Vigilius Dormitans. ROME'S SEER OVERSEEN. OR A TREATISE OF THE fifth General Council held at Constantinople, Anno 553. under justinian the Emperor, in the time of Pope VIGILIUS: The Occasion being those Tria Capitula, which for many years troubled the whole Church. WHEREIN IS PROVED THAT THE POPE'S Apostolical Constitution and definitive sentence in matter of Faith, was condemned as heretical by the Synod. And the exceeding frauds of Cardinal Baronius and Binius are clearly discovered. BY RICH: CRAKANTHORP Dr. in DIVINITY, And Chaplain in ordinary to his late Majesty KING JAMES. Opus Posthumum. PUBLISHED AND SET FORTH BY His Brother GEO: CRAKANTHORP, According to a perfect Copy found written under the Authors own hand. LONDON, Printed by M. F. for ROBERT MYLBOURNE in Paul's Churchyard at the sign of the Greyhound. M DC XXXI. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE EDWARD LORD NEWBURGE Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and one of the Lords of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Counsel. RIGHT HONOURABLE, IN all duty and submission I here present unto your Lordship a Treatise concerning the fifth general Council held at Constantinople, the cause being the Controversy of the Three Chapters which for many years troubled the whole Church, and was at length decided in this Council held under justinian that religious Emperor. This Treatise, now printed, was long ago penned by one well known unto your Honour; your sincere affection to the truth of God and God's cause, gives me good assurance of your favourable acceptance hereof. I confess indeed, that when I call to mind the manifold affairs wherein your Honour is daily employed, the very thought hereof had almost persuaded me not to interrupt your more serious affairs, by drawing your Honour to the reading or view of this Book: but when I call to mind those respects of love and duty, in which the Author hereof stood bound unto your Lordship, I was again encouraged in his name to tender it to your Honour: And although I myself can challenge no interest in your Lordship's favour to offer this, yet your Lordship may challenge some interest in the fruits of his labours, who was so truly (as I can truly speak) devoted unto your Honour. Among many other, he especially acknowledged two assured bonds of love and duty by which he was obliged unto you, and your friends; the former arose from that unfeigned affection which you ever bore him from your first acquaintance in the College; that other, by which he was further engaged unto you, and your friends, was, when in a loving respect had unto him in his absence, without any means made by him, or knowledge of his, he was called by that much honoured Knight Sir john Levison his Patron, your Father in law, unto the best a Black Notley in Essex. means of livelihood he ever enjoyed in the Ministry, where spending himself in his studies, he ended his days; during which time your Honour made your affection further known unto him by special expressions of extraordinary favours: In regard whereof I persuaded myself, that I could no where better crave Patronage for this work, than of your Honour, that it may be a further testimony of his love again, who cannot now speak for himself. And this I entreat leave to do, the rather, because I doubt not but he acquainted your Lordship with his pains and intent in this, and other Tractates of the Counsels; b See his Epistle to the Reader for the defence of justinian, printed Anno 1616. for when after diverse years study bestowed in this argument of Counsels, he was desirous to make some use of his labours; his intent was, to reduce all those points into four several Books; 1. That the right of calling general Counsels; 2. That the right of highest Presidency in them; 3. That the right of the last and supreme Confirmation of them; is only Imperial and not Papal. 4. That all the lawful general Counsels which hitherto have been held, consent with ours, and oppugn the doctrines of the present Church of Rome. Some of these he finished, the fourth he could not so much as hope to accomplish, and therefore after the examining of some particulars therein, he desisted and weaned himself from those studies: And yet after some years' discontinuance, being by some of his learned friends solicited to communicate to others, at least some one Tract in that argument, consenting to their earnest desire, after long suspense he resolved on this Treatise, as being for weighty and important matters most delightful unto him. That it was not then published, let it not seem strange unto your Honour, for having long since finished the Tract of this whole Council, it was his purpose, that it should have undergone the public view and judgement of the Church; but when he came (as I can truly testify) unto them, whose art and aid is needful in such a business, and found an averseness in them, for that it wholly consisted of controversal matters, whereof they feared that this age had taken a satiety, he rested in this answer, as willing to bury it. After this, being upon a special command from his Majesty, King james of blessed memory, made known unto him by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury, to address himself to c Disensio Ecclesiae Angliccont. Archiep. Spal. another work, he then desisted from his former intended purpose, and in finishing of that last work of his, he ended his days. Some few years after his death being desirous to take a view of some of his Papers, I came to the view and handling of this book, a book fully perfected for the Press in his life time, the publishing whereof being long expected, and of many earnestly desired, it was my desire and theirs, to whose most grave and judicious censure I willingly submitted it, that it might be published for the benefit of God's Church; and the rather, that it might give some light in the study of the Counsels, and animate some of the d Eccles 3.7. threescore valiant men that are about Salomon's bed, being of the expert and valiant men of Israel, unto the attempting and undertaking of the like: Now what his desire was in this, and other of his labours, surely none but the very enemies of God and God's truth, can take it to be any other than to testify his unfeigned love unto God and God's Church, and to subdue the pride, idolatries and impieties of that Man of sin, and to e jude Epist. v. 5 strive for the maintenance of the true faith. Now what allowance so ever it may find abroad among our adversaries, it humbly craves your favourable acceptance at home; and as it is published with no other intent than to gain glory to God, and good to his Church, so I doubt not but that God, who f 2 Cor. 4.6. causeth light to shine out of darkness, will effectually in time bring to pass, that not only their violent oppugning of the truth, but their fraudulent dealing also against the same, will, if not breed in themselves, yet increase in all well-willers unto the truth, a constant dislike, nay, detestation of their heretical and Antichristian doctrines, and for yourself my earnest and continual prayer to God shall be, that you may ever continue your religious and ardent desire to advance God's truth and honour here, which will procure your own immortal fame in this world, and, through God's mercy in Christ, eternal felicity in that life, which, being unlike to this, shall neither have end of days, nor end of blessedness. Barton near Bury S. edmond's in Suffolk, April 29. 1631. Your Lordships humbly devoted GEO: CRAKANTHORP. AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE CHRISTIAN REAder touching the Scope, Argument and manifold Use of this ensuing Treatise. IT is not ambition to live in other men's writings, but desire, if I could, to breathe some life into them, which hath drawn me of late rather to preface other men's works, than to perfect mine own. It grieved me much to see such evidences lie in the dark, which being produced to public view, would give singular light to the truth: And if Socrates, the mirror of modesty in a Philosopher, held it no disparagement to profess, that he performed the office of a Midwife to other men's wits, by helping them in the delivery of those conceptions wherein himself had no part: why should I either fear or regard any detraction from the living, for a charitable office in this kind to the dead? doubtless if the office of a Midwife be at any time needful, it is then most necessary, when the living Child is to be taken out of the dead womb of the parent: Such was this Posthumus, in whom I hope the observation of a Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 9 Auspicacius enecta Parente nascuntur, sicut Scipio Africanus primusque Caesarum à Caeso matris utero dictus: simili modo natus et Manlius qui Carthaginem cum exercitu intravit. Pliny concerning children thus borne will be verified: For the most part (saith he) those Children prove most lively and fortunate, of whom the Parents die in travel; never seeing them live, who cost them their lives. The instances are many & very illustrious, Fabius b Tert. lib. de resur. carnis. Possamus illos recogitare qui execto matris utero vivi aerem banserunt, Laberij aliqui et Scipiones et Fabius Caeso t●r Consul. Caeso thrice Consul, Scipio surnamed the African, julius Caesar the first & most renowned of all the Roman Emperors, and our peerless K. Edward 6. Howbeit I confess, it is an hard thing to calculate the nativity of a Book, and certainly foretell what hazard the impression of a Treatise of this subject may run or guess what argument will please the diverse tastes of this distempered age; yet this I am confident of, that all who exactly view this work in all parts, and compare it with others, drawn with the same Pencil, will esteem it like the c Cic. Orator. Minerva of Phidias his Masterpiece: It cost him near as many years labour as Isocrates Panegyrique, the Prime rose of his flowery Garden, did him. This Author perfected this work in his life time, and commanded it, after a sort, to the Press in the last d Def. Eccles. Angl. cap. 4. p. 19 De quo toto Concilio conscriptum scias à me librum integrum, in quo innumerabiles Baronij frauds, mendacia, etiam et hereses palam detecta, etc. book he published by command from supreme authority in defence of the Church of England against the calumnies of the revolted Archbishop of Spalata, (in these words:) The Church had been undone if Vigilius his decree had taken place; But the most holy Emperor justinian, and the fifth Council then happily showed themselves Pillars of the Catholic faith; concerning which whole Council I desire you to take notice of an entire book written by me, wherein the innumerable frauds, lies and heresies of Baronius are manifestly detected; out of that book, if it see light and come to your hands, you shall understand and plainly perceive how frail and reedy your Roman Pillar is. In which passage he insinuates, that the argument of it is, non de stillicidiis, aut aquis pluviis, not of Eves droppings or water passages, but of the Roof of the house and Arch itself, the authority of Counsels, and the infallibility of the Papal Chair. The Title carried through the whole book, carrieth not the greatest part of it, plus e Quintil. instit. Orat. lib. 1. 5●.4. in recessu est, quam à fronte promittit; his warehouse within is fraught with more variety of rich stuffs than is set out on his shop. An entire Treatise of the fifth general Council, he professedly undertaketh; but currente rota, in the prosecution of this argument, he taketh tardy Baronius, and Binius, and other Romish falsaries; he runneth through all the later general Counsels; he substantially handleth the main Controversies concerning the power of calling, and authority ratifying Ecclesiastical Synods, and so cleareth all Antiquity on the Reformed side in points of great moment, that I persuade myself, the wiser sort of our learned adversaries, who will by stealth get a sight thereof, will take good counsel, and utterly derelinquish their most glorious, but most vain and false claim to general Counsels; for if we divide the Counsels, that bear the style of Ecumenical and General, according to the different times in which they were held, into pure, mixed, and wholly corrupt; the first of undoubted, the second of doubtful, the third undoubtedly of no authority at all; the first are wholly ours, the last are wholly theirs, in the middle sort we part stakes with them: 4. of the first rank have been heretofore wrested perforce out of the Romanists hands by Bishop jewel, Bish. Bilson, Dr Reinolds, Dr Whitaker and others. The fifth, this accomplished Antiquary vindicates also from them, and declareth how in the Counsels of the second rank we share with them; and in fine he leaveth them nothing entirely, but the lees and dregs of all Counsels, the Lateran and Trent. Habeant quod sunt, let them have these lees to themselves, who themselves, Moab-like, for these many ages are settled upon the lees of their own corruption. Had this judicious and industrious Writer bend all his forces against the Romanists false pretended right to general Counsels, and forcibly beat them out of that Hold only, he had deserved that Eulogium which the f Paulus Fagius Epist. ad Albertum, est magu●religio apud judaeos non subjicere nomen eius qui boni aliquid dixit, docuit aut scripsit. jews give any Rabbin, to whom they are indebted for any wise saying or apt note upon any Scripture text, g Vid. comment. Rabb. passim. ZICRONO LIBRACHA, sit memoria ejus in benedictione, blessed be his memory: how much more when he assaulteth the main fort of the Romish faith, and by impregnable authorities and infallible reasons over-throweth the Pope's supposed infallibility, when he sits in his Chair, and with his Roman Synod, determineth out of it questions, and defineth Articles of faith. This is indeed to let Rome bleed in her Master-veine, to strike heresy at the root, to crush the Cockatrice in the head, not to batter and break down the mudd-wals, but utterly to ruinate the very foundation of the Tower of Babel. For howsoever Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, and the Catholic 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 Counsels, and authority, at lest quoad nos, to the Scriptures themselves. This their Champion Bellarmine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Skulkenius his second confidently undertakes to maintain against all oppugners of the Pope's transcendent power, and uncontrollable verdict in matters of eternal life and death. The h Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca 1 in disputatione de verbo Dei. jam ostendimus iudicem controversiarum non esse scripturam, nec seculares Principes, etc. ac proinde ullimum iudicium summi Pontificis esse. Cardinal thus flourisheth, In our disputations about the word of God we have already showed, that the Scripture is not the judge of Controversies, nor are secular Princes, nor private persons, though learned and honest, but Ecclesiastical Prelates; in our disputations of the Counsels it shall be demonstrated, that Counsels general and particular may judge of Controversies in religion, but that judgement of theirs is then of force and validity when the Pope shall confirm it, and therefore that the last judgement of all is the Popes, to which all good Catholics owe such absolute obedience, that i Bell. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. ca 5 in fine. St Papa errayet praecipicudo vitia, vel proh●bendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia cr●dere vitia esse bona, et virtutes, malas, nisi vellit contra 〈◊〉 scuntiata p●ccare. if the Pope should err by commanding vices and prohibiting virtues, the Church is bound to believe, that vices are good, and virtues bad, unless she will sin against Conscience. What, sin against Conscience in not sinning, and not sin against Conscience in committing sins known by the light of nature, if the Man of sin command the one and forbid the other? Woe be to them, saith the Prophet, that call evil good, and good evil, put darkness for light, and light for darkness, bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter, Esay. 5.20. If Bellarmine's divinity be currant, Pope Pius the fourth needed not to have coined twelve new Articles k Bull Pij 4. super forma juramenti profession●s fidei, anno Dom. 1564. of faith, affixed to the Canons of the Council of Trent: it had been sufficient to have added this one, I believe in the Pope his sovereign infallibility, for this is prora and puppis, the Alpha and Omega, the formalis ratio and demonstratio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Papists belief. The Pope's power (saith Skulkenius l 〈◊〉. Apolog. pro Bell. ca 6. Pontificia potestas est vel ut carao, fund●mētū, et ut uno verbo dicam, summa fidei Christianae. ) is the hinge and foundation, and, to speak in a word, the sum of Christian faith: A short sum and soon cast up. What then serves Fathers, Counsels, Church-Traditions, and Scripture itself for with them? for little better than cyphers, which being added to the Pope's authority in their Arithmetic makes something, but without it nothing. To begin with Scriptures, they believe them to be divine, but not because the Scripture saith, that all Scripture m 2 Tim. 3.1 b. is given by divine inspiration: For so (saith n Bell. de verbo Dei non scripto lib. 4. ca 4. Etiam si scriptura dicat libros Prophetarum, et Apollo●orum esse divino, tame● non certo id credam, nisi prius credidero, scripturam quae hoc dicit esse divinum, nam etiam in Accl●orano Mahometi passim legimus ipsum Alchoranum de Caelo à Deo missu, &c Bellarmine) we read every where in the Alcoran of Mahomet, that the Alcoran was sent from God, yet we believe it not; why then do they believe them to be the word of God? he answers readily, propter traditionem Ecclesiae, for the Church's tradition. o Quicunque non innititur doctrinae Romanae Ecclesiae, ac Romani Pontificis tanquam regulae fidei infallibili, à quâ etiam sacra Scriptura robur trahit et authoritatem, haereticus est: contra Luther●i. Silvester Pierius outvies the Cardinal, affirming, that the holy Scripture taketh force and authority from the Roman Church and Pope. Upon which pr●mise of Pierius, Gretzer p Gre●z. desc●s. Bell. lib. 1. de verbo Dei. Id solum proverbi Dei veneramur acsuscipi●us, quod ●obis Pontifice● ex Cathedra Petri tra●unt. infers this peremptory conclusion, We do receive and reverence that alone for the word of God which the Pope in Peter's Chair doth determine to be so. Strange divinity to believe, that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, that is, that God receives his authority from man. May we not justly upbraid the present Romanists, as Tertulian q Tertul. Apos. 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 man's valuation, unless God please man, he shall not be God; now man must be propitious to God; for if the Pope be not propitious to the Scripture to allow it for God's word, it shall not pass for such in Rome. As for the Fathers; they deal with their writings as Faustus Manicheus did with the writings of the Apostles, in r August. lib. 11. contra Faustum Manicheum, ca 2. inde proboinquichat Faustus, hoc illius esse, illud non esse, quia hoc pro me sonat, illud contra me. which he takes it for a good proof, that such passages are the Apostles true writings, because they made for him; others were spurious, because they made against him: Fathers, saith s Dureus adversus Whitakerum, fol. 100L. Neque enim patres censentur, cum suum aliquid quod ab ecclesia non acceperunt, velseribunt vel dicunt. Dureus, are not to be accounted Fathers, when they teach or write any thing of their own, which they have not received from the Church, meaning the Roman; and Gretzer t Gretz lib. 2. de iure & more proh●bendi libros nox os. ca 10. Nam Ecclesiae pater ille dicitur, qui Ecclesiam salutari doctrine pabulo alit et pascit, iam ergo si prosalutari doctrinae pabulo admetiatur Lolium et Z●zania non Pater est sed Vetricus. backs this assertion with a reason drawn from the formal definition of a Father: for, saith he, he is a father of the Church, who feeds and nourisheth the Church with wholesome doctrine, who being set over the Lord's household, gives them their measure of Corn in due season; now if in stead of wholesome food and good Corn he give them Cockle and Tares, he becomes no father but a stepfather, no Doctor but a seducer. To instance in some particular; Eusebius Caesariensis when he seems to favour Popery, he is highly extolled by Lindane u Lindan. Pano●tia lib. 1. ca 17. , Senensis x Senensis Bib. S. titulo Ensebius. , and Possevine y Possevinus in apparatu sacro. , he is then a most famous writer of the Church, most learned, worthy to be Bishop, not of one City only, but of the whole world; but when the same Eusebius looks awry upon Rome, than he is branded by Canus z Canus locorum Theol. lib. 7. ca 3 , Costerus a Coster. in Apolog. contra Gre●inc. ca 8. , and Baronius b Baron. ad annum 340. , for a stickler for Arrius, an Arrian heretic, a ringleader of the Arrian faction, whose memory is accursed in the second Synod of Nice. Tertullian likewise is guilded by Lindanus c Lind. panoplia lib. 1. cap. 23. and Rehing d Rehing. in muris Civitatis sanctae fund. 2. et 12. , with the glorious titles of a very noble author, the chief of all the Latin Fathers, the great light of Africa, a most ancient Writer and Doctor, most learned, most skilful, most acute; where he hath some passages which may be detorted to give countenance to some Romish superstitions: But elsewhere when in express words he oppugneth some doctrines defined now for Articles of faith in the Church of Rome, he is as much besmeared with foul imputations by Azorius e Azorius moral. lib. 8. cap. 16. , Maldonate f Maldon. in Math. cap. 16. vers. 19 p. 340. , and Bellarmine g Bell. de sanctorum beat. lib. 1. ca 5. p. 1938. Bell. de Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 6. p. 698. , An heretical author, an Archheretic, an enemy to the Catholic, and like to the Calvinists, a man whose authority is not much to be set by, because he was no man of the Church: and as Euseb. & Tertull. so also Origen hath had contrary testimonials from the Church of Rome, where he pleaseth them he is h 〈◊〉. Panopl. lib. 3. c. 24. et 26. a famous light of the Church of Alexandria, whom S. Hier. calls another M ● of the Churches after the Apostles, a i 〈◊〉 contra Whitac. fol. 109. witness beyond all exception; But when he fits not their humours, than he is a Schismatic k Canus loc. Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Maldon. in joan. cap. 1. vers. 3. pag. 399. , a father of the Arrians and Eunomians, a bold l Rib●●a in Malach. Prophet. proemium. and rash man, an obstinate lover of his own errors. In Counsels the case is yet clearer, for the Cardinal sticks not in most plain terms to hang all them upon the Pope's sleeve: The m Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. ca 3 Tota firmitas legitimorum Conciliorum est à Pontifice Romano, et cap. 1. whole strength & authority (saith he) of lawful Counsels is from the Pope, their n Conciliorum iudicium tum demum firmum est came accesserit Rome Pontificis confirmatio. judgement then begins to be of force after the Pope shall ratify them. And what Counsels will he ratify? you may be sure not the Council in Trulio, for that taxeth the Roman Church by name for enforcing single life upon the Clergy: not the Council at o An. Do. 681. Constantinople, under Constantine Pogonate, for that accurseth Honorius the Pope for an heretic: not the Council held at Frankfort p An. Do. 794. in the time of Pope Adrian, for that condemneth their Image-worship: not the Synod of Pisa q An. Do. 1409. , for in that Gregory and Benedict Popes, were deposed: not the Synod r An. Do. 1430. of Basil, wherein Eugenius was unpoped; nor the Council of Constance s An. Do. 1414. , for in it a general Council is set above the Pope, and three Popes were cashiered by their Authority, (I except the later Sessions of the same condemned Council, which are Gospel with them, because they Anathematise the Wicliffists and Hussites:) But the t An. 787. second Synod of Nice shall be held for a general Council, because it defendeth and commandeth the worship of Images; Irene. though it be full of blasphemous absurdities and was called by an insolent woman domineering over her husband, and devoted wholly to superstition. The Council u An. Do. 1517. of Lateran, though consisting of none in a manner, but the Pope's creatures, shall, in despite of the Ecumenical Counsels of Pisa, Constance and Basil, be held a holy and general Council, because it defines, that the Pope is above general Counsels; and for greater reason will the Pope advance the small Conventicle of Trent to the honour of a sacred Ecumenical Council, because it is throughly for them in all points; though, as a learned Bishop, present at that Council, truly affirms, that matters in it came to that pass through the wickedness of those hungry x Dudithius quinque Eccles. Epist. ad Maximilianum secundum Caesarem. Bishops, that hung upon the Pope's sleeve, and were created on the sudden by the Pope for the purpose, that that Council seemed to be an assembly, not of Bishops, but of Hobgoblins, not of men, but of Images moved like the statues of Daedalus, by the sinews of others. Lastly, for their pretended title of Catholic Church, it may be said of it as it was of Pompeius' y Lucau de bello ●iu. l. 1. Surname in his declining age and fame, Stat magni nominis umbra, 'tis but the shadow of a great name; for by it they mean nothing but their particular Church of Rome, or the Pope himself: Thus Bellarmine glosseth upon the words of our Saviour, Matth. 16. the Pope, Peter's successor, is bid to z Bell de Concil. author. l. 2. c. ●●. Dicere Ecclesiae, id est, sibi ipsi ut praesidi et Ecclesiae, cui ipse praeest. tell the Church, that is, to tell himself as Governor, and the Church which he governs. Gretzer a Gretz defen. Bell. lib. 3. de verbo Dei: Ait tertiò interpretantur Ecclesiam Pa●am, non ab●●o, quid tum? comes off more roundly; Thou wilt say, they interpret the Church the Pope: I grant it; what then? And b 2 a. 2●. disput. 1. q. 1. Greg de Valent. By the name of the Church we understand the Head of the Church, the Pope: and Bozius c Boz lib. 2. de signis Eccl. ca 21. See farther in this Treatise, cap. 13. p. 17●. declares this mystery more explicitly, The Pope sustaineth the person of all Bishops, of all Counsels, of the whole Church. The learned Author then of this ensuing Tractate foiling the Pope, consequently foileth the whole Roman Church, though he take only Vigilius to task, yet in overturning his Chair he overthroweth, as hath been showed, all the Roman religion, which is fundamentally in the Pope's Decree, and the whole Roman Church, which is virtually, as they teach, in his person. For as Pope Vigilius, not as a private man, but as Pope in Cathedra, not sitting alone, but with his Synod, may err, not only in matter of fact, but in matter of faith, judicially and doctrinally determining heresy, and commanding it to be received for Catholic truth: and if this decision and determination of his be reversed, condemned and accursed in a lawfully called, sacred and Ecumenical Synod, approved by the Christian world, all which are in the following Treatise punctually and uncontrollably proved against all cavils of modern Papists, — Ecquis posthac Paparum numen adoret? Will any man hereafter, not wholly given over to be infatuated with strong delusions, adore the Pope's Chair? or kiss his foot? or pawn his salvation upon his Cathedral determination? By all this discourse thou mayst see, Christian Reader, the main scope of the Author; I shall not need to enlarge upon other questions of lesser moment, though now more in vogue, which upon the by and occasionally this learned Writer accutely handleth both in this work and others, especially in that imposed upon him by our late Sovereign of blessed memory, in defence of our Church, Chap. 35, 36, 37, 38, & 78. Wherefore sith the Composer of this Treatise is most orthodoxal, the argument of great importance, the manner of handling very exact and accurate, I doubt not but thou wilt give it such entertainment, as that thereby others may be encouraged to tread in his steps, and to guide thee in the right way. What though the work be of some bulk and weight? who ever found fault with gold for that it was too massy and heavy? When Tully d Plut. in vit. Cicer. was asked which Oration of Demosthenes he liked best, he answered, the longest; and questionless in books of this nature, caeteris paribus, the largest which meet with all possible, or at least probable objections, and solidly refutes them, give the best satisfaction. Is it not a shame to see in many men's studies idle Poems,, Astrea's, Guzman's, and playbooks in folio, but divinity books in decimo sexto, or slender pamphlets, stitched up in blue coats, without any cognizance, glancing at Church or State, or trenching upon Controversies better buried alive, than to be revived after they are dead; which are cried up by the common adversary, of purpose to foment discords between the professors of the Gospel, that whilst, pastors odia exercent, Lupus intret Ovile, the shepherds are at strife, the Wolf may make havoc of the flock; which I speak not for a justitium to any error, or that I wish any way should be given to those plausible tenants to corrupt reason, which one of late fitlv compared to flat bottomed Boats sent from our neighbouring Countries to land Popery in England. But first my desire is, that all that agree in the love of the same truth, may seek that truth in love, and continually e Psal. 122. pray for the peace of jerusalem; next I pray, that f Phil. 1.9. our love may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all judgement, that we may discern things that differ, and so seek by all good and lawful means to destroy the wriggling tail of the Adder, whose head was smitten off 1200. years ago in a Synod at Palestine, that yet our principal care be to drive out the Romish Basilisk, or rather the g Apoc. 9.11. King of the Locusts, against whose poison I commend the ensuing Discourse as a sovereign antidote. Lambeth, April 26, Anno Dom. 1631. Thine in the Lord jesus DANIEL FEATLEY THE CONTENTS OF THE SEVERAL CHAPTERS CONTAINED IN THIS ENSVING TREATISE. Cap. 1. THat justinian assembled the fifth general Council at Constantinople, to define the doubt of faith which arose about the Three Chapters. Pag. 1. 2. That the fifth General Council, when Pope Vigilius wilfully refused to come unto it, was held without the Pope's presence therein, either by himself, or by his Legates. pag. 4. 3. That Pope Vigilius, during the time of the fifth Council, published his Apostolical Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters. p. 7. 4. That the holy General Council in their Synodall judgement contradicted the Pope's Apostolical Constitution, and definitive sentence in that cause of faith made known before unto them. 14. 5. The first Exception of Baronius, pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith, refuted. 36. 6. That the first reason of Vigil. touching the First Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, Because none after their death ought Noviter to be condemned, concerns the faith, and is heretical. 47. 7. That the second reason of Vigilius touching the First Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because he died in the peace and Communion of the Church, is erroneous and untrue. 58. 8. That the third and last reason of Vigilius, touching the First Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because he was not condemned by former Fathers and Counsels, is erroneous and untrue. 67. 9 That Vigilius, besides diverse personal, held a doctrinal error in faith, in his defence of the Second Chapter, which concerns the writings of Theodorus against Cyril. Pag. 91. 10. That Vigilius and Baronius err in diverse personal points, or matters of fact concerning the Third Chapter, which was the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris. 107. 11. That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, drawn from the union with Cyrill, mentioned in the later part of that Epistle, do defend all the heresies of the Nestorians. 112. 12. That Vigilius and Baronius in their later reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, taken from the words of Ibas, wherein he confesseth Two natures and One Person to be in Christ, do maintain all the heresies of the Nestorians. 138. 13. Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chapters, refuted; and two other against them confirmed; the one, That to descent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an heretic nor a Schismatic: the other, That to assent in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome, makes one both an Heretic and a Schismatic. 170. 14. The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresy, For that he often professeth to hold the Council of Chalcedon, and the faith thereof, refuted. 199. 15. The third Exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius, taken from his confirming of the fifth Council, answered: and how Pope Vigilius three or four times changed his judgement in this cause of faith. 213. 16. That the Decree Pope of Vigil. for Taciturnity, touching the Three Chapters, and the Council wherein it is supposed to be made, and all the Consequents upon that Decree, painted out by Baronius, are all fictions and Poetical. 225. 17. That Vigilius neither by his Pontifical Decree, nor so much as by a personal profession, consented to, or confirmed the fifth Council, after the end thereof, or after his supposed exile. 240. 18. The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius, pretending, That the fifth Council, wherein the Decree of Vigilius was condemned, was neither a general nor a lawful Council, till Vigilius confirmed the same, refuted. 266. 19 The true notes to know which are General and lawful, which either are not General, or being General, are no lawful Counsels, with diverse examples of both kinds; and that none of those which the Romanists do reckon after the sixth, are General lawful Counsels. Pag. 291. 20. How Cardinal Baronius revileth the Emperor justinian, and a refutation of the same. 324. 21. How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empress, and a refutation of the same. 355. 22. How Baronius declameth against the Cause itself of the Three Chapter, and a refutation of the same. 361. 23. How Baronius revileth both the Imperial Edict of justinian, and Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and a refutation of the same. 363. 24. How Baronius carpeth at the Synodall Acts of the fifth Council, as corrupted, and a refutation in general of the same. 377. 25. The 1. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Text of the Council at Chalcedon is changed therein, refuted. 381. 26. The 2. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that Ibas is said therein to have denied the Epistle written to Maris to be his, refuted. 386. 27. The 3. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Council of Chalcedon is said therein to condemn the Epistle of Ibas, refuted. 389. 28. The Three first Defects in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Acts against the Origenists, The Edict of justinian, And his Epistle touching that cause, are wanting therein, refuted. 391. 29. The 4. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Emperor's Epistle to the fifth Council is wanting therein, refuted. 398. 30. The 5. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius, concerning the Three Chapters is wanting therein, refuted. 399. 31. The 6. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Decree which advanced jerusalem to a patriarchal dignity is wanting therein, refuted. 403. 32. The two first Additions to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius, And the two laws of Theodosius, are falsely inserted therein, refuted. 408. 33. The 3. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the Union, is falsely inserted therein, refuted. 413. 34. The 4. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Epistle of Theodoret to john Bishop of Antioch, is falsely inserted therein, refuted. 422. 35. That Baronius himself followeth many forged writings in handling this cause of the fifth Council, as particularly the Excommunication ascribed to Vigilius, and the Confession ascribed to Mennas, Theodorus, and others. 440. 36. That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his coming to Constantinople, and a refutation thereof: with a Description of the life of the same Vigilius. 462. A TREATISE OF THE fifth GENERAL COUNCIL held at Constantinople under justinian, in the time of Pope Vigilius: Wherein the exceeding fraud and falsehoods of Cardinal Baronius are clearly discovered. CAP. I. That the Emperor JUSTINIAN assembled the fifth General Council, to define a doubt of Faith, about The three Chapters. CONCILIA generalia mea sunt; primum, ultimum, media, saith their Roman a Camp. Ra●. 4. Thraso; General Councils are all ours, the first, the last, & the middle. All's mine, as said the Devil to the Collier. A vaunt too vain, too Thrasonical. Divide the Councils aright, and let each have his own due part and portion, and then all the five first, and so much as they account the sixth, that is, all which were held for 600. years and more; All the golden Councils, and of the golden ages of the Church, are ours only, and not theirs, in many and even in the main points of Religion, repugnant to them and their doctrines: but in every Decree, Canon, and Constitution of faith, so consonant to us, that we not only embrace, but earnestly defend them all, as the rightful and proper inheritance left unto us by those holy Fathers of the ancient and Catholic Church. The middle rank, beginning at the second Nicene, unto the Council of Florence, which were held in those ages of the mingled and confused Church, none of them are either wholly ours or wholly theirs, those miscellane Councils, are neither thy nor mine, but they must all be divided. The two last, the one at Lateran, the other at Trent, which are the very lees and dreggs of Councils, held only by such as were the dross of the Church quite severed from the gold, we willingly yield unto them: they and they only are wholly theirs, let them have, let them enjoy their Helenaes', we envy not such refuse Councils unto them. 2. When first I set myself to the handling of this argument concerning the Councils, it was my purpose, besides those other general questions, concerning the right of calling general Councils, the right of presidency in them, and the right of confirming them, to have made manifest those three several points, touching those three ranks of Councils; every one of which, is not only true, but even demonstrable in itself. And though with a delightful kind of toil I have made no small progress therein, yet alas, how unequal am I to such an Herculean labour? whose time, whose strength of body, or industry of mind, is able to accomplish a work of such amplitude, and of so vast extent, for which not Nestor's age would suffice? Wherefore turning my sails, from this so long, and tedious a voyage, which I could not so much as hope to end, & which beside many dangerous rocks, hidden Syrteses and sands, is every where beset by many Roman enemies, specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages, with whom at every turn, almost, one shall be sure to have an hot encounter; I thought a shorter course far more fit, for my small and unfurnished bark, and despairing of more or longer voyages, I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut only over some one arm of that great Ocean, not doubting but the ice being once broken, and the passage through these straits opened, many other will with more facility, and felicity also, perform the like in the rest, until the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished. 3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fifth, held at Constantinople in the time of the Emperor justinian and Pope Vigilius, for authority equal to the former, it being, as well as they, approved by the consenting judgement of the Catholic Church; for antiquity venerable, being held within 600. years after Christ, even in those times while as yet the dross had not prevailed and got the predominancy above the gold, as in the second Nicene Synod and succeeding ages it did: for variety of weighty and important matters, more delightful than any of the rest; and, which I most respected of them all, most apt to make manifest the truth and true judgement of the ancient and Catholic Church touching those Controversies of the Pope's supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement, which are of all other most ventilated in these days. 4. The occasion of this Council were those Tria capitula, as they were called, which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church: to wit, The person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead: the writings of Theodoret B. of Cyrus against Cyril: and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris: all which three Chapters were mentioned in the Council at b Act. 8, 9, 10. Chalcedon. 5. The Nestorians (whose heresy was condemned in the third general Council) when they could no longer under the name of Nestorius' countenance their heresy, very subtly endeavoured to c Nestorij sequaces propriam impieta●● applicare valentes sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, & non potentes hoc per Nestorium facere, festinaverunt 〈◊〉 introducer per Theodorum Mopsvesi●num, necnon per impia scripta Theodore●i, & per sce●eratam. Epistolam quae dicitur 〈◊〉 ad M●r●n. Iust. Ep. ad Syn. 5. Col. 1. pa. 51●. b. L●ë habet ●oncilium ipsum in sua sententia definitiva. Col. 8. pa. 584. & L●b. c. 10 revive the same, by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia and his writings, as also the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris. This after the Council of Chalcedon they more earnestly applied, then before, pretending d Theod●ri et Nestorij sequa●es conan tur di●e●e susceptam esse eam (Epistolam Iba) à 5. Chalcedonensi Conc. nomine ejus Theodorum & Nestorium condemnatione liberare sestinantes. Iust. Edict § Tali. Et iterum Epist. Iust. ad Synod. Col. 1. pa 519 b. Et Diceb●nt istam impiam Epistolam quae laudat et defendit Theodorum et Nestorium et eorum impietatem susceptam esse à Synodo Chalc. Conc. 5. Col. 8 pa. 585. b. that not only the persons of Theodoret and Ibas (who both had sometimes been very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies) but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas, which is full fraught with Nestorianisme, and wherein Theodorus with his heretical writings are greatly extolled, were received and approved in that famous Council. And in truth the Nestorians little less than triumphed herein, and insulted over Catholics, thinking by this means either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Council of Chalcedon, if their doctrine were rejected or, if that Council were embraced, together with it, and under the colour and authority of it, to renew and establish the doctrine of Nestorius, which (as they boasted) that council had certainly confirmed, by their approving that Epistle of Ibas. 6. By occasion hereof, many who were weak in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy council: and those, as Leontius e Lib de sect. act. 6. showeth, were called Haesitantes, waverers or Doubters: Many others (who for other causes distasted that Council) were hereby encouraged pertinaciously to reject the same, as f Illi (Acephali) hoc offenduntur in Syn. Ch●lced quod laudes suscepit Theodor● Mops●est. Epistolam que Ibae, quae per omnia Nestoriana esse cognoscitur. lib. 〈◊〉 ca 24. Liberatus declareth. Such were the Agnoites, Gainites, Theodosians, Themistians, and other like Sectaries, called all by the common name of Acephali, because they had no one head by whom to be directed. All these, though being at mortal wars one with another, yet herein conspired to oppugn the faith, and the holy Council of Chalcedon, taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted, and these men gladly believed, that in it the Epistle of Ibas (which maintaineth all the blasphemies of Nestorius) was approved. Thus the Church was by contrary enemies, on every side assailed, and so extremely disturbed, that as the Emperor g Sacerdotes sanetarum D●i Ecclesiarum ab Oriente as● ad Occidentem divisi, Iust. Epist. ad Synod. pa 519. b. testifieth, it was in a manner rend even from East to West, yea the East h Ob tria Capit●la inter se invicem tam in oriente quam in occiden●● fideles su●runt 〈…〉 Ba●an. 547 nu. ●9. Vniversus fere orbis occidentalis ab orientali ecclesia divisus erat. Been not. in 5. Conc. § Concitium. was rend from the West. 7. justinian the religious Emperor, knowing i Initium et fundamentum nostri imperij fecimus, conjungere divisos Sacerdotes. Epist. ad Synod Col. 1. how much it was available not only for his honour, and the tranquillity of his empire, but for the good of the whole Church, and glory of God, to appease all those broils: and knowing further, that the holy Council of Chalcedon, though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, after that they had publicly renounced the heresy of Nestorius, yet, did utterly condemn both that Impious Epistle of Ibas, as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia (both which that Epistle defendeth) together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill: he knowing and that exactly all these particulars, that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unity of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon, set forth an k Extat apud Bintom. 2. Conc. pa. 492. Imperial Edict containing a most orthodoxal, religious and holy profession, or rather an ample Declaration of his, nay not his, but of the Catholic Faith. Among many other things, the Emperor in that Edict did particularly and expressly condemn Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines, the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and that most impious Epistle of Ibas, accursing l Si quis desendit Theodorum, etc. anathema sit. Edict. pa. ●●6. all these as heretical, and all those, who either had heretofore, or should thereafter maintain or defend them, or any one of them. 8. But notwithstanding all this, which the Emperor with great prudence, piety and zeal performed, very many, even some of those who bore the names of orthodoxal and Catholic Bishops, were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict, and the Catholic truth delivered therein, that they openly oppugned his Edict, and defended the Three Chapters (by him condemned and anathematised) by words, by writings, by all means which they could devise, publishing libels and bitter invectives against it and the Emperor himself also. He seeing so general a disturbance in his Empire, and the whole Church to be in a combustion about this cause, to end and quiet all, used that which is the best and last public means which is left to the Church for deciding any doubt or controversy of faith, and of purpose to determine this so weighty a cause (whether those Three Chapters were to be condemned or allowed) he assembled this fifth and holy general Council, whereof, God assisting us, we are now to entreat. CAP. II. That the fifth General Council, when Pope Vigilius refused to come unto it, was held without the Pope's presence therein, either by himself or by his Legates. 1. THat this Council was celebrated when Pope Vigilius was at Constantinople; that he was once, again, often and earnestly, invited to the Synod, but wilfully refused to be present either personally or by his deputies, the Acts of the Council do abundantly witness. The holy Synod said a Coll. 2. pa. 524. a. thus, Saepius petivimus. We have often entreated the most holy Pope Vigilius; to come together with us and make a determination of these matters. Again, the holy Synod said, b Col. 1. pa. 521. b. & Coll. 8. pa. 584. b. The most glorious judges and certain of us (saepius adhortati sunt Vigilium) have often exhorted Vigilius, to come and debate and make an end of this cause touching the Three Chapters. Neither did they only invite, exhort, and entreat him; but in the Emperor's name they commanded him to come to the Synod: We being present (said c Coll. 2. pa. 524. a. the Bishops, who were sent unto him) Liberius, Peter, and Patricius, proposuerunt jussionem pijssimi Imperatoris sanctissimo Papae, proposed to the most holy Pope Vigilius the command of the most holy Emperor. If all this seem not enough, the Emperor himself testifieth d Epist. justin. ad Conc. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. the same, Mandavimus illi, we have commanded Vigilius, both by our judges, and by certain of yourselves (he writ this to the Synod) ut una cum omnibus conveniret, that he should come together with all the rest, in common to debate and determine this cause touching the Three Chapters. 2. What Pope Vigilius did, after so many invitations, entreaties, and commands, Card. Bellarmine doth declare, The Pope, saith he, e Lib 1. de Conc. ca 5. § Coacta. nesque per se, neque per legatos interfuit, was not present in the Council either by himself, or by his legates. And more clearly in another place, The Pope, saith he, f Lib. cod. 19 § Aude. was then at Constantinople, sed noluit interest, but he would not be present in the Council. Binius testifieth g Notis in Conc. gen. 5. § Praesedit. the same. At the fifth Council Vigilius was not present either by himself or by his deputies. And Baronius, The Pope (saith he) h Anno 553. nu. 29 noluit interest, would not be present either by himself, or by any to supply his place. And this Cardinal adds i Ibid. nu. 31. not without some choler, The members assembled without the head, nulla Vigilij aegrotantis adhuc habita ratione, having no regard at all to Pope Vigilius then sick. 3. What? doth the Card. complain that they had no regard of him, when himself a little before professeth, noluit interest, he himself was not willing to be present? Or had they no regard of him when before ever they assembled or sat in the Synod, they writ an Epistle k Epist. Euty, hij ad Vigilium lecta Coll. 1. ideoque missa ante incho●tum Synodun. unto him entreating his presence, and with their own request, signified l Et primo die instantis Maij pervenimus ad Vigilium:— Diximus, Pijssimus Dominus vult te unà cum aliis cōven●e: proposucrunt jussionem pijssimi Imperatoris. Coll. 2. p●. 523. b. 524. a. Concilium vero caepit 4. die May. Coll. 1. the Emperor's command, will, and pleasure to him, that he should come together with the rest? when after they were assembled in the Synod, they so often, so earnestly invited, and even entreated him to come together with them? when they whom they sent to invite him were no mean, no ordinary messengers neither for their number nor dignity▪ but twenty reverend Bishops, all of them metropolitans, as the Cardinal m Missi sunt qui cum vocarent Episcopi numero viginti, ijdemque Metropolitanis. Bar. an. 553. nu. 35. both knew, and acknowledged, & the Synodall acts n Coll. 1. & 2. name in utraque missi sunt. do witness, and of those twenty, three were Patriarches, Eutychius, of Constantinople, Apollinarius, of Alexandria, and Domninus, of Antioch? Was this a sign that they had no regard of Vigilius? when beside all this, in token of their most earnest desire of his presence, among diverse other they proposed two most effectual reasons to induce him to come. The one, the promise of presidency among them, which so far as in them lay, they offered unto him, saying, o Coll. 1. pa. 521. a. Petimus praesidente nobis vestra beatitudine, we entreat that your holiness being present in this Synod, the question may be debated and have an end: The other (which should not only in equity, but even in common honesty have prevailed with a Pope) for that himself had promised and that under his own hand-writing, that he would come to the Synod: we told him (said p Coll. 2. pa. 523. b. the Bishop) your holiness knoweth, quod in his quae inter nos in scriptis facta sunt, promisistis; that in those things which were done in writing betwixt us, you have promised to come together with the rest and discuss these three Chapters. And again, we entreated his reverence (say the whole Synod) q Coll. 8. pa. 584. a scriptas suas promissiones adimplere; to perform that which in his writing he had promised. 4. Had they no regard of sick Vigilius, whose infirmity being signified to the Synod at their first session, they forthwith concluded that Session, saying, r Coll. 1 in fine. Oportet, we must defer the examination of the cause to another day? And whereas the Pope Postero die pollicitus est manifestare, quod ei de tali conventu placuerit. Coll. 1. promised to give them an answer the next day, then because his qualm was overpast, he found new excuses for his absence: one because t Ille respondit non posse nobiscum convenire, eo quod plurimi quidem hîc sunt Orientales Episcopi, pauci vero cum eo. Coll. 2. pa. 523. a. there was but a few western Bishops then present with them; another because v Dicebat facere se per semetipsum in scriptis, & offer Imperatori, ideo enim & inducias se postulasse ab ejus serenitate. Ibid. he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing, and offer it to the Emperor, for which cause he had entreated respite for certain days of his highness. Both which were in truth nothing else but meerepretences, as the Bishops then sent, manifestly declared unto him. For both the Emperor, said they, vult te in communi convenire; will have you to come together with the rest, & therefore he ought not to have given his sentence alone but in common and in the Synod: and for his other excuse, Baronius x Eam suae absentiae causam praetexuisse. an. 553. nu. 36. himself doubteth not to call that a pretence: for so it was indeed, seeing as the Bishops truly told y Nec in sanctis 4. Synodis multitudo Occidentalium Episcoporum inventa est unquam, sed duo vel tres Episco●i. Col. 2. pa. 523. b. him, in none of the former Councils there was any multitude of Western Bishops, but only two or three, and some Clerks, whereas at that time, there were present with the Pope at Constantinople z Nunc utro 〈◊〉 multi ex 〈◊〉 Episcopi, sunt etiam ex Africa, & ex Illyrico, Ibid. many Italian Bishops, others out of afric, others out of Illyria, for their number more than had been in all the four former Councils; whereupon they plainly and truly told a Ibid. Col. 2. the Pope to his face, Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum; there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from coming to the Synod together with us: not sickness, not want of Western Bishops, Nihil est, there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind. So extraordinary respect had they of the Pope at this time, and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod, of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say, that they assembled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius. 5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod, and why Noluit interest, was indeed his heretical affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters. He saw the Catholic Bishops, then assembled, to be bend and forward (as their duty was) for condemning those Chapters, which himself embraced and defended: he therefore thought it fit to separate himself from them in place, from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of faith he was so far disjoined and severed. This to have been the only true cause of his wilful absence and of his Noluit interest the sequel of this Treatise will make most evident. For this time it is sufficient, by all those honourable invitations, earnest persuasions, and Imperial commands, to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence, so he not only was absent, but in mere stomach, wilfulness and perverseness, absented himself from the Holy Council at this time. CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIUS, during the time of the fifth Council, published his Apostolical Constitution indefence of the Three Chapters. 1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Constantinople where the Council was held, by no entreaties, persuasions nor Imperial commands could be brought to the Synod, having no other let, as before was declared, but his own wilfulness, the holy Synod resolved a Deo juvante, futuro die convenientes, quae oportet agemus. Col. 2. in fine without him to debate and judge the Controversy then referred unto them. And in truth what else was to be done in that case? The Emperor commanded b Celeriter de bi● quae interrogavimus vestram manifestata voluntatem. Iust. ●p. ad Synod. Col. 1. pa. 520. b. them not to delay nor protract the time, but deliver a speedy, yet withal a sound and true judgement in that cause. The necessity of the Church required this, which was now in a general c Ob tria capitulae fideles fueru● scissi atque schismate separati. Bar. an. 547. nu. 29. tumult and Schism about those Three Chapters. The Nestorians on one side triumphed as if the Council of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas, and thereby confirmed their heresies. The Acephali on another side rejected that Council, as favouring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle. The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze, not knowing which way to turn themselves, whether allow the Council of Chalcedon with the Nestorians, or with the Acephali reject it. The Catholics against all these Sectaries, both defended the Council of Chalcedon, and yet rejected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters. In such a general rent and contention of all sides, what delay could the Church endure? which the Council rightly considering, d Nec enim justum est vel Imperatorem vel fidelem populum ex dilatione scandalizari. Co. 2. p. 533. b said, That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement, to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scandalised. And for the absence of Vigilius, they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth, e Alioqui si expectatus non mitteret, vel non veniret, vel nollet, Concilium congregatum suae necessitati, & Ecclesiae saluti providera debet. lib. 2. de Conc. ord. cap. 2. that if the Pope, being invited, did not, or would not come, or send to a Synod, but wilfully refused to come, in this case the Council without him must provide for the peace of the Church and safety of the Christian faith. They had a very memorable example hereof, as yet but fresh before their eyes, when the Pope's legates being present at Chalcedon were f Rogavimus dominos Episcopos de Roma, ut communicarent iis gestis. Conc. Chalc. act. 16. pa. 134. a. invited and entreated to be present at the Synod there held (which was the very next before this) at the debating of the right and preeminence of the Sea of Constantinople but wilfully refused to be there, saying g Ibid. (as Vigilius now did) Non, sed alia se suscepisse mandata, No, we will not come, we have a contrary command from pope Leo, yet that holy Council of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence, and their determination, notwith ' standing the Pope's absence, was not only declared h Viri illustrissimi judices dixerunt, quod interlocuti sumus tota Synodus approbavit. Ibid. pa. 137. b. by the most glorious judges to be just and Synodall, but the same was both by that holy Synod, and all other ever since, held to be the judgement and definition of the whole general Council: for in their Synodal relation to the Pope, speaking of this very decree, they say, i Ibid. pa. 140. a. Confirmavimus ante, we (to wit, this whole general Council) have confirmed the sentence of the 150. Bishops for the prerogative of Constantinople. A most clear and undeniable demonstration, and that by the warrant of one of the most famous Councils that ever were, that the peevishness, perverseness, or wilful absence of one or a few Bishops, yea of the Pope himself, ought not, nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and determine any needful cause; much less a cause of faith about which there should happen (as now there did) a general disturbance of the whole Church. Upon these and other like reasons the holy Synod now assembled at Constantinople, having done as much as in them lay, yea, as Cum nos per omnia, quod decet, & servavimus & servamus, & saepius petivimus Vigilium. Col. 2. pa. 524. a. much in all points as was fit to be done for procuring the presence of Vigilius, and having in their first and second Sessions done nothing but waited and expected for his coming; seeing now all their invitations and entreaties to be contemned by him, and their longer expectance to be but in vain, address themselves to the examining of the cause, being stirred l Pa. eadem. b. up by the words of St. m 1 Pet. 3.15. Peter, Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of your hope, which readiness if it must be in all Christians, much n Incongruum autem Sacerdotibus esse putantes protrabera dandum à nobis responsum Christianissimo Imperatori pa. cadem. more in Bishops: and if it must be declared towards all men, most of all towards the Emperor, who now required their speedy judgement and Synodall resolution in this cause. 2. Having in their first and second Sessions declared their long and earnest, but vain expectance of Vigilius, In their third Collation (so their Sessions are called) they let down as a foundation to all their future acts, a most holy confession of their faith, consonant in all points to that which the holy Apostles preached, which the four former Councils explained, and which the Holy Fathers with uniform consent maintained. 3. In the 4. and 5. Collations, they at large and very exactly discuss the first Chapter, concerning the person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia, adding so much also as was needful touching the second Chapter, which concerned the writings of Theodoret against Cyril. 4. Now in that fifth Collation, as Baronius tells o Vigilij libellus oblatus Synodo. Bar. an. 553. nu. 47. us, the Constitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod. The Pope promised p Ibid. that he would send his judgement thereof, ad ipsum Imperatorem, atque ad Synodum; both to the Emperor, and to the Synod; which he ingenuously performed; yea q An. ●od. nu. 48 , modo opportunè praestandum putavit, he did it opportunely at this very time of the 5. Collation: And the Card. is so resolute in this point, that he peremptorily affirmeth of the Pope's Constitution, Cognoscitur, r Ibid. it's known to pertain to this very day of their fifth Collation: and it s Anno eod. nu. 41. was this day offered to the Council: for which cause he strongly imagining this Constitution t Constitutum ●oc ex acts 5. Synod● nescitur esse sublatum. an. eod. nu. 47. to be stolen out of the Synodall acts now extant, is bold to insert v Cum ad hunc ipsam annum et diem Collationis 5. pertinere cognos●itu●. Ibid. nu. 48. it into the 5. Collation; as into his own due and proper place, wherein it was, and now aught to be. 5. The Card. is too confident about the day when it was sent to the Synod, as also in his adding this Constitution to the Acts of the Synod, as hereafter in due place will appear. Thus much is certain and evident by the Synodall acts, that this Constitution of Vigilius was made known to the Bishops of this holy Council, before their sixth Collation, for in that sixth, diverse things are expressed, which have a clear and undoubted reference to the Pope's decree, as containing a refutation of the same, and herein the Card. saith truly, The x An. 553 nu. 210. decree of Vigilius was first sent to the Emperor, and from him to the Synod, as by the sixth Collation may be perceived, wherein those things which the Pope had alleged for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, are refuted. 6. As for the dignity, credit and authority of this writing, it is neither any ordinary nor private instruction, but as the Pope himself calleth it, a Constitution, y Quae praesenti statuimus Constituto. Vig. Const. ●pud Bar an. 553. nu. 208. a Statute, z Statuimus et decernimus. ibid. a Decree, a Definition, a Post praesentem definitionem. ibid. or Definitive sentence: and by the name of a Constitution, it is subscribed unto, both by the Pope b Vigilius Episcopus huic Constituto nostro subscripsi. ib. nu. 209. and all c johannes Marsonum huic Constituto subscripsi, & alij similiter. ibid. the rest of his Assembly; and for such it is commended by Card. d Ann. 553. nu. 47. Baronius and Binius e Viglij Papae Constitutum. Bin. in ●ragm. 5. Conc. pa. 591. . In it the Pope delivereth his Apostolical sentence & judgement touching the Three Chapters, this being f Hunc ipsum esse sci●●, quem de sua sententia interpellatim, pollicitus est se missinum ad Imperatorem. Bar. anu. 553. nu. 47. that very same answer which Vigilius promised to send to the Emperror, and for the advised setting down whereof, he g Const. Vigil. n● 58. requested of the Emperor the respite of twenty days. During which time he did insudare and laborare, as the Card. saith, h Ann. 553. nu. 28. with much sweat and toil elaborate this large decree, (containing no less i Apud Bar. nu. 553 a nu. 50. ad 210. than thirty six columes in folio) that it might in every respect, and for the exact handling of so weighty a cause, be correspondent to the gravity and authority of his infallible Chair, specially seeing he set it forth of purpose, that it might be notified k Bar. an. 553. nu. 47 not only to the Emperor and the Synod then assembled, sed universo orbi Catholico, but to the whole Catholic Church, as a public direction in faith for them all; in which kind of teaching, nullo casu errare potest, saith Card. Bellarmine, l Lib. 4. de Po●●. Rom. ca 3. § Sit. the Pope can by no means be possibly deceived. For this cause also Vigilius at this time, and in this business, used the help and advice of a Synod, consisting of Italian, African, and Illyrian Bishops, then present with him at Constantinople, sixteen Bishops beside himself, and three Roman Deacons. These all consented with the Pope, and subscribed m Vide subscriptiones loc. c●. nu. 209. to his Constitution; and in theirs was included the consent of the African, of the Illyrian, of the Italian, and other Western Churches, even of the Church of Rome also, who all at this time agreed in judgement about the Three Chapters with the Pope, as Card. Baronius professeth n O cidentales perstabant in sententia quá semper fuerant pro trium defensiene capitulorum. an. 547. nu. 39 . So deliberate and advised was the Pope in this cause, that his resolution herein is not only a Pontifical, but a Synodall Sentence also, yea a Decree and definitive judgement delivered by the Pope, as himself expressly witnesseth, o Vigilij Const. apud Bar. loc. cit. nu. 209. Ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae; by the authority of the Apostolic sea, an whole Synod of Bishops (the Western Churches consenting with them) subscribing to the same, for their number, well-near p In Sess. 1. Conc. Trid. Archiepiscopi & Episcopi non plures quam 26. ut ex actis liquet. as many, as there were Bishops present in some Sessions of their Ecumenical Council at Trent. 7. This Apostolical Constitution, which had long laid in obscurity, about some 18. years since was brought to light, and first q Bar. an. 553. nu. 48. of all published by Card. Baronius to the open view of the world, copied by him out of an ancient r Ibidem. manuscript in their Vatican, where still it is kept: and more than half of it, is set out by Binius s To. 2. pa. 591. , annexed as a fragment to the fifth general Council. But for what good purpose Binius clipped away the residue, being a great (no less than five or six columes in folio) and by far the most needful part of the Pope's Decree, thereby not only injuring the Pope's Holiness, and deluding the world, but foully maiming and disgracing his own Tomes of the Councils, you will easily perceive hereafter. 8. The sum and effect of the Pope's Constitution is the Defence of those three Chapters, which the Emperor by his most religious Edict had condemned and accursed. The Pope, saith Baronius, t An. 553. nu. 218. during the time of the Synod, set forth Decretum pro defensione trium Capitulorum, his decree for defence of the Three Chapters. Again, v Ibid. nu. 218. Vigilius made known to the whole Church pro Tribus Capitulis Constitutum à se editum, his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters. Again, x Ibid. nu. 272. pro ipsorum defensione laborat; Vigilius laboured for defence of the Three Chapters. But the Constitution itself maketh this most evident. 9 Concerning the first Chapter, whether Theodorus (being dead more than an hundred years before this Council) ought to be condemned, Vigilius thus decreed, Nulli y Vigilij Const. apud Bar▪ an. 553. nu. 179. licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis, That it is not lawful for any to judge aught anew of those persons who are dead, that is, not to condemn those, who, as Vigilius explaining himself saith, z Ibid. nu. 176. minime reperiuntur in vit a damnati, are not found to have been condemned while they lived. This for the generality of the dead: particularly for Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia he thus decreed a Ibid. nu. 179. , Seeing the holy Fathers had not, (as he saith) condemned him, eum nostra non audemus damnare sententia, we dare not condemn him by our sentence, sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus; neither do we permit that any other shall condemn him. 10. For the second Chapter which concerns the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, Vigilius was so tender of the credit of Theodoret, that he would by no means permit his name to be blemished by condemning his writings, seeing as he saith, b Ibid. nu. 181. neither Cyril himself, nor after him the Council of Chalcedon had condemned them. Nay Vigilius further adds, c Nu. 180. that it is valde contrarium & indubitanter inimicum; very contrary and undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Council at Chalcedon, to condemn any Nestorian doctrines under the name of Theodoret. Whereupon he definitively decreeth in this manner d Nu. 182. ; Statutimus atque decernimus, we ordain and decree that no injury or slander shall by any man be raised, or uttered against Theodoret, sub taxatione nominis ejus, by taxing of his name. So Vigilius, decreeing that the condemning of those writings of Theodoret against Cyril, is an injury to Theodoret. 11. The third Chapter (which indeed is the most material, but withal most intricate and obscure) concerns the Epistle written against Cyril and the holy Ephesine Synod, by Ibas B. of Edessa unto Maris a Persian and an Heretic: the copy whereof is set down in the 10. Action of the Council at Chalcedon, and repeated in the 6. Collation of this fifth Council: What the Pope decrees herein, Baronius doth declare, who explaining the words and meaning of Vigilius, saith, e Ann. 553▪ nu. 191 That the Fathers of Chalcedon, dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; said that this Epistle of Ibas was to be received as Catholic; and further adds, f Ibid. nu. 196. Ex eâ Ibam comprobatum esse Catholicum; that by this Epistle Ibas himself was proved to be a Catholic, yea that g An. 448. nu. 71. he was so proved by the consenting judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon. So Baronius. 12. This to have been indeed the true meaning of Pope Vigilius, his own words in his Constitution make manifest. There he first sets down the ground of his sentence, and that was the sayings of Pascasinus and Maximus in the Council at Chalcedon. The h Const. Vigil. loco citato nu. 187. Pope's legates said by Pascasinus, Relecta ejus epistolâ agnovimus cum orthodoxum; By the Epistle of Ibas now read, we acknowledge him to be orthodoxal: Maximus said, i Ibid. nu. 189. Ex relecto rescripto epistolae, orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio; by the Epistle of Ibas now read, his Epistle or writing is declared to be orthodoxal. Vigilius grounding himself on these two speeches, collects and sets down two positions of his own, concerning this third Chapter; The former, that the Council of Chalcedon approved that Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxal, to which purpose he saith, the k Ibid. nu. 19●. Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon, l Ibid. nu. 19●. Epistolam pronunciantes orthodoxam, pronounced this Epistle to be orthodoxal: and yet more plainly, Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio; the Epistle or writing of Ibas was pronounced orthodoxal by the Fathers at Chalcedon; The other, that by this Epistle they judged Ibas to be a Catholic; to which purpose Vigilius writeth thus, juvenalis would never have said that Ibas was a Catholic, nisi ex verbis episiolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobaret, Unless by the words of his Epistle he had proved his faith to be orthodoxal, which words evidently show that Vigilius thought in like sort all the Bishops at Chalcedon to have judged the same by the words of that Epistle, for it is certain that they all embraced Ibas himself for a Catholic. 13. Hereupon now ensueth the Definitive sentence of Vigilius touching this Chapter, in this manner: m Ibid. nu. 196. We following the judgement of the holy Fathers in all things, seeing it is a most clear and shining truth, ex verbis Epistolae venerabilis Ibae; by the words of the Epistle of the reverend B. Ibas, being taken in their most right and godly sense, and by the acts of Photius and Eustathius, and by the meaning of Ibas being present, that the Fathers at Chalcedon did most justly pronounce the faith of this most reverend Bishop Ibas to be orthodoxal, we decree by the authority of this our present sentence, that the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon ought to remain inviolable, both in all other things, and in this Epistle of Ibas so often mentioned. Thus Vigilius: decreeing both that this Epistle of Ibas is Catholic, & that by it & by the words thereof, Ibas ought to be judged a Catholic; both which he decreeth upon this ground, that the Council of Chalcedon (as he supposeth) had judged the same. 14. In the end, to ratify and confirm all that concerns any of these Three Chapters in the Pope's Decree, he addeth this very remarkable conclusion; n Ibid. nu. 208. His igitur à nobis cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia dispositis; These things being now with all diligence, care and circumspection disposed, Statuimus et decernimus, we ordain and decree, that it shall be lawful for none pertaining to Orders and ecclesiastical dignities, either to write, or speak, or teach any thing touching these three Chapters, contrary to these things which by this our present Constitution we have taught and decreed: aut aliguam post praesentem definitionem movere ulterius quaestionem, neither shall it be lawful for any, after this our present definition, to move any question touching these Three Chapters. But if any thing concerning these Chapters be either done, said, or written, or shall hereafter be done, said, or written contrary to that which we have here taught and decreed, hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus; we by all means do reject it by the Authority of the Apostolic See, whereof by God's grace we have now the government. So Vigilius. 15. Think ye not now, that any Papist considering this so advised, elaborate and Apostolical decree of Pope Vigilius, will be of opinion that there was now a final end of this matter, and that all doubt concerning these Three Chapters was for ever now removed: seeing the supreme judge had published for a direction to the whole Church his definitive, Apostolical, and infallible sentence in this cause, what needeth the Council either to judge, or so much as debate this matter after this Decree? To define the same was needless, more than to light a candle when the Sun shineth in his strength. To define the contrary, were Heretical: yea after such an authentical decision and determination, to be doubtful o Dubius in fide infidelis est. lib. 5. Dec. tit. 7. debaretitis. only what to believe, hath the censure of an Infidel. But thrice happy was it for the Church of God, that this doctrine of the Pope's supreme authority and infallible judgement, was not then either known or believed. Had it been, the Nestorians and their heresy had for ever prevailed, the Catholic faith had been utterly extinguished, and that without all hope or possibility ever after this to have been revived, seeing Vigilius by his Apostolical authority had stopped all men's mouths from speaking, tied their hands from writing, yea and their very hearts from believing or thinking aught contrary to his Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters, wherein he hath confirmed all the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and that by a Decree more irrevocable than those of the Medes and Persians. Had the holy Council, at that time assembled, believed or known that doctrine of the Pope's supremacy and infallible judgement, they would not have proceeded one inch further in that business, but shaking hands with Heretics, they and the whole Church with them, had been led in triumph by the Nestorians at that time, under the conduct of Pope Vigilius. 16. And by this you may conjecture that Binius had great reason to conceal the later part of the Pope's decree, for he might well think, as any papist will, that it were a foul incongruity to set down three entire Sessions of an holy and general Council, not only debating this controversy of faith about the Three Chapters, but directly also contradicting the Pope's definitive sentence in them all, notwithstanding they knew the Pope by his Apostolical authority to have delivered his judgement, and by the same authority to have forbidden all men either to write, or speak, or to move any doubt to the contrary, of that which he had now decreed. But let us see by a view of the particulars and of their following Sessions, how this Cathedral sentence of the Pope was entertained by the holy general Council. CAP. 4. That the holy general Council in their Synodall judgement contradicted the Pope's Apostolical Constitution and definitive sentence, in that cause of faith, made known unto them. 1. IN the sixth, which was the very next Sessions after they had known the Pope's will and pleasure, contrary to the Apostolical authority and command of Vigilius, the Holy Synod began to examine the Epistle of Ibas: for the causes of Theodorus and of Theodoret were sufficiently discussed in their former Collations. And first of all, alleging a saying of the Emperor (to which themselves do assent) they thus say, which being well observed gives light to the whole cause and openeth both the error of Vigilius and the ground thereof. Because a Col. 6. pa. 561. a. the most holy Emperor added among those things which he writ unto us, that some endeavouring to defend the Epistle of Ibas, presume to say that it was approved by the holy Council of Chalcedon, using the words of one or two most religious Bishops, who were in that Council, as spoken for that Epistle, cum alij omnes, whereas all the rest were of another mind, we think it needful, this question being proposed, to recite the Epistle of Ibas. Thus said the Synod, even at the first, calling the Pope's judgement Presumption, and checking him both for pretending the Council of Chalcedon, and for alleging the Interlocutions of one or two, as the judgement of that Council. For, that the whole Synod consented to that speech of the Emperor, appeareth both by their own words, where they show this to be so odious an untruth, that they all cried out against it, saying, b Col. 6. pa. 576. b. The Decree of the Council at Chalcedon condemneth this Epistle, he that receiveth this Episte rejecteth the Council at Chalcedon: and, by those speeches of Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, Andrea's Bishop of Ephesus, and others, to which the whole c Sancta Synodus dixit, Scimus et nos haec ita consecuta esse. Col. 6. p. 564. a. Synod assented, Quomodo d Col. 6. pa. 563. b. praesumunt quidam dicere, How do any presume to say, that this impious Epistle of Ibas was approved by the Council of Chalcedon? And again, Miramur quomodo, we do even marvel that any will defend this Epistle by the name of the Council at Chalcedon: and yet more sharply reproving Vigilius with others, for using so deceitful a proof, they add, Astutia enim haeretica utentes, for they (who so say of the Council at Chalcedon) using the fraud and subtility of heretics, do produce the Interlocutions of one or two, as spoken for that Epistle, whereas this is to be set down for a certain rule, that in Councils, non unius aut secundi interlocutionem attendere oportet, the speeches of one or two must not be attended, but what is defined by all, or by the greater part of the Council. And yet further expressing their dislike of that fallacious and sophistical reason which Vigilius herein used, the whole Council said, The Holy c Coll. 6. p. 576. a. Fathers at Chalcedon did, pro nihilo habere, quae ab uno vel duobils pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt, did esteem as nothing, or made no reckoning at all of those things which were spoken for that Epistle by one of two; And those one or two were Pascasinus and Maximus, on whose interlocutions the Pope, as you have formerly seen, grounded his decree, concerning this Chapter; and if the proof be of so small account by the judgement of that most holy Council, it inevitably followeth, that the Decree of Vigilius which wholly (for this Chapter) relieth on this proof, is no better than the ground thereof, that is in very deed, worth nothing at all. 2. Now that all this is purposely spoken against Vigilius and his Constitution (which before this 6 Collation was made known unto them) beside that it is evident by the Acts themselves, seeing the Council doth exactly mention, and refute all the principal points on which Vigilius doth insist, Baronius doth not only profess, but truly, upon this reason, doth prove the same: for entreating of this 6. Session, and mentioning the contents thereof, This was done, saith he, d An. 553. nu. ●12. as is evident, against the Constitution of Pope Vigilius (although for reverence they do not name him) and partly also they excuse him, partly they reprove him, using especially this argument, Because in Councils we must not attend what one or two say, but what is defined by all or the most. Thus Baronius; who as he truly acknowledgeth the Council herein to have dealt against Vigilius and his Decree, so in the other points, he betrays too great partiality towards Vigilius, for the Council is so far from excusing the pope, that neither Baronius could, nor any of his friends shall be ever able to show that excuse: And for their not naming of Vigilius, it proceeded not from any reverence they bore unto him (though in every respect they gave him all honour that was due to him, or his place) but the true reason thereof was this, because they neither did, nor thought it fit to name any one of those, whom they did condemn, but without mention of their names in particular, condemned them all under one general Appellation of, Sequaces e Definitio Synod. Col. 8. pa. 586. a. Desensores Nestorij & ejus impietatis. Ibid. pa. 585. b. Theodori discipuli. Ibid. & saepe alibi. Nestorij et Theodori, the followers of Nestorius and Theodorus, their Disciples, or defenders which titles they saw the Emperor to have used and given unto them before, f Theodori & Nestorij sequaces. pa. 497. ●. both in his Edict, and in his g Nestorij sequaces. pa. 519. b. Epistle to the Synod, which common names to have as fitly and truly agreed to Pope Vigilius as to any else, the Council knew right well, seeing in every point concerning these Three Chapters, he wholly agreed with them all. The h Theodori & Nestorij defensores dicebant, etc. Col. 8. pa. 585. b. Et praesumunt dicere. Col. 6. pa. 561. a. & Col. 8. pa. 586. a. followers of Theodorus and Nestorius pretended, and presumed to say, that the Council of Chalcedon approved the Epistle of Ibas: Vigilius pretended, and presumed to say the same; The Fathers at Chalcedon (saith he) pronounced i Const. Vig. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. ●● the Epistle of Ibas to be Orthodoxal. The followers of k Col. 8. pa. 586. a. Theodorus and Nestorius fraudulently used the Interlocutions of one or two, as the l An. 553. nu. 2●2. judgement of the whole Council at Chalcedon. Vigilius used the very same fraud, and for this very cause, as the Cardinal confesseth, is reproved by the Council. Seeing then, Vigilius did at this time, and in this cause, walk hand in hand, and step by step with the other followers of Theodorus and Nestorius; The holy Council judged it most fit and sufficient (as it was indeed) to refuse and condemn both him and his Constitution, by that common name which agreed to all the rest, with whom in one common doctrine, both for his position and proofs thereof, he fully conspired. 3. The holy Council having now fully discovered the error of the Pope's position, and the fallacious proof which he used to uphold the same, proceedeth to refute his very definitive sentence, proving that neither the Epistle of Ibas is to be received as Catholic, neither that by it Ibas was, or aught to be judged a Catholic, which were the two main points of the Pope's Decree touching this Chapter. For declaring both these, they diligently examined the whole Epistle, and found it in every part to be heretical and blasphemous. But for the more clear demonstration hereof, as also how untruly and unjustly Vigilius, and the other followers of Nestorius pretended, that it was received as orthodoxal by the Council at Chalcedon, they thought it not sufficient to lay open the several impieties of that Epistle, considered by itself, but making a comparison or Collation betwixt it and the holy Council at Chalcedon, they set, in a direct opposition, the most holy and Catholic truths decreed at Chalcedon, against the blasphemous impieties and heresies contained in that Epistle of Ibas. The sum of which Collations, or of some of them, I will here briefly propose out of the Synodall acts, referring the Reader for the full notice of them all, to the Acts themselves, wherein they are at large, exactly, and excellently n Col. 6. pa. 575. & seq. delivered. 4. I. The holy Council of Chalcedon professeth GOD to be incarnate, and made man: The Epistle calleth them Heretics and Apollinarians, who say that GOD was incarnate or made Man. II. The holy Synod professeth the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of GOD: The Epistle denieth the Virgin Mary to be the Mother of GOD. III. The Holy Council embraced that form of Faith which was declared in the first Ephesine Synod, and anathematizeth Nestorius: The Epistle defendeth Nestorius, injureth, nay rejecteth, o Prim●m Ephesinam Synodum reprobat haec Epistola. Col. ●. pa. 563. a. ● the holy Ephesine Council, as if it had condemned Nestorius without due trial of his cause. IV. The holy Council commendeth cyril of blessed memory, and approveth his Synodall Epistles, in one of which are contained those his 12. Chapters by which he condemned the heresy of Nestorius: The Epistle calleth cyril an heretic, and his 12. Chapters it termeth impious. V. The Holy Council professeth their faith to be the same with Cyrils, and accurseth those who believe otherwise: The Epistle saith of cyril, & those who believed as he did, that they were confounded, and recanted their former doctrine. VI The holy Council accurseth those, who either make, or deliver any other Creed, then that which was expounded at the great Nicen Syond: The Epistle doth extol Theodorus, who besides innumerable blasphemies, made another Creed, wherein he teacheth the Word of God to be one person, and Christ another person, accursing all, who do not embrace that his new Creed. This is that Creed of Theodorus, against which (being openly read before in the fourth Collation) the holy Council exclaimed, saying, p Pa. 536. a. the devil himself composed this Creed: Cursed be he that composed this Creed: Cursed be all those that curse not the composer of this Creed. Of this it is, that here they witness, that the Epistle of Ibas praiseth and magnifieth the author and composer thereof. VII. The holy Council teacheth, that in Christ there are two distinct natures, yet but one person consisting of both: The Epistle teacheth, that as there are two natures, so also two persons in Christ, and that there is no personal, but only an affectual unity of those two persons. Thus far hath the Synod opened, by way of comparison, the blasphemies of that Epistle, and the contrary truths decreed at Chalcedon. 5. Now although this Collation doth abundantly of itself manifest both the Impieties of that Epistle, of which Vigilius had decreed, that it ought to be received as orthodoxal: and how repugnant it is to the Council of Chalcedon, of which Vigilius had decreed, that it was received as orthodoxal, by those holy Fathers, yet for more evidence of this truth, the holy Council doth in plain and express terms, express both these points: for after this comparison they said, q Col. 6. pa. 5●6. a. This our Collation, doth manifestly show, quod contraria per omnia est Epistola definitioni; that this Epistle of Ibas is in all and every part thereof contrary to the definition of faith, which was made at Chalcedon. And again, We all accurse this Epistle, who so doth not accurse this Epistle is an heretic; who so receiveth this Epistle is an heretic: who so receiveth this Epistle rejecteth the Council of Chalcedon: who so receiveth this Epistle denieth God to be made man. Thus said, and cried out the whole Synod with one voice: accursing (as you plainly see) not only the decree and definitive sentence of Vigilius as heretical, but Vigilius himself as an heretic, as a rejecter of the Council of Chalcedon, as a denier that God was incarnate, or made man. 6. Think ye not that the Council was very unmannerly, daring not only to talk and write of this Chapter, contrary to the Pope's known will and pleasure, but even to condemn with one consent his sentence for heretical, and himself for an heretic? Binius was exceeding loath to have it thought, that a general, lawful, ancient, and approved Council, had so directly contradicted the Pope's Cathedral judgement, and proclaimed to all the world the Pope to be an heretic, yea a definer of heresy, and that by his Apostolical authority, and therefore he not knowing any better way to save the Pope's credit, thought it most fit to suppress and dash out that whole passage in the Pope's Constitution, which bewrayeth this matter: Deleatur, let all that part of the Constitution of Vigilius be left out; though the omission thereof doth disgrace and maim my edition of the Councils, let the latter part of his Apostolical sentence lie in obscurity and never see the Sun. 7. Baronius, who (to the eternal infamy of their Popes, of their infallible Chair, and of their whole religion, which wholly relies thereon) first had the heart to publish this Heretical decree of Vigilius, deviseth another medicine to salve this sore: But avoiding Sylla he falleth into Charybdis, a worse gulf than the other, plunging himself, with the Pope, in a condemned heresy. There are (as he could not but confess) r Ann. 553. nu. 191. many blasphemies in that Epistle, but none of those, saith he, did either the Council of Chalcedon or Pope Vigilius approve. What then, I pray you, was it, which his Holiness defended, and approved therein? Forsooth in the end s Ibid. nu. 192. of the Epistle, Ibas declareth that he assented to the covenants of Union between john and Cyrill, qua recepta, necesse fuit cundem probare catholicum; which peace and union being embraced by Ibas, he must needs be acknowledged thereby to be a Catholic. Seeing t Ibid. nu. 197. then, this is understood, and gathered out of it, that after the Union, Ibas was a Catholic, we may see, ob id non esse explodendam epistolam, sed ad hoc quod dixi recipiendam, that for this cause the Epistle is not to be rejected, but to be received, for this purpose, which I said, that by the end of it Ibas may be proved to be a Catholic. And the Cardinal labours to prove this by two testimonies, the one is that of Pascasinus, and the other legates of Leo: They (saith he) v Ibid. nu. 213. spoke not amiss, when they said, Epistola illa lecta, Ibam probatum esse Catholicum, that by that Epistle being read, Ibas was proved to be a Catholic: The other is that speech of Eunomius B. of Nichomedia, of whom he thus writeth, x Ibid. Hoc plane fuit, this is clearly that which Eunomius said, ipsam Epistolam in principio apparere haereticam, in fine vero inventam esse Catholicam; that the Epistle of Ibas by the beginning seemeth to be heretical, but by the end was found to be Catholic. Thus Baronius, in defence of that most impious Epistle, which as he saith, by the end of it is found to be orthodoxal and catholic, and so to be received. 8. What is it to be an heretic, if this be not? Directly to contradict the judgement of an holy general Council, and defend that writing or part of it to be Catholic, which in every part the whole Council hath defined to be heretical? The whole Council y Haec omnes dicimus, etc. Col. 6. pa. 576. b. with one voice proclaimed; Tota Epistola haeretica est; Tota Epistola blasphema est, qui istam suscipit, haereticus est; The whole Epistle is heretical, and blasphemous, who so receiveth this Epistle (either in the whole, or in any part, as themselves expressly affirm z Qui dicunt came rectam esse vel partem ejus. Col. 8. pa. 587. b. ) he is an heretic. Not so, saith the Card. It is not all heretical, It is not all blasphemous: The latter part of it, is right, holy, and Catholic, by it Ibas was rightly judged to be a Catholic; That part, at least, is to be received and embraced, to declare Ibas to be a Catholic. Now though this alone were enough to refute whatsoever the Cardinal doth or can say in this cause, seeing it is all nothing else, but the saying, nay the cavilling of a convicted heretic, proclaimed for such by the loud cries of an ancient and holy general Council, yet for the full manifesting of the truth, I will do the Cardinal that favour, as to examine both his assertion, and the proofs thereof. And because I shall hereafter in due place have fit occasion at large (as the obscurity and intricacy of this cause requireth) to discuss the words and declare the true meaning of Ibas in that part, which the Cardinal doth most wilfully and heretically mistake and pervert, for this time, I will use no other proof against him, but the clear judgement and consenting testimony of the general Council, which hath professedly refuted this very cavil, which Baronius borrowed from the ancient heretics of those times. And I am verily persuaded, that Baronius would never, for very shame of the world, have used this so untrue, so heretical, and withal a rejected evasion, but that he hoped that none would compare and examine his writings by the Acts of the Councils, or if they did, that the ●ame and credit of Cardinal Baronius his name would countenance any untruth or Heresy against whatsoever opponents. 9 Is the end of the Epistle of Ibas Catholic? or doth that show Ibas to be a Catholic? The whole Council expressly witnesseth the contrary. Our a Col. 6. pa. 576. a. Collation (say they) doth manifestly show that this Epistle of Ibas, contraria per omnia est Definitioni; is in every part of it contrary to the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon. This whole Epistle is heretical, and blasphemous. Again, We have demonstrated (say they) b Col. 8. pa. 5. this Epistle, contrariam esse per omnia; To be in every part of it contrary to those things which are contained in the Definition of faith made at Chalcedon. Again, c Col. 6. pa. 564. a. Tota epistola impietatis plena est, the whole Epistle is full of impiety. And more clearly to our purpose, and against this cavil of Baronius, they add, Those d Ibid. who say that the former part of this Epistle is impious, but the latter part or end thereof is right, Calumniatores demonstrantur, such are demonstrated to be Calumniators or Slanderers, Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt, for those things which are set down in the latter part or end of that Epistle, are more full of greater impiety, injuring cyril, and defending the impious heresy of Nestorius. So by the judgement of the whole Council Baronius is not only proved, but even demonstrated to be an Heretic, and a malicious Caviller, for his defending the latter part of this Epistle to be right and catholic. And this is all which he hath gained by renewing that old heretical and rejected cavil for defence of Vigilius. 10. But what shall we then say to the proofs of Baronius? what first, to the Interlocution of the Pope's Legates so often and with ostentation mentioned by the Cardinal? What? Truly the very same which the holy general Council hath said before us, and taught, and warranted all others to say the same. The holy Fathers at Chalcedon (say they) did these things. pro e nihilo habentes ea quae ab uno vel duobus pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt; esteeming worth nothing at all, those things which were spoken by one or two for that Epistle. Thus testifieth the whole Synod, and themselves follow herein the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon: So by the judgement of two holy and general Councils, that Interlocution of the Legates of Pope Leo, on which (after) Vigilius and Baronius relieth, is worth nothing at all. 11. Yea, but Eunomius, as Baronius tells us, affirmeth, that though the beginning of the Epistle be heretical, yet the end of it is found to be Catholic. Baronius indeed saith so of Eunomius; but what truth and honest dealing there is in Baronius, let the discreet Reader judge by this one saying among ten thousand the like; Eunomius saith not so, Eunomius saith the flat contrary, as in the fifth Council is clearly witnessed; where against this cavil of the old heretics, whom Baronius followeth, they say f thus, Nullam partem epistolae apparet Eunomium comprobasse; ●t's evident that Eunomius approved no part at all of this Epistle. And again, Quomodo g Ib●●. praesumunt isti defensores ealumniari interlocutionem Eunomij: how dare the defenders of this Epistle presume to slander the Interlocution of Eunomius, as condemning one part of it, and approving another, seeing the whole epistle is full of impiety? I say yet more (which will manifest the Councils doom of Baronius, that he is a malicious caviller, to be most just) Eunomius speaks not either of the beginning or end of that Epistle in his Interlocution, but Baronius, according to his wont, foists in that clause (touching the end of the Epistle) out of his own pate, and thereby falsifieth both the words and meaning of Eunomius. This in the Council is evidently declared by reciting the true words of Eunomius out of the Acts h at Chalcedon: which are these; Ex recitatis, i Con. 5. 〈◊〉. 6. ●a. 〈…〉. By those things which have been read and recited, Ibas is showed to be innocent: for wherein he seemed to be blame worthy in accusing cyril, in posterioribus, or in poshemis, recte confessus, having afterwards, or at the last, made a true confession, he hath refuted that wherein he was blamed: wherefore I also judge him worthy of his Bishopric if, he accurse Nestorius, Eutyches, and their wicked heresies, and consent to the writings of Leo, and this general Council. Thus said Eunomius: wherein there is neither mention nor intention of that Epistle, neither of the first, middle, nor last part thereof. But whereas in the Council of Chalcedon, many other k Act. 9 & 10. things, besides that Epistle, were recited touching the cause of Ibas, and particularly the whole Acts before Photius, Eustathites, and Vranius B. of Berithum, where a Synod was held about Ibas; it was those Acts and judgement given by them, and performed by Ibas, (and not the Epistle of Ibas) to which Eunomius had respect, when he said, by the posteriora, or postrema, Ibas made a true confession, for so in the fifth Council it is clearly witnessed: It is manifest (say they) that l Col. 6. pa. 564. a. Eunomius made this speech, gesta apud Photium, et Eustathium attendens, looking at those Acts before Photius and Eustathius. Now in those Acts, as is manifest by the diligent perusal thereof, and is further testified by the fifth Council, m Ibid. pa. 563. & seq. there was a judgement pronounced by Photius and Eustathius, adversus eam epistolam et quae in ea continentur; against that Epistle, and the contents thereof: Ibas being commanded by those venerable judges, both to embrace the first Ephesine Synod, which that impious Epistle rejecteth, and to condemn and accurse Nestorius and his followers, whom that Epistle commendeth: which judgement that Ibas then performed, the Acts before Photius and Eustathius do make evident: for there it is thus said, n Apud Conc. Chal. act. 9 pa. 108. a. Confessus est Ibas sic se credere? Ibas professed that he believed as the letters of cyril to john did import, and that he consented in all things to the first Synod at Ephesus, accounting their judgement as a decree inspired by the holy Ghost. Yea he did not only in words profess this, but in o Praeparavimus I. bim, quod & amplexus est, ex scripto dare quid sentit de pia side nostra. ibid. 107. b. writing also, (at the persuasions of Photius and Eustathius) he expressed the like for the full satisfaction of such as had been before scandalised by his impious doctrine. And Ibas yet further of his p Ex abundanti a●tem promisit, etc. ib. own accord promised before those judges, that he would in his own Church at Edessa, and that publicly accurse Nestorius as the chief leader in that impious heresy, and those also who did think as he did, or who did use his books or writings. Thus much do those Acts declare. 12. This orthodoxal confession of Ibas, made before Photius and Eustathius, this accursing of Nestorius and his heresies, this embracing of the Ephesine Council, is that, which Eunomius calleth Posteriora, or Postrema, as following by many years, not only that which Ibas did or said before the Union made between john and Cyrill, but even this Impious Epistle also written after that Union. Of this confession Eunomius truly said, that by it (being posterius, later than the Epistle) Ibas had refuted all for which he was formerly blamed: for by this, in effect, he refuted, condemned, and accursed this whole Epistle with all the heresies and blasphemies, both in the head and tail thereof. And for this cause, and in regard of this holy confession, the fifth Council said, that thereby Ibas q Ostenditur inde quod anathematizavit Epistolam &c Col. 6. pa. 56●. a. had anathematised his own Epistle, contrariam per omnia, being in every part of it contrary to the faith, both in the beginning and end thereof. And the interlocution of Eusebius B. of Ancyra, at the Council of Chalcedon, doth fully explain the meaning of Eunomius; for he expressly mentioneth those Acts before Photius and Eustathius, and the confession of Ibas then made (which Eunomius called posteriora) saying thus, r Act. 10. Concil. Chal. pa. 115 b. The reading of that judgement before Photius and Eustathius, doth teach that Ibas, in that judgement, accursed Nestorius and his impious doctrines, and consented to the true faith: Wherefore I receive him for a Bishop, if he now do condemn Nestorius. The like said s Ibid. Diogenes B. of Cyzicum, Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea, john Bishop of Sebastia, and they all cried, Omnes eadem dicimus, we all say the same. So clear it is that upon this holy Confession of Ibas made first before Photius and Eustathius, and after that, before all the Council at Chalcedon, and not upon this Epistle, nor any part, first or last thereof, Ibas was acknowledged and embraced for a Catholic, both by Eunomius, Eusebius, Diogenes, and all the whole Council of Chalcedon. 13. By this now appeareth not only the error, but the extreme fraud of Baronius, who in excuse of Vigilius, not only affirmeth an heretical untruth, that the latter part of the Epistle is orthodoxal, but labours to uphold and bolster out that untruth with a malicious perverting and falsifying both of the words and meaning of Eunomius. And thus far proceeded the holy Council against Vigilius in their sixth Session, being the very next after they had received the Pope's mandatory letters, commanding them neither to speak nor write aught concerning the Three Chapters, otherwise than he by his Apostolical constitution had decreed. 14. In the seventh Collation, besides the public reading of diverse letters and writings for the manifestation of the truth, and of the uprightness of their judgement in this cause of the three Chapters; all that was formerly done, was now again t Quae jam acta sunt, relegantur: & relecta sunt. Col. 7. pa. 577. b. repeated and approved by the holy Council. Such diligence and wariness they used in this matter, that nothing might pass without often recital and serious ponderation by the whole Council. 15. In the eight, which is the last Collation, the holy Council proceeded to their Synodall, and Definitive sentence, touching all those Three Chapters, which Vigilius (as they knew) by his decree and Apostolical authority had defended. But the Council directly contradicting the Pope in them all, doth Definitively condemn and accurse them all, and all who defend them or any of them: which sentence of the Council, as Baronius truly confesseth v Au. 553. nu. 219. , was pronounced contra decreta ipsius (Vigilij) in a direct opposition to the Decrees of Vigilius. Which that it may fully appear, as you have before seen the words of the Pope's Decree, so now consider also, and compare with them, the words and Decree of the Council. 16. First the holy Council sets down in general their sentence concerning all the Three Chapters, (The defenders of which they had before x Qui hanc (Epistolam) non anathematizat, haereticus est. Col 6. pa. 576. b. , and here y Haerelicorum condemnationem. Col. 8 pa. 586. b. again do proclaim to be heretics) in this manner; We z Ibid. pa. 586. a, accurse the Three foresaid Chapters, to wit, Theodorus of Mopsvestia, with his impious writings, The impious writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and the impious Epistle of Ibas, et defensores eorum, et qui scripserunt, vel scribunt ad defensionem eorum; also we accurse the Defenders of those Chapters, and those who have written, or who do (at any time) write for the defence of them, or who presume to say that they are right, or who have defended, aut defendere conantur, or who do (at any time) endeavour to defend their impiety under the name of the holy Fathers, or of the Council at Chalcedon. Thus decreed the whole Synod. Now Pope Vigilius, as you have seen before, defended all these Three Chapters, he defended them by writing, yea by his Apostolical authority, Constitution, and Definitive sentence: he defended them by the name of the holy Fathers, and of the Council at Chalcedon; Pope Vigilius then, by the judicial and definitive sentence of this holy general Council is an Anathema, a condemned and accursed heretic; yea a Definer of a condemned and accursed heresy. Baronius writeth earnestly in defence of Pope Vigilius and his Constitution, he commends him for defending those Three Chapters, saying, a An. 546. nu. 40. The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius, whom they might follow: and Vigilius himself he had b An. 553. nu. 233. many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters: he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and show of consenting with the holy Fathers and Council at Chalcedon. Card. Baronius then by the same definitive sentence of this holy and general Council, is an Anathema with Vigilius, a condemned and accursed heretic. 17. After this general sentence, the Council proceedeth, in particular & severally, to condemn each of these Three Chapters by itself. Of the first they thus define. c Col. 8. pa. 587. b. If any do defend impious Theodorus of Mopsvestia, et non anathematizat cum, and do not accurse him and his impious writings, let such an one be accursed. Now Pope Vigilius (as you have seen) would not himself, neither would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus, he forbiddeth any to do it, he made an Apostolical Constitution that none should accurse him: Card. Baronius he writeth in defence of Vigilius and of his Constitution in this point: Thomas Stapleton goeth further, for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus, that he expressly calls d Conterbls. divis. 68 pa. 171. him a Catholic, yea a most Catholic Bishop: Vigilius then, Baronius and Stapleton are all of them accursed by the Definitive sentence of this holy general Council, in this first Chapter. 18. Of the second Chapter they e Col. 8. thus decree. If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, et non anathematizat ea, and do not accurse them, let him be an Anathema. Vigilius would not himself accurse them, he would not permit any other to disgrace Theodoret, or injure him by accursing his writings: Baronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius; they both then are tied again in this third Anathema of the Council. 19 Though a threefold cord be not easily broken, yet the holy Council addeth a fourth, which is more indissoluble than any adamantine chain. Of the Third Chapter they decree in this manner; ᶠ If any defend that impious Epistle of Ibas unto Maris, which denieth God to be borne of the blessed Virgin, which accuseth Cyrill for an heretic, which condemneth the holy Council of Ephesus, and defendeth Theodorus and Nestorius, with their impious doctrines and writings, if any defend this Epistle, et non anathematizat eam, et defensores ejus, et eos qui dicunt came rectam esse, vel partem ejus, et eos qui scripserunt et scribunt pro eâ; If any do not accurse this Epistle, and the Defenders of it, and those who say that it, or any part of it, is right; If any do not also accurse those who have written, or who (at any time) do write for it, and the impiety contained in it, and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fathers, or of the Council at Chalcedon, such an one be accursed. Now Vigilius (as was formerly declared) defendeth this Epistle, as orthodoxal, he defendeth it by his Cathedral sentence and Apostolical authority, he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers, and of the Council at Chalcedon; saying, g Const. loc. cit. nu. 192. Orthodoxa est Iba à patribus pronionciata dictatio; Baronius defendeth both Vigilius and this Epistle in some part thereof, he defendeth them under pretence of the Fathers and Council at Chalcedon, saying, h An. 553. nu. 191. Patres dixerunt, eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; The Fathers at Chalcedon said, that this Epistle ought to be received as orthodoxal: Is it possible think you, by any shift or evasion, to free either Vigilius or Baronius from this fourth Anathema denounced by the judicial and Definitive sentence of this Holy General Council. 20. But what speak I of Baronius, as if he alone were a Defender of Vigilius and his Constitution? All who have, or who at any time do hold, and defend, either by word or writing, that the Pope's judicial and definitive sentence, in causes of faith, is infallible (and this is held, by Bellarmine, Gretzer, Pighius, Gregorius de Valentia, and, as afterwards I purpose to declare at large, by all i Vt nomo Catholicus esse possit, qui illam non amplectatur Greg. de Val. in 2.2 disp. 1. par. 1. pa. 30 and every one, who is truly a member of the present Roman Church) all these by holding and defending this one Position, do implicitly in that, hold and defend every Cathedral and definitive sentence of any of their Popes, and particularly this Apostolical Constitution of Pope Vigilius, to be not only true, but infallible also: and so they all defend the Three Chapters; they defend the Defenders of them, by name Pope Vigilius among the rest. All these then are unavoidably included within all the former Anathemaes all denounced and proclaimed to be heretics, to be accursed and separate from God, by the judicial and definitive sentence of this holy general Council. 21. With what comfort, alacrity and confidence may the servants of Christ fight his battles, and defend their holy faith and religion? or how can the servants of Antichrist choose, but be utterly dismayed and daunted herewith, seeing they cannot wag their tongues or hands, to speak or write aught either against ours, or in defence of their own doctrines, especially not of that which is the foundation of the rest, and is virtually in them all, but ipso facto, even for that act alone, if there were no other cause, they are declared and pronounced by the judicial sentence of an holy, general, and approved Council, to be accursed heretics. 22. The Council yet adds another clause, which justly challengeth a special consideration. Some there are who would be held men of such a mild and merciful disposition, that though they dislike and condemn those assertions of the Pope's supremacy of authority, and infallibility of judgement, yet are they so charitably affected to the Defenders of those assertions, that they dare not themselves, nor can endure that others should call them heretics or accursed: Durus est hic sermo, this is too harsh and hard. See here the fervour and zeal of this holy Council! They first say, Cursed be the defenders of this Epistle or any part thereof: As much in effect, as if they had said, Cursed be Vigilius, Baronius, Bellarmine, and all who defend the Pope's judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, that is, all that are members of the present Church of Rome, Cursed be they all. And not contenting themselves herewith, they add, Cursed be he who doth not accurse the defenders of that Epistle or of any part thereof: As much in effect, as if they had said, Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius, Baronius, Bellarmine, and all that defend the Pope's judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, that is, all that are members of the present Roman Church, Cursed be he who doth not accurse them all. The holy Council no doubt had an eye k Nos timentes maledictionem, qua imminet his qui negligenter opera Domini faci●●t, Col. 8. pa. 584. a. to the words of the Prophet jeremy, l jer. 48.10 Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently, Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood. To spare when God commands, and whom he commands to curse or kill, is neither pity nor piety, but mere rebellion against the Lord, and pulls down that judgement which God himself threatened m 1 King. 20.42. to Ahab, Because thou hast let go out of thine hand, a man whom I appointed to dye, thy life shall go for his life. 23. What then? is there no means, no hope of such that they may be saved? God forbid. Far be it from my heart once to think, or my tongue to utter so hard a sentence. There is a means, and that after the Scripture, the Council expressly and often sets down, even were they denounce all those Anathemaes, for thus they say, n Col. 8. saepe. They who defend Theodorus, the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, the impious Epistle of Ibas, or the defenders of them, et in his usque ad mortem permanent, and continue in this defence, until they die, let such be accursed. Renounce the defence of these Chapters, and of the Defenders of them, that is, forsake and renounce that position of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in defining causes of faith: renounce the defence of all that defend it, that is, of the whole present Roman Church, Come o Apoc. 18.2.3.4. out of Babylon the habitation of devils, the hold of all unclean spirits, which hath made all nations drunk with the wine of her fornication, which themselves p johannes in Apocalypsi passim Roman vocat Babylonem. Bell. lib. 2. de po●t. Rom. cap. 2. § Praeterea. Babylon quae casura praedicitur, Roma quidem est. Riber. in ca 14. ●n. Apoc. pa. 377. Et, Roma qualis in fine saeculs futura est. lb. pa. 378. johannes loquitur de Roma qualu sub finem mundi futura est Gretz. Def. ca 13. lib. 3. de Rom. pont. pa. 927. Babylon, quam esse Romamait lib 7 pa. 228. sedes et civitas antichristi est. Sand. lib. 8. the vis●b. Monar. ca 48. cannot but acknowledge to be meant of Rome: This do, and then, Come q Isa. 55.7. unto the Lord and he will have mercy, and to our God, for he is very ready to forgive: All your former impieties, heresies, and blasphemies shall not be mentioned unto you, but in the righteousness and Catholic truths which ye then embrace, you shall live. If this they will not do, we accuse them not, we accurse them not: they have one who doth both accuse and accurse them, even this holy general Council, whose just Anathemaes shall as firmly bind them before God in heaven, as they were truly denounced by the Synod here on earth, for he hath sealed theirs and all like censures with his own signet, who r Matth. 18.18. said, Whatsoever ye bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven. 24. After all these just Anathemaes denounced as well in general as in particular by the Council against the defenders of these Three Chapters or any one of them; the holy Synod sets down in the last place one other point as memorable as any of the former: And that is by what authority they decreed all these things, of which they thus say, s Col. 8. pa. 588. a. we have rightly confessed these things, quae tradita sund nobis tam à divinis scriptures; which are delivered unto us both in the divine scriptures, and in the doctrines of the holy Fathers, and in the definitions of faith made by the four former Councils. So the holy Council. Whence it doth evidently ensue, that to teach and affirm, that the Pope in his judicial and cathedral sentence of faith may err and define heresy, and that Vigilius in his constitution de facto did so, is a truth consonant to Scriptures, fathers, and the four first general Councils▪ But on the other side, to maintain or affirm (as do all who are members of the present Roman Church) that the Pope's cathedral sentence in causes of faith is infallible, is an heretical position repugnant to Scriptures, Fathers, and the 4. first Councils, and condemned by them all. So at once the Holy Council judicially defineth both our faith to be truly ancient & Apostolical, the self same which the Holy Fathers, general Councils, and the Catholic Church professed for 600 years; and the doctrine of the present Roman Church, even that fundamental position, on which all the rest do rely, to be not only new, but heretical, such as none can maintain, but even thereby he oppugneth and contradicteth both the Scriptures, Fathers, the four first general Councils; and the Catholic Church for 600 years after Christ. 25. Further yet: because one part of their sentence is the accursing of all who defend the Three Chapters, either expressly, as did Vigilius, or implicitè, and by consequent, as do all who maintain the Pope's judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, that is, all who are members of the present Roman Church, and so die; it clearly ensueth from that last clause of the Council, that to condemn and accurse as heretics all these, yea, all which do not accurse these, is by the judgement of this whole general Council, warranted by Scriptures, by Fathers, by the four first general Councils, and by the Caholike Church for 600 years after Christ: The judgement of this fifth Council being consonant to them all, and warranted by them all. 26. Neither is their Decree consonant only to precedent Fathers, and Councils, but approved and confirmed by succeeding general Councils, by Popes, and other Bishops, in the following ages of the Church. By the sixth Council, which professeth t Act. 15. pa. 80. a. of itself that in omnibus consonuit; it in all points agreeth with the fifth. By the second Nicene, (which they account for the seaventh) which reckoneth v Act. 6. pa. 357. a. this fifth, for one of the golden Councils, which are glorious by the words of the holy Spirit, and which all being enlightened by the same spirit, decreed those things which are profitable: professing that themselves did condemn all whom those Councils (and among them whom this fifth) did condemn. By other following Councils, in every one of which the 2 Nicene (and by consequent this fifth) Council is approved, as by the acts is clear: and Baronius confesseth x An. 553. nu. 229 that this fifth, in aliis Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est atque probata, was acknowledged and approved by the other general Councils which were held after it. 27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bishops. By Pelagius the second, who writ an whole Epistle y Epist. 7. Pelag. 2: to persuade the Bishops of Istria to condemn the Three Chapters, telling z Pa. 687. them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them, yet others his predecessors which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto. By Gregory, who professing a Lib. 1. Epist. 14. to embrace & reverence the 4 first Councils, as the 4 Evangelists, addeth of this fifth, Quintum quoque concilium pariter veneror; I do in like manner reverence the fifth Council, wherein the impious Epistle of Ibas is rejected, & the writings of Theodoret, with Theodorus & his writings. And then of them all he saith. Cunctas personas, whatsoever persons the foresaid (five) venerable Councils do condemn, those also do I condemn, whom they reverence I embrace; because seeing they are decreed by an universal consent, whosoever presumeth to lose, whom they bind, or bind whom they lose, se et non illa destruit, he destroyeth himself, but not those Councils, and whosoever thinketh otherwise, let him be accursed. Thus Pope Gregory the great, ratifying all the former anathemas of the Council, and accursing all that labour to untie those bands. By Agatho b In Conc. 6. Act. 4. pa. 16. a. by Leo c Epist. ad Constan. Imp. the second, who both call this an holy Synod; and, not to stay in particulars, All d Bar. an. 869. nu. 58, 59 their Popes (after the the time of Gregory) were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fifth, as of the former Councils, and that in such solemn and exact manner, after the time of Hadrian the second, that they professed (as their form itself set down by Anton. Augustinus e In manuscripto codice ex quo eum citat Bar. loco citato doth witness) to embrace the eight general Councils, (whereof this was one) to hold them pari honore et veneratione, in equal honour and esteem, to keep them entirely usque ad unum apicem, to the least iôta, to follow and teach whatsoever they decreed, and whatsoever they condemned to condemn both with their mouth and heart. A like form of profession is set down in the Council at Constance f Ses. 39 pa. 1644. , where the Council having first decreed g Ses. 4. pa. 1560. the power and authority of the Pope to be inferior and subject to the Council, and that he ought to be obedient to them both, in matters of faith and orders of reformation, by this their superior authority ordaineth, That every Pope at the time of his election shall profess that, cord et ore, both in words and in his heart he doth embrace and firmly believe the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers, and by the eleven general Councils (this fifth being reckoned for one) and that he will keep, defend and teach the same faith with them, usque ad unum apicem, even to the least syllable. To go no further, Baronius confesseth h An. ●53. nu. 229 , that not only Gregory and his predecessors (unto Vigilius) sed successores omnes, but all the successors of Gregory are known to have received and confirmed this fifth Council. 28. Neither only did the Popes approve it, but all orthodoxal Bishops in the world: it being a custom, as Baronius showeth i An. ●69. nu. 58. , that they did profess to embrace the seven general Councils, which form of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri deberent, all orthodoxal Bishops by custom were bound to profess. And this, as it seemeth, they did in those Literae Formatae, or Communicatoriae, or Pacificae, (so they were called k Cum quo totus orbis commercio formatarum, concordat. Opt. lib. 2. p. 40. Quaerebam utrum epistolas communicatorias quas Formatas dicimus, possent quo vellent dare. Aug. Epist. 163. Sub probatione Epistoly, sine Pacificis, quae dicuntur Ecclesiastica. Conc. Chalc. can. 11. ) which from ancient time they used to give and receive. For by that form of letters they testified their communion in faith, and peaceable agreement with the whole Catholic Church. Such an Uniform consent there was in approving this fifth Council in all succeeding Councils, Popes and Bishops, almost to these days. 29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth, that as this fifth Synod, so all succeeding Councils, Popes and Bishops, to the time of the Council of Constance l Celebratum est an. 1414. , that is, for more than fourteen hundred years together after Christ, do all with this fifth Council condemn and accurse, as heretical, the judicial and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius, delivered by his Apostolical authority, for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith: & therefore they all with an uniform consent did in heart believe, and in words profess and teach, that the Pope's Cathedral sentence in causes of faith, may be, and de facto hath been heretical: that is, they all did believe and teach, that doctrine which the reformed Churches maintain, to be truly ancient, orthodoxal and catholic, such as the whole Church of Christ, for more than 14 hundred years, believed and taught: but the doctrine (even the Fundamental position whereon all their doctrines do rely, and which is virtually included in them all) which the present Church of Rome maintaineth, to be new, heretical and accursed, such as the whole Church for so many hundred years together with one consent believed and taught to be accursed and heretical. It hence further ensueth, that as this fifth Council did, so all the forementioned general Councils, Popes and Bishops, do with it condemn and accurse for heretics not only Vigilius, but all who either have or do hereafter defend him and his Constitution, even all, who either by word or writing, have or shall maintain that the Pope's Cathedral judgement in causes of faith is infallible, that is, all who are members of the present Roman Church, and so continue till their death: nay, they not only accurse all such, but further also, even all who do not accurse such. And because the decree of this fifth Council is approved by them, to the least iôta it in the last place followeth, that the condemning and accursing for heretical that doctrine of the Pope's infallibility in causes of faith, and accursing for heretics, all who either by word or writing have, or do at any time hereafter defend the same, and so presist till they die; nay, not only the accursing of all such, but of all who do not accurse them, is warranted by Scriptures, by Fathers, by all general Councils, by all Popes and Bishops, that have been for more than 14. hundred years after Christ. 30. This Uniform consent continued in the Church until the time of Leo the 10 and his Lateran Council. Till then, neither was the Pope's authority held for supreme, nor his judicial sentence in causes of faith held for infallible: nay, to hold these was judged and defined to be heretical, and the maintainers of them to be heretics. For besides that they all till that time approved this fifth Council, wherein these truths were decreed, the same was expressly decreed by two general Councils, the one at Constance, the other at Basil, not long before m Conc. Basil. finitum est an. 1442 id est, a 74. ante council. Later. that Lateran Synod. In both which it was defined, that not the Pope's sentence, but the judgement of a general Council, n Concil. Basil. in Dereto quinq. conclus. pa. 96. a. is, supremum in terris; the highest judgement in earth, for rooting out of errors, and preserving the true faith, unto which judgement every one, even the Pope o Cui quilibet etiamis papalis status existat, obedire tenetur. Conc. Constant; sess. 4. & Bas. sess. 2. himself, is subject, and aught to obey it, or if he will not, is punishable p Debite puniatur. Conc. Const. sess. 5. es Basil. sess. 3. by the same. Consider beside many other, that one testimony of the Council of Basil, and you shall see they believed and professed this as a Catholic truth, which in all ages of the Church had been, and still ought to be embraced. They having recited that Decree of the Council at Constance, for the supreme authority of a Council, to which the Pope is subject, say q Ses●. 33. thus, Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet; although it is sufficiently evident, by many declarations made both at Constance, & here at Basil, that these are truths of the Catholic faith, yet for the better confirming of all Catholics herein, This holy Synod doth define as followeth; The verity of the power of a general Council above the Pope, declared in the general Council at Constance, and in this at Basil, est veritas fidei Catholicae, is a verity of the Catholic faith; and after a second conclusion like to this, they adjoin a third, which concerns them both; He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities, est censendus haereticus, is to be accounted an heretic. Thus the Council at Basil; clearly witnessing, that till this time of the Council, the defending of the Pope's authority to be supreme, or his judgement to be infallible, was esteemed an Heresy by the Catholic Church, and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretics: which their decrees were not, as some falsely pretend, rejected by the Popes of those times, but ratified and confirmed, and that r Per Concilia generalia, quae summi Pontifices. Consistorialiter declaraverunt esse legitima, ●tiam pro eo tempore, quo ejusmodi declarationes ediderunt. Conc. Basil. pa. 144. a. Consistorialiter, judicially and cathedrally by the indubitate Popes, that then were, for so the Council of Basil witnesseth; who hearing that Eugenius would dissolve the Council, say s Epist. Conc. Basil. pa. 100 b. thus; It is not likely that Eugenius will any way think to dissolve this sacred Council, especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Council at Constance, per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata; which both his predecessor Pope Martin the fifth, and himself also hath approved. Besides this, that Eugenius confirmed the Council at Basil, there are other evident proofs: His own Bull, or embossed letters, wherein he saith t Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas. Ses. 16. of this Council, purè, simpliciter, ac cum effectu, et omni devotione prosequimur; we embrace sincerely, absolutely, and with all affection and devotion, the general Council at Basil: The Council often mention his adhesion, v In sua adhaesione. sess. 16. his maximam adhaesionem x Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b. to the Council; by which Adhesion, as they teach, y Sess. 29. pa. 96. b. Decreta corroborata sunt, the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope, were confirmed: Further yet the Orators which Pope Eug. sent to the council, did not only promise, but z jurabant ejus decreta defendere, etc. Sess. 16. corporally swear before the whole Council, that they would defend the decrees thereof, & particularly that which was made at Constance was, & now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmony there was in believing and professing this doctrine, (that the Pope's judgement in causes of faith, is neither supreme nor infallible) that general Councils at this time decreed it, the indubitate Popes confirmed it, the Pope's Orators solemnly swore unto it, the Universal a Haec veritas toties et tam solenniter per universam ecclesiam declarata est. Epist. Conc. Bas. pa. 144. a. and Catholic Church until then embraced it, and that with such constancy and uniform consent, that, as the Council of b In decreto quinque conclus. pa. 96. Basil saith, (and their saying is worthy to be remembered) nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit, never any learned and skilful man doubted thereof. It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride, vaunting, c Hildebrandum si● gloriari solitum testatur Avent. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455. See, quasi deus sit, errare non posse; I sit in the temple of God, as God, I cannot err; but for any that was truly judicious or learned, never any such man, in all the ages of the Church until then, as the Council witnesseth, so much as doubted thereof, but constantly believed the Pope's authority not to be supreme, and his judgement not to be infallible. 31. After the Council of Basil, the same truth was still embraced in the Church, though with far greater opposition then before it had: d Poss. Biblic. in Nic. Cusano. witness hereof, Nich. Cusanus a Bishop, a Cardinal, a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus, who lived 20 e Obut ann. 1464. Poss. Conc. autem finitum est. an. 1442. years after the end of the Council at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Council, resolving f Lib. 2. the Concor. Cathol●ca. 17. that a general Council is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam; is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolic see. Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice, of Chalcedon, of the sixth and 8 general Councils, and he is so confident herein, that he saith, Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis? what man being in his wits can doubt of this superiority? Witness john de Turrecremata, a Cardinal also, who was famous at the same time, g Claruit an. 1460. Tritem. de Scrip. eccls in joh. de Tur. He thought he was very unequal to the Council at Basil, in favour belike of Eugenius the 4, who h Poss. in. joh. Tur. made him Cardinal, yet that he thought the Pope's judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible, and his authority not supreme, but subject to a Council. Andradius will tell you i Lib. de author. gener. Concil. pa, 88 in this manner; Let us hear him (Turrecremata) affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith, are to be preferred judicio Rom. Pontificis, to the judgement of the Pope; and then he citeth the words of Turrec. that in case the Fathers of a general Council should make a definition of faith, which the Pope should contradict (This was the very case of the fifth Council, and Pope Vigilius) dicerem, judicio meo, quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae, I would say, according to my judgement, that we must stand to the Synods, and not to the Pope's sentence: who yet further touching k Turr. sum. de eccls lib. 2. cap. 93. that the Pope hath no superior judge upon earth, extracasum haeresis, unless it be in case of heresy, doth plainly acknowledge, that in such a case a Council is superior unto him. Superior, I say, not only (as he minceth the matter) by authority l Tunc Synodus major est Papa, non quidem potestate jurisdictions, sed authorita e discretivi judicij. Turrec. of discretive judgement, or amplitude of learning (in which sort many mean Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors) but even by power of jurisdiction, seeing in that case (as he confesseth) the Council is a superior judge unto the Pope, and if he be a judge of him, he must have coactive m Rel. lib. 3. de ver. Dei. ca 9 § Praeterea. Et lib. 2. the council. ca 18. authority, and judicial power over him. Witness Panormitane, an Archbishop, and a Cardinal n Poss. in Nich. Tudisc. also, a man of great note in the Church, both at and after the Council of Basil; He o cap. Significasti. de Elect. extrav. professeth that in those things, which concern the Faith, or general state of the Church; Concilium est supra Papam, the Council in those things is superior to the Pope. He also writ a book in defence of the Council at Basill so distasteful to the present Church of Rome, that they have forbid p Po●●. loco. citat. it to be read, and reckoned it in the number of Prohibited books in their Roman Index. At the same time lived q Obijt an. 1467. Tritem. in Ant. Ros. Antonius Rosellus, a man noble in birth, but more for learning, who thus writeth, r Monarch. part. 2. ca 15. I conclude, that the Pope may be accused and deposed for no fault, nisi pro haeresi, but for heresy strictly taken, or for some notorious crime scandalising the whole Church. and again, s Li. ced. par. 3 c. 21 Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Council, yet in case of heresy, the Council may condemn and adnul senteniam Papae, the judgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope; and he gives this reason thereof, because in this case the Council is supra Papam, above the Pope: and the superior judge may be sought unto, to declare a nullity in the sentence of the inferior judge. Thus he: and much more to this purpose. Now although by these (the first of which was a Belgian, the second a Spaniard, the third a Sicilian, and the last an Italian) it may be perceived, that the general judgement of the Church at that time, and the best learned therein, was almost the same with that of the Council at Basill, that neither the Pope's authority is supreme, nor his judgement in causes of faith is infallible; yet suffer me to add two other witnesses, of those who were after that Council. 32. The former is the judgement of Universities, quae t Orthuin. Gra. in fasc. rer. expet. pa. 240. fere omnes, which all, in a manner, approved and honoured that Council of Basil; The other is the Council at Biturice (some Ortel. Sinon. take it for Bordeaux) called by Charles the seventh, the French King, in which was made consensu omnium x joh. Marius lib. deschis. & conc. ca 23. ecclesiasticorum, et principum regni, by the consent of the whole clergy, and all the Peers of France, that Pragmatical Sanction, which john Marius calls y Ibid. medullam, the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Council at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this, z Gag. annal. Fran. Lib. 10. The authority of the Council at Basil and the constancy of their decrees, perpetua esto, let it be perpetual, and let none, no not the Pope himself, presume to abrogate or infringe the same. This Sanction was published with full authority, not seventy years before the Council at Lateran (as Leo the tenth witnesseth a Abipsius Sanctionis editione vix annos 70 fluxisse, Conc. Later. Sess. ●1. pa. 639. b. Loquitur autem de secunda ejus edit. nam antea promulgata erat an. 1438. teste Gag. & Mario. ) that is, some four years after the end of the Council at Basill. And although the Popes (whose avarice and ambition was restrained by that sanction) did detest it, as Gagninus saith, b Lib. 10. non secus ac perniciosam haeresin; no otherwise then as a dangerous heresy, yea and laboured tooth & nail to admit it, yet, as saith the university of Paris, c In sua App●l. à Leon. 10. ad Council. by God's help, hactenus prohibitum extitit, they have been ever hindered until this time of Leo the tenth. Indeed Pius secundus endeavoured and laboured with Lewes the 11. to have it abrogated, and he sent d Io. Mat. lib. citat. ca 14. a solemn ambassador, Card. Balveus, a very subtle e Homo versutus, planeque perversus. ib. fellow, to bring this to pass, but after much toiling both himself and others, re infecta redijt, he returned without effecting the Pope's desire. And to go no further, Leo the 10. and his Lateran Synod, are ample witnesses that this Sanction was never repealed, before that Synod, for they f Conc. Later. s●s. 1●. complain that, by reason of the malignity of those times, or else because they could not help it, his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt, seemed to have tolerated that pragmatical Sanction, and that for all, which either they did or could do, the same Sanction retroactis temporibus vignisse, et adhuc vigere; had in former times, and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session, stand in force, and full vigour. Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as heretical (as did the Council also of Basil) that assertion of the Pope's Supremacy of authority, and infallibility of judgement in defining causes of faith, which the present Roman Church defendenth, it is now clearly demonstrated that the same Assertion was taught, professed, and believed to be an heresy, and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretics, by the consenting judgement of Councils, Popes, Bishops, and the Catholic Church, even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Lateran Session, which was the 19 of December, in the year 1516. after Christ. 33 On that day (a day never to be forgotten by the present Roman Church, it being the birthday thereof,) Leo the tenth with his Lateran Council (or as the learned Divines of Paris g Leo 10. in quodam caetu, nescimus qualiter, tamen non in Spirita Domini congregato. App. Vniu. Paris. account it, Conspiracy, they being not assembled in God's name) abolished, as much as in them lay, the old and Catholic doctrine, which in all ages of the Church had been believed and professed until that day, and in stead thereof erect a new faith, yea, a new foundation of the faith; and with it a new Church also. He and his Synod then reprobated h Quae de authoritate Concilij supra Pontificem constituerunt sententia Conc. Lateranensis plane reprobata sunt. Bin. Not. in Conc. Const. § Exparte. the Decree of Constance for the superiority of a Council above the Pope: they reprobated i Reprobarunt decre●tum Concilij Basiliensis. Rel. lib. ●. de Conc. ca 17. § Denique. also the Council of Basil, and the same Decree renewed by them. That Council they condemn as Conciliabulum, or k Conc. Lat. sess. 11▪ Conventiculam, quae nullum robur habere potuerit, As a Conspiracy, and Conventicle, which could have no force at all. They reprobated the l Ibid. Pragmatical Sanction, wherein the Decree of Constance and Basil was for ever confirmed. Now that Decree being consonant to that catholic Faith which for 1500 years together had been embraced, and believed by the whole catholic Church until that day, in reprobating it, they rejected and reprobated the old and catholic Faith of the whole Church. Instead hereof they decreed the Pope's authority to be m Hujus sanctae sedis suprema authoritate. Ibid. pa. 640. supreme, that it is, de n Ibid. necessitate salutis; a thing necessary to salvation, for all Christians to be subject to the Pope; and that not only as they are severally considered, but even as they assembled together in a general Council: for they define Solum o Ibid. pa. 639. Romanum Pontificem authoritatem super omnia Concilia habere; The Pope alone to have authority above all General Councils. This the Council at Lateran diserte & ex prosesso docuit; taught clearly and purposely, as Bellarmine tells p Lib. 2. the Concil. ca 17. § Denique us: nay, they did not only teach it, but expressissimè definiunt q Lib. cod. ca 13. § Deinde. , they did most expressly define it. And that their Definition is no other than a Decree of Faith, as the same Cardinal assures us; Decrees of faith (saith he) r Lib. cod. ca 17. § Ad hunc. are immutable, neither may ever be repealed after they are once set down; Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus, and such is this Decree for the Pope's supreme authority over all, even General Councils, made in their Lateran Synod. And what mean they (think you) by that supreme authority? Truly the same which Bellarmine explaineth, That because his authority is supreme, therefore his judgement s Proinde ultimum judicium summi pontificis esse. lib. 4. de Rom. pontiff. ca 1. § Sed nec. in causes of Faith, is the last and highest: and because it is the last and highest, therefore it is t Restat igitur ut Papa sit judex (ultimus) et proinde non possit errare. Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca 3. § Contra. Et Dicunt Concilij sententiam esse ultimum judicium Hinc autem apertissimè sequitur, non errare. Lib. 2. de Conc. ca 3. § Accedat. infallible. So by their Decree, together with supremacy of authority, they have given infallibility of judgement to the Pope; and defined that to be a catholic truth, and doctrine of Faith, which the whole Church in all ages until then, taught, professed, and defined to be an heresy, and all who maintain it, to be Heretics, and for such condemned both it and them. 34 Now, because this is not only a doctrine of their faith, but the very foundation, on which all their other doctrines of faith do rely, by decreeing this, they have quite altered not only the faith, but the whole frame and fabric of the church, erecting a new Roman church, consisting of them, and them only, who maintain the Pope's Infallibility and supremacy, decreed on that memorable day in their Lateran Synod: a church truly new, and but of yesterday, not so old as Luther, a church in faith and communion severed from all former general Councils, Popes, and Bishops, that is, from the whole catholic Church of Christ, which was from the Apostles times until that day. And if their Popes continue (as it is to be presumed they do) to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to do, to hold among other, this fifth Council ad unum iôta, this certainly is but a verbal, no cordial profession; there neither is, nor can be any truth therein, it being impossible to believe both the Pope's Cathedral judgement in causes of faith, to be heretical, as the fifth Council defined; and the Pope's Cathedral sentence in such causes, to be infallible, as their Lateran Council decreed: So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to itself, such as none can possibly believe, and withal new, such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholic Church of Christ embraced, until that very day of their Lateran Session. 35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished. Four months did not pass after that Lateran Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole University of v In Ap●el. à L●on. 10. quae facta est 21 die Mart. an. 1517. Decret. Later. fact. 19 Decemb. 1517. Paris, as being contra fidem Catholicam, against the catholic Faith, and the authority of holy Councils. And even to these days the French Church doth not only distaste that x A Relation of Religion in the West parts, published an. 1605. pa. 129. Lateran Decree, and hold a General Council to be superior to the Pope, but their Council also of y Gentil. Exam. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. & Car. Mol. dec. Conc. Trid. decret. pa. 3. Trent, wherein that Lateran Decree is confirmed, is by them rejected. And what speak I of them? Behold, while Leo with his Lateran Council strives to quench this catholic truth, it bursts out with far more glorious and resplendent beauty. This stone, which was rejected by those builders of Babylon; was laid again in the foundations of Zion, by those Ezras, Nehemiah's, Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord, who at the voice of the Angel, came out of Babylon, and repaired the ruins of jerusalem. And even as certain rivers are said to run z Alpheum fama est ●uc Elidis amnem, O●cultas e●isse via● subter more Virg. lib. 3. Aeneid. under or through the salt Sea, and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it, but at length to burst out, & send forth their own sweet and delightful waters: Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith. This Catholic truth (that the Pope's judgement and Cathedral sentence in causes of faith is not infallible) borne in the first age of the Church, and springing from the Scriptures and Apostles, as from the holy mountains of God, for the space of 600 years and more, passed with a most fair and spacious current, like Tigris & Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord; or like Pactolus, with golden streams enriching and beautifying the Church of God: after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages, brackish (I confess) before their second Nycene Synod, but after it and the next unto it, extremely salt and unpleasant, more bitter than the waters of Mara. And although the nearer it came to the streets of Babylon, it was still more mingled with the slime or mud of their Babylonish ditches; yet, for all that dangerous and long mixture, continuing about the space of a Tot anni intersunt à Conc. Nic. 2. quod habitum est an. 787. ad annum quo Lutherus se primum opposuit Indulg● iis papalibus & pontifici, qui fui● an. 1517 Cocl. in vita Luther. 730. years, this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetness, by the constant and successive professions of the whole Church throughout all those ages. Now after that long passage through all those salt waves, like Alpheus, or Arethusa, it bursts out again, not as they did, in Sicily, nor near the Italian shores, but (as the Cardinal tells b Brevi occu●avit (Lutheri haeresis) multa regna. Bel. ●. 3. the pontiff. ca 23. § Similitudo. Et, Romana sedes amisit nostris temporibus magna● Germaniae partem, Suctiam, Gothiam, Norvegiam, Daniam universam, bonam Angliae, Galliae, Helvetia, Poloniae, Bohemiae, ac Pannoniae partem, lib. ●od. ca 21. § Ac postea. us) in Germany, in England, in Scotland, in France, in Helvetia, in Polonia, in Bohemia, in Pannonia, in Sueveland, in Denmark, in Norway, in all the Reformed Churches, and being by the power and goodness of God, purified from all that mud and corruption wherewith it was mingled; (all which is now left in it own proper, that is, in the Roman, channels;) it is now preserved in the fair current of those Orthodoxal Churches, wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith, are with no less sincerity professed, than they were in those ancient times before they were mingled with any bitter or brackish waters. 36 You see now the whole judgement of the fifth General Council, how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolical Constitution of Pope Vigilius, condemning and accursing both it for heretical, and all who defend it for heretics: which their sentence, you see; is consonant to the Scriptures, and the whole Catholic Church of all ages, excepting none but such as adhere to their new Lateran decree and faith. An example so ancient, so authentical, and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth, which we teach, and they oppugn, that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger, and stand in doubt, even of the main ground and foundation whereon all his faith relieth. For the full clearing of which matter, being of so great importance and consequence, I have thought it needful to rip up every vein and sinew in this whole cause, concerning these Three Chapters, and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same: and withal examine the weight of every doubt, evasion, & excuse, which either Cardinal Baronius, (who is instar omnium) or Binius, or any other, moveth or pretendeth herein; not willingly, nor with my knowledge, omitting any one reason, or circumstance, which either they urge, or which may seem to advantage or help them, to decline the inevitable force of our former Demonstration. CAP. V. The first Exception of Baronius, pretending that the cause of the Three Chapters was no cause of faith, refuted. 1 THere is not, as I think, any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annals hath with more art or industry handled, than this concerning Pope Vigilius, and the fifth General Council. In this he hath strained all his wits, moved and removed every stone, under which he imagined any help might be found, either wholly to excuse, or any way lessen the error of Vigilius. All the Cardinal's forces may be ranked into four several troops. In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawn from the Matter of the Three Chapters: In the second, those which are drawn from the Pope's Constitution: In the third, those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius: In the fourth & last, those which concern the fifth General Council. After all these, wherein consists the whole pith of the Cause, the Cardinal brings forth another band of certain subsidiary, but most disorderly soldiers, nay, not soldiers; they never took the Military oath, nor may they by the Law of arms nor ever were by any worthy General admitted into any lawful fight, or so much as to set footing in the field; mere thiefs and robbers they are, whom the Cardinal hath set in an ambush, not to fight in the cause, but only like so many Shimei's, that they might rail at and revile whomsoever the Cardinal takes a spleen at, or with whatsoever he shall be moved in the heat of his choler: At the Emperor justinian, at Theodora the Empress, at the cause itself of the Three Chapters, at the Imperial Edict, at Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, at the Synodal acts, yea, at Pope Vigilius himself; we will first encounter the just forces of the Cardinal, which only are his lawful warriors; and having discomfited them, we shall with ease clear all the coasts of this cause, from all his thievish, piratical, and disordered stragglers. 2. The first and chiefest exception of Baronius ariseth from the matter & controversy itself touching these Three Chapters; concerning which he pretendeth, that no question of faith was handled therein, & so one dissenting from another in this cause, might not be counted or called an heretic. This was a question saith he, a An. 547. nu. 30 & nu. 225. de personis, & non de fide; of persons and not of the faith. Again, b Ibid. nu. 46. Vigilius knew, Non de fide esse quaestionem, sed de personis; that there was no question moved herein about the faith, but about certain persons. And yet more clearly, In these disputations, saith he, c Ibid. nu 231. about the Three Chapters, as we have often said, Nulla fuit quaestio de side, ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus; there was no question at all about the faith, so that one dissenting from another herein, might be called an heretic. And this he so confidently avoucheth, that he saith of it, Abomnibus absque ulla controversia consentitur; all men agree herein without any controversy. Thus Baronius, whom Binius applauding, saith d Not. in Conc. ●● §. Nequis. Sciendum est, be it known to all men, that in these disputations and differences about the Three Chapters, non fuisse quaestionem ullam de fide, sed tantummodo de personis; there was no quaestion at all concerning the faith, but only concerning the persons. So he. Whereby they would insinuate, that Pope Vigilius did err only in a personal cause, or in a matter of fact, which they not unwillingly confess that the Pope may do; but he erred not in a cause of faith, or in any doctrinal position of faith, wherein only they defend him to be infallible. 3. Truly the Card. was driven to an extreme exigent, when this poor shift must be the first and best shelter to save the infallibility of the Apostolic Chair. For to say truth, the main controversy touching these Three Chapters, which the Council condemned, and Vigilius defended, was only doctrinal, and directly belonging to the faith; nor did it concern the persons any other way, but with an implication of that heretical doctrine which they and the defenders of these Chapters under that colour did cunningly maintain: A truth so evident that I do even labour with abundance of proofs. 4. justinian the religious Emperor, who called this Council about this matter, committed it unto them, as a question of saith: We have, saith he, e Epist. ad. Synod. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. commanded Vigilius to come together with you all, and debate these Three Chapters, that a determination may be given, rectae fidei conveniens, consonant to the right faith. Again, stirring f Ibid. ●. them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause, he adds this as a reason, Quonian qui de fide recta interrogatur▪ for when one is asked concerning the right faith, and puts off his answer therein, this is nothing else but a denial of the true confession: for in questions & answers quae de fide sunt, which are questions of faith, he that is more prompt and ready is acceptable with God. Thus the Emperor. 5. The Holy Council esteemed it, as did the Emperor, to be no other than a cause or question of faith; for thus they say, Cum h Coll. 8. pag. 584. a. de fide ratio movetur, when a doubt or question is moved touching the faith, even he is to be condemned, who may hinder impiety, but is negligent so to do; and therefore, Festinavimus bonum fidei semen conservare ab impietatis Zizanijs; We have hastened to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impiety. So clearly doth the whole general Council even in their definitive sentence call the condemning of the Three Chapters which themselves did, a preserving of the good seed of faith; and the defending of them, which Vigilius did, a sowing of heretical weeds which corrupt the faith. Again, m Ibid. pa. 586. b. We being enlightened by the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers, have thought it needful to set down in certain Chapters, (those are the particular points of their Synodall judgement) Et praedicationem veritatis, & haereticorum eorumque impietatis condemnationem; both the preaching of the truth, or true faith, and the condemning of Heretics, and their impiety. And in the end, having set down those Chapters, and among them a particular and express condemning of these Three with an anathema denounced to the defenders of them, they conclude thus, n Ibid. pa. 588. a. We have confessed these things, being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures, by the doctrine of the holy Fathers, & by those things which are defined, de unâ eâdemque fide, concerning one and the same faith by the four former Counsels. Then which nothing can be more clear to witness their decree touching these three Chapters most nearly to concern the faith, unless some of Baronius his friends can make proof, that the condemning of heretics, and their impious heresies, and the maintaining of that doctrine which the Scriptures and Fathers taught, and the four first Counsels defined, is not a point of faith. 6. Neither only did the Catholics which were the condemners of these Three Chapters, but the heretics also which were the defenders of them, they also consent in this truth, that the question concerning them, was a controversy or cause of faith. Pope Vigilius in his Constitution o Apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 106.197. ●08. & alibi. still pretendeth his Defence of Those Chapters to be consonant to the Council at Chalcedon, and the Definition thereof: and of the Epistle of Ibas he expressly saith, The Council of Chalcedon pronounced it to be orthodoxal. And none I suppose will doubt, but that the question, whether that or any other writing be orthodoxal, and agreeable to the Definition of Chalcedon, as Vigilius affirmed that Epistle to be; or be heretical and repugnant to that Definition, as the Holy Council adjudged that Epistle to be, is a plain question and controversy of faith. Victor B. of Tunen, who suffered imprisonment and banishment for defence of these Three Chapters, teacheth the like, saying, p In Chron. an. 2. post Consul. Basilij. That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged q judicio Synodi approbata, & orthodoxa judicata est. ibid. orthodoxal, by the sentence of the Council at Chalcedon: and the condemning of these Three Chapters, is the condemning and banishing of that Council. Facundus B. of Hermian, who writ seven books of these Three Chapters, doth more than abundantly witness this of him. Victor thus writeth, r In suo Chron. an. 10. post Consul. Basilij. Evidentissime declaravit, Facundus hath declared most evidently, that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae & Apostolicae, for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholic and Apostolic faith. Facundus himself doth not only affirm this, but prove it also, even by the judgement of Pope Vigilius. Vigilius, saith he, s Lib 4. pro defence. trium Capit apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57 esteemed, the condemning of these Three Chapters to be so heinous a crime, that he thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle, Avoid profane 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 days, he adds, Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit; why do any as yet doubt whether the condemning of them be against the faith, seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it profane novelty 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 be tolerated for the peace of the Church, sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota; but it must be judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholic faith. Thus Facundus testifying both his own, and the judgement of the other defenders of those Chapters, and by name of Pope Vigilius, that they all esteemed and judged this to be a question and controversy of faith, of which Baronius tells us, that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith; and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith. 7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into u Vniversus sere orbis occidentalis ab orientali Ecclesia divisus erat. ●in. not in S. Conc. §. Concilium. two parts, the Eastern Churches with the holy Council condemning; the Western 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 think 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 wisdom of the Cardinal is well worthy observing, He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters, wherein Vigilius was heretical: 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 only was this truth by that age acknowledged, but by succeeding, approved. By Pope Pelagius, who to reclaim certain Bishops from defence of those Chapters, wherein they were earnest, and had writ an apology for the same, useth this as one special reason, because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures & former Counsels. Consider, saith he, x Epist. 7. § Pensate. if the writings of Theodorus, which deny Christ the Redeemer to be the Lord, the writings of Theodoret, quae contra fidem edita, which being published against the faith, were afterwards by himself condemned; and the Epistle of Ibas, wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is defended; if these be consonant to the Prophetical, evangelical, and Apostolical authority. And again, 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 Council is overthrown. Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concern the faith, the defending whereof (which Vigilius did) is by the judgement of Pope Pelagius repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolical doctrines, and even an utter & total overthrow of the faith. To Pelagius acordeth Pope Gregory, who approved z Lib. 2. jud. 10. Epist. 36. this Epistle of Pelagius, & commended it as a direction to others in this cause. And what speak I of one or two, seeing the Decree of this fifth Council, wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith, is consonant to all former, and confirmed by all succeeding general Counsels, Popes and Bishops, till that time of Leo the 10. & his Lateran Synod, as before we a Cap. ●. have showed? was not this think you, most insolent presumption in Baronius to set himself as a johannes ad oppositum, against them all, and oppose his own fancy, to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholic Church for more than 1500 years together? These all with one voice profess this to be a cause of faith: Baronius against them all maintaineth, that it is no cause of faith: and to heap 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 controversy agree herein, that this is no question nor cause of faith. 9 Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth down diverse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and clear tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Council decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide, to be received as a doctrine of the Catholic faith. This saith he, b Lib. 2. de Conc. ca 12. § Quartum. is easily known by the words of the Council, for either they use to say, that they explicate the Catholic faith; or else, that they who think the contrary are to be accounted heretics; or, which is most frequent, they anathmeatize those who think the contrary. So he. Let us now by these marks examine this cause, and it will be most evident, not only by some one of them, which yet were sufficient; but by them all, that the Holy Council both held this controversy to be of faith, and also proposed their decree herein, as a Decree of faith. 10. For the first, the Council in plain terms professeth even c Coll. 8. pa. 588. a. in their definitive sentence, that in their Decree they explain that same doctrine which the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the four former Counsels had delivered in their definitions of faith. Then undoubtedly by Bellarmine's first note, their Decree herein is a Decree of faith, seeing it is an explication of the Catholic faith. 11. For the second, the Council in like sort, in plain terms calleth the defenders of those three Chapters, heretics. For thus cried all the Synod, d Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. He who doth not anathematise this Epistle, is an Heretic: He who receiveth it, is an Heretic: This we say all. And in their definitive sentence they profess e Coll. 8. pa. that they set down the preaching of the truth, & Haereticorum condemnationem, and the condemning of Heretics. So by the second mark of Bellarmine it is undoubted, that the Counsels Decree herein is a Decree of faith. 12. The third note is more than demonstrative. For the Holy Council denounceth, not once or twice, but more I think than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence. Anathema f Coll. 4. pa 537. a. & Coll. 8. pa. 586. et 587. to Theodorus; anathema to him that doth not anathematise Theodorus; we all anathematise Theodorus and his writings. Anathema g Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril: Anathema to all that do not anathematise them: we h Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. all anathematise the impious Epistle of Ibas: If i Coll. 8. pa 587. b. any defend this Epistle, or any part of it, if any do not anathematise it, and the defenders of it, let him be an Anathema. 13. So by all the notes of Cardinal Bellarmine, it is evident, not only that this question about the Three Chapters, is a question of faith; but, which is more, that the holy general Council proposed their Decree herein, tanquam de fide, as a Decree of faith. Now because every Christian is bound to believe certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest, with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived, every doctrine and position of faith, then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to be a doctrine of faith: Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Council now made, not only the Pope's Apostolical sentence in a cause of faith, is condemned to be heretical, but all they also who defend it, to be Heretics and accursed; and seeing all defend it who maintain the Pope's cathedral sentence to be infallible, that is, all who are members of the present Church of Rome: it hence inevitably ensueth, that every Christian is bound to believe certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest, not only the doctrine, even the fundamental doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be heretical, but all that maintain it; that is, all that are members of that Church, to be heretics and accursed, unless disclaiming that heresy they forsake all communion with that Church. Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himself, and their whole Church, if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolical Constitution, that they must be defended; if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith, that he might shuffle off those Anathemaes, which like the leprosy of Gehazi doth cleave unto them; thought it the safest, as indeed it was the shortest way, to deny this to be a cause of faith, which not only by all the precedent witnesses, but by the judgement of their own Cardinal, and all the three notes set down by him, is undeniably proved to be a cause of faith, and that the Decree of the Holy Council concerning it, is proposed as a Decree of faith. 14. I might further add their own Nicholas Sanders, who though he saw not much in matters of faith, yet he both saw and professed this truth,, and therefore in plain terms calleth k Ob easdem haereses decrevit eos esse alienos à diaconorum honorc. Lib. 7. the visib. Monarch. an. 537. the defending of the Three Chapters an heresy. Now heresy it could not be, unless it were a cause of faith, seeing every heresy is a deviation from the faith. But omitting him, and some others of his rank, I will now in the last place add one other witness, which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth, than all the former, and that is Baronius himself, who, as he doth often deny, so doth he often and plainly profess this to be a cause of faith. Speaking of the Emperor's Edict concerning these Three Chapters, he bitterly reproveth; yea, he reproacheth the Emperor for that he would l An. 546. nu. 41. arrogate to himself edere sanctiones de fide Catholica, to make Edicts about the Catholic faith. Again, the whole Catholic faith, saith he, would m An. eodem. nu. 43. be in jeopardy, if such as justinian de fide leges sanciret, should make laws concerning the faith. Again, n Ibid. nu. 50. Pelagius the Pope's Legate sounded an alarm contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitum Edictum, against the Emperor's Edict published concerning the faith. And yet again, o An. 547. nu. 50. Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent, who had subscribed to the Emperor's Edict of faith. So often, so expressly doth Baronius profess this to be a cause of faith, which himself, like the Aesopicall satire, had so often, and so expressly denied to be a cause of faith; and that also so confidently, that he shamed not to say, Consentitur ab omnibus, all men agree herein, that this is no cause of faith; whereas Baronius himself dissenteth herein, confessing in plain terms this to be a cause of the Catholic faith. 15. The truth is, the Cardinal's judgement was unsettled, and himself in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fifth general Council. For having once resolved to deny this one truth, that Vigilius by his Apostolical sentence maintained and defined heresy, and decreed that all other should maintain it, (which one truth, like a Thesean thread would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise;) now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth, toiling himself in uncertainties and contradictions, saying, and gainsaying, whatsoever either the present occasion which he hath in hand, or the partiality of his corrupted judgement, like a violent tempest doth drive him unto; when the Emperor or his Edict (to both which he bears an implacable hatred) comes in his way, than this question about the Three Chapters, must be a cause of faith: for so the Cardinal may have a spacious field to declaim against the Emperor for presuming to intermeddle and make laws in a cause of faith. But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution (with which the Cardinal is most partially blinded) meet him, than the case is quite altered, the question about the Three Chapters must then be no more a question or cause of faith; for that is an easy way to excuse Vigilius, and the infallibility of his Chair: he erred only in some personal matters, in such the Pope may err; he erred not in any doctrinal point, nor in a cause of faith; in such is he and his Chair infallible. 16. There remaineth one doubt, arising out of the words of Gregory, by the wilful mistaking whereof p An. 547 nu. 30. & an. 553. nu. 231. Baronius was misled. He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinal, where speaking of this fifth Synod, he saith, q Lib. 3. Epist. 37. In eâ de personis tantummodo, non autem de fide aliquid est gestum; In it was only handled somewhat concerning those persons, but nothing concerning the faith. So Gregory, whose words if they be taken without any limitation, are not only untrue, but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Counsels and Fathers above mentioned, even to Gregory himself: for speaking of all the five Counsels held before his time, he saith, r Lib. 1. Epist. 24. Whosoever embraceth, praedictarum Synodorum fidem, the faith explained by those five Counsels, peace be unto them. And if he had not in such particular manner testified this; yet seeing he approveth (as was before s Ca 4. nu. 27. showed) this fifth Council and the Decree thereof; & seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have been a cause of faith, grounded on Scriptures, and the definitions of faith set down in former Counsels; even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply, that he accounted this cause for no other than (as the Synod itself did) for a cause of faith. 17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himself herein? I list not to censure so of him; rather by his own words I desire to explain his meaning. There were diverse in his time, as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius, who condemned this fifth Council, because, as they supposed, it had altered and abolished the faith of the Council at Chalcedon, by condemning these Three Chapters, and had established a new doctrine of faith. Gregory entreating against these, whom he truly calleth t Exeuntes maligni homines turbaverunt animos vestros. Lib. 2. Epist. 10. malignant persons, and troublers of the Church, denieth, and that most justly, that this Council had done aught in the faith; not simply, as if they had done nothing at all, but nothing in such a manner as those malignant persons intended; nothing that was contrary to the faith decreed at Chalcedon; nothing that was new, or uncouth in the doctrine of faith; in this manner the Council did nothing in the faith. Hear the words of Gregory expressing thus much; Some there are (saith he) u Lib. 3. Epist. 3. who affirm, that in the time of julian there was somewhat decreed against the Council at Chalcedon; But such men neither reading, neither believing those who read, remain in their error; for we profess, our conscience bearing witness unto us, de side ejusdem Concilij nihil esse motum, nihil violatum; that nothing concerning the faith of that Council at Chalcedon, was here (in the fifth Council) moved or altered, nothing violated or hurt; but whatsoever was done in this fifth Synod, it was done, that the faith of the Council at Chalcedon should in no sort be infringed. So Gregory, who to like purpose again saith, x Lib. 2. Ind. 10. Epist. 36. In the Synod concerning the Three Chapters it is manifest, nihil de fide convulsum esse, nihil immutatum; that nothing concerning the faith was weakened, nothing changed therein. 18. Now as against their first calumny, Gregory teacheth, that nothing was done contrary to the faith of the Council at Chalcedon; so against their other he showeth, that they decreed no novelty in the faith, nor ought else but what was formerly decreed at Chalcedon. To which purpose he saith y Lib. 7. Epist. 54. of this fifth Synod, that it was in omnibus sequax, in every point an imitator & follower of the Council at Chalcedom: & again z Lib. 2. Ind. 11. Epist. 10. more clearly, In this fifth Synod nothing else was done, quam apud Chalcedonensem Synodun fuer at constitutum; then was formerly decreed in the Council at Chalcedon. So Gregory. Both this fifth, & that at Chalcedon (as also the former at Ephesus) decreed one and the self same faith, as by Gregory is truly witnessed: but the Council at Chalcedon and Ephesus decreed it absolutely, without any express reference to those persons or writings which are condemned in the fifth, though in them both was implicitè contained a condemnation of all these Three Chapters; the fifth Council decreed it with an express reference to these Chapters, and an explicit condemnation of them. The Decrees made at Ephesus and Chalcedon were Introductive; as first condemning those heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. The Decree of this fifth Council was only Corroborative, or Declarative, explaining and corroborating those former decrees, by condemning these writings of Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, which did overthrow the same. As Vigilius and other followers of Nestorius, did not at this time broach any new heresy, but under those Three Chapters on which they put the visor of the Council at Chalcedon, sought to revive the heresy of Nestorius, which before, when it came in its own habit, was condemned: Even so the fifth Council needed not, neither did they condemn any new, but unmasked the old & condemned heresy of Nestorius lurking under the defence of these Three Chapters; they pulled off the visor of Chalcedon from it, under which it most subtly now sought to insinuate itself, and creep into the Church. And when Gregory saith, that in this fifth Council they dealt tantummodo de personis, that tantummodo, in his sense doth not exclude all handling of the faith, not the explaining, not the corroborating of the faith, for both these they certainly did, and Gregory acknowledgeth: but it only excludes such an handling of the faith as was used at Ephesus and Chalcedon, by making an Introductive decree for condemning some new heresy. The fifth Council dealt only with persons, without making such a Decree; yet it dealt with those persons with an intent to explain and corroborate those Introductive decrees. 19 The words of Gregory next following those on which Baronius relied, do yet more fully explain this to have been his meaning. In the fifth Synod nothing was done concerning the faith, but only the persons; and those persons, de quibus in Chalcedonensi Synodo nihil continetur, concerning which persons nothing is contained or set down in the Council at Chalcedon. For as there is much contained in that Council concerning those persons, especially Ibas, (in whose cause, and the examining thereof, two a Act. 9 & 10. whole Actions are bestowed) and yet in a favourable construction, or according to Gregory his meaning, he might truly say, that nothing concerning them is contained there; to wit, nothing to condemn Theodorus, or the writings of Theodoret and Ibas in such an express and particular manner as they are condemned in the fifth Council: Right so, though the fifth Council not only handled a cause of faith, but published their decree as a Decree of faith; yet in a like favourable construction, and according to Gregory's meaning he might truly say, that nothing was done therein concerning the faith, to wit, nothing to make such an Introductive decree for condemning a new heresy, as was formerly made in the Council at Chalcedon. 20. By all which the true meaning of Gregory is now by his own explaining most evident. In the fifth Council nothing was done contrary to the faith, (as the malignant slanderers of this Council pretended) nothing was done de novo, to condemn any new heresy; nothing was done absolutely, or without reference to these Three Chapters: all this Gregory truly intendeth, when he saith, nothing was done therein concerning the faith: but seeing all that was done in the Council, was done to explain, confirm & corroberate the faith decreed at Chalcedon, & Ephesus; as Gregory himself professeth, it undoubtedly followeth, that even for this cause, and by Gregory's own testimony, the question here defined was a cause and question of faith. Upon Gregory's words the Cardinal might well have collected, that Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters, erred not in any new heresy, or new question of faith, such as was not before condemned; but that he erred not at all in a cause of faith, is so far from the intent of Gregory, that out of his express words the quite contrary is certainly to be collected. For how can the Pope be said not at all to err in the faith, when by his Apostolical Constitution hedefendeth that cause of the Three Chapters, the defending whereof contradicteth a former definition of faith, and utterly overthroweth the holy Council of Ephesus and Chalaceon; yea, the whole Catholic faith. 21. Neither must this seem strange to any, that the fifth general Council did only explain and confirm a former definition of faith, and made no decree to condemn any new heresy repugnant to the faith. The like hereof in some other Counsels may be observed. The Council of Sardica was a general holy Council, as beside b Socr. lib. 2. ca 16. Ex pluribus quam 35 provin●i●s collecta. Athan. Epist. ad solit. vitam agent. pa. 225. others the Emperor justinian in that his c Ab universali Sardicensi Synodo. Iust. Edict. § Quod autem. Edict witnesseth: and yet in it, d Bin. Not. in Conc. Sard. § Cum igitur. & Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. chap. 25 § Tertia. nihil novi quoad fidem definitum est; no new doctrine of faith was there defined, nor any new heresy condemned, but only the faith decreed at Nice was corroborated, and confirmed. And the cause why the Sardican Council is not reckoned in the order of general Counsels, was not that which e Loc● citat. Bellarmine and Binius fancy; because the Sardican and Nicene were held to be one and the same Council, (for neither were they so indeed, being called by different Emperors, to different places, at different times, and upon different occasions; neither were they ever by the ancient, or any of sound judgement held for one Synod) but the true reason thereof was this, because the Sardicane, though in dignity & authority it was equal to the Nicene, yet only confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice; and made no new or Introductive decree, to condemn any heresy, as did the other at Nice. And truly for the self same reason, the Church might, if they had pleased, have done the like to this fifth Council, and not have accounted it no more than they did the Sardicane, in a distinct number; but only esteemed it a Council corroborative of the Council at Chalcedon, as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Council, which some Churches also did, as by the 14. Council at f Can. 6. & 7. Toledo, held a little after the sixth general, appeareth; wherein this fifth being for that cause omitted; the sixth, held under Constantinus Pogonatus, is reckoned as the fifth, or next Council to that at Chalcedom. But for as much as this cause about the Three Chapters had bred so long, and so exceeding great trouble in the Church; and because the explanation of the faith made in this fifth Council upon occasion of those Chapters, was so exact, that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith, and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done: it pleased the Church for these reasons, with one consent, declared first in the sixth g Act. 15. pa. 8●. Sanctas & universales quinque Synodos, & super●as & quin●ae Synodi. Council; and then in the 2. h Can. 1. Nicene, and diverse other after it, to account this for the fifth, and rank it as it well deserveth, in the number of holy and golden general Counsels. 22. It now I hope clearly appeareth how unjustly the Cardinal pretends the words of Pope Gregory, as denying this to be at all any cause of faith; whereas not only by the Emperor, by the fifth Council, by the defenders as well as the condemners of these Chapters; by succeeding general Counsels; by Popes, even Pope Gregory among the rest; by the Catholic Church, and consent thereof until their Lateran Synod; but even by their own writers, Cardinal Bellarmine, Sanders, yea, by Baronius himself, it is evidently proved so nearly to concern the faith, that to defend these Chapters (which Vigilius did) is to enervate and overthrow; and to condemn them (which the Council did) is to uphold and confirm the Holy Catholic faith. And although this alone (if I should say no more) were sufficient to oppose to this first Evasion of Baronius; yet, that both the truth hereof may more fully and further appear; and that the most vile and shameless dealing of Baronius in this cause, such, as I think few heretics have ever paralleled, may be palpable unto all; To that which hitherto we have spoken in general concerning all these Three Chapters, I purpose now to add a particular consideration of each of them by itself; whereby it will be evident, that every one of these Chapters doth so directly concern the faith; that the defence of any one of them, but especially of the two last, is an oppugnation, yea, an abnegation of the whole Christian faith. CAP. VI That the first reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because none after their death ought noviter to be condemned, concerns the faith, and is heretical. 1. IN the first Chapter, wherein Vigilius defendeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia, being long before dead, ought not to be condemned for an heretic; the Pope's sentence relieth on three reasons, the examination whereof, will both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter, and manifest the foul errors of Vigilius, as well doctrinal, as personal, as well concerning the faith, as the fact. 2. His first reason is drawn from a general position, which Vigilius taketh as a Maxim, or doctrinal principle in divinity. Nulli a Const. Vigil. ap. Bar. an. 553. nu. 179. licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis; It is lawful to condemn none after their death, who were not in their life time condemned; and therefore not Theodorus. That Theodorus in his life time was not condemned, Vigilius proveth not, but presupposeth; nor do I in that dissent from him; for although that testimony of Leontius b Leon. lib. de set. Act. 4. be exceeding partial and untrue, where he saith, that Theodorus and Diodorus, in pretio habiti mortem oppetiere; died in honour; neither did c Viva quidem ipsis cur nomo contradixerat, factum ideo, etc. Ibid. any, while they lived reprove any of their sayings: yet are there diverse other inducements to persuade, that Theodorus was not in his life time, by any public judgement of the Church, either declared, or condemned for an heretic: for besides that neither cyril, nor Proclus, nor the fifth general Council, do mention any such matter, the words of Cyrill do plainly import the contrary. The Ephesine Synod, saith d Cyril. epist. ad. Procl. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550, 551. he, forbore in particular, and by name, to anathematise Theorus, which they did dispensatiuè, by a certain dispensation, indulgence, or connivance, because diverse held him in great estimation, or account: what needed either any such dispensation, or forbearance, had he in his life time been publicly condemned for heresy? Again, the Church of Mopsvestia, where he was Bishop, for diverse years after his death, retained his name in e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. & seq. in act. Synod. Mopso. Diplicis, that is, in their Ecclesiastical tables, making a thankful commemoration of him, as of other Catholics in their Liturgy; which, had he been in his life time condemned for an heretic, they would not have done. Lastly, what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have been so scrupulous, to condemn him being dead, had he in his life time been before condemned? Or how could this have given occasion of this controversy, whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned, if Theodorus had not been 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 condemned. Now that this is no personal, but merely a dogmatic cause, and controversy of faith, is so evident, that it might be a wonder that Baronius, or any other, should so much as doubt thereof, unless the Apostle had foretold, that because men f 2 Thess. 2.10, 11. do not receive the love of the truth; therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions, that they may believe lies. Certain it is that Pope Vigilius, held this for no other, but a doctrine of faith; for he sets it down as a g Perspeximus si quid de his praedecessores nostri decreverint. Vig. Const. loc. citat. nu. 176. Hujus causae formam veneranda praedecessorum nostrorum constituta, nobis apertissime tradiderunt. Ibid. Idem regularia Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta. Ibid. nu. 179. Definition, or Constitution of his predecessors, decreed by the Apostolic 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 bind, or lose 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 own judgement: nec audet Ecclesia, nor dare the Church challenge to itself the judgement of such. As the Pope, so also the holy general Council took this for no other, than a question of faith; for they plainly profess, even in their Synodall resolution, that their decree concerning dead men, that they may be Noviter condemned; is not only an Ecclesiastical i Licet cognosceremus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditionem. Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. tradition, but an Apostolical doctrine also, warranted by the texts, and testimonies of the holy Scriptures. To which purpose alleging diverse places of Scripture, they add these words; It is many ways manifest, that they who affirm 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 Council judging, and decreeing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these. 4. Now when both the Pope on the one side, and the whole general Council on the other; that is, both the defenders, and condemners of this Chapter profess 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 cle●re, both by the Pope, and Council, that the resolution of this question is set down in Scripture, what else can be thought of Baronius denying either the one, or the other part, to be 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 Cardinal's faith? 5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith, and in this cause of faith, the Pope, and general Council are at variance; either of them challenge the Scripture, as consonant to his, and repugnant to the opposite assertion; what equal and unpartial umpire may be found to judge in this matter? Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit, saith their vain, and vaunting k Camp. R●t. 3. Braggadochio; Hast thou appealed to the Church? to the Church, and judgement thereof shalt thou go; at the name of which, we are so far from being daunted, or appalled, that with great confidence, and assurance of victory, we provoke unto it. 6. But where may we hear the voice, and judgement of the Church? out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers, or provincial Synods, or in general Counsels; & in which of these soever the Church speak, her sentence is for us, and our side. Her voice is but soft & still in the writings of single Fathers; the Church whispereth rather than speaketh in them; and yet even in them she speaketh this truth very distinctly, and audibly. Hear Saint l Epist. ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 548. b. Austen, who entreating of Caecilianus, about an hundreth years after his death, saith; If as yet they could prove him to have been guilty of those crimes, which were by the Donatists objected unto him, ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus, I and all Catholics would even now accurse him though dead, though never condemned before, nor in his life time. Again, m Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc. ca 35. In this our communion, if there have been any Traditores, or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution, when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have been such, & cord & carne mortuos detestabor. Hear Pope n Pelag. 2. Epist. 7 § In bis autem. Pelagius, who both himself fully assenteth herein to Saint Austen, and testifieth the assent of Pope Leo, in this manner; Quis nesciat, who knoweth not that the doctrine of Leo is consonant to Saint Austen. Hear o Cyr. lib. cont. Theod. cit. à Conc. 5. Collat. 8. pa. 585. a▪ S. Cyrill, who speaking of heretics, saith, Evitandi sunt, sive in vivis, sive in mortuis; they are to be avoided, whether they be dead, or living. 7. The Church speaks yet somewhat louder, in the united judgement of Provincial Synods. In an p Citatur in Conc. 5. Coll 5. pa. 548 a. African Council it was proved, how certain Bishops at their death had bequeathed their goods to heretics; whereupon statuerunt, the Bishops in that Synod decreed, ut post mortem anathemati subjiciantur; that such should be accursed, even after their death; and this Sextilianus an African Bishop testifieth upon his own certain knowledge. The judgement of the Roman Church is to this purpose most pregnant. About some twenty years before this fifth Council, Dioscorus was chosen Bishop of Rome; but shortly after dying, eum & post mortem anathematizavit Romana Ecclesia; the Roman Church accursed him even after he was dead, although he had not offended in the faith, (but in some pecuniary or simoniacal crime) Et hoc sciunt omnes, qui degunt Romae; and they all who live at Rome, know this to have been done against him after his death; they especially who are in eminent place, who also continued in the communion with Dioscorus until he died, as after q Iust. Edict. § Invenimus. justinian, Benignus r Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. Bishop of Heraclea; and after them both the fifth Council s Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. testifieth. In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia, by Rambulas t Bar. an. 435. nu. 4 Bishop of Edessa, Acatius, and others, wherein, both themselves condemned Theodorus, (though dead) and in their letters to Proclus exhort u Petimus quatenus fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega Dogmata ejus. In Libel. Presbyt. Arme. ad Procl. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa 542. b. him to do the like. 8. But this voice of the Church sounds like a mighty thunder in the consenting judgement of general Counsels. In the sixth, x Act. 12.13, 18. Pope Honorius, who in his life time had not been, was now about threescore years after his death, convicted to be an heretic; and then noviter condemned, and anathematised by the whole Council. The same sentence of Anathema was confirmed, and again denounced against him in the second y Act. 7. in Epistola 2. Synod. & Can. 1. Nicene; and in the other under z Honorius post mortem ab Orientis Episcopis anathemate est affectus. Conc. 8. Act. 7. pa. 891. b. Hadrian, which they account to be the seventh and eighth general Counsels. In the Council of Chalcedon, Domnus a Edict. justin. § Quod autem. & Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. Bishop of Antioch, was after his death condemned. In the holy Ephesine Council was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia, after his death condemned, as Pope Pelagius b Pelag. 2. Epist. § In bis. expressly testifieth. The like to have been done against Macedonius, by the fifth Council at Constantinople, justinian c Sancta Dei Ecclesia & post mortem Macedonium anathematizavit. Iust. Edict. § Quod declareth. Before that, was the same done by the Council at Sardica; for when some of those, who had subscribed to the Nicene faith, returned to Arianism, alij quidem d Ibidem. vivi, alij autem post mortem anathemizati sunt à Damaso Papa, & ab universali Sardicensi Synodo; they were anathematised, some while they lived, others after their death, by Pope Damasus, and by the general Council at Sardica, as witnesseth Athanasius. With such an uniform consent do all these Counsels teach this, and teach it, not as any novel doctrine, but as a truth successively from age to age, even from the Apostles time delivered unto them; by warrant of which Apostolical tradition Valentinus, Martian, Basilides, à nulla Synodo e Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. anathematizati, being by no Synod in their life time condemned, were after their death accursed by the Church of God. 9 And yet if none of all these particulars could be produced, seeing the doctrine of the faith decreed in this fifth Council, (one part whereof is this of condemning the dead) is consonant to all the former, and confirmed by all succeeding Counsels, (as we did before demonstrate) nor Counsels only, but approved by all Popes, and Bishops, from Gregory the first, to Leo the tenth, yea, by all Catholics whatsoever, who all, by approving this fifth Council, consent in this truth; Seeing all these, that is, the whole Catholic Church, for 1500 years, with one consenting voice, sound out, like a multitude of mighty waters, this Catholic truth, which Vigilius oppugneth, that one may after his death be noviter condemned, and sound it as a doctrine of the Catholic faith, and even thereby sound out Pope Vigilius to have held, yea, to have defined heresy; and all, who defend Vigilius, to be heretical; I do nothing doubt, but if ever you did, or can, you do now most distinctly hear the voice of the Church, even of that Church, of which their Roman Rabsecha vaunteth, that we are marvellously affrighted at the very name thereof. 10. May I now entreat, that as you have heard the Church, so you would be pleased to hear what the Cardinal doth say of this matter. After this part of Vigilius decree, he sets a memorable gloss upon the Pope's text. Hic adverte, Note here, saith the Cardinal, that f Bar. an. 553. na. 185. this assertion of Vigilius (that dead men ought not to be condemned) is not so generally received as it is set down by him. A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinal's mouth▪ Papa hic non tenetur. But I pray you, by whom is it not received? The Cardinal answers, not by the holy Church; the holy Church g Ejusmo●i homin● jure d●minare post mortem sanct● consu●vit E●●les●a. Bar. ibid. doth practise the contrary unto it. What? the holy Church not receive the dogmatic and Apostolical assertion of the holy Pope? not that assertion which his Holiness decreeth to be taught by Scripture, to be a Constitution, a rule, a definition of the holy Apostolic See? No truly; The holy Church for all that, receives not this assertion, saith the Cardinal. And the Cardinal was to blame to use such a palpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Church receiveth it not: he might, and he should have said; The holy Church rejecteth, condemneth, and accurseth this Cathedral assertion of the Pope, and all that defend it: nor the Church only of that one age wherein Vigilius lived, but the Catholic Church of all ages, speaking by the mouths of all general Counsels, of Fathers, of Popes, of all Catholics, this holy Church condemneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius. The Cardinal was too diminutive in his extenuations, when he spoke so faintly, The holy Church doth not so generally receive it. 11. Let us bear with the Cardinal's tenderness of heart: the Pope's sores must not be touched, but with soft, and tender hands. Seeing the Cardinal hath brought the Pope, and the holy Church to be at odds, and at an unreconcilable contradiction; the Pope denying, the Church affirming, that a man after his death may noviter be condemned, it is well worth the labour to examine, whether part the Cardinal himself will take in this quarrel; you may be sure, the choice on either part was very hard for him: he hath here a worse matter than a wolf by the cares. This is dignus vindice nodus, a point which will try the Cardinal's art, wisdom, piety, constancy, and fair dealing: And in very deed, he hath herein played Sir Politic would be, above the degree of commendation. The Cardinal is a man of peace, he loves not to displease either the Pope, or the Church; he knew, that to provoke either of them, would bring an army of wasps about his ears; and therefore very gravely, wisely, and discreetly he takes part with them both: and though their assertions be directly contradictory, he holds them both to be true, and takes up an hymn of Omnia bene to them both. 12. First, he showeth that the Church saith right, in this manner: Although h Bar. an. 553. nu. 185. it be proved, that one died in the peace of the Church, and yet it do afterwards appear, that in his writings he defended a condemned heresy, and continuing in that heresy died therein; and bu● dissemblingly communicate with the Church, the holy Church useth to condemn such a man, jure, even by right. Having said as much as can be wished, on the Church's part, the Cardinal will now teach, that the Pope also saith right, in this manner; Pope Vigilius i Bar. an. 553. nu. 233. had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chapters, by his Constitution; and among those worthy reasons this is one: for if this were once admitted, that a man who dyeth in the communion of the Church, might after his death be condemned; pateret ostium, this would open such a gap, that every ecclesiastical writer, though he died in the Catholic Communion, may yet after his death, out of his writings be condemned for an heretic. Thus Baronius. 13. O what a golden and blessed age was this, that brought forth such a Cardinal! The Church decreeth, that a man after his death, may noviter be condemned for an heretic; and it decreeth aright: The Pope decreeth the quite contrary, that no man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretic; and he also decreeth aright, and with good reason. So both the Church saith well, & the Pope saith well; & you can say no less then, Et vitulatu dignus, & hic: or because the Cardinal saith better than they both; and, what jupiter himself could never do, makes two contradictory sayings to be both true, and both said well; he● best deserveth, let him have all the prize, Vitula tu dignus utrâque. 14. I told you before, and this ensuing treatise will make it as clear as the Sun, that Baronius having once lost the path, & forsaken that truth, where only sure footing was to be found, wandreth up and down, in and out in this cause, as in a wilderness, treading on nothing but thorns, wherewith feeling himself pricked, he skips hither and thither for succour, but still lights on briers and brambles, which do not only gall, but so entangle him, that by no means he can ever extricate, or unwind himself; for if one listed to make sport with the Cardinal, it clearly and certainly followeth, that if the Church say true, than the Pope saying the contrary, doth say untrue. Again, if the Pope say true, than the Church saying the contrary, doth say untrue; and then upon the Cardinal's saying that they both say true, it certainly followeth, that neither of them both say true, and yet further, that both of them, say both true and untrue, and yet that neither of them both saith either truth, or untruth. 15. But leaving the Cardinal in these briars, seeing by the upright, and unpartial judgement of the whole Catholic Church of all ages, we have proved the Pope's decree herein to be erroneous, and (because it is in a cause of faith) heretical, let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion: The former is taken from those words of our Saviour, k Matth 18, 18. whatsoever ye bind on earth, whence, as you have seen, Vigilius, and, as he saith, Gelasius also collecteth, that such as are not on earth or alive, cannot be judged by the Church. 16. The answer is not hard; our Saviour's words, being well considered, are so far from concluding, what Vigilius or Gelasius, or both, do thence collect, that they clearly and certainly do enforce the quite contrary; for he said not, Whatsoever ye bind, or lose, concerning those that are on earth, or living; in which sense Vigilius took them: but, Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead, ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth, or during your life time, shall bind or lose, the same according to your censure here passed upon earth, shall by my authority be ratified in heaven. The restrictive terms [upon earth] are referred to the parties, who do bind, or lose; not to the parties, who are bound, or loosed. The general term [whatsoever] is referred to the parties who are bound, or loosed, whether they be dead, or alive, not to the parties who bind or lose, who are only alive, and upon earth. Nor doth our Saviour say, Whatsoever ye seem to bind or lose here upon earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven; for, (ecclesiae clave errante) no censure doth, or can either bind, or lose, either the quick or the dead: but he saith, Whatsoever ye do bind or lose, if the party be once truly and really bound, or loosed, by you that are upon earth, it shall stand firm, and be ratified by myself in heaven. So the parties who do bind, or lose, are the Apostles, and their successors only while they are upon earth: the parties who are bound, or loosed, are any whosoever whether alive or dead; the party who ratifieth their act in binding and losing, is Christ himself in heaven; For I say unto you, whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholic Church, which, as we have before declared, both believed, taught, and practised this authority of binding, and losing, not only upon the living, but upon the dead also. Of their binding the nocent, we have alleged before abundance of examples: for their losing the innocent, that one of Flavianus is sufficient. The Ephesine l Act. concili ab. Ephes. citata in acts Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 57 b. latrociny adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholic Bishop, for an Heretic; under the censure of that general Council Flavianus died, nay was martyred m Caesus Flavianus dolore plagarum migravit ad Dominum. lib ca 12. by them: The Holy Council at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus, loosed that band, wherewith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus, thought they had fast tied him, but because their key did err, they did not in truth. They honoured and proclaimed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr n Quae (Synodus Chalc.) Flaviano palmam mortis tribuit gloriosae. Edict. Valen. & Mart. in Chalced. Conc. Act. 4. pa. 86. a. & Flavianus injust quidem in vita condemnatus, just post mortem revocatus est a B. Leone et sancta Synodo Chalcedonensi. Iust. edict. §. Invenimus. , whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretic: the holy Council feared not to lose him, because he was dead, & their power to bind, or lose, was only towards those that are upon the earth, or living. By which example, and warranty of that holy Council, our Church of latter time, imitating the religious piety of those ancient Bishops, restored to their pristine o Hist. combustionis Buceri et Fagij et restitutionis eorum. dignity and honour those reverend Martyrs, two Flaviani in their age, Bucer and Fagius after their death; when a worse than that Ephesine conspiracy had not only with an erring key bound, but even burned them to ashes. Now it is rightly observed by justinian p Si non oporteret anathem atizari post mortem eos qui in sua impietate mortui sunt, oportebat nec eos qui injuste condemnati sunt patres post mortem revocari. Iust. edict. prope finem. that if the Church may after their death, restore such as being unjustly condemned, and falsely supposed to be bound, died in their innocency, and sincerity of faith: it may also by the very same reason, condemn, and anathematise such after their death, who died in their impiety or heresy being charitably perhaps but falsely supposed, to have died in the communion of the Catholic Church. 18. And truly, whether soever of these censures; either of binding, or losing, the Church useth towards the dead, as they both are warranted by the words of Christ, and judgement of the Church, so in doing either of both, they perform an acceptable service to God, and an holy duty to the Church of God. For as we profess in our Creed to believe the Communion of Saints, which in part consisteth in loving, praising, and imitating all such as we know, either now to live, or heretofore to have died in the faith, or for the faith of Christ: so do we by the same Article of our Creed, renounce all communion with whatsoever heretics, either dead or alive, and therefore though in their life time, they had never been condemned for such, but honoured as the servants of God, under whose livery they hide their heresies, and impieties; yet so soon as ever they shall be manifested to have been indeed, and to have died heretics, we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them, not love them, nor speak well of them, much less imitate them; but as Saint Austen saith he would do of Cacilianus, even after their death, cord & carne anathematizare, not making them accursed; (For that the Church cannot do, and themselves have done that already) but declaring them to be accursed, & in truth excluded from the society of God, & God's Church; and to be such though dead, as with whom we can have no more communion, then hath light with darkness, faith with heresy, God and belial; nay we should wish that if it were possible, there might be such an antipathy, and disunion betwixt us and them, as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles q Impositis eorum cadaveribus eidem rogo, flammam se divisisse traditur, vid. Stat. in Theb. , and Polynices, that even our dead bones, and ashes, might leap from theirs, nor sleep in one Church, nor one earth with them, from whom one day they shall be eternally severed, by a wall of immortality and immortal glory. 19 Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules, decrees and Constitutions r Idem regulariter Apostolicae sedis definiunt constituta. Vigil. loc. citar. nu. 179. of their Apostolic See, by name of Pope Leo, & Gelasius, both whom Vigilius saith to have defined this, that a dead man might not noviter be condemned: was it not enough for Vigilius, that himself was heretical herein, unless he drew his predecessors also into the same crime, of defending, yea defining heresies? How much better had it beseemed him, to have covered such heretical blemishes of their Apostolic See, and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were, if not with a lap of his robe, as the good Emperor would, yet at least with silence and oblivion. 20. And yet for all this, if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility, will give me leave, I am for my own part willing to think better, and more favourably of Leo, and Gelasius, in this matter: specially of Leo, whose authority, when some defenders of the three Chapters objected s Praemisissis dicentes, doctrina vestrae reverendae sedis est, per B. Leonem successoresque ejus, mortuum ab hominibus damnari nullatenus oportere. Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. § In his. to Pope Pelagius, as according with them, Pelagius replied not only that he could no where remember any such thing in the books of Leo, but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary, as consenting t Quis nescit quod ejusdem Leonis & B. Augustini praedicatio contradicat. ibid. wholly with Saint Austen, who professed, that he would anathematise Caecilianus after his death, if it could appear that he were guilty of those crimes. Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresy, so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause; yea and the words of Leo, which he citeth, do declare no less. In that Epistle u Leo Epist. 91. Leo entreating of those who by the just censure of the Church, were excommunicated, or who did not perform the acts required in repentance, saith, If any of them die before he obtain remission, quod manens in corpore non receperit, consequi exutus carne non poterit, he cannot obtain that (to wit, remission of his fault) being dead, which before his death he had not received: And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius. Neither is it needful that we should fifth the merits or acts of them, qui sic obierunt, who so die, seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice, what the priestly ministry could not perform, (to wit, the losing of that band of censure or of sin, under which they died.) Thus, Leo, who denieth not that: men after their death may be condemned, but that any who in his life time is not, may after his death be pardoned; He speaks not of such as have not been in their life time condemned, of which only Vigilius entreateth, but of such, who being unpenitent, or condemned by the Church, die in their sin, or under that just censure, & therefore in the state of condemnation: So neither do the words of Leo signify any such thing, as Vigilius by them intended to prove: and Pope Pelagius assureth us, that Leo taught the quite contrary to that, which out of Leo, Vigilius in vain laboureth to prove. 21. The very like construction is to be given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius. In the former, x Gelas. Epist. 11. entreating of Acatius, he thus saith, Let no man persuade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication; for after he had fall'n into that wickedness, and deserved to be excluded, and that, jure, by right, from the Apostolic communion, in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est, he persisting in this condemnation died; Absolution cannot be now granted unto him being dead, which he neither desired, nor deserved while he lived: for it was said to the Apostles, Whatsoever ye bind on earth: But of him (these are the words cited by Vigilius) who is now under God's judgement, (that is, who is dead in this sort) it is not lawful for us to decree aught else, but that, in quo eum supremus dies invenit, wherein he was found at the time of his death. So Gelasius. In which words it is evident that he speaks not (as Vigi●lius doth) of such as in their life time were not condemned, nor denieth he that such may after their death (when their heresy is discovered) be condemned, but of such as being in their life time justly condemned, die impenitent in that estate, and of such he denyeth, that after their death they can be absolved. A truth so clear, that Binius sets this marginal note upon it, Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus, post mortem non potest absolvi; He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication, cannot after his death be absolved. And Gelasius himself often repeateth the same most clearly, in his Commonitorium to Faustus: We read faith he y Gelas. Epist. 4. , that Christ raised up some from the dead, but we never read, that he forgave, or absolved any who were impenitent when they died: and this power he gave to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth: on earth saith he, namin hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi; For Christ never said that any who died being so bound should be loosed. 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place z Epist. Synodalis Gelasij, & Synod. Rom. 2. p. 268. b. alleged by Vigilius; In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus, who being the Pope's Legates, had communicated with Acatius, and other heretical sectaries, and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius; Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church: Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure: when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead a Nos etiam mortuis veniam prastare deposcunt. ibid. Gelasius utterly refused to grant it, and calling a Roman Synod, it was declared in it; That Misenus ought in right to be loosed, but not Vitalis, whom, as they professed, they gladly would, but by reason of his own impenitency wherein he died, they could not help, nor absolve; but must leave him (which are the words on which Vigilius relieth) to the judgement of God, it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead, seeing it is said, Whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth: such than as are not upon earth, God hath reserved them not to man's, but to his own judgement; Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it: So Gelasius and the whole Roman Synod: who do not herein generally deny, that any without exception may be judged being dead, for than they should condemn beside many other, the holy Council of Chalcedon, which absolved Flavianus, and bound or condemned Domnus, and both after their deaths: but limiting their speech to the present matter which they handled, they teach that none who are dead (to wit in such state as Vitalis died, excommunicated and impenitent,) no such can after their death be judged (to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged, that is, absolved or loosed after his death from that censure:) and that the words of our Saviour do forcibly conclude, seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven, and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church, are indeed reserved to the only judgement of God, the Church can pronounce no other, nor milder sentence, than it hath already passed of them. That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church, Gelasins saith not, and that is the heretical position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius, but doth not prove: That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church, and dye impenitent therein, can after their death be loosed by the Church, is a catholic truth, which Gelasius teacheth, and we all profess, this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth, but should not prove. 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that heretical doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolical decree hath not only himself eternally blemished the Roman See, but laboureth also to fasten that heresy, as an ancient and hereditary doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See. If this my endeavour, for the honour of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them, I must return a conditional and shorter, but more unpleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius, relying on their authority, and that is this, If Leo and Gelasius truly and indeed taught the same with Vigilius, that none after their death may noviter be condemned, then were they also, as Vigilius, by the consenting judgement of the catholic Church, heretical: If they did not indeed teach this doctrine, then is Vigilius not only erroneous in faith, both decreeing himself, and judging them to have decreed heresy, but slanderous also, falsely imputing so great a crime as is heresy, to so ancient & famous Pope's aswere Gelasius and Leo: And so whether they taught this doctrine, or taught it not, this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all; proving nothing else, but either them to be heretical, if Vigilius say true; or himself to be a slanderer, if he say untrue. 24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted, in stead of a conclusion, I will add one short consideration to all that hath been said, That this position decreed by Vigilius is such, as doth not only condemn the catholic church, that is, all the oppugners of it, but even Vigilius himself, and all who defend it. Say you, that a dead man may not noviter be condemned? In saying so you condemn the holy Council at Sardica, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, for they all did noviter condemn such persons being dead, as in their lives time had not been condemned. Now the holy Fathers of those Counsels, having thus condemned the dead, died themselves in the Lord, and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say, they should not have condemned the dead, even in saying so you do noviter condemn all those Fathers being now dead; and so you do that same thing, which you say must not be done; and even by defending your position, you overthrew your own position; for you do noviter condemn all those holy Fathers being dead; and yet you say, that no man may noviter condemn the dead: Nay, you condemn not them only, but even your own self also herein, for you condemn those, who condemn the dead, and yet yourself condemns all those holy Fathers, being now dead; and you condemn them for doing that, which yourself now do; even for condemning the dead. Such a strange discord there is in this heretical position of Vigilius, that it not only fights against the truth, and the opposites unto it; but viperlike, even against itself, and against the favourers, and defenders of it. CAP. VII. That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because he died in the peace, and communion of the Church, is erroneous and untrue. 1. THE second reason of Vigilius, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not be condemned, is, for that (as he supposeth) Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church: to this purpose he saith, that a Vigil. Const. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 179. the rules of his predecessors (which he applieth to Theodorus) did keep inviolate the persons of Bishops, in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorum, who died in the peace of the Church. And again, We b Ibid. nu. 184. do especially provide by this our present Constitution, lest by occasion of perverse doctrine, any thing be derogated from the persons of them, who, as we have said, in pace & communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt; have died in the peace and communion of the Catholic Church; and that no contumely be done to those Bishops, qui in pace Catholicae Ecclesiae sunt defuncti; who have died in the peace of the Catholic Church. Now that Theodorus so died Vigilius proveth not, but takes as consequent upon the former point, which, as we have c Sup. ca 6. showed, was known and confessed, because d Perspeximus si quid de h● qui defuncti sunc, & minime reperiuntur in vita damna●i. Vigloc. cit. nu. 176. Quos vocat, In pace Ecclesiae defunctos. Ibid. nu. 179. & 184. he was not in his life time condemned by the Church. Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason, he borrowed it of other Nestorians, with whom in this cause he was joined both in hand and heart. They (to wit, the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius) flee unto another vain excuse, saith Iust. Edict. § Quod antem. justinian, affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned, eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est; because he died in the communion of the Churches. 2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vigilius: The Emperor hath done it most sound, and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution. Oportebat f Iust. ibid. eas, scire, those men who plead thus for Theodorus, should know that they die in the communion of the Church, who unto their very death do hold that common doctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church. Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate, ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est; but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death, was rejected by the whole Church. Thus justinian. To whose true testimony Binius ascribeth so much as well he might, that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresy, this, saith he, might g Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. verbo Theodorus. be believed, nisi justinianus, unless the Emperor had testified that he died in his heresy. 3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fifth h Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. a.. Council, where, as it were of purpose, this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner; Whereas it is said of some (and one of those is Vigilius) that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church, mendacium est & calumnia, magis adversus Ecclesiam; this is a lie and slander, and that especially to the Church. For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church, qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit; who hath kept and held the true doctrines of faith, even till his death: But that Theodorus did not keep those doctrines, certum est, it is certain by his blasphemies: and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same. And after the words of Gregory recited, they add this, quomodo conantur dicere, how do any say, that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodorus was, died in the communion of the Church? Thus testifieth the Council. 4. Can aught be wished more pregnant to manifest the foul errors of Vigilius in this part of his decree? Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Catholic Church: The Emperor and Council not only testify the contrary, but for this very cause the Council (impatient at such indignity offered to God's Church,) calls him in plain terms a liar, and a slanderer; yea, a slanderer of the whole Catholic Church in so saying. Vigilius from the not condemning of Theodorus in his life time, collecteth, that he died in the peace and communion of the Church: both the Emperor and Council witness his doctrinal error herein: truly teaching, that though an heretic live all his life time, not only uncondemned by the Church, but in all outward pomp, honour, and applause of the Church; either himself cunningly cloaking, or the Church not curiously, and warily observing his heresy while he liveth; yet such a man neither lives, nor dies in the entire peace and communion of the Church. The Church hath such peace with none, who have not peace with God; nor communion with any, who have not union with Christ. It condemned him not, because, as it teacheth others, so itself judgeth most charitably of all: It judged him to be such, as he seemed, and professed himself to be. It was not his person, but his profession, with which the Church in his life time had communion and peace; As soon as ever it seeth him not to be indeed such as he seemed to be, it renounceth all peace and communion with him, whether dead, or alive: nay, rather it forsaketh not her communion with him, but declareth unto all, that she never had communion or peace with this man, such as he was indeed before, though she had peace with such as he seemed to be. She now denounceth a double anathema against him, condemning him first for believing or teaching heresy, and then for covering his heresy under the visor of a Catholic, and of the Catholic faith. So justly and fully doth the Emperor, and Council refute, both the personal error of Vigilius in that he affirmeth Theodorus to have died in the peace of the Church; and the doctrinal also, in that he affirmeth it upon this ground, that in his life time he was not condemned by the Church. 5. Now whereas i Accesserunt dignae causae ac rationes. Bar. an. 553. nu. 233. Baronius saith, that Vigilius had just, and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter: one of which is this, because, if this were once admitted that one dying in the communion of the Church, might after his death be condemned for an heretic; pateret ostium, there would a gap be opened, that every ecclesiastical writer, licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset; although he died in the communion of the Catholic Church, might after death be out of his writings condemned, for an heretic; truly he feareth where no fear is at all. This gap, nay, this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath lain wide open this sixteen hundred years. Can the Cardinal, or any of his friends in all these successions of ages, wherein have died many thousand millions of Catholics; can he name or find but so much as one who hath truly died in the peace and communion of the Church, and yet hath been after his death condemned by the Catholic Church for an heretic? He cannot. The Church should condemn her own self, if she condemned any with whom she had peace, and whom she embraceth in her holy communion, which is no other but the society with God. Such indeed may dye in some error, yea, in an error of faith, as Papias, Irenee, justine, in that of the millenaries: as Cyprian, (as is likely) and other African Bishops in that of Rebaptisation; but either dye heretics, or be after their death condemned by the Catholic Church, for heretics, they cannot. 6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinal, and all his fellows, should fear another matter, which more nearly concerns themselves; and fear it, even upon that Catholic position, that the dead out of their writings may justly be condemned. They should fear to have such an itching humour to write in the Pope's Cause; for his supremacy of authority, or infallibility of his Cathedral judgement: fear to stuff their Volumes (as the Cardinal hath done his Annals) with heresies, and oppositions against the faith; fear to continue and persist in their heretical doctrine: fear to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula; the second and only board to save them after their shipwreck; to dye I say, before they revoked, disclaimed, condemned, or been the first men to set fire to their heretical doctrines and writings; and at least, in words, if not, as the k In sine vitae reconciliatio pelentibus et poenitentibus non est neganda, dum tamen, si haeretici sint, recipiantur cum scriptura & juramento. Gloss in dist. ●. de poenit, ca Multiple●. custom was, by oath, and handwriting, to testify to the Church, their desire to return unto her bosom. These are the things indeed they ought to fear, knowing that howsoever they flatter themselves with the vain name of the Church; yet in very truth, so long as their writings remain; testifying that they defended the Pope's infallibility in defyning causes of faith, or any other doctrine relying on that ground, whereof in their life time they have not made l Satis est ut Ecclesiae judicio loco as●et aliquem decessisse impoenitentem, si non constet de illius poenitentia, qui haereticus post mortem convictus est. Fran. Torrens. lib. the 6.7, & 8. Synod. pa. 13. & ejusdem sententiae 〈◊〉 Pigh. fuisse. a certain, and known recantation, they neither lived nor died in the peace and communion of the Catholic Church, but may at any time after their death, and aught whensoever occasion is offered, be declared by the Church to have died in their heresies, and therefore died both out of the peace of God, and of the holy Church of God. This, unless they seriously and sincerely perform, it is not I, nor any of our writers, (whom they imagine, but most unjustly, out of spleen and contention to speak these things) who condemn them, but it is the whole Catholic Church; She, by approving this fifth Council and the true decree thereof, condemns this Apostolical & Cathedral definition of Vigilius, and all that defend it; that is, all the members of the present Roman Church, to be heretical; and as convicted heretics, she declares them to die anathematised; that is, utterly separated from God, and from the peace, and most blessed communion with the Church of God; howsoever they boast themselves to be the only children of the Church of God. 7. If any shall here reply, or think, that by the former examples of Papias, Irenee, justine, Cyprian, and the rest, Baronius, and other members of the present Roman church may be excused; that these also, as the former, though dying in their error, may dye in the peace & communion of the Church; this I confess is a friendly, but no firm excuse; for although they are both alike in this, that the former as well as the latter, die in an error of faith; yet is there extreme odds, and many clear dissimilitudes, betwixt the state or condition of the one, and the other. 8. The first ariseth from the matter itself wherein they err. The former erred in that doctrine of faith, wherein the truth was not eliquata, declarata, & solidata per plenarium Concilium, as S. Austen m Aug. lib. 2. the bapt. ca 4. speaketh, not fully scanned, declared, & confirmed by a plenary Council: Had it been, we may well think the very same of all those holy men, which Austen n Ibid. most charitably saith of S. Cyprian, Sine dubio, universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent; without doubt they would have yielded to the truth, being manifested unto them, by the authority of the whole Church. The latter err in that, which, to use same Father's o Aug. lib. eod. c. 1. words, per universae Ecclesiae statut a firmatum est; which hath been strengthened by the decree of the whole Church. This fifth Council, consonant to all precedent, and confirmed by all subsequent general Counsels, unto Leo the tenth, decreeing this cathedral sentence of Pope Vigilius, to be heretical: whence it doth clearly ensue, that as the former, who were ready to embrace the truth, had it been manifested unto them, erred not of pertinacy, but, as Austen saith, of humane infirmity; so the latter, who reject the truth being manifested unto them, and withstand the known judgement of the whole catholic Church, even that judgement which is testified by all those witnesses, to be consonant to the Scriptures, and Apostolical doctrine, can no way be excused from most wilful 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 general and holy Counsels, that is, of the whole catholic Church. So the error of the former, though it was in a point of faith, yet was but materially to be called heresy, as being a doctrine repugnant to faith; yet being not joined in them with pertinacy, which is essentially, as Canus p Quod haeresis esse sine pertinacia nequest, non est di●fcile oslendere communi omnium Theologorum sementia, etc. Canus lib. 12. Loc. Theol. ca 9 § Quod. showeth, required in an heretic, could neither make, nor denominate them to be heretics: The error of the latter, is not only an error in a point of faith, but is formally to be called heresy, such as being both a doctrine repugnant to faith, and being in them joined with pertinacy, doth both make, and truly denominate them, who so err, to be heretics; and show them to hold it heretically, not only as an error, but as a most proper heresy. 9 The second difference is in the manner of their error. The former held their opinions as probable collections, not as undoubted doctrines of saith; and so long as those errors 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 until the time of Jerome, touching the millenary opinion; for he mentioning the same, saith r Hier. in cap. 19 jeremiaes. thus; Haec licet non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus, quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & martyrum ista dixerunt: These things (concerning the reign of Christ for one thousand years upon earth, in a terrestrial, but yet a golden jerusalem) although we do not ourselves follow, yet we cannot condemn them, because many of the Ecclesiastical writers and Martyrs have said the same: whereby it is evident, that in jeromes' s Hieronimi tempere nihil adhuc ab Ecclesia ac ea re fuit definitum. Bar. notis in Martyr, loc. cit. time nothing was defined herein by the Church; for then Jerome might, and would constantly have condemned that error by the warrant of the Church's authority, which then he held to be a probable, and disputable matter. In which regard also Austen calleth it a tolerable t Quae opinio esset utcunque to●●rabili●, si, etc. Aug lib. 20. de Civit. Dei. ca 7. opinion, and such as himself had sometimes held, if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spiritual. Baronius tells u Bar. an. 118. nu. 2. et au. 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 probability, but as a Catholic doctrine of faith; It was then condemned by Pope Damasus about the time of Jerome; and so being condemned by the Church, it was ever after that held for an heresy; and the defenders of it, for heretics. 10. Did Baronius and the rest of the Roman Church in like sort, as those millenary Fathers, commend their Pope's infallibility no otherwise then as a probable, a topical, or disputable matter, the like favourable censure would not be denied 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 Apostolical Constitution, as a doctrine with such x Statuimus nulli licere quicquam contrarium bis conscribere, vel proserre. Vig. Const. in sine necessity to be received of all, that none either by word or writing might contradict the same; when the chief Pillars of their Church urge the Pope's Cathedral definitions in causes of faith, for such as wherein, nullo y Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 3. et Gretz. des. ca 2. lib. 1. de Pont. pa. 652. et alij. casu errare potest, he can by no possibility be deceived, or teach amiss; when they urge this, not only 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 Catholic Church, as soon as they espied this, to creep into the hearts of men, to give some sovereign antidote against such poison, and to prevent that deluge of heresies, which they knew, if this Cataract were set open, would at once rush in, and overwhelm the Church of God. And therefore the fifth general, and holy Council, to preserve for ever the faith of the Church against this heresy, did not only condemn it, decreeing the Apostolical and cathedral sentence of Pope Vigilius to be heretical; but decreed all the defenders of it to be accursed, and separated from God, and God's Church; so that whosoever after this sentence and decree of the holy Synod, approved by the whole Catholic Church, shall defend the Pope's Cathedral judgements as infallible, and dye in that opinion, they are so far from dying as Papias and Irene did, in the peace of the Church; that by the whole catholic Church they are declared, and decreed to dye out of the peace and communion of the whole catholic Church. 11. A third dissimilitude ariseth from the persons who err. The former, for all their error; held z Cyprianus ita dixit, qui●ci videretur, ut in pace unitatis esse volucrit. etiam cum eis qui de hac re diver●a sentirent. Aug. lib. 2. de baptis. ca 1 fast the unity with the Church, even with those who contradicted and condemned their errors; 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 unity of the Church, humiliter, fideliter, fortiter, ad martyrij usque coronam; kept it with humility, with fidelity, with constancy, even to the crown of martyrdom. By reason of which their charity they were not only fast linked, and, as I may say, glued to the communion of the Church, both in their life, and death, but all their other errors, as Austen b Charitate praesenti quaedam (veritates) venialiter non habentur. Aug. ibid. ●aith, became venial unto them: for charity covereth a multitude of sins. The latter are so unlike to these, that with their error, and even by it, they have made an eternal breach, and separation of themselves from the Catholic Church; even from all who consent unto, or approve this fifth general Council: for having by their Lateran decree erected, and set up in the Roman Capitol, this pontifical supremacy, and infallibility, they now account all but schismatics c Nemo potest sabesse Christo, & communicar● 〈◊〉 Ecclesia, qui non subest Pontifici Rom. Bell. lib. de Eccl. mil●t. ca 5. Schisma est quando unum me ●brum no vult este sub illo ca●●●e, quare tollit unitatem essentialem atque, Ecclesia ipsam. Scinsinaticus igitur non est de Ecclesia. 〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉 habent alij. who consent not with them; they will have no peace, no communion with any, who will not adore this Romish Calf of the supreme & infallible authority of their vicegod. So the former, notwithstanding their error, died in the peace of that Church, to which, by most ardent affection they were conjoined: The latter dying in this their error, whereby they cut off, and quite disjoin themselves from the union of all, who approve the decree of the fifth Council, (and those are the whole catholic Church of all ages) though they dye in the very arms, and bosom of the Queen of Babylon, cannot choose but die out of the blessed peace, and holy communion of the whole catholic Church, which they have wilfully, insolently, and most disdainfully rejected. 12. The fourth and last difference which I now observe, ariseth from the judgement of the Church concerning them both. The former, she is so far from once thinking to have died in heresy, or heretics, that she most gladly testifieth herself not only to hold them in her communion, but to esteem and honour them as glorious Saints of the Church. Papias d Natalis beati 〈◊〉. Martyr. Rom. Feb. 2●. the author of that opinion, a Saint, Irene, e Passio Irene: Episcopi & Martyris. Mart. in martij 24 & Menal. Graec. in Aug. 23. justine, and Cyprian, both Saints, and Martyrs. On the parties which hold the latter error, she hath passed a contrary doom; for by decreeing the Cathedral sentence of Vigilius to be heretical, and accursing all who defend it; she hath clearly judged and declared all who defend the Pope's infallibility in defining causes of faith, to be heretics, & dying so, to die heretics; yea, convicted heretics, anathematised by the judgement of the catholic Church, and so pronounced to die out of the peace and communion of the catholic Church. 13. I have stayed the longer in dissolving this doubt, partly for that it is very obvious in this cause; and yet (as to me it seemed not very easy; but specially that hereby I might open another error in the Constitution of Vigilius, who from the example of those millenary Fathers (one of which, to wit Nepos, he expressly mentioneth) f Vig. Const. loc. cit. nu. 178. would conclude, That none at all though dying in heresy, may after their death be condemned, seeing Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, though he condemned the books and error of Nepos, yet Nepos himself he did not injure, nor condemn, propter hoc maxim, quia jam defunctus fuerat, for this reason especially, because Nepos was dead. But by that which now at large I have declared, it appeareth, that Vigilius was twice mistaken in this matter, for neither did Nepos die in a formal heresy, but in an error only at that time, to which he did not pertinaciously adhere; though Prateolus g Prateolum Nepotem recenset inter haereticos, tum in I●dice, tum in libro ipso, in suo Elench. verbo Nepos. Et ait eum fuisse authore Epicurcae illius opinionis, in verbo Chil●astae. , and after him, the Cardinal, h Mittimus Tertullianum & Nepotem extra classem haereticorum vagantes. Bar. Not. in Martyr. Feb. 22. upon what reason I know not, but sure none that is good, reckons Nepos with Tertullian, as one excluded from the rank and order of catholics: neither did Dionysius or the Church, for that reason at all which Vigilius fancieth; much less for that especially, forbear to condemn Nepos, because he was dead: (for then they would not have condemned Valentinus, Basilides, Cerinthus, who also were dead i justin. in Edicto § Quod autem. , when the Church condemned them,) but because they judged Nepos as well as Irene, justine, and the rest, to have died, though in an error, yet in the unity, peace, and communion of the Church. And this the words of Dionysius k Apud Euseb. lib. 7. Eccl. hist. ca 19 , not rightly alleged by Vigilius, and no better translated by Christopherson do import. For Dionysius said not, that he therefore reverenced Nepos, quia jam defunctus fuerat, as the one l Vigilius. , nor quia ex hac vita migravit, as the other m Christopher. in sua translatione. readeth them, that is, because he was dead, (for upon that reason the holy Bishops should have reverenced also Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and other heretics, who were then dead) but because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Musculus very rightly translateth thus; I much reverence him as one, qui jam ad quietem praecessit, who is gone before me unto rest: that is, because he so died, that his death was a passage to rest; even to that rest of which the scripture n Apoc. 14.13. saith, using the same words, they rest from their labour: to that rest unto which himself hoped to follow Nepos: for that Nepos is gone before to this rest; therefore did Dionysius reverence him. So both the assertion of Vigilius which from Dionysius he would prove, is untrue, that none who are dead may be condemned, and yet the saying of Dionysius is true, that such as go to rest, or dye in the peace of the Church, ought not to be condemned. 14. After this which the Cardinal hath said in general concerning such as dye in the peace of the Church, he addeth one thing in particular concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia, by way of application of that general position unto him, saying o Bar. an. 553. nu. 491 that Vigilius was therefore very slack to condemn him, because he would not condemn those, quos scisset in catholica communione defunctos, whom he knew to have died in the catholic communion of the Church. So the cardinal tells us that Vigilius knew, and therefore that it is not only true, but certain, that Theodorus died in the catholic communion. 15. What think you doth the cardinal gain by pleading thus for Theodorus a condemned heretic? Truly for his pains herein the holy Council pays him sound: for first in plain terms it calls him a liar, and a slanderer, yea a slanderer of the whole Church, and if this be not enough, it denounceth an Anathema unto him for so saying: Cursed be he that curseth not Theodorus; how much more cursed than is he, who acquits Theodorus from that curse, who makes Theodorus blessed? for blessed are all they that die in the peace and holy communion of the Church, and that Theodorus so died the Cardinal for a certainty doth assure us; for Vigilius knew that he so died. 16. But what Church I pray you is that in the communion whereof the Cardinal assures us Theodorus to have died? you may be sure it is their Roman: for in the Cardinal's idiom that's not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church, but it's the one and only Church. In the communion then of their Roman church, even in the communion with the Cardinal himself died Theodorus. Now its certain, he died not in the communion of the Church, which was in the fifth general Council, for they utterly disclaim him, accurse him, and call them liars, and slanderers, that say he died in their communion. Again, its certain that the Church of that fifth Council, was of the same communion with the whole Catholic and Apostolic Church▪ themselves professing to hold the same faith, and communion with all former holy general Counsels, and Catholics, and all succeeding catholics by approving it, professing the same faith and communion with it. Seeing then Theodorus died not in the communion of this Church, which is the true and truly catholic Church, and yet died as the Cardinal assures you in the communion of their Roman church, it doth clearly and certainly hence ensue, that their Roman church is neither the true catholic, neither hath full communion with the true catholic Church. 17. Lastly, seeing Theodorus as the Cardinal tells us, died in the peace, and communion of their Church, and Theodorus was most certainly an heretic, condemned by the catholic Church; declared by the same Church to be accursed, that is, separated from God; nay to be a very Devil, as the holy Council p Hoc symbolum Satanas composuit, Conc. 5. ita ait de symbolo Theodori. Collat. 4. pa. 537. a. proclaimed him; Their Roman church must needs be at peace, and of the same communion with condemned heretics, with Anius, Nestorius, Eutiches, Eunomius, (none of them all can be worse than as Theodorus was, condemned heretics, by the judgement of the whole Church:) of the same communion with those who are separated from God; yea it must needs be at peace, and league with the Devil's communicants. Since this is the peace, this the communion of their church (if Theodorus died, as the Cardinal assureth us he did, in the peace and communion of it) let them for ever keep to themselves, let them alone enjoy, both alive and dead, this peace, this communion, of their Church. But let dis-union, and immortal wars, be for ever betwixt us, and it; betwixt the society with God, and all communion with it. — Nullus amor populis, nec foedera sunto; Littora littoribus contraria, fluctibus undas, Imprecor; arma armis, pugnent cineresque, nepotesque, Et nati natorum, & qui nascentur ab ipsis. And let this suffice, to be opposed against the second reason of Vigilius, who therefore decreed that Theodorus ought not to be condemned, because, as he thought, nay knew, as Baronius saith, that Theodorus died in the peace & communion of the Church. CHAP. VIII. That the third and last reason of Vigilius touching the first chapter why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because he was not condemned by former Fathers, and Counsels, is erroneous and untrue. 1. THe third and last reason of Pope Vigilius in defence of the first Chapter, is drawn from the authority of the ancient Fathers and Counsels; by none of which, as he pretendeth, b ibid. nu. 179. Theodorus of Mopsvestia was condemned, and therefore ought not now by himself, or any other to be condemned. And Vigilius was so exceeding careful to inform both himself, and all others of the certainty, and truth herein, that he saith, we a Vig. Const. nu. 173. added, solicitudinis nostrae animum, the careful solicitude of our thoughts, and diligentissima investigatione quaerere curamus: We have taken most diligent care to find out, whether any thing was decreed, ordered, or disposed by the Fathers, de persona, vel nomine, either concerning the person, or the name of Theodorus: and again, Omnibus diligenter inspectis; We have diligently viewed all things belonging to this matter. Now after all this careful, solicitous, diligent, yea most diligent inspection, Vigilius saith, that, neither in the Council of Ephesus c Ipsam Synodum Ephesinam solicite recensentes, nihil de Theodori persona, refer coperimus. ibid. nu. 173. , nor of Chalcedon d Sed neque in sancto Chalcedonensi concilio aliquid de Theodori nomine invenimus statutum. ibid. nu. 175. , nor in Cyril e Ex quo claret beatum Cyrillum noluisse nomen ejus (Theodori) monumentis Synodalibus propter regulam quae de mortuis servanda est, contineri. ibid. nu. 173. , nor in Proclus f Quando scripsi oportere aut Theodorum aut alios qui pridem defuncti sunt anathemati subdi oportere, ibid. ex Proclo. nu. 174. , nor in other Fathers, could he find that Theodorus was ever condemned. 2. Truly Vigilius had exceeding dim eyes in this cause: or to speak more truly, Nestorianisme had so blinded, and put out his eyesight, that he could discern almost nothing; though it were never so clear, and obvious, unless it favoured the condemned heresy of Nestorius. Can you see neither the person, nor the name of Theodorus condemned by the Fathers? not by Cyrill? not by Proclus? not by the Counsels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon? not by others? Suffer me I pray you, to help the Pope's sight with some better spectacles. Of Cyrill and Proclus, the fifth Council, after a far better view, and inspection, even in the Synodall decree, do thus witness. They g Conc. 5. coll. 8. pa. 585. b. show their meaning concerning Theodorus, quod oportet eum anathematizari, that he ought to be accursed, as we have demonstrated before, out of those things, which cyril and Proclus have written, ad condemnationem Theodori, for the condemning of Theodorus, and his impiety. In another place, h Coll. 5. pa. 551. b. of them both they write again in this manner, Let them who pretend the names of cyril, and Proclus, say if Theodorus be not by them numbered with the jews, Pagans, Sodomites and heretics; particularly of cyril, they say i Ibid. pa. 551. a. , Cyrill seeing that diverse continued to defend the blasphemies of Theodorus, was forced to write books against him and his impieties, & post mortem ejusdem Theodori, ostendere cum & haereticum, & impium, & super Paganos, & super judaeos blasphemium. And after the death of the same Theodorus, to show him to have been an heretic, and more blasphemous than either the jews or Pagans. This the Council saw in the writings of cyril, and Proclus, and upon their sight and knowledge testified the same. 3. The words of cyril, and Proclus do clearly witness the same. Cyrill speaking k Cyrilli verba citantur in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 5●1. a. of Theodorus, calls him one, whose tongue speaks iniquity against God; one whose horn is exalted against God: one who insulteth l Quousque insultas patienti Christo. ibid. over Christ, who lesseneth the crimes of the jews, who pulleth him down, ad infamiam, to infamy and disgrace. Proclus also speaking m Epist. Procii ad Armenios', de side, extat to. 3. Bib. 5. & citantur verba ejus in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. & 542. b. Proclios de Theodoro & ejus impietole ita dicit, etc. not only of the doctrine, but of the person of Theodorus, whom he setteth in the same rank with Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, and other heretics, he calleth him as he doth the rest, turbulentos, & coenosoes fallaciae rivos, filthy and miry rivers of deceit; adding, that the new blasphemy (which was taught by Theodorus and Nestorius) doth far exceed, the blasphemy of the jews. Thus Proclus. Where think you was the Pope's eyes, when he could not, or would not see any of all this? Or if yet we doubt of Cyrills' mind herein, Baronius n Bar. an. 435. nu. 11. himself could not choose, but observe this out of him, you see that cyril doth una, eademque lance, Theodorum expendere cum Nestorio, put him in the same scale, and weigh him altogether alike, as he doth Nestorius. So the Cardinal: checking the Pope's sight, that would not see him to be condemned by Cyrill, whom Cyrill esteemed every whit as wicked an heretic as Nestorius. 4. But this whole matter, and the unexcusable error of Vigilius, will be most evident, by considering the judgement of the Ephesine Council touching Theodorus, and what ensued upon, or after it. That Theodorus of Mopsvestia, who died about some four o Theodorus obijt nu. 427. Bar. nu. 27. Conc. Ephes. habitum nu. 431. Bar. & Bin. years before, was condemned in the holy Council at Ephesus, Cyrill who was Precedent in that Council doth declare, as the fifth Council witnesseth. Cyrill (say p Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. they in the Synodall decree) writ unto john, touching Theodorus, utpote una cum Nestorio anathematizato; as being anathematised together with Nestorius, in the Ephesine Synod: and this they show out of the words of cyril, which are q In Epist. ad joh. Antioch. & Synod. cum co. worthy of most diligent consideration. Peltanus, and after him r In Acts Conc. Ephes. tom. 5. ca 9 Binius, have very unfitly translated Cyrils words, but in the Greek; as also consonantly thereunto they are set down in the fifth s Conc. 5. Coll. 8 pa. 585. a. Council, thus; Processit adversus omnes, qui eadem sapiunt, vel sapuerunt aliquando; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: t Peli & Bi●. ita ve. tunt, 〈◊〉 & nobis & vesirae sanctitati absolute a●●●re liceat, Anathematizanum, etc. id quod absolute, nos & vestra sanctitas dixit, Athematizamus illos, qui dicunt duos filios: That sentence of Anathema, which we (to wit, the holy Ephesine Council) and your Holiness pronounced absolutely, (without naming any person) saying, we accuse those who say there are two Sons, or two Christ's: that sentence proceeded against all who do think so, or who have thought so. Thus Cyrill, and that also in one of those his Synodall Epistles, which the holy Council of u Epistolas Cyrilli Synodicas ad Nestorium et alios per Oriente●, a. c●pti●●ima● habet. Sic de se ●it Conc. Chal. Act. 5 pa. 96. Chalcedon, in their very definition of faith, hath approved: so that this is now not only the judgement of Cyrill, but of the whole Council at Chalcedon. The same is repeated again by cyril, and more conspicuously in his Epistle x Quae extat in Act. Conc. Ephes. tom. 2. Append. 1. ca 6. et citantur etiam haec Cyrilli verba in Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585 a. to Anastasius, Alexander, and the rest; which also hath equal authority by the Council of Chalcedon. Sancta Synodus Ephesi, saith cyril, The holy Ephesine Synod, having pronounced a just sentence of condemnation against Nestorius, hath by the like sentence condemned the impiety of others, qui vel postea futuri sunt, vel jam fuerunt eadem illi sapientes; who either shall hereafter, or heretofore have thought the same; aequalem condemnationem eis imponens; imposing the same condemnation upon them also: for it is fit, that when one is condemned for such vain speeches, non contra unum tantum venire, that the sentence should not come against him alone, but against the whole heresy, and sect. Thus S. Cyrill setting this down for a golden rule to be observed, in all Synodall sentences, and judgements of faith; and being so useful, the fifth Synod doth often y Coll. 5. pa. 543. b. et pa. 548. a. et in sententia Synodali Coll. 8 pa. 585. a. insist upon it. 5. Seeing then Theodorus did not only teach, write, and speak the same with Nestorius, but was indeed the Archheretic, and author of this heresy, Nestorius being but his a Theodorus doctor Nestorij. justin. in Epist ad Conc. 5 Coll. 1. pa. 519. b. et idem ait Conc. 5. in sententia Synodali Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Nestorius Theodori verba locutus est. Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. et, Nec enim Theodorus Nestorij fuit discipulus, sed iste illuis Ibid. disciple, or the trunk to sound out or blaze abroad that heretical doctrine, which Theodorus had breathed into him; it is evident by this golden rule of Cyrill, that though Theodorus was dead before the Synod at Ephesus, yet the anathema and condemnation denounced by the Synod, no less pertaineth to him, than to Nestorius, though the one was named, and not the other. And this the fifth Council out of those very words of cyril, doth collect, and warrant others to collect the same. The writings, say they, of b Coll. 5. pa. 549. b. Theodorus being in all things consonant to the vaniloquie of Nestorius, are together with his, deservedly rejected by the Council of Ephesus, utpote anathemate quod adversus Nestorium factum est procedente etiam adversus eos, qui ante illum similia illi sapucrunt: the Anathema which was pronounced against Nestorius, proceeding also against those, who before Nestorius thought the same which he did. 6. This same judgement of the Ephesine Council, in condemning Theodorus, is yet another way declared, and testified expressly by Pope Pelagius, Theodorum c Pel. 2. epist. 7. § In his. mortuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damnavit; the holy Ephesine Council condemned Theodorus being dead: which so clear a testimony, though alone, were enough to manifest the foul error of Vigilius in this point. But Pelagius sets down a proof also thereof, which openeth another error of Vigilius. He to excuse Theodorus, would persuade that d Symbolum quod Charisius Presbyter illic prodidit. etc. Vig. Const. loc. cit. nu. 173. Theodorus was not the composer of that impious, and diabolical creed, before mentioned. Hear now the words, and and proof of Pelagius, taken from that creed: The Ephesine Synod, saith e Pelag. loc. cit. he, condemned Theodorus, nam cum ab ejus discipulis dictatum ab eo Symbolum; for when that creed, dictated and composed by Theodorus, was brought forth before the Ephesine Synod, cum authore damnatum est; both it, and the author of it was condemned presently by the same holy Fathers. So Pelagius: testifying against Vigilius, both Theodorus to be the author of that creed; and both him, and it, to have been condemned by the Ephesine Council. 7. What Pelagius saith was formerly delivered by the whole fifth Council, who thus say, f Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. Theodorus, besides other innumerable blasphemies, ausus est & impium exponere symbolum, was so audacious as to set out that impious creed: & again, hoc impium Theodori Symbolum; this impious creed of Theodorus was anathematised, other with the writer of it, in the first Ephesine Council: and again, when this creed was repeated, which is by them g Coll. 5. pa. 575. b. called, Impium Theodori Symbolum, the impious creed of Theodorus; the holy Synod h Coll. 4. pa. 537. a. cried out, anathema to him that composed it; (and that was Theodorus as themselves witness;) the holy Ephesine Council accursed this creed, una cum authore ejus, together with the author of it. Thus testified the whole Council. Before this fifth Council, justinian, in his most religious Edict, witnesseth the same. Theodorus (saith i Iust. Edict. § Tuli. he) who exceeds in impiety, Pagans, jews, and all heretics, did not only contemn the Nicene Creed, sed aliud symbolum exposuit, but he hath expounded another creed, full of all impiety: and this impious creed of Theodorus being produced in the first Ephesine Synod, cum ejus expositore, condemnatum est; was condemned, together with the author or composer of it, by that holy Council. So the Emperor. 8. Before all these, this is testified, and fully explained by S. Cyrill, who k Cyrilli verba ex ep. ad Procl. citantur. Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550, 551. was the chief Bishop in the Ephesine Synod: This creed, saith he, composed by Theodorus, as they, who brought it, said, or witnessed, was rejected by the holy Council; and those who thought as that creed taught, being condemned (in which general sentence Theodorus himself was especially included) nullam viri mentionem fecit dispensatione, nec ipsum nominatim anathemati subjecit propter dispensationem; the Council by a dispensation, made no particular mention of Theodorus, but forbore by name to denounce an anathema against him, by a kind of connivance, or indulgence; lest some, who held him in great account, should separate themselves from the Church. So Cyrill. Whence two things are evident; the one that Theodorus, though dead before, was condemned in general terms by the Ephesine Council: The other, that they might in particular also have condemned him, as they did Nestorius; but they forbore that particular naming of him, only by a dispensation, toleration, or connivance at his name: because Theodorus was then held by many in great account; his impieties, and blasphemies being not as yet so fully discovered to the world: Wherein the Ephesine Council imitated the wisdom and lenity of the Apostles, who for a time by a l Et tal●m dispensationem in divina scriptura est invenire. Paulus ad hoc Timotheum circumcidit, etc. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Coll. 5. pa. 551. b. dispensation, and connivance, permitted the use of the Ceremonial Law, that so by insensible degrees the jews might be weaned from that, unto which they had been so long accustomed: which examples of the Apostles, the fifth Council, even in their Synodall sentence, apply to this very cause of Theodorus: the Church and Ephesine Council, for a time, spared by name to condemn him, even then, when by their general sentence he was as truly condemned, as the Mosaical ceremonies were dead, (though then not deadly) to the end that the estimation which some (but very unjustly) had of him, might rather dissui, than dissecari; rather by little and little be untwined, and worn out, than by a peremptory anathema, be at once, and as it were with one violent blow, obliterated out of the hearts of such as admired him, which they saw could hardly be effected. 9 But as the Apostles, when afterwards the Gospel had been long published, and sufficient time allowed, to forget, and bury the ceremonies, than did utterly condemn all that used the same, saying, If m Gal 5.2. ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: Even so did the Church in this cause of Theodorus. She expected that her general sentence should have deterred all from that heresy; specially seeing the Emperors, Theodosius, and Valentinian, had strengthened that Synodall judgement, by a severe Imperial n L. 66. de haeret. Coll. Theod. Edict, set forth some four years o Coac. Eph. h●bit. an. 431. Basso et ●ntiocho Coss●nt ex Act. liquet. Tom. 2. ca 1. Edictum vero editum Theodos●o 15 Coss. id est. anno 433. after the Ephesine Synod; forbidding the books of Nestorius, either to be read, or retained: But it fell out far otherwise; for when the Nestorians could no longer shroud themselves under the name, nor countenance their heresy by the books and writings of Nestorius, they found this new device, to p Consingentes enim quae Nestorij su●t, odisse, alio iterum ca introducunt modo, quae Theodori sunt admir●ntes. cyril cujus verba citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. et idem docet Liber. ca 10. commend their doctrine, under the name, dignity, and authority of Theodorus of Mopsvestia,, whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius, he having sucked all his heretical poison from Theodorus, and this they thought they might safely do, Theodorus being not by name condemned, either in the Synodall judgement, or by the Imperial Edict. To which purpose they, and particularly p Ibas quaedam ex impijs Theodori Capitulis in Syrorum linguam trans●ulit, et ubique transmisit. Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 562. b. Ibas, spread abroad the books of Theodorus in every country, and corner, translating them, as Liberatus q Ca 10. showeth, into the Syrian, Armenian, and Persian languages; by which means they deceived, and seduced many, pretending Theodorus r Theodori scripta admirantes, et dicentes cum recta sapuisse et consonantia sanctu patribus, Athanasio, etc. Conc. 5 Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. writings to be consonant to the ancient fathers. The Catholics seeing how little effect their connivance at Theodorus name had taken; and that the heretics abused their lenity in forbearing him, to strengthen their heresy; saw that now it was time, no longer to dispense or wink at Theodorus; and therefore the time s Quoniam nec suscep●runt dicta illorum, et tempus, quod dispensationis indigerer, praeterijt, jam scripserunt (paties) quae superius dictae sunt, post mortem ejus adversus cum, et ejus scripta Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 5●1. b. of that dispensation being expired, they began now in plain terms, and by name, to condemn both his person, and his writings, as before they had in a generality performed them both in the Council of Ephesus; and this was done by several Bishops, in several Countries, and by many several ways. 10. The first sentence wherein Theodorus was particularly, and by name condemned, was in a Council at Armenia, where the credit of Theodorus had done most hurt. The chief Bishops in that Synod, were Acatius Bishop of Melitium in Armenia, a very learned, & holy man, who had been one t Vt liquet ex subscriptionibus, in quibus saepe A●●●ius. To. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes ca 3. of the chief also in the holy Ephesine Council; and u Rambulas vocatur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. et apud Gratian. Caus. 24. ●. 2. ca 6. ex Emed. Greg. 13. Rambulas, or Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, (whose name it seems the Nestorians for very spite against him, turned into x Sic à Liberato (lomine Nestoria●o vo●atur. ca 10. et Ibas narrat Theodorum injuste à Rabula damnatum. Bar. an. 448. nu. 72. Rabula, that so they might with more facility revile his person) a man of such piety and high esteem in the Church, that Cyrill y Cyrill● Epist. 〈◊〉 Rabulam, in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 543 b. calls him columnam, & fundamentum veritatis; the very pillar and foundation of the truth; and z Rambulas sanctae memoriae Episcopus, qui in Saterdolibus explenduit. Benig. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. Benignus testifieth, that he was a fair and resplendent lamp in the Church. These a Liber. ca 10. two stirred up the Bishops of Armenia to reject the writings of Theodorus, tanquam haeretici, as one who was an heretic; yea, the author of the Nestorian heresy; and themselves were present in that noble Council of b Fuit nobile Concilium in Armeniae celebratum, cui Acatius cum Rabula inter fuit, Bar. an. 435 nu. 4. Armenia, wherein they not only condemned Theodorus as an impious person, an oppugner of Christ, and the child of the Devil; as by the contents of the acts of that Synod c Libellus transmissus ab Episcopis Armeniae Proclo, extatin Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 542. doth appear; but further also, they writ their Synodal letters both to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, & to cyril Bishop of Alexandria, quatenus fiat unit as vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega dogmata ejus; that they also would join with them, and their Synod, in condemning by name, both the person and sacrilegious writings of Theodorus; giving this as a reason thereof, because they exhort them but to do in plain, and express manner, the same thing which was done by them before, but in a generality: We write unto you, per vos etiam antea condemnatum sine nomine, Theodorum nominatim condemnari; that Theodorus may now by name be condemned by you, who hath already, though without expressing his name, been condemned by you. And what they exhorted Proclus, and cyril to do, that Rambulas performed, not only in the Armenian Council, but in his own Church at Edessa; for as Ibas in his impious Epistle d Quae extat in Conc. Ch●●. Act. 10. saith, Ausus est Theodorum clarè anathematizare, he was bold by name, e Conc. 5 coll. 5. pa. 540. a. and expressly, to anathematise Theodorus in his own Church, and, both Benignus and Liberatus witness the same. 11. What Proclus did upon receipt of those letters sent from the Armenian Council unto him, f Liber. ca 10. is not to be learned out of Liberatus report of this matter, for he in the narration of this passage, is not only untrue, and partial, but very heretical also, justly herein taxed by Baronius g Liberatus cantè 〈◊〉, utpote q●i ab aliquo Nestoriano ●am videtur mutuatus historiam. Ba. an. 435. nu. 9 , and Binius h Historiam ca 10. incante nimis ab al quo Nestoria●o magna ex parte mutuatus vid●●ur. Bin. de Liberato. Notis ad Liber. , as borrowing his narration from some Nestorians; which the Reader will easily observe: but the truth herein must be taken out of Cyrill, and the fifth Council. Proclus, saith cyril i Cyrill. verba citantur in Conc 5. coll. 5. pa. 543. b. , sent a tome or writing to them of Armenia full of sound doctrine, and he adjoined thereunto certain chapters, collecta è Theodori codicibus, gathered out of the books of Theodorus, consonant to the doctrine of Nestorius, exhorting them, etiam illa anathematizare, to accurse even those doctrines of Theodorus also. The fifth Council explains this more fully; Proclus say they k Coll. 5 pa. 551. a. , writeth thus against Theodorus and his impious doctrine. And then they cite, first those words of Proclus before mentioned, wherein he sets Theodorus in the same rank with Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius l In Epist. Procli quae extat in Bibl. S. pa. 10.3. corrupti ●●gitur Manic●es. , and other like heretics, calling them all puddles of errors and deceit. And after this, those other words of Proclus, written to john Bishop of Antioch, wherein he calleth the doctrines of Theodorus; or those chapters which were collected out of his books, vaniloquie, monstriloquie, judaical impiety: ad destructionem legentium evomita: doctrines vomited out by him, to the destruction of the readers and hearers: exhorting others, to reject, to abhor, to tread under foot, and to accurse all those chapters of Theodorus: utpote diabolicae insaniae constituta, & inventiones: as being the positions and inventions of devilish madness. From which words of Proclus, uttered both against the person, and doctrine of Theodorus: the Council concludeth very justly, that Proclus (not only in particular condemned Theodorus as the Armenian Council exhorted him) but condemned him as a jew, Pagan, and Heretic: And this was done by Proclus in the year when Valentinian was the 4, and Theodosius the m Corruptè legitur in editione 〈◊〉 quae extat to. 3. B.S. pat. Theodus●● 5. 〈◊〉 15. ut ex fastis liquet 15. time Consul, as the date of his letter or Tome to the Armenians doth declare; which declares also, that the Armenian Council was held the same year n Conc. Armeniae habitum an. 435. Bar. anno illo nu. 4. is est Coss. Theodosij 15. et Valent. 4. : for it followed the spreading abroad of the books of Theodorus; and that was not done till the Nestorians were by the Imperial Edict forbidden to read the books of Nestorius: Now the Imperial Edict bears date, in the same consulship o Coss. Theodosij 15, qui est an. 435. juxta Bar. illo an. nu. 1. , which shows evidently, that as soon as ever the Nestorians began to revive the honour, and name of Theodorus (being only in a generality before condemned) the catholics forthwith opposed themselves, and by name condemned him. And which is specially to be observed, Proclus did this against Theodorus, although the Eastern Bishops entreated him p Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. a. plurimis deprecationibus, ut ne anathematizaretur Theodorus, nec impia ejus conscripta, did with most earnest prayers solicit him, not to condemn the person, or doctrine of Theodorus: but, the truth of God which was oppugned by Theodorus, and the sentence of the Council which had condemned Theodorus, did more prevail then all their supplication with that holy Bishop. 12. Saint Cyrill did the like as Proclus herein, he seeing the connivance q Quoniam ejusmodi dispensationem Cyrilli & Procli non susceperunt (Nestoriani) è contrario vero permanserunt defendentes blasphemias Theodori, videns Cyrillus crescentem impietatem coactus est libros conscribere adversus Theodorum, & post mortem ejusdem, eum haereticum, & impium, et supra Paganos et judaeos blasphemum ostendere. Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. a. , and dispensation of the Council, not to take the intended effect, but that the Nestorians proceeded rather from worse to worse, boasting of Theodorus writings, that they were consonant to the ancient Fathers, and so far applauding him, that in some Churches they would cry r Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 550 a. out, Crescat fides Theodori, sic credimus sicut Theodorus, let the faith of Theodorus increase, we believe as he did: yea even stoning s Ibid. some in the Church who spoke against them, Cyrill seeing all this, could forbear no longer, Ego t Ibid. citantur verò verba Cyrill. ex Epist. ad Acat. ista non sustinui, sed fiducialiter dixi; I could not hold myself to hear those things, but said with great boldness, and confidence, that Theodorus was a blasphemous speaker, a blasphemous writer, that he was an u Coactus est oftendere eum esse haereticum, ibid. pa. 551. a heretic, mentiuntur contra sanctos patres; I said, that they belied the holy Fathers, who affirmed Theodorus writings, to be consonant to theirs, nec x Ibid. pa. 551. a. cessavi increpans ea quae scripserunt, nec cessabo: nor have I ceased, nor will I cease, to reprove those who write thus: and which demonstrates yet further the zeal of that holy Bishop; he writ y Sed et ad Theodesium Imper. consonantia scrib●ns. ibid. the same things concerning Theodorus, to the Emperor Theodosius, exhorting him z Rogo ut intacta●, et inviolatas animas vestras conservetis ab impietatibus Theodori. ibid. to keep his soul unspoted from his impieties. Thus cyril by name condemning both the person and writings of Theodorus. 13. The religious Emperors Theodosius & Valentinian moved partly by the grave admonitions of cyril, and specially by that disturbance which the Nestorians then made, by their defending and magnifying Theodorus; besides the former against Nestorius, published two other Imperial Edicts, against Theodorus, declaring him by name, to have been every way as blasphemous an heretic as Nestorius; and that the defenders of him, or his writings, should be liable to the same punishments, as the defenders of Nestorius. Those Edicts being so pregnant, to demonstrate the error of Vigilius, I have thought it needful, to express some parts or clauses of them. 14. We a Extant leges illae Theodosij et Valent. in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 544.545. again b Iterum igitur doctrina Diodori, Theodori et Nestorij abominanda visa sunt. ibid. declare that the doctrine impiorum, & pestiferorum, of those impious and pestiferous persons is abominable unto us: similiter autem & omnes, and so are all who follow their error. It is just that they all have one name, and be all clothed with confusion, lest while they be called Christians they seem to be honoured by that title; Wherefore we by this our Law do enact, that whosoever in any part of the world be found, consenting to the most wicked purpose of Nestorius, and Theodorus, that from hence forward they shall be called Symonians, as Constantine decreed, that the followers of Arius should be called Porphirians. Further let none presume either to have, or keep, or write their sacrilegious books, especially not those of Theodorus, and Nestorius: but all their books shall be diligently sought, and being found, shall be publicly burned. Neque de caetero inveniatur praedictorum hominum memoria: neither let there be found any memory of the foresaid persons: Let none receive such as love that sect, or love their teachers, either in any city, field, suburbs; let them not assemble in any place, either openly, or privily. And if any shall do contrary to this our sanction, let him be cast into perpetual banishment, and let all his goods be confiscate. And let your excellency (they sent this to their Lieutenant) publish this our Law through the whole world, in every Province, and in every city. Thus did the Emperors enact, and which is specially also to be remembered, they enacted all this, corroborantes c Ibid. pa. 545. a. ea que piè decreta sunt Ephesi, strengthening thereby that which was decreed at Ephesus. 15. Whence two things may be observed, the one, that Theodorus was not only accounted, and by name condemned for an heretic, as by other catholics', so by the Emperors also, but that this particular condemning was consonant to the decree of the Ephesine Synod, this being nothing else but an explanation of that, which they in general terms had set down, and a corroboration of the same: The other, that seeing this Imperial decree, hath stood ever since the enacting thereof in force and unrepealed, by virtue of it; had it been, or were it as yet, I say not rigorously, but duly, and justly put in execution, not any one defender of the three Chapters, no not Pope Vigilius himself, nor any who defends his Apostolical constitution, (and those are all the members of the present Roman church) not one of them, should either have been heretofore, or be now tolerated, in any city, suburbs, town, village, or field; but besides the ecclesiastical, censures and anathemas, denounced against them, by the Council and catholic church, they should endure, if no sharper edge of the civil sword, yet, perpetual banishment out of all Christian Commonwealths, with loss and confiscation of all their goods. 16. After this Imperial Law was once published, the name and credit of Theodorus (whose memory the Emperors had condemned and forbidden) grew into a general contempt and hatred, whereof the church of Mopsvestia, where he had been Bishop, gave a memorable example. They for a time esteeemed of Theodorus, as a catholic Bishop, and for that cause kept his name in their diptychs, or Ecclesiastical tables; reciting him among the other Orthodox Bishops of that city, in their Eucharistical commemoration; But now seeing him detected, and condemned, both by catholic Bishops, by Counsels, and by the Imperial Edict for an heretic, they expunged and blotted out the name of Theodorus, and in his room inserted in their diptychs, the name of Cyrill, who though he was not Bishop in that See, yet had by his piety and zeal manifested and maintained the faith, & brought, both the heresy & person of Theodorus into a just detestation, and all this is evident by the Acts of that Synod d Acta illa Synodi Mopsvest. extant in Conc. 5. Collat. 5. pa. 553. & seq. held at Mopsvestia, about this very matter, of wiping out of the name of Theodorus. 17. We are now come to the time of the Council of Chalcedon: for, the expunging of Theodorus name, and inserting of Cyrils, followed as it seems shortly after the death of Cyrill, and he died about seven e Cyrill. objit an. 444. Conc. Chalced. habitum an. 451. Bar. et. Bin. years before the Council of Chalcedon. That by it Theodorus was also condemned, their approving f Conc. Chalc. Act. 5. in definite. Synodi. the Council of Ephesus, and the Synodall Epistles of cyril, (in both which, and in the later, by name g Vt liquet ex Cyrilli Epistolis ad johannem Antiochen, et ad Acatium, quae citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. et 550. Theodorus is condemned) doth manifest: and besides this the Emperor justinian expressly saith h justin. Edict. §. Tali. of it, that the impious Creed of Theodorus being recited in that Council, both it, cum expositore ejus, with the Author and expounder of it, (and that was Theodorus) were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon. 18. When many years after that holy Council, some Nestorians began again, contrary to the Edict of Theodosius, and Valentinian, to revive the dead, and condemned memory of Theodorus, Sergius Bishop of Cyrus making mention i Vt testantur Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. et. 582. a. , and commemorating him in the Collect among catholics; the truth of this matter being examined and found, that same Sergius by the command of justinus the Emperor, was deposed from his Bishopric, excluded out of the Church, and so continued even to his dying day: and this was done but six years before the Empire of justinian, as by the date k justinus scripsit id edictum, Rustico Coss. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. b. fuit is Coss. an. 520. ut testatur Marcell. in Chron. et agnoscit, Bar. in illo an. nu. 1 Instinianus vero coepit imperare an. 527. ut Marcell. et Baror. asserunt. of justinus his letters doth appear. 19 Now if to all these particular sentences, you add that which the fifth Council l Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 557. a. witnesseth, that Theodorus, post mortem à catholica ecclesia ejectus est, hath been after his death condemned, and cast out, and that even by the whole Catholic Church, you will easily confess, that from the time almost of his death, unto the reign of justinian there hath been a continual, and never interrupted condemnation of him in the Church. But in justinian's time, and perhaps before, though less eagerly, the Ne●●orians began afresh, to renew the memory and doctrine of Theodorus, setting now a fairer gloss and varnish on their cause, than ever they had before: for they very gladly apprehending and applauding those (to say the least) inconsiderate speeches of the Pope's Legates, & Maximus in the Council of Chalcedon, that by his dictation, or Epistle, Ibas was declared to be a catholic, hereupon they now boasted, that the holy Council, by approving that Epistle of Ibas, had approved, both the person and doctrine of Theodorus, seeing they both are highly extolled, and defended in that Epistle. By this means was this cause brought ab inferis the second time, upon the stage, and that also cloaked under the name, and credit of the Council of Chalcedon. And at this second bout, all the defenders of the Three Chapters, and among them Pope Vigilius, as General to them all, undertook the defence of Theodorus: and, as if there had never been any sentence of condemnation, either in general, or in particular denounced against him, even in his definitive, and Apostolical constitution declareth, That Theodorus was not condemned, either by former Counsels, or Fathers; and this he declareth after his solicitous, circumspective, and most diligent examination of their writings. 20. What think you was become of the Pope's eyes at this time, that he could see none of all those condemnations of Theodorus, before mentioned? Not the general anathema of the Counsels at Ephesus, and Chalcedon, in which Theodorus was involved: not the express, and particular anathema denounced against him by Rambulas, and Acatius, with the Council of Armenia: not the condemnation of him, and his writings by Saint Proclus, by S. Cyrill, by the Church of Mopsvestia, by the Edict of the religious Emperors, by the whole Catholic Church. None of all these things were done in a corner; they were all matters of public notice, and record▪ obvious to any that did not shut their eyes against the sunshine of the truth. But, as I said before, and must often say, Nestorianisme, like Naash the Ammonite, had put out the Pope's right eye, he could see nothing with that eye; all that he saw in this cause, was but a very oblique, and sinister aspect, as doth now, I hope, fully appear, but will be yet much more manifest, by that which in the Constitution of Vigilius we are next to consider. 21. For, as if it were a small matter, not to see Theodorus condemned by the former Counsels, and Fathers, (though in a man professing so exact and accurate inspection in any cause, such gross oversights are not venial) the Pope ventures one step further, for the credit of this condemned heretic. He could not find that Theodorus was condemned by the former witnesses: Tush, that is nothing, he finds him acquitted by them all: he finds by cyril, by Proclus, by the Counsels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, yea, by justinian's own law, that Theodorus ought not to be condemned. This was indeed a point worthy the Popes own finding. But withal I must tell you, that you also shall find one other thing, that Pope Vigilius, having once passed the bounds of truth, for defence of Theodorus, cares not now if he wade up to the ears, and drown himself in untruths. 22. Let us then examine the allegations, which, for proof of this, the Pope hath found▪ and begin we, as the Pope doth, with Cy●●●●. In his m Eam citat Vig●. in Const. nu. 17●. & 174. apud Bar. an. 553. Epist. to john B. of Antioch, Vigilius found an explication, how it was said by Cyrill, that by a dispensation the name of Theodorus was not condemned; for there Cyrill saith, Sed juste audient, they shall justly hear this, though they will not: ye forget yourselves, when you bend your bows against ashes, that is, against the dead; for he who is written among them (that is, the dead) non superest, is not; and let no man blame me for these words, Grave est enim insultare defunctis, vel si Laici fuerint; for it is an hard matter, to insult over the dead, yea, though they be but Laikes; how much more over those, who with their Bishoprics have left their lives. Out of which words Vigilius affirment S. Cyrill to teach it to be an injurious and hard matter, repugnant to the Ecclesiastical rule, to condemn any that is dead; and then certainly not a Bishop, not Theodorus. 23. For answer hereunto, I do earnestly entreat the reader to ponder seriously the Pope's good dealing herein. That Epistle which Vigilius commendeth unto us, under the name of n Rea●● recordationis ● yrillum: et beatus Cyrillus. Vig. lec. cit. S. Cyril, is none of Cyrils, it is a base and counterfeit writing, forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill; Witness hereof the whole fifth general Council, who, of purpose, and at large, examined this matter, and refuted this cavil of Vigilius, before ever he set forth his Constitution; for thus they o Conc. 5. Coll. 5. ●a. 549. a. say of it, Some loving the perfidiousness of Nestorius, which is all one as to say, the madness of Theodorus, do not refuse to feign some things, and use certain words, as written in an Epistle by S. Cyrill; Nusquam vero talis Epistola scripta est à sanctae memoriae Cyrillo; but Cyril never writ such an Epistle, neither is it in his books. And then reciting the whole Epistle, and all those words which Vigilius allegeth; they add, Et ista quidem continet conficta Epistola▪ these are the contents of this counterfeit Epistle: and a little after, That nothing of all, quae in conficta Epistola continentur, which are contained in that counterfeit Epistle, was writ by Cyrill, it is declared by that which he writ to Acatius: and yet further. These things are spoken, ad convictionem Epistolae, quae à defensoribus Theodori falso composita est; to convince that Epistle to be a forgery, which is falsely composed by the defenders of Theodorus. The sum of this they repeat in their Synodall sentence, saying, p Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. We have found, that the defenders of Theodorus have done the same which heretics are wont to do; for they clip away some part of the Father's words, quaedam vero falsa ex femetipsis componentes, & confingentes; and devising, or feigning other things of themselves, they seek by them, as it were, by the testimony of Cyrill, to free Theodorus from the Anathema. Thus the Council: all of them with one voice proclaiming Pope Vigilius for a lewd dealer, who commends, and that even in his Apostolical Constitution, a false and forged writing, for the true Epistle of S. Cyrill. 24. It is true, Vigilius is not the first Pope, who hath blemished their See, by such false and fraudulent dealing: Zozimus and Bonifacius were long before this taxed, and that justly, b● the African q Conc. Afric. Epist. ad Caelest. ca 105. tom. 1. conc. pa. 645. et seq. Bishops, for down facing the Nicene Canons. Vigilius was too too bold with Cyrill, as now you see. But if you descend to Pope Nicholas, or to Gregory the seventh, and their successors, they were so shameless and audacious in this kind, that they scarce writ any decrees of importance, but they stuffed them with such Fathers: Even the basest, and most abject fictions, which were void, not only of truth, but of brain, were fittest for the Popes, and their Pontifical determinations, and were they never so base, and bastardly, yet the Popes, like kind Godfathers, could, when they listed, christian them with the names of S. Cyrill, Cyprian, or the like, and then they must be called, or esteemed for no others, than holy and reverend Fathers. 25. Proclus followeth: In whose writings Vigilius found three testimonies, to prove, that Theodorus being dead, was not to be condemned: The first is out of his Epistle to r Const. Vig. nu. 174 john Bishop of Antioch; where these words are alleged; When did I write to you, oportere aut Theodorum, aut alios quosdam, qui pridem defuncti sunt, anathemate subdi; that either Theodorus, or others, being dead, aught to be anathematised? The second is out of the same Epistle; I rejected indeed those Chapters, (annexed to my Tome) as being impious, neque autem de Theodoro, neque de alio quoquam, qui jam defuncti sunt; but I neither writ of Theodorus, nor of any other who is dead, that they should be anathematised, or rejected. The third is out of an Epistle of Proclus to Maximus; I understand, that the names of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and of some other, is prefixed to the Chapters, ad anathematizandum, to be anathematised, together with the Chapters, cum illi ad Deum jam migrarunt, whereas they are now departed to God, and it is needless to injure them, being now dead, quos nec vivos aliquando culpavimus; whom being alive we did never reprove. These are the Pope's allegations out of S. Proclus; in which I confess it is clearly taught, that neither any after their death may be condemned; and particularly that not Theodorus, seeing he is gone to God, and was never in his life time once reproved. 26. It is a s De regulis juris lib. 6. decret. reg. 8. rule in law, semel malus, semper praesumitur esse malus; He who is once convicted of any crime, is presumed still to be faulty in that kind. Vigilius being lately convicted to commend forgeries for the writings of Fathers, is in reason and equity to be thought to allege such a S. Proclus, as before he did S. Cyrill: Nay, there needs no presuming in this matter; there is evident proof, and witnesses, above exception, to manifest the same; even the whole fifth general Council; who, out of the true, and undoubted writings of Proclus, testify, that Proclus taught the quite contrary, both that the dead might, and particularly that Theodorus ought to be condemned, and that he was by Proclus himself condemned; for in their very Synodall decree, they thus t Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. write, Because the disciples of Theodorus most evidently oppugning the truth (thus sharply do they reprove Vigilius) do allege certain sayings of cyril, and Proclus, as written for Theodorus; It doth appear, that those Fathers do not free him from the Anathema, but speak those things dispensatiuè, by way of dispensation, and in the very words of dispensation they declare of him, quod oportet anathematizari Theodorum, that Theodorus ought to be anathematised; adding, that they have demonstrated this, even out of the words of cyril, and Proclus, which they writ ad condemnationem ejus, for the condemning of Theodorus. Thus writ the Council, unto which the whole Catholic Church hath ever since subscribed. Seeing then it is certain that Proclus both taught that Theodorus ought to be condemned, and did himself write to condemn him, there can be no doubt, but that those Epistles to john, and Maximus, which Vigilius citeth; and wherein Proclus is made to avouch the quite contrary, that neither himself did, nor that any aught to condemn Theodorus, are forged in the name of Proclus, by such hands as had wrought the like feat in Cyrill: And if either those Epistles were extant, (for in that of Proclus to john, recorded in the fifth u Coll. 6. pa. 562. Council, there is no such thing at all) or, had this Constitution of Vigilius been published, and known to the Council before they had fully examined, and cleared this Chapter touching Theodorus; it is not to be doubted, but the one of them, if not both would have discovered this forgery also. 27. Besides all which, there are diverse evident prints of a false, and heretical hand in those Epistles. Is it injury (as that forged Proclus affirmeth) to condemn the dead? Nay, it is even heretical, and that by the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, as before we have proved, to say, that the dead may not be condemned. Had Proclus writ, or said this, he had condemned the Counsels of Sardica, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, as injurious unto the dead; nor them only, but he had condemned himself, who, as we have now demonstrated, both condemned the dead, and taught, that Theodorus, though dead, aught to be condemned. 28. Did Theodorus at his death go (as this forged Proclus affirmeth) to the Lord? a blasphemer; an heretic; equal, by the judgement of Proclus himself, to the jews, and Pagans, and of the same rank with Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, and Nestorius; such a blaspheming heretic go unto the Lord? why then did the Ephesine Council, why did Saint Cyrill, why did Proclus himself adjudge him to be anathematised, that is, separated from the Lord? Heretics, and impious persons, as living, they go not in the ways of the Lord, but in their own ways; so dying, they go, like judas, to their own place; not to the Lord, not to his habitation, and place of rest; the Saints, and they only go that way. To them only he saith, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. 29. Was Theodorus not so much as blamed; no, not so much as once in his life, as the forged Proclus saith? It seems Leontius borrowed his most partial speech, before mentioned, out of this Proclus, and was too credulous unto it: But the true Proclus living so x Theodorus obijt an. 427. Proclus fit Episcopus an 434. Bar. inillit annis. near to the time of Theodorus, could not be ignorant, nor would ever have uttered so foul an untruth: for although the Church pronounced no public censure by name against him, yet was he reproved and blamed, not only by others complaining of his erroneous doctrine, but even by Theophilus B. of Alexandria, and Gregory Nissene. This the fifth Council witnesseth saying y Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 545. a. , Saint Theophilus, and Saint Gregory Nissene susceptis querimonijs adversus Theodorum adhuc viventem, Complaints being brought unto them against Theodorus of Mopsvestia, as yet living; and against his writings, scripserunt adversus eum Epistolas, they writ Epistles against him: and in those Epistles (some part whereof is recorded in the Council) they blame him as presuming to renew the heresy and madness of Paulus Samosatenus. And it is further added, porrecta sunt autem, and the impious chapters collected out of the books of Theodorus, were showed and brought to Theophilus; whence it is now evident, that those Epistles alleged by Vigilius under the name of Proclus, are no less, by the untrue, and heretical assertions contained in them, then by the clear testimonies of the fifth general Council, convicted of forgery. 30. From Fathers he cometh to Counsels, and concerning the first Ephesine. Vigilius noteth two points. The former that Theodorus was not condemned by it, to which purpose he thus saith z Vigil. Const nu. 173. , Solicit recensentes, having with diligence, and solicitude reviewed the Ephesine Synod: We have found that in it nothing is related touching the person of Theodorus. What, nothing? how then did Pope Pelagius a Theodorum mortuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damna vit. Pelag 2. Epist. 7. §. In ●is. after Cyrill, and the fifth Council find that in it Theodorus was condemned? and if they condemned him, then certainly somewhat was related, & debated about him, upon knowledge whereof the Council condemned him. But say indeed, is nothing found concerning Theodorus in that Council? What say you to the impious and diabolical Creed, which was both related b Act. Ephes. conc. to. 2. ca 29, 30, 31, & 33. in the Synod, and condemned c Hoc Symbolum una cum authore Ephesina prima Synodus anathematizavit. conc. 5. coll. 4. pa. 5●7. a. together with the author of it? Truly here Vigilius useth a shift, worthy to be observed. That Creed he found, and he found it to be condemned: but to quite Theodorus, he d Sed Symbolum quod Charis●● prodidit (condemnatum) magis quia ab Athanasio, Phot●o, etc. Vigil. const. nu. 173. ubi sententia monca per dictionem (condemnatum) aut aliam similem supplenda est. would have it believed, that Theodorus was not the author of it; nor that it was condemned, as being the Creed of Theodorus, but because it was divulged by certain Nestorians, Athanasius, Photius, Antonius, and jacobus. Nor doth Vigilius use this shift only about that impious Creed, but in other heretical writings of Theodorus. Proclus adjoined to his Tome certain impious positions collected è Theodori codicibus, as cyril e cyril Epistola ad Acalium, quae citat. in conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 543. expressly witnesseth. Vigilius likewise of them would have it thought, that they were none of the positions of Theodorus; and by the forged Epistles of Proclus, he would persuade f Mala quae damnavera●, cirjus essent, Proclus profissus est se ignorare. Vigil. conc. nu. 175. that Proclus himself did not know whose they were. The Emperor justinian before the Synod began▪ sent threescore several heretical passages or chapters truly gathered out of the books and writings of Theodorus, hoping that the Pope, seeing Theodorus books so full fraught with heresies, and blasphemies, would make little doubt to condemn the writer of them. Vigilius turns to his former shift, he will not think, nor have others to think that Theodorus writ such heresies, though they had his name prefixed unto them: for concerning those 60. chapters (expressed both in the Pope's Constitution g Conc. Vig. a nu. 60. ad nu. 173. , and in the Synodall h Conc. 5. coll. 4. acts) he thus saith i Vigil. in const. nu. 173. , We decree that by those foresaid chapters, nulla injuriandi praecedentes patres praebeatur occasio: no occasion be given to injure the former Fathers and Doctors of the Church. And again k nu. 184. , We provide by this our Constitution, that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Eutyches, no contumely, nor occasion of injury be brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholic Church: and that Vigilius thought Theodorus so to have died, we have before l Sup. ca 7. declared: yea that Vigilius knew it, Baronius assured us. Thus Vigilius to free Theodorus from condemnation, pretends those heretical writings to be none of his. 31. What is it that Vigilius will not say for defence of this blasphemous and condemned heretic? This cavil was used, as Baronius m Defensores Theodori, ea ipsius scripta esse negaruxt. Bar. an. 43●. nu. 14. tells us, by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theodorus, denying those to be the writings of Theodorus, quae diffamata, which were famously known through the whole East: and which being afterwards detected, and discovered to be truly his writings, both they, and their author with them were condemned. Now this old heretical and rejected cavil Vigilius here reneweth; those writings famously known to be the works of Theodorus, condemned as his writings, and he with them and for them, Vigilius will now have thought to be none of his, nor he by them nor for them may be now condemned. And that you may see how Vigilius herein doth strive against the main stream of the truth. Saint Cyrill n Cyrill. Epistola ad Proclum, citata in Conc. 5. coll. 5 pa. 550. b. who then lived, restifieth Theodorus to be author of those heretical and blasphemous writings. That we have found certain things in the writings of Theodorus, nimiae plena blasphemiae, nulli dubium est, full of blasphemy, none that thinks aright can make any doubt. And again o Ibid. pa. 550 a. , I examining the books of Theodorus, and Diodorus, have contradicted them as much as I could, declaring that sect to be every where full of abomination. Yea he writ diverse books p Qui Cyrilli libri citantur saepe in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 538. & seq. against Theodorus, expressing the words of Theodorus and his own confutation of the same. So clear, and undoubted was this truth in Cyrils days, who lived at the same time with Theodorus, that he thought them unwise, who made any doubt of that, which Vigilius now calls in question. And particularly touching that impious Creed, Cyrill saith q Prolata apud sanct●m Synodum expositione ab eo composita, sunt dicebant, qui protulevunt, etc. Verba Cyrill. in Epist. ad Proclum citat. in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 550 b. , that they who brought it to the Synod of Ephesus, said, that it was composed by Theodorus: which they said not as by way of uncertain report, but as testifying it to be so, in so much that the whole Synod giving credit there unto, thereupon condemned Theodorus r His condemnatis qui sic sapiunt, nullam viri (Theodori) memoriam fecerunt. Ibid. , though by a dispensation they expressed not his name. 32 The same is testified by Rambulas, Acatius, and the whole Armenian Council, who after examination s Fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega capitula & dogmata ejus. Libel. Episc. Armen. ad Proclum. in conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 54● b. of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacrilegious: and therefore by name condemned him, exhorting both cyril and Proclus to do the like. The Imperial Edicts of Theodosius t Dequibus legi●us supra, hoc cap. Exta ● vero in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 544. , and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter: who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodorus, and the reading or having of his books, had it not by evidences undeniable been known, that those were indeed his works, and heretical writings. If all these suffice not, when this cause about Theodorus was now again brought into question, the Emperor justinian, and the fifth Council, so narrowly and so exactly examined the truth hereof, that after them to make a doubt, is to seek a knot in a rush. They testify those very heretical assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth, to be the doctrines and words u Habemus quae ex Theodori codicibus collegistu. conc. 5. coll. 4. pa. 517. b. & idem docet justia. in suo Edict. § Si quis desendit Theodorum. of Theodorus, that impious creed also, whereof Vigilius is doubtful to be composed by Theodorus: they are so certain x Impius Theodorus alind Symbolum exposuit. Instan Edicto. § Tali, Et impium ejus (Theodori) Symbolum. coll. 4. pa. 537. a. hereof, that even in their Synodall sentence y Liect volentibus codices impij Theodori prae manibus accipere, vol quae ex impijs codicibus ejus à nobis inserta his gestis sunt. Conc. 5. coll. 8. pa. 585. a. , they refer the trial of what they decree herein to the true and undoubted books of Theodorus. And in their sentence is included the judgement of the whole catholic Church, ever since they decreed this which hath with one consent approved their decree. 33 After all these Pope Pelagius, in one of his decretal Epistles, wherein at large he handleth this cause, not only testifieth that impious Creed z Ab ejus (Theodori) discipulis, dictatum ab eo symbolum in eâdem Synedo Eph●sina prolatum. Pelagius Epist. 7. § In his. , and those heretical a Ejusdem Theodori ex libris illius dicta replicemus. ibid. writings, to be the works of Theodorus, alleging many places of them, but whereas some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved again b Haec Theodori dicta, utrum ejus sint. fortasse dubitatur. ibid. §. Haec. this same doubt which Vigilius doth; and as is likely by occasion of his decree: Pelagius of purpose declareth those c Ibidem. & seq. to have been the true writings of Theodorus, and consonant to his doctrine; and that he proveth by the testimonies of the Armenian Bishops, of Proclus, of john of Antioch, of cyril, of Rambulas, of Honoratus a Bishop of Cilicia, (and so a neighbour of Mopsvestia which is in the same d Conc●. coll. 5. pa. 547. b. Province,) of Hesychius, of Theodosius, and Valentinian the Emperors, and of Theodoret, than whom not any (except perhaps Nestorius) was more devoted to Theodorus; insomuch that he is thought to have taken from Theodorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced, Pelagius thus concludeth e Epist, 7. §. Elfi. , blasphemias has ejus esse quis dubitat, who may doubt but that those blasphemies are truly his, (namely of Theodorus,) being by so many witnesses declared to be his? Now when Pope Vigilius against all these Counsels, Bishops, Emperors, Popes, of the same, of succeeding ages, yea against the consenting judgement of the catholic Church, shall not only doubt, whether Theodorus be the author of those heretical and blasphemous assertions and writings: but by his Apostolical Constitution decree it to be an injury to ascribe those blasphemies unto him, or for them to condemn him, (as the whole Church, ever since the Ephesine Council hath done) doth it not argue, nay demonstrate an heretical, and most extreme distemper in the Pope's judgement, and in his cathedral sentence at that time. 34. The other point which Vigilius observeth out of the Ephesine Council is worse than this, for as yet he hath only found that Theodorus was not the facto condemned by the Ephesine Synod; but in the next place, he will find by that Council, that Theodorus, de jure ought not to be condemned. To which purpose he saith f Vigilius in const. nu. 173. , that Cyrill (and so the Ephesine Synod consenting to him as Precedent) would not have the name of Theodorus contained in the Synodall Acts at Ephesus: propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est, for the rule which is to be kept in such Bishops as are dead. And that rule he explains in the words following, to be this, that the dead should not be condemned, nor should the living bend their bow against ashes, or insult over the dead, whereby Vigilius even by his Apostolical decree, adjudgeth both cyril, and the whole Ephesine Council consenting therein with him, to have believed and held a condemned heresy, as an Ecclesiastical rule, or rule of their faith and actions; That one who is dead may not be condemned: and so by the Pope's Constitution both cyril and the holy Ephesine Synod were heretics. Such worthy points do the Popes find when they use their art, and industry, to review ancient writings, with a reference to their own determinations, and so easy was it for Vigilius to find the Ephesine Council, first injurious to the dead, and then heretical in a doctrine or rule concerning the dead. 35. The very like he found also in the Council of Chalcedon, that Theodorus ought not to be condemned. His reason is this; john g Vigil. in Const. nu. 145. Bishop of Antioch, writ a letter to the Emperor Theodosius in excuse of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, ne post mortem damnari deberet, that he ought not to be condemned after his death. Now this letter of john, Venerabiliter memoratur, is with honour, (not only with allowance and liking) remembered by the Council of Chalcedon, in their Relation, or Synodall Epistle to the Emperor Martianus. Whence Vigilius collecteth, that seeing the Council with reverence, embraceth that letter of john, and that letter importeth, that Theodorus being dead, ought not to be condemned; therefore the Council judgeth that none who are dead, and particularly, that Theodorus ought not to be condemned: which reason of Vigilius was borrowed from other Nestorians, and defenders of the three Chapters, as appeareth by Liberatus, who explaineth it, and sets h Liber. ca 10. it down almost totidem verbis: john saith he, writ three letters in the behalf of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, praising in them Theodorus, and declaring his wisdom; one of those letters he sent to the Emperor Theodosius, another to Cyrill, the third to Proclus. Now the first, and third, containing the praises of Theodorus, the Council of Chalcedon, in their Relation to Martianus the Emperor, did i Duas Iohannis Epistolas laudes Theodori cominentes, Chalced. Synod. suscepit, et confirmavit. joid. embrace, and confirm. Thus Liberatus agreeing wholly herein, as you see, with Vigilius. 36. For answer of which reason of Vigilius, I will entreat you to spare my labour, and hear how fully, and sound Cardinal Baronius doth refute it; but yet so, that he will not seem to tax, or touch Vigilius; that had been great insolency, and incivility in a Cardinal; but he pays the Deacon home to the full, who saith but the very same with the Pope: Liberatus, saith k Bar. an. 435. nu. 11. he, borrowed this narration of I know not what Nestorian, & incautè nimis; and he affirms too indiscreetly, that the writings of Theodorus were praised in the letters of john, Bishop of Antioch; and, which is far worse, that those letters of john, containing the praises of Theodosius, were received, and confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon, in their Relation to Martianus; for by that means, adducit in idem crimen, he makes the whole Council of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime; to wit, of approving the praises & doctrine of Theodorus. So Baronius. By whom it is clear, that Vigilius (saying the same with Liberatus) makes the whole Counce I of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime; that is, in plain terms avoucheth them to be heretical: Videsne, saith the l Ibid. Cardinal, quot, & quales lateant colubri sub uno cespite? Do not you see how many, and how vile, and venomous snakes lie hid under this one turf, or tuft of untruth? And that very tuft, hath Pope Vigilius chosen to build up, and beautify with it his Apostolical decree. Now, if under that one turf there lurk (as indeed there doth, and the Cardinal acknowledgeth,) so great a number of Vipers; what infinite, and innumerable heaps of most deadly, and poisonful untruths, are compacted into the whole body of his Apostolical Constitution, which containeth (if one listed narrowly to examine it) more than a thousand like turfs; nay, beyond comparison worse than this. 37. But the Cardinal hath not yet done with Liberatus; Let us, saith m Bar ibid. et nu. 12. he, put the Axe to the root of the tree; and citing the very words of the Council, and their Relation to Martianus, he addeth, You see that here is no mention at all of Theodorus of Mopsvestia; which reason of Baronius, Binius n Bin. N●tis in liberatum. § Bre●iarum hoc. explaineth, saying, That which Liberatus affirmeth, that the Council of Chalcedon received the praises of Theodorus, is not only untrove, sed etiam ipsi relationi Synodic ae contraria; but it is plainly contrary to the Synodall Relation of the Council at Chalcedon, to which Liberatus referreth himself: Change but the name, and all this is every whit as forcible against Vigilius, as against Liberatus. But the Cardinal had well learned the old lesson, Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas; the Pope offends more than any, but the poor Deacon must feel the smart, and bear all the blows; and yet by your leave, through the Deacons sides the Cardinal hath cunningly given a deadly wound, and cut the very root of the Pope's Apostolical decree; although he will not be thought so unmannerly, as once to touch his Holiness, or speak one syllable against him. 38. After Fathers, and Counsels, Vigilius will next find, that the Emperor justinian himself, who was so earnest in condemning Theodorus, doth yet teach, that Theodorus ought not to be condemned; and how proves he this? You, saith o In Const. nu. 175. Vigilius to the Emperor, laudabiliter adduxistis, have with praise and approbation alleged that Relation of the Council of Chalcedon in your law, de sancta Trinitate. Seeing then that Relation of the Council approveth the letters of john, and the letters of john, show, that Theodorus being dead, ought not to be condemned; the Pope from hence inferreth, that by justinian's own law approving that Relation, Theodorus ought not to be condemned. It were very easy with Baronius Hatchet to chop off this reason, and cut it up by the root, seeing neither john's letters did teach that Theodorus, being dead, might not be condemned; nor did the Council, in their Relation approve, either the person, or doctrine, or any praises of Theodorus, or so much as mention him: But I will not trouble the Cardinal in so easy a matter as this. Besides all the inconsequences in this reason, justinian is so far from teaching, or thinking this, so much as in a dream, that in the same title, p In Cod. Iust. log. 6. ●it. de summa Trin. de Summa Trinitate, & fide Catholica, (which seems to be that which Vigilius intended) he accurseth all heresies, and specially that of Nestorius; and all, qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt, vel senserunt; who either do think, or have thought as Nestorius did; in which number Theodorus of Mopsvestia to be comprehended, not only by that which we have said before, is manifest; but even by justinian himself, who expressly witnesseth, Theodorus q Theodorus haereticos omnes impietate sup●ra●, etc. justan edict. § ●ali. to have thought so, and to have r Iste autem (Theodorus) usque ad mortem in sua permane●s impietate. Ibid. § Quod autem. died in that heretical opinion; and for that very cause doth he condemn, and accurse him. Now seeing that law, de Summa Trinitate, was published in the seventh year of justinian's reign, (as by the s Datum justiniano's August. 3. Coss. Is vero est annus 7. justiniani, ut docet Marcell. in Chron. et Bar. in cum an. nu. ●. date appeareth) and sent into twelve several Provinces; seeing, after this, justinian, in his twentieth t Vt ait Bar. an. 546 nu. 8. year, set forth another Edict u Edictum hoc de quo toties mentionem fecimus. concerning these three Chapters, wherein he particularly, and by name anathematizeth y Iust. Edict. § Si quis defendit Theodorum. Theodorus; nor him only, but all that defend him; yea, all, who do not anathematise him; out of which number Vigilius himself is not exempted, seeing he remained so constant in this truth, that after Vigilius had published his Constitution, both himself signified to the fifth Council, that he still persisted in condemning the three Chapters, one of which was the condemning of Theodorus; and the whole fifth Synod testified the same, saying in their seventh Collation, semper z Pa. 582. b. fecit, & facit, the Emperor hath ever done, and now continueth to do, that which preserveth the holy Church, and true faith: Was it not a very strange thing in Vigilius to pretend in his Constitution, that by the Emperors own law, Theodorus ought not be condemned; whereas by the Emperor's Edict, not only Theodorus by name; but all, who defend him, even Vigilius himself, eo nomine, because he defendeth him, is condemned, and anathematised. 39 And now you have seen all that Vigilius bringeth for defence of Theodorus, all that he found after his most diligent search of the Fathers, Counsels, and ancient writings; whereby I doubt not but it is evident unto all, that Nestorianisme had either quite blinded the Pope, or at least induced him to play (which he hath done very skilfully) one of the Lamia in this cause; when aught that tended to the truth, came in his way, and offered itself unto him, he then locked up his eyes, and kept them fast in a basket; but when, or where aught that tended to nestorianisme, and the defence of a condemned heretic, might in a likelihood be found; then he put his eyes in his head, and became as quicksighted, as the Serpent of Epidaurus. The writings of Cyril, and Proclus, condemning Theodorus for an heretic, worse than either jew, or Pagan, the Counsels of Ephesus, of Armenia, of Chalcedon, anathematising him; the Imperial laws of Theodosius, commanding all memory of him to be abolished, & his heretical books to be burned; the expunging his name out of the Ecclesiastical tables, even in that Church, where he had been Bishop; and a number the like; none of all these could Vigilius, in his most diligent inquisition, find or see: why, the Lamia had locked up his eyes against all these public, and known evidences, and records. But when the base Counterfeit, forged in the name of Cyrill, and Proclus; when the depraving, or calumniating the Counsels of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and of justinian, as being maintainers of a condemned heresy: when these, or the like might be found, oh the Pope saw these at the first; his eyes were now as clear, as the sight of Lynceus, he could spy these through a Millstone; nay, which is more, he could see them, though there were no such matters at all to be seen: And truly, if you well consider, there was good reason why he should see the one, and not the other. For the Pope saw the Epistle of Ibas to be orthodoxal, and to be approved by the Council of Chalcedon; he saw in that Epistle Theodorus to be called a a Quorum unus est beatus Theodorus veritatis praedicator, et doctor Ecclesiae. Epist. Ibae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. b. Saint, a Preacher of the truth, a Doctor of the Church; Now it had been an exceeding incongruity, to see a condemned Saint, an accursed Saint, an heretical, or blasphemous Saint; It was not for the Pope's wisdom to see such a Saint, and therefore at all such sights, up with the eyes, lock them fast, that they see none of those ugly, and offensive sights; nothing of the condemning, of the accursing, of the heresies, and blasphemies of Theodorus. So bewitched was the Pope with Nestorianisme at this time, that it had the whole command of his heart, of his eyes, of his sense, of his understanding; it opened, and shut them all whensoever it listed. 40. I have stayed too long, I fear, in examining this first Chapter, touching Theodorus; but I was very loath to let any material point pass, without due trial, or before I had shaken asunder every joint, and parcel of the Pope's Constitution in this cause, and fully manifested, how erroneous his Apostolical decree is, as well in doctrinal, as personal matters. That Theodorus was dead, is personal; but that none after death may be condemned for an heretic, is doctrinal; yea, an heresy in the doctrine of faith. That Theodorus died in the peace of the Church, is an error personal; but that Theodorus therefore died in the peace of the Church, because he was not in his life time condemned by the express sentence of the Church; or, that any dying in heresy, as Theodorus did, do die in the peace of the Church, are errors doctrinal. That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers, and Counsels condemned, is a personal error; but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers, & Counsels, ought not after his death to be condemned, is doctrinal; even a condemning of the Counsels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, as guilty of believing, and teaching an heresy. So many ways is the Pope's sentence, in this first Chapter, erroneous in faith; of which Baronius most vainly pretendeth, that it is no cause of faith, no such cause as doth concern the faith. 41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree concerning this first Chapter, but his conclusion of the same: And although that must needs of itself fall down, when all the reasons, on which it relieth, and by which only it is supported, are ruinated, or overthrown; yet if you please, let us take a short view of it also, rather to explain, than refute the same. His conclusion hath two branches, the former is, that in regard of the foresaid reasons, nostrâ b Vig. Const. nu. 179 eum non audemus damnare sententia, wee● dare not condemn Theodorus by our sentence, we dare not do it, saith Vigilius. 42. Oh how faint-hearted, pusillanimous, and dastardly was the Pope in this cause; Cyrill, the c Sanctissimorum Episcopo●um hic co●ctorum caput Cyrillum, etc. Epist. Synod. Ephes. to. 4. Act. Co●c. Ephes. ca 8. head of the general Council: Proclus, a most d Cyrill. epist. ad Acat. in Co●. 5. Co●●. 5. pa. 543. a. Dominus meus sanctissimus Episcopus Proc●●●●. holy Bishop, whose Epistle, as Liberatus e Lib. ca 10. saith, the Council of Chalcedon approved: Rambulas, the pillar of the Church: the religious Emperors Theodorus, and Valentinian; the Church of Mopsvestia, the Counsels of Ephesus, of Armenia, of Chalcedon, the whole Catholic Church ever since the Ephesine Synod, both durst, and did condemn Theodorus: and, besides these, Baronius, and Binius, two of the most artificial Gnathonizing Parasites of the Pope, even they durst, and did, even in setting down the very Constitution of Vigilius, call f Rursumq, haereticus, blasph●mus, etc. Bar. an. 553. nu. 120. et seq. et B. n. pa. ●95. et seq. Theodorus, more than forty times, an heretic, a crafty, impious, mad, profane, blasphemous, execrable heretic; only Pope Vigilius hath not the heart, nor courage; he only with his sectators, dare not call him, nor condemn him for an heretic; we dare not condemn him by our sentence. 43. And yet when Vigilius saw good, he who durst not do this, durst do a greater matter, he durst do that which not any of all the former, nay which they all put together, never durst do. Vigilius durst defend both an heresy, and a condemned and anathematised heretic, he durst commend forged, and heretical writings, under the name of holy Fathers, he durst approve that Epistle, wherein an heretic is called, and honoured for a Saint; he durst, contrary to the Imperial and godly Edict of Theodosius, contrary to the judgements of the holy general Counsels, defend Theodorus, honour his memory, yea honour him as a teacher of truth while he lived, as a Saint being dead; These things none of all the former ever durst do: in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious than they are all. 44. Whence think you proceeded this contrariety of passions in Vigilius, that made him sometimes more bold than a Lion, and other times more timorous than an Hare? Truly even from hence: As Vigilius had no eyes to see aught, but what favoured Nestorianisme, so he had not the heart to do aught which did not uphold Nestorianisme. If a Catholic truth met him, or the sweet influence thereof happened to breath upon him, Vigilius could not endure it, the Pope's heart fainted at the smell thereof: but when the Nestorian heresy blew upon him, when being full with Nestorius he might say, agitante calescimus illo, not Ajax, not Poliphemus so bold nor full of courage as Pope Vigilius. As the Scarobee or beetle g Pier. Hierog. lib. 55. is said to feed on dung, but to dye at the sent of a Rose▪ So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat, and drink to the Pope, it was vita vitalis unto him; but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholic truth, was poison, it was even death to this Beetle. So truly was it fulfilled in him, which the Prophet saith h jer. 9.3. , they bend their tongues for lies, but they have no courage for the truth: we dare not condemn Theodorus by our sentence. 45. The other branch of the Pope's conclusion is, Sed i Vig. Const. nu. 179 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus, neither do we permit that any other shall condemn Theodorus: Nay we decree k Vig. Const. nu. 208 that none else shall speak, write, or teach otherwise, than we do herein. As much in effect, as if the Pope had definitively decreed, we permit, or suffer no man whatsoever, to teach or believe what cyril, what Proclus, what the whole general Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon: that is, what all Catholics, and the whole Catholic Church hath done, taught and believed: we permit, nay we command, and by this our Apostolical Constitution, decree, that they shall be heretics, and defend both an heresy, (that no dead man may be condemned) and condemned heretics, in defending Theodorus, yea defending him for a Saint, and teacher of truth: This we permit, command, and decree, that they shall do; but to do otherwise, to condemn Theodorus, or a dead man, that by no means do we permit or suffer it to be lawful unto them. 46. And as if all this were not sufficient, the Pope adds one other clause more execrable, than all the former; for having recited those threescore heretical assertions, which as we have declared, were all collected out of the true, and indubitate writings of Theodorus, he adjoins, l Vig Const. nu. 173. Anathematizamus omnem, we accurse and anathematise every man pertaining to orders, who shall ascribe or impute any contumely, to the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, by those forenamed impieties: and if no Father, than not Theodorus for those may be condemned. See now, unto what height of impiety, the Pope is ascended, for it is as much as if he had said, We anathematise, and accurse Saint Cyrill, Saint Proclus, Saint Rambulas, Saint Acatius, the Synod of Armenia, the general Counsels of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of Constantinople in the time of justinian; yea even the whole catholic Church, which hath approved those holy Counsels: all these out of those very impieties, which Vigilius mentioneth, have condemned Theodorus, them all for wronging, and condemning Theodorus for those impieties, we do anathematise, and accurse, saith Vigilius. 47. Consider now seriously with yourselves of what faith and religion they are, who hold (and so do all the members of the present Roman Church,) this for a position or foundation of faith, that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially, and by his Apostolic authority define in such causes, is true, is infallible, is with certainty of faith to be believed and embraced: Let all the rest be omitted, embrace but this one decree of Vigilius, nay but this one passage or parcel of his decree touching this first Chapter which concerns Theodorus; yet by approving this one, they demonstrate themselves, not only to renounce, but with Vigilius to condemn, accurse, and anathematise both the Catholic faith, and the Catholic Church: yea to accurse all who do not accurse them, which because none but Antichrist, and his heretical adherents can do, they demonstrate again hereby their Church to be heretical, catacatholike, and Antichristian, such as not only hateth, but accurseth the holy, and truly Catholic Church of Christ. But the curse m Prov. 26.2. that is causeless shall not come. Nay, God doth, and for ever will turn their cursings into blessings. Blessed are n Mat. 5.11. ye, when for my sake, (for professing and maintaining my truth) men revile you, and speak evil of you. Let Balak hire with hous-fulls of gold: Let the Roman Balaam for the wages of iniquity attempt never so oft, on this hill, on that mountain, or wheresoever he sets up his altars to curse the Church of GOD, the Lord o Deut. 23.5. will turn the curse into a blessing unto them: for, there is no sorcery p Numb. 23.23. against jacob, no curse, no charm, nor incantation, against Israel. Nay their curses shall fall on their own heads and return into their own bosoms, but peace, and the blessings of peace shall be upon Israel. For blessed q Numb. 24.9. shall he be that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee. CHAP. IX. That Vigilius besides diverse personal, held a doctrinal error in ●aith, in his defence of the second Chapter, which concerns the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill. 1. THere was some shadow of reason to think, that the former Chapter was a personal matter; seeing that was indeed moved concerning the person of Theodorus. But in the two other, there is no pretence, or colour for Baronius to say, that in them the question, or cause was personal, and not wholly doctrinal; who in all the fifth Council once doubted of the persons of Theodoret, or Ibas, whether they were Catholics, after their anathematising of Nestorius in the Council of Chalcedon? The only question about them was, whether the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill were to be condemned, which the Pope denyeth, and the holy Council affirmeth, and whether the Epistle of Ibas was Orthodoxal, or he by it known to be Orthodoxal, which the Pope affirmeth, and the holy Council denyeth. The question about them, no way concerned their persons, but only their writings. And it might be a wonder that Baronius should have the face to say, that the cause in these two Chapters was only personal, if it were not daily seen by experience that necessitas cogit ad turpia, mere necessity enforced the Cardinal to use any though never so untrue, never so unlikely excuses for Vigilius. 2. There are I confess diverse personal matters, and questions of facts, which concerns both these Chapters: and although they were not the controversies moved, and debated, betwixt the defenders, and the oppugners of those Chapters; yet is it needful to say somewhat of them also; partly for more illustration of the cause of faith, & specially that we may see how foully Vigilius and Baronius have erred, not only in doctrinal causes, which are more obscure, but even in those personal matters, which had been easy, and obvious, if they had not shut their eyes against the truth. 3. Concerning the second Chapter, the Pope's decree herein relieth, and is grounded, on three personal points, or matters of fact. The first is, that Vigilius would persuade, that Theodoret was not the author of those writings against Cyrill, and against his twelve Chapters or Anathematizmes a Extant in Acts Conc. Ephes. to. 1. ca 14. et tom. 5. ca 1. , which containing a just condemnation of the twelve heretical assertions of Nestorius, were approved both by the Council of Ephesus b Ibid. to. 5. ca 2. §. Ego vero. Et Liber. ca 6. , and Chalcedon c Act. 5. in definite. fidei. . To which purpose he calls them not Theodoret's, but writings, quae d Vigil. Constit. nu. 180. sub Theodoreti nomine proferuntur, which are set forth under the name of Theodoret. And again, the repose of the 12. Chapters of Cyrill: à Theodoreto e Ibid. nu. 181. ut putatur ingesta, made as is thought by Theodoret: adding f Ibid. this as one reason, why the Council of Chalcedon, did not condemn those writings, because they having those matters which were done but of late before their eyes, Theodoretum nihil tale fecisse probaverunt, did judge that Theodoret had written no such thing. Thus Vigilius pretending those writings against cyril not to be Theodoret's, and that the Council of Chalcedon also thought the same: whence he would infer, (and justly upon this supposal) that Theodoret's name ought not to be blemished by those writings which were none of his. 4. Not his? why Theodoret is known, and testified by so many, to have been so eager and violent in defence of Nestorius, and his heresy, and so spiteful both in words, and writings against Cyrill, and all orthodoxal professors of that time, that it were more strange if Vigilius was ignorant of this, then that knowing it he should deny, or make a doubt thereof. Witness Binius, john of Antioch, saith he, g Bin. in argamento ca 2. Append. ad to. 5. Act. Conc. Ephes. pa. 859. persuaded Theodoret, that he should with all his art and skill oppugn and refute those 12 Anathematizmes of Cyrill. Theodoret being as much an enemy to Cyrill, as was john himself, willingly yielded to his petition, and by manifest sycophancy wrested every one of Cyrills' Chapters from their true, genuine, and orthodoxal, to a false, preposterous, and heretical sense, and Enoptius sent that refutation of Theodoret unto Cyrill. Again, h Bin. notis in Epist. Leonis. 61. to. 1. Conc. pa. 971. Theodoret did once defend Theodorus and Nestorius, two most pestiferous Arch-heretikes against Cyrill. Yea Binius saith, defendit constantissimè, he defended them most constantly, as if to defend heresy, were with these men not pertinacy, but constancy, witness Baronius. Theodoret saith he i Bar. an. 427. nu. 30. being most addicted to Theodorus, shadowed his praise, by his friendship with Nestorius, but he utterly darkened it by his undertaking of the defence of that Archheretic against Cyrill. And again k an. 431. nu. 182. , Theodoret being at that time the patron of Nestorius, and an oppugner of the Catholic faith, throweth his darts against the Chapters of cyril, and by new writings doth oppugn them; crying out in his letters to the Bishops of Milan of Aquilcia, and of Ravenna, that Cyrill renewed the heresy of Apollinaris. 5. Witness (men of better note than the former) Liberatus, who saith, l Liber. ca 4. that john of Antioch commanded two Bishops, Andreas & Theodoret, that they should write against the 12. Chapters of cyril, blaming him as one who renewed the heresy of Apollinaris: and that Theodoret consented, the event made manifest. Pope Pelagius, who saith m Pelag. 1. Epist. 7. §. Discusso. that Theodoret, monstratur scripsisse, is demonstrated and certainly known to have written against the twelve Chapters of cyril, and against the true Faith. The Acts of the Ephesine Council, wherein n Repi chensio 12. Captiusorum, divi ●yrilli ● Theodoreto co●scripta, habibeturi● Append. ad to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca 2. pa. 859. b is recorded the very refutation of those twelve Chapters by Theodoret, and the answer of cyril unto it▪ the one still called, Theodoreti reprehensio; and the other, Cyrilli adversus Theodoretum refutatio; Cyrill, who, in his Epistle o Cyrill. Epist. ad 〈◊〉 extat. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. c. 8. to Eulogius, faith thus, You have my refutation which I set forth against Andreas, and Theodoret, who writ against my Chapters. 6. Witness Theodoret himself, who, in sundry of his Epistles, testifieth his spleen, and spite against Cyrill, and the Catholic faith. In p Extat in Conc. ●oll. 5 pa. 559 a. one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most perverse, and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresy of Nestorius; I will never, saith he, while I live, consent to those things which are done against you, and against the law: (so he taxeth, not only the Chapters of cyril, but the decree of the holy Ephesine Synod) no, I will not consent unto them, though they should cut off both my hands. In another to john, the Bishop of Antioch; We q Extat et citat. ib. continue still, saith he, contradicting the twelve Chapters, ut alienis à pietate, as being contrary to piety: In another to Aemerius, We r Ea citatur à Pelagio, Epi●i. 7 § Discusso. ought not to consent to the condemnation of the venerable, and most holy Bishop Nestorius: in another to s Citatur ibid. Alexander, I told you before, that the doctrine of my venerable, and most holy Bishop Nestorius hath been condemned, nec ego, cum his qui faciunt, communicabo; neither will I communicate with those who condemned that doctrine: and yet more bitterly in his Epistle to t Extat in Conc 5. Coll. 5. pa. 558. b. Andreas, his fellow oppugner of those Chapters. Insanit iterum Aegyptus adversus Deum; Egypt is again mad against the Lord, and makes war with Moses, and Aaron, the servants of God: As if Nestorius, and his fellow-heretikes were the only Israel; but cyril, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt; and the holy Ephesine Council, and all Catholics who held with them, were no other but Pharaoh, and his Egyptian troops, which fought against GOD'S people. 7. Do we yet desire more, or more pregnant, and ample testimonies in this matter? Take this one out of the acts of Chalcedon: When Theodoret, being called, came first into the Synod, the most reverend Bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and u Conc. Chal. Act. 1 pa. 6. a. Palestine, cried out against him in this manner; The Canons exclude this man, thrust him out, Magistrum Nestorij for as mittite; thrust out the master of Nestorius: the orthodoxal Council doth not receive Theodoret: Call him not a Bishop, he is no Bishop, he is an oppugner of God, he is a jew, thrust him out: he accused, he anathematised cyril; If we receive him, we reject cyril; The Canons exclude him, God doth detest him. Thus cried out the Bishops against Theodoret, before they knew him to have renounced the heresy of Nestorius, which he had so long, and so eagerly defended: nor were they pacified otherwise, but that Theodoret, at the appointment of the judges, should sit only as an accuser of Dioscorus, not as one having judicatory power, or a decisive suffrage, till his own cause was fully examined, and heard. Seeing now there are beside, many other which I willingly omit, so many, so evident, so obvious, so undeniable proofs, that Theodoret writ against Cyrill, and against his twelve Chapters, in defence of Nestorius, and his heresy; what can one think of Vigilius, but that he wilfully, and wittingly resisted the truth, while he, not only strives to persuade, that Theodoret writ no such thing, and that the Council of Chalcedon thought so; but takes this known, and palpable untruth, for one of the grounds of his Apostolical decree touching this second Chapter. 8. And yet there is a worse matter in this very passage of Vigilius, and that is, the reason whereby he proveth, that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill, or in defence of Nestorius; you shall hear it in his own words: It is, saith x Vigil. Const. nu. 180. he, undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Council of Chalcedon, that any Nestorian doctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop (Theodoret) who, together with those holy Fathers, did accurse the doctrines of Nestorius: Quid enim aliud est mendaces, & simulantes professionem rectae fidei patres in sancto Concilio Chalcedonensi residentes ostendere, quam dicere aliquos ex iis similia sapuisse Nestorio: for to say, that any of them who were in that Council, had thought as Nestorius did, is nothing else then to show or affirm those Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon to be liars, and dissemblers in faith, as condemning that faith which they do allow. Thus reasoneth Vigilius, who hence implieth, that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops, and Fathers at Chalcedon, if he ever writ any such things in defence of Nestorius, then both he, and the rest admitting him, should dissemble in their faith, and lie; professing to condemn Nestorius, and yet approving him, who had writ in defence of Nestorius. 9 Truly I do even admire, to consider the blindness of Vigilius in this whole cause of the three Chapters. Most certain it is, as we have showed, that Theodoret did both think as Nestorius, and write in defence of him, and his heresy, and that the Council of Chalcedon knew he did so: If then to receive such an one, as they knew Theodoret to have been, be, as Vigilius saith, a dissembling, and lying in the faith; the whole Council of Chalcedon, by the Pope's judgement, and decree, were undoubtedly all liars, and dissemblers in the faith; a calumny and slander so vile, and incredible, that it alone should cause any Catholic mind to detest this Apostolical Constitution of Vigilius: But to say truth, the Pope's reason is without all reason. Had the holy Council admitted Theodoret before he had renounced his heresy, or manifested the sincerity of his faith unto them, the Pope might have had some colour to have accused them of dissembling, as condemning Nestorianisme, & yet receiving a known Nestorian into their communion: but it was quite contrary. In the former actions, till Theodoret had cleared himself of heresy, he was, as we have declared, no otherwise admitted, than only as a plaintiff, who y Gloriosiss. judices dixerunt, Theodoretus in locum accusatoris nunc ingressus est, unde pati amini ea quae inchoata sunt finiri, reservata post hac omni accusatione, et vobis, et illi. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 6. a. accused Dioscorus for injuriously deposing him, and placing another in his See. And in the eight Action, wherein he came to clear himself, and to be reconciled to the Church, he had no sooner almost set his foot in the Synod, but the Bishops cried z Act. 8. Conc. Chal. out, Theodoretus modo anathematizet Nestorium; let Theodoret forthwith anathematise Nestorius: let him do it instantly and without any delay. And when Theodoret to give the Council better satisfaction offered them first a book to read containing the sincere profession of his faith; and when (that being a Nihil relegi volumus, anathematizet Nestorium. Ib. refused) he purposed at large by words b Ego (inquit Theoretus) quomodo cr●do, etc. Ibid. to have expressed the same; the Synod suspecting the worst, and that he used those delays, as being loath to anathematise Nestorius, cried out, He is an heretic, he is a Nestorian, haereticum for as mitte, out with the heretic; and so they had indeed thrust him out, but that he leaving all circuition, presently before them all, cried, Anathema to Nestorius; Anathema to him, who doth not confess the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God: with which profession the Synod being fully satisfied, the glorious judges said, omnis dubitatio, now all doubt is quite taken away concerning Theodoret; and then the Synod both received him into their communion, as an orthodox, and restored him to his See, from which in the Ephesine latrociny, he was deposed, they all crying out, Theodoret is worthy of his See; let his Church receive their orthodoxal Bishop: To Theodoret, a Catholic Doctor, let the Church be restored. 10. What greater detestation of heresy could the Synod possibly show, what greater tokens of the sincerity of his faith, could either Theodoret express, or the Synod require. It was too great rashness, if not simplicity in Vigilius to collect that the holy Council did dissemble in their faith, because they received him who had sometimes swarved in the faith; The heretical Theodoret, they exclude and reject, the orthodoxal Theodoret they reverence and embrace. That which Saint Austen c Aug. lib. 2. de Adulter. conjug. ca 9 saith in another cause, that the husband who had put away his adulterous wife, ought again to receive her being purged by unfeigned repentance, but so receive her, non ut post viri divortium adultera revocetur, sed ut post Christi consortium adultera non vocetur, that same may be accommodated to any other offence, and not unfitly to this of heresy, and the repentant heretic; whom they before, for that cause had from themselves disjoined; but they neither call, nor count him an heretic, whom Christ hath now upon his repentance unto himself conjoined. So neither is the Pope's reason consequent, that the Council did dissemble in their receiving of Theodoret, nor his conclusion true, which he would thence infer, that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill and the Catholic faith. 11 The second personal matter which Vigilius taketh for another ground of his decree is, that neither Theodoret himself did, nor did the Council of Chalcedon, require him to anathematise his writings: d Vig. Const. nu. 180. There was, saith he, diverse in the Council of Chalcedon who said, that Theodoret had anathematised cyril, and was an heretic; yet those holy Fathers most diligently examining this cause of Theodoret, nihil aliud ab eo exigisse noscuntur, are known to have required no more of him, than that he should anathematise Nestorius, and his impious doctrines; hoc sibi tantummodo sufficere judicantes; judging this alone to be sufficient for them to receive Theodoret. Now it is unfit, saith e Ibid. nu. 181. he further, nos aliquid quaerere velut omissum à patribus, that we should seek or require more than did the Council of Chalcedon; as if they had omitted any thing in this cause of Theodoret: seeing than they required no anathematising of his writings against Cyrill, neither aught any others to anathematise, or require of any the anathematising of the same. 12. As you saw Vigilius in the former Chapter to use haretica astutia; so may any man here easily discern, that he useth an evident, and fallacious sophistication. The Council indeed required not that, nor did Theodoret in explicit, or express terms perform it, saying, I anathematise my own writings against cyril; but in implicit terms, in effect, and by an evident consequent, both the Council required, and Theodoret performed this before them all; for, he subscribed f Ego autem et definitioni fidei subscripsi, ●it Theod. in Conc. Chal. Act. 8. to the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon: one part of that definition is the approveing g Approbamus Synodicas Epistolas Cyrilli. Conc. Chal. Act. 5. in definite. of the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill: a part of one of those Epistles h Nam continentur in Epist. Cyrilli et Conc. Alexand. ad Nestorium, quae extat inter acta Concilij Ephes. to. 1. Act. ca 14. et. repetitur in Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 568. et seq. are the twelve Chapters of cyril, which Theodoret refuted: in every one of those chapters, is an anathema denounced to the defenders of the contrary doctrine: Then certainly, Theodoret by subscribing to the definition, subscribed to the Epistles of cyril, by them to the twelve chapters, and by doing so he condemned, and anathemized all who oppugned those twelve chapters, and then undoubtedly, his own writings which were published, as a confutation of those twelve chapters. And it seems strange, that Vigilius professing that Theodoret did devota ment suscipere, with a dovout affection receive and approve the Epistles of cyril, and the doctrine of them, could deny or be ignorant, that in doing so he did anathematise his own writings, which by the twelve chapters of cyril, are anathematised. 13. Besides this, how often, how plainly doth the Council of Chalcedon i Act. 8. require, and urge Theodoret to anathematise Nestorius and his doctrines? how willingly did Theodoret perform this? What else is this, but a virtual, and implicit anathematising of those his own writings against cyril which defended Nestorius and his doctrines? None can anathematise the former, but eo ipso he doth most certainly (though not expressly) anathematise the later; as on the contrary, none can say (as Vigilius doth, and decreeth, that all shall do the like) none can say that the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, and his twelve chapters ought not to be anathematised, but eo ipso, even by saying so, he doth most certainly (though but implicitè and by consequent) say that Nestorius and his heresy, ought not to be condemned. A truth so clear that Pope Pelagius k Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. § Quis hac. from his anathematising of Nestorius and his doctrine, concludeth of Theodoret: Constat eundem, it is manifest, that in doing this, he condemned his own writings against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill. 14. Neither is that true which Vigilius fancied, that to require men to anathematise the writings of Theodoret, is to seek, and require more than the Council of Chalcedon required: It is not. It is but requiring the self same thing to be done in actual and express terms, which the Council required and Theodoret performed in virtual and implicit terms. The thing required and done is the same: the manner only of doing it, or requiring it to be done, is different: Even as to require of men to profess Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Council of Nice, and the Church ever since requireth, is not to require them to profess more, or aught else, than the Scripture teacheth, and all catholics l Hoc testimonis omnes patres uturtur 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 explicit profession of that truth concerning the unity of substance of the Father, and the Son, which by those words of Scripture they did before implicitè profess. 15. But yet at least will some of Vigilius friends reply, it was unfit to require this explicit anathematising of Theodoret's writings, seeing the Council of Chalcedon did not require it. No, not so neither. The explicit condemning of them, was not only fit, but necessary at that time, in the days of justinian, and Vigilius; For as when the Arians denied Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was enough for one to clear himself of Arianism, to say, that he held this text for true, I and the Father are one, though therein he do implicitè profess Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and though to have professed that alone, before the question about the unity of one substance was moved, had been sufficient; but now he must explicitè profess that truth which is explicitè denied and oppugned: even so it is in this cause of Theodoret's writings, and all like it. While there was no doubt moved by heretics, whether those writings of his ought to be condemned; and whether by the Council of Chalcedon they were condemned or no, so long it was sufficient for one to profess that he condemned Nestorius, and subscribed to the definition of Chalcedon; both which were implicit condemning of those writings of Theodoret: but when the Nestorians began to boast, that Theodoret's writings against Cyrill, neither were condemned, but rather with the author of them approved by the Council of Chalcedon, neither aught to be condemned, the Church now was necessarily enforced to require of all men a profession of that truth in plain and explicit terms, which before they made only in general and implicit. Nor could Vigilius, or any other Nestorian, who refused in express manner to condemn the writings of Theodoret, purge himself of that heresy of Nestorius at this time, by saying they approved the definition of Chalcedon, or condemned Nestorius; though in both these they did implicitè condemn the writings of Theodoret, but now they must expressly profess that which the heretics expressly denied, they must in plain terms anathematise those heretical writings of Theodoret, and acknowledge them to have been anathematised by the Council of Chalcedon, as the heretics in plain terms vaunted, that neither they ought nor were anathematised, but approved by the Council of Chalcedon, whensoever any point tending to the impeaching of faith begins explicitè to be denied, the holy Church may not then content herself in general and implicitè to condemn the same, (few perhaps can perceive that, and many will make that generality of terms, as Vigilius and other Nestorians now did, but a cloak for their heresy) but the Church must now in most plain, easy, and expressed manner that can be devised, both teach, declare, and define the same. This the Church did in this fifth Council, as in the other two, so in this Chapter touching Theodoret's writings. It taught but the very same which the Council of Chalcedon had done before it, anathematised those his writings, which at Chalcedon were anathematised before, but they did this now in a plain manner and explicitè, which by the Council o● Chalcedon only in an obscure manner, and implicitè was done before. 16. The third personal error which Vigilius m Vig. Const. nu. 181. taketh for a ground of his decree, is that cyril himself though he was so exceedingly injured by the writings of those Eastern Bishops that took part with Nestorius, yet when he made union with them, he required them not to anathematise their own writings, but overpast them in silence, as if there had never been any such: whence Vigilius inferreth, that neither aught this anathematising of their writings (by name of Theodoret's) be 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 cyril not to have required of others. 17. The answer is easy by that which hath been declared: this saying of Vigilius laboureth of the same equivocal sophistication, as did the former; for both cyril required, and all who were united unto him, and received into his, which was the communion of the Catholic Church; they all did, though not in explicit terms, which then was not needful; yet virtually, and after a certain, and undoubted, though implicit manner, condemn; and anathematise all their writings against Cyrill, and the Catholic faith; for he received none till they had anathematised the doctrines of Nestorius. This doth Cyril himself most plainly witness in his Epistle to n Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat. exta● 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; until he had anathematised by his own hand-writing the doctrines of Nestorius: And he entreated me in behalf of the other Bishops, that I would rest contented with that profession which they had sent, and require no more: nulla ratione id fieri passus, I would by no means yield unto that, but I sent them a profession of faith; and when john 8. of Antioch, caeterique, and the rest with him, had anathematised the doctrine of Nestorius, then, and not before, communionem illis restituimus, did we receive them into our communion. Thus Cyrill, who by requiring this, did in effect require (& they performed the same) a condemning of all their witings which were made against him, and in defence of that heresy of Nestorius: And had Cyrill lived to see any question made, whether those writings (by whomsoever they had been written) ought to be, or were by himself condemned; out of all doubt that holy Father would in most plain, and express terms, have anathematised them all, as virtually, and implicitè he had before, and would most strictly have exacted the like express anathematising of them, of all those who would wash their hands of the blasphemies, and heresies of Nestorius. 18. Now from these three grounds (every one of which is demonstrated to be untrue) Vigilius collects his Conclusion, or definitive sentence in defence of this second Chapter, which also is an error, but not as the former, personal, but doctrinal; yea, heretical: that those writings of Theodoret, or going under Theodoret's name against Cyrill, and his twelve Chapters, ought not to be condemned; which is as much as if he had decreed plainly, that the heresies of Nestorius ought not to be condemned; for in those writings of Theodoret, they are all defended, and that with such eagerness, art, and acuteness, that if all other Nestorian books were abolished, those writings alone of Theodoret would suffice as a rich storehouse to furnish the Nestorians with abundance of all kind of weapons, to maintain their own, and oppugn the Catholic cause; nor ever can Nestorianisme be pulled down, or overthrown, so long as those writings of Theodoret kee●e their credit, and stand uncondemned, yet shall not these be condemned, doth Vigilius decree. 19 Pope Pelagius seeing the poison of the heretical doctrine, which the defending of this second Chapter doth bear with it, exclaims against it in this manner o Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. §. Quis haec. : O my dear brethren, who seeth not these things to be full of all impiety? And again, who seeth not quanta temeritate plenum sit Theodoreti scripta superbiendo defendere? how full of temereity it is to defend so insolently, the writings of Theodoret? The fifth general Council p Collat. 8. pa. 587. , not only accurseth those writings of Theodoret, as heretical, but all who defend them, yea all who do not anathematise them. A clear evidence that they not only judged this second Chapter to concern the faith, but the Constitution of Vigilius even herein to be heretical, because he would not anathematise those writings of Theodoret, and much more because he decreed that they should not be anathematised, and to their judgement consenteth the whole catholic Church, they all condemn the decree of Vigilius even in this point as heretical. 20. ay, but Vigilius you will say condemneth q Quacunque scripta vel dogmata sceleratorum Nestorij & Eutychetis erroribus manifestantur consonare, anathematizamus & damnamus. Vig. Const. nu. 182. those very heresies of Nestorius, which are defended in those writings; he doth so: at least he seems by his words to do it: and had he not withal decreed that Theodoret's writings should not be condemned, he could not justly have been reproved in this point. But in doing both, he proves not himself orthodoxal, by that which he saith well, but unconstant and contrary to himself in overthrowing that which he saith well, for if Theodoret's writings against Cyrill may not be condemned, as Vigilius decreth; then may not the doctrines of Nestorius defended therein be condemned as Vigilius would seem to do. Theodoret's writings and Nestorianisme are inseparable companions, either both must stand, or both fall together. It's as impossible, and repugnant to condemn the one, and deny that the other may be condemned, as to condemn Euticheanisme, and yet defend the Ephesine latrociny and decree thereof, or condemn Arianism, and not condemn the Arimine Council. It's the honour of truth, that it never is nor can be dissonant to any other truth: but heresy not only may, but almost ever doth fight, not only against truth, but against itself, & overthroweth with one hand, or position, what it builds up by another, as in this of Vigilius is now apparent. 21. Now although this clearly convinceth the Pope's decree to be heretical, seeing it maintaineth two contradictory positions in a cause of faith, & the one is without all doubt an heresy; yet is it worthy the examining, whether of these contradictories must pass for the Pope's judgement & cathedral resolution in this cause. Cardinal Baronius will certainly direct us in this doubt: for he tells us (which of itself also is evident) that the Pope's purpose r Pro ipsorum de sensione laborat Vigilius. Bar. an. 553. nu. 172. & intent in setting forth this Constitution, was to defend the 3 Chapters: adversus Imperatoris decretum, & sententiam Synodi, against the Emperor's Edict, and the sentence of the fifth Synod. As the Emperor then and the Synod condemned, s Ibid. nu. 222. so was it the Pope's main purpose to defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, which was the second Chapter. This is & must stand for the judgement & cathedral resolution of the Pope in this matter: what he speaks repugnant to this is casual, & praeter, nay contra intentionem, it's against his mind & purpose; it's to be thought only by in-incogitancy to have slipped from his pen. So his condemning of the Nestorian doctrine is but in show, it's only verbal, his defining that Theodoret's writings which maintain Nestorianisme may not be condemned, is the true purpose and intent of his mind, its cordial & real. By his verbal condemning of Nestorianisme, he shuts it out in words, or as you may say at the foregate of his palace, By his defining that Theodoret's writings may not be condemned, he pulls in Nestorianisme with all his might, & sets wide open a postren gate unto it: by condemning Nestorianisme in show of words, he seems to be orthodoxal, by defending Nestorianisme indeed and in truth, he demonstrates himself to be heretical. Or because Vigilius was so very wise a Pope as hereafter out of Baronius you shall hear, it seems he meant to show one part of his wisdom, and policy, in this matter, and therefore while the heresy of Nestorius comes in his own natural habit, or in the livery of Nestorius, away with it, the Pope's holiness will not admit it, he cannot abide it: but when it comes countenanced, and graced, with the name of Theodoret, and in his livery, the Pope embraceth it in both his arms, and by his Apostolical authority commandeth all men, to give most friendly welcome and entertainment unto it. 22 You have now the judgement, and cathedral resolution of Vigilius, touching this second Chapter, that the heretical writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and the Catholic faith may not be condemned. Take a view also of those two reasons, by which he labours to strengthen, and persuade the same. The former is drawn from the Council at Chalcedon: It is, saith Vigilius, t Vig. Const. nu. 180. valde contrarium, & Chalcedonensis Synodi judicio indubitabiliter inimicum, very contrary, and without all doubt repugnant to the judgement of the Synod at Chalcedon, that any Nestorian doctrines should now be condemned, sub ejus sacerdotis nomine, under the name of Bishop Theodoret. So Vigilius. 23 Could he not content himself, to be heretical alone, unless he disgraced the holy Council of Chalcedon as guilty of the same heresy, as if they also had judged that none of Theodoret's writings, not those written against the faith, aught to be condemned? They to judge this? or is it contrary, and that indubitabiliter, to condemn those writings of Theodoret, or any writings under his name? Far was it from the thought, much more from the grave judgement of so holy a Council. Even themselves, as before we declared, condemned and anathematised all those writings of Theodorrt, and warranted by their judgement all others to anathematise the same. Gregory u Lib. 7. Indic. 2. Epist. 54. witnesseth of the fifth Council, that it is sequax in omnibus, in all things a follower of the Council at Chalcedon. Seeing then the fifth Council, doth so often and so constantly condemn and anathematise those writings of Theodoret, its undoubted, that the same writings were formerly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, the fifth Synod but treading in their steps and following them in that judgement, wherein they had gone before them. If to condemn those writings be repugnant to the judgement at Chalcedon, then is the fifth Council not a follower but a confuter and contradicter of the judgement at Chalcedon. Nor only the fifth Council, but the whole catholic Church ever since the time of Vigilius, they all do reject, and condemn the judgement of the Council at Chalcedon, seeing they all by approving the fifth Synod, and decree thereof, do anathematise those writings of Theodoret, which to do is, as Vigilius teacheth, indubitanter contrarium, most certainly contrary to the judgement at Chalcedon. If the whole catholic Church be not heretical (which to think is impiety) by contradicting and condemning the judgement of the Council at Chalcedon, then undoubtedly is Vigilius heretical in teaching and decreeing, that to condemn any writings of Theodoret, or any under his name, is repugnant to the judgement of the Council at Chalcedon. 24. The other reason of Vigilius, is, because it were a disgrace, injury and slander, against Theodoret, to condemn his writings. This the Pope x Vigil. Const. nu. 282. expresseth in the very words of his sentence, in this manner; The truth of these things, (those are the three personal points before handled) being weighed, we ordain and decree, nihil in injuriam, at que obtrectationem probatissimi viri, hoc est Theodoreti sub taxatione nominis ejus, à quoquam fieri vel proferri, that nothing shall be done or spoken by any, to the injury and slander of the most approved Bishop Theodoret by taxing of his name: and it must needs be taxed, if his writings or books be condemned. 25. See here the compassionate and tender heart of Vigilius. Not only justinian, and the fifth general Council, but Pelagius, Gregory, and other succeeding Popes, and Counsels, even the whole Catholic Church ever since the time of Vigilius, they all, by approving the decree of the fifth Synod, do not only tax the name of Theodoret, but accurse, & anathematise the writings of Theodoret, and that even under his name: Now, such a loving and tender affection doth the Pope carry towards the heretical writings of Theodoret, that rather than they may be condemned, or his name taxed by the condemning of them; justinian, Pelagius, Gregory, and other his successors, the fifth, the sixth, and other general Counsels, even the whole Catholic Church, they all must be, and are de facto, here declared, and by the Pope's cathedral sentence decreed, and defined, not only to be heretical, (as the former reason imported) but injurious persons, backbiters, & slanderers, they all must be condemned, and for ever disgraced, rather than Theodoret's name must be taxed, or his heretical writings condemned, or disgraced. 26. But say indeed: Is it an injury, a slander, a disgrace to one, that his errors should either by himself, or by the Church be condemned? How injurious was that holy Bishop Saint Augustine to himself in writing so many retractations, and corrections of what he saw amiss? And what himself did, he would not only willingly, but gladly have permitted the holy Church to have done. Nor may we think this mind to have been only in Austen, Modesty and humility, are the individual concomitants of true knowledge and learning: and the more learned any man is, the more judicious is he in espying, the more ingenuous in acknowledging, the more lowly and humble, in condemning his own errors. As it is but wind and no solid substance, which puffs up a bladder, so is it never any sound, or solid learning, but mere ventosity & emptiness of knowledge which makes the mind to swell, to bear itself aloft; and either not see that truth into which his high and windy conceit will not suffer him to look down and dive; or seeing it, not embrace the same, though it were with a condemning, yea with a detestation of his own error. It must never be a shame or disgrace to any man to recall and condemn his errors; till he be ashamed of being a man, that is subject to errors, Saint Augustine y Illi quos vulgon moriones vocant, quanto mag● absurdi & insulsi sunt, tanto magis nullum verbum emittunt quod revocare velint, quia dicti mali paenitare, utique cordatorum est. Aug. Epist. 7. more sharply saith, That its a token not only of a foolish, and proud self-love, but of a most malignant z Nimis perversè se ipsum ●mat, qui & alios vul● orare ut error suus late al. ibid. mind, rather to wish others to be poisoned with his heresies, then either himself to recall, or permit others, specially the Church of God, to condemn his heresies. It was no injury, no slander; nor disgrace to Theodoret, that his heretical writings, were by the Church condemned, but it had been a fault unexcusable and an eternal disgrace to the Church, if she had suffered such heretical writings to pass uncondemned. 27. Oh but Theodoret was, probatissimusvir, a man most approved by the Council of Chalcedon, saith Vigilius; is it not an injury to condemn the writings of a man most approved? No verily, the more approved, the more eminent, learned, and orthodoxal any man is, the more careful and ready, both himself, and the Church must be to condemn his former heretical writings: When heresy cometh in his own deformed habit, it doth but little, or no hurt at all; who will not detest it, when he reads it in the writings of Arius, Nestorius, Eutiches, or such like condemned heretics? the odiousness of their names breeds a dislike almost of a truth in their mouths, but certainly of an error; But when Satan assumes the form of an Angel of light, when heresy comes palliated, yea, countenanced with the name of a Catholic, a learned, an holy, a renowned and approved Bishop; then, and then specially is there danger of infection: The reverence, the love, the honour we bear to such a person, causeth us unawares to swallow the poison which he reacheth unto us, before we take leisure to examine, or once make doubt of his doctrine. 28. It was truly said by a Vint. de Hares. ca 23. Vincentius Lirinensis, The error of the Master, is the trial of the Scholar, & tanto major tentatio, quanto ipse doctior, qui erraret, and the more learned the teacher is, the greater still is the temptation; which, beside other, he shows by the example of Origen; he was in his age a mirror b Vincent. Li●. loc. citato. of gravity, integrity, continency, zeal c Zelo dei se truncavit. Hier. Epist. ad Pamac. & ●cean. to. 2. pa. 194. ●● , piety, of learning of all sorts, both divine, and humane, of so d Scripturas memoriter tenebat. ibid. happy a memory, that he had the Bible without book, of such admirable eloquence, that not words but honey e Vinc. loc. cit. seemed to drop from his lips; of so indefatigable industry, that he was called Adamantius, and was said by some f Hier. lib. 2. ado. Ruffin. to have written six thousand books, by g Hier. epist. ad Pam. Hierome, one thousand, besides innumerable commentaries; of such high esteem, and authority, that Christians h Vinc. loc cit. honoured him as a Prophet; Philosophers, as a Master; they flocked from the utmost parts of the world to hear his wisdom, as if a second Solomon had been sent from heaven; yea, most would say, malle se cum Origene errare, quam cum aliis vera sentire, that they had rather err with Origen, then think aright with others. When such a man lapseth into heresy, if his writings may scape without censure, if it shall be judged a contumely, an injury or slander, to condemn his books, for the honour which was given to his person, one such man as Origen, were able to draw almost the third part of the stars of heaven after him. 29. And if any believe the Epistles going under his name, Theodoret was in diverse respects, not much inferior to Origen. His birth noble, i Nobilibus parentibus nascitur. Possev. in Theodor. his parents being without hope of Children, vowed k Epist. Theod. 81. ad Nonium extat apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12. him before his conception, like another Samuel unto God. And accordingly even from his Cradle consecrated him to God's service: Violently l javitus episcopus sum ordinatus ibid. drawn to the dignity of a Bishop, the City of Cyrus in Syria, where was his episcopal See, he nobilitated, being before but obscure (though worthy m Erat in Syria oppidulum vehementer neglectum Cyrus nomine, a judaeis extructum ut qualemcunque gratiam benefactori (Cyro) res●r●●t. Proc. de edify. justia. Orat. 2 in fine. of eternal memory, as being one monument of the deliverance of God's people, by the hand of Cyrus, out of the Babylonish captivity) So upright, blameless, and void of covetousness, that having been five and twenty years' Bishop of that place; in all that time, ne n Theod. Epist. ad Nonium. obolum mihi in tribunali ablatum aliquis conquestus est, none could say that he had exacted, or received for causes of judgement, so much as one half penny. I took no man's goods, no man's garments, nay, which is a memorable token of integrity, none of mine house, saith he, hath taken the worth of an egg, or a morsel of bread: So plentiful in works of charity, That he distributed o Quae nobis a parentibus obvenerunt, post eorum mortem statim distribui. Theod. Epist ad Leonem. extat inter Epistolas Leonis post Ep. 62. his inheritance among the poor, repaired Churches, p Theod. Epist. 81. builded bridges, drained Rivers, to towns where was want of water, and such like, in so much, saith he, that in all this time, I have q Epist. Theod. ad Leonem. & ad Nonium. provided nothing for myself, not any land, not any house, no not so much as any sepulchre; nothing, praeter laceras has vestes, I have left nothing to myself, but only this ragged attire, wherewith I am apparelled, For learning and knowledge both in divine and humane matters he was much honoured, compared to Nilus r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epig. apud Poss. in Theodor. as watering the whole country, where he abode with the streams of his knowledge, he converted eight towns, s Theod. Epist. ad Nonium qnae est 81. infected with the heresy of the Marcionites, to the faith, two other of the Arians and Eunomians: wherein he took such pains, and that also with some expense of his blood, and hazard of his life, that in eight hundreth parishes (within the Diocese of Cyrus) Ne t Ibid. unum quidem haereticorum zizanium remansit, there remained not so much as one heretical weed. 30. So learned, so laborious, so worthy a Bishop was Theodoret: and so desirous am I not to impair any part of his honour, much less to injure, disgrace, or slander him. Whom almost would not the writings of a man so noble for birth, and parentage, so famous for learning, so eminent in virtue, move and persuade to assent unto him, if they might go currant without taxing, without note or censure of the Church? and that much more than the books of Origen; both because Origen was but a Presbyter, but Theodoret a Bishop, and specially because Origen u Originem, fontem Arij, Niceni patres percuss●re, damnantes enim eos qui filium negant esse de subs●antia patris, illum (Origi●em) Ariumqui d●mnaverunt. Hier. Epist. ad Pammac. de error. Orig. Omnis tam orientis, quam occid●ntis C●lbulicorum Sy●odus, illum, haerericum denunciat. Hier. Apol. 2. adver. Ruff. himself was by the Church condemned; and so the author being disgraced, the authority of his writings must needs be very small: but the person of Theodoret was approved by the whole Council of Chalcedon, they all proclaimed x Con. Chal. Act. 8. him to be a Catholic, and orthodoxal Bishop. Here was a far greater temptation and greater danger when his writings are heretical, whose person, so famous and holy a Council commendeth for Catholic. Now, or never was the Church to show that it honoured no man's person, writings, or name, more than the truth of Christ. And so much the rather was the Church to do this in Theodoret, because about some thirty y Num Iustini rescriptum de eâ re datum est Rustico Coss. ut liquet ex Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. Vbi rescriptum extat. Rusticus vero Consul cum Vitaliano an. 510. Marcel. in Chron. et Bar. in cum annum nu. 1. years, before this fifth Council, in the time of justinus the Emperor, the Nestorians (as if not only some writings of his, but Theodoret himself had been wholly theirs) set up z Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. et pa. 578. a. his image in a Chariot, and with great pomp, and singing of hymns, brought it in triumphant manner into the City of Cyrus, where Sergius a Nestorian, and Bishop of that place, mentioned in a Collect Theodorus of Mopsvestia, Nestorius, and Theodoret as three of their principal Nestorian Saints: was it not now high time to wipe away that blemish from the name of Theodoret, and to condemn those writings of his which gave occasion to the Nestorians to make such boasts? 31. I appeal now unto any man, whether their condemning of Theodoret's writings, did not much more tend to the honour, then, as Vigilius fancieth, to the slander, and disgrace of his person. As it is a blemish to a man to retain a filthy spot in his garment, but the taking of it away doth grace, and make him more comely; even so the name of Theodoret was stained by those writings; they emboldened the Nestorians to put him in their cursed Calendar; but by the condemning of those writings was the stain and blemish wiped away from his person, his name, and honour was vindicated from the Nestorians, and brought, as it well deserved, to the holy Church of GOD; nothing of Theodoret left for heretics to vaunt of, but the only stains of Theodoret; nothing but those heretical writings condemned and accursed, both by Theodoret himself, and by the whole Church of God. 32. No, no; it is Pope Vigilius (and such as applaud his decree for infallible) that disgraceth, and most ignominiously useth the name, person, and memory of Theodoret: By his decree those heretical writings of Theodoret, which, by the Church's sentence of condemnation are quite dulled, receive full strength, and vigour for the Nestorians against Catholics: By him the Nestorians have an eternal charter, and irrevocable decree, that Theodoret's writings against Cyrill, and with them the heresy of Nestorius, ought not to be taxed, nor condemned. His Apostolical Constitution is a triumphant chariot for them to set the Image of Theodoret, in their Temples, and with Anthems and Collects to canonize, yea adore him in their Masses, among their heretical Saints. But for the Church of God, I constantly affirm they could not possibly have more honoured Theodoret, than by burning up the hay and stubble of his writings, the condemning of which the Pope decreeth to be an injury and slander unto him. 33. May we now in the last place consider a little what might be the intendment of Vigilius in pleading, and decreeing this for Theodoret's writings? I doubt not but the love he bore to Nestorianisme might make him zealous for those writings, which are the bulwarks of the Nestorians: but non sunt in eo omnia. Pope's are men of profound thoughts, and very long reaches; they have deep, and mystical projects in their decrees. Vigilius had, and it may be principally, an eye to this his own, and all their Cathedral Constitutions like unto it: If the heretical writings of Theodoret may not be condemned, because himself was a Catholic, à fortiori, this decree of Vigilius, be it never so heretical, may not be condemned, because the Pope is the head of all Catholics. If it be an injury, and a slandering of Theodoret, to tax him, or his name, by condemning his writings; it must much more be an injury, and slander, nay, that is nothing, even a blasphemy and sin irremissible to tax the Pope's Holiness, by condemning his Apostolical decree: If you presume to condemn, nay, but tax them, or their names, though their decrees shall be as apparently heretical, as are those writings of Theodoret, you are condemned for ever as injurious, as contumelious, as slandering persons. And let this suffice for the errors both personal, and doctrinal, of Vigilius touching this second Chapter. CAP. X. That Vigilius and Baronius err in diverse personal points, or matters of fact, concerning the third Chapter, or the Epistle of Ibas. 1. THere remaineth now the third & last Chapter, which concerns the impious Epistle of Ibas; In handling whereof, being of them all most intricate and obscure, as Vigilius first, and then long after him his Champion Baronius, have here bestowed greatest pains, and used all their subtlety, judging this to be▪ (as indeed by reason of the manifold obscurities, it is) the fittest cloak for their heresy; so must I on the other side entreat the more serious and attentive consideration at the reader's hands, while I endeavour, not only to discover the dark and secret corners of this cause, but pull both the Pope and his Parasite out of this, being their strongest hold, and most hidden heretical den, wherein they hoped of all other most safely and securely to have lurked; for the more perspicuous proceeding wherein, before I come to the doctrinal errors, and main heresy which in this third Chapter they maintain; I will first manifest two or three of their personal untruths, which will both open a passage to the other, and will give the reader a taste, nay, a certain experiment what truth, fidelity, and faire-dealing he is to expect at the hands of Vigilius and Baronius in their handling of this Chapter. 2. The first, and that indeed a capital untruth, is, that Vigilius avoucheth the Council of a Orthodoxa est Ib● à patribus pronunciata dictatio. Vig. Const. nu. 192. Chalcedon to have approved this Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxal. They approve that impious, and blasphemous Epistle? they rejected, they condemned, anathematised, and accursed it to the very pit of hell, witness the fifth general Council, and the whole Catholic Church, which hath approved it; for thus cried out, and proclaimed all the Bishops, Epistolam b Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnavit, ejecit; the definition of faith made by the holy Council at Chalcedon hath condemned this Epistle, it hath cast out this Epistle. But because I have formerly c Supra ca 4.5.1.3.13. entreated hereof, I will add no more of this which is proclaimed by the whole Church to be an untruth. 3. The second untruth is like this Vigilius having cited the interlocutions of Pascasinus, and Maximus, wherein they say that Ibas by his Epistle is declared to be a Catholic, d Vig. Const. nu. 190 addeth that all the rest in the Council of Chalcedon did not only not contradict their interlocutions, verumetiam apertissimum eis noscuntur praebuisse consensum; but also they are known to have assented, and that most manifestly unto those interlocutions. So Vigilius. It had been enough, and too much to have said, that the Council had assented, or had but seemed to assent: but Vigilius in saying that all the rest did most manifestly assent to those interlocutions, uttered a papal and supreme untruth, whereof no colourable pretence can be made, witness the fifth general Council, and the whole Catholic Church, which hath approved it: They expressly e Conc. 5. Coll. 6. ●a. 576. a. b. testify, that the Council of Chalcedon did pro nullo habere, esteem as nothing, that which was spoken by one or two, (those were Pascasinus, and Maximus) for that Epistle; but of this also I have spoken before. 4. Now both these untruths, whereof Vigilius is so evidently, and by so ample witnesses convicted, Cardinal Baronius hath again revived; telling with a face more hard than Brass, or Adamant, Patres f Bar. an. 553. nu. 191. dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; the Fathers of Chalcedon said, that this Epistle of Ibas is to be received as orthodoxal: and g Ba a 448. nu. 71 again, ex ipsa Ibam fuisse probatum orthodoxum, aequè una fuit sententia omnium Episcoporum; that Ibas was by this Epistle approved for a Catholic, it was the consent and uniform judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon; than which, two louder untruths, and well worthy of a golden whetstone, could hardly have been uttered: And though he took them from Pope Vigilius, yet are they far more inexcusable in the Cardinal, than in the Pope his Master. Vigilius died before he saw the judgement of succeeding Popes, and general Counsels; which had he known, we may charitably think, that his Holiness would have casseired and defaced such palpable, and condemned untruths: But Cardinal Baronius knew all this; he knew that the fifth h In 6. collatione Conc. 5. allata ab ipso Vigilio pro defension Iba Epistolae ●●nsutantur. Bar. an. 553. nu. 210. general Council had condemned these untruths in Vigilius: he knew that Pelagius, l Gregorius cum praedecessoribus & successoribus ejus omnes quintam Synodum confirmasse noscuntur. Bar. an. 553 nu. 229. Gregory, and their successors, that the sixth, k Bar. ibid. seventh, and other general Counsels had approved the fifth Council, and so in approving it, had condemned those same untruths; and yet against the known consent, and judgement of all those Popes, and general Counsels, that is, against the known testimony of the whole Catholic Church for a thousand years together; he is bold to avouch both those former sayings, for truths, which all those former witnesses with one voice proclaim, to be condemned untruths. Such account doth the Cardinal make of Fathers, Popes, General Counsels, and of the whole Catholic Church, when they come cross in his way. 5. A third personal matter there is concerning this Chapter, of which not Vigilius, but Cardinal Baronius doth enforce me to entreat; and that is, whether Ibas was indeed the author of this Epistle, or no: for although it be not material to the intent of the fifth Council, (which, against the decree of Vigilius, we now defend) whether Ibas writ it or not, seeing neither this fifth, nor the former Council of Chalcedon condemned the author of this Epistle, but only the Epistle itself; yet seeing the Cardinal was pleased to undertake the defence of a needless untruth, that this is not the Epistle of Ibas. I am desirous that all should see how wisely and worthily he hath behaved himself in this point. 6. Baronius speaking against this Epistle, first makes it doubtful whose it is, saying l Bar. an. 432. nu. 71. , author qui fertur nomine Ibae, quisquis ille fuerit, the author of this Epistle which passeth under the name of Ibas, whatsoever he be; and having thus bred a distrust in your minds: then as the serpent dealt with Eve, he positively sets down his untruth. It is not the Epistle of Ibas, in this manner: Caeterum, m Ibid. ut publica acta testantur, producta in Concilium Epistola illa, non esse Ibae comperta, but the public acts do testify, that when this Epistle was produced in the Council at Chalcedon, it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas: and so it being condemned, Ibas was absolved. Thus Baronius, who for proof hereof allegeth the public acts n Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. & Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. citantur à Bar. ibidem. both of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the 2. Nicene Synod. And truly in the second Nicene Synod, that which the Cardinal saith, is read indeed by Epiphanius, a Deacon in that Synod: but it is the testimony of the whole Council, Epiphanius only reading and proposing it in the name o Epiphanius scitam à patribus appositam responsionem perlegit. Bar. nu. 787. nu. 34. and behalf of the Synod. And because it is a testimony very pregnant for the Cardinal's assertion, and is cited out of a Council which he much honoureth, & affecteth, I will do him the favour, as at large to express that passage: the rather because this, as the whole answer read by Epiphanius, is not only commended as a matter delivered p Quam confutationem nobis spiritus sanctus dedit. Conc. N●c. 2. Act. 6. pa. 356. a. unto them by the holy Ghost: but they further request q Rogamus autem, quicunque etc. ibid. b. all who shall happen to light on that commentary of theirs, that they will not read it slightly, or perfunctorily, but with singular indagation and search of the same. And I am loath to deny those Nicene Fathers, so very just and reasonable a request. 7. In that place r Conc. Nic 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. a. there was read on the behalf of the Iconoclasts, a testimony out of the ancient Father Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, forbidding to set up Images either in the Churches, or s Epiphanius Cyprius sic inquit, Ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis, neque in coemiterijs statuatis: neque in domo communi tolerentur. ibid. in Churchyards, or in their common dwelling houses, but every where to carry about, God in their hearts. This saying nettled the Nicene Father's not a little, who were very superstitiously devoted to Image-worship: and therefore in stead of a better answer, they say that the book whence that is alleged, is falsely t Id (ex Epiphanio lectum) nequaquam illius existit. ibid. a. Et, verum ut novitij (libelli) et alieni falsique sunt. ibid. b. ascribed to Epiphanius, he was not the author of it. Ephiphanius they honour u Commentarium illum reijcimus beatum autem patrem (Epiph.) ecclesiae Doctorem agnoscimus. ibid. b. as an holy Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, but that book going under his name, they reject: which fact of theirs, they illustrate and labour to warrant by the example of the Council at Chalcedon, who received Ibas himself, but accursed the Epistle going under the name of Ibas, non x Ibid. b. enim demonstrari poterat quod esset Ibae: for it could not be proved to be the Epistle of Ibas: wherefore they anathematised not Ibas, but it: Dicebatur enim Ibae, cum tamen illius haudquaquam esset: for it was said to be the Epistle of Ibas, whereas indeed it was none of his. Even so those false writings against venerable Images are said to be the writings of Bishop Epiphanius, but they are not his. So those public acts, and second Nicene Fathers, whose testimony concurreth and jumpeth with the Cardinal, this is not the Epistle of Ibas. 8. Before I come to examine those public acts, I must observe one thing touching Baronius, which he will occasion and enforce me often to repeat; and this it is, that Baronius was merely infatuated in his handling of this whole cause touching the three Chapters, and this one might almost even swear: but any may see it as clear as the light: besides many other, even by this one point whereof we now entreat. If a man should study and devise ten days together, how to confute and utterly overthrow all that Pope Vigilius hath decreed touching this third Chapter; and all which Baronius himself hath either taught or said in defence of Vigilius in that point, he cannot possibly do it more clearly, more certainly, more effectually, then by denying, as the Cardinal, and his Nicene Fathers do, that this is the Epistle of Ibas: for how could either the Council of Chalcedon, or the Pope's Legates therein, by this Epistle, and by the dictation and contents thereof judge Ibas to be a Catholic (which Vigilius y Vigil. Const. nu. 196. decreeth, and Baronius z Bar. an. 553. nu. 191, 192.193.196 197, etc. more than twenty times I think repeateth,) unless it were indeed the Epistle of Ibas; for of Ibas no otherwise then in the first person, or as the author and writer of it, there is no mention at all to be found or collected out of that Epistle. 9 Now if you require testimonies, or authorities in this case, I oppose to Baronius the Pope's Legates at Chalcedon, of which Baronius himself saith a Bar. an. 442. nu. 71. ; This to be the Epistle of Ibas, the Pope's Legates, and after them the rest of the Bishops by their subscription, confirmed and again, the b an. eod. nu. 77. Acts of Chalcedon do teach, that this we acknowledged to be the Epistle of Ibas. I oppose Pope Vigilius, who in his Constitution assenteth c Vigil. Const. nu. 90 to that judgement of the Pope's Legates, and those words, relecta ejus Epistola, the Epistle of Ibas being read, we acknowledge him to be a Catholic. I oppose the confession of Ibas himself, of which Baronius saith, the d Bar. an. 448. nu. 77. Acts at Chalcedon declare Ibam confessum esse eam esse suam, that Ibas confessed this Epistle to be his own: and again e Bar. an. 553. nu. 211. , we have before declared Ibam eandem Epistolam suam esse professum, that Ibas professed this same Epistle to be his own: and Ibas of all men in the world knew best, whether it was his or no. I oppose lastly Baronius to Baronius, for he f an. 448. nu. 71. saith of this Epistle, verè esse Ibae fuisse cognitam, that it was known truly and indeed to be the Epistle of Ibas. Say now in sadness, what you think of Baronius, and where you think his five wits were, when he denied, and that upon proof by public records, this to be the Epistle of Ibas, which the Pope's Legates, with the whole Council of Chalcedon, which Pope Vigilius whom he defendeth, which Ibas his own self, yea which Baronius also acknowledgeth, confesseth, and professeth to be truly, and in very deed the Epistle of Ibas. 10. But what shall we then say to those public acts, which as the Cardinal tells us, do testify, that this is not the Epistle of Ibas. What first to the acts of the Council at Chalcedon, which he first g Bar. an. 432. nu. 71. allegeth, and the tenth Action thereof? I say, and say it upon certain grounds, that the Cardinal therein saith an untruth, for proof whereof, I appeal to that same tenth Action of the Council, in no part whereof it is said, nor can thence be collected, that this was not the Epistle of Ibas. Or if you will not believe my saying, yet believe the Cardinal himself, more than once testifying that which he saith to be untrue. These are his words h Bar. an. 448. nu. 77. , The Acts of the tenth Action of the Council at Chalcedon: Eandem epistolam ut Ibae cognitam esse à patribus docent, do teach, that this Epistle was known to be the Epistle of Ibas. And again i Ibid. nu. 71 , Vere esse Ibae fuisse cognitam eandem actio decima docet, that this was known to have been truly the Epistle of Ibas, the tenth action of the Council at Chalcedon doth teach. Think you not that Baronius is more like the Esopicall satire, than a grave Cardinal of the Roman Church? At his first blast he makes the tenth action of the Council at Chalcedon to testify that this is not the Epistle of Ibas; and then he blows a quite contrary blast, professing the tenth action of the Council at Chalcedon to testify that this is truly, and certainly the Epistle of Ibas. 11. O, but the second Nicene Council, and the public acts thereof, they witness the same which the Cardinal affirmeth, that this is not the Epistle of Ibas. They do so indeed: But as it is an untruth in the Cardinal's mouth: so it is also in those his Nicene Fathers from whom he took it, unless perhaps those men of Nice, knew better whose Epistle it was, then did the 600 holy Bishops of the Council at Chalcedon, before whom Ibas stood, or better than Ibas himself who confessed it to be his own Epistle. The Cardinal may not be offended that we descent from his Nicene Council, which dissenteth from the holy Council at Chalcedon, from Ibas his own confession, yea from whom the Cardinal dissenteth as much as we in this point. And I cannot see, what depth of wisdom it was in his Cardinalship to allege them for witnesses, whose testimony, himself in this very point for which he produceth them, doth avouch to be untrue. But let him please himself in those Nice Fathers, we envy not such a Council, nor such Fathers, nor such public records unto them. That Nicene assembly was but a conspiracy against the truth, it was fit they should uphold untruth, by untruth. And whosoever shall be pleased to examine and rip up the Acts of that Council, I will give him this one assured comfort, that besides their superstitious & heretical doctrines therein maintained, he shall find them full stuffed with many gross and palpable untruths, of matters de facto, on which they build their doctrinal positions, as in this concerning the Epistle of Ibas, it is now most manifest. 12. For this time I will not enter into so spacious a field, but yet this one thing by the way I cannot but observe; seeing those Nicene Fathers profess, that writing against Image-worship, going under the name of Epiphanius, to be in such sort the book of Epiphanius, as this Epistle going under the name of Ibas, is the Epistle of Ibas: and seeing we have now demonstrated this Epistle to be truly and indeed the Epistle of Ibas, it followeth even by their own reason and comparison, that the book also against Image-worship, cited by the Council at Constantinople in the name of Epiphanius, is in truth and in very deed the true writing of Bishop Epiphanius. And yet further, because those Nicene Fathers acknowledge Epiphanius for a Catholic k Beatum patrem (Epiphanium) catholicae ecclesiae Doctorem agnoscimus. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. b. Doctor of the Church, one who held the ancient tradition l Illi qui antiquam ecclesiae traditionem recipiunt, beato Epiphanio non adversantur. ibid. b. of the Church, and consented to the Catholics, in and before his time: it hence again followeth, that the doctrine of condemning Image-worship which in that book of Epiphanius is delivered, & was by the general Council at Constantinople some thirty m Conc. Const. contra Imagines, habitum est an. 754. Bin. to. 3. pa. 229. Conc. Nicenum habitum. an. 787. Bin. notis in id Conc. years before this Nicene Assembly, decreed n Qui imaginem ausus fueri● parare, aut adorare, aut in ecclesia, aut in privata domo constituere, aut clam habere, si Episcopus fuerit, deponatur. etc. Decretum Conc. Constant. sub Constantine Copronimo, quod extat in Niceno Conc. 2. Act. 6. pa. 377. a. , that it I say is ancient, Catholic, consonant to the ancient tradition, and the doctrine of the ancient and catholic Fathers of the Church, even from the Apostles time. And this is all which Baronius hath gained by his alleging those public acts of the Nicene Fathers, to prove this not to be the Epistle of Ibas. And let this suffice to be spoken of the personal untruths of Vigilius and Baronius touching this Epistle of Ibas, which are but a praeludium to their doctrinal errors and heresies; whereof in the next place we are to entreat. CHAP. XI. That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, drawn from the union with Cyrill, mentioned in the latter part of that Epistle, do defend all the heresies of the Nestorians. 1. WE come now from personal matters to that which is the Capital point, and main heresy contained in the defence of this Chapter, wherein Vigilius, and Baronius have so behaved themselves, that those former errors though they be too shameful, are but a very sport, and play to that heretical frenzy which here they do express. For now you shall behold the Pope and his Cardinal in their lively colours, fight under the banner of Nestorius, and using the most cunning stratagems that were ever devised, to cloak their heretical doctrine, and gain credit to that condemned heresy. Those sleights are principally two. The former is gathered out of the latter part of the Epistle of Ibas, where mention is made of the union betwixt Cyrill, and john, which although I touched before a Sup. ca 4. , yet because it is a matter of greater obscurity, and containeth a most notable fraud of Vigilius, and Baronius, I purposely reserved the full handling of it unto this place, where without interruption of other matters, I might have scope enough, to explain the depth of this mystery. 2. In the time of the Ephesine Council, there was, as all know, an exceeding breach betwixt Cyrill, with other Catholic Bishops, who condemned Nestorius, and john Bishop of Antioch, with diverse other Eastern Bishops, who took part with Nestorius, against the holy Council. And the division was so great, that at the selfsame time, in one, & the selfsame city of Ephesus, they held two several Counsels, and set up altar contra altar, Council against Council, Patriarcke against Patriarcke, Bishops against Bishops, and Synodall sentence against Synodall sentence. But betwixt those two Counsels, there was as much difference, as is betwixt light and darkness, betwixt truth and heresy, betwixt the Church of God, and the Synagogue of Satan. The one consisted of holy orthodoxal and Catholic Bishops whose Precedent was cyril: the other of heretical, b Coactis in unum solo nomine Episcopis, qui unà cum Nestorio desciveranta ex quibus alij erant extorres, ●agi, praprijs sedibus deslituti, alij à suis Metropolitanis depositi, alij, Pelagij & Caelestij veneno imbuti. Epi-Synodal. sanct. Conc. Epb. ad Caelestinum, to. 4. Act. Eph. c. 17. factious, and diverse deposed Bishops, whose Precedent was john. The former condemned Nestorius & his blasphemous doctrine, whereby he denied Christ to be God: the latter defended Nestorius and all his impious doctrines. The former was held in a Church, even in the Church of the Blessed c Considentibus in sanctiss. Eccles. quae appellatur Maria, to. 2. act. Ephes. conc. ca 1. & saepe alibi. Virgin, whose Son they professed to be truly God: the latter in an Inn d johanne in divirsorio manente, sacraque illius Synodo praesente, Act. Ephe. conc. to. 3. ca 1. Cum vix curru dissilijsse● (johannes) cubiculuque, ingressus esset. Apol. Cyril. ad Imper. to. 5 ca 2. pa. 817. b. , or Tavern, a fit place for them who denied Christ to be God. The former proceeded in all respects, orderly and Synodally, as was fit and requisite that they should: the latter did all things tumultuously e johannes cum suis, nullam omnino vel per leges ecclesiasticas, vel per Augustorum decretum, potestatem obtinuit. Libel. Cyril. et Mem. oblatus s●synodo, to. 4. Act. ca 2. johannes omni ecclesiastica authoritate proculcata, omnique ecclesiarum ordine & ritu & consuctudine contempla, etc. ibid. Quae temere vaneque fuerant nugati, quaeque praeter omnem Canonum ordinem edid●rant, etc. Epist. Synod. ad Imp. to. 4. ca 8. quod contra leges et canon's, oninemque ordinem perpetrarunt, ibid. , presumptuously, and against the Canons of the Church, supporting themselves only by lies, calumnies, and slanderous reports. In a word, the former, was truly an holy, a general, an Ecumenical f Omnes Orientales alque Occidentales vel per se, vel per legatos sacerdotali huic concessui intersunt. Act. Ephes. to. 2. ca 16. Quod à nobis exijt judicium, aliud nihil esse quam communem concordemque terrarum orbis sensum atque, consensum. Ep. Synod. Eph. Conc. ad Imp. to. 2. ca 17. Council, wherein was the consent of the whole Catholic Church: the latter was nothing else, but an heretical, schismatical, and rebellious faction or conspiracy of some thirty g Ille (johannes) 30. tantum numero, cosque vel haereticos vel alios illius factionis socios. Epist. Synod. 5. Conc. ad Imp. to. 4. ca ●. johannes rebellionis hujus ante signanus. ibid. ca 3. & alibi saepe. or forty persons, unworthy the name of Bishops, insolently opposing themselves to the holy Council, yea to the whole Catholic Church, in which number and faction besides others, who less concern our purpose, were these h Vt patet ex corum subscripsione. Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 3. ca 2. & ●om. 4. ca 7. john Bishop of Antioch, the ringleader of the rest, Paulus Bishop of Emisa, Theodoret of whom we before entreated, and Ibas, (not then, but some three or four years after Bishop of Edessa) whom to have been present at that time as a Bishop, though his name be not expressed in their subscription, both Glicas' i Glic. Annal. part. 4. pa. 363. in his Annals, and the Council at Chalcedon, k Post duos dies venimus in Ephesum ait Ibas in Epist. sua. Conc. Chal. act. 10. sequntus sum primatem meum ibid. pa. 112. b. and Ibas his own words therein, do make manifest. 3. Now though there was so great odds betwixt the holy Council, and this factious conventicle, yet were they (as is the custom of all heretics and schismatics) most insolent in all their actions. As the holy Council deposed Nestorius for an heretic, so the Conventicle to cry quittance with them; deposed l Tu Cyrille & tu Memnon, scitote vos exauctoratos, omnique episcopali honore exutos. to. 3. Act. Eph. ca 2. cyril for an Archhereticke also, condemning m Capita haeretica à Cyrillo exposita ut quae Euangelica & Apostolicae doctrinae apertè repugnant. Ibid. his twelve Chapters as heretical, which the holy Council had approved as orthodoxal. As the holy Council excommunicated n Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 4. ca 7. and anathematised, john, Paulus, Theodoret, Ibas, and all the rest of their factious adherents, and defenders of Nestorius, and his heresy: So did the Conventicle also excommunicate and anathematise cyril, and all o At vos reliqui omnes qui Cyrilli acts consensistis, anathemati subjacete. tom. 3. Ephes. Act. ca 2. that took part with him, and defended his twelve Chapters, and so among these, even Pope Celestine, and the whole Catholic Church. As the holy Council truly and justly, called themselves; the sacred and ecumenical Council, and termed john with his adherents, a faction and heretical p Schismaticorum conciliabulum. to. 4. Act. Conc. Ephe. ca 15. Conventicle of Nestorians: so did the Conventicle arrogate unto themselves, the glorious name of the holy q Sacra Synodus, etc. tom. 3. act. ca ●. 6 7. & alibi saepe Ephesine Council, and slandered them which held with cyril to be a Conventicle r Confuso illorum Conciliabulose conjunxerunt. tom. 3. act. Ephes. ca 1. Quoddam inter se conciliabulum instituerunt. ibid. c. 4. , an unlawful s Seditiose, iniquè, contra ecclesiasticas sanctiones. regiaque decreta consensistis. ibid. ca 2. and disorderly assembly, terming them Arians, t Qui furijs quibusdam agitati, Arij, Apollinarijque dogmata instaurare voluerunt. to. 3. ca 18. Apollinarians, and from Cyrill, Cyrillians v Scitote Cyrillianos tyrannide, fraudibus, etc. Append. ad to. 3. act. Ephes. ca 10. . As the holy Council constantly refused, to communicate with john x To. 4. act. ca 15. et ca 18. , or any of his faction, until they did consent to the deposing of Nestorius, and anathematising his heresy: so the conventicle most peevishly and pertinaciously not only refused the communion with Cyrill, and other Catholics, but bound themselves by many solemn oaths, y juravimusque sapissime pientissimo Regi, quod impossibile sit nobis communicare his (Cyrillianis) si non exploscrint capitula. Appen. to. 3. act. ca 9 & 10. and that even in the presence of the Emperor, that they would never communicate with the Cyrillians, unless they would condemn the twelve chapters of cyril, adding that they would rather dye z Parati sumus prius mori, quam suscipere unum ex Cyrills capitulis. ib. ca 7. , then admit or consent unto any one of those twelve chapters. Such an unhappy and lamentable breach john and the Eastern Bishops made in the Church at the time of that Ephesine Council. 4. The religious Emperors Theodosius, and Valentinian whose imperial authority, was the only means to end all these strifes; had they been personally present in the Synod, to see all these disorders, they would no doubt, either have prevented this breach, or after it had happened, have healed and made up the same. But they residing then at Constantinople, were extremely at used by the vile dealings of the Nestorians, for so much had these Nestorians prevailed, both at the Court and in the City of Constantinople, where Nestorius had been Bishop, that though the holy Council sent letters after letters, to certify the truth of all matters to the Emperor, yet either a Arbitramur pijss. Imperatorem nihil horum dilucidè intellexisse. Ita terra marique obsidemur, ut nihil corum quae nobis hic evenerunt vestra Sanctitudini significare potuerimus. Epist. sand. conc. ad ●ulalium & alios. tom. 4. act. ca 21. Qui Nestorij studiosi erant, omnia maria & publicas via● obsidentes, neminem prousus à sacra Synodo Constantinopol. venire permittunt. to. 2. act Ephes ca 19 were their messengers stopped, or their letters by the malicious vigilancy of the Nestorians intercepted, so that none, no not any small notice of them came to the Emperors, whereas on the other part the frequent b Ea interim quae inimici Christi erant, ultro citroque deferebantur. ibid. letters of the conventicle fraught with lies & slanders, had every day access, yea applause in the City, in the Court, and before the Emperors. And which was the worst of all, Count Candidianus, whom the Emperors made their own deputy, and precedent of the Council, to see all good, and Synodall order observed therein, he failed of that trust committed unto him, and being most partial c Candidianus Comes amicitiam Nestorij pietati anteponens— ●a pietati vestrae instillare fluduit, quae cum sibi tum Nestorio commoda grataque futura intelligebat. Relatio Synod. ad Imp. to. 4. ca 10. towards Nestorius and his heresy, by his letters also he seconded and soothed all the lies which the conventicle had writ unto the Emperors. By which means it came to pass, that the Emperors knowing nothing of that division amongst the Bishops, & how beside the holy Council, there was a factious, and schismatical conventicle held in the city, thought all that was done, as well against Cyrill, and Memnon, in deposing them, as against Nestorius, in deposing him, that all this had been in the act, judgement and sentence of one and the same Council, upon which subreption and misinformation, the Emperors confirmed at the first the condemnation d Et Nestorij, & Cyrilli, et Memnonis exauctorationem à Sanctitate vestra nobis insinuatam, calculo nostr● approbavi●us. Sacra mussa ab Augusto ad Synod. to. 3. act. Ephes. ca 15. of them all three; But at length a letter being brought from the holy Synod to Constantinople by one, who to avoid suspicion put on the habit of a beggar e Epistola ex Epheso scripta, opera cujusdam mendici, qui in Scipione came inclusam gerebat, tandem reddita est. tom. 2. act. ca 19 , and carried the letter in the trunk of his hollow staff which for that purpose he had provided; as soon as the report of these strange disorders came to the Emperor's ears, they sent for, and commanded certain Bishops of either side, personally to come before them to Constantinople, that they might be fully informed of the truth in all the proceedings: and the truth after diligent examination being found, the Emperors by their Imperial authority adnulled all the Acts of the conventicle, restored Cyrill f Placuit pientisi. Regi ut Aegyptius et Memnon in suis locis maneant. Epist. L●●atorum Conciliab. Append. tom. 3. ca 10. pa. 791. b. et ille (Cyrillus) add 〈◊〉 suum redit. Ibid. , and Memnon, approved g Lega●um Synodi sententia publicè approbata, Orientales quidem condemnat, Nestoris vero exilium indicit. D●cretum ●●g●um, tom. 5. act. Ephes. ca 11. the judgement of the holy Council against Nestorius, adding banishment also from Constantinople, to his deposition: But the Synodall sentence h Quae extat tom. 4. act ca 7. of deposition against john, i Imperator decrevit ut sententia Oecumenica Synodi contra Nestorium vim obtineret, quodque in causa Iohannis constituisset, suspenderetur. 〈◊〉 not. in Conc. Ephes. ● Verum. pa. 921. and the other Bishops of his faction, that they stayed, and suspended for a while, partly to prevent a greater schism, which john was like to procure, but specially in hope that john, and the other Eastern Bishops might in time be reduced and brought to unity with Cyrill, and the catholic Church, which in that height of their heat and stomach could not have been expected. And thus▪ was the Council at Ephesus dissolved, a far greater rent by this means being left at the end, than had been at the beginning thereof, and so that malady for which it was called, not cured but increased. 5. But the religious Emperor Theodosius could not be at quiet while the Church was thus disturbed, but the very next year after the Ephesine Council was ended, when time and better advise had now cooled the former heat of the Eastern Bishops, he began to effect that union which before he had intended, and he so earnestly laboured therein, that himself professed, k Sacr. Imp. ad Acatium Episc. Ber. to. 5. act. Ephes. ca 10. I am certainly and firmly resolved, not to desist in working this reconcilement, until God shall vouchsafe to restore unity and peace to the Church; To which purpose he writ a very religious, and effectual Epistle l Sacr. Imp. missa per Aristol. ad johannem, tom. 5. act. Ephes. ca 3. to john B. of Antioch, by many reasons persuading, and by his imperial authority commanding m johanni mandavit ut scelerata Nestorij dogmata anathematizaret etc. Epist. Cyril. ad Din. to. 5. act. Ephes. ca 16. Imperatores literas miserunt ad Acatium B●reensem et johannem, quibus severè praecipiunt, ut turbas consopiamus. Epist. Pauli ad Cyril. to. 5. act. Eph. ca 4. him, and with him the rest of the faction, to subscribe to the deposition of Nestorius, & the anathematising of his heresy, and so to embrace the holy communion with Cyrill, and the catholic Church, which persuasions of the Emperor, took indeed the intended effect: for after some tergiversation for a while, both john and most of the Eastern Bishops, before the end of that year, relented, and in a Synod held at Antioch, subscribed as the Emperor persuaded them, both to the deposing of Nestorius, and to a truly orthodoxal profession, sent unto them by Cyrill, wherein they approved n Cum igitur Iohannes subscripsisset caeterique qui majori authoritate apud ipsum erant, et Nestorij dogmata anathematizassent, communionem illis restituimus, Epist. Cyril. ad Dynat. to. 5. ca 16. the holy Ephesine Council, and condemned all the heresies of Nestorius, and upon this their consenting to Cyrill, and the orthodoxal faith, were received into the peace of the Church; and so union and concord, was fully concluded betwixt Cyrill, with the other orthodoxal Bishops, & john with most of those Eastern Bishops, who before adhered unto him. 6. Let us now see how Vigilius, and after him Baronius under colour of this Union, plead for Ibas, & his heretical Epistle. In the end of that Epistle, Ibas makes mention o Et communicantibus adinvicm, contentio de medio ablata est, et pax in Ecclesia facta. Iba verba in sua Epist. , of the union betwixt john and Cyrill, yea mentioneth it as a great blessing of p Voluit autem Deus, qui suae semper curam gerit Ecclesia. Ibid. God to the Church, seeing that he not only consented, but greatly rejoiced at the same. Thus much is clear and certain by the Epistle. Now because the Union as we have declared, was made by consenting to the Catholic faith, it seems that Ibas who consented to the Union, consented also to the Catholic faith, and so was received into the communion of Cyrill and the Catholic Church. Seeing then Ibas by this Epistle is showed to approve and embrace the Union, and embracing of the union is the proof of a Catholic, it followeth that even by this Epistle Ib●● declares himself to be a very good Catholic, and an earnest embracer of the Catholic faith. This is the sum of their collection, which is, as any will confess, a very fair & plausible pretence, and therefore more fit for the Pope and Cardinal to cloak their heresy under the show thereof. But lest we seem either to wrong them, o● leave out aught which is emphatical in their reason, it is needful to hear them dispute in their own words. 7. It differeth much, saith q Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. Baronius, to say that the Epistle is Catholic, or that those things which are written in it are true, and to say that Ibas by this Epistle was proved to be a catholic. Etenim nihil aliud inde acceperunt patres, nisi Ibam tunc temporis fuisse Catholicum, for the fathers at Chalcedon took nothing at all out of that Epistle, but that Ibas at that time (when he writ it) was a Catholic, seeing in it is demonstrated that Ibas who had sometimes erred with the Nestorians, and dealt against Cyrill, after the peace once made, did communicate with cyril, and condemn Nestorius with his doctrine. Again, r Bar. an. 553▪ nu. 191. the reader is here to be admonished, that the sentence of the fathers at Chalcedon doth not tend to this end, ut voluerint probasse Epistolam Ibae, as if they meant to approve the Epistle of Ibas, in which there are many blasphemies affirmed, neither did Vigilius mean to teach this: sed tantum ex ea recipiendum esse Ibam, in qua nimirum testetur ipse se jam amplecti pacem ecclesiae, qua recepta, necesse fuerit eundem probare Catholicum, but both they and Vigilius meant only that Ibas, by this Epistle was to be esteemed and embraced as a Catholic, seeing in this Epistle Ibas testifieth that he embraced the peace of the Church, which being received, it is necessary that he be approved for a catholic. Again, the s Ibid. Fathers of Chalcedon, said, that this Epistle was to be received as Catholic, not in regard of those errors where with Ibas was once entangled, and which are recited therein, sed quod ex illa Ibas profitetur se paci initae consentire; but for that Ibas in it professeth himself to consent to the peace or union made between john and Cyrill: and a little after, Vides t Nu. 192. non alia ex parte; you see that this Epistle was approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon in no other part or respect; but for that which Ibas signifieth in the last part of the Epistle, that he consented, omnibus pactis & conventis, in all the conditions and covenants of the catholic union made between john and Cyrill. And to omit many the like places, (for Baronius harps much upon this string) he repeateth this u An. eodem 553. nu. 113. most plainly in this manner: In the end of this Epistle, Ibas the author of it doth testify, that peace was made, that himself consented unto it, and rejoiceth therein, seeing he gives thanks to God for the same. Now seeing the peace was concluded upon this condition, that Nestorius and his errors should be condemned, and the decrees of the Ephesine Council received, it did plainly and necessarily ensue, that Ibas condemned Nestorius, and approved the Ephesine Council, and so the Pope's Legates, and others at Chalcedon spoke not amiss, when they said, that Ibas by that ●●istle being read, was proved to be a catholic. Thus disputeth the Cardinal for this impious Epistle, nor did he wholly devise this of himself, but he had the ground of it out of Vigilius his Apostolical Constitution, where he thus saith, The x Vigil. Const. nu. 192. Fathers at Chalcedon pronounced this Epistle of Ibas to be orthodoxal, propter illam praedicationem fidei, for that profession of faith, by which cyril and john, and all the Eastern Bishops made concord and union by the means of Paulus Bishop of Emisa, quam Ibas quoque in eâdem Epistolâ laudans libenter amplectitur; which union and profession of faith Ibas both praiseth in this Epistle, and gladly embraceth. So Vigilius. 8. Here first of all must be observed the admirable acuteness of the Pope and the Cardinal: They can see in the Epistle of Ibas, more than the whole fifth general Council, than other succeeding, either Popes or general Counsels; more than the whole Catholic Church ever did, or could; more than all the world beside, excepting only the Nestorians: They, and none but they of all the former could see by the latter end of that Epistle, or by the union mentioned therein, that either the Epistle was Catholic, or Ibas by it to be judged a Catholic. But Vigilius and Baronius, though in some matters they be as blind as a Beetle, yet when they list, (and they ever list when they defend heresy) they can see far into a Millstone: And yet, if it be well considered, they gain not much by this their quick sight, and quirk of the union, which they have spied in the end of that Epistle; for the whole fifth Council (approved by succeeding Counsels, and by the whole catholic Church, as before we have declared) adjudgeth, not only the beginning, and the middle, but the end also, even the whole y Tota Epistola heretica est, tota Epistola blasphema est, hac omnes dicimus. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. Epistle, and every part, above all, and principally, the end z Posteriora inserta Epistola majore impietate plena sunt. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 564 a. thereof, to be blasphemous, and heretical, they anathematise a Si quis defendit memoratam Epistolam, & non anathematiza● eam, et defensores ejus, et eos qui dicunt eam rectam esse, vel partam ejus. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. in sententia Synodali. Anath. 14. also as heretics all who defend either the whole Epistle, or any part thereof, yea, all who do not anathematise every part thereof: whence it is undeniably consequent, that both Vigilius, and his Proctor Baronius, and all who do, or shall hereafter herein defend them, yea, all who do not anathematise them, are for this very quirk and subtlety of the union found in the latter part of this Epistle, anathematised, and condemned by the consenting judgement of the whole catholic Church. This have they gained as a just recompense for defending but the end only of that Epistle, and much more for defending it by pretence of the Council at Chalcedon, though they should condemn all the rest of it. 9 But if the matter be well considered, it will appear that Vigilius by this one clause of the union makes good, not only the latter part, (as Baronius pretendeth) but even the whole Epistle of Ibas; for had he intended to approve no more than only the latter part of that Epistle, his reason had been this; The Fathers at Chalcedon approved that part of the Epistle, wherein the un 〈…〉 mentioned; therefore they approve the latter part of the Epistle, which is a mere nugation, proving idem per idem; for seeing the union is only mentioned in the latter part, it is all one as if he had said, They approved the latter part, therefore they approved the latter part; and me thinks it sounds not well, to hear such nugatory, and frivolous reasons to proceed out so the infallible Chair: Nor doth indeed Vigilius so conclude; but from that union and concord which the latter part of the Epistle testifieth Ibas to have approved, he infers, that Ibas when he writ this was a Catholic, and writ it as a Catholic, and so the writing, or Epistle itself to be Catholic; for thus stands his reason; The b Vig. Const. nu. 192. latter end of the Epistle showeth, that Ibas praised the union betwixt john and Cyrill, and gladly embraceth it; and propter illam fidei praedicationem orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio; therefore for that confession of faith, which Ibas by his Epistle showeth that he embraceth, for that did the Fathers of Chalcedon pronounce the writing, or Epistle (not the end only of it) to be orthodoxal: So he takes this one part, of which he made no doubt but it was approved at Chalcedon, as a Medium to prove that which was doubted, to wit, that the Epistle itself, even the whole Epistle was by the same Fathers approved; yea, and Baronius also, though he in words pretends the contrary, yet seems to be indeed of the same judgement, for he useth the very like reason as Vigilius doth, quod c Bar. an. 553. nu. 191. ex illa, because Ibas in this Epistle professeth himself to consent to the union, therefore Patres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; the Fathers at Chalcedon said, that the Epistle (lo the Epistle, faith the Cardinal, not a part only of it) ought to be received as Catholic. 10. Which will be more plain if we observe one other point out of Vigilius and Baronius, which may not well be omitted; for whereas all contained in any part of the Epistle respects things done, either before, or at, or after the union, in none of these, if ye will believe them, is this writing heretical, or against the faith; for what was done before the union, though therein much be spoken against Cyrill, & the Ephesine Council, and Cyrill called an heretic, yet is all that, saith d Bar. an. 448. nu. 71. Epistola historiam continet rerum gestarum inter johannem & Cyrillum, et quae inter eos transacta essent, refert, etc. Baronius, spoken by way of an historical narration, as declaring what was done, not as allowing that which was done; ut ex hac parte nihil adversus Cyrillum oblocutus videatur, that in this part there is no wrong done to Cyrill. At the union, or when it was concluded, then was Ibas reconciled to Cyrill, and received to the communion of the Church, and so would not write against the faith, so teacheth the Cardinal; Ibas, saith e An. eodem. nu. 59 he, took part with Nestorius, usque ad tempus per Paulum Emissenum; until the time that the union was made by Paul Bishop of Emisa, quando ipse sicut alij, communicare cum S. Cyrillo, & Ecclesia Catholica capit; at which time Ibas, as the rest, begun to communicate with cyril, and with the Catholic Church. Vigilius f Vigil. Const. nu. 192. noteth the same, and out of him Baronius seems to have borrowed it. By Paulus Bishop of Emisa, john, atque omnes orientales Episcopi, and all the Eastern Bishops, (than Ibas among them) returned to concord with Cyrill. And Baronius further by the Epistle itself makes this plain, for by it, saith g Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. he, is declared, that Ibas, though before that time he had doted, tunc temporis fuisse Catholicum, yet then (to wit, when he writ this) he was a Catholic; and Ibas writ this Epistle, eodem h Ba. an. 553. nu. 211 momento pacis initae, at the very time and moment when the peace was made and concluded; after which he never spoke one undecent word against Cyrill: so at the time of the union being a Catholic, he would not oppugn or write against the faith; much less after the time of the union, for after that time Vigilius i Vig. Const. nu. 194 testifieth, that Ibas remained still a catholic, and in the catholic communion, usque ad exitum, even to his dying day: And Baronius expresseth the same, saying k Bar. an. 553. nu. 211. , that after the union it could not be proved, aliquod verbum indecens adversus Cyrillum protulisse; that Ibas spoke any unseemly word against Cyrill. Hereupon now it followeth, that the whole Epistle is to be approved, written by Ibas when he was a catholic, written with a catholic mind and affection; by him, who both at, and after the union would not write against the faith which himself professed, and what is spoken of matters before the union, that is all historically narrated, not by assent approved. 11. Oh how do these men even labour and study to be miserable, and to tie more fast the knots of those Anathemaes denounced against them by the holy Council, which nothing but renouncing their heretical defences of this Epistle can ever dissolve! what will they doubt or fear to say, who would justify that whole Epistle, as affirming nothing repugnant to the faith, (for a narration is no assertion of that which is related) of which the holy Council, and catholic Church hath pronounced, that it is wholly heretical; and every part, head and tail, beginning and ending, an absolute, and positive denial of the faith? what untruth will they not avouch, who deny Ibas after the union to have injured Cyrill, whereas the holy general Council witnesseth, and that truly, as you shall strait see, that even in this union which Ibas mentioneth, he wrongeth cyril and all catholics more, than in any part of his Epist. yea, more than Nestorius himself ever did. But omitting for this time all the other untruths, which are not a few in those assertions of Vigilius and Baronius; there are two things therein, which I may not well pass over in silence. 12. The former is, (at the consideration whereof I could not refrain from laughter) how curious, and even superstitious the Cardinal is in calculating the nativity of this impious Epistle, as if he had performed the office of juno Lucina unto it, and knew the very moment of time when this fair babe was first brought to light: It was written, saith he, eodem momento pacis inita, in that very moment when the union was made betwixt john and Cyrill. At that very moment? Sure the Cardinals Ephemerideses, or the constellations deceived him. It was neither written in that moment, nor in that month, nor in that year, nor at the least two whole years after the union was concluded: for the Epistle mentioneth, not only the praise of Theodorus of Mopsvastia, but his commendation by Rambulas. Now, neither did the Nestorians so much honour, nor did the catholics by name condemn Theodorus, till the Emperor had by his Edict straightly forbidden the reading, writing, hearing, or having of the books of Nestorius; till then the name and writings of Nestorius, being a Patriarch, and of so eminent a city as Constantinople, was far more fit to credit, and countenance their doctrines, than the name of Theodorus, being but a Bishop, and of a very obscure and ignoble town, or corner rather, which in likelihood had been buried in eternal oblivion, had not he by his own infamy made it famous, as Herostratus l Herostratus, ut nomen memoria sceleris extenderet, incendium nobilis f●bricae (quod inter 7. orbu miracula 〈◊〉 erat) manu sua s●ruxit, sicut ipse sassus est. Sol●n. ca 53. Strab. li. 14. & Val. Max. tit. de Cupidit. gloriae. lib. 8. ca 14. did himself by burning the temple of Diana at Ephesus: But when both the name and books of Nestorius was now so detested by reason of the imperial Edict, tunc caeperunt Theodori volumina circumferre, saith Liberatus, than m Liber. ca 10. they began but to disperse the writings of Theodorus, which Baronius n Bar. an. 435. nu. 3. also confesseth; when the rivers, that is, Nestorius was stopped by the Emperor's law, than the Nestorians ipsum fontem aperuere, opened the very fountain, divulging the books of Theodorus, and Diodorus. The Epistle then, mentioning the express condemning of Theodorus, doth of a certainty follow that imperial Edict against Nestorius: That Edict was published, as by the date o Leg. ult. de haereticis cod. Theod. appears, in August, when Theodosius was the fifteenth time p Is est annus Ch. 435, ut docet Marc, in Chron. & Bar. in illum annum. Consul. The union betwixt john and Cyrill was made the next year after the Ephesine Council: for john writing to Xistus Bishop of Rome, and testifying his unity q Placuit & nobis quoque in sacrae synodi sententia ●equiescere. Epist. johannis ad Xistum. Act Conc. Eph. to. 5. ca 17. and consent to cyril, saith in that Epistle, that the Ephesine Council was held anno proximè lapso, the year next before. The Council at Ephesus both began and ended in the year when Antiochus r Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca 1. ubi habita dicitur Synodus post Coss. 13. Theodes●. an. 10 autem post●stum Consulatum, Antiochus & Bassus erant consuls, ut ex Marcell. in Chron. & fastis certum est. ●t to. 3. Act. Eph. ca 17. litera Imper. ad Synodum datae sunt Antiocho Consul. Caepit autem Concilium 23. die Maij eo anno. to. 2. Act. ca 1. & finitum est post quatuor (ut Liber. ca 7.) vel post 3. menses ut Socrates ait. lib. 7. ca 33. & 37. and Bassus were Consuls s Is est an. Ch. 431. Marc. in Ch. & Bar. in eum annum. . Betwixt Valerius and Aetius, (who were next Consuls after Antiochus and Bassus, and in whose Consulship the union was fully concluded,) and the fifteenth Consulship of Theodosius, wherein the Edict against Nestorius was published, are two entire Consulships t An. 433. Theodosius 14. et Maximus Coss. an. 434. Ariobinda & Aspar. Coss. an. 435. Theodosius 15. et Valent. 4. Coss. Fasti. et Marcell. et Bar. , as by the Fasti, and others is certain. So that it is certain, that the Epistle which mentioneth the condemning by name of Theodorus, was not written till more than two complete years after the union ended: but how long after these two years it was, before Ibas writ it, is wholly uncertain, in likelihood it was two or three more: for some time after the Edict must be allowed for the Nestorians, to translate first, and then disperse the books of Theodorus: some more after that, for the condemning of him by Rambulas: some again after that, before Rambulas died, to whom Ibas succeeded in the Bishopric of Edessa: and who writ this Epistle, when he was in possession of that See, as both the title u Fra●mentum Epistola Ibae Episcopi Edess●●i. Conc. Cha●c. Act. 10. and contents x Ex quibus unus (qui Theodorum condemnat) extitit (falso alicubi scribitur existit) nostra civitatis tyrannus. 〈◊〉 sua Epist. loc. citat. tyranni autem nomine significari Rambulam testatur Liber. ca 10. ubi sic ait, De quo (Rabula) successor ejus Ibas in epistola sua dicit, 〈◊〉 (Th●●dorum) praesumpsit, qui omnia praesumit, aperrè in ecclesia sua anathema●iz●re, etc. of the Epistle declare. By all which, and if there were none else, by the last only, that Ibas writ this, being Bishop of Edessa, it is clear, that some good while, in likelihood three or four years, were passed after the union, before Ibas writ this Epistle, of which Baronius tells us so precisely, that it was writ, eo momento, at the very moment, and instant when the peace was concluded. 13. The other point, to be observed is, what manner of a Catholic Pope Vigilius, and Cardinal Baronius have here set forth unto us. Ibas when he writ this Epistle, is with them a Catholic, a Catholic Writer, a Catholic Bishop; in him you shall see the lively portraiture of one of their Catholics. He even in this Epistle, written after the Union (when he was as they teach y Vig. Const. nu. 194. & Ibam tunc temporis (cum hanc Epistolam momento ipso unionis scripsit) Catholicum fuisse. Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. a Catholic) denyeth God to be incarnate, and Marie to be the Mother of God: he condemns the holy Ephesine Council, and the twelve Chapters of cyril, he commends Theodorus of Mopsvestia for a Preacher of the truth, while he lived, for a Saint being dead. These are the doctrines of Ibas, all of them taught positively, and avouched, (not as the Cardinal fancieth, historically related) in his Epistle, as the words z Vide Epistolam ipsam, & hoc clarum erit. themselves do show, & the whole fifth Council a Conc. 5. coll. 6. pa. 575. & 576. witnesseth, all taught by him, after the Union, when he was one of the Popes and Cardinals Catholics, yea taught consonantly to the Union which Ibas then embraced; yet Ibas teaching, writing, and maintaining all these blasphemies and heresies, that is, oppugning with all his art and ability the whole Catholic faith, is crowned and canonised by Vigilius and Baronius for a good Catholic. Of such Catholics their Roman Church hath great store; nay, seeing none is now of their Church, who approves not all the Cathedral decrees of their Popes, and therefore this of Vigilius among the rest, it hence ensueth, that none is now a Roman Catholic, that is, a member of their present Roman Church, who approves not Ibas, such as he was when he writ this Epistle, for a Catholic, that is, who approves not the most blasphemous heretics, and oppugners of the whole faith, to be Catholics, and who condemns not the Cyrillians, that is, all that maintain the Catholic faith, for heretics. 14. But still as yet the doubt concerning the Union remaineth: Ibas, say they, when he writ this Epistle embraced the union with Cyrill, and none can embrace that union but he shows himself thereby to be a Catholic. True; none can truly and sincerely embrace that union which Cyrill made with john, the condition whereof was the subscribing to the holy Ephesine Synod, and condemning of Nestorius, with his doctrines, but he is and must be acknowledged to be a good Catholic. Had Ibas approved that union or consented unto it; Ibas had not been Ibas, he had never written that impious Epistle, which in every part, & most of all in the end, where he speaks of the union, is repugnant to that holy union. It is the union in Nestorianisme, the union in oppugning and overthrowing the whole Catholic faith, which Ibas when he writ this Epistle embraced, and which in his Epistle he commendeth, which that it may appear to all, we are now to unfold the mystery of that union with Cyrill, under colour whereof Ibas first, than Vigilius, and lastly Baronius with all who hold the Pope's judgement to be infallible, do very cunningly convey their heretical doctrines, and contradict the Catholic faith. 15. The Nestorians being loath to forsake, or have it thought that any of them did forsake their heresies, and being withal most desperately given to lying and slandering, set forth a form of union, forged by themselves, wherein they made cyril, and all who consented to him, that is, all Catholics, to condemn their former Catholic doctrine decreed at the Ephesine Synod, and to assent to their heresies. And, as if this had been the true union, and the conditions of peace agreed upon betwixt Cyrill and john, they every where buzzed this into the ears of their sectaries, and spread abroad the copies thereof, triumphing in it, that now they had won the field, that Cyrill and all his partakers had now consented to Nestorianisme; and that upon this consent a general union and peace ensued in the Church. This and no other is the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth, and by consenting whereunto Pope Vigilius decreeth, and Baronius defendeth Ibas to be a Catholic, to which union whosoever consenteth, or approveth others, consenting to it; they do even by that one act, besides all the rest, infallibly demonstrate themselves, not only to be Nestorians, and to approve all the heresies and blasphemies of Nestorius, but to be in the most base, abject, and low degree of all Nestorians, even such as by lies and calumnies strive to uphold their heresies. 16. For proof whereof, I shall produce records above exception: and first of all Cyril's own testimony. Acatius the worthy Bishop of Meletene hearing by the report which the Nestorians b Ex altera parti quidam de palatio culpaverunt Cyrillum, cur susceperit ab orientalibus Episcopis duarum confessionem naturarum, quod Nestorius dixit & docuit hoc ipsum Valeriano, & Acatio videbatur. Liber. ca 8. had spread abroad, that cyril in making the union had consented to the Nestorian doctrine of two natures (making two persons) in Christ, contrary to his own 12. Chapters, certified Cyrill of this report: Cyrill writ unto him at large, declaring the contrary, and assuring him, that it was but a mere calumny devised against him: They reprove and accuse us, saith he c Cyril. Epist. ad Acat. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca 8. pa. 814.835. as if formerly, we had thought the quite contrary to those things which now (at the union) we have written; and I understand that they object also unto us, quod novam fidei expositionen vel symbolum receperimus, that we have now (at the union) embraced a new Creed, or new exposition of the faith, rejecting that old and venerable Creed: Thus did the Nestorians accuse cyril, as himself testifieth: but what answered he for himself? At stultus stulta loquitur, & cor ejus vana meditatur, he calls them in plain terms, fools and liars: the fool speaketh foolishly, and his heart meditateth lies. And in the end he warneth Acatius not to give credit to the counterfeit Epistle, or form of union, which the Nestorians had forged and spread abroad in his name. If any Epistle, saith he d Ibid. pa. 83●. a. be carried about as written by me, tanquam de iis quae Ephesi acta sunt, jam dolente, & poenitentiam agente, contemnatur: as if I did now (since the union) sorrow and repent for those things which were done and decreed at Ephesus, let such an Epistle be condemned: Nay the Greek is more emphatical, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scorn and deride every such writing. The like almost doth Cyrill write to Dynatus' Bishop of Nicopolis, who upon the Nestorians slanderous reports, suspected as it seemeth the very same of Cyrill, as Acatius did. Cyrill e Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynatum quae est 38. & extat tom. 5. Act. Eph. ca 16. having declared the certain truth of these matters unto him, saith in the end, It is needful that you should know the clear truth of these matters; lest some men who do vainly f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and falsely report one thing for another, should trouble any of the brethren: Perindè acsi nos quae contra Nestorij blasphemias scripsimus, retractaremus g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , as if we had (upon the union) recalled, revoked or denied, those things which we have written before against the blasphemies of Nestorius. 17. Besides these indubitate testimonies of cyril, the Nestorians themselves do manifest this their calumny: For although john and those Eastern Bishops who in their Council at Antioch, subscribed to that holy profession of faith which was sent from cyril unto them, who were by far the greater part, and who therefore are counted the Eastern Church, though these I say, were as they well deserved, received into the Catholic Communion, when the union was concluded, yet is it most untrue which Vigilius affirmeth, and takes it for a ground of his error touching Ibas, that omnes h Vig. Const. nu. 192 orientales Episcopi per Paulum Emisenum ad concordiam redierunt, that all the Eastern Bishops by Paulus Emisenus returned to the unity and communion of the Church. They did not all, not Helladius, not Eutherius, not Hemerius, not Dorotheus, for whose restoring to their Sees, (for they were deposed) Paulus did earnestly labour with Cyrill, but not being able to prevail for them; manserunt in eodem schismate, in quo etiam nunc perseverant, they continued in their former schism, as rend from the Church: and so they do now also remain, nor was there in the covenants of peace, any mention of them, as cyril i Cyr. Epist. ad Dynatum. expressly affirmeth. But I will only insist upon two of the principal sticklers in the Nestorian heresy, and who most concern our present cause: Theodoret and Ibas. 18. Theodoret believing the reports of his fellow Nestorians that the Catholics at the time of the Union had revoked their former doctrines, and consented to Nestorianisme, insulted over them in a public oration k Quae extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 559. at Antioch, before Domnus, in this manner: Vbi sunt dicentes, quod Deus est qui crucifixus est? where are those that say that he was God, who was crucified? God was not crucified, but the man jesus Christ, he who is of the seed of David, was crucified: Christ is the Son of David, but he is the temple of the son of God. Non jam est contentio, Oriens & Aegyptus sub uno jugo est, There is now no contention, the East, and Egypt (that is, all who hold as Cyrill did) are now both under one yoke. Thus triumphed Theodoret over the Catholics, supposing (as the Nestorians slanderously gave out) that Cyrill and all that held with him, that is, all Catholics, had submitted themselves, to the yoke of their Nestorian heresy, that Christ is not God, nor that God was either borne of Mary, or suffered on the Crosse. And this being spoken by Theodoret, after the death of Cyrill, which was twelve l Nam unio facta an. 432. Cyril. autem obijt an. 444. Bar. in illo ann. years after the union made, doth demonstrate the obstinate and malicious hatred of the Nestorians against the truth, who notwithstanding Cyrill had often by words, by writings, testified that report, to be nothing else, but a slanderous untruth, yet in all that time, would not be persuaded, to desist from that calumny, but still let it pass for currant among them, and insulted, as it cyril and the Catholics at the time of the union had condemned their former faith, and consented to Nestorianisme. So hard it is to reclaim those who by self-will are wedded to any heretical opinion. 19 The other is Ibas, the Popes own Catholic doctor, whom, at that very time when he writ this Epistle (which was long after the Union made betwixt john, and cyril) to have embraced no other than this slanderous union, or union in Nestorianisme, those very words in the later part of his Epistle, out of which Vigilius, and Baronius would prove him to be a Catholic, even those words I say, do so fully and manifestly demonstrate, that you will say, if not swear, that nothing but the love of Nestorianisme could so far blind them, as to defend that part of his Epistle, or undertake by it to prove Ibas to be a Catholic. The words of Ibas are these m Habentur tum in Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. tum in Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 561. . After that john had received the Emperor's letters, compelling him to make agreement with Cyrill; he sent the most holy Bishop Paulus of Emisa, writing by him a true profession of faith, and denouncing unto him, that if Cyrill would consent to that profession, and anathematise those who say that the Godhead did suffer (which opinion the Nestorians slandered cyril, and all Catholic to hold) and also those who say that there is but one nature (that is, one natural subsistence or person) of the divinity and humanity in Christ; then would he communicate with cyril. Now it was the will of God, who always taketh care for his Church, which he hath redeemed with his own blood, to subdue the heart of the Egyptian (that is Cyrill) that he presently consented to the faith, and embraced it, and anathematised all who believed otherwise. So they (john and Cyrill) communicating together, the contention was taken away, peace was made in the Church, and now there is no schism but peace, as of late there was. And that you may know what words were written, by the most holy Archbishop john, and what answer he received back from Cyrill, I have to this my writing adjoined their very Epistles, that your Holiness reading them may know, and declare to all our Fathers that love peace, that the contention is now ceased, and the partition wall is now taken away, and that they (he meaneth cyril and the Catholics) who had before seditiously enveied against the living (Nestorius) and the dead (Theodorus) are now confounded, making satisfaction for their faults, & contraria docentes suae priori doctrinae, and now teach the contrary to their former doctrine. For none now dare say, that there is one nature (that is, one natural subsistence or person) of the divinity and humanity, but they confess and believe, both in the temple, and in him who dwelleth in the temple, who is one Son, jesus Christ. And this I have written to your Sanctity, out of that great affection which I bear to you, knowing that your holiness doth exercise itself, night and day, in the doctrine of God, that you might be profitable unto many. Thus far are the words of Ibas, written unto Maris an heretic n Ad Marin Persam, haereticum. Con 5. Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. of Persia, and writ not as a private letter, but as an encyclical Epistle to be showed and notified to all that love peace, that is, according to their heretical dialect, to all that loved Nestorianisme in Persia, and in the places adjoining, to be a comfort and encouragement to them, to persist in their heresy, to which even cyril himself, and all Catholics had upon better advice, at the time of the union with john, consented. 20. In which words any who hath though but half an eye of a Catholic, cannot choose but clearly discern, the very poison, and malice of all the heresies, and practices of the Nestorians, to be condensate and compact together. First, here is expressed their main heresy, that Christ is not God, as the house is not the man who dwelleth in the house. Secondly, is set down a notorious slander against Cyrill and the Catholics, that they at the union made with john, did anathematise all who held one natural subsistence, or one person to be in Christ, that is, in effect did accurse all Catholics, and the whole Catholic Faith. Thirdly, it is a notable untruth, that Cyril made the union with john upon this condition, that he should anathematise all who hold Christ to be one person, the condition was quite contrary, to wit, that john, and they on his part, should anathematise all who denied Christ to be one, or who affirmed him to be two persons. Fourthly, it is a slander, that Cyrill writ an Epistle to that effect, as if he assented to that condition mentioned by Ibas. The Epistle is testified by Cyrill himself not to be his, but a counterfeit writing, forged by the Nestorians. Fiftly, it is a Calumny, that Cyrill and the rest who condemned Nestorius and Theodorus were seditious persons: it is as much as to say, that the holy Ephesine Council, was a conspiracy and seditious conventicle. Sixtly, it is an unexcusable slander and untruth, that Cyrill and they who held with him, that is, the Catholics, that they were confounded, and repent of their former doctrines, or writ contrary unto them. These, besides diverse the like, are the flowers wherewith the latter part of that Epistle is decked, even that part which Pope Vigilius and Baronius do so magnify, the one defining, the other defending, that by it Ibas ought to be judged a Catholic, and his Epistle received as Catholic: This part above all the rest, is so stuffed with heresies and slanders, that I do constantly affirm, that none of all their Roman Alchemists can extract or distil one dram of Catholic doctrine, or any goodness out of it. Only Pope Vigilius, being, as I have often said, blinded with Nestorianisme, and Cardinal Baronius, being infatuated with the admiration of their Pontifical infallible Chair, they two by the new found art of Transubstantiating, wherein that sect excelleth jannes' and jambres, and all the enchanters in the world, they by one spell ●or charm of a few words pronounced out of that holy chair, can turn a serpent into a staff, bread into a living body, darkness into light, an heretic into a Catholic, yea the very venom and poison of all Nestorianisme, into most wholesome doctrines of the Catholic faith: such, as that none may write, speak, or think aught to the contrary. 21. See ye not now, as I foretold that you should, both the Pope, and the Cardinal▪ marching under the banner of Nestorius, and like two worthy Generals, holding up a standard to the Nestorians, and building in the Roman Church, but very cunningly and artificially, a Capitol for Nestorianisme? They forsooth will not in plain terms say that Nestorianisme is the Catholic faith, that Christ is not God, that the Son of Mary is not the Son of God, that Cyrill is an heretic, and the holy Ephesine Council heretical: Fie, these are too Beoticall, and blunt, they could never have gotten any one to taste of that cup of Nestorianisme, had they dealt so plainly, or simply rather; Rome and Italy, are Schools of better manners, and of more civility and subtlety: you must learn there to speak heresy in the Attic Dialect, in smooth, plausible, sweet and sugared terms; you must say the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth is the Catholic union, that Ibas by embracing that union was a Catholic, and aught to be judged a Catholic; that whosoever embraceth not this union, which the Pope hath defined to be the Catholic communion, cannot be a Catholic: or if you speak more briefly and Laconically, you may say, the Pope's decrees and Cathedral judgements in causes of faith are infallible. Say but either of these, you say as much as either Theodorus or Nestorius did, you deny Christ to be God; You condemn the Ephesine Council, you speak true Nestorianisme, but you speak it not after the rude and rustic fashion, but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the refined language of the Roman Church. By approving this union, or the Pope's decree in this cause of Ibas, you drink up at once all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius, even the very dregs of Nestorianisme; yet your comfort is, though it be rank poison, you shall now take it as an antidote, and sovereign potion, so cunningly tempered by Pope Vigilius, and with such a grace and gravity commended, reached, and brought, even in the golden cup of Babylon, by the hands of Cardinal Baronius unto you, that it killeth, not only without any sense of pain, but with a sweet delight also, even in a pleasing slumber and dream of life; bringing you, as on a bed of down, unto the pit of death. 22. See here again their Synonian art. Oh how nice & scrupulous is Baronius in approving, or allowing Vigilius to approve the former part of this Epistle of Ibas? The Epistle o Bar. an. 553. nu. 192. was in no other part, but only in the last concerning the union approved: Why? there is nothing at all in the former, no heresy, or impiety set down in it, which doth not certainly and avoidable ensue upon the approving of that union in Nestorianisme, which Ibas embraceth in the latter part. Why then must the latter, and not the former be approved? Forsooth in the former part p Vid. Epist. Ibae lec. cit. the blasphemies of the Nestorians are in too plain and blunt a manner expressed; Cyrill is an Apollinarian; The twelve Chapters of Cirill, omni impietate plena sunt, are full of all impiety. The Ephesine Council unjustly deposed Nestorius, and approved the twelve Chapters of cyril, which are contraria verae fidei, and such like. It is not for a Pope or a Cardinal to approve such plain and perspicuous heresies; they might as well say, We are heretics, we are Nestorians: which kind of Beoticisme is far from the civility of the Roman Court: But in the latter part the heresies of Nestorius and all his blasphemies are offered in the show of union with Cyrill, and communion with the Church; and coming under the vaunt of that union, as in the womb of the Trojane horse, the Pope and the Cardinal may now with honour receive them; the union (and with, or in it all Nestorianisme) must be brought into the City, the Pope and the Cardinal with themselves put their hands to this holy work, pedibusque rotarum subijciunt lapsus, & stupeae vincula collo intendunt, themselves will drag and hale it with their own shoulders to within the walls: nor is that enough, it must be placed in the very Roman Capitol, in the holy temple, and consecrated to God, and that the Pope himself will do by an Apostolical and infallible constitution: by that immutable decree is this union set up as the Catholic union, Et monstrum infoelix sacrata sistitur arce; this unholy and unhappy union is now embraced, by which all the gates of the City of God are set wide open for all heresies to rush in at their pleasure, and make havoc of the Catholic faith. 23. Now it is not unworthy our labour to consider whether Vigilius and Baronius did in mere ignorance, or wittingly embrace this union mentioned by Ibas, that is in truth, all Nestorianisme. And for Vigilius, if any will be so favourable as to interpret all this to have proceeded of ignorance, I will not greatly contend with him. It is as great a crime for their Roman Apollo, and as foul a disgrace to their infallible Chair upon ignorance to decree an heresy, as to do it upon wilful obstinacy; yet to confess the truth, I am more than of opinion that Vigilius not upon ignorance, but out of a settled judgement & affection which he bore to Nestorianisme decreed this union, and with it the doctrines of Nestorius to be embraced: And that which induceth me so to judge, is the great diligence, care, and circumspection which Vigilius used to inform both himself and others in this matter; for besides that this cause was debated, and continually discussed in the Church for the space of six years and more, before the Pope published this his Apostolical Constitution, (all which time Vigilius was a chief party in this cause) himself in his decree witnesseth concerning this third Chapter, or Epistle of Ibas, that he examined it, diligenti p Vig. Const. nu. 186. investigatione, by a diligent inquisition; yea, that he perused his books most q Gesta Concilij ●halc. dili●en●●ssim● perquirentes. Ibid. diligently for this point, and concludeth both of it, and the rest, that he decreed these things, cum r Ibid. nu. 208. omni undique cautela atque diligentia; with all possible care and diligence that could be used: And because, pl●s vident oculi quam oculus, he added to his own the judgement of an whole Synod of Bishops, all of them bending their eyes, wits, & industry to find out the truth in this cause. Further yet Vigilius speaketh in this cause of Ibas not doubtfully, but in words proceeding from certain knowledge and resolute judgement, dilucide, s Nu. 186. aperteque reperimus, evidenter t Nu. 190. advertimus, apertissimum u Ibid. noscuntur praebuisse consensum, evidenter x Nu. 193. declaratur, in Iba Episcopo nihil in confession fidei fuisse reprehensum, illud y Nu. 195. indubitanter patet, apertissima z Nu. 196. lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae, constat a Nu. 198. eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore, luce clarius b Nu. 207. demonstratur: All which do show, that Vigilius spoke out of his settled judgement and resolution, after most diligent examination of this cause. Now that the whole Epistle, and, of all parts, that especially where Ibas intreateth of the union, that this is full of Nestorianisme, is so evident, that scarce any, though but of a shallow judgement, who doth with ordinary diligence peruse and ponder the same, can otherwise choose than observe, and see it. Wherefore I cannot think but that Vigilius both saw and knew that part of the Epistle, above all the rest, to contain the doctrines of Nestorius, and an approbation of them all, and that by approving the union there mentioned, he approved all the doctrines of the Nestorians. 24. But for cardinal Baronius, that he in defending the latter part of this Epistle, as doth Vigilius before him, that in striving so earnestly by it to prove Ibas to have been a catholic, and his Epistle to be orthodoxal, at least in the latter part, because Ibas assented to the union mentioned therein; that he I say did herein wittingly, willingly, and obstinately labour to maintain the condemned heresy of Nestorius: for my own part I cannot almost doubt, nor, as I think, will his best friends when they have well considered of his words: He entreating of this matter touching Ibas and his Epistle, in another place, where this Constitution of Vigilius comes not to the scanning, and so did not dim his sight, ingenuously there confesseth, that this Epistle is heretical, written by a Nestorian, written of purpose to disgrace Cyrill, and the catholics, as if they at the union had recanted their former doctrines. But let us hear his own words. 25. He having showed c Bar. an. 432. nu. 68 absque condemnatione suorum Capitulorum, c●ncta arbitrio Cyrilli gesta sunt. that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils' mind, and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters, addeth this, They d An. eod. nu. 69. who favoured Nestorius spread abroad a rumour, that Cyrill had in all things consented unto john, and condemned his former doctrines: and a little after declaring e Ibid. nu. 70. how the Nestorians did slander Cyrill, he saith, Besides others, who took part with Nestorius, even Theodoret also, ijsdem aggressus est Cyrillum urgere calumnijs, vexed Cyrill with the same slanders, that he had condemned his own Chapters; and then coming to this Epistle of Ibas, he thus writeth, Who f Ibid. nu. 71. so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians, let him read the Epistle, which is said to be the Epist. of Ibas unto Maris, wherein any may see the Nestorian fellow insulting and triumphing, as if the cause had been adjudged to him, & jactantem Cyrillum poenitentem, tandem recant●sse palinodiam, and vaunting that Cyrill repenting himself of his former doctrines, did now at last revoke the same, and sing a new song. And this the author of that Epistle writ, and sent abroad as a Circular Epistle, to be read throughout the Provinces, pro solatio eorum, & ignominia Catholicorum; for the comfort of the Nestorians, and for the disgrace of Catholics, Thus Baronius. Professing as you see, that he knew this Epistle to be heretical, and that even in the latter end, which Vigilius and himself defendeth as orthodoxal, yea, even in that very point touching the union mentioned in that Epistle, to be a mere calumny against Cyrill, and the Catholics, as if they, by making the union, had consented to Nestorianisme, and renounced the Ephesine Council, and the Catholic faith. 26. Seeing now the Card. knew all this to be true, and yet afterwards for defence of Vigilius and his Constitution, teacheth and maintaineth, that by embracing the union mentioned in this Epistle, Ibas was a Catholic, and was for this cause by the Council at Chalcedon, and aught by all others to be adjudged a Catholic, is it not evident that the Cardinal wittingly and willingly maintains hereby the union with the Nestorians to be the catholic union, and so the doctrines of the Nestorians to be the catholic faith? for this union mentioned in the Epistle, is, as the Cardinal professeth, an union in Nestorianisme, an union with Cyrill, having now renounced the Ephesine Council, and the catholic faith. 27. Only there is one quirk or subtlety in the Cardinal's words, which may not without great wrong unto him be omitted, where he acknowledgeth this Epistle to be g Videre est Nestorianum hominem, etc. Bar. an. 432. nu. 71. heretical, & heretical in this point of the union, there he will not h Non esse Ibae comperta. Ibid. have it to be the Epistle of Ibas, for then by it Ibas should be judged a Nestorian, which would quite overthrow the Constitution of Vigilius: when in the other i Vigilius asserere voluit ex ed Epistolâ Ibam esse recipiendum, in qua nimirum ipse testatur se amplecti pacem ecclesiae, qua recepta, necesse s●crit eundem probare Ca holicum. Bar, an. 533. nu. 191. place he defends, as Vigilius decreeth, that Ibas by this Epistle, and by consenting to this union was a Catholic, and aught to be judged a Catholic, there the Epistle is truly the Epistle of Ibas, but then consenting to this union is the note of a Catholic: So both this Epistle is the Epistle of Ibas, and it is not the Epistle of Ibas; and to consent to the union herein mentioned, is the note of a Nestorian heretic; and to consent to the same union, is the note of a good Catholic. Thus doth the Cardinal play, & sport himself in contradictions, and as the wind blows and turns him, so doth he turn his note also: If the wind blow to Alexandria, and turn the Cardinal's face towards Cyrill, than the union is heretical, lest cyril who condemned it, should be condemned for an heretic. If the wind blow from Africa, and turn the Cardinal's face towards Rome and Pope Vigilius, than the union is Catholic, lest Vigilius approving this union, should not be thought a Catholic. Or because a Cardinal so learned, so renowned as Baronius, may not be thought to contradict himself, or speak amiss in either place, let both sayings be admitted for true, and then it avoidable followeth, that by the Cardinal's divinity, and in his judgement, Nestorianisme is the Catholic faith; which aptly and easily will accord both his sayings, for so the author of this Epistle by approving this union shall be a perfect Nestorian, as in the one place is affirmed; and by approving this union shall be withal a perfect Catholic, as in the other place is avouched. 28. Besides this confession of Baronius, which is clear enough, there is yet another means to demonstrate that the Cardinal by defending this latter part of the Epistle touching the union, did wittingly and wilfully maintain the condemned heresy of Nestorius: for the fifth general Council, approved, as we have showed, by the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, hath adjudged this very part k Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae, majori impietate plena sunt, Cyrillum et similia ei sapientes injuriantia, et omnino impiam sectam Nestorij vindicantia. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 564. a. Scimus et nos haec ita subse. quata est, etc. Ibid. of the Epistle, the defence whereof Baronius hath undertaken, not only to be heretical, but to be more full of blasphemies than any of the rest; it hath l Qui dicit eam rectam esse, vel partem ejus. Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. further judicially defined all that defend either this, or any part of that Epistle, to be heretics, and for such it hath anathematised them, yea, all that write m Eos qui scripserunt vel scribunt pro e●. Ibid. either for it, or for them. Now the Cardinal had read the whole fifth Council, as appeareth by that summary collection n Extat in Annal. Bar an. 553. a. nu. 33. ad 217. which he hath made of the Acts, and of every Collation thereof; nay, he had not only read these Acts, but pried earnestly with a jealous and carping eye, into every corner and sentence thereof, as you shall perceive hereafter; and therefore it is doubtless that he knew the judgement of this fifth Council, concerning all that defend any part of this Epistle, and specially the latter part, which concerns the union. Neither only did he know that to be the judgement of this fist Council, but (as himself o An. 553. nu. 229. expressly witnesseth) of all both Popes, and general Counsels which followed it, all of them approving this fifth Council, and the judgement thereof; whence it is clear, that Baronius knew certainly himself by defending this part of the Epistle touching the union, to defend that which by the judgement of the fifth Council, and the whole Catholic Church ever since hath been condemned for heretical, and the defenders of it anathematised as heretics: yet such was the Cardinal's zeal, and ardent affection to Nestorianisme, that against the judgement of the whole Church known unto him, yea, known for this very cause to anathematise him, yet he defends the union there mentioned, and the latter part of that Epistle, wherein it is mentioned, that is in truth, all the blasphemies of Nestorius, choosing rather, by adhering to Vigilius and his heretical decree, to be condemned, and anathematised by the whole Catholic Church for a Nestorian heretic, than by forsaking the defence of Vigilius, and his decree, to condemn this latter part of the Epistle of Ibas, touching the union, which containeth in it the very quintessence of all Nestorianisme. 29. I think it is now sufficiently apparent by that which we have already said, that the union which Ibas in his Epistle mentioneth and embraceth, and which Vigilius first, and after him Baronius approveth, is not that true union in the Catholic faith, which Cyrill made with john and other Eastern Bishops; but only an union in Nestorianisme, and in denying the Catholic faith, to which the Nestorians falsely reported and slandered cyril, with the other Catholics, to have consented, and thereby to have condemned and anathematised that truth, which the year before they had decreed at Ephesus; Yet for the full satisfaction of all, and clearing of all doubts which may arise, I will add one thing further which will much more manifest both the calumny of the Nestorians, and the constancy of Saint Cyrill, and that is, upon what colour or pretence the Nestorians raised this slanderous report, which I am the more desirous to explain, because the narration of this matter is extremely confounded, and entangled by Baronius and Binius, and that, as may be feared, even of set purpose, that they might either quite discourage others (as almost they had done myself) in the search of this truth, or at least mislead them into such by-paths, that they should not find the truth in this matter. 30. When Theodosius the religious Emperor had written by Aristolaus that earnest letter to john, and the other Eastern Bishops, persuading, yea, commanding them to consent with Cyrill, and embrace the Catholic communion; they upon the Emperor's motion sought indeed to make an union with Cyrill, but they laboured to effect it by drawing cyril unto their bent, and to consent unto their heresies. This they first attempted by a letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea, willing p Apud Acatium B●r●ensem Episcop●● congressi, scribi ad me curar●nt, pacem concordiamque nisi eo modo q●em praescriberent, fieri non debere, Epist. Cyrill. ad Acatium, quae est 29. & exit. tom. 5. Act. Ephes. ca 7. & idem habetur in Epist. Cyrilli ad Dynatum tom. e●d. ca 16. him to write, in all their names unto cyril, that no unity, or concord could be made, but according to those conditions which themselves should prescribe: and the condition prescribed by them, was that cyril should q Vrgebat ut omnibus quae adversus Nestorium scripsimus abuli●is & velut inutilibus rejectis, etc. Epist. ad Dynat. & similia habentur, in Epist cyril. ad Acat. locis cit. abolish and condemn all that ever he had written against Nestorianisme, and so both his twelve Chapters, and the Ephesine decree, and all the like. cyril answered r Cyrill. Epistola ad Dynat & ad Acat. with great confidence: rem eos postulare quae fieri plane non posset, that they required a matter utterly impossible, because what he had written touching that matter, was rightly written, and in defence of the true faith, and therefore that he could not either condemn, or deny what he had written. 31. When it succeeded not this first way, they next attempted to effect the union by Paulus s Miserunt Alexandriam Paulum Episcopum Emisenor●● etc. ibid. Bishop of Emisa, whom they sent to Alexandria, to negotiate for them both by words, and by a second letter which they sent by him. And although they were not in this second so violent as in the former of Acatius, yet they writ t Attulit quaedam parum decore & commode proposita, ibid. some things therein also, not fitting, nor allowable; for they reproved the holy Ephesine Council, as if things had been spoken, and done therein amiss; What did Cyrill answer? Hujusmodi epistolas equidem non admisi, truly I did not admit or allow of this their second Epistle neither, seeing therein they did add new contumelies, who should have asked pardon for the old. But where as Paulus did very earnestly excuse the matter, affirming, and that upon his oath also, that their purpose was not to exasperate cyril, but to accord with him, delectionis gratia excusationem admisi, I in charity was content to admit of this excuse. And Paulus being very desirous to effect the union, consented to anathematise Nestorius and his heresies; to consent also to the deposing of Nestorius, and the electing of Maximianus in his place: which when Paulus had performed, and subscribed suo chyrographo, with his own hand-writing, (which was all that either the Emperor or cyril required) add synaxim recepi, I received him to the communion of the Church. But when Paulus would further have persuaded Cyrill, that seeing he was sent in the name of the rest, and had subscribed this, pro omnibus, & tanquam ex communi omnium orientalium persona, for them all, and as it were in the person of them all: and therefore laboured with Cyrill, that this his subscription might satisfy for the others also, and that he would require no more of them, but be content with their letters which by him they had sent; nulla ratione id fieri passus sum, saith cyril, I could by no means endure that: I told Paulus also, that his subscription in condemning Nestorius and his heresies, Ipsi soli sufficere, could satisfy but only for himself, but as for the rest, john u Modis omnibus opus esse dixi ut Iohannes scriptam de●● his confessionem ederet, etc. Cyrill. Epist, ad Acatium. , and they must personally, and for themselves subscribe; or else they could not be received into communion: whereupon Cyrill writ an orthodoxal profession x Nisichartam qua significavi, si Iohannes illi subscripserit, tum communionem illis reddite. Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat. to that same effect, whereunto Paulus had subscribed, and sent it unto john, requiring his personal subscription to it. This was the sum of all that was done by Paulus at his first coming. 32. Paulus returning to Antioch, brought this resolute answer of Cyrill, to john, and the Bishops of his Synod. They seeing no other means to make an union, but only by consenting to Cyrill; and seeing that Paulus; whom they put in trust as their agent, had both himself consented, and further undertaken that john and they should likewise consent unto the same which he had done, did now at length yield y Cum Iohannes subscripsisset, caeterique qui majore authoritate apud ipsum erant, Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat. to all the demands of Cyrill: and for an assurance of their sincerity therein, they writ a Synodall z Ea extat inter Epist. Cyrilli Epist. 27. & in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca 5. and encyclical Epistle unto Cyrill, which they likewise sent unto Pope Sixtus, to Maximianus, and other principal Bishops, wherein they first set down a very sound, true and orthodoxal confession of their faith, and then testify their willing assent and subscription, to the deposing b Placuit nobis Nestorium pro deposito habere, pravasque illius prophanosque novitates anathematizare. Epist. Synodalis johannis Antioch, & Synodi Antioch. to. 5. Act. Ephis. ca 5. of Nestorius, and the condemning of his heresies. a Miserunt autem tandem Epistolam, quam ad me scripserunt ad X stam & Maximianum, Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat. 33. This Synodall letter they sent to cyril by Paulus c Nos Dominum nostrum Paulum ad sanctitatem tuam mittendum duximus Epist. joh. & Synod. Antioch. loco jam citato, & ex charta, quam Dominus meus Paulus nunc attulit evidenter cognoscimus. Continel enim inculpatam fidei confessionem. Cyrill. Epist. 28. quae est ad johannem Antioch. & extat tom. 5. Act. Ephes. ca 6. Bishop of Emisa, that he might make a final peace, and union. At whose coming to Alexandria this second time, and bringing with him this undoubted testimony of the orthodoxy of john, and the chief of the Eastern Bishops, and that they had now consented to all which either the Emperor, or cyril required of them, the union was fully concluded on every part, and peace made in the Church: In token whereof Paulus preached at Alexandria, in the month of December d Nempe 29. mensis Chiath. i. Decembris. 10.6. Act. Ephes. ca 13. in tit. , making there before Cyrill, and the whole City, so orthodoxal a profession of the faith, that the people for joy interrupting him four or five times, exclaimed e Ibid. to. 6. ca 13. , Bene venisti Orthodox, O Orthodox Paul thou art welcome to us, cyril is orthodoxal, Paulus is orthodoxal: and Cyrill for his part writ that learned Epistle f Epist. Cyrilli 28. quae extat tom. 5. Act. Ephes. ca 6: in congratulation unto john, and the rest which beginneth, Let the Heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, publishing it as an hymn of joy and thanksgiving for the union now effected in the Church, singing Glory unto God, and peace among men. 34. This is the true narration of the whole proceedings betwixt Cyrill, and the Eastern Bishops touching this matter of the union, as they who diligently peruse the Epistles of Cyril to Acatius Bishop of Melitene, to Dynatus, and john, and compare therewith the Epistle of john, and the Synod of Antioch sent to Cyrill and Xistus, will clearly perceive, whence three things may be observed: The first is the most shameless dealings of the Nestorians, who slandered cyril to have at the time of the union consented in all points unto them, and to their heresy, and to have condemned his former doctrine, and the Ephesine Council, whereas the quite contrary was true. He was most inflexible and constant in maintaining the true faith; more inexorable than Aeacus, or rather, as Moses g Exod. 10.26. would not consent to Pharaoh, no, not in the least hoof, so would not Cyrill yield one heire-bredth unto them, but brought them to subscribe wholly, and in every point, to that which he desired. 35. The second is, the occasion which the Nestorians took for their pretended calumny: They knew that john and the Eastern Bishops had written to Cyrill, willing him to condemn his own Chapters; yea, that they had writ so resolutely, that unless Cyrill did so, they would not consent unto any peace, or union. Thus much was true, as by the letter of Acatius Bishop of Berea to Cyrill is evident: Now they saw that cyril afterwards, and in that very year consented with john, and made union with him, whereupon they boasted that cyril did it upon the condition required by john at the first, which was the condemning of his former doctrine; wilfully and maliciously concealing both how Cyrill utterly denied to yield unto them, or to that condition required by them; and how at the length john, and so many of them as were received into communion, consented wholly unto him, and subscribed to the Catholic faith. All this they quite suppress; and, to colour the matter, they forged h Siqua Epistola à quibusdam cucumferatur tanquam à me, de iis quae Ephesi acta sunt jam dolente, & poenitentia agente, perscripta, ea quoque contem●natur. Cyrill. Epist. ad Acat. in fine. a letter under the name of Cyrill, as consenting to condemn his own doctrine; which no doubt was the same letter that Ibas in his Epistle enclosed, and sent unto Maris the heretic. 36. The third is, how Baronius hath perverted the narration of this union, and strengthened the calumny of the Nestorians by his misreporting of the same: But first we must set down the Cardinal's words; Upon the Emperor's letters (saith he i Ba. an. 432. nu. 54 ) sent unto john, commanding him, and the rest, to agree with Cyrill, john and the Eastern Bishops met together in a Synod at Antioch, and they agreed to k Consultius deliberatur, ratam habendam esse dann. atione haeresis Nestorianae. Ibid. ratify the condemnation of Nestorius, and his heresy, as the Emperor had required them to do; and so to make union with the Pope, with cyril, and with the Catholic Church. According to this agreement they made a Synodall decree, and Synodall l johannes ex Synodo tanc Antiochi● habita, de damnatione Nestorij, et ejus haeresi, Synodalem dedit Epistolam. Ib. Epistle, containing the condemning of Nestorius, with his heresies; and an orthodoxal profession which they sent to Pope Sixtus, and other Catholic Bishops, to testify their communion with them all m Hactenus Epistola communis omnibus quidem Episcopis Catholicae fidei, quae Catholicam E●clesiarum omnium communionem nanciscerentur. Bar. antedem nu. 56. . This Epistle n Epistola illa extat to. 5. Act Conc. Eph. ca 17. by the way, is in effect the o Name in utraque damnatur Nestorius, et illius haeresis, et apprebatur Synodus Ephesina, vide, et conser Epistolas. same which Paulus Bishop of Emisa brought, at his second coming into Alexandria. The Cardinal proceeding, tells us, that this Epistle was sent as common to all, save p Dedit Epistolam ad Sixtum. Bar. an. 432. nu. 54. quae erat communis omnibus Episcopis C●tholicis. Ibid. nu. 56 only to cyril; but as for cyril, against whom they had most bitter enmity, aliter q Ibid. nu. 57 sibi agendum putarunt; they would take another course, and deal after another manner with him; and mark, I pray you, how that was, they would so deal with him, ut r Ibid. ab eo exigerent Catholicae fidei confessonem, qua, sua Capitula velut erronea condemnaret; so that they would exact of him a Catholic confession, wherein he should condemn his own twelve Chapters as erroneous: and when Cyrill refused so to do, in the next place they send Paulus Bishop of Emisa, as their Legate, unto cyril, qui si posset ab eo quod petitum antea furat, extorqueret; who should, if by any means he could, wring from Cyrill that which before they required; (to wit, the condemning of his Chapters;) but if he could not do that, nor prevail therein with cyril, tunc de damnatione Nestorij literas ei redderet; then they willed Paulus to deliver unto cyril their Synodall letters, written by them, containing the condemnation of Nestorius, and his heresy. Thus Baronius; and s Bin. Notis in Cō●. Antioch. tempore Sixti. Binius traceth him in these steps. 37. In which narration of the Cardinal, besides many untruths wherewith it is stuffed, there are two things, above all the rest, to be observed. The former is, how wise and politic the Cardinal doth make john, and the whole Synod of Antioch, to be in this matter of the union: first, they condemn the heresies of Nestorius, approve the Ephesine Council, and by so doing approve the twelve Chapters of cyril; they do this in a Synod, and publish their Synodall decree at Rome, at Constantinople, and other places, to show and testify themselves to be truly orthodoxal; and when all this is done, they labour earnestly, with cyril, to make him condemn his own twelve Chapters, which is in effect to maintain Nestorianisme; to condemn the Ephesine Council, (wherein his Chapters were approved) yea, to condemn their own Synodall decree, by which themselves, at Antioch, had condemned Nestorius, and approved the Chapters of Cyrill. Again, he makes john, and his Synod to communicate with Sixtus, with Maximianus, with all other Catholics save Cyrill, and them of his Patriarchship; with all the former they will communicate, though they all approved the twelve Chapters of cyril, with Cyril they will not communicate, unless he will condemn the same twelve Chapters. If they thought the twelve Chapters to be heretical, why hold they communion with Sixtus, Maximianus, and others who approved them? nay, why did themselves approve them? If they thought them orthodoxal, why would they (being themselves orthodoxal) persuade, yea, enforce and wring out of cyril a condemnation of the orthodoxal faith? Besides, what a worthy piece of policy was this, which the Cardinal doth fasten upon john, and all the rest? he makes them to send Paulus, a reverend Bishop, with a letter purposely to be delivered to Cyrill, which testified their Synodall, and willing consent in approving the twelve Chapters of cyril, that is, of the Catholic faith, and yet command Paulus to urge and wring from cyril, if he could, a condemnation of those twelve Chapters, that is, of the whole Catholic faith? What deep dissemblers and hypocrites doth he make john, Paul, and the rest of those orthodoxal Bishops? Lastly, of what faith or religion, do you think, must john, Paul, and the rest be, by the Cardinal's narration. By their Synodall sentence, and holy confession therein; they approve the twelve Chapters of cyril, and so are perfect Catholics; again, by their urging of cyril to condemn his twelve Chapters, they are perfect Nestorians, for the condemning of them, is the defending of all the Nestorian heresies; so, by the Cardinal's divinity, they are at the self same time, both perfect Nestorians, and perfect Catholics; which can no way be effected, but by admitting the Cardinal's old position, which he learned of Vigilius, that perfect Nestorianisme is the perfect Catholic faith. 38. Into such labyrinths doth the Cardinal's foul misreporting of this matter lead, and even draw a man; whereas the truth, as, by that which formerly hath been declared, is evident, that john, and the rest of the Synod, when they urged cyril to condemn his Chapters, had not made that Synodall decree for condemning of Nestorius; & when they had once made that decree, they never, either by word or writing, urged cyril to condemn those Chapters: Before they made that decree, and condemned Nestorius, they were heretical, and held communion neither with cyril, nor Sixtus, nor any other Catholics: After they had made that decree, and condemned Nestorius with his heresies, they were orthodoxal, & communicated no less with Cyrill, than with Sixtus, or any other Catholic; nay, they communicated first of all with Cyrill, & then with all other Catholics. 39 The other point to be observed out of the Cardinal's words, is, that by his narration Cyrill did indeed, as Ibas and the Nestorians slandered him, renounce & reject the Catholic faith, for the Cardinal makes Paulus of Emisa but to go once to Alexandria about the union, or if any can find in the Cardinal a second journey thither, yet by his narration, the Synodall Epistle of john, and the rest, wherein they condemn Nestorius, and set down an orthodoxal profession, that Epistle was sent by Paulus at the first time, for he had withal in charge to urge cyril to condemn his twelve Chapters, which at his last going had been absurd and incongruous. So then the Epistle which Paulus, at his first going to cyril brought with him, was the orthodoxal Epistle of john, and the Synod. Now it is certain by the express words of cyril, that the letter which john and the rest, sent by Paulus at his first going, was rejected by Cyrill, for he saith of that Epistle, hujusmodi epistolas non acceptavi, I did not accept this Epistle sent by Paul: and the Cardinal t Bar. an. 432. nu. 66. citing those words of cyril verbatim, and making some pretty collection out of them, could not be ignorant hereof. Seeing then by the Cardinal's narration, the Epistle which Paulus brought at his first coming was orthodoxal, and seeing it is certain that Cyrall rejected that Epistle, which Paulus at his first coming brought from john, it inevitably followeth, upon the Cardinal's narration, that Cyrill indeed rejected an orthodoxal and Catholic profession, containing the condemnation of Nestorius, and his heresies, and therefore that cyril renounced his former Catholic doctrine, & consented to Nestorianisme, which is the same calumny wherewith Ibas in his impious Epistle, slandereth cyril. And although Baronius do in words deny this, as I know he doth, yet considering the deep projects which the Cardinal hath, it may be feared, that he meant by this means, cunningly, and closely, to lay a foundation to uphold that union, in which Ibas in his Epistle rejoiceth, and which Vigilius and the Cardinal himself approve for Catholic, or if the Cardinal intended not this, yet I am sure that he hath then unwittingly devised, such a notable ground, to maintain that slander, which Ibas imputeth to cyril, that at the time of the union he rejected his former doctrines, as that neither Ibas himself, nor any of the old Nestorians could possibly have forged a more fair and colourable pretence for the same. 40. My conclusion now of this their former reason, for defence of the impious Epistle of Ibas; drawn from the union mentioned therein, is this: Seeing that union mentioned and approved by Ibas in the later part of his Epistle, is no other but the union in Nestorianisme, unto which he maliciously slandereth cyril to have consented: and seeing Pope Vigilius, and Cardinal Baronius not only approve as Catholic, the union there mentioned by Ibas, but prove by it and consenting to it, both Ibas himself to be a Catholic, and his Epistle, in that part at least, to be orthodoxal, it hence clearly ensueth, that Vigilius by his Apostolical sentence defineth, and Baronius by name (as also all who maintain the Pope's Cathedral sentence in causes of faith to be infallible) do all defend Nestorianisme to be the Catholic union, and so Nestorianisme to be the Catholic faith: which whosoever affirms, are by the judgement not only of the fifth, but the fourth and third general Counsels, convicted, condemned, and anathematised heretics. CHAP. XII. That Vigilius and Baronius in their later reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, taken from the words of Ibas, wherein he confesseth two natures and one person in Christ, do maintain the heresies of Nestorius. 1. THe other reason whereby they labour to defend this impious Epistle, and with no less fraud than they did in the former, is taken from the very confession of Ibas, set down in his Epistle, wherein he acknowledgeth Christ to have two natures, and to be one person. His words to Maris the heretic are these, near the beginning of his Epistle a In Cont. Chalc. Act. 10. . Cyrill hath written twelve Chapters which I think your holiness knoweth, wherein he teacheth, quia una est natura divinitatis & humanitatis, that there is one nature of the divinity, and humanity in Christ, these things are full of all impiety; and giving a reason hereof, he addeth, for the Church saith thus, as it hath been taught from the beginning, and confirmed therein by the doctrine of the most blessed Fathers; Duae naturae, una virtus, una persona, quod est unus filius, Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son our Lord jesus Christ: Thus Ibas: which words seem to be so true, so orthodoxal and Catholic, that Vigilius and Baronius, might either be themselves hereby deceived; or, which I rather think, judge them, as they are indeed, a most colourable pretence to deceive others, & lead them into Nestorianisme: for no Catholic can possibly in fairer terms, or better for show of words, express against Nestorius the true doctrine of the Catholic faith, then to say that there are two natures in Christ, and yet but one person. This seeing Ibas professeth in his Epistle, and withal accurseth b Denuncians ei ut anathematizaret eos qui dicunt quia una est natura divinitatis et humanitatis. Ibas in eadem Epist. those who deny two natures in Christ, sure none can think but this was a fit text for Vigilius and Baronius, by it to commend this impious Epistle as orthodoxal & Catholic, wherein so Catholic a confession seemeth to be made. But let us see how the Pope and the Cardinal descant on these words. 2. Baronius saith not much, but yet he speaks plainly of this matter; The fathers at Chalcedon, saith he c Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. , out of this Epistle of Ibas, gathered Ibas then (when he writ it) to be a Catholic, ut pote quod ex eadem epistola demonstratur ipse, because by this very Epistle Ibas was demonstrated, both to have held communion with Cyrill, execratusque esse unam naturam in Christo confitentes, confessus vero esse, naturas duas unam d Vox [personam] vitio Typo raphi deest apud Baron. sed ex Constructione Gammatica, et ipso sensu, necessariè addendam liquet. [personam] efficere, Dominum nostrum jesum Christum, and also he was demonstrated by this Epistle, to have accursed those who confess one only nature in Christ, and to have confessed the two natures, to make one person, and Lord jesus Christ. So Baronius: teaching not only that profession which Ibas makes in his Epistle, of two natures, and one person, to be Catholic, but that Ibas by that very confession is proved, nay demonstrated to be a Catholic. 3. Vigilius handles this matter far more largely, but very obscurely & mystically, as being indeed so miserably entangled in the birdlime of Nestorianisme, that he know not possibly how to unfold himself. I must first of all set down his words, though they be many, and because they are very obscure, they will require more attentive, and serious ponderation; Those things, saith he e Vig. Const. nu. 192. , which in the Epistle of Ibas, are injuriously spoken against cyril by a misunderstanding of Cyrills' sayings, the Fathers at Chalcedon, when they pronounced the Epistle to be orthodoxal, did not receive; for the venerable Bishop (Ibas) himself by changing, refuted those, when he had gotten better understanding of those Chapters which Eunomius in his interlocution doth most evidently declare. And f Ibid. nu. 193. the interlocution of Invenalis doth signify the same, who therefore decreed that Ibas should receive his Bishopric, as holding the orthodoxal profession of faith, because he devoutly ran, to embrace the communion with Cyrill, after that cyril had explained his Chapters, and Ibas had understood them otherwise then before he did, though he had carped at cyril, when he misunderstood those Chapters, for thus said juvenalis; The holy Scripture commandeth that he who is converted should be received, for which cause we receive such as return from heretics; wherefore I decree that the reverend Ibas should obtain favour and receive his Bishopric, both because he is an old man, and because he is a Catholic. So juvenalis: By which this is understood: If we receive such as return from heretics, how should we not receive Ibas who is a Catholic? whom it is manifest to be a Catholic, seeing he is now converted, from that understanding of Cyrills' Chapters, whereby he was deceived, who while he doubted of the understanding of those Chapters, did seem to speak against cyril: for never would juvenalis say that Ibas were a Catholic, unless he had proved by the words of this Epistle his confession to be orthodoxal. And that the Interlocutions of juvenalis and Eunomius do agree, the words of Eunomius do show, which are these; In what things Ibas seemed to blame cyril, by speaking ill; he hath refuted all those things which he blamed, by making a right confession at the last. By which words of Eunomius it is evidently declared, that in the confession of faith, made by Ibas, nothing was reproved, seeing it is manifest, that his faith was praised; and that Ibas hath refuted that, which by misunderstanding Cyrill, he had thought amiss of him. 4. For g Ibid. nu. 194. the same venerable Ibas, by the precedent Acts, (as the judgement of Photius and Eustathius doth show) is most manifestly declared to receive and embrace all things which were done in the first Ephesine Synod, and judge them equal to the Nicene decrees, and to put no difference betwixt those and these at Ephesus: and Eustathius is showed very much to commend the sanctity of Ibas, for that he was so ready and willing to cure those, who, either by suspicion, or any other way did hurt the opinion of his learning: For after that cyril had explained his twelve Chapters, and the meaning which Cyrill had in them was declared unto Ibas, after that, Ibas professed himself, with all the Eastern Bishops, to have esteemed Cyrill a Catholic, and to have remained, even unto his end, in the communion with him; whence it is clear, that Ibas, both before he understood the twelve Chapters of cyril, and when he suspected one (only) nature of Christ to be taught and maintained by them, did then in an orthodoxal sense reject that which he thought to be spoken amiss in those Chapters; and also after the explanation thereof, did in an orthodoxal sense reverently embrace those things which he knew to be rightly spoken in those Chapters. 5. Further, h Ibid. nu. 195. it doth without all doubt appear to the minds of all the faithful, that Dioscorus with Eutiches, did offer more wrong in the second Ephesine Synod, than Ibas, to cyril and the first Ephesine Council, by understanding Cyrils Chapters in an heretical sense, believing cyril to teach by his twelve Chapters one (only) nature in our Lord jesus Christ; and for this cause did Dioscorus condemn some of the Eastern Bishops, who would not acknowledge one (only) nature in Christ; among whom he condemned as an heretic, and deposed Ibas from his Bishopric, specially for this very confession of his faith, wherein he most plainly professeth two natures, one power, one person, which is one Son, our Lord jesus Christ: and Dioscorus restored Eutiches, as a Catholic, for the confession of one (only) nature in Christ, condemning also Flavianus, of blessed memory, for the same doctrine of holding two natures: And Dioscorus and Eutiches are found much more to endeavour to overthrow the first Ephesine Synod, while they defend it under the show of an execrable sense, (of one nature) and to slander Cyrill more while they praise him, than did Ibas, when, by the error and misconceiving of Cyrils' meaning, he dispraised him; for seeing their praise and dispraise do tend unto the same thing, Dioscorus and Eutiches, who condemned Cyrill, are found to have commended him with an heretical spirit, or in an heretical sense, and therefore were they condemned in the Council at Chalcedon; but Ibas, who at the first dispraised Cyrils Chapters, thinking one (only) nature to be taught by them; and who, after the sense and meaning of them was declared unto him, did profess himself, with the Eastern Bishops, to communicate with cyril, was judged by the same Council of Chalcedon to have continued in the right faith. Thus far are the words of Vigilius, and so much of his Constitution as concerns this profession made by Ibas, of two natures and one person in Christ. 6. Words like the Oracles of Apollo, full of thick darkness, & hidden mysteries. Nor must you here expect any light at all from Binius; was wise enough to decline these rocks in the Epist. of Ibas, both that of the union with Cyril, this & of his confessing two natures and one person; at which fearing to make shipwreck of faith, as Vigilius had done before, he thought it to be far the safest course at one stroke to wipe away and sponge out those whole passages both out of the Pope's Constitution, and his own Tomes of Counsels: best to have them smothered in silence, or buried in eternal oblivion. Add yet, to say truth, had Binius used all his art in this point, that alas would but have helped a little; he, poor lamb, is not able of himself to wade, no not through shallow places, it would require an Elephant to swim through such a deep: All his light is but borrowed of others, specially from Baronius, where Baronius is silent, he is more mute than a fish: yea, and when some of the Cardinal's beams do happen to collustrate his notes, yet even there they lose a great part of that vigour which they have in the Cardinal's Phoebean lamp. 7. The only man in the world fit to make a full and just commentary on this text of Vigilius, had been Baronius himself: He by his long acquaintance with Popes, and Court of Rome, by his continual rifling of the Vatican Manuscripts, and anatomising so many Pontifical decrees, had quick sense of the Pope's pulse, he knew every string and strain in their breasts. But so unhappily it falls out, that the Cardinal himself durst not touch this sore; he passeth it over, nay, rather shuffles it from him with deep silence; wot you why? you may be sure he knew there was a pad in this straw, which had the Cardinal uncovered, his own friends could not have endured the loathsome sent of the Pontifical Constitution, but for very shame would have swept it out of the Church of God. Now because it were great pity that so many mysteries as lie hid in this part of the Pope's decree should be unknown to the world, and because the very explication of the Pope's words, is a full conviction of his heresy, for want of a better, I will lend them my best endeavours to supply the defect of the Cardinal's Commentary in this point: And although all that I can say is, nihil ad Parmenonis suem, nothing to that which you should have applauded, si ipsam belluam audissetis, if the Pope's commentator had been himself pleased to write hereof; yet truly, by long contemplation of the Pope's works, and industrious observing the Cardinals artificium in explaining the like decrees, I well hope that I shall be able dollar, and after a rude fashion to rough-hew a piece of a commentary at this time; only not being trained up in their Roman Schools, where they learn to speak silken and sugared words of their Popes, and sow the softest Pillows under their elbows; I must crave pardon, if according to the Macedonian rudeness of our dialect I call a spade, a spade, a slander, a slander, and heresy, heresy, though it happen to be found even in his Holiness himself, and in his Pontifical and Cathedral decree: In hope of which pardon (specially since the fault is so venial) I will now address myself to an unaccustomed task of making a Commentary upon the Pope's writings. 8. The scope and purpose of Vigilius in this whole passage, is, to prove not only Ibas himself, but his faith and profession also to have been Catholic, not only when he writ this Epistle, but ever since cyril explained his Chapters, and Ibas understood the same, which was before this Epistle was writ. And this appears by the very words of Vigilius, who i Vig. nu. 193. saith, that after Cyrils Chapters were explained, and understood by Ibas, in communionem ejus devotè concurrerit; he ran, and hastened with devotion to embrace the communion with Cyrill; and having once embraced it, in k Ibid. nu. 194. communione ipsius usque ad exitum permansisse; that he continued in the same communion with Cyrill, even to the end of his life: and as he was then a Catholic, so in this Epistle, which was writ after Cyrils' explanation, understood by him, he expressed that Catholic faith and profession, seeing l Ibid. nu. 193. juvenalis, ex verbis Epistolae, ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobavit; proved the confession of Ibas to be orthodoxal by the very words of this Epistle. This is the purpose then of my author, to show both Ibas and his confession of faith, when he writ this Epistle, to have been Catholic: To prove this he useth three principal reasons; the first is drawn from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which Ibas devoutly embraced; and this he harps upon almost in every part of his text, as you may easily see. The second is taken from his approbation of the holy Ephesine Council before Photius and Eustathius; in these words, For the same venerable Ibas, etc. The third is drawn from the very profession itself, and words thereof set down in the Epistle of Ibas, where he confesseth two natures, and one person; and though there be a touch and taste of this throughout the whole text, yet is it specially and more expressly set down in those words, Further, it doth without all doubt appear, etc. I must be enforced, for more perspicuities sake, to invert the order of mine author, and begin with the exposition of his third reason, because, if that be well understood, it will serve for a torch to direct us in both the other. 9 In his third reason the Pope both affirms, and by diverse means proves that confession of Ibas, which in his Epistle he makes to be orthodoxal, and before we handle his proofs hereof we must diligently consider the position itself, or confession made by Ibas: Ibas his confession in his Epistle is, that there are two natures, and one person in Christ: This confession in his Epistle, saith Vigilius m Et ob hoc aliquos Orientales Episcopas, qui unim naturae praedicationem voluerunt suscipere Dioscorus condemn●vit, inter quos et Ibam, propter hanc specialiter fidei ejus professionem, qua duas naturas, unam virtutem, unam personam apertissimè confitetur, haereticum condemnavit. Vig. nu. 195. , is orthodoxal; and for this was Ibas unjustly condemned by Dioscorus, but justly commended by the Council at Chalcedon. I must set an unpleasant, but a very true and certain gloss upon these words, Both Ibas, and Vigilius commending him, and Baronius defending Vigilius herein, do all Nestorianize; or, to speak more plainly, Ibas by that confession in his Epistle teacheth, Vigilius by his Cathedral decree confirmeth, Baronius gnatonically applaudeth, and they all three conspire in defending the condemned heresy of Nestorius. 10. For the full manifestation whereof it must be observed, that the Nestorians, the more plansibly to convey their heresy, wherein they denied Christ the son of Mary to be God, used the very same words altogether which catholics did▪ As Catholics said that there are two natures in Christ, the divinity, and the humanity, so said the Nestorians also: As Catholics confessed Christ to be our Lord, so confessed the Nestorians likewise. In words they both agreed and said the same, but in the sense and meaning of those words they were quite contrary. 11. When Catholics said, that there are two natures in Christ, they meant truly & orthodoxally, that the divinity & humanity in Christ were different in essence and substance, & yet they both made but one hypostasis, that is, but one, and not two subsistent persons: But when the Nestorians said, that there are two natures in Christ, they meant that either nature made a several and distinct person by itself, and so they made Christ to be two distinct persons, each subsisting by itself, two Sons, two Christ's, that is, in truth, no Christ, no Saviour at all; for a Saviour he cannot be, unless the self same person which is man be God also. 12. Again, when Catholics said, that Christ is one person, they meant truly and orthodoxally, that both natures together make but one personal subsistence, as the humane soul and body make but one person, or one man: but when the Nestorians said, that Christ was one person, they meant not of that unity which is by natural or personal subsistence, but of unity in affection, of unity by consent and liking, of unity by cohabitation; the person of the Son of God, so affecting and liking the son of Marie, that it inhabited and dwelled therein, as in a holy temple or house; but yet, as neither the house is the inhabitant, nor the inhabitant the house; so neither was God (by their doctrine) the son of Mary, or man; nor yet was that man which was the son of Mary, God; but only the house or temple of God. 13. When Catholics called jesus Christ our Lord, they meant truly and orthodoxally, that the man jesus Christ, who took flesh of the Virgin Mary, is in truth very God, the Godhead being hypostatically united unto the manhood, and both of them making but one person, who is both God and man: but the Nestorians in calling jesus Christ our Lord, meant not that the man Christ was truly & personally God or Lord, but that he was God, and the Lord, only by having God and the Lord inhabiting in him, and united, not personally, but only affectually unto him; whereupon it followed, that they in adoring Christ, & giving divine honours unto him, were indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for they gave the honour proper only to God, unto that person, or that man, which, according to their doctrine, they held not to be God. 14. And, which of all may seem most strange; whereas Catholics not only professed the Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God, but under those very terms, and by that form of words, as being most easy and perspicuous, contradicted & condemned all the heresies of Nestorius, which were all by consequent included in their denying Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Mother of God; The Nestorians, to avoid the hatred of this speech, if they should deny it, and more plausibly to convey their heresy, said, and in words professed even this also, that Mary was the Mother of God; but they meant not thereby, as Catholics did, that Christ, who took flesh of the Virgin Mary, was the same person or one personal subsistence with the Son of God; or, that God was incarnate, and assumed the manhood to make one person with the Godhead, but all that they meant was, that the Son of God, was only by affection, and love united unto the son of Marie, being already perfect man in the womb of his mother, and that God was borne of her, not by assuming flesh unto him, but by inhabiting that man who took flesh of her. Thus in show of words the Nestorians seemed to be Catholics, and to say the same with Catholics, but their sense and meaning in those words was most heretical, and therefore indeed and in truth themselves notwithstanding all these speeches, were heretics. 15. For the full and ample proof of all these, I must refer myself to another Treatise, if it ever happen to see the light: wherein I have at large handled this point, and proved another of their Popes somewhat more ancient than Vigilius, I mean Hormisda, to have been as deep in the heresy of Nestorius, and to have as firmly by his Cathedral and Apostolical sentence confirmed the same, as Vigilius himself hath done, who as I think, by the example and authority of his predecessor was the more emboldened to plead for Nestorianisme, it being of all heresies which ever sprung up in the Church, most full of all sophistical subtleties, and colourable pretences of wit, was most fit of all the rest, to be commended by such as under the show of learning, and truth, meant to defend and uphold heresy. But for this time I will now allege only a few evident testimonies, to declare the truth of that concurrence in words, and difference in sense, between Catholics and Nestorians, which even now I mentioned. 16. Nestorius' in his Epistle n Extat in Cone. 5 Coll. 6. pa 575. b. to Alexander signifying that the two natures in Christ are also two persons, saith thus; Non duas personas unam personam facimus, we do not make two persons, one person; but by this one name of Christ, we signify two natures (to wit, making two persons.) And to show how these two persons are called by them one person; thou mayst, saith he o Nestorij verba citata ibidem. pa. 576. a. & in Acts Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca 8. pa. 747. a. , call him that was borne of Mary, by the name of the Son of God, for the Virgin which bore Christ, filium Dei genuit, bore the Son of God, but because the Son according to the Nature's is double, non genuit quidem p Negat Nestorius Mariam genuisse filium, ita ut ex ipsa carnem sumpserit, offirmat genuisse, ita ut ex ipsa prodierit. Hoc declarant Nestorij verba apud Cyrill●m citata in Epist. ad Acatium. to. 3. Act. Ephes. ca 7 ubi ita ait Nestoriu●; Deum ex Chrissipara virgine prodijsse ex divina scriptura edoctus sum, at vero Deum ex ipsa genitum esse (eo quo dixi s●●su) id nusquam edoctus sum. filium Dei she did not truly bear the Son of God (as taking flesh from her) but she bore the man or humane nature, quae propter filium adjunctum, filij quoque appellatione afficitur, which is called the Son of God, because the Son God is united and joined unto him: and in another place q Non per se & secundum se Deus est, quod in utero formatum e●● non per se & secun dum se Deus est, quod spiritus sancti operâ effectum est▪ non per se & secundum se Deus est, quod in monumento conditum est. At quia Deus in homine assumpto extitit, assumptus assumenti conjunctus, propter assumentum Deus appellatur. verba Nestorij citata in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca 8. pa. 748. a. , He that was framed in the womb, and laid in the grave, is not of himself God: at quia Deus in homine assumpto existit, but because God is in the man whom he assumes unto him, the man assumed is called God, because he is assumed of God. So Nestorius; plainly calling Christ, God, and the Son of God, and Marie, the mother of God, and yet denying God and man to be one person; but the person of God to assume a perfect man, or the person of Man. 17. Theodorus the master of Nestorius declares the same; In ipso r Theodori verba citata in Conc. 5. Coll. 4. pa. 528. a. plasmato Deus verbum factus est. The Word or Son of God was united to the man Christ, being framed and form, showing plainly that Christ was first made a perfect man, and person, and that then the Son of God as another person was united unto him. And showing that the unity of the two natures is not personal, but only affectual; he compares the unity which is betwixt the Godhead, and the manhood in Christ, to that unity which is betwixt man and wife, who though they be called one, yet are they in natural subsistence two distinct persons. Even so saith he s Coll. eadem. pa. 532. a. & Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. in Christ, non nocet naturarum differentiae unitas personae, the unity of person doth not take away the distinction of the natures. And the two natures joined together, unam personam dicimus, we call one person: which unity not to be personal no more than it is in man and wife, but affectual, he immediately explaineth, expressly affirming either nature in Christ, to be a perfect and distinct person, or personal subsistence by itself, saying, for when we discern or teach two natures, perfectam naturam verbi Dei dicimus & perfectam personam, perfectam autem & hominis naturam & personam similiter: we affirm both the perfect nature, and the perfect person of the Son of God, and also the perfect nature, and perfect person of man to be in Christ: but when we look at the conjunction of these (natures) unam personam tunc dicimus, than we call them one person, (to wit one by affectual, but not by natural and personal unity, for he said plainly before, that they were two perfect distinct persons.) Thus Theodorus. 18. This is to have been the very true meaning of the Nestorians, justinian in his Edict manifestly declareth, writing thus and most divinely; In t Edict. justir. §. Credimus autem. that the Apostle saith of the Son of God, that he took the form of a servant, he showeth that the Word was united to the Nature of Man: but not to any subsistence or person: for he doth not say; he took him, who was in the form of a servant, lest he should imply thereby, that the Word was united unto the man being formerly form, as impious Theodorus and Nestorius did blaspheme: affectualem dicentes unitatem, teaching an affectual (and no personal) unity betwixt them. The fifth Council after most exact sifting of this matter doth witness the same, writing thus; Theodorus u Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. and Nestorius teaching two persons, two Christ's, two sons, would hide their impiety by calling them two natures, and one son. And a little after, Theodorus affectualem unitatem dicens, naturas pro personis & subsistentijs accipit. Theodorus teaching an affectual union (only) to be betwixt the two natures, useth the word Nature for Person: and so indeed teacheth two persons; Quomodo Nestorius duas dicit naturas: in which same sense also Nestorius teacheth two natures to be in Christ: sed pro personis eas accipit, but he taketh twose two natures for two persons. So the general Council. 19 Pope john the second, doth clearly express this, setting down the faith of the Roman Church. We x joh. 2. Epist. 3. ad Senatore. profess Christ to be perfect in deity, and perfect in the humanity: non antea existente carne, & postea unit a verbo, sed in ipso Deo verbo initium ut esset accipiens, his flesh, (or humane nature) not first existing; and then the Word being united unto it: but his flesh taking beginning in the very Word: nec duas personas in Christo intelligimus: neither do we understand two persons to be in Christ, when we say two natures to be in him, as mad Nestorius' thought. Thus the Pope. But no where is this more clearly and fully explained then in the Dialogue of Maxentius, where the Catholic disputing with the Nestorian, saith thus: This is y joh. Maxent. Dial. 1. ca 12. the cause of your error, you cannot discern the difference betwixt Person and Nature: But understanding Nature to be all one with Person, ye confound (or use for one and the same thing) these two: & duas omnino personas, sicut duas naturas unius filij Dei sine dubio praedicatis: and without all doubt, you teach two persons to be in the Son of God, when ye profess two natures to be in him. 20. By this which I have said, it is now evident, that the Nestorians spoke like Catholics, but they thought contrary to Catholics: their words were holy and orthodoxal, but their sense, and meaning, was blasphemous, and heretical. Neither was this any new policy of the Nestorians; The Arians, the Pelagians, almost all heretics, have practised the like: out of them all, I will here allege but one example. Vitalis z Elias Cretens●●n Greg. Nizian. Epi. 2. ad Clidon. a Presbyter of Antioch, was accused unto Damasus to maintain in some part the heresy of Apollinaris, as denying Christ to have a soul or mind; At the motion a Poscente illo (Damaso) ut fidem suam exponeret, eam scriptis mandatam edidit. ibid. of Damasus, he delivered in writing a confession of his faith. In that confession, disertis verbis confessus est in Christo, sicut carnem ita & mentem b Baron. an. 373. nu. 3. : he in plain terms professed Christ to have as well a soul as a body. This his confession seeming at the first to be sound c Prima fronte recta & sana visa (ea professio) id●irco & Damasus & bic divinus ma ister (Gregorius) eam admiserunt, quod abditam & occultam franaen nullo modo depre●bendisseat, nec versutam malignitatem sub verbis latentem. Elias Cret. loc. cit. and good, was approved for catholic, both by Pope Damasus, by Gregory Nazianzen and other Catholics, who suspectd no heretical fraud to lie hid under such fair and orthodoxal words, for in his confession of faith, Scripturae d Elias Cret. ibid. verba sine ulla depravatione collocabat, nihil prorsus immutans, nec orationis seriem adulterans: Vitalis had placed the very words of the Scripture, not depraved, not any way changed, neither the order, nor writing of them being corrupted. But when Vitalis e High cum discipulis suis abditis. & mystis, de absconditis theologicum instillant sermon●●, qui madmodum & Manichei, totam eis morbum revelantes▪ Greg. Nazian. Epist. 2. ad Clidon. came among his own fellows, to whom he opened his secret meaning and his fraud, as the Manichees were wont to do among their electi, he then told them, That by the soul f Animam & rationem ac mentem, (Christi) divinitatem ipsam introducunt, t●nquam ipsa sola carni sit admistae Mentem, divinitatem Christi dicantes. Greg. ibid. and mind which he had acknowledged in Christ, he meant nothing but the very Deity itself, which unto Christ's body, was as the soul & mind, to animate it with life, sense, and reason, which was one part of the heresy of Apollinaris. As soon g Statim ac dolum sens●runt, fraudulentum hominem ab ecclesia proscibun●. Elias Cret. loc. cit. as Pope Damasus, and Gregory Nazianzen knew of this fraud, they not only rejected Vitalis out of their communion, but condemned as heretical, and that also with an Anathema denounced against it, Fidei libellum, that very same profession of faith made by Vitalis, which themselves before had approved, which fact Gregory h Ne nos accusent quod Vitalis fidem prius quidem probaverimus, nunc vero repudiemus. Greg. Naz Epist. 2. ad Clidon. & similia habet in Epi. 2. ad Hell. defendeth as just and right, both for himself, and for Damasus. 21. From this, two things are specially for our present purpose to be observed. The former, that an heretical profession may be made in most orthodoxal terms, yea in the very words of the holy Scripture, not corrupted, not altered, not changed, for so was this heretical confession of Vitalis. The other is, that the self same profession of faith, if we look only at the words, may be allowed for orthodoxal, when the sense thereof is and appeareth to be orthodoxal, and when there is no evidence to the contrary, but that the party who makes that profession, as he speaks orthodoxally, so also meaneth orthodoxally: and that same profession also, may justly be condemned for heretical, when by any overt act, or outward evidence, it doth certainly appear, that the party who made that confession, by, and under those orthodoxal words, meant by a fraudulent, and equivocating collusion, to express an heretical sense: for while there appeared no cause to mistrust Vitalis, Pope Damasus and others approved his profession, as orthodoxal: but as soon as they knew he meant heretically, they condemned, and anathematised the very self same profession as heretical. The reason of all which is, that which the same Gregory i Greg. Epist. 2. ad Clid. , and after him justinian k Iust. in Edict. §. Tali. expresseth, quoniam eaedem voces, because the very same words, if they be rightly expounded, and understood, are pious, but if they be taken in an heretical sense, they are impious. 22. That which Damasus and Gregory did in the confession of Vitalis, must be done in the profession of the Nestorians: when Catholics say there are in Christ two natures, and one person, their confession is orthodoxal, because they say it in an orthodoxal sense, using the words as they ought to be in their right, natural, and usual signification: But when the Nestorians say the very same words, their saying is heretical, because they say it in an heretical sense, abusing the words, to an equivocal, unnatural, and unusual signification. Nay, it not only must, but it was said, it was decreed in this very case of Nestorius, and that by the whole general Council at Ephesus, themselves being Catholics professed in Christ, two natures, and one person, and yet they condemned l Nestorium dua● quidem naturas, et unam personam dicentam Ephesina prima Synodus condemnavit. Iust. in Edict. §. Tali. and accursed Nestorius, who in words said the very same, acknowledging in Christ two natures, and one person. Whose judgement herein being followed both by the Council at Chalcedon, & this 5. Synod, & in a word, by the whole Catholic Church, is a warrant authentical, that a profession being for words, one, and the self same, may and aught in some to be judged orthodoxal, & in others condemned as heretical, and the saying of old Ennius m apud G●ll. lib. 11. ● a. 4. though spoken to another purpose, is verified in this, Eadem dicta, eadem que oratio aqua non aeque valet. 23. It is not enough then to prove either Ibas to be a Catholic, or his Epistle orthodoxal, because in it Ibas professeth two natures, and one person in Christ, (for Theodorus, and Nestorius professed the very same) but the sense and meaning of his words, set down in that Epistle, must be exactly considered; whether he meant not as other Nestorians, and even as Nestorius himself did; two such natures, as make two distinct persons also, and whether he called them not one person, in such a sense, as meaning that they were one, not by natural, or personal subsistence, but only by affection, and cohabitation. If it may appear that this was indeed the meaning of Ibas in his Epistle, then will those words of his profession, be so far from proving either him or his Epistle to be Catholic, as Vigilius and Baronius do thence infer, that it will demonstrate both Ibas in making that profession, and Vigilius and Baronius in defending it, to approve and maintain Nestorianisme as the only Catholic Faith. 24. But can this think you be showed indeed? It may: and that most clearly, and most certainly. The Emperor justinian in his religious Edict both testifieth and demonstrates this. Heretics, saith he n Edict. Iust. §. Tal● , omitting other blasphemies in this Epistle of Ibas, allege this only, which the Author of that Epistle spoke to beguile the simple thereby, in that he professeth duas naturas, unam virtuten; unam personam, two natures, one power, one person, which we ourselves also do confess. Sed certum est, quod unicuique naturae suam personam attribuit; but it is certain, that the Author of that Epistle (Ibas) doth attribute to either nature a several person, even as do Theodorus and Nestorius, whom this Writer doth defend: For, they plainly teaching two natures of the Word of God, or of Christ, whom they esteem to be no more than a man, do call them (those two natures) one person, per affectualem conjunctionem, by an affectual conjunction, and as having one dignity, and one honour. And it is clear that the writer of this Epistle, saying that there is one virtue, and one power of the two natures; doth herein follow the foresaid heretics, Theodorus in his impious book of the incarnation, and Nestorius in many of his writings, but specially in his Epistle to Alexander, where he saith that there is one authority, one virtue, one power, one person, in respect of dignity and honour due unto them, whereby it is declared that the author of this Epistle, did according to their perfidious impiety, use vocabulo naturarum pro personis, this word Natures, for Persons: for one authority, one power, one dignity and honour, non in diversis naturis, sed in diversis personis dicitur, is not said to be in diverse natures, but in diverse persons, of the same nature, as in the Trinity we profess. Thus justinian both truly, and profoundly. 25. The fifth general Council witnesseth the same, and almost in the same words. The author (say they o Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. ) of this Epistle, teacheth two natures, one virtue, one person, one son. Sed certum est quod pro personis naturas ponit, & affectualem unitatem dicit, but it is certain that he taketh the name of natures, for persons, and understandeth an affectual unity, even as do Theodorus, and Nestorius, whom this writer doth defend and praise: Thus both the Emperor and the whole general approved Council, witness Ibas to mean by two natures, two persons, and by one person, one by affectual, not by personal unity, and they witness this not as a thing doubtful, or uncertain; but they seal it with a Certum est, this is certain, 26. The Epistle itself doth so abundantly declare this truth, that none I think but a Nestorian, can make any doubt thereof. Maris to whom Ibas writ this was a Nestorian heretic: The end of his writing was to confirm, both Maris and the rest of that sect in their heresy. Had Ibas writ this touching two natures, and one person, in an orthodoxal sense, he had utterly condemned that same doctrine, which he purposely commendeth; he had overthrown Nestorianisme, which he by this Epistle, meant to establish. Again, how could he have condemned cyril or the Ephesine Council as heretical, had he believed the two natures to be personally united in Christ? for that is the self same which Cyrill, and the Council defendenth. Or how could he have commended Theodorus, for a teacher of the truth, who denies the personal, and holds only an affectual unity of those two natures, had Ibas meant that there had been a true personal and Hypostatical union of them? Take the words in the Nestorian sense, there is a perfect harmony in the whole Epistle: take them in the orthodoxal sense, the beginning will then jar from the middle and end, this makes a discord in the whole writing, yea, it makes the profession of Ibas to fight with the main scope and purpose of Ibas. 27. That one place in the end of the Epistle, concerning the union, makes this most evident, Ibas saith that among other things Paulus Emisenus required, and Cyrill consented to anathematise those who profess, quia una natura est divinitatis, & humanitatis, that there is one nature of the deity and humanity in Christ. Had Ibas by one nature, meant one essence, so that both the humanity, and deity were one essence, why should they require cyril to anathematise that? for neither cyril, nor any Catholic ever affirmed there was only one nature, that is, one only essence in Christ. But by nature, Ibas understood Person, and so its true that Cyrill taught one nature, that is, one only person in Christ, whereas Nestorius, Ibas and all the Nestorians affirmed two such Natures, that is, two persons to be in Christ: according to which sense Ibas saith, that Paulus dealing with cyril to yield to Nestorianisme, and on the behalf of the Nestorians, required him to anathematise those who say there is but one Nature, that is but one person in Christ: and he slanderously adds, that Cyrill consented so to do: that is, that he subscribed indeed to all Nestorianisme, and renounced the Catholic saith, the decree of the Ephesine Council, and his own twelve Chapters. In which slanderous report Ibas insulting saith, Non enim quisquam audet dicere quia una est natura, None dare now say that there is one nature of the divinity and humanity, one nature, that is, one essence: no Catholic then, or ever, did say, but none dare now say, that there is one Nature, that is, one person in Christ, which all Catholics both then, and ever said, and this the very next words do declare; but now they do profess to believe in templum, & in eum qui in hoc habitat, in the temple, and in him who dwelleth in the temple, which was the very comparison of Nestorius p Si quis di●erit Christum Deu●● verum esse, & non potius nob●●●m d●um, hoc est, exhabitasse naturam nestra per id qu●d unit●s est nostrae, anathema sit, Nestorius in anathematismo 1. contra Cyrill. anath. § 1. in Act. Conc. Eph 2 to. ca 5. in Appen. pa. 768. , to express that the two natures in Christ, are two persons, as are the house and inhabiters, and one not by personal, but only by affectual unity and cohabitation. So clear it is that Ibas by his confessing of two natures meant two persons, and by confessing one person, meant one by affection, but not by personal union: that is, meant all in an heretical, and Nestorian sense, and nothing in the true Catholic, and orthodoxal meaning. 28. But what seek I further proof of this matter, seeing the fifth Council, approved by the whole catholic Church, hath defined the whole q Tota Epistola haeretica est, Epistola per omnia contraria est definitioni a Synodo Chalced. factae. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a.b. Epistle to be heretical, accursing every one who defendeth it, or any part of it. An undeniable proof, not only that the profession of Ibas made therein of two natures and one person, is heretical, but that Vigilius and Baronius, for this very point are anathematised by the whole Church, because they defend that profession in this Epistle as Catholic and orthodoxal, which by so many, so evident demonstrations, and even by the consenting judgement of the whole Church, is condemned for heretical. And this I hope may suffice to explain or illustrate the Pope's meaning in the Position or conclusion which he undertakes to prove in his reason, that Ibas was a Catholic, in making this so orthodoxal, and Catholic a profession in his Epistle, of two natures and one person. 29. Let us now come unto the reasons, whereby our Author Vigilius proves this profession to be Catholic. Those are specially three, in which, because they all depend on that which hath been declared in the position, we may be the more brief. The first is, because Dioscorus r Dioscorus Ibam propter hanc specialiter fidei professionem qua duos naturas, unam virtutem, unam personam apertissime confitetur, haer●ticum condemnavit. Const. Vig. nu. 195. , and the Ephesine Lactrocinie did judge both this profession of Ibas, and Ibas himself for making this profession, to be heretical, propter hanc fidei professionem, for this profession of two natures and one person, he condemned and deposed Ibas. Now the judgement of Dioscorus to have been unjust, and heretical there is no doubt, and therefore the confession of Ibas which he condemned must be acknowledged as orthodoxal, and Catholic, as being repugnant to the heretical doctrine of Dioscorus. A very poor and silly collection for a Pope: and I doubt not but Vigilius would have derided it, had not Nestorianisme at this time bereft him of all sound reason and judgement. Dioscorus and his Ephesine conspiracy maintained the heresy of Eutiches, which denieth r Eutiches dixit, confitemur ex ●nabus naturis fuisse dominum nostrum ante adunationem, post vero adunationem unam naturam consitent. Dioscorus & Synodus (Ephesina 2.) dixit, consentimus huic & ●os omnes. Act. Conc. Ephes. recitata in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa 28. b. two natures at all, or any way either making one or two persons, to be in Christ after the incarnation. So whether one held the same two natures, to make but one person, as the Catholics said, or to make two distinct persons as the Nestorians affirmed, it was all one to Dioscorus; The very holding of two natures to be in Christ, either of those ways made one an heretic in the judgement of Eutiches, Dioscorus, and their Ephesine Synod. The heresy of Eutiches did equally contradict both the Catholic truth and the Nestorian heresy, because they both consented in one common truth, that there are two distinct natures, or essences abiding in Christ. If this judgement of Dioscorus against Ibas, will prove either him or his Epistle to be Catholic, the very like effect it must have in Theodorus, in Nestorius, in all Nestorians, and in all their writings; they all with Ibas profess two natures to abide in Christ, they all by the judgement of Dioscorus and his Synod, are heretical. So either must Vigilius approve all Nestorians for Catholics, if this reason for Ibas be effectual, or if they be truly heretics, whom Dioscorus yet hath condemned, as well as Ibas, then is this his reason ineffectual to prove from the condemnation of Dioscorus, Ibas or his profession to be Catholic. 30. His second reason is drawn from the likeness and identity of faith in Flavianus and Ibas, damnat s Vigil. Const. nu. 195. quoque propter duarum naturarum vocem, Dioscorus did also, or for the same cause, condemn Flavianus, for which Ibas was condemned, to wit, for professing two natures in Christ. Seeing then it is known, that the profession of Flavianus was Catholic, the profession also of Ibas made in this Epistle, being like to that of Flavianus, must needs be Catholic; My annotation on this reason of Vigilius is, that it is inconsequent, sophistical, and worth nothing at all, Ibas indeed in words said the like with Flavianus, but Flavianus said it in a Catholic sense, holding those two natures to make but one person or personal subsistence, and Ibas said it in this Epistle in an heretical sense, holding those two natures to make two distinct persons, or two personal subsistences. To Dioscorus it was all one to say as Flavianus did, or as Ibas in this Epistle doth; for seeing they both jump in this, that two natures or essences do remain after the incarnation, they are both alike heretics to Dioscorus, though in truth the profession of Flavianus made him a Martyr, and the profession of Ibas, set down in this Epistle, being in words the same, make him an heretic. Or if Ibas be a Catholic for professing in words the same which Flavianus did, then by this reason of our Author Vigilius, Theodorus, Nestorius, and all the Nestorians, are Catholics, because they all profess with Flavianus, atwo natures, and one person to be in Christ in the same manner as Ibas here doth. 31.. His third and last reason is drawn from the judgement of the Council at Chalcedon; they t Vig. Const. nu. 195 condemned Dioscorus and Eutiches, but they embraced Ibas: an evidence, that as they judged the profession of Dioscorus to be heretical, so they esteemed the profession of Ibas to be orthodoxal; yea, even this which he maketh in this Epistle; for after that cyril had once explained his Chapters, which was before this Epistle was writ, after that time, in Catholicae fidei rectitudine ab eâdem Chalcedonensi Synodo judicatus est Ibas permansisse; Ibas was by the Synod at Chalcedon judged to have continued in the right profession of the faith. The only gloss fit for this reason is, that it is fallacious, untrue, and slanderours: fallacious; for the Council of Chalcedon received Ibas indeed, but not for this profession made in his Epistle, which that holy Council both knew, and condemned as heretical, but, as before we have declared, for his consenting to the Ephesine Council, and condemning of Nestorius' first before Photius, & Eustathius, & then before themselves in the Council at Chalcedon; upon this, whereby Ibas did in truth condemn his own profession made in this Epistle, and this whole Epistle, upon this I say; and not for professing in this Epistle two natures and one person, was Ibas received by the Council at Chalcedon: untrue; for neither did the Council of Chalcedon judge Ibas to have been a Catholic, or hold the Catholic faith, upon the declaration of Cyrils Chapters; much less did they judge him to have continued ever after that time, in the orthodoxy of faith: slanderous; for Vigilius by saying that the Council of Chalcedon held Ibas for a Catholic, upon, or shortly after the declaration of Cyrils Chapters, makes them all guilty of Nestorianisme: long after that explanation did Ibas write this Epistle, wherein all the blasphemies of Nestorius, are maintained. Had they judged him, since that Explanation to be a Catholic; they must approve this Epistle for Catholic, and so prove themselves to be heretical, to be Nestorians. Thus Vigilius, to cloak his own heresy, would fain fasten it upon the holy Counsel of Chalcedon, which was so far from partaking with Vigilius herein, that by their definitive sentence, this very u Tota Epistola haeretica est. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. b. profession of two natures, and one person, made in this Epistle; yea, every part of this Epistle, is condemned for impious, and heretical. And this I hope may serve for an explanation of Pope Vigilius his third reason to prove Ibas a Catholic, (drawn from this profession of faith, made in this Epistle) until some Annalist like Baronius will help us to a better Commentary. 32. The second reason of Vigilius, set down in the words before recited to prove Ibas a Catholic, is drawn from his approving of the Ephesine Council at the judgement before Photius & Eustathius; He there, saith Vigilius x In Const. nu. 194. , most plainly approved the Ephesine Synod, and the doctrines decreed therein, he professed them to be equal to the Nicene decrees; Photius the judge, exceedingly commended Ibas, that he was so forward to profess the true faith, and wipe away all suspicion of heresy from him: how could Ibas then be aught else but a Catholic, who made such a Catholic confession? Truly when Ibas made this confession before Photius and Eustathius, there is no doubt but he was then a Catholic; but Vigilius his purpose is to prove him to have been a Catholic, when he writ this Epistle, ever x His Capitulis à Cyrille explanatis, devotè in ejur communionem concurrit. Vig Const. nu. 193. post explanationem 12. Capitulorum Ibas professus est se habuisse Cyrillum orthodoxum, et in communione ipsius ad exitum permansisse. Ibid. nu. 194. since the time that Cyrill explained his Chapters; and Baronius, who is very sparing of his speech in this whole matter, yet both saw, and professeth this to be the true intent of Vigilius; for he y Bar. an. 553. nu. 193. telling us, that whereas those words in the end of the Epistle of Ibas, [None dare now say, there is one nature, but they profess to believe in the Temple, and in him who dwelleth in the Temple] were wont to be taken by the Nestorians in such a sense, as if in Christ there were two persons, ne Ibas putaretur ejusdem esse in verbis illis sententiae cum Nestorianis; lest Ibas might be thought to have the same meaning with the Nestorians in those words; Vigilius bringeth a declaration of those words, how they are to be brought to a right sense, and this he teacheth, by showing how Ibas in the Acts (before Photius and Eustathius) embraced the Ephesine Council. So Baronius: by whose help, besides the evidence in the text itself: it now appears, that Vigilius, by this profession of Ibas, made before Photius and Eustathius, would prove Ibas to have been a Catholic when he writ this Epistle, and that in it Ibas was not ejusdem sententiae cum Nestorianis; of the same opinion with the Nestorians. 33. A reason so void of reason, that I could not have held patience with the Pope's Holiness, had not Nestorianisme dulled his wit and judgement at this time. The judgement before Photius and Eustathius, was in the year when Posthumianus and Zeno were Consuls, or in the next unto it, as the Acts z judicium illud Photij, et Eustathij extat cum Acts in co, in Conc. Chal. Act. 9 et 10. do testify, that is, according to Baronius account, an. 448. The union b Vt supra probatum est. Ca 11. betwixt john and Cyrill was made in the next year after the Ephesine Council, that is, an. 432. The Epistle of Ibas was writ by Baronius Almanac in the very moment of the union; a Bar. illo an. nu. 57 but in truth, two or three years at the least after the union, as before we have proved. Now I pray you, what a consequent, or collection call you this? Ibas being suspected of Nestorianisme, to clear himself, consented to the Ephesine Council, and showed himself to be a Catholic, sixteen years after the union, or thirteen years after he writ this Epistle: therefore at the time of the union, and of the writing of this Epistle, he was a Catholic also, and not a Nestorian. Why, twelve or sixteen years might have a strange operation in Ibas; and there is no doubt but so it had? In so many revolutions Ibas saw, how both himself and other Nestorians were publicly condemned by the Church, and by the Emperor, and hated of all, who had any love to the Catholic faith: He saw that himself was personally called coram nobis, for maintaining that heresy: he knew, that unless he cleared himself before those judges, deputed by the Emperor to hear and examine his cause; he was in danger of the like deprivation, as Nestorius, and some others had justly felt. The serious and often meditation of these matters wrought effectually upon Ibas, and therefore before Photius & Eustathius he renounced, disclaimed, and condemned Nestorianisme, and so at that time proved himself, by his profession before them, to be a Catholic, as he had before that time, and specially when he writ this Epistle, demonstrated himself to be, not only an earnest, but a malicious and slanderous heretic. I cannot illustrate the Pope, my Author's reason, by a more fit similitude, than of a man once deadly sick of the Pestilence, but afterwards fully cured and amended; for Vigilius his reason is, as if one should say, This man was not sick of the Pestilence, no not when the sore was running upon him, and he at the very point of death, because some twelve or sixteen years after, he was a sound man, clear from all suspicion of the Pestilence. Not needeth this second reason of Vigilius any further explanation. 34. We come now, in the last place, to that which Vigilius maketh his first reason in the former text; into which, because he hath compacted the very venom of the Nestorians, we must be enforced to take somewhat the more pains, in our Commentary upon it. This reason (in which, it seems, the Pope puts his greatest confidence) is drawn from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters, of which c Vig. Const. nu. 192 193, 194. Vigilius saith, that Ibas at the first, & before Cyrill had explained them, misconceived the meaning of Cyrill, and therefore seemed to speak against Cyrill: but so soon as Cyrill had explained them, and decared his own meaning, than Ibas, and all the Eastern Bishops forthwith embraced the communion with Cyrill; and ever after that, Ibas continued a Catholic. This Epistle then of Ibas, and profession of faith made therein, which certainly followed the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, must needs be Catholic, & declare Ibas, when he writ it, to have been a Catholic; seeing, when he made this confession of faith, and writ this Epistle, he held the same faith with Cyrill, and therefore no doubt held the Catholic faith. This is the full sum and effect of the Pope's reason, taken from the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, and for the excellency of it, it spreadeth itself into every part of the two other reasons also, as containing an explication of them, or giving strength unto them; for which cause we are with more diligence and circumspection to examine the pith of it. 35. And that we may more clearly behold and admire the Pope's Artificium, in handling this reason, we are to observe five several points thereof. The first, a piece of the Pope's Rhetoric, in that he saith d Nu. 193. that Ibas before the Explanation and union, whilst he doubted, and misconceived the meaning of Cyrill, visus est ei obloqui, he seemed to speak against cyril at that time. He seemed: Now Ibas professeth of himself, that he then called e Donec seipsum interpretatus fuisset, quia Orientale Concilium cum vocabat haereticum, et ut haereticum condemnavit, haereticum eum et ego putavi. verba Ibae, in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. a. cyril an heretic, that he followed john f Quando Orientale Concilium eum, quasi haereticum anathematizavit, secutus sum primatem meum: verba Ibae, ibid. pa. 112. b. , and the Conventicle, which held with him, and so that with them he counted, and in plain terms, called Cyrill h Ita Cyrillum vocatum à Conciliabulo johannis, supra ostendi ca 11. an author of schism, a disturber of the peace of the Church, a despiser of imperial authority, an upholder of open tyranny, an Archhereticke, and chief of the conspiracy, that he condemned, accursed, anathematised him, and that with such a detestation, that though Cyrill i Et juravimus quod Cyrillus, etiamsi rejecerit Capitula, à novis suscipiendus non sit, eo quod Haeresiarches factus sit. Epist. Degatorli Conciliabuli Ephesini, to. 3. Act. ca 10. Append. should disclaim his heresy, yet he should never be received into their communion. These and many like intolerable calumnies, and slanders, were the usual liveries, that Ibas and the rest of that Conventicle, during the time of the disunion bestowed upon Cyrill; so vile, and malicious, that no hyperbolical exaggeration, can sufficiently express the impiety of them, and yet the Pope's holiness, by the figure called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth so artificially extenuate, and almost annihilate them, as if in al● these, Ibas did but seem to speak against Cyrill, He seemed, what, to revile? nay, he seemed but to speak against him: Vigilius was too sparing and diminutive in his reproof, Non laudo. 36. The second part of his Artificium concerns Chronology; where he k Vig Const. nu. 193. saith, that when Cyrill had explained his Chapters, Ibas in ejus communionem devote concurrit; Ibas then ran, and hastened to communicate with Cyril. Nor did Ibas alone at that time accord with Cyrill, but he, cum l Ibid. nu. 194. omnibus Orientalibus Episcopis, with all the Eastern Bishops; they all then embraced cyril for a Catholic; and Ibas ever after that, m Ibid. et in Catholica fidei rectitudine judicatus est permansisse. Na. 195. usque ad exitum, even to his dying day, continued in the Catholic communion with Cyrill. Thus Vigilius. I cannot flatter the Pope, nor set any gloss upon this text, but this, that is utterly untrue. All the Eastern Bishops did not, at the time of the union betwixt john and Cyrill, much less at the time when Cyrill declared his Chapters, consent, or hold communion with Cyrill. Of Theodoret it is as evident as the Sun; for he, after the union, writ n Epistola illa Theod. extat in Conc. 5. Coll 5. pa. 558. b. to Nestorius, that he then held Cyrils Chapters heretical, and that he would not consent to that which was done against Nestorius, no, not though his hands should be cut off. The like is certain of Ibas, for that he continued a malicious and slanderous defender of Nestorianisme, after the union; this, his impious Epistle, written, at least, two whole years after that union, wherein he maintaineth all the impieties of Nestorius, doth demonstrate. So untrue it is which Vigilius affirmeth, both in general, that all the Eastern Bishops, and particularly, that Ibas, upon the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which was before the union, consented to Cyrill, and communicated with him: and much more untrue it is, that Ibas, ever after that Explanation, even to his dying day, remained a Catholic. 37. I say yet more for the further clearing of this matter, that neither all, nor so much as any one of all those Eastern Bishops, who took part with john, consented to cyril upon his declaration of the twelve Chapters, for Cyrill set forth his explanation during the time of the Ephesine Council, while he was imprisoned at Ephesus, Cyrill, saith Baronius o Bar. an. 431. nu. 153. , being left at Ephesus, was not idle there, but knowing that his twelve Chapters were carped at by adversaries, lest by their misinterpretations they might be infringed: ipse illis explanationem adjecit, himself set out an explanation of them. The very title prefixed to that explanation declares the same: which is p Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca 1. , Cyril's explanation of the twelve Chapters, Edita Ephesi, sacra Synodo exigente, published at Ephesus, the holy Synod requiring Cyrill to do the same. The Nestorians and their Conventicle witness this most clearly: for they who stayed at Ephesus, writ thus to the Legates, whom they sent to the Emperor at Constantinople. We q Eorum Epist. extat in Append. ad to. 3. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca 7. append. have sent unto you, recens factam expositionem ab Alexandrino, haereticorum capitulorum, the Explanation of the heretical Chapters lately made by Cyrill of Alexandria. This was writ by the Ephesine Conventicle, before the dissolution of the Synod, which ended about the eight day r Lin. in Not. ad Conc. Ephes. pa. 922. a. of November. 38. Now that upon this explanation published by Cyrill, the Eastern Bishops did not consent to cyril, nor run to communicate with him, their own words in the Epistle of the Conventicle last cited, do make manifest, where they say To. 3. Act. Eph. in append. ca 7. of this explanation of Cyrill, that he doth evidentius per illam ostendere suam impietatem, more plainly by it show his impiety, then by the Chapters themselves. So they more detested that explanation than the Chapters explained, it was more heretical in their judgement then the other. And john himself with the other Legates, assented to the judgement of their fellows: we are ready t Epist. legatorum ad suos in Epheso. in append. to. 3. Act. ca 10. pa. 791. b. say they to strive unto death, and neither receive cyril, neque capitula ab eo exposita, neither the Chapters by him explained. Whence it is without all doubt, that neither all, nor any at all, not john himself, who was the ringleader to the rest, did consent to Cyrill and hold communion with him, upon his publishing that Explanation of his Chapters, or upon their knowing thereof. 39 But how long after this explanation, was it before their union and communion with Cyrill? Peltanus and Binius say u Duravit haec controversia duos aut tres annos post Conc. Ephesinum dissolutum. Pax quarto demum anno impotrata est. Bin. Not. ante cap. 1. to. 5. Act. Eph. that those jars continued for three years after the end of the Council. So directly do they control the Pope's Constitution, wherein Vigilius so often affirmeth, that upon the publishing of Cyrills' explanation they ran to communicate with cyril: But because the account of Peltanus and Binius is certainly false, we will not press the Pope therewith. Thus much is evident, that the union betwixt john and Cyrill was not concluded till December; in the next year after the Council was ended. For Cyrill received neither john, nor any of the rest (save only Paulus Emisenus) till Paulus came the second time to Alexandria, bringing with him the orthodoxal profession of john * Vid. sup. ca 11. , and the other Bishops with him, at which time the union was fully concluded, and in token thereof both Paulus made that his memorable Sermon at Alexandria, on the twenty and ninth day of the month x Chiath mensis. Aegyptiacus quartus à Thoth, in quo est Aequinoctium aestivum vid. joseph. Scalig. lib. 4. de Emend: temp. in Anno Egypt. & lib. 7. in mensium divif. pa. 378. Chyath, which answereth to our December; and cyril writ that y Epist. Cyril. 28. Epistle, as an hymn of joy, which beginneth laetentur coeli, so far were the Eastern Bishops from hastening or running as Vigilius saith to the communion with cyril upon his explanation made known unto them, that they all save Paul, stayed a full year and more after that explanation, before they made peace or consented with Cyrill. 40. The third part of the Pope's Artificium is his Logic, which in very truth is nothing else but trifling sophistication: he supposeth that Cyril's explanation of the twelve Chapters, was the cause and occasion of the union betwixt Cyrill, and the rest. It was not, for that was published, and known unto them, more than an whole year before the union: nay that explanation did more alienate their minds from cyril, they detested that, more than the Chapters themselves, as we have clearly proved; so far was it from effecting the union, that it increased the breach and dis-union. The only true, and certain cause of the union, was the relenting of the Eastern Bishops, from their former stomach, obstinacy, and heresy: their subscribing to all that cyril required of them, to wit, to the condemning of Nestorius, and his heresies: till they did this, Cyrill was unmoveable, inflexible to any union: as soon as ever this was done, cyril most gladly embraced them, and sung his hymn, Let the heavens rejoice, for their consenting to the Catholic faith. Vigilius still harps on a wrong string, and fallaciously puts non causam, pro causa, which was not fitting for the Pope's gravity & judgement. 41. The fourth and fifth which are the chief parts of my Authors Artificium, concern his ethical, and Theological knowledge, which being confused and mingled together throughout this whole text, and manifesting the Pope to join to his heresy, slander, I must be forced to handle them both together. These consist in that which the Pope so often beats upon, that Cyrill explained his Chapters, and upon that explanation, Ibas and the other Eastern Bishops ran to embrace him, and his communion, what think you is that explanation of Cyrills' Chapters, which the Pope so eagerly urgeth, and makes the cause of the union with Ibas and the rest? Truly that's a mystery indeed, and contains in it the pith of Nestorianisme: Baronius was very loath to unfold this secret of the Pope's Art: but I hope to make it so perspicuous, as that none shall bemoan the want of the Cardinal's Commentary in this point. 42. The Nestorians being as Cyrill z Cyrill. Epist. 28. quae extat etiam in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca 6. saith, tantum ad calumniandum nati, men composed of lies and slanders, boasted that at the time of the union, the Catholics had renounced and condemned their former doctrines, and in all points consented unto them. And in particular they avouched this of cyril who was the chief agent on the Catholics part, and who most zealously had opposed himself to their heresy. This hath been so clearly proved before z Supra ca 1●. , both by the Epistles of cyril, by the writings of Theodoret, and by this very Epistle of Ibas, that I think it superfluous to add aught thereunto. Now the same Nestorians being no less subtle, then malicious: when they spoke or writ of this matter to any of their own consorts, to their Electi, one of which this Maris was to whom Ibas writ, than they said in plain terms, that Cyrill (and the other Catholics) had recalled, condemned, or anathematised his twelve Chapters, and his former doctrine; as in the end of this Epistle Ibas tells Maris, and wisheth him to show the same, Omnibus patribus nostris pacem amantibus, to all their Fathers, to the whole society of Nestorians, and all that loved the peace with them, that Cyrill did now, contraria docere priori doctrinae, teach the contrary to his former doctrine, that he anathematised it and all that held it. Lo here's plain dealing with Maris. Cyrill now condemneth and anathematizeth his twelve Chapters: but when they spoke to men otherwise affected then themselves, to such as could not endure to hear that cyril had recanted or anathematised his former doctrine, and Chapters, than they would not use such harsh and homely words of cyril, but they would signify the same thing, by a more facile, fair, and courteous phrase, saying cyril explained his Chapters, and they upon his explanation, received him into their communion, and held him for a Catholic. 43. This to be that which Ibas and other Nestorians meant by Cyrills' explanation of his Chapters, the words of Ibas himself uttered in the judgement, before Photius, & Eustathius, 16 years after the union, do make clear; for although Ibas had then in the main point renounced Nestorianisme: yet he still retained a touch or smack of their Nestorian language, he had not as yet perfectly learned to pronounce Shibboleth, nor wholly weaned himself, or disused his tongue from those Nestorian phrases, which were so familiar in their mouths. In those acts, Maris a Extant in Conc. Chalced. Act. 10. pa. 112. b. accuseth Ibas to have said of himself and the other Eastern Bishops, we would not have received Cyrill, unless he had anathematised his b Non dixisti? quia nisi anathematizasset Capitula sua, non reciperemus eum. ibid. Chapters. Ibas answered; I said, that neither I nor they would have received him, nisi seipsum interpretatus fuisset, unless he had explained himself. And when Maris again replied, what? Did you not say, quando flagitatum est in secreto, when you were privately, and in secret demanded, did you not then say, I received not cyril, donec anathematizasset sua capitula, till he had anathematised his own Chapters? Ibas to this answered: Truly, I remember not whether I said so or no: Si autem dixi, verè dixi, quia orientale Concilium recepit eum sua capitula retractantem, but if I said it, I said but the truth, for the Eastern Council received cyril when he had recalled his Chapters, otherwise I would have accounted him an heretic. So answered Ibas: plainly calling that in the one place the anathematising, and retracting of his Chapters, which in the other he called explaining or interpreting his Chapters; but the one was spoken in secret, the other openly, and by the one which is plain, he showeth what they meant by that mild phrase of explaining Chapters; and the like words are there often repeated. 44. Baronius darkly saw, and closely signified this, when reciting the effect of Ibas answer at that judgement, he saith c Bar. an. 448. nu. 65. , that Ibas professed, that he called cyril an heretic, before the union was concluded; postquam vero declarando sua Capitula, Cyrillus ista purgavit, & ob eam causam inita est inter eos concordia, but after that cyril by explaining his Chapters had purged them, and the union for that cause (of purging them) was once made, never after that did Ibas call Cyrill an heretic. So Baronius: declaring evidently, that when Ibas said that cyril expounded, or explained his Chapters, that explanation which he meant, was in truth a purging of those Chapters. And what was there, or is, in any one of those twelve Chapters to be purged out? They are all & wholly d Quod nulla ex parte ab Euangelica & Apostol ca doctrina aberraverim, id, postquam Epistolas quas od Nestorium conseripseram (earum una habet illa 12. Capitula (ea extat. to. 1. act Con. Ephes. ca 14.) legissent, communi om●ium sententia confessisunt omnes. Cyril. Ep. ad. Imper. to. 5. Act. Eph. ca 2. pa 829. a. orthodoxal, approved in ever part, both by the holy Ephesine Council, and after that by the Council at Chalcedon e Conc. Chal. in defin. fidei. Act. 5. . Seeing in them, and every part of them there is not one dram of any dross, seeing all of them are the pure and refined Catholic faith, if ought at all be purged out of them, it must needs be a Catholic doctrine, a position of the Catholic faith: the purging and wiping away of any part, purgeth out the whole Catholic faith, every part of it being so connexed with golden links together, that no man can deny one unless he renounce all; nor purge out any of that vital blood, but in stead thereof will succeed all the blasphemous humours of the Nestorians; Since the explanation which Ibas meant was joined with a purging of those Chapters, it was not, nor could it be any other but a plain denial, condemning and anathematising of those Chapters, and of the whole Catholic faith. 45. This will be more clear, if we consider the occasion of this phrase, and why the Nestorians called that an Explanation, which (as they meant) was a condemnation of his Chapters. S. Cyrill, as he was most orthodoxal in this point for his sense, so for his words he was not so strict and precise, but sometimes took the word Nature in an ample, and catachrestical signification, for Person, but commonly in the proper and usual signification, for Essence; whensoever he took it in the later sense, he never then said that there was one only nature in Christ, which was the heresy of Apollinarius, and Eutiches, but he still professed and maintained two natures, that is, two offences, against Apollinarius, to be truly in Christ. But when he said that one Nature was in Christ, he then ever meant one Person, & not one Essence. And in this use of the word [Nature] he followed Athanasius, whose words he allegeth and approveth, we f Athanassi verba apud Cyrillun lib. dé r●ct. fide ad Imper. to. 1. Act. Eph. Conc. ca 5. §. Porro. pa. 672. a. confess Christ to be the Son of God, according to the spirit; and to be the Son of Man, according to the flesh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not two natures to be one Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but one nature of the Word incarnate: Did Athanasius deny two essences, either the divinity or humanity in Christ? Nothing less: in that very sentence he professeth him to be truly God, and truly Man: but taking the word Nature for Person, he in that sense truly denies two, and professeth but one Nature; that is, one natural subsistence or Person to be in him. In like sort Cyrill himself, in his Epistle g Ea Epistola Cyril. citatur a Iustinian● in Edict. §. Credimus. to Successus, affirmeth that there is, una natura Dei verbi incarnati, one Nature of the Son of God incarnate: that is, the Son of God, being now incarnate is one Nature, or natural subsistence, or one, and not two persons, and yet one consisting of two natures, that is, two essences; the divine nature assuming flesh, and the humane nature being personally united unto the Godhead: which to be his true meaning, besides justinian's h Ipse pater (Cyril.) quoties unam n●●uram dixit verbi incarnatam, Natura nomine pro subsistetia usus est, Just in. in Edict. §. Credimus, pa. 493. a. testimony, infinite places do make evident, those especially in his book de i Extat to. 1. Act. Conc Ephes. ca 5. fide recta ad Theodosium, where he saith k Ibid. §. Quin. pa. 666. a. the scripture sometimes ascribes all that is spoken of Christ, to the man, sometimes all, unto God, and speaketh right in both, propter utriusque naturae in unam, candemque personam coitionem, by reason that both the natures do meet in one, and the self same person. Nor may we think this divers use of the same word, to be strange or unlawful, but as the name of Father, is given even in Scripture unto the Son l Tota Trinitas est Pater noster per creationem et gubernationem, ut Esa. 63. Et nunc Domine. Pater nosteres: licet persona Patris dicatur Pater Christi per naturam. Aquin. in ca 1 Epist. 2. ad Cor. v. 1. Et Paternitas in divinis prius importat respectum personae ad personam, quam respectum Dei ad creaturam. Aquin. p. 1. q. 33. art. 3. , when it is taken essentially, or put in opposition to the creatures, but never when it is taken personally, or put in opposition to the Son; Even so, when the name of Naturo is taken, (as in Athanasius, Cyrill, and others sometimes it is) without an opposition to Person, it may there signify the same with Person, and note any natural subsistence: but when in any speech there is expressed, or implied an opposition of Nature unto Person, there it ought only to signify the substances, or essences concurrant in in that person, and not the Person itself. Nor was it so great a fault in the Nestorians to take the word Nature for Person, but partly in drawing that which was the unproper, and abusive, into the ordinary and usual signification, (they seldom by Nature noting aught but Person) and specially for that they took Nature for Person, even in those very speeches wherein was noted and expressed an opposition of Nature unto Person, as in that profession which they made, acknowledging in Christ two natures and one person: where taking Nature for Person, they were enforced to take one Person, for one by affection, or cohabitation: neither of which truly making one person, they called that, one person, which in truth was not one, but diverse distinct persons. 46. This profession of one Nature, that is, of one natural subsistence, or of one person, the Nestorions disliked in Cyrill; and in his Chapters, and thought it (but very falsely) to be the same which Apollinarius taught, as appeareth by the Epistle of Ibas, where he m Ibas in Epist. apud Conc. Chal. Act. 10. thus writeth, Cyrill confuting the Books of Nestorius hath written, as Apollinaris did, that God himself, or the Word, is made man, so that there is no difference betwixt the Temple, and him who dwelleth in the Temple, for he hath written twelve Chapters, to show, quia una est natura divinitatis, & humanitatis, that there is one nature of the Deity, and humanity in Christ, which thing is full of impiety. So Ibas, reproving cyril and condemning in his Chapters the teaching of one Nature (to wit of one person) so that according to him the temple and inhabiter in it, are one and the same person. And Cyrill so taught n Locis citatis paulo ante. indeed, that they were one nature in that sense, howbeit in his Chapters he doth not call them one nature; but the Nestorians confounding Nature with person, upon Cyrils words, where in his Chapters he plainly teacheth them, to be one person o Si quis Dei verbum carni secundum Hypostasim unitum non consitetur, anathema sit, Ana h. Cyr. 2 Si quis Hypostases (i. Personas) in Christo distinguit et non connectit eas commistione illa quae est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, anathema sit. Idem anath. 3. to. 1. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca 14. , or one natural subsistence, affirmed him to say in them, that they were one Nature as they took Nature, which is true, for in his Chapters, he teacheth them indeed to be one person, which in the Nestorian language is one Nature. The very same by Theodoret's words is most clear, who p Theod. repreb. Capit. Cyrill. Anath. 3 extant ejus verba in Append tom. 5. Act. Con. Ephes. ca 2. pa. 8●1 b. for this cause reproved Cyrils Chapters, because he taught in them, non oportere subsistentias sive naturas dividere, that the subsistences, that is, the Natures ought not to be divided, and then he against Cyrill, having opposed that there is in Christ, both the perfect subsistence of God, and the perfect form or subsistence of man, he addeth, that it is pious to confess them both to be one Person, one Son, one Christ, and withal not amiss to call them duas subsistentias, sive Naturas, two distinct subsistencies or Natures united, and often doth he teach the like, manifestly showing, that both himself, as the other Nestorians, took Natures for Person, or personal subsistence, and that they condemned Cyrils Chapters for this cause, for that he denied two Natures (in that sense) to be in Christ, that is, two persons to be in him. 47. Now it is clear and certain, that cyril as well before q Voces quao de se Servator utitur, duabus subsis●e●us aut personis, nequaqua tribuimus. Nam etsi & ex d●abus rebus usque diversis in uni●a●●m inseparabilem coatuerit. etc. Cyril. Epist. ad Nestorium ante Conc. Ephes. extat tom. 1. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca 14. §. Porro. , as at r Duarum naturarum facta est unio, Cyrill. Epist. ad johan. Antioch. cum fiet unio. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph ca 6 §. confitemur. , and after t ●nam. verbi Oci subsistentiam esse certissimis est, quam incarnata novimus,— secundum hoc unum & solum Naturarum ve● substantiarum discrimen observatur Cyril. Epist. ad. Acat. post unionem. to. 5. ca 7. the union professed two natures, that is, two distinct essences, or substances to be in Christ, but so, that they both concurred to make but one person, which is both God and Man. And it is not unlike, but that cyril, as in his writings, so in his speeches (even to Paulus B. of Emisa) professed thus u Scilicet dum esse in Christo naturas, & substantias; quas nonnunquam etiam subsistentias vocat, ut in defence. anath. 1. Contra Theod. Rerum inquit ipsa●um sive subsistentiarum conventus est. factus. to. 5. ca 1. pa. 860. b. &, licet nos intelligamus unitas esse subsistentias, def. anathe. 3. ib. pa. 862. a. Vbi clarum est Cyrillum uti voce subsistentiarum non pro personis, sed pro substantiis & Naturis, et sit loquitur iuxta usum haereticorum, num ut habetur apud Theod. lib. 2. hist ca ●. Sardicense concitium ita dicebat. Nos hanc habemus catholicam fidem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitentur in deo patre et filio unam hypostasim vel subsistentiam, sed aiunt se uti ea voce in sensu hereticis vulgato et vulgariter intellecto, scilicet quod una sit essentia et substantia eorum non quod una sit persona. much, when he came to deal about the union, and in that defence of his Chapters, which he made in his refutation of Theodoret, this is often signified. Hence now the Nestorians took occasion of their speech. They knowing that cyril professed two Natures, took him to mean as themselves did, two Persons thereby; maliciously suppressing what cyril added, for the declaration of his meaning, that those two natures did both make but one Person, or personal subsistence. This being concealed, and the words (Natures) being taken not for essences, or substances, (as Cyrill meant) but, as the Nestorians misconstrued him, for Persons, they with great ostentation gave out amongst their friends, and slandered Cyrill, to have now so expounded, and explained his Chapters, as that he thereby wholly consented unto them, and recalled and condemned all his former Chapters, and doctrine. That this was the meaning of the Nestorians, in saying cyril explained his Chapters, the words of Ibas spoken before Photius and Eustathius compared with his Epistle, makes undoubted. For what there x In Act. apud Photium quae habentur in Canc. Chal. Act. 10. he calls, three or four times before them, interpreting, saying y Ibid. pa. 113. a. I myself and the Eastern Bishops did not nor would receive cyril: nor make union, nor hold communion with him, donec interpret at us est, till he had explained his meaning, and interpreted those Chapters, that, in other places of those acts z Ibid. pa. 112. b. , as also in his Epistle a Ibae Epist. in fine. , he in plain terms calleth anathematising his Chapters, & the doctrine of one Person taught therein, saying, Paulus required Cyrill, to anathematise such as profess one Nature (that is by the Nestorian dialect) one person in Christ, and God inclined the heart of the Egyptian to consent hereunto, and so contention ceased, and peace was made, and Cyrill, and the rest do now teach Contraria priori doctrinae, the quite contrary to their former doctrine, for before cyril taught in his Chapters, as Ibas b Ibas in principio Epistolae. said, that there is one Nature (that is one person) & that there is no (personal) difference betwixt the temple, and him that dwelleth in the temple; but now no man (not cyril himself nor any other) dare say that there is one Nature, (that is one Person) of the deity and humanity, but all do now profess to believe in the temple (as one person) and in him who dwelleth in the temple (as another distinct person.) So Ibas; expressly calling that in one place Cyrils anathematising of his Chapters, which in the other he calleth the explanation of his chapters. And this the Epistle of cyril to Acatius c Cyr epist. ad Acat. quae est 29. et extat, to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca 7. doth further witness, for he hearing how the Nestorians slandered him in this point, doth there at large declare, how by his profession of two natures, he did not consent with them, in teaching two persons, but did ever both before and after the union, teach the same truth herein, to wit, that in Christ there are two d Scripsi, me neque cum Ario, neque cum Apollinario sensisse unquam— sed opus esse Naturaris observare differentiam, ib. §. Audivi. natures, (that is essences or subsistences) against the Appollinarians, and yet that Christ is but one e Nestorij cacodixia ab hac doctrina longe diversa est, nam duas Naturas nominot, easque a se invicem divellit. De●● seorsimponit (ut unam personam) et ho●inem itidem seorsim▪ (ut aliam personam) ibid. §. Verum dicent. Person, or personal subsistence, against the Nestorians. So untruly did they slander him to reach contrary to his Chapters, or by his explaining of them, to have condemned, recalled, and anathematised his Chapters. 48. We do now clearly see, not only that the explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which Ibas, and the other Nestorians of his time meant, is an utter condemning of them all; but upon what pretence and occasion they called his anathematising, an Explation of his Chapters. If now it may further appear, that Vigilius in his Constitution meant this Nestorian, and slanderous Explanation; I doubt not, but his text will be sufficient, easy, and clear in this point: And though none, who diligently peruseth the Pope's words, can, as I think, doubt hereof; yet because it is not fit, in a just Commentary, to give naked asseverations, specially in a point of such moment, I will propose three or four reasons to make evident the same. The first is taken from the correspondence and parity of the effect, which followed upon this Explanation, as the cause thereof: It is no doubt but Vigilius meant such an explanation of Cyrils Chapters, as upon which, that union which Ibas held with Cyrill, at the time when he writ this Epist. ensued; for Vigilius proveth Ibas f His abeo explanatis, in communionem ejus devotè concurrit. Vig. Const. nu. 193. at that time to have been a Catholic, because upon Cyrils. Explanation, he forthwith embraced the union with Cyrill, and ●an to communicate with him. Now it is certain g Vt ante probatum est ca 11. , that Ibas, when he writ this Epistle, approved not the orthodoxal, and true union, which Cyrill truly made with john, and the rest, upon their profession of the orthodoxal faith, sent unto him; but only the union in Nestorianisme, the slanderous union, which they falsely affirmed cyril to have made; wherefore it certainly followeth, that the Explanation of Cyrill, which Vigilius intendeth, as a cause of that union, can be no other than the slanderous explanation, wherein Cyrill was falsely said to have explained his Chapters; that is, anathematised them, and the doctrine delivered in them: for the true and orthodoxal explanation neither did, nor could effect that union in Nestorianisme, which Ibas embraced at the time when he writ this Epistle; it was the condemning of his Chapters, and in such sort to explain them, that they were anathematised; it was this, and no other explanation, which did make the union, whereof Ibas boasteth. Seeing then the heretical union of Ibas, followed upon that explanation which Vigilius here meaneth, it is doubtless, that the explanation also which he intendeth, is the same slanderous, & heretical explanation, which Ibas, and the other Nestorians ascribed to Cyril, & upon which they joined in union and communion with him. The cause was like the effect; the effect, an heretical, and slanderous union; the cause, an heretical and slanderous explanation. 49. The other reason is taken from the words of Vigilius, which, being very pregnant to this purpose, I shall desire the reader diligently to consider the same. Vigilius having said h Vig. Canst. nu. 194 , that, upon Cyrils' Explanation, Ibas, with all the Eastern Bishops, held cyril for a Catholic; addeth this collection thereupon, Ex quo apparet, By this it appeareth, Ibas, both before he understood the twelve Chapters of Cyrils, and when he suspected one Nature to be taught thereby, orthodoxo sensu, quod male dictum existimabat, reprobasse; then to have reproved those Chapters in an orthodoxal sense; and also after the Explanation of them, orthodoxo sensu, quae rectè dicta cognoverat, venerabiliter suscepisse; then to have approved them very reverently, and in an orthodoxal sense embraced that which he knew to be rightly spoken therein. So Vigilius: plainly affirming the sense of Ibas to have been orthodoxal, both before, and after the Explanation, or union (made by john, and all the i Cum omnibus Orientalibus Episcopis. Ibid. rest,) with cyril: At both those times the doctrine, sense, and meaning of Ibas was the same, and at both orthodoxal: and Cyrill, by that Explanation which Vigilius meaneth, declared his Chapters to have the very same meaning, and orthodoxal sense which Ibas had; which, when Ibas perceived to be the sense of Cyrill, forthwith he held cyril for a Catholic, and joined communion with him, and reverently received his doctrine, as being consonant to the sense of Ibas, which was still orthodoxal; so there was no alteration in the sense of Ibas, that both before, and after Cyrils' Explanation, was orthodoxal, only before the union, or Explanation Ibas misunderstood Cyrils' meaning, and thought he had taught one Nature to be in Christ, whereas cyril by his Explanation showed, that he meant just as Ibas did, that there were in Christ two Natures, even in that orthodoxal sense which Ibas had held, as well before, as after the Explanation. 50. Oh what a Circean Cup is Heresy? specially Nestorianisme? Pope Vigilius doth now show himself in his colours, and demonstrates that he is, as by some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quite transformed into Nestorius, Theodorus, or if there be any more heretical than they in that kind; for what, think you, was that sense of Ibas, which the Pope commends for orthodoxal? what was it first after the Explanation and union made betwixt john and Cyrill? I have manifested this before, and the Epistle of Ibas, written two years at least after that union, doth make it undeniably evident, that his sense was then, that there k Vt liquet ex Iba Epist. are two natures, making two persons in Christ, that the temple, and the inhabiter in the temple are two distinct persons, that Cyrils Chapters were heretical, in teaching one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ; in a word, his sense then was, that Nestorianisme, and nothing but Nestorianisme was Catholic, & that the decree at Ephesus, against Nestorius was heretical doctrine. This sense of Ibas, Vigilius, by his Pontifical and Cathedral Constitution, adjudgeth, and decreeth to be orthodoxal, and Catholic. Could Nestorius judge otherwise, or wish any other judgement? 51. It may be the sense of Ibas was better before the union, and Explanation; what was it then? Truly it was the very self same: So long, saith Ibas l Verba Iba in Acts apud Photium in Canc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 112. b. , as the Eastern Council anathematised Cyrill, (which was still, till the union) secutus sum Primatem meum, I followed my Primate, that was, john of Antioch; what his sense was, and the Synods with him, that was my sense. Now the sense of john, and his Conventicle, set down in more than twenty Synodall Epistles m Vid. decretum Conciliabuli tom. 3. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca 2. et reliquis cap. of theirs, was, that Cyrils twelve Chapters were heretical, contrary to the evangelical and Apostolical doctrine, that there are two Natures, making two Persons in Christ; that to teach one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ; was heretical: that Cyrill, and all that took part with him; or consented to his Chapters, were heretics; yea, condemned and anathematised heretics; that the holy Ephesine Council was a Conspiracy of heretics, of seditious and factious persons. This was the sense of john, this the sense of Ibas before the union: and this sense the Pope's Holiness hath decreed to be a Catholic and orthodoxal sense: The sense of Ibas, saith he, both before the Explanation, or union, and after it, was orthodoxal; so, by the Pope Vigilius his decree, it is good Catholic doctrine to teach two Persons in Christ; to teach, Cyrill, Celestine, the whole Ephesine Council, to be heretics, that is, in a word, to teach Nestorianisme, and nothing but Nestorianisme to be the Catholic faith. 52. But that which I principally aimed at, out of those words of Vigilius, was, to observe, that Cyrils Explanation here mentioned, and meant by Vigilius, neither is, nor can be aught else but an absolute condemning, and anathematising of his twelve Chapters; for by that explanation, which Vigilius intendeth, Cyrill showed, that his sense was the very same with that which Ibas had before, and after the union, but that sense which Ibas had before, and diverse years after the union, was, that the two Natures in Christ make two distinct Persons, and that Cyrils twelve Chapters, in which it is constantly taught, that there is but one Person (or, as the Nestorians spoke, but one nature) in Christ, are heretical, and to be anathematised, as being contrary to the Catholic faith; wherefore, that Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which Vigilius intendeth, is certainly a declaring and acknowledgement, that there is not one, but two distinct Persons in Christ; and that his own twelve Chapters, for teaching but one Person, are all of them heretical, and to be anathematised. 53. The third reason is taken from Vigilius his scope and purpose in this whole passage: Suppose Vigilius to have meant the orthodoxal Explanation n Quae extat in Acts Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca 1. set out by Cyrill, seeing that is wholly repugnant to the Epistle of Ibas, which is full fraught with Nestorianisme: Vigilius by approving that Explanation, had condemned this Epistle of Ibas, o Non diceret Iuvenalis Ibam esse orthodoxum, nisi ex verbis Epistola, esus confessionem f●dei orthodoxam comprobaret. Vig. nonst. nu. 193. and every part thereof. Seeing then by that Explanation which Vigilius intendeth, his purpose is, to confirm, and strengthen this Epistle of Ibas, and prove it to be orthodoxal, which is only done by approving the slanderous Explanation of cyril to be orthodoxal; the very scope, and main purpose of Vigilius doth declare, that it is not, nor can be the orthodoxal, but the slanderous and heretical Explanation only of Cyrils Chapters, which the Pope here meant, and by which, being commended for Catholic, he indevoureth to prove the Epistle, which shows Ibas to have consented most gladly, and reverently, as the Pope saith, to it, to be indeed Catholic. 54. The fourth and last reason is taken from the fit coherence, and congruity, which this exposition of Vigilius meaning, hath, with his whole text concerning this matter. Take him to speak of the true and orthodoxal explanation of Cyrill, his words are riddles, more obscure than Plato's numbers, yea, they are unreconcilable to the truth of the story: Ibas, saith the Pope p In Const. nu. 193 , upon Cyrils' Explanation, hastened and ran to communicate with cyril: Expound this of Cyrils orthodoxal Explanation, it is utterly untrue; Ibas detested q Misimus vestrae sanctitati recens sactam expositionem ab Alexandrino, haereticorum Capitulorum, evidentius etiam per illam ostendente suam impictatem, ait Conciliabulum Ephes. in quo Ibas in Epist. missae lobanni, et aliis, in Appen. ad to. 3. Act. Eph. Conc ca 7. pa. 790. a. Nos ad mortem instare parati sumus, et neque Cyrillum, neque capitula ab eo exposita suscipere. Ibid. ca 10. pa. 791. b. that, more than the Chapters themselves; he neither ran to embrace that, nor cyril for that, he fled from it as a serpent: and the like may be said of the rest. But take Vigilius to speak (as indeed he doth) of this slanderous and heretical Explanation, and then all the words of Vigilius are not only coherent among themselves, but perspicuous and easy. Ibas by an error r Illa quae in Ibae Epistola, in injurijs beati Cyrilli per errorum intelligentiae dicta sunt. Vig. Const. nu. 192. et quod de Cyrillo, Capitula ejus aliter intelligendo detraxerat. Nu. 193. misunderstood the words of cyril, (as thinkking him to teach one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ) and then he spoke injuriously against him, and called him an heretic▪ sed intellectu s Ibid. nu. 192. Pastea professus quia bis ab ●o explanatis, ec à se intellectis, in communionem ejus devote concur●erit; et de bis, quae prius aliter intellexerat, sit conversus. Ibid nu. 193. Capitulorum meliore recepto; but when Ibas better understood the Chapters of cyril, (when he knew that cyril professed two Natures, that is, two persons in Christ; and that cyril expounded his Chapters in such sort, that the humanity and deity, were each a distinct person) than Ibas amended all that he had said amiss of cyril, and called him no more an heretic, but embraced t Post explanationem beati Cyrilli fac●am, et intellectum Cyrilli sibi (Iba) declaraetum, Ibas, Cyrillum, ut orthodoxum babuit, et in communione ipsius per●mansit. Ib. nu. 194. him as a Catholic. Again, Ibas u Ibid. nu. 193. blamed Cyrill, while he understood not his Chapters aright, (while he thought, that but one person had been taught therein) but afterwards, his ab eo explanatis & intellectis; when Cyrill had explained himself, and Ibas understood his meaning, (that he meant either nature to a several person, and so that there were two natures in Ibas sense, that is, two persons in Christ) then, devotè concurrit, Ibas ran to communicate, and shake hands with Cyrill. Again x Ibid. , how should we not receive Ibas, being a Catholic, who though he seemed to speak against cyril, while he misunderstood his Chapters; nunc ab eo in quo fallebatur intellectu conversus; Now upon Cyrils' Explanation, he is converted from that error, whereby he was deceived: (for now he seeth cyril to profess two Natures, in the Nestorian sense, that is, two persons, whereas he erroneously thought cyril to teach but one Person in Christ:) Again y Ex quibus evidenter declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil de confession fidei reprebensum, quam constat esse laudatam, sed eundem, etc. Ibid nu. 193. , nothing is reproved of the confession of Ibas, (that is orthodoxal, as teaching two natures, that is, two persons in Christ) but Ibas hath refuted all, quod fallente intelligentia de Cyrillo male senserat; which he thought amiss of cyril, by the error of his misconceiving Cyrils meaning, (as thinking cyril to have taught but one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ) Lastly, the comparison which u Ibid. nu. 195. Vigilius sets down, betwixt Ibas, and Dioscorus, is hereby made easy and clear. Dioscorus, though he commended x Inventus est Dioscorus magis conari Ephesinam primam Synodum destruere, qui came sub execrabilis intellectus imagine defendebat, & amplius B. Cirillum criminatus est, laudans eam Dioscorus, quam Ibas sub falsi intellectus errore vituperans. Vig. Const. Ibid. Cyrill, and the Ephesine Council, for teaching one Nature in Christ, (to wit, one Nature in Dioscorus sense, that is, one Essence) did more wrong cyril, and the Council, than Ibas, who condemned them both, teaching one Nature (to wit, one in Ibas his sense, that is, one person) in Christ: For Dioscorus commended them in an execrable and heretical y Haeretico spiritis Ephesinam Synodum, & Cyrillum laudasse reperti sunt Dioscorus, et Eutiches. Ibid. sense, (as teaching one nature (in Dioscorus sense, that is, one essence, which to affirm is heretical) but Ibas z At vero Ibas, qui per errorem unam putans in his praedicari naturam (id est personam) prius vituperavit Capitula, et post declaratum sibi intellectum eorum (quod duas naturas Ibae sensus doceret) communicatorem se B. Cyrilli cum omnibus Orientalibus professus est. Ibid. nu. 195. condemned them in an orthodoxal sense, (as thinking them to teach one nature, in Ibas his sense, that is, one person in Christ) which to condemn is orthodoxal.) Again, Dioscorus, though it was explained unto him, that neither cyril, nor the Ephesine Council taught one nature, in his sense, yet did he by his heretical spirit persist in commending them, as agreeing with him in that heretical doctrine; but Ibas a Ibid. , when it was explained unto him, that Cyrill and the Ephesine Council taught not one, but two natures, (in Ibas his sense) by his orthodoxal spirit desisted presently to condemn them, and then embraced them both, as agreeing with him in his orthodoxal doctrine, of two natures, that is, of two persons in Christ. Lastly, Dioscorus, though he commended them, yet because he did it in an heretical sense, and with an heretical spirit, was justly condemned by the Council at Chalcedon; but Ibas, though he condemned them, yet because he did it in an orthodoxal sense, and with an orthodoxal spirit, amending what by an error, and misunderstanding he had done amiss, was approved by the Council of Chalcedon, and judged by them to have continued in the right Catholic faith. Thus by our exposition, that Vigilius meant the slanderous, and heretical explanation of Cyrils Chapters, is his whole text both coherent, and congruous to itself, and very perspicuous, and easy; which, if Vigilius should mean, or be expounded to have understood of the true and orthodoxal Explanation of Cyrill, would be, not only obscure, and inextricable, but even repugnant, as well to the scope as to the words and text of Vigilius. 55. Thus the whole text of Vigilius being elucidated, it is now easy to discern the two last parts of the Pope's Artificium which before I mentioned, for now you see that his Divinity is mere heresy, and Nestorianisme, and that his morality is unjustice, falsehood, and calumny, most injuriously slandering, not only Saint Cyrill; but the holy general Counsels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon to have (like himself) defended and embraced the same heresies of Nestorius, which by them all, is together with this decree of Vigilius anathematised and condemned to the very pit of hell. There needeth not, nor will I seek any other censure of this most shameful dealing of Vigilius; then the very words of Baronius a Bar. an. 433. nu. 10. concerning the Nestorians. Haec cum sciveris, perfacile intelliges: Seeing you have known these things, you may easily perceive, under whose banner and ensign these men fight. For seeing you have seen them by calumnies, lies, and impostures, publishing counterfeit Epistles, (counterfeit explanations) in the names of renowned men (such as Cyrill was) and patching lies unto lies, you may well know whose soldiers they are, even the ministers of Satan, transfiguring themselves into Angels of Light. Nescit enim pura religio imposturas, for true Religion is void of frauds and impostures: nor doth the truth seek lying pretences, nor the catholic faith support itself by calumnies and slanders: sincerity goeth secure, attended, only with simplicity; with which censure of Baronius (agreeing indeed to all Nestorians: but in an eminency; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Vigilius he being the Captain and King of them all) I end my Commentary on the Constitution of Vigilius; which although it be not so plausibly set down as Baronius would have done, had he thought good to have undertaken that office: yet I dare boldly affirm, it is delivered far more truly, faithfully and agreeably to the text, then either the Cardinal himself, or any other of the Pope's Gnathoes would ever have performed: for as I have not wittingly omitted any one clause, which might breed a doubt in this obscure passage; so have I not wrested the words of Vigilius to any other sense, than the coherence of his text: the evidence of reason, and manifold proof out of the historical narration and circumstances thereof do necessarily infer, and even enforce. 56. My conclusion now of this second reason of Vigilius and Baronius, for defence of this Epistle of Ibas, is this: seeing the one defineth, and the other defendeth both Ibas himself, and his profession in this Epistle, in this point, and in the sense of Ibas to be orthodoxal, because Ibas professeth therein two natures, and one person to be in Christ; and seeing as we have certainly proved, Ibas meant two such natures, as make two distinct persons, and one person, not by a natural, and hypostatical union, but only by affection, liking and cohabitation, which is the very heresy condemned in Nestorius: It doth hence clearly and unavoidably ensue, not only that this third Chapter touching the approving of the Epistle of Ibas, doth concern the faith, and is a question, and cause of faith, but that Vigilius first, and next Baronius, and then all who by word or writing, do defend either Vigilius or Baronius, or the Pope's judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, that they all by defending this Epistle as orthodoxal; or that Ibas by it ought to be judged a Catholic, do thereby maintain the condemned heresy of Nestorius to be the only Catholic faith. CHAP. XIII. Two assertions of Baronius, about the defenders of the Three Chapters, refuted: and two other against them, confirmed: the one. That to descent from the Pope in a cause of faith, makes one neither an Heretic, nor a Schismatic: the other, That to assent absolutely in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome, makes one both an Heretic, and a Schismatic. 1. HAving now demonstratively refuted the first evasion of Baronius, I would proceed to the second, but that Baronius doth enforce me to stay a little, in the examining of two Positions, which he collects and sets down touching this cause, the former concerning heresy, the later concerning schism. 2. His former is this, That a An. 547. nu. 36. both the defenders, and the condemners of these three Chapters were Catholics, neither of both were Heretics. Negatio vel assertio non constituebat quemquam haereticum; neither the condemning of these Chapters, nor the defending of them made one an heretic, unless there were some other error joined with it. Again, in b An. 553. nu. 23. these disputations about the three Chapters, the question was not such, ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens, dici posset haereticus: that one dissenting from another herein, might be called an heretic. So Baronius; who to free Vigilius from heresy, acquits all that deal either pro or contra in this cause, neither one side, nor the other are heretics. 3. See how heresy makes a man to dote. That this question about the three Chapters is a cause of faith, we have clearly and unanswerably confirmed; and Baronius himself hath confessed; That the defenders of them, and condemners, were in a manifest contradiction in this cause, (the former, by an evident consequent and cunningly defending; the other condemning the heresies of Nestorius) is most evident, and yet both of them in the Cardinal's judgement are good Catholics: neither the one, who with the Nestorians deny Christ to be God: nor the other, who affirm him to be God, may be called heretics. This truly is either the same heresy which the Rhetorians maintained, who as Philastrius saith c Haeres. 43. P●attol. lib. 17. Haeres. 3. praised all sects and opinions, and said they all went the right way; or else it is an heresy peculiar to Baronius, such as none before him ever dreamt of; That two contradictories in a cause of faith may be held, and yet neither of them be an heresy, nor the pertinacious defenders of either of them both be heretics. Baronius would be famous for a piece of new found learning, and an heretical quirk, above all that ever went before him, such as by which he hath ex condigno, merited an applause of all heretics which either have been or shall arise hereafter. For seeing in this cause of faith two contradictories may be held without heresy, the like may be in every other point of faith; and so with Vigilius, the Arians, Eutycheans, and all heretics shall have their quietus est: say what they will in any cause of faith, none may call them heretics. I commend the Cardinal for his wit. This makes all cock sure, it is an unexpugnable bulwark to defend the Constitution of Pope Vigilius. 4. Say you, neither the defenders, nor the condemners of these Chapters may for that cause be called heretics? For the condemners of them, trouble not your wit, they are and shall be ever acknowledged for Catholics. But for the defenders of them, who are the only men, that the Cardinal would gratify by this assertion, I may boldly say with the Prophet d jer. 2. 2●. , Though thou wash them with nitre and much soap, yet is their iniquity marked out: All the water in Tiber and Euphrates cannot wash away their heresy: for as we have before fully declared, the defending of any one, much more of all these three Chapters, is the defending of Nestorianisme, and all the blasphemies thereof, the condemning of the holy Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and of all that approve them, that is, of the whole catholic Church, and of the whole Catholic Faith. All these must be heretical, if the defenders of those three Chapters be not heretics. 5. Now against this assertion of Baronius, whereby he would acquit Vigilius and all that defend him from heresy: I will oppose another and true assertion, ensuing of that which we have clearly proved; and this it is: That, one or more, either men or Churches may descent from the Pope's Cathedral and definitive sentence in a cause of faith, made known unto them, and yet be no heretics. For to omit other instances no less effectual, this one concerning Vigilius, doth make this most evident. The cause was a cause of faith, e Vid. sup. ca 5. nu. 14. as Baronius himself often professeth. The Pope's definitive and Apostolical sentence in that cause of faith, made for defence of those three Chapters, was published and made known to the fifth general Council, and to the whole Church: this also Baronius confesseth f An. 553. nu. 47. vid. sup. ca 3. nu. 6▪ , and yet they who contradicted the Pope's Apostolical sentence in this cause of faith, made known unto them, were not heretics: this also is the confession of Baronius, whose assertion as you have seen is, that neither the condemners of these Chapters, nor the defenders of them were heretics. So by the Cardinals own assertions: one may contradict and oppugn the Popes known, Cathedral, and Apostolical sentence in cause of faith, and yet be no heretic. But what speak I of Baronius, the evidence and force of reason doth unresistably confirm this. For the whole fifth general Council contradicted, yea condemned and accursed the Pope's Cathedral and definitive sentence in this cause of faith made known unto them. The whole Catholic Church ever since hath approved the fifth Council, and the decree thereof, and therefore hath contradicted, condemned and accursed the Pope's sentence as the Council had done. And none I hope will be so impudently heretical, as to call not only the fifth general and holy Council, but the whole Catholic Church of God, heretics: who yet must all be heretics, or else the dissenting from, yea the detesting, and accursing the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith, cannot make one an heretic. 6. I say more, and add this as a further consequent on that which hath been declared, That none can now assent to their Popes, or to their Cathedral definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Roman Church, but eo nomine, even for that very cause, they are convicted, condemned, and accursed heretics. For the manifesting of which conclusion, I will begin with that their fundamental position of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in defining causes of faith, whereof before I have so often made mention. And to prove the present Roman Church to be heretical herein, two things are to be declared: the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church: the other, that this doctrine is heretical, and for such condemned by the Catholic Church. 7. For the former; that the assertion of Pope's infallibility in defining causes of faith, is the doctrine of the present Roman Church, I think none conversant in their writings will make doubt. Give me leave to propose some testimonies of their own. The Pope saith Bellarmine g Lib. 4. the pont. ca 3. § Sic. , when he teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith, nullo casu errare potest, he can by no possible means then err. And this, as he saith, is, certissimum, a most certain truth: and in the end he addeth, this is a sign, Ecclesiam totam sentire, that the whole Church doth believe the Pope to be in such causes infallible. So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church. The jesuit Coster, for himself and their whole Church saith; We h Ench. tit. de summo pont. §. Fatemur. do constantly deny the Pope's vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere, to be able either to teach an heresy, or to propose an error to be believed. When the Pope, saith Bozius i Th. Boz lib 18. de Sig. Eccl. ca 6. §. Sequitur. , teacheth the Church, or sets forth a decree of faith, Divinitùs illi praeclusa est omnis via, God then stoppeth every way unto him, which might bring him into error. Again k Idem. lib. 16. ca 8. §. Rursus. , in making such decrees, nunquam valuit aut valebit facere contra fidem, he never was, he never shall be able to do aught against the faith. We believe saith Gretzer l Des. ca 3. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. §. Terius. , the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chair, non secus ac olim Petri infallibile; to be no otherwise infallible, than the judgement of Peter was. And the m Idem def. ca 28. lib. 1. de pontis. §. Quocirca. gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peter's successors, ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant, that they shall define any error out of the Chair. This is saith Stapleton n Relect. Cont. 3. qu. 4. §. Circa. , a certain and received truth among Catholics, That the Pope when he decreeth aught out of his pontifical office, hath never yet taught any heretical doctrine, nec tradere potest, nor can he deliver any error: yea if it be a judgement o Rel. Conc. 6. q. 3. Art. 5. §. Respond●o. of faith, it is not only false but heretical, to say that the Pope can err therein. They, saith Canus p Loc. Theol. lib. 6. ca 7. §. Quid. , who reject the Pope's judgement in a cause of faith, are heretics. To this acordeth Bellarmine q Lib. 3. de verb. De● ca 8. §. Excutimus. , It is lawful to hold either part in a doubtful matter, without note of heresy, before the Pope's definition be given: but after the Pope's sentence, he who then dissenteth from him is an heretic. To these may be added, as Bellarmine testifieth r Lib. 4. de Pont. ca 2. § Quarto. , St. Thomas, Thomas Waldensis, Cardinal Turrecremata, Cardinal Cajetane, Cardinal Hosius, Driedo, Eccius, johannes a Lovanio, and Peter Soto, all these teach it to be impossible, that the Pope should define any heretical doctrine. And after them all, the saying of Gregory de Valentia, is most remarkable to this purpose: It now appeareth, saith he s In 2. 2. disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 1 part. 30. , that Saint Thomas did truly, and orthodoxally teach, that the proposal or explication of our Creed, that is, of those things which are to be believed, doth belong unto the Pope: which truth contains so clearly the sum and chief point of Catholic religion, ut nemo Catholicus esse possit, qui illam non amplectatur, that none can be a Catholic, unless he hold and embrace this. So he: professing that none are to be held with them for Catholics, but such as maintain the Pope's infallibility in proposing or defining causes of faith. 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Pope's Infallibility in such causes; and that is by commending the judgement of the Church, and of general Counsels to be infallible. All Catholics, saith Bellarmine t Lib 2. de Conc. ca 2 §. Ac ut. , do constantly teach that general Counsels, confirmed by the Pope, cannot possibly err, in delivering doctrines of faith or good life: And this he saith, is so certain, that fide catholica tenendum est, it is to be embraced by the Catholic faith: and so all Catholics are bound to believe it. Likewise concerning the Church, he thus writeth u Lib. de. Eccles. milit. ca 14. §. Nostra. , Nostra sententia est, it is our sentence, that the Church cannot absolutely err, in proposing things which are to be believed. The same is taught by the rest of their present Church. Now when they have said all, and set it out with great pomp, and ostentation of words, for the infallibility of the Church, and Council; it is all but a mere collusion, a very mask, under which they cover and convey the Pope's Infallibility into the hearts of the simple. Try them seriously who list, sound the depth of their meaning, and it will appear, that when they say; The Church is infallible, General Counsels are infallible, The Pope is infallible, they never mean to make three distinct infallible judges, in matters of faith, but one only infallible, and that one is the Pope. 9 This to be their meaning, sometimes they will not let to profess: When we teach, saith Gretzer x Def. ca 10. lib. 3. de verb. Dei. §. jam. pa. 1450. , that the Church is the (infallible) judge in causes of faith, per Ecclesiam intelligimus Pontificem Romanum, we by the Church do mean the Pope for the time being, or him with a Council. Again y Ibid. §. An. pa. 1451. , They object unto us, that by the Church we understand the Pope, Non abnuo, I confess we mean so in deed, This is plain dealing: by the Church they mean the Pope. So Gregory de Valentia z In 2.2. disp. 1. q. 1. , By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church, that is, the Pope. So Bozius a Lib. 2. the sig. eccls ca 21. §. His. & lib. 14. ca 16. §. His. , The Pope universorum personam sustinet, sustaineth the person of all Bishops, of all Counsels, of all the whole Church, he is in stead of them all. As the whole multitude of the faithful is the Church formally, and the general Council is the Church representatively, so the Pope also is the Church Virtually, as sustaining the person of all, and having the power, virtue, and authority of all, both the formal and representative Church; and so the Churches or Counsels judgement, is the Pope's judgement; and the Churches or Counsels infallibility, is in plain speech, the Pope's infallibility. 10. This will further appear by those comparisons, which they make betwixt the Church, or Counsels, and the Pope. It is the assertion of Card. Bellarmine b Li 2. de Conc. ca 13. § Haec. , as also of their best c Omnium qui docent papam esse supra Concilium. ibid. quos recenset ca 14. §. ultima. writers, that there is as much authority Intensiuè, in the Pope alone, as in the Pope with a general Council, or with the whole Church; though Extensiuè it is more in them, then in him alone: Even as the light is Intensiuè, & for degrees of brightness, as great in the Sun alone, as in it with all the Stars, though it is Extensiuè more in them, that is, more diffused, or spread abroad into more, being in them, then in the Sun alone; Neither only is all the authority, which either Council or Church hath, in the Pope, but is in a far more eminent manner in him, then in them. In him it is Primitively, or originally, as water in the fountain, or as light in the Sun; Omnis authoritas est in uno, saith Bellarmine d Lib. 4. de. Pon. Rom. ca 24. §. Secundo. , seeing the government of the Church is Monarchical, all ecclesiastical power is in one, (he means the Pope) and from him it is derived unto others. In the Council, and the rest of the Church, it is but derivatively, borrowed from the Pope, as waters in little brooks, or as light in the moon & stars. In him is Plenitudo potestatis, as Innocentius teacheth e Inn. 3. ca 1. Cum ex eo. Ex. de Penit. & cap. Proposuit et de Concess. prebend. , the fullness of Ecclesiastical power and authority dwelleth in him, in the rest whether Counsels, or Church, it is only by Participation, and measure, they have no more than either their narrow channels can contain, or his holiness will permit to distil or drop down upon their heads, from the lowest skirts of his garment. So whatsoever authority either Church, or general Council hath, the same hath the Pope, and that more eminently, and more abundantly than they either have or can have. 11. But for Infallibility in judgement that's so peculiar to him, that as they teach, neither the Pope can communicate it, unto Church or Council, nor can they receive it, but only by their connexion or coherence to the Pope, in whom alone it resideth. Potestas & infallibilitaes papalis, est potestas & gratia personalis, saith Stapleton f Relect. Conc. 6. q. 3. art. 5. opin. 5. , Papal, power and infallibility is a personal gift, and grace, given to the person of Peter, and his successors; and personal gifts cannot be transferred to others. In like sort Pighius g Lib. 6. de Eccles. Hier. ca 1. § Et quanquam. , Vni Petro, atque ejus Cathedrae, non Sacerdotali quantocunque Concilio; the privilege of never erring in faith, was obtained, by the prayer of Christ, for Peter alone, and his Chair; not for any Council, though it be never so great. To the same purpose saith Bellarmine h Lib. 2. de Conc. ca 11. § De secundo , If a general Council could not err in their sentence, the judgement of such a Council should be the last, and highest judgement of the Church; but that judgement is not the last, for the Pope may either approve, or reject their sentence. So Bellarmine; professing the Pope's only judgement to be infallible; seeing it alone is the last, and highest, after, and above both Church, and general Council. All the infallibility which they have, is only by reason of his judgement to which they accord, & consent. It hence appeareth, saith Bellarmine i Lib. 4. de Pont. ca 3. §. Contra. , totam firmitatem, that the whole strength, and certainty of judgement, which is even in lawful Counsels, is from the Pope, non partim à Concilio, partim à Pontifice; it is not partly from the Council, and partly from the Pope; it is wholly, and only from the Pope, and in no part from the Council. When the Council, and Pope consent in judgement, saith Gretzer k Defen. ca 2. lib. 4 de Pont. § Recensent , omnis infallibilitas Concilij derivatur à Papa; all the infallibility of the Council is derived from the Pope: and a little after, when the Pope consenteth with the Council, ideo non errat, quia est Papa; he is therefore free from erring, because he is the Pope; and not because he consenteth with the Council. In like sort Melchior l Loc. Theod. lib. 6▪ ca 7. § Quid. Canus; The strength and firmitude, both of the whole Church, and of Counsels, is derived from the Pope: and again m Lib. 5. ca 5. § Non. , In general Counsels, matters are not to be judged by number of suffrages, but by the weight of them; Pondus antem dat summi Pontificis authoritas; and it is the Pope's gravity, and authority, which gives weight to that part whereunto he inclineth: If he say it, one hundred Fathers with him are sufficient; but if his assent be wanting, a thousand, a million, ten thousand millions; Nulli satis sunt, no number is sufficient: Nay, if all the whole world be of a contrary judgement to the Pope, yet, as the Canonist n Cupers Com. i● cap. Oportebat. pa. 11. tells us, the Pope's sentence, totius orbis placito praefertur; is of more weight and worth, than the judgement of the whole world: So clear it is, that all their boasting of the authority, and infallible judgement of the Church, and of general Counsels, wherein they please themselves, more than ever the jews did in crying o jer. so oft, Templun Domini, the Temple of the Lord: that all this is nothing else but a Viser, to hide, or actually to draw into men's minds the Pope's infallibility: they having no meaning at all to give, or allow, either to Church, or general Council, any infallibility, but only with a reference to the Pope, to whom alone they annex it as a personal gift, and peculiar prerogative; and who, like those lean and ill favoured Kine of Pharaoh, hath devoured, and quite swallowed up all the authority, and infallibility, both of Church, and Counsels: yet thus much now is evident, that seeing all, who are of their present Roman Church, believe, and profess the Church, and general Counsels to be infallible; & seeing their infallibility is none, but only by adhering, and consenting to the Pope; it necessarily ensueth, that they all, à fortiori, do believe, and must profess the Pope to be infallible, seeing on his, the infallibility of both the other, doth wholly, and solely depend. 12. Let me add but one other proof hereof, taken from Supremacy of authority and judgement: It is a ruled case in their learning, Si o Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca 5. § Quinsun et lib. 4. de Pont. ca 1. § Denique. et lib. 2. de Conc. ca 11. § De tertio. errare non potest, debet esse summus judex; He who is infallible, must be the highest, and last judge; and, Vice versa, He p Affirmant ejus judicium esse ultimum. Hinc autem aperte sequitur non errare. ●ell. lib 2. de Conc. ca 3 § Accedat. who is the last, and highest judge, must be infallible. Supremacy and infallibility of judgement are inseparably linked: To whomsoever Supremacy is given, even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also; for seeing from the last or supreme judge, there can be no appeal, it were most unjust to bind Christians to believe his sentence, who might be deceived; most unjust to bind them from appealing from a judge that were fallible, or from an erroneous judgement. Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith, belongeth: To whom else but to the Pope? whereas some dare affirm, saith the Canonist q Cupers come. ad cap. oporteb. pa. 4. nu. 33. , that a Council is above the Pope; Falsissimum est, This is most false: The Successor of Peter, saith Stapleton, r Ret Cont. 6. q. 3. art. 5. opin. 10. supra omnes est, is above all; Bishops, Church, general Counsels; above all. The Pope, saith Bellarmine s Lib. 2. de Conc. ca 17. , is simply and absolutely above the whole Church, and above a general Council. t Lib. eod. ca 14. § Vltima. He further tells us, that this assertion, That the Pope is above a general Council, is, not only the judgement of all the ancient School Divine, & the common sentence of their Writers, (of whom he reckoneth thirteen, and, if it were fit, three times thirty might be scored up with them) but that it is the public doctrine of their Church, decreed in their Lateran Synod, under Leo the tenth: There the Council, saith he u Lib. eod. ca 17. § Donique. , disertè & ex professo docuit, did plainly, and of set purpose teach, the Pope to be above all Counsels: yea, expressissimè x Lib. eod ca 13. § Deinde. rem definivit; that Lateran Council did most expressly define this: and their definition hereof, is, Decretum de fide, a Decree of faith: for which cause, in his Apology, bearing the name of Schulkenius, he professeth y Ca 6. § Probo. pa. 227. , that this is, Articulus fidei, an Article of faith, such as every Christian is bound to believe, that the Pope is, Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae judex; the Supreme, last, and highest judge of the whole Church, here upon earth; which he proves, besides many other authorities, by this very Lateran z Cap. eodem. § Lateran pa. 249. decree, and by their Trent Council. The words themselves, of those Counsels, make the matter plain; in that at the Lateran Council they thus decree; Solum a Sess. 11. pa. 639. b. Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia authoritatem habere; that the Pope alone hath authority above all Counsels; and this, they say, is taught, not b Nedum ex Scripturae sacrae testimonio, dictu sanctorum patrum etc. Ibid. only by Fathers, and Counsels, but by the holy Scriptures; thereby showing, that in this decree they explicate & declare the Catholic faith, which is one of the Cardinal's notes, to know when a decree is published by a Council, tanquam de fide, as a decree of faith; and they threaten, the c Ibid. pa. 340. indignation of God, and the blessed Apostles, to the gainsayers of their decree: A censure as heavy as any Anathema, the denouncing whereof, is another of the Cardinal's notes, that they proposed this decree, as a decree of faith. In the other at Trent, the Council teacheth d Sess. 14. ca 7. , that unto the Pope is given, Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia; the Supreme power in the whole Church. And this Supremacy is such, that from all Counsels, all other judges, you may appeal to him, and he may reverse e Pontifex ut Princeps Ecclesiae summus potest retractare illud judicium Concilij. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 18. § Dicc. Potest approbare vel reprobare. Idem lib. 2. ca 11. § De tertio. , adnull, or repeal their judgement; but from him, as being the last, and highest judge, as having supreme power, qua f Bell. lib. codem 2. ca 18. § Praeterea. nulla est major, & cui nulla est aequalis, than which none is greater, and to which none is equal; you may appeal to none, no, not (as some g Aug. Trump. de potest. Eccl. q. 6. are 8. of them teach) unto God himself. The reason whereof is plain; for seeing the Pope's sentence in such causes, is the h Sententia Concilij cui praest Petrus, est sententia Spiritus sancti. Bell. lib. 3 de verb. Dei. ca 5. § Sextum. Idem asserere possunt caetera legitima Concilia. Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. ca 2. § Tertius. sentence of God, uttered indeed by man; but, assistente i Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei, ca 10. § Decimum. , & gubernante Spiritu; Gods Spirit assisting, & guiding him therein; if you appeal from him, or his sentence, you appeal even from God himself, and God's sentence. Such sovereignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedral judgement. Now because Infallibility is essentially, and inseparably annexed to supremacy of judgement, it hence evidently ensueth, that as their Lateran, and Trent Counsels (and, with them, all, who hold their doctrine; that is, all, who are members of their present Roman Church,) do give supremacy of authority and judgement, unto the Pope; so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him; their best Writers professing, their general Counsels defining, and decreeing, their whole Church maintaining him, and his Cathedral judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, which was the former point that I undertook to declare. 13. Suffer me to go yet one step further. This assertion of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in causes of faith, is, not only a position of their Church, (which hitherto we have declared) but it is very main ground, and fundamental position, on which all the faith, doctrines, and religion of the present Roman Church, and of every member thereof, doth rely. For the manifesting whereof, that must diligently be remembered, which we before have showed; that, as when they commend the infallibility of the Church, or Council, they mean nothing else, than the Pope's infallibility, by consenting to whom, the Church and Council is infallible; even so, to the point, that now I undertake to show, it is all one to declare them to teach, that the Church, or general Council, is the foundation of faith, as to say, the Pope is the foundation thereof, seeing neither the Church, or Council is such a foundation, but only by their consenting with, and adhering to the Pope, who is that foundation. 14. This sometimes they will not let in plain terms to profess. Peter, saith Bellarmine k Lib. 4. de Pont. ca 3. § Secundo. , and every one of his successors, est petra, & fundamentum Ecclesiae; is the rock, and foundation of the Church. In another place l Pref. in lib de Pont. § Quae. he calleth the Pope, that very foundation, of which God prophesied in Isaiah, I m Isa. 28.16. 1 Pet. 2.8. lay in the foundations of Zion, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Zion, saith Bellarmine, pointing at the Pope; behold, the Pope is this stone, laid in the foundations of Zion: And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius n Ca 6. pa. 255. , he calls these positions of the Pope's supremacy, Cardinem, fundamentum, & summam fidei Christianae; the Hinge, the foundation, the very sum of the Christian faith. To the like purpose Pighius calls o Lib. 4. Hier. ca 6. § Habes. the Pope's judgement, Principium indubiae veritatis, a principle of undoubted verity; and that he meaneth the last and highest principle, his whole Treatise doth declare. Coster observes p Ench. co. de. sum. Pont § Neque. , that the Pope is not only the foundation, but, which is more, the Rock: other Apostles were foundations, other Bishops are pillars of the Church; but Peter, and his Successor, is that solid Rock, quae fundamenta ipsa continet; which supporteth all other pillars and foundations. To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouths, and writings q Bell. li. 4. de Pont. ca 1. et. l. 2. de Conc. ca 14. § Vltima. et Gretz. des. ca 1. lib. 1. de verbo Dei. pa. 16. , that in causes of faith, ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis, the last judgement belongs to the Pope: Now if it be the last in such causes, then upon it, as on the last, and lowest foundation, must every doctrine of their Church rely; into his judgement it must last of all be resolved; but it, (because it is the last) into any higher judgement, or lower foundation, cannot possibly be resolved. 15. But their most ordinary, and also most plausible way to express this, is under the name of the Church, teaching men to rest, and stay their faith on it; although, in very truth, as we have showed before, all which they herein say of the Church, doth in right, and properly belong to the Pope only, and to the Church but only by reason of him, who is the head thereof: The r Lib. de Eccl. milit. ca 10 § Ad baec. tradition of the Scriptures, and all doctrines of faith whatsoever, do depend of the testimony of the Church, saith Bellarmine. Again, The s Lib. de effect. Sacr. ca 25 § Tertium. certainty of all ancient Counsels, and of all doctrines, doth depend on the authority of the present Church: And yet more fully t Lib. 6. the great. et lib. arb. ca 3. § At Catholici. , The faith which Catholics have, is altogether certain, and infallible: for what they believe, they do therefore believe it, because God hath revealed it; and they believe God to have revealed it, quoniam Ecclesiam ita dicentem, vel declarantem, audiunt; because they hear the Church telling them, that God revealed it. So Bellarmine; who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church, that is, of the Pope, to be the last reason, why they believe any doctrine; and so the very last, and lowest foundation, on which their faith doth rely. None more plentiful in this point, than Stapleton; The external testimony of the Church, saith he u Tripl. cont. Whit. ca 11. § Venies. , Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè & propriè est; is truly and properly a foundation of our faith. Again x Dupl. cont. Whit. ca 16. sect. 4. , the voice of the Church, est regula omnium quae creduntur; the rule and measure of all things which are believed. Again y Tripl. ca 16. § At qui. , whatsoever is believed by the Catholic faith, we Catholics believe that, propter Ecclesiae authoritatem, by reason of the Church's authority: we z Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1 art. 3. ad 8. believe the Church, tanquam Medium credendi omnia; as the Medium or reason why we believe all other things: And yet more fully in his doctrinal principles a Doct. Prin. lib. 8 ca 21 § Hic. ; when we profess in our Creed to believe the Catholic Church, the sense hereof, though perhaps not Grammatical, (for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammar rules) yet certainly the Theological sense is this, Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit; I believe all those things which God hath revealed, and taught me by the Church. But how know you, or why believe you this, Deum per Ecclesiam revelare; that all those things which the Church teacheth, are revealed and taught of GOD? What say you to this, which is one piece of your Creed? To this Stapleton, both in that place b Ca Eod. § Ad secundam. , and again in his Relections c Rel. Cont 4. q. 3. art. 2. ad 8. , gives a most remarkable answer; This, (that God revealeth those things by the Church,) is no distinct Article of faith, sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium, ex quo, & hic, & alij omnes Articuli deducuntur; but this is a transcendent Maxim, and principle of faith, upon which, both this it own self, (note this especially) and all other Articles of faith do depend: upon this all Articles of faith do hang, hoc unum praesupponunt, they all praesuppose this, and take it for granted. This, and much more hath Stapleton. 16. But what speak I of Bellarmine or Stapleton, though the latter hath most diligently sifted this cause? This position, that the Church is the last judge, and so the lowest foundation of their faith, is the decreed doctrine of their Trent Council, and therefore the consenting voice of their whole Church, and of every member thereof: For in that Council d Sess. 4. § Praete●e● , the Church is defined to be the judge of the sense, and interpretation of the Scriptures: and by the like reason it is to judge of traditions, and of the sense of them. Now because all doubts and controversies of faith, depend on the one of these, it clearly followeth upon that decree, that the very last stay in all doubts of faith, is the Church's judgement; but that, upon no other, nor higher stay, doth, or can rely; for whatsoever you take beside this, the truth, the weight, and validity of all must be tried in the Church, at her judgement it must stand or fall; yea, if you make a doubt of the Church's judgement itself, even that, as all other, must be ended by the judgement of the Church; it is the last judge of all. This, to be the true meaning of the Trent Council, Bellarmine both saw, and professeth, when he saith e Lib. 3. de verbo Dei. ca 3. § T●ta , The Church, that is, the Pope, with a Council, is judge of the sense of the Scripture, & omnium controversiarum, and of all controversies of faith; and in this all Catholics do agree, and it is expressly set down in the Trent Council: So Bellarmine testifying this to be, both the decreed doctrine of their general and approved Council, and the consenting judgement of all that are Roman Catholics. 17. Now all this which they have said of the Church, if you will have it in plain terms and without circumlocution, belongs only to the Pope, who is virtually both Church and Council. As the Church or Council is called infallible, no otherwise but by a Synecdoche, because the Pope, who is the head both of Church and Council, is infallible: So is the Church or Council called the foundation of faith, or last principle on which their faith must rely, by the same figure Synecdoche, because the Pope who is the head of them both, is the foundation of faith. And whosoever is a true Roman Catholic or member of their present Church, he believeth all other doctrines, because the Church, that is, the Pope doth teach them; and the Pope to teach them infallibly, he believeth for itself, because the Pope saith he, is in such teaching infallible. This infallibility of the Pope is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very corner stone; the foundation stone, the rock and fundamental position of their whole faith and religion, which was the point that I purposed to declare. 18. I have hitherto declared, and I fear too abundantly, that the assertion of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in causes of faith, is not only a position, but the very fundamental position of all the doctrines of the present Roman Church. In the next place we are to prove that this position is heretical, and that for such it was adjudged and condemned by the Catholic Church. In the proof whereof I shall not need to stay long. This whole treatise, and even that which hath already been declared touching the Constitution of Pope Vigilius doth evidently confirm the same. For seeing the defending of the Three Chapters hath been proved f Ca 3. & 4. to be heretical, the Constitution of Vigilius made in defence of those Chapters, must of necessity be confessed to be heretical. Nay if you well consider, you shall see, that this very position of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility, is adjudged to be heretical. For the fifth general Council knew this cause of the Three Chapters to be a cause of faith. They knew further that Pope Vigilius by his Apostolical decree, and Cathedral Constitution had defined that those Three Chapters ought to be defended. Now seeing they knew both these, and yet judicially defined the defence of those Three Chapters to be heretical, and for such accursed it, even in doing this, they define the Cathedral judgement of Vigilius in this cause of Faith, to be heretical; and therefore most certainly and à fortiori define this position [That the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith is infallible] to be heretical, and for such they anathematise both it, and all that defend it. And because the judgement and definitive sentence of the fifth Council is consonant to all former, and confirmed by all subsequent Counsels till the Lateran Synod under Leo the tenth, it avoidable hence ensueth, that the same position of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in causes of faith, is by the judgement of all general Counsels until that time, that is, by the constant, and uniform consent of the whole Catholic Church, adjudged, condemned, and accursed for heretical, and all who defend it for heretics. And seeing we have clearly proved the whole present Roman Church, and all that are members thereof, to defend this position, yea to defend it as the main foundation of their whole faith; the evidence of that assertion which I proposed g Sup. hoc. cap. nu. 6. , doth now manifestly appear: That none can now assent to the Pope, or to the doctrines of the present Church of Rome, but he is, eo nomine, even for that very cause, adjudged and condemned for heretical, and that even in the very ground and foundation of his faith. 19 From the foundation let us proceed to the walls and roof of their religion. Think you the foundation thereof is only heretical, and the doctrines which they build thereon orthodoxal? Nothing less; They are both suitable, both heretical. That one fundamental position is like the Trojan horse, in the womb of it are hid many troops of heresies. If Liberius confirm Arianisme, Honorius Monothelitisme, Vigilius Nestorianisme, these all by virtue of that one assertion must pass currant for Catholic truths. Nay, who can comprehend, I say not in words, or writing, but in his thought, and imagination all the blasphemous and heretical doctrines, which by all their Popes have been, or if as yet they have not, which hereafter may be by succeeding Popes defined to be doctrines of faith? Seeing Stapleton h Lib. 9 doct. prin. ca 14. §. Manet. assures us, That the Church of this, or any succeeding age may put into the Canon and number of sacred and undoubtedly Canonical books, the book of Hermas called Pastor, and the Constitutions of Clement: the former being, as their own notes censure it, i Notae in lib. Hermae. to. 5. Bibl. S. patr. haeresibus & fabulis opplet us, full of heresies and fables, rejected by Pope Gelasius k Concil. Rom. primum sub Gelasio. with his Roman Synod; the later being stuffed also with many impious doctrines, condemning m Const. Clem. lib. 3. ca 2. lawful marriage as fornication, and allowing n Idem lib. 8. ca 32. fornication as lawful, with many the like impieties, which in Possevine o Bibl. in verbo Clemens Rom. are to be seen together, for which cause they are worthily rejected in the Canons p Can. 2. of the sixth Council; seeing the Pope may canonize these, what blasphemies, what heresies, what lies may not with them be canonised? why may not their very Legend in the next Session be declared to be Canonical? And yet by that fundamental position, they are bound (and now do implicitè) believe whatsoever 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, he shall perceive (that which now I intent to prove) such venom of infidelity to lie in that one fundamental position of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility, that by reason of holding it, they neither do nor can believe or hold with certainty of faith any one point or doctrine, which they profess to believe, and hold upon that Foundation. 20. For the clearing of which point (being very material) 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 believed, which must be so true and certain in itself, that it cannot possibly be or have been otherwise then it is believed to be, to have been, or to be hereafter. And therefore none can truly believe 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 believeth. Now faith being only of such things are inevident, that is, which neither by sense can be perceived, nor by natural reason collected or found out; but which are only by the testimony of such as first knew them, made known unto us, and none doth or can know that which is supernatural, unless God himself reveal the same unto him, it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any believed, the same is revealed and testified to him by God himself, who is infallible: and further, that it is certainly known unto him who believeth, that it is God himself, who doth reveal and testify that thing unto him. For otherwise though the doctrine proposed, be in itself never so certain and divine, yet unto thee, or me, it cannot be certain, nor held by certainty of faith, unless first we be sure and infallibly certain, that he who testifieth it unto us is himself infallible, that is, that he is God. Let us for perspicuity, call the former of these two, materiale fidei, the material in faith or the thing believed: and the later, formale fidei, that which is formal in faith, seeing as the former is the thing believed, so the later contains the reason, the ground or foundation upon which, and for which it is believed. 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 Catholic truths common to us and them, as that there is a Trinity, that Christ was borne of a Virgin, died, rose again, and the like. Others are in themselves untrue, such as cannot be the object of faith: Of this sort are all those doctrines wherein they descent from us, Transubstantiation, real and proper sacrifice, worshipping of Images, Purgatory, justification by the merit or dignity of our works, and the like, which may rightly be called popish doctrines. The later sort of these they neither do nor can believe. The former they might, but they do not believe. The reason whereof will appear by considering that which is formal or the fundamental 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 Pope's Cathedral infallibility, and yet be no Papist or member of their present Church. For although the things professed, or the Materials be the self same, yet the formality or divers reason of holding them, causeth a main difference in the parties that hold them. And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three diverse ways, 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 only many Catholic truths, which they most firmly believe, 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 Roman Church (take for example Transubstantiation;) which although for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live, they think to be taught in the Scriptures, and therefore hold and profess them, and think they believe them, yet because they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures, nor sealed by God's Spirit unto their hearts, therefore they hold not these, nor in truth can they hold them with that firmness and certainty of faith, as they do the former truths, but they have a faintness and fear in their assent unto these, and so a readiness and willing preparation of heart; to disclaim these, and to hold or profess 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 darkness & thick mists of their Antichristian superstition, upon the Scriptures & word of God which they held for the foundation of their faith, builded indeed much gold & precious stones, but with a mixture of much hay; stubble & dross, 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 African Bishops, which were so earnest for Rebaptisation, supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures, & though the foundation of it, & of those catholic truths that Christ was God, or the like; was one and the same unto them, yet they held not both with like firmness & certainty of faith. The doctrine of Christ's deity & manhood they so believed, that they would not communicate 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 heretics, nor refusing p Haec rescripsimus, nemini praescribentes, aut praejudicantes quo minus unusquisque quod putaverit faciat, habens liberam arbitrij sui faculta●em. Nos autem cum Collegis nostr●● non contendimus, cum quibus divinem & dominicam pacem tenemus. Cyp. Epist. ad lub●ian. in finc. vid. August lib. 5. de Baptis. ca 17. to communicate with them that denied it; so they held this with a certain faintness of faith, or rather (as indeed it was) of opinion and not of faith, having a preparation in heart to believe, and profess 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 he would most easily have altered his opinion; if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him. Again r Lib. 4. ca 5. , That holy man Cyprian, being non solum doctus, sed docilis, not only learned, but willing to learn, and who sets this among the praises of a Bishop, that he ought not only to teach with knowledge, but learn with patience, he I doubt not would readily have demonstrated not only how learned, but how willing to learn himself had been, had this question in his life time been 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 cum aliud eminentius videretur; He therefore saw not this one truth touching Rebaptisation, 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 Humility, the truth of modesty, the truth of Charity and ardent love to the peace, and unity of the Church: but the most excellent truth that I can see, or as I think, can be seen in erring Cyprian is this, that one may be a true Catholic, a Catholic Bishop, a pillar of God's Church, yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr, and yet hold an error in faith, as did that holy Catholic Bishop, and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian. To him then and the other African Bishops, who in like sort erred as he did; may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God, who in the blindness and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist, together with many golden truths, which they most firmly believed, upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures, held either Transubstantiation, or the like errors, thinking them (as Cyprian did, of Rebaptisation) to be taught in that foundation also. They erred in some doctrines of faith, as Cyprian did: yet notwithstanding those errors, they may be Catholics, and blessed as Cyprian was, because they both firmly believed many Catholic truths, and their error was without pertinacy as Cyprians was. For none, who truly believes the Scripture, and holds it for the foundation of his faith, can with pertinacy 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, believe the flat contrary to that error, which explicitè he professeth. And because he doth implicitè believe the contrary thereof, he hath, (even all the time while he so erreth) a readiness and preparation of hart to profess the contrary whensoever out of the Scripture it shall be deduced and manifested unto him. 23. A second way of holding those doctrines, is of them, who together with the truths, hold the errors also of their Church, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, or the like, thinking them to be taught in Scriptures, as did the former, but adding obstinacy, or pertinacy to their holding of them, which the former did not. And their pertinacy is apparent hereby, if either they will not yield to the truth, being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them, or if before such manifestation, they be so addicted and wedded to their own wills, and conceits, that they resolve either not to hear, or if they do hear; not to yield to the evidence of reason, when they are convinced by it. For it is certain, that one may be truly pertinacious not only after conviction, and manifestation of the truth, but even before it also, if he have a resolution not to yield 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 Roman Church made their first public defection from the true and ancient faith) took part with that faction in the Church, which maintained the adoration of Images, and after that, Deposing of Princes, than Transubstantiation, and other like heresies, as they crept by degrees into the Church, in several ages. From that time until Leo the tenth, the Church was like a confused lump, wherein both gold and dross were mingled together: or like a great City infected with the plague. All as well the sick as found, lived together within the walls, and bounds of that City, but all were not infected; and of 〈◊〉 it were, not all alike infected, with those heretical diseases which then reigned, & more, and more prevaled in the Church. Some openly, and constantly withstood the corruptions, and heresies of their time, and being worthy Martyrs, sealed with their blood that truth which they professed. Others dissented from the same errors, but durst not with courage, and fortitude oppose themselves; such as would say to their friends in private: Thus s Paralip. ad. Abb. Vsperg. pa. 448. I would say in the schools and openly, sed maneat inter nos, diversum sentio, but keep my counsel, I think the contrary. Many were tainted with those Epidemical diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse, but that strong Antidote in the foundation, which preserved Cyprian and the African Bishops, kept from their hearts, and at last overcame all the poison wherewith they were infected. Only that violent, and strong faction, which pertinaciously adhered to the heretical doctrines, which then sprung up, (the head of which faction was the Pope) and who preferred their own opinions, before the truth, out of the Scriptures manifested unto them, and by some Counsels, 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 propriety of speech to be 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 termed Popish Heretics. 24. The third way of holding their doctrines, began with their Lateran decree, under Leo the tenth, at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before, but they held them now upon another Foundation. For than they cast away the old and sure Foundation, and laid a new one of their own in the room thereof, The Pope's word, in stead of Gods, and Antichrists in stead of Christ's. For although the Pope long before that time, had made no small progress in Antichristianisme, first in usurping an universal authority over all Bishops, next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images, and the like, and after that in exalting himself above all Kings and Emperors, giving and taking away their Crowns at his pleasure; yet the height of the Antichristian mystery consisted in none of these, nor did he ever attain unto it, till by virtue of that Lateran decree he had just led out Christ and his word, and laid himself and his own word in the stead thereof, for the Rock & Foundation of the Catholic 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 Catholic faith, and Antichrist triumphant; set up as God in the Church of God, ruling, nay tyrannising, not only in the external and temporal estates, but even in the faith, and Consciences of all men; so that they may believe neither more, nor less, nor otherwise then he prescribeth, nay that they may not believe 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 Transcendent principle of faith, they must believe for itself, quia ipse dixit, because he saith so. In the first, and second, he usurped the authority and place but of Bishops; in the third, but of Kings: but in making himself the Rock and Foundation of faith, he intrudes himself into the most proper office and prerogative of jesus Christ, For t 1 Cor. 3.11. other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, jesus Christ. 25. Here was now quite a new face of the Roman Church, yea, it was now made a new Church of itself, 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 Materials, as Adoration of Images, Transubstantiation, and the rest, were the same, yet the Formality and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered. Before they believed the Pope to do rightly, in decreeing Transubstantiation, because they believed the Scriptures, and word of God, to teach and warrant that doctrine: but now vice versa they believe the Scriptures, and word of God, to teach Transubstantiation, because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same. Till than one might be a good Catholic, and member of their Church, such as were the Bishops in the general Counsels of Constance and Basill, and those of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and succeeding Counsels, and yet hold the Pope's Cathedral judgement in causes of faith to be not only fallible, but heretical and accursed, as all those Counsels did: But since Supremacy, and with it Infallibility of judgement, is, by their Lateran decree, transferred to the Pope: he who now gainsayeth the Pope's sentence, in a cause of faith, is none of their Church, as out of Gregory de Valentia, he is an heretic, 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 formal reason, for which, and that foundation upon which, they are all to be believed; and without belief of which, not one of them all can be now believed. 26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted members of their present Roman Church; these, who lay this new, & Lateran foundation, for the ground of their faith, whether explicitè, as do the learned, or implicitè, as do the simpler fort in their Church, who wilfully blind-folding themselves, and gladly persisting in their affectate and supine ignorance, either will not use the means to see, or seeing, will not embrace the truth, but content themselves with the Collier's x Host de author. sac. Script. lib. 3. § Quaerit. Catechism, and wrap up their own in the Church's faith, saying, I believe as the Church believeth, and the Church believeth what the Pope teacheth. All these, and only these are members of their present Church, unto whom, of all names, as that of Catholics, is most unsuitable, and most unjustly arrogated by themselves; so, the name of Papists, or, which is equivalent, Antichristians, doth most fitly, truly, and in propriety of speech, belong unto them: For seeing forma dat nomen, & esse, whence rather should they have their essential appellation, then from him, who giveth life, formality, and essence to their faith, on whom, as on the Rock, and cornerstone, their whole faith dependeth. The saying of Cassander to this purpose, is worthy remembering: There are some, saith he y Lib. de ossic. viri ●ij. § Sunc alij. , who will not permit the present state of the Church, though it be corrupted, to be changed, or reform; 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 only above the whole Church, but above the Sacred Scripture, holding his judgement equal to the divine Oracles, and an infallible rule of faith; Hos non video, tur minus Pseudo-catholicos, & Papistas appellare possis; I see no reason, but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes, or Papists. Thus Cassander; upon whose judicious observation it followeth, that seeing their whole Church, and all the members thereof, prefer the Pope's authority above the whole Church, above all general Counsels, and quoad nos, (which is Cassander's meaning) above z Ecce potestas Ecclesiae supra Script. ●nchyr. tit. de Eccles. the Scriptures also; defending them not to be a Enchyr. Ibid. authentical, but by the authority of the Church; that there is, multo b Th. B●z. lib. de signu Eccl. 16. ca 10. § Illud. major authoritas, much more authority in the Church, than in them; that it is no c Non adeo absurde dictum est. etc. Gretz. Appen. 2. odd lib. 1. de verb. dei pa. 3●6. absurd, nay, it may be a pious Potuit illud pio sensu dici. Host lib. 3. the author. Script. § Fingemus. saying, That the Scriptures without the authority of the Church, are no more worth than Aesop's Fables: seeing they all, with one consent make the Pope the last, supreme, and infallible judge in all causes of faith; there can be no name devised more proper and fit for them, than that of Papists; or, which is all one, Antichristians, both which express their essential 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 Catholics, 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 whereof, 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 Papism, or Antichristianisme, and the professors of it Papists, or Antichristians. And whereas Bellarmine e Lib. de. not. Eccl. ca ●. glorieth of this very name of Papists, that it doth, attestari veritati, give testimony to that truth which they profess; truly we envy not so apt a name unto them: Only the Cardinal shows himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat, & the descent of this title unto them. He fetcheth f Papista deducitur a Papa, 〈…〉 Petrus, 〈…〉 Christus ipse. Ibid. it forsooth from Pope Clement, Pope Peter, and Pope Christ: Fie, it is of no such antiquity, nor of so honourable a race. Their own Bristol will assure g Demand. 8. him, that this name was never heard of till the days of Leo the tenth. Neither are they so called, (as the Cardinal fancieth) because they hold communion in faith with the Pope, which, for six hundred years and more, all Christians did, and yet were not Papists, nor ever so called; but because they hold the Pope's judgement to be supreme, and infallible; and so build their faith on him, as on the foundation thereof, which their own Church never did, till the time of Leo the tenth. It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of judah, but the Lion of that Lateran Synod, who is the first Godfather of that name unto them, when he had once laid the Pope as the foundation of faith in stead of Christ; they who then builded their faith upon this new foundation, were fitly christened with this name of Papists, to distinguish them, and their present Roman Church from all others, who held the old, good, and sure foundation. 26. You see now the great diversity which ariseth from the diverse manner of holding the same doctrines. The errors maintained by all those three sorts, of which I have spoken, are almost the same, and materially they are Popish heresies; and yet the first sort did only err therein, but were not heretics, because not pertinacious. The second do not only err, but by adding pertinacy to error, are truly heretics, but yet not Papists, because they hold those Popish heresies in another manner, and on another foundation then Papists do. The third, and last sort, which containeth all, and only those who are members of the present Roman Church, do both err, and are heretics; and, which is the worst degree of heresy, are Papists, that is, Antichristian heretics; not only holding, and that in the highest degree of pertinacy, those heresies which are contrary to the faith, but holding them upon that foundation which quite overthroweth the faith. 27. By this now doth the evidence of that truth appear, which before h Sup. nu. 19 I proposed, that none who hold the Pope's infallibility in causes of faith for their foundation, (that is, none of the present Roman Church) either doth, or can believe any one doctrine of faith, which they profess: For seeing the belief of all other points relies upon this, so that they believe them, because they first believe this, it followeth by that true rule of the Philosopher i Arist. lib. 1. demen. ca 2. , Propter quod unumquodque, illud magis; that they do more firmly and certainly believe this, which is the foundation, than they do, or can believe any other doctrine; I say not Transubstantiation, or Purgatory, but more than that Article of their Creed, that Christ is God, or that there is a God, or any the like, which is builded upon this foundation. And seeing we have clearly demonstrated that foundation to be, not only untrue, but heretical; and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith, it being no true object of faith; it doth evidently hence ensue, that they neither do, nor can believe any one doctrine, position or point of faith. Impossible it is, that the roof should be more firm than the foundation which supports the roof; or the conclusion more certain unto us than those premises which cause us to assent, and make us certain of the conclusion: That one fundamental uncertainty, & contrariety to the faith, which is virtually in all the rest, breeds the like uncertainty, and contrariety to faith, in them all; and, like a Radical poison, spreads itself into the whole body of their religion, infecting every arm, branch, and twig of their doctrine, and faith; whatsoever error or heresy they maintain, (and those are not a few) those they neither do, nor can believe, because they are no objects of faith, whatsoever truths they maintain, (and no doubt they do many) those they think they do, and they might do, but indeed they do not believe, because they hold them for that reason, and upon that foundation which is contrary to faith, and which overthroweth the faith: For to hold or profess that Christ is God, or that there is a God, eo nomine, because the Devil, or Antichrist, or a fallible man testifieth it unto us, is not truly to believe, but to overthrow the faith. 28. This may be further cleared by returning to our example of Vigilius. If, because the Pope judicially defineth a doctrine of faith, they do therefore believe it, then must they believe Nestorianisme to be the truth, and Christ not to be God, because Pope Vigilius, by his judicial and Apostolical sentence, hath decreed this, in decreeing that the three Chapters, are to be defended: If they believe not this, then can they believe nothing at all, eo nomine, because the Pope hath defined it; and then the foundation of their faith being abolished, their whole faith, together with it, must needs be abolished also. Again, if because the Pope defineth a doctrine, they do therefore believe it; then seeing Pope Celestine, with the Ephesine, and Pope Leo, with the Chalcedon Council, decreed Nestorianisme to be heresy, they, by the strength of their fundamental position of the Pope's infallibility, must, at one and the same time, believe, both Nestorianisme to be truth, as Pope Vigilius defined, and Nestorianisme to be heresy, as Pope Calestine and Leo defined; and so they must either believe two contradictories to be both true, yea, to be truths of the Catholic faith, which, to believe, is impossible; or else they must believe, that it is impossible to believe, either the one or the other, eo nomine, because the Pope hath defined it, and so believe it to be impossible to believe that, which is the foundation of their whole faith. Neither is this true only in other points, but even in this very foundation itself: for the fifth Council, which decreed the Cathedral and Apostolical sentence in the cause of the Three Chapters, to be heretical, was approved by the decrees of Pope Gregory, Agatho, and the rest, unto Leo the tenth. If then they believe a doctrine to be true, because the Pope hath defined it, then must they believe the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith, to be, not only fallible, but heretical; and so believe, that upon this fallible and heretical foundation, they can build no doctrine of faith, nor hold thereupon any thing with certainty of faith: So, if the Pope in defining such causes be fallible, then, for this cause, can they have no faith, nor believe aught with certainty of faith, seeing all relies upon a fallible foundation. If the Pope, in defining such causes, be infallible, then also can they have no faith, seeing, by the infallble decrees of Pope Gregory, Agatho, and the rest unto Leo the tenth, the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith, may be heretical, 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 Roman Church, can believe, or hold with certainty of faith, any doctrine whatsoever, which he professeth to believe. 29. Here I cannot choose, but, to the unspeakable comfort of all true believers, observe a wonderful difference betwixt us, and them, arising from that diversity of the foundation, which they and we hold; their foundation being not only uncertain, but heretical and Antichristian, poisoneth all which they build thereon; it being virtually in them all, makes them all, like itself, uncertain, heretical, and Antichristian; and so those very doctrines, which, in themselves, are most certain, and orthodoxal, by the uncertainty of that ground, upon which, and for which they are believed, are overthrown; with us, and all Catholics it false out otherwise. Though such happen to err in some one, or more doctrines of faith, (say, in Transubstantiation, Purgatory, or, as Cyprian did, in Rebaptisation) yet seeing they hold those errors, because they think them to be taught in the Scriptures, and Word of God, on which alone their faith relieth; most firmly, and undoubtedly believing whatsoever is taught therein; (among which things are the contrary doctrines to Transubstantiation, Purgatory, & Rebaptisation:) such, I say, even while they do thus err in their Explicite profession, do truly, though implicitè, by consequent, and in radice, or fundamento, believe, and that most firmly, the quite contrary to those errors, which they do outwardly profess, and think they do; but indeed do not believe. The virtue and strength of that fundamental truth, which they indeed and truly believe, overcommeth all their errors, which in very deed they do not, though they think they do believe, whereas, in very truth, they believe the quite contrary. And this golden foundation in Christ, which such men, though erring in some points, do constantly hold, shall more prevail to their salvation, than the Hay and Stubble of those errors, which ignorantly, but not pertinaciously, they build thereon, can prevail to their destruction: and therefore if such a man happen to die, without explicit notice, and repentance of those errors in particular, (as the saying of Saint Austen k Lib. 1. de baptism. ca 18. , that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecility, the same, by his glorious Martyrdom, was washed away, persuades me that Cyprian did: and as of Irene, Nepos, justine Martyr, and others, who held the error of the Chiliasts, I think none makes doubt:) it is not to be doubted, but the abundance of this man's saith and love unto Christ, to whom in the foundation he most firmly adhereth, shall work the like effect in him, as did the blood of martyrdom in Saint Cypran: For the baptism of martyrdom washeth away sin, 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 believe, though in some point of faith they err) it is as forcible and effectual to save Valentinian l Ablatus ascendit, quem sua fides lavit. Amb. Orat. de obitu Valent. , neither baptised with water, nor with blood; and Nepos m Qui jam ad quietem pr●cessit, ait Dionys. apud Euseb. l. 1. ca 23. , baptised with water, but not with blood, as to save Cyprian, baptised both with water, and with blood. Such a comfort and happiness it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith. 30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them: Though they explicitè profess Christ to be God, which is a most orthodoxal truth, yet because they hold this, as all other points, upon that foundation of the Pope's infallible judgement in causes of faith, and in that foundation this is denied, Pope Vigilius, by his Cathedral Constitution defining Nestorianisme to be truth, and so Christ not to be God; it must needs be confessed, that even while they do explicitè profess Christ to be God, they do implicitè, in radice, and in fundamento, deny Christ to be God: and because, by the Philosopher's rule, they do more firmly believe that foundation, than they do, or can believe any doctrine depending thereon; it must needs ensue hence, that they do, and must by their doctrine more firmly believe the Negative, that Christ is not God, which in the foundation is decreed, than they do, or can believe the Affirmative, that Christ is God, which upon that foundation is builded. The truth, which upon that foundation they do explicitè profess, cannot possibly be so strong to salvation, as the error of the foundation, upon which they build it, will be to destruction: For the fundamental error 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 fundamental error and uncertainty on which they all rely, even as the beams and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottenness and unsoundness which resteth in the foundation: Or if they say, that both the assertions (which are directly contradictory) are from that foundation deduced, Celestine 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 believe neither the one, nor the other, seeing, by believing that foundation, they must equally believe them both, which is impossible. Such an unhappy, and wretched thing it is, to hold that erroneous, heretical, 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 Roman Church, do hold the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in causes of faith, yea, hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines, faith and religion doth rely; and seeing we have next demonstrated this to be a fundamental heresy, and not only an heretical, but an Antichristian foundation, condemned by Scriptures, by general Counsels, by ancient Fathers, and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholic Church; that now hence followeth which I proposed n Sup. nu. 6. to prove, that none is, or can be a member of their present Church, but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretic, by Scriptures, general Counsels, Fathers, and by the uniform consent of the Catholic Church. An heretic, first, in the very foundation of his faith, which being Antichristian, is heretical in the highest, and worst degree that may be, razing the true foundation of faith, in regard whereof the mystery of Antichristianisme far surpasseth all the heresies that ever went before, or shall ever follow after it. An heretic, secondly, in many particular doctrines depending on that Foundation, among which are the heresies and blasphemies of the Nestorians; all which by the Cathedral constitution of Vigilius, are decreed to be truths, and by all men to be defended. Lastly, an heretic virtually and quoad radicem, in every doctrine of faith which he holdeth or professeth, and so heretical therein, that the very holding of Catholic truths becomes unto him heretical, seeing he holds them upon that Foundation, which is not only contrary to faith, but which overthroweth the whole faith. Reward o Rev. 18 6. Babylon, O ye servants of the Lord, as she hath rewarded you, give her double according to her works, and in the cup that she hath filled to you, fill her the double. 32. From hence there ensueth one other conclusion, which being worthy observing, I many not well omit. And this it is, That in none at all, of their Church, or of the same faith with it, there neither is nor can be (so long as they remain such) any piety or holiness, either in their life, or in any of their actions: nor any act which is truly good and acceptable unto God is or can be performed by any of them. For true faith is the Foundation and fountain of all true piety, and good actions, it being impossible, as the Apostle teacheth, without p Heb. 11.6. faith to please God: and, to the q Tit. 1.15. unbelievers all things are impure, even their minds and consciences are defiled; How much more their outward actions, speeches, writings, and thoughts, which all spring from the heart. To this purpose is that in the Prophet Haggai r Ca 2.14.15. , who demandeth of the Priests, If a polluted person (such are all whose hearts are not purified s Act. 15.9. by faith) touch any of these things, either holy bread, or holy wine, or any holy thing, shall it be unclean? And the Priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. The pollution of him that toucheth it, pollutes all, even the most holy things that are. Then answered Haggai; and said; So is this people, and so is this Nation before me, saith the Lord. So are all the works of their hands, and that which they offer is unclean. The same agreeth to those of whom we entreat. The infidelity of their hearts, pollutes all their actions, seem they never so holy: their almsdeeds and works of charity, their righteousness, and works of justice, their fastings, continency, and works of temperance, their prayers, sacraments, sacrifices, and works of piety: the fountain being poisoned with infidelity, and want of true faith, all the waters, every river, and little brook derived from it, carrieth the same infection in it, which it took at the spring. Saint Austen is plentiful in this point: Where the faith, saith he t Lib. 5. cont. Faust. ca 11. , is feigned or unsound, non potest ex ea bona vita existere, there can no good life be or arise from it. In another place u Lib. 1. de Nup. & Conc. ca 3. he showeth, that even to keep one's self chaste or continent, and yet to do this without faith, is a sin, and that thereby, non peccata coercentur, sedalijs peccatis alia peccata vincantur, sins are not expelled, but one sin (of intemperancy) is overcome by another sin, (of continency wanting faith.) To omit many the like, hear what he saith to the Manichees, boasting, as they x Potest homo facere plus quam Deus praecipit, igitu● mul●o magis potest implere praeceptum. Bell. lib. 4. the Ius●if. ca 13. § Accedant, & Catholici omnes doce●, legem dei justis hominibus esse absolutè possibilem, lib. eod. ca 10 § Por●●. of the Roman Church do, that they fulfilled the Law. Why y Aust. lib. 5. contra Faust. ca 5. do ye boast so much of fulfilling the Law, and commandments of God? Quid illa prodessent omnia ubi non est fides vera, etiamsi vere implerentur à vobis? what could all the commandments profit you, who have not a true faith, though ye did truly fulfil them all? Thus and much more Saint Austen. Seeing then we have proved, their faith to be not only unsound but heretical and Antichristian, (worse than which, the faith of the Manichees could not be:) impossible it is that from such a faith, either true virtue, or any godly act should ever arise. The best that can be said of those which they call good works, is that which Lactantius saith z In lib. Inst. divin. ca 6, of the works of the Ethnikes, which like theirs, quoad substantiam operis, were good. Vmbra est & imago justitiae, quam illi justitiam putaverunt: It is but a shadow and show of justice, which they think to be justice. Omnis a Lib. eod. ca 9 doctrina & virtus eorum sine capite est, all the knowledge and virtue which they have, wanteth the head of true knowledge and virtue: It wanteth true faith in Christ, which is the head of all knowledge, and virtue. This head whosoever wanteth, Non dubium est, quin impius sit, omnesque virtutes ejus in illa mortifera via reperiantur, quae est tota tenebrarum, there's no doubt to be made, but such an one is impious, and all the virtues which he thinks he hath, are mortiferous and deadly. 33. Where again I cannot but observe to the comfort of all true believers, another exceeding difference betwixt us and them, even in these matters concerning life, and good works: whatsoever things are either in themselves good, or being of themselves indifferent, are by the lawful authority either of civil, or ecclesiastical governor's, commanded, we in doing any of those things, and showing our willing obedience thereunto, perform an act not only lawful, but laudable and acceptable unto God. For in doing any of these, we do virtually perform obedience unto Christ, who by them commandeth the doing of all such things: and in our religious performing of them, we hold firm that holy foundation, not only of faith, but of good works, which the scriptures teach. Neither only are such works acceptable unto God, but even those acts also which are wicked and ungodly, being committed by such as do truly believe, though they be as heinous as was the crime of David, or the abjuration of Peter, even those, I say, by the strength and virtue of that foundation, if one do rightly hold and believe it, are so covered b Pectatum tectum est. Psal. 32.1. , put c Isa, 43.25. away and forgotten, that God d Numb. 23.21. seeth none iniquity in jacob, nor transgression in Israel. Such, so infinite is the goodness, and so sovereign is the virtue which is in holding the true foundation of faith. The contrary of all this falleth out unto them, of the present Roman Church. For not only their sins are made more sinful unto them, there being no mantle to cover, or hide them from the eyes of God, and shield them from his vengeance, but even their best and most holy actions which they do, or can perform, though they should do nothing but sing hymns with David, or feed Christ's flock with Peter, or give their goods to the poor, and their bodies to be burned for Christ, even these, I say, are so tainted with the venom of that Apostatical foundation, that being of themselves holy actions, yet unto them they are turned into sin, and become pernicious and mortiferous. For whatsoever act being in itself either good or indifferent, any of their Church (except only the Pope himself, who is a member transcendent) doth perform, because they do it in obedience unto him, whose supreme authority they make the foundation, not only of their faith, but of all good actions: in doing any such act, there is a virtual and implicit obedience to Antichrist, an acknowledgement of his supreme power to teach and command what is to be done, a receiving his mark, either in their hand or forehead: so that every such act, is not only impious, but even Antichristian, and containeth in it a virtual and implicit renouncing of the whole faith. In regard whereof none can ever sufficiently, I say, not commend, but admire the zeal of Luther: who though he was so earnest to have the Communion in both kinds, contrary to the doctrine and custom of the Roman Church, yet withal be e Kemnit. Exa. Conc. Trid. 1. Tract. de communi. sub utraque speci●. pa. 136. professed that, if the Pope as Pope should command it to be received in both kinds, he then would receive it not in both, but in one kind only. Blessed Luther! it was never thy meaning either to receive it, only in one, or to deny it to be necessary for God's Church and people to receive it in both kinds. Thou knewest right well, that Bibite ex hoc omnes, was Christ's own ordinance, with which none might dispense; Thou for defence of this truth among many, was set up as a sign of contradiction unto them, and as a mark at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches. far was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth. But whereas they f Conc. Constant. Sess. 13. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. in decreto super petit. de concessione calici● Bell. lib. 4. de Euchar. ca 28. taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrary; such as the Church (that is, the Pope) might either allow, or take away, as he should think fit: upon this supposal and no otherwise, didst thou in thine ardent zeal to Christ, and detestation of Antichrist, say, that were the use of both or one kind only, a thing indeed indifferent, as they taught it to be, if the Pope as Pope should command the receiving in both kinds, thou wouldst not then receive it so, lest whilst thou might seem to obey Christ commanding that, but yet (upon their supposal) as a thing indifferent, thou shouldest certainly perform obedience to Antichrist, by his authority limiting, and restraining that indifferency, unto both kinds, as now by his authority he restrains it unto one. The sum is this, To do any act whether in itself good, or indifferent, but commanded to be done by the Pope as Pope, to pray, to preach, to receive the Sacraments, yea but to lift your eyes, or hold up your finger, or say your Pater noster, or your Ave Maria, or wear a bead, a model, a lace, or my garment white, or black, or use any crossing, either at Baptism, or any other time, to do any one of these, or any the like, eo nomine, because the Pope, as Pope, teacheth that they are to be done, or commands the doing of them, is in very deed a yielding oneself to be a vassal of Antichrist, a receiving the mark of the beast, and a virtual or implicit denial of the faith in Christ. So extremely venomous is that poison which lieth in the root of that fundamental heresy which they have laid as the very rock and Foundation of their faith. 34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baronius which concerned Heresy. His other concerning Schism, is this: g Esse schismatici convicti sunt, qui diversam à Romano Pontifice, his decernendis, sententiam sectati essent. Bar. an. 547. nu. 30. That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when he decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, were Schismatics. A most strange assertion: that the whole Catholic Church should be schismatical, for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause; that Catholics should all at once become Schismatics, yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholic faith. I oppose to this, another and true assertion, That not only Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters, and forsook communion with the condemners of them, was a Schismatic himself, and chief of the Schism, but that all who as yet defend Vigilius, that is, who maintain the Pope's Cathedral infallibility in causes of faith, and forsake communion with those that condemn it, that those all are, and that for this very cause, Schismatics, and the Pope, the ringleader in the Schism. 35. For the manifesting whereof, certain it is, that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly, and judicially by his Apostolical authority defined, that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, there was a great rent and Schism in the Church, either part separating itself from the other, and forsaking communion with the other. First, the holy Council, and they who took part with it, anathematised h Coll. 8. ●olis anathema sit. saepa ibid. the defenders of those Chapters, thereby (as themselves expound it) declaring their opposites to be separated i Nihil aliud significat anathema, nisi à Deo separationem. Coll. 5. pa. 552. b. from God, and therefore from the society of the church of God. On the other side, Pope Vigilius & they who were on his part, were so averse from the others, that they would rather endure disgrace, yea banishment as Baronius k An. 553. nu. 221. showeth, them communicate with their opposites. But I shall not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schism at this time between the defenders & condemners of those chapters. Baronius professeth it, saying l Ibid. , The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata, torn asunder by a schism. Again m An. eodem 553. nu. 250. , After the end of the Council there arose a greater war than was before. Catholics (so he falsely calls both parts) being then divided among themselves, some adhaering to the Council, others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution. Again, Many n An. eodem nu. 2●9. relying upon the authority of Vigilius, did not receive the fifth Synod, atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt, and separated or divided themselves from those who thought the contrary: Such were the Italian, African, Illirian, & other neighbour Bishops. So Baronius: truly professing a schism to have been then in the Church, and Pope Vigilius to have been the leader of the one part. 36. But whether of these two parts were schismatics? As the name of heresy, though it be common to any opinion, whereof one makes choice, whether it be true or false, (in which sense Constantine the great, called o Epist. ad Crestum apud Euseb. lib. 10. ca 5. the true faith, Catholicam & sanctissimam haeresim) yet in the ordinary use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions, as are repugnant to the faith: So the name of Schism though it import any scissure or renting of one from another, yet now by the vulgar use of Divines, it is appropriated only to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause, and from those, to whom, he or they who are separated, aught to unite themselves & hold communion with them. This, whosoever do, whether they be more, or fewer than those from whom they separate themselves, they are truly and properly to be termed Schismatics, and factious. For it is neither multitude, nor paucity, nor the holding with, or against any visible head, or governor whatsoever, nor the bare act of separating one's self from others; but only the cause, for which the separation is made, which maketh a Schism or faction, and truly denounceth one to be factious, or a Schismatic. If Elijah separate himself from the four hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdom of Israel, because they are Idolaters; and they sever themselves from him because he will not worship Baal, as they did; If the three children for the like cause, separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians, in separation they are both like, but in the cause being most unlike, the Baalites only, and not Elijah, and the Babylonians only, and not the three children, are Schismatics. Now because every one is bound to unite himself to the Catholic and orthodoxal Church, and hold communion with them in faith, hence it is that, as out of Austin h Lib. de unit. Eccl. ca 4. Stapleton rightly observes i Lib. 6. doct. princ. ca 7. § Istud. , Tota ratio Schismatis, the very essence of a Schism consists in the separating from the Church, I say from the true & orthodoxal Church, for a Saint Augustine in the same place teacheth, whosoever dissents from the Scriptures, and so from the true faith, though they be spread throughout the whole world, yet such are not in the (sound) Church, k Lib. 10. ca 7. §. Nempe. much less are they the Church. And therefore from them, be they never so many, never so eminent, one may, and must separate himself. But if any sever himself from the orthodoxal Church, or, to speak in Stapletons' words, si renuit operari in ratione fidei ut pars ecclesiae catholicae, if he will not cooperate or join together in maintaining the faith, as a member of the Catholic or orthodoxal Church, Schismaticus hoc ipso est, he is for this very cause a Schismatic. 37. Apply now this to Vigilius and the fifth general Council, and the case will be clear. The only cause of separation on the Counsels part, was, for that Vigilius with all his adherents were Heretics, convicted, condemned; and accursed for such, by that true sentence, and judgement of the fifth general Council, which was consonant both to Scriptures, Fathers, and the four former general Counsels, and approved by all succeeding general Counsels, Popes, and Bishops, that is, by the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, for more than fifteen hundreth years together. A cause not only most just, but commanded by the holy Apostle l Tu. ●. 10. , eat him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition; much more after public conviction and condemnation, by the upright judgement of the whole Catholic Church. On the other side, Vigilius and his Faction separated themselves from the Council, and all that took part with it, for this only reason, because they were Catholics; because they embraced and constantly defended the Catholic faith; because he would not cooperate (as Stapleton speaketh) with them, to maintain the true Catholic faith, and so on their part, there was that which essentially made them schismatics. Baronius in saying that those who then dissented from Vigilius, were schismatics, speaks suitably to all his former assertions; For in saying this, he in effect saith, that Catholics to avoid a Schism, should have turned Heretics, should have embraced Nestorianisme, and so have renounced and condemned the whole Catholic faith, as Vigilius then did. Had they so done, they should have been no Schismatics with Baronius: But now for not condemning the Catholic faith with Vigilius, they must all be condemned by the Cardinal, for schismatics. 38. For the very same reason, the whole present Roman Church are schismatics at this day; and not the Reformed Churches from whom they separate themselves. For the cause of separation on their part, is the same for which Vigilius and his schismatical faction separated themselves from the fifth Council, and the Catholics of those times who all took part with it, even because we refuse to embrace the Pope's Cathedral sentence in causes of faith, as the fifth Council refused that of Vigilius. The cause on our part is the same which the fifth Council than had, for that they defend the Pope's heretical constitution: nay not only that of Vigilius (which yet were cause enough) but many other like unto that, and especially that one of Leo the tenth with his Lateran Council, whereby Supremacy and with it Infallibility of judgement is given unto the Pope in all his decrees of faith: In which one Cathedral decree (condemned for heretical by the fifth Council, and constant judgement both of precedent and subsequent Counsels, as before we have declared) not only innumerable heresies such as none yet doth dream of, are included, but by the venom and poison of that one fundamental heresy, not only all the other doctrines are corrupted, but the very foundation of faith is utterly overthrown. Let them boast of multitudes, and universality never so much, (which at this day, is but a vain brag) say they were far more, even four hundreth to one Luther, or the whole kingdom of Babylon to the two witnesses of God; yet seeing it is the cause which makes a schismatic; & the cause of separation on their part is most unjust, but on ours most warrantable & holy, for that they will not cooperate with us, in upholding the ancient and Catholic faith, that especially of the fifth Council, condemning and accursing the Cathedral sentence of Pope Vigilius, as heretical, & all that defend it, as Heretics, it evidently followeth, that they are the only, & essentially schismatics, at this time, and in this great rent of the Church, 39 Whence again doth ensue another Conclusion of no small importance. For it is a ruled case among them, such as Bellarmine m Lib. de Eccles. 〈◊〉 ca 5. avoucheth to be proved both by Scriptures, by Fathers, by pontifical decrees, and sound reason, that no schismatics are in the Church, or of the Church, Now because out of n Extra quam (Ecclesiam) nullus omnino salvatur. Conc. Lateran. ●● 1. the Church there is no salvation, it nearly concerns them, to bethink themselves seriously what hope there is or can be unto them, who being, (as we have proved) schismatics, are for this cause by their own doctrine, utterly excluded from the Church. But I will proceed no further in this matter, wherein I have stayed much longer than I intended, yet my hope is, that I have now abundantly cleared against Baronius, not only, That one may descent in faith, and be disjoined in communion from the Pope, & yet neither be Heretics nor schismatics: but, That none can now consent in faith, and hold communion with the Pope, but for that very cause he is by the judgement of the Catholic Church, both an heretic and a schismatic. CHAP. XIIII. The second Exception of Baronius, excusing Vigilius from heresy, for that he often professeth to hold the Council of Chalcedon, and the faith thereof, refuted. 1. HIs second excuse for Vigilius is taken from that profession which both other defenders of the three Chapters, and Vigilius himself often maketh in his Constitution, that he holds the faith of the Council of Chalcedon, and did all for the safety of that Council. Both parties saith Baronius a An. 547. nu. 47. , as well the defenders as the condemners of those three Chapters did testify, that they desired nothing more, quam consultum esse catholica fidei, probatae à S. Concilio Chalcedonensi, then to provide that the Catholic faith decreed at Chalcedon might be safe. Again b An. 546. nu. 53. ● liquet omnes, it is manifest that all Catholics (in defence of the three Chapters) at once contradicted this novelty, (set down in the Emperor's Edict for condemning those chapters) vindicesque se Concilij Chalcedonensis exhibuisse, and showed themselves to be defenders of the Council of Chalcedon, Of Vigilius in particular, he not so little as forty times ingeminates this: Vigilius c An. 553. nu. 197. writ these things, pro defension & integritate Synodi Chalcedonensis, for the defence and safety of the Council at Chalcedon. Vigilius d Ibid. nu. 47. writ his constitution for no other cause (as by it is evident) but to the end that all things which were defined by the Council at Chalcedon, firma consisterent, might remain firm and by no means be infringed. Again e Ibid. nu. 231. , All that Vigilius or the rest did in this cause, did tend hereunto, ut consultum esset dignitati & authoritati Synodi Chalcedonensis, that the dignity and authority of the Council at Chalcedon might be kept safe and sound, Thus Baronius. 2. The writings of those who defended those Chapters declare the same. Victor in plain terms affirmeth f In Chron. an. 2. post Coss. Basil●. , the three Chapters to have been approved and judged orthodoxal by the Council of Chalcedon, and the condemning of them, to be the condemning of that Council; and that for this cause, he refused to condemn them, lest in so doing he should condemn the Council of Chalcedon. The like he witnesseth g An. 10. post Coss. Basilij. of Facundus: whose own words set down by Baronius h An. 545. nu. 25. show, that he disliked the condemners of those three Chapters, because by condemning them, Synodum improbarent, they condemned the Council of Chalcedon. But none shows the like love to that Council, and care for it as doth Pope Vigilius in his Constitution, we decree saith he i Apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 196. , That the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon, shall be kept inviolable in all things, and particularly in this, touching the Epistle of Ibas: we dare not call into question their judgement: their judgement in omnibus conservantes, we keep in all things. Again k Ibid. nu. 197: , we permit no man to innovate either by addition, or detraction, or alteration, any thing which is ordained & set down by the Council at Chalcedon. Again l Ibid. nu. 207. , Behold, O Emperor, it is more clear than the light, that we have always been desirous to reverence the four Counsels, and that all things might remain inviolable which by them are defined and judged. This, and much more to the like purpose saith Vigilius: Who now reading these things in his Constitution, and seeing him so fervent and zealous for the Council at Chalcedon, and the faith therein declared, would not think, nay proclaim Vigilius to be a most sound Catholic, an utter enemy to Nestorianisme, as that holy Council at Chalcedon was? Or who would not applaud Baronius for his devise to defend and excuse Vigilius from heresy, because he was so earnest for the Council of Chalcedon and the faith declared therein, which none can embrace, and be guilty of Nestorianisme? This is his plea for Vigilius. 3. For answer whereunto, I am ashamed that Baronius, a Cardinal, and man of rare knowledge, as he is supposed, should show himself so inconsiderate in this cause, as to seek to excuse or defend Vigilius, by alleging the name, credit, or authority of the Council of Chalcedon. For even that alone, if there were nothing else, pulls upon him that just Anathema denounced by the fifth Council, who thus decree, We m Coll. 8. pa. 586. b. & 588. a. anathematise the defenders of these Three Chapters, and those who have written, or do write for them, or who do defend, or endeavour to defend the impiety of them, nomine sanctorum Patrum, aut sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij; by the name of the holy fathers, or of the Council at Chalcedon. The more than that either Vigilius pretends that Council for defence of the Three Chapters, or, that Baronius pretends it for the defence of Vigilius, the more they are still involved in the Counsels Anathema: and no marvel, for by alleging that Council as a patron of those Three Chapters, they slander that most holy Council, and all that approve it, that is, the whole Catholic Church to be heretical, and patrons of the most blasphemous, and condemned heresy of Nestorius. 4. Let this pass: Is this reason, think you, of Baronius of any force to excuse Vigilius; he professeth to defend the Council of Chalcedon, therefore he is not an heretic? Truly of none at all; for who knoweth not that heretics are as forward in challenging to themselves the names and authority of ancient Counsels, and in professing to defend the same faith and doctrine which they taught. Take a view but of three or four examples, and then you will pity Baronius for this so weak and silly excuse for Vigilius. 5. In the Ephesine latrociny there came n Act. Concil. Eph. recitat. in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 45. certain Eutychean heretics, to the number of 35. who being justly excommunicated by that holy Bishop Flavianus, desired to be restored to the communion of the Church: Dioscorus & his Synod willed them to make a profession of their faith; they did so; & their confession was this, Sic sapimus, sicut 318. Patres in Nicaea sanxerunt, & sicut hic congregata sancta a Synodus confirmarunt; we believe as the Nicene Fathers decreed; and the (former) holy Synod at Ephesus confirmed, nor did we ever believe, or think otherwise than those holy Counsels decreed: we believe as S. Athanasius, S. Cyrill, S. Gregory, & omnes Catholici Episcopi, and as all Catholic Bishops have believed; and we accurse all that believe otherwise. Thus professed those Eutychean heretics, and upon this profession they were by Dioscerus and his Synod restored to the communion of the Church; yea, which is more, that same latrociny or heretical Synod at Ephesus, professing o Ibid. pa. 46. the former Counsels to be, tutelam nostrae Catholica fidei, the stay and prop of their Catholic faith, (so they call their heresy) commanded the Nicene Creed, which was confirmed in the holy Ephesine Council, to be read before them; and the testimonies of many holy Fathers p Ibid. pa. 47. consenting thereunto, Peter, Athanasius, Foelix, julius, Cyprian, and others, together with the decree of the Ephesine Council, Nulli q Ibid. pa. ●●. licere proffer, vel conscribere, vel componere aliam fidem prater eam; that it should not be lawful for any to utter, write, or compose any other faith, or Creed, but that which was decreed at Nice. After all these read before them, Dioscorus said, Existimo r Ibid. pa. 57 omnibus placere, I think that this faith decreed at Nice, and confirmed at Ephesus, is approved by us all; for we may not either retract, or make doubt of what they have done: and let every man say his judgement hereof: Then said Thalassius, I think the same, & qui contraria eis sapiunt, abominor; and I abhor all who think the contrary. john of Sebastia, I detest all heresies, & colo hanc solam fidem, and embrace this faith only which was decreed at Nice. Stephanus, If any believe otherwise than the Nicene Fathers decreed, let him be accursed, because this is the true and Catholic faith. and the whole Council said, Omnes sumus ejusdem fidei, we are all of the same faith, which the Nicene Fathers decreed. Thus professed that whole Ephesine latrociny consisting of 128 Bishops, they all said, they held the Nicene faith, and none but that; accursing all that received not that: while yet at that very time when they thus professed, they were most damnable heretics, and conspired together to abolish for ever the holy Nicene faith: They being Eutycheans, learned to make such a dissembling profession of Eutyches himself, who delivered up to that Synod s Conciliab. Ephes. in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 11. a confession of his faith, bemoaning, that he was persecuted, because he would not deny the Nicene faith, nor believe otherwise then those holy fathers had decreed, and the Ephesine Council had confirmed; and who having repeated verbatim the Nicene Creed, addeth this, Thus was I taught by my progenitors, thus have I believed, in this faith was I borne, in this faith was I baptised, and signed, (with the Cross) in this faith was I consecrated, in this faith have I lived to this day, and in this faith do I desire to dye: And this confession do I make, attestante mihi tam Deo, quam vestra sanctitate; both God and this holy Council being my witness hereof. Thus Eutyches; of whom (notwithstanding this so holy a profession) and all his partakers, their second Nicene Council truly saith t Act. 6. pa. 561. , Eutiches, Dioscorus, and the heretics of that bran approved the Nicene faith, confirmed in the holy Council at Ephesus, sed tamen haeretici permanserunt, yet for all that they remained heretics. 6. What can the Cardinal, or any of his friends oppose to this Example? If Vigilius be no heretic, because he professeth to hold the faith of the Council at Chalcedon, then neither Dioscorus, nor the Eutycheans, nor Eutyches himself, is an heretic, because they all with as great earnestness professed to keep inviolable the Counsels at Nice, and Ephesus, & the Catholic faith explained in them, accursing all who believe the contrary thereunto: If notwithstanding this so resolute and earnest profession, Dioscorus & the Eutycheans, with that Ephesine conspiracy, were heretics, & Eutyches himself an archheretic, as they all undoubtedly were; for even while they thus professed, they all denied u Confiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse Dominum ante adunationem, post vero adunationem unam naturam confiteor, Dixit Eutyches: sancta Synodus dixit, consentimus. Act. Conc. Ephes. in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 28. b. two natures to remain in Christ, after the union, as the very acts of that latrociny do expressly declare; then was it a very silly reason of Baronius, to conclude, that Vigilius was no heretic, because in his decree, for defence of the Three Chapters, he is so resolute to keep inviolable the Council of Chalcedon, and the faith there decreed. 7. The like may be seen in the Monothelites, of whom their second Nicen Synod saith x Act. 6. pa. 561. thus. Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, Cyrus' Bishop of Alexandria, Honorius Bishop of Rome, and all who are called Monothelites, embraced both the Council of Chalcedon, and the next which followed it (which is this fifth) and the general Counsels which went before these, to wit, the Nicen, Constantinopolitan, and Ephesine: veruntamen ut haeretici a Catholica ecclesia dammati sunt, yet for all this they were condemned for heretics, by the whole Church; Why may not the Catholic Church give the like doom of Vigilius for defending the three Chapters, though he profess and embrace all the same Counsels, and particularly that of Chalcedon, as they did? 8. Perhaps other Heretics would dissemble in their profession, but the Nestorians (of which rank Vigilius was) they were men of a better fashion, they would never profess to hold the decrees and faith of an holy Council, unless they did so indeed. Fie, of all heretics they were most vile in this kind. Read the acts of their Conventicle held in an Inn at Ephesus, during the time of the holy Ephesine Council, and you shall see, that as by lies, slanders and all base revile they sought to disgrace Cyrill, and all other orthodoxal Bishops, calumniating them as heretics, and oppugners of the Nicen faith, so they boasted of themselves, that they forsooth were the only men who defended and upheld the Council of Nice and the faith there explained; Witness beside their second Nicen x Ibid. Synod, their own words, and writings, Nestorius himself and others of his sect, writ y To. 3. Act. Conc. Epist. ca 20. thus to the Emperor, we obeying your imperial command, came to Ephesus, and our intent and desire was, communi omnium calculo sanctorum Patrum Nicenorum fidem confirmare, to confirm with one consent the faith of the Nicen Fathers. In those instructions, which they gave to their Legates, they subscribed in z Ibid. ca 19 this manner, I Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis Nicena fidei expositioni subscripsi, have subscribed to the Nicen Faith, and if you shall do any thing according to the faith expounded at Nice, to that I assent: in the like sort subscribed they all. To the Emperor that Conventicle thus writ a Ibid. ca 11. , we do earnestly desire your piety, that you would command; that all men should subscribe to the faith expounded at Nice, and that they may teach nothing quoth sit ab ea alienum, which is contrary to that faith. In another Epistle to the Emperor, we came, say b Append. 2. add tom. 3. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca 3. they, to Ephesus without delay, maventes in sola expositione fidei Patrum qui in Nicaea convenerant, abiding in that profession of faith only, which was decreed at Nice. In another Epistle having repeated the Nicen Creed, they add c To. ●. Conc. Ephes. ca 12. this, In hanc fidei expositionem nos omnes acquiescimus, we all do rest ourselves in this declaration of faith made at Nice, we constantly persever in it. In their d Ibid. ca 13. Epistle to Rufus, we resist them, nihil aliud spectantes, quam ut fidei Symbolum à patribus Nicenis editum, suum locum perfectè obtineat, intending or aiming at nothing else, but that the faith of the Nicene Creed, may fully and perfectly obtain his due place and honour. In their very Synodall sentence against Cyrill, and other orthodoxal Bishops, they express e Ibid. ca 2: this, That they shall remain excommunicate, until they do integrè suscipere, entirely embrace the Nicene faith, adding nothing unto it; which they repeat again in their Epistle to the Senate of Constantinople, saying: If f Ibid. ca 6. Cyrill and the rest will repent, & forsake their heretical doctrines, and embrace the faith of the Nicene Fathers, they shall strait be absolved; and twenty times the like. Who reading no more but these so many, so earnest professions of Nestorius and the Nestorians, to defend in every point the Nicene faith, without addition or alteration, would not almost swear that these doubtless were the only men that stood firm and constant for the Nicene Council; and that cyril and they who took part with him (which was the whole Catholic Church) were the main oppugners of that Council, and the faith there decreed? And yet notwithstanding all these professions, these were blasphemous heretics at that time, and most eagerly oppugned and sought to abolish that very Nicene faith, which in words they so professed and boasted of. 9 Vigilius and the defenders of the Three Chapters, as they followed the Nestorians in their heresy, so did they in seeking to countenance and grace their heresy, by professing to defend the Council of Chalcedon, and the faith there decreed, yea to defend it so constantly as that it might not in any part or syllable be violated, pretending their opposites, who condemned those Chapters, to oppugn and condemn the Council of Chalcedon, as the old Nestorians slandered Cyrill, and other Catholics of those times, to condemn the Council of Nice. And yet notwithstanding all these professions, Vigilius and his adherents were as deep in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himself, and even while he pretends to maintain, he doth quite overthrow the holy Council of Chalcedon; and the faith therein explained. 10. But neither the old, nor later Nestorians are in this kind comparable to the modern Romanists, the last and worst sect of heretics that ever the Church was pestered withal. Their profession is not so minute, as to boast of this or that one Council, or of some few fathers. All Scriptures make for them, All the Fathers are theirs, All general Counsels confirm what they teach. Their books do swell with this ventosity. I pray you hear the words but of one of them, but such an one, as puts down all Nestorians, Eutycheans, Monothelites, and all heretics that went before him; We, saith he g An Apologicall Epistle published an. 1601. pa. 113. , have All authorities, Times, and places for our defence: Our enemies have none at all. Our h Ibid. pa. 113. doctrine is taught by all godly and famous professors of Divinity; All Popes, Fathers and Doctors that ever were in the Church, All Counsels, particular and general, All Universities, Schools, Colleges and places of learning, since the time of Christ to Martin Luther: It is i Ibid. pa. 38. ratified by all authority, all Scriptures, Traditions, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Sibylls', Rabbins: All holy and learned Fathers, Historians, Antiquaries, and Monuments: All Synods, Counsels, Laws, Parliaments, Canons and Decrees of Popes, of Emperors, of Kings, and Rulers: All Martyrs, Confessors, and holy witnesses; by all friends and enemies, even mahumetans, jews, Pagans, Infidels; All former Heretics, and schismatics, by all testimonies that can be devised, not only in this world, but of God, of Angels and glorious souls, of Devils and damned spirits in hell. (The fittest witnesses of all.) What, any more? yes, the best is yet behind. I have, saith he k Ibid. pa. 119. , read and studied all the Scriptures, the old Testament in the Hebrew Text, the new in the Greek; I have studied the ancient Glosses and Scholies, Latin and Greek. I have perused the most ancient Historians, Eusebius, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomene, Palladius, Saint Jerome, Saint Bede, and others; I have often with diligence considered the Decrees of the Popes, both of all that were before the Nicene Council and after, (than no doubt but he diligently considered of this Apostolical Constitution of Pope Vigilius.) I have been an auditor both of Scholastical and controversal questions, where all doubts and difficulties that wit or learning can devise, and invent, are handled, and most exquisitely debated; I have seen and read all the general Counsels, from the first at Nice, to the last at Trent, (than doubt not but he read this fifth Council:) as also all approved particular and Provincial Counsels which be extant and ordinarily used; I have carefully read over all the works and writings which be to be had of Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Ignatius, Saint Policarp, Saint Clement, Martialis, Saint justine, Origen, Saint Basil, Saint Athanasius, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Gregory Nissene, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Irene, Saint Cyprian, Fulgentius, Pamphilus the Martyr, Palladius, Theodoret, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomene, Evagrius, Cassianus, Lactantius, Vincentius Lyrinensis; all the works of all these have I read and examined, and conferred them with Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, 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 witness (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 Greek Scriptures, those Historians, Popes, Decrees, Scholies, and Expositions, Counsels, Schools and Fathers, and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same. Thus he. 11. Did ever mortal man read or hear of such a braggadochio? For learning and languages Jerome is but a baby to him; more industrious and adamantine than Origen, than Adamantius himself. A shop, a storehouse of all knowledge; his head a Library of all Fathers, Counsels, Decrees, of all writings, an Heluo, nay a very hell of books, he devours up all. Rabsecha, Thraso, Pyrgopolinices, Therapontigonus; all ye Magnificoes & Glorio●oes, come sit at his feet, and learn of him the exact form of vaunting and reviling. What silly men were Eutiches, Nestorius, and the old heretics? they boasted but of one or two Counsels. All Counsels, all Fathers, all Decrees, all books, writings, and records, are witnesses of his faith. They said it, he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven, that all Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, all witnesses in heaven, earth and hell, yea the Devil and all, are his, and corfirme their Roman faith, and condemn the doctrine of Protestants. Alas what shall we do, but even hide ourselves in caves of the earth, and cliffs of the rocks, from the force and fury of this Goliath, who thus braves it out in the open field, as who with the only breath of his mouth can blow away whole legions, quasi ventus folia, aut pannicula tectoria. 12. But let no man's 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 pebble stone of the judicial sentence of the fifth general Council against Vigilius. This being taken out of David's bag, that is, derived from Scriptures, consonant to all former, and confirmed by all succeeding Catholic Counsels and Fathers, directly and avoidable hits him in the forehead, it gives a mortal and uncurable wound unto him; for it demonstrates not only the foundation of their faith to be heretical, and for such to be condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, but all their doctrines, whatsoever they teach, because they all rely on this foundation of the Pope's infallibility, are not only unsound, and in the root heretical, but even Antichristian also, such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholic faith. This, being one part of the Philistimes weapons, wherein he trusted and vaunted, with his own 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, jacet ingens littore truncus, Auulsumque humeris caput, & sine nomine corpus. 13. You see now how both ancient and modern heretics boast of Counsels, and therefore, that the reason of Baronius is most inconsequent, that Vigilius was no heretic because he professeth to hold the Council of Chalcedon. Nay I say more, though one profess to hold the whole Scripture, yet if with pertinacy he hold any one doctrine repugnant thereunto, the profession of the Scriptures themselves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretic; If it could, than not any of the old heretics would want this pretence: or, to omit them, seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to believe the Scriptures, and whatsoever is taught therein; would this profession exempt one from heresy, neither they, nor we, should be, or be called heretics. But seeing in truth they are, and we in their Antichristian language are called heretics, as Cyrill, and the orthodoxal believers in his time, were by the Nestorians, it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures, much less to hold one or two Counsels (as Vigilius did) cannot free one from being an heretic. 14. You will perhaps say, can one then believe the whole Scripture, and be an heretic, or believe the faith decreed at Nice, Ephesus, or Chalcedon; and be an Arian, Eutychean or Nestorian heretic? No verily, for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every heresy, seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l Lib. 2. the doct. Christ. ca 9 , all doctrines concerning faith, are set down, and that also perspicuously therein: so do every one of those three Counsels contain a contradiction to every one of those three heresies, and to all other which concern the divinity or humanity of Christ. But it is one thing to profess the scriptures, or those three Counsels, and say that he believes them, which many heretics may do; and another thing to believe them indeed, which none can do and be an heretic, for whosoever truly believeth 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 yield to the truth of the scriptures, and so he is certainly an heretic, notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures, which he falsely said he believed, 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 Counsels, and them who either truly believe, or falsely say, that they believe the faith explained in them, or any one of them. 15. Whence two things are evidently consequent, the former, that all heretics are liars in their profession: not only because they profess that doctrine which is untrue, and heretical, but because in words they profess to believe and hold that doctrine which they do not, but hold, and that for a point of their faith, the quite contrary: All of them will and do profess that they believe the scriptures, and the doctrines therein contained: and yet every one of them lie herein, for they believe one, if not more doctrines contrary to the scriptures. The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith, and so they professed two natures and but one person to be in Christ, for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed: but they lied in making this profession, for they believed not one person, but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ. The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Council, professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union, for this was certainly the faith of that holy Council, but they lied in this profession, for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ, but one only. The Church of Rome and members thereof profess to hold the faith of the fifth general Council, and so profess implicitè the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and heretical: but they lie in making this profession, for they believe not the Pope's sentence in such causes to be fallible, but with the Lateran and Trent Counsels, they hold it to be infallible. It is the practice of all heretics to make such fair, though lying professions. For should they say in plain terms, (that which is truth indeed) we believe not the scriptures, nor the Counsels of Nice, Ephesus, or Chalcedon; every man would spit at them, and detest them, cane pejus & angue, nor could they ever deceive any, or gain one proselyte. But when they commend their faith (that is, their heresy) to be the same doctrine with the scriptures, which the Counsels of Nice, Ephesus and Chalcedon taught, by these fair 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 heretics is contradictory to itself. For they profess to hold the scriptures, and so to condemn every heresy, and yet withal they profess one private doctrine repugnant to scripture, and which is an heresy. The like may be said of the Counsels. The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice, profess Christ to be but one person, and yet withal by holding Nestorianisme, they profess Christ to be two persons. The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Council of Ephesus, profess two natures to remain in Christ after the union; which in that Council is certainly decreed, and yet by professing the heresy of Eutyches, they profess the quite contradictory, that one nature only remains after the union. The Church of Rome and members thereof, by professing the faith of the fifth Council, profess the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible, and de facto to have been heretical; and yet they profess the direct contradictory, as the Council of Lateran hath defined, that the Pope's sentence in such causes is infallible, and neither hath been nor can be heretical. So repugnant to itself, and incoherent is the profession of all heretics, that it fighteth both with the truth, and with it own self also. The very same is to be seen 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 maintain them, and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon, and decreeing that all shall hold it, he professeth that Nestorianisme is heresy, and decreeth that all shall condemn it for heresy: and so decreeing both these, he decreeth that all men in the world shall believe two contradictories, and believe them as Catholic Truths. Such a worthy Apostolical decree is this of Vigilius, for defending whereof Baronius doth more than toil himself. 17. You will again demand: Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainly profess both these, why shall not his express profession to hold the Council of Chalcedon, make him or show him to be a Catholic, rather than his other express profession, to defend the Three Chapters, make or show him to be an heretic? Why rather shall his heretical, than his orthodoxal profession give denomination unto him? I also demand of you, Seeing every heretic in express words professeth to believe the whole Scripture, which is in effect a condemning of every heresy, why shall not this orthodoxal profession make or show him to be a Catholic, rather than his express profession of some one doctrine contrary to Scripture (say for example sake, of Arianism) make or show him to be an Arian heretic? The reason of both is one and the same. Did an Arian so profess to hold the Scriptures, that he were resolved to forsake his Arianism, and confess Christ to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this, certainly his profession of Arianism, with such a profession to hold the Scriptures, could not make him an heretic, no more than Cyprians profession of Rebaptisation, or Irenees of the millenary heresy, did make them heretics: Err he should, as they did, but being not pertinacious in error, heretic he could not be, as they were not. But it falls out otherwise with all heretics. They profess to hold the Scripture, yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintain: That they will hold, and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture, notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrary, even of the Scriptures themselves. They resolve of this, that whosoever, Bishops, Counsels, or Church, teach the contrary to that, or say & judge that the Scripture so teacheth, they all err or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures. Thus did not Cyprian, nor Irenee. And this wilful and pertinacious resolution it is, which evidently showeth that in truth they believe not the Scriptures, but believe their own fancies, though they say a thousand times, that they believe and embrace whatsoever the Scriptures teach, for did they believe any doctrine, say Arianisme, eo nomine, because the Scripture teacheth it, they would presently believe the contrary thereunto, when it were manifested unto them (as is was to the Arians, by the Nicen Council) that the Scripture taught the contrary to their error. Seeing this they will not do, It is certain that they hold their private opinion, eo nomine because they will hold it; and they hold it to be the doctrine of scripture, not because it is so, but because they will have it to be so, say what any will or can to the contrary. So their own will, and not Scripture, is the reason why they believe it, nay why they hold it with such a stiff opinion, for belief it is not, it cannot be. This pertinacy to have been in the Nestorians, Eutycheans and the rest, is evident. Had they believed, as they professed, the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus, then upon manifestation of their errors out of those Counsels, they would have renounced their heresies: but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ, notwithstanding, that the whole Council of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Council held but one person, and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union, notwithstanding that the whole Council 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 Counsels, 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 Counsels, and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said, we hold those Counsels, and will have them to teach what we affirm, whatsoever any man or Council saith, or can say to the contrary. The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause: Had he so professed to hold the Council of Chalcedon, as that upon manifestion that the Three Chapters were condemned by it, he would have forsaken the defence of them, then certainly his defending of these 3. Chapters had not been pertinacious, nor should have made him an heretic, but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon, notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters, should have made him a catholic. But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evident unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fifth Council, that the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all, he by this persisting in heresy did demonstrate to all, that he professed to hold the Council at Chalcedon, no otherwise then with a pertinacious resolution not to forsake the defence of those Three heretical Chapters, although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him, that the Council of Chalcedon condemned the same: and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters, with this pertinacy and wilful resolution declareth him to be indeed an heretic, notwithstanding his profession to hold the Council of Chalcedon and faith thereof, whereby all those Chapters are condemned, which profession being joined with the former pertinacy, could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholic. 18. The very fame must be said of the present Roman Church and members thereof. Did they in such sort profess to hold the fifth Council, and faith thereof, as that upon manifestation that this Council believed, taught and decreed that the Pope's Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith is fallible, and de facto hath been heretical, they would condemn that their fundamental heresy of the Pope's Cathedral infallibility decreed in their Lateran and Trent assemblies, than should they much rather, for their profession of the fifth Council and faith thereof, be orthodoxal, then for professing (together with this) the Pope's Cathedral infallibility, be heretical. But seeing they know by the very Acts and judicial sentence of that fifth Council, by which the Cathedral Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for heretical in this cause of faith, touching the Three Chapters, that the fifth Council believed this, and decreed, under the censure of an Anathema, that all others should believe it, and that all who believe the contrary, are heretics: seeing, I say, notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Council, they persist to defend the Pope's Cathedral 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 profess to hold this fifth Council, or the other, whether precedent, or following, (for they all are consonant to this) but with this pertinacious resolution, not to forsake that their fundamental heresy; and therefore their express profession of this fifth, and other general Counsels, yea, of the Scriptures themselves, cannot be so effectual to make them Catholics, as the profession of the Pope's infallibility, which is joined with this pertinacy, is to make and demonstrate them to be heretics. 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 error, not only after, but even before conviction, or manifestation of the truth made unto him; and this happeneth whensoever he is not paratus corrigi, prepared, or ready to be informed of the truth, and corrected thereby, or when he doth not, or will not, tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem, with care and diligence seek to know the truth, as after S. Austen m Epist. 1 62. , and out of him Occam n Lib. 4. part. 1. ca 2. , Gerson o Cons. 12. de pertinacia. part. 1. pa. 430. , Navarre p Ench. ca 11. nu. 22. , Alphonsus à Castro q Lib. 1. de justa punit. haeret. ca 7 , and many others do truly teach. See now, I pray you, how far Vigilius was from this care of seeking, and preparation to embrace the truth. He by his Apostolical authority decree r Const. Vigil. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 208. , that none should either write, or speak, or teach aught 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 speak. Here was a trick of Papal, that is, of the most supreme pertinacy that can be 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 be corrected, no nor informed neither, he was pertinacious, and is justly to be so accounted before ever either Bishop, or Council manifested the truth unto him. Even as he is far more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darkness, who dams up all the windows, chinks, and passages, whereby any light might enter into the house, wherein he is, than he, who lieth asleep, and is willing to be awaked, when the light shineth about him: So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time; his tying of all men's tongues, and hands, that they should not manifest by word, or writing, the truth unto him; his damning up of the light, that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him, argues a mind most damnably pertinacious in error, 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 near unto him. 20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Roman Church, and all the members thereof: for having once set down this transcendent principle, the foundation of all which they believe; that the Pope's judgement, in causes of faith, is infallible, they do by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth, that can possibly be made unto them: Oppose whatsoever you will against their error, Scriptures, Fathers, Counsels, reason and sense itself, 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, do either mis-cite them, or misinterpret the Scriptures, Fathers, and Counsels, or your reason from them is sophistical, and your sense of sight, of touching, of tasting, is deceived, some one defect or other there is in your opposition; but an error 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 charm, which causeth one to hear with a deaf ear, whatsoever is opposed: the very head of Medusa, if you come against it, it stunnes you at the first, and turns both your reason, your sense, and yourself also, into a very stone. By holding this one fundamental position, they are pertinacious in all their errors, and that in the highest degree of pertinacy, which the wit of man can devise; yea, and pertinacious before all conviction, and that also though the truth should never by any means be manifested unto them: For by setting this down, they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth, though it should be manifested unto them, that hereby they have made a fundamental law for themselves, that they never will be convicted, nor ever have the truth manifested unto them. The only means in likelihood to persuade them, that the doctrines which they maintain, are heresies, were first to persuade the Pope, who hath decreed them to be orthodoxal, to make a contrary decree, that they are heretical. Now although this may be morally judged, to be a matter of impossibility; yet, if his Holiness could be induced hereunto, and would so far stoop to God's truth, as to make such a decree; even this also could not persuade them, so long as they hold that foundation. They would say, either the Pope were not the true Pope, or that he defined it not as Pope, and ex Cathedra; or that, by consenting to such an heretical decree, he ceased ipso facto to be Pope, or the like; some one or other evasion they would have still: but, grant the Pope's sentence to be fallible, or heretical, whose infallibility they hold as a doctrine of faith, yea, as the foundation of their faith, they would not. Such, and so unconquerable pertinacy is annexed, and that essentially, to that one Position, that so long as one holds it, (and whensoever he ceaseth to hold it, he ceaseth to be a member of their Church,) there is no possible means in the world to convict him, or convert him to the truth. 21. You do now clearly see, how feeble, and inconsequent that Collection is, which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigilius, for that he often professeth to defend the Council of Chalcedon, and the faith therein explained: He did but herein that which is the usual custom of all other heretics, both ancient and modern: Quit him for this cause, and quit them all; condemn them, and then, this pretence can no way excuse Vigilius from heresy. They all with him profess, with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures, of Fathers, of general Counsels, but because their profession is not only lying, and contradictory to itself, but always such, as that they retain a wilful and pertinacious resolution, not to forsake that heresy which themselves embrace, as Vigilius had, not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters: Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scriptures, Fathers, and Counsels, cannot make any of them, nor Vigilius among them, to be esteemed orthodoxal, or Catholic: but the real and cordial profession of any one doctrine, which they, with such pertinacy hold against the Scriptures, or holy general Counsels, as Vigilius did this of the Three Chapters, doth truly demonstrate them all, and Vigilius among them, to be heretics. And this may suffice for answer to the second exception, or evasion of Baronius. CAP. 15. The third exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius, taken from his confirming of the fifth Council, answered; and how Pope Vigilius, three of four times changed his judgement in this cause of faith. 1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigilius, by his act of confirming and approving the fifth Council, and the decree thereof for condemning the Three Chapters, It appeareth, saith he a An. 554. nu. 7. , that Vigilius, to the end he might take away the schism, and unite the Eastern Churches to the Catholic communion, quintam Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit, did approve the fifth Synod by his Apostolical authority. Again b An. 553. nu. 235. , when Vigilius saw, that the Eastern Church would be rend from the West, unless he consented to the fifth Synod, eam probavit, he approved it: Again c Ibid. nu. 236. , Pelagius thought it fit, as Vigilius had thought before, that the fifth Synod, wherein the three Chapters were condemned, should be approved: and again d An. 556. nu. 1. , Cognitum fuit, it was publicly known, that Vigilius had approved the fifth Synod, and condemned the three Chapters. The like is affirmed by Bellarmine e Lib. 1. de Conc. ca 5. § Coacta. , Vigilius confirmed the fifth Synod, per libellum, by a book, or writing. Binius is so resolute herein, that he saith f Not. in Conc. 5. § Praeslitit. , A Vigilio (quintam) Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat; none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fifth Council. Now if Vigilius approved the fifth Council, and condemned the Three Chapters, it seems that all which we have said of his contradicting the fifth Synod, and of his defending those Three Chapters, is of no force, and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholic. This is the Exception, the validity whereof we are now to examine. 2. For the clearing of which whole matter, it must be remembered, that all, which hitherto we have spoken of Vigilius, hath reference to his Apostolical decree, published in defence of those Three Chapters, that is, to Vigilius, being such as that decree doth show, and demonstrate him to have been, even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith, and a condemned heretic by the judicial sentence of the fifth Council: but now Baronius draws us to a further examination of the carriage of Vigilius in this whole business, and how he behaved himself from the first publishing of the Emperor's Edict, which was in the twentieth g Bar. an. 546. nu. 8. year of justinian, unto the death of Vigilius, which was, as Baronius accounteth h An. 555. nu. 1. , in the 29 of justinian, and second year after the fifth Council was ended; but, as Victor, (who then lived) accounteth i In Chron. an. 17. post Coss. Basil. , in the 31 of justinian, and fourth year after the Synod: And, for the more clear view of his carriage, we must observe four several periods of time, wherein Vigilius, during those nine or ten years, gave diverse several judgements, and made three or four eminent changes in this cause of faith. The first, from the promulgation of the Emperor's Edict, while he remained at Rome, and was absent from the Emperor. The second, after he came to Constantinople, and to the Emperor's presence, but before the fifth Synod was begun. The third, in the time of the fifth Synod, and about a year after the end and dissolution thereof. The fourth, from thence, that is, from the year after the Synod, unto his death. 3. At the first k Ipso exordio osseriae ab Imperatore sententiae. Bar. an. 546 nu. 38. et 39 publishing of the Edict, many of the Western Churches, impugnabant Edictum, did oppose themselves to it, and, as Baronius saith, insurrexere, made an insurrection against it, and the Emperor: Pope Vigilius, as in place and dignity he was more eminent, so in this Insurrection he was more forward, and a ringleader unto them all: And because the conflict was likely to be troublesome, Vigilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause. First, he proclaimeth the Edict, and condemning of the Three Chapters to be a profane l Ille (Vigilius) prophanas vocum novitates sibi vendicavit arguendas. Ait Facund. apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57 novelty, judging m Nisi contrarium Synodo Chalcedonensi judicaret. Ibid. nu. 58. it to be contrary to the holy faith, and Council at Chalcedon: To this he adds writings, threats, and punishments: Literas scripsit adversus eos, saith Baronius n An. 547. nu. 44. et 32. , Vigilius writ letters against all that held with the Emperor, and his Edict: in those letters, comminatus o Ibid. est eis qui consenserunt; he threatened those that consented to the Emperor; edixit p Facund. loco cit. nu. 56. & indixit correctionem; he decreed punishment unto them, and forewarned them thereof; telling them, that unless they did amend their fault, he would draw out his Apostolic blade against them, protesting with the Apostle q 2 Cor. 12. v. 22. , I fear when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found of you such as ye would not. Nor were his threats in vain, as it seemeth, seeing Baronius r An. 546. nu. 47. et 547. nu. 45. tells us, that for this very cause, either he or Stephanus his Legate, in his name did excommunicate, besides others, two patriarchs, Mennas of Constantinople, and Zoilus of Alexandria, and with them Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea. 4. Thus he dealt with inferior persons, but for the Emperor he took another course with him: He saw what danger it was to write against Emperors, that he would not do himself: But when, like Pyrrhus, ipse sibi cavit loco, he had provided for his own safety; then he thrusts forward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that business. Facundus an eloquent man indeed, as his name also imports, but a most obstinate heretic & Schismatic, seeing he persisted in defence of the three Chapters, not only before, but after the judicial sentence of the general Council; & yet is he commended by Baronius s An. 546. nu. 44 to be prudentissimus agonistes, a most wise champion for the Church: but the more heretical he is, the more like, and better liked is he to Baronius. Him doth Vigilius t Hac Facundus jubente Vigilio. Bar. ibid. egg, and even command to write against the Emperor; yea, sugillare, (it is the Cardinal's word) to taunt and flout him, for his Edict; nor him only, but in him to reprove, omnes simul Principes, all Princes whosoever do presume to meddle with a cause of faith, or make laws therein, as justinian had done. Facundus being thus directed, encouraged, and warranted by Pope Vigilius, and being but his instrument in this matter, writes u Scriptum adversus Imperatorem edidit. An. eod. nu. 39 a large volume containing twelve books, against the Emperor, in defence of the three Chapters. A work stuffed with heresy, yet highly commended by Possevine x Opus grande & elegans, et patrum authoritatibus munitum. Poss. Bibl. in Facund. the jesuit, as being a brave book strengthened with the authorities of the Fathers. There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivil and undutiful manner, as if, forsooth, fides y Facund. lib. 12 ejus verba citantur à Bar. an. 546. nu. 41. omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet; the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperor's sleeve; and as if none might believe otherwise, quam praeciperet imperator, than the Emperor commanded; telling him, that it were more meet for him, se infra limitem suum continere, to keep himself within his own bounds, as other Artificers kept their own shops; the Weaver not meddling with the Forge and Anvil, nor the Cobbler with a Carpenter's office. Such rude, homely, and undutiful comparisons doth the Pope's Orator use in this cause: And, as if Facundus had not paid the Emperor half enough, Baronius helps him with a whole Cartload of such Romish eloquence; calling the Emperor, utterly a An. 546. nu. 41 unlearned, qui b An. 528. nu. 2. ut qui nec prima elementa calleret ut legere posset. An. 446. nu. 43. nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset; who never had learned so much as his A, B, C, nor could c An. 551. nu. 4 ever read the Title of the Bible: a Puny d Repent apparere pallia●●m Theologum. An. 551. nu. 43. , a palliated Theologue, a sacrilegious e An. 552. nu. 8. person, a witless f Ille furore percitus, men●e dimo●us, co●rre, 〈◊〉 maligno spiritu, agitatus á Satana. An. 551. nu. 2. , furious, and frantic fellow, possessed with an evil spirit, and driven by the Devil himself: Such an one to g Praeter 〈◊〉 fasque prasumen. An. 528. nu. 2. presume against all right, to make laws concerning matters of faith, concerning Priests, and the punishments of them? adding h An. 546. nu. 43. , that the whole Catholic faith would be in jeopardy, si qui ejusmodi esset; if such as justinian should makes laws of faith; yea, such laws, quas i Ibid. nu. 41. dolosè conscripsissent haeretici, as heretics had craftily penned; telling k An. 550. nu. 14. him, (as Facundus had before) that it were more fit for him to look to the government of the Empire; and upbraiding him with that proverbial admonition, Ne ultra Crepidam, Sr Cobbler go not beyond your Last & Latchet. This scurrility doth the Cardinal use against the most religious and prudent Emperor, and his holy and orthodoxal Edict; and he saith, that he was l Haec addidisse voluimus. An. 546. nu. 43. willing to add these, ad roborandam Facundi sententiam, to fortify the sentence of Facundus, whereby he, with Vigilius, did defend the Three Chapters. 5. Were one disposed to make sport with the Cardinal, himself here offereth a large field, wherein one may exspaciate; and seeing he useth not others as Kings, he might expect, lege tulionis, not to be used himself as a Cardinal: But because we shall in another place more fitly convince the Cardinal, both for his reviling the Emperor, and raling at his Edict, as penned by heretics, for this time I will but by the way observe two or three points touching this passage. The first, that Facundus by defending the Three Chapters, and Baronius by fortifying his defence, do avoidable pull upon themselves the just censure of Anathema, denounced by the holy Council against the defenders of those Chapters, and those who are abetters of them: So, the more Baronius doth labour to fortify the sentence of Facundus, the more he entangles himself in that curse of the general Council. The second, that both Facundus & Baronius do quite mistake the matter, in carping at the Emperor, as if by his Edict, or in condemning those Three Chapters, he had taught or published some new doctrine of faith; he did not: He taught and commanded all others to embrace that true, ancient, and Apostolical faith, which was decreed and explained at Chalcedon, as both the whole fifth Council witnesseth, which showeth, that all those Chapters were implicit, but yet truly, and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chalcedon; and Pope Gregory also testifieth the same, saying of this fifth Council, that it was in omnibus sequax, in every point a follower of the Council at Chalcedon. This the religious Emperor wisely discerning, did by his imperial edict, and authority (as Constantine, and Theodosius had done before him) ratify that old and Catholic faith, which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time. The third & special point which I observe, is that which Baronius noteth, as the cause why Pope Vigil. was so eager against the Emperor and his edict. And what think you was it? Forsooth because, justinian primus m An. 553. nu. 237. legem sancivit, was the first who made a law, and published a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters. Had the Pope first done this, and justinian seconded his holiness therein, he had been another Constantine, a second Theodosius, the dearest child of the Church. But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope, or make any laws concerning the faith, before they consult with the Roman Apollo, or make him acquainted therewith, that's n Vel si rectum fuisset, recte non fieret, quia nulli Regum hinc aliquid agere, sed solis est sacerdotibus datum. Facund. & Bar. an. 547. nu. 35. Imperator. est fidem coram sacerdotibus profiteri, non eandem praescribere sacerdotibus Bar. ibid. piaculum, a capital, an irremissible sin, the Pope may not endure it. So then, is was neither zeal, not piety, nor love to the truth, but mere stomach and pride in Vigilius to oppose himself to the Emperor's edict, and make an insurrection against him. A sorry reason God wot for any wise man in the world, much more for the Pope, to contradict the truth and oppugn the Catholic faith. Now if justinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and piety, tending wholly to the good and peace of the Church, if he could not escape so undutiful usage at the Pope, & his orators in those better times, religious Kings may not think it strange, to find the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these days and their instruments, men so exact and eloquent in reviling, that in all such base and uncivil usage they go as far beyond Facundus, Tertullus, and them of former ages, as dross or the most abject mettle is inferior to refined gold. This is the first Period, and first judgement of Vigilius touching this cause of the three Chapters: in defence of which, and oppugning of the Emperor's edict, he continued more than a year after the publishing of the Edict, even all that time while he remained at Rome, and was absent from the Emperor. 6. As soon almost as Vigilius was come to Constantinople, and had saluted the Emperor, and conferred with them who stood for the Edict, he was quite another man, he changed cum caelo animum, the air of the Emperor's Court altered the Pope's judgement, and this was about a year after o Edictum editum fuit anno. 546. Bar. eo anno nu. 8. Constantinopolin ingressus est an. 547. prope die Natalis Domini. Bar. an. illo. nu. 26. the publishing of the Edict: Now that all things might be done with more solemnity and advise, there was a Synod p Bar. an. eod. nu. 31.32. held shortly after his coming, at Constantinople, wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters, and consented to the Emperor's Edict. This Facundus expressly witnesseth, saying q Ibid. nu. 37. , How shall not this be a prejudice to the cause, if it be demonstrated that Pope Vigilius with thirty Bishops or thereabouts, have condemned the Epistle (of Ibas) approved by the Council of Chalcedon, and anathematised that Bishop (Theodorus of Mopsvestia) with his doctrines, the praises whereof are set down in that Council? Thus Facundus. Besides all this, Vigilius was now so forward in this cause, that as before he had written books against the Edict, in defence of the three Chapters; and excommunicated those who condemned those Chapters; so now on the Emperor's side, he writ books, and gave judgement, for the condemning of those Chapters, and excommunicated some, by name, Rusticus and Sebastianus, two Roman Deacons, because they would not condemn them. None can deny saith Baronius d An. 547. nu. 40. , that Vigilius writ a book against the three chapters, and sent it unto Mennas' Bishop of Constantinople. Again, there e Ibid. is certain proof, latae ab eo sententiae, of the sentence (of excommunication) pronounced by Vigilius, against Rusticus, Sebastianus, and other defenders of those chapters: and this is so clear, ut nulla dubitatio esse possit, that there can be no doubt at all, but that Vigilius approved by a Constitution the Emperor's sentence, and condemned the three Chapters. So Baronius. The Epistles of Vigilius do testify the same. In that f Extat in Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578. to Rusticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention, judicati nostri, Constituti nostri, of our judgement, of our constitution against the three chapters, concerning which he addeth g Ibid. pa. 580. , that it was ratified by his Apostolical authority, saying, that no man may do, contra constitutum nostrum quod ex beati Petri authoritate proferimus, against this our Constitution which we set forth by the authority of Saint Peter. The like he testifieth, in his Epistle h Ibid. to Valentinianus, We believe saith he, that those things may suffice the children of the Church, which we writ to Mennas, concerning the blasphemies of Theodorus of Mopsvestia and his person, concerning the Epistle of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith. Thus Vigilius consenting now with the Emperor, defending his Imperial Edict, and condemning the three Chapters; in all which, his profession was Catholic and orthodoxal. 7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist, and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution, become orthodoxal, (though as it seemeth he remained in heart heretical) he fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters, that they i Bar. an. 547. nu. 49. did proclamare, proclaim him to be a colluder, a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith; one, who to please the Emperor revolted from his former judgement; yea the African k In Chron. an. 10. post Coss. Basilij. Bishops proceeded so far against him, that, as Victor Bishop of Tunen testifieth, Synodaliter cum à catholica communione recludunt, they in a Synod, and synodally excommunicated him, or shut him from the Catholic communion. A thing worthy observing, being done by those whom the Cardinal professeth l An. 547 nu. 30. & 39 to have been Catholics at that time. But let that pass: Baronius to excuse m Ad haec omnia excusanda, illud satis superque est. Bar. ibi. nu. 49. Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator, and to show that he was not in heart affected with the truth, which in his Constitution he declared, tells us a rare policy of the Pope, which for this time we omit, but hereafter will examine the truth and validity thereof, and this it was. Mox n An. eodem nu. 41. , presently after Vigilius had made that Apostolical decree for condemning the three Chapters, he revoked the same, (touched belike with remorse for so heinous a crime, as to profess the Catholic faith) and he suspended it, and his own judgement in that cause, till the time of a general Council: decreeing o Rursus a Vigilio promulgatum decretum est, quo decernebatur, ut de controversia de tribus Capitu●●s penitus taceretur, ibid. , that until that time all men should be wished and silent in this cause of faith; they must neither say that the Three Chapters were to be defended, nor condemned; they must neither speak one word for the truth, nor against the truth, they must all (during that time) be like himself, lukewarm Laodiceans, neither hot nor cold, neither fish nor flesh. This was the great wisdom and policy of the Pope, as Baronius at large declares, and makes no small boast thereof, adding p Ab hoc anno (547) ad tempus Concilij indictum (fuit autem an. 553) fuit in ea causa silentium, ibid. nu. 43. that the Pope remained in this mood till the time of the general Council. Thus you see the second judgement of Pope Vigilius in this cause, and his carriage during the second period, for a fit (which perhaps lasted a week or a month) he was in outward profession orthodoxal, but being weary of such an ague, he presently becomes a mere neutralist in the faith: and in this sort he continued till the assembling of the general Council, that is, for the space of six years and more. 8. The third period begins at the time of the fifth general Council: Of what judgement the Pope then was, it hath before q Sup. ca 3. nu. 4. & seq. been sufficiently declared. Then Vigilius turned to his old bias, he condemned the Emperor's Edict, and all that with it condemned the three Chapters: he defends those three heretical chapters, and that after a most authentical manner, publishing a Synodall, a Cathedral and Apostolical constitution in defence of the ●ame. And whereas not only others, but himself also, had written, and some six years before, made a Constitution to condemn those Chapters. Now after long and diligent ponderation of the cause, when he had examined all matters, cum omni undique cautela, with all wariness and circumspection that could possible be used: he quite casheires, repeals, and forever adnuls r Si quid de ●isdem capitulis contra haec quae hic asseruimus— ●el statuimus factum, dictum atque conscriptum est, vel fuerit— hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus. Const. Vigil. in fine. that former Constitution, and whatsoever either himself or any other, either had before written or should after that time, write contrary to this present Decree. And this no doubt was the reason why Baronias never so much as once endeavours to excuse Vigilius by that former decree, or to prove him to have been orthodoxal, by it: seeing by this later the whole force and virtue of that former is utterly made void, frustrate and of no effect in the world. In this judgement Vigilius was so resolute, that he was ready to endure any disgrace and punishment, rather than consent to the condemning of the three Chapters: and if we may believe Baronius or Binius, he did for this very cause endure banishment. It is manifest saith Binius s Not. in Conc. 5. § Praestitit. , that after the end of the fifth Council justinian did cast into banishment both Vigilius and other orthodoxal Bishops, (so he termeth convicted and condemned heretics) because they would not consent to the decrees of the Synod, and condemning of the three Chapters. In like sort Baronius t An. 553. nu. 222. , Liquet ex Anastasio, it is manifest by Anastasius, that Vigilius and those who held with him were carried into banishment. Again u Ibid. nu. 251. , Others thought they had a just quarrel in defending the three Chapters: when they saw Vigilius even in banishment to maintain the same, and they thought, se pro sacro sanctis pugnare legibus, that they fought for the holy faith; when they saw Pope Vigilius himself, for the same cause, constanti animo exilium far, to endure banishment with a constant mind. Again x An. 554. nu. 6. , Horum solum causa, for this cause only was Vigilius driven into banishment, because he would not condemn the Three Chapters. So Baronius: who often calleth this exiling of Vigilius and others, who defended those Chapters; persecution y Illi tantum immunes à persecutione erant, etc. an. 553. nu. 222. , yea, an heavy z Quod monstrosus accessit, ab Imperatore persecutio excitata est, & haud quidem levis. ibid. nu. 221. and monstrous persecution, complaining that the Church under justinian and from him, endured more hard conditions, and was in worse case than under the Heathen Emperors. 9 Now this demonstrates that which before I touched, that though the Pope upon his coming to Constantinople, made a decree for condemning the Three Chapters, yet still he was in heart an affectionate lover of Nestorianisme, and a defender of those Chapters, seeing for his love to them, and defence of them, he is ready not only to be bound, but to go, and dye in banishment for his zeal unto them. For had he sincerely embraced the truth, (as in his former Constitution he professed,) why doth he now at the time of the fifth Council, disclaim the same? Of all times this was the fittest to stand constanly to the faith, seeing now both the glory of God, the good and peace of the Church, the authority of the Emperor, the example of orthodoxal Bishops, and the whole Council invited, urged, and provoked him to this holy duty. What was there or could there be to move him at this time, to defend the 3. Chapters, save only his ardent and inward love to Nestorianisme? Indeed had he continued in defence of those Chapters until this time; and now relented or changed his judgement, it would have been vehemently suspected, that not the hatred of those chapters, or of Nestorianisme, but either the favour of the Emperor, or the importunity of the Eastern Bishops, or the fear of exile, or deprivation, or some such punishment had extorted that sentence and confession from him: But now when he decreeth contrary to the Emperor, to the general Council, and to his own former and true judgement; when by publishing this Decree, he was sure to gain nothing, but the censure of an unconstant and wavering minded man, the Anathema of the whole general Council, and the heavy indignation of the Emperor; when he goes thus against the main current & stream of the time, who can think, but that his only motive to do this, was his zeal and love to Nestorianisme? Love a Cant. 8.6. (specially of heresy) is strong as death. It will cause Vigilius, or any like him, when it hath once got possession of their heart, with the Baalites and Donatists, to contemn lancing, whipping, and tearing of their flesh; yea to delight as much in Phalaris Bull, as in a bed of down, and in the midst of all tortures to sing with him in the Orator b Tusc. quaest. lib. 2. , Quam suave est hoc? Quam nihil curo? O how glad and merry a man am I, that suffer all these for the love of my Three Chapters? Loss of fame, loss of goods, loss of liberty, loss of my Country, loss of my pontifical See, loss of communion and society of the Catholic Church, and of God himself: Farewell all these, and all things else, rather than the Three Chapters, than Nestorianisme shall want a defender, or a Martyr to seal it with blood. 10. You see now the third period, and the third judgement of Pope Vigilius in this cause. A judgement, which being delivered ex Tripod, and with all possible circumspection, puts down for many respects both the former, what he spoke the first time in defence of these Three Chapters, was spoken in stomach, and in his heat and choler against the Emperor. What he spoke the second time for condemning those Chapters, he did therein but temporize and curry favour with the Emperor. But what he spoke now this third time, after seven years ventilating of the cause, when all heat and passion being abated, he was in cold blood, and in such a calm, that no perturbation did trouble his mind, or darken his judgement, that I say, proceeded from the very bottom of the heart, and from the Apostolical authority of his infallible Chair, which to be a true and divine judgement, he like a worthy Confessor, sealed with his banishment. And of this judgement he continued in likelihood more, but as Baronius (whom I now follow) tells c An. 554. & 555. us, about the space of a year after the end of the fifth Council, even till he returned out of exile unto Constantinople. 11. The fourth and last changing of Vigilius was after his return from banishment, as Baronius and Binius tell us. For while he was there, he saw there was urgentissima causa, d Bar. an. 553. nu. 235. a most urgent cause why he should consent to the Emperor, and approve the judgement of the holy Council; and therefore he was pleased once again to make another Apostolical e Synodum 5. ●adem Apostolica authoritate comprobass● satis apparet. Bar. an. 554. nu. 7. & Bini. loc. cit. § Praestitit. Decree, for adnulling his former Apostolical judgement, and for condemning the Three Chapters, and confirming the fifth Synod. I think, saith Binius f Ibid. , that Vigilius confirmed the fifth Synod by his Decree and Pontifical authority, and abrogated his former Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters in the next year after the Council was ended, when he being loosed from banishment, was suffered to return into Italy, being adorned with sundry gifts and privileges. Neither doth he only opinari, but he is certain of it. Dubium g Ibid. § Tunc. non est, there is no doubt, but Vigilius being delivered from exile, by the entreaty of Narses, did confirm the fifth Synod. We think, saith Baronius, that h An. 554. nu. 4. when Vigilius was by the entreaty of Narses freed from exile, he did then assent to the Emperor, and recalling his former sentence, in his Constitution declared, did approve the fifth Synod. Again i Ibidem. , Seeing we have declared, that Vigilius did not approve the fifth Synod, when he was driven into banishment, for he was exiled for no other cause, but for that he would not approve that Synod: Necesse est affirmare, it must of necessity be said, that he did this (approve the fifth Synod;) at this time, when being loosed out of exile, he was sent home to his own Church. So Baronius. Now seeing he returned home after he had obtained those ample gifts and privileges, which they so magnify, and which are set down in that pragmatical sanction of justinian k Extat in fine Novel. , which was dated on the twelfth day of August, in the eight and twentieth year of his Empire: and the fifth Council was ended on the second l Conc. 5. coll. 8. day of june in his seven and twentieth year; it is clear, that this his last change was made about an whole year after the end of the fifth Council, after he had remained a year or thereabouts in banishment. And in this mind, as they m Bar. & Bin. locis cit. tell us, he returned towards Rome, but by the way n Bar. an. 555. nu. 2. , while he was yet but in Sicily, being afflicted with the stone, he died. 12. Here is now the Catastrophe of the Pope's turnings and returnings, and often changing in this cause of faith: Concerning which this is especially to be remembered, that whereas all the three former judgements of Vigilius, the first, when he defended those three Chapters, being in Italy, the second, when he condemned them upon his coming to Constantinople, and the third, when he again defended them at the time of the Council, and after, have all of them certain and undeniable proofs out of antiquity, such as the testimonies of Facundus, Victor, Liberatus, the Popes own letters and Constitutions, together with the witness of the Emperor, and the whole fifth Council; only this last period, and this last change, when he consented to the fifth Council, and condemned the Three Chapters, This I say, which is the only judgement whereby Vigilius is excused from heresy, is utterly destitute of all ancient witnesses, not any one that I can find makes mention of this change, or of aught that can any way enforce the same, and therefore this may and must be called the Baronian change or Period, he being the first man, that I can learn of, who ever mentioned or dreamt of his change. And although this alone were sufficient to oppose to all that the Cardinal or any other can hence collect in excuse of Vigilius, reason and equity forbidding us to be too credulous upon the Cardinal's bare word, (which even in this one cause touching the Three Chapters, and this fifth Council, besides many the like, demonstratively to be proved untrue and false, I speak it confidently and within compass, in six hundreth sayings at the least) yet that they may not say we decline the force of this so pregnant an exception, we will for a little while admit and suppose it to be true, and try, whether by this being yielded unto them, there can accrue any advantage to their cause, or any help to excuse either Vigilius himself, or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters, from being heretical. 13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fifth Council and approved the Catholic faith? Be it so, we deny not but that Vigilius, or any other of their Popes may decree, and have decreed a truth, that's not the doubt betwixt us and them. The question is, whether any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedral authority, and teaching, as Popes, decreed an heresy, or untruth. That Pope Vigilius did so, his Apostolical Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters, is an eternal witness against them, a monument are perennius, Had Baronius said that Vigilius never decreed the defending of those Chapters, he had fully cleared him in this matter, if he could have proved what he had said. But seeing undeniable records testify, and the Cardinal himself with a Stentors voice proclaimeth, this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius, though he had revoked and repealed it a thousand times, yet can not this quit his former Apostolical Decree from being heretical, nor excuse their pontifical chair from being fallible. It is nothing at all material which of the Pope's Cathedral Decrees, the first, last, or middle be heretical: If any one of them all be: we desire no more, the field is won. 14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolical decree, confirmed the fifth Council? Then did he certainly decree that all writings defending the Three Chapters, do defend heresy: and that all persons who defend those Chapters, for so long time as they defend them, after the judgement of that Council, are convicted and condemned heretics. Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius, set forth by his Apostolical authority in the time of the Council, in defence of those Chapters, is now by Pope's Vigilius himself and by his Apostolical authority and infallible Chair declared to be heretical; and Vigilius himself for that year after the Council, is now by Vigilius himself pronounced to be an Heretic; yea a definer of heresy, Vigilius now orthodoxal decreeth himself to have been before heretical. Nay it further followeth, that by confirming that Council, he confirmeth, and that by an Apostolical and infallible Decree, that all who defend the Pope's Cathedral sentence in causes of faith, to be infallible, are convicted and accursed heretics, for by defending that position, they do eo ipso defend that Constitution of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to be true, infallible, and orthodoxal, which Vigilius himself by an infallible decree hath declared to be erroneous, and heretical. So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause, that upon the admission thereof it doth inevitably ensue, both that Vigilius was an heretic and a definer of heresy, and that all who defend the Pope's Cathedral infallibitie, in causes of faith, that is, all who are members of their present Roman Church, to be not only heretics, and for such condemned and accursed, but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresy, even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius. 15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might be excused, being now fully dissolved; There remaineth one point, which Baronius, and after him Binius, observeth, touching this often changing of Vigilius: which being a point of special note, I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should overpass the same. Some men when they hear of these often change, windings, and turnings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith, and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresy, will perhaps imagine this to be a token of some levity, unconstancy, or solly in the Pope. O fie! It was not so, saith o Cum saepe sententia mutavit, haud arguendus est levitatis. an. 553. nu. 235. Baronius; What he did was not only lawful p Cur ei nonlicuit mutalo rerum statu mutare sententiam? ibid. nu. 231, &, jure meritoque mutavit sententiam. Bin. § Cum igitur. , done by good right and reason, but it was laudable also, done with great q Vigilius magna consideratione adhibita atque prudentiâ, divers modo pugnabat. an. 547. nu. 60. advice, wisdom, and consideration. Vigilius, a man of r Summa constatia specimen edidit. ibid. nu. 49. greatest constancy; One who stood s An. 551. nu. 5. up with courage for defence of the Church, adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem, against justinian, a violent oppressor thereof: one t An. 553. nu. 251. who fought for the sacred laws, enduring exile, constanti animo, with a constant mind for the same. One who did by this means wisely u An. 547. nu. 41. , yea, prudentissimé, most wisely provide for the good of the Church. One who in thus doing did wisely x Prudens & pius pontifex hac in re prudenter est imitatus S. Paulum. Bin. in Edict. nu. 11. to. 2. pa. 499. § Cum, & Bar. an. 553. nu. 235. imitate Saint Paul, who condemned circumcision, and yet when he circumcised Timothy, approved circumcision. And though there be a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions, the one change being in a mutable, &, at that time, an indifferent ceremony, the other being in an immutable doctrine of faith; Yet thus do they please themselves, and applaud the Pope in these his wise and worthy changes. 16. Now in stead of a better conclusion to this Chapter, I will entreat the reader to observe with me two things touching their commending Vigilius in this manner. The former is, what an happy thing it is to be a Pope, or have a Cardinal for his spokesman. Let Luther, Cranmer, or a Protestant make far less change than did Vigilius, what shall they not hear? An Apostate, unconstant, inconsiderate, a Chameleon, a Polipus, another Proteus, even Vertumnus himself. Let the Pope say and gain say the same doctrine of faith, and then ex Cathedra define both his sayings being contradictory, to be not only true, but infallible truths of the Catholic faith: O, It is all done with rare wisdom, with great reason, and consideration, The Pope in all this deals wisely, and that in the superlative degree. If when he is absent from the Emperor, he oppugn the truth published by the Emperor's edict, It is wisely done; Kings and Emperors may not make Laws in causes of faith, no not for the faith; The Cobbler must not go beyond his latchet. If when he is brought before the Emperor, he sing a new song, and say just as the Emperor saith, Ait, ato: Negat, nego: It is wisely done, principibus placuisse viris, for the King's wrath is the messenger of death. If after both these be become a mere Neutralist and Ambidexter in faith, holding communion with all sides, Catholics, heretics, and all, this is also an act of rare wisdom, the Pope is now become another Saint Paul, factus est omnia omnibus, with Catholics he's a Catholic, that he may gain Catholics, with Heretics, he's an Heretic, that he may gain heretics, he's all with all, that he may gain them all. If when the Emperor, the general Council, the whole Church calls for his resolution in a cause of faith, if then he step into his infallible Chair, and thence by his Apostolical authority define, that the three Chapters, that is, that Nestorianisme shall for ever be held for the Catholic faith, O wisely done, he now drops oracles from heaven, in Cathedra sedet, the voice of God, and not of man. If, when he is banished for his obstinacy against the truth, upon some urgent cause which then he discerns, he calls again for his holy Trevit, and thence decrees the quite contradictory to his former Apostolical sentence, In this he's wiser then in all the rest: for by this he shows that he's more wise and powerful than all the Prophets and Apostles ever were; They silly men could make but the one part of a contradiction to be true, but the Pope he is tanto y Tanto ipse potentior est Prophetis effectus, quanto differentius prae illis nomen haeredit●vit. Nom cui prophetarum aliquando dictum est, Tu es Petra? Bar. an 552. nu. 9 potentior Prophetis, so much more wise and powerful than all the Prophets, that he can make both parts of a contradiction to be infallible truths; and unto which of the Prophets was it ever said, Tu es Petra? But the Pope is a Rock indeed, a Rock upon which you may build two contradictories in the doctrine of faith, and in them both say unto him, Tu es Petra. Such a Rock neither the Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Christ himself ever was. So wise, so exceeding wise is the Pope, in all his turnings, even as wise as a weathercock for turning with the wind and weather. 17. Again, when the Pope, his instruments or Inquisitors (to whom Phalaris, Busiris, and all the heathen persecutors may yield) exercise against us for maintaining the truth of God, all exquisite & hellish tortures (to which the old heathenish were but ludus & jocus) all which they do must be extolled as due punishments, and just censures of the Holy Father of the holy Church, of the Holy inquisition, of the Holy house, all must be covered with the mantle of holiness. On the other side, when they resist the most religious laws, or Edicts of Kings or Emperors, when Vigilius or any of them (being by an holy general Council declared, and condemned for an Heretic,) are for their obstinate rebellion against the truth justly punished, though justinian yea justice itself, shall use rather moderate then severe correction against them; they forsooth must be accounted catholics: Consessers, & holy Martyrs, such as suffer for religion, for the sacred laws, and for the Catholic faith; but justinian the Defender of the faith, must be called julian, justice be termed Scelus z Vidisti Scelus, etc. Bar. an. 554. nu. 2. , and the Church for that cause said to be in far worse condition, then in the times of Nero, Dioclesian, or any of the heathen Tyrants. Such an happy thing it is to be a Pope, or Papist, for then their wavering shall be Constancy; their rebellion, Religion and fortitude: their folly, great and rare wisdom: their heresy, Catholic doctrine: and their most condign punishments shall be crowned with Martyrdom. 18. The other thing which I observe, is, what a strong faith, Papists had need to have, who rely upon the Pope's judgement, which changeth out and in, in and out so many times: who yet are bound to believe all the Pope definitive sentences in causes of faith, that is, to speak in plain terms, who are bound to believe two contradictories to be both true, both of them the infallible oracles of God. Or if any of them have so weak a faith, that he can but believe the one, I would gladly learn of some who is an Oedipus among them, In this case of two Contradictory Cathedral decrees, such as were these of Pope Vigilius, whether of the Pope's definitive judgements, that is, according to their language, whether of the sayings of God is true, and whether false, or what strength the one hath, more than the other. If the Apostolical sentence of Vigilius delivered cum omni undique cautela, and by his Cathedral authority, in defence of the Three Chapters, be repealeable by a second, why may not the second (which cannot possibly have more authority) be repealed by a third, and the third by a fourth, and fourth by a fifth, and so in Infinitum? If the Pope after seven years' deliberation and ventilating of the cause, while he is all that time in peace, and liberty, may be deceived in his judicial and Cathedral sentence in a cause of faith, how may we be assured, that when some years after that, the tediousness of exile and desire of his pristine liberty and honour persuades him to make a contrary decree, he may not therein also be deceived? If the Pope's decrees made in liberty, peace and prosperity be of force, why shall not the decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters, be an article of faith? If those free decrees may be admitted by a stronger sentence when the Pope is in banishment, how may any believe their Lateran and Trent decrees, as doctrines of faith? For why may there not once again, come some other justinian, into the world, (as great pity it is but there should) who in these, or future times may minister that sovereign medicine to clear the Pope's judgement, and restrain, or close him up in some meaner estate, and far lower place, whence, as out of a dark and low pit, he may discern those celestial truths in the Word of God, like so many Stars in heaven, which now being environed with the circumfused splendour of the Roman Court, he cannot possibly behold. If those Three Chapters were to be condemned, why did the Pope defend them at the time of the Council? If they were to be defended, why did he condemn them after his return from exile? Nay, if the Three Chapters were orthodoxal, why did the Pope at any time first or last by his Apostolical sentence condemn them? If they were heretical, why did he at any time, first or last, by his Cathedral and Apostolical sentence defend them? I confess I am here in a Labyrinth; if any of the Cardinal's friends will wind me out, he shall for ever be Theseus unto me. CAP. XVI. That the Decree of Vigilius for Taciturnity touching the Three Chapters, and the Council, wherein it is supposed to be made, and all the Consequents upon that Decree, painted out by Baronius, are all fictitious, and Poetical. 1. THE whole reason of Baronius drawn from Vigilius his confirming of the fifth Council, being now fully dissolved, we might without further stay, and I gladly would, according to my intended order in the Treatise, proceed to his next exception: but there are two points in this last passage, touching the change of Vigilius, which, even against my will, pull me back, and call me to examine what Baronius sets down, and with exceeding ostentation paints out, in his Annals, concerning them; the due consideration whereof will cause any man to admire the Cardinals most audacious, and shameless dealing in Synodall affairs, and causes of the Church: The one of them concerns the second, the other the fourth period in Vigilius change. The former is this. 2. As soon as the defenders of the Three Chapters had notice of that judicial sentence, and Decree published by Vigilius against the same Chapters, upon his coming to Constantinople, they began to storm thereat, and condemn Vigilius a Obid, ipsum (Vigilium) collusorem, praevaricat●remque ab adversarijs conclamatum. Bar. an. 547. nu. 49. as a Prevaricator, or revolter from the faith; whereupon Vigilius, as the Cardinal tells us, put in practice a rare piece of wisdom b Prudenter periclitanti Ecclesiae visus est consuluisse Vigilius Ibid. nu. 41. , and of his Pontifical policy; sententiam emissam c Ibid. mox suspendit, seu potius revocavit; he suspends and revokes that his late judgement; & rursum ab eo promulgatum decretum, quo decernebatur ut penitus taceretur; and he published a new Decree, wherein he decreed, that every man should be silent, and say never a word, either pro, or contra, touching that question of the Three Chapters, till the time of the general Council, from d Ab hoc anno, ad illud usque tempus. Ibid. nu. 43. this year (which was the 21 e Bar ibid. nu. 26 of justinian, & the same wherein Vigilius came to Constantinople) until the time of the general Council, in eâ causâ ab ipso Vigilio indictum fuit Silentium; Silence was enjoined every man in that cause, by Pope Vigilius: & again f Ibid. nu. 48 , Tacendun indixit, he enjoined Silence in that cause; and very often doth the Cardinal, with no small comfort, mention this Decree of Taciturnity. And, for the more solemnity of the matter, Vigilius decreed this in a Council, it was not only his, but, decretum g Bar. an. 551. nu. 2. Synodi, the decree of a Council, together with the Pope. Vigilius h Ibid. nu. 3. Synodicè statuit tacendum esse; Vigilius decreed in, and with a Synod, that there should be a Silence in this cause, until the general Council: To which Synodall decree, not only Mennas Bar. an. 547. nu. 43. , and Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, but k justinianus contra praecedentis Synodi decretum, et emissam sponsionem de servando usque ad Concilium universale silentio, appendi jussit Edictum. Bar. an. 55●. nu. 2. justinian himself also consented, and promised to observe the same. This was the Decree; see now the effects, and Consequents which ensued thereupon, declared also by Baronius. 3. This Decree took so good effect at the first, that, res aliquandiu consopita l Bar. an. 547. nu. 41. siluit, for a space, all matters, touching the Three Chapters, were hushed asleep, not a word spoken of that Controversy: But some four years m Nam decretum editum an. 547. Bar. eo an. nu. 43. ista autem gesta an. 551 Bar. eo an. nu. 2.5, 6. et seq. after the publishing thereof, when Vigilius saw diverse contrary to his decree, to condemn the Three Chapters, n Bar. an. 551. nu. 5. erigit se, he rouzeth up himself for defence thereof, and o Sententiam excommunicationis intorquet. Ibid. Verba excommunicationis extant. Ibid. nu. 11 et 12. excommunicated Mennas' Patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and many more; and this also he did in another Council consisting of thirteen p Ibid. nu. 11. Bishops besides himself. Yea and whereas the Emperor in that year published, or hung out his Edict against the same Chapter q justinianus contra Synodi decretum publicé appendi jussit Edictum. Ibid. nu. 2. contrary to his own promise, and the Decree for Taciturnity, the Pope withstood him so long, and so eagerly, that justinian began to rage, to use threats, and violence against him, so that the Pope, in r Ibid. et consagere coactus est. An. 552. nu. 8. fuga tantum spem posuit, was forced to flee from him out of the s Bar. an. 551. nu. 2. house where he dwelled, called (for good luck sake) Placidiana, unto the Church of Saint Peter, where he remained a time, in adversarios sententiam ferens; thundering out his censures against his adversaries. But that sacred place t Nec sacer ille locus asylum tanto Pontifici fuit. An. 552. nu. 8. could be no Sanctuary for Vigilius; they buffeted u Dedit alapam in faciem, etc. Ibid. and beat him on his face; they called him an homicide, a murderer of Sylverius, and of the widow's son: whereupon he, to avoid the fury x Ab Imperatoris furore; & ab Imperatoris sacrilegi violentia. Ibid. and violence of the sacrilegious Emperor, fled y Trans mare quaesivit effugium, et in Basilicam S. Euphemiae apud Chalcedonem habitare disposuit. An. 552. nu. 8. from Constantinople to Chalcedon, and there lived in the Church of Saint Euphemia, taking hold of a Pillar or Horn of the Altar: And even there, though in persecution, and affliction, he bated z Nihil penitus remisit Apostolicae authoritatis. Ibid. nu. 9 et 10. not one Ace of his Apostolical authority; but, as if he had lived in peace, and been in the Lateran or Vatican, he ascends into his Apostolic Throne a Idem ille locus effectus est, Pontificis Romani praesentia, eminens cunctisque perspicuum ad judicandum tribunal, etc. Ibid. nu. 10. , and high Tribunal; and thence, by the fullness of his Apostolical power, he b Missilia in hosts facit, potentissima que spiritalia spicula jacit in hosts seritque. Ibid. throws out his darts, represseth and prostrateth his adversaries; pronounceth sentence c Summa potestatis plenitudine adversus metropolitano● Episcopos, i● ò in ipsum Patriarcham Constantinopolitanum serre sententiam, insuper et perperam facta Imperatoris rescindere magno animo aggressus est. An. 552. nu. 9 against Bishops, yea, against a Patriarch; adnulleth the acts of the Emperor, knowing his authority to be greater than that Prophets was, to whom God said d jer. 1. , I have set thee above Nations and kingdoms. 4. Now behold a miracle e Ita plane magno velutimiraculo factum est, etc. Ibid. nu. 11. indeed; by fleeing away, Vigilius overcommeth, by being persecuted he is victorious; all humane power, even hell gates, doth, and must yeed to him: For the Emperor understanding that he was fled away, repented f justinianus facti poenitens dignam tanto Pontifice legationem ornavit, etc. Ibid. him of that which he had done against the Pope, and therefore sent messengers to recall him from Chalcedon, and those not ordinary soldiers, sed dignam tanto Pontifice legationem; but honourable ambassadors, worthy the estate of so great a Bishop, who should assure him, even upon their oaths g juramento praestito honorifice revocaret. Ibid. , that he should be honourably received. But, so stout, nay, magnanimous, was the Pope, and so very circumspect and wise h Nuncijs licet magna pollicentibus haud putavit esse credendum, utpote (quod in proverbio est) Graecorum fides. Bar. 552. nu. 12. , as, remembering the proverb, Graecorum fides, that he would neither come out of the Church, nor believe i Neque juratis patricijs voluit fidem adhibere, nisi Imperator quae contra Rom. Pontificis de tribus Captulis appendisset Edicta protenus revocaret, atque penitus abo●cret● Ibid. nu. 11. the messengers, though swearing unto him, unless the Emperor would presently recall and abolish his Edicts against the Three Chapters. The Emperor yielded k Constat cessisse tandem Vigilio Imperatorem, atque appensa ●moveri jussisse a se prolata de tribus Capitulis Edicta. etc. Ibid. an. 552. nu. 15. et, Imperator appensa antea de tribus Capitulis ●olli jussit Edicta. Ibid. an. 19 to all that the Pope prescribed; yea, constat cessisse, it is certain and evident, that he submitted himself to the Pope's pleasure, and that penitus in every point: he commands the Edicts, which he had published, to be taken away, to be removed; & ea sententia l Ibid. an. 552. nu. 19 Vigilii, quod fecerat, abrogavit; and according to Vigilius direction, he abrogated what before he had done. Nor only did the Emperor repent, but Theodorus l Theodorus facti poenitens ad cum accedens humilis libellum supplicem ipsi Vigilio offeri. Ibid. an. 552. nu. 19 Praesticit id ipsum etiam Mennas. Ibid. nu. 20. also, and Mennas, they came and offered, libellum supplicem Vigilio, a book of supplication to entreat Vigilius, that he would be appeased towards them, and crying, Peccavi, suppliciter m Ibid. nu. 19 veniam petunt; they beseech him in a suppliant manner to to forgive their n Quis ista considerans non miretur, atque obstupescat, etc. Ibid. nu. 20. offence. Oh how admirable is this in our eyes! the Rock which the builders refused, is now laid again in the head of the Corner; and those Princes and Prelates which opposed themselves to the Pope, do now submit, supplicate, and yield themselves unto him. The Pope o Tali pramissa satisfactione, Vigilius eosdem in communionem accepit, redditaque est Ecclesia pax. Ibid. nu. 20. , after this so ample satisfaction, was pleased to be reconciled to them all, and admitted them into his communion; & so the storm of persecution being past, the Church enjoined tranquillity, the Pope was brought again with great joy from Chalcedon to Constantinople: For the joy p Hoc ipso anno (552) Mennas Const. Episcopus à Vigilio in communionem admissus E●●aenia celebravit, etc. Bar. ibid. an. 552. nu. 22. and solemnity whereof Mennas that same year (which was the 26 q Anno hoc 552. exordio mensis Aprilis incipit numerari justiniani annu● 26. of justinian, and next before the general Council) celebrated a feast of the Encaenia, or dedication of the Church, of three Apostles, Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, and the holy relics r Cum sacrae reliquiae 〈◊〉 aureo circumvecta ab eodem Menna reconditae sunt. Bar. Ibid. nu. 22. of their bodies being then found, s Bar. an. 552. nu. 23. Mennas' carried them round about the City in a Chariot of Gold, and then laid them up in the Church: After all which, Mennas, in the peace of the Church, and communion with Vigilius, in an happy manner gave up the ghost: and so the Pope t Sic itaque animis junctis, restituloque in pristinam dignitatem atque honorem Vigilio, indicta est Synodus, etc. Bar. an. 553. nu. 14. being restored to his former dignity, animis junctis, their minds being joined together; the general Council, long wished for by Vigilius, was summoned against the month of May, in the twenty seventh year of justinian. This is the sum of the narration of Baronius, touching the Decree of Taciturnity, and the manifold consequents thereof. 5. Concerning which, none I think can judge otherwise, but that Baronius, as he is miserably infatuated in this whole cause of the Three Chapters; so, in this passage, he was grown to that extremity of dotage, that he seems utterly to have been bereft, both of common sense, and reason: For I do constantly avouch, that in no part of all this his narration, (which, as you see, is very large and copious, and runneth, like a great stream, through diverse years in Baronius Annals) there is any truth at al. No such Decree of Taciturnity, ever made by Vigilius; no Synod wherein it was decreed; no assent, either of Mennas, or Theodorus, or the Emperor unto it; no violating of that Decree by Mennas, or Theodorus; no excommunication of them, or other Bishops, for doing contrary to it; no hanging up of the Emperor's Edict after it; no resistance made by Vigilius against the Emperor; no persecuting of Vigilius, no buffeting of him, no objecting of murder unto him; no fleeing either to Saint Peter's Church, or to Chalcedon; no thundering out from thence of his Pontifical Censures; no embassage sent from the Emperor to call him thence; no such magnanimity in Vigilius as to refuse to return; no recalling, or abrogating of the Imperial Edict by the Emperor; no submission of Mennas, or Theodorus to the Pope; no solemnising of the Encaenia for those three Apostles at that time by Mennas; no carrying of those holy relics in a triumphing manner, and in a golden Chariot; no laying them up by Mennas; and, in a word, in that whole passage of Baronius, there is not so much as one dram, nor one syllable of truth. The Cardinal from an Historian is here quite metamorphozed into a Poet, into a Fabler, and in stead of writing Annals, matters of fact, and real truths, he gulls his readers with fictitious, anile, and more than Aesopicall fables. 6. For the clearing whereof I will begin with the Decree itself, which is the ground of the whole fiction, and therefore if it be demonstrated to be but an idle dream and fancy, all the rest, which hang on it like so many consequents, and appendices, will of themselves fall to the ground. Nor do I speak to disgrace this Decree, as if Baronius could gain aught thereby, though it were admitted and granted unto him: For alas, what a poor policy or piece of wisdom was this in the Pope, being a judge infallible, to command, and decree by his Apostolical authority, that for five or six, or, as it might have happened, for forty or sixty years together, no man should speak a word in this cause of faith, neither condemn the three Chapters, nor defend the same; which is in effect, that they should neither speak against, nor for Nestorianisme; neither dare to say, that Christ is God, nor, that he is not God, but suspend their judgement in them both; that for all that time none should either be Catholics, or heretics, but be like Vigilius, mere Neutralists in the faith, what other wisdom is this but that of the Laodiceans, which Christ condemneth u Apoc. 3.15, 16. ? I would thou wert either hot or cold, but because thou art neither hot nor cold, it will come to pass that I will spew thee out of my mouth: what other then that which Elias reproves x 1 King. 18.21. ? Why halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God follow him, but if Baal, or Nestorianisme, be he, go after it. By this Decree of Taciturnity Vigilius provideth that neither himself nor others should speak against the truth or condemn it. True, but that is not enough; He should have defended it also, and caused others by his instruction and example to do the like. A neutralist, one that is not y Matth. 12.30. with Christ, is against Christ: He that is not with the truth is against the truth. Silence where God commands to speak, is betraying of God's truth. If the Heathen wise man z Solonis lex apud A. Gellium lib. 2. ca 12. set this, and that justly among his eternal laws; That he who in a public division of the Commonwealth, took part with neither side, should be punished with loss of goods and banishment: how much more ought this to take place in Vigilius, and all such Metij Suffetij, who in the public rent of the Church, and that for a cause of faith, will be of neither part, neither for God nor against him? Nay if we well consider, even for this very decree of silence, Vigilius is to be judged an heretic, for the whole Council of Chalcedon condemned Domnus Patriarch of Antioch as an Heretic, only for this cause a Chalcedonensis S. Synodus Domnum condemnavit, quod ansus est scribere, oportere solum tacere 12. Capitula S. Cyrillij. Iust. in Aedict. §. Quod autem. , for that he writ that men should be silent, and say nothing of the twelve Chapters of cyril, as both justinian and the fifth Council b Idem asserit plane Conc. 6. Col. 6. pa. 575. b do testify. Did not Vigilius, if the Cardinal say true, teach, nay decree the very like silence concerning the Three Chapters, as Domnus did concerning those twelve of Cyrill? These Three do as nearly concern the faith, as did the other twelve. These three were as certainly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, as the other twelve were approved by the Council of Ephesus. As Domnus by teaching silence in those of cyril, even thereby taught that men should not allow them, nor say that they might be allowed, and therein overthrew the faith of the Ephesine Council, which approved them, and taught all men to approve them: Even so, Vigilius by decreeing silence in these Three Chapters, decreeth that none shall condemn them, or say they are to be condemned, and so overthroweth the Catholic faith which was declared at Chalcedon, whereby they are all three condemned, and taught that they ought to be condemned. If the teaching of silence in the one can make Domnus an heretic, certainly the decreeing of silence in the other, cannot choose but make Vigilius an heretic. O but this decree was to continue but for a time, Vigilius would expect the assembling of a general Council, and then he would resolve the matter to the full. And you have seen how well he resolved it then. But what? Expect a Council? why is not his Holiness able to decide a doubt in faith, without a general Council? Is he not of himself infallible? Doth his infallibility like an Ague go away, and come by fits upon him? Is the general Council that Angel which must move the Pool in the Pope's breast, before he can teach infallibly? The Pope scorns to hold his infallibility precario, by the courtesy either of the whole Church, or of any general Council: He is all-sufficient in himself, he gives to them infallibility, he receives none from them; what think you then was become of Vigilius his infallibility, that for deciding a doubt in faith, he must suspend all in silence; and stay till the general Council be assembled, which, for aught he knew, might be 60. or 100 years after? If of himself he was infallible, why did he hold men in suspense in the doctrine of faith? why did he not presently, and without the Council infallibly decide it, and so set the Church at quiet? If of himself he was not infallible, how could he at the time of the Council infallibly decide it? for they make not him or his sentence infallible, but all their infallibility is borrowed from him. So little help is there for them in this decree of taciturnity, (if we should admit thereof) that in very deed, it doth many ways prejudice their cause. It is not then the preventing of any advantage which hence they might have, that causeth me to reject this decree, but the only love of the truth persuadeth, nay enforceth me hereunto. For I profess I was not a little moved to see the Cardinal's Annals so stuffed with untruths and figments, and see him also not only by these to abuse, and that most vilely, his Readers, but even to vaunt and glory (as you have seen he doth) in that which is, and will be an eternal ignominy unto him. But let us come to make evident the fiction of this Decree. 7. That Vigilius made no such decree of Taciturnity, first the Emperor justinian in his Letters to the fifth general Council is a witness above exception, When Pope Vigilius, saith he c justin. Epist. ad 5. Synod. Coll. 2. pa. 520. a. , was come to this our Princely City, we did accurately manifest unto him all things touching these three Chapters, and we demanded of him what he thought hereof: and he not once or twice, but often in writing, without writing, did anathematise the same Chapters. Quod vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione trium Capitulorum, per plurima declaravit, and that he hath always, (ever since his coming hither) continued in the same mind of condemning those three Chapters, he hath very many ways declared. And after, repeating some of those particulars, he adds, Et compendiosè dicere, semper in eadem voluntate perseveravit, and to speak briefly, he hath ever since persevered in this mind. So writ and testified the Emperor. In the seventh Collation the Emperor sent Constantine the most glorious Quaestor of his Palace, unto the Synod, to deliver unto them certain letters of Vigilius, who again testified this from the Emperor before the whole Council: Vigilius, saith he c Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578. a. , hath very often manifested by writings his mind, that he condemneth the Three Chapters, which also without writing, he hath said before the Emperor in the presence of the most glorious judges, and of very many of yourselves, who are here in the Council: et non intermisit, semper anathematizans Theodorum, and he hath not intermitted or ever ceased (since his first coming almost to Constantinople) to anathematise the defenders of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and the Epistle of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill: and then delivering the letters of Vigilius unto them, he addeth, Vigilius doth by these make manifest, quod per totum tempus, eorundem trium Capituloriō impietatem aversatur, that for this whole time (since his first consenting to the Edict upon his coming to Constantinople, until the assembling of the general Council) he hath detested the impiety of those Three Chapters. Thus said and testified Constantine from the Emperor. 8. If I should say no more at all, even this one testimony being so pregnant, and withal so certain, that there can be no doubt but the Emperor both knew and testified the truth herein, this alone, I say, is sufficient to demonstrate the vanity of that fictitious Synod & decree of Taciturnity. For seeing it is hence certain, that Vigilius persisted and persevered to condemn the Three Chapters, after the time of his consenting to the Emperor's Edict, upon his coming to Constantinople, till the time of the fifth Council; it must needs be acknowledged for certain, that in that time he made no decree to forbid men to condemn the same; and then, not this decree of Taciturnity, which ties all men's tongues that they shall neither defend, nor yet condemn them. And if the decree be fictitious, such as was never made, as by this testimony it is now certain: then is the Council fictitious wherein it was decreed, than the whole fable of Baronius, how the Emperor and Mennas violated that decree, how the Pope endured persecution for maintaining that Decree, and the other Consequents, they all are certainly fictitious, this one testimony overthroweth them all. But I will add a second reason drawn from the consideration of the observing and putting in execution this Synodall and pontifical Decree. For it is not to be doubted, but if such a Decree had been made, especially, with the consent of a Synod, and of the Emperor also, but some one or other would have observed the same; the rather, because Baronius d Bar. an. 547. nu. 41. tols us, that upon the publishing of this Decree in the one and twentieth year of justinian, res consopita siluit; the controversy was for a while hush. Let us then see who those were whom this Decree made silent or tongue-tied in this cause, and it will appear that none at all observed it. 9 Let us begin with the Pope himself, who of all is most likely to have kept his own decree; but he was so far from observing it, that he practised the quite contrary. In the two and twentieth year of justinian, the very next unto that wherein this decree is supposed to be made, Rusticus and Sebastianus two Roman Deacons remaining then at Constantinople, and being earnest defenders of the Three Chapters, writ letters unto diverse Bishops, and into diverse Provinces against e High adversus Rom. Pontificem in diversas provincias literas dedere, Bar. an. 548. nu. 2. is est juxta. Bar. an. justin. 22. Pope Vigilius, and the cause was, for that he condemned f Schismatici scriptis ubique vulgaverant, Vigilium tria damn●ndo Capitula impugnare Chalcedonense Concilium. Bar. an 550. nu. 1. the Three Chapters, and thereby as they pretended, condemned also the Council of Chalcedon, and for a proof of their accusation they dispersed g Exemplaria (judicati nostri) per plurimos sacerdotes et laicos in Africana Provincia destinares ait Vig. Rustico et Sebastiano, in sua Epist. ad eos in Conc. 5. Coll. 7 pa. 578 b. the copies of Vigilius his Constitution sent unto Mennas against the Three Chapters. A clear proof that as then Vigilius neither had made this Decree, nor revoked his judgement for condemning of those Chapters. In the 23. h Epistola Vigilij ad Valentin. data est 15. K●l. April. anno 23. justiniani. extat in Conc. 5. Coll 7. pa. 580. et seq. year, Vigilius writ to Valentinianus, to purge himself of those slanders i Etiam hoc mentiti sunt, etc. Epist. Vig. ib. pa. 581. a. and untruths, and that he doth by referring himself to his judgement k Legant quae de causa quae hic mota est ad fratrem nostrum Mennam scribentes legimur definivisse, ibid. , sent to Mennas against the 3. Chapters, wherein he then plainly professeth, that what he had therein defined was consonant l Ibid. to the faith of the 4. former Counsels, and to the decrees of his predecessors, & he is so resolute in maintaining the same judgement that he addeth of it, that it is abundant m Credimus enim, Catholicae ecclesiae filijs, ea quae tunc ad Mennam scripsimus de blasphemijs Theodori, ejusque persona, deque Epistola Ibae, & scriptis Theodoreti contra rectam fidem, abunde posse sufficere, ibid. to satisfy any man. An infallible evidence that as yet, nor till that year he had neither revoked his former sentence, nor made any decree of silence to forbid men to condemn the same Chapters. In the four and twentieth n Epistola Vigilij ad Aurel. data est Kal. Maijs an. 24. justiniani Augusti, extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 581. b. year he writ the like Apology to Aurelianus Bishop of Arles, yea which is more, Baronius o Ista hoc anno Constantinopoli à Vigilio adversus schismaticos decreta fuerunt. Bar. an. 550. (qui est justiniani 24.) nu. 36. showeth that in that 24. year, he published his judicial sentence of condemnation and deposition against p Ea extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. & seq. & eam recita 1. Bar. an. 550. nu. 16. & seq. Rusticus, Sebastianus, Gerontius, q High in sententia papae & decreto nominantur, apud Bar. an. eodem, nu. 34. Severus, Importunus, john, and Deusdedit; for that they r Immutatum te comperimus, & cum adversarijs ecclesiae qui contra judicati nostri seriem nitebantur se, cautè tractare, etc. Vigil. in suo decreto contra Rust. & Sebast. apud Bar. an. 550. nu. 22. by defending the Three Chapters, and communicating with such as defended them, contra judicati nostri seriem nitebantur, dealt against the tenor of his judgement: showing plainly that till then, and in that year his judgement against the Three Chapters stood so firmly in force, that by a judicial sentence he deposed the contradictors thereof, which had himself revoked, and by a Decree of silence anulled, in likelihood he would not, certainly in justice he could not have done; and seeing he censured them not for speaking of that controversy, but for speaking in defence of those Chapters: it is evident, that as then he had not made any Decree for silence in that cause, for then his censure should have been, because they had done contrary to it, not because they had contradicted his judgement in condemning those Chapters. 10. Is not Baronius think you a very wise and worthy Annalist, who persuades you that Vigilius made this Decree of silence in the 21. year of justinian▪ forbidding all thereby to condemn the Three Chapters, which not to have been made either in the 22, or 23, or 24. years, the undoubted writing and censures of Vigilius expressed by Baronius himself do make evident, and testify that the Pope himself was so far from being silent therein, that both by words, by writings, by pontifical censures and judgements, himself condemned the 3, Chapters? who will again persuade you that the Pope suffered very heavy persecution at the Emperor's hands, because he would not permit the 3. Chapters to be condemned, whereas the Pope himself, not only condemned them all that time, as well as the Emperor did, but both by writings reproved, and by judicial censures punished, condemned, and deposed such as would not condemn them, and that also eo nomine, because they would not condemn them, nor consent to his judgements whereby he had condemned them. Now that Vigilius continued of the same mind, both in the 25. & 26. years of justinian, that is, until the time that the fifth Council was assembled, though there be no particulars to explain, yet by the Emperor's words before remembered, that per totum tempus perseveravit, and ejusdem semper voluntatis fuit, it is abundantly testified. So that it is most certain, that Vigilius at no time observed this decree of Taciturnity: and because had there been any, he of all men was the most likely to observe it, who as Baronius fableth, was so rigorous against others, even the Emperor also, for not observing thereof, his not observing of it, is an evidence that he made no such Decree at all, but that the whole narration concerning it, and the consequents upon it, is a very fiction and fable. 11. Next after the Pope let us see if the Emperor (who as Baronius saith s Bar. an. 551. nu. 2. emiss● sponsionem de servade silentio, etc. , promised to observe this law, of Taciturnity) was silent & quiet in this cause. And truly there is a strong presumption that he neither did nor would now refuse or forbear to condemn the 3. Chapters, seeing by so doing, he should have anathematised himself: for by his Imperial Edict, he denounced all those to be an Anathema, who do not condemn and t Si quis non anathematizat Theodorum et Theodoreti scripta, etc. & Epistol● Ibae, Anathema sit. Edict. justin. anathematise the same Chapters. The very silence in this cause, and ceasing or refusing to anathematise the Chapters, had made him guilty of his own just Anathema. But to leave presumptions, Certain it is that justinian continued the same man, constant in condemning those Chapters, and that not only for the time after this supposed Decree, but from the first publishing of his own Edict, whereof the whole fifth Council is a most ample witness, who thus say u Conc. 5. Coll. 7. in fine. , omnia semper fecit, & facit, quae sanctam Ecclesiam & recta dogmata conservant, The most pious Emperor hath ever done (concerning this cause of the three Chapters,) and now doth those things which preserve the holy Church, and sound doctrine, and that to be the condemning of these Chapters, they by their Synodall sentence do make evident, where they profess the condemning thereof to be the preserving of the good seed x Festinantes bonam fides semen puram co●servare ab impietatis Zizanus. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 584. a. of faith, the preserving of the Council of Chalcedon, and the rooting out of heretical tares. 12. And if we desire particulars of his constant dealing herein, Victor Tunavensis declareth the earnestness of justinian, in condemning these Chapters for every year since this Decree of Taciturnity is supposed to have been made. The Decree, as y Bar. an. 547. nu. 1. & 41. Baronius showeth, was set out in the sixth year after the Consulship of Basilius (which account by Consular years' Victor useth) and it answereth to the end of twenty one, and most of the 22. year of justinian. In the seaventh year after Basilius z Victo. Tun. in ●bron. sed vitio Typogr. scribitur an. 8. pro 7. nam proxim● praecedens ānusap●. deian recte numeratur an. 6. post. Coss. Bas. neque ul●um ●●num omitti ab eo certum est. Coss. that is, in the very next to that wherein the Decree was made, justinian writ most earnestly saith Victor a Vict. loc. citat. into diverse provinces, & antistites cunctos praefata tria Capitula damnare compellit, and he compelled all Bishops to condemn the Three Chapters. In the eight he showeth that the Illyrian Bishops held a Synod, and writ unto the Emperor to dissuade him from condemning those Chapters. In the ninth he shows that Facundus did the like, and further in this year b Nasacra imperatoris ad Ioh●. data est an. Iust. 24. post Cos. Basa. 9 ext. in Coc. 5 Col. 6. pa. 553. a. the Emperor commanded the Synod at Mopsvestia to be held against Theodorus, that it might appear how, and from how long time before then, the name of Theodorus had been blotted out of the Ecclesiastical tables, the judgement of which Synod the Emperor sent c Facta est suggestio ad sanct. pa. p●m Vigilium ab eisdem episcopis (Concil. Mopsves●eni.) Conc. 5. Coll. 5 pa. 557. a. ●cta in Concilio Mopsvestena 〈◊〉 Vigilium justiniani Concilio & opera missa fuere ne in futura generali Synodo ●heodorum ipse domnare aliquo modo detrectaret. Bar. anno. 550. nu. 39 to Vigilius to assure him of the truth thereof, that he might with more constancy continue to condemn the Three Chapters. In the tenth Victor declares that the Emperor sent for Reparatus and Firmus two Primates, for Primasius, & Verecundus, two Bishops to deal with them, that they would condemn the same Chapters, and that Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria, for refusing to condemn them was deposed, which to have been done by the Emperor's command, d Zoilum Imperator deposuit. Liber. ca 23. Liberatus showeth. In the eleventh, which was the next before the general Council, Victor tells us, both that Firmus Primate of Numidia being won e Firmus donis principis corruptus, damnationin 3. Capitulorum assensum praebuit. Vict. an. 11 (corrupè. scribitur 12) post. Cons B●s● by the Emperor's gifts (so he partially writeth) consented to condemn the Chapters, but Primasius, Verecundus, and Macarius for not consenting, were all banished. So clear and undoubted it is that the Emperor continued so constant in his condemning of these Chapters, that for every year since the Decree of Silence is supposed to be made, he was resolute in this cause, condemning and banishing such as consented not to the condemning of them. 13. Whence the shameless untruths of the Baronian narration is demonstrated. He tells you, and tells it with a Constat, that in the next year before the fifth Council, the Emperor recalled his Edict, and abrogated what he had done in this cause of the 3. Chapters, whereas not only the whole general Council testifieth on the contrary, that he still persisted constant in condemning of them, but Victor (one who had good reason to know these matters, as feeling the smart of the Emperor's severity for his obstinacy in defending those Chapters) particularly witnesseth of that very year, that the Emperor was so eager in maintaining his Edict, and condemning the Chapters, that he both drew Firmus, the Primate of Numidia to his opinion, and banished Macarius' Patriarch of jerusalem, Verecundus Bishop of Nica, and Primasius another Bishop, because they would not consent to his Edict, and condemn the same Chapters. And what a brainless devise was this, that the Emperor in his 25. year should hang out his Edict, at Constantinople, so the Cardinal f justinianus Imp. contra tria Capitula publice (Constantinopoli) appendi jussit edictam. Bar. an. 551. (qui est 10. post Coss. Basil.) nu. 2. fableth, as a matter of some great novelty, to be published to the City, whereas his Edict four or five years before, was so divulged throughout the whole Church, that none may be thought to have been ignorant thereof, seeing universus g Bin. not. in Conc. 5. § Concilium. & Bar. an. 547. nu. 29. orbis Catholicus, the whole Catholic Church was divided and rend into a schism about that Edict, the one half defending, the other oppugning the same? Or what reason can the fabler give, why Vigilius should in the 25. year quarrel with the Emperor, rather than in the 24.23.22. in every one of which, justinian was the same man, constant in maintaining the truth published by his Edict? Did the hanging out of the Edict, more provoke the Pope's zeal then the banishing, imprisoning of those who withstood the Edict? more than the Emperors enforcing, and compelling, omnes antistites, all the Bishops to condemn the Three Chapters? But enough of justinian, to manifest that he never observed this fictitious Decree of Taciturnity. 14. After the Emperor and Pope, let us see if Catholics, that is, those who condemned the three Chapters, did observe this Decree. They did not: but like the Emperor, they constantly continued to speak, to write against them as well after as before the time of this supposed Decree, it stopped not the mouth of any one of them; Not of Mennas, not of Theodorus h Bar. an. 551. nu. 5. Theodorus adversus tria capitula cuncta publice agere non desticit. , whom, i Excommunicatio resertur à Bar. an. 551. nu. 11.12. for talking so much against those Chapters Vigilius suspended, and excommunicated, as the Baronian narration tells you, not of the other Bishops, subject to them, for Vigilius used the very same censure against them also, for their condemning of those Chapters, We, saith k Ibid. nu. 12. Vigilius, condemn thee O Mennas, with all the Bishops pertaining to thy Diocese, yea, we condemn also thy fellow Eastern Bishops though of divers provinces, be they of greater or lesser Cities, we condemn and excommunicate them all. Neither did they begin to condemn the Chapters, in that 25. year, wherein this sentence, by the account of Baronius was pronounced, but they did this ever since the time, that the Decree of Silence is supposed to be made; for Vigilius there saith l Ibid. nu. 7. to Theodorus, we have declared pene hoc quinquennio elapso, almost these five years last passed, our longanimity and patience both towards you, and towards those who have been seduced by you; which five years being reckoned back, will fall out in the 21. year of justinian, even from that year (and then was the decree of Silence said to be published) did the Eastern Bishops continue to speak against, and condemn the three Chapters. Now although this against Baronius, who applauds that sentence and writing of Vigilius, be sufficient, yet because it is only argumentum ad hominem, I will add a more weighty testimony to clear this matter, concerning Catholics, & that is, of the whole fifth general Council, which saith m Conc. 5. Coll. 7 in fine. , the Emperor doth manifest quod nec quenquam latuit, that whereof no man is ignorant, that the impiety of these Chapters, ab initio aliena est à sancta Dei ecclesia, is strange, and hath been disliked by the holy Church, ever since the controversy about them hath been moved. Then certainly no Catholic, none catholicly affected at any time forbore to condemn them, not one of them observed that Decree of Silence. 15. All the Cardinal's hope is now in the Defenders of these Chapters; they no doubt would be willing to obey this Pontifical and Synodall Decree; seeing for the most part, they were African, Illyrian, & Western Bishops. Among them, if anywhere, the Pope might hope to have his Decree observed. They observe it? They are silent in this cause; Nay you shall see them, after the time that this Decree is supposed to be made, to be far more eager in defending the Three Chapters, than ever they were before. For now, besides the defending of those Chapters, they boldly and bitterly invaighed against Vigilius himself, because he condemned the same. This n Bar. ann. 548. nu. 6. Non tantum Rusticus acuit sti●um contra Vigisium, sed alij plures, Liberatus, Victor, etc. did Liberatus at Carthage, at Tunen Victor, at Constantinople Facundus, the Popes own orator, (who now having turned his style, whetted it as sharp against the Pope, as before he had done at the Pope's command against the Emperor) yea the Popes own Roman Deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus, besides others, freely, and openly declamed o Vbique vulgarunt ipsum Vigilium tria damnando capitula impugnare Concilium Chalc. Bar. an. 550. nu. 1. against the Pope, as one, who by condemning the 3. Chapters, did condemn the Council of Chalcedon: nay, they proceeded even to flout and taunt the Pope, for his condemning of those Chapters, deriding his sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia being dead, in this manner p Vigilius in suae sententia, seu Epistola Rustico et Sebastiano in Conc. 5. ● Coll. 7. pa. 578. b. , the Pope should have condemned not only the person, and writings of Theodorus, sed & territorium ipsum ubi positus est, but even the very ground also where he was buried, adding, that if any could find but the bones of Theodorus, (though now accursed by the Pope) gratanter acciperent, they would very lovingly embrace them and keep them for holy relics. 16. And what speak I of a few particular men? In the 23. year of justinian, that is, in the second year after the supposed Decree, the Illyrian y Vict. Tun. an. 8. post Cons. Bas. sed corrupte legitur 9 Bishops held a Synod, by which was both writ a book in defence of those Chapters, and sent unto the Emperor, and Benenatus Bishop of justineanca, was condemned by the same Synod, because he spoke against those Chapters. The next year z Vict. Tun. an. 9 post Cons. Basil. after that, did the African Bishops hold a Synod, wherein they did nominatim, and expressly condemn Pope Vigilius, excommunicate him, and shut him out of their communion, because he was one of those who condemned the Three Chapters, as Victor Bishop of Tunea, who as it seems was present in that Synod, doth testify. Now seeing the Cardinal professeth a Bar. an. 548. nu. 6. that these divisions, and contentions were among Catholics, pugnantibus inter se orthodoxis, orthodoxal Bishops and Catholics they were, who at this time fought one against another, yea and by his position, Schismatical they were not, because b Qui postea (post ultimum judicium Papae) ab bis dissensere, Schismatici habiti sunt. Cum tamen interea ante novissimum Apostolicae sedis assensum, non esset piacuhum pro tribus pugnare capitulis. Bar. an. 546. nu. 38. the Pope had not yet given his last sentence. If one lifted to digress, here were a fit occasion to make a little sport with his Cardinalship, upon whose assertion it clearly ensueth, that a Synod, even an African Synod (which with them is more) yea the whole Church of Africa, may (and de facto hath so done) judge, censure, excommunicate and exclude from their communion the Pope; and yet for all this, themselves at the same time may be, and have de facto been very good Catholics, and neither heretics, nor schismatics. But of that point I have before entreated. This only I do now observe, that by the view and consideration of all sorts, and degrees of men in the Church, none at all observed that decree of Silence in this cause, not the Pope, not the Emperor, not the Orthodoxal professors, & such as before condemned the Chapters, not the heretical defenders of them: All these (and in one of these ranks, were comprehended all Christians at that time) by their speeches, by their writings, by their actions, by their Synodall decrees and judgements, do evidently witness that there was no such decree of Silence ever made, which without all question amongst some one order and degree or other, would have been observed, and taken effect. 17. To these I will add one other reason, taken from the weakness, and unsoundness of that ground whereon the Cardinal hath framed this whole narration. He tells c De hoc Vigilij decreto (pro Silentio) et inita c ●● Theodoro & Menna transactione, testes sunt acta publica. Bar. an. 547. nu. 42. Ista Acta vocat, Constitutum Vigilij de Anathemate. an. 551. nu. 12. us that this Decree of Silence, the Synod wherein it was made, and diverse of the consequents (for some are of the Cardinals own invention) are testified by certain public acts or Records, to wit, those which contained the sentence and Pontifical Constitution d Extat tum apud Bar. an. 551 nu. 6. et seq. tum apud Bin. post. Epist. 16. Vigilij. of Pope Vigilius against Mennas, Theodorus, and the rest. In those acts indeed a good part of this Baronian fable is related, how Mennas, Dacius, and many other both Greek and Latin Bishops were present in this Synod, at the making of this Decree: how Theodorus, e Ibid. nu. 3. pene hoc quinquennio. and other Eastern Bishops had dealt for the space of five years against that Decree: how the Pope f Ib. nu. 11. et 12 after five years' toleration and longanimity, called an other Synod, and therein pronounced a sentence of Excommunication against Theodorus, Mennas, and the rest, till they should acknowledge their fault, and make a satisfaction for the same. These and some other particulars are there expressed. Now if we can demonstrate these public Acts of Baronius to be no other than forgeries, I think none will make doubt, but that all the rest of the Baronian narration which relies hereon, is a very fiction. 18. But can those public Acts be convinced for such? they may; and that most evidently, besides many other means, by comparing the date of this sentence against Mennas, with the time of the death of Mennas. These Acts, Records, Sentence, or Constitution against Mennas (call them what you list) were made in the 25 year of justinian, for so in the date g Data 19 Kal. Septemb. Imperante Domino justiniano an. 25. post. Cons. Basilij anno decimo. Bar. an. 551 nu. 12. of them is expressed; nor can it be supposed that there is any error either in the writer or Printer, for both the Consular year is also added h Ibid. , to wit, the tenth after the Coss. of Basilius, which answereth to the 25 of justinian, and the Pope accounts there almost five i Pene hoc quinquennio elapso monstravimus. Ibid. nu. 7. years, since the Decree of Silence was made; which being placed by Baronius k Bar. an. 547. (que est justiniani. 21.) nu. 41. et 43. in the 21, the fifth current year after it, will directly fall to be the 25 year. So in the 25 of justinian did the Pope excommunicate Mennas; yea, write and send this Excommunication unto him, saying unto him in this l Apud Bar. an. 551. nu. 12. manner, Teque Mennam tamdin à sacra communione suspendimus; we suspend thee O Mennas, and all the other Bishops in thy Diocese, so long until every one of you acknowledging his error shall make competent satisfaction for his own fault, which satisfaction, and submission to have been performed by Mennas in the next year, to wit, the 26 of justinian, Baronius m Bar. an. 552. nu. 20. Ipse Mennas libellum supplic●● Vigilio obtulit. with great pomp declareth. Now Mennas died five years before he offered this book of supplication, or submitted himself to Vigilius; & 4. before the Pope sent out this Excommunication unto him, with that admonition to submit himself; for it is certainly testified by the Pope's Legates in the sixth general Council, that Mennas' died in the 21 year of justinian. In that Council n Conc. 6. Act. 3. a sermon or speech going under the name of Mennas, to Vigilius, was produced as a part of the Acts of the fifth Council, the Legates of Pope Agatho cried out before the Emperor and the whole Council, that it was a forgery: which they proved o Eo argumento manifestissimè comprobarunt, quod Mennas sex annis ante quintam Synodum sub Vigilio celebratam ex hoc vitá ●igrasset. Bin. not. in Conc. 6. in Act. 3. , and that most manifestly, because Mennas' died in the 21 year of justinian, but the fifth Synod was congregated in the 26 year, which ended on the first of April, though the first Session of the Synod was not held till the May next after, which was in the 27 year of justinian. Thus testified the Pope's own Legates; and the Emperor, with the whole Synod, upon their evidence, rejected their writing for a forgery. 19 Said I not truly unto you, that the Baronian narration was a piece of rare Poetry? might not a mean Poet make an excellent Tragedy of it? were it not a fine Pageant, to see the Pope, and so many Bishops sit in Utopia, and there make a law for Taciturnity, the Emperor, the Senate, and people consenting unto it? would it not be another, and far more delightful Act, to see the Pope and Emperor quarrelling about this law; the one beating, buffeting, and persecuting; the other fleeing both by Sea and land, from Placidian● to Saint Peter, from him to Euphemia, from Constantinople to Chalcedon? what a sport were it to see the Roman Apollo ascend into his Delphian throne, and thence, as from Olympus, cast his fiery darts, his thunders and lightnings against that Typhoëan generation, which durst speak when he enjoined silence? Now the embassage which the Emperor sent to Chalcedon to entreat his Holiness to return, the magnanimity of the Pope in refusing to come from the Altar, the Emperor's yielding to all that he prescribed; this of itself would encourage a Poet, and cause him to presume of an applause: But the most rare Pageant of all would be, to see and hear Mennas, four years after he was dead and rotten, to speak and dispute against the Decree of Silence (the Silentes umbrae, to declaim against Silence) to see him a Bishop, a Patriarch, at the voice of the Pope's sentence; Audisne haec Amphiarai sub terram abditae; to come ab inferis, to come with a Bill of supplication in his hand, with a song of Miserere in his mouth, to the Roman jove, and entreat pardon for his talking so much in the grave, and among the infernal ghosts, against the Pope's Decree of Silence; & after all this to see the Pope shake hands with him, and all his metropolitans, and Micropolitanes p Tu cum omnibus Metropolitanis et Micropolitanis Episcopis. Vigil. sententia apud Bar. an. 551. nu. 12. , (note the eloquence of the Pope), and so, after a most joyful reconcilement, to see the holy Relics carried in a golden Chariot (an excellent dumb show) about the City, and that by a dead man; Can you do less than give the Poet Baronius a Plaudite for his so rare invention, or contriving of this Fable? 20. Why, but is it credible that Cardinal Baronius, the great Annalist of our age, he who bestowed thirty q Hoc opus ante annos circiter 30 aggressus sum. Bar. in praefat, dedic. ante tom. 1. Annalium. years in the study of these Ecclesiastical affairs, that he should so foully be overseen in a computation so easy, and so obvious, as to think Mennas to be excommunicated, to come with a supplication to the Pope, and to ride in a triumphant Chariot, with those holy relics, four or five years after he was dead and rotten? Overseen? nothing less: It was no ignorance, no oversight in him; he knew all this matter ad unguem, he knew that Mennas was dead long before that submission, and triumph: But the Cardinal was disposed, either to recreate the reader with the contemplation of this his Poetical fiction, or else for to show you, that, with the charm of those forgeries, and counterfeit writings, with which he hath stuffed his Annals, he is able to metamorphoze all other men into very blocks and beetles, that they shall applaud his most absurd dotages as undoubted and historical truths; which, that every man may perceive, it must be observed, that though in this place, where the cause betwixt Vigilius and the Emperor, is debated, the Cardinal is content that you should think Mennas to have been alive in the 26. r Hoc anno (26. justiniani) finem vivendisecit Mennas. Bar. an. 552. nu. 21. year of justinian, that is, five years after he was dead, for otherwise all his narration, even the whole play had been spoiled, there had neither been any Decree of Silence, nor any persecution by justinian, nor any flight of Vigilius, nor any excommunication of Mennas or Theodorus, nor any submission of them, and of the Emperor also to the Pope, the Pope had not been known to be so far above Bishops, Patriarches, and Emperors, that they must all stoop to him, and, laying their necks at his feet, say unto him, Calcate me salem insipidum, punish me as you please for speaking without your Holiness leave and licence, yea, that Kings must pull down, abrogate, and adnul their imperial Edicts, if the Pope do but beck unto them; though, for these considerations, he is here willing that you believe that untruth concerning Mennas, for all these depend on that one sentence of Anathema against Mennas; yet, when this matter is overpast, when the Cardinal comes to a new argument, where he hopes, this, which is said about the cause of Vigilius, will be forgotten, there he confesseth the truth indeed concerning Mennas, and tells you a quite contrary tale: For entreating of the Acts of the sixth Council, & particularly of that reason of the Pope's Legates against the forged Epistle in Mennas' name, he thus s Bar. an. 680. nu. 46. saith, Ejusque rei certum illud attulerunt argumentum, quod Mennas diem obijt anno 21 justiniani Imperatoris: The Legates give a certain proof, that the writing was forged, because Mennas' died in the 21 year of justinian the Emperor. Lo, the Cardinal knew, and professeth it to be, not only true, but certain, that Mennas' died in the 21 year of justinian, and yet against his own certain knowledge, for maintaining this fictitious Decree of Silence, and the fables thereon depending, he persuades you to believe that Mennas dealt against this Decree, was excommunicated by Vigilius, and submitted himself to the Pope, and road with the relics five years after he was dead. 21. Truly this was scarce fair and honest dealing in the Cardinal, by untruths to strive to bolster out forged Acts and writing: But the Cardinal's Annals are so full of such like stuff, that, if you divide them into four parts, I do constantly affirm there is no more truth in three of those four, than you have seen to be in this fable, which from a most base forgery, known also to the Cardinal for such, he hath commended for a grave and authentic history unto us: And I should grow somewhat out of patience to see the Cardinal so grossly contradict, both the truth, and his own writings also, but that, by my long and serious tossing of his books, I perceive this is so familiar a trick with him, that, for the usual meeting of it, I have long since forgotten to be angry with him for such petty faults. This I hope, which hath been declared, will serve for a caveat unto all, to take heed how they credit any matter whatsoever upon the Cardinal's relation: either it is in itself untrue, or it springs from some untruth, or by his purpose in relating it, it is made to serve but for a pulley to draw you into some untruth, aut aliquis latet dolus, either in the head or tail there is a sting, believe him not. And I would also have added somewhat for Binius, who in this t Bin. Not. in Vigilij sententiam contra Theodorum, tom. 2. Conc. pa. 504. , as in other fancies and fables, applauds Baronius; but I suppose, that as he sucketh his errors from Baronius, so he will think, that the refuting of Baronius is a sufficient warning for him to purge his Edition of the Counsels from such vile and shameless untruths. Thus much of that former point which concerns the second Period in Vigilius change. CAP. XVII. That Vigilius, neither by his Pontifical Decree, nor so much as by a personal profession consented to, or confirmed the fifth Council, after the end thereof, or after his supposed exile. 1. THE other point proposed concerns that fourth and last change of Vigilius judgement, whereby, as Baronius a Cum vero Vigilius graviori damno universum Orientem ab Ecclesia Rom. divisum cerneret, nisi Synodo quintae consentiret, eam probavit. Bar. an. 553 nu. 235. tells us, he, by his Apostolical Decree b Vigilius abrogato quod pro 3. Capitulis ediderat Constituto, quintae Synodo adversanti, eandem Synodum authoritate Apostolica comprobavit. Bar. 554. nu. 7. Vigilius hanc Synodum quintam, suo Decreto, suaque authoritate Pontificia confirmavit. Bin. not. in Conc. 5. § Praeflitit; et Decretum Vigilij vocat Bar. an. 553. nu. 231. confirmed the fifth Council, when, about a year c Quo anno (554.) Vigilius praecibus Narsetis liberatur exilio. Bar. an. 554. nu. 1. necesse est dicere id à Vigili● factum (id est quintam Synodum comprobatam) hoc tempore (an. 554.) cum ab exilio solutus est. Bar. ibid. nu. 4. Idem ait Bin. not. in Conc. 5. § Praestitit. after the end thereof, he returned out of exile. That such a change of Vigilius can no way help Baronius, or his cause, though it should be granted unto him, we have before d Sup. ca 15. declared; but because all which we then said was only spoken upon a supposal and admission of this Baronian change, we will now more nearly examine the whole matter, and try whether there was indeed any such Decree ever made by Vigilius, and whether he did at any time after the end of the fifth Council change his judgement, in such sort, that he became a condemner of the Three Chapters, and an approver of the fifth Synod. And truly I could wish so much good to Vigilius, as that there might appear some clear, and ancient records, to testify his renouncing of heresy, and condemning of his own heretical and Cathedral decree, published in the time of the Council, for defence of the Three Chapters: But the truth is more precious unto me than the love of Vigilius or any Pope whatsoever; & because it is the truth alone which causeth me to discuss this point, I must needs confess, that I can find nothing at all, which can effectually induce me to believe it, but there are many and pregnant reasons which enforce me to think, that Vigilius never made any such Decree or Change, as Baronius fancieth, but that this whole fourth Period and change of Vigilius, so gloriously painted out by Baronius, is nothing else but another fiction, and piece of the Cardinals own Poetry, which, without all warrant or ground from any ancient writer, he, like a Spider, only out of his own brain hath woven and devised. 2. That Vigilius made no such Decree, the reason which Bar. giveth in this very case, may declare: he, to prove that Vigilius made not this decree, either during the time of the Synod, or shortly after the end thereof, hath these words e Bar. an. 553. nu. 223. , If Vigilius had then assented by his letters, utique literae illae Actis fuissent intextae; verily those letters, purchased with so great labour, would have been inserted among the Acts of the fifth Synod, and a great number of copies would have been taken thereof, spread abroad, and made known to all Churches, as well in the East, as West, (even as the Epistle of Leo was) because by those letters, validarentur quae à Synodo sancita; those things which the fifth Synod had decreed, the Pope contradicting them, and thereby they being invalid, should now be made of force, the Pope consenting to them. Thus Baronius. Doth not the same reason as effectually prove, that he made no such decree at all, or not a year after, as that he made it not within one or two months after the end of the Synod? with what labour, at what price would not the Bishops of the fifth Synod have purchased that decree? how gladly would they have annexed it to their Acts, as the Decree of Leo is to the acts at Chalcedon? How many copies and extracts would they have taken of it, and dispersed them every where, both in the West and East, to testify the truth of their Synodall judgement, and that the infallible judge had consented to their sentence, and confirmed the same. Or would they have done this within a month, and not a year after the end of the Synod? what odds to the point in hand can that small difference of time make in the cause? specially considering that the very Epistle of Leo f Ea est Epist. Leonis 61. quae incipit, Omnem fraternitatem. , whereof the Cardinal speaketh, was not written till five g Conc. Chalc. desijt 28. Oct. Coss. Martiano. aut 1. Novemb. ut patet ex ult. Sess. Epistola vero Leonis scripta est 21. Mor●●● Coss. Opilione, ut patet ex fine Epist. months after the end of the Council at Chalcedon, and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof. If then the Cardinal's reason be of force to prove that he writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod, it is altogether as effectual to prove he writ it not at all, nor after his return about a year after out of exile. 3. The Cardinal gives yet another evidence hereof, Pelagius, saith he h Bar. an. 553. nu. 236. , the successor of Vigilius did think it fit, that the fifth Synod should be approved, and the three Chapters condemned, moved especially hereunto by this reason, that the Eastern Church, ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa, being rend and divided from the Roman by reason of the Constitution of Vigilius, might be united unto it. How was the Eastern Church divided from the Roman in the time of Pelagius, by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters, if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled, and adnulled it? If the Pope's condemning of those Chapters, and approving of the fifth Council could unite the Churches, than the decree of Vigilius (had there been any such) would have effected that union. If the Apostolic Decree of Vigilius could not effect it, in vain it was for Pelagius to think by his approbation, which could have no more authority then Apostolical, to effect that union. If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was, as Baronius truly saith, the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters, against the judgement of the fifth Synod, seeing it is clear by the Cardinals own confession, that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius, it certainly hence followeth, that the Constitution of Vigilius, which was the cause of that breach, was never by himself repealed, which even in Pelagius time remained in force, and was then a wall of separation of the Eastern, from the Western Church. Again, if the Pope's approving the fifth Council, and condemning the three Chapters was, as in truth it was, and as the Cardinal noteth i Cujus (Vigilij) postremam sententiam (pro approbatione 5. Conc. & condemnatione tri●● Capitulorum) posteri omnes sequnti, universe Dei Ecclesia pa●cis schismaticia exceptis, eandem Synodum ut oecumenicam semper novit. Bar. an. 554. nu. 7. it to have been, the cause to unite those Churches, seeing by his own confession in Vigilius time they were not united (for Pelagius k Bar. an. 553. nu. 236. after Vigilius his death, sought to take away that schism) it certainly hence followeth, that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod, and their Synodall condemning of those Chapters: for had he so done, the union had in his time presently been effected. 4. The same may be perceived also by the Western Church. For as that Pontifical decree of Vigilius (had there been any such) would have united the Eastern, so much more would it have drawn the Western, the Italian, and specially the Roman Church, to consent to the fifth Council, and condemning of the three Chapters: but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters, and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life, may diverse ways be made evident. When Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius, and was to be consecrated Bishop; there could no more than two Bishops l Dum non essent Episcopi qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo, johannes, & Bonus, & Andrea's Presbyter de Ostia, & ordinaverunt eum Episcopum, Anast. in vita Pelagij. 1. be found in the Western Church that would consecrate or ordain him Bishop: wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles m Can. Apost. 1 and Nicene Fathers n Conc. Nic. Can. 4. , requiring three o Certe omnimodo 3 Episcopi debent esse congregati,— & ita faciant ordinationem. Con. 4. Cont. Nic. Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop (which they so often boast p Bell. lib. de Notis Ecclesiae, ca 8. §. Ex quo. Et Bin. in Notis ad Can. 1. Apost. alijque of in their disputes against us) the Pope himself was fain to be ordained only by two Bishops, with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third. Anastasius very ignorantly, (if not worse) sets down the reason thereof to have been, for that Pelagius was suspected q Subduxerunt se à communione ejus, dicentes, quia in morte Vigilij se miscuit. Anast. in vita Pelag. 1. to have been guilty (by poison or some other way) of the death of Vigilius. A very idle fancy, as is the most in Anastasius; for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius, and there continued till Vigilius r Nam Vigilius obijt anno praecedente quum Pelagius de exilió revocatu● est. Vict. Tun. in Chron. ad an. 16. (corrupt legitur 17.) Basilij, et ad an. sequentem. was dead, he had little leisure nor opportunity to think of poisoning or murdering his own Bishop; by whose death he could expect no gain. The true cause why the Western Bishops distasted Pelagius, is noted by Victor who then lived. He s Pelagius condemnant ea (tria Capitula) quae dudum constantissime desendebat, à praevaricatoribus ordinatus est. Vict. add an. 17. (corrupt legitur 18.) post Cons. Basilij. before he came from Constantinople consented to the fifth Synod, and condemned the Three Chapters. Now the Western t Adeo exhorruisse visi sunt Antistites accidentales ferè omnes, aliam post 4. admittere Oecumenican Synodum, ut non p●ta●rit Pelagius reperir● Episcopos Romae, à quibus consecraretur. Bar. an. 556. nu. 1. Bishops so detested the fifth Synod, and those who with it condemned those Chapters, that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod, and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto, and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia, were the ordainers of Pelagius, whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators. Let any man now consider with himself, whether it be credible that in all Italy, and some Provinces adjoining, there should be but two Bishops who would consent to the Apostolical decree of Vigilius, for approving the fifth Council, if he had indeed published such a decree. If they knew not the Pope's sentence in this cause (which they held, and that rightly, for a cause of faith) to be infallible, how was not the western or the Roman Church heretical at this time, not knowing that point of faith, which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith? If they knew it to be infallible, seeing his judgement must then oversway their own, how could there be no more but two bishops found among them all, who approved the Pope's Cathedral sentence, and consented to his infallible judgement? Seeing then it is certain that the Western Church did generally reject the fifth Synod, after the death of Vigilius, and seeing it is not to be thought that they would have persisted in such a general dislike thereof had they known Vigilius to have by his Apostolical sentence decreed, that all should approve the same, of which his sentence (had there been any such) they could not have been ignorant (for if by no other means, which were very many, Pelagius himself would have brought and assuredly made known the same unto them) this their general rejection of the fifth Synod, is an evident proof that this Baronian decree which he ascribeth to Vigilius is no better than the former of silence, both untrue, both fictitious, and of the two, this the far worse, seeing for this the Cardinal hath not so much as any one, no not a forged writing, on which he may ground it, it is wholly devised by himself, he the only Poet or maker of this fable. 5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in u Bed. lib. de sex Ae●atib. anno mundi, 46●7. Bede concerning the Council of Aquileia in Italy. That Council was held near about, or rather, as by x Sigon. lib. 20. the Occid. Imper. an. 554. in fine. Sigonius narration it appeareth, after the death of Vigilius; and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Milan, Macedonius B. of Aquileia, Maximianus B. of Ravenna, besides many other Bishops of Liguria, Venice and Istria. These being as Bede y Ob imperitiam fidei 5. Concilium suscipere dissidit Synodus Aquil●iae. Bed. loc. cit. saith, unskilful of the faith, doubted to approve the fifth Synod; nay, Concilium illud z Sigon. loc. cit. non observandum esse statuêre, they decreed that the fifth Synod should not be allowed or received. What? would so many Italian Bishops in an Italian Council decree the quite contradictory to the Popes known judicial sentence in a cause of faith? the Pope decreed (as Baronius saith) that the fifth Council ought to be embraced. The Italian Synod decreeth that the fifth Council ought to be rejected. Neither only did they thus decree, but as Bede a Bed. loc. cit. noteth, they continued in this opinion, donec salutaribus beati Pelagij b Apud Bedam legitur (beati Sergij) qui vixit annis 130. post Vigilium, eunden errorem sequitur Platina, & alij. Sed legendum esse Pelagij non Sergij, constat ex Ivone, cujus verba ex decreto citat Sigonius, loco cit at. & ibid. ex Beda legitur Pelagij. monitis instructa consensit, until being instructed by the wholesome admonitions of Pope Pelagius, they consented to the fifth Council, as other Churches did. Now this Pelagius of whom Bede speaketh, was Pelagius the second, who was not Pope till more than 20. c Vigilius obijt, an. 550. juxta Baron. Pelagius antem 2. caepit an. 577. juxta eundem Bar. years after the death of Vigilius. He to reclaim those Bishops of Istria, Venice, and Liguria, writ a very large and decretal Epistle d Ea est 7. Pelagij 2. (which Binius e Bin. Not. ad eam Epistolam Pelagij. compares to that of Leo to Flavianus) wherein he declares every one of those Three Chapters, to be repugnant to the faith and decrees of the ancient Counsels. By this decretal instruction of Pelagius the second, were those Italian defenders of the Three Chapters, after twenty years, and more, reduced as Bede noteth, to the unity of the Church, and to approve of the fifth Council. Had Vigilius made, as Baronius fancieth, the like decree, why took it not the like effect in those Western Bishops? was there more than Apostolical authority and instruction in the decree of Pelagius? or was there less than that in the decree of Vigilius? 6. Nay there is another special point to be observed concerning that Epistle of Pelagius, Elias Bishop of Aquileia, and the rest who defended the three Chapters, among other reasons urged the authority of Vigilius f Rarsus per Epistolam vestram dicitur. A sede Apostolica vos doctos & confirmatos ne huic rei (1. Synodo quintae & condemnationi trium Capitulorum) consentire debeatis,— Sedes Apostolica per Vigilium restitit. Pel●g. Epist. 17. §. Rarsum. on their part, thereby countenancing their error, in that they taught no other doctrine in defending those Chapters than the Apostolical See had taught by Vigilius; thus writ they in their Apology which they sent to Pelagius, aiming no doubt at that Apostolical Constitution of Vigilius published in the time of the Council, whereby he decreed that the Three Chapters ought by all to be defended: for that was it as the Cardinal g Vigilius amplissimis scriptis contrariam sententiam (ei quae in quinta Synodo definita est,) professus est, & ad eam sectandam universam ecclesiam catholicam impulit. Bar. an. 554. nu. 6. saith, which moved, nay enforced all to follow that opinion, and to defend the Three Chapters. What doth Pelagius now answer to this reason? Truly had Vigilius made any such later Decree, as the Cardinal fancieth, by which he had approved the fifth Synod, and so both condemned the three Chapters, and repealed his own former judgement in defence thereof; neither could Pelagius have been ignorant of that decree, neither would he, being so earnestly pressed therewith, have omitted that opportunity, both to grace Vigilius, and most effectually confute that which was the special reason on which his opposites did rely. Could he have truly replied, that Vigilius himself upon better advice had recalled his Decree made in defence of those Chapters, and by his last Apostolical judgement condemned the same Chapters, this had cut insunder the very sinews of that objection. But Pelagius returns them not this answer, but knowing that to be true which they said of Vigilius, he tells them (which is a point worthy observing) that the Apostolic See might change h Cur mutatio sententiae hui● sedi in crimine obijcitur. Pelag. Epist. 7. §. Debet. their judgement in this cause (and this even by Pelagius himself is a cause of faith,) and that the ignorance of the Greek i Latini homines & Graecitatis Signori dum linguam nesciunt, errorem tarde cognoverunt. Pelag. ibid. §. Rursum. in the Western Bishops was the cause why they so lately consented to the fifth Synod. And so though Vigilius had judged that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, yet the successors of Vigilius might long after, as they did, k Praedecessorum nostrorum in hoc causa consensus tanto post inanis non fuit, ibid. § Debet. An illud Tanto post, referri potuit ad decretum Vigilij editum anno proxime sequenti post Concilium 〈◊〉 non potest. teach, and himself define, that the same Chapters ought to be condemned, and that the fifth Council wherein they were condemned, aught to be approved. A very strong inducement, that Pelagius knew not, and then that Vigilius made not any such Decree as the Cardinal commendeth unto us. 7. For any Apostolical Decree then, whereby Vigilius after his exile recalled his former judgement, or approved the fifth Council, there was none, as besides those reasons which the Cardinal himself giveth, the persisting of the Western Churches in defence of those Chapters, not only after the death of Vigilius; but till the time of Pelagius the second, makes evident. If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof, it was only by some private or personal, but not by any decretal or Pontifical approbation. And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove aught at all, this is the most that can be collected from them. And this though we should grant and yield unto them, yet can it no way help their cause, or excuse the Pope's Cathedral judgement from being fallible, only it would serve, to save Vigilius himself from dying an heretic, or under the Anathema of the holy Council. For as they teach, and teach it with ostentation, as a matter of great wit and subtlety, that the Pope may err personally, or in his own person hold an heresy, which only hurts himself, and not the Church, but err doctrinally, or judicially define an heresy he cannot, even so (to pay them with their own coin) might it fall out at this time with Vigilius; he being wearied with long exile, might perhaps for his own person condemn the Three Chapters, and approve the Synod, which may be called a personal truth, or a personal profession in the Pope, the benefit whereof was only to redound to himself, either to free him from the censure of the Synod, or procure the Emperor's favour, & goodwill, that he might return home to his See, but that this professing (supposing he made it) was doctrinal or Cathedral, delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope, so that by it he intended to bind the whole Church to do the like, neither Baronius, nor any of all his favourers can ever prove. Now were I sure that the Cardinal, or his friends, would be content with this grant of a personal truth in Pope Vigilius, I could be willing to let it pass for currant without further examination. But alas, they are no men of such low thoughts and looks, their eyes are ever upon the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope's judgement: As personal errors hurt them not, so personal truths help them not, Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to be judicial, Doctrinal, Apostolical l Ante novissi● Apostolicae 〈◊〉 assensum. Bar. an. 546. nu. 38. itidemque 〈…〉 in ipsius Vigilij abire Decretum. Bar. an. 553. nu. 231. Quintam Synodum Apostolica authoritate comprehavit. an. 554. nu. 7. , and Cathedral, or he will have none at all. And therefore to demonstrate how far Vigilius was from decreeing this, I will now enter into a further discussion of this point than I first intended, not doubting to make it evident, that none of all the Cardinal's reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personal consent in Vigilius to condemn the Three Chapters, and approve the fifth Council, after the end of the fifth Synod, or after that exile which the Cardinal so often mentioneth. 8. The Cardinal's reasons to prove this, are three: The first is taken from the testimony of Evagrius m Bar. an. 553. nu. 223. , who then lived. Nicephorus, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Photius, and all Greek writers, Graeci n Bar. an. 554. nu 4. omnes affirmant, they all testify Vigilius to have assented to this fifth Council, and that by letters, or by a book, whence the Cardinal collects, that seeing he consented not either during the time of the Synod, or shortly after, for he was sent into banishment, because he would not consent unto it, necesse est affirmare o Ibid. id ab ipso factum esse hoc tempore, cum ab exilio solutus est, liberque dimissus; It must of necessity be affirmed, that he consented at that time when he was freed from exile, and dismissed home to Rome. Thus Baronius: whom I will never believe to have been so simple and ignorant, as that he knew not, how lame, defective, and unsound this his necessary collection was. That his Necesse est, is merely inconsequent, it is not so good as Contingens est. That Vigilius consented by a book, or letters, to the Synod, is certain, none that I know makes doubt of it, and that is all that Evagrius, or any of his other witnesses affirm: but neither Evagrius, nor any one of them saith, that Vigilius consented to the Synod after the end thereof, or after he was sent into banishment: this and this only is it which we deny, and which Baronius undertakes to prove: but when he comes to his proof, he still, and that most fraudulently, omitteth this which is the principal, nay the only verb in the sentence. And to prove that Vigilius consented to the Synod in condemning the three Chapters, what needed the Cardinal to cite all, or any one of the Greek writers? The very Acts of the fifth Council do often and expressly testify this, Vigilius hath q Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. & Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. often by writings, without writing condemned, and anathematised the Three Chapters. In the very Synodall sentence, q Collat. 8. pa. 584. a. it is said, It hath happened that Vigilius, living in this City, hath been present at those things which are noted concerning these Chapters, & tam sine scriptis, quam in scriptis ea saepius condemnasse, and to have condemned the same as well by writing as by word. The whole purpose of the seventh Collation is no other but to show out of Vigilius own writings, that he consented with the Council in condemning the three Chapters, the very letters of Vigilius, which were read in that seventh Collation, do clearly witness his consent and judgement in condemning those Chapters. The Council condemns them, Vigilius condemns them; Doth not Vigilius consent to, and with the Synod? Did he not per libellum, & literas, express that assent, when his own Epistles testify that he condemned those Chapters, as did also the Synod: wherefore of his consent to the Synod there is no doubt. But this consent of his was before the time that the Council made their Synodall Decree, yea before they assembled in the Synod, it was during the time of the second Period, before mentioned, shortly after his coming to Constantinople, until the Council met together, all that time he consented in judgement with the Council, he condemned the Chapters, as the Council did. But at the time of the Council, when Vigilius should have consented also in making the Synodall Decree for condemning of those Chapters, than he dissented from the Synod and published an Apostolical Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters. So he both consented and that by letters, yea by his Decree, with the Synod, and withal he dissented, and that also by his Decree, from the Synod. His consent, which the Synodall Acts do show and testify, Evagrius and the rest who saw and therein followed the Acts, report and that truly. His dissent, which his own Apostolical Constitution kept in their Vatican doth show and testify, & which in likelihood Evagrius saw not, nor knew thereof, they report not, but they deny it not. But for that Baronian consent after the end of the Synod, or after his exile, of that in Evagrius and the rest there is no mention, nor any small signification. 9 It is the precedent consent of Vigilius, not that Baronian and subsequent consent, of which Evagrius and the rest entreat, which may appear even by the very words of Evagrius. Vigilius r Evag. lib. 4. ca 37. per litter as consensit Concilio, non tamen interesse voluit. He saith not, Vigilius would not be present at the Council, but after the end of it he consented by letters, unto it, (this is the false and corrupt gloss of Baronius) but Vigilius consented to the Council by his letters, but would not be present. His consent by letters was the former, his denial to come was the later. For when Evagrius saith, consensit, sed noluit interest, he plainly showeth that Vigilius might have been present in the Council, as well as have consented by his letters, he might, but he would not: now had his consent been after his return from exile, that is, an whole year after the end of the Council, Vigilius could not possibly, though he would never so gladly, have been present in the Council, nor would Evagrius have said, consensit sed noluit interest, but he should have said, consensit sed non potuit interest, he consented indeed with the Synod, but he could not be present in it, because when he consented, the Synod was dissolved, and ended a year before. The sense in Nicephorus is the very same, but his words a little more clear, Vigilius, saith he s Nicep. lib. 17. ca 27. , et si scripto interveniente cum Eutichio conveniret, assidere tamen illi noluit, although he agreed with Eutichius, by a writing, (this as it seems was his Epistle to Rusticus and Sebastianus read in the Synod) yet he would not sit with him in the Council. Importing hereby that Vigilius might also have sitten with Eutichius, when he consented in doctrine with him, but he would not: which is evidently to be understood of his precedent, not of any subsequent consent after the end of the Synod. The very same is the meaning of Photius, Though t Phot. lib. the 7. Synod. in Conc. 5 Vigilius was not forward to come to the sacred assembly, communem tamen patrum fidem libello confirmavit, yet he confirmed the same common faith, (mark, the same faith, so he accounts the cause of the Three Chapters to be a cause of faith, and the condemning of them to be the confirming of the faith) by a book, which book is the same that Evagrius and Nicephorus meant, the book, Epistle, or Constitution of Vigilius, made before the time of the Council, and then read therein; but of any confirming that common faith by Vigilius after the end of the Synod, Photius hath not one syllable. 10. Now whereas the Cardinal u Bar. an. 554. nu 4. adds, that Graeci omnes de consensione Vigilij affirment, that all Greek writers affirm Vigilius to have consented to the Council, it is nothing but an untrue, and vain brag of Baronius to downeface the truth, for Zonaras affirms it not, nor Cedrenus (and yet both these are expressly named by the Cardinal to write this) nor Glicas', nor Constantinus Manasses, nor the Cardinals own Theophanes. And yet if we should admit them to say the like, or the same with Evagrius, Nicephorus, and Photius, that Vigilius did consent to the Synod by a book or letters, yet what one of all the Greek writers, yea or Latin either, can the Cardinal produce to say that which he doth, that Vigilius after the end of the Synod, or after he was sent into banishment, consented to the Synod? That by his precedent letters, and judicial sentence he consented to the same faith, which the Synod decreed, is true; this the Cardinal doth, but should not prove; but that by a subsequent consent or writing he approved the Synod after his own exile, this none of the Cardinal's witnesses affirm, this the Cardinal should, but neither doth nor can prove. 11. His second reason is taken from the fact of justinian in restoreing Vigilius. The Emperor, saith he x Bar. an. 5●4. nu. 6. , was most careful for the condemning of the Three Chapters, and therefore punished severely such as withstood his Edict and the Decree of the Synod: how then could he have endured Vigilius to have been freed from exile, & to return into the West, nisi consensisset, unless he had consented to the Synod? Seeing otherwise Vigilius would have stirred up all the Bishops in the West against the Emperor's Edict, and the Synodall sentence. Now that the Emperor did free Vigilius from exile, and permit him to return to the West, Baronius y A●. eodem nu. ●. et an. 553. nu. 222. liquet ex Anastasio Vigilium fuisse in exilium deportatum, etc. proves that, by Anastasius z Anast. in vita Vigilij. , out of whom he relates, that the whole Roman Clergy entreated Narses that he would be a means to the Emperor to restore unto them Vigilius, & the rest who were banished with him. The Emperor at the entreaty of Narses sent presently to Gissa, Proconesus, and other places, and called them to him who were banished, and put it to their choice, whether a Vultis habere Vigilium, ut fuit, Papa vester? Minusve? Hîc habetis Pelagium Archidiaconum etc. Anast. ibid. they would have Vigilius to be their Pope, or Pelagius there present among them: and when they desired Vigilius, dimisit omnes cum Vigilio, he sent them all b Liquet ex Anastasio omnes ab exilio pariter revocatos. Bar. an. 553. nu. 222 home with Vigilius. Nay the Emperor did not only restore him, and send him home, but granted c Alia nonnulla eidem petenti concessit, & ipso exigente sanctionem promulgavit. Bar. an. 554. nu 6. diverse matters (gifts, rewards, and Privileges, as Binius d Donis, muneribus, ac privilegijs ornatus in Italiam redire permissus fuit. B in notis in Conc. 5. §. Praestitit. calleth them) and at his entreaty published a pragmatical sanction for the affairs of Italy, as the words of the sanction, Pro petitione Vigilij, do declare. Hence now doth the Card: make his inference, that absque e Bar. an. 554. nu. 6. dubio, without all doubt Vigilius was very dear to the Emperor, seeing he granted such favours unto him, but there could have been no friendship at all betwixt them, unless Vigilius after his return from exile, had consented to the Synod, and condemned the Three Chapters, seeing f Quorum solùm causá odium constatum erat, & exilium irrogatum. Bar. ibid. his not consenting thereunto, was the cause of his banishment, Thus Baronius: who hath very handsomely concluded, that absque dubio, Vigilius after his return out of exile, consented to the fifth Council. If now we can clear this reason, wherein consists the whole pith of the Cardinal's cause, I well hope that this consent of Vigilius, of which he so much boasteth, will be acknowledged to be nothing else then a Baronian dream. 12. And first admitting for a while the Cardinal's antecedent, the consequent sure is inconsequent. justinian might upon the entreaty of Narses, send Vigilius home, though Vigilius had not consented to the Synod after the end thereof. Narses was a man for his piety, prudence, fortitude, & felicity in war, exceedingly beloved & honoured by justinian. They who are conversant in histories, are not ignorant that Emperors do yield many times greater matters than the restoring of Vigilius, at the entreaty of such as Narses was. When the Roman Matrons g Theod. histor. lib. 2. ca 17. (their husbands not daring to motion such a matter) entreated Constantius to restore Liberius to his See, from which he was then banished, the Emperor, though he was most violently bend against Liberius, and had placed an other Bishop in his See, yet, as Theodoret writeth, sic inflectebatur, he was so affected with their entreaty, that he yielded to their request, thinking it fitter that there should be two Bishops at once in Rome, rather than he would seem so obdurate and unkind, as to deny that petition in the time of his triumph. It was as great incongruity and disproportion in the government of Constantius an Arian, to restore Liberius, than a Catholic, as for justinian being a Catholic Emperor, to restore Vigilius being now an heretical Bishop. The hatred of Constantius to Liberius was far greater, than justinian's against Vigilius. The parties entreating are so unequal, that Constantius seems to have yielded only for popularity, and to get the opinion of courtesy, they having done nothing to merit such favour at his hands: but Narses had by his valour and late victories, not only won great honour to justinian, and to the whole Empire, but had freed Italy from the servitude of the Goths, and by that means, besides many other, had merited the love and favour of justinian, who might have seemed not only unkind, but unjust in denying the petition of one so well deserving. 13. Nay, what if the entreaty of Narses, and narration of Anastasius do prove the quite contrary to that which Baronius from them collects, that Vigilius had not consented to the Synod when he was restored upon that entreaty? Narses did this to gratify h Tunc aduna●us clerus r●gaverunt Norsere●, ut rogaret Principem, etc. Anast. in vita Vig. the Roman Clergy, and the Italian Bishops, who entreated him to be a means for the restoring of Vigilius unto them. And who, I pray you, were they, or how affected in this cause of the three Chapters? Truly they were eager in defending of them, and for that cause rent and divided from the Eastern Churches, as Baronius i Cum (Vigilius) cerneret universum Orientem ab Ecclesia Romana divisum, nisi Synodo consentiret. Bar. an. 553. nu. 235 witnesseth. It had been no gratifying, but a very heart grief and vexation to such, to have Vigilius the condemner of those Chapters, that is, in their judgement, an heretic, restored unto them. It was Vigilius, the defender of those Chapters, whom they desired, for whom Narses entreated, and whom, if any, the Emperor upon his entreaty restored; which, by the Anastasian narration, is made very evident, for he k Anast. in vita Vig. showeth, how the Emperor upon his suggestion, mox misit jussiones suas, presently sent forth his command, to bring Vigilius and the rest from exile. He sent not to see if they would consent to the Synod, and upon their consent to release them; but, without any questioning of that matter, he commands that they, howsoever they stood affected, should be free, and brought out of banishment; when they were returned, did the Emperor ask them one word, whether they would consent to the Synod, or no? He did not; but all that he demanded of them was this, vultis habere Vigilium, will ye have Vigilius to continue your Pope, as he was before, or will you have Pelagius, who is here among you? A demonstration, that Vigilius had not then consented to the Synod, when the Emperor said this; for there was no cause, either to deprive Vigilius, or elect any other in his room, but his persisting in heresy; had he consented to the Synod, and condemned the Three Chapters, the Emperor should have done wrong unto him, to have suffered any other to have been chosen: nay, the See being full, Pelagius could not, though all the banished Clergy had desired it, have been chosen Bishop in his stead. Seeing then, both the Emperor's words, and the answer of the Clergy, as Anastasius relateth them, do show, that if they had pleased they might lawfully have chosen another Pope; and seeing they could not by right have done that, unless Vigilius had continued in his pertinacious defence of heresy; even hereby it may be perceived, that at his restoring he persisted in the same heretical mind of which he was before, and that he had not then consented to the Synod, nor to the condemning of those Three Chapters. So blinded was the Cardinal in this cause, that he could not, or rather would not see how his own reason, drawn from the entreaty of Narses, and the narration of Anastasius, doth quite overthrow the conclusion which by them he intended to confirm. 14. And all this have I said upon supposal only of the truth of that narration touching Narses his entreaty, and the Emperors yielding thereupon, to restore Vigilius out of exile. But now I must add another answer, which I fear will be much more displeasing to the Cardinal and his friends, and that is, that this whole narration touching the exile of Vigilius after the Synod, the entreaty of Narses, the restoring him from that banishment, and the rest depending thereon, is all untrue, & fictitious, such as hath no ground in the whole world, but only the Cardinals own Poetical pate: For the manifesting whereof I will insist on the two principal points in the Cardinal's narration, the untruth of which being declared, all the rest will easily be acknowledged to be untrue and fabulous. 15. The former concerns the restoring of Vigilius out of Banishment. Baronius l Bar. 554. nu. 1. following Anastasius, saith, that the Emperor, together with Vigilius restored all the rest who were banished with him; Dimisit omnes cum Vigilio; and by name Pelagius is expressed to be one of them; of whom the Emperor then said, Hic habetis Pelagium, you have here Pelagius: Vigilius then with him, by name, among the rest was dismissed home. A very fiction and fable, witness whereof Victor Bishop of Tunea, who then lived, and who himself m Victor Tunnensis author hujus operis, post custodias si●ul et plagas primo et secundo exilio egi Mauritaniae, ●ertiv Alexandrinae, pro trium capitulorum desensione. Vict. in Chron. an. 14. (corrupt legitu● 15.) post Consul. Basilij. , after imprisonment and whipping was banished into three several places, for defending the Three Chapters; and after that was brought to Constantinople n Isiod. lib. de viris illust. ca 25. ex Aegypto ●ursu● Constantinopolin evocatus, etc. , where he was an eye witness of the most things there happening about this cause. He having set down the time of Vigilius death, that he died in Sicily, in the 16 d Corrupt legitur 17. in Chron. Vict. year after the Coss. of Basilius, addeth in the next year concerning Pelagius, that he, being that year called from banishment, which he sustained for defence of the Three Chapters, did then condemn them, and then was ordained Bishop of Rome, which demonstrateth the vanity of the Anastasian and Baronian tale: how could the Emperor say, You have Pelagius here, when Pelagius was then, and after that in exile? How did the Emperor dismiss them all, and particularly Pelagius, when Vigilius was sent home, seeing Pelagius remained in exile till Vigilius was dead? But that which I principally collect is this: Seeing Vigilius, by the Cardinal's narration, was not freed from exile, nor consented to the Synod, but at the same time when Pelagius was released; and seeing it is certain, by the testimony of Victor, that Vigilius was not freed, nor consented unto the Synod at that time, (for Vigilius was dead before Pelagius was released) it hence certainly ensueth, that Vigilius neither was freed from exile, nor at all consented unto the fifth Synod after his exile. 16. The other, which is indeed the special point, concerns the banishment of Vigilius after the end of the Synod, which Baronius so often mentioneth, and on which depends the whole fable; this banishment being in very deed nothing else than a Baronian fiction; the author, and the only author whom Baronius names for proof of this banishment, is Anastasius: and because the Cardinal in good discretion would name the best author, and authority which he had; him, whose antiquity and name might gain credit to the narration: it is not to be doubted but Anastasius was the best, most credible, and authentic author, which the Cardinal had for this banishment: of him then Baronius p Bar. an. 553. nu. 2.2. saith thus, Liquet ex Anastasio Vigilium in exilium deportatum fuisse; It is evident by Anastasius, that Vigilius and those who were with him were carried into banishment. True; that is evident indeed by Anastasius: But why did the Cardinal omit the principal point to be proved? why said he not, Vigilius to have been carried into banishment after the end of the Synod, or carried for not consenting with the Synod in their condemning of the Three Chapters? why said he not, this is evident by Anastasius? Will you be pleased to know the reason hereof? It is this, because, hoc non liquet ex Anastasio; nay, because, contrarium liquet ex Anastasio, Anastasius is so far from saying as the Cardinal doth, that Vigilius was banished after the end of the Council, or for not consenting to the Council, that he saith the quite contrary, and contradicteth all that the Cardinal hath said touching that banishment, both for the time, and for the cause thereof. The cause of the Anastasian banishment q Per biennium fuere contenticnes de Anthime3, sed Vigil. nullatenus voluit consentire, etc. Anast. in vit. Vig. of Vigilius was, for that he refused to restore Anthimus to the See of Constantinople, whence he was justly ejected by Pope Agapetus, and a general Council, more than ten r Conc. illud sub Menna, ●bi Anthimus est depositus, habitum est an. 536. Bar. illo▪ an. nu. 72. Vig. venit Constantinopolin an. 547▪ Bar. illo a. nu. 26 years before Vigilius came to Constantinople, and the time of this Anastasian banishment was two years after s Per biennium, etc. Anast. loc. cit. Vigilius came to Constantinople, and while Theodora t Non secerunt me, ut video, venire ad se justinian et Theodora, sed Dioclesianus et Eleutheria. Anast. Ibid. was alive, which was long before the fifth Synod was assembled. This, and no other banishment of Vigilius is to be found in Anastasius; from this, and no other it is, that Anastasius saith, he was freed by the entreaty of Narses, remaining an exile until that time. Now this ex diametro fighteth with that exile which Baronius hath devised, the time of the Baronian banishment was after the end u Bar. an. 5●3. nu. 221. et seq▪ of the fifth Synod, that is, about five x Nam Theodora obijt an. 548. Bar. eo an. nu. 24 Conc. 5. ●●bitum an. 553. Bar. eo an. years after the death of Theodora; till than Baronius will acknowledge no banishment of Vigilius. The cause of the Baronian banishment was not Anthimus, nor the restoring of him, but only y Pontifex (Vigilius) non aliam ●b causam in exilium actus est, nisi quod 5. Synodum minimè probare voluiss●t Bar. an. 554. nu. 4. his not yielding to the fifth Synod, and refusing to condemn the Three Chapters. So the Cardinals own witness: yea, his only witness is so far from proving what he pretends, and affirms, that upon his narration is demonstrated the quite contrary: For if Vigilius was banished in the life time of Theodora, as Anastasius declareth, and there remained till by Narses entreaty he was released; then most certainly was he not cast into banishment after the end of the fifth Synod, not for refusing to consent thereunto, which is the fiction of Baronius. 16. And for more evidence that the same which I said is the banishment by Anastasius, I might allege Bellarmine z Quo circa (qu●● noluit Anthimum restiturre) ab irata Imperatrice, in exilium miss●● fuit Vigilius, & miserè vexatus usque ad moxtem. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca 10 § ●●migit. , and others, but omitting them, let us hear that worthy author, to whom Binius a De Vigili● et tota ejus causa vid. Sanderum. Bin. not. in vit. Vigil. pa. 478 b. refers us concerning this matter; Nicholas Sanders, He b Sand. lib. 7. the visib. Monarch. ad an. 537. thus writeth; That Vigilius was sent into banishment, because he would not restore Anthimus: the Roman Pontifical (so he calls the book of Anastasius) doth testify; and besides it, Aimonius, Paulus Diaconus, Marianus Scotus, Platina, Blondus, Petrus de Natalibus, Martinus Polonus, Sabellicus, and it may be gathered out of Nicephorus. Thus Sanders: who might have added Sigebert c Sig. an. 546. , who placeth his banishment diverse years before the fifth Council; Albo d Alb. Flor. in vita Vig. Floriacensis, who hath the same words with Anastasius, Nauclerus d Naucl. an. 540 , Rhegino e Rheg. an. 559. , Hermanus f Herm. an. 547. Contractus, Gotofridus g Gotof. an. 527. Viterbiensis, Otho Frisingensis h Otho an. 528. , Palmerius i Palm. in Chr. an. 537. , their own Genebrard k Geneb. an. 537. , Stapleton l Stapl. Counterbl. ca 19 , and many others: These following Anastasius, relate the cause of his banishment to have been thee not restoring of Anthimus; & the time, before the death of the Empress Theodora. Nor can I find so much as one, either ancient or later writer, who saith, with Baronius, that he was banished after the fifth Council, and for refusing to consent unto it; what a rare Poetical conceit hath the Cardinal, who can make such a noble discourse of that fictitious banishment, and commend it as an historical narration, for the warrant of which he had not so much as one writer, (and one is a small number) ancient or late, upon whose credit and authority he might report it; and for that one witness Anastasius, whom he nameth, he is so far from testifying it, that he doth clearly testify the quite contrary; yea, Baronius himself was not ignorant hereof, but knew right well Anastasius to refer m Hoc plane tempore accidisse noscuntur, quae Anast●sius fungit, imo confundit cum prioribus, quae acciderunt vivente ad huc Theodora. Bar. an. 552. nu. 8. the beating of Vigilius, his flight to Chalcedon, the other indigne usage set down by him, and his exile, to the time while Theodora lived; and therefore he taxeth Anastasius, for confounding those things, and referring them to that time, whereas himself placeth them after the death n Caetera quae sequuntur (in Anastasio) post obi●um Theodorae contigerunt. Bar. an. 547. nu. 27. Interilla caetera est Vigilij exilium. of Theodora: And yet for all this, though he knew Anastasius to teach the quite contrary, yet was not the Cardinal afraid, nor ashamed to allege Anastasius for a witness, that Vigilius was cast into banishment after the fifth Council, and for refusing to consent unto it, and to say of this banishment, Liquet ex Anastacio, it is clearly known out of Anastasius; whereas not that, but the quite contrary, Liquet ex Anastasio. 17. From hence now there issueth another consequent to be remembered. It is agreed by all, who mention any banishment of Vigilius, and it is confessed also by Baronius, that Vigilius was but once banished, and from that one freed by the entreaty of Narses: Now that one cannot be the Baronian banishment, for of it there is no proof at all to be found, no one author to witness it, but the Cardinal and his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in matters of fact done some thousand and more years before the Cardinal was borne, is of no worth at all, nor can be esteemed aught but one of his own dreams and figments. Again, that one cannot be the Anastasian banishment, which is said to happen before the death of Theodora, more than four years before the fifth Council; for it is certain by the Acts of the fifth Synod o Conc. 5. Coll. 1, 2, 3, et 8. , that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople; yea, that until then he lived and dwelled p Contigit Vigilium in hac regia urbe degen●em, omnibus interest, etc. Coll. 8. pa. 584. a. at Constantinople. Seeing then Vigilius was neither banished before the Council, as Anastasius saith, nor banished after the Council, as Baronius saith, it followeth, which indeed is very truth, that Vigilius was not at all banished, but all which is reported of his banishment, and all that depends thereon, is fictitious and Poetical, devised by two Bibliothecarij to his Holiness; the former, and precedent to the Council, is an Anastasian; the other, following the Council, is a Barbarian Poem; but both Poems both fabulous and Aesopicall narrations. 18. And truly, might we be allowed to imitate the Cardinal's Art in disputing, this matter would easily be made plain. There is one Topicke place of arguing à testimonio negatiuè, which is very familiar to Baronius in his Annals q Vid. Bar. an. 574. nu. 10.11. , and it is defended by Gretzer in his Apology r Respondissemus hanc argumentandi rationem (ab authoritate negatiuè) in eyes praeserrim quae ad historiam spectant, non esse prorsus infirmamet et elum. bem. Gretz. Apol pro Bar. ca 1 § Peritius. for Baronius; let us take but one example, and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius. There is in Anastasius s Anast. in vit. Vigil. a narration, how Vigilius was violently pulled away from Rome by Anthemius Scribonius, sent thither for that purpose, by the Empress; how he was apprehended in the Church, thrust into the ship; how the Romans followed reviling t Populus c●pit jactare post cum lapides, fulls, et cacabos, et dicere, Fames tua tecum, male invenias, ubi vadis, etc. him, cursing him, and casting stones and dung at him, praying that a mischief might go with him. Thus it is historified by Anastasius. The like is mentioned by many others, who borrowed it out of Anastasius; by Aimonius * Aim. lib. 2. the gest. Franc. ca 32 , by the Historia Miscella u Hist. misc. lib. 16. , going under the name of Paulus Diaconus, though it be not his; by Marianus x Mar. an. 553. Scotus, by Hermanus y Her. an. 547. Contractus, by Sigebert z Sig. an. 543. , by Luitprandus a Luitp. in vita Vigil. de vitis Pontificum, as the book is called; by Albo b Alb. in vita Vig. Floriacensis, by Platina c Plat. in vita Vig. , by Conrade d Conr. Ab. Vrsper. an. 527. , by Nauclerus e Nauc. an. 540. , by Martinus f Mart. in vita Vig. Polonus, by Blondus g Blond. Dec. 1. lib. 6. , by Krantzius h Krant. Met. lib. 2. , by Sigonius i Sigeb. lib. 19 de Occ. Imp. an. 545. , & others. Hear now the Cardinal's censure of this narration of Anastasius, and the rest who followed him; Aperti mendacij k Bar. an. 546. nu. 54. redarguitur Anastasius; Anastasius is convicted of a manifest lie herein; and how prove you that, my Baronius? res adeo ignominiosa, so ignominious a matter as this is, could not have been unknown to the Authors, who writ most accurately the Acts of their times, and those were Facundus and Procopius, the Cardinal names no more: from the silence and omission of this matter in them two, he concludes Anastasius to be a liar, and his narration, seconded by many more, to be a lie. 19 Let now but the like liberty of disputing à Testimonio negatiuè, be allowed unto us, and the Baronian banishment (to begin with that) must be rejected, banished, and set in the same rank with that lie of Anastasius; for thus we may argue: This banishment of Vigilius after the end of the fifth Council, and for refusing to consent unto it, is neither mentioned by Victor Bishop of Tunen, nor by Liberatus, nor by Evagrius, nor by Procopius, who all then lived, (and in relating the affairs of the Church, were full out as exact as Facundus and Procopius) nor by Photius, nor by Zonaras, nor by Cedrenus, nor by Nicephorus, nor by Glicas', nor by Constantinus Manasses, nor by Anastasius, nor by Paulus Diaconus, nor by Aimonius, nor by Luitprandus, nor by Albo Floriacenfis, nor by Otho Frisingensis, nor by Conrade Abbot of Vrsberge, nor by Hermanus Contractus, nor by Sigebert, nor by Lambertus Scaffuaburgensis, nor by Martinus Polonus, nor by Gotofridus Viterbiensis, nor by Albertus Stadensis, nor by Vernerus, nor by Marianus Scotus, nor by Rhegino, nor by Bede, nor by Platina, nor by Nauclerus, nor by Tritemius, nor by Krantzius, nor by the magnum Chronicon Belgicum, nor by the Chronicon Reicherspergense, nor by Chronicon Germanicum per Monachum Herveldensem, nor by Chronica Compendrosa, or Compilatio Chronologica, nor by Blondus, nor by Sabellicus, nor by Aventinus, nor by Huldericus Mutius, nor by Sigonius, nor by Palmerius, nor by Karanza, nor by Papirius Massonius, nor by Genebrard, nor by Sanders, nor by Stapleton; and I challenge the well-willers of Baronius, by that love they bear unto him, & his estimation, to name if they can but any one writer before Baronius, who affirmeth Vigilius to have been banished after the Synod, for not consenting unto it, that thereby it may be known, that their great Annalist plays the Historian, and not the Poet, in relating the Ecclesiastical affairs of the Church: Or if they can at any time do this, (which I am verily persuaded they neither will, nor ever can perform) yet seeing none of all these do mention that banishment; truly if Baronius, from the silence of two writers, might conclude against Anastasius, that he was a liar in the former narration, I think none will deny; but à fortiori, it will follow, that seeing more than two score are silent in this matter, it may far more justly be said, aperti mendacij redarguitur, which is the Cardinals own doom and words that he bestoweth on Anastasius: and here much more fitly may the Cardinal's reason take place, res adeo ignominiosa, so ignominious a matter; nay, so glorious a piece of martyrdom on the Pope's part, as the banishment and cruel persecution of the Pope, the chief Bishop in the world, for such a cause, as for not assenting to the Synod, could not have been unknown unto those writers, who most diligently prosecute the affairs of their times, and such as concerned the Church: Nay, from the most of these we may draw an affirmative argument also, and reason, more strongly than the Cardinal doth in his disputes. Anastasius, Aimonius, Diaconus, Platina, and diverse more of the forenamed authors, to the number at least of twenty, affirm, Vigilius was banished before the Synod, and in the life time of Theodora; and withal teach but one banishment of Vigilius, and therefore they not only are silent of that which the Cardinal saith, but they say the quite contrary unto him; and so, both by their silence, and by their speech refute that, as an untruth, which the Cardinal so positively and historically narrateth. 20. Now, as the negative kind of arguing disproves the Baronian, so doth it also the Anastasian banishment, and forcibly concludes, that Vigilius was not at all banished, either before, or after the Council; for there is no banishment at all of Vigilius mentioned, either by Victor, or by Liberatus, or by Evagrius, or by Procopius, who all lived & writ at that time, or by Photius, or by Zonaras, or by Cedrenus, or by Glicas', or by Constantinus Manasses, or by Nicephorus, or by Aimonius (though Sanders falsely affirmed them to teach this) or by Luitprandus, or by Bede, or by Krantzius, or by Mutius, or by Papirius Massonius, or by Caranza, besides others. Add now here again the Cardinal's words, Res adeo ignominiosa, surely so ignominious and shameful a fact, as the banishing of a Pope, could not have been unknown to those who writ (as exactly as Facundus and Procopius) the Ecclesiastical affairs, and occurrents in their times; and therefore seeing these so many, so exact writers, mention not that Anastasian banishment of Vigilius, it may be rightly concluded, that Anastasius therein aperti mendicij redarguitur; or if none but the Cardinal may give the lie to Anastasius; yet, confessing his narration to be untrue, let us leave that as a privilege of the Cardinals, that he alone shall bestow lies, for liveries, upon Anastasius. Nay, seeing none of these Writers mention any banishment at all of Vigilius, it must further be concluded from their silence, that Vigilius neither first nor last, neither before, nor after the Synod was banished, but that the whole narration, touching his banishment, is a mere fiction and fable, devised, partly by Anastasius, and partly by Baronius. 21. Which may much rather be affirmed, considering that Victo●● who was himself exiled, and brought to Constantinople, is not only careful, but even curious; (that I say not proud) in recounting the most eminent persons, specially Bishops, which were either deposed, or imprisoned, or banished about this cause of the three Chapters, either before or after the Synod. In this rank he l Vict. in Chron. an. 8. post Coss. Bas. nameth Benenatus Bishop of justinianea, Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria, Reparatus Bishop of Carthage, Verecundus Bishop of Nica, Macarius Bishop of jerusalem, Rusticus a Roman Deacon, Foelix a Monk of Guilla, Frontinus Bishop of Salone, Theodosius Bishop of Sebarsuse, himself being Bishop of Tunen, and Pelagius then a Deacon, but afterwards Bishop of Rome, and successor to Vigilius. Had Baronius this negative argument à testimonio in hand, how would he insult, and even triumph in it? how easily would he persuade the world, that certainly Bishop Victor, who by name, and so particularly, recounteth meaner Bishops, yea, Deacons and Monks, who suffered banishment for this cause, would never have omitted the Prince of Bishops, had he been exiled for it, as they were. That one example had graced the defenders of the Three Chapters, more than twenty, nay, than twenty hundred besides, seeing by this it would have been evident, that the Oracle of the world, the infallible judge had sealed the truth of that cause with his glorious banishment, which is a kind of Martyrdom. Anastasius, Diaconus, Otho, and all the rest, who say he was banished, should have had the lie an hundred times at the Cardinal's hands, for saying that he was banished, either before or after the Council, rather than Bishop Victor, who then lived at Constantinople, and was fellow-partner in those troubles and banishments, should have been thought either ignorant or forgetful to express that banishment of Vigilius, had there been truly any at all. 22. Thus from the Cardinals own Topics it is concluded, that both the Anastasian, & the Baronian banishments are both fictitious: Nor can I find what they can except against our Negative Argument, which will not more forcibly refute many of the Cardinal's disputes, unless perhaps, as Gretzer m Gretz. Apol. pro Bar. ca 1. § Respondet. answers in defence of Baronius, in another cause, that the old Logic rule, Ex puris negativis nihil sequi, holds only in Syllogisms, but not in Enthymems (for which subtlety I doubt not but the very Sophisters in our Universities will sound deride him) so in this they will say, which, with as good warrant and reason, they may; that an agument à testimonio negatiuè, holds only in the Cardinal's Annals, or when somewhat is to be proved for the Pope, or his cause; but it never holds when ought makes against the Pope, and the Cardinal; or makes for the Protestants, and their cause. 23. But if Anastasius, in this narration be fabulous, what shall we say of Aimonius, and all those other Writers, who mention this banishment of Vigilius, as well as doth Anastasius? What else can be said, then that which Jerome n Hier. Apol. 2. adver. Ruff. pa. 223. saith of diverse of the ancient Writers? Before that Southern Devil Arius arose at Alexandria, innocenter quaedam, & minus cantè locuti sunt; the ancients spoke certain things in simplicity, and not so warily, which cannot abide the touch, nor avoid the reprehension of perverse men: Or that which Saint Austen o Aug. lib. 3. the doct. Christ. ca 33. observes in himself, and Tyconius; Non erat expertus hanc haresin; Tyconius had not to deal with this heresy of the Pelagians, as I have said: It hath made us multò vigilantiores, diligentioresque; much more diligent, and vigilant, in scanning of this point, than Tyconius was, who had no enemy to stir up his diligence: Right so it falls out betwixt those Writers, and us of this age. Aimonius, Otho, Platina, and the rest found the banishment of Vigilius, and much like stuff, as it is histories in Anastasius: they, in simplicity and harmless innocency, took it upon his credit. The question about the Pope's Cathedral Infallibility, about Vigilius heretical Constitution, and such like controversies, were not moved in their days, and therefore they spoke of these things, innocenter, & minùs cautè, as Jerome saith of the Fathers; and because they were not distrustful of Anastasius, they writ not so warily of these matters, as others, whose industry, by the manifold frauds of Baronius, as of another Arius, hath been whetted, and they compelled to fifth the truth more narrowly than they, wanting opposites and oppugners, did: It fell out to them as it did to Jerome himself. Ruffinus had set p Vnus sub nomine Pamphili à te editus est, et; eadem, quae sub Pamphili nomi●e à te ficta ●ant. Hier. Apol. 2. Cont. Ruff. pa. 226. out a book in defence of Origen, under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr: p Vnus sub nomine Pamphili à te editus est, et; eadem, quae sub Pamphili nomi●e à te ficta ●ant. Hier. Apol. 2. Cont. Ruff. pa. 226. Jerome at the first, and for diverse years, believed q Inter caetere translatore: posui et hunc librum à Pamphilo editum, ita putans essè, ut à te et tuis discipalis fuerat, divulgatum. Ibid. the book to have been indeed written by Pamphilus, as Ruffinus said it was: Credidi r Hier. Apol. 3. contra Ruff. pa. 228 Christiano, Credidi Monacho: I never dreamt, that such an horrible wickedness, as to forge writings, and call them by the name of Martyrs, could come from a Christian, from a Monk, from Ruffinus: but when the question about Origen was once set on foot, Jerome then sought s Hier. lxij ci●at. out every corner, every Copy, every Library that he could come to, and so discovered the whole forgery. The very like happened to Otho, Platina, and the rest; they found this fabulous narration of the banishment of Vigilius, and the consequents upon it, in the book of Anastasius, the Writer of the Pope's lives, of the Pontifical, the keeper of the Pope's Library, a man of great name and note for learning, one in high favour with the Popes of his time; they never suspected or dreamt that such a man, a Christian, a Monk, that Anastasius would deal so perfidiously, and record such horrible untruths: But now, the question about Anastasius credit, and the cause of Vigilius, which was not moved in their days, being sifted and come to the scanning, the whole forgery and falsehood of Anastasius is made evident to the world, both in this, and in a number the like narrations. Anastasius is not the man the world took him for; his writings are full of lies and fictions: Not the Legendaur more fabulous than Anastasius; he for a long time was the Master of the Pope's Mint; by his means the royal stamp of many golden Fathers, yea, of some Counsels also, and infinite historical narrations, was set upon Brass, Led, and most base metals; and then being brought, like so many Gibeonites in old Coats, and mouldy cover, Anastasius gave them an high place, and honourable entertainment in the Pope's Library, and with them ever since hath the Church of God been pestered; they passed for currant among men delighted in darkness, and errors, such as had no need to bring them to the touch; but the light hath now manifested them, and made both them and their author to be detested. 24. You see now the weakness, nay the nullity of the Cardinal's reason, even of his Achilles, drawn from the Emperor's fact, in restoring or freeing him from exile, which he would never have done, unless he had consented to the Synod. For, seeing we have proved that Vigilius was not at all banished, it clearly thence ensueth, that neither Narses entreated to have him freed from exile, neither did the Emperor upon that entreaty free him from exile, neither did Vigilius consent to the Synod after his exile, and all the other consequents, which upon this foundation of Vigilius his exile the Cardinal builds like so many Castles in the air, they all of themselves do now fall to the ground: and which I specially observe, it hence followeth, that Vigilius did never after the end of the fifth Council consent unto it, or to the condemning of the Three Chapters, either by his Pontifical decree, or by his personal profession: for the Cardinal assures us, and delivers it as a truth, which of necessity t Necesse est affirmare. Bar. an. 554. nu. 4. must be granted, that his consent, (whether personal or pontifical) was at no other time, but when he was loosed out of banishment. 25. Now at that time it neither was nor could be, for there was never any such time, nor was he at all banished, and therefore upon the Cardinals own words we are assured that Vigilius after the end of the Synod never revoked his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters, never after that time condemned the Three Chapters, or consented to the Synod, either by any pontifical, or so much as by a personal profession, but that he still persisted in his heretical defence of the same Chapters, and subject to that censure of Anathema, which the fifth Council denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters. 26. Some perhaps will marvel, or demand how it should come to pass, that the Emperor, who as we have showed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning, banishing, and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters, and such as yielded not to the Synod, should wink at Vigilius at this time, who was the chief and most eminent of them all: which doubt Baronius also u Bar. an. 553. nu. 222. moveth, saying, he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him, Num Vigilio pepercit, may we think he would spare Vigilius, and not banish him who set forth a Constitution against the Emperor's Edict? Minime quidem: Truly the Emperor would never spare him, saith the Cardinal. Yes, the Emperor both would and did spare him. Belike the Cardinal measures justinian by his own ireful and revengeful mind. Had the Cardinal been crossed and contradicted, nothing but torture, exile, or fire from heaven to consume such rebels, would have appeased his rage. justinian was of a far more calm, and therefore more prudent spirit. Vigilius deserved, and the Emperor might in justice for his pertinacious resisting the truth, have inflicted upon him either imprisonment, or banishment, or deposition, or death. It pleased him to do none of all these, nor to deal with the Pope according to his demerits. justinian saw that Vigilius was but a weak and silly man, one of no constancy and resolution, a very weathercock in his judgement concerning causes of faith: that he had said and gainsaid the same things, and then by his Apostolical authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory, to be true, and truths of the Catholic faith: the Emperor was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement, than punish that fit of perverseness which then was come upon him. Had Vigilius been so stiff and inflexible as Victor, as Liberatus, as Facundus were, whom no reason, nor persuasion would induce to yield to the truth, it's not to be doubted but he had felt the Emperor's indignation as well as any of them. But Vigilius like a wise man took part with both, he was an Ambidexter, both a defender, and a condemner of the three Chapters, both on the Emperor's side, and against him: and because he might be reckoned on either side, having given a judicial sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters, as for defending them: it pleased the Emperor to take him at the best, and rank him among the condemners; at least to wink at him as being one of them, and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters. 27. Nor could the Emperor have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church, than by such connivance at Vigilius, and letting him pass as one of the condemners of those Chapters. The banishing of him would have hardened others, and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained: the former, men would have ascribed it to judgement; the latter, to passion, and weariness of his exile. But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters, if any were led by his authority and judgement, the Emperor could show them, Lo here you have the judicial sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters: if his authority were despised by others, than his judicial sentence in defence of the Chapters could do no hurt; and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause? nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperor to wink at him, as at a condemner of the three Chapters: for he had often testified to the Council, that Vigilius had condemned both by words and writings those Chapters, he sent the Popes own letters to the Synod, to declare and testify the same: those letters as well of the Emperor as of the Pope testifying this, were inserted into the Synodall Acts x Conc. 5. Coll. 1. & 7. . Had the Emperor banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters, his own act in punishing Vigilius had seemed to cross and contradict his own letters, and the Synodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters, as you say, and the Synodall Acts record that he is, why do ye banish him for not condemning those Chapters? If Vigilius be justly banished as a defender of those Chapters, how can the Emperor's letters and Synodall Acts be true, which testify him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters? So much did it concern the Emperor's honour, and credit of the Synod, that Vigilius should not be banished at that time. Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted, condemned, and anathematised heretic by the judgement of the whole and holy general Council: but for any banishment, imprisonment, or other corporal punishment, the Emperor in his wisdom, in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him. Only he stayed him at Constantinople for one, or as Victor saith, for more years after the Synod, to the end that before he returned, the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Council being every where divulged, and with them, nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did, might settle if it were possible, the minds of men in the truth, or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison, which either from the contrary constitution, or his personal presence when he should return, could proceed. 28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinal and Binius collect from those great offices, gifts, rewards, and privileges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius, and so sent him home: which the Cardinal thinks the Emperor would never have done, unless Vigilius had consented to the Synod, and condemned the three Chapters. Truly these men can make a mountain of a molehill. There is no proof in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his return: no nor that the Emperor bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all. That which the Emperor did was the publishing of a pragmatical sanction, wherein are contained diverse very wholesome laws, and good orders for the government of Italy, and the Provinces adjoining: The date of the sanction is in August, in the eight and twenty year of justinian, and thirteen after the Cons. of Basilius, which was the next year after the Council. But that Vigilius at that time returned, there is no solid proof; and Victor y Vict. in Chron. an. 16. (corruptè legitur 17.) post Coss. Basilij. who then lived, and was present at Constantinople, puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. year of justinian, or 16. after Basilius, who yet by all men's account (who write of his return) returned from Constantinople either in the same, or in the next year before he died. So uncertain, and by Victor's account unlikely it is, that Vigilius at his return home was ornatus muncribus, donis, officiis, and privilegiis, as they z Bar. an. 554. nu. 6. & Bin. Not. in Conc. ●. §. Praestitit. pompously set out the matter. Now it is true that the Emperor ordered and decreed those matters upon the entreaty of Vigilius: for so the words pro petitione Vigilij, do make evident: but that either Vigilius entreated, or the Emperor granted this upon any entreaty which he made, either after his return out of exile, (which certainly he did not) or after the end of the Synod, or at the time of his return (all which are the Cardinal's tales without any proof) none of the Cardinal's friends will be ever able to make clear. And for my own part, till I see some reason to the contrary, I cannot otherwise think, but that this petition was made by Vigilius some three or four years before the Council, at which time Vigilius consented wholly with the Emperor, was in great grace and favour with him. And I am hereunto induced by that which Procopius a Proc. lib. 3. de Bell. Goth. pa. ●93. expresseth: How in the 14. year of the Gothicke war, which is the 23. of justinian; when Totilas and the Goths began to win again diverse parts of Italy, which Belisarius had before recovered, Vigilius and diverse Italians and Romans, who were then at Constantinople, submissius & enixius postulabant ab Imperatore, did in very submiss and earnest manner entreat the Emperor, that he would reduce all Italy into his subjection. Now it is very likely that together with this petition they signified diverse matters to the Emperor, which were behooveful for his government in the Western parts: and this the Emperors answer then made unto them imports; who, as Procopius addeth, answered them, Italiam sibi cura fore, that he would have a care of Italy: but for that time he was busy in composing the differences about Christian doctrines. The fifth Synod then being ended, and all those Ecclesiastical affairs concluded, nor that only, but Totilas and Teian being both vanquished, and so the whole dominion of Italy being recovered by the victorious Narses, the Emperor in his 28. year, which was next after the Synod, performed that promise which he had made before to Vigilius and the other Italians, and according to their request disposed and ordered diverse matters which in that sanction are set down. 29. Now if the words of the Sanction have respect (as I verily think they have) to that time, than all that Baronius collecteth from granting that sanction, and those privileges upon the petition of Vigilius after his return from exile, or after the Synod, are mere fancies and dreams. Or if it were admitted (whereof I can find no proof at all) that Vigilius made, and the Emperor granted unto him this petition after the end of the Council, yet will it not hence follow that Vigilius then consented to the Synod; for as we have before declared, the Emperor was not so eager, nor rigorous against Vigilius, but that upon his entreaty he might grant to establish those Laws, which being in themselves so commodious and behooveful, he without any entreaty, upon the consideration of those matters, would in all likelihood have enacted. And so every joint of the Cardinal's second reason (wherein consists the very pith of his cause) drawn from the fact of justinian, in restoring him from exile, and dismissing him home with gifts and privileges, being now fully dissolved by that which hath been said, it remaineth clear, that notwithstanding all which the Cardinal hath yet brought, there appears no proof nor token that Vigilius any time after the end of the Council, either by his public decree, as the Cardinal boasteth, or so much as by his personal profession, consented to the Synod, and the condemning of the Three Chapters. 30. His third b Bar. an. 554. nu. 5. and last reason is drawn from those dark words of Liberatus c Liber. ca 22. , where he saith, that Vigilius died, being afflicted by that heresy (of the Eutycheans) but he was not crowned. Before we examine the Cardinal's reason grounded hereon, let us first in a word observe the Cardinal's honest dealing with Liberatus. In that very same chapter, and in the words next before that sentence which the Cardinal allegeth, Liberatus sets down the Epistle and profession of Vigilius, wherein he defendeth the Eutychean heresy, and anathematizeth all who hold two natures in Christ as the Council of Chalcedon had defined. Of that Epistle Liberatus witnesseth that it is the Epistle of Vigilius, and was truly written by him. Baronius seeing that to tend to the disgrace of Vigilius, that the Pope should be an heretic, an Eutychean, and should accurse all that are not such, what saith he for this matter? Truly he contemns and rejects the testimony of Liberatus; The Epistle d Bar. an. 538. nu. ●5. is not the writing of Vigilius, it is an Impostor, a forged writing, a counterfeit: notwithstanding all that Liberatus saith: So if Liberatus say aught distasteful to the Cardinal's palate, Liberatus is a witness of no worth, he is utterly to be contemned, to be rejected. But if in the next words Liberatus say aught that seemeth to favour the Cardinal's fancy, Liberatus then is a worthy witness, you may not take any exception against Liberatus, if he say that Vigilius, when he died, had consented to the fifth Synod, you must believe him. Some would think this to be scarce current dealing with his own witness, to make him sometimes more than a thousand, sometimes less than a cipher, but such are almost all the Cardinal's witnesses, they speak not so much for him in one place, as they do against him in others, nor is he so willing to accept them in one, as he is ready to reject them in another. If Liberatus be to be credited, why doth the Cardinal reject him? If he be not to be credited, why doth the Cardinal allege him? 31. Thus one might if he listed, elude his proof, and make a little sport with the Cardinal's Counters. But I will let the words of Liberatus stand in their best value; and to see the Cardinal's deduction the better, we must consider the whole sentence of Liberatus, which is this; Vigilius writing these things (to wit, that heretical Epistle, in defence of Eutycheanisme) and that closely, to heretics; continued sitting, (in the See of Rome) In whom was fulfilled that testimony of Solomon, they shall eat the fruit of their own way, and they shall be filled with their own Counsels. Ab ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius, nec coronatus, qualem vitae terminum suscepit, notum est omnibus: Vigilius being afflicted by that heresy, but not crowned, how he ended his life, every man can tell. Thus Liberatus. In which words as you see, there is no mention at all either of Vigilius his going into banishment, or returning out of banishment, or of his defending the three Chapters, or of his condemning the same Chapters, or of the Emperors either casting him into, or releasing him from exile, or of the fifth Council, or of the end thereof; and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilful Chemic extract, both that Vigilius after the end of the fifth Council was banished for defending the Three Chapters, and after that banishment, consented to the Synod, and to condemn the three Chapters. And see I pray you how the Chemic distils this. If Liberatus, saith he e Bar. an. 55▪ nu. 5. , being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters, had found Vigilius, perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem, persisting until his death in that sentence, which in his Constitution he had published for defence of the Three Chapters, truly he would have praised Vigilius for a Martyr, had he died in such sort. But when he saith, Vigilius was afflicted, and not crowned, planè alludit ad ejus exilium, he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius, and to his forsaking or revolt from that judgement after he came from banishment. Thus doth the Cardinal gloss upon the words of Liberatus. 32. See the force of truth; The Cardinals own words do most fully answer his own doubt, and explain that truth which he wittingly oppugneth: Had Liberatus found Vigilius, perstantem in sententia usque ad wortem, constant, or persisting without any change or relenting in his defending the three Chapters, until his dying day, than indeed Vigilius should have been with Liberatus (an obstinate defender of that sentence) a glorious Martyr, at the least a worthy Confessor, and for that cause he should have been condemned by Liberatus. But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence, wavering and unconstant therein, turning his note as soon almost as he had looked the Emperor in the face, Vigilius by reason of that change, unconstancy, and revolt from his opinion, lost his Crown, and all his commendation with Liberatus, not for any returning to condemn the Three Chapters after his exile, whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable. By publishing his Apostolical Constitution in the time of the Council for defence of those Chapters, and by his dying in that opinion, Liberatus found Vigilius, stantem & morientem, but not perstantem in ea sententia usque ad mortem, he found him standing and dying, but he could not possibly find him persisting constantly, not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced; for whereas he saw and knew the Synodall Acts, to testify that for five or six years together, he not only was of a contrary judgement, but did judicially, and definitively decree the contrary, and censure also such as continued and persevered in the defence of those Chapters; this so long discontinuance, and so earnest oppugning of the defenders of those Chapters, quite interrupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence▪ for this cause he lost his Crown, and died non coronatus, in the Calendar, and account of Liberatus. 33. I add further, that the words of Liberatus being well pondered, do show the quite contrary to that which the Cardinal thence collecteth. Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters, held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters, for no other than heretics, than oppugners of the Catholic faith, and holy Council of Chalcedon. And for Vigilius, while he fought f Complures Orthodoxi & ipse Vigilius contra eadem Capitula asserta ab Imperatore insurrexere. Bar. an. 546. nu. 38. on their side, and against the Emperor, they honoured g Vigilius arguit ut profanes volume novitates. Facundi dictum apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57.58. , him as a Catholic, as a chief defender of the Catholic faith. As soon as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor, and upon his coming to Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters, than they held him for no other than a betrayer h Ne Traditor videretur. Facundi dictum de Vigilio apud Bar. an. 547. nu. 37. Collusorem & Praevaricatorem conclamarunt. Bar. an. eod. nu. 49. vulgarunt vbique●um impugnare Concilium Chaltedonense. Bar. an. 550. nu. 1. of the faith, than an heretic, than a backslider, revolter, and lapser from the faith, and for such they adjudged, and accursed him by name in their African i Vict. in Chron. an. ●. post Cons. Basil. Synod, at which it is most like that Liberatus, being a man of such note for dealing in that cause, was present; upon his returning at the time of the fifth Council to defend again with them the Three Chapters, they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes, which after their lapsing return again to the profession of the faith. Had Vigilius after this revolted, and turned again to condemn the same Chapters, and in that opinion died, as out of Liberatus, the Cardinal would persuade, Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretic, for a lapser, and relapser from the faith, for one dying in heresy, and dying a condemned heretic by the judgement of their African Synod. Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as he esteemed an heretic, a condemned heretic, and to dye in heresy, that he died, non coronatus? would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresy, of one dying in heresy, would he not much rather have said, he died Damnatus, condemned, and accursed by the judgement of their own Synod, and therefore utterly separated from God? Who ever read or heard, that one dying in heresy, was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus? 43. This will most clearly appear, if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiastical Writers do mention as two sorts, so also two rewards of Catholic and Orthodoxal professors. The one is of those who are courageous and constant in defending the faith, such as joyfully endure torments, imprisonment, exile, and if need be, even death itself rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith, and these are called coronati. The other is of those who being timorous, and faint-hearted, yield to deny the truth, rather than they will endure torments or death for confessing the same; and yet by reason of that immortal seed which is in their hearts, they return again, and openly profess that truth from which they had before lapsed: and these are called, Non coronati, saved by repentance, and returning to the truth; but by reason of their former faintness, and lapsing, Not crowned. Both of these are Orthodoxal, and Catholics, both of them placed in the blessed house of God, but not both in like blessed mansions and chambers of the house of God: For in my Father's k john 14: 2. house are many mansions. Both of them stars, and glorious stars in heaven, but even among those heavenly stars, one star l 1 Cor. 15.41. differeth from another in glory. Both of them receive an infinity of glory, but in that infinity, the weight is unequal, and the one receives but as the penny, the other as the pound or talon of that glory. Both of them blessed in the Kingdom of God, but the former not blessed only, but crowned with blessedness, the later blessed, but not crowned; neither with the Aureall Crown of Martyrs, nor with the Laurel garland of Confessors, yet still, whether coronati, or non coronati, as they both dye in the profession of the Catholic faith, so are they both rewarded with eternal glory for profession of the Catholic faith. As for heretics such as die in heresy, and out of the Catholic faith, they are to be sorted with neither of these, they have another and a quite different rank, Classis or Predicament of their own. They may not have that honour done unto them, as to be called non coronati, which implies that they have a part in felicity, but not the Crown. As the Church doth justly anathematise and accurse such, so are they to be ranked in the order of those to whom Christ shall say, m Mat. 25.41. Go ye cursed. The Apostle n Gal. 5.19.20. reckoning heresies with Idolatry, witchcraft, adultery, and the like, of which he saith, that they which do them shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. 35. Hence now it doth clearly appear, that Liberatus in saying that Vigilius died Non coronatus, cannot intend as the Cardinal most ignorantly collecteth, that Vigilius returned from the defence of the three Chapters to condemn the same; for that being in Liberatus judgement a revolt from the truth, he thereby had by Liberatus been accounted an heretic, and to dye in heresy, and so had been in the rank of those who are Damnati; but Liberatus, in saying he died non coronatus, doth directly teach, that he died in defence of those Three Chapters, (which, with Liberatus, is the Catholic faith) from which he had lapsed, and revolted before; but seeing at the time of the Council, he returned again to that opinion, and therein died; he was saved, (in Liberatus judgement) but not crowned: By his penitence, and returning to the defence of those Chapters, he got glory, but because he had so grievously lapsed before, he lost the crown of glory. And this also is the reason why Victor, Bishop of Tunen mentioneth the death of Vigilius in such a naked o Vigilius Romanus in insula Sicilia moritur. Vict. in Chron. an. 16. post Cons. Bas. manner, neither disgracing him as a Prevaricator, as he doth Firmus p Firmus donis Principis corruptus, assensum praebuit, sed in navi morte turpissima perijt. Vict. ibid. an. 11. post Cons. Bas. , Primasius q Primasius à Catholicis, pro praevaricatore condemnatus infoelici morte extinguitur. Ib. , and Pelagius r A praevaricatoribus ordinatur. Ibid. an. 17. post Cons. Bas. ; nor honouring him as a Martyr or Confessor, as he doth Foelix, Rusticus, and Reparatus s Reparatus exilio apud Euchaidam, gloriosa confessione tran●iit ad dominum Vict. an. 22. post Cons. Bas. ; intimating thereby, that Vigilius died in the confession and defence of the Three Chapters, and therefore he could not condemn him; but yet because he was not constant in that profession, he would not commend him. 36. Yea, but Liberatus by saying he was afflicted by that heresy, t Bar. an. 554. nu. 5. plane alludit ad ejus exilium, he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigilius. Plainly? Phy on such a Plainly out of a Cardinal's mouth; he doth not so much as obscurely, not under a cloud or mist, not any way allude unto it, nor intimate or insinuate aught tending thereunto; nor could he indeed, seeing, as we have before declared, that banishment of Vigilius is nothing else but a fiction, partly of Anastasius, partly of Baronius; and Liberatus was no Prophet, that he could allude to their idle dreams: But if he allude not to his banishment, why then saith he that Vigilius was afflicted by that heresy? as if there were no afflictions in the world but banishment; what ere he meant, he meant not that: And truly, whatsoever calamities or afflictions, either of body or mind, befell Vigilius after he had once consented to the Emperor's Edict, & to the condemning of the Three Chapters, (which, in Liberatus account, was heresy) and because it was (as he thought) contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, even the heresy of the Eutycheans; all those did Liberatus impute to that his revolt from the faith, and to that Eutychean heresy which he then embraced, as Liberatus judged. Now there are two or three evident matters, which were great afflictions to Vigilius, and may well be intended by Liberatus. 37. The first was the general dislike which the Italian, African, and other Western Bishops took against him, as soon as they knew that he had consented to the Emperor's Edict, they writ against him, as one who denied the faith, and condemned the Council of Chalcedon, they censured, judged, and accursed him by their Synodall sentence; they contemned him as a temporizer; as one, who, to please the Emperor, betrayed the faith: This was, no doubt, no small affliction to Vigilius, to be disgraced, contemned, and accursed by his own friends, to whom, by so many bands of duty and love, he was so nearly conjoined; and this lay upon his stomach for five or six years together, even from his first coming almost, to Constantinople, to the time of the Council. 38. His second affliction followed upon his change in the time of the Council; for though he then, by defending the Three Chapters, and publishing his Apostolical Constitution for defence of them, hoped to recover the love and good opinion of the Western Churches; yet he exceedingly failed of that hope. Now he was in far worse case than before; On one side he incurred the Emperor's just indignation, and made himself obnoxious to deprivation, banishment, death, or whatsoever punishments may be inflicted on pertinacious, and heretical oppugners of the faith; which, although the Emperor in his lenity did not, nor would inflict upon him; yet what a grief is it to have all those punishments hanging, like Damocles sword, over his head, and sure to fall upon him, if the Emperor at any time listed to break or cut the hair? What comfort could he have, who held not only his dignity, but his liberty, yea, his very life at the will and pleasure of another? On another side he had incurred the heavy and just censure of the holy general Council, and of all Catholics, being by them adjudged and accursed for an heretic. On a third side the Western Churches, and the defenders of the Three Chapters, were so far from honouring him as he expected, that they also, for all that, held him for no other than an unconstant and wavering person, one that turned his faith with every wind and weather: So, whereas at the first he was beloved and honoured of the Western Churches, while he defended the Three Chapters, as they did; and after that was beloved and honoured of the Emperor, and Eastern Churches, while he, with them, condemned the Three Chapters: when now again he returned to defend them, he was contemned both of the one sort and the other; they all now esteemed no better of him than a very Wethercocke. Now whether this, to see himself forsaken and contemned by all, both friends and foes, both Catholics and heretics; whether this might not be a corrasive to his heart, let any man duly consider with himself. Add to these that corporeal anguish which caused his death; he, if we may trust Anastasius, u Anast. in vit● Vig. afflictus, calculi dolorem habens, mortuus est, being afflicted and vexed with pain of the stone, or (as by Liberatus it may be thought) by some more grievous disease of his body, died in great affliction: When there were so many afflictions lying at the heart of Vigilius, all which Liberatus imputeth to his consenting to the Emperor's Edict, and condemning of the Three Chapters, which he, as the rest of the defenders of them, called heresy; was not the Cardinal, think you, in some ecstasy of his wit, when he thought, that the affliction of Vigilius must needs be his own fictitious banishment, and that Liberatus doth plainly allude thereunto. 39 Thus all the reasons of Baronius being many ways, and manifestly declared to be ineffectual, to prove that last and Baronian change in Vigilius, after the end of the Synod, we may now safely conclude, that as Vigilius, after his Apostolical Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters once published, made at no time after that, any public, judicial or Pontifical Decree to reverse and adnul the same; but that still stood in full power and strength until the death of Vigilius; so neither did he ever after that time declare so much as a private dislike thereof, or a personal consent to the fifth Council, which had decreed the contrary; but pertinaciously persisting in that sentence, he both lived and died an heretical defender of those Three Chapters. At the first he was heretical in defending them against the Emperor's Edict: at the last he was not only heretical, but a condemned heretic in defending them against the judicial sentence of the holy general Council. In the middle time he had a fit of professing the truth, but that was only in show, and in appearance, that so he might temporize with the Emperor, in heart he was (as when the time of trial came he demonstrated himself) an oppugner of the truth, both against the Imperial Edict, and Synodall judgement: And therefore, as we found him at the first an heretic; so, for all which Baronius hath said, or could say to the contrary, we must leave him for a condemned heretic; even such a one, as not only defended, but, by his Cathedral and Apostolical sentence, defined heresy to be the Catholic faith. And thus much be spoken of the Cardinal's third principal Exception, or troop of evasions, marching under that Act of Vigilius, which, by his manifold changing in this cause of faith, you have fully seen. CAP. XVIII. The fourth and last Exception of Baronius, in defence of Vigilius, pretending, that the fifth Council (wherein the decree of Vigilius was condemned,) was neither a general nor a lawful Council, till Vigilius confirmed the same, refuted. 1. THere now remaineth only the fourth and last exception of Baronius; in which, though being the weakest and worst of all, his whole hope now consists: In this the Cardinal brings forth all his forces, all the Engines of his wit and malice, to batter down the authority of the fifth general Council. Seeing it contradicted the Pope, and judicially decreed his Apostolical sentence to be heretical, it shall be of no authority at all; it shall be neither a general, nor a lawful Council; it shall be nothing but a Conspiracy and conventicle with Baronius and his friends, until Vigilius do approve the same: But hear their own words to this purpose. 2. The fifth Council, saith Baronius a An. 593. nu. 124. , aliquando expers fuit omnis authoritatis, was for a time void of all authority; yea, so void thereof, ut nec legitima Synodus dici meruerit, that it deserved not to be called so much as a lawful (much less a general and lawful) Synod; because it was assembled, the Pope resisting it, & was ended, the Pope contradicting it: But when afterwards it was approved by the sentence of Vigilius, and other succeeding Popes, than it got the title and authority of an Ecumenical Synod. Again b An. eod. nu. 29. , The fifth Council at that time, when it was held, could not have the name of an Ecumenical Synod, seeing it was not lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, because the Pope, neither by himself, nor by his Legates would be present in it. And yet more spitefully; These things c An. eod. nu. 219 considered, planè consenties, ipsam nec Oecumenicae, nec privatae Synodi mereri nomen, you will consent, that the fifth Council deserved not the name of an Ecumenical, no nor so much as of a private Synod; it was no Synod nor Council at all, seeing, both it was assembled, resistente Pontifice, the Pope resisting it, and also pronounced sentence, contra ipsius Decretum, against the Pope's Decree. Thus Baronius: in whose steps Binius treadeth, saying d Not▪ in Conc. 5. § Praesedit. , Pope Vigilius was not present in this Council, either by himself, or by his deputies, Contradixit eidem, he contradicted the Synod; the members assembled without the head, dum ageretur non consentit, the Pope consented not to it while it was held, nor did approve it strait after it was ended; yet it got the name, title, and authority of an Ecumenical Council, quando ipsius Vigilii sententia, when it was afterwards approved by the sentence of Vigilius himself, and his successors. So Binius. 3 How, or where shall I begin? or who, though more censorious than Cato, can with sufficient gravity and severity castigate the insolency and most shameless dealing of these men, who, rather than one of their Popes, even Pope Proteus himself, shall be thought to err in his Cathedral Decree of faith, care not to disgrace, to vilify, yea, to nullify one of the ancient and sacred general Counsels, approved, as before e Sup. ca 4. nu. 26. et seq. we have showed, by the whole Catholic Church? For if this Council was neither general, nor lawful, (as they teach) till Vigilius approved it by his Apostolical authority, after his return from exile; then was it never, nor as yet is either a general or lawful Council, seeing Vigilius, after his exile, never did, nor could approve it, as before f Sup. ca 17. we have clearly proved: So this fifth Council must for ever be cashiered and blotted out of the rank of Counsels. And because, as their second Nicene Synod rightly disputes g Omne septimum ordinatum in eandem numeratione quam res● praecesserunt, etc. Act. 6. pa. 357. a. , the seventh must follow the sixth, in the same rank and order, and the sixth, the fifth, if there was no fifth general and holy Council; neither can there be any sixth, nor seventh, nor eighth, nor any other after it. So, by the assertion of these men, there are at once dashed out fourteen of those, which themselves h Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 5. do honour by the name of holy general Counsels. 4. I say more, the expunging of all those fourteen Counsels, doth certainly follow upon the Cardinal's assertion, though it were granted, that Vigilius had confirmed this fifth, as it is true, that Pelagius and Gregory did: For if it was (as he teacheth) neither a general nor lawful Synod, while the Council continued, and for that whole time while it was an assembly of Bishops; then undoubtedly it never at any time was, nor yet is either a general or a lawful Synod: For after the end, and dissolution thereof, it was never extant in rerum natura again; it was ever after that time Non ens: and being neither Synod, nor yet so much as Ens, it could not possibly be either general or lawful. It is a Maxim, Non entis non sunt Accidentia; If while it was extant, and while it was an assembly, it was but a conventicle; if then it was not gathered in God's name, I pray you, when was it ever after that, gathered in God's name? Did Vigilius, Pelagius, or Gregory, when they made it, by their approbation, a general and lawful Council; did they, like some new Aeolus, blow all the Bishops again to Constantinople, and assemble them the second time in the Pope's name, that so they might be said to be gathered in God's name? Let their Popes try, if by all their magical skill, or omnipotent power, they can make any one of those African Counsels under Cyprian, a General; or make the Arimine, Syrmian; or second Ephesine, a lawful Council, and I will instantly yield, that he may do the like to this fifth. If he cannot do any of the former, what vanity was it in the Cardinal and Binius to say of this fifth, that while it was extant, and Ens, it was neither a general nor lawful Council; but some one, or some twenty years after, when it was non Ens, the Pope made it, with a word, both a general and lawful Council? Dixit & factum est: One word of his mouth makes, or unmakes what he list: Truth is, the Popes, or any other Bishop's approbation, or confirmation of a Council, or any decree thereof, after the Council is once ended, may perhaps in the opinion of some men, gain some more liking unto that Council, or decree, than before it had, seeing now it hath the express consent of those Bishops, whom the other do much esteem: but the after consent, or approbation of all the Bishops in the world, much less of the Pope, cannot make that to be a general, which before, and while it was extant, was only Provincial; or that to be a lawful, which before, and while it was extant, was an unlawful Synod: Even as the Pope, and a thousand Bishops with him, cannot now make any of the four first general and holy Counsels, to be either unlawful or particular Synods; and yet his power is every whit as great in annihilating that which now is, as in creating that which never was a general or a lawful Council. 5. Say you that the fifth Council was of no authority till the Pope approved it, and unless he should approve it? See how contrary the Cardinal's assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church. Begin we with the Church of that age: Baronius tells i An. 547. nu. 41. & 43. us, that both the Emperor, the Pope, Mennas, and other Eastern Bishops, agreed to refer the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters, to a general Council. Why did none of them reason, as the Cardinal now doth, against the Council? Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a general Council? Why did he not deal plainly with the Emperor and the rest, who made that agreement, and say to this effect unto them? Why will ye refer this cause to the judgement of a Council, it cannot decide this question otherwise than myself shall please? If they say as I say, it shall be a Council, a lawful, a general, an holy Council: If they say the contrary to that which I affirm, though they have ten thousand millions of voices, their Decree shall be utterly void, their assembly unlawful, they shall neither be, nor be called a general, nor a lawful Council, no nor a Council neither, but only a Conventicle, without all authority in the world. Had the Emperor and the Church believed this doctrine, there had been no fifth Council ever called or assembled; nay, there never had been any other holy general Council: The Pope had been in stead of all, and above them all. This very act then of referring the judgement in this cause to a general Council, witnesseth them all (even the Pope himself at that time) to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Pope's consent, and to be of more authority, in case they should differ (as in this question they did) than the sentence of the Pope. This before the Council was assembled. 6. At the time of the Council, had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church, believed their assembly without the Pope to be no Synod, but a Conventicle; why did they at all come together after their second Session? for they were then assured by the Pope himself, that he would neither come, nor send any deputies unto them. Or had they believed that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others, so that without his assent their judgement should be of no validity, why did they after the fifth Session, once proceed to examine or determine that cause? For before the sixth day of their assembling, they received from Pope Vigilius his Cathedral and Apostolical Constitution in that cause, inhibiting them either to write or speak (much more judicially to define) ought contrary to his sentence: or if they did, that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same. Seeing notwithstanding all this well known unto them, they not only continued their Synodall assemblies, but judicially defined that cause, and that quite contrary to the Pope's judgement made known unto them; it is an evident demonstration, that the whole general Council judged their assemblies both lawful and Synodall, and their sentence of full authority, even as ample as of any general Council, though the Pope denied his presence to the one, and expressly signified not only his dislike, but contradiction and condemnation of the other. 7. What can pervicacy itself oppose to so clear an evidence? or what think you will the Cardinal or his friends reply hereunto? Will he, or can he say, that these men who thus judged, were heretics? They were not. The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Catholic, consonant (as they k Coll 8. profess, and as in truth it was) to Scriptures, to Fathers, to the four former general Counsels. The doctrine which they oppugned, and Vigilius then defended, was heretical, condemned by all the former, Scriptures, Fathers, and Counsels. Heretics then doubtless they could not be; that, like a leprosy did cleave to Vigilius. Will he, or can he say that they were Schismatics? Neither is that true. For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholic Church: yea they were by representation the true Catholic Church: I say further, they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himself, till his own pertinacy, and wilful obstinacy against the true faith, severed him both from them, & from the truth. In token of which communion with Vigilius, they earnestly l Sup. cap. 2. nu. 1. & seq. entreated his presence in the Synod, they offered him the presidency therein, yea they said in express words unto him, before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters, Nos m Coll. 2. p. 523. vero & communicamus & uniti vobiscum sumus, We all do hold communion with you, and are united unto you. Schismatical than they could not be. So the judgement of these men being all Catholics, and holding the Catholic communion, doth evidently prove the whole Catholic Church at that time, to have believed a Council to be both general and lawful, though the Pope dissented from it, and by his Apostolical authority condemned the same, and the decree thereof. 8. After the end of the Council did the Church then think otherwise? Did it then judge the Council to want authority, while it wanted the Pope's approbation, or to receive authority by his approbation? Who were they, I pray you, that thought thus? Certainly not Catholics, and the condemners of these Chapters. For they approved the Council and Decree thereof during the time of the Council, and while the Pope so far disliked it, that for his refusal to consent unto it, he endured banishment. Neither did the Heretics who defended those Chapters, judge thus. For they, as Baronius witnesseth n An. 553. nu. 221. , persisted in the defence of them, and in a rent from the others, even after Vigilius had consented to the Synod: yea among them Vigilius o An. 555. nu. 2. redditus est execrabilis, was even detested and accursed by them for approving the Synod. Or because Vigilius approved it not, Pelagius who is known to have approved it, was so generally disliked for that cause of the Western Bishops, that there p Adeo exhorruisse visi sunt Antistites occidentales aliam post quartam admittere oecumenicam Synodum, ut non potuerit Pelagius rep●rire Episcopos Romae à quibus consecraretur. Bar. an. 556. nu. 1. could not be found three who would lay hands on him at his consecration; but in stead of a Bishop, they were enforced against that Canon q Can. 1. & Con. Nic. can. 4. of the Apostles, which they often oppose to us, to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination. So much did they dislike both the fifth Council, and all (though it were the Pope) who did approve it. Now the whole Church being at that time divided into these two parts, the defenders and condemners of those Chapters, seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be general or lawful, because the Pope approved it; who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinal's fancy, that the fifth Council wanted all authority till the Pope approved it, and gained authority of a general and lawful Council by his approving of it? Catholics and condemners of those Chapters, embraced the Council, though the Pope rejected it: Heretics and defenders of those Chapters, rejected the Council, though the Pope approved it. Neither of them both (and so none at all in the whole Church) judged either the Pope's approbation to give, or his reprobation to take away authority from a general Council. Thus by the Antecedentia, Concomitantia, and Consequentia of the Council, it is manifest by the judgement of the whole Church in that age, that this fifth Council was of authority without the Pope's approbation, and was not held of authority by reason of his approbation. 9 What the judgement of the Church was, as well in the ages preceding, as succeeding to this Council, is evident by that which we have already declared. For we have at large showed r Sup. ca 4. nu. ●●, 26. & seq. , that the doctrine, faith, and judgement of this fifth Council, is consonant to all former, and confirmed by all following general Counsels, till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth. Whereupon it ensueth, that this doctrine which we maintain, and the Cardinal impugneth, (that neither the Pope's approbation doth give, nor his reprobation take away authority from a Council,) was embraced and believed as a Catholic truth, by the whole Catholic Church of all ages, till that Lateran Synod, that is, for more than 1500. years together. 10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point, yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth. For if this fifth Council be of force and Synodall authority, eo nomine, because the Pope, to wit Pelagius, approved it; then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority, eo nomine, because the Pope, to wit Vigilius, rejected it. If the Pope's definitive and Apostolical reprobation cannot take away authority from it; neither can his approbation, though Apostolical, give authority unto it. Or if they say that both are true, (as indeed they are both alike true) then seeing this fifth Council is both approved by Pope Pelagius, and rejected by Pope Vigilius, it must now be held both to be wholly approved, and wholly rejected: both to be lawful, and unlawful: both to be a general Council, and no general Council. And the very same doom must be given of all the thirteen Counsels which follow it: They all, because they are approved by some one Pope, are approved and lawful Counsels: and because they approve this fifth, which is rejected by the Pope, they are all rejected, and unlawful Counsels. Such an havoc of general Counsels doth this their assertion bring with it, and into such inextricable labyrinths are they driven, by teaching the authority of Counsels to depend on the Pope's will and pleasure. 11. Now though this be more than abundant to refute all that they can allege against this fifth Council, yet for the more clearing of the truth, and expressing my love to this holy Council, to which next after that at Chalcedon, I bear special affection; I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius & Binius have used, of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod. The former is taken from the assembling; the later, from the decree of the Council. It was assembled, say Baronius s Sup. hoc cap. nu. 2. and Binius, Pontifice resistente & contradicente, the Pope resisting and contradicting it. Whence they infer, that it was an unlawful assembly, not gathered in God's name. In this their reason, both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue. Did Pope Vigilius resist this Council, and contradict the calling or assembling thereof? What testimony doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion? Truly none at all. What probabilities yet, or conjectures? Even as many. Are not these men, think you, wise & worthy disputers, who dare avouch so doubtful matters, and that also to the disgrace of an holy, ancient, and approved Council; and yet bring no testimony, no probability, no conjecture, no proof at all of their saying? Ipse dixit, is in stead of all. 12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contrary? If both Baronius and Binius profess, that Vigilius did consent that this Council should be held? Hear I pray you their own words, and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men. Hanc Synodum, Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit, saith Binius t Not. in 5. Con. §. Concilium. ; Vigilius called and appointed this Synod by his papal authority. Again u Ibid. , The Emperor called this fifth Synod, authoritate Vigilij, by the authority of Pope Vigilius. Baronius sings the same note: It was very well provided, saith he x An. 553. nu. 23 , that this Ecumenical Synod should be held, ex Vigilii Papae sententia, according to the mind and sentence of Pope Vigilius, who above all other men desired to have a Council. Again y Ibid. nu. 24. , The Emperor decreed that the Synod should be called, ex ipsius Vigilii sententia, according to the mind of Vigilius. And a little after; It was commendable in the Emperor, that he did labour to assemble the Synod, ex Vigilij Papae sententia, according to the mind and sentence of Pope Vigilius. Neither only did the Pope consent to have a Council, but to have it in that very city where it was held, and where himself then was. Indeed at the first, the Pope was desirous z Optavimus & frequentissime supplici voce poposcimus eunden (coe●um) ad quenlibet Italiae locum, aut cer●e ad Sicili●m, etc. Vigil. in Constit. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 56. and earnest, to have it held in Sicily, or in some Western City: (even as Pope Leo had laboured a Epist. Leon. 24 with Theodosius for the Council which was held at Chalcedon:) But when justinian the Emperor would not consent b Quod quia fieri Serenitas vestra non ●nnuit. Vigil. loc. cit. to that petition, (as neither Theodosius nor Martian would to the former of Leo,) Vigilius then, voluntati c Bin. Not. in Conc. 5. §. Concilium. Imperatoris libens accessit, very willingly consented to the Emperor's pleasure in this matter, that the Ecumenical Council should be held at Constantinople. Say now in sadness, what you think of Baronius and Binius? Whither had they sent their wits, when they laboured to persuade this Council to be unlawful, because Pope Vigilius resisted and contradicted the assembling thereof? whereas themselves so often, so evidently, so expressly testify, not only that it was assembled by the consent, and according to the mind, will, pleasure, desire, authority, and sentence of the Pope; but the very chief act and royalty of the summons they challenge (though falsely) to the Pope; the other, which is an act of labour and service, to be as it were the Pope's Sumner or Apparitor, in bringing the Bishops together by the Pope's authority, that, and none but that they allow to the Emperor. 13. Many other testimonies might be produced, to declare this truth: That of Sigonius d Lib. 20. an. 553. : The Emperor called this Synod, Vigilio Pontifice permittente, Pope Vigilius permitting him: that of Wernerus e An. 544. ; Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari, Vigilius commanded that this Council should be held at Constantinople: That of Zonaras f An. to. 3. in Iustinian●. and Glicas' g Cui Concilio praerant Eutychius, Domnus & Vigilius. Glic. annal. part. 4. pa. 379. , who both affirm, that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij, the chief Bishop of the Council: not chief among them that sat in the Council, for there he was not at all: nor chief in making the Synodall decree, for therein he contradicted the Council: but chief of all who sued to the Emperor, and procured the Council, as being desirous of the same. But omitting the rest, the whole general Council, yea and the Popes own letters, put this out of all doubt. This say h Coll. 8. p. 584. a the whole Council, even in their Synodall sentence, Consensit in scriptis in Concilio convenire, Vigilius under his own hand-writing consented to come together, and be present with us in the Synod. Again, the Legates sent from the Council to invite Vigilius, said i Coll. 2. pa. 523. thus unto him, Your Holiness knoweth, quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire, that you have promised to come together with the other Bishops, into the Council, and there to debate this question. Vigilius himself writ k Coll. 1. p. 521. b thus to the Bishops of the Council: We knowing your desire, praedictis postulationibus annuimus, have consented to your petitions, that in an orderly assembly being made, we may confer with our united brethren about the three Chapters. I doubt not but upon such fair and undoubted records, every one will now confess, First, that if to be gathered by the Pope's consent and authority, will make a Council lawful, (which with them is an authentic rule) than this fifth Council is without question in this respect most lawful: Secondly, that Baronius and Binius are shameless both in uttering untruths, & in reviling this holy Synod, which they would persuade to be unlawful, because it was assembled, the Pope resisting it; whereas this Council to have been assembled, with the consent (yea as they boast with the authority also) of Pope Vigilius, not only other Writers, but the Synodall Acts, the whole general Council, the letters of Vigilius, and the express words of Baronius and Binius themselves do evidently declare. 14. Come now to the Consequence. Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Council, was it for this cause unlawful, was it no general Council? What say you then to the second Council, of which Baronius thus writeth l An. 553. nu. 2 , It was held, repugnante Damaso, Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof. Will they blot that also out of the rank of general, and lawful Synods? If not, why may not this fifth also be a general and lawful Synod, though Vigilius had with tooth and nail resisted the same? Shall the peevishness or perverseness of the Pope, or any Bishop hinder the assembling of a general Council, and so the public peace and tranquillity of the whole Church? Open but this gap, and there never should have been, nor ever shall be any general Council. The wilfulness of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, at Nice●; of john Patriarch of Antioch, at Ephesus; of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, at Chalcedon, will frustrate all those holy Counsels, and make them to be neither general nor lawful. The saying of Cardinal Cusanus is worthy observing to this purpose; I believe, saith he m Lib. 3. de Concor. ca 15. , that to be spoken not absurdly, that the Emperor himself, in regard of that care and custody of preserving the faith, which is committed unto him, may praeceptiuè indicere Synodum, by his Imperial authority and command assemble a Synod, when the great danger of the Church requireth the same; negligent aut contradicente Romano Pontifice, the Pope either neglecting so to do, or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof. So Cusanus. This was the very state and condition of the Church at this time, when the fifth Council was assembled. The n Vid. sup. ca ●● nu. 6. whole Church had been a long time scandalised and troubled about those Three Chapters, it was rend and divided from East to West. High time it was and necessary for justinian to see that flame quenched, although Pope Vigilius or any other Patriarch had never so eagerly resisted the remedy thereof. 15. Had the Cardinal pleaded against this Synod, that Vigilius had not been called unto it, he had spoken indeed to the purpose. For this is essential, and such as without which a Synod cannot be general and lawful, that all Bishops be summoned to the Synod, and coming thither, have free access unto it, and freedom of speech and judgement therein. But the Cardinal durst not take this exception against this Synod, or for Vigilius; for none of these to have been wanting in this Council, is so clear, that pertinacy itself cannot deny it. It was not the Pope (as they vainly boast) but the Emperor, who by his own and Imperial authority called this Council, as the whole Synod even in their Synodall sentence witness: We are assembled here in this City, jussione pijssimi Imperatoris vocati, being called by the commandment of our most religious Emperor. His calling to have been general, Nicephorus doth expressly declare, The Emperor saith he o Lib. 17. ca 27. , assembled the fifth general Council, Episcopis ecclesiarum omnium evocatis, the Bishops of all Churches being called unto it: yea the Emperor was so equal in this cause, that Binius p Not. in Conc. 5. §. Concilium. testifieth of him, Paris numeri Episcopos ex Oriente & Occidente convocavit, that he called (in particular, and besides his general summons, by which all without exception had free access) as many out of the West, where the defenders of those Chapters did abound; as he did out of the East, where the same Chapters were generally condemned. And yet further, Vigilius himself was by name, not only invited, entreated, and by many reasons persuaded, but even commanded by the Emperor, and in his name, to come unto the Synod, as before q Sup. ca 2. nu. 1. &. 3. we showed. Now what freedom he might have had in the Council, both that offer of the presidency, doth show for him in particular, and the words of the Council spoken concerning all in general doth declare; for when Sabinianus and others, who being then at Constantinople, were invited to the Synod, and refused to come, the synod said r Collat. 2. pa. 524. b. , It was meet that they being called should have come to the Council, and have been partakers of all things which are here done and debated, especially seeing both the most holy Emperor and we, licentiam dedimus unicuique have granted free liberty to every one to manifest his mind in the Synod concerning the causes proposed. Seeing then he not only might, but in his duty both to God, to the Emperor, and to the whole Church, he ought to have come, and freely spoken his mind in this cause, his resisting the will of the Emperor, and refusing to come, doth evidently demonstrate his want of love to the truth, and dutifulness to the Emperor, and the Church; but it can no way impair or impeach the dignity and authority of the Council, neither for the generality, nor for the lawfulness thereof. 16. Besides all which there is yet one thing above all the rest to be remembered; for though Pope Vigilius was not present in the Synod either personally, or by his Legates, but in that sort resisted to come unto it, yet he was present there by his letters of instruction, by his Apostolical and Cathedral Constitution which he published as a direction what was to be judged and held in that cause of the Three Chapters, That Decree and Constitution he promised to send ad Imperatorem & Synodum, both to the Emperor and to the Synod, quod & ingenuè praestitit, which also he ingenuously performed as the Cardinal tells s An. 553. nu. 47. us. That elaborate t Idque elaboravit. ibid. decree, to which an whole Synod, together with the Pope subscribed, containing the Pope's sentence and instruction given in this cause, Vniverso u An. eod. nu. 4●. orbi Catholico cunctisque fidelibus, not only to the Synod, teaching them what they should define, but to all Christians, teaching them what they should believe, was in consessu Episcoporum recitatum, read and recited before all the Bishops in that Council, as Binius doth x Not. in Conc. 5. §. Constitutis. assure us. This one kind of presence in the Synod, is suppletive of all the rest, of more worth than 20. nay then 200. Legates, à latere scent from his holiness. They all may deal beside, or contrary to the Pope's mind, as Zacharias and Rhodoaldus did in a Council held about the cause of Photius; but this Cathedral instruction is an inflexible messenger, no bribes, no persuasions, no fear, no favour can extort from it one syllable more than his holiness by the infallible direction of his Chair hath delivered; yea though the Pope should have been personally present in the Synod, and face to face spoken his mind in his cause, yet could not his sudden or less premeditated speech have been for weight or authority comparable to this decree, being elaborated after seven years' ponderation of the cause, and all things in it being disposed cum omni undique cautela atque diligentia, with all diligence and circumspection, that could possibly be used, which the Pope though absent in body, yet sent as an Oracle from heaven to be a direction to the Synod, and to supply his own absence. So many ways is this former objection of Baronius vain, and unsound, when he pretends this Council to have been unlawful because the Pope resisted it, and the members assembled without their head: for neither did Vigilius resist their assembling, but freely and willingly consented unto it; neither was he excluded from the Synod, but most undutifully absented himself from it: and though the members at that time wanted the Pope's head-piece, yet they had his heart, his mind, and his Apostolical direction among them, to be a Cynosure unto them in that cause, which alone is able to supply both his personal and Legantine absence in any Council. 17. The other objection of Baronius is taken from the decree of this Synod. The sentence, saith he y An. 553 nu. 219. , given by it, was contra ipsius decretum, against the decree of Vigilius, and therefore their assembly deserved not the name of a general, no nor so much as of a private Synod, it was no Council at all. Cardinal Bellarmine explains this more fully, saying z Lib. 2. de Conc. ca 11. §. Ac de. , Such Counsels as define matters against the Pope's instruction; Reprobata Concilia dici debent, are to be called or accounted, Rejected Counsels; for it is all one, saith he, whether the Pope do expressly reject and reprobate a Council, or whether the Council deal, contra Pontificis sententiam, against the Pope's sentence, either of both such Counsels, are rejected, and so of no authority at all. So Bellarmine. What shall we answer to the perverseness of these men? If this rule be admitted, the Church hath for ever and inevitably lost this fifth Council, and (by their second Nicen collection) the sixth, the seventh, and all that follow. And I verily am persuaded, that none can possibly excuse either Baronius, or Bellarmine from this crime of expunging the fifth Council, and all which follow it, from the rank and number of general, or approved Counsels. For it is as clear as the sunshine at noon day, that the sentence pronounced by the fifth synod was contradictory to the definition and Cathedral instruction sent by Pope Vigilius into them. If then to define a cause contrary to the Pope's instruction be a sure note of a Reprobate Council, as they teach it to be; farewell for ever this fifth, and all that follow it, or approve it: they are all by the rule of these two worthy Cardinals, Reprobated Counsels, nay not so much as Counsels, but mere Conspiracies or Conventicles. 18. Besides this, see I pray you the zeal and devotion of these men to the Catholic faith. If this Council be for this cause a Rejected Council, because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius sent unto it, than it should have been an holy, and approved Council, if it had followed those instructions of Vigilius; that is, if it had condemned the Counsels of Nice, Ephesus and Chalcedon, if it had decreed Nestorianisme to be the Catholic faith, and jesus Christ not to be God: for Vigilius be decreeing that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, instructed them thus to define and judge. Had they thus done, then, because they had followed the instructions of Vigilius, the two Cardinals would have embraced this Council, with both arms, have applauded, & advanced it to the skies: seeing it did not so, but contradicted the Pope's Apostolical instructions at this time; fie on it, it is an unlawful, a Reprobated Council, nay it is no Council at all, nor of any authority. Can any with reason judge these men to be aught else then Nestorians, then condemned heretics, and obstinate oppugners of all ancient holy Counsels, and of the Catholic faith? See the strange diversity of judgement which is in us and them. They in their heretical dotage on the Pope's Cathedral infallibility, teach this fifth holy Council to be a reprobated synod, eo nomine, because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vigilius; we on the contrary do constantly affirm it to be an holy and most approved synod, eo nomine, because it followed not, but rejected and condemned those Cathedral instructions of Vigilius: with us consent the sixth, seventh, and all succeeding general Counsels, till that at Lateran, all former holy Counsels also, to all which this Council is consonant. From them descent all these both former and subsequent Counsels; that is, the whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundreth years and more. Vtri creditis? whose doctrine think you now is ancient, orthodoxal, and catholic? And whether had you rather with these two Cardinals, account this fifth synod an unlawful assembly, and a reprobate Council, because it contradicted the heretical constitution of Pope Vigilius, or with such an army of witnesses, honour it for a sacred, Ecumenical approved Council, though it not only wanted the approbation, but had in plain words the Cathedral Reprobation z Si quid contra haec quae statuimus, à quolibet factum dictum atque conscriptum est, vel fuerit; hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus. Consi. Vig. in ●ine. of Pope Vigilius. 19 Having now fully refuted not only the Assertion of Baronius, That this Council was of no authority, nor an approved Council till Pope Vigilius confirmed and approved it, but also both those reasons whereby he would persuade the same: there remaineth yet one doubt, which necessarily is to be satisfied for the final clearing of this point. For it will, and justly may be demanded, what it was which made this fifth an approved Council? Or if it be not the Pope's confirmation and approbation, what it is in any Council, or any decree thereof, which makes it to be, and rightly to be esteemed an approved Council or Decree? I constantly answer, that whatsoever it be, it is no approbation, no confirmation, nor any act of the Pope; at lest no more of him, than of any other Patriarch or patriarchal Primate in the Church: An evident proof whereof is in the second General Council; for that, ever since their Synodall sentence was made against the MACEDONIANS, and ratified by the Emperor, was esteemed by the Catholic Church an Ecumenical, and approved Council, and that, before the Pope had consented unto it or approved the same: For that Council being assembled in May a Socr. l. 5. ca ●. , when Eucherius and Seagrius were Consuls, (an. 381.) continued till b Vsque ad sinem mensis Iuly producta est. Bar. an. 381. nu 80. about the end of july in the same year. On the 30. of july Theodosius the Emperor published his severe law against the Macedonians, being then condemned heretics: He commanded that forth withal Churches should be given to those, c Lib. 3. de sidc Cathol. Cod. Theod. who held the one and equal Majesty of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and were of the same faith with Nestorius, Timotheus, and other Bishops in that Synod; but whosoever dissented in faith from them, ut manifestos haereticos ab Ecclesia expelli, they should all be expelled as manifest haeretikes, and never be admitted again. In which law seeing the Macedonians are called manifest heretics, that is, such as are convicted and condemned by a general Council, it is doubtless, that at the promulgating of this law, both the Emperor and the catholic Church, held that decree of the second Council, against the Macedonians, to be the judgement of an holy, lawful, & approved Ecumenical Synod, such as was the most ample conviction of an heretic, & manifestation of a heresy. Now this Edict was published before Pope Damasus either approved that Council, or so much as knew what was done therein: For the first news what was done in the Council, came to Damasus, after the Council of Aquileia, as after Sigenius d L. 8. the Occid. Imp. an. 381. , Baronius declareth▪ who after the Synod at Aquileia described, saith e An. 381. nu. 97. , Post haec autem, After these things done at Aquileia, when Damasus had received a message concerning the Council at Constantinople, etc. that Council at Aquileia was held f Bar. an. eod▪ nu. 81. on the fifth of September, when the other at Constantinople was ended a month before: and how long after that time it was before Damasus approved that Council at Constantinople, whether one, two, or three years, will be hard for any of the Cardinal's friends truly to explain: Howsoever, seeing it is certain, that the general Council was ended, and the Decrees thereof not only approved, but put in execution by the Church, before the Pope, I say not, confirmed that Council; but before he knew what was done and decreed therein, it is a Demonstration, that a general Council, or a Decree thereof, may be, and de facto, hath been judged, by the Church, both of them to be of full and Synodall authority, and approved by the Church, when the Pope had confirmed or approved neither of both. 20. Nay, what if neither Damasus nor any of their Popes till Gregory's time, approved that Council? Gregory himself is a witness hereof: The g Lib. 6. Epist. 31 Canons of the Constantinopolitan Council condemn the Eudoxians, but who that Eudoxius was, they do not declare. And the Roman Church, eosdem Canon's vel gesta Synodi illius, hactenus non habet, nec accipit; neither hath, nor approveth those Canons or Acts; but herein it accepteth that Synod in that which was defined against the Macedonians, by it; and it rejecteth those heresies, which being mentioned therein, were already condemned by other Fathers. So Gregory: By whose words it is plain, that the Roman Church, until Gregory's time, neither approved the Canons nor Acts of that second general Council: Even the condemning of Macedonius and his heresy, was not approved by the Roman Church, eo nomine, because it was decreed in that Council, for than they should have approved the Canon against the Eudoxians, and all the rest of their Canons, seeing there was the selfsame authority of the holy Council, in decreeing them all; but the reason why they approved that against the Macedonians, was, because Pope h Anathema infligimus Macedonianis. Epist. Damas. et Synod. Rom. apud Theod. lib. 5. ca 10. Damasus had, in a Roman Synod, diverse years before i Concilium illud Ro●anum habitum est tempore 〈◊〉 e●iscopi Alexandrini, qui ei intersuit. Zozom lib. 6. ca 23. Timotheus vero qui ●etro successit, sedit in Concilio Constantinopolitan●, ut ex subscriptione liquet. the second Council condemned that heresy; and what heresies were by former Fathers condemned, those, and nothing else; did the Roman Church approve in that Council, as Gregory saith. The inducement moving them was not the authority of the second Council, but the judgement of other Fathers, for which they accepted of the second Council therein: and this was until the days or time of Gregory; for that is it which Gregory intendeth in the former words, hactenus non habet nec accipit; not meaning, that till the year, wherein he writ that Epistle, which was the fifteenth Indiction, the Roman Church received not those Canons or Acts: (for in the ninth Indiction, that is, six years before, himself professed k Lib. 2. Epist. 24 to embrace that second Council, as one of the four Evangelists, which also to have been the judgement of their Church, he l Lib. 2. Epist. 10 Indict. 11. witnesseth in the eleventh Indiction) but until Gregory's time; hactenus, until this age, wherein I live, was the second Council, the Canons or Acts thereof, not had nor approved by the Roman Church: And yet all that time, even from the end of that Council, was both that Council held for a general, lawful, and approved Synod, and their Decree against Macedonius, by the whole Church approved, as a Decree of a general and lawful Council, such as ought to bind the whole Church. 21. What we have showed concerning the Decree against the Macedonians, and in general, for the second Council, that will be much more evident in the third Canon of that Synod, which concerns the patriarchal dignity of the See of Constantinople, his precedence to the Patriarches of Alexandria & Antioch, and his authority over the Churches in Asia minor, Thrace, and Pontus, all which was conferred on that See by that third Canon. That the Church of Rome, till Gregory's time; approved not that Canon, is evident by Pope Leo, who in many m Epist. 54.51.61. of his Epistles, specially in that to Anatolius n Epist. 53. , shows his dislike of it; yea, rejects it, as contrary to the Nicene Decrees, which Leo there defineth (but, without doubt, erroneously) to be immutable. The Legates of Leo, having instructions from him, said openly in the Council of Chalcedon o Act 16. pa. ●36. a. , touching the Canons of this Council, in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur, they are not accounted or held for Synodall Canons; and following the mind and precept p Sedes Apostolica quae nobis, praecepit. Ibid. pa. 137. b. of the Pope, they most earnestly oppugned this third Canon. Long before Leo did Damasus reject q Vehementer refutarunt hunc terti●m Canonem Leo et Damasus. Turrian. l●b de 6, 7, et 8, Synodis. pa. 65. Romana Ecclesia hactenus respuit hunc Canonem. Been, not. in Conc. 2 § Approbatum this Canon, facto decreto in Synodo Romana, making a Decree against it, in a Roman Synod, which is extant in their Vatican, as Turrian, who belike saw the Decree, doth witness. Now seeing that Decree of Damasus was made, statim post secundum Concilium, presently after the second Council, and was so strongly corroborated by Pope Leo; this may persuade, that none of their Popes before the days of Gregory would repeal the Decrees of those two Popes. Their own Nicholas Sanders goes further, and saith r ●am primum (in Concilio Later.) Constantinopolitana sedes Romanae Ecclesiae assensum, publice obtinuit, etc. Sand. lib. 7. the visib. Monar. ad an. 1215. , That this Canon was not allowed by the Roman Church, till the Council at Lateran, under Innocentius the third, which is more than six hundred years after the death of Gregory: and though he prove this by the testimony of Guilielmus Tyrius, yet I insist only upon the time of Gregory, whose words are very pregnant for this, and the other Canons of that second Council; the Roman Church, hactenus non habet nec accipit, did not till these days embrace nor approve them. 22. Now that this same third Canon was all that time, held to be of full authority, and approved by the Church, as a Canon of an holy general Council, which bindeth all: notwithstanding the Popes did not approve it, nay, did even by their Synodall Decrees reject it, there are very many and clear evidences: By warrant of that Canon did Anatolius in the Council of Chalcedon s Act. 1. et aliis ubi recensentur Episcopi. , and Eutichius in the fifth Synod t Coll. 1. et aliis. , in the right of their See of Constantinople take place before, and above the Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch; none in those Counsels repining thereat: nay, those Synods, and God himself (as is there u Ecce nos Deo volente Anatolium primum habemus. Ait P●scasinus in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 8. b. said) approving that precedence: And whereas this order had not been observed in the Ephesine latrociny; Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being set after the Bishops of Antioch and jerusalem, the Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon stormed thereat, and said x Ibid. , Why did not Flavianus sit in his proper place? that is, next to the Roman Bishop, or his Legates. By authority of the same Canon did chrysostom, when he was Bishop of Constantinople, depose y S. memory Chrysostomus 15 Episcop●s deposuit in Asia et pro eis alios ordinavit. Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. in fine Zozo lib. 1. ca 6. fifteen Bishops in Asia; ordain others in their rooms; celebrate z Pallad. in vit. Chrys. a Council at Ephesus, and call the Asian Bishops unto it; none of which either could he have done, or would the other have obeyed him therein, had it not been known, that they were subject to him as their Patriarch, by that Canon of the second general Council, to which they all must obey: And this was done about some twenty years after that Canon was made. So quickly was the same in force, a Conc. habitum an.; 81. Chrysost. creatus Episcopus C●sario et Attico Coss. Socr. lib. 6. ca 2. id est, circa an. 398 cujus secundo anno, aut circiter, haec ●●encrunt. and was acknowledged to be of a binding authority. In the Council of Chalcedon, when the truth of this Canon was most diligently examined, Elutherius Bishop of Chalcedon said, b Act. 16. pa. 136. b. Sciens quia per Canon's & per consuetudinem; I subscribed hereunto, knowing that the See of Constantinople hath these rights (in Asia and Pontus, as a Patriarch to govern there) both according to the Canons, and according to custom: and the like was deposed by many Bishops of Asia and Pontus. They acknowledge, nay, they knew there was such a Canon; they knew also, that the custom and practice did concurrere cum lege, did concur with the Canon; whereupon the glorious judges, after full discussing of this cause, testified b Act. 16. pa. 136. b. , and sentenced, that the Bish. of Constantinople had rightful authority to ordain Metropolitan Bishops in the Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and the whole Synod consented to them; first proclaiming, Haec c Ibid. justa est sententia, this is a just sentence, this we say all: and then in the very Synodal Epistle d Relat. ad Leonem post act. 16. to Leo testifying the same, to wit, that they had confirmed that custom to the Bishop of Constantinople, that he should ordain metropolitans in Thrace, Asia, and Pontus; and thereby had confirmed the third Canon of the second Council. This was the judgement of the whole Council at Chalcedon, that is, of the whole Catholic Church in that age, to which have consented all Counsels, and catholic Bishops ever since: All these do approve, and judge to be approved that Canon of the second general Council, which the Popes and Roman Church, not only not approved, but expressly and by Synodall decrees rejected. 23. About some ninety years e Conc. Chalced. habitum, an. 451 after this, and an hundred sixty years f Conc. Constant. habit. an. 381. after that second Synod, did justinian the Emperor confirm the g Nou. 131. ca 1, et. 2. Canons, both of that second, and of all the former general Counsels, giving unto them force of Imperial laws: Yea, he further commanded those Canons, (this third among the rest) Dipticis inseri, & praedicari, to be written in the Diptikes or Ecclesiastical books, and publicly to be read in the Churches, in token of the public and universal approbation of the same. This the fifth Council h Coll. 2. pa. 524. a. testifieth, as also Victor i In Chron. an. 1. justin. , and Evagrius k Lib. 4. ca 11. , yea, the Emperor himself also, who both l Cod. l. 7. de summa Trin. professeth that he will not suffer this custom to be taken away, and signifieth m Nou. 115. that all patriarchs are known to keep in their Diptikes, and to recite those Canons in their Churches. The Emperor doubted not but the Roman Church & Patriarch, as well as the rest, had done this, and yielded obedience to so holy an Edict; but the Roman Church deluded the Emperor herein: none of them, as Bellarmine n Lib. 1. de Pont. ca 24. § His. tells us, did after justinian's time, or as he accounts after the year 500, reclamare, contradict or speak against that Canon, (which their silence the Emperor and others, not acquainted with the Roman Arts, did interpret to be a consent) but Binius o Not. in Conc. 2 §. Constantinop. bewrayeth their policy; they, for peace and quietness sake (being loath to exasperate the Emperor) did permit or connive at that honour conferred by the Canon upon the See of Constantinople; yet, nunquam à Romana Ecclesia approbatum fuit; it was never, (then not till Gregory's time, which is as much as I intended to prove) it was never, saith he, approved by the Roman Church; which he proves by a Decretal of Innocentius the third; whence it is evident, seeing that Canon of the second general Council, was never, as Binius avoucheth, but certainly not till Gregory's time, approved by the Pope, and yet was all that time approved by the catholic Church, even by the great and famous Council at Chalcedon, & all who approve it, who are no fewer than the whole catholic Church; it is evident, I say, that it is neither the Pope's Approbation which maketh, nor his Reprobation which hindereth a Council, or any Decree, or Canon thereof, to be an approved general Council, or a Synodall Canon, such as doth, and aught to bind all that are in the Church. 24. The Pope's Approbation it is not: but what it is which makes a general Council or Canon thereof, to be an approved Council, or an approved Canon; and for such to be rightly accounted, is not so easy to explain. This in an other Treatise I have at large handled, to which, if it ever see the light, I refer myself; yet suffer me to touch in this place so much as may serve to clear this, and diverse other doubts, which are obvious in their writings concerning this point. 25. That every Council and Synodall decree thereof is approved or confirmed by those Bishops who are present in that Synod, who consent upon that decree, is by the Acts of the Counsels most evident. For both their consenting judgement pronounced by word of mouth, and after that, their subscription to their decree, did ratify and confirm their sentence. In that which they call the eighth general Synod, after the sentence pronounced, the Pope's Legates said p Act. 10. , Oportet ut haec manu nostra subscribendo confirmemus, it is needful that we confirm these things which we have decreed, by our subscribing unto them. Of the great Nicene Council Eusebius this writeth q Lib. 3. de vita Constant ca 13. , Those things which with one consent they had decreed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they were fully authorized, ratified, confirmed or approved, (the Greek word is very emphatical) by their subscription. In the Council of Chalcedon, when the agreement betwixt juvenalis and Maximus was decreed, they subscribed r Act. 6. in this form; That which is consented upon, confirmo, I by my sentence do confirm; or, firma esse decerno, I decree that it shall be firm: and to the like effect subscribed all the rest. Whereupon the glorious judges, without expecting any other confirmation either from Pope Leo, or any that was absent, said; This which is consented upon shall abide firm, in omni tempore, for ever by our decree, and by the sentence of the Synod. Of the second general Council, a Synod at Hellespont said s Extat inter Epist. post Concil. Chal. pa. 168. a. , Hanc Synodum Timotheus unà cum eis praesens firmavit, Timotheus, with the other Bishops, then present, confirmed this Synod. The consent and subscription of the Bishop's present in the Synod, they call a Confirmation of the Synod. In the Synod t Extat ibid. pa. 155. at Maesia, after the sentence of the Synod was given, they all subscribed in this form, I M.P.D. etc. confirmavi & subscripsi, have confirmed this Synodall sentence, and subscribed unto it. In the second Council at Carthage, held about the time of Pope Celestine, Gennadius said u Tom. 1. Conc. pa. 541. , Quae ab omnibus sunt dicta propria debemus subscriptione firmare, what hath been said and decreed by us all, we ought by our own subscriptions to confirm: and all the Bishops answered, Fiat, fiat, let us so do; and then they subscribed. So clear it is, that whatsoever decree is made by any Council, the same is truly and rightly said to be confirmed by those very Bishops who make the Decree; confirmed I say, both by their joint consent in making that Decree, and by their subscribing unto it when it is made. 26. Upon this confirmation or approbation of any Decree by the Bishop's present in the Council, doth the whole strength and authority of any Synodall decree rely; and upon no other confirmation of any Bishop whatsoever, when the Council is general and lawful. For in such a Council, lawfully called, lawfully governed, and lawfully proceeding, as well in the free discussing, as free sentencing of the cause; there is in true account the joint consent of all Bishops and Ecclesiastical persons in the whole world. No Bishop can then complain that either he is not called, or not admitted with freedom into such a Council, unless that he be excommunicated, or suspended, or for some such like reason justly debarred. If all do come, they may and do freely deliver their own judgement; and that not only for themselves, but for all the Presbyters in their whole Diocese. For seeing the pastoral care of every Diocese, even from the Apostles time, and by them is committed to the Bishop thereof, (all the rest being by him admitted but only into a part of his care, and to assist him in some parts of his Episcopal function) he doth, at least (because he should) he is supposed to admit none, but such as he knoweth to profess the same faith with himself: whence it is, that in his voice is included the judgement of his whole Diocesan Church, and of all the Presbyters therein: they all believing as he doth, speak also in the Council by his mouth, the same that he doth. If some of the Bishops come not personally, but either depute others in their rooms, or pass their suffrage (as often they did) in the voice of their Metropolitan, than their consent is expressed in theirs, whom they put in trust to be their agents at that time. If any negligently absent themselves, neither personally, nor yet by delegates signifying their mind, these are supposed to give a tacit consent unto the judgement which is given by them who are present; whom the others are supposed to think not only to be able and sufficient without themselves to define that cause; but that they will define it in such sort as themselves do wish and desire: for otherwise they would have afforded their presence, or at least sent some deputies to assist them in so great and necessary a service. If any out of stomach or hatred to the truth, do wilfully refuse to come, because they descent from the others in that doctrine, yet even these also are in the eye of reason supposed to give an implicit consent unto that which is decreed, yea though explicitè they do descent from it. For every one doth, and in reason is supposed to consent on this general point, that a Synodall judgement must be given in that doubt & controversy, there being no better nor higher humane Court than is that of a general Council, by which they may be directed. Now because there never possibly could any Synodall judgement be given, if the wilful absence of one or a few should be a just bar to their sentence; therefore all in reason are thought to consent that the judgement must be given by those who will come, or who do come to the Council, and that their decree or sentence shall stand for the judgement of a general Council, notwithstanding their absence who wilfully refuse to come. 27. If then all the Bishops present in the Council do consent upon any decree, there is in it one of those ways which we have mentioned, either by personal declaration, or by signification made by their delegates and agents, or by a tacit, or by an implicit consent, the consenting judgement of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole Church, that is, of all who either have judicatory power or authority to preach publicly; and therefore such a decree is as fully authorized, confirmed, and approved, as if all the Bishops and Presbyters in the world had personally subscribed in this manner, I confirm this Decree. Hereof there is a worthy example in the third general Council. No Presbyters at all were therein, not in their own right. Very many Bishops were personally absent, and present only by their Legates or Agents; as almost all the Western Bishops, and by name Celestine Patriarch of Rome. Some, no question, upon other occasions neglected that business; as, it may be, the Bishops of Gangra, and of Heraclèa in Macedonia, who were not at this Council. Divers others wilfully and obstinately refused to come to that holy Synod; as by name Nestorius' Patriarch of Constantinople, john Patriarch of Antioch, and some forty Bishops, who at the same time while the holy Council was held in the Church at Ephesus, held a Conventicle by themselves in an Inn, in the same City; and yet notwithstanding the personal absence of the first, the negligent of the second, and wilful absence of the last, the holy x Epist. Conc. Ephes. ad Imper. tom. 2. Act. Con. Ephes. epist. 17. general Council saith of their Synodall judgement, given by those who were then present, that it was nihil aliud quam communis & concors terrarum orbis sensus & consensus, nothing else but the common and consenting judgement of the whole world. How could this be, when so many Bishops, besides three Patriarches, were either personally, or negligently, or wifully absent? How was there in that decree the consent of these? Truly because they all (even all the Bishops in the world) did either personally, or by their Agents, express; or else in such a tacit and implicit manner (as we declared) wrap up their judgement in the Synodall decree made by the Bishop's present in the Council. 28. But what if many of those who are present, do dissent from that which the rest being the greater part do decree? Truly, even these also do implicitè, and are in reason to be judged to consent to that same decree. For every one is supposed to agree on that general Maxim of reason, that in such an assembly of judges, what the greater part decreeth shall stand as the Act and judgement of the whole: seeing otherwise it would be impossible that such a multitude of Bishops should ever give any judgement in a cause, for still some in perverseness and pertinacy would descent. Seeing then it is the ordinance of God that the Church shall judge, and seeing there can no other means be devised how they should judge, unless the sentence of the greater part may stand for their judgement, reason enforceth all to consent upon this Maxim. Upon this is that Imperial Law grounded, Quod y Dig lib. 50. leg. 19 major pars curiae effecit, pro rato habetur, acsi omnes id egerint, what the greater part of the Court shall do, that is ratified, or to stand for the judgement of the Court, as if all had done the same. And again, Refertur z Dig. lib. 5. lit. 17. de Reg. juris 160. ad universos quod publicè fit per majorem partem: That is accounted the act of all, which is publicly done by the greater part. Upon this ground is that truly said by Bellarmine a Lib. 2. de Conc. ca 11. §. At. , That whereon the greater part doth consent, est verum decretum Concilij, is the true decree of the Council, even of the whole Council. Upon the equity of this rule was it said in the Council at Chalcedon b Act. 4. p. 90. b. , when ten Bishops dissented from the rest, Non est justum decem audiri, It is not just that the sentence of ten should prevail against a thousand and two hundred Bishops. Upon the equity of the same rule did the fifth general Council truly & constantly judge c Coll. 6. p. 576. b. , that the Council of Chalcedon even in that definition of faith, which they all with one consent agreed upon, condemned the Epistle of Ibas as heretical; although they knew that Maximus, with Pascasinus, and the other Legates of Pope Leo, in the Council of Chalcedon, adjudged that Epistle to be orthodoxal. How was it the consenting judgement of the whole Council of Chalcedon, when yet some did express their dissent therein? How, but by that implicit consent which all give to that rule of reason, that the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole; which the fifth Council doth plainly signify, saying d Ibid. pa. 563. b. , In Counsels we must not attend the interlocutions of one or two, but what is defined in common, ab omnibus, aut amplioribus, either by all, or by the greater part: to that we must attend as to the judgement of the whole Council. But omitting all the rest, there is one example in the Council of Chalcedon most pregnant to this purpose. 29. All e Haec omnes dicimus, haec omnibus placent. Act. 16. pa. 137. a. the Council, save only the Pope's Legates, consented upon that third Canon, decreed in the second, and now confirmed in this fourth Council, that the See of Constantinople should have patriarchal dignity over Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and have precedence before other patriarchs, as the next after the Bishop of Rome. The Legates following the instructions of Leo, were so averse in this matter, that they said f Ibid. pa. 137. b. not without some choler, Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat, Let our contradiction cleave to these Acts: and so it doth, to the eternal disgrace both of them and their master. The glorious judges notwithstanding this dissenting of the Legates and of Pope Leo himself in them, said g Ibid. concerning that Canon, That which we have spoken, (that the See of Constantinople ought to be the second, etc.) Tota Synodus, the whole Council hath approved it. Why, but the Pope's Legates approved it not; they contradicted it. True, in this particular they dissented. But because they as all other Bishops, even Pope Leo himself, consented unto that general Maxim, That the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole Council, in that general both the Legates of Leo, and Leo himself, did implicitè and virtually consent to that very Canon, from which actually and explicitè they did then descent. For which cause the most prudent judges truly said, Tota Synodus, the whole Council hath approved this Canon: either explicitè or implicitè, either expressly or virtually approved it. Neither did only those secular judges so esteem, the whole general Council itself professed the same, and that even in the Synodall Relation of their Acts to Pope Leo: The universal h Sancta & universal. Synod. Leoni. Relat. Synod. post Act. 16 Synod said thus, We have condemned Dioscorus, we have confirmed the faith, we have confirmed the Canon of the second Council for the honour of the See of Constantinople, we have condemned the heresy of Eutyches: Thus writ the whole Council to Leo: declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod, although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it. 30. You see now that in every sentence of a general and lawful Council there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters, they all either explicitè, or tacitè, or implicitè, consenting to that decree, whether they be absent or present, and whether in that particular they consent or descent. Now because there can be no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiastical matter, than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters, that is, of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes; it hence clearly ensueth, that there neither is nor can be any Episcopal or Ecclesiastical confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree, greater, stronger, or of more authority, then is the judgement itself of such a general Council, and their own confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make; for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world. 31. Besides this confirmation of any synodal decree, which is by Bishops, and therefore to be called Episcopal, there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors, which is called Royal or Imperial▪ by this later, religious Kings not only give freedom and liberty, that those decrees of the Council shall stand in force of Ecclesiastical Canons within their dominions, so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings, corrected by Ecclesiastical censures, but further also, do so strengthen, and back the same by their sword, and civil authority, that the contradicters of those decrees, are made liable to those temporal punishments, which are set down in Ezra i Ez. 7.16. to death, to banishment, to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment, as the quality of the offence shall require, and the wisdom of that Imperial State shall think fit. Betwixt these two confirmations, Episcopal and Imperial, there is exceeding great odds and difference. By the former, judicial sentence is given, and the synodal decree made or declared to be made, for which cause it may rightly be called a judicial or definitive confirmation: by the later, neither is the synodal decree made, nor any judgement given to define that cause (for neither Princes nor any Lay men, are judges to decide those matters, as the Emperor's Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in k Nefas est eum qui Episcoporum catalogo adscriptus non est, Ecclesiasticis negotijs scimmiscere. (nempe ut judicem qui definiat.) Epist. Imp. ad Synod. Ephes. t●. 1. Act. Ephes. Conc. ca 32. their directions to Candidianus, in the Council of Ephesus;) but the synodal decree being already made by the Bishops, and their judgement given in that cause, is strengthened by Imperial authority, for which cause, this may fitly be called a supereminent or corroborative confirmation of the synodal judgement. The former confirmation is Directive, teaching what all are to believe or observe in the Church: the later is Coactive, compelling all, by civil punishment to believe or observe the Synodall directions. The former is Essential to the Decree, such as if it want, there is no Synodall decree made at all: the later is Accidental, which though it want, yet is the Decree of the Council, a true Synodall Decree and sentence. The former binds all men to obedience to that Decree, but yet only under pain of Ecclesiastical censures: the latter binds the subjects only of those Princes, who give the Royal Confirmation to such Decrees, and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishment. By virtue of the former, the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretics in causes of faith, or contumacious in other matters; and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church, though, if the later be wanting, those censures cannot be inflicted by any, or upon any, but with danger to incur the indignation of Princes: By virtue of the later, not only the Church may safely, yea, with great allowance and praise, inflict their Ecclesiastical censures, but inferior Magistrates also may, nay aught to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees, as against notorious, convicted, and condemned heretics; or in causes which are not of faith, but of external discipline and orders, as against contumacious persons. The Episcopal confirmation is the first in order, but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperial authority, it is in dignity inferior. The Imperial confirmation is the last in order, but because it proceeds from those to whom every soul is subject, it is in dignity Supreme. 32. This Imperial confirmation, as holy general Counsels did with all submission entreat of Emperors, so religious Emperors did with all willingness grant unto them. Of the great Nicene Council Eusebius saith l Lib. 4. de vita Constant. ca 27. , Constantine sealed, ratified, and confirmed the decrees which were made therein. The second general Council writ m Epist. Synod. 2. post Act. Concil. pa. 518. thus to the Emperor Theodosius, We beseech your clemency, that by your letters, ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum, that you would ratify and confirm the decree of this Council: and that the Emperor did so, his Imperial Edict, before n Hoc. cap. nu. 19 mentioned, doth make evident. To the third Council the Emperor writ thus o Act Ephes. Conc to●. 3. ca 17. , Let matters concerning religion and piety be diligently examined, contention being laid aside; ac tum demum à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate; and then expect from us our imperial confirmation. The holy Council having done so, writ p Act. Conc. Eph. to. 4 ca 8. thus to the Emperor, We earnestly entreat your piety, ut jub●at ●a omnia, that you would command, that all which is done by this holy and Ecumenical Council against Nestorius, may stand in force, per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata; being confirmed by your royal assent: And that the Emperor yielded to their request, his Edict q Imperator sententia Synodi publicè approbata, Nestorio exilium indicit. Act. Con. Eph. to. 5. ca 11. et lege ult. de haeret. Cod. Theod. against Nestorius doth declare. In the fourth Council the Emperor said r Act. 6. , We come to this Synod, not to show our power, sed ad con●irmandam fidem, but to confirm the faith. And when he had signified before all the Bishops his royal assent s In perpetuum quae à vobis te●minata sunt serventur. Ibid. to their decree, the whole Council cried out, Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti, thou hast confirmed the Catholic faith: often ingeminating those joyful acclamations. That justinian confirmed the fifth Council, his imperial Edict for condemning those Three Chapters, which after the Synodall judgement stood in more force than before; his severity t Vict. in Chron. an. post Coss. Bas. 13, 14.15, etc. in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence, partly by exile, partly by imprisonment, are clear witnesses. The sixth Council said u Act. 18. thus to the Emperor, O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us, signaculum tribue, seal and ratify all that we have done; vestram inscribito imperialem ratihabitionem; add unto them your imperial confirmation, that by your holy Edicts, and godly constitutions they may stand in firm force. And the Emperor upon their humble request, set forth his Edict, wherein he saith x Edict. Constat. P●gon. Act. 18. Conc. 6. , We have published this our Edict, that we might, corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt, corroborate and confirm those things which are defined by the Council. To all which, that may be added which Basilius the Emperor said in the eighth Synod, as they call it; I had y Act. 10. purposed to have subscribed after all the Bishops, as did my predecessors, Constantine the great, Theodosius, Martian, and the rest: thereby evidently testifying, not only the custom of imperial confirmation to have been observed in all former Counsels, but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopal subscription; the Bishop's first subscribing, and thereby making or declaring, that they had made a Synodall decree, the Emperors after them all subscribing, as ratifying by their Imperial confirmation what the Bishops had decreed. 33. By this now it fully appeareth, what it is which maketh any Synod or any Synodal decree, to be, and justly to be accounted an approved Synod, or an approved Synodall and Ecumenical decree. It is not the Pope's assent, approbation, or confirmation, (as they, without all ground of truth do fancy,) which at any time did, or possibly can do this. It is only the Universal and Ecumenical consent of the whole Church, and of all the members thereof, upon any decree made by a general Council, which truly makes that an approved decree; which general and Ecumenical consent or approbation, is showed partly by the Episcopal confirmation of that decree, made by the Bishops present therein, wherein there is ever either an express, or a virtual and implicit consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters, and so of all the Clergy in the world; partly by the royal and imperial confirmation given to that decree by Christian Kings and Emperors, in which there is an implicit consent of all Laickes in the whole Church, Kings and Princes assenting not only for themselves, but in the name of all their Lay subjects, for whom they undertake, that either they shall willingly obey that decree, or else by severity of punishments, be compelled thereunto. If these two confirmations, or either of them be wanting, the Council and decree which is supposed to be made therein, is neither an approved or confirmed Council, nor decree, though the Pope send forth ten thousand Bulls to approve and confirm the same: But if these two confirmations concur in any decree of a general and lawful Council, though the Pope reprobate and reject that Council or decree never so often, yet is both that Council an approved general Council, and the decree thereof an approved or confirmed Synodall and Ecumenical decree, approved I say, and confirmed by the greatest humane authority and judgement that possibly can be, either found, or desired, even by the whole catholic Church, and every member, whether Ecclesiastical or Laical, therein: And whosoever after such an ample approbation or confirmation, shall at any time contradict or contemn such a Council or decree, he doth not, nor can he thereby impair the dignity and authority of it, but he demonstrates himself to be an heretic, or, at least, a contumacious person, insolently, and in the pride of his singularity despising that judgement of the Council, which the whole Church, and every member thereof, yea, even himself also among them, hath approved. 34. You will yet demand of me, why general Counsels have fought the Pope's approbation and confirmation of their decrees, (as did the Council of Chalcedon z Rogamus tuis decretis nostrum honora judicium. Epist. Synod. Chal. ad Leonem post Act. 16. of Pope Leo) after the end of the Synods; and what effect or fruit did arise from such confirmations, if it added no greater authority to the Synodall sentence, than before it had? I also ask of you another question; Why did the Council of Constantinople confirm a Statuerunt 318. Patrum fidem firmam ac stabilem manner oportere. Conc. Const. ca 1. the Nicene Synod, and the faith decreed therein? or why did the Council of Chalcedon confirm b In definite. fidei Act. 5. Confirmavimus Patr●m 150. regulam Epist. Conc. Chal. ad Leonem post Act. 16. Conc. Chal. praedicta concilia firmavit. Epist. Episc. Europae post Conc. Chal pa. 152. all the three former general Counsels? or why did their second Nicene confirm all the six Synods which were before it, saying ᶜ, Eorum constitutionem integram & illabefactabilem confirmamus; we confirm the divine Canons and constitutions, being inviolable? Was not the great Nicene Council and decree of faith, of as great authority before it was confirmed by the second or fourth Council, as afterwards? or what greater strength and authority had either it, or any of the six first general Counsels, by the confirmation of the second Nicene Synod, which, unto all the former, is as much inferior, as is dross or clay to the gold of Ophir. If the confirmations of one general Council by another, give no greater authority unto it than before it had, (as it is certain by these examples, that it doth not) what marvel if the Pope's confirmation do not work that effect? If notwitstanding all this, the confirmations of former, by subsequent Counsels, be not fruitless; truly, neither the confirmation of the Pope, or any other Bishop that is absent, must be thought fruitless, though it add no more authority to the Synod, or Synodall decrees, than before they had. 35. Neither did only general, but even Provincial Counsels, yea, particular Bishops confirm general Synods, and the decrees thereof. The Synod at Milan was assembled by the direction of Pope Leo, in which the Acts of the first Emphesine Council, per subscriptionem Episcoporum absentium sunt confirmata; were confirmed by the subscription of those Bishops, who were absent. So writeth d Not. in Conc. Rom. 3. tempore Silvestri. Binius. The like was done after the Council of Chalcedon; for when some began to quarrel at it, Leo the Emperor, that he might, confirmare e Bin. not. in Conc. Chalc. § Incipiunt pa. 190. ea, confirm the decrees of that Council, published an Edict to that end, at the solicitation of Pope Leo f Epist 73. hoc classico Pontificis Imperator excitatus sanctionem edidit. Bin. not. in eam Epist. ; yea further, the Emperor commanded the several Bishops to show their judgements in that doctrine of faith decreed at Chalcedon, which he did to this end, ut omnium calculo & confession Chalcedonense Concilium iterum firmaretur, saith Binius m Locis citat●. ; that the Council of Chalcedon might be confirmed again by the consent and confession of all those Bishops. They did what the Emperor commanded them: some alone, as Anatolius, Seba●●ianus, Lucianus, Agapetus, and many more; some in Synodal Epistles, as the Bishops of Alexandria, of Europe; all whose letters are adjoined to the Council of Chalcedon n Pa. 146. ad pa. 179. : concerning all which, that is to be noted which Agapetus saith o Pa. 166. , Pene omnes occidentalium partium Episcopi confirmaverunt, atque consignaverunt; almost all the Bishops of the West, (and so also in the East) did confirm by their letters and subscriptions, that faith which was explained at Chalcedon. What authority think you, could the confirmation of one single Bishop, as of Agapetus and Sebastianus, or of a Synod consisting but of nineteen Bishops, (as that at Milan p Vt liquet ex eorum epist. Synod. quae extat post Epist. 52. Leonis. ) or but of seven q Vt Epis. Syriae post Conc. Chal. pa. 155. b. , or six r Vt Episc. Maesia ibid. a. , or five s Vt Episc. secundae Syriae. Ibid. pa. 157. b. , or four t Vt Episc. Osroeviae. Ibid. pa. 268. a. , (as some of the other) give to the great and Ecumenical Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon, approved not only by the Popes, but by the consenting judgement of the whole (Christian) world, as out of the Ephesine Synod we before declared: And yet was never one of those confirmations fruitless, as Pope Leo, who was the author of them, rightly judged. Of the great Nicene Council, Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, after they had endured exile for not consenting to the Nicene faith, in token of their repentance, writ u Epistola eorum extat apud Socratem lib. 1. ca 10. thus unto the Synod, Those things which are decreed by your judgement, consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus, we are purposed to confirm with consenting minds. Even the consent of two, and those exiled and heretical Bishops, is called a confirmation of the great Nicene Council, to which no authority was added thereby. I will but add one example more, and that is of this our fifth Council; concerning which, in their second Nicene Synod, it is thus said x Act. 1. pa. 306 , Four patriarchs being present, approved the same, and the most religious Emperor sent the Synodall Acts thereof to jerusalem; where a Synod being assembled, all the Bishops of Palestina manibus, & pedibus, & over, sententiam Synodi confirmarunt; they all confirmed the sentence of this Council, with their hands, with their confessions, and full consent, except only one Alexander Bishop of Abyles, who thought the contrary, and therefore was put from his Bishopric; and coming to Constantinople was swallowed up by an earthquake. So their Nicene Synod: By all which it is now clear, that general and approved Ecumenical Counsels, or the decrees thereof, may be, and, de facto, have been usually approved and confirmed not only by the Pope, but by other succeeding general Counsels, by Provincial Synods, yea, by particular Bishops, who have been absent, none of all which gave, or could give more authority to the Council or Synodall decree thereof, than it had before; and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to be compared to those Synods which they do approve or confirm; and yet not any one of all these confirmations were needless, or fruitless. 36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the diverse ends of th●se two confirmations. These use & end of the first confirmation by the Bishop's present in the Council, was judicially to determine and define the controversy then proposed, and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Ecumenical decree, that is in truth, the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it. The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops, who were absent, was not judicially to define that cause, or give any judgement therein, (for this was done already, and in as effectual a manner as possible it could be) but to preserve the peace of the Church, and unity in faith, which could by no other means be better effected, than if Bishops, who had been absent, and therefore did but implicitè, or by others, consent to those decrees at the making thereof, did afterwards declare their own explicit and express consent to the same. Now because the more eminent that any Bishop was, either for authority or learning, the more likely he was, either to make a rent and schism in the Church, if he should descent, or to procure the tranquillity and peace of the Church, if he should consent; hence it was, that if any Patriarch, patriarchal Primate, or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Council, the Church and Council did the more earnestly labour to have his express consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees: This was the cause why both the religious Emperor Theodosius y Sacra Imper. ad johan. to. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca 3. Cyril. Epist. 38. ad Dynatum to. eod. ca 16. , and Cyrill, with other orthodoxal Bishops, were so earnest to have john Patriarch of Antioch, to consent to the holy Ephesine Synod, which long before was ended; that as he had been the ringleader to the factious conventicle, and those who defended Nestorius with his heresy; so his yielding to the truth, and embracing the Ephesine Council, which condemned Nestorius, might draw many others to do the like, and so indeed it did. This was the principal reason why some of the ancient Counsels, as that by name of Chalcedon, (for all did it not) sought the Pope's confirmation to their Synodall decrees; not thinking their sentence in any cause to be invalid, or their Council no approved Council, if it wanted his approbation or confirmation, (a fancy not dreamt of in the Church in those days) but whereas the Pope was never personally present in any of those which they account the 8 general Counsels, the Synod thought it fit to procure, if they could, his express and explicit consent to their decrees, that he being the chief Patriarch in the Church, might by his example move all, and by his authority draw his own patriarchal Diocese (as usually he did) to consent to the same decrees; whereas, if he should happen to descent (as Vigilius did at the time of the fifth Council) he was likely to cause (as Vigilius then did) a very grievous rent and schism in the Church of God. 37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confirmations, whether by succeeding Counsels, or absent Bishops: and that was, that every one should thereby either testify his orthodoxy in the faith, or else manifest himself to be an heretic: For as the approving of the six general Counsels, and their decrees of faith did witness one to be a Catholic in those doctrines; so the very refusing to approve or confirm any one of those Counsels, or their decrees of faith, was ipso facto, without any further examination of the cause, an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretic; such an one, as in the pride and pertinacy of his heart rejected that holy synodal judgement, which all the whole catholic Church, and every member thereof, even himself also had implicitè before confirmed and approved. In which respect an heretic may truly be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being convicted and condemned not only by the evidence of truth, and by synodal sentence, but even by that judgement which his own self had given implicitè, in the decree of the Council. The sum is this; The former confirmation by the Bishop's present in the Synod, is judicial; the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent, is pacifical. The former is authoritative, such as gives the whole authority to any decree: the later (whether by succeeding Counsels, or absent Bishops) is Testificative, such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxal in that decree. The former, joined to the Imperial confirmation, is Essential, which essentially makes both the Council an approved Council, & all the decrees thereof, approved, synodal, and Ecumenical decrees: the later is accidental, which being granted by a Bishop, doth much grace himself, but little or nothing the Synod; and being denied by any, doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod, or impair the dignity and authority thereof, but doth extremely disgrace the party himself who denyeth it, and pulls down upon him, both the just censures of the Church, and those civil punishments which are due to heretics or contumacious persons. 38. My conclusion now is this: Seeing this fifth Council was both for the calling general, and for the proceeding therein lawful, and orderly; and seeing, although it wanted the Pope's consent, yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations, before mentioned; Episcopal and Imperial, in which is included the Ecumenical approbation of the whole catholic Church: it hence therefore ensueth, that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy, a lawful, and Ecumenical Council; so from the first pronouncing of their synodal sentence, and the Imperial assent added thereunto, it was an approved general Council, approved by the whole catholic Church; and so approved, that without any express consent of the Pope added unto it, it was of as great worth, dignity, and authority, as if all the Popes since S. Peter's time had, with their own hands subscribed unto it. And this may suffice to satisfy the fourth and last exception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresy. CAP. XIX. The true notes to know which are general and lawful, and which either are not general, or being general, are no lawful Counsels; with diverse examples of both kinds. 1. THAT which hath been said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavil of Baronius, against the fifth Council, whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general, nor a lawful Synod, because the Pope resisted the assembling, and contradicted the decree and sentence thereof; but for as much as it is not victory, but truth which I seek, and the full satisfaction of the reader in this cause, and seeing this point about the lawfulness of general Counsels, is frequent, and very obvious, and such as being rightly conceived, will give great light to this whole controversy about Counsels; I will crave liberty to launch somewhat further into this deep, and explain, with what convenient brevity I can, what it is which maketh any Synod to be, or rightly to be esteemed a general and lawful Council. 2. As the name of Synod doth in his primary and large acception agree to every assembly, so doth the name of Council to every assembly of consultation: The former being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one with Coetus, and imports the assembly of any multitude which meeteth and cometh together: The later being derived of Cilia a Concilium dictum à communi intention, ●o quoth in unum omnes dirigant mentis obtutum: Cilia enim oculorum sunt. Isiod. Mer. in suam ●anon. collect. , (whence also supercilium) imports the common or joint intending, or bending their eyes, both of body and mind, to the investigation of the truth in that matter, which is proposed in their assembly: But both of those words being now drawn from those their large and primitive significations, are by Ecclesiastical writers, and use of speech, (penes quem jus est, & norma loquendi) restrained and appropriated only to those assemblies of Bishops, and Ecclesiastical persons; wherein they come together to consult of such matters as concerns either the faith or discipline of the Church. Of these, because some are lawful, others unlawful Synods, if we can find what it is which maketh a general and lawful Council, it will be easy thereby to discern which are unlawful Synods, seeing it is vulgarly and truly said, that, Rectum is index sui & obliqui. 3. That a Synod be general and lawful, there are three things necessarily, and even essentially required, the want of any one of which is a just bar and exception, why that Synod is either not general, or not lawful. The first, which concerns the generality, is, that the calling and summons to the Council be general and Ecumenical; so that all Bishops be called, and when they are come, have free access to the same Council, unless for some fault of their own, or some just reason, they ought to be debarred: For if the calling to any Synod be out of some parts only of the Church, and not out of the whole, the judgement also of such a Council is but partial, not general, and the Council is but particular, not Ecumenical, seeing some of those who have judicatory power are either omitted, or unjustly excluded from the Synod: The want of this was a just exception taken by the Pope julius, against that Council of Antioch b Extat tom. 3. Conc. pa. 420. , (wherein Athanasius was deposed by the Arian faction, and Gregory of Cappadocia intruded into his See) why it neither was, nor could be esteemed general, or such as should bind the whole Church, by the decrees made by it; for said julius c Apud Socr. l. 2 ca 13. et Zozom. lib. 3. ca 9 , they did against the Canons of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they did not so much as call him to that Synod; whereas the Canons of the Church forbid that any decree (which should have power to bind the whole Church) should be made without the sentence, judgement, and consent of the Bishop of Rome, (either attained, or at least sought for.) The Canon which julius mentioned, might well ordain, and if there were no such Canon, yet even reason and equity do teach, that such decrees as concern the whole Church, and are to bind them all, aught to be made by the help, judgement, and advise of them all; according to the rule, Quod d Reg. I●ris 29. omnes tangit,, ab omnibus approbari debet. The wilful omission of any one Bishop, much more of the Bish. of Rome, who then was the chief Patriarch in the world, declares the Council not to be general, seeing unto it there was only a partial, and not a general summons or calling. 4. As this first condition is required to the generality, so are the other two for the lawfulness and order of Synods: For if the Apostles rule, Let e 1 Cor. 14.40. all things be done decently, and in order, must be kept in every private and particular Church, how much more in those venerable assemblies of Ecumenical Counsels, which are the Armies of God, & of the Angels of all the Churches of God, among whom doth, and aught to shine gravity, prudence, and all sacred, and fitting orders, no less than in the celestial Hierarchy, and in the very presence of the Majesty of God. If they be gathered in God's name, how can they be other than lawful and orderly Assemblies, seeing God f 1 Cor. 14.33. is not the God of confusion g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tumultu a●●onis, in●ōpos●i status. , or disorder, but of peace in all Churches. Now the lawfulness 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 general Council first assemble together by lawful authority, and then are so governed by lawful authority also; that orderly, lawful, and due synodal proceedings be only 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 be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Act. 19.39. , a lawful Synod: But if either if these conditions be wanting, it becomes unlawful 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 be called a Synod, that is, an assembly of Bishops, yet because they do unlawfully & disorderly assemble together, it is in propriety of speech to be termed a Conventicle, a riotous, tumultuous, & seditious assembly; even such as that was of Demetrius i Ib. v. 24. et seq. , & the other Ephesians, who, without calling and order, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rushed 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 Periclitam●● argui seditionis▪ v. 40. tumult. If being lawfully called, yet they either want a lawful Precedent to govern them; or having one, yet want freedom and liberty either in discussing or giving judgement in the cause; such a Synod, though in respect of their assembling it be lawful, yet in respect of their proceedings and judgement, it is unlawful, and disorderly, and therefore in propriety of speech to be termed a conspiracy, because those men conspire and band themselves, as did the Council n Mat. 26.59. & ca 27.2. & Act. 4.27. of the Priests with Pilate, by unjust and unlawful means to suppress the truth, and oppress innocency. 5. But unto whom belongs that right to call general Counsels, & when they are called, to see orderly & synodal proceedings observed therein? To whom? to whom else but only to those who have Imperial & Regal authority, whether they be one (as when the Empire was united, & the whole Christian world subject to his authority;) or more, as it was when the Empire was divided, and ever since that great dissolution of it in the time o Ci●ca an. 800▪ of Charles the great: To them, and them only, this right to belong, I have in two other books, the one concerning the calling, the other concerning the presidency in Counsels, 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 Catholic Church, for more than eight hundred years after Christ, that if any would read the Tomes of the Counsels, he had need put out both his eyes, if he will not see this. 6. To them, and them only is the sword p Rom. 13.2, 3. given by God, that by it they might maintain the faith, and use it to the praise of them that do well, but take vengeance on them that do evil: They are the nursing q Isa. 49.23. fathers of the Church, unto whom the care is committed by God, that all his Children, to whom they, next unto God, are fathers, be fed with the sincere milk r 1 Pet. 2.2. of God's word, all mixture and poison of heresy and impiety being taken away, and severed from it: They are like joshua s Numb. 27.17. Psal. 78.71, 72. and David, appointed by God to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pastors t Tam Hebraicè quam in 70. Interpr. et apud Hier. legitur [ad pasc●ndum Iacob populum suum] et [pavit eos] quod alij vertunt, ad regendum. , even supreme Pastors of the Israel of God, not indeed to reach and give the food themselves, (which duty belongs to their inferior servants) yet to perform those which are the principal & 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, etc. Bell. lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. ca 15. § Primum. et § Deinde. proper Pastoral acts & offices, procurare are ac providere alteri cibum, ducere, reducere, tueri, praesse, regere, castigare; to provide that all the sheep of Christ have wholesome and convenient food given unto them, to lead them, bring them back, defend, govern, and chastise them when they will not obey their Pastoral call and command. None of all which Pastoral duties were it possible for Kings to perform, if for public tranquillity and instruction of God's people they might not by their authority assemble a general Council of Bishops, and being assembled, if they might not defend and uphold all just and equal, but castigate and keep away all violent, fraudulent, and unjust proceedings in such Counsels. 7. I purposely said supreme Pastors; 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● pasce oves meas. Aug. lib. de egone Christ. ca 30. who either in their Presbyterial or Episcopal authority succeed unto them (for in their Apostolical none of them had or have any successor) that all these are Pastors z jer. 23.1, 2. Ezech. 34. per totum, et Act. 20 28. et. 1 Pet. 5.2. also of God's flock, but they are all subordinate to the Imperial Pastors of the people of God, the sheephook is subject to the Sceptre, the Crosier to the Imperial Crown. Concerning Kings Saint Peter gives a general precept, Fear God a 1 Pet. 2.17. , and honour the King; which honour he expressly calleth subjection b Ibid v. 30. and obedience in the same Chapter; first we owe obedience to God, and next God, unto Kings and Emperors. Concerning all others excepting Kings, and such as have Kingly authority, Saint Paul gives a like general precept, Let c Rom. 13.1. every soul be subject to the higher powers, even to those, who by God's warrant, and as his Vicegerents, do bear d Ibid. v. 4. the sword: to them every soul ought to be subject; who can except thee from this generality? This is commanded, saith chrysostom e Chrys. in ca 13. ad Rom. , Not only to secular men, but to all, to Monks, 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 Evangelists, not any soul in exempt from this subjection: and if not Peter himself, then certainly not his Vicar, as the Pope f Quem Primatem dioceseos Synodus dixit. praeter Apostoli primi Vicarium. Nich. 1. Epist. 8. § Quem. calls himself: And this very subjection of the Pope, and all Bishops to the Emperors, to omit Silvester, julius, Leo, and Gregory, 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 imperial highness, saith Agatho, and a Synod of 125 Western Bishops with him; to which purpose he calls Italy his servile i Epist. Agath. Act. 4. pa. 12. b. Province, and Rome his servile City; adding, that he did this at the Emperor's sacred command, pro obedientiae satisfactione, pro obedientia quam debuimus, for that obedience which he did owe to the Emperor; nay, yet in more lowly manner, he saith not, that he, but, studiosa obedientia nostri famulatus implevit; the willing obedience of his own servitude to the Emperor, did perform this. Nor was this the profession only of Agatho; and the Western Bishops, but the whole sixth Council approved the same, Petrus k Sermo acclamatorius Conc. generalis 6. Act. 18. pa. 89. b. per Agathonem loquebatur, Saint Peter spoke by the mouth of Agatho. Now because they all acknowledge the Pope to be the first and chief Bishop in the Church, (for they all in that Council approve l Deficit. Council. 6. Act. 17. pa. 80. a. the Counsels of Chalcedon, and first Constantinopolitan, 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 Emperor; much more are all other Bishops in the whole world, servants, and subjects to the Imperial command, and that by the consenting judgement of the whole catholic Church, represented in that sixth general Council. 8. The same Sovereignty, and supreme Pastoral authority of Kings, is after this again testified in that which they call the eighth general Council, more than n Conc. illud 8. habit. an. 869. Bar. et Bin. eight hundred and sixty years after CHRIST. Basilius the Emperor said before the Council, in his letters o Conc. 8. Act. 1. pa. 880 b. unto them, The government of the Ecclesiastical ship is by the Divine Providence committed unto us: in that ship doth sail all who are members of the Church, Bishops or Laics, and the government of the whole ship is given to the Emperor; He, like the Pilot, rules and directs all. Raderus the jesuit, and Binius following him, in stead of nobis have put vobis in the latin text; as if Basilius had said, that the government of the Church belonged to Bishops, not to Emperors; It is a jesuitical and fraudulent trick, for which no colour of excuse can be made: The Greek set on the very opposite Page p Apud Rad. pa. 224. , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nobis: in the Surian Collection q Extat apud Bin. to. 3. Con. pa. 858. of those Acts, it was rightly read nobis; their own Cardinal Cusanus r Cusan. lib. 3. de Concor. Cath. ca 19 out of the ancient Acts of that Synod, cities it, commisisset nobis: the very sense enforceth it to be nobis, for the Emperor addeth, Therefore do we with all solicitude exhort and warn you, that you come to the holy Ecumenical Synod: which had been 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 falsify the text, corrupt the words, and pervert the sense, by turning nobis into vobis, that so they might deprive the Emperor of that supreme authority which Basilius there professed to belong unto himself, and the Legates of the Patriarches, in the name of the whole Synod approved the Emperor's saying s Conc. 8. Act. 1. pa. 880. b. , Recte Imperatores nostri monuere, the Emperors have said well. To go no further in this matter, that which was cited out of the Scripture concerning joshua and David, doth clear this point; for seeing all who sit in Imperial thrones, are like joshua and David, to feed the Israel of God; and the Israel of God contains the whole flock and all the sheep of Christ, ex t Bell. lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. ca ●5. § At nobis. hac ipsa voce Pasce, difficile non est demonstrare summam potestatem ei attribute; It is easy even by this very word Feed, to demonstrate, that supreme power doth belong to Kings, seeing unto them it is said, Feed my sheep, feed my people: Wherefore seeing Kings are commanded by God to rule by their Pastoral authority all others, and all others are commanded to obey, and be subject unto them and their Imperial commands, as unto their supreme Pastor here upon earth; it hence avoidable followeth, that Bishops neither without that Imperial command, may in a riotous manner assemble in general Counsels, nor being commanded by them, may deny to assemble, nor being assembled may refuse to be ordered and governed by their Imperial Presidency. 9 After these precepts of GOD, look to the practice of the Church, and you shall see that lawful Synods or Assemblies about Ecclesiastical affairs, have been gathered by no other than Imperial authority, as well in the old as new Testament. In the time of JOSIA when the Temple was purged from those manifold Idolatries, wherewith it was polluted, who assembled Israel? the Priests? no, but the King u 2 Chr. 34.29.30. sent and gathered all the Elders of juda, and went into the house of the LORD with the Priests and Levites: The like had ASA done in the oath of Association, He x 2 Chron. 15.9, 10. gathered all juda. SALOMON in the Dedication of the Temple, He y 2 Chron. 5.2. assembled the Elders and the heads of the Tribes; DAVID in bringing the Ark, and in ordering the offices of the Temple, DAVID z 1 Chron. 13.5. & cap. 15.4. gathered all Israel together; He a 1 Chron. 23.2. gathered together then all the Princes, with the Priests and Levites: HEZECHIA in cleansing the house of the Lord, b 2 Chron. 29.4. He gathered the Priests and Levites, called c Ibid. v. 11. them his sons; and they were gathered together, juxta d Ibid. v. 15. mandatum Regis, according to the commandment of the King. joshua at the renewing of the Covenant, He e josh. 24.2. assembled all the Tribes of Israel. And to mention no more, (for what King is there, or judge, or Captain, who had all kingly authority, though somewhat qualified and tempered in them more than in Kings) who is not an example hereof? Consider but Moses, who was the first that had sovereignty in their commonwealth; how often and still with a warrant from God did he assemble the people upon urgent occasions? At the first making of the covenant with God, Moses called f Exod. 19.7. the Elders; at the publishing of the law, Moses brought g Exod. 19.17. the people out of their tents unto God: after the bringing of the two Tables from God, Moses assembled all h Exod. 35.1. the congregation of Israel: at the anointing and investing of Aaron, Moses i Levit. 8.3, 4. assembled all the congregation: at the repeating of the Covenant, he k Deut. 5.1. & ca 31.28. commanded all the Elders of the Tribes of Israel to come unto him. Yea at the very first time, when God appointed him to be a Captain and Ruler over his people, even than God gave unto him that authority (which afterwards he renewed in the tenth l Num. 10.2. Make thee two Trumpets, that thou mayst use them for the assembling of the congregation. of Numbers) to congregate and assemble the people of God; Go, saith God m Exod. 3.16. , and gather the Elders of Israel together: thereby teaching the power of assembling God's people to be inseparably annexed unto Imperial, regal, and sovereign authority; that none hath the one who hath not the other by the very warrant of God committed unto him, to the end the assemblies of God's people might not be tumultuous and seditious, as was that of Demetrius, and of Corah n Num. 16.2. etc. , Dathan, and Abiram, which the Lord severely revenged, but lawful and orderly, as God is the author not of confusion, but of order in all Churches, and in all ages of the Church. 10. Come we to the times of the Gospel. The power and rightful authority to call Synods was ever in the Emperors and Kings, even in those three hundred years while the Church was in most grievous persecution under Heathen Emperors: The right and power was in the Heathen as well as in Christian Emperors; in Tiberius as well as Theodosius; in Dioclesian, as well as in Constantine or justinian. But that power which they rightly had, they did not use aright: not to call Synods to maintain the faith, but to abolish Synods, Bishops, Christians, and utterly extirpate the Christian faith. Now because Christ had laid an absolute necessity o 1 Cor. 9.16. Matth. 28.19. upon the Apostles, and their successors, to feed, to teach, and maintain the doctrine of faith; and seeing they could not do this with the allowance, or so much as connivance of the Emperors, who in duty should have protected them in so doing, yea have caused them so to do; this very necessity enforced them, and was a lawful warrant unto them, both to feed the flock, preach the Gospel, and to hold Synods in the best and most convenient manner that they then could, not only without, but against the will and command of the Emperors, that higher command of Christ overruling theirs. Whereby are warranted as lawful, to say nothing of that Acts 15. those Synods at Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus at Rome, against the Novatians in Africa, many in the time of Cyprian, and diverse the like. For even the law of God, to yield unto neccessity, the example of David p Matth. 12.1, 2. etc. , the doctrine of our Saviour, doth demonstrate; besides those many Maxims, which are all grounded on this truth, as, that necessity q Necessitas non habet legem, sed ipsa sibi ●acit legem. Caus. 1. q. 1 ca 39 Remissionem. hath no law, nor is subject to any law, but is a law of itself: that many things are lawful in case of necessity r Gloss. in cap. Discipulos de consec. distinct. 5. in marg. , which otherwise are unlawful: that of Leo, Inculpabile judicandum quod necessitas intulit; s Citatur à johanne 8. in Epist. 19●. §. Nos. that is blameless which necessity doth warrant: and many the like, which Pope john t Ibidem. allegeth. This, and nothing else, doth declare those Synods to have been lawful, though assembled without Imperial authority: as the times were extraordinary, so their extraordinary assembling was by those times of necessity made lawful. But as soon as Emperors began to profess the faith, and to use their own, and Imperial authority, in assembling Bishops for consulting about causes of faith, the Catholic Bishops knowing that from thence that law of Necessity was now expired and out of date, attempted not then to come to Synods uncalled, nor refused to come when they were called; though sometimes they came with an assured expectance of the crown of Martyrdom before they departed; as in the Counsels of Milan, Arimine, and Syrmium, called by the Arrian Emperor Constantius, is most clear. 11. Hence it is that all the ancient general Counsels, yea all that were held for the space of a thousand years after Christ, were all assembled by no other than this Imperial authority. Take a short view of some, and of the chief of them. Of the first Nicen, Eusebius l Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 6. saith, Constantine assembled this Ecumenical Council, he called the Bishops by his letters, and his call was mandatory, for Mandatum erat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad hanc rem, Constantine commanded that they should come. The very Synod itself writeth thus in their Synodall letters, We are assembled m Citantur verba, tum à Socr. lib. 2. ca 6. tum à Theodor. lib. 1. ca 11. by the grace of God, & mandato Imperatoris, and by the mandate of Constantine the Emperor: so Christopherson translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both in Socrates and Theodoret. Of the second, their own Synodall Epistle to Theodosius witnesseth; We came n Epist. Synod. Conc. Const. 1. apud Bin. to. 1. Conc. pa. 518. hither, ex mandato tuae pietatis, by the command of your Imperial highness. Of the third Council, the Synodall acts and Epistles are clear witnesses: Your Highness hath commanded o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. jussit suo pio edict. Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 4. ca 11. by your holy Edict, the Bishops out of the whole world to come to Ephesus. Again, the synod p Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca 1. being assembled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Edict, decree, authority and appointment of the Emperor: and the like is repeated I think not so little as threescore times in those Acts. And as they came at the Emperor's command, so would they not depart without his leave and licence. We beseech q Epist. Synodi ad Imper. to. 2. Act. Conc. Eph. ca 17. your piety that you will at length free us from this exile: and the Emperor granted their request: for, injungit r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca 11. eyes, he commanded & enjoined them to return to their own Cities: and again, Regio s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ibid. mandato imperatum est singulis Episcopis, there was a mandate to all the Bishops by the Emperor to return to their own Provinces. Of the Council at Chalcedon, the whole Synod saith in their Epistle to Pope Leo, This t Epist. Syn. Chalc. post Act. 16. holy and general Synod was assembled by the grace of God, & sanctione Imperatorum, and by the sanction or decree of our most holy Emperors. Again, this synod was gathered, ex decreto u Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 1. Imperatorum, by the decree of the Emperors: secundum jussionem, according to his command. And the like is repeated almost in every action. Of the fifth we showed before that it was called jussione x Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 584. a. piissimi Imperatoris, by the command of the most holy Emperor justinian. Of the sixth it is usually said, it was assembled, secundum y Conc. 6. Act. 1.2.3. & reliquis. Imperialem sanctionem aut decretum, and the like, by the Imperial sanction or decree. And the whole Council in their prosphoneticall oration to the Emperor, saith z Conc. 6. Act. 18 pa. 89. a. unto him; your mansuetude hath congregated this holy and great assembly. Of their second Nicene it is said, that it was assembled, per a Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 1. pa. 297. a. & act. 2. pa. 308 b. & act. 5. pa. 338. b. pium Decretum, Sanctionem, Mandatum, by the holy Decree, Sanction, and Mandate of the Emperors: of that which they call the eighth, the synodal definition expresseth, Quod à b Conc. 8. Act. 10. pa. 897. a. Basilio Imperatore coactum, that it was assembled by Basilius the Emperor; and the whole Synod cried out, We all think so; we all subscribe to these things. And Pope Stephen in his letters to Basilius, speaking of this Synod, saith c Epist. Stephan. post Conc. 8. pa. 900. , Did not the Roman See send Legates to the Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, te imperante, Raderus and Binius translate it, but it is rather to be read, ad imperium, and summam jussionem tuam, the Pope sent Legates, not when Basilius was Emperor, (which was no great honour or token of duty to be done:) but at the most high command of Basilius; which testified his subjection and duty to the Emperor, whom the Pope in that same Epistle acknowledgeth to be the highest d Quam vis supremam Christi in terris personam formamque geris. Steph. Ep. eadem. p. 899. b. person who here upon earth sustains the person of Christ: and in the sixth Action of the same e Conc. 8. act. 6. pa. 886. a. Council, it is said, Imperator hanc Synodum coegit, the Emperor assembled this Synod. 12. Thus all those Counsels which are usually reckoned for general and approved, for the space of a thousand years, were all called by Imperial jussion and command; the religious Emperors exercising that right in commanding all Bishops, even the Popes to such Counsels; all the Bishops, even the Popes, by their willing obedience acknowledging that authority and power to be in the Emperors, and therefore they gladly obeyed those imperial jussions and commands. And as they were all assembled by Imperial calling, so were they all governed by Imperial presidency. That Constantine was Precedent in the Nicene, Pope Stephen in the Epistle lately cited expressly witnesseth: Do you not remember, saith he f Steph. Papa in Epist. ad Basil. Imper. post 8. Conc. , what Pope Silvester said in the Nicene Synod, praesidente ibi S. Constantino, Saint Constantine being Precedent therein. His own Acts in the Council, of moderating g Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Const. ca 13. , and repressing the jars of the Bishops, of burning h Ruff lib. 1. c. 2 their books of accusations and quarrels, of drawing them to unity, that with one consent they should define the causes proposed, do manifest the same: for all these are acts of the Imperial presidency. That Theodosius was Precedent in the second, may appear, not only for that he was present i Ipsoque praesente Theodosio. Epist. justin post Conc. 5. pa. 605. a. therein, and present no doubt as Constantine had been before, as a moderator of their actions; but that small remainder of the Acts of that Council import also the same: for he directed, and that by his Mandatum k Insuperque mandaret Imperator, ut diligens inquisitio fieret. Sozom. lib. 7. c. 6 , what the Bishops should do: and when they out of their partial affections would have preferred each his own friend to the See of Constantinople, the Emperor perceiving that, corrected their partial judgement, jussit l Sozom. lib. 7. ca 7. inscribere chartae, he commanded them to write a bill of such men as they thought fit for the place; himself nominated Nectarius; and though many of the Bishops at first contradicted that choice, yet he drew them all to his sentence, and so the whole Synod consented upon the ordination of Nectarius. 13. For the holy Ephesine Synod, all the Acts are full of this Imperial Presidency. The Emperor's scent Candidianus m Tom. 1. act. Conc. Ephes. ca 32. to keep away tumult, and disorderly n Non licet illo qui necessarij non sunt, dogmatum examen aliquo tumulto impedire. ibid. persons from the Council: to see that no o Vt diligenter prospiciat ne quae gravior dissentio synodi consultationem obturbet. Ibid. dissension and private quarrels might hinder their grave consultations, the free and exact discussion of the causes proposed, and to provide that every one might freely p Vt omnibus & singulis recte perceptis, singuli quod visum suerit, in medio proponant, vel ab aliis proposita, si opus id fuerit, refutare. ibid. and with leisure propose what was needful, and have scope to refute all doubts proposed by others. The Emperors when they heard of the dissensions and disorders among the Bishops, writ unto them to take a better and more peaceable and orderly examination of the cause, saying q Sacr. Imper. ad Synodum, to. 3. act. Conc. Eph. ca 17. , Majestas nostra ea quae acta sunt pro ratis & legitimis habere non potest; our Majesty cannot hold or esteem those acts, done so disorderly, for firm and synodal; nay we decree that all things which hitherto have been done, pro irritis, & nullis habenda esse, shall be accounted of no force, but utterly void and frustrate: than which no greater tokens of Imperial Presidency can be devised. The whole and holy Synod willingly submitted themselves to this presidency. In their proceedings the Emperors letters were their direction r Primo omnium Actorum monumentis reverendas pietatis vestrae literas quasi Facem quandam praemisimus. Ep. synod. ad Imp. to. 2. act. Conc. Eph. ca 22 , and as themselves profess, the very Torch to guide all their actions. In the manifold injuries and contumelies which they endured at the hands of john, with his Conventicle, they fled to the Emperor, beseeching s Etiam atque etiam rogamus vestram Majestatem ut sanct. synod. studium erga Deum agnoscat, ut Candidianum & quinque praeterea ● sacra synodo Episcopos ad se actersat, qui omnia & singula quae Ephest gest● sunt pietati vestrae ordine & coram exponant. Epist. synodi ad Imp. to. 4. act. Conc. Eph. ca 10. & idem ca 11. him to be judge of their equal proceedings, and take an equal exact view and examination of their doings, which upon t Annuit tandem illorum votis Imperator. Bin. in arg. cap. 19 to. 4. act. Conc. Ephes. their request the Emperor did, and called u Vestra pietas nostra supplicatione inflexa mandavit, ut S. Synodus quos voluerit am●d et qui universarum rerum statum coram exponant. Relat. synodi ad Imper. to. 4. act. Conc. Ephes. c. 22 Nostrae praeces sunt ut judicium à tua pietate accipiamus. johan. & convent. cum expetit. ad Imper. Append. ad to. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca 2. pa. 787. b. five Bishops of either part to Constantinople to declare the whole cause unto him; after which being performed, he gave judgement x Decretum regium, to. 5. act. Conc. Ephes. ca 11. for the holy Council, and adnulled all the acts of the Conventicle, as the holy Synod had earnestly and humbly entreated him. So fully and clearly doth that sacred and Ecumenical Council, wherein was the judgement and consent of the whole Catholic Church, both acknowledge this Imperial right of Presidency in the Emperors, and submit themselves unto it. 14. For the Council of Chalcedon, the matter is so evident, that Bellarmine, though struggling against the truth, could not deny it. There were present, saith he y Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 19 §. Quartam. , in this Council secular judges, deputed by the Emperor, who were not judges of controversies of faith, (to give a decisive suffrage therein, for that belongs to no secular man whatsoever) sed tantum an omnia fierent legitime, sive vi & fraud & tumultibus, but they were judges only of Synodall order, whether all things were done lawfully, without force, fraud and tumult. And in this doth the very Imperial Presidency consist. And truly how religiously and worthily those glorious judges performed that honourable office in the synod, all the actions thereof do make manifest: for scarce any matter was done in the synod, but the same was ordered, moderated, and guided by their prudence and authority. The Pope's Legates very insolently took upon them at the beginning, willing that Dioscorus might be put out of the synod, and said z Act. 1. Conc. Chal. pa. 4. b. Aut ille egrediatur, aut nos eximus. , Either let Dioscorus go out, or we will depart. The judges gravely reproved this stomach in the Legates, telling them, If you will be a Si judicis obtines personam, non ut accusator debes prosequi. Ibid. pa. 5. b. judges, you must not prosecute as accusers: nor did they suffer Dioscorus to go away, but commanded him, as was fit, to sit in the place of the Ret. The cause of juvenalis and Thalassius was proposed to the synod; It could not be examined by them, till they had leave from the Emperor; We, said b Act. 4. Conc. Chal. pa. 89. b. the judges, have acquainted the Emperor therewith, and we expect his Mandate herein: and after they had received the Emperor's mind, they then told the synod, Imperator c Ibid. sententiae vestrae permisit de Iuvenale deliberare, the Emperor hath upon your entreaty permitted you to discuss and judge the cause of juvenalis Thalassius, and the rest. In the cause d Act. 4. Conc. Chal. pa. 90. Omnes clamaverunt, Isti haeretici sunt of the ten Egyptian Bish. the Synod had almost pronounced a temerarious sentence against them, as heretical, when indeed they were orthodoxal; the Bishops cried out, Isti haeretici sunt, these ten are heretics. The glorious judges knowing which was manifest, that they forbore to subscribe, by reason of a custom which they had, that they might do nothing without their Patriarch, who was not then chosen; and not as thinking heretically in the faith, moderated the Synod in that matter, saying, e Act. caaem 5. pa. 90 b. Rationabile nobis & clemens videtur; it seems to us to be reason, and an act of clemency, not to have condemned them, but stayed till their Patriarch be chosen: the whole Synod consented to this grave sentence of judges, and made a Canon f Can. 30. Act. 15 for that purpose. In making the very definition of faith, there grew a great dissension in the Synod; some g Non recte habet Definitio, etc. Act. 5. Conc. Chal. pa. 93. b. would have it one, some another way set down; in so much that the Pope's Legates were ready to make a schism, and depart h jubete nobis res●riptum dar● ut revertamur, et ibi Synodus celebretar. Ibid. from the Council, and hold another Council by themselves. The glorious judges proposed a most equal and fitting means to have the matter peaceably debated, and the whole Synod brought to unity: But when outcries i Suggerentur Imperatoriclamores isti, etc. Act. eadem. 5. pa. 94. a. and tumult prevailed above reason, the judges complained of those discords to the Emperor, and, Imperator k Ibid. praecepit, the Emperor commanded them to follow the direction of the judges, which they did, and so with one accord consented on the Definition of faith. The Emperor at the earnest entreaty of Bassianus, commanded l Festinet vestra reverentia causam disc●ter●, etc. Literae Imper. Act. 11. Conc. Chal. pa. 116. b. the Synod to examine the whole cause betwixt him and Stephanus, to which of them in right the the See of Ephesus belonged; The Synod would have given sentence for Bassianus, justitia m Act. eadem pa. 118. b. Bassianum vocat, Equity and right doth call for Bassianus to be the Bishop of that place. The glorious judges weighing the cause more circumspectly, thought that neither of them both could in right be Bishop: The whole Synod being directed by them, altered their opinion, and said n Ibid. , This is a just sentence, this is the very judgement of God. When there was a difference in the Synod, about the dignity of Constantinople, the greater part o Haec omnes dicimus. Act. 16. pa. 137. a. holding one way, and the Pope's Legates the contrary p Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat. Ibid. , the glorious judges judicially q Quod interlocuti sumus tota Synodus approbavit, dixerunt judices. I●. sentenced, which was to stand for the judgement of the Synod; and the whole Council in their synodal letter consented r Confirma vimus regulam 150. patrum, etc. Relatio Synodi ad Leonem post Conc. Chal. pa. 100L. a. thereunto. So many, so manifest evidences there are of the Imperial Presidency in that holy Council, not any of all those Catholics once repining at, or contradicting the same. 15. For the fifth, that it was ordered by the Imperial authority, may appear, in that both the Emperor was sometimes by s Cum Iustinianus Synodo interess●t. Zonar. Ann. to. 3. in justin. himself, sometimes by his glorious t Coll. 1. Conc. 5. et Coll. 7. judges, present in the Synod, and specially in that he took order, that liberty u M●ximè, cum pijssimus Imperator et nos ipsi licentiam dedimus unicaique suam voluntatem facere manifestan, sic dixit Synodus. Coll. 2. pa. 524. b. and synodal freedom should be observed therein; yea, as the whole Synod testifieth, he did x Coll. 7. p. 582. ● omnia, all things which preserve the peace of the Church, and unity in the Catholic faith: The sixth Council is abundant with proofs of this presidency: Macarius said, O our most holy Lord, iubeto y Conc. 6. Act. 1 pa. 8. b. libros proferri, command that the books be produced; and the Emperor answered, jubemus, we command them to be brought; we command them to be read; and it was done. The Pope's Legates say, Petimus z Act. 3. Conc. 6. pa. 11. a. serenitatem vestram, we entreat your highness that this book may be examined; the Emperor answered, Quod postulatum est proveniat, let that be done which you request: Again, O most holy Lord, we entreat a Ibid. pa. 11. b. , that the letters of Pope Agatho may be read; the Emperor's answer was, what you have desired, let it be done; and they were read: Macarius having collected certain testimonies out of the Fathers, for his opinion, entreated the Emperor, jubeto b Act. 5. pa. 25. b relegi, that he would command them to be read; his answer was, let them be read in order, and so they were: The Pope's Legates said, petimus, we entreat c Act. 6. pa. 27 a your highness, that the authentic Copies may be produced out of the registry; his answer was, fiat, let it de done: The whole Synod entreated, If it d Act. 8. pa. 30. a please your piety, let Theodorus and the rest, stand in the midst, and there make answer for themselves; his answer was, What the Synod hath moved, fiat, let it be done: George Bish. of Constantinople said, O our Lord, crowned by God, command * Ibid. that the name of Pope Vitalianus may be set in the diptychs; his answer was, quod postulatum est, fiat, let that be done which he hath requested. The Emperor commanded e Act. eadem 8. pa. 30. b. the books of Macarius to be read; the whole Synod answered, Quod jussum est, what your highness hath commanded shall be performed. After the authentical letters of Sergius, & Pope Honorius had been read in the Synod, the glorious judges called f Act. 13. pa 67. a. b. for the like authentical writings of Pyrrhus, Paulus, Peter, and Cyrus, to be produced and read: the whole Council answered g Sanctum Concilium dixit, Hoc fieri superfluum judicavimus, etc. Ibid. pa. 67. b. , that it was superfluous, seeing their heresy was manifest to all: the judges replied, omnino h Ibid. necessarium existit, this is necessary; that they be convicted out of their own writings; and then their writings were produced. I omit the rest, whereof every Action of that Synod is full; and by those Acts the Presidency in Counsels doth so clearly belong to Emperors, and that also by the acknowledgement i Praesidente eodem pijssimo Imperatore Constantino. Act. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11. of that whole general Council, that Albertus Pighius being unwilling to yield to this truth, hath purposely writ k Act. Pigh. lib. de Acts 6. et 7. Synodi quae circumferuntur, quod parengrapha sint et minimè germana. a most railing and reviling Treatise against this holy general Synod, condemning both this Council, and these Acts, as unlawful, for this among other reasons, because the Emperor with his judges, plena l Lib. eodem § At Concilio illi authoritate Praesidet, is Precedent with full authority in the same; he doth all, he proposeth, he questioneth, he commandeth, he examineth, he judgeth, he decreeth: And yet in all these he doth nothing but what belongs essentially to his Imperial authority; nothing but what Constantine, Theodosius, Martian, and justinian had done before him, and done it with the approbation and applause of the whole Church, and of all the Catholic Bishops in those holy general Counsels; and he performed this with such uprightness and equality, that he professed, necessitatem m Sacra Imp. Constantini Pogon. ante 6. Conc. pa. 6. b. nullatenus inferre volumus, we will enforce no man, but leave him at his own freedom in sentencing the causes proposed, and, aequalitatam n Ibid. utriusque partis conservabimus; we will be equal and indifferent judges betwixt both parties. 16. In the second Nicene, though by the fraud of Anastasius there be not many, yet are there some prints remaining of this Imperial presidency; We have received, say the Emperors o Conc. Nic. 2. a Act. 1. pa. 300. , letters from Hadrian Bish. of Rome, sent by his Legates, qui et nobiscum in Concilio sedent, who also sit with us in the Synod: Those letters, jubemus publicè legi, we command to be publicly read according to the use in Counsels, and we command all you to mark them with decent silence: After that, you shall read two quaternions also sent from the Bishops in the East; and the whole Synod obeyed the Imperial commands. Pope Hadrian himself was not ignorant of this right in the Emperors, when sending his Pontifical and Cathedral judgement concerning the cause of Images, he said thus unto them, We p Epist, Hadr. Papa ad Imp. lecta in Con. Nic. 2. Act. 2. in fine Epist. offer these things to your highness with all humility, that they may be diligently examined, for we have but perfunctoriè, that is, for fashion, and not exactly gathered these testimonies, and we have delivered them to your Imperial Highness to be read, entreating and beseeching your mansuetude; yea, and as if I were lying q Et veluti praesentes genibus advoluti, et coram vestigia pedum volutando. Ibid. at your feet, I pray and adjure you that you will command holy Images to be restored. Thus he. When the Pope calls the Emperors his r Dominis pijssimis Constantino et Irene Hadrianus servus servorum Dei. Inscript. Ep. Haar. Lords, and submits both his own person to their feet, and his judicial sentence to such trial, as they shall think fit, doth not this import an higher Presidency in the Emperor, than either himself or his Legates had in the Synod? Nay, it is further to be remembered, which will remain as an eternal blot of that Synod, that Irene the Empress, not contenting herself with the Imperial, which was her own rightful authority, intruded herself into the Episcopal also; she forshooth would be a s Synodus illa (Nicena) mulierem Institutricem sive Doctricem habuisse per●ibetur; quod non solum divina legis documentis, sed ipsius naturae lege inhibetur. Car. magni l●ber dict. Capitulare de non adorand. Imag. lib. 3. ca 13. Aliud est matremfamilias domesticos erudire; aliud Antislitibus sine omni Ecclesiastico ordine, vel publicae Synodo docentem inter esse. Ibid. Doctrix in the Council; she present among the Bishops to teach the whole Council what they should define in causes of faith: Perversas Constitutiones tradere; she took upon her to give Constitutions, and those impious also, unto them: Those Constitutions backed with her sword and authority; the Bishops of the Council had not the hearts and courage to withstand: All which is testified in the Libri Carolini, which in part were written t Quod o●us aggressi sumus cum conhibentia Sacerdotum, non arrogantiae supercilio, sed zelo Dei et veritatis study. Carol mag. praesatio, et Cap. ultimum illius libri fuisse Caroli agnoscit Had. in sua Epist. 3. ca 25. pa. 281. a. , and wholly set forth by Charles the great, being for the most part composed by the Council at Frankfourd u Libri Carolini scripti videntur in Concilio Francofordiensi. Belt. lib. 2. de Conc. ca 8. § Primo quia. , and approved by them all in that great synod. A truth so clear, that Pope Adrian in his reply to those Caroline books, denyeth not Irene to have done this, (which had easily and evidently refuted that objection, and discredited those Caroline Books for ever) but he x Hadr. Epist. 3.3. ca 53. defends her fact by the examples of Helena and Pulcheria, to which this of Irene is so unlike, that for this very cause she is by the whole Council of Frankford y Lib. Carol. lib. 3. ca 13. , consisting of three hundred Bishops, or thereabouts, resembled to the tyrannising and usurping Athalia. Lastly, when that whole Synod came to the Kingly City for the Imperial confirmation of their Acts, seeing it is expressly testified by Zonaras z Commentaria in regia Praesidentibus Imperatoribus recitarunt, quae statim obsignatae sunt. Zonar. to. ●. in vita Iren. et Const. , and Paulus Diac●●●s a Ingressi sunt omnes Episcopi in regiam, et praesidentibus Imperatoribus una cum Episcopis, lector est tomus, et subscripsit tam Imperator, quam matter ejus. Paul Diac. histor. misc. lib. 23. in a●. ●. Const. , that the Emperor was Precedent in that assembly of the Bishops, why should it not by like reason be thought, that both himself when he was present, and in his absence the secular judges, his Deputies, held the same Imperial Presidency in the Nicene Synod? 17. For that which they call the eighth general Council, both the Emperor's Deputies are called Precedents i Magnificentissimi praesides dixerunt Act. 9 § Lecta. ; and in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth actions it is expressly said, Presidentibus Imperatoribus, the Emperor's being Precedents; yea, and both of them by their very actions declared their presidency. The Pope's Legate k Repugnantibus Apost. sedis legatis, utpota quod sententia Rom. Poncificum condemnati audiri iterum non deberent. Bar. an. 869. nu. 27. would not have permitted Photius and his Bishops to be heard; the Emperor's Deputies overruled l Advocentur cum Photio Episcopi quoque Photiani, quod nisi fiat, literam in hac Synodo scribemus nullam. Verba judic. saec. in Conc. 8 Act. 4. pa. 883. b them, as was fit, in that matter; yea, they said to the Photian Bishops, Imperator m Verba Bahanis in Conc. 8. citata à Nich. Cusan. lib. 3. Concor. ca 20. jubet et vult, the Emperor's will, pleasure, and command is, that you should speak in your own cause. Of the Emperor they entreat liberty to defend themselves, Rogamus domine n Conc. 8. Act. 6. verba sunt Metropolitae Caesariensis, pa. 886. b Imperator; we beseech you, our Lord and Emperor, that without interruption we may defend our cause: When the books of Photius were brought into the Synod, and burned in the midst thereof, this was done, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o Act. 8. p. 893. a , the Emperor commanding it, and many the like. 18. Now these eight are all which are accounted by them in the number of general and approved Counsels, for the space of more than a thousand years after Christ: Of all which seeing it is now clear, that they were both called by Imperial authority, and governed by Imperial presidency, it hence appeareth, that as by the warrant of the Scriptures, and example of the ancient Church before Christ, so also by the continued practice of the whole Catholic Church, for a thousand years together; these rights of calling and ordering general Counsels do belong, and were acknowledged to belong only to Kings and Emperors; they called and commanded the Bishops, the Bishops came at that call and command: they governed the assemblies in those Counsels, all the Bishops (without murmuring or so much as once contradicting) willingly submitted themselves to that Imperial government. And by this may now easily be discerned wherein the lawfulness or unlawfulness of any Synod consisteth: For wheresoever to Imperial calling, and Imperial presidency, there is added the rightful use of that Imperial authority, in seeing liberty, freedom, diligent discussion of the causes, and all due synodal order preserved in any general Synod, the fame is, and aught to be truly called a general lawful Council: But what general Counsels soever have been heretofore, or shall be at any time hereafter, either assembled by any other than Imperial, and regal authority, or governed for the observing of synodal order, by any other than Imperial presidency, or misgoverned by the abuse thereof, they all are, and are to be esteemed for no other than general unlawful Counsels. 19 Suffer me here to propose some examples of each kind, partly in the ancient, partly in the later times of the Church: In the order of lawful general Counsels, principally, and by a certain excellency above all the rest, are the five first approved Counsels to be reckoned: The first at Nice, the second at Constantinople, the third at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth at Constantinople in the time of justinian; unto these the Sardicane, and that at Constantinople under Mennas, are to be added, like two Appendent Synods; the former to that at Nice, the later to that at Chalcedon: For the sixth, which was held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Pogonatus, I am out of doubt, and do firmly hold it to have been both general and lawful: But I mention it apart by reason of that scruple touching the Canons thereof, concerning which I intent, if ever I have opportunity, to make a several tract by itself. For their second Nicene, and the next unto it, to wit, that at Constantinople, in the time of Basilius and Hadrian the second; besides that there are just exceptions against their lawfulness, in regard of the proceedings used therein, it may be justly doubted whether either of them may be esteemed general: specially considering that the Council at Frankford utterly condemned p Synodus quae ante p●ucos annos sub Iren● & Constantino congregata, & ab ipsis non solum▪ septima ver●●tiā unive●salis erat appellata ut nec septima nec universalis haberetur, dicereturve, quasi supe●vacua in totum ab omnibus (in Conc. Francofordensi) abdicata est. Aim. lib. 4. ca 85. Similia habet Ade Vien. in Chron. Hin●m. Rhem. in lib. contra Hinem. Land. ca 20. Rhegino, Hermann. Strabus Fuld. Egolis. Monac. & alit quam multi. that second Nicene, and decreed that it should not be called a general Synod: and in very like manner did the Council at Constantinople, held in the time of Pope john the eighth, (or as some call him the ninth,) the next successor to Hadrian the second, condemn q Quartus Canon (Conci●ii Constant. sub. johan 8) superiores synodos adversus Photiu●● habitas Nicholai & Hadriani temporibus explodit, & rejicit imo ut de Synodorum numero tollantur jubet. Fran. Turrian. lib. the 6, 7, & 8. synod. pa. 95. that Council which they call the eighth, held in the time of Hadrian the second. Now although by the judgements of these two Counsels, those other which they reckon for the seventh and eighth be wholly repealed, and that most justly; yet if the authority of these Synods were omitted, there are so many and so just exceptions against the two former, that I am out of doubt persuaded, that neither of them ought to stand in the order of general lawful Counsels: nor will any, I suppose, judge otherwise, who shall unpartially examine the Acts of them, & compare them with the histories of those times. If any at all after the sixth be to be ranked in the number of general and lawful Counsels, I would not doubt to make it evident, if ever I should proceed so far in this argument about Counsels, that the Council held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus (whom they in contempt have with no small token of their immodesty nicknamed Copronimus) that this aught to be judged the seventh; that at Frankford the eighth; and that at Constantinople, which even now I mentioned, held in the time of Pope john the eighth, (or as some call him, the ninth) the ninth of that order. For both the generality of all these three is by the best Writers acknowledged, and all of them were called by Imperial authority, governed by Imperial presidency, and that in a lawful, free, and synodal manner; as, if ever I come to handle the Counsels of those times, I purpose to explain. This rather for this time I think needful to observe: that as a Council may be general, and yet not lawful, so may one be both general and lawful, and yet erroneous in the decrees thereof: which one point rightly observed, shows an exceeding difference betwixt those five first general Counsels, with the Sardicane, and that under Mennas, and all the rest which follow the fifth Synod. The former which were all held within the six hundred years after Christ, in the golden ages of the Church, are wholly, and in every decree and Canon, orthodoxal, and golden Counsels, no dross, nor dram of corrupt doctrine could prevail in any one of them: and so they are, and ever since they were held, were esteemed not only general and lawful, but in every part and parcel of their decrees, holy and orthodoxal Counsels, approved by all Catholics, and by the whole Catholic Church. But in all general Counsels which follow that fifth, which were held after the 600. year, and in those times wherein dross and corruption began to prevail above the gold, in them all there is some one blot or other wherewith they are blemished, and by reason whereof, although they be both general and lawful, yet are they not in every decree holy and orthodoxal, nor approved by the succeeding ages of the Church. Such in the sixth, is the 2.52. and 53. Canons: in that under Constantinus Iconomachus, the 15. and 17. definitions: in that at Frankford, their condemning of the fact of the Iconoclasts, which (until the decree for breaking them down was repealed by the Council at Frankford) was both pious, and warranted by the example of Hezekias dealing with the brazen serpent: In that under john the 8. their denying of the holy Ghost to proceed from the Son: And these examples which I have now named, are all the examples of general and lawful Counsels, which as yet have been held in the Church. 20. We come now to unlawful Synods: wherein it is very memorable, that of such as are unlawful by want of lawful calling, there is no example in the ancient Church to be found, nor more than a thousand years after Christ. All that time not any general Council assembled without lawful warrant. The Bishops, no not they of Rome, were as yet grown to be so insolent and headstrong as to come together without the Emperors Mandatum. And the very like might be said of such Synods as are unlawful by want of Imperial presidency. During all that time no Bishop, no not he of Rome, durst intrude himself into that Royalty and Imperial right. As the Emperor called them all for a thousand years, so was he by himself or his deputies Precedent in them all. But of such as were unlawful by abuse of that Imperial presidency, those ancient times do yield abundant examples. Such among many was that at Milan, wherein Constantius, who should have preserved order in all others, most of all in his own self used such violent and tyrannous dealing, that the only Canon r Athan. in Epist. ad solit. vit. agent pa. 228. b. whereby he ruled the Synod, was his own will: Quod ego volo pro Canone sit; My will shall be your law: and the only reason whereby he persuaded, was a most tyrannous Dilemma, Aut subscribite s Ibid. , aut exulate; either subscribe to Arianism, or go into banishment. Such again was that Ephesine latrociny; When Dioscorus could not otherwise prevail, he brought t Introduxerunt proconsulem cum multitudine magna, & catenis. Act. Conc. Ephes. in Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 39 a. Violenta facta est vis, cum plagis. Minabatur nobis damnatio, minae exilij tendebantur, milites cum sustibus & gladiis instabant. ibid. Act. 1. pa. 7. b. the Proconsul guarded with clubs, with swords, with chains, and by such means forced the Bishops to subscribe to blanks u In pura charta subscripsimus. ibid. pa. 7. b. , and to the heresy of Eutiches; such fraud, violence, and unjust proceedings, whereby all liberty was taken away, made that Synod, though lawfully called, and having a rightful Precedent, to be no other than a very Lattocinie x Vbi gladii & fustes, qualis synodus? ibid. , as it is usually and y Aliud Ephesi Concilium latronum cogitur. Epist. justin. ad 5. synod. p. 605. b justly called. Of this same sort was the Council at Arimine, at Syrmium, and diverse more of the ancient Synods. But these are sufficient for examples in those ancient times: the unlawfulness of them all arising only from the abuse of the Imperial and lawful authority, not for want of lawful authority either to assemble them, or govern them being assembled. 21. Let us come lower, and to later times, and then we shall have abundance of examples of all kinds of unlawful Synods. Since the thousand year after Christ, there have been ten which they honour with the specious titles of general z Din. in to●●is suits Concit. & Bell. l●b. 1. de Conc. ca 5. & alij. and holy Counsels. All of them held in the West, five at Rome in the Lateran; three in France, (two of them at Lions, the third at Vienna;) two in Italy, the one at Florence, the other, which is the last and worst of all, at a Tridentum non Germanicam esse, sed Italicam civitatem nemo est qui nesciat. Gravan. oppose Conc. Trident. pa. 36. Trent. For their generality it is not unknown what just exceptions may be taken against them. Seeing in four b Omitto quinque alia Concilia generalia, quia nec à Graecis recipiuntur, cum ipsi non intersuerint,— nimick, Lugdunense sub Innocent. 4. Viennensi sub Cleme●te 5. Constantiense, Lateranense sub Leone 10. & Tridentinum. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 13. § Denique of them none, in the rest but very few of the Eastern Bishops were present, they ought rather to be called partial, than general; Western, than Ecumenical Synods. That the greeks held them not for general, both that speech of theirs in the Council of Florence c Concil. Flor. Sess. 5. p. 42●. ●● Sunt autem verba Mar●i Ephesii, praec●●ri T●eologi, qui pro Grae. is causam egit, ut liquet ex sess. 3. pa. 415. b. , Venio ad septimum & ultimum generale Concilium: where they profess the second Nicene to be the last which they acknowledge for a general Council: and the words of Bellarmine do make evident; Graeci d Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 5. §. Ex 〈◊〉. tantum recipiunt prima septem Concilia ut notum est; It is a thing vulgarly known, that the Greek Church receiveth none but the seven first for general Counsels. And yet if we should admit them (as we may not) for general, what more honour were it for them that they were general, than for the Council at Ariminum, at Syrmium, at Milan, and the Ephesine Latrocine: the worst of all which is by many degrees, for sanctity and due synodal order, to be preferred before the best of their ten. But besides this of their generality, there is another exception which can never be removed, concerning their lawfulness. They all and every one of them are unlawful Synods: and that by defect of all those conditions which are essentially required in all lawful general Counsels. 22. Unlawful first they are by want of lawful calling and authority to assemble them: not one of them assembled by Imperial, all by Papal and usurped authority. The Popes, saith Bellarmine e Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 13 §. Ad haec. , have called more than twelve general Counsels: Of those, these which we have named were ten. Of the first Lateran, which is the first of the ten, Binius f Bin. Not. in Con●. Lateran 1. § Concilium. to. 3. pa. 1317. a. saith, It was appointed, solius Pontificis authoritate, by the authority of the Pope alone. Of the next, which was the second Lateran, wherein were present about a thousand Bishops, It was Innocentius g 〈…〉 Pontisex hanc Synodum congregatam volucrii, 〈◊〉. Bin. Not. in Conc. ●ater. 2. pa. 1325. a. will to congregate it. Of the third at Lateran (which is also the third in order) It was assembled, Papae authoritate h Bin. Not. in id. Conc. pa. 1350. b. , by the authority of Pope Alexander. Of the fourth Lateran, (the fourth also in order) wherein among many other like matters, Transubstantiation was first of all decreed, more than twelve hundred years after Christ, Authoritate i Bin. Not. in Conc. Lateran. 4. pa. 1465. b. Innocentij indicta esse indicat apertissime Encyclica epistola, the encyclical Epistle doth most manifestly show that it was appointed by the Pope's authority. Of the fifth, which was the former at Lions, This Synod was appointed and congregated, A k Bin. Not. in Conc. Lugd. 1. to. 3. pa. 1490. a. solo Pontisice, by the Pope alone, and by his authority. Of the sixth, which was the second at Lions, Pope Gregory Indixit Bin. Not. in Conc. 2. Lugdun▪ (ex Blond.) p. 1495. a. hoc Concilium, appointed this Council. Of the seventh, which was at Vienna, Pope Clement m Bin. (ex Tritem.) Not. in Conc. Vien. to. 3. Conc. pa. 1510. a. indixit Concilium, appointed this Council. Of the Florentine, which is the eighth, This Synod was ab n Bin. Not. in Conc. Florent. to. 4. pa. 495. b. Eugenio indicta, appointed by Eugenius, at the entreaty of the Emperor. Of the ninth, which was the fifth Lateran, This was appointed and assembled, Authoritate o Bin. Notis in Con. Later. 1. sub Leone 10. to. 4. Conc. pa. 651. julij Papae, by the authority of Pope julius: nor only was itself so assembled, but it p Conc. Later. sub Leone 10. Sess. 11. p. 639. b decreed (which was never done before) that all general Counsels ought to be so assembled. For the last (which is their fair Helen q Haec est Helena, quae nuper Tridenti obtinuit. Espenc. come. in Epist. ad Tit. pa. 42. of Trent) the Pope's Bull, whereby he appointed, summoned, and assembled it, is set in the forefront of it; wherein the Pope saith, Conventum r Pauli 3. Bulla indict. praefixa Act. Conc. Trid. Mantuae indiximus, we have appointed that this Council should be held at Mantua; but afterwards he removed it to Trent. 23. Thus were all the ten assembled by Papal, not one of them by Imperial authority. For though some Emperors and Kings consented indeed unto some of them; as to the first Lateran, Henry 5. to that at Vienna, Philip of France, and so in some others; yet the consent of Emperors and Kings is not sufficient for holding a Council, the authority by which the Bishops are called and come together, must be regal: which in all these, as Bellarmine s Cur tunc non solus Pontifex concilia indixerit, ut postea factum est, rationnes multae sunt. Bell. lib. 1. de Concil. ca 13. §. Habemus. truly teacheth, was only pontificial. Again, that very consent to hold those Counsels which Kings then gave, was a servile consent, not Imperial; nor was it free and willing, but coacted and extorted. They knew certainly by the dealing of Pope Hildebrand with Henry the fourth, what they might expect, if they withstood the Pope's will, or wrestled with such a Giant: no less than the loss of their Crowns had been the censure for denying to consent to what the Pope would have them: their consent was no other, but that by the Pope's authority the Synod should be called and held, a consent that the Synod should be called by an unlawful and usurped authority; even such a consent, as if a rightful King being overcome by a Rebel, should for fear of his life consent that the Rebel should call and assemble a Parliament, and there enact what laws himself listed. It is the authority by which those Counsels were gathered, not by whose consent they were gathered; of which we do now inquire. The authority whereby they were assembled was only in the Pope, though to that authority Emperors and Kings consented: and as they are not a little brag that the Pope could do such worthy acts by his authority; so are we so far from denying him to have done this, that we willingly profess the same: but withal do affirm, which inevitably ensues thereof, that even for this very cause all those Counsels are unlawful, because they were called by Papal, and not by Imperial authority. This demonstrates them to have assembled without lawful authority, to have been nothing else than so many great Routs and Riots in the Church, so many tumultuous and disorderly Conventicles, so much more odious both in the sight of God and men, as those who tumultuously and without authority convented, should have been patterns of piety, obedience, and order unto others. 24. Yea and this very exception which may equally be opposed against them all, was most justly taken (to omit the rest) against their Trent Riot, when it was congregated by that Papal and usurped authority. The King Innoc. Gentil. in Examine. Con. Trid. lib. 2. in ●nitie. of England gave this as a reason of his refusal to send to it, because the right to call Counsels belonged to Kings and Emperors, nullam vero esse potestatem penes Pontificem, but the Pope had no authority to call or assemble a Council. The French King writ a letter to them at Trent, and the superscription u Gent. in Exam. sess. 12. Conc. Trid. pa. 96. & joh. Sleid. Comment. lib. 22. pa. 332. b. etseq. was, Conventui Tridentino: The Fathers stormed and snuffed a long while at that, disdaining that the King should write Conventui, and not▪ Concilio, and hardly were they persuaded to read his letter: At last, when credence and audience was obtained for james Aimiot his Legate, he signified before all the Trent Fathers, that the King protested and published to all, (as also before he had done at Rome) that he accounted not that assembly pro Oecumenico & legitimo Concilio, sed pro privato Conventu; not for a general Council, but for a private Convent, gathered together for the private benefit and good of some few; adding, se suosque subditos nullo vinculo ad parendum his quae in eo decreta fuerint obstrictos iri; that he and his subjects would not be tied by the decrees thereof: exhorting further that this his protestation might be recorded among the Acts of their Synod, and that all Christian Kings might have notice thereof. The Electours x Epit. rerum in e●be g●s●. sub F●●d. 1. an. 1261. apud Scard. tom. 3. pa. 2171. etseq. and Princes of Germany being assembled at Nurimberge, when Zacharias Delphinus, and Franciscus Commendonius the Popes Legates came to warn them in the Pope's name y Summus Pontifex sacrum Concilium Tridenti celebrandi● authoritate divinicus sibi tradita decrevit; nosque ablegavit nuncios suos qui ●ij Pontificis nomine singulos conveni●emus, et r●garemus 〈◊〉 ad Concilium hoc accederent. ibid. to come, or send to the Council of Trent, returned this answer unto them, Mirantur illustrissimi Electores & Principes, the most illustrious Electours and Princes do wonder, that the Pope would take upon him, Celsitudinibus suis Concilij indictionem obtrudere, to obtrude to their Celsitude his appointment of a Council, and that he durst call them to Trent; adding, we would have both the Pope and you his Legates to know, that we acknowledge no such authority in the Pope, and we are certainly persuaded by the undoubted testimonies both of God's law and man's, Concilij indicendi jus Pontificem Romanum non habere; that the Pope hath no authority and right to appoint, call, or assemble a Council. Thus they; whose answer is at large explained in their Gravamina z Gravam. o●●osita Conc. Trid. Causa 1. pa. 21. , where the first reason of their rejecting the Trent assembly is this, quod ea illegitime, & contra manifestum jus indicta sit; because it was appointed and gathered unlawfully, & against manifest right, seeing the Pope who called it, hath no authority to summon or call a Council: Of the same judgement were other Princes. When Hieronimus Martinengus a Epit. rerum in orb. gest. sub F●●. an. 1561. apud Scard. loc. cit. was sent as Legate from the Pope, to call some out of England to that Trent assembly in the time of the late Queen of renowned and blessed memory; è Belgio in insulam traijcere prohibuit; she would not suffer him to set foot in her dominion about such business: Nec b Ibid. diversum ad Reges Daciae & Suetiae missus, responsum retulit; and the Kings of Denmark and Swetia gave the like answer, that the Pope had no right to call a Council. So justly did they dislike and contemn the going to that Synod, even for this cause, and that most justly, esteeming it for no other than a Coventicle, or unlawful assembly. 25. Said I unlawful? that is too soft and mild a word: that, and all the other nine with it, by reason of that Papal calling, were unlawful in the highest degree, even Antichristian: For the authority whereby those Synods were called, belonging in right to Emperors and Kings, and being tyrannically usurped by the Pope, as he by intruding himself into the Imperial royalties, and lifting up himself above all the Vicegerents of God here in earth, that is, above c 2 Thess. 2.4. all that is called God, did thereby proclaim himself to be that man of sin, and display his Antichristian Banner: So on the other side, those Bishops and others, who came at his Papal call, and yielded obedience to him, in such sort usurping, did, eo ipso, in that very act of theirs, receive the mark of the beast, and not only consent, but submit themselves to his Antichristian authority, and fight under the vety Ensigns and Banner of Antichrist: But of this point I have before d Sup. ca 13. entreated, where I showed, that all, even the best actions, (how much more than such tumultuous and turbulent attempts) when they are performed in obedience to the Pope, as Pope, that is, as a supreme Commander, are turned into impious and Antichristian rebellions against God. 26. This rather is needful to be here observed, that not only general, but even Provincial or national Synods are in all Christian Kingdoms to be called only by Imperial, not at all by Papal or Episcopal authority; yea, and they are so called in every well ordered Church: For although there go not forth a particular and express Edict or mandatum from Kings, to assemble them, yet so long as Kings or Emperors do not express their will to the contrary, even that summons which is sent from Primates or other Bishop's subject unto them, hath virtually and implicitè the Imperial authority by which every such Synod is assembled: The reason whereof is this: The holy Nicene Council decreed e Placuit annis singulis per unamquamque Provinciam bis in anno Concilia celebrari. Conc. Nic. Can. 5. , that for the more peaceable government of each Church, there should be two Provincial Synods yearly held by every Primate. Those holy Fathers meant not (as the continual practice throughout the whole Church doth explain) so strictly to define that number of two, as that neither more, nor fewer might be kept in one year: But they judging that, for those times a competent and convenient number, they set it down, but yet as an accidental, ceremonial, and therefore mutable order, if the necessity and occasions of any Church should otherwise require. That which is substantial and immutable in their Canon is, that Provincial Synods shall be held by each Primate so often, and at such times as the necessity and occasions of their Church shall require: and the chief judge of that necessity and fitting occasions is no other than he to whose sword and authority every Bishop is subject, and without whose consent first obtained, they may in no place of his Kingdom assemble together without the note of tumult and sedition. This Nicene Canon, as all the rest, when Constantine f Quae ab Episcopis erant editae regulae Constantinus sua consignabat et confirmabat authoritate. Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Const. ca 2●. , and other succeeding Emperors and Kings approved, (as who hath not approved that holy Council?) they then gave unto it the force of an Imperial law, according to the rule, omnia g ●ib. 1. Cod. de Veter. jure enuc. et lib. 2. Decretal. tit 23. ca ●eut noxius in Glossa. nostra facimus, quibus nostram impartimar authoritatem; we make that our own Act, and our law which we ratify by our authority: And justinian more plainly expressed this, when he said: h Novel. 131. ca 1. Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas regulas; we enact, that the holy Canons of the Church set down in the former Counsels, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, Ephesine, and Chalcedon, shall have the force, and stand in the strength of Imperial laws: By this Imperial assent it is, that when the wisdom of Christian Emperors and Kings doth not otherwise dispose of calling Synods in their dominions, Primates may call the same, two, or more, or fewer in any year, as necessity shall persuade: but whensoever they call any, the same are called, assembled and celebrated by the force of that Imperial authority, which Kings and Emperors have either given to that Nicene Canon, or which they in more explicit manner shall impart unto the Primates or Bishops in their Kingdoms. 27. Now if Provincial Counsels may not, nor ever are lawfully held in Christian Kingdoms without this authority, how much less may general and Ecumenical, the occasions of which being rare and extraordinary, the calling also of them is extraordinary, and both for the time & place, merely arbitrary, at the will of those who have Imperial or regal authority: To say nothing, how inconvenient it is even in civil government, and how dangerous unto Christian States, that all the Bish. of a Kingdom should leave their own Churches naked of their guides, and Pastors, and go into far and foreign Countries, without the command of their Sovereign Lords, especially go at the command of an usurping Commander, and that also, if he require, though their own Sovereigns shall forbid or withstand the same, of the mischief and danger whereof the example of Becket, among many like, may be a warning to all Kingdoms. But leaving that to the grave consideration of others, thus much now out of that which hath been said, is evident; that seeing all those ten forenamed Synods were called and assemble by no other authority than Pontifical, and seeing lawfully assemble they could not, but only by Imperial, it hence clearly ensueth, that for defect of lawful calling and assembling, they are all of them no other than unlawful Counsels: Again, seeing no Synods are congregated in Christ's name i Congregari in nomine Christi nihil aliud est, quam ab eo congregari, qui h●bet à Christo authoritatem congregandi. ●ell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 17. § At hoc. , but such as are assembled by him who hath from Christ authority to assemble them, which in Christian Kingdoms none hath, as we have showed, but only Kings and Emperors: and seeing none of those ten were assembled by them, it hence further and certainly ensueth, that never one of those ten were gathered in Christ's name, and if not in Christ's, then sure in no other but in the name of Antichrist, and so all of them, in respect of their calling, not only unlawful, but even Antichristian Counsels. 28. After their calling consider their proceedings, for as those Counsels were unlawfully assembled, so were they also unlawful by defect of the other essential condition, which is, due and synodal order: for they all not only wanted synodal freedom and order, but, which is worse, they wanted that which is the only means to have synodal freedom and order observed in any general Council, and that is the Imperial presidency: in none of them was the Emperor, in them all k Addamus (his 8. primis) reliqua generalia Concilia, in quibus omnibus sine controversis Pontifex Rom. praesedit. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 20 § Si ergo. the Pope was Precedent: In the first Later one, Calistus l Papa Calixtus 2. coram innumera multitudine Cleri et populi, eidem Concilio (Vienne●sem nominat Vsperdiceret Lateranensi, ut et Bin. agnoscit notis suis in illud Conc.) praesedit. Abb. V●sper. ad an. 1119. et huic Concilio praesedit Pontifex. Bin. notis suis ad id Conc. pa. 1317. ; in the second, Innocentius m Synodus maxima Romae praesidente summo Pontifice Innocentio celebratur. Otho Frising. lib. 7. ca 23. the second; in the third, Alexander n Omnes scriptores fatentur eidem Concilio Pontisicem Romanum praesedisse. Bin. Not. in Conc. Later. 3. § Oecumenicum to. 3. pa. 1351. the third; in the fourth, Innocentius o Ei Pontifex Rom. praesedit. Bin. not. in Conc. Later. 4. to. 3. Con. pa. 1466. the third; and the like might be showed in the rest; but that Bellarmine's words may ease us of that labour, who speaking of all those ten Counsels, saith p Bell. lib. 1. de Con. ca 20. § Si ergo. , In eyes omnibus sine Controversia Pontifex Rom. praesedit; the Pope without doubt was Precedent in them all. 29. Nor was this an Episcopal presidency a pre-eminence only, & precedence before other Bishops in the Synod, such as any Bish. to whom the Emp. pleased to confer that dignity, might lawfully enjoy, & when he gave it to none by name, it then by his tacit consent or permission fell, as it were by devolution upon the chief Bishop that was present in the Council: Such a presidency, though it be not due to the Pope, seeing in the ancient Counsels he neither had it, nor grudged that other should have it, yet are we not unwilling to allow that unto him, if contenting himself therewith he would seek no more: But the presidency which he now desires, and in all those ten Counsels usurped, is merely Imperial; the presidency of governing the Synod, and ordering it by his authority and power, the very same which in all the general Counsels, for a thousand years after Christ, the Emperor held, and had it as one of his Royalties and Imperial rights, none of all the Catholic Bishops in those Counsels ever so much as contradicting, much less resisting the same: For any Bishops, most of all for the Pope, to take upon them such a presidency utterly overthrows all liberty and order in Counsels; for by it all the Bishops are to be kept in awe and order; and the Pope, who of all other is most exorbitant, and farthest out of square, aught by this to be kerbed, & reduced in to order: Even as when Catiline took upon him to be the Ruler and guide to his assembly, and a punisher of disorders among them, though all the rest willingly submitted themselves, and that with a solemn oath q Hos ut se nefando jurejurando adstringerent, adegit, puerum enim mactavit, juramentoque intio super ejus visceribus, eadem ipse cum aliis ●omedit. Dio Cass. lib. 37. , to be ordered by him in their actions; yet for all this order they were no free Roman Senate, but a Conjuration of Conspirators, striving to oppress r Catilinam luxuria primum tum egestas in nefaria Concilia opprimendae pa●ri● impulerae, Senatum confodere, totam rempub. funditus tollere, et quicquid nec Hannibal. videretur optasse. L. Flor. lib. 4. ca 1. the Roman State, liberties, and ancient laws: Right so it is in these Synods, when the Pope, who is the Lord of misrule, and Ringleader of the Conspirators, takes upon him this presidency, to order Counsels, though the ●est not only consent, but bind themselves by a sacred oath s Ego Nic. ab hac hora fidelis ero S. Petro et Ecclesiae Romana dominoque meo Papae. Papatum adjutor ero ad defendendum. Forma est juramenti secundum quam jurant Episcopi et bodiè omnes recipientes dignitatem ● Papa. Extra. de jurejur. ca Ego N. lib. 2. tit. 24. ca 4. , to be subject to his authority; this very usurpation of such presidency doth, eo ipso, exclude and banish all liberty & synodal order, & makes their assemblies mere Conjurations against the truth, and ancient faith of the Church. 30. How could it now be chosen, but that whasoever heresy the Pope with the faction of his Catilinarie Conspirators embraced, should in such Counsels prevail against the truth? The Imperial authority was the only hedge or pale to keep the Pope within his bounds; that being once removed, he said, he did, he decreed what he listed. The rule of his Rigiment was now the old Canon of Constantius, Quod ego volo pro Canone sit: the proof of all their decrees was borrowed from their predecessors, the old Donatists: Quod t Aug. lib. 2. count. Ep. Parm. ca 13. volumus sanctum est. Not Emperors, not Bishops, none might control him or say unto him u Quid excogitare ●erum vel verisimile possunt, quibus non vel Rex vel Caesar, non populus, non clerk's, non generalis Synodus, non denique tota Ecclesia dicere potest, cur ita facis? Cl. Espen. in cap. 1. ad Titum. pa. 76. , Domine, cur ita facis? The Bishops were tied to him by an oath x De quo supra cap. Ego N. Extra. de jure●ur. , to defend the Papacy, (that is, his usurped authority) and defend it, contra omnes homines, against all that should wag their tongues against it. The Emperors and Kings saw how Hildebrand had used, and in most indigne manner misused Henry the 4. how Alexander y Alexander Imperatori jussit ut se humi prosterneret, et Imperatoris collum pede comprimen● ait, Scriptum est, Super Aspidem et Basiliscum ambulabis. Naucl. an. 11●● the third had insolently trodden on the neck of Frederick: what could they, nay what durst they do, but either willingly stoop and prostrate themselves, or else be forced to lie down at the Pope's feet, and say unto him, Tread on us, O thou Lion of the Tribe of judah; and according as it is written, Set thy foot super Aspidem & Basiliscum. Could there possibly be any freedom or order in such Synods, where the only means of preserving freedom and order was banished? Might not the Pope in such Counsels do and decree whatsoever either himself, his will, or faction would suggest unto him? Say they had neither swords, nor clubs, nor other like instruments of violence in those Synods: they needed none of them: This Papal presidency was in stead of them all. It was like the club of Hercules, the very shaking of it was able, and did affright all, that none, no not Emperors durst deal against it. The removing of the Imperial presidency made such a calm in their Synods, that without resistance, without any need of other further violence, the Pope might oversway whatsoever he desired. 31. And truly it may be easily observed by such as attentively read the Ecclesiastical stories, that together with the standing or fall of the Empire, either the ancient faith or heresies prevailed in the Church. So long as the Emperor being Christian, retained his dignity and Imperial authority, no heresy could long take place, but was by the Synodall judgement of Ecumenical Counsels maturely suppressed: the faction of no Bishop, no not of the Pope, being able to prevail against that sovereign remedy. But when once z Ab an. 730 ad an. 800. Gregory the second, Zachary, and their succeeding Popes to Leo the third, had by most admirable and unexplicable fraud & subtlety, clipped the wings and cut the sinews of the Eastern Empire; themselves first seizing upon the greatest part of Italy, by the means of Pippin, and then erecting a new Empire in the West, the Imperial authority being thus infringed, the Eastern Emperor not daring, the Western in regard of the late courtesy received from the Pope, being not willing, and neither of them both being able now to match and justle with the Pope; this which was the great let and impediment to the Pope's faction, and the discovering of the man of sin being now removed, there was no means to keep out of the Church the heresies which the Pope affected: then the Cataracts of heresies being set open, and the depths of the earth, nay of the infernal pit being burst up, heresies rushed in, and came with a strong hand into the Church, and those heretical doctrines which in six hundred years and more could never get head, passing as doubtful and private opinions among a few, and falling but as a few little drops of rain, grew now unto such an height and outrage, that they became the public and decreed doctrines in the Western Church. The Pope once having found his strength in the cause of Images, (wherein the first trial was made thereof) no fancy nor dotage was so absurd for which he could not after that command, when he listed, the judgement of a general Council, Transubstantiation, Proper Sacrifice, the Idol of the Mass, (to which not Moloch nor Baal is to be compared) their Purgatorian fire, their five newfound proper Sacraments, condignity of works, yea Supererogation, and an army of like heresies assailed and prevailed against the truth. The Imperial authority being laid in the dust, and trampled under the sole of the Pope's foot, no means was left to restrain his enormous designs, or hinder him in Counsels, to do and define even what he listed. And as the Imperial authority which he so long time had oppressed, is in any kingdom more or less restored, and freed from his vassalage; the other heresies which arose from the ruin and decay thereof, are more or less expurged out of that Kingdom, and the ancient truth restored therein: Yea and still, though but by insensible degrees, shall he and his authority waste a 2 Thess. 2.8. and consume, till not only all the ten b Apoc. 17.12.16. horns of the Beast (that is, all the Kings whose authority he hath usurped, and used as his horns to push at God's Saints) shall hate the Whore, that Romish Babylon, and make her desolate and naked, and burn her with fire; but till himself also being despised and contemned of his own lovers, shall together with his adherents be utterly abolished, and cast into that Lake of God's wrath. 32. You see now how unlawful those Synods are by reason of the defect of Imperial presidency: you will perhaps demand whether by the want thereof there happened any particular disorder in them, or ought contrary to freedom and synodal order: whereunto I might in a word answer, that there neither was, nor could there be aught at all done in any of those ten Synods with freedom and synodal order. For though otherwise their proceedings had been never so mild, temperate and equal, yet even for that one defect of Imperial presidency, and excludng the same; whatsoever they did was disorderly, and they all nothing but synods of disorder. But yet for further satisfaction of that question, let us (omitting all the rest) consider among very many, some few particulars concerning their youngest and dearest baby of Trent, was that equal dealing in Paul the 3. at the beginning of his Trent assembly, to conspire c Cum Concilium jam haberi inciperet, Imperator et Pontifex clanculum und, de ●●mis ad Protestantes domandos suscipiendis concilium inter se inierunt. Gen. Exam. Trident. Conc. sess. 3. nu. 5 and take secret counsel with the Emperor to make war against the Protestants, and root them out of the world? The Italian Franciscan in his Sermon before Ferdinand, stirring up both him and others to this butchery, Exere vires tuas, pluck up your spirit and strength, and root out that pestiferous kind of men, nefas enim est, for it is unlawful to suffer them any longer to look upon the light: neither say that you will do it, it must be done even now at this present, and without any delay. Thus did he give the watchword, and sound an alarm to their intended Massacre: d job. Sleid. Comment. lib. 16. an. 1545. whereupon there ensued bellum e Gent. loc. cit. nu. 6. cruentum & calamitosum, a bloody and cruel war against the Protestants: concerning which diverse of the Princes of Germany said in their Letters to the Emperor, We f Sleid. Comm. lib. 17. an. 1546 shall so answer that every man may understand, both that injury is done to us, and that you do undertake this war Romani Antichristi & impij Concilij Tridentini impulsu, at the instigation of the Roman Antichrist, and the impious Council at Trent, that the doctrine of the Gospel, and the liberty of Germany may be oppressed. Was this Concilium pacis, or rather Concilium sanguinis, a conspiracy not only against the faith, but against the life of Catholics? Was it fit his Holiness should play judas part, pretend love and emendation of the faith, when he intended murder, and an utter extirpation of the servants of God? Could there be freedom for them at Trent in the Pope's dominion g Tridentum libera aut Imperij civitas non est, sed membrum praecip●um Pontificia factionis, Grav. oppes. Tried Conc. pa. 37. , when they might not be suffered to breathe or live at home in their own free Cities and States? Was not this a stratagem unknown in the time of the Council at Milan and Arimine, to invite Catholics to the Synod, and promise liberty and free access, but provide that they shall have no leisure, not so much as come to the Council? 33. What equity or freedom could there either be, or be expected in that Council, wherein the Pope, who is the capital enemy of the Catholics, took upon him to be their judge, yea, when himself who was reus, guilty of heresy, besides other crimes, and who should have been judged first of all, took upon him to be supreme judge in his own cause? Let Catiline be held for such a judge betwixt the Senate and himself; it is not to be doubted but Tully, and all who stood for the liberty of their City and Country, shall be proscribed and condemned as rebels; and Catiline with his faction decreed to be the only true Citizens, the only men fit to rule the Empire. It was the just exception h Athanas. Apol. 2. §. Non arbitramur. p. 216 which those 47. Catholic Bishops that stood for Athanasius, took against the Council at Tyre, wherein he was condemned, that Eusebius and Theogius, the mortal enemies of Athanasius, were his judges in that Synod; Lex autem Dei inimicum neque testem, neque judicem esse vult; but the law of God prohibits a man's enemy to be a witness, much more to be his judge. The very same exception took i Chrys. Epist. ad Innocent. Papam to. 1. Conc. post Epi. ●un. 27. chrysostom against Theophilus and the Synod with him. Theophilus, saith he, hath called us unto judgement, before he hath purged himself of the crimes objected against him, quod contra omnes Canon's & Leges est, which is against all laws and Canons: and again, it is not fit that Theophilus should judge us, qui ipse reus est, inimicus & hostis, who is himself guilty or accused of crimes, and is also our enemy. Thus chrysostom. A matter of such equity, that both Pope Nicholas k Quia suspecti et inimici, judices esse non debeant, et ipsa ratio dictat et plurimis probatur exemplis, Epist. 8. Nich. 1. §. ●gtur quia. the first, and l Ipsa ratio dictat, quia suspecti et inimici judices esse non debeant. ●xtr. de Appel. ca Secundo requiris. Celestine the third say, Ipsa ratio dictat, Common reason doth teach, that those who are ones enemies, ought not to be their judges. The Pope then being a professed enemy of Protestants can be now lawful or competent judge of them: and being himself reus, called into question for heresies, can be no lawful judge in his own cause, and in those very heresies whereof he is accused. And truly the answer whereby Bellarmine thought to avoid this most just exception against their Trent Council and the rest, doth much more confirm the equity thereof: He confesseth that this holds m Quod dicunt▪ non a●bere cundem esse judicem, et parten, dico habere locum in privatis ho●inibus, non in principe supremo. Ille enim semper est summus Index etiamsi cum ips● litigetur. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 21. §. Tertia▪ in all, save only in the supreme judge. He only may be judge in his own cause, and against his enemies also, all else must stand to the judgement of others. The interpretation is true, but in the application of this to the Pope, there he faileth: for he intends the Pope to be that supreme judge; than which there cannot be devised a more base begging of the question, and most special controversy. That he is not supreme, we avoidable prove by the words of Christ n Matth. 18.17. Hoc quod Christus dixit, Dic Ecclesiae, omnes homines comprehendi●, & quoth Petrus & ejus successores illa authoritate comprehend●tur ostendit Paulus qui in faciam restitit Cephae: probat etiam hoc outhoritas universalis Ecclesiae etc. Responsio Synodalis Concil. Basti. pa. 105. a. , Dic Ecclesiae: by the judgement of this fifth Council, which judged and condemned both the Pope's Cathedral Constitution for heretical, and Vigilius himself for an heretic: and in saying the fifth Council, it is as much as if I said, by the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, all the former Counsels consenting in faith with this fifth, and all that follow it approving the judgement thereof, until their Lateran Synod. The same is further proved by the sixth o Conc. 6. act. 13 Epistolas Honorii 〈…〉 abij● 〈◊〉 & tanquam animae noxias, recramu 〈◊〉. 67. ●. &. ●●●●lamavrunt universi, Honorio haeretico Anathem●. Conc. 6. act. 26. pa. 79. c. general Council, which judged and condemned Pope Honorius for an Heretic; by that which they call the seventh, which p Detestamur Sergium, Honorium, etc. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 7. p. 386. b. also condemned Honorius; by the next, which they account the eighth, wherein it is decreed, that in the case q Quamvis Honorius post mortem anathemate sit affectus, manifeslum tamen est ill●m de haeresi fuisse accusatum, qua sola in causa licet inferioribus de superioribus judicare. Conc. 8. Act. 7. pa. 891. b of heresy the Pope may be judged; (and that is the very case whereof the Pope is now accused;) by the Counsels of Constance r Potestati Ecclesiae quilibet cajus●unque dignitatis, etiamsi papalis exislat, obidire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem. Conc. Constant. sess. 4. , and Basil s Veritas haec quod Concilium est supra Papam est veritas fidei Catholicae. Conc. Basil. sess. 33. , in both which it is decreed to be a doctrine of the Catholic faith, that the Pope hath a superior judge in the case both of heresy, schism, and scandalous life: by the practice t Peccata eorum (Papar●m) saepe dicta fuerunt Ecclesiae, et ab Ecclesia punita, et qui non audierint Ecclesiam fuerunt habiti ut Ethnici et Publicani, ut legitur de Anastasio et Liberio. Resp. Synodalis Con●. Bas. pa. 105. a. et pa. eadem b. enumerat joh. 12. et alios▪ of the Church, in judging and deposing Liberius, and john the 12. by the very words of Bellarmine himself, If the Bishops, saith he u Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 21. §. Denique. , in a Synod can convince the Pope of heresy, possunt cum judicare & deponere, they may judge and depose him. And if in any cause he have a superior judge, then is he not supreme. Seeing then by all these, besides infinite more, it is not only proved, but demonstrated, that the Pope is not, nor aught to be held as supreme judge, but may in some causes be both judged, condemned, and deposed: and seeing by Bellarmine's own confession, none can be judge in his own cause, or of his adversaries towards whom he professeth open enmity, but only the supreme judge; it inevitably followeth upon the Cardinals own words, besides evident reason, that the Pope neither was in the Council of Trent, nor can be in any Council a lawful judge, either of Protestants, or in those causes which he then undertook to judge, in which himself was a party and Reus; seeing then, he should be judge in his own cause, which equity and reason, the law both divine and humane do constantly prohibit. 34. Add hereunto the judgement of the ancient and Catholic Church. I do never read, or almost remember the holy Council of Chalcedon, but with a kind of amazement I admire the rare piety, prudence, integrity, moderation, and gravity of those most glorious judges, who supplying the Emperor's place when he was absent, were the Imperial Precedents in that Council: Had they, or such like Precedents been wanting at that time, it may justly be feared, considering the eagerness and temerity, that I say not the insolency of the Pope's Legates in that Synod, that the Council of Chalcedon had proved a worse Latrociny than the second Ephesine was. In that Council both these causes now mentioned fell out, the one in Dioscorus, the other in Athanasius Bishop of Paros. Dioscorus came and sat down in his place among the other Patriarches & Bishops, as one who would be a judge in the causes proposed; for in ancient Counsels there was a different x Eusebius et Theoderetus in ordine accusantium sident, sicut et vos in loco accusatorum sedetis. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 13. a. place, and seats for the Bishops, who judged and gave sentence in the Council, and for others who were actors, whether plaintiffs and accusers, or Rei, and accused. Now because Dioscorus himself was the party who was called into question, and to be judged; and equity forbids a man to be judge in his own cause: The Council, and by name the Pope's Legates, (to whom the rest therein assented) took this just exception thereat, and said, y Act. 1. Conc. Chal. pa. 5. a. Non patimur, we cannot endure this wrong to be done, ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit; that Dioscorus, who is to be judged, sit as a judge in his own cause; upon which most just and equal motion, the glorious judges, who were Precedents for order, commanded Dioscorus to remove z Dioscoro secundum jussionem gloriosiss. judicam, res●d●te in medio. abide. from the Bench, as I may say, of judges, and to sit in the middle of the Church, which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei; and Dioscorus accordingly sat there, as the glorious judges had appointed: Upon the very same ground of equity did the religious Emperor command in the second Ephesine Synod, that if a Epist. Theodos. et Valent. ad Diosc extat in Acts Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 5. b. any question or cause fell out to be debated concerning Theodoret (whom he commanded to be present) that then, absque illo Synodum convenire; the Synod should assemble & judge that cause without Theodoret; he should have no judicatory power in his own cause: And the like he further commanded concerning that holy Bish. Flavianus: He & some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople been judges against Eutiches, and condemned him. An higher, even that general Council at Ephesus (which proved a Latrociny in the end) was called to examine b Nunc vos c●nvenistis ut cos qu● judicavera●t judicetis. Elpidi● di●tum nomine Imper. in Conciliab. Ephes. recitatur vero in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 13. b. that judgement of Flavianus and the rest, whether it was just or no. The Emperor commanded c Ibid. those who had been judges of late, in loco eorum esse qui judicandi sunt, now to be in the place of Rei, such as were to be judged. A demonstration, that if Theodosius or Martian, or such like worthy and equal judges as they were at Chalcedon, had been Precedents for order in their Trent assembly; the Pope, though he had been as just and orthodoxal as Flavianus, much more being in impiety and heresy far superior to Dioscorus, should not have been permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Council, nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his own cause, much less have had such a supremacy of judgement, that his only voice and sentence should overrule, and oversway the whole Council beside. 35. The other example is this: Athanasius Bishop of Paros being accused d Conc. Ch●l. Act. 14. per totum of sundry crimes, was called to trial before a Provincial Council at Antioch, held by Domnus Bishop of that See, unto whose patriarchal authority Athanasius was subject; when he refused to come after three citations, he was deposed by that Synod, and Sabinianus by the same authority, made Bishop of Paros in his room. In the Council at Chalcedon Athanasius came, complained of wrongful extrusion, and desired of the general Council, that his Bishopric might be restored unto him, pleading for his refusal to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch, nothing else but this e Dicat Athan●sius cur tert●ò ●●●●atus in Conci●io Antiocheno, non occurrit. Athanasius dixit, Quoniam inimicu● meus erat ipse qui judicaba●, et ●ogo haec relegi, et veritate probari. Ib. pa. 127. b. Solum quia suus inimicus esset ipse qui judicabat, ●lamavit, ● sancta Ch●l. Synodo ad causas illatas sibi examinanda● reservitur. Epist. 8 Ni●h. 1. § Veniamus. , that Domnus who was the chief judge in that Synod, was his enemy; and therefore he thought it not equal to be tried before him, though he was his own Patriarch. The glorious judges gave order that the accusations against Athanasius should within eight months be examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch, and a Synod with him; and if he were found guilty of those crimes, or any other worthy deposition, he should for ever want the Bishopric. But if either they did not within such time examine the cause, or examining it, find the accusations untrue, that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius, as unjustly deposed; and that Sabinianus should remain but a substitute unto him, until Maximus could provide him of another Bishopric. Thus ordered the secular judges, and the whole Council of Chalcedon approved this sentence, crying out, Nihil justius, nothing is more just, nothing is more equal, this is a just sentence, you judge according to God's mind. O that once again the world might be so happy as to see one other such holy Council as was this of Chalcedon, and such worthy judges to be Precedents thereof. All the Anathemaes and censures of their Council at Trent, where the Roman Domnus our capital enemy was the chief, nay rather the only judge, would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity, nor of force to bind I say not other Churches, such as these of Brittany, but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Pope's patriarchal authority, as Athanasius was to Domnus. Such an holy Council would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God: and unless they could justify (which while the Sun and Moon endureth they can never) their slanderous crimes of heresy imputed unto us, and withal purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasy whereof they are most justly accused and convicted, not only in foro poli, but in their own consciences, and by the consenting judgement of the Catholic Church for six hundred, nay in some points for fifteen hundred years after Christ, they should and would by such a Council be deposed from all those Episcopal dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny, injustice, and subversion of the Catholic Faith. 36. As the proceedings in that Council were all unlawful on the Pope's part, so were they also both unlawful and servile in respect of the other Bishops, who were assessors in that Assembly. Could there possibly be any freedom or safety for Protestants among them, being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to john Hus in the Council of Constance, and murdered the Prophets? Among whom that Canon authorising treacherous and perfidious dealing, stood in force: Quod f Const. Const. sess. 19 non obstantibus, that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperors, Kings, or any other granted to such as come to their Counsels, Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint, by what bond soever they have tied themselves, by promise, by their honour, by their oath, yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition, and proceed to censure, to punish them as they shall think fit, and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousness, saying, Caesar obsignavit g Campian. Rat. 4. , Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit; The Emperor hath sealed this with his promise and oath, but our Council which is above the Emperor, hath repealed it; it shall not stand in force. 37. Could there be any freedom or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope? The Apulian Bishops h Carol. Molin. lib. de Concil. Trident. nu. 21. crying out, aliorum omnium nomine, in the name of all the rest in their Council, Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae & mancipia sanctissimi patris: O, we are all but the Pope's creatures, his very slaves. The complaint i Cl. Espenc. come. in Epist. ad Tit. ca 1. pa. 42. of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed, which he made of such like Counsels, at Basil, that must be done, and of necessity be done and decreed in Counsels, quod nationi placeat Italicae, which the Italian nation shall affect; which country alone k Vt quae solae Episcoperum numero nationes alias aequet aut superet ibid. for multitude of Bishops doth equal or exceed other nations: and this very Italian faction to have prevailed at Trent, their own Bishop Espencaeus, who was at the Council, doth testify: Haec l Ibid. illa Helena est, this is the Helena which of late prevailed at Trent; this Italian faction overswayed all: whereof Molineus m Car. Mol. Icco ci●ato. gives a plain instance. For when an wholesome Canon, that the Pope might not dispense in some matters, had like to have been decreed, many in the Council liking well thereof, the Pope procured a respite n Pont●fex ad s●smimensem decreti conclusionem ampliari jussit▪ ibid. for that business for a month and an half, during which time some forty poor Bishops of Italy and Sicily were shipped and sent to Trent, like so many levis armaturae milites, and so the good Canon was by their valour discomfited and rejected by that holy Synod. Some of the Council also were the Pope's pensioners, and stipendiary Bishops, nay rather ought than Bishops: such as among others were Olaus Magnus o Olaus Magnus Suevus qui Archiepiscopi Vpsalensis nomen et titulum vendicavat, quae quidem regio nec Pontificem unqu in, nec Ecclesiam Romanam agn●vit. Gent. Exam. Conc. Trid. sess. 1. nu. 3 , the titular Archbishop of Vpsala in Gothia, and Robertus Venantius the titular p Ibid. and blind Bishop of Armach, and yet not half so blind in body as in mind; Archbishops q Archiepiscopi, sine Archiepiscopatu, sine Ecclesia, sine ●l●ro, sine ullo censu & reditu. ibid. without Archbishoprickes, without a Church, without a Clergy, without Diocese, without any revenues, save a small * Hos Archiepiscopos rerum tenues & inope● Romae suis stipediis all. erat Pextise●. ibid. Olao in si●gulos menses 15. aurcos ●ummos suppedi●abat, ibid. pension which the Pope allowed them, that they might be cyphers in the Council, and taking his pay might do him some service for it, and grace his Synod with their subscriptions. But all the other bonds are a● nothing to that r Extr. ad ●urejur ca Ego N. oath wherewith every one of them was tied and fettered to the Pope, swearing to uphold the Papal authority against all men, and to fight s In nova juramenti forma insuper hoc jurant Episcopi, se haereticos, omnesque rebelles Pontifici extre●è infestaturos, & persecuturos. Grat. oppos. Conc. Trident. p. 2. Caus. 4 pa. 52. against all that should rebel against him: an oath so execrable, that Aeneas Silvius is t Ibidem in Paral ad Abbot. Vsper. pa. 418. mentioned to have said, Quod etiam verum dicere contra Papam sit contra Episcoporum juramentum, that even to speak the truth, to speak for the truth, if it be contrary to the Pope, is against the oath of Bishops. By this they were so tied, at u Ibid. pa. ●1. ne mutire quidem ipsis liceat adversus Idolum Romanum, that they might not so much as whisper against him. 38. Verily none of those Iron chains which were used by Dioscorus in the Ephesine latrociny are comparable to these: No subscription unto blanks like the swearing to maintain whatsoever their Roman Dioscorus shall define. They who were not chained might have no place in the Synod; they who were chained with such bands, and specially with such an oath, could have no freedom in the Synod; they must speak, think, and teach nothing but what the Pope breathes into them. Had there been such wise and worthy judges for Precedents of that Council, as there was at Chalcedon, could they possibly have endured to see all synodal freedom thus oppressed and banished? Nay they would in their zeal to God and his truth, have broken and burst in sunder every link of that chain: And as x Conc. Chalc. act. 8. & 10. Ibas and Theodoret were not admitted to the Council of Chalcedon as members thereof, till they had openly renounced and anathematised the heresies which they had before embraced: So would not those glorious judges have permitted any of those Tridentine Bishops to have sit in the Council, till they had openly renounced, anathematised, and abjured that oath, and with it their vassalage to the Pope, and all those heretical doctrines which by their adhering to the Pope, and following his faction, they had embraced: and those are Image-worship, Transubstantiation, proper Sacrifice, Adoration of the Host, their Purgatorian fire, and the rest of those heresies, which, since the Roman faction began to prevail, (and that was about seven hundred years after Christ, in the days of Gregory the second, who as I suppose, first of all by synodal judgement decreed the worship of Images,) they have maintained: For seeing since that time not truth nor equity, but faction prevailed in their Synods, and swayed matters in their Church, there could be no equal trial of the truth by any of their Synods held since that time. But when all the Bishops were freed from those chains of their oath and slavish bondage to the Pope, since the faction (whereof he hath been the leader) got the upper hand, those glorious judges would have permitted nothing to pass for a free synodal sentence, but that only which could have had warrant from the Scriptures, those holy Counsels and consenting judgement of those Fathers who lived within the six hundred years or somewhat more after Christ, at what time partiality and faction had not corrupted and blinded their judgement, as in the second Nicene, and ever since it hath. 39 But because such glorious judges and their most equal Presidency was wanting, nay was banished from their Assembly at Trent, scarce any tokens or shadow of freedom could take place therein. Not towards Protestants. Brentius y Gent. Exam. Conc. Trid. sess. 15. nu. 3. , and diverse other learned Divines came to Trent, offered z Obsecrant in disputationis arenam descendere, & se certamine offerebant. ibid. themselves and their faith to trial of disputations, Nulla ratione a Ibidem. impetrari potuit, this could not be obtained by any means, that they should come to dispute b Neque admissi fuerint ad suae fidei professionem proponendam & discutiendam, et haud unquam admitti potuerunt ut suam fidei consessionem in synodi publico conventu exhiberent, ac multo minus ut dogmata que in ea continebantur disputatione assererent. ibid. Gen. in Exam. lib. 5. nu. 4. pa. 317. for the faith. c Ibid. pa. 320. Nullus unquam liber aditus Protestantibus, the Protestants at no time had any freedone to come to the Council at Trent. Not towards their own Bishops, if they spoke or did aught tending to the defence of the truth. Cornelius' Bishop of Bitons said d Melc. Can. lib. 12. loc. Theol. ca 13. §. Extat. , that Christ offered not in his last supper his own body and blood: this crossed their proper sacrifice of the mass, therefore Cornelius for that free & true speech, à Patribus universis explosus est, was hissed out of their Trent Council by all the Fathers and Divines there present. jacobus Nachiantes e Cypr. Valer. in Marc. 2. Bishop of Clodia Fossa, said, he could not approve that traditions should be held in equal reverence as the Scripture, he was for this truth expulsed the Council. Gulielmus f Ibid. Venetus a Dominican Friar, said in the Council, that the Council was above the Pope, he was commanded to depart out of the Council. Another of the Bishops g Car. Molin. li. de Conc. Trid. nu. 22. happening to touch, and that but lightly, the pride of the Pope in his titles, wished, that seeing God is no where in the Scripture called sanctissimus, but sanctus, the Pope also would be content with the same title of sanctus, and not take a more ample name of honour than is given in Scripture unto God. The Pope being certified hereof, sent for him to come from Trent to Rome, and gave him to his Officers to use him hardly h Satalitibus suis de gradu deijciendum & dariter tractandum propinavit. Ibid. , and to be degraded. Petrus Vergerius i job. Sleid. Com. lib. 21. pa. 304. & seq. Bishop of justinianople, (he who endeavouring k Dum confutandi causa libros adversariorum diligenter excutit, & attente argumenta considerate, captum se victumque sensit. Ibid. to refute the Protestant writings, and began that book which he entitled, Against the Apostates of Germany, was himself overcome by the evidence of that truth, specially in the doctrine of justification, which he oppugned) came to the Council at Trent: The Pope having intelligence that he was inclined to Lutheranism, writ to his Legates at Trent, Ne locum ei tribuant in consessu, That they should not admit him into their Council, but command him to depart. Ad hunc l Ibid. & plura de eo lege apud Cypr. Valer. in Marcel. 2. modum eliminatus, by this means was the Bishop excluded from their free Synod: and if johannes Casus the Pope's Legate to the Venetians, and Archbishops of Beneventum, (who writ a m Nec puduit eum scelus onmium longe turpissimum celebra●e laudibus. job. Sleid. loc. citat. book in the praise of one of the most detestable and damnable sins) could have prevailed to have enticed m Eum, uti Romam peteret mod● omnibus hortatur Casus; Verge●ius vero qui periculum suum intelligeret, recusat ibid. him to go to Rome, he had not thence escaped so easily as he did from Trent. Could any of these or the like enormous disorders, which utterly subvert all synodal freedom, have been endured, had there been equal and prudent Precedents for Kings and Emperors in that Council? But the Imperial presidency being abandoned, together with it, was all freedom and synodal order excluded. So that I may truly say both of these Tridentine, and their other nine Synods, that as by reason of their want of this Imperial presidency, they had many disorders, so by reason they excluded that Presidency, they had, nay they could have nothing in them at all but disorder. 40. You see now the several kinds of unlawful Counsels, as well by want of Imperial calling, or of Imperial Presidency, as when neither is wanting, by the abuse of that Imperial authority in the Synod. And though the unlawfulness of those ten later Synods doth now appear to be far greater than of those ancient Counsels before mentioned; seeing in all the ancient there was not only a lawful calling, but a lawful presidency also, both which were wanting in the other ten; besides the unlawful proceedings which were equally in both, or rather far worse in the later: yet is there one especial difference that is principally to be remembered, which issuing from the former diversity of unlawfulness, makes a greater odds than at the first one would imagine: and this it is: When the unlawfulness of any Synod ariseth (as in their ten Synods it doth) from the want of the first condition, that is, of lawful calling and authority to assemble and judge, be the consultations and proceedings of such Synods otherwise never so orderly, and their resolutions never so just and true, yet for making of any Canon or Decree, or giving any synodal judgement, there is an invalidity in all such Synods, and a mere nullity in all their Decrees, Canons, and judgements. They had no authority to assemble in a Synod, much less o Si legitima synodus non fuit, planum est nullà authoritatem potuisse habere▪ & nullius roboris sunt illius canon's. Bell. lib. 2. de Pont. ca 18. §. Caeterum: & §. Ac deinde. & Sententia à non suo judice dicta nihil si●mitatis obtinet. Greg lib. 11. Epist. 56. have they any authority to make a Law; or give judgement in that Synod. That which is invalid in the spring and original, must needs in all the subsequent actions derived from thence, & depending thereon, retain the same invalidity. And seeing it is neither multitude, nor learning, nor wisdom, but authority which is the fountain and foundation of all Laws, Canons, and judgements, where this authority is wanting in any person or assembly, it is as impossible for such a person or assembly to make a law, give any judgement, or pronounce any judicial sentence, as to erect an house in the air, or build without any foundation. And truly this toucheth at the quick all those ten Counsels, which wanting authority to assemble them, were no other but tumultuous, seditious, and unauthorised assemblies. There was no more strength, validity, or vigour in any of their Decrees to bind as laws, or synodal judgements, than there was in such Edicts as Spartacus and Catiline in Rome, or jack Cade in this Kingdom should have published and set forth: specially in that which he like another Pope intended to be his fundamental law, That all laws should proceed out of his mouth. Those which they untruly call the Canons, Decrees, or judgements of those Synods, are only the opinions, resolutions, and consultations of so many seditious men which convened and conspired together in those conjurations: synodal Decrees, or Ecclesiastical Laws and judgements they were not, they could not be. In the head, they are nipped and tainted with a nullity of authority, they bear this tainture and nullity throughout every part and parcel of their determinations. 41. But when the unlawfulness of any Synod ariseth (as in the ancient Counsels at Arimine, Milan, and Ephesus it did) from the want of the other condition, that is, of orderly proceedings only, the Bishops being both lawfully called, and having a lawful Precedent, the case is here far different; their acts and sentences though they be unlawful, yet are they truly judicial, and have the authority of synodal judgements, and therefore do bind others, though not in conscience to accept them as true, yet with patience to submit themselves to their censures, till by like authority they be revoked, and repealed. Even as in civil Courts, though an unjust or partial judge, either for fear, favour, hatred, desire of lucre, or any other perturbation of mind, shall wilfully pervert justice and due proceedings, and pronounce an unjust sentence: yet is this act judicial, and stands in force of a judgement, till by the like, or higher authority it be reversed; because such an one had authority and rightful power to judge and give sentence in that cause, though he abused his authority to injustice and wrong: Right so it is in synodal and Ecclesiastical assemblies, when they are lawfully called and authorized to hear and judge any matter, their want of due, orderly, and just proceedings makes their judgement unjust, and shows them to be wicked and malicious conspirators against the truth, but it doth not make the decree to be no judgement, or no judicial sentence of a Council. The corruption is now in the branch, not in the root: the abuse of their authority makes not a nullity in their act: It hinders not them to be truly and rightfully judges, but it demonstrates them not to be upright, good, and just judges, it shows their sentence to be wicked and impious, but in hinders it not to be a judicial sentence. Whereof that one (among many) in the Ephesine Latrociny, is a clear example. In it p Fl. vianum et Eusibium ab omni Episcopuli dignitate judicamus esse alienos. Conc. Ephesin act. Con. Chal. act. 1. pa. 57 b. Eusebius Bishop of Dorileum was most wickedly and unjustly deposed from his See, yet this their unjust sentence stood in force, till by the like authority of another general Council at Chalcedon, it was repealed: for in it Eusebius sat not at the first as a judge, but as an accuser q Et Eusebius et Theodoretus in ordine accusantium sedent. Con. Chalc. act. 1. pa. 13. a. of Dioscorus, and in the place of accusers: He entreated the holy Council that all the Acts r Con. Chalc. act. 3. pa. 66. and judgements at Ephesus, viribus career, might be anulled and declared to be of no force, and that he might enjoy as before that sentence he did, Sacerdotali dignitate, his Episcopal dignity and See. The holy Synod consented to his just request, received him as a member s Name act. 6. pa. 101. b. Eusebius Derilei subscribit definitioni fidei inter alios. of the Council, restored him to his See, and adnulled all the acts of the Ephesine Latrociny, requesting t Praesens omne Concilium deprecatur Imperatorem quatenus pia lege fanciat, neque Synodum illam (Ephesinam 2.) nomina●i, neque quidquam quod actum est in e● teneri. Conc. Chalc. act. 10. p. 115. § Anatolius. & pa. 116. Omnes eadem dicimus. the Emperor to ratify and confirm that their judgement. 42. Such an exceeding great and most remarkable difference there is betwixt those ancient and these ten later unlawful Synods. Though both be unlawful, yet in the former there was a binding force for a while, till they were repealed; but in these later there never was any power to bind any, either to accept their Decrees, or to undergo their censures, because ab initio there was a mere nullity in all their Acts. Again, the inflicting of any punishment upon the judgement of the former, had the warrant, though not of divine, yet of humane authority, and was to be presumed as just, (the sentence of every judge, even eo nomine, because he is a judge, being to be presumed just, until upon evident proof it be declared to be unjust.) But what censures or punishments soever are, or at any time have been denounced or inflicted on any, upon the warrant or judgement of these last ten Synods, they are all ab initio merely tyrannous, and unjust, inflicted without any either divine or humane authority, (seeing those Synods had none at all) there is not so much as a presumption that they were or could be just, but for their want of authority in decreeing them, they are (though otherwise equal) presumed to be unjust. 43. And thus much I have thought good to insert concerning all sorts of Counsels, as well lawful as unlawful: to manifest hereby not only the injurious dealing of Baronius with this fifth Council, against which he declameth as an impious and unlawful conspiracy; but their vanity also in extolling and magnifying many, and specially those last ten, for holy, lawful, and ecumenical Synods; of which dignity they are so far short, that they are all most deservedly to be ranked with the Ephesine latrociny, and put in the Classis of those which of all other are the most base, impious, unlawful, and disorderly Counsels. CAP. XX. How Cardinal Baronius revileth the Emperor justinian, and a refutation of the same. 1. WE have hitherto seen and fully examined all the material exceptions which Baronius could devise to excuse Pope Vigilius from heresy: and in them consists the whole pith, and all the sinews of the cause; they being the only arguments which are to be reckoned as the lawful warriors of the Cardinal. Now followeth that other Troop, whereof I told you a Cap. 5. nu. 1. before, of his piratical and disorderly Stragglers, which the Cardinal hath mustered together, not that they should dispute or reason in this cause, but to rail and revile at every thing whereat their Leader is displeased: And the Cardinal doth this with so impotent affections, in so immodest, that I say not so scurrile a manner, and with such virulency of all uncivil and most undutiful speeches, that you shall see him now, having cast away all that gravity and modesty which is fit not only for a Divine, a Cardinal, a Disputer, but for a man of any temper, or sobriety, to act herein no other part but Hercules Furens, or Ajax mastigophorus; without all respect either of authority, or dignity, or innocency, lashing every body, and every thing that comes in his way, be it friend or foe; sparing nothing that seems to cross his fancy, not the Emperor justinian, not the Empress Theodora, not Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, not the Imperial Edict, not the controversy and cause itself of the Three Chapters, not the Acts of the holy General Council, not Pope Vigilius himself; nothing can scape the whip of his tongue and pen. Let us begin with the Emperor, against whom Baronius declameth in this manner. 2. Princes b Vides quanta jactura— cum Principes indicere audent ipsis sacerdotibus leges, a quibus sancitas servare ipsi debent. Bar. an. 553. nu. 237. to dare to make laws for Priests? who should obey the laws made by them. Such c Si qui ejusinodi esset, leges sanciret de fide, an. 546. nu. 43. an one as justinian make laws of faith? an d Fuit homo penitus illiteratus, adeo ut nec Alphabetum aliquando didicisset, an. 528. nu. 2. abcedary Emperor: an illiterate e Illiteratus Theologus, an. 551 nu. 2. Theologue: utterly f Cum esset peni●us illiteratus, an. 546. nu. 41. unlearned: who g justiniani legere nescientis, an. 538. nu. 32. knew not how to read. who h Qui nanq●am iegere sciverit vel ipsum soris inscriptum titulum Biblioram, an. 551. nu. 4. could never read the title of the Bible: no not the very first i Vt qui nec pri. ma elementa ●olleret, ut lege●e posset, an. 546 nu. 4●. elements: not his Alpha, Beta: He on a sudden to become a k Fecit analphabetum Imperatorem repente palliatum apparere Theologum, an. 551. nu. 4. palliated Divine? He to prescribe laws l Cui ut sibi subdit●. 〈◊〉 er●t pras●. bear Leges, an 551. nu. 2. for the Church, as subject to his? He against m 〈◊〉 legi● 〈…〉 sacerdotibus leges far, et easque poenas statuere, praeter jusfasque praesumens, an. 528. nu. 2. all right and equity to presume to make laws of sacred matters, of Priests? He to set down punishments for them? He who was not only thus utterly unlearned, but withal an enemy to the Church; a n Ab 〈…〉 violentia, an. 552. nu. 8. sacrilegious person: a o Iust. a persequ●tione cessavit, an. 553. nu. 14. persecutor: a grievous, a p Et quod manstrosius accessit, ab 〈…〉 persecutio excitate fuit, et haud quidem levis, an 553. nu. 221. monstrous persecutor: one who was mad q Ab Imperatoris furore, an. 552. nu. 8. ille fur●i 〈◊〉 citus, ment dimolus, correptus maligno spiritu, agitatus a Satana, an. 551. nu. 2. frantic, and out of his wits, who was possessed with an evil spirit, and driven by the Devil himself? Such an one r Aquo accepturi essent leges Episcopi, an. 551. nu. 4. make laws for Bishops? what is this else, but to confound s Cons●●di ●●nia necesse est, an 553 nu. 237. all things, to tread t Canon's ipse concu. cat, ●enitusque pessuniat Ecclesiasti●am aconcnian, an. 541. nu. 16. under foot the sacred Canons, to abolish utterly the Church discipline, to u Sicque omnem in Eclesia dissolveret ordinen, faceretque ex requo ●●loram c●gislutum in●erorum, an. 551. nu. 4. dissolve all divine order, and to make of the Kingdom of heaven (which the Church is) the very prison of hell, where there is nothing but confusion? Thus the Cardinal: And this is but the first pageant of his Ajax, and but some glean neither of that harvest, which is abundant in his Annals. 3. Not to seek any exact, or methodical refutation hereof: All that the Cardinal hath hitherto said may be reduced to three notorious slanders, by which he laboureth to blemish the immortal fame and unspotted honour of that most religious Emperor. The first concerns His knowledge and learning; justinian not able to read? not know so much as his Alphabet? Is there any in the world, think you, so very stupid, as to believe the Cardinal in this so shameless, so incredible an untruth? Tanti ingenii, tantaeque doctrinae fuisse constat, saith Platina x In vita Bonifac. 2. ; it is manifest, that justinian was of so great a wit, and so great learning, that it is not to be marveiled if he reduced the laws, being confused before, into order: Tritemius y Lib de script. 〈◊〉. saith of him, He was a man of an excellent wit, and he is deservedly z 〈…〉 sc●iptor●s merito acquisivit. Ibid. reckoned among Ecclesiastical Writers; and he expressly mentioneth three books which he writ against Eutyches, one against the African Bishops: adding, that none may doubt, but that besides these, he writ many and very excellent Epist. Possevine a Appar. Sae. in verbo justinianus. the jesuit acknowledgeth him, with Tritemius, for an Ecclesiastical Writer; & besides the reciting of those same books which Tritemius mentioned, he allegeth these words of their Pontificial, most worthy to be observed, for this purpose: justinian the Emperor a religious man, sent unto the Apostolic See his profession of saith, Scriptam chirographo proprio, written with his own hand, testifying his great love to the Christian Religion. In regard of which his excellent writings, both Pope Agatho * Conc. 6. Act. 4. in Epist. Agath. , and the whole sixth general Council with him, who lived in the next age to justinian, reckoneth him in the same rank, not only of Ecclesiastical Writers, but of venerable Fathers, with Saint Cyrill, Saint chrysostom and others, whose writings do give testimony to the truth. Liberatus who lived in the days of justinian, and who was no well-willer of the Emperor, yet could not but record, That he b In Brevia. ca 24. writ a Book against the Acephali or Eutichean heretics, in defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and that Theodorus seeing him so toiled in writing against heretics, told him, Scribendi laborem non cum debere pati; That he should not trouble himself with writing books, but maintain the faith by publishing Edicts. Procopius c Lib. 3. the bell: Goth. , who was familiarly conversant with justinian, recites that traitorous persuasion of Arsaces to Artabanus, when he excited him to murder the Emperor; This (said he) you may do easily, and without danger, for the Emperor is not mistrustful, and he passeth the time till very late of the night in talking without any watch or guard, having none but some old and feeble Bishops about him, Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus, being marvellously addicted to read and peruse the writings of Christians. Are these, think you, the actions of an illiterate, of an Abcedary Emperor? And what speak I of these? The Pandects, the Code, the Authentikes, the Institutions, the whole body of the law proclaim the incredible wisdom, and rare knowledge of justinian, All people saith he, p Instit. Proem. are governed by the laws, Tam à nobis promulgatis quam compositis, as well published as composed by us: and though he used the learning, help, and industry of other worthy men, (whose names he hath commended to all posterity, and never-dying fame) yet when they offered the books unto him, Et legimus & recognovimus, saith he, * Ibid. we both read them and examined them; which the gloss explaineth, saying, Nos ipsi legimus, We ourselves have read and perused them. So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shameless untruth of Baronius, in reviling him for an illiterate, and not so much as an Abcedarie scholar, whose wit, learning, and prudence hath been, and will for ever be a mirror to all ages. 4. But Suidas (saith the Cardinal e Bar. an. 528. nu. 2. ) doth affirm f In verbo Iust. the same; calling justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and void of all learning. For answer whereunto, first, I would gladly know of the Cardinal, how he can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas? specially seeing their own jesuit Possevine tells g In appar. verbo Suidas. us for a certainty, that Plaeraque, very many things are falsely inserted into Suidas; and that, à Sciolis & Schismaticis, by some smatterers or Schismatics; and further, that those Plaeraque, are such as are repugnant to the evangelical truth, and Historical sincerity. How may we be assured, that this concerning justinian, is not one of those Plaeraque, seeing this to be contrary to Historical sincerity, doth by those many and evident proofs which we before produced, fully appear? Again, admitting Suidas for the Author thereof: is Suidas think you of more, or equal authority and credit to their Pontifical? which witnesseth expressly, that justinian writ the holy confession of his faith, Chirographo proprio, with his own hand? Equal to Tritemius and Possevine, or (to wink at them) to Pope Agatho and the sixth general Council? who all account justinian among the Writers of the Church. Who I pray you was this Suidas? truly an earnest defender of those impieties, which in their second Nicene Synod began to prevail; who in reviling manner doth call h Suid. in verbo Constantinus. Constantine Iconomachus, a Serpent, an Antichrist, and the disciple of the Devil: and all, for his not consenting to the adoration of Images, and relics, and to the Invocation of Saints. Now how this sort of men were given to lies and fables, the Acts of that Synod do fully demonstrate: Or if you rather desire to have their Jesuits judgement of Suidas, he will tell you first, that he was heretical, in teaching i Poss. in verbo Suidas. the Essence in the Godhead to be generative; which their Lateran Council hath condemned for an heresy. He will tell you further, that this book is full of errors, fables, and lies, of which sort are these, among many. That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos; that it shall continue 1200. thousand years: that the Sun and Stars, are fiery substances, fed and perpetuated by terrestrial humours as their nutriment: that Paradise is Hortus pensilis, a garden hanging in the air far above the earth: that Cain was begotten of the Devil, which is a lie; that the jews adored an asses head, and every seventh year sacrificed a stranger: His narration (in verbo Nero) touching Annas and Caiphas, Pilate, Peter, and Simon Magus, wherein multa comminiscitur, he forgeth many things: His narration (in verbo julianus) which he calleth in express words, mendacium flagiciosissimum, a most lewd lie: His slandering Constantine the great, as base of birth, and his son Crispus as incestuous: His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretics: adding, that he writeth many things, contra Historiae veritatem, against the Historical truth. His relation (in verbo Apolonius) where many things are praised, quae omnia monstrosa sunt, & prorsus explodenda; all which are utterly to be hissed at: where also he seemeth to allow the impious Art of Magic, and Divinations: His approving of Appolonius and Danis, two wicked Magicians, who both are relegati ad inferos, condemned to Hell. And to omit very many of this kind of impieties and fables, which abound in Suidas: His narration (in verbo jesus:) which not only Baronius rejecteth, but Pope Paul the fourth, for that cause beside some other k Exploserit in judicem lib. prohib. exploded the book of Suidas, and placed it in the rank librorum prohibitorum: Such, even by the confession of their own jesuit; is this Suidas: a depraver of good, a commender of wicked men, a fabler, a liar, a falsifier of Histories, a Magician, an Heretic, whose book is by the Pope forbidden to be read. Such a worthy witness hath the Cardinal of his Suidas, with whom he conspireth in reviling justinian, as one utterly unlearned. Concerning which untruth, I will say no more at this time than that which Gotofr●d doth in his censure l 〈◊〉 lib. Instit. of those words of Suidas, where calling it in plain terms a slander, he rejects it, as it justly deserveth, in this manner, Valeant calumniae, nos sinceriora sequamur; Away with this and such like opprobrious slanders of Suidas and Baronius; but let us follow the truth. 5. His second reproof of the Emperor is, for presuming to make l●res in causes of faith; which for Kings and Emperors to do, brings (as he saith) an hellish confusion into the Church of God: The wit of a Cardinal justinian may not do that which King Hezekiah, which Asa, which jesiah, and Constantine the great, the two Theodosu, Martian, and other holy Emperors before had done, and done it by the warrant of God, to the eternal good of the Church, and their own immortal ●ame: Had he indeed, or any of those Emperors taken upon them by their laws to establish some new, erroneous, or heretical doctrine, the Cardinal might in this case have justly reproved them; but this they did not: what doctrines the Prophets delivered, the word of God taught, and holy Synods had before decreed and explained; those, and none else did justinian, by his Edict, and other religious Emperors, ratify by their imperial authority: Hear justinian's own words, We f Edict. justin. in caus● trium Capi●ul. in princip. have thought it needful by this our Edict to manifest that right confession of faith, quae in sancta Dei Ecclesiá praedicatur, which is preached in the holy Church of God. Here is no new faith; no Edict for any new doctrine, but for maintaining that only faith which the holy Catholic Church taught, and the Council of Chalcedon had decreed; wherein that justinian did nothing but worthy of eternal praise, the whole fifth Council, and the whole Catholic Church approving it, is a witness above exception, which entreating of that which justinian had done in this cause of the Three Chapters; (the chief of all which was the publishing of his most religious Edict, to condemn the same) saith, g Coll. 7. in fine Omnia semper fecit & facit, quae sanctam Ecclesiam & recta dogmata conservant; justinian hath ever done, and as yet doth all things which preserve the holy Church, and the true faith. So the Council. Is not Baronius mind composed of venom and malice, who condemns and reviles the Emperor, as bringing hellish confusion into the Church, by publishing that law, which to have been an especial means to preserve the Church and Catholic faith, the holy general Council, and all the whole Catholic Church with it proclaimeth. 6. See here again the love and respect which Baronius bears to the Imperial laws, and to those holy and religious Emperors, which were the nursing fathers of God's Church, and pillars to uphold the faith in their days. There are extant in the Theodosian Code many laws concerning the Catholic faith; concerning Bish. Churches, and the Clergy; concerning Heretics, Apostates, Monks, jews, and Samaritans; concerning Pagan sacrifices, and Temples; concerning Religion, Episcopal judgement, those who flee unto Churches, and many other of the same kind: laws wholesome and necessary for those times. The like titles are extant also in the Code of justinian. In the authentics there are I know not how many laws in the like causes: Of the four Counsels, of the Order of Patriarches, of the building of Churches; of goods belonging to sacred places; Of the holy Communion, of Litanies, of the memorial for the dead, of the Privileges of Churches, of Patriarches, of the Pope of old Rome, of Archbishops, of Abbots, of Presbyters, of Deacons, of Subdeacons', of Monks, of Anchorites, of Synods, of deposing Bishops who fall into heresy, that Patrons who builded Churches, and their heyers shall nominate the Clerks for the same; and in case they name such as are unmeet, than the Bishop to appoint who he thinks fit, that Heretics shall be uncapable of any legacies: and exceeding many the like. Now such a spite hath the Cardinal to the Emperors, and these their Imperial laws, made concerning the affairs of the Church, that like some new Aristarchus, with one dash of his pen, he takes upon him to cashier, and utterly abolish those laws, (five or six hundreth at the least, with such care, piety, and prudence, set forth by Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Gratian, Martian, justinian, and other holy and religious Emperors: And when these are gone, whether the Cardinal meant not after them, to wipe away (which with as good reason, and authority he may) all the other laws, which are in the Digest, Code, and authentics, that so his master the Pope may play even another jack Cade, that all law might proceed out of his mouth, let the judicious consider. This is clear, that the Cardinal's malice is not satisfied with reproof of the laws themselves: even these holy Emperors Constantine, Theodosius and the rest, are, together with justinian, for the making of those laws touching Ecclesiastical affairs and persons, reproved, nay reviled by Baronius, as having been presumptuous persons, authors of an hellish confusion in the Church, and for turning heaven into hell. They, and such as they, make laws of faith? laws for Bishops? laws for the Church? let them hear, as they well deserve, and as the * An. 550. nu. 14. Cardinal shameth not to upbraid to justinian, Ne ultra crepidam, Sir Cobbler go not beyond you Last and Latchet: So indignly doth the Cardinal use those holy and religious Princes, and that even for their zeal to God's truth and love to his Church, for that which with exceeding piety and prudence they performed to their own immortal honour, and to the peace and tranquillity of the whole Church of God. 7. His third calumny is, that he revileth justinian for his sacrilegious fury and persecution which he used against Pope Vigilius, partly when Vigilius h Bar. an. 551. 2. et 552. nu. 8. was buffeted and beaten at Constantinople, before the time of the Council, and forced to flee to Chalcedon; partly when he was banished i Bar. an. 553. nu. 221. et 222: etc. after the end of the Council, for not consenting with the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters. Alas, how hath heresy and malice quite blinded the Cardinal, and bereft him of his understanding? justinian neither before the Council, nor after it, persecuted Vigilius. Vigilius was neither beaten, nor buffeted, nor fled he either to Saint Peter, or to Saint Euphemia, nor was he banished at all; these all are nothing but the Poetical and chimerical fictions of the Cardinal, no truth, no realty at all in them, as we have before k Sup. ca 16. et 17. fully demonstrated. judge now I pray you, whether any but some Ajax furiosus, or who were deprived of his wits, would call the Emperor mad, frantic, sacrilegious, possessed and guided by the Devil, for persecuting and banishing him, who neither was persecuted nor banished, but enjoyed the latitude of liberty, and all the benefits thereof, even the Emperor's favour, and the comforts accompanying it. But admit Vigilius had been banished, as indeed many other Bishops were, for defending the Three Chapters against the Decree of the holy general Council: was justinian a persecutor, a monstrous sacrilegious persecutor, for banishing or punishing condemned heretics, and Nestorians? such as all the defenders of the Three Chapters to have been we have * Ca 4.5. et seq. before declared. what a monstrous persecutor than was holy Constantine for banishing Theognis l Socrat. lib. 1. c. 10. Bishop of Nice, and Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, for refusing to consent to the Nicene Synod? What a persecutor was Theodosius the the elder, who commanded m L. 3 de fide Cath. Cod. Theod. all that held the Macedonian heresy to be banished and shut out of their Churches without any hope to recover the same again? What a persecutor was Theodosius the younger, who forbade all men n Leg. ult. de haer. Cod. Theod. to have or read the books of Nestorius, or to admit the Nestorians into any City, Town, Village or house? What an horrible and monstrous persecutor was Martian, who made a law o Extat in Cons. Chal. Act. 3. pa 86. that if any should teach the Eutichean heresy, ultimo supplicio coercebitur, he shall be put to death. If Constantine, Theodosius the elder and younger, and Martian bee no persecutors, notwithstanding this severity in exiling, punishing, and putting to death heretics: what a malicious slanderer is Baronius for condemning justinian as a persecutor, for banishing, imprisoning, or punishing with like severity the defenders of the three Chapters, who were every way as detestable, as damnable, & as truly convicted & condemned heretics, by the judgement of an holy general Council, as either the Arians, Macedonians, Eutycheans, or old Nestorians? Thus to persecute, that is, justly punish heretics, is laudable: thus to be persecuted is ignominious. Non est peccatum malos persequi, p Lib. cont. Fulgent. Donat. art. 20. saith Saint Augustine, To persecute and justly punish wicked men is no offence; neither are they just who are so persecuted, but he who is persecuted for righteousness sake. Had justinian done this to Vigilius, he had been no persecutor: But Vigilius who oppugned the truth, & Baronius who with such a virulent tongue reviles and rails at the defenders of God's truth; they, and none but they, are persecutors in this cause: They kill not the Prophets nor Apostles, but they kill & murder, as cruelly as they can, that truth of God which the Prophets and Apostles embraced, and for defence of which they were ready to be killed: This spiritual persecution, as Saint Augustine teacheth, q Lib. 1. cont. later. Petil. ca 27 exceeds the corporal: They r Aug. lib. 2. cont. lit. Petil. ca 14. murder the Prophets who contradict the doctrines of the Prophets: Mitius ageretis, It were less cruelty in you to thrust your swords into the bodies of the Prophets, then with your tongues to murder the doctrine and words of the Prophets. And a thousand like sayings hath the same Augustine, by which it were easy to demonstrate Baronius himself, and not justinian, to be the unjust, impious, sacrilegious, and frantic persecutor, if by that which hath been said this were not abundantly apparent. 8. Now followeth the other Pageant of this Baronian Tragedy in declaiming against justinian. That respects his last years, and his death, in which part, as being the last, and therefore likeliest to leave deepest impression in the hearts of the readers, because Baronius hath couched together the most vile accusations of all the rest, and the very venom of his poisonful affections, and spleen, against the Emperor, I am most unwilling to forsake the religious Emperor in the last act of all, but a● exceeding desirous to testify my love unto him, both for other causes, and for this especially, that he, next unto God, was the preserver of the Catholic faith, when in this cause of the Three Chapters, the Nestorians, and especially Pope Vigilius, laboured with might and main for ever to abolish and extinguish the same: in regard of which act alone, if there were none else, he deserved to be eternised in the blessed memory, and by the best endeavours of all that love the Catholic faith. Baronius s An. 563. nu. 1. entreating of the 37. year of justinian, which was about two years before his death, tells us how at that time, justinian, Unhappy justinian ran headlong into the heresy of the Aphthardokites, or incorrupticolae: who Evagr. lib. 4. ca 38. Leon● lib. de sect. Act. 10. et Pra●eoll. de Haeres. har. 55. Diceban● carnen quaem ex virgine Servator assumpsit, ante passionem, incorruptibilem fuisse. denied the body of CHRIST to be subject to passions, death, or corruption: These, as Liberatus saith, u Liberat. Brev. ca 19 , were also called phantastics, because upon their doctrine it followed, that CHRIST had not a true and truly humane, but only an imaginary and fantastical body. Into this fantastical heresy, saith Baronius, did justinian fall, and run headlong in his last age: and for proof hereof he allegeth x An. 563. nu. 8. most ample witnesses: Authores omnes tam Graeci quam Latini, All Authors both Greek and Latin, they all testify that he fell into this heresy; and they detest that impiety in him; Nor did he only fall himself into it, but he sought to draw all others into the same error: Ita ebrius y Bar. ibid. nu. 9 factus est, ut ment motus, justinian was so drunk, that being out of his wits, he writ an Edict z Illud constat, Imperatorem haeresin comprobasse eand●mque scripto Edicto sirmasse. An. 564. nu 3. to confirm that heresy, and bring all the Church to believe the same: When he prevailed not that way, than he began a An. 563. nu. 12 to use violence, Exilium omnibus Episcopis contradicentibus comminatur, he threatened banishment to all the Bishops who contradicted that heresy, and b Vb● elabora●●● à se edictum contemni ab orthodoxis percepit, irae exaes●ouns, magnam persecutionem commovit. an. 564. nu. 1. so boiling in rage, raised a persecution, yea, Persecutionem c Ibid. nu. ●. haud mediocrem, an heavy and great persecution against Catholic Bishops, casting Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople into banishment for this cause. Thus Baronius. Who proves this concerning the Edict and persecution, partly by the Surian Eustathius d Bar. ibid. extant vero apud Sur. dic 6. Apr. , who writ the life of Eutychius, partly out of Evagrius, e Lib. 4. ca 38. who both mention indeed the banishment of Eutychius, and the Edict of justinian, written for that heresy. 9 This is the sum of that which is objected: but how Baronius doth amplify, deck, and paint out the same by his Rhetorication, is not unworthy observing. He not only taxeth this in justinian as an act of curiosity, f An. 563. nu. 1. & 6. temerity, and arrogancy, for His intermeddling in sacred matters, and of foolishness, for Partaking g Prasinis eum slulte studuisse meminimies. an. 563. nu. ●. with the one side in the faction, as he had done with the Prasini, for which he h An. 558. nu. 13. calleth him, Maximum jurium proculcatorem, The greatest despiser and trampler of laws under his feet; but he calls him also Mente motum, i an. 563.9. a man out of his wits, an hereteike, l an. 563. nu. 1. another Egyptian Pharaoh, m an. 564. nu. 21. who bent all his power to oppress the Catholic faith; yea a very Antichrist, saying thus n an. 563. nu. 6. of him, justinian no otherwise than Antichrist, setting up his Chair and Throne in the Temple of God, and extolling himself above all that is worshipped, maketh sacrilegious laws for establishing Infidelity, and writes Edicts for heresy: And again, not o an. 564. nu. 1. but only the Emperor's authority, did erect that heresy, Tanquam Idolum in Templo Dei, As an Idol in the Temple of God. Whereupon the Cardinal p an. 563. nu. 6. in the anguish of his heart, takes up with sighs and tears the complaint of jeremy, O heavens be astonished at this, be afraid and utterly astonished, the Emperor hath forsaken the fountain of living waters, & he hath digged to himself pits that will hold no water. After this fit of his weeping overpast, he than comes to the most base reviling & railing against the Emperor, calling q Ibid. nu. 7. him Monstrun triceps, that Monster with three heads (like another Cerberus, or hellhound) which Ecclesiasticus r Eccl. 25. speaks of, & declares to be so odious & execrable: A poor man proud, a rich man a liar, and an old man a fool. Such a Monster, saith he, did justinian now appear, (like three-bodied Geryon, in the Poets,) seeing he joined these three detestable faults in himself at this time. He was poor, yea most poor, Expers penitus literarum, Utterly void of learning, not able to read his very A. b. c. and yet he would seem to be more learned than all Bishops: so he was a poor man proud. He was also a rich man, a liar, in that he commanded all to embrace heresy, and by his power hindereth them to contradict his Edict: like him of whom it is said, t Eccl. 13. The rich man spoke, and all held their peace. Lastly, when he refused the counsel of the Elders, Planè senex cognitus est fatuus & insensatus, He was therein plainly known to be an old doting fool, without wit or sense. Thus Baronius▪ concluding that Emperor to be a monster, an heretic, a hellhound, a mad man, a liar, a blockhead, and a very plain fool: whom all the Christian world hath, and shall for ever, and that most justly, admire for his piety, prudence, and wisdom. 10. Baronius, not content with this so uncivil demeanour, tells us further what mischiefs ensued upon these detestable crimes of the Emperor. Those are of two sorts: the former is public, concerning both the Ecclesiastical and civil State. For the Church, u An. 563. nu. 1 pacem profligat, justinian drove away peace and quiet from it: he endangered, atque tandem penitus labefactat fidem, and at last utterly subverted and overthrew the faith. For the Common wealth, it did x An. 565. nu. 1. titubare, reel and decline into a worse estate, under this heretical Emperor, whom he y An. 550. nu. 14 accuseth, frigescere, to have been cold and careless in the government of the Empire. The other mischief, which is private, concerns justinian himself. For the Cardinal's hatred to justinian is not satiate with the evils of this life, he pursues him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sitting in the chair of Radamanthus, he approves z Opinari si cui licet, facilius est invenire qui Evagrij de ejus condemnatione velit sequi sententiam, quam aliorum, etc. an. 565. nu. 6. and applauds that most rash and undiscreet judgement of Evagrius, a Lib. 5. ca 1. ad supplicia apud inferos luenda profectus est, he is gone to be tormented in hell. Yea the Cardinal proves b An. 565. nu. 6. that he went thither in this manner; Although it be not in man's power to be present at God's judgement, and it be utterly unlawful to judge of the dead; yet according to that irrevocable sentence of God, which is pronounced of all the dead, * Apoc. 4. Their works follow them, according to this sentence, eadem ipsa quae hinc abeuntem secuta sunt Iustinianum, those same works which followed justinian when he died, do as yet cry against him in books: and those are juge bellum, his perpetual war against the Church, which he continually nourished, (having banished peace which he found therein) and when he died left it in a flame: his unmeasurable c Sacrilegiorum immensitas. Bar. Ibid. Sacrilegies, laying oftentimes his violent hands upon holy Bishops, the anointed of the Lord: his cruelty against innocent Citizens: his covetousness, and the rest, which I omit. Thus Baronius: who plainly telling us, that these so many, so heinous crimes, and crying sins, followed justinian out of this life, (and every man knows that these follow no whither but unto hell) he most forcibly concludeth, that justinian out of all doubt, was carried hence to be tormented in those hellish flames. Never could the Cardinal be at quiet, till besides all those other reviling and disgraceful ignominies which he hath heaped upon justinian, he had brought him into the pit and torments of hell: And yet not there also will the Cardinal suffer him to be at rest, but like a Fiend or Fury, he still exagitates the Emperor with his virulent tongue and style, worse than any of all the infernal Ghosts; neither alive nor dead will the Cardinal cease to torment him. 11. Verily I know not where either to begin or make an end in this matter, nor how it is possible for any man with sufficient gravity and severity to castigate the Cardinal's insolent, inhuman, unchristian demeanour against the most renowned and religious Emperor. Did any of those worthy professors of the civil laws, but half so much abound with leisure, as they do with excellency of wit and learning, I doubt not but they would (as I do heartily wish) undertake so honourable a service, not only to justinian, but unto GOD and his Church, as in a just volume to vindicate the Emperor's honour from these so many, so malicious, so base & immodest calunnies of this Rhabsecha. A work not very laborious, seeing as on the Emperor's part there is such abundant store and variety of all virtues and praiseworthy actions to set forth his honour, as no man's style nor words can equal or come near the same: so on Baronius part, with whom he is to contend, there are so many shameless and detestable untruths, either devised, or applauded by him, that Voraginensis himself may seem inferior to him in this kind; and I much doubt, whether so many voluminous books, as might equal any two Tomes of his Annals, could be able to comprehend them all: Mean while that I seem not to shuffle this burden from mine own to other men's shoulders, I will, with their good leave, I hope, add somewhat out of those books which concern my own profession, and out of my shallow reading endeavour to free the Emperor from those most dishonourable imputations of the Cardinal. 12. Let us then begin with that which is the substance and ground of this whole accusation, and that is, The Emperors supposed falling into heresy, and writing that heretical Edict: This if we can prove to be a slander and untruth, all the rest, which the Cardinal builds upon this, and derives from it, will of themselves fall to the ground. First then I do constantly avouch that imputation of heresy to be untrue: justinian neither held that fantastical heresy of the Aphthardokites, nor made any Edict for the defence or propagating thereof, nor did he banish or persecute any Orthodoxal Bishop for contradicting that heresy: All these are slanderous untruths which the Cardinal hath collected out of others, and maliciously uttered in disgrace of the Emperor: And truly, that very contradiction which is not only in other writers, but in the Cardinal himself, in setting down this narration, is no small presumption of the untruth thereof. d justiniani Edictum minimè divulgatum est. Lib 4. ca 40. Evagrius and Nicephorus e Scriptumid, editum non est. Lib. 17. ca 30. expressly witness, that the Emperor's Edict was not at all published. Theophanes f Hist. misce●. lib. 16. an. 38. justin. , (as the Cardinal calls him, or Paulus Diaconus as others,) and after him Sixtus Senensis g justin. praecepit hoc dogma à sacerdotibus pub●icè do●eri, et ab omni plebe recipi. Lib. 5. Bibl. annot. 186. , expressly witness the contrary, that his Edict was divulged, & ubique transmissum, and sent to every place. Baronius, not knowing whether was truer, affirmeth them both, though they be expressly contradictory: First, that he did publish the Edict, the Cardinal teacheth, h An. 564. nu. 1. saying, justinian when he saw his Edict, contemni ab Orthodoxis, & pro nihilo duci; to be contemned and set at nought by the Orthodoxal Bishops, than he raised his persecution. How could that Edict be contemned, unless it had been published & set forth for an Edict? or how could they be banished for gainsaying that Edict, which if it was not published, had not the force of an Edict? Again, that he did not publish it, the i An. 565. nu. 4. Cardinal likewise tells us, He writ indeed, Non tamen promulgavit de haeresi Edictum, But he did not publish that Edict. He did publish it: he did not publish it: what truth in those witnesses who thus contradict themselves? If he did publish it, as the Cardinals Theophanes, and Sixtus Senensis affirm, than Evagrius, and Nicephorus, are not herein to be credited: If he did not publish it, how is the Cardinals Theophanes, or Senensis herein to be credited? And whether he did publish it, or not publish it, the Cardinal who teacheth both, is certainly herein not to be credited. This disagreement of the witnesss one with another, and of Baronius with his oneself, is no good sign of truth in their Narration. 13. But that justinian neither published nor writ any such Edict, nor held any such fantastic heresy, a far more faithful witness than any of the former, even Victor B. of Tunen, who lived in that same time at Constantinople, and who would have triumphed to have had so just an occasion to reprove & disgrace the Emperor, by whom he was imprisoned and banished, doth make evident. He k Vict. Tun. in Chron. plainly showeth how justinian continued constant in defence of his own Edict, for condemning the Three Chapters, and of the synodal judgement given therein, even to his death. In his 38. year (the very next to that wherein Baronius fancieth him to have fallen into heresy,) He sent for four African and two Egyptian Bishops, and both personally by himself, as also by some others, he laboured to draw them to the orthodox faith, in condemning with him, and the fifth Synod, the Three Chapters: and when he could not prevail, Custodiae mittuntur, they were put into prison. In the next year, he saith that l An. Iust. ●●. justinian placed john a condemner of the Three Chapters in the Sec of Constantinople, Eutychius being banished: and to his very dying day, he kept Theodorus Bishop of Cabarsussus in banishment, because he would not condemn the Three Chapters. So orthodoxal was justinian, and so earnest an oppugner of heresies, of those especially which deny either the true humanity, or the true Godhead of Christ, even till his very death, by the certain testimony of Victor, an eager enemy of justinian. Seeing then he continued constant till his death, in condemning the Three Chapters, and maintaining his own Edict for the condemning of them: and seeing the condemning of them, or the defence of that Edict is the defence of the true faith, m Nece●●rium putavi●●u●, recla fidei consessionem quae in ●ancta Dei Ecclesia praedicatur pr●senti edicio sa●●re manifest 〈…〉 pa. 4●●. and an oppugnation of all heresies, which deny either the Divinity or Humanity in Christ, specially of that of the phantastics, or Aphthardokites, as the very words n jesus ●hristus est cons●●stantia●● Patri secundum Deitatem, consubstanti●lis nobis secundum Humanitatem, passi●●●a ●a●●e, impassibilis deitate i●●d. & ●●tra● natura in propri●tate & ●a ion● naturae suae manente, facta est unit●. secundum substantiam, ibid. of his Edict do declare; it clearly hence followeth from the certain testimony of Victor, that justinian was so far from embracing, or making Edicts for that heresy, that he constantly oppugned the same, and even punished all who believed or taught as the Aphthardokites did; for in believing that heresy, they contradicted the Emperors own Edict, and the holy Counsels, both at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon: all o quam●18 ●18. Potrei in N●cea collect●, traniderunt: & post●llos, 100LS. san●ti Patres, Constantinopoli explanaverunt: &, qui in Epheso & qui Cha●edone conven●●e do●uerunt. ibid. pa. 405. which the Emperor by this Edict, even until his death constantly maintained. 14. Why, but All Writers, saith Baronius, m an. 563. nu. 8. both Greek and Latin, they all do testify that justinian sell into that heresy. What hear I? Do All and All, both Greek and Latin? do they All testify this of justinian? A vast, a shameless, a Cardinal, a very Baronian untruth! Of the greeks, not Procopius, not Agathias, not Photius, not Damascen, though he entreat n Lib. de haeres. of this very heresy; not the Cardinals own Suidas, who quite contrary to the Cardinal calls justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a most Catholic and Orthodoxal Emperor. Of the Latins, not Victor, by whom as you have seen, the clean contrary is also testified: not Liberatus; and both these lived at the same time with justinian: not Marcellinus: not Bede: not Anastasius, though such was his spleen against justinian, that he could not have concealed such a disgraceful crime: not Aimonius, of whom I pray you see how well his testimony acordeth with the Cardinal: justinian, saith o De gest. Franc. lib. 3. ca 8. he, was a man fide Catholicus, pietate insignis, aquitatis cultor egregius: for his faith, Catholic; for his piety, renowned; a marvellous lover of equity, and therefore all things did cooperate to his good: & he addeth, for the whole time of his Empire, (which was 39 years) Imperium faelici sorte rexit, He governed the Empire in an happy manner: Not the true Paulus Diaconus p Lib. 1. de Gest. Longob. ca 25. , who using the like words, saith, that justinian governed the Empire in an happy q Faelici sort. sort, & was Prince for his faith Catholic, in his actions upright, in judgements just: and therefore all things concurred to his good: not Sigebert, not Marianus Scotus, not Lambertus Scafnaburgensis, not Ado Viennensis, not Albo Floriacensis, not Luitprandus, not Conrade Abbas Vspergensis, not Albertus Stadensis, not Otho Frisingensis, who calls r Lib. 5. ca 4. him Christianissimum ac pijssimum Principem, a most Christian, and most pious Prince, (unfit epethetes for an heretic, or one condemned to the torments of hell) not Gotofrid Viterbiensis s Chron. in Iust. , who likewise calls him a most Christian Prince, one who established peace in the Church, which rejoiced under him to enjoy tranquillity: not Wernerus, whose testimony is worthy observing, to see the Cardinal's faith and true dealing in this cause: justinian, saith he * An. 504. , was in all things most excellent, for in him did concur three things which make a Prince glorious, to wit, power, by which he overcame his enemies; wisdom, by which he governed the world with just laws; and a religious mind to God's worship, by which he glorified God, and beautified the Churches: So far is he from teaching him with the Cardinal, to have been a Tartarean Cerberus, or Three-headed monster, consisting of three detestable vices, that he opposeth thereunto a Trinity of three most renowned virtues, Fortitude, justice, and Piety, of which the Emperor was composed: Not Nauclerus, not Krantzius, not Tritemius, not Papirius Massonus, not Christianus Masseus, not the Magnum Cronicum Belgicum: not the Chronicon Reicherspergense, which s An. 564. testifieth, that he did perform many things profitable to the Commonwealth, and so ended his life: Not Munster, who t Cosmog. lib. 4. in justin. saith of him, that he was a just and upright man in finding out matters ingenious, Atque haeresum maximus hostis, and the greatest enemy of heresies: not Platina, who u In vita joh. 3. saith of justinus, the next Emperor unto him, he was Nulla in re similis justiniano, in nothing like unto justinian, For he was covetous wicked, ravenous, a contemner both of God and men: whence it followeth, that justinian was quite contrary, bountiful, just, religious, an honourer both of God and good men. 15. Now whereas all these (and I know not how many more, I think an hundred at least, if one were curious in this search) do write of justinian, and not one of them, for aught that after earnest search I can find, do mention his fall in that fantastic heresy; nay, many of them, as you have seen, do testify on the contrary, that he was and continued a Catholic, a religious, a most pious, a most Christian, a most orthodoxal Prince, and the greatest oppugner of heresies: what an audacious and shameless untruth was it in the Cardinal, to say, that, All Authors, all, both Greek and Latin, do witness and detest his impiety, and his fall into that heresy. Besides these, I must yet add some other, and those also far more eminent and ample witnesses, who do more than demonstrate both the honour of justinian, and those imputations of heresy, and the other disgraces wherewith Baronius hath loaded him, to be most shameless calumnies and slanders. 16. The first of these is Pope Agatho, one of their x Martyrol. Rom. jan. 10. Canonised Saints: He in his y Agath. Epist. extat Act. 4. Concil. Gen. 6. Epistle to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, to prove out of the venerable z Non desunt autem et aliorum venerabilium patrum probatissima testimonia, etc. Ibid. Fathers two natures to be in Christ, tells us, that S. Cyril, Saint chrysostom, john Bishop of Scithopolis, Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, Ephremius and Anastasius the elder, two most worthy Bishops of Antioch, & prae omnibus, amulator verae & Apostolicae fidei, piae memoriae justinianus Augustus, & above all these justinian the Emperor of holy memory, a zealous defender of the true and Apostolical faith, teacheth this, whose integrity of faith did as much exalt the Christian Commonwealth, as by the sincerity thereof it was pleasing unto God: and whose religious memory, ab omnibus gentibus veneratione digna censetur, is esteemed by all nations worthy of veneration. seeing the integrity of his faith, set out by his Imperial Edicts, in toto orbe diffusa laudatur, is spread abroad and praised in the whole world. Thus Saint Agatho: Whose words may justly cause all the Cardinal's friends to blush and be ashamed of his Annals. Saint Agatho ranks justinian among the venerable and holy Fathers of the Church: Baronius thrusts him among heretics, Saint Agatho prefers him before Saint Cyrill, Saint chrysostom, Eulogius, john and Ephremius, all learned and worthy Bishops: Baronius debaseth him below the most rude and illiterate persons, even below any abcedary Scholar, and calls him a very block and a fool: Saint Agatho prefers him to that very Anastasius the elder, * Nam Anastasiu● mino● Episcopa●um adepted est 〈…〉 ut ex Ni●eph. Constant▪ in Chro. liquet. surnamed, Sinaita, because he came from the wilderness of Sina●, whom for maintaining the faith against this very heresy of the Aphthardokites, Evagrius a Lib. 4. ca 39 , and Baronius b An. 563.10. himself, calls turrim munitiss●mam, a most strong tower; and yet (as Saint Agatho witnesseth) a more worthy and defensed tower of faith was our justinian: Baronius c Ibid. nu. 12. makes him and this Anastasius to be contradictory in faith, and justinian to threaten banishment unto this Anastasius for not consenting to the heresy of the phantastics: S. Agatho commends him for his integrity & sincerity in maintaining the true and Apostolical faith: Baronius condemns him for an Antichrist, an execrable and heretical oppugner, yea, persecutor of the Apostolical faith: S. Agatho testifieth that the sincerity of his faith did both please God, and highly exalt the Church and Empire: Baronius revileth him, as odious to God, detestable to men, and pernicious, yea, pestiferous both to Church and Empire: S. Agatho witnesseth this memory to be pious, blessed and venerable, and that in all nations: Baronius declames against him as accursed, and abominable to all: S. Agatho proclaimeth, that all nations, and the whole world doth consent in the praising of the faith, and veneration of the person of justinian: Baronius tells you, that all Authors, both Greek and Latin, consent in condemning the faith, and detesting the heresy of justinian. Vtri creditis? whether do you believe Baronius maliciously applauding an untruth, which he found in one or two writers, of none, or little credit, or Agatho a Pope, a Saint, with whom consent all nations, and the whole world? 17. To Pope Agatho I adjoin the whole Roman Synod consisting of 125. Bishops, who all together with Agatho give the like honourable testimony of justinian. They with Agatho writ a Synodall d Extat Epist. Act. 4. Conc. 6. pa. 21. letter to the same Emperor Constantine, wherein they exhort him to imitate the piety and virtue of Constantine, of Theodosius, of Martian, and of justinian the great, extremi quidem, praestantissimi tamen omnium, the last indeed (of those who had before assembled general Counsels) but the most excellent of them all, whose piety and virtue omnia in meliorem statum restauravit, restored all things into a better order. Thus that whole Synod: Could they more forcibly have demonstrated Baronius to be a slanderer? Baronius saith that justinian was an heretic, a persecutor, an Antichrist, one who dissipated the faith, ruinated the Empire, brought an hellish confusion into the Church: for which crimes he placeth him among the damned in hell. Pope Agatho with his whole Council, testify, that by his piety and virtue he restored all, both the Church and Empire into a better order: they honour him (as much, nay more than they do S. Constantine * Sanctum Constantinum, vocat Papa Steph● in Epist. ad Basil. imperat. post 8. Synod. , or Theodosius, or Martian,) for one of the most renowned upholders of the faith of Christ, for one of them, who at their death did not leave nor lose, but only exchange their imperial Crown, and in stead of their earthly and corruptible, received the celestial and immarcessible Diadem of immortality and eternal glory: among these, yea and above these Saints and glorified Emperors, as being most excellent of them all, is justinian placed and crowned in heaven, by the judgement of Saint Agatho and his whole Council with him. 18. If yet you require more or more ample witnesses, behold, the sixth general Council hath approved both those Epistles of Agatho. Of them the whole Synod e In Sermon. prosphon. Act. 18 pa. 89. said, Petrus per Agathonem locutus est; Peter spoke by the mouth of Agatho: and again, f Ibid. & Act. 15 8.6. We all consent to the dogmatic letters of Agatho, & to the suggestion of the holy Synod which was under him, of 125. Bishops. Of them Constantine g Act. 18. pa. 93. saith in the name of the whole Council, Omnes consonanter ment & linguae, we all with one heart and voice believe and profess, and admire the relation of Agatho, as the divine voice of Saint Peter. Of them i Act. 8. pa. 29. Domitius B. of Prusias said, I receive and embrace the suggestions of the most blessed Agatho, tanquam ex Spiritu Sancto dictatas, as being inspired by the Holy Ghost, and uttered by the mouth of Saint Peter, and written with the fingers of Agatho. Thus doth the whole general Council approve those Epistles of Agatho: which their approbation not only Bellarmine k Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. ca 11. § Vbi et. At si. , but Baronius l an. 681. nu. 24. himself extendeth to every part and parcel of those Epistles, saying of them, In omnibus tum ipse Constantinus, tam sancta Synodus suscepit, both Constantine & the holy Council received these in all & every point. And again, m an. eod. nu. 45 Epistolae Roma missaein omnibus comprobatae dicuntur, The Epistles of Agatho, which were sent from Rome are said to be approved in All things set down therein. Now seeing the whole general Council, by Baronius own confession, doth in this sort approve the Epistles of Agatho, and therefore those very testimonies concerning justinian's faith, piety, honour, and eternal blessedness in Heaven: had not Baronius, think you, a face more hard than brass or adamant, when he reviled in so immodest manner that Emperor, as an heretic, a persecutor of the faith, an Antichrist, a drunken, frantic, and sacrilegious fool, a ruinater of the Church, and careless governor of the Empire, yea as one condemned and now tormented in hell, and who sealeth it with this saying, That his heresy is testified by All authors? whereas those most honourable testimonies of Pope Agatho, and the Roman Synod with him, (which declare justinian to have been for faith orthodoxal, for virtue and piety renowned, and held in veneration by all nations, and praised of all the world, and to have been equal, nay more excellent than Saint Constantine, Theodosius, and Martian, and therefore to be both in his own person, and in his memory blessed) are approved, and that in this very point, as Baronius acknowledgeth, by the sixth general Council to be as certain and as true, as if Saint Peter, or the Holy Ghost had uttered the same. Said I not truly, that this cause of the Three Chapters had bereft the Cardinal, not only of truth, but of judgement, of modesty, of civility, yea almost of common sense, so that he cares not what he says, so he speak in defence of those who defend, and in condemnation of those who condemn the Three Chapters, though he knoweth that, which he saith, to be testified to be a calumny and slander, not only by historians and private writers, but by the Pope, by the Roman Synod, by the holy general Council, that is, by the whole Catholic Church, by all Nations, by the whole world, by Saint Peter, and by the Holy Ghost himself. 19 There might be added unto these, divers other pregnant testimonies, of Pope Gregory, who often calls k Lib. 2. Ind. 11 Epist. 10. & lib. 3. Epist. 4. justinian, a man Piae memoriae, of a pious memory; of the Legates of Agatho, who call l Con. 6. act. 3. him, of divine memory; of Peter B. of Nicomedia and others, who call m Act. 10. him of blessed remembrance; of the Emperor Constantinus, who calls n Act. 18. him, divinae memoriae; of the sixth general Council, which not so little as a dozen times I think, o Act. 14. & 18 calls him of pious, or divine memory, most holy justinian, or the like; and which, to express that great honour which they ascribe to the religious Emperor then present before them, (whom they term the driver away of heretics,) proclaim him to be a new Constantine, a new Theodosius, a new Martian, a new justinian, crying out in his honour in diverse p Act. ●. & 16. & 17. et 18. actions, Novo Iustiniano aeterna memoria, eternal memory be to you our new justinian. A miserable praise and wish had this been, had justinian been an Heretic, a Persecutor, an Antichrist, a damned person in hell: for then the whole general Council had not only dishonoured Constantine there present, but had wished honour and immortal glory to Heretics, to Persecutors, to Antichrist, yea to the Devil himself: which kind of praising and praying, is not very suitable to the piety and faith of that general Council. But the former testimonies are so ample and illustrious, that they seem to me to obscure all these and the like, and do so abundantly convince Baronius to slander and calumniate the Emperor, that I will forbear to press him with any more. 20. Perhaps some good friends of Baronius will say in his behalf, and for his excuse, that he did not devise this of himself, nor is he the first that accuseth justinian of this Heresy: he hath his Books, and his Authors for him. He hath so indeed. And so he hath Nestorius and Theodorus of Mopsvestia for his defending Nestorianism. He devised not that neither of himself, he doth but second others therein. By this apology whom may not the Cardinal revile when he list? He may calumniate Athanasius for a l Conc. Tyrium apud Athan. Apol. 2. murderer; Celestine and Cyril for m Conciliab. johannis, Ephessup. ca 11. nu. 42. Apolinarians; Constantine the great for a n Quia noluerit esse Arianus, idcirco Athanasium perosum habitum à Patre tuo, non te sugit. Lucif. lib. 1. pro Athan. pa. 57 Primò, es haereticus, deigned, persecutor, etc. et, amici tui diaboli. ait idem Constantino. ibid. pa. 12. et 13. persecutor of the true faith; for which crime his son is called an Heretic, a murderer, a friend of the Devil: Saint Paul for a o Tertullus, Act. 24.5. seditious and pestilent fellow, a p Festus, Act. 26.24. mad man: Christ himself for a glutton q Matth. 11 19 and drunkard, a man possessed r Mark 3.22. by the devil, a s Matth. 26.65. blasphemer. Thus may he revile and accuse these, and all the best men that have ever been in the world, yea even God himself, and then salve all with this plaster, Why, Baronius deviseth not any one of these imputations, he can produce his books & authors for them all: and those also far better than he doth for this concerning justinian. In one he hath the whole Council of Tyre; in another, john Patriarch of Antioch, Theodoret, & the Council which they held at Ephesus; in a third, Lucifer Bishop of Calaris, a Confessor, one who suffered whip and tortures at the Council of Milan, and after that, exile for the faith: in another, Tertullus and Festus: in the last, the jews, the Scribes, and the High Priest with his Council: would this excuse either Baronius, or any that should upbraid these crimes unto Athanasius, Constantine, Paul, or Christ, from being revilers and slanderers. He who applaudeth & abetteth a slander, (as doth Baronius this of justinian) he is as guilty of slander as if himself had devised it. The law of God doth not only say, Thou shalt not lie or devise a false tale, but t Exod. 23.1. Thou shalt not receive a false tale, neither shalt thou put thine hand with the wicked (not be a coadjutor, an accessary, or an abetter) to be a false witness. Yea though many report an untruth, yet their multitude cannot excuse thee: Thou u ibid. v. 2. shalt not follow a multitude in doing evil; neither shalt thou agree in a controversy to decline after many, and overthrow the truth. And the Apostles rule x Rom. 1. 32. condemns not only those who do evil themselves, but those also (and that much more) who consent unto, or who favour those that do evil: accordingly whereunto S. Jerome y Lib. 2. advers. jovin. saith of wantonness, that which is true in all other sins, majori procacitate defendunt libidinem quam exercent, it is a greater impudence to defend lust, lying, slandering, or any sin, than to commit it. 21. But let us see who those are on whose report the Card. frames this his slanderous invective against the Emperor. He saith they are all authors. But that, as you have seen, is a vast, and truly Baronian untruth. They are but some: and the Card. nameth three, Evagrius, Eustathius, and Nicephorus Callistus. I will yield more unto him if he please: let him have 10. or 20. to say what his foreman doth: yet the law of God is forcible against them, as if they were but one: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. And alas, what are these, either for number, or (which is more) for gravity and authority, to those which we have before produced? To say nothing of that cloud of Historians: what are they to S. Agatho? to S. Gregory? to the Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus? to the Roman Synod? to the sixth general Council? to all nations? to the whole world? to S. Peter? yea to the Holy Ghost himself? What an army of invincible, unresistable Captains, hath justinian to fight on his side, against two or three poor, petite, & contemptible witnesses, which the Card. hath raked together, not to be named the same day with the former? 22. Will it please you further to take a view in particular of them? Truly of those whom the Card. would not vouchsafe once to name, I will say nothing: if they were not worthy to be named, nor to have a whistle from the Cardinal, I think them unworthy to be refuted also. This only I say of them all, they were misled and deceived by those whom the Card. mentioneth as his prime and principal witnesses: and those are Evagrius, Eustathius, and Nicephorus. Now for the last of these, Possevine shows him to be heretical, a Nicephorus Andronicum co●mendat quod S. Sanct● a solo Patre procedere per Synodum à se coactam promulgari curaverit. Poss. in verb. Nicephorus. Et, Habet tum in dogmatibus, tum in historica voritate quae digna sunt ut praecaveantur. Ibid. and in Historical narrations, erroneous: and the Card. b an. 563. nu. 8. himself saith on him, Fatuus judicandus est, he is but a fool: and his reason is far worse than his censure, because he is not so virulent and spiteful in condemning the Emperor justinian, as the Card. could wish him, and as himself is: beside, what Nicephorus saith, is but borrowed from Evagrius (Possevine c In verb● Evagrius. calls him Asseclam, a Page or Ape of Evagrius) and therefore the answer to Evagrius will be sufficient for him also. 23. His middle witness is Eustathius, the writer of the life of Eutychius, which is set forth by Surius. He at large indeed describeth this matter, both how justinian d Hic (justin.) cepit execrabilem opinionem probare, quae Christi corpus incorruptum asserebat. Eust. apud Sur. 6. April. fell into this heresy of the Aphthardokites, how he writ an Edict for the same, and read it to Eutychias B. of Constantinople, urging him to approve it; how when he refused so to do, the Emperor for this cause thrust him from f Persuaserunt Imperatori, ut eum à sede exturbaret, in eâque alium constituaeret, qui opinionibus sais consentiret: quod et factum est. Ibid. his See, and sent him into banishment; where he lived working abundance of miracles, for the space g Perduravit exilium Eatychii (ut idem author affi●mat) spacio 12. annorum et amplius. Bar. an. 564. nu. 29. of 12. years, till Tiberius the Emperor restored him with great honour. This is the sum of that narration of Eustathius, in which the Card. much pleaseth himself, as if all that Eustathius saith in this matter were an undoubted Oracle, seeing Eustathius (as he often boasteth h Haec eustatbius: Quibu omnibus praesens aderat. Bar. an. 564. nu. 20 praesens aspexit. nu. 24. et alibi. ) was present with Eutychius in all these occurrents, and an eyewitness of them. 24. But why did the Card. mention this worthy record out of Surius? could he find this writing of Eustathius in no better Author than Surius? Surius, a man so prostitute in faith, so delighted in lies, and forgeries of this kind, with which he hath stuffed his Lives of the Saints, that at the very first naming of Surius, I suspected this Eustathius to be but a forged Author, and a fabler: the rather because neither Photius, nor Sixtus Senensis, nor Possevine, (who all writ Bibliothecas,) nor Tritemius, mention any such Eustathius to have writ the life of Eutychius. But after I had perused and considered the writing itself, I did no longer suspect, but I found (which now I do constantly affirm) that Surian Eustathius to be so vile & abject a fabler, and so full of lies, that none but such as Surius and Baronius, men delighted in applauding forgeries and untruths, can give any credit at all to that Surian Eustathius. By one or two examples take a conjecture of all the rest. 25. That Eustathius describing the entrance of Eutychius to the See of Constantinople, tells i Loc. citet. us that after the fifth general Council was summoned, Eutychius was sent thither by the Bishop of Amasea, (who then was sick) to supply his room in the Council. Mennas' then Patriarch of Constantinople, exhorted Eutychius not to depart from him, and showing Eutychius to the Clergy, said of him by way of prophecy (for that Eustathius is full of miracles, prophecies, and visions,) unto them; This Monk shall be my successor; and then sent him to the Emperor. Some few days after this, Mennas' died: and whereas many sued for the Bishopric, the Emperor had a vision, wherein S. Peter appeared unto him, showing him Eutychius, and saying, Fac ut hic sit Episcopus, see that this man be the Bishop of Constantinople. The Emperor acquainted the Clergy with his vision, and upon his oath testified it unto them; whereupon they all chose Eutychius, and then he was consecrated. Thus the Surian Eustathius. A narration so sottish and so absurd, that nothing can be more ridiculous: and so untrue, that there are not so many words as lies therein. The fifth Council was not summoned till the 26. year of justinian: and that before then, it could not be summoned, Baronius evidently sneweth: For the summons to the Council followed, as he saith, k Sicque animis junctu restitutoque Romano Pentifice in pristinam dignitatem indicta est occumenica Synodu●. a●. 553. nu. 14. the restoring of Vigilius, and his reconcilement both to the Emperor, to Mennas, and to Theodorus of Caesarea: all which he l an. 552. nu. 19 & 20. placeth in the 26. year of justinian. Now it is certain by that testimony of the Pope's Legates, which m Sup. ca 16. nu. 18. before was handled, and was uttered before the sixth general Council n Act. 3. , and is acknowledged for true by Baronius o an. 860. nu. 46 , that Mennas' died in the 21. year of justinian, that is, four whole years at the least before the summons of the Council, or before Eutychius came to Constantinople, being sent from the Bishop of Amasea. What a dull and doltish legend now is this of Eustathius? to make Eutychius come and converse with Mennas, to be brought by him to the Clergy, to be designed and prophetically foretold by Mennas to be his successor, when Mennas was dead four whole years before he did any of these things? what a profane fiction is it, to make the Emperor see a vision, and Saint Peter to command him to take care that Eutychius should be chosen, and the Emperor to avouch all this upon his oath to be true? whereas not one syllable thereof is true; or so much as possible; seeing Eutychius was actually placed in that See full four years before this vision, or before Saint Peter gave that straight charge unto justinian. They who can believe these fantastical dotages of that Surian Eustathius, (and Baronius p an. 553. & an. 564. & alibi applauds this with the other narrations in that Eustathius) little marvel, if upon his report they upbraid that which is every way as incredible, that justinian fell into that heresy of the Phantastickes, and banished Eutychius for not consenting to the same. 26. Of no more truth is that which the same Eustathius sets down for the continuance of the banishment of Eutychius, which was, the space of twelve m Vt ex Eustathie notat Baron. an. 564. 29. & an. 578. nu. 3.5.6. whole years, until Tiberius was n Ad justinum & Tiberium exclamant, ut fidei custos (Eutychius) redderetur; qui id concesserunt, Verba Eustath. Suriani. loc. cit. associated into the Empire by justinus, and in the same year when john o Bar. an. 578. nu. 5. the successor to Eutychius died. For Theophanes, as the Card▪ calls him, as other (though amiss) Paulus Di●conus, but the author of the Miscella. Historia, expressly witnesseth p justinus Imperator coronatus ab Eutychio Patriarch. lib. 16. Hist. Miscall. that justinus (who began his reign two years after the banishment of Eutychius) was crowned by Eutychius. And Zonar as q Zonar. ●●. 3. in justin. for a certainty relates, how that (before Tiberius was associated) when justinus was sick, he called, besides others, Eutychius unto him, and in their presence nominated Tiberius to be his partner in the Empire: for john, saith he, being dead, Eutychius was reduced from banishment, & restored then to his See, and that Tiberius was crowned by the same Eutychius. Which evidently demonstrates the vanity of that whole Eustathian Narration, wherein it is said, that after the Empire of Tiberius begun, the people came to them to entreat the restoring of Eutychius: that the Emperors upon their supplication, sent post haste to Amasea to bring him home out of banishment: that the Angel r Vere co●novimus D●um misisse Angelum suum & cripuisse, etc. Eustat. of God brought him miraculously thence: that the people flocked unto him in every place: that they laid their sick in the way, that at least the shadow of this second Peter might touch them, and according to their faith they were cured: that he came like another Messias, riding on the Colt of an Ass into Constantinople, the people cutting down boughs, & spreading their garments for him, and so was with admirable joy received by the Emperors, and the whole City. Not one word of all which is true, seeing Eutychius was long before the time of Tiberius restored from banishment, at the least 11. or 12. years, even ever since the crowning of justinus: who reigned 12. s annos●2 ●2. regnavit, & 〈◊〉 Tiberio annis ●. Evagr. L●●. 5. ca 23. years alone, before he assumed Tiberius into the society of the Empire. This will be further evident by those words of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, on which Baronius relieth. Eutychius was recalled from banishment, as the Cardinal t 〈…〉 johanne, 〈…〉 est 〈…〉 exal. 〈◊〉 7● an. 5. teacheth, and that rightly, in the same year wherein johannes Scholasticus (who was placed in his room) died. Now john was Bishop, as Nicephorus u 〈…〉. witnesseth, but two years and seven months. Whereupon it certainly followeth, that Eutychius was recalled within three years after his banishment, that is, in the very first year of justinus, upon whom he set the Crown, at the solemnity of his first Coronation, as was showed out of the Historia Miscella: and this was full twelve years x Nam Iustinus solus totidem annos regnavit. ●●p. before Tiberius was made Emperor. Which demonstrates, not only the untruth and manifold lies of that Surian Eustathius, but another handsome trick of legerdemain in Anastasius and Baronius. For Anastasius seeing belike that it was needful (for saving the credit of some such like fabler as this Eustathius is) that john should be Bishop twelve years, he translating y Ab Anastasio Bibliotheca●i● hu●us Chronologiae interp●●te. &, ch●o●ologia Nic●phori conversa in Latinum per Anastas●●●. Titulo Nice●hori in Biblioth. S. Pat. ●0. 7. the Greek Nicephorus, in stead of two years seven months, puts in twelve z johannes an. 12. 〈◊〉 7. years and seven months, and gives so many unto john before Eutychius be restored: and Baronius finding this account in the Anastasian translation, followeth it, a johannes 〈◊〉 an 12. 〈…〉 Bar. a 564. an. 25. and saith, Nicephorus ascribes twelve years to john: whereas, not Nicephorus, nor his Greek edition (which hath only two years and seven months) but the Ana●asian falsified and corrupted Latin translation hath the other untrue and false account of twelve years and seven months. This, if nothing else, might be sufficient to refute the whole fiction of that Surian Eustathius the untruths whereof Baronius could not defend, but by applauding the untrue and falsified writings of his fellow Bibliothecarius▪ 27. Perhaps you will demand, why then did justinian banish Eutychius, if not for refusing to consent to his opinion and heresy of the Aphthardokites, as Eustathius saith? which doubt seems the greater, because Nicephorus the Patriarch in his Chronology mentioneth the same cause, saying thus, Eutychius was cast out of his See by justinian, eo quod non reciperet edictum ipsius de corpore Christi experte omnis labefactionis, because Eutychius would not consent to his Edict, that Christ's body was incorruptible. See here again I pray you, and detest for ever the vile and shameless dealing of Anastasius. Nicephorus saith not so; all that he c Niceph. in edit. Graeca. saith, is, that Eutychius was banished because he would not receive or consent unto the Edict of justinian; but that which followeth, his Edict de corpore Christi incorruptibili, wherein is contained the heresy slanderously objected to justinian, of that Nicephorus hath not one word in his Greek text; that is wholly patched to him in the Latin translation by the false hand of Anastasius, the Arch-corrupter of all writings in his time, as I have * Sup. cap. 17. before more at large declared: And yet so are they delighted with lies, & corrupted writings, this Latin translation, thus vilely falsified by Anastasius, is set d Tom. 7. in their Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum; which much better deserves to be called a Library of forged or corrupted Fathers, and Writers. 28. But for what other Edict, if not for this of the Aphthardokites, was Eutychius banished? for that he was expelled from his See, there is no doubt, that being testified not only by the Surian Eustathius, Zonaras, Glicas', and others, but by Victor e In Chron. , who then lived, and was at Constantinople when these things fell out, to whom alone more credit herein is to be given, than to five hundredth of the Surian records. Truly, whatsoever was the cause why he was banished, certain it is, that this heresy of justinian, or any Edict made for it, was not the cause thereof: But there are two other matters, the one, or both of which may very well be thought to have incensed justinian against him: The former was this; Eutychius pretended a Prophetical skill whereby he could foreshow who should succeed in the Empire; and he began to tamper and practise this Art about some three years before justinian died, as that Eustathius delareth. At that time f Tribus circite● annis ante Imperium justini. Eust. apu● Sur. he privately called justinus unto him, and told him that he should succeed in the Empire after the death of justinian, for so g Significavit mihi Deus te post avunculum tuum fore Imperatorem. Ibid. (said he) God hath revealed unto me. The like good fortune he foretold to Tiberius, that h Nunc in p●r●● re●publicae gubernacula commisit Deu●, mo● autem et sinem c●ncedet. Ibid. ere long he should have the Empire alone. Again, two years before the death of Tiberius, he prophesied of Mauritius, that i Verè (inquil) non est alius (qui succedet) quam Mauritius. Ibid. he, and none but he should have the Empire after Tiberius; idque juramento asseruit, and he confirmed this by an oath. Now this Art of Divination, and Mathematical predictions, especially when they prognosticate of Kings their deaths, & successors, was never allowable in any wise State, nor acceptable to any prudent Emperor. It betokened no good to Caesar that they foretold k Suct. in jul. Caes. cap. 81. him of those dismal Ides of March. Domitian was foretold l Suct. in Domit. cap. 13. , not only of the year, but of the day, and the very hour when he should dye; and when he had carefully looked to himself on that day, enquiring m Ibid. cap. 16. the hour, his own men of purpose told him the sixth, in stead of the fifth: he then thinking all danger to be passed, was by the Conspirators, (who kept a better watch of the time than he did) securely murdered. What mischief ensued upon that prediction to Valence, that one whose name did begin with Theod. should succeed unto him, Socrates n Lib. 4. cap. 19 declareth; He thereupon murdered most unjustly all whom he could find to be called either Theodori, or Theodoti, or Theodosij, or Theoduli, or Theodosioli, or beginning with those letters. What hurt followed as well in this kingdom, upon that prophecy G. should succeed unto Edward the fourth; as in the next, when it was foretold the Earl of Athel, that he should be crowned before he died, who thereupon never ceased to rebel against his Sovereign, till he was crowned with an hot burning iron, our own Chronicles do declare. All kingdoms, all Stories are full of like examples. It was not without cause, that in the Code p Tit. de Maleficis, Mathematicis, et his similibus. both of Theodosius and justinian, there are so many, and so severe laws against this kind of Mathematical diviners, their Art q Leg. 2. eod. tit. Cod. Iust. being called damnabilis, & omnibus interdicta, a damnable Art, forbidden to all; the punishment denounced against them, being r Non solum urbe Roma, sed etiam omnibus civitatibus pelli decernimus. I. ult. Tit. de males. Cod. Theod. banishment, yea, death; s●pplicio capitis s Leg. 5. tit. de Malef. Cod. Iust. et leg. 4. Cod. Theod. ferietur, he shall be put to death who practiseth the curiosity of divining: Now Eutychius taking upon him this Art of divining, contrary to those severe and Imperial Edicts ratified by justinian, whether for this cause the Emperor, who by the law might have deprived him of his life, did not choose rather to deprive him only of his See, and liberty, I leave to the judgement of others. 29. The other cause was a most impious heresy defended by Eutychius, whom they so much honour; which alone being duly considered, overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius. Eutychius, when he had long continued in the defence of the truth, did afterwards fall both by words and writing to maintain the Heresy of Origen and the Origenists, denying Christ's body after the resurrection to have been palpable, that is in effect, to be no true humane body; and the very like he taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection: This the Surian Eustathius quite overpasseth in silence; for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius, so abundant in miracles, prophecies, and visions, should be thought guilty of so foul and condemned an heresy: But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly testify t Greg. lib. 14. Moral. ca 29. Eutychius scripsit quod corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria erit impalpabile. it, that no doubt can remain thereof; he tells us, how himself disputed against Eutychius, defending this heresy; how he urged those words of our Saviour, palpate & videte; how Eutychius answered thereunto, that Christ's body was then indeed palpable to confirm the minds of his Disciples; but after they were once confirmed, all that was before palpable in Christ's body, in subtilitatem est redactum, was turned into an aërial and unpalpable subtlety; How he further strove to prove this by those words of the Apostle, Flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; how then (said he) may this be believed, veraciter resurgere carnem, that true bodies did or shall rise again? How he further insisted on those words, That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving thereby that which riseth again either not to be a body, or not a palpable, that is, no true humane body. Gregory also tells us, that Eutychius writ u Libellum de Resurrectione scripsit, ostendē● quod caro vel impalpabilis, vel ipsa non erit. a book in defence of this heresy, which both himself read, and Tiberius the Emperor after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it, caused it publicly to be burned, as heretical: adding, that Eutychius continued in this heresy almost till the very hour of his death. Now although Gregory tells not when, or at what time Eutychius fell into this heresy, yet it may well be supposed, that as justinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the truth, so when once he gave himself to such dotages of the Origenists, (which, as it seems, he did about the latter end of justinian's Empire, some three years before his death) than the Emperor, who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters, as Victor showeth, (the condemning of which is, as before t Hoc cap. nu. 13 we declared, the condemning of all the heresies of Origen, and whatsoever contradicts the verity of Christ's deity, or humanity) as it is most likely, exiled him for this heretical opinion: And this is much more probable, seeing justinian had purposely set forth, long before this, a most religious and orthodoxal Edict or Decree, particularly against Origen, and the Origenists, as Liberatus u Cap. 23. showeth and as the Edict itself, which is extant x Apud Bar. an. 538. nu. 33. & Bin. tom. 2. pa. 482. , doth manifest, condemning them in particular y (Quamobrem hos quoque risu dignum est) et Anath. 5. , for denying the verity of Christ's, and other humane bodies after the resurrection. Seeing then Nicephorus the Patriarch saith, that Eutychius was banished for not consenting to the Emperor's Edict, and Eutychius by his defending of that heresy of the Origenists, directly oppugned that his Edict; most like it is, that (besides his Mathematical Art, whereby he was liable both to death and banishment, by the Emperor's laws) this Edict of justinian against Origen, should be that which Nicephorus the Patriarch meant, and for which Eutychius was, and that most justly, exiled. So not justinian, but Eutychius, was the heretic; nor was it any heretical Edict of justinian, (as the Surian Eustathius, and after him Baronius affirmeth) to which Eutychius a Catholic opposed himself; but an orthodoxal and Catholic Edict of justinian, which Eutychius, than an heretic, and Origenist, oppugned, for not consenting whereunto he was banished. Thus not only the Emperor is clearly acquitted of that fantastical heresy, whereof the Surian Eustathius, and Baronius do accuse him; but Eutychius himself, whom they honour for a Saint, a Prophet, and a Demigod, is found guilty of that selfsame crime, and of that very heresy of denying the truth of Christ's body, which they unjustly and slanderously impute to justinian. And this I think is abundant to satisfy the Cardinal's second witness, namely that fabulous and legendary Surian Eustathius. 30. All the Cardinal's hope, and the whole weight of his accusation relies now on Evagrius. He, I confess, saith well near as much as Baronius, against justinian, accusing him of avarice, injustice, and heresy. But the credit of Evagrius is not such, as to countenance such calumnies. Evagrius, in some matters wherein he followeth Authors of better note, is not be contemned, but in very many he is too credulous, fabulous, and utterly to be rejected. What credit can you give unto this Narration a Evag. lib. 4. ca 32. of the Monk Barsanuphius, whom he reports to have lived in his Cell, wherein he had mewed up himself; and for the space of fifty years and more, neither to have been seen by any, neque quidquam alimenti cepisse, nor to have received any nourishment, or food? What a worthy S. doth he b Lib. cod. ca 33 describe Simeon Môros, that is S. Fool, to have been? How doth he commend c Lib. 1. ca 15. Synesius, whom they persuaded to be baptised, and undertake the function of a Priest, though he did not consent to the doctrine of the resurrection, neque ita censere vellet, neither would believe that it was possible? The like might be noted, touching the blood of Euphemia d Lib. 2. ca 3. , and diverse other Narrations. Evagrius is full of such like fables; but omitting the rest, I will propose only two, which will demonstrate him to have been either extremely negligent in the search, or very malicious in perverting the truth. 31. The former concerns Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, and his successor Maximianus. Evagrius saith e Lib. 1. ca 8. , that Maximianus took the Bishopric after the death of Nestorius: An untruth so palpable, that none can think Evagrius to have been ignorant of those manifold and undoubted records which testify the contrary: For it appears by the writings of Nestorius, set down also in Evagrius f Narrat ipse Nestorius se in eo loco quadriennij spacio commoratum, & postea relegatum ad Oasim. Lib. 1 cap. 7. himself, that after his deposition, he stayed at Ephesus, and about Antioch, for the space of four years, and then was exiled to Oasis. Now Maximianus was placed in the See of Constantinople, that very same year, wherein the Ephesine Council was held, and Nestorius deposed some three or four g Soc. lib. 7. ca 34. & Liber. Brev. ca 7. months after the same deposition, as Socrates and Liberatus declare. The next year after the Council, the union was made between john & Cyrill; john & the rest with him professing expressly in their letters h Epist. johannis, et Orientalium Cyrillo, to. 5 Act. Ephes. ca 5 & ca 17. of union, that they acknowledge & receive Maximianus for Bishop of Constantinople: A demonstration, that Maximianus was Bishop of Constantinople, three whole years at least before the death of Nestorius: Nay, which argueth Evagrius to have doted in historical relations, Maximianus was dead, i Lib. 7. ca 39 and Proclus placed in his See long before the banishment of Nestorius to Oasis, much more, before his death; for Maximianus was Bishop but two years and five months, and he died before the Ides of April, when Ariobindus and Asper were Consuls; and before he was buried, was Proclus placed in the See the same year, as Socrates witnesseth. Now Nestorius lived four years at Ephesus, and about Antioch, after his deposition, and some while also in banishment at Oasis, as Evagrius himself affirmeth: So that by Evagrius Narration Maximianus was made Bishop of Constantinople two years after his death; and both Proclus and Maximianus were Bishops at once of that See. So well doth Evagrius relate matters of fact, and such credit is to be given unto him. 32. The other concerns the fable touching the Epistle and Image of Christ sent to Abgarus, which Evagrius k Lib. 4. ca 26. paints out at large, and in most lively colours: He commends the Epistle as a true writing of Christ, and celebrated by the Ancients; He calls the Image sent to Abgarus, a most holy Image; He tells you, it was not made by the hand of man, but framed immediately by God; that Christ himself sent it to Abgarus, when he was desirous to see him; that by reason of this Image and writing kept at Edessa, it was famously reported and believed by all the faithful, that the City of Edessa should never be conquered: (that Image made it unconquerable) He adds, the event did confirm that predication to be true. He saith, that when Cosroes besieged the City, and had almost taken it, than the Edessanes brought forth that divine Image, and laid it in a ditch, to keep away the Engines wherewith Cosroes intended to destroy the City, and that by this means Cosroes was fain to return home, not only without the victory, but with great ignominy: and for confirmation of this, he saith, Procopius hath related this concerning Edessa, and the Epistle of Christ, This is the Narration of Evagrius, which for the worthiness thereof is approved and applauded by their second Nicene n Act. 5. pa. 35● Synod: to which Synod you need not doubt but Baronius subscribeth. 33. By this now judge of the fidelity, & truth, not only of Evagrius; but of their Nicene Council and Baronius; for in this whole narration there is not a syllable of truth, it is nothing but a fardel, or dunghill of lies. First, whereas Evagrius fathereth this on Procopius, that is utterly untrue: In Procopius there is not any mention either of Abgarus or of Christ's Epistle, or of that Image made without hands, or of any predication touching the unconquerable City of Edessa, or that the Edessanes brought forth any such Image in the time of the Siege, or that they laid it in the ditch, or that by the means of it Cosross was vanquished; all these are the fictions of Evagrius, and those also quite contrary to the true relation of Procopius; for he o Proc. l●b. 2. the bell. Pers. ascribes the repulsing of Cosross from the City, to the noble military skill and stratagem of the Roman Captains; by reason whereof when Cosroes perceived his attempt to be in vain, he made peace with the Romans; but yet so, that the Romans yielded to pay unto him, quinquaginta millia aureorum, those fifty thousand pieces of Gold, which he at the beginning of the siege demanded, and for which he offered to desist from war. 34. Again, whereas Evagrius, to justify that lying prediction, as divine and prophetical, such as the faithful then believed as a prophecy of God, saith, that the Event did prove it to be true; in that, Evagrius proves himself to be so extremely false, that almost nothing in him may be credited, but certainly not for his authority: for in the first year of Heraclius, (at which time it is not unlike but Evagrius lived, for he writ his history but some sixteen years before) the event plainly demonstrated the contrary, and this to be no divine prophecy, but a lying fiction; Then the Persians came against Syria, saith the Author * Lib. 1●. an. 1 Heracl. of the miscella: historia, & ceperunt Edessam, and they won and took Capessa and Edessa, and proceeded as far as Antioch; yea, Cosroes then so prevailed against Christians, that Heraclius p Ibid. an. 3. & an. 4. & an. 8. was fain to send many Legacies to entreat peace, offering to pay what q Rogavit ut des●iret tributa, et pacta ac●iperet. Ibid. tribute he would impose; but the Persian disdainfully answered, Non parcam vobis donec Crucifixum abnegetis & adoretis solemn; I will not spare you, till you renounce the profession of Christ, r Ibid. an. 8. & Zonar. to. 3. in Heracl. and with us adore the Sun. How did their Palladium, that divine Image, now defend them? or how could that be a divine predication, which for such Evagrius commends, and saith, the event proved it to be true, when the event within less than twenty years after demonstrated it to be a lie? 35. But that which is the principal fault in this narration, is, that Evagrius approves, as true and certain, that Epist. of Christ sent to Abgarus, which is indeed the ground of the whole fable. Now that Epistle to be a reprobated and rejected writing, & condemned by the Church, is so clear, that their own Writers proclaim the same. Bishop Canus s Loc. Theol. lib. 11. c. 6. Reji●it. , among other books which the Church (as he saith) rejecteth, recites Epistolam jesu ad Abgarum, and Historiam Eusebij; these two by name, the Church (saith he) rejecteth; & because some ignorant persons thought that touching Eusebius History not to be the words of Gelasius, and the Council, Canus refuting those, gives this, as the reason why Eusebius is rejected, because in it is set down the Epistle of jesus to Abgarus, quam Gelasius explodit, which Epistle Gelasius doth hiss out of the Church. This Epistle of jesus to Abgarus, saith Sixtus t Bibl. sanc. li. 2. Senensis, Pope Gelasius inter scripturas Apochryphas rejicit, doth reject among other Apocryphal writings Coster their jesuit saith u Enchir. Tit. de sac. Scrip. Palam. , Eusebius relates how Christ sent a letter to Abgarus, but that letter was never, pro ejusmodi accepta ab Ecclesia, esteemed for such, (that is, not for Christ's) by the Church. But the words of Gelasius, & the whole Roman Council with him, are of all most remarkable: They x Concil. Rom. 1 sub Gelas. having expressed and named a long Catalogue of such fabulous writings, and particularly this Epistle of Christ to Abgarus, (which Evagrius approveth) set down this censure of them all; These, and all like unto these, we confess to be not only refused, but also eliminata, cast out of the Church by the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, atque cum suis authoribus, authorumque sequacibus, sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo in aeternum confitemur esse damnata, and we confess as well these writings, as the Authors and the followers also of them to be eternally condemned under the indissoluble bond of an Anathema. So Gelasius and the whole Roman Council: whereby it is evident, that not only this Epistle, and the Author of it, but that the followers of the Author, the approvers of that Epistle, that is, Evagrius, and the whole second Nicene Synod, and Baronius himself, that these also are anathematised, condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Roman Catholic Church, and that also by an indissoluble bond of an Anathema. Such an untrue and fabulous, yea miserable and accursed witness hath the Cardinal chosen of Evagrius, by the warrant and authority of whom he might insult upon, and revile the Emperor: but now the Cardinal hath far more need to excuse Evagrius from lies, than by his lying reports to accuse others; and now he may clearly see that censure of condemnation, which he, with Evagrius, most rashly and unjustly objecteth to the Emperor, to fall on Evagrius, their second Nicene Fathers, and the Cardinals own pate; since they all, by approving that Narration touching Abgarus; or being sequaces of the Author thereof, are pronounced to be eternally condemned by the judgement of the whole Roman Catholic Apostolical Church: It is fit such a censure should ever pass on them, who open their mouths in reviling manner against religious and holy Emperors, the anointed of the Lord. 36. You do now evidently see, not only justinian to be cleared of those odious and indigne imputations of heresy, tyranny, persecution, and other crimes, which the Cardinal in such spiteful manner upbraideth unto him, but all those witnesses whom he hath nominated, and produced in this cause, to be so light, and of so little account, that they are utterly unworthy to be put in the scales or counterpoized with those honourable and innumerable witnesses, which, (as we have showed) do with a loud and consenting voice proclaim, that Faith, Piety, Prudence, justice, Clemency, Bounty, and all other Heroical and Princely virtues have shined in justinian, which have beautified any of the most renowned and religious Emperors that the Church hath had. Let us now proceed to those effects which Baronius observeth to have ensued upon the heresy of justinian, and the persecution raised by his maintaining of the same. Now indeed this whole passage might justly be omitted, for, sublata causa tollitur effectus; seeing justinian held no such heresy as he is slandered withal, there neither was, nor could there be any effects or consequents of a cause not existent: Yet will I not so slightly reject the Cardinal's calumny in this point, but fully examine, first the public, and then the private mischiefs, which he, without all truth hath fancied, and objected against the Emperor. 37. The public was partly the subversion and overthrow of the faith, and partly the decay of the Empire in the time, and under the government of justinian. Disertus esse posset; He that would in an elaborate speech refute this calumny of Baronius, might have an ample scope to display all his Art and skill in this so large an argument: My purpose is only to point at the several heads, and not expatiate at this time. Truly, the Cardinal could hardly have devised any calumny more easy to be refuted, or more evidently witnessing his malicious and wilful oppugning of the truth. I will not insist on those private testimonies: of Procopius, a Lib. 3. the adif. justin. pa. 433. justinian seemeth to have been advanced by God to that Imperial dignity, ut totum Imperium repararet, that he might repair and beautify the whole Empire: Of Otho b Lib. 5. ca 4. , justinian being a most valiant and most Christian Prince, Imperitum quasi mortuum resuscitavit, did raise the Empire as it were from death to life, and exceedingly repaired the Commonwealth being decayed: Of Gotofrid c In Chron. part. 16. in Iustinia●. , The whole glory of God was repaired by his virtue, and the Church rejoiced in the stable peace which under him it enjoyed: Of Wernerus d An. 504. , He was in all things most excellent, and by his just laws, and wisdom he governed the world; by his impiety he glorified God: Of Aimonius e De gest. Fr. lib. 2. ca 8. , He was a Catholic, a pious, a just Emperor, therefore all things prospered under his hands. I oppose to that Baronian calumny, the judgement of Pope Agatho, and of the Roman Council with him, wherein this is expressly witnessed, f In Epist. Aga●. Act. 4. Conc. 6. pa. 18. ●▪ His integrity in faith did much please God, & exalt the Christian Commonwealth: and again g Ibid. in Epist. Synod. pa. 22. , His virtue and piety, omnia in meliorem ordinem restauravit, restored all things into a better state and condition: All, both Church and Commonwealth, both the Civil and Ecclesiastical state: he restored all. I oppose the sixth general Council, that is, the judgement of the whole Church, in which the suggestions of Agatho, even in that point, according to the Cardinal's doctrine h Vid. sup. he● cap. nu. 18. , are approved as uttered by S. Peter, yea, by the holy Ghost himself. These pregnant and irrefragable testimonies of so many, so holy, and divine witnesses, are able, I say not to confute, but utterly to confound & overwhelm Baronius with his deformed & decrepit calumny. 38. If any further please to descend to particulars, whether he cast his eyes on the Church or Commonwealth, he shall see every Region, every Province, almost every City & Town proclaiming the honour of justinian: Besides, his happy appeasing of those manifold broils, and suppressing sundry heresies which infested the Church in his days, among which this concerning the Three Chapters was the chief: How infinite monuments did he leave of his piety and zeal to God's glory & the good of his Church, in building new, in repairing decayed Churches, reducing both to a most magnificent beauty? The Church of Christ called Sophia, built by him at Constantinople, was the mirror of all Ages: Of it Procopius, an eyewitness, testifieth, i Proc. lib. 1. de aedif. justin. pa. 423. that the magnificence thereof amazed those who saw it, but was incredible to those that saw it not: the k Assurgit in altitudinem caeli. Ibid. height of it mounted up into the heaven, the splendour of it was such, as if it received not l Diceres locum illum non externo sole illuminari. Ibid. light from the Sun, but had it in itself; the roof decked with Gold, the pavement beset m Pavimentum ex diversi colotis unionibus perfectum. 〈◊〉 Annal. part. 4. with Pearl; the silver of the Choir only contained four * Myriadas 4. 〈◊〉 argenti habuisse sertur. Proc. loc. cit. Myriads, that is, forty thousand pounds; in so much that it is said n Hoc aedifici● Solomonem esse superatum. ●lic. loc. cit. , to have excelled the Temple of Solomon. Further, in the honour of the blessed Virgin he builded every where so many houses, so stately and sumptuous throughout the Roman Empire, that if you should comtemplate but only one of them, you would think (saith Procopius o Lib. 1. ) his whole reign to have been employed in building that alone. At Constantinople he builded three p Ibid. , one in Blacernis, another in Pege, a third in Hierio: besides others builded in honour of Anna, of Zoa, of Michael, of Peter and Paul, of Sergius and Bacchus, utrumque fulgore lapillorum Solem vincit, either of which, by the brightness of precious stones, excelled the Sun; of Andrew, Luke and Tymothy, of Acatius, of Mocius, of Thirsis, of Theodorus, of Tecla, of Theodota: Haec omnia ex fundamentis erexit, All these he raised from the very ground and foundation: and that at Constantinople; the beauty and dignity of which cannot by words be expressed, by viewing be perlustrated. Nor did he this to one only City; he builded like magnificent Churches, at Antioch q Pro. lib. 2. , at Sebastia, at Nicopolis, at Theodosia, at Tzani, at justinianea r Lib. 4. , where he was borne, at Ephesus s Lib. 5. , at Helena, at Nice, at Pythia, at jerusalem, so magnificent, ut nullum aliud aequipare possit, that none other may compare with it; at jericho, at mount Gerazim, at mount Sinai, at Theopolis, at Aegila t Lib. 6. pa. 453. , where they sacrificed to jupiter Hammon and Alexander the great, even to that time; at Bore●on, at Tripoli, at Carthage, at the Gades, or Hercules pillars, which was the uttermost border of the known world in those days: So that one may truly say of him, Imperium Oceano, famam qui terminat astris; his piety and zeal reacheth as far as the earth, his honour as high as the heaven. And yet have I said nothing at all of the Monasteries, Zenodochies, Nosodochies, and other like Hospitals, which, out of his most pious affection to God and God's Church, he not only erected, but enriched with large patrimonies and possessions, which for number are as I suppose equal, for expenses greater, than the former: all the particulars whereof I refer to be read in Procopius, who considering, beside other matters, all these magnificent and sumptuous buildings, did truly say of justinian u Lib. 1. pa. 424 , Nulla honorandi Dei satietas eum cepit, he was never wearied, never satiate with honouring of God. 40. After the Church, will it please you to take a view of the civil state & Empire. No man's tongue or pen can equal or come near his acts, and most deserved praise. The whole Empire at the beginning of his reign was in a manner spoilt & defaced. In the East, the Persians' held a great part of Asia; in the South, the Vandals possessed afric; in the West, the Goths usurped Italy, and Rome itself; in the North, the Franks, Almains, and other people withdrew Germany, France, and other Northern Countries. justinian, finding the Empire thus torn asunder on every side, freed it from all these enemies; and having most happily subdued, and gloriously triumphed over them all, by his victorious conquests, he purchased those manifold titles, which are so many Trophies, Crests, and Ensigns of his immortal honour, to be surnamed justinian the Great h justiniani magni. Epist. Agath. et Synod. Rom. Act. 4. Conc. 6. , happy i In praes●d Institut. justin. , renowned, victorious, and Triumphant Augustus, Alamanicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus: So at once he purchased both honour to himself, and peace and tranquillity to the Empire. Neither did he this only by his conquests, and recovery of those great Nations, which the Empire had lost; but further also by his prudence he so fortified them, being recovered, by building and repairing their ruinated Cities, by erecting Castles, Forts, and strong places of munition; by furnishing them all with the commodities of waters, of walls, of promontories, of havens, of bridges, of baths, of goodly buildings, and other matters, serving either for the necessity or pleasure of habitation, that the whole Empire by his wisdom and government was made, as it were, one great and strong City, both commodious and delightful to his own subjects, and inexpugnable to his enemies: So in Media he fortified Doras' k Inexpugnabilem hollibus effecit. Proc. lib. 2. de ●dis. Iust. ; in Persia, Sisauranon; in Mesopotamia, Baros; in Syria, Edessa, and Callinicum; in Commagine, Zenobia; in Armenia, Martyropolis l Ibid. lib. 3. ; in the other Armenia, Theodosiopolis; in Tzani, Burgunocie; Totam m Lib. 4. Europan inaccessam reddidit; he made the whole Country of Europe unconquerable: Tauresium, where he was borne, he exceedingly fortified, and beautified, and called it justinianea; the like he did to Vlpiana, and called it justinianea secunda: near to it he builded justinopolis; he repaired all Epyrus, Aetolia, Acarnania; Vniversam Graeciam, he fortified all Greece: the like he did in Thessalia, and Euboea, Quam penitus inexpugnabilem & invictan reddidit, which he made inexpugnable: The like he did in Thrace, in Misia, and in Scythia also; in Libya n Lib. 6. , in Numidia, and at the very Gades. Time would fail me to recount the one half of his famous buildings in this kind, they may be read in Procopius, who thus concludeth, Nulli a Lib. 6. pa. 456. dubium est, no man may doubt, but that justinian fortified the Roman State with munitions, and strong holds, from the East unto the West, and to the very utmost borders of the Empire: Who further in admiration of these works of justinian not only calls b Lib. 4. pa. 439. him, Orbis reparatorem, the repairer of the whole world, but adds this memorable saying of him, That there hath c Quapropter 〈◊〉 contenderit, per omnem aetatem fuisse quempia● ex omnibus hominibus Iustiniano magis providum, & accuratiorem. Lib. 4. pa. 440. not been any in all ages, nor among all men, more provident, more careful for the public good, than justinian, unto whom nothing was difficult, no not to bridle and confine the Seas, to level the Mountains, and overcome those things which seem impossible. 40. Even Evagrius himself, whose spite and spleen was (as I conjecture by some well-willer of the Three Chapters, of which there were diverse in the time of Gregory, when Evagrius writ) incensed against justinian, could not choose but testify this. d Evang●. lib. 4. ca 18. It is reported of him, that he restored anew, an hundreth and fifty Cities, which were either wholly overthrown, or exceedingly decayed, and that he beautified them with such & so great ornaments, with houses both private and public, with goodly walls, with fair and sumptuous buildings, and Churches, ut nihil possit esse magnificentius, that nothing can be more magnificent: So he. And yet all these Buildings, Munitions, Castles and Forts, are not comparable to those most wholesome Imperial Laws, whereby he most wisely ordered & governed the whole Empire: that alone was a work of so great value & excellency, that I may truly say, that all his victories & victorious triumphs over the Persians, the Goths, the Vandals, and other nations, never gained so much honour unto him, as did that his more than Herculean labour in composing and digesting the laws, to the unspeakable benefit of the whole Christian world: for as by his victories and buildings, he restored but the material Cities and walls thereof, so by this he repaired the men themselves, and their minds, reducing them from rude and barbarous behaviour to civility and order, setting them in such a constant form of civil government, as all Christian Kingdoms since have not only with admiration extolled, but with most happy success embraced and followed. 41. judge now, I pray you, uprightly of the Cardinal's dealing, who declames against this Emperor, and reviles him in most odious terms, as an unjust, avaricious, sacrilegious, tyrannical person, calling him a dolt, a fool, a madman, an heretic, an Antichrist, a persecutor of the faith, negligent of the civil, disturber of the Ecclesiastical State, under whom the Empire and Commonwealth decayed, and declined, the Church was oppressed, and the faith overthrown: Whereas it doth now appear by evidences of all sorts, that he was a Prince, not only Catholic, pious, prudent, magnanimous, just, munificent, and most vigilant for the good, both of the Church and Commonwealth, but so adorned with the concurrence of all those heroical virtues, which have been single in other men of great same, as if in him we should see the complete Idea of a worthy Emperor; he being for political prudence, Solon; for valour and victorious conquests, Alexander; for magnificence, Augustus; for his Piety, constant love and zeal to the faith, Constantine, Theodosius or Martian; for multiplicity of labours, undertaken for the good of the whole Empire, more indefatigable than Hercules; and for supporting the whole fabric of the Church and Christian faith, a very Atlas; Caelum qui vertice falcit. 42. There only remaineth now the other effect, which is private: which as it is the last, so is it the heaviest punishment that Baronius could wish unto justinian, and that is, his adjudging him to the pit and torments of hell. Did he not fear the Apostles reproof, either against rash and temerarious judgers, Who f Rom. 14. 4● art thou that judgest another man's servant? or against uncharitable censures, Charity thinketh not evil g 1 Cor. 13.5. , it rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth. why did not the Cardinal hearken rather to the judgement of the Church of Constantinople? Wherein the memory h In ipso Dei Verbi Sapientiae templo quotannis magnifi● è memoriam ejus celebrari, populi universi concione ad rem divinam coacta. Nicep. lib. 17. ca 31. of justinian was yearly celebrated, and that with great pomp and solemnity in the Church of Sophia, in the time of divine service, all the people being assembled. The like celebrity i Ibid. of his memory was observed at Ephesus in the Church of Saint john, which he had builded: Or if the authority of these particular Churches could not sway the Cardinal, seemed it a small matter unto him to contemn the consenting judgement of Pope Agatho, and his Roman Council, which rank him among the glorious and blessed Saints in heaven, with Saint Constantine, Theodosius, and Martian? yea, of the whole sixth general Council, wherein his memory is so often called, holy, blessed, divine, happy, and the like? & if his memory, then much more himself is happy and blessed; for to the just only doth that honour belong; The k Pro. 10.7. memorial of the just shall be blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot. To which purpose that is specially to be observed which Nicephorus addeth in plain terms of the sixth general Council, justinianum l Loc. cital. beata quiete dignatur, It placeth justinian in blessed rest and peace: and again, Semper cum qui in Sanctis est justinianum dicunt, That general Council ever calleth justinian one who is a Saint, and among the Saints. Add to all these, that seeing, by the Cardinal's confession, the Epistles of Agatho, In omnibus (and therefore even in that which he saith of this holy Emperor, That he is a blessed Saint, venerable in all Nations) are to be embraced as divine Oracles; it may be truly concluded, that justinian, not only by the testimonies of mortal men, and of all nations, but even by the voice of God himself is blessed, and hath ever since his death, and doth now rest, and reign with God. When by the unpartial judgement of S. Agatho, of the Roman Synod, of the whole sixth general Council, of all Nations, yea, of God himself, justinian is proclaimed to be a venerable Saint, now resting & reigning with God in heaven: who is Baronius, a man of yesterday, that after a thousand years' possession of that heavenly rest, he should unsaint him, dethrone him, and thrust him down to the lowest pit and most hideous torments of hell? ist not enough for that Hildebrandicall generation to divest Kings & Emperors of their earthly diadems, unless in the pride of their hearts climbing up into heaven, they thrust them out thence also, & deprive them of their crowns of immortality, & eternal glory? 43. And yet were there neither Historian nor Pope, nor Provincial, nor General Council, to testify this felicity of justinian unto us; that very text, out of which, being maimed, the Cardinal sucked poison, and collected His death & damnation, doth so forcible prove the beatitude of justinian, that it alone may be sufficient in this cause. The Cardinal cities but one part of the text, but the whole doth manifest his fraud and malicious collection. Apoc. 14.13. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from hence forth; even so saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labours, and opera illorum sequuntur illos, their works follow them: which last words the Cardinal only allegeth, and applieth them to justinian. Now who are Those, that are meant by, Their works, and follow Them? who are those Them, that the Spirit meaneth in that text? Out of all doubt those selfsame of whom before he spoke, Them, that die in the Lord, Them, that are blessed, and rest from their labours; Of Them, the Spirit there saith, Opera illorum, Their works follow Them. Seeing then the Cardinal confesseth this text to belong to justinian, and himself applieth it unto him, it certainly hence followeth, that justinian is of their number, who die in the Lord, and are blessed: for of Them, and Them only doth the holy Ghost speak in that text, saying, They rest from their labours, and Their works follow Them. So hard it is for the Cardinal to cite or say aught against justinian, which doth not redound to the Emperor's honour, and the Cardinals own ignominy. 44. But let us suppose the words to be general, as being uttered alone, without any reference to that text, they may be truly affirmed both of the good & bad: There cannot be found in all Scripture more fair evidence, nor a more authentic Charter for the happy estate of any one in particular that lived since the Apostles times, then is this for justinian: For what were those works which did accompany and follow justinian? Truly the works of sincere faith, of fervent zeal to GOD, of love to the Church and Children of God, the works of piety, of prudence, of justice, of fortitude, of munificence, of many other heroical virtues: with these, as with a garment and chain of pure Gold, justinian being decked, was brought unto the Bridegroom; every decree made, or ratified by him for confirming the faith; every Anathema denounced against heresies, & heretics, particularly those against Vigilius, & all that defend him, that is, against Baronius, and all who defend the Pope's infallibility in defining causes of faith; every Temple or Church, every Monastery and Hospital, every City and Town, every Bridge, Haven and Highway, every Castle, Fort, and Munition, whether made or repaired by him, tending either immediately to the advancement of God's service, or to the maintaining or relieving of God's servants, or strengthening the Empire against his and God's enemies: every book in the Digest, Code, and Authentikes; every Title, yea, every law in any title, whereby either the Christian faith and religion, or peaceable order and tranquillity, have been either planted, or propagated, or continued, either in the Church or Commonwealth: all these, and every one of them, and many other the like, which I cannot either remember, or recount, are like so many Rubies, Chrysolites, and Diamonds in the costly garment, or so many links in that golden chain of his faith and virtues. Seeing they, who offer but one mite into the treasury of the Lord, or give but one cup of cold water to a Prophet, shall not want a reward; O! what a weight of eternity and glory shall that troop of virtues and train of good works obtain at his hands, who rewardeth indeed every man according to their works, but withal rewardeth them infinitely above all the dignity or condignity of their works. 45. If justinian and those who are beautified with so many virtues and glorious works, be, as the Card. Judgeth, tormented in hell, belike the Cardinal himself hoped by works contrary unto these, by works of infidelity, of impiety, of maligning the Church, of reviling the servants of GOD, of oppugning the faith, of Patronising heresy, yea, that fundamental heresy which overthroweth the whole Catholic faith, and brings in a total Apostasy from the faith; by these he hoped to purchase, and in condignity to merit the felicity of the Kingdom of Heaven: This being the tract and beaten path wherein they walk, and by which they aspire to immortality, what Constantine m Socr. lib. 1. ca 7. said once to Acesius the Novatian, the same may be said to Baronius and his consorts, Erigito tibi scalam Baroni, & ad caelum solus ascendito, Keep that Ladder unto yourselves, and by it do you alone climb up into heaven. But well were it with them, and thrice happy had the Cardinal been, if with a faithful and upright heart towards God, he could have said of justinian the words of Balaam, Let me dye the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his. His life being led in piety, and abounding in good works, he now enjoyeth the fruit thereof, felicity and eternal rest in Abraham's bosom: As for the Cardinal who hath so malignantly reviled him, himself can now best tell whether he doth not cry and pray, Father Abraham have mercy on me, and send justinian that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue: or sing that other note n Wisd 5.4. c. unto his fellows concerning this Emperor; We fools thought his life to be madness, and his end to be without honour, but now is he numbered among the children of God, and his lot is among the Saints: Therefore we have erred from the way of truth, and wearied ourselves in the ways of wickedness and destruction; we have gone through deserts where there lay no way, but as for the way of the Lord we have not known it. CAP. XXI. How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empress, and a refutation of the same. 1. NExt the Emperor, let us see how dutifully the Cardinal behaveth himself towards the Empress Theodora. A small matter it is with him in several places to call her an a Impiae Theodorae Augustae. an. 535. nu. 59 impious, an heretical b H●reticae faminae impiae Theodorae. ibid. nu. 60. , a sacrilegious c Sacrilega faemina molita es●. an. 536. nu. 123 , a furious d A furente haeretica faemina excitata. an. 538 nu. 9 heretical woman, a patron e Ipsa haereticorum, Ac●phalorum, Severianorum, E●●y. hianorum patrona. an 547. nu. 49. of heretics, and the like. Hear and consider how he stormeth but in one place f An. 535. nu. 63 against her: These so great mischiefs did that most wicked woman begin; she became to her husband another Eve obeying the serpent, a new Dalila to Samson, striving by her subtlety to weaken his strength; another Herodias, thirsting after the blood of most holy men; a wanton maid of the High Priest, persuading Peter to deny Christ. But this is not enough, Sugillare ipsam, with these terms to flout her, who exceedeth all women in impiety, let her have a name taken from Hell, let her be called Allecto, or Megaera, or Tisiphone, a Citizen of hell, a child of Devils, ravished with a satanical spirit, driven up and down with a devilish gad be, an enemy of concord and peace purchased with the blood of Martyrs. Thus the Cardinal: who tells us afterwards how when Vigilius came to Constantinople, she contented long with him for to have Anthimus restored, in so much that Vigilius was forced to smite her as from heaven, with the thunderbolt of Excommunication g Sententi●m excommunicationis instixit. et, Excommunicationis sententia fulmini● ins●ar coelitus emiss● prostravit. an. 547. nu. 49. & 50. , whereupon she h Theodoram ● Vigilio sanciatam dito ja●uto anathematis, haud diu post ulciscente numine, est inseqwius interitus. an. 548. nu. 24. shortly died. Here is the tragical end which the Cardinal hath made of her. 2. Now I would not have any think that I intent wholly to excuse the Empress; she had her passions and errors; as who hath not? and as Liberatus i Liber. ca 21, 22. and Evagrius k Evagr. lib. 4. ca 10. show, she took part with the oppugners of the Council of Chalcedon: which was for some time true; she being, as it seems, seduced by Anthimus, whom for a while she laboured to have restored to the See of Constantinople: though afterwards, as Victor Tununensis testifieth, she being better informed, joined with the Emperor in condemning the Three Chapters, and so in truth, in defending the Council of Chalcedon, though Victor thought the contrary. And of this mind in condemning the three Chapters she was, as by Victor is evident, some years before Vigilius came to Constantinople. Her former error, seduction, and labour for Anthimus, I will not seek to lessen, or any way excuse. But though she were worthy of blame, was it fit for the Cardinal so basely to revile her, and in such an unseemly and undutiful manner, to disgorge the venom of his stomach upon an Empress? tantae ne animis caelestibus irae, who would have thought such rancour and poison to have rested in the breast of a Cardinal? But there was, you may be sure, some great cause which drew from the Cardinal to many unseemly speeches against the Empress; and though he would be thought to do all this only out of zeal to the truth, which Anthimus the heretic oppugned, yet if the depth of the Cardinal's heart were founded, it will appear, that his spite against her, was for condemning the Three Chapters, which Pope Vigilius in his Constitution defendeth; Anthimus and his cause is but a pretence and colour; the Apostolical Constitution, the heresies of the Nestorians, decreed and defined therein, that is the true mark at which the Cardinal aimeth; neither Emperor nor Empress, nor Bishop, nor Council, nor any may open their mouth against that Constitution, which toucheth them in capite, but they shall be sure to hear and bear away as harsh and hellish terms from Baronius, as if they had condemned the Trent Council itself. Had Theodora defended the Three Chapters, as Vigilius in his Constitution did, the Cardinal would have honoured her as a Melpomene, Clio, or Urania; because she did not that, she must be nothing but Allecto, Megaera, or Tisiphone, and they are too good names for her. 3. If one desired to set forth her praise, there wants not testimonies of her dignity, and honour. Constantinus Manasses l In annal. sui●. pa. 87. saith, that she was jisdem addicta cum marito studiis, & iisdem praedita moribus: that she so well consorted to her husband, that she was addicted to the same studies, endued with the same manners as he was: That justinian himself calleth her m Participem consilij sumentes eam quae à Deo est data nobis, reverendissima●● conjugem. Novel. 8. ca 1. , reverendissimam conjugem, his most reverend wife, given unto him by God: adding that he took her as a partner with him of his counsels in making his laws, and after her death he n 〈◊〉 pragmatica sanctione justin. ca 1. calleth her Augustam piae memoriae, Empress of holy memory, as do also and very often the sixth general o Ad Iustinianum & Theodoram divae memoriae. Conc. gen. 6. Act. 14. pa. 73. Bis ita ait Concilium. &, Ad Theodoram piae memoriae quondam Augustam. Act. 3 pa. 11. Council: an unfit title to be given to an heretic, or a fury, either by a holy general Council, or by a Christian orthodox Emperor, who was so earnest with the fifth Council to condemn all that should obstinately persist in the condemning of the true faith, and dye out of the communion of the holy Church. Divers the like testimonies might be alleged, if one would labour to extol that Empress, as the Cardinal hath strained his wit and pen to vilify and disgrace her. But because that is not my purpose at this time, I would only observe how unjustly the Cardinal hath taxed her in respect of three several times, and three special matters. 4. The first concerns the placing of Anthimus, an Eutychean heretic in the See of Constantinople, which Baronius p justinianus Angustam conjugent a●diens, monstrum horrendum in sea●uz Pontificiam provehit. an. 535. nu. 60. saith was done by justinian, occultis insidiis Theodorae, by the cunning and treacherous means of Theodora; and thereupon he breaks q Ibid. nu. ●2. & 63. into many uncivil terms. Wherein the Cardinal's spite and indiscretion is utterly unexcusable: for whatsoever Anthimus was secretly and in his heart, be at that time when he was placed in the See, and afterwards also, outwardly showed and professed himself to be a Catholic; he was a wolf, as the Archimandrites r Libel. Arch●●●mand. et Monac ad Agapetum in Conc. Constantinop. sub Menn. act. 1. pa. 426. a. and Monks of Constantinople, jerusalem, and other parts of the East do witness, in their synodal Epistles to Agapetus; but he covered himself, and his wolvish conditions, under sheep's clothing. Again, he s 〈◊〉 eadem. b. and others, religionis pietatem dissimulantes, counterfeiting the piety of religion, thrust themselves into the Church. Anthimus lived not an evangelical (that is, sincere,) sed fictam vitam, but a feigned and hypocritical life, manifesting forth to all men the counterfeit continency of his government, and the show of piety which by it he made. The Emperor t justin. Constitutio contra Severum, Anti●imum. etc. quae extat posi Conc. sub M●nna. pa. 469. a. testifieth the same; Anthimus forsook and refused those true doctrines which he often seemed to love, simulans sequi sanctas quatuor Synodos, feigning himself to follow the four holy Synods. The whole general Council under u Sent. Synodi contra Anthimum. act. 4. pa. 438. a. Mennas in their definitive sentence against Anthimus do expressly witness the same, He counterfeited himself to embrace and receive the four Counsels, and he kept them in 〈◊〉. Again, he used deceptibilibus rationibus ad ejus Serenitatem, deceitful and cozening means before the Emperor, promising to do all things which the Apostolic See (then Catholic) did decree, and he writ to the most holy Patriarches, Se sequi per omnia Apostolicam sedem, that he did in all things follow the Apostolic See: when Anthimus made so holy, and orthodoxal a profession, better than which no Catholic could desire; what marvel if by this fair show, and outward orthodoxy, he deceived both the Emperor, and the Empress, and the whole Church? They were not, nor could they look into his heart, it was their duty to judge him to be such in deed, as he showed and professed himself to be, a Catholic Bishop: and taking him for such, they placed him in that high patriarchal See. Did not Constantine the great the like, and without any just blame or reprehension, receiving into great favour Eusebius of Nicomedia, and others, though inwardly and in heart most pestilent Arians, yet in outward profession orthodoxal, and embracers of the Nicene faith? Nay, what if Baronius himself acknowledge, that neither Theodora nor justinian, advanced Anthimus the heretic; but Anthimus then seeming, and being in their judgement a Catholic? Hear I pray you his own words x an. 535. nu. 6●. , The Empress favoured Anthimus, uti orthodoxo, as an orthodoxal Bishop: and justinian sent a Constitution to him, ut orthodoxum Antistitem, as to an orthodoxal Bishop. He did y an. eod. nu. 5●. outwardly profess the Catholic faith, but inwardly was an Eutychean. Again, the z an. eod. nu. 86 Fox had so ordered himself, that being a most abominable heretic, Studeret tamen in omnibus apparere Catholicus, yet he endeavoured every way to seem a Catholic, approving the Council of Chalcedon, and all that true Catholics did; yea and when there was a rumour spread of him to be an heretic, the crafty companion throughly purged himself of that crime, when in plain terms he professed before the Emperor, that he would in all things assent to what the Apostolic See did prescribe: these things being dissembled by Anthimus, his hypocrisy and heresy were not detected, until a Ibid. nu. 88 Agapetus the next year came to Constantinople; in the mean space he was held for a professor of the Catholic faith, a communicator with the Apostolic See, by reason of his public profession, wherein he openly before all men's eyes, and before the Emperor himself, professed to receive all things which the Apostolic See did prescribe. Thus Baronius. By whose words it is most clear that Anthimus when he was placed in that See of Constantinople by the means of the Empress, was not known to her, nor discovered to the Church, as yet, to be an heretic, nor a full year after: he was held & reputed by all for a Catholic, and very orthodoxal Bishop. What fault was this now in Theodora or justinian, to place him in this See, whom they knew for no other than a Catholic? who professed to hold the four former Counsels, and promised to yield to whatsoever Agapetus a known Catholic did prescribe. Nay, seeing by Baronius own confession, the Empress did then favour him uti orthodoxo, no otherwise than as being orthodoxal, she even therein testified her orthodoxy in faith at that time, as favouring him eo nomine, because she thought him to be orthodoxal. So far was she in this act either from being an heretic, or deserving those epithets & titles which the Cardinal hath fetched from hell to bestow upon her, that in very deed by the Cardinal's words she deserveth praise and honour. 5. The second point concerns the biennial contention with Vigilius for restoring of Anthimus, which out of Anastasius b Anast. in vita Vigil. Baronius c an. 547. nu. 49 hath borrowed: all which is nothing but a mere fiction and legend patched up by Anastasius, as elsewhere I shall further explain. Vigilius was neither called, nor came about that business to Constantinople, but about the three Chapters; the cause of Anthimus was some ten years before ended: the Empress knew the resolution of Vigilius therein, that he had absolutely refused to restore him. And though for a while after the deposition of Anthimus, she, being deceived by his fair words and show of piety, fought to restore him: yet when she saw Anthimus to remain an obstinate heretic, and to oppugn the faith of Chalcedon, she quite left off all striving for Anthimus, and became with justinian a condemner of the three Chapters, (as Victor c Theodora ●licuit à Vigilio ut tria Capitula condemnaret. Vict. Tun. in Chron. an. 2. post Coss. Basilij. testifieth) that is in truth, an earnest defender of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the Catholic faith. So unjustly doth the Cardinal take occasion upon an untruth and legendary fable to revile the Empress as an heretic. 6. The third and last point concerns the direful thunderblast of Excommunication, which Vigilius the Roman jupiter cast from heaven against Theodora, wherewith belike she was smit to death. Wherein though the Cardinal d Ibid. is exceeding brag, and thinks his saying to be warranted by no mean witnesses, but by Pope Gregory himself; yet for all that, I must be bold to tell him that it also is a fiction, and that Vigilius brought no such jovial darts with him to Constantinople, or if he did, he spent them not upon the Empress. It was Pope Agapetus, and not Vigilius, by whom (if by any) Theodora was excommunicated, seeing Theodora did contend with Agapetus about Anthimus, and that also before his deposition. It was he which called Theodora, Eleutheria, a persecuting Empress. Vigilius had no occasion at his coming to excommunicate her, the cause of Anthimus was before that ended. Theodora and Vigilius consented together in one profession of faith: he condemning the three Chapters, a little after he came to Constantinople, as well as the Empress, could not condemn or excommunicate her for an heretic, but he must condemn himself also. ay, but Pope Gregory e Greg. lib. 2. Epist. 36. saith expressly he did excommunicate her. Might I in stead of an answer say as some f Author. apol. Tumultuariae pro dispensatione de matr. m. Hen. 8. & ●xoris fratris ejus. fol. 46. of their own Writers do in another cause, Gregorius hîc non est audiendus, Gregory is here not to be regarded: or but say as their own Bishop Canus g De loc. Theol. lib. 11. ca 6. §. Lex vero 2. doth, that Gregory was too credulous in writing reports; the matter were soon answered: But I am not willing to censure Gregory so hard as they do: my answer is, that the name of Vigilius is by an error either of the writer or Printer of Gregory, inserted there in stead of Agapetus: for of Agapetus, Victor h Agapetus Archie●●●●. Rom. Theodoram Augustam Anthi●● patronam communione private: Anthimum deponit, & Mennam ejus loco Epis. opum ponit. Vict. Tunun in 〈◊〉. in Coss. justin. an. 14. justiniani. is an express witness, that he indeed deprived Theodora of the communion: All the circumstances accord thereunto. Theodora was then an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon, she took part, and was a patron of Anthimus: Gregory himself notes this fact to be done equally against the whole sect i Papa, contra Theodoram & Acephalos damnationis sententiam promulgavit. Greg loco citato. of the Acephalian heretics, as against Theodora: now Vigilius had nothing to do with those heretics; it was the cause of the three Chapters wherewith he was troubled; the heads of the Acephali, Anthimus, Severus, Petrus, Zoaras, and their followers, were condemned both by Agapetus k Acephalorum Principes, Anthimum, Severun, etc. condemnavit Agapetus. hin Not. in vittam Agapet. pa. 416. b. , and by the great Council of Constantinople l Act. 5. under Mennas, where were present the Legates of the Roman See, Agapetus being lately dead: and the same sentence was confirmed by the Emperor justinian m Const. justin. post finem Synod. sub Menna. at the end of the Synod, so that there was nothing left for Vigilius to do against the Acephali, who both by the Pontifical, Synodall, and Imperial sentence were condemned nine years before his coming to Constantinople. Lastly, the very scope and coherence of Gregory's text doth enforce this correction. The defenders of the three Chapters alleged, that since the time of the fifth Council, wherein the three Chapters were condemned, many calamities had befallen Italy, whereupon they concluded that God afflicted the Church for that decree of the fifth Council, and for condemning of those three Chapters. Gregory to refute this their reason, alleged another example, and of former times: to wit, of condemning the Acephali, whom they, to whom Gregory writ, acknowledged for heretics; saying, Postquam, after Pope Agapetus when he came into this kingly City denounced a sentence of condemnation, against Theodora, and the Acephali, then was Rome besieged, and taken by the enemies (that is the Goths;) was therefore God angry for that sentence against the Acephali? Apply this reason to Vigilius, and his time, and it is not only untrue, but unfit to the purpose of Gregory: for before Vigilius his coming to Constantinople, not only Vitiges the Goth possessed Rome, (from whom Bellisarius in the time of Silverius recovered it) and made great havoc in Italy; but Totilas n Totilas Romam contendit, quam statim obsedit. Proc. lib. 3. the bell. Goth. pa. 360. also (before Vitiges came) besieged it so hard, that by reason of the famine they were driven not only to eat mice, and dogs, but even dung also, and last of all one to eat up another: and that same year Totilas took Rome, sacked it, and had purposed utterly to have abolished it, and burned it to ashes, but that Bellisarius by his most prudent and fortunate persuasions, stayed him from that barbarous immanity. Now seeing not only the siege, but captivity of Rome was after the coming of that Pope to Constantinople, and sentence against Theodora, of whom Gregory speaketh, it must needs be he meant Pope Agapetus, whose sentence all the foresaid calamities follow; and not Vigilius, o Vigilius venit Constantinopolin an. 12. be 〈…〉 Gothic. Proc. lib. eodem. pa. 364. Romam obsedit Io●i●●s. an. 11. ejusdem belli. lib. eodem. pa. 359. & seq. before whose coming to Constantinople Rome was besieged by Totilas, and taken also before the sentence, if it was (as by Anastasius is to be gathered) not denounced till the second year after Vigilius his coming thither. Neither only had the reason of Gregory been untrue, but most unfit for his purpose, had he meant Vigilius in this place: for he clearly intends such a calamity as happened before the condemning of the three Chapters, but after the condemning of the Acephali. Now it is certain by the Acts of the fifth Council, and by the Emperor's testimony, that as the Eastern Bishops, so also Vigilius presently after he came to Constantinople consented to condemn the three Chapters, yea condemned them by a Pontifical decree and judgement, and continued in that mind till the time of the fifth Council; at which time by the general Synod they were also condemned. Gregory then should have spoken against himself, had he meant Vigilius, and his coming to Constantinople, in saying that after the sentence of Vigilius against Theodora, the City was besieged and taken, (as it was once again indeed taken by Totilas p Proc. lib. eodem 3. an. 15. belli Goth. pa. 394. in the 23. year of justinus:) for his adversaries to whom he writ, being defenders of the three Chapters, would have replied against him, that this calamity befell them from the very same cause; seeing both the Eastern Bishops and the Pope consented in that doctrine of condemning of the three Chapters. Thus it appeareth not by surmises and conjectures, but by certain and evident proof, that the text of Gregory is corrupted, or else that Gregory himself was mistaken therein, (which in a matter so near his days we may not think) and so that it was not Vigilius, but Agapetus whom Gregory intended to denounce that sentence against the Acephali, or Theodora, of which Baronius maketh such boast, and commends with such great ostentation, that thereby he might make the Empress who was a condemner of the three Chapters, more odious, and strengthen that fiction and fabulous tale of Anastasius, that Vigilius contended with justinian and Theodora about Anthimus. CAP. XXII. How Baronius, declameth against the cause itself of the Three Chapters, and a refutation thereof. 1. BAronius not content to wreck his spite upon the Emperor and Empress in such uncivil manner as you have seen, carp in the next place at the very cause itself of the three Chapters. What did Vigilius, saith he a Bar. an. 547. nu. 48. , offend, in appointing that men should be silent and say nothing until the future Synod, of this cause of the three Chapters? which if it could have been, potius perpetuo erat silentio condemnanda, sopienda, sepelienda, atque penitus extinguenda; was rather to be condemned to perpetual silence, to be buried and utterly extinguished. Again b an. 553. n. 137 , I do never fear to avouch that it had been much better that the Church had remained without these controversies (about the three Chapters) nec unquam de his aliquis habitus esset sermo, and that there had never been one word spoken of them. Thus Baronius. 2. What think you moved the Cardinal to have such an immortal hatred to this cause, as to wish the condemning, burial, and utter extinguishing of those controversies? What more hurt did this to the Church, than the question about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or about the opinion of Eutiches? Very great calamity, saith Baronius c Ibidem. , ensued upon this controversy, both in the East and West. True, it did so: and so there did, and far greater and longer about the controversy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and more again than that, upon the question whether the Gospel or Paganism should prevail: and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated, the truth of Christ spread abroad, the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospel. No affliction, calamity, or persecution, is a just cause either to wish that there had never been any such controversy, or to forsake the truth of God, when the controversy is moved. It was an excellent saying of the Egyptian Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon d Act. 1. pa. 8. , Christianus neminem timet, a Christian feareth no mortal man; si homines timerentur, martyrs non essent, if men should be feared, there would be no Martyrs. But the truth is, it was not as Baronius fancieth, the controversy itself, nor the disputing and debating thereof, that caused so great calamities in the East and West; that is non causa pro causa; the peevishness and perverseness of wicked men maintaining heresies, and oppugning the truth, that was the true cause thereof. The controversy itself, if you well mark it, was very beneficial to the Church. Oportet haereses e 1 Cor. 11.19. esse, there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved might be known. Every heresy is a probation and trial of men's love to God, and his truth, whether they esteem it more than their honours, pleasures, and their own wilful conceits; and the greater the heresy is, and the further it spreads, it is still a greater trial. Heretics, saith S. Austen f Lib. de ver● relig. ca 8. , do much profit the Church, though they be out of the Church, not by teaching the truth which they do not know, but by stirring up those who are more carnal Catholics, to seek, and those who are more spiritual, to defend and manifest the truth. This trial and probation of men (if I mistake not) was never so great in any controversy or question, as in this of the three Chapters. First, it sifted and tried Vigilius to the full, and tried him to be a weathercock in faith, an heretic, and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolical authority. Next, it sifted out diverse notable conclusions: as first, that which I think was never before that tried; that not only the Pope, but the Apostolic See also, to wit, the Roman Church, and with it the Western Churches, all at once adhered to heresy, and forsook the truth, and that even after it was decreed, and judged by the general approved Council; and so it proved both Pope and Roman Church to be properly heretical, the Eastern Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time; it showed that the Catholic faith was tied neither to the Chair, nor Church of Rome. Another conclusion then tried, was that either persons, or Churches, may not only descent from the Pope and the Roman Church, and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod, but may renounce communion with them, and yet remain Catholics, and in the unity of the Catholic Church; the Pope, the Western Church, and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholic faith, Heretics, and by forsaking the unity of the Church, Schismatics. 3. Neither only was this controversy a trial to them in that age, a trial of their faith, love to God, charity to the Church, obedience to the Emperor, but it is as great a trial even in these our days, and ever since that doctrine of the Pope's infallibility in causes of faith hath been defined and condemned. By this controversy, most haply decided by the general Council, all that hold the Pope's definitions of faith to be infallible, that is, all that are Papists, or members of the present Church of Rome, they are all hereby tried to defend this Apostolical Constitution of Vigilius, that is, to maintain all the blasphemies of the Nestorians, to deny the Catholic faith, the doctrine of the Apostles, of the primative Church, of the fifth general Council; & so to be not only heretics, but convicted, anathematised, and condemned heretics, by the judgement of a general approved Council, and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholic Church. Further yet there is a trial of them, whether upon that ground or foundation of the Pope's infallibility, they will build up and maintain any other doctrine, or position of faith, or religion; if they do (as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relieth upon that) they are again hereby tried to be heretical, not only in the foundation, but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion, which relies upon that foundation. 4. This was it which nettled Baronius, and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes, that this controversy had never been heard of, nor mentioned in the world: he saw what a trial was like to be made by it of men, of doctrines, of Churches, of the Pope himself, and their whole Romish Church; and seeing that trial, he never ceased to say, that it had been much better that this controversy had never been moved, nor spoken of, for so they had avoided this most notable trial. Blessed be God, for that it pleased him in the infinite depth of his unspeakable wisdom to cause this controversy to be ventilated, and discussed to the utmost; that among many other trials, this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue, to try them even until the very destruction of Antichrist. It is for heretics whose errors and obstinacy is tried, and discovered to the world; it is for them, I say, to wish that the controversies about Arianism, Nestorianisme, Eutycheanisme, and the like, had never been moved; they had scaped the just censures and anathemas by that means. But Catholics have cause to rejoice and triumph in such controversies, by which, both the truth which they maintain, is made more resplendent and victorious, themselves, and their faith tried to be like refined gold, the Church thereby is quieted, the truth propagated, heresies confounded, and the glory of Almighty God, much more magnified, and praised. CAP. XXIII. How Baronius revileth both the Imperial Edict of justinian, and Theodorus B. of Caesarea: and a refutation of the same. 1. SEeing now, notwithstanding the wishing of Baronius, this controversy could not be buried, (it ought him and all ill-willers of it a greater shame than that) in the next place let us see how he declameth both against the Emperor's Edict, whereby these three Chapters were condemned, & Theodorus Bish. of Caesarea, who (as he saith) was the author & penner of that Edict. The Edict itself he calleth first, Seminarium a An. 534. n. 2● dissentionum, a seed-plot of sedition, which was never made upon a good occasion, nor had any good end. And not content herewith, he tells b An. 546. nu. 9 us out of Facundus, that it is contrary to the faith, yea even to that faith which justinian himself professed as orthodoxal: to which effect also Baronius himself saith c Ibid. nu. 8. that the Emperor's Edict was set forth contrary to the three Chapters of the most holy Council of Chalcedon. But he specially seeks to disgrace it by the author of it, for though it was published by justinian, yet saith he d Edere sanctiones sibi arrogat (justin.) quas dolose conscripsissent haeretici. an. 546. nu. 41. Egerunt callide adversarii veritatis, etc. ibid. nu. 9 , it was written, and that craftily by heretics and adversaries to the truth; by the e Ingenue professus est, Origenistarum studiis ea fuisse ab Imperatore promulgata. ibid. nu. 49. Origenists, and in particular by f Illud à Theodoro conscriptum edictum suo nomine justin. promulgavit. ibid. nu. 8. Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, one gracious g an. 538. nu. 85 , potent, and familiar with the Emperor: and for proof of all this the Cardinal citeth Liberatus h an. 546. nu. 9 & an. 534. nu. 21. & alibi. , Facundus, and Vigilius. 2. Having thus declared Theodorus to be the author and writer of the Edict; Baronius then rageth against Theodorus, as if he were to act veteren comoediam, or according to the Proverb, ex plaustro, to rail out of a cart against him, calling him factious i justin. factiosorum stadijs se inseruit. an. 550. nu. 14. , fraudulent k Hominem vafrum. an. 551. nu. 4. & 564. nu. 7. , impudent l Ejus gratia factus impudent ibid. nu. 3. , a most wicked m Theodorum illum nequissimum quem mirum in modum favisse ostendimus Origenis haeresibus. an. 564. nu. 6. & occaltum haereticum manifestum schismaticum. an. 551. nu. 5. Precept Origenista. an. eod. nu. 4. , heretical, schismatical, headstrong Origenist, the ringleader of the Origenists, one marvellously addicted to the heresy of Origen: nor only a servant to origen's errors, but also n Non Origenis tantum errorum assecla, sed & Eutychianae blasphemie vehementissimus propugnator. an. 564. nu. 7. a most earnest defender of the Eutychean blasphemy; nor only so, but plunged o Ita miser (justinianus) caecus caecum (Theodorum) sectans, cum ipso pariter mergitur in profundum. an. 564. nu. 7. agit au●e de haeresi Aphthardochitarum. in the heresy of the Aphthardokites, or Phantastickes, and like a blind guide leading the blind Emperor into that ditch of heresy: a sacrilegious p juque sacrilegum (Theodorum) pseudo episcopam, imo tyrannum insurgit, in perversorem legum, eversorem jurium. an. 551. nu. 5. person, a pseudobishop, a tyrant, a perverter of laws, an overthrower of right, the q Qui Imperatori omnium illi malorum causa fuit. an. 551. n. 3 author of all mischief to the Empire, the very r Hic igitur nefandissimus, totius Ecclesiae postis. an. 564. nu. 7. plague of the whole Church: Thus and much more doth Baronius utter against Theodorus, by whom being so unworthy an author, he would disgrace the Edict itself, which he writ, though the Emperor published it. 3. Let us first begin with that most untrue and malicious calumny of Baronius, that the Emperor published his Edict against the three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon. Truly the Cardinal should and might most truly have said the quite contrary, that he published his Edict for defence not only of the three, but of every Chapter, of every position, of every decree of the Council of Chalcedon. The three Chapters which that Imperial Edict, and after it the fifth Council, and the whole Catholic Church condemneth, were not Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, but three impious positions, assertions, or (as they were by an equivalent word called) Chapters, which heretics, specially the Nestorians, collected, and falsely boasted to be taught by the Council of Chalcedon; whereas in very truth the holding of any one of them (much more of them all) is the overthrow of the whole Council at Chalcedon, yea of the whole Catholic faith: that Council contradicteth and condemneth them all, no less than the fifth Council, which as Gregory truly saith, is in omnibus sequax, it doth in every point follow and consent unto the Council of Chalcedon. The like may be said of that which out of Facundus, Baronius observeth, and citeth as a proof of his saying, that the Emperor's Edict is repugnant and contrary to the orthodoxal faith. Baronius will still keep his old wont in applauding Vigilius and the defenders of the Three Chapters. For if the Edict condemning them be contrary, then is the defence of them consonant to the faith, and then not the Imperial Edict of justinian, but the Pontifical Constitution of Vigilius must be approved as orthodoxal. And what is this else, but to condemn the judgement of the fifth general Council, of Pope Pelagius, Gregory, and all Popes after them, of all general Counsels following it; in a word, to contradict, and utterly condemn the consenting judgement of the whole Church, for the space of 11. hundred years? they all approve the determination of the fifth Council, and it so fully consenteth with the Edict in condemning the Three Chapters, that in their definitive sentence they differ very little in words, but in substance and sense nothing at all from the Emperor's Edict, which caused Binius to say, the Edict of the Emperor was approved by the Pope and the Council: So Catholic and orthodoxal is it, so advisedly and orthodoxally penned. To seek no further proof, Baronius himself was so infatuated in this cause, that he oftentimes confuteth his own sayings: for himself gives a most ample and most observable testimony of this Edict, and of the orthodoxy thereof, saying s an. 534. nu. 21. of it, Est veluti Catechismus, & fidei Catholicae exacta declaratio; this Edict of justinian is as it were a Catechism, or an exact declaration of the Catholic faith, and an exact discussing of the Three Chapters, which were afterwards long controversed in the Church. So untrue is that his first calumny against the Edict, whereby he would persuade, that it is contrary to certain Chapters of the holy Council of Chalcedon, or as Facundus plainly, but most untruly affirmeth, contrary to the Catholic faith. 4. For the second calumny, that his Edict was a seminary of sedition, Baronius might as justly condemn the decree of Nice, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, yea, the very Scripture itself, and preaching of the Gospel; Christ himself is set as signum t Luk. 2.34. contradictionis, as a butt of contradiction, against which they will ever be striving, and shooting their arrows of opposition, sedition, & contention: himself u Luk. 12.49, ●1 saith, I am come to set fire on the earth, and what would I but that it should be kindled: and again, Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on the earth, I tell you nay, but rather division; and no sooner was the Gospel preached abroad in the world, but that which our Saviour foretold them x Mat. 10.21 , came to pass; Brother shall deliver up brother, the father the Child; the Children shall rise against their Parents, and cause them to be put to death; and ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: what a seminary of sedition may the Cardinal call the Gospel, that caused all these troubles, wars, seditions, murders, and burnings in the whole world? what another Seminary was the Nicene decree against Arianisme, and Constantine's Edict to ratify the same? after that, how seditiously was Athanasius and the Catholics persecuted, put to flight, to torments, by Constantius and the Arians? how seditiously did the Counsels of Ariminum, and Syrmium oppugn and fight against that Nicene Decree, till they had so far prevailed, that well-neare there had needed no longer contending, the whole world almost being turned Arians, and even groaning under Arianisme? If the Cardinal, by reason of those manifold troubles and oppositions, which ensued upon this Edict, will condemn it for being a Seminary of sedition; let him first condemn the Nicene Decree, and Imperial Edict for it, let him condemn the Gospel, and Christ himself, which were all such Seminaries as that Edict was. If notwithstanding all the oppositions, seditions, & contentions raised by heathen, heretical, & other wicked men, against these, they were (as most certainly they were) Seminaries of truth; let the Card. know & acknowledge his malicious slander against this most religious and orthodoxal Edict of justinian, which was, as all the former, a sacred Sanctuary for the Catholic faith. Seditions, oppositions, tumults, persecutions, and the like disturbances in the Church, spring not from Christ, nor from his Word and Gospel, either preached by Bishops, or decreed by Counsels, or confirmed by Imperial Edicts, all these are of themselves causes only of unity, concord, peace, and agreement in the Church; these only are the proper, native, and natural fruits, and effects that proceed from them; but contentions and seditions come from the perverse, froward, wicked, and malicious minds of men, that hate the truth, and in hatred of it fight against all that uphold the truth, be it by preaching, by decreeing, or by enacting the truth, these are as Wolves, which by continual tumbling in the mire disturb and trouble the stream: The fountains whence the truth springeth are most pure and most peaceable. 5. Now whereas in the third place Baronius seeks to disgrace the Edict, by the Author of it, whom he describes to have been not only an heretic, but a most detestable person, even the plague of the whole Church, let us suppose and admit the Author to have been such a man indeed, nay, to have been judas himself, (and worse than judas he could hardly be, seeing CHRIST himself called y john 6. v. 71. judas a Devil,) Is the Edict, or the truth of God thereby published, worse, because judas uttered or penned it? was the Ark to be refused or contemned, because wicked men framed and built it? Did not Christ say z Luk. 10.16. of judas, (a Devil) as well as of Peter a Saint, He that heareth you heareth me, he that despiseth you despiseth me? Hath Baronius forgotten the lesson of Saint james a jam. 2. v. 1. , My brethren, have not the faith of our glorious Lord jesus Christ in respect of persons; love it for itself, but neither love it nor refuse it because of him that speaketh, penneth, or bringeth the same? Did the Cardinal never hear of the Scribes and Pharisees, they sit b Mat. 23. v. 2.3 in Moses chair, (that is, deliver God's truth out of Moses and the Prophets unto you) whatsoever therefore they bid you, that observe, do, but after their works do not? Or if this reason of the Cardinal may take effect, themselves, and their Roman Church will be far the greatest loser's; how easy will it be to reject and contemn an whole Volume of their Pontifical Edicts? why, this was made or written by john 12. that by Hildebrand, or Boniface 8. the other by john 23. an heretic, an Atheist, a Devil incarnate, as a general Council c johannes 23. inter Christi fideles vita● ne mores ejus cognoscentes, vulgariter dicitur Diabolus incarnatus. Conc. Constant. sess. 11. pa. 1579. testifieth; another by Formosus, Steven, or by one of those whom themselves profess to have been thiefs, robbers, Wolves, Tigers, and most savage beasts, and Apostatical Popes, as Genebrard d Per annos ferè 150. Pontifices ferè 50. a virtute majorum prorsus defecerunt, Apotactici, Apostaticiuè, potius quam Apostolici, etc. Gen. lib. 4. Chronol. ad an. 904. calleth threescore of them, all worse than the Author of this Imperial Edict, though we should admit him to have been such, or as bad every way as Baronius describeth him. 6. But the truth is, the Author of the Edict was no such man as the Cardinal fancieth: as it bears the name, so it was indeed the work of justinian, no child can have more honour by his father, than it by such an Emperor: and though Baronius having so often slandered justinian, to be utterly rude, unlearned, one that could not so much as read, nor knew his Alphabet or first elements, could not but in good congruity confidently deny justinian to be the Writer, or Author of so learned and divine an Edict, or as himself calls it, of so exact a Catechism; yet considering what before was declared, both out of Procopius of the Emperors often tossing of books among the Bishops, out of Liberatus of his great pains taken in writing against heretics, and for defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and out of Platina calling justinian a very learned Emperor: I cannot think but that although justinian might use the advice, help, and industry of Mennas, Theodorus, or some other Bishops in this as in other Edicts, concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, yet still the ultima manus, the last correction and perfecting of all, was the Emperors own doing, the rather because both in his other Edicts, that against Anthimus, against Origen, as also in his letters to this Synod, and the rest, there is so uniform a style, so Imperial, and so divine a kind of writing, that the same Genius of justinian seems to breathe in them all. 7. But Baronius e An. 546. nu. 8 9 tells us, that both Liberatus, Facundus, and Vigilius do testify Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea to be the Author of this Edict. Baronius is ever like himself, that is, untrue, and fraudulent: Not one of these say it: first, not Liberatus, he indeed affirms f In suo Brevi a●. ca 24. Theodorus and some others to have suggested this unto the Emperor, that he would condemn those Three Chapters, by a public Edict or book; but he adds withal, Rogaverunt eum ut dictaret Libellum; they prayed the Emperor that he would dictate or indite the book against the Three Chapters; and the Emperor consented, saith Liberatus g Annuit 〈◊〉 Princeps Ibid. , unto them & hoc se laetus implere promisit, and he gladly promised to do so; that is, to indite or dictate such an Edict. So far is Liberatus from affirming, as Baronius allegeth him, Theodorus to be the Author of this book or Edict, that he teacheth the quite contrary. As for Facundus he h Ea quae scribi fecerunt, titulo nominis tui praenotarunt, verum nos illa scripta 〈◊〉 tua dici. Fac. apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 9 saith indeed, the Edict was not written by justinian, but by the adversaries of the truth: but that Theodorus writ it, that is the Cardinal's addition, Facundus saith it not: and even in that which he saith, that the Edict is contrary to the Emperor's faith, Facundus doth so manifestly slander, both the Emperor, (as if he thought the Three Chapters were not to be condemned,) and the Edict also, as if the condemning of these Three Chapters were contrary to the Catholic faith) that there is no credit at all to be given to him in his report touching the Author, who is so untrue in his reports, both touching the matter of the Edict, and touching the known profession, and faith of the Emperor. 8. The Cardinals Vigilius now remaineth, whose words i Inter Epist. V●●gilij, Epist. 17. tom. 2. Conc. pa. 5●3. b. are these spoken to Theodorus; The book condemning the Three Chapters, by their means was read in the King's Palace, before certain Greek Bishops, à quibus assentationum favorem tuis vocibus exigebas: What if one should here oppose the Cardinal, and say, tuis vocibus, were the Ablative case, and that Theodorus had by his words solicited, the other Bishops favourably to consent to the Emperor's Edict? How will Baronius assure us, that they must be taken in the Dative case; as if Theodorus had solicited them to consent to his words, that is, as the Cardinal supposeth, to the Edict which was penned, and written by him, or whereof he was the Author? Sure against this Baronian construction, the words of Liberatus are very pregnant, seeing Theodorus, as he showeth, was one who entreated the Emperor to indite or dictate the book, and the Emperor promised so to do. If then Theodorus solicited the Bishops to consent to the words of the Edict, he certainly urged them (by this testimony of Liberatus) to consent not to his own, but to the Emperor's words, of whose inditing and dictating the Edict was. Admit them to be the Dative, how knows the Cardinal, that by [tuis vocibus] are meant the words of the Edict? might not Theodorus signify to the Bishops his own great liking of the Emperor's Edict, and persuade them to the like, to say as he said, to consent to his words in approving the Imperial Edict? The Card▪ was too secure & negligent in relying on these words [tuis vocibus] which being so ambiguous, receive diverse, & those also just exceptions: But yet there is a far worse fault in this proof; that the Epistle, whence the Cardinal citeth these words, though it bear the name of Vigilius, yet is intruth not the Epistle of Vigilius, but a very counterfeit and base forgery under his name, full of untruths, unworthy of any credit at all; which, besides other proofs, (hereafter to be alleged) feigneth Mennas to be Bishop of Constantinople, and to be excommunicated, together with Theodorus, by Vigilius four or five years after he was dead, which censure was to stand in force till Mennas repent of his contumacy against the Pope's Decree, and should be reconciled to him. This lying and base forgery doth Baronius bring to prove Theodorus, and not justinian to be the author of this Imperial Edict. Might not one say here as was said of the Ass, Like lips, like lettuce? Such a writing is a most fit witness for Baronius, who delighteth in untruths, and not finding true records, to give testimony to them, it was fit he should applaud the most vile and abject forgeries, if they seem to speak aught pleasing to the Cardinal's palate, or which may serve to support his untruths. 9 You see that yet it appears not that Theodorus was the writer or penner of this Decree, none of Baronius his witnesses affirming it, and Liberatus, who is the best of them all, affirming the contrary. I might now with this answer put off a great part of those reviling speeches which Baronius so prodigally bestoweth on Theodorus: But I mind not so to leave the Cardinal, nor suffer the proud Philistine so insolently to revile and insult over any one of the Israelites; much less this worthy Bishop of Caesarea, to whom he could not have done a greater honour, than in that which he intended as an exceeding disgrace to him, to call and account him the Author and Writer of this Edict. It is no small honour, that justinian, so wise and religious an Emperor, should commit the care of so weighty a matter to Theodorus; that he should have him in so high esteem, as account his word an Oracle, to be guided and directed by his judgement; so to adhere unto him, as Constantine did to that renowned Hosius, as to think it a piaculum, or great offence not to follow his advice in matters of so great weight, consequence, and importance. Nay, this one Edict, (supposing with the Cardinal Theodorus to be the Author of it) shall not only plead for Theodorus, but utterly wipe away all those vile slanders of heresy, impiety, imprudency, and the like, so often, and so odiously objected, and exaggerated by the Cardinal against him; this writing and the words thereof being (as whosoever readeth them will easily conceive, and if he deal ingenuously, confess) the words of truth, of faith, of sobriety, of profound knowledge, evidences of a mind full fraught with faith, with piety, with the love of God, and God's Church, and in a word full of the holy Ghost. As Sophocles k Cic. de Senect. , being accused to dote, recited his Oedipus Coloneus, and demanding whether that did seem the Poem of a doting man, was by the sentence of all the judges acquitted: So none can read this Edict, but forthwith acknowledge it a mere calumny in Baronius to call the maker of it an heretic, whose profession of faith is so pious, divine, and Catholic. Or rather Theodorus may answer that Baronian slander with the like words, as did S. Paul l Act. 24.12.13 , They neither found me making an uproar among the people, nor in the Synagogues, nor in the City, neither can they prove these things whereof they now accuse me; but this I confess, that after this way, (declared in this Edict) which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers. 10. Now as this may serve for a general Antidote at once, as it were, to expel all the whole poison of those Baronian calumnies; so, if we shall descend to particulars, the innocency of Theodorus, as also the malice and malignity of Baronius will much more clearly appear. The crimes objected to Theodorus by Baronius are reduced to three heads; one, his threefold heresy; another, his opposing himself to Pope Vigilius, or the Decree of Taciturnity, in the cause of the Three Chapters; the third, his misleading of justinian into the heresy of the Aphthardokites, and so causing that great persecution of the Church which thereupon ensued; all the other disgraceful terms are but the superfluity of that malice which the Cardinal bears against all that were opposite to Vigilius, and his Apostolical Constitution. To begin then with that which is easiest, the two last crimes are not so easily uttered as refuted, they both are nothing else but mere slanders and calumnies, without any certain ground, or probability of truth, devised either by Baronius himself, or by such as he is, enemies and haters of the truth; and truly for the later, his misleading justinian into the heresy of the Apthardokites, that is not only a manifest untruth, (for justinian, as we have before m Ca 20. proved, did not only at all hold that heresy) but it is wholly forged and devised by Baronius, he hath not any one Author, no not so much as a forged writing to testify this, no nor any probable collection out of any Author to induce him to lay this imputation upon Theodorus; the world is wholly and solely beholden to the Cardinal for this shameless calumny; and yet see the wisdom of Baronius herein, he was not content barely and in a word to tax and reprove Theodorus, (which had been more than sufficient, having no proof nor evidence of the crime) but in this passage, as if she had demonstratively proved Theodorus to be guilty hereof, he rageth and foameth like a wild Boar against him, calling him a most wicked man, and most vehement propugner of blasphemy, the plague of the whole Church, who with a visor afraid the Emperor like a little Boy from the truth, and led him captive into heresy. Do you not think that the Cardinal needed to be sent to Anticyra, when he writ this not only without truth, but without brain and ordinary sense? 11. The other crime, that Theodorus opposed himself to Vigilius, and to the decree of silence, is like the former, save that this difference is to be observed betwixt them, that the former was forged by Baronius, but this later is grounded on a foolish and forged writing applauded by Baronius, fictions and forgeries they are both, but the one was feigned to the Cardinal's hand, for the other he was fain to beat it out of his own anvil. There was neither any such decree for taciturnity, neither did Theodorus, nor needed he to oppose himself to Vigilius, for Vigilius, as well as Theodorus, all the whole time almost from his coming to Constantinople till the fifth Council was assembled, wholly consented to condemn the Three Chapters, as, besides other evident proofs before alleged, to which I remit the reader, that one testimony of the Emperor doth undeniably demonstrate; Quod n Epist. justin. ad Conc. 5. Act. 1 pa. 520. a. vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum per plurima declaravit; Vigilius hath by very many things declared, that he hath been always (since his coming to Constantinople) of the same mind in condemning the Three Chapters; what think you here again of Baronius, who upon this occasion of contradicting Vigilius, & his decree of silence, reviles Theodorus, calling o Locis supra citatis. him sacrilegious, a Pseudobishop, a tyrant, a schismatic, a perverter of laws, the author of all evils; and yet when the Cardinal hath said all this, there is no truth nor reality in the cause and occasion for which he thus rageth and revileth; no opposition to Vigilius, no decree of silence either oppugned, or such as might be oppugned, it was a non ens, a chimaera floating in the Cardinal's idle fancy. Was there no Helleborus at Rome or in Italy to purge the Cardinal's brain of this extreme distemper? 12. The whole hope consists now in the Cardinals Triarij, the three heresies objected to Theodorus, that of Origen, of Eutyches, and of the Aphthardokites. And for the two last I must say the same almost as to the former calumnies, they are mere fictions of Baronius: Theodorus was (saith he p justinianus ob●igatus fuit in eo errore (Apthar. doch. taram) ab eyes, qui ei assistebant, haeresis ejus defensoribus. At quinam illi? Horum Antefignanus fuit Theodorus ille nequissimus, etc. erat is Eu●ycheanae blasphemiae 〈◊〉 Barnes. an. 504. nu. 6. & 7. ) an Aphthardokite, and an Eutychean heretic: what Author what witness or testimony doth the Cardinal produce to prove so heinous a crime against him? truly not one, himself accusator simul & testis, is both the accuser and the witness. But yet he proves it by some good consequence or reason? no nor that neither, his proof is no less foolish than his position is false. justinian, saith q Ibid. he, was misled into the heresy of the Aphthardokites by some Origenists, as Eustathius declareth; whereupon we may easily, and without calumny affirm, that the ringleader of those who misled the Emperor was Theodorus Bish. of Caesarea, an Origenist: The ground of which, (to omit that this Eustathius is of no credit) being the heresy of justinian, seeing that to be a calumny and slander we have before r Sup. ca 20. confirmed, this whole collection must needs be like the foundation on which it relieth, slanderous and false, to say nothing how alogicall and incoherent a consequent this is from particulars. Some Origenists misled justinian, therefore Theodorus; how much rather on the contrary may we certainly conclude, that seeing justinian, who was directed in causes of faith by Theodorus, continued orthodoxal, and a most worthy defender of the true faith, as before we proved, therefore doubtless Theodorus himself, the director of the Emperor, was and remained orthodoxal, and that of a certain he was no Eutychean nor Aphthardokite, is evident by his subscribing s Coll. 8. to the decree of the fifth Council, wherein not only the Council, and decree of Chalcedon condemning Eutyches, and in it the heresy of the Aphthardokites, is strongly confirmed, but Eutyches also by name, and all that hold his heresies, are anathematised, by all the Bishops of that fifth Council, and particularly by this Theodorus, whom the Cardinal, without any testimony or proof at all, slanders to have been an Eutychean and Apthardokite, unto both which heresies he was most opposite: All which will be more manifest by considering the first of those three heresies, wherein Baronius hath the greatest colour for his saying. That Theodorus was an Origenist, and a most earnest maintainer of that heresy, the Cardinal often, and most confidently affirmeth; wherein he hath Liberatus t An. 538. nu. 2● the Deacon, and Bishop Facundus u An. 546.8, 9 & 49. for his Authors. 13. First for Facundus, he doth not expressly mention Theodorus as an Origenist, but yet because Baronius citeth him to say, that Theodorus writ the Edict, and Facundus calleth the writers of that Edict, Origenists, let him be admitted for one of the Cardinal's witnesses. Who I pray you, or of what credit think you is this Bishop Facundus? Truly an enemy to justinian, an enemy to Theodorus of Caesarea, and to all that condemned the Three Chapters, a very heretic, and enemy to the Catholic truth. Witness hereof that testimony which their own Possevine x Poss. Appar. in verbo Facundus, et verbo Secundus. giveth of him out of Isidorius. He writ twelve books in defence of the three Chapters, whereby he proveth the condemning of those three Chapters to be the condemning or banishing of the Apostolic faith, and the Council of Chalcedon. Now the defenders of the three Chapters, and writers in defence of them to be condemned, anathematised, and accursed for heretics by the fifth Council, and after it the 6.7. and in a word, by all, both general Counsels, and Popes that follow Gregory, we have often before declared: So that by the consenting judgement of all those general approved Counsels, and Popes, Facundus being an earnest defender of them, and writer in their defence, is anathematised, and condemned for an heretic. And that the continued pertinaciously in this heresy, after the sentence and judgement of the general Council, Baronius doth witness, who y An. 553. nu. 221. tells us, and that with a Constat, It is certain and manifest, that Facundus was sought for to be punished, because he had written most eloquently in defence of the three Chapters, but by lurking in some secret place he escaped. Possevine a In Facundo. further addeth, that Facundus writ a book against Mutianus in defence of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and that Theodorus of Mopsvestia, damnatus fuit ab Ecclesia Catholica ob errores contra sidem, was condemned by the Catholic Church, for his heresy or errors against the faith. Must not he needs be an heretic, that defends a condemned heretic? yea defends those very writings and errors of him and Ibas, which are condemned for heretical? I confess, saith Facundus b Fac. apud Barnes. an. 547▪ nu. 38. , to your Holiness, that I withdraw myself from the communion of the opposites, (those were the condemners of the three Chapters, that is, to say in truth, Catholics) not because they condemn Theodorus of Mopsvestia, but for that in the person of this Theodorus they condemn the Epistle of Ibas as heretical, and by that Epistle condemn the Council of Chalcedon, à qua suscepta est, by which that Epistle is approved. Thus Facundus, so very heretically, that Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, nor any condemned heretic could wish or say more than Facundus hath done both for their heresies, & against the Council of Chalcedon. For the impious Epistle of Ibas is wholly heretical, the approving of it is the overthrow of the whole Catholic faith: and yet Facundus not only himself defendeth that impious Epistle as orthodoxal, and by it defendeth the person and writing of Theodorus of Mopsvestia a condemned heretic; but avoucheth the Council of Chalcedon to approve the same, which condemns it and every part of it even to the lowest pit of hell. 14. Here by the way I must in a word put the reader in mind of one or two points which concern Possevine and Baronius in this passage. If Facundus be a condemned heretic for writing in defence of the three Chapters, what else can Possevine be who praised those books of a condemned heretic? for thus he writeth c Loco citato. , Facundus writ opus grande atque elegans, a great and elegant work, containing twelve books, fortified by the authorities of the Fathers in defence of the three Chapters. Heretic! Is that a brave and elegant book that defendeth heresy? can heresy be fortified by the testimonies of the holy Fathers? What is this else but to make the holy Father's heretics? So heretical and spiteful is Possevine, that together with himself he would draw the ancient and holy Fathers into one and the same crime of heresy. The other point concerns Baronius: he saith d An. 547. nu. 30. that the controversy or contention about the three Chapters, was inter Catholicos tantum, only among such as were Catholics: doth not he plainly thereby signify his opinion of Facundus, that he was a Catholic? for Facundus was as hot, and earnest a contend in that controversy as Vigilius himself; he writ in defence of the three Chapters twelve whole books, elegant and brave books, as Possevine saith: he bitterly inveighed against the Emperor, against all the condemners of them, against Pope Vigilius himself, when he after his coming to Constantinople consented to the Emperor. Seeing this Facundus (a convicted and condemned hehetike) is one of the Cardinals Catholics, must not heresy and Nestorianisme be with him Catholic doctrine? must not the impious Epistle be orthodoxal, and the overthrow of the faith and decree of the Council at Chalcedon be an Article of Baronius faith? even that which he accounted the Catholic faith? But this by the way. We see now what manner of Bishop Facundus was, an obstinate heretic, pertinaciously persisting in heresy. What though Facundus call Theodorus of Caesarea an Origenist? Did not the old Nestorians call cyril, and other Catholics, Apollinarians? of whom it seems the defenders of the three Chapters learned to calumniate the Catholics with the names of heretics and Origenists, when they were in truth wholly opposite to those and other heresies. Can any expect a true testimony concerning Theodorus Bishop, of Caesarea, from Facundus, concerning Catholics, from heretics, their immortal and malicious enemies, nor theirs only, but enemies to the truth? Such, and of such small worth is the former witness of Baronius in this cause, and against Theodorus. 15. His other witness is Liberatus the Deacon, who indeed saith as e In Brev. ca 24 plainly as Baronius that Theodorus was an Origenist; and refers the occasion of that whole controversy touching the three Chapters to the malice of the same Theodorus. For as Liberatus saith, Pelagius the Pope's Legate when he was at Constantinople, entreated of the Emperor that Origen, and his heresies wherewith the Eastern Churches, specially about jerusalem, were exceedingly troubled, might be condemned; whereunto the Emperor willingly assenting, published an Imperial Edict both against him and his errors: when Theodorus being an Origenist perceived that Origen who was long before dead was now condemned, he to be quit with Pelagius for procuring the condemnation of Origen, moved the Emperor also to condemn Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia, who had written much against Origen, whose writings were detested of all the Origenists: the Emperor at Theodorus his suggestion made another Edict, wherein he condemned Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and the two other Chapters touching the writings of Theodoret and Ibas, which bred so long trouble in the Church. Thus Liberatus. Who as you see speaketh as much, and as eagerly against Theodorus, as Baronius could wish, and Liberatus lived and writ about that same time. 16. Liberatus in many things is to be allowed, in those especially wherein by partiality his judgement was not corrupt. But in this cause of the Three Chapters, in the occasion and circumstances thereof, he is a most unfit witness, himself was deeply interressed in this cause, partiality blinded him, his style was sharp against the adverse part, but dull in taxing any, though never so great a crime, in men of his own faction. Of him Binius f In 〈◊〉 in B●ev. Liber. to 2. Conc. pa. 626. gives this true censure, he was one of their rank who defended the Three Chapters, who also writ an Apology for Theodorus of Mopsvestia: again, Baronius and Bellarmine have noted g B●ll. l●b. 1. de Conc ca 5 § 〈…〉 Bell. et Baro●ius in ●iber●ti 〈◊〉, haec 〈◊〉 legonda ad ●onuerut ●●nius loco citato. , that diverse things are caute legenda in Liberatus; of him Possevine h I● Appear. in v●●bo ●iberatus. writeth, There are many things in Liberatus which are to be read with circumspection, those especially which he borrowed of some Nestorians, and those are his narrations touching Theodorus of Mopsvestia, that his writings were praised both by the Emperor Theodosius his Edict, and by Cyrill, and approved also in the Council of Chalcedon; all which to be lies Baronius doth convince. Again i Ibid. , what Liberatus saith of the fifth Council is very warily to be read▪ for either they were not his own, or he was deceived by the false relation of some other, but certainly they do not agree with the writings of other Catholic fathers. Thus Possevine out of Baronius; who might as well in plain terms have called Liberatus a Nestorian heretic, for none but Nestorians, and such as slander the Council of Chalcedon for heretical, can judge the writings of Theodorus, which are full of all heresies, blasphemies, and impieties, to be approved in that holy Council. Again, Possevine rejecting that which Liberatus writeth of the fifth Council, gives a most just exception against all that he writeth either touching Theodorus of Caesarea, as being an Origenist, or of the occasion of this controversy about the 3. Chapters, as if it did arise from the condemning of Origen, in all this Liberatus by the Jesuits confession was deceived by the false relation of others, they agree not to the truth, nor to the narrations of Catholic fathers. Liberatus being an earnest favourer and defender of Theodorus Mopsvestenus, could not choose but hate Theodorus of Caesarea, for seeking to have him and his writings condemned: The saying of Jerome k Apol. 1. contra Ru●●in. ad Pammach. et Marcel. pa. 204. ought here to take place, Professae inimicitiae suspitionem habent mendacij; the report of a professed enemy ought to be suspected as a lie. The true cause why Liberatus is so violent against Theodorus of Caesarea, was not for that Theodorus was an Origenist, (as Liberatus, and out of him Baronius slandereth him) but because this Theodorus condemned the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia whom Liberatus defended, and the two other Chapters. Neither was the condemning of Origen the occasion of condemning the three Chapters, as Liberatus untruly reporteth, but as both justinian and the whole Council witness; the true occasion thereof were the Nestorian heretics, who pretending and boasting the three Chapters to be allowed in the Council of Chalcedon, both the Catholics, in defence of the Council, justly denied the same, and the Emperor first, than the Council to confirm the faith, condemned the three Chapters, which were the overthrow of the faith, as before l 〈◊〉 supra. we 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 Catholic truth defined in the fifth Council, and to Theodorus of Caesarea, who first of all suggested the condemning of them to the Emperor justinian: But now, besides this just exception against the Cardinal's witnesses I will add two clear and authentic proofs to demonstrate both Liberatus, and after him Baronius unjustly and falsely to slander Theodorus of Caesarea for an Origenist. The former is his own subscription to the fifth Council. In that Council, among other heretics, Origen is not only expressly & by name condemned, & that in their definitive sentence; but an Anathema also denounced against all who do not condemn and anathematise him: these are the words of the Council, m Coll. 8. pa. 587 ●. b. If any do not anathematise Arius, Emonius, Macedonius, Apollinarius; Nestorius, Eutyches, Origen, with their impious writings, talis anathema sit, such an one let him be accursed. To this Synodall decree did all the 165. Bishops in the Council consent and subscribe; the eighth man was this Theodorus of Caesarea, 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 confess that the truth is as all those Chapters and doctrines above named (of which this against Origen is the eleaventh) do contain: when Theodorus himself confesseth Origen and his writings to be condemned, accurseth them, yea, and all who do 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 he was in former time an Origenist, but at the time of the fifth Council he was become a new man. Though this were admitted, yet cannot Baronius be excused, for calling him after that fifth Council an heretic, an Origenist: But he was still the same man, both now and before orthodoxal, as by the other evidence, taken from the Emperor's Edict in condemning Origen, will appear, when the defenders of Origen, both for their number, and insolency, grew very troublesome in the East, specially about jerusalem. Pelagius and Mennas, as Liberatus o Loco citate. saith, at the instigation of some religious Monks, entreated the Emperor that Origen and his heresies might be condemned: the Emperor thereupon published a very large and religious Edict against Origen, which he directed to Mennas, and the copy thereof he sent also to Vigilius, and to other Patriarches; after many other things thee Emp. thus writeth p Edictum ●us●i●. 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 anathematised Origen and his impious doctrine, have sent this our Epistle unto you, wherein we exhort 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 do in writing anathematise 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 do the like. Besides this, the Emperor yet commands, that none be ordained Bishop or chosen into any Monastery, unless forthwith in a book they accurse and anathematise, as Arius, Sabellus, Nestorius, Eutyches, and the rest, so also Origen and his impious doctrines. Thus writ the Emperor, and what in this manner he commanded Mennas to do in his Patriarkship, the like was Vigilius to do in the Roman, Zoilus in the Alexandrian, Euphrenius in the Antiochian. That, according as the Emperor commanded, this was done, Liberatus q Dictata est in Originem damnatio, quam subscri●entes, etc. Liber. ca 23. is witness; so that by all the Bishops in the world that then were, and by such as were after this to be ordained, Origen with his impious doctrine was to be condemned and accursed. Particularly of the Synod or Bishops at Constantinople Baronius r An. 538. nu▪ 83 confesseth, The Emperor admonished Mennas to assemble a Synod, by which all these things which he had written against Origen might be confirmed, quod & factum fuit, which was accordingly done; and, as Cedrenus s 〈◊〉 in come. p●nd. Annal. saith, their sentence was this, We condemn all these errors of Origen, & omnes qui ita sentiunt, & sentient, and all who do either now or hereafter shall think as he doth, condemning themselves with an anathema, if either than they did think so, or ever hereafter should think the like. That Theodorus, though he had remained at Caesarea subscribed to this sentence, I think none can doubt, the Emperor's command being so strict to all Patriarches: But indeed it seemeth that Theodorus was not only at Constantinople at this time, and there subscribed, but that he was one of the chief agents with the Emperor 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 Emperor, he was faithful, and especially necessary unto him, of him Liberatus u Ca 24. saith, that he was, dilectus & familiaris Principum, dear and familiar both with the Emperor and Empress; of him x An. 451. nu. 4 Baronius testifieth that he was praepotens armiger justiniam, the Champion of justinian, for so saith he, I may well call him that was used to sit at the Emperor's Elbow, yea, of whom y An. 564 nu. 7. the Emperor had conceived so great an opinion, that he thought it the chief point of his duty or piety, ejus semper inhaerere Vestigijs, always to tread in the footsteps of Theodorus. Thus Baronius. Seeing Theodorus was so near unto, so potent with the Emperor, so highly esteemed by him, that he always trod in his steps, how could Theodorus be a patron of Origen, when the Emperor himself accursed, and commanded all others to accurse him? Did not Theodorus tread out this path of an anathema unto the Emperor? or had he been an Origenist, how could the Emperor, 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 near and dear unto the Emperor, and so continually conversant with him, was doubtless one, and one of the chief) condemned Origen, it is not to be doubted but that he was one of the first and chief 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 magnum agita●um est de origen judicium. Bar. an. 538. nu. 31. et Conc. 5. habitum an. 27. justin. year of justinian, that is, full fourteen years before the fifth Council, so ancient, so constant was the detestation of Theodorus towards Origen. 19 Will any now judge otherwise of Baronius than a malicious slanderer? who raileth against Theodorus as the most earnest Patron of Origen, whom his own public and constant profession and subscription testifieth to have accursed Origen with all his heresies; yea, to have accursed all that do either defend him, or think as Origen did, though outwardly and openly he do not defend him, for that was one Article, * Edict. Iust. contra Originem in fine. to which Theodorus, and the whole Synod under Mennas subscribed; a curse be to Origen with all his execrable doctrine, a curse be to every one who thinketh the same which he did, or who at any time doth presume to defend the same. 20. What are the partial, uncertain, and malicious reports of Facundus, of Liberatus, or of the Surian cyril (to add him also among them) to these undoubted and authentic records of Counsels? when we read and see the evident subscription of Theodorus proclaiming him to condemn and accurse Origen, what vanity, malice and hatred of truth is this in the Cardinal, to allege two, or if you please, three partial testimonies against that evidence which condemneth them, and all that they can say? So unfortunate is the Cardinal in all that he undertakes in this cause, that he doth not only speak praeter, but contra, directly contrary to the truth, whereof, as in other passages, so in this touching Theodorus, we have seen so fair and clear evidences. CAP. XXIIII. How unjustly Baronius excepteth against the Acts of the fifth Council, as being corrupted; and of no credit; and a refutation in general all of the same. 1. BAronius perceiving right well, that all which heretofore hath been said either against the Emperor, or the Empress, or the Edict, or Theodorus the supposed author of it, is not sufficient in any measure either to defend, or excuse Vigilius; in the next place he taketh a very uncouth & unusual, but a most sure course, whereby he may not only weaken, but utterly overthrow all that hath or can be said against the Pope in this cause; for the Acts of the fifth general Council being the most authentic records that can be produced, to prove Vigilius and all that defend him, to be heretics; the Cardinal, and after him Binius will now no longer hack at this or that person, which were agents in the cause, and but petty branches, but now he will strike at the very root, calling into question the Acts and evidences themselves, striving to prove them to be of no credit; which if he can do, all the rest, whatsoever can be said, will most easily be rejected. Now because Baronius was willing in this passage to show not only the utmost subtlety of his wit, but his exact diligence in picking out every quarrel, that art or malice could suggest against the Acts of this holy Council, I must entreat the reader not to think it tedious (though unto me this was a matter almost of greatest trouble and difficulty) to hear patiently, and weigh with equity of judgement the manifold exceptions against these Acts, which he hath collected, or rather scattered upon every occasion which offered itself here and there, that by his inculcating, and ingeminating of the accusation he might breed some opinion of the truth thereof. 2. And before I enter into examination of the particulars, let me put the reader in mind of one or two considerations which may in general concern them all. The first is, that though the Cardinal, and Binius following him, have spared no labour to sift these Acts as diligently as Satan did Saint Peter, and have objected ten or twelve special corruptions in them, yet not any thing which they mention, or against which they except, doth any way so touch or concern the cause of the Three Chapters, whereof we have entreated, as either to show that the Council condemneth them not, or that Vigilius defendeth them not by his definitive & Apostolical Constitution, or that the Council by their Synodall sentence and consenting judgement did not for that cause condemn, anathematise, and accurse for heretics all that defend them, and so Pope Vigilius, among the rest, and all that defend him or his Apostolical Constitution. All these are matters of so certain, evident, and undoubted truth, by the Acts, that Baronius or Binius could find nothing at all to blemish or darken them. So then, though the Acts were admitted in 100 or 1000 other points to be corrupted, mutilated, and altered, yet the Cardinal and Binius are never a whit the nearer; the main point at which they aim, is to excuse Vigilius, and those that defend him, but notwithstanding all that they have said, (and they have said all that industry, having borrowed serpentine eyes, could find out) both Vigilius himself, and all who defend him, and those are all who defend the Pope's infallibility in defining causes of faith, that is, all Papists, remain still, as convicted, accursed, and anathematised heretics, and that by the judgement of an holy general Council, approved by all succeeding, both Popes and Counsels, till the time of Luther and Leo the tenth. 3. The second thing which I observe is, that corruptions which happily may be crept into some Synodall Acts, or other writings, whether by mutilations, additions, or alterations, are no just cause to reject, as unworthy of credit, all the Acts of that Council, or writings of the author. Admit this once, what credit can be given to the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Counsels? whose Acts to be miserably maimed, none is ignorant? yea, even the very Canons also to be corrupted Bellarmine a Probatur Canonas illos (Nicenos) non esse integros. Lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. ca 25. §. Omissa and Baronius b Quod Canon 6. Con. Nic. mutilatus sit, etc. Bar. an. ●25. nu. 125. & Canon ●sse (5. Concilij Constantinopolitaniss) suspectus, imo planè addititius esse atque suppositus habetur, etc. Bar. an. 381 nu. 35. do profess and prove: The like corruption Baronius noteth in the first Ephesine Council, wherein is set c Tom. 5. Conc. Ephes. ca 11. down, among other acts, decretum Regum, for the banishment of the Nestorians, of which Baronius d An. 481. nu. 173. saith, plura simul mendacia insuta habent, there are many lies sowed up in these Acts. In like sort in the Council of Chalcedon is inserted among the Acts of the third Session e Pag. 84. b. , an Edict of the Emperor Valentinianus and Martianus, which was written a long f Concilium finitum est mense Novemb. in Cons. Martiani et Adelphij. Bar. an. 451. nu. 160. Edictum vero scriptum 7 Kalen. Febr. Coss. Sporatio. year after the Council was ended, and therefore must of necessity be acknowledged to be foisted, and unjustly inserted into the Acts. Of the sixth Council Bellarmine g Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. ca 11. § Ad secundum depravata sunt. Bin. not. in Con. 6. § Acta. saith, that it without doubt is corrupted, and whatsoever is found there of Honorius, is falsely inserted. Of it Binius h Acta Concilij multis in locis after Baronius i Bar. an. 681. nu. 13. saith, the Acts of it, are in many places depraved; and whatsoever is there reported to be said or done by Honorius, all that is added by the Monothelites. Of the seventh Binius k Not. in Conc. Nicen. 2. et Acti. 4. thus writeth, This fourth Action is in diverse places faulty, and in the History of the Image crucified at Beritus it containeth diverse Apocryphal narrations concerning the Image of Christ made by Nicodemus. Of the eighth Council, that the Canons thereof are corrupted, and some inserted by Anastasius, their own Raderus l Viginti septem Canones ex Anastasii codice sumptos nullus dubitet, et hi duo Canon's non nisi ex Anastasio videntur accipi. Rad. in Obser. ad Conc. 8. pa. ●48. will persuade them. Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fifth Council be applied to these: He having found among these, one Epistle of Theodoret's which he supposeth to be a counterfeit, concludeth upon that one example in this manner, quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi, quae sunt his contexta commentis; what credit, I pray you, do such Acts as these of the fifth Council deserve, which are entangled in such fictions? May not the self same reason be much more justly alleged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Canons; against the Acts of the Council at Ephesus, at Chalcedon; against the sixth, seventh and eighth Synods, in every one of which, some, & in diverse, more corruptions, not only mutilations, but alterations, and commentitious writings are inserted by their own confession? Let Baronius answer here his own question, Quam fidem rogo? I pray you then, what credit may be given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of the sixth, seventh, or eighth Council? they all must by the Cardinal's reason be rejected, as Canons and Acts of no worth, of no credit at all: Nor they only, but all the works of Augustine, of Athanasius, of Jerome, and almost all the holy Fathers: none of them all by this Baronian reason, deserve any credit, for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts, as the book de variis Quaestionibus Scripturae, the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin, and many more m Poss. Appar. in Athan. p. 127. in Athanasius, the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill, and Cyrils to Austen, the author n Poss. in Aug. pa. 147. of which was not only an Impostor, but an heretic; the book de Spiritu & litera, the book of questions of the old and new Testament, which is heretical, and an heap of the like in Austen; the Commentaries on Paul's Epistles, which savour of Pelagianism; the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity, and 100 like in o Poss. in Hier. pa. 751. Jerome. Quae fides rogo? what credit can be given to these books or writings of Austen, Athanasius, Jerome, or the rest, in which are found so many fictitious, & heretical treatises, falsely ascribed unto them, mingled and inserted among their writings? Truly, I cannot devise what might move the great Card to make such a collection, and reason, as from some corruptions crept into the books of fathers, or Acts of Counsels, to infer, that the whole Acts or writings are unworthy of any credit, but only as jack Cade had a purpose to burn all authentic records and writings of law, that, as he boasted, all the law might proceed from his own mouth; so the Cardinal intended to play a right jack Cade with all the ancient Counsels and Fathers, that having utterly, though not abolished, yet disgraced, and made them all by this his reason and collection unworthy of any credit, his own mouth might be an Oracle to report without controlment all histories of ancient matters; and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter, or to set down in his Annals, that all men should believe, as if the most authentic Records in the world had testified the same: How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinal have done, to have wished all corruptions to be removed? whatsoever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Counsels, or writings of Fathers to be added unto them, that to be quite cut off; whatsoever might be found wanting, that to be added; whatsoever to be altered or perverted, that to be amended, and not in the blindness of his hatred, against this one fifth Council, to fight like one of the Andabatae, against all the rest, and with one stroke to cashier all the Acts and Canons of Counsels, all the writings of Fathers or Historians, because, forsooth, one or some few corruptions have either by negligence or error of writing, or by fraud and malice of some malignant hand crept into them. 4. The third thing which I observe, is, that whereas Baronius so often and so spitefully declameth against the Acts of this Council, as imperfect and corrupted, this his whole accusation proceedeth of malice to the Council and these Acts, rather than of judgement or of truth; for I do constantly affirm, and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Counsels shall certainly find, (and, if he deal ingenuously, will confess the same) that as of all the general Counsels which go before this fifth, for integrity of the Acts, none is better, or any way comparable to this, save that of Chalcedon: so of all that follow it none at all is to be preferred, nor any way to be counted equal with it, unless that which they call the sixth Council, that is, so much of the Acts of that Synod as concern the cause of the Monothelites, leaving out the Trullane Canons: This, whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Counsels cannot choose but observe. The Nicene & Constantinopolitan being so miserably maimed, that scarce we have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Counsels, which, if they could be recovered, no treasures are sufficient to redeem a work of that worth and value, a work non gemmis, neque purpura a vaenale, neque auro. That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus, but yet it remains so imperfect, so confused, and disorderly, that as Diogenes sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men, so among those very Acts & large Tomes of the Counsels, the reader shall be forced to seek the Acts of the Ephesine Council. The Acts of the second Nicene, and of the next to it, which they call the eighth, are so doubtful, that not only this or that part, but the whole fabric of them both is questionable, whether they were the Synodall Acts, or but a relation framed by Anastasius, as he thought best. Of all the eight Counsels, the Acts of Chalcedon, this fifth, and the sixth have been most safely preserved, and like the river Arethusa have strongly passed through so many corrupt ages and hands, and yet without tainture of the salt, deliver unto us the clear and sweet current of antiquity and truth: And verily, when I seriously compare the wrack of other Counsels with the entireness of these three, I cannot but admire and magnify with all my might the gracious providence, wisdom, and love of God to his Church, for in every one of these there is an unresistable force of truth, against that Antichristian authority & supremacy which is now made the foundation of the Popish faith; the sixth in the cause of Honorius, the fifth in this cause of Vigilius, and that of Chalcedon, in curbing the Pope's Legates, in crossing the decree, and known resolution of Pope Leo, and in being a most lively pattern of that rightful and ancient authority which Emperors then held above all the Bishops in the Council; but now the Pope usurps both above all Bishops, Emperors and Counsels. God would by these monuments of antiquity pull down the lofty Towers, and raze from the very bottom that foundation of Babylon, which can never be firm and settled; he would have, besides other particular witnesses, these unconquerable and irresistible forces of these ancient and general Counsels, against which no just exception can be taken: and although I will not excuse the acts of these, nor any of them from all defects and blemishes whatsoever, yet I dare boldly aver, that they are so few, so light, and of so small importance, that the main controversies handled in them, or relying on them, cannot be prejudicated thereby, they being rather the errors of the Collectors, or of the writers, and exscribers of these Counsels, than of the Counsels themselves: And particularly for this fifth Council, against which Baronius doth so furiously declaim: I doubt not to make it evident, that all the faults, which, after much prying, he hath objected unto the Acts thereof, will prove so many evident testimonies of his own most fraudulent and corrupt dealing, and not the defects or corruptions in the Acts of this Council. But let us view the particulars. CAP. XXV. The first alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the text of the Council at Chalcedon is changed therein, refuted. THE corruptions which Baronius, and out of him Binius objecteth, are according to the grammatical division reduced to three sorts of irregularity: Some by variation or alteration, others by defect or mutilation, the rest by redundance or addition. In the first rank be pretendeth three examples; the first which seemeth to be of greatest moment, and carrieth the greatest colour of probability is the corrupting of a certain text of the Council at Chalcedon cited by this fifth Synod. Hear the accusation in Baronius his own words, We may not here omit, saith he a An. 553. nu. 214. to note the craft of the Grecians, who, contrary to right and equity, have corrupted the holy text of the Synodall Acts, by adding unto the Council of Chalcedon those words, about which there was much contention in the time of Pope Hormisda, when certain suspected of Eutycheanisine, specially some Scythian Monks, did labour that unto the holy Council of Chalcedon these words might be added, Dominum nostrum jesum Christum unum esse de sancta Trinitate; which when they could not obtain, because the Synod was well enough without that addition, here now (in this fifth Council) where the Epistle of Ibas is compared with the profession of the Council at Chalcedon; they recite these words of the Synod [Chalcedonensis sancta Synodus in definitione quam de fide fecit, praedicat Deum verbum incarnatum esse hominem] the holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith, doth profess God the Word to have been incarnate and made man; and they add unto the words of the Synod, [qui est Dominus noster Iesus Christus, unus de sancta Trinitate; who is our Lord jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity;] as if the Synod of Chalcedon had professed that, whereas they rather would call Christ, unam personam sanctae Trinitatis, than unum de sancta Trinitate. Thus Baronius: In which few words of his there are contained so many notable untruths, and heretical frauds, that without a rare dexterity in that craft, he could not have easily contrived and couched them in so small a room. 2. First, that they who contended to have Christ called unum de sancta Trinitate, were heretics, or Eutycheans, or unjustly suspected thereof, is not only untrue, but betrays the Cardinal's obstinate and obdurate affection to Nestorianisme; for as Dionysius b Extat in Bib. ●. pat. tom. 3. Exiguus in his Preface to the Epistle of Proclus, witnesseth, and most truly, the disciples of Theodorus Mopsvestenus began to teach an impious faith to the people, with most crafty subtlety professing the Trinity to be in such sort of one Essence, ut Christum Dominum nostrum unum ex Trinitate nullatenus faterentur, that they would by no means confess Christ our Lord to be one of the Trinity; and thereupon they taught a quaternity in the persons. If Baronius esteem it heresy to profess Christ, unum de sancta Trinitate, then is he certainly by this, besides all other evidences, convicted to be a Nestorian heretic, for it is an Article of their Nestorian, and repugnant to the Catholic faith, to deny or doubt to call Christ, unum de sancta Trinitate. 3. Secondly, that the Council of Chalcedon made ever any doubt to profess Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate, or that they would rather call him, unam personam Trinitatis, is another vile Nestorian slander, and heretical untruth of Baronius. The Council of Chalcedon, saith justinian c Le●. ●. de summa ●rinit. ca 4. , approved the Epistle of Proclus, wherein it is taught, that we ought to confess our Lord jesus Christ to be one of the holy Trinity: Proclus, saith d Loco citato. Dionysius Exiguus, did marvellously resist that impiety, and he taught our Lord jesus Christ, unum de Trinitate esse, to be one of the Trinity. When the Nestorians troubled the Church about this matter, justinian set forth a most religious Imperial Edict e Ed●ct. extat apud Bar. an. 593. nu. 7.9. , wherein he commanded all to profess Christ to be unum de Trinitate; we anathematise, saith he, every heresy, especially Nestorius, and those who think, or have thought as he did; we anathematise those who deny or will not confess our Lord jesus Christ, unum esse ex sancta & consubstantiali Trinitate, to be one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity. This Imperial Edict the very next year after it was published was confirmed by Pope john, who thus writeth f Epist. 1. joh. 2. ad justin. to. 2. Conc. p●. 404. et Bar. an. ●34. nu. 15. et seq. to the Emperor, You for the love of the faith, and to remove heresy, have published an Edict, which, because it agreeth with the Apostolic doctrine, we confirm by our authority: and again, You have writ and published those things, which both the Apostolic doctrine, and the venerable authority of the holy Fathers hath decreed, & nos in omnibus confirmamus, and we confirm it in all points: This your faith is the true and certain religion, this all the Fathers & Bishops of Rome; and the Apostolic See hath hitherto inviolably kept; this confession whosoever doth contradict, he is an alien from the holy Communion, and from the Catholic Church. Thus Pope john. What can any man in the world now think else of Baronius, but condemn him for an accursed heretic? He denies the Council of Chalcedon to embrace that profession, unum de Trinitate, which, as the Emperor and Pope witness, it earnestly embraceth; he not only suspecteth in this place, but in plain terms elsewhere g Plane comperitur eosdem ipsos (〈…〉) Eutycheanos' fuisse Haereticos. Bar. an. 519. nu. 99 , he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans, heretics, and oppugners of the Council of Chalcedon, and that for this cause, for that both themselves professed, and required others to profess Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate; nor content herewith he addeth these words, the heresy whereof with no niter can be washed away: he feigneth, saith Baronius h An. cod. nu. 102. , that these words, unus de Trinitate est crucifixus, are to be added for the strengthening and explaining of the Council of Chalcedon; which sentence (unus de Trinitate est crucifixus) the Legates of the Apostolic Sea, prorsus reijciendam esse putarunt, thought to be 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 lie under this honey. Now seeing by justinian's Edict, and the Pope's confirmation thereof, all, who either refuse, or who will not profess Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate, are accursed, and excluded from the Catholic Church and communion; Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure, who condemneth that profession as heretical, and as repugnant to the faith of Chalcedon. Thus while the Cardinal labours to prove by this the Acts of the fifth Council to be corrupt, he demonstrates himself to be both untrue, heretical, rejected out of the Church, and a slanderer of the holy Council of Chalcedon, as favouring the heresy of Nestorius. 4. Thirdly, whereas he saith, that the Scythian Monks would infer verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem, bring or thrust in those words into the Council of Chalcedon, it is a slander without all colour or ground of truth: they saw diverse Nestorians obstinate in denying this truth, that Chest was unus de sancta Trinitate, who pretended for them that these words were not expressed in the Council of Chalcedon; the Monks and Catholics most justly replied, that though the express words were not there, yet the sense of them was decreed in that Council, that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly, implicitly, and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon. To falsify the Acts of that Council, or add one syllable unto it, otherwise than by way of explanation or declaration, that, the Monks and Catholics, whom Baronius calleth Eutycheans, never sought to do, as at large appears by that most learned and orthodoxal book written by johannes Maxentius about this very cause, against which book, and the Author thereof, the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himself, and call them heretical, he doth not thereby one whit disgrace them (his tongue and pen is no slander, at least not to weighed) but the more he still entangles himself in the heresy 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 Monks prevailed not in the days of Hormisda, quod absque additamento Synodus rectè consisteres, because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition, he shows a notable sleight of his heretical fraud. That the Synod is well enough without adding those words, as an express part of the Synodall decree, or as written totidem verbis by the Council of Chalcedon, is most true, but nothing to the purpose; for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholics did affirm them so to be, or wish them so to be added, for that had been to say in express words, we will have the decree falsified, or written in other words than it was by the Council: But that the Synod was well enough without this additament, as an explication of it, and declaration of the sense of that Council, is most untrue; for both justinian by his Edict commanded, and Pope john by his Apostolic authority confirmed, that to be the true meaning, both of that Council, and of all the holy Fathers: And when a controversy is once moved, and on foot, whether Christ ought to be called unus de sancta Trinitate, for a man then to deny this, or deny it to be decreed in the Council of Chalcedon, or to deny that it ought to be added as a true explanation of that Council, is to deny the whole Catholic faith, and the decrees of the sour first Counsels; and though one shall say and profess in words, as did Hormisda and his Legates, that they hold the whole Council of Chalcedon, yet in that they expressly deny this truth, which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon, their general profession shall not excuse them, but their express denial of this one particular shall demonstrate them, both to be heretics, and expressly to believe and hold an heresy repugnant to that Council, which in a generality they profess to hold, but indeed and truth do not. Even as the express denying of the manhood, or Godhead of Christ, or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to be an heretic, though he profess himself in a generality to believe and hold all that the holy Scriptures do teach, or the Nicene father's decree. If Baronius his words, that the Council is right without that additament, be taken in the former sense, they are idle, vain, and spoken to no purpose, which, of the Cardinal's deep wisdom is not to be imagined: If they be taken (as I suppose they are) in the later sense, they undeniably demonstrate him to be a Cardinal Nestorian. 6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinal's frauds in this passage, let us come to that last clause which concerns the corrupting of the Council of Chalcedon. This, saith he, which in Horm●sdaes days they could not, now in this fifth Synod they obtained, now they added to the words of the Synod this clause, qui est Dominus unus de sancta Trinitate: A very perilous corruption sure, to express that clause which all the Bishops of Rome, (semper excipio Hormisdam) with all Catholics, believed and taught, which, whosoever denieth or will not profess, is anathematised, and excluded from the Catholic Church is not this think you a very sore corruption of the Council of Chalcedon? Is not the Cardinal a rare man of judgement that could spy such a main fault in these Acts of the fifth Council, that they profess Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate; to which profession both they and all other were bound under the censure of an anathema. 7. Yea, but in the Acts those words are cited as the words of the Council of Chalcedon, whose they are not. A mere fancy and calumny of the Cardinal: they are plainly set down as the words of the fifth Synod, whose indeed they are; and it relateth not precisely the words of the Council of Chalcedon, nor what it there expressed, totidem verbis, but the true sum and substance of what is there decreed. For thus they say i Coll. 6. pa. 575. a. , The holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith, doth profess God the Word incarnate, to be made man; this is all they report of the Council of Chalcedon, as by the opposition of Ibas his Epistle is apparent, wherein they oppose not that he denied Christ to be one of the Trinity, but that he called them heretics who taught the Word incarnate to be made man. That clause which they add [That Christ is one of the Trinity] is an addition of the fifth Council itself, explicating that of Christ, which the Emperor's Edict bound them to profess, as being the true sense and meaning of the Council at Chalcedon, but not as being word for word set down in the decree of Chalcedon. And even as he were more than ridiculous, who would accuse one to corrupt the Council of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man, who was borne in Bethleem, and fled from Herod into Egypt; so is the Cardinal as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod, or addition to the Council of Chalcedon, that they say the Council taught the Word of God to be man, who is our Lord jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity. Both additions are true, but neither of them affirmed to be expressly, and totidem verbis, set down in the Council of Chalcedon. Why but look to the Cardinal's proof; for he would not for any good affirm such a matter without proof. What? do ye ask for proof of the Cardinal? I tell you, it is proof enough that he saith it: and truly in this point he produceth neither any proof, nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fifth Council, or that the fifth Council cited them as the very express words of the Council of Chalcedon: all the proof is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit, which is a sorry kind of arguing, against any that love the truth: for although against the Pope or their popish cause, any thing which he writeth is a very strong evidence against them, seeing the Cardinal is very circumspect & wary to let nothing, no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Pope's dignity, or the cause of their Church, unless the main force and undeniable evidence of truth do wrest and wring it from his pen: yet in any matter of history, wherein he may advantage the Pope, or benefit their cause, it is not by many degrees so good to say, the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirms it, which is now grown a familiar kind of proof among them k Vide Gretz. tractatus varios, & alios ejus farinae. , as to say, Ovid, Aesop, or jacobus Voraginensis affirm it, therefore it is certainly true. His Annals in the art of fraudulent, vile, and pernicious untruths far excel the most base fictitious Poems or Legends that ever as yet have seen the Sun. CAP. XXVI. The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that Ibas is said therein to have denied the Epistle written to Maris to be his, refuted. 1. THe second thing which our Momus a Dam salsa quaedam ibi (in Acts 5. Concilij) asserta reperiuntur, de impostura non mediocrem suspicionem inducunt: cum viz. ibi dictum habetur, Ibam negosse Epistolam esse suam. Bar. an. 553. nu. 211 carpeth at, is for that in these Acts it is said that Ibas denied the Epistle written to Maris, to be his: which saith Baronius is untrue; for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his. And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinal an untruth, in plain terms affirms b Duo●aul plura mendacia de Ibae epistola leguntur. Bin. Notis in Conc. 6. pa. 606. ●. Acta Conc. 5 non uno loco indicant quod Ibas Epistolam non agnoverit, verum haec sententia, etc. ibid. p. 607. a it to be a lie. Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius, they would never have quarrelled with the Acts about this matter, nor for this accused them to have been corrupt. They may as well collect the Edict of justinian, or that famous Epistle of Pope Gregory, wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters, to be corrupted, and of no credit, as well as the Acts of the fifth Council: for in both c Ibas non est ausus eam suam dicere Epistolam justin. edictum pa. 496. b. Epistolam Ibas denegat suam. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 53. them the same is said concerning the denial of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denial, they may pass for sincere and incorrupt, it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinal and Binius to carp at the Acts for this cause: which will much more appear, if any please but to view the Acts themselves. For this is not spoken obitèr, nor once, but the Council insisteth upon it, repeateth it in several d Abnegans Epistolam. Cell. 6. pa. 563. b. Eo quod abnega●at Ibas illa. Coll. eadem. pa. 564. a. Under & Ibas eam abnegabat. ibid. & alibi. places, and diverse times; and if those words were taken away, there would be an apparent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words than are truly the words of the true Acts, the corruption is only in the brain of Baronius and Binius. 2. Now whereas the Cardinal and Binius so confidently affirm this to be untrue, or a lie, that Ibas denied his Epistle, and so accuse the whole Council to lie in this matter, they do but keep their own tongues and pens in ure with calumnies: the untruth and lie belongs neither to the Council, nor to the Acts, but must be returned to themselves to whom only it is due. For the Counsels truth herein, the Emperor is a most honourable witness, who saith e Loco nuper citato. , Demonstratur Ibas came abnegasse, Ibas is demonstrated, or by evident proof known, to have denied his Epistle. Pope Gregory is another witness above exception, who saith f Loco citato. , Epistolam Ibas denegat suam, Ibas denied the Epistle to be his: the fifth Council also doth not only affirm it, but prove g Coll. 6. p. 564. a johannes Sebastiae, Seleucus Amasiae, Constantinus, Patritius, Petrus & Albarbius, omnes Metropolitani pariter interlocuti sunt, eo quod Ibas abnegavit illa, etc. it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops, and their interlocution in the Council of Chalcedon, they all said they received Ibas, eo quod negabat illa, because he did deny those things which were objected by his adversaries: a great part of which was that Epistle. All these are witnesses for the Council: what witnesses now doth the Cardinal or Binius bring to countervail these? truly not so much as one: and one were but a poor number to be opposed to so many, and so worthy men, testifying the contrary. Now whether the testimony of the Emperor, Pope Gregory, of six metropolitans, and an whole general approved Council affirming this; or Baronius without any one witness denying this, be more credible, let the very best friends of Baronius judge: but Baronius loves to be johannes ad oppositum, to Emperors, Popes, Bishops, and Counsels: if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate, that is indeed, if they say the truth. 3. But yet Baronius hath a proof of his saying, which is this; because Ibas h Acta Germana hatent Ibam confessum, came esse 〈◊〉 ●ed & ●cta Conc. Chalc. ●●ndem Epistolam ut Ibae cognitam esse cocent. Bar. an. 44●. nu. 77. confessed it to be his, and he tells us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon. Say he did confess it, as I will not deny that he did; (though I verily think the Cardinal speaks an untruth, in saying that this is in the Acts, for I find not in those Acts either any such express confession, or aught from whence it can be collected: and justinian plainly saith i 〈◊〉 citat. , that Ibas durst not acknowledge it to be his, for the blasphemies contained therein,) but I admit that Ibas confessed it to be his. Doth it thence follow, that he denied it not to be his? might he nor do both? might he not contradict himself? doth not the Cardinal, (who neither for wit nor wisdom will yield one jote to Ibas,) doth not he as much in this very cause of Ibas Epistle: In one place he k Bar an 4● 2. nu. 71. saith, the Epistle being produced, non esse Ibae compertam, it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas, as the Acts of Chalcedon do show: in another l Pa●. 448. nu 7● place he saith the quite contrary: The true Acts of Chalcedon have it, that Ibas confessed it to be his Epistle. Is not this a piece of handsome work of the Cardinal? The Epistle is his, the Epistle is not his: the Acts of Chalcedon say it is his; the Acts of Chalcedon say it is not his. Could Vertumnus himself play more cunningly fa● and loose than he doth? Might not Ibas do the like? sometimes for his own credit deny the Epistle to be his, though at other times he confessed it to be his? Is it not more likely in itself, more charity in others to think that Ibas did thus, than that the Emperor, Pope Gregory, and a general Council did all conspire to tell a lie. 4. And not to dispute that (which we have now admitted) whether he confessed it to be his or not; that he did certainly deny it to be his Epistle, if neither the fifth general Council, nor justinian, nor Gregory had testified this, yet the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon where Ibas himself was personally present, have so clear a demonstration thereof, that I cannot sufficiently admire either the stupidity, or the most shameless dealing of Baronius and Binius, who with their foul mouths call it an untruth, and a lie: for that Epistle was writ by Ibas not only after the union made betwixt john and Cyrill, as justinian m Epistola fasiz esl●nditur post 〈◊〉 ad orientales facts. Edict. Iust. loco citato. , and the fifth n In pia episicia past unitatem scripta offerdit●r. Conc. 5. Coll. 6 pa. 563. Council truly teach; but as we have before clearly o Sup. ca ●0. proved, at least two years after the same. In that Epistle Cyrill is called an heretic, an Apollinarian, as both the fifth Council testifieth, saying p Coll. 6 pa. 575. a. Epistola, Cyrillum sanctae memoriae haereticum vocat; and the very words of the Epistle do make evident, wherein Ibas saith q In Conc. Chal● act. 10. pa. 113. a , Cyrill is found to have fall'n into the doctrine of Apollinaris: And again, speaking of these twelve Chapters of cyril, which both the Ephesine and Chalcedon Council confirm, he calls r Ibid. them plena omni impietate, full of all impiety, and contrary to the faith. Thus writ Ibas of Cyrill two years at least after the union was fully made. Now in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius, which are expressed in the Council of Chalcedon, Ibas there professed before the judges, that after the union once made, we all, saith he s In Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 113. a , held communion with Cyrill, we accounted him an orthodoxal Bishop, & nullus eum appellat haereticum, and none after that called cyril an heretic: was not this a plain denial that he writ this Epistle? for whosoever writ it calleth cyril an heretic, and that diverse years after the union: now Ibas denyeth that ever after the union he called cyril an heretic. Could he more directly conclude that he writ not this Epistle? unless one will say that to deny Baronius to have written or published one word after the beginning of Pope Sixtus the fifth, be not a certain denial, that the Annals which go under his name, and were all published after the beginning of Sixtus t Nam primum eorum Tomum dedicavit Sixto 5. an. 1589. , are the Annals of Baronius. This denial by an evident and most certain consequent, (not any express denial totidem verbis, as if Ibas had said, this is not my Epistle) was it which both justinian and the fifth Council meant, as their own words do declare: The Epistle, saith justinian u Loco citato. , being full of blasphemies, and containing many injuries against S. Cyrill, is showed to be written after the union, ex quo demonstratur Ibas eam abnegasse, whereby it is demonstrated that Ibas denied it, (in that he said, that he never called cyril an heretic after that union.) The impious Epistle, saith the Council x Loco citato. , is showed by the contents thereof to have been written after the union; therefore it appeareth that Ibas denied it to be his Epistle by this, in that he said that he spoke nothing against cyril after the union: again, Ibas in this denied the Epistle, eò quod dicebat, because he said y Coll. 6. p. 564. a , after the union I am not found to have said aught against Saint Cyrill. Yea this and no other, to have been that denial which the Council meant, Baronius knew right well; for himself saith z an. 563. ●. 211 , that it is said in the Council, that Ibas denied the Epistle, ex eo, for this cause, for that after the union and peace made, he denied that he had said aught against Cyrill: yet notwithstanding all this evidence of truth, the Cardinal to disgrace the Acts of this Council, even against his own knowledge and conscience affirmeth it to be an untruth, or as Binius calls it, (in a most spiteful manner) a lie, that Ibas denied this Epistle to be his. CAP. XXVII. The third alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Council of Chalcedon is said therein to condemn the Epistle of Ibas, refuted. 1. THE third corruption is by a misreport and untrue relation which Baronius observeth in these Acts, for that in them the Council of Chalcedon is said to have condemned that Epistle of Ibas, which he not only saith a Quod Ibidem subditur, eandem Epistolam in Synodo Chalced. fuisse damnatam, ipsa acta secus docent, neutrum enim borum verum esse superius de●monstr avimus. Bar. an. 553. nu. 211. is untrue, (Binius calls b Duo aut plura mendacia. Bin. not. in Conc. 5. pa. 606. b. it also in plain terms, a lie,) but addeth both that the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon do teach the contrary, and that out of those Acts he hath before demonstrated the same. Call you this a corruption of the Acts? why, it is the main purpose of the Council, it is their very judgement and resolution touching the Three Chapters, often and with acclamations repeated. The Epistle c Anathematizavit Epist. contrariam per omnia, expositae definitioni à Concilio Chalc. Sancta Synodus dixit. Scimus et no● hac ita subseqaeut● esse. Coll. 6 pa. 564. a. is contrary to the definition, Epistolam d Coll. eadem. pa. 576. b. definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnat, definitio ejecit; in the proof whereof they much insist. Neither only in the sixth collation do they at large set down this, but in their eighth, even in their Synodall definition e Quo facto demonstratum est, contrariam per omnia Epistolam esse his quae definitione (Chalc.) continentur Coll. 8. pa. 584. a. they expressly mention, that they have not only said, but even demonstrated before, that this Epistle is in all things contrary to the definition of the Council at Chalcedon; yea, they there add, which is more, that the Council of Chalcedon would in no sort otherwise f Invenimus quod non aliter passi sunt Ibam suscipere, etc. Ib. receive Ibas, unless he himself did condemn the impiety contained in that Epistle. Would any in the world (say Baronius, a man merely infatuated in this cause, and such as follow his idle fancies) account that to be a corruption or depravation of the Acts, which is the main scope, purpose, judgement, and definition of the Synod? which they so often in their several Sessions repeat, of which they expressly testify in their very definitive sentence, that they before had said, proved, & demonstrated the same, without which also if it were taken away, (as the Cardinal pretends it should,) not only the Acts should be utterly perverted, but the quite contrary to the judgement and determination of the Council, should be affirmed. Baronius might with as great truth and probability have said, that the handling of the Three Chapters, or judging of the Three Chapters had been a depravation and corrupting of the Acts, for this assertion that Ibas his Epistle was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, is as necessary and essential to the Acts, as the cause itself of the Three Chapters, or any sentence that is any where set down therein. 2. But yet if it be no depravation in the Acts, yet, saith the Cardinal, g Loc. citat. and Binius, it is untrue, It is a lie, that the Council of Chalcedon condemned that Epistle: Let falsehood and impudence itself stand here amazed and aghast at these men. This definitive sentence of this Council, wherein it is proclaimed and decreed, that the Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, is approved by all succeeding general Counsels, by Pelagius, Gregory, and all other their successors, till Leo the tenth, (that is, by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholic Church, and of all Catholics ever since that decree was made) and now Baronius and Binius stand up to give them all the lie; they all say untruths, only Baronius and Binius are men that drop Oracles, out of whose mouths no lie nor untruth can at any time proceed. 3. But saith the Cardinal h Loco cit. , The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon do declare this, and out of them I have before demonstrated this. Lo, the Cardinal will not only say it, but prove it, yea, he hath even demonstrated out of the Council of Chalcedon all the former Popes, and Counsels, that is, all the whole Catholic Church, to lie. I fear me, such demonstrations will not turn to the Cardinal's credit: Do the Acts of the Council teach or demonstrate that? could none of the Popes? none of the succeeding general Counsels spy it in those Acts, till Baronius took them all tardy in an untruth? What will you say to the Cardinal and to his demonstration, if the Acts do not teach this? nay, if they teach directly and demonstrate the quite contrary, who then, I pray you, must have the whetstone? the Catholic Church or the illustrious Cardinal? And certainly the Acts of Chalcedon do demonstrate what this fifth Council, and after it the sixth, seventh, and eighth, and the rest testify, that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. First, it is clear and certain by those Acts that the Council of Chalcedon condemned Nestorius, and all the impious doctrines and blasphemies of Nestorius, approving the Ephesine i S. et magna Synodus 5. Cyrilli Synodales Epis●olas amplexa est, ad arguendum Nestorianam ●lementiam etc. Conc Chalc. Act. 5. pa. 96. et Can. 1 pa. 15. Council, and the Synodall Epistle of Cyrill, wherein they k Omnes Episcopi clamaverunt, Quicunque Nestoriano anathematizat, anathema sit. Omnes Nestorij Epistolam, et dogmata anathematizamus. Con. Ephes. to. 2. ca 4. pa. 743. are condemned and anathematised: was not this a condemning of the Epistle of Ibas, which defendeth Nestorius and his heresies, which is full fraught with all his blasphemous doctrines? Could the Council of Chalcedon condemn and anathematise the doctrine of Nestorius, and yet not condemn that Epistle which defends all those doctrines? By the Acts it is clear and certain, that the Council of Chalcedon approve l Huic omnes Cotentimate, omnes ita sapimus Act. 5. pa. 98. their own decree of faith: now this Epistle, as not only the fifth Council often m ●●istolam definitio S. Chalcedonensis Concilij 〈…〉 Coliat. ●. pa. 576 b. et a●hi. , but after it Pope Gregory saith, procul dubio definitioni Synodi probatur adversa, without doubt is contrary to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon. Is not the approving of their definition a rejecting and condemning of whatsoever writing is contrary to the same? n Lib. 7. jud. 2. Epist. 54. By the Acts it is clear and certain, that the Council even in their definition o Chal. Conc. Act 5. pa. 38. forbids, and pronounceth it unlawful for any to teach, or produce, or write, or deliver any other doctrine; which whosoever doth, if he be a Bishop or Clerk, he shall be deposed; if a Monk or Lay man, anathematised: Is not this a plain forbidding of that Epistle to be read, or taught, the doctrine whereof is directly contrary to their decree● when by the Counsels decree it may neither be taught, written, nor read, (otherwise then with a detestation) is not this a condemning of it by the Council? by the Acts that is clear in the fifth Council p Hoc judicium Ph●●●, et Eustathij omnes Episcep (Chal. Col.) 〈◊〉, rers. exir●nt●sarm (tham) anathematiz●re Nestorium et impia 〈◊〉 dogmata. Co●. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 563. b. . that the Council of Chalcedon approved the judgement of Photius and Eustathius, for as Photius and Eustathius, so they all at q Ibam anathematizi●e● 〈…〉 dogmata, permanent in Sacerdotio volo. Euseb. Epis. et eyrae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 〈…〉 Episcopa clamaterunt. 〈…〉 Ibid. pa 116. a. Chalcedon required Ibas to anathematise Nestorius and his doctrines, before they would receive him. Now as the fifth Council r Coll. ● p. 563. b truly saith, to approve the judgement of Photius and Eustathius, Nihil est aliud quam condemnare impiam Epistolam; this is nothing else than to condemn the impious Epistle, seeing in it Nestorius and his heresies are defended. To be short (for there are very many other evidences to declare this,) Pope Gregory s Loco citato. testifieth, that the fifth Council was in omnibus sequax, did in all things follow the Council of Chalcedon; if in all, then in condemning this impious Epistle, and if they followed it therein, then most certainly the Council of Chalcedon condemned it before them. So untrue it is which the Cardinal saith, that the Acts do show, and that out of them he hath demonstrated, that the Council of Chalcedon did not condemn this Epistle, whereas he hath demonstrated nothing so clear, as himself to be a malicious and shameless downfacer of most certain and evident truths. Thus much of his first sort of corruptions, namely, the three variations or depravations, wherewith, as you see, he hath slandered the Acts of this fifth Council, to his immortal disgrace. CAP. XXVIII. The three first defects in the Synodall Acts, pretended by Baronius, for that the Acts against the Origenists, the Edict of justinian, and his Epistle touching that cause, are wanting therein, refuted. 1. THE second kind of the Cardinal's Heteroclites, are his defectives a Intel●●gas quam plu●ima in e●dë 5. Syno●o des●erari. Bar. an. 553 nu. 243. : And here he and Binius labour to prove the lameness and defects of these Acts by five instances: The first of them concerns the proceeding against Origen, and the Origenists, which was done in the fifth Synod, but is now wanting in the Acts thereof. Let us first hear what Binius b Decartat●onē et matilat●onem Actorum indicant illa ●ragmenta que in sine 〈…〉 Conc 5 § Constitutum. saith hereof; The curtaling and maim of these Acts do those fragments declare which we have added to the end of the Synod, quodque nulla vel levis tantum mentio reperiatur de condemnatis erroribus Origenis; and because there is no mention, no not any small, or light mention, found in them, touching the errors of Origen condemned. If one were disposed to quit Binius with his own uncivil words, Binius should here be proclaimed both for a most impudent liar, and a shameless belyar of these Synodal acts, of this holy Council. There is express mention of condemning Origen in the fifth Collation, Origen c Coll. 5. pa. 55●. was anathematised after his death in the time of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, which also your sanctity, (he speaks to the Bishops of this Synod) and Vigilius Pope of Rome have now done. Again, there is express mention of him, and his errors in the eighth collation in the very Synodall and definitive sentence of the Council, wherein Origen and his impious writings are condemned; for thus it is written c Coll. 8. Anath. 11. pa. 587. a. , If any man do not accurse Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Origen, cum impijs eorum conscriptis, with their impious writings, and all other heretics condemned by the Catholic Church, let that man be accursed. When the holy Council not only mentions the condemning of Origen, but by their judicial sentence themselves also condemn, both him, his errors, and his impious writings; what a face of Adamant had Binius, against the truth, against his own text of the Council, against his conscience and knowledge to say, there is no mention, no not any levis mentio, to be found in the Acts of the errors of Origen condemned? or if Binius will not be persuaded of his untruth, for us, let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit, who saith d An. 553. nu. 248. , In these Synodall Acts there is made only, brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis, a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen, and his errors condemned: if there be brevis mentio of him and his errors, then Binius must cry the Acts forgiveness, for saying there is no mention at all, no not levis mentio, of his errors. 2. Let us see now if Baronius deal any better. Constat, saith e An. 553. nu. 238. he, It is manifest by the testification of many, that Origen, Didimus, and Evagrius, together with their errors were condemned in this fifth Synod, and that there was written, at least recited & repeated against them those ten Anathematisms which Nicephorus setteth down; but in the Acts there is only a brief mention that Origen and his errors were condemned. Baronius adds one special point further out of Cedrenus, that in this fifth Council, first f An. eod. nu. 242. porro de Origine, actum esse in Synodo ponitur, inde vero as Theodoro. etc. , they handled the cause against Origen, and then against the Three Chapters: So by the Cardinal's profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod, which, it may be, had many Sessions, as the other Action about the three Chapters: Besides this, there wants also, saith he g Caeterum et illas putamus esse his (acts de Origine) subjectas literas imperatoris ad Mennam Origenis errores continentes. Bar. an. eod. 553. nu. 242. , the letters or Edict published by justinian: Thirdly, there wants h Fuisse eondem Epistolam (quam Cedrenus recitat) ad Synodum datum actis ejus intext●m, nemo jure dubitarit ut ex his intelligas quam plurima desiderari. Bar. an. cod. nu. 243. , the Epistle of justinian, sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen, which is set down by Cedrenus, out of whom both Baronius reciteth it, and Binius adjoins it at the end of the Acts among the fragments which are wanting in these Acts. These three defects touching the cause of Origen doth the Cardinal allege. 3. But in very deed none of these three, nor ought else, which Baronius mentioneth, argue any defect at all in these Acts, but they evidently demonstrate in the Card. a main defect of judgement, and an overflowing superabundance of malice against this holy Synod, and these true Acts thereof. That the cause of Origen was not, as he supposeth, the first Action, or the first cause handled by the Synod; I might allege the most clear testimony of his i An eod. nu. 238. own witness Nicephorus, who after the narration of the three Chapters, and the Synodall sentence touching them delivered, which he accounts for the first Session of the Synod, addeth k Niceph. Callist. lib 17. Eccl. Histor. ca 27. , In secunda autem Sessione, but in the second Session, the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offered & read, and justinian, rursum Synodun de eis sententiam ferre jussit, commanded again the Synod to give sentence in that cause. So Nicephorus: whereby it is evident that the Cardinal and his Cedrenus are foully deceived in saying, that the cause of Origen was first handled by the Synod, and after that the cause of the three Chapters: but I oppose to these, far greater and even authentic records, the Epistle of the Emperor l Extat Conc. 5. Coll. 1. to the Synod, who, at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Council, proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters, and no other at all; commanding them without delay to discuss and give their judgement in that: I oppose the definition and Synodall decree m Collat. 8. , wherein is set down their whole proceeding, and what they handled almost every day of their meeting, from the beginning to the ending; so that it alone is as a Thesean thread, which will not permit a man to err in this cause, unless he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth, and wilfully depart out of that plain path. They n Pro Dei voluntate & fussione pijssimi Imperatoris convenimus. Ibid. came to the Synod to decide the controversy then moved about the Three Chapters, at the command of the Emperor; before they entered to the handling thereof, they often entreated by their messengers, Pope Vigilius to come together with them, (which was all that they did in the first o 1. Coll. 4. die Maij. & second p 2. Coll. 8. die Maij. day of their meeting or Collation) when Vigilius would not come, then by the Apostles admonition, they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed, by setting down a confession of their faith, consonant to the four former Counsels, and exposition of the Fathers, and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters, which was the sum of the third q 3. Coll. 9 die Maij. day's Collation: Cumque r Loc. cit. Coll. 8. pa. 584. ita confessi simus, initium fecimus examinationis trium Capitulorum; and when we had made this confession, we began the examination of the Three Chapters; lo, they did initium sumere, they began with this. Could they speak more plainly, that the cause of Origen was not first handled? as if prophetically they meant to refute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus; and we first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his own writing there read before us: This was all they did the fourth s Coll. 4.12. di● Maij. , and a great part of the fifth t Coll. 5.14 die Maij. pridiè Idus Maij. Bar. an 553. nu. 41. day of their Collation. His de Theodoro discussis, pauca de Theodoreto; next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus, we caused a few things to be repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret; for the satisfying of the reader; and this they did in the end of the fifth day or Collation. Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas, &c. In the third place we proposed, and examined the Epistle of Ibas: and this they did at large, and it was all they did in the sixth u ● Coll. 19 Maij. day of their Collation. The whole cause being thus, and, as the Council confesseth, most diligently and sufficiently examined, the Council (as it seemeth by their own words in the end of the sixth Collation) intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting: but before aught was done therein, the Emperor sent unto the Synod certain letters of Vigilius, testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters, and some other writings, the reading of them is all was done in the seventh x ●. Co●●. 26. di●. Maij. day of their Collation. Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before, and these letters were read only for a further evidence, but not for necessity of the cause, and for that the Synod did nothing themselves, but only heard the letters, and applauded the Emperor's zeal and care for the truth, therefore it is that this seventh Collation, and what was done therein is omitted in the Synodall sentence, and the Council which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pronounced their sentence, by this occasion deferred it to the next, which was the eighth y 8. Coll. ●. die junij. day of their Collation, using these for the last words of their seventh day's meeting, De tribus capitulis altero die adjuvante Deo Synodicam sententiam proferemus; God willing we will pronounce our Synodall sentence touching this cause of the three Chapters the next day. And so they did in that eighth, which was their last day of Collation. Thus not only by Nicephorus and the Emperor's Epistle, but by the evident testimony of the whole Synod in the synodal sentence, it is undoubtedly certain that the cause of Origen was not as he fancieth the first action or cause handled in the Synod, and that he doth but play the Mome in carping at the Acts for want of the first Action. 4. It may be yet that the cause of Origen was the second action in the fifth Synod, as Nicephorus z Loco citato. saith, and after him Evagrius * Evag. lib. 4. ca 37. , and that is enough to prove the defects of these Acts. No, it was not the second neither; as it was not before, so neither was it handled after the other of the Three Chapters, witness the Synodall sentence itself, wherein all the matters which every day they examined and discussed are set down and repeated; after repetition they testify a Coll. 8. p. 586. a also, Repetitis igitur omnibus, quae apud nos acta sunt, all things being repeated which were done or handled by way of discussion among us, or in this Synod. Seeing they repeated all that was debated among them, and make no mention of this cause of Origen, it is undoubtedly certain that origen's cause was not debated either first or last in the Synod; it was neither the first action, as Cedrenus and Baronius, nor the second, as Evagrius and Nicephorus suppose; besides the very determination of the Synod, evidently declares the errors of Nicephorus and Evagrius: The books, say they b Niceph. et Evag. loc. citat. , against the doctrine of Origen being offered to the Synod, the Emperor demanded of the Council, Quid de his statueret, What it would decree concerning those doctrines? A matter utterly incoherent and improbable; for in the synodal decree concerning the three Chapters, which they suppose to be made before this cause of Origen was either heard or proposed, the Council had expressly delivered their judgement, and condemned both Origen and his impious writings. When they had already condemned both him and his errors, what an incongruity is it to make the Emperor demand, what they would decree of him and his errors? Or may we think that the holy Synod would first condemn Origen, and his impious writings as they did, in the synodal sentence against the three Chapters, and then afterwards examine the matter, and make an enquiry whether Origen and his writings were to be condemned or not? which were to follow that disorder which the Swissers are reported to have used in judgement, (which was most justly called Indicium vetitum) to execute a man, and then try and examine whether he ought to be executed or not. far be it from any to imagine such injustice and rashness to have been in this holy general Council. Seeing then they condemned and accursed Origen and all his errors, in that which Nicephorus and Evagrius account the former Session, it is ridiculous to think that either the Emperor urged, or that they themselves would in the second Session go Switzer-like to examine the books and doctrines of Origen, whether he & they ought to be condemned. Some doubt perhaps may arise out of those words in the Council d Coll. 5. p. 552. a , which the Cardinal slily e An. 553. nu. 42 haec acta inquit desiderantur in Synodo, etc. allegeth, Origen was condemned in the time of Theophilus, Quod etiam nunc in ipsa fecit vestra Sanctitas, which your Holiness hath now done, and Pope Vigilius also. But if the words be marked, they make nothing against that which I have said: for neither hath that [Nunc] a relation to this present Council, (for it is certain that in it Vigilius did not condemn Origen, seeing he was not at all present in the Synod,) but to this age; he was condemned in former ages, as namely by Theophilus, and now also, that is, in this your age, and even by yourselves, and by Vigilius: and if ought else were imported thereby, yet is it only said that Origen was now condemned: which was indeed done by the Synod: but that his cause was then examined and debated there, neither is it true, neither do the words any way imply. 5. Nay I add further, not only that this Council did not debate this cause of Origen, but it had been both superfluous, and an open wrong to themselves, and to the whole Church, to have entered into the examination thereof. For beside many other former judgements, not many e Anno nymph 1● justiniani, & Vigilii 2. ut notat Bar. an. 538. nu. 29. et 31. years before in the time of Mennas, both the Emperor in an Imperial Edict f Extat Edict. to. 2. Conc. pa. 482. et seq. had condemned Origen and his errors; and by the Emperor's command, Mennas with a Synod of Bishops then present at Constantinople, had confirmed that condemnation; the other Bishops who were absent did the like, the Emperor requiring every Patriarch to cause all the Bishop's subject to his jurisdiction, to subscribe to the same. The doctrines and writings of Origen were no doubt at that time fully debated; all the Bishops present in this fifth Council had then subscribed and consented to the condemnation of him and his errors; so had Vigilius and all Catholic Bishops in the West. Seeing the judgement of the Church in condemning Origen was universal, would the Council, after themselves, and all other Catholic Bishops, that is, after the judgement of the whole Catholic Church, now debate and examine whether Origen and his doctrines ought to be condemned? They might as well call into question whether Arius, or Macedonius, or Nestorius, or Eutyches, and their doctrine should be condemned: the judgement of the Catholic Church was alike passed on them all: for this Council g Coll. 8. pa. 58● condemned and accursed Origen and his errors, as it did Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, but it condemned them all upon the known judgement of the Catholic Church, not upon a new trial or examination then taken of any one of them. And this verily seems to have deceived and led into error Evagrius, Nicephorus, and Cedrenus, (for of Baronius I cannot for many reasons imagine it to have been error or ignorance in him, but wilful and malicious oppugning the truth,) they knew or heard by report, (for even Evagrius h Evag. loc. cic. , who lived in that age, saith of that which he writeth touching the fifth Synod, Of these things sic actum accepimus, we have heard they were thus done,) I say, they might hear (that which indeed was true) that Origen and his errors were condemned in a Council at Constantinople in the time of justinian; and they not being curious, nor careful to fifth the diversities of Counsels, nor exact in computating times, confounded the former particular Synod under Mennas, wherein many of the doctrines of Origen were recited, and he with them condemned in eleven Anathematisms i Extant post edictum justin. pa. 488. , with this fifth general Synod, held some fourteen years after, wherein Origen and his errors were also condemned, but neither the Emperor's Edict read, nor the cause of Origen debated, nor the particulars recited as they were in the former. Further, it is most likely that together with diverse copies of the fifth Council were annexed the Acts of that former under Mennas, that so men might see what were the particular heresies condemned in Origen, wherein some according to the order of time might set them before these, and others according to the order of dignity might set them after the acts of this fifth Council; which might occasion some with Cedrenus to think them a former, some with Nicephorus to think them a second action of this fifth Council, whereas in truth they were the acts of a several and provincial Council by themselves, and neither the first nor last, nor any acts at all of this general Council. 6. By this now I suppose every one doth see the weakness of the Baronian frame, touching the anathematisms and proceeding against Origen. They are not extant among the acts of the fifth Synod. True: nor were they ever, nor ought they to be inserted or set among the true Acts thereof: these anathematisms neither were made nor repeated in the Council. The Edict of justinian for the condemning of Origen is not there neither. True, neither ought it to be; it was never sent to, never published in this fifth Council: but if in any, in that provincial Synod under Mennas, unto which it was sent; and the Cardinal to prove that Edict to have been a part of these Acts, brings no other, nor better proof than his own [putamus k an. 563. n. 242. ,] a proof so exceeding weak, that it is not worthy a refutation. The Epistle of justinian sent to the Synod commanding them to condemn Origen, which is one of the fragments that Binius l Post Conc. 5. pa. 604. et pa. 606 b. indicant illa fragmenta, etc. hath added, is not among the Acts. True, nor ought it to be; for neither is it justinian's, but an extract and brief collection of Cedrenus, who out of the large Edict or Epistle, (as the Emperor calleth it) collected this; neither doth it any way belong to this, but to the former Synod. The condemnation of Didymus and Evagrius, saith Binius m Ib. pa. 606. b. , together with Origen, was made in this fifth Synod, as the second Nicene Council n Act. 1. pa. 306. a. witnesseth, and that is not here among the Acts. That Didymus and Evagrius were nominatim condemned in the fifth Synod, the second Nicene Council saith it not; no, if one would straight stand upon it, they do not say so much as that o Communi et generali anathemate vi ejecti sunt Origenes, et Theodorus Mopsvestenus, et quaecunq, ab Evagrio et Didymo dicta sunt de prae existentia. Conc. Nic. 2. loco citat. they were at all, but that their doctrines touching preexistence were condemned. But say they said it; Didymus and Evagrius were two earnest Origenists p Didymus et Evagrius sectary Origenis. Bid. loc. citate , and defenders of origen's error. Now the fifth Council not only condemneth Origen and his errors, sed eos qui similia praedictis haereticis sapuerunt, vel sapiunt; but all who teach or think the like that Origen did: in which generality Didymus and Evagrius, and all Origenists are condemned; which general condemnation is all that can be enforced out of the second Nicene Synod. Thus all the three defects which Baronius and Binius labour to prove in these Acts about this cause of Origen, declare a soul maim in their own wits and judgements, but none in the Acts, and do evidently show, that themselves under colour of correcting these acts, do indeed corrupt and falsify the same. 7. And yet (which one can scarce with patience endure, or read without scorn of their folly) they are not content to tell what is stolen or taken away touching this cause of Origen out of these acts, but like skilful figure-flingers, they will name you the very thief, and tell particularly who maimed the Acts in this part. And who think you is it? Even Theodorus q Quis dubilet id factum ab Origenistis qui Synodo praefuerunt, quorum patronus fast Theodorus malor●m omnium conci●●ator. Bar. an. 553 nu. 244. & intelligere potes quorum ar te quae in Synodo acta sunt contra Origenem & ejus errores ex ea fueriat decurtata. ibid. Quis ne●et Theodorum Caesareensers ab●●lisse ●b actis hujus Concilij quae 〈◊〉 causae (erat ante Origenisturum pationus) adversabantur. Bin. Not●s in Conc. 5. pa. 606 b. Bishop of Caesarea; they have an implacable hatred to him; he is an Origenist, he the chief of the Origenists; and for love of Origen he corrupted the acts of this fifth Synod, and stole away the proceedings against Origen, the Anathematisms, the Edict, and Epistle of justinian. O how blind and besotted is a malicious mind? that is it which put this rare skill of divination into the heart of Baronius and Binius. There is nothing stolen, as these Acts do demonstrate, and yet they will tell you who took away the goods. They do with Theodorus as the malicious Arians dealt r Rust. ●●b. 1. Eccl h●s●. ca 1ST & alij. with Athanasius, proclaimed him for a murderer, and conjurer, and little less than condemned him for killing Arsenius, and cutting off his right hand, which they brought into the open Court; whereas Arsenius was both alive, and a sound man with both his hands: So this viperous Arian brood proclaim Theodorus for cutting off one arm of these Acts, which yet hath no maim nor defect at all in that part. Theodorus was a Catholic Bishop, a condemner and anathematizer of Origen and all his errors, and yet they will enforce you to believe that he is an heretic, an Origenist, the chief patron of the Origenists. Yet these men have not very well summed up their accounts. For how did Theodorus take away that which was against the Origenists, whereas he● suffered to stay in the Acts an anathema to Origen, and to the impious writings of Origen, and to all that think as did Origen, yea to all that do not anathematise Origen? What silliness was it in the Cardinal, to think that Theodorus or any Origenist would spoil the Acts, and take away some discourses, and disputations against Origen, and leave that which is the main matter of all, the sentence of condemnation against him, and his errors, yea against themselves, (supposing them to be such as the Cardinal slandereth them) and that also subscribed by their own hands, as an eternal witness against them? So maliciously blinded were the Cardinal and Binius in this cause, that so they spoke against the Council and the Catholic Bishops thereof, they regard not how untruly, how unadvisedly they slander them. But neither is it a disgrace to Theodorus to suffer like slander as did Athanasius, nor is it any honour to the Cardinal and Binius to slander, and do the like as their forefathers the old Arians have done before them. And thus much of the three first defects in these Acts, which all concern the cause of Origen. CAP. XXIX. The fourth defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Emperor's Epistle to the fifth Council is wanting therein, refuted. 1. THE fourth defect which they find in these Acts, is the want of that other Epistle of justinian directed to the Synod, set down by Cedrenus, and out of him annexed by Binius a Epistola 2. justin. ad Conc. Oecumenicum. 5. Bin. pa. 604. b to the end of the Synod, as one of the fragments which were taken away from the Acts. Of it Baronius b An. 553. nu. 243. thus writeth: Cedrenus adjoineth after this another Epistle of the Emperor sent to the Synod, containing an history of the four general Counsels, in the end whereof diverse things are written against Theodorus of Mopsvestia; the beginning of it is this, Majores nostri fidei cultores, etc. That this same Epistle sent to the Synod was inserted among the Acts thereof, nemo jure dubitârit, none may justly doubt: so that by this you may perceive, Quamplurima in eadem quinta Synodo desiderari, that very many things are wanting in the Acts of this fifth Council. Thus Baronius. No sure: that cannot be hence perceived: but another thing is most evident, that the Cardinal is more malicious in carping at these Acts, and correcting Magnificat, than Momus himself. May no man doubt but that this Epistle of justinian (as it is set down by Cedrenus) was inserted in the Acts of this fifth Council? what proof hath the Cardinal for this his confident saying? Truly none at all: nor could he find any sound proof, if he had studied for one thirty years: for none but a carping Momus can, and none at all aught to doubt of the contrary, that this Epistle which is in Cedrenus, neither was justinian's Epistle, neither was sent unto the Synod. justinian indeed sent a very large and learned Epistle to the Bishops of the Synod at their first assembling, containing altogether the like effect, (to wit, a history or narration of the four former Counsels, and a declaration of the impieties both of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and of the writing of Theodoret, and of the impious Epistle of Ibas:) by which he commanded and authorized the Synod to examine and decide that controversy touching the three Chapters; and that being the true and authentical Epistle of justinian, is extant in the Acts c Collat. 1. pa. 518. & sequ. , and is the warrant for all that the Synod did. That which out of Cedrenus the Cardinal and Binius mention, is nothing else (as any man may easily see) but an epitome or extract which Cedrenus himself, or some other undiscreet abridger, collected out of the true Epistle of justinian. It is not the use of Emperors to send with their letters abridgements and briefs of the same, especially such (of which sort this is) as come far short of the main scope of the same. Besides, if there were nothing else, yet the untruths which the abbreviator sets down, and that quite contrary to the mind of justinian, may testify, it was neither writ, nor sent by him to the Synod. In that Baronian Epistle Eutyches is said d Eutyches Nestorii opiniones probat. in Frag. ex Cedr. apud Bin. pa. 605. b. to approve the opinions of Nestorius; whereas the heresy of Eutyches was quite contrary to that of Nestorius, as justinian i Nestorio alium di. ente Deum verbum, et alium Christum, etc. Iust. epist. Coll. 1. pa. 519. truly observeth in his Epistle▪ for Nestorius taught two k In eo te laudo quod distinctionem naturarum secundum divinitatus et humanitatis rationem praedicas Haec enim vera et orthodoxa sunt, etc. Sat Nestorius scribit ●yrillo, in ea Epist. Nest. quae habetur ●om. 1. Ephes. Con. ca 14 natures to be in Christ, and to make two persons; Eutyches taught as but one person, so but one l Eu●yches ne●●t cons●●st intialem nobis esse carnem Domini. Iust. in Epist ad Synod. sup. citat. et authem. qui dixit duas naturas post adunationem, dicant Eutychiani in conciliab. Eph. apud Conc. Chal. Act. 1. nature. Yea the Eutycheans utterly condemned the Nestorians, and with them all Catholics, as Nestorians, because m Exclamaverunt, de vicina Nestorianae haeresi infamantes nos, In duo separate, interficite eos qui dicunt duas naturas, de Eutychianis loquitur, Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 8. a. they taught 2. natures after the adunation to remain in Christ, n Eum qui dicit duas naturas in duo incidite, Qui dicit duas naturas, Nestorianus est. ibid. pa. 12. a. Qui dicit duas naturas, Nestorianus est. In that Baronian Epistle Eutyches is affirmed to follow Nestorius, in that o Eutyches Nestorii opiniones prohans, dicensque carnem Christi non ejusd●m cum nostra esse natura. Epist. ex Cedr. pa. 605. b. he said that the flesh of Christ and ours are not of one nature; but Nestorius taught no such thing, but the clean contrary p Vt liquet ex verbis Nestorii aute citatis. , the flesh which Christ took of the blessed Virgin to be truly humane, and therefore the son of Mary to be truly, but yet only a man; as justinian also in his Epistle teacheth. In that Baronian Epistle, Nestorius is said q Opera Theodori Mopsves●eni, qui magistrum suum Nestorium impie de rebus sacris loquendo superabat. Epist. ex Cedr. loc. cit. to have been the master or teacher of Theodorus; but the quite contrary is truth, as both the whole fifth r Et docerent non solumaiscipu●●m impiet●t●s Nestorium, se● etiam doctorem ejus Theodorum. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. Council often, and even in their definitive sentence, and justinian s Per Theodorum Mopsves●enum, doctorem Nestorij. Epist. Iust. Coll. 1. p. 519. in his Epistle do expressly witness. Are not Baronius and Binius rare men to cure the lameness of Counsels, who when the Acts are sound and perfect, would patch unto them such false and unworthy writings, containing so manifest untruths, repugnant to the authentic records of the Acts? But woe come to all Counsels, Fathers, and ancient writings, when they must be amended and cured by such Surgeons as Baronius and Binius. Give me the most lame and impotent Counsels that can be had, I had rather have them all to be cripples, than to come under their deadly, unfortunate, and Harpyan hands, which defile every history or writing that they touch. CAP. XXX. The fifth defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius concerning the three Chapters is wanting therein, refuted. 1. THe fifth defect which the Cardinal hath spied in these Acts, is, that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius is not now extant therein. Of it the Cardinal saith a An. 553. nu. 48 , That it belongeth to the Acts of the fifth Synod, is evidently declared by that which we have spoken: and again, this b Ibid. nu. 47. Constitution as also many other things, Noscitur esse sublatum, is known to be taken out of the Acts of the fifth Synod. How prove you Sir, that either it belongs to it, or is taken out of these Synodall acts? What? again so rude and unmannerly as ask a reason of the Cardinal? Is it not proved sufficiently when Baronius hath said it? Truly then it is disproved sufficiently when an opposer of Baronius hath denied it. For any man for truth and credit may easily oversway Baronius. I pray, why should the Pope's Constitution be part of the Acts, rather than the Emperor's Edict? or why doth the Cardinal find a defect in wanting the Papal, which is heretical, and not of the Imperial which is an orthodoxal decree? 2. Baronius will further tell you, out of which part of the Acts this is stolen. It c Libellus Synodo oblatus pridie Idus Maij. an. 553. nu. 41. et Papae libellus oblatus Synodo: nos hic (in 5. Collatione) suo loco restituendum esse putamus. ibid. nu. 47. was offered to the Synod in their fifth Collation, Ad d Ibid. nu. 48. hunc ipsum diem quintae Collationis pertinere cognoscitur; It is known that the Pope's Constitution belongs to this year, and to this very day of the fifth Collation. And how I pray you is that known? Because e Ibid. the Constitution hath in the end of it the date of the day and year wherein Vigilius published it. A reason fit for none but a Cardinal. As if all Constitutions, Letters, and Edicts which bear date of a year and a day, belonged to that fifth Collation, and were certainly stolen out of it. Was ever any infatuated, if not Baronius in this cause? But the Constitution bears date f Pridie Idus Maij. Bar. an. 553. nu. 210. eo autem die habita 5. Collatio. an. eodem nu. 41. on the 14. day of May, in the reign of justinian, and the fifth Collation of the Synod was on the same day. A like reason to the former: as if all Letters or Constitutions written on that day must needs be published in the Council, or on that very day in their Collation. Admitting it was read, yet the contrary seems much rather to follow, that it was not read on that day, but on some other after; for the Constitution is directed g Gloriesissimo et clementissimo filio justiniano, Vigilius Episcopus; ita incipit Constit. Vigil. apud Bar. an. 553 nu. 50. , and was sent h Vigilius pollicitus fuit se missurum (decretum suum seu Constitutum) ad ipsum Imperatorem atque ad Syodum, quod et ingenue praestitit. Bar. an. eodem. nu. 47. to the Emperor: that could not be before the fourteenth day, on which it is dated, and in likelihood the Emperor both read and examined it with leisure before he sent it from him to the Council: the length of the Constitution may easily persuade any, that one day was little enough for that business, supposing no other affairs to have distracted the Emperor. Binius considering this, and being better advised hereof, dissenting from the Cardinal herein, tells us that the Constitution was read in their sixth Collation, which was on the nineteenth k 14. Kalendas junias. Coll. 6. in initio. of May, i Oblatum fuisse Concilio, Vigilij constitutum, etc. quibus non obscure significatur idem Constitutum in sexto ill● Patrum consessu recitatum fuisse. B●n. Not. ad Conc. 5 pa. 610. a. et Ex Actis Concilii non obscure colligitur ipsum (Constitutum insexto Confessu Episcoporum r●citatum fuisse. idem pa 606. b. four or five days after the date and publishing of it. So uncertain and unlikely is that, of which the Cardinal saith Cognoscitur, it is known to belong to the fifth Collation. 3. But indeed, as the Imperial Edict was not, so neither was this Papal Constitution publicly read, either in the fifth or sixth, or any other Collation of this Synod, much less was it ever any part of the Synodall Acts thereof. The Emperor, and so all the Bishops of the Synod laboured, as much as they could, to draw the whole Church to unity of faith with themselves, especially Pope Vigilius, whose consent might happily draw after it, if not the whole; yet a great part of the Western Church, which were most earnest in defence of the Three Chapters. They knew that in particular, and by name to condemn Vigilius, or his Constitution, might not only have exasperated, but even utterly alienated the mind of Vigilius, and made him (and with him his adherents) more obstinate in their heresy. They sought by silence to conceal and by charity to suppress, as much as they could, that heretical and disgraceful Constitution of his, and by their lenity and fair means, to gain him, and his consent to them, yea, even to the truth itself: for this cause, though they knew full well, that Vigilius had set out that decree, yea, though they confuted all the substance thereof, and condemned both it, and him in generalities, yet they forbore at all to name Vigilius, or in particular to mention this his decree; that had been to proclaim hostility, and have made an absolute breach betwixt them and Vigilius for ever. 4. Besides this, which was a very just reason, not so much as to publish (as they did not) that Constitution in their Synod, the Emperor had always a purpose to have (as in the seventh Collation was done) the Epistles of Vigilius to Rusticus and Sebastianus to Valentinianus and others, openly read & published in the Council: In them Vigilius by his Apostolical authority decreeth the condemning of the three Chapters: what a disgrace had this been to Vigilius to publish first his Apostolical Constitution in defence, and shortly after, his Apostolical Constitution for condemning the same Three Chapters? How justly might this have incensed Vigilius, and for ever withheld him from consenting to them; who had proclaimed him in their Council, & recorded him in their Synodall Acts to be such a Proteus? Nay, this had extenuated and vilified for ever the authority of Pope Vigilius, & the holy Apostolic See, to record two constitutions, both proceeding ex Tripod, fight ex Diametro, and by an unreconcilable contradiction opposed the one to the other. Seeing then both the Emperor, and the Council meant by their so often expressing the consent of Vigilius to them, and by their reciting his Apostolical Constitution for condemning the Three Chapters in the seventh Collation, seeing they meant hereby to draw others to the like consent to the truth, by the authority and credit of the Pope and his Apostolical decree: it is not to be imagined that the Emperor or Council would at all, either publish in their Synod, or insert among their Acts the contrary Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters; in doing whereof they should not only have for ever disgraced Vigilius, but have much impaired the reputation of their own wisdom, and quite crossed their principal design: Nay, what will you say if Baronius himself profess the same? See, and wonder to see him infatuated in this point also. The Bishops, saith he l Bar. an. 553. nu. 218. , of this fifth Council, that they might pretend to have the consent of Vigilius to those things which they defined, expressed in their sentence, that Vigilius had before both in writing and by word condemned these three Chapters, tacentes omnino quid ab ipso per editum constitutum pendente Synodo pro defensione trium Capitulorum decretum esset; wholly concealing, or saying nothing at all of that decree, which in the time of the Synod he made for defence of those three Chapters: Sicque nullam penitus de Vigilij Constitutione mentionem habendam esse duxerunt, so they thought fit to make no mention at all of the Constitution of Vigilius, wherein he defended the three Chapters. So Baronius: whom, speaking the truth, I gladly embrace, and oppose him to himself speaking an untruth in malice to these Synodall Acts. 5. Now if none of these reasons, nor yet Baronius his own express testimony can persuade, but still the Cardinal or his friends will reply with his cognoscitur. It is certainly known, that this Papal Constitution did belong to this Synod, yea, to the fifth Collation thereof; I would gladly entreat some of them to tell us in this, as in the former concerning Origen, who was the thief, or robber, that cut out, or picked away his holiness' Constitution; a more capital crime than the expiling of the Delphian Temple, or the house of jupiter Ammon. Touch the Pope's own writings, even his Apostolical decree delivered out of the holy Chair? what Clement? what Ravailack might be so impious, so audacious, so sacrilegious? was it some Origenist? no certainly, the Constitution defending, that none after their death might be condemned, was a shield and safe charter for Origen to bring him to heaven. Was it some Monothelite? nothing less; they knew that this Constitution was the overthrow of the Council of Chalcedon, and all the former holy Counsels, Hoc Ithacus velit, they would have wished the Constitution to have stood for ever: whom may we deem then to have stolen away that Papal decree? Truly by the old Cassian rule, Cui bono, none else but either some of the Popes themselves, or some of their favourites, who being ashamed to see such an heretical Constitution of Pope Vigilius stand among the Acts, judged theft and sacrilege a lesser crime, than to have the Pope's Chair thought fallible and heretical. Now because I can imagine none to have been so presumptuous, and such is my charity and favourable opinion of those holy fathers, and their children also, that they would never commit such an heinous crime, as with sacrilege to maim the Acts of the holy Counsels; I do therefore here absolve and acquit them all of this crime, promising against any adversary, be it Baronius himself, to defend their innocency in this matter, until some of Baronius his friends can either bring some further evidence against them, or else prove, which I think they will hardly be able, that a decree, which was never extant among the Synodall Acts, can be stolen or cut away out of the Synodall Acts. CAP. XXXI. The sixth defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the decree which advanced jerusalem to patriarchal dignity is wanting therein, refuted. 1. THE sixth and last defect is of all the rest most memorable, concerning the advancing of jerusalem to a patriarchal See, and annexing some Churches unto it. That this was done in the fifth Council Baronius a An. 553. nu. 245. Acta illa desiderari noscuntur, quibus agebatur de adjactis Patriarchatui Hierosolymitano Ecclesiis, etc. proves by Guil. Tyrius b De Bello sacro, lib. 24. ca 12. , who writeth, that in the fifth Synod in the time of justinian, Vigilius, Eutychius, and the rest decreed, that this Bishopric of jerusalem should have the place of a Patriarch, with the rest: And because it was situate in a manner in the limits of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch, and so there c Non habens unde illi urbi ordinoret suffra aveos, nisi utrique Patriarchae aliquid detraheret. was no means for it to have subordinate Bishops, unless somewhat were taken from either of those Patriarkships, therefore it seemed good to the Synod to take part from either; so they took from the Bishop of Antioch two Provinces, Caesarea and Scythopolis; and two other from the Bishop of Alexandria, Ruba and Beritus; besides which Metropolitan Sees, they took also from the same Patriarches diverse Bishoprics, and erected some other; all which (being in number twenty five) they subjected to their new founded Patriarch of jerusalem. This is the sum of that which Guil. Tyrius, and out of him Baronius delivereth, and Binius d Bin. inter fragmenta addit post Conc. 5 pa. 606. a. addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fifth Council, which is now not found among the Acts thereof. Baronius e An. 553. nu. 246. further glozing on this text, tells us, that though juvenalis had attempted and obtained this before in the Council of Chalcedon, when the f Post absentiam Legatorum Ibid. Pope Legates were absent, yet Pope Leo resisting it, he prevailed not, nor was the matter put in execution; but at this g Sic igitur inverso antique ordi●e a Nicano Constituto instituto, Caesariensis Ecclesia, totius Palestinae Metropolis nunc primum subjecta est Hierosolimorum Ecclesiae. Bar. Ibid. time the ancient order instituted by the Nicene Council, being inverted, Caesarea was now first of all made subject to the Church of jerusalem, which now was become a patriarchal See. 2. This whole passage of Baronius (approving that testimony of Guil. Tyrius which is justly refuted by Berterius h Diatr. 2. ca 2. ) I cannot tell what to call, but sure I am, it consists of diverse untruths, not so much upon ignorance (than his sin had been less) as maliciously objected against the Acts of this holy Synod; some of them I will explain, beginning with that which is the main point of all. First than it is untrue, that this fifth Synod advanced the See of jerusalem to a Patriarkship. Not to the name and title of a Patriarch, for that it had long before, as Bellar. i Hierosolimitan● per annos ferè quingentos habita est quarta Pa●ria chalised nomine non re, seu lignore non potestate. Rest. lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. ca 24. § Porro. and Binius k Binius verba Bellar. ropetit, et ait id patere ex Conc. Nic. Can. 7. notis in Epist. 3. Anaclet. to. 1. Conc. pa. 105. & not. in Conc. Nicen. ca 7. pa. 310. a. profess; & though it was but a single Bishorick, subject, as both Jerome, l Hoc ibi (in Conc. Nic.) decernitur ut Palestina Metropolis Caesarea sit, et toti●● Orientis Antiochia. Hier. Epist. ad Pammach. contra johan. Epis. Hieros. and the Nicene m Habeat Aelia 〈◊〉 ●●●sequentiam (post Antiochiam) Metropoli propria dignitate servale. Conc. Nic. Can. 7. Council declare, to the Bishop of Antioch, as his Patriarch, and to the Bishop of Caesarea Palestina, (for there is another in Cappadocia,) as his Metropolitan, yet for honour of our Saviors resurrection in that place, it had the name of n Hierosolimitanus Episcopus sedebat. 4. loco, sed nulli Archi-Episcopo vel Episcopo praec. rat. Bell. loc. cit. Patriarch, and preeminency in Counsels o Nam sedit 4. loco in Concilio Niceno, et subscribit ante Episcopum Caesariensem in Conc. Niceno, et Constant. ut ex subsciptione liquet, et in Conc. Chalc. Act 5. to the Bishop of Caesarea. Not to the authority and power of a Patriarch, for that it had, and had it justly, long before this fifth Council, even by the decree and judgement of the Council of Chalcedon. juvenalis p Epist. 62. Leonis. had sued for it in the Ephesine Council, but the Bish. of Antioch, as it seemeth, then being unwilling to manumit him, & as it were, free him from his subjection, cyril resisted it & writ to Pope Leo, praying him to do the like. But after long contention both parties being throughly agreed, the matter was brought to the Council of Chalcedon, where Maximus and juvenalis, the Bishops of both Sees, first of all, and before the whole Council, professed that they were both willing, that q Placuit mihi (ait Maximus) et juvenali propier multam contentionem ut sedes Antiochena habeat duas Phaenician et Arabiam, sedes autem Hierosolymorum habeat tres Palestinas, et r●gamus ex decreto vestro haec firmari. Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. pa. 105. the Bishop of Antioch should hold the two Pheniciaes' and Arabia, and the Bishop of jerusalem should hold the three Palestinaes', and they both requested the whole Synod to decree, cofirme, and ratify the same. The whole Council thereupon by their decree confirmed the same, all the most reverend Bishops cried r Ibid. , We all say the same, and we consent thereunto. After them the most glorious judges in the name of the Emperor, added Imperial authority and the royal assent to the Synods decree, saying, Firmum etiam per nostrum decretum & sententiam Concilij in omni tempore permanebit hoc; this shall abide firm for ever by our decree, and by the judgement of the Council, that the Church of Antioch have under it the two Pheniciaes', and Arabia; & the Church of jerusalem have under it the three Palestines. Thus the judges. The same Decree of this Council at Chalcedon is expressly testified both by Evagrius s Evag l. 2. ca 18 and Nicephorus t Nic. Callist. lib. 15. ca 30. . So untrue it is which Guil. Tyrius, and out of him Baronius a voucheth, that the Church of jerusalem was first made a patriarchal See, or had the Provinces and metropolitans of Caesarea and Scithopolis annexed unto it by the fifth Council, that it is undoubtedly certain, that it had with the title and dignity, true Patriarchal authority and power over diverse Provinces, together with their inferior Bishops conferred upon it, with a plenary consent of the whole Church in the Council of Chalcedon. And that you may see the most shameful dealing both of Bar. and Binius in another place (where their choler against this fifth Council was not moved) they acknowledge that truth; for entreating of the Council at Chalcedon: In this seventh Session of it, saith Baronius u An. 451. nu. 124. , (and the like doth Binius x Not. in Conc. Chalc. pa. 184. b. ) was the controversy composed betwixt the Bishops of Antioch & jerusalem, and the cause being judged, the two Pheniciae and Arabia, were given to the Bishop of Antioch, and the three Palestines were adjudged to the Bishop of Jerusalem, ex quibus jam perspicuè apparet jus Metropolis in Hierosolymitanam Ecclesiam esse translatum; whence it doth evidently appear, that the right of the Metropolis which before belonged to the Bishop of Caesarea was translated to the Bishop of jerusalem. So they: who yet in hatred against the Acts of the fifth Council with faces of Adamant deny that truth which here they confess to be clear and conspicuous. 3. But (saith the Cardinal y lin. 553. nu. 246. ) the decree of Chalcedon was made, post absentiam Legatorum, when the Pope's Legates were now gone, and so they being absent, is to be held invalid. O the forehead of the Cardinal! Were the Pope's Legates absent? were they gone? Truly they were not only present at this decree, and consenting unto it, but after it was proposed by Maximus and juvenalis, they were the very first men that gave sentence therein, whose sentence the whole Council followed. For thus it is said z Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. pa. 105. ●. , Pascasinus and Lucentius the most reverend Bishops, and Boniface a Presbyter, these holding the place of the Apostolic See, said by Pascasinus; These things betwixt Maximus and Invenalis are known to be done for their good and peace; & nostrae humilitatis interlocutione firmantur, and they are confirmed by the interloquuntion of our humility; ut nulla imposterum de hac causa sit contentio, that never hereafter there should be any contention about this matter between these Churches. Is it credible that the Cardinal could be so audacious and impudent, as to utter such palpable untruths? Unless he had quite put off, I say not modesty, but reason, sense, and almost humane nature. Let this stand for the second capital untruth in this passage. 4. Yet Pope Leo himself, saith Baronius a Loco citato. , withstood that Decree of the Council at Chalcedon, because it was prejudicial to the rights of other Churches; and by reason he consented not, it was not put in execution, as it was after this Decree of the fifth Synod. Had the Cardinal and his friends been well advised, they would fear, and be much ashamed once to mention the resistance of Pope Leo to the Council at Chalcedon, either in those Patriarches, or in the other of Constantinople: for first the resistance of Leo, which was merely ineffectual, demonstrates, that the Pope's contradiction, with all his might and power, can neither disannul nor infringe the judgement of a general Council; which is no small prejudice to his Princehood, or Princely supremacy. Again, it convinceth Leo of a very foul and unexcusable error, seeing Leo judged the Nicene Canons concerning matters of order, policy, and government of the Church (such as these are about the extent of Sees, or superiority of one Patriarch or Bishop above another) to be unalterable and eternal, no less than the decrees of faith: The condition (saith he b Leo Epist. 53. ) of the Nicene Canons (in the margin he points at the sixth and seventh, both which concern the limits of Sees) being ordained by the Spirit of God, is in no part soluble; and whatsoever is divers from their Constitution, omni penitus authoritate vacuum est; is utterly void of all authority, by whomsoever it be decreed, fewer or more. Again c Epist. eadem. , the Nicene fathers, after they had condemned Arius, made laws of Ecclesiastical Canons, mansuras usque in finem mundi, which are to stand in force until the end of the world; and if ought be any where presumed to be done otherwise than they have decreed, sine cunctatione cassatur, it is presently made void. Again d Epist. 54. , the privileges of Churches being instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers, and confirmed by the Nicene decrees, nulla possunt improbitate convelli, nulla novitate mutari; they can be infringed by no improbity, they can by no novelty be altered. Again e Epist. 61. , concerning juvenalis Bishop of jerusalem, who was now truly made a Patriarch, for keeping the Statutes of the holy fathers, which in the Nicene Synod are confirmed, inviolabilibus decretis, by inviolable decrees; I admonish your sanctity, that the laws of the Churches remain; let no man's ambition covet that which is another man's, let no man seek by impairing another to advance himself, for though they think to strengthen their desires by Counsels, infirmum atque irritum erit quicquid à praedictorum patrum Canonibus discreparit; whatsoever is divers from these Nicene Canons shall be void. Lastly f Epist. 62. , to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, let it suffice that I pronounce this in general, ad omnia, for all matters, concerning limits of Sees, and the like, that if any thing be attempted by any man, in any Synod, against the Statutes of the Nicene Canons, nihil praejudicij potest inviolabilibus inferre decretis, it can bring no prejudice to these unalterable and inviolable decrees. Thus Pope Leo erroneously judging the order set down in the Nicene Canons, for the bounds and pre-eminence of Bishops to be for ever, or by any Council whatsoever immutable. 5. See now the wisdom of the Cardinal in alleging Pope Leo. If the decree at Chalcedon was not of force because Leo contradicted it, than neither can that other decree, supposed to be made in the fifth Council, be of force, because Leo contradicteth it also, for by Leo his judgement, at no time, by no person, by no Council, by no authority can the order set down at Nice be changed. If that at Chalcedon was not in force, to which the Pope's Legates consented, how can the Cardinal think this of the fifth Council to be of force, to which neither Pope nor Legate consented, nor was so much as present in the Council? If the judgement of Leo stand for good, than neither is, nor ever was either Constantinople or jerusalem patriarchal Sees; & then the decree of the eighth Council g Haec sancta & magna Synodus, tam in seniori & nova Roma, quam in sede Alexandria, Antioch●ae 〈◊〉 Hierosolymorum prisc●m consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservati, ita ut eorum praesules universorum Metropolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur, habeant potestatem, ad convocadum eos, ad coorcendum et corrigendum. Can. 17 Conc. 8. apud Bin. pa. 850. , and the h Conc. Later. 4. habitum sub Innoc. 3. ca 5. Lateran, and I know not how many Counsels must be rejected as unlawful and impious, if the judgement of Leo be (as by the eighth Council and their Lateran it is adjudged) erroneous, then was jerusalem a patriarchal See, notwithstanding the contradiction of Leo to that decree. In a word, if Leo his judgement be of force, it repeals the decree of the fifth, eighth, and all other general Counsels decreeing this; if it be not of force, it neither did nor could infringe the decree of Chalcedon. So unadvised was the Cardinal in alleging the resistance of Leo to that decree. 6. And to satisfy the Cardinal yet a little more fully, it is an untruth which he saith i Quo minus ea (qua Chalcedone obtinuit ●u●enalis) execution mandata essent, Leo Rom. Pont intercessit. Nunc erro primum (in Concilio 5.) Hierosolymorum Ecclesia P●triarchatu verè ●ucta cognoscitur. Bar. an. 553. nu. 246. , that the Decree of Chalcedon was not put in execution before the time of this fifth Synod, and this supposed decree thereof, for the Council of Chalcedon k Act. 7. decreed that their sentence in advancing jerusalem to a patriarchal See, should stand in force, in omni tempore, and therefore doubtless even then, and from that very time it was truly a patriarchal See, the contradiction of Leo no more hindering it the very next or second year, than it did two hundred or two thousand years after that decree made. Again, as it is certain for the See of Constantinople, that it both before and after the Decree of Chalcedon (which was not introductory but confirmative in that point) exercised patriarchal authority, justinian also by his Imperial law l Novel. 131. ca 1, et 2 made some twelve m Data est Novel. Basilio Coss. ut in fine esus liques, is vero est annus Regni justinian's 15. et Conc. 4. habitum en. Iust. 27. years before the fifth Council, confirming the same; and so it is not to be doubted but the Church of jerusalem did the very like in it own patriarchal Diocese, especially considering, that the Imperial law of justinian is as forcible n Saucimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas Ecclesiastica regulas quae à sanctis a. Concilijs expesitae sunt, aut firmatae, Nou. cadem ca 1. for the one as for the other: So that for any one to have denied or sought then to have infringed the patriarchal authority confirmed to Constantinople, conferred to jerusalem by the Council of Chalcedon, had brought him into danger not only of Ecclesiastical censure, but of civil punishments, and of the Emperor's high indignation: Or if the Cardinal will not be satisfied unless he see the practice of that patriarchal authority▪ o Act. 5. pa. 455. et seq. let him look in the general Council under Mennas, and there he shall see john Bishop of jerusalem hold a Provincial Council of the Bishops of the three Palestines, qui sub eo sunt, who were under him, two of which, as by their subscriptions appear, were the Metropolitan Bishops of Caesarea and Scythopolis, with thirty more; so many were then subject to the Patriarch of jerusalem. Again, in another Provincial Council p Conc. Hieros. contra Severum etalios extat, to. 2 Conc. pa 472. held at jerusalem the tenth year of justinian, Peter, Patriarch of jerusalem, is Precedent q Praesidente sanctissimo Patriarcha Petro assistentibus Episcopis trium Palestinarum. Ibid. over all the Bishops of the three Palestines there assembled with him, two of which were the foresaid metropolitans. So untrue it is which Baronius to maintain the false testimony of Guil. Tyrius avoucheth, that the Decree of Chalcedon was not put in execution before this fifth Council. Let this be scored for his third capital untruth in this short passage. 7. A fourth untruth is that which is said in the fragments, that the Council had no other means to erect this Patriarchship of jerusalem, but by taking part from both the other of Antioch and Alexandria, for there was another means, as both the Decree of Chalcedon, and the event did show, and nothing at all was taken from the See of Alexandria. 8. A fifth untruth is, that they took from Alexandria the Metropolitan Sees and Provinces of Ruba and Berithus, for neither of these Sees belonged to the Patriarch of Alexandria, but of Antioch; of them both Berterius r Diatr. 2. ca 2. (refuting this very fragment, which the Cardinal and Binius so gladly snatch at) saith s At certè Ruba à Ptolomeo in Syria ponitur, et B●rithum Phaenices Libani Metropolim ess● constat, Syria autem et Phaenice Orientis Provinciae omnibus notae sunt Nihil igitur ab Aegyptiaca Alexandrini Patriarchae diocasi accepit Hierosoly●itanus. Quod 〈◊〉 est, non temere Tyrio et veteri h●ic scripto (fragmento scilicet Baroniano & Biniano) fides adhi●enda. Bert. Ibid. , certainly Ruba is placed by Ptolemy in Syria; and it is manifest, that Berithus is the Metropolis of Phenice, near Libanus: Syria autem & Phenicia Orientis Provinciae omnibus notae sunt; but Syria and Phenicia to be Provinces of the East (and so belonging formerly to the See of Antioch) all men do know. Thus he; and for Berithus the matter is certain, that it is not near the bounds o● limits of Alexandria, for that it is in the Province of Phenicia, not only Ptolemy c Ptol. Geog. lib. 5. ca 15. ubi Berithum ponit situm in Syria. shows, but the subscriptions of the Bishops, both in the Nicene d Provinciae Phae●ices Gregorius Berithi, ●●; 310. b. , in the first Constantinopolitan e Provinciae Phaenices Timotheus Beritius, pa. 513. a. , and Chalcedon f Eust. Berithi civitatis Phaenices maritimae. Act. 1. pa. 2. a. Counsels, in all which the Bishop of Berithus is set in the Province of Phenicia; whence again a sixth untruth is to be observed in that fragment of Tyrius, for it saith g Subtraxerunt Alexandrino Ecclesiam Berithensem; et quoniam iterum eundem Patriarcham (Hierosolymitanum) oportebat habere orater supradictos Metropolitanos, etc. Frag. sup. citato. , that Berithus was granted to the new Patriarch of jerusalem; whereas it is clear, that it was in Phenicia, & that the two Pheniciae h Concil. Chalc. Act 7. pa. 105. ut sedes Antiochena ha beat duas Phanicias', &c. , both by the agreement of Max. and Invenalis, and by the decree of the Council of Chalcedon did belong to the See and Bishop of Antioch, and not of jerusalem. 9 Is not this now think you a worthy fragment which Baronius and Binius have found to be wanting, and will you, nill you, will needs fasten to the fifth Council? Are not they excellent Surgeons to cure lame Counsels? who to the fair and authentic Acts and Records of this Synod would patch such a rabblement of untruths, quite repugnant to the mind of this fifth Synod? For seeing as Gregory i Lib. 7. Ind. 2. Epist. 54. truly saith, it was in omnibus sequax, in all things a follower of the Council at Chalcedon, most certainly it never either decreed or approved this of taking aught from the See of Alexandria, or of adding Berithus and Ruba to the See of jerusalem; both which are directly contrary to the Decree of Chalcedon, which this fifth Council followeth. Let the Cardinal and Binius themselves feed upon these and such like scraps and husks, they are fit and dainty meat for the Cardinal's tooth and palate, which relisheth little, unless it have a touch of falsehood. But as I said before, so I here again proelame, let all Counsels be a thousand times lame, rather than receive any crutches of the Cardinals and of Binius devising and framing. And now you have all their defectives, wherein I doubt not but every one seeth both the defects to rest in their corrupted judgement, and the truth of these Acts to be much more confirmed hereby; seeing neither the craft, nor malice, nor extreme labour of Baronius and Binius was able to find so much as any one thing which is wanting or defective in them. CAP. XXXII. The two first additions to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius, and the two laws of Theodosius are falsely inserted therein; refuted. 1. LEt us in the last place, saith Baronius a jam ad postremum videamus quae ab impostoribus fueri●nt 5. Synodi nomine pervulgata. Bar. an. 553. nu. 247. , see what things Impostors have published under the name of the fifth Synod; Quaeve b An. cod. nu. 238. spuriae eidem accesserunt, and what counterfeit additions are inserted in these Acts. Of these in general the Cardinal c An. cod. nu. 29. tells us, Pudenda planè in istis intexta habentur, there are inserted very shameful matters into these Acts, such as are altogether unworthy of an ecumenical Synod. An heinous crime indeed, if the Cardinal can justify this. For though we might deplore the defects if aught were wanting, yet that is no prejudice to the truth of that which remaineth, no more than the extreme want and shipwreck of the Nicene Acts, doth or can discredit the truth of the Canons which are come safe to land. But if in these Acts which now are extant, and pass for the true and faithful Acts of the fifth Synod, Impostors have inserted false and counterfeit writings, that may cause one justly to misdoubt the truth of these acts which we have: for why (will some say) may not that part, or any one be forged or foisted in, as well as this or that? Let us then see how well the Cardinal doth prove this redundant corruption in these Acts which now are extant of this fifth Council: his proofs thereof are five. 2. The first d Monoth●litarum fuit inventum ut sub tit●lo 5. Synodi, epistolem M●nnae ca●derint. Bar. an. 553. nu. 247. is taken out of the sixth general Council, in which when the Monothelites alleged an Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius as out of the Acts of the fifth Synod, It was proved that those Acts were corrupted, and that the heretics had inserted three quaternions, that is, four and twenty leaves into the same Acts. Again e Du●e in ca (7. Actione concit. 5.) Epistolae inventae sunt quas commentias esse & supposittas manifeste pr●barunt ibid. , in the 7. Action or Collation it was found further, that they added two Epistles of Vigilius, one to justinian, and the other to Theodora, by which you see, saith the Cardinal f Vides igitur quam sherit 5. Synodus tu● ab Origenistes, tum a Monotheletis ●●ersis temporibus lanciala. ibid. , that the Acts of the fifth Synod have been foully corrupted by the Monothelites. We see it indeed. And we see withal another thing no less remarkable and clear, that the Cardinal is an insignious slanderer, and plays the trifling Sophister in the highest degree. Who ever doubted or denied, but that some copies of the Acts of this Synod have been corrupted? of this, none that read the sixth g Act. 3. & Act. 14. Council can make the least question in the world. For three corrupted copies were produced h Act. 14. and examined, and some other were mentioned, and the authors, both who falsified them, and who writ the inserted additions are all there recorded. Nay the three corrupted copies were not only discovered, but accursed i Anathema libro qui dicitur Mennae ad Vigilium, & qui cum sinne●unt sive scripserunt. Anathem. Ubillis qui decuntur facts f●●sse à V●gilio ad tustimeri, et 〈…〉 qio f●b verunt acta santi, & 〈…〉 Concilij. Ibid. ca 74 b. , defaced k Chartacum volaron quod falsatum est deconius cassari in locis, in qui●●●●jectiones sunt factae verii libros ti●s co●s obelis obduci, in locis in quibros deprovati sunt, & cassari, etc. ibid. pa. 73. , and razed before the whole Synod, so far as any corruption could be found. Doth the Cardinal know any man to defend as sincere, or justify one of those corrupted Monothelite copies? If he do, the sixth Council is an unresistable record against such; and we will join with him in confuting such audaciousness. Or will the Cardinal say, that the Acts of the fifth Synod which are now extant, either have those additions, or were written and taken out of those corrupted and falsified copies? It is as clear as the Sun they are not, for not one of those Monothelite additions are in these Acts now extant. These Acts, and no other are they which we defend, and which the Cardinal undertook to disgrace, and prove to be corrupted, and to have forgeries patched unto them. Against these Acts, the Cardinal's proof out of the sixth Synod is so idle, and so ridiculously sophistical, as not disputing ad idem; that he had need to pray that the Sophisters in our Schools hear not of, and applaud his rare skill in Logic. If because some copies were corrupted by the Monothelites, those which most certainly escaped their hands must be condemned, than no deed, nor testament, though never so truly authentical, may be trusted, for a forger may exscribe it, and add what he pleaseth in his extracted copy; or because the Roman copies of the Nicene Canons were corrupted by ˡ Zozimus, Bonifacius, or some of their friends, therefore the authentic records thereof (the true copies of which the African Bishops with much labour purchased from Constantinople and Alexandria,) must be disinherited: which yet the African Synod (Saint Austen among the rest) so much honoured, that they gave a just check to the Pope, and manifested that blot in him, which all the water in Tiber will never wash away. 3. The Cardinal m An. 554. nu 8 Exemplacia genuina misisse noscitur Gregorius. , and after him Binius n Germana exem●laria S. Synodi vidit & cognovit S. Gregor●us. l●b. 12. Ep●st. 7. Bin. pa. 607. a. , tells us a great matter and rare news, that in Pope Gregory's time, the Acts of this Synod were entire, and that he sent the genuine copy thereof to Queen Theodalinda: (An evidence by the way that the Cardinal o S. Greg. lib. 7. Epist 54. in ●epravata Synodi (quintae) exemplaria incidisse liquet dim ait Ib●m n●gasse dictam epistolam esse suam. Bar. an. 448. nu. 76. wittingly and wilfully slandereth the acts which Gregory followed to have been corrupted; wherein Ibas is truly said (as the true genuine acts do also witness) to have denied the Epistle to be his.) But let that pass: why do they mention the Copies of the Acts to have been sincere in Gregory's time, as if after that time no true copies thereof could be found? In the sixth Council more than 70. p Obijt Greg. an. 604. Con. 6. habitum. an 681. years after the death of Gregory, diverse true, ancient, and incorrupt copies q Praefotos duos libros falsatos esse, eo quod neque in unum èprolatu antiqui● & immutilatis lib●is, ejusdem sancti Concilijs, neque in chartaceo libro qui in recenti inventus aest apud bibliothecam venerabilis Patriarchij Act. 14. pa. 73. b were produced of the same: one of them were found in the very Registry at Constantinople, which the Monothelites of that See had not corrupted and falsified; by it and the other true and entire copies, were discovered and convinced the corruption of those three books which they canceled and defaced; how will or can either the Cardinal or Binius, or any other, prove that these Acts now extant, are not consonant to those, or taken out, or published according to them? Truly I do verily persuade myself, considering both that the sixth Council was so careful and vigilant to preserve the true Acts; and also that these which now we have, are so exact, as before I have declared, that these are no other than the copies of those self same ancient and incorrupted acts (save some few and light faults, which by the writers thereof have happened) which Pope Gregory had, and in that sixth Council were read, and commended to all posterity. And I doubt not but the fraud of heretics being then so fully and openly discovered, the Church ever since hath most diligently and curiously, not only carefully, preserved the same. Which may well be thought to be the true cause, why of all the eight Counsels the Acts of these three last, that at Chalcedon, this fifth, and the other of the sixth, are come most safe and entire unto our hands. Howsoever, certain it is that the Cardinal and Binius do most childishly sophisticate, in accusing the copies of the Acts now extant, (which only we defend) to be corrupted, because those three or more copies of the Acts which were produced in the sixth Synod, (which we detest and condemn much more than the Cardinal) were falsified by the Monothelites, none of those false additions being found in these. 4. The second imposture or fictitious writing which Baronius observeth to be inserted in these acts, are the two laws of Theodosius against Nestorius, recited in the fifth Collation. We may not omit this, saith he r an. 553. nu. 46. , that those laws of Theodosius against Nestorius, aliter se habere in Codice Theodosiano, are otherwise set down both in the Code of Theodosius, and in the Ephesine Council, in which there is no mention at all of Theodoret, as in one of these there is: and then he concludeth, haec de commentitiis scriptis, this may be spoken of the counterfeit writings inserted in these Acts. Thus Baronius. I am somewhat ashamed that such a reason should slip from a Cardinal, specially from Baronius, for it betrays an exceeding imbecility of judgement. There is but one law extant in the Theodosian Code s Tit. de haeret. ●g. 66. Damnato against Nestorius, and the followers of his sect. Now because the laws which are recited in the Synodall Acts t Coll. 5. pa. 544. & seq. of this fifth Council, are different from it, hereupon the Cardinal presently concludes it to be a forgery, an imposture: he might as well conclude the Gospel of S. Luke, or S. john to be forged, because they differ from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark: or the Book of Deuteronomy to be forged, because some laws in Exodus are different from some in Deuteronomy. Is it possible, or credible, that Baronius could be so simple, and so infatuated, as to think one Emperor might not make diverse laws concerning one heresy? specially against diverse persons, or diverse writings, though all of them supporting one heresy? The law in the Code and these in the Acts are different laws: True, they are so: but can the Cardinal prove, or doth he once offer to prove that they are one law? and that they ought not to differ? No: the Cardinal was wise enough not to undertake so hard a task. For it is as evident as the Sun, that the law against Nestorius which is in the Code was one, and first published; and long after that these which are recited in the Acts. In the one of these it is said u Pa. 544. b. , Iterum, igitur doctrina Diodori, & Theodori, & Nestorij visa est nobis abominanda, It seems good to us again to detest the doctrine of Diodorus, Theodorus, and Nestorius. This Iterum, imports it was once done before in a former law, and now in this the Emperor would do the same again. As the laws, so the occasion of them, was quite different. That in the Code was made indeed against the heresies of the Nestorians, but in it none of them were personally & by name condemned, but only Nestorius, all the rest who favoured that heresy, were in a generality, not by name condemned; because when that law was made, the Nestorians honoured, and held Nestorius for their chiefest patron, and urged his writings: In these two recited in the Acts, Diodorus of Tarsis, Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and their writings, are particularly, and by name condemned, as well as Nestorius: and in the later the writings also of Theodoret against Cyrill: for when after that first law set down in the Code, the Nestorians durst not, nor could without danger of punishment either praise Nestorius, or read, write, or urge his books, which were all by that law condemned: then they began to magnify Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and Diodorus, and the writing of Theodoret, all which were as plain and plentiful for their heresy, as Nestorius' himself: but because these were not as yet by name condemned, nor by name prohibited, they presumed more boldly to rely on them. The Catholics, and specially they of Armenia, as is witnessed x Coll. 5. pa. 542 in a letter from them to Proclus, seeing this their new device, entreated the Emperor Theodosius to stop that wicked course, & to condemn by name Theodorus, as well as he had done Nestorius. Which though at the first the Emperor did not, yet seeing how insolent the Nestorians grew upon those writings, long after the former, he published these two, condemning now explicitè by name, and in particular, Diodorus, Theodorus, and the writing of Theodoret, which before were only implicitè, and in a generality condemned. When the laws, the occasion, the time of promulgation, were all different, was not the Cardinal, think you, bereft of judgement, who would prove these later to be forged and counterfeit, because they differ from the former, with which they should not agree. 5. It may be the Cardinal thought that all laws were expressed in the Code, and therefore if there had been any such laws as they, they would have been there set down. A conceit I believe which will never enter into any man's mind, while he hath use of his five wits, but into the Cardinals, who hath conceits by himself, and knoweth notes above Ela. To say nothing of the twelve Tables, and of all the ancient Roman laws, (no part of which are extant in the Theodosian Code,) the most ancient law mentioned in the Gregorian, surpasseth not the time of the Emperor Antoninus s Nam 1. lex ibi posita, est imperante Antonino & Severo. ; and in the Theodosian, not the time of Constantine. Can the Cardinal assure us that all the Laws of Constantine, Constantius, and the other Emperors till the time of Theodosius the younger, t Vt liquet ex tit. 1. l. 1. are expressed in this Code? Eusebius u Lib. 2. de vita Constant. ca 30.31. & seq. , and Zozomen x Lib. 1. ca 8. mention diverse of Constantine's laws, Pro liberatione exulum, Pro reducendis relegatis, Pro iis qui ad metalla damnati erant, Pro confessoribus, Pro ingenuis, Quod Ecclesia sit haeres iis quibus nemo de sanguine superfuerit; De sacellis, & camiteriis, and many the like; none of which are in the Theodosian Code; they were all published, if the Cardinal say y an. 318. nu. 37. true, in the Consulship of Licinius, the fifth time, and Crispus; for which year the Code hath no laws, but two a Vide Chronol. omnium Constit. Imperat. servata Consalum ratione extat post finem Codicu Theod. , one De veteranis, and another De parricidio. 6. To come yet nearer to the very times of Theodosius: besides all these, he made another Edict and law against Nestorius b Extat illa lex tom. 5. Conc. Ephes. ca 19 , commanding if any Bishop or Clerk mention that heresy, that he should forthwith be deposed; if a Laicke, be anathematised; in which law he particularly commandeth Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be deposed from his See. This law, though it is both recorded in the Acts of the Ephesine Council, and confessed by the Cardinal c An. 448. nu. 2. & seq. to be truly the Emperor's Law; yet is not extant in the Code, nor is it all one with that which is there set down. The Cardinal by the same reason might prove it a forgery, as well as those other two, and conclude the Acts of the Ephesine Council to be falsified by Impostors, and so to be of no credit, as well as the Acts of this fifth Synod. Further yet, there was another law against Nestorius published by the same Theodosius after the Ephesine latrociny, and recorded in the Acts of the Council d Act. 3. pa. 85. at Chalcedon; wherein the Emperor shows again his detestation of that heresy, approving the condemning and deposing of Domnus, of Theodoret and Irenie, Nestorian Bishops, as also of Flavianus, and Eusebius of Dorilen, whom he thought to be Nestorians: but therein the Emperor was misinformed, as he had been before, in the time of the holy Ephesine Synod, when upon like misinformation he condemned cyril and Memnon, as well as Nestorius. That law, though acknowledged also by Baronius e an. 449. n. 130 to be true, is not extant in the Theodosian Code, nor doth it accord with that which is there expressed: would not any man think it ridiculous hence to conclude as the Cardinal doth, that certainly it is therefore a forgery, and the Acts of Chalcedon containing such forgeries, are to be held of no credit? Thus while the Cardinal labours to discredit these Acts, he so foully disgraceth himself, that men may justly doubt whether he were his own man when he writ these things, which are so void both of truth and reason. CAP. XXXIII. The third addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union, is falsely inserted, refuted. 1. THe third proof which Baronius a Nestoriani commentitias quasdam Theodore. tivalgavere Epistolas, extat ex illis àd Nestorium inscripta an finem 5. Actionis 5. Synodi. an. 436. nu. 10. brings to show that these Acts are corrupted by the additions of some forged writings inserted among them, is an Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the union set down in the fifth Collation b Pa. 558. b. , wherein Theodoret professeth to Nestorius, that he did not receive the letters of cyril as orthodoxal; nay, he showeth himself so averse from consenting to them, and so addicted to Nestorius after the union made, that he thus writeth, I say the truth unto you, I have often read them, and earnestly examined them, and I have found them to be free, (that is, full) in uttering heretical bitterness; nor will I ever consent to those things which are unjustly done against you, nec si ambas manus, no though both my hands should be cut off from me. Thus writeth Theodoret in that Epistle which the holy Council first, and after them we affirm and profess to have been the true writing of Theodoret; and the same to be a counterfeit, a forgery, and none of Theodoret's, but framed by heretics, Baronius confidently avoucheth. 2. Now in this cause having the Synodall Acts, and with them the judgement of the whole general approved Council, on our side, we might justly reject this as a calumny of Baronius, but for as much as he not only saith it, but undertakes to prove the same, we will examine his reasons, that so the integrity and credit of these Acts may be more conspicuous. His reasons are two. The first c Bar. loco cit. is grounded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus, who writeth d Leont. lib. de sect. Act. 4. extat tum 4. Bibl. S. Patrum Edit. 3. thus, It is to be known, that certain letters of Theodoret and Nestorius are carried about, in which either of them do lovingly embrace the other, sed fictitiae sunt, but they are counterfeit, and devised by heretics, thereby to oppugn the Council at Chalcedon; but Theodoret hated Nestorius, etc. Thus Leontius: and the Card. adds e Bar. loco citat. this, extat ex illis Epistolis una, one of those counterfeit Epistles written to Nestorius is extant in the fifth Council, near the end of the fifth action thereof. 3. What if we should except against Leontius, (though he f Nam Leontius meminit Eulogy Episcopi Alexandrini, lib. de sect. Act. 5. Gregorius vere et Eulogius aequales, et exiat Epist. Greg ad ipsum lib. ●. Epist. 37●. be as ancient as Pope Gregory) as a man not of sufficient credit? Or will the Card. think you, defend him, and take his testimony for sound and good payment? then farewell for ever the books of Toby, judith, Wisdom, Maccabees, and Ecclesiasticus; for Leontius g Leont. Act. 2. reckoning the books of the old Testament to be twenty two, and expressly mentioning them all without these, saith, High sunt libri, these are the books, as well of the old, as of the new Testament, which in the Church are held for Canonical. I doubt the Card. will here say, that the case is altered; In this he speaks against them and their Trent faith, not against us: Here the note of their Index expurgatorius h Magister Sac. Palat. pa. 134. primitom. Indicis Romae editi, an. 1607. must be embraced; write, saith the Index, in the margin, diminutè Catalogum texuit Leontius, Leontius recites not fully the Catalogue of the sacred books: And yet note one memorable thing by the way; God who suffered not Lahan to speak an ill word against jacob, and who turned the curses of Balaam into a blessing to Israel, the same God overruled their pen or hands, as he did once the tongue of Caiphas, and in stead of diminutè texuit, they have uttered a Prophecy against themselves, printing even in that edition i Edit. 3. Bibl. 5. Pair. per Marg. lafoy Bigne. Paris. an. 1610. which passed through their Purgatorian fire of correction, Divinitùs Catalogum librorum divinorum texuit; Leontius hath recited this Catalogue by an heavenly inspiration: and yet for all that divinitus texuit, the Cardinal will not believe Leontius, whom against us he persuades all men to believe. But howsoever in other matters (as by name in that Catalogue texto divinitus) Leontius is to be believed, of a certainty he is no fit witness in this cause of the Three Chapters; He was too partial, that I say not heretical, in this point, too much addicted to the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and Theodoret; let Baronius himself say, whether his commending of Theodorus k Extiterunt iis tem, oribus duo virt, Diodorus et Theodorus Mopsvessiae, qui universas literas sacras commentariis illustrabant. Leone. Act. 4. Bishop of Mopsvestia, and Diodorus Bishop of Tarsis, for illustrating the whole Scripture by their Commentaries, for being such worthy men, as that no man l Nec ipsis vivis quisquam dictum aliquod eorum reprehendebat. Ibid. while they lived, did reprove any one saying of theirs, be not untrue, and after, both the person of the one, and writing of both condemned by the general Council, impious also and heretical. To come yet nearer to his saying concerning Theodoret, in the very next sentence save one before those words which Baronius allegeth Leontius saith, Verum ne Theodoretum quidem constat unquam admisisse Nestorium, it doth not appear that Theodoret did ever admit of Nestorius, or hold communion with him. Had not the Cardinal skipped over (as is the wont of all heretics) these former words of Leontius, he would have been ashamed to allege this testimony: For not only the Synodall acts of the Ephesine m Scipsibac praesentibus multis Episcopis, Archelao, Apringio, Theodoreto, etc. qui omnes tui studiosissimi, una mecum te rogant, etc. sia johan. Antio. Nestorio. tom. 1. Conc. Eph ca 31 Council, but the Cardinal himself often teacheth and proveth it by clear evidence, that Theodoret n Ex scholae Theodori Mopsvesteni eraunt Nestorius, Theodoreus et alij, faetus viperini dicendi. Bar. an. 4●7. nu. 26. et Theodoretus ejusdem pianè communionis cum Theodoro Mopsvessero, cujus adeo studiosus extitit ut crederetur eum nomen Theodoreti à Theodoro derivasse. Ibid. nu. 29. admitted Nestorius, and that into a near band of friendship, love, and communion. In that Epistle which Theodoret writ from Chalcedon to Alexander, he calleth Nestorius their friend o De amico autem sciat tua sanctitas. (unle antem Nestori. 'em) Epist. Theodoret. tom. 3. Ephes. Conc. Append. 2. ca 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and saith of him, while we are here in this legacy to the Emperor, non cessabimus omni virtute, ejus patris curam gerere, we will not cease with all our power to take care for Father Nestorius, knowing that wrong is done to him by wicked men. There is recorded p Tom. 1. Eph. Conc. ca 31. a very loving Epist. to Nestorius written by john & other Eastern Bish. particularly by Theodoret, who all writ of themselves tui studiosissimi, we are all most affectionate to Nestorius; of whom Baronius q An. 431. nu. ●4. saith, they who writ this to Nestorius, eidem intima, conjuncti necessitudine, being joined in a most near band of familiarity, stood afterwards for him in the Council, Maximè vero eidem addictus Theodoretus, but of them all Theodoret was most addicted unto him. And again r An. eod. nu. 160 , having cited some words of Theodoret, he addeth, Seeing Theodoret saith thus, I am non solum cum Nestorio unanimem fuisse vides, sed dixerim etiam concorporeum; you see that he was not only a loving friend, and of one mind, but, if I may so say, one incorporated, and concorporated to Nestorius. Thus Baronius, when himself so expressly contradicts his own witness Leontius, and in this very cause touching Theodoret and Nestorius, yea, in that which is the ground of Leontius error touching this Epistle; should he require us to believe that which is but a collection. from the former, which is his fundamental error? may Baronius reject him in the former clause, must we embrace him in the next, which is but a dependant on the other? Leontius because he thought, and thought erroneously, that Theodoret never embraced the friendship and communion with Nestorius, thought also erroneously this Epistle (which testifieth Theodoret's love and communion with Nestorius) to be a counterfeit; the Cardinal, who knoweth and professeth against Leontius, that Theodoret was most inward, and even almost incorporated to Nestorius, ought likewise to hold against Leontius, that this Epistle which testifieth such ardent affection to Nestorius, is the genuine and true Epistle of Theodoret. 4. And that every man may see the force of truth, and with what a feared conscience the Cardinal dealt in this cause, behold himself within few years after, against this testimony of Leontius, acknowledgeth, professeth, and sets down this very Epistle as the true and certain Epistle of Theodoret to Nestorius, which here no doubt, against his own judgement and conscience he denyeth, and proves out of Leontius not to be the Epistle of Theodoret, but a counterfeit, and a forgery, for thus he writeth s An. 432. nu. 80 81. et seq. , Theodoret indeed received the form of faith sent from Cyrill, (at the time of the union) and subscribed unto it, but he could not so quickly forsake the friendship of Nestorius, whom he had so long affected, for at this time (to wit after the union was made) he writ an Epistle to Nestorius, which was read in the fifth general Synod; and then repeating every word of the Inscription and Epistle, he adds at the end, hactenus ad Nestorium Theodoretus, thus writ Theodoret to Nestorius: and again, Theodoret obstinately professed in his letters lately recited, that he would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius. Thus Baronius; who hereby demonstrates himself to be a mere calumniator, who to disgrace the Synodal Acts of the fifth Council, affirms, and would seem by Leontius to prove that Epistle of Theodoret's to be none of his, but a forgery, which to be no forgery but the true writing of Theodoret, himself knew, testifieth and professeth. Thus much of his former proof out of Leontius. 5. His other proof is taken t Bar. an. 436. nu. 11. out of diverse Epistles of Theodoret, specially out of that to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, to Pope Leo, and diverse others; and because it might be replied, that these were written long after the time of the union, whereas, only at that time, and somewhat after, Theodoret might be said to have been heretical, and a favourer of Nestorius, as by this Epistle is signified: to wipe away this suspicion, he adds these words, post initam quidem pacem, truly after the peace and union once made with Cyrill, that ever after that time Theodoret was addicted to Nestorius, Nulla prorsus est mentio, there is no mention at all; but there are many monuments, that (since then) strenuè atque impigrè laboravit, that he laboured stoutly and diligently for the Catholic faith. To which purpose he again saith u an. 449. n. 140. , Post restitutam Ecclesiae pacem, after the peace and unity of the Church, Theodoret by all Catholics was known to be orthodoxal, and to communicate with those that were orthodoxal. Which orthodoxy of faith; saith he x an. 436. nu. 12 , those Epistles of his do so abundantly testify, that by them plus satis abstersit, he hath too much wiped away, purged and abolished all the blots and blemishes which he had contracted by his acquaintance with Nestorius. Thus Baronius, denying Theodoret at any time after the union made, to have been heretical, or a favourer of Nestorius; and then undoubtedly this Epistle, which both is heretical, and wherein such entire love and affection is expressed to Nestorius, and which is recorded to have been written after the time of the union, can be none of Theodoret's, but must be rejected for an imposture, a forgery. 6. Do you not verily believe the Cardinal had sent his wit out of the Country, when he writ that whole part of his Annals, which concerns these three Chapters? A little before he professeth y an. 432. nu. 80.81. this to be truly the Epistle of Theodoret, and now he will prove that it was not, that it could not possible be the Epistle of Theodoret. Yea which is no less worthy of observing, he before not only allowed this Epistle, (with the inscription, wherein it was said that it was writ to Nestorius after the union) to be Theodoret's; but he further saith z an. eod. nu. 82. , that Theodoret seems to have been of this mind, (which is noted in this Epistle) etiam post concordiam, even after the agreement, union, and concord made with Cyrill, seeing Theodoret so obstinately professeth in his letters, that he would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius, Sicque certum est aliquandiu perseverasse, and so it is certain that Theodoret continued some while (after the union) with an angry mind against Cyrill. But now he will prove the quite contrary, that Theodoret for a certainty writ no such things, nor had any fellowship with Nestorius after the union. So both it is certain that Theodoret writ this, and yet it is certain he writ it not; certain that he writ it after the union, and yet certain that he writ it not after the union. That is, to speak plainly, it is certain the Cardinal demonstrates himself and his Annals to be false, untrue, and ridiculous, repugnant both to the truth, and to his own writings. 7. This might suffice to oppose against whatsoever Baronius can produce. If he prove by any testimony this Epistle not to be Theodoret's, I on the contrary will prove it to be Theodoret's, by the Cardinals own testimony: If he prove by any reason Theodoret after the union not to have favoured Nestorius and his heresy; I on the contrary will prove that after the union he favoured Nestorius, by a stronger reason, even by the Cardinals own confession. If he bring Theodoret, I bring Baronius, and so I might Par pari refer, quoth male mordeat hominem. But besides this confession of Baronius, (which disproves whatsoever he can prove against us in this matter) I will add somewhat concerning those Epistles of Theodoret, on which he much relieth. Those Epistles coming out of the a Epistolas Theodoreti (157. numero) Graecè script●● continet. codex Vaticanus, etc. Bar. an. 430. nu. 48. Vatican (the very Mint-house of forgery) are in truth nothing else but counterfeits, as hereafter I purpose more fully to demonstrate; for this time I will only mention that which most concerns this present cause, out of those Epistles which the Cardinal most urgeth, and those are his Epistles to Dioscorus, & to Pope Leo, specially seeing that to Dioscorus (as the Cardinal b An. 444. nu. 20. tells us) declareth the faith of Theodoret to be such and so orthodoxal, that it is enough, ad abstergendum suspitionem, to wipe away all suspicion of heresy, wherewith, by reason of some counterfeit writings in the Synod, (I think he means the fifth Council) he was blamed: And indeed in those Epistles there is a plain condemning of the heresies of Nestorius; but first those Epist. were writ long after c Epistola ad Itonem scripta erat post Ephesinum Latrocinium illud habitum an. 449. altera ad Dioscorum scripta est an. 444 ut ait Bar. illo an. nu. 18. at unio facta est an. 432. Bar. illo an. nu. 72. the union, and so cannot help the Cardinal at all in this point: and if they had been writ presently upon that union, yet those not to be truly Theodoret's, diverse circumstances do make evident. In the Epistle to Dioscorus * Extat apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 21. Theodoret is made to relate how long before that time he had been a Bishop, and where he had preached. The years of his Bishopric he reckons d Sex annos ibi ego docens tempore Theodosy alios tredecim annus tempore Johannis; frater hac jum septimus agitur annus quo Domnus Sedet. Epist. Theod. apud Bar. an 444. nu. 23. to be twenty six, all which time he continued a Preacher at Antioch. Whence Baronius e Ibidem. observeth, Theodoretum Episcopum publicum semper egisse Cathechistam Antiochiae, that Theodoret being a Bishop, was continually the public Catechist at Antioch, during that time of three Patriarches, Theodatus, john, and Domnus: And at least it might be supposed that he was a Preacher, or (as the Cardinal calls him) a Catechiser in that City, before he was Bishop; another of those Epistles (that ad Nonium f Extat apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12. et seq. ) will assure us the contrary, for there Theodoret saith of himself, I stayed in a Monastery, quousque Episcopus factus, till I was made a Bishop; And Baronius g An. 423. nu. 10. further explanes this, saying, creatus Episcopus, after Theodoret was made and ordained Bishop, he was held at Antioch to be the preacher there, first by Theodatus, then by john his successor: Theodoret goes on to set forth his own orthodoxy and praise, saying h Epist. ad Dios. corum apud Bar an. 444. nu. , that though he so long continued a preacher at Antioch, yet in all those years, neither i Et usque hodie cum tantum tempus praeterierit nulius xeque Deo dilectorum Episcoporum; neque pussimotum Clenitorum, c● quae à medicta sunt, repribendis aliquando. Ibid. any of the Bishops, nor any of the Clergy did reprove his doctrine or sayings; which he explanes in that other Epistle k Epist. Theod. 113. extat apud Bar. an. 449. nu. 115. to Pope Leo, saying thus, Whereas I have been a Bishop these six and twenty years, yet in all this time, non subij quantumvis levem reprehensionem, I have not been so much as lightly reproved for my doctrine, but by the favour of God I have delivered more than 1000 (or as Baronius l An. 424. nu. 19 corrects it, more than ten thousand) souls from Marcionisme, Arianisme, Eunomianisme, so that in eight hundred Parishes (so many are in my Diocese of Cyrus) there hath not remained no not one weed, but my flock is free from all heretical error. Thus he in that Epistle. Which his orthodoxy he yet more fully declares in another Epistle m Epist. Theodoreti 81. add Eusebium Ancyrae Episcopum apud Bar an. 443. nu. 12. ; Look on my writings both before and since the holy Ephesine Council, in singulis quae edidimus operibus, Ecclesiae sanus sensus & mens mihi conspicitur; in all and every one of my writings, the doctrine of the Church, and my sound opinion is conspicuous: And again in that to Nomus n Theodor. Epist. 81. apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 14. speaking of the same his integrity of faith, in all these five and twenty years, saith he, Nec à quoquam accusatus, nec quenquam accusavi, Neither have I been accused of any man, neither have I accused any. Thus is Theodoret made to write in those Epistles. 8. Let us omit the vanity and folly of the forger, who reports this as an honour to Theodoret, that he even when he was a Bishop, was a Catechiser for six and twenty years together, and that out of his own Diocese: that withal he makes Theodoret boast of a most unlikely matter, that by his care and diligence (even during that his absence) he had so rooted all weeds of heresy out of his own Diocese, that ne unum zizanium, not so much as one weed remained, in all those eight hundred Parishes whereof he was Pastor. Do but observe here two most palpable and ridiculous untruths of the forger. The former, that he makes Theodoret to write in the first year of Dioscorus, that is, as Baronius o An. 4●4. nu. 18. Defuncto ●yrillo, ●●ff●ctus est hoc anno in locum ipsius Dioscorus. assures us, an. 444. that he had then been a Bishop six and twenty years. Now he was created Bishop, as the Cardinal p Hoc codemanno Theodoretus Cy● creatus est Episco●us; id plane co●●●ges ex etc. Bar. an. 423. nu. 10. demonstrates, and sets down for a certainty, An. 423. to which if you add 26. I doubt not but any Arithmetician will easily show it to be impossible that at the year 444. he shall be 26. years a Bishop. Nay see and deride the folly of this impostor. In the Epistle to Leo written after q Name in ●a Epist. (quae est Theod. 113.) narrat se injust in eo Co●●ilio Eph●s●no depositum. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 118. the Ephesine Latrociny, which the Cardinal r Non hoc an. (448.) sedsequenti Eph●si famosam habitam esse Synodun, certum est. Bar. an. 448 nu. 58. , Binius s In Notis suis ad ●onciliab. Ephes. pa. 1017. b. , and all confess to have been An. 449. he makes Theodoret, account the whole time of his Bishopric, to be but twenty t Vigin●●sex annis Ecc●si ●● rexi. Epist. Theod. ad Leo●em apud Bar. an. 44●. nu. 119. quo● ab an. 423. inchoando● esse necessario statuit pro ●erto. Bar. an. 423. nu. 10. ●● an. 444. nu. 23 six years, which was so much when he writ to Dioscorus, five years before that. 9 And here withal note by the way the rare wisdom of Cardinal Baronius. He upon that Epistle ᵘ to Dioscorus sets down this Memorandum, Observa lector, Note here gentle reader, that all these twenty six years' Bishop Theodoret was a Catechist; and withal note how long each of those three patriarchs sat (to wit, six and twenty years) from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop, till this year 444. Observa lector, Note again good reader, the dotage of the Cardinal. Theodoret was made Bishop An. 423. and by adding 26. the Cardinal cannot find above 444. Truly it was fit he should be besotted, who undertakes to defend Impostors, and most sottish untruths. But in the mean space do you not think Baronius a very fit man to write Annals of 1200. years, that is so exact in calculating so small a sum, as to account 23. and 26. to make just 44. though at another time, when by such a false account he had no purpose to disgrace or refute the Acts of this Synod, he x Cum Theodoretus testatur s● anno 440. habere in sed. Episcopa●i annos 26. utique in hunc annum (423.) necesse est revoces se 〈◊〉 ejus prunord. a. Bar. an. 423. nu. 10. could then sum those particulars to make 49. 10. The other untruth which I mentioned is common to both these Epistles, and demonstrates them both to be counterfeits, or Theodoret if he writ them to be a most shameless liar, and in these his writings of no credit at all. In all those 25. or 26. years, saith he, I was not accused, nor reproved: no not lightly reproved for my doctrine by any man. Not accused? not reproved? no not lightly reproved? Fie, both he and his doctrines were condemned and accursed for heretical, and before he writ this to Leo, himself was deposed also from his Bishopric in a general Council. Of all which there are undoubted evidences as clear as the Sun. His impious and heretical writings against Cyrill, and his twelve Chapters, so often recorded both in the fifth Council, in the Imperial Edict of justinian, in Pope Gregory and Pelagius, acknowledged by Baronius for impious and heretical, these being writ in the time of the holy Ephesine Council directly in defence of Nestorianisme, and against the Catholic faith, did the doctrine of the Church shine in them? were not they reproved? not so much as lightly reproved? when the holy Ephesine Council y Sancta Syncdus, ●arise●tentia condemnavit ●liorum vaniloquen●iam, quotquot vel post Nestorum, vel certe illum faere q●●●adem sape●ent. Append. 1. add ●om. 2. Act. Ephes. Conc. ca 6 pa. 679. expressly condemned and accursed all the doctrines of Nestorius, and all who defend them: was this think you no reproof of Theodoret his writings? There is extant among the acts of the Ephesine Council, the decree which john a Tom. 3. Act. Eph. Conc. ca 2. pa. 77●. Bishop of Antioch made with the rest that took part with Nestorius, and which falsely called themselves the holy Synod of Ephesus, whereas they were nothing else but a mere conspiracy of detestable heretics. In that decree they depose Cyrill and Memnon as being Apollinarians, heretics, contemners of the holy Fathers and their doctrine, turbulent, seditious, and the like: they accurse all the rest of the Bishops who consented to cyril, that is, all who were of the holy Ephesine Council; and they bind them with an Anathema so long, till they did accurse the twelve chapters of cyril, (that is, till they did renounce and accuse the Catholic faith, and maintain Nestorianisme.) To this heretical, false, slanderous, and diabolical decree of the Nestorians, Theodoret subscribed by name among the rest. What think you now? Did Theodoret all this time accuse none? or was this decree to which he subscribed not accused? was it not reproved, not lightly reproved of any? Read but the seventh Chapter of the fourth Tome of those acts b Pa. 797. , and there you shall see that this their whole conventicle, and among the rest Theodoret is particularly condemned, and anathematised by the holy Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus, for this their heretical dealing: and I suppose this was some reproof of Theodoret, to be, and that most justly, condemned and excommunicated for an heretic by the consenting judgement of an holy Ecumenical Synod; that is in truth by the whole Catholic Church. Those Acts of the Ephesine Council contain 1000 like demonstrations of that untruth, uttered in those Epistles. Among them all consider but that Sermon c Append. 5. ca 3. ad tom 6. Act. Conc. Eph. p. 907 which Theodoret made to the Nestorians at Chalcedon, during the time of that Ephesine Council, of which Peltanus saith, Theodoret is carried, insano impitu, with a furious rage against Cyrill, and the other Orthodoxal Bishops of the holy Council, comparing them to Serpents, Basilisks, murderers, and the like. Neither doth he only vomit out his choler against them, but he plainly girded at the Emperor also. (Did he accuse none when he uttered all this?) Nay he d Theod. loc. cit. affirms Catholics which hold Christ God and man to be one person, and so to be passable, to be worse than Heathens. The Heathens, saith he, taught, the Heaven, the Sun, and the Stars to be impassable, and shall we believe the only begotten Son of God to be passable, and such as may dye? Absit Salvator, ne sic simus Apostatae; far be this from us, O Saviour, let us not be such Apostates, as to teach this, let us not suspect that our Saviour could suffer. Let any man now judge whether it be not a shameless untruth which those Epistles avouch that Theodoret was not reproved for this doctrine, no not lightly reproved in all those 26. years; whereas both then and ever since, the whole Catholic Church hath accursed his impiety and heresy, which he so insolently then preached? And omitting infinite like proofs of the falsehood of that Epistle, the next year after the Ephesine Council, there was a Synod e Tom. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca 5. pa. 831. & pa. 927. held at Antioch, where john and diverse other Bishops concluded the full union with Cyrill, wherein they all condemn & anathematise the heresies of Nestorius, which their profession of faith, and this condemning of the Nestorian heresy, john sent, both to cyril, to Pope Sixtus, and to Maximianus Bishop of Constantinople. Now seeing Theodoret not only in former time had been so violent and furious in defence of that doctrine, but then and long after continued in the same mind, was not his doctrine reproved, nay was it not accursed and anathematised by john Patriarch of Antioch, and many other Bishop's subject to his Patriarchship? What a most vile and shameless untruth than is it, which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter, that in the whole space of 25. or 26. years he neither accused any, nor was accused nor reproved, no not lightly reproved either by john or any other, but that all and every one of his writings, contained the true doctrine of the Church? But enough of those Epistles, which to be forged and false this which is already said may for this time suffice. 11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affirmeth, that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius, and withal seen how weak and unsound his proof is in this point, I will yet add one consideration which will further manifest, and even demonstrate the same. That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certain it is, that when Theodoret writ that history, he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme, whereof in the very last Chapter f Lib. 5. ca 40. he gives an eminent proof, commending Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia for a worthy teacher of the whole Church, and for an oppugner of all heresies: adding, that whereas he was a Bishop thirty six years, he never ceased, optimam herbam sanctis Christi ●vi●us suppeditare, to feed the flock of Christ with the best herbs. None can doubt but he who so much extolleth so detestable an heretic, and approveth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius sucks, for the best herbs or doctrines, but he must needs be confessed to be as deep in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himself. If now it may appear that this history was writ by him after the union, there can no doubt remain but that after the union Theodoret favoured Nestorius and all his heresies. 12. Baronius knowing this inevitably to follow, to decline the whole force of this, tells g an. 427. nu. 28 us that Theodoret writ his history not only before the union, but before the jar also; yea before the time of the holy Council at Ephesus; whereof having given some sleight conjectures, in the end he concludes, Dicendum est, It must be said that Theodoret writ this history in the space of those three years which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Council. So he. Shall I say the Cardinal was deceived and overseen herein? No, I will not suspect that such an evident error could creep into the mind of so exact an Annalist. I rather think his intent was, wilfully and wittingly to deceive others, and that therefore he said this to smother that truth touching Theodoret's continuance in Nestorianisme, which he elsewhere so often denieth. Theodoret h Lib. 5. hist. Eccl. ca 36. mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or relics of chrysostom, and bringing them to Constantinople. The Cardinal was so far from being ignorant hereof, that himself citeth i Bar. an. 438. nu. 6. Theodoret with a memorandum, He, ante omnes, above them all mentioneth this translation, but in few words. That translation, as Socrates k Lib. 7. ca 44▪ and Marcellinus l Insuo Chron. witness, was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consul, that is, as the Cardinal also accounteth, in the year 438. Now seeing the union between john and Cyrill was made in the year 432. it avoidable followeth, that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven years at least after the union, and how much more I know not, whether 8.10. or 16. after it, (for it is uncertain:) or if he writ it, as the Cardinal divineth, before the Ephesine Synod, that he writ it prophetically, writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine years after his history was written. The truth is, an orderly and historical continuation of things done, he doth not write, but only to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia, where his history (for any such continuation of succeeding matters) doth end: but to show and testify that he writ his history after the year 438. he purposely mentioneth some of those acts which sell out in that year: and hereof further there may be a presumption, because Theodoret, as Baronius tells m Ecquid mirum, si quod dixerat. Sozomenus, à Theodoreto rep●titum inveniatur. Bar. in Martyr. Rom. Decemb. 23. us, followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mopsvestia; now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius, as himself witnesseth: So that if Theodoret, as the Cardinal tells us, took it out of Sozomen, and his book was not published till the year 439. sure the Cardinal of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time (otherwise than prophetically in this point) write his history. It remaineth now, seeing Theodoret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this history; and it was written after the year 438. that out of all doubt till then he remained heretical, and devoted to all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus, which in that history he commends for most wholesome food, and Catholic doctrine. 11. But not to stay longer in a matter very clear, my conclusion of this former point is this; Seeing the Cardinal tells us that from the time of the union Theodoret was not only a Catholic and orthodoxal Bishop, but that he did manfully fight for the Catholic faith, it evidently followeth, that in the Cardinal's judgement, Nestorianism and those herbs, nay most poisonful weeds of Theodorus are Catholic doctrines, seeing as now we have proved for many (but of a certainty for seven years at least) after the union, that doctrine which Theodoret embraced, and so earnestly defended, was no other than the blasphemous heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus. And let this suffice for the third addition, which he unjustly objecteth to the Acts of this fifth Council. CAP. XXXIV. The fourth addition to the Synodall Acts, pretended by Baronius, for that the Epistle of Theodoret, entitled to john Bishop of Antioch, is falsely inserted therein; refuted. 1. HIs fourth instance concerns an Epistle of Theodoret, inscribed to john Bishop of Antioch, set down near the last end of the fifth Collation; wherein Theodoret exceedingly rejoiceth for the death of Cyrill. In handling whereof, Baronius and Binius do more than triumph, as if the field were certainly won. That Epistle, saith Binius a Annot. in 5. Council § Constitutum. , nequissimi & scelestissimi alic●jus nebulonis Eutychiani commentum est, is the forgery of some most naughty and nefarious Eutychian varlet, and by fraud and surreption is thrust into the Acts of this Synod. We have before discovered, saith Baronius b an. 553. nu. 43 , the imposture of that Epistle, but we are not grieved to repeat the same things here again, that it may be showed that they are not the true Acts of the Synod, sed nebulonis cujusdam ex cogitatione commentum, but a forgery devised by some knave: and therefore we say, that Epistle which is recited under the name of Theodoret to john of Antioch, Omni ex parte convinci, is every way convinced not to be Theodoret's. Again c Bar. an. 444. an. 12. , There is an Epistle set down in the fifth Synod, under the name of Theodoret, written unto john, rejoicing in the death of Cyrill, and babbling very many things against him, which you may more truly call a Satire, or infamous libel, than an Epistle. And we take it very indignly that it should go under the name of Theodoret, which is rather the figment of some Nestorian: and again d an. 553. n. 44. , it is figmentum impudentissimi cujusdam nebulonis, a fiction of some most shameless varlet. Thus & much more Baronius. The like doth Binius with no less confidence and virulency against these Acts affirm. The main ground on which they both rely, is, for that john Bishop of Antioch to whom this Epistle is inscribed, was dead before Cyrill. How could Theodoret, saith Baronius e an. 444. nu. 16 & an. 553. n. 44. , write to john touching the death of Cyrill, seeing john was dead seven years before Cyrill? which, saith he, exploratum habetur, is sure and certain, both by Nicephorus and others who writ the succession of Bishops, as also by an Epistle which Cyrill writ to Domnus the successor of john, both which proofs Binius f Loco citato. also allegeth. 2. My first answer hereunto is, that if this be a demonstration of forgery, because an Epistle is written to one that is dead, themselves, and not we, shall be the greatest losers hereby. There is a decretal Epistle g Epist. 1. Clem. extat. to. 1. Conc. pa. 25. & seq. written by Pope Clement to james Bishop of jerusalem, and brother of our Lord: in that Epistle the Pope tells james, how Peter being now ready to be martyred, took Clement, ordained him Bishop, gave him the keys, set him in his own chair, and when he was set therein, said unto him, Deprecor te O Clemens, O Clement I beseech thee before all that are here present, that thou write unto james the brother of our Lord, how thou hast been a companion with me of my journeys, and of my actions, ab initio usque ad finem, from the beginning to the end; and write also what thou hast heard me preach in every City, what order of words, of actions, I have used in my preaching, and also what an end I make of my life in this City. Neither fear that he will be sorry for my death, seeing he will not doubt but I die for piety's sake; yea it will be a great comfort unto him, to hear that I do not leave my charge to one that is ignorant or unlearned. According to this request and command of Peter, Clement writ an Epistle to james, exhorting him, that he command all that which Peter taught, to be diligently observed. This and much more writ Clement to james after the death, and of the life and death of Peter. Now james unto whom he writ was dead six or seven years before Peter: For james was slain in the seventh, and Peter in the thirteenth year of Nero, as out of S. Jerome h Hic jacobus 30. annis rexit Ecclesiam, usque ad septimum Neronis annum▪ Hier. in Catal. scrip. in jacobo, Petrus ad ultimum annum Neronis, id est, 14. Ecclesia● rexit. idem in Petro. , Eusebius i Euseb. an. 7. Nero● is ait I●●obum o●●sum. an. Christ. 63. Petrus an. 14. Neronis▪ idem an. 70. , josephus k joseph. Iacob●s lapidate ait an. post Christum natum 63. Antiqu. lib. 20. c. 8. , and others, is evident; and as Baronius l Anno 7. Neronis, jacobi nocem accidisse omnes consentiunt. Bar. an. 63. nu. 2. Petrum antem anno 13. Neronis occisum probat. Bar. an. 69. nu. 2. , and after him Binius m Annot. in Epist. 1. Clem. , not only profess but clearly and rightly prove: and because this is a decretal n Inter Decretales episiolas Pontificum numerat can Turrian. lib. 2. ca 13. & hoc prebat. ●. 209 Epistle, an Apostolical o Apostolicorum Pentisi▪ 'em. Tur. l●b. 2. in praes. pa. 150. et suis authoribus, id est Apostolic, dignissunas. ibid. pa. 152. writing, sent from Clement being Pope, which was not till the tenth p Clementem ingressum in Papatum an. Chr. 93. is est Domitian's an. 10. probat Baron. an. 93. nu. 2. year of Domitian, and that is thirty years after the q Nam is obijt (ut probatum est) a. Chr. 63. death of james, it hence ensueth that it was writ to james thirty years after he was dead. What shall now become of this decretal and Apostolical Epistle? Will they be content that by the Cardinal's demonstration it be rejected as the forgery of some lewd varlet? Fie! By no means. Binius r Epistola 1. Clement. Papae. calls it the Epistle of Pope Clement; Baronius s An. 102. nu. 6. tells us that it is not only Pope Clements, but that this and the other written to the same james the dead Bishop of jerusalem, are integrae & illibatae, entire and incorrupted writings of Clement. In their Canon law t Clemens Papa▪ ●d jacobum Epist. 1. Distinct. 80. ca 2. sic iterum Caus. 6. q. 1. ca 5. , and that corrected by the Pope, it is styled the epistle of Pope Clement to james: and that which is there related must stand for the words and doctrine of S. Peter u Petrus in ordinatione Clementis. cause. 11. q. 3. ca 12. attendite sermoni illius, qui nobis per B. Clementem recitatur. Nich. 1. Epist. 49. et beatus Petrus prohibebat. Caus. 6 q. 1. ca 5. ; yea the authority of it, as other decretal Epistles, Conciliorun x Dist. 20. ca Decretater. Canonibus pari jure exaequatur, is every way equal to the Canons of Nice, of Chalcedon, of other holy Counsels. If that be too little, what Saint Austen y Lib. 2. the doct. Christ. ca 8. saith of the very sacred Canonical Scriptures, indicted by the Spirit of God himself, that doth Gratian (wretchedly abusing Saint Austin's words) apply to this and the rest of the Pope's decretal Epistles, saying of them z Dist. 19 ca 6. , Inter Canonicas Scripturas, decretales Epistolae connumerantur; the decretal Epistles are to be reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures. Bellarmine a Lib. 2. Conc. ca 12. not only in general defends this saying of Gratian, telling us that the decretals may well be called Canonical, that is, either such as are a rule, and have force to bind; or Canonical in that sense as the seventh Synod calleth the Decrees of Counsels, Constitutions inspired from God; but particularly also he defends b Ruffinus memin●t epistolae Clementis ad jacobum, et eam se vertisse dicit ex Graeco. Bell. lib. 2. the Pout. Rom. ca 14. § Ad haec. by the authority of Ruffinus this to be the true Epistle of Pope Clement unto james: and to omit others, their jesuit Turrian, to whom Baronius c Tu consule Turrianum. Bar. an. 102. nu. 6. , Binius d Cujus fidei sint bae Clementis epistolae, Vide Turrianum. Bin. notis in Episl. 1. Clem. pa. 31. , Gretzer e Defence. ca 14 lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. §. Altera. , and others, refer us for the credit of these Epistles, hath writ a whole book in defence of them; wherein he calls them (and particularly he mentioneth and defendeth this of Clement to james) sanctissimas f Turr. pro epist. Pont. ●icum. lib. 2. traef. pa. 152. , verissimas, etc. most holy, most true Epistles, most worthy of their authors; that is, men Apostolic, consecrated by the reverence of the whole word, full g Woman gravitate, 〈◊〉. ●â 〈◊〉 sanctit●te. resertas. ibid. of all gravity, learning and sanctity, confirmed by the testimony and use of all ages: and which is most worthy remembering for our present purpose, the jesuit writes in defence of them thus h ●raes. eadem. pa. 150 151. , What if in these Epistles sometimes there meet us some such matters as are not easy to all? must we therefore doubt of their authority? by no means. Therefore if any man do not understand how the Epistle of Clement could be written to james the brother of our Lord, who was dead more than eight years before, such an one, if he be a learned, modest, and temperate man, he will ask of others, and in the mean space contain himself within his own bounds; that is, as himself explaineth, handling this Epistle i Lib. codem. 2. ca 13. pa. 215. , he must so firmly hold it to be written by Pope Clement, ut dubitare nefas existimet, that he esteem it a great sin to doubt thereof. Besides all this, the jesuit hath a large Chapter k Ca 13. lib. 2. purposely to defend and show this Epistle to be truly Clement's, though it was written to james long after he was dead. Some there were (whom Baronius l Si Clementis germanam epistulam hancesse dixeri●●s (ut Bar. ipse oit. an. 102. nu. 6.) falso inscripta ell, & ad Simconem potius tunt Hierosolymorum Episcopum, quam ad jacobum longe antea defunctum, scripta fuit. Bar. an. 69 nu. 43. , Possevine and Binius follow) who thought it was written indeed by Clement, m Poss. in Clement, in suo apparatu. but not unto james, n Haec epistola potius ad Simeonem qui etiam frater Dominidicitur▪ scripta est: & in titulum epistola mendose, vox (jacobum) irrepsit. Bin. notis in epist. 1. Clem. who was then dead, but unto his successor Simeon. Against these their own Turrian holds resolutely p Ne si ad Simeonem jacobi successorem, aut Marcum Alexandriae Episcopum, aut a●ium ullum scribere ●ussisset, etc. Turt. ca illn 13. pa. 211. that it was writ not to Simeon, nor to any but to james; and whereas some would think it a folly q Quid coegit eum to imprudentia delabi, ut ad cumscribere Clementem mandaret Petrus, quem ipse sciebat jam mortuum, ibid. pa. 208. and madness to write to such an one as was dead, and which was known to be dead to the author who writ it, (for who should be the carrier of this letter unto him?) especially to write unto him as a governor in the Church militant, & to instruct and exhort r Haec tibi frater jacobe ab orr sancti Petri accepi, tibique ins●nnare studui, ut servar● omnia immaculate praecipis. Epist. Clem. in fine. him what he should carefully observe, Turrian tells s Causa gravissima scribendi ad jacobum jam mortuum jussu Petri, de doctrina ad omnes Episcopos pertinente. Turr. loc. cit. pa. 211. you that there were diverse great and weighty reasons why Saint Peter commanded Clement, t Ita certè est ut isti dicunt, non potuisse ignorare Petrum fuisse jam ante annos 8. jacobum mortuum. ibid. pa. 208. and why Clement did write this to a dead man, whom they both knew to be dead: and having given diverse very wise and worthy reasons hereof, one taken from transfiguration u Causa gravissima scribendi per transfigurationem. pa. 211. , another x Simile exemplum in allies ejusdem Clementis libris cernitur. In utroque est quadam fictio seu inductio personae quod genus totum ad imitationem personarum pertinet. ibid. pa. 212. Virobique est imitatio personarum. pa. 213. from imitation, a third from avoiding y Si ad ullum aliquem vivorum scripsisset, videretur magis eum diligere aut honorare, & aemulationis, vel invidiae materiam praebuisse: Anne parvi momenti haec cautio? Quis tam obtusus sit, ut sic sentiat? ibid. pa. 211. hatred, if he had writ to any that had been alive; a fourth z Cum Petrus mandat Clementi ut ad Iacobu● mortuum scribat clarissimum testimonium resurrect●●is praebet. ibid. pa. 212. , for to be a testimony of the Resurrection, (belike because that Saint james shall then read this holy Apostolical Epistle, and see what godly exhortation and advice for government of the Church Clement gives unto him:) and such like; in the end he concludes p Catholici vero siqui sint, etc. pa. 215. , that such as are Catholics must not doubt q Etiamsi und●, aut quomodo ad nos profecta sint nesciamus, tan est propter antiquorum authoritatum ita tenemus, ut de eyes debitare ne●as esse existimemut, Ibid. of the truth of this Epistle, though they know not the reason why it was written to a dead man: and withal, that with men who have reason and judgement, certum esse debet; such must assure themselves that both S. Peter and Clement had and knew reasons why the one commanded to write, and the other did write unto a dead man. Whereas now the Cardinal's worthy demonstration? Had he and Binius been men of reason and judgement, and considered (as no doubt but they read) that tract of Turrian, (seeing unto it they refer us) they might have seen therein diverse reasons why Theodoret might write to john, though he were dead; for every one of Turrians reasons is as forcible to defend this Epistle of Theodoret, as they are to excuse Clement, for writing to james, who was dead long before: But the case is now altered, the Cardinal's demonstration holds only in those writings that distaste him, or make for us, and against their cause. But si in rem sint, if any such writing bring (as all the decretals do) either honour to the Roman See, or gain to the Roman Court, though they were writ to one that was dead, I say not seven, but seven times seven years before, they shall be honoured as the true and undoubted writings of the authors. 3. Let me add but one other example, but that is such an one as doth cut all the sinews, yea, the very heartstrings of the Cardinal's demonstration. The translation of Chrysostom's body or relics by Theodosius the younger, more than thirty years after his death, from Comana, where he died in banishment, to Constantinople, is a matter so testified by Socrates r Lib. 7. ca 44. , Theodoret s Lib. 5. ca 36. , Marcellimus t in suo Chron. an. 438. , the great Menology u Die 27. Ianu. , their Roman Martyrology x Die 27. jan. , and others, that we do not doubt of the truth thereof; But since it is y Ind postea Roma● translatum est Martyr. Rome Ibid. retranslated, as they say, from Constantinople to Rome, the only shop indeed to utter all such ware, and make the people go a whoring after them: That those his supposed relics may be had in reverence, it is worthy the considering, how miraculously they have made the manner of his Translation. Nicephorus z Lib. 14. ca 43. relates the sum of it, but, as by Baronius a Recitatidem Cosmas literas, a quibus pulo Nicepborum exscripsisse. Mar. an 438. nu. 8. it seems, he borrowed it out of the luculent Oration of one Cosmas Vestiarius, whether one of the Vatican b ●●bumus cum (cesma sermon●) in nostrâ I●bhorheca discr. p. un. Baran. not. in Martyr. Ro●. Jan. 27. et an. 438. nu 7. , or a Baronian author I know not, but so ignoble, and so unworthy an author, that Possevine judged him not worthy to be named in his Bibliotheca, or reckoned among his testes veritatis. Out of this Tailor's Oration hath the Cardinal c An. 438. stitched a very pretty Anile, the sum whereof is this: Proclus on a time making a panegyrical Oration in the praise of chrysostom, the people were so flamed with the love and longing desire after him, that they interrupted the Bishop, and would not suffer him to make an end of his Sermon, crying out with many loud vociferations, they would have chrysostom, chrysostom and his relics they would have: Proclus moved herewith, entreats the Emperor; the Emperor, at this their earnest suit sent diverse Senators (some d Misit exerbitum militum u. na cum clericis. Georg. Patriar; Alex. in vitae Chrysostomis, sol. 77. say an army together, with Clerks and Monks) to bring with all pomp the body of chrysostom from Comana; thither they go, and come to the place where Chrysostom's body was kept in a silver Coffin: Once, again b In thecâ argentea, sacra Iohannis pignora asservaban●ur, inde ea auferre et deferre conantibus, nemine resistente minimè concessum fuit, ressaep● frustra tentata. Bar. an. 438 nu. 8 , and very often they assay, yea, labour & strive with all their strength, which all their skill, to lift up the Coffin, all was in vain, the sacred body c Sacro corpore instar silicis, loco inbaerescente et immobili permanente. Ibid. was more immovable than a rock; they certify this news to the Emperor, who called Proclus, & other holy men to advise further about that matter; in the end the resolution of them all d Imperatoris sententia ab omnibus aequae pro bata atque taudata fuit. Ibid. was, that the Emperor Theodosius should write a Letter to chrysostom, Supplicis instar libelli, in form of a supplication, ask him forgiveness for the sins which Arcadius his father had committed against him, & humilibus precibus, to beseech him with most lowly prayers that he would return to Constantinople, and take his old See again, praying him that he would no longer by his absence afflict them, being so desirous of his body, yea, of his ashes, yea, of his shadow. The Emperor did so, the form of whose letter of supplication out of the Tailor Cosmas, first Nicephorus, and then Baronius express, though the Cardinal for good cause was loath to give chrysostom the title of a Patriarch, and Pater Patrum, which Nicephorus e johanni, aurein oris Patriarchiae. Nic. lo. cit. et, At tu pater patrum, etc. Ib. sets down; those either the Tailor or the Cardinal concealeth or altereth. The Emperor's letters were sent and brought to the dead corpse, and with great reverence laid upon the breast and heart of chrysostom, and the next day the Priests with great ease took up the body, and brought it to Constantinople into the Church of the holy Apostles. There first (as out of Nicephorus the Cardinal relateth) the Emperor with the people, supplex communem precationem pro Parentibus fecit, made an humble prayer for his Parents, and more specially entreated for his Mother, that her grave f Precatus est, ut tumuli ejus motus atque strepitus consisteret, 35. enim annis jam is quatiebatur. Bar. ibid. nu. 12. , which had shaken and been sick of a palsy, and made a noise and rattling for thirty five years together might now at length cease; & the holy man heard the request, granted it; the graves palsy was cured, so that it shaked no more. Then Proclus the Bishop placed dead chrysostom in eundem Thronum, in the very same See and Episcopal seat with himself, all the people applauding and crying, O Father chrysostom receive thy See; and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration, the lips g Ipse Chrysostomus laehijs rursum apertis. ad ponulum dixisse fertur▪ Pax vobis. Cosmas apud Bar. loco citat. et Niceph. of chrysostom (five and thirty years after he was laid in his grave) opened and blessed all the people, saying, Peace be to you; and this both the Patriarch Proclus, and the people standing by, testified h Id circumstantes homines et Patriarcha Proclus, se audisse, testati sunt. Cos. et Niceph. loc. cit. that they heard. Thus far the Cardinal's narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Nicephorus. 4. Say now in earnest, is not this a story able to put down Heliodore, Orlando, and all the fictions of all the Poets? their wits are barren, their conceits dull, they are all but very butchers to the Cardinal's Tailor. It is not my purpose to stand now to resute such a lying legend: The Cardinal's friends may see the censure which their Carthusian Monk i Ad optimum quemque lectorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthusiani post vitam Chrysost. apud Geor pat. ●lex. Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus, the only author that he knew, till Baronius pulled this blind Tailor out of a corner; Though I believe (saith he) God to be omnipotent, yet I believe not all which is here written of chrysostom, sed fides penes lectorem esto, let the reader choose whether he will believe it or not, for the writers of men's lives, who lived before Nicephorus, (and he writ about the year 1328.) would not have concealed or smothered in silence, rem tanti momenti, a matter of so great moment. Thus the Carthusian, whose judgement may justly be thought to be the more weighty, because of all the ancient Fathers there is none (I speak it confidently) who happened to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius (as he is called) Leo and George the writers, or rather the devisers of Chrysostom's acts, his life and death. Any one of them doting after such miraculous reports, would have painted out this miracle of miracles, with all the wit and words which they had: That which I only observe is the strange, and if you please, miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius. This Epistle of Theodosius, though it was written to chrysostom more than thirty years after his death, the Cardinal approves, applauds, and for a rare monument he commends k Concionem illam rati, tibi sore chariorem. Bar. an 438. nu. 2. Cosmas vestiarius lu●●lenta oratione ac câdem translatione habitá quae ges●a fuerunt exactè recenset. Ibid. nu. 7. et alia similia habet. it, and all that appendent fable to all posterity. Why? it is an excellent story indeed to persuade the adoration of relics, invocation of Saints, prayers for the dead, and such like. Had this Epistle of Theodoret's contained such stuff, it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship; because it wants such matters, and crosseth in very many things the Cardinal's Annals, Oh it is nothing but a fiction, and a very forgery of some lewd naughty varlet. It is demonstrated to be such, because it was written to john Bishop of Antioch, who was dead but 7. years before, whereas more than four times seven years, cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after he was dead, to be an authentic and undoubted record. This may serve the Cardinal for the first answer, who is now bound in all equity, either to confess his own demonstration to be fallacious, or to proclaim the Epistle of Pope Clement, and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration, to be fictitious, and his own Annals a fabulous legend. 5. My second answer is, that though john, to whom this Epistle is directed, was dead, yet that proves only the title or inscription to be amiss, or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to john; it cannot prove (which the Cardinal undertook to do) that the Epistle is forged, and not written by Theodoret: For the Epistle itself to be truly Theodoret's, his own Sermon publicly preached at Antioch before Domnus after the death of Cyrill, and mentioned in the Synodall Acts l Conc. Coll. 5.5. pa. 559. b. next after this Epistle, doth clearly manifest; for the scope and purpose of that sermon is the same which is expressed in the Epistle. In the Epistle Theodoret declareth his eagerness in defending the doctrine of Nestorius, and withal rejoiceth and insulteth over cyril being dead, who was then the chief oppugner of the heresies of Nestorius. The very same eagerness for Nestorianisme, and love to his heresies, as also the like joy for Cyrils' death doth his sermon express more fully, saying, Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare, none doth now (seeing Cyrill is dead) compel any man to blaspheme, (so he calls the Catholic faith.) Where are those (to wit Cyrill) who teach that God was crucified? It was the man Christ, and not God who was crucified: It was the man JESUS that died, and it was GOD the Word who raised him from the dead. Non jam est contentio, Now (seeing Cyrill is dead) there is no contention; Oriens & Egyptus sub uno jugo est, the East & Egypt (that is, as well those who are under the Patriarch of Alexandria, as they who are under the Patriarch of Antioch) are all under one yoke; that is, all submit themselves to one faith, that is, to Ne●●orianisme. Mortua est invidia, & cum eo mortua est contentio; Envy (he meaneth cyril, who so much hated and oppugned the doctrine of Nestorius) is now dead, and all contention is dead and buried with him. Let now the Theopaschites, (he means Catholics, who taught God to have suffered and died) let them now be at quiet. Thus preached Theodoret after the death of Cyrill, insulting over him being dead, triumphing that now (seeing Cyrill was dead) Nestorianisme did and would prevail. Who can imagine, but that the Epistle, maintaining the same heresy insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill, was written by Theodoret, when he publicly in his sermon before a Patriarch, uttered the same matter. Would Theodoret fear or forbear to write that in a letter, which he neither did fear, nor could forbear to profess openly in a sermon, and that in so solemn a place and assembly? or was Theodoret orthodoxal, and a lover of cyril in his writings before the death of Cyrill, who was heretical, and so full with the dregs of Nestorianisme after the death of Cyrill, that he must vent them, and with them disgorge his malice and spite against cyril in an open Pulpit, and in the hearing of a Patriarch, and all the people of Antioch? It is not the inscription or title of the Epistle, but the Epistle itself which the fifth Council and we after it do stand upon. Had not they known the Epistle to be Theodoret's they needed not by it to have proved that Theodoret, after the union, yea, after the death of Cyrill was eager, violent, yea, virulent also in defence of the heresies of Nestorius; that his public sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils' death, and against Cyrill, had been a sufficient proof and demonstration of that; but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret, they thought good to testify that he was in writing the self same man as he was in preaching, that is in both a spiteful maligner of Cyrill, in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian, and that long after the union made betwixt john and Cyrill, yea, that even after the death of cyril he continued both to write and to speak the same. 6. Observe now by the way the fraudulent dealing of Baronius and Binius in this cause. This passage taken out of a sermon publicly preached at Antioch against Cyrill, and in an insulting manner for his death, this they do not, nor durst they carp at it. It is testified by all the Bishops of the fifth Council to have been a part of Theodoret's sermon: the Epistle which likewise is testified by them all to be Theodoret's, containing the same matter with his sermon, that they rail at, and revile both it and the writer of it, because in the inscription thereof they have espied an error. It had been honest dealing in the Cardinal and Binius, seeing these are feathers of one wing, either to have acknowledged both, or denied both to be the brood of Theodoret. 7. Again, the Cardinal undertook to prove, that still after the union betwixt john and Cyrill, Theodoret was a Catholic, and defender of the Catholic faith, and because the Epistle demonstrates the contrary, he will not allow it to be Theodoret's, but a forgery written in his name. Admit it were, yet that part of Theodoret's sermon is truly his, nor doth either Baronius or Binius deny it to be his. Now by this sermon is Theodoret as effectually proved and demonstrated, as by the Epistle to have been an eager oppugner of the Catholic faith, and an obstinate defender of all the heresies of Nestorius after the death of Cyrill, which was twelve m Vnio factae an. 432. Bar. ille an. nu. 77. Cyrillus autem obijt an. 44●. Bar. illo an. nu. 9 years after the union: So that although the Epistle were not Theodoret's, or had never been extant, yet the Cardinal's position for Theodoret's Orthodoxy is clearly and certainly refuted by the sermon of Theodoret made twelve years after the union. 8. Further yet the Cardinal to defend the Orthodoxy of Theodoret urgeth strongly, and relieth upon the Epistles, which in their Vatican or Mint-house are stamped with the name of Theodoret; whereas if there were no other proofs, this one sermon of Theodoret's is an undoubted evidence that they can be none of Theodoret's, but are forged in his name; for the whole scope, at which those Epistles n Vt clarum est ex Epist. Theod. a● Dioscorum. ad L●onem, ad Nomum, de quibus diximus supra, ca 33. aim, is to magnify Theodoret both for his integrity of life, uprightness in judgement, laboriousness in preaching, and specially for his soundness in the Catholic faith, that he was never reproved nor accused by any, no not in six and twenty years, for his doctrine; that he never accused any, and specially for cyril, that Theodoret loved and honoured him for a learned and pious man, & mirificè coluit ejus memoriam, when Cyrill was dead, he wonderfully honoured his memory, calling him a man of blessed memory; all which and a hundred such like matters contained in those Epistles are undeniably convicted to be untrue by this sermon of his, wherein he vomiteth cut in a most solemn assembly, together with the blasphemies of Nestorius, most slanderous revile not only against cyril, at whose death he insulteth, but against all Catholics, whom he, according to the Nestorian language, calls Theopaschites and heretics: with such false, feigned, and lying writings doth the Cardinal fight against the fifth Synod and the Acts thereof. 9 Yea, but still the Cardinal will reply, the Inscription unto john, who before was dead, shows the Epistle to john to be forged, and to be none of Theodoret's: It doth not; for the inscription or title of an Epistle or other writing, may be erroneous, and the Epistle truly his whose name it bears, which the Cardinal may see, if need were, in a hundred examples. 10. In the Epistle of Pope Clement unto james, whereof before we spoke, the Cardinal o An. 69. nu. 43 and Binius p Notis in 1. Epistolam Clementis. both confess the inscription to be false, and yet they both hold the Epistle to be Pope Clement's, yea, they can excuse that, and say it was but an error in writing, james q In titulum Epistolae, mendosè vox [jacobum] irrepsit. Bin. loc. cit. in stead of Simeon in the title, were they not too too partial and malicious against this holy Synod, they would as easily have used the same excuse for Theodoret's Epistle, and have said, the Epistle is truly his, but in the inscription in the Acts, the name of john is, by the writers mistaking, set in stead of Domnus. 11. Theodoret in his history r Lib. 5. ca 10. et secundum Chryst. ca 11. sets down an Epistle of Pope Damasus, against Eunomius and other heretics, the title in him is thus, The confession of saith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica; and with this inscription it is also published in the Venice edition of the Counsels by Nicholinus. Did Damasus write or send this to Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica? No, he did not; there was no Paulinus then, nor long after that Bishop of Thessalonica, as s Vides Lector, ne fingi quidem posse ut Paulinus, quem jactat Theodoretus. fuerit Episcopus Thessalonicensis. Bar. an. 378. nu. 43. Baronius and t Bin. not. in Conc. Rom. 3. sub Damaso post professionem fidei Apollinaris, etc. pa. 508. Binius at large prove and profess. What then? may we here conclude by the Cardinal's demonstration; certainly this Epistle was none of Pope Damasus writings, it is a forgery and a counterfeit, seeing it is written to Paulinus, whereas there was no such man at all? No, the demonstration holds not in Pope Damasus, nor in his writings; for notwithstanding this error in the title, Baronius and Binius u Scripta fuit Synodalis Epistola à Damaso ex Concilio Romano ad Paulinum Antiochenum. Bar. an. 378. nu. 41. itidem Bincus loco citat. hold it both to be the true, undoubted, and Synodall Epistle of Pope Damasus, and truly sent from him, but sent to Paulinus Bishop of Antioch, not to any Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica. Apply now this to the Epistle of Theodoret, may not it likewise be true, and truly written by Theodoret, though the title be either false or impossible? If any demand how that error in Theodoret, touching the title of the Epistle, might happen, Baronius and Binius impute x Locis citatis. it to the malice and wilful fraud of Theodoret: but I much rather ascribe it to the writer, who finding in Theodoret the name of Paulinus, without any addition, either ignorantly or wickedly, inserted the false addition of Thessalonica. Would the Cardinal have dealt favourably with the other inscription of john, and in stead of it have put Domnus, who was then Bishop of Antioch, he might have spared his labour in this point. 12. In the sixteenth Novel of justinian the inscription is to Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople, now the date of that Edict is on the thirteenth day of August in the year after the Consulship of Bell. sarius, at which time it is certain that not Anthimus, but Mennas was Bishop, for Mennas sat in the general Council held that year at Constantinople, which began on the second of May, yea, the Emperor himself on the sixth of August in the same year and Consulship, dates another Edict unto Mennas. So that undoubtedly there is an error in the inscription, and yet notwithstanding this error, the Edict itself is without all doubt justinian's, nor will the Cardinal's demonstration hold in this. 13. The Epistle of Foelix the fourth y Extat tom. 2. Conc. pa. 390. to Sabina, was written and dated on the twefth of the Kalends of November, at which time a Hac Chronologia mendosa est, nam hoc mense Bonifacius jam Pontifex creatus erat, ut patet supra. Bin. not. in eam Epist. et Bar. an. 530. nu. 1. Foelix was dead. What, may it by the Cardinal's demonstration be rejected for a counterfeit? No, the Cardinal b Facile accidisse potuit, ut loco Bonifacy, Foeli●i● nomen fuerit appositum. Bar. loco citat. will tell you, it was indeed the Pope's Epistle but of Boniface the successor of Foelix, and not as the inscription tells, of Pope Foelix, & facile accidisse potuit, it might easily happen, that the name of Foelix might be put in stead of Boniface his next successor. Might not the very same and as easily happen in this Epistle of Theodoret, that the name of john might be put in the inscription in stead of Domnus his next successor? 14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius c E●isi. 1. Sylu. extat. tom. 2. Conc. pa. 476. , wherein he writ an excommunication against Vigilius usurping his See, it is dated in some Copies in the year of Basilius, in others of Bellisarius, being Consuls. Now in all the time d Temporibus Sylverii nullus convenit Bellisarij consulatus. nique Basilii. Bar. an. 539.3. & idem ait Bin. Not. margia. ad eam epistolam. Silverius was Pope, neither was Basilius nor Bellisarius Consuls. What then? shall the Pope's Epistle be rejected as a a forgery, a counterfeit? No, by no means. The Cardinal e An. 539. nu. 1. & 4. often mentioneth it, honours it for a rare monument; and to help that error, he tells us the date is added more than should be. Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodoret's letter in the Synodall acts? Might it not happen that the inscription was only to the Archbishop of Antioch, & that the name of john was added more than should be? Epiphanius in his Book of heresies saith f Epiph. haer 46. that justine Martyr died when Adrian was Emperor; a manifest untruth, for justine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus g Iust. Mart. ad Antoninum pium def●nsio. the successor of Adrian, and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius, and Verus, 24. years h Nam Hadrianus obiit an. 140. Bar. illo an. nu. 1. justinus vero an. 165. Bar. illo an. nu. 1 after the death of Adrian. Will the Cardinal have his demonstration to hold here in Epiphanius? so that his book against heresies must be condemned for a counterfeit, and none of Epiphanius writing? No, error irrepsit, there slipped an error into Epiphanius; for Adrian is written in stead of Antoninus, as the Cardinal i Loc. citat. & Noth in Martyr. Rom. Apr. 13 tells you: but it rather seems in stead of Aurelius, (under whom justine died.) Had the Cardinal been any way as indifferent to Theodoret's letters, he would likewise have said, error irrepsit, an error is slipped into the inscription, by writing john in stead of his successor Domnus, rather than have condemned the writing for a forgery. 14. In the twenty third Cause, Question 4. Cap. 30. in the ancient title it was cited as a text of Sylvester, a manifest error of Sylvester instead of Sylverius. Did the Gregorian Correctors, for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted, condemn that Canon or Epistle as a counterfeit? no; but approving the text as true they amended the title, and restored it to Sylverius. In the very same Chapter it is said, that Guillisarius caused Sylverius to be deposed, there was no Guillisarius that ever did that, but it was Bellisarius; yet for that error of the name, which yet remains * Guillisarius, quia est initium capitis non est mutatum. Not. Greg. in illud cap. uncorrected, is not the Canon or Epistle rejected. 15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius i Post 5. Concil. pa. 606. a. out of Tyrius commendeth, it is said that the fifth Synod which decreed the patriarchal dignity to the Bishop of jerusalem, was held in the time of Vigilius of Rome, Eutychius of Constantinople, and Paul of Antioch. Now that by the Cardinal's demonstration was never; for it is certain that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his days. Before this Synod, was Ephreem k Ephreem sedere capit. an. 526. Bar. eo an. nu. 55 sedet aute. an. 18. Niceph. in Chron. , who sat eighteen years, in whose fourteenth, or fifteenth year began Vigilius l Vigilius caepit an. 440. Bar. eo an. nu. 9 is est Ephaimi an. 15. to be Pope, to him succeeded Domnus m an●46 ●46. nu. 68 , he sat 18. years, in whose n Nam 8. Domni est an. 553. quo habitum est Concilium hoc 5. seventh or eighth year this fifth Council was held, and himself personally subscribed unto o Collat. 8. pa. ●88. a. it, and about his tenth year died Vigilius p Domnus caepit an. 446. quare ejus an. 10. erit 555. quo anno obijste. Vigilium, ait Bar. an. 555. nu. 1. . So this decree, by the Cardinals own reason, is but a forgery (as in very truth it is.) Now if he to save the credit of that worthless fragment, will admit an error of the writing, Paulus being put for Domnus, why should he be so hard hearted against the other writing of Theodoret, as not to think a like error of the pen in it, and johannes to be put for Domnus? 16. That Edict of justinian which we have so often mentioned in the ancient editions of Counsels before Binius had this title; The Edict of justinian sent unto Pope john the second. Contius r In append. ad Cod. justin. the learned Lawyer, defends that inscription. Baronius himself somewhat forgetful of what elsewhere he writeth, calls this s Bar. an. 451. nu. 129. Edict, Constitutio data ad johan. a Constitution sent to Pope john, & again t An 330. nu. 4. , justinian expressly witnesseth this in his Edict to P. john; a false title & inscription without all doubt, john being dead ten u johannes 2. Obijt an. 9 justiniani. Bar. an. 535. nu. 26. at Edictum editum an. 20. justiniani Bar. an. 546. nu. 8. years before this Edict was either published, or writ, as Baronius x johannis Papae tempore editum, mendaci inscriptione notatur Bar. an. 546. nu. 10. liquido constat, non ante praesens tempus (an. vid. 20. justin.) potuisse esse conscriptum libellum illum. Bar. ibid. & constat Edictum Vigilij tempore conscriptum, an. 534. nu. 21. himself both declares and proves, professing that Inscription to be false. Had the Cardinal remembered his demonstration drawn from the title and Inscription, oh how happily, how easily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing against, and contradicting that Edict: He might have said, Why, that Edict was none of justinian's, nor ever published by him, for the Inscription is to Pope john who was dead long before. And because the fifth Council was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered, and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugn, the Cardinal again might have denied that ever there had been any such fifth Council, or any Synodall Acts at all of it; for if there was no Edict there could be no Council, which was assembled and gathered for that only cause, to define the truth delivered by the Edict. This had been a short cut indeed, and the Cardinal, like another Alexander, by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither he nor all his friends can ever untwine or lose in this Gordian knot. But the Cardinal's demonstrations were not in force as then, nor ever, I think, till the acts of this fifth Synod, and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his trial: for not withstanding the falsehood of that inscription & title, the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to be no counterfeit, but a true imperial Edict, truly published by justinian y Imperator promulgavit Edictum. Bar an. 546. nu. 8. Hactenus justiniani Edictum. Ibid. nu. 37. et saepissime si nilia. , contradicted by Vigilius, confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters, by the fifth Council. Here he can say z Scias perperam additum, ipsum missum ad johannem. Bar. an. 534. nu. 21. et an. 546. nu. 10. that addition to john is added, & put amiss in the title by some later hand, by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times: may not the same as truly excuse this writing of Theodoret? the name of john is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times, but yet the Epistle itself it is truly Theodoret's. It had been honest and fair dealing in the Cardinal, any one of these ways to have excused this error in the title of Theodoret's Epistle, rather than by reason of such an error, as happeneth in many Epistles and writings, to declaim, not only against the Epistle as a base forgery, and none of Theodoret's, but even against all the Acts a At quam fidem rogo, merentur Acta hujusmodi, quae sunt his contexta commentis? Bar. an. 553. nu. 46. of this holy general Council, as unworrhy of credit, because among them an Epistle with an erroneous Inscription is sound extant. 17. None, I think, do nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Council, or any humane writings to be so absolutely entire, and without all corruption, as that no fault of the writer or exscriber hath crept into them; such faults are frequent in the Acts almost of all Counsels. To omit the rest; in those of Chalcedon b Act. 1. pa. 8. a. , the Ephesine Latrociny is said to have been held when Zeno and Posthumianus were Consuls, in the third Indiction. An undoubted error; For that Ephesine Conventicle was held when c Marcell. in Chron. & hinc certo liquet, quiae Concitiabulum Ephesi. 'em sequ●tum est illud Constantinopoli habitum, in quo condemnatus est Eutyches à Flaviano, ●t hoc Constantinopoli habitum est, Protogene et Asterio. Coss. ut patet in Concil. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 30. Protogenes and Asterius were Consuls, not when Zeno and Posthumianus; neither were Zeno and Posthumianus Consuls in the third, but in the first d Vt liquet ex Marcell. in Chron. Indiction: neither was the Council held either in the first or in the third, but in the e Vt liquet ex eodem Marc. second Indiction; and therefore both Baronius f Ba. an. 448 n. 58 , and Binius g Haec verb a [se●ore Z●nonis et Posthum●ani Ind●ct●one 3.] mendosa sunt & surreptitia. Bin. Not. in Conciliab. Epis. to. 1. Conc. pa. 1017. b say, these words [tempore Zenonis & Posthumiani venerabilium Consulum indictione tertia] are false, and by surreption crept into the Acts. Again, the sixteenth Action or Session is said to have been on the twenty eight h Quinto K●l●ndas Novembr●. Act. 16. Conc. Chalc. of October. A manifest error; seeing their thirteenth Action i 3. Kalend. Novemb. Conc. Chal. Act. 13. or Session was on the nine and twentieth, and their fourteenth k Pridie Kalend Nou. Conc. Chal. Act. 34. Session on the thirtieth of October. Yea there are in those Acts far greater faults than these. For in the third Action l Pa. 84. b. is set down the Imperial Edict of Valentinian and Martian, for condemning of Eutyches: and yet that Edict was not published until the 26. of january, when m Datum 7. Kalend. Febr. Sporario Coss. in fine Edicti. Sporarius was Consul: whereas the Council of Chalcedon and all the Acts thereof was ended on the first day of November n Nam ultima Sessio habita est Kalendes Novemb dicitur enim ibi, hestern● die, postquam poteslas vestra surrexit, etc. quare ultima Sessio fuit proxima die post Sessionem in qua Actio 14. & 15. continentur, at actio 14. habita est pridie Kalend. Novemb▪ the year before: that is, more than two months 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 Council 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 only 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. et 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. Nou. which followed it was held on the five and twentieth, or six and twentieth day of the same month, doth declare; but because this Domnus was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, as both the Imperial Edict of justinian t Chalcedonensis Synodus Domnum post mortem condemnavit. Edict. Iust. to. 2. Concil. pa. 498. & idem repetit Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575 b. , and the fifth Council, do certainly witness. Could the Cardinal have found such additions or forgeries inserted into the Acts of this fifth Council, quos ludos daret, how would he 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 Council? to have an whole Action or consultation, what allowance should be made to a dead man for provision of his food and raiment? Here had been a field indeed for the Cardinal to have insulted over these Acts. And yet, notwithstanding these errors in the two first, and undoubted additions of the Emperor's Edict in the third, and that whole ridiculous action, nay fiction, in the fourth, patched unto the Acts of Chalcedon, the Cardinal will not so disgrace those Acts, as to use his demonstration against the credit of them, or that Council: And yet see his unequal 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 Cardinal's choler breaks out in this manner against the Acts of this fifth 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 four errors of the pen, besides this of the inscription, I confess are also in the Acts of this fifth Synod. The fifth Collation is said to have been on the eight m Octavo Idus Maia's. Coll. 5. pa. 537. b. , (it should be on the thirteenth or fourteenth) of May, seeing the fourth Collation was held on the twelfth n Collatio 4. die 4. Idus Maia's. of that month. In the same fifth Collation o Pa. 548. a. Cyrill is alleged 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 only makes Saint Cyrill to speak untruly, but even to contradict himself. In the same Action p Pa. 558. b. , there is recited an Epistle to Andrea's Bishop of Samosat, in the inscription whereof Theodorus is written in stead of Theodoretus, seeing of the next Epistle being Theodoret's, it is said, ejusdem ad Nestorium. It may be some few more such errors may be found in these Acts of the fifth Council; but for the honour of them, I profess, they are so incorrupt and entire, that more than these I do not remember myself to have for a certainty observed in them. Neither do such errors creep only into humane writings, their own learned jansenius 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 Evangelist saith it is written in the Prophet jeremy; seeing the text there cited is not found in jeremy, but in Zachary; although some think it to be a slip s Videtur huc inclinare Aug. lib 3. de cons. Euan. ca 7. in memory in Saint Matthew; others, that it is in some apocryphal t Sic Orig. sensit Homil. 35. in Matth. writing of jeremy; others, that Zachary had two names (as many other jews) and so might be called either jeremy or Zacharie; yet jansenius not liking any of these conjectures, rests on this answer as most near the truth, that either the name of Zacharie is Scribae culpâ commutatum in jeremiam, by the error and fault of the writer turned into jeremy; or else, that whereas the Evangelist said 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 witness, and not only Rupertus, but the Syriack translator read it in the same manner) some more audacious hand expressed the name of jeremy. Do you think the Cardinal 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 Gospel a forgery, and unworthy of credit? It is true, they are too too bold even with the Scriptures also: whereof they gave a notable proof; 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 Jesuits, even in their solemn Sermons in Italy, censured Saint Paul for an hotheaded person, who was transported with his pangs of zeal and eagerness, beyond all compass in his disputes, and that there was no great reckoning to be made of his assertions; yea that he was dangerous to read, as savouring of heresy in some places, and better perhaps he had never written: and again, when (as some Catholics y Ibid. told it in the hearing of the relator) they held a consultation among them, to have censured by some means, and reform the Epistle of Saint Paul. Though such be their audaciousness, yet I hope the Cardinal will not be so censorious with the holy Gospel. what hard hap then hath Theodoret, that he alone among all writers, divine and humane, may not have the benefit of his book at the Cardinal's hand; but for one such fault, not only his writing must be rejected as a forgery, but the Synodall Acts, among which it stands, must be condemned as worthy of no credit? 19 If none of these can mollify the Cardinal's heart, let it yet further be considered, that in his own Annals a an. 547. an. 40 it is said of the consent of Vigilius to the Edict, the fifth Synod doth often give witness, quinetiam sexta Synodus Actione septimâ continet monumenta, Further also the sixth Synod in the seventh Action contains the writings of Pope Vigilius against the three Chapters. A saying so void of truth, that those monuments of Vigilius, yea almost any one of them, is able to eat up all that whole seventh Action, it is such a pittance to those large writings of Vigilius. Besides, in that seventh action of the sixth Council, there is neither monuments of Vigilius, nor so much as any mention of Vigilius at all, nor of the three Chapters. Let him again consider how he saith b Bar. an. 536. nu. 32. , that Celestine called the Ephesine Council by the Emperor Theodorus; that is to say, never, if the Cardinal be not relieved with an error or scape of the writer. That elsewhere in the same Annals he * Bar. an. 534. saith, that by the Catholic Church the Roman Church is signified, as appears ex Epistola Hormisdae Papae ad Iustinum Imperatorem, by the Epistle (he quoteth the 22.) of Pope Hormisda to justinus. An evident error. For neither is that 22. Epistle written to justinus, but to Dorotheus a Bishop; neither is that which the Cardinal allegeth, either in that 22. or in any other of all the epistles (they are five) which Hormisda writ to justinus. But the Card. by a pretty mistaking, first turns justinian into justinus, and then pretends that to be written Epist. 22. and by Hormisda, and to justinus; which is written by justinian, and to Hormisda, and which followeth the 56. Epistle. Further yet let him remember, how in the same Annals c Bar. an. 546. nu. 10. it is said, that before the Edict of justinian was written, those controversies happened betwixt Theodorus (Bishop of Caesarea) and Pascalis the Deacon. The Card. might as well have said, that the Edict was never written nor published; for there was never any contention nor controversy betwixt Pascalis the Deacon, and Theodorus; and I doubt, or rather am out of doubt, that there was never any such contention as the Cardinal dreameth of (the best author for it being Liberatus, one heretically affected in this cause, and maliciously bend against Theodorus) but if there was any such controversy, it was not betwixt Theodorus and Pascalis, but betwixt Theodorus and Pelagius. Pelagius & not Pascalis was the Pope's Agent at Constantinople at that time, as not only Liberatus d Pelagius aemulus existens Theodoro, volens etnocere. Liber. Brev ca 23.24. & Pelagius Apocrisiarius Agape●i, Silverij & Vigilij. Bar. an. 5●6. nu 116. but Procopius e Lib. 3. de Bell. Golb. pa. 365. Pelagius diis Constantinopoli commeratus. , a man of better note testifieth. Now these foul errors (whereupon is consequent that almost all which the Cardinal hath historified for some 10. or 11. years is utterly untrue) being extant and recorded in his Annals, though there be violent presumption, to think that the Cardinal judged some of them to be indeed no errors, neither of his own memory, nor of the writerspen, seeing when he reviewed or retracted his Tomes, and corrected therein small slips, and very motes to such beams as these, as the mistaking of a few months or days, or miswriting a word or syllable, and the like; yet he not once mentioneth any correction in these places, yet am I content to allow these to be but slips of the writer or Printer, as writing Theodorus in stead of Theodosius, Pascalis for Pelagius; from Hormisda, for, to Hormisda; to justine, for, from justinian; and sexta for quinta, or eadem quinta; upon condition that the Cardinal and his friends will in like sort consent, that by an error of some writer of these Synodall acts, the name of john is either inserted when there was no name, or written in stead of Domnus in that inscription. But if they be obstinate and refuse such a reasonable proffer, the Card. and all his friends must be patient to hear, how justly and forcibly his own demonstation may in his own words be retorted upon himself, & these errors of his. Certainly these are patent and manifest lies and frauds, devised by some heretical knave or varlet, they are such as every man may perceive to be written by him who was not in any measure a lover of Christian piety: Sed impudentissimi cujuspiam Nestorij sigmentum, but they are the fiction of a most impudent Nestorian forger. Et quam fidem rogo, merentur? and what credit in the world can be given to those writings or Annals, which have such untruths and fictions inserted in them, and are contexta, composed and woven together with such untruths? This being abundantly sufficient to satisfy any indifferent man in this matter, yet would I a little further let the Reader see, how childishly and corruptly Baronius dealeth in this cause. It is true, I confess, that john died before Cyrill: for this is clear and certain, by many undoubted testimonies in the Council of Chalcedon f Act. 14. Vbi extat germana Cyrilli Episcopi Alexandrini Epistola ad Domnum Antiochenum. pa. 122. & saepius fit mentio Cyrilli mortui cum Domnus ille ●edebat Antiochiae. , not one of all which the Cardinal had the grace to allege. But all the Cardinal's reasons are so weak and withal so full of fraud and untruth, that it is worthy your considering to see his blindness and perverseness even in proving that which is true. 20. His first reason is this; I have showed g Bar. an. 444. nu. 16. this apertissimè, that john died seven years before cyril by the Epistle which Theodoret writ to Domnus four years since, (that is, four before the year 444.) in the behalf of one Felicianus, whose estate Theodoret recommends to Domnus. Truly the Cardinal hath showed himself an egregious trifler hereby: For neither in the 440. nor in any four years either before or after that, doth he setdowne any Epistle of Theodoret's to Domnus, in the behalf of Felicianus. The Epistle which the Cardinal dreameth of, is in behalf of Celestianus, and that is indeed expressed An. 440 h To. 6. an. 440. nu. 9 . where note I pray you, that the Cardinal by a slip either of his own pen or memory, (as I verily suppose) or of his Scribe, names Felicianus in stead of Celestianus: God even by this, demonstrating how unjustly he carp at the Synodall Acts, for that very error or slip of a pen, which the Cardinal himself falls into, even while he, for the like slip, declameth against those holy Synodall Acts. And yet there is a worse fault in this reason. For it is no more showed that john died before Cyrill by that Epistle, than by Tully's ad Atticum. That Epistle having neither date, nor any circumstance to induce that, may as well be written Anno 448. as Anno 440. 21. His second reason is this: There are letters, saith he ⁱ, extant of Theodoret to Domnus the year following, (to wit, an. 437.) and that Epistle of Theodoret I will set down in his due place, anno sequenti, the next year. Now in that next year, viz. an. 437. there is no Epistle of Theodoret set down by the Cardinal, nor is either Domnus or Theodoret so much as named in all his discourse of that year. Is not this now showed apertissimè? you may be sure the Cardinal would not have feared to perform his promise, but that there was somewhat in that Epist. which would have bewrayed his lewd dealing in this cause. 22. His third reason is drawn from the testimony of Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople. This, saith he k Bar. an. 553. nu. 44. , exploratum habetur, is sure and certain by Nicephorus. No, it is sure and certain by Nicephorus that Baronius is erroneous in this matter; for Nicephorus l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Niceph. in Chro. accounteth john to have been Bishop of Antioch eighteen years, and the Cardinal m johannes obiit cum sedisset annos 13. licet Nicephorus in Chronico tribuat ci 18. Bar. an. 436 nu. 12. will allow him no more but thirteen, now the first year of john cannot possibly be before the year 427. for in that year Theodotus, the next predecessor of john, died, as Baronius n Post haec Theodotus ex hac vita migravit, qui ad nunc usque annum pervenisse proditur, etc. Bar. an. 427. nu. 25. himself proveth. Add now unto these seventeen more, and then the death of john by Nicephorus will be an. 444. which is the self same year wherein Cyrill died. Is not this a worthy proof to show john to have died seven years before Cyrill, as the Cardinal avoucheth that he did? Or do not you think the Cardinal was in some ecstasy, to produce Nicephorus as a witness for him, whereas Nicephorus (as the Cardinal himself also confesseth) gives to john 18. years, and the Cardinal allows him but thirteen; and whereas the Cardinal of set purpose refuteth the account of Nicephorus? 23. But will you be pleased to see how the Cardinal refuteth him? Domnus, saith he o Bar. an. 436. nu. 12. , was Bishop of Antioch an. 437. as is proved by an Epistle of Theodoret's written to Domnus in that year, which Epistle I will set down in his due place, to wit; an. 437. Lo, all his proof is from that Epistle, which the Cardinal, contrary to his own promise, doth not, and, as I think, durst not set down. 24. But see further how the Cardinal is infatuated in this cause: john, saith he p Bar. Ibid. , died an. 436. having been Bishop 13. years. john succeeded to q Bar. an. 427. nu. 26. Defuncto Theodoto, s●brogatus est in ejus locum johannes. Theodotus, who died an. 427. Say now in truth, is not the Cardinal a worthy Arithmetitian, that of 427. and 13. can make no more than 436? And is not this a worthy reason to refute Nicephorus? But this is not all, for Baronius r Bar, an. 444. nu. 23. glozing upon Theodoret's letter to Dioscorus, which, as he s Theodoreti ad Dioscorum data hoc anno Epistola sic se habet. An. illo nu. 18. saith, was written, an. 444. there observes with a memorandum, that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theodotus t Hinc discas annos cujusque ipsorum Episcopatus. Bar. an. 444 nu. 23. , john, and Domnus had sitten in the See of Antioch, to wit, 26. years in all, from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop unto that 444. year, viz. Theodotus 6. john 13. and Domnus 7. until that year Theodoret, as Baronius u Bar. an. 423. nu. 10. Hoc anno Theodoretus creatus est Episcopus. will assure you, was made Bishop, an. 423. Add now unto these six of Theodotus, thirteen of john, and 7. of Domnus, and tell me whither you think the Cardinal had sent his wits, when he could sum these to be just 444? 25. Or will you see the very quintessence of the Cardinal's wisdom? I will, saith he x Bar. an. 437. nu. 12. , set down the next year (that is, an. 437.) the very Epistle of Theodoret to Domnus, which was then written unto him; & eam quâ monstratur, & I will also set down in his due place (to wit, an. 444.) that Epistle of Theodoret to Dioscorus, whereby is showed, that john was Bishop of Antioch just thirteen year. Thus Baronius▪ who by these two Epistles of Theodoret will prove both these. As much in effect as if he had said, I have already y An. 427. nu. 26 proved, that john began to be Bishop of Antioch an. 427. and this being set down for a certainty: I will now prove by Theodoret's Epistle to Domnus, that john died an 436. that is, in his ninth year; and then I will prove again by Theodoret's Epistle to Dioscorus, that he died in his thirteenth year, and so died not till the year 440. Or, as if he had thus said, I will first prove, that mine own Annals are untrue, wherein it is said z An. 436. nu. 12. Hoc anno Iohannes diem obijt extremum. , that john died in the year 436. which is but the ninth year of john; because he died not, as Theodoret in one Epistle a Theodor. Epist. ad Diosc. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 23. Alios 13. tempore johannis. witnesseth, until his thirteenth year, which is an 440. And then I will prove unto you, that mine own Annals are again untrue, wherein it is said b Bar. an. 436. nu. 12. johannes sedit annos 13. , that john was Bishop thirteen year, and so died not till an. 440. (beginning the first, an. 427) because Theodoret, in another Epistle c Anno sequenti (vid. an. 437.) extant literae Theodoreti ad ejus successorem Domnum. Bar. an. 436. nu. 12. , witnesseth, that john died an. 436. Or thus, I will first prove, that john was dead an. 436. though he was alive an. 440. and then I will prove unto you, that john was alive an. 440. though he was dead an. 436. 26. Is not this brave dealing in the Cardinal? is he not worthy of a cap and a feather too, that can prove all these? and prove them by Theodoret's Epistles? or do you not think those to be worthy Epistles of Theodoret, by which such absurdities, such impossibilities may be proved? Nay, doth not this alone, if there were no other evidence, demonstrate those Epistles of Theodoret's to be counterfeits? If that to Domnus be truly his, as Baronius assures d Extant litera Theodoreti ad Domnum Bar. an. 436. nu. 12. you, whereby john is showed to have died an. 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs be● a forgery, whereby john is showed to live an. 440. Again, if that to Dioscous be truly his, as Baronius e Plactenus Theodore●i ad Diosc. Epistola. Bar. an. 440. nu. 29. assures you, wherein john is said to live an. 440. then certainly the other to Domnus must of necessity be a forgery, wherein john is said to be dead an. 436. And as either of these two Epistles demonstrates the untruth and forgery of the other, so they both demonstrate the great vanity of Baronius, who applauds them both, & who will make good what they both do affirm; that is, the same man to be both dead and alive, a Bishop and no Bishop; at the self same time, and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinal refute his own witness Nicephorus, who by giving eighteen years to john, shows plainly that john and Cyrill died within one year, which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of john, whom, upon Nicephorus account he thought to live after cyril, whereas in very deed he died somewhile before Cyrill. 27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonical Epist. of Cyrils to Domnus, which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Balsamon, whence it is out of all doubt, saith the Cardinal f Bar. an. 553. nu. 44. , that john died before Cyrill, seeing cyril writ unto his successor Domnus. But howsoever the Cardinal vaunteth, that this reason will leave no doubt, yet, if you observe it, there are two great doubts therein: The former is, whether that Epistle be truly Cyrils: And besides other reasons, that one point which the Cardinal himself mentioneth, may justly cause any to think it none of his; for as the Cardinal g Nullus alius nomine Domnu● inscriptus legitur, qui tanta poll●ret authoritate ut ad libitum (quod dictum est) deponere atque restituere Episcopos posset. Bar. an. 553. nu. 44. saith, the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus, that he might add libitum, at his pleasure put out Bishops, and at his pleasure restore them. Now there is none that knows the learning, moderation, and wisdom of Cyrill, that can think cyril ever to have written in such manner either to any Metropolitan, or to any Patriarch, specially seeing cyril was not ignorant of that Canon of the Council at Antioch h Conc. Antioch. sub julio 1. can. 9 , let not a Metropolitan do any thing in such causes, without the advice and consent of the other Bishops in the Province. 28. The other doubt is, whether that Domnus, to whom this Epistle is written, be the same Domnus that was Bishop of Antioch, and successor to john. The Cardinal is much troubled in removing this doubt, and he winds himself diverse ways. Sure it is, saith Baronius i Vnde apparent, non inferioris sedis aliquem esse ●otuisse ejus nominis Episcopum. an. 553. nu. 44. , that he who had such authority must needs be some eminent Bishop, and not one of an inferior See. True, but he might be a Metropolitan and so have inferior Bishops under him, and yet be no Patriarch. Again, saith he k Certè quidem in serie Episcoporum Orientalium, qui Concilio Ephesino, et Chalcedonensi interfuerunt, nullus aliu● ejus nominis Domnus inscriptus reperitur. etc. Ibid. , There is no Domnus else but this Domnus Bishop of Antioch, mentioned either in the Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon, who had such authority, as to depose and restore Bishops, ad libitum. As if Domnus of Antioch might do it ad libitum: But in such lawful manner as Domnus of Antioch might do it, there were others called by the name of Domnus, and those mentioned in those very Counsels, who might upon just cause, and by due and Canonical proceeding depose and restore their inferior Bishops: look but into those Counsels, and you will admire both the supine negligence of the Cardinal in this point, and his most audacious down●facing of the truth; for, to omit others, both in the Conventicle of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon, there is often mention of Domnus Bishop of Apamea, a Metropolitan Bishop, as the words of Miletius l Act. 3. Conc. Cha● pa. 75. b. do witness, I Miletius Bishop of Larissa, speaking for Domnus the Metropolitan Bishop of Apamca; and for this Domnus he subscribed m Act. eâdem pa. 81. et Act. 6. pa. 101. a. . And that you may see how fraudulently the Cardinal dealt in this very point, he neither would set down that Epistle, nor acquaint you with that which in Balsamon n Sic enim in margin ●llius Epistolae notatur, videtur tempore Cyrilli, emissae esse Roma●, hujus Alexandrini Sacerdotis Appellatio. is expressly noted; that Peter the Bish. whom that Domnus, unto whom Cyrill writeth, had deposed, was Alexandrinus Sacerdos, a Bishop of the patriarchal diocese of Alexandria, what had Domnus of Antioch to do with the Alexandrian Bishops. So clear it is by Balsamon, that this Domnus, unto whom Cyrill writ, was not Domnus of Antioch, as the Card. I fear against his knowledge, avoucheth, 29. Thus you see all and every reason which the Cardinal bringeth john to be dead seven years before Cyrill, not only to be weak and unable to enforce that Conclusion, but withal to be full fraught with frauds and untruths: So that if I had not found more sound and certain reasons to persuade this, I could never by the Cardinal's proofs have been induced to think that an error in the Inscription of Theodoret's Epistle. But seeing upon the undoubted testimonies in the Council of Chalcedon it is certain, that john died before Cyrill, I willingly acknowledge a slip of some writer in that Inscription, but yet the Epistle itself must be acknowledged truly to be Theodoret's, which is all that the Synod avoucheth, and which is that which the Cardinal undertook to disprove, but by no one reason doth offer to prove the same. And even for that error also in the Inscription I doubt not, but those who can have the sight of the Greek and Original, yea, perhaps of some ancient Latin copies of the Acts of this fifth Council, shall find either no name at all, or, which I rather suppose, the name of Domnus expressed therein; in stead of which, whereas some ignorant audacious exscriber, hath thrust in the name of john; it is not, nor ought it to be any impeachment at all to the Synodall Acts, unless the Cardinal will acknowledge his own Annals to be of no credit, because in them Pascalis is written by some such error, for Pelagius, john for Vigilius, Instinus for justinianus, Theodorus for Theodosius, Sexta for Quinta, Foelicianus for Celestianus, and a number the like in other causes, most of these slips pertaining to this very cause of the Three Chapters, of which we do entreat. CAP. XXXV. That Baronius himself followeth many forged writings, and fabulous narrations in handling this cause of the fifth Council, as particularly the excommunication ascribed to Mennas, Theodorus and others, and the narration of Anastasius. 1. YOU have seen all the exceptions which their great Momus could devise against these Acts, to prove them corrupted, either by alteration or mutilation, or, which is the worst of all, by additions of forged writings. But alas, who can endure to hear Baronius declaim against corrupted, false, forged, or counterfeit writings? Quis tulerit Gracchoes? better might Gracchus inveigh against sedition, or Verres against bribery, than Baronius against the using of false and feigned writings. Aethiopem albus derideat, he should first have washed away those foul blemishes out of his own Annals, more black herewith than any Aethiopian, and then have censured such spots in others. Were his Annals well purged of such writings, their vast Tomes would become a pretty Manual: They who have occasion to examine other passages in Baronius will find the truth hereof in them; for this one concerning the fifth Council, Pope Vigilius, and the cause of the Three Chapters, from which I am loath to digress, I doubt not, but whosoever will compare the Cardinal's Annals with this Treatise, will easily perceive, that all which he hath said in defence of the Pope relieth on no other nor better grounds, but either forged writings, or, if truly written by the authors, yet on some fabulous narration and untruths, which from them the Cardinal hath could out, as only fit for his purpose. Suffer me to give a taste hereof in some of them. 2. The first in this kind is a supplication to Vigilius, or a brief confession made unto him by Mennas' Bishop of Constantinople, Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and diverse other Eastern Bishops, inserted in the beginning of the Constitution of Vigilius, and much applauded by the Cardinal a Bar. an. 5●8. nu. 19 in this cause; and this to be a mere fiction is by many evident proofs, before mentioned, easily discerned. The occasion of it, as the Cardinal tells us b Ibid. et nu. 20. , was to humble themselves to Pope Vigilius, and acknowledge the injuries they had done in writing and declaiming against c Vigilio non acquai● vit, sed e●̄ plane despexi, cique insultavit, etc. Ba. an. 55● nu 3. him, and his Synodall Constitution for Taciturnity concerning the Three Chapters. Now seeing that whole matter is fictitious, for neither was there any such Synod ever held, nor any such decree ever made; the confession which is grounded on them, must be like them, fabulous and forged. 3. The contents bewray the dulness of the forger; The Eastern Bishops profess there, to embrace the four former Counsels, and all the Acts thereof, in all causes, judgements and Constitutions, made with consent d Vniversa ab eis●em Synodis Communi coxsensit cum Vicarijs sedis Apostolicae judicia conservamus, etc. in Exemplo confess. quod exiat in initio Con●ituti Vigilij. of the Pope's Legates. Why? the Eastern Bishops knew right well, that some Canons were concluded both in the Counsels of Constantinople and Chalcedon, not only without, but quite contrary to the mind of the Pope and his Legates, as namely, that about the dignity of Constantinople, which they, notwithstanding the resistance of the Legates, both approved and knew it to have been ever held in force by the judgement of the Catholic Church, but specially by the Bishops of Constantinople, whose patriarchal dignity, which they ever after the second Council enjoyed, was both decreed and confirmed by those Canons. Never did the Eastern Bishops in those days, nor long after, esteem the Popes own, much less his Legates consent, so necessary to any Synodall Decree, but that without them the same might be made and stand in force as the judgement of the general Council and whole Church. And to go no further, what an unlikely and uncredible thing is it, that Theodorus and the rest in one year should make this confession to accept no more of those Synodall decrees, than the Pope or his Legates were pleased to allow; and the very next year after, contrary to that their confession, themselves hold a Synod, and make a Synodall decree in this cause of the Three Chapters, not only without the Pope's consent, or presence either of himself or his Legate, but even contrary to his definitive sentence made known unto them? the deviser of that confession shows himself plainly to have been some of the Vatican favourites, who living perhaps in the time of Gregory, by this intended to infringe the dignity of the See of Constantinople, and those Canons which were concluded both in the 2. and 4. Council, whereas the Eastern Bishops notwithstanding the contradiction and resistance of the Pope held them ever in as great authority and reverence, as any Canons in all the four former Counsels. 4. Again what a silly devise was it to make Mennas, Theodorus, and a great number of Bishops to ask pardon of the Pope for that wherein they profess themselves no way to be guilty? I have e De injurijs beatitudini vestrae fictis, ego quidem nullam feci, etc. Ibid. done no injuries to your Holiness, yet for the peace of the Church, veluti si eas fecissem veniam postulo, I pray you forgive me that which I never did, as if I had done it. Can any man think this the submission of wise men, of such stout and constant minds as Mennas and Theodorus, besides the rest, had? or what could be devised more repugnant to that which Vigilius is made to say in his excommunication f P●●tat inter Epist. Vigilij post Epistolam 16. of Theodorus, Thou scandalising the whole Church, and being warned, entreated, threatened by me, hast refused to amend: & nunquam à prauâ intentione cessasti, and never hast thou ceased from thy wicked design, nor to write and preach novelties, (so he calls the condemning of the Three Chapters) yea, after the Constitution for silence, to which thou hadst sworn, thou hast openly read in the Palace a book against the Three Chapters; thou hast been the firebrand and the beginner of the whole scandal, thou hast despised the authority of the Apostolic See. Thus saith the Excommunication. Was Vigilius well advised, think you, to accept, as a satisfaction and submission for so many and so heinous crimes of insolency, contempt, perjury, sacrilege, and the like, this confession at the hands of Theodorus, wherein he doth in effect give the Pope the lie, saying and avouching, I have written no books at all contrary to that Decree of Silence made by your Holiness, and for the injuries which have been done to your holiness, and to your See, eas quidem non feci, truly I have done none at all. Is not this a worthy submission? the Pope saith, he hath done innumerable and very heinous injuries to him, such as deserved the censure of excommunication: No, saith Theodorus, I have done none at all unto him: and this the Pope, like a wise man, takes for a good satisfaction g Tali praemissâ satisfactione Vigilius eosdem in communionem accepit. Bar. an. 552. nu. 20. , or an humble submission upon which he is presently reconciled, and shakes hands with that capital offender. Or where was the Cardinal's judgement when he saith h An. eodem nu. 19 of this confession, that in it Theodorus did supplicitèr, humbly entreat pardon of Vigilius, de irrogatis in ipsum probris & contumelijs, for the seoffes and contumelies which he had used against the Pope. If this confession was true and real, then certainly the Excommunication of Vigilius is not only most unjust, but a very foolish fiction: If the Excommunication was true and real, then must needs this submission be feigned and fictitious. True they cannot be both, but that both should be false and counterfeits, is not only possible, but certain. 5. If nothing else, the time when this Confession was made by Theodorus and Mennas' demonstrates this. It was made after the Decree i Bar. an. 551. nu. 3. et 552. nu. 19 of Taciturnity, and the Synod wherein that was concluded, and that was indeed never: that decree and Synod are merely Chymericall, this Confession then made after them, and mentioning that decree, cannot possibly be real: It was made, as the Cardinal k Bar. an. 552. nu. 8 et seq. assures us, after that Vigilius, fleeing the persecution of justinian, had fled, first, to Saint Peter in Constantinople, then to the Church of Enthennia at Chalcedon; yea, after that the Emperor had revoked and abrogated his Edict against the Three Chapters, and Vigilius, at the earnest entreaty of the Emperor, was now returned from Chalcedon to Constantinople: and this was at Nevermasse: neither did justinian persecute Vigilius, neither did Vigilius for fear of his persecution flee either to S. Peter's, or to Chalcedon, neither did justinian entreat him to return from thence, whither he fled not at all, nor ever did the Emperor adnul or revoke his Edict against the three Chapters: then certainly the confession which by the Cardinals own profession & acknowledgement followed all these, must needs be like them, a fiction and mere forgery, never really & truly made by Mennas, Theodorus, and the rest of those Bishops. Lastly, it was made the next year before the fifth Council was held, that is, anno 552. which is the twenty sixth of justinian, as the Cardinal witnesseth l Anno illo 552, nu. 19 ; before which time it cannot be imagined to have been made; for the excommunication of Theodorus was published but in that year in which Vigilius came to Chalcedon, as Baronius m Haec de sententiâ in Theodorum ac Mennam lata Vigilius, quae ipse scripsit anno sequenti in Basilica S. Euphemiae Chalcedone. Bar. an. 551. nu. 18. confesseth. Now it is a riddle which Oedipus cannot dissolve, how Mennas, who, as we have certainly proved by the Acts of the sixth Council, died in the 21. year of justinian, should come now in his 26. year, that is, four or five years after his death, to offer up a supplication to Vigilius, and ask pardon of him for doing no offence against him. Me thinks either the Pope should be affrighted with such a ghastly sight, or Baronius ashamed to applaud such sottish fictions, as is that excommunication of Mennas' made by Vigilius: and the Encyclycall Epistle of Vigilius, which mentions and approves that excommunication, and this forged confession; none of which will suffer the ghost of Mennas' ro rest, but bring a dead man out of his grave, to hear the Pope's sentence thundered out against him, and then come with a bill of supplication to beg forgiveness of his Holiness, who had more reason to have prayed pardon of Mennas for disquieting and waking him out of that long and sound sleep. 6. So both the occasion, the contents, and the time, besides other circumstances, do evidently convince that submission to be a counterfeit. But how comes it then into the Pope's Constitution? You must inquire this of Baronius, or of those who have access to the Vatican whence this Constitution was taken: might one have the sight of the Vatican copy, I doubt not but either there are some evident prints of error, in inserting this confession into it; or which I exceedingly mistrust, Baronius hath used a little of the Vatican art in this matter. Howsoever, certain it is that this confession hath neither fit coherence, nor any dependence at all of aught in the Constitution, but it is both complete and much more orderly, this being wholly expunged, than if so idle a fiction be annexed unto it. But let the Cardinal and his friends look to this matter by what means or whose fraud this was inserted, I thought needful to admonish them of the fault, nor for the love and affection I bear to that Constitution of Vigilius, could I with silence see and suffer it to be blemished therewith. 7. The second is Eustathius, of whom I would have spoken more in this place, but that his feigned and fabulous narrations are so clearly discovered before, that I think it needless to add aught concerning him, or them. 8. The third writing is a book in very great request with Baronius, and that is, those Epistles which bear the name of Theodoret, of which though much hath been said before, yet will I here add somewhat to manifest them further to be counterfeit and most false. Among them, two are most eminent; that to Dioscorus, and the other to Pope Leo. That the former is forged, the other doth demonstrate. For by that to Dioscorus which was writ anno 444. Theodoret is made to say, that he had then been Bishop 26. years n Apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 23. , whereas by the later written anno 449. it is clear that in that year he had been Bishop, no more o Cum 26. annis Ecclesiam rexerim. Theod. apud Bar. an. 449. nu. 119. than 26. years. So vice versa, that the later is forged is demonstrated by the former; for by that to Leo written an. 449. Theodoret is made to say that he had then been Bishop just 26. whereas by the other to Dioscorus written anno 444. it is witnessed that he had been Bishop 26. p Apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 23. years, five years before he writ to Leo. And they are both demonstrated to be mere fictitious, in that Theodoret is made in them both to testify that for that whole time of 26. years he had been orthodoxal in faith, and for proof thereof he appeals q In Epist. ad Leonem. apud Bar. an. 449. nu. 120. A me enim scripta sunt alia quidem ante annos viginti, etc. to his own writings, written 12.15. and 20. years before that; whereas it is as clear as the Sun that he was a most earnest defender and writer in defence of Nestorius and his heresies, and for this cause was justly condemned by the holy Council of Ephesus, yea and his writings yet extant r Extant tom. 5. act. Conc. Ephes. pa. 859. et sequ. sub hoc titulo. Reprehensio 12. Capitulorum Cyrilli, â Theodovero Episcopo Cyri. do undeniably convince the same. Besides in that to Dioscorus, he professeth s Hominem sumus admirati, et scripsimus ad Cyrillum beatae memoriae, etc. Theod. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 28. his ardent affection and love to Cyrill, whereas after Cyrils' death, in an open assembly at Antioch he most bitterly t Theodoreti all●quntio, apud Conc. 5. Coll. 5. p. 559. b. , unjustly, and spitefully declamed against him. Further, in that to Dioscorus, it is said that he was orthodoxal u Ego multas habeo myriadas hominum qui doctrinae veritat●m et rectitudinem mibi testantur. Theod. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 22. anno 444. when that Epistle was written; whereas in his Epistle written anno 448. x Literae quae à Theodoreto ad Irenaeum tunc (id est, ut i●se explicat, hoc anno 448.) redditt sunt. Bar. an. 440. nu. 7.8. or after, unto Irene a Nestorian Bishop of Tyre, justly deposed y Statuimus ut Irenaeus à sancta Tyriorum Ecclesiâ statim expellatur. Edict. Theodos. quod extat to. 5. Conc. Ephes. ca 19 by the Emperor, he bemoans both the public cause and the case of Irene, comparing his to the cause z Beatissimae Susannae sum recordatus, etc. Theod. epist. ad Iren. apud. Bar. an. 448. nu. 9 of Susanna, and lamenting that either a Et nunc Domine duo nobis proponuntur, vel Deum offendere et conscientiam ladere, velincidere in injusta hominum decreta, etc. Theod ibid. they must offend God, and hurt their own conscience, (if they forsake Nestorianisme,) or else fall into unjust decrees and punishments of men, (if they continued in that doctrine;) and who further calls this deposed and heretical Bishop, Dilectissimum b Epistola e●dem. , & piissimum Irenaeum, The most beloved, and most holy Irene. The like forgery might be showed in his Epistle to Nomus, written also anno 448. c Illa Theodoreti Epistola scripta ad Nomum hoc ipso anno. Bar. an. 448 nu. 11. wherein he exclaimeth against the Emperor Theodosius, as if he had given toleration d aliis quidem omnibus aperta est civitas, non solum Arij et Eunomij sectatoribus, sed et Manicheis, et Marcionistis, etc. Theod. epist. ad Nomum. apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12. & free liberty of Religion to Arians, Eunomians, Manichees, Marcionites, Valentinians, & Montanists, & yet restrained yea excluded him ab omni civitate, from every City in his Empire; which to be a most vile and unjust slander, the piety and zeal of Theodosius, highly renowned both by Sozomen e Nullam non virtutis genus sedulo excol●isti, etc. sic Theodosium juniore ●● alloquitur Sozom. i● praefat. ad suam bistor. , and Pope Leo f Piissimam sollicitudinem Christianae religionis habetis, ne in populo Dei aut schismata, aut haereses, aut ●lla scandala convalescant. Leo. epist. 7. quae est ad Theodosium. doth demonstrate; and whose g Leg. 66. de baer. cod. Theod. et id quod extat in Conci Chal. act. 3. pa. 84. Edicts against heretics do also manifest the same, seeing therein out of his hatred to heresy, and specially to Nestorianisme, he forbids any h Definivimus c●s cater● debere ultionibus subjacere, etc. Edict. Theod. in Conc. Chalc. loc. cit. such to enjoy their Sees, or to scape unpunished; and being misinformed that Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorileum were Nestorians, he upon that misinformation, unjustly and rashly subjected i Excludi ab Episcopatu (volumus) Flavianum & Eusebium, Domnum quoque & Theodoretum. ibid. them to that censure; but being truly informed of Domnus and Theodoret, that they embraced Nestorianisme, he justly confirmed their deposition, forbidding any either to read or have the books or Theodoret k Sed nec habeat quis, vel legate, proferatve, Nestorij codices, neque Theodoreti scripta. ibid. , or of Nestorius, Theodoret's being every whit as bad as the books of Nestorius. It were easy to show the like prints of forgery in all those Epistles going under the name of Theodoret, which the Cardinal so much magnifieth: but I am loath to stay too long in them, the falsehood of which hath been so often before demonstrated. 9 A fourth is that Action concerning Domnus, inserted by Baronius and Binius into the Acts of the Council q Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. at Chalcedon. This to be undoubtedly a forgery and fiction, was before proved, because Domnus was dead before the Council at Chalcedon; for so both the Emperor justinian r Iust. Edict. to. 2. Conc. pa. 498. in his Edict, and the fifth Council s Coll. 6 p. 575. b. expressly witness, saying, the holy Council at Chalcedon condemned Domnus, post mortem, after he was dead, for that he durst write that the twelve chapters of Cyrill should not be spoken of. Now that whole Action containing nothing else but a consultation and decree for the maintenance of Domnus, by some annual allowance out of the revenues of the See of Antioch, none I think will once imagine that so grave, so wise and worthy an assembly of 603. Bishops, would either consult or make a decree for the allowance of a stipend or maintenance to be given to a dead man: specially not to Domnus, whose deposition in the Ephesine latrociny the whole Council of Chalcedon approved: and it is very unlikely they would judge him worthy to have maintenance out of that Bishopric, of which by reason of his heresy they judged him most justly to be deprived. But if there were no other reasons to manifest this, the place whence it comes might justly cause one to distrust the same: for is it think you in the Greek and original copies of that Council? No certainly, it is not: as both the Cardinal t Haec actio desideratur in Graeco codice. Bar. an. 45 ●. nu. 129. & Bin. not. in Conc. Chal. p. 185 and Binius will assure you; Desideratur in Graeco, it is wanting in the Greek or original: nor only is it now wanting there, but certum est eadem caruisse Graeca exemplaria tempore justiniani; It is certain the Greek copies had not this Action in the time of justinian the Emperor. Is it mentioned in Liberatus? or in Evagrius? or in Nicephorus? all which set down the sum of the Actions in that Council? No, it is not in any of them. Whence then comes this worthy action that so carefully provides victuals for a dead man? Truly out of their old Mint-house the Vatican: Haec Actio scripta in Latino veteri codice Vaticano: There is in the Vatican an old manuscript Latin copy, which is said to have been the copy of Albinus and Proculus, and in that old written book, this Action is found, saith Baronius u an. 451. n. 130 . A very Gibeonite you may be sure. It came with old moulded bread, (such as was fittest to feed a dead man) with old mouldy shoes and torn clothes, and so deceived the Cardinal: No, it deceived him not, but by it he would deceive others, and not only most shamefully deprave and corrupt the Acts of the holy Council of Chalcedon, as he and Binius have done herein, but make a way, and show an occasion to carp at the Synodall Acts of the fifth Council: and had not the Cardinal been conscious of this fault in this Action, you may be well assured that he would not have omitted so foul an error in the fifth Synod, and the Acts thereof, as to avouch Domnus to have been dead before the Council of Chalcedon, when he scraped and raked together all that he could find (and they are all but motes to this beam) whereby he might disgrace those Acts. 10. But the Cardinal will not for all this yield in this matter, nay he will defend this Action also: For objecting x an. 451. n. 130 to himself how any such Action could be held concerning Domnus, seeing justinian testifieth he was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, he answereth, justinian was ignorant of this Action, and he had some other Action of the Council of Chalcedon touching Domnus, Quam nusquam legimus, Which we no where find. So Baronius: Who hereby would have it thought, that justinian and the fifth Council had not the true Copies of the Council at Chalcedon, but that these which the Cardinal frameth, they are the only perfect and entire Acts thereof. Certainly justinian was ignorant of this Action, and so was the fifth Council. And no marvel, when the Council of Chalcedon itself was ignorant thereof. And whether the Emperor and the whole fifth general Council, wherein were present four patriarchs, and the Bishop of Chalcedon also, whether these living about an hundred years after that Council, be not like to have had more true Copies of the Council at Chalcedon, than Baronius, living eleven hundred years after it, it is not hard to judge. 11. Now for that which the Cardinal would persuade, that whereas justinian and the fifth Synod said, that the Council of Chalcedon condemned Domnus after he was dead, they said this, as he supposeth, out of some other Action y Ex quibus apparet justinianum alicujus alterius actionis, quam nusquam legimus, cognitionem h●buisse. Bar. loc. cit. of Chalcedon, which is not now extant, and thereby would blemish the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon as being defective, and wanting that Action: Truly his Cardinalship is foully mistaken herein. Neither justinian, nor the fifth Council, had any such Action, as he vainly and idly dreameth of. It was these very Acts which now we have, out of which they affirm that. For they say not that the Council did that in any action particularly concerning Domnus, nor yet that in express terms they condemned Domnus: But they say, the Council condemned him, and so they did, in that they approved both his condemnation and deposition decreed in the Ephesine Latrociny. That this they did the acts now extant do declare; whereas a Act. 10. pa. 115. the most holy Bishops of Rome accounted all that was done in the second Ephesine Synod to be void, it is manifest that the judgement concerning the Bishop of Antioch is excepted; so said the Pope's Legates, and Stephen b Ibid. , I also judge those things to be void which were done at Ephesus, absque his quae gesta sunt adversus Domnum, excepting those things which were done against Domnus: and to the like effect said they all. Domnus then being dead, at the time of the Council at Chalcedon, and having been in the Ephesine Latrociny, both condemned and deposed, seeing the Council of Chalcedon approved both his condemnation and deposition, and the substitution of Maximus, (which were all done in that Ephesine Latrociny,) as just and lawful: hence it is that the fifth Council saith, and that out of these very Acts and no other, as themselves explain, that c Chalcedonensis Synodus Domnum condemnavit, cum confirmasset condemnationem ejus, & suscepi●set Maximi ordinationem. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned Domnus being dead, whose condemnation they approved, when at that time of their approving it he was dead. So neither are the Acts of the fourth Council imperfect, nor these of the fifth untrue, in affirming this of Domnus; but that Vatican and Gibeonitish Action, inserted into the Acts of Chalcedon, and approved by Baronius and Binius, is both false, ridiculous, and impossible. 12. The last whom I will now mention, is Anastasius, the writer of the lives of their Popes. An author whom Baronius much followeth, and relieth upon, almost in all parts of his Annals: whom I do not mention in this place, as doubting whether those lives are truly his, but as doubting, nay rather without doubt assuring both myself and others, that such credit is not to be given to him and to his reports, as the Cardinal and Binius do give. This I doubt not to demonstrate, if ever I come to handle the second Nicene Synod, and that which they call the eighth, wherein Anastasius was a stickler, yea and the penner of the one, and correcter of the other: For this present, I will only examine the life of Vigilius written by him; wherein I do constantly affirm, that there are not so many lines as lies set down by Anastasius. Which that it may appear that I do not speak in any spleen against Anastasius, but out of the evidence of truth, give me leave to take a view of some particulars therein, those especially which most concern this our present cause. 13. First, Anastasius d Anast. in vita Vigil. Nam Anastosius continuavit historiam Damasi, ab obitu Damasi usque ad Adrianum s●cundum. Possev. in App. describing the entrance of Vigilius to have been eodem tempore, at that time when Bellisarius made war against Vitiges the King of the Goths, saith that Vitiges fled away by night, but john surnamed the bloody, pursued after him, and brought him to Bellisarius and Vigilius at Rome, and there Bellisarius took the Sacrament to bring him safe to justinian. All untrue. First, it is untrue that Vitiges fled away by night; or secondly, that he fled at all; or thirdly, that john did pursue him in flight; or fourthly, that john took him; or five, that john brought him to Bellisarius; or sixthly, that he brought him to Vigilius; or seventhly, that he brought him to Rome; or eightly, that Bellisarius took any such oath; or ninthly, any Sacrament; or tenthly, took it in the Church of julius; or eleventhly, took it to assure them that he would bring Vitiges to justinian: all these are the fictions of Anastasius: For as Procopius who was Counsellor e Bellisario Consiliorus ●dfuit Procopius, & rebus omnibus dum agerentur interfuit. Procop. lib. 1. de bello Persico. to Bellisarius, and present with him in all his wars, testifieth, Vitiges and the Goths willingly yielded f Gothorum Optimates B●lisarium Hesperiae Regem appellare consticuunt, ad eumque mittunt qui obsecrarent ut imperium suscip●ret. Vitig●s quoque formidi●● perci●us Bellisarium et ipse ad suscipiendum imperium hortatur. Proc. lib. 2. Bell. Goth. pa. 340. qui pau●● post quomodo se turpiter dediderant Vitiges et Gothi declarat: idem docet Leon. Aret. lib. 1. de bello Ital. pa. 669. themselves and Ravenna unto Bellisarius; yea Vitiges persuaded and even entreated him to accept the kingdom: and Bellisarius took Vitiges g Bellisarius Ravenna potit●s Vitigem imprimis honorified custoditum servabat. ibid. pa 341. himself, and kept him in custody: yea he sent away john h Bellisarius johannem & Natsitem divers●● abire cum suis copijs ●ussit. Hu abeuntibus Ravennam contendit. ib. p. 340. idem et Leon. Aret. 〈◊〉. and Narses before either he entered in Ravenna, or took Vitiges, and being taken, he carried him not to Rome, but the strait way by Sea to i Bellis. iter aggreditur, Bizantiumque rectâ contendit. ibid. pa. 343. et cum Vitige Gothorumque optimatibus Bizantium venit. Idem lib. 3. pa. 343. Bellisarius cum Vitige Byzantium navigavit. Leo. Aret. loc. cit. Constantinople, whither himself was then k Bellisario ad se celerius vocate. Proc. lib. 2. pa. 341. et Leonar. Aret. pa. 670. justinianus Bellisarium ex Italia confestim revocavit. called by the Emperor, and commanded to come without any delay. So in the very entrance of his narration, Anastasius hath in few words couched together at the least ten or eleven evident untruths. 14. Next Anastasius relates, how the Emperor and his wife demanded of Bellisarius when be came to Constantinople, how he had placed Vigilius instead of Silverius, and thanked him for it. Truly Anastasius had small wit to think that the Emperor had leisure to confer with Bellisarius concerning a matter done about three l Nam Silverium à Bellisario ejectum narrat. Proc. lib. 1. pa. 287. e●que tum suffectus Vigilius. ibid. Id factum an. 3. belli Goth. vel ante, liquet ex lib. 2. pa. 313. ubi sic ait, jam tertius bello huic annus exibat. years before: and specially which with the death of Silverius m Nam Silverius obijt an. 14. justiniani▪ Bar. an. 540. n. 2. at Vitigem caepit et Constantinopol. adduxit Bellisarius an. 15. justiniani. Bar. an. 541. nu. 3. was now dead and buried. Yet say he did. Again, what an idle discourse was this about the placing of Vigilius in the room of Silverius, seeing the Emperor knew the whole matter long before, how Silverius was banished, upon an accusation of a Letter written to the Gothish King, to come and take possession of Rome, and himself had taken order that the cause of Silverius should be again examined, and if that letter was truly writ by Silverius, that he should be banished; if it were found a calumny, that he should be restored, as Liberatus n Liber. in Brev. ca 22. showeth. He knew o Hoc anno (14. justiniani) simulac de legitima Vigilii electione nuncium Constantinopol. perlatum est, Imperator protinus Epis●olam ad eum that▪ Bar. an. 540. nu. 11. also that Silverius was dead, and that Vigilius was peaceably and with his consent placed in the Roman See before Bellisarius came, for he had written ᵖ unto him as the only lawful Pope, and both the Emperor and Mennas had received Letters q Epist. Vigilij extat apud. Bar. an. 540. nu. 20. & sequ. from him the year r Nam literae ad Me●●am datae sunt 15. Kalend. Oct. justino Consult, id est, a. 14. justiniani. Bar. an. 450. nu. 25. Bellisarius antem Constantinopol. redit Consul. Basilio, id est. an. 15. justin. Bar. an. 541. n. 3. before. But Anastasius thought the Emperor's discourses to be as idle as his own. Besides, whereas he adds that the Emperor thanked him for placing of Vigilius in the room of Silverius; Binius is bold therein to tell Anastasius of his untruth, seeing all that, as he saith s Patet quod ipse Imperator Bellisoris hac de causa gratias non egit. B●●. Nat. in vitam Vigil. §. Gratia●. , was done without the knowledge of justinian, by the plotting of Theodora. I will account these for no more than two untruths. 15. After this, Anastasius tells us that justinian then sent Bellisarius again into Africa, who coming thither killed by treachery Gontharis King of the Vandals, and then coming to Rome offered some of the spotless of the Vandals to Saint Peter by the hands of Pope Vigilius, to wit, a Cross of gold beset with precious stones, being a hundred pound in weight, wherein were writ his victories, two great silver tables guilded, which unto this day stand, saith he, before the body of Saint Peter: also he gave many other gifts, and many alms to the poor, and built an hospital in the broad way, and a Monastery of Saint juvenalis at the City of Orta, where he gave possessions, and many gifts. Thus Anastasius; whose narration as it must needs testify in what great honour the Roman Church was in those ancient times, and how bountiful they were then unto it, so may it serve for an incentive to inflame the zeal of Emperors, and great persons to do the like after their victories and conquests; and no doubt but by such lies and fables as this is their Church had gained the best part of her treasures and possessions; for all this not one syllable is true or probable. Bellisarius when he came to Constantinople with Vitiges was not then sent into the West, but into Persia t Bellisarius Vitigem captiviam co tempore Biz●ntium duxit quando Iustinianus Cosrcem audivit bellum movisse. Proc. lib. 2 Bell. Pers. pa. 156. Imperator 〈◊〉 Orientis in 〈◊〉 diduxit duces. circa fluvium Euphratem omnia Bellisario ●radidit regenda. Ibid. pa. 158. against Cosroes, as Procopius, who was present with him, testifieth, and in those wars he continued full three u Totilus cum exercitus par●c ad leca Romae vic na contendit, cujus p●●fectio●e ●ognit●, Imperator, e●si adhuc 〈…〉 Persi●, mittere rursum in Italiam B●bisarium cogitur. I●mque novus hujus belli annus ●xibat. Proc. lib. 3. d● bell. Goth. pa. 356. redi●● at autem ex Italia Constantinopolim anno 6. belli Gothici, 〈◊〉 liquet ex ●roc. lib. 2. in fine, et lib. 3. in initio. years: When he was sent Westward he was not sent into afric, for thither Ariobindus x Imperator Ariobindum ducem in Africam misit, & Artabanum, sed inutile put●ns d●erum d●●●m Im●erio ●es a●ministrari, Ariobind, ●otiuo Africa 〈◊〉 delepav●●. Proc. de b●ll. Vand. lib 2. pa. 239. was sent, with whom was sent Artabanus: Neither did Bellisarius either by villainy or victory kill Gontharis, but Artabanus killed y Convivium erat in conclavi, ubi tres mensae paratae, ipse in prima accubuit, cui Athanasium & Artobanum adhibuit. Artahamus Gontharidem adcessit, quasi clam ei aliquid dicturus, Gontharidi saucio exilire conanti Artab●nus ensem educens lotus dextrum capulo tenus confodit, ex quo ille statim moribundus cecidit. Proc. lib. 4. de bello Vandal. pa. 243. him treacherously when they sat together at a feast in Gontharis Chamber: nor came Bellisarius from afric to Rome, (for after his second coming (which was from Constantinople) into Italy, he stayed there till his return to Byzantium five z Bellisarius Bizantium venit, quum per quinquennium ex Italia nusquam abcessisset. Pro. lib. 3. the bell. Goth. pa. 392. sicque 14. annus bujus belli exibat. Ibid. pa. 394. years after, and returned back no more a Byzantium cum pervenisset, ibi diutius commoratus, ex otio vivere, et in delitus ●ffl●entibus opibus agere rebus ante hac soeliciter gestis, contentus. Proc. ibid. pa. 393. ) nor brought he thence with him any of the spoils of the Vandals; nor offered he them to Saint Peter; nor offered he, by the hand of Vigilius either than golden Cross of an hundred pound weight (which is a golden lie, consisting of an hundred latche●s) nor the silver table, nor those many other gifts, nor built he an Hospital, nor gave he either possessions or donations. All these, if they be well summed, will make at least twelve grand capital mother lies, which have many more in their wombs; such an art of devising untruths hath Anastasius. Or if this oblation be referred, as Binius b Bin. not. in vitam Vicilij. § De s●olijs. saith perhaps it ought, to the time when Bellisarius won Rome from Vitiges, which was, as Procopius c Vrb● Roma recuperata à Gothis per Bellisarium post annum sexagesimum quo came tenuerunt Gothi, et post justiniani annum undecimum. Proc. lib. 1. de bell. Goth. pa. 271. et post haec ait, jamque tertius huie bello annus exibat. Lib. 2. pa. 313. showeth in the third year of the wars against the Goths, and 12. of justinian, yet this can excuse no one of all the untruths of Anastasius; for neither than was Vigilius but Sylverius d Duodecimus annus justiniani respondet anno 2. Sylverij. Bar. an. 538. nu. 1. Sylverius autem sedit annos 3. Bar. an. 540. nu. ●● the Pope, neither did Bellisarius then come out of afric, or bring the spoils of the Vandals with him, of which this oblation was made by the hands of Pope Vigilius. 16. Next to this, Anastasius saith, eodem tempore Theodora scripsit, at that same time Theodora the Empress writ to Vigilius to come to Constantinople, and restore Anthimus to his See; but Vigilius refused, saying, I spoke foolishly before when I promised that, but now I can no way consent to restore an heretic: Whence Baronius e An. 540. nu. 13. observes a rare miracle, that Vigilius was now turned to a new man, & now Saul was one of the Prophets, of a blasphemer changed to a true Preacher, of a Saul into a Paul, all which change proceeded from his very sitting in the Pope's Chair, momento temporis novam formam accepit, at that very moment when he became the true Pope, he had a new form, a new speech, and then prophesied consonantly to the fathers: and the like miracle doth Binius f Bin. not. in vit. Vig. pa. 478 note, statim ut sanctam sedem ascendit, as soon as ever Vigilius had stepped into the holy Chair, he was wholly changed into a new man, and then condemned the heresies, which before he approved. A right Neanthes indeed, of whom it is written, that before being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having now got the harp of Orpheus, he thought he was also able to work wonders therewith, as well as Orpheus had done; he would needs then, Saxa movere sono testudinis, but all in vain: Even so Peter's Chair made Vigilius as infallible as Peter himself, being once set there he could do nothing else but drop Oracles, and his fiddling on Orpheus' harp made an heavenly harmony, but how he failed in his skill, and proved no better than Neanthes, his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternal record, and yet all that time he sat in the Chair and prophesied, for as the common saying is, Vbi Papa, ibi Roma; so it is as true, Vbi Papa, ibi Cathedra, it is more easy for the Pope to take the Chair with him, than, like an Elephant, to carry the whole City of Rome upon his back to Constantinople, and go up and down the world with it. 17. But is this narration, think you, of Anastasius true? verily not one word therein; neither did the Empress write, nor Vigilius answer any such thing, for both these were done, as Anastasius saith, eodem tempore, at, or after that same time, when Bellisarius, having killed Gontharis, came out of afric, and offered those spoils of the Vandals, and seeing, that, as we have proved, was never; this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas. Again, this answer of Vigilius was given, statim ac sanctam sedem ascendit, at his very first placing in the See, as Binius showeth, and that was in the fourteenth g Bar. ●n. 54. nu. 2. year of Iusti●ian, for then Sylverius died: now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome, and that was, as Procopius h Hoc modo (caede nimicum Goth●ridis et aliorum) Artabanes Carthaginem Iustiniano restituit anno ipsius decimo nono. Procl. lib. 2. de Bell. Vandal. pa. 244. showeth, in the nineteenth year of justinian; it was a fine devise of Anastasius, to tell how this new Saint answered a letter (by way of prophecy) three or four years before the letter was written. Further, Vigilius, as Liberatus saith i Liberat. ca 22. , implens promissum suum, quod Augustae fecerat, performing his promise to the Empress, writ a letter in this manner, he performed it as much as he could, he laboured a while to do it, and this was both before and a little after the death of Sylverius; but when he could not effect it, and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirm the deposition of Anthimus: Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein, left off that care until he could have a better opportunity to overthrow the Council of Chalcedon, which, so long as it stood in force, was a bar unto Anthimus. If Vigilius could have prevailed to have had the fifth Council and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters, by which the Council of Chalcedon had been quite overthrown, then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus, & all who with Anthimus had oppugned the Council of Chalcedon, but till that were done, till the Council were repealed, Vigilius saw it was in vain to strive for Anthimus, and therefore waiting for another opportunity for that, he in two several Epistles, the one to justinian, the other to Mennas, confirmed, as the Emperor required him to do, the deposition of Anthimus; and this he did the year before Bellisarius returned to Constantinople with Vitiges, namely in the fourteenth year of k Vt ante probat●● est hoc cap. justinian, and five years before the death of Gontharis. Would the Empress then write to him to come and do that which he knew not only the Emperor most constantly withstood, but Vigilius also, to have five years before publicly testified to the Emperor, that he would not do? specially seeing, as Baronius l Bar. an. 540. nu. 32. saith, Vigilius by that his letter to the Emperor, Omnem prorsus, sive Theodorae, sive aliis spem ademisset, would put both Theodora, and all else out of all hope, that he should ever perform his promise in restoring Anthimus. So although those words, eodem tempore, were not (as they ought to be) referred to the time after the kill of Gontharis, but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople, which was the year m Nam literae Vigilij missae I●stiniano sunt an. 14. justiniani. Bar. an. 540. nu. 14. Bellisarius autem redit Constantinopolim cum Vitige an. justiniani 15. Bar. an. 541. nu. 3. after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperor; yet the Anastasian narration is not only untrue, but wholly improbable, that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus, who had the year before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus, and professed both to the Emperor and Mennas, that he would not restore him, and that he ought not to be restored. Lastly, at this time when Anastasius feigneth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus, (which following the death of Gontharis, must needs be in the nineteenth or twentieth year of justinian) the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside, and the Three Chapters were then in every man's mouth, and every where debated: The Emperor having in that nineteenth year, as by Victor n justinianus Vigitium compet●t ut ad urbaen regiam properaret. ●n. 4. post Consulatum Basilij. Vict. in Chri● eum an. i● autem est an. 19 justiniani secundum Bar. an. 545. nu. 1. , who then lived, is evident, if not before, published his Edict, and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople. Anastasius dreamt of somewhat, and hearing of some writing, or sending to Vigilius about that time, he not knowing, or, which I rather think, willing to corrupt and falsify the true narration, for his great love to the Pope, conceals the true and only cause about which the message was sent to Vigilius, and deviseth a false and feigned matter about Anthimus, and endeavours to draw all men by the noise of that from harkening after the cause of the Three Chapters, which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Roman See. Just as Alcibiades o Plut. in Alcib. to avoid a greater infamy, cut off the tail of his beautiful dog, which cost him 70. minas Atticas, (that is of our coin p Nam mina Attica valet nostri nummi 3. l. 2. s. 6. d. u● testatur Edovardus Breirwooddus i● lib. suo de Pond. ca 4. q●em libitum accuratè admodum haet tractare, non est cur●docti dubitent. 218. pound and 15. shillings) and filled the mouths of the people with that trifle, that there might be no noise of his other disgrace. The true cause of sending to Vigilius, as Victor showeth q Imperator Vigilium ad regians urbem compellit venire, ut triae Capitula condennaret. Vict. in: Chron. an. 4. pos● Coss. Basilij. , was about the Three Chapters, this of Anthimus, which Anastasius harps upon, is in truth no other but the dog's tail, and the din of it hath a long time possessed the ears of men; but now the true cause being come to the open view, fills the world with that shameful heresy of Vigilius, which Anastasius would have concealed and covered with his dog's tail. But enough of this passage, wherein there are not so few as twenty lies. 18. The next passage in Anastasius contains the sending for Vigilius, and the manner how he was taken from Rome and brought to Constantinople: He tells us that the people of Rome taking that opportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore Anthimus, suggested d●vers accusations against him, as that by his Counsel Sylverius was deposed, and that he was a murderer, and had killed his Nephew Asterius, whereupon the Empress sent Anthimus Scribe to take him wheresoever he we, except only in the Church of Saint Peter. Scribe came and took him in the end of November, and after many indignities both in words and actions, as that the people cast stones, and clubs, and dung after him, wishing all evil to go with him; he in this violent manner was brought to Sicily, in December, and on Christmas eve to Constantinople, whom the Emperor then meeting, they kissed and wept one over the other for joy, and then they led him to the Church of Saint sophy, the people singing an hymn, behold the Lord cometh. Thus Anastasius. Which whole narration to be a very lying and dunghill legend, were easy to demonstrate, if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part, for they not only condemn this as untrue, but prove it by diverse arguments to be such. The first, for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople only r Trium Ca●itulorum ca●si tanium voc●tus est. Bin. not. in vita Vigilij. § Cu●●s Romani. Non alia causa profectionis Vigilij Constantinopolim cognoscitur. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55. for the cause of the Three Chapters, and therefore Anastasius putting down other causes thereof, aperti mendacij s Bar. an. eodem 546. nu. 54. arguitur, is convinced of an evident untruth. The second, because seeing, as they say, Mennas and the chief Eastern Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperor until the Pope had consented, justinian would conciliate t Putavit Vigilium, quibus posset fieri, blanditijs conciliandum. Bin. loc. cit. Eum sibi quibus valui●, studuit conciliare blandicijs. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55. the Pope unto him by all fair means, and entreat him no otherwise but favourably, lest if the Pope were displeased, he should not yield his consent, and then the whole purpose of the Emperor should be made frustrate. Their third reason is an argument à testimonio negatiuè, because neither u Ba. an eo. n. 54 Procopius nor Facundus mention any such violence or abuse offered to the Pope, of which reason I have spoken before. A fourth is taken from the time; whereas he saith, that Vigilius came to Constant. on Christmas eve, mendacij x Bar. an ●od. 546. nu. 60. redarguitur, he is proved to lie, by that which Procopius saith. Many other reasons might be added, but these of Baronius and Binius are sufficient to convince Anastasius of lying, and open lying in this passage, which is, as now you see, nothing but a farthel of lies; for neither did the people take that opportunity to accuse Vigilius, nor did they accuse him of those crimes, nor did the Empress for that cause send for Vigilius, neither did she, but justinian call him to Constantinople, neither did she send Anthimus Scribo to pull him away by violence, neither commanded she him not to forbear Vigilius in any place, but only in Saint Peter's Church (this was but the kind affection of Anastasius to the honour of Peter's See) neither did she swear to excommunicate Scribo if he brought not Vigilius, neither did Scribo apprehend him in the Temple of Saint Cicile, neither did Vigilius distribute a largesse at that time when he was apprehended, neither did they violently carry him to Tiber and there ship him, neither did the people follow him, and desire him to pray for them; neither when the ship was gone, did they revile him, nor cast stones, nor clubs, nor dung after him, nor imprecate and curse him, neither was he at that time brought, but as by Procopius y Interea Vigiliu● ab Imperatore ex Siciliá evocatus, Byzantium venit. N●m ut ●ò contenderent, diuti●am in eâ insula traxerunt mo●ā. Proc lib. 3. the bell. Goth. p. 364 E●ocatus autem fuit circa fi●em a●. 11. ●ell. Goth. ut liqu●●, expraesedentibus verbis; undecimus hajus bellise verterat annus. Interea Vigilius, etc. jam 11. illius belli est justiniani 20. nam bel●um capit anno ejus nono prope finito, ut restatur. Proc. lib. 1. Bell. Goth. pa. 253. Imperator se ad bellum parat, annos novenos potitus Imperio. appeareth, long before he voluntarily went to Sicily, and made so long stay there, that the Emperor having called him the year before, as by Victor z Victor loc. cit. eti●m et Marcelli●u● anno priori evocatum ab Impera●ore, sed sequenti ●o●s●an. venisse e●pressè docet. In Chron. an. 546. et 547. is clear, by reason of his long abode in Sicily, he called him the year after again out of Sicily, as Procopius showeth. Neither came he to Constantinople on Christmas Eeve, but either on the five and twentieth of january, as Marcellinus a Vigilius Constantinopolim ingressus est 8. Calend. Febr. saith, or as by Procopius, who is far more worthy of credit, may be gathered b Nam adventus Vigilij Constantinopolim ponitur à Procopio, in initio 12. anni be●i Gothici, lib. 3. pa. 364. jam 12. an. illius belli it choatur in fine anni 20. justiniani; is autem imperare coepit 1. die Aprilis, ut docct Marcell. in Chr. an. 527. , about the middle of April next ensuing; neither did the Emperor when they met, kiss him, nor did they weep for joy, the one of the other, nor did they sing the hymn of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator, behold the Lord the Ruler is come. It was a very pretty allusion of Anastasius, and very apt for the season, in honour of the Pope to take part of the text expressing the joy for Christ's Advent in the flesh, and turn it to an Anthem to congratulate the Pope's Advent on Christmas eve to Constantinople; but I fear it will hardly be believed, that men in those days did use such base, nay, blasphemous flattery to the Pope; this hymn would have better befitted the time of Leo the tenth, when in the open Council they durst say c Cunc. Later. sub Leone 10. sess. 6. in Orat. Simonis Begnij. , to Pope Leo, Weep not O daughter Zion, Ecce venit Leo de Tribu juda, behold the Lion of the Tribe of juda cometh, the root of jesse; behold GOD hath raised up to thee a Saviour, who shall save thee from the hands of the destroying Turks, and deliver thee from the hand of the Persecutors; O most blessed Leo, we have looked for thee, we have hoped that thou shouldest come and be our deliverer. The former Anthem had been suitable to such a time; the art of their blasphemous Gnatonisme to the Popes, was not half learned in justinian's days, and most incredible it is, that justinian would use, or could endure in his presence, such entertainment of Vigilius, knowing that he was an earnest and violent oppugner of his Imperial Edict, in which he had expressly anathematised and accursed all that did defend the Three Chapters. This proclaiming of an Anathema against Vigilius, and the hymn of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator, with kissing & weeping for joy, make no good concord nor harmony together. Let this be accounted for no more than twenty Anastasian lies, and those are the fewest which are bound up in this fardel. 19 After that Anastasius hath, as you have seen, safely landed the Pope at Constantinople, than he tells you, That for two years' space there was continual strife about Anthimus, the Emperor and Empress laboured to have Vigilius restore him, urged him with his promise and handwriting, but Vigilius would no way consent; and when he found them so heavy towards him, he said, I perceive now it was not justinian and Theodora, but Dioclesian and Eleutheria that called me hither, do with me what you will: thereupon they buffeted him, and called him homicide, and killer of Sylverius; then he fled to the Church of Euphemia, and held himself by a Pillar of the Altar, but they pulled him thence, cast him out of the Church, put a rope about his neck, dragged him through all the City till evening, and then put him in prison, feeding him with a little bread and water, and after this they banished him also with the rest of the Roman Clergy. And these, like the rest, are merely the fond and sottish dreams of Anastasius, of, as Baronius useth to call them, lies. Baronius will assure you, that it was not Anthimus or his restoring, but the Three Chapters about which Vigilius was sent for. The cause of Anthimus, who was deposed ten d Anthimus depositus in Conc. Constant. sub men's, Act. 4. an post. Cons. Basilij, qui est primus belli Gothici, Vigilius autem venit Byzantium an. 12. ejusdem belli. years before, was quite forgotten: and to see the sottishness of Anastasius, justinian had long before e Anno 〈◊〉 540. Bar. in illum an. nu. 12. written to Vigilius, requiring him to confirm the deposition of Anthimus, Vigilius f Bar an. cod. 〈◊〉 18. had done this upon the Emperor's letter, the Pope's letters are recorded both in Baronius and Binius, dated when justinus was Consul, which was six whole years before the Pope's coming to Constantinople, all that time the Emperor still liked the deposing of Anthimus, and many ways had approved Mennas for the Bishop. Now after all this, when the whole Church, and every man was troubled with a more weighty cause of the Three Chapters, Anastasius brings in this, that the Emperor, and the Pope quarrelled for two years, about an old forgotten matter of Anthimus, wherein there was a perfect concord betwixt them both: nay, that is nothing to quarrel, but that the Emperor, like Dioclesian should cause him to be beaten, to be reviled, to be pulled from the Altar and Sanctuary, and haled about the town by a rope about his neck, imprison and banish him, and all for his refusing to do that which the Emperor had decreed to be done, and commanded him to do the same, that for this cause their kisses should be turned into curses, and they both now weep a contrary weeping to their former, the Emperor wept because Vigilius would not do that which the Emperor himself commanded him not to do; the Pope wept for that he was trailed in a rope about the town, and all for not doing that which the Emperor would not have him to do: Truly this surpasseth the degree of a fable or untruth. Voraginensis himself could not devise a more simple and sottish Legend. 20. If this do not sufficiently persuade you of the untruth of this passage, see how Baronius and Binius do contradict the same, for in this short narration are contained those complura mendacia, as Baronius calls f Bar. an. 552. nu. 16. them, which writers, and first of all Anastasius, delivereth. The Church of Euphemia, whither the Pope fled, was, as Anastasius saith, one of the Churches in Constantinople: Baronius g In Basilica S. Euphaemiae, quae est Chalcedone habitare disposuit Vigilius. Bar. an. 552. nu. 8. and Binius h Confugit Chalcedonem in Basilicam S. Euphaemiae. Bin. Not. in vitam Vigilij § Tunc dedit. tells you, it was the Church in Chalcedon; Anastasius saith, the Pope was pulled thence from the Altar. Baronius i Imperator dignam tanto Pontificè legationem ornavit, etc. At Vigilius egredi nunquam consentit, nisi prius etc. Bar. an. 552 nu. 11, 12. tells you the Emperor sent a most honourable message to entreat him to come from thence, but the Pope refused, till the Emperor yielded to his demands in recalling his Edict. Lastly, Baronius k Hoc tempore (vid. an. 552.) accidisse noscuntur quae Anastasius confundit cum prioribus quae acciderunt, vivente Theodora. Bar. an. 552. nu. 8 Theodora autem obijt an. 548. ut ait Bar. illo anno nu. 24. and Binius l ●aec quae sequuntur contigerunt post obitum Theodorae. Bin. not. in vitam Vigilij § Tunc dedit. will assure you, that the buffeting of Vigilius, his fleeing to the Church of Euphemia, and their haling him from thence did all happen diverse years, three at least after the death of Theodora the Empress; but Anastasius refers all that to the time of Theodora, and makes her another Eleutheria, as great an agent in all this as Dioclesian himself: belike as Eleutheria by a metempseuchosis, was changed into Theodora, so Theodora by a like Necromantical trick of Anastasius was raised out of her grave to buffet, to beat, and banish Pope Vigilius for not restoring Anthimus. 21. That which, as it seems, gave occasion of this whole error to Anastasius, was a matter done by Agapetus: He when he came to Constantinople, had much contention with the Acephali, who were oppugners of the Council at Chalcedon, among which Anthimus the Bishop of Constantinople was one, and a most earnest defender of that sect. It is not unlike but justinian at the first favoured Anthimus, until he perceived him to be heretical. Anastasius m Agapetus altercationem caepit habere cum Imperatore de religione, etc. Anast▪ in vita Agapeti. further saith, that justinian favoured not only the person, but the very heresy of Anthimus, and relates certain threatening words used by justinian against Agapetus for that cause, as if justinian had said, either consent to us, or I will banish thee; which the Pope answered in the same manner almost as Vigilius is said to have done, I thought I had come to justinian, but now I perceive I have found Dioclesian: upon which narration of Anastasius, Baronius n Imperator ip●e in suspitionem haeresis est adductus. Bar. an. 536. nu. 18. et idem ait Binius Not. in vitam Agapeti. §. Hic m●ssies. Et, apu●▪ eum valuit jussio pontificia. Bar. an. cit. nu. 19 and Binius, (having an implacable hatred to justinian,) say, that he was suspected of heresy, and to clear himself, he upon the Pope's command o Non ●btemperare Romano Pontisi●i, nefas ratus, editam confessionem iterat. Bar. an. 536. nu. 18. , published again his profession of the true faith. But that neither Anastasius nor Baronius are herein to be credited, may clearly appear, partly because justinian had before published an orthodoxal profession in the beginning p Simulac Agapetus est creatus Papa, justinianus rectae fidei professionem Romam misit. Bar. an. eod. nu. 18. of the Popedom of Agapetus, and specially by that ample testimony, which is given him by the Eastern and orthodoxal Bishops in the Council under Mennas, after the death of Agapetus, who q Act. 1. pa. 429. a. say of him, that à primordits regni sui usque nunc, from the very beginning of his Empire till then, he studied to keep the whole body of the Church sound, and entire, and free from all infection of heresies. So far was he from supporting that heresy, or Anthimus in it, when he once knew him to defend the same. Theodora the Empress, by whose means Anthimus (who secretly oppugned the Council of Chalcedon) was translated from Trapezuntum to Constantinople; she I say was indeed for a time more earnest for Anthimus, both to prevent his deposition, and after it was past, to have him restored by the means of Vigilius. Liberatus who then lived, saying nothing of the Emperor's threats (which had justinian used, for the ill will Liberatus bare to justinian, he would not have omitted) expressly mentioneth r Liber. ca 21. Augusta clam promittente munera, et rursus Papae (Agapeto) minas intentante. both how Theodora by rewards sought to corrupt Agapetus, and when that prevailed not, added threats thereunto; and how the Pope would not at all consent to her motion. Victor s Vict. Tun. in Chron. sub Coss. justin. , who also lived at that time, saith that Agapetus communione privavit, did excommunicate Theodora, the patron of Anthimus▪ an oppugner of the Council of Chalcedon: whence it may appear, that Anastasius ascribes to the Emperor that which was done by the Empress, against Agapetus, and if any such words were used by Agapetus, as comparing their tyranny to Dioclesian's persecution, it was spoken no way of justinian, (who was even then a most earnest defender of the true faith,) but of Theodora: who for a while laboured for Anthimus, and against the Council of Chalcedon, till seeing that she could not prevail therein, neither by the means of Agapetus, nor Silverius, nor Vigilius, after he had once writ to the Emperor, his confirmation of the deposition of Anthimus, she then changed her mind, the cause of the three Chapters being then moved, she became as the Emperor himself was, an earnest condemner of the three Chapters, as by t Name Victor asserit Theodoram laborasse ut tria Capitulae condemnentur. in suo Chron. sub an. 2. post Cons. Basilij. Victor is evident, that is in truth an earnest defender of the Council of Chalcedon. Now upon this truth (error always having some truth for his ground) Anastasius u In vitae Agapeti. buildeth many fabulous and poetical fictions of his own devising: as that justinian and Agapetus quarrelled about the faith, Agapetus defending against him the two natures in Christ; that the Emperor threatened banishment to Agapetus, unless he would consent with him, and deny the two natures; that Agapetus called him Dioclesian; that Agapetus disputed with Anthimus, and overcame him before the Emperor; that the Emperor thereupon humbled himself to the Pope, and adored x Augustus' adoravit beatissimum Agapetum Papam. Anast. ibid. the most blessed Agapetus; that then he banished Anthimus, and entreated Agapetus to consecrate Mennas in his room. Now Anastasius perceiving these his fictions concerning justinian and Agapetus, wherein he had some ground of truth, to be plausible, and his end being this, Papae ut placerent, quas fecisset fabulas, he brings in justinian and Vigilius to act the very same pageant again, and that without any ground of truth, they for sooth, ten years after Anthimus was deposed, and for aught appeareth was dead at that time, must come in quarrelling again about Anthimus, as fresh as ever the Emperor and Agapetus had done before: nay they must contend two other whole years after the former ten: about this Helena, justinian and his Empress must for want of variety of phrases be termed Dioclesian and Eleutheria, Vigilius must be buffeted and beaten, haled, dragged, imprisoned, and banished. Truly Anastasius had some ground for the act under Agapetus, for this of Vigilius he is beholding to none but his own poetical pate; & lest any little scene or shadow of resemblance might be wanting, Baronius y Bar. an. 547. nu. 49. supplying one defect in Anastasius, tells us how Vigilius for the same cause of Anthimus, excommunicated Theodora at his coming to Constantinople, even as Agapetus had done before. Who sees not all this to be nothing else but a mimesis of the acts of Agapetus, and a mere fiction of Anastasius? in which there are not so few as thirty lies. 22. You have seen the tragical part of this Anastasian fable, now followeth the Catastrophe or sudden change of all this hard fortune: Tunc Gothi fecerunt, then (saith he) the Goths made Totilas their King, who coming to Rome besieged it so sore, that the City was pressed with a great famine, so that they did eat their own children. Totilas entered the City at the gate of Saint Paul, in the 13. Indiction, and for a whole night caused a Trumpet to be sounded, till all the Roman people were fled away, or hid in Churches. And Totilas dwelled with the Romans, quasi pater cum filijs, even as a father with his children. Thus Anastasius. Who would not think by this narration that Totilas were made King after the beating, draging, and imprisonment of Vigilius, and banishment of him & his fellows, upon which Anastasius presently adjoineth, Tunc Gothi fecerunt, than the Goths made Totilas King; and yet Totilas was King a Totilas' creature Rex Gothorum anno 7. belli Gothici. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 346. Is est annus Iust. 16. ut ait Bar. an. 542. nu. 1. Vigilius Byzantium venit anno 12. belli Gothici. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. is est justiniani 21. & isto anno Constantinopolim venisse Vigilium, ait Bar. an. 547. nu. 26. not only before all that tragical act, but four or five years also before Vigilius came to Constantinople, or before the Emperor sent for him, and in like sort Totilas his besieging of Rome by Anastasius narration follows all the former: whereas by Procopius b Totilas Romam contendit quam flatim obsedit. Procop. lib. 3. pa. 360. Per id tempus (obsidionis) cum Vigilius in Sicilia esset, etc. lib. eod. pa. 364. it is evident that Totilas besieged Rome while Vigilius stayed in Sicily, before he set forward to Constantinople. The like error is in the note of the Indiction; for Totilas took the City, not as Anastasius saith in the 13. but as c Indictione 10. & 6. post Cons. Basilij anno, Totilas Romam ingreditur. Marc. in Chron. Is est juxta eundem Marc. an. 547. cui consenlit Bar. an. 547. nu. 12. Marcellinus witnesseth, and that aright, in the 10. Indiction: neither did he enter at the gate of Saint Paul, but as Procopius d Vniverso exercitu instructo ad portam Asinariam duxit, etc. Proc. lib. 3. p. 372 expressly declareth, at that which was called Asinaria: neither did Totilas sound any such Trumpet, to give them warning or space to flee, but entering the City in the night, and that by treachery of the watch, he stayed e Vnum in locum copias omnes co●git hostium insidias veritus. Proc. ibid. his army together till morning, for fear that some danger might befall himself or his army in the dark, by the lying in wait of the enemies. And when after this, Bellisarius having recovered the City, Totilas again won it from the Romans, which was three years after this, to wit, in the 15. year of the Gothicke war, as Procopius f Annus 14. exibat hujus 〈◊〉, Totilas deinde copias Romam ductavit, etc. Proc. l. 3. pa. 394. showeth, which was the 24. of justinian, whereas his first taking it was in the 21. of justinian; then indeed Totilas, as Procopius g Praecepit ut quanta ●iposi et bucciná ciangorem eliderent, etc. Proc. ibid. pa. 394. declareth, caused diverse Trumpets to sound an alarm on the river of Tiber in the night time, as if he would on that side assault the City, while he had his army in readiness on the contrary side, and entered there by treachery also of the Watch; the Romans giving little regard to that part. These Trumpets gave the occasion to Anastasius his fiction, which is so blockish, that what Totilas used as a warlike stratagem to deceive, and more easily to overthrow and kill the Romans, that Anastasius in his simplicity takes and relates as done in favour of the Romans, that they might escape and not be killed. And yet the taking of the City, whereof Anastasius speaketh, cannot be this second, wherein the Trumpets were sounded, but the former, (at which time Totilas used no such policy) as appears by the famine which Anastasius h Et facta est same's in civitate talis, etc. Anasi. in vita Vigilij. mentioneth, which happened in this former i Vt testatur Proc. l. 3. p. 367. , and not at this second taking of Rome by Totilas. So very incoherent and false is all that Anastasius writeth of this matter. But whereas Anas●asius adds of King Totilas that he dwelled among the Romans as a father among his children, I know not how to check so great a solly. The barbarous Goths, after that long and miserable siege of the Romans, having by treachery in the night entered the City, the very next k Vbi primum illuxit Gothi, &c Proc. pa. 373. morning when they saw there was no danger of the enemy, Quos obvios habent, obtruncant; killed all that they met; and had made no end of slaughter, if Pelagius l Pelagius Totilae supplex factus, non prius precari hunc desiit, qu●m ille elementiorem fore in Romanos pollicitus esset. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 374. coming in most submissive manner had not stayed their Gothish fury. The Roman people m Pars maxima fugam capessunt, pauci in templo pe●fugium ba●ucre, constat è plebe ad quixgentoes in urbe resid. 5. Proc. ibid. pa. 372. , so many as could by flight, sought their safety: there remained of their innumerable Roman troops, but to the number of five hundred, the Noblemen n Inter hos erat Rusticiana filia Symmachi, et uxor Bocthij Senatoris. Proc. ib. and better sort who remained among them, led a life more ignominious and miserable than death, being spoilt of all, domos circumeundo, foresque appulsando cibum dari sibi supplicitèr precabantur; from door to door in most abject and beggarly manner praying for some relief of the proud and insolent victor: nor was Totilas content herewith, but he was resolved o Totilas' Roman ad s●lum prosternere decernit. Proc pa. 375. to ruinate and utterly deface the whole city of Rome, which also he had then done, had not the most prudent persuasions p Edu●bus (sic ad cum scripsie Bellisarius) alterum necesse est ut aut bello victus succumbas, aut ut nos vincas. Si viceris, et Romam demoliaris, non alterius urbem sed tuam delebis. quâ servata, long opulentior fies. Si victus sis, Romá incolumi reservata, gratia tibi nec mediocris apud victorem conciliabitur, qua deleta nullus tibi ad clementiam locus relinquetur. His (inter similes alias) persuasionibus usus est Bellisarius apud Totilam, ut re●●rt Proc. lib 3. pa. 375. of Bellisarius never sufficiently even for this only cause to be commended, hindered so barbarous a design. And which is noted as one of the most miserable spectacles of all other, in Rome which was the most frequent, populous, and eminent City in the whole world, Totilas when he went away left not so much as one man q Null● hominum in urbe relicto, quam penitus destitutam demiserat. Proc. lib. eod. p. 376. Roma fuit ita desolata ut ne●o ibi hominum, nisi bestiae morarentur. Marcell. in Chron. an. 547. , woman, or child to remain or inhabit therein; would any but Anastasius call or account this fatherly usage? what is then, or can be called hostile, savage, and barbarous? But let us leave this passage, wherein we will account no more than ten of Anastasius grand lies, and proceed to the rest of his narration. 23. At the same time, saith he, the Emperor sent Narses into Italy, to whom God gave the victory over the Goths, the King and a great multitude of them were slain. I should have thought this eodem tempore to have had relation (as in an orderly narration it ought) to that taking of Rome by Totilas, which is before expressed; which if Anastasius meant, then is this circumstance most suitable to all the rest, that is, wholly untrue: for Totilas the first time took Rome in the 12. and the second time in the 15. year of the Gothicke war, whereas Narses overcame him not, nor came as chief General into Italy till the eighteenth year of the same war. All which by Procopius r De Roma capta, supra ostendimus. De Narsete siquet, ex Proc. lib. 3. pa. 408. ubi ait jam 17. hujus belli exibat annus. Et paulo post, Narses ex Salonis (in Sicilia) prof●ctus adversus Totilam progreditur. Ibid. is clearly testified. But Binius doth here set to his helping hand, and making a gloss upon the text, by two notes of time he declareth unto what this Anastasian eodem tempore is to be referred: the former is this: It was, saith he s Bin. Not. in vi●am Vigilij. §. Eodem. , Illo anno quo Imperator revocavit Edictum; in that year wherein the Emperor at the instance of Pope Vigilius recalled the Edict, which he had published concerning the three Chapters, showing himself therein obedient to the Pope; in that year Narses the Captain of the Roman army, trusting to the help of God, by the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary, put to flight and killed Totilas, with his whole army. So Binius: upon whose gloss it will inevitably follow that Narses never overcame Totilas, nor was sent General into Italy. For it is certain, (as before we have by many reasons proved) and by the testimony of the whole general Council t justinianus omnia semper fecit, & facit, quae sanctam Ecclesiam & recta dogmata conservant. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. in fine. , that justinian did not at all recall that Edict: he was both before and after the Council, yea after the death of Vigilius, earnest in the defence thereof. But let us admit that he had indeed recalled that Edict; when think you was this done? No man can tell you better than Baronius, who refers all that to the 26. year of justinian, which is the 17. of the Gothicke war; for by his narration u Bar. an. 55. nu. 15.22.23. , not only the Emperor in that year revoked his Edict against the Three Chapters, but he with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and Mennas, were all in that year reconciled to the Pope, and a perfect peace concluded on all hands before the month of july; peace being concluded Mennas shortly after died. If then as Binius glosseth, Totilas was slain eo anno, in that year wherein justinian is supposed to have recalled his Edict, than was he certainly vanquished and slain, not by Narses, for he as Procopius x Proc. lib. 3. pa. 408. showeth, came not as chief General into Italy, until the 18. year of the Gothicke war, which is the 27. of justinian. Again, seeing it followeth in Anastasius, Tunc adunatus, then when Totilas was vanquished and killed, did the Roman Clergy entreat to have Vigilius with the rest restored from exile. It hence clearly followeth, that Anastasius can mean no other exile, than such as was inflicted upon him some three or four years before, for the cause of Anthimus, and not that which followed the Council: for the Council was not held in the seventeenth year of the Gothicke war, or six and twentieth of justinian, but in the eighteenth of the one, and seven and twentieth of the other, as the Acts do witness: or if Baronius will needs have the exile following the Council, to be that from which Narses entreated that he might be delivered; then it certainly followeth upon this account of Binius, reckoning Totilas' death to be in the six and twentieth of justinian, that Narses and the Roman Clergy entreated the Emperor to restore Vigilius out of exile, before he was cast into exile; nay before the Council was assembled, or before Vigilius had given any cause why he should be banished; which doth not well accord with the wisdom of Narses and the Roman Clergy to entreat, nor was it possible for the Emperor to grant. The same is further manifest by the other note of time which Binius * Been not. cit. sets down, that Totilas was killed decimo anno regni sui, in the 10 year of his reign, as the holy Monk Bennet had foretold unto him: for Totilas was made King of the Goths in the 7. year of the Gothick war, as Procopius y Hujus belli annus sextus exierat. Proc. lib. 3 pa. 346. & Totiles ex conventu suscepit imperium. idem pa. 347. testifieth, which was in the 16. year of justinian, and as it seemeth by his Acts, in the beginning of the year. But to help the Benedictine prophecy, we will suppose him to be made in the last end of all, and account the next year for his first: yet even so must Totilas be vanquished and slain before the beginning of the 18. year of the Gothicke war, or 27. of justinian, for with the end of the 17. year of the Gothicke war is fully completed the tenth year of Totilas. Wherefore if Benedict was not a lying Prophet, and if Totilas was slain decimo anno, in his tenth year, than all the former inconveniences do upon this account also ensue, that he was not vanquished by Narses; that then, when he was slain, Narses & the Roman Clergy did not entreat for the delivery of Vigilius out of banishment, and the like; seeing it is certain that Narses came not into Italy, and that Vigilius was not banished (by that Baronian exile which followeth the Council) till the 18. year of the Gothicke war, and 27. of justinian. Or if any to excuse Binius will expound as Baronius z Necatur Totilas, anno undecimo regnisui inchoato, decimo expleto. Bar. an. 553. nu. 16. doth, the prophecy to be meant that Totilas was slain anno decimo, that is, in the tenth year being complete, that plainly contradicteth the prophecy: for if the tenth year was wholly ended, then was he not slain in the tenth, but only in the eleventh year, nor in the tenth otherwise than in the first, second, or sixth year; nay slain in the year before he was borne, that is, slain after all those years ended and fully completed. 24. Now that which Binius a Se Rom. Pontifici obsequentem praebet. ●in. loc. citat. et indem Bar. an. 553. nu. 16. interlaceth of the Emperor's being so obsequent and obedient to the Pope, or as Baronius b Dum sibi imperari à Rom. Pontifice passus ● est. Bar. ibid. nu. 17. expresseth it, for being ruled by the Pope's command, these as being but flourishes of their vanity and arrogancy, I will pass over. The Acts both of justinian, and of the fifth Council do demonstrate that justinian was (as he ought to be) the commander of the Pope, the Pope's Empire was not as yet in the cradle. But that which is added, that Narses overcame the Goths by the intercession of the blessed Virgin, I am desirous a little more at large to examine, the rather, because c Bar. an. 553. nu. 15. Baronius little less than triumpheth therein. Narses, saith he, indevored all these things, Mariae virgins open, by the help of the virgin Mary. And again, having cited certain words out of Evagrius to prove it, By this, saith d Ibid. nu. 18. he, you do understand, cujus niti praesidio duces debeant, on whose help Generals & Captains must rely, that they may perform every difficultest enterprise, truly even on the help of Mary the Mother of God, who being invocated by our prayers may rise against the enemy, for of her the Church singeth, Terribilis ut Castrorum acies, thou art terrible as an army well ordered. Thus the Cardinal, wresting and abusing the Scripture, to draw men's confidence from the Lord of Hosts to the blessed Virgin, making her, contrary to her sex, to be another Mars, and a chief warrior in all the greatest battles of the Christians. But for the truth of the matter, what Narses did, Procopius doth declare, who thus writeth e Proc. lib. 3. pa. 416. of him; When Totilas was overcome, Narses being exceeding joyful, id omne Deo acceptum ut erat in vero indesinenter refer, did continually attribute all that victory to God, to whom in truth it was to be ascribed. Evagrius the Cardinals own witness, testifieth the same, even in that place which the Cardinal allegeth, his words are these f Evag. lib. 4. ca 23. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they who were with Narses report, that, dum precibus divinum numen placeret, while he appeased or pleased God by his prayer, & other offices of piety, and gave due honour unto him, the Virgin, Mother of God appeared unto him, and plainly set down the time when he should fight with the enemies, nor fight with them till he received a sign from above. Thus Evag. in whose words three things are to be observed: First, that Narses used noin vocation or prayers to the blessed Virgin, or any other, but only to God, it was Divinun numen, the very Godhead, which he did in his prayers, & offices of piety adore. Secondly, that Evag. mentioneth not either invocation, or adoration, used by Narses to the Virgin, or any confidence that he reposed in her, or that she at all helped him in the battle, but only that she appeared unto him as a messenger, to signify what time he should fight. Now as the Angel Gabriel was no helper to the Virgin Mary, either in the conception of Christ, or in his birth, though, as a messenger from God, he signifieth them both unto joseph, (joseph neither invocating him nor relying on him, but on God, whose messenger he was) even so, admitting the truth of this apparition, the Virgin Mary did signify from God the time when Narses should fight, but neither did Narses invocate or adore her, nor did she herself more help in the battle than the Angel in the birth of Christ; nor did the confidence of Narses rely on her, but on God, whose messenger he then believed her to be. Let the Cardinal, or Binius, or any of them prove forcibly (which they can never do) out of Evagrius any other invocation or adoration used by Narses to the blessed Virgin, and I will consent unto them in that whole point. Thirdly, all that Evagrius saith of that apparition of the blessed Virgin, is but a rumour and report of some who were with Narses: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some say, Evagrius himself doth not say it was so, or that Narses either said or believed it to be so, but reported it was by some of the soldiers of Narses, whether true or false, that must rely on the credit of the reporters. Now for the Cardinal to avouch a doctrine of faith out of a rumour or report of how credible men themselves knew not, from such an uncertainty to collect, that Generals ought to rely on the aid of the blessed Virgin in their battles, and that she, interpellata precibus, being invocated by their prayers, riseth up, and becomes a warrior on their side; this, by none that are indifferent can be judged less than exceeding temerity, and by those that are religious will be condemned as plain superstition and impiety. But let us return now to Anastasius, whose narration, as it is untrue in itself, if the coming of Narses into Italy, and victory over the Goths, be referred to that time, when Totilas had before won Rome, so it is much more untrue, if it be referred, as by Binius gloss it is, either to the year wherein the Emperor recalled his Edict, (which was never) or to the tenth year of Totilas, which was wholly ended before the coming of Narses into Italy, and before the fifth Council, and the Baronian banishment of Vigilius. 25. After the victory of Narses it followeth in Anastasius, tunc adunatus Clerus, than the Roman Clergy joined together, besought Narses that he would entreat the Emperor, that if as yet Pope Vigilius, with the Presbyters and Deacons that were carried into banishment with him, were alive, they might return home. In that they speak of this exile, as long before begun, even so long that they doubted whether Vigilius were then alive or no, it seemeth evidently, that Anastasius still hath an eye to that banishment for the cause of Anthimus, after he had been two years in Constantinople; that falling five g Nam Vigilius venit Constantinopolim anno 12 belli Gothici. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. Narses autem Totilam vicit, et Romam recepit an. 18. ejusdem belli. Proc. lib 3. pa. 408. et seq. whole years before the victory of Narses, they had reason to add, si adhuc, if Vigilius do live as yet, that is, after so long time of banishment, remain alive. Now seeing it is certain, that Vigilius was not at that time (to wit, not within two years after his coming to Constantinople) banished, as by the fifth general Council is h Nam ex ●o liquet, Vigilium a primo ejus adventus Constantinopolim, illic mansisse ad finem Concilij, dicitur enim illic à justiniano, quod Vigilius semper ejusdem voluntatis fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum. Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a Semper, viz. à primo ē●us adventu et consensu ad tempus 5. Concilij. evident, it hence followeth, that as this Anastasian exile, so all the consequents depending thereon are nothing else but a mere fiction of Anastasius, without all truth or probability: for seeing Vigilius was not then banished, neither did the Romans entreat Narses, nor Narses the Emperor for his delivery, nor the Emperor upon that send to recall him or them from exile, nor use any such words about Pelagius, nor thank them if they would accept Vigilius, nor did they promise after the death of Vigilius to choose Pelagius, nor did the Emperor dismiss them all (for of Pelagius that he three years after the end of the Council remained in banishment, is certainly testified by Victor i Name Victor ait Pelagium redijsse ab exilio anno 18. post Coss. Basilij. Vict. Tun. in Chron. et Concilium habitum ait ille an. 13. post ejusdem Consulatum. ) nor did they return from exile into Sicily; all this is a mere fiction. So in this Catastrophe, beginning at the time when Anastasius saith Totilas was King of the Goths, there are contained at least forty capital untruths, to let pass the rest, as being of lesser note and moment. Let any now cast up the whole sum, I doubt not but he shall find, not only, as I have said, so many untruths as there are lines, but (if one would strictly examine the matter) as there are words in the Anastasian description of the life of Vigilius, & I am verily persuaded, that few Pope's lives scape better at his hands than this: But I have stayed long enough in declaring the falsehood of Anastasius, on whom Baronius so much relieth, and who is a very fit author for such an Annalist as Baronius. CAP. XXXVI. That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his coming to Constantinople, and a refutation thereof; with a description of the life of the same Vigilius. 1. AFter all which the Cardinal could devise to disgrace either the Emperor or the Empress, or Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, or the cause itself of the Three Chapters, or the Synodall Acts; in the last place let us consider what he saith against Pope Vigilius; for, this cause so nettled him, that whatsoever or whosoever came in his way, though it were his Holiness himself, he would not spare them, if he thought thereby to gain never so little for the support of their infallible Chair: And what think you is it that he carps at, and for which he so unmannerly quarrels Pope Vigilius? was it for oppugning the truth published by the Emp. Edict, or was it for making his heretical Constitution, and defining it ex Cathedrâ, in defence of the Three Chapters? or was it for his pevishnesse in refusing to come to the general Council, even then when he was present in the City where it was held, and had promised under his own hand that he would come unto it? or was it his pertinacious obstinacy in heresy, that he would rather undergo both the just sentence of an anathema denounced by the general Council, and also the calamity and weariness of exile inflicted by the Emperor (as Baronius saith) upon him, then yielding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters? Are these (which are all of them heinous crimes, and notorious in Vigilius) the matters that offend the Cardinal? No, none of these, he is not used to find such faults in their Popes, these all he commends as rare virtues, as demonstrations of constancy, of prudence, of fortitude in Vigilius? what then is it that his Cardinalship dislikes? Truly, among many great and eminent vices in Vigilius, which are obvious, and run into every man's sight, it happened that once in his life he did one thing worthy of commendations, and that was his obedience in going to Constantinople, when the Emperor a Vigilius ab Imperatore ev●catus, Byzantium venit Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. called and requested b Ipsum summâ celeritate venire rogans. Bar. an. 546.. nu. 54. him to come thither, and the Cardinal winking at all the other, reproves his Holiness for this one thing, which both in equity and duty he ought to have done: This forsooth is it which he notes as a very c Caeterum Vigilij pr●fectionem Constantinopolim, magnum intulisse Catholicae Ecclesiae damnum eventa declararunt, quae et sigficarunt quam prudentissimè egerunt illius praedecessores, S. Leo, et alij, qui vocati saepe ab orthodoxis licet Imperatoribus nunquanus passi sunt se ab ipsa fixá Romae sede divelli, etc. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55. dangerous and hurtful matter, and a special point of great indiscretion in Pope Vigilius, that leaving Rome, that holy City, he would go to Constantinople, and to the Emperor's Court, which his predecessors, Leo and others, in very great wisdom would never do, not go into the East, nor suffer themselves to be pulled away from their See fixed at Rome. 2. Truly, I never knew before that there was such virtue in the Roman, or such venom in the Constantinopolitan soil, or in the Eastern air, specially seeing the holy Land and the holy City, and the holy Temple were all in the East: All the Western nations are beholding to the Cardinal for this conceit; 2 King. 5.17. Shall there not be given to thy servant two Mules load of this Romish earth? But let us a little more fully see why the Pope, and particularly Vigilius might no● go to Constantinople. Oh, saith the Cardinal d Bar. loc. cit. , it is found by experience, that the Pope's going from Rome to the Court, obfuisse haud modicum, hath done great hurt to the Church; for then partly by the threats, and partly by the favours and fair entreaties of Emperors, as it were with two contrary winds, the ship of Peter is exposed to great hazard. Modicae fidei, fie, a Cardinal to fear or distrust any wrack of Saint Peter's ship, though never so dangerous a tempest happen, though, una Eurusque, Notusque ruant, creberque procellis Africus. S. Peter hath left such a Pilot in his Rome, that a thousand times sooner might he himself, than his ship sink, Pasce oves, tues Petra, & oravi pro te Petre, will uphold it against all wind and weather: And truly I would gladly know of his Cardinalship for my learning, how any of their Popes can forsake their See or Rome. They have heretofore held it for a maxim, e Sententia illae omnium ore versata, Vbi Papa, ibi Roma. Bar. an. 552. nu. 10. ubi Papa, ibi Roma, let the Pope go to Peru, yea, ultra Garamantas & Indos, he hath a privilege above all creatures but the Snail; he carrieth not only their infallible Chair, but the whole City of Rome on his back, whithersoever he goes. If not so, or if the Chair be fixed to Rome, where sat all their Popes for those seventy years f Clemens 5. propter seditiones Italicas sedem Pontificiam ab urbe Roma, Avionem Galliae u●bem, ubi successores man●●re annos 70. transtulit. Geneb. in Chron. in an. 1305. , when they were at Avinion? or how shall they sit in the Chair, when their Babylonish Rome for her Idolatries shall be burnt with unquencheable fire, and sink like a Millstone into the bottom of the Sea? which being foretold by Saint john, of the Roman City, which yet remaineth, as their own jesuit Ribera g johannes in omnibus quae de Babylone loquitur, adversus urbem Romanam vaticinatur, etc. Rib. Com. in ca 14. Apoc. nu. 57 et Vicarius Christi ubicunque sit, erit Episcopus Roma, etiamsi illa penitus excisa sit. Ibid. nu. 48. doth truly and undeniably demonstrate, is a most certain Article of the Catholic faith, though they seldom think of it, and will hardly put it into their Creed. When their Pope (go whither he will) carrieth still with him his infallible Chair, was it not infidelity in the Cardinal to dream or doubt lest that ship should any where miscarry, more at the Court or King's Palace than in a Country Cottage, more in the Trullane than in the Lateran Temple? 3. Yea, but, usu rerum reperitur h Obfuisse haud modicum usu rerum repe●itur, Pontificum ab urbe profectio ad Comitatum. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55. , experience teacheth, that their going to the Emperor hath done exceeding hurt, and particularly for Vigilius, that his going to Constantinople hath brought i Ibid. , magnum damnum, great harm to the Catholic Church, declararunt eventa, the events have showed. Events and experience are the most woeful arguments in Divinity, that can possibly be devised. Measure the Gospel by temporal calamities which ensued upon it, the bloody murdering of the Apostles, of the Saints of God, almost for three hundred years together, and he may as well conclude, that the Gospel and truth of Christ is found by woeful experience to have brought exceeding great hurt to the Church. The Cardinal was driven to a narrow strait, and an exceeding penury of reasons, when he was forced to put, Argumentum ab eventu, for one of his Topical places. 4. But say, what hurt can he tell us that ever any Emperor's presence with the Pope, brought unto the Church? If both were Catholic, or both heretical, they agreed well enough together. As not Satan's, so much less is God's Kingdom divided against itself; if the Emperor Catholic, and the Pope heretical, the worst the Emperor ever did, was but to inflict just punishment on an heretic, the worst the Pope sustained was but a just recompense of his heresy and hatred of truth: The execution of justice never did, nor ever can hurt the Catholic Church. If the Emperor were heretical and the Pope orthodoxal, there was trial of the Pope's art & skill in converting such a man to the truth; trial of his constancy and love unto God's truth, whether by fear or favour he would forsake it: trial of his patience and fortitude in enduring all torments, even death itself, for his love to Christ. All the hurt which such an Emperor did, or could do, was to crown him a glorious Martyr, and in stead of the white garment of innocency, to send him in scarlet robes unto heaven; and woe be to that Church which shall think Martyrdom an hurt unto it, which was, and ever will be the glory of the Catholic Church. Non decet sub spinoso capite membrum esse delicatum, when Christ, his Apostles, and glorious Saints, and Martyrs, have gone before upon thorns and briers, we must not look to have a silken way, strewed with Roses and Lilies, unto the Kingdom of God. This, which is yet the very worst that can befall any Catholic, Reu. 14.13. is no harm to him who hath learned that lesson, Blessed are they which die in the Lord; so whether Pope and Emperor be both of one, or of a different religion, his presence with the Emperor may happen to do good, but it is certain it can never possibly do hurt unto the Church. The greatest hurt that was ever done to the Church by this means, was when Constantine after his baptism by Pope Silvester, in lieu of his pains, and in token of a thankful mind, sealed unto him that donation k Donationis exemplar extat Dist. 96. ca Constantinus. of the Roman and Western Provinces: That one fable I must particularly except, for by it hath been lift up the man of sin, Christian Empires have been robbed, the ignorant seduced, the whole Church abused: Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him, as the most falsely supposed donation hath done to the Catholic Church. 5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinal in this reason drawn from the event, and the Emperor's presence. Some l Agapetus Barbarico c●●ctus Imperio, etc. Bar. an. 536. nu. 10. qui Agapeti profectionem eo anno contigisse probat. ten years before this, Pope Agapetus, being sent by Theodotus King of the Goths, came to Constantinople, and to the same Emperor: It so fell out, that at that time Anthimus an heretic and an intruder, held the Sea of Constantinople: Agapetus deposed him, that is, he declared and denounced (which was true indeed) that he was never lawfully Bishop of that See, and that himself did not, nor ought others to hold him for the lawful Bishop thereof; whereupon Mennas was chosen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his room. Vigilius was called by the Emperor, Agapetus sent by a Gothish usurper; Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxal Professor, Agapetus sent by an heretic and Arian King; Vigilius called purposely about causes of faith, Agapetus sent only about civil, and but casually intermeddling with Ecclesiastical causes. You would now even bless yourself to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu, & by it proves the Pope's presence at the same Court with the same Emperor, to have brought such an infinite & unspeakable good unto the Church, as could scarce be wished. Agapetus m Agapetus licet à Rege visus sit missus ad Imperatorem, à Deo tamen proficisci missus apparuit, ut impertaret imperantibus, etc. Bar. an. 536. nu. 12. no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth, but even from God himself, and by him commanded to go thither with an errant from heaven; he seemed to be sent to entreat of peace, but he was commanded by God to go, ut imperaret imperantibus, that he should show himself to be an Emperor above the Emperor: He, like Saint Peter n Illud ipsum firme contigit Agapeto, quod olim Petro, etc. Ibid. nu. 13. , had not gold nor silver being fain to pawn the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey, but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles. Now was demonstrated o In his omnibus peragendis summa potestas Apostolicae sedis Antistitis demonstratae est, etc. Ibid. nu. 22. the highest power of the Pope, that without any Council called about the matter, as the custom is, he could depose a Patriarch, (at other times he may not have that title) and a Patriarch of so high a See as Constantinople, and so highly favoured by the Emp. & Empresses. Now was demonstrated p Ibid. nu. 23. , that, Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet, that the Pope's power is above all Canons, for hereby was showed, that he by his omnipent authority may do matters with the Canons, without the Canons, against all Canons; & seeing his judgement was without a Synod, (which in a Patriarches cause is required) fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem, it was according to his supreme authority, which is transcendent above all Canons; or to use Bellarmine's q Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 18. Pontifex et Princeps Ecclesiae summus, potest retractare judicium Concilij, et non sequi majorem partem. phrase, he did show himself to be, Princeps Ecclesiae, one that may do against the whole Church. Nay, if you well consider r Bar. an. 536. nu. 31. , admirari non desines, you will never cease to wonder, to see that Agapetus a poor man, as soon as he came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus, corum facta rescindere, jura dare, omnibusque jubere, to command Emperors, to adnul their Acts, to depose a Patriarch and thrust him from his throne, to set another there, to set down laws, and command all men, and to do all this without any Synod: & such a Pope s Ibid. nu. 70. was Agapetus, that I know not, an similis alius inveniri possit, whether such another can be found among them all. Thus declameth Baronius. Where think you, all time was the Cardinal's argument ab adventu? Experience teacheth, that when Popes leave their See, and go to the Court or Emperor's presence, the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazard: If Agapetus his coming to Constantinople or to the Emperor did not hazard or endanger the Church, how came it to be perilous a few years after in Vigilius? and where were now the most wise examples of Pope Leo and the other, who in great wisdom could never be drawn to the East, and from their own See? how was the holy Church now fixed to Rome, when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople? perceive you not how these arguments lie asleep in the cause of Agapetus, which the Cardinal rouseth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople? This, ab adventu, as all the Cardinal's Topicke places, is drawn from the art and authority of Esop's satire: If they make for the Pope, as the event did in Agapetus, than the Cardinal with his Satyr's blast will puff them up and make them swell to demonstrations: But if they make against the Pope, as did the event in Vigilius, all arguments in the world drawn from the cause, effect, or any other Topical or demonstrative place, the Cardinal with a contrary breath can turn them all to Sophistications. He is another jannes' or jambres of this age, when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharaoh, it shall sting like a Serpent, when it is used against King Pharaoh it shall be as dull and dead as a stick. 6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the coming of Vigilius to Constantinople? what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with justinian? Sure the Cardinal in good discretion should have expressed them, at least some one of them, but he was too politic to open such secrets of their State; for mine own part I cannot but first condemn his foul ingratitude in this point. Vigilius before he came to Constantinople, was earnest in oppugning the truth, and Catholic faith, by defending of the Three Chapters, he defended them by words, by writings, by censures, by the utmost of his power: All the hurt the Emperor did him was this, that he converted him to the truth, that he brought him to define, by an Apostolical Constitution, that truth which before he oppugned, and in this tune the Emperor kept him for five or six years together, but then when his old fit of heresy came upon him again, when at the time of the general Council he forsook the Emperor's holy faith, his communion, and, as may be thought, even his company and presence also, by this absence from the Emperor, he relapsed quite from the Catholic faith, even from that which before he had defended and defined, so long as he kept society with the Emperor. When the Emperor's presence made heretical Pope Vigilius for the space of five or six years a Catholic Pope, (at least in show and profession) do you not think Baronius to deal unkindly with the Emperor in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperor, that is in effect to blame, and little less than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresy, and embraced or made profession of the Catholic faith. 7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius in particular by his coming to Constantinople, so there is another and public benefit which ensued thence to the whole Church, and that so great and so happy, that if we should (as the Cardinal doth) measure things by the event, the coming of Agapetus to Constantinople, though they glory therein more than in any other example of antiquity, is no way comparable to this of Vigilius, for by this coming of Vigilius it was demonstrated by evident experience, that the Pope may say and gainsay his own sayings in matters of faith, and then define ex Cathedra, both his sayings, that is, two direct contradictories to be both true, seeing Pope Vigilius, first, while he temporised with the Emperor defined ex Cathedra, that the Three Chapters ought to be condemned, and after that, when it pleased him to open the depth of his own heart, defined the quite contrary ex Cathedra, that the Three Chapters ought to be defended. By it was further demonstrated, that the Pope may not only be an heretic, but teach also and define and that ex cathedra, an heresy to be truth, and so be a convicted, condemned, and anathematised heretic, by the judgement of an holy general Council, and of the whole Catholic Church. These and some other like conclusions of great moment for the instruction of the whole Church of God, are so fully, so clearly, so undeniably demonstrated in the cause of Pope Vigilius, when he came to Constantinople, that had the Cardinal or his favourers (I mean the maintainers of the Pope's infallibility,) grace to make use thereof for the opening of their eyes in that main and fundamental point, wherein they are now so miserably blinded, they might have greater cause to thank God for his coming thither, than for the voyage of Agapetus, or of any other of his predecessors undertaken in many years before. 8. Where are now the great hurts and inconveniences which the Cardinal fancieth by Vigilius his coming to the Emperor? Truly I cannot devise, what one they can find, but the disgrace only of Vigilius, in that upon his coming he showed himself to be a temporizer, a very weathercock in faith, a dissembler with God and his Church, pretending for five or six years that he favoured the truth, when all that time he harboured in his breast the deadly poison of that heresy, which as before his coming he defended, so at the time of the Council he defined. This blot or blemish of their holy Father, neither I, nor themselves, with all the water in Tiber, can wash or ever wipe away. The best use that can be made of it, is, that as Thomas disinherited, to make others faithful and void of distrust; so God, in the infiniteness of his wisdom, permitted Pope Vigilius to be not only unconstant, but heretical in defining causes of faith, that others by relying on the Pope's judgement as infallible, might not be heretical: and yet even for this very fact, thus much I must needs say, that if the Cardinal think it was the place, or the City of Constantinople, that wrought this disgraceful effect in Vigilius, it may be truly replied unto him much like as Themistocles t Cic. lib. de Senect. did to the foolish Seriphian, ascribing his own ignobility to the baseness of the town of Seriphus, certainly though Silvester, julius, and Calestine had been never so oft at Constantinople, they had been orthodoxal and heroical Bishops; but Vigilius heretical and ignoble, though he had been nailed to the posts of the Vatican, or chained to the pillars of it as fast as Prometheus to Caucasus. The soil and air is as Catholic at Constantinople, as in the very Lateran; it is as heretical in Rome, as in any City in all the world. The only difference is in the men themselves, the former, where ever they had come, carried with them constant, heroical, and truly pontifical minds; Vigilius in every place was of an ambitious, unstable, dissembling, hypocritical, and heretical spirit: which that every one may perceive, I will now in the last place, and in stead of an Epilogue to this whole Treatise, set down a true description of the life of Vigilius: partly because it may be thought a great wrong to reject the narration of Anastasius, and not some way to supply that defect, touching the life of so memorable a Pope as was Vigilius; partly with a true report of this heretical Pope's life, to requite the labour of Baronius, in his malicious slanders of the religious Emperor justinian; and specially because Vigilius being the subject, (in a manner) of this whole Treatise, it seems to me needful to express the most material circumstances, touching the entrance, the actions, the end of him, who hath occasioned us to undertake this so long, and as I truly profess, both laborious and irksome labour. 9 I confess I have no good faculty in writing their Pope's lives, Nec fonte labra prolui Caballino, nec in bicipiti somniasse Parnassus memini; I have not tasted of their streams of Tiber, more holy than Helicon, nor ever had I dream or vision in their sacred Parnassus; yet with their leave will I adventure to set down some parts of the life of Vigilius, which do afford as much variety of matter, and are as needful to be known and remembered, as any other of that whole rank from S. Peter to Paul the fifth. 10. That many of their Popes have unjustly climbed up to S. Peter's Chair, I think none so unskilful as not to know, none so malicious as to deny: But whether any of them all, I except none, not the boy-Pope u De quo O●bo Imperator dixit postquam sedisset 8. annos, Puer est: erat enim cum invasit sedem non nisi annorum 18. Bar. an. 955. nu. 1. & 2. Cujas electioni lex nulla suffragata est, sed vis & metus omnia impleverunt. ibid. n. 3. john the 12. not the Fox x De quo dicitur, Intravit ut vulpes, regnavit ut lo, mortuus est ut Canis. Geneb. in suo Chron. ad an. 1303. Boniface, not Silvester the second, who had it y Pontificatum adjuvante diabolo consequ●tus est, hac tamen lege, ut post mortem totus illius esset. Plat. in Silu. 2. by a compact with the Devil, of whom he purchased it with the gift of his soul; not john the 23. called a Devil incarnate z johannes inter Christi sideles, vitam & mores ejus cognoscentes, vulgariter dicitur Diabolus incarnatus. Conc. Consten. Sess. 11. pa. 1579. , not any else; whether any of them all, I say, obtained the See with more impiety, or greater villainy than Vigilius, may be justly doubted. He, intending to be a good cammock, began (according to the Proverb,) to hook and crook betimes, and gape after that eminent Throne. His first attempt a Contra jura canonica, temporibus Bonifacij Papae, ipso vivente, successor ●jus designari conabaris. Epist. 1. Silverij quae est ad Vigilium. was in the time of Boniface the second, with whom he prevailed so far, that when Boniface b Bonifacius 2. congregavit Synodum, & fecit Constitutum ut sibi successorem nominaret, quo Constituto, cum chirographis Sacerdotum, et jurejurando, Diaconum Vigilium constituit. Anast. in vita Bonif. 2. in a Roman Synod had made a Constitution that he should nominate his successor, before them all he named and constituted Vigilius to succeed to himself: for the performance of which, both he and all the rest of the Synod did bind themselves, both by subscription, and by a solemn oath. Vigilius seemed for a while to be cocksure of the See: but it fell out contrary to his expectation at this time: the Senate of Rome justly withstood (as Pope Silverius c Amplissimi Senatus tibi obviavit justiti●. Silu. Epist. 1. witnesseth) that nomination. It may be they knew the crooked disposition of Vigilius, how unfit he was to make a Bishop: nor the Senate only, but the Ecclesiastical Canons resisted it: Thou endeavouredst this contra jura canonica, saith Pope Silverius d Ibid. , against the Canonical right. The Itaian laws also resisted it at that time; Theodorick e Electionem Rom. Pontificis ad Regem spectare Theodoricus statuerat. Bar. an 531. nu 2. , and after him Odoacer f Basilius' vices agens Odoacrit dixit, Admonitione beatissimi Papae Simplicij, hoc nobis sub obtestatione meministis fuisse mandatum, ut non sine nostra consultatione, bujusmodi (Pontificis) celebretur electio. Conc. 4. sub Symmach●. Et, lex una Odoacris erat, ut obsque consultatione & consensio Regis Italiae, electio summi Pontisicis fieret. Bin. Notis in illud Conc. 4. , having enacted, and that as they affirm by the advice of Pope Simplicius, electionem Romani Pontificis ad Regem spectare, that the election of the Pope should belong to the King; and that no election should be made without the consent of the King of Italy, as by the fourth Roman Council under Symmachus doth appear: For which cause Boniface called a second Synod to Rome, wherein he recalled g Bonifacius facta iterum Synodo reum se Majestatis confessus est quod Diaconum Vigilium constituisset, ac ipsum constitutum incendio consumpsit. Anast. in vit. Bonif. 2. his nomination of Vigilius, and burned his former Constitution, acknowledging himself (and by consequence all the rest of the former Synod) to be reus Maiestatis, guilty of high treason, for presuming to name Vigilius. This was the first onset of Vigilius, seeking the Papacy both by violation of the Canons, and treason against the King, and perjury of the Pope, and of the whole Synod, whom he had cunningly drawn to that snare, either by making him Pope to incur treason, or by defeating him of it to incur perjury. 11. Hâc non successit, he could not by such petty offences, as treason, perjury, and contempt of the Canons prevail: about he will again, and try another course, and that is by treason against Christ himself, and abnegation of the Catholic faith. For after the death, first of his old friend Boniface, then of john the second, then of Agapetus, who died at Constantinople; Vigilius, that he might effect his purpose, tampered and consulted with the Empress Theodora, who though of herself at that time she was too earnestly affected to Anthimus, and being by him seduced, sought for his cause to overthrow the Council of Chalcedon; yet Instigabat h Blood. Decad. 1. lib. 5. in inis●o. ardentem Vigilius; Vigilius incited her by his ambitious desires. She and Vigilius the Deacon having advised about the matter, and covenanted, it was concluded betwixt them, as Liberatus i Lib. in Brev. ca 22. showeth, that the Empress for her part should procure Vigilius to be Pope, and give him 700. pieces k Promittens dare centenaria septem, (●uta auri, nam duo ex bis centenaria auri Vigilius Bellisario promisit.) Lib. loc. ●it. Viden●ur autem falsse aurei illi qui a Valentiniano cusi Sextala nicebantur, quod essent sexta paers uncig. Aureus autem quisque tali. valebat de nostro nummo 10.3. ut observat doctissim. ver Ed●r. Breirwood. lib. suo de antiquis nummis. ca 15. Ita summa Vigilio promissa fuit 350. li. of gold; and that Vigilius for his part, and in recompense of so ample wages, and so great a reward, should when he were Pope, abolish l Augusta vocans Vigilium prositer● sibi sacreto ab eo flagitavit, ut si Papa fieret, tolleret Synodii, & fidem f●●●ret ●nthimo, &c Liber. loc. vit. and adnul for ever the Council of Chalcedon, and restore Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus, three Eutychean Bishops of their Sees. The words of Liberatus are very worthy observing: Libenter suscepit Vigilius promissum ejus, amore episcopatus, & auri; Vigilius gladly took the offer, for his desire both of the Popedom, and of the pounds of gold. O ambition, & auri sacra fames, what will not it effect in such a Balaam, such a ludas as Vigilius was? It was a very bitter scoff, and some touch also to the credit of Pope Damasus, that Praetextatus m Hier. Epist. ad Pammac●. adversus c●●. johannis Hieros. an heathen man said in derision of him, Facite me Romanae urbis Episcopum, & ero protinus Christianus, make me Pope, and I will be a Christian: But see the difference betwixt this heathen man and Vigilius; Praetextatus would renounce paganism, and become a Christian, so he might gain the Popedom thereby; Vigilius will renounce Christ and Christianity, and turn quite Pagan, to obtain the same honour. What think you would Vigilius have said to him that made the offer, Matth 49. All these will I give thee and fall down and worship me, when he was so glad for the offer of 700. pieces of gold, and the triple Crown; that for them only he undertakes, and binds himself in an obligation under his own hand to renounce Christ, and abandon out of the world the whole Catholic faith? Which is every whit as bad, if not all one with falling down to adore the Devil. Vigilius having now the Empress warrant, seemed sure and secure of the Papacy, and in this confidence he n Vigilius facta prosessione (Theodorae) Romam profectus est. Liber. loc. cit. posts from Constantinople to Rome: but it fell out so unhappily, that when he came, he found o Invenit Silverium, Papam ordinatum. Lib. Silverius placed by Theodotus, & holding quiet and peaceable possession of the See. This had been enough to have discouraged a faint heart: but Vigilius was of a better courage: though he found it not, he will make the See vacant. He comes to Bellisarius; Sinite me praeterire, how gladly would I pass by this fact and fault of Bellisarius, one for warlike prowess, wisdom, and success, inferior to no General that Rome ever had, by whom the Persians were subdued, the Vandals expelled Africa, the Goths out of Italy, the Empire restored with an overplus also to his pristine beauty and dignity! But it so falls out that all men, even the most praiseworthy, yea the most holy, Abraham, Lot, Samson, Peter, and the rest, they all have some blemish or other, like a mole or wart in a fair body, they must all be commended as God himself praised p 1 Reg. 15.5. David, with an exception of that one matter of Vriah: Peter a most holy Apostle, save only in the matter of denying Christ. Bellisarius, a most worthy and renowned man, save this one matter of Silverius. To this renowned Bellisarius comes Vigilius, and delivered unto him q Liber loc. cit. & misit Augusta ●ussiones suas ad Bellisarium per Vigilium Anast in vita Silver. praeceptum Auguslae, the Empress mandatory letters to make him Pope; and to persuade him more easily, knowing what strong operation gold had in himself, Duo r Liber. loc. cit ei auri centenaria promisit; he promised to part stakes with him, and give him two hundred pieces of gold. I wish any but Bellisarius had been the instrument of so vile an action. But so it was, either the command of the Empress, or the importunity of Vigilius, or both, caused him to condemn s Intentabat Silverio calumnian quasi Gothis scrip sisset ut Romam introirent. Liber. loc. cit. &, Exicrunt quidam falsi testes qui dixerw●●, Invenimus Silverium, etc. Anast. in vita Silu. Pope Silverius as guilty of treason, for practising to betray the Imperial City of Rome to the Goths, under pretence of which false accusation, (for I cannot assent to Marcellinus t Marc. in Chron. an. 547. Silverium faventem Vitigi, Bellisarius submovis. , who thinks Silverius guilty thereof) Silverius was expelled u Oborta suspicione Silverium defecturum ad Gothos transinisit in Graeciam Bellisarius, & Vigilium suffecit. Proc. lib. 1 de bell. Goth pa. 286 Belissarius mandavit eu ut alium Papam eligerent, & favore Bellisary ordinatus est Vigilius. Laber loc. cit. and thrust away, and then Vigilius by the same means of Bellisarius intruded himself, and slept into the Apostolical See, usurping it about two years x Hoc anno (548) expulsus est Vigilius. Bar an. 547. nu. ●1 obij● autem Silverius a. 540. Bar. an. 540 nu. ●. during the life time of Silverius: all which time he carried himself y Vigilius quae Pontificij muneru crant, exequi muni●e pratermisit. Bar. an. 538. nu. 21 for the only lawful Pope; as Pope he received z Haec eadem scripsissumus ad beat●ss. Papam sentoru Roma Vigilium. sic ait Iustinian suu liter● ad Menuquae extant apud Bar. an. 538. nu. 34 & 77. Illam autem epistolam mi same ram Mennam quà ad Vigilium, isto anno 547. ex ho. liquet, quod hae litera Concilium illiul Constantinopolitanum pracedit, in quo Origines daninatus est, nam Mennam adm●t●●● Imp. ut Synodum de hac re habeat. Ipist apud Bar. n. ●●. Come ilium autem illud habitum est isto anno. testatur Ear. an 538. nu. 31 & nu 83. Letters from justinian, as Pope he gave answer a Bar an. 538. nu. 21. & 25. Legitimorum Pontificum vestogijs insistit. and judgement to Etherius, to Caesarius b Epist. 2. Vigilij, apud Bin. pa. 482. , as true and Catholic, you may be sure, as if S. Peter had given them: the Chair would not permit him to speak amiss. 12. Now though it was too bad for any Pope, to enter into the holy throne of S. Peter, by open injustice, by slander, and false accusations, by a sacrilegious extrusion of the lawful Bishop, by Simony, by undertaking to restore condemned heretics, and to abolish the holy Council of Chalcedon, which is in effect utterly to abandon the whole Catholic faith; yet the sequel of his actions betrays further the most devilish mind of Vigilius. Who would have thought but that Vigilius would have kept touch, and performed his sacrilegious and simoniacal contract with the Empress and Bellisarius? Liberatus c Vigilius post ordinationem suam compellabatur a Bellisario ut impleret promisiionem suam Augusta, & sibo redderet duo auri centenaria promissa. Vigilius autem timore Bomonarum, & avaritia patro●●nante nolebat sponsiones suas implero. Liber. loc. cit. notes of him that he would do neither, not restore Anthimus, timore Romanorum, it was not out of conscience, he feared the people, he feared his own life: Not pay the 200. Centenaria to Bellisarius, avaritia patrocinante, better lose all his credit, faith, and honesty, than two hundred pieces of gold; better break his promise, than hurt his purse: But all this is nothing to his usage of Pope Silverius: Was it not enough to usurp and violently thrust himself into his See, to set up altar contra altar, Pope against Pope, S. Peter's Chair against S. Peter's Chair, but he must add indignities also to the holy Bishop? Had he permitted him to live in his own Country, in some quiet, though mean estate, it had been some contentment to innocent Silverius: But Vigilius could not endure that, away with him, out of Rome, out of Italy, out of Europe. So by Vigilius means is Silverius sent to Patara, a City in Licia e Pamp. Mel. in Lib. 1. in Licia. , once famous for the Temple and Oracle of Apollo f Vnde Patareu● Apollo dictus. Vad. in Pom. Mel. loc. cit. : there he is fed with the bread of tribulation, and with the water of affliction. But the rage of Vigilius was further incensed by two occasions, the former on Silverius part. He, though in exile, yet as then being the only true and lawful Pope, in a Council held * Silverius habito illic Concilio Episcoporum in Vigilium sententiam damnationis intorquet. Bar. an. 538. nu. 18. & Vigilio veniente Patarem venerabilis Episcopus, etc. Liber. loco cit. at Patara, by the authority of S. Peter, and the fullness of his Apostolical power, thundered out from Patara a sentence of excommunication, of deposition, of damnation against the usurper and invader of his See, Vigilius. Which being an authentic and undeniable record of the good conditions of Vigilius, and how fit a man he was to make a Pope, I will relate here some parts thereof. Pope g Silverij Epist. 1 quae est ad Vigilium pseudopapam. Silverius having told Vigilius how he sought against law to obtain the Papal dignity in the time of Boniface the second, adds this, At that h Viz. tempore Bonifacij. time the pastoral and pontifical authority should have cut away, execranda tua auspicia, thy execrable beginnings, but by neglect a little wound insanabile accrevit apostema, is become an incurable imposthume, which being senseless of other medicines, is to be cut off with a sword. For thou art led i Nequissimi spiritus audacia, ambitionis phrenesin concipiens. Silu. ibid. with the audaciousness of the most wicked fiend, thou art frantic with ambition, thou labourest to bring the crime of error or heresy into the Apostolic See; thou followest the steps of Simon Magus, whose disciple thou showest thyself to be, by thy works, by giving money, by thrusting out me, and invading my See: Receive thou therefore this sentence of damnation, sublatumque tibi nomen, & ministerium sacerdotalis dignitatis agnosce; and know that thou art deprived of the name, and all function of priestly ministry, being damned by the judgement of the holy Ghost, and by the Apostolic authority in us: for it is fit, ut quod habuit amittat, that he should lose that which he hath received, who usurps that which he hath not received. Thus Silverius: who being then the only true Pope, pronounced this sentence of deprivation, of degradation, and damnation out of the highest authority of their Apostolic Chair: which alone is so authentical a testimony, of the most execrable conditions of Vigilius, that if I said no more, few Logicians I think would complain that the description of Vigilius were imperfect, being so fully, so plainly, and so infallibly expressed, both by his Genus, a damnable and damned intruder, and by his four differences, or at least properties, heretical, schismatical, simoniacal, Satanical. 13. This no doubt moved the choler of Vigilius not a little, to hear such a thundering from Patara, as if Apollo were there set again on his sacred trevet. But the other accident was far worse than this. For perhaps Vigilius had learned that maxim which Lewis k Con●in. of the History of France, collect▪ by Thomas Da●net, in Lewes 11 in fine. the French King sometime uttered, That he who feared the Pope's curse should never sleep a quiet night. Many other Catholics, and among them the Bishop of Patara grieved much to see the injury and ignominy of the innocent and miserably afflicted Bishop Silverius, went l Venerabilis Patarae Episcopus venit ad Imperatorem, & jud. cium Dei contestatus est, de tantae sedis expulsione, etc. Liber. loc. cit. to the Emperor to plead on his behalf; declaring both his innocency and extreme oppression. The Emperor whose delight it was to do justice to all, and relieve the innocent, especially sacred persons, and most of all the Pope, was so affected therewith, that he commanded that m Imperator revocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis (à Silverio ut aiebant ad Gothos scriptis) judicium fieri, ut si prob●retur etc. Liber. loc. cit Silverius should be brought again from exile to Rome, and that there should be taken a melius inquirendum of the whole cause, and if he were found guilty of the treason objected, than he should be for ever exiled; if innocent, he should be restored to his See, which Vigilius then usurped. Silverius n Praevalente Imperatoris jussione Silverius ad Italiam reduclus est. Liber. ibid. was hereupon brought back with speed, and being come as near as Italy, Vigilius was then nettled indeed, and fearing o ●ujus adventu territu● Vigilius n●se●i● pel●er●lur, Bellisario mandavit, Trade mibi Vigilium, alloquin non possum facere, quod ● me exig●. Liber. ibid. to be dethroned, he bestirs himself, and stirs every stone. Then he comes again in very earnest manner to Bellisarius, and tells him he will now perform all his covenants, if he would deliver Silverius to his custody. By which solicitation Silverius the lamb was committed to the wolf, who (intending now to make as sure work with him, as he who said p Dictum Theodoti de Pomp. in, apud Plut. in vita Pomp. , mortui non mordent,) by two of q Ita Silverius traditus est d●●bus Vigilij servis, qui in Palmariam insulam adductus, sub corum custedia defecit in●●●a. Liber. loc. cit. his servants conveyed him out of Italy to the Island Palmaria, where after all other injuries, indignities, and calamities, he spared not the innocent life and soul of that holy Bishop, but murdered him by a kind of languishing death, namely by famine, which r Ferro saviur est lame. Veget. Vegetius and the Prophet s Lament. 4.9. Melius est mori gl●dio, quam ●●me. also judged worse than the sword. 14. And now that which only hindered Vigilius, being by a strong writ the ejectione mundi quite removed, there was none to make opposition against him, or hinder his exaltation to the Zenith of Pontifical dignity, but only God, and the sting of his own most guilty conscience, both which (though you may be sure he lightly regarded, yet) for abundant caution he by a fine fleight and policy will pacify and appease: for as hitherto he had played the Wolf and Tiger, so now you shall see him act the Fox: and that in so lively and native manner, that he meaneth to cozen not only all men, but his own conscience, and Almighty GOD himself. As he had murdered the true & lawful Pope Silverius, so in token of remorse he will needs die & kill himself also, being the usurping Pope: but his death is no other than they fancy of Antichrist the beast in the Apocalypse; he dyeth, but within few days he revives again. He considered he had entered violently & injuriously into the See; that he was as yet nothing but a mere intruder and usurper of it; the holy & conscionable man will not hold his dignity by so bad a title: and therefore t ●in. N●t. in vitam Vigilij. abdicat se pontificatu, he puts off his Popedom; & considering u Bar. an. 540. nu. 4. how he was blemished with Simony, heresy, murder, and other crimes, that he was also excommunicated and accursed, à sede male occupata descendit, he forsakes & comes down from the papal chair, and resigns the keys into the hands of S. Peter or Christ, and makes the See void, that there might be a new election of a lawful Pope. They shall choose freely whom they will, as for himself, either they shall bring him by a lawful election in at the door, or he (so conscionable is the Fox now become) will for ever stand without: climb in at the window he will no more; either Christ himself shall reach the keys unto him, that he may be his lawful Vicar, or open and shut who will for Vigilius. Thus by the death of Silverius, the true and lawful Pope, and by the abdication or resignation (which is a death in law) of the usurping Pope Vigilius, the See is wholly vacant, and that was, as Anastasius x Cessavit Episcopatus dies sex. Anast. in vit. Silu. Ex quibu● intelligas Vigilium qui sedem usurpasset ad hoc tempus, minimè diutius sedere perseverasse. Ba. an. 540. nu. 4 witnesseth, for the space of six days. 15. In this vacancy of the See Baronius not only tells you, that there was (which is not unlike) very great deliberation about the election of a new Pope, but, as if he had been present in the very conclave at that time, or as if by some Pythagorical metempseuchosis the souls of some of those Electors, coming from one beast to another, had at last entered into the Cardinal's breast, declares their whole debatement of the matter, pro & con, what was said for Vigilius, what against Vigilius; which kind of poetry, if any be pleased with, they may have abundance of it in his Annals; for myself, I told you before I never dreamt as yet in their Roman Parnassus, that I dare presume to vent such fictions & fancies: In that one he sounded the depth indeed both of Vigilius counsels, and of the consultations of the Electors; Of Vigilius he saith y Bar. an. 540. nu. 5. quod Vigilius id fecerit tanquam representans in scena comoediam, non ex animo, facile mihi persuadeo. , that he gave over the Popedom, not with any purpose to leave it, but, as it were, to act a part in a comedy, and seem to do that which he never meant, & that he did it, z Bar. ibid. nu. 4. Et, vaser homo, hujusmodi sibi viam aperiendam curavit, ut ob perpetrata delicta eijci inde num. quam posset, securus de Bellisarij voluntate, etc. Bar. an. cod. 540. nu. 5. fretus potentià Bellisarij, quod esset eum mox iterum conscensurus; because he knew, that by the means of Bellisarius he should shortly after be elected and placed in it again; or, to use the Cardinals own comparison, he did not play a Haud dubiam jecit aleam, cum sciret eandem quam vellet, facië redituram. Bar. ib. nu. 5. at mum chance, but knowing how the election would go after he had given over, haud dubiam jecit aleam, he knew what his cast would be, and what side of the Die would fall upward, he knew his cast would be better than jactus venereus, it would be the cast of the triple Crown; As for the Electors b Clerus longè abhorret, ut hominem tot criminibus implicatum in sedem eveheret Pontificiam, id praesertim saeris Ecclesiae legibus prohi●enlibus, et omnes, ut ab execrando facinore, ab ejus electione, long longius abhorrent. Bar. an. 540. nu. 7. he tells us, that they chose him not for any worth, piety, virtue, or such like Pontifical qualifications, (of which they saw none in him) but to avoid c Contra, acturatius rom expendentes manifestè cernebant si aliquem clium esigerent, scindendam mox sore Ecclesiam diro schismate, ideo divinitus inspirato consilio evebunt ipsum in Pont. thr●n●, &c Bar. an. 540. nu. 7. & 8. a schism in the Church, because they knew if they should choose another, the Empress and Bellisarius would maintain the right of Vigilius, and as they had thrust him in, so they would uphold and maintain him in the See, and for this cause, at the instance of Bellisarius, they all with one consent chose their old friend Vigilius, and now make him the true and lawful Pope, the undoubted Vicar of Christ, which was a fine cast indeed at the Dies. 16. Now though this may seem unto others, to demonstrate great baseness and pusilanimity in the Electors at that time, who fearing a little storm of anger or persecution, would place so unworthy a man in the Papal throne, and though it testify the present Roman policy to be such, that if Simon Magus, nay, the devil himself can once but be intruded into their Chair, & put in possession thereof, he shall be sure to hold it, with the Electors consent, if he can but storm and threaten in a pilate's voice to incense the Emperor, or some potent King to revenge his wrong, if they ever choose any other; yet the Cardinal who was privy to the mysteries of their Conclave, commends d Bar. ibid. nu. 8. this for salubre consilium, a very wholesome advice; & wisely was it done to choose Vigilius, nay, as if that were too little, he adds, it was, Divinitus inspiratum consilium, God himself inspired this divine council from heaven into their hearts, rather to choose an ambitious, an hypocritical, a simoniacal, a schismatical, an heretical, a perfidious, a perjured, a murderous, a degraded, an accursed, a diabolical person to be their Pope, rather than hazard to sustain a snuff of Bellisarius, or a frown of Theodoraes' countenance. Howsoever, chosen now Vigilius was by common consent; and solennibus e Bar. ibid. ritibus, made the true and lawful Pope from thence forward, and with all solemnity of their rites placed in the Papal throne, and put, not only in the lawful, but quiet and peaceable possession thereof, the whole Roman Church approving and applauding the same. Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires he so long gaped and thirsted after: At the first onset he sought the Papacy, but got it not; at the second turn he got it, but by usurpation and intrusion only; but now at this third and last bout he hit the mark indeed, he got the rightful possession of it, and is now become what he would be, the true Bishop of Rome, and Vicar of S. Peter. 16. I have stayed somewhat long in the entrance of Vigilius, and yet because I have set down no more but a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a naked & undecked narration, or as it were, only rough hewed; I must pray the reader that he will permit me to set down some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinal Baronius, for though all men knew him to be one, whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oil, and who will be sure to say no more ill of any of them, than mere necessity and evidence of truth enforceth him, yet so unfit am I to write their Pope's lives, that for want of fit terms I am enforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Description of Vigilius; hear then no longer me, but the great Cardinal, the dear friend of Vigilius, telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope: hear him defining Vigilius in this manner; He was an ambitious f Ab ambitioso Diacono procurata. Bar. an. 538. nu. 9 Deacon, who by a mad g Insana cupiditate flagrans ambitione Vigilius. Ibid. nu. 5. desire, burned with pride, whom thirst h En in quod barathrum in foelicem hominem conjecit ambitio, in quantam insaniam, & insamiam adegit eum vana gloriae cupido, cujus causa cogatur in ipso portu pati naufragium, & in Petra Petrae scandalum esse, et in fide infidlem huberi. Ibid. nu. 17. of vain glory drove into madness, and into the hellish gulf, by means whereof he makes shipwreck in the very haven, becomes a Rock of offence, and seems an infidel in faith; a bondslave i Se Theodorae Augustae instar mancipij turpissimè vendidit. Bar. an. 540. nu. 8. to impious and heretical Theodora, that is, to Megaera k Accipiat (Theodora) nomen potius ab inferis, Allecto, vel Megaera, vel Tisiphone nuncupanda. Bar. an. 535. nu. 63. , to Allecto and the hellish furies, who, with Lucifer, desired to ascend l Dum sursum ascendere meditatur, deorsum demergitur. An. 538. nu. 18. into heaven, and exalt his throne above the Stars, but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes, falls down into the depth, which crimes with Cain m Vagetur necesse est cum Caine qui intus clausum habet, quod eum agit in adversa, peccatum. Ibid. he having so enclosed in his breast, must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond: unsavory salt n Quid reliquum esse potuit salu insatuati, nisi ut conculcetur et proijciatur in flerquilinium haeresum. An. 538. nu. 17. , worthy by all to be trodden under foot, and cast into the dunghill of heresies, who had got unto him the stench o Putorem contraxit haereticae pravitatis. Ibid. of heretical pravity, who bond himself p Pactis conventis conscripta jurataque haereticorum defensio. An. 540. nu. 4. by an obligation under his own hand, yea by his oath also, to patronise heretics, who promised q Augusta Vigilium sibi profiteri flagitavit, ut tolleret Synodum, lubenter suscepit Vigiliu● promissum ejus. Haec cum ipso sacrilega f●●mina molita est. An. 536. nu. 123. to abolish the faith and Council of Chalcedon. It was the just judgement r Ita plarè sententiâ Domini judicatur à fide excidere qui gloriae mancipium se constituit. An. 538. nu. 17. of God that he should fall from the faith, who became a Vassal to vain glory, a schismatic s Vigilij schismatici, an. 538. nu. 20. , a Symoniacke t Alienae sedis emptor. Ibid. et Symoniaca labes eum deturpavit. An. 540. nu. 4. , a murderer u Silverij necis cooperatio ●um redarguit. Ibid. , whose sacrileges x Clamantibus undique sacrilegijs, an. 538. nu. 19 cried unto heaven, an usurper y Silverij viventis seriem us●rpasse, & malis artibus nactum esse, imo & inv●sisse ●um intelligit, an. 540. nu. 4. violentus intrusor, an. 538. nu. 11. , a violent invader, an intruder of the Apostolic See, a bastard z Agit Rom. Pontificem, quamvis spurius, et penitus illegitimus, an. 538. nu. 21. and unlawful Pope, whom the true and lawful Pope hath bound a Sciens cunctos sibi subjectos, quos vel abso. vat, vel aeternis vinculis obliget, authoritate, etc. an. 539. nu. 4. with eternal chains, against whom he hath shot the dart b Adversus Romanae Ecclesiae invasorem, spuriunque intrusum Pontificem, validè telum damnationis intorquet, an. 539. nu. 4. of damnation, and showed to the whole world that he ascended into the throne, ut lapsu graviore ruat, that he might have a greater and more shameful fall, that he did not represent c Silverius ostendit universo orbi, Vigilium non referie Simonem Petrum, sed Magun, neque Vic●rium Christi, sed Antichristum. Ibid. , nor was the successor of Simon Peter, but of Simon Magus, and that he is the Vicar not of Christ, but of Antichrist, an Idol d Cernebaut quod ru●sus Idolum collocandum esset in Templo. conspiciendamque abominationem desolationis slantem in loco sancto, an. 540. nu. 7. , even the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, and set up in the temple of God; one rightly e Quonem alio nomine quam lupus, fur et latre, Pseudoepiscopus, ac denique Antichristus jure potuit appellari? an 538. nu. 20. to be called by no other name than a Wolf, a Thief, a Robber, a Pseudobishop, and even Antichrist: and, which after all the rest is especially to be remembered as the close of the Cardinal's Description, all this time Vigilius f Cum Vigilij personam satis perspectam haberent, cum ●empe esse hominem revera Catholicum, an. 540. nu. 8. both was, and was known to the Electors, to be a very sound and true Catholic. A true Catholic? Such Catholics indeed doth the Cardinal describe and commend unto the world; a Catholic Schismatic, a Catholic heretic, a Catholic Antichrist, a Catholic Devil: If such were their Roman Catholics and Catholic Popes in those ancient times, O gracious God, what manner of Catholic Popes are they in these ages? Then, and until the year 600, was the golden age of the Church, their Roman Bishops were then like the head of Nebuchadnezzers Image to the late and modern Popes, Vigilius a golden Bishop indeed to the brazen, iron, and clayish Popes of these later ages, the baseness of which no tongue or pen can express; when the gold is so full of dross, when the heads, which give life, motion, and being to all the rest, are so full of abomination, what manner of Catholics think you are the arms, the legs, the feet and tails of that their Babylonish Image, which all must be proportionable? But let us return to Vigilius, whom, I hope, you will now confess to be exactly and graphically described by the pencil of their own Apelles. 17. After his instalment, we are to come to his Acts and gests; those, I confess, are very few in number, they are but two. Anastasius a man slavishly addicted to the Papal See, was the chief compiler of his life, which had a man of integrity and indifferency writ, it is not unlike but many other matters had been recorded of Vigilius, yet those two are very memorable, and such as most nearly touch the Pontifical office. The former concerns the performance of that promise which Vigilius made to Theodora, that when he were Pope he would abolish the Council of Chalcedon, and restore Anthimus, Severus, and other Eutychean deposed Bishops: of it Liberatus g Lib. ca 22. writes, that Vigilius, implens promissionem suam quam Augustae fecerat, talem scripsit Epist. fufilling his promise which he had made to the Empress, writ this Epistle. Victor B. of Tunen, showeth h Vict. in Chron. also, that Vigilius by the means of Antonia the wife of Bellisarius, writ unto Theodosius of Alexandria, Anthimus of Constantinople, and Severus of Antioch, a good while since condemned by the Apostolic See, tanquam Catholicis, as unto Catholics, & signified, that himself was of the same opinion concerning the faith with them. The sum then of the Epistle of Pope Vigilius was to signify to these heretical and deposed Bishops, that himself was an Eutychean, as they were, the Epistle itself, set down both in Liberatus and in Victor, clearly testifieth the same, for therein Vigilius writeth thus, eam fidem quam tenetis, Deo adjuvante, & tenuisse me, & tenere significo, I signify unto you, that, by God's help, I have held, and do now hold the same faith which you do: but the Pope adds one clause further for secrecy, well worthy observing; O portet ut haec quae scribo nullus agnoscat, it is needful, that none know of these things which I write unto you, but rather your wisdom must have me in suspicion, more than any other, that so I may more easily effect, and bring to pass those things which I have begun. See you not here, as in a glass, the deep hypocrisy and heresy of Vigilius? with what subtlety and closeness he labours to undermine the Council of Chalcedon, and the whole Catholic faith, even then when he would seem to favour it, and therefore wisheth the Eutycheans to speak of him as one who they suspected most of all to be against them. Liberatus adds, that Vigilius under his Epistle writ a confession of his faith also, in qua duas in Christo damnavit naturas, wherein he condemned the teaching of two natures in Christ: and dissolving the Tome of Pope Leo, he said, non duas Christi naturas confitemur, we do not acknowledge two natures in Christ, but one Son, one Christ, one Lord composed of two natures, (to wit, two before the adunation) and again, qui dicit in Christo duas formas, whosoever saith that there are two forms or natures in Christ, either working according to his own property, and doth not confess one person, one essence, anathema sit, let such a man be accursed. Could Arius, Eutyches, or any heretic in the world more plainly condemn and accurse the Council of Nice, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, yea, the whole Catholic Church, and Catholic faith? It is here a fine sport to see how the two Cardinals, Baronius and Bellarmine, how other pettifoggers, such as Gretzer and Binius, do here bestir themselves to quit Vigilius of this blemish, and of the heresy and impiety taught in this Epistle. First, Vigilius writ not this Epistle, it is but a counterfeit and forgery: Next, if he did write it, yet he did it while he was an usurper, not when he was the true and lawful Pope. Lastly, he did not hereby embrace heresy ex animo, nor define it as Pope, but only by an exterior act he condemned the faith. Thus they toil themselves to wash the Ethiopian, and turn a Blackamoor into a mike white Swan. 18. Truly, I am exceeding loath now at the shutting up of this Treatise, and after sounding of the retreat, to enter into a new & fresh conflict, and prove Vigilius to have taught Eutycheanisme, as before I have showed, that he taught the quite contrary heresy of Nestorianisme, might I not say, Spectatum satis & donatum jam rude, tandem, Quaeritis hoc iterum antiquo me includere ludo? I have not now the like vigour of mind at the putting off of the armour, as at the first coming into the field; and, to say truth, what courage can I or any have to fight against a foiled enemy, which is but to cut off a dead man's head, by proving him to be an heretic, who is not only proved, but by most ample judgement and sentence of the whole Catholic Church, already condemned for an heretic? yet because I have a desire to handle this whole argument concerning Vigilius, if the reader be not as much tired as myself, after conquest of the general, I will, as Abner did, play a little with these straggling Asaels in this point also; or if you please to suffer me to give aim a while, I will only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commit the two Cardinals into the pit to fight it out, and day the matter betwixt themselves. 19 Commentitium est, it is a forged Epistle, saith Cardinal k Bar. an. 538. nu. 15. Baronius, it is none of Vigilius writing. I here one say so, saith Cardinal Bellarmine l Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 10. , but I say, Vigilium scripsisse illam Epistolam, & damnasse Catholicam fidem, that Vigilius did write that Epistle, and condemn the Catholic faith, Epistolam quidem scripsit nefariam, truly he writ m Bell. ca eod. that nefarious Epistle, unworthy of any Christian. Here is work indeed, saying against saying, Cardinal against Cardinal, and whether Cardinal is the stronger let the spectators consider: But the best sport is, that whereas Cardinal Baronius n Nomine Vigilij ab al quo Eutychiano esse suppositam, enque imperito, ex pluri●us colligi potest. Bar. an. 538 nu. 19 tells us, that this Epistle was written by some unskilful Eutychean heretic, and Cardinal o Bell. loc. cit. Bellarmine tells us, that it was writ by Vigilius, it followeth upon the two Cardinals sayings joined together, that Vigilius was both an heretic, and an unskilful Eutychean heretic. 20. From their words let us come to their strokes and sad blows, Causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione pugnet. Cardinal Bellarmine hath but one reason, but that is indeed a very sound one, like the Cat in the fable, which hath but one shift against the hounds; his reason p Bell. loc. cit. is the testimony of Saint q Breviarium collectum à sancto Liberato, sic inser●bitur apud Binium, to. 2. pa. 610. Liberatus who then lived, who not only testifieth Vigilius to have writ this, but sets down the very Epistle itself of Vigilius; and whereas some pretended both that Liberatus was corrupted by heretics, and that his narration was contrary to their Pontifical; the Card. tells us for a certainty, that there r Vestigium nullum apparet corruptioni in libro liberaci. Bell. is neither any footstep nor print of corruption in Liberatus, neither doth he s Revera non pugnat narratio Liberal, cum narratio●e Pontific●lis. Ibid. herein descent from the Pontifical. Cardinal Baronius boasteth t Plura s●nt q●ae persuadent. Bar. an. 538. nu. 15. et ex pluribus colligi potest. An. cod. nu. 19 of his reason, as the Fox did in the same fable, that he had a number of sleights and shifts to deceive the dogs; but the hounds coming suddenly upon them both, the Cat skipped into a tree, which was her only policy, and there she saw the Fox with all his hundreth wiles torn in pieces: even such are Cardinal Baronius his sleights in this cause, he hath many, but never a one that is worth a Rush, none that would save from tearing if the hounds should happen to come upon him. His first is, because the u Bar. an. 538. nu. 19 Acts of the sixth general Council do show, that heretics had counterfeited some Epistles in the name of Vigilius, and particularly those books, which are said to be writ from Vigilius to justinian and Theodora of blessed memory. Thus say the Acts; To which the Card. assumes, sanc quidem inscriptio recitatae Epistolae; Truly the inscription of the Epist. recited in the name of Vigilius, ad Dominos, to my Lords, doth demonstrate that it was written to Iust. and Theodora. Alas that this must be one of the Cardinal's shifts, and that it must be for the worth of it styled x Inscriptio ad Dominos, demonstrate hanc Epistolam scriptam esse ad Iust. et Theodoram. Bar. ibid. a demonstration: Why, there needs here, neither mastiff nor hound, any beagle or brach will rend this reason into 20. pieces. First, what meant the Cardinal to express the words of the sixth Council, where Theodora is called an Empress of blessed memory? had he forgot what in another place y Bar. an. 54●. nu. 24. he said, that she died miserably, being blasted by the Pope's thunderclap? Again what a demonstration is this, some Epistles were forged in the name of Vigilius, ergo, this is forged. A pari, some books are forged, the Cardinal's Annals are some books, ergo, they are all forged; or some man is as wise as Chorebus, ergo, so is the Cardinal. Take heed, I pray you, the hounds sent not these consequences of the Cardinal, grounded on that old maxim, A particulari non est Syllogisari. Further yet, what a reason call you this; some books sent in Vigilius name to justinian and Theodora, were forged, ergo, this Epist. is forged. It is a demonstration, à baculo ad Angulum, for this Epistle was writ neither to justinian, nor to Theodora, but to Anthimus, Theodosius and Severus; The Cardinal may know this clearly by Victor, who testifieth the same in express words; he might have perceived it by Liberatus, who saith, that Vigilius writ this Epistle to heretics; whereas not Pope Leo himself was more orthodoxal in this point than justinian, as besides infinite other proofs, is evident both by his Epistle z Constitutio justiniani vocatur. Extat autem post finem Conc. Constantinopolitaniss sub Menna. 10.2. pa. 469. to Mennas, confirming the deposition of Anthimus, and by that his Epistle a Epistola illa ad Epiphanium extat. Leg. 7. Cod. de summa Trin. written to Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, four b Data est ea Epist. Iust. 3. Consul. Is est an. 533. years before Silverius was expelled, wherein he professeth to embrace all the four Counsels, and he anathematizeth all that are anathematised by any of them, declaring that he will not permit within his Empire any that oppugned those Counsels. But for all this the Card will prove by the Inscription c Sane quidem Inscriptio demonstrat. Bar. an. 538. nu. 19 of this Epistle, that it written to justinian and Theodora. What if it were? can he prove withal that no other Epistle or book was writ to them in the name of Vigilius? No, he never offers to prove that, and till that be proved his reason at the best is but à particulari, some Epistle writ in the name of Vigilius to justinian and Theodora was forged, ergo, this; some man deserves a whet stone, ergo, so doth the Cardinal. Besides this inconsequence, the Antecedent is so false that I am ashamed to take the renowned Cardinal so tripping in his demonstration: The Inscription, saith he, demonstrates that it was writ to justinian and Theodora. Truly the Inscription demonstrates the Cardinal to be of no truth or credit at al. The Inscription in Liberatus (and him the d Bar. an. 538. nu. 13. Cardinal followeth) is Dominis & Christis e Sic habetur in Lib. ca 22. apud Bin. pa. 624. b. Vigilius, Vigilius to my Lords and Christ's. An Inscription indeed with a witness, and a lesson for the Cardinal; justinian Christ, Theodora Christ, and yet the Cardinal ranks the one Christ among the Furies of hell, the other Christ he condemns to the pit and torments of hell; what a Cardinal to be so malicious and spiteful against Christ, and Christ's? 21 The Inscription, saith the Cardinal, points f Demonstrat. at justinian and Theodora: I rejoice to see the Cardinal once so charitably affected, as to think justinian to be Christ, Theodora Christ, let all applaud the Cardinal in this saying; seldom shall you take him, nor will he long persist in so good a mood or mind. The Inscription of the Epistle is to Christ's, the Inscription demonstrates and points at them, as the Cardinal tells us; Christ's then they were, Christ's they are against the spite of all slandering tongues, Christ's let them be, and with Christ let them rest for ever. But will you now see a fine sleight indeed of the Cardinal, such as put down the Fox, and Cat, and all. Truly, saith he, the Inscription, ad Dominos, demonstrates, that this Epistle was writ to justinian and Theodora: why, what means this Inscription, ad Dominos? why doth the Cardinal clip away the one half of the Inscription? The Inscription in Liberatus is, Dominis & Christis; the Cardinal belike misdoubted by Christis could not be demonstrated justinian and Theodora, Christus is the Pope's prerogative, it demonstrates him, and therefore lest the Pope should frown upon the Cardinal for saying this Inscription, Dominis ac Christis, do demonstrate justinian and Theodora, he corrupts the Text, and maims the Inscription, and makes it to be but ad Dominos, and so the Inscription, ad Dominos, may well point at the Emperor and Empress. 22. Yet take the Cardinal's maimed Inscription as it is, doth this title, ad Dominos, demonstrate the Emperor? may not one write Domino, or ad Dominum, but only to the Emperor? how many thousand millions of Emperors will the Cardinal coin unto us? every servant, every prentice may write, Domino, or Dominis, unto their Master, and then by the Cardinal's demonstration you shall have Cobblers, and Tailors, and Weavers, and all Artificers in the world turned into Emp. and their wifes into Empresses, for, sanè quidem, verily this Inscription, ad Dominos, demonstrates that the Epist. is writ to the Emperor and Empress. Do you think, I say not, that Philosophers and Logicians, but any elementary boy that hath learned to decline Dominus can hold himself at the hearing of such demonstrations? But to put the matter out of all doubt, and demonstrate the other demonstration to be as idle a fancy as can devised, the Inscription which is but in brief set down by Liberatus, is fully and at large expressed by Victor, who lived and writ also at that time: The tenor (saith he g Vict. Tun. in Chron. sub an. 2. post Cons. Basilij. ) of Vigilius Epistle is proved to be thus, Bishop Vigilius, Dominis ac fratribus, to Theodosius, Anthimus and Severus Bishops, my Lords and brethren, joined to us in the love of Christ our Saviour: What is now become of the Demonstration, ad Dominos? how doth the Inscription, ad Dominos, sanè quidem, truly and verily demonstrate justinian and Theodora, when, together with Dominus, is expressly set down and named who those Domini were, to whom Vigilius writ, even three deposed heretical Bishops? 23. The Cardinal, and Binius h Bin. in not. ad Liberatum. § In historia. following him, will not yet let go this demonstration, but much please themselves in a new device; The Epistle, saith he i Bar. an. 538. nu. 19 Abhorret à consueto scribendi more, etc. et, quoduam unquam extitit praedecessorum exempsum, ut Imperatores Romanus Pontifex Patres nominaret. , is inscribed also ad Patres, now it is unusual for Popes to call Emperors their Fathers, and therefore sure it is but a counterfeit Epistle in Vigilius name: Why, but if Pope's do not use that term, it is their own fault, thy might justly so call Emperors, Emperors are the fathers of their whole Empire, and that in a more eminent manner than any other father, Imperial Fathers, commanding and compelling fathers, father's superior to all other fathers, even to all Pontifical fathers; but where, I pray you, is that Inscription Dominis ac Patribus? Not in Victor, not in Liberatus, at least not in the best Edition of him, not in that which Binius hath set forth, there the Inscription is fair, and clear, Dominis ac Christis; and yet so ridiculous was Binius, and so foolishly addicted to Baronius, that he proves this Epistle to be forged, because the Inscription is, Dominis ac Patribus, whereas himself in the lease before had set down the Inscription to be Dominis ac Christis, let it be Patribus: the Cardinal and Binius surely doted when they concluded, that the Epistle was writ to the Emperor, for as out of Liberatus, but most clearly out of Victor's words is demonstrated, it was writ to father Anthimus, father Theodosius, and father Severus: Vigilius might well call them Patres, when in the Inscription he called them Bishops k Dominis Theodosio, Anthimo et Severo Episcopis. Apud Victorem loc. cit. . 24. And certainly Baronius was conscious to himself, that this Epistle was writ to Bishops, not to the Emperor and Empress; for as misdoubting that this would, and justly might be replied to his demonstration, he adds l Bar. loc. cit. , Si dicas scriptum ad Episcopos, if you say the Epistle was written to Bishops, and not to the Emperor, yet even so it is a forgery also, and why? for, Qui novus iste mos est, what a novelty is it, and utterly unusual, that the Pope should call his fellow Bishops, Patres & Dominos? or if you say that it should be read fratribus, and not Patribus, yet certainly that procul abhorret, is very abhorrent, that he should call the same both brethren and Lords. What is the demonstration come now to rely upon this, It is new, It is unusual; as if nothing that is new or unusual were done or writ: It was new and unusual to thrust out and murder the true Pope, yet Vigilius did it for all the novelty thereof. Could Vigilius act a matter so horrible being new and unusual, and might not he write a phrase, or give a title being new and unusual? It is unusual, I trow, for Popes to call heretical Bishops, deposed by general Counsels, their brethren beloved in Christ, he that would honour deposed heretics with such loving terms, would he doubt to call them by an unusual title, Dominos ac Patres, or, Dominos ac Fratres? and yet neither of both is so unusual as the Cardinal would have it thought. In the Council at Bar m Guil. Malsbur. lib. 1. de gest. Pontif. Angl. pa. 127. , when the greeks disputed against the Pope Vrbane so eagerly against the procession of the holy Ghost, that the Pope was at a non plus, and unable to answer, being driven to that exigent, and remembering that Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury was in the Council, exclamat he cried aloud before the whole Council, Pater et Magister Anselme ubi es? Oh my father and Master Anselm where are you? come now and defend your mother the Church. And when after much crying and shouting, they brought him in presence among them, Pope Vrbane said, includamus hunc in orbe nostro quasi alterius orbis Papam; let us enclose him in our circle, as the Pope of the other world. Might not Vigilius do that to three Patriarches, which Vrbane did to an Archbishop? might not Vigilius call them fathers, as well as Vrbane called Anselm father and Master? Might not that be done secretly, and in a private letter which the Pope did openly in the audience of the whole Council? Is it more incongruity for the Pope to call the patriarch of Alexandria, or of Antioch, his father or Lord, than to call the Patriarch of England, father, master, yea, Pope in his own Patriarchal Diocese in England? 25. But the Cardinal still harps on a wrong string; Vigilius neither in the Inscription, subscription, nor body of the Epistle, called them fathers, but brethren: That title is given them indeed three or four times, both in Liberatus and in Victor, fraternitati vestrae, fraternitatem vestram, & orate pro nobis mihi fratres in Christo conjuncti; pray for us my brethren in the Lord. Which evidently shows, that Baronius and Binius either themselves corrupted, and followed some corrupt Edition of that Epistle, when they so craftily persist on the Inscription, Dominis ac Patribus; for had he styled them in the title fathers, he would not in the Epistle have so often called them brethren, and never once fathers. Now to say as the Cardinal n Vel si ●ratres legas, cer●è procul abhorret, ut cosdem dicat & Dominos. Bar. an. 538. nu. 19 doth, that it is abhorrent either from reason or practice to call the same parties both Dominos and fratres, argues, either extreme and supine negligence, or obstinate perverseness in the Cardinal and Binius, scarce any thing in antiquity being more frequent. Pope Damasus o Epist. S. Damasi apud. Bin. to. 1. Conc. pa. ●01. writ a Synodall letter to Prosper Bishop of Numidia, and others, he inscribes it thus, Dominis venerabilibus & fratribus Prospero, Leoni, Reparato, Damasus Episcopus; Bishop Damasus to my reverend Lords and Brethren Prosper, etc. So the Council of Carthage p Habentur in Concil. Africano sub Caelest. et Bonif. ca 101. ●t 105. to. 1. Conc. pa. 644. & 645. in two letters, written the one to Pope Boniface, the other to Pope Celestine, writes in both in this manner, To our Lord and honourable brother: So cyril q In eodem Conc. Afric. ta. 102. Patriarch of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus, and the other African Bishops, Dominis honour abilibus, to the honourable Lords, and holy brethren. In like sort Atticus r In eodem Conc. ca 103. Patriarch of Constantinople to the same African Bishops, Dominis sanctis, to the holy Lords, & our most blessed brethren, fellow Bish. Why might not Vigilius call other Patriarches Lords and brethren, when Atticus, Cyrill, the Council of Carthage, yea, Pope Damasus himself called other Bishops, Dominos ac fratres. Nay, seeing the Pope is used to inscribe his letters to the Emp. Dominis ac s Sic Adrianus 1 scribit ad. Constantinum et Irenem. Tom. 3. Conc. pa. 254. filijs, or, Domino ac filio, as doth P. Hadrian to Constant. and Irene, & to Charles t Adrianus Papa to. cod. pa. 263. , why may not he as well call his brother as his son, Lord? is the title of son more compatible with Dominis, than the title of brother? or whether title, think you, Lord or brother, may not the Pope give to his fellow Bishops? the name of brother is almost every where seen in his letters, the Cardinal envies not that unto them; it is the name of Dominus that seems somewhat harsh. The Cardinal would not have the Pope call or account other Bishops his Lords; and yet how can they, even the meanest of them, but be his Lord, when he gladly styles himself their servant, yea, servant u Servus servorum Dei, sic se scribit Gregor. 7. qui prius Hildebrandus dictus est. Epist. 13, 14. et resiqui● plus centies. to every servant of the Lord? So that if the Pope's Secretary were well catechised, and knew good manners, his Holiness should write thus to his own servants, To my Lord Groom of my stable, to my Lord the Sc●ll of my Kitchen, I am indeed your servant, I am servus servorum Dei: But let the title of the Epistle be howsoever ye will, whether, Dominis ac Christis, as it is in Liberatus; or, Dominis & fratribus, as it is in Victor; or, Dominis & Patribus, as the Cardinal (without any authority that I can find) would have it, certain it is, that the parties to whom Vigilius writ it, were the three deposed Bishops to whom Vigilius was like to give any of all those titles, and not to the Emperor and Empress, as the Cardinal without all shadow of truth, affirmeth, and saith that he hath demonstrated the same, but it is with such a demonstration as was never found in any but in Chorebus his Analytics. 26. Another of the Cardinal's reasons to prove this Epistle to be a forgery, is taken from a repugnance and contrariety of the words in the Subscription, wherein Vigilius x Quo pacto, rogo, potuit Vigilius anathem atizare Dioscorum, si cum Dioscoro Eutychiaenam haeresin praedicat? Haec enim sibi invicem adversantur, ut utraque vera esse non possint. Bar. an. 538. nu. 16. et idem habet Bin. not. in Lib. pa. 626. a. first professeth to hold but one nature in Christ, and then anathematizeth Dioscorus, who held the same. The Cardinal should have proved, that Vigilius could not, or did not write contrarieties. As the Cardinal, though he hath been so often taken tardy in contradictions, yet will not deny the Annals for that cause to be his own fair birth; so he might think of this writing, though it be repugnant to itself, yet it might proceed from such an unstayed and unstable mind, as Vigilius had: But I do acquit Vigilius from this contradiction, it is not his, he condemned not Dioscorus in his Subscription. In his Epistle he professeth to hold the same doctrine of one only nature in Christ with Eutyches and Dioscorus; there is little reason then to think, that he did in his Subscription adjoined, condemn the professors of that doctrine, of which Dioscorus was one of the chief, as deep in that heresy as Eutyches himself: What shall we say then to Liberatus, in whom Dioscorus is named? Truly had not malice and spite shut the eyes of Baronius and Binius, they could not but have seen, that the name of Dioscorus is by the oversight or negligence of the writer, inserted in stead of Nestorius: It was Nestorius and not Dioscorus whom Vigilius there accursed, the very conclusion and coherence, not only with the Epistle, but with the next precedent words in the Subscription, do evidently demonstrate thus much; for having professed in his Epistle y Eam fidem quam tenetis, & tenere me, et tenuissa significo. Epist. Vigilij tum apud Liber. ca 22. et Vict. Tun. in Chron. an. post Cons. Basilij 2. to hold, as did Dioscorus, but one nature in Christ, having again in his Subscription and next words before, anathematised z Qui dicit in Christo duas formas, et non confitetur unam personam, unam essentiam, Anathema sit. Ibid. apud Liber. all who admit two, or deny but one nature in Christ, he in particular declares who those are, that he therein anathematised, saying, Anathematizamus ergo, therefore we accurse (by this our condemnation of those who deny but one nature) Paulus Samosatenus, Nestorius, Theodorus, and Theodoret, and all who have or do embrace their doctrine. Now it was Nestorius, not Dioscorus, who embraced the same doctrine with Paulus Samosatenus, with Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and Theodoret, all these concurred in that one and selfsame heresy of denying one nature in Christ, they all consented in teaching two natures, making two persons in Christ, which Dioscorus and Eutyches condemned. Of Theodorus and Theodoret it is clear by the Counsels, both of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and the fifth Synod. Of Paulus Samosatenus, the writing or contestation of the Catholic Clergy of Constantinople, set down in the Acts of Ephesus a To. 1. act. Conc. Eph. ca 11. , do certainly witness and declare the same; the title of which is to show, partly, Nestorium ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno, that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosatenus; and in the contestation itself it is said thus, I adjure all to publish this our writing for the evident reproof of Nestorius the heretic, as one who is convinced to teach and openly maintain, eadem prorsus quae Paulus Samosatenus, the same doctrines altogether which Paulus Samosatenus did; and then they express seven heretical assertions taught alike by them both. Seeing then Vigilius accursed him who taught the same with Paulus, Theodorus, and Theodoret, and that was Nestorius, not Dioscorus: it is undoubtedly certain, that not Dioscorus, but Nestorius was the party written and named by Vigilius in his subscription: and that Dioscorus was not by Vigilius, but by the oversight and negligence of the exscriber of Liberatus, wrongfully inserted in stead of Nestorius. And truly the like mistake are not unusual in Liberatus. In this very Chapter it is said that Vigilius a little after the death of Agapetus, and election of Silverius, when he came from Constantinople to Rome with the Empress her letters for placing him in the Roman See, he found b Quin & Ravennae reperit Bellisarium. Liber. ca 22. Bellisarius at Ravenna; a manifest mistaking of Ravenna for Naples; for there, and not at Ravenna was Bellisarius at that time, as by Procopius c Nam Silverium ait ejectum à Bellisario. p. 287 id fuit anno 3. belli Gothici, ut liquet ex pa. 313 ubi ait, Tertius belli hujus annus exibat, at Bellisarius non caepit Ravennam ante finem anai 5. ejus belli, ut ait Proc. 340. & 343. ubi ait, ●am annus 5. exib●t. is evident: and because this is no way prejudicial to their cause, Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit d Hic puto Liberatum memoria lapsum, Ravennam pro Neapoli posuisse. Bar. an. 538. nu. 7. & idem Bin. Not. in Liber. an error or slip of memory in Liberatus, and not so hastily conclude as here they do, that because Bellisarius was not then at Ravenna, as in Liberatus is falsely affirmed, therefore that Chapter of Liberatus is forged, and not truly written by him. Would his Cardinalship have been as favourable to Liberatus in naming Dioscorus for Nestorius, which the like evidence of truth and all the circumstances do necessarily enforce, the Epistle might as well pass for the true writing of Vigilius, as that Chapter for the writing of Liberatus. In this very Epistle of Vigilius, it is said in Liberatus e Apud Bin. to. 2. pa: 6●4. , I know, quia ad Sanctitatem vestram fidei meae crudelitas pervenit, that the cruelty of my faith is before this come to your ears; and the very same word of crudelitas fidei is in Victor also, which argues the fault to be very ancient. It is true that the faith of Vigilius was indeed cruel, for he by it cruelly condemned, abolished, and as it were murdered the Council of Chalcedon, that is in truth, the whole Catholic faith: and so this happened to be not only a true, but a fit and significant error. Yet the Cardinal was so friendly and charitable here, as to think that it was but a slip of the pen, or negligence of the writer, in saying crudelitas, for credulitas, as the Cardinal readeth f Bar. an 538. nu. 14. it; might not by the like negligence, and with less disgrace to Vigilius, Dioscorus slip into the text in stead of Nestorius? In the inscription of the Epistle Liberatus reads it, Dominis ac Christis; Victor, Dominis ac fratribus; the Cardinal corrects both, and makes it worst of all, Dominis ac patribus. May he play the Critic, and turn Christis, or fratribus, into patribus, and that without, nay against reason, and may not others in the subscription restore Nestorius for Dioscorus, when the truth and necessary circumstances enforce that correction? It was Nestorius than not Dioscorus whom Vigilius accursed; it is but the error or corrupt writing of Vigilius Epistle in Liberatus, (which we also condemn) and not the Epistle of Vigilius at which the Cardinal unjustly quarrelleth. 27. His third and last shift is worst of all. If Vigilius had indeed writ this Epistle, why then (saith he g Bar. an. 538. nu. 15. ) was it not upbraided unto him at Constantinople, neither by the Empress Theodora, when she contended with him, about the restoring of Anthimus, nor by Theodorus Bishop of Caesareae, and Mennas, when Vigilius excommunicated them both, and they vexed him so long; nor by the Emperor justinian, when he was furiously enraged against him; nor by the fifth Synod, which was offended with him for refusing to come to the Council; nor yet by Facundus, when he writ angrily against him? these were publicly debated, nec tamen de dicta epistolâ, vel usquam mentio; yet is there not any mention, or light signification of any such Epistle. Thus the Cardinal. Of whom I again demand where he learned to dispute ab authoritate humanâ negatiuè; the old and good rule was, Neque ex negativis recte concludere si vis; but the Cardinal hath new Analytickes, and newfound rules of Art, Ex negativis poteris concludere si vis. Himself witnesseth h Bar. locis supr. citat. and proclaimeth Vigilius to have been a Simoniac, and to have compacted with Bellisarius for 200. pieces of gold, to have been excommunicated, deposed, degraded, by Pope Silverius pronouncing that sentence out of his Apostolic authority, and from the mouth of God: why was not this Simony, why was not this censure of Silverius upbraided, neither by Theodora▪ nor Theodorus, nor justinian, nor the fifth Council, nor Facundus? that being a public and known censure, had been a matter of far greater disgrace to Vigilius, far more justifiable than the epistle writ privately and secretly to Anthimus, and commanded by Vigilius to be kept close that none might know it. See you not how vain this shift of the Cardinal is? How it crosseth him in his Annals, to slander Vigilius as simoniacal, as censured by Silverius, both which seeing they are not upbraided to him by the forenamed persons, but set down in the Cardinal's Analytickes, sure they are impostures, and forgeries. What though none of them upbraided this Epistle unto him? Is it not enough that it is assuredly testified and recorded by S. Liberatus, by Bishop Victor, two who lived and writ at that same time? what if most of them knew not of this Epistle, which was sent secretly by Vigilius, and by his advice kept closely by Anthimus and Severus? what if they all knew it, and yet having other crimes enough to object, thought it needless to mention that, as it seems they did the Simony of Vigilius, and censure of Silverius? what if they were not so spiteful as the Cardinal is, and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holiness? 28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinal! How or why should Theodora upbraid this to Vigilius for the not restoring of Anthimus? that quarrel for the restoring of Anthimus (as I have often said, and clearly proved) was a mere devise and fiction of Anastasius, it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tail. Or how should justinian upbraid it, when he was so enraged against Vigilius, and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus? Seeing neither justinian persecuted Vigilius, nor was enraged against him, but for the space of five of six years they both sang one note, they fully consorted together? or how should Mennas and Theodorus upbraid it, when they were excommunicated by Vigilius? Seeing that excommunication, & all the circumstances of it are merely fictitious, as by the death of Mennas, (which was long before that forged excommunication of him) was demonstrated? Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to be writ by Vigilius, which all rely on fictions, & on most untrue and idle fancies? And whether Facundus upbraided it or no, may be questioned, nor will it be clearly known, until they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vatican, where he lieth yet imprisoned. But as for the fifth Council, it was great silliness in the Cardinal, once to think that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him, they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectful manner that could be wished, they uttered no one harsh or hard word against him, but what was rightly said or done by him, as his condemning of Origen, his condemning the Three Chapters before the time of the Council, that they often mention and approve it also. They sought by lenity to win the Pope's heart to consent unto the truth, which they defended: seeing they could not prevail with him, yet they would have the whole world to testify, together with the Pope's peevishness, their own lenity, equity and moderation used towards him, and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person, nor any precedent occasion, but only the truth and equity of that present cause, which enforced them to involve him (remaining obdurate in his heresy) in that Anathema which they in general denounced against all the pertinacious defenders of the Three Chapters, of which Vigilius was the chief, and standard-bearer to the rest. Did the Cardinal think with such poor sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle? If nothing else, truly the very imbecility and dulness of the Cardinal's reasons and demonstrations in this point may persuade, that Vigilius and none but he was the author of it. Baronius was too unadvised without better weapons to enter into the sand, with old Cardinal Bellarmine in this cause, who is known to be, plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator, and in this combat with Baronius he hath played the right Eutellus indeed. Come, let us give to him in token of his conquest, corollam & palmam, and let Baronius in remembrance of his foil, leave this Epistle to Vigilius, with this Impress, Vigilio scriptum hoc, Eutello palma feratur. 29. Vigilius now, by just Duel, is proved to be the true author of this Epistle: Be it so, say they k Etiamsi ista verè scripsissit Vigilius, nullum tamen ob id infertur praejudicium Apostolicae sedi, cujus tunc ipse erat invasor, Silverius autem germanus Pontifex. Bar. an. 538. nu. 15. Fecit id cum ad huc v. veret Silverius, quo tempore Vigilius non erat Papa, sed Pseudopapa. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 10. Non mirum si Pseudoepiscopus et quasi Antichristus ad schisma, heresy addidissae. Bin. not. in. Lib. pa. 626. a. ita etiam Gretz. in Defence. ca 10. lib. 4. Bell. , yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolic See, because he writ it in the time of Sylverius, while as yet Vigilius was not the lawful Pope, but an intruder and usurper, and Pseudopope, and herein they all join hand in hand, Bellarmine with Baronius, Gretzer and Binius with them both. But fear not the tails of these smoking firebrands, nor the wrath of Rhesin, Aram, and Remalias' son, because they have taken wicked counsel against the truth. Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter, for how do they prove this saying of theirs, that Vigilius writ it when Sylverius lived, and not afterwards. Truly by no other but the Collier's argument, It is so, because it is so, proof they have none at all, they were so destitute of reasons in this point, that laying this for their foundation to excuse the Pope for teaching heresy, they beg this, or rather take it without begging or ask, by virtue of that place called, Petitio Principij. Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer, who gathered up only the scraps under the Cardinal's tables, but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himself, as to dispute from such sophistical topics, is too foul a shame and blemish to his wit and learning. And why may not we take upon us the like Magisteriall authority, and to their, I say it is so, oppose, I say it is not so? Do they think by their big looks, and sesquipedalia verba, to down-face the truth? 30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagorical kind of learning, there are one or two reasons which declare, that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius, when he was the only and true lawful Pope; for the former is the narration of Liberatus, who in a continued story of these matters, after the death of Silverius relates how Vigilius writ this; Silverius, saith he l Liber. ca 22. , died with famine; Vigilius autem implens promissum, And Vigilius to fulfil his promise, writ this Epistle. Oh, saith Gretzer m Great. loc. cit. , Liberatus useth here an anticipation, and sets down that before which fell out after. Prove that Gretzer; Prove it? why, his proof is like his Masters, It is so, because it is so: Other proof you shall have none of Gretzer: He thought, belike, his words should pass for currant pay, as well as a Cardinals, but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinalitèr; that is, without reason; why should it not be thought, seeing we find nothing to the contrary, that Liber. in his narration followed the order and sequel of things and times, as the law of an historian requires, rather than believe Gretzers bare saying, that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things? 31. This will further appear by the other reason drawn from the time when this Epistle was written: Baronius refers it to the year 538. wherein Silverius was expelled, and saith n Bar. an 538. nu. 14, 15. , that though Vigilius had truly writ it, yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolic See, cujus tunc ipse invasor, of which he was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written. But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point, for it is clear and certain by the testimony of Liberatus o Lib. loc. cit. , that Vigilius had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy; for Vigilius hearing of the return of Silverius, and being in great fear of losing the Popedom, he hastened then to Bellisarius, and entreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody, otherwise, said he, non possum facere quod à me exigis, I cannot do that which you require me. Bellisarius required of him two things, as the same Liberat. witnesseth, the one to perform his promise to the Empress, & that was p Augusta Vigilium profiteri flagitavit ut si Papa fieret tolleret Synodum, etc. L●benter suscepit Vigilius promissum. Liber. loc. cit. the overthrowing of the Council at Chalcedon: the other, to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold, which he promised to himself; whereby it is most evident, that at Silverius returning into Italy, Vigilius had done neither of these, and so not writ this Epistle. Now it is most likely, that Silverius returned into Italy, an. 540. for seeing he died q Silverius hoc anno obijt, 12. Kalend. julij. Ba. an. 540. nu. 2 in the month of june that year, and being presently upon r Ita Silverius traditus duobus Vigilij servis, qui in Palmariam abductu● sub eorum custodiâ defecit inedia. Lib. loc. cit. his return sent away into the Island of Palmaria by Vigilius, a little time, you may be sure, would serve to famish an old & disheartened man. But Gretzer easeth us in this point, and plainly professeth s Mors Silverij fuit an. 540. et hoc ipso itidem anno Vigilius ad Theodoram scripsit, promissa exolvere volens. Gretz. def. ca 10 lib. 4. de Pon●. , that this Epistle was writ in that same year 440. wherein Silverius died. If now you do consider how little time there was betwixt the death of Silverius, and his delivery to Vigilius, and how in that short time also Vigilius had a greater work, and of more importance to look unto, than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops, to wit, to provide that Silverius should not live, that himself should not be expelled his own See, and how upon Silverius death himself might be again lawfully chosen Pope; none I think will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that year, but after it, and after all his troubles ended, when he having quiet possession of the See, had leisure to think on such matters. But why stay I in the proof hereof, this being clearly testified by Nauclerus, who thus writeth t Naucl. Gener. 18. , Silverius being dead, Vigilius was created Pope, quod postquam comperit Theodora, which when Theodora understood, she writ unto him to perform his promise about Anthimus, but Vigilius answered, far be this from me, I spoke unadvisedly before, and I am sorry for it. So Nauclerus; who therein no doubt followed Anastasius, for he u Anast. in vit. Vigilij. having set down both the same motion made by Theodora, and the answer given by Vigilius, Binius x Ecc● ut Vigil. s●atim ac sanctam sedem ascenait, etc. Bin. not. in vit. Vig. observes, that this was done when Vigilius was now the rightful and true Pope: wherefore seeing Theodora writ to Pope Vigilius, and that after the death of Silverius, to perform his promise, it is certain, that before then he had not done it, and so that until he was the only true and lawful Pope he did not write this Epistle, which would have given full content to Theodora; and seeing again we have clearly proved that he did write it, it remaineth that he writ it after the death of Silverius, when himself was the only lawful and true Bishop of Rome. One doubt in this matter remaineth, which Binius y Bin. not. in vit. Vig. § Ex Acts slightly mentioneth, for that Vigilius after he was true Pope, did not only anathematise Anthimus, and confirm his deposition, but profess himself also to defend the Council of Chalcedon, as appears both by his Epistle to justinian and Mennas, dated four months z Epist. Vigilij ad Mennam 15 Calend. Octob. data est. Ea extat apud Bar. an. 540. nu. 25. et eodem tempore missa est etiam illa ad justinianum, apud Bar. an. 540. nu. 15. et 22. after he was the true Pope; and by that answer, which, as Anastasius and Nauclerus say, he sent (in a Ad haec rescripsit Vigilius, Anast. in vit. Vig. writing) to Theodora, that he would not now restore Anthimus, being an heretic: Whence it may be collected, that after he was once the true and lawful Pope, nihil horum dixerit, scripserit vel egerit, that he neither said, writ, nor did any such thing, as it is expressed in this Epistle, for confirming the heresy of Eutyches; for how is it credible, that he should write both these, being directly contrary the one to the other? 32. I answer, that had Vigilius been an honest man, or a man of credit, of constancy, and resolution, he would never have thought or dreamt to write both those. But Vigilius was perpaucorum hominum, you may go through the whole Catalogue of the Roman Popes, (and there is the best choice of wicked men in all forms and fashions of impiety to be found) and not pick out such a Polipus, a turncoate, a weathercock, as Pope Vigilius: Baronius compares him to King Saul, and saith b Bar. an. 540. nu. 13. , that as soon as he was made the true Pope, he was then Saul inter Prophetas. It is true in many things, he was like King Saul, but in that act of prophesying, wherein the Cardinal compares them, there is a marvellous dissimilitude betwixt them; Saul was moved by God's Spirit, Vigilius by his own will; Saul was acted and driven to utter those prophecies, which God put into his mouth, Vigilius himself did guide and move his tongue, and turned it with the rudder of his unconstant mind, when, and whithersoever he would; Saul prophesied of necessity, not being able to resist God's motion, Vigilius in hypocrisy being desirous to please and humour other men: in a word, Saul had the gift, Vigilius the art or juggling trick of prophesying. When he would seem to be that which indeed and in heart he was not, a Catholic Bishop, and gain the favour of justinian a Catholic Emperor; not Saul, nor scarce Paul more orthodoxal than Vigilius; when he would open his heart and declare what he was intus & in cute; not Eutyches or Nestorius more damnably heretical than Vigilius. In his Epistle written secretly to Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus, he opens to them his true intent and mind, that he was of one faith with them, an Eutychean as they were, and so assures them that he would do what he could for them, when opportunity b Scribit ut s●●t omnia occulta usque ad tempus. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 10. should be offered. In his Epistles to the Emperor, Empress, and Mennas, which were to be public and seen of all, he makes a show of love to the truth, and to the Council of Chalcedon, which even then he meant, if opportunity were once offered, to adnul & abolish for ever. I here remember a narration, not unworthy observing, which long since a man of great gravity and judgement in law, and now one of the chief judges in this Realm, related unto me, how one of the most notorious Traitors in the time of our late Queen of happy memory, having by solemn vow, by oath, by receiving the holy Sacrament, bound himself to murder his Sovereign, returned home from Italy, but with such a show of zeal towards our religion, our State, and his Sovereign, that in open Parliament (being chosen a Burgess) he made a very spiteful and violent invective against Recusants, and specially against Jesuits: His Paymasters and friends of Rome, expostulating with him then about the matter, Oh, quoth he, it was needful I should thus do, now all fear, nay suspicion of me is quite removed, I have by this my open speech gained trust and credit with the Prince, with the Council, and the whole State, I have now made an easy and free access to perform that holy work. And if God had not watched over Israel, and his Anointed, many times without suspicion and danger he might have done, and had done it indeed. Seldom are great villainies attempted but with great hypocrisy: such deep dissembling is no novelty at Rome; Pope Vigilius was not to be taught this lesson; no treason more horrible than his was at this time▪ He undertakes c Vigilius facta promissione Roma● profectus est. Liber. ca 22. redarguit ipsum, ●aereticorum pactis conventis conscripta, juraqu● defensio. Bar. an. 540. nu. 4. and binds himself by his own handwriting, by his oath also, (the Sacrament was not as yet grown to be an obligation of such detestable designs) to overthrow and abolish for ever the Council of Chalcedon, and with it the whole Christian faith; his purpose and resolution of heart he signifies in his heretical Epistle, which, as it seems, he writ very shortly after he was the true and lawful Pope, to Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius, and sent it privately to Theodora. While he is meditating and seeking how to effect this, the Emperor writes unto him, requiring him to approve that faith which Leo, Celestine, Agapetus, and others his predecessors had embraced; and particularly to confirm the deposition of Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius. What should Vigilius here do? had he refused to yield to the Emperor's just motion, he had bewrayed himself, and his mind, and then not only the Emperor and Grecians, but even his own Roman Church (than orthodoxal and Catholic) would have expelled him for an heretic, and so he had deprived himself of all possibility ever to effect his heretical intendment: He saw it was most needful for him to put on the visor of a Catholic profession, and therefore after his sacrifice and prayer to Laverna, Pulcra Laverna da mihi fallere, da justum sanctumque videri; then in that counterfeit habit of holiness he writ those open letters to justinian, to Mennas, and to Theodora, so orthodoxal and Catholic, that none by them in the world could otherwise judge of him, but that he was another S. Silvester, S. Celestine, or S. Leo; When by this he had gained, first, the reputation of sanctity in the Church, than the good will of the Emperor and the love of all Catholics, when every man now held Vigilius his Apostolical letters or decrees for so many Oracles, and himself for an Apostle and Prophet sent from heaven to instruct them, then, and not before, was it time to work his intended feat; then, and never before, he was to publish his Apostolical decree (his mind was as yet but private) for overthrow of the Catholic faith, and the Council of Chalcedon: But if so happened, that the heresy of the Eutychians was so generally odious, and so lately condemned, that there was no likelihood for him to bring his purpose about by establishing it, as at the first he meant, but after some few years' expectance there fell out another & far fitter opportunity, & that was the defence of the Three Chapters, there he had the African, the Illirian, the Italian, and, in a manner, all the Western Churches to partake with him in that heresy; that opportunity Vigilius gladly embraceth, nor would he let it pass: Then he labours tooth and nail, and in the end, when either then or never he must do the deed, by his Apostolical Const. he decreeth that those 3. Chapters should by all be defended. Certainly, had that his decree prevailed, (as his purpose and earnest desire was that it should) not only Anthimus, Theodosius, & Severus, being Eutychians, but all Arians, Macedonians, all heresies and heretics, had at once, like so many wild Boars, rushed into the inheritance of Christ; the Catholic faith, which is the only bar and fence against them all, being by that Constitution of Vigilius utterly broken down, and by the defending of those Three Chapters, for ever subverted. This was the most Diabolical plot and project of Pope Vigilius, to seem a Catholic, and openly to profess before justinian and others the Catholic faith, and while they are secure of him, closely in the mean space to undermine and blow up at once all Catholics, and with them the Catholic faith. So there is no repugnance, no incoherence at all in these, though contradictory letters of Vigilius, both of them, the orthodoxal to justinian, Theodora, and Mennas, the heretical to Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus, both were writ by Vigilius, both by Pope Vigilius, both by Vigilius, when he was the only true and lawful Pope; but the former were writ by the personated and visored, the later by the naked and unmasked Pope Vigilius. 33. We have now proved, first, that Vigilius writ this heretical Epistle against their first evasion, next that he writ it when he was the only true and lawful Pope, against their second evasion; there remains as yet two other Pretences of Bellarmine, but such, as Baronius was ashamed to use so poor and petty excuses for their Pope. The third evasion than is this, that Vigilius in heart embraced the true faith, and only feigned himself in this Epistle to be a favourer of the Eutychean heresy. Vigilius, saith the Cardinal d Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. ca 10. § Sciendum. , was here in a great strait, for if he openly professed heresy, he feared the Romans, who would never endure an heretic to sit in Peter's Chair; if he should on the other side profess himself a Catholic, he feared Theodora the heretical Empress, that she would not endure him; Itaque rationem illam excogitavit, therefore he devised this policy, (and I pray you note it well) that e Vt Romae Catholicum ageret, et interim per literas apud Imperatricem, haereticum simularet. Bell. ibid. at Rome (or openly) he would play the Catholic, but (secretly) in his private letters to the Empress, and to Anthimus, he would feign himself an heretic. Thus Bellarmine, who fully expresseth the nature and disposition of Pope Vigilius, as if he had not only felt his pulse, but been in his bosom: He was indeed another Catiline, Simulare, ac dissimulare, he could semble and dissemble, conceal what indeed he was, seem to be what he was not: At Rome, and in show of the world a Catholic; at Constantinople, and in his secret and close actions an heretic. Thus far the Cardinal saith well; but he is extremely mistaken in one circumstance, in that he saith, that his open or Catholic profession was mental, and ex animo, and his private and secret detestation of the Catholic faith, was verbal and feigned. It was quite contrary, his heart and Intrals were all heretical, nothing but his face and outward show was Catholic: for proof whereof I will not urge, that the Pope in this Epistle accurseth and f Qui dicit in Christo du●s formas (i. naturas) et non confitetur unam persona unam essentiam anathema sit. Vigil. in Epist. apud Liber. loc. cit. anathematizeth all who hold the Catholic faith, or who believe otherwise than Eutyches did, for so he doth also in his other Epistle to the Emperor and Mennas, condemn Eutycheanisme; and yet it is no commendation for his Holiness, either to curse the Catholic faith, or to curse that faith which in his heart he believeth. But this I would have considered, that Vigilius promised g Adimple nobis q●ae pron● volun●ate promisisti. Anast. in vita Vigil. under his hand-writing, yea, he swore h Conscriptaque jurataque haereticorum defensio. Bar. an. 540. nu. 4. also that he would abolish the Council of Chalcedon, and restore Anthimus; for performance whereof he writ i Vigilius imple●s promissionem suam quam Augustae secerat, talem scripsit Epistolam. Liber. ca 22 that private Epistle, which was all that as yet he could do. Let Bellarmine now say, if their Popes do use to promise, and that under their hands, yea, to swear also to do that, which they mean not to do. Who may be believed upon their words, upon their oaths, if not the Pope's Holiness? if he, not only in words and writing, but in his solemn oaths equivocate, whose oath, among all that generation, can be thought simple and without fraud? 34. Again, to what end should Pope Vigilius dissemble secretly and among his entire friends, such as were Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus? where or to whom should he truly open himself and his inward heart, if not to such? The first lesson that men of Vigilius metal learn, is that of Lucilius k Ex quo citat Lactant. lib. 6. divin. Iust. ca 18. , Homini amico ac familiari non est mentiri meum. The Prisciliaens, who as S. Austen l Exhortantur suos ad mend●cium, tanquam ● exemplis Prophet●rum, Apostolorum, Angelorum, et ipsius Christi. Aug. lib. contr. Mend. ca 2. shows, were the very teachers of lying and dissembling, and who persuaded their fellow heretics unto that base art and trade; yet even they taught that Lucilian lesson, (and most impiously pretended m Aug. ibid. to collect it out of the words of the Apostle) Speak the truth every man to his neighbour, for we are members one of another. To his neighbour and fellow member, said they, we must speak the truth: but to such as are not joined n Cum e●s qui nobis in societate veritatis proximi non sunt, neque ut ita dicam commembres nostri sunt. Ibid. to us in the neighbourhood or fellowship of the same Religion, and who are not of the same body with us, to them loqui licet oportetque mendacium, to them you may lie, nay you must not speak the truth to such. Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius, they were the next neighbours to Vigilius, all conjoined o Grati●, qua nos Deo nostro conjungimur, eam fidem quam ten●tis, et ten●isse me, & tenere significo, ut et anima una sit, et cor unum. Vig. Epist. ad An●●. apud Lib. loc. cit. and concorporated into Eutycheanisme. Had he dissembled with them, he had been worse than the Priscilianists, nay worse than the devils themselves, for they though they lie to all others, yet speak truth among themselves, and to Beelzebub, otherwise his kingdom could not endure. It was justinian and the Catholics, who were of a contrary religion to Vigilius, there was little or no neighbourhood at all betwixt them: they were not concorporall, not members of one body with him, to them not being his neighbours, & commembres with him by the rules of that black Art, he might, he ought to lie: but to Anthimus and Severus, being of one body with him, he must speak the truth. 35. Further yet, look to that old Cassian rule, Cui bono? where, and with whom was Pope Vigilius to gain more by his cogging and counterfeiting? He had now rightful possession of the See of Rome, which was the only mark he aimed at. What hurt could three deposed Bishops, or the Empress herself do now unto him, being backed by the Emperor, by all Catholics, and which is best, by a good cause? what needed he for pleasing them to feign himself an heretic? Could they thrust Vigilius from his See, who could not hold their own? or could the Empress deprive Vigilius, who could not restore Anthimus? There was nothing that could move Vigilius to feign himself an heretic, or to write that heretical Epistle, if he had been in heart a Catholic. But being in heart heretical, there was many most urgent and necessary inducements, why he should feign himself a Catholic. Had he showed his inside unto the Emperor, and the Church, had he opened to them the heresy lurking in his breast, had he made it known that he would abolish the Council of Chalcedon, and the Catholic faith, he had instantly incensed all against him; both the Emperor and the Romans, as Bellarmine p Metuebac R●●manos qui hareticum sedere, nunquam possuri videbantur. Bell. loc. cit. saith, yea the whole Catholic Church would have joined in the expulsing and deposing of such a wolf and wretched heretic out of the See. S. Peter's Chair had been too hot for him. Vigilius wisely considered that it was no less art to keep, than to get the See; he knowing that without deep dissimulation, and without feigning himself a Catholic, he could not possibly hold it, much less could he effect that which he purposed, and had both promised and sworn to perform, and therefore by his private letter assuring Anthimus, Severus, Theodosius, and Theodora, of his hearty and serious intent to join with them, and when time served to work his feat, by his other public and orthodoxal letters to justinian, Theodora and Mennas, he did but cast a mist before their eyes, that they should not spy his heresy; and under that visor of a Catholic, he did labour to undermine the whole Catholic faith. And thus much in his private letter he signifieth to Anthimus and the rest, warning them first q Oportet ut haec quae scribo nullus agn●scat. Epist. Vig. apud Lib. of secrecy, lest if his powder-plot should be discovered (as indeed most happily it was) the sudden blow should not hit the Council of Chalcedon: and next, that besides their secrecy they should dissemble also no less than he did, they should still seem r Sed magis suspectum me ante allies, habeat sapientia vestra ut factsius possim quae ●aepi, operari et perficere. Ib. to suspect and be jealous of him as of their only enemy, that their fear might make Catholics secure of him, and of that sudden blow which in a moment by the publishing of his Apostolic Edict for the adnulling of the Council of Chalcedon he meant to give. 36. But Bellarmine s Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 10. § Sciendum. for all this will prove by two reasons that Vigilius was not in heart t Non fuit animo haereticus. Ibid. an heretic, nor did ex animo write this Epistle. The former is, because, non palàm in ea condemnavit Catholicam fidem, sed occultè; he did not openly and publicly, but only in secret and closely condemn the Catholic faith: for he writes therein, Vt sint omnia occulta usque ad tempus; that they should keep all private until a fitter time. Condemn than he did the Catholic faith, but not ex animo, because he did secretly condemn it. Ex studio occultandi, saith Gretzer u Great. loc. cit. , by his desire of concealing it. Bellarmine collecteth this, that Vigilius did not seriously and from his heart, but dissemblingly write that impious Epistle. As if one may not do the same thing ex animo, and seriously, and yet do it secretly. What thinks he of judas? his plotting to betray Christ was close and secret, his own fellow Apostles knew not of it, but said, Master, is it I? his friendly conversing with Christ, sitting at table, and kissing, was open and public, yet his outward courtesy, even his kiss was dissembled, and treacherous; his malice, treason, and murderous affection which were secret and covered under those outward shows of love, were true and serious. The Powder-plotters dealt closely and secretly, all under board: their pretended subjection was open, and yet the treason was serious, their obedience but feigned. Bellarmine was but a mere novice in the Roman Court when he writ this, and imagined that Popes do not seriously that which they do secretly. 37. His other reason x Bell. ubi supra. to prove that Vigilius was not in heart heretical, when he writ this Epistle, is, because he writ it not with an heretical mind, sed propter cupiditatem praesidendi, but in an ambitious desire of presidency. What I pray you, Is an heretical and ambitious mind incompatible? doth ambition exclude heresy? or in ambition for one to teach heresy, doth that hinder him from being in heart an heretic? Scarce was there any Heresiarch, whom ambition hath not inflamed, and who in ambition laid not the foundation of his heresy. Valentinus, saith Tertullian y Tert. cont. Valent. ca 4. , hoped for but miss a Bishopric, in revenge thereof he kindled his heresy, and set fire in that Church, wherein himself could not be governor. When Martion, (saith Epiphanius z Epiph. bar. 42 ) got not the presidency, he invented his heresy, and puffed up with pride, said, Ego sindam Ecclesiam, I'll rend asunder your Church. When Aerius b Epiph. haer. 75. miss the Bishopric which Eustathius obtained, in his ambitious pride he devised his heresy, that a Presbyter was all one with a Bishop. Hear Cardinal Bellarmine's c Bell. lib. de not. Eccl. ca 13. own words: All Arch-heretickes have one common vice, and that is pride, they spring up in diverse places, but pride is the mother of them all. If Vigilius was no heretic in heart, because he was ambitious, neither was Nestorius, nor Arius, nor Aerius, nor Montanus, nor Valentinus, by Bellarmine's divinity heretics, because they were all ambitious. If they notwithstanding their ambition were (as certainly they were) Arch-heretikes, and taught their heresies with heretical minds, than not only the Cardinal's reason is inconsequent and ridiculous, but Vigilius for all his ambition may not only write that Epistle with an heretical mind, but be even an Heresiarch, or rather a Pope heretic. 38. Again, did he not write this with an heretical mind? why did not the Cardinal express what that heretical mind is, which was now wanting in Vigilius? An heretical mind is no other but a mind pertinaciously and obstinately addicted to heresy. It was heresy doubtless which he writ, in teaching with Eutyches but one nature to be in Christ. That he writ this obstinately, is clear, seeing he writ it against the known judgement of the holy Council of Chalcedon, that is, of the Catholic Church; which none can do but even thereby he shows an obstinate and pertinacious mind, rebellious against the Church. If this be not, no heretic in the world ever had an heretical mind. If Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, when they writ or taught their doctrines with this mind, were heretical and heretics, then most certainly Vigilius who writ this Epistle with the like obstinate and pertinacious mind, must needs be judged to be rebellious against the Church, and as heretically affected in mind, as Arius or Eutyches himself. Pride and insolency is so far from excluding an heretical mind, as Bellarmine would here persuade, that it is even an individual companion, yea essential unto it. None can possibly have an heretical, but ●o nomine he hath an ambitious heart, the pride whereof causeth him to condemn the just sentence of the Catholic Church, and prefer before it his own fancy and opinion. 39 You see now how inconsequent both these reasons of the Cardinals are, seeing Vigilius might be heretical in heart, though both his writings were secret, and his mind ambitious. Let us yet a little further debate this matter with the Cardinal. Say you that Vigilius did not write this heretical Epistle ex animo, or from his heart? I pray you when looked your Cardinalship into the heart of Vigilius? how know you that he was not an heretic in heart, when he was so heretical in profession? or how know you of S. Hildebrand, of Boniface 8. or of any of all the Popes that lived since their times, that they were not heretics and plain Infidels in heart, when their words were Catholic? I would gladly for my learning be informed how Bellarmine, or the most acute Lynceus of them all do or can know, otherwise than by their outward professions, what any of all the Popes believed and thought in their heart. What Innocent the third, when he decreed the doctrine of Transubstantiation: what Leo the tenth, when he condemned Luther: or what Paul, julius, and Pius the fourth, when they confirmed their Trent Council? How know you that in their hearts they believed those doctrines? or that they did not dissemble and feign, as you say Vigilius did? What can you say for Pius the fourth, which may not be said for Vigilius also? Doth Pius say, he did before, and now doth think as the Trent masters do? Pope Vigilius saith the like, and most plainly, Eam fidem quam tenetis, that faith which you (Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius) do hold, I signify unto you, that I have held, and that I do now hold the same. Doth Pius call the Trent Fathers his beloved brethren in Christ? so doth Vigilius call those heretical Bishops his beloved brethren in Christ: nay in Liberatus he calls them even Christ's. Doth Pope Pius profess an unity betwixt himself and them, all making one body of the Church? Pope Vigilius doth the like, and he doth it more significantly: We, saith he, preach this same doctrine that you do, Vt & anima una sit & cor unum in Deo; so that there is in you and me but one soul, and one heart in God. How can any speech be cordial, if this testifying himself to be one soul and one heart with them, do not come à fibris, but only à labris? Doth Pope Pius approve the doctrine of the Trent conspirators? So doth Pope Vigilius the doctrine of those Eutychean heretics? Doth Pius condemn and anathematise Lutherans, Calvinists, and all who think or teach otherwise than himself and his Trent Conventicle taught or believed? so doth Pope Vigilius condemn and anathematise all who deny two natures in Christ, all who believe otherwise than himself and his Eutychean fellow heretics did. In all these there is as much to be said for Pope Vigilius, as for Pope Pius: and if you please to add that one other agreement also, as of Vigilius it is said, that they knew crudelitatem fidei; so may it in like manner be truly said of Pope Pius, that this did manifest unto all men, crudelitatem fidei, the cruelty of his and his Trent Counsels faith. If by these outward acts the Cardinal can know Pius the fourth to have ex animo condemned their Trent heresies, why can he not by the like outward acts know Vigilius to have ex animo condemned the Catholic faith? If Vigilius for all these outward acts, and so many testimonies and evidences of a willing mind did dissemble, and think in his heart otherwise than he writ, how will or can the Cardinal prove unto us that Pius the 4. and the whole Council of Trent did not dissemble, and both write and speak otherwise than they thought in heart? Hath the Cardinal some windows to pry into the secrets of the heart of Pius the fourth and the Trent Council, which are dammed up that he cannot see into the breast of Vigilius? If Pope Pius upon his word and writing be to be credited, much more is Pope Vigilius, seeing he did not only by words and writing teach this heretical doctrine, but (which Pius did not) he bound himself by a sacred oath that he would teach the same. And which is yet a far greater evidence, Vigilius after this did teach the like heretical doctrine, to overthrow the same Council of Chalcedon, in the cause of the Three Chapters, which he did so unfeignedly and so cordially, that for teaching the same he incurred the just indignation of the Emperor, the curse of the holy general Council, the public hatred of all Catholics, and, if we may believe Baronius, even exile and persecution also. Why might not the same Vigilius from his heart teach Eutycheanisme, as well as Nestorianisme? The faces of those two heresies look contrary ways indeed, but their tails, like Sampsons' Foxes, are joined together to undermine the Catholic faith, and the holy Council of Chalcedon: He who once is proved to be treacherous in this sort, and to do this once from his heart, semper praesumitur, is always to be presumed treacherous in the same kind: He who did this in the Three Chapters, would have done it in Eutycheanisme, his heart, his desire, his purpose at both times was the same, the odds was accidental in the opportunity which served better in the one, than in the other; what need they excuse his teaching Eutycheanisme to have been only labial, when it is clear his teaching of Nestorianisme was cordial? If they cannot excuse Pope Vigilius for teaching Nestorianisme from his heart, which cannot possibly be done, what need they be so nice in denying his teaching of Eutycheanisme to have come from the same heart? his fault in them both being alike, one answer will alike serve for them both. 44. But what, think you, meant the Cardinal so to busy himself, and be so curious about the heart and secret mind of Vigilius? what though he did not in heart, yet, exteriori professione, by his heretical writing, by his outward confession, by that Vigilius condemned the Catholic faith, as the Cardinal d Dico Vigilium scripsisse illam Epistolam, et damnasse Catholicam fidem, saltem exteriori professione. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 10. §. Respondeo, multi. acknowledgeth, & it is the Pope's outward profession, not his inward cogitation, by which we prove his Chair to be fallible; what have we, nay what hath the Cardinal or any of them all to do with Vigilius intent or inward thoughts? leave those to his Tribunal, who only e Reg. 8.39. knoweth and seeth the hearts of all the sons of men; let men, who cannot see the heart, look to his words, to his writings, to that profession, by which he teacheth others. If that be heretical, what boots it them though his heart be orthodoxal? Confirma fratres, & pasce oves, are outward acts, they look abroad and outwardly, not to the inward and hidden man in the Pope's breast. If he think as Simon Peter, and teach as Simon Magus, as Arius, Nestorius, or Eutyches did, is he not an heretical teacher, an heretical Pope, a confirmer of his brethren in heresy, a feeder, nay, a very prisoner of the sheep, with worse weeds than the Socratical Cicuta? If the Pope only think and believe heresy, why, thought is free, (to wit, from man's eye, much more from his censure) his thought is for himself, that error is personal, it hurts none but the Pope himself. If either by word or writing he teach heresy, that is Pontifical, it is the fault of his office, of his Chair, which should have been infallible, this hurts his sheep and his brethren: Nor skilleth it at all in what manner, whether by word or writing, by what occasion or motive he teacheth heresy, but whether at all, or upon any occasion he wittingly and willingly teach it, that is the only point which is questioned. Vigilius condemned the Catholic faith, saith Cardinal Bellarmine f Bell. loco cit● , but he did it for ambition, and desire of presidency. Be it ●o: If the Pope for ambition may condemn the Catholic faith; why may he not do so, for fear of exile, of disgrace, of losing the Emperors, or the King of Spain, or the French Kings favour? If for fear, why not for favour to purchase the good will of those, or any of them? If for favour, why not for hatred, hatred of Henry the fourth, the Emperor; of Henry the eighth, for pulling away the best feather out of the Pope's Plume; of Luther for being so busy in meddling with his Indulgences, and the triple Crown? If for hatred or favour, why not for desire of lucre, and to keep the gain of their craftsmen and Image workers, who continually sing that note in the Pope's ear, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, great is the Church and S. Peter's Chair? Why not for any like passion of the mind may the Pope condemn the Catholic faith? On what a ticklish the flippery ground doth their whole faith stand, when either the Pope's ambition, or fear, or favour, or love, or hatred, or anger, or desire, or a fit of any other perturbation, which disturbeth his mind, may procure, as at this time it did in Vigilius, an anathema to the Catholic faith? Best it were for them to renew the Stoical sect and doctrine, and receive it in the Church, that out of those sober and unmoved minds, as out of an happy Nursery of Popes, the Cardinals might in the Conclave still elect a Pope void of all passions and perturbations, and transplant him out of the Stoical to their Apostolical Chair. But sure, so long as they go no further than the Conclave, they shall never find any but of the same metal with Vigilius, one that may be tossed every way with ambition, with envy, with love, with hatred, with fear, and every passion of his mind, as a powder-plot to blow up the whole Catholic faith; and when he hath done that by his words, by his writing, by his preaching and teaching, by any of his outward acts whatsoever, Cardinal Bellarmine can excuse it, and wipe away all the disgrace of it, as here he doth in Vigilius; he did it not with an heretical mind, for he did it for ambition, he did it for fear, he did it for hatred; he did it for some other passion, he did it only by an exterior act, and not ex animo: But in the mean time whether he did it ex animo, or otherwise by his exterior act, the Catholic faith is blown up from the foundation thereof, as much by the Pope's act, as by the act of Arius, of Nestorius, of Eutyches, or any other heretic; and the Church hath a goodly amends indeed, that the Pope forsooth did not (which is impossible for him or all heretics in the world to do) blow it up with an imagination or inward thought, but with an exterior act of his teaching by word or writing. 41. Oh but, saith Bellarmine f Bell. loc. cit. , non damnavit fidem palam, sed occultè, Vigilius did not openly but closely condemn the Catholic faith: Closely, so he did indeed; it was his purpose and intent so to do. He came not now as Nero, or Dioclesian, with open force to batter, but as Simon Magus, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and other heretics, with Synomian arts, to undermine the Church; all his work was under the vault. The Anathema denounced in this Epistle against all who hold two natures in Christ, was the powder that should have blown up the holy Synod, and Senate, the House of God, and whole City of God: the powder, the person and all was ready, only, which the Cardinal observes g Vt sint omnia occulta, usque ad tempus. Bell. loc. cit. , the time for the open publishing of that Anathema, and setting fire to the train was not yet come. The gracious Providence of God, which watcheth over Israel, the admirable zeal, piety, prudence, and vigilancy, which God put into the heart of justinian, the constancy of faith in the Greek Church, which at that time most happily fell out to be greater than at any time before or since; by these was the fatal blow intended by Vigilius, most happily prevented. This close and secret working proves Pope Vigilius to have been both subtle and malicious in condemning the faith; it doth excuse him neither à toto, nor tanto, from his condemning the faith or from being an heretical Pope, labouring by his heretical doctrine to subvert the faith. 42. The fourth and last Evasion or excuse for Vigilius fact in writing this Epistle, is Bellarmine's also; Vigilius, saith he h Bell. 4. de Pont. ca 10. § Sciendun , did not at that time define any thing against the faith, tanquam Pontifex, as he was Pope. What shuffling and shifting is this in the Cardinal? he did not define any thing against the faith, as Pope: He did then define that which was against the faith, but he defined it not as Pope, for otherwise it had been foolish to say, he defined it not as Pope, when he defined it, neither as Pope, nor as no Pope, when he defined it not at all. Again, what a worthy saying is this of a Cardinal? Vigilius did not at that time define it as he was Pope; at that time, to wit, while Silverius lived and was the only Pope, at which time, as himself in express words saith, Vigilius Papa non erat, Vigilius was not then the Pope. What needed the Cardinal say he defined it not at that time as he was Pope, when at that time he was not Pope? This reduplication, quatenus Papa, implies he was Pope, and that being Pope he defined it, but he defined it not as he was Pope, but as he was a private man, or some other way: Would not the Cardinal laugh, if Gretzer or any such good friend of his should say, Bellarmine at that time while he was at Ingolstad writ not his Controversies as he was Pope, or, he writ them not as he was a Turk, a jew, or Mahumetane? But leaving these shifts, which demonstrate plainly, that Bellarmine had a desire to say somewhat in excuse of Vigilius, but knew not what, and therefore snatched at this or that, or any thing, though it were never so cross unto himself, and such also as he could not hold. Let us consider the Exception itself; Vigilius writ this Epistle, that is confessed; he writ it when he was the only true and lawful Pope, that we have proved; he defined heresy in it, and that which is against the faith, that Bellarmine implieth; he condemned in it the Catholic faith, that Bellarmine in plain words expresseth. Thus far the cause is clear. Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined heresy, and condemned the Catholic faith, as he was Pope, or no, that is the point here to be debated. 43. Some may think, that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawn from secrecy and an ambitious mind, by which he laboured before, to prove, that Vigilius did not condemn the faith ex animo, meant also that he condemned it not as Pope, for it followeth in the next sentence, siquidem Epistolam scripsit, as giving a reason of his saying. If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort, than his reasons are before hand refuted; for as Vigilius might, ex animo, write heretically, both privately and out of ambition, so also might he, tanquam Pontifex, condemn the faith, notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambitious mind; secrecy and an ambitious mind are no more repugnant to the one, than to the other, they are compatible with them both; the Pope may use his Apostolical authority in teaching, as well privately as publicly, as well with judas in ambition, as with john or Peter in sincerity of heart. But the Cardinal's Apologist, who it may be consulted with the Cardinal about his intent herein, doth ease us of those reasons, for he i Gretz. loc. cit. tells us plainly, that from Vigilius his desire of secrecy, nil aliud colligit, Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else, but this, that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò, that he did it not in earnest. It is but a sport with Gretzer, or with the Pope, to condemn the Catholic faith; they do it, but they do it not in earnest, they do it jocularitèr not seriò. Have ye indeed such May-games & sports at Rome, as to condemn the faith, and then say, I was in jest, and in sport? Are not these men new Philistines, Call in Samson, Condemn the Catholic faith, to make us pastime? But let us leave them to their sports, till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and doleful end both of their actors & spectators: That which I now note, is, that Bellarmine doth not in those words, Siquidem Epistolam scripsit, etc. from the privateness or secrecy prove any thing else, but that Vigilius writ it not seriò, in earnest and from his heart; that he writ it not, tanquam Pontifex, this those words prove not, Bellarmine in those words collects not: So we have now nothing but the bare saying of Bellarmine, without any proof, without any reasons, and I must needs confess, I hold it a most sufficient encounter for any man to Bellarmine's ipse dixit, to oppose, ipse dico, yet because I desire rather to satisfy such as seek the truth, then contend with those who seek to smother and betray the truth, I will a little further enlarge this point, and see if it may be cleared by evidence of reason, that Pope Vigilius did not only condemn the Catholic faith at that time, but that he did it even as he was Pope, and, tanquam Pontifex, condemn the Catholic faith. 44. What it is for a Pope to teach an error as Pope, may be perceived by other Arts and Sciences, in the practice or exercise whereof, together with knowledge, judgement, and skill, fidelity also is required; were Baronius or some Roman Facundus to examine this point, they would quickly suit the Pope to some Cobbler, Pedlar, or such like companion: I love not to deal so rudely with his Holiness, yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way, you know how the Cardinal quitted the religious Emperor with, Ne ultra crepidam. If a Physician, or Lawyer, or judge in any discourse should speak barbarously or incongruously, they err therein but as Grammarians, not as judges, Lawyers or Physicians; But if a judge for any sinister respect should pronounce that sentence as just, which is against the law; or if a Lawyer should after his diligent sifting of the cause, affirm that title to be sound, which were clearly void in law; or if a Physician should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet, each of them now erred & offended in his own profession, & in that proper duty which belongeth to them; the judge as a judge, the Counsellor as a Counsellor, the Physician as a Physician, because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wherein they profess both to know themselves, and to make known unto others what is right and good: If in other matters they transgress, it is not, quatenus tales; if any of them be profane, covetous, or intemperate, they offend now, quatenus homines, as they are mortal men in those duties of morality, which are common to them with all men: If they be seditious, rebellious, and conspire in treasonable practice, they offend, quatenus Cives, as they are parts of the Commonwealth, in those duties which are common to them with all subjects; but when they offend in Physic, law, or judgement, those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences, they then offend, neither quatenus homines, nor quatenus Cives, nor in any other respect, but quatenus tales, as they are such professors: for now they transgress against those proper duties, which, as they are judges, Counsellors, or Physicians, are required of them. The like of all Artificers, of Grammarians, Logicians, Poets, Philosophers, of Presbyters, of Bishops, of the Professors of Theology, which is scientia scientiarum, is to be said. If a Divine shall speak rudely, incongruously, ad populum Antiochenum, he offends as a Grammarian, not as a Divine, unless perhaps it be no fault when it doth so happen for edification, that he ought so to speak, as Saint Austen k Aust. lib. 4. the doct. Christ. ca 16. et Tract. 7. in johan. did use diverse barbarismes, and say, ossum for os, floriet for slorebit, dolus for dolour; Malo me populus, I had rather edify with rudeness of words than speak nothing but pure Ciceronian without edifying them, without honouring God; But if a Bishop or any Divine, in stead of truth teach heresy, either because he knows not the truth, or knowing it, oppugnes the truth, he is now in his own element, he offends no longer as a Rhetorician, or Grammarian, but, quatenus talis, as he is a Bishop, as he is a Divine, as he is one who both should know, and bring others to the knowledge of the truth. And this, beside that by reason it is evident, is grounded on that saying of Austen l Aug. Epist. 50. , Aliter servit Rex qua homo, aliter qua Rex, for as a King serveth God, qua Rex, in doing that which none but a King can do; so a King, or a Bishop, or any other offendeth God, as a King, or Bishop, in doing against that duty which none but they are to do. 45. Now, what is said of all Sciences, Arts and mysteries, that is in due proportion to be applied to that greatest mystery of mysteries, and Craft above all Crafts, to their Pope-craft, or mystery of Iniquity: He is the shepherd to feed all, the Physician to cure all, the Counsellor to advise all, the judge to decide all, the Monarch to command all, he is all in all, nay, above all; hard it is to define him or his duties, he is indefinite, infinite, transcendent above all limits, above all definitions, above all rule, yea, above all reason also: But as the Nymphs not able to measure the vastness of the Giant's whole body, measured only the compass of his thumb with a thread, and by it knew and admired the bigness of his Gygantean body; so let us consider but the thumb, or little toe of his Holiness fault, and by it conjecture the immensity of this eldest son of Anak. Pasce oves & confirmafratres, must be to us as the Nymph's thread or line, for these two are the Pope's peculiars, in which are contained all the rest, and they reach as far as heaven and hell, they are the Pope's duty, quatenus he is Pope. If at any time, or upon any occasion he swarve from this line, if by his doctrine he cast down his brethren, instead of confirming them, or give them poison in stead of good food, he offends not now as Swines-snout m Sunt qui Sergium 2. prius dicant os porci vocatum, et ob turpitudinem cognomenti, Sergy nomen sumpsisse, camque consuetu. dinem ad po●●eros manasse, etc. Plat. in vita Serg. 2. , nor as Peter n Dicimus quidem quod Innocentius hoc dixit, non ut Papa, sed ut Petrus de Tarantasia. In Extrav. johan. 22. Tit. 14. de verbor. signifca. 5. Greg. 13. antea Hugo dictus à Boncompagnorū familia oriundus. Anto. Cicar. in ejus vita. of Tarantasia, nor as Hugh Bone companion, but quatenus Papa, even as Pope; in that very Pastoral and Papal duty, which properly and peculiarly belongeth to him as Pope. Lay now this line and thread to Pope Vigilius, and his Epistle; did he confirm Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus in the faith, when he told them, that, by God's o Vigil. in epist. apud Liber. loc. cit. help both before and then also he held the same faith with them, and that was Eutycheanisme, and that they were joined to him in the charity which is in Christ? or was this wholesome food, which he, the great Pastor of their souls, set before them: Accursed be all that deny one and affirm two natures to have been in Christ? If this be heretical doctrine, seeing Pope Vigilius fed them, and confirmed them in this faith, then certainly he taught heresy as Pope; that is, he exercised his Papal office, even that of feeding and confirming his brethren, which is peculiar to the Pope, as Pope, to the teaching and approving of heresy at this time. 46. If yet we shall go somewhat more precisely and exactly to work, according to line and measure; those acts of feeding and confirming do but in a very equivocal sense (for their doctrine is full of Equivocation) agree to other Bishops, but still a main difference or odds is to be observed, betwixt the Pope's feeding and confirming, as he is Pope, and all others; when any other Bishop teacheth heresy, because his teaching is subordinate and fallible, one may, nay, he must doubt or fear to feed on such food, he must still receive it with this caution or tacit appeal of his heart, if his holiness commend it for an wholesome diet of the soul. But if the Pope teach any heresy; if he say that the Sun is dark; the left, the write hand; poison an wholesome food; Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme, the orthodoxal faith; here, because there is no higher judge to whom you may appeal, you are bound upon salvation, without any doubt or scruple at all, to eat and devour this meat; you may not judge, nay, you may not dispute or ask any man whether it be true or no, the Pope's teaching is supreme, and therefore infallible, indubitable; this is to teach, to feed, to confirm as Pope, for none can thus teach or feed, but only the Pope as Pope. So the same heretical doctrine, when it is taught by the Pope, as he is a private man, is a private instruction without any public authority to teach; when by him, as a Presbyter, it is an instruction with public authority to teach, but without judicatory power to censure the gainsayers; when by him, as a Bishop, it is both with public authority and judicatory power to censure, suspend, or excommunicate the gainsayers, but yet subordinate and fallible, including a virtual appeal to the highest tribunal of the Pope, when by him, as Pope, it hath all the former conditions, both public authority to teach, and judicial power to censure, and, which is the Pope's peculiar prerogative, as Pope, to do those with infallibility of judgement, and supremacy of authority, such as none may refuse, or doubt to believe and embrace. 47. If any will here reply with the Sophister Thrasimachus his subtlety in Plato q Plat. lib. 1. de Repub. , that the Pope, as Pope, teacheth not amiss, but as he faileth in the Pope's duty, as he wants skill or will to perform that office: This must be acknowledged as true indeed, for in the strictest sense of all, what the Pope is as Pope, that must inseparably agree to every Pope, and the manner of his teaching as Pope, must inseparably agree to the teaching of every Pope, even as Logicians q Per hanc conditionem quatenus ipsam, notatur quod praedicatum inest subjecto secundum propriam subjecti naturam. jac. Zab. come. in ca 4. lib. daemon. text. 36. say, that what agreeth to a man, a bird, or a tree, quatenus talia, as they are such, must agree to every man, bird and tree. But this quirk and subtlety will not help their cause, nor excuse the Pope from erring as Pope; for as in this sense no Pope, as Pope, doth err, because then every Pope should err in all doctrines which he teacheth, so neither in the same sense doth any Pope, as Pope, teach the truth, for then every doctrine of every Pope should be true. Again, as according to this sense, no Pope as Pope, so no Bishop as Bishop, no Presbyter as Presbyter doth err or teach heresy, for did he in his teaching err as Bishop or Presbyter, than every Presbyter and every Bishop, and so even the Apostles themselves should err in their teaching. But as Vigilius or Liberius when they taught Arianisme, Eutycheanisme, or Nestorianisme, did this not simply as Popes, but as persons not knowing as in duty they should, what to teach; or knowing it, but willingly teaching the contrary to their knowledge, which in duty they should not: even so Nestorius, Macedonius, Arius, and Eutyches, every Bishop, and Presbyter, when they erred, they erred not simply as Bishops, or as Presbyters, but as persons failing in their Episcopal, or Presbyterial duties, either not knowing the truth, as by their office they should, or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth, as by their office they should not: So by his subtlety, if any applaud themselves in it, not only the Bishops of Rome, but of Constantinople, of Antioch, of Alexandria, yea, all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from error, as his holiness himself, yea, all professors of any Art, Science, or faculty, shall plead the like Papal exemption from error; every man shall be a Pope in his own faculty; no Grammarian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian, but as wanting the skill required in a Grammarian; no judge giving a wrongful sentence as a judge, no Galenist ministering unwholesome physic as a Physician, no Artificer working any thing amiss in his trade, as an Artificer, but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge, or of that fidelity which is required in a judge, a Physician, and in every Artificer. If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters, all judges and Physicians from erring, as they are such Officers or Artificers, we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope: If they notwithstanding this subtlety, will admit another Bishop to err as Bishop, they must not think much if we exempt not the Pope as Pope: For, to speak that which is the very truth of them all, and exactly to measure every thing by his own line, a judge simply as judge doth pronounce a judicial sentence, as a skilful and faithful judge, an upright judicial sentence; as an unskilful or unfaithful judge, an erroneous or unjust sentence. A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter, doth teach with public authority in the Church; as a skilful and faithful Bishop or Presbyter he teacheth the truth of God; as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errors and heresies in the Church, the one without, the other with judical power to censure the gainsayers. The like in all Arts, Sciences, and faculties is to be said, even in the Pope himself. A Pope simply as he is Pope and defined by them, teacheth both with authority to teach, with power to censure the gainsayers, and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeal, without doubt, as an infallible Oracle: as a skilful or faithful Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort, as an unskilful or unfaithful Pope he teacheth error or heresy with the like authority, power, and supremacy, binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholic truth, and that with a most blind obedience, without once doubting of the same. 48. Apply this to Vigilius & his heretical Epistle: In a vulgar sense; Vig. erred as Pope, because he erred in those very Pontifical duties of feeding & confirming, which are proper to his office. In a strict sense; though he did not therein err simply as Pope, but quatenus talis, taught only with a supreme binding authority, yet he erred as an unfaithful Pope, binding▪ others by that his Pontifical and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholic truth, without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same. What may we think will they oppose to this; If they say Vigilius doth not express in this Epistle, that he writ it by his Apostolical authority. He doth not indeed. Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus, against the heresy of Eutyches, which to have been writ by his Apostolical authorty, and as he was Pope none of them do or will deny, that Epistle being approved by the whole Council r Conc. Chalc. Act. 2. ct 3. of Chalcedon. Pope Leo by his Papal authority condemneth Eutycheanisme, Pope Vigilius by his Papal authority confirm Eutycheanisme: both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papal authority; both writ as Popes, the one as orthodoxal, the other as a perfidious and heretical Pope; neither of both express that their Apostolical authority by which they both writ. The like in many other Epistles of Leo, and of other Popes might easily be observed. Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles, such as they writ as Popes, have this clause of doing it by their Apostolical authority expressed in them. It is sufficient that this is virtually in them all, and virtually it is in this of Pope Vigilius: Yea, but he taught this only in a private letter to a few, to Anthimus, Severus and Theodosius, not in a public, general, and encyclical Epistles, written for instruction of the whole Church. What, is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few, in confirming three of his brethren? why not in four, in eight, in twenty? and if in twenty, why not in an hundred? if so, why not in a thousand? if in one, why not in two, four, or ten thousand? Caudaeque pilos ut equinae paulatim velum; where, or at what number shall we stay, as being the least which with infallibility he can teach? Certainly, confirma fratres, & in cathedra sede, & pasce oves, respects two as well as two millions. If in confirming or feeding three, the Chair may be erroneous, how can we know to what number God hath tied the infallibility of it? But the sixth general Council may teach them a better lesson. Pope Honorius writ an heretical Epistle s Quae recitatur Conc. 6. Act. 12. pa. 64. but only to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, Vigilius writ this to three, all of patriarchal dignity as Sergius was. Honorius writ it privately, as Vigilius did, which was the cause, as it seems, that the Roman Church took so little notice thereof: yet though it was private, and but to one, it is condemned by the sixth Council, for t Vocantur istae et aliae Epistolae, dogmatica scripta. In eodem Conc. Act. 12. p. 65. a. et retractantes dogmaticas Epistolas, à Sergio, et ab Honorio ad Sergium. Act. 13. pa. 67. a. et, Honorias impia dogmata confirmavit. Ibid. a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius, for a writing wherein he confirms others in heresy: and Pope Leo u Anathematiz●mus quoque Honorium, qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam, et immaculatata fidem prophana proditione subvertere conatus est. Leo 2. Epist. 1 the second judged it to be such as was a blemish to the Apostolic See, such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholic faith. The like and more danger was in this, to these three deposed patriarches. It confirmed them in heresy; it confirmed the Empress; it confirmed all that took part with them; it was the means whereby the faith was in hazard to have been utterly subverted. For plurality or paucity it is not material, be they few, be they more: if the Pope as Pope, or as an heretical pope may confirm three, or but one, that one is abundant to prove his Chair and judicial sentence not to be infallible. 49. But he taught this alone, not in a Council, not with advice of his Cardinals, and Consistory: why, he did it not as a member of a Council, but as x Pontifex non ut praeses Concilij. sed ut Princeps Ecclesiae summus potest iudicium Concily retractare, etc. Bell. lib. r● de Conc. ca 1●. § Dico secundo. Princeps Ecclesiae. He did this as did Agapetus y Agapeti Papae contra Anthim●● iudicium absque Synodo fuit, secundum supràmam Apostolicae sedis authoritatem, qua supra òmnes Canones Pontifex eminet. Bar. an. 536. nu. 23. in deposing Anthimus, above and beside the Canons. The whole power of his Apostolic authority much shined in this decision, more than in any other, where either his Cardinals or a Council hath aught to do: much more was this done by him as Pope, than any of them. And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of others, or of a Synod herein, what better direction, advice, or counsel, could his Cardinals, or any Synod in the world give unto him, than the decree of the whole Council of Chalcedon? That Vigilius had before his eyes at this time, that was in stead of a thousand Cardinals unto him, seeing he as Ecclesiae Princeps, defined Eutycheanisme, notwithstanding that most holy and general Synod, yea against that Synod, what could the advice of another, or of a few Cardinals have availed at this time? 50. Thus all the evasions which they use, being refuted, it may now be clearly concluded, not only that Vigilius writ this impious and heretical Epistle, and writ it when he was the true and lawful Pope; but that he writ it also ex animo, even out of an heretical heart, and writ it as he was Pope, that is, in such sort as that by his Pontifical and supreme authority he confirmed that heresy which he taught therein. And this is the former of his Acts, which as I told you is very remarkable, his purpose and intent therein being the overthrow of the Council at Chalcedon, and of the whole Catholic faith. 51. The other act of Vigilius concerns the cause of the three Chapters, wherein by the heresy of Nestorius, he publicly decreed and performed that (as much as in him lay, and as by his Apostolical decree could be effected,) which he had purposed and intended to do by the heresy of Eutycheanisme. In which whole cause, how Vigilius from the first to the last, behaved himself, how at the first he oppugned the Emperor's most religious Edict, and the Catholic faith, how afterward he played the dissembling Proteus with the Emperor and the whole Church, for the space of five or six years together, how at the last he returned to his natural and habitual love of heresy, and how in decreeing it by the fullness of his Apostolical authority, he sought utterly and for ever to abolish the Council of Chalcedon, and with it the whole Catholic faith; the former Treatise doth abundantly declare; which withal demonstrates the vanity of that saying of Bellarmine: For the time, saith he a Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca 10. § Contigit. Ab hoc tempore nullus inventus est in Vigilio, aut error, aut erroris simulatio, etc. , that he was true Pope, neither any error, nor simulation of error was found in him: sed summa constantia in fide, but the greatest constancy of faith that could be. For as by our former treatise is evident, he was not only most wavering, but heretical in faith. And this was in a manner the whole course of Vigilius life, or the most eminent acts thereof while he was Pope; pretending orthodoxy, but embracing heresy, and as opportunity offered itself, labouring by words, by private Epistles, by resisting the imperial, just, and godly Edict, by public constitutions to overthrow the faith and the whole Church of God. 52. You see now his ingress into the Papacy, and his progress in the same: touching his egress both out of it and this life, hear what S. Liberatus b Liber. Brev. a. 22. saith: How Vigilius being by heresy afflicted, died, it is known unto all. Hear what Cardinal Bellarmine c Bell. loc. cit. saith out of Liberatus, Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus, Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that self same heresy, which at the first he nourished: and again, Misere vexatus usque ad mortem, he was miserably vexed even until he died. Hear Baronius, who first promised d Bar. an. 538. nu. 20. to declare how invigilavit in Vigilio vindicta Dei; how the vengeance of God watched Vigilius, and at last revenged the innocent blood which he shed: and then performing that promise, saith e Bar. an. 556. nu. 2. , He died in an Island in Sicily by the just judgement of God; confectus ipse aerumnis ex morbo, himself being wasted with misery, by reason of his disease, who had caused Silverius in an Island in Palmaria to be pined away, and put to death. As he got the papacy by wicked means, so was he immensis agitatus fluctibus, tossed with exceeding great tempests therein, hated by the Emperor, not grateful to the Eastern, and execrable to the Western Bishops: and when he seemed to have come out of the stream into the haven, and almost one foot into the City, being pined away, immensis doloribus, with unmeasurable pains, he died. Thus Baronius. Now if we should deal with him as Baronius f Opinari si cui licet, facilius est invenire, qui Evagrij de ejus condemnatione (ad supplicia apud inseros lise●da) velit sequi sententiam, quam aliorum. Bar. an. 565. nu. 2. & 6. doth with justinian, and by his precedent acts judge of his reward, according to the Text, Opera eorum sequuntur eos, I fear the censure would seem very harsh to those who are so ready to examine justinian by that rule. For what works I pray you followed Pope Vigilius? Ambition, usurpation, sacrilege, murder, simony, hypocrisy, schism, heresy, and Antichristianisme, concerning which the Apostle saith, They which do them shall not inherit the kingdom of God. I will not, I list not be rigorous in this point, neither towards him or any other. I conten● myself with that lesson of the Apostle g Rom. 14.4. , Domino suo stat aut cadit. Yet thus much by occasion of this Treatise, and the approved judgement of the Church declared therein concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia long before dead, must needs be said of him, of Baronius, and of all other who have already, or shall at any time hereafter write as they have done, in defence of heresy, and oppugnation of God's truth; As repentance for such sins and impious writings opens unto them, so impenitency and persevering therein, eternally shuts against them the gates of God's mercy, and the kingdom of heaven. Both which because they are hid from man's eyes, the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity only to God, passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity, by the outward and apparent acts which are open unto them: whomsoever she seeth not, nor finds by certain and evident proof to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their heretical and impious writings, which before they published and maintained, all those though dead ten, an hundred, or a thousand years before, she by her censure doth, and doth most justly condemn, accurse, and anathematise, as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia, dead an hundred years before, is most evident, whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fifth Council, is approved by all succeeding general Counsels, by all Catholics, and even by the whole Catholic Church. Not will I here dispute whether such a sentence doth not sometimes pass, errante clavae, the party having repent, whom they not having proof of his repentance, thought to dye impenitent; but howsoever that fall out, none may justly complain of the Church's judgement as unjust or unequal herein; for besides that it is presumed, that those who so notoriously and publicly by their heretical writings do scandalise the Church and people of God, if they had seriously repent would have expressed some public and outward testimony of the same; the Church would by this severity of her censure, teach all men a lesson which is very hard to learn; first, that they should not have such an itch and ambitious desire to write or utter those detestable heresies which lurk within their breasts; or if they cannot observe that, yet at least to learn to be so lowly and humble in heart, as to revoke their impieties and blasphemies, although to some blemish and disgrace of themselves, yet to the great honour of God's truth, and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church, which they had scandalised. If in ambition they will first oppugn the truth, and then in a worse pride of heart, not be reclaimed to the truth, nor show their love unto it, why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement show her open detestation of their persons, who in the insolency of their hearts will not show any open detestation of their heresies? That Vigilius writ a papal Constitution in defence of heresy, it is apparent and undeniable: that he at any time revoked that writing, I wish it were, but it is not yet evident. The like may be said of Baronius, of Pighius, of Eccius, of the Lateran, Florentine, and Trent conspirators, of all who have whet their tongues against other truth, and specially to uphold that fundamental heresy of the Pope's infallibility. Their writings for heresy are evident, that they ever reclaimed those writings, it is inevident: and if ever they and their cause come to be tried, in such a free, lawful, and ecumenical Council as was this fifth under justinian, they may justly fear, and certainly expect from the Church, (unless the disclaiming of their writings may by certain proof be made known) the very like sentence, though a hundred years after theirs, as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred years after his death. And because the hourglass for repentance in run out to the former, all that we can do, is (which I seriously now do from my heart) to cry amain unto others, to admonish, exhort, yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God, and by the love of their own souls, first that they keep their tongues and pens from once uttering any heresy; or (if they have not done that) with the same hands to give the medicine, wherewith they gave the wound, and as openly, nay much more openly to disclaim than they have ever proclaimed their impious and heretical doctrines. 53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius. The exact portraiture of the Pope's lives, Baronius had been able to set forth if he had listed; but he addeth such fucos, and so many sophistical colours, that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and natural habit. If ought be amiss in this our description, and not set forth according to the lively lineaments of Vigilius and his impieties, the equal reader will not too rigorously censure the same. I acknowledge that I can but dollar in this kind; to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes, I have not learned: That is an Art which may not be too vulgar, lest their Roman policies be too far divulged. But by this it is easy to perceive what a silly excuse it is which Baronius useth in this cause, blaming Vigilius for coming to Constantinople, as if not the Popes own heretical mind, but the air of Constantinople had wrought such effects, as to produce that heretical, and yet as they count it, Apostolical Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters. FINIS. Laus Deo sine fine. Errata haec corrigat benevolus Lector. In Textu. Pag. 48. lin. 2. read Theodorus. ibid. lin. 9 diptisis. p. 509. l. 14. eos. p. 99 l. 3. john B. p. 125. l. 38. Catholics. p. 141 l. 35. Binius; he was. p. 145. l. 39 Son of God. p. 163. prope finem, substances. p. 164. l. 5. explanation. p. 172. l. 20. of the Pope. p. 182. l. 45. their present. p. 199. prope finem, Catholica. p. 216. l. 17. it. p. 224. l. 25. Popes. p. 227. l. 5. yield. p. 289. l. 35. the. p. 350. l. 30. aequiparare. p. 425. l. 8. where is. ibid. l. 27. Commana. ibid. Marcellinus. l. 42. inflamed. p. 442. in fine, Euphemia. p. 462. l. 11. quarrels with Pope. p. 465. l. 35. all this time. p. 478 l. 23. it was written. p. 495. l. 37. poisoner of. p. 500 l. 35. right hand. In Margin. Pa. 9 lit. (c). lege, Marsorum. p. 67. lit. (e). Antiochenum. p. 233. lit. (s). emissam. ibid. lit. (e). corruptè. p. 409. lit. (e). commentitias & supposititias. p. 410. lit. (q). Consilij 5. p. 437. lit. (l). Concil. 5. Coll. 5. AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF THE CHIEF THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS TREATISE. A. ACts in Counsels not so entire, but there may be faults from the exscriber, pag. 433. Sect. 17, 18. Acts of the fifth Council unjustly excepted against by Baronius, pa. 379. sect. 3, 4. Agnoites and other sectaries called Acephali p. 3. sect. 6. Agapetus lost nothing by the Emperor's presence. p. 464. sect. 5. Antichrist: the Pope first Antichrist nascent; secondly, crescent; thirdly, regnant; fourthly▪ in their Lateran Council he was Antichrist triumphant. pa. 186. sect. 24. Anthimus a Catholic in show and outward profession, p. 157. sect. 4. Anastasius narration not helped by Binius, p. 458. sect. 23. Anastasius a fabler, p. 256. sect. 23. and pa. 447. sect. 12. etc. The Author of that Apologicall Epistle published Anno 1601. a vaunting Braggadochio, p. 205. sect. 10. To Assent to the Popes or to their Cathedral definitions in a cause of faith, makes one an heretic, pa. 172. sect. 6. Author of the Edict was justinian himself, p. 366. sect. 6, 7. B. BAronius nice in approving the Epistle of Ibas. and why, p. 128. sect. 22. Baronius wittingly obstinate in maintaining the heresy of Nestorius, by approving the later part of that epistle, p. 129. sect. 24, 25. and p. 31. sect. 28. Baronius sports himself with contradictions, p. 131. sect. 27. Baronius revileth the cause of the Three Chapt. p. 361. sect. 1. Baronius Annals not altogether entire, pag. 435. sect. 19 Baronius by his own reasons proves his Annals to be untrue, p. 436. sect. 19 in fine, & sect. 20. etc. Baronius holds it dangerous for Vigilius to leave Rome to come to Constantinople, p. 462 sect. 1, 2. Bellisarius most renowned, save in the matter of Silverius, p 470. sect. 11. Bellarmine and Baronius at variance about the Epistle of Vigilius to Anthimus, Severus, and others, p. 477. sect. 19, 20. Baronius first reason to disprove it, is taken from the inscription p 477. in fine, & p. 478 sect. 21, 22, 23. etc. his second reason, from the subscription, pa. 482. sect. 26. his last reason is, because he was not upbraided for it by the Emperor and others, p. 483. sect. 27. Bellarmine's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know when a Council decreeth any doctrine tanquam de fide, pa. 40. sect. 9▪ etc. Baronius vilifieth the fifth general Council, p. 266. sect. 2. The Banishment of Vigilius after the fifth Council a fiction, p. 250. sect. 16. and p. 253. sect. 19 When and for what Vigilius was banished, p. 252. sect. 18. Baronius his three reasons for Vigilius his consenting to the Synod after his exile, p. 245. sect. 8. First, from the testimony of Evagrius, sect. ibid. the second from the fact of justinian in restoring Vigilius, p. 247. sect. 11. the third of Vigilius consenting to the Synod, taken from the words of Liberatus, He was afflicted, not crowned: p. 160. sect. 30. C. COnstitution of Vigilius sent unto the Synod, pag. 8. sect. 4. in fine. the sum of the Constitution was the defence of the Three Chapters, p. 10. sect. 8. etc. The Council refuteth the Pope's decree and ground of it, p. 14. sect. 1, 2. etc. The Council condemneth and accurseth the Pope's decree, p. 17. sect. 6. and p. 22. sect. 15, 16 The Counsels decree consonant to Scripture. p. 26. sect. 24. The fifth Council approved by succeeding Counsels and Popes, p. 27. sect. 26. and how long. p. 29. sect. 29. etc. Counsels above the Pope, p. 29. sect. 30, 31. The Cause of the Three Chapters; a cause of faith, p. 37. sect. 3, 4. etc. professed by Baronius, p. 42. sect. 14. a trial of men's faith, p. 362. sect. 4. The Council proposeth their decree about them tanquam de fide, p. 41. sect. 13. The Churches in the East divided from the West about the three Chapters, p. 39 sect. 7. The fifth Council explaineth a former definition of faith, made no decree to condemn any new heresy, p. 46. sect. 20, 21. fifth Council of authority without the Pope's approbation, p. 268. sect. 5, 6, etc. it was neither heretical, nor schismatical, p. 269. sect▪ 7. it was assembled with the Pope's consent, p. 272. sect. 12, 13. Corruptions crept into some synodal acts, are not just causes of rejecting others of that Council, p. 378. sect. 3. The Council of Chalcedon held Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate, p. 382. sect. 8.3. the Council of Chalcedon not corrupted, pa. 384. sect. 6, 7. The Constitution of Vigilius no part of the synodal acts, p. 399. sect. 1, 2, 3. not published in the Synod. p 401. sect. 4. Chrysostom's bones not translated from Commana to Constantinople, p. 426. sect. 3. Council against Council at Ephesus, p. 113. sect. 2. The Church may bind or lose a man after death, p. 53. sect. 15, 16. The Church cannot lose those who die impenitent, p. 55. sect. 20, 21. Coronati & non coronati, as two sorts, so two rewards of professors, p. 263. sect. 43. A Council is approved, though the Pope approve it not, p. 275. sect. 17, 18. General Counsels have sought the Pope's approbation, p. 287. sect. 34. Cyrill clears himself of Nestorianisme, p. 123. sect. 16. D. WHether a dead man may novitèr be condemned, is a question of faith, p. 48. sect. 3. That a dead man may be condemned, is the judgement of Fathers, p. 49. sect. 6. the judgement of provincial Synods, p. 50. sect. 7. the judgement of general Counsels, p. ibid. sect. 7. the judgement of Baronius, p. 51. sect. 10. Defenders of the Pope's infallibility accursed by the Council, p. 24. sect. 20, 21, 22. Dioscorus being heretical judged Ibas his profession heretical, therefore the profession of Ibas must be orthodoxal. Vigilius his reason, p. 151. sect. 29. Defenders of the three Chapters heretics, p. 171. sect. 4. Divination or Mathematical predictions, not allowable, p. 343. sect. 28. Domnus his action not inserted at Chalcedon, p. 44. sect. 9 To descent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes not one an heretic, p. 171. sect. 5. Many Doctrines of their Romish Church may be held, except that of the Pope's infallibility, and yet the party that holds them no papist, p. 182. sect. 21. in fine. E. EPistle of Ibas wholly heretical, p. 19 sect. 8.9. and p. 24. sect. 19 Eunomius approved not any part of this Epistle, p. 20. sect. 11. Eunomius approved the confession of Ibas, p. 21. sect. 14. The Epistle of Ibas not approved at Chalcedon, p. 107. sect. 2, 3, 4, etc. The Epistle was truly the writing of Ibas, p. 109. sect. 5, 6. At Ephesus a great rent and division between john and Cyrill, ibid. At Ephesus Cyrill was deposed by the Conventicle, ibid. sect. 3. The Emperor ignorant for a time of the division between john and Cyrill, p. 15. sect. 4. The Emperor had knowledge of the division by a letter brought into the Court by ● beggar, ibid. Eustathius full of forgeries, p. 340. sect. 24, 25, etc. Eutychius not banished for not consenting to the heresy of the Phantastickes, p. 341. sect. 25. Eutychius given to divination, heretical, and what it was, p. 343. sect. 28, 29. for these supposed to be banished, ibid. Evagrius full of fables, p. 345. sect. 30. etc. The Emperor's Edict reviled by Baronius, p. 363. sect. 1. it was not repugnant to the orthodoxal faith, it was no seminary of sedition, ibid. sect. 3, 4. The Epistle of Ibas condemned by the Council at Chalcedon, p. 381. sect. 1. the Epistle in Cedrenus not justinian's, p. 398. sect. 1. Epistles writ to Dioscorus and Leo were forged, and not Theodoret's, p. 417. sect. 7, 8. and p. 444. sect. 8. Epistles by their erroneous inscription are not proved to be forged, p. 429. sect. 9, 10. etc. Epiphanius his writing against images read in the second Nicene Synod, and by them rejected. p. 109. sect. 7. the book was the book of Epiphanius, p. 112. sect. 12. The explanation meant by Ibas was a condemning of the twelve chapters of cyril, pa. 159. sect. 42, 43. a condemning of the faith, p. 160. sect. 44. the like explanation meant by Vigilius, p. 166. sect. 52. F. FAcundus set on by the Pope writ against the Emperor's Edict, p. 214. sect. 4. Facundus and Baronius revile the Emperor, p. 215. sect. 4. Facundus an enemy to the Catholic faith, p. 371. sect. 13. The Foundation being heretical, poisons all which is built thereon, p. 190. sect. 29, 30. Faith: unto certainty of faith two things required, p. 182. sect. ●0. G. GOntharis not treacherously slain by Bellisarius, p. 448. sect. 15. Gregory his words and meaning pretended by Basil about the three Chapt. explained, p. 43. sect. 16, 17. etc. H. Heretics dying, die not in the peace of the Church, pag. 59 and pag. 61. §. 6. Heresy with pertinacy differs much from an error, p. 61. in fine. First, in regard of matter, p. 62. sec. 8. secondly, for the manner, ibid. sec. 9 thirdly, in regard of the persons who err, p. 64. sec. 11. fourthly, in regard of the Church's judgement, ibid. sec. 12. Heresy in its own habit doth less harm, p. 103. sec. 27. Heretics in words orthodoxal, in sense and meaning heretical, p. 147. sec. 20. proved in Vitalis, ibid. An heretical profession may be in terms orthodoxal, ibid. sec. 21. Heretics pretend to hold with ancient Counsels, p. 201. sec. 4, 5. Worst Heretics are the modern Romanists, p. 204. sec. 10. Heretics liars in their profession, pa. 207. sec. 15. Heretics profession contradictory to itself p. 208. sec. 16. An heretical profession gives denomination to a man rather than an orthodoxal, pa. 208. sec. 17, 18. Heresy is a trial of men's love to God; pa. 361. sec. 2. I. IBas his epistle unto Maris an heretic of Persia, p. 125. sec. 19 full of Nestorianisme. Ibas denyeth God to be incarnate, and Mary the mother of God, p. 122. sec. 13. Ibas professeth two natures and one person in Christ, p. 139. sec. 1. and p. 143. sec. 9 Ibas his consenting to the Ephesine Counsel proves not his epistle Catholic, p. 154. sec. Ibas consented not to cyril upon his explanation, p. 155. sec. 35. etc. Vigilius his first reason: explained in five several things: first, the Pope's Rhetoric, sec. 35. second, his Chronology of time, sec. 36. third, his Logic, sec. 40. the fourth and fifth, his ethical and Theological knowledge, sec▪ 41. vide p. 168. sec. 55. Ibas embraced the union in Nestorianisme▪ p. 125. sec. 19 Ibas professed not the epistle to be his, 〈◊〉 the Acts declare, p. 386. sec. 2. The Image of Christ sent to Abgarus, a fable, p. 346. sec. 32. Infallibility of the Pope's judgement the foundation of a papists faith, p. 34. sec. 34. and a doctrine of the Romish Church, p. 172. sec. 7.8, etc. and p. 177. sec. 13, 14. Infallibility of the Pope's judgement in causes of faith defended by any, makes the defender heretical, p. 61. sec. 6. and p. 63. sec. 10. and to dye out of the peace of the Church, ibid. Infallibility of the Pope's judgement taught by commending the Church's judgement to be infallible, and general Counsels, pa. 173. sec. 8. and by the Church they understand the Pope, sec. 8, 9 and p. 178. sec. 15. Infallibility only peculiar to the Pope, p. 174 sec. 11. Infallibility of the Pope's judgement is heretical, p. 180. sec. 18. justinian his Edict for defence of the three Chapters, p. 3. sec. 7. justinian the Emperor spared Vigilius from banishment, and why, p. 257. sec. 26, 27. justinian reviled by Baronius, p. 324. slandered to be illiterate, p. 325. sec. 3●4. for making laws in causes of faith, sec. 5, 6. for persecuting Vigilius, sec. 7. justinian in his last age no Aphthardokite, p. 330. sec. 8. and p. 333. sec. 12. etc. no disturber of the peace of the Church, p. 331. in fine. justinian a defender of the faith, witness Pope Agatho, p. 356. sec. 16 witness the Rom. Synod, sec. 17. witness the sixth Council, sec. 18. witness Pope Gregory, sec. 19 justinian no subverter of the faith, pa. 349. sec. 37, 38. justinian founded many stately Churches and Monasteries, p. 350. sec. 39 justinian no subverter of the Empire, ibid. sec. 40. justinian severely censured by Baronius, p. 354. sec. 45. jerusalem not advanced by the fifth Synod to a Patriarchship, p. 430. sec. 1, 2, etc. Iustinian Dioclesian-like caused not Vigilius to be beaten, p. 453. sec. 19 justinian favoured not the heresy of Anthimus, p. 454. sec. 21. K. THe King of England refused to send to their Trent Council, p. 308. sec. 24. Kings and Emperors have only right to call Counsels, p. 239. sec. 5. L. THe Lateran● Council under Leo the 10. reprobated the Council at Constance and Basil touching the authority of Gen: Counsels p. 33. sec. 33. The Lateran● decree condemned by the University of Paris, p. 34. sec. 35. The more learned the man is, the more dangerous are his heresies, p. 123. sec. 27. Luther, his zeal that he would not communicate in both kinds, if the Pope as Pope should command him, p. 195. sec. 33. Liberatus an unfit witness in the cause of the three Chapt. p. 373. sec. 15, 16. Leo judged the Nicene Canons for the limits of Sees unalterable, p. 405. sec. 4. Leo, his judgement erroneous for preeminency of Bishops, p. 400. sec. 4, 5. Leontius no sufficient witness for the Epistle of Theodoret, p. 415. sec. 3. Laws besides those in the Theodosian Code, p. 412. sec. 5, 6. Lawful Synods, and what makes them so, p. 282. sec. 24, 25, 26. etc. To Lawful Synods, besides an Episcopal confirmation, p. 281. sec. 25. etc. there is required a Regal or Imperial, p. 285. sec. 31, 32. Lawful Counsels require, first that the summons be general, p. 292. sec. 3. secondly, that it be lawful; thirdly, that it be orderly, ibid. sec. 4. M. Mennas' died in the 21. year of justinian, and the Pope excommunicated him in the 25● p. 237. sec. 18. The Matrons of Rome entreated Constantius to r●st●re Liberius, 248. sec. 12. Monks of Sythia slandered by Baronius for falsifying the Acts of the Council at Chalcedon, p. 383. sec. 4, 5. Monothelite additions not extant in the fifth Synod, p. 409. sec. 2, 3. Mennas' his confession to Vigilius a forgery, p. 441. sec. 2. Mennas not excommunicated by Vigilius, p. 442. sec. 4 5. N. NEpos died in an error only, not in any formal heresy, p. 65. sec. 13. The 2. Nicene assembly a conspiracy, p. 111. sec. 11. in fine. Nestorius' his books being restrained, the books of Theodorus and Diodor●● were in more esteem, p. 121. sec. 12. The Nestorians forged a false union between john and Cyrill, p. 123. sec. 15. and p. 134. se. 34. The Nestorians confessed two natures and one person in Christ, and how, p. 144. how Catholics confess it, ibid. sec. 11, 12, 13. Nestorius affirmeth the two natures to be two persons, pa. 145. sect. 16. so Theodorus the Master of Nestorius, sect. 17. to affirm this, is plain Nestorianisme, proved by justinian, pa. 146. sect. 18. by Pope john the second. The Nestorians in words orthodoxal, in sense and meaning heretical, pa. 147. sect. 20. and p. 448. sect. 22, 23. witnessed by justinian, p. 449. sect. 24. by the fifth Council, sect. 25. by the epistle itself, sect. 26, 27. The Nestorians by Nature understand Person, p. 162. sect. 46, 47. The Nestorians slander cyril to teach two persons, p. 163. sect. 47. Narses for his piety and prudence beloved of justinian, p. 248. sect. 12. Narses entreated not for Vigilius, pa. 249. sect. 14. Narses overcame not Totilas, if Binius his gloss be true, p. 458. sect. 23. Narses overcame not the Goths by the intercession of Mary, p. 459. sect. 24. O. THe occasion of the fifth Council was those tria capitula, p. 2. sect. 3. Origen commended for his gifts and learning, p. 103. sect. 28. Origen condemned by the Acts of the fifth Synod, p. 392. sect. 1, 2. origen's cause not the cause of the first action in the fifth Synod, p. 393. sect. 3. nor the cause of the second action in the Synod, sect. 4. The order of lawful general Counsels, pa. 304. sect. 19 P. PApists are truly such as ground upon the Pope's infallibility, p. 187. sect. 26. Pope Vigilius excommunicated in an African Synod, p. 236. sect. 16. The Pope refuseth to come to the Synod, p. 4. sect. 2, 3, 4. and the true reason why, pag. 6. sect. 5. The Pope's presence not needful in a general Council, p. 273. sect. 14, 15. The Pope present in the fifth Council by his letters of instruction, p. 274. sect. 16. The Pope's consent makes not a Council to be approved, p. 275. sect. 27. vid. lit. C. In the Pope intensiuè there is as much authority, as in the Pope with a general Council, Bellarmine's assertion, p. 174. sect. 10. The Pope virtually both Church and Council, p. 178. sect. 15. p. 180. sect. 17. The name Papist not heard of till Leo the 10. p. 188. sect. 25. to be a Pope an happy thing, for all is held for truth that they define, pag. 223. sect. 16. Papist had needs of a strong faith, relying on the Pope's judgement, p. 224. sect. 18. Paulus Bishop of Emisa subscribed to the anathematising of Nestorius, to persuade an union between john and Cyrill, p. 133. sect. 31 his Sermon at Alexandria, containing an orthodoxal profession of the faith, p. 134. sec. 33. Pelagius Pope after Vigilius, consecrated by two Bishops only an a Presbyter of Ostia, pa. 242. sect. 4. A Pope may err personally, they say, but doctrinally he cannot, p. 244. sect. 7. The Pope no competent judge of Protestants, being an enemy unto them, pag. 315. sect. 33. Pope Clement's epistle to james a forgery, pa. 422. sect. 2. Paul censured by some for an hotheaded person, 434. sect. 18. in fine. R. THe Church of Rome holdeth no doctrine by certainty of faith, p. 181. in fine. and pa. 282. sect. 20. and p. 189. sect. 27, 28. The Romish doctrines may be held three ways, p. 183. sect. 21. in fine. First, of them who hold the Scriptures for the foundation, p. 183. sect. 22. such were our forefathers. Second way, by grounding upon Scripture, but with pertinacy, p. 184. sect. 23. A third way of holding them, is on the Pope's word, p. 185. se●. 24 They of the Roman Church are heretics, p. 192. sect. 31. In their Roman Church no true holiness, p. 193. sect. 32. They of the Romish Church are schismatics p. 196. sect. 34. Rome miserably besieged by Totilas, p. 456. sect. 22. Ruba not taken from Alexandria, pag. 407. sect. 8. S. THe Synod resolves to judge the controversy about the three Chapt. the Pope being absent, p. 7. sect. 1. Sergins' Bishop of Cyrus deposed from his Bishopric, p. 706. sect. 18. Scripture being the ground of a man's faith is a comfort unto him, though in some things he err, pa. 191. sect. 29. and p. 194. sect. 33. Supremacy and infallibility are inseparably joined, p. 176. sect. 12. Schismatics are not of the Church, pa. 199. sect. 39 Profession of Scriptures excuse not from heresy, p. 226. sect. sect. 13. Suidas a fabler, 326. sect. 4. Sophia built by Constantine, the mirror of ages, p. 350. sect. 39 Swissers order in judgement, p. 394. in fine. Shameful matters not added to the Acts of the fifth Synod, p. 408. sect. 1.4. Silverius died of famine in the Island Palmaria, p. 472. sect. 13. Synods: what makes them lawful, p. 282. and what unlawful p. 306. sect. 20. T. THeodorus not condemned in his life time, p. 47. sect. 2. Theodorus died not in the peace of the Church p. 59 sect. 1, 2, 3, 4. and p. 66. Theodorus condemned by Cyrill and Proclus, p. 68 sec. 2, 3. and p. 73. sec. 11. etc. by the Ephesine Council, p. 69. sec. 4. etc. by the Armenian Council, p. 72. sec. 10. by the Emperor's Edict, sec. 13, 14, etc. by the Catholic Church, p. 76. sec. 19 Theodoret writ against Cyrill and the true faith, p. 62. sec. 4, 5. Theodoret very resolute for N●storianisme, p. 93. sec. 6. Theodoret his writings condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, p. 96. sec. 12, 13. and p. 101. sec. 23. and by Cyrill, p. 98. sec. 16, 17. Theodoret was not injured, though his writings were condemned, p. 102. sec. 24, 26. Theodoret a man of rare worth and learning, p. 104. sec. 29, 30. Taciturnity: the decree of taciturnity, and what effect it took, p. 225. sec. 2, 3, 4. a mere fiction, p. 228. sec. 5, 6, etc. Trent Bishops were the Pope's creatures, pa. 319. sec. 37. The Trent Council conspired against Protestants, p. 314. sec. 32. Theodora unjustly reviled by Baronius, pag. 355. sec. 1. Theodora favoured Anthimus as being orthodoxal, p. 358. sec. 5. Theodora not excommunicated by Vigilius, p. 359. sec. 6. Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea no heretic, p. 368. sec. 9, 10. Theodorus of Caesarea no Origenist, pa. 374. sec. 17. he maimed not the Acts of the 5. Synod, p. 697. sec. 7. Theodosius law in the Code not corrupted, p. 411. sec. 4. Theodoret wrote that Epistle mentioned in the fifth Synod, p. 413. sec. 1. he wrote it after the union, p. 416. sec. 6, 7. and p. 420. sec. 12. Theodora writ not to Vigilius to restore Anthimus, p. 449. sec. 16, 17. Theodora sent not Anthimus Scribo to Rome for Vigilius, p. 452. sec. 18. Theodoret sets forth his own orthodoxy, p. 417. sec. 7. Theodoret condemned by the Council at Ephesus, p. 419. sec. 10. Theodoret writ an epistle to john of Antioch, p. 422. sec. 1. Theodoret rejoiceth over cyril being dead, p. 427. sec. 5. A Treachery intended in Queen Elizabeth's time by a deep dissembler, p 488. in medio. V. VIgilius allegeth counterfeit writings in stead of Fathers, p. 78. sec. 23, 24. etc. Vigilius denieth the known writings of Theodorus, p. 82. sec. 31. Vigilius imputeth an heresy to the Council of Ephesus, p. 84. sec. 34. Vigilius untruly pretendeth the Council of Chalcedon, p. 84. sec. 35, 36. Vigilius falsely pretendeth justinian for Theodorus, p. 86. sec. 38. Vigilius durst not himself condemn Theodorus, p. 88 sec. 41, 42. Vigilius would not permit any other to condemn Theodorus, pa. 89. sec. 45. and pag. 99 sec. 18. Vigilius anathematizeth those that condemn Theodorus, p. 90. sec. 46. Vigilius accuseth the Council of Chalcedon as dissemblers, p. 94. sec. 8. Vigilius condemneth Nestorianisme only in show, p. 100 sec. 20, 21. Vigilius and Baronius appear in their lively colours for Nestorianisme, p. 112. sec. 1. and p. 27. sec. 2. Union made between john and Cyrill, p. 116 sec. 5. and how concluded, p, 133. sec. 30, 31. Vigilius from the Union labours to prove Ibas a Catholic, p. 117. sec. 7. Vigilius approveth the whole epistle of Ibas p. 118. sec. 9 Union in Nestorianisme, was that union which Ibas embraced, p, 127. sec. 14. That Vigilius decreed this union in Nestorianisme with a settled affection, is probable, pa. 129 sec. 23. Vigilius approveth the confession made by Ibas, p. 141. sec. 3, 4, 5. Vigilius his reasons to prove Ibas profession to be Catholic, p. 151. sec. 29, etc. Vigilius with Ibas approveth two persons in Christ, p. 164. sec. 48, 49, etc. Vigilius his pretence to defend the Council at Chalcedon, p. 200 sec. 1, 2. Vigilius heretical, notwithstanding his profession of Counsels, p. 208. sec. 17. Vigilius is said to have approved the fifth Council, p. 213. sec. 1. Vigilius his carriage in this cause, and his 4. several judgements or change, ibid. sect. 2. & in sequentibus. Vigilius for his decree of silence is to be judged an heretic, p. 229. sec. 6. Vigilius after exile made no decree to approve the fifth Council, p. 241. sec. 2, 3. the western Church approved it not, §. 4. the Council of Aquileia doubted to approve it, sec. 5. Vigilius not so much as by a private consent did approve it, ibid. pa. 245. sect. 7. in fine. & sect. 8. Vigilius consented to the Synod, but not to the synodal decree, p. 245. sec. 8. Vigilius was afflicted, and what his afflictions were, p. 264. sec. 37, 38. Vitiges yielded himself to Bellisarius, p. 447. sec. 16. Vigilius lost not by his going to Constantinople, p. 463. sec, 3, 4, 5, etc. & p. 466. sec. 6, & 7, 8. Vigilius his entrance into the Popedom, and the manner of it, p. 468. sec. 10. Vigilius his promise to the Empress to restore Anthimus, p. 469. sec. 11. Vigilius keeps not promise with the Empress, ibid. sec. 12. Vigilius resigns the Popedom, and is anew elected into it, p. 472. sec. 14, 15. Vigilius exactly described by Baronius, pag. 474. sec. 16. Vigilius writ unto Anthimus, and other Eutycheans, as unto Catholics, p. 475. in fine. Vigilius laboured to undermine the Council of Chalcedon, p. 476. Vigilius accursed not Dioscorus, but Nostorius, p. 482. sec. 26. Vigilius writ this Epistle to Anthimus, after the death of Silverius, p. 486. Vigilius in some things alike, in others unlike to K. Saul. p. 487. in fine. sect. 30, 31. Vigilius was heretical, and a dissembler, pa 488. sec. 32. a dissembler in the faith, in heart heretical, p. 490. sec. 33. & in sequent. Vigilius as Pope defined against the faith, p: 497. sec. 3, etc. Vigilius his death, and the manner of it, pa. 504. sect. 52, etc. FINIS.