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.

CAP. XXVIII. The three first defects in the Synodall Acts, pretended by Baronius, for that the Acts against the Origenists, the Edict of Iustinian, and his Epi∣stle touching that cause, are wanting therein, refuted.

1. THE second kinde of the Cardinals Hetero∣clites, are his defectives a: And here he and Bi∣nius labour to prove the lamenesse and defects of these Acts by five instances: The first of them concernes the proceeding against Origen, and the Origenists, which was done in the fift Synod, but is now wanting in the Acts there∣of. Let us first heare what Binius b saith hereof; The curtaling and maime of these Acts doe 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 menti∣on, no not any small, or light mention, found in them, touching the errours of Origen condemned. If one were disposed to quit Binius with his owne uncivill words, Binius should here be proclamed both for a most im∣pudent lyar, and a shamelesse belyar of these Synodal acts, of this holy Councell. There is expresse mention of condemning Origen in the fift Collation, Origen c was anathematized after his death in the time of Theo∣philus Bishop of Alexandria, which also your sanctitie, (hee speakes to the Bishops of this Synod) and Vigilius Pope of Rome have now done. Again, there is expresse mention of him, and his errours in the eighth collati∣on in the very Synodall and definitive sentence of the Councel, where∣in

Origen and his impious writings are condemned; for thus it is wri∣ten c, If any man doe not accurse Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollina∣rius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Origen, cum impijs eorum conscriptis, with their impious writings, and all other heretikes condemned by the Catholike Church, let that man bee accursed. When the holy Councell not onely mentions the condemning of Origen, but by their judiciall sentence themselves also condemne, both him, his errors, and his impious wri∣tings; what a face of Adamant had Binius, against the truth, against his owne text of the Councell, 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 per∣swaded of his untruth, for us, let him acknowledge it for his Master Baronius his credit, who saith d, In these Synodall Acts there is made onely, brevis mentio de Origine ejusque erroribus condemnatis, a short mention in the eleventh anathematisme of Origen, and his errours condemned: if there bee brevis mentio of him and his errours, then Binius must cry the Acts forgivenesse, for saying there is no mention at all, no not levis mentio, of his errours.

2. Let us see now if Baronius deale any better. Constat, saith e hee, It is manifest by the testification of many, that Origen, Didimus, and Evagri∣us, together with their errours were condemned in this fift Synod, and that there was written, at least recited & repeated against them those ten Anathe∣matismes which Nicephorus setteth downe; but in the Acts there is onely a briefe mention that Origen and his errours were condemned. Baronius adds one speciall point further out of Cedrenus, that in this fift Councell, first f, they handled the cause against Origen, and then against the Three Chapters: So by the Cardinals profession there wants the whole first action in these Acts of this Synod, which, it may be, had many Sessi∣ons, as the other Action about the three Chapters: Besides this, there wants also, saith hee g, the letters or Edict published by Iustinian: Third∣ly, there wants h, the Epistle of Iustinian, sent to the Synod about the condemning of Origen, which is set downe by Cedrenus, out of whom both Baronius reciteth it, and Binius adjoyns 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 Cardinall alleage.

3. But in very deed none of these three, nor ought else, which Ba∣ronius mentioneth, argue any defect at all in these Acts, but they evi∣dently demonstrate in the Card. a maine 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 hee sup∣poseth, the first Action, or the first cause handled by the Synod; I might alleage the most cleare testimony of his i owne witnesse Nicephorus, who after the narration of the three Chapters, and the Synodall sen∣tence touching them delivered, which he accounts for the first Sessi∣on of the Synod, addeth k, In secunda autem Sessione, but in the second Sessiō, the Libels against the impious doctrines of Origen were offred & read, and Iustinian, rursum Synodū de eis sententiā ferre jussit, commanded againe the Synod to giue sentence in that cause. So Nicephorus: whereby it is evi∣dent 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, farre greater and even authentike records, the Epistle of the Emperour l to the Sy∣nod, who, at the beginning and first meeting of the Bishops in the Councell, proposed to their handling the cause of the Three Chapters, and no other at all; commanding them without delay to discusse and give their judgement in that: I oppose the definition and Synodall de∣cree m, wherein is set downe 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 thred, which wil not permit a man to erre in this cause, unlesse he maliciously shut his eyes against the truth, and wilfully depart out of that plaine path. They n came to the Synod to decide the controversie then moved about the Three Chapters, at the command of the Emperour; before they entred to the handling thereof, they often intreated by their messengers, Pope Vigilius to come together with them, (which was all that they did in the first o & second p day of their meeting or Collation) when Vigili∣us would not come, then by the Apostles admonition, they prepared themselves to the handling of the cause proposed, by setting downe a confession of their faith, consonant to the foure former Councels, and exposition of the Fathers, and promising in their next meeting to handle the cause of the Three Chapters, which was the summe of the third q dayes Collation: Cumque r ita confessi simus, initium fecimus ex∣aminationis trium Capitulorum; and when wee had made this confession, wee began the examination of the Three Chapters; loe, they did initium sume∣re, they began with this. Could they speak more plainly, that the cause of Origen was not first handled? as if prophetically they meant to re∣fute this untruth of Baronius and Cedrenus; and wee first discussed the cause of Theodorus Mopsvestenus out of his owne writing there read before us: This was all they did the fourth s, and a great part of the fift t day of their Collatiō. His de Theodoro discussis, pauca de Theodoreto; next after the discussing of the Chapter touching Theodorus, wee caused a few things to bee repeated out of the impious writings of Theodoret; for the satisfying of the reader; and this they did in the end of the fift day or Collation. Tertio loco Epistola quam Ibas, &c; In the third place we propo∣sed, and examined the Epistle of Ibas: and this they did at large, and it was all they did in the sixt u day of their Collation. The whole cause being thus, and, as the Councell confesseth, most diligently and suffi∣ciently examined, the Councell (as it seemeth by their owne words in the end of the sixt Collation) intended to proceed to sentence in the next day of their meeting: but before ought was done therein, the Emperour sent unto the Synod certaine letters of Vigilius, testifying his condemning of those Three Chapters, and some other writings, the reading of thē is all was done in the seventh x day of their Collation. Now for that the cause was sufficiently examined before, and these letters were read onely for a further evidence, but not for necessity of the cause, and for that the Synod did nothing themselves, but onely heard the letters, and applauded the Emperours zeale 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 Councell which on that seventh day had made ready and intended to have pro∣nounced their sentence, by this occasion deferred it to the next, which was the eighth y day of their Collation, using these for the last words of their seventh dayes meeting, De tribus capitulis altero die adjuvante Deo Synodicam sententiam proferemus; God willing wee 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 onely by Nicephorus and the Emperours Epistle, but by the evident testimony of the whole Synod in the synodall sentence, it is undoub∣tedly certaine 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 bee yet that the cause of Origen was the second action in the fift Synod, as Nicephorus z saith, and after him Evagrius , and that is enough to prove the defects of these Acts. No, it was not the se∣cond neither; as it was not before, so neither was it handled after the other of the Three Chapters, witnesse the Synodall sentence it selfe, wherein all the matters which every day they examined and discussed are set downe and repeated; after repetition they testifie a also, Repe∣titis 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. See∣ing they repeated all that was debated among them, and make no mention of this cause of Origen, it is undoubtedly certaine that Origens 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 errours of Nicephorus and Evagrius: The books, say they b, against the doctrine of Origen being offered to the Synod, the Emperour demanded of the Councell, Quid de his statueret, What it would decree concerning those doctrines? A matter utterly incoherent and improbable; for in the synodall decree concerning the three Chapters, which they suppose to be made before this cause of Origen was either heard or proposed, the Councell had expresly delivered their judge∣ment, and condemned both Origen and his impious writings. When they had already condemned both him and his errors, what an incon∣gruity is it to make the Emperour demand, what they would decree of him and his errours? Or may we thinke that the holy Synod would first condemne Origen, and his impious writings as they did, in the sy∣nodall sentence against the three Chapters, and then afterwards examin the matter, and make an enquiry whether Origen and his writings were to bee condemned or not? which were to follow that disorder which the Switzers 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. Farre be it from any to imagine such injustice and rashnesse to have beene in this holy generall Councell. Seeing then they condemned and accursed Origen and all his errours, in that which Nicephorus and Evagrius ac∣count the former Session, it is ridiculous to think that either the Em∣perour

urged, or that they themselves would in the second Session goe Switzer-like to examine the bookes and doctrines of Origen, whether he & they ought to be condemned. Some doubt perhaps may arise out of those words in the Councell d, which the Cardinall slily e alledgeth, Origen was condemned in the time of Theophilus, Quod etiam nunc in ipsa fecit vestra Sanctitas, which your Holinesse 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 Councell, (for it is certaine that in it Vigilius did not con∣demne 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 your selves, and by Vigilius: and if ought else were imported thereby, yet is it onely said that Origen was now condemned: which was indeed done by the Sy∣nod: but that his cause was then examined and debated there, neither is it true, neither doe the words any way imply.

5. Nay I adde further, not onely that this Councell did not debate this cause of Origen, but it had beene both superfluous, and an open wrong to themselves, and to the whole Church, to have entred into the examination thereof. For beside many other former judgements, not many e yeares before in the time of Mennas, both the Emperour in an Imperiall Edict f had condemned Origen and his errors; and by the Emperours command, Mennas with a Synod of Bishops then pre∣sent at Constantinople, had confirmed that condemnation; the other Bishops who were absent did the like, the Emperour requiring every Patriarke to cause all the Bishops subject to his jurisdiction, to sub∣scribe to the same. The doctrines and writings of Origen were no doubt at that time fully debated; all the Bishops present in this fift Councell had then subscribed and consented to the condemnation of him and his errors; so had Vigilius and all Catholike Bishops in the West. Seeing the judgement of the Church in condemning Origen was universall, would the Councell, after themselves, and all other Catholike Bishops, that is, after the judgement of the whole Catho∣like Church, now debate and examine whether Origen and his doc∣trines ought to be condemned? They might as well call into question whether Arius, or Macedonius, or Nestorius, or Eutyches, and their doctrine should bee condemned: the judgement of the Catholike Church was alike passed on them all: for this Councell g condemned and accursed Origen and his errors, as it did Arius, Macedonius, Ne∣storius, and Eutyches, but it condemned them all upon the knowne judgement of the Catholike Church, not upon a new tryall or exami∣nation then taken of any one of them. And this verily seemes to have deceived and led into error Evagrius, Nicephorus, and Cedrenus, (for of Baronius I cannot for many reasons imagine it to have beene errour or ignorance in him, but wilfull and malicious oppugning the truth,) they knew or heard by report, (for even Evagrius h, who lived in that age, saith of that which hee writeth touching the fift Synod, Of these things sic actum accepimus, we have heard they were thus done,) I say, they might heare (that which indeed was true) that Origen and his errours

were condemned in a Councell at Constantinople in the time of Iustini∣an; and they not being curious, nor carefull to fift the diversities of Councels, nor exact in computating times, confounded the former particular Synod under Mennas, wherein many of the doctrines of O∣rigen were recited, and he with them condemned in eleven Anathe∣matismes i, with this fift generall Synod, held some fourteene years after, wherein Origen and his errours were also condemned, but nei∣ther the Emperours 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 divers copies of the fift Councell were an∣nexed 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 fift Councell; which might occasion some with Cedrenus to thinke them a former, some with Nicephorus to thinke them a second action of this fift Councell, whereas in truth they were the acts of a severall and provinciall Councell by themselves, and neither the first nor last, nor any acts at all of this generall Councell.

6. By this now I suppose every one doth see the weaknesse of the Baronian frame, touching the anathematismes and proceeding against Origen. They are not extant among the acts of the fift Synod. True: nor were they ever, nor ought they to bee inserted or set among the true Acts thereof: these anathematismes neither were made nor re∣peated in the Councell. The Edict of Iustinian for the condemning of Origen is not there neither. True, neither ought it to bee; it was ne∣ver sent to, never published in this fift Councell: but if in any, in that provinciall Synod under Mennas, unto which it was sent; and the Car∣dinall to prove that Edict to have beene a part of these Acts, brings no other, nor better proofe than his owne [putamus k,] a proofe so exceeding weake, that it is not worthy a refutation. The Epistle of Iustinian sent to the Synod commanding them to condemne Origen, which is one of the fragments that Binius l hath added, is not among the Acts. True, nor ought it to be; for neither is it Iustinians, but an extract and briefe collection of Cedrenus, who out of the large Edict or Epistle, (as the Emperour calleth it) collected this; neither doth it any way belong to this, but to the former Synod. The condemna∣tion of Didymus and Evagrius, saith Binius m, together with Origen, was made in this fift Synod, as the second Nicene Councell n witnes∣seth, and that is not here among the Acts. That Didymus and Evagri∣us were nominatim condemned in the fift Synod, the second Nicene Councell sayth it not; no, if one would straitly stand upon it, they do not say so much as that o they were at all, but that their doctrines tou∣ching preexistence were condemned. But say they sayd it; Didymus and Evagrius were two earnest Origenists p, and defenders of Origens error. Now the fift Councell not onely condemneth Origen and his errors, sed eos qui similia praedictis haereticis sapuerunt, vel sapiunt; but all who teach or thinke the like that Origen did: in which generality Didy∣mus and Evagrius, and all Origenists are condemned; which generall

condemnation is all that can be enforced out of the second Nicene Sy∣nod. Thus all the three defects which Baronius and Binius labour to prove in these Acts about this cause of Origen, declare a soule maime in their owne wits and judgements, but none in the Acts, and doe e∣vidently shew, that themselves under colour of correcting these acts, doe indeed corrupt and falsifie the same.

7. And yet (which one can scarce with patience endure, or reade without scorne of their folly) they are not content to tell what is stoln or taken away touching this cause of Origen out of these acts, but like skilfull figure-flingers, they will name you the very thiefe, and tell particularly who maimed the Acts in this part. And who thinke you is it? Even Theodorus q Bishop of Caesarea; they have an implacable ha∣tred to him; he is an Origenist, he the chiefe of the Origenists; and for love of Origen hee corrupted the acts of this fift Synod, and stole away the proceedings against Origen, the Anathematismes, the Edict, and Epistle of Iustinian. O how blinde and besotted is a malicious minde? that is it which put this rare skill of divination into the heart of Baronius and Binius. There is nothing stolne, as these Acts doe de∣monstrate, and yet they will tell you who took away the goods. They doe with Theodorus as the malicious Arians dealt r with Athanasius, proclamed him for a murderer, and conjurer, and little lesse than con∣demned 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 proclame Theodorus for cutting off one arme of these Acts, which yet hath no maime nor defect at all in that part. Theodorus was a Catho∣like Bishop, a condemner and anathematizer of Origen and all his er∣rors, and yet they will enforce you to beleeve that he is an heretike, an Origenist, the chiefe 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 thinke as did Origen, yea to all that doe not anathematize Origen? What sillinesse was it in the Cardinall, to think that Theodorus or any Origenist would spoyle the Acts, and take away some discourses, and disputations against Origen, and leave that which is the maine matter of all, the sentence of condemnation against him, and his errors, yea against themselves, (supposing them to be such as the Cardinall slandereth them) and that also subscribed by their owne hands, as an eternall witnesse against them? So maliciously blinded were the Cardinall and Binius in this cause, that so they spake against the Councell and the Catholike 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 Cardinall and Binius to slander, and doe 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 concerne the cause of Origen.

Notes

• a

  Intel••••gas quā plu••ima in e••dë 5. Syno••o des••e∣rari. Bar. an. 553 nu. 243.
• b

  Decartat••onē et matilat••onem Actorum indi∣cant illa ••rag∣menta que in si∣ne 〈…〉〈…〉 Conc 5 § Consti∣tutum.
• c

  Coll. 5. pa. 55••.
• c

  Coll. 8. Anath. 11. pa. 587. a.
• d

  An. 553. nu. 248.
• e

  An. 553. nu. 238.
• f

  An. eod. nu. 242. porro de O∣rigine, actum esse in Synodo poni∣tur, inde vero as Theodoro. &c.
• g

  Caeterū et illas putamus esse his (actis de Origi∣ne) subjectas li∣teras imperato∣ris ad Mennam Origenis errores continentes. Bar. an. eod. 553. nu. 242.
• h

  Fuisse eondem Epistolam (quam Cedrenus reci∣tat) ad Synodum datum actis ejus intext••m, nemo jure dubitarit ut ex his intelligas quam plurima desiderari. Bar. an. cod. nu. 243.
• i

  An eod. nu. 238.
• k

  Niceph. Cal∣list. lib 17. Eccl. Histor. ca. 27.
• l

  Extat Conc. 5. Coll. 1.
• m

  Collat. 8.
• n

  Pro Dei vo∣luntate & fussi∣one pijssimi Im∣peratoris conve∣nimus. Ibid.
• o

  1. Coll. 4. die Maij.
• p

  2. Coll. 8. die Maij.
• q

  3. Coll. 9. die Maij.
• r

  Loc. cit. Coll. 8. pa. 584.
• s

  Coll. 4.12. di•• Maij.
• t

  Coll. 5.14 die Maij. pridiè Idus Maij. Bar. an 553. nu. 41.
• u

  •• Coll. 19. Maij.
• x

  ••. Co••••. 26. di••. Maij.
• y

  8. Coll. ••. die Iunij.
• z

  Loco citato.
• Evag. lib. 4. ca. 37.
• a

  Coll. 8. p. 586. a
• b

  Niceph. et Evag. loc. citat.
• d

  Coll. 5. p. 552. a
• e

  An. 553. nu. 42 haec acta inquit desiderantur in Synodo, &c.
• e

  Anno n••mpe 1•• Iustiniani, & Vigilii 2. ut no∣tat Bar. an. 538. nu. 29. et 31.
• f

  Extat Edict. to. 2. Conc. pa. 482. et seq.
• g

  Coll. 8. pa. 58••
• h

  Evag. loc. cic.
• i

  Extant post edictum Iustin. pa. 488.
• k

  an. 563. n. 242.
• l

  Post Conc. 5. pa. 604. et pa. 606 b. indicant illa fragmenta, &c.
• m

  Ib. pa. 606. b.
• n

  Act. 1. pa. 306. a.
• o

  Communi et generali anathe∣mate vi ejecti sunt Origenes, et Theodorus Mopsvestenus, et quaecunq, ab Evagrio et Di∣dymo dicta sunt de prae existentia. Conc. Nic. 2. loco citat.
• p

  Didymus et Evagrius secta∣ri•• Origenis. Bid. loc. citat••
• q

  Quis dubilet id factū ab Ori∣genistis qui Sy∣nodo praefuerūt, quorum patronus fast Theodorus malor••m omniū conci•• ••ator. Bar. an. 553 nu. 244. & intelligere po∣tes quorum ar te quae in Synodo acta sunt contra Origenem & ejus errores ex ea fueriat de∣curtata. ibid. Quis ne••et The∣odorum Caesare∣ensers ab••••lisse ••b actis hujus Concilij quae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 causae (erat ante Origenisturum pationus) adver∣sabantur. Bin. Not••s in Conc. 5. pa. 606 b.
• r

  Rust. ••••b. 1. Eccl h••s••. ca. 1•••• & alij.