a story able to put downe Heliodore Orlando and all the fictions of all the Poets their wits are barren their conceits dull they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor It is not my purpose to stand now to resute such a lying legend The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monke Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus the onely author that he knew till Baronius pull'd this blinde Tailor out of a corner Though I beleeve saith hee God to bee omnipotent yet I beleeve not all which is here written of Chrysostome sed fides penes lectoreÌ„ esto let the reader choose whether hee will beleeve it or not for the writers of mens lives who lived before Nicephorus and hee writ about the yeare 1328. would not have concealed or smothered in silence rem tanti momenti a matter of so great moment Thus the Carthusian whose judgement may justly be thought to bee the more weighty because of all the ancient Fathers there is none I speake it confidently who hapned to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius as he is called Leo and George the writers or rather the devisers of Chrysostomes acts his life and death Any one of them doting after such miraculous reports would have painted out this miracle of miracles with all the wit and words which they had That which I onely observe is the strange and if you please miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius This Epistle of Theodosius though it was written to Chrysostome more than thirty yeares after his death the Cardinall approves applaudes and for a rare monument hee commends it and all that appendant fable to all posterity Why it is an excellent story indeed to perswade the adoration of reliques invocation of Saints prayers for the dead and such like Had this Epistle of Theodorets contained such stuffe it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship because it wants such matters and crosseth in very many things the Cardinals Annals Oh it is nothing but a fiction and a very forgery of some lewd naughty varlet It is demonstrated to be such because it was written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch who was dead but 7. yeares before whereas more than foure times seven yeares cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after hee was dead to be an authentike and undoubted record This may serve the Cardinall for the first answere who is now bound in all equity either to confesse his owne demonstration to be fallacious or to proclame the Epistle of Pope Clement and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration to be fictitious and his owne Annals a fabulous legend 5. My second answer is that though Iohn to whom this Epistle is directed was dead yet that proves onely the title or inscription to be amisse or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to Iohn it cannot prove which the Cardinall undertooke to doe that the Epistle is forged and not written by Theodoret For the Epistle it selfe to bee truly Theodorets his owne Sermon publikely preached at Antioch before Domnus after the death of Cyrill and mentioned in the Synodall Acts next after this Epistle doth clearly manifest for the scope and purpose of that sermon is the same which is expressed in the Epistle In the Epistle Theodoret declareth his eagernesse in defending the doctrine of Nestorius and withall rejoyceth and insulteth over Cyrill being dead who was then the chiefe oppugner of the heresies of Nestorius The very same eagernesse for Nestorianisme and love to his heresies as also the like joy for Cyrils death doth his sermon expresse more fully saying Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare none doth now seeing Cyrill is dead compell any man to blaspheme so hee cals the Catholike faith Where are those to wit Cyrill who teach that God was crucified It was the man Christ and not God who was crucified It was the man IESVS that dyed and it was GOD the Word who raised him from the dead Non jam est contentio Now seeing Cyrill is dead there is no contention Oriens Egyptus sub uno jugo est the East Egypt that is as well those who are under the Patriarke of Alexandria as they who are under the Patriarke of Antioch are all under one yoke that is all submit themselves to one faith that is to Neâ—â—orianisme Mortua est invidia cum eo mortua est contentio Envy hee meaneth Cyrill who so much hated and oppugned the doctrine of Nestorius is now dead and all contention is dead and buried with him Let now the Theopaschites hee meanes Catholikes who taught God to have suffered and dyed let them now bee at quiet Thus preached Theodoret after the death of Cyrill insulting over him being dead triumphing that now seeing Cyrill was dead Nestorianisme did and would prevaile Who can imagine but that the Epistle maintaining the same heresie insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill was written by Theodoret when he publikely in his sermon before a Patriarke uttered the same matter Would Theodoret feare or forbeare to write that in a letter which hee neither did feare nor could forbeare to professe openly in a sermon and that in so solemne a place and assembly or was Theodoret orthodoxall and a lover of Cyrill in his writings before the death of Cyrill who was hereticall and so full with the dregs of Nestorianisme after the death of Cyrill that he must vent them and with them disgorge his malice and spite against Cyrill in an open Pulpit and in the hearing of a Patriarke and all the people of Antioch It is not the inscription or title of the Epistle but the Epistle it selfe which the fift Councell and wee after it doe stand upon Had not they knowne the Epistle to bee Theodorets they needed not by it to have proved that Theodoret after the union yea after the death of Cyrill was eager violent yea virulent also in defence of the heresies of Nestorius that his publike sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils death and against Cyrill had beene a sufficient proofe and demonstration of that but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret they thought good to testifie that he was in writing the selfe same man as hee was in preaching that is in both a spitefull maligner of Cyrill in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian and that long after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill yea that even after the death of Cyrill he continued both to write and to speake the same 6. Observe now by the way the fraudulent dealing of Baronius and Binius in this cause This passage taken out of a sermon publikely preached at Antioch against Cyrill and in an insulting manner for his death this they doe not nor durst they carpe at it It is testified by all the Bishops of the fift Councell to have beene a part of
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
part willing to thinke better and more favourably of Leo and Gelasius in this matter specially of Leo whose authority when some defenders of the three Chapters objected to Pope Pelagius as according with them Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary as consenting wholly with Saint Austen who professed that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death if it could appeare that he were guilty of those crimes Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause yea and the words of Leo which hee citeth doe declare no lesse In that Epistle Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church were excommunicated or who did not performe the acts required in repentance saith If any of them die before hee obtaine remission quod manens in corpore non receperit consequi exutus carne non poterit hee cannot obtaine that to wit remission of his fault being dead which before his death he had not received And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius Neither is it needfull that we shold fift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigiâ—lius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade faith he that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he namin hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasins saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but
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
what a weight of eternity and glory shall that troope of vertues and traine of good workes obtaine at his hands who rewardeth indeed every man according to their workes but withall rewardeth them infinitely above all the dignity or condignity of their workes 45. If Iustinian and those who are beautified with so many vertues and glorious works be as the Card. Judgeth tormented in hell belike the Cardinall himselfe hoped by workes contrary unto these by workes of infidelity of impiety of maligning the Church of reviling the servants of GOD of oppugning the faith of Patronizing heresie yea that fundamental heresie which overthroweth the whole Catholike faith and brings in a totall Apostasie from the faith by these hee hoped to purchase and in condignity to merit the felicity of the Kingdome of Heaven This being the track and beaten path wherein they walke and by which they aspire to immortality what Constantine sayd once to Acesius the Novatian the same may be sayd to Baronius and his consorts Erigito tibi scalam Baroni ad caelum solus ascendito Keepe that Ladder unto your selves and by it doe you alone climbe up into heaven But well were it with them and thrice happy had the Cardinall beene if with a faithfull and upright heart towards God he could have said of Iustinian the words of Balaam Let me dye the death of the righteous and let my last end be like his His life being led in piety and abounding in good workes hee now enjoyeth the fruit thereof felicity and eternall rest in Abrahams bosome As for the Cardinall who hath so malignantly reviled him himselfe can now best tell whether he doth not cry and pray Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Iustinian that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue or sing that other note unto his fellowes concerning this Emperour Wee fooles thought his life to be madnesse and his end to bee without honour but now is he numbred among the children of God and his lot is among the Saints Therefore wee have erred from the way of truth and wearied our selves in the wayes of wickednesse and destruction we have gone through deserts where there lay no way but as for the way of the Lord wee have not knowne it CAP. XXI How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse and a refutation of the same 1. NExt the Emperour let us see how dutifully the Cardinall behaveth himselfe towards the Empresse Theodora A small matter it is with him in severall places to call her an impious an hereticall a sacrilegious a furious hereticall woman a patrone of heretikes and the like Heare and consider how he stormeth but in one place against her These so great mischiefes did that most wicked woman beginne she became to her husband another Eve obeying the serpent a new Dalila to Samson striving by her subtiltie to weaken his strength another Herodias thirsting after the blood of most holy men a wanton mayd of the High Priest perswading Peter to deny Christ. But this is not enough Sugillare ipsam with these termes to flout her who exceedeth all women in impiety let her have a name taken from Hell let her be called Alecto or Megera or Tisiphone a Citizen of hell a childe of Devills ravished with a satanicall spirit driven up and downe with a devillish gad bee an enemy of concord and peace purchased with the blood of Martyrs Thus the Cardinall who tells us afterwards how when Vigilius came to Constantinople she contented long with him for to have Anthimus restored in so much that Vigilius was forced to smite her as from heaven with the thunderbolt of Excommunication whereupon she shortly dyed Here is the tragicall end which the Cardinall hath made of her 2. Now I would not have any think that I intend wholly to excuse the Empresse she had her passions and errors as who hath not and as Liberatus and Evagrius shew she tooke part with the oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon which was for some time true shee being as it seemes seduced by Anthimus whom for a while she laboured to have restored to the See of Constantinople though afterwards as Victor Tununensis testifieth she being better informed joyned with the Emperor in condemning the Three Chapters and so in truth in defending the Councell of Chalcedon though Victor thought the contrarie And of this minde in condemning the three Chapters shee was as by Victor is evident some yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople Her former error seduction and labour for Anthimus I will not seeke to lessen or any way excuse But though she were worthy of blame was it fit for the Cardinall so basely to revile her and in such an unseemly and undutifull manner to disgorge the venome of his stomacke upon an Empresse tantae ne animis caelestibus irae who would have thought such rancour and poison to have rested in the brest of a Cardinall But there was you may be sure some great cause which drew from the Cardinall to many unseemly speeches against the Empresse and though hee would bee thought to doe all this onely out of zeale to the truth which Anthimus the heretike oppugned yet if the depth of the Cardinalls heart were founded it will appeare that his spite against her was for condemning the Three Chapters which Pope Vigilius in his Constitution defendeth Anthimus and his cause is but a pretence and colour the Apostolicall Constitution the heresies of the Nestorians decreed and defined therein that is the true marke at which the Cardinall aymeth neither Emperour nor Empresse nor Bishop nor Councell nor any may open their mouth against that Constitution which toucheth them in capite but they shall be sure to heare and beare away as harsh and hellish termes from Baronius as if they had condemned the Trent Councell it selfe Had Theodora defended the Three Chapters as Vigilius in his Constitution did the Cardinall would have honoured her as a Melpomene Clio or Vrania because she did not that she must be nothing but Alecto Megaera or Tisiphone and they are too good names for her 3. If one desired to set forth her praise there wants not testimonies of her dignity and honour Constantinus Manasses saith that she was Iisdem addicta cum marito studiis iisdem praedita moribus that she so well consorted to her husband that shee was addicted to the same studies indued with the same manners as he was That Iustinian himselfe calleth her reverendissimam conjugem his most reverend wife given unto him by God adding that he tooke her as a partner with him of his counsells in making his lawes and after her death he calleth her Augustam piae memoriae Empresse of holy memorie as doe also and very often the sixt general Councell an unfit title to be given to an heretike or a fury either by a holy generall Councell or by a
credit faith and honesty than two hundred peeces of gold better break his promise than hurt his purse But all this is nothing to his usage of Pope Silverius Was it not enough to usurpe and violently thrust himselfe into his See to set up altare contra altare Pope against Pope S. Peters Chaire against S. Peters Chaire but hee must adde indignities also to the holy Bishop Had he permitted him to live in his owne Country in some quiet though meane estate it had beene some contentment to innocent Silverius But Vigilius could not endure that away with him out of Rome out of Italy out of Europe So by Vigilius meanes is Silverius sent to Patara a City in Licia once famous for the Temple and Oracle of Apollo there hee is fed with the bread of tribulation and with the water of affliction But the rage of Vigilius was further incensed by two occasions the former on Silverius part He though in exile yet as then being the onely true and lawfull Pope in a Councell held at Patara by the authority of S. Peter and the fulnesse of his Apostolicall power thundred out from Patara a sentence of excommunication of deposition of damnation against the usurper and invader of his See Vigilius Which being an authenticke and undenyable record of the good conditions of Vigilius and how fit a man he was to make a Pope I will relate here some parts thereof Pope Silverius having told Vigilius how he sought against law to obtaine the Papall dignity in the time of Boniface the second addes this At that time the pastorall and pontificall authority should have cut away execranda tua auspicia thy execrable beginnings but by neglect a little wound insanabile accrevit apostema is become an incurable impostume which being senslesse of other medicines is to be cut off with a sword For thou art led with the audaciousnesse of the most wicked fiend thou art franticke with ambition thou labourest to bring the crime of error or heresie into the Apostolike See thou followest the steps of Simon Magus whose disciple thou shewest thy selfe to be by thy workes by giving money by thrusting out me and invading my See Receive thou therefore this sentence of damnation sublatumque tibi nomen ministerium sacerdotalis dignitatis agnosce and know that thou art deprived of the name and all function of priestly ministery being damned by the judgement of the holy Ghost and by the Apostolike authority in us for it is fit ut quod habuit amittat that hee should lose that which he hath received who usurpes that which he hath not received Thus Silverius who being then the onely true Pope pronounced this sentence of deprivation of degradation and damnation out of the highest authority of their Apostolike Chaire which alone is so authenticall a testimony of the most execrable conditions of Vigilius that if I said no more few Logicians I thinke would complaine that the description of Vigilius were imperfect being so fully so plainly and so infallibly expressed both by his Genus a damnable and damned intruder and by his foure differences or at least properties hereticall schismaticall symoniacall Satanicall 13. This no doubt moved the choler of Vigilius not a little to heare such a thundring from Patara as if Apollo were there set againe on his sacred trevet But the other accident was farre worse than this For perhaps Vigilius had learned that maxime which Lewis the French King sometime uttered That hee who feared the Popes curse should never sleepe a quiet night Many other Catholikes and among them the Bishop of Patara grieved much to see the injury and ignominy of the innocent and miserably afflicted Bishop Silverius went to the Emperour to plead on his behalfe declaring both his innocency and extreme oppression The Emperour whose delight it was to doe justice to all and relieve the innocent especially sacred persons and most of all the Pope was so affected therewith that he commanded that Silverius should be brought againe from exile to Rome and that there should be taken a melius inquirendum of the whole cause and if he were found guilty of the treason objected then hee should be for ever exiled if innocent he should be restored to his See which Vigilius then usurped Silverius was hereupon brought backe with speed and being come as neare as Italy Vigilius was then netled indeed and fearing to be dethroned he bestirres himselfe and stirres every stone Then he comes againe in very earnest manner to Bellisarius and tels him he will now performe all his covenants if he would deliver Silverius to his custody By which sollicitation Silverius the lambe was committed to the wolfe who intending now to make as sure worke with him as he who sayd mortui non mordent by two of his servants convayed him out of Italy to the Iland Palmaria where after all other injuries indignities and calamities hee spared not the innocent life and soule of that holy Bishop but murdered him by a kinde of languishing death namely by famine which Vegetius and the Prophet also judged worse than the sword 14. And now that which onely hindred Vigilius being by a strong writ de ejectione mundi quite removed there was none to make opposition against him or hinder his exaltation to the Zenith of Pontificall dignity but onely God and the sting of his owne most guilty conscience both which though you may be sure he lightly regarded yet for abundant caution he by a fine fleight and policy will pacifie and appease for as hitherto he had played the Wolfe and Tiger so now you shall see him act the Foxe and that in so lively and native manner that hee meaneth to cozen not onely all men but his owne conscience and Almighty GOD himselfe As hee had murdered the true lawfull Pope Silverius so in token of remorse he will needs die kill himselfe also being the usurping Pope but his death is no other than they fancy of Antichrist the beast in the Apocalyps he dyeth but within few dayes he revives againe He considered he had entred violētly injuriously into the See that he was as yet nothing but a mere intruder and usurper of it the holy conscionable man will not hold his dignity by so bad a title and therefore abdicat se pontificatu he puts off his Popedome considering how he was blemished with Symony heresie murder and other crimes that he was also excommunicated and accursed à sede male occupata descendit he forsakes comes downe from the papall chaire and resignes the keies into the hands of S. Peter or Christ and makes the See void that there might be a new election of a lawfull Pope They shall chuse freely whom they will as for himself either they shall bring him by a lawfull election in at the doore or he so cōscionable is
unto the truth which they defended seeing they could not prevaile with him yet they would have the whole world to testifie together with the Popes peevishnesse their owne lenity equity and moderation used towards him and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person nor any precedent occasion but only the truth and equity of that present cause which enforced them to involve him remaining obdurate in his heresie in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters of which Vigilius was the chiefe and standard-bearer to the rest Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle If nothing else truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrations in this point may perswade that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand with old Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause who is knowne to bee plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus indeed Come let us give to him in token of his conquest corollam palmam and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile leave this Epistle to Vigilius with this Impresse Vigilio scriptum hoc Eutello palma feratur 29. Vigilius now by just Duell is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle Be it so say they yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolike See because he writ it in the time of Sylverius while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope but an intruder and usurper and Pseudopope and herein they all joyne hand in hand Bellarmine with Baronius Gretzer and Binius with them both But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands nor the wrath of Rhesin Aram and Remalias sonne because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter for how doe they prove this saying of theirs that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived and not afterwards Truly by no other but the Colliers argument It is so because it is so proofe they have none at all they were so destitute of reasons in this point that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresie they begge this or rather take it without begging or asking by vertue of that place called Petitio Principij Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer who gathered up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe as to dispute from such sophistical topicks is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and learning And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall authority and to their I say it is so oppose I say it is not so Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes and sesquipedalia verba to down-face the truth 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of learning there are one or two reasons which declare that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius when he was the onely and true lawfull Pope for the former is the narration of Liberatus who in a continued story of these matters after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this Silverius saith he dyed with famine Vigilius autem implens promissum And Vigilius to fulfill his promise writ this Epistle Oh saith Gretzer Liberatus useth here an anticipation and sets downe that before which fell out after Prove that Gretzer Prove it why his proofe is like his Masters It is so because it is so Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer He thought belike his words should passe for currant pay as well as a Cardinals but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr that is without reason why should it not be thought seeing we find nothing to the contrary that Liber in his narration followed the order and sequell of things and times as the law of an historian requires rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things 31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled and saith that though Vigilius had truly writ it yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See cujus tunc ipse invasor of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius and being in great feare of losing the Popedome hee hastened then to Bellisarius and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody otherwise said hee non possum facere quod à me exigis I cannot doe that which you require me Bellisarius required of him two things as the same Liberat. witnesseth the one to performe his promise to the Empresse that was the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon the other to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold which hee promised to himselfe whereby it is most evident that at Silverius returning into Italy Vigilius had done neither of these and so not writ this Epistle Now it is most likely that Silverius returned into Italy an 540. for seeing he dyed in the month of Iune that yeare and being presently upon his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius a little time you may be sure would serve to famish an old disheartened man But Gretzer easeth us in this point and plainly professeth that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed If now you doe consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius and his delivery to Vigilius and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater worke and of more importance to looke unto than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops to wit to provide that Silverius should not live that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare but after it and after all his troubles ended when hee having quiet possession of the See had leisure to thinke on such matters But why stay I in the proofe hereof this being clearly testified by Nauclerus who thus writeth Silverius being dead Vigilius was created Pope quod postquam comperit Theodora which when Theodora understood she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus but Vigilius answered farre be this from me I spake unadvisedly before and I am
either truth or untruth 15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars seeing by the upright and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages we have proved the Popes decree herein to be erroneous and because it is in a cause of faith heretical let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion The former is taken from those words of our Saviour whatsoever ye binde on earth whence as you have seene Vigilius and as he saith Gelasius also collecteth that such as are not on earth or alive cannot be judged by the Church 16. The answer is not hard our Saviours words being well considered are so farre from concluding what Vigilius or Gelasius or both doe thence collect that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary for he said not Whatsoever yee binde or loose concerning those that are on earth or living in which sense Vigilius tooke them but Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth or during your life time shall binde or loose the same according to your censure here passed upon earth shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven The restrictive termes upon earth are referred to the parties who doe binde or loose not to the parties who are bound or loosed The generall terme whatsoever is referred to the parties who are bound or loosed whether they be dead or alive not to the parties who binde or loose who are onely alive and upon earth Nor doth our Saviour say Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth shall bee bound or loosed in heaven for ecclesiae clave errante no censure doth or can either binde or loose either the quicke or the dead but he saith Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose if the party be once truly and really bound or loosed by you that are upon earth it shall stand firme and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven So the parties who doe binde or loose are the Apostles and their successors onely while they are upon earth the parties who are bound or loosed are any whosoever whether alive or dead the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing is Christ himselfe in heaven For I say unto you whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church which as we have before declared both beleeved taught and practised this authority of binding and loosing not onely upon the living but upon the dead also Of their binding the nocent wee have alleaged before abundance of examples for their loosing the innocent that one of Flavianus is sufficient The Ephesine latrocinie adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop for an Hereticke under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died nay was martyred by them The Holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus loosed that band wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their key did erre they did not in truth They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike the holy Councell feared not to loose him because he was dead their power to binde or loose was onely towards those that are upon the earth or living By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time imitating the religious pietie of those ancient Bishops restored to their pristine dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs two Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fagius after their death when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound but even burned them to ashes Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian that if the Church may after their death restore such as being unjustly condemned and falsly supposed to be bound died in their innocency and sincerity of faith it may also by the very same reason condemne and anathematize such after their death who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church 18. And truely whether soever of these censures either of binding or loosing the Church useth towards the dead as they both are warranted by the words of Christ and judgement of the Church so in doing either of both they performe an acceptable service to God and an holy duty to the Church of God For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve the Communion of Saints which in part consisteth in loving praising and imitating all such as we know either now to live or heretofore to have dyed in the faith or for the faith of Christ so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed renounce all communion with whatsoever heretickes either dead or alive and therefore though in their life time they had never beene condemned for such but honored as the servants of God under whose livery they hide their heresies and impieties yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed and to have died heretikes we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them not love them nor speake well of them much lesse imitate them but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Cacilianus even after their death corde carne anathematizare not making them accursed For that the Church cannot do and themselves have done that already but declaring them to be accursed in truth excluded from the society of God Gods Church and to be such though dead as with whom we can have no more cōmunion then hath light with darknesse faith with heresie God and Beliall nay we should wish that if it were possible there might be such an antipathie and disunion betwixt us and them as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles and Polinices that even our dead bones and ashes might leape from theirs nor sleepe in one Church nor one earth with them from whom one day they shall be eternally severed by a wall of immortality and immortall glory 19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules decrees and Constitutions of their Apostolicke See by name of Pope Leo Gelasius both whō Vigilius saith to have defined this that a dead man might not noviter be condemned was it not enough for Vigilius that himselfe was hereticall herein unlesse he drew his predecessors also into the same crime of defending yea defining heresies How much better had it beseemed him to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were if not with a lappe of his robe as the good Emperour would yet at least with silence and oblivion 20. And yet for all this if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility will give me leave I am for my owne
laboureth also to fasten that heresie as an ancient and hereditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See If this my indeavour for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them I must returne a conditionall and shorter but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius relying on their authority and that is this If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius that none after their death may noviter be condemned then were they also as Vigilius by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church hereticall If they did not indeed teach this doctrine then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith both decreeing himselfe and judging them to have decreed heresie but slanderous also falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie to so ancient famous Popes aswere Gelasius and Leo And so whether they taught this doctrine or taught it not this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all proving nothing else but either them to be hereticall if Vigilius say true or himselfe to be a slanderer if he say untrue 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted in stead of a conclusion I will adde one short consideration to all that hath beene said That this position decreed by Vigilius is such as doth not onely condemne the catholike church that is all the oppugners of it but even Vigilius himselfe and all who defend it Say you that a dead man may not noviter be condemned In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedon for they all did noviter condemne such persons being dead as in their lives time had not beene condemned Now the holy Fathers of those Councels having thus condemned the dead dyed themselves in the Lord and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say they should not have condemned the dead even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead and so you doe that same thing which you say must not bee done and even by defending your position you overthrow your owne position for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead and yet you say that no man may noviter condemne the dead Nay you condemne not them only but even your own selfe also herein for you condemne those who condemne the dead and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers being now dead and you condemne them for doing that which your selfe now doe even for condemning the dead Such a strange discord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius that it not only fights against the truth and the opposites unto it but viper-like even against it selfe and against the favourers and defenders of it CAP. VII That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned because he dyed in the peace and communion of the Church is erronious and untrue 1. THE second reason of Vigilius why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned is for that as he supposeth Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church to this purpose he saith that the rules of his predecessors which he applyeth to Theodorus did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū who dyed in the peace of the Church And again We doe especially provide by this our present Constitution lest by occasion of perverse doctrine any thing be derogated from the persons of them who as wee have said in pace communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not but takes as consequent upon the former point which as we have shewed was knowne and confessed because he was not in his life time condemned by the Church Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason he borrowed it of other Nestorians with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart They to wit the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius flee unto another vaine excuse saith Iustinian affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est because he dyed in the communion of the Churches 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius The Emperour hath done it most soundly and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution Oportebat eas scire those men who plead thus for Theodorus should know that they dye in the communion of the Church who unto their very death doe hold that common doctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death was rejected by the whole Church Thus Iustinian To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie this saith he might be beleeved nisi Iustinianus unlesse the Emperor had testified that he dyed in his heresie 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift Councell where as it were of purpose this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner Whereas it is said of some and one of those is Vigilius that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church mendacium est calumnia magis adversus Ecclesiam this is a lie and slander and that especially to the Church For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith even till his death But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines certum est it is certaine by his blasphemies and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same And after the words of Gregory recited they adde this quomodo conantur dicere how doe any say that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was dyed in the communion of the Church Thus testifieth the Councell 4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary but for this very cause the Councell impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church cals him in plaine termes a lyar and a slanderer yea a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time collecteth that hee dyed in the peace and communion of the Church both the Emperour and Councell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein truly teaching that though an heretike live all
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
of the whole Church of the same communion with those who are separated from God yea it must needs be at peace and league with the Devills communicants Since this is the peace this the communion of their church if Theodorus dyed as the Cardinall assureth us he did in the peace and communion of it let them for ever keep to themselves let them alone enjoy both alive and dead this peace this communion of their Church But let dis-union and immortall warres be for ever betwixt us and it betwixt the society with God and all communion with it Nullus amor populis nec foedera sunto Littora littoribus contraria fluctibus undas Imprecor arma armis pugnent cineresque nepotesque Et nati natorum qui nascentur ab ipsis And let this suffice to be opposed against the second reason of Vigilius who therefore decreed that Theodorus ought not to be condemned because as he thought nay knew as Baronius saith that Theodorus dyed in the peace communion of the Church CHAP. VIII 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 Councells is erroneous and untrue 1. THe third and last reason of Pope Vigilius in defence of the first Chapter is drawne from the authority of the ancient Fathers and Councells by none of which as he pretendeth Theodorus of Mopsvestia was condemned and therefore ought not now by himselfe or any other to be condemned And Vigilius was so exceeding carefull to enforme both himselfe and all others of the certainty and truth herein that hee saith wee added solicitudinis nostrae animum the carefull solicitude of our thoughts and diligentissima investigatione quaerere curamus Wee have taken most diligent care to finde out whether any thing was decreed ordered or disposed by the Fathers de persona vel nomine either concerning the person or the name of Theodorus and againe Omnibus diligenter inspectis We have diligently viewed all things belonging to this matter Now after all this carefull solicitous diligent yea most diligent inspection Vigilius saith that neither in the Councell of Ephesus nor of Chalcedon nor in Cyril nor in Proclus nor in other Fathers could hee finde that Theodorus was ever condemned 2. Truly Vigilius had exceeding dimme eyes in this cause or to speake more truly Nestorianisme had so blinded and put out his eye-sight that he could discerne almost nothing though it were never so cleare and obvious unlesse it favoured the condemned heresie of Nestorius Can you see neither the person nor the name of Theodorus condemned by the Fathers not by Cyrill not by Proclus not by the Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon not by others Suffer me I pray you to helpe the Popes sight with some better spectacles Of Cyrill and Proclus the fift Councell after a farre better view and inspection even in the Synodall decree doe thus witnesse They shew their meaning concerning Theodorus quod oportet eum anathematizari that he ought to be accursed as we have demonstrated before out of those things which Cyrill and Proclus have written ad condemnationem Theodori for the condemning of Theodorus and his impiety In another place of them both they write againe in this manner Let them who pretend the names of Cyrill and Proclus say if Theodorus be not by them numbred with the Iewes Pagans Sodomites and heretikes particularly of Cyrill they say Cyrill seeing that divers continued to defend the blasphemies of Theodorus was forced to write bookes against him and his impieties post mortem ejusdem Theodori ostendere cum haereticum impium super Paganos super Iudaeos blasphemium And after the death of the same Theodorus to shew him to have beene an heretike and more blasphemous then either the Iewes or Pagans This the Councell saw in the writings of Cyrill and Proclus and upon their sight and knowledge testified the same 3. The words of Cyrill and Proclus doe clearly witnesse the same Cyrill speaking of Theodorus calls him one whose tongue speakes iniquity against God one whose horne is exalted against God one who insulteth over Christ who lesseneth the crimes of the Iewes who pulleth him downe ad infamiam to infamie and disgrace Proclus also speaking not only of the doctrine but of the person of Theodorus whom he setteth in the same ranke with Arius Eunomius Macedonius and other heretikes he calleth him as hee doth the rest turbulentos coenosos fallaciae rivos filthy and mirie rivers of deceit adding that the new blasphemie which was taught by Theodorus and Nestorius doth farre exceed the blasphemie of the Iewes Thus Proclus Where thinke you was the Popes eyes when hee could not or would not see any of all this Or if yet wee doubt of Cyrills minde herein Baronius himselfe could not chuse but observe this out of him you see that Cyrill doth una eademque lance Theodorum expendere cum Nestorio put him in the same scale and weigh him altogether alike as he doth Nestorius So the Cardinall checking the Popes sight that would not see him to be condemned by Cyrill whom Cyrill esteemed every whit as wicked an heretike as Nestorius 4. But this whole matter and the unexcusable error of Vigilius will be most evident by considering the judgment of the Ephesine Councell touching Theodorus and what ensued upon or after it That Theodorus of Mopsvestia who dyed about some foure yeares before was condemned in the holy Councell at Ephesus Cyrill who was President in that Councell doth declare as the fift Councell witnesseth Cyrill say they in the Synodall decree writ unto Iohn touching Theodorus utpote una cum Nestorio anathematizato as being anathematized together with Nestorius in the Ephesine Synod and this they shew out of the words of Cyrill which are worthy of most diligent consideration Peltanus and after him Binius have very unfitly translated Cyrils words but in the Greeke as also consonantly thereunto they are set downe in the fift Councell thus Processit adversus omnes qui eadem sapiunt vel sapuerunt aliquando 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id quod absolute nos vestra sāctitas dixit Athematizamus illos qui dicunt duos filios That sentence of Anathema which we to wit the holy Ephesine Councell and your Holinesse pronounced absolutely without naming any person saying we accuse those who say there are two Sonnes or two Christs that sentence proceeded against all who doe thinke so or who have thought so Thus Cyrill and that also in one of those his Synodall Epistles which the holy Councell of Chalcedon in their very definition of faith hath approved so that this is now not onely the judgement of Cyrill but of the whole Councell at Chalcedon The same is repeated againe by Cyrill and more conspicuously in
from the Anathema Thus the Councell all of them with one voyce proclaming Pope Vigilius for a lewd dealer who commends and that even in his Apostolicall Constitution a false and forged writing for the true Epistle of S. Cyrill 24. It is true Vigilius is not the first Pope who hath blemished their See by such false and fraudulent dealing Zozimus and Bonifacius were long before this taxed and that justly bâ— the Africane Bishops for downe facing the Nicene Canons Vigilius was too too bold with Cyrill as now you see But if you descend to Pope Nicholas or to Gregory the seventh and their successors they were so shamelesse and audacious in this kinde that they scarce writ any decrees of importance but they stuffed them with such Fathers Even the basest and most abject fictions which were voyd not onely of truth but of braine were fittest for the Popes and their Pontificall determinations and were they never so base and bastardly yet the Popes like kind Godfathers could when they listed christen them with the names of S. Cyrill Cyprian or the like and then they must be called or esteemed for no others than holy and reverend Fathers 25. Proclus followeth In whose writings Vigilius found three testimonies to prove that Theodorus being dead was not to be condemned The first is out of his Epistle to Iohn Bishop of Antioch where these words are alleaged When did I write to you oportere aut Theodorum aut alios quosdam qui pridem defuncti sunt anathemate subdi that either Theodorus or others being dead ought to be anathematized The second is out of the same Epistle I rejected indeed those Chapters annexed to my Tome as being impious neque autem de Theodoro neque de alio quoquam qui jam defuncti sunt but I neither writ of Theodorus nor of any other who is dead that they should be anathematized or rejected The third is out of an Epistle of Proclus to Maximus I understand that the names of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and of some other is prefixed to the Chapters ad anathematizandum to bee anathematized together with the Chapters cum illi ad Deum jam migrarunt whereas they are now departed to God and it is needlesse to injure them being now dead quos nec vivos aliquando culpavimus whom being alive we did never reprove These are the Popes allegations out of S. Proclus in which I confesse it is clearely taught that neither any after their death may bee condemned and particularly that not Theodorus seeing he is gone to God and was never in his life time once reproved 26. It is a rule in law semel malus semper praesumitur esse malus He who is once convicted of any crime is presumed still to be faulty in that kinde Vigilius being lately convicted to commend forgeries for the writings of Fathers is in reason and equitie to bee thought to alleage such a S. Proclus as before hee did S. Cyrill Nay there needs no presuming in this matter there is evident proofe and witnesses above exception to manifest the same even the whole fift generall Councell who out of the true and undoubted writings of Proclus testifie that Proclus taught the quite contrary both that the dead might and particularly that Theodorus ought to be condemned and that hee was by Proclus himselfe condemned for in their very Synodall decree they thus write Because the disciples of Theodorus most evidently oppugning the truth thus sharply do they reprove Vigilius doe alleage certaine sayings of Cyrill and Proclus as written for Theodorus It doth appeare that those Fathers doe not free him from the Anathema but speake those things dispensativè by way of dispensation and in the very words of dispensation they declare of him quod oportet anathematizari Theodorum that Theodorus ought to be anathematized adding that they have demonstrated this even out of the words of Cyrill and Proclus which they writ ad condemnationeÌ„ ejus for the condemning of Theodorus Thus writ the Councell unto which the whole Catholike Church hath ever since subscribed Seeing then it is certaine that Proclus both taught that Theodorus ought to be condemned and did himselfe write to condemne him there can bee no doubt but that those Epistles to Iohn and Maximus which Vigilius citeth and wherein Proclus is made to avouch the quite contrary that neither himselfe did nor that any ought to condemne Theodorus are forged in the name of Proclus by such hands as had wrought the like feat in Cyrill And if either those Epistles were extant for in that of Proclus to Iohn recorded in the fift Councell there is no such thing at all or had this Constitution of Vigilius beene published and knowne to the Councell before they had fully examined and cleared this Chapter touching Theodorus it is not to bee doubted but the one of them if not both would have discovered this forgery also 27. Besides all which there are divers evident prints of a false and hereticall hand in those Epistles Is it injury as that forged Proclus affirmeth to condemne the dead Nay it is even hereticall and that by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church as before we have proved to say that the dead may not be condemned Had Proclus writ or said this he had condemned the Councels of Sardica of Constantinople of Ephesus as injurious unto the dead nor them onely but he had condemned himselfe who as we have now demonstrated both condemned the dead and taught that Theodorus though dead ought to bee condemned 28. Did Theodorus at his death goe as this forged Proclus affirmeth to the Lord a blasphemer an heretike equall by the judgement of Proclus himselfe to the Iewes and Pagans and of the same ranke with Arius Macedonius Eunomius and Nestorius such a blaspheming heretike goe unto the Lord why then did the Ephesine Councell why did Saint Cyrill why did Proclus himselfe adjudge him to bee anathematized that is separated from the Lord Heretikes and impious persons as living they goe not in the wayes of the Lord but in their owne wayes so dying they goe like Iudas to their owne place not to the Lord not to his habitation and place of rest the Saints and they onely goe that way To them onely he saiâ—h This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise 29. Was Theodorus not so much as blamed no not so much as once in his life as the forged Proclus saith It seemes Leontius borrowed his most partiall speech before mentioned out of this Proclus and was too credulous unto it But the true Proclus living so neare to the time of Theodorus could not bee ignorant nor would ever have uttered so foule an untruth for although the Church pronounced no publike censure by name against him yet was he reproved and blamed not onely by others complaining of his erroneous doctrine but even by Theophilus B. of Alexandria and Gregory Nissene This the fift Councell witnesseth
one of his decretall Epistles wherein at large he handleth this cause not onely testifieth that impious Creed and those hereticall writings to bee the workes of Theodorus alleaging many places of them but wheras some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved againe this same doubt which Vigilius doth and as is likely by occasion of his decree Pelagius of purpose declareth those to have beene the true writings of Theodorus and consonant to his doctrine and that hee proveth by the testimonies of the Armenian Bishops of Proclus of Iohn of Antioch of Cyrill of Rambulas of Honoratus a Bishop of Cilicia and so a neighbor of Mopsvestia which is in the same Province of Hesychius of Theodosius and Valentinian the Emperours and of Theodoret then whom not any except perhaps Nestorius was more devoted to Theodorus insomuch that he is thought to have taken from Theodorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced Pelagius thus concludeth blasphemias has ejus esse quis dubitat who may doubt but that those blasphemies are truly his namely of Theodorus being by so many witnesses declared to be his Now when Pope Vigilius against all these Councells Bishops Emperors Popes of the same of succeeding ages yea against the consenting judgement of the catholike Church shall not onely doubt whether Theodorus be the author of those hereticall and blasphemous assertions and writings but by his Apostolicall Constitution decree it to bee an injury to ascribe those blasphemies unto him or for them to condemne him as the whole Church ever since the Ephesine Councell hath done doth it not argue nay demonstrate an hereticall and most extreme distemper in the Popes judgment and in his cathedrall sentence at that time 34. The other point which Vigilius observeth out of the Ephesine Councel is worse then this for as yet he hath onely found that Theodorus was not de facto condemned by the Ephesine Synode but in the next place he will finde by that Councell that Theodorus de jure ought not to bee condemned To which purpose he saith that Cyrill and so the Ephesine Synode consenting to him as President would not have the name of Theodorus contained in the Synodall Acts at Ephesus propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est for the rule which is to bee kept in such Bishops as are dead And that rule he explaines in the words following to be this that the dead should not bee condemned nor should the living bend their bow against ashes or insult over the dead whereby Vigilius even by his Apostolicall decree adjudgeth both Cyrill and the whole Ephesine Councell consenting therein with him to have beleeved and held a condemned heresie as an Ecclesiasticall rule or rule of their faith and actions That one who is dead may not bee condemned and so by the Popes Constitution both Cyrill and the holy Ephesine Synode were heretikes Such worthy points doe the Popes finde when they use their art and industry to review ancient writings with a reference to their owne determinations and so easie was it for Vigilius to finde the Ephesine Councell first injurious to the dead and then hereticall in a doctrine or rule concerning the dead 35. The very like he found also in the Councell of Chalcedon that Theodorus ought not to be condemned His reason is this Iohn Bishop of Antioch writ a letter to the Emperor Theodosius in excuse of Theodorus of Mopsvestia ne post mortem damnari deberet that he ought not to bee condemned after his death Now this letter of Iohn Venerabiliter memoratur is with honour not onely with allowance and liking remembred by the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation or Synodall Epistle to the Emperour Martianus Whence Vigilius collecteth that seeing the Councell with reverence embraceth that letter of Iohn and that letter importeth that Theodorus being dead ought not to be condemned therefore the Councell judgeth that none who are dead and particularly that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned which reason of Vigilius was borrowed from other Nestorians and defenders of the three Chapters as appeareth by Liberatus who explaineth it and sets it downe almost totidem verbis Iohn saith he writ three letters in the behalfe of Theodorus of Mopsvestia praising in them Theodorus and declaring his wisedome one of those letters he sent to the Emperour Theodosius another to Cyrill the third to Proclus Now the first and third containing the praises of Theodorus the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation to Martianus the Emperour did embrace and confirme Thus Liberatus agreeing wholly herein as you see with Vigilius 36. For answer of which reason of Vigilius I will intreat you to spare my labour and heare how fully and soundly Cardinall Baronius doth refute it but yet so that hee will not seeme to taxe or touch Vigilius that had beene great insolency and incivilitie in a Cardinall but he payes the Deacon home to the full who saith but the very same with the Pope Liberatus saith hee borrowed this narration of I know not what Nestorian incautè nimis and he affirmes too indiscreetly that the writings of Theodorus were praised in the letters of Iohn Bishop of Antioch and which is farre worse that those letters of Iohn containing the praises of Theodosius were received and confirmed by the Councell of Chalcedon in their Relation to Martianus for by that meanes adducit in idem crimen he makes the whole Councell of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime to wit of approving the praises doctrine of Theodorus So Baronius By whō it is cleare that Vigilius saying the same w th Liberatus makes the whole Coūce I of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime that is in plaine termes avoucheth them to be hereticall Videsne saith the Cardinall quot quales lateant colubri sub uno cespite Doe not you see how many and how vile and venemous snakes lye hid under this one turfe or tuft of untruth And that very tuft hath Pope Vigilius chosen to build up and beautifie with it his Apostolicall decree Now if under that one turfe there lurke as indeed there doth and the Cardinall acknowledgeth so great a number of Vipers what infinite and innumerable heapes of most deadly and poisonfull untruths are compacted into the whole body of his Apostolicall Constitution which containeth if one listed narrowly to examine it more than a thousand like turfes nay beyond comparison worse than this 37. But the Cardinall hath not yet done with Liberatus Let us saith hee put the Axe to the roote of the tree and citing the very words of the Councell and their Relation to Martianus he addeth You see that here is no mention at all of Theodorus of Mopsvestia which reason of Baronius Binius explaneth saying That which Liberatus affirmeth that the Councell of Chalcedon received the praises of Theodorus is not onely
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
exercise it selfe night and day in the doctrine of God that you might be profitable unto many Thus farre are the words of Ibas written unto Maris an hereticke of Persia and writ not as a private letter but as an Encyclicall Epistle to bee shewed and notified to all that love peace that is according to their hereticall dialect to all that loved Nestorianisme in Persia and in the places adjoyning to be a comfort and encouragement to them to persist in their heresie to which even Cyrill himselfe and all Catholikes had upon better advice at the time of the union with Iohn consented 20. In which words any who hath though but halfe an eye of a Catholike cannot chuse but clearely discerne the very poyson and malice of all the heresies and practises of the Nestorians to be condensate and compact together First here is expressed their maine heresie that Christ is not God as the house is not the man who dwelleth in the house Secondly is set downe a notorious slander against Cyrill and the Catholikes that they at the union made with Iohn did anathematize all who held one naturall subsistence or one person to be in Christ that is in effect did accurse all Catholikes and the whole Catholike Faith Thirdly it is a notable untruth that Cyril made the union with Iohn upon this condition that hee should anathematize all who hold Christ to be one person the condition was quite contrarie to wit that Iohn and they on his part should anathematize all who denied Christ to be one or who affirmed him to be two persons Fourthly it is a slander that Cyrill writ an Epistle to that effect as if he assented to that condition mentioned by Ibas The Epistle is testified by Cyrill himselfe not to bee his but a counterfaite writing forged by the Nestorians Fiftly it is a Calumnie that Cyrill and the rest who condemned Nestorius and Theodorus were seditious persons it is as much as to say that the holy Ephesine Councell was a conspiracie and seditious conventicle Sixtly it is an unexcusable slander and untruth that Cyrill and they who held with him that is the Catholikes that they were confounded and repented of their former doctrines or writ contrarie unto them These besides divers the like are the flowers wherewith the latter part of that Epistle is deckt even that part which Pope Vigilius and Baronius doe so magnifie the one defining the other defending that by it Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike and his Epistle received as Catholike This part above all the rest is so stuffed with heresies and slanders that I doe constantly affirme that none of all their Romane Alcumists can extract or distill one dramme of Catholike doctrine or any goodnesse out of it Only Pope Vigilius being as I have often said blinded with Nestorianisme and Cardinall Baronius being infatuated with the admiration of their Pontificall infallible Chaire they two by the new found art of Transubstantiating wherein that sect excelleth Iannes and Iambres and all the inchanters in the world they by one spell â—or charme of a few words pronounced out of that holy chaire can turne a serpent into a staffe bread into a living bodie darkenesse into light an hereticke into a Catholike yea the very venome and poyson of all Nestorianisme into most wholsome doctrines of the Catholike faith such as that none may write speake or thinke ought to the contrarie 21. See ye not now as I foretold that you should both the Pope and the Cardinall marching under the banner of Nestorius and like two worthy Generalls holding up a standard to the Nestorians and building in the Romane Church but very cunningly and artificially a Capitoll for Nestorianisme They forsooth will not in plaine tearmes say that Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith that Christ is not God that the Sonne of Mary is not the Sonne of God that Cyrill is an hereticke and the holy Ephesine Councell hereticall Fie these are too Beoticall and blunt they could never have gotten any one to tast of that cup of Nestorianisme had they dealt so plainely or simply rather Rome and Italy are Schooles of better manners and of more civilitie and subtiltie you must learne there to speake heresie in the Atticke Dialect in smooth plausible sweet and sugred tearmes you must say the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth is the Catholike union that Ibas by embracing that union was a Catholike and ought to bee judged a Catholike that whosoever embraceth not this union which the Pope hath defined to be the Catholike communion cannot be a Catholike or if you speake more briefly and Laconically you may say the Popes decrees and Cathedrall judgements in causes of faith are infallible Say but either of these you say as much as either Theodorus or Nestorius did you deny Christ to bee God You condemne the Ephesine Councell you speake true Nestorianisme but you speake it not after the rude and rusticke fashion but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the refined language of the Romane Church By approving this union or the Popes decree in this cause of Ibas you drinke up at once all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius even the very dregs of Nestorianisme yet your comfort is though it be ranke poison you shall now take it as an antidote and soveraigne potion so cunningly tempered by Pope Vigilius and with such a grace and gravity commended reached and brought even in the golden cup of Babylon by the hands of Cardinall Baronius unto you that it killeth not onely without any sense of paine but with a sweet delight also even in a pleasing slumber and dreame of life bringing you as on a bed of downe unto the pit of death 22. See here again their SynoniaÌ„ art Oh how nice scrupulous is Baronius in approving or allowing Vigilius to approve the former part of this Epistle of Ibas The Epistle was in no other part but onely in the last concerning the union approved Why there is nothing at all in the former no heresie or impiety set downe in it which doth not certainly and unavoydably ensue upon the approving of that union in Nestorianisme which Ibas embraceth in the latter part Why then must the latter and not the former be approved Forsooth in the former part the blasphemies of the Nestorians are in too plaine and blunt a manner expressed Cyrill is an Apollinarian The twelve Chapters of Cirill omni impietate plena sunt are full of all impietie The Ephesine Councell unjustly deposed Nestorius and approved the twelve Chapters of Cyrill which are contraria verae fidei and such like It is not for a Pope or a Cardinall to approve such plaine and perspicuous heresies they might as well say We are heretikes wee are Nestorians which kinde of Beoticisme is farre from the civility of the Romane Court But in the latter part the heresies of Nestorius and all his blasphemies are offered in the shew of
in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo whereof the Cardinall speaketh was not written till five moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod it is altogether as effectuall to prove he writ it not at all nor after his returne about a year after out of exile 3. The Cardinall gives yet another evidence hereof Pelagius saith he the successor of Vigilius did thinke it fit that the fift Synod should bee approved and the three Chapters condemned moved especially hereunto by this reason that the Easterne Church ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa being rent and divided from the Romane by reason of the Constitution of Vigilius might be united unto it How was the Easterne Church divided from the Romane in the time of Pelagius by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled and adnulled it If the Popes condemning of those Chapters and approving of the fift Councell could unite the Churches then the decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have effected that union If the Apostolike Decree of Vigilius could not effect it in vaine it was for Pelagius to thinke by his approbation which could have no more authority then Apostolicall to effect that union If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was as Baronius truly saith the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters against the judgement of the fift Synod seeing it is cleare by the Cardinalls owne confession that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius it certainly hence followeth that the Constitution of Vigilius which was the cause of that breach was never by himselfe repealed which even in Pelagius time remained in force and was then a wall of separation of the Easterne from the Westerne Church Againe if the Popes approving the fift Councell and condemning the three Chapters was as in truth it was and as the Cardinall noteth it to have beene the cause to unite those Churches seeing by his owne confession in Vigilius time they were not united for Pelagius after Vigilius his death sought to take away that schisme it certainly hence followeth that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod and their Synodall condemning of those Chapters for had he so done the union had in his time presently beene effected 4. The same may be perceived also by the Westerne Church For as that Pontificall decree of Vigilius had there beene any such would have united the Easterne so much more would it have drawne the Westerne the Italian and specially the Romane Church to consent to the fift Councell and condemning of the three Chapters but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life may divers wayes be made evident Whē Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius and was to be consecrated Bishop there could no more then two Bishops be found in the Westerne Church that would consecrate or ordaine him Bishop wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers requiring three Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop which they so often boast of in their disputes against us the Pope himselfe was faine to be ordained onely by two Bishops with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third Anastasius very ignorantly if not worse sets downe the reason thereof to have beene for that Pelagius was suspected to have beene guilty by poison or some other way of the death of Vigilius A very idle fancie as is the most in Anastasius for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius and there continued till Vigilius was dead he had little leisure nor oportunity to thinke of poisoning or murdering his owne Bishop by whose death he could expect no gaine The true cause why the Westerne Bishops distasted Pelagius is noted by Victor who then lived Hee before hee came from Constantinople consented to the fift Synod and condemned the Three Chapters Now the Westerne Bishops so detested the fift Synod and those who with it condemned those Chapters that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia were the ordainers of Pelagius whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators Let any man now consider with himselfe whether it bee credible that in all Italy and some Provinces adjoyning there should be but two Bishops who would consēt to the Apostolicall decree of Vigilius for approving the fift Councell if he had indeed published such a decree If they knew not the Popes sentence in this cause which they held and that rightly for a cause of faith to be infallible how was not the westerne or the Romane Church hereticall at this time not knowing that point of faith which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith If they knew it to bee infallible seeing his judgement must then oversway their owne how could there bee no more but two bishops found among them all who approved the Popes Cathedrall sentence and consented to his infallible judgement Seeing then it is certaine that the Westerne Church did generally reject the fift Synod after the death of Vigilius and seeing it is not to bee thought that they would have persisted in such a generall dislike thereof had they knowne Vigilius to have by his Apostolicall sentence decreed that all should approve the same of which his sentence had there been any such they could not have beene ignorant for if by no other meanes which were very many Pelagius himselfe would have brought and assuredly made knowne the same unto them this their generall rejection of the fift Synod is an evident proofe that this Baronian decree which hee ascribeth to Vigilius is no better then the former of silence both untrue both fictitious and of the two this the far worse seeing for this the Cardinall hath not so much as any one no not a forged writing on which he may ground it it is wholy devised by himselfe he the onely Poet or maker of this fable 5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in Bede concerning the Councell of Aquileia in Italy That Councell was held neare about or rather as by Sigonius narration it appeareth after the death of Vigilius and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Millan Macedonius B. of Aquileia Maximianus B. of Ravenna besides many other Bishops of Liguria Venice and Istria These being as Bede saith
to consent therunto which is the fiction of Baronius 16. And for more evidence that the same which I said is the banishment by Anastasius I might alleage Bellarmine and others but omitting them let us heare that worthy author to whom Binius referres us concerning this matter Nicholas Sanders He thus writeth That Vigilius was sent into banishment because he would not restore Anthimus the Romane Pontificall so he cals the booke of Anastasius doth testifie and besides it Aimonius Paulus Diaconus Marianus Scotus Platina Blondus Petrus de Natalibus Martinus Polonus Sabellicus and it may be gathered out of Nicephorus Thus Sanders who might have added Sigebert who placeth his banishmēt divers years before the fift Councel Albo Floriacensis who hath the same words with Anastasius Nauclerus Rhegino Hermanus Cōtractus Gotofridus Viterbiensis Otho Frisingensis Palmerius their owne Genebrard Stapleton and many others These following Anastasius relate the cause of his banishmēt to have bin the not restoring of Anthimus the time before the death of the Empresse Theodora Nor can I finde so much as one either ancient or later writer who saith with Baronius that hee was banished after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it what a rare Poeticall conceit hath the Cardinall who can make such a noble discourse of that fictitious banishment and commend it as an historicall narration for the warrant of which he had not so much as one writer and one is a small number ancient or late upon whose credit and authoritie he might report it and for that one witnesse Anastasius whom he nameth he is so farre from testifying it that he doth clearely testifie the quite contrary yea Baronius himselfe was not ignorant hereof but knew right well Anastasius to referre the beating of Vigilius his flight to Chalcedon the other indigne usage set downe by him and his exile to the time while Theodora lived and therefore hee taxeth Anastasius for confounding those things and referring them to that time whereas himselfe placeth them after the death of Theodora And yet for all this though he knew Anastasius to teach the quite contrary yet was not the Cardinall afraid nor ashamed to alleage Anastasius for a witnesse that Vigilius was cast into banishment after the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it and to say of this banishment Liquet ex Anastacio it is clearly knowne out of Anastasius whereas not that but the quite contrarie Liquet ex Anastasio 17. From hence now there issueth another consequent to bee remembred It is agreed by all who mention any banishment of Vigilius and it is confessed also by Baronius that Vigilius was but once banished and from that one freed by the intreaty of Narses Now that one cannot bee the Baronian banishment for of it there is no proofe at all to bee found no one author to witnesse it but the Cardinall and his owne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in matters of fact done some thousand and more yeares before the Cardinall was borne is of no worth at all nor can be esteemed ought but one of his owne dreames and figments Againe that one cannot bee the Anastasian banishment which is said to happen before the death of Theodora more than foure yeares before the fift Councell for it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Synod that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople yea that untill then he lived and dwelt at Constantinople Seeing then Vigilius was neither banished before the Councell as Anastasius saith nor banished after the Councell as Baronius saith it followeth which indeed is very truth that Vigilius was not at all banished but all which is reported of his banishment and all that depends thereon is fictitious and Poeticall devised by two Bibliothecarij to his Holinesse the former and precedent to the Councell is an Anastasian the other following the Councell is a Barbarian Poeme but both Poems both fabulous and Aesopicall narrations 18. And truly might wee be allowed to imitate the Cardinals Arte in disputing this matter would easily be made plaine There is one Topicke place of arguing à testimonio negativè which is very familiar to Baronius in his Annals and it is defended by Gretzer in his Apology for Baronius let us take but one example and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius There is in Anastasius a narration how Vigilius was violently puld away from Rome by Anthemius Scribonius sent thither for that purpose by the Empresse how he was apprehended in the Church thrust into the shippe how the Romanes followed reviling him cursing him and casting stones and dung at him praying that a mischiefe might goe with him Thus it is historified by Anastasius The like is mentioned by many others who borrowed it out of Anastasius by Aimonius by the Historia Miscella going under the name of Paulus Diaconus though it be not his by Marianus Scotus by Hermanus Contractus by Sigebert by Luitprandus de vitis Pontificum as the booke is called by Albo Floriacensis by Platina by Conrade by Nauclerus by Martinus Polonus by Blondus by Krantzius by Sigonius others Heare now the Cardinals censure of this narration of Anastasius and the rest who followed him Aperti mendacij redarguitur Anastasius Anastasius is convicted of a manifest lye herein and how prove you that my Baronius res adeo ignominiosa so ignominious a matter as this is could not have beene unknowne to the Authors who writ most accurately the Acts of their times and those were Facundus and Procopius the Cardinall names no moe from the silence and omission of this matter in them two he concludes Anastasius to be a lyar and his narration seconded by many moe to be a lye 19. Let now but the like liberty of disputing à Testimonio negativè be allowed unto us and the Baronian banishment to begin with that must be rejected banished and set in the same ranke with that lye of Anastasius for thus wee may argue This banishment of Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell and for refusing to consent unto it is neither mentioned by Victor Bishop of Tunen nor by Liberatus nor by Evagrius nor by Procopius who all then lived and in relating the affaires of the Church were full out as exact as Facundus and Procopius nor by Photius nor by Zonaras nor by Cedrenus nor by Nicephorus nor by Glicas nor by Constantinus Manasses nor by Anastasius nor by Paulus Diaconus nor by Aimonius nor by Luitprandus nor by Albo Floriacenfis nor by Otho Frisingensis nor by Conrade Abbat of Vrsberge nor by Hermanus Contractus nor by Sigebert nor by Lambertus Scaffuaburgensis nor by Martinus Polonus nor by Gotofridus Viterbiensis nor by Albertus Stadēsis nor by Vernerus nor by Marianus Scotus nor by
revolt from his opinion lost his Crowne and all his commendation with Liberatus not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell for defence of those Chapters and by his dying in that opinion Liberatus found Vigilius stantem morientem but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem he found him standing and dying but hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts to testifie that for five or six yeares together hee not onely was of a contrary judgement but did judicially and definitively decree the contrary and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters this so long discontinuance and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence for this cause he lost his Crowne and dyed non coronatus in the Kalender and account of Liberatus 33. I adde further that the words of Liberatus being well pondered doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters for no other then heretikes then oppugners of the Catholike faith and holy Councell of Chalcedon And for Vigilius while hee fought on their side and against the Emperour they honoured him as a Catholike as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor and upon his comming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters then they held him for no other then a betraier of the faith then an heretike then a backslider revolter and lapser from the faith and for such they adjudged and accursed him by name in their Africane Synod at which it is most like that Liberatus being a man of such note for dealing in that cause was present upon his returning at the time of the fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith Had Vigilius after this revolted and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters and in that opinion dyed as out of Liberatus the Cardinall would perswade Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike for a lapser and relapser from the faith for one dying in heresie and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike a condemned heretike and to dye in heresie that hee dyed non coronatus would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie of one dying in heresie would he not much rather have said he dyed Damnatus condemned and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod and therefore utterly separated from God Who ever read or heard that one dying in heresie was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus 43. This will most clearly appeare if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts so also two rewards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith such as joyfully endure torments imprisonment exile and if need be even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith and these are called coronati The other is of those who being timerous and faint-hearted yeeld to deny the truth rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts they returne againe and openly professe that truth from which they had before lapsed and these are called Non coronati saved by repentance and returning to the truth but by reason of their former faintnesse and lapsing Not crowned Both of these are Orthodoxall and Catholikes both of them placed in the blessed house of God but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God For in my Fathers house are many mansions Both of them starres and glorious starres in heaven but even among those heavenly starres one starre differeth from another in glory Both of them receive an infinity of glory but in that infinitie the weight is unequall and the one receives but as the pennie the other as the pound or talent of that glory Both of them blessed in the Kingdome of God but the former not blessed onely but crowned with blessednesse the later blessed but not crowned neither with the Aureall Crowne of Martyrs nor with the Lawrell garland of Confessors yet still whether coronati or non coronati as they both dye in the profession of the Catholike faith so are they both rewarded with eternall glory for profession of the Catholike faith As for heretikes such as die in heresie and out of the Catholike faith they are to be sorted with neither of these they have another and a quite different ranke Classis or Predicament of their owne They may not have that honour done unto them as to be called non coronati which implies that they have a part in felicity but not the Crowne As the Church doth justly anathematize and accurse such so are they to be ranked in the order of those to whom Christ shall say Goe yee cursed The Apostle reckoning heresies with Idolatry witchcraft adultery and the like of which he saith that they which doe them shall not inherite the Kingdome of God 35. Hence now it doth clearly appeare that Liberatus in saying that Vigilius dyed Non coronatus cannot intend as the Cardinall most ignorantly collecteth that Vigilius returned from the defence of the three Chapters to condemne the same for that being in Liberatus judgment a revolt from the truth hee thereby had by Liberatus beene accounted an heretike and to dye in heresie and so had beene in the ranke of those who are Damnati but Liberatus in saying he dyed non coronatus doth directly teach that he dyed in defence of those Three Chapters which with Liberatus is the Catholike faith from which hee had lapsed and revolted before but seeing at the time of the Councell hee returned againe to that opinion and therein dyed hee was saved in Liberatus judgement but not crowned By his penitence and returning to the defence of those Chapters he got glory but because he had so grievously lapsed before hee lost the crowne of glory And this also is the reason why Victor Bishop of Tunen mentioneth the death of Vigilius in such a naked manner neither disgracing him as a Prevaricator as hee doth Firmus Primasius and Pelagius nor honouring him as a Martyr or Confessor as he
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
the whole City Not one word of all which is true seeing Eutychius was long before the time of Tiberius restored from banishment at the least 11. or 12. yeares even ever since the crowning of Iustinus who reigned 12. yeares alone before he assumed Tiberius into the society of the Empire This will be further evident by those words of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople on which Baronius relieth Eutychius was recalled from banishment as the Cardinall teacheth and that rightly in the same yeare wherein Iohannes Scholasticus who was placed in his roome died Now Iohn was Bishop as Nicephorus witnesseth but two yeares and seven moneths Whereupon it certainly followeth that Eutychius was recalled within three yeares after his banishment that is in the very first yeare of Iustinus upon whom hee set the Crowne at the solemnity of his first Coronation as was shewed out of the Historia Miscella and this was full twelve yeares before Tiberius was made Emperour Which demonstrates not onely the untruth and manifold lyes of that Surian Eustathius but another handsome tricke of legerdemaine in Anastasius and Baronius For Anastasius seeing belike that it was needfull for saving the credit of some such like fabler as this Eustathius is that Iohn should bee Bishop twelve yeares he translating the Greeke Nicephorus in stead of two yeares seven moneths puts in twelve yeares and seven moneths and gives so many unto Iohn before Eutychius bee restored and Baronius finding this account in the Anastasian translation followeth it and saith Nicephorus ascribes twelve yeares to Iohn whereas not Nicephorus nor his Greek edition which hath onely two yeares and seven moneths but the Anaâ—asian falsified and corrupted Latine translation hath the other untrue and false accompt of twelve years and seven moneths This if nothing else might be sufficient to refute the whole fiction of that Surian Eustathius the untruths whereof Baronius could not defend but by applauding the untrue and falsified writings of his fellow Bibliothecarius 27. Perhaps you will demand why then did Iustinian banish Eutychius if not for refusing to consent to his opinion and heresie of the Aphthardokites as Eustathius saith which doubt seemes the greater because Nicephorus the Patriarch in his Chronology mentioneth the same cause saying thus Eutychius was cast out of his See by Iustinian eo quod non reciperet edictum ipsius de corpore Christi experte omnis labefactionis because Eutychius would not consent to his Edict that Christs body was incorruptible See here againe I pray you and detest for ever the vile and shamelesse dealing of Anastasius Nicephorus saith not so all that hee saith is that Eutychius was banished because hee would not receive or consent unto the Edict of Iustinian but that which followeth his Edict de corpore Christi incorruptibili wherein is contained the heresie slanderously objected to Iustinian of that Nicephorus hath not one word in his Greeke text that is wholy pacht to him in the Latine translation by the false hand of Anastasius the Arch-corrupter of all writings in his time as I have before more at large declared And yet so are they delighted with lyes corrupted writings this Latine translation thus vilely falsified by Anastasius is set in their Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum which much better deserves to bee called a Library of forged or corrupted Fathers and Writers 28. But for what other Edict if not for this of the Aphthardokites was Eutychius banished for that he was expelled from his See there is no doubt that being testified not onely by the Surian Eustathius Zonaras Glicas and others but by Victor who then lived and was at Constantinople when these things fell out to whom alone more credit herein is to bee given than to five hundredth of the Surian records Truly whatsoever was the cause why he was banished certaine it is that this heresie of Iustinian or any Edict made for it was not the cause thereof But there are two other matters the one or both of which may very well be thought to have incensed Iustinian against him The former was this Eutychius pretended a Propheticall skill whereby hee could foreshew who should succeed in the Empire and hee began to tamper and practice this Art about some three yeares before Iustinian dyed as that Eustathius delareth At that time hee privately called Iustinus unto him and told him that he should succeed in the Empire after the death of Iustinian for so said he God hath revealed unto mee The like good fortune hee foretold to Tiberius that ere long he should have the Empire alone Againe two yeares before the death of Tiberius hee prophesied of Mauritius that hee and none but hee should have the Empire after Tiberius idque juramento asseruit and hee confirmed this by an oath Now this Art of Divination and Mathematicall predictions especially when they prognosticate of Kings their deaths successours was never allowable in any wise State nor acceptable to any prudent Emperour It betokened no good to Caesar that they foretold him of those dismall Ides of March. Domitian was foretold not onely of the yeare but of the day and the very houre when hee should dye and when he had carefully looked to himselfe on that day enquiring the houre his owne men of purpose told him the sixt in stead of the fift hee then thinking all danger to bee past was by the Conspiratours who kept a better watch of the time than he did securely murdered What mischiefe ensued upon that prediction to Valence that one whose name did begin with Theod. should succeed unto him Socrates declareth Hee thereupon murdered most unjustly all whom he could finde to be called either Theodori or Theodoti or Theodosij or Theoduli or Theodosioli or beginning with those letters What hurt followed as wel in this kingdom upon that prophesie G. should succeed unto Edward the fourth as in the next when it was foretold the Earle of Athel that hee should bee crowned before hee dyed who thereupon never ceased to rebell against his Soveraigne till hee was crowned with an hot burning iron our owne Chronicles doe declare All kingdomes all Stories are full of like examples It was not without cause that in the Code both of Theodosius and Iustinian there are so many and so severe lawes aginst this kinde of Mathematicall diviners their Art being called damnabilis omnibus interdicta a damnable Art forbidden to all the punishment denounced against them being banishment yea death sâ—pplicio capitis ferietur hee shall bee put to death who practiseth the curiositie of divining Now Eutychius taking upoÌ„ him this Art of divining coÌ„trary to those severe and Imperiall Edicts ratified by Iustinian whether for this cause the Emperour who by the law might have deprived him of his life did not chuse rather to deprive him onely of his See and liberty I leave to the
and Proclus placed in his See long before the banishment of Nestorius to Oasis much more before his death for Maximianus was Bishop but two yeares and five months and hee dyed before the Ides of Aprill when Ariobindus and Asper were Consuls and before he was buried was Proclus placed in the See the same yeare as Socrates witnesseth Now Nestorius lived foure yeares at Ephesus and about Antioch after his deposition and some while also in banishment at Oasis as Evagrius himselfe affirmeth So that by Evagrius Narration Maximianus was made Bishop of Constantinople two yeares after his death and both Proclus and Maximianus were Bishops at once of that See So well doth Evagrius relate matters of fact and such credit is to be given unto him 32. The other concernes the fable touching the Epistle and Image of Christ sent to Abgarus which Evagrius paints out at large and in most lively colours He commends the Epistle as a true writing of Christ and celebrated by the Ancients Hee cals the Image sent to Abgarus a most holy Image He tels you it was not made by the hand of man but framed immediately by God that Christ himselfe sent it to Abgarus when he was desirous to see him that by reason of this Image and writing kept at Edessa it was famously reported and beleeved by all the faithfull that the City of Edessa should never be conquered that Image made it unconquerable Hee addes the event did confirme that praediction to bee true Hee saith that when Cosroes besieged the City and had almost taken it then the Edessanes brought forth that divine Image and laid it in a ditch to keepe away the Engines wherewith Cosroes intended to destroy the City and that by this meanes Cosroes was faine to returne home not onely without the victory but with great ignominie and for confirmation of this hee saith Procopius hath related this concerning Edessa and the Epistle of Christ This is the Narration of Evagrius which for the worthinesse thereof is approved and applauded by their second Nicene Synod to which Synod you need not doubt but Baronius subscribeth 33. By this now judge of the fidelity truth not only of Evagrius but of their Nicene Councell and Baronius for in this whole narration there is not a sillable of truth it is nothing but a fardle or dunghill of lyes First whereas Evagrius fathereth this on Procopius that is utterly untrue In Procopius there is not any mention either of Abgarus or of Christs Epistle or of that Image made without hands or of any praediction touching the unconquerable City of Edessa or that the Edessanes brought forth any such Image in the time of the Siege or that they laid it in the ditch or that by the meanes of it Cosroes was vanquished all these are the fictions of Evagrius and those also quite contrary to the true relation of Procopius for hee ascribes the repulsing of Cosroes from the City to the noble military skill and stratagem of the Romane Captaines by reason whereof when Cosroes perceived his attempt to bee in vaine hee made peace with the Romanes but yet so that the Romanes yeelded to pay unto him quinquaginta millia aureorum those fifty thousand pieces of Gold which hee at the beginning of the siege demanded and for which he offered to desist from warre 34. Againe whereas Evagrius to justifie that lying prediction as divine and propheticall such as the faithfull then beleeved as a prophesie of God saith that the Event did prove it to bee true in that Evagrius proves himselfe to bee so extremely false that almost nothing in him may be credited but certainly not for his authority for in the first yeare of Heraclius at which time it is not unlike but Evagrius lived for he writ his history but some sixteene yeares before the event plainely demonstrated the contrary and this to bee no divine prophesie but a lying fiction Then the Persians came against Syria saith the Author of the miscella historia ceperunt Edessam and they won and took Capessa and Edessa and proceeded as farre as Antioch yea Cosroes then so prevailed against Christians that Heraclius was faine to send many Legacies to intreate peace offering to pay what tribute hee would impose but the Persian disdainefully answered Non parcam vobis donec Crucifixum abnegetis adoretis Solem I will not spare you till you renounce the profession of Christ and with us adore the Sunne How did their Palladium that divine Image now defend them or how could that bee a divine praediction which for such Evagrius commends and saith the event proved it to bee true when the event within lesse than twenty yeares after demonstrated it to bee a lye 35. But that which is the principall fault in this narration is that Evagrius approves as true and certain that Epist. of Christ sent to Abgarus which is indeed the ground of the whole fable Now that Epistle to be a reprobated and rejected writing condemned by the Church is so cleare that their owne Writers proclame the same Bishop Canus among other bookes which the Church as hee saith rejecteth recites Epistolam Iesu ad Abgarum and Historiam Eusebij these two by name the Church saith he rejecteth because some ignorāt persons thought that touching Eusebius History not to be the words of Gelasius and the Councell Canus refuting those gives this as the reason why Eusebius is rejected because in it is set downe the Epistle of Iesus to Abgarus quam Gelasius explodit which Epistle Gelasius doth hisse out of the Church This Epistle of Iesus to Abgarus saith Sixtus Senensis Pope Gelasius inter scripturas Apochryphas rejicit doth reject among other Apocryphall writings Coster their Iesuit saith Eusebius relates how Christ sent a letter to Abgarus but that letter was never pro ejusmodi accepta ab Ecclesia esteemed for such that is not for Christs by the Church But the words of Gelasius the whole Roman Councel with him are of all most remarkeable They having expressed and named a long Catalogue of such fabulous writings and particularly this Epistle of Christ to Abgarus which Evagrius approveth set downe this censure of them all These and all like unto these wee confesse to bee not onely refused but also eliminata cast out of the Church by the whole Romane Catholike and Apostolike Church atque cum suis authoribus authorumque sequacibus sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata and wee confesse as well these writings as the Authors and the followers also of them to bee eternally condemned under the indissoluble bond of an Anathema So Gelasius and the whole Romane Councell whereby it is evident that not onely this Epistle and the Author of it but that the followers of the Author the approvers of that Epistle that is Evagrius and the whole second Nicene Synod and Baronius
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
a forgery devised by some knave and therfore we say that Epistle which is recited under the name of Theodoret to Iohn of Antioch Omni ex parte convinci is every way convinced not to bee Theodorets Againe There is an Epistle set downe in the fift Synod under the name of Theodoret written unto Iohn rejoycing in the death of Cyrill and babbling very many things against him which you may more truly call a Satyre or infamous libell than an Epistle And we take it very indignely that it should goe under the name of Theodoret which is rather the figment of some Nestorian and againe it is figmentum impudentissimi cujusdam nebulonis a fiction of some most shameles varlet Thus much more Baronius The like doth Binius with no lesse confidence and virulency against these Acts affirme The maine ground on which they both relye is for that Iohn Bishop of Antioch to whom this Epistle is inscribed was dead before Cyrill How could Theodoret saith Baronius write to Iohn touching the death of Cyrill seeing Iohn was dead seven yeares before Cyrill which saith he exploratum habetur is sure and certaine both by Nicephorus and others who writ the succession of Bishops as also by an Epistle which Cyrill writ to Domnus the successour of Iohn both which proofes Binius also alledgeth 2. My first answer hereunto is that if this bee a demonstration of forgery because an Epistle is written to one that is dead themselves and not we shall be the greatest losers hereby There is a decretall Epistle written by Pope Clement to Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and brother of our Lord in that Epistle the Pope tels Iames how Peter being now ready to bee martyred tooke Clement ordained him Bishop gave him the keyes set him in his owne chayre and when hee was set therein sayd unto him Deprecor te O Clemens O Clement I beseech thee before all that are here present that thou write unto Iames the brother of our Lord how thou hast beene a companion with me of my journyes and of my actions ab initio usque ad finem from the beginning to the end and write also what thou hast heard mee preach in every City what order of words of actions I have used in my preaching and also what an end I make of my life in this City Neither feare that he will be sory for my death seeing he will not doubt but I dye for pieties sake yea it will be a great comfort unto him to heare that I doe not leave my charge to one that is ignorant or unlearned According to this request and command of Peter Clement writ an Epistle to Iames exhorting him that he command all that which Peter taught to be diligently observed This and much more writ Clement to Iames after the death and of the life and death of Peter Now Iames unto whom hee writ was dead sixe or seven yeares before Peter For Iames was slaine in the seventh and Peter in the thirteenth yeare of Nero as out of S. Ierome Eusebius Iosephus and others is evident and as Baronius and after him Binius not onely professe but clearly and rightly prove and because this is a decretall Epistle an Apostolicall writing sent from Clement being Pope which was not till the tenth yeare of Domitian and that is thirty yeares after the death of Iames it hence ensueth that it was writ to Iames thirty yeares after he was dead What shall now become of this decretall and Apostolicall Epistle Will they be content that by the Cardinals demonstration it bee rejected as the forgery of some leud varlet Fye By no meanes Binius cals it the Epistle of Pope Clement Baronius tels us that it is not only Pope Clements but that this and the other written to the same Iames the dead Bishop of Ierusalem are integrae illibatae intire and incorrupted writings of Clement In their Canon law and that corrected by the Pope it is stiled the epistle of Pope Clement to Iames and that which is there related must stand for the words and doctrine of S. Peter yea the authority of it as other decretall Epistles Conciliorū Canonibus pari jure exaequatur is every way equall to the Canons of Nice of Chalcedon of other holy Councels If that bee too little what Saint Austen sayth of the very sacred Canonicall Scriptures indited by the Spirit of God himselfe that doth Gratian wretchedly abusing Saint Austens words apply to this and the rest of the Popes decretall Epistles saying of them Inter Canonicas Scripturas decretales Epistolae connumerantur the decretall Epistles are to be reckoned among the Canonicall Scriptures Bellarmine not onely in generall defends this saying of Gratian telling us that the decretals may well be called Canonicall that is either such as are a rule and have force to binde or Canonicall in that sense as the seventh Synod calleth the Decrees of Councels Constitutions inspired from God but particularly also he defends by the authority of Ruffinus this to be the true Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames and to omit others their Iesuite Turrian to whom Baronius Binius Gretzer and others refer us for the credit of these Epistles hath writ a whole booke in defence of them wherein he cals them and particularly he mentioneth and defendeth this of Clement to Iames sanctissimas verissimas c. most holy most true Epistles most worthy of their authors that is men Apostolike consecrated by the reverence of the whole word full of all gravity learning and sanctity confirmed by the testimony and use of all ages and which is most worthy remembring for our present purpose the Iesuite writes in defence of them thus What if in these Epistles sometimes there meet us some such matters as are not easie to all must wee therefore doubt of their authority by no meanes Therefore if any man doe not understand how the Epistle of Clement could bee written to Iames the brother of our Lord who was dead more than eight yeares before such an one if he be a learned modest and temperate man he will ask of others and in the meane space containe himselfe within his owne bounds that is as himselfe explaineth handling this Epistle he must so firmly hold it to be written by Pope Clement ut dubitare nefas existimet that he esteeme it a great sinne to doubt thereof Besides all this the Iesuite hath a large Chapter purposely to defend and shew this Epistle to be truly Clements though it was written to Iames long after he was dead Some there were whom Baronius Possevine and Binius follow who thought it was written indeed by Clement but not unto Iames who was then dead but unto his successor Simeon Against these their owne Turrian holds resolutely that it was writ not
his next successor 14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius wherein he writ an excommunication against Vigilius usurping his See it is dated in some Copies in the yeare of Basilius in others of Bellisarius being Consuls Now in all the time Silverius was Pope neither was Basilius nor Bellisarius Consuls What then shall the Popes Epistle be rejected as a a forgery a counterfeit No by no meanes The Cardinall often mentioneth it honours it for a rare monument and to helpe that errour he tels us the date is added more than should be Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodorets letter in the Synodall acts Might it not happen that the inscription was onely to the Archbishop of Antioch that the name of Iohn was added more than should be Epiphanius in his Book of heresies sayth that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour a manifest untruth for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus the successor of Adrian and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius and Verus 24. yeares after the death of Adrian Will the Cardinall have his demonstration to hold here in Epiphanius so that his booke against heresies must be condemned for a counterfeit and none of Epiphanius writing No error irrepsit there slipt an error into Epiphanius for Adrian is written in stead of Antoninus as the Cardinall tels you but it rather seemes in stead of Aurelius under whom Iustine dyed Had the Cardinall beene any way as indifferent to Theodorets letters hee would likewise have said error irrepsit an error is slipt into the inscription by writing Iohn in stead of his successor Domnus rather than have condemned the writing for a forgery 14. In the twenty third Cause Question 4. Cap. 30. in the ancient title it was cited as a text of Sylvester a manifest errour of Sylvester instead of Sylverius Did the Gregorian Correctors for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted condemne that Canon or Epistle as a counterfeit no but approving the text as true they amended the title and restored it to Sylverius In the very same Chapter it is said that Guillisarius caused Sylverius to bee deposed there was no Guillisarius that ever did that but it was Bellisarius yet for that error of the name which yet remaines uncorrected is not the Canon or Epistle rejected 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius out of Tyrius commendeth it is sayd that the fift Synod which decreed the Patriarchall dignity to the Bishop of Ierusalem was held in the time of Vigilius of Rome Eutychius of Constantinople and Paule of Antioch Now that by the Cardinals demonstration was never for it is certaine that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his dayes Before this Synod was Ephreem who sate eighteene yeares in whose fourteenth or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius to be Pope to him succeeded Domnus hee sate 18. yeares in whose seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held and himselfe personally subscribed unto it and about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius So this decree by the Cardinals owne reason is but a forgery as in very truth it is Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse fragment will admit an error of the writing Paulus being put for Domnus why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret as not to thinke a like errour of the pen in it and Iohannes to be put for Domnus 16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editiōs of Councels before Binius had this title The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second Contius the learned Lawyer defends that inscription Baronius himselfe somewhat forgetfull of what elsewhere hee writeth cals this Edict Constitutio data ad Iohan. a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn again Iustinian expresly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. Iohn a false title inscriptiō without al doubt Iohn being dead ten yeares before this Edict was either published or writ as Baronius himselfe both declares and proves professing that Inscription to be false Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstration drawne from the title and Inscription oh how happily how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against and contradicting that Edict Hee might have said Why that Edict was none of Iustinians nor ever published by him for the Inscription is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell or any Synodall Acts at all of it for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause to define the truth delivered by the Edict This had beene a short cut indeed and the Cardinall like another Alexander by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then nor ever I thinke till the acts of this fift Synod and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal for not withstanding the falshood of that inscription title the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit but a true imperiall Edict truely published by Iustinian contradicted by Vigilius confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters by the fift Councel Here he can say that addition to Iohn is added put amisse in the title by some later hand by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret the name of Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle rather than by reason of such an errour as happeneth in many Epistles and writings to declame not onely against the Epistle as a base forgery and none of Theodorets but even against all the Acts of this holy generall Councell as unworrhy of credit because among them an Epistle with an erronious Inscription is sound extant 17. None I thinke doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire and without all corruption as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Councels To omit the rest in those of Chalcedon the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have beene
not this now shewed apertissimè you may bee sure the Cardinall would not have feared to performe his promise but that there was somewhat in that Epist. which would have bewrayed his lewd dealing in this cause 22. His third reason is drawne from the testimony of Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople This saith hee exploratum habetur is sure and certaine by Nicephorus No it is sure and certaine by Nicephorus that Baronius is erronious in this matter for Nicephorus accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares and the Cardinall will allow him no more but thirteene now the first yeare of Iohn cannot possibly be before the yeare 427. for in that year Theodotus the next predecessor of Iohn dyed as Baronius himselfe proveth Add now unto these seventeene moe and then the death of Iohn by Nicephorus will bee an 444. which is the selfe same yeare wherein Cyrill dyed Is not this a worthy proofe to shew Iohn to have dyed seven years before Cyrill as the Cardinall avoucheth that he did Or do not you think the Cardinal was in some extasy to produce Nicephorus as a witnesse for him whereas Nicephorus as the Cardinall himselfe also confesseth gives to Iohn 18. yeares and the Cardinall allowes him but thirteene and whereas the Cardinall of set purpose refuteth the account of Nicephorus 23. But will you bee pleased to see how the Cardinall refuteth him Domnus saith hee was Bishop of Antioch an 437. as is proved by an Epistle of Theodorets written to Domnus in that yeare which Epistle I will set downe in his due place to wit an 437. Lo all his proofe is from that Epistle which the Cardinall contrary to his own promise doth not and as I thinke durst not set downe 24. But see further how the Cardinall is infatuated in this cause Iohn saith he dyed an 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares Iohn succeeded to Theodotus who dyed an 427. Say now in truth is not the Cardinall a worthy Arithmetitian that of 427. and 13. can make no more than 436 And is not this a worthy reason to refute Nicephorus But this is not all for Baronius glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus which as hee saith was written an 444. there observes with a memorandum that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus Iohn and Domnus had sitten in the See of Antioch to wit 26. yeares in all from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop unto that 444. yeare viz. Theodotus 6. Iohn 13. and Domnus 7. untill that yeare Theodoret as Baronius will assure you was made Bishop an 423. Add now unto these six of Theodotus thirteene of Iohn and 7. of Domnus and tell me whither you thinke the Cardinall had sent his wits when hee could summe these to bee just 444 25. Or will you see the very quintessence of the Cardinals wisedome I will saith he set downe the next yeare that is an 437. the very Epistle of Theodoret to Domnus which was then written unto him eam quâ monstratur I wil also set downe in his due place to wit an 444. that Epistle of Theodoret to Dioscorus whereby is shewed that Iohn was Bishop of Antioch just thirteene yeare Thus Baronius who by these two Epistles of Theodoret will prove both these As much in effect as if hee had said I have already proved that Iohn began to bee Bishop of Antioch an 427. and this being set downe for a certainty I will now prove by Theodorets Epistle to Domnus that Iohn dyed an 436. that is in his ninth yeare and then I will prove againe by Theodorets Epistle to Dioscorus that hee dyed in his thirteenth yeare and so dyed not till the yeare 440. Or as if hee had thus said I will first prove that mine owne Annals are untrue wherin it is said that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn because he dyed not as Theodoret in one Epistle witnesseth untill his thirteenth yeare which is an 440. And then I will prove unto you that mine own Annals are again untrue wherein it is said that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare and so dyed not till an 440. beginning the first an 427 because Theodoret in another Epistle witnesseth that Iohn dyed an 436. Or thus I will first prove that Iohn was dead an 436. though he was alive an 440. and thē I will prove unto you that Iohn was alive an 440. though he was dead an 436. 26. Is not this brave dealing in the Cardinall is hee not worthy of a cap and a fether too that can prove all these and prove them by Theodorets Epistles or doe you not think those to be worthy Epistles of Theodoret by which such absurdities such impossibilities may bee proved Nay doth not this alone if there were no other evidence demonstrate those Epistles of Theodorets to bee counterfeits If that to Domnus be truly his as Baronius assures you wherby Iohn is shewed to have dyed an 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs be◠a forgery whereby Iohn is shewed to live an 440. Againe if that to Dioscous be truly his as Baronius assures you wherin Iohn is said to live an 440. then certainely the other to Domnus must of necessity bee a forgery wherein Iohn is said to be dead an 436. And as either of these two Epistles demonstrates the untruth and forgery of the other so they both demonstrate the great vanity of Baronius who applauds them both who wil make good what they both do affirm that is the same man to bee both dead and alive a Bishop and no Bishop at the selfe same time and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinall refute his owne witnesse Nicephorus who by giving eighteene yeares to Iohn shewes plainly that Iohn and Cyrill dyed within one yeare which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of Iohn whom upon Nicephorus account hee thought to live after Cyrill whereas in very deed hee dyed somewhile before Cyrill 27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonicall Epist. of Cyrils to Domnus which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Balsamon whence it is out of all doubt saith the Cardinall that Iohn dyed before Cyrill seeing Cyrill writ unto his successor Domnus But howsoever the Cardinall vanteth that this reason will leave no doubt yet if you observe it there are two great doubts therein The former is whether that Epistle be truly Cyrils And besides other reasons that one point which the Cardinall himselfe mentioneth may justly cause any to thinke it none of his for as the Cardinall saith the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus that he might ad libitum at his pleasure put out Bishops and at his pleasure restore them Now there is none that knowes the learning
without but quite contrary to the minde of the Pope and his Legates as namely that about the dignity of Constantinople which they notwithstanding the resistance of the Legates both approved and knew it to have beene ever held in force by the judgement of the Catholike Church but specially by the Bishops of Constantinople whose Patriarchall dignity which they ever after the second Councell enjoyed was both decreed and confirmed by those Canons Never did the Easterne Bishops in those dayes nor long after esteeme the Popes owne much lesse his Legates consent so necessary to any Synodall Decree but that without them the same might bee made and stand in force as the judgement of the generall Councell and whole Church And to goe no further what an unlikely and uncredible thing is it that Theodorus and the rest in one yeare should make this confession to accept no more of those Synodall decrees then the Pope or his Legates were pleased to allow and the very next yeare after contrary to that their confession themselves hold a Synod and make a Synodall decree in this cause of the Three Chapters not onely without the Popes consent or presence either of himself or his Legate but even contrary to his definitive sentence made known unto them the deviser of that confession shewes himselfe plainely to have beene some of the Vaticane favourites who living perhaps in the time of Gregory by this intended to infringe the dignity of the See of Constantinople and those Canons which were concluded both in the 2. and 4. Councell whereas the Easterne Bishops notwithstanding the contradiction and resistance of the Pope held them ever in as great authority and reverence as any Canons in all the foure former Councels 4. Againe what a silly devise was it to make Mennas Theodorus and a great number of Bishops to aske pardon of the Pope for that wherein they professe themselves no way to bee guilty I have done no injuries to your Holinesse yet for the peace of the Church veluti si eas fecissem veniam postulo I pray you forgive mee that which I never did as if I had done it Can any man thinke this the submission of wise men of such stout and constant mindes as Mennas and Theodorus besides the rest had or what could bee devised more repugnant to that which Vigilius is made to say in his excommunication of Theodorus Thou scandalizing the whole Church and being warned entreated threatned by me hast refused to amend nunquam à pravâ intentione cessasti and never hast thou ceased from thy wicked designe nor to write and preach novelties so he cals the condemning of the Three Chapters yea after the Constitution for silence to which thou hadst sworne thou hast openly read in the Pallace a booke against the Three Chapters thou hast beene the fire-brand and the beginner of the whole scandall thou hast despised the authority of the Apostolike See Thus saith the Excommunication Was Vigilius well advised thinke you to accept as a satisfaction and submission for so many and so hainous crimes of insolency contempt perjury sacriledge and the like this confession at the hands of Theodorus wherein he doth in effect give the Pope the lie saying and avouching I have written no bookes at all contrarie to that Decree of Silence made by your Holinesse and for the injuries which have beene done to your holinesse and to your See eas quidem non feci truely I have done none at all Is not this a worthy submission the Pope saith he hath done innumerable and very hainous injuries to him such as deserved the censure of excommunication No saith Theodorus I have done none at all unto him and this the Pope like a wise man takes for a good satisfaction or an humble submission upon which hee is presently reconciled and shakes hands with that capitall offender Or where was the Cardinals judgment when he saith of this confession that in it Theodorus did supplicitèr humbly intreat pardon of Vigilius de irrogatis in ipsum probris contumelijs for the seoffes and contumelies which hee had used against the Pope If this confession was true and reall then certainly the Excommunication of Vigilius is not only most unjust but a very foolish fiction If the Excommunication was true and reall then must needs this submission bee fained and fictitious True they cannot bee both but that both should be false and counterfaits is not onely possible but certaine 5. If nothing else the time when this Confession was made by Theodorus and Mennas demonstrates this It was made after the Decree of Taciturnity and the Synod wherein that was concluded and that was indeed never that decree and Synod are meerely Chymericall this Confession then made after them and mentioning that decree cannot possibly be reall It was made as the Cardinall assures us after that Vigilius fleeing the persecution of Iustinian had fled first to Saint Peters in Constantinople then to the Church of Enthennia at Chalcedon yea after that the Emperour had revoked and abrogated his Edict against the Three Chapters and Vigilius at the earnest intreaty of the Emperour was now returned from Chalcedon to Constantinople and this was at Nevermasse neither did Iustinian persecute Vigilius neither did Vigilius for feare of his persecution flee either to S. Peters or to Chalcedon neither did Iustinian intreat him to returne from thence whither hee fled not at all nor ever did the Emperour adnull or revoke his Edict against the three Chapters then certainly the confession which by the Cardinalls own profession acknowledgement followed all these must needs be like them a fiction and meere forgery never really truly made by Mennas Theodorus and the rest of those Bishops Lastly it was made the next yeare before the fift Councell was held that is anno 552. which is the twenty sixt of Iustinian as the Cardinall witnesseth before which time it cannot bee imagined to have beene made for the excommunication of Theodorus was published but in that yeare in which Vigilius came to Chalcedon as Baronius confesseth Now it is a riddle which Oedipus cannot dissolve how Mennas who as wee have certainly proved by the Acts of the sixt Councell dyed in the 21. yeare of Iustinian should come now in his 26. yeare that is foure or five yeares after his death to offer up a supplication to Vigilius and aske pardon of him for doing no offence against him Me thinkes either the Pope should be afrighted with such a gastly sight or Baronius ashamed to applaud such sottish fictions as is that excommunication of Mennas made by Vigilius and the Encyclycall Epistle of Vigilius which mentions and approves that excommunication and this forged confession none of which will suffer the ghost of Mennas ro rest but bring a dead man out of his grave to heare the Popes sentence thundred out against him and then come with a bill of supplication
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
on Orpheus harpe made an heavenly harmony but how hee failed in his skill and proved no better than Neanthes his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternall record and yet all that time hee sat in the Chaire and prophesied for as the common saying is Vbi Papa ibi Roma so it is as true Vbi Papa ibi Cathedra it is more easie for the Pope to take the Chaire with him than like an Elephant to carry the whole City of Rome upon his backe to Constantinople and goe up and downe the world with it 17. But is this narration thinke you of Anastasius true verily not one word therein neither did the Empresse write nor Vigilius answer any such thing for both these were done as Anastasius saith eodem tempore at or after that same time when Bellisarius having killed Gontharis came out of Africk and offered those spoiles of the Vandales and seeing that as wee have proved was never this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas Againe this answer of Vigilius was given statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit at his very first placing in the See as Binius sheweth and that was in the fourteenth yeare of Iustiâ—ian for then Sylverius dyed now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome and that was as Procopius sheweth in the nineteenth yeare of Iustinian it was a fine devise of Anastasius to tell how this new Saint answered a letter by way of prophesie three or foure yeares before the letter was written Further Vigilius as Liberatus saith implens promissum suum quod Augustae fecerat performing his promise to the Empress writ a letter in this manner hee performed it as much as hee could he laboured a while to doe it and this was both before and a little after the death of Sylverius but when hee could not effect it and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein left off that care untill hee could have a better oportunity to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon which so long as it stood in force was a barre unto Anthimus If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon but till that were done till the Councell were repealed Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that hee in two severall Epistles the one to Iustinian the other to Mennas confirmed as the Emperour required him to doe the deposition of Anthimus and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges namely in the fourteenth yeare of Iustinian and five yeares before the death of Gontharis Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood but Vigilius also to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Emperour that hee would not doe specially seeing as Baronius saith Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperour Omnem prorsus sive Theodorae sive alijs spem ademisset would put both Theodora and all else out of all hope that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus So although those words eodem tempore were not as they ought to be referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople which was the yeare after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour yet the Anastasian narration is not onely untrue but wholly improbable that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas that hee would not restore him and that he ought not to bee restored Lastly at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus which following the death of Gontharis must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside and the Three Chapters were then in every mans mouth and every where debated The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare as by Victor who then lived is evident if not before published his Edict and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople Anastasius dreamed of somewhat and hearing of some writing or sending to Vigilius about that time he not knowing or which I rather thinke willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration for his great love to the Pope conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus and indeavors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See Iust as Alcibiades to avoyd a greater infamy cut off the taile of his beautifull dog which cost him 70. minas Atticas that is of our coyne 218. pound and 15. shillings and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace The true cause of sending to Vigilius as Victor sheweth was about the Three Chapters this of Anthimus which Anastasius harpes upon is in truth no other but the dogs taile and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men but now the true cause being come to the open view fils the world with that shamefull heresie of Vigilius which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dogs taile But enough of this passage wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes 18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vigilius and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to ConstaÌ„tinople He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus suggested dâ—vers accusations against him as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed and that hee was a murderer and had killed his Nephew Asterius whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scribâ— to take him wheresoever hee wee except onely in the Church of Saint Peter Scribe came and tooke him in the end of November and after many indignities both in words and actions as that the people cast stones and clubs and dung after him wishing all evill to goe with him hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie in December and on Christmas eve to Constantinople whom the Emperour then meeting they kissed and wept one over the other for joy and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie the people
the Fox now become wil for ever stand without climbe in at the window he will no more either Christ himselfe shall reach the keyes unto him that he may be his lawfull Vicar or open and shut who will for Vigilius Thus by the death of Silverius the true and lawful Pope and by the abdication or resignation which is a death in law of the usurping Pope Vigilius the See is wholly vacant and that was as Anastasius witnesseth for the space of sixe dayes 15. In this vacancy of the See Baronius not onely tels you that there was which is not unlike very great deliberatiō about the election of a new Pope but as if hee had beene present in the very conclave at that time or as if by some Pythagoricall metempseuchosis the soules of some of those Electors comming from one beast to another had at last entred into the Cardinals breast declares their whole debatement of the matter pro con what was said for Vigilius what against Vigilius which kinde of poetry if any be pleased with they may have abundance of it in his Annals for my selfe I told you before I never dreamed as yet in their Romane Parnassus that I dare presume to vent such fictions fancies In that one he sounded the depth indeed both of Vigilius counsels and of the consultations of the Electors Of Vigilius hee saith that hee gave over the Popedome not with any purpose to leave it but as it were to act a part in a comedy and seeme to doe that which he never meant that he did it fretus potentià Bellisarij quod esset eum mox iterum conscensurus because he knew that by the meanes of Bellisarius hee should shortly after bee elected and placed in it againe or to use the Cardinals own comparison he did not play at mum chance but knowing how the election would goe after hee had given over haud dubiam jecit aleam hee knew what his cast would be and what side of the Die would fall upward hee knew his cast would bee better than jactus venereus it would be the cast of the triple Crowne As for the Electors he tels us that they chose him not for any worth piety vertue or such like Pontificall qualifications of which they saw none in him but to avoid a schisme in the Church because they knew if they should choose another the Empresse and Bellisarius would maintaine the right of Vigilius and as they had thrust him in so they would uphold and maintaine him in the See and for this cause at the instance of Bellisarius they all with one consent chose their old friend Vigilius and now make him the true and lawfull Pope the undoubted Vicar of Christ which was a fine cast indeed at the Dies 16. Now though this may seeme unto others to demonstrate great basenesse and pusilanimitie in the Electors at that time who fearing a little storme of anger or persecution would place so unworthy a man in the Papall throne and though it testifie the present Romane policy to be such that if Simon Magus nay the devill himself can once but be intruded into their Chaire put in possession thereof he shall be sure to hold it with the Electors consent if hee can but storme and threaten in a Pilates voyce to incense the Emperour or some potent King to revenge his wrong if they ever choose any other yet the Cardinal who was privy to the mysteries of their Conclave commends this for salubre consilium a very wholesome advice wisely was it done to chuse Vigilius nay as if that were too little he adds it was Divinitus inspiratum consilium God himself inspired this divine councell from heaven into their hearts rather to choose an ambitious an hypocriticall a Symoniacall a schismaticall an hereticall a perfidious a perjured a murderous a degraded an accursed a diabolicall person to be their Pope rather than hazzard to sustain a snuffe of Bellisarius or a frowne of Theodoraes countenance Howsoever chosen now Vigilius was by commō consent and solennibus ritibus made the true and lawfull Pope from thence forward and with all solemnity of their rites placed in the Papall throne and put not onely in the lawfull but quiet and peaceable possession thereof the whole Romane Church approving and applauding the same Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires hee so long gaped and thirsted after At the first onset hee sought the Papacy but got it not at the second turne hee got it but by usurpation and intrusion onely but now at this third and last boute hee hit the marke indeed hee got the rightfull possession of it and is now become what hee would bee the true Bishop of Rome and Vicar of S. Peter 16. I have stayed somewhat long in the entrance of Vigilius and yet because I have set downe no more but a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a naked undecked narration or as it were onely rough hewed I must pray the reader that hee will permit mee to set downe some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinall Baronius for though all men knew him to bee one whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oyle and who will bee sure to say no more ill of any of them than meere necessity and evidence of truth inforceth him yet so unfit am I to write their Popes lives that for want of fit termes I am inforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Description of Vigilius heare then no longer mee but the great Cardinall the deare friend of Vigilius telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope heare him defining Vigilius in this manner Hee was an ambitious Deacon who by a madde desire burned with pride whom thirst of vaine glory drove into madnesse and into the hellish gulfe by meanes whereof he makes shipwracke in the very haven becomes a Rocke of offence and seemes an infidell in faith a bondslave to impious and hereticall Theodora that is to Megera to Alecto and the hellish furies who with Lucifer desired to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the Starres but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes fals downe into the depth which crimes with Cain he having so inclosed in his breast must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond Vnsavory salt worthy by all to bee trodden under foote and cast into the dunghill of heresies who had got unto him the stench of heretical pravity who boūd himselfe by an obligation under his owne hand yea by his oath also to patronize heretikes who promised to abolish the faith and Councell of Chalcedon It was the just iudgement of God that hee should fall from the faith who became a Vassall to vaine glory a schismatike a Symoniacke a murderer
sorry for it So Nauclerus who therein no doubt followed Anastasius for hee having set downe both the same motion made by Theodora and the answer given by Vigilius Binius observes that this was done when Vigilius was now the rightfull and true Pope wherefore seeing Theodora writ to Pope Vigilius and that after the death of Silverius to performe his promise it is certaine that before then he had not done it and so that untill hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope hee did not write this Epistle which would have given full content to Theodora and seeing againe we have clearly proved that hee did write it it remaineth that hee writ it after the death of Silverius when himselfe was the onely lawfull and true Bishop of Rome One doubt in this matter remaineth which Binius sleightly mentioneth for that Vigilius after he was true Pope did not onely anathematize Anthimus and confirme his deposition but professe himselfe also to defend the Councell of Chalcedon as appeares both by his Epistle to Iustinian and Mennas dated foure months after hee was the true Pope and by that answer which as Anastasius and Nauclerus say hee sent in writing to Theodora that hee would not now restore Anthimus being an heretike Whence it may bee collected that after he was once the true and lawfull Pope nihil horum dixerit scripserit vel egerit that hee neither said writ nor did any such thing as it is expressed in this Epistle for confirming the heresie of Eutyches for how is it credible that he should write both these being directly contrary the one to the other 32. I answer that had Vigilius bin an honest man or a man of credit of constancy and resolution he would never have thought or dreamed to write both those But Vigilius was perpaucorum hominum you may goe through the whole Catalogue of the Romane Popes and there is the best choise of wicked men in all formes and fashions of impiety to bee found and not picke out such a Polipus a turncoate a weather-cocke as Pope Vigilius Baronius compares him to King Saul and saith that as soone as hee was made the true Pope hee was then Saul inter Prophetas It is true in many things hee was like King Saul but in that act of prophesying wherein the Cardinal compares them there is a marvellous dissimilitude betwixt them Saul was moved by Gods Spirit Vigilius by his owne will Saul was acted and driven to utter those prophesies which God put into his mouth Vigilius himselfe did guide and move his tongue and turned it with the rudder of his unconstant minde when and whithersoever hee would Saul prophesied of necessity not being able to resist Gods motion Vigilius in hypocrisie being desirous to please and humour other men in a word Saul had the gift Vigilius the art or jugling tricke of prophesying When he would seeme to be that which indeed and in heart he was not a Catholike Bishop and gaine the favour of Iustinian a Catholike Emperor not Saul nor scarce Paul more orthodoxall than Vigilius when hee would open his heart and declare what hee was intus in cute not Eutyches or Nestorius more damnably heretical than Vigilius In his Epistle written secretly to Theodosius Anthimus and Severus he opens to them his true intent and minde that hee was of one faith with them an Eutychean as they were and so assures them that hee would doe what hee could for them when oportunity should be offered In his Epistles to the Emperour Empresse and Mennas which were to bee publike and seene of all hee makes a shew of love to the truth and to the Councell of Chalcedon which even then hee meant if oportunity were once offred to adnull abolish for ever I here remember a narration not unworthy observing which long since a man of great gravity and judgement in law and now one of the chiefe Iudges in this Realme related unto me how one of the most notorious Traytors in the time of our late Queene of happy memory having by solemne vow by oath by receiving the holy Sacrament bound himselfe to murder his Soveraigne returned home from Italy but with such a shew of zeale towards our religion our State and his Soveraigne that in open Parliament being chosen a Burgesse hee made a very spightfull and violent invective against Recusants and specially against Iesuites His Paymasters and friends of Rome expostulating with him then about the matter Oh quoth he it was needfull I should thus doe now all feare nay suspition of me is quite removed I have by this my open speech gained trust and credit with the Prince with the Councell and the whole State I have now made an easie and free accesse to performe that holy worke And if God had not watched over Israell and his Anoynted many times without suspition and danger he might have done and had done it indeed Seldome are great villanies attempted but with great hypocrisie such deepe dissembling is no novelty at Rome Pope Vigilius was not to be taught this lesson no treason more horrible than his was at this time Hee undertakes and bindes himselfe by his own handwriting by his oath also the Sacrament was not as yet growne to be an obligation of such detestable designes to overthrow and abolish for ever the Councell of Chalcedon and with it the whole Christian faith his purpose and resolution of heart hee signifies in his hereticall Epistle which as it seemes hee writ very shortly after hee was the true and lawfull Pope to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius and sent it privately to Theodora While hee is meditating and seeking how to effect this the Emperour writes unto him requiring him to approve that faith which Leo Caelestine Agapetus and others his predecessors had embraced and particularly to confirme the deposition of Anthimus Severus and Theodosius What should Vigilius here doe had he refused to yeeld to the Emperours just motion hee had bewrayed himselfe and his minde and then not onely the Emperour and Graecians but even his owne Romane Church then orthodoxall and Catholike would have expelled him for an heretike and so hee had deprived himselfe of all possibillity ever to effect his hereticall intendment Hee saw it was most needfull for him to put on the visor of a Catholike profession and therefore after his sacrifice and prayer to Laverna Pulcra Laverna da mihi fallere da justum sanctumque videri then in that counterfeit habit of holinesse he writ those open letters to Iustinian to Mennas and to Theodora so orthodoxall and Catholike that none by them in the world could otherwise judge of him but that he was another S. Silvester S. Caelestine or S. Leo When by this he had gained first the reputation of sanctity in the Church then the good will of the Emperour and the love of all Catholikes when every man now held Vigilius his Apostolicall letters or decrees
others or of a Synod herein what better direction advice or counsell could his Cardinalls or any Synod in the world give unto him than the decree of the whole Councell of Chalcedon That Vigilius had before his eyes at this time that was in stead of a thousand Cardinals unto him seeing he as Ecclesiae Princeps defined Eutycheanisme notwithstanding that most holy and generall Synod yea against that Synod what could the advice of another or of a few Cardinals have avayled at this time 50. Thus all the evasions which they use being refuted it may now be clearly concluded not onely that Vigilius writ this impious and hereticall Epistle and writ it when he was the true and lawfull Pope but that he writ it also ex animo even out of an hereticall heart and writ it as he was Pope that is in such sort as that by his Pontificall and supreme authority hee confirmed that heresie which hee taught therein And this is the former of his Acts which as I told you is very remarkable his purpose and intent therein being the overthrow of the Councell at Chalcedon and of the whole Catholike faith 51. The other act of Vigilius concernes the cause of the three Chapters wherein by the heresie of Nestorius he publikely decreed and performed that as much as in him lay and as by his Apostolicall decree could be effected which hee had purposed and intended to doe by the heresie of Eutycheanisme In which whole cause how Vigilius from the first to the last behaved himselfe how at the first hee oppugned the Emperours most religious Edict and the Catholike faith how afterward he played the dissembling Proteus with the Emperour and the whole Church for the space of five or six yeares together how at the last he returned to his naturall and habituall love of heresie and how in decreeing it by the fulnesse of his Apostolicall authority hee sought utterly and for ever to abolish the Councell of Chalcedon and with it the whole Catholike faith the former Treatise doth abundantly declare which withall demonstrates the vanity of that saying of Bellarmine For the time sayth he that hee was true Pope neither any errour nor simulation of errour was found in him sed summa constantia in fide but the greatest constancy of faith that could be For as by our former treatise is evident he was not only most wavering but hereticall in faith And this was in a manner the whole course of Vigilius life or the most eminent acts thereof while he was Pope pretending orthodoxy but embracing heresie and as opportunity offered it selfe labouring by words by private Epistles by resisting the imperiall just and godly Edict by publike constitutions to overthrow the faith and the whole Church of God 52. You see now his ingresse into the Papacy and his progresse in the same touching his egresse both out of it and this life heare what S. Liberatus saith How Vigilius being by heresie afflicted died it is knowne unto all Heare what Cardinall Bellarmine saith out of Liberatus Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that selfe same heresie which at the first he nourished and againe Misere vexatus usque ad mortem he was miserably vexed even untill hee dyed Heare Baronius who first promised to declare how invigilavit in Vigilio vindicta Dei how the vengeance of God watched Vigilius and at last revenged the innocent blood which he shed and then performing that promise sayth He died in an Iland in Sicily by the just judgement of God confectus ipse aerumnis ex morbo himselfe being wasted with misery by reason of his disease who had caused Silverius in an Iland in Palmaria to bee pined away and put to death As he got the papacy by wicked meanes so was he immensis agitatus fluctibus tossed with exceeding great tempests therein hated by the Emperour not gratefull to the Easterne and execrable to the Westerne Bishops and when hee seemed to have come out of the streame into the haven and almost one foot into the City being pined away immensis doloribus with unmeasurable paines he dyed Thus Baronius Now if we should deale with him as Baronius doth with Iustinian and by his precedent acts judge of his reward according to the Text Opera eorum sequuntur eos I feare the censure would seeme very harsh to those who are so ready to examine Iustinian by that rule For what workes I pray you followed Pope Vigilius Ambition usurpation sacriledge murder symony hypocrisie schisme heresie and Antichristianisme concerning which the Apostle sayth They which doe them shall not inherit the kingdome of God I will not I list not be rigorous in this point neither towards him or any other I contenâ— my selfe with that lesson of the Apostle Domino suo stat aut cadit Yet thus much by occasion of this Treatise and the approved judgement of the Church declared therein concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia long before dead must needs bee said of him of Baronius and of all other who have already or shall at any time hereafter write as they have done in defence of heresie and oppugnation of Gods truth As repentance for such sinnes and impious writings opens unto them so impenitency and persevering therein eternally shuts against them the gates of Gods mercy and the kingdome of heaven Both which because they are hid from mans eyes the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity onely to God passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity by the outward and apparant acts which are open unto them whomsoever shee seeth not nor findes by certaine and evident proofe to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their hereticall and impious writings which before they published and maintained all those though dead ten an hundred or a thousand years before she by her censure doth and doth most justly condemne accurse and anathematize as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia dead an hundred yeares before is most evident whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fift Councell is approved by all succeeding generall Councels by all Catholikes and even by the whole Catholike Church Not will I here dispute whether such a sentence doth not sometimes passe errante clave the party having repented whom they not having proofe of his repentance thought to dye impenitent but howsoever that fall out none may justly complaine of the Churches judgement as unjust or unequall herein for besides that it is presumed that those who so notoriously and publikely by their hereticall writings doe scandalize the Church and people of God if they had seriously repented would have expressed some publike and outward testimony of the same the Church would by this severity of her censure teach all men a lesson which is very hard to learne first that they should not have such an itch and ambitious desire to write or utter those detestable heresies which lurk
within their breasts or if they cannot observe that yet at least to learne to be so lowly and humble in heart as to revoke their impieties and blasphemies although to some blemish and disgrace of themselves yet to the great honour of Gods truth and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church which they had scandalized If in ambition they will first oppugne the truth and then in a worse pride of heart not be reclamed to the truth nor shew their love unto it why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement shew her open detestation of their persons who in the insolency of their hearts will not shew any open detestation of their heresies That Vigilius writ a papall Constitution in defence of heresie it is apparent and undenyable that he at any time revoked that writing I wish it were but it is not yet evident The like may be sayd of Baronius of Pighius of Eccius of the Laterane Florentine and Trent conspirators of all who have whet their tongues against other truth and specially to uphold that fundamentall heresie of the Popes infallibility Their writings for heresie are evident that they ever reclamed those writings it is inevident and if ever they and their cause come to bee tryed in such a free lawfull and oecumenicall Councell as was this fift under Iustinian they may justly feare and certainly expect from the Church unlesse the disclaming of their writings may by certaine proofe be made knowne the very like sentence though a hundred yeares after theirs as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred yeares after his death And because the houre-glasse for repentance in runne out to the former all that we can doe is which I seriously now doe from my heart to cry amaine unto others to admonish exhort yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God and by the love of their owne soules first that they keepe their tongues and pennes from once uttering any heresie or if they have not done that with the same hands to give the medicine wherewith they gave the wound and as openly nay much more openly to disclame than they have ever proclamed their impious and hereticall doctrines 53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius The exact pourtraiture of the Popes lives Baronius had beene able to set forth if he had listed but he addeth such fucos and so many sophisticall colours that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and naturall habit If ought be amisse in this our description and not set forth according to the lively lineaments of Vigilius and his impieties the equall reader will not too rigorously censure the same I acknowledge that I can but dolare in this kinde to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes I have not learned That is an Art which may not bee too vulgar lest their Romane policies be too farre divulged But by this it is easie to perceive what a silly excuse it is which Baronius useth in this cause blaming Vigilius for coming to Constantinople as if not the Popes owne hereticall minde but the ayre of Constantinople had wrought such effects as to produce that hereticall and yet as they count it Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters FINIS Laus Deo sine fine Errata haec corrigat benevolus Lector In Textu Pag. 48. lin 2. read Theodorus ibid. lin 9. diptisis p. 509. l. 14. eos p. 99. l. 3. Iohn B. p. 125. l. 38. Catholikes p. 141 l. 35. Binius he was p. 145. l. 39. Son of God p. 163. prope finem substances p. 164. l. 5. explanation p. 172. l. 20. of the Pope p. 182. l. 45. their present p. 199. prope finem Catholica p. 216. l. 17. it p. 224. l. 25. Popes p. 227. l. 5. yeeld p. 289. l. 35. the. p. 350. l. 30. aequiparare p. 425. l. 8. where is ibid. l. 27. Commana ibid. Marcellinus l. 42. inflamed p. 442. in fine Euphemia p. 462. l. 11. quarrels with Pope p. 465. l. 35. all this time p. 478. l. 23. it was written p. 495. l. 37. poysoner of p. 500. l. 35. right hand In Margine Pa. 9. lit c lege Marsorum p. 67. lit e Antiochenum p. 233. lit s emissam ibid. lit e corruptè p. 409. lit e commentitias supposititias p. 410. lit q Consilij 5. p. 437. lit l Concil 5. Coll. 5. AN ALPHABETICALL TABLE OF THE CHIEFE THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS TREATISE A. ACts in Councels not so intire but there may be faults from the exscriber pag. 433. Sect. 17 18. Acts of the fift Councell unjustly excepted against by Baronius pa. 379. sect 3 4. Agnoites and other sectaries called Acephali p. 3. sect 6. Agapetus lost nothing by the Emperours presence p. 464. sect 5. Antichrist the Pope first Antichrist nascent secondly crescent thirdly regnant fourthly in their Laterane Councell he was Antichrist triumphant pa. 186. sect 24. Anthimus a Catholike in shew and outward profession p. 157. sect 4. Anastasius narration not helped by Binius p. 458. sect 23. Anastasius a fabler p. 256. sect 23. and pa. 447. sect 12. c. The Author of that Apologicall Epistle published Anno 1601. a vaunting Braggadochio p. 205. sect 10. To Assent to the Popes or to their Cathedrall definitions in a cause of faith makes one an heretike pa. 172. sect 6. Author of the Edict was Iustinian himselfe p. 366. sect 6 7. B. BAronius nice in approving the Epistle of Ibas and why p. 128. sect 22. Baronius wittingly obstinate in maintaining the heresie of Nestorius by approving the later part of that epistle p. 129. sect 24 25. and p. 31. sect 28. Baronius sports himselfe with contradictions p. 131. sect 27. Baronius revileth the cause of the Three Chapt. p. 361. sect 1. Baronius Annals not altogether intire pag. 435. sect 19. Baronius by his own reasons proves his Annals to be untrue p. 436. sect 19. in fine sect 20. c. Baronius holds it dangerous for Vigilius to leave Rome to come to Constantinople p. 462 sect 1 2. Bellisarius most renowned save in the matter of Silverius p 470. sect 11. Bellarmine and Baronius at variance about the Epistle of Vigilius to Anthimus Severus and others p. 477. sect 19 20. Baronius first reason to disprove it is taken from the inscription p 477. in fine p. 478. sect 21 22 23. c. his second reason from the subscription pa. 482. sect 26. his last reason is because hee was not upbraided for it by the Emperour and others p. 483. sect 27. Bellarmines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know when a Councell decreeth any doctrine tanquam de fide pa. 40. sect 9 c. Baronius vilifieth the fift generall Councell p. 266. sect 2. The Banishment of Vigilius after the fift Councell a fiction p. 250. sect 16. and p. 253. sect 19. When and for what
Vigilius his cariage in this cause and his 4. severall judgements or changings ibid. sect 2. in sequentibus Vigilius for his decree of silence is to bee judged an heretike p. 229. sec. 6. Vigilius after exile made no decree to approve the fift Councell p. 241. sec. 2 3. the westerne Church approved it not § 4. the Councell of Aquileia doubted to approve it sec. 5. Vigilius not so much as by a private consent did approve it ibid. pa. 245. sect 7. in fine sect 8. Vigilius consented to the Synod but not to the synodall decree p. 245. sec. 8. Vigilius was afflicted and what his afflictions were p. 264. sec. 37 38. Vitiges yeelded himself to Bellisarius p. 447. sec. 16. Vigilius lost not by his going to Constantinople p. 463. sec 3 4 5 c. p. 466. sec. 6 7 8. Vigilius his entrance into the Popedome and the manner of it p. 468. sec. 10. Vigilius his promise to the Empresse to restore Anthimus p. 469. sec. 11. Vigilius keepes not promise with the Empresse ibid. sec. 12. Vigilius resignes the Popedome and is anew elected into it p. 472. sec. 14 15. Vigilius exactly described by Baronius pag. 474. sec. 16. Vigilius writ unto Anthimus and other Eutycheans as unto Catholikes p. 475. in fine Vigilius laboured to undermine the Councell of Chalcedon p. 476. Vigilius accursed not Dioscorus but Nostorius p. 482. sec. 26. Vigilius writ this Epistle to Anthimus after the death of Silverius p. 486. Vigilius in some things alike in others unlike to K. Saul p. 487. in fine sect 30 31. Vigilius was hereticall and a dissembler pa 488. sec. 32. a dissembler in the faith in heart hereticall p. 490. sec. 33. in sequent Vigilius as Pope defined against the faith p 497. sec. 3 c. Vigilius his death and the manner of it pa. 504. sect 52 c. FINIS a Black Notley in Essex b See his Epistle to the Reader for the defence of Iustinian printed Anno 1616. c Disensio Ecclesiae Angliccont Archiep. Spal d Eccles 3.7 e Iude Epist. v. 5 f 2 Cor. 4.6 a Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 9. Auspicacius enecta Parente nascuntur sicut Scipio Africanus primusque Caesarum à Caeso matris utero dictus simili modo natus et Manlius qui Carthaginem cum exercitu intravit b Tert. lib. de resur carnis Possamus illos recogitare qui execto matris utero vivi aerem banserunt Laberij aliqui et Scipiones et Fabius Caeso tâ—r Consul c Cic. Orator d Def. Eccles. Angl. cap. 4. p. 19 De quo toto Concilio conscriptum scias à me librum integrum in quo innumerabiles Baronij fraudes mendacia etiam et hereses palam detecta c. e Quintil. instit Orat. lib. 1 5â—.4 f Paulus Fagius Epist. ad Albertum est maguâ—religio apud Iudaeos non subjicere nomen eius qui boni aliquid dixit docuit aut scripsit g Vid. comment Rabb passim h Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca. 1 in disputatione de verbo Dei Iam ostendimus iudicem controversiarum non esse scripturam nec seculares Principes c. ac proinde ullimum iudicium summi Pontificis esse i Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca. 5 in fine St Papa errayet praecipicudo vitia vel prohâ—bendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia crâ—dere vitia esse bona et virtutes malas nisi vellit contra 〈◊〉 scuntiata pâ—ccare k Bull Pij 4. super forma juramenti professionâ—s fidei anno Dom. 1564. l 〈◊〉 Apolog. pro Bell. ca. 6. Pontificia potestas est vel ut carao fundâ—meÌ„tuÌ„ et ut uno verbo dicam suÌ„ma fidei Christianae m 2 Tim. 3.1 b. n Bell. de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. ca. 4. Etiam si scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum et Apolloâ—orum esse divino tameâ— non certo id credam nisi prius credidero scripturam quae hoc dicit esse divinum nam etiam in Acclâ—orano Mahometi passim legimus ipsum Alchoranum de Caelo à Deo missu c o Quicunque non innititur doctrinae Romanae Ecclesiae ac Romani Pontificis tanquaÌ„ regulae fidei infallibili à quâ etiam sacra Scriptura robur trahit et authoritateÌ„ haereticus est coÌ„tra Lutherâ—i p Greâ—z descâ—s Bell. lib. 1. de verbo Dei Id solum proverbi Dei veneramur acsuscipiâ—us quod â—obis Pontificeâ— ex Cathedra Petri traâ—uÌ„t q Tertul. Apos adversus gentes Ca. 5. r August lib. 11. contra Faustum Manicheum ca. 2. inde proboinquichat Faustus hoc illius esse illud non esse quia hoc pro me sonat illud contra me s Dureus adversus Whitakerum fol. 1â—0 Neque enim patres censentur cum suum aliquid quod ab ecclesia non acceperunt velseribunt vel dicunt t Gretz lib. 2. de iure mâ—re prohâ—bendi libros nox os ca. 10. Nam Ecclesiae pater ille dicitur qui Ecclesiam salutari doctrine pabulo alit et pascit iam ergo si prosalutari doctrinae pabulo admetiatur Lolium et Zâ—zania non Pater est sed Vetricus u Lindan Panoâ—tia lib. 1. ca. 17. x Senensis Bib. S. titulo Ensebius y Possevinus in apparatu sacro z Canus locorum Theol. lib. 7. ca. 3 a Coster in Apolog contra Greâ—inc ca. 8. b Baron ad annum 340. c Lind. panoplia lib. 1. cap. 23. d Rehing in muris Civitatis sanctae fund 2. et 12. e Azorius moral lib. 8. cap. 16. f Maldon in Math. cap. 16. vers 19. p. 340. g Bell. de sanctorum beat lib. 1. ca. 5. p. 1938. Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 698. h 〈◊〉 Panopl lib. 3. c. 24. et 26. i 〈◊〉 contra Whitac fol. 109. k Canus loc Theol l. 7. c. 3. Maldon in Ioan. cap. 1. vers 3. pag. 399. l Ribâ—â—a in Malach Prophet proemium m Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. ca. 3 Tota firmitas legitimorum Conciliorum est à Pontifice Romano et cap. 1. n Conciliorum iudicium tum demuÌ„ firmum est cam accesserit Rom Pontificis confirmatio o An. Do. 681. p An. Do. 794. q An. Do. 1409. r An. Do. 1430. s An. Do. 1414. t An. 787. Irene u An. Do. 1517. x Dudithius quinque Eccles. Epist. ad Maximilianum secundum Caesarem y Lucau de bello â—iu l. 1. z Bell de Concil author l. 2. c. â—â— Dicere Ecclesiae id est sibi ipsi ut praesidi et Ecclesiae cui ipse praeest a Gretz defen Bell. lib. 3. de verbo Dei Ait tertiò interpretantur Ecclesiam Paâ—am non abâ—â—o quid tum b 2 a. 2â— disput. 1. q. 1. c Boz lib. 2. de signis Eccl. ca. 21. See farther in this Treatise cap. 13. p. 17â— d Plut. in vit Cicer. e Psal. 122. f Phil. 1.9 g Apoc. 9.11 a
in this narration be fabulous what shall wee say of Aimonius and al those other Writers who mention this banishment of Vigilius as well as doth Anastasius What else can bee said then that which Ierome saith of divers of the ancient Writers Before that Southerne Devill Arius arose at Alexandria innocenter quaedam minus cantè loquuti sunt the ancients spake certaine things in simplicitie and not so warily which cannot abide the touch nor avoide the reprehension of perverse men Or that which Saint Austen observes in himselfe and Tyconius Non erat expertus hanc haresin Tyconius had not to deale with this heresie of the Pelagians as I have said It hath made us multò vigilantiores diligentioresque much more diligent and vigilant in scanning of this point than Tyconius was who had no enemy to stir up his diligence Right so it fals out betwixt those Writers and us of this age Aimonius Otho Platina and the rest found the banishment of Vigilius and much like stuffe as it is histories in Anastasius they in simplicitie and harmelesse innocency tooke it upon his credit The question about the Popes Cathedrall Infallibility about Vigilius hereticall Constitution and such like controversies were not moved in their dayes and therefore they spake of these things innocenter minùs cautè as Ierome saith of the Fathers and because they were not distrustfull of Anastasius they writ not so warily of these matters as others whose industry by the manifold frauds of Baronius as of another Arius hath beene whetted and they compelled to fift the truth more narrowly than they wanting opposites and oppugners did It fell out to them as it did to Ierome himselfe Ruffinus had set out a book in defence of Origen under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr Ierome at the first and for divers yeares beleeved the booke to have beene indeed written by Pamphilus as Ruffinus said it was Credidi Christiano Credidi Monacho I never dreamed that such an horrible wickednesse as to forge writings and cal them by the name of Martyrs could come from a Christian from a Monke from Ruffinus but when the question about Origen was once set on foote Ierome then sought out every corner every Copie every Library that hee could come to and so discovered the whole forgery The very like hapned to Otho Platina and the rest they found this fabulous narration of the banishment of Vigilius and the consequents upon it in the booke of Anastasius the Writer of the Popes lives of the Pontificall the keeper of the Popes Library a man of great name and note for learning one in high favour with the Popes of his time they never suspected or dreamed that such a man a Christian a Monke that Anastasius would deale so perfidiously and record such horrible untruths But now the question about Anastasius credit and the cause of Vigilius which was not moved in their dayes being sifted and come to the skanning the whole forgery and falshood of Anastasius is made evident to the world both in this and in a number the like narrations Anastasius is not the man the world tooke him for his writings are full of lyes and fictions Not the Legendaur more fabulous than Anastasius hee for a long time was the Master of the Popes Mint by his meanes the royall stampe of many golden Fathers yea of some Councels also and infinite historicall narrations was set upon Brasse Lead and most base metals and then being brought like so many Gibeonites in old Coates and mouldy coverings Anastasius gave them an high place and honourable entertainment in the Popes Librarie and with them ever since hath the Church of God beene pestered they past for currant among men delighted in darknesse and errours such as had no need to bring them to the touch but the light hath now manifested them and made both them and their author to be detested 24. You see now the weaknesse nay the nullity of the Cardinalls reason even of his Achilles drawne from the Emperours fact in restoring or freeing him from exile which he would never have done unlesse he had consented to the Synod For seeing we have proved that Vigilius was not at all banished it clearly thence ensueth that neither Narses entreated to have him freed from exile neither did the Emperour upon that entreaty free him from exile neither did Vigilius consent to the Synod after his exile and all the other consequents which upon this foundation of Vigilius his exile the Cardinall builds like so many Castles in the ayre they all of themselves doe now fall to the ground and which I specially observe it hence followeth that Vigilius did never after the end of the fift Councell consent unto it or to the condemning of the Three Chapters either by his Pontificall decree or by his personall profession for the Cardinall assures us and delivers it as a truth which of necessity must bee granted that his consent whether personall or pontificall was at no other time but when he was loosed out of banishment 25. Now at that time it neither was nor could be for there was never any such time nor was hee at all banished and therefore upon the Cardinals owne words we are assured that Vigilius after the end of the Synod never revoked his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters never after that time condemned the Three Chapters or consented to the Synod either by any pontificall or so much as by a personall profession but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters and subject to that censure of Anathema which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters 26. Some perhaps will marvell or demand how it should come to passe that the Emperour who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning banishing and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters and such as yeelded not to the Synod should wink at Vigilius at this time who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all which doubt Baronius also moveth saying he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him Num Vigilio pepercit may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperours Edict Minime quidem Truly the Emperour would never spare him saith the Cardinall Yes the Emperour both would and did spare him Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde Had the Cardinall beene crossed and contradicted nothing but torture exile or fire from heaven to consume such rebells would have appeased his rage Iustinian was of a farre more calme and therefore more prudent spirit Vigilius deserved and the Emperour might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth have inflicted upon him either imprisonment or banishment or deposition or death It pleased him to doe none of all these nor to deale with the Pope according to his
demerits Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man one of no constancy and resolution a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith that hee had said and gainsayd the same things and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory to be true and truths of the Catholike faith the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor as Liberatus as Facundus were whom no reason nor perswasion would induce to yeeld to the truth it s not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both he was an Ambodexter both a defender and a condemner of the three Chapters both on the Emperours side and against him and because hee might bee reckoned on either side having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters as for defending them it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best and ranke him among the condemners at least to winke at him as being one of them and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters 27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church than by such connivence at Vigilius and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters The banishing of him would have hardned others and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained the former men would have ascribed it to judgement the latter to passion and wearinesse of his exile But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters if any were led by his authority and judgement the Emperor could shew them Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters if his authority were despised by others then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chapters could doe no hurt and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him as at a condemner of the three Chapters for he had often testified to the Councell that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod to declare and testifie the same those letters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this were inserted into the Synodall Acts Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters his owne act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters as you say and the Synodall Acts record that he is why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters how can the Emperours letters and Synodall Acts be true which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters So much did it concerne the Emperors honour and credit of the Synod that Vigilius should not be banished at that time Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted condemned and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell but for any banishment imprisonment or other corporall punishment the Emperour in his wisedome in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him Onely he stayed him at Constantinople for one or as Victor saith for moe yeares after the Synod to the end that before he returned the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged and with them nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did might settle if it were possible the mindes of men in the truth or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison which either from the contrary constitution or his personall presence when he should returne could proceed 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices gifts rewards and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius and so sent him home which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod and condemned the three Chapters Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes and good orders for the government of Italy and the Provinces adjoyning The date of the sanction is in August in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian and thirteene after the Cons. of Basilius which was the next yeare after the Councell But that Vigilius at that time returned there is no solid proofe and Victor who then lived and was present at Constantinople puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian or 16. after Basilius who yet by all mens account who write of his returne returned from Constantinople either in the same or in the next yeare before he dyed So uncertaine and by Victors account unlikely it is that Vigilius at his returne home was ornatus muncribus donis officiis and privilegiis as they pompously set out the matter Now it is true that the Emperour ordered and decreed those matters upon the entreaty of Vigilius for so the words pro petitione Vigilij doe make evident but that either Vigilius entreated or the Emperour granted this upon any entreaty which he made either after his return out of exile which certainly he did not or after the end of the Synod or at the time of his return al which are the Cardinals tales without any proofe none of the Cardinalls friends will bee ever able to make cleare And for my owne part till I see some reason to the contrary I cannot otherwise thinke but that this petition was made by Vigilius some three or foure yeares before the Councell at which time Vigilius consented wholly with the Emperor was in great grace and favour with him And I am hereunto induced by that which Procopius expresseth How in the 14. yeare of the Gothicke war which is the 23. of Iustinian when Totilas and the Gothes began to win againe divers parts of Italy which Belisarius had before recovered Vigilius and divers Italians and Romanes who were then at Constantinople submissius enixius postulabant ab Imperatore did in very submisse and earnest manner entreat the Emperour that he would reduce all Italy into his subjection Now it is very likely that together with this petition they signified divers matters to the Emperour which were behoovefull for his government in the Westerne parts and this the Emperors answer then made unto
judgement of others 29. The other cause was a most impious heresie defended by Eutychius whom they so much honour which alone being duely considered overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius Eutychius when hee had long continued in the defence of the truth did afterwards fall both by words and writing to maintaine the Heresie of Origen and the Origenists denying Christs body after the resurrection to have beene palpable that is in effect to bee no true humane body and the very like hee taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection This the Surian Eustathius quite over-passeth in silence for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius so abundāt in miracles prophesies and visions should be thought guilty of so foule and condemned an heresie But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly testifie it that no doubt can remaine thereof hee tels us how himselfe disputed against Eutychius defending this heresie how hee urged those words of our Saviour palpate videte how Eutychius answered thereunto that Christs body was then indeed palpable to confirme the mindes of his Disciples but after they were once confirmed all that was before palpable in Christs bodie in subtilitatem est redactū was turned into an aërial and unpalpable subtilty How he further strived to prove this by those words of the Apostle Flesh blood cannot inherit the kingdome of heavē how then said hee may this be beleeved veraciter resurgere carnem that true bodies did or shall rise againe How he further insisted on those words That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving therby that which riseth againe either not to be a body or not a palpable that is no true humane body Gregory also tels us that Eutychius writ a booke in defence of this heresie which both himselfe read and Tiberius the Emperour after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it caused it publikely to bee burned as hereticall adding that Eutychius continued in this heresie almost till the very houre of his death Now although Gregory tels not when or at what time Eutychius fel into this heresie yet it may wel be supposed that as Iustinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the truth so when once hee gave himselfe to such dotages of the Origenists which as it seemes he did about the latter end of Iustinians Empire some three yeares before his death then the Emperour who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters as Victor sheweth the condemning of which is as before we declared the condemning of all the heresies of Origen and whatsoever contradicts the verity of Christs deity or humanity as it is most likely exiled him for this heretical opinion And this is much more probable seeing Iustinian had purposely set forth long before this a most religious and orthodoxall Edict or Decree particularly against Origen and the Origenists as Liberatus sheweth and as the Edict it selfe which is extant doth manifest condemning them in particular for denying the verity of Christs and other humane bodies after the resurrection Seeing then Nicephorus the Patriarch saith that Eutychius was banished for not consenting to the Emperours Edict and Eutychius by his defending of that heresie of the Origenists directly oppugned that his Edict most like it is that besides his Mathematicall Art whereby hee was liable both to death and banishment by the Emperours lawes this Edict of Iustinian against Origen should bee that which Nicephorus the Patriarch meant and for which Eutychius was and that most justly exiled So not Iustinian but Eutychius was the heretike nor was it any hereticall Edict of Iustinian as the Surian Eustathius and after him Baronius affirmeth to which Eutychius a Catholike opposed himselfe but an orthodoxall and Catholike Edict of Iustinian which Eutychius then an heretike and Origenist oppugned for not consenting whereunto hee was banished Thus not onely the Emperour is clearly acquitted of that phantasticall heresie whereof the Surian Eustathius and Baronius doe accuse him but Eutychius himselfe whom they honour for a Saint a Prophet and a Demi-god is found guilty of that selfe-same crime and of that very heresie of denying the truth of Christs body which they unjustly and slanderously impute to Iustinian And this I thinke is abundant to satisfie the Cardinals second witnesse namely that fabulous and legendary Surian Eustathius 30. All the Cardinals hope and the whole waight of his accusation relyes now on Evagrius He I confesse saith well neere as much as Baronius against Iustinian accusing him of avarice injustice and heresie But the credit of Evagrius is not such as to countenance such calumnies Evagrius in some matters wherein hee followeth Authors of better note is not be contemned but in very many hee is too credulous fabulous and utterly to bee rejected What credit can you give unto this Narration of the Monke Barsanuphius whom he reports to have lived in his Cell wherein he had mewed up himselfe and for the space of fifty yeares and more neither to have beene seene by any neque quidquam alimenti cepisse nor to have received any nourishment or food What a worthy S. doth he describe Simeon Môros that is S. Foole to have been How doth he commend Synesius whom they perswaded to bee baptized and undertake the function of a Priest though hee did not consent to the doctrine of the resurrection neque ita censere vellet neither would beleeve that it was possible The like might bee noted touching the blood of Euphemia and divers other Narrations Evagrius is full of such like fables but omitting the rest I will propose onely two which will demonstrate him to have beene either extremely negligent in the search or very malicious in perverting the truth 31. The former concernes Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople and his successor Maximianus Evagrius saith that Maximianus tooke the Bishopricke after the death of Nestorius An untruth so palpable that none can thinke Evagrius to have bin ignorant of those manifold and undoubted records which testifie the contrary For it appeares by the writings of Nestorius set downe also in Evagrius himselfe that after his deposition hee stayed at Ephesus and about Antioch for the space of foure yeares and then was exiled to Oasis Now Maximianus was placed in the See of Constantinople that very same yeare wherein the Ephesine Councell was held and Nestorius deposed some three or foure months after the same deposition as Socrates and Liberatus declare The next year after the Councel the union was made between Iohn Cyrill Iohn the rest with him professing expresly in their letters of union that they acknowledge receive Maximianus for Bishop of Constātinople A demonstration that Maximianus was Bishop of Constantinople three whole yeares at least before the death of Nestorius Nay which argueth Evagrius to have doated in historicall relations Maximianus was dead
corrupted and followed some corrupt Edition of that Epistle when they so craftily persist on the Inscription Dominis ac Patribus for had hee stiled them in the title fathers hee would not in the Epistle have so often called them brethren and never once fathers Now to say as the Cardinall doth that it is abhorrent either from reason or practice to call the same parties both Dominos and fratres argues either extreme and supine negligence or obstinate perversnesse in the Cardinall and Binius scarce any thing in antiquity being more frequent Pope Damasus writ a Synodall letter to Prosper Bishop of Numidia and others he inscribes it thus Dominis venerabilibus fratribus Prospero Leoni Reparato Damasus Episcopus Bishop Damasus to my reverend Lords and Brethren Prosper c. So the Councell of Carthage in two letters written the one to Pope Boniface the other to Pope Caelestine writes in both in this manner To our Lord and honourable brother So Cyrill Patriarke of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus and the other African Bishops Dominis honor abilibus to the honourable Lords and holy brethren In like sort Atticus Patriarke of Constantinople to the same Africane Bishops Dominis sanctis to the holy Lords our most blessed brethren fellow Bish. Why might not Vigilius call other Patriarks Lords and brethren when Atticus Cyrill the Councell of Carthage yea Pope Damasus himselfe called other Bishops Dominos ac fratres Nay seeing the Pope is used to inscribe his letters to the Emp. Dominis ac filijs or Domino ac filio as doth P. HadriaÌ„ to Constant. and Irene to Charles why may not he as well call his brother as his son Lord is the title of son more compatible with Dominis than the title of brother or whether title thinke you Lord or brother may not the Pope give to his fellow Bishops the name of brother is almost every where seene in his letters the Cardinall envies not that unto them it is the name of Dominus that seemes somewhat harsh The Cardinall would not have the Pope call or account other Bishops his Lords and yet how can they even the meanest of them but bee his Lord when hee gladly stiles himselfe their servant yea servant to every servant of the Lord So that if the Popes Secretary were well catechized and knew good manners his Holines should write thus to his own servants To my Lord Groome of my stable to my Lord the Scâ—ll of my Kitchen I am indeed your servant I am servus servorum Dei But let the title of the Epistle bee howsoever yee will whether Dominis ac Christis as it is in Liberatus or Dominis fratribus as it is in Victor or Dominis Patribus as the Cardinall without any authority that I can finde would have it certaine it is that the parties to whom Vigilius writ it were the three deposed Bishops to whom Vigilius was like to give any of all those titles and not to the Emperour and Empresse as the Cardinall without all shadow of truth affirmeth and saith that he hath demonstrated the same but it is with such a demonstration as was never found in any but in Chorebus his Analyticks 26. Another of the Cardinals reasons to prove this Epistle to be a forgery is taken from a repugnance and contrariety of the words in the Subscription wherein Vigilius first professeth to hold but one nature in Christ and then anathematizeth Dioscorus who held the same The Cardinall should have proved that Vigilius could not or did not write contrarieties As the Cardinall though he hath beene so often taken tardy in contradictions yet will not deny the Annals for that cause to bee his owne faire birth so hee might thinke of this writing though it bee repugnant to it selfe yet it might proceed from such an unstayed and unstable minde as Vigilius had But I doe acquit Vigilius from this contradiction it is not his hee condemned not Dioscorus in his Subscription In his Epistle he professeth to hold the same doctrine of one onely nature in Christ with Eutyches and Dioscorus there is little reason then to thinke that hee did in his Subscription adjoyned condemne the professors of that doctrine of which Dioscorus was one of the chiefe as deepe in that heresie as Eutyches himselfe What shall wee say then to Liberatus in whom Dioscorus is named Truely had not malice and spight shut the eyes of Baronius and Binius they could not but have seene that the name of Dioscorus is by the oversight or negligence of the writer inserted in stead of Nestorius It was Nestorius and not Dioscorus whom Vigilius there accursed the very conclusion and coherence not onely with the Epistle but with the next precedent words in the Subscription doe evidently demonstrate thus much for having professed in his Epistle to hold as did Dioscorus but one nature in Christ having againe in his Subscription and next words before anathematized all who admit two or deny but one nature in Christ hee in particular declares who those are that hee therein anathematized saying Anathematizamus ergo therefore we accurse by this our condemnation of those who deny but one nature Paulus Samosatenus Nestorius Theodorus and Theodoret and all who have or doe embrace their doctrine Now it was Nestorius not Dioscorus who embraced the same doctrine with Paulus Samosatenus with Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Theodoret all these concurred in that one and selfe-same heresie of denying one nature in Christ they all consented in teaching two natures making two persons in Christ which Dioscorus and Eutyches condemned Of Theodorus and Theodoret it is cleare by the Councels both of Ephesus and Chalcedon and the fift Synod Of Paulus Samosatenus the writing or contestation of the Catholike Clergy of Constantinople set downe in the Acts of Ephesus doe certainly witnesse and declare the same the title of which is to shew partly NestoriuÌ„ ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosatenus and in the contestation it selfe it is said thus I adjure all to publish this our writing for the evident reproofe of Nestorius the heretike as one who is convinced to teach and openly maintain eadem prorsus quae Paulus Samosatenus the same doctrines altogether which Paulus Samosatenus did and then they expresse seven heretical assertions taught alike by them both Seeing then Vigilius accursed him who taught the same with Paulus Theodorus and Theodoret and that was Nestorius not Dioscorus it is undoubtedly certaine that not Dioscorus but Nestorius was the party written and named by Vigilius in his subscription and that Dioscorus was not by Vigilius but by the oversight and negligence of the exscriber of Liberatus wrongfully inserted in stead of Nestorius And truly the like mistakings are not unusuall in Liberatus In this very Chapter it is sayd that Vigilius a little after the death of
Agapetus and election of Silverius when he came from Constantinople to Rome with the Empresse her letters for placing him in the Romane See he found Bellisarius at Ravenna a manifest mistaking of Ravenna for Naples for there and not at Ravenna was Bellisarius at that time as by Procopius is evident and because this is no way prejudiciall to their cause Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit an error or slip of memory in Liberatus and not so hastily conclude as here they doe that because Bellisarius was not then at Ravenna as in Liberatus is falsly affirmed therefore that Chapter of Liberatus is forged and not truly written by him Would his Cardinalship have beene as favourable to Liberatus in naming Dioscorus for Nestorius which the like evidence of truth and all the circumstances doe necessarily enforce the Epistle might as well passe for the true writing of Vigilius as that Chapter for the writing of Liberatus In this very Epistle of Vigilius it is said in Liberatus I know quia ad Sanctitatē vestrā fidei meae crudelitas pervenit that the cruelty of my faith is before this come to your eares and the very same word of crudelitas fidei is in Victor also which argues the fault to be very ancient It is true that the faith of Vigilius was indeed cruell for he by it cruelly condemned abolished and as it were murdered the Councell of Chalcedon that is in truth the whole Catholike faith and so this happened to be not onely a true but a fit and significant error Yet the Cardinall was so friendly and charitable here as to thinke that it was but a slip of the penne or negligence of the writer in saying crudelitas for credulitas as the Cardinall readeth it might not by the like negligence and with lesse disgrace to Vigilius Dioscorus slip into the text in stead of Nestorius In the inscription of the Epistle Liberatus reades it Dominis ac Christis Victor Dominis ac fratribus the Cardinall corrects both and makes it worst of all Dominis ac patribus May he play the Criticke and turne Christis or fratribus into patribus and that without nay against reason and may not others in the subscription restore Nestorius for Dioscorus when the truth and necessary circumstances enforce that correction It was Nestorius then not Dioscorus whom Vigilius accursed it is but the errour or corrupt writing of Vigilius Epistle in Liberatus which wee also condemne and not the Epistle of Vigilius at which the Cardinall unjustly quarrelleth 27. His third and last shift is worst of all If Vigilius had indeed writ this Epistle why then saith he was it not upbraided unto him at Constantinople neither by the Empresse Theodora when shee contended with him about the restoring of Anthimus nor by Theodorus Bishop of Caesareae and Mennas when Vigilius excommunicated them both and they vexed him so long nor by the Emperour Iustinian when he was furiously inraged against him nor by the fift Synod which was offended with him for refusing to come to the Councell nor yet by Facundus when he writ angerly against him these were publikely debated nec tamen de dicta epistolâ vel usquam mentio yet is there not any mention or light signification of any such Epistle Thus the Cardinall Of whom I againe demand where he learned to dispute ab authoritate humanâ negativè the old and good rule was Neque ex negativis recte concludere si vis but the Cardinall hath new Analytickes and new-found rules of Art Ex negativis poteris concludere si vis Himselfe witnesseth and proclameth Vigilius to have beene a Symoniack and to have compacted with Bellisarius for 200. peeces of gold to have beene excommunicated deposed degraded by Pope Silverius pronouncing that sentence out of his Apostolike authority and from the mouth of God why was not this Symony why was not this censure of Silverius upbraided neither by Theodora nor Theodorus nor Iustinian nor the fift Councell nor Facundus that being a publike and knowne censure had been a matter of farre greater disgrace to Vigilius farre more justifiable than the epistle writ privately and secretly to Anthimus and commanded by Vigilius to bee kept close that none might know it See you not how vaine this shift of the Cardinall is How it crosseth him in his Annals to slander Vigilius as symoniacall as censured by Silverius both which seeing they are not upbrayded to him by the forenamed persons but set downe in the Cardinals Analytickes sure they are impostures and forgeries What though none of them upbrayded this Epistle unto him Is it not enough that it is assuredly testified and recorded by S. Liberatus by Bishop Victor two who lived and writ at that same time what if most of them knew not of this Epistle which was sent secretly by Vigilius and by his advice kept closely by Anthimus and Severus what if they all knew it and yet having other crimes enough to object thought it needlesse to mention that as it seemes they did the Symony of Vigilius and censure of Silverius what if they were not so spitefull as the Cardinall is and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holinesse 28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinall How or why should Theodora upbrayd this to Vigilius for the not restoring of Anthimus that quarrell for the restoring of Anthimus as I have often sayd and clearly proved was a meere devise and fiction of Anastasius it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tayle Or how should Iustinian upbraid it when he was so enraged against Vigilius and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus Seeing neither Iustinian persecuted Vigilius nor was enraged against him but for the space of five of six yeares they both sang one note they fully consorted together or how should Mennas and Theodorus upbraid it when they were excommunicated by Vigilius Seeing that excommunication all the circumstances of it are merely fictitious as by the death of Mennas which was long before that forged excommunication of him was demonstrated Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to bee writ by Vigilius which all relie on fictions on most untrue and idle fancies And whether Facundus upbraided it or no may bee questioned nor will it bee clearly knowne untill they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vaticane where hee lyeth yet imprisoned But as for the fift Councell it was great sillinesse in the Cardinall once to thinke that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectfull manner that could be wished they uttered no one harsh or hard word against him but what was rightly said or done by him as his condemning of Origen his condemning the Three Chapters before the time of the Councell that they often mention and approve it also They sought by lenity to win the Popes heart to consent