victorious conquests Alexander for magnificence Augustus for his Piety constant love and zeal to the faith Constantine Theodosius or Martian for multiplicity of labours undertaken for the good of the whole Empire more indefatigable than Hercules and for supporting the whole fabricke of the Church and Christian faith a very Atlas Caelum qui vertice falcit 42. There onely remaineth now the other effect which is private which as it is the last so is it the heaviest punishment that Baronius could wish unto Iustinian and that is his adjudging him to the pit and torments of hell Did he not feare the Apostles reproofe either against rash and temerarious judgers Who art thou that judgest another mans servant or against uncharitable censures Charity thinketh not evill it rejoyceth not in iniquity but rejoyceth in the truth why did not the Cardinall harken rather to the judgement of the Church of Constantinople Wherein the memory of Iustinian was yearely celebrated and that with great pompe and solemnity in the Church of Sophia in the time of divine service all the people being assēbled The like celebrity of his memory was observed at Ephesus in the Church of Saint Iohn which he had builded Or if the authority of these particular Churches could not sway the Cardinall seemed it a small matter unto him to contemne the consenting judgement of Pope Agatho and his Romane Councell which ranke him among the glorious and blessed Saints in heaven with Saint Constantine Theodosius and Martian yea of the whole sixt generall Councell wherein his memory is so often called holy blessed divine happy and the like if his memory then much more himselfe is happy and blessed for to the just onely doth that honor belong The memoriall of the just shall be blessed but the name of the wicked shall rot To which purpose that is specially to be observed which Nicephorus addeth in plaine termes of the sixt generall Councell Iustinianum beata quiete dignatur It placeth Iustinian in blessed rest and peace and againe Semper cum qui in Sanctis est Iustinianum dicunt That general Councell ever calleth Iustinian one who is a Saint and among the Saints Adde to all these that seeing by the Cardinals confession the Epistles of Agatho In omnibus and therefore even in that which he saith of this holy Emperour That hee is a blessed Saint venerable in all Nations are to be imbraced as divine Oracles it may bee truly concluded that Iustinian not onely by the testimonies of mortall men and of all nations but even by the voyce of God himselfe is blessed and hath ever since his death and doth now rest and raigne with God When by the unpartiall judgement of S. Agatho of the Romane Synod of the whole sixt generall Councell of all Nations yea of God himselfe Iustinian is proclamed to be a venerable Saint now resting raigning with God in heaven who is Baronius a man of yesterday that after a thousand years possession of that heavenly rest he should unsaint him dethrone him and thrust him downe to the lowest pit and most hideous torments of hell I' st not enough for that Hildebrandicall generation to devest Kings Emperors of their earthly diadems unless in the pride of their hearts climbing up into heaven they thrust them out thence also deprive them of their crowns of immortality eternal glory 43. And yet were there neither Historian nor Pope nor Provinciall nor Generall Councell to testifie this felicity of Iustinian unto us that very text out of which being maimed the Cardinall sucked poyson and collected His death damnation doth so forcible prove the beatitude of Iustinian that it alone may bee sufficient in this cause The Cardinall cites but one part of the text but the whole doth manifest his fraud and malicious collection Apoc. 14.13 Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from hence forth even so saith the Spirit for they rest from their labours and opera illorum sequuntur illos their workes follow them which last words the Cardinall onely alleageth and applyeth them to Iustinian Now who are Those that are meant by Their works and follow Them who are those Them that the Spirit meaneth in that text Out of al doubt those selfe-same of whom before he spake Them that dye in the Lord Them that are blessed and rest from their labours Of Them the Spirit there saith Opera illorum Their workes follow Them Seeing then the Cardinall confesseth this text to belong to Iustinian and himselfe applyeth it unto him it certainly hence followeth that Iustinian is of their number who dye in the Lord and are blessed for of Them and Them onely doth the holy Ghost speake in that text saying They rest from their labours and Their workes follow Them So hard it is for the Cardinal to cite or say ought against Iustinian which doth not redound to the Emperours honour and the Cardinals owne ignominie 44. But let us suppose the words to bee generall as being uttered alone without any reference to that text they may bee truly affirmed both of the good bad There cannot be found in al Scripture more faire evidence nor a more authentike Charter for the happy estate of any one in particular that lived since the Apostles times then is this for Iustinian For what were those workes which did accompanie and follow Iustinian Truely the workes of sincere faith of fervent zeale to GOD of love to the Church and Children of God the workes of piety of prudence of justice of fortitude of munificence of many other heroicall vertues with these as with a garment and chaine of pure Gold Iustinian being decked was brought unto the Bridegroom every decree made or ratified by him for confirming the faith every Anathema denounced against heresies heretiks particularly those against Vigilius al that defend him that is against Baronius and all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith everie Temple or Church every Monastery and Hospitall every City and Towne everie Bridge Haven and High-way every Castle Fort and Munition whether made or repaired by him tending either immediately to the advancement of Gods service or to the maintaining or relieving of Gods servants or strengthning the Empire against his and Gods enemies every booke in the Digest Code and Authentikes every Title yea every law in any title whereby either the Christian faith and religion or peaceable order and tranquillity have beene either planted or propagated or continued either in the Church or Common-wealth all these and every one of them and many other the like which I cannot either remember or recount are like so many Rubies Chrysolites and Diamonds in the costly garment or so many linkes in that golden chaine of his faith and vertues Seeing they who offer but one mite into the treasury of the Lord or give but one cup of cold water to a Prophet shall not want a reward O!
drosse of the Church quite severed from the gold wee willingly yeeld unto them they and they onely are wholly theirs let them have let them enjoy their Helenaes we envy not such refuse Councils unto them 2. When first I set my selfe to the handling of this argument concerning the Councils it was my purpose besides those other generall questions concerning the right of calling generall Councils the right of Presidencie in them and the right of confirming them to have made manifest those three severall points touching those three rankes of Councils every one of which is not onely true but even demonstrable in it selfe And though with a delightfull kind of toile I have made no small progresse therein yet alas how unequall am I to such an Herculean labour whose time whose strength of body or industry of minde is able to accomplish a worke of such amplitude and of so vast extent for which not Nestors age would suffice Wherefore turning my sailes from this so long and tedious a voyage which I could not so much as hope to end which beside many dangerous rockes hidden Syrtes and sands is every where beset by many Romane enemies specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages with whom at every turne almost one shall be sure to have an hot encounter I thought a shorter course far more fit for my small and unfurnisht barke and despairing of more or longer voyages I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut onely over some one arme of that great Ocean not doubting but the ice being once broken and the passage through these straits opened many other will with more facilitie and felicitie also performe the like in the rest untill the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished 3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fift held at Constantinople in the time of the Emperor Iustinian and Pope Vigilius for authoritie equall to the former it being as well as they approved by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for antiquitie venerable being held within 600. yeares after Christ even in those times while as yet the drosse had not prevailed and got the predominancie above the gold as in the second Nicene Synod and succeding ages it did for varietie of weighty and important matters more delightfull then any of the rest and which I most respected of them all most apt to make manifest the truth and true Iudgement of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Controversies of the Popes supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement which are of all other most ventilated in these dayes 4. The occasion of this Councill were those Tria capitula as they were called which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church to wit The person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead the writings of Theodoret B. of Cyrus against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Councill at Chalcedon 5. The Nestorians whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill when they could no longer under the name of Nestorius countenance their heresie very subtilly indevored to revive the same by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia and his writings as also the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed then before pretending that not onely the persons of Theodoret and Ibas who both had sometimes beene very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas which is full fraught with Nestorianisme and wherein Theodorus with his hereticall writings are greatly extolled were received and approved in that famous Councill And in truth the Nestorians little lesse then triumphed herein and insulted over Catholikes thinking by this meanes either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Councill of Chalcedon if their doctrine were rejected or if that Council were imbraced together with it and under the colour and authoritie of it to renew and establish the doctrine of Nestorius which as they boasted that councill had certainly confirmed by their approving that Epistle of Ibas 6. By occasion hereof many who were weake in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy councill and those as Leontius sheweth were called Haesitantes waverers or Doubters Many others who for other causes distasted that Councill were hereby incouraged pertinaciously to reject the same as Liberatus declareth Such were the Agnoites Gainites Theodosians Themistians and other like Sectaries called all by the common name of Acephali because they had no one head by whom to be directed All these though being at mortall wars one with another yet herein conspired to oppugne the faith and the holy Councill of Chalcedon taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted and these men gladly beleeved that in it the Epistle of Ibas which maintaineth all the blasphemies of Nestorius was approved Thus the Church was by contrary enemies on every side assailed and so extremely disturbed that as the Emperor testifieth it was in a manner rent even from East to West yea the East was rent from the West 7. Iustinian the religious Emperor knowing how much it was available not onely for his honor and the tranquillitie of his empire but for the good of the whole Church and glory of God to appease all those broiles and knowing further that the holy Councill of Chalcedon though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas after that they had publickly renounced the heresie of Nestorius yet did utterly condemne both that Impious Epistle of Ibas as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia both which that Epistle defendeth together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill he knowing and that exactly all these particulars that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unitie of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon set forth an Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall religious and holy profession or rather an ample Declaration of his nay not his but of the Catholike Faith Among many other things the Emperor in that Edict did particularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines the writings of Theodoret against Cyril and that most impious Epistle of Ibas accursing all these as hereticall and all those who either had heretofore or should therafter maintaine or defend them or any one of them 8. But notwithstanding all this which the Emperor with great prudence piety and zeale performed very many even some of those who bare the names of orthodoxall and Catholike Bishops were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict and the Catholike truth delivered therein that they openly oppugned his Edict and defended the Three Chapters by him
at Chalcedon and repeated in the 6. Collation of this fift Councill What the Pope decrees herein Baronius doth declare who explaining the words and meaning of Vigilius saith That the Fathers of Chalcedon dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam said that this Epistle of Ibas was to be received as Catholike and further adds Ex eâ Ibam comprobatum esse Catholicum that by this Epistle Ibas himselfe was proved to be a Catholike yea that he was so proved by the consenting judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon So Baronius 12. This to have beene indeed the true meaning of Pope Vigilius his owne words in his Constitution make manifest There he first sets downe the ground of his sentence and that was the sayings of Pascasinus and Maximus in the Councill at Chalcedon The Popes legats said by Pascasinus Relecta ejus epistolâ agnovimus cum orthodoxum By the Epistle of Ibas now read we acknowledge him to be orthodoxall Maximus said Ex relecto rescripto epistolae orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio by the Epistle of Ibas now read his Epistle or writing is declared to be orthodoxall Vigilius grounding himselfe on these two speaches collects and sets downe two positions of his owne concerning this third Chapter The former that the Councill of Chalcedon approved that Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall to which purpose hee saith the Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon Epistolam pronunciantes orthodoxam pronounced this Epistle to be orthodoxall and yet more plainly Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio the Epistle or writing of Ibas was pronounced orthodoxall by the Fathers at Chalcedon The other that by this Epistle they judged Ibas to be a Catholike to which purpose Vigilius writeth thus Iuvenalis would never have said that Ibas was a Catholike nisi ex verbis episiolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobaret Vnles by the words of his Epistle he had proved his faith to be orthodoxall which words evidently shew that Vigilius thought in like sort all the Bishops at Chalcedon to have judged the same by the words of that Epistle for it is certaine that they all embraced Ibas himselfe for a Catholike 13. Hereupon now ensueth the Definitive sentence of Vigilius touching this Chapter in this manner We following the judgement of the holy Fathers in all things seeing it is a most cleare and shining truth ex verbis Epistolae venerabilis Ibae by the words of the Epistle of the reverend B. Ibas being taken in their most right and godly sense and by the acts of Photius and Eustathius and by the meaning of Ibas being present that the Fathers at Chalcedon did most justly pronounce the faith of this most reverend Bishop Ibas to be orthodoxall we decree by the authoritie of this our present sentence that the Iudgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon ought to remaine inviolable both in all other things and in this Epistle of Ibas so often mentioned Thus Vigilius decreeing both that this Epistle of Ibas is Catholike that by it by the words thereof Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike both which he decreeth upon this ground that the Councill of Chalcedon as he supposeth had judged the same 14. In the end to ratifie and confirme all that concernes any of these Three Chapters in the Popes Decree he addeth this very remarkable conclusion His igitur à nobis cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia dispositis These things being now with all diligence care and circumspection disposed Statuimus et decernimus we ordaine and decree that it shall be lawfull for none pertaining to Orders and ecclesiasticall dignities either to write or speake or teach any thing touching these three Chapters contrary to these things which by this our present Constitution we have taught and decreed aut aliguam post praesentem definitionem movere ulterius quaestionē neither shall it be lawfull for any after this our present definition to move any question touching these Three Chapters But if any thing concerning these Chapters be either done said or written or shall hereafter be done said or written contrary to that which we have here taught and decreed hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus we by all meanes do reject it by the Authority of the Apostolike See whereof by Gods grace we have now the government So Vigilius 15. Thinke ye not now that any Papist considering this so advised elaborate and Apostolicall decree of Pope Vigilius will be of opinion that there was now a finall end of this matter and that all doubt concerning these Three Chapters was for ever now removed seeing the supreme Iudge had published for a direction to the whole Church his definitive Apostolicall and infallible sentence in this cause what needeth the Councill either to judge or so much as debate this matter after this Decree To define the same was needlesse more then to light a candle when the Sunne shineth in his strength To define the contrary were Hereticall yea after such an authenticall decision and determination to be doubtfull onely what to beleeve hath the censure of an Infidell But thrice happy was it for the Church of God that this doctrine of the Popes supreme authoritie and infallible Iudgement was not then either knowne or beleeved Had it beene the Nestorians and their heresie had for ever prevailed the Catholike faith had beene utterly extinguished and that without all hope or possibility ever after this to have beene revived seeing Vigilius by his Apostolicall authoritie had stopt all mens mouthes from speaking tyed their hands from writing yea and their very hearts from beleeving or thinking ought contrary to his Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters wherein he hath confirmed all the Blasphemies of Nestorius and that by a Decree more irrevocable then those of the Medes and Persians Had the holy Council at that time assembled beleeved or knowne that doctrine of the Popes supremacie and infallible Iudgement they would not have proceeded one inch further in that businesse but shaking hands with Heretickes they and the whole Church with them had beene led in triumph by the Nestorians at that time under the conduct of Pope Vigilius 16. And by this you may conjecture that Binius had great reason to conceale the later part of the Popes decree for he might well thinke as any papist will that it were a foule incongruitie to set downe three intire Sessions of an holy and generall Council not onely debating this controversie of faith about the Three Chapters but directly also contradicting the Popes definitive sentence in them all notwithstanding they knew the Pope by his Apostolicall authoritie to have delivered his Iudgement and by the same authoritie to have forbidden all men either to write or speak or to move any doubt to the contrary of that which he had now decreed But let us see by
after a second conclusion like to this they adjoyne a third which concernes them both He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities est censendus haereticus is to be accounted an heretike Thus the Councill at Basil cleerly witnessing that till this time of the Councill the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme or his judgement to be infallible was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes which their decrees were not as some falsly pretend rejected by the Popes of those times but ratified and confirmed and that Consistorialiter judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes that then were for so the Councill of Basil witnesseth who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Councill say thus It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift and himselfe also hath approved Besides this that Eugenius confirmed the Councill at Basil there are other evident proofes His owne Bull or embossed letters wherein he saith of this Councill purè simpliciter ac cum effectu et omni devotione prosequimur we embrace sincerely absolutely and with all affection and devotion the generall Councill at Basil The Councill often mention his adhesion his maximā adhaesionem to the Councill by which Adhesion as they teach Decreta corroborata sunt the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope were cōfirmed Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council did not only promise but corporally sweare before the whole Councill that they would defend the decrees therof particularly that which was made at Constance was now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is neither supreme nor infallible that generall Councils at this time decreed it the indubitate Popes confirmed it the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it the Vniversall and Catholike Church untill then embraced it and that with such constancy and uniforme consent that as the Council of Basil saith and their saying is worthy to be remembred nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit never any learned and skilfull man doubted therof It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride vaunting Se quasi deus sit errare non posse I sit in the temple of God as God I cannot erre but for any that was truly judicious or learned never any such man in all the ages of the Church untill then as the Councill witnesseth so much as doubted thereof but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme and his judgement not to be infallible 31. After the Councill of Basil the same truth was still embraced in the Church though with far greater opposition then before it had witnesse hereof Nich. Cusanus a Bishop a Cardinall a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus who lived 20 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill resolving that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice of Chalcedon of the sixt and 8 generall Councils and he is so confident herein that he saith Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata a Cardinall also who was famous at the same time He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil in fauour belike of Eugenius the 4 who made him Cardinall yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible and his authority not supreme but subject to a Councill Andradius will tell you in this manner Let us heare him Turrecremata affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis to the judgement of the Pope and then he citeth the words of Turrec that in case the Fathers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith which the Pope should contradict This was the very case of the fift Councill and Pope Vigilius dicerem judicio meo quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae I would say according to my judgement that we must stand to the Synods and not to the Popes sentence who yet further touching that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth extracasum haeresis unlesse it be in case of heresie doth plainly acknowledge that in such a case a Councill is superior unto him Superior I say not onely as he minceth the matter by authoritie of discretive judgement or amplitude of learning in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors but even by power of Iurisdiction seeing in that case as he confesseth the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope and if he be a Iudge of him he must have coactive authoritie and judiciall power over him Witnesse Panormitane an Archbishop and a Cardinall also a man of great note in the Church both at and after the Councill of Basil He professeth that in those things which concerne the Faith or generall state of the Church Concilium est supra Papam the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope He also writ a booke in defence of the Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome that they have forbid it to be read and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index At the same time lived Antonius Rosellus a man noble in birth but more for learning who thus writeth I conclude that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault nisi pro haeresi but for heresie strictly taken or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church and againe Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill yet in case of heresie the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope and he gives this reason thereof because in this case the Councill is supra Papam above the Pope and the superior Iudge may be sought unto to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge Thus he and much more to this purpose Now although by these the first of which was a Belgian the second a Spaniard the third a Sicilian and the last an Italian it may be perceived that the generall judgement of the Church at that time and the best learned therein was almost the same with that
of the Councill at Basill that neither the Popes authoritie is supreme nor his judgement in causes of faith is infallible yet suffer me to adde two other witnesses of those who were after that Councill 32. The former is the Iudgement of Vniversities quae fere omnes which all in a manner approved and honored that Councill of Basil The other is the Councill at Biturice some take it for Burdeaux called by Charles the seventh the French King in which was made consensu omnium ecclesiasticorum et principum regni by the consent of the whole clergy and all the Peeres of France that Pragmaticall Sanction which Iohn Marius calls medullam the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Councill at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this The authoritie of the Councill at Basil and the constancie of their decrees perpetua esto let it be perpetuall and let none no not the Pope himselfe presume to abrogate or infringe the same This Sanction was published with full authoritie not seventy yeares before the Councill at Lateran as Leo the tenth witnesseth that is some foure yeares after the end of the Councill at Basill And although the Popes whose avarice and ambition was restrained by that sanction did detest it as Gagninus saith non secus ac perniciosam haeresin no otherwise then as a dangerous heresie yea and labored tooth naile to admit it yet as saith the universitie of Paris by Gods helpe hactenus prohibitum extitit they have beene ever hindred untill this time of Leo the tenth Indeed Pius secundus indevored and labored with Lewes the 11. to have it abrogated and he sent a solemne embassador Card. Balveus a very subtill fellow to bring this to passe but after much toyling both himselfe and others re infecta redijt he returned without effecting the Popes desire And to goe no further Leo the 10. and his Laterane Synod are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed before that Synod for they complaine that by reason of the malignitie of those times or else because they could not helpe it his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction and that for all which either they did or could doe the same Sanction retroactis temporibus vignisse et adhuc vigere had in former times and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session stand in force and full vigor Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall as did the Council also of Basil that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith which the present Romane Church defendenth it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught professed and beleeved to be an heresie and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes by the consenting judgement of Councils Popes Bishops and the Catholike Church even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session which was the 19. of December in the yeare 1516. after Christ. 33 On that day a day never to be forgotten by the present Romane Church it being the birth-day thereof Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill or as the learned Divines of Paris account it Conspiracie they being not assembled in Gods name abolished as much as in them lay the old and Catholike doctrine which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day and in stead thereof erect a new faith yea a new foundation of the faith and with it a new Church also Hee and his Synod then reprobated the Decree of Constance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope they reprobated also the Councill of Basil and the same Decree renewed by them That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum or Conventiculam quae nullum robur habere potuerit As a Conspiracie and Conventicle which could have no force at all They reprobated the Pragmaticall Sanction wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares together had beene imbraced and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day in reprobating it they rejected and reprobated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church Instead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be supreme that it is de necessitate salutis a thing necessary to salvation for all Christians to be subject to the Pope and that not onely as they are severally considered but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill for they define Solum Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere The Pope alone to have authoritie above all Generall Councills This the Councill at Laterane diserte ex prosesso docuit taught cleerly and purposely as Bellarmine tells us nay they did not onely teach it but expressissimè definiunt they did most expresly define it And that their Definition is no other then a Decree of Faith as the same Cardinall assures us Decrees of faith saith he are immutable neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus and such is this Decree for the Popes supreme authoritie over all even Generall Councils made in their Laterane Synod And what meane they thinke you by that supreme authoritie Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth That because his authoritie is supreme therefore his judgement in causes of Faith is the last and highest and because it is the last and highest therefore it is infallible So by their Decree together with supremacie of authority they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope and defined that to be a catholike truth and doctrine of Faith which the whole Church in all ages untill then taught professed and defined to be an heresie and all who maintaine it to be Heretikes and for such condemned both it and them 34 Now because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith but the very foundation on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie by decreeing this they have quite altered not onely the faith but the whole frame and fabricke of the church erecting a new Romane church consisting of them and them onely who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod a church truly new and but of yesterday not so old as Luther a church in faith and communion severed from all former generall Councils Popes and Bishops that is from the whole catholike Church of Christ which was from the Apostles times untill that day And if their Popes continue as it is to be presumed they doe to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe to hold among other this fift Councill ad unum iôta this certainly is but a verball no
onely the faith decreed at Nice was corroborated and confirmed And the cause why the Sardican Councell is not reckoned in the order of generall Councels was not that which Bellarmine and Binius fancie because the Sardican and Nicene were held to be one and the same Councell for neither were they so indeed being called by different Emperours to different places at different times and upon different occasions neither were they ever by the ancient or any of sound judgement held for one Synod but the true reason thereof was this because the Sardicane though in dignity authority it was equall to the Nicene yet onely confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice and made no new or Introductive decree to condemne any heresie as did the other at Nice And truly for the selfe same reason the Church might if they had pleased have done the like to this fift Councell and not have accounted it no more than they did the Sardicane in a distinct number but onely esteemed it a Councell corroborative of the Councell at Chalcedon as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Councell which some Churches also did as by the 14. Councell at Toledo held a little after the sixt generall appeareth wherein this fift being for that cause omitted the sixt held under Constantinus Pogonatus is reckoned as the fift or next Councell to that at Chalcedō But for as much as this cause about the Three Chapters had bred so long and so exceeding great trouble in the Church and because the explanation of the faith made in this fift Councell upon occasion of those Chapters was so exact that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done it pleased the Church for these reasons with one consent declared first in the sixt Councell and then in the 2. Nicene and divers other after it to account this for the fift and ranke it as it well deserveth in the number of holy and golden generall Councels 22. It now I hope clearely appeareth how unjustly the Cardinall pretends the words of Pope Gregory as denying this to be at all any cause of faith whereas not onely by the Emperour by the fift Councell by the defenders as well as the condemners of these Chapters by succeding generall Councels by Popes even Pope Gregory among the rest by the Catholike Church and consent thereof untill their Laterane Synod but even by their owne writers Cardinall Bellarmine Sanders yea by Baronius himselfe it is evidently proved so nearely to concerne the faith that to defend these Chapters which Vigilius did is to enervate and overthrow and to condemne them which the Councell did is to uphold and confirme the Holy Catholike faith And although this alone if I should say no more were sufficient to oppose to this first Evasion of Baronius yet that both the truth hereof may more fully and further appeare and that the most vile and shamelesse dealing of Baronius in this cause such as I thinke few heretikes have ever parallel'd may be palpable unto all To that which hitherto we have spoken in generall concerning all these Three Chapters I purpose now to adde a particular consideration of each of them by it selfe whereby it will be evident that every one of these Chapters doth so directly concerne the faith that the defence of any one of them but especially of the two last is an oppugnation yea an abnegation of the whole Christian faith CAP. VI. That the first reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned because none after their death ought noviter to be condemned concernes the faith and is hereticall 1. IN the first Chapter wherein Vigilius defēdeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia being long before dead ought not to bee condemned for an heretike the Popes sentence relyeth on three reasons the examination whereof wil both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter and manifest the foule errors of Vigilius as well doctrinall as personall as well concerning the faith as the fact 2. His first reason is drawne from a generall position which Vigilius taketh as a Maxime or doctrinall principle in divinitie Nulli licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis It is lawfull to condemne none after their death who were not in their life time condemned and therefore not Theodorus That Theodorus in his life time was not condemned Vigilius proveth not but presupposeth nor doe I in that dissent from him for although that testimony of Leontius be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did any while they lived reprove any of their sayings yet are there divers other inducements to perswade that Theodorus was not in his life time by any publike judgement of the Church either declared or condemned for an heretike for besides that neither Cyrill nor Proclus nor the fift generall Councell doe mention any such matter the words of Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary The Ephesine Synod saith he forbare in particular and by name to anathematize Theorus which they did dispensativè by a certaine dispensation indulgence or connivence because divers held him in great estimatiō or account what needed either any such dispensation or forbearance had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie Againe the Church of Mopsvestia where hee was Bishop for divers yeares after his death retained his name in Diplicis that is in their Ecclesiasticall tables making a thankfull commemoration of him as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie which had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike they would not have done Lastly what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous to condemne him being dead had he in his life time beene before condemned Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead 3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon that Theodorus was not before but after his death condemned the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis whether a dead man may Noviter be cōdemned Now that this is no personall but meerly a dogmaticall cause and controversie of faith is so evident that it might be a wonder that Baronius or any other should so much as doubt thereof unlesse the Apostle had foretold that because men doe not receive the love of the truth therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions that they may beleeve lyes Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius held this for no other but a doctrine of faith for he sets it downe as a Definition or Constitution of his predecessors decreed by the Apostolike See particularly by Pope Leo and Gelasius and so decreed by them as warranted and taught by the Scriptures for out
all subsequent generall Councels unto Leo the tenth decreeing this cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to bee hereticall whence it doth clearly ensue that as the former who were ready to embrace the truth had it beene manifested unto them erred not of pertinacy but as Austen saith of humane infirmitie so the latter who reject the truth being manifested unto them and withstand the knowne judgement of the whole catholike Church even that judgement which is testified by all those witnesses to be consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall doctrine can no way be excused from most wilfull and pertinacious obstinacy seeing they adhere to that opinion which themselves or their particular church hath chosen though they see and know the same to be repugnant to Scripture the consenting judgement of all generall and holy Councels that is of the whole catholike Church So the errour of the former though it was in a point of faith yet was but materially to be called heresie as being a doctrine repugnant to faith yet being not joyned in them with pertinacie which is essentially as Canus sheweth required in an heretike could neither make nor denominate them to be heretikes The errour of the latter is not onely an errour in a point of faith but is formally to bee called heresie such as being both a doctrine repugnant to faith and being in them joyned with pertinacy doth both make and truly denominate them who so erre to be heretikes and shew them to hold it heretically not onely as an errour but as a most proper heresie 9. The second difference is in the manner of their errour The former held their opinions as probable collections not as undoubted doctrines of saith and so long as those errours were so held the Church suspended her judgement both concerning the doctrines and the persons And this was at least untill the time of Ierome touching the millenary opinion for he mentioning the same saith thus Haec licet non sequamur tamen damnare non possumus quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum martyrum ista dixerunt These things concerning the raigne of Christ for one thousand yeares upon earth in a terrestriall but yet a golden Ierusalem although we doe not our selves follow yet wee cannot condemne them because many of the Ecclesiasticall writers and Martyrs have said the same whereby it is evident that in Ieromes time nothing was defined herein by the Church for then Ierome might and would constantly have condemned that errour by the warrant of the Churches authoritie which then hee held to bee a probable and disputable matter In which regard also Austen calleth it a tolerable opinion and such as himselfe had sometimes held if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spirituall Baronius tels us how rightly I will not now examine that when Apollinarius renewed this opinion and urged it ut dogma Catholicum no longer as a matter of probabilitie but as a Catholike doctrine of faith It was then condemned by Pope Damasus about the time of Ierome and so being condemned by the Church it was ever after that held for an heresie and the defenders of it for heretikes 10. Did Baronius and the rest of the Romane Church in like sort as those millenary Fathers commend their Popes infallibility no otherwise then as a probable a topicall or disputable matter the like favourable censure would not be denyed unto them but that they also notwithstanding that error in faith might die in the communion of the Church But when Pope Vigilius published his Apostolicall Constitution as a doctrine with such necessitie to be received of all that none either by word or writing might contradict the same when the chiefe Pillers of their Church urge the Popes Cathedrall definitions in causes of faith for such as wherein nullo casu errare potest he can by no possibilitie bee deceived or teach amisse when they urge this not onely as Apollinarius did the other ut dogma Catholicum as a doctrine of faith but as the foundation of all the doctrines of faith It was high time for the Catholike Church as soone as they espied this to creepe into the hearts of men to give some soveraigne antidote against such poyson and to prevent that deluge of heresies which they knew if this Cataract were set open would at once rush in and overwhelme the Church of God And therefore the fift generall and holy Councell to preserve for ever the faith of the Church against this heresie did not onely condemne it decreeing the Apostolicall and cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to be hereticall but decreed all the defenders of it to be accursed and separated from God and Gods Church so that whosoever after this sentence and decree of the holy Synod approved by the whole Catholike Church shall defend the Popes Cathedrall judgements as infallible and dye in that opinion they are so farre from dying as Papias and Irene did in the peace of the Church that by the whole catholike Church they are declared and decreed to dye out of the peace and communion of the whole catholike Church 11. A third dissimilitude ariseth from the persons who erre The former for all their errour held fast the unity with the Church even with those who contradicted and coÌ„demned their errours and we doubt not but that was verified of very many of them which Austen affirmeth of Cyprian that they kept this unitie of the Church humiliter fideliter fortiter ad martyrij usque coronam kept it with humility with fidelitie with constancy even to the crowne of martyrdome By reason of which their charity they were not onely fast linked and as I may say glued to the communion of the Church both in their life and death but all their other errours as Austen â—aith became veniall unto them for charity covereth a multitude of sinnes The latter are so unlike to these that with their errour and even by it they have made an eternall breach and separation of themselves from the Catholike Church even from all who consent unto or approve this fift generall Councell for having by their Laterane decree erected and set up in the Romane Capitol this pontificall supremacy and infallibilitie they now account all but Schismatickes who consent not with them they will have no peace no coÌ„munion with any who will not adore this Romish Calfe of the supreme infallible authoritie of their vice-god So the former notwithstaÌ„ding their error died in the peace of that Church to which by most ardent affection they were conjoyned The latter dying in this their errour whereby they cut off and quite dis-joyne themselves from the union of all who approve the decree of the fift Councell and those are the whole catholike Church of all ages though they dye in the very armes and bosome of the Queene of Babylon cannot chuse but die out of the blessed peace and
the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius The Pope universorum personam sustinet sustaineth the person of all Bishops of all Councels of all the whole Church he is in stead of them all As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formally and the generall Councell is the Church representatively so the Pope also is the Church Vertually as sustaining the person of all and having the power vertue and authoritie of all both the formall and representative Church and so the Churches or Councels judgement is the Popes judgement and the Churches or Councels infallibility is in plaine speech the Popes infallibilitie 10. This will further appeare by those comparisons which they make betwixt the Church or Councels and the Pope It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine as also of their best writers that there is as much authoritie Intensivè in the Pope alone as in the Pope with a generall Councell or with the whole Church though Extensivè it is more in them then in him alone Even as the light is Intensivè for degrees of brightnes as great in the Sun alone as in it with all the Starres though it is Extensivè more in thē that is more diffused or spred abroad into moe being in them then in the Sun alone Neither onely is all the authoritie which either Coūcell or Church hath in the Pope but is in a far more eminent manner in him then in them In him it is Primitively or originally as water in the fountaine or as light in the Sun Omnis authoritas est in uno saith Bellarmine seeing the governmēt of the Church is Monarchicall all ecclesiasticall power is in one he meanes the Pope and from him it is derived unto others In the Councell and the rest of the Church it is but derivatively borrowed from the Pope as waters in little brookes or as light in the moone starres In him is Plenitudo potestatis as Innocentius teacheth the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him in the rest whether Councels or Church it is onely by Participation and measure they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads from the lowest skirts of his garment So whatsoever authoritie either Church or generall Councell hath the same hath the Pope and that more eminently and more abundantly then they either have or can have 11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement that 's so peculiar to him that as they teach neither the Pope can communicate it unto Church or Councell nor can they receive it but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope in whom alone it resideth Potestas infallibilitaes papalis est potestas gratia personalis saith Stapleton Papall power and infallibilitie is a personall gift and grace given to the person of Peter and his successors and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others In like sort Pighius Vni Petro atque ejus Cathedrae non
adnull or repeale their judgement but from him as being the last and highest Iudge as having supreme power qua nulla est major cui nulla est aequalis then which none is greater and to which none is equall you may appeale to none no not as some of them teach unto God himselfe The reason whereof is plaine for seeing the Popes sentence in such causes is the sentence of God uttered indeed by man but assistente gubernante Spiritu Gods Spirit assisting guiding him therein if you appeale from him or his sentence you appeale even from God himselfe and Gods sentence Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement Now because Infallibility is essentially and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement it hence evidently ensueth that as their Laterane and Trent Councels and with them all who hold their doctrine that is all who are members of their present Romane Church doe give supremacy of authority and judgement unto the Pope so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him their best Writers professing their generall Councels defining and decreeing their whole Church maintaining him and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible which was the former point that I undertooke to declare 13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith is not onely a position of their Church which hitherto wee have declared but it is very maine ground and fundamentall position on which all the faith doctrines and religion of the present Romane Church and of every member thereof doth relie For the manifesting whereof that must diligently be remembred which we before have shewed that as when they commend the infallibility of the Church or Councell they meane nothing else then the Popes infallibility by consenting to whom the Church and Councell is infallible even so to the point that now I undertake to shew it is all one to declare them to teach that the Church or generall Councell is the foundation of faith as to say the Pope is the foundation thereof seeing neither the Church or Councell is such a foundation but onely by their consenting with and adhering to the Pope who is that foundation 14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to professe Peter saith Bellarmine and every one of his successors est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae is the rocke and foundation of the Church In another place he calleth the Pope that very foundation of which God prophesied in Isaiah I lay in the foundations of Sion a stone a tried stone a precious corner stone a sure foundation Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion saith Bellarmine pointing at the Pope behold the Pope is this stone laid in the foundations of Sion And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy Cardinē fundamentū summā fidei Christianae the Hinge the foundation the very summe of the Christian faith To the like purpose Pighius cals the Popes judgement Principium indubiae veritatis a principle of undoubted verity and that he meaneth the last and highest principle his whole Treatise doth declare Coster observes that the Pope is not onely the foundation but which is more the Rock other Apostles were foundations other Bishops are pillars of the Church but Peter and his Successor is that solid Rocke quae fundamenta ipsa continet which supporteth all other pillers and foundations To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes and writings that in causes of faith ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis the last judgement belongs to the Pope Now if it bee the last in such causes then upon it as on the last and lowest foundation must every doctrine of their Church relie into his judgement it must last of all be resolved but it because it is the last into any higher judgement or lower foundation cannot possibly bee resolved 15. But their most ordinary and also most plausible way to expresse this is under the name of the Church teaching men to rest and stay their faith on it although in very truth as wee have shewed before all which they herein say of the Church doth in right and properly belong to the Pope onely and to the Church but onely by reason of him who is the head thereof The tradition of the Scriptures and all doctrines of faith whatsoever doe depend of the testimony of the Church saith Bellarmine Againe The certainty of all ancient Councels and of all doctrines doth depend on the authority of the present Church And yet more fully The faith which Catholikes have is altogether certaine and infallible for what they beleeve they doe therefore beleeve it because God hath revealed it and they beleeve God to have revealed it quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem vel declarantem audiunt because they heare the Church telling them that God revealed it So Bellarmine who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church that is of the Pope to bee the last reason why they beleeve any doctrine and so the very last and lowest foundatiō on which their faith doth relie None more plentifull in this point than Stapletō The externall testimony of the Church saith he Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè propriè est is truly and properly a foundation of our faith Againe the voyce of the Church est regula omnium quae creduntur the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved Againe whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith wee Catholikes beleeve that propter Ecclesiae authoritatem by reason of the Churches authority we beleeve the Church tanquam Medium credendi omnia as the Medium or reason why we beleeve all other things And yet more fully in his doctrinall principles when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church the sense hereof though perhaps not Grammaticall for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit I beleeve all those things which God hath revealed and taught mee by the Church But how know you or why beleeve you this Deum per Ecclesiam revelare that all those things which the Church teacheth are revealed and taught of GOD What say you to this which is one peece of your Creede To this Stapleton both in that place and againe in his Relections gives a most remarkeable answer This that God revealeth those things by the Church is no distinct Article of faith sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium ex quo hic alij omnes Articuli deducuntur but this is a transcendent Maxime and principle of faith upon which both
Lord of the Catholike faith and Antichrist triumphant set up as God in the Church of God ruling nay tyrannizing not onely in the externall and temporall estates but even in the faith and Consciences of all men so that they may beleeve neither more nor lesse nor otherwise then he prescribeth nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves and word of God or that there are any Scriptures at all or that there is a God but for this reason ipse dixit because he saith so and his saying being a Transcēdent principle of faith they must beleeve for it selfe quia ipse dixit because he saith so In the first and second hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops in the third but of Kings but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ For other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Iesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church yea it was now made a new Church of it selfe in the very essence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church and from that which it was before For although most of the Materialls as Adoration of Images Transubstantiation and the rest were the same yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly in decreeing Transubstantiation because they beleeued the Scriptures and word of God to teach and warrant that doctrine but now vice versa they beleeve the Scriptures and word of God to teach Transubstantiation because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same Till then one might be a good Catholike and member of their Church such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill and those of the fift sixt seventh and succeding Councels and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible but hereticall and accursed as all those Councels did But since Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is by their Laterane decree transferred to the Pope he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence in a cause of faith is none of their Church as out of Gregory de Valentia he is an heretike as out of Stapleton Canus and Bellarmine was declared He may as well deny all the Articles of his Creed and every text in the whole Bible as deny this one point for in denying it he doth eo ipso by their doctrine implicitè and in effect deny them all seeing he rejects that formall reason for which and that foundation upon which they are all to be beleeved and without beleefe of which not one of them all can be now beleeved 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Romane Church these who lay this new Laterane foundatiō for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler fort in their Church who wilfully blind-folding themselves and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance either will not use the meanes to see or seeing will not embrace the truth but content themselves with the Colliars Catechisme and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith saying I beleeve as the Church beleeveth and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth All these and onely these are members of their present Church unto whom of all names as that of Catholikes is most unsutable and most unjustly arrogated by themselves so the name of Papists or which is equivalent Antichristians doth most fitly truly and in propriety of speech belong unto them For seeing forma dat nomen esse whence rather should they have their essential appellation then from him who giveth life formality and essence to their faith on whom as on the Rocke and corner-stone their whole faith dependeth The saying of Cassander to this purpose is worthy remembring There are some saith hee who will not permit the present state of the Church though it be corrupted to be changed or reformed and who Pontificem Romanum quem Papam dicimus tantùm non deum faciunt make the Bishop of Rome whom we call the Pope almost a god preferring his authority not onely above the whole Church but above the Sacred Scripture holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles and an infallible rule of faith Hos non video tur minus Pseudo-catholicos Papistas appellare possis I see no reason but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes or Papists Thus Cassander upon whose judicious observatiō it followeth that seeing their whole Church and all the members thereof preferre the Popes authority above the whole Church above all generall Councels and quoad nos which is Cassanders meaning above the Scriptures also defending them not to be authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no absurd nay it may be a pious saying That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church are no more worth than Aesops Fables seeing they all with one consent make the Pope the last supreme and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them than that of Papists or which is all one Antichristians both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope or Antichrist as on the foundation of their faith which name most essentially also differenceth them from all others which are not of their present Church especially from true Catholikes or the Reformed Churches seeing as we make Christ and his word so they on the contrary make the Pope that is to say Antichrist and his word the ground and foundation of faith In regard wherof as the faith religion of the one is from Christ truly called Christian and they truly Christians so the faith and religion of the other is from the Pope or Antichrist truly and properly called Papisme or Antichristianisme and the professors of it Papists or Antichristians And whereas Bellarmine glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they professe truly we envy not so apt a name unto them Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat the descēt of this title unto them He fetcheth it forsooth frō Pope Clement Pope Peter and Pope Christ Phy it is of no such antiquity nor of so honourable a race Their owne Bristow will assure him that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth Neither are they so called as the Cardinall fancieth because they hold communion in faith with the Pope which for sixe hundred yeares and more all Christians did and yet were not Papists nor ever so called but because
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
a generall or a lawfull Councell 5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it and unlesse he should approve it See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church Begin we with the Church of that age Baronius tels us that both the Emperour the Pope Mennas and other Easterne Bishops agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters to a generall Councell Why did none of them reason as the Cardinall now doth against the Councell Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest who made that agreement and say to this effect unto them Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please If they say as I say it shall be a Councell a lawfull a generall an holy Councell If they say the contrary to that which I affirme though they have ten thousand millions of voyces their Decree shall be utterly void their assembly unlawfull they shall neither bee nor bee called a generall nor a lawfull Councell no nor a Councell neither but onely a Conventicle without all authoritie in the world Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this doctrine there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled nay there never had beene any other holy generall Councell The Pope had beene in stead of all and above them all This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell witnesseth them all even the Pope himselfe at that time to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes consent and to be of more authority in case they should differ as in this question they did than the sentence of the Pope This before the Councell was assembled 6. At the time of the Councell had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church beleeved their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod but a Conventicle why did they at all come together after their second Session for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe that he would neither come nor send any deputies unto them Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity why did they after the fift Session once proceed to examine or determine that cause For before the sixt day of their assembling they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause inhibiting them either to write or speak much more judicially to define ought contrarie to his sentence or if they did that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same Seeing notwithstanding all this well knowne unto them they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies but judicially defined that cause and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them it is an evident demonstration that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall and their sentence of full authority even as ample as of any generall Councell though the Pope denied his presence to the one and expressely signified not onely his dislike but contradiction and condemnation of the other 7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence or what thinke you will the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto Will he or can he say that these men who thus judged were heretikes They were not The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholike consonant as they professe and as in truth it was to Scriptures to Fathers to the foure former generall Councells The doctrine which they oppugned and Vigilius then defended was hereticall condemned by all the former Scriptures Fathers and Councels Heretikes then doubtless they could not be that like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius Will he or can he say that they were Schismatikes Neither is that true For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church I say further they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe till his owne pertinacy and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith severed him both from them from the truth In token of which communion with Vigilius they earnestly entreated his presence in the Synod they offered him the presidency therein yea they said in expresse words unto him before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters Nos vero communicamus uniti vobiscum sumus We all doe hold communion with you and are united unto you Schismaticall then they could not be So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes and holding the Catholike communion doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull though the Pope dissented from it and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same and the decree thereof 8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think otherwise Did it then judge the Councell to want authority while it wanted the Popes approbation or to receive authority by his approbation Who were they I pray you that thought thus Certainly not Catholikes and the condemners of these Chapters For they approved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Councell and while the Pope so far disliked it that for his refusall to consent unto it he endured banishment Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters judge thus For they as Baronius witnesseth persisted in the defence of them and in a rent from the others even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod yea among them Vigilius redditus est execrabilis was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod Or because Vigilius approved it not Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops that there could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration but in stead of a Bishop they were enforced against that Canon of the Apostles which they often oppose to us to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination So much did they dislike both the fift Councell and all though it were the Pope who did approve it Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts the defenders and condemners of those Chapters seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull because the Pope approved it who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie that the fift Councell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it and gained authority of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it Catholikes and condemners of those Chapters embraced the Councell though the Pope rejected it Heretikes and defenders of
those Chapters rejected the Councell though the Pope approved it Neither of them both and so none at all in the whole Church judged either the Popes approbation to give or his reprobation to take away authority from a generall Councell Thus by the Antecedentia Concomitantia and Consequentia of the Councell it is manifest by the judgement of the whole Church in that age that this fift Councell was of authority without the Popes approbation and was not held of authority by reason of his approbation 9. What the judgement of the Church was as well in the ages preceding as succeeding to this Councell is evident by that which we have already declared For we have at large shewed that the doctrine faith and judgement of this fift Councell is consonant to all former and confirmed by all following generall Councells till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth Whereupon it ensueth that this doctrine which wee maintaine and the Cardinall impugneth that neither the Popes approbation doth give nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth by the whole Catholike Church of all ages till that Lateran Synod that is for more than 1500. yeares together 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Pelagius approved it then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority eo nomine because the Pope to wit Vigilius rejected it If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it neither can his approbation though Apostolicall give authority unto it Or if they say that both are true as indeed they are both alike true then seeing this fift Councell is both approved by Pope Pelagius and rejected by Pope Vigilius it must now be held both to be wholly approved and wholly rejected both to be lawfull and unlawfull both to be a generall Councell and no generall Councell And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it They all because they are approved by some one Pope are approved and lawfull Councels and because they approve this fift which is rejected by the Pope they are all rejected and unlawfull Councells Such an havocke of generall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure 11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell yet for the more clearing of the truth and expressing my love to this holy Councell to which next after that at Chalcedon I beare speciall affection I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius Binius have used of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod The former is taken from the assembling the later from the decree of the Councell It was assembled say Baronius and Binius Pontifice resistente contradicente the Pope resisting and contradicting it Whence they inferre that it was an unlawfull assembly not gathered in Gods name In this their reason both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue Did Pope Vigilius resist this Councell and contradict the calling or assembling thereof What testimonie doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion Truly none at all What probabilities yet or conjectures Even as many Are not these men think you wise worthy disputers who dare avouch so doubtfull matters and that also to the disgrace of an holy ancient and approved Councell and yet bring no testimonie no probabilitie no conjecture no proofe at all of their saying Ipse dixit is in stead of all 12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contrarie If both Baronius and Binius professe that Vigilius did consent that this Councell should be held Heare I pray you their own words and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men Hanc Synodum Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit saith Binius Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority Againe The Emperour called this fift Synod authoritate Vigilij by the authority of Pope Vigilius Baronius sings the same note It was very well provided saith he that this Oecumenicall Synod should be held ex Vigilii Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius who above all other men desired to have a Councell Againe The Emperour decreed that the Synod should be called ex ipsius Vigilii sententia according to the minde of Vigilius And a little after It was commendable in the Emperor that he did labour to assemble the Synod ex Vigilij Papae sententia according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius Neither onely did the Pope consent to have a Councell but to have it in that very city where it was held and where himselfe then was Indeed at the first the Pope was desirous and earnest to have it held in Sicily or in some Westerne Citie even as Pope Leo had laboured with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent to that petition as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo Vigilius then voluntati Imperatoris libens accessit very willingly consented to the Emperours pleasure in this matter that the Oecumenicall Councell should be held at Constantinople Say now in sadnesse what you thinke of Baronius and Binius Whither had they sent their wits when they laboured to perswade this Councell to be unlawfull because Pope Vigilius resisted and contradicted the assembling thereof whereas themselves so often so evidently so expresly testifie not onely that it was assembled by the consent and according to the minde will pleasure desire authority and sentence of the Pope but the very chiefe act and royaltie of the summons they challenge though falsely to the Pope the other which is an act of labour and service to be as it were the Popes Sumner or Apparitor in bringing the Bishops together by the Popes authoritie that and none but that they allow to the Emperour 13. Many other testimonies might bee produced to declare this truth That of Sigonius The Emperour called this Synod Vigilio Pontifice permittente Pope Vigilius permitting him that of Wernerus Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople That of Zonaras and Glicas who both affirme that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij the chiefe Bishop of the Councell not chiefe among them that sate in the Councell for there he was not at all nor chiefe in making the Synodall decree for therein he contradicted the Councell but chiefe of all who sued to
confirmation and approbation what it is in any Councell or any decree thereof which makes it to be and rightly to be esteemed an approved Councell or Decree I constantly answer that whatsoever it be it is no approbation no confirmation nor any act of the Pope at least no more of him than of any other Patriarke or Patriarchall Primate in the Church An evident proofe whereof is in the second Generall Councell for that ever since their Synodall sentence was made against the MACEDONIANS and ratified by the Emperour was esteemed by the Catholike Church an Oecumenicall and approved Councell and that before the Pope had consented unto it or approved the same For that Councell being assembled in May when Eucherius and Seagrius were Consuls an 381. continued till about the end of Iuly in the same yeare On the 30. of Iuly Theodosius the Emperour published his severe law against the Macedonians being then condemned heretikes Hee commanded that forth withal Churches should be givē to those who held the one and equall Majesty of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and were of the same faith with Nestorius Timotheus and other Bishops in that Synod but whosoever dissented in faith from them ut manifestos haereticos ab Ecclesia expelli they should all be expelled as manifest haeretikes and never be admitted againe In which law seeing the Macedonians are called manifest heretikes that is such as are convicted and condemned by a generall Councell it is doubtlesse that at the promulgating of this law both the Emperour and the catholike Church held that decree of the second Councel against the Macedonians to be the judgment of an holy lawful approved Oecumenical Synod such as was the most ample convictiō of an heretike manifestation of a heresie Now this Edict was published before Pope Damasus either approved that Councell or so much as knew what was done therein For the first newes what was done in the Councell came to Damasus after the Councell of Aquileia as after Sigenius Baronius declareth who after the Synod at Aquileia described saith Post haec autem After these things done at Aquileia when Damasus had received a message concerning the Councell at Constantinople c. that Councell at Aquileia was held on the fift of September when the other at Constantinople was ended a month before and how long after that time it was before Damasus approved that Councell at Constantinople whether one two or three yeares will bee hard for any of the Cardinals friends truly to explane Howsoever seeing it is certaine that the generall Councell was ended and the Decrees thereof not onely approved but put in execution by the Church before the Pope I say not confirmed that Councell but before hee knew what was done and decred therein it is a Demonstration that a generall Councell or a Decree thereof may bee and de facto hath beene judged by the Church both of them to bee of full and Synodall authoritie and approved by the Church when the Pope had confirmed or approved neither of both 20. Nay what if neither Damasus nor any of their Popes till Gregories time approved that Councell Gregory himselfe is a witnesse hereof The Canons of the Constantinopolitane Councell condemne the Eudoxians but who that Eudoxius was they doe not declare And the Romane Church eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet nec accipit neither hath nor approveth those Canons or Acts but herein it accepteth that Synod in that which was defined against the Macedonians by it and it rejecteth those heresies which being mentioned therein were already condemned by other Fathers So Gregory By whose words it is plaine that the Romane Church untill Gregories time neither approved the Canons nor Acts of that second generall Councell Even the condemning of Macedonius and his heresie was not approved by the Romane Church eo nomine because it was decreed in that Councell for then they should have approved the Canon against the Eudoxians and all the rest of their Canons seeing there was the selfe-same authority of the holy Councell in decreeing them all but the reason why they approved that against the Macedonians was because Pope Damasus had in a Romane Synod divers yeares before the second Councell condemned that heresie and what heresies were by former Fathers condemned those and nothing else did the Romane Church approve in that Councell as Gregory saith The inducement moving them was not the authority of the second Councell but the judgement of other Fathers for which they accepted of the second Councell therein and this was untill the dayes or time of Gregory for that is it which Gregory intendeth in the former words hactenus non habet nec accipit not meaning that till the yeare wherein he writ that Epistle which was the fifteenth Indiction the Romane Church received not those Canons or Acts for in the ninth Indiction that is sixe yeares before himselfe professed to embrace that second Councell as one of the foure Euangelists which also to have beene the judgement of their Church he witnesseth in the eleventh Indiction but untill Gregories time hactenus untill this age wherein I live was the second Councell the Canons or Acts thereof not had nor approved by the Romane Church And yet all that time even from the end of that Councell was both that Councell held for a generall lawfull and approved Synod and their Decree against Macedonius by the whole Church approved as a Decree of a generall and lawfull Councell such as ought to binde the whole Church 21. What wee have shewed concerning the Decree against the Macedonians and in generall for the second Councell that will bee much more evident in the third Canon of that Synod which concernes the Patriarchall dignity of the See of Constantinople his precedence to the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and his authority over the Churches in Asia minor Thrace and Pontus all which was conferred on that See by that third Canon That the Church of Rome till Gregories time approved not that Canon is evident by Pope Leo who in many of his Epistles specially in that to Anatolius shewes his dislike of it yea rejects it as contrary to the Nicene Decrees which Leo there defineth but without doubt erroniously to bee immutable The Legates of Leo having instructions from him said openly in the Councell of Chalcedon touching the Canons of this Councell in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur they are not accounted or held for Synodall Canons and following the minde and precept of the Pope they most earnestly oppugned this third Canon Long before Leo did Damasus reject this Canon facto decreto in Synodo Romana making a Decree against it in a Romane Synod which is extant in their Vaticane as Turrian who belike saw the Decree doth witnesse Now seeing that Decree of Damasus was made statim post secundum Concilium
which generall and Oecumenicall consent or approbation is shewed partly by the Episcopall confirmation of that decree made by the Bishops present therein wherein there is ever either an expresse or a vertuall and implicite consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters and so of all the Clergy in the world partly by the royall and imperiall confirmation given to that decree by Christian Kings and Emperours in which there is an implicite consent of all Laickes in the whole Church Kings and Princes assenting not onely for themselves but in the name of all their Lay subjects for whom they undertake that either they shall willingly obey that decree or else by severity of punishments be compelled thereunto If these two confirmations or either of them be wanting the Councell and decree which is supposed to be made therein is neither an approved or confirmed Councell nor decree though the Pope send forth ten thousand Buls to approve and confirme the same But if these two confirmations concurre in any decree of a generall and lawfull Councel though the Pope reprobate and reject that Councell or decree never so often yet is both that Councell an approved generall Councel and the decree thereof an approved or confirmed Synodall and Oecumenicall decree approved I say and confirmed by the greatest humane authority and judgement that possibly can bee either found or desired even by the whole catholike Church and every member whether Ecclesiasticall or Laicall therein And whosoever after such an ample approbation or confirmation shall at any time contradict or contemne such a Councell or decree he doth not nor can he thereby impare the dignity and authority of it but he demonstrates himselfe to be an heretike or at least a contumacious person insolently and in the pride of his singularity despising that judgement of the Councell which the whole Church and every member thereof yea even himselfe also among them hath approved 34. You will yet demand of mee why generall Councels have fought the Popes approbation and confirmation of their decrees as did the Councell of Chalcedon of Pope Leo after the end of the Synods and what effect or fruit did arise from such confirmations if it added no greater authority to the Synodall sentence than before it had I also aske of you another question Why did the Councell of Constantinople confirme the Nicene Synod and the faith decreed therein or why did the Councell of Chalcedon confirme all the three former generall Councels or why did their second Nicene confirme all the sixe Synods which were before it saying c Eorum constitutionem integram illabefactabilem confirmamus we confirme the divine Canons and constitutions being inviolable Was not the great Nicene Councell and decree of faith of as great authority before it was confirmed by the second or fourth Councel as afterwards or what greater strength and authority had either it or any of the sixe first generall Councels by the confirmation of the second Nicene Synod which unto all the former is as much inferiour as is drosse or clay to the gold of Ophir If the confirmations of one generall Councell by another give no greater authority unto it than before it had as it is certain by these examples that it doth not what marvell if the Popes confirmation doe not worke that effect If notwitstanding all this the confirmations of former by subsequent Councels bee not fruitlesse truly neither the confirmation of the Pope or any other Bishop that is absent must bee thought fruitlesse though it adde no more authority to the Synod or Synodall decrees than before they had 35. Neither did only general but even Provincial CouÌ„cels yea particular Bishops confirme generall Synods and the decrees therof The Synod at Millane was assembled by the direction of Pope Leo in which the Acts of the first Emphesine Councell per subscriptionem Episcoporum absentium sunt confirmata were confirmed by the subscription of those Bishops who were absent So writeth Binius The like was done after the Councell of Chalcedon for when some began to quarrell at it Leo the Emperour that he might confirmare ea confirme the decrees of that Councell published an Edict to that end at the sollicitation of Pope Leo yea further the Emperour commanded the severall Bishops to shew their judgements in that doctrine of faith decreed at Chalcedon which he did to this end ut omnium calculo confessione Chalcedonense Concilium iterum firmaretur saith Binius that the Councell of Chalcedon might be confirmed againe by the consent and confession of all those Bishops They did what the Emperour commanded them some alone as Anatolius Sebaâ—â—ianus Lucianus Agapetus and many moe some in Synodal Epistles as the Bishops of Alexandria of Europe all whose letters are adjoyned to the Councell of Chalcedon concerning all which that is to be noted which Agapetus saith Pene omnes occidentalium partium Episcopi confirmaverunt atque consignaverunt almost all the Bishops of the West and so also in the East did confirme by their letters and subscriptions that faith which was explaned at Chalcedon What authority thinke you could the confirmation of one single Bishop as of Agapetus and Sebastianus or of a Synod consisting but of nineteene Bishops as that at Millan or but of seven or sixe or five or foure as some of the other give to the great and Oecumenicall Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon approved not onely by the Popes but by the consenting judgement of the whole Christian world as out of the Ephesine Synod we before declared And yet was never one of those confirmations fruitlesse as Pope Leo who was the author of them rightly judged Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis Bishop of Nice after they had endured exile for not consenting to the Nicene faith in token of their repentance writ thus unto the Synod Those things which are decreed by your judgement consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus we are purposed to confirme with consenting mindes Even the consent of two and those exiled and hereticall Bishops is called a confirmation of the great Nicene Councell to which no authority was added therby I will but add one example more and that is of this our fift Councell concerning which in their second Nicene Synod it is thus said Foure Patriarkes being present approved the same and the most religious Emperour sent the Synodall Acts thereof to Ierusalem where a Synod being assembled all the Bishops of Palestina manibus pedibus ore sententiam Synodi confirmarunt they all confirmed the sentence of this Councell with their hands with their confessions and full consent except onely one Alexander Bishop of Abyles who thought the contrary and therefore was put from his Bishopricke and comming to Constantinople was swallowed up by an earthquake So their Nicene Synod By all which it is now cleare that generall and appoved
Oecumenicall Councels or the decrees thereof may bee and de facto have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope but by other succeding generall Councels by Provinciall Synods yea by particular Bishops who have beene absent none of all which gave or could give more authority to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof than it had before and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse or fruitlesse 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of thâ—se two coÌ„firmations These use end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree that is in truth the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops who were absent was not judicially to define that cause or give any judgment therein for this was done already and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee but to preserve the peace of the Church and unity in faith which could by no other meanes be better effected than if Bishops who had been absent and therefore did but implicitè or by others consent to those decrees at the making thereof did afterwards declare their owne explicite and expresse consent to the same Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was either for authority or learning the more likely he was either to make a rent and schisme in the Church if hee should dissent or to procure the tranquility and peace of the Church if hee should consent hence it was that if any Patriarke Patriarchall Primate or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell the Church and Councell did the more earnestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees This was the cause why both the religious Emperour Theodosius and Cyrill with other orthodoxall Bishops were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod which long before was ended that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle and those who defended Nestorius with his heresie so his yeelding to the truth and embracing the Ephesine Councell which condemned Nestorius might draw many others to doe the like and so indeed it did This was the principall reason why some of the ancient Councels as that by name of Chalcedon for all did it not sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee invalid or their Councell no approved Councell if it wanted his approbation or confirmation a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Councels the Synod thought it fit to procure if they could his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church might by his example move all and by his authoritie draw his owne Patriarchall Diocesse as usually hee did to consent to the same decrees whereas if he should happen to dissent as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell hee was likely to cause as Vigilius then did a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops and that was that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike For as the approving of the six generall Councels and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines so the very refusing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels or their decrees of faith was ipso facto without any further examination of the cause an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike such an one as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement which all the whole catholike Church and every member thereof even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being convicted and condemned not onely by the evidence of truth and by synodall sentence but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè in the decree of the Councell The summe is this The former confirmation by the Bishops present in the Synod is Iudiciall the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent is Pacificall The former is authoritative such as gives the whole authority to any decree the later whether by succeeding Councels or absent Bishops is Testificative such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree The former joyned to the Imperiall confirmation is Essentiall which essentially makes both the Councell an approved Councel all the decrees therof approved synodal and Oecumenicall decrees the later is accidentall which being granted by a Bishop doth much grace himselfe but little or nothing the Synod and being denyed by any doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod or impare the dignity and authority thereof but doth extreamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it and puls downe upon him both the just censures of the Church and those civill punishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons 38. My conclusion now is this Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall and for the proceeding therin lawfull and orderly and seeing although it wanted the Popes consent yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations before mentioned Episcopall and Imperiall in which is included the Oecumenicall approbation of the whole catholike Church it hence therefore ensueth that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy a lawfull and Oecumenicall Councell so from the first pronouncing of their synodall sentence and the Imperiall assent added thereunto it was an approved generall Councell approved by the whole catholike Church and so approved that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it it was of as great worth dignity and authoritie as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had with their owne hands subscribed unto it And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie CAP. XIX The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull and which either are not generall or being generall are no lawfull Councels with divers examples of both kindes 1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius against the fift Councell whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general nor a lawfull
from their predecessors the old Donatists Quod volumus sanctum est Not Emperours not Bishops none might controule him or say unto him Domine cur ita facis The Bishops were tyed to him by an oath to defend the Papacy that is his usurped authority and defend it contra omnes homines against all that should wag their tongues against it The Emperours and Kings saw how Hildebrand had used and in most indigne manner misused Henry the 4. how Alexander the third had insolently trodden on the necke of Fredericke what could they nay what durst they doe but either willingly stoop and prostrate themselves or else be forced to lye downe at the Popes feet and say unto him Tread on us O thou Lion of the Tribe of Iudah and according as it is written Set thy foot super Aspidem Basiliscum Could there possibly be any freedome or order in such Synods where the onely meanes of preserving freedome and order was banished Might not the Pope in such Councels doe and decree whatsoever either himselfe his will or faction would suggest unto him Say they had neither swords nor clubs nor other like instruments of violence in those Synods they needed none of them This Papall presidency was in stead of them all It was like the club of Hercules the very shaking of it was able and did affright all that none no not Emperours durst deale against it The removing of the Imperiall presidency made such a calme in their Synods that without resistance without any need of other further violence the Pope might oversway whatsoever he desired 31. And truly it may bee easily observed by such as attentively reade the Ecclesiasticall stories that together with the standing or fall of the Empire either the ancient faith or heresies prevailed in the Church So long as the Emperour being Christian retained his dignity and Imperiall authority no heresie could long take place but was by the Synodall judgement of Oecumenicall Councels maturely suppressed the faction of no Bishop no not of the Pope being able to prevaile against that soveraigne remedy But when once Gregorie the second Zachary and their succeeding Popes to Leo the third had by most admirable and unexplicable fraud subtilty clipt the wings and cut the sinewes of the Easterne Empire themselves first seizing upon the greatest part of Italy by the meanes of Pipin and then erecting a new Empire in the West the Imperiall authority being thus infringed the Easterne Emperour not daring the Westerne in regard of the late curtesie received from the Pope being not willing and neither of them both being able now to match and justle with the Pope this which was the great let and impediment to the Popes faction and the discovering of the man of sinne being now removed there was no meanes to keepe out of the Church the heresies which the Pope affected then the Cataracts of heresies being set open and the depths of the earth nay of the infernall pit being burst up heresies rusht in and came with a strong hand into the Church and those hereticall doctrines which in six hundred yeares and more could never get head passing as doubtfull and private opinions among a few and falling but as a few little drops of raine grew now unto such an height and outrage that they became the publike and decreed doctrines in the Westerne Church The Pope once having found his strength in the cause of Images wherein the first triall was made thereof no fancie nor dotage was so absurd for which he could not after that command when he listed the judgement of a generall Councell Transubstantiation Proper Sacrifice the Idoll of the Masse to which not Moloch nor Baal is to be compared their Purgatorian fire their five new-found proper Sacraments condignity of workes yea Supererogation and an armie of like heresies assayled and prevailed against the truth The Imperiall authority being laid in the dust and trampled under the sole of the Popes foot no meanes was left to restraine his enormous designes or hinder him in Councels to doe and define even what he listed And as the Imperiall authority which he so long time had oppressed is in any kingdome more or lesse restored and freed from his vassalage the other heresies which arose from the ruine and decay thereof are more or lesse expurged out of that Kingdome and the ancient truth restored therein Yea and still though but by insensible degrees shall hee and his authority wast and consume till not onely all the ten hornes of the Beast that is all the Kings whose authority he hath usurped and used as his hornes to push at Gods Saints shall hate the Whore that Romish Babylon and make her desolate and naked and burne her with fire but till himselfe also being despised and contemned of his owne lovers shall together with his adherents be utterly abolished and cast into that Lake of Gods wrath 32. You see now how unlawfull those Synods are by reason of the defect of Imperiall presidency you will perhaps demand whether by the want thereof there happened any particular disorder in them or ought contrary to freedome and synodall order whereunto I might in a word answer that there neither was nor could there bee ought at all done in any of those ten Synods with freedome and synodall order For though otherwise their proceedings had beene never so milde temperate and equall yet even for that one defect of Imperiall presidency and excludng the same whatsoever they did was disorderly and they all nothing but synods of disorder But yet for further satisfaction of that question let us omitting all the rest consider among very many some few particulars concerning their youngest and dearest baby of Trent was that equall dealing in Paul the 3. at the beginning of his Trent assembly to conspire and take secret counsell with the Emperour to make warre against the Protestants and root them out of the world The Italian Franciscan in his Sermon before Ferdinand stirring up both him and others to this butchery Exere vires tuas plucke up your spirit and strength and root out that pestiferous kinde of men nefas enim est for it is unlawfull to suffer them any longer to looke upon the light neither say that you will doe it it must be done even now at this present and without any delay Thus did he give the watchword and sound an alarme to their intended Massacre whereupon there ensued bellum cruentum calamitosum a bloody and cruell warre against the Protestants concerning which divers of the Princes of Germanie said in their Letters to the Emperour Wee shall so answer that every man may understand both that injury is done to us and that you doe undertake this warre Romani Antichristi impij Concilij Tridentini impulsu at the instigation of the Romane Antichrist and the impious Councell at Trent that the doctrine of the Gospell and the
Iudge in his owne cause The Councell and by name the Popes Legates to whom the rest therein assented tooke this just exception thereat and said Non patimur we cannot indure this wrong to be done ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit that Dioscorus who is to bee judged sit as a Iudge in his owne cause upon which most just and equall motion the glorious Iudges who were Presidents for order commanded Dioscorus to remove from the Bench as I may say of Iudges and to sit in the middle of the Church which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei and Dioscorus accordingly sate there as the glorious Iudges had appointed Vpon the very same ground of equitie did the religious Emperour command in the second Ephesine Synod that if any question or cause fell out to be debated concerning Theodoret whom he commanded to be present that then absque illo Synodum convenire the Synod should assēble judge that cause without Theodoret he should have no judicatory power in his own cause And the like he further cōmanded cōcerning that holy Bish. Flavianus He some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople beene Iudges against Eutiches and condemned him An higher even that generall Councell at Ephesus which proved a Latrociny in the end was called to examine that judgment of Flavianus and the rest whether it was just or no. The Emperour commanded those who had beene Iudges of late in loco eorum esse qui judicandi sunt now to bee in the place of Rei such as were to bee judged A demonstration that if Theodosius or Martian or such like worthy and equall Iudges as they were at Chalcedon had been Presidents for order in their Trent assembly the Pope though hee had beene as just and orthodoxall as Flavianus much more being in impiety and heresie farre superiour to Dioscorus should not have beene permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Councell nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his owne cause much lesse have had such a supremacie of judgement that his onely voyce and sentence should over-rule and over-sway the whole Councell besides 35. The other example is this Athanasius Bishop of Paros being accused of sundry crimes was called to triall before a Provinciall Councell at Antioch held by Domnus Bishop of that See unto whose Patriarchall authority Athanasius was subject when hee refused to come after three citations hee was deposed by that Synod and Sabinianus by the same authority made Bishop of Paros in his roome In the Councel at Chalcedon Athanasius came complained of wrongfull extrusion and desired of the generall Councell that his Bishopricke might be restored unto him pleading for his refusall to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch nothing else but this that Dōnus who was the chiefe Iudge in that Synod was his enemy and therefore hee thought it not equall to be tryed before him though he was his owne Patriarch The glorious Iudges gave order that the accusations against Athanasius should within eight moneths bee examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch and a Synod with him and if he were found guilty of those crimes or any other worthy deposition he should for ever want the Bishopricke But if either they did not within such time examine the cause or examining it finde the accusations untrue that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius as unjustly deposed and that Sabinianus should remaine but a substitute unto him untill Maximus could provide him of another Bishopricke Thus ordered the secular Iudges and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence crying out Nihil justius nothing is more just nothing is more equall this is a just sentence you judge according to Gods minde O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe nay rather the onely Iudge would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity nor of force to bind I say not other Churches such as these of Britany but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority as Athanasius was to Domnus Such an holy Councell would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God and unlesse they could justifie which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us and withall purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convicted not onely in foro poli but in their owne consciences and by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny injustice and subversion of the Catholike Faith 36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops who were assessors in that Assembly Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance and murdered the Prophets Among whom that Canon authorizing trecherous and perfidious dealing stood in force Quod non obstantibus that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours Kings or any other granted to such as come to their Councels Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint by what bond soever they have tyed themselves by promise by their honour by their oath yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition and proceed to censure to punish them as they shall thinke fit and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousnesse saying Caesar obsignavit Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath but our Councell which is above the Emperour hath repealed it it shall not stand in force 37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope The Apulian Bishops crying out aliorum omnium nomine in the name of all the rest in their Councell Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae mancipia sanctissimi patris O we are all but the Popes creatures his very slaves The complaint of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed which he made of such like Councels at Basil that must bee done and of necessity be done and decreed in Councells quod nationi placeat Italicae which the Italian nation shall
Princes nor private persons though learned and honest but Ecclesiasticall Prelates in our disputations of the Councels it shall bee demonstrated that Councels generall and particular may judge of Controversies in religion but that judgement of theirs is then of force and validity when the Pope shall confirme it and therfore that the last judgement of all is the Popes to which all good Catholikes owe such absolute obedience that if the Pope should erre by commanding vices and prohibiting vertues the Church is bound to beleeve that vices are good and vertues bad unlesse she wil sinne against Conscience What sinne against Conscience in not sinning and not sinne against Conscience in committing sinnes knowne by the light of nature if the Man of sin command the one and forbid the other Woe bee to them saith the Prophet that call evill good and good evill put darknesse for light and light for darknesse bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter Esay 5.20 If Bellarmines divinity be currant Pope Pius the fourth needed not to have coyned twelve new Articles of faith affixt to the Canons of the Councell of Trent it had beene sufficient to have added this one I beleeve in the Pope his soveraigne infallibility for this is prora and puppis the Alpha and Omega the formalis ratio and demonstratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Papists beliefe The Popes power saith Skulkenius is the hinge and foundation and to speake in a word the summe of Christian faith A short summe and soone cast up What then serves Fathers Councels Church-Traditions and Scripture it selfe for with them for little better than Ciphers which being added to the Popes authority in their Arithmetike makes something but without it nothing To begin with Scriptures they beleeve them to bee divine but not because the Scripture saith that all Scripture is given by divine inspiration For so saith Bellarmine wee read every where in the Alcoran of Mahomet that the Alcoran was sent from God yet we beleeve it not why then doe they beleeve them to bee the word of God hee answers readily propter traditionem Ecclesiae for the Churches tradition Silvester Pierius outvies the Cardinall affirming that the holy Scripture taketh force and authority from the Romane Church and Pope Vpon which prâ—mise of Pierius Gretzer inferres this peremptory conclusion We doe receive and reverence that alone for the word of God which the Pope in Peters Chaire doth determine to be so Strange divinity to beleeve that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church that is that God receives his authority from man May we not justly upbraid the present Romanists as Tertulian doth the ancient heathen apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur nisi homini Deus placuerit Deus non erit Homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit With you Deity is estimated by mans valuation unlesse God please man he shall not be God now man must bee propitious to God for if the Pope be not propitious to the Scripture to allow it for Gods word it shall not passe for such in Rome As for the Fathers they deale with their writings as Faustus Manicheus did with the writings of the Apostles in which hee takes it for a good proofe that such passages are the Apostles true writings because they made for him others were spurious because they made against him Fathers saith Dureus are not to bee accounted Fathers when they teach or write any thing of their owne which they have not received from the Church meaning the Romane and Gretzer backs this assertion with a reason drawn from the formall definition of a Father for saith he he is a father of the Church who feeds and nourisheth the Church with wholesome doctrine who being set over the Lords houshold gives them their measure of Corne in due season now if in stead of wholesome food and good Corne hee give them Cockle and Tares he becomes no father but a stepfather no Doctor but a seducer To instance in some particular Eusebius Caesariensis when hee seemes to favour Popery hee is highly extolled by Lindane Senensis and Possevine hee is then a most famous writer of the Church most learned worthy to bee Bishop not of one City onely but of the whole world but when the same Eusebius lookes awry upon Rome then hee is branded by Canus Costerus and Baronius for a stickler for Arrius an Arrian heretike a ringleader of the Arrian faction whose memory is accursed in the second Synod of Nice Tertullian likewise is guilded by Lindanus and Rehing with the glorious titles of a very noble author the chiefe of all the Latine Fathers the great light of Africa a most ancient Writer and Doctour most learned most skilfull most acute where hee hath some passages which may bee detorted to give countenance to some Romish superstitions But elsewhere when in expresse words he oppugneth some doctrines defined now for Articles of faith in the Church of Rome he is as much besmeared with foule imputations by Azorius Maldonate and Bellarmine An hereticall author an Arch-heretike an enemy to the Catholike and like to the Calvinists a maÌ„ whose authority is not much to be set by because he was no man of the Church and as Euseb. Tertull. so also Origen hath had contrary testimonials from the Church of Rome where he pleaseth them hee is a famous light of the Church of Alexandria whom S. Hier. cals another M â— of the Churches after the Apostles a witnesse beyond all exception But when he fits not their humours then he is a Schismatike a father of the Arrians and Eunomians a bold and rash man an obstinate lover of his owne errours In Councels the case is yet clearer for the Cardinall sticks not in most plaine termes to hang all them upon the Popes sleeve The whole strength authority saith he of lawfull Councels is from the Pope their judgment then begins to be of force after the Pope shall ratifie them And what Councels will he ratifie you may bee sure not the Councell in Trulio for that taxeth the Romane Church by name for inforcing single life upon the Clergy not the Councell at Constantinople under Constantine Pogonate for that accurseth Honorius the Pope for an heretike not the Councell held at Frankfort in the time of Pope Adrian for that condemneth their Image-worship not the Synod of Pisa for in that Gregory and Benedict Popes were deposed not the Synod of Basil wherein Eugenius was unpoped nor the Councell of Constance for in it a generall Councel is set above the Pope and three Popes were cashiered by their Authority I except the later Sessions of the same condemned Councell which are Gospell with them because they Anathematize the Wicliffists and Hussites But the second Synod of
Apostolicall authoritie Constitution and Definitive sentence he defended them by the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon Pope Vigilius then by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill is an Anathema a condemned and accursed heretike yea a Definer of a condemned and accursed heresie Baronius writeth earnestly in defence of Pope Vigilius and his Constitution he commends him for defending those Three Chapters saying The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius whom they might follow and Vigilius himselfe he had many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and shew of consenting with the holy Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon Card. Baronius then by the same definitive sentence of this holy and generall Council is an Anathema with Vigilius a condemned and accursed heretike 17. After this generall sentence the Councill proceedeth in particular severally to condemne each of these Three Chapters by it selfe Of the first they thus define If any do defend impious Theodorus of Mopsvestia et non anathematizat cum and doe not accurse him and his impious writings let such an one be accursed Now Pope Vigilius as you have seene would not himselfe neither would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus he forbiddeth any to doe it he made an Apostolicall Constitution that none should accurse him Card. Baronius he writeth in defence of Vigilius and of his Constitution in this point Thomas Stapleton goeth further for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus that he expresly calls him a Catholike yea a most Catholike Bishop Vigilius then Baronius and Stapleton are al of them accursed by the Definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill in this first Chapter 18. Of the second Chapter they thus decree If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril et non anathematizat ea and doe not accurse them let him be an Anathema Vigilius would not himselfe accurse them he would not permit any other to disgrace Theodoret or injure him by accursing his writings Baronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius they both then are tyed againe in this third Anathema of the Councill 19. Though a threefold cord be not easily broken yet the holy Councill addeth a fourth which is more indissoluble then any adamantine chaine Of the Third Chapter they decree in this manner f If any defend that impious Epistle of Ibas unto Maris which denieth God to be borne of the blessed Virgin which accuseth Cyrill for an heretike which condemneth the holy Councill of Ephesus and defendeth Theodorus and Nestorius with their impious doctrines and writings if any defend this Epistle et non anathematizat eam et defensores ejus et eos qui dicunt cam rectam esse vel partem ejus et eos qui scripserunt et scribunt pro eâ If any doe not accurse this Epistle and the Defenders of it and those who say that it or any part of it is right If any do not also accurse those who have written or who at any time doe write for it and the impiety contained in it and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fathers or of the Councill at Chalcedon such an one be accursed Now Vigilius as was formerly declared defendeth this Epistle as orthodoxall he defendeth it by his Cathedrall sentence and Apostolicall authoritie he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers and of the Councill at Chalcedon saying Orthodoxa est Iba à patribus proniōciata dictatio Baronius defendeth both Vigilius and this Epistle in some part thereof he defendeth them under pretence of the Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon saying Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam The Fathers at Chalcedon said that this Epistle ought to be received as orthodoxall Is it possible thinke you by any shift or evasion to free either Vigilius or Baronius from this fourth Anathema denounced by the judiciall and Definitive sentence of this Holy Generall Councill 20. But what speake I of Baronius as if he alone were a Defender of Vigilius and his Constitution All who have or who at any time doe hold and defend either by word or writing that the Popes judiciall and definitive sentence in causes of faith is infallible and this is held by Bellarmine Gretzer Pighius Gregorius de Valentia and as afterwards I purpose to declare at large by all and every one who is truly a member of the present Romane Church all these by holding and defending this one Position doe implicitly in that hold and defend every Cathedrall and definitive sentence of any of their Popes and particularly this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius to be not only true but infallible also and so they all defend the Three Chapters they defend the Defenders of them by name Pope Vigilius among the rest All these then are unavoidably included within all the former Anathemaes all denounced and proclamed to be heretikes to be accursed and separate from God by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill 21. With what comfort alacritie and confidence may the servants of Christ fight his battles and defend their holy faith and religion or how can the servants of Antichrist chuse but be utterly dismayed and daunted herewith seeing they cannot wag their tongues or hands to speake or write ought either against ours or in defence of their owne doctrines especially not of that which is the foundation of the rest and is virtually in them all but ipso facto even for that act alone if there were no other cause they are declared and pronounced by the judiciall sentence of an holy generall and approved Councill to be accursed heretikes 22. The Councill yet adds another clause which justly chalengeth a speciall consideration Some there are who would be held men of such a milde and mercifull disposition that though they dislike and condemne those assertions of the Popes supremacy of authoritie and infallibility of judgement yet are they so charitably affected to the Defenders of those assertions that they dare not themselves nor can indure that others should call them heretickes or accursed Durus est hic sermo this is too harsh and hard See here the fervour and zeale of this holy Councill They first say Cursed be the defenders of this Epistle or any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all who defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible that is all that are members of the present Church of Rome Cursed be they all And not contenting themselves herewith they adde Cursed be he who doth not accurse the defenders of that Epistle or of any part thereof As much in effect as if they had said Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and
from all his theevish piraticall and disordered straglers 2. The first and chiefest exception of Baronius ariseth from the matter controversie it selfe touching these Three Chapters concerning which he pretendeth that no question of faith was handled therin so one dissenting from another in this cause might not be counted or called an heretike This was a question saith he de personis non de fide of persons and not of the faith Againe Vigilius knew Non de fide esse quaestionem sed de personis that there was no question moved herein about the faith but about certaine persons And yet more clearly In these disputations saith he about the Three Chapters as we have oftē said Nulla fuit quaestio de side ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus there was no question at all about the faith so that one dissenting from another herein might be called an heretike And this hee so confidently avoucheth that he saith of it Abomnibus absque ulla controversia consentitur all men agree herein without any controversie Thus Baronius whom Binius applauding saith Sciendum est bee it knowne to all men that in these disputations and differences about the Three Chapters non fuisse quaestionem ullam de fide sed tantummodo de personis there was no quaestion at all concerning the faith but only concerning the persons So he Whereby they would insinuate that Pope Vigilius did erre onely in a personall cause or in a matter of fact which they not unwillingly confesse that the Pope may doe but he erred not in a cause of faith or in any doctrinall position of faith wherein onely they defend him to bee infallible 3. Truly the Card. was driven to an extreme exigent when this poore shift must be the first and best shelter to save the infallibility of the Apostolike Chaire For to say truth the maine controversie touching these Three Chapters which the Councell condēned and Vigilius defended was onely doctrinall and directly belonging to the faith nor did it concerne the persons any other way but with an implication of that hereticall doctrine which they and the defenders of these Chapters under that colour did cunningly maintaine A truth so evident that I doe even labour with abundance of proofes 4. Iustinian the religious Emperour who called this Councell about this matter committed it unto them as a question of saith We have saith he commanded Vigilius to come together with you all and debate these Three Chapters that a determination may be given rectae fidei conveniens consonant to the right faith Againe stirring them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause hee addes this as a reason Quoniā qui de fide recta interrogatur for when one is asked concerning the right faith and puts off his answer therein this is nothing else but a deniall of the true confession for in questions answers quae de fide sunt which are questions of faith hee that is more prompt and ready is acceptable with God Thus the Emperour 5. The Holy Councell esteemed it as did the Emperour to be no other than a cause or question of faith for thus they say Cum de fide ratio movetur when a doubt or question is moved touching the faith even he is to be condemned who may hinder impiety but is negligent so to doe and therefore Festinavimus bonum fidei semen conservare ab impietatis Zizanijs We have hastened to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impietie So cleerly doth the whole generall Councell even in their definitive sentence call the condemning of the Three Chapters which themselves did a preserving of the good seed of faith and the defending of them which Vigilius did a sowing of hereticall weeds which corrupt the faith Againe We being enlightned by the holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the holy Fathers have thought it needfull to set downe in certaine Chapters those are the particular points of their Synodall judgement Et praedicationem veritatis haereticorum eorumque impietatis condemnationem both the preaching of the truth or true faith and the condemning of Heretikes and their impietie And in the end having set downe those Chapters and among them a particular and expresse condemning of these Three w th an anathema denounced to the defenders of thē they conclude thus We have confessed these things being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures by the doctrine of the holy Fathers by those things wch are defined de unâ eâdemque fide concerning one and the same faith by the foure former Councels Then which nothing can be more cleare to witnesse their decree touching these Threee Chapters most nearely to concerne the faith unlesse some of Baronius his friends can make proofe that the condemning of heretikes and their impious heresies and the maintaining of that doctrine which the Scriptures and Fathers taught and the foure first Councels defined is not a point of faith 6. Neither onely did the Catholikes which were the condemners of these Three Chapters but the heretikes also which were the defenders of them they also consent in this truth that the question concerning them was a controversie or cause of faith Pope Vigilius in his Constitution still pretendeth his Defence of Those Chapters to be consonant to the Councell at Chalcedon and the Definition thereof and of the Epistle of Ibas hee expresly saith The Councel of Chalcedon pronounced it to be orthodoxall And none I suppose will doubt but that the question whether that or any other writing be orthodoxall and agreeable to the Definition of Chalcedon as Vigilius affirmed that Epistle to be or be heretical and repugnant to that Definition as the Holy Councell adjudged that Epistle to be is a plaine question and controversie of faith Victor B. of Tunen who suffered imprisonment and banishment for defence of these Three Chapters teacheth the like saying That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged orthodoxall by the sentence of the Councell at Chalcedon and the condemning of these Three Chapters is the condemning and banishing of that Councell Facundus B. of Hermian who writ seven bookes of these Three Chapters doth more than abundantly witnesse this of him Victor thus writeth Evidentissime declaravit Facundus hath declared most evidently that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae Apostolicae for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholike and Apostolike faith Facundus himselfe doth not onely affirme this but prove it also even by the judgement of Pope Vigilius Vigilius saith he esteemed the condemning of these Three Chapters to be so hainous a crime that hee thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle Avoid prophane novelties of words and opposition of science falsely so called which some professing have erred from the faith And hereupon as if he meant
every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitū Edictū against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasiō which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the case is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith In eâ de personis tantummodo non autem de fide aliquid est gestum In it was onely handled somewhat concerning those persons but nothing concerning the faith So Gregory whose words if they be taken without any limitation are not onely untrue but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Councels and Fathers above mentioned even to Gregory himselfe for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time he saith Whosoever embraceth praedictarum Synodorum fidem the faith explaned by those five Councels peace be unto them And if hee had not in such particular manner testified this yet seeing hee approveth as was before shewed this fift Councel and the Decree therof seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith grounded on Scriptures and the definitions of faith set downe in former Councels even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply that he accounted this cause for no other than as the Synod it selfe did for a cause of faith 17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himselfe herein I list not to censure so of him rather by his owne words I desire to explane his meaning There were divers in his time as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius who condemned this fift Councell because as they supposed it had altered and abolished the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon by condemning these Three Chapters and had established a new doctrine of faith Gregorie intreating against these whom he truly calleth malignant persons and troublers of the Church denieth and that most justly that this
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
by a severe Imperiall Edict set forth some foure yeares after the Ephesine Synod forbidding the bookes of Nestorius either to bee read or retained But it fell out farre otherwise for when the Nestorians could no longer shrowd themselves under the name nor countenance their heresie by the bookes and writings of Nestorius they found this new device to commend their doctrine under the name dignity and authority of Theodorus of Mopsvestia whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius he having suckt all his hereticall poyson from Theodorus and this they thought they might safely doe Theodorus being not by name condemned either in the Synodall judgement or by the Imperiall Edict To which purpose they and particularly Ibas spred abroad the bookes of Theodorus in every countrey and corner translating them as Liberatus sheweth into the Syrian Armenian and Persian languages by which meanes they deceived and seduced many pretending Theodorus writings to bee consonant to the ancient fathers The Catholikes seeing how little effect their connivence at Theodorus name had taken and that the heretikes abused their lenitie in forbearing him to strengthen their heresie saw that now it was time no longer to dispense or winke at Theodorus and therefore the time of that dispensation being expired they began now in plaine termes and by name to condemne both his person and his writings as before they had in a generalitie performed them both in the Councell of Ephesus and this was done by severall Bishops in severall Countries and by many severall wayes 10. The first sentence wherein Theodorus was particularly and by name condemned was in a Councell at Armenia where the credit of Theodorus had done most hurt The chiefe Bishops in that Synod were Acatius Bishop of Melitiū in Armenia a very learned holy mā who had bin one of the chiefe also in the holy Ephesine Councel and Rambulas or Rabulas Bishop of Edessa whose name it seemes the Nestorians for very spite against him turned into Rabula that so they might with more facility revile his person a man of such piety and high esteeme in the Church that Cyrill cals him columnam fundamentum veritatis the very piller and foundation of the truth and Benignus testifieth that he was a faire and resplendent lampe in the Church These two stirred up the Bishops of Armenia to reject the writings of Theodorus tanquam haeretici as one who was an heretike yea the author of the Nestorian heresie and themselves were present in that noble Councell of Armenia wherein they not onely condemned Theodorus as an impious person an oppugner of Christ and the childe of the Devill as by the contents of the acts of that Synod doth appeare but further also they writ their Synodal letters both to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople to Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria quatenus fiat unit as vestra contra Theodorum sacrilega dogmata ejus that they also would joyne with them and their Synod in cōdemning by name both the person and sacrilegious writings of Theodorus giving this as a reason thereof because they exhort them but to doe in plaine and expresse manner the same thing which was done by them before but in a generality We write unto you per vos etiam antea condemnatum sine nomine Theodorum nominatim condemnari that Theodorus may now by name bee condemned by you who hath already though without expressing his name beene condemned by you And what they exhorted Proclus and Cyrill to doe that Rambulas performed not onely in the Armenian Councell but in his owne Church at Edessa for as Ibas in his impious Epistle saith Ausus est Theodorum clarè anathematizare hee was bold by name and expresly to anathematize Theodorus in his owne Church and both Benignus and Liberatus witnesse the same 11. What Proclus did upon receipt of those letters sent from the Armenian Councell unto him is not to be learned out of Liberatus report of this matter for he in the narration of this passage is not onely untrue and partiall but very hereticall also justly herein taxed by Baronius and Binius as borrowing his narration from some Nestorians which the Reader will easily observe but the truth herein must be taken out of Cyrill and the fift Councell Proclus saith Cyrill sent a tome or writing to them of Armenia full of sound doctrine and hee adjoyned thereunto certaine chapters collecta è Theodori codicibus gathered out of the bookes of Theodorus consonant to the doctrine of Nestorius exhorting them etiam illa anathematizare to accurse even those doctrines of Theodorus also The fift Councel explaines this more fully Proclus say they writeth thus against Theodorus and his impious doctrine And then they cite first those words of Proclus before mentioned wherein he sets Theodorus in the same ranke with Arius Eunomius Macedonius and other like heretikes calling them all puddles of errours and deceit And after this those other words of Proclus written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch wherein he calleth the doctrines of Theodorus or those chapters which were collected out of his bookes vaniloquie monstriloquie Iudaicall impietie ad destructionem legentium evomita doctrines vomited out by him to the destruction of the readers and hearers exhorting others to reject to abhorre to tread under foot and to accurse all those chapters of Theodorus utpote diabolicae insaniae constituta inventiones as being the positions and inventions of devillish madnesse From which words of Proclus uttered both against the person and doctrine of Theodorus the Councell concludeth very justly that Proclus not onely in particular condemned Theodorus as the Armenian Councell exhorted him but condemned him as a Iew Pagan and Heretike And this was done by Proclus in the yeare when Valentinian was the 4 and Theodosius the 15. time Consull as the date of his letter or Tome to the Armenians doth declare which declares also that the Armenian Councell was held the same yeare for it followed the spreading abroad of the bookes of Theodorus and that was not done till the Nestorians were by the Imperiall Edict forbidden to reade the bookes of Nestorius Now the Imperiall Edict beares date in the same consulship which shewes evidently that as soone as ever the Nestorians began to revive the honour and name of Theodorus being onely in a generality before condemned the catholikes forthwith opposed themselves and by name condemned him And which is specially to be observed Proclus did this against Theodorus although the Easterne Bishops intreated him plurimis deprecationibus ut ne anathematizaretur Theodorus nec impia ejus conscripta did with most earnest prayers sollicite him not to condemne the person or doctrine of Theodorus but the truth of God which was oppugned by Theodorus and the sentence of the Councell which had condemned Theodorus did more prevaile then all
condemneth those very heresies of Nestorius which are defended in those writings he doth so at least he seemes by his words to doe it and had he not withall decreed that Theodorets writings should not bee condemned he could not justly have beene reproved in this point But in doing both he proves not himselfe orthodoxal by that which he saith well but unconstant and contrary to himselfe in overthrowing that which he saith well for if Theodorets writings against Cyrill may not be condemned as Vigilius decreth then may not the doctrines of Nestorius defended therein be condemned as Vigilius would seeme to doe Theodorets writings and Nestorianisme are inseparable companions either both must stand or both fall together It s as impossible and repugnant to condemne the one and deny that the other may be condemned as to condemne Euticheanisme and yet defend the Ephesine latrocinie and decree thereof or condemne Arianisme and not condemne the Arimine Councel It s the honor of truth that it never is nor can be dissonant to any other truth but heresie not onely may but almost ever doth fight not only against truth but against it selfe overthroweth with one hand or positiō what it builds up by another as in this of Vigilius is now apparent 21. Now although this clearly convinceth the Popes decree to be hereticall seeing it maintaineth two contradictory positions in a cause of faith the one is without all doubt an heresie yet is it worthy the examining whether of these contradictories must passe for the Popes judgment cathedrall resolution in this cause Cardinall Baronius will certainly direct vs in this doubt for he tells us which of it selfe also is evident that the Popes purpose intent in setting forth this Constitution was to defēd the 3 Chapters adversus Imperatoris decretum sententiam Synodi against the Emperors Edict and the sentence of the fift Synode As the Emperour then and the Synode condemned so was it the Popes maine purpose to defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill which was the second Chapter This is must stand for the judgement cathedrall resolution of the Pope in this matter what he speaks repugnant to this is casuall praeter nay contra intentionem it s against his mind purpose it s to be thought onely by in-incogitancy to have slipt from his pen. So his condemning of the Nestorian doctrine is but in shew it s onely verball his defining that Theodorets writings which maintaine Nestorianisme may not be condemned is the true purpose and intent of his mind its cordial real By his verball condemning of Nestorianisme he shuts it out in words or as you may say at the foregate of his pallace By his defining that Theodorets writings may not be condemned he puls in Nestorianisme with all his might sets wide open a postren gate unto it by condemning Nestorianisme in shew of words he seemes to be orthodoxall by defending Nestorianisme indeed and in truth he demonstrates himselfe to be hereticall Or because Vigilius was so very wise a Pope as hereafter out of Baronius you shall heare it seemes he meant to shew one part of his wisedome and policie in this matter and therefore while the heresie of Nestorius comes in his owne naturall habit or in the liverie of Nestorius away with it the Popes holinesse will not admit it hee cannot abide it but when it comes countenanced and graced with the name of Theodoret and in his liverie the Pope embraceth it in both his armes and by his Apostolicall authoritie commandeth all men to give most friendly welcome and entertainement unto it 22 You have now the judgement and cathedrall resolution of Vigilius touching this second Chapter that the hereticall writings of Theodoret against Cyril and the Catholike faith may not bee condemned Take a view also of those two reasons by which hee labours to strengthen and perswade the same The former is drawne from the Councell at Chalcedon It is saith Vigilius valde contrarium Chalcedonensis Synodi judicio indubitabiliter inimicum very contrarie and without all doubt repugnant to the judgement of the Synod at Chalcedon that any Nestorian doctrines should now be condemned sub ejus sacerdotis nomine under the name of Bishop Theodoret. So Vigilius 23 Could he not content himselfe to be hereticall alone unlesse he disgraced the holy Councell of Chalcedon as guilty of the same heresie as if they also had judged that none of Theodorets writings not those written against the faith ought to bee condemned They to judge this or is it contrary and that indubitabiliter to condemne those writings of Theodoret or any writings under his name Far was it from the thought much more from the grave judgement of so holy a Councell Even themselves as before we declared condemned and anathematized all those writings of Theodorrt and warranted by their judgement all others to anathematize the same Gregorie witnesseth of the fift Councell that it is sequax in omnibus in all things a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon Seeing then the fift Councell doth so often and so constantly condemne and anathematize those writings of Theodoret its undoubted that the same writings were formerly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon the fift Synod but treading in their steps and following them in that judgement wherein they had gone before them If to condemne those writings be repugnant to the judgment at Chalcedon then is the fift Councell not a follower but a confuter and contradicter of the judgement at Chalcedon Nor onely the fift Councell but the whole catholike Church ever since the time of Vigilius they all doe reject and condemne the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon seeing they all by approving the fift Synod and decree thereof do anathematize those writings of Theodoret which to doe is as Vigilius teacheth indubitanter contrarium most certainely contrary to the judgement at Chalcedon If the whole catholike Church bee not hereticall which to thinke is impietie by contradicting and condemning the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon then undoubtedly is Vigilius hereticall in teaching and decreeing that to condemne any writings of Theodoret or any under his name is repugnant to the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon 24. The other reason of Vigilius is because it were a disgrace injury and slander against Theodoret to condemne his writings This the Pope expresseth in the very words of his sentence in this manner The truth of these things those are the three personall points before handled being weighed we ordaine and decree nihil in injuriam at que obtrectationem probatissimi viri hoc est Theodoreti sub taxatione nominis ejus à quoquam fieri vel proferri that nothing shall be done or spoken by any to the injury and slāder of the most approved Bishop Theodoret by taxing of his name and it must needs be taxed if his writings or bookes be condemned 25. See here the
would rather dye then admit or consent unto any one of those twelve chapters Such an unhappie and lamentable breach Iohn and the Eastern Bishops made in the Church at the time of that Ephesine Councell 4. The religious Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian whose imperiall authority was the onely meanes to end all these strifes had they beene personally present in the Synod to see all these disorders they would no doubt either have prevented this breach or after it had hapned have healed and made up the same But they residing then at Constantinople were extreamely at used by the vile dealings of the Nestorians for so much had these Nestorians prevailed both at the Court and in the Citie of Constantinople where Nestorius had beene Bishop that though the holy Councell sent letters after letters to certifie the truth of all matters to the Emperor yet either were their messengers stopt or their letters by the malicious vigilancie of the Nestorians intercepted so that none no not any small notice of them came to the Emperors whereas on the other part the frequent letters of the conventicle fraught with lies slanders had every day accesse yea applause in the Citie in the Court and before the Emperors And which was the worst of all Count Candidianus whom the Emperours made their owne deputie and president of the Councell to see all good and Synodall orders observed therein hee failed of that trust committed unto him and being most partiall towards Nestorius and his heresie by his letters also he seconded and soothed all the lies which the conventicle had writ unto the Emperors By which meanes it came to passe that the Emperors knowing nothing of that division amongst the Bishops how beside the holy Councell there was a factious and schismaticall conventicle held in the citie thought all that was done as well against Cyrill and Memnon in deposing them as against Nestorius in deposing him that all this had beene in the act judgement and sentence of one and the same Councell upon which subreption and misinformation the Emperors confirmed at the first the condemnation of them all three But at length a letter being brought from the holy Synod to Constantinople by one who to avoid suspition put on the habit of a begger and carried the letter in the trunke of his hollow staffe which for that purpose he had provided as soone as the report of these strange disorders came to the Emperors eares they sent for and commanded certaine Bishops of either side personally to come before them to Constantinople that they might bee fully informed of the truth in all the proceedings and the truth after diligent examination being found the Emperors by their Imperiall authoritie adnulled all the Acts of the conventicle restored Cyrill and Memnon approved the judgement of the holy Councell against Nestorius adding banishment also from Constantinople to his deposition But the Synodall sentence of deposition against Iohn and the other Bishops of his faction that they staied and suspended for a while partly to prevent a greater schisme which Iohn was like to procure but specially in hope that Iohn and the other Easterne Bishops might in time be reduced and brought to unitie with Cyrill and the catholike Church which in that height of their heat and stomacke could not have beene expected And thus was the Councell at Ephesus dissolved a farre greater rent by this means being left at the end then had beene at the beginning thereof and so that maladie for which it was called not cured but encreased 5. But the religious Emperor Theodosius could not bee at quiet while the Church was thus disturbed but the very next yeare after the Ephesine Councell was ended when time and better advise had now cooled the former heat of the Easterne Bishops hee began to effect that union which before he had entended and he so earnestly laboured therein that himselfe professed I am certainely and firmely resolved not to desist in working this reconcilement untill God shall vouchsafe to restore unitie and peace to the Church To which purpose hee writ a very religious and effectuall Epistle to Iohn B. of Antioch by many reasons perswading and by his imperiall authoritie commanding him and with him the rest of the faction to subscribe to the deposition of Nestorius the anathematizing of his heresie and so to embrace the holy communion with Cyrill and the catholike Church which perswasions of the Emperor tooke indeed the intended effect for after some tergiversation for a while both Iohn and most of the Easterne Bishops before the end of that yeare relented and in a Synod held at Antioch subscribed as the Emperor perswaded them both to the deposing of Nestorius and to a truly orthodoxall profession sent unto them by Cyrill wherein they approved the holy Ephesine Councell and condemned all the heresies of Nestorius and upon this their consenting to Cyrill and the orthodoxall faith were received into the peace of the Church and so union and concord was fullie concluded betwixt Cyrill with the other orthodoxall Bishops Iohn with most of those Eastern Bishops who before adhered unto him 6. Let us now see how Vigilius and after him Baronius under couler of this Vnion plead for Ibas his heretical Epistle In the end of that Epistle Ibas makes mention of the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill yea mentioneth it as a great blessing of God to the Church seeing that he not onely consented but greatly rejoyced at the same Thus much is cleare and certaine by the Epistle Now because the Vnion as we have declared was made by consenting to the Catholike faith it seemes that Ibas who consented to the Vnion consented also to the Catholike faith and so was received into the communion of Cyrill and the Catholike Church Seeing then Ibas by this Epistle is shewed to approve and embrace the Vnion and embracing of the union is the proofe of a Catholike it followeth that even by this Epistle Ibâ—â— declares himselfe to be a very good Catholike and an earnest embracer of the Catholike faith This is the summe of their collection which is as any wil confesse a very faire plausible pretence and therefore more fit for the Pope and Cardinall to cloake their heresie under the shew thereof But least we seeme either to wrong them oâ— leave out ought which is emphaticall in their reason it is needfull to heare them dispute in their owne words 7. It differeth much saith Baronius to say that the Epistle is Catholike or that those things which are written in it are true and to say that Ibas by this Epistle was proved to be a catholike Etenim nihil aliud inde acceperunt patres nisi Ibam tunc temporis fuisse Catholicum for the fathers at Chalcedon tooke nothing at all out of that Epistle but that Ibas at that time when he writ it was a Catholike
Sacerdotali quantocunque Concilio the priviledge of never erring in faith was obtained by the prayer of Christ for Peter alone and his Chaire not for any Councell though it be never so great To the same purpose saith Bellarmine If a generall Councell could not erre in their sentence the judgement of such a Councell should be the last and highest judgement of the Church but that judgement is not the last for the Pope may either approve or reject their sentence So Bellarmine professing the Popes onely judgement to be infallible seeing it alone is the last and highest after and above both Church and generall Councell All the infallibility which they have is onely by reason of his judgement to which they accord consent It hence appeareth saith Bellarmine totam firmitatem that the whole strength and certainty of judgement which is even in lawfull Councels is from the Pope non partim à Concilio partim à Pontifice it is not partlie from the Councell and partly from the Pope it is wholly and onely from the Pope and in no part from the Councell When the Councell and Pope consent in judgement saith Gretzer omnis infallibilitas Concilij derivatur à Papa all the infallibility of the Councell is derived from the Pope and a little after when the Pope consenteth with the Councell ideo non errat quia est Papa hee is therfore free from erring because he is the Pope and not because he consenteth with the Councell In like sort Melchior Canus The strength and firmitude both of the whole Church and of Councels is derived from the Pope and againe In generall Councels matters are not to bee judged by number of suffrages but by the waight of them Pondus antem dat summi Pontificis authoritas and it is the Popes gravity and authority which gives waight to that part whereunto he inclineth If he say it one hundred Fathers with him are sufficient but if his assent bee wanting a thousand a million ten thousand millions Nulli satis sunt no number is sufficient Nay if all the whole world be of a contrary judgement to the Pope yet as the Canonist tels us the Popes sentence totius orbis placito praefertur is of more weight and worth than the judgement of the whole world So cleare it is that all their boasting of the authority and infallible judgement of the Church and of generall Councels wherein they please themselves more than ever the Iews did in crying so oft Templū Domini the Temple of the Lord that all this is nothing else but a Viser to hide or actually to draw into mens mindes the Popes infallibility they having no meaning at all to give or allow either to Church or generall Councell any infallibility but onely with a reference to the Pope to whom alone they annex it as a personall gift and peculiar prerogative and who like those leane and ill favoured Kine of Pharaoh hath devoured and quite swallowed up all the authority and infallibility both of Church and Councels yet thus much now is evident that seeing all who are of their present Romane Church beleeve and professe the Church and generall Councels to be infallible seeing their infallibility is none but onely by adhering and consenting to the Pope it necessarily ensueth that they all à fortiori doe beleeve and must professe the Pope to be infallible seeing on his the infallibility of both the other doth wholly and solely depend 12. Let me adde but one other proofe hereof taken from Supremacy of authoritie and judgement It is a ruled case in their learning Si errare non potest debet esse summus judex He who is infallible must be the highest and last Iudge and Vice versa He who is the last and highest judge must be infallible Supremacy and infallibility of judgement are inseparably linked To whomsoever Supremacy is given even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also for seeing from the last or supreme Iudge there can be no appeale it were most unjust to binde Christians to beleeve his sentence who might be deceived most unjust to binde them from appealing from a judge that were fallible or from an erronious judgement Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith belongeth To whom else but to the Pope whereas some dare affirme saith the Canonist that a Councell is above the Pope Falsissimum est This is most false The Successor of Peter saith Stapleton supra omnes est is above all Bishops Church generall Councels above all The Pope saith Bellarmine is simply and absolutely above the whole Church and above a generall Councell Hee further tels us that this assertion That the Pope is above a generall Councell is not only the judgment of all the ancient Schoole Divine the cōmon sentence of their Writers of whom he reckoneth thirteene and if it were fit three times thirtie might bee scored up with them but that it is the publike doctrine of their Church decreed in their Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth There the Councell saith he disertè ex professo docuit did plainly and of set purpose teach the Pope to bee above all Councels yea expressissimè rem definivit that Laterane Councell did most expresly define this and their definition hereof is Decretum de fide a Decree of faith for which cause in his Apology bearing the name of Schulkenius hee professeth that this is Articulus fidei an Article of faith such as every Christian is bound to beleeve that the Pope is Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae Iudex the Supreme last and highest Iudge of the whole Church here upon earth which he proves besides many other authorities by this very Laterane decree and by their Trent Councell The words themselves of those Councels make the matter plaine in that at the Laterane Councell they thus decree Solum Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia authoritatem habere that the Pope alone hath authority above all Councels and this they say is taught not onely by Fathers and Councels but by the holy Scriptures thereby shewing that in this decree they explicate declare the Catholike faith which is one of the Cardinals notes to know when a decree is published by a Councell tanquam de fide as a decree of faith and they threaten the indignation of God and the blessed Apostles to the gainsayers of their decree A censure as heavy as any Anathema the denouncing whereof is another of the Cardinals notes that they proposed this decree as a decree of faith In the other at Trent the Councell teacheth that unto the Pope is given Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia the Supreme power in the whole Church And this Supremacy is such that from all Councels all other Iudges you may appeale to him and hee may reverse
specially of heresie is strong as death It will cause Vigilius or any like him when it hath once got possession of their heart with the Baalites and Donatists to contemne launcing whipping and tearing of their flesh yea to delight as much in Phalaris Bull as in a bed of doune and in the midst of all tortures to sing with him in the Orator Quam suave est hoc Quam nihil curo O how glad and merry a man am I that suffer all these for the love of my Three Chapters Losse of fame losse of goods losse of libertie losse of my Countrey losse of my pontificall See losse of communion and society of the Catholike Church and of God himselfe Farewell all these and all things else rather then the Three Chapters then Nestorianisme shall want a defender or a Martyr to seale it with blood 10. You see now the third period and the third judgement of Pope Vigilius in this cause A judgement which being delivered ex Tripode and with all possible circumspection puts downe for many respects both the former what hee spake the first time in defence of these Three Chapters was spoken in stomacke and in his heat and choler against the Emperor What he spake the second time for condemning those Chapters he did therein but temporize and curry favour with the Emperor But what he spake now this third time after seven yeares ventilating of the cause when all heat and passion being abated he was in cold blood and in such a calme that no perturbation did trouble his mind or darken his judgement that I say proceeded from the very bottome of the heart and from the Apostolicall authority of his infallible Chaire which to be a true and divine judgement he like a worthy Confessor sealed with his banishment And of this judgement hee continued in likelihood more but as Baronius whom I now follow tels us about the space of a yeare after the end of the fift Councell even till hee returned out of exile unto Constantinople 11. The fourth and last changing of Vigilius was after his returne from banishment as Baronius and Binius tell us For while hee was there he saw there was urgentissima causa a most urgent cause why he should consent to the Emperour and approve the judgement of the holy Councell and therefore hee was pleased once againe to make another Apostolicall Decree for adnulling his former Apostolicall judgement and for condemning the Three Chapters and confirming the fift Synod I thinke saith Binius that Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod by his Decree and Pontificall authority and abrogated his former Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters in the next yeare after the Councell was ended when he being loosed from banishment was suffered to returne into Italy being adorned with sundry gifts and priviledges Neither doth he only opinari but he is certaine of it Dubium non est there is no doubt but Vigilius being delivered from exile by the entreatie of Narses did confirme the fift Synod We thinke saith Baronius that when Vigilius was by the intreaty of Narses freed from exile hee did then assent to the Emperour and recalling his former sentence in his Constitution declared did approve the fift Synod Againe Seeing we have declared that Vigilius did not approve the fift Synod when hee was driven into banishment for he was exiled for no other cause but for that hee would not approve that Synod Necesse est affirmare it must of necessity bee said that hee did this approve the fift Synod at this time when being loosed out of exile he was sent home to his owne Church So Baronius Now seeing hee returned home after hee had obtained those ample gifts and priviledges which they so magnifie and which are set downe in that pragmaticall sanction of Iustinian which was dated on the twelfth day of August in the eight and twentieth yeare of his Empire and the fift Councell was ended on the second day of Iune in his seven and twentieth yeare it is cleare that this his last change was made about an whole yeare after the end of the fift Councell after hee had remained a yeare or thereabouts in banishment And in this minde as they tell us hee returned towards Rome but by the way while hee was yet but in Sicily being afflicted with the stone he dyed 12. Here is now the Catastrophe of the Popes turnings and returnings and often changing in this cause of faith Concerning which this is especially to bee remembred that whereas all the three former judgements of Vigilius the first when he defended those three Chapters being in Italie the second when he condemned them upon his comming to Constantinople and the third when he againe defended them at the time of the Councell and after have all of them certaine and undeniable proofes out of antiquitie such as the testimonies of Facundus Victor Liberatus the Popes owne letters and Constitutions together with the witnesse of the Emperor and the whole fift Councell onely this last period and this last change when hee consented to the fift Councell and condemned the Three Chapters This I say which is the onely judgement whereby Vigilius is excused from heresie is utterly destitute of all ancient witnesses not any one that I can finde makes mention of this change or of ought that can any way enforce the same and therefore this may and must be called the Baronian change or Period he being the first man that I can learne of who ever mentioned or dreamed of his change And although this alone were sufficient to oppose to all that the Cardinall or any other can hence collect in excuse of Vigilius reason and equitie forbidding us to bee too credulous upon the Cardinals bare word which even in this one cause touching the Three Chapters and this fift Councell besides many the like demonstratively to be proved untrue and false I speake it confidently and within compasse in six hundreth sayings at the least yet that they may not say wee decline the force of this so pregnant an exception we will for a little while admit and suppose it to bee true and try whether by this being yeelded unto them there can accrew any advantage to their cause or any help to excuse either Vigilius himselfe or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters from being hereticall 13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fift Councell and approved the Catholike faith Be it so we deny not but that Vigilius or any other of their Popes may decree and have decreed a truth that 's not the doubt betwixt us and them The question is whether any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedrall authoritie and teaching as Popes decreed an heresie or untruth That Pope Vigilius did so his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters is an eternall witnes against them
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
ad Imperatorem Synodum both to the Emperor and to the Synod quod ingenuè praestitit which also he ingenuously performed as the Cardinall tells us That elaborate decree to which an whole Synod together with the Pope subscribed containing the Popes sentence and instruction given in this cause Vniverso orbi Catholico cunctisque fidelibus not onely to the Synod teaching them what they should define but to all Christians teaching them what they shold beleeve was in consessu Episcoporum recitatum read and recited before all the Bishops in that Councell as Binius doth assure us This one kinde of presence in the Synod is suppletive of all the rest of more worth then 20. nay then 200. Legates à latere sent from his holinesse They all may deale besides or contrary to the Popes minde as Zacharias and Rhodoaldus did in a Councell held about the cause of Photius but this Cathedrall instruction is an inflexible messenger no bribes no perswasions no feare no favour can extort from it one syllable more then his holinesse by the infallible direction of his Chaire hath delivered yea though the Pope should have beene personally present in the Synod and face to face spoken his mind in his cause yet could not his sudden or lesse premeditated speech have beene for weight or authority comparable to this decree being elaborated after seven yeares ponderation of the cause and all things in it being disposed cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia with all diligence and circumspection that could possibly bee used which the Pope though absent in body yet sent as an Oracle from heaven to be a direction to the Synod and to supply his own absence So many wayes is this former objection of Baronius vaine and unsound when he pretends this Councell to have beene unlawfull because the Pope resisted it and the members assembled without their head for neither did Vigilius resist their assembling but freely and willingly consented unto it neither was hee excluded from the Synod but most undutifully absented himselfe from it and though the members at that time wanted the Popes head-peece yet they had his heart his minde and his Apostolicall direction among them to bee a Cynosure unto them in that cause which alone is able to supply both his personall and Legantine absence in any Councel 17. The other objection of Baronius is taken from the decree of this Synod The sentence saith he given by it was contra ipsius decretum against the decree of Vigilius and therefore their assembly deserved not the name of a generall no nor so much as of a private Synod it was no Councell at all Cardinall Bellarmine explaines this more fully saying Such Councells as define matters against the Popes instruction Reprobata Concilia dici debent are to bee called or accounted Rejected Councells for it is all one saith he whether the Pope doe expresly reject and reprobate a Councell or whether the Councell deale contra Pontificis sententiam against the Popes sentence either of both such Councells are reiected and so of no authoritie at all So Bellarmine What shall we answer to the perversnesse of these men If this rule be admitted the Church hath for ever and inevitably lost this fift Councell and by their second Nicen collection the sixt the seventh and all that follow And I verily am perswaded that none can possibly excuse either Baronius or Bellarmine from this crime of expunging the fift Councell and all which follow it from the ranke and number of generall or approved Councels For it is as cleare as the sunshine at noone day that the sentence pronounced by the fift synod was contradictory to the definition and Cathedrall instruction sent by Pope Vigilius into them If then to define a cause contrary to the Popes instruction be a sure note of a Reprobate Councell as they teach it to be farewell for ever this fift and all that follow it or approve it they are all by the rule of these two worthy Cardinals Reprobated Councels nay not so much as Councels but meere Conspiracies or Conventicles 18. Besides this see I pray you the zeale and devotion of these men to the Catholike faith If this Councell be for this cause a Rejected Councell because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius sent unto it then it should have beene an holy and approved Councell if it had followed those instructions of Vigilius that is if it had condemned the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon if it had decreed Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith and Iesus Christ not to be God for Vigilius be decreeing that the Three Chapters ought to be defended instructed them thus to define and judge Had they thus done then because they had followed the instructions of Vigilius the two Cardinalls would have embraced this Councell with both armes have applauded advanced it to the skies seeing it did not so but contradicted the Popes Apostolicall instructions at this time fie on it it is an unlawfull a Reprobated Councell nay it is no Councell at all nor of any authority Can any with reason judge these men to be ought else then Nestorians then condemned heretikes and obstinate oppugners of all ancient holy Councells and of the Catholike faith See the strange diversity of judgement which is in us and them They in their hereticall dotage on the Popes Cathedrall infallibility teach this fift holy Councell to bee a reprobated synod eo nomine because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius we on the contrary doe constantly affirme it to bee an holy and most approved synod eo nomine because it followed not but rejected and condemned those Cathedrall instructions of Vigilius with us consent the sixt seventh and all succeeding generall Councells till that at Laterane all former holy Councells also to all which this Councell is consonant From them dissent all these both former and subsequent Councells that is the whole Catholike Church for fifteene hundreth yeares and more Vtri creditis whose doctrine thinke you now is ancient orthodoxall and catholike And whether had you rather with these two Cardinalls account this fift synod an unlawfull assembly and a reprobate Councell because it contradicted the hereticall constitution of Pope Vigilius or with such an army of witnesses honor it for a sacred Oecumenicall approved Councell though it not onely wanted the approbation but had in plaine words the Cathedrall Reprobation of Pope Vigilius 19. Having now fully refuted not onely the Assertion of Baronius That this Councell was of no authority nor an approved Councell till Pope Vigilius confirmed and approved it but also both those reasons whereby he would perswade the same there remaineth yet one doubt which necessarily is to be satisfied for the finall clearing of this point For it will and justly may bee demanded what it was which made this fift an approved Councell Or if it bee not the Popes
same time while the holy Councell was held in the Church at Ephesus held a Conventicle by themselves in an Inne in the same Citie and yet notwithstanding the personall absence of the first the negligent of the second and wilfull absence of the last the holy generall Councell saith of their Synodall judgement given by those who were then present that it was nihil aliud quam communis concors terrarum orbis sensus consensus nothing else but the common and consenting judgment of the whole world How could this be when so many Bishops besides three Patriarchs were either personally or negligently or wifully absent How was there in that decree the consent of these Truly because they all even all the Bishops in the world did either personally or by their Agents expresse or else in such a tacit and implicit manner as wee declared wrap up their judgement in the Synodall decree made by the Bishops present in the Councell 28. But what if many of those who are present doe dissent from that which the rest being the greater part doe decree Truly even these also doe implicitè and are in reason to bee judged to consent to that same decree For every one is supposed to agree on that generall Maxime of reason that in such an assembly of Iudges what the greater part decreeth shall stand as the Act and Iudgement of the whole seeing otherwise it would be impossible that such a multitude of Bishops should ever give any judgement in a cause for still some in perversenesse and pertinacie would dissent Seeing then it is the ordinance of God that the Church shall judge and seeing there can no other meanes be devised how they should judge unlesse the sentence of the greater part may stand for their judgement reason enforceth all to consent upon this Maxime Vpon this is that Imperiall Law grounded Quod major pars curiae effecit pro rato habetur acsi omnes id egerint what the greater part of the Court shall do that is ratified or to stand for the judgement of the Court as if all had done the same And againe Refertur ad universos quod publicè fit per majorem partem That is accounted the act of all which is publikely done by the greater part Vpon this ground is that truly said by Bellarmine That whereon the greater part doth consent est verum decretum Concilij is the true decree of the Councell even of the whole Councell Vpon the equitie of this rule was it said in the Councell at Chalcedon when ten Bishops dissented from the rest Non est justum decem audiri It is not just that the sentence of ten should prevaile against a thousand and two hundred Bishops Vpon the equitie of the same rule did the fift generall Councell truly constantly judge that the Councell of Chalcedon even in that definition of faith which they all with one consent agreed upon condemned the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall although they knew that Maximus with Pascasinus and the other Legats of Pope Leo in the Councell of Chalcedon adjudged that Epistle to be orthodoxall How was it the consenting judgement of the whole Councell of Chalcedon when yet some did expresse their dissent therein How but by that implicit consent which all give to that rule of reason that the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgment of the whole which the fift Councell doth plainly signifie saying In Councels we must not attend the interloquutions of one or two but what is defined in common ab omnibus aut amplioribus either by all or by the greater part to that we must attend as to the judgement of the whole Councell But omitting all the rest there is one example in the Councell of Chalcedon most pregnant to this purpose 29. All the Councell save onely the Popes Legates consented upon that third Canon decreed in the second and now confirmed in this fourth Councell that the See of Constantinople should have Patriarchall dignity over Thrace Asia and Pontus and have precedence before other Patriarches as the next after the Bishop of Rome The Legates following the instructions of Leo were so averse in this matter that they said not without some choler Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat Let our contradiction cleave to these Acts and so it doth to the eternall disgrace both of them and their master The glorious Iudges notwithstanding this dissenting of the Legates and of Pope Leo himselfe in them said concerning that Canon That which we have spoken that the See of Constantinople ought to be the second c. Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved it Why but the Popes Legates approved it not they contradicted it True in this particular they dissented But because they as all other Bishops even Pope Leo himselfe consented unto that generall Maxime That the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole Councell in that generall both the Legats of Leo and Leo himselfe did implicitè and virtually consent to that very Canon from which actually and explicitè they did then dissent For which cause the most prudent Iudges truly said Tota Synodus the whole Councell hath approved this Canon either explicitè or implicitè either expressely or virtually approved it Neither did onely those secular Iudges so esteeme the whole generall Councell it selfe professed the same and that even in the Synodall Relation of their Acts to Pope Leo The universall Synod said thus We have condemned Dioscorus we have confirmed the faith wee have confirmed the Canon of the second Councell for the honour of the See of Constantinople we have condemned the heresie of Eutyches Thus writ the whole Councell to Leo declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it 30. You see now that in every sentence of a generall and lawfull Councell there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters they all either explicitè or tacitè or implicitè consenting to that decree whether they be absent or present and whether in that particular they consent or dissent Now because there can bee no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiasticall matter than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters that is of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes it hence clearly ensueth that there neither is nor can be any Episcopall or Ecclesiasticall confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree greater stronger or of more authority then is the judgement it selfe of such a generall Councell and their owne confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world 31. Besides this confirmation of any synodall decree which is by
Bishops and therefore to bee called Episcopall there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors which is called Royall or Imperiall by this later religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ecclesiasticall Canons within their dominions so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures but further also doe so strengthen and backe the same by their sword and civill authority that the contradicters of those decrees are made liable to those temporall punishments which are set downe in Ezra to death to banishment to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment as the quality of the offence shall require and the wisedome of that Imperiall State shall think fit Betwixt these two confirmations Episcopall and Imperiall there is exceeding great oddes and difference By the former judiciall sentence is given and the synodall decree made or declared to be made for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation by the later neither is the synodal decree made nor any judgment given to define that cause for neither Princes nor any Lay men are Iudges to decide those matters as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in their directions to Candidianus in the Councell of Ephesus but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops and their judgement given in that cause is strengthened by Imperiall authority for which cause this may fitly be called a superemineÌ„t or corroborative confirmation of the synodall judgement The former confirmation is Directive teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church the later is Coactive compelling all by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions The former is Essentiall to the Decree such as if it want there is no Synodall decree made at all the later is Accidentall which though it want yet is the Decree of the Councell a true Synodall Decree and sentence The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmeÌ„t By vertue of the former the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith or contumacious in other matters and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church though if the later be wanting those censures cannot bee inflicted by any or upon any but with danger to incurre the indignation of Princes By vertue of the later not onely the Church may safely yea with great allowance and praise inflict their Ecclesiasticall censures but inferiour Magistrates also may nay ought to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees as against notorious convicted and condemned heretikes or in causes which are not of faith but of externall discipline and orders as against contumacious persons The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperiall authority it is in dignitie inferiour The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject it is in dignity Supreme 32. This Imperiall confirmation as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith Constantine sealed ratified and confirmed the decrees which were made therein The second general Councel writ thus to the Emperour Theodosius We beseech your clemency that by your letters ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum that you would ratifie and confirme the decree of this Councell and that the Emperour did so his Emperiall Edict before mentioned doth make evident To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus Let matters coÌ„cerning religion and piety be diligently examined contention being laid aside ac tum demuÌ„ à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate and then expect from us our imperiall confirmation The holy Councell having done so writ thus to the Emperour We earnestly intreate your piety ut jubâ—at â—a omnia that you would coÌ„mand that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius may stand in force per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata being confirmed by your roall assent And that the Emperour yeelded to their request his Edict against Nestorius doth declare In the fourth Councell the Emperour said We come to this Synod not to shew our power sed ad conâ—irmandam fidem but to confirme the faith And wheÌ„ he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent to their decree the whole Councell cryed out Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations That Iustinian confirmed the fift Councell his imperiall Edict for condemning those Three Chapters which after the Synodall judgment stood in more force than before his severity in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence partly by exile partly by imprisonment are cleare witnesses The sixt Councell said thus to the Emperour O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us signaculum tribue seale and ratifie all that we have done vestram inscribito imperialem ratihabitionem adde unto them your imperiall confirmation that by your holy Edicts and godly constitutions they may stand in firme force And the Emperour upon their humble request set forth his Edict wherein he saith We have published this our Edict that we might corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt corroborate and confirme those things which are defined by the Councell To all which that may bee added which Basilius the Emperour said in the eighth Synod as they call it I had purposed to have subscribed after al the Bishops as did my predecessors Constantine the great Theodosius Martian and the rest thereby evidently testifying not onely the custome of imperiall confirmation to have been observed in all former Councels but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopall subscription the Bishops first subscribing and thereby making or declaring that they had made a Synodall decree the Emperours after them all subscribing as ratifying by their Imperiall confirmation what the Bishops had decreed 33. By this now it fully appeareth what it is which maketh any Synod or any Synodal decree to be and justly to be accounted an approved Synod or an approved Synodall and Oecumenicall decree It is not the Popes assent approbation or confirmation as they without all ground of truth doe fancy which at any time did or possibly can doe this It is onely the Vniversall and Oecumenicall consent of the whole Church and of all the members thereof upon any decree made by a generall Councell which truly makes that an approved decree
Synod because the Pope resisted the assembling and contradicted the decree and sentence thereof but for as much as it is not victory but truth which I seeke and the full satisfaction of the reader in this cause and seeing this point about the lawfulnesse of generall Councels is frequent and very obvious and such as being rightly conceived will give great light to this whole controversie about Councels I will crave liberty to lanch somewhat further into this deepe and explane with what convenient brevity I can what it is which maketh any Synod to bee or rightly to be esteemed a generall and lawfull Councell 2. As the name of Synod doth in his primary and large acception agree to every assembly so doth the name of Councell to every assembly of consultation The former being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with Coetus and imports the assembly of any multitude which meeteth and commeth together The later being derived of Cilia whence also supercilium imports the common or joynt intending or bending their eyes both of body and minde to the investigation of the truth in that matter which is proposed in their assembly But both of those words being now drawne from those their large and primitive significations are by Ecclesiasticall writers and use of speech penes quem jus est norma loquendi restrained and appropriated onely to those assemblies of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons wherein they come together to consult of such matters as concernes either the faith or discipline of the Church Of these because some are lawfull others unlawfull Synods if we can finde what it is which maketh a generall and lawfull Councell it will bee easie therby to discerne which are unlawfull Synods seeing it is vulgarly and truly said that Rectum is index sui obliqui 3. That a Synod be generall and lawfull there are three things necessarily and even essentially required the want of any one of which is a just barre and exception why that Synod is either not generall or not lawfull The first which concernes the generalitie is that the calling and summons to the Councell be generall and Oecumenicall so that all Bishops be called and when they are come have free accesse to the same Councell unlesse for some fault of their owne or some just reason they ought to bee debarred For if the calling to any Synod bee out of some parts onely of the Church and not out of the whole the judgement also of such a Councell is but partiall not generall and the Councell is but particular not Oecumenicall seeing some of those who have judicatory power are either omitted or unjustly excluded from the Synod The want of this was a just exception taken by the Pope Iulius against that Councell of Antioch wherein Athanasius was deposed by the Arian faction and Gregory of Cappadocia intruded into his See why it neither was nor could be esteemed generall or such as should binde the whole Church by the decrees made by it for said Iulius they did against the Canons of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not so much as call him to that Synod whereas the Canons of the Church forbid that any decree which should have power to binde the whole Church should bee made without the sentence judgement and consent of the Bishop of Rome either attained or at least sought for The Canon which Iulius mentioned might well ordaine and if there were no such Canon yet even reason and equity doe teach that such decrees as concerne the whole Church and are to binde them all ought to be made by the helpe judgement and advise of them all according to the rule Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet The wilfull omission of any one Bishop much more of the Bish. of Rome who then was the chiefe Patriarch in the world declares the Councell not to be generall seeing unto it there was onely a partiall and not a generall summons or calling 4. As this first condition is required to the generality so are the other two for the lawfulnesse and order of Synods For if the Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order must bee kept in every private and particular Church how much more in those venerable assemblies of Oecumenicall Councels which are the Armies of God of the Angels of all the Churches of God amōg whom doth and ought to shine gravity prudence and all sacred and fitting orders no lesse than in the coelestiall Hierarchy and in the very presence of the Majesty of God If they bee gathered in Gods name how can they be other than lawfull and orderly Assemblies seeing God is not the God of confusion or disorder but of peace in all Churches Now the lawfulnesse and order of Synods consists partly in their orderly assembling and partly in their orderly government and proceedings when they are assembled whensoever the Bishops of any generall Councell first assemble together by lawfull authority and then are so governed by lawfull authority also that orderly lawfull and due synodall proceedings be onely used therein as well in the free and diligent discussion of the causes proposed as in the free sentencing thereof the same is truly and properly to bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lawfull Synod But if either if these conditions be wanting it becomes unlawfull and disorderly If the Bishops assemble together either not being called or if called yet not by such as have right and authority to call them though this in a large acception may bee called a Synod that is an assembly of Bishops yet because they doe unlawfully disorderly assemble together it is in propriety of speech to be termed a Cōventicle a riotous tumultuous seditious assembly even such as that was of Demetrius the other Ephesiās who without calling and order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rusht run headlong together to uphold the honour of their great Diana which both the Spirit of God condemneth as a confused or disorderly assembly and the more wise among them taxed as a riotous and seditious tumult If being lawfully called yet they either want a lawfull President to governe them or having one yet want freedome and liberty either in discussing or giving judgement in the cause such a Synod though in respect of their assembling it be lawfull yet in respect of their proceedings and judgment it is unlawfull and disorderly and therefore in propriety of speech to be termed a conspiracy because those men conspire and band themselves as did the Councell of the Priests with Pilate by unjust and unlawfull meanes to suppresse the truth and oppresse innocency 5. But unto whō belongs that right to call general Councels whē they are called to see orderly synodal proceedings observed therein To whom to whom else but only to those who have Imperiall Regal authority whether they
by his authority so are we so farre from denying him to have done this that wee willingly professe the same but withall doe affirme which inevitably ensues thereof that even for this very cause all those Councels are unlawfull because they were called by Papall and not by Imperiall authority This demonstrates them to have assembled without lawfull authority to have beene nothing else than so many great Routs and Riots in the Church so many tumultuous and disorderly Conventicles so much more odious both in the sight of God and men as those who tumultuously and without authority convented should have beene patternes of piety obedience and order unto others 24. Yea and this very exception which may equally be opposed against them all was most justly taken to omit the rest against their Trent Riot when it was congregated by that Papall and usurped authority The King of England gave this as a reason of his refusall to send to it because the right to call Councels belonged to Kings and Emperours nullam vero esse potestatem penes Pontificem but the Pope had no authority to call or assemble a Councell The French King writ a letter to them at Trent and the superscription was Conventui Tridentino The Fathers stormed and snuffed a long while at that disdaining that the King should write Conventui and not Concilio and hardly were they perswaded to read his letter At last when credence and audience was obtained for Iames Aimiot his Legate he signified before all the Trent Fathers that the King protested and published to al as also before he had done at Rome that he accounted not that assembly pro Oecumenico legitimo Concilio sed pro privato Conventu not for a generall Councell but for a private Convent gathered together for the private benefit and good of some few adding se suosque subditos nullo vinculo ad parendum his quae in eo decreta fuerint obstrictos iri that hee and his subjects would not be tyed by the decrees thereof exhorting further that this his protestation might bee recorded among the Acts of their Synod and that all Christian Kings might have notice thereof The Electours and Princes of Germany being assembled at Nurimberge when Zacharias Delphinus and Franciscus Commendonius the Popes Legates came to warne them in the Popes name to come or send to the Councell of Trent returned this answere unto them Mirantur illustrissimi Electores Principes the most illustrious Electours and Princes doe wonder that the Pope would take upon him Celsitudinibus suis Concilij indictionem obtrudere to obtrude to their Celsitude his appointment of a Councell and that he durst call them to Trent adding wee would have both the Pope and you his Legates to know that wee acknowledge no such authority in the Pope and we are certainly perswaded by the undoubted testimonies both of Gods law and mans Concilij indicendi jus Pontificem Romanum non habere that the Pope hath no authority and right to appoint call or assemble a Councell Thus they whose answer is at large explaned in their Gravamina where the first reason of their rejecting the Trent assembly is this quod ea illegitime contra manifestum jus indicta sit because it was appointed and gathered unlawfully against manifest right seeing the Pope who called it hath no authoritie to summon or call a Councel Of the same judgement were other Princes When Hieronimus Martinengus was sent as Legate from the Pope to call some out of England to that Trent assembly in the time of the late Queene of renowned and blessed memory è Belgio in insulam traijcere prohibuit she would not suffer him to set foote in her dominion about such businesse Nec diversum ad Reges Daciae Suetiae missus responsum retulit and the Kings of Denmarke and Swetia gave the like answere that the Pope had no right to call a Councell So justly did they dislike and contemne the going to that Synod even for this cause and that most justly esteeming it for no other than a Coventicle or unlawfull assembly 25. Said I unlawfull that is too soft and mild a word that and all the other nine with it by reason of that Papall calling were unlawfull in the highest degree even Antichristian For the authoritie whereby those Synods were called belonging in right to Emperours and Kings and being tyrannically usurped by the Pope as he by intruding himselfe into the Imperiall royalties and lifting up himselfe above all the Vicegerents of God here in earth that is above all that is called God did thereby proclame himselfe to bee that man of sinne and display his Antichristian Banner So on the other side those Bishops and others who came at his Papall call and yeelded obedience to him in such sort usurping did eo ipso in that very act of theirs receive the marke of the beast and not onely consent but submit themselves to his Antichristian authority and fight under the vety Ensignes and Banner of Antichrist But of this point I have before intreated where I shewed that all even the best actions how much more then such tumultuous and turbulent attempts when they are performed in obedience to the Pope as Pope that is as a supreme Commander are turned into impious and Antichristian rebellions against God 26. This rather is needfull to bee here observed that not onely generall but even Provinciall or Nationall Synods are in all Christian Kingdomes to bee called onely by Imperiall not at all by Papall or Episcopall authority yea and they are so called in every well ordered Church For although there goe not forth a particular and expresse Edict or mandatum from Kings to assemble them yet so long as Kings or Emperours doe not expresse their will to the contrary even that summons which is sent from Primates or other Bishops subject unto them hath virtually and implicitè the Imperiall authority by which every such Synod is assembled The reason whereof is this The holy Nicene Councell decreed that for the more peaceable government of each Church there should be two Provinciall Synods yearely held by every Primate Those holy Fathers meant not as the continuall practice throughout the whole Church doth explane so strictly to define that number of two as that neither moe nor fewer might be kept in one yeare But they judging that for those times a competent and convenient number they set it downe but yet as an accidentall ceremoniall and therefore mutable order if the necessitie and occasions of any Church should otherwise require That which is substantiall and immutable in their Canon is that Provinciall Synods shall be held by each Primate so often and at such times as the necessity and occasions of their Church shall require and the chiefe Iudge of that necessity and fitting occasions is no other than hee to whose sword and authority every Bishop is subject
into their Councell but command him to depart Ad hunc modum eliminatus by this meanes was the Bishop excluded from their free Synod and if Iohannes Casus the Popes Legate to the Venetians and Archbishops of Beneventum who writ a booke in the praise of one of the most detestable and damnable sinnes could have prevailed to have entised him to goe to Rome he had not thence escaped so easily as he did from Trent Could any of these or the like enormous disorders which utterly subvert all synodall freedome have been endured had there been equall and prudent Presidents for Kings and Emperours in that Councell But the Imperiall presidency being abandoned together with it was all freedome and synodall orders excluded So that I may truly say both of these Tridentine and their other nine Synods that as by reason of their want of this Imperiall presidency they had many disorders so by reason they excluded that Presidency they had nay they could have nothing in them at all but disorder 40. You see now the severall kinds of unlawfull Councells as well by want of Imperiall calling or of Imperiall Presidency as when neither is wanting by the abuse of that Imperiall authority in the Synod And though the unlawfulnesse of those ten later Synods doth now appeare to be farre greater than of those ancient Councells before mentioned seeing in all the ancient there was not onely a lawfull calling but a lawfull presidency also both which were wanting in the other tenne besides the unlawfull proceedings which were equally in both or rather farre worse in the later yet is there one especiall difference that is principally to be remembred which issuing from the former diversity of unlawfulnesse makes a greater oddes than at the first one would imagine and this it is When the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth as in their tenne Synods it doth from the want of the first condition that is of lawfull calling and authority to assemble and judge be the consultations and proceedings of such Synods otherwise never so orderly and their resolutions never so just and true yet for making of any Canon or Decree or giving any synodall judgement there is an invalidity in all such Synods and a meere nullity in all their Decrees Canons and Iudgements They had no authority to assemble in a Synod much lesse have they any authority to make a Law or give judgement in that Synod That which is invalid in the spring and originall must needs in all the subsequent actions derived from thence depending thereon retain the same invalidity And seeing it is neither multitude nor learning nor wisdome but authority which is the fountain and foundation of all Lawes Canons and Iudgements where this authority is wanting in any person or assembly it is as impossible for such a person or assembly to make a law give any judgement or pronounce any judiciall sentence as to erect an house in the ayre or build without any foundation And truly this toucheth at the quick all those ten Councels which wanting authority to assemble them were no other but tumultuous seditious and unauthorized assemblies There was no more strength validity or vigour in any of their Decrees to binde as lawes or synodall judgements than there was in such Edicts as Spartacus and Catiline in Rome or Iacke Cade in this Kingdome should have published and set forth specially in that which he like another Pope intended to be his fundamentall law That all lawes should proceed out of his mouth Those which they untruly call the Canons Decrees or Iudgements of those Synods are onely the opinions resolutions and consultations of so many seditious men which cōvened and conspired together in those conjurations synodall Decrees or Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Iudgements they were not they could not be In the head they are nipt and tainted with a nullity of authority they beare this tainture and nullity throughout every part and parcell of their determinations 41. But when the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth as in the ancient Councels at Arimine Millane and Ephesus it did from the want of the other condition that is of orderly proceedings onely the Bishops being both lawfully called and having a lawfull President the case is here farre different their acts and sentences though they bee unlawfull yet are they truly judiciall and have the authority of synodall judgements and therefore doe binde others though not in conscience to accept them as true yet with patience to submit themselves to their censures till by like authority they be revoked and repealed Even as in civill Courts though an unjust or partiall Iudge either for feare favour hatred desire of lucre or any other perturbation of minde shall wilfully pervert justice and due proceedings and pronounce an unjust sentence yet is this act judiciall and stands in force of a judgement till by the like or higher authority it be reversed because such an one had authority and rightfull power to judge and give sentence in that cause though he abused his authority to injustice and wrong Right so it is in synodall and Ecclesiasticall assemblies when they are lawfully called and authorized to heare and judge any matter their want of due orderly and just proceedings makes their judgment unjust and shewes them to be wicked and malicious conspirators against the truth but it doth not make the decree to be no judgment or no judiciall sentence of a Councell The corruption is now in the branch not in the root the abuse of their authority makes not a nullity in their act It hinders not them to bee truly and rightfully Iudges but it demonstrates them not to bee upright good and just Iudges it shewes their sentence to be wicked and impious but in hinders it not to be a judiciall sentence Whereof that one among many in the Ephesine Latrociny is a cleare example In it Eusebius Bishop of Dorileum was most wickedly and unjustly deposed from his See yet this their unjust sentence stood in force till by the like authority of another generall Councell at Chalcedon it was repealed for in it Eusebius sate not at the first as a Iudge but as an accuser of Dioscorus and in the place of accusers He entreated the holy Councell that all the Acts and Iudgements at Ephesus viribus carere might be adnulled and declared to be of no force and that hee might enjoy as before that sentence he did Sacerdotali dignitate his Episcopall dignity and See The holy Synod consented to his just request received him as a member of the Councell restored him to his See and adnulled all the acts of the Ephesine Latrociny requesting the Emperour to ratifie and confirme that their Iudgement 42. Such an exceeding great and most remarkable difference there is betwixt those ancient and these ten later unlawfull Synods Though both be unlawfull yet in the former there was a binding force for a while till they were repealed
some Churches unto it That this was done in the fift Councell Baronius proves by Guil. Tyrius who writeth that in the fift Synod in the time of Iustinian Vigilius Eutychius and the rest decreed that this Bishopricke of Ierusalem should have the place of a Patriarke with the rest And because it was situate in a manner in the limits of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch and so there was no meanes for it to have subordinate Bishops unlesse somewhat were taken from either of those Patriarkships therefore it seemed good to the Synod to take part from either so they tooke from the Bishop of Antioch two Provinces Caesarea and Scythopolis and two other from the Bishop of Alexandria Ruba and Beritus besides which Metropolitane Sees they tooke also from the same Patriarks divers Bishopricks and erected some other all which being in number twenty five they subjected to their new founded Patriarke of Ierusalem This is the summe of that which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius delivereth and Binius addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell which is now not found among the Acts therof Baronius further glossing on this text tels us that though Iuvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon when the Pope Legates were absent yet Pope Leo resisting it he prevailed not nor was the matter put in execution but at this time the ancient order instituted by the Nicene Councell being inverted Caesarea was now first of all made subject to the Church of Ierusalem which now was become a Patriarchall See 2. This whole passage of Baronius approving that testimony of Guil. Tyrius which is justly refuted by Berterius I cannot tell what to call but sure I am it consists of divers untruths not so much upon ignorance then his sinne had beene lesse as maliciously objected against the Acts of this holy Synod some of them I will explane beginning with that which is the maine point of all First then it is untrue that this fift Synod advanced the See of Ierusalem to a Patriarkship Not to the name and title of a Patriarke for that it had long before as Bellar. and Binius professe though it was but a single Bishorick subject as both Ierome and the Nicene Councell declare to the Bishop of Antioch as his Patriarke and to the Bishop of Cesarea Palestina for there is another in Cappadocia as his Metropolitane yet for honor of our Saviors resurrectiō in that place it had the name of Patriark and preeminency in Councels to the Bishop of Caesarea Not to the authoritie and power of a Patriarke for that it had and had it justly long before this fift Councell even by the decree and judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon Iuvenalis had sued for it in the Ephesine Councell but the Bish. of Antioch as it seemeth then being unwilling to manumit him as it were free him from his subjection Cyrill resisted it writ to Pope Leo praying him to do the like But after long contention both parties being throughly agreed the matter was brought to the Councell of Chalcedon where Maximus and Iuvenalis the Bishops of both Sees first of all and before the whole Councell professed that they were both willing that the Bishop of Antioch should hold the two Pheniciaes and Arabia and the Bishop of Ierusalem should hold the three Palestinaes and they both requested the whole Synod to decree cofirme and ratifie the same The whole Councell thereupon by their decree cōfirmed the same all the most reverēd Bishops cryed We all say the same and we consent thereunto After them the most glorious Iudges in the name of the Emperor added Imperiall authority and the royall assent to the Synods decree saying Firmum etiam per nostrum decretū sententiam Concilij in omni tempore permanebit hoc this shall abide firme for ever by our decree and by the judgement of the Councell that the Church of Antioch have under it the two Pheniciaes and Arabia the Church of Ierusalem have under it the three Palestines Thus the Iudges The same Decree of this Councell at Chalcedon is expresly testified both by Evagrius and Nicephorus So untrue it is which Guil. Tyrius and out of him Baronius a voucheth that the Church of Ierusalem was first made a Patriarchall See or had the Provinces and Metropolitanes of Caesarea and Scithopolis annexed unto it by the fift Councell that it is undoubtedly certaine that it had with the title and dignity true Patriarchal authority and power over divers Provinces together with their inferiour Bishops conferred upon it with a plenary consent of the whole Church in the Councell of Chalcedon And that you may see the most shamefull dealing both of Bar. and Binius in another place where their choller against this fift Councell was not moved they acknowledge that truth for intreating of the Councell at Chalcedon In this seventh Session of it saith Baronius and the like doth Binius was the controversie cōposed betwixt the Bishops of Antioch Ierusalē and the cause being judged the two Pheniciae and Arabia were given to the Bishop of Antioch and the three Palestines were adjudged to the Bishop of Hierusalem ex quibus jam perspicuè apparet jus Metropolis in Hierosolymitanam Ecclesiam esse translatum whence it doth evidently appeare that the right of the Metropolis which before belonged to the Bishop of Caesarea was translated to the Bishop of Ierusalem So they who yet in hatred against the Acts of the fift Councell with faces of Adamant deny that truth which here they confesse to be cleare and conspicuous 3. But saith the Cardinall the decree of Chalcedon was made post absentiam Legatorum when the Popes Legates were now gone and so they being absent is to be held invalid O the forehead of the Cardinall Were the Popes Legats absent were they gone Truly they were not onely present at this decree and consenting unto it but after it was proposed by Maximus and Iuvenalis they were the very first men that gave sentence therein whose sentence the whole Councell followed For thus it is sayd Pascasinus and Lucentius the most reverend Bishops and Boniface a Presbyter these holding the place of the Apostolike See said by Pascasinus These things betwixt Maximus and Invenalis are knowne to be done for their good and peace nostrae humilitatis interloquutione firmantur and they are confirmed by the interloquuntion of our humility ut nulla imposterum de hac causa sit contentio that never hereafter there should be any contention about this matter betweene these Churches Is it credible that the Cardinall could be so audacious and impudent as to utter such palpable untruths Vnlesse he had quite put off I say not modesty but reason sense and almost humane nature Let this stand for the second
for by it hath beene lift up the man of sinne Christian Empires have beene robbed the ignorant seduced the whole Church abused Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him as the most falsly supposed donation hath done to the Catholike Church 5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinall in this reason drawne from the event and the Emperours presence Some ten yeares before this Pope Agapetus being sent by Theodotus King of the Gothes came to Constantinople and to the same Emperour It so fell out that at that time Anthimus an heretike and an intruder held the Sea of Constantinople Agapetus deposed him that is hee declared and denounced which was true indeed that hee was never lawfully Bishop of that See and that himselfe did not nor ought others to hold him for the lawfull Bishop thereof whereupon Mennas was chosen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his roome Vigilius was called by the Emperour Agapetus sent by a Gothish usurper Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxall Professor Agapetus sent by an heretike and Arian King Vigilius called purposely about causes of faith Agapetus sent only about civill and but casually intermedling w th Ecclesiasticall causes You would now even blesse your selfe to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu by it proves the Popes presence at the same Court with the same Emperor to have brought such an infinite unspeakeable good unto the Church as could scarce bee wished Agapetus no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth but even from God himselfe and by him commanded to goe thither with an errant from heaven hee seemed to bee sent to intreat of peace but hee was commanded by God to goe ut imperaret imperantibus that he should shew himselfe to be an Emperour above the Emperour He like Saint Peter had not gold nor silver being faine to pawne the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles Now was demonstrated the highest power of the Pope that without any Councell called about the matter as the custome is hee could depose a Patriarke at other times hee may not have that title and a Patriark of so high a See as Constantinople and so highly favoured by the Emp. Empresses Now was demonstrated that Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet that the Popes power is above all Canōs for herby was shewed that he by his omnipēt authority may do matters with the Canons without the Canons against all Canons seeing his judgement was without a Synod which in a Patriarks cause is required fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem it was according to his supreme authority which is transcēdent above all Canōs or to use Bellarmines phrase hee did shew himselfe to bee Princeps Ecclesiae one that may doe against the whole Church Nay if you well consider admirari non desines you will never cease to wonder to see that Agapetus a poore man as soone as hee came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus corū facta rescindere jura dare omnibusque jubere to command Emperours to adnull their Acts to depose a Patriarke and thrust him from his throne to set another there to set downe lawes and command all men and to do all this without any Synod such a Pope was Agapetus that I know not an similis alius inveniri possit whether such another can bee found among them all Thus declameth Baronius Where thinke you all time was the Cardinals argument ab adventu Experience teacheth that when Popes leave their See and goe to the Court or Emperours presence the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazzard If Agapetus his comming to Constantinople or to the Emperour did not hazzard or endanger the Church how came it to bee perillous a few yeares after in Vigilius and where were now the most wise examples of Pope Leo and the other who in great wisedome could never be drawne to the East and from their owne See how was the holy Church now fixed to Rome when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople perceive you not how these arguments lie asleepe in the cause of Agapetus which the Cardinall rouseth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople This ab adventu as all the Cardinals Topicke places is drawne from the art and authority of Esops Satyr If they make for the Pope as the event did in Agapetus then the Cardinall with his Satyrs blast will puffe them up and make them swell to demonstrations But if they make against the Pope as did the event in Vigilius all arguments in the world drawne from the cause effect or any other Topicall or demonstrative place the Cardinall with a contrary breath can turne them al to Sophistications He is another Iannes or Iambres of this age when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharao it shall sting like a Serpent when it is used against King Pharao it shall bee as dull and dead as a stick 6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the comming of Vigilius to Constantinople what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with Iustinian Sure the Cardinall in good discretion should have expressed them at least some one of them but hee was too politike to open such secrets of their State for mine owne part I cannot but first condemne his foule ingratitude in this point Vigilius before hee came to Constantinople was earnest in oppugning the truth and Catholike faith by defending of the Three Chapters hee defended them by words by writings by censures by the utmost of his power All the hurt the Emperour did him was this that he converted him to the truth that hee brought him to define by an Apostolicall Constitution that truth which before hee oppugned and in this tune the Emperour kept him for five or sixe yeares together but then when his old fit of heresie came upon him againe when at the time of the generall Councell he forsook the Emperours holy faith his communion and as may bee thought even his company and presence also by this absence from the Emperor he relapsed quite from the Catholike faith even from that which before hee had defended and defined so long as hee kept society with the Emperour When the Emperours presence made hereticall Pope Vigilius for the space of five or sixe yeares a Catholike Pope at least in shew and profession doe you not thinke Baronius to deale unkindly with the Emperour in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperour that is in effect to blame and little lesse than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresie and embraced or made profession of the Catholike faith 7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius
or knowing it oppugnes the truth hee is now in his owne element he offends no longer as a Rhetorician or Grammarian but quatenus talis as hee is a Bishop as hee is a Divine as hee is one who both should know and bring others to the knowledge of the truth And this beside that by reason it is evident is grounded on that saying of Austen Aliter servit Rex qua homo aliter qua Rex for as a King serveth God qua Rex in doing that which none but a King can doe so a King or a Bishop or any other offendeth God as a King or Bishop in doing against that duty which none but they are to doe 45. Now what is said of all Sciences Arts and mysteries that is in due proportion to be applyed to that greatest mysterie of mysteries and Craft above all Crafts to their Pope-craft or mysterie of Iniquity He is the sheepheard to feed all the Physitian to cure all the Counsellor to advise all the Iudge to decide al the Monarke to command all hee is all in all nay above all hard it is to define him or his duties hee is indefinite infinite transcendent above all limits above all definitions above all rule yea above all reason also But as the Nymphs not able to measure the vastnes of the Gyants whole body measured onely the compasse of his thumbe with a thred and by it knew and admired the bignesse of his Gygantean body so let us consider but the thumbe or little toe of his Holinesse fault and by it conjecture the immensity of this eldest sonne of Anak Pasce oves confirmafratres must bee to us as the Nymphes thred or line for these two are the Popes peculiars in which are contained all the rest and they reach as farre as heaven and hell they are the Popes duty quatenus hee is Pope If at any time or upon any occasion hee swarve from this line if by his doctrine he cast downe his brethren instead of confirming them or give them poyson in stead of good food he offends not now as Swines-snout nor as Peter of Tarantasia nor as Hugh Bone companion but quatenus Papa even as Pope in that very Pastorall and Papall duty which properly and peculiarly belongeth to him as Pope Lay now this line and thred to Pope Vigilius and his Epistle did he confirme Anthimus Theodosius and Severus in the faith when he told them that by Gods helpe both before and then also he held the same faith with them and that was Eutycheanisme and that they were joyned to him in the charity which is in Christ or was this wholsome food which hee the great Pastor of their soules set before them Accursed be all that deny one and affirme two natures to have beene in Christ If this bee hereticall doctrine seeing Pope Vigilius fed them and confirmed them in this faith then certainely he taught heresie as Pope that is hee exercised his Papall office even that of feeding and confirming his brethren which is peculiar to the Pope as Pope to the teaching and approving of heresie at this time 46. If yet wee shall goe somewhat more precisely and exactly to worke according to line and measure those acts of feeding and confirming doe but in a very equivocall sense for their doctrine is full of Equivocation agree to other Bishops but still a maine difference or odds is to bee observed betwixt the Popes feeding and confirming as hee is Pope and all others when any other Bishop teacheth heresie because his teaching is subordinate and fallible one may nay he must doubt or feare to feed on such food he must still receive it with this caution or tacit appeale of his heart if his holinesse commend it for an wholesome diet of the soule But if the Pope teach any heresie if hee say that the Sunne is darke the left the write hand poyson an wholesome food Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme the orthodoxall faith here because there is no higher judge to whom you may appeale you are bound upon salvation without any doubt or scruple at all to eate and devoure this meate you may not judge nay you may not dispute or aske any man whether it be true or no the Popes teaching is supreme and therefore infallible indubitable this is to teach to feed to confirme as Pope for none can thus teach or feed but onely the Pope as Pope So the same hereticall doctrine when it is taught by the Pope as he is a private man is a private instruction without any publike authority to teach when by him as a Presbiter it is an instruction with publike authority to teach but without judicatory power to censure the gainsayers when by him as a Bishop it is both with publike authority and judicatory power to censure suspend or excommunicate the gainsayers but yet subordinate and fallible including a virtuall appeale to the highest tribunall of the Pope when by him as Pope it hath all the former conditions both publike authority to teach and judiciall power to censure and which is the Popes peculiar prerogative as Pope to doe those with infallibility of judgement and supremacy of authority such as none may refuse or doubt to beleeve and embrace 47. If any will here reply with the Sophister Thrasimachus his subtilty in Plato that the Pope as Pope teacheth not amisse but as hee faileth in the Popes duty as hee wants skill or will to performe that office This must bee acknowledged as true indeed for in the strictest sense of all what the Pope is as Pope that must inseparably agree to every Pope and the manner of his teaching as Pope must inseparably agree to the teaching of every Pope even as Logicians say that what agreeth to a man a bird or a tree quatenus talia as they are such must agree to every man bird and tree But this quirke and subtilty will not helpe their cause nor excuse the Pope from erring as Pope for as in this sense no Pope as Pope doth erre because then every Pope should erre in all doctrines which hee teacheth so neither in the same sense doth any Pope as Pope teach the truth for then every doctrine of every Pope should bee true Againe as according to this sense no Pope as Pope so no Bishop as Bishop no Presbyter as Presbyter doth erre or teach heresie for did hee in his teaching erre as Bishop or Presbyter then every Presbyter and every Bishop and so even the Apostles themselves should erre in their teaching But as Vigilius or Liberius when they taught Arianisme Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme did this not simply as Popes but as persons not knowing as in duty they should what to teach or knowing it but willingly teaching the contrary to their knowledge which in duty they should not even so Nestorius Macedonius Arius and Eutyches every Bishop and Presbyter when they erred they erred not simply as Bishops or as Presbyters but
as persons failing in their Episcopall or Presbyteriall duties either not knowing the truth as by their office they should or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth as by their office they should not So by his subtilty if any applaud themselves in it not only the Bishops of Rome but of Constantinople of Antioch of Alexandria yea all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from errour as his holinesse himselfe yea all professors of any Art Science or faculty shall plead the like Papall exemption from errour every man shall bee a Pope in his owne faculty no Grammarian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian but as wanting the skil required in a Grammarian no Iudge giving a wrongfull sentence as a Iudge no Galenist ministring unwholsome physicke as a Physitian no Artificer working any thing amisse in his trade as an Artificer but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge or of that fidelity which is required in a Iudge a Physitian and in every Artificer If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters all Iudges and Physitians from erring as they are such Officers or Artificers we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope If they notwithstanding this subtilty will admit another Bishop to erre as Bishop they must not thinke much if wee exempt not the Pope as Pope For to speake that which is the very truth of them all and exactly to measure every thing by his owne line a Iudge simply as Iudge doth pronounce a judiciall sentence as a skilfull and faithfull judge an upright judiciall sentence as an unskilful or unfaithfull Iudge an erronious or unjust sentence A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter doth teach with publike authority in the Church as a skilfull and faithfull Bishop or Presbyter he teacheth the truth of God as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errours and heresies in the Church the one without the other with judicall power to censure the gainsayers The like in all Arts Sciences and faculties is to be sayd even in the Pope himselfe A Pope simply as he is Pope and defined by them teacheth both with authority to teach with power to censure the gainsayers and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeale without doubt as an infallible Oracle as a skilfull or faithfull Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort as an unskilfull or unfaithfull Pope he teacheth errour or heresie with the like authority power and supremacy binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholike truth and that with a most blind obedience without once doubting of the same 48. Apply this to Vigilius his hereticall Epistle In a vulgar sense Vig. erred as Pope because he erred in those very Pōtifical duties of feeding confirming which are proper to his office In a strickt sense though hee did not therein erre simply as Pope but quatenus talis taught onely with a supreme binding authority yet hee erred as an unfaithfull Pope binding others by that his Pontificall and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholike truth without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same What may wee thinke will they oppose to this If they say Vigilius doth not expresse in this Epistle that hee writ it by his Apostolicall authority Hee doth not indeed Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus against the heresie of Eutyches which to have beene writ by his Apostolicall authorty and as hee was Pope none of them doe or will deny that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon Pope Leo by his Papall authority condemneth Eutycheanisme Pope Vigilius by his Papall authority confirme Eutycheanisme both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papall authority both writ as Popes the one as orthodoxall the other as a perfidious and hereticall Pope neither of both expresse that their Apostolicall authority by which they both writ The like in many other Epistles of Leo and of other Popes might easily bee observed Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles such as they writ as Popes have this clause of doing it by their Apostolicall authority expressed in them It is sufficient that this is vertually in them all and vertually it is in this of Pope Vigilius Yea but hee taught this onely in a private letter to a few to Anthimus Severus and Theodosius not in a publike generall and encyclicall Epistles written for instruction of the whole Church What is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few in confirming three of his brethren why not in foure in eight in twenty and if in twenty why not in an hundred if so why not in a thousand if in one why not in two foure or ten thousand Caudaeque pilos ut equinae paulatim vellam where or at what number shall we stay as being the least which with infallibility he can teach Certainly confirma fratres in cathedra sede pasce oves respects two as well as two millions If in confirming or feeding three the Chaire may bee erroneous how can wee know to what number God hath tyed the infallibility of it But the sixt generall Councell may teach them a better lesson Pope Honorius writ an hereticall Epistle but onely to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople Vigilius writ this to three all of patriarchall dignity as Sergius was Honorius writ it privately as Vigilius did which was the cause as it seemes that the Romane Church tooke so little notice thereof yet though it was private and but to one it is condemned by the sixt Councell for a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius for a writing wherein hee confirmes others in heresie and Pope Leo the second judged it to bee such as was a blemish to the Apostolike See such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholike faith The like and more danger was in this to these three deposed patriarchs It confirmed them in heresie it confirmed the Empresse it confirmed all that tooke part with them it was the meanes whereby the faith was in hazard to have beene utterly subverted For plurality or paucity it is not materiall be they few be they moe if the Pope as Pope or as an hereticall pope may confirme three or but one that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible 49. But he taught this alone not in a Councell not with advice of his Cardinalls and Consistory why he did it not as a member of a Councell but as Princeps Ecclesiae He did this as did Agapetus in deposing Anthimus above and besides the Canons The whole power of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision more than in any other where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe much more was this done by him as Pope than any of them And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of