Gregory next following those on which Baronius relied doe yet more fully explane this to have beene his meaning In the fift Synod nothing was done concerning the faith but only the persons and those persons de quibus in Chalcedonensi Synodo nihil continetur concerning wch persons nothing is contained or set downe in the Councell at Chalcedon For as there is much contained in that Councell concerning those persons especially Ibas in whose cause and the examining therof two whole Actions are bestowed and yet in a favourable construction or according to Gregory his meaning he might truly say that nothing concerning them is contained there to wit nothing to condemne Theodorus or the writings of Theodoret and Ibas in such an expresse and particular manner as they are condemned in the fift Councell Right so though the fift Councell not onely handled a cause of faith but published their decree as a Decree of faith yet in a like favourable construction and according to Gregories meaning he might truly say that nothing was done therein concerning the faith to wit nothing to make such an Introductive decree for condemning a new heresie as was formerly made in the Councell at Chalcedon 20. By all which the true meaning of Gregory is now by his owne explaning most evident In the fift Councell nothing was done contrary to the faith as the malignant slanderers of this Councell pretended nothing was done de novo to condemne any new heresie nothing was done absolutely or without reference to these Three Chapters all this Gregory truly intendeth when he saith nothing was done therein concerning the faith but seeing all that was done in the Councell was done to explane confirme corroberate the faith decreed at Chalcedon Ephesus as Gregory himselfe professeth it undoubtedly followeth that even for this cause and by Gregories owne testimonie the question here defined was a cause and question of faith Vpon Gregories words the Cardinall might well have collected that Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters erred not in any new heresie or new question of faith such as was not before condemned but that he erred not at all in a cause of faith is so farre from the intent of Gregory that out of his expresse words the quite contrary is certainly to be collected For how can the Pope be said not at all to erre in the faith when by his Apostolicall Constitution hedefendeth that cause of the Three Chapters the defending whereof contradicteth a former definition of faith and utterly overthroweth the holy Councell of Ephesus and Chalaceon yea the whole Catholike faith 21. Neither must this seeme strange to any that the fift generall Councell did onely explane and confirme a former definition of faith and made no decree to condemne any new heresie repugnant to the faith The like hereof in some other Councels may be obserued The Councell of Sardica was a generall holy Councel as beside others the Emperor Iustinian in that his Edict witnesseth and yet in it nihil novi quoad fidem definitū est no new doctrine of faith was there defined nor any new heresie condemned but
all subsequent generall Councels unto Leo the tenth decreeing this cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to bee hereticall whence it doth clearly ensue that as the former who were ready to embrace the truth had it beene manifested unto them erred not of pertinacy but as Austen saith of humane infirmitie so the latter who reject the truth being manifested unto them and withstand the knowne judgement of the whole catholike Church even that judgement which is testified by all those witnesses to be consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall doctrine can no way be excused from most wilfull and pertinacious obstinacy seeing they adhere to that opinion which themselves or their particular church hath chosen though they see and know the same to be repugnant to Scripture the consenting judgement of all generall and holy Councels that is of the whole catholike Church So the errour of the former though it was in a point of faith yet was but materially to be called heresie as being a doctrine repugnant to faith yet being not joyned in them with pertinacie which is essentially as Canus sheweth required in an heretike could neither make nor denominate them to be heretikes The errour of the latter is not onely an errour in a point of faith but is formally to bee called heresie such as being both a doctrine repugnant to faith and being in them joyned with pertinacy doth both make and truly denominate them who so erre to be heretikes and shew them to hold it heretically not onely as an errour but as a most proper heresie 9. The second difference is in the manner of their errour The former held their opinions as probable collections not as undoubted doctrines of saith and so long as those errours were so held the Church suspended her judgement both concerning the doctrines and the persons And this was at least untill the time of Ierome touching the millenary opinion for he mentioning the same saith thus Haec licet non sequamur tamen damnare non possumus quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum martyrum ista dixerunt These things concerning the raigne of Christ for one thousand yeares upon earth in a terrestriall but yet a golden Ierusalem although we doe not our selves follow yet wee cannot condemne them because many of the Ecclesiasticall writers and Martyrs have said the same whereby it is evident that in Ieromes time nothing was defined herein by the Church for then Ierome might and would constantly have condemned that errour by the warrant of the Churches authoritie which then hee held to bee a probable and disputable matter In which regard also Austen calleth it a tolerable opinion and such as himselfe had sometimes held if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spirituall Baronius tels us how rightly I will not now examine that when Apollinarius renewed this opinion and urged it ut dogma Catholicum no longer as a matter of probabilitie but as a Catholike doctrine of faith It was then condemned by Pope Damasus about the time of Ierome and so being condemned by the Church it was ever after that held for an heresie and the defenders of it for heretikes 10. Did Baronius and the rest of the Romane Church in like sort as those millenary Fathers commend their Popes infallibility no otherwise then as a probable a topicall or disputable matter the like favourable censure would not be denyed unto them but that they also notwithstanding that error in faith might die in the communion of the Church But when Pope Vigilius published his Apostolicall Constitution as a doctrine with such necessitie to be received of all that none either by word or writing might contradict the same when the chiefe Pillers of their Church urge the Popes Cathedrall definitions in causes of faith for such as wherein nullo casu errare potest he can by no possibilitie bee deceived or teach amisse when they urge this not onely as Apollinarius did the other ut dogma Catholicum as a doctrine of faith but as the foundation of all the doctrines of faith It was high time for the Catholike Church as soone as they espied this to creepe into the hearts of men to give some soveraigne antidote against such poyson and to prevent that deluge of heresies which they knew if this Cataract were set open would at once rush in and overwhelme the Church of God And therefore the fift generall and holy Councell to preserve for ever the faith of the Church against this heresie did not onely condemne it decreeing the Apostolicall and cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to be hereticall but decreed all the defenders of it to be accursed and separated from God and Gods Church so that whosoever after this sentence and decree of the holy Synod approved by the whole Catholike Church shall defend the Popes Cathedrall judgements as infallible and dye in that opinion they are so farre from dying as Papias and Irene did in the peace of the Church that by the whole catholike Church they are declared and decreed to dye out of the peace and communion of the whole catholike Church 11. A third dissimilitude ariseth from the persons who erre The former for all their errour held fast the unity with the Church even with those who contradicted and coÌ„demned their errours and we doubt not but that was verified of very many of them which Austen affirmeth of Cyprian that they kept this unitie of the Church humiliter fideliter fortiter ad martyrij usque coronam kept it with humility with fidelitie with constancy even to the crowne of martyrdome By reason of which their charity they were not onely fast linked and as I may say glued to the communion of the Church both in their life and death but all their other errours as Austen â—aith became veniall unto them for charity covereth a multitude of sinnes The latter are so unlike to these that with their errour and even by it they have made an eternall breach and separation of themselves from the Catholike Church even from all who consent unto or approve this fift generall Councell for having by their Laterane decree erected and set up in the Romane Capitol this pontificall supremacy and infallibilitie they now account all but Schismatickes who consent not with them they will have no peace no coÌ„munion with any who will not adore this Romish Calfe of the supreme infallible authoritie of their vice-god So the former notwithstaÌ„ding their error died in the peace of that Church to which by most ardent affection they were conjoyned The latter dying in this their errour whereby they cut off and quite dis-joyne themselves from the union of all who approve the decree of the fift Councell and those are the whole catholike Church of all ages though they dye in the very armes and bosome of the Queene of Babylon cannot chuse but die out of the blessed peace and
Sergius by the command of Iustinus the Emperour was deposed from his Bishopricke excluded out of the Church and so continued even to his dying day and this was done but six yeares before the Empire of Iustinian as by the date of Iustinus his letters doth appeare 19. Now if to all these particular sentences you adde that which the fift Councell witnesseth that Theodorus post mortem à catholica ecclesia ejectus est hath beene after his death condemned and cast out and that even by the whole Catholike Church you will easily confesse that from the time almost of his death unto the raigne of Iustinian there hath beene a continuall and never interrupted condemnation of him in the Church But in Iustinians time and perhaps before though lesse eagerly the Neâ—â—orians began afresh to renew the memory and doctrine of Theodorus setting now a fairer glosse and varnish on their cause then ever they had before for they very gladly apprehending and applauding those to say the least inconsiderate speeches of the Popes Legates Maximus in the Councel of Chalcedon that by his dictation or Epistle Ibas was declared to be a catholike hereupon they now boasted that the holy Councell by approving that Epistle of Ibas had approved both the person and doctrine of Theodorus seeing they both are highly extolled and defended in that Epistle By this meanes was this cause brought ab inferis the second time upon the stage and that also cloaked under the name and credit of the Councell of Chalcedon And at this second boute all the defenders of the Three Chapters and among them Pope Vigilius as Generall to them all undertooke the defence of Theodorus and as if there had never beene any sentence of condemnation either in generall or in particular denounced against him even in his definitive and Apostolicall constitution declareth That Theodorus was not condemned either by former Councels or Fathers and this he declareth after his solicitous circumspective and most diligent examination of their writings 20. What thinke you was become of the Popes eyes at this time that he could see none of all those condemnations of Theodorus before mentioned Not the general anathema of the Councels at Ephesus and Chalcedon in which Theodorus was involved not the expresse and particular anathema denounced against him by Rambulas and Acatius with the Councell of Armenia not the condemnation of him and his writings by Saint Proclus by S. Cyrill by the Church of Mopsvestia by the Edict of the religious Emperours by the whole Catholike Church None of all these things were done in a corner they were all matters of publike notice and record obvious to any that did not shut their eyes against the sun-shine of the truth But as I said before and must often say Nestorianisme like Naash the Ammonite had put out the Popes right eye he could see nothing with that eye all that he saw in this cause was but a very oblique and sinister aspect as doth now I hope fully appeare but will bee yet much more manifest by that which in the Constitution of Vigilius wee are next to consider 21. For as if it were a small matter not to see Theodorus condemned by the former Councels and Fathers though in a man professing so exact and accurate inspection in any cause such grosse oversights are not veniall the Pope ventures one step further for the credit of this condemned heretike Hee could not finde that Theodorus was condemned by the former witnesses Tush that is nothing he findes him acquitted by them all hee findes by Cyrill by Proclus by the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon yea by Iustinians owne law that Theodorus ought not to be condemned This was indeed a point worthy the Popes owne finding But withall I must tell you that you also shall finde one other thing that Pope Vigilius having once passed the bounds of truth for defence of Theodorus cares not now if he wade up to the eares and drowne himselfe in untruths 22. Let us then examine the allegations which for proofe of this the Pope hath found and begin we as the Pope doth with Cyâ—â—â—â— In his Epist. to Iohn B. of Antioch Vigilius found an explication how it was said by Cyrill that by a dispensation the name of Theodorus was not condemned for there Cyrill saith Sed juste audient they shall justly heare this though they will not ye forget your selves when you bend your bowes against ashes that is against the dead for he who is written among them that is the dead noÌ„ superest is not and let no man blame me for these words Grave est enim insultare defunctis vel si Laici fuerint for it is an hard matter to insult over the dead yea though they bee but Laikes how much more over those who with their Bishopricks have left their lives Out of which words Vigilius affirment S. Cyrill to teach it to be an injurious and hard matter repugnant to the Ecclesiasticall rule to condemne any that is dead and then certainly not a Bishop not Theodorus 23. For answer hereunto I doe earnestly intreate the reader to ponder seriously the Popes good dealing herein That Epistle which Vigilius commendeth unto us under the name of S. Cyril is none of Cyrils it is a base and counterfeit writing forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill Witnesse hereof the whole fift generall Councell who of purpose and at large examined this matter and refuted this cavill of Vigilius before ever he set forth his Constitution for thus they say of it Some loving the perfidiousnesse of Nestorius which is all one as to say the madnesse of Theodorus doe not refuse to faigne some things and use certaine words as written in an Epistle by S. Cyrill Nusquam vero talis Epistola scripta est à sanctae memoriae Cyrillo but Cyril never writ such an Epistle neither is it in his bookes And then reciting the whole Epistle and all those words which Vigilius alleageth they adde Et ista quidem continet conficta Epistola these are the contents of this counterfeit Epistle and a little after That nothing of all quae in conficta Epistola continentur which are contained in that counterfeit Epistle was writ by Cyrill it is declared by that which he writ to Acatius and yet further These things are spoken ad convictionem Epistolae quae à defensoribus Theodori falso composita est to convince that Epistle to be a forgerie which is falsely composed by the defenders of Theodorus The summe of this they repeate in their Synodall sentence saying We have found that the defenders of Theodorus have done the same which heretikes are wont to doe for they clip away some part of the Fathers words quaedam vero falsa ex femetipsis componentes confingentes and devising or faigning other things of themselves they seeke by them as it were by the testimony of Cyrill to free Theodorus
to professe the true faith and wipe away all suspition of heresie from him how could Ibas then be ought else but a Catholike who made such a Catholike confession Truely when Ibas made this confession before Photius and Eustathius there is no doubt but he was then a Catholike but Vigilius his purpose is to prove him to have beene a Catholike when he writ this Epistle ever 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 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 do testifie that is according to Baronius account an 448. The union 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 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 Not 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 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 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 seemed Now Ibas professeth of himselfe that hee then called Cyrill an hereticke that hee followed Iohn and the Conventicle which held with him and so that with them hee counted and in plain terms called Cyrill 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 a detestation that though Cyrill should disclaime his heresie yet hee should never be received into their communion These and many like intolerable calumnies and slanders were the usuall liveries that Ibas and the rest of that Conventicle during the time of the disunion bestowed upon Cyrill so vile and malitious that no hyperbolicall exaggeration can sufficiently expresse the impietie of them and yet the Popes
heretike So Baronius who to free Vigilius from heresie acquits all that deale either pro or contra in this cause neither one side nor the other are heretikes 3. See how heresie makes a man to dote That this question about the three Chapters is a cause of faith wee have cleerly and unanswerably confirmed and Baronius himselfe hath confessed That the defenders of them and condemners were in a manifest contradiction in this cause the former by an evident consequent and cunningly defending the other condemning the heresies of Nestorius is most evident and yet both of them in the Cardinals judgement are good Catholikes neither the one who with the Nestorians deny Christ to be God nor the other who affirme him to be God may be called heretikes This truly is either the same heresie which the Rhetorians maintained who as Philastrius saith praised all sects and opinions and said they all went the right way or else it is an heresie peculiar to Baronius such as none before him ever dreamed of That two contradictories in a cause of faith may be held and yet neither of them be an heresie nor the pertinacious defenders of either of them both be heretikes Baronius would be famous for a peece of new found learning and an hereticall quirke above all that ever went before him such as by which he hath ex condigno merited an applause of all heretiks which either have beene or shall arise hereafter For seeing in this cause of faith two contradictories may be held without heresie the like may be in every other point of faith and so with Vigilius the Arians Eutycheans and all heretikes shall have their quietus est say what they will in any cause of faith none may call them heretikes I commend the Cardinall for his wit This makes all cocke sure it is an unexpugnable bulwarke to defend the Constitution of Pope Vigilius 4. Say you neither the defenders nor the condemners of these Chapters may for that cause bee called heretikes For the condemners of them trouble not your wit they are and shall be ever acknowledged for Catholikes But for the defenders of them who are the onely men that the Cardinall would gratifie by this assertion I may boldly say with the Prophet Though thou wash them with nitre and much sope yet is their iniquity marked out All the water in Tyber and Euphrates cannot wash away their heresie for as we have before fully declared the defending of any one much more of all these three Chapters is the defending of Nestorianisme and all the blasphemies thereof the condemning of the holy Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon and of all that approve them that is of the whole catholike Church and of the whole Catholike Faith All these must be hereticall if the defenders of those three Chapters be not heretikes 5. Now against this assertion of Baronius whereby he would acquit Vigilius and all that defend him from heresie I will oppose another and true assertion ensuing of that which wee have clearly proved and this it is That one or moe either men or Churches may dissent from the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in a cause of faith made knowne unto them and yet be no heretikes For to omit other instances no lesse effectuall this one concerning Vigilius doth make this most evident The cause was a cause of faith as Baronius himselfe often professeth The Popes definitive and Apostolicall sentence in that cause of faith made for defence of those three Chapters was published and made knowne to the fift generall Councell and to the whole Church this also Baronius confesseth and yet they who contradicted the Popes Apostolicall sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them were not heretikes this also is the confession of Baronius whose assertion as you have seene is that neither the condemners of these Chapters nor the defenders of them were heretiks So by the Cardinalls owne assertions one may contradict and oppugne the Popes knowne Cathedral and Apostolicall sentēce in cause of faith and yet bee no heretike But what speake I of Baronius the evidence and force of reason doth unresistably confirme this For the whole fift generall Councell contradicted yea condemned and accursed the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them The whole Catholike Church ever since hath approved the fift Councell and the decree thereof and therefore hath contradicted condemned and accursed the Popes sentence as the Councell had done And none I hope will be so impudently hereticall as to call not onely the fift generall and holy Councell but the whole Catholike Church of God heretikes who yet must all be heretikes or else the dissenting from yea the detesting and accursing the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith cannot make one an heretike 6. I say more and adde this as a further consequent on that which hath been declared That none can now assent to their Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church but eo nomine even for that very cause they are convicted condemned and accursed heretikes For the manifesting of which conclusion I will begin with that their fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith whereof before I have so often made mention And to prove the present Romane Church to bee hereticall herein two things are to be declared the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church the other that this doctrine is hereticall and for such condemned by the Catholike Church 7. For the former that the assertion of Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith is the doctrine of the present Romane Church I thinke none conversant in their writings will make doubt Give mee leave to propose some testimonies of their owne The Pope saith Bellarmine when hee teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith nullo casu errare potest hee can by no possible meanes then erre And this as he saith is certissimum a most certaine truth and in the end hee addeth this is a signe Ecclesiam totam sentire that the whole Church doth beleeve the Pope to be in such causes infallible So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church The Iesuite Coster for himselfe and their whole Church saith We doe constantly deny the Popes vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere to be able either to teach an heresie or to propose an errour to be beleeved When the Pope saith Bozius teacheth the Church or sets forth a decree of faith Divinitùs illi praeclusa est omnis via God then stoppeth every way unto him which might bring him into errour Againe in making such decrees nunquam valuit aut valebit facere contra fidem he never was he never shall be able to doe ought against the faith We beleeve saith Gretzer
the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius The Pope universorum personam sustinet sustaineth the person of all Bishops of all Councels of all the whole Church he is in stead of them all As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formally and the generall Councell is the Church representatively so the Pope also is the Church Vertually as sustaining the person of all and having the power vertue and authoritie of all both the formall and representative Church and so the Churches or Councels judgement is the Popes judgement and the Churches or Councels infallibility is in plaine speech the Popes infallibilitie 10. This will further appeare by those comparisons which they make betwixt the Church or Councels and the Pope It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine as also of their best writers that there is as much authoritie Intensivè in the Pope alone as in the Pope with a generall Councell or with the whole Church though Extensivè it is more in them then in him alone Even as the light is Intensivè for degrees of brightnes as great in the Sun alone as in it with all the Starres though it is Extensivè more in thē that is more diffused or spred abroad into moe being in them then in the Sun alone Neither onely is all the authoritie which either Coūcell or Church hath in the Pope but is in a far more eminent manner in him then in them In him it is Primitively or originally as water in the fountaine or as light in the Sun Omnis authoritas est in uno saith Bellarmine seeing the governmēt of the Church is Monarchicall all ecclesiasticall power is in one he meanes the Pope and from him it is derived unto others In the Councell and the rest of the Church it is but derivatively borrowed from the Pope as waters in little brookes or as light in the moone starres In him is Plenitudo potestatis as Innocentius teacheth the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him in the rest whether Councels or Church it is onely by Participation and measure they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads from the lowest skirts of his garment So whatsoever authoritie either Church or generall Councell hath the same hath the Pope and that more eminently and more abundantly then they either have or can have 11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement that 's so peculiar to him that as they teach neither the Pope can communicate it unto Church or Councell nor can they receive it but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope in whom alone it resideth Potestas infallibilitaes papalis est potestas gratia personalis saith Stapleton Papall power and infallibilitie is a personall gift and grace given to the person of Peter and his successors and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others In like sort Pighius Vni Petro atque ejus Cathedrae non
Sacerdotali quantocunque Concilio the priviledge of never erring in faith was obtained by the prayer of Christ for Peter alone and his Chaire not for any Councell though it be never so great To the same purpose saith Bellarmine If a generall Councell could not erre in their sentence the judgement of such a Councell should be the last and highest judgement of the Church but that judgement is not the last for the Pope may either approve or reject their sentence So Bellarmine professing the Popes onely judgement to be infallible seeing it alone is the last and highest after and above both Church and generall Councell All the infallibility which they have is onely by reason of his judgement to which they accord consent It hence appeareth saith Bellarmine totam firmitatem that the whole strength and certainty of judgement which is even in lawfull Councels is from the Pope non partim à Concilio partim à Pontifice it is not partlie from the Councell and partly from the Pope it is wholly and onely from the Pope and in no part from the Councell When the Councell and Pope consent in judgement saith Gretzer omnis infallibilitas Concilij derivatur à Papa all the infallibility of the Councell is derived from the Pope and a little after when the Pope consenteth with the Councell ideo non errat quia est Papa hee is therfore free from erring because he is the Pope and not because he consenteth with the Councell In like sort Melchior Canus The strength and firmitude both of the whole Church and of Councels is derived from the Pope and againe In generall Councels matters are not to bee judged by number of suffrages but by the waight of them Pondus antem dat summi Pontificis authoritas and it is the Popes gravity and authority which gives waight to that part whereunto he inclineth If he say it one hundred Fathers with him are sufficient but if his assent bee wanting a thousand a million ten thousand millions Nulli satis sunt no number is sufficient Nay if all the whole world be of a contrary judgement to the Pope yet as the Canonist tels us the Popes sentence totius orbis placito praefertur is of more weight and worth than the judgement of the whole world So cleare it is that all their boasting of the authority and infallible judgement of the Church and of generall Councels wherein they please themselves more than ever the Iews did in crying so oft Templū Domini the Temple of the Lord that all this is nothing else but a Viser to hide or actually to draw into mens mindes the Popes infallibility they having no meaning at all to give or allow either to Church or generall Councell any infallibility but onely with a reference to the Pope to whom alone they annex it as a personall gift and peculiar prerogative and who like those leane and ill favoured Kine of Pharaoh hath devoured and quite swallowed up all the authority and infallibility both of Church and Councels yet thus much now is evident that seeing all who are of their present Romane Church beleeve and professe the Church and generall Councels to be infallible seeing their infallibility is none but onely by adhering and consenting to the Pope it necessarily ensueth that they all à fortiori doe beleeve and must professe the Pope to be infallible seeing on his the infallibility of both the other doth wholly and solely depend 12. Let me adde but one other proofe hereof taken from Supremacy of authoritie and judgement It is a ruled case in their learning Si errare non potest debet esse summus judex He who is infallible must be the highest and last Iudge and Vice versa He who is the last and highest judge must be infallible Supremacy and infallibility of judgement are inseparably linked To whomsoever Supremacy is given even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also for seeing from the last or supreme Iudge there can be no appeale it were most unjust to binde Christians to beleeve his sentence who might be deceived most unjust to binde them from appealing from a judge that were fallible or from an erronious judgement Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith belongeth To whom else but to the Pope whereas some dare affirme saith the Canonist that a Councell is above the Pope Falsissimum est This is most false The Successor of Peter saith Stapleton supra omnes est is above all Bishops Church generall Councels above all The Pope saith Bellarmine is simply and absolutely above the whole Church and above a generall Councell Hee further tels us that this assertion That the Pope is above a generall Councell is not only the judgment of all the ancient Schoole Divine the cōmon sentence of their Writers of whom he reckoneth thirteene and if it were fit three times thirtie might bee scored up with them but that it is the publike doctrine of their Church decreed in their Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth There the Councell saith he disertè ex professo docuit did plainly and of set purpose teach the Pope to bee above all Councels yea expressissimè rem definivit that Laterane Councell did most expresly define this and their definition hereof is Decretum de fide a Decree of faith for which cause in his Apology bearing the name of Schulkenius hee professeth that this is Articulus fidei an Article of faith such as every Christian is bound to beleeve that the Pope is Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae Iudex the Supreme last and highest Iudge of the whole Church here upon earth which he proves besides many other authorities by this very Laterane decree and by their Trent Councell The words themselves of those Councels make the matter plaine in that at the Laterane Councell they thus decree Solum Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia authoritatem habere that the Pope alone hath authority above all Councels and this they say is taught not onely by Fathers and Councels but by the holy Scriptures thereby shewing that in this decree they explicate declare the Catholike faith which is one of the Cardinals notes to know when a decree is published by a Councell tanquam de fide as a decree of faith and they threaten the indignation of God and the blessed Apostles to the gainsayers of their decree A censure as heavy as any Anathema the denouncing whereof is another of the Cardinals notes that they proposed this decree as a decree of faith In the other at Trent the Councell teacheth that unto the Pope is given Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia the Supreme power in the whole Church And this Supremacy is such that from all Councels all other Iudges you may appeale to him and hee may reverse
adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels defining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth declare Coster observes that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place and againe in his Relections gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both
this it owne selfe note this especially and all other Articles of faith doe depend upon this all Articles of faith doe hang hoc unum praesupponunt they all praesuppose this and take it for granted This and much more hath Stapleton 16. But what speake I of Bellarmine or Stapleton though the latter hath most diligently sifted this cause This position that the Church is the last Iudge and so the lowest foundation of their faith is the decreed doctrine of their Trent Councell and therefore the consenting voyce of their whole Church and of every member thereof For in that Councell the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense and interpretation of the Scriptures and by the like reason it is to iudge of traditions and of the sense of them Now because all doubts and controversies of faith depend on the one of these it clearly followeth upon that decree that the very last stay in all doubts of faith is the Churches judgement but that upon no other nor higher stay doth or can relie for whatsoever you take besides this the truth the waight and validity of all must be tried in the Church at her judgement it must stand or fall yea if you make a doubt of the Churches judgement it selfe even that as all other must be ended by the judgement of the Church it is the last Iudge of all This to bee the true meaning of the Trent Councel Bellarmine both saw and professeth when hee saith The Church that is the Pope with a Councell is Iudge of the sense of the Scripture omnium controversiarum and of all controversies of faith and in this all Catholikes do agree and it is expresly set downe in the Trent Councell So Bellarmine testifying this to be both the decreed doctrine of their generall and approved Councell and the consenting judgment of all that are Romane Catholikes 17. Now all this which they have said of the Church if you will have it in plaine termes and without circumloquution belongs onely to the Pope who is vertually both Church and Councell As the Church or Councell is called infallible no otherwise but by a Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head both of Church and Councell is infallible So is the Church or Councell called the foundation of faith or last principle on which their faith must relie by the same figure Synechdoche because the Pope who is the head of them both is the foundation of faith And whosoever is a true Romane Catholike or member of their present Church hee beleeveth all other doctrines because the Church that is the Pope doth teach them and the Pope to teach them infallibly he beleeveth for it selfe because the Pope saith hee is in such teaching infallible This infallibility of the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very corner stone the foundation stone the rocke and fundamentall position of their whole faith and religion which was the point that I purposed to declare 18. I have hitherto declared and I feare too abundantly that the assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie in causes of faith is not onely a position but the very fundamentall position of all the doctrines of the present Romane Church In the next place we are to prove that this position is hereticall and that for such it was adjudged and condemned by the Catholike Church In the proofe whereof I shall not need to stay long This whole treatise and even that which hath already beene declared touching the Constitution of Pope Vigilius doth evidently confirme the same For seeing the defending of the Three Chapters hath been proved to be hereticall the Constitution of Vigilius made in defence of those Chapters must of necessity be confessed to be hereticall Nay if you well consider you shall see that this very position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie is adjudged to bee hereticall For the fift generall Councell knew this cause of the Three Chapters to bee a cause of faith They knew further that Pope Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree and Cathedrall Constitution had defined that those Three Chapters ought to bee defended Now seeing they knew both these and yet judicially defined the defence of those Three Chapters to be hereticall and for such accursed it even in doing this they define the Cathedrall judgement of Vigilius in this cause of Faith to be hereticall and therefore most certainly and à fortiori define this position That the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is infallible to bee hereticall and for such they anathematize both it and all that defend it And because the judgement and definitive sentence of the fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all subsequent Councels till the Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth it unavoydably hence ensueth that the same position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is by the judgement of all generall Councells untill that time that is by the constant and uniforme consent of the whole Catholike Church adjudged condemned and accursed for hereticall and all who defend it for heretikes And seeing we have cleerly proved the whole present Romane Church and all that are members therof to defend this position yea to defend it as the maine foundation of their whole faith the evidence of that assertion which I proposed doth now manifestly appeare That none can now assent to the Pope or to the doctrines of the present Church of Rome but he is eo nomine even for that very cause adjudged and condemned for hereticall and that even in the very ground and foundation of his faith 19. From the foundation let us proceed to the walls and roofe of their religion Thinke you the foundation thereof is onely hereticall and the doctrines which they build thereon orthodoxall Nothing lesse They are both sutable both hereticall That one fundamentall position is like the Trojan horse in the wombe of it are hid many troopes of heresies If Liberius confirme Arianisme Honorius Monothelitisme Vigilius Nestorianisme these all by vertue of that one assertion must passe currant for Catholike truths Nay who can comprehend I say not in words or writing but in his thought and imagination all the blasphemous and hereticall doctrines which by all their Popes have beene or if as yet they have not which hereafter may be by succeeding Popes defined to bee doctrines of faith Seeing Stapleton assures us That the Church of this or any succeeding age may put into the Canon and number of sacred and undoubtedly Canonicall bookes the booke of Hermas called Pastor and the Constitutions of Clement the former being as their owne notes censure it haeresibus fabulis opplet us full of heresies and fables rejected by Pope Gelasius with his Romane Synod the later being stuffed also with many impious doctrines condemning lawfull mariage as fornication and allowing fornication as lawfull with many the like impieties which in Possevine are to
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because
they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme and infallible and so build their faith on him as on the foundation thereof which their owne Church never did till the time of Leo the tenth It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah but the Lion of that Laterane Synod who is the first Godfather of that name unto them when hee had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation were fitly christened with this name of Papists to distinguish them and their present Romane Church from all others who held the old good and sure foundation 26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines The errours maintained by all those three sorts of which I have spoken are almost the same and materially they are Popish heresies and yet the first sort did onely erre therein but were not heretikes because not pertinacious The second doe not onely erre but by adding pertinacy to errour are truly heretikes but yet not Papists because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner and on another foundation then Papists doe The third and last sort which containeth all and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church doe both erre and are heretikes and which is the worst degree of heresie are Papists that is Antichristian heretikes not onely holding and that in the highest degree of pertinacy those heresies which are contrary to the faith but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appeare which before I proposed that none who hold the Popes infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation that is none of the present Romane Church either doth or can beleeve any one doctrine of faith which they professe For seeing the beleefe of all other points relyes upō this so that they beleeve thē because they first beleeve this it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher Propter quod unumquodque illud magis that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this which is the foundation than they doe or can beleeve any other doctrine I say not Transubstantiation or Purgatory but more thā that Article of their Creed that Christ is God or that there is a God or any the like which is builded upon this foundatiō And seeing we have cleerly demonstrated that foundation to bee not onely untrue but hereticall and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith it being no true object of faith it doth evidently hence ensue that they neither doe nor can beleeve any one doctrine position or point of faith Impossible it is that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof or the conclusion more certaine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent and make us certaine of the conclusion That one fundamentall uncertainty contrariety to the faith which is vertually in all the rest breeds the like uncertainty and contrariety to faith in them all and like a Radicall poyson spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion infecting every arme branch and twigge of their doctrine and faith whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine and those are not a few those they neither doe nor can beleeve because they are no objects of faith whatsoever truths they maintaine and no doubt they doe many those they thinke they doe and they might doe but indeed they doe not beleeve because they hold them for that reason and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith and which overthroweth the faith For to hold or professe that Christ is God or that there is a God eo nomine because the Devill or Antichrist or a fallible man testifieth it unto us is not truly to beleeve but to overthrow the faith 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius If because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith they doe therefore beleeve it then must they beleeve Nestorianisme to be the truth and Christ not to bee God because Pope Vigilius by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence hath decreed this in decreeing that the three Chapters are to be defēded If they beleeve not this then can they beleeve nothing at all eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and then the foundation of their faith being abolished their whole faith together with it must needs be abolished also Againe if because the Pope defineth a doctrine they doe therefore beleeve it then seeing Pope Caelestine with the Ephesine and Pope Leo with the Chalcedon Councell decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie they by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infallibility must at one and the same time beleeve both Nestorianisme to be truth as Pope Vigilius defined and Nestorianisme to be heresie as Pope Calestine and Leo defined and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true yea to bee truths of the Catholike faith which to beleeve is impossible or else they must beleeve that it is impossible to beleeve either the one or the other eo nomine because the Pope hath defined it and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that which is the foundation of their whole faith Neither is this true onely in other points but even in this very foundation it selfe for the fift Councell which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters to be hereticall was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true because the Pope hath defined it then must they beleeve the Popes Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and so beleeve that upon this fallible and hereticall foundation they can build no doctrine of faith nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith So if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible then for this cause can they have no faith nor beleeve ought with certainty of faith seeing all relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we
hold their foundation being not onely uncertaine but hereticall and Antichristian poysoneth all which they build thereon it being vertually in them all makes them all like it selfe uncertaine hereticall and Antichristian and so those very doctrines which in themselves are most certaine and orthodoxall by the uncertainty of that ground upon which and for which they are beleeved are overthrowne with us and all Catholikes it fals out otherwise Though such happen to erre in some one or moe doctrines of faith say in Transubstantiation Purgatory or as Cyprian did in Rebaptization yet seeing they hold those errors because they thinke them to be taught in the Scriptures and Word of God on which alone their faith relyeth most firmely and undoubtedly beleeving whatsoever is taught therein among which things are the contrary doctrines to Transubstantiatiō Purgatory Rebaptization such I say even while they doe thus erre in their Explicite profession doe truly though implicitè by consequent and in radice or fundamento beleeve and that most firmely the quite contrary to those errours which they doe outwardly professe and think they doe but indeed doe not beleeve The vertue and strength of that fundamentall truth which they indeed and truly beleeve overcommeth all their errours which in very deed they doe not though they thinke they doe beleeve whereas in very truth they beleeve the quite contrary And this golden foundation in Christ which such men though erring in some points doe constantly hold shall more prevaile to their salvation than the Hay and Stubble of those errours which ignorantly but not pertinaciously they build thereon can prevaile to their destruction and therefore if such a man happen to die without explicite notice and repentance of those errours in particular as the saying of Saint Austen that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecillity the same by his glorious Martyrdome was washed away perswades mee that Cyprian did and as of Irene Nepos Iustine Martyr and others who held the errour of the Chiliasts I thinke none makes doubt it is not to be doubted but the abundance of this mans saith and love unto Christ to whom in the foundation hee most firmely adhereth shall worke the like effect in him as did the blood of martyrdome in Saint Cypran For the baptisme of martyrdome washeth away sinne not because it is a washing in blood but because it testifieth the inward washing of his heart by faith and by the purging Spirit of God This inward washing in whomsoever it is found and found it is in all who truly beleeve though in some point of faith they erre it is as forcible and effectuall to save Valentinian neither baptized with water nor with blood and Nepos baptized with water but not with blood as to save Cyprian baptized both with water and with blood Such a comfort and happinesse it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith 30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them Though they explicitè professe Christ to be God which is a most orthodoxall truth yet because they hold this as all other points upon that foundation of the Popes infallible judgement in causes of faith and in that foundation this is denyed Pope Vigilius by his Cathedrall Constitution defining Nestorianisme to be truth and so Christ not to be God it must needs be confessed that even while they doe explicitè professe Christ to bee God they doe implicitè in radice and in fundamento deny Christ to be God and because by the Philosophers rule they doe more firmely beleeve that foundation than they doe or can beleeve any doctrine depending thereon it must needs ensue hence that they doe and must by their doctrine more firmely beleeve the Negative that Christ is not God which in the foundation is decreed then they doe or can beleeve the Affirmative that Christ is God which upon that foundation is builded The truth which upon that foundation they doe explicitè professe cannot possibly be so strong to salvation as the errour of the foundation upon which they build it will be to destruction For the fundamentall errour is never amended by any truth superedified and laid thereon no more than the rotten foundation of an house is made sound by laying upon it rafters of gold or silver but all the truths that are superedified are ruinated by that fundamentall errour and uncertainty on which they all relye even as the beames and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottennesse and unsoundnesse which resteth in the foundation Or if they say that both the assertions which are directly contradictory are from that foundation deduced Caelestine and Leo decreeing the one that Christ is God as Vigilius decreed the other that Christ is not God then doth it inevitably follow that they can truly beleeve neither the one nor the other seeing by beleeving that foundation they must equally beleeve them both which is impossible Such an unhappy and wretched thing it is to hold that erroneous hereticall and Antichristian foundation of faith 31. My conclusion of this point is this Seeing we have first declared that all who are members of the present Romane Church doe hold the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith yea hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines faith and religion doth relye and seeing wee have next demonstrated this to be a fundamentall heresie and not onely an hereticall but an Antichristian foundation condemned by Scriptures by generall Councels by ancient Fathers and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church that now hence followeth which I proposed to prove that none is or can bee a member of their present Church but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretike by Scriptures generall Councels Fathers and by the uniforme consent of the Catholike Church An heretike first in the very foundation of his faith which being Antichristian is hereticall in the highest and worst degree that may be razing the true foundation of faith in regard whereof the mystery of Antichristianisme farre surpasseth all the heresies that ever went before or shall ever follow after it An heretike secondly in many particular doctrines depending on that Foundation among which are the heresies and blasphemies of the Nestorians all which by the Cathedrall constitution of Vigilius are decreed to be truths and by all men to be defended Lastly an heretike vertually and quoad radicem in every doctrine of faith which hee holdeth or professeth and so hereticall therein that the very holding of Catholike truths becomes unto him hereticall seeing he holds them upon that Foundation which is not only contrary to faith but which overthroweth the whole faith Reward Babylon O ye servants of the Lord as she hath rewarded you give her double according to her workes and in the cup that she hath filled to you fill her the double 32. From hence there ensueth one other conclusion which being worthy observing I many
to be received in both kinds he then would receive it not in both but in one kind onely Blessed Luther it was never thy meaning either to receive it onely in one or to deny it to be necessary for Gods Church and people to receive it in both kindes Thou knewest right well that Bibite ex hoc omnes was Christs owne ordinance with which none might dispense Thou for defence of this truth among many was set up as a signe of contradiction unto them and as a marke at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches Farre was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth But whereas they taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrarie such as the Church that is the Pope might either allow or take away as he should thinke fit upon this supposall and no otherwise didst thou in thine ardent zeale to Christ and detestation of Antichrist say that were the use of both or one kinde onely a thing indeed indifferent as they taught it to be if the Pope as Pope should command the receiving in both kindes thou wouldst not then receive it so lest whilst thou might seeme to obey Christ commanding that but yet upon their supposall as a thing indifferent thou shouldest certainly performe obedience to Antichrist by his authoritie limiting and restraining that indifferency unto both kindes as now by his authority hee restraines it unto one The summe is this To doe any act whether in it selfe good or indifferent but commanded to be done by the Pope as Pope to pray to preach to receive the Sacraments yea but to lift your eyes or hold up your finger or say your Pater noster or your Ave Maria or weare a bead a modell a lace or my garment white or blacke or use any crossing either at Baptisme or any other time to do any one of these or any the like eo nomine because the Pope as Pope teacheth that they are to be done or commands the doing of them is in very deed a yeelding one selfe to be a vassall of Antichrist a receiving the marke of the beast and a vertuall or implicit deniall of the faith in Christ. So extremly venemous is that poison which lyeth in the root of that fundamentall heresie which they have laid as the very rocke and Foundation of their faith 34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baronius which concerned Heresie His other concerning Schisme is this That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended were Schismatikes A most strange assertion that the whole Catholike Church should bee schismaticall for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause that Catholikes should all at once become Schismatikes yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholike faith I oppose to this another and true assertion That not onely Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters and forsooke communion with the condemners of them was a Schismatike himselfe and chiefe of the Schisme but that all who as yet defend Vigilius that is who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith and forsake communion with those that condemne it that those all are and that for this very cause Schismatikes and the Pope the ringleader in the Schisme 35. For the manifesting whereof certaine it is that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly and judicially by his Apostolicall authority defined that the Three Chapters ought to be defended there was a great rent and Schisme in the Church either part separating it selfe from the other and forsaking communion with the other First the holy Councell and they who tooke part with it anathematized the defenders of those Chapters thereby as themselves expound it declaring their opposites to be separated from God and therefore from the society of the church of God On the other side Pope Vigilius they who were on his part were so averse from the others that they would rather endure disgrace yea banishment as Baronius sheweth thē communicate with their opposites But I shal not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schisme at this time betweene the defenders condemners of those chapters Baronius professeth it saying The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata torn asunder by a schisme Againe After the end of the Councell there arose a greater war then was before Catholikes so he falsly calls both parts being then divided among themselves some adhaering to the Councell others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution Againe Many relying upon the authority of Vigilius did not receive the fift Synod atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary Such were the Italian Africane Illirian other neighbour Bishops So Baronius truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part 36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes As the name of heresie though it bee common to any opinion whereof one makes choice whether it be true or false in which sense Constantine the great called the true faith Catholicam sanctissimam haeresim yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions as are repugnāt to the faith So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or renting of one from another yet now by the vulgar use of Divines it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause and from those to whom hee or they who are separated ought to unite themselves hold communion with them This whosoever doe whether they bee moe or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes and factious For it is neither multitude nor paucitie nor the holding with or against any visible head or governour whatsoever nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others but only the cause for which the separation is made which maketh a Schisme or faction and truly denounceth one to be factious or a Schismatike If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel because they are Idolaters and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal as they did If the three children for the like cause separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians in separation they are both like but in the cause being most unlike the Baalites onely and not Elijah and the Babylonians only and not the three children are Schismatikes Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church and hold communion with them in faith hence it is that as out of Austine Stapleton rightly observes Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this certainely his professiō of Arianisme with such a professiō to hold the Scriptures could not make him an hereticke no more then Cyprians profession of Rebaptization or Irenees of the millenarie heresie did make them heretikes Erre hee should as they did but being not pertinacious in error hereticke hee could not be as they were not But it falls out otherwise with all heretickes They professe to hold the Scripture yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintaine That they will hold and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrarie even of the Scriptures themselves They resolve of this that whosoever Bishops Councells or Church teach the contrarie to that or say judge that the Scripture so teacheth they all erre or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures Thus did not Cyprian nor Irenee And this wilfull and pertinacious resolution it is which evidently sheweth that in truth they beleeve not the Scriptures but beleeve their own fancies though they say a thousand times that they beleeve and embrace whatsoever the Scriptures teach for did they beleeve any doctrine say Arianisme eo nomine because the Scripture teacheth it they would presently beleeve the contrarie thereunto when it were manifested unto them as is was to the Arians by the Nicen Coūcell that the Scripture taught the contrarie to their error Seeing this they will not doe It is certaine that they hold their private opiniō eo nomine because they will hold it and they hold it to bee the doctrine of scripture not because it is so but because they will have it to bee so say what any will or can to the contrarie So their owne will and not Scripture is the reason why they beleeve it nay why they hold it with such a stiffe opinion for beleife it is not it cannot be This pertinacie to have beene in the Nestorians Eutycheans and the rest is evident Had they beleeved as they professed the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus then upon manifestation of their errors out of those Councels they would have renounced their heresies but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ notwithstanding that the whole Councell of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Councel held but one person and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union notwithstanding that the whole Councell at Chalcedon manifested unto them that the holy Ephesine Synod held two natures to abide in him after the union they did hereby make it evident unto all that they so professed to hold those Councels as that they resolved not to forsake their Nestorian and Eutichean heresies for any manifestation of the truth or conviction of their error out of those Councels and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said we hold those Councels and will have them to teach what wee affirme whatsoever any man or Councell saith or can say to the contrarie The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it he would have forsaken the defence of them then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious nor should have made him an hereticke but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters should have made him a catholike But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell that the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters with this pertinacie and wilfull resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke notwithstanding his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof whereby all those Chapters are condemned which profession being joyned with the former pertinacie could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike 18. The very fame must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel and faith thereof as that upon manifestation that this Councell beleeved taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible and de facto hath beene hereticall they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies then should they much rather for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof bee orthodoxall then for professing together with this the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie bee hereticall But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith touching the Three Chapters that the fift Councell beleeved this and decreed under the censure of an Anathema that all others should beleeve it and that all who beleeve the contrary are heretikes seeing I say notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in those causes yea defend it as the very foundation of their faith this makes it evident to all that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell or the other whether precedent or following for they all are consonant to this but with this pertinacious resolution not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie and therefore their expresse profession of this fift and other generall Councels yea of the Scriptures themselves cannot be so effectuall to make them Catholikes as the profession of the Popes infallibility which is joyned with this pertinacy is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes 19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the pertinacy of Vigilius For one may be and often is pertinacious in his errour not onely after but even before conviction or manifestation of the truth made unto him and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi prepared or ready to be informed of the truth and corrected thereby or when he doth not or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen and out of him Occham Gerson Navar Alphonsus à Castro and many others doe truly teach See now I pray you how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking and preparation to embrace the truth He by his
specially of heresie is strong as death It will cause Vigilius or any like him when it hath once got possession of their heart with the Baalites and Donatists to contemne launcing whipping and tearing of their flesh yea to delight as much in Phalaris Bull as in a bed of doune and in the midst of all tortures to sing with him in the Orator Quam suave est hoc Quam nihil curo O how glad and merry a man am I that suffer all these for the love of my Three Chapters Losse of fame losse of goods losse of libertie losse of my Countrey losse of my pontificall See losse of communion and society of the Catholike Church and of God himselfe Farewell all these and all things else rather then the Three Chapters then Nestorianisme shall want a defender or a Martyr to seale it with blood 10. You see now the third period and the third judgement of Pope Vigilius in this cause A judgement which being delivered ex Tripode and with all possible circumspection puts downe for many respects both the former what hee spake the first time in defence of these Three Chapters was spoken in stomacke and in his heat and choler against the Emperor What he spake the second time for condemning those Chapters he did therein but temporize and curry favour with the Emperor But what he spake now this third time after seven yeares ventilating of the cause when all heat and passion being abated he was in cold blood and in such a calme that no perturbation did trouble his mind or darken his judgement that I say proceeded from the very bottome of the heart and from the Apostolicall authority of his infallible Chaire which to be a true and divine judgement he like a worthy Confessor sealed with his banishment And of this judgement hee continued in likelihood more but as Baronius whom I now follow tels us about the space of a yeare after the end of the fift Councell even till hee returned out of exile unto Constantinople 11. The fourth and last changing of Vigilius was after his returne from banishment as Baronius and Binius tell us For while hee was there he saw there was urgentissima causa a most urgent cause why he should consent to the Emperour and approve the judgement of the holy Councell and therefore hee was pleased once againe to make another Apostolicall Decree for adnulling his former Apostolicall judgement and for condemning the Three Chapters and confirming the fift Synod I thinke saith Binius that Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod by his Decree and Pontificall authority and abrogated his former Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters in the next yeare after the Councell was ended when he being loosed from banishment was suffered to returne into Italy being adorned with sundry gifts and priviledges Neither doth he only opinari but he is certaine of it Dubium non est there is no doubt but Vigilius being delivered from exile by the entreatie of Narses did confirme the fift Synod We thinke saith Baronius that when Vigilius was by the intreaty of Narses freed from exile hee did then assent to the Emperour and recalling his former sentence in his Constitution declared did approve the fift Synod Againe Seeing we have declared that Vigilius did not approve the fift Synod when hee was driven into banishment for he was exiled for no other cause but for that hee would not approve that Synod Necesse est affirmare it must of necessity bee said that hee did this approve the fift Synod at this time when being loosed out of exile he was sent home to his owne Church So Baronius Now seeing hee returned home after hee had obtained those ample gifts and priviledges which they so magnifie and which are set downe in that pragmaticall sanction of Iustinian which was dated on the twelfth day of August in the eight and twentieth yeare of his Empire and the fift Councell was ended on the second day of Iune in his seven and twentieth yeare it is cleare that this his last change was made about an whole yeare after the end of the fift Councell after hee had remained a yeare or thereabouts in banishment And in this minde as they tell us hee returned towards Rome but by the way while hee was yet but in Sicily being afflicted with the stone he dyed 12. Here is now the Catastrophe of the Popes turnings and returnings and often changing in this cause of faith Concerning which this is especially to bee remembred that whereas all the three former judgements of Vigilius the first when he defended those three Chapters being in Italie the second when he condemned them upon his comming to Constantinople and the third when he againe defended them at the time of the Councell and after have all of them certaine and undeniable proofes out of antiquitie such as the testimonies of Facundus Victor Liberatus the Popes owne letters and Constitutions together with the witnesse of the Emperor and the whole fift Councell onely this last period and this last change when hee consented to the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters This I say which is the onely judgement whereby Vigilius is excused from heresie is utterly destitute of all ancient witnesses not any one that I can finde makes mention of this change or of ought that can any way enforce the same and therefore this may and must be called the Baronian change or Period he being the first man that I can learne of who ever mentioned or dreamed of his change And although this alone were sufficient to oppose to all that the Cardinall or any other can hence collect in excuse of Vigilius reason and equitie forbidding us to bee too credulous upon the Cardinals bare word which even in this one cause touching the Three Chapters and this fift Councell besides many the like demonstratively to be proved untrue and false I speake it confidently and within compasse in six hundreth sayings at the least yet that they may not say wee decline the force of this so pregnant an exception we will for a little while admit and suppose it to bee true and try whether by this being yeelded unto them there can accrew any advantage to their cause or any help to excuse either Vigilius himselfe or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters from being hereticall 13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fift Councell and approved the Catholike faith Be it so we deny not but that Vigilius or any other of their Popes may decree and have decreed a truth that 's not the doubt betwixt us and them The question is whether any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedrall authoritie and teaching as Popes decreed an heresie or untruth That Pope Vigilius did so his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters is an eternall witnes against them
a generall or a lawfull Councell 5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it and unlesse he should approve it See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church Begin we with the Church of that age Baronius tels us that both the Emperour the Pope Mennas and other Easterne Bishops agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters to a generall Councell Why did none of them reason as the Cardinall now doth against the Councell Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest who made that agreement and say to this effect unto them Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please If they say as I say it shall be a Councell a lawfull a generall an holy Councell If they say the contrary to that which I affirme though they have ten thousand millions of voyces their Decree shall be utterly void their assembly unlawfull they shall neither bee nor bee called a generall nor a lawfull Councell no nor a Councell neither but onely a Conventicle without all authoritie in the world Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this doctrine there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled nay there never had beene any other holy generall Councell The Pope had beene in stead of all and above them all This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell witnesseth them all even the Pope himselfe at that time to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes consent and to be of more authority in case they should differ as in this question they did than the sentence of the Pope This before the Councell was assembled 6. At the time of the Councell had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church beleeved their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod but a Conventicle why did they at all come together after their second Session for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe that he would neither come nor send any deputies unto them Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity why did they after the fift Session once proceed to examine or determine that cause For before the sixt day of their assembling they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause inhibiting them either to write or speak much more judicially to define ought contrarie to his sentence or if they did that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same Seeing notwithstanding all this well knowne unto them they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies but judicially defined that cause and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them it is an evident demonstration that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall and their sentence of full authority even as ample as of any generall Councell though the Pope denied his presence to the one and expressely signified not onely his dislike but contradiction and condemnation of the other 7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence or what thinke you will the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of
Oecumenicall Councels or the decrees thereof may bee and de facto have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope but by other succeding generall Councels by Provinciall Synods yea by particular Bishops who have beene absent none of all which gave or could give more authority to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof than it had before and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse or fruitlesse 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of thâ—se two coÌ„firmations These use end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree that is in truth the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops who were absent was not judicially to define that cause or give any judgment therein for this was done already and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee but to preserve the peace of the Church and unity in faith which could by no other meanes be better effected than if Bishops who had been absent and therefore did but implicitè or by others consent to those decrees at the making thereof did afterwards declare their owne explicite and expresse consent to the same Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was either for authority or learning the more likely he was either to make a rent and schisme in the Church if hee should dissent or to procure the tranquility and peace of the Church if hee should consent hence it was that if any Patriarke Patriarchall Primate or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell the Church and Councell did the more earnestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees This was the cause why both the religious Emperour Theodosius and Cyrill with other orthodoxall Bishops were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod which long before was ended that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle and those who defended Nestorius with his heresie so his yeelding to the truth and embracing the Ephesine Councell which condemned Nestorius might draw many others to doe the like and so indeed it did This was the principall reason why some of the ancient Councels as that by name of Chalcedon for all did it not sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee invalid or their Councell no approved Councell if it wanted his approbation or confirmation a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Councels the Synod thought it fit to procure if they could his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church might by his example move all and by his authoritie draw his owne Patriarchall Diocesse as usually hee did to consent to the same decrees whereas if he should happen to dissent as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell hee was likely to cause as Vigilius then did a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritative such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificative such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull
Iudge in his owne cause The Councell and by name the Popes Legates to whom the rest therein assented tooke this just exception thereat and said Non patimur we cannot indure this wrong to be done ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit that Dioscorus who is to bee judged sit as a Iudge in his owne cause upon which most just and equall motion the glorious Iudges who were Presidents for order commanded Dioscorus to remove from the Bench as I may say of Iudges and to sit in the middle of the Church which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei and Dioscorus accordingly sate there as the glorious Iudges had appointed Vpon the very same ground of equitie did the religious Emperour command in the second Ephesine Synod that if any question or cause fell out to be debated concerning Theodoret whom he commanded to be present that then absque illo Synodum convenire the Synod should assēble judge that cause without Theodoret he should have no judicatory power in his own cause And the like he further cōmanded cōcerning that holy Bish. Flavianus He some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople beene Iudges against Eutiches and condemned him An higher even that generall Councell at Ephesus which proved a Latrociny in the end was called to examine that judgment of Flavianus and the rest whether it was just or no. The Emperour commanded those who had beene Iudges of late in loco eorum esse qui judicandi sunt now to bee in the place of Rei such as were to bee judged A demonstration that if Theodosius or Martian or such like worthy and equall Iudges as they were at Chalcedon had been Presidents for order in their Trent assembly the Pope though hee had beene as just and orthodoxall as Flavianus much more being in impiety and heresie farre superiour to Dioscorus should not have beene permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Councell nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his owne cause much lesse have had such a supremacie of judgement that his onely voyce and sentence should over-rule and over-sway the whole Councell besides 35. The other example is this Athanasius Bishop of Paros being accused of sundry crimes was called to triall before a Provinciall Councell at Antioch held by Domnus Bishop of that See unto whose Patriarchall authority Athanasius was subject when hee refused to come after three citations hee was deposed by that Synod and Sabinianus by the same authority made Bishop of Paros in his roome In the Councel at Chalcedon Athanasius came complained of wrongfull extrusion and desired of the generall Councell that his Bishopricke might be restored unto him pleading for his refusall to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch nothing else but this that Dōnus who was the chiefe Iudge in that Synod was his enemy and therefore hee thought it not equall to be tryed before him though he was his owne Patriarch The glorious Iudges gave order that the accusations against Athanasius should within eight moneths bee examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch and a Synod with him and if he were found guilty of those crimes or any other worthy deposition he should for ever want the Bishopricke But if either they did not within such time examine the cause or examining it finde the accusations untrue that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius as unjustly deposed and that Sabinianus should remaine but a substitute unto him untill Maximus could provide him of another Bishopricke Thus ordered the secular Iudges and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence crying out Nihil justius nothing is more just nothing is more equall this is a just sentence you judge according to Gods minde O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe nay rather the onely Iudge would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity nor of force to bind I say not other Churches such as these of Britany but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority as Athanasius was to Domnus Such an holy Councell would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God and unlesse they could justifie which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us and withall purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convicted not onely in foro poli but in their owne consciences and by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny injustice and subversion of the Catholike Faith 36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops who were assessors in that Assembly Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance and murdered the Prophets Among whom that Canon authorizing trecherous and perfidious dealing stood in force Quod non obstantibus that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours Kings or any other granted to such as come to their Councels Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint by what bond soever they have tyed themselves by promise by their honour by their oath yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition and proceed to censure to punish them as they shall thinke fit and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousnesse saying Caesar obsignavit Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath but our Councell which is above the Emperour hath repealed it it shall not stand in force 37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope The Apulian Bishops crying out aliorum omnium nomine in the name of all the rest in their Councell Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae mancipia sanctissimi patris O we are all but the Popes creatures his very slaves The complaint of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed which he made of such like Councels at Basil that must bee done and of necessity be done and decreed in Councells quod nationi placeat Italicae which the Italian nation shall
triumphed to have had so just an occasion to reprove disgrace the Emperor by whom he was imprisoned and banished doth make evident Hee 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 Iustinian placed Iohn a condemner of the Three Chapters in the Sec 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 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 of his Edict doe declare it clearly hence followeth from the certaine testimony of Victor that Iustinian was so farre from embracing or making Edicts for that heresie that he constantly oppugned the same and even punished all who beleeved or taught as the Aphthardokites did for in beleeving that heresie they contradicted the Emperours owne Edict and the holy Councels both at Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon all which the Emperour by this Edict even untill his death constantly maintained 14. Why but All Writers saith Baronius both Greeke and Latine they all doe testifie that Iustinian sell into that heresie What heare I Doe All and All both Greeke and Latine doe they All testifie this of Iustinian A vast a shamelesse a Cardinall a very Baronian untruth Of the Greekes not Procopius not Agathias not Photius not Damascen though he entreat of this very heresie not the Cardinals owne Suidas who quite contrary to the Cardinall calls Iustinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most Catholique and Orthodoxall Emperour Of the Latines not Victor by whom as you have seene the cleane contrary is also testified not Liberatus and both these lived at the same time with Iustinian not Marcellinus not Bede not Anastasius though such was his splene against Iustinian that he could not have concealed such a disgracefull crime not Aimonius of whom I pray you see how well his testimony accordeth with the Cardinall Iustinian saith he was a man fide Catholicus pietate insignis aquitatis cultor egregius for his faith Catholike for his piety renowned a marvellous lover of equitie and therefore all things did cooperate to his good he addeth for the whole time of his Empire which was 39. yeares Imperium faelici sorte rexit Hee governed the Empire in an happy manner Not the true Paulus Diaconus who using the like words saith that Iustinian governed the Empire in an happy sort was Prince for his faith Catholike in his actions upright in judgments just and therefore all things concurred to his good not Sigebert not Marianus Scotus not Lambertus Scafnaburgensis not Ado Viennensis not Albo Floriacensis not Luitprandus not Conrad Abbas Vspergensis not Albertus Stadensis not Otho Frisingensis who cals him Christianissimum ac pijssimum Principem a most Christian and most pious Prince unfit epethetes for an heretike or one condemned to the torments of hell not Gotofrid Viterbiensis who likewise calls him a most Christian Prince one who established peace in the Church which rejoyced under him to enjoy tranquillitie not Wernerus whose testimonie is worthy observing to see the Cardinals faith and true dealing in this cause Iustinian saith hee was in all things most excellent for in him did concurre three things which make a Prince glorious to wit power by which hee overcame his enemies wisedome by which hee governed the world with just lawes and a religious minde to Gods worship by which hee glorified God and beautified the Churches So farre is he from teaching him with the Cardinall to have beene a Tartarean Cerberus or Three-headed monster consisting of three detestable vices that he opposeth thereunto a Trinity of three most renowned vertues Fortitude Iustice and Piety of which the Emperour was composed Not Nauclerus not Krantzius not Tritemius not Papirius Massonus not Christianus Masseus not the Magnum Cronicum Belgicum not the Chronicon Reicherspergense which testifieth that he did performe many things profitable to the Common-wealth and so ended his life Not Munster who saith of him that hee was a just and upright man in finding out matters ingenious Atque haeresum maximus hostis and the greatest enemy of heresies not Platina who saith of Iustinus the next Emperour unto him hee was Nulla in re similis Iustiniano in nothing like unto Iustinian For hee was covetous wicked ravenous a contemner both of God and men whence it followeth that Iustinian was quite contrary bountifull just religious an honourer both of God and good men 15. Now whereas all these and I know not how many more I thinke an hundred at least if one were curious in this search doe write of Iustinian and not one of them for ought that after earnest search I can finde doe mention his fall in that fantasticke heresie nay many of them as you have seene doe testifie on the contrary that hee was and continued a Catholike a religious a most pious a most Christian a most orthodoxall Prince and the greatest oppugner of heresies what an audacious and shamelesse untruth was it in the Cardinall to say that All Authors all both Greeke and Latine doe witnesse and detest his impiety and his fall into that heresie Besides these I must yet adde some other and those also farre more eminent and ample witnesses who doe more than demonstrate both the honour of Iustinian and those imputations of heresie and the other disgraces wherewith Baronius hath loaded him to bee most shamelesse calumnies and slanders 16. The first of these is Pope Agatho one of their Canonized Saints Hee in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus to prove out of the venerable Fathers two natures to be in Christ tels us that S. Cyril Saint Chrysostome Iohn Bishop of Scithopolis Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria Ephremius and Anastasius the elder two
victorious conquests Alexander for magnificence Augustus for his Piety constant love and zeal to the faith Constantine Theodosius or Martian for multiplicity of labours undertaken for the good of the whole Empire more indefatigable than Hercules and for supporting the whole fabricke of the Church and Christian faith a very Atlas Caelum qui vertice falcit 42. There onely remaineth now the other effect which is private which as it is the last so is it the heaviest punishment that Baronius could wish unto Iustinian and that is his adjudging him to the pit and torments of hell Did he not feare the Apostles reproofe either against rash and temerarious judgers Who art thou that judgest another mans servant or against uncharitable censures Charity thinketh not evill it rejoyceth not in iniquity but rejoyceth in the truth why did not the Cardinall harken rather to the judgement of the Church of Constantinople Wherein the memory of Iustinian was yearely celebrated and that with great pompe and solemnity in the Church of Sophia in the time of divine service all the people being assēbled The like celebrity of his memory was observed at Ephesus in the Church of Saint Iohn which he had builded Or if the authority of these particular Churches could not sway the Cardinall seemed it a small matter unto him to contemne the consenting judgement of Pope Agatho and his Romane Councell which ranke him among the glorious and blessed Saints in heaven with Saint Constantine Theodosius and Martian yea of the whole sixt generall Councell wherein his memory is so often called holy blessed divine happy and the like if his memory then much more himselfe is happy and blessed for to the just onely doth that honor belong The memoriall of the just shall be blessed but the name of the wicked shall rot To which purpose that is specially to be observed which Nicephorus addeth in plaine termes of the sixt generall Councell Iustinianum beata quiete dignatur It placeth Iustinian in blessed rest and peace and againe Semper cum qui in Sanctis est Iustinianum dicunt That general Councell ever calleth Iustinian one who is a Saint and among the Saints Adde to all these that seeing by the Cardinals confession the Epistles of Agatho In omnibus and therefore even in that which he saith of this holy Emperour That hee is a blessed Saint venerable in all Nations are to be imbraced as divine Oracles it may bee truly concluded that Iustinian not onely by the testimonies of mortall men and of all nations but even by the voyce of God himselfe is blessed and hath ever since his death and doth now rest and raigne with God When by the unpartiall judgement of S. Agatho of the Romane Synod of the whole sixt generall Councell of all Nations yea of God himselfe Iustinian is proclamed to be a venerable Saint now resting raigning with God in heaven who is Baronius a man of yesterday that after a thousand years possession of that heavenly rest he should unsaint him dethrone him and thrust him downe to the lowest pit and most hideous torments of hell I' st not enough for that Hildebrandicall generation to devest Kings Emperors of their earthly diadems unless in the pride of their hearts climbing up into heaven they thrust them out thence also deprive them of their crowns of immortality eternal glory 43. And yet were there neither Historian nor Pope nor Provinciall nor Generall Councell to testifie this felicity of Iustinian unto us that very text out of which being maimed the Cardinall sucked poyson and collected His death damnation doth so forcible prove the beatitude of Iustinian that it alone may bee sufficient in this cause The Cardinall cites but one part of the text but the whole doth manifest his fraud and malicious collection Apoc. 14.13 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence forth even so saith the Spirit for they rest from their labours and opera illorum sequuntur illos their workes follow them which last words the Cardinall onely alleageth and applyeth them to Iustinian Now who are Those that are meant by Their works and follow Them who are those Them that the Spirit meaneth in that text Out of al doubt those selfe-same of whom before he spake Them that dye in the Lord Them that are blessed and rest from their labours Of Them the Spirit there saith Opera illorum Their workes follow Them Seeing then the Cardinall confesseth this text to belong to Iustinian and himselfe applyeth it unto him it certainly hence followeth that Iustinian is of their number who dye in the Lord and are blessed for of Them and Them onely doth the holy Ghost speake in that text saying They rest from their labours and Their workes follow Them So hard it is for the Cardinal to cite or say ought against Iustinian which doth not redound to the Emperours honour and the Cardinals owne ignominie 44. But let us suppose the words to bee generall as being uttered alone without any reference to that text they may bee truly affirmed both of the good bad There cannot be found in al Scripture more faire evidence nor a more authentike Charter for the happy estate of any one in particular that lived since the Apostles times then is this for Iustinian For what were those workes which did accompanie and follow Iustinian Truely the workes of sincere faith of fervent zeale to GOD of love to the Church and Children of God the workes of piety of prudence of justice of fortitude of munificence of many other heroicall vertues with these as with a garment and chaine of pure Gold Iustinian being decked was brought unto the Bridegroom every decree made or ratified by him for confirming the faith every Anathema denounced against heresies heretiks particularly those against Vigilius al that defend him that is against Baronius and all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith everie Temple or Church every Monastery and Hospitall every City and Towne everie Bridge Haven and High-way every Castle Fort and Munition whether made or repaired by him tending either immediately to the advancement of Gods service or to the maintaining or relieving of Gods servants or strengthning the Empire against his and Gods enemies every booke in the Digest Code and Authentikes every Title yea every law in any title whereby either the Christian faith and religion or peaceable order and tranquillity have beene either planted or propagated or continued either in the Church or Common-wealth all these and every one of them and many other the like which I cannot either remember or recount are like so many Rubies Chrysolites and Diamonds in the costly garment or so many linkes in that golden chaine of his faith and vertues Seeing they who offer but one mite into the treasury of the Lord or give but one cup of cold water to a Prophet shall not want a reward O!
avouch that it had beene much better that the Church had remained without these controversies about the three Chapters nec unquam de his aliquis habitus esset sermo and that there had never beene one word spoken of them Thus Baronius 2. What thinke you moved the Cardinall to have such an immortall hatred to this cause as to wish the condemning buriall and utter extinguishing of those controversies What more hurt did this to the Church than the question about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or about the opinion of Eutiches Very great calamity saith Baronius insued upon this controversie both in the East and West True it did so and so there did and far greater and longer about the controversie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more againe than that upon the question whether the Gospell or Paganisme should prevaile and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated the truth of Christ spred abroad the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospell No affliction calamity or persecution is a just cause either to wish that there had never beene any such controversie or to forsake the truth of God when the controversie is moved It was an excellent saying of the Aegyptian Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon Christianus neminem timet a Christian feareth no mortall man si homines timerentur martyres non essent if men should be feared there would be no Martyrs But the truth is it was not as Baronius fancieth the controversie it selfe nor the disputing and debating thereof that caused so great calamities in the East and West that is non causa pro causa the peevishnesse and perversenesse of wicked men maintaining heresies and oppugning the truth that was the true cause thereof The controversie it selfe if you well marke it was very beneficiall to the Church Oportet haereses esse there must be heresies among you that they which are approved might bee knowne Every heresie is a probation and tryall of mens love to God and his truth whether they esteeme it more than their honours pleasures and their owne wilfull conceits and the greater the heresie is and the further it spreads it is still a greater tryall Heretikes saith S. Austen doe much profit the Church though they be out of the Church not by teaching the truth which they doe not know but by stirring up those who are more carnall Catholikes to seeke and those who are more spirituall to defend and manifest the truth This triall and probation of men if I mistake not was never so great in any controversie or question as in this of the three Chapters First it sifted and tryed Vigilius to the full and tryed him to be a wether-cocke in faith an heretike and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolicall authority Next it sifted out divers notable conclusions as first that which I think was never before that tryed that not onely the Pope but the Apostolike See also to wit the Romane Church and with it the Westerne Churches all at once adhered to heresie and forsooke the truth and that even after it was decreed and judged by the generall approved Councell and so it proved both Pope and Romane Church to be properly hereticall the Easterne Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time it shewed that the Catholike faith was tied neither to the Chair nor Church of Rome Another conclusion then tryed was that either persons or Churches may not onely dissent from the Pope and the Romane Church and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod but may renounce communion with them and yet remaine Catholikes and in the unity of the Catholike Church the Pope the Westerne Church and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholike faith Heretikes and by forsaking the unity of the Church Schismatikes 3. Neither onely was this controversie a triall to them in that age a tryall of their faith love to God charity to the Church obedience to the Emperour but it is as great a triall even in these our dayes and ever since that doctrine of the Popes infallibility in causes of faith hath beene defined and condemned By this controversie most happly decided by the generall Councell all that hold the Popes definitions of faith to be infallible that is all that are Papists or members of the present Church of Rome they are all hereby tryed to defend this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius that is to maintaine all the blasphemies of the Nestorians to deny the Catholike faith the doctrine of the Apostles of the primative Church of the fift generall Councell so to be not only heretikes but convicted anathematized and cōdemned heretikes by the judgement of a generall approved Councell and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church Further yet there is a tryall of them whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine or position of faith or religion if they doe as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that they are againe hereby tryed to be hereticall not onely in the foundation but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion which relyes upon that foundation 4. This was it which netled Baronius and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes that this controversie had never beene heard of nor mentioned in the world he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men of doctrines of Churches of the Pope himselfe and their whole Romish Church and seeing that tryall he never ceased to say that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved nor spoken of for so they had avoided this most notable triall Blessed be God for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated and discussed to the utmost that among many other tryals this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed and discovered to the world it is for them I say to wish that the controversies about Arianisme Nestorianisme Eutycheanisme and the like had never beene moved they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes But Catholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies by which both the truth which they maintaine is made more resplendent and victorious themselves and their faith tryed to be like refined gold the Church thereby is quieted the truth propagated heresies confounded and the glory of Almighty God much more magnified and praysed CAP. XXIII How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian and Theodorus B. of Caesarea and a refutation of the same 1. SEeing now notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius this controversie could not be buried it ought him and all ill-willers
present among whom Theodorus being neare and deare unto the Emperour and so continually conversant with him was doubtlesse one and one of the chiefe condemned Origen it is not to bee doubted but that he was one of the first and chiefe Bishops that subscribed in that Synod to the condemnation of him Now this was done in the 12. yeare of Iustinian that is full fourteene yeares before the fift Councell so ancient so constant was the detestation of Theodorus towards Origen 19. Will any now judge otherwise of Baronius than a malicious slanderer who raileth against Theodorus as the most earnest Patron of Origen whom his owne publike and constant profession and subscription testifieth to have accursed Origen with all his heresies yea to have accursed all that doe either defend him or think as Origen did though outwardly and openly he doe not defend him for that was one Article to which Theodorus and the whole Synod under Mennas subscribed a curse be to Origen with all his execrable doctrine a curse bee to every one who thinketh the same which he did or who at any time doth presume to defend the same 20. What are the partiall uncertaine and malicious reports of Facundus of Liberatus or of the Surian Cyrill to adde him also among them to these undoubted and authentike records of Councels when wee reade and see the evident subscription of Theodorus proclaming him to condemne and accurse Origen what vanitie malice and hatred of truth is this in the Cardinall to alleage two or if you please three partiall testimonies against that evidence which condemneth them and all that they can say So unfortunate is the Cardinall in all that he undertakes in this cause that hee doth not onely speake praeter but contra directly contrary to the truth whereof as in other passages so in this touching Theodorus wee have seene so faire and cleare evidences CAP. XXIIII How unjustly Baronius excepteth against the Acts of the fift Councell as being corrupted and of no credit and a refutation in generall all of the same 1. BAronius perceiving right well that all which heretofore hath beene said either against the Emperour or the Empresse or the Edict or Theodorus the supposed author of it is not sufficient in any measure either to defend or excuse Vigilius in the next place he taketh a very uncouth unusuall but a most sure course wherby hee may not onely weaken but utterly overthrow all that hath or can be said against the Pope in this cause for the Acts of the fift generall Councell being the most authentike records that can bee produced to prove Vigilius and all that defend him to bee heretikes the Cardinall and after him Binius will now no longer hacke at this or that person which were agents in the cause and but petty branches but now hee will strike at the very roote calling into question the Acts and evidences themselves striving to prove them to bee of no credit which if hee can doe all the rest whatsoever can bee said will most easily bee rejected Now because Baronius was willing in this passage to shew not onely the utmost subtilty of his wit but his exact diligence in picking out every quarrell that art or malice could suggest against the Acts of this holy Councell I must intreate the reader not to thinke it tedious though unto mee this was a matter almost of greatest trouble and difficultie to heare patiently and weigh with equity of judgement the manifold exceptions against these Acts which he hath collected or rather scattered upon every occasion which offered it selfe here and there that by his inculcating and ingeminating of the accusation he might breed some opinion of the truth thereof 2. And before I enter into examination of the particulars let me put the reader in minde of one or two considerations which may in generall concerne them all The first is that though the Cardinall and Binius following him have spared no labour to sift these Acts as diligently as Satan did Saint Peter and have objected ten or twelve speciall corruptions in them yet not any thing which they mention or against which they except doth any way so touch or concerne the cause of the Three Chapters whereof wee have intreated as either to shew that the Councell condemneth them not or that Vigilius defendeth them not by his definitive Apostolical Constitutiō or that the Councell by their Synodall sentence and consenting judgement did not for that cause condemne anathematize and accurse for heretikes all that defend them and so Pope Vigilius among the rest and al that defend him or his Apostolicall Constitution All these are matters of so certaine evident and undoubted truth by the Acts that Baronius or Binius could finde nothing at all to blemish or darken them So then though the Acts were admitted in 100. or 1000. other points to bee corrupted mutilated and altered yet the Cardinall and Binius are never a whit the nearer the maine point at which they aime is to excuse Vigilius and those that defend him but notwithstāding all that they have said and they have said all that industry having borrowed serpentine eyes could finde out both Vigilius himselfe and all who defend him and those are all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith that is all Papists remaine still as convicted accursed and anathematized heretikes and that by the judgment of an holy generall Councell approved by all succeeding both Popes and Councels till the time of Luther and Leo the tenth 3. The second thing which I observe is that corruptions which happely may bee crept into some Synodall Acts or other writings whether by mutilations additions or alterations are no just cause to reject as unworthy of credit all the Acts of that Councell or writings of the author Admit this once what credit can be given to the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Councels whose Acts to bee miserably maimed none is ignorant yea even the very Canons also to bee corrupted Bellarmine and Baronius doe professe and prove The like corruption Baronius noteth in the first Ephesine Councell wherein is set downe among other acts decretum Regum for the banishment of the Nestorians of which Baronius saith plura simul mendacia insuta habent there are many lyes sowed up in these Acts. In like sort in the Councell of Chalcedon is inserted among the Acts of the third Session an Edict of the Emperor Valentinianus and Martianus which was written a long yeare after the Councell was ended and therefore must of necessity be acknowledged to bee foisted and unjustly inserted into the Acts. Of the sixt Councell Bellarmine saith that it without doubt is corrupted and whatsoever is found there of Honorius is falsly inserted Of it Binius after Baronius saith the Acts of it are in many places depraved and whatsoever is there reported to be said or done by Honorius all that is
added by the Monothelites Of the seventh Binius thus writeth This fourth Action is in divers places faulty and in the History of the Image crucified at Beritus it containeth divers Apocryphall narrations concerning the Image of Christ made by Nicodemus Of the eighth Councell that the Canons thereof are corrupted and some inserted by Anastasius their owne Raderus will perswade them Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fift Councell bee applyed to these He having found among these one Epistle of Theodorets which hee supposeth to bee a counterfait concludeth upon that one example in this manner quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi quae sunt his contexta commentis what credit I pray you doe such Acts as these of the fift Councell deserve which are intangled in such fictions May not the selfe same reason be much more justly alleaged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Canons against the Acts of the Councell at Ephesus at Chalcedon against the sixt seventh and eighth Synods in every one of which some in divers more corruptions not onely mutilations but alterations and commentitious writings are inserted by their owne confession Let Baronius answer here his owne question Quam fidem rogo I pray you then what credit may bee given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon of the sixt seventh or eighth Councell they all must by the Cardinals reason be rejected as Canons and Acts of no worth of no credit at all Nor they onely but all the workes of Augustine of Athanasius of Ierome and almost all the holy Fathers none of them all by this Baronian reason deserve any credit for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts as the book de variis Quaestionibus Scripturae the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin and many moe in Athanasius the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill and Cyrils to Austen the author of which was not onely an Impostor but an heretike the booke de Spiritu litera the booke of questions of the old and new Testament which is hereticall and an heape of the like in Austen the Commentaries on Pauls Epistles which savour of Pelagianisme the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity and 100. like in Ierome Quae fides rogo what credit can bee given to these bookes or writings of Austen Athanasius Ierome or the rest in which are found so many fictitious heretical treatises falsly ascribed unto them mingled and inserted among their writings Truly I cannot devise what might move the great Card to make such a collection and reason as from some corruptions crept into the bookes of fathers or Acts of Councels to inferre that the whole Acts or writings are unworthy of any credit but onely as Iacke Cade had a purpose to burne all authentick records and writings of law that as hee boasted all the law might proceed from his own mouth so the Cardinal intended to play a right Iacke Cade with all the ancient Councels and Fathers that having utterly though not abolished yet disgraced and made them all by this his reason and collection unworthy of any credit his owne mouth might bee an Oracle to report without controulment all histories of ancient matters and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter or to set downe in his Annals that all men should beleeve as if the most authentick Records in the world had testified the same How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinall have done to have wished all corruptions to bee removed whatsoever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Councels or writings of Fathers to be added unto them that to be quite cut off whatsoever might bee found wanting that to bee added whatsoever to be altered or perverted that to be amended and not in the blindnesse of his hatred against this one fift Councell to fight like one of the Andabatae against al the rest and with one stroke to cashire all the Acts and Canons of Councels all the writings of Fathers or Historians because forsooth one or some few corruptions have either by negligence or errour of writing or by fraud and malice of some malignant hand crept into them 4. The third thing which I observe is that whereas Baronius so often and so spightfully declameth against the Acts of this Councell as imperfect and corrupted this his whole accusation proceedeth of malice to the Councell and these Acts rather than of judgement or of truth for I doe constantly affirme and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Councels shall certainly finde and if he deale ingenuously will confesse the same that as of al the general Councels which go before this fift for integrity of the Acts none is better or any way comparable to this save that of Chalcedon so of all that follow it none at all is to bee preferred nor any way to bee counted equall with it unlesse that which they call the sixt Councell that is so much of the Acts of that Synod as concerne the cause of the Monothelites leaving out the Trullane Canons This whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Councels cannot choose but observe The Nicene Constantinopolitane being so miserably maimed that scarce wee have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Councels which if they could bee recovered no treasures are sufficient to redeeme a worke of that worth and value a worke non gemmis neque purpura a vaenale neque auro That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus but yet it remaines so imperfect so confused and disorderly that as Diogines sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men so among those very Acts large Tomes of the Coūcels the reader shall be forced to seeke the Acts of the Ephesine Councell The Acts of the second Nicene and of the next to it which they call the eighth are so doubtfull that not onely this or that part but the whole fabrick of them both is questionable whether they were the Synodall Acts or but a relation framed by Anastasius as hee thought best Of all the eight Councels the Acts of Chalcedon this fift and the sixt have beene most safely preserved and like the river Arethusa have strongly passed through so many corrupt ages and hands and yet without tainture of the salt deliver unto us the cleare and sweete current of antiquity and truth And verily when I seriously compare the wrack of other Councels with the entirenesse of these three I cannot but admire and magnifie with all my might the gracious providence wisdome and love of God to his Church for in every one of these there is an unresistable force of truth against that Antichristiā authority supremacy which is now made the foundation of the Popish faith the sixt in the cause of Honorius the fift in this cause of Vigilius and that of Chalcedon in curbing the
profession contradictory to it selfe p. 208. sec. 16. An hereticall profession gives denomination to a man rather than an orthodoxall pa. 208. sec. 17 18. Heresie is a tryall of mens love to God pa. 361. sec. 2. I. IBas his epistle unto Maris an heretike of Persia p. 125. sec. 19. full of Nestorianisme Ibas denyeth God to be incarnate and Mary the mother of God p. 122. sec. 13. Ibas professeth two natures and one person in Christ p. 139. sec. 1. and p. 143. sec. 9. Ibas his consenting to the Ephesine Counsell proves not his epistle Catholike p. 154. sec. Ibas consented not to Cyrill upon his explanation p. 155. sec. 35. c. Vigilius his first reason explained in five severall things first the Popes Rhetorick sec. 35. second his Chronology of time sec. 36. third his Logicke sec. 40. the fourth and fifth his Ethicall and Theologicall knowledge sec 41. vide p. 168. sec. 55. Ibas embraced the union in Nestorianisme p. 125. sec. 19. Ibas professed not the epistle to bee his 〈◊〉 the Acts declare p. 386. sec. 2. The Image of Christ sent to Abgarus a fable p. 346. sec. 32. Infallibility of the Popes judgement the foundation of a papists faith p. 34. sec. 34. and a doctrine of the Romish Church p. 172. sec. 7.8 c. and p. 177. sec. 13 14. Infallibility of the Popes judgement in causes of faith defended by any makes the defender hereticall p. 61. sec. 6. and p. 63. sec. 10. and to dye out of the peace of the Church ibid. Infallibility of the Popes judgement taught by commending the Churches judgement to be infallible and generall Councels pa. 173. sec. 8. and by the Church they understand the Pope sec. 8 9. and p. 178. sec. 15. Infallibility only peculiar to the Pope p. 174 sec. 11. Infallibility of the Popes judgement is hereticall p. 180. sec. 18. Iustinian his Edict for defence of the three Chapters p. 3. sec. 7. Iustinian the Emperour spared Vigilius from banishment and why p. 257. sec. 26 27. Iustinian reviled by Baronius p. 324. slandered to be illiterate p. 325. sec. 3â—4 for making lawes in causes of faith sec. 5 6. for persecuting Vigilius sec. 7. Iustinian in his last age no Aphthardokite p. 330. sec. 8. and p. 333. sec. 12. c. no disturber of the peace of the Church p. 331. in fine Iustinian a defender of the faith witnesse Pope Agatho p. 356. sec. 16 witnesse the Rom. Synod sec. 17. witnesse the sixt Councell sec. 18. witnesse Pope Gregory sec. 19. Iustinian no subverter of the faith pa. 349. sec. 37 38. Iustinian founded many stately Churches and Monasteries p. 350. sec. 39. Iustinian no subverter of the Empire ibid. sec. 40. Iustinian severely censured by Baronius p. 354. sec. 45. Ierusalem not advanced by the fift Synod to a Patriarchship p. 430. sec. 1 2 c. Dioclesian-like caused not Vigilius to be beaten p. 453. sec. 19. Iustinian favoured not the heresie of Anthimus p. 454. sec. 21. K. THe King of England refused to send to their Trent Councell p. 308. sec. 24. Kings and Emperours have onely right to call Councels p. 239. sec. 5. L. THe Lateranâ— Councell under Leo the 10. reprobated the Councell at Constance and Basil touching the authority of Gen Councels p. 33. sec. 33. The Lateranâ— decree condemned by the Vniversity of Paris p. 34. sec. 35. The more learned the man is the more dangerous are his heresies p. 123. sec. 27. Luther his zeale that hee would not communicate in both kindes if the Pope as Pope should command him p. 195. sec. 33. Liberatus an unfit witnesse in the cause of the three Chapt. p. 373. sec. 15 16. Leo judged the Nicene Canons for the limits of Sees unalterable p. 405. sec. 4. Leo his judgement erroneous for preheminency of Bishops p. 400. sec. 4 5. Leontius no sufficient witnesse for the Epistle of Theodoret p. 415. sec. 3. Lawes besides those in the Theodosian Code p. 412. sec. 5 6. Lawfull Synods and what makes them so p. 282. sec. 24 25 26. c. To Lawful Synods besides an Episcopall confirmation p. 281. sec. 25. c. there is required a Regall or Imperiall p. 285. sec. 31 32. Lawfull Councels require first that the summons be generall p. 292. sec. 3. secondly that it be lawfull thirdly that it be orderly ibid. sec. 4. M. MEnnas died in the 21. yeare of Iustinian and the Pope excommunicated him in the 25â— p. 237. sec. 18. The Matrones of Rome entreated Constantius to râ—stâ—re Liberius 248. sec. 12. Monkes of Sythia slandred by Baronius for falsifying the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon p. 383. sec. 4 5. Monothelite additions not extant in the fift Synod p. 409. sec. 2 3. Mennas his confession to Vigilius a forgery p. 441. sec. 2. Mennas not excommunicated by Vigilius p. 442. sec. 4 5. N. NEpos died in an errour onely not in any formall heresie p. 65. sec. 13. The 2. Nicene assembly a conspiracy p. 111. sec. 11. in fine Nestorius his bookes being restrained the bookes of Theodorus and Diodorâ—â— were in more esteeme p. 121. sec. 12. The Nestorians forged a false union between Iohn and Cyrill p. 123. sec. 15. and p. 134. se. 34. The Nestorians confessed two natures and one person in Christ and how p. 144. how Catholikes confesse it ibid. sec. 11 12 13. Nestorius affirmeth the two natures to be two persons pa. 145. sect 16. so Theodorus the Master of Nestorius sect 17. to affirme this is plaine Nestorianisme proved by Iustinian pa. 146. sect 18. by Pope Iohn the second The Nestorians in words orthodoxall in sense and meaning hereticall pa. 147. sect 20. and p. 448. sect 22 23. witnessed by Iustinian p. 449. sect 24. by the fift Councell sect 25. by the epistle it selfe sect 26 27. The Nestorians by Nature understand Person p. 162. sect 46 47. The Nestorians slander Cyrill to teach two persons p. 163. sect 47. Narses for his piety and prudence beloved of Iustinian p. 248. sect 12. Narses intreated not for Vigilius pa. 249. sect 14. Narses overcame not Totilas if Binius his glosse be true p. 458. sect 23. Narses overcame not the Gothes by the intercession of Mary p. 459. sect 24. O. THe occasion of the fift Councell was those tria capitula p. 2. sect 3. Origen commended for his gifts and learning p. 103. sect 28. Origen condemned by the Acts of the fift Synod p. 392. sect 1 2. Origens cause not the cause of the first action in the fift Synod p. 393. sect 3. nor the cause of the second action in the Synod sect 4. The order of lawfull generall Councels pa. 304. sect 19. P. PApists are truly such as ground upon the Popes infallibility p. 187. sect 26. Pope Vigilius excommunicated in an African Synod p. 236. sect 16. The Pope refuseth to come to the Synod p. 4. sect 2 3 4. and the true reason why pag. 6. sect 5. The Popes presence not
Vigilius Dormitans ROMES SEER OVERSEENE OR A TREATISE OF THE FIFT Generall Councell held at Constantinople Anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour in the time of Pope VIGILIVS The Occasion being those Tria Capitula which for many yeares troubled the whole Church WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE POPES Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sentence in matter of Faith was condemned as hereticall by the Synod And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered BY RICH CRAKANTHORP Dr. in DIVINITIE And Chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie KING IAMES Opus Posthumum PVBLISHED AND SET FORTH BY His Brother GEO CRAKANTHORP According to a perfect Copy found written under the Authors owne hand LONDON Printed by M. F. for ROBERT MYLBOVRNE in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Grey-hound M DC XXXI TO THE RIGHT HONOVRABLE EDVVARD LORD NEVVBVRGE Chancellour of the Duchie of Lancaster and one of the Lords of his Majesties most Honourable Privie Counsell RIGHT HONOVRABLE IN all duty and submission I here present unto your Lordship a Treatise concerning the fift generall Councell held at Constantinople the cause being the Controversie of the Three Chapters which for many yeares troubled the whole Church and was at length decided in this Councell held under Iustinian that religious Emperour This Treatise now printed was long agoe penned by one well known unto your Honour your sincere affection to the truth of God and Gods cause gives mee good assurance of your favourable acceptance hereof I confesse indeed that when I call to minde the manifold affaires wherein your Honour is daily imployed the very thought hereof had almost perswaded mee not to interrupt your more serious affaires by drawing your Honour to the reading or view of this Booke but when I call to minde those respects of love and duty in which the Author hereof stood bound unto your Lordship I was againe incouraged in his name to tender it to your Honour And although I my selfe can challenge no interest in your Lordships favour to offer this yet your Lordship may challenge some interest in the fruits of his labours who was so truely as I can truely speake devoted unto your Honour Among many other hee especially acknowledged two assured bonds of love and duty by which hee was obliged unto you and your friends the former arose from that unfained affection which you ever bare him from your first acquaintance in the Colledge that other by which he was further ingaged unto you and your friends was when in a loving respect had unto him in his absence without any meanes made by him or knowledge of his he was called by that much honoured Knight Sir Iohn Levison his Patron your Father in law unto the best meanes of livelihood he ever enjoyed in the Ministery where spending himselfe in his studies hee ended his dayes during which time your Honour made your affection further knowne unto him by speciall expressions of extraordinary favours In regard whereof I perswaded my selfe that I could no where better crave Patronage for this worke than of your Honour that it may bee a further testimony of his love againe who cannot now speake for himselfe And this I intreat leave to doe the rather because I doubt not but hee acquainted your Lordship with his paines and intent in this and other Tractates of the Councels for when after divers yeares study bestowed in this argument of Councels hee was desirous to make some use of his labours his intent was to reduce all those points into foure severall Bookes 1. That the right of calling generall Councels 2. That the right of highest Presidency in them 3. That the right of the last and supreme Confirmation of them is onely Imperiall and not Papall 4. That all the lawfull generall Councels which hitherto have beene held consent with ours and oppugne the doctrines of the present Church of Rome Some of these hee finished the fourth hee could not so much as hope to accomplish and therefore after the examining of some particulars therein he desisted and weaned himselfe from those studies And yet after some yeares discontinuance being by some of his learned friends sollicited to communicate to others at least some one Tract in that argument consenting to their earnest desire after long suspence he resolved on this Treatise as being for weighty and important matters most delightfull unto him That it was not then published let it not seeme strange unto your Honour for having long since finished the Tract of this whole Councell it was his purpose that it should have undergone the publike view and judgement of the Church but when he came as I can truely testifie unto them whose art and ayde is needfull in such a businesse and found an aversenesse in them for that it wholy consisted of controversall matters whereof they feared that this age had taken a satiety he rested in this answer as willing to bury it After this being upon a speciall command from his Majesty King Iames of blessed memory made known unto him by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury to addresse himselfe to another worke hee then desisted from his former intended purpose and in finishing of that last worke of his he ended his dayes Some few yeares after his death being desirous to take a view of some of his Papers I came to the view and handling of this boooke a booke fully perfected for the Presse in his life time the publishing whereof being long expected and of many earnestly desired it was my desire and theirs to whose most grave and judicious censure I willingly submitted it that it might be published for the benefit of Gods Church and the rather that it might give some light in the study of the Councels and animate some of the threescore valiant men that are about Salomons bed being of the expert and valiant men of Israel unto the attempting and undertaking of the like Now what his desire was in this and other of his labours surely none but the very enemies of God and Gods truth can take it to be any other than to testifie his unfained love unto God and Gods Church and to subdue the pride idolatries and impieties of that Man of sinne and to strive for the maintenance of the true faith Now what allowance so ever it may finde abroad among our adversaries it humbly craves your favourable acceptāce at home and as it is published with no other intent than to gaine glory to God and good to his Church so I doubt not but that God who causeth light to shine out of darknesse will effectually in time bring to passe that not onely their violent oppugning of the truth but their fraudulent dealing also against the same wil if not breed in themselves yet increase in al welwillers unto the truth a constant dislike nay detestation of their hereticall and Antichristian doctrines and for your selfe my earnest and continuall prayer to God shall bee
at Chalcedon and repeated in the 6. Collation of this fift Councill What the Pope decrees herein Baronius doth declare who explaining the words and meaning of Vigilius saith That the Fathers of Chalcedon dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam said that this Epistle of Ibas was to be received as Catholike and further adds Ex eâ Ibam comprobatum esse Catholicum that by this Epistle Ibas himselfe was proved to be a Catholike yea that he was so proved by the consenting judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon So Baronius 12. This to have beene indeed the true meaning of Pope Vigilius his owne words in his Constitution make manifest There he first sets downe the ground of his sentence and that was the sayings of Pascasinus and Maximus in the Councill at Chalcedon The Popes legats said by Pascasinus Relecta ejus epistolâ agnovimus cum orthodoxum By the Epistle of Ibas now read we acknowledge him to be orthodoxall Maximus said Ex relecto rescripto epistolae orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio by the Epistle of Ibas now read his Epistle or writing is declared to be orthodoxall Vigilius grounding himselfe on these two speaches collects and sets downe two positions of his owne concerning this third Chapter The former that the Councill of Chalcedon approved that Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall to which purpose hee saith the Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon Epistolam pronunciantes orthodoxam pronounced this Epistle to be orthodoxall and yet more plainly Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio the Epistle or writing of Ibas was pronounced orthodoxall by the Fathers at Chalcedon The other that by this Epistle they judged Ibas to be a Catholike to which purpose Vigilius writeth thus Iuvenalis would never have said that Ibas was a Catholike nisi ex verbis episiolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobaret Vnles by the words of his Epistle he had proved his faith to be orthodoxall which words evidently shew that Vigilius thought in like sort all the Bishops at Chalcedon to have judged the same by the words of that Epistle for it is certaine that they all embraced Ibas himselfe for a Catholike 13. Hereupon now ensueth the Definitive sentence of Vigilius touching this Chapter in this manner We following the judgement of the holy Fathers in all things seeing it is a most cleare and shining truth ex verbis Epistolae venerabilis Ibae by the words of the Epistle of the reverend B. Ibas being taken in their most right and godly sense and by the acts of Photius and Eustathius and by the meaning of Ibas being present that the Fathers at Chalcedon did most justly pronounce the faith of this most reverend Bishop Ibas to be orthodoxall we decree by the authoritie of this our present sentence that the Iudgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon ought to remaine inviolable both in all other things and in this Epistle of Ibas so often mentioned Thus Vigilius decreeing both that this Epistle of Ibas is Catholike that by it by the words thereof Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike both which he decreeth upon this ground that the Councill of Chalcedon as he supposeth had judged the same 14. In the end to ratifie and confirme all that concernes any of these Three Chapters in the Popes Decree he addeth this very remarkable conclusion His igitur à nobis cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia dispositis These things being now with all diligence care and circumspection disposed Statuimus et decernimus we ordaine and decree that it shall be lawfull for none pertaining to Orders and ecclesiasticall dignities either to write or speake or teach any thing touching these three Chapters contrary to these things which by this our present Constitution we have taught and decreed aut aliguam post praesentem definitionem movere ulterius quaestionē neither shall it be lawfull for any after this our present definition to move any question touching these Three Chapters But if any thing concerning these Chapters be either done said or written or shall hereafter be done said or written contrary to that which we have here taught and decreed hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus we by all meanes do reject it by the Authority of the Apostolike See whereof by Gods grace we have now the government So Vigilius 15. Thinke ye not now that any Papist considering this so advised elaborate and Apostolicall decree of Pope Vigilius will be of opinion that there was now a finall end of this matter and that all doubt concerning these Three Chapters was for ever now removed seeing the supreme Iudge had published for a direction to the whole Church his definitive Apostolicall and infallible sentence in this cause what needeth the Councill either to judge or so much as debate this matter after this Decree To define the same was needlesse more then to light a candle when the Sunne shineth in his strength To define the contrary were Hereticall yea after such an authenticall decision and determination to be doubtfull onely what to beleeve hath the censure of an Infidell But thrice happy was it for the Church of God that this doctrine of the Popes supreme authoritie and infallible Iudgement was not then either knowne or beleeved Had it beene the Nestorians and their heresie had for ever prevailed the Catholike faith had beene utterly extinguished and that without all hope or possibility ever after this to have beene revived seeing Vigilius by his Apostolicall authoritie had stopt all mens mouthes from speaking tyed their hands from writing yea and their very hearts from beleeving or thinking ought contrary to his Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters wherein he hath confirmed all the Blasphemies of Nestorius and that by a Decree more irrevocable then those of the Medes and Persians Had the holy Council at that time assembled beleeved or knowne that doctrine of the Popes supremacie and infallible Iudgement they would not have proceeded one inch further in that businesse but shaking hands with Heretickes they and the whole Church with them had beene led in triumph by the Nestorians at that time under the conduct of Pope Vigilius 16. And by this you may conjecture that Binius had great reason to conceale the later part of the Popes decree for he might well thinke as any papist will that it were a foule incongruitie to set downe three intire Sessions of an holy and generall Council not onely debating this controversie of faith about the Three Chapters but directly also contradicting the Popes definitive sentence in them all notwithstanding they knew the Pope by his Apostolicall authoritie to have delivered his Iudgement and by the same authoritie to have forbidden all men either to write or speak or to move any doubt to the contrary of that which he had now decreed But let us see by
this Chapter For declaring both these they diligently examined the whole Epistle and found it in every part to be hereticall and blasphemous But for the more cleare demonstration hereof as also how untruly and unjustly Vigilius and the other followers of Nestorius pretended that it was received as orthodoxall by the Council at Chalcedon they thought it not sufficient to lay open the severall impieties of that Epistle considered by it selfe but making a comparison or Collation betwixt it and the holy Council at Chalcedon they set in a direct opposition the most holy and Catholike truths decreed at Chalcedon against the blasphemous impieties and heresies contained in that Epistle of Ibas The summe of which Collations or of some of them I will here briefly propose out of the Synodall acts referring the Reader for the full notice of them all to the Acts themselves wherein they are at large exactly and excellently delivered 4. I. The holy Councill of Chalcedon professeth GOD to be incarnate and made man The Epistle calleth them Heretickes and Apollinarians who say that GOD was incarnate or made Man II. The holy Synod professeth the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of GOD The Epistle denieth the Virgin Mary to be the Mother of GOD. III. The Holy Councill embraced that forme of Faith which was declared in the first Ephesine Synod and anathematizeth Nestorius The Epistle defendeth Nestorius injureth nay rejecteth the holy Ephesine Councill as if it had condemned Nestorius without due triall of his cause IV. The holy Councill commendeth Cyrill of blessed memory and approveth his Synodall Epistles in one of which are conteined those his 12. Chapters by which he condemned the heresie of Nestorius The Epistle calleth Cyrill an heretike and his 12. Chapters it tearmeth impious V. The Holy Councill professeth their faith to be the same with Cyrils and accurseth those who beleeve otherwise The Epistle saith of Cyrill those who beleeved as he did that they were confounded and recanted their former doctrine VI. The holy Councill accurseth those who either make or deliver any other Creed then that which was expounded at the great Nicen Syond The Epistle doth extoll Theodorus who besides innumerable blasphemies made another Creed wherein he teacheth the Word of God to be one person and Christ another person accursing all who doe not embrace that his new Creed This is that Creed of Theodorus against which being openly read before in the fourth Collation the holy Councill exclamed saying the devill himselfe composed this Creed Cursed be he that composed this Creed Cursed be all those that curse not the composer of this Creed Of this it is that here they witnes that the Epistle of Ibas praiseth and magnifieth the author and composer thereof VII The holy Councill teacheth that in Christ there are two distinct natures yet but one person consisting of both The Epistle teacheth that as there are two natures so also two persons in Christ and that there is no personall but onely an affectuall unitie of those two persons Thus far hath the Synod opened by way of comparison the blasphemies of that Epistle and the contrary truths decreed at Chalcedon 5. Now although this Collation doth abundantly of it selfe manifest both the Impieties of that Epistle of which Vigilius had decreed that it ought to be received as orthodoxall and how repugnant it is to the Councill of Chalcedon of which Vigilius had decreed that it was received as orthodoxall by those holy Fathers yet for more evidence of this truth the holy Councill doth in plaine and expresse tearmes expresse both these points for after this comparison they said This our Collation doth manifestly shew quod contraria per omnia est Epistola definitioni that this Epistle of Ibas is in all and every part thereof contrary to the definition of faith which was made at Chalcedon And againe We all accurse this Epistle who so doth not accurse this Epistle is an heretike who so receiveth this Epistle is an heretike who so receiveth this Epistle rejecteth the Councill of Chalcedon who so receiveth this Epistle denieth God to be made man Thus said and cryed out the whole Synod with one voice accursing as you plainly see not onely the decree and definitive sentence of Vigilius as hereticall but Vigilius himselfe as an heretike as a rejecter of the Councill of Chalcedon as a denier that God was incarnate or made man 6. Thinke ye not that the Councill was very unmannerly daring not onely to talke and write of this Chapter contrary to the Popes knowne will and pleasure but even to condemne with one consent his sentence for hereticall and himselfe for an heretike Binius was exceeding loath to have it thought that a generall lawfull ancient and approved Councill had so directly contradicted the Popes Cathedrall judgement and proclamed to all the world the Pope to be an heretike yea a definer of heresie and that by his Apostolicall authoritie and therefore he not knowing any better way to save the Popes credit thoght it most fit to suppresse and dash out that whole passage in the Popes Constitution which bewrayeth this matter Deleatur let all that part of the Constitution of Vigilius be left out though the omission thereof doth disgrace and maime my edition of the Councils let the latter part of his Apostolicall sentence lye in obscuritie and never see the Sunne 7. Baronius who to the eternall infamy of their Popes of their infallible Chaire and of their whole religion which wholly relies thereon first had the heart to publish this Hereticall decree of Vigilius deviseth another medicine to salve this sore But avoiding Sylla he falleth into Charybdis a worse gulfe then the other plunging himselfe with the Pope in a condemned heresie There are as he could not but confesse many blasphemies in that Epistle but none of those saith he did either the Councill of Chalcedon or Pope Vigilius approve What then I pray you was it which his Holinesse defended and approved therein Forsooth in the end of the Epistle Ibas declareth that he assented to the covenants of Vnion betweene Iohn and Cyrill qua recepta necesse fuit cundem probare catholicum which peace and union being embraced by Ibas he must needes be acknowledged thereby to be a Catholike Seeing then this is understood and gathered out of it that after the Vnion Ibas was a Catholike we may see ob id non esse explodendam epistolam sed ad hoc quod dixi recipiendam that for this cause the Epistle is not to be rejected but to be received for this purpose which I said that by the end of it Ibas may be proved to be a Catholike And the Cardinall labours to prove this by two testimonies the one is that of Pascasinus and the other legates of Leo They saith he spake not amisse when they said Epistola illa lecta Ibam probatum esse Catholicum that by that Epistle being read
Ibas was proved to be a Catholike The other is that speech of Eunomius B. of Nichomedia of whom he thus writeth Hoc plane fuit this is cleerly that which Eunomius said ipsam Epistolam in principio apparere haereticam in fine vero inventam esse Catholicam that the Epistle of Ibas by the beginning seemeth to be hereticall but by the end was found to be Catholike Thus Baronius in defence of that most impious Epistle which as he saith by the end of it is found to be orthodoxall and catholike and so to be received 8. What is it to be an heretike if this be not Directly to contradict the judgement of an holy generall Councill and defend that writing or part of it to be Catholike which in every part the whole Councill hath defined to be hereticall The whole Councill with one voice proclamed Tota Epistola haeretica est Tota Epistola blasphema est qui istam suscipit haereticus est The whole Epistle is heretical and blasphemous who so receiveth this Epistle either in the whole or in any part as themselves expresly affirme he is an hereticke Not so saith the Card. It is not all hereticall It is not all blasphemous The latter part of it is right holy and Catholike by it Ibas was rightly judged to be a Catholike That part at least is to be received and embraced to declare Ibas to be a Catholike Now though this alone were enough to refute whatsoever the Cardinall doth or can say in this cause seeing it is all nothing else but the saying nay the cavilling of a convicted heretike proclamed for such by the loud cryes of an ancient and holy generall Councill yet for the full manifesting of the truth I will doe the Cardinall that favour as to examine both his assertion and the proofes thereof And because I shall hereafter in due place have fit occasion at large as the obscuritie and intricacy of this cause requireth to discusse the words and declare the true meaning of Ibas in that part which the Cardinall doth most wilfully and heretically mistake and pervert for this time I will use no other proofe against him but the cleere judgement and consenting testimony of the generall Councill which hath professedly refuted this very cavil which Baronius borrowed from the ancient heretikes of those times And I am verily perswaded that Baronius would never for very shame of the world have used this so untrue so hereticall and withall a rejected evasion but that he hoped that none would compare and examine his writings by the Acts of the Councils or if they did that the â—ame and credit of Cardinall Baronius his name would countenance any untruth or Heresie against whatsoever opponents 9. Is the end of the Epistle of Ibas Catholike or doth that shew Ibas to bee a Catholike The whole Councill expresly witnesseth the contrary Our Collation say they doth manifestly shew that this Epistle of Ibas contraria per omnia est Definitioni is in every part of it contrary to the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon This whole Epistle is hereticall and blasphemous Againe Wee have demonstrated say they this Epistle contrariam esse per omnia To be in every part of it contrary to those things which are contained in the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon Againe Tota epistola impietatis plena est the whole Epistle is full of impietie And more clearly to our purpose and against this cavill of Baronius they adde Those who say that the former part of this Epistle is impious but the latter part or end thereof is right Calumniatores demonstrantur such are demonstrated to be Calumniators or Slanderers Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt for those things which are set downe in the latter part or end of that Epistle are more full of greater impietie injuring Cyrill and defending the impious heresie of Nestorius So by the judgement of the whole Council Baronius is not onely proved but even demonstrated to be an Heretike and a malicious Caviller for his defending the latter part of this Epistle to be right and catholike And this is al which he hath gained by renewing that old hereticall and rejected cavill for defence of Vigilius 10. But what shall we then say to the proofes of Baronius what first to the Interlocution of the Popes Legates so often and with ostentation mentioned by the Cardinall What Truly the very same which the holy generall Councill hath said before us and taught and warranted all others to say the same The holy Fathers at Chalcedon say they did these things pro nihilo habentes ea quae ab uno vel duobus pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt esteeming worth nothing at all those things which were spoken by one or two for that Epistle Thus testifieth the whole Synod and themselves follow herein the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon So by the judgement of two holy and generall Councils that Interlocution of the Legates of Pope Leo on which after Vigilius and Baronius relyeth is worth nothing at all 11. Yea but Eunomius as Baronius tells us affirmeth that though the beginning of the Epistle be hereticall yet the end of it is found to be Catholike Baronius indeed saith so of Eunomius but what truth and honest dealing there is in Baronius let the discreet Reader judge by this one saying among ten thousand the like Eunomius saith not so Eunomius saith the flat contrary as in the fift Councill is clearly witnessed where against this cavill of the old heretikes whom Baronius followeth they say thus Nullam partem epistolae apparet Eunomium comprobasse â—t's evident that Eunomius approved no part at all of this Epistle And againe Quomodo praesumunt isti defensores ealumniari interlocutionem Eunomij how dare the defenders of this Epistle presume to slaunder the Interlocution of Eunomius as condemning one part of it and approving another seeing the whole epistle is full of impiety I say yet more which will manifest the Councils doome of Baronius that he is a malicious caviller to be most just Eunomius speakes not either of the beginning or end of that Epistle in his Interlocution but Baronius according to his wont foists in that clause touching the end of the Epistle out of his owne pate and thereby falsifieth both the words and meaning of Eunomius This in the Councill is evidently declared by reciting the true words of Eunomius out of the Acts at Chalcedon which are these Ex recitatis By those things which have beene read and recited Ibas is shewed to be innocent for wherein he seemed to be blame worthy in accusing Cyrill in posterioribus or in poshemis recte confessus having afterwards or at the last made a true confession he hath refuted that wherein he was blamed wherefore I also judge him worthy of his Bishoprike if he accurse Nestorius Eutyches and their wicked heresies
onely the faith decreed at Nice was corroborated and confirmed And the cause why the Sardican Councell is not reckoned in the order of generall Councels was not that which Bellarmine and Binius fancie because the Sardican and Nicene were held to be one and the same Councell for neither were they so indeed being called by different Emperours to different places at different times and upon different occasions neither were they ever by the ancient or any of sound judgement held for one Synod but the true reason thereof was this because the Sardicane though in dignity authority it was equall to the Nicene yet onely confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice and made no new or Introductive decree to condemne any heresie as did the other at Nice And truly for the selfe same reason the Church might if they had pleased have done the like to this fift Councell and not have accounted it no more than they did the Sardicane in a distinct number but onely esteemed it a Councell corroborative of the Councell at Chalcedon as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Councell which some Churches also did as by the 14. Councell at Toledo held a little after the sixt generall appeareth wherein this fift being for that cause omitted the sixt held under Constantinus Pogonatus is reckoned as the fift or next Councell to that at Chalcedō But for as much as this cause about the Three Chapters had bred so long and so exceeding great trouble in the Church and because the explanation of the faith made in this fift Councell upon occasion of those Chapters was so exact that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done it pleased the Church for these reasons with one consent declared first in the sixt Councell and then in the 2. Nicene and divers other after it to account this for the fift and ranke it as it well deserveth in the number of holy and golden generall Councels 22. It now I hope clearely appeareth how unjustly the Cardinall pretends the words of Pope Gregory as denying this to be at all any cause of faith whereas not onely by the Emperour by the fift Councell by the defenders as well as the condemners of these Chapters by succeding generall Councels by Popes even Pope Gregory among the rest by the Catholike Church and consent thereof untill their Laterane Synod but even by their owne writers Cardinall Bellarmine Sanders yea by Baronius himselfe it is evidently proved so nearely to concerne the faith that to defend these Chapters which Vigilius did is to enervate and overthrow and to condemne them which the Councell did is to uphold and confirme the Holy Catholike faith And although this alone if I should say no more were sufficient to oppose to this first Evasion of Baronius yet that both the truth hereof may more fully and further appeare and that the most vile and shamelesse dealing of Baronius in this cause such as I thinke few heretikes have ever parallel'd may be palpable unto all To that which hitherto we have spoken in generall concerning all these Three Chapters I purpose now to adde a particular consideration of each of them by it selfe whereby it will be evident that every one of these Chapters doth so directly concerne the faith that the defence of any one of them but especially of the two last is an oppugnation yea an abnegation of the whole Christian faith CAP. VI. That the first reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because none after their death ought noviter to be condemned concernes the faith and is hereticall 1. IN the first Chapter wherein Vigilius defēdeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia being long before dead ought not to bee condemned for an heretike the Popes sentence relyeth on three reasons the examination whereof wil both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter and manifest the foule errors of Vigilius as well doctrinall as personall as well concerning the faith as the fact 2. His first reason is drawne from a generall position which Vigilius taketh as a Maxime or doctrinall principle in divinitie Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis It is lawfull to condemne none after their death who were not in their life time condemned and therefore not Theodorus That Theodorus in his life time was not condemned Vigilius proveth not but presupposeth nor doe I in that dissent from him for although that testimony of Leontius be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did any while they lived reprove any of their sayings yet are there divers other inducements to perswade that Theodorus was not in his life time by any publike judgement of the Church either declared or condemned for an heretike for besides that neither Cyrill nor Proclus nor the fift generall Councell doe mention any such matter the words of Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary The Ephesine Synod saith he forbare in particular and by name to anathematize Theorus which they did dispensativè by a certaine dispensation indulgence or connivence because divers held him in great estimatiō or account what needed either any such dispensation or forbearance had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie Againe the Church of Mopsvestia where hee was Bishop for divers yeares after his death retained his name in Diplicis that is in their Ecclesiasticall tables making a thankfull commemoration of him as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie which had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike they would not have done Lastly what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous to condemne him being dead had he in his life time beene before condemned Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead 3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon that Theodorus was not before but after his death condemned the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis whether a dead man may Noviter be cōdemned Now that this is no personall but meerly a dogmaticall cause and controversie of faith is so evident that it might be a wonder that Baronius or any other should so much as doubt thereof unlesse the Apostle had foretold that because men doe not receive the love of the truth therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions that they may beleeve lyes Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius held this for no other but a doctrine of faith for he sets it downe as a Definition or Constitution of his predecessors decreed by the Apostolike See particularly by Pope Leo and Gelasius and so decreed by them as warranted and taught by the Scriptures for out
either truth or untruth 15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars seeing by the upright and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages we have proved the Popes decree herein to be erroneous and because it is in a cause of faith heretical let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion The former is taken from those words of our Saviour whatsoever ye binde on earth whence as you have seene Vigilius and as he saith Gelasius also collecteth that such as are not on earth or alive cannot be judged by the Church 16. The answer is not hard our Saviours words being well considered are so farre from concluding what Vigilius or Gelasius or both doe thence collect that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary for he said not Whatsoever yee binde or loose concerning those that are on earth or living in which sense Vigilius tooke them but Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth or during your life time shall binde or loose the same according to your censure here passed upon earth shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven The restrictive termes upon earth are referred to the parties who doe binde or loose not to the parties who are bound or loosed The generall terme whatsoever is referred to the parties who are bound or loosed whether they be dead or alive not to the parties who binde or loose who are onely alive and upon earth Nor doth our Saviour say Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth shall bee bound or loosed in heaven for ecclesiae clave errante no censure doth or can either binde or loose either the quicke or the dead but he saith Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose if the party be once truly and really bound or loosed by you that are upon earth it shall stand firme and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven So the parties who doe binde or loose are the Apostles and their successors onely while they are upon earth the parties who are bound or loosed are any whosoever whether alive or dead the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing is Christ himselfe in heaven For I say unto you whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church which as we have before declared both beleeved taught and practised this authority of binding and loosing not onely upon the living but upon the dead also Of their binding the nocent wee have alleaged before abundance of examples for their loosing the innocent that one of Flavianus is sufficient The Ephesine latrocinie adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop for an Hereticke under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died nay was martyred by them The Holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus loosed that band wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their key did erre they did not in truth They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike the holy Councell feared not to loose him because he was dead their power to binde or loose was onely towards those that are upon the earth or living By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time imitating the religious pietie of those ancient Bishops restored to their pristine dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs two Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fagius after their death when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound but even burned them to ashes Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian that if the Church may after their death restore such as being unjustly condemned and falsly supposed to be bound died in their innocency and sincerity of faith it may also by the very same reason condemne and anathematize such after their death who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church 18. And truely whether soever of these censures either of binding or loosing the Church useth towards the dead as they both are warranted by the words of Christ and judgement of the Church so in doing either of both they performe an acceptable service to God and an holy duty to the Church of God For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve the Communion of Saints which in part consisteth in loving praising and imitating all such as we know either now to live or heretofore to have dyed in the faith or for the faith of Christ so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed renounce all communion with whatsoever heretickes either dead or alive and therefore though in their life time they had never beene condemned for such but honored as the servants of God under whose livery they hide their heresies and impieties yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed and to have died heretikes we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them not love them nor speake well of them much lesse imitate them but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Cacilianus even after their death corde carne anathematizare not making them accursed For that the Church cannot do and themselves have done that already but declaring them to be accursed in truth excluded from the society of God Gods Church and to be such though dead as with whom we can have no more cōmunion then hath light with darknesse faith with heresie God and Beliall nay we should wish that if it were possible there might be such an antipathie and disunion betwixt us and them as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles and Polinices that even our dead bones and ashes might leape from theirs nor sleepe in one Church nor one earth with them from whom one day they shall be eternally severed by a wall of immortality and immortall glory 19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules decrees and Constitutions of their Apostolicke See by name of Pope Leo Gelasius both whō Vigilius saith to have defined this that a dead man might not noviter be condemned was it not enough for Vigilius that himselfe was hereticall herein unlesse he drew his predecessors also into the same crime of defending yea defining heresies How much better had it beseemed him to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were if not with a lappe of his robe as the good Emperour would yet at least with silence and oblivion 20. And yet for all this if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility will give me leave I am for my owne
laboureth also to fasten that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes aswere Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only fights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have shewed was knowne and confessed because he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all
holy communion of the whole catholike Church which they have wilfully insolently and most disdainfully rejected 12. The fourth and last difference which I now observe ariseth from the judgement of the Church concerning them both The former she is so farre from once thinking to have dyed in heresie or heretikes that shee most gladly testifieth her selfe not onely to hold them in her communion but to esteeme and honour them as glorious Saints of the Church Papias the author of that opinion a Saint Irene Iustine and Cyprian both Saints and Martyrs On the parties which hold the latter error she hath passed a contrary doome for by decreeing the Cathedrall sentence of Vigilius to be hereticall and accursing all who defend it she hath clearely judged and declared all who defend the Popes infallibilitie in defining causes of faith to bee heretikes dying so to die heretikes yea convicted heretikes anathematized by the judgement of the catholike Church and so pronounced to die out of the peace and communion of the catholike Church 13. I have stayed the longer in dissolving this doubt partly for that it is very obvious in this cause and yet as to me it seemed not very easie but specially that hereby I might open another errour in the Constitution of Vigilius who from the example of those Millenarie Fathers one of which to wit Nepos he expresly mentioneth would conclude That none at all though dying in heresie may after their death be condemned seeing Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria though he condemned the bookes and errour of Nepos yet Nepos himselfe hee did not injure nor condemne propter hoc maxime quia jam defunctus fuerat for this reason especially because Nepos was dead But by that which now at large I have declared it appeareth that Vigilius was twice mistaken in this matter for neither did Nepos die in a formall heresie but in an errour onely at that time to which he did not pertinaciously adhere though Prateolus and after him the Cardinall upon what reason I know not but sure none that is good reckons Nepos with Tertullian as one excluded from the ranke and order of catholikes neither did Dionysius or the Church for that reason at all which Vigilius fancieth much lesse for that especially forbeare to condemne Nepos because he was dead for then they would not have condemned Valentinus Basilides Cerinthus who also were dead when the Church condemned them but because they judged Nepos as well as Irene Iustine and the rest to have dyed though in an error yet in the unity peace and communion of the Church And this the words of Dionysius not rightly alleaged by Vigilius and no better translated by Christopherson doe import For Dionysius said not that hee therefore reverenced Nepos quia jam defunctus fuerat as the one nor quia ex hac vita migravit as the other readeth them that is because he was dead for upon that reason the holy Bishops should have reverenced also Simon Magus Cerinthus and other heretickes who were then dead but because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Musculus very rightly translateth thus I much reverence him as one qui jam ad quietem praecessit who is gone before mee unto rest that is because hee so dyed that his death was a passage to rest even to that rest of which the scripture saith using the same words they rest from their labour to that rest unto which himselfe hoped to follow Nepos for that Nepos is gone before to this rest therefore did Dionysius reverence him So both the assertion of Vigilius which from Dionysius he would prove is untrue that none who are dead may bee condemned and yet the saying of Dionysius is true that such as goe to rest or dye in the peace of the Church ought not to bee condemned 14. After this which the Cardinall hath said in generall concerning such as dye in the peace of the Church hee addeth one thing in particular concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia by way of application of that generall position unto him saying that Vigilius was therefore very slacke to condemne him because hee would not condemne those quos scisset in catholica communione defunctos whom he knew to have died in the catholike communion of the Church So the cardinall tells us that Vigilius knew and therefore that it is not onely true but certaine that Theodorus dyed in the catholike communion 15. What thinke you doth the cardinall gaine by pleading thus for Theodorus a condemned heretike Truly for his paines herein the holy Councell payes him soundly for first in plaine termes it calls him a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Church and if this be not enough it denounceth an Anathema unto him for so saying Cursed bee hee that curseth not Theodorus how much more cursed then is he who acquits Theodorus from that curse who makes Theodorus blessed for blessed are all they that dye in the peace and holy communion of the Church and that Theodorus so dyed the Cardinall for a certainty doth assure us for Vigilius knew that he so dyed 16. But what Church I pray you is that in the communion whereof the Cardinall assures us Theodorus to have dyed you may bee sure it is their Romane for in the Cardinalls idiome that 's not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church but it s the one and onely Church In the communion then of their Romane church even in the communion with the Cardinall himselfe dyed Theodorus Now its certaine he died not in the communion of the Church which was in the fift generall Councell for they utterly disclaim him accurse him and call them lyars and slanderers that say hee dyed in their communion Againe its certaine that the Church of that fift Councell was of the same communion with the whole Catholike and Apostolike Church themselves professing to hold the same faith and communion with all former holy generall Councells and Catholikes and all succeeding catholikes by approving it professing the same faith and communion with it Seeing then Theodorus dyed not in the communion of this Church which is the true and truly catholike Church and yet dyed as the Cardinall assures you in the communion of their Romane church it doth clearly and certainly hence ensue that their Romane church is neither the true catholike neither hath full communion with the true catholike Church 17. Lastly seeing Theodorus as the Cardinall tells us died in the peace and communion of their Church and Theodorus was most certainly an heretike condemned by the catholike Church declared by the same Church to bee accursed that is separated from God nay to be a very Devill as the holy Councell proclaimed him Their Romane church must needes bee at peace and of the same communion with condemned heretikes with Anius Nestorius Eutiches Eunomius none of them all can bee worse then as Theodorus was condemned heretikes by the judgement
his Epistle to Anastasius Alexander and the rest which also hath equall authoritie by the Councell of Chalcedon Sancta Synodus Ephesi saith Cyrill The holy Ephesine Synod having pronounced a just sentence of condemnation against Nestorius hath by the like sentence condemned the impiety of others qui vel postea futuri sunt vel jam fuerunt eadem illi sapientes who either shall hereafter or heretofore have thought the same aequalem condemnationem eis imponens imposing the same condemnation upon them also for it is fit that when one is condemned for such vaine speeches non contra unum tantum venire that the sentence should not come against him alone but against the whole heresie and sect Thus S. Cyrill setting this downe for a golden rule to be observed in all Synodall sentences and judgements of faith and being so usefull the fift Synod doth often insist upon it 5. Seeing then Theodorus did not onely teach write and speake the same with Nestorius but was indeed the Arch-heretike and author of this heresie Nestorius being but his disciple or the trunke to sound out or blaze abroad that hereticall doctrine which Theodorus had breathed into him it is evident by this golden rule of Cyrill that though Theodorus was dead before the Synod at Ephesus yet the anathema and condemnation denounced by the Synod no lesse pertaineth to him than to Nestorius though the one was named and not the other And this the fift Councell out of those very words of Cyrill doth collect and warrant others to collect the same The writings say they of Theodorus being in all things consonant to the vaniloquie of Nestorius are together with his deservedly rejected by the Councell of Ephesus utpote anathemate quod adversus Nestorium factum est procedente etiam adversus eos qui ante illum similia illi sapucrunt the Anathema which was pronounced against Nestorius proceeding also against those who before Nestorius thought the same which he did 6. This same judgement of the Ephesine Councell in condemning Theodorus is yet another way declared and testified expresly by Pope Pelagius Theodorum mortuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damnavit the holy Ephesine Councell condemned Theodorus being dead which so cleare a testimony though alone were enough to manifest the foule errour of Vigilius in this point But Pelagius sets downe a proofe also therof which openeth another errour of Vigilius He to excuse Theodorus would perswade that Theodorus was not the composer of that impious and diabolicall creed before mentioned Heare now the words and and proofe of Pelagius taken from that creed The Ephesine Synod saith he condemned Theodorus nam cum ab ejus discipulis dictatum ab eo Symbolum for when that creed dictated and composed by Theodorus was brought forth before the Ephesine Synod cum authore damnatum est both it and the author of it was condemned presently by the same holy Fathers So Pelagius testifying against Vigilius both Theodorus to bee the author of that creed and both him and it to have beene condemned by the Ephesine Councell 7. What Pelagius saith was formerly delivered by the whole fift Councell who thus say Theodorus besides other innumerable blasphemies ausus est impium exponere symbolum was so audacious as to set out that impious creed again hoc impium Theodori Symbolum this impious creed of Theodorus was anathematized tother with the writer of it in the first Ephesine Councell and againe when this creed was repeated which is by them called Impium Theodori Symbolum the impious creed of Theodorus the holy Synod cryed out anathema to him that composed it and that was Theodorus as themselves witnesse the holy Ephesine Councell accursed this creed una cum authore ejus together with the author of it Thus testified the whole Councell Before this fift Councell Iustinian in his most religious Edict witnesseth the same Theodorus saith hee who exceeds in impiety Pagans Iewes and all heretikes did not onely contemne the Nicene Creed sed aliud symbolum exposuit but he hath expounded another creed full of all impiety and this impious creed of Theodorus being produced in the first Ephesine Synod cum ejus expositore condemnatum est was condemned together with the author or composer of it by that holy Councell So the Emperour 8. Before all these this is testified and fully explaned by S. Cyrill who was the chiefe Bishop in the Ephesine Synod This creed saith he composed by Theodorus as they who brought it said or witnessed was rejected by the holy Councell and those who thought as that creed taught being condemned in which generall sentence Theodorus himselfe was especially included nullam viri mentionem fecit dispensatione nec ipsum nominatim anathemati subjecit propter dispensationem the Councell by a dispensation made no particular mention of Theodorus but forbare by name to denounce an anathema against him by a kinde of connivence or indulgence lest some who held him in great account should separate themselves from the Church So Cyrill Whence two things are evident the one that Theodorus though dead before was condemned in generall termes by the Ephesine Councell The other that they might in particular also have condemned him as they did Nestorius but they forbare that particular naming of him onely by a dispensation toleration or connivence at his name because Theodorus was then held by many in great account his impieties and blasphemies being not as yet so fully discovered to the world Wherein the Ephesine Councell imitated the wisedome and lenitie of the Apostles who for a time by a dispensation and connivence permitted the use of the Ceremoniall Law that so by insensible degrees the Iewes might be weaned from that unto which they had beene so long accustomed which examples of the Apostles the fift Councell even in their Synodall sentence apply to this very cause of Theodorus the Church and Ephesine Councell for a time spared by name to condemne him even then when by their generall sentence hee was as truly condemned as the Mosaicall ceremonies were dead though then not deadly to the end that the estimation which some but very unjustly had of him might rather dissui than dissecari rather by little and little be untwined and worne out than by a peremptory anathema be at once and as it were with one violent blow obliterated out of the hearts of such as admired him which they saw could hardly be effected 9. But as the Apostles when afterwards the Gospell had been long published and sufficient time allowed to forget and bury the ceremonies then did utterly condemne all that used the same saying If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing Even so did the Church in this cause of Theodorus She expected that her generall sentence should have deterred all from that heresie specially seeing the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian had strengthened that Synodall judgement
their supplication with that holy Bishop 12. Saint Cyrill did the like as Proclus herein hee seeing the connivence and dispensation of the Councell not to take the intended effect but that the Nestorians proceeded rather from worse to worse boasting of Theodorus writings that they were consonant to the ancient Fathers and so farre applauding him that in some Churches they would cry out Crescat fides Theodori sic credimus sicut Theodorus let the faith of Theodorus increase we beleeve as he did yea even stoning some in the Church who spake against them Cyrill seeing all this could forbeare no longer Ego ista non sustinui sed fiducialiter dixi I could not hold my selfe to heare those things but said with great boldnesse and confidence that Theodorus was a blasphemous speaker a blasphemous writer that he was an heretike mentiuntur contra sanctos patres I said that they belyed the holy Fathers who affirmed Theodorus writings to be consonant to theirs nec cessavi increpās ea quae scripserunt nec cessabo nor have I ceased nor will I cease to reprove those who write thus and which demonstrates yet further the zeale of that holy Bishop he writ the same things concerning Theodorus to the Emperor Theodosius exhorting him to keepe his soule unspoted from his impieties Thus Cyrill by name condemning both the person and writings of Theodorus 13. The religious Emperors Theodosius Valentinian moved partly by the grave admonitions of Cyrill and specially by that disturbance which the Nestorians then made by their defending and magnifying Theodorus besides the former against Nestorius published two other Imperiall Edicts against Theodorus declaring him by name to have beene every way as blasphemous an heretike as Nestorius and that the defenders of him or his writings should be lyable to the same punishments as the defenders of Nestorius Those Edicts being so pregnant to demonstrate the errour of Vigilius I have thought it needfull to expresse some parts or clauses of them 14. We againe declare that the doctrine impiorum pestiferorum of those impious and pestiferous persons is abominable unto us similiter autem omnes and so are all who follow their error It is just that they all have one name and bee all clothed with confusion lest while they be called Christians they seeme to be honoured by that title Wherefore we by this our Law doe inact that whosoever in any part of the world be found consenting to the most wicked purpose of Nestorius and Theodorus that from hence forward they shall bee called Symonians as Constantine decreed that the followers of Arius should be called Porphirians Further let none presume either to have or keepe or write their sacrilegious bookes especially not those of Theodorus and Nestorius but all their bookes shall bee diligently sought and being found shall be publikely burned Neque de caetero inveniatur praedictorum hominum memoria neither let there be found any memorie of the foresaid persons Let none receive such as love that sect or love their teachers either in any city field suburbs let them not assemble in any place either openly or privily And if any shall doe contrary to this our sanction let him be cast into perpetuall banishment and let all his goods be confiscate And let your excellency they sent this to their Lieutenant publish this our Law through the whole world in every Province and in every city Thus did the Emperours inact and which is specially also to be remembred they inacted all this corroborantes ea que piè decreta sunt Ephesi strengthning thereby that which was decreed at Ephesus 15. Whence two things may be observed the one that Theodorus was not onely accounted and by name condemned for an heretike as by other catholiks so by the Emperors also but that this particular condemning was consonant to the decree of the Ephesine Synode this being nothing else but an explanation of that which they in generall termes had set down and a corroboration of the same The other that seeing this Imperiall decree hath stood ever since the inacting thereof in force and unrepealed by vertue of it had it beene or were it as yet I say not rigorously but duly and justly put in execution not any one defender of the three Chapters no not Pope Vigilius himselfe nor any who defends his Apostolicall constitution and those are all the members of the present Romane church not one of them shold either have beene heretofore or be now tolerated in any city suburbs towne village or field but besides the ecclesiasticall censures and anathemaes denounced against thē by the Councell and catholike church they should endure if no sharper edge of the civill sword yet perpetuall banishment out of all Christian Common-wealths with losse and confiscation of all their goods 16. After this Imperiall Law was once published the name and credit of Theodorus whose memory the Emperors had condemned and forbidden grew into a generall contempt and hatred whereof the church of Mopsvestia where hee had beene Bishop gave a memorable example They for a time esteeemed of Theodorus as a catholike Bishop and for that cause kept his name in their dipticks or Ecclesiasticall tables reciting him among the other Orthodox Bishops of that city in their Eucharisticall commemoration But now seeing him detected and condemned both by catholike Bishops by Councells and by the Imperiall Edict for an heretike they expunged and blotted out the name of Theodorus and in his roome inserted in their dipticks the name of Cyrill who though hee was not Bishop in that See yet had by his pietie and zeale manifested and maintained the faith brought both the heresie person of Theodorus into a just detestation and all this is evident by the Acts of that Synode held at Mopsvestia about this very matter of wiping out of the name of Theodorus 17. We are now come to the time of the Councell of Chalcedon for the expunging of Theodorus name and inserting of Cyrills followed as it seemes shortly after the death of Cyrill and he dyed about seven yeares before the Councell of Chalcedon That by it Theodorus was also condemned their approving the Councell of Ephesus and the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill in both which and in the later by name Theodorus is condemned doth manifest and besides this the Emperour Iustinian expresly saith of it that the impious Creed of Theodorus being recited in that Councell both it cum expositore ejus with the Author and expounder of it and that was Theodorus were condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon 18. When many yeares after that holy Councell some Nestorians began againe contrary to the Edict of Theodosius and Valentinian to revive the dead and condemned memory of Theodorus Sergius Bishop of Cyrus making mention and commemorating him in the Collect among catholikes the truth of this matter being examined and found that same
had forged and spread abroad in his name If any Epistle saith he be caried about as written by me tanquam de ijs quae Ephesi acta sunt jam dolente poenitentiam agente contemnatur as if I did now since the union sorrow and repent for those things which were done and decreed at Ephesus let such an Epistle be condemned Nay the Greeke is more emphaticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scorne and deride every such writing The like almost doth Cyrill write to Dynatus Bishop of Nicopolis who uppon the Nestorians slanderous reports suspected as it seemeth the very same of Cyrill as Acatius did Cyrill having declared the certaine truth of these matters unto him saith in the end It is needfull that you should know the cleare truth of these matters lest some men who doe vainly and falsly report one thing for another should trouble any of the brethren Perindè acsi nos quae contra Nestorij blasphemias scripsimus retractaremus as if wee had upon the union recalled revoked or denied those things which we have written before against the blasphemies of Nestorius 17. Besides these indubitate testimonies of Cyrill the Nestorians themselves doe manifest this their calumnie For although Iohn and those Easterne Bishops who in their Councell at Antioch subscribed to that holy profession of faith which was sent from Cyrill unto them who were by farre the greater part and who therefore are counted the Easterne Church though these I say were as they well deserved received into the Catholike Cōmunion when the union was concluded yet is it most untrue which Vigilius affirmeth and takes it for a ground of his errour touching Ibas that omnes orientales Episcopi per Paulum Emisenum ad concordiam redierunt that all the Easterne Bishops by Paulus Emisenus returned to the unity and communion of the Church They did not all not Helladius not Eutherius not Hemerius not Dorotheus for whose restoring to their Sees for they were deposed Paulus did earnestly labour with Cyrill but not being able to prevaile for them manserunt in eodem schismate in quo etiam nunc perseverant they continued in their former schisme as rent from the Church and so they do now also remaine nor was there in the covenants of peace any mention of them as Cyrill expresly affirmeth But I will onely insist upon two of the principall sticklers in the Nestorian heresie and who most concerne our present cause Theodoret and Ibas 18. Theodoret beleeving the reports of his fellow Nestorians that the Catholikes at the time of the Vnion had revoked their former doctrines and consented to Nestorianisme insulted over them in a publike oration at Antioch before Domnus in this manner Vbi sunt dicentes quod Deus est qui crucifixus est where are those that say that he was God who was crucified God was not crucified but the man Iesus Christ hee who is of the seed of David was crucified Christ is the Sonne of David but he is the temple of the sonne of God Non jam est contentio Oriens Aegyptus sub uno jugo est There is now no contention the East and Aegypt that is all who hold as Cyrill did are now both under one yoake Thus triumphed Theodoret over the Catholikes supposing as the Nestorians slanderously gave out that Cyrill and all that held with him that is all Catholikes had submitted themselves to the yoke of their Nestorian heresie that Christ is not God nor that God was either borne of Mary or suffered on the Crosse. And this being spoken by Theodoret after the death of Cyrill which was twelve yeares after the union made doth demonstrate the obstinate and malicious hatred of the Nestorians against the truth who notwithstanding Cyrill had often by words by writings testified that report to be nothing else but a slanderous untruth yet in all that time would not be perswaded to desist from that calumny but still let it passe for currant among them and insulted as it Cyrill and the Catholikes at the time of the union had condemned their former faith and consented to Nestorianisme So hard it is to reclame those who by selfe-will are wedded to any hereticall opinion 19. The other is Ibas the Popes owne Catholike doctor whom at that very time when hee writ this Epistle which was long after the Vnion made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill to have embraced no other then this slanderous union or union in Nestorianisme those very words in the later part of his Epistle out of which Vigilius and Baronius would prove him to bee a Catholike even those words I say doe so fully and manifestly demonstrate that you will say if not sweare that nothing but the love of Nestorianisme could so farre blind them as to defend that part of his Epistle or undertake by it to prove Ibas to be a Catholike The words of Ibas are these After that Iohn had received the Emperors letters compelling him to make agreement with Cyrill hee sent the most holy Bishop Paulus of Emisa writing by him a true profession of faith and denouncing unto him that if Cyrill would consent to that profession and anathematize those who say that the Godhead did suffer which opinion the Nestorians slandered Cyrill and all Catholike to hold and also those who say that there is but one nature that is one natural subsistence or person of the divinity and humanity in Christ then would he communicate with Cyrill Now it was the will of God who alwaies taketh care for his Church which hee hath redeemed with his owne blood to subdue the heart of the Aegyptian that is Cyrill that he presently consented to the faith and embraced it and anathematized all who beleeved otherwise So they Iohn and Cyrill communicating together the contention was taken away peace was made in the Church and now there is no schisme but peace as of late there was And that you may know what words were written by the most holy Archbishop Iohn and what answer hee received backe from Cyrill I have to this my writing adjoyned their very Epistles that your Holinesse reading them may know and declare to all our Fathers that love peace that the contention is now ceased and the partition wall is now taken away and that they hee meaneth Cyrill and the Catholikes who had before seditiously enveied against the living Nestorius and the dead Theodorus are now confounded making satisfaction for their faults contraria docentes suae priori doctrinae and now teach the contrarie to their former doctrine For none now dare say that there is one nature that is one naturall subsistence or person of the divinity and humanity but they confesse and beleeve both in the temple and in him who dwelleth in the temple who is one Sonne Iesus Christ. And this I have written to your Sanctitie out of that great affection which I beare to you knowing that your holinesse doth
exercise it selfe night and day in the doctrine of God that you might be profitable unto many Thus farre are the words of Ibas written unto Maris an hereticke of Persia and writ not as a private letter but as an Encyclicall Epistle to bee shewed and notified to all that love peace that is according to their hereticall dialect to all that loved Nestorianisme in Persia and in the places adjoyning to be a comfort and encouragement to them to persist in their heresie to which even Cyrill himselfe and all Catholikes had upon better advice at the time of the union with Iohn consented 20. In which words any who hath though but halfe an eye of a Catholike cannot chuse but clearely discerne the very poyson and malice of all the heresies and practises of the Nestorians to be condensate and compact together First here is expressed their maine heresie that Christ is not God as the house is not the man who dwelleth in the house Secondly is set downe a notorious slander against Cyrill and the Catholikes that they at the union made with Iohn did anathematize all who held one naturall subsistence or one person to be in Christ that is in effect did accurse all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Faith Thirdly it is a notable untruth that Cyril made the union with Iohn upon this condition that hee should anathematize all who hold Christ to be one person the condition was quite contrarie to wit that Iohn and they on his part should anathematize all who denied Christ to be one or who affirmed him to be two persons Fourthly it is a slander that Cyrill writ an Epistle to that effect as if he assented to that condition mentioned by Ibas The Epistle is testified by Cyrill himselfe not to bee his but a counterfaite writing forged by the Nestorians Fiftly it is a Calumnie that Cyrill and the rest who condemned Nestorius and Theodorus were seditious persons it is as much as to say that the holy Ephesine Councell was a conspiracie and seditious conventicle Sixtly it is an unexcusable slander and untruth that Cyrill and they who held with him that is the Catholikes that they were confounded and repented of their former doctrines or writ contrarie unto them These besides divers the like are the flowers wherewith the latter part of that Epistle is deckt even that part which Pope Vigilius and Baronius doe so magnifie the one defining the other defending that by it Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike and his Epistle received as Catholike This part above all the rest is so stuffed with heresies and slanders that I doe constantly affirme that none of all their Romane Alcumists can extract or distill one dramme of Catholike doctrine or any goodnesse out of it Only Pope Vigilius being as I have often said blinded with Nestorianisme and Cardinall Baronius being infatuated with the admiration of their Pontificall infallible Chaire they two by the new found art of Transubstantiating wherein that sect excelleth Iannes and Iambres and all the inchanters in the world they by one spell â—or charme of a few words pronounced out of that holy chaire can turne a serpent into a staffe bread into a living bodie darkenesse into light an hereticke into a Catholike yea the very venome and poyson of all Nestorianisme into most wholsome doctrines of the Catholike faith such as that none may write speake or thinke ought to the contrarie 21. See ye not now as I foretold that you should both the Pope and the Cardinall marching under the banner of Nestorius and like two worthy Generalls holding up a standard to the Nestorians and building in the Romane Church but very cunningly and artificially a Capitoll for Nestorianisme They forsooth will not in plaine tearmes say that Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith that Christ is not God that the Sonne of Mary is not the Sonne of God that Cyrill is an hereticke and the holy Ephesine Councell hereticall Fie these are too Beoticall and blunt they could never have gotten any one to tast of that cup of Nestorianisme had they dealt so plainely or simply rather Rome and Italy are Schooles of better manners and of more civilitie and subtiltie you must learne there to speake heresie in the Atticke Dialect in smooth plausible sweet and sugred tearmes you must say the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth is the Catholike union that Ibas by embracing that union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike that whosoever embraceth not this union which the Pope hath defined to be the Catholike communion cannot be a Catholike or if you speake more briefly and Laconically you may say the Popes decrees and Cathedrall judgements in causes of faith are infallible Say but either of these you say as much as either Theodorus or Nestorius did you deny Christ to bee God You condemne the Ephesine Councell you speake true Nestorianisme but you speake it not after the rude and rusticke fashion but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the refined language of the Romane Church By approving this union or the Popes decree in this cause of Ibas you drinke up at once all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius even the very dregs of Nestorianisme yet your comfort is though it be ranke poison you shall now take it as an antidote and soveraigne potion so cunningly tempered by Pope Vigilius and with such a grace and gravity commended reached and brought even in the golden cup of Babylon by the hands of Cardinall Baronius unto you that it killeth not onely without any sense of paine but with a sweet delight also even in a pleasing slumber and dreame of life bringing you as on a bed of downe unto the pit of death 22. See here again their SynoniaÌ„ art Oh how nice scrupulous is Baronius in approving or allowing Vigilius to approve the former part of this Epistle of Ibas The Epistle was in no other part but onely in the last concerning the union approved Why there is nothing at all in the former no heresie or impiety set downe in it which doth not certainly and unavoydably ensue upon the approving of that union in Nestorianisme which Ibas embraceth in the latter part Why then must the latter and not the former be approved Forsooth in the former part the blasphemies of the Nestorians are in too plaine and blunt a manner expressed Cyrill is an Apollinarian The twelve Chapters of Cirill omni impietate plena sunt are full of all impietie The Ephesine Councell unjustly deposed Nestorius and approved the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which are contraria verae fidei and such like It is not for a Pope or a Cardinall to approve such plaine and perspicuous heresies they might as well say We are heretikes wee are Nestorians which kinde of Beoticisme is farre from the civility of the Romane Court But in the latter part the heresies of Nestorius and all his blasphemies are offered in the shew of
union with Cyrill and communion with the Church and comming under the vaunt of that union as in the wombe of the Trojane horse the Pope and the Cardinall may now with honour receive them the union and with or in it all Nestorianisme must be brought into the City the Pope and the Cardinall with themselves put their hands to this holy worke pedibusque rotarum subijciunt lapsus stupeae vincula collo intendunt themselves will drag and hale it with their owne shoulders to within the wals nor is that enough it must be placed in the very Romane Capitoll in the holy temple and consecrated to God and that the Pope himselfe will doe by an Apostolicall and infallible constitution by that immutable decree is this union set up as the Catholike union Et monstrum infoelix sacrata sistitur arce this unholy and unhappy union is now embraced by which all the gates of the City of God are set wide open for all heresies to rush in at their pleasure and make havocke of the Catholike faith 23. Now it is not unworthy our labour to consider whether Vigilius and Baronius did in meere ignorance or wittingly embrace this union mentioned by Ibas that is in truth all Nestorianisme And for Vigilius if any will be so favourable as to interpret all this to have proceeded of ignorance I will not greatly contend with him It is as great a crime for their Romane Apollo and as foule a disgrace to their infallible Chaire upon ignorance to decree an heresie as to do it upon wilfull obstinacy yet to coÌ„fesse the truth I am more than of opinion that Vigilius not upon ignorance but out of a setled judgment affection which he bare to Nestorianisme decreed this union and with it the doctrines of Nestorius to be embraced And that which induceth mee so to judge is the great diligence care and circumspection which Vigilius used to enforme both himselfe and others in this matter for besides that this cause was debated and continually discussed in the Church for the space of six yeares and more before the Pope published this his Apostolicall Constitution all which time Vigilius was a chiefe party in this cause himselfe in his decree witnesseth concerning this third Chapter or Epistle of Ibas that he examined it diligenti investigatione by a diligent inquisition yea that he perused his bookes most diligently for this point and concludeth both of it and the rest that hee decreed these things cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all possible care and diligence that could be used And because plâ—s vident oculi quam oculus hee added to his owne the judgement of an whole Synod of Bishops all of them bending their eyes wits industry to find out the truth in this cause Further yet Vigilius speaketh in this cause of Ibas not doubtfully but in words proceeding from certaine knowledge and resolute judgment dilucide aperteque reperimus evidenter advertimus apertissimum noscuntur praebuisse consensum evidenter declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil in confessione fidei fuisse reprehensum illud indubitanter patet apertissima lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae constat eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore luce clarius demonstratur All which doe shew that Vigilius spake out of his setled judgement and resolution after most diligent examination of this cause Now that the whole Epistle and of all parts that especially where Ibas intreateth of the union that this is full of Nestorianisme is so evident that scarce any though but of a shallow judgement who doth with ordinary diligence peruse and ponder the same can otherwise chuse than observe and see it Wherefore I cannot thinke but that Vigilius both saw and knew that part of the Epistle above all the rest to containe the doctrines of Nestorius and an approbation of them all and that by approving the union there mentioned he approved all the doctrines of the Nestorians 24. But for cardinall Baronius that hee in defending the latter part of this Epistle as doth Vigilius before him that in striving so earnestly by it to prove Ibas to have beene a catholike and his Epistle to be orthodoxall at least in the latter part because Ibas assented to the union mentioned therein that he I say did herein wittingly willingly and obstinately labour to maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for my owne part I cannot almost doubt nor as I thinke will his best friends when they have well considered of his words He intreating of this matter touching Ibas and his Epistle in another place where this Constitution of Vigilius comes not to the scanning and so did not dimne his sight ingenuously there confesseth that this Epistle is hereticall written by a Nestorian written of purpose to disgrace Cyrill and the catholikes as if they at the union had recanted their former doctrines But let us heare his owne words 25. He having shewed that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils minde and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters addeth this They who favoured Nestorius spred abroad a rumour that Cyrill had in all things consented unto Iohn and condemned his former doctrines and a little after declaring how the Nestorians did slander Cyrill he saith Besides others who tooke part with Nestorius even Theodoret also ijsdem aggressus est Cyrillum urgere calumnijs vexed Cyrill with the same slanders that he had condemned his owne Chapters and then comming to this Epistle of Ibas he thus writeth Who so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians let him reade the Epistle wch is said to be the Epist. of Ibas unto Maris wherin any may see the Nestorian fellow insulting and triumphing as if the cause had beene adjudged to him jactantem Cyrillum poenitentem tandem recantâ—sse palinodiam and vaunting that Cyrill repenting himselfe of his former doctrines did now at last revoke the same and sing a new song And this the author of that Epistle writ and sent abroad as a Circular Epistle to be read throughout the Provinces pro solatio eorum ignominia Catholicorum for the comfort of the Nestorians and for the disgrace of Catholikes Thus Baronius Professing as you see that he knew this Epistle to be hereticall and that even in the latter end which Vigilius and himself defendeth as orthodoxall yea eveÌ„ in that very point touching the union mentioned in that Epistle to be a meere calumnie against Cyrill and the Catholikes as if they by making the union had consented to Nestorianisme and renounced the Ephesine Councell and the Catholike faith 26. Seeing now the Card. knew all this to be true and yet afterwards for defence of Vigilius and his Constitution teacheth and maintaineth that by embracing the union mentioned in this Epistle Ibas was a Catholike and was for this cause by the
Councell at Chalcedon and ought by all others to be adjudged a Catholike is it not evident that the Cardinall wittingly and willingly maintaines hereby the union with the Nestorians to bee the catholike union and so the doctrines of the Nestorians to bee the catholike faith for this union mentioned in the Epistle is as the Cardinall professeth an union in Nestorianisme an union with Cyrill having now renounced the Ephesine Councell and the catholike faith 27. Onely there is one quirke or subtilty in the Cardinals words which may not without great wrong unto him bee omitted where he acknowledgeth this Epistle to be hereticall hereticall in this point of the union there he will not have it to be the Epistle of Ibas for then by it Ibas should bee judged a Nestorian which would quite overthrow the Constitution of Vigilius when in the other place he defends as Vigilius decreeth that Ibas by this Epistle and by consenting to this union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike there the Epistle is truly the Epistle of Ibas but then consenting to this union is the note of a Catholike So both this Epistle is the Epistle of Ibas and it is not the Epistle of Ibas and to consent to the union herein mentioned is the note of a Nestorian heretike and to consent to the same union is the note of a good Catholike Thus doth the Cardinall play sport himselfe in contradictions and as the winde blowes and turnes him so doth he turne his note also If the winde blow to Alexandria and turne the Cardinals face towards Cyrill then the union is hereticall lest Cyrill who condemned it should bee condemned for an heretike If the winde blow from Africke and turne the Cardinals face towards Rome and Pope Vigilius then the union is Catholike lest Vigilius approving this union should not be thought a Catholike Or because a Cardinall so learned so renouned as Baronius may not be thought to contradict himselfe or speake amisse in either place let both sayings be admitted for true and then it unavoydably followeth that by the Cardinals divinity and in his judgment Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith which aptly and easily will accord both his sayings for so the author of this Epistle by approving this union shall be a perfect Nestorian as in the one place is affirmed and by approving this union shall be withall a perfect Catholike as in the other place is avouched 28. Besides this confession of Baronius which is cleare enough there is yet another meanes to demonstrate that the Cardinall by defending this latter part of the Epistle touching the union did wittingly and wilfully maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius for the fift generall Councell approved as wee have shewed by the judgment of the whole Catholike Church hath adjudged this very part of the Epistle the defence whereof Baronius hath undertaken not onely to bee hereticall but to bee more full of blasphemies than any of the rest it hath further judicially defined al that defend either this or any part of that Epistle to be heretikes and for such it hath anathematized them yea all that write either for it or for them Now the Cardinall had read the whole fift Councell as appeareth by that summary collection which he hath made of the Acts and of every Collation thereof nay hee had not onely read these Acts but pried earnestly with a jealous and carping eie into every corner and sentence thereof as you shall perceive hereafter and therefore it is doubtlesse that hee knew the judgement of this fift Councell concerning all that defend any part of this Epistle and specially the latter part which concernes the union Neither onely did he know that to be the judgement of this fist Councell but as himselfe expresly witnesseth of all both Popes and generall Councels which followed it all of them approving this fift Councell and the judgement thereof whence it is cleare that Baronius knew certainly himselfe by defending this part of the Epistle touching the union to defend that which by the judgment of the fift Councell and the whole Catholike Church ever since hath beene condemned for hereticall and the defenders of it anathematized as heretikes yet such was the Cardinals zeale and ardent affection to Nestorianisme that against the judgement of the whole Church knowne unto him yea knowne for this very cause to anathematize him yet he defends the union there mentioned and the latter part of that Epistle wherein it is mentioned that is in truth all the blasphemies of Nestorius chosing rather by adhering to Vigilius and his hereticall decree to be condemned and anathematized by the whole Catholike Church for a Nestorian heretike than by forsaking the defence of Vigilius and his decree to condemne this latter part of the Epistle of Ibas touching the union which containeth in it the very quintessence of all Nestorianisme 29. I think it is now sufficiently apparent by that which wee have already said that the union which Ibas in his Epistle mentioneth and embraceth and which Vigilius first and after him Baronius approveth is not that true union in the Catholike faith which Cyrill made with Iohn and other Easterne Bishops but onely an union in Nestorianisme and in denying the Catholike faith to which the Nestorians falsly reported and slandered Cyrill with the other Catholikes to have consented and thereby to have condemned and anathematized that truth which the yeare before they had decreed at Ephesus Yet for the full satisfaction of all and clearing of all doubts which may arise I will adde one thing further which will much more manifest both the calumnie of the Nestorians and the constancy of Saint Cyrill and that is upon what colour or pretence the Nestorians raised this slanderous report which I am the more desirous to explane because the narration of this matter is extreamly confounded and entangled by Baronius and Binius and that as may be feared even of set purpose that they might either quite discourage others as almost they had done my selfe in the search of this truth or at least misleade them into such by-paths that they should not finde the truth in this matter 30. When Theodosius the religious Emperour had written by Aristolaus that earnest letter to Iohn and the other Easterne Bishops perswading yea commanding them to consent with Cyrill and embrace the Catholike communion they upon the Emperors motion sought indeed to make an union with Cyrill but they laboured to effect it by drawing Cyrill unto their bent and to consent unto their heresies This they first attempted by a letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea willing him to write in all their names unto Cyrill that no unity or concord could be made but according to those conditions which themselves should prescribe and the condition prescribed by them was that Cyrill should abolish and condemne all that ever hee had written against Nestorianisme and
meaning as thinking Cyrill to have taught but one Nature that is one Person in Christ. Lastly the comparison which Vigilius sets downe betwixt Ibas and Dioscorus is hereby made easie and cleare Dioscorus though hee commended Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell for teaching one Nature in Christ to wit one Nature in Dioscorus sense that is one Essence did more wrong Cyrill and the Councell than Ibas who condemned them both teaching one Nature to wit one in Ibas his sense that is one person in Christ For Dioscorus commended them in an execrable and hereticall sense as teaching one nature in Dioscorus sense that is one essence which to affirme is hereticall but Ibas condemned them in an orthodoxall sense as thinking them to teach one nature in Ibas his sense that is one person in Christ which to condemne is orthodoxall Againe Dioscorus though it was explaned unto him that neither Cyrill nor the Ephesine Councell taught one nature in his sense yet did hee by his hereticall spirit persist in commending them as agreeing with him in that hereticall doctrine but Ibas when it was explaned unto him that Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell taught not one but two natures in Ibas his sense by his orthodoxall spirit desisted presently to condemne them and then embraced them both as agreeing with him in his orthodoxall doctrine of two natures that is of two persons in Christ. Lastly Dioscorus though hee commended them yet because hee did it in an hereticall sense and with an hereticall spirit was justly condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon but Ibas though hee condemned them yet because he did it in an orthodoxall sense and with an orthodoxall spirit amending what by an errour and mis-understanding he had done amisse was approved by the Councell of Chalcedon and judged by them to have continued in the right Catholike faith Thus by our exposition that Vigilius meant the slanderous and hereticall explanation of Cyrils Chapters is his whole text both coherent and congruous to it selfe and very perspicuous and easie which if Vigilius should meane or be expounded to have understood of the true and orthodoxall Explanation of Cyrill would bee not onely obscure and inextricable but even repugnant as well to the scope as to the words and text of Vigilius 55. Thus the whole text of Vigilius being elucidated it is now easie to discerne the two last parts of the Popes Artificium which before I mentioned for now you see that his Divinity is meere heresie and Nestorianisme and that his morality is unjustice falshood and calumnie most injuriously slandering not only Saint Cyrill but the holy generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon to have like himselfe defended and embraced the same heresies of Nestorius which by them all is together with this decree of Vigilius anathematized and condemned to the very pit of hell There needeth not nor will I seeke any other censure of this most shamefull dealing of Vigilius then the very words of Baronius concerning the Nestorians Haec cum sciveris perfacile intelliges Seeing you have knowne these things you may easily perceive under whose banner and ensigne these men fight For seeing you have seene them by calumnies lyes and impostures publishing counterfeit Epistles counterfeit explanations in the names of renowned men such as Cyrill was and patching lyes unto lyes you may well know whose souldiers they are even the ministers of Sathan transfiguring themselves into Angels of Light Nescit enim pura religio imposturas for true Religion is voyd of frauds and impostures nor doth the truth seeke lying pretenses nor the catholike faith support it selfe by calumnies and slanders sincerity goeth secure attended onely with simplicity with which censure of Baronius agreeing indeed to all Nestorians but in an eminencie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Vigilius hee being the Captaine and King of them all I end my Commentary on the Constitution of Vigilius which although it be not so plausibly set downe as Baronius would have done had hee thought good to have undertaken that office yet I dare boldly affirme it is delivered farre more truly faithfully and agreeably to the text then either the Cardinall himselfe or any other of the Popes Gnathoes would ever have performed for as I have not wittingly omitted any one clause which might breed a doubt in this obscure passage so have I not wrested the words of Vigilius to any other sense then the coherence of his text the evidence of reason and manifold proofe out of the historical narration and circumstances thereof doe necessarily inferre and even enforce 56. My conclusion now of this second reason of Vigilius and Baronius for defence of this Epistle of Ibas is this seeing the one defineth and the other defendeth both Ibas himselfe and his profession in this Epistle in this point and in the sense of Ibas to be orthodoxall because Ibas professeth therein two natures and one person to bee in Christ and seeing as wee have certainly proved Ibas meant two such natures as make two distinct persons and one person not by a naturall and hypostaticall union but onely by affection liking and cohabitation which is the very heresie condemned in Nestorius It doth hence clearly and unavoidably ensue not onely that this third Chapter touching the approving of the Epistle of Ibas doth concerne the faith and is a question and cause of faith but that Vigilius first and next Baronius and then all who by word or writing doe defend either Vigilius or Baronius or the Popes judgment in causes of faith to be infallible that they all by defending this Epistle as orthodoxall or that Ibas by it ought to bee judged a Catholike doe thereby maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius to be the onely Catholike faith CHAP. XIII Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chapters refuted and two other against them confirmed the one That to dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an Heretike nor a Schismatike the other That to assent absolutely in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome makes one both an Heretike and a Schismatike 1. HAving now demonstratively refuted the first evasion of Baronius I would proceed to the second but that Baronius doth enforce me to stay a little in the examining of two Positions which he collects and sets downe touching this cause the former concerning heresie the later concerning schisme 2. His former is this That both the defenders and the condemners of these three Chapters were Catholikes neither of both were Heretikes Negatio vel assertio non constituebat quemquam haereticum neither the condemning of these Chapters nor the defending of them made one an heretike unlesse there were some other error joyned with it Againe in these disputations about the three Chapters the question was not such ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus that one dissenting from another herein might be called an
Apostolicall authoritie decree that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By holding this one fundamentall position they are pertinacious in all their errours and that in the highest degree of pertinacy which the wit of man can devise yea and pertinacious before all conviction and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them For by setting this downe they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth though it should be manifested unto them that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves that they never will be convicted nor ever have the truth manifested unto them The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them that the doctrines which they maintaine are heresies were first to perswade the Pope who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall to make a contrary decree that they are hereticall Now although this may be morally judged to be a matter of impossibilitie yet if his Holinesse could be induced hereunto and would so farre stoope to Gods truth as to make such a decree even this also could not perswade them so long as they hold that foundation They would say either the Pope were not the true Pope or that he defined it not as Pope and ex Cathedra or that by consenting to such an hereticall decree hee ceased ipso facto to be Pope or the like some one or other evasion they would have still but grant the Popes sentence to be fallible or hereticall whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith yea as the foundation of their faith they would not Such and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed and that essentially to that one Position that so long as one holds it and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him or convert him to the truth 21. You doe now clearely see how feeble and inconsequent that Collection is which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith therein explaned Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes both ancient and moderne Quit him for this cause and quit them all condemne them and then this pretēce can no way excuse Vigilius frō heresie They all with him professe with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures of Fathers of generall Councels but because their profession is not onely lying and contradictorie to it selfe but alwayes such as that they retaine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace as Vigilius had not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures Fathers and Councels cannot make any of them nor Vigilius among them to be esteemed orthodoxall or Catholike but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine which they with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures or holy generall Councels as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters doth truly demonstrate them all and Vigilius among them to be heretikes And this may suffice for answer to the second exception or evasion of Baronius CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius taken from his confirming of the fift Councell answered and how Pope Vigilius three of foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters It appeareth saith hee that Vigilius to the end he might take away the schisme and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie Againe when Vigilius saw that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West unlesse he consented to the fift Synod eam probavit he approved it Again Pelagius thought it fit as Vigilius had thought before that the fift Synod wherein the three Chapters were condemned should bee approved and again Cognitum fuit it was publikely known that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod and condemned the three Chapters The like is affirmed by Bellarmine Vigilius
no thundring out from thence of his Pontificall Censures no embassage sent from the Emperour to call him thence no such magnanimitie in Vigilius as to refuse to returne no recalling or abrogating of the Emperiall Edict by the Emperour no submission of Mennas or Theodorus to the Pope no solemnizing of the Encaenia for those three Apostles at that time by Mennas no carying of those holy reliques in a triumphing manner and in a golden Chariot no laying them up by Mennas and in a word in that whole passage of Baronius there is not so much as one dramme nor one syllable of truth The Cardinall from an Historian is here quite metamorphozed into a Poet into a Fabler and in stead of writing Annals matters of fact and reall truths he guls his readers with fictitious anile and more than Aesopicall fables 6. For the clearing whereof I will begin with the Decree it selfe which is the ground of the whole fiction and therefore if it bee demonstrated to bee but an idle dreame and fancie all the rest which hang on it like so many consequents and appendices will of themselves fall to the ground Nor doe I speake to disgrace this Decree as if Baronius could gaine ought thereby though it were admitted and granted unto him For alas what a poore pollicy or peece of wisedome was this in the Pope being a Iudge infallible to command and decree by his Apostolicall authority that for five or sixe or as it might have hapned for forty or sixty yeares together no man should speake a word in this cause of faith neither condemne the three Chapters nor defend the same which is in effect that they should neither speake against nor for Nestorianisme neither dare to say that Christ is God nor that he is not God but suspend their judgement in them both that for all that time none should either be Catholikes or heretikes but be like Vigilius meere Neutralists in the faith what other wisdome is this but that of the Laodiceans which Christ condemneth I would thou werst either hot or cold but because thou art neither hot nor cold it will come to passe that I will spue thee out of my mouth what other then that which Elias reproves Why halt yee betweene two opinions If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal or Nestorianisme be he goe after it By this Decree of Taciturnity Vigilius provideth that neither himselfe nor others should speake against the truth or condemne it True but that is not enough He should have defended it also and caused others by his instruction and example to doe the like A neutralist one that is not with Christ is against Christ Hee that is not with the truth is against the truth Silence where God commands to speake is betraying of Gods truth If the Heathen wise man set this and that justly among his eternall lawes That he who in a publike division of the Common-wealth tooke part with neither side should bee punished with losse of goods and banishment how much more ought this to take place in Vigilius and all such Metij Suffetij who in the publike rent of the Church and that for a cause of faith will be of neither part neither for God nor against him Nay if we well consider even for this very decree of silence Vigilius is to bee judged an heretike for the whole Councell of Chalcedon condemned Domnus Patriarch of Antioch as an Heretike onely for this cause for that hee writ that men should bee silent and say nothing of the twelve Chapters of Cyrill as both Iustinian and the fift Councell doe testifie Did not Vigilius if the Cardinall say true teach nay decree the very like silence concerning the Three Chapters as Domnus did concerning those twelve of Cyrill These Three doe as nearly concerne the faith as did the other twelve These three were as certainly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon as the other twelve were approved by the Councell of Ephesus As Domnus by teaching silence in those of Cyrill even thereby taught that men should not allow them nor say that they might be allowed and therein overthrew the faith of the Ephesine Councell which approved them and taught all men to approve them Even so Vigilius by decreeing silence in these Three Chapters decreeth that none shall condemne them or say they are to be condemned and so overthroweth the Catholike faith which was declared at Chalcedon whereby they are all three condemned and taught that they ought to bee condemned If the teaching of silence in the one can make Domnus an heretike certainly the decreeing of silence in the other cannot chuse but make Vigilius an heretike O but this decree was to continue but for a time Vigilius would expect the assembling of a generall Councell and then he would resolve the matter to the full And you have seen how well he resolved it then But what Expect a Councell why is not his Holinesse able to decide a doubt in faith without a generall Councell Is he not of himselfe infallible Doth his infallibilitie like an Ague goe away and come by fits upon him Is the generall Councel that Angel which must move the Poole in the Popes brest before he can teach infallibly The Pope scornes to hold his infallibility precario by the curtesie either of the whole Church or of any generall Councell He is all-sufficient in himselfe he gives to them infallibility he receives none from them what thinke you then was become of Vigilius his infallibility that for deciding a doubt in faith hee must suspend all in silence and stay till the generall Councel be assembled which for ought he knew might bee 60. or 100. yeares after If of himselfe he was infallible why did he hold men in suspence in the doctrine of faith why did he not presently and without the Councell infallibly decide it and so set the Church at quiet If of himselfe he was not infallible how could he at the time of the Councell infallibly decide it for they make not him or his sentence infallible but all their infallibility is borrowed from him So little helpe is there for them in this decree of taciturnity if wee should admit thereof that in very deed it doth many wayes prejudice their cause It is not then the preventing of any advantage which hence they might have that causeth me to reject this decree but the onely love of the truth perswadeth nay enforceth me hereunto For I professe I was not a little moved to see the Cardinalls Annalls so stuffed with untruths and figments and see him also not onely by these to abuse and that most vilely his Readers but even to vaunt and glory as you have seene hee doth in that which is and will be an eternall ignominy unto him But let us come to make evident the fiction of this Decree 7. That Vigilius made no such decree of Taciturnitie first the Emperor Iustinian in his Letters
Emperors enforcing and compelling omnes antistites all the Bishops to condemne the Three Chapters But enough of Iustinian to manifest that he never observed this fictitious Decree of Taciturnitie 14. After the Emperor and Pope let us see if Catholikes that is those who condemned the three Chapters did observe this Decree They did not but like the Emperour they constantly continued to speake to write against them as well after as before the time of this supposed Decree it stopt not the mouth of any one of them Not of Mennas not of Theodorus whom for talking so much against those Chapters Vigilius suspended and excommunicated as the Baronian narration tells you not of the other Bishops subject to thē for Vigilius used the very same censure against them also for their condemning of those Chapters We saith Vigilius condemne thee O Mennas with all the Bishops pertaining to thy Diocesse yea we condemne also thy fellow Eastern Bishops though of diverse provinces be they of greater or lesser Cities wee condemne and excommunicate them all Neither did they begin to condemne the Chapters in that 25. yeare wherein this sentence by the accoumpt of Baronius was pronounced but they did this ever since the time that the Decree of Silence is supposed to bee made for Vigilius there saith to Theodorus wee have declared pene hoc quinquennio elapso almost these five yeares last past our longanimitie and patience both towards you and towards those who have beene seduced by you which five yeares being reckned backe will fall out in the 21. yeare of Iustinian even from that yeare and then was the decree of Silence said to bee published did the Eastern Bishops continue to speake against and condemne the three Chapters Now although this against Baronius who applaudes that sentence and writing of Vigilius bee sufficient yet because it is onely argumentum ad hominem I will adde a more weightie testimonie to cleare this matter concerning Catholikes that is of the whole fift generall Councell which saith the Emperor doth manifest quod nec quenquam latuit that whereof no man is ignorant that the impietie of these Chapters ab initio aliena est à sancta Dei ecclesia is strange and hath beene disliked by the holy Church ever since the controversie about them hath beene moved Then certainely no Catholike none Catholikely affected at any time forbore to condemne them not one of them observed that Decree of Silence 15. All the Cardinalls hope is now in the Defenders of these Chapters they no doubt would bee willing to obey this Pontificall and Synodall Decree seeing for the most part they were Africane Illyrian Western Bishops Among them if anywhere the Pope might hope to have his Decree observed They observe it They are silent in this cause Nay you shall see them after the time that this Decree is supposed to be made to be farre more eager in defending the Three Chapters then ever they were before For now besides the defending of those Chapters they boldly and bitterly invaighed against Vigilius himselfe because he condemned the same This did Liberatus at Carthage at Tunen Victor at Constantinople Facundus the Popes owne orator who now having turnd his stile whetted it as sharpe against the Pope as before he had done at the Popes command against the Emperor yea the Popes owne Romane Deacons Rusticus and Sebastianus besides others freely and openly declamed against the Pope as one who by condemning the 3. Chapters did condemne the Councell of Chalcedon nay they proceeded even to flout and taunt the Pope for his condemning of those Chapters deriding his sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia being dead in this manner the Pope should have condemned not onely the person and writings of Theodorus sed territorium ipsum ubi positus est but even the very ground also where hee was buried adding that if any could finde but the bones of Theodorus though now accursed by the Pope gratanter acciperent they would very lovingly embrace them and keepe them for holy relickes 16. And what speake I of a few particular men In the 23. yeare of Iustinian that is in the second yeare after the supposed Decree the Illyrian Bishops held a Synod by which was both writ a booke in defence of those Chapters and sent unto the Emperor and Benenatus Bishop of Iustineanca was condemned by the same Synod because hee spake against those Chapters The next yeare after that did the Africane Bishops hold a Synod wherein they did nominatim and expresly condemne Pope Vigilius excommunicate him and shut him out of their communion because he was one of those who condemned the Three Chapters as Victor Bishop of Tunea who as it seemes was present in that Synod doth testifie Now seeing the Cardinall professeth that these divisions and contentions were among Catholikes pugnantibus inter se orthodoxis orthodoxall Bishops and Catholikes they were who at this time fought one against another yea and by his position Schismaticall they were not because the Pope had not yet given his last sentence If one lifted to digresse here were a fit occasion to make a little sport with his Cardinalship upon whose assertion it clearely ensueth that a Synod even an Africane Synod which with them is more yea the whole Church of Africke may and de facto hath so done judge censure excommunicate and exclude from their communion the Pope and yet for all this themselves at the same time may be and have de facto beene very good Catholikes and neither heretickes nor schismatickes But of that point I have before intreated This onely I doe now observe that by the view and consideration of all sorts and degrees of men in the Church none at all observed that decree of Silence in this cause not the Pope not the Emperor not the Orthodoxall professors such as before condemned the Chapters not the hereticall defenders of them All these and in one of these rankes were comprehended all Christians at that time by their speeches by their writings by their actions by their Synodall decrees and judgements doe evidently witnesse that there was no such decree of Silence ever made which without all question amongst some one order and degree or other would have been observed and taken effect 17. To these I will adde one other reason taken from the weaknesse and unsoundnesse of that ground whereon the Cardinall hath framed this whole narration He tells us that this Decree of Silence the Synod wherein it was made and divers of the consequents for some are of the Cardinalls owne invention are testified by certaine publike acts or Records to wit those which contained the sentence and Pontificall Constitution of Pope Vigilius against Mennas Theodorus and the rest In those acts indeed a good part of this Baronian fable is related how Mennas Dacius and many other both Greeke and Latine Bishops were present in
in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod it is altogether as effectuall to prove he writ it not at all nor after his returne about a year after out of exile 3. The Cardinall gives yet another evidence hereof Pelagius saith he the successor of Vigilius did thinke it fit that the fift Synod should bee approved and the three Chapters condemned moved especially hereunto by this reason that the Easterne Church ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa being rent and divided from the Romane by reason of the Constitution of Vigilius might be united unto it How was the Easterne Church divided from the Romane in the time of Pelagius by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled and adnulled it If the Popes condemning of those Chapters and approving of the fift Councell could unite the Churches then the decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have effected that union If the Apostolike Decree of Vigilius could not effect it in vaine it was for Pelagius to thinke by his approbation which could have no more authority then Apostolicall to effect that union If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was as Baronius truly saith the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters against the judgement of the fift Synod seeing it is cleare by the Cardinalls owne confession that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius it certainly hence followeth that the Constitution of Vigilius which was the cause of that breach was never by himselfe repealed which even in Pelagius time remained in force and was then a wall of separation of the Easterne from the Westerne Church Againe if the Popes approving the fift Councell and condemning the three Chapters was as in truth it was and as the Cardinall noteth it to have beene the cause to unite those Churches seeing by his owne confession in Vigilius time they were not united for Pelagius after Vigilius his death sought to take away that schisme it certainly hence followeth that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod and their Synodall condemning of those Chapters for had he so done the union had in his time presently beene effected 4. The same may be perceived also by the Westerne Church For as that Pontificall decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have united the Easterne so much more would it have drawne the Westerne the Italian and specially the Romane Church to consent to the fift Councell and condemning of the three Chapters but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life may divers wayes be made evident Whē Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius and was to be consecrated Bishop there could no more then two Bishops be found in the Westerne Church that would consecrate or ordaine him Bishop wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers requiring three Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop which they so often boast of in their disputes against us the Pope himselfe was faine to be ordained onely by two Bishops with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third Anastasius very ignorantly if not worse sets downe the reason thereof to have beene for that Pelagius was suspected to have beene guilty by poison or some other way of the death of Vigilius A very idle fancie as is the most in Anastasius for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius and there continued till Vigilius was dead he had little leisure nor oportunity to thinke of poisoning or murdering his owne Bishop by whose death he could expect no gaine The true cause why the Westerne Bishops distasted Pelagius is noted by Victor who then lived Hee before hee came from Constantinople consented to the fift Synod and condemned the Three Chapters Now the Westerne Bishops so detested the fift Synod and those who with it condemned those Chapters that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia were the ordainers of Pelagius whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators Let any man now consider with himselfe whether it bee credible that in all Italy and some Provinces adjoyning there should be but two Bishops who would consēt to the Apostolicall decree of Vigilius for approving the fift Councell if he had indeed published such a decree If they knew not the Popes sentence in this cause which they held and that rightly for a cause of faith to be infallible how was not the westerne or the Romane Church hereticall at this time not knowing that point of faith which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith If they knew it to bee infallible seeing his judgement must then oversway their owne how could there bee no more but two bishops found among them all who approved the Popes Cathedrall sentence and consented to his infallible judgement Seeing then it is certaine that the Westerne Church did generally reject the fift Synod after the death of Vigilius and seeing it is not to bee thought that they would have persisted in such a generall dislike thereof had they knowne Vigilius to have by his Apostolicall sentence decreed that all should approve the same of which his sentence had there been any such they could not have beene ignorant for if by no other meanes which were very many Pelagius himselfe would have brought and assuredly made knowne the same unto them this their generall rejection of the fift Synod is an evident proofe that this Baronian decree which hee ascribeth to Vigilius is no better then the former of silence both untrue both fictitious and of the two this the far worse seeing for this the Cardinall hath not so much as any one no not a forged writing on which he may ground it it is wholy devised by himselfe he the onely Poet or maker of this fable 5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in Bede concerning the Councell of Aquileia in Italy That Councell was held neare about or rather as by Sigonius narration it appeareth after the death of Vigilius and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Millan Macedonius B. of Aquileia Maximianus B. of Ravenna besides many other Bishops of Liguria Venice and Istria These being as Bede saith
unskilfull of the faith doubted to approve the fift Synod nay Concilium illud non observandum esse statuêre they decreed that the fift Synod should not be allowed or received What would so many Italian Bishops in an Italian Councell decree the quite contradictory to the Popes known judiciall sentence in a cause of faith the Pope decreed as Baronius saith that the fift Councell ought to be imbraced The Italian Synod decreeth that the fift Councell ought to be rejected Neither onely did they thus decree but as Bede noteth they continued in this opinion donec salutaribus beati Pelagij monitis instructa consensit untill being instructed by the wholsome admonitions of Pope Pelagius they consented to the fift Councell as other Churches did Now this Pelagius of whom Bede speaketh was Pelagius the second who was not Pope till more then 20. yeares after the death of Vigilius He to reclame those Bishops of Istria Venice and Liguria writ a very large and decretall Epistle which Binius compares to that of Leo to Flavianus wherin he declares every one of those Three Chapters to be repugnant to the faith and decrees of the ancient Councells By this decretall instruction of Pelagius the second were those Italian defenders of the Three Chapters after twenty yeares and more reduced as Bede noteth to the unity of the Church and to approve of the fift Councell Had Vigilius made as Baronius fancieth the like decree why tooke it not the like effect in those Westerne Bishops was there more then Apostolicall authority and instruction in the decree of Pelagius or was there lesse then that in the decree of Vigilius 6. Nay there is another speciall point to bee observed concerning that Epistle of Pelagius Elias Bishop of Aquileia and the rest who defended the three Chapters among other reasons urged the authority of Vigilius on their part therby countenancing their error in that they taught no other doctrine in defending those Chapters then the Apostolicall See had taught by Vigilius thus writ they in their Apology which they sent to Pelagius ayming no doubt at that Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius published in the time of the Councell whereby hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought by all to be defended for that was it as the Cardinall saith which moved nay enforced all to follow that opinion and to defend the Three Chapters What doth Pelagius now answer to this reason Truly had Vigilius made any such later Decree as the Cardinall fancieth by which he had approved the fift Synod and so both condemned the three Chapters and repealed his owne former judgement in defence thereof neither could Pelagius have beene ignorant of that decree neither would he being so earnestly pressed therewith have omitted that oportunity both to grace Vigilius and most effectually confute that which was the speciall reason on which his opposites did relye Could he have truly replyed that Vigilius himselfe upon better advise had recalled his Decree made in defence of those Chapters and by his last Apostolicall judgement condemned the same Chapters this had cut insunder the very sinewes of that objection But Pelagius returnes them not this answer but knowing that to bee true which they said of Vigilius hee tells them which is a point worthy observing that the Apostolike See might change their judgement in this cause and this even by Pelagius himselfe is a cause of faith and that the ignorance of the Greeke in the Westerne Bishops was the cause why they so lately consented to the fift Synod And so though Vigilius had judged that the Three Chapters ought to be defended yet the successors of Vigilius might long after as they did teach and himselfe define that the same Chapters ought to bee condemned and that the fift Councell wherein they were condemned ought to bee approved A very strong inducement that Pelagius knew not and then that Vigilius made not any such Decree as the Cardinall commendeth unto us 7. For any Apostolicall Decree then whereby Vigilius after his exile recalled his former judgment or approved the fift Councell there was none as besides those reasons which the Cardinall himselfe giveth the persisting of the Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters not onely after the death of Vigilius but till the time of Pelagius the second makes evident If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof it was onely by some private or personall but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all this is the most that can be collected from them And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them yet can it no way helpe their cause or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible onely it would serve to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike or under the Anathema of the holy Councell For as they teach and teach it with ostentation as a matter of great wit and subtilty that the Pope may erre personally or in his owne person hold an heresie which onely hurts himselfe and not the Church but erre doctrinally or judicially define an heresie he cannot even so to pay them with their owne coine might it fall out at this time with Vigilius hee being wearied with long exile might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters and approve the Synod which may be called a personall truth or a personal profession in the Pope the benefit wherof was onely to redound to himselfe either to free him from the censure of the Synod or procure the Emperors favour goodwill that he might returne home to his See but that this professing supposing he made it was doctrinall or Cathedrall delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like neither Baronius nor any of all his favourers can ever prove Now were I sure that the Cardinall or his friends would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination But alas they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement As personall errors hurt them not so personall truths helpe them not Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall Doctrinall Apostolicall and Cathedrall or he will have none at all And therefore to demonstrate how farre Vigilius was frō decreeing this I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended not doubting to make it evident that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters and approve the fift Councell after the end of the fift Synod or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth 8.
the Emperour and procured the Councell as being desirous of the same But omitting the rest the whole generall Councell yea and the Popes owne letters put this out of all doubt This say the whole Councell even in their Synodall sentence Consensit in scriptis in Concilio convenire Vigilius under his owne hand-writing consented to come together and be present with us in the Synod Againe the Legates sent from the Councell to invite Vigilius said thus unto him Your Holinesse knoweth quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire that you have promised to come together with the other Bishops into the Councell and there to debate this question Vigilius himselfe writ thus to the Bishops of the Councell We knowing your desire praedictis postulationibus annuimus have consented to your petitions that in an orderly assembly being made wee may conferre with our united brethren about the three Chapters I doubt not but upon such faire and undoubted records every one will now confesse First that if to be gathered by the Popes consent and authority will make a Councell lawfull which with them is an authentike rule then this fift Councell is without question in this respect most lawfull Secondly that Baronius and Binius are shamelesse both in uttering untruths in reviling this holy Synod which they would perswade to be unlawful because it was assembled the Pope resisting it whereas this Councell to have beene assembled with the consent yea as they boast with the authority also of Pope Vigilius not onely other Writers but the Synodall Acts the whole generall Councell the letters of Vigilius and the expresse words of Baronius and Binius themselves doe evidently declare 14. Come now to the Consequence Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Councell was it for this cause unlawfull was it no generall Councell What say you then to the second Councell of which Baronius thus writeth It was held repugnante Damaso Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof Will they blot that also out of the ranke of generall and lawfull Synods If not why may not this fift also bee a generall and lawfull Synod though Vigilius had with tooth and naile resisted the same Shall the peevishnesse or perversnesse of the Pope or any Bishop hinder the assembling of a generall Councell and so the publike peace and tranquillity of the whole Church Open but this gappe and there never should have been nor ever shall be any generall Councell The wilfulnesse of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia at Niceâ— of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch at Ephesus of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria at Chalcedon will frustrate all those holy Councells and make them to be neither generall nor lawfull The saying of Cardinall Cusanus is worthy observing to this purpose I beleeve saith he that to be spoken not absurdly that the Emperor himselfe in regard of that care and custody of preserving the faith which is committed unto him may praeceptivè indicere Synodum by his Imperiall authority and command assemble a Synod when the great danger of the Church requireth the same negligente aut contradicente Romano Pontifice the Pope either neglecting so to doe or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof So Cusanus This was the very state and condition of the Church at this time when the fift Councell was assembled The whole Church had beene a long time scandalized and troubled about those Three Chapters it was rent and divided from East to West High time it was and necessary for Iustinian to see that flame quenched although Pope Vigilius or any other Patriarch had never so eagerly resisted the remedie thereof 15. Had the Cardinall pleaded against this Synod that Vigilius had not beene called unto it hee had spoken indeed to the purpose For this is essentiall and such as without which a Synod cannot bee generall and lawfull that all Bishops be summoned to the Synod and comming thither have free accesse unto it and freedome of speech and judgment therein But the Cardinall durst not take this exception against this Synod or for Vigilius for none of these to have beene wanting in this Councell is so cleare that pertinacie it selfe cannot deny it It was not the Pope as they vainly boast but the Emperor who by his owne and Imperiall authority called this Councell as the whole Synod even in their Synodall sentence witnesse Wee are aâ—sembled here in this City jussione pijssimi Imperatoris vocati being called by the commandement of our most religious Emperor His calling to have beene generall Nicephorus doth expresly declare The Emperor saith he assembled the fift generall Councell Episcopis ecclesiarum omnium evocatis the Bishops of all Churches being called unto it yea the Emperor was so equall in this cause that Binius testifieth of him Paris numeri Episcopos ex Oriente Occidente convocavit that he called in particular and besides his generall summons by which all without exception had free accesse as many out of the West where the defenders of those Chapters did abound as he did out of the East where the same Chapters were generally condemned And yet further Vigilius himselfe was by name not onely invited intreated and by many reasons perswaded but even commanded by the Emperor and in his name to come unto the Synod as before we shewed Now what freedome hee might have had in the Councell both that offer of the Presidencie doth shew for him in particular and the words of the Councell spoken concerning all in generall doth declare for when Sabinianus and others who being then at Constantinople were invited to the Synod and refused to come the synod sayd It was meet that they being called should have come to the Councell and have been partakers of all things which are here done and debated especially seeing both the most holy Emperour and we licentiam dedimus unicuique have granted free liberty to every one to manifest his minde in the Synod concerning the causes proposed Seeing then he not onely might but in his duty both to God to the Emperour and to the whole Church hee ought to have come and freely spoken his minde in this cause his resisting the will of the Emperor and refusing to come doth evidently demonstrate his want of love to the truth and dutifulnesse to the Emperor and the Church but it can no way impaire or impeach the dignity and authority of the Councell neither for the generality nor for the lawfulnesse thereof 16. Besides all which there is yet one thing above all the rest to be remembred for though Pope Vigilius was not present in the Synod either personally or by his Legates but in that sort resisted to come unto it yet he was present there by his letters of instruction by his Apostolicall and Cathedrall Constitution which hee published as a direction what was to be judged and held in that cause of the Three Chapters That Decree and Constitution he promised to send
ad Imperatorem Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod quod ingenuè praestitit which also he ingenuously performed as the Cardinall tells us That elaborate decree to which an whole Synod together with the Pope subscribed containing the Popes sentence and instruction given in this cause Vniverso orbi Catholico cunctisque fidelibus not onely to the Synod teaching them what they should define but to all Christians teaching them what they shold beleeve was in consessu Episcoporum recitatum read and recited before all the Bishops in that Councell as Binius doth assure us This one kinde of presence in the Synod is suppletive of all the rest of more worth then 20. nay then 200. Legates à latere sent from his holinesse They all may deale besides or contrary to the Popes minde as Zacharias and Rhodoaldus did in a Councell held about the cause of Photius but this Cathedrall instruction is an inflexible messenger no bribes no perswasions no feare no favour can extort from it one syllable more then his holinesse by the infallible direction of his Chaire hath delivered yea though the Pope should have beene personally present in the Synod and face to face spoken his mind in his cause yet could not his sudden or lesse premeditated speech have beene for weight or authority comparable to this decree being elaborated after seven yeares ponderation of the cause and all things in it being disposed cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all diligence and circumspection that could possibly bee used which the Pope though absent in body yet sent as an Oracle from heaven to be a direction to the Synod and to supply his own absence So many wayes is this former objection of Baronius vaine and unsound when he pretends this Councell to have beene unlawfull because the Pope resisted it and the members assembled without their head for neither did Vigilius resist their assembling but freely and willingly consented unto it neither was hee excluded from the Synod but most undutifully absented himselfe from it and though the members at that time wanted the Popes head-peece yet they had his heart his minde and his Apostolicall direction among them to bee a Cynosure unto them in that cause which alone is able to supply both his personall and Legantine absence in any Councel 17. The other objection of Baronius is taken from the decree of this Synod The sentence saith he given by it was contra ipsius decretum against the decree of Vigilius and therefore their assembly deserved not the name of a generall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Councell at all Cardinall Bellarmine explaines this more fully saying Such Councells as define matters against the Popes instruction Reprobata Concilia dici debent are to bee called or accounted Rejected Councells for it is all one saith he whether the Pope doe expresly reject and reprobate a Councell or whether the Councell deale contra Pontificis sententiam against the Popes sentence either of both such Councells are reiected and so of no authoritie at all So Bellarmine What shall we answer to the perversnesse of these men If this rule be admitted the Church hath for ever and inevitably lost this fift Councell and by their second Nicen collection the sixt the seventh and all that follow And I verily am perswaded that none can possibly excuse either Baronius or Bellarmine from this crime of expunging the fift Councell and all which follow it from the ranke and number of generall or approved Councels For it is as cleare as the sunshine at noone day that the sentence pronounced by the fift synod was contradictory to the definition and Cathedrall instruction sent by Pope Vigilius into them If then to define a cause contrary to the Popes instruction be a sure note of a Reprobate Councell as they teach it to be farewell for ever this fift and all that follow it or approve it they are all by the rule of these two worthy Cardinals Reprobated Councels nay not so much as Councels but meere Conspiracies or Conventicles 18. Besides this see I pray you the zeale and devotion of these men to the Catholike faith If this Councell be for this cause a Rejected Councell because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius sent unto it then it should have beene an holy and approved Councell if it had followed those instructions of Vigilius that is if it had condemned the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon if it had decreed Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith and Iesus Christ not to be God for Vigilius be decreeing that the Three Chapters ought to be defended instructed them thus to define and judge Had they thus done then because they had followed the instructions of Vigilius the two Cardinalls would have embraced this Councell with both armes have applauded advanced it to the skies seeing it did not so but contradicted the Popes Apostolicall instructions at this time fie on it it is an unlawfull a Reprobated Councell nay it is no Councell at all nor of any authority Can any with reason judge these men to be ought else then Nestorians then condemned heretikes and obstinate oppugners of all ancient holy Councells and of the Catholike faith See the strange diversity of judgement which is in us and them They in their hereticall dotage on the Popes Cathedrall infallibility teach this fift holy Councell to bee a reprobated synod eo nomine because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius we on the contrary doe constantly affirme it to bee an holy and most approved synod eo nomine because it followed not but rejected and condemned those Cathedrall instructions of Vigilius with us consent the sixt seventh and all succeeding generall Councells till that at Laterane all former holy Councells also to all which this Councell is consonant From them dissent all these both former and subsequent Councells that is the whole Catholike Church for fifteene hundreth yeares and more Vtri creditis whose doctrine thinke you now is ancient orthodoxall and catholike And whether had you rather with these two Cardinalls account this fift synod an unlawfull assembly and a reprobate Councell because it contradicted the hereticall constitution of Pope Vigilius or with such an army of witnesses honor it for a sacred Oecumenicall approved Councell though it not onely wanted the approbation but had in plaine words the Cathedrall Reprobation of Pope Vigilius 19. Having now fully refuted not onely the Assertion of Baronius That this Councell was of no authority nor an approved Councell till Pope Vigilius confirmed and approved it but also both those reasons whereby he would perswade the same there remaineth yet one doubt which necessarily is to be satisfied for the finall clearing of this point For it will and justly may bee demanded what it was which made this fift an approved Councell Or if it bee not the Popes
Bishops and therefore to bee called Episcopall there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors which is called Royall or Imperiall by this later religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ecclesiasticall Canons within their dominions so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures but further also doe so strengthen and backe the same by their sword and civill authority that the contradicters of those decrees are made liable to those temporall punishments which are set downe in Ezra to death to banishment to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment as the quality of the offence shall require and the wisedome of that Imperiall State shall think fit Betwixt these two confirmations Episcopall and Imperiall there is exceeding great oddes and difference By the former judiciall sentence is given and the synodall decree made or declared to be made for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation by the later neither is the synodal decree made nor any judgment given to define that cause for neither Princes nor any Lay men are Iudges to decide those matters as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in their directions to Candidianus in the Councell of Ephesus but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops and their judgement given in that cause is strengthened by Imperiall authority for which cause this may fitly be called a superemineÌ„t or corroborative confirmation of the synodall judgement The former confirmation is Directive teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church the later is Coactive compelling all by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions The former is Essentiall to the Decree such as if it want there is no Synodall decree made at all the later is Accidentall which though it want yet is the Decree of the Councell a true Synodall Decree and sentence The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmeÌ„t By vertue of the former the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith or contumacious in other matters and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church though if the later be wanting those censures cannot bee inflicted by any or upon any but with danger to incurre the indignation of Princes By vertue of the later not onely the Church may safely yea with great allowance and praise inflict their Ecclesiasticall censures but inferiour Magistrates also may nay ought to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees as against notorious convicted and condemned heretikes or in causes which are not of faith but of externall discipline and orders as against contumacious persons The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperiall authority it is in dignitie inferiour The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject it is in dignity Supreme 32. This Imperiall confirmation as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith Constantine sealed ratified and confirmed the decrees which were made therein The second general Councel writ thus to the Emperour Theodosius We beseech your clemency that by your letters ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum that you would ratifie and confirme the decree of this Councell and that the Emperour did so his Emperiall Edict before mentioned doth make evident To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus Let matters coÌ„cerning religion and piety be diligently examined contention being laid aside ac tum demuÌ„ à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate and then expect from us our imperiall confirmation The holy Councell having done so writ thus to the Emperour We earnestly intreate your piety ut jubâ—at â—a omnia that you would coÌ„mand that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius may stand in force per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata being confirmed by your roall assent And that the Emperour yeelded to their request his Edict against Nestorius doth declare In the fourth Councell the Emperour said We come to this Synod not to shew our power sed ad conâ—irmandam fidem but to confirme the faith And wheÌ„ he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent to their decree the whole Councell cryed out Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations That Iustinian confirmed the fift Councell his imperiall Edict for condemning those Three Chapters which after the Synodall judgment stood in more force than before his severity in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence partly by exile partly by imprisonment are cleare witnesses The sixt Councell said thus to the Emperour O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us signaculum tribue seale and ratifie all that we have done vestram inscribito imperialem ratihabitionem adde unto them your imperiall confirmation that by your holy Edicts and godly constitutions they may stand in firme force And the Emperour upon their humble request set forth his Edict wherein he saith We have published this our Edict that we might corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt corroborate and confirme those things which are defined by the Councell To all which that may bee added which Basilius the Emperour said in the eighth Synod as they call it I had purposed to have subscribed after al the Bishops as did my predecessors Constantine the great Theodosius Martian and the rest thereby evidently testifying not onely the custome of imperiall confirmation to have been observed in all former Councels but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopall subscription the Bishops first subscribing and thereby making or declaring that they had made a Synodall decree the Emperours after them all subscribing as ratifying by their Imperiall confirmation what the Bishops had decreed 33. By this now it fully appeareth what it is which maketh any Synod or any Synodal decree to be and justly to be accounted an approved Synod or an approved Synodall and Oecumenicall decree It is not the Popes assent approbation or confirmation as they without all ground of truth doe fancy which at any time did or possibly can doe this It is onely the Vniversall and Oecumenicall consent of the whole Church and of all the members thereof upon any decree made by a generall Councell which truly makes that an approved decree
proceedings the Emperours letters were their direction and as themselves professe the very Torch to guide all their actions In the manifold injuries and contumelies which they endured at the hands of Iohn with his Conventicle they fled to the Emperour beseeching him to be Iudge of their equall proceedings and take an equal exact view and examination of their doings which upon their request the Emperour did and called five Bishops of either part to Constantinople to declare the whole cause unto him after which being performed he gave judgement for the holy Councell and adnulled all the acts of the Conventicle as the holy Synod had earnestly and humbly entreated him So fully and cleerly doth that sacred and Oecumenicall Councell wherein was the judgement and consent of the whole Catholike Church both acknowledge this Imperiall right of Presidency in the Emperours and submit themselves unto it 14. For the Councell of Chalcedon the matter is so evident that Bellarmine though strugling against the truth could not deny it There were present saith he in this Councell secular Iudges deputed by the Emperour who were not Iudges of controversies of faith to give a decisive suffrage therein for that belongs to no secular man whatsoever sed tantum an omnia fierent legitime sive vi fraude tumultibus but they were Iudges onely of Synodall order whether all things were done lawfully without force fraud and tumult And in this doth the very Imperiall Presidency consist And truly how religiously and worthily those glorious Iudges performed that honourable office in the synod all the actions thereof doe make manifest for scarce any matter was done in the synod but the same was ordered moderated and guided by their prudence and authority The Popes Legats very insolently took upon them at the beginning willing that Dioscorus might bee put out of the synod and sayd Either let Dioscorus goe out or we will depart The Iudges gravely reproved this stomacke in the Legates telling them If you will be Iudges you must not prosequute as accusers nor did they suffer Dioscorus to goe away but commanded him as was fit to sit in the place of the Ret. The cause of Iuvenalis and Thalassius was proposed to the synod It could not be examined by them till they had leave from the Emperour We said the Iudges have acquainted the Emperour therewith and we expect his Mandate herein and after they had received the Emperours minde they then told the synod Imperator sententiae vestrae permisit de Iuvenale deliberare the Emperour hath upon your intreaty permitted you to discusse and judge the cause of Iuvenalis Thalassius and the rest In the cause of the ten Aegyptian Bish. the Synod had almost pronounced a temerarious sentence against them as hereticall when indeed they were orthodoxall the Bishops cryed out Isti haeretici sunt these ten are heretikes The glorious Iudges knowing which was manifest that they forbore to subscribe by reason of a custome which they had that they might doe nothing without their Patriarke who was not then chosen and not as thinking heretically in the faith moderated the Synod in that matter saying Rationabile nobis clemens videtur it seemes to us to be reason and an act of clemencie not to have condemned them but staid till their Patriarch bee chosen the whole Synod consented to this grave sentence of Iudges and made a Canon for that purpose In making the very definition of faith there grew a great dissention in the Synod some would have it one some another way set downe in so much that the Popes Legates were ready to make a schisme and depart from the Councel and hold another Councell by themselves The glorious Iudges proposed a most equall and fitting meanes to have the matter peaceably debated and the whole Synod brought to unity But when out-cryes and tumult prevailed above reason the Iudges complained of those discords to the Emperour and Imperator praecepit the Emperour commanded them to follow the direction of the Iudges which they did and so with one accord consented on the Definition of faith The Emperour at the earnest entreaty of Bassianus commanded the Synod to examine the whole cause betwixt him and Stephanus to which of them in right the the See of Ephesus belonged The Synod would have given sentence for Bassianus Iustitia Bassianum vocat Equity and right doth call for Bassianus to bee the Bishop of that place The glorious Iudges weighing the cause more circumspectly thought that neither of them both could in right be Bishop The whole Synod being directed by them altered their opinion and said This is a just sentence this is the very jugement of God When there was a difference in the Synod about the dignity of Constantinople the greater part holding one way and the Popes Legates the contrary the glorious Iudges judicially sentenced which was to stand for the Iudgement of the Synod and the whole Councell in their synodall letter consented therunto So many so manifest evidences there are of the Imperiall Presidency in that holy Councell not any of all those Catholikes once repining at or contradicting the same 15. For the fift that it was ordered by the Imperiall authoritie may appeare in that both the Emperor was sometimes by himselfe sometimes by his glorious Iudges present in the Synod and specially in that hee tooke order that liberty and synodall freedome should be observed therein yea as the whole Synod testifieth hee did omnia all things which preserve the peace of the Church and unity in the Catholike faith The sixt Councell is abundant with proofes of this presidency Macarius said O our most holy Lord iubeto libros proferri command that the bookes bee produced and the Emperour answered Iubemus we command them to be brought wee command them to be read and it was done The Popes Legates say Petimus serenitatem vestram we entreate your highnesse that this booke may be examined the Emperour answered Quod postulatum est proveniat let that be done which you request Againe O most holy Lord we intreat that the letters of Pope Agatho may be read the Emperours answer was what you have desired let it be done and they were read Macarius having collected certaine testimonies out of the Fathers for his opinion intreated the Emperour Iubeto relegi that he would command them to be read his answere was let them bee read in order and so they were The Popes Legates said petimus wee intreate your highnesse that the authentike Copies may bee produced out of the Registrie his answer was fiat let it de done The whole Synod intreated If it please your piety let Theodorus and the rest stand in the midst and there make answer for themselves his answer was What the Synod hath moved fiat let it be done George
Bish. of Constantinople said O our Lord crowned by God command that the name of Pope Vitalianus may bee set in the Dipticks his answer was quod postulatum est fiat let that be done which he hath requested The Emperour commanded the books of Macarius to be read the whole Synod answered Quod jussum est what your highnesse hath commanded shall be performed After the authenticall letters of Sergius Pope Honorius had been read in the Synod the glorious Iudges called for the like authenticall writings of Pirrhus Paulus Peter and Cyrus to bee produced and read the whole Councell answered that it was superfluous seeing their heresie was manifest to all the Iudges replied omnino necessarium existit this is necessary that they be convicted out of their owne writings and then their writings were produced I omit the rest whereof every Action of that Synod is ful and by those Acts the Presidency in Councels doth so clearly beloÌ„g to Emperors and that also by the acknowledgment of that whole generall Councell that Albertus Pighius being unwilling to yeeld to this truth hath purposely writ a most railing and reviling Treatise against this holy generall Synod condemning both this Councell and these Acts as unlawfull for this among other reasons because the Emperour with his Iudges plena authoritate Praesidet is President with full authority in the same hee doth all he proposeth hee questioneth he commandeth hee examineth he judgeth he decreeth And yet in all these hee doth nothing but what belongs essentially to his Imperiall authority nothing but what Constantine Theodosius Martian and Iustinian had done before him and done it with the approbation and applause of the whole Church and of all the Catholike Bishops in those holy generall Councels and hee performed this with such uprightnesse and equality that hee professed necessitatem nullatenus inferre volumus wee will inforce no man but leave him at his owne freedome in sentencing the causes proposed and aequalitatam utriusque partis conservabimus we will bee equall and indifferent Iudges betwixt both parties 16. In the second Nicene though by the fraud of Anastasius there be not many yet are there some prints remaining of this Imperiall Presidencie We have received say the Emperours letters from Hadrian Bish. of Rome sent by his Legates qui et nobiscum in Concilio sedent who also sit with us in the Synod Those letters jubemus publicè legi we command to be publikely read according to the use in Councels and we command all you to marke them with decent silence After that you shall reade two quaternions also sent from the Bishops in the East and the whole Synod obeyed the Imperiall commands Pope Hadrian himselfe was not ignorant of this right in the Emperours when sending his Pontificall and Cathedrall judgement concerning the cause of Images hee said thus unto them We offer these things to your highnesse with all humility that they may bee diligently examined for we have but perfunctoriè that is for fashioÌ„ and not exactly gathered these testimonies and we have delivered them to your Imperiall Highnesse to be read intreating and beseeching your mansuetude yea and as if I were lying at your feete I pray and adjure you that you will command holy Images to bee restored Thus hee When the Pope cals the Emperours his Lords and submits both his owne person to their feet and his judiciall sentence to such tryall as they shall thinke fit doth not this import an higher Presidency in the Emperour than either himselfe or his Legates had in the Synod Nay it is further to be remembred which will remaine as an eternal blot of that Synod that Irene the Empresse not contenting her selfe with the Imperiall which was her owne rightfull authority intruded her selfe into the Episcopall also she forshooth would be a Doctrix in the Councell she present among the Bishops to teach the whole Councell what they should define in causes of faith Perversas Constitutiones tradere shee tooke upon her to give Constitutions and those impious also unto them Those Constitutions backed with her sword and authority the Bishops of the Councell had not the hearts and courage to withstand All which is testified in the Libri Carolini which in part were written and wholly set forth by Charles the great being for the most part composed by the Councell at Frankfourd and approved by them all in that great synod A truth so cleare that Pope Adrian in his reply to those Caroline bookes denyeth not Irene to have done this which had easily and evidently refuted that objectioÌ„ and discredited those Caroline Bookes for ever but hee defends her fact by the examples of Helena and Pulcheria to which this of Irene is so unlike that for this very cause she is by the whole Councell of Frankford consisting of three hundred Bishops or thereabouts resembled to the tyrannizing and usurping Athalia Lastly when that whole Synod came to the Kingly City for the Imperiall confirmation of their Acts seeing it is expresly testified by Zonaras and Paulus Diacâ—â—â—s that the Emperour was President in that assembly of the Bishops why should it not by like reason be thought that both himselfe when hee was present and in his absence the secular Iudges his Deputies held the same Imperial Presidency in the Nicene Synod 17. For that which they call the eighth generall Councell both the Emperours Deputies are called Presidents and in the sixt seventh eighth and tenth actions it is expresly said Presidentibus Imperatoribus the Emperours being Presidents yea and both of them by their very actions declared their Presidencie The Popes Legate would not have permitted Photius and his Bishops to bee heard the Emperours Deputies over-ruled them as was fit in that matter yea they said to the Photian Bishops Imperator jubet et vult the Emperours will pleasure and command is that you should speake in your owne cause Of the Emperour they intreat libety to defend themselves Rogamus domine Imperator we beseech you our Lord and Emperour that without interruption we may defend our cause When the bookes of Photius were brought into the Synod and burned in the midst thereof this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Emperour commanding it and many the like 18. Now these eight are all which are accounted by them in the number of generall and approved Councels for the space of more than a thousand years after Christ Of al which seeing it is now cleare that they were both called by Imperiall authoritie and governed by Imperiall Presidencie it hence appeareth that as by the warrant of the Scriptures and example of the ancient Church before Christ so also by the continued practice of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand years together these rights of calling and ordering generall Councels doe belong and were acknowledged to
from their predecessors the old Donatists Quod volumus sanctum est Not Emperours not Bishops none might controule him or say unto him Domine cur ita facis The Bishops were tyed to him by an oath to defend the Papacy that is his usurped authority and defend it contra omnes homines against all that should wag their tongues against it The Emperours and Kings saw how Hildebrand had used and in most indigne manner misused Henry the 4. how Alexander the third had insolently trodden on the necke of Fredericke what could they nay what durst they doe but either willingly stoop and prostrate themselves or else be forced to lye downe at the Popes feet and say unto him Tread on us O thou Lion of the Tribe of Iudah and according as it is written Set thy foot super Aspidem Basiliscum Could there possibly be any freedome or order in such Synods where the onely meanes of preserving freedome and order was banished Might not the Pope in such Councels doe and decree whatsoever either himselfe his will or faction would suggest unto him Say they had neither swords nor clubs nor other like instruments of violence in those Synods they needed none of them This Papall presidency was in stead of them all It was like the club of Hercules the very shaking of it was able and did affright all that none no not Emperours durst deale against it The removing of the Imperiall presidency made such a calme in their Synods that without resistance without any need of other further violence the Pope might oversway whatsoever he desired 31. And truly it may bee easily observed by such as attentively reade the Ecclesiasticall stories that together with the standing or fall of the Empire either the ancient faith or heresies prevailed in the Church So long as the Emperour being Christian retained his dignity and Imperiall authority no heresie could long take place but was by the Synodall judgement of Oecumenicall Councels maturely suppressed the faction of no Bishop no not of the Pope being able to prevaile against that soveraigne remedy But when once Gregorie the second Zachary and their succeeding Popes to Leo the third had by most admirable and unexplicable fraud subtilty clipt the wings and cut the sinewes of the Easterne Empire themselves first seizing upon the greatest part of Italy by the meanes of Pipin and then erecting a new Empire in the West the Imperiall authority being thus infringed the Easterne Emperour not daring the Westerne in regard of the late curtesie received from the Pope being not willing and neither of them both being able now to match and justle with the Pope this which was the great let and impediment to the Popes faction and the discovering of the man of sinne being now removed there was no meanes to keepe out of the Church the heresies which the Pope affected then the Cataracts of heresies being set open and the depths of the earth nay of the infernall pit being burst up heresies rusht in and came with a strong hand into the Church and those hereticall doctrines which in six hundred yeares and more could never get head passing as doubtfull and private opinions among a few and falling but as a few little drops of raine grew now unto such an height and outrage that they became the publike and decreed doctrines in the Westerne Church The Pope once having found his strength in the cause of Images wherein the first triall was made thereof no fancie nor dotage was so absurd for which he could not after that command when he listed the judgement of a generall Councell Transubstantiation Proper Sacrifice the Idoll of the Masse to which not Moloch nor Baal is to be compared their Purgatorian fire their five new-found proper Sacraments condignity of workes yea Supererogation and an armie of like heresies assayled and prevailed against the truth The Imperiall authority being laid in the dust and trampled under the sole of the Popes foot no meanes was left to restraine his enormous designes or hinder him in Councels to doe and define even what he listed And as the Imperiall authority which he so long time had oppressed is in any kingdome more or lesse restored and freed from his vassalage the other heresies which arose from the ruine and decay thereof are more or lesse expurged out of that Kingdome and the ancient truth restored therein Yea and still though but by insensible degrees shall hee and his authority wast and consume till not onely all the ten hornes of the Beast that is all the Kings whose authority he hath usurped and used as his hornes to push at Gods Saints shall hate the Whore that Romish Babylon and make her desolate and naked and burne her with fire but till himselfe also being despised and contemned of his owne lovers shall together with his adherents be utterly abolished and cast into that Lake of Gods wrath 32. You see now how unlawfull those Synods are by reason of the defect of Imperiall presidency you will perhaps demand whether by the want thereof there happened any particular disorder in them or ought contrary to freedome and synodall order whereunto I might in a word answer that there neither was nor could there bee ought at all done in any of those ten Synods with freedome and synodall order For though otherwise their proceedings had beene never so milde temperate and equall yet even for that one defect of Imperiall presidency and excludng the same whatsoever they did was disorderly and they all nothing but synods of disorder But yet for further satisfaction of that question let us omitting all the rest consider among very many some few particulars concerning their youngest and dearest baby of Trent was that equall dealing in Paul the 3. at the beginning of his Trent assembly to conspire and take secret counsell with the Emperour to make warre against the Protestants and root them out of the world The Italian Franciscan in his Sermon before Ferdinand stirring up both him and others to this butchery Exere vires tuas plucke up your spirit and strength and root out that pestiferous kinde of men nefas enim est for it is unlawfull to suffer them any longer to looke upon the light neither say that you will doe it it must be done even now at this present and without any delay Thus did he give the watchword and sound an alarme to their intended Massacre whereupon there ensued bellum cruentum calamitosum a bloody and cruell warre against the Protestants concerning which divers of the Princes of Germanie said in their Letters to the Emperour Wee shall so answer that every man may understand both that injury is done to us and that you doe undertake this warre Romani Antichristi impij Concilij Tridentini impulsu at the instigation of the Romane Antichrist and the impious Councell at Trent that the doctrine of the Gospell and the
liberty of Germany may bee oppressed Was this Concilium pacis or rather Concilium sanguinis a conspiracie not onely against the faith but against the life of Catholikes Was it fit his Holinesse should play Iudas part pretend love and emendation of the faith when he entended murder and an utter extirpation of the servants of God Could there be freedome for them at Trent in the Popes dominion when they might not be suffered to breathe or live at home in their owne free Cities and States Was not this a stratagem unknowne in the time of the Councell at Millane and Arimine to invite Catholikes to the Synod and promise liberty and free accesse but provide that they shall have no leisure not so much as come to the Councell 33. What equity or freedome could there either be or be expected in that Councell wherein the Pope who is the capitall enemy of the Catholikes took upon him to be their Iudge yea when himselfe who was reus guilty of heresie besides other crimes and who should have beene judged first of all tooke upon him to bee supreme Iudge in his owne cause Let Catiline be held for such a Iudge betwixt the Senate and himselfe it is not to bee doubted but Tully and all who stood for the liberty of their City and Country shall be proscribed and condemned as rebels and Catiline with his faction decreed to be the onely true Citizens the onely men fit to rule the Empire It was the just exception which those 47. Catholike Bishops that stood for Athanasius tooke against the Councell at Tyre wherein hee was condemned that Eusebius and Theogius the mortall enemies of Athanasius were his Iudges in that Synod Lex autem Dei inimicum neque testem neque judicem esse vult but the law of God prohibits a mans enemy to be a witnesse much more to be his Iudge The very same exception took Chrysostome against Theophilus and the Synod with him Theophilus saith he hath called us unto judgement before hee hath purged himselfe of the crimes objected against him quod contra omnes Canones Leges est which is against all lawes and Canons and againe it is not fit that Theophilus should judge us qui ipse reus est inimicus hostis who is himselfe guilty or accused of crimes and is also our enemy Thus Chrysostome A matter of such equity that both Pope Nicholas the first and Celestine the third say Ipsa ratio dictat Common reason doth teach that those who are ones enemies ought not to be their Iudges The Pope then being a professed enemie of Protestants can be now lawfull or competent Iudge of them and being himselfe reus called into question for heresies can be no lawfull Iudge in his owne cause and in those very heresies whereof he is accused And truly the answer whereby Bellarmine thought to avoid this most just exception against their Trent Councell and the rest doth much more confirme the equity thereof He confesseth that this holds in all save onely in the supreme Iudge He onely may be Iudge in his owne cause and against his enemies also all else must stand to the judgement of others The interpretation is true but in the application of this to the Pope there he faileth for hee intends the Pope to be that supreme Iudge than which there cannot be devised a more base begging of the question and most speciall controversie That he is not supreme we unavoydably prove by the words of Christ Dic Ecclesiae by the judgement of this fift Councell which judged and condemned both the Popes Cathedrall Constitution for hereticall and Vigilius himselfe for an heretike and in saying the fift Councell it is as much as if I said by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church all the former Councels consenting in faith with this fift and all that follow it approving the judgement thereof untill their Laterane Synod The same is further proved by the sixt generall Councell which judged and condemned Pope Honorius for an Heretike by that which they call the seventh which also condemned Honorius by the next which they account the eighth wherein it is decreed that in the case of heresie the Pope may be judged and that is the very case whereof the Pope is now accused by the Councels of Constance and Basil in both which it is decreed to be a doctrine of the Catholike faith that the Pope hath a superiour Iudge in the case both of heresie schisme and scandalous life by the practice of the Church in judging and deposing Liberius and Iohn the 12. by the very words of Bellarmine himselfe If the Bishops saith he in a Synod can convince the Pope of heresie possunt cum judicare deponere they may judge and depose him And if in any cause he have a superiour Iudge then is he not supreme Seeing then by all these besides infinite moe it is not onely proved but demonstrated that the Pope is not nor ought to be held as supreme Iudge but may in some causes be both judged condemned and deposed and seeing by Bellarmines owne confession none can be judge in his owne cause or of his adversaries towards whom he professeth open enmity but onely the supreme Iudge it inevitably followeth upon the Cardinalls owne words besides evident reason that the Pope neither was in the Councell of Trent nor can be in any Councell a lawfull Iudge either of Protestants or in those causes which he then undertooke to judge in which himselfe was a party and Reus seeing then he should be Iudge in his owne cause which equity and reason the law both divine and humane doe constantly prohibite 34. Adde hereunto the judgement of the ancient and Catholike Church I doe never reade or almost remember the holy Councell of Chalcedon but with a kinde of amazement I admire the rare piety prudence integrity moderation and gravity of those most glorious Iudges who supplying the Emperours place when he was absent were the Imperiall Presidents in that Councell Had they or such like Presidents beene wanting at that time it may justly be feared considering the eagernesse and temerity that I say not the insolency of the Popes Legates in that Synod that the Councell of Chalcedon had proved a worse Latrociny than the second Ephesine was In that Councell both these causes now mentioned fell out the one in Dioscorus the other in Athanasius Bishop of Paros Dioscorus came and sate down in his place among the other Patriarks Bishops as one who would be a Iudge in the causes proposed for in ancient Councels there was a different place and seats for the Bishops who judged and gave sentence in the Councell and for others who were actors whether plaintiffs and accusers or Rei and accused Now because Dioscorus himselfe was the partie who was called into question and to be judged and equity forbids a man to bee
but in these later there never was any power to binde any either to accept their Decrees or to undergoe their censures because ab initio there was a meere nullity in all their Acts. Againe the inflicting of any punishment upon the judgement of the former had the warrant though not of divine yet of humane authority and was to bee presumed as just the sentence of every Iudge even eo nomine because he is a Iudge being to bee presumed just untill upon evident proofe it bee declared to bee unjust But what censures or punishments soever are or at any time have beene denounced or inflicted on any upon the warrant or Iudgement of these last ten Synods they are all ab initio meerely tyrannous and unjust inflicted without any either divine or humane authority seeing those Synods had none at all there is not so much as a presumption that they were or could be just but for their want of authority in decreeing them they are though otherwise equall presumed to be unjust 43. And thus much I have thought good to insert concerning all sorts of Councels as well lawfull as unlawfull to manifest hereby not onely the injurious dealing of Baronius with this fift Councell against which he declameth as an impious and unlawfull conspiracy but their vanity also in extolling and magnifying many and specially those last ten for holy lawfull and oecumenicall Synods of which dignity they are so farre short that they are all most deservedly to be ranked with the Ephesine Latrocinie and put in the Classis of those which of all other are the most base impious unlawfull and disorderly Councells CAP. XX. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian and a refutation of the same 1. WEE have hitherto seene and fully examined all the materiall exceptions which Baronius could devise to excuse Pope Vigilius from heresie and in them consists the whole pith and all the sinewes of the cause they being the onely arguments which are to be reckoned as the lawfull warriers of the Cardinall Now followeth that other Troupe whereof I told you before of his piraticall and disorderly Straglers which the Cardinall hath mustred together not that they should dispute or reason in this cause but to raile and revile at every thing whereat their Leader is displeased And the Cardinall doth this with so impotent affections in so immodest that I say not so scurrill a manner and with such virulency of all uncivill and most undutiful speeches that you shall see him now having cast away all that gravity and modesty which is fit not onely for a Divine a Cardinall a Disputer but for a man of any temper or sobriety to act herein no other part but Hercules Furens or Ajax mastigophorus without all respect either of authority or dignity or innocency lashing every body and every thing that comes in his way be it friend or foe sparing nothing that seemes to crosse his fancy not the Emperour Iustinian not the Empresse Theodora not Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea not the Imperiall Edict not the controversie and cause it selfe of the Three Chapters not the Acts of the holy Generall Councell not Pope Vigilius himselfe nothing can scape the whippe of his tongue and pen. Let us begin with the Emperour against whom Baronius declameth in this manner 2. Princes to dare to make lawes for Priests who should obey the lawes made by them Such an one as Iustinian make lawes of faith an abcedary Emperour an illiterate Theologue utterly unlearned who knew not how to reade who could never reade the title of the Bible no not the very first elements not his Alpha Beta He on a sodaine to become a palliated Divine Hee to prescribe lawes for the Church as subject to his Hee against all right and equity to presume to make lawes of sacred matters of Priests He to set downe punishments for them Hee who was not onely thus utterly unlearned but withall an enemy to the Church a sacrilegious person a persecutor a grievous a monstrous persecutor one who was madde franticke and out of his wits who was possessed with an evill spirit and driven by the Devill himselfe Such an one make lawes for Bishops what is this else but to confound all things to treade under foote the sacred Canons to abolish utterly the Church discipline to dissolve all divine order and to make of the Kingdome of heaven which the Church is the very prison of hell where there is nothing but confusion Thus the Cardinall And this is but the first pageant of his Ajax and but some gleanings neither of that harvest which is abundant in his Annals 3. Not to seeke any exact or methodicall refutation hereof All that the Cardinall hath hitherto said may bee reduced to three notorious slanders by which he laboureth to blemish the immortall fame and unspotted 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 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 saith of him He was a man of an excellent wit and hee is deservedly 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 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 Pontificiall most worthy to be observed for this purpose Iustinian the Emperour a religious man sent unto the Apostolike See his profession of saith 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 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 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 cum debere pati That he should not trouble himselfe with writing books but maintaine the faith by publishing
they condemne the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall and by that Epistle condemne the Councell of Chalcedon à qua suscepta est by which that Epistle is approved Thus Facundus so very heretically that Nestorius Eutyches Dioscorus nor any cōdemned heretike could wish or say more than Facundus hath done both for their heresies against the Councell of Chalcedon For the impious Epistle of Ibas is wholly hereticall the approving of it is the overthrow of the whole Catholike faith and yet Facundus not onely himselfe defendeth that impious Epistle as orthodoxall and by it defendeth the person and writing of Theodorus of Mopsvestia a condemned heretike but avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to approve the same which condemnes it and every part of it even to the lowest pit of hell 14. Here by the way I must in a word put the reader in minde of one or two points which concern Possevine and Baronius in this passage If Facundus be a condemned heretike for writing in defence of the three Chapters what else can Possevine be who praysed those bookes of a condemned heretike for thus he writeth Facundus writ opus grande atque elegans a great and elegant worke containing twelve books fortified by the authorities of the Fathers in defence of the three Chapters Heretike Is that a brave and elegant booke that defendeth heresie can heresie be fortified by the testimonies of the holy Fathers What is this else but to make the holy Fathers heretikes So hereticall and spitefull is Possevine that together with himselfe he would draw the ancient and holy Fathers into one and the same crime of heresie The other point concernes Baronius hee sayth that the controversie or contention about the three Chapters was inter Catholicos tantum onely among such as were Catholikes doth not he plainly thereby signifie his opinion of Facundus that he was a Catholike for Facundus was as hot and earnest a contender in that controversie as Vigilius himselfe he writ in defence of the three Chapters twelve whole bookes elegant and brave bookes as Possevine saith he bitterly inveighed against the Emperour against all the condemners of them against Pope Vigilius himselfe when hee after his comming to Constantinople consented to the Emperor Seeing this Facundus a convicted and condemned hehetike is one of the Cardinals Catholikes must not heresie and Nestorianisme bee with him Catholike doctrine must not the impious Epistle be orthodoxall and the overthrow of the faith and decree of the Councell at Chalcedon bee an Article of Baronius faith even that which he accounted the Catholike faith But this by the way We see now what manner of Bishop Facundus was an obstinate heretike pertinaciously persisting in heresie What though Facundus call Theodorus of Caesarea an Origenist Did not the old Nestorians call Cyrill and other Catholikes Apollinarians of whom it seemes the defenders of the three Chapters learned to calumniate the Catholikes with the names of heretikes and Origenists when they were in truth wholly opposite to those and other heresies Can any expect a true testimony concerning Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea from Facundus concerning Catholikes from heretikes their immortall and malicious enemies nor theirs onely but enemies to the truth Such and of such small worth is the former witness of Baronius in this cause and against Theodorus 15. His other witnesse is Liberatus the Deacon who indeed sayth as plainly as Baronius that Theodorus was an Origenist and refers the occasion of that whole controversie touching the three Chapters to the malice of the same Theodorus For as Liberatus saith Pelagius the Popes Legate when he was at Constantinople entreated of the Emperour that Origen and his heresies wherewith the Easterne Churches specially about Ierusalem were exceedingly troubled might be condemned whereunto the Emperour willingly assenting published an Imperiall Edict both against him and his errors when Theodorus being an Origenist perceived that Origen who was long before dead was now condemned he to be quit with Pelagius for procuring the condemnation of Origen moved the Emperour also to condemne Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia who had written much against Origen whose writings were detested of all the Origenists the Emperour at Theodorus his suggestion made another Edict wherein he condemned Theodorus of Mopsvestia and the two other Chapters touching the writings of Theodoret and Ibas which bred so long trouble in the Church Thus Liberatus Who as you see speaketh as much and as eagerly against Theodorus as Baronius could wish and Liberatus lived and writ about that same time 16. Liberatus in many things is to be allowed in those especially wherein by partiality his judgement was not corrupt But in this cause of the Three Chapters in the occasion and circumstances thereof hee is a most unfit witnesse himselfe was deepely interressed in this cause partiality blinded him his stile was sharpe against the adverse part but dull in taxing any though never so great a crime in men of his owne faction Of him Binius gives this true censure hee was one of their ranke who defended the Three Chapters who also writ an Apology for Theodorus of Mopsvestia againe Baronius and Bellarmine have noted that divers things are caute legenda in Liberatus of him Possevine writeth There are many things in Liberatus which are to bee read with circumspection those especially which hee borrowed of some Nestorians and those are his narrations touching Theodorus of Mopsvestia that his writings were praised both by the Emperour Theodosius his Edict and by Cyrill and approved also in the Councell of Chalcedon all which to be lies Baronius doth convince Againe what Liberatus saith of the fift Councell is very warily to be read for either they were not his own or he was deceived by the false relation of some other but certainly they do not agree with the writings of other Catholike fathers Thus Possevine out of Baronius who might as well in plaine termes have called Liberatus a Nestorian heretike for none but Nestorians and such as slander the Councel of Chalcedon for hereticall can judge the writings of Theodorus which are ful of all heresies blasphemies and impieties to be approved in that holy Councell Againe Possevine rejecting that which Liberatus writeth of the fift Councell gives a most just exception against all that he writeth either touching Theodorus of Cesarea as being an Origenist or of the occasiō of this cōtroversie about the 3. Chapters as if it did arise from the cōdemning of Origen in all this Liberatus by the Iesuites confession was deceived by the false relation of others they agree not to the truth nor to the narrations of Catholike fathers Liberatus being an earnest favourer and defender of Theodorus Mopsvestenus could not chuse but hate Theodorus of Cesarea for seeking to have him and his writings condemned The saying of Ierome ought here to take place Professae inimicitiae suspitionem habent mendacij the report of a professed enemy ought to
his Epistle is apparent wherein they oppose not that he denyed Christ to be one of the Trinity but that hee called them heretikes who taught the Word incarnate to be made man That clause which they adde That Christ is one of the Trinity is an addition of the fift Councell it selfe explicating that of Christ which the Emperours Edict bound them to professe as being the true sense and meaning of the Councell at Chalcedon but not as being word for word set downe in the decree of Chalcedon And even as he were more than ridiculous who would accuse one to corrupt the Councell of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man who was borne in Bethleem and fled from Herod into Aegypt so is the Cardinall as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod or addition to the Councell of Chalcedon that they say the Councell taught the Word of God to bee man who is our Lord Iesus Christ one of the holy Trinity Both additions are true but neither of them affirmed to be expresly and totidem verbis set downe in the Councell of Chalcedon Why but looke to the Cardinals proofe for he would not for any good affirme such a matter without proofe What doe yee aske for proofe of the Cardinall I tell you it is proofe enough that he sayth it and truly in this poynt he produceth neither any proofe nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fift Councell or that the fift Councell cited them as the very expresse words of the Councell of Chalcedon all the proofe is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit which is a sory kind of arguing against any that love the truth for although against the Pope or their popish cause any thing which he writeth is a very strong evidence against them seeing the Cardinall is very circumspect wary to let nothing no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Popes dignity or the cause of their Church unlesse the maine force and undeniable evidence of truth doe wrest and wring it from his pen yet in any matter of history wherein he may advantage the Pope or benefit their cause it is not by many degrees so good to say the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirmes it which is now growne a familiar kinde of proofe among them as to say Ovid Aesop or Iacobus Voraginensis affirme it therefore it is certainly true His Annals in the art of fraudulent vile and pernicious untruths farre excell the most base fictitious Poemes or Legends that ever as yet have seene the Sunne CAP. XXVI The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius for that Ibas is sayd therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his refuted 1. THe second thing which our Momus carpeth at is for that in these Acts it is sayd that Ibas denyed the Epistle written to Maris to bee his which saith Baronius is untrue for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinall an untruth in plaine termes affirmes it to be a lye Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius they would never have quarelled with the Acts about this matter nor for this accused them to have beene corrupt They may as well collect the Edict of Iustinian or that famous Epistle of Pope Gregorie wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters to be corrupted and of no credit as well as the Acts of the fift Councell for in both them the same is said concerning the deniall of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denyall they may passe for sincere and incorrupt it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinall and Binius to carpe at the Acts for this cause which will much more appeare if any please but to view the Acts themselves For this is not spoken obitèr nor once but the Councell insisteth upon it repeateth it in severall places and divers times and if those words were taken away there would be an apparent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words then are truly the words of the true Acts the corruption is onely in the braine of Baronius and Binius 2. Now whereas the Cardinall and Binius so confidently affirme this to be untrue or a lye that Ibas denyed his Epistle and so accuse the whole Councell to lye in this matter they doe but keepe their owne tongues and pens in ure with calumnies the untruth and lye belongs neither to the Councell nor to the Acts but must bee returned to themselves to whom onely it is due For the Councels truth herein the Emperour is a most honourable witnesse who saith Demonstratur Ibas cam abnegasse Ibas is demonstrated or by evident proofe knowne to have denyed his Epistle Pope Gregory is another witnesse above exception who saith Epistolam Ibas denegat suam Ibas denyed the Epistle to be his the fift Councell also doth not onely affirme it but prove it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops and their interloquution in the Councell of Chalcedon they all sayd they received Ibas eo quod negabat illa because he did deny those things which were objected by his adversaries a great part of which was that Epistle All these are witnesses for the Councell what witnesses now doth the Cardinall or Binius bring to countervaile these truly not so much as one and one were but a poore number to be opposed to so many and so worthy men testifying the contrary Now whether the testimony of the Emperour Pope Gregory of six Metropolitanes and an whole generall approved Councell affirming this or Baronius without any one witnesse denying this be more credible let the very best friends of Baronius judge but Baronius loves to bee Iohannes ad oppositum to Emperours Popes Bishops and Councels if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate that is indeed if they say the truth 3. But yet Baronius hath a proofe of his saying which is this because Ibas confessed it to be his and hee tels us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon Say he did confesse it as I will not deny that he did though I verily thinke the Cardinall speakes an untruth in saying that this is in the Acts for I finde not in those Acts either any such expresse confession or ought from whence it can be collected and Iustinian plainly saith that Ibas durst not acknowledge it to be his for the blasphemies contained therein but I admit that Ibas confessed it to be his Doth it thence follow that he denyed it not to be his might he nor doe both might he not contradict himselfe doth not the Cardinall who neither for wit nor wisedome will yeeld one jote to Ibas doth not
conscriptis with their impious writings and all other heretikes condemned by the Catholike Church let that man bee accursed When the holy Councell not onely mentions the condemning of Origen but by their judiciall sentence themselves also condemne both him his errors and his impious writings what a face of Adamant had Binius against the truth against his owne text of the Councell against his conscience and knowledge to say there is no mention no not any levis mentio to be found in the Acts of the errors of Origen condemned or if Binius will not be perswaded of his untruth for us let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit who saith In these Synodall Acts there is made onely brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen and his errours condemned if there bee brevis mentio of him and his errours then Binius must cry the Acts forgivenesse for saying there is no mention at all no not levis mentio of his errours 2. Let us see now if Baronius deale any better Constat saith hee It is manifest by the testification of many that Origen Didimus and Evagrius together with their errours were condemned in this fift Synod and that there was written at least recited repeated against them those ten Anathematismes which Nicephorus setteth downe but in the Acts there is onely a briefe mention that Origen and his errours were condemned Baronius adds one speciall point further out of Cedrenus that in this fift Councell first they handled the cause against Origen and then against the Three Chapters So by the Cardinals profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod which it may be had many Sessions as the other Action about the three Chapters Besides this there wants also saith hee the letters or Edict published by Iustinian Thirdly there wants the Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen which is set downe by Cedrenus out of whom both Baronius reciteth it and Binius adjoyns it at the end of the Acts among the fragments which are wanting in these Acts. These three defects touching the cause of Origen doth the Cardinall alleage 3. But in very deed none of these three nor ought else which Baronius mentioneth argue any defect at all in these Acts but they evidently demonstrate in the Card. a maine defect of judgement and an overflowing superabundance of malice against this holy Synod and these true Acts thereof That the cause of Origen was not as hee supposeth the first Action or the first cause handled by the Synod I might alleage the most cleare testimony of his owne witnesse Nicephorus who after the narration of the three Chapters and the Synodall sentence touching them delivered which he accounts for the first Session of the Synod addeth In secunda autem Sessione but in the second Sessiō the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred read and Iustinian rursum Synodū de eis sententiā ferre jussit commanded againe the Synod to giue sentence in that cause So Nicephorus whereby it is evident that the Cardinal and his Cedrenus are foully deceived in saying that the cause of Origen was first handled by the Synod and after that the cause of the three Chapters but I oppose to these farre greater and even authentike records the Epistle of the Emperour to the Synod who at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Councell proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters and no other at all commanding them without delay to discusse and give their judgement in that I oppose the definition and Synodall decree wherein is set downe their whole proceeding and what they handled almost every day of their meeting from the beginning to the ending so that it alone is as a Thesean thred which wil not permit a man to erre in this cause unlesse he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth and wilfully depart out of that plaine path They came to the Synod to decide the controversie then moved about the Three Chapters at the command of the Emperour before they entred to the handling thereof they often intreated by their messengers Pope Vigilius to come together with them which was all that they did in the first second day of their meeting or Collation when Vigilius would not come then by the Apostles admonition they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed by setting downe a confession of their faith consonant to the foure former Councels and exposition of the Fathers and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters which was the summe of the third dayes Collation Cumque ita confessi simus initium fecimus examinationis trium Capitulorum and when wee had made this confession wee began the examination of the Three Chapters loe they did initium sumere they began with this Could they speak more plainly that the cause of Origen was not first handled as if prophetically they meant to refute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus and wee first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his owne writing there read before us This was all they did the fourth and a great part of the fift day of their Collatiō His de Theodoro discussis pauca de Theodoreto next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus wee caused a few things to bee repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret for the satisfying of the reader and this they did in the end of the fift day or Collation Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas In the third place we proposed and examined the Epistle of Ibas and this they did at large and it was all they did in the sixt day of their Collation The whole cause being thus and as the Councell confesseth most diligently and sufficiently examined the Councell as it seemeth by their owne words in the end of the sixt Collation intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting but before ought was done therein the Emperour sent unto the Synod certaine letters of Vigilius testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters and some other writings the reading of thē is all was done in the seventh day of their Collation Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before and these letters were read onely for a further evidence but not for necessity of the cause and for that the Synod did nothing themselves but onely heard the letters and applauded the Emperours zeale and care for the truth therefore it is that this seventh Collation and what was done therein is omitted in the Synodall sentence and the Councell which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pronounced their sentence by this occasion deferred it to the next which was the eighth day
Against these Acts the Cardinalls proofe out of the sixt Synod is so idle and so ridiculously sophisticall as not disputing ad idem that hee had need to pray that the Sophisters in our Schooles heare not of and applaud his rare skill in Logicke If because some copies were corrupted by the Monothelites those which most certainly escaped their hands must bee condemned then no deed nor testament though never so truly authenticall may be trusted for a forgerer may exscribe it and adde what he pleaseth in his extracted copy or because the Romane copies of the Nicene Canons were corrupted by l Zozimus Bonifacius or some of their friends therefore the authenticke records thereof the true copies of which the Africane Bishops with much labour purchased from Constantinople and Alexandria must be distrusted which yet the Africane Synod Saint Austen among the rest so much honoured that they gave a just check to the Pope and manifested that blot in him which all the water in Tiber will never wash away 3. The Cardinall and after him Binius tels us a great matter and rare newes that in Pope Gregories time the Acts of this Synod were intire and that he sent the genuine copy thereof to Queen Theodalinda An evidence by the way that the Cardinall wittingly and wilfully slandereth the acts which Gregory followed to have beene corrupted wherein Ibas is truly said as the true genuine acts doe also witnesse to have denyed the Epistle to be his But let that passe why doe they mention the Copies of the Acts to have been sincere in Gregories time as if after that time no true copies thereof could be found In the sixt Councell more than 70. yeares after the death of Gregory divers true ancient and incorrupt copies were produced of the same one of them were found in the very Registry at Constantinople which the Monothelites of that See had not corrupted and falsified by it and the other true and entire copies were discovered and convinced the corruption of those three bookes which they cancelled and defaced how will or can either the Cardinall or Binius or any other prove that these Acts now extant are not consonant to those or taken out or published according to them Truly I doe verily perswade my selfe considering both that the sixt Councell was so carefull and vigilant to preserve the true Acts and also that these which now we have are so exact as before I have declared that these are no other than the copies of those selfe same ancient and incorrupted acts save some few and light faults which by the writers thereof have happened which Pope Gregory had and in that sixt Councell were read and commended to all posterity And I doubt not but the fraud of heretikes being then so fully and openly discovered the Church ever since hath most diligently and curiously not onely carefully preserved the same Which may well be thought to bee the true cause why of all the eight Councels the Acts of these three last that at Chalcedon this fift and the other of the sixt are come most safe and intire unto our hands Howsoever certaine it is that the Cardinall and Binius doe most childishly sophisticate in accusing the copies of the Acts now extant which onely we defend to be corrupted because those three or moe copies of the Acts which were produced in the sixt Synod which we detest and condemne much more than the Cardinall were falsified by the Monothelites none of those false additions being found in these 4. The second imposture or fictitious writing which Baronius observeth to be inserted in these acts are the two lawes of Theodosius against Nestorius recited in the fift Collation We may not omit this sayth he that those lawes of Theodosius against Nestorius aliter se habere in Codice Theodosiano are otherwise set downe both in the Code of Theodosius and in the Ephesine Councell in which there is no mention at all of Theodoret as in one of these there is and then hee concludeth haec de commentitiis scriptis this may be spoken of the counterfeit writings inserted in these Acts. Thus Baronius I am somewhat ashamed that such a reason should slip from a Cardinall specially from Baronius for it bewrayes an exceeding imbecility of judgement There is but one law extant in the Theodosian Code against Nestorius and the followers of his sect Now because the lawes which are recited in the Synodall Acts of this fift Councell are different from it hereupon the Cardinall presently concludes it to be a forgery an imposture he might as well conclude the Gospell of S. Luke or S. Iohn to bee forged because they differ from the Gospels of Matthew and Marke or the Booke of Deuteronomy to be forged because some lawes in Exodus are different from some in Deuteronomy Is it possible or credible that Baronius could be so simple and so infatuated as to thinke one Emperour might not make divers lawes concerning one heresie specially against divers persons or divers writings though all of them supporting one heresie The law in the Code and these in the Acts are different lawes True they are so but can the Cardinall prove or doth he once offer to prove that they are one law and that they ought not to differ No the Cardinall was wise enough not to undertake so hard a taske For it is as evident as the Sun that the law against Nestorius which is in the Code was one and first published and long after that these which are recited in the Acts. In the one of these it is said Iterum igitur doctrina Diodori Theodori Nestorij visa est nobis abominanda It seemes good to us againe to detest the doctrine of Diodorus Theodorus and Nestorius This Iterum imports it was once done before in a former law and now in this the Emperour would doe the same again As the lawes so the occasion of them was quite different That in the Code was made indeed against the heresies of the Nestorians but in it none of them were personally by name condemned but only Nestorius all the rest who favoured that heresie were in a generality not by name condemned because when that law was made the Nestorians honoured and held Nestorius for their chiefest patron and urged his writings In these two recited in the Acts Diodorus of Tarsis Theodorus of Mopsvestia and their writings are particularly and by name condemned as well as Nestorius and in the later the writings also of Theodoret against Cyrill for when after that first law set downe in the Code the Nestorians durst not nor could without danger of punishment either praise Nestorius or reade write or urge his books which were all by that law condemned then they began to magnifie Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Diodorus and the writing of Theodoret all which were as plaine and plentifull for their heresie as Nestorius himselfe but because these were
to beg forgivenesse of his Holinesse who had more reason to have prayed pardon of Mennas for disquieting and waking him out of that long and sound sleepe 6. So both the occasion the contents and the time besides other circumstances doe evidently convince that submission to bee a counterfeit But how comes it then into the Popes Constitution You must enquire this of Baronius or of those who have accesse to the Vaticane whence this Constitution was taken might one have the sight of the Vaticane copy I doubt not but either there are some evident prints of error in inserting this confession into it or which I exceedingly mistrust Baronius hath used a little of the Vaticane art in this matter Howsoever certaine it is that this confession hath neither fit coherence nor any dependence at all of ought in the Constitution but it is both complete and much more orderly this being wholly expunged than if so idle a fiction be annexed unto it But let the Cardinall and his friends looke to this matter by what meanes or whose fraud this was inserted I thought needfull to admonish thē of the fault nor for the love and affection I beare to that Constitution of Vigilius could I with silence see and suffer it to be blemished therewith 7. The second is Eustathius of whom I would have spoken more in this place but that his fained and fabulous narrations are so clearly discovered before that I thinke it needlesse to adde ought concerning him or them 8. The third writing is a book in very great request with Baronius and that is those Epistles which beare the name of Theodoret of which though much hath beene sayd before yet will I here adde somewhat to manifest them further to bee counterfeit and most false Among them two are most eminent that to Dioscorus and the other to Pope Leo. That the former is forged the other doth demonstrate For by that to Dioscorus which was writ anno 444. Theodoret is made to say that he had then beene Bishop 26. yeares whereas by the later written anno 449. it is cleare that in that yeare he had beene Bishop no more than 26. yeares So vice versa that the later is forged is demonstrated by the former for by that to Leo written an 449. Theodoret is made to say that he had then beene Bishop just 26. whereas by the other to Dioscorus written anno 444. it is witnessed that hee had beene Bishop 26. yeares five yeares before he writ to Leo. And they are both demonstrated to be meere fictitious in that Theodoret is made in them both to testifie that for that whole time of 26. yeares he had beene orthodoxall in faith and for proofe thereof he appeales to his owne writings written 12.15 and 20. yeares before that whereas it is as cleare as the Sunne that hee was a most earnest defender and writer in defence of Nestorius and his heresies and for this cause was justly condemned by the holy Councell of Ephesus yea and his writings yet extant doe undenyably convince the same Besides in that to Dioscorus hee professeth his ardent affection and love to Cyrill whereas after Cyrils death in an open assembly at Antioch he most bitterly unjustly and spitefully declamed against him Further in that to Dioscorus it is said that he was orthodoxall anno 444. when that Epistle was written whereas in his Epistle written anno 448. or after unto Irene a Nestorian Bishop of Tyre justly deposed by the Emperour he bemones both the publike cause and the case of Irene comparing his to the cause of Susanna and lamenting that either they must offend God and hurt their owne conscience if they forsake Nestorianisme or else fall into unjust decrees and punishments of men if they continued in that doctrine and who further calls this deposed and hereticall Bishop Dilectissimum piissimum Irenaeum The most beloved and most holy Irene The like forgery might be shewed in his Epistle to Nomus written also anno 448. wherein hee exclameth against the Emperor Theodosius as if he had given toleration free liberty of Religion to Arians Eunomians Manichees Marcionites Valentinians Mōtanists yet restrained yea excluded him ab omni civitate from every City in his Empire which to bee a most vile and unjust slander the piety and zeale of Theodosius highly renowned both by Sozomen and Pope Leo doth demonstrate and whose Edicts against heretikes do also manifest the same seeing therein out of his hatred to heresie and specially to Nestorianisme he forbids any such to enjoy their Sees or to scape unpunished and being misinformed that Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorileum were Nestorians hee upon that misinformation unjustly and rashly subjected them to that censure but being truly enformed of Domnus and Theodoret that they embraced Nestorianisme he justly confirmed their deposition forbidding any either to reade or have the bookes or Theodoret or of Nestorius Theodorets being every whit as bad as the bookes of Nestorius It were easie to shew the like prints of forgery in all those Epistles going under the name of Theodoret which the Cardinall so much magnifieth but I am loth to stay too long in them the falshood of which hath beene so often before demonstrated 9. A fourth is that Action concerning Domnus inserted by Baronius and Binius into the Acts of the Councell at Chalcedon This to be undoubtedly a forgery and fiction was before proved because Domnus was dead before the Councell at Chalcedon for so both the Emperour Iustinian in his Edict and the fift Councell expresly witnesse saying the holy Councell at Chalcedon condemned Domnus post mortem after he was dead for that he durst write that the twelve chapters of Cyrill should not be spoken of Now that whole Action containing nothing else but a consultation and decree for the maintenance of Domnus by some annuall allowance out of the revenewes of the See of Antioch none I thinke will once imagine that so grave so wise and worthy an assembly of 603. Bishops would either consult or make a decree for the allowance of a stipend or maintenance to be given to a dead man specially not to Domnus whose deposition in the Ephesine latrociny the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved and it is very unlikely they would judge him worthy to have maintenance out of that Bishopricke of which by reason of his heresie they judged him most justly to bee deprived But if there were no other reasons to manifest this the place whence it comes might justly cause one to distrust the same for is it thinke you in the Greeke and originall copies of that Councell No certainly it is not as both the Cardinall and Binius will assure you Desideratur in Graeco it is wanting in the Greeke or originall nor onely is it now wanting there but certum est eadem caruisse
singing an hymne behold the Lord commeth Thus Anastasius Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend were easie to demonstrate if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part for they not onely condemne this as untrue but prove it by divers arguments to be such The first for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely for the cause of the Three Chapters and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof aperti mendacij arguitur is convinced of an evident untruth The second because seeing as they say Mennas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented Iustinian would conciliate the Pope unto him by all faire meanes and intreate him no otherwise but favourably least if the Pope were displeased he should not yeeld his consent and then the whole purpose of the Emperour should bee made frustrate Their third reason is an argument à testimonio negativè because neither Procopius nor Facundus mention any such violence or abuse offered to the Pope of which reason I have spoken before A fourth is taken from the time whereas he saith that Vigilius came to Constant. on Christmas eve mendacij redarguitur hee is proved to lye by that which Procopius saith Many other reasons might bee added but these of Baronius and Binius are sufficiâ—nt to convince Anastasius of lying and open lying in this passage which is as now you see nothing but a fardell of lyes for neither did the people take that oportunity to accuse Vigilius nor did they accuse him of those crimes nor did the Empresse for that cause send for Vigilius neither did shee but Iustinian call him to Constantinople neither did shee send Anthimus Scribo to pull him away by violence neither commanded she him not to forbeare Vigilius in any place but only in Saint Peters Church this was but the kind affection of Anastasius to the honour of Peters See neither did shee sweare to excommunicate Scribo if hee brought not Vigilius neither did Scribo apprehend him in the Temple of Saint Cicile neither did Vigilius distribute a largesse at that time when he was apprehended neither did they violently carry him to Tiber and there ship him neither did the people follow him and desire him to pray for them neither when the ship was gone did they revile him nor cast stones nor clubs nor dung after him nor imprecate and curse him neither was hee at that time brought but as by Procopius appeareth long before hee voluntarily went to Sicilie and made so long stay there that the Emperour having called him the yeare before as by Victor is cleare by reason of his long abode in Sicilie he called him the yeare after againe out of Sicily as Procopius sheweth Neither came he to Constantinople on Christmas Eeve but either on the five and twentieth of Ianuary as Marcellinus saith or as by Procopius who is farre more worthy of credit may bee gathered about the middle of April next ensuing neither did the Emperour when they met kisse him nor did they weepe for joy the one of the other nor did they sing the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator behold the Lord the Ruler is come It was a very pretty allusion of Anastasius and very apt for the season in honour of the Pope to take part of the text expressing the joy for Christs Advent in the flesh and turne it to an Anthem to congratulate the Popes Advent on Christmas eve to Constantinople but I feare it will hardly be beleeved that men in those dayes did use such base nay blasphemous flattery to the Pope this hymne would have better befitted the time of Leo the tenth when in the open Councell they durst say to Pope Leo Weepe not O daughter Syon Ecce venit Leo de Tribu Iuda behold the Lion of the Tribe of Iuda commeth the roote of Iesse behold GOD hath raised up to thee a Saviour who shall save thee from the hands of the destroying Turks and deliver thee from the hand of the Persecutors O most blessed Leo wee have looked for thee we have hoped that thou shouldest come and be our deliverer The former Anthem had beene sutable to such a time the art of their blasphemous Gnatonisme to the Popes was not halfe learned in Iustinians dayes and most incredible it is that Iustinian would use or could endure in his presence such entertainment of Vigilius knowing that hee was an earnest and violent oppugner of his Imperiall Edict in which he had expresly anathematized and accursed all that did defend the Three Chapters This proclaming of an Anathema against Vigilius and the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator with kissing weeping for joy make no good concord nor harmony together Let this be accounted for no moe than twenty Anastasian lyes and those are the fewest which are bound up in this fardle 19. After that Anastasius hath as you have seene safely landed the Pope at Constantinople then hee tels you That for two yeares space there was continuall strife about Anthimus the Emperour and Empresse laboured to have Vigilius restore him urged him with his promise and handwriting but Vigilius would no way consent and when he found them so heavy towards him he said I perceive now it was not Iustinian and Theodora but Dioclesian and Eleutheria that called mee hither doe with me what you will thereupon they buffeted him and called him homicide and killer of Sylverius then hee fled to the Church of Euphemia and held himselfe by a Piller of the Altar but they puld him thence cast him out of the Church put a rope about his necke dragged him through all the City till evening and then put him in prison feeding him with a little bread and water and after this they banished him also with the rest of the Romane Clergy And these like the rest are meerely the sond and sottish dreames of Anastasius of as Baronius useth to call them lyes Baronius will assure you that it was not Anthimus or his restoring but the Three Chapters about which Vigilius was sent for The cause of Anthimus who was deposed tenne yeares before was quite forgotten and to see the sottishnesse of Anastasius Iustinian had long before written to Vigilius requiring him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius had done this upon the Emperours letter the Popes letters are recorded both in Baronius and Binius dated when Iustinus was Consull which was sixe whole yeares before the Popes comming to Constantinople all that time the Emperour still liked the deposing of Anthimus and many wayes had approved Mennas for the Bishop Now after all this when the whole Church and every man was troubled with a more waighty cause of the Three Chapters Anastasius brings in this that the Emperour and the Pope quarrelled for two yeares about an old forgotten matter of
for by it hath beene lift up the man of sinne Christian Empires have beene robbed the ignorant seduced the whole Church abused Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him as the most falsly supposed donation hath done to the Catholike Church 5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinall in this reason drawne from the event and the Emperours presence Some ten yeares before this Pope Agapetus being sent by Theodotus King of the Gothes came to Constantinople and to the same Emperour It so fell out that at that time Anthimus an heretike and an intruder held the Sea of Constantinople Agapetus deposed him that is hee declared and denounced which was true indeed that hee was never lawfully Bishop of that See and that himselfe did not nor ought others to hold him for the lawfull Bishop thereof whereupon Mennas was chosen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his roome Vigilius was called by the Emperour Agapetus sent by a Gothish usurper Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxall Professor Agapetus sent by an heretike and Arian King Vigilius called purposely about causes of faith Agapetus sent only about civill and but casually intermedling w th Ecclesiasticall causes You would now even blesse your selfe to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu by it proves the Popes presence at the same Court with the same Emperor to have brought such an infinite unspeakeable good unto the Church as could scarce bee wished Agapetus no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth but even from God himselfe and by him commanded to goe thither with an errant from heaven hee seemed to bee sent to intreat of peace but hee was commanded by God to goe ut imperaret imperantibus that he should shew himselfe to be an Emperour above the Emperour He like Saint Peter had not gold nor silver being faine to pawne the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles Now was demonstrated the highest power of the Pope that without any Councell called about the matter as the custome is hee could depose a Patriarke at other times hee may not have that title and a Patriark of so high a See as Constantinople and so highly favoured by the Emp. Empresses Now was demonstrated that Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet that the Popes power is above all Canōs for herby was shewed that he by his omnipēt authority may do matters with the Canons without the Canons against all Canons seeing his judgement was without a Synod which in a Patriarks cause is required fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem it was according to his supreme authority which is transcēdent above all Canōs or to use Bellarmines phrase hee did shew himselfe to bee Princeps Ecclesiae one that may doe against the whole Church Nay if you well consider admirari non desines you will never cease to wonder to see that Agapetus a poore man as soone as hee came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus corū facta rescindere jura dare omnibusque jubere to command Emperours to adnull their Acts to depose a Patriarke and thrust him from his throne to set another there to set downe lawes and command all men and to do all this without any Synod such a Pope was Agapetus that I know not an similis alius inveniri possit whether such another can bee found among them all Thus declameth Baronius Where thinke you all time was the Cardinals argument ab adventu Experience teacheth that when Popes leave their See and goe to the Court or Emperours presence the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazzard If Agapetus his comming to Constantinople or to the Emperour did not hazzard or endanger the Church how came it to bee perillous a few yeares after in Vigilius and where were now the most wise examples of Pope Leo and the other who in great wisedome could never be drawne to the East and from their owne See how was the holy Church now fixed to Rome when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople perceive you not how these arguments lie asleepe in the cause of Agapetus which the Cardinall rouseth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople This ab adventu as all the Cardinals Topicke places is drawne from the art and authority of Esops Satyr If they make for the Pope as the event did in Agapetus then the Cardinall with his Satyrs blast will puffe them up and make them swell to demonstrations But if they make against the Pope as did the event in Vigilius all arguments in the world drawne from the cause effect or any other Topicall or demonstrative place the Cardinall with a contrary breath can turne them al to Sophistications He is another Iannes or Iambres of this age when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharao it shall sting like a Serpent when it is used against King Pharao it shall bee as dull and dead as a stick 6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the comming of Vigilius to Constantinople what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with Iustinian Sure the Cardinall in good discretion should have expressed them at least some one of them but hee was too politike to open such secrets of their State for mine owne part I cannot but first condemne his foule ingratitude in this point Vigilius before hee came to Constantinople was earnest in oppugning the truth and Catholike faith by defending of the Three Chapters hee defended them by words by writings by censures by the utmost of his power All the hurt the Emperour did him was this that he converted him to the truth that hee brought him to define by an Apostolicall Constitution that truth which before hee oppugned and in this tune the Emperour kept him for five or sixe yeares together but then when his old fit of heresie came upon him againe when at the time of the generall Councell he forsook the Emperours holy faith his communion and as may bee thought even his company and presence also by this absence from the Emperor he relapsed quite from the Catholike faith even from that which before hee had defended and defined so long as hee kept society with the Emperour When the Emperours presence made hereticall Pope Vigilius for the space of five or sixe yeares a Catholike Pope at least in shew and profession doe you not thinke Baronius to deale unkindly with the Emperour in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperour that is in effect to blame and little lesse than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresie and embraced or made profession of the Catholike faith 7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius
in particular by his comming to Constantinople so there is another and publike benefit which ensued thence to the whole Church and that so great and so happy that if we should as the Cardinall doth measure things by the event the comming of Agapetus to Constantinople though they glory therein more than in any other example of antiquity is no way comparable to this of Vigilius for by this comming of Vigilius it was demonstrated by evident experience that the Pope may say and gainsay his owne sayings in matters of faith and then define ex Cathedra both his sayings that is two direct contradictories to be both true seeing Pope Vigilius first while hee temporized with the Emperour defined ex Cathedra that the Three Chapters ought to bee condemned and after that when it pleased him to open the depth of his owne heart defined the quite contrary ex Cathedra that the Three Chapters ought to bee defended By it was further demonstrated that the Pope may not onely be an heretike but teach also and define and that ex cathedra an heresie to be truth and so be a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgment of an holy generall Councell and of the whole Catholike Church These and some other like conclusions of great moment for the instruction of the whole Church of God are so fully so clearly so undenyably demonstrated in the cause of Pope Vigilius when he came to Constantinople that had the Cardinall or his favourers I meane the maintainers of the Popes infallibility grace to make use thereof for the opening of their eyes in that maine and fundamentall point wherein they are now so miserably blinded they might have greater cause to thank God for his comming thither than for the voyage of Agapetus or of any other of his predecessors undertaken in many yeares before 8. Where are now the great hurts and inconveniences which the Cardinall fancieth by Vigilius his comming to the Emperour Truly I cannot devise what one they can finde but the disgrace onely of Vigilius in that upon his comming he shewed himselfe to be a temporizer a very weather-cocke in faith a dissembler with God and his Church pretending for five or six yeares that hee favoured the truth when all that time he harboured in his brest the deadly poyson of that heresie which as before his comming he defended so at the time of the Councell he defined This blot or blemish of their holy Father neither I nor themselves with all the water in Tiber can wash or ever wipe away The best use that can be made of it is that as Thomas distrusted to make others faithfull and void of distrust so God in the infinitenesse of his wisedome permitted Pope Vigilius to be not only unconstant but hereticall in defining causes of faith that others by relying on the Popes judgement as infallible might not be hereticall and yet even for this very fact thus much I must needs say that if the Cardinall thinke it was the place or the City of Constantinople that wrought this disgracefull effect in Vigilius it may bee truly replyed unto him much like as Themistocles did to the foolish Seriphian ascribing his owne ignobility to the basenesse of the towne of Seriphus certainly though Silvester Iulius and Calestine had beene never so oft at Constantinople they had beene orthodoxall and heroicall Bishops but Vigilius hereticall and ignoble though he had beene nayled to the posts of the Vaticane or chained to the pillars of it as fast as Prometheus to Caucasus The soyle and ayre is as Catholike at Constantinople as in the very Laterane it is as hereticall in Rome as in any City in all the world The onely difference is in the men themselves the former where ever they had come caried with them constant heroicall and truly pontificall minds Vigilius in every place was of an ambitious unstable dissembling hypocriticall and hereticall spirit which that every one may perceive I will now in the last place and in stead of an Epilogue to this whole Treatise set downe a true description of the life of Vigilius partly because it may bee thought a great wrong to reject the narration of Anastasius and not some way to supply that defect touching the life of so memorable a Pope as was Vigilius partly with a true report of this hereticall Popes life to requite the labour of Baronius in his malitious slanders of the religious Emperour Iustinian and specially because Vigilius being the subject in a manner of this whole Treatise it seemes to mee needfull to expresse the most materiall circumstances touching the entrance the actions the end of him who hath occasioned us to undertake this so long and as I truly professe both laborious and irksome labour 9. I confesse I have no good faculty in writing their Popes lives Nec fonte labra prolui Caballino nec in bicipiti somniasse Parnasso memini I have not tasted of their streames of Tiber more holy than Helicon nor ever had I dreame or vision in their sacred Parnassus yet with their leave will I adventure to set downe some parts of the life of Vigilius which doe afford as much variety of matter and are as needfull to be knowne and remembred as any other of that whole ranke from S. Peter to Paul the fift 10. That many of their Popes have unjustly climbed up to S. Peters Chaire I thinke none so unskilfull as not to know none so malitious as to deny But whether any of them all I except none not the boy-Pope Iohn the 12. not the Fox Boniface not Silvester the second who had it by a compact with the Devill of whom hee purchased it with the gift of his soule not Iohn the 23. called a Devill incarnate not any else whether any of them all I say obtained the See with more impiety or greater villany than Vigilius may be justly doubted He intending to be a good cammock beganne according to the Proverb to hooke and crooke betimes and gape after that eminent Throne His first attempt was in the time of Boniface the second with whom he prevailed so far that when Boniface in a Roman Synod had made a Constitution that he should nominate his successor before them all he named and constituted Vigilius to succeed to himselfe for the performance of which both he and all the rest of the Synod did binde themselves both by subscription and by a solemne oath Vigilius seemed for a while to be cocke-sure of the See but it fell out contrary to his expectation at this time the Senate of Rome justly withstood as Pope Silverius witnesseth that nomination It may be they knew the crooked disposition of Vigilius how unfit hee was to make a Bishop nor the Senate onely but the Ecclesiasticall Canons resisted it Thou endeavouredst this contra jura canonica saith Pope Silverius against the Canonicall right The Itaian lawes also resisted it at that
the Fox now become wil for ever stand without climbe in at the window he will no more either Christ himselfe shall reach the keyes unto him that he may be his lawfull Vicar or open and shut who will for Vigilius Thus by the death of Silverius the true and lawful Pope and by the abdication or resignation which is a death in law of the usurping Pope Vigilius the See is wholly vacant and that was as Anastasius witnesseth for the space of sixe dayes 15. In this vacancy of the See Baronius not onely tels you that there was which is not unlike very great deliberatiō about the election of a new Pope but as if hee had beene present in the very conclave at that time or as if by some Pythagoricall metempseuchosis the soules of some of those Electors comming from one beast to another had at last entred into the Cardinals breast declares their whole debatement of the matter pro con what was said for Vigilius what against Vigilius which kinde of poetry if any be pleased with they may have abundance of it in his Annals for my selfe I told you before I never dreamed as yet in their Romane Parnassus that I dare presume to vent such fictions fancies In that one he sounded the depth indeed both of Vigilius counsels and of the consultations of the Electors Of Vigilius hee saith that hee gave over the Popedome not with any purpose to leave it but as it were to act a part in a comedy and seeme to doe that which he never meant that he did it fretus potentià Bellisarij quod esset eum mox iterum conscensurus because he knew that by the meanes of Bellisarius hee should shortly after bee elected and placed in it againe or to use the Cardinals own comparison he did not play at mum chance but knowing how the election would goe after hee had given over haud dubiam jecit aleam hee knew what his cast would be and what side of the Die would fall upward hee knew his cast would bee better than jactus venereus it would be the cast of the triple Crowne As for the Electors he tels us that they chose him not for any worth piety vertue or such like Pontificall qualifications of which they saw none in him but to avoid a schisme in the Church because they knew if they should choose another the Empresse and Bellisarius would maintaine the right of Vigilius and as they had thrust him in so they would uphold and maintaine him in the See and for this cause at the instance of Bellisarius they all with one consent chose their old friend Vigilius and now make him the true and lawfull Pope the undoubted Vicar of Christ which was a fine cast indeed at the Dies 16. Now though this may seeme unto others to demonstrate great basenesse and pusilanimitie in the Electors at that time who fearing a little storme of anger or persecution would place so unworthy a man in the Papall throne and though it testifie the present Romane policy to be such that if Simon Magus nay the devill himself can once but be intruded into their Chaire put in possession thereof he shall be sure to hold it with the Electors consent if hee can but storme and threaten in a Pilates voyce to incense the Emperour or some potent King to revenge his wrong if they ever choose any other yet the Cardinal who was privy to the mysteries of their Conclave commends this for salubre consilium a very wholesome advice wisely was it done to chuse Vigilius nay as if that were too little he adds it was Divinitus inspiratum consilium God himself inspired this divine councell from heaven into their hearts rather to choose an ambitious an hypocriticall a Symoniacall a schismaticall an hereticall a perfidious a perjured a murderous a degraded an accursed a diabolicall person to be their Pope rather than hazzard to sustain a snuffe of Bellisarius or a frowne of Theodoraes countenance Howsoever chosen now Vigilius was by commō consent and solennibus ritibus made the true and lawfull Pope from thence forward and with all solemnity of their rites placed in the Papall throne and put not onely in the lawfull but quiet and peaceable possession thereof the whole Romane Church approving and applauding the same Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires hee so long gaped and thirsted after At the first onset hee sought the Papacy but got it not at the second turne hee got it but by usurpation and intrusion onely but now at this third and last boute hee hit the marke indeed hee got the rightfull possession of it and is now become what hee would bee the true Bishop of Rome and Vicar of S. Peter 16. I have stayed somewhat long in the entrance of Vigilius and yet because I have set downe no more but a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a naked undecked narration or as it were onely rough hewed I must pray the reader that hee will permit mee to set downe some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinall Baronius for though all men knew him to bee one whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oyle and who will bee sure to say no more ill of any of them than meere necessity and evidence of truth inforceth him yet so unfit am I to write their Popes lives that for want of fit termes I am inforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Description of Vigilius heare then no longer mee but the great Cardinall the deare friend of Vigilius telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope heare him defining Vigilius in this manner Hee was an ambitious Deacon who by a madde desire burned with pride whom thirst of vaine glory drove into madnesse and into the hellish gulfe by meanes whereof he makes shipwracke in the very haven becomes a Rocke of offence and seemes an infidell in faith a bondslave to impious and hereticall Theodora that is to Megera to Alecto and the hellish furies who with Lucifer desired to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the Starres but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes fals downe into the depth which crimes with Cain he having so inclosed in his breast must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond Vnsavory salt worthy by all to bee trodden under foote and cast into the dunghill of heresies who had got unto him the stench of heretical pravity who boūd himselfe by an obligation under his owne hand yea by his oath also to patronize heretikes who promised to abolish the faith and Councell of Chalcedon It was the just iudgement of God that hee should fall from the faith who became a Vassall to vaine glory a schismatike a Symoniacke a murderer
this minde were hereticall and heretikes then most certainly Vigilius who writ this Epistle with the like obstinate and pertinacious minde must needs bee judged to be rebellious against the Church and as heretically affected in minde as Arius or Eutyches himselfe Pride and insolency is so farre from excluding an hereticall minde as Bellarmine would here perswade that it is even an individuall companion yea essentiall unto it None can possibly have an hereticall but â—o nomine he hath an ambitious heart the pride whereof causeth him to condemne the just sentence of the Catholike Church and prefer before it his owne fancy and opinion 39. You see now how inconsequent both these reasons of the Cardinals are seeing Vigilius might bee hereticall in heart though both his writings were secret and his minde ambitious Let us yet a little further debate this matter with the Cardinall Say you that Vigilius did not write this hereticall Epistle ex animo or from his heart I pray you when looked your Cardinalship into the heart of Vigilius how know you that he was not an heretike in heart when he was so hereticall in profession or how know you of S. Hildebrand of Boniface 8. or of any of all the Popes that lived since their times that they were not heretikes and plaine Infidels in heart when their words were Catholike I would gladly for my learning be informed how Bellarmine or the most acute Lynceus of them all do or can know otherwise than by their outward professions what any of all the Popes beleeved and thought in their heart What Innocent the third when he decreed the doctrine of Transubstantiation what Leo the tenth when he condemned Luther or what Paul Iulius and Pius the fourth when they confirmed their Trent Councell How know you that in their hearts they beleeved those doctrines or that they did not dissemble and faine as you say Vigilius did What can you say for Pius the fourth which may not be sayd for Vigilius also Doth Pius say he did before and now doth thinke as the Trent masters doe Pope Vigilius sayth the like and most plainly Eam fidem quam tenetis that faith which you Anthimus Severus and Theodosius doe hold I signifie unto you that I have held and that I doe now hold the same Doth Pius call the Trent Fathers his beloved brethren in Christ so doth Vigilius call those hereticall Bishops his beloved brethren in Christ nay in Liberatus he calls them even Christs Doth Pope Pius professe an unity betwixt himselfe and them all making one body of the Church Pope Vigilius doth the like and he doth it more significantly We sayth he preach this same doctrine that you doe Vt anima una sit cor unum in Deo so that there is in you and mee but one soule and one heart in God How can any speech be cordiall if this testifying himselfe to be one soule and one heart with them doe not come à fibris but onely à labris Doth Pope Pius approve the doctrine of the Trent conspirators So doth Pope Vigilius the doctrine of those Eutychean heretikes Doth Pius condemne and anathematize Lutherans Calvinists and all who thinke or teach otherwise than himselfe and his Trent Conventicle taught or beleeved so doth Pope Vigilius condemne and anathematize all who deny two natures in Christ all who beleeve otherwise than himselfe and his Eutychean fellow heretikes did In all these there is as much to be sayd for Pope Vigilius as for Pope Pius and if you please to adde that one other agreement also as of Vigilius it is sayd that they knew crudelitatem fidei so may it in like manner bee truly sayd of Pope Pius that this did manifest unto all men crudelitatem fidei the cruelty of his and his Trent Councels faith If by these outward acts the Cardinall can know Pius the fourth to have ex animo condemned their Trent heresies why can he not by the like outward acts know Vigilius to have ex animo condemned the Catholike faith If Vigilius for all these outward acts and so many testimonies and evidences of a willing minde did dissemble and thinke in his heart otherwise than he writ how will or can the Cardinall prove unto us that Pius the 4. and the whole Councell of Trent did not dissemble and both write and speake otherwise than they thought in heart Hath the Cardinall some windowes to pry into the secrets of the heart of Pius the fourth and the Trent Councell which are dammed up that he cannot see into the brest of Vigilius If Pope Pius upon his word and writing be to be credited much more is Pope Vigilius seeing he did not only by words and writing teach this hereticall doctrine but which Pius did not he bound himselfe by a sacred oath that hee would teach the same And which is yet a farre greater evidence Vigilius after this did teach the like hereticall doctrine to overthrow the same Councell of Chalcedon in the cause of the Three Chapters which hee did so unfainedly and so cordially that for teaching the same he incurred the just indignation of the Emperour the curse of the holy generall Councell the publike hatred of all Catholikes and if wee may beleeve Baronius even exile and persecution also Why might not the same Vigilius from his heart teach Eutycheanisme as well as Nestorianisme The faces of those two heresies looke contrary wayes indeed but their tayles like Sampsons Foxes are joyned together to undermine the Catholike faith and the holy Councell of Chalcedon Hee who once is proved to be treacherous in this sort and to doe this once from his heart semper praesumitur is alwayes to bee presumed treacherous in the same kinde Hee who did this in the Three Chapters would have done it in Eutycheanisme his heart his desire his purpose at both times was the same the odds was accidental in the oportunity which served better in the one than in the other what need they excuse his teaching Eutycheanisme to have been only labiall when it is cleare his teaching of Nestorianisme was cordiall If they cannot excuse Pope Vigilius for teaching Nestorianisme from his heart which cannot possibly be done what need they be so nice in denying his teaching of Eutycheanisme to have come from the same heart his fault in them both being alike one answer will alike serve for them both 44. But what thinke you meant the Cardinall so to busie himselfe and bee so curious about the heart and secret minde of Vigilius what though hee did not in heart yet exteriori professione by his hereticall writing by his outward confession by that Vigilius condemned the Catholike faith as the Cardinall acknowledgeth it is the Popes outward profession not his inward cogitation by which wee prove his Chayre to bee fallible what have wee nay what hath the Cardinall or any of them all to doe with Vigilius intent or inward thoughts leave those to his Tribunall
after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
of the Councill at Basill that neither the Popes authoritie is supreme nor his judgement in causes of faith is infallible yet suffer me to adde two other witnesses of those who were after that Councill 32. The former is the Iudgement of Vniversities quae fere omnes which all in a manner approved and honored that Councill of Basil The other is the Councill at Biturice some take it for Burdeaux called by Charles the seventh the French King in which was made consensu omnium ecclesiasticorum et principum regni by the consent of the whole clergy and all the Peeres of France that Pragmaticall Sanction which Iohn Marius calls medullam the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Councill at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this The authoritie of the Councill at Basil and the constancie of their decrees perpetua esto let it be perpetuall and let none no not the Pope himselfe presume to abrogate or infringe the same This Sanction was published with full authoritie not seventy yeares before the Councill at Lateran as Leo the tenth witnesseth that is some foure yeares after the end of the Councill at Basill And although the Popes whose avarice and ambition was restrained by that sanction did detest it as Gagninus saith non secus ac perniciosam haeresin no otherwise then as a dangerous heresie yea and labored tooth naile to admit it yet as saith the universitie of Paris by Gods helpe hactenus prohibitum extitit they have beene ever hindred untill this time of Leo the tenth Indeed Pius secundus indevored and labored with Lewes the 11. to have it abrogated and he sent a solemne embassador Card. Balveus a very subtill fellow to bring this to passe but after much toyling both himselfe and others re infecta redijt he returned without effecting the Popes desire And to goe no further Leo the 10. and his Laterane Synod are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed before that Synod for they complaine that by reason of the malignitie of those times or else because they could not helpe it his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction and that for all which either they did or could doe the same Sanction retroactis temporibus vignisse et adhuc vigere had in former times and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session stand in force and full vigor Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall as did the Council also of Basil that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith which the present Romane Church defendenth it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught professed and beleeved to be an heresie and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes by the consenting judgement of Councils Popes Bishops and the Catholike Church even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session which was the 19. of December in the yeare 1516. after Christ. 33 On that day a day never to be forgotten by the present Romane Church it being the birth-day thereof Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill or as the learned Divines of Paris account it Conspiracie they being not assembled in Gods name abolished as much as in them lay the old and Catholike doctrine which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day and in stead thereof erect a new faith yea a new foundation of the faith and with it a new Church also Hee and his Synod then reprobated the Decree of Constance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope they reprobated also the Councill of Basil and the same Decree renewed by them That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum or Conventiculam quae nullum robur habere potuerit As a Conspiracie and Conventicle which could have no force at all They reprobated the Pragmaticall Sanction wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares together had beene imbraced and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day in reprobating it they rejected and reprobated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church Instead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be supreme that it is de necessitate salutis a thing necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the Pope and that not onely as they are severally considered but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill for they define Solum Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere The Pope alone to have authoritie above all Generall Councills This the Councill at Laterane diserte ex prosesso docuit taught cleerly and purposely as Bellarmine tells us nay they did not onely teach it but expressissimè definiunt they did most expresly define it And that their Definition is no other then a Decree of Faith as the same Cardinall assures us Decrees of faith saith he are immutable neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus and such is this Decree for the Popes supreme authoritie over all even Generall Councils made in their Laterane Synod And what meane they thinke you by that supreme authoritie Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth That because his authoritie is supreme therefore his judgement in causes of Faith is the last and highest and because it is the last and highest therefore it is infallible So by their Decree together with supremacie of authority they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope and defined that to be a catholike truth and doctrine of Faith which the whole Church in all ages untill then taught professed and defined to be an heresie and all who maintaine it to be Heretikes and for such condemned both it and them 34 Now because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith but the very foundation on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie by decreeing this they have quite altered not onely the faith but the whole frame and fabricke of the church erecting a new Romane church consisting of them and them onely who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod a church truly new and but of yesterday not so old as Luther a church in faith and communion severed from all former generall Councils Popes and Bishops that is from the whole catholike Church of Christ which was from the Apostles times untill that day And if their Popes continue as it is to be presumed they doe to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe to hold among other this fift Councill ad unum iôta this certainly is but a verball no
saying Saint Theophilus and Saint Gregory Nissene susceptis querimonijs adversus Theodorum adhuc viventem Complaints being brought unto them against Theodorus of Mopsvestia as yet living and against his writings scripserunt adversus eum Epistolas they writ Epistles against him and in those Epistles some part whereof is recorded in the Councell they blame him as presuming to renew the heresie and madnesse of Paulus Samosatenus And it is further added porrecta sunt autem and the impious chapters collected out of the books of Theodorus were shewed and brought to Theophilus whence it is now evident that those Epistles alleaged by Vigilius under the name of Proclus are no lesse by the untrue and hereticall assertions contained in them then by the cleare testimonies of the fift generall Councell convicted of forgery 30. From Fathers hee commeth to Councells and concerning the first Ephesine Vigilius noteth two points The former that Theodorus was not condemned by it to which purpose hee thus saith Solicite recensentes having with diligence and sollicitude reviewed the Ephesine Synode We have found that in it nothing is related touching the persō of Theodorus What nothing how then did Pope Pelagius after Cyrill and the fift Councell finde that in it Theodorus was condemned and if they condemned him then certainly somwhat was related debated about him upon knowledge whereof the Councell condemned him But say indeed is nothing found concerning Theodorus in that Councell What say you to the impious and diabolicall Creed which was both related in the Synode and condemned together with the author of it Truely here Vigilius useth a shift worthy to be observed That Creed he found and hee found it to be condemned but to quite Theodorus hee would have it beleeved that Theodorus was not the author of it nor that it was condemned as being the Creed of Theodorus but because it was divulged by certaine Nestorians Athanasius Photius Antonius and Iacobus Nor doth Vigilius use this shift only about that impious Creed but in other hereticall writings of Theodorus Proclus adjoyned to his Tome certaine impious positions collected è Theodori codicibus as Cyrill expresly witnesseth Vigilius likewise of them would have it thought that they were none of the positions of Theodorus and by the forged Epistles of Proclus hee would perswade that Proclus himselfe did not know whose they were The Emperour Iustinian before the Synode began sent threescore severall hereticall passages or chapters truly gathered out of the bookes and writings of Theodorus hoping that the Pope seeing Theodorus bookes so full fraught with heresies and blasphemies would make little doubt to condemne the writer of them Vigilius turnes to his former shift hee will not thinke nor have others to thinke that Theodorus writ such heresies though they had his name prefixed unto them for concerning those 60. chapters expressed both in the Popes Constitution and in the Synodall acts he thus saith Wee decree that by those foresaid chapters nulla injuriandi praecedentes patres praebeatur occasio no occasion be given to injure the former Fathers and Doctors of the Church And again We provide by this our Constitution that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Eutyches no contumely nor occasion of injury bee brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholike Church and that Vigilius thought Theodorus so to have dyed we have before declared yea that Vigilius knew it Baronius assured us Thus Vigilius to free Theodorus from condemnation pretends those hereticall writings to be none of his 31. What is it that Vigilius will not say for defence of this blasphemous and condemned heretike This cavill was used as Baronius tells us by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theodorus denying those to bee the writings of Theodorus quae diffamata which were famously knowne through the whole East and which being afterwards detected and discovered to bee truly his writings both they and their author with them were condemned Now this old hereticall and rejected cavill Vigilius here reneweth those writings famously knowne to be the workes of Theodorus condemned as his writings and he with them and for thē Vigilius will now have thought to be none of his nor he by them nor for them may bee now condemned And that you may see how Vigilius herein doth strive against the maine streame of the truth Saint Cyrill who then lived restifieth Theodorus to be author of those hereticall and blasphemous writings That wee have found certaine things in the writings of Theodorus nimiae plena blasphemiae nulli dubium est full of blasphemie none that thinks aright can make any doubt And againe I examining the bookes of Theodorus and Diodorus have contradicted them as much as I could declaring that sect to be every where full of abomination Yea hee writ divers bookes against Theodorus expressing the words of Theodorus and his owne confutation of the same So cleare and undoubted was this truth in Cyrills dayes who lived at the same time with Theodorus that hee thought them unwise who made any doubt of that which Vigilius now calls in question And particularly touching that impious Creed Cyrill saith that they who brought it to the Synode of Ephesus said that it was composed by Theodorus which they said not as by way of uncertaine report but as testifying it to be so in so much that the whole Synode giving credit there unto thereupon condemned Theodorus though by a dispensation they expressed not his name 32 The same is testified by Rambulas Acatius and the whole Armenian Councell who after examination of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacrilegious and therefore by name condemned him exhorting both Cyrill and Proclus to doe the like The Imperiall Edicts of Theodosius and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodorus and the reading or having of his bookes had it not by evidences undeniable beene knowne that those were indeed his workes and hereticall writings If all these suffice not when this cause about Theodorus was now againe brought into question the Emperour Iustinian and the fift Councell so narrowly and so exactly examined the truth hereof that after them to make a doubt is to seeke a knot in a rush They testifie those very hereticall assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth to be the doctrines and words of Theodorus that impious creed also whereof Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus they are so certaine hereof that even in their Synodall sentence they referre the triall of what they decree herein to the true and undoubted bookes of Theodorus And in their sentence is included the judgement of the whole catholike Church ever since they decreed this which hath with one consent approved their decree 33 After all these Pope Pelagius in
one of his decretall Epistles wherein at large he handleth this cause not onely testifieth that impious Creed and those hereticall 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 this same doubt which Vigilius doth and as is likely by occasion of his decree Pelagius of purpose declareth those 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 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 blasphemias has ejus esse quis dubitat who may doubt but that those blasphemies are truly his namely of Theodorus being by so many witnesses declared to be his Now when Pope Vigilius against all these Councells Bishops Emperors Popes of the same of succeeding ages yea against the consenting judgement of the catholike Church shall not onely doubt whether Theodorus be the author of those hereticall and blasphemous assertions and writings but by his Apostolicall Constitution decree it to bee an injury to ascribe those blasphemies unto him or for them to condemne him as the whole Church ever since the Ephesine Councell hath done doth it not argue nay demonstrate an hereticall and most extreme distemper in the Popes judgment and in his cathedrall sentence at that time 34. The other point which Vigilius observeth out of the Ephesine Councel is worse then this for as yet he hath onely found that Theodorus was not de facto condemned by the Ephesine Synode but in the next place he will finde by that Councell that Theodorus de jure ought not to bee condemned To which purpose he saith that Cyrill and so the Ephesine Synode consenting to him as President would not have the name of Theodorus contained in the Synodall Acts at Ephesus propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est for the rule which is to bee kept in such Bishops as are dead And that rule he explaines in the words following to be this that the dead should not bee condemned nor should the living bend their bow against ashes or insult over the dead whereby Vigilius even by his Apostolicall decree adjudgeth both Cyrill and the whole Ephesine Councell consenting therein with him to have beleeved and held a condemned heresie as an Ecclesiasticall rule or rule of their faith and actions That one who is dead may not bee condemned and so by the Popes Constitution both Cyrill and the holy Ephesine Synode were heretikes Such worthy points doe the Popes finde when they use their art and industry to review ancient writings with a reference to their owne determinations and so easie was it for Vigilius to finde the Ephesine Councell first injurious to the dead and then hereticall in a doctrine or rule concerning the dead 35. The very like he found also in the Councell of Chalcedon that Theodorus ought not to be condemned His reason is this Iohn Bishop of Antioch writ a letter to the Emperor Theodosius in excuse of Theodorus of Mopsvestia ne post mortem damnari deberet that he ought not to bee condemned after his death Now this letter of Iohn Venerabiliter memoratur is with honour not onely with allowance and liking remembred by the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation or Synodall Epistle to the Emperour Martianus Whence Vigilius collecteth that seeing the Councell with reverence embraceth that letter of Iohn and that letter importeth that Theodorus being dead ought not to be condemned therefore the Councell judgeth that none who are dead and particularly that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned which reason of Vigilius was borrowed from other Nestorians and defenders of the three Chapters as appeareth by Liberatus who explaineth it and sets it downe almost totidem verbis Iohn saith he writ three letters in the behalfe of Theodorus of Mopsvestia praising in them Theodorus and declaring his wisedome one of those letters he sent to the Emperour Theodosius another to Cyrill the third to Proclus Now the first and third containing the praises of Theodorus the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation to Martianus the Emperour did embrace and confirme Thus Liberatus agreeing wholly herein as you see with Vigilius 36. For answer of which reason of Vigilius I will intreat you to spare my labour and heare how fully and soundly Cardinall Baronius doth refute it but yet so that hee will not seeme to taxe or touch Vigilius that had beene great insolency and incivilitie in a Cardinall but he payes the Deacon home to the full who saith but the very same with the Pope Liberatus saith hee borrowed this narration of I know not what Nestorian incautè nimis and he affirmes too indiscreetly that the writings of Theodorus were praised in the letters of Iohn Bishop of Antioch and which is farre worse that those letters of Iohn containing the praises of Theodosius were received and confirmed by the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation to Martianus for by that meanes adducit in idem crimen he makes the whole Councell of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime to wit of approving the praises doctrine of Theodorus So Baronius By whō it is cleare that Vigilius saying the same w th Liberatus makes the whole Coūce I of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime that is in plaine termes avoucheth them to be hereticall Videsne saith the Cardinall quot quales lateant colubri sub uno cespite Doe not you see how many and how vile and venemous snakes lye hid under this one turfe or tuft of untruth And that very tuft hath Pope Vigilius chosen to build up and beautifie with it his Apostolicall decree Now if under that one turfe there lurke as indeed there doth and the Cardinall acknowledgeth so great a number of Vipers what infinite and innumerable heapes of most deadly and poisonfull untruths are compacted into the whole body of his Apostolicall Constitution which containeth if one listed narrowly to examine it more than a thousand like turfes nay beyond comparison worse than this 37. But the Cardinall hath not yet done with Liberatus Let us saith hee put the Axe to the roote of the tree and citing the very words of the Councell and their Relation to Martianus he addeth You see that here is no mention at all of Theodorus of Mopsvestia which reason of Baronius Binius explaneth saying That which Liberatus affirmeth that the Councell of Chalcedon received the praises of Theodorus is not onely