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
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
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
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
and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per cum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as found lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of 〈◊〉 it were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and fortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had just led out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the second Antichrist crescent In the third Antichrist regnant but in this fourth he is made
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
some Churches unto it That this was done in the fift Councell Baronius proves by Guil. Tyrius who writeth that in the fift Synod in the time of Iustinian Vigilius Eutychius and the rest decreed that this Bishopricke of Ierusalem should have the place of a Patriarke with the rest And because it was situate in a manner in the limits of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch and so there was no meanes for it to have subordinate Bishops unlesse somewhat were taken from either of those Patriarkships therefore it seemed good to the Synod to take part from either so they tooke from the Bishop of Antioch two Provinces Caesarea and Scythopolis and two other from the Bishop of Alexandria Ruba and Beritus besides which Metropolitane Sees they tooke also from the same Patriarks divers Bishopricks and erected some other all which being in number twenty five they subjected to their new founded Patriarke of Ierusalem This is the summe of that which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius delivereth and Binius addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell which is now not found among the Acts therof Baronius further glossing on this text tels us that though Iuvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon when the Pope Legates were absent yet Pope Leo resisting it he prevailed not nor was the matter put in execution but at this time the ancient order instituted by the Nicene Councell being inverted Caesarea was now first of all made subject to the Church of Ierusalem which now was become a Patriarchall See 2. This whole passage of Baronius approving that testimony of Guil. Tyrius which is justly refuted by Berterius I cannot tell what to call but sure I am it consists of divers untruths not so much upon ignorance then his sinne had beene lesse as maliciously objected against the Acts of this holy Synod some of them I will explane beginning with that which is the maine point of all First then it is untrue that this fift Synod advanced the See of Ierusalem to a Patriarkship Not to the name and title of a Patriarke for that it had long before as Bellar. and Binius professe though it was but a single Bishorick subject as both Ierome and the Nicene Councell declare to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarke and to the Bishop of Cesarea Palestina for there is another in Cappadocia as his Metropolitane yet for honor of our Saviors resurrectiō in that place it had the name of Patriark and preeminency in Councels to the Bishop of Caesarea Not to the authoritie and power of a Patriarke for that it had and had it justly long before this fift Councell even by the decree and judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon Iuvenalis had sued for it in the Ephesine Councell but the Bish. of Antioch as it seemeth then being unwilling to manumit him as it were free him from his subjection Cyrill resisted it writ to Pope Leo praying him to do the like But after long contention both parties being throughly agreed the matter was brought to the Councell of Chalcedon where Maximus and Iuvenalis the Bishops of both Sees first of all and before the whole Councell professed that they were both willing that the Bishop of Antioch should hold the two Pheniciaes and Arabia and the Bishop of Ierusalem should hold the three Palestinaes and they both requested the whole Synod to decree cofirme and ratifie the same The whole Councell thereupon by their decree cōfirmed the same all the most reverēd Bishops cryed We all say the same and we consent thereunto After them the most glorious Iudges in the name of the Emperor added Imperiall authority and the royall assent to the Synods decree saying Firmum etiam per nostrum decretū sententiam Concilij in omni tempore permanebit hoc this shall abide firme for ever by our decree and by the judgement of the Councell that the Church of Antioch have under it the two Pheniciaes and Arabia the Church of Ierusalem have under it the three Palestines Thus the Iudges The same Decree of this Councell at Chalcedon is expresly testified both by Evagrius and Nicephorus So untrue it is which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius a voucheth that the Church of Ierusalem was first made a Patriarchall See or had the Provinces and Metropolitanes of Caesarea and Scithopolis annexed unto it by the fift Councell that it is undoubtedly certaine that it had with the title and dignity true Patriarchal authority and power over divers Provinces together with their inferiour Bishops conferred upon it with a plenary consent of the whole Church in the Councell of Chalcedon And that you may see the most shamefull dealing both of Bar. and Binius in another place where their choller against this fift Councell was not moved they acknowledge that truth for intreating of the Councell at Chalcedon In this seventh Session of it saith Baronius and the like doth Binius was the controversie cōposed betwixt the Bishops of Antioch Ierusalē and the cause being judged the two Pheniciae and Arabia were given to the Bishop of Antioch and the three Palestines were adjudged to the Bishop of Hierusalem ex quibus jam perspicuè apparet jus Metropolis in Hierosolymitanam Ecclesiam esse translatum whence it doth evidently appeare that the right of the Metropolis which before belonged to the Bishop of Caesarea was translated to the Bishop of Ierusalem So they who yet in hatred against the Acts of the fift Councell with faces of Adamant deny that truth which here they confesse to be cleare and conspicuous 3. But saith the Cardinall the decree of Chalcedon was made post absentiam Legatorum when the Popes Legates were now gone and so they being absent is to be held invalid O the forehead of the Cardinall Were the Popes Legats absent were they gone Truly they were not onely present at this decree and consenting unto it but after it was proposed by Maximus and Iuvenalis they were the very first men that gave sentence therein whose sentence the whole Councell followed For thus it is sayd Pascasinus and Lucentius the most reverend Bishops and Boniface a Presbyter these holding the place of the Apostolike See said by Pascasinus These things betwixt Maximus and Invenalis are knowne to be done for their good and peace nostrae humilitatis interloquutione firmantur and they are confirmed by the interloquuntion of our humility ut nulla imposterum de hac causa sit contentio that never hereafter there should be any contention about this matter betweene these Churches Is it credible that the Cardinall could be so audacious and impudent as to utter such palpable untruths Vnlesse he had quite put off I say not modesty but reason sense and almost humane nature Let this stand for the second
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
hee would bring Vitiges to Iustinian all these are the fictions of Anastasius For as Procopius who was Counsellor to Bellisarius and present with him in all his warres testifieth Vitiges and the Gothes willingly yeelded themselves and Ravenna unto Bellisarius yea Vitiges perswaded and even entreated him to accept the kingdome and Bellisarius tooke Vitiges himselfe and kept him in custody yea he sent away Iohn and Narses before either he entred in Ravenna or tooke Vitiges and being taken he caried him not to Rome but the straight way by Sea to Constantinople whither himselfe was then called by the Emperour and commanded to come without any delay So in the very entrance of his narration Anastasius hath in few words couched together at the least ten or eleven evident untruths 14. Next Anastasius relates how the Emperour and his wife demanded of Bellisarius when be came to Constantinople how he had placed Vigilius instead of Silverius and thanked him for it Truly Anastasius had small wit to thinke that the Emperour had leasure to confer with Bellisarius concerning a matter done about three yeares before and specially which with the death of Silverius was now dead and buried Yet say he did Againe what an idle discourse was this about the placing of Vigilius in the roome of Silverius seeing the Emperour knew the whole matter long before how Silverius was banished upon an accusation of a Letter written to the Gothish King to come and take possession of Rome and himselfe had taken order that the cause of Silverius should be againe examined and if that letter was truly writ by Silverius that he should be banished if it were found a calumny that he should bee restored as Liberatus sheweth Hee knew also that Silverius was dead and that Vigilius was peaceably and with his consent placed in the Romane See before Bellisarius came for hee had written p unto him as the onely lawfull Pope and both the Emperour and Mennas had received Letters from him the yeare before But Anastasius thought the Emperours discourses to bee as idle as his owne Besides whereas he addes that the Emperour thanked him for placing of Vigilius in the roome of Silverius Binius is bould therein to tell Anastasius of his untruth seeing all that as he saith was done without the knowledge of Iustinian by the plotting of Theodora I will account these for no more than two untruths 15. After this Anastasius tels us that Iustinian then sent Bellisarius againe into Africke who comming thither killed by trechery Gontharis King of the Vandalls and then comming to Rome offered some of the spotles of the Vandalls to Saint Peter by the hands of Pope Vigilius to wit a Crosse of gold beset with precious stones being a hundred pound in waight wherin were writ his victories two great silver tables guilded which unto this day stand saith hee before the body of Saint Peter also hee gave many other gifts and many almes to the poore and built an hospitall in the broad way and a Monastery of Saint Iuvenalis at the City of Orta where hee gave possessions and many gifts Thus Anastasius whose narration as it must needs testifie in what great honour the Romane Church was in those ancient times and how bountifull they were then unto it so may it serve for an incentive to inflame the zeale of Emperours and great persons to doe the like after their victories and conquests and no doubt but by such lyes and fables as this is their Church had gained the best part of her treasures and possessions for all this not one syllable is true or probable Bellisarius when hee came to Constantinople with Vitiges was not then sent into the West but into Persia against Cosroes as Procopius who was present with him testifieth and in those warres hee continued full three yeares When hee was sent Westward hee was not sent into Africk for thither Ariobindus was sent with whom was sent Artabanus Neither did Bellisarius either by villany or victory kill Gontharis but Artabanus killed him treacherously when they sat together at a feast in Gontharis Chamber nor came Bellisarius from Africk to Rome for after his second comming which was from Constantinople into Italy he stayed there till his returne to Bizantium five yeares after and returned backe no more nor brought hee thence with him any of the spoyles of the Vandales nor offered hee them to Saint Peter nor offered he by the hand of Vigilius either than golden Crosse of an hundred pound waight which is a golden lye consisting of an hundred latcheâ—s nor the silver table nor those many other gifts nor built he an Hospitall nor gave hee either possessions or donations All these if they be well summed will make at least twelve grand capitall mother lyes which have many moe in their wombs such an art of devising untruths hath Anastasius Or if this oblation bee referred as Binius saith perhaps it ought to the time when Bellisarius wanne Rome from Vitiges which was as Procopius sheweth in the third yeare of the warres against the Gothes and 12. of Iustinian yet this can excuse no one of all the untruths of Anastasius for neither then was Vigilius but Sylverius the Pope neither did Bellisarius then come out of Africk or bring the spoyles of the Vandals with him of which this oblation was made by the hands of Pope Vigilius 16. Next to this Anastasius saith eodem tempore Theodora scripsit at that same time Theodora the Empresse writ to Vigilius to come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus to his See but Vigilius refused saying I spake foolishly before when I promised that but now I can no way consent to restore an heretike Whence Baronius observes a rare miracle that Vigilius was now turned to a new man now Saul was one of the Prophets of a blasphemer chaÌ„ged to a true Preacher of a Saul into a Paul all which change proceeded from his very sitting in the Popes Chaire momento temporis novam formam accepit at that very moment when he became the true Pope hee had a new forme a new speech and then prophesied consonantly to the fathers and the like miracle doth Binius note statim ut sanctam sedem ascendit as soone as ever Vigilius had stept into the holy Chaire hee was wholly changed into a new man and then condemned the heresies which before hee approved A right Neanthes indeed of whom it is written that before being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having now got the harpe of Orpheus hee thought he was also able to worke wonders therwith as well as Orpheus had done he would needs then Saxa movere sono testudinis but all in vaine Even so Peters Chaire made Vigilius as infallible as Peter himselfe being once set there hee could doe nothing else but drop Oracles and his fidling
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
Princes nor private persons though learned and honest but Ecclesiasticall Prelates in our disputations of the Councels it shall bee demonstrated that Councels generall and particular may judge of Controversies in religion but that judgement of theirs is then of force and validity when the Pope shall confirme it and therfore that the last judgement of all is the Popes to which all good Catholikes owe such absolute obedience that if the Pope should erre by commanding vices and prohibiting vertues the Church is bound to beleeve that vices are good and vertues bad unlesse she wil sinne against Conscience What sinne against Conscience in not sinning and not sinne against Conscience in committing sinnes knowne by the light of nature if the Man of sin command the one and forbid the other Woe bee to them saith the Prophet that call evill good and good evill put darknesse for light and light for darknesse bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter Esay 5.20 If Bellarmines divinity be currant Pope Pius the fourth needed not to have coyned twelve new Articles of faith affixt to the Canons of the Councell of Trent it had beene sufficient to have added this one I beleeve in the Pope his soveraigne infallibility for this is prora and puppis the Alpha and Omega the formalis ratio and demonstratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Papists beliefe The Popes power saith Skulkenius is the hinge and foundation and to speake in a word the summe of Christian faith A short summe and soone cast up What then serves Fathers Councels Church-Traditions and Scripture it selfe for with them for little better than Ciphers which being added to the Popes authority in their Arithmetike makes something but without it nothing To begin with Scriptures they beleeve them to bee divine but not because the Scripture saith that all Scripture is given by divine inspiration For so saith Bellarmine wee read every where in the Alcoran of Mahomet that the Alcoran was sent from God yet we beleeve it not why then doe they beleeve them to bee the word of God hee answers readily propter traditionem Ecclesiae for the Churches tradition Silvester Pierius outvies the Cardinall affirming that the holy Scripture taketh force and authority from the Romane Church and Pope Vpon which prâ—mise of Pierius Gretzer inferres this peremptory conclusion We doe receive and reverence that alone for the word of God which the Pope in Peters Chaire doth determine to be so Strange divinity to beleeve that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church that is that God receives his authority from man May we not justly upbraid the present Romanists as Tertulian doth the ancient heathen apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur nisi homini Deus placuerit Deus non erit Homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit With you Deity is estimated by mans valuation unlesse God please man he shall not be God now man must bee propitious to God for if the Pope be not propitious to the Scripture to allow it for Gods word it shall not passe for such in Rome As for the Fathers they deale with their writings as Faustus Manicheus did with the writings of the Apostles in which hee takes it for a good proofe that such passages are the Apostles true writings because they made for him others were spurious because they made against him Fathers saith Dureus are not to bee accounted Fathers when they teach or write any thing of their owne which they have not received from the Church meaning the Romane and Gretzer backs this assertion with a reason drawn from the formall definition of a Father for saith he he is a father of the Church who feeds and nourisheth the Church with wholesome doctrine who being set over the Lords houshold gives them their measure of Corne in due season now if in stead of wholesome food and good Corne hee give them Cockle and Tares he becomes no father but a stepfather no Doctor but a seducer To instance in some particular Eusebius Caesariensis when hee seemes to favour Popery hee is highly extolled by Lindane Senensis and Possevine hee is then a most famous writer of the Church most learned worthy to bee Bishop not of one City onely but of the whole world but when the same Eusebius lookes awry upon Rome then hee is branded by Canus Costerus and Baronius for a stickler for Arrius an Arrian heretike a ringleader of the Arrian faction whose memory is accursed in the second Synod of Nice Tertullian likewise is guilded by Lindanus and Rehing with the glorious titles of a very noble author the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers the great light of Africa a most ancient Writer and Doctour most learned most skilfull most acute where hee hath some passages which may bee detorted to give countenance to some Romish superstitions But elsewhere when in expresse words he oppugneth some doctrines defined now for Articles of faith in the Church of Rome he is as much besmeared with foule imputations by Azorius Maldonate and Bellarmine An hereticall author an Arch-heretike an enemy to the Catholike and like to the Calvinists a maÌ„ whose authority is not much to be set by because he was no man of the Church and as Euseb. Tertull. so also Origen hath had contrary testimonials from the Church of Rome where he pleaseth them hee is a famous light of the Church of Alexandria whom S. Hier. cals another M â— of the Churches after the Apostles a witnesse beyond all exception But when he fits not their humours then he is a Schismatike a father of the Arrians and Eunomians a bold and rash man an obstinate lover of his owne errours In Councels the case is yet clearer for the Cardinall sticks not in most plaine termes to hang all them upon the Popes sleeve The whole strength authority saith he of lawfull Councels is from the Pope their judgment then begins to be of force after the Pope shall ratifie them And what Councels will he ratifie you may bee sure not the Councell in Trulio for that taxeth the Romane Church by name for inforcing single life upon the Clergy not the Councell at Constantinople under Constantine Pogonate for that accurseth Honorius the Pope for an heretike not the Councell held at Frankfort in the time of Pope Adrian for that condemneth their Image-worship not the Synod of Pisa for in that Gregory and Benedict Popes were deposed not the Synod of Basil wherein Eugenius was unpoped nor the Councell of Constance for in it a generall Councel is set above the Pope and three Popes were cashiered by their Authority I except the later Sessions of the same condemned Councell which are Gospell with them because they Anathematize the Wicliffists and Hussites But the second Synod of
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
drosse of the Church quite severed from the gold wee willingly yeeld unto them they and they onely are wholly theirs let them have let them enjoy their Helenaes we envy not such refuse Councils unto them 2. When first I set my selfe to the handling of this argument concerning the Councils it was my purpose besides those other generall questions concerning the right of calling generall Councils the right of Presidencie in them and the right of confirming them to have made manifest those three severall points touching those three rankes of Councils every one of which is not onely true but even demonstrable in it selfe And though with a delightfull kind of toile I have made no small progresse therein yet alas how unequall am I to such an Herculean labour whose time whose strength of body or industry of minde is able to accomplish a worke of such amplitude and of so vast extent for which not Nestors age would suffice Wherefore turning my sailes from this so long and tedious a voyage which I could not so much as hope to end which beside many dangerous rockes hidden Syrtes and sands is every where beset by many Romane enemies specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages with whom at every turne almost one shall be sure to have an hot encounter I thought a shorter course far more fit for my small and unfurnisht barke and despairing of more or longer voyages I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut onely over some one arme of that great Ocean not doubting but the ice being once broken and the passage through these straits opened many other will with more facilitie and felicitie also performe the like in the rest untill the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished 3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fift held at Constantinople in the time of the Emperor Iustinian and Pope Vigilius for authoritie equall to the former it being as well as they approved by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for antiquitie venerable being held within 600. yeares after Christ even in those times while as yet the drosse had not prevailed and got the predominancie above the gold as in the second Nicene Synod and succeding ages it did for varietie of weighty and important matters more delightfull then any of the rest and which I most respected of them all most apt to make manifest the truth and true Iudgement of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Controversies of the Popes supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement which are of all other most ventilated in these dayes 4. The occasion of this Councill were those Tria capitula as they were called which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church to wit The person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead the writings of Theodoret B. of Cyrus against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Councill at Chalcedon 5. The Nestorians whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill when they could no longer under the name of Nestorius countenance their heresie very subtilly indevored to revive the same by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia and his writings as also the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed then before pretending that not onely the persons of Theodoret and Ibas who both had sometimes beene very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme and wherein Theodorus with his hereticall writings are greatly extolled were received and approved in that famous Councill And in truth the Nestorians little lesse then triumphed herein and insulted over Catholikes thinking by this meanes either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Councill of Chalcedon if their doctrine were rejected or if that Council were imbraced together with it and under the colour and authoritie of it to renew and establish the doctrine of Nestorius which as they boasted that councill had certainly confirmed by their approving that Epistle of Ibas 6. By occasion hereof many who were weake in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy councill and those as Leontius sheweth were called Haesitantes waverers or Doubters Many others who for other causes distasted that Councill were hereby incouraged pertinaciously to reject the same as Liberatus declareth Such were the Agnoites Gainites Theodosians Themistians and other like Sectaries called all by the common name of Acephali because they had no one head by whom to be directed All these though being at mortall wars one with another yet herein conspired to oppugne the faith and the holy Councill of Chalcedon taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted and these men gladly beleeved that in it the Epistle of Ibas which maintaineth all the blasphemies of Nestorius was approved Thus the Church was by contrary enemies on every side assailed and so extremely disturbed that as the Emperor testifieth it was in a manner rent even from East to West yea the East was rent from the West 7. Iustinian the religious Emperor knowing how much it was available not onely for his honor and the tranquillitie of his empire but for the good of the whole Church and glory of God to appease all those broiles and knowing further that the holy Councill of Chalcedon though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas after that they had publickly renounced the heresie of Nestorius yet did utterly condemne both that Impious Epistle of Ibas as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia both which that Epistle defendeth together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill he knowing and that exactly all these particulars that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unitie of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon set forth an Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall religious and holy profession or rather an ample Declaration of his nay not his but of the Catholike Faith Among many other things the Emperor in that Edict did particularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the writings of Theodoret against Cyril and that most impious Epistle of Ibas accursing all these as hereticall and all those who either had heretofore or should therafter maintaine or defend them or any one of them 8. But notwithstanding all this which the Emperor with great prudence piety and zeale performed very many even some of those who bare the names of orthodoxall and Catholike Bishops were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict and the Catholike truth delivered therein that they openly oppugned his Edict and defended the Three Chapters by him
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
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
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
age even from the Apostles time delivered unto them by warrant of which Apostolical tradition Valentinus Martian Basilides à nulla Synodo anathematizati being by no Synod in their life time condemned were after their death accursed by the Church of God 9. And yet if none of all these particulars could bee produced seeing the doctrine of the faith decreed in this fift Councell one part whereof is this of condemning the dead is consonant to all the former and confirmed by all succeeding Councels as we did before demonstrate nor Councels only but approved by all Popes and Bishops from Gregory the first to Leo the tenth yea by all Catholikes whatsoever who all by approving this fift Councell consent in this truth Seeing all these that is the whole Catholike Church for 1500 yeares with one consenting voyce sound out like a multitude of mighty waters this Catholike truth which Vigilius oppugneth that one may after his death be noviter condemned and sound it as a doctrine of the Catholike faith and even thereby sound out Pope Vigilius to have held yea to have defined heresie and all who defend Vigilius to bee hereticall I do nothing doubt but if ever you did or can you doe now most distinctly heare the voyce of the Church even of that Church of which their Romane Rabsecha vaunteth that we are marvellously affrighted at the very name thereof 10. May I now intreate that as you have heard the Church so you would be pleased to heare what the Cardinall doth say of this matter After this part of Vigilius decree he sets a memorable glosse upon the Popes text Hic adverte Note here saith the Cardinall that this assertion of Vigilius that dead men ought not to be condemned is not so generally received as it is set downe by him A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinals mouth Papa hic non tenetur But I pray you by whom is it not received The Cardinall answers not by the holy Church the holy Church doth practise the contrary unto it What the holy Church not receive the dogmaticall and Apostolicall assertion of the holy Pope not that assertion which his Holinesse decreeth to be taught by Scripture to be a Constitution a rule a definition of the holy Apostolike See No truly The holy Church for all that receives not this assertion saith the Cardinall And the Cardinall was to blame to use such a palpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Church receiveth it not hee might and he should have said The holy Church rejecteth condemneth and accurseth this Cathedrall assertion of the Pope and all that defend it nor the Church onely of that one age wherein Vigilius lived but the Catholike Church of all ages speaking by the mouthes of al general Councels of Fathers of Popes of al Catholikes this holy Church condemneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius The Cardinall was too diminutive in his extenuations when he spake so faintly The holy Church doth not so generally receive it 11. Let us beare with the Cardinals tendernesse of heart the Popes sores must not be touched but with soft and tender hands Seeing the Cardinall hath brought the Pope and the holy Church to be at ods and at an unreconciliable contradiction the Pope denying the Church affirming that a man after his death may noviter be condemned it is well worth the labour to examine whether part the Cardinall himselfe will take in this quarrell you may be sure the choyce on either part was very hard for him he hath here a worse matter than a wolfe by the cares This is dignus vindice nodus a point which will trie the Cardinals art wisdome piety constancy and faire dealing And in very deed he hath herein plaid Sir Politike would be above the degree of commendation The Cardinall is a man of peace hee loves not to displease either the Pope or the Church he knew that to provoke either of them would bring an armie of waspes about his eares and therfore very gravely wisely and discreetly he takes part with them both and though their assertions bee directly contradictory he holds them both to be true and takes up an hymne of Omnia bene to them both 12. First he sheweth that the Church saith right in this manner Although it be proved that one dyed in the peace of the Church and yet it doe afterwards appeare that in his writings he defended a condemned heresie and continuing in that heresie died therein and bu◠dissemblingly cōmunicate with the Church the holy Church useth to condemne such a man jure even by right Having said as much as can bee wished on the Churches part the Cardinall will now teach that the Pope also saith right in this manner Pope Vigilius had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chapters by his Constitution and among those worthy reasons this is one for if this were once admitted that a man who dyeth in the communion of the Church might after his death be condemned pateret ostium this would open such a gap that every ecclesiasticall writer though hee dyed in the Catholike Communion may yet after his death out of his writings be condemned for an heretike Thus Baronius 13. O what a golden and blessed age was this that brought forth such a Cardinall The Church decreeth that a man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and it decreeth aright The Pope decreeth the quite contrary that no man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike and hee also decreeth aright and with good reason So both the Church saith well the Pope saith well you can say no lesse then Et vitulatu dignus hic or because the Cardinall saith better than they both and what Iupiter himselfe could never doe makes two contradictory sayings to be both true and both said well he◠best deserveth let him have all the prize Vitula tu dignus utrâque 14. I told you before and this ensuing treatise will make it as cleare as the Sunne that Baronius having once lost the path forsaken that truth where only sure footing was to be found wandreth up and downe in and out in this cause as in a wildernesse treading on nothing but thornes wherewith feeling himselfe prickt he skips hither and thither for succour but still lights on briars and brambles which doe not onely gall but so intangle him that by no meanes he can ever extricate or unwinde himselfe for if one listed to make sport with the Cardinall it clearly and certainly followeth that if the Church say true then the Pope saying the contrary doth say untrue Againe if the Pope say true then the Church saying the contrary doth say untrue and then upon the Cardinals saying that they both say true it certainly followeth that neither of them both say true and yet further that both of them say both true and untrue and yet that neither of them both saith
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
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
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
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
untroue sed etiam ipsi relationi Synodic ae contraria but it is plainly contrary to the Synodall Relation of the Councell at Chalcedon to which Liberatus referreth himselfe Change but the name and all this is everie whit as forcible against Vigilius as against Liberatus But the Cardinall had well learned the old lesson Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas the Pope offends more than any but the poore Deacon must feele the smart and beare all the blowes and yet by your leave through the Deacons sides the Cardinall hath cunningly given a deadly wound and cut the very roote of the Popes Apostolicall decree although he will not bee thought so unmannerly as once to touch his Holinesse or speake one syllable against him 38. After Fathers and Councels Vigilius will next finde that the Emperour Iustinian himselfe who was so earnest in condemning Theodorus doth yet teach that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned and how proves hee this You saith Vigilius to the Emperour laudabiliter adduxistis have with praise and approbation alleaged that Relation of the Councell of Chalcedon in your law de sancta Trinitate Seeing then that Relation of the Councell approveth the letters of Iohn and the letters of Iohn shew that Theodorus being dead ought not to bee condemned the Pope from hence inferreth that by Iustinians own law approving that Relation Theodorus ought not to be condemned It were very easie with Baronius Hatchet to chop off this reason and cut it up by the roote seeing neither Iohns letters did teach that Theodorus being dead might not be condemned nor did the Councell in their Relation approve either the person or doctrine or any praises of Theodorus or so much as mention him But I will not trouble the Cardinall in so easie a matter as this Besides all the inconsequences in this reason Iustinian is so farre from teaching or thinking this so much as in a dreame that in the same title de Summa Trinitate fide Catholica which seemes to be that which Vigilius intended he accurseth all heresies and specially that of Nestorius and all qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt vel senserunt who either doe thinke or have thought as Nestorius did in which number Theodorus of Mopsvestia to be comprehended not onely by that which we have said before is manifest but even by Iustinian himselfe who expresly witnesseth Theodorus to have thought so and to have dyed in that hereticall opinion and for that very cause doth he condemne and accurse him Now seeing that law de Summa Trinitate was published in the seventh yeare of Iustinians raigne as by the date appeareth and sent into twelve severall Provinces seeing after this Iustinian in his twentieth yeare set forth another Edict concerning these three Chapters wherein he particularly and by name anathematizeth Theodorus nor him onely but all that defend him yea all who doe not anathematize him out of which number Vigilius himselfe is not exempted seeing he remained so constant in this truth that after Vigilius had published his Constitution both himselfe signified to the fift Councell that he still persisted in condemning the three Chapters one of which was the condemning of Theodorus and the whole fift Synod testified the same saying in their seventh Collation semper fecit facit the Emperour hath ever done and now continueth to doe that which preserveth the holy Church and true faith Was it not a very strange thing in Vigilius to pretend in his Constitution that by the Emperours owne law Theodorus ought not be condemned whereas by the Emperours Edict not onely Theodorus by name but all who defend him even Vigilius himselfe eo nomine because he defendeth him is condemned and anathematized 39. And now you have seene all that Vigilius bringeth for defence of Theodorus all that hee found after his most diligent search of the Fathers Councels and ancient writings whereby I doubt not but it is evident unto all that Nestorianisme had either quite blinded the Pope or at least induced him to play which he hath done very skilfully one of the Lamia in this cause when ought that tended to the truth came in his way and offered it selfe unto him he then lockt up his eyes and kept them fast in a basket but when or where ought that tended to nestorianisme and the defence of a condemned heretike might in a likelihood be found then he put his eyes in his head and became as quicksighted as the Serpent of Epidaurus The writings of Cyril and Proclus condemning Theodorus for an heretike worse than either Iew or Pagan the Councels of Ephesus of Armenia of Chalcedon anathematizing him the Imperiall lawes of Theodosius commanding all memory of him to bee abolished his heretical books to be burned the expunging his name out of the Ecclesiasticall tables even in that Church where hee had beene Bishop and a number the like none of all these could Vigilius in his most diligent inquisition finde or see why the Lamia had lockt up his eyes against all these publike and known evidences and records But when the base Counterfeits forged in the name of Cyrill and Proclus when the depraving or calumniating the Councels of Ephesus of Chalcedon and of Iustinian as being maintainers of a condemned heresie when these or the like might be found oh the Pope saw these at the first his eyes were now as cleare as the sight of Linceus he could spie these through a Milstone nay which is more hee could see them though there were no such matters at all to bee seene And truly if you well consider there was good reason why hee should see the one and not the other For the Pope saw the Epistle of Ibas to bee orthodoxall and to be approved by the Councell of Chalcedon he saw in that Epistle Theodorus to be called a Saint a Preacher of the truth a Doctor of the Church Now it had beene an exceeding incongruity to see a condemned Saint an accursed Saint an hereticall or blasphemous Saint It was not for the Popes wisedome to see such a Saint and therefore at all such sights up with the eyes locke them fast that they see none of those ugly and offensive sights nothing of the condemning of the accursing of the heresies and blasphemies of Theodorus So bewitched was the Pope with Nestorianisme at this time that it had the whole command of his heart of his eyes of his sense of his understanding it opened and shut them all whensoever it listed 40. I have stayed too long I feare in examining this first Chapter touching Theodorus but I was very loath to let any materiall point passe without due triall or before I had shaken asunder every joint and parcell of the Popes Constitution in this cause and fully manifested how erronious his Apostolicall decree is as well in doctrinall as personall matters That Theodorus was dead is personall but that none after
death may bee condemned for an heretike is doctrinall yea an heresie in the doctrine of faith That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church is an errour personall but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church or that any dying in heresie as Theodorus did doe die in the peace of the Church are errours doctrinall That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers and Councels condēned is a personall error but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers Councels ought not after his death to be condemned is doctrinall even a condemning of the Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon as guilty of beleeving and teaching an heresie So many wayes is the Popes sentence in this first Chapter erronious in faith of which Baronius most vainely pretendeth that it is no cause of faith no such cause as doth concerne the faith 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter but his conclusion of the same And although that must needs of it selfe fall downe when all the reasons on which it relyeth and by which onely it is supported are ruinated or overthrowne yet if you please let us take a short view of it also rather to explane than refute the same His conclusion hath two branches the former is that in regard of the foresaid reasons nostrâ 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
compassionate and tender heart of Vigilius Not onely Iustinian and the fift generall Councell but Pelagius Gregory and other succeeding Popes and Councels even the whole Catholike Church ever since the time of Vigilius they all by approving the decree of the fift Synod doe not onely taxe the name of Theodoret but accurse anathematize the writings of Theodoret and that even under his name Now such a loving and tender affection doth the Pope carry towards the hereticall writings of Theodoret that rather than they may be condemned or his name taxed by the condemning of them Iustinian Pelagius Gregory and other his successors the fift the sixt and other generall Councels even the whole Catholike Church they all must be and are de facto here declared and by the Popes cathedrall sentence decreed and defined not onely to bee hereticall as the former reason imported but injurious persons backbiters slanderers they all must be condemned and for ever disgraced rather then Theodorets name must bee taxed or his hereticall writings condemned or disgraced 26. But say indeed Is it an injurie a slander a disgrace to one that his errors should either by himselfe or by the Church be condemned How injurious was that holy Bishop Saint Augustine to himselfe in writing so many retractations and corrections of what he saw amisse And what himselfe did hee would not onely willingly but gladly have permitted the holy Church to have done Nor may we think this mind to have been onely in Austen Modestie and humilitie are the individuall concomitants of true knowledge and learning and the more learned any man is the more judicious is he in espying the more ingenuous in acknowledging the more lowly and humble in condemning his owne errors As it is but winde and no solid substance which puffes up a bladder so is it never any sound or solid learning but meere ventositie emptinesse of knowledge which makes the minde to swell to beare it selfe aloft and either not see that truth into which his high and windie conceit will not suffer him to looke downe and dive or seeing it not embrace the same though it were with a condemning yea with a detestation of his owne error It must never be a shame or disgrace to any man to recall and condemne his errors till he be ashamed of being a man that is subject to errors Saint Augustine more sharply saith That its a token not onely of a foolish and proud selfe-love but of a most malignant minde rather to wish others to bee poysoned with his heresies then either himselfe to recall or permit others specially the Church of God to condemne his heresies It was no injurie no slander nor disgrace to Theodoret that his hereticall writings were by the Church condemned but it had beene a fault unexcusable and an eternall disgrace to the Church if shee had suffered such hereticall writings to passe uncondemned 27. Oh but Theodoret was probatissimusvir a man most approved by the Councell of Chalcedon saith Vigilius is it not an injury to condemne the writings of a man most approved No verely the more approved the more eminent learned and orthodoxall any man is the more carefull and ready both himselfe and the Church must be to condemne his former hereticall writings When heresie commeth in his owne deformed habit it doth but little or no hurt at all who will not detest it when he reades it in the writings of Arius Nestorius Eutiches or such like condemned heretikes the odiousnesse of their names breeds a dislike almost of a truth in their mouthes but certainly of an errour But when Satan assumes the forme of an Angell of light when heresie comes palliated yea countenanced with the name of a Catholike a learned an holy a renowned and approved Bishop then and then specially is there danger of infection The reverence the love the honour wee beare to such a person causeth us unawares to swallow the poyson which hee reacheth unto us before we take leasure to examine or once make doubt of his doctrine 28. It was truely said by Vincentius Lirinensis The errour of the Master is the tryall of the Scholler tanto major tentatio quanto ipse doctior qui erraret and the more learned the teacher is the greater still is the temptation which beside other he shewes by the example of Origen he was in his age a mirrour of gravity integrity continency zeale piety of learning of all sorts both divine and humane of so happy a memory that he had the Bible without booke of such admirable eloquence that not words but hony seemed to drop from his lips of so indefatigable industry that he was called Adamantius and was said by some to have written six thousand bookes by Hierome one thousand besides innumerable commentaries of such high esteeme and authority that Christians honoured him as a Prophet Philosophers as a Master they flocked from the utmost parts of the world to heare his wisedome as if a second Salomon had beene sent from heaven yea most would say malle se cum Origene errare quam cum alijs vera sentire that they had rather erre with Origen then thinke aright with others When such a man lapseth into heresie if his writings may scape without censure if it shall be judged a contumelie an injurie or slander to condemne his bookes for the honour which was given to his person one such man as Origen were able to draw almost the third part of the starres of heaven after him 29. And if any beleeve the Epistles going under his name Theodoret was in divers respects not much inferiour to Origen His birth noble his parents being without hope of Children vowed him before his conception like another Samuel unto God And accordingly even from his Cradle consecrated him to Gods service Violently drawne to the dignity of a Bishop the Citie of Cyrus in Syria where was his episcopall See he nobilitated being before but obscure though worthy of eternall memorie as being one monument of the deliverance of Gods people by the hand of Cyrus out of the Babylonish captivitie So upright blamelesse and voide of covetousnesse that having beene five and twenty yeares Bishop of that place in all that time ne obolum mihi in tribunali ablatum aliquis conquestus est none could say that hee had exacted or received for causes of judgement so much as one halfe pennie I tooke no mans goods no mans garments nay which is a memorable token of integritie none of mine house saith he hath taken the worth of an egge or a morsell of bread So plentifull in workes of charitie That he distributed his inheritance among the poore repaired Churches builded bridges drained Rivers to townes where was want of water and such like in so much saith he that in all this time I have provided nothing for my selfe not any land not any house no
which will both open a passage to the other and will give the reader a taste nay a certaine experiment what truth fidelity and faire-dealing he is to expect at the hands of Vigilius and Baronius in their handling of this Chapter 2. The first and that indeed a capitall untruth is that Vigilius avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to have approved this Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall They approve that impious and blasphemous Epistle they rejected they condemned anathematized and accursed it to the very pit of hell witnesse the fift generall Councell and the whole Catholike Church which hath approved it for thus cryed out and proclaimed all the Bishops Epistolam definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnavit ejecit the definition of faith made by the holy Councell at Chalcedon hath condemned this Epistle it hath cast out this Epistle But because I have formerly intreated hereof I will adde no more of this which is proclaimed by the whole Church to be an untruth 3. The second untruth is like this Vigilius having cited the interloquutions of Pascasinus and Maximus wherein they say that Ibas by his Epistle is declared to bee a Catholike addeth that all the rest in the Councell of Chalcedon did not onely not contradict their interloquutions verumetiam apertissimum eis noscuntur praebuisse consensum but also they are knowne to have assented and that most manifestly unto those interloquutions So Vigilius It had beene enough and too much to have said that the Councell had assented or had but seemed to assent but Vigilius in saying that all the rest did most manifestly assent to those interloquutions uttered a papall and supreme untruth whereof no colourable pretence can be made witnesse the fift general Councell and the whole Catholike Church which hath approved it They expresly testifie that the Councell of Chalcedon did pro nullo habere esteeme as nothing that which was spoken by one or two those were Pascasinus and Maximus for that Epistle but of this also I have spoken before 4. Now both these vntruths whereof Vigilius is so evidently and by so ample witnesses convicted Cardinall Baronius hath againe revived telling with a face more hard than Brasse or Adamant Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam the Fathers of Chalcedon said that this Epistle of Ibas is to be received as orthodoxall and againe ex ipsa Ibam fuisse probatum orthodoxum aequè una fuit sententia omnium Episcoporum that Ibas was by this Epistle approved for a Catholike it was the consent and uniforme judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon then which two lowder untruths and well worthy of a golden whetstone could hardly have beene uttered And though he tooke them from Pope Vigilius yet are they farre more inexcusable in the Cardinall than in the Pope his Master Vigilius dyed before he saw the judgement of succeeding Popes and generall Councels which had he knowne wee may charitably thinke that his Holinesse would have casseired and defaced such palpable and condemned untruths But Cardinall Baronius knew all this hee knew that the fift generall Councell had condemned these untruths in Vigilius he knew that Pelagius Gregory and their successors that the sixt seventh and other generall Councels had approved the fift Councell and so in approving it had condemned those same untruths and yet against the knowne consent and judgement of all those Popes and generall Councels that is against the knowne testimonie of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand yeares together he is bold to avouch both those former sayings for truths which all those former witnesses with one voyce proclaime to be condemned untruths Such account doth the Cardinall make of Fathers Popes Generall Councels and of the whole Catholike Church when they come crosse in his way 5. A third personall matter there is concerning this Chapter of which not Vigilius but Cardinall Baronius doth enforce me to intreate and that is whether Ibas was indeed the author of this Epistle or no for although it be not materiall to the intent of the fift Councell which against the decree of Vigilius we now defend whether Ibas writ it or not seeing neither this fift nor the former Councell of Chalcedon condemned the author of this Epistle but onely the Epistle it selfe yet seeing the Cardinall was pleased to undertake the defence of a needlesse untruth that this is not the Epistle of Ibas I am desirous that all should see how wisely and worthily hee hath behaved himselfe in this point 6. Baronius speaking against this Epistle first makes it doubtfull whose it is saying author qui fertur nomine Ibae quisquis ille fuerit the author of this Epistle which passeth under the name of Ibas whatsoever he be and having thus bred a distrust in your mindes then as the serpent dealt with Eve hee positively sets downe his untruth It is not the Epistle of Ibas in this manner Caeterum ut publica acta testantur producta in Concilium Epistola illa non esse Ibae comperta but the publike acts doe testifie that when this Epistle was produced in the Councell at Chalcedon it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it being condemned Ibas was absolved Thus Baronius who for proofe hereof alleageth the publike acts both of the Councell of Chalcedon and of the 2. Nicene Synod And truly in the second Nicene Synod that which the Cardinall saith is read indeed by Epiphanius a Deacon in that Synod but it is the testimony of the whole Councell Epiphanius onely reading and proposing it in the name and behalfe of the Synod And because it is a testimony very pregnant for the Cardinalls assertion and is cited out of a Councel which he much honoreth affecteth I will do him the favour as at large to expresse that passage the rather because this as the whole answer read by Epiphanius is not onely commended as a matter delivered unto them by the holy Ghost but they further request all who shall happen to light on that commentarie of theirs that they will not read it slightly or perfunctorily but with singular indagation and search of the same And I am loth to deny those Nicene Fathers so very just and reasonable a request 7. In that place there was read on the behalfe of the Iconoclasts a testimonie out of the ancient Father Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus forbidding to set up Images either in the Churches or in Churchyards or in their common dwelling houses but every where to carie about God in their hearts This saying netled the Nicene Fathers not a little who were very superstitiously devoted to Image-worship and therefore in stead of a better answer they say that the booke whence that is alleaged is falsly ascribed to Epiphanius hee was not the author of it Ephiphanius they honor as an holy Father and Doctor of the Catholike Church but that
I cannot but observe seeing those Nicene Fathers professe that writing against Image-worship going under the name of Epiphanius to be in such sort the book of Epiphanius as this Epistle going under the name of Ibas is the Epistle of Ibas and seeing we have now demonstrated this Epistle to be truly and indeed the Epistle of Ibas it followeth even by their owne reason and comparison that the book also against Image-worship cited by the Councell at Constantinople in the name of Epiphanius is in truth and in very deed the true writing of Bishop Epiphanius And yet further because those Nicene Fathers acknowledge Epiphanius for a Catholike Doctor of the Church one who held the ancient tradition of the Church and consented to the Catholikes in and before his time it hence againe followeth that the doctrine of condemning Image-worship which in that booke of Epiphanius is delivered was by the generall Councell at Constantinople some thirty yeares before this Nicene Assembly decreed that it I say is ancient Catholike consonant to the ancient tradition and the doctrine of the ancient and catholike Fathers of the Church even from the Apostles time And this is all which Baronius hath gained by his alleaging those publike acts of the Nicene Fathers to prove this not to be the Epistle of Ibas And let this suffice to be spoken of the personall untruths of Vigilius and Baronius touching this Epistle of Ibas which are but a praeludium to their doctrinall errors and heresies wherof in the next place we are to entreat CHAP. XI That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas drawne from the union with Cyrill mentioned in the latter part of that Epistle doe defend all the heresies of the Nestorians 1. WEE come now from personall matters to that which is the Capital point and maine heresie contained in the defence of this Chapter wherein Vigilius and Baronius have so behaved themselves that those former errours though they be too shamefull are but a very sport and play to that hereticall frenzie which here they doe expresse For now you shall behold the Pope and his Cardinall in their lively colours fighting under the banner of Nestorius and using the most cunning stratagems that were ever devised to cloake their hereticall doctrine and gaine credit to that condemned heresie Those sleights are principally two The former is gathered out of the latter part of the Epistle of Ibas where mention is made of the union betwixt Cyrill and Iohn which although I touched before yet because it is a matter of greater obscuritie and containeth a most notable fraud of Vigilius and Baronius I purposely reserved the full handling of it unto this place where without interruption of other matters I might have scope enough to explaine the depth of this mysterie 2. In the time of the Ephesine Councell there was as all know an exceeding breach betwixt Cyrill with other Catholike Bishops who condemned Nestorius and Iohn Bishop of Antioch with divers other Eastern Bishops who tooke part with Nestorius against the holy Councell And the division was so great that at the selfe-same time in one the selfe-same citie of Ephesus they held two severall Councels and set up altare contra altare Councell against Councell Patriarcke against Patriarcke Bishops against Bishops and Synodall sentence against Synodall sentence But betwixt those two Councels there was as much difference as is betwixt light and darkenesse betwixt truth and heresie betwixt the Church of God and the Synagogue of Satan The one consisted of holy orthodoxall and Catholike Bishops whose President was Cyrill the other of hereticall factious and divers deposed Bishops whose President was Iohn The former condēned Nestorius his blasphemous doctrine whereby hee denied Christ to be God the latter defended Nestorius and all his impious doctrines The former was held in a Church even in the Church of the Blessed Virgin whose Sonne they professed to bee truly God the latter in an Inne or Taverne a fit place for them who denied Christ to be God The former proceeded in all respects orderly and Synodally as was fit and requisite that they should the latter did all things tumultuously presumptuously and against the Canons of the Church supporting themselves onely by lies calumnies and slanderous reports In a word the former was truly an holy a generall an Oecumenicall Councell wherein was the consent of the whole Catholike Church the latter was nothing else but an hereticall schismaticall and rebellious faction or conspiracie of some thirtie or fortie persons unworthy the name of Bishops insolently opposing themselves to the holy Councel yea to the whole Catholike Church in which number and faction besides others who lesse concerne our purpose were these Iohn Bishop of Antioch the ring-leader of the rest Paulus Bishop of Emisa Theodoret of whom wee before entreated and Ibas not then but some three or foure yeares after Bishop of Edessa whom to have beene present at that time as a Bishop though his name bee not expressed in their subscription both Glicas in his Annales and the Councell at Chalcedon and Ibas his owne words therein doe make manifest 3. Now though there was so great odds betwixt the holy Councell and this factious conventicle yet were they as is the custome of all heretickes and schismatickes most insolent in all their actions As the holy Councell deposed Nestorius for an hereticke so the Conventicle to cry quittance with them deposed Cyrill for an Arch-hereticke also condemning his twelve Chapters as hereticall which the holy Councell had approved as orthodoxall As the holy Councell excommunicated and anathematized Iohn Paulus Theodoret Ibas and all the rest of their factious adherents and defenders of Nestorius and his heresie So did the Conventicle also excommunicate and anathematize Cyrill and all that tooke part with him and defended his twelve Chapters and so among these even Pope Celestine and the whole Catholike Church As the holy Councell truly and justly called themselves the sacred and oecumenicall Councell and tearmed Iohn with his adherents a faction and hereticall Conventicle of Nestorians so did the Conventicle arrogate unto themselves the glorious name of the holy Ephesine Councell and slandered them which held with Cyrill to bee a Conventicle an unlawfull and disorderly assembly tearming them Arians Apollinarians and from Cyrill Cyrillians As the holy Councell constantly refused to communicate with Iohn or any of his faction untill they did cōsent to the deposing of Nestorius and anathematizing his heresie so the conventicle most peevishly and pertinaciously not onely refused the communion with Cyrill and other Catholikes but bound themselves by many solemne oathes and that even in the presence of the Emperor that they would never communicate with the Cyrillians unlesse they would condemne the twelve chapters of Cyrill adding that they
so both his twelve Chapters and the Ephesine decree and all the like Cyrill answered with great confidence rem eos postulare quae fieri plane non posset that they required a matter utterly impossible because what hee had written touching that matter was rightly written and in defence of the true faith and therefore that he could not either condemne or deny what he had written 31. When it succeeded not this first way they next attempted to effect the union by Paulus Bishop of Emisa whom they sent to Alexandria to negotiate for them both by words and by a second letter which they sent by him And although they were not in this second so violent as in the former of Acatius yet they writ some things therein also not fitting nor allowable for they reproved the holy Ephesine Councell as if things had been spoken and done therein amisse What did Cyrill answer Hujusmodi epistolas equidem non admisi truly I did not admit or allow of this their second Epistle neither seeing therein they did adde new contumelies who should have asked pardon for the old But where as Paulus did very earnestly excuse the matter affirming and that upon his oath also that their purpose was not to exasperate Cyrill but to accord with him delectionis gratia excusationem admisi I in charity was content to admit of this excuse And Paulus being very desirous to effect the union consented to anathematize Nestorius and his heresies to consent also to the deposing of Nestorius and the electing of Maximianus in his place which when Paulus had performed and subscribed suo chyrographo with his owne hand-writing which was all that either the Emperor or Cyrill required ad synaxim recepi I received him to the communion of the Church But when Paulus would further have perswaded Cyrill that seeing he was sent in the name of the rest and had subscribed this pro omnibus tanquam ex communi omnium orientalium persona for them all and as it were in the person of them all and therefore laboured with Cyrill that this his subscription might satisfie for the others also and that he would require no more of them but be content with their letters which by him they had sent nulla ratione id fieri passus sum saith Cyrill I could by no meanes indure that I told Paulus also that his subscription in condemning Nestorius and his heresies Ipsi soli sufficere could satisfie but only for himselfe but as for the rest Iohn and they must personally and for themselves subscribe or else they could not bee received into communion whereupon Cyrill writ an orthodoxall profession to that same effect whereunto Paulus had subscribed and sent it unto Iohn requiring his personall subscription to it This was the summe of all that was done by Paulus at his first comming 32. Paulus returning to Antioch brought this resolute answer of Cyrill to Iohn and the Bishops of his Synod They seeing no other meanes to make an union but onely by consenting to Cyrill and seeing that Paulus whom they put in trust as their agent had both himselfe consented and further undertaken that Iohn and they should likewise consent unto the same which hee had done did now at length yeeld to all the demands of Cyrill and for an assurance of their sincerity therein they writ a Synodall and Encyclicall Epistle unto Cyrill which they likewise sent unto Pope Sixtus to Maximianus and other principall Bishops wherein they first set downe a very sound true and orthodoxall confession of their faith and then testifie their willing assent and subscription to the deposing of Nestorius and the condemning of his heresies 33. This Synodall letter they sent to Cyrill by Paulus Bishop of Emisa that he might make a finall peace and union At whose comming to Alexandria this second time and bringing with him this undoubted testimony of the orthodoxie of Iohn and the chiefe of the Easterne Bishops and that they had now consented to all which either the Emperour or Cyrill required of them the union was fully concluded on every part and peace made in the Church In token whereof Paulus preached at Alexandria in the month of December making there before Cyrill and the whole City so orthodoxall a profession of the faith that the people for joy interrupting him foure or five times exclamed Bene venisti Orthodoxe O Orthodox Paul thou art welcome to us Cyrill is orthodoxall Paulus is orthodoxall and Cyrill for his part writ that learned Epistle in congratulation unto Iohn and the rest which beginneth Let the Heavens rejoyce and let the earth be glad publishing it as an hymne of joy and thanksgiving for the union now effected in the Church singing Glory unto God and peace among men 34. This is the true narration of the whole proceedings betwixt Cyrill and the Easterne Bishops touching this matter of the union as they who diligently peruse the Epistles of Cyril to Acatius Bishop of Melitene to Dynatus and Iohn and compare therewith the Epistle of Iohn and the Synod of Antioch sent to Cyrill and Xistus will clearly perceive whence three things may be observed The first is the most shamelesse dealings of the Nestorians who slandered Cyrill to have at the time of the union consented in all points unto them and to their heresie and to have condemned his former doctrine and the Ephesine Councell wheras the quite contrary was true He was most inflexible and constant in maintaining the true faith more inexorable than Aeacus or rather as Moses would not consent to Pharoah no not in the least hoofe so would not Cyrill yeeld one heire-bredth unto them but brought them to subscribe wholly and in every point to that which he desired 35. The second is the occasion which the Nestorians tooke for their pretended calumnie They knew that Iohn and the Easterne Bishops had written to Cyrill willing him to condemne his owne Chapters yea that they had writ so resolutely that unlesse Cyrill did so they would not consent unto any peace or union Thus much was true as by the letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea to Cyrill is evident Now they saw that Cyrill afterwards and in that very yeare consented with Iohn and made union with him whereupon they boasted that Cyrill did it upon the condition required by Iohn at the first which was the condemning of his former doctrine wilfully and maliciously concealing both how Cyrill utterly denyed to yeeld unto them or to that condition required by them and how at the length Iohn and so many of them as were received into communion consented wholly unto him and subscribed to the Catholike faith All this they quite suppresse and to colour the matter they forged a letter under the name of Cyrill as consenting to condemne his owne doctrine which no doubt was the same letter that Ibas in his Epistle inclosed and
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
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
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
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
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.
have fully seene CAP. XVIII The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius pretending that the fift Councell wherein the decree of Vigilius was condemned was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell till Vigilius confirmed the same refuted 1. THere now remaineth onely the fourth and last exception of Baronius in which though being the weakest and worst of all his whole hope now consists In this the Cardinall brings forth all his forces all the Engines of his wit and malice to batter downe the authority of the fift generall Councell Seeing it contradicted the Pope and judicially decreed his Apostolicall sentence to be hereticall it shall bee of no authority at all it shall bee neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell it shall bee nothing but a Conspiracy and conventicle with Baronius and his friends untill Vigilius doe approve the same But heare their owne words to this purpose 2. The fift Councell saith Baronius aliquando expers fuit omnis authoritatis was for a time void of all authority yea so void thereof ut nec legitima Synodus dici meruerit that it deserved not to bee called so much as a lawfull much lesse a generall and lawfull Synod because it was assembled the Pope resisting it was ended the Pope contradicting it But when afterwards it was approved by the sentence of Vigilius and other succeeding Popes then it got the title and authority of an Oecumenicall Synod Againe The fift Councell at that time when it was held could not have the name of an Oecumenicall Synod seeing it was not lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost because the Pope neither by himselfe nor by his Legates would be present in it And yet more spightfully These things cōsidered planè consenties ipsam nec Oecumenicae nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen you will consent that the fift Councell deserved not the name of an Oecumenicall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Synod nor Councell at all seeing both it was assembled resistente Pontifice the Pope resisting it and also pronounced sentence contra ipsius Decretum against the Popes Decree Thus Baronius in whose steps Binius treadeth saying Pope Vigilius was not present in this Councell either by himselfe or by his deputies Contradixit eidem he contradicted the Synod the members assembled without the head dum ageretur non consentit the Pope consented not to it while it was held nor did approve it straight after it was ended yet it got the name title and authority of an Oecumenicall Councell quando ipsius Vigilii sententia when it was afterwards approved by the sentence of Vigilius himselfe and his successors So Binius 3 How or where shall I begin or who though more censorious than Cato can with sufficient gravity and severity castigate the insolency and most shamelesse dealing of these men who rather than one of their Popes even Pope Proteus himselfe shall bee thought to erre in his Cathedrall Decree of faith care not to disgrace to vilifie yea to nullifie one of the ancient and sacred generall Councels approved as before we have shewed by the whole Catholike Church For if this Councell was neither generall nor lawfull as they teach till Vigilius approved it by his Apostolicall authority after his returne from exile then was it never nor as yet is either a generall or lawfull Councell seeing Vigilius after his exile never did nor could approve it as before we have clearly proved So this fift Councell must for ever be cashiered and blotted out of the ranke of Councels And because as their second Nicene Synod rightly disputes the seventh must follow the sixt in the same ranke and order and the sixt the fift if there was no fift generall and holy Councell neither can there bee any sixt nor seventh nor eighth nor any other after it So by the assertion of these men there are at once dashed out fourteene of those which themselves doe honour by the name of holy generall Councels 4. I say more the expunging of all those fourteene Councels doth certainly follow upon the Cardinals assertion though it were granted that Vigilius had confirmed this fift as it is true that Pelagius and Gregory did For if it was as he teacheth neither a generall nor lawfull Synod while the Councell continued and for that whole time while it was an assembly of Bishops then undoubtedly it never at any time was nor yet is either a generall or a lawfull Synod For after the end and dissolution thereof it was never extant in rerum natura againe it was ever after that time Non ens and being neither Synod nor yet so much as Ens it could not possibly be either generall or lawfull It is a Maxime Non entis non sunt Accidentia If while it was extant and while it was an assembly it was but a conventicle if then it was not gathered in Gods name I pray you when was it ever after that gathered in Gods name Did Vigilius Pelagius or Gregory when they made it by their approbation a generall and lawfull Councell did they like some new Aeolus blow all the Bishops againe to Constantinople and assemble them the second time in the Popes name that so they might be said to be gathered in Gods name Let their Popes trie if by all their magicall skill or omnipotent power they can make any one of those Africane Councels under Cyprian a Generall or make the Arimine Syrmian or second Ephesine a lawfull Councell and I will instantly yeeld that hee may doe the like to this fift If hee cannot doe any of the former what vanitie was it in the Cardinall and Binius to say of this fift that while it was extant and Ens it was neither a general nor lawful Councel but some one or some twenty yeares after when it was non Ens the Pope made it with a word both a generall and lawfull Councell Dixit factum est One word of his mouth makes or unmakes what he list Truth is the Popes or any other Bishops approbation or confirmation of a Councell or any decree thereof after the Councell is once ended may perhaps in the opinion of some men gaine some more liking unto that Councell or decree than before it had seeing now it hath the expresse consent of those Bishops whom the other doe much esteeme but the after consent or approbation of all the Bishops in the world much lesse of the Pope cannot make that to bee a generall which before and while it was extant was onely Provinciall or that to be a lawfull which before and while it was extant was an unlawfull Synod Even as the Pope and a thousand Bishops with him cannot now make any of the foure first generall and holy Councels to be either unlawfull or particular Synods and yet his power is every whit as great in annihilating that which now is as in creating that which never was
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
belong onely to Kings and Emperours they called and commanded the Bishops the Bishops came at that call and command they governed the assemblies in those Councels all the Bishops without murmuring or so much as once contradicting willingly submitted themselves to that Imperiall government And by this may now easily be discerned wherein the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of any Synod consisteth For wheresoever to Imperiall calling and Imperiall Presidencie there is added the rightfull use of that Imperiall authoritie in seeing liberty freedome diligent discussion of the causes and all due synodall order preserved in any generall Synod the fame is and ought to bee truly called a generall lawfull Councell But what generall Councels soever have beene heretofore or shall bee at any time hereafter either assembled by any other than Imperiall and regall authority or governed for the observing of synodall order by any other than Imperiall Presidencie or misgoverned by the abuse thereof they all are and are to bee esteemed for no other than generall unlawfull Councels 19. Suffer mee here to propose some examples of each kinde partly in the ancient partly in the later times of the Church In the order of lawfull generall Councels principally and by a certaine excellency above all the rest are the five first approved Councels to bee reckned The first at Nice the second at Constantinople the third at Ephesus the fourth at Chalcedon the fift at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian unto these the Sardicane and that at Constantinople under Mennas are to bee added like two Appendant Synods the former to that at Nice the later to that at Chalcedon For the sixt which was held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Pogonatus I am out of doubt and doe firmely hold it to have beene both generall and lawfull But I mention it apart by reason of that scruple touching the Canons thereof concerning which I intend if ever I have oportunity to make a severall tract by it selfe For their second Nicene and the next unto it to wit that at Constantinople in the time of Basilius and Hadrian the second besides that there are just exceptions against their lawfulnesse in regard of the proceedings used therin it may be justly doubted whether either of them may be esteemed generall specially considering that the Councell at Frankford utterly condemned that second Nicene and decreed that it should not bee called a generall Synod and in very like manner did the Councell at Constantinople held in the time of Pope Iohn the eighth or as some call him the ninth the next successor to Hadrian the second condemne that Councell which they call the eighth held in the time of Hadrian the second Now although by the judgements of these two Councels those other which they reckon for the seventh and eighth be wholy repealed and that most justly yet if the authority of these Synods were omitted there are so many and so just exceptions against the two former that I am out of doubt perswaded that neither of them ought to stand in the order of generall lawfull Councels nor will any I suppose judge otherwise who shall unpartially examine the Acts of them compare them with the histories of those times If any at all after the sixt be to be ranked in the number of generall and lawfull Councells I would not doubt to make it evident if ever I should proceed so farre in this argument about Councels that the Councell held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus whom they in contempt have with no small token of their immodesty nicknamed Copronimus that this ought to bee judged the seventh that at Frankford the eighth and that at Constantinople which even now I mentioned held in the time of Pope Iohn the eighth or as some call him the ninth the ninth of that order For both the generality of all these three is by the best Writers acknowledged and all of them were called by Imperiall authority governed by Imperiall presidency and that in a lawfull free and synodall manner as if ever I come to handle the Councels of those times I purpose to explaine This rather for this time I thinke needfull to observe that as a Councell may be generall and yet not lawfull so may one be both generall and lawfull and yet erroneous in the decrees thereof which one point rightly observed shewes an exceeding difference betwixt those five first generall Councels with the Sardicane and that under Mennas and all the rest which follow the fift Synod The former which were all held within the six hundred yeares after Christ in the golden ages of the Church are wholly and in every decree and Canon orthodoxall and golden Councells no drosse nor dramme of corrupt doctrine could prevaile in any one of them and so they are and ever since they were held were esteemed not onely generall and lawfull but in every part and parcell of their decrees holy and orthodoxall Councels approved by all Catholikes and by the whole Catholike Church But in all generall Councels which follow that fift which were held after the 600. yeare and in those times wherein dross and corruption began to prevaile above the gold in them all there is some one blot or other wherewith they are blemished and by reason whereof although they be both generall and lawfull yet are they not in every decree holy and orthodoxall nor approved by the succeeding ages of the Church Such in the sixt is the 2.52 and 53. Canons in that under Constantinus Iconomachus the 15. and 17. definitions in that at Frankford their condemning of the fact of the Iconoclasts which untill the decree for breaking them downe was repealed by the Councell at Frankford was both pious and warranted by the example of Hezekias dealing with the brazen serpent In that under Iohn the 8. their denying of the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son And these examples which I have now named are all the examples of generall and lawfull Councels which as yet have beene held in the Church 20. Wee come now to unlawfull Synods wherein it is very memorable that of such as are unlawfull by want of lawfull calling there is no example in the ancient Church to bee found nor more than a thousand yeares after Christ. All that time not any generall Councell assembled without lawfull warrant The Bishops no not they of Rome were as yet growne to bee so insolent and headstrong as to come together without the Emperours Mandatum And the very like might be said of such Synods as are unlawfull by want of Imperiall presidency During all that time no Bishop no not he of Rome durst intrude himselfe into that Royalty and Imperiall right As the Emperour called them all for a thousand yeares so was he by himselfe or his deputies President in them all But of such as were unlawfull by abuse of that Imperiall presidency those ancient times doe yeeld abundant examples Such among many was that
and without whose consent first obtained they may in no place of his Kingdome assemble together without the note of tumult and sedition This Nicene Canon as all the rest when Constantine and other suceeding Emperours and Kings approved as who hath not approved that holy Councel they then gave unto it the force of an Imperiall law according to the rule omnia nostra facimus quibus nostram impartimar authoritatem wee make that our owne Act and our law which wee ratifie by our authoritie And Iustinian more plainly expressed this when he said Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas regulas we enact that the holy Canons of the Church set downe in the former Councels the Nicene the Constantinopolitane Ephesine and Chalcedon shall have the force and stand in the strength of Imperiall lawes By this Imperiall assent it is that when the wisedome of Christian Emperours and Kings doth not otherwise dispose of calling Synods in their dominions Primates may call the same two or moe or fewer in any yeare as necessitie shall perswade but whensoever they call any the same are called assembled and celebrated by the force of that Imperial authoritie which Kings and Emperours have either given to that Nicene Canon or which they in more explicite manner shall impart unto the Primates or Bishops in their Kingdomes 27. Now if Provinciall Councels may not nor ever are lawfully held in Christian Kingdomes without this authority how much lesse may generall and Oecumenicall the occasions of which being rare and extraordinary the calling also of them is extraordinary and both for the time place meerly arbitrary at the will of those who have Imperial or regal authority To say nothing how inconvenient it is even in civill government and how dangerous unto Christian States that all the Bish. of a Kingdome should leave their own Churches naked of their guides and Pastours and goe into farre and forraigne Countries without the command of their Soveraigne Lords especially goe at the command of an usurping Commander and that also if he require though their owne Soveraignes shall forbid or withstand the same of the mischiefe and danger whereof the example of Becket among many like may be a warning to all Kingdomes But leaving that to the grave consideration of others thus much now out of that which hath beene said is evident that seeing all those ten forenamed Synods were called and assemble by no other authority than Pontificall and seeing lawfully assemble they could not but onely by Imperiall it hence clearly ensueth that for defect of lawfull calling and assembling they are all of them no other than unlawfull Councels Againe seeing no Synods are congregated in Christs name but such as are assembled by him who hath from Christ authority to assemble them which in Christian Kingdomes none hath as wee have shewed but onely Kings and Emperours and seeing none of those ten were assembled by them it hence further and certainly ensueth that never one of those ten were gathered in Christs name and if not in Christs then sure in no other but in the name of Antichrist and so all of them in respect of their calling not only unlawfull but even Antichristian Councels 28. After their calling consider their proceedings for as those Councels were unlawfully assembled so were they also unlawfull by defect of the other essentiall condition which is due and synodall order for they all not onely wanted synodall freedome and order but which is worse they wanted that which is the onely meanes to have synodall freedome and order observed in any generall Councell and that is the Imperiall Presidencie in none of them was the Emperour in them all the Pope was President In the first Later ane Calistus in the second Innocentius the second in the third Alexander the third in the fourth Innocentius the third and the like might bee shewed in the rest but that Bellarmines words may ease us of that labour who speaking of all those ten Councels saith In eis omnibus sine Controversia Pontifex Rom. praesedit the Pope without doubt was President in them all 29. Nor was this an Episcopall Presidencie a preheminence only precedence before other Bishops in the Synod such as any Bish. to whoÌ„ the Emp. pleased to confer that dignity might lawfully enjoy when he gave it to none by name it then by his tacit consent or permission fell as it were by devolution upon the chiefe Bishop that was present in the Councell Such a Presidencie though it bee not due to the Pope seeing in the ancient Councels hee neither had it nor grudged that other should have it yet are wee not unwilling to allow that unto him if contenting himselfe therewith hee would seeke no more But the Presidencie which hee now desires and in all those ten Councels usurped is meerely Imperiall the Presidencie of governing the Synod and ordering it by his authority and power the very same which in all the generall Councels for a thousand yeares after Christ the Emperour held and had it as one of his Royalties and Imperiall rights none of all the Catholike Bishops in those Councels ever so much as contradicting much lesse resisting the same For any Bishops most of all for the Pope to take upon them such a Presidencie utterly overthrows all liberty and order in Councels for by it all the Bishops are to be kept in awe and order and the Pope who of all other is most exorbitant and farthest out of square ought by this to be curbed reduced in to order Even as when Catiline took upon him to bee the Ruler and guide to his assembly and a punisher of disorders among them though all the rest willingly submitted themselves and that with a solemne oath to bee ordered by him in their actions yet for all this order they were no free Romane Senate but a Conjuration of Conspirators striving to oppresse the Romane State liberties and ancient lawes Right so it is in these Synods when the Pope who is the Lord of misrule and Ring-leader of the Conspirators takes upon him this Presidencie to order Councels though the â—est not onely consent but binde themselves by a sacred oath to be subject to his authoritie this very usurpation of such Presidencie doth eo ipso exclude and banish al liberty synodall order makes their assemblies meere Conjurations against the truth and ancient faith of the Church 30. How could it now be chosen but that whasoever heresie the Pope with the faction of his Catilinarie Conspiratours embraced should in such Councels prevaile against the truth The Imperiall authority was the onely hedge or pale to keepe the Pope within his bounds that being once removed he said he did he decreed what he listed The rule of his Rigiment was now the old Canon of Constantius Quod ego volo pro Canone sit the proofe of all their decrees was borrowed
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
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
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
whose sacriledges cried unto heaven an usurper a violent invader an intruder of the Apostolike See a bastard and unlawfull Pope whom the true and lawfull Pope hath bound with eternall chaines against whom hee hath shot the dart of damnation and shewed to the whole world that he ascended into the throne ut lapsu graviore ruat that hee might have a greater and more shamefull fall that hee did not represent nor was the successor of Simon Peter but of Simon Magus and that hee is the Vicar not of Christ but of Antichrist an Idol even the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place and set up in the temple of God one rightly to bee called by no other name than a Wolfe a Thiefe a Robber a Pseudobishop and even Antichrist and which after all the rest is especially to bee remembred as the cloze of the Cardinals Description all this time Vigilius both was and was known to the Electors to be a very sound and true Catholike A true Catholike Such Catholikes indeed doth the Cardinall describe and commend unto the world a Catholike Schismatike a Catholike heretike a Catholike Antichrist a Catholike Devill If such were their Romane Catholikes and Catholike Popes in those ancient times O gracious God what manner of Catholike Popes are they in these ages Then and untill the yeare 600 was the golden age of the Church their Romane Bishops were then like the head of Nebuchadnezzers Image to the late and moderne Popes Vigilius a golden Bishop indeed to the brazen iron and clayish Popes of these later ages the basenesse of which no tongue or pen can expresse when the gold is so full of drosse when the heads which give life motion and beeing to all the rest are so full of abomination what manner of Catholikes thinke you are the armes the legs the feet and tailes of that their Babylonish Image which all must bee proportionable But let us returne to Vigilius whom I hope you will now confesse to be exactly and graphically described by the pensill of their owne Apelles 17. After his instalment wee are to come to his Acts and gests those I confesse are very few in number they are but two Anastasius a man slavishly addicted to the Papall See was the chiefe compiler of his life which had a man of integrity and indifferency writ it is not unlike but many other matters had bin recorded of Vigilius yet those two are very memorable and such as most nearely touch the Pōtifical office The former concerns the performāce of that promise which Vigilius made to Theodora that when he were Pope he would abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and restore Anthimus Severus and other Eutychean deposed Bishops of it Liberatus writes that Vigilius implens promissionem suam quam Augustae fecerat talem scripsit Epist. fufilling his promise wch he had made to the Empresse writ this Epistle Victor B. of Tunē sheweth also that Vigilius by the means of Antonia the wife of Bellisarius writ unto Theodosius of Alexandria Anthimus of Constantinople and Severus of Antioch a good while since condemned by the Apostolike See tanquam Catholicis as unto Catholikes signified that himselfe was of the same opinion concerning the faith with them The summe then of the Epistle of Pope Vigilius was to signifie to these hereticall and deposed Bishops that himselfe was an Eutychean as they were the Epistle it selfe set downe both in Liberatus and in Victor clearly testifieth the same for therein Vigilius writeth thus eam fidem quam tenetis Deo adjuvante tenuisse me tenere significo I signifie unto you that by Gods helpe I have held and doe now hold the same faith which you doe but the Pope adds one clause further for secresie wel worthy observing O portet ut haec quae scribo nullus agnoscat it is needfull that none know of these things which I write unto you but rather your wisedome must have me in suspition more than any other that so I may more easily effect and bring to passe those things which I have begun See you not here as in a glasse the deep hypocrisie and heresie of Vigilius with what subtilty and closenesse he labours to undermine the Councell of Chalcedon and the whole Catholike faith even then when hee would seeme to favour it and therefore wisheth the Eutycheans to speake of him as one who they suspected most of all to bee against them Liberatus adds that Vigilius under his Epistle writ a confession of his faith also in qua duas in Christo damnavit naturas wherein hee condemned the teaching of two natures in Christ and dissolving the Tome of Pope Leo hee said non duas Christi naturas confitemur we doe not acknowledge two natures in Christ but one Sonne one Christ one Lord composed of two natures to wit two before the adunation and againe qui dicit in Christo duas formas whosoever saith that there are two formes or natures in Christ either working according to his owne property and doth not confesse one person one essence anathema sit let such a man be accursed Could Arius Eutyches or any heretike in the world more plainly condemne and accurse the Councell of Nice of Ephesus of Chalcedon yea the whole Catholike Church and Catholike faith It is here a fine sport to see how the two Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine how other pettifoggers such as Gretzer and Binius doe here bestirre themselves to quit Vigilius of this blemish and of the heresie and impiety taught in this Epistle First Vigilius writ not this Epistle it is but a counterfeit and forgery Next if hee did write it yet he did it while he was an usurper not when hee was the true and lawfull Pope Lastly hee did not hereby embrace heresie ex animo nor define it as Pope but onely by an exteriour act hee condemned the faith Thus they toile themselves to wash the Ethiopian and turne a Blackamore into a mike white Swanne 18. Truely I am exceeding loath now at the shutting up of this Treatise and after sounding of the retreat to enter into a new fresh conflict and prove Vigilius to have taught Eutycheanisme as before I have shewed that hee taught the quite contrarie heresie of Nestorianisme might I not say Spectatum satis donatum jam rude tandem Quaeritis hoc iterum antiquo me includere ludo I have not now the like vigor of minde at the putting off of the armour as at the first comming into the field and to say truth what courage can I or any have to fight against a foiled enemy which is but to cut off a dead mans head by proving him to bee an heretike who is not onely proved but by most ample judgment and sentence of the whole Catholike Church already condemned for an heretike yet because I have a desire to handle this whole argument concerning Vigilius if the reader bee not
needfull in a generall Councell p. 273. sect 14 15. The Pope present in the fift Councell by his letters of instruction p. 274. sect 16. The Popes consent makes not a Councell to be approved p. 275. sect 27. vid. lit C. In the Pope intensivè there is as much authority as in the Pope with a generall Councell Bellarmines assertion p. 174. sect 10. The Pope vertually both Church and Councell p. 178. sect 15. p. 180. sect 17. The name Papist not heard of till Leo the 10. p. 188. sect 25. to be a Pope an happy thing for all is held for truth that they define pag. 223. sect 16. Papist had need of a strong faith relying on the Popes judgement p. 224. sect 18. Paulus Bishop of Emisa subscribed to the anathematizing of Nestorius to perswade an union betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 133. sect 31 his Sermon at Alexandria containing an orthodoxall profession of the faith p. 134. sec. 33. Pelagius Pope after Vigilius consecrated by two Bishops onely an a Presbyter of Ostia pa. 242. sect 4. A Pope may erre personally they say but doctrinally he cannot p. 244. sect 7. The Pope no competent Iudge of Protestants being an enemy unto them pag. 315. sect 33. Pope Clements epistle to Iames a forgery pa. 422. sect 2. Paul censured by some for an hot-headed person 434. sect 18. in fine R. THe Church of Rome holdeth no doctrine by certainty of faith p. 181. in fine and pa. 282. sect 20. and p. 189. sect 27 28. The Romish doctrines may bee held three wayes p. 183. sect 21. in fine First of them who hold the Scriptures for the foundation p. 183. sect 22. such were our forefathers Second way by grounding upon Scripture but with pertinacy p. 184. sect 23. A third way of holding them is on the Popes word p. 185. seâ— 24 They of the Romane Church are heretikes p. 192. sect 31. In their Romane Church no true holinesse p. 193. sect 32. They of the Romish Church are schismatikes p. 196. sect 34. Rome miserably besieged by Totilas p. 456. sect 22. Ruba not taken from Alexandria pag. 407. sect 8. S. THe Synod resolves to judge the controversie about the three Chapt. the Pope being absent p. 7. sect 1. Sergins Bishop of Cyrus deposed from his Bishopricke p. 706. sect 18. Scripture being the ground of a mans faith is a comfort unto him though in some things he erre pa. 191. sect 29. and p. 194. sect 33. Supremacy and infallibility are inseparably joyned p. 176. sect 12. Schismatikes are not of the Church pa. 199. sect 39. Profession of Scriptures excuse not from heresie p. 226. sect sect 13. Suidas a fabler 326. sect 4. Sophia built by Constantine the mirrour of ages p. 350. sect 39. Switzers order in judgement p. 394. in fine Shamefull matters not added to the Acts of the fift Synod p. 408. sect 1.4 Silverius died of famine in the Iland Palmaria p. 472. sect 13. Synods what makes them lawfull p. 282. and what unlawfull p. 306. sect 20. T. THeodorus not condemned in his life time p. 47. sect 2. Theodorus died not in the peace of the Church p. 59. sect 1 2 3 4. and p. 66. Theodorus condemned by Cyrill and Proclus p. 68. sec. 2 3. and p. 73. sec. 11. c. by the Ephesine Councell p. 69. sec. 4. c. by the Armenian Councell p. 72. sec. 10. by the Emperours Edict sec. 13 14 c. by the Catholike Church p. 76. sec. 19. Theodoret writ against Cyrill and the true faith p. 62. sec. 4 5. Theodoret very resolute for Nâ—storianisme p. 93. sec. 6. Theodoret his writings condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon p. 96. sec. 12 13. and p. 101. sec. 23. and by Cyrill p. 98. sec. 16 17. Theodoret was not injured though his writings were condemned p. 102. sec. 24 26. Theodoret a man of rare worth and learning p. 104. sec. 29 30. Taciturnity the decree of taciturnity and what effect it tooke p. 225. sec. 2 3 4. a meere fiction p. 228. sec. 5 6 c. Trent Bishops were the Popes creatures pa. 319. sec. 37. The Trent Councell conspired against Protestants p. 314. sec. 32. Theodora unjustly reviled by Baronius pag. 355. sec. 1. Theodora favoured Anthimus as being orthodoxall p. 358. sec. 5. Theodora not excommunicated by Vigilius p. 359. sec. 6. Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea no heretike p. 368. sec. 9 10. Theodorus of Caesarea no Origenist pa. 374. sec. 17. he maimed not the Acts of the 5. Synod p. 697. sec. 7. Theodosius law in the Code not corrupted p. 411. sec. 4. Theodoret wrote that Epistle mentioned in the fift Synod p. 413. sec. 1. hee wrote it after the union p. 416. sec. 6 7. and p. 420. sec. 12. Theodora writ not to Vigilius to restore Anthimus p. 449. sec. 16 17. Theodora sent not Anthimus Scribo to Rome for Vigilius p. 452. sec. 18. Theodoret sets forth his owne orthodoxy p. 417. sec. 7. Theodoret condemned by the Councell at Ephesus p. 419. sec. 10. Theodoret writ an epistle to Iohn of Antioch p. 422. sec. 1. Theodoret rejoyceth over Cyrill being dead p. 427. sec. 5. A Trechery intended in Queene Elizabeths time by a deepe dissembler p 488. in medio V. VIgilius alledgeth counterfeit writings in stead of Fathers p. 78. sec. 23 24. c. Vigilius denieth the knowne writings of Theodorus p. 82. sec. 31. Vigilius imputeth an heresie to the Councell of Ephesus p. 84. sec. 34. Vigilius untruly pretendeth the Councell of Chalcedon p. 84. sec. 35 36. Vigilius falsely pretendeth Iustinian for Theodorus p. 86. sec. 38. Vigilius durst not himselfe condemne Theodorus p. 88. sec. 41 42. Vigilius would not permit any other to condemne Theodorus pa. 89. sec. 45. and pag. 99. sec. 18. Vigilius anathematizeth those that condemne Theodorus p. 90. sec. 46. Vigilius accuseth the Councell of Chalcedon as dissemblers p. 94. sec. 8. Vigilius condemneth Nestorianisme onely in shew p. 100. sec. 20 21. Vigilius and Baronius appeare in their lively colours for Nestorianisme p. 112. sec. 1. and p. 27. sec. 2. Vnion made betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 116 sec. 5. and how concluded p 133. sec. 30 31. Vigilius from the Vnion labours to prove Ibas a Catholike p. 117. sec. 7. Vigilius approveth the whole epistle of Ibas p. 118. sec. 9. Vnion in Nestorianisme was that union which Ibas embraced p 127. sec. 14. That Vigilius decreed this union in Nestorianisme with a setled affection is probable pa. 129 sec. 23. Vigilius approveth the confession made by Ibas p. 141. sec. 3 4 5. Vigilius his reasons to prove Ibas profession to be Catholike p. 151. sec. 29 c. Vigilius with Ibas approveth two persons in Christ p. 164. sec. 48 49 c. Vigilius his pretence to defend the Councell at Chalcedon p. 200 sec. 1 2. Vigilius hereticall notwithstanding his profession of Councels p. 208. sec. 17. Vigilius is said to have approved the fift Councell p. 213. sec. 1.