teach what wee affirme whatsoever any manor Councell saith or can say to the contrarie The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it he would have forsaken the defence of them then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious nor should have made him an hereticke but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters should have made him a catholike But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell that the definition of saith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters with this pertinacie and wilfull resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke notwithstanding his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof whereby all those Chapters are condemned which profession being joyned with the former pertinacie could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike 18. The very same must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel and faith thereof as that upon manifestation that this Councell beleeved taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible and de facto hath beene hereticall they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies then should they much rather for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof bee orthodoxall then for professing together with this the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie bee hereticall But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith touching the Three Chapters that the fift Councell beleeved this and decreed under the censure of an Anathema that all others should beleeve it and that all who beleeve the contrary are heretikes seeing I say notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in those causes yea defend it as the very foundation of their faith this makes it evident to all that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell or the other whether precedent or following for they all are consonant to this but with this pertinacious resolution not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie and therefore their expresse profession of this fift and other generall Councels yea of the Scriptures themselves cannot be so effectuall to make them Catholikes as the profession of the Popes infallibility which is joyned with this pertinacy is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes 19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the pertinacy of Vigilius For one may be and often is pertinacious in his errour not onely after but even before conviction or manifestation of the truth made unto him and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi prepared or ready to be informed of the truth and corrected thereby or when he doth nor or will not tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem with care and diligence seeke to know the truth as after S. Austen m Epist 162. and out of him Occham n Lib. 4. part 1. ca. 2. Gerson o Cons 12. de pertinacia part 1. pa. 430. Navar p Ench. ca. 11. nu 22. Alphonsus à Castro q Lib. 1. de justa punit haeret ca. 7 and many others doe truly teach See now I pray you how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking and preparation to embrace the truth He by his Apostolicall authoritie decreed r Const Vigil apud Bar. an 553. nu 208. that none should either write or speake or teach ought contrary to his Constitution or if they did that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake Here was a tricke of Papall that is of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised He takes order before hand that none shall ever I say not convict him but so much as manifest the truth unto him or open his mouth or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof and so being not prepared to bee corrected no nor informed neither hee was pertinacious and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop or Councell manifested the truth unto him Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse who dammes up all the windowes chinkes and passages whereby any light might enter into the house wherein hee is than hee who lyeth asleepe and is willing to be awaked when the light shineth about him So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time his tying of al mens tongues and hands that they should not manifest by word or writing the truth unto him his damming up of the light that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in errour and so far from being prepared and ready to embrace the truth that it is obdurate against the same and will not permit it so much as to come neere unto him 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church and all the members thereof for having once set downe this transcendent principle the foundation of all which they beleeve that the Popes judgement in causes of faith is infallible they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth that can possibly bee made unto them Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour Scriptures Fathers Councels reason and sense it selfe it is all refuted before it be proposed seeing the Pope who is infallible saith the contrary to that which you would prove you in disputing from those places doe either mis-cite them or mis-interpret the Scriptures Fathers and Councels or your reason from them is sophisticall and your sense of sight of touching of tasting is deceived some one defect or other there is in your opposition but an errour in that which they hold there is nay there can be none because the Pope teacheth that and the Pope in his teaching is infallible Here is a charme which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare whatsoever is opposed the very head of Medusa if you come against it it stunnes you at the first and turnes both your reason your sense and your selfe also into a very stone By
learned but willing to learne and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge but learne with patience hee I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not onely how learned but how willing to learne himselfe had beene had this question in his life time beene debated by such learned and holy men as afterwards it was I often admire that one observation among many which the same ſ Lib. 1. ca. 18. Augustine makes touching this error in Cyprian of whom being so very learned he saith Propterea non vidit aliquid ut per eum aliud eminentius videretur He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptization that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth And what truth is that In him we may see the truth of Humilitie the truth of modestie the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace and unitie of the Church but the most excellent truth that I can see or as I thinke can be seene in erring Cyprian is this that one may be a true Catholike a Catholike Bishop a pillar of Gods Church yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr and yet hold an error in faith as did that holy Catholike Bishop and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian To him then and the other Africane Bishops who in like sort erred as he did may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God who in the blindnesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist together with many golden truths which they most firmely beleeved upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures held either Transubstantiation or the like errors thinking them as Cyprian did of Rebaptization to be taught in that foundation also They erred in some doctrines of faith as Cyprian did yet notwithstanding those errors they may be Catholikes and blessed as Cyprian was because they both firmely beleeved many Catholike truths and their error was without pertinacie as Cyprians was For none who truly beleeves the Scripture and holds it for the foundation of his faith can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture seeing in his very beleeveing of the Scripture and holding it as the foundation he doth in truth though implicitiè and in radice as I may say beleeve the flat contrarie to that error which explicitè he professeth And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof he hath even all the time while he so erreth a readinesse and preparation of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scripture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him 23. A second way of holding those doctrines is of them who together with the truths hold the errours also of their Church Transubstantiation Purgatorie or the like thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures as did the former but adding obstinacie or pertinacie to their holding of them which the former did not And their pertinacie is apparant hereby if either they will not yeeld to the truth being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them or if before such manifestation they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills and conceits that they resolve either not to heare or if they doe heare not to yeeld to the evidence of reason when they are convinced by it For it is certaine that one may bee truly pertinacious not onely after conviction and manifestation of the truth but even before it also if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority and weight of convincing reasons Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod about which time the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith tooke part with that faction in the Church which maintained the adoration of Images and after that Deposing of Princes then Transubstantiation and other like heresies as they crept by degrees into the Church in severall ages From that time untill Leo the tenth the Church was like a confused lumpe wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together or like a great Citie infected with the plague All as well the sicke as sound lived together within the walls and bounds of that Citie but all were not infected and of those that were not all alike infected with those hereticall diseases which then raigned more and more prevaled in the Church Some openly and constantly withstood the corruptions and heresies of their time and being worthy Martyrs sealed with their blood that truth which they professed Others dissented from the same errors but durst not with courage and sortitude oppose themselves such as would say to their friends in private Thus ſ Paralip ad Abb. Vsperg pa. 448. I would say in the schooles and openly sed maneat inter nos diversum sentio but keepe my counsell I thinke the contrarie Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse but that strong Antidote in the foundation which preserved Cyprian and the Africane Bishops kept from their hearts and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected Onely that violent and strong faction which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines which then sprung up the head of which faction was the Pope and who preferred their owne opinions before the truth out of the Scriptures manifested unto them and by some Councels also decreed as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus and that at Frankford these I say who wilfully and maliciously resisted yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it are those who are ranked in this second order who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists yet because the errors which they held are the same which the Popish Church now maintaineth they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes 24. The third way of holding their doctrines beganne with their Lateran decree under Leo the tenth at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before but they held thē now upon another Foundation For thē they cast away the old and sure Foundation and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof The Popes word in stead of Gods and Antichrists in stead of Christs For although the Pope long before that time had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images and the like and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these nor did he ever attaine unto it till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had justled out Christ and his word and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof for the Rocke Foundation of the Catholike faith In the first the Pope was but Antichrist nascent In the
second Antichrist crescent In the third Antichrist regnant but in this fourth he is made 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 TransceÌ„dent 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 t 1 Cor. 3.11 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 u Sup. hoc cap. nu 7 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 foundatioÌ„ for the ground of their faith whether explicitè as do the learned or implicitè as do the simpler sort 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 x Hos de author sac Script lib. 3. § Quaerit 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 essentiall 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 y Lib. de offic viri â—ij § Sunt alij 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 cur 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 observatioÌ„ 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 z Ecce potestas Ecclesiae supra Script Enchyr. tit de Eccles the Scriptures also defending them not to be a Enchyr. Ibid. authenticall but by the authority of the Church that there is multo b Th. Boz lib. de signis Eccl. 16. ca. 10. § Illud major authoritas much more authoritie in the Church than in them that it is no c Non adeo absurde dictum est c. Gretz Appen 2. ad lib. 1. de verb. dei pa. 396. absurd nay p Potuit illud pio sensu dici Hos lib. 3. de author Script § Fingamus it may be a pious d 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 e Lib. de not Eccl. ca. 4. glorieth of this very name of Papists that it doth attestari veritati give testimony to that truth which they
Augustine Saint Ierome Saint Ambrose Saint Leo Papius Theophilact Tertullian Eusebius Prudentius and others most excellent Divines And I take God and the whole Court of heaven to witnesse before whom I must render an account of this protestation that the same faith and religion which I defend is taught and confirmed by those Hebrew and Greeke Scriptures those Historians Popes Decrees Scholies and Expositions Councells Schooles and Fathers and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same Thus he 11. Did ever mortall man read or heare of such a braggadochio For learning and languages Ierome is but a baby to him more industrious and adamantine then Origen then Adamantius himselfe A shop a storehouse of all knowledge his head a Library of all Fathers Councels Decrees of all writings an Heluo nay a very hell of books he devoures up all Rabsecha Thraso Pyrgopolinices Therapontigonus all ye Magnificoes Gloriosoes come sit at his feet and learne of him the exact forme of vaunting and reviling What silly men were Eutiches Nestorius and the old heretikes they boasted but of one or two Councells All Councells all Fathers all Decrees all bookes writings and records are witnesses of his faith They sayd it he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven that all Scriptures Councels Fathers all witnesses in heaven earth and hell yea the Devill and all are his and confirme their Romane faith and condemne the doctrine of Protestants Alas what shall we doe but even hide our selves in caves of the earth and clifts of the rocks from the force and fury of this Goliah who thus braves it out in the open field as who with the onely breath of his mouth can blow away whole legions quasi ventus folia aut pannicula tectoria 12. But let no mans heart faint because of this proud anonymall Philistim Thy servant O Lord though the meanest in the host of Israel will fight with him nor will I desire any other weapons but this one pible stone of the judiciall sentence of the fift generall Councell against Vigilius This being taken out of Davids bagge that is derived from Scriptures consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding Catholike Councells and Fathers directly and unavoydably hits him in the forehead it gives a mortall and uncurable wound unto him for it demonstrates not onely the foundation of their faith to be hereticall and for such to bee condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church but all their doctrines whatsoever they teach because they all relye on this foundation of the Popes infallibility are not onely unsound and in the root hereticall but even Antichristian also such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholike faith This being one part of the Philistimes weapons wherein he trusted and vanted with his owne sword is his head the head and foundation of all their faith cut off so that of him and the whole body of their Church it may be truly said Iacet ingens littore truncus Avulsumque humeris caput sine nomine corpus 13. You see now how both ancient and moderne heretikes boast of Councells and therefore that the reason of Baronius is most inconsequent that Vigilius was no heretike because hee professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon Nay I say more though one professe to hold the whole Scripture yet if with pertinacy hee hold any one doctrine repugnant thereunto the profession of the Scriptures themselves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretike If it could then not any of the old heretikes would want this pretence or to omit them seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to beleeve the Scriptures and whatsoever is taught therein would this profession exempt one from heresie neither they nor wee should be or be called heretikes But seeing in truth they are and wee in their Antichristian language are called heretikes as Cyrill and the orthodoxall beleevers in his time were by the Nestorians it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures much lesse to hold one or two Councells as Vigilius did cannot free one from being an heretike 14. You will perhaps say can one then beleeve the whole Scripture and be an heretike or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon and be an Arian Eutychean or Nestorian heretike No verily for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresie seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l Lib. 2. de doct Christ ca. 9. all doctrines concerning faith are set downe and that also perspicuously therein so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ But it is one thing to professe the scriptures or those three Councells and say that he beleeves them which many heretikes may doe and another thing to beleeve them indeed which none can doe and be an heretike for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures cannot possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scriptures but such a man upon evident declaration that this is taught in them though before he held the contrary presently submits his wit and will to the truth which out of them is manifested unto him If this he do not he manifestly declareth that he holds his error with pertinacy and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures and so hee is certainly an heretike notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures which he falsly said he beleeved and held when in very truth he held and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them The very like must be said of those three Councells and them who either truly beleeve or falsly say that they beleeve the faith explained in them or any one of them 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent the former that all heretikes are lyars in their profession not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue and hereticall but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not but hold and that for a point of their faith the quite contrary All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scriptures and the doctrines therein contained and yet every one of them lye herein for they beleeve one if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed but they lyed in making this profession for they beleeved not one person but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell but they lyed in this profession for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ but one onely The Church
of Rome and members thereof professe to hold the faith of the fift generall Councell and so professe implicitè the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and hereticall but they lye in making this profession for they beleeve not the Popes sentence in such causes to be fallible but with the Laterane and Trent Councels they hold it to be infallible It is the practice of all heretikes to make such faire though lying professions For should they say in plaine termes that which is truth indeed wee beleeve not the scriptures nor the Councells of Nice Ephesus or Chalcedon every man would spit at them and detest them cane pejus angue nor could they ever deceive any or gaine one proselyte But when they commend their faith that is their heresie to be the same doctrine with the scriptures which the Councells of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon taught by these faire pretences and this lying profession they insinuate themselves into the hearts of the simple deceiving hereby both themselves and others 16. The other consequent is this That the profession of all heretikes is contradictory to it selfe For they professe to hold the scriptures and so to condemne every heresie and yet withal they professe one private doctrine repugnant to scripture and which is an heresie The like may be said of the Councells The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice professe Christ to bee but one person and yet withall by holding Nestorianisme they professe Christ to be two persons The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Councell of Ephesus professe two natures to remaine in Christ after the union which in that Councell is certainly decreed and yet by professing the heresie of Eutyches they professe the quite contradictory that one nature onely remaines after the union The Church of Rome and members thereof by professing the faith of the fift Councell professe the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and de facto to have beene hereticall and yet they professe the direct contradictory as the Councell of Laterane hath defined that the Popes sentence in such causes is infallible and neither hath beene nor can be hereticall So repugnant to it selfe and incoherent is the profession of all heretikes that it sighteth both with the truth and with it owne selfe also The very same is to be seene in Vigilius and his Constitution For in professing to defend the three Chapters and in decreeing that all shall defend them he professeth all the blasphemies of Nestorius and decreeth that all shall maintaine them and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon and decreeing that all shall hold it hee professeth that Nestorianisme is heresie and decreeth that all shall condemne it for heresie and so decreeing both these he decreeth that all men in the world shall beleeve two contradictories and beleeve them as Catholike Truths Such a worthy Apostolicall decree is this of Vigilius for defending whereof Baronius doth more then toyle himselfe 17. You will againe demand Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainely professe both these why shall not his expresse profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon make him or shew him to bee a Catholike rather then his other expresse profession to defend the Three Chapters make or shew him to bee an hereticke Why rather shall his hereticall then his orthodoxall profession give denomination unto him I also demand of you Seeing every hereticke in expresse words professeth to beleeve the whole Scripture which is in effect a condemning of every heresie why shall not this orthodoxall profession make or shew him to be a Catholike rather then his expresse profession of some one doctrine contrarie to Scripture say for example sake of Arianisme make or shew him to bee an Arian hereticke The reason of both is one and the same Did an Arian so professe to hold the Scriptures that hee were resolved to forsake his Arianisme and confesse Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this certainely his professiō of Arianisme with such a professiō to hold the Scriptures could not make him an hereticke no more then Cyprians profession of Rebaptization or Irenees of the millenarie heresie did make them heretikes Erre hee should as they did but being not pertinacious in error hereticke hee could not be as they were not But it falls out otherwise with all heretickes They professe to hold the Scripture yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintaine That they will hold and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrarie even of the Scriptures themselves They resolve of this that whosoever Bishops Councells or Church teach the contrarie to that or say judge that the Scripture so teacheth they all erre or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures Thus did not Cyprian nor Irenee And this wilfull and pertinacious resolution it is which evidently sheweth that in truth they beleeve not the Scriptures but beleeve their own fancies though they say a thousand times that they beleeve and embrace whatsoever the Scriptures teach for did they beleeve any doctrine say Arianisme eo nomine because the Scripture teacheth it they would presently beleeve the contrarie thereunto when it were manifested unto them as is was to the Arians by the Nicen Coūcell that the Scripture taught the contrarie to their error Seeing this they will not doe It is certaine that they hold their private opiniō eo nomine because they will hold it and they hold it to bee the doctrine of scripture not because it is so but because they will have it to bee so say what any will or can to the contrarie So their owne will and not Scripture is the reason why they beleeve it nay why they hold it with such a stiffe opinion for beleife it is not it cannot be This pertinacie to have beene in the Nestorians Eutycheans and the rest is evident Had they beleeved as they professed the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus then upon manifestation of their errors out of those Councels they would have renounced their heresies but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ notwithstanding that the whole Councell of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Councel held but one person and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union notwithstanding that the whole Councell at Chalcedon manifested unto them that the holy Ephesine Synod held two natures to abide in him after the union they did hereby make it evident unto all that they so professed to hold those Councels as that they resolved not to forsake their Nestorian and Eutichean heresies for any manifestation of the truth or conviction of their error out of those Councels and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said we hold those Councels and will have them to
the Popes supposed infallibility when hee sits in his Chaire and with his Romane Synod determineth out of it questions and defineth Articles of faith This is indeed to let Rome bleed in her Master-veine to strike heresie at the roote to crush the Cockatrice in the head not to batter and breake downe the mudd-wals but utterly to ruinate the very foundation of the Tower of Babell For howsoever Scriptures Fathers Councels and the Catholike Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are pompously brought in into their Polemike writings against us yet the last resolution of their faith is upon the Pope who gives credit to Fathers validity to Councels and authority at least quoad nos to the Scriptures themselves This their Champion Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Skulkenius his second confidently undertakes to maintaine against all oppugners of the Popes transcendent power and uncontroulable verdict in a matters of eternall life and death The h Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca. 1 in disputatione de verbo Dei Iam ostendimus iudicem controtroversiarum noÌ„ esse scripturam nec seculares Principes c. ac proinde ultimum iudicium summi Pontificis esse Cardinall thus flourisheth In our disputations about the word of God we have already shewed that the Scripture is not the Iudge of Controversies nor are secular 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 i Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca. 5 in fine Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona et virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientium peccarâ— 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 Pâ—â—â— the fourth needed not to have coyned twelve new Articles k Bulla Pij 4. super forma juramenti professionis fidei anno Dom. 1564. 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 l SkulkeÌ„ Apolog. pro Bell. ca. 6. Pontisicia potestas est vel ut cardo fundameÌ„tuÌ„ et ut uno verbo dicam suma fidei Christianae 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 m 2 Tim. 3.16 is given by divine inspiration For so saith n Bell. de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. ca. 4. Etiamsi scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum et Apostolorum esse divinos tamen non certo id cream nisi prius credidero scripturam qua hoc dicit esse divinam nam etiam in Alchorano Mahometi passim legimus ipsum Alchoranum de Caelo à Deo missuÌ„ c 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 o Quicunque non innititur doctrinae Romanae Ecclesiae ac Romani Pontificis tanquaÌ„ regulae fidei infallibili à quâ etiam sacra Scriptura robur trahit et authoritateÌ„ haereticus est coÌ„tra LutheruÌ„ Silvester Pierius outvies the Cardinall affirming that the holy Scripture taketh force and authority from the Romane Church and Pope Vpon which promise of Pierius Gretzer p Gretz defens Bell. lib. 1. de verbo Dei id selum pro verbo Dei veneramur ac suscipimus quod nobis Pontifices ex Cathedra Petri traduÌ„t 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 this authority from man May we not justly upbraid the present Romanists as Tertullian q Tertul. Apol. adversus gentes Ca. 5. 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 r August lib. 11. contra Faustum Manicheum ca. 2. inde probo inquiebat Faustus hoc illius esse illud non esse quia hoc pro me sonat illud contra me 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 Å¿ Dureus adversus Whitakerum fol. 140. Neque eniâ— patres censentur cum suum aliquid quod ab ecclesia non acceperunt velscribunt vel dicunt 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 t Gretz lib. 2. de iure more prohibendi libres noxios ca. 10. Nam Ecclesiae pater ille dicitur qui Ecclesiam salutari doctrinae pabulo alit et pascit iam ergo si pro salutari doctrinae pabulo admetiaur Lelium et Zizania non Pater est sed Vitricus backs this assertion with a reason drawn from the formall
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 ſ Lib 4. pro desens trium Capit apud Bar. an 546. nu 57. 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 purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius which it seemeth some did use in those dayes he addes Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit why doe any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science whereby some have erred from the faith And a little after concluding This saith he t Ibid. nu 58. is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church sed qua merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith Thus Facundus testifying both his owne and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters and by name of Pope Vigilius that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith of which Baronius tels us that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith and that Pope Vigilius know that it was no question of faith 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into u Vniversus fere orbis occidentalis ab orientali Ecclesia divisus erat Bin. not in S. Conc. §. Concilium two parts the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point that this was a cause and question of faith what truth or credit thinke you is there in Baronius who saith that All men without any doubt agree herein that this is no cause or question of faith whereas all both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters wherein Vigilius was hereticall but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith wherein Vigilius was orthodoxal as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope when the Pope forsakes the truth but to forsake the Pope when the Pope followeth the truth 8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged but by succeeding approved By Pope Pelagius who to reclame certaine Bishops from defence of those Chapters wherin they were earnest and had writ an apologie for the same useth this as one speciall reason because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures former Councels Consider saith he x Epist 7. §. Pensate if the writings of Theodorus which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord the writings of Theodoret quae contra fidem edita which being published against the faith were afterwards by himsefe condemned and the Epistle of Ibas wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended if these bee consonant to the Propheticall Euangelicall and Apostolicall authority And againe y Ibid. § Sed cur of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth If this Epistle be received as true tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith the defending whereof which Vigilius did is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines and even anutter totall overthrow of the faith To Pelagius accordeth Pope Gregory who approved z Lib. 2. Ind. 10. Epist 36. this Epistle of Pelagius cōmended it as a direction to others in this cause And what speake I of one or two seeing the Decree of this fift Councell wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith is consonant to all former and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels Popes and Bishops til that time of Leo the 10. his Laterane Synod as before we a Cap. 4. have shewed was not this thinke you most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum against them all and oppose his owne fancy to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith Baronius against them all maintaineth that it is no cause of faith and to heape up the full measure of his shame addeth a vast untruth for which no colour of excuse can be devised Consentitur ab omnibus that all men without any controversie agree herein that this is no question nor cause of faith 9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith This saith he b Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 12. § Quartū is easily knowne by the words of the Councell for either they use to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or else that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes or which is most frequent they anathematize those who thinke the cōtrary So he Let us now by these markes examine this cause and it will be most evident not onely by some one of them which yet were sufficient but by them all that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith and also proposed their decree herein as a Decree of faith 10. For the first the Councell in plaine termes professeth even c Coll. 8. pa. 588. a. in their definitive sentence that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures the Fathers and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith Then undoubtedly by Bellarmines first note their Decree herein is a Decree of faith seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith 11. For the second the Councel in like sort in plain termes calleth the defēders of those three Chapters heretikes For thus cried al the Synod d Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. He who doth not anathematize this Epistle is an Heretike He who receiveth it is an Heretike This we say all And in their definitive sentence they professe e Coll. 8. pa. that they set down the preaching of the truth Haereticorum
sec Act. 4. be exceeding partiall and untrue where he saith that Theodorus and Diodorus in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere died in honour neither did c Viva quidem ipsis cur nemo contradixerat factum ideo c. Ibid. 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 d Cyril epist ad Procl in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550 551. 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 estimatioÌ„ 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 e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. seq in act Synod Mopsv 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 coÌ„demned 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 f 2 Thess 2.10 11. 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 g Perspeximus si quid de his praedecessores nostri decreverint Vig. Const loc citat nu 176. Hujus causa formam veneranda praedecessorum nostrorum constituta nobis apertissime tradiderunt Ibid. Idem regulâ—ria Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta Jbid. nu 179. 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 of those words Whatsoever ye binde or loose upon earth Pope Gelasius h Ibid. nu 177. collecteth and Vigilius consenteth unto him that such as are not upon earth or among the living hos non humano sed suo Deus judicio reservavit God hath exempted them from humane and reserved them to his owne judgement nec audet Ecclesia nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such As the Pope so also the holy generall Councell tooke this for no other than a question of faith for they plainly professe even in their Synodall resolution that their decree concerning dead men that they may bee Noviter condemned is not onely an Ecclesiasticall i Licet cognosceremus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditionem Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. tradition but an Apostolicall doctrine also warranted by the texts and testimonies of the holy Scriptures To which purpose alledging divers places of Scripture they adde these words It is many wayes manifest that they who affirme this that men after their death may not Noviter be condemned nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt nec Apostolicarum pronunciationum nec paternarum traditionum that such have no regard either to the word of God or the Apostles doctrine or the tradition of the Fathers So the whole Councell judging and decreeing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these 4. Now when both the Pope on the one side and the whole generall Councell on the other that is both the defenders and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both and against that truth wherein they both agree to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith or seeing it is cleare both by the Pope and Councell that the resolution of this question is set downe in Scripture what else can bee thought of Baronius denying either the one or the other part to bee a cause or assertion of faith but that with him the doctrines defined and set down in Scriptures are no doctrines or assertions of faith at least not of the Cardinals faith 5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith and in this cause of faith the Pope and generall Councell are at variance either of them challenge the Scripture as consonant to his and repugnant to the opposite assertion what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit faith their vaine and vaunting k Camp Rut. 3. Braggadochio Hast thou appealed to the Church to the Church and judgement thereof shalt thou goe at the name of which we are so farre from being daunted or appaled that with great confidence and assurance of victory we provoke unto it 6. But where may we heare the voyce and judgement of the Church out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers or provinciall Synods or in generall Councels in which of these soever the Church speake her sentence is for us and our side Her voyce is but soft stil in the writings of single Fathers the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly and audibly Heare Saint l Epist ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 548. b. Austen who entreating of Caecilianus about an hundreth yeares after his death saith If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes which were by the Donatists objected unto him ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead though never condemned before nor in his life time Againe m Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc ca. 35. In this our communion if there have beene any Traditores or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such corde carne mortuos detestabor Heare Pope n Pelag. 2. Epist 7.
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 p Quod haeresis esse sine pertinacia nequeat non est difficile ostendere cōmuni omnium Theologorum sententia c. Canus lib. 12. Loc. Theol. ca. 9. § Quod. 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 faith and so long as those errours were so held the Church suspended q Sancta Ecclesia aliquandiu de ea re supersedit judiciumque suspendit Bar. notis in Martyr in Febr. 22. voce Papiae 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 r Hier. in cap. 19. Ieremia thus Haec licet non sequantur 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 s Hieronimi tempore nihil adhuc ab Ecclesia de eâ re fuit definitum Bar. notis in Martyr loc cit 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 t Quae opinio esset utcunque tolerabilis si c. Aug lib. 20. de Civit. Dei. ca 7. opinion and such as himselfe had sometimes held if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spirituall Baronius tels u Bar. an 118. nu 2. et an 373. nu 14 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 x Statuimus nulli licere quicquam contrarium his conscribere vel proferre Vig. Const in fine 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 y Bell. lib. 4. de Pōt ca. 3. et Gretz def ca. 2. lib. 1. de Pont. pa. 652. et alij 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 z Cyprianus ita dixit quid ei videretur ut in pace unitatis esse volucrit etiam cum eis qui de hac re diversa sentirent Aug. lib. 2. de baptis ca. 1 fast the unity with the Church even with those who contradicted and cōdemned their errours and we doubt not but that was verified of very many of them which Austen a Lib. 1. de baptis ca. 18. 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 b Charitate praesenti quaedam veritates venialiter non habentur Aug. ibid. saith became veniall unto them for
this but a vertuall and implicite anathematizing of those his owne writings against Cyrill which defended Nestorius and his doctrines None can anathematize the former but eo ipso he doth most certainely though not expresly anathematize the later as on the contrary none can say as Vigilius doth and decreeth that all shall doe the like none can say that the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and his twelve chapters ought not to be anathematized but eo ipso even by saying so he doth most certainly though but implicitè and by consequent say that Nestorius and his heresie ought not to be condemned A truth so cleare that Pope Pelagius k Pelag. 2. Epist 7. §. Quis haec from his anathematizing of Nestorius and his doctrine concludeth of Theodoret Constat eundem it is manifest that in doing this he condemned his owne writings against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill 14. Neither is that true which Vigilius fancied that to require men to anathematize the writings of Theodoret is to seeke and require more then the Councell of Chalcedon required It is not It is but requiring the selfe same thing to be done in actuall and expresse termes which the Councel required and Theodoret performed in vertuall and implicite termes The thing required and done is the same the manner onely of doing it or requiring it to be done is different Even as to require of men to professe Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Councell of Nice and the Church ever since requireth is not to require them to professe more or ought else then the Scripture teacheth and all catholikes l Hoc testimonio omnes patres utuntur contra Arianos ut probent unam esse essentiam patris filij Bell. lib 1. de Christ ca. 6. §. Quartum before professed by those words I and my Father are one but it is a requiring of an explicite profession of that truth concerning the unity of substance of the Father and the Sonne which by those words of Scripture they did before implicitè professe 15. But yet at least will some of Vigilius friends reply it was unfit to require this explicite anathematizing of Theodorets writings seeing the Councell of Chalcedon did not require it No not so neither The explicite condemning of them was not only fit but necessarie at that time in the dayes of Iustinian and Vigilius For as when the Arians denyed Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was enough for one to cleare himselfe of Arianisme to say that he held this text for true I and the Father are one though therein he doe implicitè professe Christ to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though to have professed that alone before the question about the unity of one substance was moved had beene sufficient but now he must explicitè professe that truth which is explicitè denyed and oppugned even so it is in this cause of Theodorets writings and all like it While there was no doubt moved by heretikes whether those writings of his ought to be condemned and whether by the Councell of Chalcedon they were condemed or no so long it was sufficient for one to professe that he condemned Nestorius and subscribed to the definition of Chalcedon both which were implicite condemning of those writings of Theodoret but when the Nestorians began to boast that Theodorets writings against Cyrill neither were condemned but rather with the author of them approved by the Councell of Chalcedon neither ought to be condemned the Church now was necessarily eâ—â—â—rced to require of all men a profession of that truth in plaine and explicite termes which before they made onely in generall and implicite Nor could Vigilius or any other Nestorian who refused in expresse manner to condemne the writings of Theodoret purge himselfe of that heresie of Nestorius at this time by saying they approved the definition of Chalcedon or condemned Nestorius though in both these they did implicitè condemne the writings of Theodoret but now they must expresly professe that which the heretikes expresly denyed they must in plaine termes anathematize those hereticall writings of Theodoret and acknowledge them to have bin anathematized by the Councel of Chalcedon as the heretiks in plaine termes vauÌ„ted that neither they ought nor were anathematized but approved by the Councel of Chalcedon whensoever any point tending to the impeaching of faith begins explicitè to be denyed the holy Church may not then content her selfe in generall and implicitè to condemne the same few perhaps can perceive that and many will make that generality of termes as Vigilius and other Nestorians now did but a cloak for their heresie but the Church must now in most plaine easie and expressed manner that can be devised both teach declare and define the same This the Church did in this fift Councell as in the other two so in this Chapter touching Theodorets writings It taught but the very same which the Councell of Chalcedon had done before it anathematized those his writings which at Chalcedon were anathematized before but they did this now in a plaine manner and explicitè which by the Councell of Chalcedon only in an obscure manner and implicitè was done before 16. The third personall errour which Vigilius m Vig. Const nu 181. taketh for a ground of his decree is that Cyrill himselfe though he was so exceedingly injured by the writings of those Easterne Bishops that tooke part with Nestorius yet when he made union with them he required them not to anathematize their owne writings but overpast them in silence as if there had never beene any such whence Vigilius inferreth that neither ought this anathematizing of their writings by name of Theodorets bee required by others yea he saith the Fathers of Chalcedon imitated this example of Cyrill and so would not require that of Theodoret which they saw Cyrill not to have required of others 17. The answer is easie by that which hath beene declared this saying of Vigilius laboureth of the same equivocall sophistication as did the former for both Cyrill required and all who were united unto him and received into his which was the communion of the Catholike Church they all did though not in explicite termes which then was not needfull yet vertually and after a certaine and undoubted though implicite manner condemne and anathematize all their writings against Cyrill and the Catholike faith for he received none till they had anathematized thâ— doctrines of Nestorius This doth Cyril himselfe most plainly witnesse in his Epistle to n Cyrill Epist ad Dynat extat in Act. Conc. Ephes to 5. ca. 16. Dynatus I would not saith he admit Paulus Bishop of Emisa into communion priusquam Nestorij dogmata proprio chyrographo anathematizasset untill hee had anathematized by his owne hand-writing the doctrines of Nestorius And he intreated me in behalfe of the other Bishops that I would rest contented with that profession which they had sent and require no
any Pope either by word or writing either hath already or shall at any time hereafter define to be a doctrine of faith Because I will not stay on particulars if any please seriously to consider this matter hee shall perceive that which now I intend to prove such venome of infidelity to lye in that one fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility that by reason of holding it they neither doe nor can beleeve or hold with certaintie of faith any one point or doctrine which they professe to beleeve and hold upon that Foundation 20. For the clearing of which point being very materiall it is to be observed that unto certainty of faith two things are of necessity required The one ex parte objecti on the part of thing beleeved which must be so true and certaine in it selfe that it cannot possibly bee or have beene otherwise then it is beleeved to be to have beene or to be hereafter And therefore none can truly beleeve any untruth for nothing which is untrue is or can be the object of faith The other thing is required ex parte subjecti on the part of him who beleeveth Now faith being onely of such things as are inevident that is which neither by sense can be perceived nor by naturall reason collected or found out but which are onely by the testimonie of such as first knew them made knowne unto us and none doth or can know that which is supernaturall unlesse God himselfe reveale the same unto him it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any beleeved the same is revealed and testified to him by God himselfe who is infallible and further that it is certainly knowne unto him who beleeveth that it is God himselfe who doth reveale and testifie that thing unto him For otherwise though the doctrine proposed be in it selfe never so certaine and divine yet unto thee or me it cannot be certaine nor held by certainty of faith unlesse first we be sure and infallibly certaine that he who testifieth it unto us is himselfe infallible that is that he is God Let us for perspicuity call the former of these two materiale fidei the materiall in faith or the thing beleeved and the later formale fidei that which is formall in faith seeing as the former is the thing beleeved so the later containes the reason the ground or foundation upon which and for which it is beleeved 21. Consider now first the materials in their faith In them there is a great difference for some of them are in themselves credible as being divine truths and true objects of faith Such are all those Catholike truths common to us and them as that there is a Trinity that Christ was borne of a Virgin dyed rose againe and the like Others are in themselves untrue such as cannot be the object of faith Of this sort are all those doctrines wherin they dissent from us Transubstantiation reall and proper sacrifice worshipping of Images Purgatory Iustification by the merit or dignity of our works and the like which may rightly bee called popish doctrines The later sort of these they neither doe nor can beleeve The former they might but they doe not beleeve The reason whereof will appeare by considering that which is formall or the fundamentall ground of their faith where it is first to be observed that a man may hold many yea all the doctrines professed by the present Church except that one of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility and yet bee no Papist or member of their present Church For although the things professed or the Materialls be the selfe same yet the formalitie or diverse reason of holding them causeth a maine difference in the parties that hold them And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three divers wayes whereby their doctrines are or may be held 22. The first is of them who build all those doctrines upon the Scripture as the Foundation thereof upon that ground holding not onely many Catholike truths which they most firmly beleeve the Church inducing the Scriptures outwardly teaching and the holy Spirit inwardly sealing the same unto them but together with those truths hold some errors also of the Romane Church take for example Transubstantiation which although for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live they thinke to be taught in the Scriptures and therefore hold and professe them and thinke they beleeve them yet because they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures nor sealed by Gods Spirit unto their hearts therefore they hold not these nor in truth can they hold them with that firmnesse and certainty of faith as they doe the former truths but they have a faintnes and feare in their assent unto these and so a readines and willing preparation of heart to disclaime these and to hold or professe the contrary if ever it may be fully cleared manifested out of the Scriptures unto them Of this sort we doubt not but many thousands of our fathers were who living in the darknesse thicke mists of their Antichristian superstition upon the Scriptures word of God which they held for the foundation of their saith builded indeed much gold precious stones but with a mixture of much hay stubble drosse thinking but very erroneously the later as well as the former to be contained in that foundation The state of all these is very like to S. Cyprians and those other Africane Bishops which were so earnest for Rebaptizatiō supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures though the foundation of it of those catholike truths that Christ was God or the like was one and the same unto them yet they held not both with like firmnes certainty of faith The doctrine of Christs deity manhood they so beleeved that they would not cōmunicate with any that denied this nay they would rather die then deny it But Rebaptization they so held as not thinking their opposites to be heretikes nor refusing p Haecre scripsimus nemini praescribentes aut praejudicantes quo minus unusquisque quod putaverit faciat habent liberam arbitrij sui facultatē Nos autem cum Collegis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. Epist ad Iubaian in fine vid. August lib. 5. de Baptis ca. 17. to cōmunicate with thē that denyed it so they held this with a certaine faintnes of faith or rather as indeed it was of opinion and not of faith having a preparation in heart to beleeve and professe the contrary if it might at any time be made manifest unto them This S. Austen often witnesseth of Cyprian Satis q Lib. 2. de Baptis ca. 4. ostendit se facillime correcturum he sufficiently declareth that hee would most easily have altered his opinion if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him Againe r Lib. 4 ca. 5. That holy man Cyprian being non solum doctus sed docilis not onely
relies upon a fallible foundation If the Pope in defining such causes be infallible then also can they have no faith seeing by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory Agatho and the rest unto Leo the tenth the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith may bee hereticall as this of Pope Vigilius by their judgement was So whether the Pope in such causes be fallible or infallible it infallibly followeth upon either that none who builds his faith upon that foundation that is none who are members of their present Romane Church can beleeve or hold with certainty of faith any doctrine whatsoever which he professeth to beleeve 29. Here I cannot chuse but to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us and them arising from that diversitie of the foundation which they and we hold their foundation being not onely uncertaine but hereticall and Antichristian poysoneth all which they build thereon it being vertually in them all makes them all like it selfe uncertaine hereticall and Antichristian and so those very doctrines which in themselves are most certaine and orthodoxall by the uncertainty of that ground upon which and for which they are beleeved are overthrowne with us and all Catholikes it fals out otherwise Though such happen to erre in some one or moe doctrines of faith say in Transubstantiation Purgatory or as Cyprian did in Rebaptization yet seeing they hold those errors because they thinke them to be taught in the Scriptures and Word of God on which alone their faith relyeth most firmely and undoubtedly beleeving whatsoever is taught therein among which things are the contrary doctrines to Transubstantiatiō Purgatory Rebaptization such I say even while they doe thus erre in their Explicite profession doe truly though implicitè by consequent and in radice or fundamento beleeve and that most firmely the quite contrary to those errours which they doe outwardly professe and think they doe but indeed doe not beleeve The vertue and strength of that fundamentall truth which they indeed and truly beleeve overcommeth all their errours which in very deed they doe not though they thinke they doe beleeve whereas in very truth they beleeve the quite contrary And this golden foundation in Christ which such men though erring in some points doe constantly hold shall more prevaile to their salvation than the Hay and Stubble of those errours which ignorantly but not pertinaciously they build thereon can prevaile to their destruction and therefore if such a man happen to die without explicite notice and repentance of those errours in particular as the saying of Saint Austen k Lib. 1. de baptism ca. 18. that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecillity the same by his glorious Martyrdome was washed away perswades mee that Cyprian did and as of Irene Nepos Iustine Martyr and others who held the errour of the Chiliasts I thinke none makes doubt it is not to be doubted but the abundance of this mans faith and love unto Christ to whom in the foundation hee most firmely adhereth shall worke the like effect in him as did the blood of martyrdome in Saint Cypran For the baptisme of martyrdome washeth away sinne not because it is a washing in blood but because it testifieth the inward washing of his heart by faith and by the purging Spirit of God This inward washing in whomsoever it is found and found it is in all who truly beleeve though in some point of faith they erre it is as forcible and effectuall to save Valentinian l Ablutus ascendit quē sua fides lavit Amb. Orat. de obitu Valent. neither baptized with water nor with blood and Nepos m Qui jam ad quietem processit ait Dionys apud Euseb l. 1. ca. 23. baptized with water but not with blood as to save Cyprian baptized both with water and with blood Such a comfort and happinesse it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith 30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them Though they explicitè professe Christ to be God which is a most orthodoxall truth yet because they hold this as all other points upon that foundation of the Popes infallible judgement in causes of faith and in that foundation this is denyed Pope Vigilius by his Cathedrall Constitution defining Nestorianisme to be truth and so Christ not to be God it must needs be confessed that even while they doe explicitè professe Christ to bee God they doe implicitè in radice and in fundamento deny Christ to be God and because by the Philosophers rule they doe more firmely beleeve that foundation than they doe or can beleeve any doctrine depending thereon it must needs ensue hence that they doe and must by their doctrine more firmely beleeve the Negative that Christ is not God which in the foundation is decreed then they doe or can beleeve the Affirmative that Christ is God which upon that foundation is builded The truth which upon that foundation they doe explicitè professe cannot possibly be so strong to salvation as the errour of the foundation upon which they build it will be to destruction For the fundamentall errour is never amended by any truth superedified and laid thereon no more than the rotten foundation of an house is made sound by laying upon it rafters of gold or silver but all the truths that are superedified are ruinated by that fundamentall errour and uncertainty on which they all relye even as the beames and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottennesse and unsoundnesse which resteth in the foundation Or if they say that both the assertions which are directly contradictory are from that foundation deduced Caelestine and Leo decreeing the one that Christ is God as Vigilius decreed the other that Christ is not God then doth it inevitably follow that they can truly beleeve neither the one nor the other seeing by beleeving that foundation they must equally beleeve them both which is impossible Such an unhappy and wretched thing it is to hold that erroneous hereticall and Antichristian foundation of faith 31. My conclusion of this point is this Seeing we have first declared that all who are members of the present Romane Church doe hold the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith yea hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines faith and religion doth relye and seeing wee have next demonstrated this to be a fundamentall heresie and not onely an hereticall but an Antichristian foundation condemned by Scriptures by generall Councels by ancient Fathers and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church that now hence followeth which I proposed n Sup. nu 6. to prove that none is or can bee a member of their present Church but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretike by Scriptures generall Councels Fathers and by the uniforme consent of the Catholike Church An heretike first in the very foundation of his faith which
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 d Reg. Iuris 29. 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 c 1 Cor. 14.40 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 f 1 Cor. 14.33 is not the God of confusion g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tumultuationis incōpositi status 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Act. 19.39 a lawfull Synod But if either of 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 i Ib. v. 24. et seq the other Ephesiās who without calling and order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rusht k Ibid. v. 29. run headlong together to uphold the honour of their great Diana which both the Spirit of God condemneth as a confused l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 32. or disorderly assembly and the more wise among them taxed as a riotous and seditious m Periclitamur argui seditionis v. 40. 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 n Mat. 26.59 ca. 27.2 Act. 4.27 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 be one as whē the Empire was united the whole Christiā world subject to his authority or moe as it was when the Empire was devided and ever since that great dissolution of it in the time o Circa an 800. of Charles the great To them and them onely this right to belong I have in two other bookes the one concerning the calling the other concerning the Presidencie in Councels at large and clearly demonstrated I hold them to be so evident truths both by the doctrine of Scripture and by the constant judgement and practice of the Catholike Church for more than eight hundred yeares after Christ that if any would reade the Tomes of the Councels hee had need put out both his eyes if he will not see this 6. To them and them onely is the sword p Rom. 13.2 3. given by God that by it they might maintaine the faith and use it to the praise of them that doe well but take vengeance on them that doe evill They are the nursing q Isa 49.23 fathers of the Church unto whom the eare is committed by God that all his Children to whom they next unto God are fathers be fed with the sincere milke r 1 Pet. 2.2 of Gods word all mixture and poison of heresie and impiety being taken away and severed from it They are like Ioshua ſ Numb 27.17 Psal 78.71 72. and David appointed by God to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pastours t Tam Hebraicè quam in 70. Interpr et apud Hier. legitur ad pascendum Iacob populum suum et pavit eos quod alij vertunt ad regendum even supreme Pastours of the Israel of God not indeed to teach and give the food themselves which duty belongs to their inferiour servants yet to performe those which are the principall most u Non propriè dicitur pascere alium qui cibum quacunque ratione ministrat sed qui procurat et providet alteri cibum quod est certè Praepositi et gubernatoris Actus Pastoralis non est tantum praebere cibum sed etiam ducere c. Bell. lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. ca. 15. § Primū et § Deinde proper Pastoral acts offices procurare ac providere alteri cibū ducere reducere tueri praeesse regere castigare to provide that all the sheepe of Christ have wholesome and convenient food given unto them to lead them bring them backe defend governe and chastise them when they will not obey their Pastorall call and command None of all which Pastorall duties were it possible for Kings to performe if for publike tranquillity and instruction of Gods people they might not by their authority assemble a generall Councell of Bishops and being assembled if they might not defend and uphold all just and equall but castigate and keepe away all violent fraudulent and unjust proceedings in such Councels 7. I purposely said supreme Pastours for none is ignorant that Peter
x John 21.15 17. and all the Apostles equally with him as also all y Cum ei Petro dicitur ad omnes dicitur Amas me â— pasce oves meas Aug. lib. de agone Christ ca. 30. who either in their Presbyteriall or Episcopall authority succeed unto them for in their Apostolicall none of them had or have any successour that all these are Pastours z Ier. 23.1 2. Ezech. 34. per totum et Act. 20 28. et 1 Pet. 5.2 also of Gods flock but they are all subordinate to the Imperiall Pastours of the people of God the sheep-hooke is subject to the Scepter the Crosier to the Imperiall Crowne Concerning Kings Saint Peter gives a generall precept Feare God a 1 Pet. 2.17 and honour the King which honour he expresly calleth subjection b Ibid v. 30. and obedience in the same Chapter first wee owe obedience to God and next God unto Kings and Emperours Concerning all others excepting Kings and such as have Kingly authority Saint Paul gives a like generall precept Let c Rom. 13.1 every soule be subject to the higher powers even to those who by Gods warrant and as his Vicegerents doe beare d Ibid. v. 4. the sword to them every soule ought to be subject who can except thee from this generality This is commanded saith Chrysostome e Chrys in ca. 15. ad Rom. Not onely to secular men but to all to Monkes to Priests and Bishops the Apostle teacheth them ex debito obedire even in duty to obey Kings and Princes sive Apostolus sis sive Propheta sive Euangelista sive quisquis tandem fueris not the Prophets not the Apostles not the Euangelists not any soule is exempt from this subjection and if not Peter himselfe then certainly not his Vicar as the Pope f Quem Primatem diocescos Synodus dixit praeter Apostolâ—â— primi Vicarium Nich. 1. Epist 8. § Quem cals himselfe And this very subjection of the Pope and all Bishops to the Emperours to omit Silvester Iulius Leo and Gregorie Pope Agatho in most submissive manner acknowledgeth almost seven hundred g Conc. 6. habitum an 680 Bar. et Bin. years after Christ h Conc. 6. Act. 4. pa. 22. in Epist Agathonis et Rom. Synodi Omnes nos praesules vestri imperij famuli All we Bishops are the servants of your imperiall highnesse saith Agatho and a Synod of 125 Westerne Bishops with him to which purpose hee cals Italy his servile i Epist Agath Act. 4. pa. 12. b. Province and Rome his servile City adding that he did this at the Emperours sacred command pro obedientiae satisfactione pro obedientia quam debuimus for that obedience which hee did owe to the Emperour nay yet in more lowly manner he saith not that hee but studiosa obedientia nostri famulatus implevit the willing obedience of his owne servitude to the Emperour did performe this Nor was this the profession onely of Agatho and the Westerne Bishops but the whole sixt Councell approved the same Petrus k Sermo acclamatorius Conc. generalis 6. Act. 18. pa. 89. b. per Agathonem loquebatur Saint Peter spake by the mouth of Agatho Now because they all acknowledge the Pope to be the first and chiefe Bishop in the Church for they all in that Councell approve l Defiâ—it Concil 6. Act. 17. pa. 80. a. the Councels of Chalcedon and first Constantinopolitane in both m Conc. 2. Can. 5 et Conc. Chal. Act. 16. post Can. 27. which that is decreed seeing by the confession of Agatho by them approved the Pope is a servant and oweth subjection and obedience to the Emperour much more are all other Bishops in the whole world servants and subjects to the Imperial command and that by the consenting judgment of the whole catholike Church represented in that sixt generall Councell 8. The same Soveraignty and supreme Pastorall authority of Kings is after this againe testified in that which they call the eighth generall Councell more than n Conc. illud 8. habit an 869. Bar. et Bin. eight hundred and sixty yeares after CHRIST Basilius the Emperour said before the Councell in his letters o Conc. 8. Act. 1. pa. 880. b. unto them The government of the Ecclesiasticall ship is by the Divine Providence committed unto us in that ship doth saile all who are members of the Church Bishops or Laicks and the government of the whole ship is given to the Emperour Hee like the Pilot rules and directs all Raderus the Iesuite and Binius following him in stead of nobis have put vobis in the latine text as if Basilius had said that the government of the Church belonged to Bishops not to Emperours It is a Iesuiticall and fraudulent tricke for which no colour of excuse can bee made The Greeke set on the very opposite Page p Apud Rad. pa. 224. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobis in the Surian CollectioÌ„ q Extat apud Bin. to 3. Con. pa. 858. of those Acts it was rightly read nobis their owne Cardinall Cusanus r Cusan lib. 3. de Concor Cathi ca. 19. out of the ancient Acts of that Synod cites it commisisset nobis the very sense inforceth it to be nobis for the Emperour addeth Therefore doe wee with all sollicitude exhort and warne you that you come to the holy Oecumenicall Synod which had beene a most foolish collection had he not said nobis but vobis for then not to him but to them should have belonged the care to call the Bishops to the Synod yet against all these evidences of truth Raderus and Binius falsifie the text corrupt the words and pervert the sense by turning nobis into vobis that so they might deprive the Emperour of that supreme authority which Basilius there professed to belong unto himselfe and the Legates of the Patriarchs in the name of the whole Synod approved the Emperours saying Å¿ Conc. 8. Act. 1. pa. 880. b. Recte Imperatores nostri monuere the Emperours have said well To goe no further in this matter that which was cited out of the Scripture concerning Ioshua and David doth clear this point for seeing all who sit in Imperial thrones are like Ioshua and David to feed the Israel of God and the Israel of God containes the whole flocke and all the sheepe of Christ ex t Bell. lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 15. § At nobis hac ipsa voce Pasce difficile non est demonstrare summam potestatem ei attribut It is easie even by this very word Feed to demonstrate that supreme power doth belong to Kings seeing unto them it is said Feed my sheepe feed my people Wherefore seeing Kings are commanded by God to rule by their Pastorall authoritie all others and all others are commanded to obey and bee subject unto them and their Imperiall commands as unto their supreme Pastour hereupon earth it hence
supra wee have proved 17. This were enough to oppose to all that Facundus and Liberatus say two defenders of the three Chapters and so professed enemies both to the Catholike truth defined in the fift Councell and to Theodorus of Cesarea who first of all suggested the condemning of them to the Emperour Iustinian But now besides this just exception against the Cardinals witnesses I will adde two cleare and authentike proofes to demonstrate both Liberatus and after him Baronius unjustly and falsly to slander Theodorus of Cesarea for an Origenist The former is his owne subscription to the fift Councell In that Councel among other heretikes Origen is not only expresly by name condēned that in their definitive sentence but an Anathema also denounced against all who doe not condemne and anathematize him these are the words of the Councell m Coll. 8. pa. 587 a. b. If any doe not anathematize Arius Emonius Macedonius Apollinarius Nestorius Eutyches Origen with their impious writings talis anathema sit such an one let him bee accursed To this Synodall decree did all the 165. Bishops in the Councell consent and subscribe the eighth man was this Theodorus of Cesarea who subscribed n Coll. eadem pa. 588. b. in this manner I Theodorus decrevi quae proposita sunt have decreed these things which are proposed and I confesse that the truth is as all those Chapters and doctrines above named of which this against Origen is the eleaventh doe containe when Theodorus himselfe confesseth Origen and his writings to bee condemned accurseth them yea and all who doe not accurse them is it not a vile and unexcusable calumny in Liberatus and in Baronius to revile him as a patron of Origen 18. Perhaps you will say hee was in former time an Origenist but at the time of the fift Councell hee was become a new man Though this were admitted yet cannot Baronius bee excused for calling him after that fift Councell an heretike an Origenist But hee was still the same man both now and before orthodoxall as by the other evidence taken from the Emperours Edict in condemning Origen will appeare when the defenders of Origen both for their number and insolency grew very troublesome in the East specially about Ierusalem Pelagius and Mennas as Liberatus o Loco citato saith at the instigation of some religious Monks intreated the Emperour that Origen and his heresies might be condemned the Emperour thereupon published a very large and religious Edict against Origen which he directed to Mennas and the copy therof he sent also to Vigilius and to other Patriarks after many other things the Emp. thus writeth p Edictum Iustin contra Origenem extat to 2. Con. pa. 482. We desiring to put away all offence from the holy Church to leave it without blemish following the divine Scriptures holy fathers who have cast out and justly anathematized Origen and his impious doctrine have sent this our Epistle unto you wherein we exhorte you that you call an assembly or Synod of all the holy Bishops and Abbots who are now in Constantinople and that you see that all of them doe in writing anathematize Origen and his wicked doctrines and all the Chapters out of him under-written and further that you send the Copy of what you have done in this cause to all other Bishops and Abbots within your Patriarkship that they also may all doe the like Besides this the Emperour yet commands that none be ordained Bishop or chosen into any Monastery unlesse forthwith in a booke they accurse and anathematize as Arius Sabellus Nestorius Eutyches and the rest so also Origen and his impious doctrines Thus writ the Emperour and what in this manner hee commanded Mennas to doe in his Patriarkship the like was Vigilius to doe in the Romane Zoilus in the Alexandrian Euphrenius in the Antiochian That according as the Emperour commanded this was done Liberatus q Dictata est in Originem damnatio quam subscribentes c. Liber ca. 23. is witnesse so that by all the Bishops in the world that then were and by such as were after this to bee ordained Origen with his impious doctrines was to bee condemned and accursed Particularly of the Synod or Bishops at Constantinople Baronius r An. 538. nu 83 confesseth The Emperour admonished Mennas to assemble a Synod by which all these things which he had written against Origen might bee confirmed quod factum fuit which was accordingly done and as Cedrenus ſ Ced in compend Annal. saith their sentence was this We condemne all these errours of Origen omnes qui ita sentiunt sentient and all who do either now or her after shall think as he doth condemning themselves with an anathema if either then they did thinke so or ever hereafter should think the like That Theodorus though he had remained at Cesarea subscribed to this sentence I thinke none can doubt the Emperours command being so strict to all Patriarks But indeed it seemeth that Theodorus was not onely at Constantinople at this time and there subscribed but that hee was one of the chiefe agents with the Emperour to publish this Edict for of him Evagrius t Lib. 4. ca. 37. witnesseth that cum Iustiniano assiduè versabatur he was continually conversant with the Emperour hee was faithfull and especially necessary unto him of him Liberatus u Ca. 24. saith that hee was dilectus familiaris Principum deare and familiar both with the Emperour and Empresse of him x An. 451. nu ◠Baronius testifieth that he was praepotens armiger Iustiniani the Champion of Iustinian for so saith he I may well call him that was used to sit at the Emperours Elbow yea of whom y An. 564. nu 7. the Emperour had conceived so great an opinion that hee thought it the chiefe point of his duty or piety ejus semper inhaerere Vestigijs alwayes to tread in the footsteps of Theodorus Thus Baronius Seeing Theodorus was so neare unto so potent with the Emperour so highly esteemed by him that hee alwayes trode in his steps how could Theodorus bee a patron of Origen when the Emperor himselfe accursed and commanded all others to accurse him Did not Theodorus treade out this path of an anathema unto the Emperour or had he been an Origenist how could the Emperour following him step by step be an enemy to Origen Or to omit many other like consequences seeing the Synod of Constantinople as besides Baronius Liberatus witnesseth that is all the Bishops there present among whom Theodorus being neare and deare unto the Emperour and so continually conversant with him was doubtlesse one and one of the chiefe condemned Origen it is not to bee doubted but that he was one of the first and chiefe Bishops that subscribed in that Synod to the condemnation of him Now this was done in the 12. z Hoc tempore 12. is annus Justin Constantinopoli
yeare after it was published was confirmed by Pope Iohn who thus writeth f Epist 1. Ioh. 2. ad Justin to 2. Conc. pa. 404. et Bar. an 534. nu 15. et seq to the Emperour You for the love of the faith and to remove heresie have published an Edict which because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine wee confirme by our authority and againe You have writ and published those things which both the Apostolike doctrine and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed nos in omnibus confirmamus and we confirme it in all points This your faith is the true and certaine religion this all the Fathers Bishops of Rome and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept this confession whosoever doth contradict hee is an alien from the holy Communion and from the Catholike Church Thus Pope Iohn What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius but condemne him for an accursed heretike Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to embrace that profession unum de Trinitate which as the Emperour and Pope witnesse it earnestly embraceth he not onely suspecteth in this place but in plaine termes else-where g Planè comperitur eosdem ipsos Scythiae Monachos Eutycheanos fuisse haereticos Bar. an 519. nu 99. he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans heretikes and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon and that for this cause for that both themselves professed and required others to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate nor content herewith hee addeth these words the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away hee faineth saith Baronius h An. eod nu 102. that these words unus de Trinitate est crucifixus are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon which sentence unus de Trinitate est crucifixus the Legates of the Apostolike Sea prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected as being never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum for they knew that poison did lye under this hony Now seeing by Iustinians Edict and the Popes confirmation thereof all who either refuse or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate are accursed and excluded from the Catholike Church and communion Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure who condemneth that profession as hereticall and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt hee demonstrates himselfe to bee both untrue hereticall rejected out of the Church and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon as favouring the heresie of Nestorius 4. Thirdly whereas hee saith that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth that Christ was unus de sancta Trinitate who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed that though the expresse words were not there yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly implicitely and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon To falsifie the Acts of that Councell or adde one syllable unto it otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration that the Monks and Catholikes whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans never sought to doe as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause against which booke and the Author thereof the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe and call them hereticall hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them his tongue and pen is no slander at least not to weighed but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians out of which in that cause none can extricate him as in another Treatise I purpose God willing to demonstrate 5. Fourthly whereas Baronius saith that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteret because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud That the Synod is well enough without adding those words as an expresse part of the Synodall decree or as written totidem verbis by the Councell of Chalcedon is most true but nothing to the purpose for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee or wish them so to bee added for that had beene to say in expresse words wee will have the decree falsified or written in other words than it was by the Councell But that the Synod was well enough without this additament as an explication of it and declaration of the sense of that Councell is most untrue for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed that to bee the true meaning both of that Councell and of all the holy Fathers And when a controversie is once moved and on foote whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate for a man then to deny this or deny it to bee decreed in the Councell of Chalcedon or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Councell is to deny the whole Catholike faith and the decrees of the foure first Councels and though one shall say and professe in words as did Hormisda and his Legates that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon yet in that they expresly deny this truth which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon their generall profession shall not excuse them but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them both to bee heretikes and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Councell which in a generality they professe to hold but indeed and truth doe not Even as the expresse denying of the manhood or Godhead of Christ or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach or the Nicene fathers decree If Baronius his words that the Councell is right without that additament bee taken in the former sense they are idle vaine and spoken to no purpose which of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined If they bee taken as I suppose they are in the later sense they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Nestorian 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon This saith he which in Hormisdaes dayes they could not now in this
Novemb dicitur enim ibi hesterna die postquam potestas vestra surrexit c. quare ultima Sessio fuit proxima die post Sessionem in qua Actio 14. 15. continentur at actio 14. habita est pridiâ— Kalend. Novâ—b the yeare before that is more than two moneths before that Edict was made In the seventh Session also there is inserted by Binius o Act. 7. pa. 105 b. and Baronius p Bar. an 551. nu 128. an whole Action concerning Domnus who was deposed in the Ephesine Latrociny where the Councel decreed that Maximus should allow Domnus some charges to serve him pro victu vestitu A forged Action and that in the highest degree as not onely the time when it was held to wit on the twenty seventh q Actio de Domno habita est 6. Kalend. Nov Bar. an 451. nu 129. eâ— Bin. Not. ad Conc. Chalc. pa. 18. of October whereas the Session r Nam actio sequens quae etiam alia Sessio est in qua Theodoreti causa tractatur habita est sub octav Kalend. Nov. which followed it was held on the five and twentieth or six and twentieth day of the same moneth doth declare but because this Domnus was dead before the Councell of Chalcedon as both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian t Chalcedonensis Synodus Domnum post mortem condem navit Edict Iust tâ— 2. Concil pa. 498 â— idem repetis Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575 b. and the fift Councell doe certainly witnesse Could the Cardinall have found such additions or forgeries inserted into the Acts of this fift Councell quos ludos daret how would hee have triumphed in the disgrace of these Acts to have writings in them and as parts of them and their Synodall Acts which were not made long after the end of the Councell to have an whole Action or consultation what allowance should be made to a dead man for provision of his food and rayment Here had beene a field indeed for the Cardinall to have insulted over these Acts. And yet notwithstanding these errors in the two first and undoubted additions of the Emperours Edict in the third and that whole ridiculous action nay fiction in the fourth patched unto the Acts of Chalcedon the Cardinall will not so disgrace those Acts as to use his demonstration against the credit of them or that Councell And yet see his unequall and unhonest dealing in these matters because but one name is inserted into the inscription or by an error put in stead of another the Cardinals choler breakes out in this manner against the Acts of this fift Synod Quam fidem u An. 553. nu 46. rogo I pray you what credit is to be given to such Acts 18. Some three or foure errors of the pen besides this of the inscription I confesse are also in the Acts of this fift Synod The fift Collation is sayd to have beene on the eight m Octavo Idus Maias Coll. 5. pa. 537. b. it should bee on the thirteenth or fourteenth of May seeing the fourth Collation was held on the twelfth n Collatio 4. die 4. Idus Maias of that moneth In the same fift Collation o Pa. 548. a. Cyrill is alledged to say Non jam quidem sancta Synodus the holy Synod did not now pronounce a sentence against Nestorius the negation non is by negligence either of Binius or the Printer crept in and is certainly to be blotted out which otherwise not onely makes Saint Cyrill to speake untruly but even to contradict himselfe In the same Action p Pa. 558. b. there is recited an Epistle to Andreas Bishop of Samosat in the inscription whereof Theodorus is written in stead of Theodoretus seeing of the next Epistle being Theodorets it is sayd ejusdem ad Nestorium It may be some few moe such errors may be found in these Acts of the fift Councell but for the honour of them I professe they are so incorrupt and intire that moe than these I doe not remember my selfe to have for a certainty observed in them Neither doe such errours creep only into humane writings their owne learned Iansenius q Cap. 140. Concord Euang. after Beza r Bez in cap. 27 Matth. v. 9. will tell them that the very sacred Scriptures are subject to the same for whereas Matth. 27.9 the Euangelist sayth it is written in the Prophet Ieremy seeing the text there cited is not found in Ieremie but in Zachary although some thinke it to be a slip Å¿ Videtur huc inclinare Aug. lib. 3. de cons Euan. ca. 7. in memory in Saint Matthew others that it is in some apochryphall t Sic Orig. sensit Homil. 35. in Matth. writing of Ieremy others that Zachary had two names as many other Iewes and so might be called either Ieremie or Zacharie yet Iansenius not liking any of these conjectures rests on this answer as most neare the truth that either the name of Zacharie is Scribae culpâ commutatum in Ieremiam by the errour and fault of the writer turned into Ieremy or else that whereas the Euangelist sayd no more but that this is written in the Prophet in which sort without any addition or mention of name some copies to have read that place Saint Austen u Loco citato is witnesse and not onely Rupertus but the Syriack translator read it in the same manner some more audacious hand expressed the name of Ieremy Do you thinke the Cardinall would or durst use his demonstration in this text that seeing a wrong name is inserted not in the title or inscription as in this Epistle it is but in the very text he would account the Gospell a forgery and unworthy of credit It is true they are too too bold even with the Scriptures also whereof they gave a notable proofe first when as it was credibly reported x A Relation of the state of Religion in the West parts fol. l. 4. to the relator some of the Iesuites even in their solemne Sermons in Italy censured Saint Paul for an hot-headed person who was transported with his pangs of zeale and eagernesse beyond all compasse in his disputes and that there was no great reckoning to bee made of his assertions yea that he was dangerous to reade as savouring of heresie in some places and better perhaps he had never written and againe when as some Catholikes y Ibid. told it in the hearing of the relator they held a consultation among them to have censured by some meanes and reformed the Epistle of Saint Paul Though such be their audaciousnesse yet I hope the Cardinall will not bee so censorious with the holy Gospell what hard hap then hath Theodoret that hee alone among all writers divine and humane may not have the benefit of his book at the Cardinalls hand but for one such fault not onely his writing must be rejected as a forgery