Vigilius dormitans Romes seer overseene· Or A treatise of the Fift General Councell held at Constantinople, anno 553. under Iustinian the Emperour, in the time of Pope Vigilius: the occasion being those tria capitula, which for many yeares troubled the whole Church. Wherein is proved that the Popes apostolicall constitution and definitive sentence in matter of faith, was condemned as hereticall by the Synod. And the exceeding frauds of Cardinall Baronius and Binius are clearely discovered. By Rich: Crakanthorp Dr. in Divinitie, and chapleine in ordinary to his late Majestie King Iames. Opus posthumum. Published and set forth by his brother Geo: Crakanthorp, according to a perfect copy found written under the authors owne hand.

THE CONTENTS OF THE SEVERALL CHAPTERS CONTAINED IN THIS EN∣SVING TREATISE.

Cap.

1. THat Iustinian assembled the fift generall Councell at Constantinople, to define the doubt of faith which arose about the Three Chapters.

Pag. 1.

2. That the fift Generall Councell, when Pope Vi∣gilius wilfully refused to come unto it, was held without the Popes presence therin, either by him∣selfe, or by his Legates.

pag. 4.

3. That Pope Vigilius, during the time of the fift Councell, published his A∣postolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters.

p. 7.

4. That the holy Generall Councell in their Synodall judgement contradicted the Popes Apostolicall Constitution, and definitive sentence in that cause of faith made knowne 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 Theodo∣rus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, Because none after their death ought Noviter to bee condemned, concernes the faith, and is hereticall.

47.

7. That the second reason of Vigilius touching the First Chapter, why The∣odorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned, because hee dyed in the peace and Communion of the Church, is erronious and un∣true.

58.

8. That the third and last reason of Vigilius, touching the First Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned, because he was not condemned by former Fathers and Councels, is erronious and untrue.

67.

9. That Vigilius, besides divers personall, held a doctrinall errour in faith, in his defence of the Second Chapter, which concernes the writings of Theodorus against Cyril.

Pag. 91.

10. That Vigilius and Baronius erre in divers personall points, or matters of fact concerning the Third Chapter, which was the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris.

107.

11. That Vigilius and Baronius in their former reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, drawne from the union with Cyrill, mentioned in the later part of that Epistle, doe defend all the heresies of the Nesto∣rians.

112.

12. That Vigilius and Baronius in their later reason for defence of the E∣pistle of Ibas, taken from the words of Ibas, wherein he confesseth Two natures and One Person to be in Christ, doe maintaine all the heresies of the Nestorians.

138.

13. Two assertions of Baronius about the defenders of the Three Chap∣ters, refuted; and two other against them confirmed; the one, That to dis∣sent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes one neither an here∣tike nor a Schismatike: the other, That to assent in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome, makes one both an Heretike and a Schismatike.

170.

14. The second Exception of Baronius excusing Vigilius from heresie, For that hee often professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon, and the faith thereof, refuted.

199.

15. The third Exception of Baronius in excuse of Vigilius, taken from his confirming of the fift Councell, answered: and how Pope Vigilius three or foure times changed his judgment in this cause of faith.

213.

16. That the Decree Pope of Vigil. for Taciturnity, touching the Three Chapters, and the Councell wherein it is supposed to bee made, and all the Consequents upon that Decree, painted out by Baronius, are all ficti∣ons and Poeticall.

225.

17. That Vigilius neither by his Pontificall Decree, nor so much as by a personall profession, consented to, or confirmed the fift Councell, after the end thereof, or after his supposed exile.

240.

18. The fourth and last Exception of Baronius in defence of Vigilius, pre∣tending, That the fift Councell, wherein the Decree of Vigilius was condemned, was neither a generall nor a lawfull Councell, till Vi∣gilius confirmed the same, refuted.

266.

19. The true notes to know which are Generall and lawfull, which either are not Generall, or being Generall, are no lawfull Councels, with divers examples of both kindes; and that none of those which the Romanists doe reckon after the sixt, are Generall lawfull Councels.

Pag. 291.

20. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian, and a refuta∣tion of the same.

324.

21. How Baronius revileth Theodora the Empresse, and a refutation of the same.

355.

22. How Baronius declameth against the Cause it selfe of the Three Chapter, and a refutation of the same.

361.

23. How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian, and Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, and a refutation of the same.

363.

24. How Baronius carpeth at the Synodall Acts of the fift Councell, as corrupted, and a refutation in generall of the same.

377.

25. The 1. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein, re∣futed.

381.

26. The 2. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that Ibas is said therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Ma∣ris to be his, refuted.

386.

27. The 3. Alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Councell of Chalcedon is said therein to condemne the E∣pistle of Ibas, refuted.

389.

28. The Three first Defects in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Acts against the Origenists, The Edict of Iustinian, And his Epistle touching that cause, are wanting therein, refuted.

391.

29. The 4. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Emperours Epistle to the fift Councell is wanting there∣in, refuted.

398.

30. The 5. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius, concerning the Three Chapters is wanting therein, refuted.

399.

31. The 6. Defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Decree which advanced Ierusalem to a Patriarchall dignity is wanting therein, refuted.

403.

32. The two first Additions to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius, And the two lawes of Theodosius, are falsly inserted therein, refuted.

408.

33. The 3. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Epistle of Theodoret written to Nestorius after the Vnion, is falsly inserted therein, refuted.

413.

34. The 4. Addition to the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, For that the Epistle of Theodoret to Iohn Bishop of Antioch, is falsly inserted therein, refuted.

422.

35. That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings in handling this cause of the fift Councell, as particularly the Excommunication ascribed to Vigilius, and the Confession ascribed to Mennas, Theodo∣rus, and others.

440.

36. That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Con∣stantinople, and a refutation thereof: with a Description of the life of the same Vigilius.

462.